Althusser, Ideology, and Theoretical Foundations: Theory and Communication

By Jennifer B. Gray

Abstract

From a Marxist perspective, hegemonic parties and institutions influence each decision made
regarding the content and distribution of mass media. The manner in which the privileged
and powerful, or hegemonic, discourses, individuals, groups, and institutions, maintain the
necessary consent for their dominance has been posited by Louis Althusser, through his
theory of ideology, a scientific interpretation and restructuration of Marxism. Althusser's
theories of ideology and interpellation may be readily applied to the study of mass
communication, in the context of perpetuation of hegemonic ideology via the mass media. In
this paper, the author explores Althusser's life and the development of his work. This
exploration is followed by a more detailed account of ideology and interpellation in particular,
as well as a brief overview of extensions and criticisms of Althusser in media and cultural
studies. In closing, Althusser's theories are considered in the context of current media issues,
communication theory, and research.

Althusser, Ideology, and Theoretical Foundations: Theory and Communication

A young woman watches a sitcom on television each evening. The characters on this
program, her favorite "show," are young, thin, Caucasian, and attractive. She is also young,
attractive, and Caucasian; watching the program informs and reinforces her perceptions of
her successful appearance, her sense of belonging, and her identity as part of "her
generation."

How are the presentations of television, such as those previously described, or other media,
for that matter, formed? Arguably, multiple parties and institutions influence each decision on
each program and advertisement. These factions are those with the most power and
privilege, from a Marxist perspective. The manner in which the privileged and powerful, or
hegemonic, discourses, individuals, groups, and institutions, maintain the necessary consent
for their dominance and perpetuation has been posited by Louis Althusser, through his
theory of ideology, a scientific interpretation and restructuration of Marxism. Althusser's
theories of ideology and interpellation may be readily applied to the study of mass
communication, in the context of perpetuation of hegemonic ideology via the mass media.

In the following sections, Althusser's life and the development of his work will be discussed.
This exploration is followed by a more detailed account of ideology and interpellation in
particular, as well as a brief overview of extensions and criticisms of Althusser in media and
cultural studies. In closing, Althusser's theory is considered in the context of current media
issues, communication theory, and research.

Louis Althusser: Life and Legacy

1
Louis Althusser, a soldier, philosopher, professor, writer, and ideological and political critic,
was born in France in 1918. He is best known for his criticisms and reconceptualizations of
Marxism, as well as for his theory of ideology (Baldwin et al, 1999).

Althusser fought for the French army during World War II and spent five years in a German
prisoner-of-war camp. After the war ended, he studied philosophy at the cole Normale
Suprieure in Paris, where he later held a long tenure as a professor. His former students
included French philosophers tienne Balibar, Pierre Macherey, and Jacques Rancire
(Baldwin, et al, 1999).

Althusser joined the French Communist Party in 1948, and began writing critical analyses of
the work of Karl Marx. Althusser categorized Marx's writings into two stages, an early
humanistic or ideological period, and a later scientific phase that culminated in Marx's writing
of DasKapital (1867). Althusser noted an "epistemological break" between the two periods
(1965). He posed that scientific developments do not occur through gradual change, but
rather, are the result of sudden fractures in knowledge in which entire theoretical frameworks
are redesigned or replaced.

Also in his writings on Marx, Althusser rejected the concept of strict economic determinism
(1965). He posed an idea of "relative autonomy," creating a more complex model of historical
change than that presented by Marx. Althusser posited that it was possible to study politics,
law, and philosophy as activities independent of economic production. He also posed that
Marxism was not a moral philosophy concerned with the alienation of humankind under
capitalism and its possible redemption under socialism, but rather, it was a science (Clarke,
1980). The result of Althusser's work, which was criticized by traditional Marxists, was to
frame Marxism as a purely theoretical model, concerned with the conditions of scientific
knowledge, rather than as a plan for revolution, concerned with liberating the working class
(Althusser, 1970).

Althusser's conceptualization of ideology is situated within a modified Marxist base-

superstructure model (Dowling, 1984). Rather than a strict relationship between ideology and
the economic base of society, where one class imposes its values on another, ideology is a
dynamic set of practices in which all groups and classes participate (Althusser, 1969).

In 1980, Althusser murdered his wife, Hlne Rytmann, and was subsequently confined to a
psychiatric institution until his death in 1990 (Benton, 1984). Althusser's writings include For
Marx (1969), Lenin and Philosophy (1969), and Reading Capital (1970). His
autobiography, The Future Lasts Forever, was published posthumously in 1994 (Baldwin, et
al, 1999).

His philosophical legacy lives on. Althussers work had its heyday in circles of academe
during the 1960s and 1970s, and today, his terms, ideology, interpellation, and ideological
state apparatuses (ISAs), are used in multiple academic circles. A more in-depth discussion
of his ideological theory follows, including specific sections on his conceptualizations of the
phenomenal world and of the individual. In closing, ideological theory in the context of
communication theory and research will be explored and examined.

Ideology and Interpellation

2
Althussers theory of ideology provides a language to explain the ubiquitous societal control
of ideology. His framework further provides a systematic mechanism of cultural force and its
perpetuation of hegemonic ideology.

Althussers cultural theory explains the structure and function of ideology. His thesis works
from Antonio Gramscis concept of hegemony. Originally, hegemony referred to the way that
one nation could exert ideological and social, rather than military or coercive, power over
another (Fiske, 1998; 310). Today, in cultural theory, the term describes the dynamic by
which a dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate class to the system that
ensures their subordination (Fiske, 1998; 310). Consent is not static, but must be won and
rewon (Fiske, 1998, 310), for courageous individuals may rebel and advocate alternative or
oppositional ideologies, rather than hegemonic ones. Althussers theory of ideology accounts
for the manner in which ruling, or hegemonic, discourses and institutions perpetuate the
necessary consent for their dominance.

Ideology is the powerful force behind the dominance of hegemonic institutions. Althusser
defines ideology as an imaginary relation to the real relations of existence. He posits that the
ideas of representations that make up ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence,
but a material existence (Althusser, 1969; 296). This material existence is twofold. The
representations that constitute ideology are based in the material world. Such
representations exist in those individuals who advocate particular ideologies, as well as their
collective ideas and belief systems. Secondly, ideologies exist in apparatuses and their
practices, which also have material existences.

These apparatuses and their accompanying practices, termed Ideological State

Apparatuses, or ISAs, are institutions such as religion, patriarchy, marriage, educational
systems, and the like (Althusser, 1998; 303). Althusser (1998) states that there are no
practices except by and in an ideology ( 299). Practices of particular powerful social
institutions reproduce ideology in an ever-changing dynamic process. Individuals, who are
born as subjects (Althusser, 1998; 303) into the realm of some form of ideology, are
inevitably called to participate in practices of particular dominant institutional ideologies.
Althusser describes this process systematically, as a circular relationship. Through a
conceptual device or dispositif, an individual believes himself a subject endowed with a
consciousness in which he freely forms or freely recognizes ideas in which he believes
(Althusser, 1998; 297). The individual believes his ideas must be inserted into actions, or
ought to exist in his actions, and these are inserted into practices governed by the rituals of
particular ISAs. The rituals stem from the ideology of the ISAs, which are the origin of the
recognized or formed beliefs of the individual (Althusser, 1969).

Individuals do not realize their subjection, believing that they freely form or recognize ideas
and participate in ritual practices in order to act according to their ideas (Althusser, 1998;
297). Ideology is perpetuated by subjects and by ISAs in a dynamic, highly irresistible
process. As John Fiske (1998) states, for Althusser, ideology is not a static set of ideas
imposed upon the subordinate by the dominant classes, but rather a dynamic process
constantly reproduced and reconstituted in practice (306). This process or mechanism is
termed interpellation (Althusser, 1998; 299).

3
The process of interpellation begins with hailing, a calling to participate in a form of ideology
(Althusser, 1998; 302). Hailing is ubiquitous, and almost entirely irresistible and is at the
center of any ideological system. It attempts to make another individual recognize and accept
a form of ideology. Through hailing, ideology acts or functions in such a way that it recruits
subjects among individuals (Althusser, 1998; 301). Individuals are born into ideology, but
hailing recruits subjects of particular ideologies. Subjects do not realize their subjection, and
are only free in that subjection is freely accepted. Althusser (1998) states that an institution
or individual hails another individual much as the common everyday police (or other) hailing:
Hey, you there! (301). A successful hailing occurs if the individual recognizes that the hail
was really addressed to him, and that it was really him who was hailed (Althusser, 1969;
41). This recognition, for example may be the acceptance of a particular social practice or
label, such as an advocate of Christian religious ideology terming himself a Christian. If a
hailing is successful, an individual becomes a subject of a particular ideology, and, hence,
is interpellated, interpellation being a successful hailing (Althusser, 1998; 303). Althusser
(1998) succinctly states this process in his central thesis: Ideology interpellates individuals
as subjects (299).

Ideological process creates a quadruple system of interpellation as subjects, of subjection to

the Subject, of universal recognition, and of absolute guarantee (Althusser, 1998; 302).
Interpellation recruits subjects of particular ideologies only if subjects recognize each other
and themselves as subjects of particular ideologies. Subjects also must recognize dominant
ISAs and participate in their practices for interpellation to be successful. Success is ensured
through what Althusser (1998) terms, the absolute guarantee of ideology (302). Hegemonic
ideology insists that if the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly,
everything will be all right: AmenSo be it (Althusser, 1998; 303). According to Althusser,
if subjects act according to their beliefs, participating in the practices of dominant ISAs, they
are assured a place in hegemonic society.

Although ideological force, exerted as hailing and interpellation, is highly powerful, it is not
entirely irresistible. Subjects may adhere to ideology or may resist, though there are normally
consequences to the latter. Althusser (1998) notes that subjects may be good or may be
bad (303). Good subjects adhere to the dictates of dominant ideology through the
recognition, acceptance, and maintenance of its practices. Bad subjects rebel against
dominant discourse, often by adopting alternative or oppositional ideologies, and are
punished through mainstream societal ridicule, obsequy, or ostracism. Althussers
ideological theory does allow for resistance to ideology. Only through the scientific
understanding of ideological systems may those who wish to escape ideology elude its
powerful influence (Althusser, 1998; 303). In this manner, Althusser contends that ideology
shapes the experiences of human existence through its control of aspects such as social
milieu, class, and power.

Althusser: Inspirations, Extensions, and Criticisms

Contemporary cultural and media critics, such as Stuart Hall, John Fiske, Ernesto Laclau,
and Chantal Mouffe, arguably have their roots in the Althusserian framework of ideology and
the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony. Each also has his or her criticisms and
alternative views regarding significant aspects of Althusser's central theses (Althusser, 1998;

4
Bryant & Zillmann, 2002; Durham & Kellner, 2001; Fiske, 1998; Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001;
Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; McQuail, 2000; Salwen & Sacks, 1996; Wood, 1998).

Hall, one of the most influential cultural and media critics in the field, acknowledges the
power relations and negotiation of meaning behind discourse, including both everyday
language and media messages. In his reception theory, he poses that audiences receive
pieces of messages and ignore others, depending on their particular beliefs, cultural
circumstances, and individual differences. This is more systematically outlined in his
encoding-decoding typology, which posits that senders encode messages with particular
meanings and audiences decode these messages, accepting some of the intended meaning,
while negotiating new meaning and rejecting some of the intended message. Hall has noted
that Althusserian ideological theory does not allow for multiple, simultaneous hails, and does
not allow for oppositional ideologies through its process. Almost as entirely systematic as
Althusserian ideological theory, Halls framework presents what some have said is a more
audience-controlled theory, where ideology is not so much imposed from above, but is
more or less negotiated by the individual receiver (Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001).

Laclau and Mouffe, postmodernist neo-Marxists, do not advocate a kind of systematic

process of ideology and hegemony. They embrace Gramscian hegemony, but take
hegemonic struggle as a given. The process is moot within their framework. Hegemonic
struggle is a constant, democratic negotiation of culture and society. Democratic hegemonic
negotiation is constant, with antagonism keeping society from reaching a static state. Laclau
and Mouffe also do not advocate a singular subject position for any given individual, or a
singular hegemonic dominant force. They note that any given individual occupies several
subject positions, i.e., a single Catholic female does not just have the singular identity of a
single Catholic female. She is single, a Catholic, and a female. They also theorize that
there are many hegemonic forces constantly operating in a dynamic manner. Unlike
Althusser, Laclau and Mouffe do not emphasize the process of power negotiation, and do not
highlight individual subject and power positions (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985).

The theory utilized in the writings of Fiske (1998) most closely resembles Althussers
conceptualizations of ideology. He uses the terminology of hailing and interpellation and
analyzes media texts, in particular, television, in terms of this framework. He describes the
hailings of television programs, through content analysis techniques, noting that various
hails, if successful, interpellate us to particular ideas and roles, largely those encoded into
programming by the dominant, hegemonic media institutions (Fiske, 1998). This method may
be expanded to various realms of communication research, both in theoretical, cultural, and
political exploration and analysis, and as a framework for empirical investigation and
application. This topic will be expanded upon in subsequent sections.

Despite these criticisms and elaborations upon the Althusserian conceptualization of

ideology, a central component of Althusser's work remains vital and highly useful in media
and cultural studies. Hall's process of encoding and decoding arguably places the receivers
of messages in a more volitional position than does the process of interpellation. Hall notes
that Althusser's conceptualization of ideology is dogmatic and uni-accentual, while his
conceptualization of the "subject" is singular (Hall, 1998; 1068). He posits that it is impossible
in the theory of Althusser to account for how anything but the dominant ideology is
reproduced (Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001). However, though interpellation does involve the

5
irresistible force of ideology, there is choice. The type of overwhelming saturation of images,
hard to resist and understand, what we see in the media everyday, is well reflected in
Althusser's work. Though Hall and others have criticized Althusser's work as not allowing for
multiple demands, or "hailings," of the "subject," it seems clear that more than one hailing
may occur at the same time. Though the process is described in Althusser's writings in a
singular manner, multiple hailings may be inferred. As he notes, we are born into ideology,
but are called to participate in particular ideologies (Althussser, 1998). We are hailed in a
constant manner.

Further, Althusser does allow for opposition to the hails of dominant discourse. Those who
oppose will be "punished," perhaps through ridicule or ostracism from hegemonic elements
of society. Alternative "receptions," to use Hall's term (Hall, 2001), may be allowed, as long
as they do not threaten the dominant ideology.

The system behind the perpetuation of ideology, hegemonic, alternative, and oppositional, is
the key to the utility of Althussers theory in communication theoretical analysis and empirical
research. Laclau and Mouffe adopt the postmodernist stance of taking hegemony for granted
and advocate a kind of positive contentment with constant struggle and potential discontent.
The process behind the dynamic negotiation is irrelevant within their framework. However,
Fiske, Hall, and Althusser, in particular, advocate and present processes behind this dynamic
negotiation. Understanding this process is central to accepting, negotiating, or opposing
ideological messages in the media. This understanding has implications for senders and
receivers of messages--for the sender in how to make messages more apt to be fully
decoded as encoded, and for the receiver in how to resist or adapt messages according to
individual conscience.

The systematic process of interpellation, in the context of the conveyance of hegemonic

ideology through media messages, and the hegemonic maintenance of power and the
"status quo," in the context of mass media ISAs, is a strategy worth exploring further, both
through the examination of contemporary issues and application to research in the field. Prior
to this discussion of theoretical application, the foundations of Althusserian theory will be
briefly reviewed.

Althusser & Theoretical Foundations

Althussers theory may be more closely examined by applying epistemological foundations of

theory to his overall framework. In Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations,
Anderson (1996), explores the foundations of theory, particularly in the context of
communication theory and research. Two of the most basic foundations of theory center
around the conceptualizations of the individual and of the phenomenal world. Both concepts
are central to understanding individuals, behavior, processes, and phenomena, in the context
of communication, as well as in other arenas. In the sections that follow, Andersons basic
assumptions regarding these two basic foundational concepts are explored in the context of
Althussers theoretical framework.

Conceptualization of the Phenomenal World

6
Anderson (1996) poses several questions regarding the phenomenal world, including: (1)
What is the real?(2); What are the domains of reality?(3); What is the structure of the reality
domain(s)?(4); and What are the sources of that structure (15). Anderson poses varying
positions and multiple perspectives in the macrocosmic context of the nature of the
phenomenal world. He explores the underlying assumptions concerning the nature of the
world outside the conscious mind as it presents itself as an object of inquiry (Anderson,
1996; 15). The discussion works from and between two ideas, an actual world, completely
apart from the mind, and a virtual reality, the result of a construction of our perceptions. The
former world may be explored and engaged properly to validate a line of inquiry, while the
latter exists as a result of a line of inquiry. In simple terms, knowledge of reality may be
always already there, and may be discovered through inquiry, or knowledge may become
real through our perceptions, based in inquiry.

Althussers conception of the phenomenal world is more of a virtual reality, the result of a
construction of our perceptions. It is a product of cultural forces and ideology, and is based in
our perceptions, but these perceptions are created by hegemonic institutions and values.
Those in power perpetuate the necessary consent for their dominance through interpellation.
Through ISAs, individuals are called to participate in particular ideologies, and accept these
hailings, to participate in mainstream societal activities, groups, and functions.

The phenomenal world is perceived through ideology, and there is no practice or institution
except by or in an ideology (Althusser, 1998). Althusser (1969) terms ideology our imaginary
relation to the real relations of existence. Thus, Althusser may believe that there is a material
world, though not an objective one, but the society we live in is constantly shaped and
reshaped according to hegemonic ideology and the mechanism of interpellation.

Conceptualization of the Individual

Questions such as Who are you? or Who am I? are often answered in simple ways, with
responses couched in terms of given name, age, sex, or occupation. Questions such as
these are seemingly innocuous, but are, in actuality, of the most complex in existence. The
individual is conceptualized in numerous forms and models, for there are multiple ways that
we know ourselves, and also, innumerable ways in which we are known.

Anderson (1996) explores claims regarding the conceptualization of the individual, working
from several tools of analysis, identity, both as an inward and outward concept, subjectivity,
both invoked and evoked, and agency, the character of action. He also uses tools in the
domain of explanation, as the individual may be approached from various domains--the
material, the biological, and the semiotic. Using these tools, Anderson focuses on four
models of conceptualization in particular--the attribute individual, the conjunctive individual,
the situated individual, and the activative individual. Althussers conceptualization falls within
the conjunctive model of the individual.

The conjunctive individual is the site of the intersection of material, cultural and social
influences. The individual is formed collectively. Systems are important in this model, as
cultural institutions and ideology work together to constitute the individual. The individual is
couched in history, between oppositions of class, race, and the like. Subjectivity is the focus
of the model, as the individual is collectively formed and constituted (Dowling,1984). Some

7
forms see the individual as less of a subject with choices and more of a product of material
conditions and ideology. Some, such as cultural forms, see the individual as having more
control over the system in which he or she lives, and may escape or use ideological
systems to his or her advantage. This may come through what Althusser terms a scientific
understanding of ideology (Althusser, 1998).

Anderson (1996) notes that any theory and any manner of inquiry have key relationships with
the conceptualization of the individual. Arguments are often situated within some constitution
of the self. These frames of the individual shape inquiry itself, as well as its purpose, in that,
for example, one conception of the self may allow for discovery, and another for
interpretation. The frame of the individual shapes the frame of inquiry. For Althusser (1969),
the individual is collectively formed, and he or she may interpret culture and ideology, and
escape its powerful influences, through the use of a critical eye. The individual, for
Althusser, does not discover knowledge, as there is no objective reality, and can only
interpret the phenomenal world through a scientific understanding of cultural and ideological
processes.

Althusser & Communication Research: Media Issues and Possible Applications

Contemporary Issues

Althusser provides a language to explain the ubiquitous societal control of ideology, as well
as a systematic mechanism of cultural force and its perpetuation of hegemonic ideology. In
the context of communication research, Althusser's conceptual framework may provide a
language through which the influence the mass media exerts over the public may be
identified and articulated.

Althussers cultural theory explains the structure and function of ideology, and his thesis
works from the concept of hegemony. Though his writings are brilliant, they are quite obtuse
in many respects, and this may have been remedied with more practical analysis and
application in his writing. Still, it provides an excellent language and mechanism, particularly
in its articulation of interpellation and its connection of Marxism, structuralism, cultural
critique, and ideological critique. Interwoven through all of these concepts is hegemony.

As previously stated, hegemony describes the dynamic by which a dominant class wins the
willing consent of the subordinate class to the system that ensures their subordination
(Fiske, 1998; 310). Consent is not static, but must be won and rewon (Fiske, 1998, 310).
Ideology accounts for the manner in which ruling, or hegemonic, discourses and institutions
perpetuate the necessary consent for their dominance.

The mass media may be conceptualized as a tool for hegemonic discourses in maintaining
power, as several ISAs may influence the various outlets of the mass media, and through the
messages sent, the media hails and interpellates viewers, readers, and consumers, into
particular forms of hegemonic ideology. However, a more accurate and useful
conceptualization may be to view the mass media as an ISA in and of itself, that has its own
hegemonic agenda, fueled by other ISAs and their accompanying objectives.

8
The idea of the mass media as an ISA may be more adequately explicated through a brief
restatement of the concepts of ISA and ritual practices. Althusser (1998) states that there are
no practices except by and in an ideology (299), and individuals, believing they are "acting
according to their beliefs," (299) insert their actions into practices governed by the rituals of
particular ISAs. Practices of particular powerful social institutions reproduce ideology in an
ever-changing dynamic process. Individuals, who are born as subjects (Althusser, 1998;
303) into the realm of some form of ideology, are inevitably called to participate in practices
of particular dominant institutional ideologies. Through the circular process of dispositif, an
individual believes himself a subject endowed with a consciousness in which he freely forms
or freely recognizes ideas in which he believes (Althusser, 1998; 297). The individual
believes his ideas must be inserted into actions, or ought to exist in his actions, and these
are inserted into practices governed by ISAs. As stated previously, the rituals stem from the
ideology of the ISAs, which are the origin of the recognized or formed beliefs of the individual
(Althusser, 1969). Individuals do not realize their subjection, believing that they freely form or
recognize ideas and participate in ritual practices in order to act according to their ideas
(Althusser, 1998; 297). Ideology is highly irresistible, and reproduces itself in a dynamic
process, through the mechanism of interpellation (Althusser, 1998). In the case of mass
communication, hailing and interpellation function through the messages of the mass media.

Althusser's framework may be readily applied to any number of texts and discourses,
including literary works, societal structures, and entities such as the mass media. The
influence of the mass media upon society and individuals may be articulated via ideology and
interpellation, as messages produced by the media, an ISA influenced by other ISAs, call
receivers to participate in particular forms of ideology. Receivers, viewers, readers, and
consumers do not realize they are being subjected to anything, and when called to a form of
ideology, accept, and hence, become interpellated. These receivers insert their ideas into
practices of dominant ISAs, to "act according to their ideas" (Althusser, 1998; 297); thus they
participate in perpetuation of the hegenomic discourses advocated in the message relayed
via the mass media outlet or channel of influence. Though a full exploration of all cultural and
media issues is beyond the scope of this paper, several contemporary issues may be briefly
considered.

Advertising in General

A most applicable area to examine Althusserian ideology is in general advertising. Consider

the following hypothetical example:

A ten-year-old boy is watching a cartoon program on television. During the program, he

views an advertisement for a new type of breakfast cereal. The commercial touts the cereal
as a "taste sensation that is packed full of vitamins to help kids grow into strong healthy
adults." Its characters are a young man, a "hip, cool" teenage boy, and his younger brother.
The teenager eats the cereal and interacts with his younger brother. The younger brother
does not want to eat breakfast, and the older boy convinces him that it is cool to eat
breakfast and that the cereal will help him to grow up to be a tall, "cool guy, just like him."
The brothers eat the cereal together and play air guitar, as the commercial fades out, with a
soundtrack of upbeat alternative rock music. Later that evening, the boy--the viewer, and
now a subject--asks his mother to buy the cereal; she does so the next week and he eats it
regularly.

9
Though the description above is arguably simplistic, it will serve its purpose as a media-
based scenario in which to apply Althusser's framework. The messages in the described
commercial hail the hypothetical viewer as a young, impressionable boy, wanting nothing
more than to grow up to be a "cool" teenager that listens to rock music. It also hails him as a
consumer. The messages seek to make this viewer, and others, recognize and accept
particular forms of ideology, in this case, to sell a product, but also, to sell an ideology of
consumerism, as well as rebelliousness and accepted adolescent popularity. Through
hailing, ideology acts or functions in such a way that it recruits subjects among individuals
(Althusser, 1998; 301). This boy was born into ideology, but this hailing, and others, will
recruit him as a subject of particular ideologies. He does not realize his subjection, and may
not realize future subjection.

As Althusser notes, a successful hailing occurs if the individual recognizes that the hail was
really addressed to him, and that it was really him who was hailed (Althusser, 1969; 41).
This is such the case with the situation described above. The boy accepts the hailings of the
mass media messages presented in the commercial, and is interpellated to the ideologies
presented. The success of his interpellation is virtually ensured, as ideology insists that if the
subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right:
AmenSo be it (Althusser, 1998; 303). According to Althusser, if subjects act according to
their beliefs, participating in the practices of dominant ISAs, they are assured of a place in
hegemonic society. This boy arguably believes that if he behaves like a "cool guy," in this
case, eating what "cool guys" eat, he, as he ages, will be accepted into the mainstream
adolescent subculture.

This young boy is undoubtedly exposed to multiple hailings, even while watching the
television program during which the cereal commercial was aired. He is hailed through other
commercials, through the television programs that he watches, through the music that he
listens to, and through countless other media messages. He is subjected to particular
ideologies, largely hegemonic, though he does not realize his subjection or rejection of these
messages and hails.

Pharmaceutical Advertising

Advertisements, both print and broadcast, for prescription drugs, are a fairly new
phenomenon. Much like the cereal commercial scenario above, pharmaceutical
advertisements hail viewers as not only patients, in that medical problems are presented as
diseases that may be cured, but also hail patients as consumers. Drugs are products for
sale and viewers of their advertisements are hailed as participants in the health marketplace.
Those that are successfully hailed as consumers, are interpellated to this new patient role,
and with multiple successful hailings, may perceive their relationship with providers in a
much different light.

Such a change in the way that health information is distributed and the changing role of
patients likely affects the doctor-patient relationship, changing its dynamics. This arguably
may be positive, as a consumer position places the patient in a somewhat more powerful
role, perhaps, as opposed to the once common paternalistic dyad. However, is such a
change in this relationship, the center of healthcare, a positive or a negative one, and how
prevalent is this change?

10
Media Conglomeration

Due to federal legislation and the growth of the media, news, and entertainment industries,
the conglomeration of the mass media is ever increasing. Those media organizations, or
ISAs, with the most power, may own the most outlets, with greater opportunity to spread
hegemonic ideologies, via hailing through mass media message content. The scope of
ownership is not always apparent, as consumers are often unaware that their favorite
magazine is published by the same central ownership as their favorite cable network.

As media conglomeration continues, those with the most power and the most money, those
that have the most control over the predominant hegemonic discourse, will have the most
control over the distributed media messages, and the most opportunity for mass distribution
through multiple outlets. Consumers may not realize their exposure to messages from the
same source, another layer of subjection to the dominant ideology, which they do not
normally realize from a singular ISA, through the circular dispotif.

Global Village and Media Choice

Many would argue that the vast amount of media choice, given multiple broadcast channels
and print publications, coupled with new media technologies, including the spread of
computer technology and Internet access, offers consumers more choice of exposure to
diverse messages. New media is often perceived as a democratizing force, a way for culture
to be shared so that no individual may be left behind and may potentially be an early
adopter, or at least, have more opportunity not to be a laggard (McQuail, 2001). However,
the expansion of new media and multiple channels may offer more opportunity for control of
media content by the dominant media ISAs and offer more outlets for the same hegemonic
messages.

Given media conglomeration, those with the most power, money, and control own multiple
media outlets and may distribute their messages to meet their own ends. Their agendas may
be furthered through hailings and interpellations of hegemonic ideology through radio,
television, advertising, web-based, and print messages. Second, the spread of the dominant
culture, in a financial and political sense, the U.S. culture, is reaching across the globe at an
incredible rate, through the spread of cable television, international media ownership, and
distribution of new media. Will we share in a global village of culture, or will the dominant
culture spread and wipe out or alter traditional cultures through successful hailings of
hegemonic ideology (McQuail, 2001)?

Future Directions for Research

There are, of course, other areas in which an Althusserian framework may be used to
explore current issues in the media. More useful, however, would be consideration of
possible specific applications of this framework to new media research. Hence, suggested
projects and directions for future new media research using Althusserian ideological theory
are outlined below.

Content Analysis of Pharmaceutical Advertising

11
Content analysis, utilizing an Althusserian framework, of one or several prescription drug
advertising campaigns may constitute a worthy project. Specific hails within ads may be
identified and analyzed. Perhaps viewers may also be surveyed pre- and post-administration
of an ad, actual or simulated, according to their acceptance or rejection of the discovered
messages/hails.

Local News Discourse Analysis

A discourse analysis of local news content may be another worthy project. What hails are
presented during a local newscast? Are viewers hailed as friends, as part of the news
family? Are viewers interpellated to particular roles as purveyors of news, and as members
of the "news family"? A cross-sectional study of multiple outlets may be interesting to
determine if similar types of hailing are used in local newscasts in various parts of the U.S.

Reporters--Organizational Hailing

A field study of reporters in a news organization may yield interesting organizational findings.
How are reporters hailed in the newsroom? Observational work in one or several newsrooms
may provide ample opportunity to observe hails in action. How do these hails shape their
identities as reporters and how does this, in turn, shape the news content that they produce?
Their interpellations to the role of reporter influence the hails in their reporting. An analysis of
the content of the hails directed at a particular reporter, and the content of his or her
reporting, may be a worthy project.

Ads and the Programs that Surround Them-Matching Hails

A content analysis of one or more television programs and the advertisements within them
would likely offer interesting ideological findings. Would hails to similar message acceptance
be present in the programming and the advertisements within it? Would there be a kind of
targeted placement of particular hails within advertising to reach the audience for which the
program is aimed, a kind of ideological targeting? Intuitively, it seems highly possible.

Health Models-Hailing for Health

The use of identifiable characteristics in health models, i.e., Theory of Reasoned Action,
could potentially be used to create particular identities for healthful behavior, and in turn, to
design and test programs that hail the target audience to participate in these behaviors and
take on these identities. If hailings were successful, and shaped toward the hegemonic ideal,
and at the same time, tailored toward the proven elements of health behavior interventions in
successful health behavior models, then perhaps successful, ideologically-based
interventions may be created.

Media Literacy Training

Althusser notes that only through a scientific understanding of ideology may we escape its
influence if we choose to do so. A scientific understanding in the context of mass media
messages translates to media literacy training. A possible worthy endeavor may be to design
and test a media literacy training module based in an Althusserian framework of hailing and

12
interpellation. Hands-on training and analysis of media content, identifying messages and
hails within programming and other forms of media, may be a central component.

Conclusion

Althussers ideological theory does allow for resistance to ideology, and the hypothetical
young boy watching the cereal ad may do so. Only through the scientific understanding of
ideological systems, according to Althusser (1998; 303), may those who wish to escape
ideology elude its pervasive influence. The boy may be taught to view media messages with
a critical eye through media literacy training, and may be taught to see things through the
lens of ideology and interpellation as well. Ideology is all around us, and an understanding of
its attributes and mechanisms, in the context of mass communication and in other realms,
may aid us in evading its influence, or using it to our ends.

References

Althusser, L. "Ideology and ideological state apparatuses." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary
theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 294-304.

---. Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review, 1969.

---. For Marx. New York: Pantheon, 1965.

---. Reading Capital. London: NLB, 1970.

Anderson, J.A. "The nature of the individual." Ed. J.A. Anderson. Communication Theory:
Epistemological Foundations. New York: The Guilford P, 1996. pp. 77-101.

---. "The nature of the phenomenal world." Ed. J.A. Anderson. Communication Theory:
Epistemological Foundations. New York: The Guilford P, 1996. pp. 13-45.

Baldwin, E., Longhurst, B., et al. Eds. Introducing cultural studies. Hernel Helmstead:
Prentice Hall, 1999.

Benton, T. The rise and fall of structural Marxism: Althusser and his influence. London:
Macmillan, 1984.

Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Eds. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

Clarke, S. One-dimensional marxism: Althusser and the politics of culture. London: Allison &
Busby, 1980.

Dowling, W. C. Jameson, Althusser, Marx : an introduction to the political unconscious.

Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984.

13
Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. Eds. Media and cultural studies: Key works. Malden:
Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

Fiske, J. "Culture, ideology and interpellation." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An
anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 305-311.

Hall, S. "The rediscovery of ideology." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An
anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 1050-1087.

---. "Encoding decoding." Eds. Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. Media and cultural studies:
Key works. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. pp. 166-176.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic
Politics. New York: Verso, 1985.

McQuail, D. Ed. McQuails Mass Communication Theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage,
2000.

Salwen, M.B., & Sacks, D.W. Eds. An integrated approach to communication theory and
research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

Wood, B. "Stuart Hall's cultural studies and the problem of hegemony." British Journal of
Sociology 49,3 (1998): 399-414.

14