Talk:Louis Althusser

Spinozism

The article on Althusser is fairly extensive, and yet I was unable to find a single reference to Spinoza and Spinozism. Outrageous! Althusser made several explicit references to Spinoza, cf. IISA:

(Lenin and Philosophy, London, 1971, p. 164): "As is well known, the accusation of being in ideology only applies to others, never to oneself (unless one is really a Spinozist or a Marxist, which, in this matter, is to be exactly the same thing)."

--Golioder 21:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is this mere name–dropping? Exactly how is Spinozism like Marxism? I would wager that this question would not be answered.Lestrade (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Interpellation

The article's description of the concept of the ideological interpellation was very poor, and also full of mistakes and miscomprehensions. I tried to fix it, though I am afraid another hour of work is required.

Note (quotations from IISA, Lenin and Philosophy, London, 1971):

• "Individuals are always-already subjects." (p. 164)
• The concept of interpellation is, I think, unexplainable without reference to the notion of recognition of ideological obviousnesses: "It is indeed a peculiarity of ideology that it imposes ... obviousnesses as obviousnesses, which we cannot fail to recognize and before which we have the inevitable and natural reaction of crying out ...: 'That's obvious! That's right! That's true!'" (p. 161)
• The passus on interpellation: p. 160-165

Someone else have fun with this, there is more important work for me to be done now... --Golioder 22:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hegel and Feuerbach

Althusser's essay On the Young Marx proposes that there is a great "epistemological break" between Marx's early,Feuerbachian (and not, as is usually assumed, Hegelian) writings and his later, properly Marxist texts.'

I'm not sure what point is being made here. Feuerbach's work is based on a re-reading of Hegel and Althusser himself describes the early Marx as tainted by "a Hegelian and Feuerbachian ideology" Hanshans23

Well, Feuerbach's work isn't so much a "re-reading" of Hegel, than a radical attempt to reverse Hegel's idealism into a materialism. Early Marx is definitely closer to Feuerbach than Hegel in that Marx follows Feuerbach in a materialist inversion of Hegel. The question of how radical are Marx's and Feurerbach's materialist departures from Hegel is still open though.--Agnaramasi 15:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Murder

Althusser killed his wife. As far as I understand it, he was not convicted of murder because he was found to be insane, thus irresponsible. Is it correct? David.Monniaux 23:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

yes

Well, it's only technically true that that is why he was never convicted - he was never tried at all, largely due to friends of the ENS in the French establishment who assured that he was immediately whisked away and committed.-mgekelly 07:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"I get by with a little help from my friends."Lestrade (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Mirror

" We acquire our identities by seeing ourselves and our social roles mirrored in material ideologies." Mirror is poorly chosen here, isn't it? The concept of material ideology is precisely that it is not a simple mirror, as understood by traditional marxism. Anybody got a suggestion for another formulation? Santa Sangre 12:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand Althusser's conception of the mirror here in debt to Jacques Lacan - the 'mirror stage' in Lacanian theory is a structural turning point in the development of the child and the construction of his subjectivity via the process of identification. --Lonepilgrim 22:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Death

Is there a source for his dying at home? There are reports all over the internet of his dying in the asylum. I don't know if any of these are verifiable reports, however. KSchutte 18:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's Douglas Johnson's introduction to Althusser's memoir The Future Lasts Forever:

Althusser stayed in hospital until 1983. He then went to live, by himself, in the north of Paris...He was always in and out of hospitals. It was in one of them, in the department of the Yvelines, that he died of a heart attack on October 22nd 1990. He was 72. (vii)

So he didn't exactly "die at home," but his asylum hospitalization was over seven years before his death. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep = he wasn't in an 'asylum' when he died just (like many people) in a hospital. mgekelly 14:20, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could somebody in the know put the proper pronunciation of Mr. Althusser's name at the article's head? Google yielded "alt-hoo-ser", but I wanted to confirm. CapeCodEph 22:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Guilt

In the passus on interpellation, I deleted the word guilty, characterizing an althusserian subject. Reasons: as guilt belongs to the field of morality, Althusser himself would only use it with great deal of sarcasm & disdain. Even though Althusser's theory of ideology can be fruitfully applied to a theory of morals, I believe the neutral use in the context of interpellation can be misleading. Furthermore, guilt is a passive affect, whereas being an althusserian subject is an active "full-time job": being free and autonomous and active, subjects are always ready to perform as soldiers and workers. The interesting point of Althusser's theory of ideology is precisely the fact that his ideological subjects are not simply a flock of sheep or drones or fanatics that were consistently lied-to, but that their very illusion of freedom is the instrument of their subjection. - Regards, 193.77.113.193 20:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC).

Influenced

I suggest adding B.-H. Levy to the list of Althusser's students and those influenced by him. The extent of his debt to Althusser is acknowledged in Adventures on the Freedom Road and his critical biography of Sartre. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KD Tries Again (talk • contribs) 17:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC).

Recent evaluations

Are there any recent evaluations on Althusser's works regarding Hegel, Marx, and Communism in light of the failure and collapse of Communism twenty years ago?Lestrade (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Collapse of Soviet Union

Did Althusser have anything to say about the disintegration of the USSR? I would think that such an event would have been important to him and his thinking.Lestrade (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Except he died the year before.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

That's true, but he did live to see the rise of Gorbachev and the events of 1989, so it's not inconceivable that he could have written about either subject. --Ismail (talk) 15:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Since Marxism as a theory behind the organization of various states has proved unworkable (on which see Alec Nove's Economics of Feasible Socialism) it would seem to me that any article on Marxist subjects, practical or theoretical, ought to include criticisms, from the left, right and centre, of the positions elaborated in the main article. After all, we don't let Plato slip by without a criticism of his ideas, so why should the Marxists get a laissez passer? Althusser is notoriously vacuous as a philosopher, constantly changing his ideas and positions as each came under attack or proved in practise to be less than stable, yet nothing of this vigorous debate has made it into the article. A good place to begin would be Tony Judt's article on the occasion of the publication of Althusser's self-serving memoirs, which summed up Althusser's life and career ably and concisely. Here is part of Judt's summation of Althusser's work:

Althusser was engaged in what he and his acolytes called a “symptomatic reading” of Marx, which is to say that they took from him what they needed and ignored the rest. Where they wished Marx to have said or meant something that they could not find in his writings, they interpreted the “silences,” thereby constructing an entity of their own imagination. This thing they called a science, one that Marx was said to have invented and that could be applied, gridlike, to all social phenomena. Why invent a Marxist “science” when so much was already at hand, the Marxist “theory of history,” “historical materialism,” “dialectical materialism” and the rest? The answer is that Althusser, like so many others in the ‘60s, was trying to save Marxism from the two major threats to its credibility: the grim record of Stalinism and the failure of Marx’s revolutionary forecasts. Althusser’s special contribution was to remove Marxism altogether from the realm of history, politics and experience, and thereby to render it invulnerable to any criticism of the empirical sort. (New Republic, V. 210, 03-07-1994, p33.)

You might also consult Judt's essay in the New York Review of Books, (53:14, 21 Sept. 2006) on the life work of Marxist critic Leszek Kolakowski.

The lack of criticism of Althusser's Marxism, either as Marxism or as philosophy, is a major hole in the article, and greatly lessens its value to the reader and researcher. I would suggest that each section have a final paragraph detailing what the problems are with the concept, and what criticisms have been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theonemacduff (talk • contribs) 18:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This entire comment is tendentious and overwhelmingly hostile. -TED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.32.182.180 (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

C'mon now- the criticism and reception sections comprise only a small part of the article. And you can't claim that Althusser's reception has been universally lauditory, can you ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.240.71 (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fake career of Althusser?

Is it true that Althusser faked much of his philosophical career or is this a urban myth? I am getting this info from here. Stampit (talk) 02:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The book review you are referring to 'Louis Althusser, The Paris Strangler' by Tony Judt appears to be somewhat tendentious. The author seems to take Althusser at face value whenever it suits him, taking Althusser's self-deprecating style literally: Judt seems to take Althusser at his word when the latter writes that he knew 'a few passages of Marx'. At the same time, Judt says Althusser's autobiography shows that he was on the 'edge of insanity'. In that sense Judt is doing exactly what she accuses Althusser of -- selective lecture symptomale (symptomatic reading) Modern Tribal (talk) 03:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

References for Biography Section

As I have no access to any biographical sources on Althusser, I would be grateful if someone who does could add references to the biography section of this article. Hanshans23 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Post-1980 Work

Apart from one brief mention, the "aleatory materialism" Althusser developed after his fall from grace is not discussed in the article. I am unable to access any primary or secondary sources that deal with Althusser's later work, and would be thankful if someone with knowledge of this area could contribute to the article. Hanshans23 (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Its a shame that it has been four years and this still hasn't been adressed. There continues to be almost no mention of his work after the 1980s.ProfNax (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

High importance?

This article has been rated as high on the scale of importance for the wikipedia philosophy project. Does Althusser's work really occupy a place in the canon of Western philosophy on the level of Hume or Kant? Hanshans23 (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

indeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.193.90.254 (talk) 22:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would demote it to Mid. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the dates of those remarks, it is in fact already at mid-level importance. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Referencing

A cry in the wilderness: It would be great if whoever wrote the page could fix the reference system. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm impressed by the recent reference-fixing efforts. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The referencing is still not perfect in that what's being referenced are essays from collections of Althusser's writings and different editions of the same title have different pages numbers for the same essays. I haven't inserted the ISBN into every single reference because it's incredibly tedious. If someone were to add to this article later they might be working from a different edition of the same book and this could lead to confusion for anyone who wanted to check the references. 20:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The job you have done is already good. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Too technical?

The talk page claims that this article is too technical and hard to understand for non-experts. I wonder would the person who made this claim be willing to stand by this assertion after comparing the wikipedia page to Althusser's own writings? A lot of Critical Theory and Media Studies websites that contain info on Althusser tend to focus on a very narrow area of his thouht (his theory of ideology) and often completely oversimplify his views Hanshans23 (talk) 12:50, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone object to me removing the too technical claim? -- Hanshans23 (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edits to "Ideological State Apparatuses" made 30 November, 2010

Although the edits that were made earlier today are well-referenced and contain material of value, I believe that a lot of it is just restating things that were already covered by the article as it existed before the edits were made. For example, the first and second paragraphs of these edits seem to just repeat things that are discussed under the "levels and practices" heading. I believe it would be more constructive to try merge these contributions with the sections of the article to which they are relevant, rather than just shoehorning them into the ISAs section in one big glut. For this reason - I am removing them temporarily from the main article and inserting them below this comment with the aim of restating them in a tidier and more organised fashion. -- Hanshans23 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Althusser reiterates the Marxist theory that in order to exist, a social formation is required to essentially, continuously and perpetually reproduce the productive forces (labour-power), the conditions of production and the relations of production. The reproduction of productive forces is ensured by the wage system which pays a minimum amount to the workers so that they appear to work day after day, thereby limiting their vertical mobility. The reproduction of the conditions of production and the reproduction of the relations of production happens through the State Apparatuses which are insidious machinations controlled by the capitalist ruling ideology in the context of a class struggle to repress, exploit, extort and subjugate the ruled class.

The Marxist spatial metaphor of the edifice, describes a social formation, constituted by the foundational infrastructure i.e., the economic base on which stands the superstructure comprising of two floors: the Law-the State (politico-legal) and Ideology. Althusser extends this topographical paradigm by stating that the Infrastructural economic base is endowed with an “index of effectivity” which enables it to ultimately determine the functioning of the superstructure. He scrutinizes this structural metaphor by discussing the superstructure in detail. A close study of the superstructure is necessitated due to its relative autonomy over the base and its reciprocal action on the base.

Althusser regards the State as a repressive apparatus which is used by the ruling class as a tool to suppress and dominate the working class. According to Althusser, the basic function of the Repressive State Apparatus (Heads of State, government, police, courts, army etc.) is to intervene and act in favour of the ruling class by repressing the ruled class by violent and coercive means. The Repressive state apparatus (RSA) is controlled by the ruling class, because more often than not, the ruling class possesses State power.

Althusser takes the Marxist theory of the State forward by distinguishing the repressive State Apparatus from the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISA). The ISAs consist of an array of institutions and multiple realities that propagate a wide range of ideologies such as Religious ISA, Educational ISA, Family ISA, Legal ISA, Political ISA, Communications ISA, Cultural ISA etc. He accentuates the differences between the RSA and the ISAs as follows:

1. The RSA functions as a unified entity (an organized whole) as opposed to the ISA which is diverse and plural. However, what unites the disparate ISAs is the fact that they are ultimately controlled by the ruling ideology.

2. The RSA functions predominantly by means of repression and violence and secondarily by ideology whereas the ISA functions predominantly by ideology and secondarily by repression and violence. The ISAs function in a concealed and a symbolic manner.

Althusser posits that it is not possible for a class to hold State power unless and until it exercises its hegemony (domination) over and in the ISA at the same time. However, during a class struggle, the domain of the ISAs enables the ruled class to counter the ruling class by using the inherent contradictions of ISAs. He declares that the School has supplanted the Church as being the crucial ISA which augments the reproduction of the relations of production (i.e., the capitalist relations of exploitation) by training the students to become productive forces (labour-power) working for and under the Capitalist agents of exploitation. The Educational ISAs, which assume a dominant role in a Capitalist economy, conceal and mask the ruling class ideology behind its liberating qualities so that its hidden agendas become inconspicuous to the parents of the students.

References

"Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" should be a stand-alone article

Hanshans23 (and other concerned editors):

• I think what you are implying is this: "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" needs its own Wikipedia page.
• When you write above that it may:

  be more constructive to try merge these contributions with the sections of the article to which they are relevant

  this is a clear and thoughtful rationale for starting its own page. I think you have begun to establish the criteria for a stand-alone article. Of course, there are other considerations, ie., getting the "Lead Section" in order along with references and citations.
• There's also an ISA section on the "Ideology" Wikipedia page: (Ideology#Louis_Althusser.27s_Ideological_State_Apparatuses). This topic is just too unwieldy without having its own page. It's cluttering up, "shoe-horned" and "glutting", these two articles "Lous Althusser" and "Ideology" (and discussions in at least 6 other articles; more than just a half-dozen pages really). All could link to a new stand alone article.
• So, why not start a separate article on Wikipedia exclusively about Althusser's: "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" ?
  • • Not an opinion page from a certain POV
    • That is, an article about this essay, Althusser's essay, its history, the writing of it, its publication history, its relevance, its influence (including supporting documentation, the fact of its importance and the fact of its wide range of influence, documented citations, etc., not the opinion of a group of wikipedia editors). Christian Roess (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" should be a stand-alone article

This section is too long and involves content that should not be featured here. I suggest that it be made into its own page, especially as this page exists also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology#Louis_Althusser.27s_Ideological_State_Apparatuses — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aezaki (talk • contribs) 23:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

What's with the double parentheses?

The double parentheses in these two sentences of the lead are inexplicable to me: "His arguments and thesis were set against the threats that he saw attacking ((the theoretical foundations of Marxism)). These included both ((the influence of empiricism on Marxist theory)), and ((humanist and reformist socialist orientations)) which manifested as ((divisions in the European communist parties)), as well as ((the problem of the "cult of personality" and of ideology))."

Does anyone know the purpose of these parentheses? Are they some sort of a mistake? (I find this unlikely, as there are so many of them in such a short amount of text.) Was there a punctuation mix-up or a coding mistake? Can we take them out? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.24.84 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Economic superstructure?

The last sentence of the second paragraph in the "The epistemological break" reads "... It is therefore not governed by interests of society, class, ideology, or politics, and is distinct from the economic superstructure."

What does "economic superstructure" correspond to in Marxist terminology? Should it be replaced by "(economic) base and superstructure" or just "base"? Erkaninan (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2016 (UTC)