In Karl Marx’s “The German Ideology”, he writes about his perception of society and challenges many ideologies of his day. Marx refers to a collection of concepts, values, and beliefs that are formed within a society and such a society functions this way in order to uphold and defend the current social and economic structure as an “ideology”. Marx believes that those who are active within a society must maintain a relationship with the creation of social and political framework. This relationship between the social and political framework must work simultaneously, all while maintaining a social withstanding. To support this point, Marx states, “The fact is, therefore, that certain individuals who are productively active in a specific way enter into these specific social and political relations” (659). According to Marxist theory, ideologies are molded by material circumstances of society, especially regarding the economic hierarchy of classes. He contends that by justifying the injustices and the inequality installed within the social structure. Marx says, “Consciousness can never be anything other than conscious existence, and men’s actual life process is consciousness,” (660). Marx is referring to the belief that society focuses on material and unrealistic ideologies instead of framing such a society around reality.

Marx also uses the camera obscura as an analogy to highlight how such an ideology changes the concept of reality. A camera obscura is an optical instrument that projects an inverted image of the outside world onto its surface. Marx suggests that social ideologies work in a similar manner, where it offers society a warped or sort of reversed image of reality. Mark proceeds to state, the starting point in his first approach technique is that consciousness is understood as the living individual. In the second approach method, the real living individuals themselves are the starting point and consciousness is understood as their consciousness alone. Society’s ideology perpetuates a status quo and gives more a distorted view, or image, of society by hiding the realistic nature of class relations. Marx’s analogy to a camera obscura draws attention to the idea of the dominant ideology that shapes people’s perceptions and understanding of the outside world, all while preserving the privilege of the ruling class.

Karl Marx’s “The German Ideology,” a seminal work in Marxist philosophy, develops his materialist understanding of history and challenges the idealism ideologies of his day. Marx refers to the collection of concepts, values, and beliefs that form within a society and function to uphold and defend the current social and economic structure as “ideology.” “The fact is, therefore, that certain individuals who are productively active in a specific way enter into these specific social and political relations,” A said on page 659. The relationship between the social and political framework and production must be demonstrated objectively, in each unique case, and free from misunderstanding or conjecture. According to Marxist theory, ideologies are molded by the material circumstances of society, especially the economic relationships between classes, rather than being objective representations of reality. He contends that by hiding or justifying the injustices and inequities ingrained in the social structure, the prevailing ideologies frequently advance the goals of the ruling class. “Consciousness can never be anything other than conscious existence, and men’s actual life process is consciousness,” the Marx describes on page 660. If men and their circumstances appear upside down in all ideologies, as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon stems from their historical life process in the same way as objects on the retina appear upside down in our physical lives.

Marx uses the “Camera obscura” analogy to highlight how ideology warps reality. An optical instrument that projects an inverted image of the outside world onto a surface is called a camera obscura. Marx suggests that ideologies work in a similar way, offering a warped or reversed picture of reality. Page 660 “Life determines consciousness, not the other way around. The starting point in the first approach technique is consciousness understood as the living individual; in the second approach method, which is more in line with reality, the real living individuals themselves are the starting point, and consciousness is understood as their consciousness alone. The ideology perpetuates the status quo and gives a skewed picture of society by hiding the true nature of class relations. Marx’s concept of ideology and the analogy to a camera obscura draw attention to the idea that dominant ideology shapes people’s perceptions and understanding of the outside world, hence preserving the privilege and power of the ruling class. They maintain a false consciousness among the downtrodden classes and hide the actual nature of social relations.

Roland Barthes addresses two main points in his essay “The Eiffel Tower.” The tower both functions as a visual aid and as a spectacle to see. Two important points are emphasized by Barthes: the tower as a sight to behold and the tower as a means of observation. These two distinct dimensions are important because they capture the intricate interplay between perception, culture, and architecture. As a sight, the tower represents modernism and advancement. Millions of tourists are impacted by it as they arrive to be amazed by its immense size, complex architecture, and historical significance. It is a sight that demands admiration and attention, attracting visitors from all over the world to take in its magnificence. On page 4 “it touches the most general human image-repertoire: its simple, primary shape confers upon it the vocation of an infinite cipher: in turn and according to the appeals of our imagination, the symbol of Paris, of modernity, of communication, of science or of the nineteenth century.” The Eiffel tower is depicted as a tool for looking, implying that it is used as a viewpoint for taking in Paris’s skyline as well as an object of observation. Its raised observation deck offers tourists a distinctive viewpoint. They feel superior and detached from the landmark. The Tower’s dual character creates tension because, in addition to providing a platform for observation, it also turns into an object of observation. Between the pair’s interaction blurs the lines between subject and object, resulting in a paradoxical relationship between the observer and the observed. It is possible to interpret gazing from the tower as a kind of control or surveillance that upholds social hierarchies and power structures.

 Essentially, Barthes’ emphasis on the tower as a spectacle and an instrument for observation draws attention to the complex relationship that exists between perception, architecture, and power structures in society. It draws attention to the difficulties that come with observing and prompts discussion on the cultural value of architectural icons. Page 16 states, “The Tower is not a sacred monument, and no taboo can forbid a commonplace life to develop there, but there can be no question, nonetheless, of a trivial phenomenon here.” When viewed from the outside, the tower offers a distinct ambiance and setting, and once within, one’s perspective on it is altered. How much of an impact may it have on them and what true relevance does it hold?