Ideologie und ideologische Staatsapparate

by Louis Althusser

Die theoretischen Arbeiten von Louis Althusser haben nicht nur in Frankreich, sondern auch in anderen europäischen Ländern, in den Ländern der "Dritten Welt" und sogar in einigen einstigen sozialistischen Staaten Aufsehen erregt und zur Neubelebung der marxistischen Theorie und Diskussion beigetragen.

"Denn auch wenn die Ideologischen Staatsapparate die Form darstellen, in der die Ideologie der herrschenden Klasse sich notwendigerweise verwirklichen muss, und zugleich die Form, mit der die Ideologie der beherrschten Klasse sich notwendigerweise messen und der sie entgegentreten muss, so 'entstehen' die Ideologien dennoch nicht in den Ideologischen Staatsapparaten, sondern aus den im Klassenkampf begriffenen gesellschaftlichen Klassen: aus ihren Existenzbedingungen, ihren Praktiken, ihren Kampferfahrungen usw."

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

127 pages, Paperback

First published June 1, 1970

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a critical reevaluation by scholars who have benefited from the anthologization of hard-to-find and previously unpublished texts and who have begun to engage with the great mass of writings that remain in his archives.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

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

آلتوسر از قول مارکس می‌گوید که هر کار تولیدی، ناچار است شرایط کار (ابزار و نیرو) را بازتولید کند. بعد تز اصلی کتابش را بیان می‌کند؛ که دولت این بازتولید را با ساز و برگ ایدئولوژیک (که متفاوت است با ساز و برگِ اعمالِ قدرتِ دولتی) انجام می‌دهد. مثلا ایدئولوژی را با مدرسه به نیروی کار آینده می‌خوراند، (که کارکرد و نیازش مثل کلیسا در گذشته‌ها است).
«بازتولید نیروی کار، به مثابه شرط لازم و ضروری نه تنها بازتولید "تخصص" نیروی کار بلکه بازتولید فرمانبری این نیروی کار از ایدئولوژی غالب یا "عمل‌گری" این ایدئولوژی نیز هست.»

می‌گوید اصلا چرا انسان نیاز دارد یک ایدئولوژی خیالی برای زندگی‌اش بسازد؟ پاسخ قرن هجدهمی این است که کلیسا گفت باید فرمانبردار خدا باشید، تا مردم در واقع فرمانبردار کشیشان و «دغلکاران» باشند.
پاسخِ --به تعبیر آلتوسر-- غلطِ دیگر را فوئرباخ داده: به علت سلطه‌ی از خودبیگانگی مادی بر شرایط هستی انسان.
درحالی که آن‌چه در ایدئولوژی بازنموده می‌شود، نه نظام واقعی سلطه‌گر بر هستی افراد، که نسبت تخیلی این افراد با روابط واقعی سلطه‌گر بر زندگی‌شان است.

«فرد به مثابه سوژه (آزاد) مورد خطاب قرار می‌گیرد تا آزادانه خود را تحت فرمان سوژه‌ی اعظم [که در ساز و کار ایدئولوژی مسیحی، خدا است] قرار دهد و آگاهانه (آزادانه) تبعیت خود را بپذیرد، و در نتیجه "تنها از عهده‌ی" کنش‌ها و کردارهای فرمانبری خود برآید. سوژه‌ها تنها از طریق و تحت انقیاد وجود دارند.»

[Becky · Rating 4 out of 5]

The question now is how to rate and review something like this. I can't say that I liked it, but at times I loved it. The overall thesis was a bit troubling, but there are an awful lot of points where he's not wrong.
His criticism of capitalism is everything it should be: insightful and true. I just don't buy communism as the best alternative.
It's incredibly dense in places, but considering the scope it's covering it's actually very accessible. It's even funny in places! There are times when Althusser is sarcastic or witty, and I was not expecting that.

Basically if you want to know more about communism and Marxism, or just want a good critique on capitalism, this is actually very readable.

[Muhammed · Rating 4 out of 5]

hayâlî ilişkilere mensup maddi şey: ideoloji.

[Basilius · Rating 4 out of 5]

I shall therefore say that, where only a single subject (such and such an individual) is concerned, the existence of the ideas of his belief is material in that his ideas are his material actions inserted into material practices governed by material rituals which are themselves defined by the material ideological apparatus from which derive the ideas of that subject.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, by Louis Althusser, is my first foray into Marxism and I gotta say I enjoyed myself. I don’t pretend to be an expert on economic systems, nor can I claim that socialism is superior or inferior to other systems. But what I like is how complete Marxism seems as a world view; almost all of human culture and civilization can be viewed under its lens. Louis Althusser, an important Marxist of the last century, wrote this work to define and describe what he called ‘Ideological State Apparatuses’, or ISA. These are distinct from traditional State Apparatuses, such as government, the police, and the army, which he redefined as Repressive State Apparatuses (RSA). The difference being that where RSAs rule through violence, ISAs rule through ideology. The institutions of the latter are church, school, family, science, law, and most surprisingly for me: art. Let’s run through the argument.

If a society can exist because of its economy, or ‘modes of production’, then it needs to reproduce those modes to continue to survive. To accomplish this the State constructs apparatuses to perpetuate the modes of production irrespective of who’s in charge. The eternal thing is the State; humans come and go. (An example is the concept of wages: workers receive currency for their work so they may eat and reproduce more workers.) The created apparatuses can be divided into two camps: infrastructure and superstructure, where the former is the operating economy (ex. capitalism) and the latter are the ISAs and RSAs. Both of these systems are the source of State Power. Now the reason State superstructure needs both an RSA and ISA is because the State cannot rule on force or ideology alone—both are needed (and preferably married). RSAs are part of the public sphere (falsely perceived to be ‘accountable’) and the ISAs are part of the private one (falsely perceived to be ‘autonomous’). While it’s true ISAs can challenge RSAs, they for the most part are in alliance, as the ISA receives support and shielding from the RSA while the RSA receives legitimization from the ISA. It’s worth noting that while the Church was classically the most powerful ISA, today it is Acadamia.

In short, Ideological State Institutions manufacture and institutionalize ideologies necessary for the State to operate. Scary stuff. Thus Althusser argues that ideology is both imaginary and unconscious: it does not reflect reality and is not actively chosen by us. This is the key point, as ideology is traditionally portrayed as a world-view that people actively choose themselves. But instead what’s happening is that people, who are forced to labor in alienated conditions, accommodate their surroundings with ideological justification (ex. individualism in a capitalism society, honor is a warrior society, etc.). In turn the ISA’s take hold and propound these ideologies so the gears can keep turning. Now, when Althusser called ideologies imaginary he meant that they do not accurately reflect a person’s relationship with their environment. We see ourselves as autonomous and empowered individuals, when they are in fact oppressed subjects. Ironically, he also argues that ideology is fundamentally material, in that it manifests in rituals/custom/routine/everyday action. So we don’t just think these fictions, we give them substance by playing them out. This is a self-reinforcing system that is difficult to break and harder to perceive.

One effect produced by all these is the transformation of all individuals into State subjects. But because we are born into this system at (and in many ways before) birth, all individuals are always-already subjects. Althusser even claims that those in charge are subjects to the same State Apparatuses, which make them ‘The Subject,’ to which the rest of us are subject. It gets even crazier when we apply these terms to other power dynamics: for example, in Christian religion all Christians are subjects to God, who is (in this system) the Subject. Suggesting God is ultimately subordinate to the theological apparatus he created. You may ask why anyone would join this system, even unconsciously, but the important thing is that the State Apparatus allows people to self-dictate within the system. In other words, it’s a structure that people can ‘work by themselves’ (hence it is self-reproducing). The illusion of freedom combined with stability is tempting enough, even when it entails class oppression.

Of course the classic Marxist conclusion to all this is that the proletariat must overthrows these systems: both State power and the State Apparatuses. At this point, though Althusser only briefly and mechanically prescribed this antidote, I smelled a hint of fear in his writing. He mentions how Lenin, when leading his revolution, could dismantle both the State power and RSAs, but tormented over the ISAs, which are ingrained in both the culture and people’s psyches. It’s because society doesn’t exist merely in institutions, but in people’s history, in their imaginations, and in their hearts. Old roots run deep. Anyways, while all this was interesting enough, the ramification in art is what interests me most. How art has embedded in it cultural axioms that I should be aware of, both as clichés, but also as potentially oppressive elements. Sexism, racism, class insensitivity; you know the drill. Not completely unknown to me, but seeing it here in this Marxist framework was important. I shall do my part to overthrow the capitalist oppressors, one book review at a time.

[Burak · Rating 4 out of 5]

Devletin baskıcı (polis, ordu) aygıtları ile ideolojik (din, aile, hukuk...) aygıtlarını ayırmamız gerektiğini ama en nihayetinde bu aygıtların üretim ilişkilerinin yeniden üretilmesi için nasıl kullanıldığını analiz eden bir deneme. Marx'ın meşhur altyapı ve üstyapı arasında kurduğu ilişkiyi, altyapının son kertede belirleyici olduğunu atlamadan daha derinlikli bir bakış açısıyla sunuyor. Yazar, hakkındaki "yapısalcılık" eleştirilerini reddetse de ideoloji analizinde hayli tartışmalı olan ve yapısalcılıkla özdeşleşebilecek tezler ortaya koyuyor.

[Eli · Rating 5 out of 5]

Althusser does a fantastic job of explaining and expanding on the base/superstructure model. Highly recommend

[Patrick Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Althusser has put ideology and the practices which enforce ideology in an incredibly broken down yet still complex way of understanding how rituals - religious, legal, political etc. have implemented ideology in the rise of capitalism, how laws have been used to oppress the working class in an aim to never overthrow them. Some may say Althusser is full of pessimism yet he’s just putting plain the detrimental effects of capitalism, and the writings of Marx aim to show how we are able to overthrow capitalism.

[Jack Waters · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of my favorite passages:

“Althusser here explains, in systematic fashion, his conception of historical materialism, the conditions for the reproduction of capitalist society, and the revolutionary struggle that seeks to put an end to it. His propositions about ideology and the ‘apparatuses’, put back in the overall framework of his project and the context of his political thought, reveal their object and presuppositions.”

“It confronts us with a question that is today less than ever possible to dismiss as obsolete: under what conditions, in a society that proclaims its devotion to the ideals of freedom and equality, is the domination of some people over others endlessly reproduced?”

“it calls for a reading at several levels: it is a political text that bears witness to its period; an introduction to the Althusserian categories for the analysis of capitalism; and a (novel) theory of the ‘Ideological State Apparatuses’ and ideological ‘interpellation’.

“founded on the idea of a march towards socialism by way of a gradual, legal process of public appropriation of the major means of production.”

“the first chapter introduces Althusser’s thesis about philosophy as a form that presupposes social conflict and scientific work, and about the history of philosophy as a sequence of conjunctures in which novelty arises at the conjunction of decisive ‘political-economic and scientific’ ‘events.’

“Every ‘social formation’ is characterized by a ‘dominant mode of production.’” “In the model as a whole, the base, not the superstructure (Law, State, Ideologies), is ‘determinant in the last instance.’”

“it tends to show the constant conditions in which variation occurs, and eventually puts an end to those constant conditions.”

“single theory, but a theory with double entries: reproduction and revolution.”

“power is exercised by the dominant class. The struggle of the dominated class has, to be sure, an impact on society. Only the dominant class, however, exercises ‘power.’ Power = the ‘excess’ of this class’s force over that of the dominated class: ‘class domination does indeed find itself sanctioned in and by the state, in that only the Force of the dominant class enters into it and is recognized there. What is more, this Force is the sole “motor” of the state, the only energy to be transformed into power, right, laws and norms in the state.’ Law, far from countering domination, is simply a moment of domination.”

Revolution consists of a practical, common ‘appropriation’ by freely associated men and women.

“interpretations of society as penetrated or saturated by class relations and subject to a class power that is exercised through the whole set of institutions.”

“civil society also provides the terrain on which the progressive struggle of ascendant class, the proletariat, is played out, and, therefore, the terrain on which is played out the revolutionary process itself.” “ensemble of institutions as elements of the state machinery thanks to which the bourgeoisie secures its domination.”

“a war for the subjection of one class to another, by way of a mobilization of commodity relations and law, which ‘sanctions’ these relations.”

“ideology does not have ‘an ideal, idea-dependent, or spiritual existence, but a material one’, for ‘an ideology always exists in an apparatus’ and Ideological State Apparatuses are the site of a ‘realization’ of ideology.” “‘every ideology has the function (which defines it) of “constituting” [concrete individuals as] subjects.’”

interpellation of “the free” is actually the opposite: “a lure, an injunction to conform to the social order based on commodity exchange, to the legal forms that rule it, the representations that justify it, and the practices that they call for.”

“imperative to show clearly what sort of system ensures the reproduction of the conditions of capitalist production - production being nothing but a means to the end of capitalist exploitation, since, under the capitalist regime, the production of consumer goods obeys the law of profit alone, and thus the law of exploitation.”

“the time is ripe because we need to take stock of things and are capable of taking stock of things.” failures at a certain point teach more than a victory, said Lenin, “since its consequences force us to go to the bottom of things.”

“Let there be no mistake: we need only become aware of the unprecedented crisis into which imperialism, beleaguered by its contradictions and its victims and assailed by the people, has now plunged, in order to conclude that it will not survive it.”

“someone who, confronted with a painful occurrence, ‘takes things philosophically’ is someone who takes a step back, gets the better of her immediate reaction, and conducts herself in a rational way: she understands the event affecting her and acknowledges its necessity.”

“it is not a good method to chop things in half and keep only what suits us. We have to take every aspect of the popular conception of philosophy into account.”

“the philosopher ‘circulates’ in a ‘world different’ from that of spontaneous popular consciousness.”

Every concrete social formation is based on a dominant mode of production. The immediate implication is that, in every social formation, there exists more than one mode of production: at least two and often many more.

In the base, which, in the last instance, determines everything that happens in the superstructure -- in the base, that is, in the unity productive forces/relations of production -- the relations of production are determinant, on the basis of the existing productive forces and within the material limits they set.

A mode of production is, as its name indicates, a way or manner (a mode) of producing. Of producing what? The material goods indispensable to the material existence of the men, women and children living in a given social formation.

A way of tackling nature in order to obtain goods is not a state of mind, a behavioral style, or a mood. It is a set of labour processes that together form a system constituting the production process of a particular mode of production.

Technical level of agents of a labor process is always determined by the nature of the instruments of labor and, more generally, by the the existing means of production.

Some argue: “We have understood what a mode of production is: productive forces set in motion in certain labour processes by agents with special skills.”
From the foregoing, a good many ‘experts’ will conclude: 1) that Marx invented nothing new, since all this is blindingly obvious (w/o) suspecting that it has only been blindingly obvious since Marx); and, above all, 2) that we have to do, in all this, with nothing more than technology pure and simple: material technology (tools, machines), technical training of the workforce, and technical organization of the labour process. The experts will feel reassured, and their ‘spontaneous’ tendency, which is technicist or technocratic, will be reinforced.
In fact, we must squarely rebut them. The productive forces do not suffice to account for a mode of production, since they are just one if its elements. The other is represented by the relations of production.

Marx effectively shows in Capital that the mobilization of the productive forces (means of production + labour-power) is incomprehensible unless we understand that it takes place under the aegis of definite relations of production, which play the determinant role in the unity productive forces/relations of production.

[MT · Rating 5 out of 5]

- ชอบสภาวะเหยียบเรือสองแคมของอัลทูแซในงานชิ้นนี้ ขาข้างนึงเขาอยู่ในขนบงานที่เข้าใจได้(แบบมายาคติของbarthe)ที่เป็นการพูดถึงการล้างสมองเด็กในรร แต่ขาอีกข้างกลับอยู่ในขนบที่ต้องปีนกระไดอ่านพอสมควร(วิธีการexcerciseอำนาจ อาจไม่สำคัญทาง ”อะไร“ที่อยู่เบื้องลึกวิธีนั้น) ซึ่งไอ้สภาวะทวิลักษณ์ก็วกกลับมาในงานของmarxเองด้วย (marxในช่วงแรกที่ยังติดคเป็นกระฎุมพีกับช่วงที่เขาสลัดเอากำพรืดตัวเองออกไป) มาร์ซที่ถึงแม้จะเอาเฮเกลมาทำให้จำต้องได้ แต่ไอ้ความอภิปรัชญาแบบเฮเกลมันก็ไม่ได้หายไปเสียทีเดียว ก็เลยชอบนัยยะในงานเขียนเล่มนี้ แต่สิ่งที่เราประทับใจกว่านั้นคือการกลับมาตั้งคำถามของอัลทูแซถึงเรื่องการพรรณาและการspeculationที่เรามีตรงชนชั้นและรัฐ อัลทูดูพยายามมองไปไกลกว่าสิ่งที่มาร์ซ เลนิน และอาจรวมถึงฟูโกต์มอง อาทิเช่น มันคือข้อเท็จจริงที่อำนาจของคนตัวเล็กตัวน้อยสู้กับอำนาจบาทใหญ่ไม่ได้ ซึ่งอัลทูเห็นด้วยและเคารพกับคนที่คิดแบบนี้ แต่อทซยังมองมันมีอะไรกว่านั้น และอะไรทีืมากกว่านั้นเนี้ยแหละคือสิ่งที่อทซนำเสนอไว้ในเล่มนี้และเป็นส่วนที่ต้องใช้สติและปัญญาในการอ่านมาก (แต่ก็ไม่ได้ยากจนจิกหัวแบบงานจูดิธ บัทเลอร์ สบายใจได้นิดนึง) เพราะสิ่งที่แกนำเสนอมันไม่ใช่อะไรที่เป๋นคำตอบตายตัวหรือฟังดูชอบธรรมอะไรจนให้คนต้องลุกขึ้นมาปฎิวัติหรอก แต่มันคือการพูดถึงสภาวะหรือ“อะไร”ที่หล่อเลี้ยงอุดมการณ์นั้นซึ่งมันเป็นอะไรที่คลุมเคลือและตอบยาก งานมันเลยดูเปิดความน่าจะเป็นใหม่ๆให้กับมารซ์และตัวคนอ่านด้วยว่าจะเข้าใจการเมืองและชนชั้นในระดับไหน

- ชอบที่อทซพูดถึงSubjectกับsubjectที่ปรากฎอยู่ไบเบิ้ล คือเราพึงดูซีรี่ยเรื่องthe chosenมาที่มันเกี่ยวกับjesus christ ในซับไตเติ้ลนั้นสรรพนามที่เป็นjsจะต้องพิมพ์ใหญ่ทั้งหมด ในขณะที่เหล่าสาวกและพวกโรมันก็แบบพิมพ์เล็ก มาอ่านที่แกเขียนก็ถึงบางอ้อแล้วละ

[xDEAD ENDx · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is really great in what it says about ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (in contrast to Repressive State Apparatuses). There's a lot that precedes and works in tandem with Foucault's thought, which obviously goes beyond in talking about apparatuses as productive forces.

The biggest barrier to this being great (and I'm being generous with 4 stars) is Althusser's ridiculous Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy and exceptionalism. As obvious as it is that when you start reading and writing and thinking like a Marxist, all the processes of thinking become Marxist in structure. Althusser is straightforward in admitting that Marxism is an ideology, but quickly falls back on it being a different kind of ideology that (somehow!) cannot exist as a state apparatus, a gross distortion of history if I've ever seen one! Anyways, this would be great if it wasn't so set on insisting that communism is somehow outside the scope of the things he is critiquing.

[Lucas · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is very interesting but far too often Althusser alludes to the completion of his project/explanation of an idea in a subsequent book that never arrived. As well, often times the work could use a bit more background or rigour - the ideas seem plausible and are super interesting but they aren't nearly as developed and defended as they ought to be.

As well, I think Ch 1-4 are skippable as they simply explain some basic tenets of Marxism that can be read more easily and accessibly elsewhere. Chapters 5-12 is where Althusser gets into his novel ideas which are definitely worth reading, not for their argumentative merits but for their sheer creativity.

[Francesca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic introductory for wider Marxist concepts

[Petar · Rating 3 out of 5]

maaan idk

[Sena]

Aslında makaleyi orijinal dilinde okumamış biri olarak bu konuda söz söyleme hakkım yok ama önceden okuduğum (nispeten) güvenilir İngilizce çevirilerle kıyasladığımda metni başarılı buldum. Türkçenin felsefe alanında üretim yapmaya ne ölçüde müsait olduğu tartışılabilir tabii, yine de çevirmen dilin sunduğu olanaklar içinde güzel bir sonuç ortaya çıkarmış diye düşünüyorum. Marksist teoriye ve bu alandaki teorisyenlerin kullandığı dile aşina birisi okurken yabancılık çekmeyecektir. Özetle, tanıdık kavramlar tanıdık bağlamlar içerisinde kullanılmış diyebilirim. Çevirmenin öteki işleri hakkında olumsuz eleştiriler okumuştum, o sebeple fikrimi buraya not düşmek istedim. Makalenin çevirisi konusunda tereddüt eden varsa bu baskıya bir göz atmasını tavsiye ederim.

[J. Moufawad-Paul · Rating 3 out of 5]

Finally published in english in January 2014, I was looking forward to reading the book where Althusser's famous (and masterful) ISA essay was culled from. While there is much to admire in this book it is also troubled by Althusser's inability to break completely PCF orthodoxy, particularly in the wake of May 1968, which is why the book is filled with tangents in which he upholds economism (despite also attacking other aspects of economism, very contradictory) so as to criticize his former students. The book is simultaneously brilliant and erroneous.

[Mehmet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kitap ufuk açan cinsten. Zaten biliniyor, fazla bir söz söylemeye gerek yok. Ama çeviri öyle kötüydü ki zorla okudum diyebilirim.

[Parsa · Rating 4 out of 5]

مترجم فصلی از کتاب اصلی را ترجمه کرده و در مقدمه هم این مساله را مطرح کرده است.
در این فصل از کتاب اصلی، آلتوسر به مکانیسم های سرکوب و سلطه دولت می پردازد و با مثال هایی سخت این بحث دشوار را سعی می کند جا بیاندازد که لازمه تولید، بازتولید شرایط تولید است. چرخه ای بی توقف که در ان تمام سازوبرگها و امکانات دولت برای این منظور مصرف می شوند. همانطور که یک نوزاد پیش از تولد اسم و هویت دارد؛ مناسبات تولید هم در چنین جبری گرفتارند

[Antônio Xerxenesky · Rating 3 out of 5]

Ortodoxo e um tanto datado (é o resumo da ideologia por trás de maio de 1968). Serve como peça histórica.

[Roberto Yoed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Genius, superb and most probably eternal.

Without a doubt, a true heir of marxism.

[tia edi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Vse je interpelacija muehehehehe

[Naopako dete]

Lako se čita, ali je jako zajebano, pogotovo ako vam kao što je slučaj sa mnom, nije bliska marksistička terminologija. U suštini, Altiser prećutno tvrdi da je sve ideologija i da je ideološka koncepcija sveta prisutna, ako ne od početka sveta, onda od nastanka hrišćanstva čiju teološku strukturu (Otac, sin, sveti duh) uzima za primer kako bi ilustrovao svoju ideju o Subjektu i subjektu i delovanja ideologije u takvom odnosu. Njegova je osnovna teza da ideologija nastaje iz određenog odnosa individue prema realnim uslovima egzistencije (realnosti) i da je određena njenom materijalističkom prirodom, budući da ideologija uvek poziva na određeno (materijalno) delovanje. Subjekt (individua, čovek?) je osnovna ideološka jedinica, ali istovremeno i njen krajnji cilj, jer zadatak je ideologije da ubedi subjekta u određeni set ideja i tako ga navede na određeno delvoanje, a ovo čini obzirom na njega i prema Altiseru ideologije se ne „radaju" u DIA vec iz društvenih klasa koje su uvucene u klasne borbe: iz njihovih uslova egzistencije, njihovih praksi, njihovog iskustva borbe itd.

U kontekstu države koja je i sama vid ideološke strukture i predstavlja rastresito tlo na kojem ideologije nastaju, Altiser razlikuje državni aparat (DA) i državni ideološki aparat (DIA). Prvi sadrži zvanične državne institucije poput vojske, policije i suda, dok DIA okuplja institucije koje su formalno nevezane za državu kao takvu, ali joj pomoću hegemonije koju ostvaruje vladajuća klasa služe na prikrivene i nevidljive načine. Ovde spadaju religijski (crkva), kulturni (pozorište), politički (partije), obrazovni (škole), porodični i drugi državni ideološki aparati, koji imaju funkciju u podrzavanju i realizaciji moći same države.

[Agung]

Take 1: Power lies not just in the economic base, but in the immanent whole of both the economic base and political superstructure

Before Althusser, Marxists always leaned on a conspiratorial notion of power as embedded in authority, and of domination as emanating from the top to the bottom of a social pyramid. This vulgar class analysis would see power vested in the sovereign, then the new masters, the owners of the means of production, via the state-form. The state protects the property of the bourgeoisie, through the repressive state apparatuses and the ideological state apparatuses.

Althusser moved away from this "reductionism" to the material base. The superstructure and the base are not only overdetermined, they are inseparable. Power is immanent in the whole. There is no conspiracy from the masters; the master is everywhere. Power in this view is a Spinozist conception of democracy as the empowerment of the self, supports the constituent power, the people against institutions, and other forms of bureaucratic and administrative control. The way to overcome dispersed power is to reclaim power where it is dispersed: the Ideological State Apparatuses(ISAs) such as the Church, schools, etc.

Take 2: Ideology has a material existence

Keep this bit in mind:

"...Ideas or representations etc. which seem to make up ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence, but a material existence."

Ideological State Apparatuses are realizations of ideologies; as Althusser says:

"While discussing the Ideological State Apparati and their practices, I said that each of them was a realization of an ideology..."

'Realization' would imply exactly that ideal or spiritual existence which precedes, or causes, its material existence — that which Althusser had denied as a possibility mere moments ago. Thus instead of being something realized in an apparatus, it is subsequently "returned to" as always existing in an apparatus:

"I now return to this thesis: an ideology always exists in an apparatus and its practice or practices. Their existence is material."

An ideology always exists in an Apparatus, and an Ideological State Apparatus is a realization of an ideology. Paradoxically, ideology thus always exists in (precisely that which is) its realization "as a material existence"— of which it is neither cause nor effect.

We see the same paradox in Spinoza's ethics:

Proposition XXXIII: "Things could not have been brought into being by God in any manner or in any order different from that which has in fact obtained"

In note II:

"But in eternity there is no such thing as when, before, or after; hence it follows solely from the perfection of God; that God never can decree, or never would have decreed anything but what is; that God did not exist before his decrees, and would not exist without them."

God is not, and cannot be an actor separate from the act. Both ideology and God are Lacanian inspired "absent causes" that are "immanent in their effects" in a Spinozist sense; that is to say, they solely "exist" after the fact, in a retroactive manner, as their effects (namely, the effect of their material effects). Spinoza points out that humans are insistent on imagining God as a transitive cause that precedes his decrees, when he is in fact a cause immanent in its (his) effects. This Structural Causality is only found in Marx besides Spinoza, where ideology takes the place of the Spinozist God.

Thus in this matter, to be a Spinozist is exactly the same as to be a Marxist.

Take 3: There is nothing outside of ideology

For Althusser, ideology is like Lacan's Symbolic order: it is how a human subject constructs their
reality after entering language, culture, the Symbolic order. This reality is not the Real, which is what always escapes symbolization, but it is the subject's representation of their (Imaginary) reality. Such a subject can never hit the Real, as they're always attempting to do so within the Symbolic order, hence they're always "in" ideology (read: in the Symbolic order).

This differs from how ideology was understood in traditional (pre-Althusserian) Marxism. For Marx, ideology was a kind of false consciousness, one that thought it knew reality, but only really knew something it imagined (for someone inside of ideology, they cannot see the reality outside it); the subject could, however, get "out" of ideology (which, for Marx, obscures reality), thereby understanding reality (e.g., by seeing the real economic base of ideology or the superstructure). "[Marx's ideology] is nothing but outside (for science and reality)": once we have a scientific grasp of reality, then we are not in ideology; you're only in ideology when you're out of a scientific understanding of reality, and vice versa.

For Althusser, like Lacan, however, this is impossible because such a subject relies on language (is in the Symbolic order); rather, the subject can only approach the Real by representing the processes (society, economics, history, institutions, etc.) which interpellate it as ideological.

Althusser:

To take a highly ‘concrete’ example, we all have friends who, when they knock on our door and we ask, through the door, the question ‘Who’s there?’, answer (since ‘it’s obvious’) ‘It’s me’. And we recognize that ‘it is him’, or ‘her’. We open the door, and ‘it’s true, it really was she who was there’. To take another example, when we recognize somebody of our (previous) acquaintance ((re)-connaissance) in the street, we show him that we have recognized him (and have recognized that he has recognized us) by saying to him ‘Hello, my friend’, and shaking his hand (a material ritual practice of ideological recognition in everyday life – in France, at least; elsewhere, there are other rituals).

In this preliminary remark and these concrete illustrations, I only wish to point out that you and I are always already subjects, and as such constantly practice the rituals of ideological recognition, which guarantee for us that we are indeed concrete, individual, distinguishable and (naturally) irreplaceable subjects. The writing I am currently executing and the reading you are currently performing are also in this respect rituals of ideological recognition, including the ‘obviousness’ with which the ‘truth’ or ‘error’ of my reflections may impose itself on you.

[Aman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Where is the revolt?

The first chunk of this reveals how a mode of production (such as capitalism) reproduces its productive forces. However, this leaves out the reproduction of the social formation: how does capitalism reproduce its relations of production (i.e., the relations between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat)?

The answer: Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA), which are in the last instance enforced by the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA). You see, the RSA primarily uses force or physical violence, or administrative violence, through the government, army, police, penal system, etc. It does this in order to enforce the ruling ideology. This is where the ISAs enter: ISAs are various institutions that are part of civil society (i.e., political, educational, religious, cultural, communicative, familial, etc. institutions). These civil society institutions inundate the population in the ruling ideology. ISAs use ideology to concoct a consensual relationship between the people of a society and its ruling class—a Gramscian point. Ideology is what convinces the people of a given society that the organization of their society is the organization of societies. It is ideology that introduces normalcy, orthodoxy, universality, which in turn preserves the social formation that benefits the ruling class. While Althusser acknowledges the subtle primacy of the material conditions to set forth the "processes of production and circulation", he notes the almost contemporaneous and corresponding emergence of an ideological reinforcement of said relations.

State Apparatuses be like:

ISAs ←→ RSAs

Contrary to the "Marxist" (who?) idea, where ideology is a false consciousness which (falsely) reflects and hides the concrete material conditions of reality; for Althusser, ideology is reality because reality itself is constructed out of (what Lacan would call) the Real—that which lies beyond signification (beyond representation, beyond language). However, (and I really struggled with this thesis), Althusser argues that the relation of an individual to the material conditions of reality itself is imaginary (i.e., ideological). The relationship between individuals and the real conditions of their existence is imaginary because it serves to preserve and reproduce the relations of production. That is to say, the relations are literally produced from ideology, and so ideology (mis)represents the relationship to the real conditions to (re)produce the relations of production.

Ideology also inaugurates (i.e., interpellates) a concrete individual as a subject, even though Althusser says that this subject always-already exists. How is this possible? Well, the concrete individual is turned into a subject because it is subjects who possess (social) objects such as freedom, consciousness, etc. This subject-formation is always-already there because, for example, consider how, before you are born, your parents might already have a family name for you; they will have, invested in you, life motives, such as "you will eventually get a job" or "you will take care of your parents when they are old"; and before all that even, you will be introduced into existing kinship structures, so you already have a family, etc. Such motives do not belong to an isolated concrete individual, a scientific individual, they belong to a socially produced subject.

Finally, ideology manifests materially in the attitude, the disposition [dispositif], which characterizes a subject's actions. The actions, organized into practices, which form rituals, uphold ISAs. Consider the school:

You go to school to learn a series of skills and become a person (i.e., subject-formation), eventually coming out the other end into the workforce. The knowledge that you are provided, to be productive, to obey authority, to avoid criminality; you use for your own desires as a subject, but since your subject is created under the ruling ideology, your subject functions to preserve the ruling class (i.e., you make the wealthy wealthier, you don't protest the state or elections too much, etc.). The ruling ideology, proving to be successful, continues so long as it is not challenged, and the ideology itself produces people that will not challenge it (it reproduces the relations of production). This is how ideology is material, because it is the manifestation of (let's call it) ideological teachings, signs, information, which is provided to a subject (which forms their subject and characterizes their actions) by ISAs. These ISAs reproduces the same type of subjects, perhaps tending to make them more workable in the new environment (let's teach them coding at a young age!).

So, how the fuck can we possibly fight this? From within (sorta): ISAs are where the ruling ideology can be challenged. This is where violent class struggle can break through (in a way that is perhaps unable to be absorbed by the universalizing tendency of capital). This ideological challenge perhaps can manifest in a shift in the real material conditions. Ideology is reality; there is no escaping it. But, in the ISAs, there may lie the secret to the possibility of revolutionary change.

[Ami 乁⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠o⁠ ⁠˘⁠ ⁠ㄏ (written by Jane Austen) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Phew...that was something...

[Balduin · Rating 4 out of 5]

If subjects are constituted by ideology and ideology is eternal how can there be a scientific subject that says "I was in ideology"? Or is then a non-subject? Unfortunately Althusser leaves this unclear. Besides that it is a great text.

[Zach Irvin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book laid out in very clear terms some of the basic building blocks of Marxism in a way that was clear and understandable. I’m glad I read it, since I have often felt that there were parts of Marxism that I was missing. Parts of the book have not aged well, for instance, there are moments when Althusser’s privilege as a white male are very apparent. But, despite this, on the whole this work is still relevant to the world today.

[Maciej Dziewoński · Rating 3 out of 5]

Jego francuskie strukturalistyczne dupsko ewidentnie nie czytało Stirnera, bo powiela jego przestawienie ideologii bez odniesienia się do niego (możliwe też, że, jako zatwardziały leninista, żal mu było się przyznać przed chłopakami z partii, że sięgnął po Świętego Maxa). Niemniej jednak teoria jest ciekawa i godna odniesienia, ale byłaby przystępniejsza gdyby nie była napisana w tak abstrakcyjny sposób, jak to francuskie strukturalistyczne białasy miały w nawyku.

[tea · Rating 3 out of 5]

mislim ja sam ovo dva puta čitala u istom mesecu, ne znam, dosta toga mi je na nekom apstraktnom novou, dosta revizije marksa i možda pogrešnog interpretiranja njegovog rada, a i ima nekih (meni omiljenih) delova odustajanja od argumentacije! elem, što više puta čitam to više razumem, sad sam na nekih 53% razumevanja tek!

[Vik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Possible the best work on ideology since Gramsci.

[Miriam · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had to consult wikipedia to understand Althusser's point...