|
A Christian Response to
Althusser's "Ideology and Ideolozical State Apparatuses:
Why Marxist/Althusserian Ideology Fails at the Individual-Psychological Level
by
Karey Perkins
Althusser's definition of the term "ideology" in his essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" reviews the history of the interpretations of the causes of ideology by discussing first, the "Beautiful Lies" that "Priests and Despots" purported in order to dominate and exploit the people, but still keep them happy. The second view of ideology that Althusser discusses, Feuerbach's and later Marx's, views the material alienation of man as the root of ideology: "men make themselves an alienated (=imaginary) representation of their conditions of existence because these conditions of existence are alienating" (Althusser 295). For Althusser, however, ideology is not the real conditions of the "men"' s real world, but their relation to those conditions, and the imaginary nature of this relation" (Althusser 295). For Althusser, ideology is an eternal, universal "means by which individuals are defined as subjects within a prevailing social system .... [and it is] inseparable from the process by which human beings acquire identities" (Childers 150). In other words, Althusserian ideology, always present within the system and in the world, never transcended except in science, identifies and defines the individual to himself and to others and shapes the individual's thought, and hence, his material actions. All is ideology (except science) and the individual is always a subject within ideology (Althusser 301). "Which amounts to saying that ideology has no outside (for itself), but at the same time that it is nothing but outside (for science and reality)" (Althusser 301).
This Althusserian view of the all?encompassing nature of ideology in defining the "subject," in shaping his thoughts and therefore his actions and his material existence, is incomplete. While Althusser's (and Marx's) theories provide some valuable insights at the social/communal level, they fail when they try to reach to the personal level. They fail to truly understand the psychology of an individual because they interpret human reality from a limited and inadequate perspective. That is, the materialist, atheist point of view can only view man's material conditions, only talk about his material effects, and only evaluate his material gains and losses, and can only judge the success or happiness or freedom of a man from that sole perspective ID. Not only is Althusser's view insufficient in its attempt to explain human psychology because it omits a significant portion of the human condition (a person's spirit, soul, free will), he also fails to understand or correctly interpret the philosophical traditions (specifically, Christianity and Christian thinkers) to which he refers (2).
First of all, Althusser refers several times to the Christian religion, practices, and theologians, yet if he views the message of the Christian faith through Marxist/atheist/materialist colored lenses, then he may have a distorted and false vision of 10 it. In fact, an examination of his comments shows that he does. He consistently views Christianity as an ideology within ideology, and fails to grasp that its purpose is to free man from the limits of ideology, from the limits of a subjection to a higher authority, from the limits to which Althusser paradoxically ascribes it.
Right now I would like to define and separate the different views of the term "Christianity." Christianity is "the Christian church," and it is also "the Christian religion," and it can also allude to "Christian theology." These would correspond to Althusserian ideology as they are a set of beliefs and practices handed to the "subject" by the social system, and they define and provide an identity to the subject within that system, and they also limit the subject and determine the subject's material practices and practiced material rituals. When Althusser refers to Christianity in the above context, he rightly refers to this as an example of ideology defining and identifying the subject.
However, these are separate from the message of Christianity which Christ taught, and which uncannily aligns itself with many other religious traditions. These (above versions of "Christianity") are separate from the lived faith found, partially in ideas that are taught (which may still fall under Althusserian ideology), but which finds itself also in a realm of spontaneous experience, determined by relationship with an "Other" outside of the social system, outside of the material world, outside of ideology (of which Marx and Althusser would deny the existence.) In other words, the lived faith found through the pure message of Christ (which is always found embedded in "Christianity" ? the religion ?and which is entangled with complicated institutionalized versions of that message, or ideology, and must be deciphered by the individual) frees the individual from definition by and identity in ideology.
Marxist and Althusserian ideology can be collapsed into the ladder of Christian ethics (which also parallels developmental psychology). To choose ethics as a paradigm by which to examine Althusser is appropriate because at the heart of his discussion on ideology is the idea of good and bad, ethical and unethical. The individual "must act according to his ideas,' ...If he does not do so, `that is wicked"' (296?). To choose Christian ethics to analyze Althusserian ideology and Marxist thought, and put it in its place, is poetic justice.
Christian ethics can be examined and explained in many ways, but one view divides the ethical condition into five levels 0. (See endnotes.) At the first or lowest level, the level of submission to authority, and possibly at the second level, the level of obedience to rules, the individual is indeed a subject within and defined by the social system, "a subjected being who submits to a higher authority and
is therefore stripped of all freedom except that of freely accepting his submission" (Althusser 303). As one climbs the ladder, the individual is freed from the limits of ideology. At the fourth level, the level of love, one's criteria for decision making is no longer mindless conformity to practiced rituals, but becomes love for the other, and one's acts acre determined not by those dictated by the system, but by those that are most loving to others. Implied in this is that one's mind is freed from ideology to rise above and outside it (something Althusser says cannot occur, except in science) in order to choose freely an act of love for an other (others) (Other) which may or may not be a "material action inserted into a material practices governed by material rituals which are themselves defined by the material ideological apparatus from which derive the ideas of that subject" (Althusser 298). That is, love for the other enables one to transcend the ideological apparatus.
At the fifth or highest level, there is no predetermined structure to social behavior, no rules for action, no expectations, no subjection of the subject, no appropriate behavior that is dictated, There is, even beyond love, which still implies a separateness of lover and loved, only relationship of oneness with the Other, or relationship of oneness with the other (the other individual), which can tale any material existence or practiced ritual; all is freely chosen at this stage. One's will is not submissive to an external authority (subject is subject to the Subject); it is one, equal co?partner with an other, or the Other, and one acts in complete freedom. One's will is not subject to the Subject; it IS the Subject; therefore, the rules it submits to are the rules it has made and chosen, not necessarily the rules predetermined by ideology or social system.
An example of this is the practiced rituals of the church to which Althusscr refers (297, 298). These rituals of Christianity, specifically of the Catholic church, are perfect examples of ideology identifying and defining the individual (subject) in society, from infant baptism, to, as Althusser lists, other sacraments, such as confession, marriage, the Eucharist, and also to simple rituals such as kneeling and praying. At the lower Christian ethical levels, that of authority and rules, these rituals do exactly what Althusser says that they do ? place the individual within the social system, or one might say, submit the individual to the social system or the ideology.
However, at the higher levels, that of love and of unity, these practiced rituals are more than just physical material motions that identify the individual as "Christian" or "forgiven" or "married," ? a conforming obedient subject with a place, identity, label within a social system. At the higher levels, there is an internal action taking place that is invisible to the Marxist. Even Althusser's particular examples of "material practices governed by material rituals" (listed on page 298) suggest that he sees too externally ? external religious ritual placing one in an external social system by an ideology, which subjects one to the Subject. Invisible to Althusser is both the free choice of religious ritual and the
Spiritual reality and transformation independent of Social systemJideol_ogical dictates. For example, Althusser quotes Pascal's exhortation to "Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe" (Althusser 298). But he misinterprets Pascal. Quietly and paradoxically embedded in Pascal's command is the idea of free choice and the individual's intentionality that chooses this action in order to create belief, to other words, the individual decide~would like to believe or to spiritually accomplish or f" attain, and so the individual chooses these particular actions (the individual could choose other actions, or none at all) in order to create the belief,
The same is true of other rituals and sacraments of the Church. The Church community
decides, through the early church narratives, through tradition, through other similar means (Althusser's
ideology), that consuming a piece of unleavened bread and a sip of wine are to incur a spiritual status to
the participant in that act. What Althusser does not emphasize is the importance of the word "decides."
The act, the material practice, the ideological manifesation, is arbitrary and secondary, to the individuals)
of the Church deciding to convey status with the Eucharist. The individual to receive the Eucharist then
decides if he would like to invest this bread and wine with the same import, and then decides if he would
like to participate in the act. Always available to him is another choice ? perhaps spiritual transformation
through dancing around a tree ? but why? He has no reason to choose dancing around a tree over the
eating bread and drinking wine to accomplish (NOT to symbolize, but to accomplish) oneness with Christ
At the same time, his choosing the Eucharist does not make him submissive to the authority of the
Church, or anything else (as long as he has freely chosen it.) In other words, at the highest
Christian ethical level, the participation in the ritual of the Eucharist makes the individual not submissive
to Subject (to the Church, to the social system, to God, or to Christ) as Althusser would say, but it is an act
freely chosen that makes the individual ONE with Christ. The freedom of oneness with the Subject means
that the individual's will is then the final authority.
Althusser further misinterprets Christian thought when he refers to St. Paul's "Logos" as ideology, in which we "live, move and have our being" (Althusser 299), The Greek word "Logos" was complex, and it did mean both "the word" and also "the physical manifestation of the idea." One can see how Althusser's ideology, or the practiced rituals manifesting the social system's ideas, would be "Logos" for him. But "Logos" also was the word for Christ. Multiple interpretations can be made here. First of all, as Christ is a physical manifestation of the intangible Father, he is the physical manifestation of the idea. But also, Christ is (was) not an ideology (when he walked the earth, perhaps he has become one since), (Yet the new ideology is secondary to the person of Christ, who, for Cbristian mystics, is accessible even today, not as ideology, but as person.) Christ was a living, breathinindividual with free will, feelings and intentionality, who acted outside of ideology (despite Althusser's claim that that is not possible), and whose actions, ideas, love and life transformed those he encountered and identified them in
ways their social systernJideology did root. He lived beyond the first and second level of ethics and at the fourth and fifth level of ethics, freely choosing his actions often in contradiction with the practiced rituals of the ideology of his time, which often put him in danger. Christ, the Logos, also had no easily placed identification in the social system either, as he was born (literally) outside the system, (in a manger), and was the target and victim of the social system/ideology he had learned, taught, and loved. Christ was the antithesis of ideology.
Let us take the another, more mundane, example ? that of Althusser's handshake (Althusser 298, 300), a "ritual of ideological recognition" (Althusser 300). Althusser is right to say this "material practice" has been "handed" (sorry) to us by the social system, and by participating in it we are subjects in it, defined and identified by it. However, the individual at the highest levels of ethics can not only have the capacity and freedom to perceive. that this "practical ritual" is an arbitrary assignment, he can also have the capacity and freedom to CHOOSE to participate in this ritual or not. He is FREE = and not just freed to be a subject subjected to the system. At the highest level, he will most likely CHOOSE to shake hands with his neighbor, and then this free choice, of a formerly arbitrary and meaningless and mindless act, then becomes an act of community and love and an act of giving because it is a choice that is chosen knowingly and with humility to participate in and could easily have not been chosen. In other words, at the level of "relationship," he chooses freely to shake hands for no other reason than that he might be in relationship, in community with the other. The handshake is then a gift, an act of love.
However, he could just as easily have chosen not to shake hands, and so, if the particular accepted ritual practice were harmful or unloving to his neighbor, then the ethical man at the highest level would choose not to participate in that practice, even to his own detriment. An example of this is slavery, and later simply racial oppression and prejudice, which were/are practices that, although the ideology of their times accepted them, many ethical individuals transcended these material, practiced rituals. A perfect example of one person who chose not to participate in the practiced ritual determined by the ideology of her time is Rosa Parks, who sat at the front of the bus. And while Althusser would say that she is still acting within the ideology by choosing against the practiced ritual, she still transcends ideology in that sbe sees the arbitrary assignment of meaning to this act of sitting in the front or back, and her perception then enables her to transcend ideology and use ideology for her own purposes. So to add to Althusser's qualification that one can go outside ideology with science, one can also go outside ideology if one acts in truth and love. At risk of detriment to herself, she chose an act that was a gift of love and enlightenment to those at the lower levels of ethics. Hers was a choice NOT to participate in ideologically assigned ritual, the opposite of our handshaker above, and yet its ethical content was the same, because the ideology that determines the practiced ritual is less important than the intention, the free will, and the spirit of love, of the individual at the highest level, who is not a subject of ideology.
Althusser only perceives and places man's definition and identity as subject within a system at the first (and at a stretch, the second) level of ethics outlined here. He says: "the individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in order that he shall (freely) accept his subjection ...there are no subjects except by and for their subjection" (303). The individual subjects therefore must "freely accept their subjection to the Subject's `commandments"' (303). Althusser's and Marx's myopic view of man's lack of autonomy, lack of free will, lack of independence from social system, lack of independence from learned thought and material existence, lack of a spiritual self, lack of capacity for spontaneous decisions, is a limited and limiting view. An individual living at the highest level is not an unwilling and unchoosing subject within a system, but he is a choosing and reasoned one. And living at the highest level, while rarely accomplished, or if accomplished, rarely is it achieved consistently, is still available to all individuals no matter their station or social class, no matter if they are property owners or factory workers, no matter if they are millionaires or homeless beings, no matter if they while away their hours in a Tahitian resort drinking Mai Tais and monitoring their stock market investments long distance, or if they labor in a Vietnamese sweatshop 12 hours a day, making Nike tennis shoes on an assembly line, occasionally being sexually or physically assaulted by their managers for a measly $2.40 a day. (Although perhaps that last example was a bit harsh ?? let me qualify it by saying there is a place for social justice, and one indicator of those at the highest ethical level is that they work for that while realizing at the same time that spiritual freedom is not directly determined by external conditions.)
Marx, a materialist, sought to improve a citizen's material conditions in society, and not to cast aspersion on Marx's attempt, it was an admirable goal. For Marx, religion was the opiate of the people, blinding and distracted the people from the truth ? that of their oppression, and their need to improve their social station, which was their key to peace and happiness and justice. However, because he did not see man as having a spiritual nature, he erred. And like Marx, Althusser is cynical about man's need for a spiritual life when he says that that ideology teaches that workers/citizens/subjects must be submissive to authority, must be "obedient to God, to their conscience, to the priest, to de Gaulle, to their boss, to the engineer, that thou shalt `love thy neighbor as thyself,' etc." (Althusser 303), in order to happily work "all by themselves' (303). At higher ethical levels, workers will choose to work in an external world without a problem because the external world is secondary to the interior reality to which Marx did not give much credence. The truly free and liberated human being, in his soul, at the fourth and fifth level, will "give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's" as Christ exhorted. The coin with Ceaser's imprint is a mere material object and paeans little to a person's overall satisfaction, happiness, or greatness, says the man born in a barn. In fact, there are unhappy, lost, alienated, unenlightened, stupid (though physically comfortable and with complete freedom in the physical space/time continuum) millionaires, and many manual laborers who live lives of joy, peace, love and REAL freedom.
Author's Notes:
(1) I acknowledge that I start from different philosophical assumptions than Althusser and Marx which affect and drive and define my response toward their philosophies. I acknowledge that I will approach my discussion of Althusser's examination of ideology from the assumption of a "dualist" philosophy without taking the time to defend that particular view over the materialist view of Marx (and Althusser?) due to space limitations. (One unsupported observation that I would like to make is that in my experience it seems that while dualism seems to be in disfavor among the intellectual elite including graduate philosophy and English departments at the world's major universities, it is dualism that seems to prevail at level of the common man, It is possible that one might make an intuitive claim for its status, but it is not my intent to do so here.) However, by showing the insufficiency in their (A & M) philosophies to explain some phenomena at the individual level, and by showing the sufficiency of a theology to explain these phenomena, and that their philosophy can actually be collapsed into a theology, it will be clear that they see only part of a whole, an incomplete picture. In other words, ideology CAN be transcended by the individual, who has at his avail free will (not always manipulated by an ideology), and need not always be a subject within a system.
(2) 1 espouse no one particular religious tradition, although I refer to the Christian set of beliefs and teachings and narratives and theology in my reliance on and defense of the existence and importance of the religious/spiritual side of man because that is the tradition with which I am most familiar. Also, Althusser himself uses Christianity in his discussion of ideology, so that is yet another reason that Christianity is the tradition to which I refer the most. However, were I Jewish, Hindu, or Buddhist, the specific content of and evidence for the paper may have been different, although the final thesis would have remained the same (or similar).
(3) A brief description of Christian ethics, divided into five levels for convenience:
LOWEST: Level ofAuthority ? YeslNo
The first level is the level of submission to authority. Whatever the authority says is right, is right, if the authority says it is wrong, it is wrong. This is the psychological age found in toddlers and young children. For example, when driving, and approaching a [red] stoplight, the individual will conform to society, and will think, "I'll stop because I don't want to get caught by the cop (an authority)." Or a child will think, "I don't hit my sister because mom won't let me." A student might say, "I'm going to college because my parents are making me." And actions regarding ethics are determined by external authority as well; the subject will reason, "I won't lie because God/priest/minister/the Bible said not to."
LOW. Level of Rules
The second level is the level of following rules and regulations. In this level, the locus of decision making is somewhat more internalized as rules, which are given from the outside, can still be memorized. Often the rules are accepted without question. This is the psychological age/capability of older children. At this level, when approaching a [red] stoplight, the citizen will say, "I'11 stop at this stoplight because it's the law." A child will reason, in an argument with its sibling, "I can't hit my sister because that's the rule in this house." And a student will attend school because he/she has discovered that it is the company policy that, to get ahead, one must have a bachelor's degree. And the Christian would reason that it is wrong to lie because it's against the ten commandments. MIDDLE: Level ofHneiyleslValues One's locus of decision making is more internalized here, as one decides to adopt certain principles or values as one's ethical norm. For example, one might value kindness, and then becomes one's own authority on when to be kind or not. The psychological age for this level begins with early adolescence and continues through adulthood; many adults remain here and there are some adults who don't make it to this level. At this level, , when approaching a [red] stoplight, the citizen will decide to stop because they will think, "I obey traffic laws because traffic flows more smoothly if we all obey the traffic laws." The child in an argument will think, "I don't hit my sister because that's not nice and I'm a nice person." The student will reason,
"I'm going to college because I value education. I think it makes me a more well rounded person, and also, an educated society is a better place." The Christian would reason, "I don't lie because "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ? I don't want someone else to lie to me.' "
Hi,?h: Level of Love Whatever is done in love is ethical; ethics are determined by what is loving, not what is considered normal, accepted moral practice. What is loving usually corresponds to ethics at the lower levels, such as the ten commandments. (For example, lying is usually not very loving). But sometimes, it may be more loving to lie. This is what we call situational ethics. The psychological age for this is late adolescence to adulthood (many never reach this). At a stoplight, the driver will think, "Because I care what happens to the other driver, I won't run this stoplight in case I might hit him or irritate him." A child will say, "I don't hit my sister because I love her and don't want to see her hurt." A student will say, "I'm in school because I love learning (this subject)." A Christian will be a "Good Samaritan" who "loves his neighbor as himself' regardless of social status, class, etc.
HIGHEST: Level of relationship, of oneness of intuitive Path of community At this level, the individual's will is one with the divine will. This is the complete sacrifice of self, the "death on the cross," the death to all personal needs and desires that brings complete freedom. Whatever is done "in relationship" and "in community" with the other is ethical. The relationship is what matters. The individual's oneness with divine will means his/her will (whatever he/she wants) is equivalent to what is ethical. One must be very careful with this as there is no objective measure here; many have claimed this and been crazy/evil. As there is no external measure of ethical behavior, inner intuition becomes one's guide. Very few reach this level and fewer are always at this level. The psychological age begins in the thirties (although usually later, and can happen earlier.) Examples: At a stoplight: "The traffic laws we decide upon enable us all to work together through predetermined communal agreement." (or) "It's 3 am, there are no other cars, I can run this red light without harming anyone." A child in an argument: "It would hurt me to see my sister hurt." A student: "I feel called to study this subject, born to study this subject. This is how I am compelled to live out my life path." The Christian: "My life is Christ's; I have no other reason to live." Note that the language at the highest level becomes increasingly emotional, spiritual, and amorphous, as we leave the practical physical world of the socialists and materialists, and the lower levels, and reach the highest level.
Some general observations of the five levels are that the levels move from having one's locus of decision making outside oneself (lowest) to completely inside self (highest). Thus, they move from entrapment, obedience to an external authority, to complete freedom. Also, it is interesting to note that ethical behavior at each level above the lower levels is usually acceptable ethical behavior at the lower levels, but as one approaches the higher levels, often ethical behavior is a challenge and contradiction to the lower levels. One can exhibit "ethical" or "unethical" behavior (on a scale) on each of these levels. The levels move from objectified, certain measurement of right and wrong (black and white) to subjective, uncertain discernment (gray) of right and wrong. Thus, the higher levels can be dangerous in that it's easier to fool oneself and others as to the ethical nature of one's behavior. Also, one can move back and forth between levels, or be at one level at one time, for one issue, and another level at another time for another issue.
(4) The decision and the act accomplish a metaphysical transformation to even further remove the act from a "practiced ritual" representing identity within a social system, and to place it even more outside the realm of ideology. The Eucharist then becomes vehicle for a lived, unique experience, an inner, private spiritual and emotional transformation, that is invisible to society and has no connection with ideology
|
|