Ideology and cynical distance

Thanks to Dan for highlighting Terranova's reformulation of ideology (Zizek-style) -- this is a key component of her argument and perhaps addresses some of the class themes we've been discussing. I'm not quite sure that the move here -- the location of ideology in practices rather than ideas -- escapes the problem of condescension rather than deferring it (aren't we misrecognizing our practices?), but it seems worth a try. How convincing is this account? I don't think it makes much sense unless it's situated against the background of the "real" of capital (that she references in chapter 4), but that could just be me. Specifically, this move allows Dean to argue that "the valorization of fragmentation and contingency" benefits "global capital b prventing it from being understood as a totalizing modality of power" (8). Anyone interested in launching a critique of Dean's critique of ideology? It's perhaps worth noting here the difference between a totalizing modality and totalization itself (is there one? -- that is to say, one might imagine the possibility of a modality that strives for totalization (such as, for example, "all connections between various forms of oppression are necessarily contingent) that nevertheless fails to achieve totality." OK, I'm messing around a bit -- just wanted to point out the totalizing character of the assertion of universal contingency.