End of Ideology Zhao1993

The "End of Ideology" Again?
The Concept of Ideology in the Era of Post-Modern Theory

Author(s): Yuezhi Zhao
Source: The Canadian Journal of Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, Vol. 18, No. 1 (
Winter, 1993), pp. 70-85
Published by: Canadian Journal of Sociology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3340840
Accessed: 11-01-2016 21:38 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Canadian Journal of Sociology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Canadian Journal of
Sociology / Cahiers canadiens de sociologie.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.120.4.50 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 21:38:29 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Notes on the Discipline/Notes
sociologique
The"endof ideology"again?Theconceptof ideology

in the eraof post-modemtheory*
YuezhiZhao
It has been arguedthatin the 1950s Westernsocial sciences were dominatedby

an "orthodoxconsensus"formedarounda broad"theoryof industrialsociety"
(Giddens,1977). Oneof thekey dimensionsof thistheorywas thatclass conflict
hadbecome "normativelyregulated"in the West andthatthe majorideological
agrarianto "modern"
strugglescharacteristicof the transitionfrom"traditional"
industrialsocieties had essentiallydisappeared.Most notably,the emphasison
normative consensus and the focus on the mechanisms of the liberal state
presenteda view of a world where - to paraphrasethe title of Daniel Bell's
classic book from the period - "ideology"had ended (Bell, 1960). But the
politicalpolarizationandradicalizationof the 1960sproblematizedthe assump-
tions of the "orthodoxconsensus"andled to a widespread"rediscovery"of the
conceptof ideology (Hall, 1982). In recentyears,however,the conceptseems to
have once morefallenout of favourin thewakeof criticalmovementsassociated
withpost-modernism,'post-structuralism, andpost-Marxism.Indeed,one hears
repeatedclaims of another"endof ideology."
* I would like to thankRichardGruneaufor his invaluablesuggestionsin preparingthis article. I
would also like to thankthe CJSeditorandanonymousreviewersfortheirhelpfulcommentsand
criticisms of an early draftof this paper. Please addressall correspondenceto Yuezhi Zhao,
Departmentof Communication,Simon FraserUniversity,Bumaby,B.C., V5A 1S6.
1. "Post-modernism"is a rather ambiguous term. In a narrow sense, it refers to a certain
constellationof styles andtonesin culturalworks. Theconcept,however,is also associatedwith
a broaderconceptionof an allegedlyemergentnew sociopoliticalandculturalconfigurationthat
has been termed"post-modemity."In this paper,"post-modernism" refersto a particularbody
of contemporarypolitical, social, and culturaltheory (see Huyssen, 1984; Jameson, 1984;
Harvey, 1989; Gitlin, 1989).
70 of Sociology/Cahierscanadiensde sociologie 18(1) 1993
CanadianJournmal
To be sure, the ways in which the concept of ideology is said to be obsolete
today are fundamentally different from those in the 1950s. If the "end of
ideology" argumentin the 1950s was made on the basis of a celebration of a
presumablyachieved, normativelyregulated,consensual society, the new cri-
tique of ideology during the 1980s has been based on the exact opposite: a
celebrationof differencesandthe heterogeneityof discursivepositions. Moreo-
ver, post-structuralismand post-modernismhave not suspendedthe concept of
ideology by simply declaringthe arrivalof a new sociopolitical configurationin
which "ideology" is no longer relevant.2Rather, they have challenged the
concept by underminingthe very theoreticalfoundationsand epistemological
categories that have made Marxianconceptions of ideology meaningful. In a
uniquelypost-modernisttwist, it hasbeen arguedthatthe conceptof ideology has
quietly dissolved into a world of free-floatingsignifiers andmutuallyexclusive
discourses.
In this essay, I want to outline the main theoreticalargumentsof the new
critique of ideology and examine the ways in which recent critical movements
appearto have renderedthe conceptof ideology obsolete. I will thenevaluatethe
strengthsand limitationsof the new critique.While recentmovements in social
theoryhave made importantcontributionsandofferedmuch-neededcorrectives
to Marxian theories of ideology, I argue that it is prematureto write off the
Marxianperspective entirely.
Beyond the concept of ideology

Foucault's archeology of knowledge
Definitions of the concept of ideology in the Marxiantraditionare diverse and
often contradictory.Thereare,for example,differentconceptionsof the charac-
ter of ideology (from formulationsthatdefine ideology as systems of ideas and
beliefs to AlthusserianandGramscianemphaseson the materialand institution-
ally embedded characterof ideologies), its nature(from false, partial ideas to
naturalizedideas and reified consciousness), and its class belongingness (from
rigid, systematic class consciousness to discursiveelements without necessary
class belongingness) (see Marx and Engels, 1970; Althusser, 1971; Lukacs,
1971; Gramsci, 1971; Williams, 1977: 55-71; Sumner, 1979; Larrain, 1979;
Mouffe, 1979; Lovell, 1980; Hall, 1977; 1982; 1985; 1989). But these different
2 . Thereis, in recentyears,particularly
inthewakeof theendof theColdWarandthecollapseof
SovietUnionandcommunist regimesin EastEurope, a new"endof ideology"argument thatis
verysimilarto DanielBell'sargument inthe1950s.Thisargument celebratestheallegedglobal
triumph ofWesternliberaldemocratic consensus andclaimstheendofhistoryforthereasonthat,
withthetriumph of liberalism
andcapitalism astheonlypossiblehumanfuture,thereis nomore
roomforlargeideologicalbattles.SeeFrancisFukuyama (1992)fora versionof thisnew"end
of ideology"argument. SeealsoAlanRyan(1992)foracritiqueof thisargument. Thisnew"end
of ideology"argument on thepoliticalright,however,is ratherdifferentfromthe one we are
examiningin thisarticle,andit will notconcernus here.
71
conceptions of ideology in the Marxiantraditionshare some fundamental
concerns, for example, the relationbetween consciousnessand being, and the
adequacy of ideology as a form of knowledge. One of the key theorists in
contemporarysocial theoryto have directedattentionaway from such concerns
is Michel Foucault,particularlyin his laterwork.
First,in contrastto a Marxistconcernwiththe adequacyof ideology as a form
of knowledge,Foucaultis not interestedin evaluatingthe contentsof systems of
knowledge.Ratherhe is concemedwith the processes,procedures,and appara-
tuses whereby truth,knowledge, and beliefs are producedand deployed in
particularregions of social management- thatis, to use Foucault'sterminol-
ogy, the "politics of the discursiveregime,"or the politics of truth(Foucault,
1972). In this way, Foucaultsuspendsthe categoriesof truth/falsityor truth/
ideology anddissolves theproblematicof epistemologicaljustification.He does
this simplyby refusingto takeup the questionof whetherthevariousregimeshe
has studiedprovideknowledgethatis in any sense true,warranted,adequate,or
undistorted(Fraser,1989).
Second, Foucault'sanalysisof powergoes beyondthe domainof conscious-
ness andcognition,whichis thetraditionalfocus of varioustheoriesof ideology.
InFoucault'sview, moder powertouchesindividualsthroughthevariousforms
of constraintconstitutiveof theirsocial practices ratherthanprimarilythrough
the distortionof their belief systems.Thus,while Marxiantheoriesof ideology
generally suggest thatthe persistenceof a particularsocial orderis securedby
consentto rulingideologies, for Foucault,a particularformof social cohesion is
achieved by way of practices,techniques,andmethodswhich infiltratenot so
much minds, but bodies. In otherwords,technologiesof power operatenot so
muchon the consciousof the subjectas on theunconsciousnessandon the body
object.Tony Bennett'scontrastbetweenFoucaultandGramsciis instructivein
this regard:
Foucaultemphasizesthe role of socialtechnologiesin regulating the conductof thepopulace
conceivedas objectsof socialadministration.This,in turn,leadsto a concernwiththe body/soul
nexus:withhowpowerrelationsinvestthebody,trainit, forceit to performtaskswitha viewto
effectinga modificationof thesoulintheproduction of self-monitoringandself-regulating
agents
of conduct.ForGramsci,by contrast,the emphasisfalls on the role whichideologiesplay in
organizingcultural,moralandintellectual leadershipover thepeopleconceivedas subjectsof
politicalaction-onthe struggle,thatis,forheartsandminds whereideologiesareassessedfortheir
'psychological' influenceinorganizingtheconsciousnessofpoliticalsubjects(1990:247,emphasis
in original).
Proponentsof theFoucauldianpositionhavearguedthatFoucault'semphasis
on practices,andhis concer with unconsciousembodimentin the operationof
power, renderany attemptto discuss power in relationto systems of beliefs
superficial and limited. Even Gramscianversions of ideology as "common
sense"andthe articulationof discursiveelementsbecome inadequateas tools of
72
social critique.By implication,the notion of ideological struggle in and around
consciousness is also no longer sufficient.
Post-Marxist discourse theory and the critique of epistemology

Marxisttheories of ideology typically presupposea fundamentalepistemologi-
cal distinctionbetween being andconsciousness,realityandthought,object and
discourse. Ideology belongs to the domain of consciousness, thought, and
discourse which stands in a specific relationto materialreality. In addition to
Foucault, this fundamentaldistinction has also been challenged by a radical
discourse theory and its concomitant critique of epistemology (Macdonell,
1986). Consider, in this regard,the post-Althusseriandiscourse theory of Paul
Hirst and BarryHindess, and beyond this, the post-Marxismof Emesto Laclau
and Chantel Mouffe.
In their book Mode of Production and Social Formation (1977), Hirst and
Hindess eradicateevery traceof a distinctionandcorrelationbetween discourse
and exterior objects. They criticize Althusser(and their own earlierwork!) for
retainingthe concept of the "real-concrete"which can be appropriatedby the
"concrete-in-thought."In this way, they argue, Althusserianperspectives fall
into the trapof all epistemologies basedupon a distinctionbetween "a realm of
discourseon the one hand,anda realmof actualor potentialobjects of discourse
on the other"(1977: 19). AlthoughHirstandHindess do not deny the existence
of an external world, they argue that this is a world about which in principle
nothing can be said or known, andto which nothingcan be referred(1977:19).
Concepts such as "knowledge"and "representation" thus become problematic.
In their words:
Therejectionof epistemologyimpliesa rejectionof theepistemological conceptionof knowledge
asinvolvinga moreorlessadequate orappropriation
representation of someindependently existing
reality... it impliesthattherelationbetweendiscourseandits objectscannotbe conceivedas an
epistemological relationof knowledgeat all.(1977:21-2)
This critiqueof epistemology is pushedeven furtherby Laclau and Mouffe
in Hegemonyand Socialist Strategy (1985). They not only rejectthe distinction
between discursive and non-discursivepractices, but also criticize Hirst and
Hindess for retainingthe notion thattheremay be "objects"not "constructedin
discourse."In theirview, everythingis constitutedin andby discourse. Society
is a "field of discourse" without an "extra-discursivereality." It cannot be
conceived as an integratedwhole withinwhich every partis fixed in its position
andfunctioningin relationto every otherpartby virtueof its relationsto a central
principle (or a contradiction)which underliesthe structureof social relation-
ships. It is no longer possible to locate a unifying principle, such as mode of
production,for a concept of society which is knowable. The field of the social
is betterviewed as a networkof disperseddifferencescaughtup in a mobile and
73
incessantlychanging(andtherefore contingentandprovisional) setof articula-
toryrelationsto oneanother.Tobe sure,LaclauandMouffeformallyinsistthat
theirargument"hasnothingto do withwhetherthereis a worldexternalto
thought" (1985:108),andtheyaffirmthematerial natureof discourse.Butthese
caveatsdo not carrymuch theoreticalweight in their text (Geras,1988;
WithefordandGruneau,1992).
This collapseof the distinctionbetweenobjectsanddiscourseshas drastic
implications fortheconceptof ideologyandtheprojectof ideologicalcritique.
Theoretically,if realityis constitutedin andby discourse,and if objective
knowledgeof realityis impossible, thenmuchofthetalkaboutideologyasfalse,
mystified,partialrepresentationof thereal,oras "thosetheorieswhichtakethe
appearances of socialrelationsundercapitalismat facevalue"(Lovell,1980:
24),becomesmeaningless. Underthisepistemological scepticism,theveryact
of identifyinga formof consciousnessas ideologicalentailssomeuntenable
notionsof knowledgeandtruth,whicharethemselvespartof themetaphysical
baggageof thenineteenth-century thoughtthatshouldbe discarded(Eagleton,
1991). The conceptof ideology is thusdeprivedof its theoretical
foundation.
The social andpoliticaldimensionsof this argumentalso have profound
implicationsfor the continuingrelevanceof anyformof Marxistanalysis.In
traditionalMarxistformulations, theconceptof ideologyhasanirreducible class
dimension.Itis seenasconnected tohistorically
"objective" socialandpolitical
interests.Indeed,ideologyis oftenidentifiedwiththeideasandbeliefscharac-
teristicof particularclassesor groups.It is saidto have the consequenceof
concealing mystifyingclassinterests.
or Despitesubtledifferencesin formula-
tion - for example,froma view whereideologysimplyreflectseconomic
interests,to the Althusserian notionof economicdetermination "in the last
-
instance" Marxisttheoriesof ideologymaintainthe contentionthat"there
existssomeinternalrelationbetweenparticular socio-economic conditionsand
specifickindsofpoliticalorideologicalpositions" (Eagleton,1991:210).Inthis
view, specificsocialandeconomicsituationsgive riseto a particular formof
An
ideology. important of
objective ideologicalcritique hasbeen to uncover the
specificsocial andeconomic interests a
underlyingparticular ideologicalsystem
orparticular formsof ideologicalconstructs withinan ideologicalsystem.
All theseideasarechallengedin the workof HirstandHindness.In their
slippagefromthe Althusseriannotionof no-necessarycorrespondencebetween
economic determinationsandpolitical and ideologicalforms to necessarily no
correspondence betweenthetwodomains,HirstandHindnesshaveseveredthe
lastlinkbetweenthesocial,economic,andthepolitical,ideological(Hall,1985;
Witheford andGruneau, 1992).Justasobjectsareostensiblyconstitutedonlyin
andby discourse,andnothingcanbe saidandknownaboutthe real,socio-
economicinterestsaretheproductsof politicalandideologicaldiscourses;it is
whatpoliticsis actuallyabout.Thus,Hirstand
impossibleto say"objectively"
74
Hindessarguethattherecan be no justificationfor a readingof politicsand
ideology"forthe class intereststheyareallegedto represent.. . politicaland
economicstrugglescannotbe conceivedas thestrugglesof economicclasses"
(in Eagleton,1991:212).
LaclauandMouffeendorsethispositionandextendit. Theirpost-Marxism
goes beyondMarxismnotonlyin themodeof theorizing,butalso in theforms
of politics.Theytransport emphasisontheinstabilityof the
thepost-structuralist
relationsbetweenthesignifiersandthesignifiedsandonthevirtuallyunlimited
"free-play" potentialof systemsof meaningto thesocialandpoliticalfield and
severanynecessarylinkbetweentheeconomicandthepolitical/ideological. In
theirview, thereis "nologicalconnectionwhatsoever" betweenclassposition
andpoliticalor ideologicalorientations. Thesignifierconstructsthe signified,
politicalhegemonyconstructs theveryidentityof socialagentsthroughtheplay
of signification.Classis justoneof themanypossiblepoliticalidentitieswhich
may or may not be constructedthrougharticulatory practices.In short,the
of
concept ideology as a of
system representation based on class interests
becomes irrelevant.It is replacedby the conceptof "articulation" - the
establishmentof a relationamongelements(1985: 105). The concept of
articulationhas a differenttheoreticalstatusfromthatof ideology:whereas
ideologybelongsto the domainof superstructure in the sense thatit appeals
eitherto the unifyingrole of a class (Gramsci,1971), or to the functional
requirements of thelogicof reproduction (Althusser,1971),"articulationis now
a discursivepracticewhichdoes not have a planeof constitutionpriorto, or
outside,the dispersionof thearticulated elements"(LaclauandMouffe,1985:
109). Since there are no social interconnections outsideof an articulatory
practice, there is no of
way theorizing about determinationinthelastinstanceby
theeconomy.Themodeof production is onlya conceptualconstruct,it doesnot
exist on its own right,andthuscannotbe grantedanyontologicalpriority.
Post-structuralismand the end of representation

Muchof thetheoretical underpinning of LaclauandMouffe's post-Marxism can
be tracedbackto post-structuralism,particularlyDerrida'sdeconstructionism
- a theoreticalorientation
whichemphasizestheinstability of thesignandaims
to showhowthebinaryoppositionsinstructuralism undermine eachotherinthe
process of textualmeaning(Derrida, 1970:247-64). By dividingthe signifier
fromthesignifiedandby conceivingthelinguisticprocessastheendlessplayof
posesa radicalchallengeto traditional
signifiers,post-structuralism theoriesof
meaningandtheideaof representation uponwhichtheconceptof ideologyhas
rested.Inprevioustheoriesof signification,
meaningis seenas a functionof the
signwhichrefersto eitherinwardexperiencesorrelationsandobjectsinthereal
world.It eithermakespresentone's thoughtsandfeelingsor describessocial
relationsandanempiricalreality.Structuralism introducesthenotionof binary
75
oppositionand suggests thatmeaningin languageis a matterof difference,but
it still retains the relevance of the referentin its theory of meaning. Post-
structuralismpressesthisnotionof differenceto infinity,andconceives meaning
as the "spin-off' of a potentiallyendless play of signifiers. Ratherthan being
fixed to a particularsignifier,meaningis scatteredor dispersedalong the whole
chain of signifiers.It cannotbe easily graspedand is never fully presentin any
single sign alone (Eagleton, 1983: 128).
Deconstructionismthus denies the possibility of presentingany coherent
view of the world or conceiving it as a totalityfull of connectionsand differen-
tiationsratherthanperpetuallyshiftingfragments.It also denies any possibility
of mastering a text and uncoveringits underlyingmeanings and ideological
assumptions(the "mastercode" in structuralistconceptions of ideology and
discourse). This critique of representation,therefore,is at the same time a
critiqueandrepudiationof interpretation in thehermeneutictradition.Forin this
theory,
Writerswhocreatetextsorusewordsdo so onthebasisof alltheothertextsandwordstheyhave
whilereaders
encountered, dealwiththeminthesameway.Cultural lifeisviewedasaseriesof texts
withothertexts,producing
intersecting moretexts.Thisintertextual
weavinghasa life of its own.
Whatever we writeconveysmeanings wedonotorcouldnotpossiblyintend,andourwordscannot
saywhatwe mean.Itis vaintotryandmastera textbecausetheperpetual of textsand
interweaving
meaningsis beyondourcontrol.Language worksthrough us. (Harvey,1989:50-1)
Thus,culturalproducersmerelycreaterawmaterialsthatcan be recombined
by consumersin any way they wish. The effect of this theory, as Harvey has
noted, is to break(deconstruct)the powerof the authorto impose meaningsor
offera continuousnarrativeandto call intoquestionall theassertionsaboutfixed
systems of representation.Knowledgeandmeaning,therefore,arereducedto a
rubbleof free-floatingsignifiers(Harvey,1989: 350).
This flight from representationandthe erosion of the referentalso lie at the
center of Jean Baudrillard'snotion of simulation(Baudrillard,1983). Simula-
tion, definedas the creationof copiesforwhichthereareno originals,effectively
eliminatesthe distinctionbetweenthe realandthe imaginary,anddissolves the
dualitiesof realityandrepresentation,truthandfalsity. In Baudrillard'stheory,
image and reality - whethera reality of social relationsor of an empiricist
universe - do not have different ontological statuses. There is simply no
differencebetween image andreality.The questionof ideology thusbecomes a
non-issue. The familiar Althusserianconception that ideology representsan
imaginaryset of relationsto ourrealconditionsof existence (Althusser,1965),
for example,no longerhas anymeaningin theworldof simulations.Since signs
no longer referto the real andmeaninghas given way to a discourseof empty
surfaces, the "realityprinciple"that underliesmuch ideological analysis of
meaning,such as the semiologicalproject(Barthes,1967; 1973) thatattemptsto
elucidate different layers of meaning and reveal what is concealed in the
76
semiologicaltexts has to be discarded.In Baudrillard's own words,whereas
"ideologycorresponds tothebetrayalof realityby signs;simulationcorresponds
to the short-circuit
of realityandits reduplication by signs.It is alwaysa false
problemtowantto restorethetruthbeneaththesimulacrum" (Baudrillard, 1983:
48). Thus,we arenowinthe"twilightof thereal,"ina worldwhere"allsystems
of meaningbecomeconfounded," and"ideologyas a meansof mappingthe
intersectionsbetweenthe 'real'andthe 'imaginary'loses anyeffectivityas a
critical'tool"' (Wakefield,1990: 105). In short,the era of simulationhas
replacedthe eraof ideology.
Discourse, power, and interests in post-modernism

If one specificconsequenceof Foucault'sthoughtis theclaimthattheconcept
of ideologyis inadequate asananalytical
tool,andif post-structuralism andpost-
Marxismpurportto make the conceptmeaninglessand withouttheoretical
foundations,thenpost-moderism'sreformulation of the relationsamongra-
tionality, and
interests, poweralong neo-Nietzschean linesthreatensto render
thewholeconceptof ideologyredundant (Eagleton, 1991: xii). Sucha reformu-
lationis not specificto a particular
schoolof thought.It is an impulsewidely
sharedby manytheoristsin the theoreticaldevelopmentof post-modernism.
Marxisttheoriesof ideologyaredeeplygrounded intheEnlightenment tradition,
witha belief in reason,rationality,
andthepossibilityof objectiveknowledge.
In the wakeof thepost-modernist rejectionof theEnlightenment traditionand
relatedconceptsof rationalityand truth,however,the distinctionbetween
knowledgeand ideologybecomesproblematic. Since we can only know the
worldthroughlanguageanddiscourse,andasFoucaulthassuggested,discourse
is alwayspower-laden, we endupwitha darkNietzscheanvision:all thoughts
areideologicalbecausetheyareallexpressions andrationalizations of particular
interests.Ideology,then,becomespervasiveandall-encompassing. Butif every
discourseis ideologicalinthesensethatitis alwayspower-laden, andif ideology
explainseverything,thenit explainsnothing.The conceptis expandedto the
point of meaninglessness.It is redundantand withoutany sense of critical
specificity.Thelogicalconclusion,then,is thatonemightbebetteroff to simply
writeoff theconceptaltogether. Andthisis indeedwhatsomepost-modernists
haveproposed.RichardRorty,forexample,suggeststhatwe followFoucault's
suspensionof ideology and focus on detailedhistoricalnarrativesof the
operationof power.
Suchnarrativeswouldnotunmasksomethingcreatedby powercalled"ideology"in thenameof
somethingnotcreatedby powercalled"validity" or"emancipation."
Theywouldjustexplainwho
wascurrentlygettingandusingpowerforwhatpurposes,andthen(unlikeFoucault)suggesthow
someotherpeoplemightgetit anduseit forotherpurposes.Theresultingattitudewouldbe neither
incredulousand horrifiedrealizationthat truthand power are inseparablenor Nietzschean
butrathera recognition
Schadenfreude, thatit wasonlythefalseleadwhichDescartesgaveus ...
77
thatmadeus thinktruthandpowerwereseparable.WecouldthustaketheBaconianmaximthat
"knowledgeis power"withredoubled
seriousness.(1985:173,emphasisin original)
Strengthsand limitationsof the new critiqueof ideology

Sucharetheforcesthreatening thenew"endof ideology"thesisincontemporary
socialthought.Theprecisenatureof the challengepresentedby theseforces,
however,is morecomplicated thanitappears tobeatfirstsight.Giventhatthere
aresomanydifferentconceptions of ideology,thatMarx'soriginalwritingshave
beentakenupinsomanydifferenttheoretical andmoreimportantly,
directions,
thatthe wide rangeof debatesandcomplicated historyof the concepthave
seldombeendealtwithinmuchdetailinthisnewcritique,it seemsnecessaryto
clarifyexactlywhatspecificconceptions of ideologyarebeingchallengedand
rejected.NancyFraser(1989)hassuggested, forexample, thatwhatFoucault has
is
suspended only a crude view of ideology defined as systems of distorted
beliefs.IthasalsobeenarguedthatwhatLaclauandMouffehavecriticizedare
only the economicandclassreductionist tendenciesin the Marxiantradition
(Geras,1987).Similarly,TerryEagletonarguesthatpost-structuralism often
setsup ideologyin a "strawtarget"fashion,whereit is seenas a static"setof
ideas"andit"alwaysandeverywhere involvesfixedor'transcendental' signifiers,
imaginaryunities,metaphysical groundsandteleologicalgoals"(1991:198).
Thus,a casecanbe madethatnotionsof ideologyandrepresentation thathave
beenchallengedaremostlyempiricist andclassreductionist ones.Butthenew
critiqueof ideologycannotbe simplydismissedin thisfashion.It has made
important challengesthatneedtobeconfronted andassessedinmoresubstantial
terms.
To begin,it is instructivefirstto considerthe strengthsof this challenge.
Discoursetheoryandthepost-Marxist turnto thepoliticsof significationhave
madea contribution by reinforcing therecognition of theconstitutivenatureof
languageanddiscourse.Thesetheoretical movements haveoffereda deserved
critiqueof any theoryof knowledgethatclaimsto escapethe reflexivityof
language(Wakefield,1990:36).Intheareaof mediaandpopularculture,these
theoreticalmovementscall fortheanalysisof "mediabeyondrepresentation"
(Angus,1989)anda rejectionof themechanistic divisionbetweenmediaand
society,a division characteristicof mainstream media Theyalsoserve
research.
as an important (althoughhardlynew) corrective to economic determinist and
classreductionist tendenciesin Marxisttheoriesof ideology- tendenciesthat
areatleastpartlyresponsible fora failureonthepartof theLeftto recognizethe
importance ofcultural politics.Post-modernism's emphasisondiscourseandthe
politicsof significationhasled to
A recognition
thattheproduction is animportant
of imagesandof discourses facetof activitythat
hasto beanalyzedaspartandparcelof thereproduction of anysymbolicorder.
andtransformation
deservetheclosest
of theirproduction
Aestheticandculturalpoliticsdo matter,andtheconditions
attention.
(Harvey,1989:355)
78
Second,Foucault'sbroadunderstanding of powerdemonstrates the limita-
tionsof state-centred andeconomic-political orientedcritiquesof ideologyinthe
Marxiantheoreticaltradition. Itmakesanimportant correctionto whatThomp-
son (1991) calls state-organized, andideologicallysecuredtheoriesof social
reproduction. In suspendingthenearlyinsolubleepistemologicalquestionsof
truthanddetermination, Foucaulthas madepossiblea welcomereturnto the
concreteanalysisof particularideologicaland discursiveformations,their
historicalconditions,theireffects,andtheirconnectionto particular formsof
power relations (Hall, 1986). His wide range of work on sexuality,bodily
discipline,andbureaucratization hasalsomadeit possibleto offera powerful
critiqueof domination outsidetraditionalideologicalandclasslines.Beyondthe
consciousand the cognitive,thereis a domainof the body object, where
technologiesof powerarealso deployed.Ideologynotonly worksalongclass
lines,butalso alongotheraxes,forexample,sex, race,andnation-state. To be
sure,thereis no reasonwhy Marxistanalyses,especiallythosebasedon the
Gramscianconceptionof hegemony,cannotbe extendedto non-classareas,if
notto thedomainof literal"unconsciousness" embodiments. Buttraditionally,
Marxianperspectiveshave indeedoverprivileged ideologicalanalysisalong
classlinestotherelativeexclusionof genderandothersocialcleavages.Thenew
critiqueof ideology makesa muchneededcorrective.It contributesto an
understanding of theimportance ofdifferenceand"otheress""notassomething
to be addedon to morefundamental Marxistcategories,butas somethingthat
shouldbe omnipresentfromthe very beginningin any attemptto graspthe
dialecticsof socialchange"(Harvey,1989:355).
Third,thepost-Marxist conceptionof articulatory practicesproducingsub-
jects has led to an understanding of the importanceof the ideologicaland
as a
symbolic process, ratherthan a staticset of fixedideasorendproducts.It
mustbenotedagain,however,suchacontribution isnotnecessarilyoriginal.The
role of ideologyin the constructionof subjectshas been importantboth in
AlthusserianandGramscian traditions.Gramsci,forexample,has arguedthat
peopleneverexperiencedominant ideologiesintherawandthatonceideologies
become "organic"to historicaldevelopmentand to the life of society, they
acquire"a validitywhichis psychological;they organizehumanmassesand
createthe terrainon whichmenmove,acquireconsciousnessof theirposition,
struggle,etc."(Gramsci,1971:377).LaclauandMouffe'searliercontribution
inelaborating theGramscian conceptionsof hegemonyandideologyhavebeen
in
very important this regard(Laclau,1976;Mouffe,1979).Theirnotionthat
ideologyhas"no-necessarily classbelongingness" hasplayedanimportant role
in removingvestigesof classreductionism in Marxisttheoriesof ideology.
Finally,post-structuralism's decentring of theauthoranditsemphasisonthe
polysemicnatureof culturaltextsandtheirinterpretation by activeaudiences
serveas animportant correctiveto notionsof ideologyimplicitin suchtheories
79
as the critiqueof mass cultureby theFrankfurtSchool andin post-WWII radical
political economy, where both meaning and reception are under-theorized
(Horkheimerand Adoro, 1972; Miliband,1973;Clement,1975; Dorfmanand
Mattelart,1975; Schiller, 1976;Smythe,1981). In thesetheories,particularlyin
some political economy analyses,dominantideology is often seen as flowing
directlyfrom corporatecontrolof the mediaandas unambiguouslyinscribedin
media texts - texts which in turn produce immediate, and uncontested,
ideological effects on the audiences.The new critiqueof ideology has led to a
welcome turnto studiesof audiencedecodingandthe interpretationof ideologi-
cal constructs.But the post-modernistturnhas also resultedin a celebrationof
the pluralityof discursivepositions and the virtualfree play of signifiers that
implies a liberal vision of abstractagency and an inflatedsense of individual
autonomy. As Gruneau (1988: 26) argues, this emphasis on the radical
disarticulationof hegemonic conventional relations between signifiers and
signifieds in the media has takenus "farbeyond any sense of a truly engaged
responseto relationsof power anchoredin a specific historicalbloc."
Manyof theproblemswiththisnew critiqueof ideologygo handin handwith
its useful insightsandcorrectives.First,whiletheemphasisin post-structuralism
and post-Marxismon the indivisibilityof symbolic and materialelements in
human practices is a useful correctiveto empiricistnotions of ideology and
representation,their complete rejectionof any form of epistemology and the
possibility of knowledge has led them into a highly problematicposition. It
resultsin a completeabandonmentof the ideaof truthandleaves one in thelimbo
of relativism,where one can no longermake any claims aboutthe veracity or
accuracyof analyticalstatements.Ratherthanattemptingto outline some form
of an organicunity betweenlanguageandreality,this new critiqueof ideology
seems to have simply invertedempiricismand vulgar Marxism.Whereasthe
mediatingrole of languageanddiscourseis totallyignoredandoverlookedboth
in the empiricisttraditionand in Marxism,in which political/ideologicaldis-
courses simply "reflect"or passively representpre-constitutedsocial interests,
the political/ideologicalnow assumesprimacy.Social and economic reality is
just what political and ideological discourses define it to be, or worse, is
somethingthatone canno longermakereferenceto andhave knowledgeabout.
In this way, post-structuralismand post-Marxismhave committed a fatal
semiotic confusionbetweenthe signifiedandthe referent(Eagleton,1991: 209;
Geras, 1988: 54). They have collapsedthe worldintothe word.The rejectionof
anyhierarchyof determinationandanyconnectionbetweensocio-economicand
politicalideologythuspotentiallyleadsto absolutepoliticalvoluntarism(Rustin,
1988) and reducespolitics to the politics of rhetoric(Bennett,1990). If nothing
else, suchanexcess seemsto be one morerecentmanifestationof themechanism
and dualismthathave long been characteristicof Westernsocial thought.
80
Second,underlyingmuchof thepost-moderistcritiqueof meta-narratives,
epistemology,andrepresentation is a formof culturalrelativismwhichunder-
minesanynormativestandard forthecritiqueof domination.Inextendingpower
andintereststo everydiscursivepracticeandthereforemakingeverydiscourse
post-moderismconflatesdifferentformsof poweranddifferent
"ideological,"
kindsof interestsandultimatelydeprivesthe conceptof ideologyits critical
edge. It makesthe critiqueof dominationimpossible,withoutany normative
ground.And sucha positionhas negativepoliticalimplications.As Eagleton
pointsout:
Thepostmodemist moveof expanding theconceptof intereststoencompass thewholeof sociallife,
whilevalidenoughin itself,thenservestodisplaceattention
fromtheseconcretepoliticalstruggles,
collapsingthemintoa neo-Neitzschean cosmosin whichthrowingoff anovercoatis secretlyjustas
mucha matterof conflictanddomination thestate.If all thoughtis 'interested'
as overthrowing to
its roots,then- so it canbe argued- thekindsof powerstrugglesto which,say, socialistsand
feministshavetraditionallydrawnattentionhavenoveryspecialstatus.A 'scandalous' visionof the
wholeof societyas onerestlesswill to power,oneirresolvable turmoilof embattledperspectives,
thusservesto consecratethepoliticalstatusquo.(1991:167,emphasisin original)
Similarcriticismshave also beenvoicedagainstFoucault'sconceptionof

power,whichleaveslittlegroundfor distinguishing morerepressiveformsof
powerfromless repressiveones (see, for example,Fraser,1989). Similarly,
whileLaclauandMouffe'spost-Marxism is politicallya differentprojectfrom
Foucault's,theirradicalrelationalism leavesno groundto distinguishwhich
"articulation" is preferableandto definerelationsof oppressionpositively.It is
in this sensethatthepost-modernist andpost-structuralist critiqueof ideology
hasconservative overtones.Itunwittingly removesanynormative groundforthe
of
critique existing forms of domination.
Third,in its definitionof the political-ideological as the domainof the
constitutionof the subjectandin its attemptto avoideconomicreductionism,
post-Marxismremainssilenton "thewhole classicalMarxistcase aboutthe
'infrastructural' basesof ideology,alongwiththecentralityof politicalinstitu-
tions"(Eagleton,1991:199).Itoffersnobasisforthecritiqueof whattradition-
ally has been calledthe "ideologicalapparatuses" in society,as well as the
concentration of wealthandpower.TonyBennetthas criticizedLaclauand
Mouffe'spoliticsof consciousness andsubjectivepositionsasthatof "recidivist
individualism," because, in theirtheory,the only possiblesocial agentsare
individualsorgroupsof individuals ideologicallyforgedintocollectivesubjects.
Thereis no accountof institutions orsocialorganizations as socialagentsorthe
activitiesof individualsnotas ideologicalsubjects,butas functionaries of such
institutionsandorganizations (Bennett,1990:267-68).Inthisway,Laclauand
Mouffe fall into the paradoxicalpositionof underminingthe relevanceof
ideologystrategically, whiletacticallyinflatingtheroleof the"ideological"in
society.
81
Finally, as a more general critique,the epistemological nihilism of post-
modernismand post-structuralism may have a self-contradictoryand, indeed,
self-defeatingcharacter.It is verydifficultforpost-moderists to live up to their
theories in practice.In the realworldof politics, post-modemistshave found it
necessaryto appealto truthstatementsthatlie abovethemelee of interestgroups
and languagegames (Harvey, 1989). They deny the possibilityof valid knowl-
edge of the world, and yet they themselvesmakeunequivocalclaims aboutthe
natureof the world;they rejectany possible correspondencebetween language
andthe real,yet use languagein a way whichitselfexpectsto be takenseriously.
Few post-modernistswould,like RichardRorty,taketheirown positionsto their
logical conclusionsanddeclarethatthe politicalopinionsof greatphilosophers
do not have to be takenany more seriouslythanphilosophyitself and thatany
relationshipbetween ideas and reality,moralpositionsand philosophicalwrit-
ings is purely contingent.Such a position, as Harvey (1989) has pointed out
correctly,is a form of irresponsibility.
Whither the concept of ideology?

After enjoying a periodof resurgencein criticalsocial theoryin the 1970s and
early 1980s, the conceptof ideology has been increasinglycontestedby critics
variouslyassociatedwith post-structuralism, post-moderism, and post-Marx-
ism. These criticshave not only highlightedthe limitationsand inadequaciesof
Marxianconceptions of ideology, they have challenged the very theoretical
validity of "ideology"as a useful analyticaltool in social theory.Yet I want to
arguethatthe theoreticallimitationsof thesecriticismsleave openthepossibility
of renewedtheoreticalworkon theconceptof ideology.The studyof "ideology"
may now exist in a state of crisis, but times of crisis often provide new
opportunitiesandstartingpointsforrejuvenation.I wantsimplyto highlighttwo
tendenciesin recentsocial theorythatarenoteworthyin this regard.First,there
is a remarkabledegree of convergence among theorists from quite diverse
theoreticaltraditionswho oppose the tendencies that threatena new "end of
ideology"thesis (see for example,Geras,1987; 1988;Fraser,1989; Hall, 1989;
Harvey, 1989;Thompson,1990;Eagleton,1991;Fiske, 1991). JohnThompson
(1990) and TerryEagleton (1991), in particular,have made importantrecent
contributionsin their respective attemptsto defend the relevance of some
conception of ideology in the "eraof post-moder theory."Writingfrom the
perspective of critical hermeneutics,Thompsonreconceptualizesideology as
"meaningin the serviceof domination."In a differentvein, Eagletonhas written
a compelling defense of the necessity of maintainingsome sort of a realist
epistemology in social analysis- a defensethatseeks to rescuethe concept of
ideology from the post-modemistrubbleof signification.
Second,therearesigns suggestingthatpost-modemismis now in a moreself-
questioning"mood"with regardto issues such as value, truth,and principled
82
position. The inherentlyself-stultifying relativistlogic of post-modernismhas
reached a point where it is no longer possible to simply suppress traditional
analytical categories that have been seen as metaphysical and obsolete. Kate
Soper (1991: 128), for example, has suggested both the need for and the
possibility of a more syntheticapproach,"one which combines alertnessto the
deficiencies and crudenessof much traditionalvalue-discoursewith alertnessto
the self-defeating quality of the attempt to avoid all principled positions in
theory." Such an approachis also urgentlyneeded in the area of ideology and
discourse.
References
Althusser, Louis
1965 For Marx. New York:New Left Books.
1971 "Ideologyandideological stateapparatuses."In LeninandPhilosophyand OtherEssays,
Ben Brewster,trans.,pp. 127-86. New York:MonthlyReview Press.
Angus, Ian
1989 "Mediabeyond representation."In Ian Angus and Sut Jhally, eds., CulturalPolitics in
ContemporaryAmerica, pp. 333-46. New York:Routledge.
Barthes, Roland
1967 Elements of Semiology. New York:Hill and Wang.
1973 Mythologies. London:Paladin.
Baudrillard,Jean
1983 Simulations. Paul Pattonand Philip Beitchman,trans.New York: Semiotext(e).
Bell, Daniel
1960 The End of Ideology. New York: Free Press.
Bennett, Tony
1990 OutsideLiterature.London:Routledge.
Bernstein, Richard
1983 Beyond Objectivismand Relativism:Science, Hermeneutics,and Praxis. Philadelphia:
University of PennsylvaniaPress.
Clement, Wallace
1975 The Canadian CorporateElite. Toronto:McClellandand Stewart.
Derrida,Jacques
1972 "Structure,sign and play in the discourse of the humansciences." In RichardMacksey
and Eugenio Donato, eds., The StructuralistControversy.The Languages of Criticism
and the Sciences of Man, pp. 247-64. Baltimore:John Hopkins University Press.
Dorfman, Ariel and ArmandMattelart
1975 How to Read Donald Duck: ImperialistIdeology in the Disney Comic, trans. David
Junzle. New York: InternationalGeneralEditions.
Dupre, Louis
1983 Marx's Social Critiqueof Culture.New Haven:Yale University Press.
Eagleton, Terry
1983 Literary Theory:An Introduction.Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
1991 Ideology: An Introduction.London:Verso.
Fiske, John
1991 "Postmoderism and television." In James Curranand Michael Gurevitch,eds., Mass
Media and Society, pp. 55-67. Londonand New York:E. Arold.
83
Foucault,Michel
1972 TheArchaeology of Knowledge. London: Tavistock.
1980 Power/Knowledge: SelectedInterviewsand OtherWritings1972-1977.Brighton:
Harvester.
Fraser,Nancy
1989 UnrulyPractices:Power,Discourse,andGenderin Contemporary Social Theory.
Minneapolis: University of MinnesotaPress.
Fukuyama, Francis
1992 TheEndof HistoryandtheLastMan.NewYork:FreePress.
Geras,Norman
1987 "Post-Marxism?" NewLeftReview163:40-82.
1988 "Ex-Marxism withoutsubstance: Beinga realreplyto LaclauandMouffe."NewLeft
Review169:34-62.
Giddens,Anthony
1977 Studiesin SocialandPoliticalTheory.London: Hutchinson.
Gitlin,Todd
1989 "Postmodemism: Rootsandpolitics." InIanAngusandSutJhally,eds.,Cultural Politics
in Contemporary America,pp.347-60.NewYork:Routledge.
Gramsci,Antonio
1971 Selectionsfrom thePrisonNotebooks. Quintin HoareandGeoffreyNowell-Smith, eds.
andtrans.NewYork:International Publishers.
Gruneau, Richard
1988 "Noteson popularculturesandpoliticalpractices." InRichardGruneau, ed., Popular
CulturesandPoliticalPractices,pp. 11-27.Toronto: Garamond Press.
HallStuart
1977 "Culture, themediaandthe'ideological effect'."InJamesCurran, MichaelGurevitch,
andJanetWoollacott,eds., MassCommunication andSociety,pp. 315-48. London:
Arnold.
1982 "Therediscovery of 'ideology':returnof therepressed in mediastudies."In Michael
Gurevitch,TonyBennett, JamesCurran, andJanetWoollacott, Societyand
eds.,Culture,
theMedia,pp.56-90. London: Methuen.
1985 "Signification, representation,ideology:Althusser debates."
andthepost-structuralist
CriticalStudiesin MassCommunication 2(2):91-114.
1986 "Cultural studies:Twoparadigms." InTonyBennett, Graham Martin,ColinMercer,and
JanetWoollacott,eds.,PopularCulture andSocialRelations, pp.19-37.MiltonKeynes:
Open University Press.
1989 TheHardRoadtoRenewal.London: Verso.
Harvey,David
1989 TheConditionof Postmodernity: AnEnquiryintothe Originsof CulturalChange.
Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
Hindess,BarryandPaulHirst
1977 Modeof Production andSocialFormation. London: Macmillan.
Horkheimer, MaxandTheodorW.Adorno
1972 "Thecultureindustry: Enlightenment as massdeception." In JohnCumming,trans.,
Dialecticof Enlightenment, pp. 120-67.NewYork:Continuum.
Huyssen,Andreas
1984 "Mapping thepostmodem." NewGermanCritique33:5-52.
Jameson,Frederic
1984 "Postmodemism orthecultural logicof capitalism." NewLeftReview146:53-92.
Laclau,Eresto
1976 PoliticsandIdeologyin MarxistTheory.London: NewLeftBooks.
84
Laclau, Emesto and Mouffe, Chantel
1985 Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. London:
Verso.
1987 "Post-Marxismwithout apologies." New Left Review 166: 79-104.
Larrain,Jorge
1979 The Concept of Ideology. London:Hutchinson.
Lovell, Terry
1980 Pictures of Reality: Aesthetics,Politics, Pleasure. London:British Film Institute.
Lukacs, Georg
1971 History and Class Consciousness. Cambridge,Mass.: The MIT Press.
Macdonell, Diane
1986 Theories of Discourse: An Introduction.London:Basil Blackwell.
Marx, Karl and FriedrichEngels
1970 The GermanIdeology: Part One. London:Lawrenceand Wishart.
Miliband, Ralph
1973 The State in CapitalistSociety. London:QuartetBooks.
Mouffe, Chantal
1979 "Hegemony and ideology in Gramsci."In ChantalMouffe, ed., Gramsci and Marxist
Theory, pp. 168-203. London:Routledge.
Rorty, Richard
1985 "Habermasand Lyotardon postmodernity."In RichardBernstein,ed., Habermas and
Modernity,pp. 160-75. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Rustin, Michael
1988 "Absolutevoluntarism:critiqueof a post-Marxistconcept of hegemony." New German
Critique43:146-71.
Ryan, Alan
1992 "ProfessorHegel goes to Washington."NewYorkReview of Books, March 26: 7-13.
Schiller, Herbert
1976 Communicationand CulturalDomination. New York:M.E. Sharpe.
Smythe, Dallas
1981 DependencyRoad:Communication,Capitalism,Consciousness,and Canada.Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex.
Soper, Kate
1991 "Postmodernism,subjectivityandthe questionof value." NewLeftReview 186:120-28.
Sumner,Colin
1979 Reading Ideologies: An Investigation into the Marxist Theory of Ideology and Law.
London: Academic Press.
Thompson, John B.
1990 Ideology and Modern Culture:Critical Social Theoryin the Era of Mass Communica-
tion. Cambridge:Polity Press.
Wakefield, Neville
1990 Postmodernism:The Twilightof the Real. London:Pluto Press.
Williams, Raymond
1977 Marxismand Literature.London:OxfordUniversityPress.
Witheford,Nick and RichardGruneau
1992 "Betweenthe politics of productionandthe politics of the sign: post-Marxism,Gramsci,
and 'New Times'." CurrentPerspectives in Social Theory 13.
85

End of Ideology Zhao1993

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

End of Ideology Zhao1993

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The "End of Ideology" Again?

The Concept of Ideology in the Era of Post-Modern Theory

The"endof ideology"again?Theconceptof ideology

It has been arguedthatin the 1950s Westernsocial sciences were dominatedby

Beyond the concept of ideology

Post-Marxist discourse theory and the critique of epistemology

Post-structuralismand the end of representation

Discourse, power, and interests in post-modernism

Strengthsand limitationsof the new critiqueof ideology

Similarcriticismshave also beenvoicedagainstFoucault'sconceptionof

Whither the concept of ideology?

You might also like