Althusser and State Surveillance:

A Marxist Approach to the Problem of State

Surveillance

520478769
 Introduction

The problem of state surveillance has become increasingly contested, complex, and

multidimensional as it is situated in the twenty-first-century context of a neoliberal, post-

industrial world (Fuchs 2012, 675). Equally, the real-life political and intellectual

ramifications of Marxist literature have received considerable traction among both Marxist

and non-Marxist intellects and scholars worldwide (Strittmatter 2019, 82). Surveillance

studies have been predominantly approached from a liberal perspective (Venkatesh 2021,

383), however, an Althusserian-inspired account of the problem of state surveillance will

deliver new observations and responses.

This paper will investigate the problem of state surveillance through the theoretical

concepts of Louis Pierre Althusser’s theory of ideology, and how Althusser’s (1971, 90)

analysis of the embedded operations of Ideological State Apparatuses through the process of

interpellation constitutes state surveillance as a material institutional entity as opposed to just

being a purely abstract ideology. Secondly, by employing an Althusserian approach, I will be

conducting a case study of the Social Credit System introduced in the People’s Republic of

China and why there is such a high approval for the Social Credit System. Finally, with the

empirical data gathered from the case study, I will be evaluating the strengths and limitations

of Marxist theory to the problem of state surveillance.

Althusser’s Theory of Ideology

For Louis Pierre Althusser (1971, 90-91), the Marxist understanding of the State can be

characterised by two fundamental concepts. The first being the State apparatus which is the

repressive force of the governance bureaucratic processes that plays a central role in

furthering the interests of the bourgeois society but in turn, repressing and undermining the

interests of the proletariat society (Althusser 1971, 90-91). In order to legitimise the interests

2
of the bourgeois society, the State apparatus requires State power which is the legitimate

political power and authority officially recognised by the law (Althusser 1971, 91).

Furthermore, Althusser (1971, 92) makes a solemn distinction of how the State operates,

highlighting the difference between direct methods ultimately through State-sanctioned

physical violence and indirect methods ultimately through ideological conditioning. The

former he formulated as the Repressive State Apparatus and the latter as the Ideological State

Apparatus (Althusser 1971, 92). It is the Ideological State Apparatus that will be the principal

theory of critique of the problem of state surveillance.

Ideological State Apparatuses are non-governance superstructures from all parts of the

societal life that is formed independently of the State’s administration but formally serves to

reproduce and reinstate the procedures, norms, values, and ideologies of the State (Scott

2004). According to Althusser (1971, 104), this is accomplished through the process of

interpellation or hailing where individuals become subjects of the State through internalising

the ideologies of the bourgeois society as being ideologically neutral or natural.

That being said, state surveillance functions as an Ideological State Apparatus by

effectuating ideology in two ways:

(1) State surveillance sees ideology as being capable of double constitution and uses it

to its advantage, whereby the constitutive nature of ideology can only properly

function insofar its subjects are constituting reality through the content of

ideology (Althusser 1971, 104).

(2) State surveillance manipulates the external reality by producing an imaginary,

illusory representation of the external reality through ideology. This is achieved

through asserting ideological domination in such ways it conditions its subjects to

3
 believe the constructed reality as being the default, normal, and natural worldview

(Althusser 1971, 101).

Therefore, Althusser provides a balance critique of state surveillance by

demonstrating that although state surveillance is fundamentally underpinned by the

disciplinary mechanisms of abstract ideologies, it also concretely manifests in institutions and

enacts those ideologies as a result of its disciplinary nature and focus. Althusser (1971, 92)

listed eight general institutions of the Ideological State Apparatus: the religious institution,

the educational institution, the family institution, the legal institution, the political institution,

the trade-union institution, the communications institution, and the cultural institution. All

eight primary institutions are highly critical to the continuous maintenance and integrity of

state surveillance.

The Social Credit System of the People’s Republic of China

From the 1990s onwards, China has dawned the initiative to effectuate the nationwide

program and policy of the Social Credit System (hereafter SCS) into its institutions,

organisations, and government administrations primarily as a strategy and solution to address

‘problems in [the] commercial and financial sectors’ of China’s booming economy (Liang et

al. 2018, 427). However, it later transported to the political landscape where it was revised

and developed to now reinforce the ideological agendas of the Chinese government (Kostka

2019, 1567). Instead of addressing major economic problems, it now functions to assess the

ideological faithfulness of individuals and interest groups to corporate conglomerates and

government bureaucracies in the form of social credit points (Kostka 2019, 1566).

According to Kostka, there are three broad criteria points which adherences must

conform to be validated as a faithful “positive” citizen of the State: ‘…their creditworthiness,

4
adherence to law, and compliance with the government’s ideological framework’ (Kostka

2019, 1567). The ultimate goal here is to be able to direct the behaviours and interests of ‘…

individuals, businesses, and other organizations in China’ (Kostka 2019, 1566).

With clear prima facie violation of certain political and ethical standards,

nevertheless, a research report conducted by Genia Kostka revealed high levels of social

approval for the SCS initiative. The final result was surprising as 48.9% of the participants

strongly approved, 31.1% somewhat approved, 18.7% neither disapproved nor approved,

0.8% somewhat disapproved, and 0.6% strongly disapproved (Kostka 2019, 1575). The

majority of the participants who approved of the SCS ‘…tend to be older, higher-income,

male, more highly educated, and living in an urban area…[and] receive actual benefits’ from

the government (Kostka 2019, 1580). Furthermore, it is noted that education, income, and

urban/rural location are the biggest determining factors (Kostka 2019, 1580).

The statistical result provided by Kostka situates the Althusserian concept of double

constitution playing an active, disciplinary role where high approvals of the SCS is parallel to

the constant interpellation of the State’s ideologies. Kostka (2019, 1569) remarks that the

public approval of the SCS is in part due to the State’s ideological incentives being ‘…

thoroughly woven into the fabric of Chinese citizens’ everyday life.’ In addition, the former

hypothesis devised by Kostka (2019, 1569) was that younger, better-educated, high-income-

earning participants would have ‘…stronger preferences for democratic institutions and

liberal views.’ However, the result says otherwise where high approval is among participants

who had an educational background, a successful career, and a stable income.

To further strengthen this argument is also the fact that these same participants

received benefits from the system itself, calculating from a cost-benefit analysis than from an

ethical, political, and/or ideological standpoint (Kostka 2019, 1580). Hence, the disciplinary

mechanisms of state surveillance can be seen performing predominantly through ideology

5
and interpellation where participants are pacified through systems of benefits and sanctions,

making them both subjects and reproducers of the State’s ideologies (Kostka 2019, 1566;

Qiang 2019, 64).

The Strengths of Marxist Theory to the Problem of State Surveillance

With the problem of state surveillance predominantly surveyed from a liberal perspective,

Marxism definitely offers alternative analytical and pragmatic theories, concepts, and

solutions that accentuates particular areas in surveillance studies neglected by the liberal

tradition (Shlapentokh 2021, 159).

One of the major strengths of investigating state surveillance through a Marxist lens is

that it primarily explores vexed issues of power conflict, class division and struggle, political

consent, and the mechanisms of ideology (Gimenez 2001, 28). That being said, Marxism

contains the necessary analytical methodologies and theories to deepen its critique and

theorisation of the State (Gimenez 2001, 25). This is noticeably exemplified by Althusser’s

theory of ideology where he borrows from Marx’s own views of the State to strengthen and

clarify his analysis of how society operates on a macro scale (Althusser 1971, 90).

In conjunction with an Althusserian approach, Marxism delivers a critical

epistemological rationalisation for the various causes and effects of state surveillance and

why it poses as a threat; namely, that it is underpinned by capitalistic mechanisms and

incentives under the guise of multinational “big data” corporations and actors (Venkatesh

2021, 366). These “big data” conglomerates sell both private and public data to governmental

bureaucracies to automate, monitor, and acquire profits based on calculating the behaviours

of individuals and organisations (Venkatesh 2021, 367). That being said, many prominent

theorists including Michel Foucault would agree with the Marxist theory that the State has

made economy its principal mode of objective; as Foucault (1979, 175) remarked that state

6
surveillance has become ‘a decisive economic operator both as an internal part of the

production machinery and as a specific mechanism in the disciplinary power.’ In many ways,

state surveillance is a form of surveillance capitalism where the ultimate aim is economic

gain (Venkatesh 2021, 362).

Hence, Marxism as a whole is analytically valuable as it does not only expose and

scrutinise the internal mechanisms and operations of state surveillance but how its structures

is interconnected to wider themes of class division and struggle, power, and ideology.

The Limitations of Marxist Theory to the Problem of State Surveillance

In contrast, however, Marxist theory commits the general error of disproportionately focusing

‘…on the capitalist mode of production to the detriment of empirical social formations’

(Smart 1983, 20). To simply put it, Marxist theory reduces all political, social, and

ideological experiences and phenomena of the State and society to an economic

rationalisation. Hence, although Althusser provides a critical commentary on the economic

mode of state surveillance, he lacks to provide in-depth commentaries on its political,

ideological, social, and even family modes of operation (Fuchs 2012, 672).

In addition, all foremost problems in society, according to Marxism, can be accounted

through a critique of capitalism where it is situated as the central site of class divisions and

struggles, power conflicts, and dystopian inclinations (Smart 1983, 18; Fuchs 2012, 673).

Anthony Giddens, a famed sociologist, observed that in the emergence of modernity, state

surveillance must be conceived independently of capitalism and class division and struggle,

concluding that ‘critical theory must come to terms with those aspects of modern institutions

associated with surveillance as a medium of power’ (Giddens 1985, 2).

In a similar fashion, Marxist theory broadly theorises power conflicts on a macro

scale, solely examining major infrastructures, actors and agencies, and disciplinary

7
mechanisms, however, neglecting individualising forms of power which lies beyond the

analytical framework of Marxism (Smart 1983, 3). This poses as a problem due to the fact

that coming into the twenty-first century, there are more complex apparatuses and agencies at

play which exists independently outside of the Marxist critique of capitalism and class

division and struggle (Smart 1983, 7).

It can be said that the limitations of Marxist theory are attributed to its macro-scale,

broad conceptualising, economic-driven mode of analysis where it neglects individualising

forms of power that may prove to be more practical in the context of the twenty-first century.

Where the infrastructures of state surveillance are more complex and complicated than ever

(Fuchs 2012, 675), and to solely focus on capitalism and class division and struggle is

epistemological inadequate.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, Marxism, particularly Althusser’s theory of ideology, proves to be an

analytically worthwhile methodology to critique the internal disciplinary mechanisms of state

surveillance and how it concretely manifests its ideologies through the process of

interpellation. This can be seen in a case study of the SCS in the People’s Republic of China

where there is a high approval of the SCS among participants who were young, had an

educational background, and possessed a stable income. This is due to systems of benefits

and sanctions initiated by the process of interpellation. However, although Marxist theory has

its strengths in its comprehensive analysis of class division and struggle, power, and

ideology, it nonetheless, disproportionately places substantial emphasis on capitalism and

class division and struggle as the primary culprits for why state surveillance poses as a

problem.

8
Reference List

Althusser, Louis, (1971) 2006. “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an
investigation).” In The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, edited by Aradhana Sharma and
Akhil Gupta, 86-111. India: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Foucault, Michel, (1975) 1979. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Reprint,
Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Fuchs, Christian. 2012. “Political Economy and Surveillance Theory.” Critical Sociology
39(5): 671-687.

Giddens, Anthony. 1985. The Nation-State and Violence. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Gimenez, Martha E. 2001. “Marxism, and Class, Gender, and Race: Rethinking the Trilogy.”
Race, Gender & Class 8(2): 23-33.

Kostka, Genia. 2019. “China’s Social Credit Systems and Public Opinion: Explaining High
Levels of Approval.” New Media & Society 21(7): 1565-93.

Qiang, Xiao. 2019. “The Road to Digital Unfreedom: President Xi’s Surveillance State.”
Journal of Democracy 30(1): 53-67.

Scott, John and Marshall, Gordon. 2014. A Dictionary of Sociology. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

Shlapentokh, Dmitry. 2021. “Marxism and the Role of the State in the Soviet and Chinese
Experience.” International Journal of China Studies 12(1): 157-186.

Smart, Barry. 1983. Foucault, Marxism and Critique. Great Britain: Routledge.

Strittmatter, Kai. 2019. We Have Been Harmonised: Life in China’s Surveillance State. La
Vergne: Old Street Publishing.

Venkatesh, Nikhil. 2021. “Surveillance Capitalism: A Marx-Inspired Account.” Philosophy

96(3): 359-385.

Fan Liang, Vishnupriya Das, Nadiya Kostyuk, and Muzammil M. Hussain. 2018.
“Constructing a Data-Driven Society: China’s Social Credit System as a State Surveillance
Infrastructure.” Policy & Internet 10(4): 415-453.