On Ideology

by Louis Althusser, Ben Brewster (Translator)

The classic analysis of how particular political and cultural ideas come to dominate society.

The publication of For Marx and Reading Capital established Louis Althusser as one of the most controversial figures in the Western Marxist tradition, and one of the most influential renewals of Marxist thought. Collected here are Althusser’s most significant philosophical writings from the late sixties and through the seventies. Intended to contribute, in his own words, to a ‘left-wing critique of Stalinism that would help put some substance back into the revolutionary project here in the West’, they are the record of a shared history. At the same time they chart Althusser’s critique of the theoretical system unveiled in his own major works, and his developing practice of philosophy as a ‘revolutionary weapon’.

The collection opens with two lucid early articles - "Theory, Theoretical Practice and Theoretical Formation" and "On Theoretical Work." The title piece - Althusser’s celebrated lectures in the "Philosophy Course for Scientists" — is the fullest exploration of his new definition of philosophy as politics in the realm of theory, a conception which is further developed in "Lenin and Philosophy." "Is it Simple to be a Marxist in Philosophy?" provides an invaluable account of Althusser’s intellectual development. The volume concludes with two little-known late pieces - "The Transformation of Philosophy," in which the paradoxical history of Marxist philosopher is investigated; and "Marxism today," a sober balance-sheet of the Marxist tradition. Attesting to the unique place that Althusser has occupied in modern intellectual history - between a tradition of Marxism that he sought to reconstruct, and a "post-Marxism" that has eclipsed its predecessor - these texts are indispensable reading.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Theory, Sociology, Essays, Psychology

179 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1984

About the author

Louis Pierre Althusser (1918–1990) was one of the most influential Marxist philosophers of the 20th Century. As they seemed 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. Due to apparent reversals in his theoretical positions, to the ill-fated facts of his life, and to the historical fortunes of Marxism in the late twentieth century, this intense interest in Althusser's reading of Marx did not survive the 1970s. Despite the comparative indifference shown to his work as a whole after these events, the theory of ideology Althusser developed within it has been broadly deployed in the social sciences and humanities and has provided a foundation for much “post-Marxist” philosophy. In addition, aspects of Althusser's project have served as inspiration for Analytic Marxism as well as for Critical Realism. Though this influence is not always explicit, Althusser's work and that of his students continues to inform the research programs of literary studies, political philosophy, history, economics, and sociology. In addition, his autobiography has been subject to much critical attention over the last decade. At present, Althusser's philosophy as a whole is undergoing a critical reevaluation by scholars who have benefited from the anthologization of hard-to-find and previously unpublished texts and who have begun to engage with the great mass of writings that remain in his archives.

Reviews

[Theo Austin-Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whilst not being an intellectual power house (you could probably glean most of his insights from giving Pink Floyd’s The Wall another spin) Althusser certainly stands as a decent springboard for your own thought. Frankly the discussions of ideology were the least interesting, with Althusser’s discussions of the Subject/subject distinction (by being hailed by a policeman in the street, by being ‘picked out’ as it were, you are shown to always-already be inscribed as a subject within an ideological framework, your placement within the structure being forced upon you - Althusser dubs this process ‘interpellation’), of class struggle being the motor of history (contra humanist/petty-bourgeois attempts to portray Man as the maker of history, able to craft and transcend his position with the stuff/material of history, all utilised/co-opted as a smokescreen for ideological and economist purposes, even with thinkers such as Sartre who construe themselves as Marxist revolutionaries giving into these tendencies, unconsciously opening the door for a regressive kind of thought that throws up obstacles when it comes to a scientific knowledge of historical/dialectical materialism), however any and all of his discussions concerning God are incredibly weak and unconvincing, as he espouses a dull and unpalatable atheism that strikes one as markedly adolescent. His attempts to evade God as the Subject of history, as some philosophical concept as discardable as consciousness, substance, Reason etc. etc. are just bone headed, and I hope there’s an essay of his out there where he tackles ontotheology/the question of God more directly. Having now read a decent chunk of his Reading Capital I can confidently say that this is a far less nuanced and sophisticated output by Althusser, but I still had a blast working through it. It’s a real bummer that he strangled his wife though, and its terrible that he spent the rest of his life haunted by the fact that he was never convicted for it, that he could never assume responsibility for her death, even if it was ruled to have been due to hallucinations brought about by a new regiment of antipsychotics. Also my book started to fall apart due to this infernal fucking English heatwave, and I’ve had a hell of a time sticking it back together and sanding down the parts that stuck out - the Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses are out to get me folks, they’re shutting down free thought !!!

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first time reading Althusser, I was very interested in his theories about ideology after reading Zizek's 'Object of Ideology'. This is a collection of essays; the first is a rather short introduction to Althusser's theory of Ideological State Apparatuses where he focuses on the process of reproduction of capitalist social relations through apparatuses such as education and the family. He also briefly touched on the interaction between the 'Superstructure' and 'Infrastructure' of the State, and the necessity of foundational reproduction of exploitative relations. I really enjoyed it.
The next essay was a mildly scathing reply to John Lewis (I actually didn't know he was a philosopher and kept reading it as the store) which touched on the distinction between 'man-made history' as a bourgeois ideal and 'history driven by the motor of class struggle' (Marxist). The final essays were a lot shorter and about Freud (specifically Lacan's reading of Freud) and then about the relationship between art and ideology. Overall I recommend as an introduction (particularly the first essay), definitely want to read one of Althusser's major complete works.

[Caspar "moved to storygraph" Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses is a wonderfully written and highly insightful essay. That is to say nothing new. But definitely a recommendation for that essay (though not necessarily the entire book).

The other essays here are hit-and-miss. Reply to John Lewis is basically good but nothing new. I'm not familiar enough with Lacan (yet) to assess Althusser's essay that plays with Psychoanalytics. There's also a brief letter at the end which discourses on art/knowledge/science. It's pretty good but brief.

So it's clear that the opening essay (Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses) carries all the heft here, and with good reason. I've enjoyed making connections here and there - Benjamin was a good base of knowledge to approach this from.

[Andrew Noselli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Now, at the dawn of the age of artificial intelligence, it appears that the masters of war are about to deem it a necessity to extend the market-trading period to the inhuman level of the 24 hour cycle. Likewise, it seems to me that Althusser's fundamental discovery, as it is stated in this book, that history in the postmodern age has been replaced by an all-pervading ideological force for repression is indeed correct. Personally, in my work-history I was hardly successful in any of my attempts to serve as a member of the repressive ideological state apparatus in any of the various ways I tried. I attempted to outfit myself for the tasks required several times, however, each time I encountered resistance and failure with every step I took, either as a agent for press-relations on an international level at PR Newswire, where I made some unfortunate errors and mistakes, my strabismus marking me as neurotically and psychically inferior if not deformed, or as an insurance agent for both New York Life and AIG, where I ultimately refused to exploit others financially and, simultaneously, negated my potential to be exploited for the financial gain of my backers who were the power-brokers which surrounded me and, finally, during my time in the U.S. Armed Forces, where I was threatened with a court-martial before I had even been integrated as the lowest functionary in the hierarchy of the chain of command; these were the spastic reactions to my positioning myself as a unit for labor consumption, which resulted in my ultimate removal from the splendid pathways of the labor market and, it may be said, these adventures have led to my current status as a fortune-teller whose venue is the literary and philosophical analysis of the class struggle on a theoretical level. After reading this book, it seems to me that if we pay attention to Althusser's writing these days, it is to affirm his notion of ideology as the all-encompassing perfume of the post-historical age, where our imaginary relation to the conditions necessary for reproduction of our social world have been subsumed under a new personal liberty where we exercise our freedom to establish a social space that is free from any neglect or any personal confusion. That is where my story and the story of the social order agree.
Three stars.

[Brad · Rating 4 out of 5]

"History is a process without a subject."

[Ben Kearvell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wish I had read On Ideology before For Marx. These essays are easy on the eyes; Althusser avoids the kind of tautological crypto-screed wafted by French philosophers (which I enjoy up to a point). Hegelian dialectics take a back seat to a surprisingly lucid description of structuralism, Marxian materialism, and ideology in relation to labour power (means of production) and the State (as a means to production). There is also a very lucid account of Lacanian psychoanalysis, in comparison with Marxism and structuralism at large. If you ever wondered what Slavoj Zizek is all about, On Ideology may be of assistance.

[Zak Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

A simply fantastic work. Althusser's work has been incredibly insightful both as a case study of capitalism and ideology as we understand it today. Very easy to read and digest. He manages to avoid all of the pitfalls of academic jargon and makes his points on ideology fairly concisely and with little problem. A must read in my opinion.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Even the already-limited selection of Althusser's works available in English have a tendency to go in and out of print, which is what makes Verso's concerted efforts through their Radical Thinkers imprint so valuable. That said, On Ideology isn't a proper book by Althusser, but rather a collection coupling a few of the more popular essays from Lenin and Philosophy with the "Reply to John Lewis" from Essays in Self-Criticism. As the latter is one of the English books currently out of print, this is a useful inclusion. But as Lenin and Philosophy seems to be--along with (the abridged, English translation of) Reading Capital--one of the few Althusser books continuously in print, the balance of the book seems largely superfluous. A much more valuable contribution would have been to re-publish the entirety of Essays in Self-Criticism, or--better yet--to bring Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists (itself, admittedly, a cobbling together of various sources) back into print.

As it stands, however, On Ideology has some excellent material in it--and readers who have not yet read Lenin and Philosophy (though why, one cannot imagine...!) will find it a wonderful and concise collection. Even still, the title can easily set one up for disappointment. Yes, Althusser's famous "Ideological State Apparatuses" essay is here, but just as plucked-out-of-context as it is in Lenin and Philosophy. If one really wanted to publish a collection of Althusser's writing worthy of the title On Ideology, it seems that the best thing to do would have been to translate some of the French material still waiting in the wings--the most obvious choice would have been pulling more material from Sur la Reproduction, from which the famous "ISA" essay was originally plucked. Another route, of course, could have been to compose a collection that surveyed Althusser's thinking across his career, republishing sections of For Marx and Reading Capital (and, yes, Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists) as a pre-1968 context for his ISA "turn" of the 1970s.

On Ideology is a collection of excellent material--but, alas, this is not the same thing as being an excellent collection. Readers who purchase it will find a treasure trove of great material, though in the long run I cannot really see why one wouldn't just buy Lenin and Philosophy instead (and maybe start hunting used bookstores for Essays in Self-Criticism).

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book nicely summarizes the most important aspects of Althusser's treatment of ideology. While I fundamentally disagree with his attempt to remove Hegel from Marxism, and the reason he does so (a philosophical underpinning to explain what he calls 'Stalinist deviation'), His treatment of ideology and antihumanism offer a lot of profound insights that help advance Marxist theory.

His analysis despite being ostensibly anti-Hegelian employs a considerable amount of Hegelian terminology and strategy (despite that it is quite clear he did not have enough Hegel under his belt to earnestly pursue his argument). His critique of rights discourse and "legalism" is particularly useful for the contemporary left, despite that he mistakenly implies that this framework was the modus operandi of the "Stalinist deviation." He sometimes trips over his own reversal here, such as in his attempt to show that Czech "socialism with a human face" is somehow not a humanist project.

Is legalism and rights discourse equivocal to having "man" as the historical center of the dialectic in a classic Hegelian-Marxist schema? The priority of "the will" and the emphasis on this subject during the Stalin era is likely a completely separate phenomena, which is why Althusser strays from specific examples. His argument would need a lot more concrete work in drawing this connection, and explaining how these philosophic angles are not fundamentally altered given the change in modes of production. Nonetheless, his criticism of the "personality cult" as a conceptual apparatus for understanding the "Stalinist deviation" is undoubtedly a step forward still today.

[c h r i s · Rating 3 out of 5]

pn2 the revolutionary subject of history

It is the end of history for any history of ideology, there cannot be any, only a history of real material. If the history of man in the world (historical-time) ends, then there is no history of ideas, philosophy, ideology, etc. Just as soon as the old material social-formations stopped moving, when their material life-processes became decrepit, their history ends, their time is up, yet their old ideological reflection remains in our minds, it follows:

“ideology is eternal” (L. Althusser, Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses 1969 in: On Ideology, p.49, Verso, 2020)
“The tradition of all the generations of the dead weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living.” (K. Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte 1852, p.9, FLP, Peking, 1978)

Over time ideology no longer corresponds to any social-force, class, etc. from which the ideology arose. The real world may change, entire social-forces becoming obsolete, rendering aspects of an ideology obsolete. There is a fundamental schism as soon as the ideal no longer represents the real… our minds wander off, while the real world changes on its own somewhere else. Simultaneously ideology does not exist as material history, yet exists “eternally” (or for much longer) as concepts:

“what thus seems to take place outside ideology (to be precise, in the street), in reality takes place in ideology. What really takes place in ideology seems therefore to take place outside it. That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology never says, ‘I am ideological’.” (L. Althusser, p.49)

For instance those who say: ‘take this pill’, ‘sign up for my course’, ‘go live in the forest’, ‘consume this product’, ‘dye your hair’, ‘read this book’, ‘change your clothing’, ‘be authentic’, ‘change your identity’, ‘travel the world’, ‘find your true self’, ‘escape the matrix’. It is all bourgeois ideology (that is, to remain within the confines of bourgeois-society while tricking our minds to think we have escaped it, when in reality, the whole structure is preserved even better because we have adapted to our environment without fundamentally changing it).

“ideology has no outside” (L. Althusser, p.49)

To say we can escape ideology (proletarian or bourgeois) is itself a product of bourgeois ideology. Ideology is exactly: the spook that we can somehow eliminate ideology (as if ideology was a spook). As soon as there is community and statehood, there is subjectivity through ideology. Just the same, there is no ‘pure thought’ or ‘pure science’ outside of ideology. It is impossible to eliminate ideology from science. Science is entirely marred by class. Every day we see science being subjected to the bourgeoisie, and turned into bourgeois ideology, a bourgeois subject for bourgeois interests. To disarm the masses ability to detect bourgeois ideology in science is criminal. Althusser writes a lot to the contrary:

“from within ideology we have to outline a discourse which tries to break with ideology, in order to dare to be the beginning of a scientific (i.e. subject-less) discourse on ideology.” (L. Althusser, p.47)
“It is necessary to be outside ideology, i.e. in scientific knowledge, to be able to say: I am in ideology…” (L. Althusser, p.49)
“all scientific discourse is by definition a subject-less discourse, there is no ‘Subject of science’ except in an ideology of science…” (L. Althusser, p.45)
“Marxist philosophy must break with the idealist category of the ‘subject’ as Origin, Essence and Cause, responsible in its internality for all the determinations of the external ‘Object’, of which it is said to be the internal ‘Subject’. For Marxist philosophy there can be no Subject as an Absolute Centre, as a Radical Origin, as a Unique Cause.” (L. Althusser, Reply to John Lewis 1973, in: On Ideology, p.135, Verso, 2020)
“the question of the ‘subject’ of history disappears. History is an immense natural-human system in movement, and the motor of history is class struggle. History is a process, and a process without a subject.” (L. Althusser, p.83)

The following is Althusser's incorrect logic, where only premise 1 is correct:

1. Marxism-Leninism is the science of history.
2. Science is supposedly non-ideological (has no subject).
3. Therefore, Marxism-Leninism supposedly has no subject (no proletarian masses as the revolutionary-subject of history).

The revolutionary proletarian class was not an intangible abstraction in October 1917 Russia. It is impossible to eliminate the revolutionary subjectivity of the proletarian masses… relegating them to a mere side in relation to their bourgeois opposite. Although there may be no ‘first cause’ or ‘essence’, but rather defining characteristics… the cause or motive-force behind the proletarian revolutionary subject is the bigger objective economic process, yet in history, the proletarian masses play more of a role as a subject than the bourgeoisie, that is, through labour and revolution. The (natural or) objective-economic-evolutionary-process, however, conditions the subjective-political-revolutionary-movement (in this sense, there is no freedom without necessity, voluntarism without determinism, ideal without real). Consider the following:

“the working masses are the subject of history and the motive force of social progress. History develops through the struggle of the masses to transform nature and society. That history develops precisely means that the position and role of the masses as the subject of history are enhanced. The socio-historical movement has its own peculiar laws which are different from those of natural motion. Of course, the social movement has something in common with the natural movement in that it is also a motion of material. The social movement, too, is governed by the universal laws of the material world. But the social movement has its subject, whereas there is no such thing in the motion of nature. In nature the motion takes place spontaneously through the interaction of material elements which exist objectively. In contrast, the social movement is caused and developed by the volitional action and role of the subject. The subject of the social movement consists in the masses of the people. Without the masses there would be no social movement itself, nor would it be conceivable to talk about historical progress.” (Kim Jong Il, On the Juche Idea, p.14-15, FLPH, Pyongyang, Korea, 1982)

Just as there is confusion about subject and object, there is confusion about society and nature. Society and nature are separate, society does not develop naturally. Simultaneously, society (the economy) encompasses both objective and subjective processes. Humans are the subject of society, hence we have relative control over it. Plants, animals and organisms are (though animals are not conscious in the same way as humans, the human brain being the most complex-highest organization of organic matter - the organic initially arising from inorganic material - and thanks to the historical development from ape to man through social-labour, the capacity or potential for human positive change over time now-immediately is greater than that of animals, which also does not mean that animals have no potential, for it was man who arose out from an animalistic basic-biological-instinctual base) the subject of nature, which is a stretch, hence it is difficult to speak of a goal, aim, or progression in nature (beyond basic biological-instinctual-development) in comparison with society which develops with conscious human intervention towards a rationalization of the entire process of production. There is a distinction between natural-processes of nature which progresses or develops in history through subjective intervention (labour) towards the economic-processes of society (considered as natural), all of which are objective-processes, contrary to subjective-political-movements. Marx’s main task was:

“to reveal the economic law of motion of modern society…” (K. Marx, Capital Vol. 1 1867, p.92, Penguin, 1990)

The confusion between subject and object arises out of the economic-processes in history being not only seemingly natural (self-moving or objective, non-subjective), that is, a process bearing the birth-pangs of nature, but also developing in to a subjective-process through state and class intervention. Historically whichever class dominates the economy, proletarian, bourgeois, aristocratic, etc. and hence the state, has the most control of society overall… manipulating both society and even nature to their liking. Individuals are simultaneously the subjects, and objects of society. First, individuals are the object of society when affected by the economy, the environment, and surroundings. Second, individuals are the subject of society when in control the economy. Then split into classes: while the bourgeoisie may play a part in impelling the working masses to revolution, in comparison with the working masses, the bourgeoisie does not contribute socially necessary labour to the economy, hence the bourgeoisie cannot be considered revolutionary subjects of history. In the final analysis, the bourgeoisie is not the agent of change (the catalyst) in comparison to the role of socially necessary labourers. The bourgeoisie may be a subject in relation to the objective process compelling the proletariat to labour and revolution, however both being subjects and objects are in a reciprocal relationship of internal-motion or self-movement of the class-struggle. The proletariat may be a slave to the bourgeoisie when the bourgeoisie (through the private-property laws of bourgeois society) expropriates the product of labour of the proletariat, however, the proletariat is still the master over the bourgeoisie, when the proletariat has mastery over labour… in this sense the proletarian-master can only be a master by first being a slave to the bourgeoisie, yet simultaneously, the bourgeois pseudo-master is still a slave to the proletarian-slave, relying on the proletariat to labour for the profits and system that serves the bourgeoisie. As Kojève writes:

“We see, by the way, that for Hegel, as for Marx, the central phenomenon of the bourgeois World is not the enslavement of the working man, of the poor bourgeois, by the rich bourgeois, but the enslavement of both by Capital.” (A. Kojève, Introduction to the Reading of Hegel Lectures on the Phenomenology of Spirit, p.65, Cornell University Press, 1980)

Hence the bourgeois and proletarian are both enslaved to capital, the system itself, yet this system serves bourgeois consumption, and can only increase the proletarian’s practical skills but ultimately degrades the proletarian’s life-quality. Both classes are in constant motion, they are not eternally fixed. It is precisely this unity of opposites which causes their movement. The economic raising or lowering, or emerging and decaying of a class’s position is a decisive factor in whether they can ever be revolutionary political subjects to guide society, the historical-process as a whole. The political can only be changed in a voluntarist way, because it is not a natural but social-movement… while only economic-evolution can facilitate political-revolution, although economic-revolutions can only be implemented on mass through political revolutions.

“Scientific-technical inventions in themselves, however, are insufficient to bring about a real change in the technique of production. They can remain ineffective so long as economic conditions favorable to their application are absent.” (N. Kondratieff, The Long Waves in Economic Life 1935, p.7, Martino, 2014)

This whole situation concerns whether or not the economic base overcomes the superstructure, or what aspect of the superstructure overcomes the economic base. Looking deeper into the writings of Althusser (proficient in theory) explains why Hoxha (proficient in revolution and socialist construction) would write:

“Althusser […] want[s] to proceed more quickly on the revisionist road.” (E. Hoxha, Eurocommunism is Anti-Communism 1980, p.190, NEPH, Toronto, 2022)

Revisionism meaning:

“the revisionists floundered [...] into the swamp of philosophical vulgarization of science, replacing ‘artful’ (and revolutionary) dialectics by ‘simple’ (and tranquil) ‘evolution.’” (V.I. Lenin, Marxism and Revisionism 1908, in: On Marx and Engels, p.87, FLP, Peking, 1975)

So, the role of consciousness of course does play a role in history, since subjects can intervene into history creating secondary determinations. Of course, individuals or subjects can even accelerate the process of history, if they are in the correct economic-position, and social conditions are ripe for change, following the objective tendency:

“World history would indeed be very easy to make if the struggle were taken up only on condition of infallibly favourable chances. On the other hand, it would be of a very mystical nature if ‘accidents’ played no part. These accidents naturally form part of the general course of development and are compensated for by other accidents. But acceleration and delay are very much dependent upon such ‘accidents,’ including the ‘accident’ of the character of the people who at first stand at the forefront of the movement.” (K. Marx to Ludwig Kugelmann, London, April 17, 1871, in: K. Marx, F. Engels, Selected Letters, p.38, FLP, Peking, 1977)

But Althusser goes so far as to write:

“Here too the term ‘man’ has disappeared. We are forced to say in this connexion that scientific history, like all history, is a process without a subject, and that scientific knowledge (even when it is the work of a particular individual scientist, etc.) is actually the historical result of a process which has no real subject or goal(s) [….] all scientific knowledge, in every field, really is the result of a process without any subject or goal(s).” (L. Althusser, p.90)

Althusser may as well claim individuals do not exist, and say that we are composed of only material-relations! Descartes may have been solipsist, but with Althusser we have a Lacanian opposite:

“I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think […] I am not wherever I am the plaything of my thought; I think of what I am where I do not think to think.” (J. Lacan, The Agency of the Letter in the Unconscious or Reason since Freud 1957, in: Écrits A Selection, p.166, Tavistock Publications, 1982)

Whereas Descartes only exists for Descartes (himself) in concept, Althusser does not exist for Althusser (himself) in concept, but only materially, preserving the ‘what’ and negating the ‘who’, when in truth, the ‘who’ is composed of the ‘what’. For instance, we change and shape ourselves by ourselves for others + we are unconsciously shaped by others and the material-economic social-formations around us, to the point where we do not even recognize ourselves anymore, eliminating our subjectivity altogether. Yet simultaneously when in social-relations, we can, as a class (an abstraction), become concrete as subjects, through obtaining revolutionary subjectivity.

[Neal Maro · Rating 4 out of 5]

The first essay and title on the book On Ideology is the most important work in this short collection of essays. The essay begins with the question of how the capital-labour relation is able to reproduce itself over time (taking the departments of production from Capital Vol 2 as well as the base-superstructure distinction as its starting points). Althusser's answer to this is that capitalist societies create ideological state apparatuses to maintain themselves. These are ideological structures separate from the repressive structures (police, army, prison, court system etc) that reproduce the ideological conditions necessary for the maintanence and reproduction of the system. These ideological state apparatuses create subjects that treat their enslavement as though it were their salvation. The main example Althusser gives of an ISA (ideological state apparatus) is the education system whereby children are moulded into obedient servants of the logic of capital.

There is a lot more going here than I can express in this brief outline. Worth reading if one is interested in how culture serves to reproduce the capital-labour relation. Beyond that there are some other essays. One argues for a marxist rehabilitation of psychoanalysis, the other argues that a distinction between an early humanist Marx and a later scientific Marx is key to understanding how dialectical materialism and historical materialism developed. Althusser argues in favour of construing the early Marx as a petty bourgeois radical and the later Marx as a proletarian revolutionist. Another essay proclaims that history has no subject. I'm still not quite sure what to make of Althusser to be honest.

[lav · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was more interested in the first chapter on the Ideological State Apparatus, itself an excerpt from his larger work "On the Reproduction of Capitalism". Definitely a very orthodox way to formulate a theory of ideology that builds upon the work of Marx and Lenin, and also in my view acts as a very radical extension to Gramsci's cultural hegemony. Although just a starting point of a full-fledged analysis of ideology, this nevertheless lays interesting points on the superstructure-infrastructure dialectic (Marx) and to what extent this can work as a spatial, topographic metaphor. The most important takeaways for this work, and what Althusser is known for, is his point on ideology as 'interpellating individuals as subjects', and explaining the theory of ideology and how ideology works as 'the representation of the imaginary relations of the subject with their real relations of existence'.

The second chapter, a polemical reply to John Lewis was not as exciting, apart from the every now and then the brief effects of humanist philosophy complemented by economism intervening in the class struggle. The brief critiques of Sartre are definitely one important part of this chapter, where he lies out that philosophical works can either act as a hindrance to scientific development or a progression, and complacency in abstractions of the ideal of the 'Man', etc (Sartre), fall in the first category.

One of the most exciting chapters was the brief work on Freud and Lacan, a chapter also part of his larger writings on psychoanalysis, on my TBR. The comparison between the unconscious and scientific theory of history (Freud, and Marx respectively) and a need for a broad, historical materialist analysis of the unconscious complemented by an analysis of the 'social preconditions for the analytical practice' required for a return to Freud was what I found the most useful. Last point of importance, the human subject having the structure of the unconscious, which has no center except as misrecognition of the ego "(the ideological formations in which it recognizes 'itself')"; and its comparison with the scientific theory of history, where history has no center except in misrecognition of the ideological formations in which it recognizes itself (in the form of ideology, as what represents an imaginary relationship of the subject to the real relations of his existence). Althusser touches on how a half-baked reading of Freud has led to using of his concepts to divide psychoanalysis into the fields of biologism/biology, psychologism/psychology, sociologism/sociology, etc. The reactionary nature of psychoanalysis, especially in America, and its ideological effects on the sciences as a whole, is necessary to take into account. What were the preconditions that lead to the dominant ideology dispersing psychoanalysis, consuming parts of it that were needed, throwing away and denigrating those that it didn't need for its own utilization of a society in which everything needs to be reproduced for its maintenance, in this respect above all, a reproduction of a dominant ideology that was threatened of its entire existence, the way its concepts were formulated and thought of, by a revolutionary, emerging 'science'. Freud had to be ripped apart, just as Marx did, and everyone that came after him. My views on the clinical aspect of psychoanalysis, albeit mixed to negative right now aside, I agree with the radical view that did erupt out of Freud, a view that is completely different from the stages of sexuality model that exists in psychology, vulgarly taking what made sense for its own purposes; and this perhaps was the case, mostly due to the jargon he had to use, mostly because he had to start from scratch to create the 'theoretical space in which to situate his discovery'. Lastly, I agree that psychoanalysis needs to distinguish as its object (the unconscious and its effects) and expand on the theoretical categories required for its own technique and its practical application in the form of the 'cure'. And for this, it needs to demarcate itself from the other sciences, if it is a science, if it is true that there is a theory that returns to Freud, that acts as a groundwork for application, both theoretical and practical, application that already has seen results, then this was foremost recognized by Lacan who merely demonstrated in his writings the form and content of Freud, with the scientific expansion necessary aided by the newer field of structuralism and linguistics.

Lastly, on the letter of art in reply to André Daspre, interesting comments on how art and science are distinguished on the basis of science responsible for *knowing*, whereas art being concerned with seeing, perceiving, feeling, in the aesthetic experience. Althusser references works which compares Tolstoy, specifically how a reactionary point of view of the author's actual reactionary political ideology represented a distance from within the content of his work, which elucidated the feeling of the actual, real conditions of existence. This, most commonly known as in online communities as 'separating the art from the artist', is of extreme importance when formulating a theory of art and distinguishing it from the sciences, but firstly, what should be known is the object that art wants to work with, is set to induce as its goal, when distinguished from science which uses structures of concepts and categories. In the end, I do need to delve more into the actual fictional works involved as well as their analysis from philosophy. I do disagree that a theory of art (even as consolidated that it isn't concerned with knowing rather than inducing the 'aesthetic effect'), necessarily should not be concerned with a structure of categories and concepts that resemble science. A distinction albeit however necessary, does not mean a lack of overlaps. To continue on my reading list on this aspect, I do consider 'What is Philosophy' by Deleuze and Guattari to be useful, considering their delineation of art, philosophy, and science, as simply three modes of thinking.


This is not a complete review, no review can be complete. This is simply based on memory, and should I be wrong, I would gladly welcome criticisms. I would surely be wrong on aspects due to my own lack of sufficient further reading, and due to remembering and situating my thoughts on a completely different plane than the one by Althusser at the time of his work. In the end, nothing is eternal, everything flows, and so too shall I. What matters is if these works helped in my own thought, helped in maturing them, or at least setting a framework for its development by telling me where to go next to find answers, which inevitably will lead to more questions.

Freud and Lacan was my favorite part of this book, albeit only 25 pages, 5/5.
Ideology, 4/5
Polemical on the Cult of Personality (To John Lewis), not that interesting, sometimes quite humorous, 3/5
Reply on Art, 4/5

[pat]

maybe I’m setting a bad precedent for myself by marking this as read even though I’ve skipped the long middle section “in reply to John Lewis,” but it’s ok. I really just wanted to read this for the first essay on Ideological State Apparatuses, (which I thought was the whole book actually but it’s only 60 pages) which was pretty good, and presents a useful mechanism for describing how ideology replicates itself through subject formation. the essay on Freud and Lacan is also great (and more useful to my studies).
consistent between these two essays, I notice, is an materialist problem of making sense of reality as it pertains to psychic processes. how can we understand the contents of reality, and their impression on us? Althusser quietly takes up Lacan to model how we ‘recognize’ our ideology in structures outside of ourselves, in a manner of reflection (this also kind of sounds to me like an attempt to correct for a Hegelian problem in other terms, marrying Marx and Lacan to excise problems of idealism in the former, which I understand to be a concern of Althusser’s in his other work...), and then reappraises the scientific and theoretical value of Freud’s work (via Lacan— much more explicitly here) for Marxists. also! on my first read-through of this, pages are already falling out of my copy. because the black cover is making it bake in the sun? i guess. what a shame

[Martin Hare Michno · Rating 4 out of 5]

The main essay, 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards as Investigation)', is very good. It reads almost as a sequel to Lenin's dissection of the state in State & Revolution. Althusser's description and theory of ideological state apparatuses is visual and clear. But what mostly interested me is the section on the interpellation of the individual.

His other essays, meh. Unnecessarily long.

[Jade Cooke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read for my dissertation.
Althusser provides a very insightful account of capitalism and ideology which still remains relevant in the modern day. Particularly the discussion into the difference between repressive and ideological apparatuses was very insightful (and relevant for my field of study).

He's definitely one of the easier critics to read - i'd say its a very accessible text.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty dense but if you can wade through it it's worth it.

[Mitchel Rowe · Rating 4 out of 5]

Severe highs and severe lows for me. I really enjoyed parts of Althusser's work here, and really despised other parts, but that may have been down to the choice of his work.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses was thrilling and set this collection up for a sweeping five-star. It is necessary for understanding ideology and really gives you a broad look at the extent to which ideology pervades everything. I think it works well along some of Foucault's stuff; Foucault seems to examine the medical-industrial-complex in detail (with its accompanying ideology) and I feel as if you could do the same for most of the ISAs explored here!

Then there was Reply to John Lewis which I did not enjoy on sheerly amateurish terms. I have no clue what these two grown men are arguing about but it's kind of cute actually. They sneak diss each other through academic diction, and have me really asking, "who? Who asked?" If I wanted to see marxists brawl, I would have gone on Reddit for an hour. This was EXHAUSTING.

Freud and Lacan was fun. I enjoyed the return to Freud, emphasising that none of Freud's work can be lumped into a new discipline (which I'd never even thought of--I thought psychoanalysis was solely a psychological topic). I haven't read much Freud so this was a useful way to preface my future reading!

Finally A Letter on Art in Reply to Andre Daspre was really cool. It discussed the extent to which art is ideological and I found this super interesting as a Literature student. The discussion on the pervasivity of ideology in "creation" was interesting, but I felt as if Althusser focussed a lot on the author side of things. I wanted a look at how art affects consumers as this seems more pressing at our content-saturated time in history.

Overall, I really enjoyed 'On Ideology' and Althusser's works! I love when the French philosophers start getting abstract and weird, so this was definitely my fill.

[Dennis Lundkvist · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in order that he shall submit freely to the commandments of the Subject, i.e. in order that he shall (freely) accept his subjection, i.e. in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection 'all by himself'. There are no subjects except by and for their subjection. That is why they 'work all by themselves'."

[Asher · Rating 4 out of 5]

Surprisingly comprehensible and even illuminating sometimes

[Mikaellyng]

"On ideology" is a great essay about what Althusser calls ideological state apparatuses which he uses to explain the nature of ideology in capitalism, similar to the concept of political society given by Antonio Gramsci in his prison notebooks. In fact, the theory on ideology is so similar to that of Gramsci that i'm perplexed why he is not even mentioned once.

The next essay is a response to a critique of Althusser from John Lewis, member of the British communist party. It's not the most interesting as Lewis's critique, at least as re-told by Althusser is mostly slander about how Althusser "doesn't know marxism" etc. Althusser critiques Lewis on his claims of what marxism "really is" and shows how his ideas are a idealistic interpretation (or deviation) of Marx's work. Althusser also defends his thesis on the "epistomological break" that happned when Marx shifted from what he calls petit-bourgoise philosophy over to a truly proletarian politics, establishing a new science. I don't know too much about this theory as it is only mentioned briefly, but i'm pretty sure it's contained in his book called "For Marx".

Next essay "Freud and Lacan" is where Althusser is defending the importance of psychoanalysis as a science. In the 70s there where a large wave of Lacanian psychoanalysis getting merged into the discourse of politics which both furthered some of the Freudo-marxian tradition (like Althusser) as well as staunch critics both from Marxists as well as other groups emerging at the time. The last essay/letter on art is nothing to radical or groundbreaking in terms of marxist aesthethics is concerned.

As many of Althussers critiques have pointed out he does seem to lay out more thesis than what he has time for defending/actually going into depth with. Almost every thesis is laid forward with the side-note that it has to be "expanded on" later etc. This has left many, and rightly so, very unsatisfied with Althussers contributions to Marxist theory. Althusser seem to be quite a eclectic character for better or worse, but still i think his first essay here is great although readers might benefit from a side-comparison with Gramsci's theory on the same subject.

[katarina t]

dude killed his wife but hey structural marxism at its best

[Jamie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why did he have to be on ideology? Why couldn't he have just been on drugs like everyone else?

[Karim · Rating 4 out of 5]

First book of the year finally! I have been postponing Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses by Althusser for a long time, only to find it in a compilation of everything Althusser had to say on Ideology by adding to the ISAs text a reply to John Lewis, commentary on Freud and Lacan, and a brief letter on art. Highly enjoyed the reply to John Lewis as it stresses on the importance of ridding Marxist thought from the humanist (bourgeois) idea of man as a subject and history is made by man as opposed to the motor of history: class struggle. The ISAs text provides a systematic in-depth analysis of the already known Marxist idea of how the state is a tool of classist oppression via the repressive ideological state apparatuses (police and military) and the ISAs (family, religion, law, school etc.), where interpolation (the process of ideological subjugation) transpires, serving the end goal of reproduction of the relations of production. Most importantly: he describes ideology as mis-recognition of reality or in others words the imaginary relationship between an individual and their real “conditions of existence”. The Freud and Lacan commentary was a nice intro to the works of both, especially if you’re oblivious to the world of psychoanalysis, but also remains a bit dense and obscured by the translation. The Letter on Art is too brief to comment on but calls for a turn to “basic principles of Marxism” in order to develop a real knowledge of Art. Overall, the ISAs text is legendary and cements classical marxist theory on the role of the state and the other texts were also valuable additions!

[Francisco BG]

La influencia de Althusser en otros filósofos como Foucault o Žižek es bastante extensa, más de lo que parece. Incluso cuestiones que deja al margen, como la teoría de los tipos de materialidad, podrían ser guantes blancos que otros filósofos - GB, ejem - han recogido. Aun así hay ciertas inconsistencias y ausencias, especialmente en lo que se refiere a la lucha ideológica y el ascenso de X ideologías en las I.S.As. y después al poder que no termina de resolver adecuadamente. Otro punto a señalar es que podría haber señalado también la obra de Horkheimer y Adorno como influencia y la teoría Lacaniana como compatible y casi paralela en muchos aspectos (la fase del espejo, el Otro y los otros) y no solo a Freud.

El libro en sí no es más que una recopilación de sus artículos más famosos y nucleares en su pensamiento, para los más lego de Althusser está muy bien (como yo), para el que haya leído y re-leído sus obras clave, el libro no merece demasiado la pena. Destacar también su prosa bastante clara y sus ejemplos muy ilustrativos, a pesar de que podría extenderse más en ciertos aspectos (repito: el problema de la ascensión de ciertas ideologías en las ISA y luego al poder)

[Nick · Rating 5 out of 5]

Having just taken the philosophical approach to discussing Marxism, Althusser's reply to John Lewis felt like a personal insult. That said, it was refreshing to hear the argument so concisely and profoundly put, so much so that I would more than ever agree with Althusser in the subordination of theory to practice.

In the discussion of Ideological State Apparatuses, I found the distinction between repressive & ideological to have scratched an itch I've had about the not just the role of ideology, but the institutions responsible for dictating it.

In all, this was a really great pickup. Accessible, but not the least bit shallow.

[Tom Bain · Rating 3 out of 5]

Definitely a front-loaded collection. Because it starts with its best essay and the others are not as good (and feel a bit tangential), you get the feeling the publisher was doing some serious padding out to justify selling a book off a (top quality) 60 page essay.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses is great. The reply to John Lewis has some great bits but is a tad too long, even if it is fun to read Althusser just frying this guy who criticised him. Lacan remains pretty opaque to me and the last mini-essay is perfunctory.

[Lisen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for class

Only read the first essay but I'm logging the whole book because I deserve it because this took years of my life trying to understand wtf he was saying, not because the content was difficult to grasp, but because no one taught Althusser how to structure a text to be understandable...

Genuinelly, I think the theory is interesting, but it was an exhausting read and like... there has to be someone who's written about it better

[K]

ideology and ideological state apparatuses is indispensable, even today - I can see some of the structuralist baggage more clearly in the essay on Art (the Freud/lacan one went a bit too over my head honestly), but for the most part these essays are fantastic. the response to John Lewis is simultaneously hilarious and a great introduction to Althusser’s particular brand of (Marxist!) anti-humanism

[Omesh Dwivedi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Bro Althusser just shattered the way I looked at the world. It's slightly funny because I love Foucault and philosophically Althusser and Foucault are considered diametrically opposite and unmeshable with each other. Yet, I feel that both provide an interesting and really valid perspective on looking at ideology and power.
TL;DR
Althusser is a god!

[J. · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the best (and most readable) philosophical/theoretical books I've read to date. Loved it. Especially liked his description of how even seemingly unrelated ideological organizations (churches, schools, media , etc) can operate in service of the dominant/ruling ideology and class. I really liked how nuanced his analysis was. I'm sure I will revisit from time to time.