The Power to Blur Fiction from Reality

Ideology is the tool used by those in power to intentionally blur the lines between fiction and reality. Hall believes that communication studies as a discipline lacks the context ideology gives to the interdisciplinary approach of cultural studies (Griffin, 332). In isolation, ideology is neither good nor evil, but like signs, ideology is interconnected with power. To understand ideology, the term must first be clearly defined, then power must be separated from ideology, then connotative and denotative meaning clarified, and finally a relatable example of the common sense dilemma.

In its simplest form, ideology is a categorical understanding of how the world works. Hall believes that ideology is seen through the socio-economic lens as the words people speak, how societies organize concepts, and an ability to “make sense of, define, figure out and render intelligible the way society works” (Hall, 29). In many ways Hall’s definition reflects Sandra Harding and Julia Wood’s Standpoint Theory. First, Harding describes social location as the group an individual belongs to and how that group shapes its member’s worldview; then she describes a standpoint as a “critical reflection on power relations and consequences that oppose the status quo” (Griffin, 396). A person’s worldview is ultimately shaped by the people surrounding them and the people in power, and that categorized worldview is considered an ideology.

Next, ideology should be separated from power and intention. Norm Chomsky, a modern American linguist, sees dominate ideology as “propaganda” that needs to be “constantly battled” in order to “escape indoctrination” (Achbar and Wintonick). However, Hall sees ideology through a neutral lens, separated from dominance, as simply “how society works” (Griffin, 332). Hall’s view allows for the necessary layer of separation between the elite intention and the construction of ideologies. For example, the dominate ideology in Canada suggests an SUV is superior to other forms of transportation. Looking to Norm Chomsky, battling commonly held beliefs is not clearly outlined. Instead, Hall offers that individuals can try to uncover who benefits from SUVs being sold in Canada, which in turn uncovers the power and intention. According to Hall, critical thinkers must not try to understand the meaning of discourse but must “examine the sources of… discourse” because the sources make meaning (Griffin, 334). The words a society uses are an inseparable representation of ideology because even the language itself changes meaning.

To follow, defining connotative and denotative meaning is important to ideology because Barthes and Hall have different interpretations. Barthes, a linguistic scholar, defines the denotative sign system as a “sign without ideological content” (Griffin, 324). In addition, Hall describes this linguistic approach to the denotative definition as “the literal meaning of a sign… without the intervention of code” (Hall et al., 122). For example, in a denotative sign system of a wool toque, the signifier is the toque itself; the signified meaning of the toque is warmth, clothing, and protection from the winter. On the other hand, Barthes defines the connotative sign system as ideological in nature with no direct connection to real world meaning. In addition, Hall describes the linguistic approach to connotation as meanings that come from the fictional world and therefore depend on code for understanding (Hall et al., 122). For example, several years ago I learned about the meaning of hipster from a local coffee shop called Death Valley’s Little Brother. Hipsters, in my definition, are under the age of thirty, usually students, love coffee, and tend to wear vintage clothing. Upon visiting, I noticed a lot of people wearing winter toques inside the coffee shop at all seasons and temperatures. In a connotative sign system of a hipster’s toque, the signifier is the toque, the meaning is anti-mainstream, modern fashion, higher education, and coffee snob. The hipster’s toque lost the real world meaning of keeping a person’s head warm, denotative, but gains a fictional meaning of fashion and coffee, connotative. According to Frech philosopher and media critic Jean Baudrillard, the loss of real-world meaning creates a “hyper-reality” in “a world of self-referential signs” (Porter, 111). In other words, when the original or authentic meaning of a sign is used in a new way, Barthes states it is inflected with meaning of the dominate culture or ideology (Griffin, 330). Barthes describes the distinction between denotative sign systems and connotative sign systems as the “second-order semiotic system” (Griffin, 323-324). Ideology becomes the layer that detracts from the original meaning of signs such as words.

The problem with Barthes’ explanation is making a clear distinction between denotative and connotative. Finding the distinction in Barthes’ explanation is important because ideology does not exist in a denotative sign and ideology does exist in a connotative sign. In addition, Barthes believes that those trained in semiotics can deconstruct the layers of meaning to find the original denotative meaning (Griffin, 326). In other words, Barthes’ believes ideology can be separated from an original real world meaning. However, Hall’s view of an interconnected web of meaning does not support Barthes’ second-order semiotic system. Where Barthes determines lines between denotative and connotative, Hall sees a spectrum that is mainly useful from a point of analysis. Hall acknowledges that some signs can be more denotative because the code has become naturalized, and other signs can be more connotative because the code is being used with a level of intention (Hall et al., 122-123). In addition, Hall believes that the terms denotation and connotation are more useful as “analytical tools” used to determine “the different levels at which ideologies and discourses intersect” (Hall et al., 122-123). In other words, the fashion statement of a hipster toque has a different ideological value than a wool toque keeping a person warm in the winter, but both signs have a level of ideology.

A relatable day-to-day example of ideology blurring the lines between fiction and reality is the common sense dilemma. People I know often mention how other people “lack common sense,” “don’t get it,” or “don’t understand how the real-world works.” John Fiske, a cultural studies scholar, agrees that the “common sense of a society is made up of a series of encoded ideologies” (4). To expand, common sense might be how people agree to see the world, but it is also a term of fiction heavily rooted in dominate ideology. An exclamation of how others lack common sense is a proclamation that others do not share the same thoughts. Along the same line, Hall describes a misunderstanding as a “lack of equivalence between the two sides in a communicative exchange” (Hall et al., 120). Misunderstandings stem from Hall’s concept of naturalization, which is when people assume the meaning of a symbol because the practices of coding are invisible (Hall et al., 121). In other words, people disagree on their interpretation of the real world because their internal, or fictional world, does not align with other peoples’ view of the world. Hall’s views on common sense are also reflected in Muzafer Sherif’s Social Judgement Theory in which reality is judged by comparing current attitudes and communications affects movement along a spectrum of agreement (Griffin, 172). Common sense describes a match of ideological values between people that blur reality from fiction.