Ideologies in the Naturalistic Images - Essay Example

? 18 January, Realism cannot challenge the received wisdom of the public, since spectators see nothing but their own flickering ideologies in the naturalistic images on the screen” (Robert Stam). Introduction: Society has always been subjected to interpersonal conflicts arising from conflict of opinions between individuals. Every person maintains his/her own ideology that is shaped by his/her learning experiences and social grooming. The religion, region, culture and upbringing of an individual also have a huge influence on his/her way of thinking and ideology. In everyday life, people tend to interpret the images they see as per their own understanding of them, that may or may not be rational. Irrespective of whatever the reality is, people see nothing more than their individualistic beliefs and ideologies in all what is displayed on the screen as rightly depicted by Robert Stam. This paper aims at analyzing this conception. Ideology influenced interpretation of images: Images are all around us. They include both images that are made by us and reflect our perception and others, which are made by others and are displayed commercially as art for us to perceive. Image, as the name indicates, is a representation of some other entity. Thus, images stand for other things so as to reflect their intrinsic traits, without them having to appear before the public. This is same as the concept of symbolization, which forms a fundamental part of intercommunication between two or more individuals. Symbols let us communicate with one another in our daily lives. Thus, we can exchange concepts and the idea of an individual protrudes in the minds of all members of the society, though its acknowledgement varies from individual to individual. Symbols or images represent humanistic ideologies in the virtual world and act like delegates. In daily language, the word “I” is used to symbolize the self of all the individuals that communicate with one another. Likewise, one individual’s body-image in a picture symbolizes that individual not only for others but also for his/her own self. Ideology lays basis for the way people understand the world in which they live and their perception of the ideal life in the world (Christensen). Ideology surfaces as a result of its link with the communicative processes. “Ideology involves the reproduction of the existing relations of production (those activities by which a society guarantees its own survival)” (Ideology And The Image). Ideology serves as a restriction that tends to control people and limit them to specific places within the exchange and communicative processes. Ideology gains its definition from the way the collection of social relations is exchanged among the individuals. A society portrays its impression upon the whole world through the ideologies. Societies get acknowledged in the world through their images that are influenced by the underlying ideologies. The way ideologies represent us in the social circle limit our actions and behaviors. People’s actions have to necessarily comply with their ideologies so that there remains a consistency of views and impressions, and they are dealt with by the society accordingly. Ideologies limit the movement of people within certain limits both physically and mentally. Our social actions are depicted by the limited spaces that are defined by our ideologies to move in. Ideology allows people to form the basis of their beliefs and perceptions on them. We visualize images and interpret them as per our own perception. The interconnection of image and ideology also lays basis for the relationship of consciousness and social existence. In the society that we live, every individual holds his/her own opinion that is significantly unique and different from the opinions of other people. This is evident from the large volume of debates on every subject that we happen to hear in our daily life. Every matter is so debatable that people do not easily approve legislation through mutual consensus, without much hesitation and discussion. Nature has blessed every human being with wisdom. Wisdom is the symbolization of humanity, though it varies in extent from individual to individual. Every person owns a certain degree of wisdom and evaluates every matter according to that. The variation in the extent of wisdom in individuals results in a variation in results after they analyze a particular matter through their own perceptions, beliefs, experiences and opinions. The way people perceive and react towards a certain matter is also influenced, to much an extent, by the experiences they happen to go through in their individualistic lives. Even two brothers who share the same genetic structure and are brought up in the same environment and culture, differ in their opinions to such an extent that one can hardly depict they come from the same family if their opinions were the only criterion of judgment. This huge difference in behavior originates from the difference in experiences that the two brothers happen to encounter in their individualistic lives. Every experience that an individual attains has some teaching for him/her. One learns from such experiences and ultimately, the learning reflects in the individual’s beliefs and personality. However, the capacity to learn from experiences varies from individual to individual. The volume of the very capacity is determined by the extent of wisdom in the individual. It is commonly said that wise people learn from their experiences, and unwise people do not, though there is slight exaggeration in this statement as there is no human being who does not have a bit of wisdom. Wise people even learn from others’ experiences. Thus learning is one factor that depicts how wise an individual is. It is noteworthy here that no two people learn the same lesson from the same experience they gain. Let’s take the example of two boys who try to cheat in an exam. Both of the boys have brought the answers written in paper chits in their pockets. The invigilator gets to know that the two boys are cheating. He reaches them, takes their papers and gets them out of the exam hall. The two boys draw different conclusions from this experience. One of them is quite sensitive and takes an oath to himself that he would never cheat in the future, as it may lead him to humiliation, insult, embarrassment and poor academic record. Whereas the other one thinks that by bringing the material written on paper chit, he made a mistake. He thinks that he should instead have got it saved into his calculator so that no one would notice him if he cheated. This boy is determined to cheat again in the exam. He may be caught the next time, and he may not as well be caught. This example shows how different people draw different conclusions out of the same experience. Similarly, when people visualize images, they understand them as per their own perceptions of the world around them. As explained before, people’s experiences shape their perceptions as per their wisdom. Once the perceptions are formulated, they develop points and angles of view. It is this difference in the angles of view that distinguishes between the optimistic people from pessimists. People who have a broad vision tend to be optimistic while others, that are narrow minded are pessimists. Real life experiences combined with the intrinsic nature of an individual make him positive or negative in his approach towards matters. For some people, red color is the symbol of danger, while for others, red color symbolizes love and romance. It is the point of view that makes a difference. The ideologies people maintain are all inclusive of their pessimism or optimism. As there is a lot of difference between the natures of people, this difference reflects in their ideologies. With the advent of science and technology, our everyday lives have gained influence from the media. Media is largely employed as a means to brainwash people and inculcate the concepts as per the wishes of the agencies controlling the media. There is an ever growing trend of watching movies in the masses. An in-depth analysis of the movies displayed in the contemporary media suggests that many movies are made with a specific purpose that may be of political, social or cultural significance. “In relation to cinema, the issue of “realism” has always been present, whether posited as aesthetic ideal or as an object of opprobrium” (Stam 141). Like every story has morale in the end, most of the movies are made with a purpose that addresses the concern of the larger agencies. Such movies serve to inculcate new concepts in the society so that it undergoes a gradual change. “Anarchism in America” directed by (Sucher and Fischler) is one such movie that depicts that anarchism is a flourishing trend in contemporary American society. This conception has so far, met with considerable success as the way people think in the contemporary media influenced age is much different from the way the did in the past. This is evident from a widespread change in the family system in many advanced countries of the world. Overt expression of unusual sexual orientations in the form of same sex marriages was not as common in the past ages as it is today. Talking about the role of magazine in determining and altering social behaviors, “Gerald Marzorati” who is the Assistant Managing Editor in “The Times” said, “The Magazine reflects a place where women have professional ambition, where immigrants are welcome, and where gay men and lesbians can be themselves (if not marry, yet)” (Marzorati). This can fundamentally be attributed to the fact that media has played a big role in modifying people’s acceptability towards social issues and taboos. Not only on the negative side, but also positively, media has made its contributions in changing the world. Today, people are more aware on socioeconomic and political issues happening all over the world. “Economic and political globalisation are inevitably accompanied by a kind of ideological globalisation, a transnational ideology which legitimises them” (Fotopoulos 1). There is more awareness and accordingly, more reaction. It is indeed, very unfortunate that media has allowed all sorts of agencies to spread and advertise their views through it, as a result of which, many people react without having a sound understanding of the underlying facts. We, as viewers need to be very prudent in our attempt of making generalizations apropos the media related ideological content (Croteau and Hoynes 173). However, no matter how much effort media has made to inculcate its ideologies into people’s thinking and make them identical in their views and opinions, there has been little to no change in the trend of people to conduct lengthy debates over matters of even the least social significance. This is so because of the fact that media has not been able to change the people’s absorption of ideas. An individual would not absorb ideas that are in conflict with his/her basic beliefs and ideology. He/she would only tend to strengthen the construct of his/her existing ideology through supportive examples displayed in the images shown in the media. Conclusion: It is an established fact that media has made some of the most significant and important changes in the society over the years. In an attempt to alter the views of public in the best interest of the agencies controlling the media, a lot of programs have been formulated some of which are quite differing in nature, content and the message. One image sends a certain message, and the next moment, another one appears that tends to negate the former. This has indeed, served to generate a lot of confusion in the public, and people have become double-minded about a lot of issues of daily occurrence. “In a media landscape littered with opinionated talk show hosts and ideology-driven websites, strong points of view are hardly tough to find” (Folkenflik). However, one thing that has remained consistent over the period of time is the conflict in opinion of different people. Despite the immense effort of media to gain the consent of public over matters of social and cultural significance, people have only interpreted the meanings as per their individualistic ideologies and hence, the issue of conflict of opinion stays as it ever was. Works cited: Christensen, Tricia E. What is Ideology? 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. . Croteau, David R. & Hoynes, William. Media/Society: Industries, Images, and Audiences. 3rd ed. Chapter 5. pp. 159-193. SAGE Publications. 2002. Print. Folkenflik, David. “American Media's True Ideology? Avoiding One.” 5 Jan. 2011. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. . Fotopoulos, Takis. “Mass media and ideological globalization.” The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. Vol. 2. No. 4. 2006: 1-3. Print. “Ideology And The Image.” n.d. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. . Marzorati, Gerald. “Talk to the Times: Assistant Managing Editor Gerald Marzorati.” The New York Times. 24 Aug. 2009. Web. 18 Jan. 2011. . Stam, Robert. Film Theory: An Introduction. USA: Wiley-Blackwell. 2000. Sucher, Joel and Fischler, Steven. Anarchism in America, 2006. DVD. Read More