Ideological Criticism (Chapter 7)
1) What is an ideology?
According to Sonja Foss, an ideology is a “mental framework” that suggests certain “beliefs, values, and assumptions.” Basically, it is a system of beliefs that tells the world how the holder of a particular ideology is liable to think about, or “interpret,” the different components of life.
2) What are the primary components of an ideology?
The primary components of an ideology are evaluative beliefs. In a nutshell, evaluative beliefs are ideas that can take on new meanings when viewed from a different angle. An example of this would be monogamy vs. polygamy: both practices center around matrimony, but some cultures believe in single partners, while others believe in taking many partners (at the same time). Both sides of the spectrum believe that they are right; it’s a matter of one idea interpreted in two different ways.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
Blog Post 2: Three Artifacts
Over the past couple of days I have collected a list of three artifacts that I believe embody a certain set of beliefs; accordingly, they could be analyzed very well using the ideological method of criticism.
The first artifact is one that I discovered through my job. I work at Hallmark, and among the hundreds of products we carry are calendars. One calendar in particular struck me when I first saw it; upon further examination, I found that the LANG 2010 Schoolhouse calendar is extraordinarily green. I would have expected that a calendar bearing the name “Schoolhouse” would have been oriented towards teaching, and it is; but it heavily promotes a very specific kind of teaching, namely conservation and how to be environmentally conscious. Given the heavy saturation of Earth-friendly themes, both written and painted, this artifact is extremely well-suited to the ideological method of criticism; the dominant ideology is, of course, “Go Green.”
The second artifact was very popular in the 1990s. The Left Behind series, co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, tells the story of the Apocalypse, as foretold by The Book of Revelation in the Bible. According to The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse begins with The Rapture, when God brings his people home to Heaven; in the Left Behind series, this event actually happens with the disappearance of millions of people around the world, inspiring international panic. The freaked-out masses turn to the charismatic Nicolae Carpathia, a strong and quickly-rising leader, who turns out to be none other than the Anti-Christ. Only a few people are aware of Carpathia’s true identity, however; the only way they can fight back is by being loyal to God and advancing God’s will. Obviously, the dominant ideology of this series is Christian, stating that the only way to attain eternal salvation is by following Christian tenets.
The third artifact is one I’m reading for a different class, none other than Jane Austen’s Emma. This book is riddled through with class issues. The main character, Emma, spends her time chasing suitable connections for her friend Harriet, who has no advantages or social leverage. Harriet is, in fact, in love with a respectable farmer, but Emma sabotages the relationship because a “lowly farmer” is not good enough for her friend, and should Harriet make such a poor connection, Emma would have to discontinue the acquaintanceship with her “dear friend.” Status and suitability of connection are more important to Emma than her friend’s happiness. The ideology of high class vs. low class parades throughout the book.
The first artifact is one that I discovered through my job. I work at Hallmark, and among the hundreds of products we carry are calendars. One calendar in particular struck me when I first saw it; upon further examination, I found that the LANG 2010 Schoolhouse calendar is extraordinarily green. I would have expected that a calendar bearing the name “Schoolhouse” would have been oriented towards teaching, and it is; but it heavily promotes a very specific kind of teaching, namely conservation and how to be environmentally conscious. Given the heavy saturation of Earth-friendly themes, both written and painted, this artifact is extremely well-suited to the ideological method of criticism; the dominant ideology is, of course, “Go Green.”
The second artifact was very popular in the 1990s. The Left Behind series, co-written by Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins, tells the story of the Apocalypse, as foretold by The Book of Revelation in the Bible. According to The Book of Revelation, the Apocalypse begins with The Rapture, when God brings his people home to Heaven; in the Left Behind series, this event actually happens with the disappearance of millions of people around the world, inspiring international panic. The freaked-out masses turn to the charismatic Nicolae Carpathia, a strong and quickly-rising leader, who turns out to be none other than the Anti-Christ. Only a few people are aware of Carpathia’s true identity, however; the only way they can fight back is by being loyal to God and advancing God’s will. Obviously, the dominant ideology of this series is Christian, stating that the only way to attain eternal salvation is by following Christian tenets.
The third artifact is one I’m reading for a different class, none other than Jane Austen’s Emma. This book is riddled through with class issues. The main character, Emma, spends her time chasing suitable connections for her friend Harriet, who has no advantages or social leverage. Harriet is, in fact, in love with a respectable farmer, but Emma sabotages the relationship because a “lowly farmer” is not good enough for her friend, and should Harriet make such a poor connection, Emma would have to discontinue the acquaintanceship with her “dear friend.” Status and suitability of connection are more important to Emma than her friend’s happiness. The ideology of high class vs. low class parades throughout the book.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Assignment 1: Chapter 3
According to the textbook, neo-Aristotelian, or traditional, criticism is a method of critiquing that involves studying an artifact from the different angles of the five long-established canons of rhetoric, namely invention, organization, style, memory, and delivery.
Analyzing an artifact entails three central steps, the first of which is to recreate the context in which the artifact occurred. Recreating the context requires focus in three areas: the background of the rhetor, the occasion in which the artifact was presented, and the audience that first saw and felt the impact of the artifact. Studying the background of the rhetor informs the critic of the rhetor’s motivations and training (rhetorical skills), as well as what sort of factors might have influenced him/her to create the artifact. Learning about the occasion teaches the critic about any outside influence the rhetor might have been subject to, including general public feeling about the topic at that time period, and just what exactly triggered, and then followed, the act. Finally, studying the audience clues the critic in to what strategies would have best persuaded that particular crowd, as well as what they were likely to know or feel about the topic.
The second step of analyzing an artifact is to apply the five canons to the work itself. Having already studied up on the context, the critic is now dissecting the artifact itself, peering through the different lenses of the five canons of classical rhetoric.
The final step is to assess the impact of the artifact on the audience. To accomplish this step, the critic must have determined the rhetor’s goal in producing the artifact, and must now decide whether or not that goal has been met. This requires observation of the audience; how did they react initially, and how do they react after a period of time? The effect on the audience will reveal whether or not the artifact successfully achieved its goal.
The phrase that continually repeats throughout the discussion of traditional criticism is “the canons of rhetoric.” There are five of these canons, and they each approach the artifact from a different direction, offering a thorough analysis of all possible angles. The first canon is invention, or the creation and finding of source material. This canon deals with the question of whether or not the rhetor possesses and presents credible and persuasive evidence. The second canon is organization, which studies the way the arrangement of the artifact emphasizes the intended topic. The third canon is style, which deals primarily with choice of language; did the language create the intended response in the audience? The fourth canon is memory, which looks at whether or not the rhetor had a good mastery over his/her subject materials. The final canon is delivery, which observes the way the rhetor’s voice and physical gestures affected the audience.
Analyzing an artifact entails three central steps, the first of which is to recreate the context in which the artifact occurred. Recreating the context requires focus in three areas: the background of the rhetor, the occasion in which the artifact was presented, and the audience that first saw and felt the impact of the artifact. Studying the background of the rhetor informs the critic of the rhetor’s motivations and training (rhetorical skills), as well as what sort of factors might have influenced him/her to create the artifact. Learning about the occasion teaches the critic about any outside influence the rhetor might have been subject to, including general public feeling about the topic at that time period, and just what exactly triggered, and then followed, the act. Finally, studying the audience clues the critic in to what strategies would have best persuaded that particular crowd, as well as what they were likely to know or feel about the topic.
The second step of analyzing an artifact is to apply the five canons to the work itself. Having already studied up on the context, the critic is now dissecting the artifact itself, peering through the different lenses of the five canons of classical rhetoric.
The final step is to assess the impact of the artifact on the audience. To accomplish this step, the critic must have determined the rhetor’s goal in producing the artifact, and must now decide whether or not that goal has been met. This requires observation of the audience; how did they react initially, and how do they react after a period of time? The effect on the audience will reveal whether or not the artifact successfully achieved its goal.
The phrase that continually repeats throughout the discussion of traditional criticism is “the canons of rhetoric.” There are five of these canons, and they each approach the artifact from a different direction, offering a thorough analysis of all possible angles. The first canon is invention, or the creation and finding of source material. This canon deals with the question of whether or not the rhetor possesses and presents credible and persuasive evidence. The second canon is organization, which studies the way the arrangement of the artifact emphasizes the intended topic. The third canon is style, which deals primarily with choice of language; did the language create the intended response in the audience? The fourth canon is memory, which looks at whether or not the rhetor had a good mastery over his/her subject materials. The final canon is delivery, which observes the way the rhetor’s voice and physical gestures affected the audience.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)