Conclusion: Discourse<sub>,</sub> Ideology<sub>,</sub> and Spirit
The central category analyzed in this study is that of discourse, but there are two additional, closely related concepts that are discussed in the book: ideology and spirit. The genealogy of ideology, spirit, and discourse in the history of ideas is as diverse as the history of social thought itself. Ideology is traced back to Marx, spirit to Weber, and discourse to Foucault. Ideology is a structuralist concept, spirit focuses on agency, and discourse is derived from poststructuralist thought. Ideology points to a divergence between truth and (both common and false) knowledge; spirit—to the meanings that shape social action; discourse—to knowledge that becomes truth through practice and power. But they all share a common sensibility that is at the heart of this book. Discourse, ideology, and spirit point to the social function of knowledge; in all of them knowledge is treated not simply as a function of cognitive reflection but as closely intertwined with social practices.
To some degree, discourse, ideology, and spirit—as well as hegemony (Gramsci 1971), mythology (Lévi-Strauss 1963; Barthes 1972), and doxa (Bourdieu 2003)—engage the legitimation function of knowledge. They all point to the characteristics of a particular type of knowledge that is socially embedded, intertwined with practice, self-evident, a priori, and axiomatic. Such knowledge is resistant to scrutiny precisely because it is woven into deeper constructs, such as an “outlook,” or “identity” (Ram
40
Media and New Capitalism in the Digital Age