Re: Time to Get Religion
On Dec 5, 2006, at 2:17 PM, Jerry Monaco wrote:
I have no idea what you mean by “critique” and what you mean by
“ideology.”
I’m not Angelus, but here’s some attempt at a definition by Slavoj
Zizek, from his intro to his edited collection, Mapping Ideology
(Verso, 1994) [I posted this excerpt here 7(!) years ago]:
For example, we somehow implicitly seem to know what is ‘no longer’
ideology: as long as the Frankfurt School accepted the critique of
political economy as its base, it remained within the co-ordinates of
the critique of ideology, whereas the notion of ‘instrumental reason’
no longer appertains to the horizon of the critique of ideology
-’instrumental reason’ designates an attitude that is not simply
functional with regard to social domination but, rather, serves as
the very foundation of the relationship of domination.’ An ideology
is thus not necessarily ‘false’: as to its positive content, it can
be ‘true’, quite accurate, since what really matters is not the
asserted content as such but the way this content is related to the
subjective position implied by its own Process of enunciation. We are
within ideological space proper the moment this content -’true’ or
‘false’ (if true, so much the better for the ideological effect) - is
functional with regard to some relation of social domination
(’power’, ‘exploitation’) in an inherently nontransparent way: the
very logic of legitimizing the relation of domination must remain
concealed if it is to be effective. In other words, the starting
point of the critique of ideology has to be full acknowledgement of
the fact that it is easily possible to lie in the guise of truth.
When, for example, some Western power intervenes in a Third World
country on account of violations of human rights, it may well be
‘true’ that in this country the most elementary human rights were not
respected, and that the Western intervention will effectively improve
the human rights record, yet such a legitimization none the less
remains ‘ideological’ in so far as it fails to mention the true
motives of the intervention (economic interests, etc.). The
outstanding mode of this ‘lying in the guise of truth’ today is
cynicism: with a disarming frankness one ‘admits everything’, yet
this full acknowledgement of our power interests does not in any way
prevent us from pursuing these interests - the formula of cynicism is
no longer the classic Marxian ‘they do not know it, but they are
doing it’; it is ‘they know very well what they are doing, yet they
are doing it’.
How, then, are we to explicate this implicit pre-comprehension of
ours? How are we to pass from doxa to truth? The first approach that
offers itself is, of course, the Hegelian historical-dialectical
transposition of the problem into its own solution: instead of
directly evaluating the adequacy or ‘truth’ of different notions of
ideology, one should read this very multitude of the determinations
of ideology as the index of different concrete historical situations
- that is, one should consider what Althusser, in his self-critical
phase, referred to as the ‘topicality of the thought’, the way a
thought is inscribed into its object; or, as Derrida would have put
it, the way the frame itself is part of the framed content.
When, for example, Leninism-Stalinism suddenly adopted the term
‘proletarian ideology’ in the late 1920s in order to designate not
the ‘distortion’ of proletarian consciousness under the pressure of
bourgeois ideology but the very ’subjective’ driving force of
proletarian revolutionary activity, this shift in the notion of
ideology was strictly correlative to the reinterpretation of Marxism
itself as an impartial ‘objective science’, as a science that does
not in itself involve the proletarian subjective position: Marxism
first, from a neutral distance of metalanguage, ascertains the
objective tendency of history towards Communism; then it elaborates
the ‘proletarian ideology’ in order to induce the working class to
fulfil its historical mission. A further example of such a shift is
the already mentioned passage of Western Marxism from Critique of
Political Economy to Critique of Instrumental Reason: from Lukacs’s
History and Class Consciousness and the early Frankfurt School, where
ideological distortion is derived from the ‘commodity form’, to the
notion of Instrumental Reason which is no longer grounded in a
concrete social reality but is, rather, conceived as a kind of
anthropological, even quasitranscendental, primordial constant that
enables us to explain the social reality of domination and
exploitation. This passage is embedded in the transition from the
post-World War I universe, in which hope in the revolutionary outcome
of the crisis of capitalism was still alive, into the double trauma
of the late 1930s and 1940s: the ‘regression’ of capitalist societies
into Fascism and the ‘totalitarian’ turn of the Communist movement.
However, such an approach, although it is adequate at its own level,
can easily ensnare us in historicist relativism that suspends the
inherent cognitive value of the term ‘ideology’ and makes it into a
mere expression of social circumstances. For that reason, it seems
preferable to begin with a different, synchronous approach. Apropos
of religion (which, for Marx, was ideology par excellence), Hegel
distinguished three moments: doctrine, belief, and ritual; one, is
thus tempted to dispose the multitude of notions associated with the
term ‘ideology’ around these three axes: ideology as a complex of
ideas (theories, convictions, beliefs, argumentative procedures);
ideology in its externality, that is, the materiality of ideology,
Ideological State Apparatuses; and finally, the most elusive domain,
the ’spontaneous’ ideology at work at the heart of social ‘reality’
itself (it is highly questionable if the term ‘ideology’ is at all
appropriate to designate this domain - here it is exemplary that,
apropos of commodity fetishism, Marx never used the term ‘ideology”).
Let us recall the case of liberalism: liberalism is a doctrine
(developed from Locke to Hayek) materialized in rituals and
apparatuses (free press, elections, market, etc.) and active in the
’spontaneous’ (self-) experience of subjects as ‘free individuals’.
The order of contributions in this Reader follows this line that,
grosso modo, fits the Hegelian triad of In-itself — For-itself — In-
and-For-itself. This logico-narrative reconstruction of the notion of
ideology will be centred on the repeated occurrence of the already
mentioned reversal of non-ideology into ideology - that is, of the
sudden awareness of how the very gesture of stepping out of ideology
pulls us back into it.