than “let them eat cake!” postmodernity asks, “would you like
devil’s food or Funfetti?”
In a micropolitical sense, the shift in the meaning of desire
serves to complicate the relationship between culture and identity,
creating a sense of power over self-presentation. We no longer see
our favorite characters as an ideal to strive for, instead our
attachment “occupies the individual as subject in the terms of the
existing social representations and it constructs the individual as
subject in the process, in the balancing out of symbolic and
imaginary, circulation for fixity” (Heath, 127). Culture has become
self-constitutive through the intertextuality of the production,
distribution, and consumption of media.
Describe yourself in three fictional characters.
Until this point, it appears as though the process of identity
construction in postmodern culture is one of awareness and
choice. Aesthetics, brands, style, and other forms of identity
markers stem from a conscious decision to take on what feels
authentic; because subjectivity is no longer defined by static
orientations, a sense of malleable reflexivity as well as a wider array
of choices enables individuals to determine their sense of self
(Kellner 243). In an Althusserian sense, the superstructure of
global capitalism determines the direction of politics and history
toward accumulation and growth of the State on a macrolevel. On
a microlevel, ideology sustains the raison d’etre of the State by
turning individuals in subjects through “a representation of the
imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of
existence” (Althusser 162). “Ideological State Apparatuses” such
as school and church instill the desire for recognition and inclusion
within civil society; the televisual apparatus provides “a tactic of
potentialities linked to usage….for mastery, control and command,
an optimization of the play of possibilities” for identity formation
Previous Page Next Page