I remember the name Che Guevara mentioned in class on Wednesday during our discussion of subcultures. While I'd heard the name and could associate it with a face, I didn't know exactly who he was, what he stood for, and why he was a lasting icon of culture that people wanted to impersonate or have on their t-shirts. I wasn't really thinking about it after class until I happened to be googling last minute Halloween costumes for a friend of mine and came across "quick Che Guevera costume."
Curiosity made me google him in the midst of dressing for the night's festivities and was rewarded with the story of an Argentinian medical student 'gone rogue' during the Cuban Revolution who became a member of the guerilla movement against Fulgencio Batista and subsequently fought for revolution against US-backed governments until executed in 1967 in Africa. During his life, Guevara was an icon of revolution and going against the norm. Today, he still exists as a significant symbol of rebellion and political individualism.
Why is so important to our discussion of theory if he was simply a young man who didn't like to follow the rules? Because of that. "The rules." What are the rules? Are there rules? Where did they come from? Why do we follow? Who made them up? Are the God-given or part of a meta narrative? Or are they perhaps something entirely of human construct created by ideology: a subculture.
This weeks discussion of Althusser was extremely interesting to me because of our discussion of ideology and subculture. The idea that ideology 'keeps us in line' is, for lack of a better sentiment, terrifying. When we say we're individual or we see others who we consider as individual (aka hipsters, etc) are we/they really unique?
Because it seems to me as if we're just following another ideology if we break away from another. For example, breaking away from an ideology is an ideology. Breaking away from that ideology would be an ideology of that ideology. It's a never-ending circle! Our world, the human existence, is a consistent globe of ideology that tells us what to do, how to act, and what to be a part of. We're never free from these subcultures that are background noise as Volosinov mentions. It's always in the back of our minds to conform to something, to be a part of a certain subculture.
So when Che Guevara went against the 'we're helping the third world countries' view of America during his time as a revolutionary, he broke away from a subculture that told people to approve of American involvement abroad at that time. For it, he received the label of rebel or individual or visionary. Yet, was he really? Or was he just a part of another subculture that included all the other revolutionaries of his time?
Curiosity made me google him in the midst of dressing for the night's festivities and was rewarded with the story of an Argentinian medical student 'gone rogue' during the Cuban Revolution who became a member of the guerilla movement against Fulgencio Batista and subsequently fought for revolution against US-backed governments until executed in 1967 in Africa. During his life, Guevara was an icon of revolution and going against the norm. Today, he still exists as a significant symbol of rebellion and political individualism.
Why is so important to our discussion of theory if he was simply a young man who didn't like to follow the rules? Because of that. "The rules." What are the rules? Are there rules? Where did they come from? Why do we follow? Who made them up? Are the God-given or part of a meta narrative? Or are they perhaps something entirely of human construct created by ideology: a subculture.
This weeks discussion of Althusser was extremely interesting to me because of our discussion of ideology and subculture. The idea that ideology 'keeps us in line' is, for lack of a better sentiment, terrifying. When we say we're individual or we see others who we consider as individual (aka hipsters, etc) are we/they really unique?
Because it seems to me as if we're just following another ideology if we break away from another. For example, breaking away from an ideology is an ideology. Breaking away from that ideology would be an ideology of that ideology. It's a never-ending circle! Our world, the human existence, is a consistent globe of ideology that tells us what to do, how to act, and what to be a part of. We're never free from these subcultures that are background noise as Volosinov mentions. It's always in the back of our minds to conform to something, to be a part of a certain subculture.
So when Che Guevara went against the 'we're helping the third world countries' view of America during his time as a revolutionary, he broke away from a subculture that told people to approve of American involvement abroad at that time. For it, he received the label of rebel or individual or visionary. Yet, was he really? Or was he just a part of another subculture that included all the other revolutionaries of his time?
Awesome. I liked how you tied Che Guevara so well with ideologies and their subversive nature.
ReplyDelete