On thetheory of ideology (the politics of Althusser) Jacques Ranciére Certainly it ie an interesting event we are dealing Mithe the putrescence of the absolute spirit (arx: German Tdeology Part 1) ‘ALL the mysteries which lead theory into mystictan find their rational solution in hunan practice and in the understanding of that practice’. For a long tine the main mystery a8 far as we were concerned was this sentence itself. We gave it a not umystical solution: Likt the young theologians of Tibimen Seminary, scouring the undergrovth te discover new “tacultlee*, we vould multiply "practices', each endowed vith specific laws. In the forefvant. of course lay theoretical practice, containing the Principles of its ohn verification. This was how we Interpreted the question - the nore so ar its cm ‘opponents could only counter it with a practice Faduced to its own invocation in the name of ‘praxia!. In May 1968 things were thrown brutally into relief, When the class struggle broke out openly in the universities, the status of the Theoretical cane to he challenged, no longer by the endless verbiage Df praxis and the concrete, mut By the reality of a hiass ideolozical revolt. Fron this on, no "Marxist" Gizeourse could continue to get by on the mere affirmation of its own rigour. The class struggle, Which put the bourgeois systen of knowledse at Sssue, posed all of us the question of our ultinate political significance, of cur revolutionary er Counter-revolutionary character In this conjuncture, the political significance of Altnisserianian wae’ shown to be quite different fron whet we hed thought. tot only did the Aithuseerian theoretical presuppositions prevent us fron understanding the political neaniog of the student revolt. But fureher, within a year ve saw Althusserianian serving the hacks of revistonien in ‘> theoretical justification for the ‘anti-leftist* Sffansive and the defence of acadenic knowledge ‘hat we had previously chosen te ignore thus becane Clear: the Link between the Althusserian interorets~ tion of Marx and revisionist politics was not sinsly 2 dubious coexistence, but an effective political and theoretical solidarity ‘The following renarks seek to indicate the point in the Althusserian reading where this interdepend~ ence is establiened: nanely, the theory of ideolory. The analysisof ideology ‘the specificity of the Althisserian theory of Geolesy can be sinmarised in two basic theses: tn all societies whether divided into classes for not ~ ideclosy har = eamen principal function, to ensure the cohesion of the sociel vnole by Fequisting the relation of individuals to thelr Tals article was originally published : ara additional footnotes, were added for the French edition, polished by ZHoame et Ja Société in 1973. A very slightly different version of the 2. ideology As the opposite of sclence. ‘The eeétscal function of thesis 1 {s clear: it is directed against ideologies of 'de-alionation’ according to which the end of the capitalist aliena~ tion would be the end of the mystification of con~ Sciousness, the advent of a world where the relations Of nan to nature and of man to man would be perfectly transparent ~ in a certain sense, the Pauline transition fron the indistinct perception in the Birror to direct perception. Aqsinst these des Togies Of transparency, Althusser sets the necessary opacity of every social structure to its agents, Ydeology 18 present in every social totality by virtue of the determination of this totality by its structure, To this there corresponds a general function: supplying the systen of representations which allow the agents of the social totality to Reconplich the tasks determined by this structure, In a society without clases, just as ina class society, ideology has the function of Securing the hond between nen in the ensemble Of the Zarns of their existence, the relation of individuals to,thesr tasks fixed By the Social structure So the concept of ideology can be defined in its generality, before the concept of class struagle Gntervenes, ‘To sone extent, the class struggle will subsequentiy ‘overdetermine'? the principal function of ideology We would Like €o examine now this thesis 42 established and hov ie is articulated with the Second in a particularly explicit tex! sdeciogy, in class societies, 1s a representation of the real, tut a necessarily false one because fe iz necessarily aligned and tendentious ~ and dt is tenentious because its goal is not to give non objective knowledge of the social system in Which they live, but on the contrary to give thon a mystified representation of this social iysten in order to keep thon in their ‘place’ in the systen of class exploitation. Of course, it ie algo necessary to pose the problem of Hdeology's fanction in a society without Glasses ~ and this would then be resolved by Showing that the deformation of ideology i= Socially necessary as a function of the very feature of the social whole: more specifically, 43 a function of ite determination by its Structure which renders this social whole opaque to the individuals who oscupy « place in [edeternined by this structure, The represent- ation of the world indispensible to social Cohesion 12 necessarily mythical, oving to the Shacity of the social structure.” In class Socisties, this principal function of ideology Still erists, mut is dominated by the additional Social funcelon imposed on it by the existence of class divisions. This additional function Ghus by far ovtweighe the fires. If ve want to be exhaustive, i we want to tale these two principles of necessarv defornation into account, we mst say that in a clase society ideology is hecessarily distorting and mystifying, both because it is made distorting by the opacity of society's determination by the structure, and iecause it is made distorting by the existence of class divisions.? our fet problen is the nature of the concent put forward to define the general function of Sdeoloqy: the notion of "social cohesion’ weno the formule eed above ~ ‘the bend between nen in the ensenble of the forms of their existence’. 1 this bond* fon! of the ‘social wiole Feally the province of Marist snalysis? tow, fter having proclained that the whole hstcryFunctions Like : securing social cohesion in general?| Isn't it precisely because Marist theory has ncthina| to say on this subject, that we have shifted cur ground and moved onto that of a Contean of Durkheim ian type sociology, which actually does concern it- self with the systons of representation that secure bor break up the cohesion of the social group? Ten't At this phantasn of “the social group! which 13 out Lined here in Althusser's analysis? Ke can sve an index of this displacenent in the status Althusser here accords religion: In prinitive societies vhere classes do not exist, one can already verity tho existence of this bond, and it 1s not accidental if it has been possible to see the reality of this Bond in the first general form of ideology, religion Ut is one of the possible etymologies of the word religion).* By inverting the snalysis ve can pose this question when ideology is conceived in general, before con Seiving the clase strungle, it 1s not necessarily conceived on the nodel of the traditional analysis Of relation = that of a sociology wich has inher: teal tthe metaphysical discourse on society?** The superimposition of two functions of ideology Althusser's misconception of the function SE knowledge, and of the struggle which takes it as dn objective, rests on this primary suppression. The position of the political having boon misunder~ stood, Af can only reappear in the wrong place: hidden in the alleged neutrality of the technical division of labour, ox shifted into the hypothetical revolutionary function of science. We have already seen what the ‘technical division of labour" vepre~ Zented, It remains to look more closely at what the concept of science represents, what gives it the specific function of concealing the class struggle, ‘Jo do this we mist examine the second central thesis in Althuaner's argument, the thesfe defining the function of teaching Tha function of texching {2 to transmit a determinate knowledye to subjects who do not possess this knowledge. The toaching situation this rests on the absolute condition of an inequality between a knowledge ant a non Knowiedig0. (p90) fone can see the logic which articulates this thesis with the previous one, The first indicated the real Line of class division: sclence/ideology. The prea fent thesis exposes the false dividing line: teaching/| Raught. The teaching relation haa the function of transmitting knowledge to those who do not posters St, Tt Ls hence based exclusively on the techaical Aivision of labour. The two theses conplenent each other, but absolutely contradict each other as well For the first presents knowledge as determined by the difference between science and ideology, whereas the second suppresses every determination cther than ‘the opposition of knowledge to non-knowledge, of the full to the empty. The dividing line had boon dravn solely between the concepts ‘science’ and 'idesLoqy' «| Fe ie obliterated se seon as the reality of the teaching function comes into play. Alehuseer declares: that stotents ‘very often rise alienating the 9008 Will of theiy teachers who are unjustly held in sus Picion over the validity of their knowledge whieh 1 Considered superfluous’ (p94). ut didn't the Science/ideology distinction precisely imply the Gecpest and most justifiable suspicion cowards the knowledge of the teachers? To renove that suspicion, St ie necessary to give knowledge the status of science. This means making the relation of science to non-sctence intervene a second tine, not now in the shape of error (aeience/idesioay) bat in that of ignorance (knowledge/non-knowieage). The concent of science now appears in its trie light: the seience/ ideology distinction ultimately had no other functicn| than to justify the pure being of knowledge - nore accurately, to Justify the eninent dignity of the Possessors of knowledge. To understand this reversal of quality into quantity, we must here again recoa- nise the voice of the revisionist pronpeer: what 1s requires is an educi ktyt, tof a high cultural level". As Eeachare are con- cerned, in thetr double role of scholars and wad earners they are objective allies of the working Eless. Soin wnose Interest would it be to criticise then, Lf not that of provecateura in the pay of the bourgecisie? it is net accidental if etc etc » But it would be wrong to see Althusser's discourse Ss a simple piece of hack-work in the service of Fevisionien. On the contrary, ite interest tes in the fact that it reproduces che spontaneous discourse Of metaphysics, the traditional position of philosoohy with respect to knowledse. A position that Althusser indicates, while at the sane tine concealing it, when he defines philosophy as follows: Phitosophy represents politics in the domain of theory, oF tobe nore preciacr vith che soiances = ane! Yieo-versa, philosophy rebresante sclenei? seity in politics, with the classes engaged in the class struggie.1é ° Althusser's thesis falls to recognise that this double representation - of the scientific with the political, and of the political with the scientific ~ already existe precisely in knowledge, ¥nowledge Constitutes the systen of appropriation of scientific conceptions to the profit of a class. Now it is potable fact that philosophy has been established land developed in a definite relstion to knowledqe, but without ever recognising its class nature, So when Plato attacks the Sophists, or Dascartes Scholasticisn, their criticism furctions largely as a criticiss of knowledge: that is, not sinply as Gritician of an erroneous tscourse, but of a certain Social and political pover. But even when they grasp the properly political dimensions of this knowledge (Plato), they cannot attain to the level of the eause; chat ds" to say, to the articulation of knowledge With the rule of «class. Usable to see knowledge fas the systen of the ideological daminance of a clas: they aro reduced to criticising the effects of this system. Philosophy thus develops asa criticisn of False knowledge in the nane of trve knovledse (Selance}, of of the enpirical diversity of knowledge Sn the ane of the unity of sefence. The critician of knowledge, failing to recognise its class fune~ tion, is made in the nane of an Ideal of Selence, in a Alscourse which separates the reain of science Fron that of false knowledge (opinion, illusion etc). ‘The opposition of Science and its Other has the func tion Of misconceiving the class nature of knowledge. And the discourse of metaphyaics propagates this Binconcaption inasmuch az if presents itself as 3 Giscourse on science; S.0, ag a discoivee asking the question: what constitutes the sctentificity of Science? The act of modesty characteristic of the Fepiatenolozical' tradition to which Althusser returns, consists in beliaving that this question ts produced at the very request of science. Thus for Althusser, a new science (Greek mathenaties, Galilean Physics etc) would call for a discourse defining the forns of ite sctentificity (Plato, Descartes ete). Isn't this to play the question at its om gane? ‘In fact, the question can only actually exist in erder ot to pose the question: what is the basis of know- leige? “So it te not produced at the demand of Sesence (even Lf, in fact, it votces thie danand) but by knowledge's concesinant of itenit.:7 Philosophy thus traditionally practices a critique Of knowledge which is simultaneously a denegation!” Of knowledge (i.e. of the class struggle). Its post- tion can be described as an irony tovards knowledre, fenich it pats in question without ever touching its foundations. The questioning of knowledge in philo~ sophy always ends in its restoration: a movenent the great philosophers consistently expose in each other. ‘Thus Hegel criticises Cartesian doubt, which only results in re-establishing the authority of everything kt pretended to reject, Feuerbach isolates the sane pretence in the Hegelian ‘path of despair’. ‘The hon-knowledge of the idea was only an ironic non= knowledge". And this is what we rediscover in Mithusser: the line of division is scarcely drawn before it is erased, Doubt about knowledge only existed the better to establish the authority of @ knowledge elevaced finally to the rank of science. In repeating this manoeuvre, Althusser reveals its political significance, clearly showing what 1s at [issues the status of the possessors of knowledge |any serious doubt about the content of knowledge van- shes the sonent the question of its subsect i= raised, the nonent that the very existence of a croup \nosseseing knowledge is at stake. Here again, there § an evident hanolocy with that classic phi losonhieal igure, of which che Cartesian cogite provides a nod lustration: the challenging of the object of know ige aims st confirming ice subject. Doubt about che object is only the obverse of che certainty of the subject. Tt Is precisely this contradiction which Gives philosophy its status: philoscphy 1s constructed against the pover of the false po-sessars of knowledge, of more accurately, of the possestors of false knov= ledge (sophists, theologians exe’. But it cennot 30 for a to put et ianve the very existence of knoeledge os the instrunent of a class. So against the object of false knoviedge, it invokes the subject of true Knowladge; which means, in the final analysis, strengthening the grounds for doninance of those Possessing (true) knowledge, and hence Justifying Class domination, Thia passage from the object of False knowledge to the subject of true knewledge would Consequently correspond to the political denand of a Class excluded fron power, lending this denand the forn of universality. (The Cartesian ‘good sense’. ‘This movenent has wlcinately no other end than re Inforeing the privileged position of the possessors of knowledge - a form of class rule.!! ‘The Althusserian theory of ideology describes this sone movement, and we fow see how the spontaneous dis: Course of netarhysics canes to be articulated with Fevisionist ideology. Only one nore mediation is required for thia: Althusser's acadonic ideology. in it, the apontangous discourse of metaphysics assunes the function of justifying the teachers, the possessors and purveyors of bourgeois knowledge: (knowledge which inclades acadenic Marxism). Speaking in thele name, defending their authority, Althusser quite naturally adopts the class position expressed in| Tevisionist 1declogy ~ that of the labour aristocrecy| Gnd the cadees. The spontaneous diecourse of neta~ Physics ie this the necessary mediation enabling Rithosser to recognise his om class position in that| expressed by revisionism, ‘This convergence is located| In the question of Knowledge and the defence of aca~ Genie authority. At this point, the Althusserian theory of deology functions as’ the theory of an imaginary class struggle to the profit of @ real Glass collaboration, that of revisionism. The trans-| formation of Marxian into epportunisn 1s complete The analysis of humanist ideology ‘This concealment of the clase struggle reveals its hnost profound effects in the analysis of hunanist {seology!®; an analysis produced to answer the ques~ ton: what ie the function of the humanist ideology, Currently proclained in ehe USSR? To angver this question; that 42 to say, in fact, not to pose it. For the only way of poring it would be to enquire as to its class meaning ~ instead of which ve find it Subsined under ancther, more general question, and one whose answer iz already laid cut beforehant since the USSR ig a classless society, ali ve have to do is fo apply the theory of ideology minss chat which deals with the exercise of clees rule. Ne know all too Weil vhat 1e left: nanely, thatigeotogy is not science | and that it enables nen to live their relation to their conditions of existence. Socialist humanism this designates collection of new problens without giving a strict knowledge of then. And what are these Broblene? Precisely those of @ classless society: zn fact, the thenes of socialist humanism desiq~ hate the existence of real problems: new historical, economic, politica, and ideological problens that the Stalinist period kept in the Shade, bat stii] produced while producing Goclalion ~ problens in the forms of economic, political and cultural organisation that corres- pond to the Jevel of development attained by bockalisn's productive forces; problens of the how form of individuai development for a now period of history in which the State will no Jonger take charge, coercively, of the leader ‘ship or control of the destiny of each individual, Gn which from now on each man Will objective) ve the choice, that is, the difficult task, of Peconiza by hinself what he is. The thenes of Socialist ininaniem (free development of the Individual, respect for socialist legality, Bignity of the person etc), are the way the Soviets and other socialists are Living the Felation between themselves and these problens, 19 that is, the conditions in which they are posed. Wie nave three elevents in this text: firstly, 2 fron a class society to a classless society; nanely, that this transition poses = certain number of econo- ley political, ideological problene etc. Secondly, eed generalities concerning the function of idesleay with which we are by now quite familiar. And finally, {in the hide-and-seek played by these two generalities, the absent object which waa going to be analysed ~ the reality of the Soviet Union, aut the absence of this reality is due to the solid presence of its fmage. What in fact {s this ‘nev? reality which Mithuoser believes must explain the new recourse to fan old ideology? lothing but the image vhich Soviet Society presents of itself; or to be more precise, which the governing class presents of it: ‘a new peried of history in which the State will no longer fake charge, cosrcively, of the leadership or control the destiny of each individual...", ‘a world without economic exploitation, without violence, without Giserinination...' etc. The ‘explanation’ of the Soviet hananist ideology iz really only its re- Guplication. ‘The whole chicanery of the theory of ideology ends in this naivety which destroys any analysis of ideology before it haz begun: an Ideolosi~ Gel discourse is taken to be the adequate expression Of what it purporte to express; the discourse which Clains to be that of a classless society is taken at fte word, It de clear that this reduplication is not a superfluous act, since Lt strengthens the effect this disceurse inevitably has: that of concealing the class struggle in the assertion thet 1t has been superceded. ‘The circularity of the analysis also closes the circle of the Althusserian theory of idecloqy, which Eeturne here to its starting point. This retura must ‘be vnderstood in two senses. On the one hand, the "Concrete’ analysis of ideoiozy in a classless soci- cey brings us back to the generalities dealing with the function of ideology in general. The theory offers ite ovn repetition as the analysis of its Gbject. But on the other hand, the political siqnifi- once of the theory is showm up in dts encounter with the object which st S2 ite precise function not to fthink, Revisionien s not sinply the object thet che Mehusserian discourse conceals or hesitates to think: it is strictly ite anchought, the political condition Of its theoretical functiening. while Althusser Claine £0 be explaining soviet ideology, it would seem fo be mich more revisionien which explains and founds [the Althusserian theory of ideology. A theory which porits, even before the existence of classes, the Fecessity of a function for ideology - is it not the Gxpression, the interpretation, of a politics which Clains te have got beyond classes? Tf the Alehusserian theory of ideology ends with this theoretical suicide, it is precisely on account Of the prohibition vhich prevents it from thinking Of ideological discourses ax discourses of the class Struggle, and caly allow it to relate then to their Teockal funetion’ and their non-scientificity, So the itique of hunanien leaves its object intact, since St cannot conceive it other then by reference to the Sclentitiefty fron which it is excluded. The concept Gf pan is that of a faise subject of history, a new form of the idealist subject (spirit, consciousness, Cogito, of absolute knowledge). such # critique feaves aside the main problen: what does hunanisn Fepresent politically? what dees the concept nan Actignate? Experience enables us to reply that hunan- {st theory hes always had the goal of protecting, tader the disguise of universality, the previlegee Of e specific set of men, Man de always the Prince Cr the Bourgeoisie. Tt can as easily be the cedre “che Party leadership. But It can elso ~ according toe Taw of ideclosy - be the concept in nich those whe rebel against their power make their Protest and assert their vill, Hunanisn always ctions as the discourse of @ class in struggle, And such mast be the case for the various forns which hunanlet ideology has taken in tho USSR. Stalin can pat us on the right track here: isn't che fanous formula ‘Wan, the sost valuable cap! Side of the slogan which proclasss that ‘the cadres series of very general sanarke aboot © Secide everything’? Ard can one conceive of thepresent Thunantam of the individual person' other than by reference to the process of the restoration of capitalisn? Ts it not the equivalent in ideology ‘of the ‘State of all the people’ in the political Sphere? The recent history sf the USSR and the People's Genocracies shows us how if can act both as the dlecourse of the new ruling class, which denies that classes axist in these societies, and as the expression of the rebellion of classes or peoples copressed by revisionisn. Now it is noticeable that Rithusser does not relate the {eological foms of hunanisn to the reality of « strsggle or a division, bat to the unity of a problem which exists for the unity ef a group: nat need do the Soviets have for an idea of fan, that ia, an idea of thanaeives, to help Then ive their hisearyy?? ‘The anewer to this question is given by the relation- ehip Between the tasks to be accomplished [those of the transition to communism) and the conditions in which they have to be accomplished (‘diftioulties due fo the periad of the “cult of personality" hut alco the more @istant difficulties characteristic of the "construction of socialism in one country”, and ia addition tn a country aconcnically and culturally backward to start with*). Problans that nen have to resolve, objectiyé foitions, backwardness, excep~ tional phenomena thle are the ingredients of Althusser's recipe, there is one thing he absolutely refuses to understand, and that is contradiction. As a result he moves conpletely off the terrain of Marxisn onto that of Bourgeois soctoloqy. We indicates the form of this shirt at the Beginning ~ wo now know its palietaal function A theoretical platitude to conplenent a political naivety: this is how every theory of ideolary must Inevitably end if it fails to make the class struggle its starting point. Ideology and class struggle In order to understand this original omission, ve must come back to the goal pursued by Althusser's theary: a critique of theories of transparency and Ge-allenation. To resist them, it vas necessary to show that the World de never transparent. to conscious oosy that even in classless goctetion there ts Nidgotogy'. Ae this point we began to susrect that. ‘the argunent might actually have a quite difforent aim, and that the choice of eneny might have been nade to Suit its purposes, fut, to be fair, the relation was tworsided, If Althusser's discourse on ideolowy is governed by the concern to Justify revisionisn, 1 Gould just as well be said that it is because Althusser reneins prisoner of a classic philosophical Broblenatic that he ranains in the canp of revision= fst ideology. rn fact, by struggling against ideo- logies of alienation, caught in the dilenne of trans— Parency (idealist) or opacity (materialist), Mthusser is led to fight on the ground of hts Opponent. The characteristic of the oara-Marxist theories he criticises (Lukacsian, existentialist, and the rest) is to identify the Marxist theory of ideologies with a theory of the subject. Now Althusser does not sever this knot which ties Nerxist theory to the idealist philosophical tradi tion. we only attacks one particular aspect of Lt: the interpretation of Marxist theory in terms of a theory of consciousness. His criticien fixes the Status of ideclogy according to twe basic determina tions. [on the one hand, the theory of ideology is a theory Gf the illusion of consciousness; on the other, Aseology is not just ‘false consciousness’ but must be granted an objective status - it ie a system of Fepresentations (images, signs, cultural objects) which extends boyond the ephere of consciousness and has an objective social reality. Sue this double Sorrection leavos ut what was gpecific about the Marxist theory cf ideologies: the ‘ideclorical foms' which the Preface to the Contribution to a er: of Political Economy talks of are not merely social forms of represeentation, Int the forms in which « struggle { foughe out.?t The realm of ideclosy is ot that of subjective illusion in general, of the hecessar{ly inadequate representations tien form of their practice. Ideologies can only be given an Jobjective status by considering then in terns of the class struggle, This means that ideology does not, just exist in difcourses, not just in systens of images, signs ote. The analysis of the University nae shown ue that the ideology of a clase exists, First and foxensst, in insticutions ~ in what we can Jeatt ideological apparatuses, in the sense in watch Marxist theory talks about ‘the State apparatus Because of the point from which he starts, Althusser Jean only give ideological forms the spectral object- Hivity of systens of ‘signs’, ‘cultural objects", etc. In other words, a metaphysical theory of the subject (in the form of a theory of illusion) is Linked with Ja sociology of ‘systens of representations’. We have seen how the two are articulated within a conception Jor ideslogy watch 4s wholly metaphysical, in the strict sense that it cannot understan? contradiction: Jand only the abittey so understand contradiction would allow de to quit the metaphysical ground on which its opponent stands. V ‘The consequence of this is that the political problen designated by the ‘end of ideologies" prob- lanatie, is conjured cut of existence, ‘Only an ideological vorld-outlook, says Althusser, ‘could have imagined societies without ideology and accented the wtopian ddea of « world in which idecloay (not, just one of its histories) forms) would disappear Without trace, to be replaced by scyence.'@2 The problen ie heve posed entively in the tems of the ideologies being criticised: the end of ideologies is identified with the reign of science, that is, with the disazpesrance of subjective illusion in General. On this basis, it 1s easy to show that the world of transparency cannot exist, and that class~ Less societies can never do without ideology, so defined. Ke have seen how, in practice, this critique Of utopia was revealed as the nost fatuous naivety not surprisingly, for to pose the problen in this way eant concealing precisely what had to be thousht: She pursuit and the end of the class struggle in the Fealn of ideology. Tt is impossible to understand this problen ~ and consequently impossible ts produce any concrete analysis ~ if ideotogy is conceived as Sbiveion, however much the ‘gocial' necessity of this fusion is stressed. To understand it, ideologies must be conceived as systens representing class Anterests and the develoment of the class struggle. ‘The end of ideologies is then not presented as an eschatological concept, but in the sane terns as the withering away of the State ~ that is, as a function GF the end of the class struqgle. An'end we now know to be still a long way off even after the dic~ tatorship of the proletariat has been established. [The experience of the cultural revolution has raughe ug a little atous this, It showed is what the foms were in which ideology was claired to exist in a Classless society: forms, ie fact, in which the class struggle is relentlessly pursued within a socialist society. The rejection of the ‘ideological’ these of the end of ideologies stops one fren considering the essential problen of the forms of class struggle in Socialist societies, The Chinese experience has shown us the crucial inportance of the ideclosical forms taken by thia struggle. The socfeliee revole— tion involves the strugsle against the various forms of bourgeois idecloay which continue to exist after the seizure of political power: traditional (eolo— gies of individuslisn or obedience, or modern ideclo- Gies of skilis and technicality. All these problens Concern the ideological effects of clase divisions. ‘They have nothing to do with the question of the Gtsappearance of subjective illusion. tot that this problem should renain unposedy but Le does not belong to the problanatic of che Martist theory of ideologies, which 16 no more than a theary af the eu ‘chanAlthusser tries to attack the anthropolosical Ldeologiee which make the theory of society into a theory of the subjects but his diacourse has no nore subversive effect that reestablishing @ theory of Science, as the mediation governing the relation between’ these two terns. ‘This theory of the deoloqies £¢ science rests on the sane ground as Glains to resist; which is to say that it reflects, in ste on particular vay, the class position of the petty-bourgeois intellectual - position oscillating between two canps.@2* On the fone hand, the camp of the Bourgesisie, with which the petty-bourgeols intellectual is associated not only through class situation, but through the very Sphere in which he vorks, through his theoretical problematic vhich itself reflects his function within the bourgeais ideological apparatus. And on the other nend, the camp of the proletariat which he would Like to Join, but the interests of which he can only adopt by assimilating thes to the objectivity and tniversality of ‘science’, This means that insofar az he renains @ petty-bourgeols intellectual ~ inso- far, that is, as he does not participate materially in the proletarian struggle - he can only unite with the interests of the proletariat in a mythical fashion, by making the revolutionary objective coin cide with thae ideal point, in suriving couarda which he justifies nis om practice as a petty-bourgeots intellectual: the Ideal of Science. In other words, he adopts the ‘positions of the proletariat? at the level of the denegation of his oi clase practice. To join the proletarian struggle at the level of this denagation, means joining the canp of bourgests poli ties disquised as proletarian politics - the canp of revieionien, An ideal convergence which in a country like France corvespends to a precise reality. Por the detty-bourgeois intellectual, access to the vorking class is doubly quardea: by his om Aneegration into ‘the systen of the ideological dominance of the bocr- qeoisie; but also because between hin and the prole- tariat stands the revisionist apparetus, am che ‘representative’ of the working class. So on both sides, the ‘Marxist petty-bourgeois intellectual seer hineel® excluded from participation in the proletarian struggle; fron participation in that whieh, in the last instance, can alone guarantee the Nareise rigour of his discourse.2@" ‘The operation which transfoms Marxist theory into @ discourse on Science reflects this double Linitation: a general Iimitation coning fron the position of an intellect— tel divorced fron the messes, and integrated into the bourgeois ideological aysteny and a particulae Lnitation stenming fron the revisionist encircienent of the proletarian struggle. The ‘scientific’ rigour Sf this discourse 12 this only the obverse of the Inposasbality of it Sanctioning as rigorous Marist theory; in other words, of its being revolutionary. This ‘scientific! rigour does not enable {t to escape its double set of linits: quite the opposite ~ only by virtue of its own lack of coherence can a petty bourgeois ideology acquire, in given etreunstances, a progressive function. once its basic rigour is, attained, it ie shown up for vhat it is ~ a bourgeois Figour. This is way the Marxist discourse on science ultinately dissolves into the two-fold justification for academia Enowleage and the authority of the Centra: Commitces, ‘Science’ becomes the waechvord of the sdeological counter-revolution.? Ksthout vevelutionary theory, there can be no evolutionary movanent. ve said it e411 we wore Sick of {£, hoping in this way to set our minds at ease. Tt fe cine now we legrat the lesson that ne cultural revolution and the ideolosieal revolt of he students hos tavent uss Givereed fron revolution Jacques Ranciére July 99 Afterword from the Frenchedition Mo mist got rid of thin habit of only criticising after the event = Mao Tse-Tung ‘The following coxt makes ste appearance in Prance after adelay of four years, It was drafted in 1969 for an anthology on Althusser published in Argentina, 1 dia hot at that tine think it vorth publishing in France fot those who witnessed and tock part in May 1960, the practical denonstrations of the mass movenest seeved to me proof enough that the question of Althusserian~ ism could be considered Aistorically settled, And while de was useful as @ means of clarifying my om ideas, a5 far a5 the enté-revisionist education of the masses wont, this kind of theoretical refutation seened Jaughable cémpared with the lessons of the struqale. When at every stop, the autonomous initiative of the masces was finding itsel® policed by revisionism, it would have seoned anachronistic to settle accounts with f@ theoretical police Whose headquarters May has sent up in flames. Subsequent events have shown the ideallan involved in such a position. It is true that refutation 1s of Little weight cempared with the transformations pro @uced in people's minds by nase-novements, But 50. long fas the apparatus of bourgeois damination remains in place, the base survives for the reproduction of Sdeologies which the movenent of the nesses appeared to have utterly destroyed. find given that the university machine vas working again, {t was necessary thet its role of keeping order ~ ite police-role ~ should be restored to life, and that Le should ferect the scholarly, theoretical scaffolding dasianed to shore up the tottering maxim: ‘it's always wrong to rebel!. OF course, this reconstruction is not exactly the sane as the original, since 1t is pro- duced in conditions modified by the effect of the Rovenent. Thus the experimental forms of the post~ May university (of the Vincennes type) tried to transfer the university's police-role from the acthority of the teacher to the authority of the know ledge; to transform the professorial despotisn into an egalitarian republic of petty mandarins ~ vre~ Eleely che problematic set out in althiseersanie In the immediate post-May period, noreover, Althosser's Gincourse recedes into the background, while st the Sene tine his theses are appropriated by the conbined Forces of young bucks of revisionism and the petty nandarins of the re-nodelled university, This appropriation is perfectly illustrated by that Literature student at Vincennes, a young TSF member, who was delighted that his teacher, by beginning a course on Racine with a posing of Althusser's prob- Jonatic of reading, should enable students of an unewfficient stangsrd to be eliminated fron the start. So the very difference in fornation between the Adear of revolt, produced by mass movements, and the roling ideas, constantly reproduced by the idealonical apparatusen cf the bourgeoisie, determines the poai~ Bion of this type of ideolosieel straggie which fights on ite opponent's ground. A porition strictly subordinate to the ideological transformations produced by the struggle, but nevertheless now inpose~ ible to abandon. Limited as the usefulness of this text would have been in 1969, 1t was wrong to restrict unowledso of $6 to those who could, in sone private and roundabout way, get hold of it'in the Spanish or | BI the eine, Ite present publication in a ei ent context of ideological struggle, vases new problens and necessitates certain restifications. Firstly, the passage of tine will undoubtedly make ny sritisisn seen one-eises, To which 7 shall appropriation of Altusserianim after Yay 65 in the oreats of the revisionist and mandarin reaction Bence, it concentrate Hie areicstacion ofaf Sdeology, expresses the class position of fugexist scholars’ confronted with the ‘ideological* voice of revolt. With regard to this fundanental dividing Line, ay exitiesan was correctly ~ and remains 60 ~ one-sided. But it is self-evident that a ceaplete history, that is, a ‘fair! evaluation of Althusserianien would have to take account of Les other nodes of political appropriation, and indicate the points in the Althusserian text at vhich one can anchor a left Althussoriantae which should Lead a Certain number of intellectvals to Maois. If T have concentrated on the effect of the right, it is because its doninant character was established by the mass-novenent itself. And the attitude of the Ugcvi. (Marxist-Leninist Union of Communist Youth) towards the stotent revolt at the beginning of May 68 14 enough, to denonstrate its hold even over “lege Alehissertanien'. Objection will also be raised against the early Gate (1964) of the texte criticised, ad much will no doubt be made of the self-criticien by which Althusser, beginning with ‘Lenin and Philosophy" , 4 said to have broken with his previous ‘theoretic tam" in favour of a philosophy conceived as political Intervention. Unfortunately for this idyllic vision, iets just these ‘theoretictat' texts and problenatic Of the 1964 period which are found to have produced political effects, of the left as well as of the right, And if the ‘new practice of philosophy’ promised by “uenin and Philosophy’ has paradoxically produced no noticeable effect in the field of class struggie, 1° is precisely because it turned its back on the political problens in which the Althusserian theoreticians had been laid bare. So that this alleged politicteation ‘of philosophy wes really more of a denezation of the Foundations and the political effects of Althusserian- isn, which left philosophy as a field of political intervention, with the scarcely burning question of tthe reality of the object of knowledze. I feel then, that the concepts at issue here really do constitute a ‘rational kernel’ which has given Althusserianisn the aystenatic character of an ideology inlependent of Althusser's personal history. His later contributions to the qusstion of ideclosy, are in ay view of two kinds: 1 The texts of 1968 (*Lenin and Philosophy", Cours do Philosophie pour les Seientitiques) crystallize the science/ideology relation inte a conceptual multiplicity (sciences, ideologies, the spentan- cous philosophy of setentists, conceptions of the world...) in which the theoretical schene of Althusserianiso is retrieved unaltered, ‘Thus the Correct ideas which the researcher drews from his scientific practice are, by a coupler mechanism, interfered with by different aystens of represent= ation (a conception of the world, spontaneous Philosophy, etc) produced elsewhere. But the complexity of this mechanism conceals the question OF this practice itself, of its forms of sccial existence and of the class struggle which puts st af stake. The class stroggle is thus relegated to the level of the representation of a practice, tn fhe traditional figure of the dislocation between tthe production of an cBject and the profuction Of ‘the consciousness of it. 2 The 1970 text ‘rdeolegy and Ideolojical state Apparatuses' introduces some ideas and a problen— atic produced by the Chinese Cultural Revelution fant the antivauthoritarian revolt ef,May. But fhe Alchusserian systen cannot be ‘set back on feet! by these conceptions, which, If taken their logical conclusion, could only snash it. S0 Alehusser introduces then only in foolation fron their mode of production; presenting as the Surprising end paradoxical eiscovery of research believe I am justified in advancing the foliowing thesis ... This thesia may seo pare~ foxical ....°) this truth about the dontnant ch acter oF the educational ideological apparatus, ich was prodaced in such a profoundly une iguous manner by the mase-novenent. In this way, Althusser can bracket together in the sane text analyses produced by two contlicting probe Aenatics (a problenatic of subjective {Llusion and a problenatic of state apparatuses); can casually mention in a Party publication that political Parties and Trades Unions are state apparatuses and can without danger ~ tf not without alice — Aiscuss the class function of education ina periodical devoted to the glorification of vntver- sal science and the state school. Nothing can be balit on this tronic discourse, where what is stated, and the very statenent of it, is constantly given the lie by the mode in which it is stated. Althusser can always adopt such of such a new Notion, draw such or such a lesson from practice but cannot set Althusserianisn back on ite feet — the complete and autoncnous model of revisionist This text will have a negative effect, if st is to play a part in the gane of building-up and kaocking~ dow monuments to great nen, Yet it can still prove useful £, by depersonalising the criticion, f allows the accent to be put on the ideological mechanisms of Dower which constrain the discourse of intellectuals in our societies. So the eriticion I make of the Althusserian analysis of ‘socialist hunantsn® in For Marx will lose its point if it should be thought, by @ scorn that is ali too easy with the benefit of Aindsight, to attribute to the blindness or guile of fan individual a type of relation to power firmly anchored in the practice of intellectuals; if © should be thought to exorcise in the shape of the Adthusserian devil, the temptation provided by thts Practice to transform the chains of power ints the interconnexione of theory. What was it that va always involved in the Althussersan seminars, snd that is still involved in many a seminar even now? The interrogation of concepts, dananding thelr author Jsation, questioning their identity, restraining those which without a passport wandered out of their proper province, etc... Proofs of identity, preventive Getention... the vast network of philosophy's police mentality for which Althusser ie ao more responsible then the capitalist {s, according to Marx, for the relations of production of which he is the supports ‘The apprentices of bourgeoss knowledge are trained tn a universe of discourse where words, argusent, ways ff questioning, deduction are prescribed by the dis- cursive forms ~ forns which are those of the re pressive practices of pover. And what is ultimately fat issue here {5 the effect of this systen of con- straints that T will call police-reason, on a particular philosophical discourse, And ultimately there is no paradox if the strength and relevance of this discourse ends up revealing on its surface the subterranean network of constraints in which the half-wits of academic philoscphy romp, free fran all problems. It 4 also necessary to refer to the conjuncture fend the ain of this text to avoid the lapse of tine Gketorting the use it makes of the couple ‘bourgecis Sdeology/proletarian ideology’. In opposition te Althosserianiem, it was inportant to affirm et a Theoretical level the capacity of subordinate classes to forge the ideological weapons of their fight, and hence to establish their right to rebel rejardless of whether it suits the politico-ayndies! apparatuses tof the working class’. This ws particularly vital at a tine when, from ail quarters, the die-hards, drawing the "lessons of May’ after their ow fashion, were entering into a war sgainet ‘spontaneisn'y {.c, egeinst the revolt of the masses which they pretended to criticise in order to supply i with whet, according to then, had been missing in May: | guard, party, science, croletarian discipline, or = | consciousness imported fren the outside. The voice of the massea or the discourse of che ecribes? Tho alternatives required that, faced with those peidlars of vanguards, the tbourgeols sdeoloqy/proletartan {Geclogy' opposition should be clearly pat forwerd, without any hair-spiisting, snsofar as it signified fhe right of the gasses to sutonomous speech andaction, But ot the sane time, the opposition vas Gaployéd ina eraditional form which concealed its Fundanental originality. Te does not refer to tro homogeneous realities distinguished by a plos or minus sign, but to tno mades of production of ideo- looy which are profoundly heterogeneous. Bourgeois [aeclogy 1s a systen of pover relations daily repro~ Guced by the ideological apparatuses of the bourgeois state. Proletarian ideology is a systen of power Telations established by the struggle of the prole- Eariat end other subordinate classes against all the forme of bourgeois exploitation and donination; forms Of Tesistance to the ideological effects materially produced by the bourgeois division of labour, forms Be aystenatisation of anti-capitalise struggles, foms of control over the superstructure by the masses. Tt is a system of power relations that is always Fregnentary because it defines a certain number of Conqueste alwaye provisional because it is not pro- fuced by apparatuses but by the develoment of Struggle. Proletarian ideology is neither the Sumary of the representations or positive values Of the workers, nor the body of ‘proletarian’ Goctrines. te ta 8 stopped assenbly-liae, an author~ ity mocked, 2 aysten of divisions between particular jobs of work abolished, @ mass fight-back against tSelentifie! innovations in exploitation, and it is the "Dare-£oot doctor* or the entry of the working Glass into the Chinese university. Mass practices produced by the anti-capitalist struggle whose Uniqueness is missed es soon as one tries to set a proletarian philosophy, justice or morality against the philesophy, Justice or morality of the bourgeoisie. Now this heterogeneity is habstually conceated by traditional discourses on proletarian ideclogy, Which only establish ite reality at the cost of an Unbiquous oseilistion which continually relates the potitirity of texts (the ideology of the proletariat fe Marxism-Leninism) to the positivity of the charac~ teristics whien belong to Renbers of a class (prol tarian ideology 4s the discipline of the factory: worker as againat petty bourgeois anarchisn, or the Zelidarity of the shop-floor in contrast to bourgeois [nlividsalien ete.) Ip this grose theoretical de Giation the justification has traditionally been found for all the practical deviations of every kind Ge revisionten, Either it 4s the sclentificity of proletarian theory that has the job of marshalling the "spostaneity' of the vorkers’ wild reactions; or else the proletarian characteristics (order, labour, Sisciptine....) serve to recall the anarchism of “petty-bourgeate’ rebeliions to order, Twin incarn~ ations of law-and-order which lead as back te the fource of this binary representation of proletarian iGeolesy. A creation of neither working class Conseiousnese, ner Yariiet theory, but of the Stalin~ fet state machine, this representation is supported on the pover relations which define the functioning of the revisionist ‘workers'' parties and states. | he science, proletarian ideology is the symbol of this power! as the sus of proletarian characteristics, St defines, for the workers, so masy reasons for obeying ‘their® power: "a spiritual point of honour’ ith the concrete reality of the ‘workers! ! militia Opening fire on the workere of Gdansk. Pvery critique of the ‘science/ideology’ coupte which relies on the ahifting eninge assembled beneath the concept of proletarian ideclozy, thus stays surk in enblguity. And this ambiguity doubt less does no nore than translate he inability which revelutionary organisations still find of ridding Chenseives of the politico-orqanieaticnal fons and the ideclogical effects bequeathed to us by the Feviaionist and Stalinist stave machineries. Here Spain, it ie ser the practical ericician of the ovement ef the masses to even avay the ‘proletarian! Dhantasne invoked by the sorcerer's apprentices of the state asparatuses. leny other points in this text T feel to be sub- jects for discussion. Sut cne does not correct the have altered nothing in the original text; 1 have Sinply added this afterword and scne additional hotes to enphasise the conditions in which it was Grawn up, and to forestall deformations in its Feading which its delayed publication might pes JacquesRanciére February 1973 Notes. ‘Théorie, Pratique théorique et Formation Théorique Tigclogie et Lutte 1agologique, p29 223 pouvoir Politique ot Classes Sociales, ‘Théorie, Pratique Théorique, ete, pp}0-31 Ibid. , p26 4a the vague use of the ‘metaphysical Aiscourse" fubsequently inherited by sociology (social. cohe~ Sion, the bond between men, etc...) loses the Specificity of the concepts involved here, the fect that they belong to Miztarieally determined political problematic. It is this problenatic Mhich, in the secend half of the 19th century, Gives sociology ite status and position in the Sneenble of practices enployed by the bourgeoisie Quring this period to mosla the men necessary to the reproduction of the eapitaltet relations of production; the period following the establish- Bent of those relations and the reaction of the proletariat, when the bourgecisie has twice been confronted with the possibility of its extinction. Nore astute than the ‘Mareizt’ scholars who prate eodlessly about the tepontaneously bourgeots! ideology of the proletariat, the bourgectsie recognised in 1648 and 1071 that, even if they used the sane words (order, republic, ownership, labour...), the workers were thinking differently. Mence the hecessity for the bourgectate to strengthen the ideological weapons of its dictator~ Ship. This political threat gives the new human Sciences their place anong the techniques for Roulding the ‘normal’ nan necessary to the system {2 moulding which enconpasses the detection of Grininale of the prevention of suicides, 30 woll fas the selection of the cadres or parlianentary Gducation of the masses (f.e. the parllanentary and Slectoral repression of the sutononcus political practice of the meses). It also gives then their Problematic: a sclence of the phencnens which Consolidate or break up social cohesion - what Prineiples strengthen the cohesion of a group, het criteria allow the most reitable ones to) be chosen fer such and such a positicn? or, more crudely still) how can one identity in the physiog- pony of a crowd or in the dineneions of a nan Skull the danger that they represent for the social Grder? Zt ie not aifsicult co pot behind the slaborsticn of the ‘sociological method! the pre~ Occupations of the detective Bertilion, author of anthroponetey, of of the military doctor Leon, theoretician Gf erewds and their ‘ring-leaders! ‘The inportant thing here is that Althusser rater these concepts of the bourgeciie's "police-reason' from the political dancers and manceuvrings of paver whieh underly them, in order fjirelate then to a function of the sostal whole Sn general. This is nevuraily conplenented by e conception of science abave and beyond classes, hich reproduces precisely the 'sclentietic! {deology that crowns the edifice of "police reason’, Tf a direct line lesds from this abstract, Conception of ddeology to the validation of Kautsky's thesis of ‘the inportation of Marsisn inte the vorking class", it is perhaps because the ilestoviesl stroasie when the conditions | thie line reproduces in’ theory the historicalattempt to donesticate the working class, to wipe Sue {ts cultural {dentity. The pititel bankruptey Of scclal~denccracy must indeed have something to Go with this "importation of conectousness' which hhas cone to mean in practice: the contaiment of the vorking class by electoral parties which, while spreading parliazentary ‘llusions, repress the political practices and pervert the organisa~ tional forms of the proletariat; the propagation of a ‘actence' and a scientietic ideology which help to wipe out the traditions of autencnous popular expression, ete... Conversely, the Assertion that it iz necessary to Bring conscious hess to a working class involuntarily trapped within bourgeois ideology, may really indicate the part played by soctal-denocracy in the attenpt to integrate the working class into bourgecis polltical Life. I the working masses have been able to find the means to resist this Kind of Tuareion’ in their practice, the intellectuals generally discover in it the form and eubseance Of their ‘Marist! theoretical discourse. (ote added February 1973) Naturally this class relation has to be carefully Aistinguished trem the forms (political, economic, Adeolegical) in which the class struggle is Fought, which are ita effects, Te nonetheless remains that the relations of production can only be understood as Class relations, unless they are transformed inte @ new thackstage-world". Tt ie just such a transformation which results from the Aetinction made by Poulanteas (in Pouvoir Politigue ot Classes Sociales) between the relations of prosuction and ‘social relations’. Starting fron the correct idea that the relations of production ave not ‘huan relations’, Poulantzas falls into the dilenma indicated above: trane- parency or opacity. As a result, the relations ‘Of production appear withdrawn into that exterior~ ity represented by the ‘structure’. The analysis, of Altnssser and Poulantzas ultimately results in 9 truism: the structure 19 defined by no more than its own opacity, maniferted in its effects. Ts a word, it is the opacity of the structure which Tenders the structure opaque. ‘This (quasi-Heideggerian) withdrawal of the structure could in no way be politically innocent. ‘The Preach Conmuniat Party is happy to argue thas! tthe struggle of the students only concerns the effects of copitalist exploitation; the grass roots struggles in the factories against the hierarchy, autonstion, victinisatione, algo desl only with effects. It is necessary to cone to grips with the very cause of exploitation, the capitalist relations of production. But to this Gineasion of the problen, only Science has access, 1.0. the wisdon of the Central Connie ‘The withdravel of the structure this becomes @ focus inaginarfus in the Kantian manner, ap inverted image, reduced to & point, of a future without limit: France's peaceful road te socialism. Por Mare, 2232 Taforie, ete, Piz mid, £30 A cubsticuce conception for the contradiction eich is based, of course, on the misunderstanding of the real contradiction Critique, No.152, January 1964,5p90-112 In For warx, pp719-247 pea ‘Thus Lt is, that in the same article, Alchusser Gedices the ‘technical! necers:ty for the whole Sndustrial hierareny, Ae for che ‘ensential reasons! which neceatitate sha existence of the 1a uu Ma university in a soctaltet soctety, their dtscussion will have to be lefe for sone other occasion ‘These brief remarks will lead one astray, should they be thought to trace revisionist ideology back to the interests of the intermediary strate. What this ideology represents 1s basically the ideology of a power structure which already contains the prefiguraticn of a social order to cone. Tho Feaction of the PCP and the COT (Contédération Générale du Travail) to the corpse of Overney, expresses less the cadres’ terror or the conemna~ Con by nenbers of the professions, than how it appeared to the occupants of an alvernative State apparatus, who, morscver, alroady participated as such in the bourgeois state apparatus. At Renault, the cadres of the Party and the CoP do not defend the interests of an intermediary class, but their participation tn che power of the enploy~ ers. By taking up the position it did, the PCP was not rapresenting the intereste of its electoral Following, but its ava interests as an apparatus sharing in the nanagenent of capitalist power in the factory. iote added February 1973) Tt 1s not uninteresting to note the agreement, at the very level of rhetoric, Betwean the metaphysical sormulation of ‘az if" and the classic rhetorical, figure employed in the PCF: ‘It 1s not accidental: Af ...! Popular conon-sense Le not mistaken when At Says that chance oes manv things. ‘The formulation of the problem seens to ne to have ezred, through having somewhat diploneti cally restricted the question of ‘class science’ to what ig clearly the safest ground - that of the teaching of sclentiric knowledges ~ in order to avetd Getting bogged down in the shifting sandy of proletarian geonetry or genetica. A inudable Festraint which nonetheless has the dravback of feiling to deal with precisely what was in question: the place of @ sefentific practice which would only be affected by the class struggle at the level of the transmission of ite results, Tt wuld be advisable therefore to look more closely at what is involved in this representation of a "pure sclentitic practice What is the “rational kernel’ in the idea of the universality of actentific practice? Te is that propositions exist Whose nodes of veritica- tion soon valid for all existing classes and social systens. Let us note in passing that this universality of the modes of verification dots not, for all that, place the practice which produces these propositions above classes (sich Gevelopnents in aritmetic as took place in the 19th century can be universally acknowledged without for all that destroying the political problematic of order which eupports then). But above all, let us note that, except in the treat- ses of philosophers, no science is ever reduced solely to the ordering of universally verifiable Propositions, nor any scientific practice solely fo the process of their production. In no sense is there any ‘pore’ scientific practice; such a Practice having its forms of existence in a systen 0f social relations of which propositions, femal Proofs, experinents (on the basis of which the deal Of science ts established) are only elements. The class strugole can manifest itself Gifferent levels: present even in propositions, procofs, a field of application, the methods and Sceaeion of their elaboration ele. One can see from this that sctencisie propositions and theories can, at one and the sane tine, hoop their peer Of versfsabtlity and yet belong to bourgeois science, he Chinese mathenaticians who underwent self-crtticin during the Cultural Revolucion, were not accused of having produced ise thearene, but of havinc practised in their nee, locking only And ein: choy isas ate hot replace thelr ‘bourgeois! theorems with ‘proletarian’ ones, but altered the relationship {6 the masses which had bean inplied in choir practice, This is becouse the social nature of a Science essentially depends on the two-fold question; whe practices science and for whon? To Conceal this double question ia to vindicate, under cover of the universality of the nodes of scien fie verification, the universality of the bourgeois asviaion of Inbom. What is the basic flav in the argunents about ‘proletarian science’ and ‘bourgeois science before the cultural Revolution? Precisely that they neglected the question: who practices science? ot by accident, but because these Argunente were based on 9 systen of the division (Of Tabour which, kesping clence cut of the hands of the masses, entrusted the responsibility for Judging ite bourgeois or proletarian character to ‘the functionaries of power end the experts on knowletge. Proletarian science will certainly never be created by a patent from the Readeny of Proletarian sctence and, as lon as proletarian Biology is the concern of Nessicurs Besze, Garaudy ete, thie science above classes vill be in Clover. ‘As the Cultural Revolution has shown, proletarian science means essentially ~ and this fan only be the work of a lengthy strugale by the the business of specialists beyond the reach of the masses. A proletarian science which cistin- guishes itself fron the other not only by product Gifserent propositions, but by virtue of the everthrow of the masses’ age-old relation to knowledge and power. (Mote added February 1973) ‘The characteristic of 2 metaphysical conception is that it tries to draw a line of class division in realities (institution, social gretips) which it views in a static way. Thus the revisionists list social groups in tems of whether they are revolu- tionary or not. The dialectic teaches that, on the contrary, there is knowable unity and division only in struggle. One cannot drav a line of Clase aivision in che university, but only in the struggle which puts it ab stake. Lanin and Philosophy, p65 In his Cours de Philosophie pour Ies Scientitiques (e course sun at the Ecole Normale Supérieure in 1967-68), Althusser develops the idea that phtlo~ sophy i2’not concerned with Science - an ideoloqi- eal concept - but with the sciences. Balibar, in Litumanieé of 14-2-'69, mocks those who talk about science as if it ware 4 "speculative Holy spirit! which is incarnated in the different sciences. But one might well ask what this strange concept of the sciences is. Can one say anything about it Which does aot pass through the mediation of the concept Sofence? ‘The nature of a concept i= not Changed by potting it in the plural. Tt can be the more hidden ~ and this is just what is invelved: to replace science by the sciences, is ‘to conceal the proper abject of shiloronhy (Setence} as produced by the denegaticn of knowledge. The proclained enti-spoculative act of Althusser and Balibar has the sole effect of strengthening the philosophical denegation of knowleaqe Donegation is « word used by Freud to desionate fan unconscious denis? masked By a conaciove accep tance, or vice-versa. red here in she senge of en ostensible critician concealing « Ptrongthened affirmation. The affirmation ie his bird! e-eye view of the history of philosophy will no doubt sean ineubetantial, tet ne briefly 19 a 2 2a Jan interpretstion of this history, which te even more of -hand, (2) that nevertheless, T have ns nare intention Of reprosching Althusser for his casuainess than of excusing myself to the punctilious historians fof philosophy. The day that thes historians are fe scrupulous in making the voice of the masses Peard, ss they ara in ectablishing the sense oF & Tine in Plato, it will be tine to see, in their respect for the great philosophers, something other than sinple vespect for the Great. As far fas Tam concerned, Althusser's casual treatment Of Plato or Dercartes seane quite perdonable com~ pared to the nonchalance with which he endorses the official history of the labour movement. (by soctal-denccracy and revisionisa), a history witch dds the weight of its faleifications to the Firing-squeds and prison-sentences of the ourgesiste. (Giote added February 1973) ‘Merion and Munanton’, in For Mars. hid, pp239-9 Bid, 238 Preface to the Contribution .. ete Selected orks (in one volunel p162 Morx-Eageis Por Mars, 9232 We Will have mede some progress in the analysis of class struggles and their ideological components, the day we turf out these mechanical conceptions of the ‘oscillation’ of the petty-bourgeoisie, which fate based on heaven-knows what ‘oscillatory pronerty! Gf tte intermediary position. Generally speaking, a1 the concepts vhich revolve eround the notion of a petty-bourgeoisie have becone, for ninerous “Warxist" intellectuals, the refuge of Diissful ignorance: what has not been explained by the ercillation of the petty-bourgeoisie? Gaullisn, Fascisn, leftisn ~ everything under the sun, and few others as well... Thanks to this, one can Ssepense with analysing the particular factors which produce the adherence or partial resistance to bourgeois ideology of a particular, non- proletarian stratum. The closeness of distance from manuel labour, existence or absence of traditions of collective struggle, social future, relation to State power, position in the relation~ ships of outhority, etc’~ all the determinations are obliterated in this ‘oscillation’ whieh, in a Single movement, alters the position of the Stodent and che small shopkeaper, she ruined peasant and the consultant engineer, the teacher fond the shop-girl in Prisunic, —"petty-bourgeoicie is thus the flatus yocis which hides - bedly - the Inability to articulate the contradictions proper t0 each class or classfraction, The concept of petty-bovrgenisie has doubtless aways had a certain power of canouflage. Tt is already visible in Marx where it serves, in Particular, to conces! the contradictions within the proletariat, thought of az a contanination of the buiding rodera proletariat by the artisanal @reans or the peasant frenzies of the bankrupted ‘suall proprietors. But on this point, as on many ethers, the acsdenic reading of Marx har been powerfully supported by the practice of the workers'' State apparatuses ~ prinarsly by the Practice of the Stalinist epperatur, where the struggle against the "petty-pourgeieie’, while concealing the inability to recognise and resolve contradictions areng the pecpie,,sesves simile establishing 4 new bourqeotate of planners, in spectors, prosecutors ete. A deliberste fa1iare t recognise contradict ‘the concept bo20h State power conceal what {t doesn't vant to know - ‘theoretical’ laboratory which has been found to be well-equipped for this universal function fof nen-thought, the effects of which can be spotted as mich in the discourse of Marxiat scholars a2 in that of professional revolutionaries. (lobe added February 1973) To go into this in any depth, it would be necessary) to demonstrate the interrelation between this theory af ideology and the police-revislontst con~ spiracy theory. Te theory states that workers do not have the capacity to produce an anti-capitalist ideology, and hence as autonomous anti-capieals practice. So if this worker claims to speck and fact for himsel#, he snmediately reveals hinsel? eo bes false worker, and thus a real police-ageat. lovote added February 1971) Let us specifically state, should it stilt be necessary, that what is in question here 1s not Althusser's porconal position in a particular Set of circumstances, but the political line implied by his theory of ideology. Rarely has a theory been nore rapidly appropriated by those who have an interest init. tm the nane of science, the workers" struggies against wage-scales are yeeieted ~ don't they misunderstand the scientific law which says that each 1s paid according to the value of his labour-powor? In the sane vay, the anci-hierarehical struggles in the university fail fo onderstand that ‘the witinste nature of the Staff-student relation corresponds £0 she advance € nunen knowledge, of which ie is the very foundation’. (J. Pexenti: 'Problines de méthode et questions théoriques 1iées 2 la refonte dee carriaves', July 1969). One could not admit ina nore ingenuous manner what constitutes the "foundation* of the theory of science to which one lays claim. ‘Tne inpasee in which Althusser finds himself ig demonstrated in a recent article in La Pensée 'm propes de Larticle de Michel Verret sur Mai Scudiane’ (June 1969). tn it, Althusser affires the basically progressive character of the May atodent movewnt, end denoumces the reactlonery interpretation of this sovenent by an over-zealous Gefenier of ‘science’. fut he cannot or will not At in the simple Justification of a reacy tionary polities. “Me only sees the mark of an inadequacy: the Party ‘has not been able to! analyse the student movenent, to keep in tauch with student youth, to explain the forms of working clase struyqle to ££, ete. The conclusion of the article shows that he Ss thus still Linited fo the twin recmurse to science and the Party apparatus, If is on the latter that he relies "to furnish all the scientiric explanations which wil allow everyone, including the youna, £0 Snderstand the events they have Lived through, land, if they wish, to grasp on a correct basis where they stand in the class struggle, by revealing the correct perspectives to then, by Giving then the policiesl and ideologies] means ERIE The TeRRievinG % ROTE PROFESOR OF mine. Common sense GNowell Smith Correct ideas, says Mao Tee-tung, do not fall from the sky: they are formed by social practice. What iz true af correct ideas holds also for ideas in general, No ideas fall fron the sky. ‘They are all rooted in given historical situations. ‘They all represent, of Feflect, certain ferns of past or present practice, ut the relationship is often a conplex or confused one, snd rarely as simple as the case pin-pointed by mao Tee-tung as the ideal: correct ideas in a correct in terms of a wrestling match. On the left, in the red carter, dislectical naterialios; and onthe right ‘This is a fallacious ena dangerous image. The Ghemy of a theory or a doctrine is never a rival oF conpeting theory but is the vorld of social practice in which that theory is rooted. The battle of ideas can be engaged at a refined level, one theory against another. Sut thiz is only a minute aspect of the Struggle. For in general the eneny camp is conposed ot Of one theory but of several. Furthermore these are not £0 auch theories ae sch but ways of thought Formed fron a mixture of different elements vhich serve to connect these theories to 9 day-to-day practice. Mark hingelf was well avare of the complexity of che situation. lis critique of religion in a case in Point. Mark gay religion not ax an arbitrary, meta~ Physie dreaned up by some armchair philosopher, nor fas an ingenious deception exercised hy the reling class on the messes, Dut as a form of thought hich had deep roots in the spostaneous experience of the mass of the pooole. The combination of elenents hich go to make up religious thought nse ite origins ultinstely in the real world. Religios 42 one of the ways a which people Live in an tlusory relationship With reality, the {ilusory "epiritual arona' of 2 Fontrasictary world, The religious aroua has for the most part (Festival of Light notwithstanding) heen dendorised by advanced industrial capitalism, The struqile against religion 1s no longer the necessary starting point of cultural revolution. Platitade, not mystery, iz the present eneny of crstical and seiontific thinking, and of a revolutianary practice. Religion hee been replaced hy ccrnon sence ‘But the lesson of Marx's critique of religion should not be overlooked, Nor shovld the contecticn between religion aid conan sense az it was implied by Marx and more explicitly developed by the Ttalsan invoked as being the ultimate no-nonsense conception of things, alien to all fome of valigious and Retaphysical speculation, thet the ssaociation may at flyst sight appear surprising. Bot in fact not Sely does religious thinking have itr orisine in the Connon sense of @ particular vorid, but it has in turn acted on cannon Sense, so that our present everyaay, in fact speculative and mystical rather than realistic and scientific. Connor sense ie fundamoncadiy resetsonary The key to common sense is thse the ideas that it enbodies are not so mich incorrect as meciety, iat only ¢ sritccton of tow things