Monday 28 January 2008

ALTHUSSER ON IDEOLOGY

FOR THE PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION GROUP
TITLE: - ALTHUSSER ON IDEOLOGY
DATE: - MONDAY 3RD DECEMBER, 1984

BY


M.M. YUSIF

In his polemic with Duhring, Engel’s described the theory of materialist conception of history as one major discovery of Marx. But between the period from which this discovery dates and our time the foundations of Marx’s conception of history collapsed as rapidly as possible. To be more precise, the materialist conception of history no longer actually gives a specifically materialist history. This deviation is not difficult to understand. On the one hand, liberal bourgeoisie historiography proceeded as if history could only be derived only from facts, and that consciousness develops outside material basis of existence. On the other hand Marxism is vulgarised with an apparent tendency of retreating into ‘historicist formalism’ in which theory contained in Marxist conception of history is threatened to be submerged into immutable empiricisms.

In fact, as we know, our discussions of ideology in previous meetings, had been battling to come to grips with this problematic. Once more, the present discussion is mainly concerned with another aspect of ideology. That is the relations of ideology to classes and class struggles in bourgeoisie society. This further raise the question of relations between superstructure and substructure and involves locating classes to different ideologies, and of defining the locus of class struggles, in the face of different class ideologies, in bourgeoisie society. Meanwhile, for purpose of discussion, we departed from Dr. Barongo’s conception of ideology which he stated “as an action – oriented, more or less coherent body of ideas about society held, more or less consciously articulated by some large group of people”. Because, as Goran Therborn noted.
“Forms of consciousness that are set out in more or less coherent doctrines are either unimportant in the organization of, and struggles for power, or are merely self-evident, pragmatic common sense, as in the notorious end of ideology thesis” (Therborn: 1980:5)

Theoretically, this conception also seems to clash sharply with any possibility of finding a materialist determination of ideology.

A summary glance at the Marx’s works in The German Ideology and a contribution to the critique of political economy show that Marx ascribed two distinct meanings to ideology. According to one of these, ideology is seen from a point of view of a process of transformation of society. Here Marx noted that:
“The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense supper-structure. In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a transformation by its consciousness, but on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production” (Marx: 1970:21)

In point of fact, the above quotation explicitly disputes the conception of ideology provided in Dr. Barongo’s discussion paper. But elsewhere in German Ideology, Marx’s second conception of ideology emerge. Here Marx desired to put Hegel on his head, to emancipate consciousness from Hegelian Myth “and to proceed to the formation of pure theory, philosophy, ethic, etc” (Marx: 1970:52) for proletarian class struggle. When Marx conceives ideology as “false consciousness” in bourgeoisie society, and foresee the emergence of “correct consciousness” in the course of proletarian class struggle, he did not separate the emergence of “correct consciousness” from the totality of contradictions in social relations. As he stated
“Even if this theory, theology, philosophy, ethics, etc. comes into contradiction with existing social relations, this can only occur because existing social relation have come into contradiction with existing forces of production…” (Marx: 1970:52)

In his historist tradition, Al Thusser, (like Lukaces whom we discussed last week) cannot see the totality of the dialectical relations between super-structure and sub-structure in the course of class struggle in bourgeoisie society. Even in a self-critique of his earlier work, when he wished to return to Marx, Al thusser argued that:
“And although the German Ideology encourages this (referring to notion of ideology as illusion) confusion, Marx did after all overcome it and so made it easier for us to avoid the trap” (al thusser: 1973:119(. And just as if Marx started as a bourgeoisie ideologue, Al thusser further stated that
Marx:
“was only able to break with bourgeoisie ideology In its totality because he took inspiration from the basic ideas of proletarian ideology, ad from the first class struggles of the proletariat, in which this ideology become flesh and blood (Al thusser: 1973:121).

Inherent for this contempt for Marx, Al thusserian concept of ideology as premised on Hegelianised thesis of Marx that the dominant ideology in any society is the ideology of the ruling class’. Basically this tended to subject sub-structure to super-structure; a class to ideology. This inter-pollation not only has for Al thusser “the function of transforming in an imaginary way the individual into a subject, but also of carrying out his self-subjection to the dominant system, and thus ensuring social reproduction as a whole” (Laclau: 1977:101).

Al thusser, even cited extensively, the work of Marx in capital volume II, where Marx discussed that, the bourgeoisie society, just like every social formation must reproduce conditions of its production at the same time as it produces, in order to be able to produce. In addition to the reproduction of means of production, is foremost the reproduction of labour power. But for Al thusser, the reproduction of labour power in capitalist society.
“is only (emphasis mine) achieved more and more outside production; by the capitalist education system, and by other instances and institutions” (Al thusser, 1971:132).

Within this general framework:
“… the reproduction of labour requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling-class in words” (Al thusser, 1969:132:133).

It is worthy for us, at this stage to state the position of Al thusser on ideology and class struggle. In line with theoretical error, Al thusser said that:
“the ideological state apparatus may not only be the state, but also the site of class struggle, and often of bitter forms of class struggle” (Al thusser, 1971:147).


In a characteristic Gramscian perspective, Al thusser introduces a theoretical break between control of “state power” and control of “repressive state apparatus”. According to him a repressive state apparatus “may survive political events which attack the possession of state power” (Al thusser, 1969:140). To validate his error he even made reference to Russian revolution when he said:
“Even after a social revolution like that of 1917, a large part of the state apparatus survived after the seizure of state power by the alliance of the proletariat and the small peasantry” (Al thusser, 1971: 141).

In this context, a revolutionary strategy of the proletariat must be based exclusively against the ideological state apparatus (Al thusser, 1971:147). And thus, the working-class may gain ideological dominance, even without conquest of political power. This goes against the Marxist–Leninist thesis, that the working-class could only gain ideological domination after conquest of political power.


Bibliography
1. Antonio Gramsci, Selections from Prison Notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971.
2. Carl Boggs, Gramscis Marxism, Pluto Press, London, 1976
3. Ernesto Laclau, Politics and Ideology in Marxist Theory, New Left Books, London, 1977
4. Goran Therborn, The Ideology of Power and the Power of Ideology, New Left Books, London, 1980
5. Karl Marx, A Contribution to the critique of Political Economy, Progress publishers, Moscow, 1970
6. Karl Marx, Capital Vol. 2, Penguin Books, Middlescx England, 1978
7. Karl Marx, and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, Lowrence and Wisherd, London, 1970.
8. Louis Al thusser, “Ideology and Ideological State apparatus” in his Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays, Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1971.
9. Louis Al thusser, Essays on Self-Criticism New Left Books, London, 1976.
10. Nicos Poulartias, Political Power and Social Classes, New Left Books, London, 1973.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.