Ideology hides itself--you may see your body, but you do not have the ability to see your own face without an aid of some kind. So too, we never see our own ideological investment head on, and when we do it is only with the assistance of some outside aid. The irony is that when you see it, you change it, so therefore you can think that you are "woke" when if fact you have merely exchanged one ideological fix for another.

@@mjamesharding Thank you! :)))

@@May-uh3mi you're welcome!

@@mjamesharding beautifully explained

Everything is false consciousness if you think about it. I mean, what's true consciousness look like? True consciousness (imo) would be a clear and accurate picture of capital R reality and my place in it. Since no such view exists, all consciousness is false in some respect. I also don't think/believe that it is possible to reform your identity into categories of your own invention or choosing. Sure, someone thought up the term "transgender," but this was well after the fact of someone doing something that eventually becomes equated with this term. Once enough people buy into this term, you now have a transgender community; however, interior strife exists within communities as each person or subgroup grapples with the label's meaning for them. You're still being interpellated here, you just agree with the hailing. And (two questions) do the material conditions alone create these identity categories? How do we know that? Sure, new technologies often get tapped for their metaphorical potential, but it is the humans who are using the material technology to see the world differently. So, if "materialistic conditions" are ultimately responsible (for all social construction) how would you go about constructing new metaphors without using material culture? How would you know a beneficial "materialistic condition" from an unhelpful one?

Althusser kills his beloved wife. Nietzsche hugs a horse. Neither of those actions puts a dent in their theories.

Lmfao

Same here though it is a bit intricate.