Visual Studies - Ideology and Interpellation

When I first read the set reading I felt oddly disturbed. During my career I read a large number of written pieces by persons who were mentally disturbed or mentally ill. The structure of Althusser's work was strongly reminiscent of those pieces. The 'internal conversation' that attempts to meet possible criticism or misunderstanding of what he has written and the almost 'stream of consciousness' way of writing left me with the strong impression that here was someone who was or very recently had been mentally ill. I therefore looked further into his background and was not surprised to find a history of mental illness and time spent in Institutions. I was surprised to find that he had strangled his wife. No action had been taken because at that time French law did not allow for the trial of someone who was, at the time of the event, deemed to be not in control of his actions.

I am not competent to judge whether his illness affected the viability of his work although there are critics particularly after he undertook during the late 1960's and 70's ( which encompasses the time of the set reading) to revise some of his earlier work. Some saw these revisions as a betrayal of his previous theoretical accomplishments (which are considerable by any standards) and that there was an element of political motivation. (Althusser was a Marxist and during the 60's, particularly among French Communists, and there was considerable disquiet about the way that Communism was being practiced particularly by Stalin in Russia.)  Others saw the revisions as showing that his work as a whole was self-contradictory. Others have argued that the revisions are consistent with what they see as the goal of Althusser's work - the development of a political philosophy that could be the foundation for political practice.

In the Course material we are told that : "Althusser reformulated the classical Marxist base/superstructure, giving, inter alia, the creative arts a more active part and questioning the primacy of the orthodox base." There is no indication during which period this took place. However we are told in the following sentence that "He [Althusser] and Lucan are often cited (unfortunately we are not told by whom) as amongst the more important figures in Structuralism and the events in Paris in 1964". The reason that the timing seems important to me is in the introduction to 'Louis Althusser (1918 -1990) from 'Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses' [Art in Theory 1900 - 2000 An Anthology of Changing Ideas eds Charles Harrison & Paul Wood pp 953 Blackwell Publishing New Edition 2003] it is posited "....increasingly under the influence of Maoism and of the Events of 1968, Althusser's thoughts turned through 180 degrees. Marxism's virtue no longer lay in its status as a (scientific) theory of social formations but in its partisanship as theoretical practice in the class struggle. The sphere of ideology became a crucial site of the struggle: the intellectual and moral means whereby class societies reproduced themselves and where revolutionaries challenged them." If this volte face did occur is it safe to accept his earlier pronunciations on the place of creative art?

Structuralism seems to take many forms and there seems to be no one agreed definition or in some cases no definition at all in learned works each author using it a slightly different way in support of their work.
There may be common elements (see the work of Alison Assiter) but these are not self-evident nor would all users of the term agree.  In the summary at the head of her paper in The British Journal of Sociology Volume XXXV Number 2 June 1984 Assiter writes " "Louis Althusser's work is often mentioned as being both structuralist and Marxist....I....argue that Althusser is not both structuralist and Marxist simultaneously. I conclude therefore, that, at least as far as Althusser's work is concerned - and his writings are taken to be paradigmatic of structuralist Marxism - it is misleading to lump together structuralism and Marxism."

On the same page (I was unable to access the complete article) she quotes Althusser -  'We believe that despite the terminological ambiguity, the profound tendency of our texts was not attached to the "structuralist" ideology'. In essence he denies he is 'structuralist'. However to quote from the definition given in Wikipedia "Structuralism argues that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure - modelled on language - that is distinct both from the organizations of reality and those of ideas or the imagination......in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood."

In the required reading Althusser states (p957) - "Ideology is a 'Representation' of the Imaginary Relationship of Individuals to their Real Conditions of Existence".  He goes on - "...while admitting that they [Ideologies] do not correspond to reality i.e that they constitute an illusion, we admit that they do make an allusion  to reality, and that they only need to be 'interpreted' to discover the reality of the world behind their imaginary representation of that world (ideology = illusion/allusion)."  Certainly this statement implies a structuralist approach.

Can this apparent conflict between the denial of Althusser that his texts were not "attached to the 'structuralist' ideology" be reconciled with his comments on ideology. Structuralism as an intellectual movement developed in France in the 1950's and 60's and Althusser could not fail to be aware of its underlying approach and the importance given to it by linguists, anthropologists, and other philosophers. There is a view, suggested by Spinoza, that authors are 'bound' by the ideas and ideology of the times in which they live and they, like all of us, understand things through the ideas and concepts that are available to us. If this is the case then Althusser would be 'bound' by the structuralist ideology that would be a major part of the world in which he lived. He could not avoid using the language of 'structuralism' because that was the dominant theme of the time.

The final question that we are asked to consider "Is there, in your view, an area of visual culture where this idea may seem to act in an overt way?" I am not sure what is meant by "this idea" so I am not sure how to respond. If it is a reference to the immediately preceding question that asks what does Althusser mean by 'ideology' then I have to consider whether there is an area of visual culture of the representation of the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence that is overt. My initial response is to say that the inclusion of the word 'overt' negates the proposition. Whilst much of what we see, say in advertising, is designed to support our ideas of the world we believe we live in ( that we can all own the latest gadget, drive the most luxurious car and look like the latest fashion icon by buying a particular product) I would question whether such advertising is 'overt'. In fact the underlying message is usually subliminal and offers a view of a world that is no more 'real' than the one in which we believe in.