Althussers idea of Ideological State Apparatus is ultimately defined as institutions (churches, schools, even media) influences the individuals belief and values in ways that support the status quo. Its main function is to maintain control of the ruling class.  In contrast to Ideological State Apparatus, Repressive State Apparatus primarily functions through repression, the use of fear and threat by the government, police, military and the prison system. The Repressive State Apparatus operates to enforce “Law & Order” The key difference? The Ideological State Apparatus operates culturally, making you voluntarily obey the system, while the RSA enforces compliance through repression.

My understanding of ideologies is essentially a belief system that ultimately shapes what we value. It is almost a guide for us. It helps inform our choices, viewpoints, and even how we act. Ideology is a way of thinking about how we each personally believe the system that makes up our world should operate. This influences everything from the type of government we support, to the way we spend our money, and even how we engage with societal issues. It informs so much of what we think as far as preferences of economic structures, cultural norms, and even moral/ethical principles we uphold in society. An example of this is a person who believes in socialism would often opt for or advocate for universal healthcare and wealth distribution. While someone with a more capitalist mindset may oppose individuals and businesses keeping their earnings, trusting market competition to be the way to a prosperous society.

An ideology is more than just a set of opinions it’s a cohesive system of beliefs that shapes how we interpret the world, define what matters to us , and determine what kind of society we want to live in. Wether its political, cultural, economical, societal etc.

______________________________________________________

The big differences of both conservatism and liberalism is that one group (liberals) believe that the government should be more involved and active is fixing social and economic problems Such as universal health care, student loan forgiveness, social programs to reduce poverty. Alot of the beliefs surrounding basic human rights. They see it as the governments duty to create a more fair and equal society. While according to the Political Ideology : Crash Course Government & Politics “American conservatives believe in the free market and that it will provide the greatest economic opportunity and benefit to the greatest number of people.” So an example would be supporting private health care. We also see this with gun control. Conservatives strongly believe in their Second Amendment right and feel that gun ownership should be less restricted. Liberals often contest this.

How I’ve always understood conservative and liberal ideology in US politics is that conservatives tend to favor preserving tradition. While liberals are more in favor of progression. What divides both groups comes down to cover values, what they tend to prioritize. This is an oversimplification. Not all conservatives or liberals fit neatly into those categories. Its fluid. Some conservatives might support things like social reforms and some liberals may support things like individual responsibility. In the video the term Ideological Apparatus was mentioned – “Is that you do not think about inequality and you don’t do anything to change it except by approved channels” This line stood out to me because I think Althussers point is that schools, media, religion train us to accept inequality/injustice as normal. When we try to challenge these things we are steered towards “safe” or alternative solutions. like voting. Which doesn’t really change the system. His point is that ideology is the reason we obey things without question.

1. M. Alexander claims that the main explanation of why so many people are sent to jail in the U.S. today is deeply wrong. Explain her argument by referring to the various examples she mentions to backup her point.

• In the section “Birth of Mass Incarceration” Alexanders discusses that civil disobedience was a leading cause of crime. Protesting was deemed as criminal and not political. She mentions that the FBI was reporting inaccurately statistics to further support their own agenda that society wasnt safe because of racial integration. The narrative worsen following the assassination of Martin Luher King Jr. “The racial imagery associated with the riots gave fuel to the argument that civil rights for blacks led to rampant crime”(41) as she states. Essentially Michelle Alexander argues that the system is deeply flawed and that the political backlash stems from the Civil Rights Movement. The mass incarceration was never a reaction to actual crime but rather activism.

2. Why is it that racial disparities in the rates of incarceration “cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes”?

Racial disparities in incarceration cannot be explained by rates of drug crimes because as mentioned in the reading, the War on drugs was launched in 1982 before crack cocaine became a public issue or a crisis in black communities. This highlights that the drug war was not a response to the increase in drug use. This was used to justify policies that disproportionately targeted black people. Its selective policing the results in the racial disparities in the rates of incarceration

3. How do you understand the phrase: “the American penal system has emerged as a system of social control unparalleled in world history.”?

I believe what she means by this is that the American legal system exist to control certain groups. In this case. Mass incarceration is more of a political strategy than it is reducing crime rates. When Alexander says “unparalleled in world history” I feel like she emphasizing that there is no place that operates like the US as far as disproportionately targeting and in prisoning black people. Almost as the whole existence of the American legal system is disguise for this.

Why do think Southern racist politicians chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through the language of “law and order”? What special advantages was this choice of words going to give them?
This stuck out to me. I think the reason why racist politician chose to frame their defense of racial segregation through polished langue like “Law and order” was to avoid using overt racist language and establish legitimacy while they were still appealing to racism. It was a way for them to disguise racism as concern. It allowed them to still maintain white supremacy under the guise of justice during the post-civil rights America when open racism wasn’t really acceptable.

Do you think the Southern Strategy is still influencing American politics? Give an example supporting your answer.

I dont think it stopped. It just evolved. Even Michelle Alexander talks about how the Republican Party used racial backlash in the South as a political strategy to gain support among white voters who were angry about the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation. We see this now even with immigration…We where politicians stoke fears about “border invasions” and “migrant crime”Its like a modern version of the same racialize fear tactics.