One of the foremost thinkers of ideology is the French Philosopher Louis Althusser. He expounded on his ideas of ideology in his essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation)” which condenses his book On the Reproduction of Capitalism. I will look at both of those works in this newsletter.
The fundamental question that Althusser was trying to answer was, “How does a system like capitalism reproduce itself?”
From Marx, he takes the idea that production is only possible when the “material conditions of production”1are reproduced. At a superficial level, this is obvious. To make shoes, you need to have all the components that make shoes, and to continue to produce them, you need to continue to replace those components as you use them. To take it deeper, you must replace tools that wear down over time. Now, as a cobbler, you are getting your tools and materials from someone else who is, in turn, producing what they do based on tools and materials from others.
In a capitalist system, you must replace the material components and tools and ensure you can reproduce the labor itself. You must ensure that people are at the factory daily to make your goods. This is done by providing workers with “the material means of reproducing itself: wages”2
(I touched on wages in an earlier newsletter, Stuck in the Middle #2. So, I won’t go into this much more here)
What is essential to recognize is that there is another crucial component that needs to be present to ensure that not only
“that its qualifications be reproduced, but that its submission to the rules of respect for the established order be reproduced at the same time. This means, for the workers, reproduction of labour-power’s submission to the dominant ideology and, for the agents of exploitation and repression, reproduction of its capacity to handle the dominant ideology properly, so as to ensure the domination of the dominant class ‘verbally’” 3
Not only do you need to have labor capable of doing the work that you need them to do, but pay them enough so that you can have qualified labor. Your workers must also be willing to follow your organization’s rules.
And this brings us to Ideology.
Ideology
Althusser expresses three central theses around Ideology.
“THESIS I: Ideology represents individuals’ imaginary relation to their real conditions of existence.” 4
There is an old expression: We don’t see things as they are; we see things as we are. And while there is some truth to this, the greater truth is that we see things in a way that makes sense. We can’t escape ideology. Ideology is how we relate to the world. What Althusser is showing here is that we have to imagine a relationship for how we fit into the conditions we find ourselves in. We have it make sense to us. Much of it concerns how we frame our identity and how our identity relates to work.
This may seem to imply that this is all in our heads. But according to Althusser, it is not just in our heads; there is a material component, and this is his second Thesis.
“THESIS II: Ideology has a material existence.” 5
Althusser goes on to explain:
“The individual in question behaves in such-and-such a way, adopts such-and-such a practical line of conduct and, what is more, participates in certain regulated practices, those of the ideological apparatus on which the ideas that she has as subject, depend freely and in all ‘good’ conscience chosen.” 6
This brings in the idea of what Althusser calls the Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). Ideology is not just ideas. It is real things in the world. All actions and practices exist within an ideology. These practices are implemented through ISAs.
It is probably worth a brief interlude to share that Althusser discusses two types of state apparatuses: ISAs and RSAs. RSAs are repressive state apparatuses, mechanisms that operate via coercion rather than ideology. (In practice, both RSAs and ISAs have some degree of ideology and coercion, but RSAs are primarily repressive, and ISAs are mainly ideological.
We will explore RSAs and ISAs and how they show up in a moment.
Everything you do at your company—human Resources, Employment agreements, meetings, promotion cycles, AMAs, all hands—exists under an ideology. And this exists because we are all human subjects.
Based on these two initial theses, Althusser defines two more related theses:
“1) There is no practice whatsoever except by and under an ideology.
2) There is no ideology except by the subject and for subjects.” 7
First, in all practice, everything we do operates under an ideology.
Second, that all ideology exists because we are a subject. (I talked a little bit about becoming a subject in Stuck In the Middle #4 )
The word subject has many meanings, but two are worth focusing on for our purposes here. In a sentence, the subject is the one who takes action; to be a subject is to have agency. However, a subject can also mean someone who is under the rule of another. You are a subject; you can also be subject to something, meaning affected by it.
Both of these meanings are important when we think about being a subject, and that contradiction is key. We are a subject in that we feel we have agency and are the source of our actions. It is also true that we are subject to our circumstances.
The role of ideology is actually in creating subjects. Ideology turns individuals into subjects—ideology conditions how we act and respond to our environment.
Althusser expresses this in his final thesis:
“IDEOLOGY INTERPELLATES INDIVIDUALS AS SUBJECTS” 8
Put more simply, ideology makes us subjects by calling us out. One way this shows up at work is being named as an employee; some organizations go so far as to call employees by cute names, such as Yahooligans, Googlers, Amazonians, and others. By being called this name, you are being interpellated as a subject, and that name comes with expectations for what you are.
That is ideology at work. Calling employees by that name creates an imaginary relationship between those employees and their state of being.
Now, we can return to RSAs and ISAs
RSAs
There is only one Repressive State Apparatus.
The state apparatus that we are identifying as repressive presents itself as an organic whole; more precisely, as a centralized corps that is consciously and directly led from a single centre.9
This apparatus works via setting constraints and sanctions:
”Constraint implies sanction; sanction implies repression, and therefore, necessarily, an apparatus of repression.” 10
In society, this is the state; however, at work, it could be seen as the company. The company’s power over people to control pay and hire and fire people acts as a form of repression and coercion.
HR and management functions are the most visible parts of the RSA at work. This is where discipline and control are actualized. The coercion they can use here is hiring/firing and control over raises, bonuses, hours, and shifts.
However, “while there is one Repressive State Apparatus, there are several Ideological State Apparatuses.” 11
ISAs
First, it is essential to note that regarding the various apparatuses that work as ISAs, “it is necessary to grant the paradoxical fact that institutions do not ‘produce’ the ideologies corresponding to them. Rather, certain elements of an ideology (the State Ideology) ‘are realized in’ or ‘exist in’ the corresponding institutions and their practices.” 12
These apparatuses are not centrally coordinated, but each works to reinforce the existing ideology.
Thus what makes for the unity of the various Ideological State Apparatuses is the fact that they realize, each in its own domain and each in its proper modality, an ideology that, notwithstanding its differences or even its internal contradictions, is the State Ideology.” 13
For example, a cultural survey is not created to express or reinforce an ideology. Still, the chosen questions, what is deemed a positive vs. a negative response, and how the results are interpreted serve an ideological function that calls subjects towards certain types of behavior. There is no coercion; it simply reinforces a particular perspective that guides employees in imagining their relationship to work.
Work functions that are not coercive by default operate as ISAs. This can be anything. Culture surveys, All Hands meetings, off-site events, meetings, norms, one-on-ones, value statements (as far as they are not coercively enforced), company mission and vision, benefits, strategy and planning processes, etc.
What do Middle Managers need to think about?
Middle managers are in a position where they represent the Repressive State Apparatus at work. They have a role in coercion that they need to be mindful of. This role enforces rules and behaviors. This role should be exercised as little as possible. This is using your authority to repress and coerce.
Middle managers also play a role in the ideological state apparatus. How you approach things reinforces a specific model and view of the world that is that of the organization. This raises an interesting question: can you operate from within an ISA to create or promote a different ideology from the dominant one at the company?
Althusser addresses this idea and returns to Marx’s concept of the base and the superstructure. In Marx’s view, the base represents the means of production (Capitalism), and the base supports the superstructure, including ideology. And so, while you can attempt to shift the ideology, Althusser would be somewhat pessimistic about what is possible without changing the base. Any antagonistic ideological position you will put forward will always be seen within the context of the dominant ideology of the organization. However, that doesn’t mean it is impossible; there is hope that enough shifts in the ideology you can create can change how people relate to the base and support the necessary changes.
In next week’s post, we will examine how Žižek thinks about ideology building on Althusser’s perspective and providing alternative approaches.