You are on page 1of 21

Louis Althusser

(1918-1990)
To say of Louis Althusser that he was a prominent French Marxist philosopher
woul !e to miss the extraorinary impact of his way of reading Marx" For Althusser#
reain$ Marx was itself a ialectical enterprise# expanin$# shiftin$ the focus# an
clarifyin$ the pro!lematic of Marx%s writin$s in the li$ht of concrete# material historical
e&ents" The selection reprinte here on '(eolo$ical )tate Apparatuses*# from Lenin and
Philosophy, and Other Essays has !ecome# o&er the last twenty-fi&e years# one of the
inispensa!le wor+s of contemporary theory# in no small measure !ecause its approach to
the ,uestion of ieolo$y refuses to !e confine !y con&entional Marxist octrine" For
Althusser# ieolo$y was not a passi&e relation !etween the economic !ase an
superstructure# !ut a per&asi&e set of ynamic conitions suffusin$ the institutional
apparatus of the state an shapin$ not -ust the iea of the person as subject# !ut more
importantly for theorists to follow# clarifyin$ in structural terms the iea of a subject
position# wherein political an psycholo$ical forces con&er$e to efine possi!ilities of
action an forces of constraint an repression"
To$ether with earlier wor+ !y Antonio .ramsci# Althusser%s reflections on
(eolo$ical )tate Apparatuses ha&e shape not only the wor+ of Althusser%s most famous
stuent# Michel Foucault (see pp" ///) !ut an entire $eneration of critics an theorists#
with interests in feminism# post-colonialism# an the sociolo$ical stuy of culture" (t is of
particular interest that for Althusser (li+e .ramsci !efore him)# the most tellin$ examples
of the operation of ieolo$y are reli$ious# incluin$ his &i&i term for how the su!-ect is
'calle* or 'haile*# interpellation# transferre to the political omain" (n Althusser%s
account# ieolo$y as such has no history since it is carrie in the material# institutional
forms of social life# an is always su!mer$e !ac+ into them" The analytical pro!lem is
to preser&e a critical focus on the moment of 'callin$#* as the interpellated su!-ect is !oth
create as a su!-ect !y !ein$ calle# an su!sume !y the &ery ac+nowle$ement that# as
he puts it# 'It is I* who in !ein$ calle" (n this sense# one is always ealin$ with
ieologies# not a monolithic octrine# that may show up in any arena of social life# in the
family# the school# the church# political parties# $o&ernment# an so on" Althusser%s
accomplishment is to ha&e pro&ie an example of ieolo$ical analysis that is# in Thomas
0uhn%s sense of the term# 'parai$matic#* !y pointin$ the way to other applications of
the same +in of analysis" (n this respect# !y reain$ Marx expansi&ely# Althusser
recontextuali1es Marxist thin+in$ !y freein$ it from the o$mas of octrine or limitations
of su!-ect matter# !y lin+in$ the position of the su!-ect to the institutional apparatus that
at once sustains an &exes ientity" A particularly salient characteristic of his analytical
metho lies in the fact that it oes not insist on a !arrier !etween the political an the
psychoanalytic# pointin$ the way to treatments (such as Freric 2ameson%s in The
Political Unconscious: Narrative as a Socially Sybolic !ct, 1981) that !rin$ !oth
fruitfully to$ether for the purposes of criticism"
Most of Althusser%s ma-or writin$ is a&aila!le in translation" )ee especially3 "or #ar$
(1965; trans. by Ben Brewster, 1969); Lenin and Philosophy, and other essays, trans.
Ben Brewster (1972); Reading 'Capital' / Louis Althusser, tienne Balibar ; trans. by
Ben Brewster (1979); Essays on Ideology (1984# c1956)7 an !lthusser : a Critical
Reader, e" !y .re$ory 8lliott (1994)" A $oo inication of the scope an importance of
Althusser%s influence can !e seen in Postodern aterialis and the %uture o% #ar$ist
theory : essays in the !lthusserian tradition 9 eite !y Antonio :allari an ;a&i F"
<uccio (1996)" :ritical stuies inclue: Alex :allinicos# !lthusser&s #ar$is (1959)7
)tephen =" )mith# 'eading !lthusser: !n Essay on Structural #ar$is (1984)7 .re$ory
8lliott# !lthusser : the (etour o% Theory (199>)7 <o!ert ?" <esch# !lthusser and the
'ene)al o% #ar$ist Social Theory (199>)7 an Anrew Le&ine# ! "uture %or #ar$is* :
!lthusser, The !nalytical Turn and The 'evival o% Socialist Theory (2003).
(;8@L@.A AND (;8@L@.(:AL )TAT8 A??A<ATB)8) (C@T8) T@DA<;) AC
(CE8)T(.AT(@C reprinte in part here first appeare in French in La Pens+e in 1950" (t
is reprinte from Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays# trans" =en =rewster (Cew
Aor+3 Cew Left =oo+s# 1951)" <eprinte# !y permission of Monthly <e&iew Founation"
from
(;8@L@.A AC;
(;8@L@.(:AL )TAT8 A??A<ATB)8)
@n (eolo$y
Dhen ( put forwar the concept of an (eolo$ical )tate Apparatus# when ( sai that
the ()As Ffunction !y ieolo$yF# ( in&o+e a reality which nees a little iscussion3
ieolo$y"
(t is well +nown that the expression Fieolo$yF was in&ente !y :a!anis#
1
;estutt e
Tracy
>
an their friens# who assi$ne to it as an o!-ect the ($enetic) theory of ieas"
Dhen Marx too+ up the term fifty years later# he $a&e it a ,uite ifferent meanin$# e&en
in his 8arly Dor+s" Gere# ieolo$y is the system of the ieas an representations which
ominate the min of a man or a social $roup" The ieolo$ico-political stru$$le
conucte !y Marx as early as his articles in the 'heinische ,eitung ine&ita!ly an
,uic+ly !rou$ht him face to face with this reality an force him to ta+e his earliest
intuitions further"
Gowe&er# here we come upon a rather astonishin$ paraox" 8&erythin$ seems to lea
Marx to formulate a theory of ieolo$y" (n fact# The -eran Ideology oes offer us# after
the ./00 #anuscripts# an explicit theory of ieolo$y# !ut """ it is not Marxist (we shall see
why in a moment)" As for 1apital# althou$h it oes contain many hints towars a theory
of ieolo$ies (most &isi!ly# the ieolo$y of the &ul$ar economists)# it oes not contain the
theory itself# which epens for the most part on a theory of ieolo$y in $eneral"
( shoul li+e to &enture a first an &ery schematic outline of such a theory" The
theses ( am a!out to put forwar are certainly not off the cuff# !ut they cannot !e
sustaine an teste# i"e" confirme orre-ecte# except !y much thorou$h stuy an
analysis"
Ideology has no 2istory
@ne wor first of all to expoun the reason in principle which seems to me to foun#
or at least to -ustify# the pro-ect of a theory of ieolo$y in general# an not a theory of
particular ieolo$ies# which# whate&er their form (reli$ious# ethical# le$al# political)#
always express class positions"
(t is ,uite o!&ious that it is necessary to procee towars a theory of ieolo$ies in the
two respects ( ha&e -ust su$$este"
H
(t will then !e clear that a theory of ieolo$ies
epens in the last resort on the history of social formations# an thus of the moes of
prouction com!ine in social formations# an of the class stru$$les which e&elop in
them" (n this sense it is clear that there can !e no ,uestion of a theory of ieolo$ies in
general# since ieolo$ies (efine in the ou!le respect su$$este a!o&e3 re$ional an
class) ha&e a history# whose etermination in the last instance is clearly situate outsie
ieolo$ies alone# althou$h it in&ol&es them"
@n the contrary# if ( am a!le to put forwar the pro-ect of a theory of ieolo$y in
general# an if this theory really is one of the elements on which theories of ieolo$ies
epen# that entails an apparently paraoxical proposition which ( shall express in the
followin$ terms3 ideology has no history"
As we +now# this formulation appears in so many wors in a passa$e from The
-eran Ideology" Marx utters it with respect to metaphysics# which# he says# has no
more history than ethics (meanin$ also the other forms of ieolo$y)"
(n The -eran Ideology# this formulation appears in a plainly positi&ist context"
(eolo$y is concei&e as a pure illusion# a pure ream# i"e" as nothin$ness" All its reality
is external to it" (eolo$y is thus thou$ht as an ima$inary construction whose status is
exactly li+e the theoretical status of the ream amon$ writers !efore Freu" For these
writers# the ream was the purely ima$inary# i"e" null# result of FayFs resiuesF# presente
in an ar!itrary arran$ement an orer# sometimes e&en Fin&erteF# in other wors# in
FisorerF" For them# the ream was the ima$inary# it was empty# null an ar!itrarily Fstuc+
to$etherF (bricol+)# once the eyes ha close# from the resiues of the only full an
positi&e reality# the reality of the ay" This is exactly the status of philosophy an
ieolo$y (since in the !oo+ philosophy is ieolo$y par e$cellence) in The -eran
Ideology"
(eolo$y# then# is for Marx an ima$inary assem!la$e (bricolage)# a pure ream#
empty an &ain# constitute !y the FayFs resiuesF from the only full an positi&e reality#
that of the concrete history of concrete material ini&iuals materially proucin$ their
existence" (t is on this !asis that ieolo$y has no history in The -eran Ideology# since
its history is outsie it# where the only existin$ history is# the history of concrete
ini&iuals# etc" (n The -eran Ideology# the thesis that ieolo$y has no history is
therefore a purely ne$ati&e thesis# since it means !oth3
1" ieolo$y is nothin$ insofar as it is a pure ream (manufacture !y who +nows
what power3 if not !y the alienation of the i&ision of la!our# !ut that# too# is a negative
etermination)7
>" ieolo$y has no history# which emphatically oes not mean that there is no history
in it (on the contrary# for it is merely the pale# empty an in&erte reflection of real
history) !ut that it has no history o% its o)n"
Cow# while the thesis ( wish to efen formally spea+in$ aopts the terms of The
-eran Ideology (Fieolo$y has no historyF)# it is raically ifferent from the positi&ist
an historicist thesis of The -eran Ideology"
For on the one han# ( thin+ it is possi!le to hol that ieolo$ies have a history o%
their o)n (althou$h it is etermine in the last instance !y the class stru$$le)7 an on the
other# ( thin+ it is possi!le to hol that ieolo$y in general has no history# not in a
ne$ati&e sense (its history is external to it)# !ut in an a!solutely positi&e sense"
This sense is a positi&e one if it is true that the peculiarity of ieolo$y is that it is
enowe with a structure an a functionin$ such as to ma+e it a non-historical reality# i"e"
an oni3historical reality# in the sense in which that structure an functionin$ are
immuta!le# present in the same form throu$hout what we can call history# in the sense in
which the 1ounist #ani%esto efines history as the history of class stru$$les# i"e" the
history of class societies"
To $i&e a theoretical reference-point here# ( mi$ht say that# to return to our example
of the ream# in its Freuian conception this time# our proposition3 ieolo$y has no
history# can an must (an in a way which has a!solutely nothin$ ar!itrary a!out it# !ut#
,uite the re&erse# is theoretically necessary# for there is an or$anic lin+ !etween the two
propositions) !e relate irectly to FreuFs proposition that the unconscious is eternal# i"e"
that it has no history"
(f eternal means# not transcenent to all (temporal) history# !ut omnipresent# trans-
historical an therefore immuta!le in form throu$hout the extent of history# ( shall aopt
FreuFs expression wor for wor# an write ideology is eternal# exactly li+e the
unconscious" An ( a that ( fin this comparison theoretically -ustifie !y the fact that
the eternity of the unconscious is not unrelate to the eternity of ieolo$y in $eneral"
That is why ( !elie&e ( am -ustifie# hypothetically at least# in proposin$ a theory of
ieolo$y in general# in the sense that Freu presente a theory of the unconscious in
general4
To simplify the phrase# it is con&enient# ta+in$ into account what has !een sai a!out
ieolo$ies# to use the plain term ieolo$y to esi$nate ieolo$y in $eneral# which ( ha&e
-ust sai has no history# or# what comes to the same thin$# is eternal# i"e" omnipresent in
its immuta!le form throu$hout history ( the history of social formations containin$ social
classes)" For the moment ( shall restrict myself to Fclass societiesF an their history"
Ideology is a &'epresentation& o% the Iaginary 'elationship o% Individuals to their
'eal 1onditions o% E$istence
(n orer to approach my central thesis on the structure an functionin$ of ieolo$y# (
shall first present two theses# one ne$ati&e# the other positi&e" The first concerns the
o!-ect which is FrepresenteF in the ima$inary form of ieolo$y# the secon concerns the
materiality of ieolo$y"
TG8)() (3 (eolo$y represents the ima$inary relationship of ini&iuals to their real
conitions of existence"
De commonly call reli$ious ieolo$y# ethical ieolo$y# le$al ieolo$y# political
ieolo$y# etc"# so many Fworl outloo+sF" @f course# assumin$ that we o not li&e one of
these ieolo$ies as the truth (e"$" F!elie&eF in .o# ;uty# 2ustice# etc" """ )# we amit that
the ieolo$y we are iscussin$ from a critical point of &iew# examinin$ it as the
ethnolo$ist examines the myths of a Fprimiti&e societyF# that these Fworl outloo+sF are
lar$ely ima$inary# i"e" o not Fcorrespon to realityF"
Gowe&er# while amittin$ that they o not correspon to reality# i"e" that they
constitute an illusion# we amit that they o ma+e allusion to reality# an that they nee
only !e FinterpreteF to isco&er the reality of the worl !ehin their ima$inary
representation of that worl (ieolo$yIillusion5 allusion)"
There are ifferent types of interpretation# the most famous of which are the
echanistic type# current in the ei$hteenth century (.o is the ima$inary representation
of the real 0in$)# an the FhereneuticF interpretation# inau$urate !y the earliest :hurch
Fathers# an re&i&e !y Feuer!ach
4
an the theolo$ico-philosophical school which
escens from him# e"$" the theolo$ian =arth (to Feuer!ach# for example# .o is the
essence of real Man)" The essential point is that on conition that we interpret the
ima$inary transposition (an in&ersion) of ieolo$y we arri&e at the conclusion that in
ieolo$y Fmen represent their real conitions of existence to themsel&es in an ima$inary
formF"
Bnfortunately# this interpretation lea&es one small pro!lem unsettle3 why o men
FneeF this ima$inary transposition of their real conitions of existence in orer to
Frepresent to themsel&esF their real conitions of existence/
The first answer (that of the ei$hteenth century) proposes a simple solution3 ?riests
or ;espots are responsi!le" They Ffor$eF the =eautiful Lies so that# in the !elief that they
were o!eyin$ .o# men woul in fact o!ey the ?riests an ;espots# who are usually in
alliance in their imposture# the ?riests actin$ in the interests of the ;espots or vice versa#
accorin$ to the political positions of the FtheoreticiansF concerne" There is therefore a
cause for the ima$inary transposition of the real conitions of existence3 that cause is the
existence of a small num!er of cynical men who !ase their omination an exploitation
of the FpeopleF on a falsifie representation of the worl which they ha&e ima$ine in
orer to ensla&e other mins !y ominatin$ their ima$inations"
The secon answer (that of Feuer!ach# ta+en o&er wor for wor !y Marx in his
8arly Dor+s) is more FprofounF# i"e" -ust as false" (t# too# see+s an fins a cause for the
ima$inary transposition an istortion of menFs real conitions of existence# in short# for
the alienation in the ima$inary of the representation of menFs conitions of existence"
This cause is no lon$er ?riests or ;espots# nor their acti&e ima$ination an the passi&e
ima$ination of their &ictims" This cause is the material alienation which rei$nsin the
conitions of existence of men themsel&es"J2BKThis is how# in The 6e)ish 7uestion an
elsewhere# Marx efens the Feuer!achian iea that men ma+e themsel&es an alienate
(Iima$inary) representation of their conitions of existence !ecause these conitions of
existence are themsel&es alienatin$ (in the ./00 #anuscripts3 !ecause these conitions
are ominate !y the essence of alienate societyLFalienated labourF)"
All these interpretations thus ta+e literally the thesis which they presuppose# an on
which they epen# i"e" that what is reflecte in the ima$inary representation of the worl
foun in an ieolo$y is the conitions of existence of men# i"e" their real worl"
Cow ( can return to a thesis which ( ha&e alreay a&ance3 it is not their real
conitions of existence# their real worl# that FmenF Frepresent to themsel&esF in ieolo$y#
!ut a!o&e all it is their relation to those conitions of existence which is represente to
them there" (t is this relation which is at the centre of e&ery ieolo$ical# i"e" ima$inary#
representation of the real worl" (t is this relation that contains the FcauseF which has to
explain the ima$inary istortion of the ieolo$ical representation of the real worl" @r
rather# to lea&e asie the lan$ua$e of causality it is necessary to a&ance the thesis that it
is the iaginary nature o% this relation which unerlies all the ima$inary istortion that
we can o!ser&e (if we o not li&e in its truth) in all ieolo$y"

To spea+ in a Marxist lan$ua$e# if it is true that the representation of the real
conitions of existence of the ini&iuals occupyin$ the posts of a$ents of prouction#
exploitation# repression# ieolo$i1ation an scientific practice# oes in the last analysis
arise from the relations of prouction# an from relations eri&in$ from the relations of
prouction# we can say the followin$3 all ieolo$y represents in its necessarily ima$inary
istortion not the existin$ relations of prouction (an the other relations that eri&e from
them)# !ut a!o&e all the (ima$inary) relationship of ini&iuals to the relations of
prouction an the relations that eri&e from them" Dhat is represente in ieolo$y is
therefore not the system of the real relations which $o&ern the existence of ini&iuals#
!ut the ima$inary relation of those ini&iuals to the real relations in which they li&e"
(f this is the case# the ,uestion of the FcauseF of the ima$inary istortion of the real
relations in ieolo$y isappears an must !e replace !y a ifferent ,uestion3 why is the
representation $i&en to ini&iuals of their (ini&iual) relation to the social relations
which $o&ern their conitions of existence an their collecti&e an ini&iual life
necessarily an ima$inary relation/ An what is the nature of this ima$inariness/ ?ose in
this way# the ,uestion exploes the solution !y a Fcli,ueF
M
!y a $roup of ini&iuals
(?riests or ;espots) who are the authors of the $reat ieolo$ical mystification# -ust as it
exploes the solution !y the alienate character of the real worl" De shall see why later
in my exposition" For the moment ( shall $o no further"
TG8)() ((3 (eolo$y has a material existence"
( ha&e alreay touche on this thesis !y sayin$ that the FieasF or FrepresentationsF#
etc"# which seem to ma+e up ieolo$y o not ha&e an ieal (id+ale or id+elle) or spiritual
existence# !ut a material existence" ( e&en su$$este that the ieal (id+ale 9 id+elle) an
spiritual existence of FieasF arises exclusi&ely in an ieolo$y of the FieaF an of ieolo$y#
an let me a# in an ieolo$y of what seems to ha&e FfouneF this conception since the
emer$ence of the sciences# i"e" what the practicians of the sciences represent to
themsel&es in their spontaneous ieolo$y as FieasF# true or false" @f course# presente in
affirmati&e form# this thesis is unpro&en" ( simply as+ that the reaer !e fa&oura!ly
ispose towars it# say# in the name of materialism" A lon$ series of ar$uments woul !e
necessary to pro&e it"
This hypothetical thesis of the not spiritual !ut material existence of FieasF or other
FrepresentationsF is inee necessary if we are to a&ance in our analysis of the nature of
ieolo$y" @r rather# it is merely useful to us in orer the !etter to re&eal what e&ery at all
serious analysis of any ieolo$y will immeiately an empirically show to e&ery
o!ser&er# howe&er critical"
Dhile iscussin$ the ieolo$ical )tate apparatuses an their practices# ( sai that
each of them was the reali1ation of an ieolo$y (the unity of these ifferent re$ional
ieolo$iesNreli$ious# ethical# le$al# political# aesthetic# etc"N!ein$ assure !y their
su!-ection to the rulin$ ieolo$y)" ( now return to this thesis3 an ieolo$y always exists in
an apparatus# an its practice# or practices" This existence is material"
@f course# the material existence of the ieolo$y in an apparatus an its practices
oes not ha&e the same moality as the material existence of a pa&in$-stone or a rifle"
=ut# at the ris+ of !ein$ ta+en for a Ceo-Aristotelian (C= Marx ha a &ery hi$h re$ar for
Aristotle)# ( shall say that Fmatter is iscusse in many sensesF# or rather that it exists in
ifferent moalities# all roote in the last instance in FphysicalF matter"
Ga&in$ sai this# let me mo&e strai$ht on an see what happens to the Fini&iualsF
who li&e in ieolo$y# i"e" in a eterminate (reli$ious# ethical# etc") representation of the
worl whose ima$inary istortion epens on their ima$inary relation to their conitions
of existence# in other wors# in the last instance# to the relations of prouction an to
class relations (ieolo$yIan ima$inary relation to real relations)" ( shall say that this
ima$inary relation is itself enowe with a material existence"
Cow ( o!ser&e the followin$"
An ini&iual !elie&es in .o# or ;uty# or 2ustice# etc" This !elief eri&es (for
e&eryone# i"e" for all those who li&e in an ieolo$ical representation of ieolo$y# which
reuces ieolo$y to ieas enowe !y efinition with a spiritual existence) from the ieas
of the ini&iual concerne# i"e" from him as a su!-ect with a consciousness which
contains the ieas of his !elief" (n this way# i"e" !y means of the a!solutely ieolo$ical
FconceptualF e&ice (dispositi%) thus set up (a su!-ect enowe with a consciousness in
which he freely forms or freely reco$ni1es ieas in which he !elie&es)# the (material)
attitue of the su!-ect concerne naturally follows"
The ini&iual in ,uestion !eha&es in such an such a way# aopts such an such a
practical attitue# an# what is more# participates in certain re$ular practices which are
those of the ieolo$ical apparatus on which FepenF the ieas which he has in all
consciousness freely chosen as a su!-ect" (f he !elie&es in .o# he $oes to :hurch to
atten Mass# +neels# prays# confesses# oes penance (once it was material in the orinary
sense of the term) an naturally repents an so on" (f he !elie&es in ;uty# he will ha&e the
corresponin$ attitues# inscri!e in ritual practices Faccorin$ to the correct principlesF"
(f he !elie&es in 2ustice# he will su!mit unconitionally to the rules of the Law# an may
e&en protest when they are &iolate# si$n petitions# ta+e part in a emonstration# etc"
Throu$hout this schema we o!ser&e that the ieolo$ical representation of ieolo$y is
itself force to reco$ni1e that e&ery Fsu!-ectF enowe with a FconsciousnessF an
!elie&in$ in the FieasF that his FconsciousnessF inspires in him an freely accepts# must
Fact accorin$ to his ieasF# must therefore inscri!e his own ieas as a free su!-ect in the
actions of his material practice" (f he oes not o so# Fthat is wic+eF"
(nee# if he oes not o what he ou$ht to o as a function of what he !elie&es# it is
!ecause he oes somethin$ else# which# still as a function of the same iealist scheme#
implies that he has other ieas in his hea as well as those he proclaims# an that he acts
accorin$ to these other ieas# as a man who is either FinconsistentF (Fno one is willin$ly
e&ilF) or cynical# or per&erse"
(n e&ery case# the ieolo$y of ieolo$y thus reco$ni1es# espite its ima$inary
istortion# that the FieasF of a human su!-ect exist in his actions# or ou$ht to exist in his
actions# an if that is not the case# it lens him other ieas corresponin$ to the actions
(howe&er per&erse) that he oes perform" This ieolo$y tal+s of actions3 ( shall tal+ of
actions inserte into practices4 !nd ( shall point out that these practices are $o&erne !y
the rituals in which these practices are inscri!e# within the aterial e$istence o% an
ideological apparatus# !e it only a small part of that apparatus3 a small mass in a small
church# a funeral# a minor match at a sportsF clu!# a school ay# a political party meetin$#
etc"
=esies# we are ine!te to ?ascalFs
6
efensi&e FialecticF for the wonerful formula
which will ena!le us to in&ert the orer of the notional schema of ieolo$y" ?ascal says
more or less3 F0neel own# mo&e your lips in prayer# an you will !elie&e"F Ge thus
scanalously in&erts the orer of thin$s# !rin$in$# li+e :hrist# not peace !ut strife# an in
aition somethin$ harly :hristian (for woe to him who !rin$s scanal into the worlO)
Lscanal itself" A fortunate scanal which ma+es him stic+ with 2ansenist efiance to a
lan$ua$e that irectly names the reality"
( will !e allowe to lea&e ?ascal to the ar$uments of his ieolo$ical stru$$le with the
reli$ious ieolo$ical )tate apparatus of his ay" An ( shall !e expecte to use a more
irectly Marxist &oca!ulary# if that is possi!le# for we are a&ancin$ in still poorly
explore omains"
( shall therefore say that# where only a sin$le su!-ect (such an such an ini&iual) is
concerne# the existence of the ieas of his !elief is material in that his ideas are his
aterial actions inserted into aterial practices governed by aterial rituals )hich are
theselves de%ined by the aterial ideological apparatus %ro )hich derive the ideas o%
that subject" Caturally# the four inscriptions of the a-ecti&e FmaterialF in my proposition
must !e affecte !y ifferent moalities3 the materialities of a isplacement for $oin$ to
mass# of +neelin$ own# of the $esture of the si$n of the cross# or of the ea culpa# of a
sentence# of a prayer# of an act of contrition# of a penitence# of a $a1e# of a han-sha+e# of
an external &er!al iscourse or an FinternalF &er!al iscourse (consciousness)# are not one
an the same materiality" ( shall lea&e on one sie the pro!lem of a theory of the
ifferences !etween the moalities of materiality"
(t remains that in this in&erte presentation of thin$s# we are not ealin$ with an
Fin&ersionF at all# since it is clear that certain notions ha&e purely an simply isappeare
from our presentation# whereas others on the contrary sur&i&e# an new terms appear"

;isappeare3 the term ideas"
)ur&i&e3 the terms subject, consciousness, belie%, actions"
Appear3 the terms practices, rituals, ideological apparatus"

(t is therefore not an in&ersion or o&erturnin$ (except in the sense in which one mi$ht
say a $o&ernment or a $lass is o&erturne)# !ut a reshuffle (of a non-ministerial type)# a
rather stran$e reshuffle# since we o!tain the followin$ result"
(eas ha&e isappeare as such (insofar as they are enowe with an ieal or
spiritual existence)# to the precise extent that it has emer$e that their existence is
inscri!e in the actions of practices $o&erne !y rituals efine in the last instance !y an
ieolo$ical apparatus" (t therefore appears that the su!-ect acts insofar as he is acte !y
the followin$ system (set out in the orer of its real etermination)3 ieolo$y existin$ in a
material ieolo$ical apparatus# prescri!in$ material practices $o&erne !y a material
ritual# which practices exist in the material actions of a su!-ect actin$ in all consciousness
accorin$ to his !elief"
=ut this &ery presentation re&eals that we ha&e retaine the followin$ notions3
su!-ect# consciousness# !elief# actions" From this series ( shall immeiately extract the
ecisi&e central term on which e&erythin$ else epens3 the notion of the subject"
An ( shall immeiately set own these two con-oint theses3
1" there is no practice except !y an in an ieolo$y7
>" there is no ieolo$y except !y the su!-ect an for su!-ects"
( can now come to my central thesis"

Ideology Interpellates Individuals as Subjects
This thesis is simply a matter of ma+in$ my last proposition explicit3 there is no ieolo$y
except !y the su!-ect an for su!-ects" Meanin$# there is no ieolo$y except for concrete
su!-ects# an this estination for ieolo$y is only mae possi!le !y the su!-ect3 meanin$#
by the category o% the subject an its functionin$"
=y this ( mean that# e&en if it only appears uner this name (the su!-ect) with the rise
of !our$eois ieolo$y# a!o&e all with the rise of le$al ieolo$y#
5
the cate$ory of the
su!-ect (which may function uner other names3 e"$"# as the soul in ?lato# as .o# etc") is
the constituti&e cate$ory of all ieolo$y# whate&er its etermination (re$ional or class)
an whate&er its historical ateNsince ieolo$y has no history"
( say3 the cate$ory of the su!-ect is constituti&e of all ieolo$y# !ut at the same time
an immeiately ( a that the category o% the subject is only constitutive o% all ideology
inso%ar as all ideology has the %unction 8)hich de%ines it9 of Fconstitutin$F concrete
ini&iuals as su!-ects" JuK(n the interaction of this ou!le constitution exists the
functionin$ of all ieolo$y# ieolo$y !ein$ nothin$ !ut its functionin$ in the material
forms of existence of that functionin$"
(n orer to $rasp what follows# it is essential to reali1e that !oth he who is writin$
these lines an the reaer who reas them are themsel&es su!-ects# an therefore
ieolo$ical su!-ects (a tautolo$ical proposition)# i"e" that the author an the reaer of
these lines !oth li&e FspontaneouslyF or FnaturallyF in ieolo$y in the sense in which ( ha&e
sai that Fman is an ieolo$ical animal !y natureF"
That the author# insofar as he writes the lines ofa iscourse which claims to !e
scientific# is completely a!sent as a Fsu!-ectF from FhisF scientific iscourse (for all
scientific iscourse is !y efinition a su!-ect-less iscourse# there is no F)u!-ect of
scienceF except in an ieolo$y of science) is a ifferent ,uestion which ( shall lea&e on
one sie for the moment"
As )t ?aul amira!ly put it# it is in the FLo$osF# meanin$ in ieolo$y# that we Fli&e#
mo&e an ha&e our !ein$F" (t follows that# for you an for me# the cate$ory of the su!-ect
is a primary Fo!&iousnessF (o!&iousnesses are always primary)3 it is clear that you an (
are su!-ects (free# ethical# etc"""" )" Li+e all o!&iousnesses# incluin$ those that ma+e a
wor Fname a thin$F or Fha&e a meanin$F (therefore incluin$ the o!&iousness of the
FtransparencyF of lan$ua$e)# the Fo!&iousnessF that you an ( are su!-ectsLan that that
oes not cause any pro!lemsLis an ieolo$ical effect# the elementary ieolo$ical effect"
8
(t is inee a peculiarity of ieolo$y that it imposes (without appearin$ to o so# since
these are Fo!&iousnessesF) o!&iousnesses as o!&iousnesses# which we cannot %ail to
recogni:e an !efore which we ha&e the ine&ita!le an natural reaction of cryin$ out
(alou or in the Fstill# small &oice of conscienceF)3 FThatFs o!&iousO ThatFs ri$htO ThatFs
trueOF
At wor+ in this reaction is the ieolo$ical recognition function which is one of the
two functions of ieolo$y as such (its in&erse !ein$ the function of isrecognition;
+connaissance)"
To ta+e a hi$hly FconcreteF example# we all ha&e friens who# when they +noc+ on
our oor an we as+# throu$h the oor# the ,uestion FDhoFs there/F# answer (since FitFs
o!&iousF) F(tFs meF" An we reco$ni1e that Fit is himF# or FherF" De open the oor# an FitFs
true# it really was she who was thereF" To ta+e another example# when we reco$ni1e
some!oy of our (pre&ious) ac,uaintance ((re)-connaissance) in the street# we show him
that we ha&e reco$ni1e him (an ha&e reco$ni1e that he has reco$ni1e us) !y sayin$
to him FGello# my frienF# an sha+in$ his han (a material ritual practice of ieolo$ical
reco$nition in e&eryay lifeNin France# at least7 elsewhere# there are other rituals)"
(n this preliminary remar+ an these concrete illustrations# ( only wish to point out
that you an ( are al)ays already su!-ects# an as such constantly practice the rituals of
ieolo$ical reco$nition# which $uarantee for us that we are inee concrete# ini&iual#
istin$uisha!le an (naturally) irreplacea!le su!-ects" The writin$ ( am currently
executin$ an the reain$ you are currently
9
performin$ are also in this respect rituals of
ieolo$ical reco$nition# incluin$ the Fo!&iousnessF with which the FtruthF or FerrorF of my
reflections may impose itself on you"
=ut to reco$ni1e that we are su!-ects an that we function in the practical rituals of
the most elementary e&eryay life (the han-sha+e# the fact of callin$ you !y your name#
the fact of +nowin$# e&en if ( o not +now what it is# that you Fha&eF a name of your own#
which means that you are reco$ni1e as a uni,ue su!-ect# etc")Lthis reco$nition only
$i&es us the FconsciousnessF of our incessant (eternal) practice of ieolo$ical reco$nition
Lits consciousness# i"e" its recognition;!ut in no sense oes it $i&e us the (scientific)
<no)ledge of the mechanism of this reco$nition" Cow it is this +nowle$e that we ha&e
to reach# if you will# while spea+in$ in ieolo$y# an from within ieolo$y we ha&e to
outline a iscourse which tries to !rea+ with ieolo$y# in orer to are to !e the
!e$innin$ of a scientific (i"e" su!-ect-less) iscourse on ieolo$y"
Thus in orer to represent why the cate$ory of the Fsu!-ectF is constituti&e of
ieolo$y# which only exists !y constitutin$ concrete su!-ects as su!-ects# ( shall employ a
special moe of exposition3 FconcreteF enou$h to !e reco$ni1e# !ut a!stract enou$h to !e
thin+a!le an thou$ht# $i&in$ rise to +nowle$e"
As a first formulation ( shall say3 all ideology hails or interpellates concrete
individuals as concrete subjects# !y the functionin$ of the cate$ory of the su!-ect"
This is a proposition which entails that we istin$uish for the moment !etween
concrete ini&iuals on the one han an concrete su!-ects on the other# althou$h at this
le&el concrete su!-ects only exist insofar as they are supporte !y a concrete ini&iual"
( shall then su$$est that ieolo$y FactsF or FfunctionsF in such a way that it FrecruitsF
su!-ects amon$ the ini&iuals (it recruits them all)# or FtransformsF the ini&iuals into
su!-ects (it transforms them all) !y that &ery precise operation which ( ha&e calle
interpellation or hailin$# an which can !e ima$ine alon$ the lines of the most
commonplace e&eryay police (or other) hailin$3 FGey# you thereOF
10
Assumin$ that the theoretical scene ( ha&e ima$ine ta+es place in the street# the
haile ini&iual will turn roun" =y this mere one-hunre-an-ei$hty-e$ree physical
con&ersion# he !ecomes a subject" Dhy/ =ecause he has reco$ni1e that the hail was
FreallyF aresse to him# an that Fit was really hi who was haileF (an not someone
else)" 8xperience shows that the practical telecommunication of hailin$s is such that they
harly e&er miss their man3 &er!al call or whistle# the one haile always reco$ni1es that it
is really him who is !ein$ haile" An yet it is a stran$e phenomenon# an one which
cannot !e explaine solely !y F$uilt feelin$sF# espite the lar$e num!ers who Fha&e
somethin$ on their consciencesF"
Caturally for the con&enience an clarity of my little theoretical theatre ( ha&e ha to
present thin$s in the form of a se,uence# with a !efore an an after# an thus in the form
of a temporal succession" There are ini&iuals wal+in$ alon$" )omewhere (usually
!ehin them) the hail rin$s out3 FGey# you thereOF @ne ini&iual (nine times out of ten it
is the ri$ht one) turns roun# !elie&in$9suspectin$9+nowin$ that it is for him# i"e"
reco$ni1in$ that Fit really is heF who is meant !y the hailin$" =ut in reality these thin$s
happen without any succession" The existence of ieolo$y an the hailin$ or
interpellation of ini&iuals as su!-ects are one an the same thin$"
( mi$ht a3 what thus seems to ta+e place outsie ieolo$y (to !e precise# in the
street)# in reality ta+es place in ieolo$y" Dhat really ta+es place in ieolo$y seems
therefore to ta+e place outsie it" That is why those who are in ieolo$y !elie&e
themsel&es !y efinition outsie ieolo$y3 one of the effects of ieolo$y is the practical
denegation of ieolo$ical character of ieolo$y !y ieolo$y3 ieolo$y ne&er says# F( am
ieolo$icalF" (t is necessary to !e outsie ieolo$y# i"e" in scientific +nowle$e# to !e a!le
to say3 ( am in ieolo$y (a ,uite exceptional case) or (the $eneral case)3 ( was in ieolo$y"
As is well +nown# the accusation of !ein$ in ieolo$y only applies to others# ne&er to
oneself (unless one is really a )pino1ist or a Marxist# which# in this matter# is to !e
exactly the same thin$)" Dhich amounts to sayin$ that ieolo$y has no outside (for
itself)# !ut at the same time that it is nothing but outside (for science an reality)"
)pino1a
11
explaine this completely two centuries !efore Marx# who practise it !ut
without explainin$ it in etail" =ut let us lea&e this point# althou$h it is hea&y with
conse,uences# conse,uences which are not -ust theoretical# !ut also irectly political#
since# for example# the whole theory of criticism an self-criticism# the $olen rule of the
Marxist-Leninist practice of the class stru$$le# epens on it"
Thus ieolo$y hails or interpellates ini&iuals as su!-ects" As ieolo$y is eternal# (
must now suppress the temporal form in which ( ha&e presente the functionin$ of
ieolo$y# an say3 ieolo$y has always-alreay interpellate ini&iuals as su!-ects#
which amounts to ma+in$ it clear that ini&iuals are always-alreay interpellate !y
ieolo$y as su!-ects# which necessarily leas us to one last proposition3 individuals are
al)ays3already subjects" Gence ini&iuals are Fa!stractF with respect to the su!-ects
which they always-alreay are" This proposition mi$ht seem paraoxical"
That an ini&iual is always-alreay a su!-ect# e&en !efore he is !orn# is ne&ertheless
the plain reality# accessi!le to e&eryone an not a paraox at all" Freu shows that
ini&iuals are always Fa!stractF with respect to the su!-ects they always-alreay are#
simply !y notin$ the ieolo$ical ritual that surrouns the expectation of a F!irthF# that
Fhappy e&entF" 8&eryone +nows how much an in what way an un!orn chil is expecte"
Dhich amounts to sayin$# &ery prosaically# if we a$ree to rop the FsentimentsF# i"e" the
forms of family ieolo$y (paternal9maternal9con-u$al9fraternal) in which the un!orn chil
is expecte3 it is certain in a&ance that it will !ear its FatherFs Came# an will therefore
ha&e an ientity an !e irreplacea!le" =efore its !irth# the chil is therefore always-
alreay a su!-ect# appointe as a su!-ect in an !y the specific familial ieolo$ical
confi$uration in which it is FexpecteF once it has !een concei&e" ( harly nee a that
this familial ieolo$ical confi$uration is# in its uni,ueness# hi$hly structure# an that it is
in this implaca!le an more or less Fpatholo$icalF (presupposin$ that any meanin$ can !e
assi$ne to that term) structure that the former su!-ect-to-!e will ha&e to FfinF FitsF place#
i"e" F!ecomeF the sexual su!-ect (!oy or $irl) which it alreay is in a&ance" (t is clear that
this ieolo$ical constraint an pre-appointment# an all the rituals of rearin$ an then
eucation in the family# ha&e some relationship with what Freu stuie in the forms of
the pre-$enital an $enital Fsta$esF of sexuality# i"e" in the F$ripFof what Freu re$istere !y
its effects as !ein$ the unconscious" =ut let us lea&e this point# too# on one sie"
Let me $o one step further" Dhat ( shall now turn my attention to is the way the
FactorsF in this ise en scene of interpellation# an their respecti&e roles# are reflecte in
the &ery structure of all ieolo$y"
!n E$aple: The 1hristian 'eligious Ideology
As the formal structure of all ieolo$y is always the same# ( shall restrict my analysis
to a sin$le example# one accessi!le to e&eryone# that of reli$ious ieolo$y# with the
pro&iso that the same emonstration can !e prouce for ethical# le$al# political# aesthetic
ieolo$y# etc"
Let us therefore consier the :hristian reli$ious ieolo$y" ( shall use a rhetorical
fi$ure an Fma+e it spea+F# i"e" collect into a fictional iscourse what it FsaysF not only in
its two Testaments# its Theolo$ians# )ermons# !ut also in its practices# its rituals# its
ceremonies an its sacraments" The :hristian reli$ious ieolo$y says somethin$ li+e this3
(t says3 ( aress myself to you# a human ini&iual calle ?eter (e&ery ini&iual is
calle !y his name# in the passi&e sense# it is ne&er he who pro&ies his own name)# in
orer to tell you that .o exists an that you are answera!le to Gim" (t as3 .o
aresses himself to you throu$h my &oice ()cripture ha&in$ collecte the Dor of .o#
Traition ha&in$ transmitte it# ?apal (nfalli!ility fixin$ it for e&er on FniceF points)" (t
says3 this is who you are3 you are ?eterO This is your ori$in# you were create !y .o for
all eternity# althou$h you were !orn in the 19>0th year of @ur LorO This is your place in
the worlO This is what you must oO =y these means# if you o!ser&e the Flaw of lo&eF you
will !e sa&e# you# ?eter# an will !ecome part of the .lorious =oy of :hristO 8tc""""
Cow this is ,uite a familiar an !anal iscourse# !ut at the same time ,uite a
surprisin$ one"
)urprisin$ !ecause if we consier that reli$ious ieolo$y is inee aresse to
ini&iuals#
1>
in orer to Ftransform them into su!-ectsF# !y interpellatin$ the ini&iual#
?eter# in orer to ma+e him a su!-ect# free to o!ey or iso!ey the appeal# i"e" .oFs
commanments7 if it calls these ini&iuals !y their names# thus reco$ni1in$ that they are
always-alreay interpellate as su!-ects with a personal ientity (to the extent that
?ascalFs :hrist says3 F(t is for you that ( ha&e she this rop of my !looOF)7 if it
interpellates them in such a way that the su!-ect respons3 &=es, it really is e>& if it
o!tains from them the recognition that they really o occupy the place it esi$nates for
them as theirs in the worl# a fixe resience3 F(t really is me# ( am here# a wor+er# a !oss
or a solierOF in this &ale of tears7 if it o!tains from them the reco$nition of a estination
(eternal life or amnation) accorin$ to the respect or contempt they show to F.oFs
:ommanmentsF# Law !ecome Lo&e7Nif e&erythin$ oes happen in this way (in the
practices of the well-+nown rituals of !aptism# confirmation# communion# confession an
extreme unction# etc"""" )# we shoul note that all this FproceureF to set up :hristian
reli$ious su!-ects is ominate !y a stran$e phenomenon3 the fact that there can only !e
such a multitue of possi!le reli$ious su!-ects on the a!solute conition that there is a
Bni,ue# A!solute# Other Subject# i"e" .o"
(t is con&enient to esi$nate this new an remar+a!le )u!-ect !y writin$ )u!-ect with
a capital ) to istin$uish it from orinary su!-ects# with a small s"
(t then emer$es that the interpellation of ini&iuals as su!-ects presupposes the
FexistenceF of a Bni,ue an central @ther )u!-ect# in whose Came the reli$ious ieolo$y
interpellates all ini&iuals as su!-ects" All this is clearly
1H
written in what is ri$htly
calle the )criptures" FAn it came to pass at that time that .o the Lor (Aahweh) spo+e
to Moses in the clou" An the Lor crie to Moses# PMosesOP An Moses replie P(t is
(really) (O ( am Moses thy ser&ant# spea+ an ( shall listenOP An the Lor spo+e to Moses
an sai to him# PI a that I aP%"
.o thus efines himself as the )u!-ect par e$cellence# he who is throu$h himself
an for himself (F( am that ( amF)# an he who interpellates his su!-ect# the ini&iual
su!-ecte to him !y his &ery interpellation# i"e" the ini&iual name Moses" An Moses#
interpellate-calle !y his Came# ha&in$ reco$ni1e that it FreallyF was he who was calle
!y .o# reco$ni1es that he is a su!-ect# a su!-ect o% .o# a su!-ect su!-ecte to .o# a
subject through the Subject and subjected to the Subject" The proof3 he o!eys him# an
ma+es his people o!ey .oFs :ommanments"
.o is the )u!-ect# an Moses an the innumera!le su!-ects of .oFs people# the
)u!-ectFs interlocutors-interpellates3 his irrors# his re%lections" Dere not men mae in
the iage of .o/ As all theolo$ical reflection pro&es# whereas Ge FcoulF perfectly well
ha&e one without men# .o nees them# the )u!-ect nees the su!-ects# -ust as men nee
.o# the su!-ects nee the )u!-ect" =etter3 .o nees men# the $reat )u!-ect nees
su!-ects# e&en in the terri!le in&ersion of his ima$e in them (when the su!-ects wallow in
e!auchery# i"e" sin)"
=etter3 .o uplicates himself an sens his )on to the 8arth# as a mere su!-ect
Fforsa+enF !y him (the lon$ complaint of the .aren of @li&es which ens in the
:rucifixion)# su!-ect !ut )u!-ect# man !ut .o# to o what prepares the way for the final
<eemption# the <esurrection of :hrist" .o thus nees to Fma+e himselfF a man# the
)u!-ect nees to !ecome a su!-ect# as if to show empirically# &isi!ly to the eye# tan$i!ly
to the hans (see )t Thomas)
14
of the su!-ects# that# if they are su!-ects# su!-ecte to the
)u!-ect# that is solely in orer that finally# on 2u$ement ;ay# they will re-enter the
LorFs =osom# li+e :hrist# i"e" re-enter the )u!-ect"
1M
Let us ecipher into theoretical lan$ua$e this wonerful necessity for the uplication
of the Subject into subjects an of the Subject itsel% into a subject3Subject"
De o!ser&e that the structure of all ieolo$y# interpellatin$ ini&iuals as su!-ects in
the name of a Bni,ue an A!solute )u!-ect is speculary# i"e" a mirror-structure# an
doubly speculary3 this mirror uplication is constituti&e of ieolo$y an ensures its
functionin$" Dhich means that all ieolo$y is centred# that the A!solute )u!-ect occupies
the uni,ue place of the :entre# an interpellates aroun it the infinity of ini&iuals into
su!-ects in a ou!le mirror-connexion such that it subjects the su!-ects to the )u!-ect#
while $i&in$ them in the )u!-ect in which each su!-ect can contemplate its own ima$e
(present an future) the guarantee that this really concerns them an Gim# an that since
e&erythin$ ta+es place in the Family (the Goly Family3 the Family is in essence Goly)#
F.o will recogni:e his own in itF# i"e" those who ha&e reco$ni1e .o# an ha&e
reco$ni1e themsel&es in Gim# will !e sa&e"
Let me summari1e what we ha&e isco&ere a!out ieolo$y in $eneral"
The uplicate mirror-structure of ieolo$y ensures simultaneously3
1" the interpellation of Fini&iualsF as su!-ects7
>" their su!-ection to the )u!-ect7
H" the mutual reco$nition of su!-ects an )u!-ect# the su!-ectsF reco$nition of each
other# an finally the su!-ectFs reco$nition of himself7
16
4" the a!solute $uarantee that e&erythin$ really is so# an that on conition that the
su!-ects reco$ni1e what they are an !eha&e accorin$ly# e&erythin$ will !e all ri$ht7
AmenNFSo be itF"
<esult3 cau$ht in this ,uaruple system of interpellation as su!-ects# of su!-ection to
the )u!-ect# of uni&ersal reco$nition an of a!solute $uarantee# the su!-ects Fwor+F# they
Fwor+ !y themsel&esF in the &ast ma-ority of cases# with the exception of the F!a su!-ectsF
who on occasion pro&o+e the inter&ention of one of the etachments of the (repressi&e)
)tate apparatus" =ut the &ast ma-ority of ($oo) su!-ects wor+ all ri$ht Fall !y themsel&esF#
i"e" !y ieolo$y (whose concrete forms are reali1e in the (eolo$ical )tate Apparatuses)"
They are inserte into practices $o&erne !y the rituals of the ()As" They Freco$ni1eF the
existin$ state of affairs (das ?estehende)# that Fit really is true that it is so an not
otherwiseF# an that they must !e o!eient to .o# to their conscience# to the priest# to e
.aulle# to the !oss# to the en$ineer# that thou shalt Flo&e thy nei$h!our as thyselfF# etc"
Their concrete# material !eha&iour is simply the inscription in life of the amira!le wors
of the prayer3 Q!en@So be itF"
Aes# the su!-ects Fwor+ !y themsel&esF" The whole mystery of this effect lies in the
first two moments of the ,uaruple system ( ha&e -ust iscusse# or# if you prefer# in the
am!i$uity of the term subject" (n the orinary use of the term# su!-ect in fact means3 (1) a
free su!-ecti&ity# a centre of initiati&es# author of an responsi!le for its actions7 (>) a
su!-ecte !ein$# who su!mits to a hi$her authority# an is therefore strippe of all
freeom except that of freely acceptin$ his su!mission" This last note $i&es us the
meanin$ of this am!i$uity# which is merely a reflection of the effect which prouces it3
the ini&iual is interpellated as a 8%ree9 subject in order that he shall subit %reely to the
coandents o% the Subject, i4e 4in order that he shall 8%reely9 accept his subjection# i"e"
in orer that he shall ma+e the $estures an actions of his su!-ection Fall !y himselfF"
There are no subjects e$cept by and %or their subjection" That is why they Fwor+ all !y
themsel&esF"
FSo be it>444F This phrase which re$isters the effect to !e o!taine pro&es that it is not
FnaturallyF so (FnaturallyF3 outsie the prayer# i"e" outsie the ieolo$ical inter&ention)" This
phrase pro&es that it has to !e so if thin$s are to !e what they must !e# an let us let the
wors slip3 if the reprouction of the relations of prouction is to !e assure# e&en in the
processes of prouction an circulation# e&ery ay# in the FconsciousnessF# i"e" in the
attitues of the ini&iual-su!-ects occupyin$ the posts which the socio-technical i&ision
of la!our assi$ns to them in prouction# exploitation# repression# ieolo$i1ation# scientific
practice# etc" (nee# what is really in ,uestion in this mechanism of the mirror
reco$nition of the )u!-ect an of the ini&iuals interpellate as su!-ects# an of the
$uarantee $i&en !y the )u!-ect to the su!-ects if they freely accept their su!-ection to the
)u!-ectFs FcommanmentsF/ The reality in ,uestion in this mechanism# the reality which is
necessarily ignored 8+connue9 in the &ery forms of reco$nition (ieolo$yI
misreco$nition 9i$norance) is inee# in the last resort# the reprouction of the relations of
prouction an of the relations eri&in$ from them"
6anuary3!pril .ABA
?")" (f these few schematic theses allow me to illuminate certain aspects of the
functionin$ of the )uperstructure an its moe of inter&ention in the (nfrastructure# they
are o!&iously abstract an necessarily lea&e se&eral important pro!lems unanswere#
which shoul !e mentione3
1" The pro!lem of the total process of the reali1ation of the reprouction of the
relations of prouction"
As an element of this process# the ()As contribute to this reprouction" =ut the point
of &iew of their contri!ution alone is still an a!stract one"
(t is only within the processes of prouction an circulation that this reprouction is
reali:ed" (t is reali1e !y the mechanisms of those processes# in which the trainin$ of the
wor+ers is FcompleteF# their posts assi$ne them# etc" (t is in the internal mechanisms of
these processes that the effect of the ifferent ieolo$ies is felt (a!o&e all the effect of
le$al-ethical ieolo$y)"
=ut this point of &iew is still an a!stract one" For in a class society the relations of
prouction are relations of exploitation# an therefore relations !etween anta$onistic
classes" The reprouction of the relations of prouction# the ultimate aim of the rulin$
class# cannot therefore !e a merely technical operation trainin$ an istri!utin$
ini&iuals for the ifferent posts in the Ftechnical i&isionF of la!our except in the
ieolo$y of the rulin$ class3 e&ery FtechnicalF i&ision# e&ery FtechnicalF or$ani1ation of
la!our is the form an mas+ of a social (Iclass) i&ision an or$ani1ation of la!our" The
reprouction of the relations of prouction can therefore only !e a class unerta+in$" (t is
reali1e throu$h a class stru$$le which counterposes the rulin$ class an the exploite
class"
The total process of the reali1ation of the reprouction of the relations of prouction
is therefore still a!stract# insofar as it has not aopte the point of &iew of this class
stru$$le" To aopt the point of &iew of reprouction is therefore# in the last instance# to
aopt the point of &iew of the class stru$$le"
>" The pro!lem of the class nature of the ieolo$ies existin$ in a social formation"
The FmechanismF of ieolo$y in general is one thin$" De ha&e seen that it can !e
reuce to a few principles expresse in a few wors (as FpoorF as those which# accorin$
to Marx# efine prouction in general# or in Freu# efine the unconscious in general)" (f
there is any truth in it# this mechanism must !e abstract with respect to e&ery real
ieolo$ical formation"
( ha&e su$$este that the ieolo$ies were reali:ed in institutions# in their rituals an
their practices# in the ()As" De ha&e seen that on this !asis they contri!ute to that form of
class stru$$le# &ital for the rulin$ class# the reprouction of the relations of prouction"
=ut the point of &iew itself# howe&er real# is still an a!stract one"
(n fact# the )tate an its Apparatuses only ha&e meanin$ from the point of &iew of
the class stru$$le# as an apparatus of class stru$$le ensurin$ class oppression an
$uaranteein$ the conitions of exploitation an its reprouction" =ut there is no class
stru$$le without anta$onistic classes" Dhoe&er says class stru$$le of the rulin$ class says
resistance# re&olt an class stru$$le of the rule class"
That is why the ()As are not the reali1ation of ieolo$y in general# nor e&en of the
conflict-free reali1ation of the ieolo$y of the rulin$ class" The ieolo$y of the rulin$
class oes not !ecome the rulin$ ieolo$y !y the $race of .o# nor e&en !y &irtue of the
sei1ure of )tate power alone" (t is !y the installation of the ()As in which this ieolo$y is
reali1e an reali1es itself that it !ecomes the rulin$ ieolo$y" =ut this installation is not
achie&e all !y itself7 on the contrary# it is the sta+e in a &ery !itter an continuous class
stru$$le3 first a$ainst the former rulin$ classes an their positions in the ol an new
()As# then a$ainst the exploite class"
=ut this point of &iew of the class stru$$le inthe ()As is still an a!stract one" (n fact#
the class stru$$le in the ()As is inee an aspect of the class stru$$le# sometimes an
important an symptomatic one3 e"$" the anti-reli$ious stru$$le in the ei$hteenth century#
or the FcrisisF of the eucational ()A in e&ery capitalist country toay" =ut the class
stru$$les in the ()As is only one aspect of a class stru$$le which $oes !eyon the ()As"
The ieolo$y that a class in power ma+es the rulin$ ieolo$y in its ()As is inee
Freali1eF in those ()As# !ut it $oes !eyon them# for it comes from elsewhere" )imilarly#
the ieolo$y that a rule class mana$es to efen in an a$ainst such ()As $oes !eyon
them# for it comes from elsewhere"
(t is only from the point of &iew of the classes# i"e" of the class stru$$le# that it is
possi!le to explain the ieolo$ies existin$ in a social formation" Cot only is it from this
startin$-point that it is possi!le to explain the reali1ation of the rulin$ ieolo$y in the
()As an of the forms of class stru$$le for which the ()As are the seat an the sta+e" =ut
it is also an a!o&e all from this startin$-point that it is possi!le to unerstan the
pro&enance of the ieolo$ies which are reali1e in the ()As an confront one another
there" For if it is true that the ()As represent the %or in which the ieolo$y of the rulin$
class must necessarily !e reali1e# an the form in which the ieolo$y of the rule class
must necessarily !e measure an confronte# ieolo$ies are not F!ornF in the ()As !ut
from the social classes at $rips in the class stru$$le3 from their conitions of existence#
their practices# their experience of the stru$$le# etc"
!pril .ACD
1
?ierre-2ean-.eor$es :a!anis (15M5-1808)# French philosopher# author of On the Relations beteen the !hysical and
"oral Aspects o# "an (1802; trans. 1981).
>
;estutt e Tracy (18M4-18H6)# French philosopher# founer of the )chool of (eolo$y# pursuin$ a Loc+e-influence
'science of ieas"*
H
Althusser earlier has istin$uishe !etween state power an state apparatus# representin$ the irect manifestation of power#
an ieolo$ical state apparatuses# which are su!tler forms of power an repression# incluin$ reli$ious enominations an
churches# schools# the ieolo$y of the law# political parties# trae unions# the arts# an so on " ResS
4
Luwi$ Anreas Feuer!ach (1804T-5>)# ?ost-Ge$elian .erman philosopher# later a materialist an an influence on Marx"
R8s"S

M
( use this &ery moern term eli!erately" For e&en in :ommunist circles# unfortunately# it is a commonplace to FexplainF
some political e&iation (left or ri$ht opportunism) !y the action of a Fcli,ueF" RAu"S
6
=laise ?ascal (16>HT-6>)# French philosopher# author of Pens+es" R8s"S
7
Dhich !orrowe the le$al cate$ory of Fsu!-ect in lawF to ma+e an ieolo$ical notion3 man is !y nature a su!-ect" RAu"S
8
Lin$uists an those who appeal to lin$uistics for &arious purposes often run up a$ainst ifficulties which arise !ecause
they i$nore the action of the ieolo$ical effects in all iscoursesNincluin$ e&en scientific iscourses" RAu"S
9
C=3 this ou!le FcurrentlyF is one more proof of the fact that ieolo$y is FeternalF# since these two FcurrentlysF are separate
!y an inefinite inter&al7 ( am writin$ these lines on 6 April 1969# you may rea them at any su!se,uent time" RAu"S
10
Gailin$ as an e&eryay practice su!-ect to a precise ritual ta+es ,uite FspecialF form in the policemanFs practice of Fhailin$F
which concerns the hailin$ of FsuspectsF"RAu"S
11
=aruch (or =eneict) )pino1a (16H>T-55)# 2ewish-;utch philosopher# follower of ;escartes an ori$inator of ?antheism"
R8s"S
1>
Althou$h we +now that the ini&iual is always alreay a su!-ect# we $o on usin$ this term# con&enient !ecause of the
contrastin$ effect it prouces" RAu"S
1H
( am ,uotin$ in a com!ine way# not to the letter !ut Fin spirit an truthF" RAu"S
14
)t" Thomas A,uinas (1>>MT-54)#(see pp" ///) philosopher an churchman" R8s"S
1M
The o$ma of the Trinity is precisely the theory of the uplication of the )u!-ect (the Father) into a su!-ect (the )on) an
of their mirror connexion (the Goly )pirit)" RAu"S
16
Ge$el is (un+nowin$ly) an amira!le FtheoreticianF of ieolo$y insofar as he is a FtheoreticianF of Bni&ersal <eco$nition
who unfortunately ens up in the ieolo$y of A!solute 0nowle$e" Feuer!ach is an astonishin$ FtheoreticianF of the mirror
connexion# who unfortunately ens up in the ieolo$y of the Guman 8ssence" To fin the material with which to construct a
theory of the $uarantee# we must turn to )pino1a" RAu"S

You might also like