Louis Althusser: The Extents of Ideology

In his essay Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards and Investigation), Althusser discusses the means by which the conditions of production and the relations of production are reproduced and renewed to coincide with the general will of the ruling group. Whether this group is an actual monarchy or part of the capitalist bourgeoisie class, the reproduction of the means, and conditions of production, and the reproduction of the relations of production, functions in a very similar way, as shall be explained.

Althusser begins his investigation into this issue through the writings of Marx, primarily in his book Capital. In particular, Althusser picks up on Marx’s claim that “no production is possible which does not allow for the reproduction of the material conditions of production: the reproduction of the means of production.” (128). In other words, the entirety of the capitalist economy is based on an endless chain of production and consumption, in which “Mr. X, a capitalist who produces woolen yarn in his spinning-mill, has to ‘reproduce’ his raw material, his machines…” (129), and does so through a certain “Mr. Y, a heavy engineer producing machine tools,” (129), who undoubtedly relies on some other human for their parts, and so on, all the way back to the extraction of raw material. As Althusser explains, “in order to rethink this mechanism… it is necessary to follow Marx’s ‘global’ procedure, and to study in particular the relations of the circulation of capital between Department I (production of means of production) and Department II (production of means of consumption), and the realization of surplus value.” (129-130).

Althusser then goes on to the reproduction of labor power, and it is through an analysis of this aspect that the notion of ideology is introduced. As he explains, “the reproduction of labor power requires not only a reproduction of its skills,” through a distribution of wages, providing the worker with a means of survival (and ultimately allowing procreation for future generations of workers), “but also at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order…” (134).  Althusser claims that continued reproduction of submission functions through Marx’s theory of the superstructure. For although “it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice,” (136), and is itself “the ‘unity’ of the productive forces and the relations of production,” (134),  it is the superstructure that remains in control of both the politico-legal and ideological powers.

In this way we can begin to see that if it is the superstructure (the ruling classes, either of society or the economy, usually one in the same) who control the “reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression,” (133), then it is in fact not the state as a physical entity that is what at stake if politics are going to change, but rather “the state (and its existence in its apparatus) as a function of State power.” (140). In fact, if we are to follow Althusser’s philosophy, then the State itself has no function except as a “repressive State apparatus” (141), separate of the Ideological State Apparatus, but under the guise exclusively of the ruling ideology.

The Ideological Sate Apparatus functions under a variety of pseudonyms. According to Althusser, these various branches include religion, education, the family, the legal system, politics, trade unions, the media, and finally culture, which sews all of these together in various ways. These ISA’s function separately from the Repressive State Apparatus in that “the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression (including physical repression), while functioning secondarily by ideology.” (145). This is visible in areas such as the police force, or the army, who act in accordance to the results of the ISA’s through arrests or wars, and yet do so through a form that has a meaning of its own (uniforms, strategies, aiding the accumulation of wealth). Inversely, “the Ideological State Apparatus function massively and predominantly by ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ultimately… this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic.” (145). This is visible through the use of punishment, expulsion and selection by schools or churches as a means of ‘discipline’ “not only [to the] shepherds, but also their flocks.” (145).

Yet ultimately what this all leads to (as the constraints of a three page assignment limits (and I am already going over the limit, but am trying to not go too far) , the extent to which one can go through this complex argument), is the exertion of power by the group of peoples who have found themselves in charge of the ruling ideology (either through battle or inheritance). The ultimate aim of both the ISA and the (R)SA is to “ ‘function’ in such a way that it ‘recruits’ subjects among the individuals… or ‘transforms’ the individuals into subjects.” (174). Althusser describes this metamorphosis as “interpolation,” a process by which the “concrete individual” is transformed into the “concrete subject,” stripped of his individuality yet fully characterized by his ability to submit.

This process is achieved through a constant subjection of the individual to the various ideologies imposed upon us by the Ideological State Apparatus that stand to familiarize us with the process of subjectification that makes it seem something “obvious”. As Althusser explains, “the ‘obviousness’ that you and I are subjects – and that that does not cause any problems – is an ideological effect, the elementary ideological effect.” (172). Yet this obviousness is not manifested only through our decision to follow certain religious tendencies, or to obey the law; the power of ideology as expressed by Ideological State Apparatus extends beyond these instances into our very understanding and interpretation of our the world around us. Althusser makes numerous comparisons to the famous Freudian proposition that “the unconscious is eternal” (161), stating “the eternity of the unconscious is not unrelated to the eternity of ideology in general.” (161). By eternalizing itself within our conscious, ideology has come to play a central role in the way we interact with others and perceive ourselves. Therefore, even “what thus seems to take place outside ideology… in reality takes place in ideology.” It is for this reason that Althusser claims “that ideology has no outside (for itself), but at the same time that it is nothing but outside (for science and reality).” (175).

Yet is this the end? My readings of Malcolm X’s past brought me to consider the ways in which his refusal of the Christian tradition in favor of the Nation of Islam played a large role in his political awakening. It is through his refusal of what was once “the number-one Ideological State Apparatus,” (152) that he came to realize the projections of the ruling ideology (and it’s complicit ISA’s) as falsifications that sought to maintain an order and keep the ruling ideology in power. And although Malcolm X’s realizations cannot be seen as a full awakening from the Freudian eternality of the unconscious, perhaps full consciousness in this sense is not fully necessary. If one can awaken their self even on a small level to the falsifications of the ruling ideology, and its ultimate essence as a means of reproduction of the relations of exploitation, then perhaps change can happen from within the spectrum of ideology. In this way, the concrete nature of our “concrete subjectivity” may be elucidated and loosened somewhat to allow for greater freedom, a freedom that is perhaps endless. As Genesis P-Orridge explains, “the I is the flat person who assumes that the person they’ve been donated by social conditioning is a one-dimensional actual person, the We is how we see the world which is that everybody is made up of lots of different personality, fantasies, and attitudes.” In this way, the realization of the undeniable avoidance of ideology, and even a slight recognition of it’s existence and its workings, can allow for a “one dimensional and having no potential, to seeing themselves as almost anything they want to be, and that those things don’t always have to agree in the usual accepted way,” which is perhaps the furthers one can get within this unconscious eternity.

Journal Entry by Alex Damianos

Advertisement