What I got from the Althusser’s article on “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus (Notes Towards an Investigation) is that- what is essential to production is not just the reproduction of the necessary materials necessary for production but perhaps even more vital is reproducing the ideology. Althusser states this clearly in the beginning of his articles “the ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production.” (127). Without the ideology there would be no reasoning or truth to sustain the mechanism. This reminds me of our previous readings on hegemony. What I also understand from the reading is that all these system are interrelated and cannot be separated.

An example that comes to mind in regards to Althusser’s claims- is the production of skin bleaching creams and reproduction that is necessary to hone in consumption. The production, Althusser mentions would not survive more than a year if they were not invested in the reproduction. Part of the reproduction of skin bleaching creams is first the tools to make the product, then the demand is in itself needs to be continuously sold to the public so that it can be consumed. A skin bleaching cream is self explanatory as intended to make ones skin lighter however the underlying assumptions under a skin bleaching cream- is to make ones skin “whiter” and thus “better”. One wouldn’t buy a skin bleaching skin cream unless they were buying also into the ideology that one’s skin needed to be lighter. In under for the skin bleaching cream to sell thus there must be an ideology around how white skin is better, which is upheld by white supremacy. This ideology can manifest through different ideological state apparatus and Repressive State Apparatus which Althusser also greatly expands in his article. In the ideological state apparatus- institutions like the media will for example will use their platform which is embedded with white supremacy to either by force spread this ideology or “mistakenly”. An example that I can think of currently is Dove’s infamous skin ad on Facebook which portrays a dark skin model molding and turning into a white skin model. This ad is thus portraying that white skin is the ideal goal, and thus insinuates anti-blackness. The ideology of white supremacy supports the consumption of skin bleaching cream as by consuming the skin bleaching cream you are okaying the underlying ideologies- which is that white or lighter skin is better. In Althusser’s article he mentioned how “In order to think this mechanism, which leads to a kind of ‘endless chain’, it is necessary to follow Marx’s ‘global’ procedure”, (129) which he mentions includes production of means of production and production of means of consumption. To me this signifies that there are various systems at play that must be reproduced for a particular product to be sold. In terms of the skin bleaching cream I know that there are various institution that reinforce this ideology worldwide, especially because how much western countries produce media. That leaves a lot of the world, that isn’t white, consuming media that reinforces ideas around white supremacy.

In “The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility,” Walter Benjamin considers the ways in which technological reproduction affects the significance of art. The authenticity of a work of art is established by “its unique existence in a particular place” (1053). Benjamin argues that this authenticity is degrades when art is subjected to technological reproduction. The reason for this is twofold: technological reproduction is more independent from the original (therefore, it can effectively change the manner in which the original is received), and technological reproduction can introduce the original into contexts that it otherwise would have been excluded from (hence, the exclusivity of the original is diminished).

The authenticity of an object creates what Benjamin calls the “aura” of that object. In one aspect, aura can be defined as “the unique apparition of a distance, however near it may be” (1055). The authenticity and aura of an object hold within them the object’s history. When one encounters a unique work of art, one unaffected by technological reproduction, such a work would be imbued with an aura, which held within it the work’s historical significance. A unique work of art is created by an irreplicable process, and disseminated by limited means. Hence, the object is inseparable from the historical tradition which brought it about.

By technologically reproducing a work of art, this aura becomes diminished. Such a transition in the reception of art belies “a perception whose ‘sense for the sameness in the world’ has so increased that, by means of reproduction, it extracts sameness even from what is unique” (1056). Hence, the uniqueness and exclusivity inherent in a non-technological work of art is foregone in favor of a reproducibility that tailors art to the masses. Where art was previously tied up in its ritualistic creation, technological reproduction severs this tie, freeing the work of art from its “subservience to ritual” (1057) and allowing its range of exhibition to reach the masses.

In reading this essay, I was unsure whether or not Benjamin approved of this change in circumstance. It appears at times that he laments the “destruction of the aura” (1055), and at other times celebrates the “emancipation” (1057) of art. Rather than take a moral stance upon whether or not technological reproduction is a beneficial change in our society, he merely outlines the consequences of this change, leaving its ethical value ambiguous. This allows the reader to appreciate such consequences for themselves, and decide what value to place therein.

In this spirit, Benjamin’s essay brought to my mind two examples of the effects of technological reproducibility outside of the realm of art. Specifically, I am inspired by the moment in which Benjamin attempts to generalize his thesis: “It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence. And in permitting the reproduction to reach the recipient in his or her own situation, it actualizes that which is reproduced” (1054). My examples attempt to display the ways in which the effects of technological reproduction can be both beneficial and detrimental.

First, this brings to mind the effect of technological reproduction on the Protestant Reformation. The Reformation would not have been possible if not for the creation of the printing press. Mass reproduction of the Bible allowed for individuals to own copies themselves, whereas the handwritten copies of the past were hard to come by. By mass-producing the Bible, it became “actualized” for those who previously only had access to scripture through the rituals of the Catholic church. Hence, individuals were free to reinterpret the Bible, and to disregard the rituals to which religious practice had been tied for centuries. Here, in my opinion, is a great beneficial effect of technological reproduction, for its ability to equalize.

However, technological reproduction can be very dangerous as well, as can be seen in environmentalist Wendell Berry’s criticism of modern conservationism. Berry criticizes conservationist organizations for presenting their mission as one to protect the nation’s “scenic resources.” By the reproduction of nature imagery, we become detached from the traditions of land stewardship and ecological immersion that once defined our relationship to the land around us. These reproductions of nature imagery “actualize” the idea of a healthy ecosystem for us, even if we live in an urban landscape of cement and steel. “The appreciator of a place perceived as scenic is merely its observer, by implication both different and distant or detached from it.  The connoisseur of the scenic has thus placed strict limitations both upon the sort of place he is interested in and upon his relation to it” (The Unsettling of America, 26). By reproducing scenic imagery of nature, we become disconnected to the rituals by which this nature survives. Needless to say, I consider this a detriment of technological reproduction.

I believe that it is pointless to ask whether technological reproduction is good or bad in itself. Rather, what is more valuable is to consider its affects, as Benjamin does, so that we may be able to direct it in ways that are best suited to its use. Where there are rituals that are harmful, let us throw against them the full weight of our technological-reproductive abilities! Where there are rituals worth preserving, let us keep technological reproduction far away, lest they be swallowed up by it.

In Antonio Gramsci’s The Formation of the Intellectuals it is supposed that all individuals are intellectuals, everyone uses their mind in a theoretical way. He states, ‘All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals’ (1004). Meaning, any person can bake a cake or use self-checkout at the grocery store, but that does not mean they are a baker or cashier. An intellectual is determined by what they put into every day life that is unrelated to their professional activity.

Gramsci goes deeper with this thought by identifying two strata of intellectuals, the organic and traditional. Organic intellectuals according to Gramsci ‘rise out of membership in social groups that have an antagonistic relationship to established institutions and official power’ (1000). An organic intellectual is a cultural figure or activist. They give a voice to the population who are being repressed such as the working class. Organizers and visionary inventors such as Eminem and Kendrick Lamar are organic intellectuals. They use their voice and wealth to raise a voice for the people who need it the most. They use their platform to speak to the people beyond their population to attract attention to the numerous social issues seen throughout America.

On the contrary, traditional intellectuals according to Gramsci, ‘are the administrators and apologists for existing social and cultural institutions, such as schools, various religious denominations, corporations, the military, the press, political bureaucracies, and the judicial system’ (1000). Traditional intellectuals are believed to belong to a different, elite group. They acquire their information from institutions that are well known, and have been around for a while, ‘long-lived’. Professions such as teachers, preachers, doctors and lawyers represent a continuity with the past, meaning that they have been around for decades, using roughly the same techniques and education from years ago to help them complete their job today. Organic intellectuals get their information from social, political, and cultural experiences going on in the ‘now’, while traditional intellectuals get their knowledge from books and former traditional intellectuals who have been around for a while.

In order for hegemony to exist in a society, there has to be equilibrium between traditional and organic intellectuals. And in order for it to succeed, it has to generate its own organic intellectuals, grown out of the dominant hegemony. Meaning, a single dominant group has to find the organic intellectuals within them to help them balance out the overpowering, traditional intellectuals. The society with the most power is the one that will succeed because of their ‘elite’ title.

In The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility, Benjamin shows that through the process of technologically reproducing works of art, we lose the time and touch that goes into creating something by hand, and therefore, lose some appreciation as well.  The aura of the work is gone.  According to Benjamin, the aura of something is its unique authenticity.  Traditionally, art has attained value through its physical existence and the feeling someone derives from being in the presence of an authentic work.  When we begin reproducing art for the masses, it devalues “the here and now of the artwork” (1054) and jeopardizes its authority.   

I once visited the apartment of a friend and noticed a series of simple framed sketches hung on his wall with the signature “Picasso” in the bottom corner.  Seeing that signature brought me true excitement.  My friend had the means to potentially afford original art and the thought of Picasso himself drawing those figures brought me genuine excitement.  I asked him about the sketches and he replied, “Oh,  I got them at Ikea.”  Instantly my reverence of the work evaporated as it’s aura dissolved with my knowledge.  This supports Benjamin’s idea that art has a sacredness surrounding its production.   Technological reproduction overrides tradition surrounding the development of artwork and frees it from sacred rituality.  Creativity is no longer an essential component of creation.  Benjamin warns that this new method of producing art “can therefore contribute to the political struggle in ways that it would be a mistake to underestimate,” (1054), and that it can be exploited to the benefit of fascism.  

“As soon as the criterion of authenticity ceases to be applied to artistic production, the whole social function of art is revolutionized.  Instead of being founded on ritual, it is based on a different practice: politics.” (1057).  Benjamin uses Marxist language in talking about the proletarianization of modern man in the wake of the industrial revolution.  Fascism seeks to mock-support the working class in their defiance of capitalism while working to maintain it all the while.  So where does that leave us?  “The logical outcome of fascism is an aestheticizing of political life.” (1070).  In the same way that a beautiful film hides its apparatus, fascism violates the working class by masking it’s true motives.  Trump is a prime example.  He unites his supporters against a myriad of enemies:  Muslim “terrorists”, Mexican “rapists”, “fake” news; anything to distract from the fact that instead of trying to “Make America Great Again,” Trump’s intention is to keep us exactly where we are.

The current mediums and continuous evolution of modern reproducible art is conducive to mass distraction.   Someone who views a work of high art becomes enamoured within it.  Conversely, the “distracted masses” consume new art and make it a part of their being.  Film is able to “mobilize the masses” and turn the viewer into a distracted analyst.  As a modern society, we have become so distracted that we separate ourselves from the rest of America to the point of taking aesthetic pleasure our own self-destruction.  Why does Trump deny climate change?  Why is he so blasé about nuclear weapons?  Why does he think Neo-Nazis are “very fine people?”  Because it is in his best interest as a capitalist to keep the proletarians at war.

In Antonio Gramsci’s “Formation of the Intellectuals”, Gramsci identifies two different kinds of intellectuals: organic intellectuals and traditional intellectuals. He categorizes intellectuals based on certain skills that these intellectuals have to fulfill a function in society. Humans are classified by how they function or choose to function in everyday life. Gramsci states that “All men are intellectuals” and everyone must be able to practice intellectualism however they see fit in society. These intellectuals lay the ground for hegemony, the social, cultural, and ideological impact that an intellectual has on society. There must be a healthy balance of traditional and organic intellectuals in society for hegemony to be present.

Organic intellectuals are entrepreneurs and organizers of the mass population. They organize a new culture, social class, and they can act as a voice for the working class. According to Gramsci, “it can be observed that the “organic” intellectuals which every new class creates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development, are for the most part “specializations” or partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has bought to prominence”. Organic intellectuals are special individuals who give a voice to those who need one and can inspire a group of people to fight for something worth fighting for. One example of an intellectual thinker is Kendrick Lamar. He is not a traditional intellectual in the sense that he was never part of an “elite” belonging. Even as his fame and fortune rise as he gets more popular, he remains true to his roots of growing up in Compton, California. He is a voice for the African- American community, communicating the overall feelings of injustice, yearn for equality, and letting the working class African- American community know that they have a spokesperson. He makes music that connects with his community of people and beoynd. He is truly a once in a lifetime talent that uses his platform to draw attention to various social issues.

Traditional intellectuals have “espirit decorps” which is a sense of elitism in society. These intellectuals tend to be the professors, doctors, lawyers, businessmen, scholars, scientists, philosophers, preachers, and media of today’s age. Traditional intellectuals tend to believe that they are independent of the dominant social group in society when in fact that is not true. According to Gramsci, “There is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded”. Gramsci is saying that all intellectualism, no matter if it is Traditional or Organic, feeds off of each other.

Education is crucial in modern society and is usually the groundwork for most Traditional intellectuals. These individuals usually come from an institute of higher learning (college) in order to prepare them to be a doctor, lawyer, etc. These individuals sustain the “long- lived tradition” that these jobs have. These are the jobs that are considered part of the social norm and the jobs that tend to make more money than most organic intellectual jobs. There are plenty of individuals who want to have the financial means to support their families as well as help society in the field that they have chosen. Some families encourage their children to take the traditional route because it can be more financially stable and it encourages higher education. This need for education is especially seen in today’s society where children can start school younger than pre -kindergarten and young adults often need to go school beyond their typical four year college.  Education can be seen as an indication of social status. A goal for many parents could be to prepare their children to get into an Ivy league school because those colleges are seen as the “elite” schools for those of high educational aptitude. The traditional intellectuals tend to live above the fray of society.

One of America’s most controversial Ivy League graduates is now our President. President Trump is the quintessential Traditional intellectual. He has often been seen as an “elite” because of his wealth and his business acumen. Furthermore, President Trump is an example of Hegemony. Hegemony is executed throughout society with direct domination through the government onto those who do not give consent. Although any president can not have a satisfaction rating of one hundred percent, President Trump often uses his elite image to force things upon people who do not give consent. He constantly tears down a group of people almost every day and asserts himself in a way that is not needed from the leader of the free world. There is an irony with the supporters of Donald Trump that Gramsci would probably find hilarious. Donald Trump the ultimate elite Tradtional intellectual has gained the loyalty of millions of Organic intellectuals (intellectual being used loosely).

In Antonio Gramsci’s, “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” Gramsci identifies that each social group has its own particular specialized category of intellectuals and the two main forms are: organic and traditional. Gramsci’s concept recognizes social function and hierarchy with regards to skill and implication of those skills to influence society in a way that can be measured quantitatively, thus placing individuals into different categories of functional human beings. What makes an intellectual is their social function. As Gramsci states, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals. Thus because it can happen that everyone at some time fries a couple of eggs or sews up a tear in a jacket we do not necessarily say that everyone is a cook or a tailor.” (1004). What distinguishes an intellectual and non intellectuals is the social function of the professional category of the intellectuals.

Organic intellectuals are entrepreneurs who are specialists in organizers of a new culture, organizers of masses of men, organizer of the “confidence” of investors in his business, and of the customers for his product. The elite among the organic individuals are entrusted to organize the general system of relationships in order to expand their own class. They have the potential to be anti-hegemonic. Gramsci states, “it can be observed that the “organic” intellectuals which every new class creates alongside itself and elaborates in the course of its development, are for the most part “specialisations” of partial aspects of the primitive activity of the new social type which the new class has brought to prominence” (1002). Organic intellectuals are those that can move and inspire a crowd and influence people to take up their cause. One example of an organic intellectual is Eminem. He has millions of fans, he’s a top selling recording artist and he has broken through the barrier of his social class, being a Caucasian in the hip-hop scene whose majority of artists and the community are predominately African American, gaining fame, fortune, and a wide variety of people as followers. He has risen and became a leader who uses his poetic vernacular to seduce fans of the hip-hop community, a person who represents the working class, who grew out of the struggle and become something for himself.

Traditional intellectuals are regard themselves as autonomous independent of the dominant social group, and endowed with a character of their own. They are the formation of noblesse de robe, they are a stratum of administrators, scholars, scientists, theorists, non-ecclesiastical philosophers, artists, and men of letters. These traditional intellectuals believe they are independent when in fact, they do contribute to the ruling group in society, as Gramsci states, “There is no human activity from which every form of intellectual participation can be excluded: homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens (1004). Traditional intellectuals are the teachers, scientists, doctors, priests, and anyone under an umbrella of a dominant group (board of education, church, etc.).

Educational institutes build and create these intellectuals. These institutes promote high culture in all fields of science and technology. The more extensive the area covered by education, the more complex the cultural world. Education defines how industrialized a country is. Gramsci compares it to industrial technology, the more a country can produce with its machines, and the production of machines to produce more, makes the country best equipped and most complex. Similarly, the preparation of intellectuals and schools dedicating to the preparation, allows quality intellectuals to emerge. Because of the wide spectrum of education across the country, it allows countries to produce and pick high quality intellectuals of various branches.

These intellectuals are the “functionaries” of superstructures. Gramsci states that two major superstructural levels need to be fixed, the first is “civil society,” and the other is an ensemble of organisms called “private”, “political society” or the “state”. Hegemony is executed throughout society and direct domination is executed through the state and juridical government. Gramsci states that the intellectuals are the dominant group’s “deputies.” Direct domination is run by coercion and force and it operates within groups who do not consent. Hegemony is run by consent and it operates within the great masses of the population. One example of a hegemony is Trump. He uses his wealth, power, and loud voice to exert his hegemonic attributes. He uses his masculinity and image to constantly exert himself in front of media. He is constantly building up himself and putting others down. In recent news, Eminem has released an anti-Trump video, “The Storm.” In the video, Eminem criticized Trump and his policies, his actions as a leader of the country by using his vernacular folklore to speak to the hearts and the souls of the people— to help them realize the truth of the hegemony that Trump has been leading. Eminem called out Trump’s racism, his distractions from agendas he should be paying mind to, and his childish-like behavior. Towards the end of the video, he calls out the civil society, saying that if they support Trump, they will be ousted by him– to make a choice. These intellectuals are the perfect example of Gramsci’s explanation of intellectuals and how they function in society.

Here’s the thing. An ideology may exist, regardless of pragmatic engagement upon the platform of a part of the world. And ideology does not need to inconspicuously convert external pedestrians into subjects to validate an ideology. In general, an ideology may manifest, and remain in the cognitive-imagination household, just wandering the streets in secrecy.

Before I go any further, it’s important to understand a key lenses. Althusser’s funneled definition of ideology is the “Representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” (p.1350), where he gives the example of a three-way hierarchy relationship of God-Priest/Despots-Laity (Proletariat) (51). God’s words recorded/transcribed in “stone” and scripture, appears to validate for example, a moral maxim of “Thou shalt not kill”, which is uttered by priest, and propagated to the church masses. However, the paradox is the objectiveness of a pre-existing monotheistic “God”, but none the less, the human faith lynch-pins thy relationship between God-priest/despot-laity subjects, for right or wrong.

Now let’s say that an individual, one day is listening to his professor from his desk, and gradually zones-out (daydreams) midway thru his lecture. He gets the thinking about collegiately dropping out, he recalls many modern-day entrepreneurs or artist, performing the act in a sort of bricolage composition. Maybe he’s doodling in his book, or finally returns late into the discourse of lecture. But soon the class will end, and it’s off he goes through the hallway. He has another class, but he can’t stop internally justifying his ideology: finding “myself”; unless he detaches from the college, where he assumes the answer doesn’t lie in the intra-semester-by-semester process. In truth, he hasn’t run the practical issues, like consent from his guardians (if any); who will support his growing rebellious ideology; or if he should finish college first, and to take time to explore after.

The point is, the genesis of ideology will soon come into fruition, and whether he acts or engages in it’s material existence (52), or not, doesn’t diminish the fact that consciously & subconscious, it’s there. And if stubbornly, you’re holding on to Althusser’s unintended stipulation: that the individual must act upon ideology, otherwise it’s “wicked” (53), fails to zoom-in psycho-physiologically, since that primordial bubbling in his cortex: has already indirectly influenced his behavior through the hallway, especially on future lectures where he’ll selectively engage, or daydream away, again consciously or subconsciously.

Furthermore, the great indirect influence upon his body, will: reverberate through his diction-usage, to what he digest in media like YouTube, or the literature in Barnes & Nobles. So in fact, in pursuit of understanding himself, he has already engaged in material existence. Thus, at a certain degree, but not accepting the “textbook” lenses of Althusser’s unintended stipulations, he does engage and actually he has already interpellated (56) individuals to subjects, just not external people.

Consider Pessoa’s “The Book of Disquiet”, where found in the intro, the editor uses a text in the book to express Pessoa’s idea of “self”:

Each of us is several, is many in a profusion of selves. So that the self who disdains his surroundings is not the same as the self who suffers or takes joy in them. In the vast colony of our being there are many species of people who think and feel in different ways. (text 396)

Later, the editor quotes the main character de Campos: “Be what I think? But I think of being so many things!” So, returning to my brief allegory of the college student, and interpellating individual to subject: linguistically speaking the prefix in-dividiual—of the “colony” of species in his being—they may have well responded to his internal hail (56), thus never needing: the external pedestrians, schoolmates, or friends.