1

Adle PETITCLERC, adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

LASELDI, Universit de Franche-Comt, France. Visiting Doctoral Student, Lancaster Universit Language Ideology & Power Group Presentation Lancaster University 21 April 2008

Ideology: From Destutt de Tracy to CDA

This presentation will provide an overview of the notion of ideology. From its coinage by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy to its use in CDA, this notion has undergone several twists in its definition and usage. It is used as an everyday term in politics, and as a more specialized concept in several academic domains, such as sociology and discourse analysis. I will first try to explain the history of the word and the different connotations attached to it, and then will give the definitions of it by several critical discourse analysts, including Pcheux, Fairclough, Wodak, Van Dijk and Billig. OUTLINE
I. History 1. Destutt de Tracy 2. Napoleon Bonaparte 3. Marx a. Polemical conception b. Epiphenomenal conception c. the latent conception of ideology 4. Rereading Marx: neutralization of ideology 5. Althusser II. Discourse Analysis 1. FDA Michel Pcheux 2. Norman Fairclough 3. Ruth Wodak John B. Thompson 4. Teun A. Van Dijk 5. Michael Billig

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008

INTRODUCTION Today Im going to talk about the concept of ideology. Firstly I would like to go over the history of this concept to show the different definitions and the controversial connotations it has acquired through time. And then I am going to talk about the different ways it is used in by CDA, and I will detail the conception shared by Fairclough and the French Discourse Analysis, then Wodaks, Van Dijks and Billigs.

I. History of the concept 1. Destutt de Tracy Ideology comes from the French word idologie coined in 1796 by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy. The word was built from two Greek components: the combining form ideo- derives from idea () and indicates that the associated element denotes an idea or an image. The combining form logie derives from the lexical item logos, which means either to speak about or to study or word or discourse. Destutt de Tracy coined the term idologie to refer to a new type of science he wanted to create, a science which would be concerned with the systematic analysis of ideas and sensations. Destutt de Tracy set this project in legacy of the Enlightenment and of philosophers like Condillac or Condorcet. He thought that such a science would help to regulate society and morale for a better and fairer world.

2. Napoleon However, because he was loyal to the ideas of the French Revolution, he publicly disagreed with the way Napoleon Bonaparte was conducting the state. And Bonaparte was not really happy about that and started to accuse those he called the Idologues of being willing to undermine the state and the rules of law, and of just being dreamers
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

who didnt know anything about the reality of the state. And so, during this controversy, the term ideology came to mean a body of ideas which are alleged to be erroneous and divorced from the practical realities of political life. So because of Napoleon, idologie acquired a negative connotation.

3. Marx This connotation was then reinforced by the use of the term by Marx. I am not a specialist on Marx, so in this part I am using Thompsons account of the Marxist definition of ideology, that you can read in Thompsons 1990 Ideology and Modern Culture (Thompson 1990). a. Polemical conception Marxs first use of ideology is qualified by Thompson as a polemical conception because Marx first used ideology in a controversy with the Young Hegelians. It defines ideology as a theoretical doctrine and activity which erroneously regards ideas as autonomous and efficacious and which fails to grasp the real conditions and characteristics of socio-historical life. Marxs concern was on the characterization of labour, and this definition underlies two assumptions. First, the forms of consciousness of human beings are determined by their material conditions of life, and second, the development of an ideology as it is defined is only possible because there is a division between material and mental labour. Basically, he reproaches the Young Hegelians conception of labour, where mental labour is separated from material labour. Therefore, for the Young Hegelians, ideas are seen as having a life of their own and are not grounded into a sociological context. Marx sees the theories of the Young Hegelians as shallow and extremely conservative, and by saying they are an ideology, he wants to stress the fact that they are theoretical doctrines and activities which are the product of a socio-historic context (here the
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

Young Hegelians conception is the product of Industrial Revolution era and bourgeois society) and therefore, ideology can be explained by and should be replaced by pure science according to Marx. b. Epiphenomenal conception Later in his work, Marx slightly changed the way he uses the term ideology. However it has to be said that he has never written a proper definition of ideology. This second definition is called by Thompson the epiphenomenal conception. Ideology is a system of ideas which expresses the interests of the dominant class but represents class relations in an illusory form (p37). In this conception, society is made of different components: (i) the economic conditions of productions, (ii) the legal and political superstructure and (iii) the ideological forms of consciousness. The ideological forms of consciousness have to be explained regarding the socio-economic conditions of productions. And with modern capitalism and the brutality of its class antagonism upon which ideology depends, Marx thinks that the conditions for a clear understanding of these class antagonisms by the proletariat are finally there. Hence, Marx thinks this will inevitably lead to a revolution and to a victory of the proletariat. c. The latent conception of ideology However, years go by, and the revolution expected by Marx doesnt happen. So he looks for an explanation and formulates the hypothesis of ghosts of the past. He never uses the term ideology in this respect but Thompson makes the link and says that ghosts of the past are a latent conception of ideology, where ideology is a system of representations which serves to sustain existing relations of class domination by orienting individuals towards the past rather than the future, or towards images and ideas which conceal class relations and detract from the collective pursuit of social change (p.41). Marx illustrates this with the coup dtat of Louis Napoleon in France in 1849, where

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008

people didnt revolt, but welcomed the new king because he reminded them of the grandeur of the empire and of Napoleon Bonaparte.

4. Rereading Marx: neutralization of ideology What is interesting there is that ideology has always a negative connotation: Marx would have never spoken of a proletariat ideology, contrary to Lenin and Lukcs later, because he conceived ideology for the dominant classes as a tool they use to impose their views. He also had in mind the definition of ideology as a bunch of foolish ideas. However, when Marxs work was reinterpreted by Lenin, Lukcs and Althusser, ideology was neutralised and referred to the ideas which express and promote the interest of the main classes engaged in conflict.

5. Althusser As such, for Althusser, the production and diffusion of the dominant ideology is regarded as a task/ an accomplishment of the state, at different levels and through different devices. What he calls Ideological State Apparatuses are the method by which organizations propagate ideology, and at the same time they are the primary site of the ideological struggle. They are there to interpellate people into ideologically defined subject positions. Ideological State Apparatuses include those used in religion, law, politics, trade unions, media and the family. Althusser puts education as the most important one. (Althusser 1971) Althusser establishes a strong link between ideology and language. Here is a quote where he equates ideology and logos: Comme le disait admirablement Saint-Paul, cest dans le Logos , entendons dans lidologie, que nous avons ltre, le mouvement et la vie (which roughly means Just like St Paul admirably said, existence, movement, and life are situated in the Logos, i.e. in ideology) (ALTHUSSER 1995): 224).
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

One of Althussers aims was to find out how you can produce a scientific discourse, that is a non-ideological discourse. Therefore, he calls for a new science whose topic would be discourse because it is only through the study of discourse that the analyst can reach ideology.

II. Ideology in Discourse Analysis

1. French Discourse Analysis Pcheux As we can imagine, this conception was very important for researchers in France in the 1970s (the French communist party was very important on the political scene at that time and many linguists had their membership card) and it was developed and taken back by Michel Pcheux, one of the founders of the French School of Discourse Analysis. Following Althusser, Pcheux thinks that being a free subject is an illusion brought about by ideology, and therefore, the question is not about being a subject but about belonging to what he calls a social formation. These social formations are defined according to one another and give a social position determined by the state of the class struggle. Pcheux calls this social position an ideological formation. And ideological formations correspond to discursive formations which determine what can be said and what cannot be said according to the ideological formation you speak from. (PCHEUX 1975)

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008

2. Norman Fairclough Norman Fairclough draws his definition of ideology mainly from Althussers and Pcheuxs work. He acknowledges being very much influenced by Western Marxism and French Discourse Analysis, especially in the 70s and 80s. One of Faircloughs early theories tries to account for the socio-semantic change. He says that this theory includes in its notion of cultural power the capacity to impose and maintain relations of dominance between registers, such registers which accord ideologically with the interests of the power-holders are dominant. This capacity may be exercised at the level of the social formation, or of the institution, or in respect to a particular situation-type. Registers are also viewed as being ideologically productive in the sense that they produce and reproduce subjects, the sociologically significant categories of agent. (Fairclough 1988 [2002]). In these two quotes, we can clearly see the influence of Althusser and Pcheux who appear in the bibliography of his article. Nowadays, this influence is still vivid for Fairclough, especially when he declares that ideologies are partial representations and misrepresentations (Fairclough 2001) [1989]: 134) and adds that the operation of ideology can be seen in terms of ways of constructing texts which constantly and cumulatively impose assumptions upon text interpreters and text producers, typically without being aware of it. (Fairclough 2001 [1989]: 69) We can again see the influence of Althusser when Fairclough defines the ideological commonsense: he says that it is a commonsense in the service of sustaining unequal relations of power and in establishing and consolidating solidarity relations among members of a particular social groupings (Fairclough 2001 [1989]: 70). Faircloughs definition of ideology is very close to Althussers idologie.

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008

3. Ruth Wodak Wodak has influences other than Marxist theories on ideology. She claims to agree with the definition as it is given by John B. Thompson (1990), and also to add the cognitive input of Van Dijks work. (Wodak 2001) For Thompson, there is no question of a neutral definition of ideology: he completely disagrees with the fact that ideology could be one aspect of social life, present as a tool in every social group. He understands ideology to be held by the dominant and ruling groups. For him, to study ideology is to study the way in which meaning [symbolic forms] serves to establish and sustain relations of dominations (p.56). He calls symbolic forms a broad range of actions and utterances, images and texts, which are produced by subjects and recognized by them and others as meaningful constructs. He pinpoints the fact that a symbolic form may not be ideological at first but can become ideological if it is used to maintain relations of dominations, whatever they are: class, gender, ethnic groups, individual vs state, nation-states vs blocks of nation-states Given this definition of ideology, contesting discourses are not ideological because they challenge the existing relations of power. Thompson also stresses the fact that its the reception which decides whether a discourse is ideological or not. If it is designed to sustain relations of power, but the receptor doesnt read it in this way, then it is not ideological. Which in a way I understand: for example, in our recent cartoon discussion, as Im not a specialist of the stereotype of Jews, I missed some elements and first didnt read some cartoons as antisemitic. But I am not happy at all with this idea of something not being ideological intrinsically and I know that Ruth does not support this idea neither because we talked about it together, even if it has to be stressed that the reception side is indeed the only way to analyse something since the analysts have not designed it themselves. In a way, this is also indirectly acknowledged by Thompson when he says that an ideological
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

analysis cannot produce incontestable demonstrations but some interpretations are more valid than others regarding facts: there may be good reasons for offering a particular interpretation and adhering to it (p. 71). From his definition, Thompson implies that ideology is conveyed through a number of meaningful devices, and that is possible because we live in a society of mass communication. So a study of ideology will also need to investigate the context, i.e. the social field in which symbolic forms circulate. As I said, Ruth Wodaks conception of ideology is a mixture of Thompsons and Van Dijks and this focus on context is the common point between both.

4. Teun Van Dijk For Teun Van Dijk, ideologies are first of all mental representations and he tries to develop cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning at a societal level. His definition is very much a neutral one from the point of view of Thompson. Van Dijk is interested in the social functions of ideologies and says that seeing ideology merely as a means developed by dominating groups to reproduce and legitimate their power is not fundamentally wrong but one-sided and much too superficial (Van Dijk 1997). Ideologies basic function is rather to manage the problem of coordination of the acts or practices of individual social members of a group. Once shared, ideologies make sure that members of a group will generally act in similar ways in similar situations [] and will thus contribute to group cohesion. On this, he draws from Bourdieus definition of doxa (doxa is a neutral version of ideology) as the means of defining the social groups and their position within society in relation to the other groups. Ideology then addresses the question of the identity of a group and Van Dijk explains ideologies describe this identity in terms of membership, activities, aims, values, norms, position and resources.
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

10

All these features are shared under the form of mental representations and this is made possible by the fact that ideologies resemble the knowledge shared by the group. Knowledge here can be either scientific knowledge or techniques related to a craft or a profession, but also more controversial knowledge, that is to say that what is knowledge for one group may be seen as an ideology by others and ideologies do of course control what groups themselves hold to be true beliefs (Van Dijk 1997). Van Dijk gives the example of information of the environment that can be held as knowledge for environmentalists and as propaganda for industrials owning polluting factories. That is why he adds that ideologies also monitor the structure of knowledge as well as its acquisition: as they define the interests of a group, it will influence on how important, detailed and specialized this knowledge is. Finally, ideologies control the evaluative belief system of a group: Van Dijk says ideologies are the axiomatic basis of the mental representations shared by the members of a social group (VAN DIJK 1998): 24). Ideologies are the basis for judgment inside the social group. Ideologies rule what is evaluated as in or out of the social group, true or false, good or bad. In that sense, they enable the establishment of an us versus them dichotomy, regulating the outgroup as well as the ingroup, mostly thanks to a positive self- and negative other- presentation.

5. Michael Billig and the Loughborough Group This cognitive input can also be found in Micheal Billigs account for ideology. I base this review on two books: Ideological Dilemmas, published collectively by the Loughborough Discourse and Rhetoric group in 1988 (Billig et al. 1988), and Ideology and Opinions, a collection of already edited articles, published in 1991 (Billig 1991). Billig wants to bridge the gap between cognitive psychologists on the one hand, and theorists of ideology on the other hand. His opinion is that both groups look at one
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

11

side of the coin, but neither look at both: cognitive psychologists take in account the individuals own thinking, but they are considered outside of the social and historical context, as Robinson Crusoes parachuted in a psychology lab; whereas theorists of ideology are well aware of the historical and societal processes of creation of norms and beliefs in particular societies, but they ignore individuals who are seen as puppets governed by ideology, as can be well seen in Marxist thinkers theory, such as Althusser or Gramsci. Billig says that In contrast to cognitive psychologists, we stress the ideological nature of thought; in contrast to theorists of ideology, we stress the thoughtful nature of ideology. (Billig et alii, 1988: 2). Billig doesnt speak about ideologies as being specific to social groups, just like Van Dijk does. Firstly he rarely uses the plural form. For him, ideology has to be understood in a more political way as a whole framing of the world, which acts through common sense and social representations (such as stereotypes). Billigs interesting point of view is that ideology and common sense comprise contrary themes which enable individuals to make up their own mind, and therefore they are experiencing dilemmas when stuck in between contrary themes. The ideology is not reproduced as a closed system for talking about the world. Instead it is reproduced as an incomplete set on contrary themes, which continually give rise to discussion, argumentation and dilemmas. (Billig et alii, 1988: 6) As such, you dont have capitalism and anti-capitalism ideologies, but a single ideology which comprises in itself all the arguments for and against capitalism. Hence, the study of ideology needs to take in account rhetoric to see how individuals argue and negotiate their opinions.

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008

12

Because of these contrary themes, individuals may face ideological dilemmas which often take the form of a conflict between what Billig calls the lived ideology and the intellectual ideology. Billig suggests that individuals may embrace a great but idealistic theory of how to change society for an ideal one, and at the same time endorse the everyday beliefs which enable one to conduct their business in the same society they criticise. He gives the example of Critical Discourse Analysts who believe in equal chance for everyone in the society, but who at the same are teaching as part of educational structures such universities which ask for a selection and a grading of students.

Conclusion I hope that this overview of the concept of ideology was useful, and if you have any questions, Ill be happy to answer them as best as I can. Thank you.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Althusser, L. 1971. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: Left Books. Althusser, L. 1995. "De lIdologie" in Sur la reproduction. Paris: Presses universitaires de France. Billig, M. 1991. Ideologies and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology. London: Sage. Billig, M., et al. 1988. Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage. Fairclough, N. 1988 [2002]. "Register, Power and Socio semantic Change". In M. Toolan. (Ed.) Critical Discourse Analysis, Londres/New York: Routledge. Fairclough, N. 2001 [1989]. Language and power. Harlow: Longman. Pcheux, M. 1975. Les Vrits de La Palice : linguistique smantique, philosophie. Paris: Franois Maspero. Thompson, J. B. 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture. Cambridge: Polity Press. Van Dijk, T. A. 1997. "Discourse as Interaction in Society". In T. A. Van Dijk. (Ed.) Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, London: Sage. Van Dijk, T. A. 1998. "Opinions and Ideologies in the Press". In A. Bell & P. Garrett. (Eds.) Approaches to Media Discourse, Oxford: Blackwell. Wodak, R. 2001. "What CDA is about". In M. Meyer & R. Wodak. (Eds.) Methods of Critical discourse analysis, London: Sage.
Adle PETITCLERC adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr 21 April 2008

13

Adle PETITCLERC

adele.petitclerc@univ-fcomte.fr

21 April 2008