1 Rethinking Althusser: Ideology, Dialectics, and Critical Social Theory John Grant Department of Politics Queen Mary, University of London [email protected] [email protected] Presented at the CPSA Annual Conference May 31-June 3 2005 University of Western Ontario, *Any use or reproduction of this work requires prior consent of the author* 2 Introduction This paper interrogates work by Louis Althusser within the larger context of an ongoing study into the efficacy of a dialectical approach to critical social theory. Althusser’s work occupies a productive place in twentieth century thought: it rejects the existential humanism of Sartre, while upholding the type of determinate political positions sometimes abandoned by poststructuralists such as Foucault or Derrida. My aim is to read Althusser predominantly against himself in order to rework and relocate his rendering of the dialectic. Althusser’s conception of the Marxist dialectic suffers, as I will show, from a number of conceptual deficiencies. Not only does it seem to reproduce the same type of economism he wanted to avoid, it overemphasizes the role of structural determinants. By refusing to employ any concept of the subject the conditions of dialectical analysis are lost, along with the possibility of accounting for political questions concerning experience and resistance. I believe that for social theory the real promise of Althusser’s thought lies in developing a more rigorous dialectical approach. The following is one way of envisioning the route this might take. 1) Refusing, unlike Althusser, to overemphasize the homogeneity of any ideological conjuncture, so that one can begin to identify the contradictory ways in which we are produced as subjects; 2) Maintaining the category of the subject over against Althusser’s strict anti- humanism, which allows one to recognize the movements and rhythms of a subject-object dialectic; 3) Althusser’s posthumously published work identifies what he terms “aleatory materialism.” It places significant importance on the ‘encounter’ as a moment of ontological becoming that is open and multiple. By emphasizing the singularity of every encounter 3 alongside the insights of (1) and (2), a dialectical approach is produced that allows the subject to identify the contradictory elements of its own, always incomplete, production. Finally, and most significantly, these elements can then be recast as points of resistance within a larger critical social theory. I - Althusser’s Marxist Dialectic Althusser’s project of constructing a so-called ‘scientific Marxism’ relies on using the concepts, according to him, that Marx developed as a way of understanding the historical development of social formations as a process without a subject. Often Althusser explicates his version of a Marxist dialectic by counterposing it to Hegel’s conception of dialectics. For example, the conception of an “overdetermined” contradiction is played off against “simple” one, which is based on the notion of an original unity that can be restored. Overdetermination implies that at any given moment society is characterized by multiple contradictions that are themselves the result of a multitude of different constituent elements (or at least more than two). The distinguishing feature of this complexity is a “structure in dominance” that assumes the principal role in organizing and articulating the specific form of any social whole (Althusser, 1969: 200- 02). Althusser calls the structure in dominance “the most profound characteristic of the Marxist dialectic” (1969: 206). This dominance is responsible for the uneven and overdetermined development of the structures that constitute the social whole, which is what delineates a specifically Marxist contradiction. In any social formation the economy is the dominant structure, although, famously, it is only dominant “in the last instance” (Althusser, 1969: 217). This feature of the dialectic is not only a reality for Althusser, but is required in order to “. . . escape the 4 arbitrary relativism of observable displacements by giving these displacements the necessity of a function” (Althusser and Balibar, 1970: 99). If the economy is only dominant in the last instance, this means that it is possible for a different structure to be dominant at any other instance, albeit for economic reasons. Indeed, Althusser goes so far as to claim that, “From the first moment to the last, the lonely hour of the ‘last instance’ never comes” (1969: 113). This is what invests overdetermination with such theoretical importance. At any given moment the structures that make up the social whole constitute a complex unity, which is governed by a specific structure in dominance. The productivity of overdetermination rests in the notion that the specific shape of a social formation is constantly developing (in response to the dominant structure), which requires an infinite return to the specific moment of conjuncture in order to articulate its form. The apparent tension in Althusser, between an emphasis on rather rigid structures and each singular social formation that they compose, is not necessarily as great as it might seem. There is a certain implicit, continual movement, from one position to the other, even if for now the concern with structures seems to take priority. The explanatory priority of structures cannot be understood apart from Althusser’s rejection of humanism and the category of the subject, which he identifies as a major difference between the Hegelian and Marxist dialectics. Althusser invested great energy in his opposition to Hegelian and existentialist Marxists like Herbert Marcuse and Jean-Paul Sartre, whom he saw as humanists trapped in a philosophy of the subject and consciousness (see Althusser, 1976: 99, 188). The following quotation introduces Althusser’s notion of ideology, and helps to explain why humanism is an ideological concept. In ideology men do indeed express, not the relation between them and their conditions of existence, but the way they live the relation between them and their conditions of existence: this presupposes both a real and an ‘imaginary’, ‘lived’ relation . . . In ideology 5 the real relation is inevitably invested in the imaginary relation, a relation that expresses a will (conservative, conformist, reformist or revolutionary), a hope or a nostalgia, rather than describing a reality (1969: 233-34). The humanist idea of the subject contains what Althusser calls “the theoretical characters cast in this ideological scenario,” which include “the philosophical Subject (the philosophizing consciousness), the scientific Subject (the knowing consciousness), and the empirical Subject (the perceiving consciousness) . . .” (1970: 54-5). Althusser is rejecting any notion of a constitutive subject that acts as the source of its own thoughts and actions. The humanist subject is ideological because it imagines that it controls its surroundings, that its relationship to its conditions of existence is shaped, first and foremost, by its ability to make unrestricted and transparent personal choices. Further, humanist notions of the subject necessarily rely on some idea of human essence, and therefore origin. To wit, humans have an original essence from which they are currently estranged or alienated; our foremost considerations, then, must be devoted to reestablishing conditions that allow this essence to become knowable, and flourish. This is the basis on which Marx’s early work is often judged. Althusser’s well-known claim is that there is an epistemological break in Marx’s work around 1845 (and in The German Ideology specifically) that signalled the end of his flirtations with the humanist anthropology of Hegel and Feuerbach.1 Quite simply, when it comes to understanding social relations and change, the individual, or the category of the subject, is an inadequate unit of analysis (indeed an ideological one) compared with, say, classes, or the mode and relations of production,. Political and historical change, then, must be thought as a process without a subject. In typically provocative fashion, Althusser writes that Marx’s “theoretical anti-humanism” constitutes a philosophical revolution. “It is impossible to know anything about men except on 6 the precondition that the philosophical (theoretical) myth of man is reduced to ashes” (1969: 229).2 This has direct implications for the dialectic. While Althusser’s concept of overdetermination contains a specific understanding of complex contradiction between structural relations, it can no longer be articulated using the concepts of subject and object. Because he thinks the socio-political field as a series of objects, any claim to knowledge must be posed “. . . in terms which exclude any recourse to the ideological solution contained in the ideological characters Subject and Object, or to the mutual mirror-recognition structure, in the closed circle of which they move” (1970: 55). Althusser is hostile to any counter-argument that there is always a mediating term or element that displaces the simple subject-object dichotomy (subjectivity and labour are two terms that played this role for Hegel). “The concept of mediation is invested with one last role: the magical provision of post-stations in the empty space between theoretical principles and the ‘concrete’, as bricklayers make a chain to pass bricks” (Althusser and Balibar, 1970: 63). The existence of subject and object as theoretical terms cannot be made more real by making it look as if they interact with actual concrete social practices. To think otherwise places one in an ideological closure where the real is merely reduced to the theoretical unity of subject and object. The list of features defining Althusser’s Marxist dialectic has become a long one. It is uniquely characterized by the following: a complex set of overdetermined contradictions; a structure in dominance that is determined, in the last instance, by the economy; the uneven development of contradictions; a form of theoretical anti-humanism that rejects the concepts of the subject, origin, essence, and mediation; and the concept of a process without a subject. But can these concepts actually function together? Can they account for the dialectical production of 7 social life Althusser purports to illustrate? Or might Althusser’s recasting of dialectics itself qualify for revision? II - The Impasse of Althusser’s Dialectic Althusser’s version of the dialectic is, I believe, rightly thought of as a type of structuralism. The difficulty this poses is that there seems to be an unreconcilable difference between structuralism and dialectics. To the extent that structuralism is a determinism, it cannot account for the difference between structures and what they produce. That is, while dialectics identifies the precise contradiction between the particular and the general, which are then unable to retain their identities, structuralism sees the particular as a simple reflection of the general. To posit an unmediated, or uncontradictory identity, is to rule out dialectics. This can be demonstrated by looking at how Althusser deploys his conceptual tools. It is important at this stage to point out that some of Althusser’s final work, which will be examined shortly, goes a long way to overturning the impression that he is a structuralist (also see Althusser, 1976: 126-31). Nonetheless, there are times when his work is so burdened by its attention to structures that there seems to be room for little else. Concepts such as overdetermination, structure in dominance, and uneven development, certainly require us to reconsider our understanding of how the social whole is constituted. What remains absent in Althusser’s work is an actual demonstration of how these concepts function together.3 This is not a serious problem if such a demonstration could be made. However, I think the reason why Althusser never demonstrated his dialectic is because it was immobilized by the very (structuralist) categories he used to release it from conceptual determinism (economism in this 8 case). The idea of a structure in dominance allows for conceptualizing the uneven development of structural contradictions. How is a dominant structure established? Althusser’s answer, if it can be called one, is to posit the economy as the determining structure ‘in the last instance,’ even though that moment supposedly never comes. This sleight of hand allows him to avoid conceptual pluralism, as well as the determinism that would result if the last instance ever arrived. But if the last instance never comes, then it is no longer possible for the economy to be determinant. Assuming the last instance can occur, then any appeal to the overdetermined conditions of a social whole loses its force. Overdetermined conditions would then rest on the existence of one simple determination: the economy. The last instance ends up being indistinguishable from the first instance, or any other, since any determinant structure other than the economy is in debt to it for this status. Further, Althusser cannot explain the positional dominance of the economy by referring to any particular configuration of the social whole because it exists for him as a trans-historical fact.4 This a priori causal factor produces a deterministic understanding of how the social is constituted. The result for social critique is that the possibility of a dialectics has been written out because the source of all contradictions has been determined in advance. Despite this impasse, I believe Althusser’s work still contains a number of conceptual tools that can help build a radical approach - that is, one with transformative intentions and potential - to social critique. The first step is to reexamine his efforts to theorize ideology. Because there has been a massive amount of literature on this very topic, my discussion will be confined to identifying contradictory tendencies and heterogeneous spaces within ideological processes that allow for the possibility of resistant practices. This is partly what Althusser had in 9 mind when he described how, in For Marx and Reading Capital, he had succumbed to “theoreticism”, which he described in the following way: “[the] primacy of theory over practice; one-sided insistence on theory; but more precisely: speculative-rationalism” (1976: 124). This suggests that the composition of structuralism left questions of political struggle - specifically class struggle - behind. Theoretical questions ended up eliminating the most important political questions. To put it another way, jettisoning the subject, or reducing it to nothing more than an effect of structures, eliminated the space for a detailed analysis of experience, resistance, or the possibility of social change. Rethinking ideological processes through a dialectical approach gives sufficient priority to political subjectivities while attempting to avoid theoreticism. III – Reconsidering Ideology I have already made reference to Althusser’s notion of ideology as it appeared in For Marx. The seminal essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses” affirms that earlier conception, stating that “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (2001: 109). The sophistication of this concept is made evident using Althusser’s previous example of humanism, which is both imaginary - insofar as its purported account of our relationship to our conditions of existence is a fantasy - and real - insofar as it continues to function as a dominant discourse that structures our thoughts and actions. Significantly, ideology is now also said to have a material existence in the practices of apparatuses (kneel and pray in Church, for example, and you will believe).5 This accounts for the common objection that ideology-critique is idealist and ignores material practices of subjects. Even more important is the fact that for Althusser, “. . . there is no ideology except by the subject 10 and for subjects. Meaning, there is no ideology except for concrete subjects, and this destination for ideology is only made possible by the subject: meaning, by the category of the subject and its functioning” (2001: 115). Ideology produces subjects, as well as the category of the subject - which is conceptualized as a person endowed with the ability to identify the ideas and practices he believes and participates in prior to doing so - as an adaptive mechanism. The (produced) individual sees himself reflected in the institutions and practices of a society, to which his needs are adapted. Althusser refers to the ideological “interpellation” of the subject, where a call from a policeman in the street (“Hey, you there!”) causes one to turn and acknowledge not only the voice, but the attendant subject identity as well (2001: 118). We are, of course, constantly hailed in other ways: receiving a letter or a phone call, or behaving within the proscribed boundaries of law, all allow a person to think ‘Yes, that’s me.’ Judith Butler points out that turning toward the voice of the law is not a result of hailing alone, but is also motivated by a positive anticipation of identity formation (Butler, 1995: 8). In other words, by construing ‘law’ more broadly, the turn toward dominant identities results in part from a fear of being labelled as a social other. The insidious nature of ideology as it currently functions is revealed in the double meaning of the term subject.6 It refers to both a free-willing individual as well as subjection to a more powerful authority. Rather than being thought of as incompatible, ideology functions because of this contradiction: only because we believe that we have freely consented to our own subjection do we not resist. A common objection that often arises at this point is that Althusser has presented a closed system of ideological production. The dominant ideology seems to enjoy its status simply by virtue of being dominant, which, along with the focus on the general mechanisms of ideology, obscures how the various interpellations made by each ideological state