The Ideology of Ideology

I focused on Althusser instead of Fiske. Mainly because I always have a lot to say and wanted to focus in on one. Althusser in my opinion is putting the “I” in Ideology.

Ideology Defined | Interpretation of Illusion = Reality

Louis Althusser was a structuralist, Marxist philosopher who sought to re-construct the existing understandings of ideologies, in Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, and move away from the previous notion that ideologies where forms of false consciousness. Instead, Althusser suggested that the proper definition of an ideology is “a set of practices and institutions that sustain an individual’s imaginary relationship to his or her material existence” (693). Therefore, Althusser approached the explanation of, or ideology of ideology by examining (1) the object represented and (2) the materiality of existence. Althusser explained that “world outlooks” are imaginary since they do not correspond to reality (693). But, Althusser argues that admittance of the former sentence suggests that ideologies constitute an illusion and thus simultaneously an allusion to reality. This allows interpretation to be the discoverer of the reality of the world behind an individual’s imaginary representation of that world (693). Althusser focuses on the materiality of existence, because thoughts and individual belief systems are reflected in “material” actions. Actions repeated over and over lead to practices. Practices put on repeat yield rituals… and voila, you have an ideological apparatus based in the materiality of existence of actions.

The Initial Question

The main question arises, “Why do men ‘need’ this imaginary transposition of their real condition of existence in order to ‘represent to themselves’ in their real conditions of existence?” (694). Why does society encompass ideologies? The two prevailing answers to this question rest with an explanation regarding The Church (Catholic Church) in past times and Marx’s support of a Feuberbachian idea of alienation. (1) The Church used an ideological structuring system to organize their power and dominion over the masses of people to justify exploitation. The ideological apparatus served as a platform to structure a falsified representation of the world, which was imagined by the masses, enslaving their minds and allowing the leaders of the Church to dominate their imaginations. So what we have here is The Ultimate Mind Game. (2) The second answer, according to Marx, was that men construct an alienated and imaginary representation of their conditions of existence, because the conditions of existence (themselves) are alienating. So, in other words, two negatives make a positive. It is like saying, “I will alienate alienation (itself) to find my identity and stability in my own condition of existence.” And you could get into some stoner-esque philosophy here: the tension when an allegorical symbol contradicts itself through acting against itself. (Scandal condemning scandal- a warning against itself- page 696).

Individualized Ideologies

But… Althusser says, wait a minute… It is NOT the conditions of existence that are important, but the INDIVIDUAL’S RELATION to those conditions of existence, that is what constitutes an ideology. So, Althusser individualizes the Marxist view by explaining that an individual subject constructs an ideology, not a collective group. It is the individual’s relations to conditions of existence that formulate individual ideologies.

Interpellation

Althusser explains, “Ideology hails or interpellates individuals as subjects” (700). This makes sense. We each view the world through our own perspective. We are very self-centered, because that is our perspective. We form understandings through our acceptance or dismissal of knowledge acquired. Throw in a vague shout out to Bourdieu, but with a dash of agency and you get Althusser. The ideologies, which we form, are self-centered entities- because they constitute our relations to existence in society. In addition, we are “always-already” positioned in a way to take on the role of Subject within an ideological apparatus. The main difference between Bourdieu and Althusser is that Bourdieu binds people to the embodied social structure.

The Ideology of Ideology

Ideologies are like hipsters. An ideology never says, “’I am ideological’” and a hipster never says, “I am hipster” (700). That is what is so cool about studying the concept of an ideology as an ideology itself. It is important to note that those who fall under an individualized, ideological mindset believe themselves to be outside of the ideology. Even though individuals who are hipsters fall under the ideological apparatus of what is entailed by being hipster, they believe they are not victim to the categorization of that ideological apparatus. But… we all know. Same with the ideology of ideology. Now, I feel obligated to call Althusser out. While I think his theory is intriguing, I believe there are collectively perpetuated ideologies that are reinforced throughout history. Althusser claims “ideology has no history” (698). What I think he means is that since the individual creates ideologies, the only history of an ideology is bound to the subject… but I think there must be a collective component somewhere that explains practices of inception and the practices of The Church example. Unless he is saying an ideology has no history, but ideological apparatuses do? Food for thought.

Helpful Quotes

“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 ideas of that subject” (697).

“Ideology hails or interpellates individuals as subjects” (700).

“The subjection of the Subject [secures ideological formations]” (701).

-Kaylie Fougerousse