[HoniSoit]

By FallenRaptor

Ideology

In order to understand how ideology is used in social hegemony, it is necessary to understand what ideology is and how it functions. In Marxist terminology, ideology is often synonymous with 'false consciousness' and is the opposite of science. Instead of representing the material world accurately, ideology is the imaginary representation of the relations people have towards their real conditions of existence. Despite it's imaginary nature, however, ideology does have a material existence, which lies in it's apparatus(ie. a painting) and in it's practice("Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe" - Pascal). It is through these apparatuses & practices that ideology transforms individuals into subjects, a process the French communist theorist Louis Althusser calls 'interpellation' or 'hailing'. Examples of interpellation exist everywhere in our everyday lives, from priests baptising new members of the church to you saying "hello" to a person on the street. Ideology is so pervasive that we are virtually always made subjects by it, even when we are not aware of it and even before we are born.

Ideological State Apparatus

As mentioned in the last article, repression from the state(which will will refer to as the repressive state apparatus or RSA) is not enough for the ruling class to maintain social hegemony(the existing conditions of production). The ruling class, either consciously or unconciously, also employs ideology to manufacture consent amongst the masses. The apparatuses that the ruling class uses to do this are called ideological state apparatuses, or ISAs. Examples of the major ISAs consist of the following:

The religious ISA (the system of the different churches),
The educational ISA (the system of the different public and private schools),
The family ISA
The legal ISA
The political ISA (the political system, including the different parties),
The trade-union ISA,
The communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.),
The cultural ISA (literature, the arts, sports, etc.).

It becomes evident that there are several other differences between the ISA and the RSA. The RSA is highly centralized & unitary while the ISAs are dispersed and heterogeneous. It is also clear that some ISAs serve other social functions. In fact, there is no such thing as a purely ideological or purely repressive state apparatus, as all state apparatuses use both repression and ideology to some degree.

While not denying the tremendous influence all ISAs have, Althusser claimed that the dominant ISA in pre-capitalist society was obviously the church, while the dominant ISA in capitalist society is the education system. Since early youth, every person born in modern capitalist society must go to school(either run by the bourgeois government or directly by private capitalists) for until biological and social maturity. It is successful in squeezing the ideas of the ruling class into the youth at their most tender ages while maintaining a neutral appearence to the families of the students, which also serve as state apparatuses in pushing their children through their education.

[Adrien]

You write extremely well and clearly FallenRaptor, I'm envious!



Seriously though, I think you are seeking the mark of ideology in our behaviours a bit too deep there.

I would say that yes it is very relevant to put the caracteristics of what we call today a 'western society', that is the ISAs you listed minus education but I will come back to that, as consequences and materializations of the empire of Capitalism on our lives and organisation; not so much in and of themselves (all the functions you listed would exist in any society, including a Socialist/Communist one) as much as in the contents that they distill through society. And without falling into conspiracy theories it is pretty much a fact that all of these functions are vectors of class interests and keep the public controlled.

Now, my two points of disagreement eh. First, though it's just a line in your expose, I don't think it has shaped us all the way to the way we greet each other. I totally agree on the sacrements in Church, but we retain a great deal of natural behaviours and freedom. What made me think of that is the study of an ethnologist (I couldn't give you the information from the top of my head) about ways for people to greet each other precisely, but the study included some of the most remote tribes or communities. And what he found was that while language of course could not be counted, physical behaviours were common among all the communities. The one he studied in particular was when, as you see someone and even more so someone you know, you raise your eyebrows and eyelids and acknowledge that person. I don't have the technical term but I'm sure you see what I mean hehe.

So my idea would be that unideological behaviours, ie natural behaviours always remain, though of course they can sometimes be coloured by culture specificity and thus look like they have been shaped by ideology. And to go beyond that, I believe that culture always remains against ideology, and it allows us to remain critical. I'm not saying we are not compromised, but we remain critical and to some extent free.

And I'd say it's verified in the facts: the most capitalistic countries in that Western world, in terms of economic system, also happen to be, usually, the most morally liberal too (take, I don't know, Iceland, or even the USA which beyond the indeed tremendous influence of the religious ISAs is probably the most morally liberal country of the West). So the link of cause and consequence between Capitalism and the necessity of the influence of ISAs appears broken, in totality (it'd be Iceland in the examples I gave but I may be wrong) or in parts (it would be the USA). Also, about interpellations, if you transport yourself to Japan, which shares with the West its capitalist 'western' characteristics, culture and human relations will be most different. Including the way you greet people.

So to explain that disparity through ISAs would require acknowledging that they are not as universal as the capitalist system is/claims to be/aspires to be but have local specificities. And I think that it is not the case, I see the essence of capitalism in all the common denominators, while the other specific characteristics are areas that are not controlled by any ideological system if you will, or that are just not controllable.

My other point was about education, but it'll wait eh. I realise what I just said might be a bit obscure, in good part due to a lack of precise vocabulary. Oh, the barrier of language.

[FallenRaptor]

Thanks, Honi and Adrien.

all the functions you listed would exist in any society, including a Socialist/Communist one

This is correct. Althusser claimed that historical materialism cannot envision a human society without ideology and to suggest that ideology can be abolished is itself ideological. Communist society would have it's own forms of ideology and ideological apparatuses, but it won't have ISAs.

Now, my two points of disagreement eh. First, though it's just a line in your expose, I don't think it has shaped us all the way to the way we greet each other.

It isn't just the way we greet people that is ideological. The very act of greeting people is ideological since you are interpellating an individual with an ideological form of recognition of their existence.

I totally agree on the sacrements in Church, but we retain a great deal of natural behaviours and freedom.

Of course no one is suggesting that ideology completely shapes the way we are. Any concept of a purely homo ideologicus would be just as false as the concept of a purely homo economicus.

So my idea would be that unideological behaviours, ie natural behaviours always remain, though of course they can sometimes be coloured by culture specificity and thus look like they have been shaped by ideology. And to go beyond that, I believe that culture always remains against ideology, and it allows us to remain critical. I'm not saying we are not compromised, but we remain critical and to some extent free.

The natural behavious of humans(technically, all human actions can be seen as natural since human beings are themselves products of nature) are usually not outside the various social practices set by historical materialism(economic, political, ideological). Eating food, for example, would be considered an economic action. Usually, culture is considered ideology by Marxists or it's often used by Marxists to describe certain type of ideology(ie. Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony)

[Potemkin]

It isn't just the way we greet people that is ideological. The very act of greeting people is ideological since you are interpellating an individual with an ideological form of recognition of their existence.

Precisely. By 'recognising' and hailing them, you are forcing them to acknowledge your version of their identity. If a racist shouts at a black person, "hey you, n***er!", he is forcing that black person to acknowledge the racist's 'recognition' of him, to internalise a racist identity. The same process of interpellation occurs when a TV ad is 'targetted' at a certain demographic. The ad is hailing that demographic, interpellating them, and thereby forcing them to acknowledge and internalise their socially constructed identity.

[Adrien]

Communist society would have it's own forms of ideology and ideological apparatuses, but it won't have ISAs.

With all due respect to my fellow leftists who are Communists rather than Socialists, this for me is a very demagogical assertion, but I right away admit that it mostly is to me because I don't believe or rather cannot envision the withering away of the State. But sure, if you theorize that then yes ISAs cannot exist, leaving only IAs. It's a technical deduction if you will.

But there would still be a monolithically influential IA of the press, one of the education system, one of the judicial system, etc. Because these are functions (as in the functions of a living organism such as the human body and its functions) of any society, even more so one in which these are not thrown as preys for the market to divide into tiny bubbles of profit-making, with only the size changing depending on the population and technical capacities at hand.

So I guess that to make my initial point more explicit, and again keeping in mind that I do not assimilate the idea of a withering away of the State, these functions of human societies are ISAs and weapons of the ruling capitalist class because they happen to be in their hands. Once in the hands of a different class they can (beyond the problems of persons blocking that effort from within as objectors in the personnal lives if you will) totally be stripped out of their wrong-doings and become once again functions and organs of the free society, without any agenda to push.

Taking the monoliths down (taking the State organisation down) would even maybe be worse, as you would force those who want to use it as a vector of capitalist control out and into the open world where they would reform, but balkanised (apologies for the use of that word eh), spread out, and through that maybe even stronger and more withdrawn on themselves. You would take the risk of empowering what we now know as 'lobbies' and 'pressure groups' and maybe even the sects of all sorts. It would be anarchy, but without the capital A, and anti-Socialist/Communist forces would be able to regroup in smaller enclaves where they would reconstruct their ideological influence.

It isn't just the way we greet people that is ideological. The very act of greeting people is ideological since you are interpellating an individual with an ideological form of recognition of their existence.

Precisely. By 'recognising' and hailing them, you are forcing them to acknowledge your version of their identity. If a racist shouts at a black person, "hey you, n***er!", he is forcing that black person to acknowledge the racist's 'recognition' of him, to internalise a racist identity. The same process of interpellation occurs when a TV ad is 'targetted' at a certain demographic. The ad is hailing that demographic, interpellating them, and thereby forcing them to acknowledge and internalise their socially constructed identity.

Potemkin that's a very fair point. But I don't see it that way around hehe, and on the opposite see the shortcoming of 'performative speech' because that is what it is. In case I'm not using the right expression in English, performative speech is that figure of speech and, in the case at hand for instance, the psychological tool that gives to speech the power of acts. One well known example is the Biblical (I believe) "Let there be light, and there was light", but you find it in many areas, and precisely usually in what has to do with politics.

In the case of that example, I believe that socially constructed identities are precisely... socially constructed, and do not exist beforehand. In some case, people look for it, integrate themselves voluntarily and consciously to a given group, but these do not have any excluding aspect, on the opposite they are about regrouping. So the identity created by insult is a mirror image, one that excludes. And well I believe that it only lasts the moment of the insult. This image, this mirror identity is constructed performatively during the insult but ceases to exist once it's pronounced.

Now, I seem to have acknowledge the existence and strength of socially constructed identities and assembled groups, but not even actually. I do feel that my reasonning here bears a lot of "Frenchness" (as in traditional French republicanism and what it means in terms of equality and assimilation, etc.) but still, I believe that since constructed, fabricated identities can only come from below (see the French school of thought on nation and nationalism) through consentment none are binding or prejudiciable. And they are as strong as they are broad, meaning the smaller and smallest ones (where and towards which discrimination is likely to happen) don't after all hold much strength.

So while an ad or a party or any group seeking influence can, to me, appeal to a (Frenchly defined) nation and then find echo because it is one of the few socially constructed identities that exist beforehand and can acknowledge a message, I believe that the efficiency of 'targeted' advertising is necessarily limited and only appeals to a socio-professionalo-demographic category it creates on the spot. Once the ad is over, maybe the product will have appealed but the memory that will remain will be the one of the product, not the pseudp identity through which it was conveyed.

Of course, done in politics, media, etc. you can virtually segment the population to push for an agenda. But it only holds because you are doing it continually. That's how you divide and put the masses to sleep.

-----

Edit, because I sometimes have to stop to go earn my pay.

Of course no one is suggesting that ideology completely shapes the way we are. Any concept of a purely homo ideologicus would be just as false as the concept of a purely homo economicus.

Overemphasizing the place of ideology is often a flaw of many Marxisms, I think. The totalitarian idea of complete shaping and loss of individuality found in 'Stalinisms' aside, there is in many people's mind an unhealthy shortcut between collective work and responsibility, and loss of freedom and individuality, themselves linked then to ideology and its importance.

The natural behavious of humans(technically, all human actions can be seen as natural since human beings are themselves products of nature) are usually not outside the various social practices set by historical materialism(economic, political, ideological). Eating food, for example, would be considered an economic action. Usually, culture is considered ideology by Marxists or it's often used by Marxists to describe certain type of ideology(ie. Gramsci and Cultural Hegemony)

As you said let's not make man a pure and total homo economicus. Ideologies, economics, they're all children of man's free thinking and ability to build cultures, he can abandon them, pursue new ones, shift interests, act as a free being.