Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 4
Relation between Ideology and History
Louis Pierre Althusser was a French Marxist philosopher relatively
unknown until the mid-1960s when his works were published: For Marx (1965), Reading Capital (1968) and Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (1971). He became famous for his revision of traditional Marxism in his understanding of ideology. Moving away from classical Marxism that spoke of the mechanistic base and superstructure dialectics, he spoke of the “relative autonomy” of the superstructure.
However in relation to History, Althusser follows the footsteps of Marx
and Engels though in a different way. Like Marx, he believed that individual agency was subsumed by historical processes and history itself was seen as a “process without a subject”. In this Althusser closely follows Marx’s remark in The German Ideology: “Morality, religion, metaphysics, all the rest of ideology…have no history, no development”. Althusser too claims that ‘Ideology has no history’. In order to understand the relation between ideology and history as discussed by Althusser in his essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus”, we need to consider history as conceived by Marx and Engels.
In The German Ideology, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels introduced a
theory of the structure of society, which divides society into a base and a superstructure. Peter Barry sums up: “The simplest Marxist model of society sees it as constituted by a base (the material means of production, distribution, and exchange) and a superstructure, which is the ‘cultural’ world of ideas, art, religion, law, and so on”. According to Marx and Engels, mankind has always been tied to the economic base because of the necessity to produce the material needs that are required for maintaining their existence. Marx and Engels see the superstructure fundamentally as an illusion, a mere reflection of the economic base, which serves the purpose of securing the reproduction of the conditions of production. Moreover, Marx believed that individual agency was subsumed by historical processes and history itself was seen as a “process without a subject”. Marx and Engels’s concept of history follows their base and superstructure model. They argue that mankind has been tied to the necessity to produce the material needs for their existence, the material base, from the beginning of time. Since the superstructure is nothing more than an illusion that stems from the material base, there is no historical progress besides material progress.
Althusser agrees with Marx that Ideology is non-historical but in a
different sense than that argued by ‘The German Ideology’. He believes that ideology is not-historical not as the orthodox approach would have it but because it is omni-historical, just like Freud’s unconscious. In his essay ‘The Unconscious’, Freud said that unconscious is timeless, not in the sense that it is supernatural but because it is prior to any temporal order or connections, being prior to the level of language , of culture and so on. Althusser explicitly draws parallel between Ideology and unconscious: “To give a theoretical reference-point here, I might say that, to return to our example of the dream, in its Freudian conception this time, our proposition: ideology has no history, can and must (and in a way which has absolutely nothing arbitrary about it, but, quite the reverse, is theoretically necessary, for there is an organic link between the two propositions) be related directly to Freud’s proposition that the unconscious is eternal, i.e. that it has no history”. Althusser draws a step farther by rendering timelessness as eternal:’ Ideology is eternal, exactly like the unconscious’.
Althusser is a structuralist Marxist. Structuralists do not see individual
experiences as being determined outside the forces of the structures of society. Althusser too believed in structures affecting individuals. He wanted to show how individual acts were already influenced by the dominant ideology of the state. The individuals were “always-already” in performing their individual acts. In other words, individual acts were not carried out as the result of free will or agency, but were always and already dependent upon, and part of, larger social structures and influences. Althusser says that ideology is a structure, and as such is "eternal," i.e. to be studied synchronically; this is why Althusser says that ideology has no history. He derives this idea of ideology as a structure from the Marxist idea that ideology is part of the superstructure and he links the structure of ideology to the idea of the unconscious, from Freud and from Lacan. Because ideology is a structure, its contents will vary, we can fill it up with anything, but its form, like the structure of the unconscious, is always the same. And ideology works "unconsciously." Like language, ideology is a structure/system which we inhabit, which speaks us, but which gives us the illusion that we're in charge, that we freely chose to believe the things we believe, and that we can find lots of reasons why we believe those things.
Althusser advocated a non-teleological view of history. That is, he did
not believe in a unilinear notion of history that progressively develops towards an end or goal. At any given point the social formation of a society is influenced by the Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses which emerge from the dominant mode of production. These social formations change depending on the mode of production and in the interest of those in power.
Bio Politics of Gendered Violence in Sahadat Hasan Manto's Stories, "Sharifan", "Xuda Ki Kasam" and "Ghate Ka Sauda": Reflections On Authentic Testimonies of Trauma