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