Erin Ashley Mink Garvey Dr.

Vandenberg WRD 500: AB Final Project 17 November 2010

Power and Politics in Ideology and Discourse Introduction: Everything's Political As I explained in my goal statement, my fascination with issues of language, literature, rhetoric, and discourse is fueled by my larger love of, and intrigue with, notions of power: who has it, how they came to have it in their possession, and who doesn't have itand why. Intersected in my piqued interest in notions of power is another passion of mine, politics, as its ubiquitous nature precludes any of us from truly functioning beyond its realms; as late twentiethcentury feminist scholars have explained and maintained, even the personal is political. Consequently, my initial foray into the discipline of writing, rhetoric, and discourse has let me further explore my interests in power and politics, and it is at this crux that I arrive at several questions I'd like to explore throughout my WRD scholarship: where does ideology end and discourse begin? Or, alternatively, where do politics fit into the realm, or intersection, or trajectory between what we know as a non-count ideology (as defined, and understood, by the Marxist definition) and discourse? Additional questions include where the distinctions between ideology and discourses lie (at least, in our theoretical understanding) and alternatively, how these distinctions actually play-out in reality, which is, inevitably, colored by issues stemming from politics and power. Defining and Theorizing Ideology and Discourse Before exploring the intersections or distinctions of ideology, discourses, power, and politics, its imperative to adequately define them so as to inform our conversation appropriately. Though popular parlance equates ideology to a set of belief systems, it is nonetheless worthwhile to remind ourselves that in order to utilize the fullest explanatory power of ideology, it's utterly important that we align ourselves with the theoretical understanding of ideology as a practice or process, as articulated and espoused by Cormack, Mills, Fiske, Bakhtin, and Foucault. It's not uncommon to hear about one's political ideologies in popular media, though as our aforementioned authors relate, political ideologies are just the tip of the ideological iceberg and relegate what is otherwise a powerful system of being and linking between one's self and one's society to merely what one believes. The lack of a uniformed understanding of ideology is especially apparent as we cross disciplinary lines, as my annotated bibliography does, because authors from other areas, such as political discourse or second language studies, sometimes exercise an understanding of ideology that is much more grounded in that of popular parlance than the traditional Marxist understanding. Cormack offers many definitions for ideology, noting that the links between beliefs, a society's self-image, the production of meaning and the creation of individual identity may not be immediately apparent and that ideology is concerned with how we as individuals understand the world in which we live. This understanding involves the complexities both of individual psychologies and of social structures (9). Cormack's ideas resonate with those of Mills because, as she explained, social structures and institutions significantly contribute to both the notions of discourse and ideology. Cormack also traces the varying definitions offered over the years by different theorists of ideology, beginning with Marx and Engels and later, focusing largely on Althusser, and then further explicates the otherwise tenuous connections between beliefs, a society's self-image, the creation of individual identity, and the production of meaning by emphasizing that ideology is a process which links socio-economic reality to individual

consciousness. It establishes a conceptual framework, which results in specific uses of mental concepts, and gives rise to our ideas of ourselves. In other words, the structure of our thinking about the social world, about ourselves and about our role within that world, is related by ideology ultimately to socio-economic conditions (13). In this way, Mills and Cormack both maintain that ideology structures the individual in relation to a, or the, collective. Similarly, Fiske maintains that ideology is inherent in society and in culture and, citing Althusser and Gramsci, and calls ideology a dynamic process constantly reproduced and reconstituted in the ways that people think, act, and understand themselves and their relationship to society (306). Fiske also offers Althusser's discussion of Ideological State Apparatuses, social institutions like family, school, government, media, and language, that influence and enforce social norms; while each Ideological State Apparatus is autonomous, they nonetheless share certain traits, such as being patriarchal, materialistic, and presenting themselves as socially neutral, objective entities. In addition, Mills' analysis of discourse acknowledges the term's problematic nature by explaining that it has perhaps the widest range of possible significations of any term in literary and cultural theory, and yet it is often the term within theoretical texts which is least defined (1). Mills also reminds us how closely related discourse and ideology are, by explaining that discourse is speech or writing seen from the point of view of the beliefs, values and categories which it embodies; these beliefs etc. constitute a way of looking at the world, an organization or representation of experience'ideology' in the neutral non-pejorative sense (6). Under the broad category of cultural theory, Mills defines discourse not as a disembodied collection of statements, but groupings of utterances or sentences, statements which are enacted within a social context, which are determined by that social context and which contribute to the way that social context continues its existence (11). To this end, she notes that institutions and social contexts therefore play an important determining role in the development, maintenance and circulation of discourses, similar to how Ideological State Apparatuses help to influence and enforce social norms (11). Connecting to the Annotations The aforementioned theoretical underpinnings and definitions of discourse and ideology show both their complicated beings as well as how closely related one is to the other. Within discourse's and ideology's aforedescribed theoretical underpinnings and definitions, one can also see how issues of politics and power can easily pervade the porous lines that distinguish ideology from discourse. In selecting the readings to include in this AB, I sought a diversity of articles and chapters that incorporated not only the theoretical notions and understandings of ideology, particularly, but also ones that, by using recent or historical political events, gave a real-world application of the theorists' ideas. As previously described, sometimes the Marxist notion of ideology loses its expository effects as it crosses disciplines, and I have noted this, in my citations, when I thought that the author, writing from his or her specific disciplinary orientation, seemed to be exercising an understanding of the concept that did not accord with that of the traditional Marxist view. Some authors, such as Gee, Dant, and Hall, focus their selections moreso on the theoretical underpinnings of what constitutes ideology and how this notion has changed under different authors. Hall, for example, stresses where Althusser's views stray from the traditional Marxist understanding and as such, exposes where he thinks Althusser's views are problematic. In this way, Hall's reading was helpful to gain a better understanding of the traditional Marxist notion of ideology, as well as an introduction into Althusser's views. Similarly, Gee's chapter also provided a solid, succinct, starting point for, and reminder of, Marx's idea of ideology;

however, its succinctness prohibits it for being of much use for extended research. Unlike the other authors I read, Gee also gave a very quick explanation of exactly why, and how, people's interests in ideology, as understood by the traditional Marxist view, has ebbed and flowed since the 1960s. Dant, in comparison, likely had the most composite chapter of theoretical orientations to ideology, as he provided a trajectory and historically-based outline of authors who have written on the subject, including Marx, Althusser, and Habermas, among others. Moreover, Dant spends a considerable amount of time analyzing Habermas' contribution, which was not featured in Gee's or Hall's writings. Dant's selection would be an excellent addition for future inquiries into this subject. What the theoretical orientation selections from Dant, Gee, and Hall lacked, in terms of not being grounded in any current (or recent historical) political situations or rhetoric, the other selections from Peet, Benesch, and Dunmire made-up. Peet's article, specifically, focuses on post-apartheid South Africa and explains how, and why, the previously progressive agenda set forth from the country's political leadership (d)evolved into resembling a system, and discourse, much more conservative and neoliberal in nature, due to, in Peet's estimation, exerted influence from external and internal pressures (similar to Althusser's notions of Ideological State Apparatuses). Peet's analysis holds true to the traditional Marxist understanding of ideology, as well. Benesch, on the other hand, writing from the discipline of second language studies, significantly strays from the traditional Marxist understanding of ideology and instead likens it to its popular parlance of being merely a system of beliefs. Despite this limitation, Benesch's premisethat English as a Second Language (ESL) instruction is inherently ideological, despite what its instructors and curriculum developers may allegeis nonetheless a fascinating and appropriate venue to further explore issues of power and politics, though more in the realm of discourse and less so in the realm of ideology. The final article, from Dunmire, writing from the discipline of political discourse, combines both the theoretical focus that aligns with the traditional Marxist view of ideology with a current, real-life situating and analysis by investigating a speech made by then-President George W. Bush on October 7, 2002, wherein he explained his reasoning for the US occupation and invasion of Iraq. Her article largely focuses on issues of futurity in political discourse, an area not unique to Bush's speech, and underlines the power relations that exist in political discourse related to preemptive actions. My hope is that, by combining some more theoretical articles with ones with stronger application-based qualities, I will be able to fine-tune this research inquiry in subsequent WRD classes. Should I choose to do that, however, I know that it will behoove me to stay with one discipline, so as to ensure a consistent application of the notion of ideology, minimally, and possibly also discourse, but as a preliminary jaunt into this research inquiry foray, it seemed appropriate to include an array of authors and disciplines. Future Interpretations Trying to solve the problem of ideology or discourse is a Sisyphean-type task, to be sure, since much of it depends on the disciplinary setting wherein we situate the question or problem. These aforementioned six authors are a smattering of the many who have explored these questions and problems, in their specific environs, and have offered their own take and applications. Surely as ideology continues to be a matter of significant importance, as Gee maintains it will be, there will, likewise, continue to be additional authors, writing from the perspective of their specific orientations, who offer their own interpretations and in-process solutions. How their disciplinary discourses, perhaps in addition to the political landscape of their time, will color their interpretations remains to be seen.

Garvey 5

Benesch, Sarah. ESL, Ideology, and the Politics of Pragmatism. TESOL Quarterly 27.4 (1993): 705- 717. Print. In this article, Benesch maintains that all forms of ESL instruction are ideological, whether or not educators are conscious of the political implications of their instructional choices (705). It's important, here, to remind ourselves that Benesch's use of ideological more closely aligns with the definition common to popular parlance that reduces ideology's expository powers to that of something signifying only a system of beliefs, and as mentioned in the earlier introduction, this cross-disciplinary distinction and relegation of ideology from its traditional Marxist roots is common in the second language writing discipline. Despite this, Benesch's article, and its articulations, quickly asserts and reminds readers of the intrinsic ways politics and notions of power seep into the discipline of second language writing and instruction, specifically through the various media of ESL instruction, like English for Academic Purposes (EAP) or English for Specific Purposes (ESP). Benesch claims that L2 composition, like all teaching and research, is ideological whether or not we are conscious of the political implications. Educators who do not acknowledge or discuss their ideology are not politically neutral: they simply do not highlight their ideology (706). Here again, Benesch's use of ideological and ideology show that her implicit definitions more closely align with popular interpretations of the words and do not, in turn, focus on the traditional Marxist notions. To use the discipline of second language writing and instruction in the conversation regarding issues of power and politics, it's critical that one remembers that, at least judging from this particular article, the discipline does not seem to use the Marxist denotation in its disciplinary critique. Nonetheless, the discipline's discourse could be a fascinating arena to study issues of power and politics, exclusively, because, as Benesch explains, when scholars begin to employ a critical theoretical lens of interpretation and inquiry to the field, they quickly realize that the pragmatism the field espouses is not necessarily as pragmatic as it claims: given conditions often faced by nonnative-speaking students in and out of school, is the EAP approach realistic? Do EAP curricula help ESL students, especially immigrants, understand and confront social and economic problems, such as looking for work during a recession, finding decent housing, or dealing with prejudice? (712). Moreover, EAP advocates, as Benesch maintains, do not 'avoid ideology,' as described by Santos. Rather they embrace an accommodationist ideology that aims to assimilate ESL students uncritically into academic life and U.S. society (714). For illustrative, historical purposes, it could also be telling to trace the (d)evolution of EAP curricula throughout varying parts of history to see how power and political dynamics of the time have influenced EAP instructionor if they have at all. (Search terms: ideology, discourse, language, ESL, politics, power, pragmatism, ideological)

Garvey 6

Dant, Tim. Knowledge, Ideology, and Discourse: A Sociological Perspective. London and New York: Routledge, 1991. Print. Dant, a sociologist by trade, takes on the broad idea of knowledge, an idea he claims is central to all societies (and thus, of particularly high import for sociologists to consider), and in one chapter, provides readers with a modern approach to ideological critique (76-98). Similar to Gee and Hall, Dant, too, provides readers with an overview of the history, or evolution, of the conceptions of ideology, and spends a decent amount of time moving from Marx, to Althusser, and to Habermas, among others, and within each section he devotes to each author, he teases-out where (and how) the authors differed from each other, where (and how) they challenged their predecessors' ideas, and where (and how) Dant feels each author's argument holds value. Habermas, specifically, holds Dant's attention for longer than the other authors of ideology he profiled, perhaps because he holds that Habermas further developed the Marxist notion of ideology in four distinct ways (89). According to Dant, these ways include the role of 'consciousness' as an historical force is reformulated without recourse to Hegelian idealism or historicism; the epistemological problems that such a reformulation generates and are confronted without creating a division between 'science' and 'ideology' or 'true' and 'false' consciousness; the way these issues are dealt with by developing a theory of communicative action; and finally, by Habermas developing a theory of the processes of advanced capitalist society that is both 'critical' and yet optimistic (89). Dant also calls attention to Habermas' ideas about ideology and legitimation, distinguishing between power and domination that is passed down from above with that which derives from below (93). In Habermas' view, and in Dant's assessment, capitalism replaces the traditional from above mode and power and domination and replaced it with a bourgeois ideology that takes over the legitimizing functions of traditional society and thereby keeps power relations inaccessible to analysis and public consciousness (93-4). Power relations that seem, more or less, inaccessible to the masses for critique and evaluation appear to align with Althusser's ideas of ISAs, ideological structures that exist to assert and maintain power in ways more covert and discreet than violent, oppositional forces like the military or police. Though Dant later writes that some of Althusser's or Habermas' notions of ideology are not necessarily appropriate, or useful, for understanding knowledge within the discipline of sociology, for purposes of this research, having a trajectory of authors, and their points summarized, is helpful. Unlike Gee's text, Dant's summation of Althusser, Marx, Habermas, and others seems to be a sufficient, stand-alone resource for continued inquiry, though it lacks any current political situation that would be helpful to further illustrate how the theoretical notions play-out in current political discourse. (Search terms: knowledge, ideology, discourse, power, politics, sociology)

Garvey 7

Dunmire, Patricia L. Preempting the future: rhetoric and ideology of the future in political discourse. Discourse & Society 16.4 (2005): 481-513. Print. Dunmire's article examines political discourse and uses a systemic-functional-linguistic approach to analyze a historical speech by President George W. Bush and posits that an important ideological component of political discourse derives from its representation of the future and the rhetorical functions those representations serve in implicating more immediate material and discursive actions (481, 506). Specifically, Dunmire examines President Bush's public speech from October 7, 2002, in which he explained his rationale for going to war with Iraq. She explains, The future, as the site of the possible and potential, represents a contested rhetorical domain through which partisans attempt to wield ideological and political power (482-483). Understood in this context, it seems that the discipline of political discourse, like that of second language writing and instruction, does not adopt a Marxist definition of ideology; however, she later relays that she is concerned with the ideological function of political discourse, in its annunciative and constitutive capacity, to undermine the concept of the future as potentiality and, consequently, to interfere with our abilityeven desireto imagine, articulate, and realize futures that challenge those prescribed by dominant discourses (483). In this statement, in contrast, Dunmire seems to link political discourse with the ideological process espoused by the traditional Marxist definition, particularly as she postulates the discourse's effect on the populace's envisioning of the future. Moreover, Dunmire also cites Murray Edelman's ideas related to the ideological and material significance of future realities [that lie] in their rhetorical relationship to the present, and Edelman, like Fiske and Althusser, bequeaths much power to political institutions (or ISAs) in influencing people's expectations of and orientations toward the future (483). It becomes particularly clear that Dunmire is employing a Marxist understanding of ideology as she explains a key ideological component of political discourse lies in its construction and representation of future realities and the rhetorical function those representations serve in implicating more immediate material and discursive practices and actions, such as the discourse Bush used in his attempts to garner country-wide support for the future occupation and invasion of Iraqthough of course couched in the rhetoric of future military action (484, 488). Political discourse is inherently laden with issues of politics and power, so this specific discipline may be appropriate to further advance my inquiries related to how notions of power and politics seep in to, and are affected by, discourse and ideology. Specifically, issues of futurity, in which Dunmire specializes, may be an especially interesting sub-field to explore because Bush, like many world leaders, nominalize particular key words or phrases (like threat) to transform a possible, future event into a presupposed, objectified entity. Such representations construe future events as assumed rather than contingent (493, my emphasis). Unlike the second language writing and instruction discipline, at least judging from this specific article, it seems that the political discourse discipline more closely aligns itself with, and understands ideology in terms of, the Marxist understandings and meanings.

(Search terms: ideology, discourse, language, politics, power, ideological, political discourse, future, futurity, modality, George W. Bush)

Garvey 8

Gee, James Paul. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. London and New York: Routledge, 2008. Print. Gee's book focuses largely on his notion that what we say, think, feel, and do is always indebted to the social groups to which we have been apprenticed, and before Gee divulges into the particular nuances of literacy and its subsequent discourse analysis, he spends a considerable amount of time in his early chapters explaining ideology and how it relates to his main argument (vii). Though Gee self-identifies as a linguist, he nonetheless takes on the traditional Marxist definition of ideology and relays that when he wrote the first edition of his book in 1990, ideology was a hotly-contested conception in both education and in the social sciences (27). He states that this was partly due to the deep influence of Marxist approaches to education and society that were prevailing in US universities from the 1960s until well in the 1980s. People are somewhat less directly concerned with the term today, but the debates about ideology and the notion itself are still crucial--a reassuring statement for my area of inquiry, to be sure (27). For the remainder of the first chapter, Gee reminds readers of Marx's conception of ideology, stating that he believed that human knowledge, beliefs, and behavior reflected and were shaped by the economic relationships that existed in society (27-8). Furthermore, Gee reiterates Marx's view that the people in power in any given society believe what they do, consciously or not, in an effort to help them maintain their power and the societal status quo and, in the process, make themselves (and their sentiments) feel validated (28). Gee also chronicles the origins of ideology, in Marx's view, by stating that it is the failure of the elite and powerful in a society to realize that their views of reality follow from, and support, their positions of power that, in Marx's view, creates ideology. 'Ideology' is an 'upside-down' version of reality. Things are not really the way the elite and powerful believe them to be, rather their beliefs invert reality to make it appear the way they would like it to be, the way it 'needs' to be if their power is to be enhanced and sustained (28). It seems helpful that Gee provides this initial overview, and reminder, of the Marxist definition and conception of ideology because for the remainder of his book, Gee focuses more specifically on language and literacy and how schools and other institutions of powerother ISAs, in Althusser's terminologyexercise language and literacy (28). Like Hall, who explains where and how Althusser steps away from Marx's ideas about ideology, Gee also points-out Marx's shortcomings as he explains that Marx is wrong to assume that those in power see their world through a warped ideological lenses, whereas other people see and experience the world in its actual or real manifestation (29). Gee, showing his true linguist colors, reminds readers that none of us can see or deal with reality without words or other symbols [similar to Brummet's ideas about signs and signifiers]. To discuss and debate even to think aboutreality we have to attach words to it. These words are, as we have seen, always connected to negotiable, changeable, and sometimes contested stories, histories, knowledge, beliefs, and values encapsulated into cultural models (theories) about the world. Nobody looks at the world other than through lenses supplied by language or some other symbol system (29). Gee's articulation, in many ways, resembles that of Nietzsche whom we discussed in our first WRD 500 class session. Gee's initial chapter appears to be an excellent foray for additional research on Marx and, if nothing else, provides a succinct, critical, and evaluative summary of Marx's main points related to ideology. As a stand-alone text on the subject, though, it lacks deep detail into Marxist interpretation, but it is a fine starting point and springboard for additional research into ideology,

Garvey 9

in its pure, traditional Marxist definition. (Search terms: ideology, power, politics, discourse, literacies, linguistics, literacy)

Garvey 10

Hall, Stuart. Signification, Representation, Ideology: Althusser and the Post-Structuralist Debates. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2.2 (1985): 91-114. Print. Hall's article assesses and reflects on Althusser's contribution to the reconceptualization of ideology and argues that Althusser's ideas, breaking away from those originally belonging to Marxism, have enabled a rethinking of ideology in a significantly different way (91). Hall pays particular attention to teasing-out and problematizing Althusser's contributions to the definition of ideology and where (and how) he strayed from the traditional Marxist definition and Althusser's ideas toward Ideological State Apparatuses. Unlike some of the other articles I have elected to feature in this Annotated Bibliography, Hall's work specifically de-contextualizes ideology from politics and issues of power, specific to any one environment, and instead, focuses on talking about Althusser's theoretical implications in the wider, broader scheme of things essentially, in the abstract. Hall also outlines additional, specific ways that Althusser has strayed from the original Marxist definition of ideology. They include being opposed to class reductionism in ideology the notion that there is some guarantee that the ideological position of a social class will always correspond to its position in the social relations of production; arguing that the notion of false consciousness is founded on an empiricist relationship to knowledge and assumes that social relations give their own, unambiguous knowledge to perceiving, thinking subjects; that there is a transparent relationship between the situations in which subjects are placed and how subjects come to recognize and know about them; and finally, insisting that knowledge, whether ideological or scientific, results from the production of a practice, and not from reflecting the real in discourse or language (97-8). Hall further explains what he believes Althusser was espousing about Ideological State Apparatuses: mainly, that they, just like the function of ideology, are meant to reproduce the social relations of production, and it is in the domain of the superstructure that ISAs comprise that such reproduction can take place (98). Hall also challenges Althusser's view of ISAs against the backdrop of Gramsci's ideas toward hegemony, explaining that Gramsci has difficulties in formulating the state/civil society boundary precisely because where it falls is neither a simple nor uncontradictory matter. A critical question in developed liberal democracies is precisely how ideology is reproduced in the so-called private institutions of civil societythe theatre of consentapparently outside of the direct sphere of play of the State itself. If everything is, more or less, under the supervision of the State, it is quite easy to see why the only ideology that gets reproduced is the dominant one (100). This statement is fascinating to consider because in most liberal democracies, wherein the government does not control the media, there nonetheless exist structured biases of the media in terms of their being instructed by the State precisely what to print or allow on television, as Hall explains (100). Despite this lack of steadfast control that many other nations readily experience in much more explicit restrictions (such as government censoring or utilizing a staterun media), in many contexts media nonetheless still do tend to reproduce, quite spontaneously, without compulsion, again and again, accounts of the world constructed within fundamentally the same ideological categories (101). Clearly, this idea of ISAs, like the media, being free-but not reallyto publish or reproduce that which they want has significant political ramifications for notions of power in any given discourse. Althusser's ideas, though not contextualized to a recent political situation or current event, still have significant influence on our understanding of the Marxist conception of

Garvey 11

ideology, and as his ideas toward ISAs revealed, Althusser's notions, even in the abstract, could be extracted to material reality to understand their possible political and power implications. It would be worthwhile to read more of Althusser's primary texts in order to better understand exactly how and where (and why) he strays from the traditional Marxist definition of ideology, and from these readings, I would suspect that I would be able to apply his theories to varying discourses and political backdrops to understand underlying power dynamics at play. (Search terms: ideology, discourse, Althusser, Marx, Ideological State Apparatuses)

Garvey 12

Peet, Richard. Ideology, Discourse, and the Geography of Hegemony: From Socialist to Neoliberal Development in Postapartheid South Africa. Antipode 34.1 (2002): 54-84. Print. Peet examines the trajectory the post-apartheid African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa has engendered, from maintaining a leftist, basic-needs-oriented Reconstruction and Development Programme as the popular foundation for its economic policy to dramatically switching to a rightist, neoliberal Growth, Employment, and Redistribution (GEAR) policy stressing privatization, deregulation, and trade liberalization (54). Peet maintains that South Africa's problem, as elsewhere in the Global South, is the lack of a viable developmental program that achieves economic growth through redistributing incomes and satisfying needs, and he underlines his analysis of the ANC's economic policies within a theory of hegemony and discursive power relations by drawing on Gramscian ideas about hegemony and Foucauldian notions of discourse (55). Additionally, like Fiske and Althusser, Peet maintains that academicinstitutional-media complexes, or AIMs, produce and disseminate power, similarly to Fiske's and Althusser's notions of ISAs (55). Moreover, AIM complexes produce, project, and protect a linked series of discourses that constitute the entire hegemonic ideological formation of a geographic bloc (59). Peet's articulation of Gramsci's ideas related to ideology, that structures of physical means of production and social relations [are] shaped by, and shaping, superstructures of ideology and political organization to form historic blocks wherein intellectuals develop and sustain the mental images, technologies, and organizations that bind strands of the common identity of a hegemonic class seem to coincide with the Marxist understanding of ideology as a process that links individuals to the larger class or society (56). Peet also contributes a definition of globally hegemonic discourse that is defined by a system of political ideas, derived from leading class interpretations of regional experiences, elaborated in coherent, sequential theoretical statements, as with policy formulations, within internationally recognized bodies of experts (57). He notes that hegemonic discourses typically have much depth and power in their ability to lend support to, or severely restrict, approaches or solutions to situations, and he adds that these discourses begin in political and economic command centers, thus underlying their apparently powerful capabilities (57). To this extent, Peet claims that developmentalism as most of us know itthat is closely related to neoliberal norms, proliferated by international lending and development agencies like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fundis a hegemonic discourse captured by neoliberal ideas of privatization, deregulation, and liberalization, all encapsulated within political beliefs about democracy, entrepreneurship, and individual freedom (65). Thus, it seems at least in Peet's estimation that the ANC flipped its developmental approach from leftist to rightist in no small part because of the power and persuasiveness of the AIM complexes that were pervasive to the South African context between the post-apartheid years of 1994-6: despite this new development discourse being utterly unsuited to the conditions prevailing in postapartheid South Africa (66). Though this specific article focuses much more on the policy and historical situations and current realities in post-apartheid South Africa, this discipline and environment, similar to that of political discourse, is another potential in-road for advanced study on the interplay between issues of politics and power, specifically related to discourses and the Marxist notion of ideology. Because Peet grounds his analysis in Foucauldian and Gramscian definitions, it

Garvey 13

(initially) seems beneficial for further study, as it seems that Peet embodies an understanding of ideology closely related to that of the traditional Marxist definition.

(Search terms: ideology, discourse, politics, power, ideological, hegemony, development, postapartheid, South Africa, neoliberalism, African National Congress)