Subjects to the System
What is ideology? What is its purpose? And how is it used? Louis Althusser, in his article “On Ideology,” confronts the mercurial idea of ideology, and provides an explanation that is as vexing as it is provocative. As an adherent to the Marxist ideas of materialism, Althusser sees the conditions of life as the factor responsible for shaping individuals’ consciousness. For Althusser, ideology is “a representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence;” meaning that one’s “ideology” represents the conditions of the environment in which they live-a standard Marxist interpretation of the play between life and human consciousness. However, Althusser mixes in a bit of Freudian/Lacanian psychoanalysis to explain further the concept of ideology, stating that the imaginary is the realm in which human beings function and operate. Althusser’s ideology supplants this imaginary realm, which one is born into, and which deeply influences the one’s consciousness, whether one is aware or not. In the realm of ideology, individuals become “subjects” of the dominant social order. Thus, Ideology is not voluntary, but the result of structural forces in society.
According to Althusser, the societal mechanisms that are responsible for maintaining structure in society are called “ideological state apparatuses” (ISAs); these mechanisms are responsible for “creating pliant, obedient citizens who practice dominant values.” ISAs are numerous and differ from society to society, but include such civil institutions such as churches, schools, courts, unions, political parties, government agencies, the media, and sports. The ISAs roles in society are to inculcate its subjects with the dominant societal ideology; a society’s system of social beliefs are maintained and disseminated by the ISAs. Or as Althusser puts it, “ideology interpellates individuals as subjects.” The subject-the citizen/slave-of society is the destination of ideology, as administered by the ISAs. Althusser used his interpretation of ideology and its function as an instrument of the ISAs to explain how a society reproduces its basic social relations and maintains a stable, functioning state-society.
Althusser’s materialist interpretation of ideology and society plays nicely into a theory I have come to accept. During a discussion of Francis Fukuyama’s “The End of History,” a professor mine made the claim that institutions structure our reality and thus our behavior. Taken in an Althusserian-Marxist context, this would mean that institutions shape the human consciousness. This theory was called by my professor as an “institutional constructivism” approach to the understanding of human behavior. The theory runs contrary to the “behaviorists” approach, which attempts to apply the methods of natural sciences to human behavior. It is both questionable to call anything “natural” and nearly impossible to quantify.
However, one can easily observe that way in which an institution (or an ISA) affects the way in which one thinks, acts, and lives. Societies with good institutions typically foster stable and prosperous societies. Institutions of these societies usually disseminate ideas of tolerance, liberty, and equality. This has an inevitable, nay, “natural,” effect on individuals’ consciousness. People will come to think of these societal pillars as the ruling, dominating ideas. The collective adaptation of these pillars results in a well functioning society. On the contrary, societies that foster ill behavior, uproar, and revolution are those typically with poorly functioning institutions with bad ideas. For Plato and Althusser, the most influential and important institution is education–the school, college, or university.
Here is where it gets interesting. The Althusserian notion that our personal ideology (our consciousness) is directed by state apparatuses makes for a rather frightening implication: free will is a dead idea. Actually, it never lived. Essentially what Althusser says is that because we are born into a well structured system, it is impossible to escape it. It recognizes us, and we recognize it, the moment we are born. Thus, the notion of subjectivity is bunk, because all of our thinking is shaped, filtered, and directed by the institutions that define our ideology and our system of beliefs. What we believe and why we believe it is unavoidably controlled by society. The conscious and subconscious is shaped and molded by the structure of reality we call society. Neither you nor I can escape the system; we are all subjects.
I know this is getting long, and probably rather convoluted, but before I sign off I want to list my top three ISAs with a brief explanation of how they affect our consciousness.
- The Church: Instills the ideas or altruism, love, and transcendentalism, thus resulting, in its purest form, in individuals that look beyond themselves to something higher. They deny themselves. However, the church (and religion for that matter) can also foster stark exclusivism and intolerance.
- The School: The quintessential example of social engineering. The school shapes the way we view the world by teaching us how to connect concepts to words via linguistics. School teaches you the virtues of good work ethics and the value of socializing. It also teaches you ways to manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal through the social interaction process.
- The Government: Provokes a sense of duty, pride, and sometimes fear in its subjects (the citizens). Although this may be the most powerful ISA, I think it falls behind the Church and School in terms of influence. It has the advantage of hard power but has a lack of soft power capital. The Government can also use its power in perverse ways, such as war and oppression.
Perhaps free will is dead, as you say. I would like to discuss that further in its own discussion.
But as for institutions, this is what I am leaning towards right now. They are quite powerful, and they represent deeper societal influences that are the real driving forces of ideology. But they are not all-powerful, or even close to powerful enough to destroy free will.
In many cases, individuals rebel intellectually against the institutions, and that represents free will. In other cases, the amount of ideology that adapted from those various institutions is decided by the individual’s free will.
While we are heavily influenced by outside institutions, it’s by our own free will that we choose which ones we want to listen to and how we choose to apply their influence to our lives, something I think is very obvious when you consider those who comment to this blog. Most of us have grown up in the same Christian denomination learning from the same Bible, but have developed radically different ideas and attitudes about it.
First off, “I” don’t necessarily say free will is dead (or non existent). Louis Althusser does. However, I will defend him here, because, quite frankly, I think he’s probably right.
Free will is a concept/philosophical notion promoted by institutions themselves. Individuals that rebel intellectually against institutions is a result of a disgruntle attitude/consciousness.
There is no “destroying free will.” According to the Althusserian model, free will is just absent from social life. In the very instance you were born, you enter a structure defined for you. The very notion of “free will” is influenced by some sort of institution and therefore not wholly independent. The notion that you have some sort of independent entity tell you that you are free of, or from, a system is a false construction. Your concept of reality, language, typing, et al are product of social engineering. In the case of Rebellion, the act itself is a reaction provoked by a reality produced by an institution.
I think Althusser would explain it this way: freedom to choose (rebel) does not mean free will.
Question for you though. Do you think life shapes consciousness, or that consciousness shapes life?
Personally, I think the concept of free will is too loosely defined, so is the concept of institutions as social forces.
I think that this theory is right, to some extent. Our institutions do influence the way we think and act; however, I do not think they negate our free will completely. And I just realized that’s basically what David said, so never mind…
I think the family is much more influential than the church, school, or government, though. A lot of people will vote based on the morals their parents taught them, maintain a version of their parents’ faith throughout their lives, and go to a school that their parents have chosen or approved for them. If they do not have families who are that active in their lives, their ideologies illustrate that, too.
The only person with truly “free will” would be God. He is because he is. He defines himself; the only hypothetical possible, really. Everyone else is defined by something outside the self.
Choice is not free will.
I don’t think free will exists in some sort of ethereal realm completely separate and independent of obvious aspects of reality such as institutions, etc.
Free will is an inherent ability to choose between those influences, allow different amounts from different sources, and accept or reject their input.
Of course you can’t escape those things, but nobody argues that is what free will means.
Althusser did, as did most Marxists.
I don’t think that is a reasonable use of the phrase “free will.” That is like saying that any concept can only be defined by its absolute. Of course there can be gradations and levels of an attribute within the context of reality.
So, okay, nobody besides God has completely, 100%, absolute “free will.” But that doesn’t negate the existence of free will inherent in the choices that individuals can still make.
By your logic, there is no beauty in the universe and no truth in the universe. Only God is (absolute) beauty and truth, and any imperfect instances of those attributes are something else altogether.
I do not think that impure forms of a quality become something else altogether. Sure, the world and institutions and environments taint the perfect ideals, but they do not make them non-existent.
Truth, beauty, and the like are all sort of ethereal and esoteric, aren’t they? Absolute beauty and truth are unknowable, David. Haven’t you learned? The theory of dialectical materialism doesn’t negate the possibility of truth, it just shows how it’s extremely convoluted by the very structure that attempts to define it. It’s all sort of arbitrary at the end of the day.
You will have choices and such, but you cannot escape the structure into which you are born in and raised in.
You know of course that the solution to this is a classless, institutional-free society. That was the ideal truth. It’s ultimate aim is a utopia.
Anyway, quit calling it mine before you get me reported to the Ministry of Truth.
When you find absolute truth and beauty, you let me know.
In the meantime, ponder these questions:
- Does life shape consciousness or consciousness shape life? (materialism v. behaviorism)
- Are there a priori categories? If so, how do we know what are they and what they mean?
I think we are mostly agreeing (as usual).
I am not saying that you can find absolute truth or beauty. You know that.
But I am saying that we can see truth and beauty. I have used the adjective “true” to describe things that contain truth. I have used the adjective “beautiful” to describe things that contain beauty. And I will continue to use the phrase “free will” to apply to individual choices, even though they are made in the context of institutional influence and imperfect reality.
The concept of free will is present in choice as long as there is a choice. I don’t think you’re willing to fully and absolutely embrace fate, determinism, or predestination, but that is what you would need to do to completely dismiss free will.
Of course I don’t think I’m destined to die on a certain date; but I do think that the way I define life, values, and purpose are determined by the structure that I am born into. In order to really view free will/determinism in its proper sense, you have to divorce the ecclesiastical connotations of select/heathen.
But of course I don’t want to believe it; I really don’t like the notion that my consciousness is like that of paper mache. Obviously, you don’t either. But you can’t fight the subconscious, because you cannot fight what you do recognize.
What’s with all the Steve Denney postings. Bring back Stephanie. I miss her.
cough http://whatsleftnow.com/cough
we got you covered dr. burt.
Stephanie is lame.
Althusser is where it’s at.
I would be really interested to hear what you think about the role of the RSA in the formation of society. I guess the RSAs are a little less fun to talk about because the representations if ISA are much more insidious, but it’s something worth discussing, nonetheless.
*My apologies to Stephanie. I really don’t think you’re lame.
Apparently I have awesome linking skills. Let’s try again:
Althusser
haha, thanks for the asterisk there at the bottom Ian. :)