Mike Kelley – Capital Punishment

An artist I have admired for some time, Mike Kelley, recently published a new book that I have been anticipating for quite a while, through JRP – Ringier entitled Educational Complex Onwards 1995-2008. In this book, Kelley documents the creation of a model in which the school he attended and the house where he grew up are combined into one big model. I found this to be a fascinating extension of Althusser’s theory of the ISA’s and the way these various institutions, although seperate, tend to work together to interpolate the “concrete individual” into the “concrete subject.”

Mike Kelley is also hosting a variety of events for Performa 09 that continues until November 23rd. http://www.performa-arts.org/

Below is the press release to the book. To see photos and exceprts from the book visit http://www.jrp-ringier.com/pages/index.php?id_r=4&id_t=&id_p=15&id_b=1133

 

 

Institutional abuse

In 1995, Mike Kelley realized “Educational Complex”, a model of the school he attended and the house where he grew up. The blind spots of the model represent forgotten zones, and are interpreted as symbolic places of “institutional” abuse. For Kelley, this work marks the beginning of a series of projects where autobiography, memory, and the reinterpretation of previous pieces become the privileged instruments in a poetic deconstruction of the structures and systems initiated at the end of the 1970s.

“Educational Complex Onwards 1995–2008″, is the first book bringing together these different works and offering an overview of the development of Kelley’s practice. Each project is extensively documented by artist’s texts and reference material, while essays by Diedrich Diederichsen, Howard Singerman, and Anne Pontégnie explain the systemic change that the artist impulsed in his work to shift its direction and understanding.

Published with Wiels, Brussels and Museion, Bolzano.

 

Post by Alex Damianos

Louis Althusser: The Extents of Ideology

In his essay Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards and Investigation), Althusser discusses the means by which the conditions of production and the relations of production are reproduced and renewed to coincide with the general will of the ruling group. Whether this group is an actual monarchy or part of the capitalist bourgeoisie class, the reproduction of the means, and conditions of production, and the reproduction of the relations of production, functions in a very similar way, as shall be explained.

Althusser begins his investigation into this issue through the writings of Marx, primarily in his book Capital. In particular, Althusser picks up on Marx’s claim that “no production is possible which does not allow for the reproduction of the material conditions of production: the reproduction of the means of production.” (128). In other words, the entirety of the capitalist economy is based on an endless chain of production and consumption, in which “Mr. X, a capitalist who produces woolen yarn in his spinning-mill, has to ‘reproduce’ his raw material, his machines…” (129), and does so through a certain “Mr. Y, a heavy engineer producing machine tools,” (129), who undoubtedly relies on some other human for their parts, and so on, all the way back to the extraction of raw material. As Althusser explains, “in order to rethink this mechanism… it is necessary to follow Marx’s ‘global’ procedure, and to study in particular the relations of the circulation of capital between Department I (production of means of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption), and the realization of surplus value.” (129-130).

Althusser then goes on to the reproduction of labor power, and it is through an analysis of this aspect that the notion of ideology is introduced. As he explains, “the reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of its skills,” through a distribution of wages, providing the worker with a means of survival (and ultimately allowing procreation for future generations of workers), “but also at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order…” (134).  Althusser claims that continued reproduction of submission functions through Marx’s theory of the superstructure. For although “it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice,” (136), and is itself “the ‘unity’ of the productive forces and the relations of production,” (134),  it is the superstructure that remains in control of both the politico-legal and ideological powers.

In this way we can begin to see that if it is the superstructure (the ruling classes, either of society or the economy, usually one in the same) who control the “reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression,” (133), then it is in fact not the state as a physical entity that is what at stake if politics are going to change, but rather “the state (and its existence in its apparatus) as a function of State power.” (140). In fact, if we are to follow Althusser’s philosophy, then the State itself has no function except as a “repressive State apparatus” (141), separate of the Ideological State Apparatus, but under the guise exclusively of the ruling ideology.

The Ideological Sate Apparatus functions under a variety of pseudonyms. According to Althusser, these various branches include religion, education, the family, the legal system, politics, trade unions, the media, and finally culture, which sews all of these together in various ways. These ISA’s function separately from the Repressive State Apparatus in that “the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression (including physical repression), while functioning secondarily by ideology.” (145). This is visible in areas such as the police force, or the army, who act in accordance to the results of the ISA’s through arrests or wars, and yet do so through a form that has a meaning of its own (uniforms, strategies, aiding the accumulation of wealth). Inversely, “the Ideological State Apparatus function massively and predominantly by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ultimately… this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic.” (145). This is visible through the use of punishment, expulsion and selection by schools or churches as a means of ‘discipline’ “not only [to the] shepherds, but also their flocks.” (145).

Yet ultimately what this all leads to (as the constraints of a three page assignment limits (and I am already going over the limit, but am trying to not go too far) , the extent to which one can go through this complex argument), is the exertion of power by the group of peoples who have found themselves in charge of the ruling ideology (either through battle or inheritance). The ultimate aim of both the ISA and the (R)SA is to “ ‘function’ in such a way that it ‘recruits’ subjects among the individuals… or ‘transforms’ the individuals into subjects.” (174). Althusser describes this metamorphosis as “interpolation,” a process by which the “concrete individual” is transformed into the “concrete subject,” stripped of his individuality yet fully characterized by his ability to submit.

This process is achieved through a constant subjection of the individual to the various ideologies imposed upon us by the Ideological State Apparatus that stand to familiarize us with the process of subjectification that makes it seem something “obvious”. As Althusser explains, “the ‘obviousness’ that you and I are subjects – and that that does not cause any problems – is an ideological effect, the elementary ideological effect.” (172). Yet this obviousness is not manifested only through our decision to follow certain religious tendencies, or to obey the law; the power of ideology as expressed by Ideological State Apparatus extends beyond these instances into our very understanding and interpretation of our the world around us. Althusser makes numerous comparisons to the famous Freudian proposition that “the unconscious is eternal” (161), stating “the eternity of the unconscious is not unrelated to the eternity of ideology in general.” (161). By eternalizing itself within our conscious, ideology has come to play a central role in the way we interact with others and perceive ourselves. Therefore, even “what thus seems to take place outside ideology… in reality takes place in ideology.” It is for this reason that Althusser claims “that ideology has no outside (for itself), but at the same time that it is nothing but outside (for science and reality).” (175).

Yet is this the end? My readings of Malcolm X’s past brought me to consider the ways in which his refusal of the Christian tradition in favor of the Nation of Islam played a large role in his political awakening. It is through his refusal of what was once “the number-one Ideological State Apparatus,” (152) that he came to realize the projections of the ruling ideology (and it’s complicit ISA’s) as falsifications that sought to maintain an order and keep the ruling ideology in power. And although Malcolm X’s realizations cannot be seen as a full awakening from the Freudian eternality of the unconscious, perhaps full consciousness in this sense is not fully necessary. If one can awaken their self even on a small level to the falsifications of the ruling ideology, and its ultimate essence as a means of reproduction of the relations of exploitation, then perhaps change can happen from within the spectrum of ideology. In this way, the concrete nature of our “concrete subjectivity” may be elucidated and loosened somewhat to allow for greater freedom, a freedom that is perhaps endless. As Genesis P-Orridge explains, “the I is the flat person who assumes that the person they’ve been donated by social conditioning is a one-dimensional actual person, the We is how we see the world which is that everybody is made up of lots of different personality, fantasies, and attitudes.” In this way, the realization of the undeniable avoidance of ideology, and even a slight recognition of it’s existence and its workings, can allow for a “one dimensional and having no potential, to seeing themselves as almost anything they want to be, and that those things don’t always have to agree in the usual accepted way,” which is perhaps the furthers one can get within this unconscious eternity.

Journal Entry by Alex Damianos

Louis Althusser

Louis Alehouse’s, “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses“ was a difficult read for me. Two passages he writes about though contain great meaning in explaining the ideology behind the reproduction of labor for control and the function of the State Apparatus as a repressive force in society.

On page 132 Althusser writes, “To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class ‘in words’.

To me this passage reflects on Althussers ability to recognize the fact that factory workers created labor power. The peasantry who were systematically exploited makes up the majority of these workers. Though a process was created to keep workers coming to provide their service through the process of “wages” the constant need to reproduce effective means of reproduction for the company owning hierarchy was what keep companies to continue their systems of creating better educated workers with a variety of skills so that they could be further utilized. Althusser points out here that even though workers were trained better and gained more skills, this academic approach was strictly done for the direct gain of the company so that their workers could function on a higher level to be further extorted for their economic benefit. This system of control was continuously manipulated to further aid in a company’s repression of its labor force.

There is another passage that Althussre writes about that interested me. On page 137 he writes, “Presented in this form, the Marxist-Leninist ‘theory’ of the State has its finger on the essential point, and not for one moment can there be any question of rejecting the fact that this really is the essential point. The State apparatus, which defines the State as a force of repressive execution and intervention ‘in the interest of the ruling class’ in the class struggle conducted by the bourgeoisie and its allies against the proletariat, is quite certainly the State, and quite certainly describes its function.

This passage by Althusser in my opinion discusses the fact that repression of the lower classes by the higher classes such as the bourgeoisie was not something that was indirect or unintentional. The act of repression was in fact intentional because this hierarchy of wealth creates a system of class structure and provided for the means, which allowed for the creation of new institutions and the ability for old structures to continue to exist. With the State controlling structures like the Church, the School and regulating Business within its means the State created an outlet for its hierarchy. The development of a high-class function was key for the State to create, control and operate. Though the State is a system of control it is manipulated by the bourgeoisie, who will intervene when ever they see fit for their private interests assuring that if their ends are not met because of effects causing the means to go south, quick action is taken. The ability for the higher class to change the State in order for it to operate and gain wealth effectively will continue to be a form of repression causing the lower class to subject itself to these effects how ever they may arise.

Journal Entry By Juan Martinez

Malcolm X

There are many things in The Autobiography of Malcolm X that was written with the assistance of Alex Haley, Introduction by M. S. Handler and Epilogue by Alex Haley that I would like to bring to our attention.

 

On pages 39 and 40 young Malcolm who was only about 14 years old describes a situation where he had just arrived in Boston to live with his half sister. She advised him to go traveling around Boston to see what it can offer Malcolm as opposed to settling down and finding a job in their local area because the experience would be better for him. She tells Malcolm that by doing this he would have a better understanding of Boston that would make his stay there more beneficial. As Malcolm became more familiar about the new town he lived in he began to notice something. Malcolm writes…

 

“What I thought I was seeing in Roxbury were high class, educated, important Negroes, living well, working in big jobs and positions. Their quiet homes sat back in their mowed yards. These Negroes walked along the sidewalks looking haughty and dignified, on their way to work, to shop, to visit, to church. I know now, of course, that what I was really seeing was only a big city version of those “successful” Negroe bootblacks and janitors back in Lansing. The only difference is that the ones in Boston had been brainwashed even more thoroughly. They prided themselves on being more incomparably more “cultured,” “cultivated,” “ dignified” and better off than their black brethren down in the ghetto, which was no father away than you could throw a rock. Under the pitiful misapprehension that it would make them “better,” these Hill Negroes were breaking their backs trying to imitate white people.”

This observation to me in my opinion was disturbing. I thought why would the Hill Negroes want to emulate white people? Why would the Hill Negroes break their backs trying to become and act white just so that they could feel or seem better then their impoverished fellow Negroes just blocks away?

 

The feeling of entitlement, and the failure for whites to even recognize black’s as their equals are what drove the Hill Negroes to act in this fashion. What other way could blacks make themselves feel better about their being and lively hood than resorting to this level. For such a long time blacks were made to think that they were literally nothing that in other for them to make themselves feel like they had any self worth they regrettably had entered into competition with themselves. This hierarchy they created amongst themselves created a sub category of segregation that in a sense separated their own people from each other farther. This is why Malcolm describes feelings of hating these blacks because they walked around thinking that they were better than poorer blacks because of the jobs they had. In all actuality the fact that these blacks had these jobs only made them different in one way from the poorer blacks. They had money. The fact that these middle class Negroes had money means nothing to the whites. They would still treat all blacks in Boston with the same level of prejudice as any poor Negroes. Malcolm saw this and it bothered him to discover it.

 

There is another instance were Malcolm describes the unrelenting ability of whites to make themselves feel more cultured than blacks because of their sheer prejudice. Here Malcolm describes a situation where he was working as a waiter on a railroad train going in and out of Boston. On page 75 Malcolm writes…

 

“The sandwich man I replaced had little chance of getting his job back. I went bellowing up and down those train aisles. I sold sandwiches, coffee, candy, cake, and ice cream as fast as the railroads commissary department could supply them. It didn’t take me a week to learn that all you had to do was give white people a show and they’d buy anything you offered them. It was like popping your shoeshine rag. The dining car waiters and Pullman porters knew it too, and they faked their Uncle Tomming to get bigger tips. We were in that world of Negroes who are both servants and psychologists, aware that white people are so obsessed with their own importance that they will pay liberally, even dearly, for the impression of being catered to and entertained.”

Here Malcolm clearly describes a situation were some blacks benefited from the outlandish attitudes of whites. This passage further enlightened me to the great fact that whites unquestionably at this time held the color of their skin and societal status as prestige. It really seems to me that young Malcolm and many others that were just as smart as him used this to their advantage. For all the pain and suffering caused by white slave owners on blacks why would the Negroes not capitalize off of them when they had the chance? Whites were so engrossed in themselves during this time the fact that they would prove their status through their generous tips emphasized their feelings of social superiority.

 

Journal Entry By Juan Martinez

LOVE

This is an interesting piece by Boyd Rice that I’d been meaning to post for a while. Although his work is slightly controversial (he eventually went on to be associated heavily with the Church of Satan and Nazism) I find his earlier work to be some of the most interesting and progressive music of the late 20th Century.

The piece for me illustrates this notion of ideology, and it aims at shifting our understanding of “love” in the same way that its meaning was shifted throughout the history of colonialism. Yet what is interesting about this piece, is the way it bitterly reflects on the attempts against the “white love” or “benevolent assimilation” that Rafael describes. It also reminded me of what we had discussed today concerning the “mass production of stupidity” and perhaps how the overwhelming materialism of capitalism or consumerism aims to make us lazy by convincing us we are satisfied. An interesting example of this is the Ikea scene in Fight Club. In this way, satisfaction in any form can be seen as an indication of ignorance on one’s behalf, in the same way the fallic center of Lacan’s chain of symbolance is ultimately unattainable.

As for the image, last night I went to see Lars Von Trier’s new film Antichrist, and a lot of incredible issues are raised in that film that allowed me to make some clearer connections. It seems that we have a very particular idea of what humanity is, how humans act, and we base our relations with each other based on certain set roles that as Antichrist touches upon, are based in a history that acts on a very subconscious level. This idea of humans as mutually reciprocating beings, who’s ultimate end is “the preservation of mankind” as Rousseau quite idealistically claims, is truly a false one. There is a common theme that I have noticed between many of the people like Boyd Rice, Kenneth Anger, Bobby Beausoleil, and some other greats who happened to also be in the Church of Satan, and that is the idea of the superman. This shared belief is that the basis of nature is a ruthless power struggle in which each is left to fend for himself. There are no limits to how powerful or strong something ought to become, and any means against infinite growth is oppressive. Although these ideas are typically associated with nazism and central to many satanic cults, these are also the underlying drives of the capitalist free market economy, and this ideology has been used brutally to attain the position of the worlds leading power that the US holds today. This political structure, supported and strengthened throughout history, expresses itself most gruesomely in the devilish colonial practices that many of the “leading” countries submitted the less developed ones too.

Rice’s use of the word “LOVE” picks up on the same twisted reality that Rafael and Todorov examine in their texts. Beneath the image, the line”doing whatever is necessary” seals this idea of love as the historic cover up for the worlds most shocking acts of cruelty. We often struggle to find a meaning for love. We think of love as something that can’t be explained in words, it’s an emotion that brings us to do things we would otherwise never do. It literally drives us crazy, making us “head over heels.” Love in the political sense acts the same way, as a cover up for the things we cannot bear to remember but that made us who we are, or made our country what it is. Boyd reveals love in the political sense for what it truly is, “doing whatever is necessary.” Progress at the expense of others people’s lives, protection of one people at the expense of the Other, assimilating one culture and society at the expense of their history and cultural identity.