13 Neo Marxist Perspectives: Louis Althusser

Partha Pratim Borah

epgp books

 

1. Introduction

 

Louis Althusser (1918-1990) is a well known French philosopher who has made immense contribution to study of literature and culture of the capitalist society along with his contribution to theory of ideology. Althusser is termed as a structural Marxist by many scholars because of the nature of structuralism he conceptualised that had a Marxist orientation. In fact, the influence of Marx on the work Althusser was so prominent that one of the student and co-authors of Althusser, Etienne Balibar (Balibar and Macherey 1982: 46) had stated that he is not Althusserian but a Marxist.

 

Ferretter (2007) in his critical introduction to Althusser has divided the works of Althusser into five periods on the basis of the theme of his works. The main theme of the first period of the work by Althusser was articulation of the complex nature of shift that has been taking place from Hegelianism to Marxism and from Catholicism to Communism (Ferretter 2007: 4-5). „The Spectre of Hegel‟(1997) was the collection of some of the most important works on these theme during this period. Two most important contribution of Althusser include „For Marx‟ and „Reading Capital‟ was produced during the high period of intellectual productivity by Althusser. In these works, Althusser tries to see the science of history in the works of Marx in the period 1960-66 (Ferretter 2007: 4-5). The third period of the work of Althusser was the period between 1967-75 which can be seen as the period of self- criticism, as that leaves the theoretical emphasis of the earlier period. Some of the important works produced by Althusser in this period include „Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists‟ (1967), „Lenin and Philosophy‟(1971), „Essays in Self Criticism‟ (1976). The period 1976- 78 can be termed as the period when Althusser focussed on the broader theme of the crisis of Marxism. Some of the major works produced in this period include „The Crisis of Marxism‟(1977),

 

On the 22nd Congress of the French Communist Party‟(1977), „Marxism Today‟ where criticism of the Communist party reached the level of self critical re-analysis of the work of Marx (Ferretter 2007). The last period is important not only for the works of Althusser but also for the context of severe psychological breakdown when Althusser continued to work on a new idea called „Aleatory Materialism‟. In some like „The Underground Current of Materialism of the Encounter‟ (1982), „On Philosophy‟ (1994), Althusser refutes Marx‟s idea of historical materialism and hence argued that the history is merely an encounter in opposition to the Marxian idea of history as a process (Ferretter 2007: 4-5).

 

The aim of this module to give a critical introduction to the Louis Althusser as a Neo Marxist and in this context an attempt has been made to analyze the works of Althusser based on some of the important theme of his work.

 

2. Althusser’s Contribution to the Marxist Theory of Structure 

 

Althusser had given two concepts of structure while studying Marx‟s concept of structure. He developed the concept of the „problematic‟ and „social formation‟ in the process and argued that there was a lack of adequate theory in the Marx‟s work on the structure. The Althusser‟s innovative reading‟ of the works of Marx in a detailed manner helped him to bring out the different meanings that a particular text can give. It helped him to give altogether a new idea of structure. Athusser wanted to do so because of his political interest of knowing Marx‟s thoughts correctly so that it could fulfil the aim of the communist society to bring forth a just society. He developed the concept of the problematic‟ and the „social formation‟ arguing that Marx failed to develop these concepts in an explicit way. Althusser (1970) defines „problematic‟ as a system of problems and concepts that can define the meaning of each other. He wrote „on the terrain and within the horizon of a specific theoretical structure, its problematic, which constitutes the absolute and specific condition of its possibility‟ (Ibid., 25). Thus, the concept of „problematic‟ helped us to see the earlier limitations of not being able to see within a particular work.

 

In the „Reading Capital‟ (1970), Althusser developed the concept of „problematic‟ while arguing that there were definite distinctions in the idea of „classical political economy‟ given by Ricardo and that of Marx. Althusser said that Marx‟s work on the political economy helped him to rectify the aspects which Ricardo overlooked. Marx‟s understanding of Ricardian idea of „labour‟ with the idea of labour power‟ while understanding Ricardo‟s concept of value of labour as the value of good which is required to reproduce and maintain labour (Capital 1970) and this was an important addition of Marx on the work of Ricardo.

 

Althusser gave the example of the Marx‟s concept of ideology and said that it is needed to do away with the works of the young Marx to have a proper understanding of the Marxist theory of ideology (Ferretter 2007: 33-36). In his work „For Marx‟ (1969), Althusser gave a totally different understanding of the ideology from one that was given by earlier theorists. For Althusser, „Every ideology must be regarded as a real whole, internally unified by its own problematic, so that it is impossible to extract one element without altering its meaning‟ (Ibid. 62). For Althusser, this internal unity is the „problematic‟ of the unity of the effective thoughts in the „ideological field‟ within which an author thinks (Althusser 1969: 66) and thus Althusser‟s understanding of Marx was on the basis of a system of thought that has internal unity so that it has influence on all other thoughts within it by the means of governing and determining those thoughts. In another context, Althusser understands the„ problematic‟ as the system of concepts which govern the question asked by an author or a philosopher and hence in a way determine the answer (Ibid. 67).

 

Althusser‟s understanding of the notion of society as structure gave us a more broad understanding of the conceptualisation of Marx by taking „social formation‟ as one which is complex, decentred and asymmetrical structures. In this context, Althusser felt the need of distinguishing a series of levels on which a society function. Althusser termed these levels as „practices‟ which means „any process of transformation of a determinate raw material into a determinate product, a transformation effected by a determinate human labour, using determinate means of production‟ (Althusser 1969: 166). According to Althusser, there are four main practices within a social formation take place viz., economic practice (which means transformation of nature by labour), political practice (transformation of social relation by class struggle), ideological practice (transformation of the ways of experiencing the world) and ultimately theoretical practice (transformation of ideology into knowledge). Althusser argued that each of these practices works in a decentralised way where each is constituted by the combination of its element thereby each having influence on the existence of the other. Again this process is asymmetrical because one element i.e. one of the four practices is dominant because of the complexity of the relation between the elements. The balance of these forces exist because of the over determination of a particular element at a particular point of time and this varies with the social formation and in the process economic level at the last instance determine the element to be dominant (Ibid.). In this context, it is interesting to discuss about the concept of „overdetermination‟ given by Althusser. Althusser conceptualised the process where multiple and uneven determination take place as „overdetermination‟. But he further argued that in the reality at every level of the social practice, from political revolution to literary texts, we could see that it is determined at varying degrees by all other levels (Ibid.).

 

Althusser saw a break in the work of Marx in 1845 with the publication of the „Theses on Feuerbach‟ and „The German Ideology‟ because in these works Marx rejected the humanist problematic and started working on a new problematic of the materialistic conception of history and this break was termed by Althusser as epistemological break as it meant total rupture in the knowledge of history. Althusser (1969: 227) argued that there are three elements which saw a break in the theory of Marx which was based on the history and politics of an essence of man. These elements are: first, the formation of the theory of history and politics were based on some new concepts such as social formation, productive forces, relation of production, superstructure, ideologies, and determination along with the concept of economy as the determination of the other levels. Second, was the criticism of the every aspect of the philosophical humanism; and third, was the definition of the humanism as an ideology (Ibid. 227). For Althusser, the science of historical materialism founded by Marx is based on totally new concepts and hence does not have any connection with ideological problematic of Hegel. According to Althusser (1969), Marx‟s thinking that the society‟s mode of production determines all the thoughts and desires of the individual is an entirely new concept. Althusser said that„ thus for the first time individual economic behaviour … is measured according to its conditions of existence. The degree of development of the forces of production, the state of the relations of production: these are from now on the basic Marxist Concepts‟ (Ibid. 110). Althusser also argued that Marx gave a totally new idea of state when he opined that the state assumed a new identity in relation to the ruling class because the state failed to remain as human group but became one which is at the service of the ruling class. He noted that „the intervention of this new concept and its interconnexion with one of the basic concepts of the economic structure transforms the essence of the state from top to toe, for the latter is no longer above human groups, but at the service of the ruling class‟ (Althusser 1969: 110).

 

3.  ‘Symptomatic Reading’ of Marx 

 

The method that the Althusser used to approach the text of Marx is called „symptomatic reading‟ by which he tried to find out the essence of the philosophy of Marx by looking back at the Marx‟s own work. Althusser argued that the Marx‟s true philosophy is absent from his work even in his mature work „Capital‟ where it was implicit. Althusser (1970) argued that the theory of history give us a new theory of reading (Ibid. 18) and he found this new practice of reading in the Marx‟s work „Capital‟. Althusser argued that he draw the inspiration of „symptomatic reading‟ from Spinoza, Freud and the Marx himself. Althusser argued that the „symptomatic reading‟ of Marx in „Capital‟ involves „a reading which involves two radically different reading principles‟ (Ibid. 18). While first reading mainly associated with the Marx‟s study of the discourse of his predecessor by the means of his own discourse (Ibid. 18) and second kind of reading associated with the „oversight‟ which is not able to see within one‟s own work (Ibid. 21). For example, in „Capital‟, Marx read the work of the earlier economist like Adam Smith on the basis of his own work and tried to find out what Smith failed to find through his work. In „symptomatic reading‟ there is attempt to reconstruct the unconscious thought, gaps, contradiction, flows in a text and then reading the text on the these ideas (Ibid. 28). Althusser articulated the idea of „symptomatic reading‟ in his following words : „a reading which might well be called „symptomatic‟, insofar as it divulges the undivulged event in the text it reads, and in the same movement related it to a different text, present as a necessary absence in the first‟. Like his first reading, Marx‟s second reading presupposes the existence of two texts, and the measurement of the first against the second. But what distinguishes this new reading from the old one is the fact that in the new one the second text is articulated with the lapses in the first (Ibid. 28). Althusser argues that the „symptomatic reading‟ is a theory of knowledge which emphasised on the process of production (Ferretter 2007: 73). He argued that the economist before Marx identified some economic facts but were not able to identify the ideological problematic within which they are thought (Ibid. 73). The use of this theory by Pierre Macherey, a student of Althusser, found that the literary criticisms are produced from the ideology. Macherey argued that ideology gives a misrepresentation of the reality and this misrepresentation are shown in the literary text as gap or flows in the text (Ibid. 73-74). On the other hand, Althusser‟s definition of the philosophy as „class struggle in history‟ articulated literary criticisms as a kind of political intervention that can serve the interest of the both exploiting and exploited classes (Ibid.). He wrote in this context that „On the one hand, therefore, we have a philosophical Thesis which, directly or indirectly, serves the political interest of the bourgeoisie…on the other hand we have Theses which directly help the working class to understand its role, its conditions of existence, of exploitation and of struggle, which help it to create organisations which will lead the struggle of all exploited people to seize state power from the bourgeoisie‟ (Althusser 1976: 64). Thus, „symptomatic reading‟ was a new contribution of Althusser for reading the works of Marx.

 

4. Althusser and the Theory of ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’ 

 

Althusser‟s emphasis on the Marxian ideas which he believed to be underdeveloped led to the development of theory of ideology and culture. Althusser‟s work „Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses‟ (1970) was excerpted from a larger essay entitled „On the Reproduction of Capitalism‟ gave a description of the way how human being became a self-conscious subject. Althusser defined ideology as „a system (with own logic and rigour) of representations (images, myths, ideas or concepts depending on the case) endowed with a historical existence and a role within a given society…Ideology, as a system of representations, is distinguished from science in that in it the practico-social function is more important than the theoretical function (function as knowledge) (Althusser 1969: 231). For Althusser, ideology has a social function which is not to produce knowledge of the real conditions of the history of society and is an unconscious phenomenon. Althusser with his „symptomatic‟ reading of Marx argued that the ideology worked as cultural objects and they function on men by the means of process that escape them. He wrote, „Ideology is indeed a system of representations, but in the majority of cases these representations have nothing to do with„ consciousness‟: they are usually images and occasionally concepts, but it is above all as structures that they impose on the vast majority of men, not via their „consciousness‟. They are perceived- accepted-suffered cultural objects and they act functionally on men via a process that escapes them‟ (Althusser 1969: 233). Thus, for Althusser, ideology consists of set of discourses that helps us to understand the world experiences. But it is to be noted that this understanding is not real and only give us certain representations of the reality. Althusser (1966) argued that ideology makes an „allusion‟ of the historical reality besides constituting an „illusion‟ to that reality at the same time. He noted that„ We understand that…ideological representation imparts a certain „representation‟ of reality that it makes allusion to the real in a certain way, but that at the same time it bestows only an illusion on reality‟ (Althusser, 1990 (1966), 29). Two important characteristics of the ideology as mentioned by Althusser need to be stated here: First, ideology expresses imaginary relationship to reality and second society ideology primarily consist of the ideology of the dominant classes and hence bourgeois ideology dominates other ideologies (Ibid. 30).

 

In his classic work „Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus‟, Althusser seeks to find out how societies reproduce relation of production which is always exploitative in nature and by which a society function. In this context, Althusser developed the concept „Ideological State Apparatus‟ where the idea of „state apparatus‟ in the Marxist term means the all those institutions which helps the ruling class to perpetuate the economic dominance. For Althusser, State Apparatuses are of two types depending on the nature of nature of institutions.  The State Apparatus called „Repressive State Apparatuses‟ (RSA) consists of the government, the Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons etc. that „functions by violence‟- at least ultimately (Althusser 1971: 136). He maintained that these institutions functions by violence and in this context he categorised it as „at least ultimately‟ because there can be some forms of repression like administrative repression that may take non- physical form (Ibid. 136).

 

On other hand there are other institutions called„ Ideological State Apparatuses‟ (ISA) that functions mainly by means of „ideology‟ (Ibid. 138) like the religious ISA, the educational ISA, the family ISA, the legal ISA, the political ISA, the trade Union ISA, the communications ISA and the cultural ISA (Ibid. 137). Another interesting feature of two types of state apparatuses is that they are distinct and overlapping. For example, „Ideological State Apparatus‟ function mainly by means of ideology and secondarily by repression and „Repressive State Apparatus‟ functions mainly by repression and secondly by ideology (Ibid. 138) and hence there is no such thing as purely Ideological Apparatus or purely Repressive Apparatus (Ibid. 138). It is to be noted here that ISA also works as site of class struggle because ISA not only transmits the ruling class ideology but they also helps in the articulation of the ideologies of the exploited classes (Ibid. 140).

 

5. Althusser’s Work on the Literature and Art: 

 

The contribution of Althusser in the field of art and literature was immense. „A Letter on Art‟ (1966) was the main work of Althusser in this area where he emphasised on the relationship of an art to ideology within which it is produced and ultimately the criticism of the same ideology. For Althusser, the relation that the art have with the knowledge is different from that of the relation that the science has with knowledge because although sciences produce knowledge, art does not produce knowledge but maintains a specific relation with the knowledge (Althusser 1971: 204). The function of the art is to perceive or to feel the ideology from which it is born. Althusser wrote in the context of art that „I believe that a peculiarity of art is to “„make us see‟…. „make us perceive‟, „make us feel‟ something which alludes to reality. … What art make us see, and therefore gives to us in the form of „seeing‟,„ perceiving‟ and „feeling‟ (which is not the form of knowing) is the ideology from which it is born, in which it bathes, from which it detaches itself as art and to which it alludes” (Althusser 1971: 204). Althusser argues that art help us to have a critical understanding of the ideologies which perpetuates the exploitative relations in the society (Ibid.).

 

6. Althusser and the Influence of Philosophy: 

 

Althusser (1965) argued that the philosophy is an ideological production because it enables the continuation of the existing socio-economic relations. On the other hand, Althusser argued that the genuine philosophy works as „theory of theoretical practice‟ by helping the scientific practice by means of distinguishing ideological concepts from scientific ones that helps science to transforms ideas into scientific knowledge (Ibid. 1965).

 

6.1. Lenin as ‘Political Philosopher’

 

Althusser‟s work on the philosophy of Lenin marks an important shift in his work. Althusser studied the relation that the politics have with philosophy by means of the relation that Lenin had with philosophy (Fraser 1976/77: 445). Althusser brought Lenin‟s refusal to „pseudo-philosophy to bridge the gap in the sciences‟. Althusser argued that the Lenin‟s share regarding the relation between science and philosophy tried to rectify the problems associated with Marx (Ibid. 445-446). Thus, Althusser with the analysis of the philosophy of Lenin tried to have a political exploration of the orthodoxy of both Marx and Lenin.

 

7. Criticism of the Althusser: 

 

There were many criticisms against the works of Althusser especially after the publication of the „For Marx‟ (1969) and „Reading Capital‟ (1970). The periodization of the works of Marx by Althusser and depiction of 1965 as epistemological break was seen as totally arbitrary (Fraser 1976/77: 454). Some scholars argued that Althusser failed to make difference between „ideological forms of humanism‟ and the concept of human reality given by Marx (Ibid. 454).

 

Another important criticism against Althusser was that he misread the alienation by Marx and in the process of distinguishing scientific concept and ideology, he went to the point of taking concept for the real and ultimately the real for the ideology (ibid. 455). It is argued that the when Althusser was reading the concept  of „alienation‟ by Marx as ideology  he failed to make distinction between„ appearance and reality‟ (Ibid.).

 

The popularity that the Althusser received for his work started decreasing immediately because various French Marxists started criticising Althusser once French revolution and demonstrations of 1968 did not receive any support from Althusser.

 

Another important criticism against Althusser was over emphasis of the system of ideas as he himself confessed in his work „Elements of a Self Criticism‟ (1974: 57).

 

Inspite of many criticisms, the main contribution of the Althusser was that his rigorous and synthetic thinking helped to bring out many interpretations of the works of Marx which helped to save the works of Marx from the tragedy of totalitarianism (Dosse 1967: 188).

 

 

8.  Summary 

 

The following points of importance can be gathered from this chapter:

  • Louis Althusser (1918-1990) is a well known French philosopher who has made immense contribution to study of literature and culture of the capitalist society along with his contribution to theory of ideology.
  • Althusser‟s contributed to the Marxist Theory of Structure by developing the concepts of theAlthusser  is termed  as  a  structural  Marxist  by  many  scholars  because  of  the  nature  of structuralism he conceptualised that had a Marxist orientation.„ problematic‟ and „social formation‟ and argued that there was a lack of adequate theory in the Marx‟s work on the structure.
  • Althusser (1970) defines „problematic‟ as a system of problems and concepts that can define the meaning of each other.
  • Althusser gave a totally different understanding of the ideology from one that was given by earlier theorists.  For Althusser, „Every ideology must be regarded as a real whole, internally unified by its own problematic, so that it is impossible to extract one element without altering its meaning ‟(Ibid. 62). This internal unity is the „problematic‟ of the unity of the effective thoughts in the„ ideological field‟ within which an author thinks (Althusser 1969: 66) and thus Althusser‟s understanding of Marx was on the basis of a system of thought that has internal unity so that it has influence on all other thoughts within it by the means of governing and determining those thoughts.
  • Althusser‟s defined a „social formation‟ as one which is complex, decentred and asymmetrical structures. In this context, Althusser felt the need of distinguishing a series of levels on which a society function. Althusser termed these levels as „practices‟. There are four main practices within a social formation viz., economic practice, political practice, ideological practice and ultimately theoretical practice. These practices works in a decentralised way where each is constituted by the combination of its element thereby each having influence on the existence of the other. One of the four practices emerges as dominant.
  • The method that the Althusser used to approach the text of Marx is called „symptomatic reading‟ by which he tried to find out the essence of the philosophy of Marx by looking back at the Marx‟s own work. „Ssymptomatic reading‟ is a theory of knowledge which emphasised on the process of production (Ferretter 2007: 73). He argued that the economist before Marx identified some economic facts but were not able to identify the ideological problematic within which they are thought (Ibid. 73).
  • Althusser‟s emphasis on the Marxian ideas which he believed to be underdeveloped led to the development of theory of ideology and culture. Althusser‟s work „Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses‟ (1970) gave a description of the way how human being became a self-conscious subject. Althusser defined ideology as „a system (with own logic and rigour) of representations (images, myths, ideas or concepts depending on the case) endowed with a historical existence and a role within a given society…Ideology, as a system of representations, is distinguished from science in that in it the practico-social function is more important than the theoretical function (function as knowledge) (Althusser 1969: 231).
  • For Althusser, ideology has a social function which is not to produce knowledge of the real conditions of the history of society and is an unconscious phenomenon. In his classic work„ Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus‟, Althusser seeks to find out how societies reproduce relation of production which is always exploitative in nature and by which a society function.
  • State apparatus‟ of the „Ideological State Apparatus‟, means the all those institutions which helps the ruling class to perpetuate the economic dominance. For Althusser, state apparatuses are of two types depending on the nature of nature of insti The State Apparatus called „Repressive State Apparatuses‟ (RSA) consists of the government, the Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons etc. that „functions by violence‟- at least ultimately (Althusser 1971: 136).
  • Althusser emphasised on the relationship of an art to ideology within which it is produced and ultimately the criticism of the same ideology. The relation that the art have with the knowledge is different from that of the relation that the science has with knowledge because although sciences produce knowledge, art does not produce knowledge but maintains a specific relation with the knowledge.
  • Despite many criticisms, Althusser‟s most significant contribution was his rigorous and synthetic thinking which helped to bring out many interpretations of the works of Marx which in turn saved the works of Marx from the tragedy of totalitarianism (Dosse 1967: 188).
you can view video on Neo Marxist Perspectives: Louis Althusser

9. References

  1. Althusser, Louis. 1965. „Theory, Theoretical Practice and Theoretical Formation‟ trans. James Kavanaugh, in Gregory Elliot ed. „Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists. London:Verso.
  2. Althusser, Louis. 1969. „For Marx‟. trans. B. Brewster. London and New York: Verso.
  3. Althusser, Louis. 1971. „Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays, trans. B. Brewster. London: New Left Books, and New York: Monthly Review Press.
  4. Althusser, Louis. 1974. „Elements of a self Criticism‟. Paris: Hechette.
  5. Althusser, Louis. 1976. „Essays in Self Criticism‟. Trans. G. Lock. London: Left Books, and Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
  6. Althusser, Louis. 1990 (1966). „Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists, and Other Essays, ed. G. Elliott, trans. B. Brewster et al., London and New York: Verso
  7. Althussser Louis and E. Balibar. 1970. „Reading Capital‟.trans. B. Brewster. London: New Left Books.
  8. Dosse, Francois. 1967/1997. „History of Structuralism‟. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota. Ferretter, Luke.2007. „Louis Althusser‟. London and New York: Taylor and Francis Group.
  9. Fraser, John. Louis Althusser on Science, Marxism and Politics, „Science and Society‟. 40(4). Pp 438- 464.
  10. Gordy, Michael. 1983. Reading Althusser: Time and the Social Whole in „History and Theory‟. 22 (1). Pp 1-21.
  11. Kelly,M.. 1978. Louis Althusser and the Problems of a Marxist Theory of Structure in „Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy. Vol 78, pp 199-212.