Mike of Modernit y(or post?)

The point of difference, or sameness, between Althusser's Repressive State Apparati and Ideological Apparati is (for me) difficulty to discern. While Althusser's distinction is that one employs violence the other thought, their methods of control and influence still often bear a striking resemblance to one another. My experiences in elementary school show a prime example of this. The most feared punishment one could reap for stepping outside the rules was a paddling. Paddling as punishment would never happen nowadays ,and if it did would be quickly met with litigation and a media frenzy calling for something to be done. Rightly so, I believe, as using violence in education only seems to breed violence; or so I could argue. Here is an "ideological" apparatus using force to gain control, and what seems more insidious is that it is committed under the veil of "proper education" and "order". Conversely, having a gun held to our head by a police officer is a far more literal and life threatening use of violence as control, but in the case of a law enforcement agency - one expects that violence will be used. They are armed, wear identifying costume, and are subject to a littany of procedures to protect themselves legally. Yet in grade school, this was only 1981 mind you, I moved to Florida to find that my new school used corporal punishment as a deterrent to misbehaving. Keeping in perspective the numerous incidents of violence that are playing out in our educational system over the last several decades, this school had no particular conduct problem. Perhaps the threat of violence kept it this way? I would hope that it was a natural state of order, nonetheless I was shocked and terrified to find out the fact that if i got in trouble, I could be paddled. This was unheard of in the part of the Northeast where i grew up. It seemed Barbaric to me, that a public institution that was charged with the safety of so many kids could use such backwards method of persuasion and control. But, it becomes apparent as I grow wiser, that in every institution, or apparati, there must be some sense of order. The apparati seeks to provide this, by hook or by crook. While the ideological seeks to influence us through ideas, the repressive do so by bodily threat. Which is more powerful? Which holds the greater sway over the illusion of control they both support? This depends entirely on the parties that fall under their respective domains. Us.

GeekinthePink

“But does reality actually outstrip fiction? If it seems to do so, this is because it ahs absorbed fiction’s energy, and has itself become fiction.” Baudrillard’s description of reality as jealous of fiction is post modernity at it’s best. Think about it—we have so greatly utilized the power of creating thoughts, feelings, music, and silence to images that we have redefined reality. And redefining and breaking things down and getting new meaning from them—anamnesis at work. How many times have we viewed the World Trade Centers blunder toward the ground, not only killing innocent people, but also our feeling of being immortal, of being comfortable with our security?

I don’t know if I agree with Baudrillard’s assertion that even while we try to give some new meaning to reality, we fail. “We try retrospectively to impose some kind of meaning to it, to find some kind on interpretation. But there is none.” I think by seeing it in slow motion, and with music, that we do have a new sense of meaning. Think about those critics that say 9/11 was an inside job. I’m sure some people tap into this idea, and for them, when they view the footage, they may watch it with more scorn and contempt. Haven’t those conspiracy theorists succeeded in giving new meaning to the event? I suppose it is still the same feeling however; but it is redirected.

In “The Precession of Simulacra” Baudrillard says that the “the balance of terror is the terror of balance.” I think this goes along with the other article well. In other words, threat is actually more effective than action. The threat keeps the action from happening. Certainly, it preserves the equity of war and peace. In order to create an effective terrorism scheme, the media is a perfect medium. By giving him media, we have let Bin Laden cross from the lines of Afghanistan into every home and have let him terrorize us better than he could have ever done by himself. Baudrillard says war is not a solution, yet he doesn’t seem to offer a solution. I have one however. If every time Bin Ladin makes a new video, every extremist makes a new threat, we didn’t plaster it all over our screens and have myriad analyists tell us what it means, we wouldn’t be aiding a murderer. If we stopped giving him a medium, he would be that much less effective.