Talk:Interpellation (philosophy)

[Untitled]
On May 9, this article was nominated for deletion. The discussion can be found at Votes for deletion/Interpellation. The result was keep. &mdash; Xezbeth 18:47, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's a good thing that it was kept as "interpellation" is a significant term in the field of cultural studies and this brief sentence is a reminder of the term's basic meaning. 132.216.228.89 21:45, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Unintelligibility
I don't understand the neo-Marxist section at all, but have no expectations that I will despite anyone's editorial efforts. I have more hope for the social sciences sense, which I know is fairly widely used in Anthropology. Could someone expand that a bit? DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * agreed, I am having a hard time understanding this. I would love to see an example given. Or some simplified description or summary? --24.218.56.30 (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree also. I am none the wiser as to what interpellation is, except that it wasn't introduced by Foucault.  An example - any example - would be helpful. 131.111.17.19 (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's 2018 and this article still makes little useful sense. Could someone knock it into shape? The Guardian gives this, in case it helps (and is accurate): "We can also learn from Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation. The basic idea is that you can get people to internalise beliefs by addressing them as if they already had those beliefs. Twenty years ago nobody believed that cash was “inconvenient”, but every time I walk into London Underground I see adverts that address me as if I was a person who finds cash inconvenient." Malick78 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * It is now 2020, and the article as it was told me absolutely nothing about what interpellation is. I have tried to fix this, but as I am not an expert on the topic, my understanding might be wrong. If anyone who knows more about it was able to crosscheck and if needed fix (ideally without making it wholly impossible to read again) the sentence I added, that would be great. Halcy (talk) 13:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Plagiarism?
This article seems to begin with direct plagiarism from Douglas B. Holt How Brands Become Icons Harvard Business Press, 2004. p1. I am not a wikipedia editor and have no intention of becoming one over this issue, but am bringing it to your attention. 204tutor (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for bringing up your concern. Can you please specify the passage you see as problematic? I am comparing page 1 of that book with this article, and I'm afraid that I do not see the problem. If you can note the specific text in our article that troubles you, it would be very helpful in isolating what I am evidently overlooking. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Explanation for a sentence
Can someone explains this:


 * When the individual recognizes the system that they are working within, such as the creation of gender while clothing shopping of cross dressing, they interpellate themselves.

Keeping it here for the time being, but will transfer here in talk in a very short time. It isn't clear. Santa Sangre


 * I can guess what the intended meaning is, but the sentence isn't grammatically correct, and I don't think that its a good example of interpellation anyway (if I'm reading it correctly). -Seth Mahoney 21:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I deleted this sentence; I also deleted the sentence "One may note that it is exactly Althusser's meaning, isolated from his critical theory on Ideological State Apparatuses " from the following section. If someone can clarify or correct, they can obviously go back, but sentences like this make the article less comprehensible.  SlipperyN 02:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is a typo "...while clothing shoppping or cross dressing" The sentence should come back, because it's a hepful example.--89.202.163.174 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Guilt
Why is guilty in this sentence linked? "the police act of interpellating someone: "Hey you!", and the subsequent turning backward of the guilty subject(person)"

The link leads to an article that first and foremost pertains to fact. That goes against his whole argument, the "guilty" person doesn't turn around because he/she has actual guilty reasons for doing so, but rather due to the hegemonic power of the Ideological State Apparatus which Boal refers to at the "cops in your head".

A Calque?
The word appears to be a calque. If that is correct, would it be helpful to put this into the article? --Wikiain (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)