Established on Marx 's claim that a social formation has to be maintained by reproduction of the conditions of production, Althusser is dedicated to improving the “Marxist theory” of the State from the point of view of reproduction. He believes that the reproduction of the relations of production is mainly secured by the Ideological State Apparatuses (AIE). However, he finds that although Marx has made some discussions about ideology, he has never formulated a theory of it. Therefore, Althusser proposes a theory of ideology in general, and focuses on exploring the relations among ideology, individuals, and subjects. The close relation of the three makes him realize that subjects are always within ideology. Only when outside of ideology, can
…show more content…
Such function not only enables individuals to be recognized as a unique subject, but also operates through the category of the subject. This interaction of the double institution enables people maintaining the ongoing practice of ideological recognition with consciousness. Althusser provides an example of friends knocking door to explain this. After knocking the door, some friends will answer the question “who’s there” with “it’s me”. This answer is in fact based on two premises: first, he thinks the "me" is him is obvious; second, we should also view it as obvious. In this sense, saying "it’s me" is actually a practice of imposing their ideology (regarding “’me’ is them” as obvious) onto us. If we do recognize our friends and open the door, we are practicing the recognition of the ideology that has been imposed on us. Thus, from this small example, it can be seen that both the friends and we have completed a mutual recognition of the subject of each other, and also have successfully imposed or recognized ideology to each …show more content…
The police hailing and the people on the street constitute a real relation in reality. The moment an individual thinks that the hail is to him, he has already imaginary transposed the real relation to be the relation of “the hailing is to me”. This imaginary transposition makes the individual become a subject for this ideology. It is clear that in this scene, the relations among ideology, subjects, and individuals are: that individuals only become subjects when holding the ideology “hailing is to me”; that subjects must be supported by individuals that hold the ideology “hailing is to me”; that the ideology of “hailing is to me” can only function through subjects, that is making them finish the practice of turning around. As can be seen, the relations among the three are closely related and hardly separable. From an abstract point of view, ideology, subjects, and individuals are all eternal and are all always-ready for each other. In this sense, neither of them can function alone. Therefore, it becomes easy to understand that ideology has “no outside for itself," as any subject who thinks he is outside ideology has to be within it. At the same time, ideology is outside science and
Such function not only enables individuals to be recognized as a unique subject, but also operates through the category of the subject. This interaction of the double institution enables people maintaining the ongoing practice of ideological recognition with consciousness. Althusser provides an example of friends knocking door to explain this. After knocking the door, some friends will answer the question “who’s there” with “it’s me”. This answer is in fact based on two premises: first, he thinks the "me" is him is obvious; second, we should also view it as obvious. In this sense, saying "it’s me" is actually a practice of imposing their ideology (regarding “’me’ is them” as obvious) onto us. If we do recognize our friends and open the door, we are practicing the recognition of the ideology that has been imposed on us. Thus, from this small example, it can be seen that both the friends and we have completed a mutual recognition of the subject of each other, and also have successfully imposed or recognized ideology to each …show more content…
The police hailing and the people on the street constitute a real relation in reality. The moment an individual thinks that the hail is to him, he has already imaginary transposed the real relation to be the relation of “the hailing is to me”. This imaginary transposition makes the individual become a subject for this ideology. It is clear that in this scene, the relations among ideology, subjects, and individuals are: that individuals only become subjects when holding the ideology “hailing is to me”; that subjects must be supported by individuals that hold the ideology “hailing is to me”; that the ideology of “hailing is to me” can only function through subjects, that is making them finish the practice of turning around. As can be seen, the relations among the three are closely related and hardly separable. From an abstract point of view, ideology, subjects, and individuals are all eternal and are all always-ready for each other. In this sense, neither of them can function alone. Therefore, it becomes easy to understand that ideology has “no outside for itself," as any subject who thinks he is outside ideology has to be within it. At the same time, ideology is outside science and