I Heard it is Cool to be a Commie

           This week, we are called to respond to Dr. Chris Craig’s post on Marxism, and how literature is ideological.  Though he makes a few different points through the post, we’d like to focus on how literature is overdetermined and hegemonic, firstly. From there how the hegemony works through various ISAs in our capitalist society, and then how communism is misconcepted in American society.

           
           Craig says “literature necessarily contains capitalist ideology and advances some of the priorities of the ruling class, however marginally or indirectly, regardless of the author’s intent. From this perspective, the experiences, class position, gender, and race represent only one contributing factor to how the text expresses meaning.” As we learned in class, overdeterminism is an effect rising from a variety of different causes, not directly from the base (the economic system). So though capitalism is at the base of literature, it is not the direct way it’s formed. Ideology works through hegemonic control, especially in institutions in our society.

             The public school system by which we learn literature, and more importantly how we are to read it, is was Althusser calls an ISA (state ideological apparatus). Craig points out, “Traditional American reading practices, the kind taught in our public high schools, for example, tend to privilege the author.” In school, the way we are taught is that the author has all authority and power. However, even the author doesn’t realize that the way they write is inherently affected by the culture they live in. Texts, while identifying opposition in the capitalist society, cannot possibly get around the influence of the society they are in opposition to.

            Craig uses the example of Shakespeare to explain his point. He argues, “Students are taught that Shakespeare’s work comments on the essential or universal qualities of humanity, as though our experiences with love and sadness and goodness are not shaped by our class positions.” Basically, through ISA of education we are taught to think as though there isn’t a class struggle in Shakespeare, because that might point out some faults in our own system today. Instead we are taught to see that Shakespeare’s goal is to teach us how to be better people, an idea that relates to liberal humanism. We see however, through what Craig is saying that the ideology in literature forms a hegemonic control over those who are learning.

            Not only is education an ISA, but as is fashion. In the beginning of his post, Craig talks about the Communist Manifesto being sold alongside trendy clothing, to not only play off the jean color, but to also put the jeans on a rebellious pedestal. Though he questions if this is in fact an end to the communist threat in the United States, Craig deduces, “It offers an example of how the ruling class appropriates those ideas which it finds most threatening. It commodifies them and mystifies their meaning, while also potentially taming the subversive behaviors that might result from them.” The way an ISA works is that they use ideology to sympathize, but operate through hegemony. For example, people wearing this clothing think they are individuals, but in fact they are being constructed that way, and are in no way ‘free’.

 As seen through the “communist fashion sense”, people don’t exactly understand what they think they are standing for. They don’t see that the ruling class are keeping control of them buy letting them think they are being radical. A good example of the misconception of communism is in discussing communist China.  In the article, "How Communist is China?"by Christopher Beam for Slate.com. The article begins, “General Motors sold more cars in China than in the United States in the first half of 2010, and China now accounts for one-quarter of the company’s global sales. That seems like a lot of capitalism for a country that calls itself communist. How communist is China, really?” It goes on to discuss the blatant capitalist qualities of the Chinese society, and while it still does retain a few communist traits as well, it isn’t the communist country that Americans seem to know. In our society we are taught what communism is through the examples of other countries, even if those said examples do not live by the ideals of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels. We are taught communism is bad, capitalism is good. What you think you know is driven by capitalist ideology…even if you don’t realize it.

A piece of Art that is still in Composition

Within the first week of our class we were called to come together and discuss the statement of Karlheinz Stockhausen regarding the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Stockhausen stated that the events were “greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos.” This statement by Stockhausen then caused an immediate backlash that was covered in the New York Times by Anthony Tommasini. When one considers some of the comments made by Tommasini it becomes obvious that he himself was also offended by Stockhausen’s remark. While we discussed the implications of what it means to call the attacks of September 11^th a work of art in class, it is helpful to explore these issues further. Also, in examining a current New York Times article it becomes apparent that Stockhausen’s idea of September 11^th as a composition could very well be valid and that the composition is still continuing today.

Upon reading Tommasini’s article it quickly becomes clear that the article is a response that comes out of an offended writer. Tommasini takes the time to describe how Karlheinz Stockhausen was perceived after his statement. He writes “For Mr. Stockhausen's many admirers, the easiest recourse would be to dismiss his comments as the outpourings of an egomaniac who, sadly, has long been losing touch with reality.” It would appear that here Tommasini is trying to join in a chorus of voices that wish to dismiss Stockhausen. The reason for this dismissal seems simple enough. Many Americans were angered by the 9/11 attacks and to call them art was offensive in the moment. How could something that creates such immediate death be art? It is an idea then that must be dismissed. However, it is interesting that Tommasini never considers a non-American viewpoint. For someone who views America as an evil capitalist empire of sorts the direct attack aimed at the heart of capitalism would be considered more pleasurable and thus without an element of offence it could be viewed as art.

Further, whether perceived as pleasurable or not, the possibility of the 9/11 attacks being a work of art is valid. Art seeks to challenge and inform. The September 11^th attacks do just this. They challenge the notion of the superiority of American culture and they inform Americans of this challenge. Another level of complexity enters the conversation when one considers Tommasini’s bold definition of art. Tommasini writes “Art may be hard to define, but whatever art is, it's a step removed from reality. A theatrical depiction of suffering may be art; real suffering is not. Because the art of photography often blurs this distinction, it can make us uncomfortable.” In returning to Stockhausen’s original comment about the attacks and connecting it with Tommasini’s statement, an interesting conclusion emerges. Perhaps the 9/11 attacks are the greatest composition specifically because they penetrate the realm of depiction and enter reality. They involve some of the viewers in such a way that they quite literally die within the work of art.

In comparing the Tommasini article to a current article that discusses the ninth anniversary of the September 11^th attacks one could argue that the composition, or the work of art has yet to be finished.  It may be helpful to think of the definition of art in a new way. If one sees the 9/11 attacks as more of a composition rather then an actual painted piece, Stockhausen’s comments become clearer. If the September 11^th attacks were composed in the same way as music, it would be logical to see that the attacks were indeed art because of the way they involve the listener. This is to say that through the notes of the 9/11 attack, the listener was forced to be involved in someway. Further, the song has not finished playing nine years later. A current New York Times article titled “On Sept. 11 Anniversary, Loss and Tension” discusses how even in remembering the attack’s victims a debate spinning out of the question as to whether or not there should be a mosque built near Ground Zero is occurring. The article states, “Two posters commemorated the victims James V. DeBlase and Joon Koo Kang. One read, ‘Where are OUR rights?’ The other: ‘We love you!! Islam mosque right next to ground zero??? We should stop this!!’” While the debate over a mosque is the subject for another blog post, it is interesting the nine years later this one event is still calling Americans, and on a larger scale western society, to consider its place in the world. One could argue that the ground zero mosque debate is simply another note in a song that has been sung for 9 years.

How society defines art will ultimately determine what does and does not receive this classification. It would appear that based off of Mr. Tommasini’s initial reaction to Stockhausen’s claim along with the debate over Islam and Ground Zero that occurs today, Americans will never perceive the September 11^th attacks as art. However, if one considers the radical potential that these events were indeed art and further that they were great art specifically because they penetrated and continue to penetrate our reality, then a new discussion of the meaning of art can emerge.