rancière on ideology
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
1/14
On
Ihelheo. y
of ideology
Ithe
politics
of A.lthussel )
Jacques Ranciere
Certa in ly
it i s an in teres t ing
event
we
are
dealing
with:
the Dutrescence
of
the absolute
sp i r i t
(Marx:
German
Ideology
Par t
1)
A l l th e my s te r ies which
lead
theory i n to myst ici sm
f in d
t h e i r r a t i o n a l so lu t ion in
human
prac t ice and
in
th e
understanding
o f
t h a t p r a c t i ce . For a
long
t ime th e main mystery as f a r as we were concerned was
t h i s
sentence i t s e l f . e gave
it a
not unmyst ica l
so lu t ion : l i k t the young
th eo lo g ian s
o f Tfibingen
seminary,
scouring
th e
undergrowth
to discover
new
f a c u l t i e s ,
we would
mul t ip ly p r a c t i c e s , each
endowed with s p e c i f i c l aws. In
th e
fore f ront o f
c ou rse lay
t h e o r ~ t i c a l
prac t ice ,
co n ta in in g th e
p r in c ip l e s
o f
its own
v e r i f i c a t i o n .
This was how
we
in te rpre ted
t he question
-
th e
more
so
as its own
opponents could
only counter it w i th a prac t ice
reduced
to
its own
in v o ca t io n
in
th e
name
o f
p r a x i s .
In May 1968
th in g s
were
thrown
b r u t a l l y i n to
r e l i e f .
When the c la ss s t ruggle broke out
openl y in
th e u n iv e r s i t i e s , th e
s t a tu s
o f th e
Theore t i ca l came
to be challenged, no longer by th e en d less v e rb iag e
o f praxi s
and
th e co n cre te , b u t by the r e a l i t y o f
a
mass i deologica l r evol t .
From
t h i s on, no Marxi s t
d isco u r se
could continue to
g e t
by on the mere
a f f i rma t ion
of
its
own
r igour . The c la ss
s t r u g g l e ,
which p u t th e
bourgeois
system o f knowledge a t
i s sue , posed a l l o f us
th e
q u es t io n o f our ul t ima te
p o l i t i c a l
s igni f i cance , o f
our revolu t ionary or
co u n te r - r ev o lu t io n ary
charac te r .
In
t h i s
conjuncture, the
p o l i t i c a l
s igni f i cance
o f
Althusser ian ism was
shown to be q u i t e
d i f f e r en t
from what we had thought.
Not
on ly d id th e
Al th u sse r ian
t h e o r e t i c a l
p resu p p o s i t io n s p r ev en t us
from understanding
th e
p o l i t i c a l meaning
o f th e
s tu d en t
r e v o l t .
But
fur the r ,
with in
a
year we saw
Althusser ian ism serv ing the hacks of
r ev is io n ism
in
a t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n
fo r th e a n t i - l e f t i s t
of fens ive
and the
defence
o f academic knowledge.
What we
had p rev io u s ly
chosen to
ignore thus became
c lea r : the l i nk between th e A l th u sse r ian
i n t e rp re t a
t i o n o f Marx and r e v i s i o n i s t
p o l i t i c s was
not s imply
a
dubious co ex is ten ce , b u t an
e f f e c t i v ~
p o l i t i c a l
and t h e o r e t i c a l s o l i d a r i t y .
The fo l lowing remarks
seek to
indica te the poin t
in
th e A l th u sse r ian
reading where t h i s
in te rd ep en d
ence i s
es tab l i shed;
namely, the theo ry of ideology.
The analysis of
ideology
The
s p e c i f i c i t y of th e A l th u sse r ian th eo ry o f
ideology can be summarised
in two bas ic
theses :
1
In a l l
s o c i e t i e s - whether
d iv id ed
in to c la sses
or
not
- ideology
has
a
c o ~ ~ o n
pr inc ipa l
function:
to
ensure
th e
cohes ion
o f th e s o c i a l whole by
regula t ing the
r e l a t i o n of i nd iv idua l s
to t h e i r
t a sks .
This a r t i c l e was o r ig in a l l y published in Spanish
in Saul
Karzs
et a l : Lectura
de
Althusser (Buenos
Aires 1970) .
The
af te rwo rd (p r in ted
on
plO
below)
and a d d i t i o n a l
f o o t ~ o t e s
were added fo r th e
French
edi t ion , published by
L Homme
e t la Societe
in
1973. A very s l i g h t l y
d i f f e r e n t v er s io n o f
t he
present t r a n s l a t i o n , by Mart in Jord in , was
published by Partisan in 1973.
2
2 Ideology
i s th e
opposite of
sc ien ce .
The c r i t i c a l
fu n c t io n o f
t h e s i s
1 i s
c lea r : it
i s
di rec ted aga ins t
id eo lo g ies
of d e - a l i e n a t i o n
according to
which th e
end
of th e
cap i t a l i s t a l i e n a
t ion would
be th e end o f
th e
mys t i f i ca t ion o f con
sc io u sn ess , th e advent
o f
a world where
th e
r e l a t i o n s
o f
man to
n a tu re
and
o f
man to man would
be
per fec t ly
t r ansparent
-
in
a
c e r t a in sense, the Pauline
t r a n s i t i o n
from
th e
i n d i s t i n c t
p ercep t io n
in
th e
mir ro r
to d i r ec t percept ion . Against
th ese
i deo
lo g ies o f t r an sp aren cy , A l th u sse r
s e t s
the
necessary
opacity of
every soc ia l s t ruc ture
to
its
ag en ts .
Ideology i s
present in every
s o c i a l t o t a l i t y
by
v i r t u e o f . t h e d e te rmin a t io n of t h i s
t o t a l i t y by
its
s t r u c t u r e . To
t h i s t he re corresponds a
q en era l
function: supplying th e system of representa t ions
which al low
th e
agents
o f th e s o c i a l t o t a l i t y to
accompl ish th e t . a sk s determined by t h i s s t r u c tu r e .
In a socie ty
without
classes ,
jus t s
in
class
socie ty ,
ideology
has
the function o f
securing the
bond between men in the
ensemble
o f
the
forms o f
their
existence,
the
re la t ion
of individuals to
their
tasks f ixed by the
social
structure.
So th e
concept
o f
ideology
can be def ined
in its
g e n e r a l i t y , before t he concept
o f
c l a s s s t ruggle
in te rvenes .
To some exten t , th e
c l a s s s t ruggle w i l l
subsequent ly overdetermine,2 the p r in c ip a l
function of ideology.
e w ~ u l
l ike to
examine how
t h i s
t h e s i s i s
es tab l i shed and how
it
i s a r t icu la ted w i th th e
second
in
a
p a r t i c u l a r l y e x p l i c i t t e x t :
Ideology, in c lass socie t ies i s
a
representation
o f
the real but necessarily
false one
becaase
it i s necessari ly aligned and tendentious -
and
it i s
tendentious
because
i t s
goal i s
not
to
give
men object ive knowledge
o f the social system
in
which
they
l ive
but
on
the contrary
to
give
them a myst i f i ed
representation of
th is socia1
system in order
to
keep them in
their
place in
the
system
o f
class explo i ta tion .
Of
course,
it
i s also
necessary
to pose the problem o f
ideology s function in society without
classes
-
and
t h i s
would then be
resolved
by
showing
that
the deformation of
ideology
i s
socia l ly
necessary
as
a
function o f
the very
nature of the soc ial
whole: more
s pec i f i ca l l y
as
a
function
o f
i t s determination
by
i t s
structure which renders th is soc ial whole
opaque to
the individuals
who
occupy
a
place
in
it determined by th is structure. The represent-
ation of the world indispensible to soc ial
cohesion i s necessarily
mythical,
owing
to
the
opacity o f the
soc ial structure.
In
c lass
socie t ies
th is
principal
funct ion
of ideology
s t i l l
exis t s but
i s
dominated by
the
additional
social function imposed on
it
by the
existence
of
class divisions.
This additional function
thus
by
far
outweighs
the
f i r s t .
I f we
want
to
be
exhaustive,
i we want to
take these
two
principles o f
necessary deformation in to account,
we
must say that in class society
ideology
i s
necessari ly dis tor t ing and
myst i f y ing ,
both
because
it
i s
made
dis tor t ing by the
opacity
o f
SOCiety s
determination
by
the
structure, and
because
it
i s
made
dis tor t ing
by
the existence
of
class d iv i s ions .
3
Our irst problem
i s th e
n a tu re
o f th e
concepts
put forward to
d ef in e
th e g en era l f u n c t io n
o f
ideology:
th e
notion of s o c i a l cohesion
echoes
th e formula
used
above
- the bond
between men
in the ensemble
o f th e
forms of t h e i r e x i s t e n c e .
Is
t h i s
bond or co h es io n of
th e
s o c i a l
whole
r e a l l y the province
o f Marxis t
ana lys i s ? How
a f t e r
having proclaimed
t h a t the
whole
h i s to r y
o f
mankind i s t h a t
o f
th e c las s s t ruggle ,
can
it
d ef in e
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
2/14
funct ions
l ike
:
securing
soc ia l cohesion in
general?
I s n t
it prec ise ly
because Marxist theory has nothing
to
say on t h i s subjec t ,
t h a t
we have sh i f ted our
ground and
moved
onto t h a t of a Comtean or Durkheim
ian type
sociology,
which ac tua l ly does concern it -
se l f with the
systems o f
r epresen ta t ion t h a t secu re
or break
up the cohes ion of the soc ia l group? I s n t
it t h i s phantasm of
the socia l group
which i s
out
l ined here
in
Althusse r s ana lys i s ? e can see an
index o f t h i s
displacement in the s ta tus
Althusser
here accords r e l ig ion :
In
pr imi t ive soc ie t i e s
where
c lasses
do no t
e x i s t , one
can already
v e r i f y
the
ex i s tence o f
t h i s bond,
and
it
is not
acc iden ta l if it has
been poss ib l e to see t he re a l i t y
o f
t h i s bond
in the
f i r s t
general form o f i deo logy , re l ig ion
( I t
i s
one o f
t he poss ib le
etymologies
o f t he
word re l ig ion ) . 4
By inver t ing the analysiS we can pose t h i s quest ion:
when ideology
i s
conceived in gene ra l , before con
ceiving the class s t ruggle ,
it
i s not necessa r i ly
conceived
on the model
o f
t he t r ad i t iona l
ana lys is
of re la t ion tha t
o f a
sociology which has
inhe r i ted
the metaphysical discourse on society?4
a
The
superimposi t ion of
two funct ions
of ideology
(main
tenance
of
soc ia l cohes ion in
general;
and exe rc ise
of
class
domination) could thus mean the coex i s t ence
o f
two
heterogeneous
conceptual
systems:
tha t of
h i s to r i c a l material ism and tha t of a bourgeois soc io
logy
o f the Durkheimian type. The
par t i cu lar
t r ick
of Althusser i s
to t ransform
t h i s coex i s t ence
in to
an a r t i cu l a t i o n , which impl ies a double subversion:
1 Ideology i s f i r s t defined not on the t e r r a in o f
Marxism
but on
t h a t
of a genera l
sociology
( theory of the soc ia l whole
in
general) . Marxist
theory i s then
superimposed on t h i s soc io log i ca l
theory
o f
ideology
as a theory
of
an
over -de te r
minat ion
proper to
class socie t i es . The concepts
def in ing the
funct ion of ideology in
a
class
soc ie ty
wil l
the re fore depend on concepts from
t h i s general
sociology.
2
But the leve l of
t h i s
genera l sociology i s i t s e l f
cla imed
to
be
a
level of the
Marxist theory
o f
ideology, desp i te the fac t t h a t Marxism has
nothing
to
say about it.
This reverses the
process : the analYSis o f the
a l l eged
genera l
funct ion of ideology
wil l
be
made
on t he bas is
of
the
concepts
and
analyses by which Marxist
theory has
thought
the funct ion of ideology
in
c la ss socie t i es .
Marxist
concepts def in ing
class
socie t i es wi l l be used to define socie ty in
general .
The
mechanics
o f
t h i s
subversion
a re
c l ea r l y
r evea l ed when
Althusser
descr ibes the double d e t e r
minat ion
of
ideology in class socie t i es :
In a c lass
soc ie ty , ideology is
necessar i ly
d i s tor t ing and
mys t i f y ing ,
both
because it is
made d i s tor t ing by t he opac i t y o f
s o c i e t y s
de te r mina t ion
by
the s t r u c t u r e ,
and
because
it is made d i s tor t ing by the
ex i s tence o f
c las s
d iv i s ions .
(p .3 l )
The analysiS of
fe t ishism
demonst rates t h i s
poin t very clear ly .
I t
is
not enough in f ac t
to say
tha t
fe t i sh i sm i s the
manifesta t ion-dissimulation
of
the re la t ions of product ion
(as I did in
Li re l e
Capi ta l ) . What fe t i sh i sm
conceals in
a spec i f ic
manner i s the an tagon is t i c
character
of the
re la t ions
of product ion: the opposi t ion Capi t a l /Labour
disappears in the jux tapos i t ion of
t he
sources of
revenue. The
s t ruc ture
is not simply
concealed
beca
use,
l ike
Herac
li an na ture , it l ike s
to
hide.
I t disguises i t s con t rad i c tory nature ,
and t h i s
cont rad ic t ion
i s
a
class
cont rad ic t ion .
So
the
manife s ta t ion /d iss imula t ion
of the s t ruc ture does
not
imply
an
opaci ty
of
the
socia l s t ruc ture
in
genera l :
it i s the e f f e c t iv i t y o f the
re la t ions
of product ion; t h a t i s , of the
class
opposi t ion
l aboure r s /non- laboure r s which cha rac te r i se
a l l
socie t i es .
Extended beyond
class socie t ies,
t h i s
ef fec t iv i ty of the s t ruc ture becomes a
comnletely
undetermined
concept
or a l t e rn a t i v e l y ,
it
is
determined by standing
in
for
a
t r ad i t i o n a l
f igure
of metaphysics: the ev i l genius or the
cunning
of
reason.
deology and struggl
The dis t inc t ion made between two l eve ls of
ideological disguise
i s
thus h ighly problemat ic.
It clear ly funct ions
by analogy
with the Marxist
ana lys is
of
the two-fold nature of every product ion
process
(the
labour-process in
general ,
and the
socia l ly determined process of
produc t ion) . But
the
analogy
i s
clear ly i l l eg i t imate .
By
t r ansfe r r ing
the
law of the
l a s t
i ns t ance
to
the
supe r s t ruc tures ,
by making the
effec t s
reproduce the law of the cause ,
it
pos i t s the soc ia l
whole
as
a t o t a l i t y of
l eve ls
each of which expresses the same law. I t i s easy
to see t he absurd i ty t h a t would r e su l t from apnly
ing the
same
pr inc ip le to
the
ana lys is of the
p o l i t i c a l
superstructure . The s o c i a l t o t a l i t v in
gene ra l
could be
said
to
require
t he ex i s t ence of
a p o l i t i c a l
superstructure
and t he genera l func t ions
of
a s t a t e be
def ined before
the
class s t ruggle .
This comparison of
ours is
more
than
a mere
joke:
ideology
for Althusser i s
qui te capable
of
~ s s s s -
ing the
same
s ta tus
as
tha t
conferred on the
Sta te
by
c l a s s i c a l
metaphysical thought .
And his ana lys is
i s
capable
of
re ins ta t ing
the myth o f an ideo log ica l
s t a t e
o f
na ture a myth whose
theore t i ca l
and
p o l i t i c a l meaning
we must now make clear .
Fi r s t l y , it
marks the
i r revocable consequence
of
d is t inguish ing two l eve ls . Ideology is not seen from
the
s t a r t
as the s i t e of a s t ruggle . I t i s not
re la ted to
two
antagonists but to
a
t o t a l i t y
o f
which
it forms a na tura l element:
I t
is as if human soc ie t i e s could
not
surv ive
wi thou t t he se spe c i f i c for mat ions , t he se sys tems
o f repre sen ta t i ons at
various l e v e l s ) ,
t he i r
ideo log ies . Human soc ie t i e s secre te
ideology
as
t he ve ry
e lement and
atmosphere
ind i spens ib le
to t he i r h i s tor i c a l
resp i ra t ion
and
life
To put the myths of or ig ins (or ends) in the
re
s t r i c t i v e form
of
as
if
i s
a s t andard
ac t
o f
p h i lo
sophica l modesty, per fec ted in ,Kant ;
and
t h i s i s not
the only time
we
s h a l l come across A l th u s s e r s Kant
ianism.
In the t r ad i t i o n a l
a s
if , ideas of o r ig in
What i s
t h i s s t ruc ture ,
the l eve l
o f which iShe re l p ro tec t t h e i r p o l i t i c a l funct ion of
conceal ing
d iv i
dis t inguished from t h a t of the class div is ions?
In
s ion .
Ideology wil l thus not be es tab l i shed as the
Marxist terms,
the determinat ion o f a
socia l
t o t a l i t y s i t e
of
a
div i s ion ,
but
as
a t o t a l i t y
uni f ied
by
i t s
by i t s
s t ruc ture
means
i t s
determinat ion by the r e l a t i o n to i t s
referen t (the
soc ia l whole) .
At
the
re la t ions o f pr oduc t ion cha rac te r i s ing a dominant
same t ime,
t he ana lys is of the second l eve l
wil l
not
mode of product ion. But by
re la t ions
of product ion be
t h a t
of
the ideo log ica l
forms
of the
c la ss
a re meant the
socia l
forms of appropr i a t ion of
the
s t ruggle , but
t h a t
of the overdeterminat ion of
means of produc t ion ,
which
a re
class forms
of Ideology
( in
t he s ingula r ) by the
class
div is ions .
appropr i a t ion . Cap i t a l i s t
re la t ions o f
product ion
One w i l l speak
o f the
ideology
of a
class
soc ie ty ,
e x h ib i t
the class
opposi t ion
tetween
those who not of
class ideologies.
Only a t
the
end o f
the
possess the means of product ion and those
who
se l l ana lys is i s the div is ion of ideology i n to
t endenc ies ,7
t h e i r
labour
power.
The dis t inc t ion
of
the two admit ted .
But a t t h i s
s tage
of
the ana lys is , i n t ro -
l eve ls
di s regards the
fac t tha t the
level
of
the
ducing the d iv is ion i s no longer any use: ideology,
s t r u c tu r e i s
s t r i c t l y
the l eve l o f a class not having been i n i t i a l ly pos i t ed as the
f i e ld
of
re la t ion .
5
a
s t ruggle , wil l in the
meantime
have surrep t i t ious ly
3
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
3/14
become
one o f
the
part icipants in
the
struggle. The
c l a s s s t ruggle
in
ideology,
forgot t en
a t th e s t a r t ,
r eap p ear s
in a chimerical , f e t i s h i s e d form
as
a
c l a s s
s t ruggle between
ideology (weapon o f
th e
r u l i n q c l a s s l
and
sc ien ce
(weapon
of
t he ru led c la ss ) .
Before commenting on them in d e t a i l , l e t us
ind ica te
th e
s t ages in t h i s
lo g ic
of forge t fu lnes s :
1 Ideology
i s
a
system of representa t ions
co n t ro l l
i ng , in a l l
s o c i e t i e s ,
the
r e l a t i o n
of ind iv idua l s
to t he t a sks f ixed by th e s t r u c tu r e of the s o c i a l
whole.
l a This system of
representa t ions i s th u s n o t
a
system o f knowledge. On t he cont ra ry ,
it
i s t he
system o f i l l u s i o n s necessary to
th e
h i s t o r i ca l
subjec ts .
2 In a c l a s s
soc ie ty ,
ideology acqui res a
su p p le
mentary fu n c t io n o f keep ing i nd iv idua l s in th e
place determined by
the
c la ss dominat ion.
3
The p r in c ip l e
which
undermines t h i s dominat ion
hence belongs to i deology s oppos i t e , i . e .
sc ience .
The
s tratagem
involved in t h i s
proof
i s t h a t
which
a r t i cu l a t e s
the function o f
ideology with t he
dominat ion o f a c l a s s .
Ideology, in class socie t ies , i s a representation
o f the real , but necessarily
false
one because
t
i s
necessari ly
aligned
and
tendentious -
and
t
i s tendentious
because i t s goal i s not to give
men
object ive knowledge
o f the
social
system
in
which
they
l ive , but on the contrary, to give
them a myst i f i ed
representation o f
th is
soc ial
system in
o rd er
to keep
them
in their place
in
the system o f
c lass explo i ta t ion .
8
By
a r t i cu l a t i n g two
t heses ( ideology as
th e
oppo
s i t e o f knowledge; ideology
in
t he s e rv ice of a
c la ss )
which
were previous ly only juxtaposed,
Althusser exposes the mechanism which ,
a t
a deeper
l eve l ,
t i e s
them
t oge the r : ideology
i s a f a l se
r e
p r e s e n t a t i o n because
it
does not g ive knowledge.
And
it does not give knowledge because
it
i s in t he
se rv ice of the ru l ing c la ss .
But what
ideoloqy
i s
involved here? Would
the ideology of
the dominated
c l a s s
have
t he
fu n c t io n
o f keeping
th e
explo i t ed
i n
th e i r place
in
t he
system of
c l a s s explo i t a t ion?
What
i s def ined here
as a
function of
Ideology,
i s the
fu n c t io n
of the dominant ideology. To conceive of a
genera l
function of
ideology, Althusser has t o p r e
sent the dominat ion of
an
ideology as the dominat ion
o f
ideology. The
t r i ck has been played: the genera l
func t ion
o f
ideology w i l l
be sa id
to
be
exerc i s ed to
the p r o f i t of
a
c l a s s
dominat ion,
and t he fu n c t io n
of undermining t h i s domination
w i l l be
co n fe r r ed
on
t h e
Other o f
Ideology,
tha t
i s ,
on
Science.
The
i n i t i a l suppression of the c la ss s t ruggle leads to
a p a r t i cu l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g game o f t h e o r e t i c a l
h i d e
and-seek. The Ideology/Sc ience couple proceeds
to re in t roduce
th e
c l a s s
s t ruggle .
But t he l a t t e r
a lso comes to
th e as s i s t ance
of the Sc ience /
Ideology opposit ion
- ideology
had a t
f i r s t
on ly
been pos i t ed as
other than
science; by being a r t i
cula ted
with
c la ss
dominat ion,
with th e
r ad ica l
oppos i t ion r u l i n g c l a s s / r u l e d c l a s s , t h i s other
than
science
has
become
t he Other of Science.
D if f e r en ce has
become cont rad ic t ion .
What
has
taken place but the very process by
which
metaphys ics was
es tab l i shed and which
it has
c o n s i s t e n t l y
r ep ea ted throughout
its his tory : t he
p ro cess which
answers
th e
old problem of the
Sophist
- how, in
t he
f igure
o f the Other , to
conceive
d i f f e r e n c e as
cont rad ic t ion?9 That
h ere
Marxism
se rves to accomplish t h i s
n ecessa ry
ye t impossib le
t a sk
o f
philosophy,
i s something we wil l
have
to
come
back to .
t i s
enough for the
moment
to p o i n t
out
th e
s igni f i cance of the disp lacement
which
has
taken
p lace
in
the concept ion o f ideology. Ideology
i s f i r s t l y an i ns t ance of the s o c i a l whole. As
such, it i s art iculated with othe r ins t ances ,
n o t
confronted with any o p p o s i te .
t
i s
wi th in
i t s e l f
t h a t
t he
o p p o s i t io n s
t h a t
concern
it
a re
determined:
4
above
a l l tha t
which
opposes t he ideology of one
c la ss t o the ideology of
an o th er .
Given t h i s , how
can th e Ideology/Sc ience
couple become
t he p e r t i
n en t o p p o s i t io n w i th which to grasp
ideology?
By
a
process
which
detaches ideology
from
the system o f
ins tances , an d -e r ases th e
main div is ion of the
ideologica l
f i e ld to c rea te a
space
in Marxis t
theory
which
it
then
shares
out between sc ien ce and ideology.
The
functioning
of the Sc ience / Ideology oppos i t ion
depends on t he re -es t ab l i shment o f a space homo
logous to t h a t
which the
whole metaphysical t r ad i t i o n
assumes by
opposing
Science
to
i t s Othe r ;
thus
supposing
th e
c losure of a
u n iv er se
o f di scourse ,
div ided
in to
th e
rea lms o f
th e
t rue
and
t he f a l se ,
in to
th e world o f Science and
t h a t
o f
its
Other
(opinion, e r r o r , i l l u s i o n , e t c . ) . I f one f a i l s to
grasp t h a t ideology i s fundamenta l ly the s i t e o f a
s t ruggle , o f
a c la ss s t ruggle , it i m m e d i ~ e l y s l i p s
in to t h i s
p lace
determined by the h i s to r y of meta
physics : the p lace
o f
th e Other of Science.
eachers
nd
students
We
have so fa r
shown on ly
the
genera l form
o f
t h i s
disp lacement.
We w i l l
now spec i fy
its func t ion ing ,
by showing how t h i s
Scien ce / Id eo lo g y
couple works
in a
pol i t ica l ana lys i s .
To
do
t h i s we
w i l l
use two
o f
Althusse r s
tex ts : th e a r t i c l e Problemes
Etudian t s , lO ,
and
the
t ex t Marxism and
Humanism,ll .
Both
in f ac t
a re
devoted to
deducing t he p o l i t i c a l
consequences o f t he theory
o f
ideology.
The
a r t i c l e Problemes Etudian t s was an i n t e r
v en t io n
in
the
co n f l i c t t h a t
had
a r i sen
between the
French Communist
Par t y s
PCF) t heses on the u n i
v e r s i t y , and the t heses then dominant in the National
Union o f
French s tudent s (UNEF).
The
l a t t e r aimed
a t opposing t he s imply
q u an t i t a t i v e
demands of the
PCF ( increase in
th e
number
o f univers i t i es , of
s t a f f
e t c . )
with
a q u a l i t a t i v e
q u es t io n in q o f
the
teaching s i t u a t i o n , conceived, through
th e
concept
of
a l i e n a t i o n ,
as analogous
to a c la ss re la t ion .
Althusse r s
i n t e r v e n t i o n
was
meant
to
draw th e
r ea l
l i n e s
of demarcat ion
which should serve as the bas i s
for
th e
p o l i t i c a l and t r ade union ac t ion of
th e
s tudent movement. So
what i s
involved
i s not
s o
much an
a r t i c l e
r i s i n g out
o f
t he
immediate
s t ruggle ,
as th e
s t r i c t
consequences
of the Al thus se r i an
theory
o f ideology -
consequences
t h a t
have s in ce
provided t he
framework,
whether admitted
or
not , of
th e
r ev i s i o n i s t
ana lys i s
o f
th e
unive r s i ty .
The
pr inc ip le of
the a r t i c l e
i s
to s h i f t th e l i n e
of c l a s s
d iv is ion
from t he t eacher / s tudent
r e l a t i o n
(where
it
had been drawn by th e UN F t h e o r i s t s ) to
th e
conten t of
th e
knowledge t aught . The div id ing
l i n e does
not
cut ac ros s
the
t ransmiss ion of know
ledge between t each er and
s tudent ; it l i e s in the
very conten t o f knowledge, between sc ien ce and i d e o
logy. Althusse r s argument
involves
a
Nhole
system
of impl i ca t ions which we t h ink
it
u s e f u l to s t a t e
ex p l i c i t l y
a t t h i s
poin t .
Alth u sse r
bases
h imse l f
on
th e
d i s t i n c t i o n between
t he t echnica l and s o c i a l div i s ion of
labour :
What
are
the
Marxist
t h e o r ~ t i c l
pr incip les
which
should
and
can intervene in the
sc i en t i f i c
analysis o f the
Univers i ty?
. . . Above
al l
the
Marxist concepts o f the
technical
divi s ion and
the
soc ial divi s ion o f labour.
Marx h s
applied
these principles in the analysis o f capi ta l i s t
society . They are val id for
the analysis o f
every human
society
(in the sense o f social
formation
based
on determinate mode o f
produc-
t ion . These
principles
are for t ior i
val id
for
part icular social
real i ty l ike
the univers i ty ,
which, f o r various
essential
reasons, belongs to
every
modern
socie ty ,
whether capi ta l i s t ,
socia l i s t o r
communist.
2
A f i r s t reading revea l s th e
same
mechanism
t h a t
was a t
work in
th e ana lys i s of ideology: su ppression
of the
c l a s s
s t ruggle , and i t s replacement by
th e
gene ra l i ty
o f
a
function necessary
to
t he
s o c i a l
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
4/14
whole. But
t he concepts
here requi re
p a r t i cu l a r
a t t en t ion .
Alth u sse r
says he i s under tak ing
toapply
t he Marxis t concepts
o f
t echnica l and s o c i a l
d iv i s i o n of
labour . But t hese concepts a re
in
no
way
g iven as
such in
Marx 's
ana lys is . This ana lys is
demonstrates the two-fo ld
na ture
o f
every
p ro d u c t io n
proces s , depending on whether one
co n s id er s it as
the labour process in genera l ,
o r
as
a
s o c i a l l y
d ef in ed p ro cess
of
p ro d u c t io n ,
reproducing t he
r e l a t i o n s
o f production which determine it. While
a dis t inc t ion
between ' t e c h n i c a l d iv i s i o n ' and
' s o c i a l
div is ion '
o f
labour
can
be deduced from
t h i s
ana lys i s , it i s not
a r ea l d i s t i n c ti o n
b u t
a
mere
formal dis t inct ion corresponding to two ways
o f
conceptual is ing
the same proces s . Technical
d i v ~ s i o n and s o c i a l
d i v i s i o n
a re two aspects of
a
single division.
The funct ions
which
ensure
th e
t echnica l reproduction o f
the
process
a re the same
as
those which determine
its
s o c i a l reproduc t ion .
ow
Alth u sse r employs the
d i s t i n c t i o n
as
a r ea l
d i s t inc t ion
of places and fu n c t io n s which
correspond
r e spec t ive ly
to one o r othe r of the d iv i s i o n s . Thus
' t h e
t echnica l
d iv i s i o n
o f
l abor corresponds to a l l
t he
posts
o f
labour ,
whose exi s t ence
i s exc lus ive ly
accounted
for
by
t he
technica l
n e c e s s i t i e s def in ing
a
mode
of
production
a t a
given
moment of its deve l
opment
in a
given s o c i e t y ' , while
th e
soc ia l d iv is ion
'has the function of ensur ing
t h a t
t he labour process
of t h i s
soc ie ty continues
i n the same
forms o f th e
c l a s s div is ions and
of
t he dominat ion of
one c l a s s
over t he o t h e r s ' .
(p .84) .
echnical nd social divisionof labour
Formulated in t h i s way t he
dis t inc t ion
i s enig
mat ic :
how i s one t o de f ine exc lus ive ly t echnica l
n e c e s s i t i e s
in a mode of
p ro d u c t io n , which
would
be
independent of its complete s o c i a l charac te r ; i nde
pendent,
t h a t i s , of
the r ep ro d u c t io n of the
soc ia l
r e l a t i o n s
of production which
determine
t h i s ?
And
c o n v e r s ~ l y
does
not the
' t echn ica l '
fu n c t io n in g
of
the process o f production a l ready
imply th e r ep ro d
uc t ion of . the
re la t ions
o f p ro d u c t io n , and hence th e
reproduction of
t he
forms o f
the c la ss d iv is ions
and
o f c l a s s dominat ion?
To re so lve the
enigma,
we
must once more reve rse
the argument. The t echnica l d iv i s i o n of labour i s
supposed
to
throw
l igh t
on t he fu n c t io n
of
the uni
vers i ty . In fac t ,
it i s th e s t a tu s accorded
the
unive r s i ty
which will ·
enl igh ten us as to
the func
t i o n o f
th e
concept ' t e chnica l d iv is ion of labour ' .
Alth u sse r t e l l s
us t h a t the unive r s i ty ' f o r var ious
essen t ia l
reasons , belongs to every modern soc ie ty ,
whether c a p i t a l i s t , so c i a l i s t or communist '
(p83).
So
t he
t echnica l d iv is ion
of l abour , which a t f i r s t
seemed
to correspond
to
the requirements of
a d e t e r
minate mode of production
now corresponds to t he
technica l
n e c e s s i t i e s
of
a
'modern ' soc ie ty ;
i . e .
in Marxis t
terms,
of a
soc ie ty having
reached a ce r
t a i n
l eve l of
development of the
p ro d u c t iv e
forces .
The
d i s t i n c t i o n
i s
thus def ined
in
t he fol lowing way:
th e t echnica l
div is ion
of
labour corresponds to a
speCi f i c , given
l eve l of
development
of the
produc
t i v e
forces ; the
soc ia l d iv is ion to
the r ep ro d u c t io n
o f
t he
r e l a t i o n s
o f
p r o d ~ t i o n
of
a
d e te rmin a te
mode
o f production .
It all works ' a s if
a
c e r t a in
number
o f necessary
places
and
functions of
a modern
soc ie ty
in genera l
could
be
d ef in ed
exc lus ive ly in
terms of t he
l eve l
o f
development o f
the productive
forces . A
co n c lu
s ion which w i l l
n o t f a i l
to surpr i se
reader of
Al thus se r . Hasn ' t he elsewhere devoted a l l h i s
energy to f ree ing
th e
Marxis t
th eo ry
o f h i s to r y
from every ideology t h a t
views
it
in
terms of
ev o lu
t i o n and l i n e a r development?
Doesn ' t
t he
'modernity '
he
now
proposes absolu te ly
cont rad ic t
such an
attempt? To
expla in
what
t h i s
cont rad ic t ion means,
we must
ask
what i s a t
s take
h ere p o l i t i c a l l y .
The
s igni f i cance of
Althusse r ' s
backs l id ing i s c l e a r :
fol lowing in h is s teps , one i s led to a t t r i b u t e to
th e
t echnica l div is ion o f labour i . e .
to
t he ob-
j ec t ive
requirements of science or
'modern ' r a t i o n -
c a p i t a l i s t mode o f
produc t ion .
13
The
concept of the t echnica l
d iv i s i o n
o f labour
appears , then ,
to
be merely th e j u s t i f i c a t i o n for
r ev i s i o n i s t
s logans based on not ions of ' t h e
r ea l
needs of t he
n a t i o n ' , ' t h e r ea l
needs
o f
th e
economy', 'modern i sa t ion ' ,
e t c . We know t h a t
t he
PCF has
r ep laced t he Marxis t d i a l ec t i c with
a
type
o f
ec lec t i c i sm
resembling Proudhon's
which d i s t i n
g u ish es th e
good
and th e bad s ide of th ings .
The
revolu t ionary
neces s i ty to
des t roy
th e
bourgeois
re la t ions of
production
in
o rd er
to
f ree
the produc t
ive forces ,
i s
reduced
for the
PeF to
th e jo b
o f
suppressing t he bad ( the
dominat ion of
the
mono
pol i e s ) to prese rve
and
advance t h e good ( the forms
of t he ' t e chnica l
d iv is ion
of l abour ' corresponding
to t he requirements o f
every
'modern '
soc ie ty) . But
s ince Marx,
we
know
t h a t
th e
' r e a l ' needs o f
soc ie ty
always serve to
mask
t he i n t e r e s t s of
a
c l a s s ;
in
t h i s case, they mask t he i n t e r e s t s of t he c l a s s
which
the
PCF
tends i nc reas ingly to reprf ' sent: t he
labour a r i s toc racy
and t he
i n t e l l ec t u a l cadres .
13a
The
funcitoning of the concept ' t e c h n i c a l
d iv i s i o n
of l abour ' succeeds in j u s t i f y in g
r ev i s i o n i s t
i deo
logy
in
its two complementary aspec t s :
a
th eo ry
o f
'ob jec t ive
needs ' and
a defence
o f th e
hie ra rchy of
skills .
The backs l id ing and
th e
cont rad ic t ions noted in
t he
passage
a re explained
as
fo l lo ws : A l th u sse r
has
s imply moved from
t he
t e r r a i n
of Marxis t theory to
th a t
of its
oppos i t e ,
th e
oppor tuni s t ideology o f
revis ionism. This disp lacement o f Marxis t ana lys is
onto t he ground of an
ec lec t i c i sm of th e
good
and
bad s ide
i s
not new
to
us: it desc r ibes th e
same
movement
a s
t h a t
which
sh i f ted t he
theory o f ideology
towards
a
second d u a l r e l a t i o n s h ip t h a t
es tab l i shed
by metaphys ics between Science and its Other . The
core of Althusser ian ism undoubtedly l i e s in t h i s
a r t i cu l a t i o n
o f
th e
spontaneous di scourse of meta
physics with
r ev i s i o n i s t
ideology an
a r t i cu l a t i o n
t h a t i s per fec t ly demonstra ted in t he development
of
Althusse r ' s
argument: t he
d i s t i n c t i o n between
t he t echnica l d iv is ion and the s o c i a l d iv i s i o n i s
expressed in Unive r s i t ie s
as
a d i s t i n c t i o n between
sc ien ce and ideology. In othe r words,
th e th eo ry
o f
ideology,
the
foundations
of
which seemed problematic ,
i s
now
grounded
on t h e th eo ry
o f
the double
j u s t i f i
c a t i o n of
labour .
But
s ince
t h i s l a s t
i s
nothing
but the s chola r ly j u s t i f i c a t i o n for rev i s ion i sm, the
theory of ideology here procla ims its p o l i t i c a l
b a s i s . Marxis t
theory
a t f i r s t acted
as
a so lu t ion
to
a
problem within metaphys ics ; t h i s
p ro b lemat ic ,
in
its
tu rn , ac ts in
th e
se rv ice of
r ev i s i o n i s t
ideology
a movement
t h a t th e ana lys i s of knowledge
w i l l make ex p l i c i t :
I t i s
in
the
knowledge
taught in the
univers i ty
that
the
permanent div id ing- l ine o f
the
technical
divi s ion and the social division o f
labour exis t s the most
rel iable
and
profound
l i ne o f c lass d iv i s ion.
(p89)
The
s trategem
i s made per fec t ly p la in
h ere : th e
SCience/ ideology dis t inc t ion
i s what
al lows
th e
t e c h n i c a l / s o c i a l d iv i s i o n
to
pass f o r
a
l ine o f
c l a s s
div i s ion ;
which means t h a t in
Althusse r ' s
di scourse , metaphys ics
ar r an g es
t he promotion of
r ev i s i o n i s t
ideology to t he rank o f Marxis t t heory .
It
i s only through t h i s
arrangement
t h a t Althusse r ' s
t h e s i s
r e t a in s its ' obviousnes s ' .
In fac t ,
it
imp l ies
a
double
dis to r t ion :
t he f i r s t , a l ready
noted ,
concerns
th e
s t a tu s of
ideology.
The
second b ear s on t he e f f ec t i v i t y of s c i ence , which
i s a l l eged
to
be automat i ca l ly
on
the s ide o f t he
revolu t ion :
I t
i s
not accidental if in every matter,
reactionary o r technocratic bourgeois
government prefers
hal f - tru ths
and if on
the
other
hand,
the revolutionary
cause i s
always indissolubly
l inked
to rigorous
knowledge,
that
i s
to
science.
4
a l i t y - t h a t which
belongs to
t he
soc ia l
forms o f t he
We in
t u r n
w i l l
su g g es t
t h a t
it i s not
accidental .
5
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
5/14
if Althusse r ' s thes i s
appears here in
its
i nve r t ed
form. It i s both necessary for Althusse r ' s a rgu
ment, and impossib le , without revea l ing what u n d er
l i e s it
to s t a t e in its d i r ec t
form t he
thes i s
according
to which
sc i e n t i f i c knowledge
i s i n t r i n
s i ca l l y subvers ive o f bourgeois dominat ion. Such
a
problematic
t h e s i s i s only comprehens ible through
a
p ro cess o f ex ten s io n which
takes Marx's
t heses
on s c i en t i f i c
so c ia l i sm
and t u rns them to its
own
advantage
out s ide t h e i r proper
f i e l d .
I t i s c lea r
tha t
t he l i b e r a t i o n of the p ro l e t a r i a t i s impossib le
without
t he
theory
o f
th e
condi t ions of
t h i s
l i b e r a t i o n ;
t h a t
i s , without the Marxis t science of
s o c i a l formation.
The bond uni t ing
t he revolu t ionary
cause
and s c i en t i f i c knowledge i s guaranteed
in
t h i s
case
by
t h e i r
common
objec t . But one has no r i g h t
to
th en
impute a revolu t ionary
charac te r
to
sc ien ce
in genera l . In
any
case,
it
i s enough to apply t h i s
t h e s i s
to t he r e a l i t y
o f
t he t each in g o f sc ien ce
in
order
to see
its
inan i ty . The bulk o f
th e co u r ses
given in medical
schools
or the b ig
Colleges o f
Science
undoubted ly have
a
p e r f e c t l y v a l i d sc i e n t i
f i c conten t . I f
t h i s
education has an
obvious
reac t ionary
func t ion ,
it i s n o t
s imply
because th e
sciences are
t au g h t
t he re in
a
p o s i t i v i s t way, but
because of the very s t ruc ture
o f
t h i s
education: the
type of i n s t i t u t i o n ; se lec t ion
mechanisms;
re la t ions
between s tudent s
and s t a f f ,
the l a t t e r being
b o th
th e p o ssesso r s
of
a
ce r ta in
knowledge and members
o f t he
soc ia l hie ra rchy
(c f .
the ro le of
consul t an t s
in medicine) .
The
dominance of the
b o u rg eo is ie
and
of its ideology
i s n o t
expressed in
th e
content
o f
the knowledge but in the s t r u c tu r e of the envi ronment
in
which
it
i s t r ansmi t t ed .
The sc i e n t i f i c na ture
o f t he knowledge
in no way
a f f e c t s th e c l a s s
conten t
of the ed u ca t io n .
Science
does not s tand confronted
by
ideology
as its othe r ; it
r e s ides within
i n s t i t u
t i o n s and in those forms o f t r an smiss io n where
t he
ideologica l dominance
of the
b o u rg eo is ie
i s
man if es ted .
'At l e a s t , ' it
w i l l
be
sa id . ' t h e
second
element
o f
the
th e s i s i s
confirmed:
ideo logy re inforces the
power
o f
th e b o u rg eo is ie w i tn ess th e r o l e played
by the human sc iences . ' But
th e
problem i s badly
posed. These d i s c ip l i n e s owe
t h e i r ro le to
th e
f ac t t h a t
they c o n s t i t u t e t he p lace in th e system o f
knowledge where
th e
conf ronta t ions of
th e
c l a s s
s t r u g g l e
a re most d i r ec t l y r e f lec ted . So
th e p ro b
lem i s not t h a t
o f
t h e i r more
o r
l e s s ' i d e o lo g i c a l '
na ture ,
but of
t he
n a tu re
of the ideology
which
i s
t r ansmi t t ed
in
them. The psychology,
socio logy,
law
or
p o l i t i c a l
economy
t au g h t
in
higher education
do
not have
a
reac t ionary
function
because
th ey , whol ly
or
i n p a r t ,
l ack sc i e n t i f i c i t y , b u t because
they
spread th e ideology o f th e bourgeoi s i e .
The
p o i n t
i s
n o t
whether
th ey belong
t o ' i d e o lo g y ' , but
whether they belong to bourgeois ideology. The t a sk
of
r evolu t iona r ie s
i s n o t
to
co n f ro n t
them with the
requirements of sc i e n t i f i c i t y , nor
to
appeal from
these pseudo-sciences to
th e
idea l s Ci en t i f i c i t y
o f
mathemat ics of phys ics . It i s to
oppose
bourgeois
i deologies with
t he pro le ta r ian
ideology
of
Marxism-
Leninism.
The
most elementary co n cre te
ana lys is of
the
u n iv e r s i t y i n s t i t u t i o n revea l s the
metap h y s ica l
na ture
of Al thus se r , s
div is ion . The
' Sc ience /
Ideology '
couple
i s
nowhere to be
found
in the
ana lys i s of the
unive r s i ty , where
we
are
concerned
with
t he ideology
o f
the
r u l i n g
c l a s s ,
not with
' ideo logy ' .
And
t he ideology of the
ru l ing
c la ss
i s
n o t
s imply l e t us even say ,
n o t
essen t ia l ly
expressed
in
such and such
a
conten t of
knowledge,
uut
in the
very
div is ion
o f knowledge,
the
forms
in
which it i s appropr i a t ed ,
th e
i n s t i t u t i o n o f
th e
unive r s i ty as such. The exi s t ence of bourgeois
ideology i s not in the discourse of some ideologue,
o r in t he
system
of the s tudent s ' spontaneous not ions ,
but in the div is ion
between
d i s c i p l i n e s , t he examin-
a t i o n system, th e organi sa t ion o f departments
ev ery th in g which embodies
t he
bourgeois hie ra rchy
of
.knowedge. Ideology i s not in
f ac t a
col lec t ion o f
di scourses or
a
system
o f
i deas .
It
i s
not
what
6
Al thusse r , in
a
s ig n i f i c a n t
ex p ress io n ,
ca l l s
an
' a tmosphere ' . The dominant
ideology i s
a
power
organised in
a number
of i n s t i t u t i o n s ( the
system
of
knowledge,
t he media system e t c ) .
Because
Althusser
.
t h inks
in
t he
c l a s s i ca l
terms of metaphysics , those
of a
th eo ry
of
th e imaginary (conceived as
a system
of n o t io n s separa t ing the subject
from
th e
truth ,
he
complete ly
misses t h i s
poin t . The
r e s u l t i s
a
complete
d i s t o r t i o n
of ideologica l
s t ruggle ,
which
comes to have
th e fu n c t io n
of put t ing
sc ien ce
where
ideology
was b efo re .
This means
opposing
bourgeois
academic
discourse with
a
Marxis t
academic
discourse;
which
in t u rn means opposing t he
' spontaneous '
and
' pe t ty-bourgeoi s ' ideology of the s tudent s with the
s c i en t i f i c r igour of Marxism, i nca rna ted in
th e
wis
dom
of the Cent ra l
Committee.
The
s t ruggle
o f sc ien ce
aga ins t ideology i s ,
in fac t , a
s t ruggle in the
se rv ice of bourgeois ideology,
a
s t ruggle ~ h i h
re inforces
two c ruc ia l bas t ions :
th e system
o f know-
ledge and rev i s ion i s t
ideology.
There
i s no ideology in
th e
Univers i ty which
could Be
th e
Other of science. Nor i s t he re
a
sciencR
which
could
be the
Other
of ideology. The Univers i tv
does not teach
' s c ience ' in
th e my th ica l p u r i t y o f
its essence, but
a se lec t ion
o f
s c i en t i f i c
knowledges
a r t i c u l a t e d i n to objects o f knowledge
The t r an s
mission o f s c i en t i f i c knowledges does not
proceed
from t he concept
o f
science.
It forms
p a r t of the
forms
o f
appropriation o f s c i en t i f i c knowledge and
th ese a re class forms of appropr i a t ion .
Sc i en t i f i c
t heor i e s are t r ansmi t t ed th rough
a
system o f d i s
course, t r a d i t i o n s and i n s t i t u t i o n s which c o n s t i t u t e
th e
very exis tence of bourgeois
ideology.
In othe r
words, t he r e l a t i o n
o f sc ien ce
to ideology
i s
not one
o f
rupture
but
o f a r t i cu l a t i o n . The dominant
i deo
logy i s
n o t
the
shadowy
Other o f
th e
pure l i g h t o f
Science, it i s
th e
very space in which s c i en t i f i c
knowledges
a re insc r ibed ,
and
in
wh±9h they are
a r t i c u l a t e d
as
elements of
a
soc ia l format ion ' s
knowledge. It i s
in
t he forms of the dominant i deo
logy t h a t
a
s c i en t i f i c
theory
becomes an objec t
o f
knowledge .14a
The concept
of knowledge,
in
fac t , i s not
t h a t of
a conten t
which can be
e i t h e r
science or ideology.
Knowledge
i s
a system
in which the ' con ten ts ' cannot
be
conceived outs ide t h e i r
forms
of
appropr i a t ion
(acqUis i t ion, t ransmiss ion,
cont ro l ,
u t i l i s a t i o n ) .
The
system i s
t h a t
o f t he ideologica l dominance of
a
c l a s s . It
i s
not
' s c ience ' o r ' ideo logy ' .
In it
are ar t i cu la ted
the
c l a s s appropr i a t ion of
sc ien ce
and the ideology o f th e ru l ing c l a s s . There i s
no
more
a
c l a s s
d i v i s i o n
in knowledge than t he re i s in
t he
s t a t e .
Knowledge has no i n s t i t u t i o n a l exi s t ence
othe r than as an ins trument of c la ss
ru le .
It i s
not charac te r i s ed by an in ' . :e r ior
div is ion
reproduc
ing t h a t
which e x i s t s between th e
c la sses
on the
cont ra ry , its
ch a rac t e r i s t i c s
a re determined
by
the
dominance
o f a class . So
th e system o f knowledge i s ,
l i k e s t a t e
power,
the
s tak e
in
a
c la ss s t ruggle ,
and ,
l ike s t a t e
power, must be destroyed.
The
Univers i ty
i s not t he s i t e of
a
c la ss d iv is ion , but
th e
objec t
ive of
a
pro le ta r ian
s t ruggle . To
t ransform t h i s
objec t ive
i n to
t he
neut ra l
s i t e of
a div is ion ,
i s
qui te
s imply
to conceal the
c la ss s t ruggle .
Having
f ina l ly managed to
grasp
tha t
t he re i s not
a
bourgeois
science and
a
pro le ta r ian science,
it
i s thought
poss ib le t o i n f e r t h a t
science
i s i n t r i n s i ca l l y pro
l e t a r i an ,
or , a t the very
l e a s t , t h a t it i s an
area
of
p eacefu l
co-exi s t ence . But if
sc ien ce
i t s e l f ,
a t th e
l eve l
of its proof , cannot be bourgeois or
p r o l e t a r i a n , the c o n s t i t u t i o n o f s c i en t i f i c knowledge
as objec t s
of
knowledge, and th e mode of
t h e i r
soc ia l appropr i a t ion , c e r t a in ly can be. There i s
n o t
a
bourgeois science and
a
pro le ta r ian sc ience .
There i s
a bourgeois
knowledge and
a
p r o l e t a r i a n
knowledge.
he function of teaching
The hea r t
o f
Marxism
i s co n cre te
ana lys is
f
a
co n cre te
s i t u a t i o n . Now it i s c l e a r t h a t
t he
' s c i ence / Ideology '
o p p o s i t io n
i s
u n f i t
for
such
an
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
6/14
analys i s , c l ass
providing no more
than a
r ep e t i t i o n
of the c l a s s i c dichotomy of metaphysics .
It
draws
an imaginary l ine o f
class
div is ions for no othe r
reason than to ignore class s t ruggle as it
r e a l ly
e x i s t s .
IS
A l th u s s e r s
misconcept ion
of the funct ion
o f
knowledge,
and
o f
the s t ruggle
which t akes
it as
an objec t ive , r e s t s on t h i s
primary
suppress ion.
The pos i t ion
of
t he p o l i t i c a l having
been misunder
s tood ,
it can
only reappear in the wrong place;
hidden in the a l l eged n eu t r a l i t y of the technica l
d iv i s i o n o f
labour, or
sh i f ted
i n to the
hypothe t i ca l
revolutionary
funct ion of s c i ence . We have a l ready
seen
what t he t echnica l d iv is ion of l abour r epre
sented.
It remains to look
more c lose ly a t what
the
concept of science
r epresen ts , what gives it the
speci f i c funct ion of conceal ing the class
s t ruggle .
do t h i s
we must
examine
the
second
cen t ra l
t h e s i s in A l th u s s e r s argument, the thes i s defining
the funct ion
of
teaching:
The function o f teaching i s to transmit a
determinate knowledge to subjects who
do
not
possess
t h i s
knowledge. The
teaching
s i tuat ion
thus res ts
on
the absolute condition o f an
inequal i ty between a knowledge and a non=
knowledge.
(lp90 )
Althusse r s thes i s f a i l s to recognise t h a t
t h i s
double r epresen ta t ion of
the sc i e n t i f i c
with the
pol i t i c a l , and of the
p o l i t i c a l
with
the
sc i e n t i f i c
already ex i s t s p rec i se ly in
knowledge.
Knowledge
cons t i tu tes
t he system
of appropria t ion
o f sc i e n t i f i c
concept ions
to the prof i t
of a
c l a s s .
ow
it i s
a
notable
fac t
t h a t phi losophy has been es tab l i shed
and developed in a d e f i n i t e r e l a t i o n t o
knowledge,
but
without ever recognis ing its class nature . So
when Plato
a t tacks
the
Sophi s t s , o r Descar t es
scholas t i c i sm,
t h e i r cr i t i c i sm func t ions l a rge ly as
a
cr i t i c i sm of knowledge: t h a t i s , not s imply as
cr i t i c i sm of an erroneous discourse , but
o f
a
ce r t a i n
socia l
and p o l i t i c a l power. But even
when they
grasp
the proper ly pol i t ica l -d imens ions of t h i s
knowledge
(Pla to) , they cannot a t t a in to the leve l o f the cause;
t h a t i s
to say, to the a r t i cu l a t i o n o f
knowledge
with
t he
ru le o f a c l a s s .
Unable
to see
knowledge
as
the
system
of the
ideo log ica l dominance
of
a
c l a s s ,
they are reduced to
c r i t i c i s in g
t he e f f ec t s of
t h i s
system. Philosophy thus develops as
a
cr i t i c i sm
of
fa l se
knowledge
in the name of t rue knowledge
(Science) , or o f t he empi r i ca l divers i ty o f knowledge
in
the
name of the un i ty of
sc ience . The
cr i t i c i sm
of knowledge,
fa i l ing to
recognise
its class
func
t ion ,
i s made in t he name o f an Ideal of Science, in
One
can
see t he log ic which a r t i c u l a t e s t h i s thes i s
a
di scourse
which
separa tes
the rea lm of science
with
the previous one.
The f i r s t indicated
the
r ea l
from
t h a t
of f a l se knowledge
(opinion,
i l l u s i o n e t c ) .
l i n e
of
class
div is ion :
sc ience / ideology .
The pres - The
oppos i t ion
of
Science
and
i t s Other
has
t he
func
ent
thes i s exposes the fa l se
div id ing
l ine : teaching/ t ion
o f misconceiving
the class
na ture of knowledge.
t aught . The teaching r e l a t i o n has t he func t ion of And the discourse o f metaphysics propagates
t h i s
t r ansmi t t ing
knowledge
to those who
do
not possess
misconcept ion
inasmuch as it presen ts i t s e l f as
a
it. It i s hence based exclusively on the t echnica l
discourse on
science; i . e . as
a
di scourse
asking the
d iv is ion of labour . The two
t heses complement each ques t ion :
what cons t i tu tes the
sc i e n t i f i c i t y of
othe r ,
but
abso lu te ly cont rad ic t each
othe r
as well . science? The act of
modesty
ch a rac t e r i s t i c
of
the
For
the
f i r s t presents
knowledge as determined by
epis temologica l
t r ad i t ion to which Althusser
the difference between sc i ence and ideology,
whereas
r e turns , c o n s i ~ t s an
be l i ev ing
t h a t t h i s quest ion i s
the
second
suppresses every determinat ion othe r than produced
a t
t he very request of sc ience . Thus for
the
opposi t ion of
knowledge
to
non-knowledge,
o f
t he Al thus se r ,
a
new science
(Greek
mathematics , Gali lean
fu l l to the
empty.
The div id ing l ine had been
drawn
physics etc)
would
c a l l for
a
di scourse de f in ing the
s o l e ly between t he concepts
sc ience
and ideo logy .
forms
of i t s
sc i e n t i f i c i t y
(Plato, Descar tes
e t c l .
It is obl i t e ra ted as soon as
the r e a l i t y
of the I s n t
t h i s
to
play the ques t ion a t
its own game? In
teaching funct ion comes
i n to
play.
Al thusse rdec la re s
fac t , the
ques t ion can only ac tua l ly e x i s t
in
order
t h a t s tudent s
very
of ten r i sk
al i enat ing the
good not to pose the ques t ion : what
i s
the bas is o f know-
w i l l of
t h e i r t eachers
who
a re
u n ju s t l y held in sus- ledge? So
it
i s not produced a t t he demand of Science
pic ion over
t he
v a l i d i t y of
t h e i r knowledge which
i s (even if in fac t ,
it voices t h i s demandl but by
considered
super f luous
(p94). But
d id n t the
knowledge 's concealment
of
i t s e l f .
17
sc ience / ideology
dis t inc t ion
prec ise ly imply
the
Philosophy thus t r ad i t i o n a l l y
prac t i ces a
c r i t i q u e
deepes t and most j u s t i f i a b l e suspic ion
towards
the of knowledge which i s
simul taneously a denegat ion
I7a
knowledge
of the t eachers? To remove tha t suspic ion , o f
knowledge
i .e . of the
class s t rugg le) .
I t s p o s i -
it i s necessary to
g ive knowledge the
s ta tus of t ion can
be described
as an
irony
towards
knowledge,
sc ience .
This
means making t he r e l a t i o n
of
science which it put s in ques t ion
without
ever
touching i t s
to non-science
i n t e rvene
a
second t ime, not
now
in foundat ions.
The
quest ioning of knowledge
in ph i lo
the shape o f
error
(science/ ideology) but
in
t h a t of
sophy always ends in i t s res to ra t ion : a movement
the
ignorance (knowledge/non-knowledge).
The
concept
o f grea t phi losophers c o n s i s t e n t l y expose
in
each othe r .
science
now
appears in i t s t rue l i g h t : the sc ience /
Thus
Hegel c r i t i c i s e s
Car tes i an
doubt , which
only
ideology dis t inc t ion ul t ima te ly had no othe r func t ion resu l t s
in re-es tab l i sh ing
the author i ty o f everything
than to j u s t i f y the
pure
being of
knowledge
more it pretended
to
r e j e c t . Feuerbach i s o l a t e s the
same
accura te ly ,
to
j u s t i f y the eminent digni ty of the pretence
in the
Hegelian pa th of d e sp a i r . 'The
posses sors of knowledge.
To understand
t h i s r eve r sa l non-knowledge of the idea
was
only an i ron ic
non
o f qual i ty
in to quant i ty , we
must here again
recog- knowledge ' .
And
t h i s
i s
what
we
red i scover in
n ise
the
voice of the rev i s ion i s t
prompter: what
i s
~ l t h u s s e r the
l ine
of div is ion i s
scarcely
drawn
requi red i s an educat ion o f
q u a l i t y ,
o f
a
high before it i s erased. Doubt
about
knowledge
only
cu l t u r a l l e v e l .
As far
as the
t eachers a re
con-
exis ted
the
b e t t e r
to
es tab l i sh
the
author i ty of
a
cerned, in the i r double ro le of
schola rs and
wage-
knowledge
elevated f i n a l l y to the rank of science.
earners they are objective a l l i e s of t he working
In
repea t ing
t h i s manoeuvre, Al thusse r reveals its
c l a s s . S o t i n whose i n t e r e s t would it be to c r i t i c i s e
p o l i t i c a l
s ign i f icance , clear ly
showing what
i s
a t
them, if
not t h a t of provocateurs in the
pay of the
i s sue :
t he
s ta tus
of the
possessors o f
knowledge.
bourgeoisie? It
i s
not acc identa l if e tc etc
. .
Any ser ious doubt about
t he conten t
of
knowledge
van-
But
it would
be wrong to see A l th u s s e r s
di scourse
ishes the moment the
ques t ion
of i t s subjec t
i s
as
a
s imple piece o f hack-work
in
the se rv ice of r a i sed , the moment t h a t the very
exi s t ence
o f
a
group
revis ionism.
On
t he cont ra ry ,
its
inbe res t l i e s
in
possess ing
knowledge
is
a t
s take . Here again, there
the f ac t t h a t
it
reproduces
t he
spontaneous
di scourse i s an evident
homology with t h a t c l a s s i c philosophical
of metaphysics , t he t r ad i t i o n a l p o s i t i o n of philosophy f igure , o f which the
Car tes i an
cogito provides
a
model
with
respect to knowledge.
A
pos i t ion t h a t Althusser
i l l u s t r a t i o n :
the chal lenging of the objec t o f know
ind ica tes , while
a t the
same
t ime conceal ing it; when ledge aims
a t
confirming
i t s subjec t . Doubt about
he
defines philosophy as follows: the objec t i s only the
obverse
o f the cer ta in ty o f
Philosophy
represents
po l i t i c s in the domain o f
theory
or to be more
precise:
with the
sciences
and
v ice-versa philosophy represents sc ien t i f -
i c i t y
in
pol i t ics ,
with the
classes
engaged in
the
c lass s truggle .
6
the
subjec t . I t i s preCise ly t h i s
cont rad ic t ion
which
gives
phi losophy i t s
s ta tus :
phi losophy
i s constructed
aga ins t
t he power
of the f a l se possessors of knowledge,
or more accura te ly , o f
the
possessors o f f a l se know
ledge
( sophis t s ,
theologians
e tc) .
But
it
cannot
go
so far as to put
a t
i s sue
t he
very
exi s t ence
of
know-
7
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
7/14
ledge as the instrument of a c lass . So against the from a
c lass
society to a
c lass less
society;
namely,
object
of
false knowledge, it
invokes
the subject
of tha t th i s
t rans i t ion
poses
a
cer ta in
number of econo
t rue knowledge; which
means,
in the final analysis, mic, po l i t i ca l , ideological problems
e tc .
Secondly,
strengthening the grounds for dominance of those some
genera l i t ies
concerning the function of ideology
possessing (true)
knowledge,
and hence jus t i fy ing with which
we
are by now
quite familiar .
And f ina l ly ,
c lass domination. This passage
from the
object
of
in
the
hide-and-seek played by
these
two genera l i t i es ,
false knowledge to the subject of t rue knowledge would the absent object which was going
to
be analysed
-
consequent ly
correspond to the po l i t i ca l demand
of
a
the
real i ty of
the
Soviet Union.
But
the absence of
class excluded from power,
lending th i s
demand the
th i s
real i ty due
to the
s ~ l i
presence of i t s
form
of
universali ty .
(The Cartesian good sense . ) image. What
in fac t i s
th i s new
rea l i ty
which
This
movement has ul t imately no
other
end
than
re - Althusser
bel ieves must
explain
the new
recourse to
inforcing the
privileged posi t ion
of
tge possessors
an
old
ideology? Nothing
but
the
image which
Soviet
of knowledge - a form of c lass rule .
17
society presents of i t se l f ; or to be more precise,
The Althusser ian
theory of ideology describes t h i s which the governing
c lass
presents of i t : a new
same movement, and we now see how the spontaneous dis- period of history in
which
the State
wil l no longer
course of metaphysics comes to be
ar t icu la ted
with take charge, coercively, of the leadership or
control
revi s ionis t ideology. Only one more mediation i s
the
dest iny of each individual •• . , a world without
required
for th i s :
Althusser s
academic ideology.
economic exploitat ion,
without violence, without
In
i t , the
spontaneous discourse of metaphysics
discriminat ion •••
e tc . The explanat ion of
the
assumes
the
function of jus t i fy ing the
teachers ,
the Soviet
humanist
ideology i s rea l ly
only
i t s re -
possessors and purveyors of
bourgeois knowledge
dupl icat ion.
The whole chicanery
of
the
theory
of
(knowledge which
includes
academic Marxism). 9peakinq
ideology
ends
in th i s
naivety which destroys any
in
thei r
name, defending the i r
author i ty ,
Althusser analysis of ideology before
it has begun:
an
ideologi
quite
naturally
adopts
the
c lass
posi t ion
expressed in cal discourse
is
taken to
be the
adequate expression
revi s ionis t
ideology
- tha t of the
labour
ar istocracy
of
what it purports
to
express; the discourse which
and
the cadres .
The
spontaneous
discourse
of meta-
claims to
be
tha t of
a
c lass less
society i s
taken
a t
physics
i s
thus
the necessary mediation enablinq i t s word. I t
i s
clear tha t
thi s redupl icat ion
i s
not
Althusser
to recognise his own
c lass
posit ion
in
tha t a superfluous
ac t ,
since it strengthens the effec t
expressed
by r e v i ~ i o n i s m
This
convergence i s
located
th i s
discourse
inevitably
has:
tha t
of
concealing
in the question of
knowledge and the
defence
of aca-
the c lass
s t r ~ g g l e
in
the asser t ion tha t it has been
demic
authori ty.
At th i s point ,
the Althusserian
superceded.
theory
of ideology
functions as the theory
of
an The c i rcula r i ty of the analysis a lso closes the
imaginary
c lass
st ruggle to the prof i t of a rea l c i rc le
of
the Althusserian theory of ideology, which
c lass collaboration, tha t
of revisionism.
The t rans-
returns here
to i t s
s ta r t ing
point . This
return
must
formation
of
Marxism
in to opportunism
i s complete.
be
unders tood in two senses.
On the one hand, the
he analysis of humanist
i eology
This concealment of the
c lass
st ruggle reveals
i t s
most profound effects
in
the
analysis of humanist
ideology
18;
an
analysis
produced
to answer
the
ques
t ion: what i s the function of the humanist ideology
currently
proclaimed in the
USSR To answer t h i s
question; tha t i s
to
say, in fac t ,
not
to pose i t .
For the only way of posing it would
be to
enquire as
to i t s
c lass meaning - instead of which we
find
it
subsumed
under
another ,
more
general question,
and
one whose answer i s
already la id
out· beforehand: since
Vhe USSR i s a
c lass less
society,
a l l
we
have
to do i s
to
apply the theory
of
ideology
minus·that which deals
with
the exercise
of c lass ru le .
We know
a l l too
well
what i s
l e f t :
namely, tha t ideology
i s not sc ience,
and tha t
it
enables men to l ive thei r re la t ion to
the i r
conditions
of exis tence.
Social ist
humanism
thus
designates a col lec t ion
of
new problems without
giving
a
s t r i c t knowledge of
them. And
what
are
these
problems?
Precisely
those
of
a
c lass less society:
In fact , the themes o f socia l i s t humanism desig-
nate the existence o f real
problems:
new
his tor ical , economic, poli t ical and ideological
problems that the
Stal in is t
period
kept in the
shade, but s t i l l produced while producing
socialism - problems in
the forms
o f economic,
poli t ical
and
cultural organisation that
cor res
pond
to
the
level
o f development attained
by
socialism s
productive
forces; problems of the
new form o f individual
development for a
new
period
o f history in which the State
will
no
longer
take
charge,
coercively, of
the leader-
ship or control
o f
the destiny o f each individual,
in
which from now on each man will object ively
have the choice, that
i s
the di f f icul t task,
of
becoming
by himself what he
i s .
he themes
of
socia l i s t
humanism (free
development
of the
individual, respect
for
socia l i s t legal i ty
dignity
of
the person etc) , are the way the
Soviets and other socia l i s t s are l iv ing the
relation
between
themselves
and
these
problems, 19
that i s the conditions in
which
they
are posed.
We
have
three
elements
in
t h i s
tex t :
f i r s t ly ,
a
ser ies
of very general
r ~ s
about the
t r ansi t ion
8
concrete
analysis of ideology in
a classless
soc i
ety
brings
us
back to the general i t ies
dealing with
the
function
of ideology in general . The theory
offers
i t s own repe t i t ion
as the analysis of i t s
object . But
on the other hand, the po l i t i ca l s ign i f i
cance of
the
theory
i s
shown up
in i t s encounter
with
the
object
which
it i s i t s precise function not to
think.
Revisionism i s not simply
the
object tha t the
Althusserian discourse conceals or
hesi ta tes
to
think;
it
i s s t r ic t ly i t s unthought,
the
po l i t i ca l
cQndition
of i t s theore t ica l functioning. While Althusser
claims
to
be
explaining
soviet
ideology,
it
would
seem
to be much
more revisionism
which explains and founds
the Althusser ian
theory of ideology. A theory
which
posi t s , even
before
the existence
of c lasses , the
necessi ty of a function for
ideology
- i s it
not
the
expression, the in te rp re ta t ion ,
of a
pol i t i cs
which
claims to
have got beyond classes?
I f the
Althusser ian
theory
of ideology
ends
with
th i s theore t ica l suicide, it i s precisely on account
of
the prohibit ion which
prevents
it
from thinking
of ideological
discourses
as discourses of the c lass
st ruggle, and only
allow
it to re la te them
to
the i r
soc ia l
function
and the i r non-sc ien t i f ic i ty .
So
the
~ r i t i q u e
of humanism leaves
i t s object in tac t ,
since
it cannot conceive it other than by
reference to
the
scient i f ic i ty
from
which it i s
excluded.
The
concept
of man i s that
of
a
false
subject of
history,
a new
form
of the ideal is t
subject
(spi r i t , consciousness,
cogito,
or
absolute
knowledge). Such a
cr i t ique
leaves aside the main problem: what does humanism
represent
pol i t i ca l ly? What does the
concept
man
designate?
Experience
enables us to reply
tha t human
i s t theory has always had the
goal
of protecting,
under the disguise
of universali ty ,
the pr ivi leges
of
a
spec i f ic se t of men.
an i s always the
Prince
or
the
Bourgeoisie. I t can
as easi ly be
the cadre
- the Party leadership. But it can also -
accordinq
to
a
necessary
law of
ideology
- be
the concept in
which those
who
rebel
against the i r
power
make
the i r
protes t and asser t
the i r wil l .
Humanism always
functions
as
the discourse of
a
c lass in st ruggle.
And such
must be
the case for the
var ious
forms which
humanist ideology has taken in the USSR.
Sta l in
can
put
us
on
the
r igh t
t rack
here: i s n t
the
famous
formula Man, the most valuable capi ta l the other
side
of
the
slogan
which
proclaims
that
the
cadres
decide
everything ? And can one
conceive
of the
-
8/20/2019 Rancière on Ideology
8/14
present
humanism o f t he
indiv idua l
pe rson ' o the r
than by re fe rence to the
p ro cess
of the r e s to r a t i o n
of capi t a l i sm? Is
it not
t he equiva len t in
ideology
.of
the ' s t a t e o f all
th e p eo p le '
in
t h e p o l i t i c a l
sphere? The
recent
his tory
o f
the USSR
and t he
people ' s
democracies
shows us how
it can
ac t
b o th
as
th e di scourse of the
new
r u l i n g c l a s s , which denies
t h a t c la sses ex i s t
in
th ese
s o c i e t i e s , and
a s t he
expres s ion of the r e b e l l io n o f c l a s s e s or peoples
oppressed by r ev is io n ism.
Now
it
i s
not i ceable tha t
Al thus se r does not
r e l a t e
t he ideologica l forms
o f
huma