For next week, October 4th, please read/view the following:
Readings/Viewings:
- “Ideology,” p. 83-94, TT
- Lye, John. (1997) Ideology: A Brief Guide
- View: Hitler Speech (English Subtitles) and Martin Luther King “I have a dream” speech
Below are sets of questions. You must choose one of the sets to respond to, but be sure to answer all questions within that set. Please keep in mind what I discussed in class last week — make explicit connections between your thoughts and the readings; otherwise, your comments come across as just opinion. In what ways are your thoughts either informed by or reflect what you are reading?
- Consider both the Hitler and King speeches you viewed on YouTube. Discuss some of the ideologies (or “natural” presuppositions) that you were able to identify as existing within both speeches. In other words, what larger doctrines, myths, beliefs, or ideas are presented (either implicitly or explicitly) within each of these two speeches?
- How is interpellation (p. 44-48 in TT) at work in both Hitler and King’s speeches? How does the interpellation of those within the audience affect their subjectivity?
- Describe, as best you can, the “American” ideology. Be sure to utilize quotes from the text. Does America have one overriding ideology or many dominant ideologies? How do the ideologies fit with the realities? Are (American) ideologies, as the chapter seems to suggest, more myth than reality/truth? Explain.
Introduction to Cultural Studies 
October 3, 2007 at 1:51 pm
i really enjoyed the readings this week. this is the first time i watched the Hitler speach and the ‘i have a dream’ speach right after each other. in a way it both had more of an affect on me this way. it was interesting to see how Hitlers ideology was that the Germans only way of rebuilding their country was to concer all of europe and to become one nation. his ideology was ‘a matter of groups deliberately planning to oppress people or alter their consciousness’. whereas, Martin Luther Kings ideology was ‘a matter of how the dominatit institutions in society work through values’. however, both were spreading and shareing their ideologies fo how they think the world should be. both saw a problem that was drasticaly affecting the people and become ‘purveyors of the ideology par excellience’. both used their ideologies to bring across a message but used their powers in very different ways. hitler blamed others for the problems that the Germans were facing. it is always easier to put the blame on someone else but it hardly solves the problem. we still do this today. you would think we would learn from our past. just like the book mentions, teen crime is often blamed on their parents.
Hitler knew his audience and took advantage of them. he knew they were ‘lost’, full of hate and revenge sounded like the best solution. hitler seemed like the best leader. he seemed steady, under control, a great speaker and presented himself well. people were willing to put the blame on others. they felt they were taken advantage of and wanted to bring the countries pride back. the german folk was also too scared to go up against him.
Martin Luther King had more of a genuin voice. he used a peaceful approach to get his message across to the people. he wanted to unit people not seperate them or turn them into one nation. he wanted to embrasse difference and make people realize it is ok. he wanted to get rid of the bitterness and hatred, whereas, hitler feed of these things.
both of their ideology where strong and had a great affect of the people, history and the life we live in today.
the american ideology is that everyone is equal yet they strive to be the most powerful country. they claim they are a country of freedom of speach but how free is that speach? we talked about this is last classes descussion. mexicans are Americans yet feel out of place, they feel they arent American so how effective is this ideology? i dont think it is more of a myth than reality because of this.
October 3, 2007 at 10:13 pm
hitler was speaking mostly to the youth. as the dictatorship in germany at the time he felt he could appeal more towards the youth because they were younger and didn’t have a set view on the world. he believed that they were the next big thing to take over
October 3, 2007 at 10:55 pm
he’s talking to all these people but pertaining the subeject to the youth he says that germany will be running in them when they pass away. the ideology of what he’s saying is he wants germany to be a better nation but by doing that he’s covering up that he thinks the jews are the bad guys. this is the what he’s covering up at setting it more to the youth. in kings speech he wants a world where black and whites can be equal. a world where blacks can go out and vote and not be judged by their skin color but on their characteristics. br. king mentioned the song “my country tis of thee” that we may be able to sing the song with new meaning and “free at last” this was his problem segregation and aftera hundred they were still segregated this was the movement for ploitical and social injustice.
in both speeches hitler isn’t identifying the situation while king is but he is identifying it as an individual with everyone else’s acceptance of whats going on. in hitler’s speech the youth are the subject he brings them up along with the people in the audience so they feel righteous. in kings speech he was the speaking voice for all those who felt surpressed the people felt connected to him.
the american ideology is wanting to fit in society. in the reading it says that ideology is that group of intertwining belief’s that makes possible certain kinds of cultural consensus or knowledge…etc. we all are from different backgrounds, but in a country the is so “great” why judge other’s? we are a country that is known for freedom, but yet the people that come from other countries don’t feel acknowleged or welcomed.
October 4, 2007 at 1:25 am
I had trouble understanding the Hitler speech because the letters were very blurry but overall his message was to conquer all of Europe to make Germany a dominant country. I felt that Hitler was a lot sterner, yes Dr. MLK was serious as well but he spoke in a more poetic language to touch your heart but Hitler spoke with that sternness that I’m sure aroused feelings of bravery and patriotism in the Germans, which was exactly what he was aiming for. His exact quote was “We want this nation to be hard, not soft.” It’s funny how both Hitler and Martin Luther King were moving in different ways, depending on what side of the audience you’re in although their norms were quite different. These men are both seen as figures of authority and they both are educating their countries in their own way. Both men were very powerful and were promoting vast movements. Also, their core ideas are the same (although worded differently of course). They both speak of obedience, educating, bravery and peace.
The interpellation in both speeches is affecting everyone. Hitler and MLK did not choose anyone from the audience specifically but everyone in the audience is a subject because in both speeches, MLK and Hitler are the figures of authority. Everyone must follow what they say or they’re wrong.
As it said in the TT “We note that the American belief in the “free” and unencumbered “self” is deeply ideological in both senses of the word.” I can really identify with this quote because once a friend of mine who lives in a foreign country asked me “So do you guys think it’s normal to see a naked person walking down the street?” and I simply responded “I wouldn’t mind if I saw someone naked walking down the street because I’m very open-minded but to clarify what you’re really asking, no, walking down the street naked in the US is not normal.” I think that American ideologies are both truthful and mythical. Yes, the US is a free country but to an extent, there’s laws constraining us as well. I’ve heard of people walking down the street naked and they get arrested! Unless, of course, it is a registered event or nudist colony.
I know people might flinch when they read this because of the norms of the American society are, Hitler-bad MLK-GOOD! But I actually enjoyed the Hitler speech a lot more than the MLK. Hitler was so effective in getting his word out and he got straight to the point whereas MLK was somewhat repetitive and he used a lot of lyrical language. They were both very powerful and moving speeches but I felt Hitler had a greater impact on me. His history wasn’t quite right with all the terrible things he did later on but overall he was a powerful, thought-provoking man.
October 4, 2007 at 11:15 am
Well, I think that both Hitler and MLK were very passionate and driven in their speeches. Of course the issues they were speaking about were polar opposite, I thought in the way they delivered the speeches were very boldly spoken. As far as the beliefs or doctrines were, both speeches were essientially idealistic in their own interpretation. Both speakers had a way that they saw the world and its problems and both went to change it in their own ways. Hitler thought that exterminating a certian group of people would solve his problems, while MLK believed in harmony between those who hate us, which is obviously the way to do it.
I think that interpellation works with both speeches because they are both spoken by individuals who were defined by social means. In the TT, Althusser states that “institutions of modern life literally makes all of us into subjects”. Both of these speakers were trying to influence their way of thought onto people or the “subjects”.
I also agree that Hitler was the better speaker, although what he said was definetly not on par with MLK. He was very direct and really knew what he wanted to say and a way to lead his followers, even though it was corrupt.
October 4, 2007 at 2:39 pm
MLK’s ideologies were about freedom, democracy, equality, the US Constitution. He believed that democracy meant all men had a right and “reason” to vote; America is a country of free men. These are all ideologies of what is good and the way things should be as described in TT. The reality is that all men are not free and everyone will not be treated equally. MLK’s ideology was that by eliminating segregation, all men would be treated equally. Obviously this was not the case. Segregation no longer exists as it did in his day, but all men are still not treated equal. He had an ideology that by giving everyone the same rights, blacks and whites could live together in harmony. Racism is still one of the biggest social issues in our society today. His efforts were not in vain, they just didn’t solve the underlying problems of racism.
Hitler’s ideology was about power. He believed that strength equals power and peace equals weakness. His speech seemed to target the youth because they control the future and they can carry on his legacy. This ideology was false because in the end Hitler fell and the Jews (his weak, peace-loving victims) were not destroyed as he intended and expected.
October 4, 2007 at 2:47 pm
Wow. After watching these, it’s so creazy how similar yet how different these speeches are. They are both kind of doing the same: Hitler- trying to rally the youth of germany-who were his followers. MLK- trying to rally his followers of america. Hitler was trying to strengthen the youth of germany and basically tell them that all of germanys future was in their hands and they needed to be stronger than everyone else and basically needed to segregate themselves from other people that are not germans because they would only make them weak. MLK was trying to strengthen america as a whole and was basically telling them that there needed to be peace between all races and religions. both of them were very passionate and i even nothiced used some of the same gestures, both being chanted on by their people, both trying to make a pursuasion and get a group of people together for what THEY thought was right or what THEY thought needed to be done.
October 4, 2007 at 3:37 pm
The similarity between the two speeches was disturbing. I would have never have guessed that the speech patterns of a fascist leader and a peace rally motivator would use the same tactics to appeal to their audiences. Both Hitler and MLK were speaking to a younger audience. To me although MLK didn’t use the word “youth” as much as Hitler did he used hipper words for that period in his “I have a Dream” speech. If you were to look at his other speeches he uses bigger words, alludes to events that younger people wouldn’t understand. I think another interpretation of intrapulation that they used would be by using youth they could also talk to the older people. I say this because they could say young, or youth and the older people would respond as though Hitler or MLK were referring to their inner child.
Both speeches also used Ideology. The dreamy spacey ideas that Hitler possessed and the hopeful ideas that MLK had were simply ideas.
I loved the chapter on Ideology it put a lot of things in perspective. I realized that a lot of the religion that fights against homosexuality is in fact ideology.
This chapter was so invigorating and in fact liberating. I do have a question though, what is the difference between ideology and philosophy? Were Plato and Aristotle ideologists? And, is interpolation in every speech?
October 4, 2007 at 3:55 pm
I had some trouble following the Hitler video because the subtitles were blurry. But I did understand what message he was trying to convey. Hitler had a great gift when it came to public speaking he had a strong voice and could caputre an audience. King also was a great public speaker as well he became the voice of millions of people. Watching both and now having to compare them i found many similarities. The two of them had different messages but had the ablility to deliver them to the masses.
The American ideology is that we need to be the biggest and best in the world. Personally, I am ashamed of the American ideology.
October 4, 2007 at 4:23 pm
I find this topic to me disturbing, You watch both the speaches, one from a man considered by practically the entire population of the world (that would be an assumption on my part) as maybe the most evil, and devilish human being to live. And on the other hand you have Martin Luther King Jr, thought by many as one of the key leaders that impacted our society and made what it what it is today. Fought depression and continuously saught after freedom and equality. The ideology of man kind is ammusing to me, it even said in the text “Some conceptions of ideology de-emphasize the power aspect and see ideology as the structure of assumptions which form the imaginative world of groups.” I find if you look at the actions many people make about things that are either important or not, the end results and the actions taken about them make no sense. Martin Luther King and Hitler had two different thoughts and dreams to aspire towards but in the end the both had an overwhelming amount of support as the minority or not only a race but the minority in a culture in Hitlers case. There arnt too different from one another besides the actions they based their beliefs off of. In one end violence as the answer made Hitler be seen as an evil person and In MLK’s case hes seen as a leader and as someone to deffinetly look up too. The text is right, people base their ideology off of assumptions and their first thoughts of something and everyone goes along with it rather than aspiring to think differently because the fear of being seen as different is too much for society to handle. We should aspire to be different and think different without have to think about the consequences that might happen due to our actions.
October 4, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Both Hitler and King are considered two very great public speakers. So the similarities in their speaches isn’t too surprising to me, but I still think they are very different. They both use the same method of speaking, alluding to a better and more prosperous future, but the acctual messages are the exact opposite. King is trying to unite a country that has divided itself because of their difference in race. Hitler is trying to divide a country and remove people based on their religion. Their ideologies are as identical as you can get, but their methods are abhorrently different.
October 4, 2007 at 5:06 pm
In Hitler’s speeach i was able to find more ideology than in the MLK speach. It could be that i’m so used to living the life that he speaks about. What stood out to me was that Hitler states a society without classes or rank. This was shocking to me as an idea because it brought me back to Karl Marx’s Manifesto. Marx was also a huge ideololistic person with his idea of communism. When Hitler told this to his youth i believe it was just to convince his troops to keep fighting. For example in the reading it talks about the word freedom. Even though americans are free we are still not able to run around and do what we want. I believe it is the same with Hitler saying there won’t be any social classes. Obviously he is going to be on top. For the MKL speech what got me the most was that he kept repeating negros. If i’m correct there were all types of races being discriminated against. I guessing that MLK as a ideolistic person he was just genoralizing his subject. Just like when politicians generalize a group of criminals as minorities or such. When it comes to ideology i believe that people shouldn’t believe all of it but just except it and try to approach the same idea differently. Sort of like just gathering the information and doing something with it for your self.
October 4, 2007 at 5:11 pm
While I am not 100% comfortable with the term “interpellation,” I’m going to try to do my best in working with it in the hope to understand it better.
Although Hitler was no king, he made all the German youth listening to him his subjects. Whether they lift their arms in the Nazi salute or not, they are still hailing Hitler because they are—to use the language of Althusser—being hailed, and answering the call. When Hitler calls for his “subjects” to make a strong Germany, the subjects have no freedom to disagree or to turn away because Hitler has established himself as the hailing authority figure; he has made himself a king of his own ideology: he has established his words as an absolute truth, and the individuals of the audience’s recognition of this truth are what cause their “one-hundred-eighty-degree physical conversion” into subjects.
While Hitler and MLK had very different agendas—with some common concepts—they are both, in their speeches, doing the same thing: commanding the audience and making them their subjects, “rallying troops.”
Watching these two clips causes me to wonder about the audiences though. MLK’s followers wanted peace—some through more extreme measures than others—and Hitler’s followers claimed to want peace, but don’t these seem like two very different ideas of peace? Does this mean that one’s subjectivity depends on his interpellator?
October 4, 2007 at 5:18 pm
I swearrrr… I am taking the most interesting classes this semester. For some reason, they’re all tying together with the things that I’ve experienced and learned this year down in New Orleans.
I’m currently taking Race, Gender, and Class in US History, and we just finished up the unit on slavery, the Civil War, and Restoration in the South. We’ve been talking about politics and society and ideas in Cultural Studies, and the conversation we had about the Confederate flag last week, and this week I just got to watch the Martin Luther King speech; it all ties together.
One thing that stood out in MLK’s speech was when he was talking about how it had been 100 years since Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and yet black citizens in America still didn’t have equal rights. Analyzing the years that followed, I think that this was because Americans, after the Civil War, were still stuck in an a conservative “ideology” and most people weren’t realizing that ex-slaves were, in fact, now Americans. This meant that blacks in America were now black Americans, and were therefore entitled the same “liberties” and “freedoms” as white Americans.
100 years later, the Civil Rights Movement was what it took to get Americans out of the Conservative mindset and helped them to come to terms/realize/understand/accept that, yes; blacks citizens are entitled to all the freedoms of the US Constitution. Once more and more people started realizing that this was the “new American way”- whites and blacks are equal- that’s when there is a change of ideological structures.
I think, as a country, we’re in an ideological transition right now; Bush approval rates are at an all-time low, and it seems that more and more Americans are losing faith. Of course, there are people who are going to have real, hard facts, figures, and reasons as to why we should all hate George W. Bush. However, it’s pretty true that it’s become a cultural trend to hate on George W. because it’s what “all the cool kids” are doing.
I agree with Lisa, who states, “The American ideology is wanting to fit in society.” I think that more and more young adults are growing up in a time where it is pretty apparent that, in reality, we are still not all free in this country. I think that this is a belief that a majority of the country has and for that reason, along with several dozen more legitimate and factual reasons, Bush has become so disliked in America.
October 4, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Though I had a hard time reading the subtitles, both speeches seemed disturbingly similar in a lot of ways. I could see both Hitler and Dr. King preaching the importance of national targeted towards each nations’ youth. It’s pretty easy to tie both speeches to the chapter on ideology. Hitler speaks in wide generalities about seemingly self-evident issues in creating a strong country: national pride, brotherhood, srength in untiy, racial supremecy perhaps? Dr. King speaks an oddly similar message as well. One of brotherhood and unity but in a slightly more accepting sense of the words.
In my opinion, however, these too seperate ideologies disect in terms of the line between what is knowledge and what is assumed. The Theory Toolbox says “there has to be some preexisting agreement concerning what will count as knowledge, or what criteria will be used to judge new or developing knowledge”(86). In other words, Hitler may have been a great speaker with some neat ideas but a lot of what he said was his own speculation that could not be related back to any acknowledged truths. Dr. King, on the other hand, was still bringing his own new ideology to the table but was expressing ideas that were already agreed upon by the nation hundreds of years ago.
October 4, 2007 at 6:04 pm
Its amazing to me how both Hitler and MLK were both able to use very similar tactics to get their powerful message across. Both these men were amazing public speakers able to hold the attention of their audience for great lengths of time. In the case of Hitler’s speech, he used the tactics of his booming voice and body language to get his message across. I felt Hitler used a very stern almost threatening use of his voice to instill within his people a sense of a great fearless leader. This tactic obviously worked because he rallied an entire country behind him in a very short time. As everyone noticed it seemed he was talking directly to the youth of Germany in his speech. I believe he did this almost as trying to instill pride in everyone starting from the ground up (from the youth to the elderly). When looking at Martin Luther King Jr.’s speech he uses very similar tactics as well. He has an amazing ability to capture and hold his audience by using his strong powerful voice and beautiful poetic writing. He is slightly different from Hitler in delivering his speech though, he uses very little body language and instead of using such a threatening tone, he uses a much more genuine, and powerful tone. He too is very stern in his words but he is such a magnificent writer that he is able to convey his message in an almost poetic manner.
I agree completely with Adam, these two men almost have identical ideologies of creating a better future for their people, but the methods of doing so are 180 degrees opposite. Hitler used a violent tactic to try and get rid of his “problem” with the jews, while King used his non-violent direct action to solve problems faced by blacks in this country. Both men were masters of public speaking and were able to instill such a sense of pride in their “subjects” that they were able to both accomplish many of their goals.
I think the ideologies of America although slightly truthful are more mythical. We say we are a country of freedom and rights, yet we can’t even protest without permission. We say we are a country that accepts everyone and their beliefs/religions yet we profile and stereotype probably more then anywhere else in the world. We are so “anal” about everything as well for example the reaction to Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction was sickening. The American ideologies look good on paper but do we really follow them is the question.
October 4, 2007 at 6:09 pm
Hitler spoke directly to the youth because he knew they would be the future of Germany. “We want to be one people, and you, my youth, are that people,” he told the young audience. Hitler used interpellation to speak to the entire crowd, “you, my youth,” and have them each listen as if he spoke directly to them. He could manipulate them and make them feel like the task at hand was a brave and honorable one. I, like Valentin Flores, found it surprising that Hitler hoped for a future without classes or ranks. Yet, he felt he had reason to blame Jewish people for Germany’s problems because of the wealth that some Jewish people possessed and the positions they held in society, so a future without classes or ranks made sense in his mind.
Martin Luther King includes the audience using “we” and “negro” often, suggesting that it was necessary that the entire group had to work together toward equality. He used vivid imagery including “storms of persecution” and “winds of police brutality” to appeal to the emotions of each audience member. His message was one of overcoming, that if they fought for and gained equality, there would be peace between all people of the United States.
I think that a few people touched on different parts of American ideology. Of course we consider ourselves the most powerful country, dominant in most areas and deserving of anything, as is apparent in our adoption of “American” rather than “United States American,” just like we talked about in class. There is also the equality ideology mentioned by Britany Steger. No one in the United States is, in fact, equal. We have upper, middle, and lower classes that enjoy the benefits this country provides them or struggle to survive because certain freedoms don’t extend to everyone that needs them. Evelyn Torres also raised a good point about the freedom ideology in the United States. I think her idea concerns democracy and its freedoms that it supposedly extends. It indeed only goes so far. Finally, democracy itself is an American ideology, just like the Ideology Handout states, “We assume that democracy is the political system best suited to the nature and aspirations of humans, we see history as a movement towards democracy, we assume that once all nations have achieved democracy they will continue to be democracies forever, unless they erode. These assumptions are ideology.”
October 4, 2007 at 6:10 pm
After looking at the YouTube of Hitler and Dr. Kings speeches I can understand why people followed them. People needed some type of home and purpose and I think that the both of they did that. Hitler came at a time when the people was going throught a bad time (poverty) and they needed a leader to show them the right direction or at lease what they thought was the right direction. Dr. King came at a time when blacks where treated as unequal compared to whites and they needed support and a leader to show them the right direction also. Hitler and Dr. King where a like in a way because they both wanted what they thought was right for their nation.
I think that the two speches relate to Subjectivity because they advertising to their people a future, just like a sign that advertises Nike shoes trying to get people to get their shoes. The book said that if you have any amount of black in you then you are considered black, this is also connected with the two speeches because I think that the people that followed these leaders believed that they were in a catagory of people like high class and low class. I think that as a socity we put our self in a book to limit us who we are and what we can be.
October 4, 2007 at 6:25 pm
After viewing both of the speeches, I noticed some key signs of ideology. Both Hitler and King were vivid with their speeches and ideas on how to unite their group or class, and the goal once that is done. I feel King was more clear and expressive with his speech. Not to be bias, but King’s speech moved me more. I could believe his ideas and visions more because of the realisticness and logic behind his beliefs, where as with Hitler, it felt like his speech was more of a rally. The way King express his vision of kids of all colors playing, and equal opportunity in this country gave me more of a realist dream to imagine than Hitlers. Hitler showed signs of ideology, even with symbols. In his speech he is show with a Swatstica on his sleeve, which presents an idea with verbally being said. Also, another symbol I was able to point out was the hand gesture the crowd threw up once he pauses.
Both speakers showed strong signs of interpellation. As the camera panned acrossed the crowd, you can see in the faces of the people, in both films, how they felt as one, yet looked like the speakers were directing to them all, but individually. The speakers were able to get very personal with their crowds by using realistic ideas, inflection in their voices, and using phrases like “my people…my youth” to establish a closer connection.
To address the last question, I feel as though the “American ideology” is a myth, or false. Like stated in the TT, political speakers, teachers, etc. shadow the truth with false ideas of what else the real issue could be. Why is a certain class of people in a certain location more prone to theft and crime? It ISN’T because of poor teaching, bad parenting, movies etc. Sure, all of these things play some small role to the real issue, but the real issue is poverty. I completely agree with TT on that example.
December 13, 2007 at 6:56 pm
the trth about these two speeches is we can`t dismiss the fact of personal feelings with both speeches,when a personality governs a speech or sermon, to me the subject matter takes a back seat to ones personal ideology and remember,mlk did mostly sermons with religious ideologies not public speeches , there is a difference .