1

Ideology  and  Ideological  State  Apparatuses  

(Notes  towards  an  Investigation)  
by  Louis  Althusser  
 
I.    On  the  Reproduction  of  the  Conditions  of  Production  
Every  social  formation  must  reproduce  (1)  the  reproductive  forces  (mode  of  production  
–  forces  and  relations  of  production)  and  (2)  the  existing  relations  of  production  at  the  
same  time  as  it  reproduces  itself  (in  order  to  reproduce  itself).  
 
(A)  Reproduction  of  the  Means  of  Production  
The  material  conditions  of  production  must  be  replaced  (worn  out  and  used  up  materials,  
machines,  plants…)    and  reproduced  globally  (on  the  level  of  the  world  market).    The  
mechanism  for  supplying  this  demand  must  be  thought  in  terms  of  the  circulation  of  
capital  producing  (1)  the  means  of  production  and  (2)  the  means  of  consumption  as  
they  relate  to  the  realization  of  surplus  value.  
 
(B)    Reproduction  and  Labor-­‐Power  
(1) The  reproduction  of  labor-­‐power  (the  productive  forces)  is  ensured  by  giving  wages  
providing  the  material  means  for  labor-­‐power  to  reproduce  itself.  
(2) Wages  are  figured  not  as  in  (1)  (material  means  for  reproducing  labor  power),  but  as  
wage  (variable)  capital  which  is  determined  by  an  historical  (not  a  biological)  
minimum  (imposed  by  the  class  struggle  re:  wages  and  work  hours  over  the  length,  intensity,  
and  conditions  of  work).  
(3) But  labor-­‐power  must  also  be  competent  to  operate  the  process  of  production,  
and  so,  its  skills  must  be  reproduced.    This  is  done  by  the  education  system.  
(4) The  education  system    trains  children  in  know-­‐how  useful  in  jobs.  
(5) The  education  system    also  trains  them  in  rules  and  attitudes  of  good  behavior  
(morality,  civics,  professionalism,  and  respect  for  the  established  class  
domination,  i.e.  work  discipline  –  how  to  be  workers  –  or  how  workers  are  
managed  –  stand  in  line,  obey,  answer  bells  etc.).  
(6) Reproduction  of  labor  power,  then,  requires  reproduction  of  submission  to  the  
established  order,  ensuring  subjection  [NB:  the  subject]  to  the  ruling  ideology.  
(7) The  reproduction  of  labor-­‐power  is,  therefore,  provided  for  in  and  under  the  
forms  of  ideological  subjection  [NB:  the  subject].  
 
II.    Infrastructure  and  Superstructure  
(1) Society  is  constituted  by  an  economic  base  and  a  politico-­‐legal  ideological  
superstructure  [Engles  quote  The  German  Ideology].    This  is  a  topographic  metaphor,  
in  which  what  happens  in  the  superstructure  is  determined  in  the  last  instance  
by  what  happens  in  the  base.  
(2) The  superstructure  has  a  relative  autonomy  from  the  base,  and  acts  reciprocally  
on  the  base.  [Gramci  –  hegemony  –  see  handout]  
(3) The  problem  is  that  this  topographic  metaphor  is  merely  descriptive  and  static,  
we  must  think  of  the  nature  and  existence  of  the  superstructure  (Law,  the  State,  
and  Ideology)  re:  reproduction.  
 2

 
III.  The  State  
The  State  is,  first  of  all,  a  repressive  apparatus  (RSA):    The  State  apparatus  includes  
police,  courts,  prisons,  the  army,  etc.  which  ensure  class  domination  (its  basic  
function).  
 
(A)  From  Descriptive  Theory  to  Theory  as  such  
Descriptive  theory  is  the  beginning  of  Theory  which  requires  going  beyond  
description.    But,  we  need  to  go  beyond  such  “obvious”  facts  and  give  a  real  scientific  
definition  of  the  State.  
 
(B)  The  Essentials  of  the  Marxist  Theory  of  the  State  
(1) State  power  is  not  the  same  as  the  State  Apparatus.    Different  classes  may  hold  
power  in  the  State  (states  may  be  taken  over),  i.e.,  they  may  take  control  of  the  
State  Apparatuses  without  there  being  any  change  in  the  Apparatuses  
themselves  [e.g.  the  Russian  revolution].  
(2) (a)  The  State  is  the  Repressive  State  Apparatus  RSA  (b)  State  power  is  not  the  
same  as  the  State  Apparatus  (c)  the  objective  of  class  struggle  is  State  Power  and  
use  of  the  State  Apparatus  for  class  interests  (d)  The  proletariat  must  take  State  
power,  construct  1st  a  proletarian  State  Apparatus,  and  then  destroy  the  State.  
 
(C)  The  State  Ideological  Apparatuses  
(1) In  practice,  the  State  is  more  complex  than  in  Marxist  theory.  
(2) Thesis:  The  theory  of  the  State  must  also  take  into  account  the  ideological  State  
apparatuses  (ISAs).    ISAs  include:  religious,  educational,  family,  legal,  political,  
trade-­‐union,  communication,  and  cultural  ISAs,  etc.  
(3) The  RSA  is  public,  and  ISAs  are  mostly  “private”,  but  the  public/private  
distinction  does  not  matter,  because  the  distinction  is  internal  to  bourgeois  law  
and  applies  only  where  that  law  exercises  its  authority.  
(4) ISAs  are  not  the  same  as  the  repressive  State  apparatuses:    There  is  only  one  RSA  
(with  many  parts  under  a  unified  hierarchical  command  structure),  and  it  functions  
massively  and  predominantly  by  violence  and  secondarily  by  ideology.    There  
are  many  ISAs,  and  they  function  massively  and  predominantly  by  ideology  and  
secondarily  by  violence.  
(a) RSA  uses  ideology,  e.g.  promoting  Army  and  Police  cohesion  and  values.  
(b) ISAs  use  violence,  e.g.  school  punishments,  expulsion,  press  censorship,  
etc.  
(5) The  diversity  of  the  ISAs  is  unified  under  the  ruling  ideology,  the  ideology  of  the  
ruling  class.  
(6) No  class  can  long  hold  State  Power  unless  it  also  exercises  hegemony  [Gramci]  
over  and  in  the  ISAs.  
(7) ISAs,  then  are  at  stake  in,  and  are  also  the  site  of,  class  struggle,  because  the  
ruling  class  has  less  control  over  the  ISAs,  former  ruling  classes  retain  some  
control  over  ISAs  and  exploited  classes  can  use  ISAs  to  express  resistance.  
(8) Q:  What  is  the  function  of  ISAs?  i.e.,  what  is  their  role?  
 
 3

III.    On  the  Reproduction  of  the  Relations  of  Production  

(1) The  reproduction  of  the  relations  of  production  is  secured  by  the  ideological  
superstructure:  (a)  All  State  Apparatuses  function  by  violence  and  ideology  (see  
II  C  4  above)  (b)  ISAs  are  multiple,  distinct,  relatively  autonomous  and  provide  
an  objective  field  of  contradictions  which  express  class  struggles.  (c)  RSA  exists  
under  a  unified  rule,  the  unity  of  ISAs  is  secured  by  the  ruling  ideology.  
(2) The  RSA  secures  by  force  the  political  conditions  of  the  reproduction  of  the  
relations  of  production  (relations  of  exploitation)  by  reproducing  itself  and  
securing  the  political  conditions  for  the  ISAs  to  act.  
(3) The  ruling  ideology  ensures  “harmony”  between  RSA  and  ISAs  and  among  ISAs.  
(4) Although  there  are  many  ISAs  (e.g.s  p.  150-­‐1)  they  are  unified  in  their  role  by  the  
ruling  ideology  by  a  dominant  ISA  the  church,  the  educational  system,  the  
communications  systems.  (Historical  stuff  -­‐  struggle  over  church  -­‐  over  
establishment  of  (Thesis:)  a  new  dominant  ISA,  the  Education  system  .  NB:  circa  
1970)    
(5) Bourgeois  compatible  w/various  political  systems  but  the  school/family  system  
is  dominant.    (a)  All  ISAs  contribute  to  the  same  result:  reproduction  of  the  
relations  of  production  (exploitation).    (b)  Each  apparatus  contributes  to  this  
single  result  in  its  own  way  (e.g.  communication  apparatus:  doses  of  nationalism,  
chauvinism,  liberalism  etc.)  (c)  The  ISAs  are  dominated  by  themes  contributing  
to  a  single  “score”  (d)  One  ISA  dominates  (School).  
(6) School  inculcates  know-­‐how  wrapped  in  ideology  (math,  science,  lit.)  and  the  
ruling  ideology  (ethics,  civics,  philosophy).    Different  roles  in  the  relations  of  
production  exit  from  school  into  the  production  system  at  different  times  (trades,  
management).  
(7) The  ideology  of  the  ruling  class  conceals  the  ideological  mechanisms  for  
reproducing  the  relations  of  exploitation,  e.g.,  representing  the  school  as  a  
natural,  neutral  environment  indispensable  for  the  good  of  society  and  its  
members.  
(8) Crisis  in  the  schools  has  a  political  meaning  [perhaps,  now  communications  ISA  
dominates].  
 
IV.    On  Ideology  
The  term  “ideology”  was  invented  by  Destutt  de  Tracy  et.  al.    re:  genetic  theory  of  
ideas.    Early  Marx  used  it  to  mean  ideas  and  representations  that  dominate  minds  
and  social  groups.    But,  this  is  not  a  (scientific)  Marxist  concept,  and  in  Capital  and  
later  no  such  theory  was  offered.  
 
(A)    Ideology  has  no  History  
(1) A  theory  of  ideologIES  would  have  to  be  historical  since  they  depend  on  
historical  social  formations.    But  Ideology  (in  general)  has  no  History.  
(2) Marx’s  early  view  of  ideology  (in  The  German  Ideology)  is  that  it  is  a  pure  
illusion,  an  imaginary  construct  like  dreams  (as  conceived  before  Freud)  -­‐-­‐  an  
empty,  null,  arbitrary  collection  of  experiential  detritus.    In  this  sense,  for  early  
Marx,  ideology  has  no  history  (of  its  own)  since  the  only  existing  history  is  of  
concrete  individuals.  
 4

(3) Althusser’s  thesis:  (ideologies  have  histories  of  their  own)    Ideology  has  no  
history  because  it  always  has  the  same  structure  and  function  in  any  historical  
period  -­‐  Ideology  is  a  non-­‐historical  reality.  [NB:  “historical”  means  in  class  
societies]  
(4) This  connects  Ideology  (in  general)  with  Freud’s  view  that  the  unconscious  is  
eternal  (has  no  history)  =  omnipresent,  transhistorical,  immutable  in  form  (not  =  
transcendent).  
 
(B)    Ideology  is  a  ‘Representation’  of  the  Imaginary  Relationship  of  Individuals  
to  their  Real  Conditions  of  Existence  
(1) Thesis  I:  Ideology  represents  the  imaginary  relationships  of  individuals  to  their  
real  conditions  of  existence  (e.g.  “free”  labor).  (a)  Ideologies  (e.g.  legal,  religious  
worldviews)  do  not  correspond  to  reality  (b)  Ideologies  need  only  be  ‘interpreted’  
to  see  that  they  do  allude  to  the  reality  of  the  world.  
(2) Different  types  of  interpretation  yield  different  results,  but  instead  of  thesis  I,  it  
has  been  thought  that  Ideology  represents  an  individual’s  real  conditions  of  
existence  in  an  imaginary  form.  
(3) The  problem  becomes:  Q:  Why  do  individuals  need  an  imaginary  transposition  of  
real  conditions  to  represent  their  real  conditions  to  themselves?  
(4) False  A1:  Ideologies  are  caused  by  Priests  and  Despots  who  made  these  lies  to  
further  their  own  interests  -­‐  dominating  individuals  by  dominating  their  
imaginations  -­‐-­‐  individual’s  passive  imaginations  dominated  by  ruler’s  active  
imaginations.  
(5) False  A2:  That  individuals  make  imaginary  =  alienated  representations  is  caused  
by  the  alienating  nature  of  the  real  conditions  of  existence  [Feuerbach  and  early  
Marx  -­‐  alienated  labor].  
(6) Althusser’s  answer:  Ideology  represents  [imagines]  not  the  real  conditions  of  
existence,  but  individual’s  relation  to  their  real  conditions  of  existence.    It  is  the  
imaginary  nature  of  this  relation  that  underlies  the  distortion  in  all  ideology,  e.g.,  
Capitalist  imagines  earning  an  honest  profit  and  not  exploiting  [e.g.s  Everyone  has  
an  equal  opportunity  to  become  rich  –  Wall  Street  and  entrepreneurial  geniuses].  
(7) It  is  true  that  ideology  arises  from  the  real  conditions  of  existence,  but  what  it  
represents  is  the  imaginary  relationship  of  individuals  to  the  relations  of  
production.  
(8) The  problem  then  has  changed:  the  Q  of  the  cause  has  to  be  replaced  by  the  Q:  
Why  is  the  representation  of  individuals’  relations  to  the  social  relations  
governing  their  conditions  of  existence  necessarily  imaginary?  [This  explodes  False  
A1  and  A2]  
(9) Thesis  II:  Ideology  (and  the  representations  and  “ideas”  that  make  it  up)  
has  a  material  existence.  The  idea  that  ideology  has  an  ideal  (spiritual)  
existence  arises  only  in  an  ideology  of  the  idea.  
(10) An  Ideology  always  exists  in  an  apparatus  and  its  practices,  i.e.,  in  material  
existence  (ISAs  realize  the  ruling  ideology).    This  is  not  the  same  modality  of  
material  as  a  stone,  but  material  nonetheless  -­‐-­‐  rooted  in  matter.  
(11) What  happens  to  individuals  who  live  in  ideology?    The  imaginary  relation  to  
their  conditions  of  existence  is  itself  a  material  existent.    Ideology  itself  –  the  
 5

ideological  representation  of  ideology  –  says  that  individual  beliefs  derive  from  
subjective  consciousness:  the  subject  adopts  a  given  practical  attitude  and  
participates  in  practices  according  to  the  ideological  content  of  those  rituals  and  
practices.    The  subject  must  act  in  accord  with  his  ideas  and  inscribe  his  ideas  as  
a  free  subject  (Subject  as  cause  and  substance)  in  the  actions  of  his  material  practices,  
or  at  least  ought  to  do  so  (if  he  does  something  else,  then  he  must  have  other  
ideas  on  which  he  is  acting  –  being  inconsistent,  cynical,  or  perverse.    So,  the  
ideas  of  a  subject  exist  in  his  actions.  [Habermas  has  an  idealist  view  of  Ideology.]  
(12) But,  actions  are  inserted  into  practices  governed  by  and  inscribed  in  rituals  
within  a  material  ideological  apparatus.    (Pascal  inverts  order:  do  ritual  in  order  to  
believe).    A  single  subject’s  ideas  are  his  material  action  inserted  into  
material  practices  governed  by  material  rituals  which  are  defined  by  the  
material  ideological  apparatus  from  which  derive  the  ideas  of  that  subject.    
(here  “material’  appears  in  four  different  modalities:  displacement  (going  to  mass),  
gesture  (sign  of  the  cross),  sentence  (prayer),  inner/outer  verbal  discourse  
[confessional],  etc.).    The  term  “[spiritual]  ideas”  has  disappeared,  the  terms  
“subject”,  “consciousness”,  “belief’,  “actions”  remain,  the  terms  “practices’,  
‘rituals’,  ‘ideological  apparatus’  appear.    Rather  than  (Pascal’s)  inversion  there  is  
a  reshuffling.    It  seems  as  if  the  subject  acts  because  he  is  following  the  system,  
but  we  must  examine  the  term  “subject”  because:  Thesis  (IIa):  there  is  no  
practice  except  by  and  in  an  ideology  and  Thesis  (IIb):  there  is  no  ideology  
except  by  the  subject  and  for  subjects.  
 
(C)  Ideology  Interpellates  Individuals  as  Subjects  
(1) This  is  the  central  thesis.  
(2) That  ideology  is  by  and  for  subjects  is  only  made  possible  by  the  category  subject  
(arising  in  bourgeois  and  legal  ideology)  which  is  the  constitutive  category  of  all  
ideology  insofar  as  all  ideology  has  the  (definitory)  function  of  ‘constituting’  
concrete  individuals  as  subjects.    This  double  constitution  is  ideology’s  
functioning  in  material  forms.  
(3) We  ‘author’  ‘reader’  etc.  live  ‘spontaneously’  and  ‘naturally’  in  ideology.    
Scientific  discourse  is  by  definition  subject-­‐less  [compare  critical  theory].    The  
category  of  the  subject  is  a  primary  obviousness  (e.g.,  obviously  we  are  free,  
ethical…subjects).    This  obviousness  is  the  elementary  ideological  effect  (Subject  is  
neither  cause  nor  substance),  for  ideology  imposes  obviousnesses  as  obviousnesses.  
(4) The  reaction  “It’s  obvious!”  is  the  ideological  recognition  function  [Hegelian  
dialectics  are  ideological].    “It’s  me”,  proper  names,  the  place  of  the  child  is  there  in  
advance,  the  father’s  name  -­‐-­‐  Freudian  unconscious,  (Police)  “Hey,  you  there!”  etc.  
show  that  you  and  I  are  always  already  subjects  constantly  practicing  rituals  of  
ideological  recognition  (misrecognition  –  by  identifications  “It’s  me!”)  guaranteeing  that  
we  are  concrete,  individual,  distinguishable,  irreplaceable  subjects.  
(5) But,  becoming  conscious  of  incessant  practice  of  ideological  recognition  is  not  a  
scientific  knowledge  of  the  mechanism  of  recognition  -­‐-­‐  so  we  have  to  break  out  
of  ideology  from  within  [p.  173].    Scientific  discourse  would  be  subjectless.  
(6) 1st  formulation:  All  ideology  interpellates  [hailing  –  interruption  by  speech  –  gives  
identity  to  -­‐  constitutes]  concrete  individuals  as  concrete  subjects.    Concrete  
 6

individuals  become  subjects  –  Ideology  transforms  individuals  into  subjects  [NB:  

this  is  still  not  adequate:  individuals  are  always  already  subjects].    
Interpellation  happens  w/o  succession,  i.e.,  atemporally  [eternal].    Ideology  =  
interpellation  of  individuals  as  subjects.  
(7) p.  175  text:  Ideology  (for  itself)  has  no  outside  (for  itself  -­‐  in  the  street)  =  
Ideology  is  nothing  but  outside  (re:  science  and  reality).    Ideology  never  says  “I  
am  ideological”  
(D)  An  Example:  The  Christian  Religious  Ideology  
(1) The  formal  structure  of  Ideology  is  always  the  same.  
(2) e.g.  Christian  religious  ideology:    God  addresses  subject  by  proper  name  
interpellating  the  subject’s  place  in  the  world  free  to  obey  or  disobey  and  so  
recognize  himself.    God  is  the  Absolute,  Unique  Other  Subject  in  whose  name  the  
ideology  interpellates  all  individuals  as  subjects  (compare  the  Sovereign  in  Law).    
The  Subject  interpellates  its  interlocutors  as  its  mirror  images  (reflections)  
(compare  Sovereign/subjects  and  Lacan’s  mirror  stage).    The  Subject  needs  the  subjects  
and  vise  versa.  
(3) The  Subject  must  be  duplicated  in  the  subjects  and  itself  into  a  subject-­‐Subject  
(compare  sovereign  person  of  the  king).  
(4) Interpellating  subjects  in  the  name  of  the  Subject  is  speculary  =  a  mirror  
structure  so  doubly  speculary.    This  mirror  duplication  constitutes  ideology  and  
assures  its  function.  
(5) Summary:  The  duplicate  mirror-­‐structure  ensures:  
(a) the  interpellation  of  ‘individuals’  as  subjects  
(b) their  subjection  to  the  Subject  
(c) the  mutual  recognition  of  subjects  and  Subject,  the  subjects  recognition  of  
each  other,  and  the  subject’s  recognition  of  himself.  
(d) the  absolute  guarantee  that  everything  really  is  so,  on  condition  that  the  
subjects  recognize  what  they  are  and  behave  accordingly,  everything  will  be  
all  right.  
(6) This  way  subjects  work  by  themselves  except  for  bad  subject  (on  whom  the  RSA  
acts).    They  are  inserted  into  practices  by  the  rituals  of  the  ISAs;  they  recognize  
the  existing  state  of  affairs.  As  subjects  they  are  both  (1)  free  subjectivities,  
centers  of  initiative  and  (2)  subjected  to  and  submitting  to  higher  authority  (the  
Subject).    There  are  subjects  only  by  virtue  of  their  subjection  [NB:  Spinoza  TTP  
Preface].  
(7) If  the  reproduction  of  the  relations  of  production  are  to  be  assured,  then  it  must  
be  in  the  attitudes  of  individual  subjects  occupying  posts  assigned  to  them  in  
production  [relations  of  production],  exploitation,  repression,  ideologization,  etc.    
[NB:  Foucault:  if  power  were  only  repressive  then  how  could  anyone  ever  be  brought  to  obey  it?]  
 
Postscript:  ISAs  are  abstract  aspects  of  the  concrete  class  struggle.    Hence,  the  
realization  of  ideology  is  never  free  of  conflict.  
 
=============================================================  
 7

Habermas:  “I  promise…”  actor  –  speaker/hearer  –  engagement  -­‐  communication  is  

Ideological  (Althusser  ideology/the  subject  does  not  merely  belong  to  
systematically  distorted  communication  but  to  communication  as  such.)  
 
Heidegger  “Language  speaks.    Man  speaks  only  in  so  far  as  he  artfully  ‘complies  
with’  language.”  
 
J.  Culler  -­‐  On  Structuralism:    
“Once  meaning  is  explained  in  terms  of  conventional  systems  which…escape  the  
grasp  of  the  conscious  subject  -­‐  the  self  can  no  longer  be  identified  with  
consciousness.    It  is  ‘dissolved’  as  its  functions  are  taken  up  by  a  variety  
of…systems…”  
 
“…as  it  is  displaced  from  its  function  as  center  or  source  [of  meaning],  the  self  comes  
to  appear  more  and  more  as  a  construct,  the  result  of  systems  of  convention.    The  
discourse  of  a  culture  sets  limits  to  the  self;  the  idea  of  personal  identity  appears  in  
social  contexts;  the  ‘I’  is  not  given  but  comes  to  exist,  in  a  mirror  stage  which  starts  
in  infancy,  as  that  which  is  seen  and  addressed  by  others.”  
 
Foucault  Order  of  Things  “…man  is  only  a  recent  invention,  a  figure  not  yet  two  
centuries  old,  a  simple  fold  in  our  knowledge,  and…he  will  disappear  as  soon  as  that  
knowledge  has  found  a  new  form.”  
 
Foucault  Archeology  of  Knowledge  “The  researches  of  psychoanalysis,  of  linguistics,  
of  anthropology  have  ‘decentered’  the  subject  in  relation  to  laws  of  its  desire,  the  
forms  of  its  language,  the  rules  of  its  actions,  or  the  play  of  its  mythical  and  
imaginative  discourse.”