(Tom Myers, 2006)
It is therefore imperative that a distinction between an ideological society and a non-ideological or post-ideological society should be made for purposes of discussing Zizek's view. In the former, politics is subjugated by the exploration for ultimate societal goal, the ideals and aspiration to realize a particular conception of the better society. It is a society where a dominant view of the better life is dispersed through society and influences people's consciousness. This process assumes different category, ranging from the totalitarian societies of fascism and Stalinist communism to liberal societies where concepts of ideological hegemony is sought.
However, in present day society, the issues of political debate can no longer be fixed within the parameters of any single ideology. Over the centuries, society evolved to a much liberated system from a massive framework. Nevertheless, there is a clash between the politics of identity and the politics of ideology: the former explores in political action the recognition of the particular interests and goals of the individual, or cultural group. Ideological politics, on the other hand manifests in a collective manner of public action. The domain of ideological politics is geared towards total social transformation. However, modern political life does not operate anymore in like manner, but of fragmented or piecemeal basis, i.e., particular groups working its way for recognition, special interests claiming that governments take action to their demands (John Schwarzmantel, 2004). To these, Zizek view of the shape of politics in the contemporary society is anything but ideological.
That the apparent fact of the perils of ideological politics in their totalitarian form paves way to a disparate reaction which receives the politics of difference and diversity is easily contested by Zezik. If ideologies would lead to the destruction of pluralism, then a healthy and diverse society has no place in a myriad of ideologies which seek to manipulate such diversity into one ideal. Ideologies seeks to present one ideal of a better society and attempts to reorient or direct different aspects of life towards one goal. Thus, an ideological movement is a collective movement, which stimulates people's loyalty, influences their emotions through the employment of myth and symbolism. It seeks to captivate state power to oblige that goal on the whole of society. Hence, the proponents of what Zezik's opposes acknowledge that ideological movements are not recognizable entities in the present society. (Tom Myers, 2006) Thus, its proponents insist that we have moved to a different kind of society which can be appropriately termed as post-ideological. However, Zezik's views differ on this as may be perused in his views as discussed below.
Points de Capiton
The question thus Zizek asks about ideology is that what maintains an ideological field of meaning consistent This is because of the fact that signifiers are dynamic and are prone to take its meaning to variousninterpretation. So how does ideology maintains its consistency The answer to this question is that a given ideological field is "quilted" by what he terms a point de capiton or the "anchoring point". Zisek argues that a point de capiton is a signifier which averts meaning from moving about inside the ideological quilt. A point de capiton provides identity to an ideological fi