Louis Althusser: Structural Marxism

Louis Pierre Althusser was one of the most influential Marxist philosophers of the 20th century. As it was intended to offer a renewal of Marxist thought as well as to render Marxism philosophically respectable, the claims he advanced in the 1960s about Marxist philosophy were discussed and debated worldwide. Despite being anthologised and translated during the mid-1990s, there has, until recently, been relatively little critical attention paid to Althusser’s writings prior to 1961. His contribution to Marxist tradition by reviving Marxist theories is useful to sociological understanding. Thus it tries to put light on various Althusser’s theories that pave a new way of understanding Marxism.
1.      Theories of State
The State is a ‘machine’ of repression, which enables the ruling classes to ensure their domination over the working class; the State is thus understood as a repressive apparatus. According to Althusser, this presentation of the nature of the State is still partly descriptive. This descriptive theory of the State according to him is without a shadow of doubt the irreversible beginning of the theory and this descriptive form in which the theory is presented requires, precisely as an effect of this ‘contradiction’, a development of the theory which goes beyond the form of ‘description’.
Thus the descriptive theory of the State represents a phase in the constitution of the theory which itself demands the ‘supersession’ of this phase. For Althusser, every descriptive theory runs the risk of ‘blocking’ the development of the theory, and yet the development is essential. Therefore, in order to understand further the mechanisms of the State in its functioning, it is indispensable to add something to the classical definition of the State as a State Apparatus.
2.      Reproduction
Marx explained historical materialism by bringing in the concept of modes of production. Modes of production consist of means of production and relations of production. Means of production consists of land, natural resources, technology, labour that are necessary for the production of material goods. Relations of production on the other hand consist of social relationships people enter into as they acquire and use the means of production. Marx observed that within any given society, the mode of production changes as the means of production and relations of production change. The ultimate condition of production according to Marx is the reproduction of the conditions of production.
In relation to the productive forces, Althusser puts light on another dimension – the reproduction of labour power. The reproduction of labour power reveals not only the reproduction of its skills but also the reproduction of its subjection to the ruling class ideology or of the practise of that ideology as it is in the forms and under the forms of ideological subjection that provision is made for the reproduction of the skills of labour power.
a.       Repressive State Apparatus and Ideological State Apparatuses
The role of the repressive State apparatus consists of essentially in securing by force the political conditions of the reproduction of relations of production which are in the last resort relations of exploitation. Apart from this, the Ideological State Apparatuses largely secure the reproduction of the relations of production behind a ‘sheild’ provided by the repressive State apparatus. It is here that the role of the ruling ideology is heavily concentrated, on the ideology of the ruling class, which holds State power. It is the intermediation of the ruling ideology that ensures a harmony between the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses, and between the different Ideological State Apparatuses. It is this interconnectedness created by the ruling class that leads to the reproduction of relations of production.
3.      Revolutionary Science
Althusser tries to represent a new point of departure from Marxist theory. His new departure is achieved by a reinterpretation of old texts in the course of which he elaborates an abstract theoretical system supposed to represent a statement of correct Marxist science and theory. This reinterpretation is not merely passive, but one in which Althusser brings his own knowledge and his training in philosophy to bear so that one has both Althusser’s restatement of classical Marxism together with insights and theories of his own. Althusser’s goal is to establish a certain image and interpretation of Marxism, from the point of view of both form (the epistemological status of Marxism) and content (the actual discoveries which Marxist science has made). His main focus has been an investigation of Marxist philosophy, particularly epistemology- the theory of knowledge. In his own terminology, he is concerned with a ‘theory about theory’ and a theory of science.
Althusser holds the epistemological position that all questions of knowledge and action are best answered by the methods of the natural sciences and the natural sciences on their own can explain any and all phenomena. Although Althusser certainly endorsed scientific practice, he did not believe that all questions of knowledge and action are best answered by the methods of natural sciences. For instance, he argued that artistic and philosophical practices can produce critical awareness of the world and that these practices can even lead to social transformations. He also did not think that the natural sciences can explain or give the truth of any phenomenon or that the social world and its history can be explained wholly by appeal to the laws of the natural world. He believed even less that the social sciences could give us the truth of ourselves, of our individual and collective natures, or of our future social and economic arrangements. Therefore, his work does not exactly fit in the definition of scientism.
According to Althusser, Marxist science or historical materialism differs from other social sciences in terms of its object, the history of class struggle, and in terms of its method, which is synthetic and critical. However, it does not differ in terms of being a science as it makes use of a body of concepts and abstractive practices including experimentation, observation, and quantification to develop new knowledge. This new awareness and this new knowledge of social relations is practical knowledge or knowledge for practice. Insofar it is correct, it allows us to change ourselves and to change our world. This according to Althusser is revolutionary science where science for him is historical materialism.
4.      Politics
Althusser equated politics to ideology. In ‘The German Ideology’, ideology is conceived of as a pure illusion, a pure dream, i.e. as nothingness. All its reality is external to it. Ideology is thus thought to be an imaginary construction. According to Althusser, ideology for Marx is an imaginary assemblage, a pure dream, empty and vain, constituted by the ‘day’s residues’ from the only full and positive reality, that of the concrete history of concrete material individuals materially producing their existence. Thus Althusser summarizes this by putting light on two important points:
a.       Ideology is nothing in so far as it is a pure dream (manufactured by who knows what power: if not by the alienation of the division of labour, but that, too, is a negative determination).
b.      Ideology has no history, which emphatically does not mean that there is no history in it (on the contrary, for it is merely the pale, empty and inverted reflection of real history) but that it has no history of its own.
In order to understand the structure and functioning of ideology, Althusser postulates three theses:
i)        Ideology is a ‘Representation’ of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.
For Althusser it is impossible to escape ideology. One is subjected to it. He states that “Ideology has a material existence”. Different ideologies like religion, legal, political etc. constitute different world views. “Assuming we are not living in all these ideologies the ‘world outlooks’ become imaginary. But even if they don’t correspond to reality (illusion) they allude to it (allusion)”. But he states, “it is not their real conditions of existence, their real world, that ‘men’ ‘represent to themselves’ in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them there”
It is not their real conditions of existence, their real world, that ‘men’ ‘represent to themselves’ in ideology, but above all it is their relation to those conditions of existence which is represented to them. It is this relation which is at the centre of every ideological, i.e. imaginary, representation of the real world. It is this relation that contains the ‘cause’ which has to explain the imaginary distortion of the ideological representation of the real world. In order to advance the thesis, it is necessary to advance the thesis in which it is the imaginary nature of the relations which underlies all the imaginary distortion that we can observe in all ideology. To speak in a Marxist sense, if it is true that the representation of the real conditions of existence of the individuals occupying the posts of agents of production, exploitation, repression, ideologisation and scientific practice arise from the relations of production, it can be said that all ideologies represent in its necessarily imaginary distortion not the existing relations of production relationship of individuals to the relations of production and the relations that derive from them. What is represented in ideology is therefore not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live.
ii)      Ideology has a material existence
The second aspect concerns the materiality of ideology. Althusser states that ideology has a material existence. That is “an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices. This existence is material”. Ideology is not just a set of ideas but it has a materiality in that the actions and decisions made by the individual are a result of his/her ideological socialization and orientation.
iii)    Ideology interpellants individuals as subjects.
Althusser makes a distinction between the individual and the subject. It is ideology that changes the former into the latter. He says, “all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects”. He gives the example of the police hailing an individual as “Hey, you there!” In responding to this call, the individual will turn around and in this process he “becomes a subject.” “Why? because he has recognized that the hail was ‘really’ addressed to him, and that ‘it was really him who was hailed’”. In this sense, the individual is “always-already” a subject. But, there is also another process involved in creating the subject. He gives the example from Christianity and its religious ideology. In this world view there is one Supreme Subject and several ordinary subjects. The ideology here presupposes a central Supreme Being in whose name other individuals are transformed into subjects. The human individual accepts and carries out rituals as a free subject without questioning the “interpellating ideology.” As he states “the subject recognizes itself as subject only because it subjects itself to the central Absolute Subject, which provides the possibility of this recognition, and circumscribes the forms of subjection in which the subject is constituted”. The human individual accepts and carries out rituals as a free subject without questioning the “interpellating ideology.” What is interesting is the fact that the subject sees its subjecthood as natural but it is this naturalness that Althusser states is the role played by ideology. There is a double bind here. That is, in order to be a subject who feels free one has to ironically enough subject oneself to the “Absolute Subject.”
OR
There is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects. There is no ideology except for concrete subjects, and this destination for ideology is only made possible by the subject: by the category of the subject and it’s functioning. The category of the subject is constitutive of all ideology insofar as all ideology has the function of ‘constituting’ concrete individuals as subjects. In the interaction of this double constitution exists the functioning of all ideology, ideology being nothing but its functioning in the material forms of existence of that functioning. All ideology hails or interpellants concrete individuals as concrete subjects, by functioning of the category of the subject. Ideology acts or functions in such a way that it recruits subjects among the individuals or transforms the individuals into subjects by the very precise operation known as interpellation. Also, individuals are always – already subjects. They are subjects even before they are born.
5.      Relative Autonomy
Althusser argues that Marx sees society as ‘infrastructure’ (economic base, forces of production and relations of production) and ‘superstructure’ which has two levels, political legal (law and the state) and ideological. The superstructure cannot exist independently of the base. In the last instance the base determines the superstructure. Althusser suggests that this leads to two different Marxist emphases:
a.       ‘Relative autonomy’ of the superstructure.
b.      ‘Reciprocal action’ of the superstructure on the base.
Here for Althusser, there is no simple economic determination but a complex relationship between base and the superstructure such that while base determines superstructure in the last instance, there is a relative autonomy of superstructure from base.
6.      Over Determination
Althusser’s over determination is a relentless critique of all forms of essentialism. In epistemology, it deconstructs the binary opposition between empiricism and rationalism by revealing their shared commitment to essentialism. On one hand, Althusser rejects all kinds of essentialism as bourgeois epistemology, and on the other, he rebuffs Marxist versions of essentialism as the survival and re-emergence of bourgeois thinking inside Marxism.
By using the term over determination, Althusser makes it possible to finally liberate Marxism not only from economic determinism but also from determinisms of all stripes. According to him, the mode of production is the determinant factor but only in the final analysis, and that the economic situation is the basis. But the various elements of the superstructure the political forms of the class struggle and its results, to with constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc, juridical forms, and then even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, artistic, juristic, philosophical theoriesm, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas-also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles, and in many cases preponderate in determining their form. Althusser argues that this sheds light on his concept of ‘overdetermination.’ From this point of view, the superstructure exercises as much influence on the base as the other way round.
Louis Pierre Althusser was one of the most influential Marxist philosophers of the 20th century. Althusser interrogates Marx’s theoretical framework in order to clarify the object and method of historical materialism and to develop general, cross-cultural concepts to facilitate the scientific production of comparative historical knowledge.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post