2 discussions 1 assignment- reserved for someone [[[[[[Part 2]]]]]]]

Althusser.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >2 discussions 1 assignment- reserved for someone [[[[[[Part 2]]]]]]]

This English-language edition published by Veno ~ ,. Translation C G. M. Goshgarun 2()1~ Fine published as Sllr IIIR'PI'IlQllCli,lll e Presses Universinires de France 1995

Preface to Etienne Balibar 2014 Introduction © Jacques Bidet 2014

'Ideology and Ideological State Appannues' first appeared in LOUISAldlllKt u."" Other £HllyS, trans. Ben Brewster, London, New Lett Books, 1971.The tt: .. I" .... oIiol

Contents

'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,' mm!.ll:kL c Ben Brewster 1971, 1994,2014

13579108642

I",n,,,,,d: Althusser and the 'Ideological tate Apparatuses' by Etienne Balibar

1"",,,I,,c,iol/: An Invitation 10 Reread Althusser by Jacques Bidet

I"'(ClrialNote by Jacques Bidet 1,,,n51,,/or'5Note by C. M. Goshgarian

The moral rights of the authors have been ~;crtC'l1

Verso UK: 6 Meard Street, London W1F OEG

US: 20 Jay Street, Suite lOW, I3rookll'l1,NY 11M W\llw.versobooks,cont

xix

XXiX

XXX1U

Verso is the imprint of New Left Boob I, ,lly Readers 1

ISBN-I3: 978_1_78168-164-0 (PBK) ISBN-Il 978_1_78168-165-7 (HBKJ eISBN-13: 978_1_78168-215-9 (US) elSBN-13: 978_1_78168-521-2 (UK)

What Is Philosophy? 2 What Is a Mode of Production? I The Reproduction of the Conditions of Production I Base and Superstructure :; Law t, The State

Brief Remarks on the Political and Associative Ideological State Apparatuses of the French Capitalist Social Formation

~ The Political and Associative Ideological State Apparatuses

'/ The Reproduction of the Relations of Production 1/1. The Reproduction of the Relations of

Production and Revolution II Further R.emarks on Law and Its Realiry,

the Legal Ideological State Apparatus

12. n Ideology

10 18 47 53 57 70. te P blication 0.11British Library Cataloguing In U

. ail bl from the Bnlllh Ll A catalogue record for this book IS sv a e

. in publication [)til Library of Congress Catalogmg· •

Alrhusser,Louis, 1918·1990. [Sur la reproduction. English] r.-

. . .. d 10 and ideolo~calst.'lte applfJW \1 On the reproduction of capltahstn . 1 e~?:i c ues Bidel ; l;I1JI5!Jtl'C! bf G

P reface by Etienne Balibar ; inrroductlon by Ja q

pages em dt a-' ri hr] Pr~es UIU\,CI1IUlftS

"First published as Sur la reproduction, [copy ~ d __ hd • Includes In ex. 6S-- ., tllW""~_

_ISBN 978_1_78168-1' ...

ISBN 97B_I_78168-164-0 (pbk. : alk. p,per) . 3. c.p;nbsm.4

. 2 MaTXIan economICS. 1 producnoll (Econoll11C theory)· .c: I Tide,. COlluICr. .

HB241.A561l2013 335.4'12-<1c23

103 140

148

164 171

This English-language edition publis/lcd by Verse 2014 Translation © G. M. Coshgarian 20/4 First published as Sur (a reprodliClillfl

Introduction (0Jacques Bidet 2014

'Ideology and Ideological State A arar , " Olll('r Ess pp ranees first appeared III LoUIsAlthusscr, LnI;n UI1J Ph,IiJ.,_

J(/YS, trans, Ben Brewster, London, New Lefi Books, 1971. The tmnslaricn bas been fIlOIhbtd.

'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.' tmnslarion 10 Ben Brewster 1971, 1994,2014

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

13579108642

Verso UK: 6 MCJrCIStreet, London WI F OEG

US: 20Jay Street, Suite 1010, Brooklyn, NY 11201 www.versobooks.colll

Verso IS the impnm of New Left Boolu

1 ON-IJ, 978-/-78168-164-0 (POK) ISO -13'978-1-78168_165_7 (HDK) </SON-IJ, 978-1-78168-215_9 (US) </50 -13,978-1-78168-52-1-2 (UK)

Uritlth Ubl'1l Ca ry ra.JOguing in Publication Dab

~.1l...."''lAU<' ~ord (0( dll.s boo l U .I\',.I.lbb/elion! the Unruh Llbr:uy

Ub~"7 o( "P-IIUJ u'o...l '""d, _"g·,n-Publiation 0.(.

'" r. LouL '918-,WO I' U ~ .,,.. .... <..If*aInm -JlktlOf'l EngluhJ

,_, .nd .......... / hoQ ~ J 'I"" 0"'(;.1JC;i(eoIrp.;tr;ar~ I loun AJth~ •

lIN ~ • PiIIft • ft1 ' ,f;lO\LuaJ by (; I ~t'l.UI. _." ... ,... ........ ~ I '''-'

,.......... Un'W'\''''Wf'(''l J<. Fr-..nee IllY; .. 1\11 ,

... _-, , ( .,..~ 7 f'hoInJbA. i; -.. P'f'<'

.. \t ..,r. Thor S

Contents

Foreword: Althusser and the 'IdeoLogical State Apparatuses' by Etienne Balibar

lntrodutiion: An Invitation to Reread Althusser by Jacques Bidet

Editorial Note by Jacques Bidet Translator's Note by G. M. Goshgarian

Vl1

XlX

xxix XXXll1

To My Readers 1

1. What Is Philosophy? 2. What Is a Mode of Production? 3. The Reproduction of the Conditions of Production 4. Base and Superstructure 5. Law 6. The State 7. Brief Remarks on the Political and Associative

Ideological State Apparatuses of rhe French Capitalist Social Formation

8. The Political and Associative Ideological State Apparatuses

9. The Reproduction of rhe Relations of Production 10. The Reprodl1ction of the Relations of

Production and Revolution 11. Further Remarks on Law and Its Reality,

the Legal Ideological State Apparatus 12. On Ideology

10 18 47 53 57 70

103 140

148

164 171

APPENDIX 2

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses

(Notes towards an Investigation)

Translated from the French by Ben Brewster

I ON THE REPRODUCTION OF THE CONDITIONS OF PRODUCTION'

I must now expose more fully something which was briefly glimpsed in my analysis when I spoke of the necessity to renew the means of produc- tion if production is to be possible. That was a passing hint. Now I shall consider it for itself. As Marx said, every child knows that a social formation which did not

reproduce the conditions of production at the same time as it produced would not last a year.' The ultimate condition of production is therefore the reproduction of the conditions of production. This may be 'simple' (reproducing exactly the previous conditions of production) or 'on an extended scale' (expanding them). Let us ignore this last distinction for the moment,

What, then, is the reproduction oj the conditions ifproduction? Here we are entering a domain which is both very familiar (since

CapitaL Volume 2) and uniquely ignored. The tenacious obviousnesses (ideological obviousnesses of an empiricist type) of the point of view of production alone, or even of that of mere productive practice (itself abstract in relation to the process of production) are so integrated into our everyday 'consciousness' that it is extremely hard, not to say ahnost impossible, to raise oneself to the point if view ifreproduction. Nevertheless,

1 This text ~s~ade up of two e.:..tracts from an ongoing study. The subtitle 'Notes towards an InvestlgatlOn' is the author's own. The ideas expounded should not be regarded as more than the introduction to a discussion.

2 Marx to Ku elmann Q;~ . 209.

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses 233

verything outside this point of view remains abstract (worse than one- sided:distorted) - even at the level of production, and, a fortiori, at that of

mere practice. . Let us try and examine the matter methodIcally. .

. . d . h t every social fOn1laoonTo simplify my exposinon, an assurrung t a f f d . I n say that the process 0arisesfrom a dominant mode 0 pro UC0011, ca . . ducti forces in and under defi-production sets to work the exisnng pro ucnve

nite relations of production. d It follows that in order to exist, every social formation must repro duce

. . ' . . h time as it produces, an 10the conditions of Its production at t e same order to be able to produce. It must therefore reproduce: 1) the productive forces, 2) the existing relations of production.

Reproduction of the means of Production . . I . . ts whose work IS natlona

Everyone (including the bourgeois econonus .' ') . < mic' 'theoretIC1ans now

accountmg or the modern macro-econo . I V I 2 , lli gl d it in CapIta 0 ume ,

recognizes, because Marx compe n Y prove c. h oduction hi h d ot allow Lor t e reprthatno production is possible w c oes n ducti f the means

f d . . the repro ucnon 0of the materia! conditions 0 pro ucnon: ofproduction. .' hi than the average. ho i dlfferent m t sThe average econonust, w 0 lS no . C e what is needed to.' ntial to torese capitalist,knows that each year it lS esse . duction: raw material,

d worn out m proreplacewhat has been use up or f duction (machines), etc. e· . ildin ) . rrumenrs 0 prohxed installations (bu gs , ins . list for they both express I . - he average cap'ta , .saythe average econonust - t .' ufftcient simply to grve a

.. 6 garding It as s .the point of view of the irm, re , f .a! accounting practrce . f he firm s manor . 'I . ,commentary on the termS 0 t I 0 first posed this g anng

. f Quesnay wn h hBut thanks to the geruus 0 Ived it, we know t at t e . f Marx who reso I hproblem and to the geruus 0 . f duction cannot be tnoug t, . I dioons 0 pro .' al

reproduction of the materra con . t exist at that [evej j.n Its re belt does no I' h n1at the level of the firm, ecaus I f the flfm is an effect, w llC 0 Y

conditions. What happens at the leve o. but absolutely fails to allow . f reproducnon,

givesan idea of the necesslry 0 b thought. . . . d h nisms to e . d f this' Mr X aits conditions an rnecr a h be conv1nce 0 . ,. . enoug to . mill h 'A moment's reflection 1S . his spinrong- ,as to repro-

itali h produces woollenyarn 10 But he does not produce themcapt st w 0 . chines, etc. . c d ' hi materia! his ma . li do' an Australian sheep caDner,lice s raw • caplta sts . for his own production - other in l1iachine-tools, Mr Z, et~., etc. And

Mr Y h vy enoineer pr oduc g d those products which are the, a .ea b~ d to pro uce

Mr Y and Mr Z, in or er

234 Apperldix 2

condirion of rhe reproduction of Mr X' .. have to reproduce the di . s condmons of production aha . . con nons of the' ducri 'infinity _ the whole' . If own pro ucnon, and soonto h

In proporoons such th h .r e world market th d at, on r e national andeven . ' e emand for means f d .non) can be satisfied b h 0 pro ucnon (for reproduc-y r e supply. In order to think this m hani .

chain', it is necessary to c. 11 ec Mamsm, which leads to a kind of 'endie. . to ow arx's 'gl bal' dparticular the relations of th . .1' 0 proce ure, and to studyin

I (production of mean f e dCIrcuanon of capital between Department s 0 pro uction) and D .means of consumption) d h . epartment 11 (producrion of

Volumes 2 and 3. ,an t e reaLization of surplus-value, in Capital

We shall not go into the anal sis of hi . mentioned the exisre f h Y . r s quesnon. It is enough to have . nee 0 t e necess ty f h .rial conditions ofpr ducr.i I 0 t e reproduction ofthe mate-o ucnon,

Reproduction of Labour-power However, the reader will not ha . discussed the rep rod . f ve fwed to note one thing. We have

ucnon 0 the f . reproduction of the ducti means 0 production - but not the

pro UCOve force W hreproduction of what disti s. e ave therefore ignored the f

stlnglllshes the d .o production i e th d' pro uctive forces from the means , " e repro ucno f1 bFrom the ob' n 0 a our-power.

fr servanon of what tak I' .. Om the examination ofth f . es pace in the finn, In particular

. . e mancial ac . .amoruzanon and . COuntmg pracnce which predicts . mvestrnenr we hay b

mate idea of the exist f 'h e een able to obtain an approxi- ence 0 t e mareria]are now entering ad" . process of reproduction, but we

h fi ornam In which th b .

t e !tm is, if not totall bl' d eo seevatlon of what happens in y m, at least al .reason: the reproduction fIb most enare1y so, and for good

the firm. 0 a our-power takes place essentially outside

How is the reproduction oflabo It ISensured by oi' 1 b ur-power ensured?

o,VIng a our-po we th .reproduce itself by r e matena1 means with which to . . wages. Wages fe .

enterpnse, but as 'wage . l' 3 ature In the accounting of each . capna ,not all ..reproducaon of labo at as a conditlon of the materialur-power.

However, that is in fact how it 'work' . part of the vaJue produ d b h s , smce wages represent only that . di ce yt eexp diIn spensable for its rep d' en ture of labour-power which is f h ro UctlOn: sc Ind'o t e labom-power of h . ,spensable to the reconstitution

housing, food and cloth' t e whage-earner (the wherewithaJ to pay for mg, m s art to e bl hna e t e wage earner to present

3 Marx gave "t . . . 1 1CSsCIentIfic concept: van'able capital.

Ideology and Ideological tate Apparalllses 235

himselfagainat the factory gate the next day - and every further day God grantshim); and we should add: indispensable for raising and educating the children in whom the proletarian reproduces himself (in 1/ models whereII = 0, 1,2, etc .... ) as labour-power. Remember that this quantity of value (wages) necessary for the repro-

ductionof labour-power is determined not by the needs of a 'biological' guaranteed minimum wage [salaire millil/I/I/I/ il/terproJessiol/l/ei garal/tl] alone,but by the needs of a historical minimum (Marx noted that English workers need beer while French proletarians need wine) - i.e. a histori- atllyvariable minimum. lshould also like to point out that this minimum is doubly historical in

that it is not defined by the historical needs of the working class 'recog- nized' by the capitalist class, but by the historical needs imposed by the proletarian class struggle (a double class struggle: against the lengthening of the working day and against the reduction of wages). However, it is not enough to ensure for labour-po'\ver the material

conditions of its reproduction if it is to be reproduced as labour-power. Ihave said that the available labour-power must be 'competent', i.e. suitable to be set to work in the complex system of the process of production. The development of the productive forces and the type of unity historically constitutive of the productive forces at a grven moment produce the result that the labour-power has to be (diversely) skilled and therefore teproduced as such. Diversely: accordmg to the requirements of the socio-technical division of labour, Its different

'jobs' and 'posts'. ..' H

. h' d 0' n of the (diversIfied) skills of labour-power ow IS t IS repro uc 0 ..''d dr' . ali t eaime? Here unlike SOelal fonnauons charac-

proYl e lor In a caplt s r b--- . '. .. db I Jdm rhisreproducoonoftheskillsoflabour-power tenze ys avery or selll 0 • .,

ds (his . d t' al law) decreasingly to be proVIded for on the

ten t IS a ten en 1 . ., ( . h' 'thin production itself), but IS achieved more and spot apprennces Ip 'WI .. d" by the capitalist educatlOn system, and by other more outside pro ucnan. instances and institutions. .' . .

hiJd learn at school? They go varymg dIStances m theIr

What do c. ren .'. ate they learn to read, to wnte and to add - I.e. a srudies but at any r .' ., f luu'ques and a number of other things as well, mcludmg number 0 tee • .

( which may be tudimentary or on the contrary thoroughgomg)

elements , LO h di cl fi I' h ~oac. .fi • r 'literary culture, WIlle are ree y use u m t e Wllerent of'sCleno Ie 0 .. . duction (one instructIOn for Inanual workers, another for tech-Jobs 10 pro. .. . third for engmeers, a final one for hIgher management, etc.). rnClans. a , Thus they learn 'know-how.

But besides these techniques and knowledges, and in learning them,

236 Appendix 2

children at school also learn the 'rules' of good behaviour, i.e. the attitude that should be observed by every agent in the division oflabour, accord- ing to the job he is 'destined' for: rules of moraliry, civic and professional conscience, which actually means rules of respect for the socio-technicil division oflabour and ultimately the rules of the order establishedbyda" domination. They also learn to 'speak ptoper French', to 'handle' the workers correctly, i.e. actually (for rhe future capitalists and their servants) to 'order them about' properly, i.e. (ideally) to 'speak to them' in the right way, etc.

To put this more scientifically, I shall say that the reproduction of labour-power requires not only a reproduction of its skills, but also,at the same time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of the established order, i.e. a reproduction of submission to the rulingideol- ogy for the workers, and a reproduction of the abiliry to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repres- sion, so that they, too, will provide for the domination of the ruling class 'in words'.

In other words, the school (but also other state institutions likethe Church, or other apparatuses like the army) teaches 'know-how', but in forms which ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the masteryof its 'practice'. All the agents of production, exploitation and repres- sion, not to speak of the 'professionals of ideology' (Marx), must 10 one way or another be 'steeped' in this ideology in order to perform their tasks 'conscientiously' - the tasks of the exploited (the proletar- ians), of the exploiters (the capitalists), of the exploiters' auxiliaries (the managers), or of the high priests of the ruling ideology (its 'func- tionaries'), etc.

The reproduction oflabour-power thus reveals as its sille qlla 11011 not only the reproduction of its 'skills' but also the reproduction of its subJec- tIOn to the ruling ideology or of the 'practice' of that ideology, with the provIso that it is not enough to say 'not only but also', for it is clear tha.t it is in the forms and under the forms of ideological SlIb}ectioll that provisio1l15 made for the reproduction of the skills of labour-power.

But this is to recognize the effective presence of a new realiry: ideology. Here I shall make two comments. The first is to round off my analysis of reproduction. I have Just given a rapid survey of the fonTIS of the reproduction ofche

productIve forces' fl' h d and, l.e. 0 t 1e Ineans of productlon on the one an, of]abour-power on the other

I But [ have not yet approa~hed the question of the re"roductioll of tlte

re allOns ofprodlt t' Th" r fth,c .wn. IS 15 a crucial question for the Marxist theory 0 e

237 Ideology and IdtolOJllCal lalt ppMulu5t5

Id b theoretical omis ion - modeof production. To let It pa wou e a wo~easeriouspolitical error. . h mean to discuss Ishalltherefore dJscuss It. But in order to obtam r e

it Ishallhave to make another long detour. . d Iam obliged , . th' d 0 make this et ur , Thesecond comment IS at 10 or er t. .)

tore-raise myoId question: what IS a oClery.

II BASE ADS PER TRUCTURE

.• .' d on the revolutionary character of Onanumber of OCCasiOnsI have insiste . f: "IS distinct from the· . 'ia1 hole' mso ar as It . theManast conception of the SOC w. 0 ats farnous proposinons

Hegelian'totality'. Isaid (and this thesIS only threpe rure of every society .. ., \ h M concewed e strUC .

othstorical matenalism, t at an< . I d b specifsc deternuna- · 'Is' ,. ces' arttcu ate Y aas constituted by leve or U1StaU .' , f the productive forces

. .c base (the uruty 0 . non:the ilifraslmaure, or econonu which itself contalnS

f d . \ nd the superstn<cwre, I

andthe relations 0 pro ucuon) a . (\ d the state) and ideo o';!;i twolevels' or 'instances': the polinco-Iegal I awan Iitical etc.). (thedifferent ideologies, religious, erhlcal, . egal, Palothe chfference between

.. . did . interest (It reve s . IBesides Its theorenco- actlc U . crucial theoretlca. h s rhe fo owmg f Marx and Hegel), this represenratlon .a

b · he theoretical apparatus 0

. . .bl mscn e 111 t ,1+. . . t advantage: It makes It pOSSI e to . t' indices oif e.uecllV1 y.all d theu respee ive its essential concepts what 1have c e What does this mean? . f the structure of every society

lt is easy to see that this representation 0 ) n which are erected the .' b (. f]:astructure 0 .' aas an ediftce contalmng a ase m . h r to be qUIte preCIse,IS a metap 0 , 5'k ry

two 'floors' of the superstructure, hy \.topique1· LI e eve · hor of a topograp h g visible.

spatlal metaphor: the metap bing makes somet 111 . h gg

ests somet, • '(. the au) metaphor, this luetap or SU fl ors could not stay up In

hi h t the upper 0What? Precisely t s: t a . I on their base. all alone if they did not test preClse

h y f the edifIce is to represent abov~

, f h Inetap ot 0 . b The euect Thus the object 0 t e . ance' by the econonuc ase. . .

the 'determination in th~last ;~~ow the base with ~n index o~effect1Vl~f of this spatial metaphor IS to . the detennination In the last IDstance s known by the fan1.0US ter'::,S. , (of the superstructure) by what happen

er uoors what happens in the uPP . .c base. m the econonu

_ . En \ish editions 1969 and 1970 respe~tlvely). __ --_- and Readillg C<lplral,1965 ( goo a h represents in a deftmte space

4 1n ror M~rxy from the Greek topos: Pl~a~e..Ahts~h~e:o:OIniCis lHthe bottom (the base), 5 Topograp I . d by several rea lues. t U

. sUes ocC\.Iple the t:especttve e aboveit.. the s\.\petsU:uctur

238 Appendix 2

Given this index of effectivity 'in the last instance', the 'floors' of the superstructure are clearly endowed with different indices of effectivity. What kind of indices? It is possible to say that the floors of the superstructure are not deter-

rrunant In the last instance, but that they are determined by the effectivity of the base; that if they are determinant in their own (as yet undefined) ways, this IS true only insofar as they are determined by the base.

Their Index of effectivity (or determination), as determined by the determination In the last instance of the base, is thought by the Marxist tradition In two ways: 1) there is a 'relative autonomy' of the superstruc- ture with respect to the base; 2) there is a 'reciprocal action' of the superstructure on the base. . We can therefore say that the great theoretical advantage of the Marx- ISt topography, .l.e. of the spatial metaphor of the edifice (base and superstructure), ISsimultaneously that it reveals that questions of determi- nation (or of Index of effectivity) are crucial; that it reveals that it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice· and that as a c~nsequence, it obliges us to pose the theoretical problem' of the ~es of denvatory' effectivity p li h . . .. eeu ar to t e superstructure, Le , It obliges us to think what the Marxist tradition calls conjointly the relative autonomy of the superstructure and the reciprocal action of the superstructure on the base. The greatest disadvantage of this representation of the structure of every society by the spatial metaphor of an edifice is obviously the fact that It ISmetaphoncal: i.e. It remains descriptive.

. It now seems to me that it is possible and desirable to represent things differently. NB: I do not mean by this that I want to reject the classical metaphor,. for that metaphor itself requires that we go beyond it. And I am not gOing beyond it in order to reject it as outworn. [ simply want to attempt to think what It grves us in the fonn of a description.

Ibelt eve that it is possible and necessary to think what characterizes the essentlal. of the existence and nature of the superstructure on the basis <if reproductIOn. Once one takes the point of view of reproductio ofh.. n, many t e questIOns whose exIStence was indicated by the spatial metaphor of the edIfIce, but to which It could not ,,;ve a conceptual. d" . . b~ ans\over, are mune lately lllununated.

My basic thesis is that it is not possible to pose these qu . (dh fi estlons an t ere ore to answer them) except from the point of view of reprod .I Iall . ~ uctJOn.

S 1 gIVe a short analysis of law the state and ideology "'- I. .t ,f . d ' JrOrn t lIS pom '!J VleIV. An [shall reveal what happens both from the poin. f· f. d . t 0 VIew 0 practlce an productIOn on the one hand, and from that of:tc . on the other. eproducoon

Ideology "Jld I ~II I "'1' I III

III T"" rt,

TheMaoosttradmon IS met, here: In the "11I11I1111I I 'lllifo '" nd the E~JIII/llihBrnmmrt (and 10 all the bter c 1C1I te: . ~ e ;ill 10 ~rx' wriringson thePam Commune and Lenin' on 1~le~Ild Rn...llIlI""). the SUte~ e'l'licitly concewed a repr we apparatu . The ute I a 'machine'of repression.wluch enabl the ruling c\ es (10 the nine- teenthcenturyrhe bourgeors c\ nd the •c\ f big land wners) to ensuretheirdominanon over the working c . thu enabling the ~ rmer tosubjectrhe latter to the process of surplus-value extortion (i.e. t capi- talist exploitation). Thestateis thus f"st of all what the Marxi t classic have called rhe slllle

'pparatIiS. This term means: not only the specialized apparatu (in the narrowsense)whose existence and necessity Ihave recognized in rclati~n totherequirements of legal practice, i.e. the police, the coutts, the pos- ons; but alsothe army, which (the prolerariat has paid for thisexperien~e withits blood) intervenes directly as a supplemenrary repressive force In thelastinstance, when the police and its specialized auxiliary corps arc 'outrunby events'; and above tills ensemble, the head of state, the govern-

mentand the administration. . Presentedin this form the Marxist-Leninist 'theory' of the state has us

fingeron the essential p~int, and not for one moment can there be any questionof rejecting the fact that this really is the essentIal pomt. The

. h C ce of repressive executtou stateapparatus wlllch defines testate as a lor . d . . '.. f h lin lasses' in the class struggle

an mtervennon 'in the lnterests 0 t e ru g c . . . conductedby the bourgeoisie and its allies against the ~ro\ctana;, 15 qUite certainlythe state, and quite certainly defines ,ts baSIC functIon.

F,om descriptive theory to theory as such \ f Nevertheless here toO as I pointed out with respect to the metap 10f

r h O

, , ) L: S ntation of the nature 0 t e the edifice (base and superstructure I tlUS pre e state is still partly descriptive. . . d

As Ishall often have occasion to use this adjective ldescnptIve), a wor . der to relnove any an1blgUlty.

of explanation is necessary 10 or f h d·f or of the Marx- Wh

. king of the metaphor 0 tee ,ICC enever In spea . . f S

1st'thee 'of tbe state, t have said that these are ~escn~~1Vecon~ep 10n ry. . b" eets 1 had no ultenor cntlcal maUves. On

or representatlons of theu 0 J ' hink h t scientiflC discover- h e grounds to t t at grea

the contrary, I ave ev ry h h h f h t I shall call descriptive . h I b ss throug t e P .ase 0 w a les cannot e p ut pa h f theory at least in the don1.ain • h 0 ' This 1S the flIst 'P ase 0 every , .

t e. ry . (that of the science ofsoda1 fonnatlons). As such, one w\'nch concel:ns us \

r----.-------------- -----

240 Appendix 2

might - and in my opinion one must - envisage this phase as a transitional one, necessary to the development of the theory. That it is transitionalis inscribed in my expression: 'descriptive theory', which reveals in its conjunction of terms the equivalent of a kind of 'contradiction'. In fact, the term theory 'clashes' to some extent with the adjective 'descriptive' which I have attached to it. This means quite precisely:

1) that the 'descriptive theory' really is, without a shadow of a doubt, the irreversible beginning of the theory; but

2) that the 'descriptive' fonn in which the theory is presented requires, precisely as an effect of this' contradiction', a development of the theory which goes beyond the form of 'description'.

Let me make this idea clearer by returning to our present object: the state.

When I say that the Marxist 'theory' of the state available to us is still partly 'descriptive', that means first and foremost that this descriptive 'theory' is without the shadow of a doubt precisely the beginning of the Marxist theory of the state, and that this beginning gives us the essential point, i.e. the decisive principle of every later development of the theory.

Indeed, I shall call the descriptive theory of the state correct, since it is perfectly possible to make the vast majority of the facts in the domain with which it is concerned correspond to the definition it gives of its object. Thus, the definition of the state as a class state, existing in the repressive state apparatus, casts a brilliant light on all the facts observable in the various orders of repression whatever their domains: from the massacres of June 1848 and of the Paris Commune, of Bloody Sunday, May 1905 in Petrograd, of the Resistance, of Charonne, etc., to the mere (and relatively anodyne) interventions of a 'censorship' which has banned Diderot's La Religieuse or a play by Gatti on Franco; it casts light on all the direct or indirect forms of exploitation and extermination of the masses of the people (imperialist wars); it casts light on that subtle every- day domination beneath which can be glimpsed, in the forms of political democracy for example, what Lenin, following Marx, called tl1e dictator- ship of the bourgeoisie.

And yet the descriptive theory of the state represents a phase in the constitution of the theory which itself demands the 'supersession' of this phase. For it is clear that if the definition in question really does give us the means to identitY and recognize the facts of oppression by relating them to the state, conceived as the repressive state apparatus, this 'inter- relationship' gives rise to a very special kind of obviousness, abollt which I shall have something to say in a moment: 'Yes, that's how it is, that's

Ideology .ud Ideological tale Apparatuses 241

. . th d fi .. f the reallytrue!" And the accumulation of facts within e e imnon o ..

. d Uy advance the defil1ltlOnstatemaymultiply examples, but It oe not rea . . . 'fi h f h te Every descnpnve theoryofthestate, i.e. the cienu c t eory 0 testa . et

thusruns me risk of 'blocking' the development of the theory, and y

thatdevelopment is essential. That is why I think that, in order to develop this descriptive theoryf

. d d further the mechamsms 0intotheory as such, i.e. 10 order to un erstan. k h . . . di ensable to add some-the state in its functioning, I thin t at It IS 10 ISP thingto the classical definition of the state as a state apparatus.

The esserltials oj the Marxist theory oj the state . . .' . h te (and Its existence in ItS

Letme first claritY one important point: testa h I . fu ti n of state power. The woe

apparatus)has no mearung except as a nc 0 B which I mean of the political class struggle revolves around the state. y b

. d nservatlon of state power Y around the possession, i.e. the seizure an co I fr' . s This first

. b lasses or c ass acnon.a certain class or by an alliance erween c .., . h been state power (conservation clarification obliges me to distinguis erw bi f the political

f ) rhe 0 ~ectlve 0of state power or seizure 0 state power , h hd h apparatus on t e ot er. classstruggle on the one hand, an testate. . d by bour-

may survIve as 1Sprove We know that the state apparatus '(1830 1848) by coups . ., .' th century France , '

gems 'revolutions lO runeteen - U f the state (the fall of the " b M 1958) by co apses 0 .d etat (2 Decem er, ay. ' .. 1940) or by the political nse

Empire in 1870, of the Third Republic FlO ) 'etc without the state ., (1890--95 in rance, .,

of the petry bourgeOlsle .' .ve political events which d d fled' it may Survlapparatus being affecre or mo 1 .

ux: h . f state power. f hattect t e possession 0 .. b f 1917 a large part 0 testate ial I non like t at 0 ,Even after a SOCI revo u. f wer by the alliance of the

. d c. the seizure 0 state po . dapparatus survive alter L . repeated the fact agam an . h all peasanoy: erunproletariat and t e srn

again. h disti t' on berween state power and state. d ·be t e sClnc 1It is posslble to escn . h 'of the state explicitly present f rhe 'MarxlSt t eory ,

apparatus as part 0 . d Class StrHggles in France. , E' 1 th Bnll"alre an .' bsince Marx s 19lteen . h of the state' on this pomt, lt can e

. h' MarX1st t eory . hTo surnmanze t e . h always claimed that 1) the state IS t e M . t classlC5 ave bsaid that the a[XIS 2) t te power and state apparatus must e

) paratus sa(repressive state ap .'. of the class struggle concerns state power, . h d 3) rhe objectIVe aliidistinguls e , h of the state apparatus by the classes (or -

. ence t e use . and m consequ f fr . s of classes) holding state power as a functIOn ance of classes or 0 actlOn

S ?53 below 'On ideology'.6 ee p. - '

240 Appendix 2

1) that the 'descriptive theory' really is, without a shadow of a doubt, the irreversible beginning of the theory; but

2) that the 'descriptive' form in which the theory is presented requires, precisely as an effect of this 'contradiction', a development of the theory which goes beyond the form of 'description'.

Let me make this idea clearer by returning to our present object: the state.

When I say that the Marxist 'theory' of the state available to us isstill partly 'descriptive', that means first and foremost that this descriptive 'theory' is without the shadow of a doubt precisely the beginning ofche Marxist theory of the state, and that this beginning gives us the essential p0111t,i.e, the decisive principle of every later development of the theory.

Indeed, [ shall call the descriptive theory of the state correcr, sinceit is perfectly. possible to make the vast majority of the facts in the domain wah which it is concerned correspond to the definition it gives of is object .. Thus, the definition of the state as a class state, existing in the repressive state apparatus, casts a brilliant light on all the facts observable 111the vanous orders of repression whatever their domains: from the massacres of]une 1848 and of the Paris Commune of Bloody Sunday, M 1905' 'ay . 111Petrograd, of the Resistance, of Charonne, etc., to the mere (and rel:tlvely anodyne) interventions of a 'censorship' which has banned Diderot s La Religieuse or a play by Gatti on Franco; it casts light on all the direct or indirect forms of exploitation and extermination of the masses of the people (imperialist wars); it casts light on that subtle every- day domination beneath which can be glimpsed, in the forms of political democracy for example, what Lenin, following Marx, called the dietlcor- ship of the bourgeoisie.

And yet th d " th" e escnpuve theory of the state represents a phase in e consutunon of the th hi h . . , f his. . eory w 1C Itself demands the 'supersessIOn 0 t phase. For a IS clear that if the definition in question really does giveus the means to identify ad' . I .Ign recogruze the facts of oppresslOn by re am them to the state co . d h . ". . .' nceive as t e repressive state apparatus, this wrer- relationship' ziv '. hi'he- es me to a very special kind of obviousness, about W c I shall have SOm thi . . th'e Ing to say In a mOlllent: 'Yes, that's how It IS, ats

Ideology aud Ideological State Apparafllses 241

reallytrue!'. And the accumulation of facts within the definition of the statemaymultiply example, bur it does not really advance the definition ofthe state, i.e. the scientific theory of the state. Every descriptive theory thusruns the risk of 'blocking' the development of the theory, and yet

chatdevelopment is essential. That is why I think that, in order to develop this descriptive theory

into theory as such, i.e. in order to understand further the mechanisms of the state in its functioning, I think that it is indispensable to add some- thingto the classical definition of the state as a state apparatus.

The essentials of the Marxist theory of the state . Letme first clarify one important point: the state (and its existence in Its apparatus)has no meaning except as a function of state power. The whole of the political class struggle revolves around the state. By which I mean around the possession, i.e. the seizure and conservation, of state power by acertain classor by an alhance between classes or class fractIons. ThIS first clarification obliges me to distinguish between state power (conservatIOn of state power or seizure of state power), the objective of the political classstruggle on the one hand, and the state apparatus on the other.

. . roved by bour- We mow that the state apparatus may survive, as IS p

geois 'revolutions' in nineteenth-cennlry France (1830, 1848), by coups d'etat (2 December, May 1958), by collapses of the state (the fall of the Empire in 1870 of the Third Republic in 1940), or by the polincal me

, . F ) t without the state of the petry bourgeoisie (1890-95 in rance, e c., hi h.fi d . .ve political events w IC apparatusbeing affected or modi ie : It may survi affect the possession of state power. f h t. ik h f 1917 a large part 0 testa e Even after a social revolutIon li e t at 0, . f h. f er by the alliance 0 t e

apparatus survived after the selzure 0 state pow . d L· ated the fact agam anproletariat and the small peasantry: erun repe

agam. d. ." . been state power an state It ISpossible to descnbe the distInctIon etw l·cI·tly present, . th 'f the state, exp 1

apparatus as part of the Manast eory o. . F. . d Cl 'S Struggles In ranee. since Marx's Eigl1tefllth BnmJalre an as " hi oint it can be. , . h of the state on t s P , To summarize the Manast t eory . d h t 1) the state is the . .' h a1ways cIalme t a

said that the Marxist elassics ave d t pparatus must be (

?) t power an sta e a repressive) state apparatus, - sta e 1 oncerns state power, distinguished, 3) the objective of the class strugg e ~y the classes (or alli-

. f the state apparatus . and In consequence the use 0 ldi t te power as a function. f I s) ho ing s aance of classes or of fraCtIons 0 c asse

6 See p. 253 below, 'On ideology'.

242 Appendix 2

of their class objectives, and 4) the proletariat must seize state powerin order to destroy the existing bourgeois state apparatus and, in a firstphase, replace it with a quite different, proletarian, state apparatus, then in later phases set in motion a radical process, that of the destruction of thesUte (the end of state power, the end of every state apparatus).

In this perspective, therefore, what I would propose to add to the 'Marxist theory' of the state is already there in so many words. Butit seems to me that even with this supplement, this theory is still in part descriptive, although it does now contain complex and differenti~ elements whose functioning and action cannot be understood without recourse to further supplementary theoretical development.

The Ideological State Apparatuses Thus, what has to be added to the 'Marxist theory' of the state issome- thing else.

Here we must advance cautiously in a terrain which, in fact, theMarx- ist classics entered long before us, but without having systematizedin theoretical form the decisive advances implied by their experiences and procedures. Their experiences and procedures were indeed restricted111 the main to the terrain of political practice.

In fact, i.e. in their political practice, the Marxist classics treated the state as a more complex reality than the definirion of it given in the 'Marxist theory of the state', even when it has been supplemented asI have just suggested. They recognized this complexity in their practice, but they did not express it in a corresponding theory.' .

I should like to attempt a very schematic outline of this correspond1l1g theory. To that end, [ propose the following thesis. . In order to advance the theory of the state it is indispensable to take into account not only the distinction between state power and stateappara- tus, but also another reality which is clearly on the side of the (represSive) state apparatus, but must not be confused with it. I shall call this realityby its concept: the Ideological State Apparatuses.

What are the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs)?

7 To my knowled G .. h . h roadla/ll t ki H ge, rarnsci n t e only one who wenr any distance U1 t e .) a mg. e had the' k bI '"d th (R re5S1veState A remar a e 1 ea that the state could not be reduced co e ep ,. '/

pparatus, but included h' f' . . frolU m1society" th Ch ' as e put It, a certain number 0 institutions . e urch ch h Is h ' did not

systematiz hi· .'. e sc 00 • t e trade unions, etc. Unfortunately, GramSCl Icf e S InstttUtIons hi h . notes 'Antonio G· •W c cemamed in the state of acute but fr:J.gmentary 2

259 26G-3ram5cl, Selectiollsfrom rite Prison Notebooks International publishers, 1971,pp.l , . • ; see also the letter to T· S h' . I.e re del rarcerr,Emaudi 1968 4 atlana c ucht 7 September 1931, m rte

, , p. 79). '

Ideology alld Ideological State Apparatllses 243

They musr not be confused with the (repressive) state apparatus. Remember that in Marxist theory, the state apparatus contains: the govemment, the administration, the army, the police, the courts, the prisons,etc., which constitute whar I shall in future call the Repressive StateApparatus. Repressive suggests that the state apparatus in quesnon

'functionsby violence' - at least ultimately (since repression, e.g. adrrun-

inrativerepression, may take non-physical fonns). . . I shall call Ideological State Apparatllses a certain number of real'nes · . di b . the form of distinctwhichpresent themselves to the lITIUle rate 0 server in .'

andspecialized instirutions. [ propose an empirical list of these which will ohviouslyhave to be examined in detail, tested, corrected and reorgamzed. · . . b hi . nt we can for theWith all the reservations implied y t s reqlllreme ,

momentregard the following institutions as Ideological State Appar~ruses (theorder inwhich [ have listed them has no particLilar slgmficance). - the religious ISA (the system of the different churches), .

f h di a: t ublic and pnvate- the educational ISA (the system 0 t e irreren p

'schools'), - the family ISA,'

- the legal ISA,' . . di ffi ent arties), _ the politicallSA (the political system, mcludmg the iner P

- the trade union [SA, ) h

di nd television, etc. , - t e communications ISA (press, ra 10 a - the cultural [SA (literature, the arts, sport, etc.) '. h h (Repressive) I have said that the ISAs must not be confused wtt t e

S . diff e?tateApparatus. What consntutes the erenc: (R ssive) Statehil h e 15 one epreAs a first moment, it is clear that w . e t er A ruses. Even A I . 1 State ppara pparans, there is a plurality of Ideo ogica . hi lurality of ISAs

. h sntures t 's p presupposing that it exists, the nrntv t at con asa body is not immediately visible. .fied _ (RepreS-

h h eas the - umAsa second moment, it is clear r at w er bl' d main much the · . I the pI< Ie 0 ' SIVe)State Apparatus belongs ennre y to . hei apparent disper- \ At ses (in t elf .arger part of the Ideological State ppara u . Churches, parnes, · ). f th 'vate domam.»on IS, on the contrary, part a e pn ultural ventures,

. I newspapers, c tradeuruons, families. some schoo s, most etc" etc., are private.

, ~eSin the - ISA It mterVeh

. • than that of an . . f roduction 8 The family obviously has other 'funCtlOns f duction it is the uIl1t0 P od . _l:~ modes 0 prorepr ucnon oflabour-power. InWHereot tell1 of the

and/ h·· d to the sysor t e umt of consumpoon. . ) State ApparatuS an 9 The 'law' belongs both to the (Repress1ve

ISAs.

244 Appendix 2

We can ignore the first observation for the moment. But someone is bound to question the second, asking me by what right I regard as Ideo- logical State Apparatuses, institutions which for the most part do not possess public status, but are quite simply private institutions. As a conscious Marxist, Gramsci already forestalled this objection in one sentence. The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its 'authority'. The domain of the state escapes it because the latter is 'above the law': the state, which is the state cifthe ruling class, is neither public nor private; on the contrary, it is the precondition for any distinction between public and private. The same thing can be said from the starting-point of our Ideological State Apparatuses. It is unim- portant whether the institutions in which they are realized are 'public' or 'private'. What matters is how they function. Private institutions can perfectly well 'function' as Ideological State Apparatuses. A reasonably thorough analysis of anyone of the ISAs proves it.

But now for what is essential. What distinguishes the ISAs from the (Repressive) State Apparatus is the following basic difference: the Repres- sive State Apparatus functions 'by violence', whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses' function 'by ideology'.

I can clarify matters by correcting this distinction. I shall say rather that evety state apparatus, whether repressive or ideological, 'functions' both by violence and by ideology, but with one very important distinction which makes it imperative not to confuse the Ideological State Appara- tuses with the (Repressive) State Apparatus.

This is the fact that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functions massively and predominantly by repression (including physical repression), while functlorung secondarily by ideology. (There is no such thing as a purely repressive apparatus.) For example, the am1Y and the police also function by ,deology both to ensure their own cohesion and reproduction, andin the 'values' they propound extemally.

In the same way but inversely, it is essential to say that for their part the Ideological State Apparatuses function massively and predominandy by Ideology, but they also function secondarily by repression, even if ulti- mately,. but only ultimately, this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbohc. (There is no such thing as a purely ideological apparatus.) Thus schools and churches use suitable methods of punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to 'discipline' not only their shepherds, but also thelt flocks. The same,s true of the family ... The saune is true of the cultural ISA (censorship, among other things), etc.

Is It necessary to add that this determination of the double

Ideology and Ideologiwl State Apparar",es 245

'functioning'(predominantly, secondarily) by repression and by ideology, accordingto whether it is a matter of the (Repressive) State Apparatus or theIdeologicalState Appararuse , makes it clear that very subtle expliClt

. .. b fr h ·nterplay of the (Repres-OttaCIt combinations may e woven om tel . sive)StateApparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses' Everyday life

1 f hi b t they must be srudiedprovide.us with innumerable examp es 0 t 1S, U . in detailif we are to go further than this mere observatlon.

d nderstanding of whatNevertheless this remark leads us towar s an u , di b d of the ISAs. If the

constitutesthe unity of the apparently isparate 0 Y if. tl b .d logy what urn res 15As 'function' massively and predonunan Y Y I eo '. b . . .. . . fu . . . sofar as the Ideology Ytheir diversity ISprecisely this ncuorung. In d .. if d d . its diversity an rtswhichthey function is always In fact um ie , esplte If' h

. . . . I hi h is the ideology 0 t e contradictions, belleatli tile rullrlg Ideo ogy, w IC. .. I 1 ld tate'li I' In pnnClp e 10 s srulingclass'.Given the fact that the ru ng c assf alii s between classes or power (openly or more often by means 0 ance . ) State. d· I th (RepreSS! veclassfractions) and therefore has at its isposa e ...

I • ruling class is active In Apparatuswe can accept the fact that this same . I h uling

, . c. . t .s ultimate Y t e r the Ideological State Apparatuses msorar as I i cisely. I . I St te Apparatuses, pre Ideologywhich is realized in the Ideo og,ca a hi ct by. . .. . different t mg to a III Its contradictions. Of course, It is a qLllte d to ' t' through I . ) S A paratus an to acawsanddecreesinthe (RepressIve tate p . 1St re Appara- h . . id I . the Ideolog,ca at emtennediary of the ruling' eo ogy m. b it annot mask. f hi d fference - ut i cruses.We must go into the details 0 t IS , d 0 class call lIold h . ·d . T ny knowle ge , Ilt e reality of a profound' entttv , 0' . .. its lleaerllony

J - me time exerClsmg 6 slale power over a IOllgperiod without at t 1f ,a d e example and

I only nee on Over and in the Ideological State Apparatuses. I . ,·ze the educa-. to reva ution . proof of this: Lenin's anguished concern ). ply to make ,t. ( g others, s,m tlonal Ideological State Apparatus amon. ower to secure. . h had seIzed state p , possIblefor the Soviet proletanat, w 0 . d the transition to h . f h oletanat ant e future of the dictatorsh,p ate pr socialism." d tand that the Ideo-. .ti n to un erS I This last comment purs us In a pOSI 0 k b t also the site of c ass . nl me sta e u ill

lOgicalState Apparatuses may be not 0 y ru Ie. The class (or class a .- sttuggle,and often of bitter forms of class st hggISAs as easily as It can ,n

. d the law m t e uhngance)ill power cannot lay own b e the fonner r hot only ecaus b t alsot e (Repressive) State Apparatlls, n c a long time, u. . ns there ,or nd classesare able to retain strong pos,Oo . ble to find means a b I ited classes 's aecause the resistance of the exp 0

. of Lenin's desperate l-tes the hlstory

. . 937 Krupskaya rew 10 Ina pathetic text wntten Ul 1 ,

effons and what she regards as his failure.

246 Appendix 2

occasions to express itself there, either by the utilization of their contra- dictions, or by conquering combat positions in them in struggle. 11

Let me run through my comments. If the thesis I have proposed is well founded, it leads me back to the

classical Marxist theory of the state, while making it more precise in one point. I argue that it is necessary to distinguish between state power (and its possession by ... ) on the one hand, and the state apparatus on the other. But I add that the state apparatus contains twO bodies: the bodyof institutions which represent the Repressive State Apparatus on the one hand, and the body of institutions which represent the body ofldeologi- cal State Apparatuses on the other.

But if this is the case, the following question is bound to be asked,evenin the very sununary state of my suggestions: what exactly is the extent of the role of the Ideological State Apparatuses? What is their importance basedon' In other words: to what does the 'fimction' of these Ideological StateAppa- ratuses, which do not function by repression but by ideology, correspond'

IV ON THE REPRODUCTION OF THE RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION

I can now answer the central question which I have left in suspense for many long pages: how is the reproduction of the relatiolls of prod"ctio" secured'In the topographical language (base, superstructure), I can say: for the most part;'? it is secured by the legal-political and ideological superstructure.

~1 What I have said in these few brief words about the class struggle in the ISAsis obviously far from .exhausting the question of the class struggle.

To approach tim question, two principles must be borne in mind: TIlefirst principle was formulated by Marx in the Preface to A Comributio" to ,he Cririque

oj Political Economy: 'In considering such transformations [a social revolution] a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditionsof pro~~ction, w.hich can be determined with the precision of natural science, and thelegal, political, rehgJ.ous, aesthetic or philosophic _ in short, ideological forms in whichmen beco~1e C~ns.ClOuSof this conflict and fight it out.' The class struggle is thus expressedand exerCised In Ideological fonns, thus also in the ideological forIlls of the ISAs. But thec\ass struggle extellds Jar beyolld these fOOllS,and it is because it e;\'tends beyond them thatthe struggle of the exploited classes may also be exercised in the fOOllSof the ISAs, and lhLlS tum t~e weapon of ideology against the classes in power. . . ThiS by vimle of the second pn·"ciple: the class struggle e..xtendsbeyond the ISAs because It IS,rooted else~here than in ideology, in the infrastructure, in the relations of production, which are relatiOns of exploitation a.nd constitute the basis for class rdatiom.

12, .For the most part. For the relations of production are first reproduced by the m3tenallty of the pro f d . L~ 1': Iten. cesses a pro ucnon and circulation. But it should not ~ IOrgo that Ideological relations are immediately present in these s:mte processes.

Ideology alld Ideological tale Apparalllses 247

ButasI have argued that it i essential to go beyond this stili descriptive language,1shall say: for the most part, it is secured by the exercise of stare powerin the state apparatu es, on the one hand the Repressive State Apparatus,on the other the Ideological State Apparatuses. . What I have just said must also be taken into account, and It can be

assembledin the form of the following three features: 1) Allthe state apparatuses function both by repression and by ideol-

ogy,with the difference that the (Repressive) State Apparatus functIOnS massivelyand predominantly by repression, whereas the Ideological State Apparatusesfunction massively and predominantly by Ideology. . 2) Whereas the (Repressive) State Apparatus constitutes an orgaruzed

wholewhose different parts are centralized beneath a commandmg urutv, li d b h 11·tical representanvesthatof the politics of class struggle app e y t e po

. f the Ideolooical Stateofthe ruling classes in pos ession 0 state power, e- f ., , I . 1 mous' and capable 0Apparatusesare multiple, distinct, re anve Y autono .

dicri hi h express 111 formsprovidingan objective field to contra icnons w c , h . a: f h lashes between t ewhichmay be limited or extreme, the ertects 0 t e c h .. 1 le as well as t elfcapitalistclass struggle and the proletanan c ass strugg , .

subordinateforms. . d b. ) S Apparatus ISsecure Y3) Whereas the unity of the (Repress: ve tate . . .' d h 1 adership of the repre- Its urufiedand centralized orgaruzanon un er tee . . f hIss. h pohncs 0 t e c a sentativesof the classes in power execunng red 1 . al State

th . f the different I eo ogIcstruggleof the classes in power, e U111ry 0 . b the mling Apparatusesis secured, usually in contradictory forms, Y ideology,the ideology of the ruling class.. t the repro-. . ble to represen Taking these features into account, It ISpOSSl . according

d . d . 13· the followmg way,ucnon of rhe relations of pro ucuon in to a kind of'division oflabour'. . f: .t is a repressive. A tus mso ar as 1 1 The role of the Repressive State ppara, hvsi I or otherwise).' . b force (p YSlea

apparatus,consists essentially III secunng y fl' s of production h d . n 0 re anont e political conditions of the repro uctio .' Not only does the hi h I· of explOltano

n. .w c are in the last resort re anons d rion (the capt- 1 . own repro ucStateapparatus conrribute generousy to lts dynasties, etc.), but also

taliststate contains political dynasnes, rrulitary . n (from the most by represslOand above all, the state apparatus secures d and interdictions,

b ~~;' nve com man s . ftutal physical force to mere aUli~rustra di' s for the actIOn 0, li .cal con non

open and tacit censorship, etc.) the po n the IdeolOgical State Appararuses.

State ApparatuS and the hi h the Repressive

13 For that part of reproduction to VI C IdeologicalState ApparatuScontribute.

248 Appendix 2

In fact, it is the latter which largely secure the reproduction specifically of the relations of production, behind a 'shield' provided by the Repres- sive State Apparatus. It is here that the role of the ruling ideologyis heavily concentrated, the ideology of the ruling class, which holdsstate power. It is the intermediation of the ruling ideology that ensuresa (sometimes teeth-gtitting) 'harmony' between the Repressive State Apparatus and the Ideological State Apparatuses, and between the differ- ent Ideological State Apparatuses.

We are thus led to envisage the following hypothesis, as a function precisely of the diversity of Ideological State Apparatuses in their single, because shared, role of the reproduction of the relations of production.

Indeed we have listed a relatively large number of Ideological State Apparatuses in contemporary capitalist social formations: ihe education~ apparatus, the religious apparatus, the family apparatus, the politicalappa- ratus, the trade union apparatus, the communications apparatus,the

'cultural' apparatus, etc. But in the social formations of that mode of production characterized

by 'serfdom' (usually called the feudal mode of production), we ohserve that although there is a single Repressive State Apparatus which, sincethe earliest known ancient states, let alone the absolute monarchies, hasbeen formally very similar to the one we know today, the number of Ideo- logical State Apparatuses is smaller and their individual rypes are different. For example, we observe that during the Middle Ages, the Church (the religious Ideological State Apparatus) accumulated a number offuncnO!15 which have today devolved on to several distinct Ideological StateAppa- ratuses, new ones in relation to the past I am invoking, in particular educational and cultural functions. Alongside the Church there wasthe family Ideological State Apparatus, which played a considerable part, Incommensurable with its role in capitalist social fom13tions. DesP'~ appearances, the Church and the family were not the only Ideologic State Apparatuses. There was also a political Ideological State APP"'~ (the Estates General, the Parlement the different political factlonsanI ' I out- eagues, the ancestors of the modem political parties and the who eP. aI ' also!

IC system of the free communes and then of the villes). There was powerful 'proto-trade union' Ideological State ApparatuS, if! may~en~: such an anachronistic term (the powerful merchants' and bankers gul and the journeymen's associations, erc.). publishing and comnIU(I1~-, nons, even, saw an indisputable development as did the theatre; 100

n )

b h . ' dOlor' . ot were integral parts of the Church, then they becan" more an Independent of it

In the .. . . d xnt n1elf

pre-capitalist historical period which I have exanllne e,

Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses 249

broadly, it is absolutely clear that there was oue dOlllirtant Ideological State Apparatus, tile Cllurell, which concenrrated within it not only religious functionsbut also educational ones, and a large proportion of the func- tions of communications and 'culture'. It is no accident that all ideologicalstruggle from the sixteenth to the eighteenth century, starting with the first shocks of the Reformation, was concentrated in an anti-cler- icaland anti-religious struggle; rather this is a function precisely of the dominant position of the religious Ideological State Apparatus.

The foremost objective and achievement of the French Revolution was notjust to transfer state power from the feudal aristocracy to the merchant- capitalist bourgeoisie, to break part of the forrner Repressive State Apparatusand replace it with a new one (e.g. the national popular army) butalsoto attack the number-one Ideological State Apparatus: the Church. Hence ihe civil constitution of the clergy, the confiscation of ecclesiastical wealth, and ihe creation of new Ideological State Apparatuses to replace the religious Ideological State Apparatus in its dominant role.

Naturally, these things did not happen automatically: witness the Concordat, the Restoration and the long class struggle between the landed aristocracy and the industrial bourgeoisie throughout the nineteenth century for ihe establishment of bourgeois hegemony over the functions fonnerly fulfilled by the Church: above all by the schools. It can be said that the hourgeoisie relied on the new political, parliamentary-democratic, IdeologicalState Apparatus, installed in the earliest years of the RevolUtion, then restored after long and violent struggles, for a few months in 1848 and for decades after the fall of the Second Empire, in order to conduct Its struggle against the Church and wrest its ideological functions away from it, in oiher words, to ensure not only its own political hegemony, but also the ideological hegemony indispensable to the reproduction of capitalist

relations of production. . That is why I believe that I am justified in advancing the followIllg

thesis, however precarious it is. I believe that the Ideological State Appa-. . nature ratus which has been installed in the dominant pOSItIon III r . I

.. . . li . al d ideologlca capItalist social formations as a result of a VIolent po nc an . h I I

. al St t ApparatuS IS t e c ass struggle against the old dominant Ideo ogre a e ed"C<ltiollalideological apparatus. . . heThi h . . a1. h for everyone, r.e, III t

stem may seem paradmac ,given t at . . If did . .. h .ed to give itse an 1 eologIcai representation that the bourgeOISie as en . aI State th I . h h d minant IdeologIC

e c asses It exploits, it really seems t at teO h [iri-A. . . the schools, but t e po pparatus in capitalist social formations IS not. d mocracy

calIdeological State ApparatuS, i.e, the regime ofparhamentary e

combining universal suffrage and party struggle.

250 Appendix 2

However, history, even recent history, shows that the bourgeoisie has been and still is able to accommodate itself to political Ideological State Apparatuses other than parliamentary democracy: the First and Second Empires, constitutional monarchy (Louis XVIIl and Charles X), parlia- mentary monarchy (Louis-Philippe), presidential democracy (De Gaulle), to mention only France. In England this is even clearer. The Revolution was particularly 'successful' there from the bourgeois point of view, since unlike France, where the bourgeoisie, partly because of the stupidity of the petty aristocracy, had to agree to being carried to power by peasant and plebeian 'jotlmees revolutionnaires', something for which it had to pay a high price, the English bourgeoisie was able to 'compromise' with the aristocracy and 'share' state power and the use of the state apparatus with it for a long time (peace among all men of good will in the ruling classes!). In Germany it is even more striking, since it was behind a political Ideo- logical State Apparatus in which the imperial Junkers (epitomized by Bismarck), their am1Y and their police provided it with a shield and lead- ing personnel, that the imperialist bourgeoisie made its shatteting entty into history, before 'traversing' the Weimar Republic and entrusting itself to Nazism.

Hence I believe I have good reasons for thinking that behind the scenes of its political Ideological State Apparatus, which occupies the front of the stage, what the bourgeoisie has installed as its number-one, i.e. as its dominant Ideological State Apparatus, is the educational appara- tus, which has in fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant Ideological State Apparatus, the Church. One might even add: the school-family couple has replaced the Church-family couple.

Why is the educational apparatus in fact the dominant Ideological State Apparatus in capitalist social formations, and how does it function?

For the moment it must suffice to say: 1) All Ideological State Apparatuses, whatever they are, contribute to

the same result: the reproduction of me relations of production, i.e. of capitalist relations of exploitation.

2) Each of them contributes towards this single result in the way proper to it. The political apparatus by subjecting individuals to the polit- ical State Ideology, the 'indirect' (parliamentary) or 'direct' (plebiscitary or fascist) 'democratic' ideology. The communications apparatuSby cramming every 'citizen' with daily doses of nationalism, chauvinism, liberalism, moralism, etc., by means of the press, the radio and television. The same goes for the cultural apparatus (the role of sport in chauVlmsm IS of the first importance), etc. The religious apparatus by recalling tn sem10ns, the great ceremonies of birth, marriage and death, etc., thatman

Ideologyalld Ideological lale Ilpparall/ses 251

,onlyashes,unlesshe loves hi neighbour to the extent of turning the othercheekto whoever strikes the first one. The family apparatus ... but

thereis no need to go on. . 3)Thisconcert is dominated by a single score, occasionally dISturbed

by contradictions(those of the remnant of fom"r n1ling classes, those of the proletariansand their organizations): the score of the ideology of the current rulingclasswhich integrates into its music the great themes of the humanism of the great forefathers, who produced the Greek miracle even beforeChristianity,and afterwards the Glory of I~ome, the Eternal CIty, and the themes of interest, particular and general, etc., nauonalism,

moralismandeconomi m. 4) Nevertheless, in this concert, one Ideological State Apparatus

cenainlyhas the dominant role, although hardly anyone lends an ear to

its music:it is so silent! This is the school. D It takeschildren from every class at infant-school age, and then or

h ., .' 'I ble' squeezed betweenyem,t e years In which the child IS most vu nera, .

h c. . . I ratuS It drumst e lamilystate apparatus and the educaoona state appa., f . h ds ertam amount 0 uuo them, whether it uses new or old met a , a c . I'kn (F h rithmetlC naturaow-how'wrapped in the ruling ideology rencn, a . '. h. I' .deology 10 its purestory, the sciences literature) or simply the ru 109 I f

( h .' h ) S here around the age 0

stateet ICS, civic instruction, philosop y. omew .,. . d ,. ducnon : these are Sixteen,a huge mass of children are ejecte into pro . d t dh . f holasncally a ap e t eworkersor small peasants. Another portlOn 0 sc C h ntil. ewhat [urt er, U youthcarries on: and, for better or worse, It goes som. h . ians. f all d nuddle tee OlC , It ails by the wayside and fills the posts of srn an b urgeois of

hi dl "1 ants petty 0IV te-collarworkers small and mid e crvt serv ' . . II tualII . ' . . her to fallmto irtte ec a kinds.A last portion reaches the summIt, ert I fthe collec-. II h 'intellectua s 0 sell1l-employment,or to provide, as we as t e . ) the agentsti \ . ( . alistS managers , ve abourer' the agents of exploitauon caplt '. etc) andf .' . .' adminIstrators, . , o repressIon(soldiers policemen, pohuClans, f whom areh '. f all rtS most 0 t e professional ideologists (pnests a so, convinced'laymen'). 'd d with the ideology E h· . ally pro

Vl e I' dac mass ejected en rotlte IS pracuc I f the exp Olte h . . . I iety· the rO eO, d

IV IchSUItsthe role it has to fulftl 10 C asSsoc . ,.., 'national an ( . . al' 'ethical' ClVIC, . . a

Witha 'highly-developed' 'profesSIon, r' loitation (abllrty t a politicalconsciousness); the role of the agent'ho eXPn relations), of the. ak h m' uma . I utgLVethe workers orders and spe to t e . of obedience 'Wlt 10

. d rs and e orce .. all ader's agentof repression (ability to glve or e fa polrUc e discussion' or ability to manipulate the demagogy ~reat consciousnesses h . ' ··d I crist (ability to gy theyr etouc), or of the professlonall eo 0,,- k'l and demago ,. t blac mal ''''th the respect, i.e. with the contemp ,

252 Appendix 2

deserve, adapted to the accents of Morality, of Virtue, of'Transcend- ence', of the Nation, of France's World Role, etc.).

Of course, many of these contrasting virtues (modesty, resignation, submissiveness on the one hand, cynicism, contempt, arrogance, confi- dence, self-importance, even smooth talk and cunning on the other) are also taught in the family, in the Church, in the army, in good books,in films and even in the football stadium. But no other Ideological State Apparatus has the obligatory (and not least, free) audience of the totality of the children in the capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven.

But it is by an apprenticeship in a variety of know-how wrapped up in the massive inculcation of the ideology of the ruling class that the relations oj production in a capitalist social formation, i.e. the relationsof exploited to exploiters and exploiters to exploited, are largely repro- duced. The mechanisms which produce this vital result for the capitalist regime are naturally covered up and concealed by a universally reigning ideology of the school, universally reigning because it is one of the essential forms of the ruling bourgeois ideology: an ideology which represents the school as a neutral environment purged of ideology (because it is ... lay), where teachers respectful of the 'conscience' and 'freedom' of the children who are entrusted to them (in complete confidence) by their 'parents' (who are free, too, i.e. the owners of their children) open up for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their own example, by knowledge, literature and their 'liberating' virtues.

I ask the pardon of those teachers who in dreadful conditions, attempt to turn the few weapons they can find in the history and leaming they 'teach' against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped. They are a kind of hero. But they are rare and how many (the majority) do not even begin to suspect the 'work' the system(whIch is bigger than they are and crushes them) forces them to do, or worse,put all their heart and ingenuity into performing it with the greatest pOSSIble conscientiousness (the famous new methods!). So little do they suspectII h hei . L. utt at t err own devotion contributes to the maintenance and nounsillne

of this ideological representation of the school, which makes the schoO] today as 'natural', indispensable-useful and even beneficial for our contemporaries as the Church was 'natural', indispensable and generous for OUf ancestors a few centuries ago.

In fact, the Church has been replaced today ill its role as tlte dOl/lil1ol1! Ideological State Apparatus by the school. It is coupled with the tl1nilyJust as the Church was once coupled with tlbe family. We can now clainlthat

Ideology alld Ideological State Apparatllses 253

theunprecedenredlydeep crisi which is now shaking the education !)'Stemof so many states across the globe, often in conjunction with a crisis(alreadyproclaimed in the Commlll1ist tallifesto) shaking the farruly SYSlem,takes on a political meaning, given that the school (and the school-familycouple) constitutes the dominant Ideological State Appara- tus, theapparatusplaying a determinant part in the reproduction of the relationsof production of a mode of production threatened in its exist- enceby the world class struggle.

v 0 IDEOLOGY

WhenI put forward the concept of an Ideological State Apparatus, when I saidthat the ISAs 'function by ideology', I invoked a reality wluch needs,little discussion: ideology. It is well known that the expression 'ideology' was invented by

Cabarus, Desturt de Tracy and their friends, who assigned to It as frv objectthe (genetic) theory of ideas. When Marx took up the term ft ty yearslater,he gave it a quite different meaning, even in his early works. Here,ideologyis the system of the ideas and representations which donu- natethe mind of a man or a social group. The ideologrco-politlcal struggleconducted by Marx as early as his articles in the Rheinische Ze<tung . . . face wi h hi s reality andlllevltablyand quickly brought him face to ace WIt t 1 . forcedhim to take his earliest intuitions further. H h

. hi g paradox. Every- owever, here we come upon a rat er astonlS n Tl

thingseemsto lead Marx to formulate a theory of ideology. In fact, li te G M

·puan~ot ennall Ideology does offer us, after the 1844 onusaw! , hv :

th . ( hall see w Y 1D aeoryof ideology but it is not Marxist we s d a. . . '. . any hints lawar s moment).As for Capital although It does contall m . )th' ' . I f h vulgar econonusts , eoryof Ideologies (most visibly, the Ideo ogy 0 t e t art on

·Id hi h d ds for the mos P I oesnot contain tlbat theory itself, w IC epen atheoryof ideology in general. . li e of such a I h ld c. d schematlC out ns ou like to venture a tirst an very '01 ot off theth fj dare certal Y n eory.The theses I am about to put orwar fi d or corrected,

cuffb . d d die con irrne, ut they cannot be sustame an teste , .. exceptby much thorough study and analysis.

IdeOlogy Itas 110 !listory . . le which seems too in pnnop .neword first of all to expound the reason of ideology In. .ect of a theory h . rne to found or at least J'usufy, the proJ . hi h whatever t eIT, .d 10 /,e5 "\AI lC , general,and not a theory of particular I eo g, s class positions. fi Ii . all always expres ann (religious, ethical, legal, po nc ,

254 Appendix 2

It is quite obvious that it is necessary to proceed towards a theory of ideologies in the two respects I have just suggested. it will then be clear that a theory of ideologies depends in the last resort on the history of social formations, and thus of the modes of production combined in social formations, and of the class struggles which develop in them. In this sense it is clear that there can be no question of a theory of ideologiesin gen.eral, since ideologies (defined in the double respect suggested above: regional and class) have a history, whose determination in the last instance is clearly situated outside ideologies alone, although it involves them.

On the contrary, if I am able to put forward the project of a theory of ideology in. general, and if this theory really is one of the elements on which theories of ideologies depend, that entails an apparendy paradoxi- cal proposition which I shall express in the following terms: ideology has 110 history.

As we know, this formulation appears in so many words in a passage from The Cerman Ideology. Marx utters it with respect to metaphysics, which, he says, has no more history than ethics (meaning also the other forms of ideology).

In TT,e Cerman. Ideology, chis formulation appears in a plainly positivist context. Ideology is conceived as a pure illusion, a pure dream, i.e. as nothingness. All its reality is external to it. Ideology is thus thought asan imaginary construction whose status is exacdy like the theoretical status of the dream among writers before Freud. For these writers, the dream was the purely imaginary, i.e. null, result of 'day's residues', presentedin an arbitrary arrangement and order, sometimes even 'inverted', in other words, in 'disorder'. For them, the dream was the imaginary, it was empty, null and arbitrarily 'stuck together' [brieo/e], once the eyes had closed, from the residues of the only full and positive realiry, the reality of the day. This is exactly the status of philosophy and ideology (sincein this book philosophy is ideology par excellencei in 71re GenII",' Ideology.

Ideology, then, is for Marx an imaginary assemblage [brieolage], a pure dream, empty and vain, constituted by the 'day's residues' from the only full and positive reality, that of the concrete history of concrete matetial mdlvlduals materially producing their existence. It is on this basisthat Ideology has no history in The Cermall Ideology, since its history isoutside It where the onl _.. hi .. . di ·duals, y eXlStlOg story IS, the history of concrete 10 VI .' etc. In TI,e Cenna" Ideology, the thesis that ideology has no history IS therefore a pure! . th· . .1 . . y negative eSlS,Smce It means both:

) Ideology IS nothlOg Insofar as it is a pure dream (manufactured by who knows what power: ifnot by the alienation of the division oflabour, but that, too, is a lIegative determination);

Ideologyalld Ideological tate Apparatuses 255

2)ideologyhas no hi tory, which emphatically does not mean that thereisno history in it (on the contrary, for it is merely the pale, empty andinvertedreflection of real history) but that it has no history of its OIVY/. Nowwhile the thesis Iwi h to defend formally speaking adopts the

nrms of TI,e Germall Ideology ('ideology has no history'), it is radically differentfrom the positivi t and historicist thesis of TIre Cem,all Ideology. Foron the one hand, I think it is possible to hold that ideologies hnve

",istory of their ollm(although it is determined in the last instance by the class struggle);and on the other, I think it is possible to hold that Ideology i'gelreral has lIO I,islory,not in a negative sense (its history is external to It), but in anabsolutelypositive sense. . Thissenseis a positive one if it i true that the peculiarity of Ideology

is that it isendowed with a structure and a functioning such as to make it

his . al alirv.j . I . . I aliry in the sense in whicha000- tone re ry, i.e. an OHltJJ- Ilstonca re • llul structure and functioning are immutable, present in the same fonn h gh

.. h . h· h the COlfllll"'''St I rou outwhat we can call history, 10 t e sense 10 w IC . MO'i{eslO defines history as the history of class struggles, i.e. the history of class societies. T

. . hI· ht say that to return a gIVea theoretical reference-point ere, rrug . ' ... eli ptien this tnue, our

toOUtexample of the dream 10 Its Freu an conce . h. . ' d ( nd in a way whlC proposmon_ ideology has no history - can an must a .h b . b . the reverse, IS theo- as a solutely nothing arbitrary about It, ut, qUIte h. . \. k between t e rwo rencallynecessary for there is an orgall1c In

• • I ,.. that the ultcon- proposmons)he related directly to Freud s propOSItIOn sdollsis eremal, i.e. that it has no histocy. . b mni- If all (

al) hIStory ut 0 eternalmeans not transcendent to tempor hrc h ut the, . bl in form t roug 0

present,trans-historical and therefore unmuta e c d and, . word lor war , extentof history, I shall adopt Freud s expreSSIOn d I dd that 1 find writeideology is eremal exactly like the unconsCIOUS. An a .ry of the h. ' . b th f: ct that the etern

t IS comparison theoretically justIfIed yea . eral. f ideology In gen . unconsciousis not unrelated to the eternIty o. 1 t in propos- Th

. . .fj d h othencally at east, at IS why Ibelieve I am Jusn ie , yp F d presented a. I· th nse that reu

109 a theory of ideology in geY/era "n e se theoryof the unconscious in general.. .. to account what has To simplify the phrase, it is convell1ent, taking 1

m to designate ideol-

b . th I· tenn Ideo ogy heenSaIdahout ideologies, to use e P am. hat comes to t e. ·d h 0 history, or, w h t ogy111 general, which Ihave just 5<11 as n .. ble fonn throng Ou

. . t In Its Immuta F thesamething, is eternal, i.e. ortUllpresen .. cial classes). or his

. . . contallung so . tory ( = the history of SOCialfonnaoon5 ., d their lustory·

If 'las SQClenes anmomentI shall restrict myse to c s

256 Appendix 2

Ideology is a 'representation' of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence In order to approach my central rhesis on the structure and functioning of ideology, I shall first present two theses, one negative, the otherposi- tive. The first concerns the object which is 'represented' in the imaginary form of ideology, the second concerns the materiality of ideology.

THESIS I: Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.

We commonly call religious ideology, ethical ideology, legalideology, political ideology, etc., so many 'world outlooks'. Of course, assuming that we do not live one of these ideologies as the truth (e.g. 'believe'in God, Duty, Justice, etc .... ), we admit that the ideology we arediscus- ing from a critical point of view, examining it as che ethnologist examine; the myths of a 'primitive sociery', that these 'world outlooks' arelargely imaginary, i.e. do not 'correspond to reality'.

However, while admitting that they do not correspond to reality,i.e. that they constitute an illusion, we admit that they do make allusionto real- iry, and that they need only be 'interpreted' to discover the realityofche world behind their imaginary representation of that world (ideology= illll- sion/ allusiofl).

There are different rypes of interpretation, the most famousofwhich are the mechanistic type, current in the eighteenth century (God i.I the imaginary representation of the real King), and the 'henllelleutic'interpre- tation, inaugurated by the earliest Church Fathers and revivedby Feuerbach and the theologico-philosophical school which descendsfrom hIm, e.g. the theologian Barth (to Feuerbach, for example, God i.I the essence of real Man). The essential point is that on condition thatwe mterpret the imaginary transposition (and inversion) of ideologywe amve at the conclusion that in ideology 'men represent their realcondi- tIOns of existence to themselves in an imaginary fonn'. .

Unfortunately, this interpretation leaves one small problem unsetded. Why do me' d' hi· . . a! dl·tionsof. n nee t Snnagmary transposition ofthelrre can eXIt . cli· sofs ence m order to 'represent to themselves' their rea! con bOn eXIstence?

The first answer (rhat of rhe eighteenth century) proposes a ~J11plel SOlutIon' priests d 'c d' th Beauofu. . or espots are responsible. They lorge e LIes so that, in the belief that rhey were obeym' g God, men wouldintact ~~rh . . . "p~e pnests and despots, who are usually in alliance m theu:1m . ture the prie '. VI',e veTJO,, sts acting tIl the interests of the despots or

Ideologyalld Ideological Stare ApparatHses 257

accordingto the political positions of the 'rheoreticians' concerned. Thereis therefore a cause for the imaginary rransposiucn of the real conditionsof existence: that cause is the existence of a small number 0;

.' I·' f h ' eoplecynicalmenwho base their donunanon and exp oiranon 0 t e p . , . f h ld hi h they have imagined monafalsifiedrepresentation 0 t e WOt w IC . b-

ordertoenslaveother minds by dominating their imaginations. Thesecondanswer (that of Feuerbacb , taken over word for word by

Marx in his earlyworks) is more 'profound', i.e. just as false. It, too, see~s ., . . nd distornon of men sand finds a cause for the imaginary transposltlon a ..'

. . . . h C h ali arion in the imaginaryrealconditions of existence, In sort, tor t e ten . . . f exi This cause 15 nooftherepresentationof men's condmons 0 eXIstence. .. . . . . and the passive

longetpriestsor despots, nor their active ImagJnatlon. . hi h " .. . . . h ret-ial ahenatlon w ICImaginanonof their vIctims. This cause IS t e rna . . .

. . . . f hives ThIS IShow, 10reigns in the conditions of exiscence 0 men t emservc>- .' d d C ds th Feuerbachlan I eaTIleJ~visJ, Questionand elsewhere, Marx eten e . f. _ . . ) representation 0

thatmenmake themselves an alienated (- imaginary . e. di' ns of eXIstence ar theIrconditions of existence because these con no diti ns. . b use these con rtio themselvesalienating (in the 1844 Manuscnpts. eca d I b ')

d· 'alienate. a our .atedominatedby the essence of alienate soclery - . h sup- All Ii all

h thesis which t ey pre theseinterpretations thus take ter y ted· he i llacrinaryh . flecte 10 tell e-

pose,andon which they depend, i.e. that w at is re . h nditions of . .d logy 15 t e corepresentationof the world found 10 an I eo

existenceof men i.e. their real world. d d: it is not, . h already a vance . NowI can return to a thesis which I ave " 'represent h ' hei aI world that men .t elrrea!conditions of existence, t elr re '. those condl- h all· . their relatlO

n to tOtemselves'in ideology, but above It IS It is chis relation ti f' ., d to them there. .ons0 eXIstence which IS represente .' representation

hi h· ·d I . aI i e ImagJnary,IV c IS at the centre of every 1 eO OglC , . . , , which has te f h . h tains the cause ho t e teal world It is this relation t at con entation of t e. . . .d 10' cal rep res explaInthe irnaoinary distoroon of the I eo gJ f aliry it is neces-

0- . h I guage 0 caus . h realworld.Or rather to leave asIde t e an .r th,'s relation whic, . _ ' . a nature OJ sacytoadvance the thesis that It ISthe ""wg'" ry b rYe (if we do not

. _ . h t we can 0 se underliesall the imaginary distottlOn t a li ~dveIn Itstruth) in all ideology. h the representa f'f' 's true t at ts 0 To speak in a Marxist language, I It 1"0 'd als occupying the pos,

th a! . . . f the InwVI u . ld Selen-e re conditions of eXIStence 0 .' d 10gizatlOn al . .' preSSIon, 1 eO f ductlon,'gentsof production exploltanon, re h relations 0 pro

'f! ' al . arise from t e 'we can sayn Iepracticedoes in the last an ySlS . f prodUCtion, ._. r1l relations 0 .' nary dister and from relations derivmg from e. .tS necessarily nnagJ I . ns that thefollowing: all ideology represents 10 I ( d the other re atlO . . f ductlOn an nonnot the existing relanon' 0 pro

258 Appendix 2

derive from them), but above all the (imaginary) relationship ofindividu- als to the relations of production and the relations that derive fromthem. What is represented in ideology is therefore not the systemof thereal relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live.

If this is the case, the question of the 'cause' of the imaginarydistortion of the real relations in ideology disappears and must be replacedby' different question: why is the representation given to individualsoftheir (individual) relation to the social relations which govern their condition; of existence and their collective and individual life necessarilyan inugi- nary relation? And what is the nature of this imaginariness? Posedinthis way, the question explodes the solution by a 'clique'," by a groupof individuals (priests or despots) who are the authors of the great ideolcgi- cal mystification, just as it explodes the solution by the alienatedcharacter of the real world. We shall see why later in my exposition. Forthe moment I shall go no further.

THESIS Il: Ideology has a material existence. I have already touched on this thesis by saying that the 'ideas' or 'repre-

sentations', etc., which seem to make up ideology do not haveanideal (idea Ie or ideelle] or spiritual existence, but a material existence.Ieven suggested that the ideal (ideale, idee lie] and spiritual existence of 'ideas' ames exclusively in an ideology of the 'idea' and of ideology, andletme add, in an ideology of what seems to have 'founded' this conceptionsince the emergence of the sciences, i.e. what the practitioners of the sciences represent to themselves in their spontaneous ideology as 'ideas', trueor false. Of course, presented in affmnarive foom, this thesis is unproven.I Simply ask that the reader be favourably disposed towards it, say,in rhe name of materialism. A long series of arguments would be necessaryto prove It.

This hypothetical thesis of the not spiritual but material existenceof 'ideas' or other 'representations' is indeed necessary ifwe are to advance 10 our analysis of the nature of ideology. Or rather, it is merely usefitlto us 10 order the better to reveal what every at all serious analysisofany Ideology will' di I . . b rver,lITIme ate y and empIrIcally show to every 0 51 however critical.

While discussing the Ideological State Appararuses and their practices,

14 l use this ve d .' [ circles, _r: ry mo em tenn deliberately For even In COIl1IDUros .Uluortunately . . . oght

o .' It 15 a conul1onplace to 'explain' some political deviation Oeft or PPOrturusm) by the action of a 'clique'.

Ideology _lid Ideological tale ApparaCl/ses 259

lsid thateachof them was the realization of an ideology (the ururv of thesedifferentregional ideologies - religious, ethical, legal,. political, l~thetic,etc._ being assured by their subjection to the ruling Ideology).

. . id I al 'sts 'In an apparatus andInowreturnto this thesis: an I eo ogy ways eXI ' , i~practice, or practices. Thi exi tence is material.

.' f I id I .1 an apparatus andOfcourse,the material exi tence 0 t re I eo ogy 11 . . . dali th material eXIstence l~pracocesdoes not have the same mo Iry as e

. . h . k fb ing taken for a Neo-ofapaving-stone or a nlle. But, at tens 0 ei Aristotelian(NB Marx had a very high regard for Aristotle), I shall say

, .' 'h h t it exists 111 different [hat matterisdiscussedm many senses , or rat er t a . modalitiesall rooted in the last instance in 'physical' matter. h

. '. . . h d e what happens to t e Hmngsaid this, let me move craig t on an s e . . hi 1

'individuals'who live in ideology, i.e. in a determinate (reltgrous, etd ca ,. . di storuou depen s on etc.)representationof the world whose Imagrnary I d. . .' . f xistence in other war 5, theirunaginaryrelation to their conditions 0 e ' I' s. . nd to class re anon mthelastinstance to the relations of production a h hi.' . ) I shall say t at t IS (Ideology= an imaginary relation to real relaaons. . . . d . h aterial eXIstence.unagmary relation is irself endowe wit am' NowIobserve the following. . This belief An : di . . . G d D ry or JUStice, etc.m vidual believes to 0, or u '., .d lomcal repre-

d . all h h live In an I eo D'enves (foreveryone, i.e. for t ose w 0 .d d wed by. .d I to I eas en 0 senranonof ideology, which reduces I eo ogy. f the individual d f . . ith .. al' ) from the Ideas 0 .e Inmon WI a spmtu eXIstence . h' ch contalns. . h onSClOusness w 1 concerned,i.e. from him as a subject WIt a c f h bsolutely ideo- h '. .' b means 0 tea .t e Ideasof his belief. In this way, i.e. y bi t endowed WIth

1 . al' ';n h set up (a su ~ec .ogrc conceptual' device [dispOSlt~1 t us rrn;zes ideas 111 I D r freely recO",-a consciousnessin which he free y onl1S 0 b' t concerned natU-

h. . d fthe su ~ecw Ichhe believes), the (material) amtU eO rallyfollows. . h d such away, adopts The individual in question behaves In sue an participates 111

. d what 15 1110re, suchand such a practical attitude, an , .d 1 mcal apparatUS on

. . h e of the I eO °D' h ncetram regular practices which are t os . sness freely c ose h . all consClOU Mwhich'depend' the ideas which he as 111 h ch to attend ass,

. G d he goes to c ur . h ordl-as a subject. If he believes 111 0, . material 111 t e . k (once It was b r veS 111neels,prays, confesses, does penance don. Ifhe e Ie

all ents an so . al prac-narysense of the teom) and natur y rep. d .nscribed in ntU illo d' g attitu es, I . he w uty, he will have the correspon 111 'If he believes in JUStice, t st. . p~ npwences'according to the correct pnncl . L wand may eve. rill s of the a , ation etc. sub\llltunconditionally to the e .n a dell10nstr '. al. . . ns take part I ideologIC when they are violated, SIgn petitiO , that thewe observe Throughout this schema

260 Appendix 2

representation of ideology is itself forced to recognize that every'subject' endowed with a 'consciousness' and believing in the 'ideas' thathB 'consciousness' inspires in him and freely accepts, must 'act accordingto his ideas', must therefore inscribe his own ideas as a free subjectin the actions of his material practice. [f he does not do so, 'that is wicked'.

Indeed, if he does not do what he ought to do as a function ofwhathe believes, it is because he does something else, which, still as a functionofthe same idealist scheme, implies that he has other ideas iu his head thanthose he proclaims, and that he acts according to these other ideas, as a manwho is either 'inconsistent' Cno one is willingly evil'), or cynical, or perve~e,

In every case, the ideology of ideology thus recognizes, despitei~ imaginary distortion, that the 'ideas' of a human subject exist in his actions, or ought to exist in his actions, and if that is not the case,it lends him other ideas corresponding to the actions (however perverse) thathe does perform. This ideology talks of actions: Ishall talk of actions inserted into practices. And 1 shall point out that these practices are governed bythe rituals in which these practices are inscribed, within the fIIaterialexistelill of an ideological apparatus, be it only a small part of that appararus:a small mass in a small church, a funeral, a minor match at a sports' club, a school day, a political party meeting, etc.

Besides, we are indebted to Pascal's defensive 'dialectic' for the wonderful formula which will enable us to invert the order of the notion~ schema of ideology. Pascal says, more or less: 'Kneel down, move your Ii . I' ~ps In prayer, and you will believe.' He thus scandalous y mverts , order of things, bringing, like Christ, not peace but strife, and in additIOn something harclly Christian (for woe to him who brings scandalmto the world!) - scandal itsel£ A fortunate scandal which makes him stickWIth Jansenist defiance to a language that directly names the reality. ,

1 will be allowed to leave Pascal to the arguments of his ideologtc~ struggle with the religious ldeological State Apparatus ofhis day. Andl shall be expected to use a more clirectly Marxist vocabulary, if that IS possible, for we are advancing in still poorly explored domains,

I shall therefore say that, where only a single subject (such and such an individual) is concerned, the existence of the ideas of his bebef IS material in that his ideas are his material actions inserted into maten'alpractices governed by material rituals which are themselves defined by the materialideo' logical apparatus from which derive the ideas of that subject. Naturally, the fou; mscnptlOns of the adjective 'material' in my proposition must be affectea by dIfferent modalities: the materialities of a displacement for gOIng t mass, of kneeling down, of the gesture of the sign of the cross, or of the

Ideology and Ideological Stare Apparatuses 261

",,,,,,Ip',of a sentence, of a prayer, of an act of contrition, of a p:nitence: ofagaze,of a lund-shake, of an external verbal discourse or an internal verh~discourse (consciousnes), are not one and the same matenabty. I ,hallleaveon one side the problem of a theory of the differences between

themodalitiesof materiality. . d I It remainsthat in this inverted presentation of things we are not ea-

" . ., all' ., I that certain notlons havemgWith an 'inversion at I SInce It IS C ear - ., fr rio whereas others onpurelyand SImply disappeared om our presenta I n,

thecontrarysurvive, and new terms appear. Disappeared: the term ideas. Survive:the terms slIbjea, consdollStless, be1iif, actiolls. Appear: the terms practices, ritllals, ideological apparatus. -

, ( pt in the sense m It is therefore not an inversion or overturmng exce h f

I· rtUrned) but a res ut-whichone might say a government or a g ass ISove , b 'h ffie since we a tam fle(ofa non-ministerial type), a rather strange res u ,

thefollowing result. d d with an Ideashave disappeared as such (insofar as they are en owe d that

id . t that it has emerge I e~ or spiritual existence), to the precIse exten _ db rituals theirexistence is inscribed in the actions of practlces govhernec Yappears d'·' . I ical ratuS It t ereto

re 'lined In the last Instance by an Ideo ogre appa " (set out

,_ - b h £ 1l0w1Og system thatthe subject acts Insofar as he IS acted y teo _' ' material

. - id I gy eXlstlng 10 a 1Il the order of its real detemunatlOn): I eo 0 db a mate- id I . . . 'I etices governe yI eologicalapparatus, prescribing matena pra _ f biect acting '.1 ' • - th ial actlons 0 a su ~nu ntual, which practices eXISt 10 e maten

in all consciousness according to his belief. - d the following B . - al h have retam

e all lit this vety presentanon reve stat we this series I sh , b li f nons From Inotions: subject, consciousness, e er, ac . hi h very thing e se

, al on W ic e unrnediatelyextract the decisive centr term depends:the notion of the subject. .' h es:aDJOint t es . And I shall immediately set down two c . 1 1) There i . b nd in an ,deo ogy -ere IS no pracnce except y a _ d for subjects. 2) b he subject anThere is no ideology except y t I can now corne to my central theSIS-

ld I· . "d I subiects Ii ·t· thereeo ogy Interpellates Indu/l ua s as J osition exp CI. _This f aki- my last prop . there IS thesis is simply a matter 0 m ng b' ecrs. Mearung, 'd I, _ b- nd for sU ~ . for I eo-

ISno Ideology except by the su ~ect _a d this destinatlOn, if the no ideology except for concrete subjectS, an . g by the category 0

b" ect" rneanH1 ogy is only made possible by the su ~ . biect) b. e (the SU Jsu ~eet and its functioning. der this nam. - - n1 appears un By this I mean that, even If It 0 Y

262 Appendix 2

with the rise of bourgeois ideology, above all with the rise of legal ideology;" the category of the subject (which may function underother names: e.g., as the soul in Plato, as God, etc.) is the constitutive category of all ideology, whatever its determination (regional or class)and what- ever its historical date - since ideology has no history,

I say: the category of the subject is constitutive of all ideology, butat the same time and immediately I add that the category of the sHbjeais Dilly constitutive of all ideology insofar as all ideology has the [unaion (whi,h defillesit) of 'constitutiny' concrete individuals as subjects. In the interaction of this double constitution exists the functioning of all ideology, ideology being nothing but its functioning in the material forms of existence of rhat functioning,

In order to grasp what follows, it is essential to realize that both hewho is writing these lines and the reader who reads them are themselves subjects, and therefore ideological subjects (a tautological proposirion), i.e. that the author and the reader of these lines both live 'spontaneously' or 'natura.l.ly' in ideology in the sense in which [ have said that 'man isan ideological animal by nature',

That the author, insofar as he writes the lines of a discourse which claims to be scientific, is completely absent as a 'subject' from 'his' scientific discourse (for all scientific discourse is by definition a subject- less discourse, there is no 'Subject of science' except in an ideology of science) is a different question which I shall leave on one side for the mOlnent.

As St Paul admirably put it, it is in the 'Logos', meaning in ideology,that we 'live, move and have our being'. It follows that, for you and fot me, the category of the subject is a primary 'obviousness' (obviousnesses are always primary): it is clear that you and I are subjects (free, ethical, etc .. , ,),Likeall obviousnesses, including those that make a word 'name a thing' Ot 'havea

, '(th 'Jmeanmg erefore including the obviousness of the 'transparency language), the 'obviousness' that you and I are subjects - and that that does not cause any problems - is an ideological effect, the elementary ideologtcal effect. 16 It is indeed a peculiarity of ideology that it imposes (without appear- Ing to do so, since these are 'obviousnesses') obviousnesses as obviousnesses, h' h· ' 'blew IC we cannot fad to recognize and before which we have the meVlta

no ~5 . Whi~h borrowed the legal category of 'subject in law' to make an ideological t10n. man IS by nature a subiect. ] 6 L" up . . Il1guists and those who appeal to linguistics for various purposes often ru? all

agalllst d.lfficuJti I 'h ' , al tr. CCS \n d" . es W lIe anse because they ignore the action of the ideolOgiC eueISCourses ~ mel di "

u ng even SCIentific discourses.

Ideology attd Ideological tare Appara!tlses 263

andnaturalreaction of crying out (aloud or in the 'silence of consciousness'):

'That'sobvious!That's right! That's true!' " ' Atworkin this reaction is the ideological recogttitiotl function wh~ch is

oneofthe two funcrions of ideology as such (its inverse being the unc-

nonofmisrecogtlitiotl[mecotltlaissDtlCe)). h h all h f:' nds wow enTotakea highly 'concrete' example, we ave ne "

h h h d or the questiontheyknock on our door and we ask, t roug teo , , . ,-, bvi ') 'I ' e' And we recogruze'Who'sthere?', answer (since It s 0 VIOUS t s m,. h

that'it is him or 'her'. We open the door, and 'it's true, It really wabs -dv I h ecogruze some 0 Ywhowas there'. To take another examp e, w en we r h. J' the street we s OWofOut (previous) acquaintance [(re)-cot/tlatssa"ce 111 '

, ed that he has recog- him thatwe have recognized him (and have recogruz , is h d ( , fri d' d shaking his an anized u.s) by saying to him 'Hello, my en ,an, d I' C _ in

. ' ' every ay lie materialritual practice of ideological recogruncn 111 France,at least; elsewhere, there are other rituals), , nlv wi h

, ., h te illustranons, j onry wis Inthisprelinunary remark and t ese concre , d such , I I dy subjects, an as

to point out that you and I are a ways a rea " hi h uarantee , , f id I . al ecognltlOn, w IC gcOflStanclypractice the rituals 0 I eo ogre r " ' h bl d (natu-

t: ' di id al d1Snngu's a e anLOrusthat we are indeed concrete, 111 VI U , ring and the _L1 ' "I rrendy execu ,'.q) Irreplaceable subjects. The wnttng am CU, hi ect rituals of

di ' also 111 t S resprea ng you are currently'? perfomung are " h which the id ' . h' b 'ousness w,tI eologtcal recognition including teO vi , h' I. '. • ose itself on you. trut or error of my reflections may imp C ti on in the prac- B . d that we ,unc Ilit to recocm;ze that we are subjects an h d hake the fact ,0'- d life (the an -s ' t1C~ ritualsof the most elementary every ay 'f I do not knoW f alii f: f k wing even Io c 'ng you by your name the act 0 no , , ns that yoU are

" . 1 whiCh l11.ea wharIt IS that you 'have' a name of your own, , ' Iy <rives us the, "loon on 0 . tecognizedas a unique subject, etc.) - th's recogn f' d ological recogI1'- , , al) pracnce 0 Ie, ' USConsclousness'of our incessant (etern . nse does It gIve .." . .' ." _ but In 11.0 se. it 15tlon-lts conSCIousness I.e. Its recogf'lltlOrl " gninon. NoW .

, 'f th's reco 'In the(scientifiC)ktlowledge of the mechamSln 0 ill while speakll1g thi kn h if YOU w , WhIChs owledge that we have to reac , tli a discourse. h to aU ne . of a Ideology,and from within ideology we ave be the begintUng

d to dare toInesto break WIth ,deology, tn or er _ Ideology· , 15 eonsu

SCIentlf!c(I.e, subject-less) discourse on of the 'subject b' tS as Th h the category te SU ~ecus 10 order to represent W Y tutIng conere

by constItunveof Ideology, which only eXlSts 'eternal' ,

hat 1deology IS hnes f of the £-lct t (long these

, . nl.ore proO al 1 anl W 17 NB: this double 'currently 15 one . de6nlte Ulterv ,, dbyanUlSincethese two 'currentlys' are separate nt time.subseque

On6 Apri.11969, you may read them at any

-----

264 Appendix 2

subjects, I shall employ a special mode of exposition: 'concrete' enough to be recognized, but abstract enough to be thinkable and thought,giving rise to a knowledge.

As a first formulation I shall say: all ideology hails or interpellatescollerele individuals as concrete subjects, by the functioning of the categoryof the subject. This is a proposition which entails that we distinguish forthe moment between concrete individuals on the one hand and concrete subjects on the other, although at this level concrete subjects onlyexist insofar as they are supported by a concrete individual.

Ishall then suggest that ideology 'acts' or 'functions' in such awaythat it 'recruits' subjects among the individuals (it recruits them all),or 'trans- forms' the individuals into subjects (it transforms them all) by thatvery precise operation which I have called interpellation or hailing, andwhich can be imagined along the lines of the most commonplace everyday police (or other) hailing: 'Hey, you there!':"

Assuming that the theoretical scene Ihave imagined takes placeinthe street, the hailed individual will turn round. By this mere l30-degree physical conversion, he becomes a subject. Why? Because he hasrecog- ruzed that the hail was 'really' addressed to him, and that 'it was reallyhi'" who was hailed' (and not someone else). Experience shows that theprac- tical telecommunication ofhailings is such that they hardly evecmisstheir man: verbal call or whistle, the one hailed always recognizes that it is really him who is being hailed. And yet it is a strange phenomenon, and one which cannot be explained solely by 'guilt feelings', despite the large nUlnbers who 'have something on their consciences'.

Naturally for the convenience and clarity of my little theoreticaltheatreI have had to present things in the fonn of a sequence, with a beforeandan after" and thus in the fonn of a temporal succession. There are individuals walking along, Somewhere (usually behind them) the hail rings out: 'Hey, you there!' One individual (nine times out of ten it is the tight one) tuJ11S ;ound, belie,;ng/suspecting/knowing that it is for him, i.e. recognizingthat It really IShe who ISmeant by the hailing. But in reality these things happen WIthOut any succession. The existence of ideology and the hailingor lllter- pellanon of mdividuals as subjects are one and the sanle thing.

I nught add: what thus seems to take place outside ideology (to be preCIse, In the street), in reality takes place in ideology. What reallytakes place In Ideology seems therefore to take place outside it. That iswhy those who . 'd I 'deare In I eo ogy believe themselves by definition outsl

18 Hailing as an d . . . , oal' form. h' every ay practice subject to a precise rituaJ takesa quue spe 111 t e pohcelnan's pr ' f'h 'J" , , 'actIce 0 at .lOg which concems the hailing of suspects.

265 Ideologya"d Ideological !OreApparatllses

ideology:one of the effects of ideology is the practical de"egatio" 0,; the ideoloaicalcharacter of ideology by ideology: ideology neversfiaysk, amie- id id I . e in sClentl IC nOW- ideoloaical'.lrisnecessary to be OUtsl e I eo ogy, I.. , h

e- (. tonal case) or (t e edge tobe able to say: Iam in ideology a quite excep I , fb '

, . . •• ' U kn vn the accusation 0 emg generalcase):I was In Ideology. "" ISwe 0', . U III ideologyonly applies to others, never to oneself (ubnless onle 1:;::a~1: Spinozist or a Marxist which, in this matter, IS to e exacdt Y(C ' I"

, id 1 I 0 outSI e lor itsen) , thin . Which amounts to saylng that I eo ogy ,as ". d ali ). , . b 'de (for sCIence an re ity). butat the same time rhar ir .s lIor 'l>1g ," OlllS' h

I I centuries before Marx, w 0Spinoza explained this camp ete y two I I this point I·· ., derail But et us eave 'practicedit but without exp a111111gIt rn rrecau- hich are not just

~thoughit is heavy with consequences, consequencels wh hole theory. . Ii ' aI . e for examp e, t e w theoreticalbut also directly po uc , sine , f h Marxist-Leninist ofcriticismand self-criticism, the golden rule 0 t e practiceof the classstruggle, depends on it. bi cts As ideology. .' U . dividuals as su ~e .ThusIdeology hails or mterpe acesm 'hich I have . h tempotal form in ws eternal, I must now suppress t e .d I gy has always- presentedthe functioning of ideology, and say: I eo 0 ts to making it

als b' ects which amounalreadyinterpellated individu as su ~ , , U d by ideology as al al ady ll1terpe ateclearthat individuals are ways- re . 'on' individuals are

ds ne last propOSIti . hsubjects,which necessarily lea us to 0 , b ' with respect to t e always-already sllbjects. Hence individuals are a stract .tion might seem subjectswhich they always already are. This propoS!

paradoxical. b' t even before he is born, That an individual is always-already a sU ~ec , nd not a paradOX

, . 'ble to everyone a ISneverthelessthe plain reality, accessl , b tract' with respect to at all. Freud shows that individuals ate. alwaysb a soting the ideological h . alr d are SImply Y n vent' .t e subjects they always- ea y, 'b' th' that 'hapPY e, n of a ,r , ted titual that surrounds the expectatlo born child is expec .' E h d 'nwhat wayan un h 'sentl-veryoneknows how muc all 1 , 'f we agree to drop t e. 1/ Whichamounts to saying, very prosaIcally, I ai/maternal conJuga

. 'd I gy (patern 'd nce ments' i.e. the forms of family 1 eo 0 t d' it is certain In a va d

, hild s expec e . 'd ry an fraternal)in which the unborn c d' ill therefore have an I entl d a that it will bear its father's name, an w

hild ' therefore always-airel a y al

, . b'rth the c 's f: nili'al ideo oglC be meplaceable. Before ,ts I " d b the speciftc al . d I

b' t 1n an Y b conceIve,subject, appointed as a su ~ec d' once it has een, ' in its of hi h· is 'expecte fi uratlO

n is, co 19uration in w c It 'al .d logical con 19 d more hardly need add that this famili h' eOt is in this implacable angned to, . d and t at I 'can be aSSI , umqueness, hIghly strUcrure" h t any meanll1g 'fll1d' 'its

ai, (p UppOS10g t a ill have toor less 'pathologic res biect-to-be W th h former sU Jthat tem1) structure at t e

266 Appendix 2

place, i.e. 'become' the sexual subject (boy or girl) which it alreadyism advance. It IS clear that this ideological constraint and pre-appointment, and all the rituals of rearing and then education in the family, havesome relationship with what Freud studied in the fonns of the pte-genitaland genital 'stages' of sexuality, i.e, in the 'grip' of what Freud registeredby Its effects as being the unconscious. But let us leave this point, too,on one side.

Let me go one step further. What I shall now tum my attention to is the way the' t ,. hi' ,. ac ors In t s mlse-en-scene of interpellation, and their respec- trve roles, are reflected in the very structure of all ideology.

An example: the Christian religious ideology As the formal structure of all ideology is always the same, I shallrestrict my analysis to a single example, one accessible to everyone, that ofreli- gIOus Ideology, with the proviso that the same demonstration canbe produced for ethical, legal, political, aesthetic ideology, etc.

Let us therefore consider the Christian religious ideology. Ishallusea rhetorical figure and' ke i ak" . .'ma e It spe ,Le. collect 1I1toa fictional discours what it 'says' not nI . . .' d .o Y 111 Its two Testaments, Its theologians an I~ sermons but also in it . ... ., n ] S practices, Its ntuals, its ceremonies and Its sacra- ments The Chri Iizi .I' nstIan re glOus Ideology says something like this: . t says: 1 address myself to you, a human individual called Peter (every mdlvldual is called b h' . h. Y IS nan1e, 111the passive sense, it is never he w 0 proVides his own na ). dme , 111 or er to tell you that God exists and tharyou are answerable to H' I dd h. 1m. t a s: God addresses Himself to you throug my VOIce (Script h' .. ure aV1l1gcollected the Word of God, tradition havmg tranS11mted it pal' C ll'b'I' h . . ' ap 1I1,a I 1Ity fixing it for ever on 'nice' points). It says:

t IS ISwho you . d b are. you are Peterl This is your origin, you were create y God for all et . al h f

O L ermty, tough you were born in the 1920th yeara

ur ordl This . I' B I

ISyour pace m the world! This is what you must dol y t lese means if b P

'. you 0 serve the 'law of love' you will be saved,you, eter, and WIll b N

'. eCOme part of the Glorious Body of Christ!, etc. ... ow thIS IS qu' t C mil' .. 1 e a ,a Iar and banal discourse but at the sameome

qUIte a surprising one. ' Surprising beca'f' . . d ddd use I we conSIder that religious ideology IS111 ee

a ressed to individual 19' . 'b m ·t ll' s, 111 order to 'transfonn them into subJects, Y erpe atmg the' d' .d' . frto ob d' m IV1 ual, Peter, III order to make him a subject, ee

ey or Isobey the appeal, i.e. God's commandments; ifit callsthese

19 Although we know tha h . '. 'ng tillS teml conv. b ,t t e lIldiVldual is a1wa~ already a subject, we go on US!

, ement ecause of th .e Contrasting effect it produces.

Ideology arId Ideological Stare Apparatllses 267

individualsby their names, thus recognizing that they are always-alread: interpellatedassubjects with a personal identity (to the extent that p:scal s Christsays: 'It is for you that I have shed this drop of my blood! ); If It . . th th bi ponds' 'Yes it really ISimerpellates them 10 such a way at e su ~ect res . , III'!'; if it obtains from them the recogni,ioll that they really do occupy t1~e

., C h hei h orld a fixed reSIdence: ItplaceIt designates tor t em as t em 111 t e w ,· k b Id' I' in this vale of tears;really15me, Iam here, a wor er, a aSS or a so ier: . . ., h' . f d rination (eternal life orif It obtains from them t e recogruoon 0 a es , '.' t they show to God s damnation) according to the respect or contemp . .if I' d es happen in this Commandments',Law become Love; I everyt ung 0 .

· kn . als f baptism confmnaoon, way(111 the practices of the well- own ntu 0 '.' .) we should note commuruon confession and extreme uncnon, etc .... , . d, ., Ii . biects is dommate thatallthis 'procedure' to set up ChristIan re grous su J I .

h nly be such a mu 0-bya strangephenomenon: the fact that t ere can 0 .. b I ndition that there IS tudeof possible religious subjects on the a so ute co aUnique,Absolute, Ocher SlIbjece, i.e. God. b' b writ-· . . hi d remarkable Su ~ect y

It IS convenient to desIgnate t s new an bi ith. .' . h j C 1ordinary su ~ects, w mgSubject with a capital S to disonguls It tron analls. .. f' di .duals as subjects presup- It then emerges that the interpellatlon 0 in IV! S bi t in whose. d tral other u ~ec ,

posesthe 'existence' of a umque an cen . "d I subiects. All. II all mdlVI ua s as J namethe religious ideology mterpe ates S . tures 'And it hi

. .' .' htly called the cnp . . t SISclearly"" wotten 111 what 1Sng 1 ) k to Moses m

th L d rv ahwe 1 spo ecameto pass at that time that God e or \. I" A d Moses replied "It M "Moses nthecloud. And the Lord cried to oses, . I shall listen!" And the

~ (really)l! I am Moses thy servant, speak and " , hi· "I am that [am .Lordspoke to Moses and said to m,. lle"ce He who ish S b ect par exce .,

God thus defines Himself as t e u ~ ') d He who interpel- thr . If ('I chat 1am , an .ough Himself and for Hunse am 'b hi' eryinterpellatlOn,. b' d to HIl11 y s v h'latesHis subject the indiv1dual su ~ecte . llated-called by IS. ' A d Moses mterpe G d I.e. the individual named Moses. n h' ho was called by 0,. , ally' was e w . d to name, having recognized that It re . d a subject subJecte

recognizes that he is a subject, a subject oIdGO h' Subject. The proof: he G b

· d slIbJecte to t e ad, a subject through the Su ~ect an G d' Commandments.. f

obeysHim and makes his people obey °d Sl l'nnumerab1e subjects 0 , d M s an ne . H1s

God is thus the Subject, an ose . ter ellates: His nilrrors, . God's people the Subject'S interlocutors-1l1 !God? As all theologIcal

, d . the lI"age 0 d WIthout reflections.Were not men ma e In ,.c tly well have one

LI 'ould percec reflection proves, whereas .r~e c

,. irit and tfllth'. the letter but in sp

b· d way not to20 I am quoting in a corn me '

268 Appendix 2

men, God needs them, the Subject needs the subjects, just as men need God, the subjects need the Subject. Better: God needs men, the great Subject needs subjects, even in the terrible inversion of his image in them (when the subjects wallow in debauchery, i.e. sin). Better: God duplicates Himself and sends his Son to the Earth, as amere

subject 'forsaken' by Him (the long complaint of the Garden of Olives which ends in the Crucifixion), subject but Subject, man but God, to do what prepares the way for the fInal Redemption, the Resurrection of Christ. God thus needs to 'make Himself' a man, the Subject needsto become a subject, as if to show empirically, visibly to the eye, tangiblyto the hands (see St Thomas) of the subjects, that, if they are subjects, subjected to the Subject, that is solely in order that finally, on Judgement Day, they will re-enter the Lord's Bosom, like Christ, i.e. re-enter tbe Subject." Let us decipher into theoretical language this wonderful necessityfor

the duplication of the Subject into subjects and of the Suojea itself i"to0 subject-Subject. We observe that the structure of all ideology, interpellating individuals

as subjects in the name of a Unique and Absolute Subject, is spew/ary, i.e. a mirror-structure, and doubly speculary: this mirror duplication is consti- tutive of ideology and ensures its fimctioning. This means that all ideology IS centred, that the Absolute Subject occupies the unique place of the Centre, and interpellates around it the infinity of individuals into subjects in a double mirror-connexion such that it subjects the subjects to the Subject, while giving them in the Subject in which each subject can contemplate its own image (present and future) the guarantee that this really concerns them and Him, and that since everything takes placein the F~nlily. (the Holy Family: the Family is in essence Holy), 'God will recogYLlze H,S own in it', i.e. those who have recognized God, and have recogruzed themselves in Him, will be saved. Let me summarize what we have discovered about ideology in general. The duplicate mirror-structure of ideology ensures simultaneously: 1) the Interpellation of 'individuals' as subjects; 2) theIr subjection to the Subject; . 3) the mutual recognition of subjects and Subject, the subjects' recog- mtlon of each other, and finally the subject's recognition of himself;"

21 The. dogma of the Trinity is precisely the theory of the duplication of [he Subject (the Father) mto a sub (h S ) S .. )22 . ~ect .t e on and of their mirror-connexion (the Holy plOt. . , h .~egel IS (unknOWingly) an admirable <theoretician' of ideology insofar as he ISa t eOretlClan' of U' al R . . ·d 1 ofAb 1 mYers ecogrutlOll who unfortunately ends up ill the I eo og)'

h so ute Knowledge. Feuerbach is an astonishing 'theoretician' of me m.irrorcannexion,

W 0 unfonunat I .J_ " " riale y enu:s up U1 the Ideology of the Humm Essence. To find che mate

269 Ideology and Ideological rare Apparaluses

hi ally is so and that on 4) the absolute guarantee that. every~ n~ re are and b~have accord- conditionthat the subjects recognIze w at ,t ey ., ingly,everythingwill be all right: Amen - $0 be It .

1 of interpellation as subjects, of Result: caught in this quadruple systen . . d of absolute guar- ., th S bi f niversal recognltlOn an .subJecnonto e u ~ect, 0 u I ,. the vast majonry

. , k' h ' ork by themse ves Inantee, the subjects war ,t ey w ., h occasion provoke ofcases,with the exception of the 'bad subjects w

f ~ on(Kepressive) State

theintervention of one of the detachments 0 t e k all right 'all by .' f (good) subjects worApparatus.But the vast majonry 0 c. e realized in the

th I ,. bv id I (whose concrete lomlS ar demseves ,I.e. y I eo ogy . d . practices goveme ) Th re mserte 1ntoIdeologicalState Apparatuses. ey a h .. g state of affairs (das

Th' gru" ze' t e eXlSOObytheritualsof the [SAs. ey reco. d therwise' and that . hat i s so an not 0 'BesI'iI"'de), that 'it really ISrrue t at it i . to the priest, to De

. G d their conSCIence, btheymust be obedient to 0, to hal 'love thy neigh our. that thou st. .Gaulleto the boss, to the engmeer, .' . ly the inscnptlOn, .al behaVIour ISsImp as thyself,etc. Tbeir concrete, maten 'A _ So be it'.

ds f h rayer: ",en f hiin lifeof the admirable wor 0 t e p " h hole mystery 0 t s k b h mselves T e w . tYes, the subjects 'war y t e . drup1e system 1 have JUs

effectlies in the first two moments of the qua f the rerrn subject. In the . th amb1gulry 0 .. adiscussed,or, if you prefer, 111 e . 1) a free subjectJVIry, bi . fact means. bi t dordinaryuse of the term, su ~ect rn ible for its actions; 2) a su ~ec :u

centreofinitiatives, author of and respons1 d. therefore stnpped of being,who submits to a higher authonry, hian ISbmission. This last note

f fr I cceptlng s su fl . 1of thefreedomexcept that 0 ee Y a . h i erely are ectlOI .. .. whic 1S 11"1 b 'eet m givesus the meaning of thIS amblgulry, .' Hated as a (free) sU ~

. th . dividual 15 "Iterpe .. in order effectwhich produces 1t: e 1ll d ts of the Subyct, I.e. h

fi I t the cornman ",en ~ hall make t eorder that he shall submit ree yo. . rder that he s b' ts / . b ·ection I e. 111 0 e no SU ~ecIilat ii, shall (freely) acrept liS su ~ ',' b himself'. TIlere ar , . b' ction all Y all b themselves.

gesturesand actions of his su ~e . h they 'work Y b· ned except by andfior their subjection. That ISw Y s the effect to be 0 ta' . e

hi h regIster ayer , .. 'So be it .. .' This phrase w c, Uy" outside the pr 'be

.. , all ' so (natura· that ,t has to proves that It IS not natur y. ) This phrase proves ds slip: if . . . al' t rventlOn . I t the wor .outsIdethe IdeolOgIC 1ll e b and let US e d even m

h they must e, be assure ,so if things are to be w at. f oducrion is to . h' conscious- h f h lations 0 pr d y m t et e reproduction 0 t e re . I tion every a , . g the posts. and Clrell a , . occupyln , the processes of productIon . di idual_subJects. to them 1n

. d f the m v ass1gIlsness',i.e. in the attltu es 0 ," . of labour. a1 diVISIon which the socio-techcuc .

to SptOoza. we must turn

f the guarantee, with which to construct a theory 0

270 Appendix 2

production, exploitation, repression, ideologization, scientific practice, etc. Indeed, what is really in question in this mechanism of the mirror recognition of the Subject and of the individuals interpellated as subjects, and of the guarantee given by the Subject to the subjects if theyfreely accept their subjection to the Subject's 'commandments'? The realiry in question in this mechanism, the reality which is necessarily igl/ored[lIIlco/l· nlfe] in the very forms of recognition (ideology = misrecognition/ ignorance), is indeed, in the last resort, the reproduction of the relations of production and of the relations deriving from them.

jal1uary-Apri/1969

P.S. If these few schematic theses allow me ro illuminate certainaspecu of the functioning of the superstructure and its mode of interventionin the base, they ate obviously abstract and necessarily leave severalimpor- tant problems unanswered, which should be mentioned:

1) The problem of the total process of the realization of the reproduc- tion of the relations of production.

As an element of this process, the ISAs contribute to this reproduction, But the point of view of their contribution alone is still an abstract one,

It is only within the processes of production and circulation that this reproduction is realized. It is realized by the mechanisms of those processes,in which the training of me workers is 'completed', their posts assignedthem, etc. It is in the internal mechanisms of these processes mat me effectof the different ideologies is felt (above all the effect oflegal-ethical ideology).

But this point of view is srill an abstract one. For in a classsocietythe relations of production are relations of exploitation, and therefore rela- tions between antagonistic classes, The reproduction of the relationsof production, the ultimate aim of the ruling class, cannot therefore be a merely technical operation training and distributing individuals for the different posts in the 'technical division' of labour. In fact there is no 'technical division' of labour except in the ideology of the ruling class: every 'technical' division, every 'technical' organization of labour, is the fonn and mask of a social ( = class) division and organization of labour, The reproduction of the relations of production can merefore only be a class undertaking. It is tealized through a class struggle which counter- poses the ruling class and the exploited class.

The total process of the realization of the reproduction of the relarions of production is therefore still abstract insofar as it has not adopted the point of view of this class stnIggle. To 'adopt the point of view of repro- ductIon IS therefore in the last instance to adopt the point of view of the class struggle.

Ideology and Ideological tate Apparatuses 271

2) The problem of the class nature of the ideologies existing in a social

formation. The 'mechanism' of ideology in general is one thing. We have seen

thatit can be reduced to a few principles expressed in a few words (at 'poor'as those which, according to Marx, define productlon In g;uera , orinFreud define the unconscious in genera0· If there IS any trut in 1t'1

' , h every real ideologlcathismechanism must be abstract Wit respect to fomnarinn. " '.' /' ed in instItutIons, InI have suggested that the ideologies were rea IZ hi

. ' h ISAs W have seen that on t IStheirrituals and their pracnce , in t e .' e h I' f I 1 vital for t e ru mgbasisthey contribute to that form 0 c ass strugg e, 'f

, f d ion But the pomt 0class, the reproduction of the relations 0 pro uct . viewitself,however real, is still an abstract one. in c f th point

I h e meamng rom eIn fact,me state and its apparatuses on Y av I I'ng class f I ss strugg e ensurofviewof the classstruggle, as an apparatus 0 c a , d ' __

, . f 10itatlOn an Its repro oppressionand guaranteeing the condmons 0 exp , tiC classes,

I ithout antagomsduction. But there is no class srrugg e WI , revolt and f h li 1 ss says reSistanCe,Whoeversays class rruggle 0 t e ru ng c a

classstruggleof the ruled class. .d I 'gerreral norli ' of I eo ogy In ' , That iswhy the ISAs are not the rea zatI~~ of the ruling class. The

eventhe conflict-free realization of the Ideo gy li id ology by the , b e the ru ng Ie,Ideologyof the ruling class does not ecom er alone. It IS

, f h eizure of state pow Igraceof God nor even by virtue 0 t e s 'lized and rea - , ' . . hi h hi ideology IS rea "

bythe installation of the ISAs in W JC t IS hi 'nstallation IS not , , 'd 1 gy But t IS 1 dizesItselfthat it becomes the ru hng I eo ouv. ke i very bitter an

. .t is the sta e In a h 'achievedall by itself: on the contrary, 1 I' lasses and t eir, 'h former ru ing c continuousclass struggle: first agamst t e, h ploited class, . , As h agall1st t e ex b tPOSitionsin the old and new IS , t en 'h ISAs is still an a strac

- But this point of view of the class struggle in t ed aspect of the class . h ISAs IS irtdee an h n-one.In fact the class struggle 10 t e ic one: e.g t e an

, d ymptomatl ' nalstruggle sometimes an important art s , "s' of the educatlO , '. ' or the cnst . ISAs ISreligIOUSstruggle in the eighteenth century, 1 tnlggle 111 the , , ' d But the c aSSS ISAs. TheISA10 every caplralist country to ay" beyond the ,

I whIch goeS , 's ISAs IS onlyone aspect of a class strugg e h ling ideology In It eS 'd kes t e ru -6 r It con1I eology that a class in power ma beyond them, 0 to , b 't goes anagesmdeed 'realized' in those ISAs, ut I h t a ruled class m from from elsewhere. Similarly, the ideolo~ t ~d them, for it comes defendin and against such ISAs goes eyo uggle, eh ' of the class str , ewhere. , f h classes, "e. 'al formatIon, I . , f VleW 0 t e 'soet 't 15only from the pomt 0 , 1 's existing m a

h ' h Ideo ogret at it is possible to expl:un t e

272 Appendix 2

Not only is it from this starting-point that it is possible to explain the realization of the ruling ideology in the ISAs and of the forms of class struggle for which the ISAs are the seat and the stake. But it is also and above all from this starting-point that it is possible to understand the provenance of the ideologies which are realized in the ISAs and confront one another there. For if it is true that the ISAs represent the Joml in which the ideology of the ruling class must necessarily be realized. and the form in which the ideology of the ruled class must necessarily be measured and confronted, ideologies are not 'born' in the [SAs, but from the social classes at grips in the class struggle: from their conditions of existence, their practices, their experience of the struggle, etc.

April 1970

Index

accordsde Grenelle. See Grenelle accords

actionin accord with belief, "185-6, 187,260,261

.dventurism,100, "l20, 162, 217 agricultural labour, 25 n9 Algeria,100, 111, 115, 153 dienation,182, 2"l2, 213, 257 anarchistsand anarchism, 42, 125-6, 133,155,179,180; in CGTU, 133 n44.See also Proudhon, Pierre- Joseph

anarcho-syndicalism, 116, 133 ami-socialism, 177 anti-union movement, 41, 43 '.politicism', 116 n24 Atgentina,97 .ristocracy,98, 121,219; bourgeoisie struggleagainst, 101,119,125, 136,140,172 nl; France, 98,101, 117-21 passim, 136, 143, 150,249, 250;military, 141 nl; working- class,225

Aristotle,14, 15, 184,259 army.See military assembly-linework, 42 association, right to. See right to

association Association of Parents of Schoolchildren, 88-9 n33, 158

associations of employers. See employers' associations

authority. hierarchical relations of, 39 automation, 30, 63

'bad subjects', xvii, "197, 269 . Balibar, Etienne: Readil1g Capital. 26 banning of books, films, etc. See

censorship . H banning of organizatIons, 98, 1 ,

117, "125, "128,222-3 barricades, "lOO,H 9 . See base and superstructuI.e of SOClety.

metaphor of the edlftce 256-7 . I L' • 180 "l8?'Beauufu ies , , -, 259 261

belief, 181, "185, 187, 256, , birth control, 200 Blum, Leon, 9~, 11g~_9 110 nl L See Bolshevlks, 10::>, '.

. RevolutlOn also RUSSian -100 1"19.222

BonapartlsJ1l, 99. ' S lpervlsors 9bosses. ee si, . 119 "l43, 24

B b n l ~estOratlon, ,

our 0 . S . dictatorshlP- ee .'

bourgeOIS , f the bourgeoIsle dictators.hip 0 18, "133, 178,

bourgeois Ideology, . 252 262; 09 222-31 paSSIm, ,

"188,2 , SAs, 91; of schools, in remnant, I d ocratiC parnes, 146' in sOClal- emf k 42 43.'. f 44- 0 wor«. '96' urury 0 , , Se~ also legal ideology . S Great BntaWBritam. ee

) XXViii,30 nH.

Capital (Marx, x,