Page 62 - Critical and Cultural Theory

REPRESENTATION
conformity and uniformity. These, in turn, give rise to representa-
tions that promote the desirability of sameness, of all things fitting
in neatly with one another. This process of homogenization, often
misconstrued as a democratic move, has the effect of effacing
cultural differences and of collapsing them into a specious notion
of the norm. Differences, and the very right to difference, are
harnessed to a corporate identity that elides the 'other'. 7 Bene-
tton's publicity campaigns, with their more or less predictable
variations on the theme of 'United Colours', bear witness to this
assimilating trend. Here, as Christine Boyer points out, 'everyone
is supposedly brought together under one huge multicultural
banner that transcends all divisions'. Yet, this is only 'an illusion
of a happy ending' that works by 'suppressing the acceptance of
real differences that painfully still exist' (Boyer 1996: 121).
The coalescence of representation and ideology results in legion
myths that translate identities into images. Ultimately, therefore,
what the study of representation highlights is the mediated charac-
ter of cultural existence. What might once have been regarded as
lived experience is increasingly transferred to the realm of images.
However, as Guy Debord stresses, images should not be dismissed
as a flimsy and superficial spectacle for they actually embody
social relations. At the same time, they ask us to reflect upon the
relationship between what we perceive and what we know. The
concept of representation has invariably played an important part
in debates concerned with this issue - an issue that has engaged
philosophers, cultural theorists, linguists and critics for as long as
language and interpretation have been under scrutiny. Let us look
at some of the problems raised by those debates.
Representation has been traditionally associated with concepts
of resemblance and imitation. Objects are supposed to have two
images: their actual images and the mental images of them
produced by various individuals. The latter can be thought of in
various ways: e.g. as intellectual abstractions, as ideals or as fanta-
sies. Various questions arise from this approach. What enables us
to differentiate amongst different representations? How can we
account for their reality? Is a conscious representation somehow
more real than a dream or hallucination? If so, why? Is there any
reliable way of knowing what other people's mental representa-

7 •*" This theme is examined in Part II, Chapter 5, The Other'.

45