Introduction Part 3

How does you personal ideology (and the personal ideologies of others) affect reading?

Ideologies are inescapable.  Everyone has them, and everyone is subject to reading with a bias because of them.  One definition of ideology states that "The term ideology usually refers to ideology as a systematic, elaborated and delimited system of thought, like political ideologies or religious doctrines" (Schmid).  There are many noteworthy critical literary theorists,  that have discussed this principle of ideologies and how it relates to the study of literature including Terry Eagleton, David Richter, and Fredric Jameson.

On his website, Dino Franco Felluga discusses some of Jameson's views on ideologies and the inescapable nature of them.  Felluga says, “We may not be able to get out of ideological contradiction altogether; however, Jameson asserts the importance of attempting, nonetheless, to acknowledge the real antagonisms that are, in fact, driving our fantasy constructions.”  Though no one can get away of their personal ideologies, Jameson, according to Felluga, says that it is important to at least try.


My own ideology validates these ideas.  Let me give some examples.


Religion
This is the biggest contributor to the ideologies that affect how I read.  I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Being a part of this church has greatly influenced the way I perceive the world.  It has been the basis for my set of moral values and ideologies.  The most basic tenant I hold is my belief in God.  So, whether a work of literature expresses His existence or not affects how valid I believe the work to be.  That is why it is hard for me to read, for example, The Stranger by Albert Camus, because of its flagrant disregard of all things moral.  I also have a really hard time with works that swear.  That is why I have not been able to get myself to read The Catcher in the Rye, and my one issue when I read Of Mice and Men (or any other work by Steinbeck).  Religion is definitely a huge contributor to how I read and analyze literature.


Political
I grew up in a politically conservative household against gay rights and social security.  It is therefore, hard for me to sympathize with a work of literature that spouts off radically liberal ideologies.  I almost immediately disregard ideas that proclaim to save the whales by driving a horse and buggy.


Socioeconomic Status
I come from a upper middle class background.  I grew up in a great town filled with people that were of the same socioeconomic status as myself.  It can definitely be said that I grew up in a bubble.  Therefore, it is hard for me to relate with, for example, a work of literature set in the heart of East LA or  the skyscrapers of New York City.  Try as I might to understand, I cannot relate with literature that relate the hardships of slavery or poverty.  I see the world through a lens that if people work hard, they can earn a good living, that gender and race do not detract from a person's potential to succeed.  This affects the way I perceive literature.


Teachers/Professors

In my own experience, I find that I put weight on the opinions of people I respect, namely professors and teachers.  Their views affect the development of my own.  Sometimes I find that the weight I placed on their opinions gave me impressions that I do not actually hold when I scrutinize a work in a different context.
For example, I had a really great AP Literature teacher my senior year of high school.  He mentioned Harold Bloom in class several times.  From what it sounded like, Bloom was a brilliant critic with whose opinions I would support and agree.  I had a very positive impression of Bloom when first entering my English 251 class.  This viewpoint held until I actually read one of Bloom's articles ("Elegiac Conclusions").  Yes, it is true, Bloom is brilliant, but I found myself disagreeing with much of what he said.  He sounded like a crotchety, old-school critic.  He seemed narrow minded and uber conservative.