Revuecanadi enne

det heori epol i t i que

et soci al e
Canadi anJ ournal
of
Pol i t i cal andSoci al
Theory
I deol ogy
andPower
i nt heAge
of Leni ni nRui ns
15t hAnni versaryI ssue
Vol ume
15,
Numbers 1- 2 &3(1991)
Canadi anJ ournal of Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theory
Revuecanadi ennedet heori epol i t i queet soci al e
Edi t ors
Art hur
Kroker andMari l oui seKroker
Edi t ori al Board
Wi l l i amLei ss (Si monFraser)
Mi chael Wei nst ei n(Purdue)
DeenaWei nst ei n(DePaul )
El i Mandel (York)
AndrewWerni ck(Trent )
Fi l mRevi ewEdi t or
FrankBurke
(Queen' s)
Edi t ori al Correspondent s
GregoryBaum(Mont real )
Geral di neFi nn(Ot t awa)
J ean-GuyVai l l ancourt (Mont real )
Charl es Levi n(Mont real )
J ohnFeket e(Pet erborough)
Loret t aCzerni s (Toront o)
Chri s Sharret t (NewJ ersey)
Edi t ori al Assi st ant : FayeTrecart i n
Subscri pt i oni nformat i onshoul d
CJ PST
Concordi aUni versi t y
1455
de
Mai sonneuveBoul evardWest
Mont real , Quebec H3G1MB
FrankBurke(Queen' s)
Ei l eenMani on(Dawson)
Davi dCook(Toront o)
RayMorrow(Al bert a)
Pamel aMcCal l um(Cal gary)
Russel l J acoby(Los Ahgel es)
Dani el Drache(Toront o)
Mi chael Dorl and(Mont real )
LarryPort i s (Pari s)
Berkel eyKai t e(Ot t awa)
St ephenPfohl (Bost on)
ReneGadacz (Edmont on)
beaddressedt o:
Thej ournal acknowl edges wi t hgrat i t udet he generous assi st ance
t he Soci al Sci ence and Humani t i es Research Counci l
Canada/ Consei l
de
recherches ensci ences humai nes auCanada.
Of
of
Publ i cat i on of t he j ournal has been faci l i t at ed by t he generous
assi st ance of Concordi a Uni versi t y, and i n part i cul ar by t he
Depart ment of Pol i t i cal Sci ence, byt heoffi ceof t he Deanof Soci al
Sci ence.
I ndexed i n/ i ndexee au: I nt ernat i onal Pol i t i cal Sci ence Abst ract s/
Document at i on pol i t i que i nt ernat i onal e; . Soci ol ogi cal Abst ract s I nc. ,
AdvanceBi bl i ographyof Cont ent s: Pol i t i cal Sci ence
and
Government ;
Canadi an Peri odi cal I ndex; Al t ernat i ve Press I ndex; and Fi l mand
Li t erat ureI ndex.
Member of t heCanadi anMagazi nePubl i sher' s Associ at i on.
Tous droi t s r6serv6s
1991
Canadi an j ournal of Pol i t i cal and Soci al Theory
I nc. / Revuecanadi ennedeWori epol i t i queet soci al e,
We
.
Cover Desi gn: Mari l oui seKroker

Cover phot o: MarkLewi s
I SSN0380-9420Pri nt edi nCanada
Vol ume
15,
Numbers 1-2&3(1991)
I deol ogy and Power i n t he Age of
Leni ni n Rui ns i s a speci al t ri pl e
i ssue cel ebrat i ngt he 15t h
year of publ i cat i onof t he Canadi anj ournal
of Pol i t i cal
and
Soci al
Theory.
Wewoul d l i ke t o
t hank members of t heedi t ori al board
f or t hei r hard
work and
i nt el l ect ual support as wel l as t heJ ournal ' s
readershi p f or i t s
deep i nt el l ect ual i nvol vement over
t he past f i f t eenyears. Weare very
appreci at i ve as wel l of t he superb
work of Faye Trecart i n, edi t ori al
assi st ant . Fi nal l y, we woul d
l i ke t o express our appreci at i on t o
Concordi a Uni versi t y, part i cul arl y
t o t he Depart ment of Pol i t i cal
Sci ence andt o t he Deanof t he
Soci al Sci ences f or t hei r act i ve support
of t he CJ PST.
Art hur and Mari l oui se Kroker
you
sl i ce i t ,
whet her your t ast e runs t ot heory,
compl ex organi zat i ons,
soci al probl ems, t he
f ami l y, t he envi ronment , l aw
and
penol ogy, mass phenomena, or soci al pol i cy i ssues,
Seel
l ogi cal abst ract s ( so) and i t s si st er
dat abase,
Soci al
Pl anni ng/ Pol i cy &Devel opment Abst ract s
( SOPODA) wi l l sat i sf yyour i nt el l ect ual hunger f or
t he most
t i mel yand
di verse i nf ormat i on.
The soand SOPODAdat abases
of f er i n- dept h abst ract s
f rommore t han 1, 800 core and
anci l l aryj ournal s publ i shed
worl dwi de.
soandSOPODAare
avai l abl e i n t hree emi nent l ypal at abl e
f ormat s : onl i ne ( f rom Dat a- St ar,
Di al og and DI MDI ) , i n
pri nt , and nowon CD- ROM
as soci of i l e.
For a t ast e of what soci ol ogi st s are
cooki ng up, consul t
soci ol ogi cal abst ract s andSoci al
Pl anni ng/ Pol i cy&De-
vel opment Abst ract s!
And, don' t f orget our newl y
revi sed Thesaurus of soci ol o-
gi cal i ndexi ng Terms ( 2nd
Edi t i on, 1989) . I t wi l l adda speci al
f l avor
t oyour search st rat egi es .
I nt erest ed?
Gi ve us a ni bbl e at :
soci ol ogi cal abst ract s,
i nc.
P. O. Box 22206

Son Di ego, CA92122- 0206
Phone ( 619) 695- 8803

FAX
( 619) 695- 0416
I deol ogyandPower
i ntheAgeof Leni ni n
Rui ns

i x
Arthur
andMari l oui seKroker
What i s tobe
Done?Art andPol i ti cs
after theFALL. . .
MarkLewi s
I . Di sappeari ng
I deol ogy
CONTENTS
Four Theses onI deol ogy

21
AnthonyGi ddens
The
. I mpossi bi l i ty of Soci ety

24
ErnestoLacl au
LaLangueI ntrouvabl e

27
Mi chel Pecheux andFran~oi se
Gadet
SomeCondi ti ons for Revol uti oni zi ng
Late Capi tal i st Soci ety

35
J urgen
Habermas
On
the Genesi s of I deol ogy i nModern
Soci eti es

46
Cl audeLefort
Concepts
of I deol ogyi nMarx

87
GyorgyMdrkus
I deol ogy
andthe Wel tanshauungof theI ntel l ectual s

107
Zygmunt Bauman
I I . Power andSeducti on
Cyni cal Power: TheFeti shi smof theSi gn

123
ArthurKroker
andCharl es Levi n
WhenBat ai l l eAt t acked t heMet aphysi cal Pr i nci pl eof
Economy

135
J eanBaudr i l l ar d
Baudr i l l ar d' s Seduct i on

139
Br i anSi nger
Si gnandCommodi t y: Aspect s of t heCul t ur al Dynami c of
of AdvancedCapi t al i sm

152
Andr ewWer ni ck
Baudr i l l ar d, Cr i t i cal
Theor yandPsychoanal ysi s

170
Char l es Levi n
I I I . DemonPol i t i cs
Hobbes and/ or Nor t h: Rhet or i c of Amer i canNat i onal
Secur i t y

191
Fr eder i ck M. Dol an
TheDar k Ni ght of t heLi ber al Spi r i t and t heDawn
of t heSavage

210-
Mi chael A. Wei nst ei n
Ressent i ment and Post moder nPol i t i cs

225
Mi chael Dor l and
Pr omot i onal Cul t ur e

260
Andr ewWer ni ck
. . . andt heI nsur r ect i onof Subj ugat edKnowl edge
WeObj ect s Obj ect

285
Ei l eenMani on
TheEnd( s) of Woman

301
N. Ri cci
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
INTHEAGEOF
LENININRUINS
Arthur and
Mari l oui se Kroker
Whenthe
Berl i nWal l Fi nal l y
CameTumbl i ngDown
What i s thef ateof
i deol ogyandpower Intheage
of Leni ni nrui ns? Now
that
bureaucrati c soci al i smstands
unmaskedas anactual l yexi sti ng
i deol ogyof state
domi nati oni nal l of
thesoci eti esof EasternEurope,
what i s thedesti nyof Marx' s
understandi ngof i deol ogy
as onl yaf al si f i cati onof
capi tal i st rel ati ons of produc-
ti on? Andnowthat poweri n
WesternEuropeandNorthAmeri ca
di ssol vesi nto
thesi gnof seducti on, what
i s tobethef ateof the
pol i ti cal subj ect, outsi de, that
i s, thecl osedhori zonof both
techno- capi tal i smandsoci al i st
real i sm. Whenthe
Berl i n
Wal l f i nal l y cametumbl i ng
down, al l of theol d
comf ortabl emarkers of
pol i ti cal debate
suddenl yshattered,
reveal i ngi ni ts wakeadesperate
urgencyto
rethi nki ng
the meani ngof i deol ogy and
power i naworl ddomi natedbythe
ecl i pseof the
pol i ti cal l egi ti mati onof statesoci al i sm
andbytheseemi ngtri umph
everywhere
now
of
theri tual sof pri mi ti vecapi tal i sm
. TheEast goesThatcheri te;
theWest goes
Green; andtheUni tedStates
goes vi rtual ( technol ogy) .
Leni ni n
Rui ns
If the
twenti ethcenturycanbepl uggi ng
towards i ts concl usi onwi th
such
vi ol ent
energy, that i s becausewewi tnessnow
thesi mul taneous decomposi ti on
and
successof i ts twof oundi ngmoments: thesearch
f or materi al i st f reedomand
f or col l ecti ve
j usti ce. Not decl i nei nthetradi ti onal
senseof af i nal catastrophe
whi ch
markstheendof onehi stori cal epoch
andthebegi nni ngof another,
but
anew
hi stori cal modeof transf ormati on- hyper- decl i ne- i n
whi chcommuni sm
and
capi tal i smcanexi st nowas puref orms:
stri ppedof thei r i l l usi ons andun-
maskedof thei r
i nterests. Hi stori cal mani f estati ons,
that i s, of what Pi etr Sl oter-
di j k has
descri bedi n the Cri ti que of Cyni cal Reasonas
"enl i ghtenedf al se
consci ousness. " The
myths of communi smandcapi tal i sm,
then, as f l oati ng
si gns- degree
zero- poi nts- f or thecancel l ati on
andi mmi nent reversi bi l i tyof al l
the pol ari ti es
: the mutati onof the ( soci al i st)
struggl e f or j usti ce i nto cyni cal
power; andthe materi al i st
dreamof the ( l i beral ) f l i ght f rompol i ti cs
i nto the
tri umphof cyni cal i deol ogy
. Li ke "strangeattractors" i nastrophysi cs whi ch
can
exerci se suchadeadl y
f asci nati onbecauseof thei r abi l i ty to
al ternateenergy
f i el ds i nstantl y, themyths
of statecapi tal i smandstatecommuni sm
areal ternat-
LENININRUINS
i ngsi des of ther ati onal i st eschatol ogy: thesymptomati csi gns of theappear ance
of the bi moder ncondi ti on
.
Bi moder ni sm?That i s thecontempor ar yhi stor i cal si tuati oni nwhi chthegr eat
r ef er enti al pol ar i ti es
i nstantl yr ever sef i el ds, changi ng si gns
i n
a
di zzyi ng
di spl ay
of pol i ti cal r epol ar i zati on. Avi ol ent metastasi s i n whi ch al l the r ef er enti al
f i nal i ti es of thepol i ti cal codeof the twenti ethcentur y- capi tal i smandcommu-
ni smmost of al l - begi nto sl i de i nto one another , actual l y mutati ng i nto thei r
opposi tes as theyunder go
a
f atal r ever sal of meani ng.
No
l onger
j usti ce ver sus
the acqui si ti ve i nsti nct, power ver sus i deol ogy, ( soci al i st) hi stor y ver sus ( con-
sumer ) si mul ati on, or ( economi c)
l i ber al i smver sus ( pol i ti cal ) democr acy, but
nowthei nstant r ever si bi l i tyof
al l the
r ef er ents.
A
f atal
ecl i pse of
the
empi r e of
thesi gni nwhi chcapi tal i smandcommuni smdoabi ghi stor i cal f l i p.
Not
j ust the
mythof capi tal i smi ndesper ateneed of thecommuni st "other " tosustai ni tsel f
or communi smas a bar r i er agai nst theuni ver sal i zati on of the commodi ty- f or m,
but
nowcommuni smapi ng
the
economi c
f or mof
pr i mi ti ve capi tal i sm, and
capi tal i smtaki ng on
the
pol i ti cal
f or mof the
command
economy
of
l ate
communi sm
. The
capi tal i st
soci eti es, then, as the f or war d f r onti er of the
communi st val or i zati on of power ; andcommuni st soci eti es as the l ast andbest
of al l the pr i mi ti ve capi tal i sms . In one, the i nspi r i ng f ai th i n commer ci al
accumul ati onandther esuci tati onof l awof val ueof thepr oducti on
machi ne;
and
i n the other , the r adi cal depol i ti ci zati on of the popul ati on, i ts actual body
i nvasi on, bya total i tar i ani mage- r eser voi r under
thecontr ol
of
a
cyni cal
pol i ti cal
mandar i nate
.
In
one,
the
r ecuper ati on of the pr oducti vi st
myth of
Fr ankl i n
Del ano
Roosevel t as a
pol i cyof
economi c r econstr ucti on; and i ntheother ,
the
Leni ni st
use
of
al l themass
or gans of
medi amani pul ati on
as a
wayof
coor di nati ng
pr i vate opi ni onwi th the war machi ne.
So
then, Spengl er agai n: but thi s ti me theecstacyof the decl i ne of theWest .
Thehi stor yof twof ami l i ar genoci des:
of
the( capi tal i st) l ogi cof exter mi ni smi n
thenameof r eason; andof ( communi st) mur der i nthenameof col l ecti vej usti ce.
Not capi tal i smand communi sm
as
f atal antagoni sts, but as the deepest
f ul f i l l ment of thedr eam
of
theWest: thedr eam, that i s, of the uni ver sal i zati onof
ther ati onal i st eschatol ogyas ther adi ati ngcodeof pol i ti cs, economy, cul tur eand
subj ecti vi ty. Theonethe
hi stor y
of thei ndi vi dual sear ch
f or
commer ci al f r eedom
under the si gn of mi ssi onar y consci ousness; the other the str uggl e
f or
soci al
j usti ce under the code
of
hi stor i cal mater i al i sm. Thef i r st, the penetr ati onof
subj ecti vi tybythe l anguage of thetechnol ogi cal dynamo; thesecond, theexter -
nal i zati onof subj ecti vi ty i ntothepubl i c or thodoxi esof soci al i st r eal i sm. Theone
adar i ng, but ul ti matel yf uti l e attempt, tomutethel evi athanof pol i ti cs bymaki ng
democr ati c aspi r ati ons subor di nate to
l i ber al
capi tal i sm;
theother ar evol uti on-
ar yef f or t tosuppr ess i deol ogyi n
the
nameof
power .
A
hi stor y, that i s, of af atal
dedoubl ement
i n
the Wester n mi nd whi ch, pl ayi ng on the mor e anci ent
phi l osophi cal ter r ai nof j usti ceandf r eedom,
cr eated,
and
thendestr oyed, wi thi n
thespaceof a si ngl e centur ytwo
deepl yentangl ed
myths
.
Onthe
one hand, the
communi st myth, sci enti sti c i n
the
extr eme and r uggedl y
mater i al i sti c i n i ts
pr acti ce, whi chstood( andf el l ) onthepossi bi l i tyof subor di nati ngthedemonof
capi tal i st desi r e tothehi stor i cal sover ei gntyof the State. And; ontheother , the
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
capi t al i st myt h, i ndi vi dual i st i c i n . i t s geneal ogy
and cont ract ual i n i t s soci al
execut i on, whi chhel d out t he possi bi l i t y of
maxi mi
zi nghuman
f reedomby
bri ngi ng
t heobj ect al i ve, by, t hat i s. , creat i ngasyst emof obj ect s i n whi chl i bert y
woul d accruet ot hephysi cs of market exchanges . Li keal l
myt hs whi chseekt o
sol vet he
ri ddl eof hi st ory, t hemyt hs of capi t al i smandcommuni sm
suf f er, i n t he
end,
t hedesol at i on of apurel yal eat oryf at e: i nal l t hesoci al i st soci et i es, t he
st at e
acqui res organi ci t y
; i t act ual l ycomes al i vei nt hepol i t i cal f ormof what Sart rehas
cal l ed "TheThi ng"- cyni cal
i deol ogy- and eat s i t s pol i t i cal subj ect s ; and, i n t he
capi t al i st soci et i es, t heobj ect comes
al i vei n t heconsumer l anguageof seduc-
t i on- cyni cal power- and, l i kearadi at i ng
posi t i vi t y, f i rst eat s spaceandt i me, and
t henconsumes subj ect i vi t yi t sel f . Thehi st ori cal myt hs
of capi t al i smandcommu-
ni smas bot h suf f eri ng a common bi ol ogi cal denouement
: t wo bi g eat i ng
machi nes whi chrequi ref or t hei r operat i on t heradi cal depol i t i ci zat i on of t he
popul at i on,
t he sof t eni ngup of t he masses, t hat i s, as a prerequi si t e t o t he
l i bi di nal f east of cyni cal
power and cyni cal i deol ogy. What Hei degger once
propheci ed woul d be t he t ri umphant appearance of t he dark l anguage of
"harvest i ng"- t hewi l l t o ext ermi ni sm- of t hel i vi ng energi es of soci al and non-
soci al nat ure
as
t he
pri mal of t went i et hcent urypol i t i cs .
TheEnd(s) of Hi st ory
I n Modri s Ekst el n' s
Ri t es
of
Spri ng, i t i s recount ed howduri ngt he t rench
warf areof
Worl dWar I sol di ers f rombot hsi des beganon occasi ont oact ual l yl i ve
i n noman' s l and, t hat i ndef i ni t e t errai n whi ch,
bel ongi ngt o noone, becamea
pri vi l eged i magi nary
count ryi n opposi t i on t o t he rul i ng empi res of t hewar
machi ne. Whent hi s was
di scovered, t heopposi ngGeneral St af f s, bot hGerman
and Bri t i sh, i mmedi at el y
ordered t he shel l i ng of t hese t roops, f i ndi ngi n t hei r
neut ral presence an i mmi nent t hreat t o
t he
soverei gnt y
of t hegreat pol i t i cal si g-
ni f i ers of t hewar machi ne.
Thi s t ext consi st s of t heori st s of noman' s l and,
occupant s of t hedet erri t ori al -
i zed t errai n of t he i nt el l ect ual i magi nat i on: st andi ng mi dway
bet ween t he
epochal ref erent s of power and i deol ogy. Whi l e t hey have real t heoret i cal
di f f erences, t heycommonl ysharet heposi t i on of
i nt el l ect ual wi t nesses t o t he
t ransf ormat i on of t hepol i t i cs of t he rat i onal i st eschat ol ogyat t he end of t he
cent ury. Thei rwri t i ngs arel i keexpl osi vebl ast s f romt hepent - uppressures of t he
weakpoi nt s of t hewar machi ne: poi nt s of t ensi on whi charesounreconci l ed i n
pol i t i cs and economy, t hat
t heyf i nd
f i nal l y
a t heoret i cal purchase.
I deol ogi cal bl ast s, as i n
t hecase
of
t hewri t i ngs of Gi ddens, Habermas, Mi rkus,
Baumann,
Lacl au and Lef ort : t heori sat i ons wri t t en i n t heshadowof Marxi sm
where t he i rreconci l abi l i t y of democracy and st at e capi t al i smare put i nt o
quest i on. Here, t hepol i t i cal hi st oryof t he t went i et hcent ury i s rewri t t en by
connect i nganewt hequest i on of i deol ogyt o t hereal i t yof domi nat i on.
Power bl ast s, wri t t en wi t hand agai nst t het heorl sat i ons of j ean Baudri l l ard,
wheret he concern i s not somuchwi t ht heend(s) of hi st oryas wi t ht hef i nal
decl arat i on of t heendof hi st ory: t hedeat hof hi st ory, andof pol i t i cs andsoci et y
LENIN
IN
RUINS
wi th
i t,
as the
questi onof i deol ogyi s
sucked, l i ke
so
muchf l oati ng debr i s i nthe
dar kmatter of pol i ti cal space, i nto thebl ackhol e of cyni cal power.
Andf i nal l y, cul tur e bl asts- the f i nal secti ononDemonPol i ti cs- wher e the
epochal r etheor i sati ons of i deol ogy and power ar e mater i al i zed i n speci f i c
contestati ons wi thactual l y exi sti ngpol i ti cal cul tur e. Her e, theexpl osi veener gy
of the theor eti cal i magi nati on i s pour ed i nto an exami nati on of the r ul i ng
pol i ti cal questi ons: r essenti ment as the basi s of contempor ar y pol i ti cs; the
r esur f aci ng of theHobbesi an cal cul ati on as the( f adi ng) essenceof Amer i can
pol i ti cal exper i ence; themater i al i zati onof Hei degger ' s"wi l l toexter mi ni sm" as
thedynami c l anguageof l i ber al i smtoday; andf i nal l y, theenucl eati onof women
wi thi n al abyr i nthof si gni f i cati on, whi ch, j ust as AnthonyGi ddens pr edi cted,
r econnects thequesti ons of i deol ogyanddomi nati on.
Mor e
than
a
r er eadi ng
of
thecentr al concepts of power , i deol ogyandcul tur e,
thetheor i sati ons i n thi s text have anepochal si gni f i cance i n r epr esenti ng the
ways i nwhi chcr i ti cal thi nker s, wr i ti ngat thef i n- de- mi l l eni um, have chosento
r epr esent thepol i ti cal hi stor yof thetwenti ethcentur y. Her e, wear econf r onted
wi ththr eeal ter nati ve hi stor i es of thecontempor ar ycentur y: onewr i ttenunder
thesi gnof ar eval or i zedtheor yof i deol ogy; thesecondi nscr i bedi nthel anguage
of cyni cal power; andthethi r df ocussi ng di r ectl y onthepr obl emati c ter r ai n of
cul tur e.
Indeed, i t maywel l besai dsomedayof that cr i ti cal ar cof neo- Mar xi st theor i sts,
r angi ng f r omGi ddens and Lacl au to Haber mas and Lef or t, that, asi de f r om
secti onal di f f er ences, thei r wr i ti ngs br i ng to abr i l l i ant concl usi on themythof
moder ni sm, soi ntegr al to Mar xi aneschatol ogy. Her e, i nar etur n totheor i gi nal
Mar xi an i mpul se to thi nk i deol ogy pol i ti cal l y by r econnecti ng i t to pol i ti cal
economy, someti mesas"f al seconsci ousness" andat other ti mesas thei nscr i bed
hor i zonof thel awof pr oducti vi st val ue, thesetheor i sati onsr epol i ti ci zei deol ogy
by
l i nki ng
i t
to a sear i ng anal ysi s
of
the
si gni f yi ng
pr acti ces and systemi c
r equi r ements of state capi tal i sm. Her e, the Mar xi an pr oj ect of "demysti f yi ng
hi stor y" by r ei nver ti ng the camer a obscur a i s thought wi th such pol i ti cal
i ntensi ty that the questi on of i deol ogy i tsel f i s upr ooted f r omi ts pr evi ous
posi ti onas thetr anspar ent hor i zonof cl ass domi nati on, becomi ngnowacr i ti cal
agent i nteasi ngout thedomi nati ons
anddependenci esof thesystemof capi tal i st
pol i ti cal
economy
. Or ,
as
Gi ddens
says
: "Thef or msof i deol ogyar e
ver y
of tenthe
modes
i nwhi ch
si gni f i cati on
i s i ncor por atedas par t andpar cel of what onedoes
i n dai l y l i f e. " Oper ati ng then wi thi n the par ameter s of the l awof val ue, the
theor i es of i deol ogyr epr esentedher e f or egr ound thequesti on of humanf r ee-
domagai nst thebackgr ound of themi r r or of pol i ti cal economy. Andi f theycan
so uni ver sal l yconcur i n thepol i ti cs of democr ati c assent, that i s becausethese
ar ethel ast andbest of al l theenl i ghtenment thi nker s: i ntel l ectual s of thel ate
twenti ethcentur ywho
seek
to
r epai r thebr okenconnecti onof l abor , r easonand
pol i ti cs, sodar kl ypr opheci edi n
al l
of Mar x' swr i ti ng
onthecapi tal i st expr opr i a-
ti on of the enl i ghtenment dr eam. Rethi nki ng i deol ogy anddomi nati on, ther e-
f or e, as amor eel emental i ntel l ectual dr amai n whi chthegr eat pol ar i ti es of the
di al ecti c of enl i ghtenment ar ebr ought i nto vi ol ent col l i si on, wi th the f ate of
democr acyhangi ngi n thebal ance.
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
It ' s j us t t heoppos i t ei n
t he Baudr i l l ar di an s cene, r epr es ent ed i n t hi s t ext byt he
debat es on Power and
Seduct i on. Her e, t he concept of i deol ogyi t s el f i s put i n
ques t i on, as a pos t moder n
opt i c i s br ought t o bear on t he deat h of al l t he
moder ni s t
r ef er ent i al f i nal i t i es . Not pol i t i cal economy, but a cul t ur e of s i gni f i ca-
t i on; not t hepr oduct i on
machi ne, but t he s i mul acr a of cons umpt i on ; not t he l aw
of val ue, but t he code; not a cl as s - dr i ven l ogi c of
domi nat i on, but t he " r adi cal
s emi ur gy" of t he medi as cape; not accumul at i on and t heacqui s i t i ve
i mpul s e
of
capi t al i s t des i r e, but di s accumul at i on and s el f - cancel l at i on as t he embl emat i c
s i gns of s educt i on; and, mos t of al l , not t he " t r ut h- r ef er ent " of i deol ogy- cr i t i que, ,
but
t he
t r i umph of , cyni cal power as t he end of t r ut h, and of t he vi ol ent
t er mi nat i on of
hi s t or y
.
Bet ween, t hen, t he neo- Mar xi s t t heor i s t s r epr es ent ed i n
Di s appear i ngi deol ogy
and t he pos t moder n t heor i s t s of Power and Seduc-
t i on, t her e i s a f undament al
gap
of
di s cont i nui t y: a f at ef ul poi nt wher e t he
pr oj ect of " demys t i f yi ng hi s t or y" under t he l ens of t he camer a obs cur a
r ever t s
i nt o i t s oppos i t e number - t he wr i t i ng of t he di s appear ance of hi s t or y i nt o
s emi ur gyunder t he s i gn of t he t r ompe- f oei l .
Rej ect i ng
t he
cr i t i cal t heor yof t he
s t at e as i t s el f a per s pect i val
s i mul acr a
of
t he l awof pr oduct i vi s t val ue, t he
pos t moder n t heor i s at i on,
r epr es ent ed mos t i nt ens i vel y by t he " t al i s man" of
Baudr i l l ar d, f l i ps
t he der i vat i ve t r ut h- val ue of i deol ogy i nt o t hef at al s i gn whi ch
haunt s i t : cyni cal power . Her e, i t i s ar gued t hat i f t her e can
be
s uch
an
ent hus i as t i c r enewal t oday of t heques t i on of i deol ogyand domi nat i on, maybe
t hat i s becaus ei deol ogy- cr i t i que has one l as t hal f - l i f e as a mor al
r eener gi zer of a
s ys t emof exchange- val uewhi chi s dyi ng, act ual l yf adi ngaway, becaus eof i t s l ack
of s ymbol i c ener gy. Not i deol ogy- cr i t i que, t hen, as a l as t bar r i er of democr acy
agai ns t a s ys t emof cl as s domi nat i on, but as t he mor al r ear mament of t he
" r at i onal i s t es chat ol ogy. " Amor al r ear mament of t he mi r r or of capi t al i s mwhi ch
i s al l t he
mor e ef f ect i ve becaus ei t i s t r apped i n t he i l l us i on of pol i t i cal t r ans gr es -
s i on
:
t he
i l l us i onar y bel i ef t hat i t
i s
pos s i bl et o over comet hel i mi t exper i ence of
t her at i onal i s t es chat ol ogybyt her ecover yof t hes i l encedmoment of t he " ot her . "
Whi ch i s t o s ay, t her ef or e, t hat bet ween t he moder ni s t t heor i s at i on of Di s ap-
pear i ng Ideol ogy and t he pos t moder n r ef l ect i ons of Power andSeduct i on
t her e i s a mor e f at ef ul ent angl ement of t he t went i et h cent ur y mi nd on t he
ques t i on,
not
onl y
of
power and
i deol ogy,
but of Ni et zs che and Mar x. An
el oquent r ecount i ngof t wooppos i nghi s t or i es of t he cont empor ar ycent ur y: one
s kept i cal andt r agi cal l yhi pbut l acki ng a mat er i al bas i s i n an i deol ogi cal l ys peci f i c
anal ys i s of t he s t at e; t he ot her wr i t t en wi t hi n t he par amet er s of t hes oci al , t hor -
oughl y ent angl ed wi t hi n t he hor i zon of democr acy ver s us domi nat i on, but
s hi el ded byi t s own r ever s i on t o nomi nal i s t epi s t emol ogyf r omt hepos t moder n
i ns i ght of i deol ogyas a mi ce- en- s cene of t hef at al des t i nyof cyni cal power .
Or maybei t ' s nei t her . Not t he di s enchant eduni ver s e of i deol ogyand domi na-
t i on or t he " r eenchant ed s i mul at i on" of t he s oci et y of s educt i on, but t hecul t ur e
of Demon Pol i t i cs . The cul t ur e, t hat i s , wher e i deol ogy under t he s i gn of
s i gni f i cat i on and power
encoded bycyni ci s mbur n wi t h s uchvi ol ent i nt ens i t y
t hat t heyact ual l yt akepos s es s i on of s ubj ect i vi t y i t s el f . Ademoni c cul t ur e, anda
demoni c pol i t i cs t oo, whi ch i s l ed byNi et zs che' s " as cet i c pr i es t s " whowor k t o
al t er t he di r ect i on of r es s ent i ment , and
whi ch i s popul at ed
by
a r adi cal l y
LENININRUINS
depol i ci t i zedmass, waveri ng
bet weent he sl eep of "mechani cal f orget t i ng"
and
t he sacri f i ci al vi ol ence of
revenge- seeki ngbehavi or . Adeepl ysacri f i ci al
cul t ure
whi chi s bi modernt o t hi s
ext ent : i t exi st s mi dwaybet ween
hyper- pri mi t i vi smof
emot i ons andhyper- rat i onal i sm
of i t s cont rol l i ngcodes. Andnot
a proj ect i ve
cul t ure ei t her,
but one whi cht races agreat arc of
reversal : areversi onof t he
rat i onal i st
eschat ol ogyt o i t s pri mal ori gi nsi nmyt h; of
i deol ogyt o i t sf oundat i ons
i n
cyni cal t rut h; and of power t o a sacri f i ci al
t abl e of val ues, al t ernat i ngt he
posi t i ons of predat ors andparasi t es.
Consequent l y, at hi rd hi st ory
of t het went i et hcent ury: onewhi chdoes not
cont radi ct t he reconnect i onof i deol ogy
anddomi nat i onor t he unmaski ngof
cyni cal power, but
accel erat est hemt o suchapoi nt of vi ol ent i nt ensi t y
t hat t hey
achi eve escape
vel oci t y, reveal i ngt herebypol i t i cs at t he
f i n- de- mi l l eni umas a
hi st ori c wager
bet weensubj ugat ed knowl edge andcyni cal
power.
The
Newworl dorder
If t he debat es
amongi deol ogy (moderni sm), power (post moderni sm)
and
sacri f i ce(bi moderni sm)
canrehearsesowel l someof t hemai ncurrent s
of cri t i cal
t hought i nt hecont emporarycent ury,
t hat i s probabl ybecause t heset heoret i cal
perspect i ves have a purchase on t he
pol i t i cal i magi nat i on whi ch i s more
proj ect i ve t hanret rospect i ve. Li ke
ani mmensegravi t at i onal f i el dswept i nt ot he
darkvort exof t heYear 2000,
t het heori sat i ons of i deol ogy, power andsacri f i ce
ret reat aheadof pol i t i cs,
denomi nat i ngal l t hewhi l e t hepol i t i cal
archi t ect ure of
t he f ut ure. Not
so much, t hen, a summary of key
cont roversi es i n f i n- de-
mi l l eni um
t hought , but anearl y warni ng syst em
of maj or t ransf ormat i ons i n
i nt ernat i onal
pol i t i cs.
Maybei t i s not somuchLeni ni nrui ns
nowas t heworl di nrui ns. Not j ust t he
f al l of t he Berl i nWal l as af at al si gn
of t hedi si nt egrat i onof Sovi et empi re, but as
at al i smanof t he decl i ne
of Ameri canempi re. Thef at al l oss, t hat i s, wi t h t he
unmaski ngof t he
myt hof communi st hegemony of t he pri vi l eged
obj ect of
sacri f i ci al vi ol ence- t he mi met i c
"Ot her"- whi chperf ormedt he honori f i c rel i -
gi ousf unct i onof scapegoat
f or t he burnout of t heAmeri canmi nd.
But not f or l ong. As a dazzl i ng
symbol of t he t ri umph of al t eri t y, a great
magnet i c shi f t of pol i t i cal f i el ds t akes
pl ace, wi t h ani nst ant mut at i onof East /
West conf l i ct t oanew
col d
war
of Nort hagai nst Sout h. TheGul f War, t hat i s,
as
af i el dof sacri f i ci al
vi ol encef or t hevi ol ent regenerat i on
of Ameri canpol i t i cs, and
f or reaf f i rmi ng f ai t h i n t he
equi val ence of f reedomand t echnol ogy- t he
ci vi l
rel i gi on of Ameri ca. What Habermas
once descri bed as t he "gl assybackground
i deol ogy" of t echnol ogynowmut at es
i nt o t hegui di ngpri nci pl eof t he vaunt ed
"newworl dorder: " George
Bush' s t ermf or t hecomi ngt obeof Hegel ' s
uni versal
andhomogenous st at e under
t hehegemoni csi gnof t het echnol ogi cal dynamo
.
TheGul f War, t heref ore, asa
gri sl yrepl ayof t hemedi eval crusades. Af i nal
war
i n
whi ch, as t he French t heori st Paul
Vi ri l i o st at es i n Pure War, t here i s a
conj unct i onof t heHol yWar(ofrel i gi ous
f undament al i st s) andof t heJ ust War(of
t he nucl ear
t echni ci ans) .
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Awarwhi chcanbef ought at thegeographi cal meeti ng- poi nt of theTi gri s and
Euphrates Ri vers as i f toemphasi zethat thi s i s anepochal drama: thei mmi nent
reversal of theal ways proj ecti vel ogi cof theWest backto i ts pri mal ori gi ns i n
Mesopotami a. Arel i gi ouswarbetweenVi ri l i o' s "dromocrati c"warmachi ne, the
most i ntensi veexpressi onpossi bl e of thedreamof therati onal i st eschatol ogy,
and, i n
di stortedf orm, thenew"Other" of Arabnati onal i sm. Theworl d' s f i rst
purel ydesi gner war: apromoti onal
warmachi newhi chscri pts i nadvancethe
whol emetastasi s of vi ol ence as anadverti si ng campai gnf orthetechnol ogi cal
i nvi nci bi l i ty, andthus pol i ti cal necessi ty, of the"newworl dorder. "
Thesceneof af atal decomposi ti oni nwhi chal l of thepol i ti cal tendenci es f rom
thepast- i deol ogy, power andsacri f i ce- rushtowards thei r vi ol ent cl i max i n
purel y i nvertedf orm: cyni cal i deol ogy, cyni cal power, andcyni cal sacri f i ce.
Consequentl y,
thedebates
i n
Ideol ogyandPoweri ntheAgeof Leni ntoRui ns
have, beyond thei r theoreti cal di vi si ons, a
broader
l i terary
si gni f i cance as
harbi ngers of the mai ncontours of the ni hi l i sti c pol i ti cs of thetwenty f i rst
century. Thi rd
mi l l eni umpol i ti cs,
theref ore,
not
as
a
ti me
of col dseducti on
versus commandsoci al i sm, but of anewworl dorderwhi chcanbe so deepl y
sacri f i ci al because
i t
i s al l about theharvesti ngof theenergi es of thesoci al and
thenon- soci al uni verses by the "dromocrati c" war machi ne. Ati me of the
unmaski ngof i deol ogyas domi nati on, of poweras atrompe- l oei l of thecyni cal
si gn, andof sacri f i ce
as mi meti cvi ol enceagai nst an"Other"
whi chhas
onl y
the
i rreal andproj ectedexi stenceof
a
f renzi edpol i ti cal f antasy.
WHATI S TO
BEDONE'
The' monumentsand memori al s
wi thwhi chl argeci ti es are adorned
are. . .
mnemi csymbol s. . . Not f arf rom
LondonBri dgeyouwi l l f i nda toweri ng
and
moremoderncol umn,
whi chi s si mpl yknownas ' The
Monument' . I t was
desi gned
as a memori al of the Great Fi re,
whi ch broke out i n that
nei ghborhood i n 1666and
destroyed a l arge part of theci ty . . .
[W]hat
shoul dwethi nkof a
Londoner whoshedtears bef orethe
Monument that
commemoratesthereducti on
of hi s bel ovedmetropol i s toashes
al though
i t has
l ong si nceri senagai ni nf ar
greater bri l l i ance? . . . Yet everysi ngl e
hysteri c and neuroti c
behavesl i ke [thi s] unpracti cal Londoner.
Not onl y
dothey
remember pai nf ul experi ences of
the remotepast, but they sti l l
cl i ngtothememoti onal l y; they
cannot get f reeof thepast andf or i ts
sake
they
negl ect what i s real and i mmedi ate.
Mark
Lewi s
I conocl asm
Si gmundFreud
Fi veLectures onPsychoanal ysi s
Cl eri chol di ngupcross, Bucharest, Romani a, 1990

Cl eri c hol di ng up cross to
Leni n, Bucharest,
Romani a, 1990
I t i s a f ami l i ar i mage: T11emanof God
rai ses
hi s
armsandi na seri es of hi ghl y
symbol i c gestures summons up the
f orce and truth of T11e Father . I t i s a
summoni ng up
whi chwi l l ai d i nthereparati onor
atonement of apubl i c f or i ts
earthl ysi ns
and, morespeci f i cal l y, thesacri l eges
whi ch, i nmomentsof madness
and
hal l uci natory bl i ndness, that publ i chas
i nf l i cted ontheveryi mageof God.
Here, then, i s j ust suchamoment .
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Hel i f t s hi s hand, and, i nagest uresomewhat denudedof seri ousness byi t s
appropri at i on wi t hi n t heDracul af i l mgenre, hol ds up across, adef i ant and
def ensi vegest ureagai nst somet hi ngwhi ch of f ends . But t hi s gest ure. . . agai nst
what ? . . . Agai nst whom?Thef ramewi dens, reveal i ngt hat t hedanger t owhi ch
al l
t hesevi sual
hi st ri oni cs
areaddressedi s, i nf act , aworkof art , abronzemet al
st at uet hat , unt i l recent l y, occupi ed
Pi at i a
Sci nt el i i n
t hecent er
of
Bucharest ,
Romani a. It appears t hat our manof Godi s gest uri ngat opt he
gi ant grani t epl i nt h
whi chonl ymoment s bef ore, hadbeent hebaseuponwhi chVl adi mi r Il i ch
Leni n
(anAnt i chri st as i t t urns out ) hadst ood. Looki ngout anddownupont he`publ i cs'
of Bucharest , Leni n' s monument al i t ywas asi gnof t heverypower of i nscri pt i on,
of t hepower of t hesymbol i c. i nt heproduct i onof pol i t i cal economi es . I have
spokenof Leni n' s removal , but i t
i s
more
properl y, perhaps, acert ai ni maget hat
i s bei ng removed, ani magei nt henameof whi ch t hecl eri c has beenbat t l i ng,
drawi nguponhi s ownsubst ant i al regi st er of t heol ogi cal i coni ci nscri pt i ons . And
i nt hecont ext of t hi nki ngabout t henat ureof "t hepubl i c", i t i s wort h repeat i ng
t hat what t hecl eri c wi shes us t oavert our gazef romi s aworkof art , aworkof
art madef roma cert ai n met al -bronze-and onet hat f i gurat i vel y depi ct s and
represent s i n
rat her
compl ex
conf i gurat i ons, a
man,
a pol i t i cal l eader, an
i deol ogy, al i berat i on, at yrannyand, verysi gni f i cant l y,
anabsence.
Thi s i mageof t heunceremoni ous removal of ast at uet hat depi ct s Leni ni s a
f ami l i ar one
. Al l over East ernEuropeandt heSovi et Uni ont oday, publ i cs, ei t her
spont aneousl yor under orders, areremovi ngi mages of Leni nf rompubl i cvi ew. z
Theyaresmashi ngandmel t i ngdownhi s f i gureor si mpl yt aki ng i t t oapl ace
wherei t maynot beseen, except byappoi nt ment . InBucharest anappoi nt ment
canbemadeby
t hosewi t h
an
i nt ent i ont opurchaset hesai dst at ueof Leni n:
t wel vet ons of Bronzet hat t hemayor, DanPredescu, hopes
wi l l
f i nd
a
home
i n
t he' West ' , andbri ngdesperat el yneededhardcurrencyt ohi s ci t y' s t reasury. 3 If
I havet aken up t hat suggest i on, madesuch an appoi nt ment wi t h Mayor
Predescu, i t i s not si mpl yt of i ndani roni c humor i nt hei deat hat we
mi ght pl ace
Leni n upri ght agai n, herei nt heWest . Rat her i t i s t ot akeadvant ageof avery
part i cul ar si t uat i on, onewhi chrepeat s at radi t i ont hat goes backat l east as f ar as
t heFrenchRevol ut i on, andwhi ch al l ows us t ot hi nkal i t t l eabout t hest at us and
changi ngmeani ngs of socal l edpubl i c works of art . Theseareworks whi ch, as
I haveargued el sewhere, i nevi t abl y perf ormt hef unct i on of si mul t aneousl y
marki ngout andpol i ci ngt hepubl i c shere
. 4
Bypl aci ng t hest at ueof Leni n i n Oxf ord(seef oot not e#1),
not onl y
am
I
respondi ng di rect l y t oMayor Predescu' s suggest i on but , i n t hespi ri t of
en-
st rangement t hat hi s cunni ngproposal woul dseemt oi ncl ude, I amal soaski ng
t hat weconsi der t hegeneral aut hori t at i vepresenceof publ i c monument s and
of f i ci al publ i c art --consi der, t hat i s, quest i ons of permanence, commemorat i on
andvi si bi l i t y.
Themovei s si mpl ebut al so a l i t t l e noi sy. Thest at ue t hat i n onesense,
communi cat es t hepresenceof an' al i en' (aRussi an) andanal i eni dea(Commu-
ni sm), l ooks aut hori t at i vei nanabsurdsort of way. It i s perhaps i nt hedi st urbi ng
spacet hat t hest at ue' s di spl acement opens up, t hat wemi ght begi nt osee-as
i f
f or t hef i rst t i meandi nt heabsenceof
anyi ndi genous revol ut i on-works t hat
LENININRUINS
haveperf ormedsi mi l ar
cont radi ct ory proj ect s herei n Engl and,
herei n what Dan
Predescu
cal l s t heWest .
I have
ment i onedrevol ut i on, or at
l east t heabsence of onei n
Engl and. I have
doneso
becauseas amot i f i t i s
cruci al t omydi scussi on of publ i c
art , speci f i cal l y
wi t hregard
t ot he l at t er' s removal ,
dest ruct i on anddi spl acement
. Revol ut i ons,
rebel l i ons,
upri si ngs, even t errori sms
: eachgi ves t o publ i c works a
part i cul ar
vi si bi l i t y,
onet hat as Robert Musi l has not ed, i s
of t en deni edt hemat ot her t i mes .
Themost st ri ki ng f eat ure of
monument s i s t hat you donot
not i cet hem.
There i s not hi ng i n t he
worl das i nvi si bl e as monument s .
Li kea drop of
wat er on
an oi l - ski n, at t ent i on runs down
t hemwi t hout st oppi ng f or a
moment . . . Wecannot say
t hat wedonot not i cet hem; we
shoul dsay t hat
t hey de- not i ce
us, t hey wi t hdrawf romour senses. s
Three
orat ors of t he commune st ood at di f f erent
poi nt s i n t he rui n and
made speeches . They t reat ed t he st at ue
[ of Napol eon] as t he Emperor
i t sel f , spi t t i ngon hi s f ace,
whi l emembers of t henat i onal guardhi t hi s
nose
wi t h ri f l es . 7 ( My emphasi s)
If Musi l i s cert ai n t hat t o
produceapubl i c monument
of a ' great person' i s t o
consi gn t hat person t o obl i vi on,
he perhaps under- est i mat es
t he cont i nued
ef f i cacy
of t hemonument i n i t s abi l i t y
t o
be
al ways moreandl ess t han t he
f i gure
whi chi t ost ensi bl y represent s.
Themonument ' s i nvi si bi l i t y i s
a si gn of a si l ent
i nt erpel l at i on, of asubt l e
but nevert hel ess pervasi ve
marki ng- out of t hepubl i c
real maccordi ng t o t he
l ogi c of cert ai n st at i st concerns .
Af t er al l , i s i t not al ways
t he st at e whi ch
i nst al l s or permi t s t he i nst al l at i on
of ' publ i c' works of art ? If
monument s remai n si l ent ,
t hey onl y " de- not i ce us" i nsof ar
as t hey become part
of
t he archi t ect oni c and
semant i c l andscape. As Freud poi nt s out
i n hi s Fi ve
Lect ures onPsychoanal ysi s, suchal andscape
wi l l cont i nuet obea
det ermi nant
producer of i dent i f i cat i on and
memory. 6
When t here i s a cri si s i n t he
real mof t he soci al - a revol ut i on
or pol i t i cal
upri si ng- t hen t he symbol i c real m,
of whi ch publ i c art i s part
becomes t he
subj ect
of a cert ai n re- eval uat i on.
Whi l e wemi ght i ndeed hesi t at e bef ore
con- '
cl udi ng t hat t he removal and
dest ruct i on of ' hat ed' monument s i s t he onl y
possi bl e cri t i cal re- eval uat i on of t he semi ot i cs
of publ i c st at uary, we needt o
acknowl edge t hat t he vi si bi l i t y
whi ch i naugurat es such an at t ack
i s a pre-
requi si t e f or any at t empt t o
re- i nt erpret and i nt ervene wi t hi n t hi s
area of t he
symbol i c real m. Cl earl y,
t hei mpul set o at t ack anddest roy publ i c
works i s part
of a general at t ack ont he
cont i nuedpresenceof t hesi gns of an
anci en regi me.
It i s conf i rmat i on al so
t hat i n moment s of ' madness' , publ i cs wi l l
t reat monu-
ment s andpubl i c works of
art
as i f
t hey weret he act ual l eaders t hemsel ves,
as
i f bronze ef f i gi es were
l i t eral ext ensi ons of Ki ngs' bodi es . In
a report f rom187 1
ont hedest ruct i on of
t heVendomeCol umn, f or i nst ance,
TheLondonIl l ust rat ed
News gave t hi s account of
what happened af t er t he col umnwas f el l ed
:
The Hungari an crowds
i n Budapest i n 1956 , may have f el t
t hat t hey were
l i t eral l y at t acki ng
St al i nhi msel f as t heysmashedast at ueof hi m,
eachcrackof t he
hammer
on
met al and st one at once produci ng
a del i ci ous and murderous
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
vi car i ous pl easur e. Wi thout wi shi ngto subtr act fr omwhat was the er upti onof
a
popul ar wi l l bysome
publ i cs, I woul dl i ke to r emar k that at some l evel , such
a theol ogi cal bel i ef i n the i mage, i n i ts di vi ni ty, confi r ms the i deol ogyof the
"Ki ng' s Two Bodi es. "' Thi s i deol ogy
has
enabl eddespots to r epr esent them-
sel ves as bei ngat onewi ththei r i mage, ani magethat mar ks the Ki ng' s hi stor y
as at once secul ar andspi r i tual , of the ear thandof the eter nal . For theKi ngor
Emper or , hi s i mage i s not so mucha r epr esentati on, but consti tutes
hi s
ver y
publ i c embodi ment. The i magei s hi spower. To deface hi s i magei s to deface
hi m; a knock wi thahammer i s i n some sense par t of thesame economywhi ch
i nci tes the bel i ever whowoul dr ather genufl ect. Upto a poi nt per haps
.
Thi s
anywayi s the par adoxi cal tr ap whi chtheRomani ancl er i c unwi tti ngl yfi nds
hi msel f i n: Hehol ds uphi s cr oss, not to Leni nhi msel f, but to ani magewhi ch
thr eatens toser i ousl yunder mi nehi s ownr el ati onshi pto "thei mage", ar el ati on-
shi p that pi vots ar oundthe cl er i c' s r i ght to i nter pr et i mages andto j udgethei r
authenti ci ty( accor di ng to thel aws of God) . Ul ti matel ywemi ght concl ude that
what offends the cl er i c i n Buchar est, i s not so muchthat thestatue of Leni n
r epr esents ananti -Chr i sti ancur r ent that thr eatens the chur ch' s sur vi val ( whi ch,
of cour se, i n some sense i t does), but r ather
that Leni n,
l i ke any"two
bodi ed"
r ul er or Ki ngwhohas become synonymous wi thhi s owni mage, thr eatens to
di sr upt thever y
economy
of the
i magewhi ch
gui des
the chur ch' s theol ogi cal
bel i ef i n authenti ci ty. For i f Leni ni s hi s i mage, thenthi s canonl yde-val ue the
equi val ence whi ch
God
hi msel f i s
supposedto enj oywi thHi s i mage.
Thi s mayseemar ather
per i pher al poi nt, i nsofar
as
i t i s not necessar i l ycl er i cs
whoar eover seei ngther emoval of wor ks ofpubl i c ar t today, but r ather angr yand
r ebel l i ous publ i cs who qui te r i ghtl y desi r e to have a say( al bei t someti mes
thr oughsi mpl eacts of negati on) i nthesemi oti cs of "thei r " publ i c space. Inso far
as theyar e acti ngonthat desi r e, wecoul dtentati vel ysaythat the attempts to
r emove andsmashcer tai nwor ks of ar t, ar e as muchapar t of thepr oj ect of a
publ i c ar t as the di scr ete obj ects themsel ves. Al thoughwemayquesti onthe ne-
cessi ty, or pr ogr essi veness of a `vandal i sm' whi chdestr oys wor ks that dur i ng
moments of soci al andpol i ti cal cr i si s mayal r eadybei nthepr ocess ofhavi ngthei r
meani ngs tr ansfor med, these destr ucti ve acts ar ei nscr i bedwi thi nthe wor ks as
apotenti al fr omthemoment that theyar ecommi ssi onedandpubl i cl yi nstal l ed.
Thewor ks' i nstal l ati on anddestr ucti on shar e the same economy. What fal l s
outsi dethat economyanddi sr upts i t, ar eunfor eseenappr opr i ati ons of
publ i c ar t
wor ks i mmedi atel yfol l owi ngthe demi se of thever ypower that these
wor ks
wer e meant to r e-pr esent . Stal i n' s boots, r emai nedas the contai ner for the
Hungar i anfl ag i n
1956
; InLeni ngr adi n 1918, thei nscr i pti ons onmanystatues
wer eal ter edtor efl ect ther evol uti onar ymoment . That suchappr opr i ati ons and
semi oti c di sr upti ons canoccur , suggests that ther e i s mor e thanonepossi bl e
futur efor the publ i c wor k of ar t "after thefal l " of the anci enr egi me.
Ther easonfor myquesti oni ngthestatus of agestur eof pur e negati onof the
i mage, i s si mpl yto tr yandunder standtheextent towhi chsuchani conocl asm
canunwi tti ngl y, andagai nst i ts ownbest i ntenti ons, di spl ayani mmenser espect
for the i mage. Andfur ther , howthr oughanact of destr ucti on, thepower of the
i mage, the power of publ i c statuar ytocontr ol anddefi ne thepubl i c r eal mmay
LENIN
INRUINS
paradoxi cal l y be
conf i rmed. Twof orms of
negati onneed to bedi sti ngui shed,
twodi f f erent
orchestrati ons, i f youl i ke, of amass
i conocl asmwi threspect to
the
revol uti onaryand
post- revol uti onary moment . On
theonehand, areseemi ngl y
spontaneousacti ons
of vari ouspubl i csasthey
vent thei r anger andf rustrati on
on
thevi si bl esi gnsof
power of ananci enregi me.
Stal i n' s desecrati oni n Budapest
canbe understood i n
thi s context, as can the
def acement of the statue of
Dzhi rzhi nsky by students i n
Warsaw. 9 Onthe other hand, are
the pl anned
removal s
of theart andi magesof the
ol dpol i ti cal regi me, where
"revol uti onary"
governments
order thei r destructi on. InPol and
today, theSol i dari ty
government
hasbeen
overseei ngsuchaprogramof
removal anddestructi onThe
Leni nstatue
i nRomani awas
al so removedbystateorder
.

.
Wecanspecul ate
that thei conocl asmof art' s
orderl yremoval embodi es
more
of a respect f or the
i magethan does a publ i c' s
spontaneous destructi on. An
i nevi tabl econsequenceof
such a respect mi ght betheerecti on
of yet more
permanent
statuesandmonuments,
thei r' contents' di f f eri ngperhaps,
but thei r
f ormal preci si onremai ni ng
muchthesame. Andi s not
thef ateof suchcaref ul and
' thoughtl ess' f ormal
preci si on, preci sel ytheconti nui ty
of publ i c art' s terror, i ts
"Archi tectureof Fear"?
Thi smaybeal i ttl epessi mi sti c,
perhaps, but l et uswatch
there- organi zati on
of Pol and, f or i nstance, to see
i f i nf act today' sl eaders i n the
f i ght agai nst
Communi smdo not eventual l y rest thei r
bul ks, bronze cast on
grani te.
Thequesti onof respect ( f or
thei mage) andhowi t i s
i nvestedverydi f f erentl y
i n
thetwof orms of removal
( as wel l as destructi on/ modi f i cati on)
that I have
proposed, l eadsverydi rectl yto
acri ti cal consi derati onof the
vari ousarguments
that areof tenmadef or the
retenti onandconservati onof publ i c
monumentsand
other worksof art. Theseare
argumentsthat arepredi catedonan
assumpti on
that a
work' s meani ngcanchange- that
thesemanti c chargeof awork f rom
the
past wi l l be
di f f erent once i t has been
re- apprai sed and di spl aced wi thi n
the
symbol i c
organi zati onof the
post- revol uti onary state. But howi s that re- apprai sal
and
di spl acement accompl i shed? It i s,
as I suggestedabove, pri mari l y
because
that
possi bi l i ty i s al readycontai ned
wi thi nthework f romthestart, because
the
work wi l l
never be the si mpl e representati on
of i ts subj ect, no matter how
i mportant
or tri vi al thel atter maybe.
Theaxi s of
vi si bi l i ty- i nvi si bi l i tyi s thedetermi nant
f i el dacrosswhi chthepubl i c
work of
art exacts i ts di f f erent meani ngs.
Inthi s respect, i t i s extremel ysi mi l ar
to
theprocess Freuddescri bed and
namedf eti shi sm. Li kethef eti sh, the
publ i c
work of art serves ( at l east) two
ends, theoneul ti matel yundermi ni ng
theother .
Themonument covers up
cri mes agai nst thepubl i c i n so f ar as i t i s abl e
to
temporary' smother' thepossi bi l i ty of
rememberi ngspeci f i c hi stori esi ntermsof
the
vi ol encethat engenderedthem; i t
i nsteadcommemoratesa hi story or
event
i n terms of a perni ci ous
heroi smor nati onal i sm. But at the
same ti me, the
monument exi sts asa
perpetual marker, aremi nder of those
verycri mes. It waves
aredf l ag, soto
speak, onthesi teof i ts repressi ons. And
whenthesymbol i c order
i s thrown
i ntocri si s- revol uti onor terrori sm- the
publ i c monument' s semanti c
chargeshi f ts and
thework becomesl ess heroi c i nf orm
but rather begi nstotake
onthecharacteri sti cs
of ascar- l i teral l y apermanent
monument to theori gi nal
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
cri me(s) . Thi s maybeas goodareason
as anyf or theretenti onof at l east
some
works-perhaps workedon,
perhaps di spl acedsomewhat af ter thedemi se
of the
regi mes responsi bl e f or thei r
erecti on. That i s theargument, f or i nstance,
of
Sami rAl -Khal i l , i nhi s di scussi onof the
possi bl ef utureof the Vi ctoryMonument
i nBaghdadaf ter Saddam
Hussei ni s overthrownor di es.
' o
Georges
Batai l l e hadmuchtosayabout thi s i dea
of
the
repressi onof soci al l i f e
bymonuments
. Hewrote more speci f i cal l yabout
archi tecture, but i n the
f ol l owi ngquote, wecan al so detect the
f i gure of the stoneor bronze statue:
standi ngupri ght andphal l i c,
pretendi ngtoguardthe publ i c spacewheni t
i n
actual f act, i t bothconsti tutes that
spaceandsi mul taneousl ydemands that we
f orget bywhat means
thel atter' s publ i ci tyi s obtai ned.
Thei deal soul of soci ety,
that whi chhas theauthori tytocommand
and
prohi bi t, i s
expressedi narchi tectural composi ti ons properl yspeaki ng.
Great
monuments areerectedl i kedi kes, opposi ngthe
l ogi c andmaj estyof
authori tyagai nst al l di sturbi ng
el ement' s. . . I t i s obvi ous i nf act, that soci al
monuments i nspi resoci al prudenceand
evenreal f ear. Thetaki ngof the
Basti l l e i s
symbol i cof thi s state of thi ngs: i t i s hardtoexpl ai n
thi s crowd
movement other thanbythe ani mosi ty
of the peopl eagai nst the monu-
ments that are
thei r real masters. "
Apubl i cmonument
whi chl i kearchi tecturei s tosomeextent thei mage
of the
soci al order, guarantees, -even
i mposes that veryorder. Far f romexpressi ng
the
soul of soci ety, monuments then,
toparaphrase Deni s Hol l i er, smother
soci ety,
stopi t f rombreathi ng.
Revol uti on
`Revol uti onary'
and i mmedi atel y ' post-revol uti onary'
soci eti es have been
f orcedtodeal wi ththerepresentati ons of i ts
pre-revol uti onaryhi storyarti cul ated
throughpubl i cart . I nFrance, therewere
f i ercedebatesoverwhat wastohappen
tothe
publ i c works of the Royal i st regi mef ol l owi ng
therevol uti on of 1789.
Attempts
weremadetodetermi netowhat extent
parti cul ar monuments repre-
sented
the i deol ogyof the past, andto theref ore
apporti on apuni shment
commensuratewi ththedegreeof awork' s cul pabi l i ty.
Worksof art weref orced
to stand
tri al . As was the casewi thal l other
mocktri al s i npost-revol uti onary
France duri ng the peri od of `the terror' ,
the works were of ten executed,
destroyed
bef ore theyhadachancetoaccount f or
themsel ves.
Some
revol uti onari es arguedthat the ol dmonuments
andother works of art
shoul d
beusedas thebui l di ngmateri al s f or new
`revol uti onary' works. Andthi s
i ndeedwas the i deathat ori gi nal l ymoti vated
the l ooti nganddestructi on of the
Royal Tombs at St . Deni swhen
i t wasagreedthat al l the works contai nedthere
shoul dbeusedi ntheconstructi on
of asymbol i cmountai ni nhonor of Marat and
LePel eti er
. Other proj ects of thi s naturei nvol ved
savi ngsomeworks, or at l east
parts of them,
sothat thei r recogni zabl ef ormcoul dbe
rei ntegratedwi thi nnew
al l egori cal proj ects
. J . P. B. LeBrun, f or i nstance, . arguedthat
Angl er' s statues of
Loui s I I I , hi s wi f eandson,
shoul dbesavedsothat theycoul dbeoverturnedat
LENININRUINS
thef eet of Davi d' s proj ect f or TheCol ossus of the
Peopl eSoverei gn. Heal so
suggestedthat thel ef t f oot of thestatueof Loui s N
f romthepl aceVendomebe
savedi norder to"Conservetheproporti ons of thesemonuments,
whi ch, when
pl acedbesi detheFrenchPeopl e, wi l l showthesmal l ness of themonuments to
those
that theyregardedas thegreatest.
"12
Others,
argui ngagai nst theconti nuedexi stencei n anyf orm, of anytraces of
theol d art andpubl i c
monuments andparti ci pated i n an orgyof destructi on,
knocki ng down
andbreaki ng every workthat of f ended thei r revol uti onary
sensi bi l i ti es. Inthi s rampage,
theyweresupportedbysuccessi vel egi sl atures and
of f i ci al s. APari si an
pol i ceof f i cer of the ti menotedthat he hadheard: "Com-
pl ai nts on al l si des that the eyes
of
patri ots
wereof f ended bythe di f f erent
monuments bui l t bydespoti smi ntheti meof sl avery,
monuments that shoul d
certai nl ynot exi st under therei gnof l i bertyandequal i ty. "13
When
i t wasdetai l edi nthel egi sl ati veassembl ythat thepeopl eweredestroy-
i ngbronzestatues of
Henry
IV, Loui s
XII, Loui sX[VandLoui s XV, theassembl y
si mpl yencouraged. theseacti ons bydecl ari ngthat "It i s themani f est wi l l of
the
peopl ethat nomonument conti nuetoexi st that recal l s therei gnof tyranny. . . the
statuesi npubl i csquares i nPari swi l l betakenawayandstatuesi nhonor of l i berty
wi l l repl ace
them" . "
Into
thi s
mi re
of debateandunpredi ctabl eacti on steppedtheAbbeGregoi re.
Anthony
Vi dl er haspresentedGregoi re' sproj ect of redeemi ngandsavi ngworks.
Inthebri ef summarythat f ol l owsI haveborrowedf romVi dl er' s publ i shedtexts
onthi s subj ect .
Gregoi re was a supporter of the revol uti on but onewho argued f or the
conservati onof ol dworksof art andpubl i cmonuments, onthegroundsthat they
were
:
"transf ormi ng the symbol s of oppressi oni ntopermanent remi nders of
tyranny, f orci ng themto becomeaki nd of permanent pi l l ory". 15 Byusi ng a
rhetori cthat heknewwoul dbewarml yrecei vedbytherevol uti onaryassembl y,
Gregoi rebegantof ormul ateanoti onof what hecal l ed"cul tural vandal i sm", a
ki nd
of
thoughtl ess anddestructi ve behavi or that was to beunderstood as
di sti nct
f rom, evencontrarytocorrect or correcti verevol uti onarybehavi or . As
Vi dl er poi nts
out,
i t i s
certai nl yaparadoxthat thecul tural vandal i smof therevo-
l uti on' s
earl yyears was al so accompani edbyanemergi ngsensi bi l i tytowards a
nati onal patri mony embodi edi n hi stori cal and arti sti c monuments. Indeed,
manyhave noted that f or. the museumto real l y begi n to exi st, i t needed
,vandal i sm' : themuseumf edof f thef ragments l ef t behi ndby, andsavedf rom,
cul tural vandal i sm.
If
Gregoi re
wasopeni ngupanenti rel ynewdi scourse(oncul tural vandal i sm
and
on
thenecessi tyof museumstoprotect agai nst thef ormer), hi s contri buti on
tothe
di scussi on
concerni ng
thenecessi tyof conservi ngworks of theanci en
regi mewas al so part of hi s attempt to evi nce a recogni ti on of the possi bl e
separati on
of
thesymbol i candpol i ti cal real ms. If hearguedthat theol dstatues,
f or i nstance, coul d
be
usedpedagogi cal l y-al bei t bynegati veexampl e-hedi dso
pri mari l yi n order to savetheobj ects themsel ves, obj ects that hemi ght have
bel i evedcoul deventual l ybeturnedawayf romthei r tyranni cal hi stori es. That i s
tosay, hebel i evedthat oncetheseobj ects wererecogni zedasnol onger marki ng
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
out , no l onger smot her i nga publ i c hi st or y, t hey mi ght t hent ake t hei r pl ace i na
museum
of
ar t and ant i qui t y . Such a museumcoul d ser ve, si mul t aneousl y, t he
nat i on' s need f or nat i onal i sm, di dact i ci smand mor al i mpr ovement . Gr egoi r e
was begi nni ngt o ar t i cul at e a sense of t he di scont i nui t y whi ch over det er mi nes
t he symbol i c r eal mand howt hat di scont i nui t y woul d al ways al r eady be par t of
any monument ' s hi st or y. I t i s a di scont i nui t y t hat ul t i mat el y i nscr i beswi t hi nt he
wor k an bui l t - i n obsol escence; and i t i s t hi s bui l t - i n obsol escence whi ch wi l l
f i nal l y al l owt he wor k t o ber escuedby a museumwher ei t wi l l t ake i t s pl acei n
t he nat i onal hi st or y of a count r y, i t s pat r i mony of per manence.
I have st r ayed a l ong way f r omLeni n i n or der t o ar t i cul at e some of t he
cont r adi ct or y i nvest ment s i n t he hi st or i cal i dea of publ i c ar t , of anar t t hat i s
appar ent l y mor edemocr at i c, mor e of t he peopl e t han any ot her . But as shoul d
be cl ear by now, I amsuggest i ngt hat not onl y i s t hi s ver y f ar f r omt he t r ut h`6 -
t hat publ i c ar t of t eni mposes, subj ect s, t er r or i zes- but t hat a senseof publ i c ar t ' s
' opposi t e' - t he
' pr i vat e' wor ks of
t he
gal l er y, et c . - emer ges i n par t t hr ough
at t empt s t o save publ i c wor ksf r omt he
anger
of r evol ut i onar y publ i cs. Al l of
t hi s
t o
say
t hat we need t o be ver y caut i ous bef or e we assi gn t o
a t ype of
wor k
a
posi t i ve or negat i ve epi t het , si mpl y on
t he gr ounds
of
i t s act ual geogr aphi cal
empl acement . I ndeed, some wor ks, once ' publ i cl y' l ocat ed and t hen pl aced
wi t hi nt he cont ext ual conf i nes of a museummi ght f i ndt hemsel ves, i nt hei r l at t er
hi st or y,
t o
bel ess l i ke, r ecal l i ng Bat ai l l e, " di kes, opposi ngt he l ogi c andmaj est y
of aut hor i t y
agai nst al l di st ur bi ngel ement s, " andmor et r ul y publ i c ( i nt he l i t er al
sense of t he wor d) t han bef or e. Not wi t hst andi ng t hi s pr obl emof posi ng t he
quest i onof
a
so- cal l ed
pr ogr essi ve
publ i c
ar t ,
I
t hi nk
t hat
i t i s possi bl e t o suggest
ot her par adi gms, ot her ways of concept ual i zi ngpubl i c
ar t
And
I canpr oposeone
of t hese now, t hr ough a r et ur n t o my i ni t i al di scussi on of Leni n hi msel f .
V. I . Leni n
Al l over East er nEur ope, ever y day f or somemont hs, ci t i es havebeenover see-
i ng t he r emoval of bust s, st at ues, bas r el i ef s and pi ct ur es of Leni n. These ar e
i mages t hat ar e hat edby many, hat edbecause t hey ar e under st oodandper cei ved
as synecdoches f or equal l y despi sedcommuni st r egi mes. But , of cour se, Leni n
wasal ways muchmor et hant hi ssi mpl er epr esent at i on: Andt her e i s i ndeedsome
senseof t he i dea of Leni ni smwhi ch sur vi ves t oday, sur vi ves despi t e t he whol e-
sal e r emoval of hi s publ i c ef f i gi es, sur vi ves t he ver y f act t hat t hese monument s
wer e ever bui l t i n t he f i r st pl ace. Per haps t he r emoval of t hese massi ve monu-
ment s i s not t ot al l y i ncommensur at ewi t hsomeof t he or i gi nal i deas of Leni n, par -
t i cul ar l y t hosei deashehadabout a r evol ut i onar y publ i car t . Thi s i s not t o say t hat
I
t hi nk
t hat
t he monument s shoul d necessar i l y be r emoved, dest r oyed or
di spl aced ( ont hi s mat t er I canconf ess onl y t o t hemost pr of oundambi val ence),
but what I want t o r ecogni ze i s t hat t heLeni nof 1917- 1918, t he Leni nof " Ont he
Monument s
of
t he
Republ i c" " mi ght never have appr oved of t he or i gi nal
er ect i on of t he br onze st at ues, i n Buchar est or el sewher e. - I nsof ar as t hi s
i dea( l i sm) of Leni ncanbesai dt o ber emember edt oday, I want t o br i ef l y
exami ne
LENIN
IN
RUINS
Leni n' s rel ati onshi p to the
questi on of publ i c art as i t
emergedduri ngthe
i mmedi atemonths after the October
Revol uti on.
By
the ti me of the 1917revol uti on, Leni n
hadal readyi nsi stedthat art
under
soci al i sm
shoul dnol onger servetheel i teof
soci ety, "those10, 000sufferi ng
from
boredomand
obesi ty; i t wi l l rather servethe 10' s
ofmi l l i ons ofl abouri ngpeopl e,
the fl ower
of the country, i ts future"
.
1
e
In
order to further thi s ai m, Leni n
proposedwhat he
cal l edaMonumental Propaganda
. Thi s wastobeaso- cal l ed
"peopl e' s" art, one
that woul dbecomepart of everydayl i fe,
assi sti ngi nthei deo-
l ogi cal shapi ngof
a newrevol uti onarymass consci ousness. Leni n
arguedthat
thi s Monumental Propaganda
shoul dbe producedthrough the
posi ng and
i nstal l ati onof sl ogans andother "qui ckl y
executedforms. " Evenmorei mportant
to
Leni nwere"the statues- be they
bust or bas rel i efs of fi gures andgroups. " 19
The statues
were not to be made of marbl e,
bronze or grani te, but on the
contrary, were to be
extremel ymodest i n thei r producti on,
andshoul dtake
advantageof cheapand
readi l yavai l abl emateri al s suchas pl aster
. Leni nfel t that
these works
shoul dreact to the moment, that thei r
obj ecti ve was al ways to
i nstruct wi thi nthe context of
parti cul ar cel ebrati ons. Aboveal l ,
wroteLeni n,
"Let everythi ngbe temporary" 2 .
Andwi ththesewordsaddressedto
Lunachar-
sky, Leni nannouncedthe
begi nni ngof a massi veproj ect (muchof i t centered
aroundMayDay
cel ebrati ons) toi nstal l dozens of pl aster statues and
busts, each
onecel ebrati ngarevol uti onary
fi gureor event . Veryfewof theseworks survi ved
morethanafewmonths,
andal most noneremai ni nanyformtoday, as
Leni nand
the arti sts i nvol vedmust
have anti ci pated. Some of the works were
crudel y
executed, others crudel y
conceptual i zed, whi l e others wereextremel y
radi cal
i nsofar as theychal l enged
the whol e noti onof permanencewi th regards
to
publ i cmonumentsand
statuary. Parti cul arl yi nteresti ngi s Ni kol ai Kol l i ' s
TheRed
WedgeCl eavi ngthe
Whi teBl ock(1918) . Inthi s workKol l i seems toparody
and
questi on the whol e
hi stori cal proj ect of the permanent publ i c monument,
a
monument that
rel i es onthe hei ght andunassai l abi l i tyof a stone
pl i nth from
whi chi t towers over thepubl i cs
that movewi thi ni ts domai n. Thepl i nthi s al so
the si te of the offi ci al i nscri pti on,
of the commandto respect of Ki ng' s and
Di ctators. Inpl aster form,
what Kol l i i s spl i tti ngopen, i s theverysupport system
of al l monuments. It seems to suggest the
absurdi ty, wi thi nthe revol uti onary
context, of erecti ngyet another bronze
statue on the physi cal supports of
hi stori cal l yi nscri bedtyranny- the
pl i nths that have born the wei ght of col d
terror .
Thi s workbyKol l i was
producedwi thi nthecontext of other works byarti sts
whi chconsi stedi ntemporarymodi fi cati ons
andaddi ti ons toexi sti ngstatues and
monuments. Andi f therevol uti ondi d
producei ts fai r shareof "cul tural vandal -
i sm, " i t i s al so the case
that manyat the ti me thought that thi s. exerci se of
destructi onwas not
onl yunnecessary, but actual l ycounter- revol uti onary. z' As
thearti st Al exander
Bl okput i t at theti me: "Evenwhi l edestroyi ngwearesti l l the
sl aves of our former worl d: the vi ol ati on of tradi ti on i tsel f i s part of the
same
tradi ti on
. "zz
Not qui te the AbbeGregoi re, andperhaps not shari nghi s
archi vi st' s i mpera-
ti vefor conservati on, but neverthel ess, Bl ok' sdemand, hi s
percepti on
i s
part and
I DEOLOGY
AND
POWER
parcel
of
a more compl ex and i nt erest i ng approach t o t he art
of
t he past .
Moreover, i t i s anapproachwhi chI bel i evei s not at al l cont raryt oLeni n' s
own
desi re t hat cont emporarypubl i c works be t emporary.
Mi l i t aryMet al
Many of
our monument s
andpubl i c
works of art are
madef rom
met al . Met al
i s
col d
t o
t ouch
.
Thi s
i s a
met aphor t hat oncl oser i nspect i onconst ant l y envel ops
t hedescri pt i onof l eaders, nowbronzecast or engravedi nmet al , uni mpeachabl e
i n t hei r aut hori t y. I t i s a met aphor t hat qui t e l i t eral l y f ormal i zes t he cl ose
associ at i onof met al f i gures wi t ht hecol dt error t heycanal ways summonup. The
t ext of
t error,
i t s
col deconomyi s embodi ed, f i guredi nt hesurpl us
of
t heki ng' s
i mage. Whi chi s t o
say,
wedonot
need
t o
see
i t
i nordert o
seei t
.
Met al
wi l l al ways
remi ndus of t hi s absence. Herei s Pascal :
Thecust omof seei ng ki ngs accompani edbyguards, drums, of f i cers andal l
t hoset hi ngs t hat bendt he machi net owardrespect andt enor causes t hei r
f ace t oi mpri nt ont hei r subj ect s respect andt error, evenwhent heyappear
byt hemsel ves, becauseonedoes not separat e i nt hought t hepersons f rom
t hei r ret i nues wi t hwhi ch
t hey
areordi nari l y seen?3
Not onl ydoes met al st at uary havemet aphori c resonances wi t ht error whi ch
al l owus t o recal l
unwi t t i ngl y t he i nvi si bl e ret i nues of
power, but i n t he
very
product i onof bronze f i gures- t hei r f orgi ng andmoul di ng=t here i s ani next ri -
cabl el i nkwi t ht heveryeconomyof t hemi l i t ary machi ne. Tradi t i onal l y, bronze
i s t he mat eri al of guns andcanons, andweshoul dnot bet he l east bi t surpri sed
t hat
t he l at t er haveof t enbeenmade
by
mel t i ng downup- root edanddest royed
publ i c st at ues. z4 Guns canbe made f rommel t edst at uary, but , equal l y publ i c
st at uary canbeproducedf rommel t edguns. TheVendomeCol umn, erect edby
Napol eon
t o
commemorat e
t heFrenchvi ct oryat Aust erl i t zzs, was coveredwi t h
4 25bronzepl aques
moul ded
i n
bas- rel i ef whi chdi spl ayedsomeof t he i nci dent s
of t he Aust ri an campai gn. The bronze, whi chwei ghedcl ose t o t wo mi l l i on
pounds, was obt ai nedbymel t i ngdown1200capt uredAust ri ancanons . I n1871
t he col umnwas dest royedi n an upri si ng, andwhi l e t hemasonrywas qui ckl y
brokenupandt akenawaybyonl ookers as souveni rs, t he nat i onal guardkept a
prot ect i ve eye on t he bronze pl aques- pl aques whi ch, of course, woul dbe
ext remel yval uabl e i f andwhent heywereret urnedt o t hei r mi l i t ary f orm.
I woul dl i ke t ot hi nkof Leni n' s demandf or t emporari ness, hi s proscri pt i onon
t he useof bronze, as i n some sense, ani nt ervent i onwi t hi n t hi s economyof
mi l i t ary t error . Pl ast er wi l l onl y crumbl e andt heref ore prove usel ess i n t he
manuf act ure of i nst rument s of war ( a cruci al exi gency, one i magi nes, f or a
count rysurroundedbyhost i l ef orces j ust readyt ot urnanyexi st i ng met al agai nst
t herevol ut i on, andi nt hi s cont ext , Kol l i ' s workwoul dseemt ohaveapart i cul arl y
mat eri al i st resonance) . I t s use i nt hepubl i c sphererecal l s t hemi l i t ary economy
of st at uary at t he same t i me as i t di srupt s i t . I t asks us t o t hi nkl ess about t he
permanenceof t hest ruct ure- i t s
apparent ri ght t oexi st f orever- andrat hermore
LENIN
INRUINS
about
anypar ti cul ar wor k' s conti ngent
meani ng, howf or i nstance
that wor k
i mposes i tsel f i n
aver y contr adi ctor y way.
Af ter al l , as I suggested
ear l i er ,
per manent monuments
ar e of tenbor n of
ter r or and f or ce- they ar e
l i ter al l y
i mposed, and
occupy spaces l i ke ani nvadi ng
ar my- and i t i s not the
l east bi t
sur pr i si ng, ther ef or e,
that thei r eventual demi se
shoul dr edupl i catethat
ter r or ,
bothi ntheact of
destr ucti oni tsel f andi nthe r e- cycl i ng
of the wor ks i nto yet
f ur ther
i nstr umentsf or subj ecti on
.
Ther e
ar e manyother exampl es of
pl aster monuments bei ngused
to addr ess
thequesti onof
mi l i tar yter r or . Per hapsthe
most f amous onei nr ecent
year swas
the Li ber ty
Statue er ectedi nTi anenmi n
Squar e i nChi na. Students
cr eated not
onl yasymbol
that i ni ts tempor ar i ness cal l ed
attenti ontothe ver y
spontaneous
andchangi ng
natur eof thei r r evol uti on, but
theyal somadeani r oni c and
cr i ti cal
commentar y onthe
tr adi ti on of the publ i c
monument i tsel f . It was, r ecal l i ng
Leni n, `modest' and`qui ckl y
executed' , andi mpor tantl yi t
al so appear ed to be
f r omthewr ongtr adi ti on- ' statues
of l i ber ty' bei ngso cl osel y
associ atedwi tha
hosti l epower . Indeed,
whenthear mystor medthe
squar e, oneof thef i r st thi ngs
i t di dwasto smashthe
statue. But, as i t tur nsout the
statue' s r ef er encewas not
so
`al i en' af ter al l . Ir oni cal l y, the
RedGuar ds hadsometwenty
year sear l i er done
pr eci sel ythe same thi ng
whena gr oup of themattacked
the Yel l owFl ower
Cemeter yi nCanton. In
the Cemeter ywer e the tombs of the 72
mar tyr s of the
Republ i c of Chi nawhower eki l l ed
i ntheover thr owof theChi ng
dynastyi n1911.
Al ar gemonument ther e
hadi nscr i bedthewor ds " l i ber ty,
equal i tyanduni ver sal
l ove. " Near by, ther e wasal soa
statue of theGoddessof Li ber ty.
Boththe statue
and the
monument wer e vi ol entl y
destr oyed by the guar ds who
coul d not
under stand
that l i ber tywas not a concept
bor n of capi tal i sm. 26 Per haps
the
pl aster
r ecal l at Ti anenmi nSquar e of
that ear l i er moment of destr ucti onwas
uni ntenti onal , evenl ar gel yunnoti ced.
However , contextual i si ng i t hi stor i cal l y
mi ght hel p
under mi ne anyeasyappr opr i ati on
of the students' statue by
the
f or ces
onthe r i ght, whoar e equal l y
unabl e to under standthat l i ber ty
i s not a
concept
bor nof capi tal i sm. 27
Imper manence
I have str ayed
a l ong wayf r omBuchar est, and
I have done so i n or der to
contextual i se
thepr obl emof publ i car t whi chi s
f or egr oundedwi thther emoval
of the statue
of Leni n. I have onl ybeenabl eto ver y
schemati cal l youtl i ne some
of the mor e
obvi ous semanti c andi deol ogi cal
i nvestments i nthe ar t of publ i c
monuments, but i t i s these i nvestments
whi chI bel i eve publ i c ar t today
must
both
exami neandpr obl emati se. Per haps
atr ul ypubl i c ar t woul dbe onethat
al l oweddi f f er ent publ i cs to make thei r
(tempor ar y) mar ks onwhat Batai l l e has
cal l edthe f asci st or gani zati onof
publ i c l i f e. Thesewor ksmi ght thenattempt to
gi veai r to what the stati st
i nstal l ati ons have wor kedso har d and
ef f ecti vel yto
smother . Thepar adoxi s
that as soonas these wor ksbecome
per manent, they
tendtobecome
thever yobj ects whi chtheywer e
i ntendedtoi nter veneagai nst .
Thi s i s per haps why
weneed tor e- i nvent eachwor k,
eachpubl i c, i nor der to
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Ni kol ai Kol l i : TheRedWedgeCl eavi ng
theWhi teBl ock(1918)
makethear t answer abl e
tosuccessi vepubl i cs. Thi s r e- i nventi onthough,
woul d
ask of us somethi ngboth
mor eambi ti ous andsubtl ethan thesi mpl e
negati on
that destr ucti on i mpl i es
.
Thestatues
andother publ i c monuments whi ch
unti l ver y r ecentl y had
occupi edthe
str eets andci vi c squar esof Easter n
Eur ope, wer ether emai nder s
of a pr oj ect whi chhaddef i ed Leni n' s
ownunder standi ngof publ i c ar t . "Let
ever ythi ngbetempor ar y, " hedemanded
. Yet i t took theci ti zens of Buchar est
somethi r tyyear s bef or etheyhadthe
r i ght tor emovethecl umsybr onzestatue
of
Leni nwhi chhadi mposedi tsel f uponthe
ci ty andi ts publ i cs. 28
Agai nst
thi s moti f of per manenceandmetal ,
of col dness andter r or , I woul d
ar gue
that i t mi ght bemor eusef ul , at
l east f or themoment, to takeupLeni n' s
demand
f or tempor ar i ness. Whi l eI r ecogni ze
that thi s mi ght seemto consi gn
contempor ar yr adi cal wor kto obl i vi on(as`hi stor i cal '
publ i cwor ksconti nuedto
exi st under thegui seof i nvi si bi l i ty,
I donot bel i evethat thi s i s necessar i l ycause
f or
concer n. Ontheonehand, questi onsof
per manenceanddur abi l i tycannever
r eal l y
bepar t of a r adi cal pr oj ect . For an ambi ti on
of per manencywoul dal ways
f ai l to r ecogni zethever y mutabi l i ty
andenti r el y ar bi tr ar yconsti tuti on of ar t' s
publ i cs. Publ i c ar t i s l i ter al l yanar t cr eati ng
apubl i c, anar t cr eati ngsoci ety- one
that
may
or maynot becommensur atewi thany
r eal bodyof peopl ei nar eal ti me
or pl ace. Ontheother hand, the
wor kof r esear ch, hi stor i ogr aphyandconnoi s-
seur shi p wi l l conti nue never thel ess:
ther e ar er ecor ds, photogr aphs, texts,
wi tnessaccounts, someti meseventhe
actual obj ects. Astheear l ystr eet ar t of the
Russi anRevol uti ondemonstr ates:
per manent br onzewor kstheymaynot bebut
the
r ecor dof thei r i nter venti ons, what
Gr egoi r emi ght havecal l edthei r i nevi -
tabl edi dacti c pr esence,
l i ves on.
LENININ
RUINS
In
thespi r i t of thi s obser vati onI want to take onel ast l ook at thi s pi ctur eof
Leni nbei ngr emoved, ani magewhi chstands, I suppose, as a r ecor dof apubl i c
ar t pr oj ect
that has nowenter ed a di f f er ent (per haps ter mi nal ?) stage i n i ts
hi stor y.
WhenI f ast sawthi s i mage, I was str uck wi tha cer tai n sadness, f or i t
seemedtosay
somethi ngabout thei mpossi bi l i ty of al ter nati vef or ms of or gani -
zati on, thei mpossi bi l i tyof f i ndi ngawaytothi nkof
the
i mpor tance
of bothLeni n
andhowsomeof hi s i deas mi ght havebeenr epr esenteddi f f er entl y
. For af ter al l ,
muchwas madeof thestatue' s r emoval i ntheWest, andtheevent was usedto
dr amati c ef f ect as adenouement to thehi stor y of Communi sm. z 9 Ther e was,
however , somethi ngabout thi s pi ctur e whi chmademer ecal l another
i mage.
Theef f i gy of Leni nbei ngr emovedbyacr anebor e astr ongf or mal
r esembl ance
to thedr awi ngbyEl Li ssi tzky enti tl edADesi gnf or aRostr umf or Leni n(1920-
24) . Li ssi tzky' s
i mage woul d seemto be a r emi nder of the or i gi nal r adi cal
i mpul ses that moti vatedacer tai ni deaof publ i c ar t, ani deawhi chI havetr i edto
associ ate
wi ththenameof Leni n, but i t coul dal sostandas aki ndof por tenti on
of thei nevi tabl e metal wor kto come.
Coda
Ther ear etwoi mpor tant ar eas whi char ei ntegr al toanydi scussi ononthei dea
of publ i c ar t andwhi chI have har dl y eventoucheduponi nthi s paper . Fi r stl y,
ther e i s, of cour se, the questi on of di f f er ence as i t i s
obtai ned thr ough the
per f or mati vef uncti on of thewor ks themsel ves . Li ter al l y,
ther ear e thetypi cal
di vi si ons of l abour whi chor gani ze thecontents of wor ks
andthei r l ocati ons .
Sexual i tyandr ace ar e cr uci al toanunder standi ngof these i deol ogi cal
di vi si ons
of l abour . For i nstance, whether a statuei s
of amanor awoman, whether that
sexedf i gur e bear s a nameandahi stor y or whether i t i s si mpl y `gener i c' ar e
consi der ati ons of some
i mpor tance
. Si mi l ar l y,
a
col oni al hi stor yof
Eur ope, f or i n-
stance, coul dbetr acedsi mpl y thr ougha
mappi ngof wher epubl i c monuments
wer epl acedandhowandwhenthey wer er emoved. In thi s paper I have been
unabl eto i ncl ude any detai l ed di scussi on of these cr uci al di f f er ences si mpl y
becauseof what I f el t to be the necessi ty to r espond di r ectl y to a par ti cul ar
hi stor i cal andpol i ti cal event . I do exami nethequesti on of sexual
andcol oni al
di f f er ence wi th r espect to publ i c ar t andpubl i c monuments i n a f or thcomi ng
paper enti tl edPubl i cDr eams andPubl i c Wounds
Thesecondar eathat needs tobedeal t wi th i s thequesti on of ther epr esenta-
ti onof thepubl i cwor kandi ts al l egor i cal f utur e. For i f i nthi s paper I havear gued
that wor ks of ar t have becomethesubj ects of a deep r age andanger andhave
ther ef or ebeenattackedandof tendestr oyed, i t i s al sothecasethat theseattacks
have becomethe subj ects
of
wor ks of ar t themsel ves . Not onl y ar e ther e r eal
events depi cted(suchas thef el l i ngof theVendomeCol umn) , but ther ei s awhol e
genr eof wor ks whi chhave ei ther anti ci pated, i nci tedor si mpl y pr ovi dedthe
al l egor i cal backgr oundf or thi s typeof semi oti c di stur bance of thepubl i c space.
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
St at ue
of Leni n bei ng r emovedf r omBuc har es t ( 1990)
Phot o :
Mar k Lewi s
14
LENININRUINS
El Li ssi t zky: ADesi gnf or aRost r umf or Leni n( 1920- 24)
Phot o: Mar k Lewi s
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Notes
1 .

Thi s paper i s basedonatal k gi venf or thesymposi umArt Creati ng
Soci etyorgani zedby
StephenWi l l ats at
TheMuseumof ModernArt, Oxf ordEngl andi n
J une 1 990. For the
exhi bi ti onthat accompani edthi s symposi um, I i nstal l edi nthe
streets of Oxf ord a 1 / 3
scal epl aster model of the statue of Leni n that was
recentl y removed f romBucharest,
Romani a. Thank s toJ ef f Brandt f or research and
bui l di ng assi stance. Astatueof Leni n
was al so i nstal l ed near theparl i ament bui l di ngs
i i n Quebec Ci tyi n November
1 990
.
Si mi l ar statues wi l l bei nstal l edpubl i cl y
i nMontreal andToronto i n
1 991
.
2.

Other countri es are al so tak i ng part i n thi s
reorgani zati on of thei r publ i c art. For
i nstance, South Yemenwhi chrecentl y merged
wi th NorthYemen, has undertak ento
remove al l i ts Leni ns bytheendof theyear .
3.

Thi s i nf ormati onwas
ascertai ned duri ng aphonecal l totheMayor' s of f i ce i nMay
of thi s
year .
4.

See my "Technol ogi es
of Publ i c Art, " Vanguard Vol ume 1 6, No.
5
( Vancouver,
November 1 987)
.
Al so"ThePubl i c
I magi nary, " byMark Lewi s, J ani neMarchessaul t and
Andrew
Payne, Parachute48( Montreal , October
1 987)
andmy
"Photography, Democ-
racyandthePubl i c
Body, " Parachute55 ( Montreal , August, 1 989)
.
5.

Robert Musi l , as quoted
by Mari na Warner i n her book Monuments. and
Mai dens
( London:
Pi cador, 1 987) .
6.

Si gmund
Freud, Fi veLectures onPsychoanal ysts, New
York :
W
. W. Norton.
7.

TheI l l ustratedLondon
News ( May27, 1 871 ) .
8.

E. H.
Kantorowi cz, TheKi ng' s Two Bodi es ( Pri nceton: Pri nceton
Uni versi ty Press,
1 957) . Al so f or ani nteresti ng cri ti que as wel l as compl ementary
text seeLoui s Mari n,
Portrai t of
theKi ng ( London: Macmi l l anPress,
1 988) .
9.

Dzhi rzhi nsk y, a Pol i sh
ci ti zen whowas the f ounder of the Sovi et secret
pol i ce, was
monumental i sed
i nmetal i n what used to be cal l ed Dzhi rzhi nsk y Square
( Nowcal l ed
Bank Square)
. I n a cel ebrated i nci dent, students cl i mbedup
the statue and- pai nted i ts
hands red. The
Government l ater orderedtheremoval of thestatue.
1 0. TheVi ctoryMonument i n
Baghdadconsi sts of apai r of si xtyf oot arms whi chhol d two
swordsthat cross over
Vi ctorySquaresome1 40f eet i ntheai r . Thearms are
bronzecast .
f romthe actual arms
of Presi dent SaddamHussei n. Hussei n' s f i sts emerge
f romtwo
heaps of
hel mets, each hel met f romadead I rani an sol di er,
wi th bul l et hol es that are
stai ned wi th
the bl ood of expl odi ng heads. Sami r al - Khal d
has suggested that the
monument beretai ned so
that i t canstand as aremi nder of thef ear andtyrannybrought
onbythemegal omani aof
Hussei n. al - KhaBl remi nds usthat theWest weref ar too
hasty
i nthei r destructi onof f asci st publ i c
art af ter thef al l of the3rdRei ch. SeeSami r Al Khal i l ' s
Rear Wi ndow: TheArchi tecture of Fear,
a documentary f or Channel 4 Tel evi si on
( Engl and) ; produced byTari qAl l f or Bandung
Producti ons Ltd.
1 1 .

Georges Batai l l e,
"Archi tecture, " Documents, no. 2, May1 929( OC1
: 1 71 ) . As quoted i n
Deni s Hol l i er,
Agai nstArchi tecture; TheWri ti ngs of GeorgesBatai l l e
( Cambri dge: MI T
Press, 1 989) Af ter
quoti ngthi s passagef romBatai l l e, Hol l i er suggests that we
onl yhave
tol ook at contemporary
' government i deas' on monumental i tyto real i ze that
Batai l l e
wasnot ' j umpi ng
to concl usi ons. ' Hol l i er f i nds thi s exampl ei nLe
Moddei nMay1 973
f romthe then
Mi ni ster of Cul tural Af f ai rs, Mauri ce Druon:
I amconvi ncedthat oneof the
reasons f or what wecertai nl ymust cal l urbandecadence
resul ts f romthe absence
i n our ci ti es of templ es, pal aces, statues, or anythi ng that
represents the superi or f aci l i ti es
of humanbei ngs: , f ai th, thought and wi l l . Anurban
LENININRUINS
c i vi l i z at i on' s vi t al i t y i s meas uredperhaps by t he
pres t i gi ous monument s i t i s c apabl eof
erec t i ng
.
12. See Cl audet t eHoul de
( edi t or) , Images of t heFrenc hRevol ut i on,
( Quebec : Mus eeDu
Quebec ,
1989)
13.
Dani el Hermant , "Des t ruc t i ons et vandal i s mependant l aRevol ut i onf ranc ai s e, "Annal es
E
. S. C
. ,
33 ( 1978) ,
Quot ed i n Ant hony
Vi dl er, "Monument s Parl ant s ", Art andText 33
( Mel bourne, Wi nt er
1989) .
14
. Images of t heFrenc hRevol ut i on ( i bi d)
15 .
SeeAnt hony Vi dl er,
"Monument s Parl ant s : Gregoi re, Lenoi re
andt heSi gns of Hi s t ory",
Art andText 33
( Mel bourne, Wi nt er
1989) .
Andal s o Ant hony Vi dl er,
TheWri t i ngof t he
Wal l s: Arc hi t ec t ural Theory
i n t heLat eEnl i ght enment ( Pri nc et on:
Pri nc et on Arc hi t ec -
t ural Pres s , 1987) .
16.

The
' i dea' of publ i c art i s c urrent l y enj oyi ng
a l ot of at t ent i on by art c urat ors and
mus eums . Us ual l y,
t hei r i dea of bei ngpubl i c means l i t eral l y
pl ac i ng t heworkout on t he
s t reet . ' Not onl y i s t hi s
a very narrowunders t andi ng of what
f orms publ i c i t y c an t ake,
but by
c i rc umvent i ngany c ri t i c al di s c us s i on of t herol e of
art i n c reat i ng a publ i c andi t s
hi s t ori c al
proj ec t s i n t hi s regard, s uc ha move of t en
unwi t t i ngl y re- dupl i c at es t hevery
di vi s i ons
of l abour ands ys t ems of c ont rol , et c . , t hat i t
os t ens i bl y s et s out t o c hal l engeand
undermi ne. For moredi s c us s i on on t hi s mat t er
s eemy "TheTec hnol ogi es of Publ i c Art "
( i bi d)
.
17.
V. I . Leni n, "Ont heMonument s of
t heRepubl i c " ( Aprf 12, 1918) , On Li t erat ure
andArt
( Mos c ow: Progres s Publ i s hers , 1967)
18. V. I . Leni n, Compl et eCol l ec t ed
Works , V. 12
19. A. V. Lunac hars ky,
"Leni n o Monument al anoi propogande",
Leni n i i z obraz i t el noe
i s kus s t vo ( Mos c ow
:
1977) ,
quot ed i n Vl adi mi r Tol s t oy, "Art Born of t he
Oc t ober
Revol ut i on",
St reet Art of t heRevol ut i on ( London : Thames and
Huds on, 1990)
20. A. V. Lunac hars ky ( i bi d)
21.

In t hees s ay "On t he
Monument s of t heRepubl i c ", Leni n does i n f ac t
' order' t hat t hos e
"monument s
erec t edi n honor of t s ars andt hei r mi ni ons andwhi c h
have no hi s t ori c al
or art i s t i c
val uearet o be removedf romt he s quares ands t reet s
ands t ored up or us ed
f or ut i l i t ari an
purpos es . " Hedi dhowever order t hat s uc ha programof
adj udi c at i on and
removal s houl d
bedone under t he aus pi c es of a s pec i al c ommi s s i on
madeup of t he
Peopl e' s Commi s s ars
f or Educ at i on and Propert y of t heRepubl i c and
t he c hi ef of t he
Fi ne Art s depart ment of t he
Commi s s ari at f or Educ at i on. t oget her t hey were t o
work
wi t h t heArt Col l egi umof
Mos c owandPet rograd. Thi s does s ugges t . t hat Leni n
was
s ympat het i c t o t he
i dea t hat pol i t i c i ans al onewoul dbeunabl e t o dec i de
whi c hworks
wereof ' meri t ' ,
et c. , andt hat hef el t i t nec es s ary f or' expert s ' t o be
c ons ul t ed. Des pi t e,
f or exampl e, t he
f ac t t hat many hundreds of rel i gi ous i c ons weredes t royed, i t
i s s t i l l t he
c as et hat Leni n' s approac h
t o t heart of t hepas t was s i gni f i c ant l y mores ophi s t i c at edt han
ei t her t hel egi s l at ors
of t heFrenc hRevol ut i on andmany of t hec urrent ' pos t - c ommuni s t '
government s i n eas t ern Europe. An
exc ept i onwoul ds eemt o bet heCz ec hgovernment
of Havel , whorec ent l y
s ugges t edt hat many of t hes oc i al i s t real i s t monument s s houl d
be
pl ac ed,
undamagedi n a f ores t s o t hat ' nat ure' woul dgrowaroundand
over t hem.
22. Bl oc k' s s ens i bi l i t y has ,
by and l arge, been l ac ki ng i n pres ent day Eas t ern Europe.
However, t herehavebeen exc ept i ons . For i ns t anc e, t herei s a groupi n
eas t ern Germany
c al l ed "TheMonument s of t heDDRCommi t t ee"
who havebeen argui ng t hat noneof t he
ol d
publ i c works s houl d bet orn down or des t royed
prec i pi t ous l y. They havei ns i s t ed
t hat t herebegenerous publ i c c ons ul t at i on andt hat
t heart i s t s of t heworks ( i f s t i l l al i ve)
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
.

shoul d be
i ncl uded i n anydi scussi on concer ni ng t hef ut ur ef at e
of t hewor ks.
23.

Bl ai se Pascal , " Les
Pr ovi nci al es" i n Oeuvr es ( Par i s : Gal l i mar d, 1950) . Quot ed
i n Loui s
Mar i n, Por t r ai t of t heKi ng
( London: Macmi l l anPr ess, 1988) .
24. I nvadi ng ar mi es as
wel l as r evol ut i onar y ar mi es havehi st or i cal l y used t hemet al f r om
st at uar y t o hel p i n t hepr oduct i on
of weapons. When t he Ger mans wer ei nvadi ng t he
Sovi et Uni on, t hey act ual l y mel t ed downst at ues of t he' Czar and
hi s mi ni ons' t hat st i l l
r emai ned
i n or der t o hel p i n t he manuf act ur eof guns f or
t hecampai gn.
25.
I nt er est i ngl y enough, t he
Col umn at Vendomewas bui l t ont hespot wher e
ast at uet o
Loui s t heI Vhad been dest r oyedbyt he r evol ut i onar i es
i n 1792. Theor i gi nal st at ueof
Napol eonwaspl acedont opof t hecol umni n1810.
I n 1814, t heBour bonswer er est or ed
andt hest at uewas t akendown. Twent y
or t hi r t yyear s l at er , under Ki ng Loui s Phi l l i pe,
anot her st at ue of Napol eon
was pl aced t her e, t hi s t i me r epr esent i ng ' t he Emper or
st andi ng onaheap
of cannon bal l s. Napol eon I I I had t hi s st at ue r emoved
andi nst ead
r epl aced
i t wi t har epr oduct i onof t heor i gi nal st at ueof Napol eon
i nRomancost umeand
cr ownedwi t h
al aur el wr eat h.
26. As r epor t ed i n t he Sout h
Chi naMor ni ngPost ( August 31, 1966) .
27.
As
manyhave poi nt ed out , but sel domr epor t ed i n t he West er n
Medi a, as t he t anks
ent er edt he squar e, t he st udent s st ood
i n f r ont of t hei r ' st at ue' andsang t he Soci al i st
I nt er nat i onal . For abr i ef moment , t hen t heSt at ue
of Li ber t ybecamesomet hi ngel se, i t s
meani ng i n t he cont ext of soci al i st
st udent s who had bui l t a r epl i ca of i t , was
t r ansf or med. Youmi ght sayt hat i t s meani ngwasr escuedf r omi t s
per ver si onwi t hi n t he
Amer i can mar ket phenomenon. As Lou Reed has apt l y
put i t , t he i nscr i pt i on on t he
St at ueof Li ber t y
shoul d r ead " Gi ve meyour t i r ed, your hungr y, your poor , andI ' l l
pi ss
on t hem. " ( Lou
Reed, " Di r t y Boul evar d" ont he LPNewYor k,
Si r e Recor ds, 1989)
28. Thest at uewas bui l t byt heRomani anar t i st Bor i s Car agea
i n 1960. Car agea' s desi gnwas
sel ect ed af t er anat i onal
compet i t i on. But as anyonef ami l i ar wi t h st at ues of Leni ni n
t he
Sovi et Uni onknows, hi s desi gn was si mpl yar epl i ca
of oneof t hest andar d poses used
t o depi ct Leni n.
29.
Cover ageof t her emoval
of Car agea' s st at ue i n Buchar est was gi venpr omi nence
onal l
f our Amer i can
net wor ks f or over t hr eedays. I mages of t he st at ue bei ng
r i pped f r omi t s
pedest al wer e
over l ai dwi t h pr edi ct abl eand cheapdi al ogueabout t he
' end of commu
ni sm' . Thef act
t hat East er nEur opeancr anes wer enot upt ot hej obandt hat anAmer i can
cr ane hadt o
be bor r owed was gi venpar t i cul ar emphasi s!
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
FOURTHESESON
IDEOLOGY*
Anthony Gi ddens
The concept of i deol ogy
has been debated f or some twohundr edyear s
wi thi n
andwi thout the
di sci pl i nes
of
phi l osophy, pol i ti cs andsoci ol ogy. If ther e ar e such
thi ngs as contested concepts,
and i f ther e wer e a pr i ze f or the most contested
concept, the concept of i deol ogy
woul d ver y near l y r ankf i r st. Nobody caneven
deci de howto pr onounce i t! Gi ven
the exi stence of these tr adi ti onal debates and
pr obl ems concer ni ngthei deol ogi cal content of i deol ogy
i tsel f ,
one
mi ght thi nki t
best
to
thr owone' s hands upi n despai r , anddi scar d the noti on al together
. But I
do not thi nk such a
r eacti onwoul d bej usti f i ed. I want toar gue that i t i s possi bl e
to poi nt to some
modes of anal yzi ng i deol ogy that at l east pr ovi dea
f r amewor k
f or copi ng
wi th the i ssues that the concept r ai ses .
Al ongthese l i nes, I wi sh to menti on f our theses, and togi ve at l east acur sor y
anal ysi s of them. Br i ef l y, I shal l cl ai m, f i r st, that theconcept of i deol ogy
has to
be
separ ated out f r omthe content of sci ence; second, that i t i s empty of
content
because
what makes bel i ef systems i deol ogi cal i s thei r i ncor por ati on
wi thi n
systems
of domi nati on; thi r d, that to under stand thi s i ncor por ati on we
must
anal yze the mode i n
whi chpatter ns of si gni f i cati on ar e i ncor por ated
wi thi n the
medi umof
day- to- daypr acti ces; f i nal l y, that we shoul d be cr i ti cal of the "domi -
nant i deol ogy thesi s"
el abor atedi ndi f f er ent ver si ons by such author s as Par sons,
Al thusser and Haber mas
.
Myf i r st thesi s i s
that the noti onof i deol ogy has to be di sconnected f r omthe
phi l osophy
of sci ence, wi thwhi chi n thepast i t has al most i nevi tabl y beenbound
up. The
ter mi deol ogywas coi nedas aposi ti ve ter m, meani ngsomethi ngl i ke an
al l - embr aci ng and encycl opaedi c f or mof knowl edge, capabl eof
cutti ng thr ough
the r esi stanceof pr ej udi ce topr oducea f or mof cer tai n knowl edge
upon whi ch
soci al technol ogy coul d i n tur n be f ounded. As i s wel l
known,
Napol eon
i s
supposed to have r ever sed thi s per specti ve, tr eati ng i deol ogy
as a der ogator y
apel l ati on. Ideol ogy became r egar ded as
"that whi chl i es beyond the mar gi ns of
sci ence"- as the ver y r eposi tor y of pr ej udi ce
andobf uscati on. "Ideol ogy", hence-
f or th, i s supposed i n some way to
f uncti on as a boundar y condi ti on of sci ence.
NowI want to r ej ect any def i ni ti on of
i deol ogy as f al si ty, as non- sci ence or as
' poor sci ence' - the concept of i deol ogyshoul d
not
be
f or mul ated by compar i ng
or contr asti ng i t wi th the achi evements of sci ence
.
In the space of these br i ef r emar ks,
obvi ousl y, I don' t have ti me to i l l ustr ate
howsuch connecti ons wi th sci encehavebeen
par t of thehi stor y of thenoti onof
*Edi tor s' note: The f ol l owi ng thr ee i ntr oductor y contr i buti ons compr i se
a r evi sed and edi ted ver si on
of r emar ks f i r st pr esented to "Cur r ent Contr over si es
i n
the theor y
of Ideol ogy: AnInter nati onal
Symposi um; " The Pol ytechni c of
Centr al London, Engl and. Thi s secti on on "Di sappear i ng Ideol ogy"
was or i gi nal l y commi ssi oned byJ ohn
Keane f or the CJ PST.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
i deol ogy. Never t hel ess, I
t ake i t t hat t he ent angl ement s
t o whi ch i t l eads ar e
f ai r l y cl ear . Compar e, f or
exampl e, t he r espect i ve vi ews of Popper andAl t husser ,
bot h of whomwi sh
t o demar cat e i n a cl ear - cut f ashi on bet weenwhat
count s as
sci ence and
what does not . Popper ' s pr i me exampl es
of i deol ogi es or pseudo-
sci ences- Mar xi smand psychoanal ysi s- ar e f or
Al t husser pr eci sel y t he t ype
cases of sci ences, of f or ms of knowl edge
whi ch have br oken f r ee f r omi deol ogy. I
consi der t hi s r at her
comi c opposi t i on t o be based upon a f al se st ar t i ng poi nt . I
want t o r ej ect t he ar gument t hat
i deol ogy can be def i ned i n r ef er ence t o t r ut h
cl ai ms . AndI al so want
t o r ej ect t he i dea t hat i deol ogy can be def i ned i n t er ms of
any
speci f i c cont ent at al l . The si gni f i cance of t hese poi nt s wi l l , I
hope, become
appar ent when
I move t o my second ar gument .
My second
t hesi s i s t hi s : t he concept of i deol ogy shoul d be r ef or mul at ed i n
r el at i on t o a t heor y
of power and domi nat i on- t o t he modes i n whi ch
syst ems of
si gni f i cat i on ent er
i nt o t he exi st ence of sect i onal f or ms of domi nat i on.
Thi s can
be i l l ust r at ed wi t h r ef er ence t o Mar x' s wr i t i ngs on
i deol ogy. Mar x wr ot e a gr eat
deal about i deol ogy, andat t he same t i me
har dl y anyt hi ng at al l . Agr eat deal of
hi s subst ant i ve wr i t i ng, i ncl udi ng
Capi t al , i s a cr i t i que of i deol ogy, i n t he sense
t hat i t i s a cr i t i que
of pol i t i cal economy. But i f one act ual l y sear ches t hr ough
Mar x' s wr i t i ngs
f or anal yses of a concept of i deol ogy as such- most of t hem
appear i n The Ger man I deol ogy- t her e
ar e ver y f ewsour ces t o be f ound wher e
Mar x, set s out a syst emat i c
exposi t i on of t he not i on. I n Mar x one f i nds onl y
var i ous possi bl e f or mul at i ons
of what t he concept of i deol ogy means . I n The
Ger man I deol ogy, one can di st i ngui sh
t wo senses i n whi ch Mar x uses t he t er m.
On t he one hand, t her e
ar e t he f amous obser vat i ons, di scussed by Kof man and
ot her s, about howt he i deol ogi st s wr i t e
hi st or y upsi de down. The i deol ogi st s ar e
accused of wr i t i ng hi st or y
as seent hr ough a camer a obscur a, as i f i t wer e anecho
of human
consci ousness . These ki nds of comment s occur f r equent l y i n
The
Ger manI deol ogy
and occasi onal l y el sewher e i n Mar x' s wr i t i ngs, and
t hey
i mpl y
t hat t he way
of demyst i f yi ng hi st or y i s t o set i t r i ght
way
up
agai n, by st udyi ng
hi st or y as i t r eal l y
i s .
I n The Ger man I deol ogy,
however , t her e i s anot her cel ebr at ed asser t i on about
i deol ogy, namel y, t hat t he
i deas i n any gi ven epoch ar e above al l t he i deas of t he
domi nant cl ass . Accor di ng
t o t hi s pr oposi t i on, t he domi nant cl ass has access t o
not i ons whi ch i t can i n
some sense di ssemi nat e t o l egi t i mat e i t s owndomi nat i on.
Thi s ver si on of t he t heor y
of i deol ogy ; connect s i deol ogy t o t he pr obl emof
domi nat i on. The Ger man i deol ogi st s
ar e seen t o wr i t e hi st or y f r oma poi nt of
vi ew
t hat ser ves t o sanct i ont he exi st i ng f or ms of power i n
t he soci et i es i n whi ch
t hey ar e t he i nt el l ect ual l eader s . Dr awi ng upon t hi s
second Mar xi an st r and, I
t her ef or e pr opose t o i nt er pr et t he concept of i deol ogy
i n t he f ol l owi ng way. I
want t o def i ne i deol ogy as t he mode i n whi ch f or ms
of si gni f i cat i on ar e i ncor por -
at ed wi t hi nsyst ems of domi nat i onso as t o sanct i on
t hei r cont i nuance. I t ake i t t o
be t he t ype
case of such a not i on of i deol ogy t hat sect i onal
i nt er est s ar e r epr e-
sent ed
as
uni ver sal
i nt er est s . Thi s i s t he basi c mode i n whi ch f or ms
of si gni f i ca-
t i on
ar e
i ncor por at ed wi t hi n syst ems of domi nat i on i n cl ass
soci et i es .
I n my
opi ni on, t hi s poi nt
i s exempl i f i ed i n Capi t al , wher e Mar x t r i ed t o demonst r at e
DISAPPEARING
IDEOLOGY
t hat pol i t i cal economy i s i deol ogi cal i ns of ar as i t conceal s
t heoperat i on of
capi t al i s mas a cl as s s ys t em. Thepol i t i cal economi s t s
f ai l ed
t o
i ncorporat e an
account of ei t her t hehi s t ori cal ori gi ns of expropri at edl abour
or of t henat ureof
s urpl us val ue.
Myt hi rdt hes i s i s t hat t heanal ys i s of i deol ogy
mus t comet o t erms wi t h recent
devel opment s i n t he phi l os ophy of
l anguageand act i on. Verybri ef l y, t hes e
devel opment s marka t rans i t i on f roma phi l os ophy
of l anguagebas ed upont he
not i on t hat
l anguage i s above al l a medi umof
des cri bi ng t he worl d, t o an
i nt erpret at i onof
l anguagewhi ch emphas i zes l anguageas
praxi s or as t he' ot her
f ace' of act i on. Languagei s
i nt ert wi ned wi t h everydaypract i ces .
If oneacknow-
l edges t hes i gni f i canceof t hi s phi l os ophi cal
s hi f t , i t has i mmedi at e
i mpl i cat i ons ,
I t hi nk, f or t heprobl emof i deol ogy.
Mos t t radi t i onal t reat ment s of i deol ogy
have
exaggerai ed t hei mport anceof
propos i t i onal bel i ef cl ai ms as component s of
i deol ogi es
. Thi s poi nt canbei l l us t rat ed wi t h a mundane
exampl e. Res earchers
vi s i t a
f act oryand as kworkers ques t i ons l i ke: What do you
t hi nkof t heQueen?
What do yout hi nkof t heRoyal Weddi ng?Doyou
bel i evet hat management and
workers workt oget her l i kea t eam?Theres earchers
t heni magi net hat t heyhave
uncoveredkey f eat ures of i deol ogyby
vi rt ueof t hei r f i ndi ng t hat t herei s s ome
agreement about t hecont i nui ng
i mport anceof t he rol e of t he monarchy, et c .
Nowwhi l eI do not wi s h t o denyt he
pos s i bl es i gni f i canceof t hi s ki ndof f i ndi ng,
i t does s eemt o met o behi ghl yi mport ant
not t o l i mi t t henot i onof i deol ogy
t o
s uch
f ormul at i ons . Thi s i s becaus et hemos t
s ubt l e and i nt eres t i ng f orms of
i deol ogy
aret hos ei ncorporat edwi t hi nday-t o-day
pract i ces . Whi l enot neces s ar-
i l y
propos i t i onal bel i ef s , t hes ef orms of i deol ogy
are very of t ent he modes
i n
whi ch s i gni f i cat i oni s i ncorporat ed as part and
parcel of what onedoes i ndai l y
l i f e. If I mayagai npurs uet heprevi ous l y
ment i oned exampl e: morei mport ant
t hanwhet her or not workers agreet hat t hey
andmanagement area t eamaret he
ways
i nwhi chmodes of s i gni f i cat i ons ervet o
producea dai l yworl d i nwhi ch
t he
works i t uat i onandeconomi c l i f eare
t reat edas es s ent i al l ys eparat ef rom
pol i t i cal
l i f e, f romt hei r l i ves as ci t i zens . The
i ns ul at i onof t heeconomi c f romt he
pol i t i cal
I t aket o beoneof t hemaj or
mechani s ms of cl as s domi nat i on. Themos t s ubt l e
f orms of i deol ogyareburi ed
i nt hemodes i nwhi chconcret e, day-t o-day
pract i ces
areorgani zed. If ones i mpl y
t reat s i deol ogyas t hecont ent of propos i t i onal
bel i ef
s ys t ems , a vas t areaof human
act i onwhi ch i s i deol ogi cal l yrel evant i s
excl uded.
Myf i nal t hes i s deri ves f romt hef i rs t t hree.
I t hi nki t i mperat i vet o accept t he
broad l i ne of argument whi ch wri t ers s uch as
Abercrombi eand Turner have
s ugges t ed i nat t acki ngwhat t heycal l ' t he
domi nant i deol ogyconcept i on' wi t hi n
t hes oci al s ci ences . Int hei r vi ew, bot h Lef t
and Ri ght havegreat l yexaggerat ed
t hedegreet o whi ch t here i s an
i deol ogi cal cons ens us among t he maj ori t y of
peopl ei ndi f f erent cl as s es , bot h
i ncont emporarys oci et i es and i ns oci et i es
pri or
t o capi t al i s m. They
i ndi ct Pars oni anf unct i onal i s mand i t s emphas i s on
t he
s i gni f i canceof a common
val ues ys t emas a co-ordi nat i ng mechani s mof
order .
But
t hey al s o cri t i ci ze i t s l ef t vari ant , t heAl t hus s eri an
charact eri zat i on of
' i deol ogi cal s t at eapparat us es ' . To t hi s
l i s t I woul d add, s omewhat provocat i vel y,
Habermas ' di s cus s i onof l egi t i mat i on.
I t hi nkones houl d be as s kept i cal of t he
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
cl ai mt hat l egi t i mat i on
i s a f undament al mode i n whi ch t he
coher ence of
cl as s - domi nat ed
s oci et i es i s s ecur ed as
of t hes e ot her t heor i es of cons ens ual
i deol ogy. I t
i s par t i cul ar l y i mpor t ant t o
be caut i ous about t he t hes i s t hat cr i s es
of
l egi t i mat i on ar e t he mai n s our ces
of t ens i on whi ch t hr eat en t he s t abi l i t y
of
Wes t er n capi t al i s t s oci et i es
. Such a vi ewpr es umes - i n company wi t h
Par s ons
and Al t hus s er - t hat s oci al
or der r es t s upon nor mat i ve
cons ens us - t hat nor ma-
t i ve cons ens us , mi xed wi t h
a l i t t l e pol i ce power and coer ci on,
i s
t he mai n
mechani s mwher eby
s ect i onal i nt er es t s ar e hel d t oget her i n a
cl as s s oci et y
.
But
t her e i s good
r eas on t o ques t i on j us t s uch a pr es umpt i on.
THE
I MPOSSI BI LI TYOFSOCI ETY
Er nes t o Lacl au
Ki ng' s Col l ege
Cambr i dge
Engl and
I n t hes e br i ef r emar ks I s houl d l i ke t o r ef er
t o
s ever al
pr obl ems whi ch ar e
cent r al t o t he cont empor ar y Mar xi s t t heor y
of i deol ogy. I n di s cus s i ng t hes e
pr obl ems , i t i s evi dent t hat we pr es ent l y l i ve at t he
cent r e of a t heor et i cal
par adox. The t er ms of t hi s par adox coul d
be f or mul at ed as f ol l ows : i n no
pr evi ous per i od has r ef l ect i on upon ' i deol ogy'
been s o much at t he cent r e of
Mar xi s t t heor et i cal appr oaches ; at t he s ame t i me,
however , i n no ot her per i od
have t he l i mi t s andr ef er ent i al i dent i t y
of
' t he
i deol ogi cal ' become s o bl ur r ed and
pr obl emat i c. I f t he i ncr eas i ng i nt er es t i n
i deol ogy r uns par al l el t o a wi deni ng of
t he hi s t or i cal ef f ect i vi t y at t r i but ed t o what
was t r adi t i onal l y cons i der ed as t he
domai n of t he ' s uper s t r uct ur es ' - and t hi s wi deni ng
i s a r es pons e. t o t he cr i s i s of
an
economi s t i c and r educt i oni s t i c concept i on of Mar xi s m- t hen t hat ver y
cr i s i s
put s i nt o ques t i on t he s oci al t ot al i t y cons t i t ut ed ar ound t he bas e- s uper s t r uct ur e
di s t i nct i on. As a cons equence, i t i s no l onger
pos s i bl e t o
i dent i f y
t he obj ect
' i deol ogy' i n t er ms of a t opogr aphy of t he s oci al .
Wi t hi n t he Mar xi s t
t r adi t i on, we can i dent i f y t wo cl as s i cal appr oaches t o t he
pr obl em
of i deol ogy. Thes e appr oaches have of t en- but not al ways - been
combi ned. For one of t hem, ' i deol ogy'
i s t hought t o be a l evel of t he s oci al t ot al i t y ;
f or t he ot her , i t i s i dent i f i ed wi t h f al s e
cons ci ous nes s . Today, bot h appr oaches
appear t o have been under mi ned
as a cons equence of t he cr i s i s of t he as s ump-
t i ons on whi ch t hey wer e gr ounded: t he
val i di t y of t he f i r s t depended on a
concept i on of s oci et y as an i nt el l i gi bl e t ot al i t y, i t s el f
concei ved as t he s t r uct ur e
upon whi ch i t s par t i al el ement s and pr oces s es ar e
f ounded
.
The val i di t y of t he
s econd appr oach pr es uppos eda concept i on of human
agency- a s ubj ect
havi ng
an. ul t i mat e es s ent i al homogenei t y whos e mi s r ecogni t i on
was pos t ul at ed as t he
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
source of ' i deol ogy' .
I n t hi s respect , t he t wo
approaches were grounded i n an
essent i al i st
concept i on of bot h soci et y and soci al
agency. To see cl earl y t he
probl ems whi ch
have l ed t het heory of i deol ogy t o
i t s present i mpasse, weneedt o
st udy t he cri si s of
t hi s essent i al i st concept i on
i n i t s t wovari ant s.
Let me
t urn, f i rst , t o t he cri si s of t heconcept of soci al
t ot al i t y. Theambi t i onof
al l hol i st i c approaches
had been t o f i x t he meani ng of
any el ement or soci al
process out si dei t sel f ,
t hat
i s,
i nasyst emof rel at i ons wi t hot her el ement s.
I nt hi s
respect , t he base- superst ruct ure model
pl ayed an ambi guous rol e: i f i t assert ed
t he rel at i onal charact er of t he i dent i t y of bot h
base and superst ruct ure, at
t he
same
t i me i t endowed t hat rel at i onal syst em
wi t h acent re. And so, i n a
very
Hegel i an
f ashi on, t hesuperst ruct ures endedup t aki ng
t hei r revengeby assert i ng
t he
' essent i al i t y'
of
t he appearances. More i mport ant l y,
t he st ruct ural t ot al i t y
was t o present
i t sel f as an obj ect havi ng a
posi t i vi t y of i t s own, whi ch i t was
possi bl e t o descri be and
t o def i ne. I n t hi s sense, t hi s t ot al i t y operat ed
as an
underl yi ngpri nci pl eof i nt el l i gi bi l i t y of
t hesoci al order . Thest at us of t hi s
t ot al i t y
was t hat of an essence of
t he
soci al
order whi ch had t o be recogni zed
behi nd t he
empi ri cal vari at i ons expressedat
t he surf ace of soci al l i f e. (Not e
t hat what i s at
st akeherei s not t heopposi t i on,
st ruct ural i smvs. hi st ori ci sm.
I t does not mat t er
i f t he t ot al i t y i s synchroni c or
di achroni c; t he i mport ant
poi nt i s t hat i n bot h
cases i t i s af oundi ng
t ot al i t y whi ch present s i t sel f as an
i nt el l i gi bl e obj ect of
' knowl edge'
[ cogni t i o] concei ved as a process or
re- cogni t i on. ) Agai nst t hi s
essent i al i st
vi si onwet endnowadays t oaccept t he i nf i ni t ude
of t hesoci al , t hat i s,
t he f act t hat any st ruct ural syst emi s
l i mi t ed, t hat i t i s al ways
surrounded by an
' excess of meani ng'
whi ch i t
i s
unabl et o mast er and t hat , consequent l y,
' soci et y'
as auni t ary
and i nt el l i gi bl e obj ect whi ch grounds i t s own
part i al processes i s an
i mpossi bi l i t y
. Let us exami ne t he doubl e movement
t hat t hi s recogni t i on
i nvol ves. Thegreat advance carri edout by st ruct ural i sm
was t he recogni t i onof
t he rel at i onal charact er of any soci al i dent i t y; i t s l i mi t was
i t s t ransf ormat i onof
t hose
rel at i ons i nt o a syst em, i nt o an i dent i f i abl e
and i nt el l i gi bl eobj ect (i . e. , i nt o
an essence) . But i f wemai nt ai n t he rel at i onal
charact er of any i dent i t y and
i f , at
t he samet i me, werenounce t hef i xat i on of
t hose i dent i t i es i n a syst em, t hen
t he
soci al must bei dent i f i ed wi t h
t he i nf i ni t epl ay of di f f erences, t hat i s, wi t hwhat
i n
t hest ri ct est sense of t he t ermwe
cancal l di scourse- on t hecondi t i on, of course,
t hat wel i berat e t he concept of
di scourse f romi t s rest ri ct i ve meani ng as
speech
and wri t i ng.
Thi s
f i rst movement t hus i mpl i es t hei mpossi bi l i t y of
f i xi ng meani ng. But t hi s
cannot be
t heend
of
t hemat t er. Adi scoursei nwhi ch
meani ngcannot possi bl y be
f i xed i s not hi ng el se but t he di scourse of t he psychot i c.
Thesecond movement
t heref ore consi st s i n t he at t empt t o ef f ect t hi s
ul t i mat el y i mpossi bl e f i xat i on.
The
soci al
i s not onl y t hei nf i ni t epl ay of di f f erences.
I t i s al sot he at t empt t ol i mi t
t hat pl ay, t o domest i cat ei nf i ni t ude, t oembrace
i t wi t hi nt hef i ni t udeof an order
.
But t hi s order- or st ruct ure- no
l onger t akes t hef ormof an underl yi ng essence
of t hesoci al ; rat her,
i t
i s
an at t empt - by def i ni t i on unst abl e and precari ous- of
act i ng
over t hat ' soci al ' , of hegemoni zi ngi t . I naway
whi chresembl es t heonewe
are
pursui ng here, Saussureat t empt ed t ol i mi t t he
pri nci pl eof t he arbi t rari ness
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
of t he si gn wi t h
t he asser t i on of t he r el at i ve
char act er of t hat ar bi t r ar i ness
. Thus,
t he pr obl em
of t he soci al t ot al i t y i s
posed i n newt er ms : t he
' t ot al i t y' does not
est abl i sh t he
l i mi t s of ' t he
soci al ' by t r ansf or mi ng t he
l at t er i nt o a det er mi nat e
obj ect
( i . e. , ' soci et y' ) . Rat her , t he
soci al al ways exceeds t he
l i mi t s of t he at t empt s
t o
const i t ut e soci et y. At t he
same t i me, however , t hat
' t ot al i t y' does not di sap-
pear : i f t he sut ur e i t at t empt s
i s ul t i mat el y i mpossi bl e,
i t i s never t hel ess possi bl e
t o pr oceed t o a r el at i ve
f i xat i on of t he soci al t hr ough
t he i nst i t ut e of nodal poi nt s
.
But i f t hi s
i s
t he
case, quest i ons concer ni ng
t hose nodal poi nt s and t hei r
r el at i ve
wei ght
cannot be det er mi nedsub speci es
aet er ni t at i s. Each
soci al f or mat i on has
i t s own
f or ms of det er mi nat i on
and r el at i ve aut onomy,
whi ch ar e al ways i nst i -
t ut ed
t hr ough a compl ex
pr ocess of over det er mi nat i on
and t her ef or e cannot be
est abl i shed a pr i or i . Wi t h
t hi s i nsi ght , t he
base- super st r uct ur e di st i nct i on
f al l s
and, al ong wi t h i t , t he
concept i on of i deol ogy
as a necessar y l evel of ever y
soci al
f or mat i on.
If we nowpass t o t he second appr oach
t o i deol ogy- i deol ogy as f al se
consci ousness- we f i nd a si mi l ar si t uat i on. The
not i on of f al se consci ousness
onl y makes sense i f t he i dent i t y of t he
soci al agent can be f i xed. It i s onl y on t he
basi s of r ecogni zi ng i t s t r ue i dent i t y
t hat we can asser t t hat t he consci ousness
of
t he subj ect i s ' f al se' . And t hi s
i mpl i es, of cour se, t hat t hat i dent i t y must be
posi t i ve and non- cont r adi ct or y . Wi t hi n
Mar xi sm, a concept i on of subj ect i vi t y of
t hi s
ki nd
i s at t he basi s of t he not i on of ' obj ect i ve
cl ass i nt er est s' . Her e I amnot
goi ng t o di scuss i n det ai l t he f or ms of const i t ut i on,
t he i mpl i cat i ons and t he
l i mi t at i ons
of such a concept i on of subj ect i vi t y .
I shal l r at her j ust ment i on t he
t wo
pr ocesses whi ch l ed t o i t s pr ogr essi ve abandonment
. In t he f i r st pl ace, t he
gap bet ween
' act ual consci ousness' and ' i mput ed
consci ousness' gr ewi ncr eas-
i ngl y
wi der . The way t hi s gap was
f i l l ed- t hr ough t he pr esence of a Par t y
i nst i t ut ed as t he bear er of t he obj ect i ve
hi st or i cal i nt er est s of t he cl ass- l ed t o t he
est abl i shment of an ' enl i ght ened' depot i smof
i nt el l ect ual s and bur eaucr at s who
spoke i n t he name of t he masses, expl ai ned
t o t hemt hei r t r ue i nt er est s, and
i mposed
upon t hemi ncr easi ngl y t ot al i t ar i an f or ms
of cont r ol . The r eact i on t o
t hi s si t uat i on
i nevi t abl y t ookt he f or mof t he asser t i on of t he
act ual
i dent i t y
of t he
soci al agent s agai nst
t he' hi st or i cal i nt er est s' whi ch bur dened t hem. In t he
second
pl ace, t he ver y i dent i t y
of
t he
soci al agent s was i ncr easi ngl y quest i oned when t he
f l ux of di f f er ences i n advanced
capi t al i st soci et i es i ndi cat ed t hat t he i dent i t y and
homogenei t y of soci al agent s
was ani l l usi on, t hat any soci al subj ect i s essent i al l y
decent r ed, t hat hi s/ her i dent i t y
i s not hi ng but t he unst abl e ar t i cul at i on of
const ant l y changi ng posi t i onal i t i es .
The same excess of meani ng, t he same
pr ecar i ous char act er of any st r uct ur at i on
t hat we f i nd i n t he domai nof t he soci al
or der , i s al so t o be f ound i n t he domai n
of subj ect i vi t y
.
But i f any soci al agent i s a
decent r ed subj ect , i f when at t empt i ng
t o det er mi ne hi s/ her i dent i t y we f i nd
not hi ng
el se but t he kal ei doscopi c movement
of di f f er ences, i nwhat sense canwe
say t hat
subj ect s mi sr ecogni ze t hemsel ves? The t heor et i cal
gr ound t hat made
sense of t he
concept of ' f al se consci ousness' has evi dent l y di ssol ved.
It woul d t her ef or e l ook as i f t he t wo
concept ual f r amewor ks whi ch f or mer l y
made sense of t he concept of i deol ogy
have br oken up, and t hat t he concept
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
shoul dconsequentl y be
el i mi nated. However, I donot thi nk thi s tobea
sati sf ac-
tory sol uti on
.
We
cannot do wi thout theconcept of mi srecogni ti on,
preci sel y
becausethe very
asserti onthat the ' i denti ty andhomogenei tyof soci al agents i s
ani l l usi on' cannot be
f ormul atedwi thout i ntroduci ng the category of mi srecog-
ni ti on. Thecri ti que of
the' natural i zati onof meani ng' andof the' essenti al i zati on
of thesoci al ' i s acri ti que of the
mi srecogni ti onof thei r truecharacter . Wi thout
thi s premi se, any deconstructi on
woul d
be
meani ngl ess. So, i t l ooks as i f wecan
mai ntai n theconcept of i deol ogy and
the category of mi srecogni ti on onl y by
i nverti ng thei r tradi ti onal content . The i deol ogi cal
woul d not consi st of the
mi srecogni ti onof a posi ti ve essence, but exactl ytheopposi te:
i t woul dconsi st of
the
non- recogni ti onof theprecari ous character of any
posi ti vi ty,
of
thei mpossi -
bi l i ty of any ul ti mate
suture
.
The i deol ogi cal woul dconsi st of thosedi scursi ve
f orms through
whi ch
a soci ety
tri es to i nsti tute i tsel f as such on the basi s of
cl osure, of thef i xati on of
meani ng, of the non- recogni ti onof the i nf i ni tepl ay of
di f f erences. The i deol ogi cal woul d be
the wi l l to ' total i ty' of any total i zi ng
di scourse. And i nsof ar as the soci al i s
i mpossi bl e wi thout some f i xati on of
meani ng, wi thout the di scourse of
cl osure, the i deol ogi cal must be seen as
consti tuti ve of the soci al . Thesoci al
onl y exi sts as thevai nattempt to i nsti tute
that i mpossi bl e obj ect
:
soci ety
. Utopi ai s theessence of any communi cati on
and
soci al practi ce.
LALANGUEI NTROUVABLE
Mi chel Pecheux/ Franf oi se
Gadet
Government
Essex Uni versi ty
Engl and
1f l i chel Pecheux: Fran~oi se Gadet
and I have recentl y wri tten a book, La
LangueI ntrouvabl e, whi chconcerns
therel ati onshi pbetween hi story, i deol ogy
and di scursi vi ty and thequesti on
of the l angue, as prof essi onal
l i ngui sts have
consi deredi t . As f ar as weare
concerned, theref l ecti on uponi deol ogi es
took i ts
poi nt of departure
f romthe earl y 1960' s French probl emati c of
phi l osophi cal
structural i sm, a
probl emati cwhi chwas l argel yorgani zedaround
thequesti onof
thel ecture (i nterpretati on)
of i deol ogi cal di scourses. Thi s
probl emati c, whi chat
that ti me condensed
around Levi - Strauss, Foucaul t, Barthes, Lacan,
Al thusser,
andothers,
not
onl y
took thef ormof a researchprogramme:
i t was as mucha
pol emi cal devi ce ai med at the domi nati ng i deas of
the ti me. Three sets of
domi nati ngi deas of that ti mecanbe
menti oned. Fi rst, therewerethesti l l i ntact
"remai ns" of a phi l osophi cal
spi ri tual i smassoci atedwi tha rel i gi ous
concepti on
of l ecture. These
"remai ns" extendedf roml i teraryhermeneuti cs
(whi chpursued
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t he "t hemes" t hrough
"works") t o
t he
phenomenol ogi cal concept i on of t he
"proj ect " ( i . e. , t he- proj ect i on
of
meani ngi nt o
verbal mat eri al by t he const i t ut i ng
power of t he subj ect - reader)
. . . I n each case, t here was act ual l y a t heol ogi cal
represent at i onof a rel at i on bet weenanori gi n ( God, t he Aut hor) and anend ( t he
subj ect - consci ousness) t hrough t he Text , whi ch was i n t urn consi dered
t o be a
more or l ess t ransparent medi umof t hi s rel at i on. The more everyday, secul ari zed
f orms of t hi s t heol ogi cal l ect ure, secondl y, were i nscri bed wi t hi n t he
spont ane-
ous sender/ recei ver f i gures whi ch were becomi ng promi nent wi t hi nt he human
and soci al sci ences under t he many f orms
of "cont ent anal ysi s" of communi ca-
t i on. Fi nal l y, t here was "sci ent i f i c" obj ect i vi sm, whi ch
react ed t o t he above-
ment i oned
spi ri t ual i smt hrough ref erence t o t he seri ousness of sci ence and,
above al l , t o t he Theory of I nf ormat i on. Thi s proj ect sought t o "obj ect i vel y" t reat
t ext s
as i f t hey were a popul at i onof words, upon whi chone coul d perf orma sort
of quant i t at i ve, st at i st i cal demography.
Thephi l osophi cal st ruct ural i smof t he 1960' s decl ared war on t hese spont ane-
ous or sophi st i cat ed f orms of l ect ure. I t wrot e such concept s on i t s banners as
"l ect ure sympt 6mal e" and "di scourse t heory", and i t i ssued sl ogans such as
"speci f i cat i on of
t he ef f i cacy of
a
st ruct ure on i t s ef f ect s, t hrough i t s ef f ect s" .
Marx, Ni et zsche, Freud and
Saussure were
recrui t ed f or t hi s
st ruggl e over
t he
def i ni t i onof speaki ng, wri t i ng, l i st eni ng and readi ng. As Al t husser expl ai ned i n
Li re l e Capi t al : "Onl y si nce Freud have we begunt o suspect what l i st eni ng, and
hence what speaki ng ( and keepi ngsi l ent ) means ( veut - di re) ; t hat t hi s' meani ng'
( voul oi r- di re) of speaki ng and l i st eni ng di scl oses, beneat h t he i nnocence of
speech and heari ng, t he speci f i abl e dept hs of a hi ddenl evel , t he' meani ng' of t he
di scourse of t he unconsci ous- t hat l evel whose ef f ect s and f ormal condi t i ons are
t hought t hrough
by modernl i ngui st i cs . " Hereby, t he st rat egi c l i nk bet ween"t he
t heory of i deol ogy" and l i ngui st i c st ruct ural i smwas cl earl y
est abl i shed
.
Si nce
t he
poi nt was t o anal yze t he unconsci ous di scourse of i deol ogi es, st ruct ural l i ngui s-
t i cs appeared as t he sci ent i f i c means of escapi ng f romt he "j e ne
sai s
quoi "
of
l i t erary hermeneut i cs . I f i deol ogi cal
di scourses were
i n f act t he myt hs pert ai ni ng
t o our soci et i es ( and comparabl e t o t hose st udi ed by Vl adi mi r Propp, t henCl aude
Levi - St rauss) , i t was t hought possi bl e t o const ruct t he t races of t hei r i nvari ant
st ruct ure ( t he syst emof t hei r f unct i ons) wi t hi n t he combi nat ory seri es of t hei r
superf i ci al , empi ri cal vari at i ons- and t hereby t o at t ai n somet hi ngof t hi s st ruc-
t ure present i n t he seri es of i t s ef f ect s .
The di f f erent at t empt s at di scourse anal ysi s whi ch appeared at t hi s t i me i n
France- i ncl udi ng t he programme of Aut omat i c Di scourse Anal ysi s on
whi ch
I
have worked si nce
1967- have sought t o
achi eve t hi s
goal
t hrough vari ous
means. Anal yses of di scourse t ri ed t o deal seri ousl y wi t h moden l i ngui st i cs, and
part i cul arl y wi t h t he wri t i ng of an Ameri can l i ngui st , Zel l i g Harri s, provi den-
t i al l y t i t l ed Di scourse Anal ysi s. For
a
consi derabl e t i me, and f ol l owi ngt he l ead of
t he French l i ngui st , J eanDuboi s, t hi s t ext served as a concret e sci ent i f i c ref erence
poi nt f or l i ngui st s i nvol ved i n t he f i el d of di scourse anal ysi s . I shal l not di scuss
here t he t heoret i cal , met hodol ogi cal and hi st ori ographi cal resul t s i ssui ng f rom
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
t hi s work. ` I shal l i nst ead emphasi ze t heweak
poi nt
of
t he undert aki ng, such as
i t appears t ome
i n
ret rospect ,
concerni ngt he rol eweat t ri but ed t ot henot i on of
domi nat i ngi deol ogy. Consi deri ng, as we
di d
at
t het i me, t hat t hemyt hs pert ai n-
i ng t ocapi t al i st soci et i es const i t ut edt hei r domi nant i deol ogy,
t hi s mi ght havel ed
us t ot he quest i ons : Does t here not exi st , wi t hi nt hese same soci et i es,
ot her and
di f f erent myt hs? Coul d t hese myt hs be react i ve, cont radi ct ory, ant agoni st i c,
and
even capabl e of reveal i ng t he exi st ence of domi nat ed i deol ogi es
whi ch are
subordi nat e t o, yet di st i nct f rom, t he domi nant i deol ogy?
By_vi rt ue of a ret urn of l ogi ci sm
i n our ownpract i ces, t hesequest i ons were i n
f act t ot al l y by- passed i n f avour of a t heoret i ci st ref erence
t ot he "di scourse of
sci ence"
(Hi st ori cal Mat eri al i sm, i n t hi s case) whi chwas
concei ved as a uni que
poi nt
of
ant agoni smt owards domi nant i deol ogy. At t het i me, of course,
t hi s was
a
pol i t i cal quest i on, t he pedagogi c ai mof whi ch was t o"f ree" t he
organi zat i ons
of t he French workers'
movement (above al l , t he PCF) f romt he "myt hs" of
domi nant i deol ogybyassert i ng
t heval ueof Marxi st sci ence. Thi s was t heFrench
wayof
dreami ng
of
ani mpossi bl e"escapef romi deol ogy", of pret endi ngt oat l ast
cont rol
hi st ori co- pol i t i cal real i t y i t sel f bymeans of t heseparat i on of Sci ence
and
I deol ogy (Compare Leni n' s sl ogan: "Marx' s t heory i s
al l - powerf ul because i t i s
t rue"! )

,
Fromt hi s poi nt of vi ew, i t may be sai d t hat Al t husser' s f amous
art i cl e
concerni ng"i deol ogi cal st at e apparat uses" was an at t empt at rect i f i cat i on whi ch
al so provoked an
addi t i onal bl under, i nasmuch as i t was al most unani mousl y
i nt erpret ed as a workof f unct i onal i st
soci ol ogy. I n order t ounderst and some-
t hi ngof t he quest i onof i deol ogy, Al t husser st at ed
expl i ci t l y t hat i t was necessary
t oconsi der t hequest i onof i deol ogy
f romt hest andpoi nt of "t he reproduct i onof
capi t al i st rel at i ons of
product i on" . For vari ous reasons, "reproduct i on" was
i mmedi at el y
i nt erpret ed
as
t heet ernal repet i t i onof an i dent i cal st at e of af f ai rs,
and cert ai n peopl e
even reproached hi mf or t hus i dent i f yi ng Marxi st anal ysi s
wi t h
a pure
t heory of soci al reproduct i on.
Reconsi deri ng t heai mof t hi s f amous art i cl e, however, one cannot avoi dbei ng
st ruck t oday by t he f act t hat "consi deri ng t he quest i on of i deol ogy f romt he
st andpoi nt of reproduct i on" necessari l y i mpl i es, f or a Marxi st , al so
consi deri ng
i deol ogy f romt he st andpoi nt of resi st ance t o reproduct i on, t hat i s,
f romt he
st andpoi nt of t he mul t i t ude of het erogeneous resi st ances and revol t s
whi ch
smoul der beneat h domi nant i deol ogy, t hreat eni ng
i t const ant l y. I t t hereby
i mpl i es consi deri ng domi nat ed i deol ogi es- not as
preconst i t ut ed i deol ogi cal
germs whi ch have a t endency t odevel op
t hemsel ves i n such a way t hat t hey
symmet ri cal l y
subst i t ut e
f or t he domi nat i onof domi nant i deol ogy but , rat her, as
a seri es of
i deol ogi cal ef f ect s emergi ngf romdomi nat i on andworki ngagai nst i t
*Edi t or' s
not e: Themost i mport ant of Pecheux' s earl i er wri t i ngs i ncl ude:
Anal yse aut omat i quedu
di scours (Pari s, 1969) ; (wi t hCat heri ne Fuchs) "Mi ses aupoi nt et perspect i ves
apropos deI ' anal yse
aut omat i que du di scours", Langages, 37 (mars 1975) , pp. 7- 80
; and Les Veri t es de l a Pal i ce:
l i ngui st i que, semant i que, phi l osophi e (Pari s, 1975) ,
an Engl i sh edi t i on of whi ch appears as
Language,
Semant i csandI deol ogy: St at i ngt heObvi ous (London, 1982) . Ot her rel evant publ i cat i ons
andcomment ari es
on Pecheux' s wri t i ngs are i ncl uded i n t he appendi x of t hi s i ssue.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t hr ough t he gaps and t he f ai l ur es wi t hi n t hi s
domi nat i on.
Al t husser ' s
di scussi on of " i deol ogi cal st at e appar at uses" was al so ver y much
ai medat t hi s,
but pr obabl y i n an over l y opaque or pr udent manner . I n my vi ew,
t he
movement s whi ch
devel opedat t he endof t he 1960' s ar oundschool , f ami l y,
r el i gi on, t he soci al di vi si on of wor k, and t he r el at i onshi p t o t he envi r onment al l
const i t ut e what I cal l i deol ogi cal st r uggl es of movement . Whi l e t hese ar e ver y
much a quest i on of cl ass st r uggl e on t he t er r ai n of i deol ogy,
t hey
shoul d
be
t hought of not as st r uggl es bet ween cl asses const i t ut ed
as
such but , r at her ,
as a
ser i es of mobi l e cl ashes
( on
t he t er r ai n
of
sexual i t y,
pr i vat e l i f e, educat i on, et c . )
about t hose pr ocesses t hr ough whi ch
t he domi nat i on- expl oi t at i on of t he bour -
geoi s
cl ass i s r epr oduced, wi t h adapt at i ons and t r ansf or mat i ons .
The most
i mpor t ant t heor et i cal consequence of t hi s per spect i ve, i n my opi n-
i on, i s t hat t he i deol ogi cal obj ect s i mpl i ed wi t hi n t he st r uggl es of movement ar e
necessar i l y obj ect s of l ogi cal par adox . They have t he st r ange pr oper t y of bei ng
bot h i dent i cal andant agoni st i c t o eachot her - anal ogous t o t he Mi ni st r y of
Love
i nOr wel l ' s 1984, whi ch i s anunder t aki ng
dedi cat ed t o t or t ur e. Such i deol ogi cal
obj ect s as wor k, sexual pl easur e,
nat ur e, sci ence or r eason cannot be gi ven t he
st at us of f or mal l ogi cal
obj ect s
( i f
l ogi c i s consi der ed her e as a di sci pl i ne of
uni vocal communi cat i on) .
These obj ect s onl y occur as r el at i ons of hi st or i cal l y
mobi l e f or ces, as f l exi bl e movement s whi ch ar e sur pr i si ng
because of t he par a-
doxes t hey ent ai l . These movement s f unct i on as di vi ded uni t s,
somewhat
l i ke
t hose t wo I t al i an pr i nces who bot h
swor e bef or e
God: " I want
t he same
t hi ng
as
my br ot her " , whi l e each mur mur edunder hi s
br eat h
:
" I want t o get my hands on
t he t own of Tur i n" .
Any consi der at i on of t hese het er ogeneous, cont r adi ct or y and
asymmet r i c
pr ocesses i mpl i es t hi nki ng about t hei r
r el at i on t o l anguage ( t hr ough t he met a-
phor i cal
shi f t of meani ng, t he par adoxes, t he pl ay onwor ds, et c . ) Suchconsi der a-
t i on must al so be seen as a const i t uent par t of t hese pr ocesses t hemsel ves- i n
t hi s sense, t he r ange of di scur si vi t y i s i nher ent i n i deol ogi cal
pr ocesses .
By t hus
consi der i ng t he r ange of di scur si ve mat er i al i t i es as an ar ea of non- connect ed
het er ogenei t i es
whi ch ar e mobi l ewi t hi n t hei r cont r adi ct i ons, t he per spect i ve of
our r esear ch
pr ogr ammes has changeddr ast i cal l y si nce t he er a of phi l osophi cal
st r uct ur al i sm. St r essi ng t he
di scover i es of Mi chel Foucaul t , Gi l l es Del euze or
J acques Der r i da, di scour se
anal ysi s i s no l onger a mat t er of r econst r uct i ng t he
homogeneous i nvar i ant s
of a
st r uct ur e
of i deol ogy ( or i deol ogi es) . I t r at her
expl or es t hi s game of mobi l e di scur si ve
het er ogenei t i es
whi ch
gener at e t he
event s speci f i c t o i deol ogi cal st r uggl es
of
movement .
Al l t hi s, obvi ousl y, i mpl i es a cer t ai n concept i on of t he r el at i onshi p
bet ween
hi st or i cal r eal i t y, l i ngui st i c mat er i al i t y and t he exi st ence of t he
subj ect
: i t br i ngs
i nt o quest i on t hat comf or t abl e met aphysi cs whi ch consi der s cl asses as aut o-
cent r i c andpr econst r uct ed obj ect s, t he subj ect as anact i ve uni t
of
ani nt ent i onal
consci ousness, and t he l angue as t he i nst r ument of communi cat i on of t hi s
subj ect ' s
expr essi ons and act i ons . I n t hi s sense, mor e t han ever bef or e, Mar x,
Fr eud, Ni et zsche and
Saussur e ar e i nt he f or ef r ont . They engage t he pr et ensi ons
of t he i mpossi bl e t heor y
of semant i co- pr agmat i c uni ver sal s, a t heor y whi ch
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
f l oat s on
t he hori zonof our t i me,
l i ke a newdreamof domi nat i on
. Thi s
i mpossi bl e
t heory i s t he most recent
f ormof t hel anguei nt rouvabl e wi t h
whi ch
l i ngui st i cs (andnot onl y l i ngui st i cs)
has beenobsessedsi nce i t s begi nni ng
.
Franf oi se Gadet : I shoul dl i ket o begi nby
ment i oni nga part - t i me l i ngui st
who,
i naddi t i ont o
l eadi nga st at e, consi dered
t he rel at i onshi pbet weenl anguage
and
i deol ogy: J oseph
St al i n. Hei s wel l known
amongl i ngui st s f or hi s paper, "Marx-
i smand
Quest i ons of Li ngui st i cs", i n
whi ch he argues about t he
rel at i onshi p
bet weenl anguage
andsoci al cl asses . As i s al so
wel l known, he resol ves t hi s
quest i onby cl ai mi ng
t hat l anguagei s not a superst ruct ure.
St al i nal so deserves a reput at i onas
a f orerunner of t heext ended
perf ormat i ve.
Thi s
reput at i oni s suggest edby a decl arat i on
of Si ni awski , a vi ct i mof
St al i ni sm
who sai d i nf ront of hi s j udges :
"I f wet ransl at emet aphors i nt o
real t erms, i t i s
t he
end
of
t he worl d. Wesay ' darkness
i s f al l i ng, i t ' s rai ni ngcat s
anddogs, st ars
shoot across
t he sky' . I f t hi s act ual l y
happened, t heworl dwoul dgo t o
t hedogs .
WhenLeni n
t al kedabout i deol ogi cal
st ruggl e wi t h our opponent s, he used
met aphors . St al i nt ransl at edt hosemet aphors
i nt o real t erms, andt hi s i s how
t he
horrors of 1937
began. "
I f onereads
met aphors t o t he l et t er, l anguage
ends upbei ngt akenf or
real i t y,
represent i ng
i t wi t hout di st anci at i on.
Est abl i shedas equi val ent t o
real i t y, t he
order of
l anguagewoul dt herebybecat egori cal ,
seri ous, def i ni t e. Meani ng
woul d
exi st i n i t sel f , becausei t woul dcoi nci de
wi t hwords i nt hereal i t y of an
i deol ogy
.
Theconsequences of sucha concept i onof
l anguageare wel l knowni nt he
f i el ds
of pol i t i cs and
l i t erat ure, andso I shal l onl y consi der
t he i mpl i cat i ons of such
a
posi t i on
f or l i ngui st i cs . I shoul dl i ke t o
expl ai n, f romt he poi nt of
vi ewof a
l i ngui st
i nt erest edi n t he quest i onof i deol ogy,
whyPecheuxandmysel f
dared
t i t l e a
chapt er of La LangueI nt rouvabl e:
"Met aphors, t oo, are wort h
st ruggl i ng
f or".
Our concept i onof t herel at i onshi p
bet weenl angueandreal i t y necessari l y
i mpl i es
a speci f i c concept i onof l angue
i t sel f , andI t hi nk t hi s concept i on
sheds
more
l i ght
on
t he met aphori cal process, i nasmuch
as i t rai ses quest i ons about
t he
nat ure of
rul es wi t hi nl anguage.
My st art i ng poi nt , met aphor,
l eads met o consi der t he t opi c of
l i ngui st i c
creat i vi t y. By "creat i vi t y" I do
not so much meant he general
possi bi l i t y of
l anguagecreat i on, a f eat ure
commont o al l l anguages, namel y,
t hat t hel anguage
syst emi t sel f al l ows hi st ori cal
di spl acement s wi t hi nt he f i el dof
possi bl ef ormul a-
t i ons . I rat her wi sht o quest i on
at t hi s poi nt a common- sense
concept i on, whi ch
approaches t hi s probl emof
creat i vi t ybyrel at i ngt wo f orms of
opposi t i ons : f i rst ,
t he opposi t i onbet ween
wordandsent ence and,
secondl y, t he opposi t i onbe-
t weenf reedom
andconst rai nt .
Accordi ngt o
t hi s common- senseconcept i on, i t
i s al ways t hewordwhi ch i s
consi deredas
t hef oundat i onof creat i vi t y andf reedom
wi t hi nl anguage. Hence,
cert ai n exampl es of
creat i vi t y are usual l y
ment i oned: sl i ps of t he t ongue,
port mant eau- words, puns, met aphors, neol ogy,
t he poet i c pl ay onwords,
t he
pl ayon
words proper, rhymes,
spooneri sms, anagrams, andso on. Here
weagai n
encount er a l ot of
Engl i shexpressi ons whi chassumet hat
expressi oni s a mat t er
of words: t o
useonewordf or anot her, t o wei ghone' s words,
wi t hout changi nga
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
word, topl ay
onwords, l ooki ngf or
words, theri ght word, the power
of words,
not af rai dof words . . . Most of these
expressi ons, of course, i mpl y the
syntacti c
baseof a sentence.
Onthe other hand,
thi s common-sense
concepti onof l anguage consi ders
syntaxas ari gi di ty f actor,
aconstrai nt, a l i mi t or f i l ter,
as a processbywhi chti ght
rei ns are kept
onspontanei ty. Fromsucha
perspecti ve, a psychoanal yst ref l ect-
i ng uponthe
necessi ty of anecri ture
of oral materi al woul dbe f orced tosay:
"Ul ti matel y,
syntax i s onthe si de of secondary
processes" . I thi nk that such
a
concepti on
of syntax i s not onl y a
consequence of ananal ysi s made upon
f i xed-order l anguages (e. g. , French
or Engl i sh), i n whi ch word-order
i s
deter-
mi ned. I t i s al so, andprobabl y
above al l , a consequenceof ani magi nary
recon-
structi onof syntax: syntax
i s consi deredas a set of i mperati ve
rul es that assert
what i s f orbi ddenandwhat
i s al l owed-rul es whi ch take the
f ormof don' t say
that, but say thi s. Any
attack onthi s order i s theref ore
seen as necessari l y a
breaki ngof the
rul es, a devi ati on, a standi ngoutsi de
of l anguage.
Somerecent works i n
thef i el dof l i ngui sti cs suggest
the necessi tyof abandon-
i ngthi s di chotomy
beteenwordandsentence
. Consi der, f or exampl e, thereseach
of
J udi th
Mi l ner, whi chi s
concernedwi thl anguagepl ay. Sheshowshow
pl ayi ng
wi th
l anguagenegati vel y reveal s
somethi ngabout l anguage, becausethrough
the
mere possi bi l i ty of
l aughi ng, f or i nstance, one
behaves as i f one understood
somethi ngel se
. Pl ayi ngwi tha l anguagei s a
questi onof syntacti c anal ysi s. Thi s
i s
exempl i f i ed i n
thef amous wi tti ci smcommented
uponby Freud: Tu a pri x un
bai n?(Di d
you take7a bath?) Pourquoi , i l enmanqueun?
(Why, i s onemi ssi ng?)
Therei s here
a l exi cal ambi gui ty betweena f ul l
expressi on(to takea bath) and
thecombi nati on
of the verbtotakeandthe noun
a bath. But i t i s thesyntacti c
schemewhi ch
al l ows thi s pl ay, andconsequentl y the
wi tti ci sm. Mi l ner theref ore
wri tes
: "I i nsi st uponthe f act that most of the ti me, pl ayi ng wi th
l anguage,
thoughgeneral l y
consi deredaspurel exi cal ambi gui ty, i nvol ves i nf act probl ems
of syntacti c
anal yzabi l i ty"
.
Si mi l arl y, another l i ngui st (agai n, a woman) i s work-
i ngonthe l i ngui sti c
status of metaphor. Lacan' s def i ni ti onof metaphor as the
substi tuti onof oneword
f or another i s wel l known. Sheshows that thi s i s true,
but onl y because there
exi sts a syntacti c f rame f or the substi tuti oni tsel f . She
theref ore cal l s metaphor a
f act of l anguagewi tha syntacti c ori gi n. For exampl e,
theexpressi onsoncol onel demarl (whi ch
coul dbetransl ated: her col onel of a
husband) canonl y bei nterpreted
by
aFrench
speaker as aderogatory or i roni cal
atti tude towards col onel s, through
ref erence tothe expressi on, soni mbeci l ede
marl .
These exampl es i ndi cate the necessi ty of ref erri ng
to syntacti c structure,
consi deredbothas i ndi f f erent to, andresponsi bl e f or, the
i deol ogi cal processes of
l anguage. Syntax i s thebasi s of hi stori cal creati vi ty. Languagerul es thus cannot
be consi dered as categori cal rul es-i nthe sense that a rul e must or must not
appl y
.
They must -rather beseenasi ntri nsi cal l y al l owi ngf or i deol ogi cal pl ay and
di scursi ve l ati tudes
. Consi der an especi al l y enl i ghteni ng exampl e: Rol and
Barthes' expressi on,
tri cher l al angue(l i teral l y: to cheat thel anguage) . I t i s not
very i nteresti ngtopoi nt out
that theverbtri cher i s normal l yi ntransi ti ve(tri cher
I I a avorte
nos enf ants
I l avortera
l a France
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
avec l a
l angue; tri cher aunj eu) andthat i t i s
transi ti ve i n thi s devi ant exampl e. I t
i s muchmore
i nteresti ngtoemphasi zethat Barthes
uses thi s verbwhendef i ni ng
l i terature as a
workuponl anguage. I t i s al so more
i nteresti ng to poi nt out that
usi ngan
i ntransi ti veverbi ntransi ti vel y i s parti cul arl y
f requent i n sometypes of
di scourse. Thi s i s especi al l y
the casei nprovocati ve
statements usedonel ectoral
posters, as f or
exampl ei n thi s one recentl y usedagai nst
Mi tterand:
( l i teral l y: he abortedour
chi l dren, he wi l l abort France) . Nei ther i n the
f i rst
meani ng( tomakeawomanabort)
nor i nthesecondmeani ng( to makeaproj ect
abort)
can the verb avorter be used
transi ti vel y. By doi ng so, the devi ant
statement gai ns i n i ntensi ty andeven
vi ol ence
.
To what newtheoreti cal
consequences do such
ref l ecti ons l ead? I thi nkthe
maj or poi nt i s that the
way we thi nk syntacti cal l y
about a statement al ways
reveal s al i ttl e
bi t moreabout i ts meani ng, because
weunderstandi t i nrel ati on to
other statements,
through syntacti cal pl ays of
f orms whi ch are requi red by the
f ormer statement
. I nthesameway, produci ngsuch
statementsi mpl i es a posi ti on
towards l anguagethat has
beendescri bedby Phi l i ppe
Sol l ers: "I can' t consi der as
f ree a bei ng who does
not stri ve to break wi thi n
hi m/ hersel f the bonds of
l anguage. . . " .
What does thi s
posi ti on i mpl y about the status of
grammati cal rul es? We
argue i n La Langue
I ntrouvabl e that acertai n
i nterpretati onof Chomsky' s work
permi ts
such a concepti onof l anguage.
I t i s wel l knownthat oneof
the most
i mportant concepts of generati ve
transf ormati onal grammar i s the opposi ti on
betweenthe
grammati cal andthenon-grammati cal
. Thi s di sti ncti onworks more
as a way of
reasoni ng than as a devi ce f or
separati ngutterances. To separate
utterances
woul dbe to produce a deci si on'
about, or assi gn a f ronti er
between,
what i s
grammati cal andwhat i s not
grammati cal . I f weassume, to
thecontrary,
that
the opposi ti on i s merel y a
matter of reasoni ng, thi s necessari l y
i mpl i es
taki ng
i nto account what i s
i mpossi bl e wi thi n the l angue, preci sel y
i n order to
understandwhat exi sts wi thi n i t .
I nmy opi ni on, the mai ndi scovery
of Chom-
sky' s
worki s i ts comprehensi onof
therel ati onshi pbetweenthe
grammati cal and
the
non-grammati cal as a
conti nuumor natural consi stency-and
not as the
l angue
versus i ts outsi de, the
normal versus thepathol ogi cal ,
or the rul e versus
devi ati on. Nothi ngreveal s
anexcl udedsequenceas
excl uded, except thef act that
i t i s excl uded. Theref ore,
therei s no f ronti er or assi gnabl e
poi nt of l anguageshi f t
betweenthe
grammati cal andthe non-grammati cal
. Therei s onl y work
wi thi n
l anguage, i n whi ch meani ng i s def i ned
i n rel ati on to what does not
make
meani ng, the meani ngl ess.
To
understandChomskythi s
way-andI agreethi s i s not
theusual way-i s i n
f act
. torai se the questi onof
a subj ects masteryof
hi s/ her l angue: pl ayi ng
wi th
rul es i s
not thesameas f ol l owi ng
therul es of agame.
Fromour perspecti ve,
there
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
i s no "devi ati on"-and
hence there i s no "poeti cal " l anguage. Therei s onl y a
general proces s of
l anguage, worki ngas muchi ntheverbal l earni ng
of
chi l dren,
as i n theeveryday
us eof l anguageby every s peaker, as wel l
as
i n i ts
pol i ti cal or
l i terary
us es . Onceagai n, Barthes pres ents s everal exampl es
of thi s i nterpl ay
between the
grammati cal andthenon-grammati cal .
Oneof thems eems tome
es peci al l y i nteres ti ng, f or i t pres ents an
apparent contradi cti on between hi s
ecri ture andhi s theoreti cal pos i ti on. I nthe
Lef oni naugural e, hewri tes : "I nour
l anguage, I amcompel l ed
toes tabl i s hmys el f f i rs t as as ubj ect, bef oreexpres s i ng
theacti onwhi ch, becaus e
of thi s , wi l l onl ybeanattri buteof thes ubj ect : what I
do
i s onl y thecons equenceand
outcomeof what I am. I nthes ameway, I al ways
have
tochoos ebetween
mas cul i neandf emi ni ne, becaus e bothneuter
andany mi xed
gender aref orbi dden
to me; or, agai n, I have to i ndi catemy rel ati on
toanother
pers on by us i ng ei ther
to or vous : any emoti onal or
s oci al hes i tati on i s not
al l owed.
Thus , i ni ts very s tructure, l anguagei mpl i es
a f undamental rel ati on of
al i enati on. " Thes eobs ervati ons l eadhi mto thi s
f amous concl us i on: "Languagei s
nei ther reacti onary nor progres s i ve; i t
i s i ndeedf as ci s t".
I n hi s practi ceas a wri ter,
Barthes hadprevi ous l y workedout theneces s i ty
of
deci di ngongrammati cal
gender . I nf ragments dundi s cours amoureux, i nwhi ch
he qui te s ys temati cal l y
avoi ds the di s curs i ve engenderi ng of the
partners
i nvol vedi nthedi s cours amoureux,
heus es unmarkedterms (thes ubj ect i n l ove;
theobj ect of myl ove; you; we; theother;
theother body) ands omenomi nal i za-
ti ons , s uch as the abs ence, the angui s h
of l ove, i mpos i ng on mypas s i on the
di s gui s eof di s creti on. Wef i ndheredi s curs i ve
characteri s ti cs whi ch, f romwi thi n
l anguage,
pl ay wi th theneces s i ty of l anguage:
a
rus e,
i f I dares ay. But theterm
rus e
s eems toi mpl y anoti onof s trategy. I t i s , however,
not thecas ethat Barthes
i s the mas ter of what he wri tes , as i f he coul d
trans l ate i deol ogi cal ai ms i nto
l angueor di s cours e.
To
make
l anguageworki s onl ytopl ay oni ts cons trai nts and
oni ts bl anks -topl ay wi th
thel ati tudes i t af f ords .
I n La LangueI ntrouvabl eweattemptedtoques ti on thes trategi cpos i ti onof
the
l anguagemas ter whos eeks to rul eover aworl dof s tatements through hi s
ownproces s of enunci ati on.
Agai ns t thenarci s s i s mof s ucces s f ul communi cati on,
wetri ed
to
as s ert the
hi s tori cal andpol i ti cal val ueof f ai l ure. Thecerti tudeof the
Ameri canj okeandthe
anxi ety of aJ ewi s hwi t provi deaphi l os ophi cal i l l us tra-
ti onof thi s di f f erence
.
The
j okei s therepl yof thes mal l Ameri canf armer tohi s
pas tor whenthel atter i nvi tes hi m
to
thank
theLordf or havi nggi venhi ms ucha
beauti f ul l and: "But i f onl yyouhads eenthi s l and
i nthes tatei nwhi chHegavei t
to me!" Thewi tti ci s mi s therepl y of the
s mal l J ewi s htai l or tohi s unhappycl i ent
whohadtowai t s i x years f or thedel i very of
a pai r of trous ers andthereupon
remarkedthat Godtookonl ys i x days
to createtheworl d: "Al l ri ght, but l ookat
thetrous ers , andl ookat theworl d. . . .. .
Ecol ePrati que

Uni vers i te
des Hautes Etudes

de
Pari s -X
SOMECONDI TI ONS
FORREVOLUTI ONI ZI NG
LATE
CAPI TALI STSOCI ETI ES[ 1968] *
Tr ansl at ed by J ohn
Keane
J i ur gen Haber mas
Mar xwas convi nced t hat a
r evol ut i oni zi ng of t he capi t al i st soci al
syst emof hi s
t i me
was possi bl e f or t wo r easons .
Fi r st , because at t hat t i me
t he ant agoni sm
bet ween
t he owner s of t he means of
pr oduct i on and wage l abour er s
cl ear l y
mani f est ed
i t sel f as cl ass st r uggl e, i . e . , t he subj ect s
t hemsel ves wer e becomi ng
consci ous of
t hi s ant agoni smand t her ef or e coul d be
or gani zed pol i t i cal l y ;
and,
secondl y, because
i n t he l ong r un t he i nst i t ut i onal
pr essur e f or capi t al ut i l i zat i on
i n pr i vat e f or m
conf r ont ed t he economi c syst em
wi t h an i nsol ubl e pr obl em
. I
knowt hat
f or Mar xt hese t wo condi t i ons
r epr esent ed necessar y but by no
means
suf f i ci ent
condi t i ons f or a r evol ut i on.
However , I shal l l i mi t my di scussi on t o
t hem, as I
bel i eve t hat t hese t wo condi t i ons
ar e no l onger sat i sf i ed under
st at e- r egul at ed
capi t al i sm.
The f i r st
condi t i on of a pol i t i cal l y or gani zabl e
cl ass st r uggl e i s gi ven i f
t he
r el at i onshi p
bet ween t he pr i vi l eged and domi nat ed
gr oups i s f ounded onexpl oi -
t at i on, and i f
t hi s expl oi t at i on becomes consci ousl y
subj ect i ve, i . e. , i s i ncompat -
i bl e wi t h t he accept ed
l egi t i mat i ons of domi nat i on
. Expl oi t at i on i s t hus def i ned
as t he
domi nat i ng cl ass l i vi ng upon t he l abour of
t he dependent cl ass whi ch
t her ef or e, on
t he ot her hand, can pr essur e t he domi nant
cl ass by t he wi t hdr awal
of i t s co- oper at i on
.
The
domi nat ed wage l abour of
t he ni net eent hcent ur y was i n
t hi s sense an expl oi t ed
cl ass . At t he same t i me,
t hi s r el at i onshi p of expl oi t at i on
was
i ncompat i bl e wi t hbour geoi s i deol ogy .
Accor di ng t ot hi s i deol ogy, t he
t r ans-
act i ons
bet ween pr i vat e i ndi vi dual s wer e
supposed t o be r egul at ed t hr ough
r el at i ons
of equi val ence of exchange and consequent l y
unf ol d i n a spher e eman-
ci pat ed f r omdomi nat i on and f r eed f r om
vi ol ence.
Secondl y, t he anal ysi s
of t he capi t al i st economi c syst em
whi chMar xaccom-
pl i shed on t he
f oundat i on of t he t heor y of val ue, as i s
known, ser ves t opr ove
t he
i nevi t abi l i t y of syst em- endanger i ng
di spr opor t i onal i t i es . As l ong as economi c
gr owt h i s t i ed t ot he mechani smof t he
ut i l i zat i on of capi t al i n pr i vat e f or m,
t he
*Edi t or s not e: Thi s essay was f i r st pr esent ed as
a l ect ur e t o t he 1968 Kor cul a Summer
School ,
Yugosl avi a. I t i s t r ansl at ed f r omt he ver si on
whi ch
i s
publ i shed i n Kul t ur and Kr i t i k
( Fr ankf ur t am
Mai n,
1973) , pp.
70- 86. Per mi ssi on f or
t hi s t r ansl at i on has been gr ant ed by
Pr of essor Haber mas,
al t hough wi t h t wost r ong st i pul at i ons : f i r st ,
t hat t hi s essay be consi der ed as a r ough
summat i on of
t hemes pr esent ed el sewher e,
especi al l y i n Techni kand Wi ssenschaf t
al t ' I deol ogi e' ( Fr ankf ur t ,
1968) ; and,
secondl y, t hat t hi s essay' s concer n wi t h t he " gl assy
backgr ound i deol ogy" of sci ence and
t echnol ogy be i nt er pr et ed as a cr i t i cal
r esponse t o cer t ai n apol oget i c account s of
t he l ogi c and
consequences of sci ent i f i c- t echni cal pr ogr ess, above
al l , t hose whi ch ar e t o be f ound i n
t he wr i t i ngs
( dur i ng t he 1960' s i n t he Feder al Republ i c) of
Hans Fr eyer , Hel mut Schel sky
and Ar nol d Gehl en.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
accumul at i on pr ocess must
r epeat edl y come t o a st andst i l l . Thi s per i odi c
dest r uc-
t i on of non- ut i l i zabl e
r eser ves of capi t al i s a condi t i on
of r evol ut i on, because i t
const i t ut es
a vi vi d demonst r at i on of t he di scr epancy
bet ween t he devel oped
pr oduct i ve f or ces on t he one hand, and
t he i nst i t ut i onal f r amewor k of t he
capi t al i st soci al syst emon t he ot her . I t
t her eby makes t he masses consci ous of t he
i nsol ubl e syst empr obl em.
I n t he
f ol l owi ng, I shoul d l i ke t o name t wo
devel opment al t endenci es whi ch
ar e
deci si ve f or t he st at e- or gani zed capi t al i sm
of t he pr esent t i me. ' Thi s.
appr oxi mat e
r econst r uct i on of i t s emer gence shoul d
make cl ear on t heone hand
why t he cl assi cal condi t i ons of r evol ut i on ar e
t oday no l onger pr esent ; but , at t he
same t i me, i t shoul d i ndi cat e t he
st r uct ur al weakness of t he syst emwhi ch
pr esent s i t sel f as anewpoi nt
of at t ack.
Si nce t he l ast quar t er of t he ni net eent hcent ur y, t wo
devel opment al t endenci es
have become
obser vabl e i n t he most advanced capi t al i st count r i es : on t he
one
hand, an i ncr ease
of i nt er vent i oni st st at e act i vi t y whi ch has t o guar ant ee t he
st abi l i t y of t he
syst emand, on t he ot her hand, a gr owi ng i nt er dependence
of
r esear ch and t echnol ogy
whi ch has made t he sci ences t he pr i mar y pr oduct i ve
f or ce.
Bot h
t endenci es dest r oy t hat const el l at i on whi ch had
been
uni que
t o l i ber al
capi t al i sm
i n i t s devel oped st age.
. 1 . The
per manent r egul at i on of t he economi c
pr ocess t hr ough st at e i nt er ven-
t i on has emer ged as a def ence agai nst t he
syst em- endanger i ng dysf unct i onal i t i es
of unr egul at ed capi t al i sm. The basi c i deol ogy of
equi val ence of exchange, whi ch
Mar x
had
t heor et i cal l y unmasked, has pr act i cal l y col l apsed. The f or m
of
pr i vat e
economi c ut i l i zat i on of capi t al can onl y be mai nt ai ned t hr ough
t he st at e cor r ec-
t i ves
of soci al and economi cpol i cy whi chst abi l i ze ci r cul at i on and
compensat e f or
mar ket
consequences . Ther eby t he syst emof domi nat i on i s i t sel f t r ansf or med.
Af t er t he
di si nt egr at i on of t he i deol ogy of equi val ence of exchange- upon whi ch
t he moder n
nat ur al l aw const r uct i ons of t he bour geoi s- const i t ut i onal
st at e wer e
al so based- pol i t i cal domi nat i on r equi r es a newbasi s f or i t s l egi t i -
macy. Nowt hat t he
power i ndi r ect l y exer ci sed wi t hi n t he exchange pr ocess i t sel f
has t o be cont r ol l ed by
pr e- st at e or gani sed and st at e i nst i t ut i onal i sed aut hor i t y,
l egi t i mat i on can no l onger be der i ved f r oma non- pol i t i cal
or der , t he r el at i ons of
pr oduct i on. I n t hi s sense, t he compul si on t o di r ect l egi t i mat i on i n
pr e- capi t al i st
soci et i es i s once agai n r enewed. On t he ot her hand, t he r e- est abl i shment of di r ect
pol i t i cal domi nat i on ( wi t h a t r adi t i onal f or mof l egi t i mat i on gr ounded i n cul t ur al
t r adi t i on)
has become i mpossi bl e. For mal democr at i c aut hor i t y i n st at e-
r egul at ed, capi t al i st syst ems i s pl aced under
a l egi t i mat i on obl i gat i on whi ch can
no l onger be r edeemed t hr ough r ecour se
t o t he pr e- bour geoi s f or mof l egi t i ma-
t i on
.
Thi s i s why a subst i t ut e pr ogr ammat i c r epl aces t he
equi val ence- i deol ogy of
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
f reeexchange. Thi s programmati c i s
ori entednot tothe soci al consequences of
the market i nsti tuti on, but tothestate
compensati onof thedysf uncti onsf or f ree
exchange rel ati ons. I t l i nks together the
moment of the bourgeoi s i deol ogy of
perf ormance (whi chof course shi f ts
status assi gnment accordi ngtoi ndi vi dual
perf ormancef romthemarket tothe
school system) wi ththepromi seof wel f are
(wi th the prospect of j ob securi ty as wel l as i ncome
stabi l i ty) . Thi s substi tute
programmati cobl i ges the systemof control toboth
mai ntai nthe condi ti ons of
stabi l i ty of atotal systemwhi chgrants soci al securi ty
andchances of personal
advancement and toovercome ri sks associ ated wi th
growth. Thi s necessi tates
consi derabl e
roomf or manoeuveri ngf or state i nterventi ons
whi ch, i nreturnf or
restri cti ons
pl aceduponthei nsti tuti ons of pri vatel aw, securethepri vate
f ormof
capi tal
uti l i zati on and bi ndthe l oyal ty of the masses to the capi tal i st f ormof
soci ety.
I nsof ar as state
acti vi ty
i s
di rected
to
the stabi l i ty and the growthof the
economi c system, pol i ti cs
now
assumes a
strangel y negati ve character : i t i s
concerned wi th the el i mi nati on of dysf uncti onal i ti es and the preventi on of
system-endangeri ng ri sks, i . e. , i t i s ori entednot to the real i zati on of practi cal
goal s but to the sol uti on of techni cal probl ems. Through i ts ori entati on to
preventi veacti on, state acti vi ty becomes restri ctedtotechni cal tasks. I ts purpose
i s, "j ust
to
keepthe systemgoi ng" . Practi cal questi ons theref ore are vi rtual l y
pushedasi de. I amheredi sti ngui shi ngbetweentechni cal andpracti cal questi ons.
Techni cal probl ems ari sewi threspect tothepurposi ve-rati onal organi zati onof
means andthe rati onal
choi ce
betweenal ternati ve means f or the attai nment of
gi ven
goal s.
Practi cal
probl ems, on
the other hand, ari se wi threspect to the
acceptanceor rej ecti onof norms,
i n
our caseof
normsof col l ecti vel i f e whi chwe
can-wi th good reasons-support or rej ect, transl ate i nto real i ty or struggl e
agai nst. Thedi sti ncti onbetweentechni cal andpracti cal questi ons corresponds, I
shoul dl i ke toaddi mmedi atel y, tothe di sti ncti onbetweenworkandi nteracti on.
Worki s a termwhi chdescri bes any f ormof i nstrumental or strategi c acti on,
whi l e i nteracti onref ers toareci procal rel ati onshi pof at l east twosubj ects under
common, that i s, i nter-subj ecti vel y comprehensi bl e andbi ndi ngnorms.
I return tothequesti onof el i mi nati ngessenti al practi cal substance f romthe
pol i ti cs
of
l atecapi tal i sm. Ol dstyl epol i ti cs was f orced, i f onl ybecauseof thef orm
of l egi ti mati on
assumed by tradi ti onal authori ty, todef i ne i tsel f i n rel ati onto
practi cal goal s: i nterpretati ons of "the good l i f e" were attached tocontexts of
i nteracti on. The
same wassti l l truef or the i deol ogyof bourgeoi s soci ety. Today,
however, the substi tute programmati c onl y ref ers to the f uncti oni ng of acon-
trol l ed system. I t excl udes practi cal questi ons andthereby the di scussi onof the
acceptanceof standards whi chwereonl yaccessi bl etodemocrati cwi l l -f ormati on.
For thesol uti onof techni cal tasks i s not dependent uponpubl i cdi scussi on. But
publ i c di scussi ons coul d probl emati ze the boundary condi ti ons of the system
wi thi nwhi ch
thetasks of state acti vi ty pri mari l y appear as techni cal probl ems.
Thenewpol i ti cs of state i nterventi ontheref orerequi res adepol i ti ci zati onof the
massof thepopul ati on. I nthesame measure as practi cal questi onsare excl uded,
thepol i ti cal publ i cspherel oses i ts f uncti on. Themassmedi aassumethef uncti on
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
of secur i ng t hat
depol i t i ci zat i on of t he masses . Ont he ot her hand, t he l egi t i ma-
t i on of domi nat i on
by
t he
subst i t ut e pr ogr ammat i c l eaves open a deci si ve
l egi t i mat i on need: Howcan t he depol i t i ci zat i on of t he masses become pl ausi bl e
t o t hem? Mar cuse pr ovi ded an answer
t o
t hi s
quest i on
:
t echnol ogy
and
sci ence
al so t ake on t he r ol e of an
i deol ogy .
2. Si nce t he end of t he ni net eent h cent ur y, a
second devel opment al t endency,
char act er i st i c of l at e capi t al i sm, has
become mor e and mor e power f ul : t he
sci ent i zat i on of t echnol ogy . Thr ough
l ar ge- scal e i ndust r i al r esear ch, sci ence,
t echnol ogy and commer ci al i zat i on have
been
i nt egr at ed i nt o
one syst em. - I t i s
l i nked i n t he meant i me wi t h
st at e- commi ssi oned r esear ch, whi ch pr i mar i l y
suppor t s sci ent i f i c and
t echni cal pr ogr ess i n t he mi l i t ar y f i el d. Fr omt her e
i nf or mat i on f l ows
back i nt o t he domai n of ci vi l i an- goods pr oduct i on. Thus
t echnol ogy and
sci ence become t he pr i mar y pr oduct i ve f or ce and wi t h t hat t he.
condi t i ons of appl i cabi l i t y of Mar x' s l abour t heor y of val ue di sappear . I t no
l onger makes sense t o cal cul at e t he amount s of capi t al f or i nvest ment s i n
r esear ch and
devel opment on t he basi s of t he val ue of unski l l ed ( si mpl e) l abour
power , because i nst i t ut i onal i zed sci ent i f i c- t echni cal pr ogr ess
has become t he
basi s of an i ndi r ect sur pl us val ue pr oduct i on,
compar ed t o whi ch t he onl y sour ce
of sur pl us val ue Mar x consi der ed- t he l abour
power of t he i mmedi at e
pr oducer s- has l ess and
l ess i mpor t ance.
Thi s devel opment
subsequent l y gi ves r i se t o a st r angel y t echnocr at i c
con-
sci ousness .
So l ong
as t he pr oduct i ve f or ces wer e cl ear l y connect ed t o t he r at i onal
deci si ons and
i nst r ument al act i ons of a soci al l y pr oduci ng humani t y t hey coul d be
under st ood
as a pot ent i al wi t h a gr owi ng t echni cal power of
di sposal
;
t hey coul d
not , however ,
be conf used wi t h t he i nst i t ut i onal f r amewor k
i n
whi ch
t hey ar e
embedded. Wi t h t he i nst i t ut i onal i zat i on of
sci ent i f i c- t echni cal pr ogr ess, t he
pot ent i al of t he pr oduct i ve f or ces assumes a f or mwhi ch
decr eases
t he
dual i smof
wor k- and . i nt er act i on i n t he consci ousness of humani t y. I t
i s
t r ue
t hat soci al
i nt er est s st i l l det er mi ne, as al ways, t he di r ect i on, t he
f unct i ons and t he pace of
t ehcni cal pr ogr ess . Yet t hese i nt er est s def i ne t he soci al syst em
so
f ul l y t hat
t hey
ar e i dent i cal
wi t h t he i nt er est of mai nt ai ni ng t he syst em. The pr i vat e f or mof
capi t al ut i l i zat i on and
a l oyal t y- secur i ng code of di st r i but i on f or soci al compensa-
t i ons ar e as such wi t hdr awn
f r omdi scussi on. Aquasi - aut onomous pr ogr ess of
sci ence and t echnol ogy appear s
as
an
i ndependent var i abl e on whi ch t he si ngl e
most i mpor t ant var i abl e of t he
syst em, namel y, economi c gr owt h, i n f act
depends . Thi s r esul t s i n a per spect i ve i n whi ch t he devel opment
of t he soci al
syst emseems t o be det er mi ned by t he l ogi c of sci ent i f i c- t echni cal pr ogr ess . The
i mmanent l y l aw- l i ke
char act er of t hi s pr ogr ess, seems t o pr oduce t he compel -
l i ngness of t asks
t o
whi ch
a pol i t i cs based on obeyi ng
f unct i onal
needs must
r espond. I f t hi s t echnocr at i c consci ousness, whi ch
of
cour se i s
a
f al se consci ous-
ness, mani f est s i t sel f as
ever yday sel f under st andi ng,
t hen t he
r ef er ence t o
t he
r ol e of t echnol ogy and
sci ence
can' expl ai n and l egi t i mi ze why i n moder n soci et i es
a democr at i c pr ocess of wi l l - f or mat i on concer ni ng pr act i cal quest i ons must bot h
l ose i t s f unct i ons and be r epl aced by pl ebi sci t ar y deci si ons about al t er nat i ve set s
of l eader s of t he admi ni st r at i ve per sonnel . I n t hi s sense, t echnol ogy and sci ence
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
t oday
assume a doubl e f unct i on
: t hey . ar e not onl y
pr oduct i ve f or ces, but al so
i deol ogi es
. Thi s al so expl ai ns
why t he di scr epancy
bet ween t he f or ces
and
r el at i ons of pr oduct i on no
l onger cont i nues t o be
meani ngf ul , t hat i s, i s no
l onger
evi dent i n t he consci ousness of
t he mass of t he popul at i on
.
Wecan now
r et ur n t o t he t wo st r uct ur al condi t i ons
of r evol ut i on st at ed by
Mar x. Thesecond
condi t i on, namel y, t hat t he mechani sms
of capi t al ut i l i zat i on
i n pr i vat e f or mas such
conf r ont t hesyst em
wi t h i nsol ubl epr obl ems, i s no
l onger
sat i sf i ed i f i t i s
cor r ect t hat t he i nst i t ut i onal i zat i on
of sci ent i f i c- t echni cal pr o-
gr ess cast s
f undament al doubt upon t heor t hodox
cr i si s t heor y, and i f i n act ual
f act , t hr ough t heor gani sat i on of
sci ence as t he l eadi ng pr oduct i ve
f or ce, space i s
cr eat ed i n whi ch st at e
act i vi t y can pr i nci pal l y secur e economi c
gr owt h and mass
l oyal t y t hr ough
r e- di st r i but i on. I do not want t o go
f ur t her i nt o t hi s possi bi l i t y at
t hi s poi nt . ' What i s
of i nt er est t o mei s t hat t he
f i r st condi t i on of t hepossi bi l i t y of
a pol i t i cal l y
or gani zabl e cl ass st r uggl e i s al so no
l onger necessar i l y f ul f i l l ed . For
capi t al i st soci et y
has changed t o such an ext ent - duet o
t het wo af or ement i oned
devel opment al
t endenci es- t hat t wo key cat egor i es of
Mar x' s t heor y of r evol u-
t i on, vi z. , cl ass st r uggl e and
i deol ogy can no l onger be so easi l y
appl i ed.
1 . The l at e capi t al i st syst emi s
def i ned t osuch anext ent by
compensat i on, i . e. , by
a pol i t i cs of conf l i ct
avoi dance whi ch secur es t he l oyal t y of
t he wage- dependent
masses, t hat t he' cl ass
conf l i ct - bui l t i nt o t he soci al
st r uct ur e by t he pr i vat e
economi c
ut i l i zat i on of capi t al nowas bef or e- i s
t he conf l i ct whi ch, wi t h t he
r el at i vel y
gr eat est pr obabi l i t y, r emai ns l at ent . Thi s
conf l i ct r et r eat s behi nd ot her
conf l i ct s
whi ch, al t hough al so condi t i oned by t he mode
of pr oduct i on, no l onger
can assume
t he f or mof cl ass conf l i ct s . Cl aus. Of f e
has anal yzed t hi s par adoxi cal
st at eof
af f ai r s : openconf l i ct s ar emor e
l i kel y
t o be
spar ked by soci al i nt er est s t he
l ess
t hei r vi ol at i on has
syst em- endanger i ng consquences.
At t he per i pher y of
t hi s st at e spher e of act i on,
needs ar e pr egnant wi t h
conf l i ct because t hey ar e
r emot ef r omt hel at ent
cent r al conf l i ct andt her ef or edo
not enj oy any pr i or i t y i n
t hewar di ng of f of danger s.
Conf l i ct s ar i se due t o t hese
needs t o t he ext ent wi t h
whi ch t he di spr opor t i onat el y
spr ead st at e
i nt er vent i ons gi ve r i se t o r et ar ded
spher es of devel opment
and t o cor r espondi ng
t ensi ons of di spar i t y . The
i nt er -
est s l i nked t o
t he mai nt enance of t he mode of
pr oduct i on can no
l onger
be
unambi guousl y
l ocat ed i n t he soci al syst em
as cl ass i nt er est s . For t he syst em
of
pol i t i cal cont r ol ,
whi ch i s or i ent ed t o t he
pr event i on of t hr eat s t o t he syst em,
excl udes j ust
t hat "domi nat i on" whi ch i s
exer ci sed when one cl ass
subj ect
opposes
t he ot her as an i dent i f i abl e
gr oup.
Thi s si gnal s not an
abol i t i on but a l at ency of
cl ass ant agoni sms. I t i s t r ue t hat ,
as
empi r i cal soci ol ogi st s, we can
sat i sf act or i l y demonst r at e t hat
cl ass- speci f i c
di f f er ences cont i nue t o exi st
i n t hef or mof subcul t ur al
t r adi t i ons and cor r espond-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
i ngdi f f erences
of not onl ystandards of l i vi ngand ways
of l i f e but al soof pol i ti cal
atti tudes. Furthermore, the
soci o- structural l y condi ti oned probabi l i ty ari ses that
the cl ass of wage- l abourers
wi l l be hi t harder by soci al di spari ti es than
other
groups. And, f i nal l y,
thegeneral i zedi nterest i nthemai ntenance
of thesystemon
the
l evel of i mmedi ate l i f e chances i s today sti l l
anchored i n a structure of
pri vi l ege: For the concept of an
i nterest compl etel y i ndependent of l i vi ng
subj ects woul d cancel i tsel f out.
But wi th the wardi ng of f of dangers
to
the
system, pol i ti cal authori ty i n
state- regul ated capi tal i smhas absorbed ani nterest
i n the mai ntenance of the
compensatory f acade of di stri buti on that reaches
beyond the vi rtual i zed
cl ass boundari es.
On the other hand,
the di spl acement of the conf l i ct
zone
f rom
the cl ass
boundary
to
the
underpri vi l eged spheres of l i f e
does not at al l i mpl ytheel i mi na-
ti onof graveconf l i ct potenti al .
As
the
raci al conf l i ct i n the Uni tedStates shows
i n
theextreme, somanyconsequences
of di spari ty canaccumul ate i ncertai nareas
and groups that ci vi l war- l i ke expl osi ons
resul t . When not l i nked wi th the
protest potenti al of other ori gi ns, al l
conf l i cts based sol el y on suchdepri vati on
arecharacteri zedbythe f act that, whi l e
theyprovokethesystemto react sharpl y
andi na wayi ncompati bl ewi th
f ormal democracy, theycannot real l y revol uti on-
i zethi s system. For depri ved
groups arenot soci al cl asses; i n addi ti on, they never
evenpotenti al l y represent the mass of the
popul ati on. Thei r l oss of ri ghts and
thei r pauperi zati on are nol onger i denti cal wi th
expl oi tati on, si nce the system
does not f eeduponthei r l abour ; at most, they
represent apast phaseof expl oi ta-
ti on
.
. Yet they cannot enf orce the f ul f i l l ment
of
the
cl ai ms they l egi ti matel y
represent through the wi thdrawal
of
thei r
cooperati on; these cl ai ms conse-
quentl y have anappel l ati ve character. I nthe
extreme case, depri ved groups can
react tothel ongtermnon- recogni ti on
of thei r l egi ti matecl ai ms wi thdesperate
destructi onandsel f - destructi on
: suchci vi l stri f e, however, l acks the revol uti on-
ary chances of success of cl ass struggl e
so l ong as coal i ti ons wi th pri vi l eged
groups are not real i zed.
I nl ate
capi tal i st soci ety the depri ved and pri vi l egedgroups nol onger oppose
eachother as soci o- economi c
cl asses i nsof ar as the l i mi ts of depri vati onremai n
group speci f i c at al l and
do
not
pass di rectl y through the categori es of the
popul ati on.
2. Thetechnocrati c consci ousness i s i none
respect "l ess i deol ogi cal "
than
al l
previ ous i deol ogi es, because i t does not have the power
of
del usi on
whi ch
si mul ates the f ul f i l l ment of i nterests by onl y compensati ng
suppresseddesi res.
I n another respect, the gl assy background i deol ogy whi chf eti shi zes
sci ence i s
morei rresi sti bl e and f ar- reachi ngthani deol ogi es of the ol d type
.
By
conceal i ng
practi cal questi ons, thi s i deol ogy not onl y j usti f i es the parti cul ar i nterest i n
domi nati onof acertai ncl ass andsuppresses theparti cul ar needf or emanci pati on
of another cl ass- i t al so stri kes agai nst the emanci patory
speci es- i nterest
as
such
.
The
technocrati c consci ousness i s norati onal i zi ng, wi shf ul phantasy, no"i l l u-
si on" i n the
Freudi an sense of posi ti ng a non- repressi ve, wi sh- f ul f i l l i ng rel a-
ti onshi p of i nteracti ons
. Thebasi c f i gure of j ust anddomi nati on- f reei nteracti on
DISAPPEARING
IDEOLOGY
sat i sf act or y f or bot h si des coul d
st i l l be at t r i but ed t o bour geoi s i deol ogi es .
Founded oncommuncat i on
r est r i ct ed by r epr essi on, i t was pr eci sel y t hese i deol -
ogi es t hat sat i sf i ed t he cr i t er i a of
wi sh- f ul f i l l ment and subst i t ut e sat i sf act i on
i n
such
a manner t hat t he r el at i onshi p of f or ce
t hat at one t i me had beeni nst i t ut i on-
al i zed wi t h t he capi t al r el at i onshi p coul d
not be named as such. The t echnocr at i c
consci ousness, however , no l onger expr esses
a pr oj ect i onof t he "good l i f e" t hat ,
t hough not i dent i cal wi t h t he bad r eal i t y, at l east
i s br ought i nt o a pot ent i al l y
sat i sf act or y
r el at i onshi p wi t h i t . Cer t ai nl y bot h t he
new
as
wel l as t he ol d
i deol ogy ser ve t o pr ecl ude t he
t hemat i zat i on of t he soci al
base. In t he past , t he
r el at i onshi p
bet weencapi t al i st s and wage l abour er s was
t he di r ect basi s of soci al
vi ol ence ; t oday
i t
i s
t he st r uct ur al condi t i ons whi chdef i ne
t he f unct i onal t asks of
syst emmai nt enance,
namel y, t he pr i vat e economi c f or mof
capi t al ut i l i zat i on
and a pol i t i cal f or mof
di st r i but i on of soci al compensat i ons whi ch secur es
t he
l oyal t y of t he masses . Never t hel ess,
t he ol d and t he newi deol ogy di f f er i n
t wo
r espect s
. Ont he one hand, t he capi t al
r el at i onshi p- due t o i t s bei ng l i nked t o a
pol i t i cal mode of di st r i but i on
guar ant eei ng l oyal t y- i s no l onger basedonuncor -
r ect ed expl oi t at i on
and oppr essi on: t he vi r t ual i zat i on of
cont i nui ng cl ass di vi s-
i on pr esupposes t hat
t he r epr essi on on whi ch i t r est s has become
hi st or i cal l y
consci ous and has
onl y t hen beenst abi l i zed i n modi f i ed f or mas a
char act er i st i c
of
t he syst em. For t hi s r eason, t he
t echnocr at i c consci ousness cannot be based on
col l ect i ve r epr essi oni nt he same way as
was t he aut hor i t y of ol der i deol ogi es . On
t he ot her hand, mass l oyal t y can
onl y
be
pr oduced wi t h t he hel p of compensa-
t i ons f or pr i vat i zed needs . The i nt er pr et at i on of
t he accompl i shment s whi ch
t he
syst emuses t o j ust i f y i t sel f must i n
pr i nci pl e not be pol i t i cal ; t hi s i nt er pr et at i on
r ef er s di r ect l y t o t he use- neut r al
al l ocat i onof money and l ei sur e and, i ndi r ect l y,
t o t he t echnocr at i c j ust i f i cat i on of t he
excl usi on of pr act i cal quest i ons .
At t hi s
poi nt , I have r eached a deci si ve st ep i n
my ar gument at i on. I mai nt ai n
t hat t he condi t i ons of a pol i t i cal l y or gani zabl e
cl ass st r uggl e i n l at e capi t al i smar e
not f ul f i l l ed so l ong as t her e i s an ef f ect i ve
separ at i on of t wo mot i vat i onal
l i nks- l i nks t hat wer e al ways connect ed
i n t he wor ker s' movement
and i n
Mar xi st t heor y- i n such a way
t hat one i nt er est can be sat i sf i ed
and t he ot her
r epr essed. What i s bei ng sat i sf i ed i s
t he economi c i nt er est of
consumer s i n
soci al l y pr oduced goods
and ser vi ces and t hat of empl oyees
i n r educed wor ki ng
hour s ;
what
has
been r epr essed i s t he pol i t i cal i nt er est
of i ndi vi dual s, t hei r
achi evement of
aut onomy
by
vol unt ar i l y par t i ci pat i ng i n
al l deci si on- maki ng
pr ocesses upon
whi cht hei r l i ves depend. The st abi l i zat i on of
t he st at e- r egul at ed
capi t al i st soci al . syst emdepends ont he l oyal t y of
t he masses bei ng l i nked t o an
unpol i t i cal f or mof soci al
compensat i ons ( of i ncome and l ei sur e
t i me) and t o
ensur i ng t hat t her e i s a
scr eeni ng out of t hei r i nt er est i nt he sol ut i on of
pr act i cal
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
questi ons concerni nga better
andgoodl i f e. For thi s reason,
however, the soci al
systemof
state- regul atedcapi tal i smrests upona very
weakl egi ti mati onbasi s. By
di verti ng the
i nterests of broad' strata to the
pri vate domai n, the system
of
domi nati on i s al most excl usi vel y
negati ve andno l onger
af f i rmati vel y j usti f i ed
by practi cal goal s. Thedepol i ti ci zati on
of the publ i c sphere, whi ch
i s necessary
f or the systemandrul es
out a process of wi l l - f ormati on i n
radi cal - democrati c
f orm, di scl oses the
strategi cpoi nt of vul nerabi l i ty
of
the
system
.
Bef orenami ngthe
f orces whi charedi rectedat thi s poi nt
of weakness, I wi l l at
l east menti on the two
i nternati onal tendenci es whi ch
haveso f ar contri buted
i nstead to a
stabi l i zati on of capi tal i sm.
1 . The connecti on
between the economi c stabi l i ty
of the devel oped capi tal i st
countri es and
the catastrophi c economi c si tuati on i n
the countri es of the Thi rd
Worl d
can no l onger apparentl y
be apprehendedtoday through the theory
of
i mperi al i sm. I donot doubt
that
the
adverse soci o- economi c starti ng
condi ti ons
i n these
l atter countri es have been
generatedbythe i mperi al i smof the contem-
porary i ndustri al nati ons. There
i s everyreasonto bel i eve, however, that
rel a-
ti onshi ps based on economi c
expl oi tati on between Fi rst and Thi rd
Worl d
countri es are tendi ngtobe
repl acedwi th rel ati onshi ps of strategi c
dependence
andgrowi ngdi spari ty.
Onan i nternati onal l evel , depri vati on
al so si gni f i es an
outrageous depri vati on of ri ghts
whi ch, however, i s no l onger automati cal l y
i denti f i abl e wi th expl oi tati on and,
i n the f uture, wi l l become
even l ess so
i denti f i abl e
. Thi s al so cl ari f i es whythose
countri es whi ch represent a past phase
of
expl oi tati on todayconvi nci ngl yassert
a certai n moral i zati onof cl ai ms agai nst
the
f ormer col oni al powers.
2.
The
establ i shment of a bl ocof soci al i st states f ol l owi ngthe
Russi anRevol u-
ti on andthevi ctoryof theAl l i es
over f asci st Germanyhas createda newl evel
of
i nternati onal cl ass
struggl e. The mi l i tary presence
as wel l as the state soci al i st
model of organi zed soci ety
exert a competi ti ve pressure upon,
and at l east
contri butetothesel f - di sci pl i ni ng
of capi tal i sm. Thei nternal pressure
createdby
the i mperati ve to mai ntai n
mass- l oyal ty through economi c growth
andsoci al
compensati ons i s rei nf orcedby
theexternal pressureof tangi bl eal ternati ves
.
An
endangerment of state- regul ated
capi tal i smwi l l certai nl y not resul t
so
l ong as
the
al ternati ve model i s onl yrepresented
by the f ormof domi nati onof bureau-
crati c soci al i sm
. Neverthel ess, the i mmobi l i sme
of . the 50' s has f ractured, and
therearemore
f requent si gns of newrevol uti onary
devel opments. I f thecl assi cal
condi ti ons of the
revol uti on are no l onger f ul f i l l ed, are there
al ternati ve condi -
ti ons? I n concl usi on,
I woul dl i keto respondto thi s questi on- at
l east i n thesi s
f orm- wi th respect
to devel opments wi thi n both l ate capi tal i st
soci al systems
andthe i nternati onal sector .
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
I V
1 . For the ti me bei ng
nei ther theol d cl ass opposi ti on
nor the newtypes of
depri vati on contai nprotest
potenti al whi ch tends torepol i ti ci ze
thewi thered
publ i c
sphere. Theonl y protest
potenti al whi chi s currentl y di rected at
the new
conf l i ct zoneby
recogni zabl e i nterests ari ses
wi thi ncertai ngroups of
uni versi ty
and hi gh school
students . Herewecanbegi n
wi th three observati ons :
a) The protest
group of uni versi ty and
hi gh school students i s a pri vi l eged
group. Theydonot
represent i nterests that
i mmedi atel yderi vef romthei r soci al
posi ti onand that
coul d besati sf i ed- i nconf ormi ty
wi ththesystem- through
i ncreased soci al
compensati ons . Thef i rst Ameri can
studi es
3
of student acti vi sts
conf i rmthat thegreat maj ori ty
are not status- seekers but, rather,
that they are
recrui ted f romsoci al groups of a
hi gher status and wi thout economi c
burdens .
b) Thel egi ti mati onproposi ti ons
of thesystemof domi nati ondonor
seemto be
convi nci ngto thi s groupf or
understandabl ereasons . The
wel f arestate substi tute
programmati c f or thedecayed
bourgeoi s i deol ogi es assumes
a certai nori entati on
to status and achi evement
. Accordi ngto theaf ore- menti oned
studi es, however,
the
mi l i tant students are l ess
ori ented topri vate,
occupati onal career and
f uture
f ami l y than the remai nder of
students . Both thei r academi c
perf ormances-
whi chare f requentl y above
average- andthei r soci al ori gi n
l endl i ttl esupport to
a hori zon of
expectati ons whi ch i s
determi ned by anti ci pated l abour
market
pressures .
c) I nthi s group, conf l i ct canbesparked
not by theexpected extent of di sci pl i ne
and sacri f i cebut onl y becauseof
the ki ndof i mposedrenunci ati ons . Uni versi ty
and hi gh school students do not
struggl e f or a greater shareof thedi sposabl e
categori es of soci al compensati ons :
i ncome and l ei sure ti me. Thei r protest i s
muchmoredi rectedagai nst these
categori es of ' compensati on' as such. The
l i ttl e
data we have
conf i rms theassumpti onthat the protest of youth
f rommi ddl e
cl ass f ami l i es i s
nol onger i denti cal wi ththegenerati onal patternof authori ty
conf l i ct
. The acti ve students more l i kel y haveparents whoshare
thei r cri ti cal
atti tudes
;
rel ati vel y f requentl y they have been rai sed
wi th more psychol ogi cal
understandi ngand i n accordancewi th more l i beral
educati onal pri nci pl es than
comparabl e groups of non- acti vi sts . Thei r
soci al i zati on seems more l i kel y to
havebeenef f ected wi thi nsubcul tures f reed
f romi mmedi ateeconomi c pressure,
and wi thi nwhi chtherehas beena l oss of
f uncti onof the tradi ti ons of bourgeoi s
moral i ty and thei r peti t- bourgeoi s
of f spri ng. Thus, thetrai ni ngf or the' swi tch-
i ngover' tothe val ueori entati onof
purposi ve- rati onal acti onnol onger i ncl udes
thef eti shi smof
thi s acti on. Theseeducati onal techni ques canf oster experi ences
and ori entati ons that col l i dewi ththeconservati ve f orms of
l i f e grounded i n an
economy of poverty. Fromthi s f oundati oncoul d ari se a compl ete
l ack
of com-
prehensi on of the meani ngl ess reproducti on of
superf l uous vi rtues and
sacri f i ces- a f ai l ure to
understand why, despi te the hi ghl evel of technol ogi cal
devel opment, the l i ves of
i ndi vi dual s conti nueto becondi ti onedby thedi ctates of
I DEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
work, theethi cs of competi ti ve
achi evement, thepressure
of status competi ti on,
theval ues of
possessi verei f i cati on andof proposed
substi tute- sati sf acti ons, and
why
the di sci pl i ne of al i enated l abour and the
annul ment of sensual i ty and
aestheti c sati sf acti on are mai ntai ned.
Astructural excl usi on of practi cal
ques-
ti ons f romthe depol i ti ci zed
publ i c sphere has to
become
i ntol erabl e
to thi s
sensi bi l i ty. 4
I admi t that thi s
perspecti ve upends thecommonl y
acceptedassumpti ons of
Marxi st theory.
Myhypothesi s suggests that not
materi al desti tuti onbut materi -
al abundance
i s thebasi s uponwhi chthepeti t- bourgeoi s
structure of needs-
generated
f or centuri es under the compul si on
of i ndi vi dual competi ti on, and
whi ch
has not penetrated i nto the
i ntegrated l abour f orce- can be broken.
Accordi ng
to
thi s
hypothesi s, onl y the psychol ogyof sati ety of the avai l abl e
af f l uence
sensi ti zes thepopul ati ontothe i deol ogi cal l y
conceal edcompul si onof
bureaucrati zed
f orms of workandl i f e, wi thi nwhi ch the weal th
of , past genera-
ti ons
has beenacqui red. I f thi s i s correct, thenthe
revol uti onwoul dnot l eadto
theabol i ti onof povertybut assumei t .
s
On
a
gl obal scal e, however, the prospects
f or thi s assumpti onarenot good.
As
matters
stand, theprotest of youthcanonl y
haverevol uti onaryconsequences i f
i t i s conf rontedi nthenear f uture wi th an
i nsol ubl esystemprobl emtowhi ch
I havesof ar not ref erred. I amof the
opi ni on
that the
probl emwhi ch wi l l i ncrease i n i mportance
i s that of a structural l y
condi ti oned
erosi onof the i deol ogyof the achi evi ng
soci ety. Thedegreeof soci al
af f l uence
producedbyani ndustri al l ydevel oped
capi tal i sm, andthetechni cal as
wel l
as organi zati onal condi ti ons under whi chthi s weal th
i s produced, conti nu-
al l y
i ncrease the di f f i cul tyof even subj ecti vel y
andconvi nci ngl y bi ndi ng the
al l ocati on
of status to themechani sm
of eval uati ng i ndi vi dual perf ormance.
2. On an i nternati onal l evel , two
devel opments are emergi ng whi ch permi t
conj ectures about aqual i tati ve
transf ormati onof theexternal pressure
onthe
l ate capi tal i st system. Agai n, I shoul dl i ke
todi f f erenti ate betweenrel ati ons wi th
Thi rdWorl dcountri es and
rel ati ons wi thsoci al i st countri es of theSovi et type
.
a) There are strong resons
f or bel i evi ng that organi zedcapi tal i smas wel l
as
bureaucrati c soci al i smarei ncapabl e
of generati ngf romwi thi nsuf f i ci ent moti va-
ti ontoprovi de
ef f ecti ve,
i
. e. , suf f i ci entl yl argedevel opment ai dthat i s excl usi vel y
ori ented to the i nterests of thereci pi ent
countri es. I t i s esti mated that, . f or thi s
purpose, the
af f l uent countri es woul d
have to di vert 15- 20%of thei r soci al
product i n
order to cl ose theeconomi c gap between the
poor andthe af f l uent
countri es
. As thi s i s unl i kel ytohappen, acatastrophi c
f ami ne duri ng the80' s
cannot be rul ed
out . Theextent of thi s catastrophe coul d
beso l arge that, wi th.
respect to thi s phenomenon,
the di screpancybetweenthe
f orces
and
rel ati ons of
producti on can once agai n
become di rectl yevi dent to the popul ati on
of the
i ndustri al i zedcountri es. 6
Suchaconsci ousness of thei nabi l i tyof theestabl i shed
systemto sol veprobl ems
of survi val i n other parts of theworl dcoul drenew
an
i nternati onal cl ass struggl e si tuati on
i f oneof thesecountri es- I amherethi nk-
i ng
of . Chi na- succeeded i n devel opi ng
an i ndustri al potenti al suf f i ci ent f or
atomi c bl ackmai l wi thout at thesameti me
devel opi ngthef orms of bureaucrati c
domi nati on
andthat mental i tywhi ch have hi therto
al ways accompani edthe
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
i ndust ri al i zat i on
of
a soci et y. I f Chi na, despi t e i ndust ri al
growt h, mai nt ai ned i t s
revol ut i onary
poi nt of depart ure and effect i vel y renewed
t he consci ousness of
t hi s begi nni ng
i n eachgenerat i on, t he pauperi zed and weakened
nat i ons, whi ch
t oday donot
necessari l y havet obet he expl oi t ed nat i ons,
woul dfi ndanadvocat e.
Thi s advocat e coul d
compensat e for t he mi ssi ng means of economi c
pressure
t hrought he wi t hdrawal of
cooperat i onby mi l i t ary pressure, wi t hout at t he
same
t i me adheri ng t o t he sensi t i ve
rul es
of
t he game of t he at omi c superpowers.
b)
An al t ernat i ve devel opment ,
whi ch coul d al so l ead (wi t h l ess ri sk) t o an
ext ernal pressure on t he devel oped
capi t al i st soci et i es i s i n my opi ni on onl y
probabl e
i f-despi t e t he brut al repressi on of t he
Czechosl ovaki an reformers-
an
ant i -aut hori t ari an- di ssol ut i on of bureaucrat i c soci al i sm
coul d soon be achi e-
ved. Onl y a
radi cal democrat i zat i on of t he devel oped st at e
soci al i st count ri es
coul d produce a
compet i t i ve model , one whi ch makes t he
l i mi t s
of
st at e-
regul at edcapi t al i sm
obvi ous, t hat
i s,
vi si bl e t ot he consci ousness of t he current l y
wel l -i nt egrat ed masses.
Under t he gi ven mi l i t ary and st rat egi c condi t i ons,
t he
superi ori t y of
t he soci al i st mode of product i on cannot become
effect i ve and
vi si bl e as
l ong
as
bot hsi des choose economi c growt h, t he suppl y of
goods andt he
reduct i onof
worki nghours-pri vat ewel fare-as t he
onl y cri t eri onfor compari -
son
. The superi ori t y of a modeof product i on shoul d be j udged
accordi ngt o t he
space
i t
opens
for a democrat i zat i on of deci si on-maki ngprocesses
i n al l soci al
domai ns.
Max-Pl anck-I nst i t ut
fur Sozi al wi ssenschaft en
Mnnchen
Not es
1 . HereI amrepeat i ngpart s of
t heanal ysi s of Techni kandWi ssenschaft al s ' I deol ogi e' (Frankfurt ,
1968) ; t heessays
fromt hi s vol ume were subsequent l y t ransl at ed as TowardARat i onal Soci et y.
St udent Prot est , Sci ence
and Pol i t i cs, t rans. , J eremy J . Shapi ro (London, 1971) , essays 4-6;
Theory and
Pract i ce, t rans. J ohn Vi ert el (Bost on, 1973) , essay 4; and Knowl edge andHuman
I nt erest s,
t rans
. J eremy
J . Shapi ro (London, 1972) , appendi x.
2. Compare
my st udy, Legi t i mat i on Cri si s, t rans. Thomas McCart hy (Bost on, 1975) .
3. S. M.
Li pset , P. G. Al t bach, ' St udent Pol i t i cs and Hi gher Educat i on i n t he USA' , i n S. M. Li pset
(ed
. ) , St udent Pol i t i cs (New. York, 1967) , pp. 199ff. ; R. Fl acks, ' The Li berat ed
Generat i on, An
Expl orat i onof t heRoot s of St udent Prot est ' , J ournal of Soci al I ssues, J ul y 1967, pp. 52
ff. ; K.
Keni st on, ' The Sources of St udent Di ssent ' , i bi d. , pp. 108
ff.
4. Comparet hesubsequent st udy of
R. Er6bert , G. NUnner-Wi nkl er, ' Konfl i kt andRUckzugspot en-
t i al e i n spl t kapi t al i st i schen
Gesel l schaft en , Zei t schri ft fl l r Sozi ol ogi e, 1973.
5. See Herbert Marcvse,
Count errevol ut i on and Revol t (Bost on, 1972) .
6. As
aconsequence of more recent prognoses, I see aneedt o weakenmyprevi ous formul at i ons.
ON
THE
GENESI SOFI DEOLOGY
I NMODERNSOCI ETI ES
Cl audeLef or t
Under t he ci r cumst ances, out l i ni ngananal ysi s of
i deol ogy saves onet he wor k
t hat woul dbe necessar y f or a t hor oughcr i t i que
of i deol ogi cal f or mat i ons as t hey
can be di scer ned i n det er mi ned hi st or i cal condi t i ons
. I f such a cr i t i que wer e
r eal i zed, t he out l i ne mi ght
not
hol d
t o t he act ual condi t i ons, nor r et ai n i t s
or i gi nal val ue
.
I ndeed,
i t s l i mi t at i ons ar e onl y t oo easi l y per cei ved. Topr esent a
pr of i l e
of bour geoi s i deol ogy wi t hout r ef er ence t o dat es or pl aces i s t o negl ect
many of t he t r ai t s whi ch shoul dbe t akeni nt o consi der at i on, f or exampl e, t he
r el at i onwhi choccasi onal l y ar i ses bet weendomi nant di scour se and t hecour se of
cl ass conf l i ct , t he pol i t i cal r egi me, nat i onal t r adi t i onandacul t ur e' s her i t age
.
I n
r e-exami nai ng t hese ar t i cul at i ons, sever al f or ms mi ght come t o l i ght wher e
pr evi ousl y onl yonewas di scer ned, andt hus t he adopt edper spect i ve woul dnot
be
l ef t i nt act .
Thesuspi ci onwhi chhangs over t he-anal ysi s of t ot al i t ar i ani smi s no
l ess
ser i ous
.
Thi s
anal ysi s does not di ssoci at eSt al i ni smf r omNazi smor f asci sm,
al t hough i t
does
not per mi t
one t o be mi st aken f or anot her . Fur t her mor e,
not hi ngi s sai dabout t he
i deol ogi cal t r ansf or mat i ons whi chhaveoccur r edi nt he
USSRandeast er n
Eur ope over a per i odof near l y t went y year s, nor i s t her e any
comment about Chi na' s ver y si ngul ar var i ant of t ot al i t ar i ani sm. As f or i deol ogy,
whi chf or l ackof a bet t er t er mwedescr i be as "i nvi si bl e"
(not because
i t
act ual l y
i s, but because i t seems t o be or gani zedi nsuch a way
as
t o bl ur t he
char act er i st i c
opposi t i ons of t he pr evi ous i deol ogy), t he one whi ch cur r ent l y pr evai l s i n
West er ndemocr aci es i s i ndi cat ed r at her t handescr i bed. No doubt muchl abor -
i ous r esear chwoul dbe necessar y t o uncover t hedi scur si veconnect i ons suggest ed
her e: f r omt hecent er of or gani zat i ont o t hat of educat i on, f r omt hecent er of t he
medi a t o soci al psychol ogy, or t o t hat of . l i t er ar y, phi l osophi cal and ar t i st i c
expr essi on. Thi s l at t er shor t comi ngi s al l t he mor eper cept i bl ei nt hat webel i eve
i t
possi bl et hr ought hi s t hi r d f or mt o di scover t hegener al pr oper t i es of i deol ogy
andt hepr i nci pl es
of
i t s
t r apsf or mat i on. Nonet hel ess, i t canbeexpl ai ned, i f not
j ust i f i ed, l i ke
t heout l i nef or mat , byt heconcer nt o hast i l y r evi veacr i t i que whose
f oundat i on
i s, at t he pr esent t i me, bur i ed under t he r ubbl e of Mar xi sm.
I ndeed, i t
i s i mpossi bl e not t o br i ngupt he decay of t he concept of i deol ogy,
gi vent he
way
i t
i s empl oyed by soci ol ogi st s or hi st or i ans i nvoki ng sci ent i f i c
aut hor i t y, as wel l as by r evol ut i onar y mi l i t ant s.
Somehavepr ocl ai med"t he end
of i deol ogy" (a f or mul a whi chwas i mmensel y popul ar at t he begi nni ng
of
t he
' Fr omCl aude
Lef or t Ler For mer dePhi st oi r e
: Essai s d' ant hr opol ogi epol i t i que, Gal l i mar d, Par i s,
1978 pp. 278-329. Appear edor i gi nal l y i nText ur es 8-9, 1974
.
An
abbr evi at edver si onwas publ i shed
i nt heEncycl opedi a Uni ver sal i s (vol . XVI I , Or ganum) .
Tr ansl at ed by Kat hy Sabo i ncol l abor at i on
wi t hGr egNi el sen, Uni ver si t ede Mont r eal f or t he CJ PST.
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
si xt i es andwhi chhas recent l y
beenrevi ved) , convi ncedt hat
t he demands of
i ndust ri al soci et y gradual l y compel
adapt at i on t o real i t y
and t hat t he great
doct ri nes no l onger mobi l i ze t he
masses . Ot hers are
cont ent t o denounce t he
decay of
bourgeoi s i deol ogy by
i nvoki ng t he powerl essness of
t he domi nant t o
def end a
val ue syst emwhi ch, f rom
busi ness t o f ami l y,
f ormerl y governedt he
f unct i oni ng of
i nst i t ut i ons t o t hei r
ownbenef i t . St i l l ot hers,
f roma di f f erent
perspect i ve, see
al l t hought as i deol ogy; f aced
wi t ht hei r adversari es, t heydo
not
hesi t at e t o l ay
cl ai m
t o
aprol et ari an i deol ogy, as
i f
each
cl ass i nt erest , i n i t sel f
det ermi ned, f ounddi rect and
coherent expressi oni n
l anguage.
I nt he f i rst case, i deol ogy i s
reducedt o t he mani f est at i onof
agl obal proj ect of
soci et al
t ransf ormat i on; t hat i s
t o say, act ual l y t o t he
expl i ci t di scourse of a
part y-communi st or f asci st ( or one
of t hei r vari ant s) ,
whereas t he quest i onas
t o
howi t arose f romt he cri si s of
bourgeoi s i deol ogy andwhyt he
l at t er i s abl e t o
prof i t
f roma general t hesi s ont he
organi sat i onof soci et y di sappears .
I n t he
secondcase,
t he present domi nant i deol ogyi s
i dent i f i edwi t hbourgeoi s
i deol ogy,
def i ned
by t rai t s whi chwere f ormerl y
at t ri but edt oi t by t he
Marxi st movement .
I n
t hi s way, wi t hregardt o t he decay
of bourgeoi s i deol ogy,
i t
i s
not possi bl e, i n
pri nci pl e, t opercei ve t he si gns of a
t ransf ormat i on. Thus, one
yi el ds ei t her t o t he
myt hof a revol ut i oni n
progress, at t he poi nt of burst i ngout , or
t ot he myt hof an
"unof f i ci al " domi nat i on
andexpl oi t at i on, unabl e f rom
t hat poi nt t orecogni ze
t hei r l egi t i macy or t obe recogni zed
as l egi t i mat e. Fi nal l y,
i nt he t hi rdcase t he
concept of i deol ogy ret ai ns no
t race of t he i ni t i al meani ng
whi chsuppl i ed i t s
cri t i cal f orce: i deol ogy i s reducedt o
i deas whi chare def endedt o
assure t he vi ct ory
of a
' cl ass, t o agoodor badcause
whose nat ure one knows or
coul dknow, and
whose agent one knows or coul d
knowonesel f t obe.
I n one way or anot her, t he spl i t
bet ween anorder of pract i ce
andone of
represent at i on, whi chMarx' s
work l eads us t o exami ne, i s i gnored
; or perhaps
"conceal ed" woul dbeabet t er choi ce
t oemphasi ze t hat i t i s
not aquest i onof t he
di st ort i onof aconcept .
Rat her, i nami sappreci at i onof t he
probl emof i deol ogy,
ani deol ogi cal bl i ndspot
shows i t sel f ; j ust as t he l ack of
comprehensi onof t he
probl emof t he
subconsci ous woul dnot st emf roman
error i n t he readi ng of
Freud, but
f rom
a
newresi st ance t odi scovery whi chwoul d
t hreat ent he subj ect ' s
cert i t udes .
Thus, by means
of remarkabl e ruse, i deol ogy has come
t odesi gnat e al most
t he
cont rary of
i t s ori gi nal meani ng. Formerl y
ref erri ng t o a l ogi cof domi nant i deas,
conceal edf rom`t he knowl edge of soci al
act ors andonl y reveal i ng i t sel f
t hrough
i nt erpret at i onandi nt he cri t i que of
ut t erances andt hei r mani f est sequences,
i t
has t oday beenreduced t o a corpus of
argument s, t ot he apparat us of
bel i ef s
whi chprovi des t he vi si bl e
f rameworkof acol l ect i ve pract i ce,
i dent i f i ed wi t h
democrat i c l i beral di scourse
f or some, or wi t hLeni ni st or
St al i ni st di scourse
( i ndeed, Maoi st or
Trot skyst ) f or ot hers, or evenwi t hf asci st
di scourse j ust as
t hey are
present ed.
Toreopent he pat ht o acri t i que of i deol ogy,
t o t he exami nat i onof t he present ,
i s not t o ret urn t o
t he ori gi nal puri t y of Marx' s t heory. Sucha st ep woul dbe
doubl y
i l l usi onary, f i rst of al l , because st ri ct l y speaki ng, ' t here i s no t heory of
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
i deol ogi es i n Marx' s work; hi s anal yses are ambi guous
and t o makeuse of hi s
work, one must i nt erpret i t . Secondl y, t he
present can onl y be decoded i f one
quest i ons t hepri nci pl es whi ch
cont rol i t s i nt el l i gi bi l i t y. I n addi t i on, ret urni ng t o
Marx' s undert aki ng
can ret racehi s procedure onl yat adi st ance and i ncl udet he
exami nat i on
of t he t hought about i deol ogy i n t heexami nat i on of
i deol ogy i t sel f .
The di st ance proves t o be consi derabl e, gi ven t hat Marx onl y
concei ved of
i deol ogy as "bourgeoi s
i deol ogy", andt hat we are l ed t o recogni ze i t i n ot her
forms, and moreover,
t o underst and t he pri nci pl eof i t s t ransformat i on. None-
t hel ess, wemust
st ress
t he
fact t hat Marxdi dnot makebourgeoi s i deol ogyi nt o a
product
of
t he
bourgeoi si e. Rat her, hel eads us t orel at ei t t o soci al di vi si on and
t o
l i nk
i t s ori gi n t o t hat of a hi st ori cal format i on-as he t erms i t , "t he
capi t al i st
mode of product i on"-whi ch he concl uded t o be di fferent fromal l previ ous
format i ons grouped t oget her i n t he cat egory of "pre-capi t al i sm".
Our out l i ne t akes t he fol l owi ng concept i on as i t s
st art i ng poi nt : i t confi nes
i deol ogy t o one t ype
of soci et y, and t hus formal l y chal l enges t he appl i cat i on of
t he t ermt o a feudal ,
despot i c, or st at el ess st ruct ure i n whi ch t he domi nant
di scoursedraws i t s
l egi t i macy fromreference t o at ranscendent order, and does
not admi t t he not i on
of soci al real i t y i nt el l i gi bl e i n i t sel f, nor, at t hesamet i me,
t he not i on
of
a hi st ory
or nat ure i nt el l i gi bl e i n i t sel f. On t he ot her hand, we
cl earl y breakwi t h Marx' s concept i on from
t he moment t hat weno l onger deal
wi t h i deol ogy as arefl ect i on, when weat t empt
t o
uncover
i t s workand t hi nkof
format i on and t ransformat i on t oget her, t hat
i s t osay, weat t ri but et o i t t heabi l i t y
t oart i cul at e andreart i cul at e i t sel f, not onl y i n
responset o
t he
supposed"real i t y' ,
but i n face of " t he effect s of i t s own maski ngof real i t y. I t
must be emphasi zed
t hen, t hat t hi s break concerns not onl y t he concept i on of
i deol ogy, but
t he
concept i on of mode of product i on, or t he Marxi st defi ni t i on of t he l ocus of
real i t y.
The soci et y whose speci fi ci t y
Marx concei ves by cont rast t o al l previ ous
format i ons comes i nt obei ngwi t h
t heschi smof capi t al andl abour . Cl ass opposi -
t i ons are condensed i n t he
ant agoni smbet ween bourgeoi si eandprol et ari at ; t he
separat i on of t he St at e and ci vi l soci et y
responds t o t he necessi t y for a power
whi ch represent s t he l awi n everyone' s
eyes, and whi ch has t he means of
general i zed rest rai nt .
Det ached fromt he domi nant cl ass, t he St at e t ends t o put
i t s general i nt erest s ahead of t he part i cul ar i nt erest s
of one or t he ot her of i t s
part s and t o mai nt ai n t he obedi ence of t he domi nat ed. Si mul t aneousl y,
t he
fragment at i on i n sect ors of act i vi t y (each t endi ng
t o devel op
accordi ng
t o t he
i mage of i t s aut onomy) i s creat ed as aconsequence of t he growi ng di vi si on of
l abour and fromt he necessi t yof speci al i st s t aki ng charge
of
t hesoci al needs
of
bourgeoi s domi nat i on(t hepol i t i cal spl i t s fromt he economi c at t hesamet i meas
t he j udi ci al ,
sci ent i fi c, pedagogi c, aest het i c sect ors, et c. , defi ne t hemsel ves) . I n
t hi s soci et y, t he condi t i ons
for t heuni t y of t he soci al i sat i on process are al ready
set out . Capi t al , wi t hout men' s knowl edge,
al ready embodi es mat eri al i zed soci al
power, whereas wi t h
t he i ncreasi ng abst ract i on of l abour, a cl ass ari ses whi ch i s
moreand morehomogeneous and
whi ch t ends t o absorbal l t heexpl oi t edst rat a.
However, t hi s l at ent uni t y can onl y
be
real i zed
by t henegat i on of t he di vi si on, a
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
negati onwhosedri vi ngf orcerests
i n
the
revol uti onary cl ass, i n apraxi swherei ts
producti vef orceandi ts struggl eagai nst
expl oi tati onarearti cul ated. Thecontra-
di cti onswhi chderi vef romtheaccumul ati on
of capi tal andf romtheseparati on
of
the vari ous sectors of acti vi ty wi thi nthe
overal l structure, thegap between
them, thei r unequal devel opment, soci al struggl es(above
al l cl ass struggl es, but
al so
those betweengroups l i nked tospeci f i c i nterests
andpracti ces) , al l these
make
capi tal i st soci ety anessenti al l y hi stori cal one, that i s to say,
desti ned to a
conti nueal
upheaval of i tsi nsti tuti ons, togi vebi rthto newthi ngs
andto undergo
theexpl i ci t experi enceof thereal as
hi story.
I ntermsof suchadescri pti on, i deol ogy becomes
i n turnaseparatedomai n; i t
consti tutesaworl dof i deasi nwhi chanessenceof soci al
real i ty i s represented;
opposi ti ons of al l orders are changed i nto determi nati ons of
the uni versal ,
domi nati oni s
changed i nto anexpressi onof the l aw. The af f i ni ty between
the
pol i ti cal
andthei deol ogi cal i s evi dent : j ust aspower spl i ts f roma total l y
di vi ded
soci ety to embodythe
l aw' s general i ty and
to
exerci sephysi cal restrai nt, andasi t
si mul taneousl y transposes
andmi srepresents acl ass' s domi nati on, sodoesi deo-
l ogi cal di scourseseparate
i tsel f f romal l thef ormsof soci al practi ce, toembody
the
general i ty
of
knowl edgeandto exerci sethef orceof persuasi on
; i t transposes
andmi srepresentsat thesameti measani dea, thereal i tyof
domi nati on. I ndeed,
thepol i ti cal and the i deol ogi cal , whenal l i s sai d anddone, arenot i ntel l i gi bl e
unl essonerecogni zes
boththei ncompl eti onof thesoci al i zati onprocess andthe
possi bi l i ty i nscri bedi n real i tyof thi scompl eti on, towhi chcommuni smgi vesreal
expressi on. But whereasthe
pol i ti cal i s sti l l , determi nedwi thi nthel i mi ts of the
soci al i sati onprocess, i deol ogy
achi evesi n thei magi nati onthat uni tywhi chonl y
real
acti on, thenegati vi ty of l abour andof prol etari anpraxi s, wi l l bri ngabout.
As
f rui tf ul
as
i t maybe, thi sanal ysi s (whi chcertai nl ydoesnot summari zeal l of
Marx' s
thought) mi srepresents thesymbol i c di mensi onof thesoci al domai n. I t i s
i mpossi bl e,
i nour vi ew, to deducetheorder of l aw, of power or of
knowl edge
f romrel ati ons of producti on; i mpossi bl eal so to reducethel anguagei n
whi ch
soci al practi cei s arti cul ated totheef f ects of thel abour- capi tal
di vi si on. These
rel ati onsandef f ects are onl y constructed, onl ydevel oped
accordi ngtocondi ti ons
whi chwecannot possi bl y pl aceonthepl ane of
real i ty
.
I nstead, that whi chi s
l abel l edassuchopensupto humani ty, becomi ng
organi zedandcomprehensi bl e
onl yoncethe
si gns
of anewexperi enceof
l aw, power andknowl edgeareput i n
pl ace, onceamodeof di scourse
i s i nstal l edi nwhi chcertai nopposi ti ons, certai n
practi ces,
actual l y mani f est, that i s tosay, l i nk wi theachother andpotenti al l y
contai na uni versal meani ng, i nal l owi ngaregul atedexchangebetweenthought
andacti on.
Accordi ngtoMarx, theprogressof exchangeandtheprogressi vei nsti tuti ng
of themarket goback to theori gi nsof capi tal i sm; however,
themarket practi ce
conf ronted l i mi ts whi chprohi bi ted i ts general i sati on,
despi te i ts consi derabl e
expansi on
and
the
maturi ty
of
i ts techni quesi nother soci al f ormati ons(i nChi na
f or exampl e) . These
obstacl es f ormedpart of thesymbol i c system, aconf i gura-
ti onof si gnsof l aw, power andknowedgewhi chdi d not al l owthedi sassoci ati on
of soci al rel ati onsandpersonal dependence. Al sonoti ceabl eat the
ori gi nsof the
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
accumul ati on
of capi tal wasthe nakedvi ol enceof the
domi nant whotore thei r
meansof producti onf romthepeasants' handsand
reducedthemtothestatusof a
pure l abour f orce. However, what Marxcal l s the
ori gi nal si nof capi tal i smal so
appl i es to hi s own theory,
because the vi ol ence born of the newmode of
producti on was
not mute; i t was supported by a representati onof
cause
and
.
ef f ect,
whosearti cul ati onwasdepri vedof meani ngunder other soci al condi ti ons
;
i t
became part of adi scourse capabl e of f i ndi ng the
cri teri onf or i ts coherence
wi thi ni ts l i mi ts, andwhi chcoul d
become thepi vot of anarti cul ati on of thel aw
andreal i ty.
Nodescri pti onof the changeswhi ch
have occurredi n producti on, exchange
andownershi p canexpl ai n
what i s brought i nto pl ay wi th the- f ormati onof the
modern State
.
The
stage of soci al real i ty appears where pol i ti cal power
i s
conf i ned
wi thi nsoci ety, as the i nstrument whi chuni f i es i t, where
thi s power i s
supposed to ori gi nate through i ts acti on. Represented
on thi s stage i s the
i nsti tuti on of soci al real i ty ; i n the events whi ch
are acted out there, i n the
rel ati ons whi ch are created between
i ndi vi dual s andgroups, the f rameworkof
real i ty can be l ocated.
Al thoughpower i s brought wi thi n
the boundari es of space andti me where
soci al rel ati ons
are arti cul atedandi s thereby di sal i gned wi th regardtothe l aw
whi chi t represents, thi sdoesnot
meanthat i t becomesactual power . If i t wereto
appear as such, the i ndi cati ons
of soci al i denti ty woul dbeabol i shed. However, i t
i s true that the power i s exposed
to
thi s
threat as soon as i ts representati oni s
i nvol vedi n the i nsti tuti onof soci al real i ty; not onl y
appeari ng as i f generatedi n
the soci ety, but i n appeari ng as af ounder, si nce i t
i s hencef orth depri vedof any
i ndi cati on of i ts ownf oundati on, removed f rom
the order of the worl d f rom
whi chi t drewtheassurance
of
i ts
f uncti on. Thus, i t canonl ybe- establ i shedunder
thesi gnof the l awi f i t
al ways re- establ i shes i tsel f , that i s to say, by empl oyi nga
di scourse- wherethe
di f f erencebetweenthe oneandthe other, andthedi f f er-
ence between "sayi ng" and what
i s sai d ari se f romthe i denti ty of the soci al
subj ect . Thi s di scourse
i s i tsel f ambi guous, unabl e to be determi ned as the
product of power wi thout,
i n
turn,
f al l i ng tothereal mof f act, unabl e as wel l to
rel ate toatranscendent guaranteewi thout
l osi ngi ts properti es. Ini tsexerci se, i t
i s thus concerned wi th produci ng i ts "truth", wi th
af f i rmi ng i ts power of
di scourse, i norder to deny i ts determi nati on as di scourse of power. Thi sambi -
gui ty
i s such that the power i s f or the f i rst ti me shown to be si mul taneousl y
l ocal i zedand
non- l ocal i zabl e. It i snon- l ocal i zabl ei n that i t ari ses at thei ntersec-
ti onof twoacti ons
whi chref er toeachother, whi charegeneratedby thesoci ety
that power generates
. However, i t i s necessari l y l ocal i zed i nsof ar as i t i s ti ed
downto the domai nof
soci al real i ty.
The di sentangl i ng of the soci al and worl d
orders goes together wi th the
di sentangl i ngof thepol i ti cal andthe mythi cal - rel i gi ons
; but, bythesame token,
i t al sogoeswi ththat of thepol i ti cal andthenon- pol i ti cal
wi thi nthe soci al order
.
Thedi f f erenti ati onof economi c, j udi ci al , pedagogi cal , sci enti f i c,
aestheti cpracti -
ces, etc. , whi ch are devel oped, not as actual practi ces ( i n the
pores of soci ety
accordi ng
to
the
Marxi st metaphor), but as practi ces whi chput soci al real i ty as
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
such i nto pl ay, i s
onl y cl ar i f i ed under these
condi ti ons. Si mul taneousl y,
thi s
di f f er enti ati oni s
that of soci al di scour ses,
"par ti cul ar " di scour ses, but ones
whi ch
ar e concer ned
wi thcl ai mi nga uni ver sal
tr uth. Theosci l l ati onwhi chi s
i ndi cated
betweenthe
di scour se of power and
the power of di scour se i ncl udesthe
possi bi l -
i ty of a di sj uncti on
betweenpower and
di scour se
.
I n other wor ds, each
par ti cul ar
di scour se r eveal s i ts
power , not onl y at a di stance
f r omi nsti tuti onal i sed
pol i ti cal
power , but i n
contr adi cti on to the deter mi nati on
of power r epr esented i n
i tsel f ,
i nsof ar
as i t i s j oi ned to a
si ngul ar pr acti ce wher e soci al
di vi si on i s f ound. Thus
each
di scour se tends to set of f
i n sear chof i ts ownf oundati on
; i n the di scour se' s
exer ci se
i tsel f , a r el ati on i s f or med
wi thknowl edge, whose
l i mi ts ar e not actual l y
deter mi ned,
i n the sense that a
gener al knowl edge of the soci al
or der and the
or der of the
wor l d i nconj uncti on wi ththe
power of the State i s
l acki ng. That the
di ver se di scour ses ar e
i nter r el ated i n no way means
that they canbe condensed
i nto one, because the
tr uthi s that they ar e not
onl y contempor ar i l y i nsti tuted
i n
f uncti onof oneexper i ence; they
par ti ci pate i n the
i nsti tuti onof soci al r eal i ty
and
decode i t thr oughthe ef f ect
of the di sar ti cul ati onof power
andthe l awandthei r
own di f f er enti ati on, each
r ef er r i ngback to i tsel f
i n el abor ati ngi ts di f f er ences.
Wi thsucha
pr ocess, the questi on i s not to attr i bute
the cause tothef act of the
moder nState. I n
doi ng thi s, we woul d be vi cti ms of
the same i l l usi on that we
denounced i n
Mar x' s wor k; we woul d onl y be
tr ansf er r i ngto another l evel the
deter mi ni sm
whi chMar x was tempted to pl ace at
the l evel of the r el ati ons of
pr oducti on. As
wel l , wecoul dsay that the
char acter i sti cs of the moder nState ar e
onl y deter mi ned i n a system
wher e knowl edge r eveal s
i ts di f f er enti ati on, wher e
di scour se r eveal s
i ts al ter i ty (i nstead of speech
bei ng or gani zed thr ough the
exter i or pol e of the
Other ), events. whose or i gi ns wer e
put f or war d by the
humani smof the Renai ssance
. I f , however , we l abel as
pol i ti cal the "f or m" i n
whi chthe symbol i c
di mensi on of soci al r eal i ty i s
uncover ed, i t i s not i n or der to
gi ve gr eater
i mpor tancetor el ati ons of power ,
amongother s, but r ather to make
i t under stood that power i s not ", a
thi ng", empi r i cal l y deter mi ned, but i ndi ssoci -
abl e f r omi ts r epr esentati on, and that
the exper i ence made of thi s, si mul tane-
ousl y exper i enceof knowl edge andthe
modeof , ar ti cul ati onof soci al
di scour se, i s
consti tuti ve of soci al i denti ty.
I nthi s
per specti ve, the br eakwi thMar x goes
so f ar as to touchupon
what
i s
f or
hi mthe f i nal questi on: the f utur e
uni ty
of
the pr ocess of soci al i sati on
i n
r eal i ty. Thequesti onof uni ty over shadows
that of soci al i denti ty whi ch
coul dnot
ar i se i n r eal i ty; i t i mpl i es i ts def ecti on
andmar ks the i nser ti onof the pr acti ce
i n
the or der of l anguage.
Fr omthe moment we r ef use to def i ne
i deol ogy wi th r egar d to a
supposed
r eal i ty, i t demandsa new
i nter pr etati on: Wecanonl y def i ne i t by
r ecogni zi ngthe
attempt bel ongi ngsol el y to
moder nsoci ety to conceal the eni gma of
i ts pol i ti cal
f or m, tocancel the ef f ects
of soci al andtempor al di vi si onwhi ch
ar e gener atedto
r estor e the "r eal " . I n
thi s sense, wedo not gr aspi t as a
r ef l ecti on, nor thr oughthe
pr acti ce
whi chi t woul dr ef l ect . I t i s exposedby
i ts ownwor ki ngs: i n r esponse to
the "i nsti tuti on" whose f i nal i ty i s
to br i ngthe i ndeter mi nati onof
soci al r eal i ty
backto i ts deter mi nati on
.
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
The
transf ormati on of i deol ogy al l ows us
to better understand i ts f ormati on
because thecontradi cti on whi chi s present
i s reveal ed there: i t cannot real i ze
i tsel f wi thout l osi ng i ts f uncti on, nor
cani t goto thel i mi t of theaf f i rmati on
of
real i ty wi thout the threat
of appeari ng i n i ts external i ty to the
practi ceand
i nsti tuti ng di scourse
f romwhi chi t ari ses to def usetheconf l i cts.
I t i s truethat i n
attempti ng topresent herethel ogi c of the
transf ormati onof
i deol ogy, theoutl i nesuf f ers f rombei ng anoutl i ne
rather thana f i rst draf t of a
f ul l anal ysi s,
f romi ts ri gi dconstructi onrather thanf rom
al ack of preci si on. The
rol ewhi ch
wegi ve to thecontradi cti on l eaves us open
to
the
accusati on of
Hegel i ani sm
. Nonethel ess, i t shoul d benoted that thi s
contradi cti on i s not
concerned wi thhi story, wi ththef utureof "Spi ri t",
but onl y bri ngs to l i ght the
genesi s of the soci al representati ons
of conceal ment. Thepri nci pl es of thi s
genesi s can bedeci phered
becausei n accordancewi ththesametask, through
repeti ti on, themovements
of di scoursearecarri edout i n thehi stori cal
process.
The
Probl emwi thMarx
Marx' s procedurewas enti rel y di f f erent f rom
that of contemporary Marxi sts.
He
di d
not possess ani nherent senseof thedi sti ncti on
betweenthei deol ogi cal
and the
real
;
rather, hedevel oped i t . Wecannot f orget
that thecri ti que of
Germanphi l osophy, and most i mportantl y that
of Hegel , control s hi s i ni ti al
i nterpretati ons of soci al structure, andthat i n
Capi tal , moreover, thecri ti queof
thei l l usi ons of thebourgeoi s
economy and themarket f orms thebasi s f or the
di scovery of theuni ty of soci al l abour and the
process of val uef ormati on. Bei ng
onl y toof ami l i ar wi thhi s method, nei ther
canweunderesti matetheaudaci tyof
anattempt topi npoi nt thesi gns of a l ogi c of
decepti oni nal l thedomi nant modes
of representati on, and notabl y i n phi l osophi cal
di scourses wherea radi cal cri -
ti queof establ i shedi deas i s demanded. Fi nal l y, we
cannot f ai l to observethat i n
hi s
work, thedi sti ncti onbetween real i ty and
i deol ogy i s arti cul ated wi ththe
i mpl i ci t
di sti ncti on betweenknowl edgeand i deol ogy- and that thi s
l atter di s-
ti ncti on prohi bi ts
attachi ng theterms of thef ormer to thepl aneof obj ecti ve
knowl edge. I t
i s
actual l y
whenhedemonstrates, i n hi s Cri ti quedel aphi l osophi e
del ' Etat deHegel ,
theextravagant mechani cs of Hegel ' s phi l osophi cal system,
that Marx acqui res f or the
f i rst ti mean understandi ngof i deol ogi cal phenom-
ena. There, hereveal s the
attempt tosubsti tuteani deal ori gi nof theStatef or i ts
real ori gi n. Thi s becomesaprocess
of
i nverti ng
real i ty, thetransposi ti on i nspace
of thetheory of conti ngent soci o- hi stori cal
determi nati ons, andthei magi nary
sol uti onto exi sti ngcontradi cti ons- i nef f ect,
aprocess of i deal i sati on. But more
i mportantl y, hereveal s theacti onof thef ul f i l l ment
of knowl edgewhi chturns i n
oni tsel f ,
si mul ati ngtheconquest of total i ty,
and whi chconceal s f romi tsel f the
f act of i ts own
creati on, therebyef f aci ngthedi vi si on
betweenthought and bei ng.
Wemust recogni ze
that i ni deol ogy ( i t i s of l i ttl ei mportance
that theconcept has
r
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
not yet beencl ar i f i ed, theoutl i neof i ts consti tuent el ements
has
been
br ought
to
l i ght) , a tr i pl e deni al i s ef f ected: the di vi si onof cl ass, l i nked to
the di vi si on
of
soci al l abour ; thetempor al di vi si on, thedestr ucti on- pr oducti onof
f or ms
of
soci al
r el ati ons ; andf i nal l y, thedi vi si onof knowl edgeand thepr acti ce
whi ch
i t r ef l ects,
andf r omwhi chi t i s i nsti tuted as such. I naddi ti on, whenMar xanal yses theState
and the bur eaucr acy and no l onger thei r Hegel i an r epr esentati on, and when
l ater ,
f or getti ngthef ol i e
of
the phi l osophi cal system, he onl yconcer ns hi msel f
wi thunder standi ngthat of
the
capi tal i st
system, i t i s i nor der tobr i ngto l i ght the
samepr ocess . The
di scour se wi thi n the i nsti tuti on suppor ts the i l l usi on of an
essence of soci ety; i t war ds of f a doubl e
thr eat to the establ i shed or der , ar i si ng
f r oma soci ety whi ch i s at once
di vi ded
and
hi stor i cal . Thi s di scour se must be
r ecogni zed as r ati onal i n i tsel f , a cl osed di scour se
whi ch, whi l e maski ngthe
condi ti ons of i ts ownpr oducti on, cl ai ms tor eveal that of empi r i cal soci al
r eal i ty
.
Our ai mi s not to anal yse Mar x' s thought . I f thi s wer e thecase, i t woul d then
have to be agr eed that hi s di sti ncti on between knowl edge and i deol ogy onl y
car r i es the seeds of thecr i ti que of any di scour se cl ai mi ngto def i ne the r eal i n a
r ef usal to r ecogni ze thecondi ti ons whi chassur e
i ts
exter nal i ty. I t woul dal so have
to be agr eed that he hi msel f yi el ded to the temptati on
of thi s posi ti on
by
i nvesti ng the posi ti ve sci ences wi th the cer ti tude of
whi ch
he
had di vested
phi l osophy. Yet, i t i s i mpor tant to br i ef l y r ef or mul ate Mar x' s pr obl em, to
unear thi t f r omthe dogmati c commentar i es whi ch have cover ed
i t,
i nor der to
assess the theor eti cal condi ti ons whi chhe has i mposed uponus as wel l as the
l i mi ts beyond whi chwemust goi f wewi shto takeup hi s i nter pr etati on agai ni n
exami ni ngcontempor ar y soci eti es .
Thi s pr obl emi s posed i nter ms whi chpr ecl ude the r educti on of i deol ogy to
bour geoi s di scour se, and thus pr ohi bi t excl usi vel y r etai ni ng i ts f uncti on of
mysti f i cati on, j usti f i cati on and conser vati on
i n
the ser vi ce of cl ass
i nter ests
.
Mar xhas ampl y emphasi zedthi s
f uncti on, notabl y i n The Ger manI deol ogy, but
i t i s onl y i ntel l i gi bl e i f i deol ogy i s f i r st
consi der ed i n r el ati on to i ts f ocus : soci al
di vi si on
. Mar xi mpl i es that a soci ety
cannot
conti nue to exi st
as
a humansoci ety
unl ess i t cr eates a r epr esentati on of
i ts uni ty- uni ty whi ch, i n r eal i ty, i s wi t-
nessed i n the r el ati on of r eci pr ocal dependenceof soci al agents
and
at
the
same
ti me i s bel i ed by the separ ati on of
thei r
acti vi ti es .
Thus, even though soci al
di vi si on
i s
not deter mi ned i n theuni ver sal di vi si onof cl ass (that of thebour geoi -
si e and the pr ol etar i at) , the exi stence of "l i mi ted soci al r el ati ons" i mpl i es the
pr oj ecti onof an i magi nar y communi ty under cover of whi ch"r eal " di sti ncti ons
ar e deter mi ned
as
"natur al ", the par ti cul ar i s di sgui sed under the tr ai ts of the
uni ver sal , the hi stor i cal
er ased
under the atempor al i ty of the essence. The
r epr esentati on i n whi ch soci al r el ati ons ar e embedded i ndi cates i n i tsel f a
posi ti onof power , si nce thei magi nar y communi ty gover ns over thei ndi vi dual s
or separ ategr oups and i mposes behavi our al nor ms uponthem. I nthi s sense, the
over l yi ng uni ver sal i nser ts the domi nated i nto hi s condi ti on and assur es the
posi ti onof the domi nator . Nonethel ess, the poi nt of vi ewof cl ass domi nati on
and that of the "r epr esentati on", however r el ated they may be, donot coi nci de.
Anal ysi ngAsi ati c depoti sm, Mar xobser ves that thepr i nceembodi es thei magi n-
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
ar y communi ty above the di sper sed r ur al communi ti es . The " r eal " power -
whi ch can be l ocated, i n pr acti ce, by the si gns of command ( contr ol of bur eau-
cr ati c appar atus) , constr ai nt ( r ecr ui ti ng of peasant l abour f or war or state
obj ecti ves) , and expl oi tati on ' ( i mposi ng a sur pl us val ue on agr i cul tur al
pr oducti on) -thi s empi r i cal l y deter mi nabl e power i s hel d i n a r epr esentati on
whi ch
r ef l ects
and
conceal s soci al
di vi si on
( theabsol ute di stance between
master
and ensl aved peopl e symbol i cal l y tr ansposes
the
untr ansf or med separ ati on of
r ur al communi ti es) . Sti l l , i t i s tr ue that thi s i s an extr eme case, si nce
the
bur eaucr acy onl y exi sts as a cl ass thr ough the medi ati onof the despot . I t i s al so
tr ue that hi s di scour se ( be hegod, demi -god, or di vi ne r epr esentati ve) tends to
becomeconf used wi th thedi scour seof theuni ver sal . Thei ndi cati ons whi chMar x
gi ves per tai ni ng to cl ass f or mati on i n The Ger man I deol ogy ar e even mor e
suggesti ve.
He
br i ngs to l i ght a di vi si on between i ndi vi dual s such as they ar e
deter mi ned i n a col l ecti ve r el ati on, i n f uncti on of thei r common i nter ests wi th
r egar d to
a thi r d
per son,
and
these same
i ndi vi dual s def i ned as member s
of
a
cl ass,
r ecei vi ng thei r i denti ty
as " aver age
i ndi vi dual s" , f i nd themsel ves bel ongi ng
to
a " communi ty" .
Detached f r om
the
r eal acti vi ty of the
di vi si on
of l abour ,
and
hover i ng above the
i ndi vi dual s, thi s " communi ty" ef f aces the thi r d per son, and
thus becomes the essence of soci al r eal i ty
.
I n thi s per specti ve, the cl ass i tsel f ,
unl i ke
the
economi ccategor y to
whi chi t i s attached, shows i tsel f tobehel d i n the
i deol ogi cal
pr ocess . Fur ther mor e, the anal ysi s of The 18th Br umai r e
di scl oses
that i ts f or mati on
as thedomi nant pol i ti cal cl ass i mpl i es a deni al of the
tempor al
di f f er ence, a r ef usal to r ecogni ze the pr esent ; camouf l agi ng i t under thechar ac-
ter i sti cs of Anci ent Rome pr oves to be a necessar y condi ti on f or bour geoi s
r evol uti onar y acti on.
Soci al -Di vi si on i s not i n Soci ety
I f thi s
i s
the
path whi ch Mar x seemstoopenup, ther ecan benodoubt that he
al socl oses i t of f .
I n ef f ect,
i t woul d
be
i mpossi bl e f or hi m
to
f ol l ow
such
a cour se
unl ess
he
cl ai med
to
deter mi ne the
natur e of soci al
r eal i ty thr ough the posi ti ve
sci ences, yi el di ng to the i l l usi on of an i ntr i nsi c devel opment attr i buted to the
obser ver , and unl ess he ar gued i n accor dance wi th a super f i ci al opposi ti on
betweenpr oducti on and r epr esentati on. Admi ttedl y, -i t must
be
r ecogni zed that
theconcept of pr oducti oni s consi der abl y expanded i n Mar x' s wr i ti ngs . Henotes
that mendonot pr oduce onl y thetool s necessar y to meet thei r needs, and these
bei ng met, do not onl y pr oduce newneeds ; they al so pr oduce thei r soci al
r el ati ons . I t can i ndeed be sai d that evenl anguage r esul ts f r ompr oducti on, si nce
Mar x admi ts that i t appear s wi th the necessi ty f or commer ce betweenmen, and
that i nshor t, he envi sages i ts devel opment by r el ati ng i nto the communi cati on
model -i ndi vi dual toi ndi vi dual or gr oup togr oup-whi chi s one aspect - of soci al
r el ati ons . Nonethel ess, the useof thi s concept, however wi despr ead, constantl y
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
guarantees a natural evol uti on of
humani ty
.
I t i s true that manproduces the
i nstruments of hi s producti onandhi s soci al rel ati ons at the
sameti me; what i s
producedi s, i nturn, aproducti vef orce. I nthi s way, hei s al soa
product
of
what he
produces, but the i dea of producti on bei ng sel f - producti on does
not
f ree
hi m
f romamechani sm. I nthel ast anal ysi s, thesoci al stateproves tobea
combi nati on
of terms, of whi chthei denti ty (be i t a necessi ty, ani nstrument, a l i ngui sti c si gn,
l abour, i ts i ndi vi dual or col l ecti veagent) i s unquesti onabl e. Fromsucha perspec-
ti ve, theconcept of the
di vi si onof l abour i tsel f ref ers to a basi c f act, certai nl y i n
Marx' s eyes, to a f act of evol uti on, but one
whi ch l i es . wi thi n a f i el d al ready
covertl ydevel opedi n sucha wayas to gi ve the
i mpressi onthat theel ements are
natural l y determi ned. Nothi ng coul d be more
si gni f i cant i n thi s
respect
than
Marx' s ef f ort, i n TheGermanI deol ogy, to trace
the ori gi ns
of
thedi vi si on
of
l abour, andhi s asserti onthat pri mi ti vel yi t was noneother than
thedi vi si on
of
l abour i n thesexact . There, wi thout doubt, Marx' s posi ti vi smshows i tsel f
.
The.
argument assumes preci sel y that whi chescapes expl anati on: a di vi si on of the
sexes such that thepartners woul dnatural l yi denti f y eachother as bei ngdi f f er-
ent, so comi ng to ref l ect uponthi s di f f erence, andberepresented as
manand
woman
.
I t becomes
cl ear that thi s i s not
a
si mpl e devi ati on
of
i nterpretati on
when, i n
the
same
secti on
of
The German I deol ogy, as Marx enumeratedthe
. three f undamental
concl usi ons
of
thehi storyof humani ty, procreati on i s presen-
tedas the act of
producti on
of
thef ami l y, of the doubl e rel ati onman- womanand
parents- chi l d. I n the same
way
that copul ati on i s seentobethe pri mi ti vemodel
of cooperati onandsoci al di vi si on, procreati on i s consi deredto be
themodel
of
the hi stori cal producti onof humani ty
.
I nbothcases,
there i s
a
negati on
of
the
arti cul ati on of the di vi si on- between sexes or generati ons- wi th
the
actual
"thought" of thedi vi si on, whi chcannot possi bl ybe deducedf rom
the
f ormer
si nce i t i s i mpl i ci t i nthedef i ni ti onof theterms. I t i s the symbol i corder
whi ch
i s
negated, thei dea of a systemof opposi ti ons byvi rtue of whi chsoci al "f i gures"
can bei denti f i ed andarti cul ated
i n
rel ati onto each
other,
that
i s, therel ati on
between the di vi si on
of
soci al
agents
and the representati on. I n other words,
Marxref uses torecogni zethat soci al di vi si oni s al soori gi nal l ythedi vi si onof the
soci al i sati on process and the di scourse whi charti cul ates i t .
Cri ti ci zi ngMarxi n no wayl eads us to assert the pri macy
of
the
representati on
nor to f al l back i nto thei l l usi on whi chhedenouncedof ani ndependent l ogi c
of
i deas. Nei ther does i t di stract us f romthetask of di scoveri ng the mechani sms
whi chtendto assurethe representati onof ani magi naryessenceof thecommun-
i ty.
Onthe contrary, wearestri vi ng tounderstandthem, but wi thout yi el di ngto
the
natural i st
i l l usi on.
Suchan attempt presupposes that wenol onger conf use
soci al di vi si onwi ththe
empi ri cal di vi si onof meni ntheoperati onof producti on.
Wecannot determi ne i t anymore
than
the di vi si on
of thesexes i n anobj ecti ve
space whi chwoul d have pre- dated i t ; we cannot rel ate i t
to posi ti ve terms
i nasmuchas theyari seas such, eveni ni ts acti vi ty. Soci al spacei s establ i shed,
we
must assume, wi ththedi vi si on, andthi s onl yi nsof ar as i t i s vi si bl e to i tsel f . I ts
di f f erenti ati on throughrel ati ons
of
ki nshi p
or cl ass, throughthe rel ati on be-
tween state and ci vi l
soci ety, i s i ndi ssoci abl e f romthe acti onof di scourse at a
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
di stance fromthe supposedreal i ty, a di scourse whi ch
states the order of the
worl d. It i s therefore i mpossi bl e totake
upaposi ti onwhi chwoul dcomprehend
the total i ty of soci al rel ati ons andtheworki ngs
of thei r arti cul ati ons. Si mi l arl y, i t
woul dbei mpossi bl e toi ncl udethe
total i ty of hi stori cal devel opment, toestabl i sh
a. begi nni ngandanend
tosoci al di vi si on, as that woul dthenbe conceal i ngfrom
oursel ves
our owni nvol vement at thel evel of di scourse al ready
brought i ntopl ay
i n the di vi si on. Thi s bl i ndspot woul d
prompt us to take our representati on as
bei ngreal i n i tsel f. -
At thi s poi nt, the l i mi ts
of Marx' s thought seemto be i ndi cated by hi s
treatment of theprocess
of representati onas i f i t were a resul t of theventures of
cooperati onanddi vi si on,
as i f thi s real i ty weredetermi nedonthenatural l evel of
l abour. Thus,
he coul d not avoi d confusi ngthe i deol ogi cal and
symbol i c orders,
reduci ng
di scourses such as the mythol ogi cal , rel i gi ous, pol i ti cal , j udi ci al ,
etc. , to
the
proj ecti on of "real " confl i cts i nto the i magi nary, and
l astl y, l oweri ng the
si gns of l awandpower tothe empi ri cal
pl ane, thereby transformi ngthemi nto
soci al "products" .
TheImagi nary
andthe "Hi stori cal Soci ety"
Thi s cri ti que must
be evenfurther devel oped. Tostate that the i nsti tuti on
of
soci al real i ty i s si mul taneousl y the
appearance toi tsel f of thesoci al real i ty gi ves
ri se toacertai n ambi gui ty because
onei s thentemptedtopi cturetheemergence
of di scourse on
soci al real i ty ' as emergi ngfromthe soci al
space, thus
si mpl y
reconsti tuti ng a moresophi sti cated versi on
of soci ol ogi sm. In actual fact, the
ambi gui ty
i s al ready present whenwespeakof the
"di scourseonsoci al real i ty" as
i f i t
were possi bl e topercei ve i t as such, toi ncl ude the
di scoursewhi chdecl ares
theorder
of the worl das wel l as theonewhi ch
decl ares
the
physi cal order i n i t, as
i f thequesti on
of soci al di vi si on, evenfreed fromempi ri ci sm,
i ncl uded i n i tsel f
that
of
the
di vi si on of manandtheworl dandal sothat of the
di vi si onof thesexes
andgenerati ons;
especi al l y as i f i t werepossi bl e toreduce the questi on
of the
ori gi ns of manandthe
questi on of bi rth toa questi onof ori gi n as i t appears
i n
soci ety through myth or rel i gi on.
In each epoch, men' s di scourse i s rul ed
by a
tnetasoci ol ogi cal andmetapsychol ogi cal
questi on. Wemi sunderstandi t fi rst of
al l by bel i evi ng i t possi bl e
to
encl ose
i t wi thi n certai n l i mi ts ; but sti l l more
seri ousl y when, i nconsequence, weforget
that thedi scourseonsoci al real i ty does
not
coi nci dewi th i tsel f i n thesoci al space wherei t
acts andwhere, at the same
ti me, i t
i s i nsti tuted. Fi nal l y, we mi sunderstand i t
i n forgetti ng that what i t
arti cul ates
assumes the fact of i ts ownarti cul ati on, or, i n other
words, that the
l abour of di vi si on
andi nsti tuti on i s "ol der" thanthat of the soci al di vi si on and
i nsti tuti on.
Thus Marx' s l i mi t i s sharpl y brought out i n attempti ng
toenvi sage
soci al real i ty fromwi thi n
theboundari es of soci al real i ty, hi story fromwi thi nthe
borders of hi story, manfrom
manandwi thavi ewtoman. It i s thus brought out
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
i n attempti ng
to evade, not therel ati ons
betweenmanand"nature" (because
he
speaks of i t
conti nuousl yi n order to assure
hi msel f of anobj ecti ve
determi nati on
of man i n a
natural i st perspecti ve), but
rather therel ati on of
man, thesoci al ,
hi story, to what i s
i n pri nci pl e beyondreach,
f romwhi ch he i s
generated and
whi ch remai ns
i mpl i ci t i n hi m.
Throughbecomi ng
awareof thi s l i mi t, weare
encouragedto ref ormul ate
the
condi ti ons of i deol ogi cal
anal ysi s . As wehaveal ready
stated, i t i s not possi bl e
to
determi nei deol ogy wi th regard to
a"real i ty", whose
trai ts woul dbetakenf rom
posi ti ve
knowl edge, wi thout
l osi ngthenoti on of the
operati on of theconsti tu-
ti on of
real i ty, and wi thout
pl aci ng oursel ves i n the
i l l usi onary posi ti on of
overl ooki ng
Bei ng. Ontheother
hand, wecan attempt to
understandhow, i n a
gi ven epoch,
thedomi nant di scourse acts
i n suchawayas to
conceal theprocess
of soci al
di vi si on, or that whi ch at present we
al so cal l theprocess of
generati ng
soci al space, or sti l l ,
the hi stori cal , i n order to
makei t understood
that soci al
di vi si on andtemporal i ty are
two aspects of thesame
i nsti tuti on. Undoubtedl y,
i t
wi l l haveto be
admi ttedthat such adi scourse,
i nasmuch as i t i s pl aced
i n soci al
di vi si on, i n i ts acti on
of descri bi ngthesoci al
spacecan onl y beopaque
to i tsel f . .
But i t i s an
al together di f f erent matter to
state that i t bears a
knowl edgewhose
pri nci pl e i s
hi dden f romi t, andthat i t acts
accordi ngto thedemands of
conceal -
i ng the traces of
soci al di vi si on, that i s to say,
accordi ng to thedemands of
the
representati on of an
order whi chwoul dassure
i t of thenatural
determi nati onof
i ts arti cul ati on,
andwi th i t, of thearti cul ati onof
soci al rel ati ons here
andnow. As
thei nsti tutor, thedi scourse i s
wi thout knowl edgeof
thei nsti tuti on, but i nsof ar
as i t i s concerned wi th
averti ng the threat that
the mani f estati on of a gap
between
bei ng and
di scourse hangs over i t, that of
the backl ash f romthi s
experi ence, i t acti vel y
becomes thenegator of the
i nsti tuti on of soci al real i ty; i t i s
adi scourseof occul tati on,
i nwhi chsymbol i ci ndi cators
areconverted i nto natural
determi nati ons
i nwhi chthestatement of soci al
l aw, thestatement of
worl dl aw
andthat of
physi cal l awcometo maskthe
i nconcei vabl e l i nkbetween
thel awand
the
statement, thedependenceof the
l awontheperson who utters i t
andthe
dependenceof theutterance onthe
l aw.
Nonethel ess, wemust
i mmedi atel y become aware of the
condi ti ons under
whi ch i t i s possi bl e to grasp
thi s di sti ncti on. I n ef f ect,
i t assumes that the
i nsti tuti onof soci al spacehas
becomepercepti bl eto i tsel f ,
i nsuch a waythat the
i nsti tuti ng di scourse
cannot ef f ace i ts tracks
through the i magi nary. I n other
words, i t
assumes that soci al di vi si onandhi stori ci ty
i nthemsel ves havecometo
questi on thi s
i n such awaythat theoccul tati on' s
work remai ns subj ect to thei r
ef f ects,
that i n i ts f ai l ures, i n theconti nual
attempt to correct them,
through i ts
conf l i cts, i t al l ows that whi chwecan
nowcal l real i tyto appear, real i ty, to
i ndi cate
that i t i s a questi on of that whi ch
i ndeed exposedthei mpossi bi l i ty of
conceal -
ment. I n thi s sense, exami ni ng
i deol ogyconf ronts us wi ththe
determi nati onof a
typeof soci ety i n whi cha
speci f i c i magi nary real mcan bel ocated
:
Al though Marx, as we
have j ust poi ntedout, was
temptedto convert soci al
di vi si on
i nto the empi ri cal di vi si on of cl asses,
and yi el ded to the i l l usi on of
a
determi ni smwhi chwoul dgovern
theseri es of modes of producti on,
i t
i s
sti l l to
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
hi mthat weowethe i dea
of modi f yi ng the i magi nary real m. I n ef f ect,
by
opposi ngthecapi tal i st
modeof producti ontoal l previ ousones,
he
gl i mpsedthe
pecul i ari ty of a modeof
i nsti tuti onof soci al real i tyi nwhi chthe
ef f ects of
the
di vi si onand hi stori ci ty
cannol onger beneutral i zedthroughthe
representati on.
I nseeki ng
todef i neAsi ati c despoti sm( to whi ch
wehaveal ready ref erred) , he
actual l yweakensi ts constructi on, si nce
heasserts that thi s soci al f ormati ontends
toreproducei tsel f as such, i ndependent of al l events such
as wars, mi grati ons,
changes i n dynasti es; that the
economi c andsoci al organi zati oni s as i f paral ysed
duetotheabsol uteseparati on
of
the
i magi narycommuni tyandtherural
ones.
I n
so doi ng, heprompts
us, f i rst of al l , to doubt the respecti vef uncti ons
of
producti on
and representati on, by l eavi ng i t to be assumed that thef i rst
i s
subordi nate
to
the
second. Eventhoughhepersi sts i npresenti ng
despoti smasan
i magi nary
f uncti onwhi chgraf ts i tsel f ontothereal i ty
of thedi vi si onof l abour,
hecannot, at thesameti me, avoi d admi tti ngthat
i t has a symbol i c ef f ecti veness
( whi chi s attested toby desi gnati ng the
modeof producti on i n non-economi c
terms) ; but especi al l y, throughanextreme
casehecl ari f i es a di sti ncti vetrai t of
al l thepre-capi tal i st f ormati ons. The
asserti on that thei r modeof producti on
remai ns essenti al l y
conservati vei n spi teof al l thehi stori cal di f f erences, that the
di vi si on
of l abour andsoci al rel ati ons al ways tendtocrystal l i ze
there
and
toresi st
thechangef actors, i s i n f act onl yi ntel l i gi bl e
i f onerecogni zes thef ul l ef f ecti ve-
ness of thesymbol i c devi cewhi ch,
owi ngtotheseparati onof twoposi ti ons-
that of l aw, di scourseonsoci al real i ty, the
power whi chi s at oncebearer and
guarantor of thi s di scourse and thepl ace
of actual soci al rel ati ons-makes
possi bl ethepl acement
of
theestabl i shed
order betweensoci al groupsand agents
i ntheworl dorder, and
thus di f f uses theef f ects of soci al di vi si on. Thi s i s a
devi ce
whoseparti cul ar task
i s toassurethecondi ti onsof occul tati onwi thout al l owi ng
the
questi on of an opposi ti on between i magi nary and
real toari se. Actual l y,
real i ty onl y
shows i tsel f tobedetermi nabl ei nsof ar as i t
i s assumedtobeal ready
determi ned, i n
accordancewi thanutterancewhi ch, mythi cal
or rel i gi ous, attests
toaknowl edge
whoseactual acti vi tyof knowl edge, techni cal i nventi on, i nterpre-
tati onof the
vi si bl e, cannot bri ng the f oundati on i ntopl ay. Thedi scourse
i s
i ndeed i nsti tuti ng; i t
orders thepossi bi l i ty of an arti cul ati on of soci al real i ty.
However, i t def i nes theopposi ti ons as "natural ", and
thusdef i nes thestatus of
thedomi nant
anddomi nated i n ki nshi pand cl ass rel ati ons owi ng
to
the
con-
ceal ment of soci al di vi si on behi nd therepresentati onof a massi vel y asserted
di vi si on,
of another worl d, of a materi al i zed i nvi si bi l i ty. Wecanonl ygraspthe
extent of thi s operati oni f
weunderstandthat i nonesensei t real i zes apossi bi l i ty
whi chf ormspart
of
the
i nsti tuti onof soci al real i ty, by maki ngi t appear that thi s
i nsti tuti oni s not asoci al f act i n
i tsel f , that thequesti onof soci al spacei s, f romthe
begi nni ng, aquesti onof i ts boundari es or i ts "outsi de"
( j ust as
the
questi onof the
bodyi s that of i ts ori gi nandi ts death) , that the
di scoursei s not onl ytheproduct
of men, but that they arearti cul ated i n i t .
Wearedef i ni tel y transgressi ngthe
borders of Marxi smagai n i n rej ecti ng the i dea that myths
and rel i gi ons are
si mpl ehumani nventi ons, but onl yi norder tof ol l owi n i ts wake,
to
attempt
to
pi cture
a model , i n whi chthesymbol i c devi cei s suchthat theconceal ment
of
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
soci al di vi si on coi nci des
wi th the actual power of bl ocki ng i ts ef f ects
and the
conceal ment of
thehi stori cal coi nci des wi ththeactual power of
barri ngthepath
to change, or of
contai ni ngi ts devel opment .

'
I f we venture to concei ve
of the genesi s of the di f f erent types of
soci al
f ormati ons, wemust makecertai n
correcti ons i n these proposi ti ons. Thedi f f er-
ences betweenthe structures of a pri mi ti ve
soci ety, those of Asi ati c despoti sm,
the
anci ent ci ty- state, andEuropeanf eudal i sm
are
so
great that treati ngthemas
vari ants of
one model mi ght appear to be an
arbi trary deci si on. Fromour
perspecti ve,
weare i n parti cul ar constrai nedto negl ect
anessenti al ' arti cul ati on:
that between
power anddi scourse onsoci al real i ty- an
arti cul ati on, however,
whi chcan
onl y
become
vi si bl e throughtheacti vi ty i n
whi ch
thepol eof
thel awi s
di sassoci ated f romthe pol e
of the utterance, andwhere the conti ngency
of the
utterance andi ts f uncti onof occul tati on
venture to appear. I t must be
admi tted
that there i s no cri teri on whi chcoul d
di sti ngui shthe i magi nary f romthe real
where
the pl ace of power i s hel d "empty"
andwhere rel ati ons are organi zed
accordi ng to i ts neutral i zati on, whereas
when the power i s l i nked to men' s
acti ons andshi f ted out of posi ti on
wi thregard to the l aw, the possi bi l i ty of thi s
di sti ncti on i s al ready opened up.
I n spi te of thi s, i n al l cases, the ori gi n of
di scourse onthe order of the
worl d, ontheorder of soci al real i ty, proves to
have
beenconcei ved el sewhere.
Marxhi msel f onl yconcei ves
of thi s model (whatever hi s cl ai ms to
devel opi ng
a theory of the evol uti onof
humani ty) f romthe starti ng poi nt of
hi s anal ysi s of
the capi tal i st modeof producti on
.
I n
di scoveri ng that the l atter i s essenti al l y
"revol uti onary", that i s tosay,
not subj ect to chance, but i n i tsel f a generator of
events whi chconti nual l y modi f y
establ i shed rel ati ons, Marxi s l ed to general l y
oppose two types of soci al f ormati ons.
Let us bri ef l y recal l the two
trai ts whi ch, i n Marx' s eyes, characteri ze modern
soci ety: on the one hand,
the uni f i cati on of the soci al domai n through the
general i zati on of exchange
and
of
thereducti onof al l concretel abour to abstract
l abour; ontheother
hand,
the
di vi si on
of
l abour andcapi tal , the concentrati onof
the means of producti onandthe
f ormati onof an ever- i ncreasi ng mass of soci al
agents, reduced to the si mpl e
possessi on of thei r l abour power. Undoubtedl y,
these two trai ts are
i ndi ssoci abl yl i nked: soci ety tends to ref er to i tsel f
i n al l i ts
parts, or
i n the l anguage of the youngMarx, the "reci procal dependence"
of al l
soci al
agents tends to be achi eved i nsof ar as a cl eavage i s ef f ected
f or . the f i rst
ti me
betweentwo antagoni sti c pol es whose rel ati onbri ngs i ntopl ay
the i denti ty
of
everythi ng. Thus, the soci al spacetends to appear wi thi n i ts
ownl i mi ts (and
not wi thref erence to another l ocus f romwhere i t
woul d
be vi si bl e)
as soonas al l
thedi vi si ons become subordi nate to ageneral one,
whenki nshi pandterri tori al
rel ati ons, andmoregeneral l y, rel ati ons of personal
dependence, areal l di ssol ved,
andwheneachof the two terms of thedi vi si on, by
the negati onof i ts contradi c-
ti on, ref ers to the uni ty of soci al real i ty
. Certai nl y these operati ons are not
symmetri cal , gi ven that
al though the mass of workers real i zes the negati on by
representi ngthe i mageof thecol l ecti veProducer
(who
i s
onl yrecogni zedi nthe
abol i ti on of the di vi si on), capi tal , on the other
hand, the embodi ment of soci al
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
power , i s onl y achi eved t hr ough enl ar gi ng t he di vi s i on and by r epr es ent i ng t he
i mage of a cl as s des t i ned t o t he f ant as y of bei ng a uni ver s al cl as s
as a
par t i cul ar
cl as s . The or gi n of i deol ogy t akes i t s pl ace i n t hi s pr oces s as
an
at t empt
t o
r epr es ent t he uni ver s al f r omt he par t i cul ar poi nt of vi ew
of
t he domi nant
cl as s .
The s i ngul ar i t y of t hi s at t empt
s t ems
f r omt he
f act t hat i t i s ent r enched i n t he
s oci al di vi s i on, t hat i t r es ul t s di r ect l y f r omi t . As we have al r eady s t at ed, t hi s
at t empt
cannot be i nt er pr et ed i n t er ms of col l ect i ve ps ychol ogy, but r at her as t he
s i gn of a l ogi c whi ch i s par t of t he i ns t i t ut i on of s oci al r eal i t y ; f r omt he moment
t hat t he di vi s i on no l onger f i nds i t s expr es s i on i n t he di vi s i on
of
t he wor l d
of
pr oduct i on and t he wor l d of r epr es ent at i on, but r at her i s r epr es ent ed wi t hi n t he
wor l d of pr oduct i on i t s el f , t hat i s t o s ay, i s hi dden behi nd t he
i mage of an
i mmanent r at i onal i t y i n r eal i t y . I n t hi s s ens e, t he s i ngul ar i t y of t he
at al s o
l i es
i n t he
f act
. t hat
i t comes t o t er ms wi t h t he act i vi t y whi chf r ees capi t al f r omal l
t he l i mi t at i ons
i mpos ed by t he l i mi t ed s oci al r el at i ons , andwhi ch i nves t s i t , as a
s oci al i zed s ys t emof expl oi t at i on, wi t h an unl i mi t ed power of obj ect i f i cat i on and
r at i onal i zat i on of pr oduct i on. The i deol ogi cal pr oces s di f f er s f r omt he r el i gi ous
pr oces s not onl y i n t hat t he f or mer t ends t o devel opwi t hi n t he conf i nes
of s oci al
s pace, but al s o, i n s o doi ng, i t becomes i nt r i cat el y l i nked wi t h " s ci ent i f i c"
knowl edge, knowl edge whi ch l ays cl ai mt o t he s el f - deci pher i ng
of
r eal i t y .
On
t he
ot her hand, t he i deol ogi cal pr oces s i s j us t as r adi cal l y di s t i ngui s hed by t he f act
t hat i t i s s ubj ect t o t he ef f ect s of an i nces s ant s oci al upheaval gener at ed by
capi t al i s m, i n whi cht he i ns t i t ut ut i ons , ment al i t i es , and col l ect i ve behavi our s ar e
modi f i ed, i n whi ch t he cent er s of power s hi f t , i n whi ch t he bour geoi s s t r at a,
whi chdr ewt hei r
i ncome and power f r omdi f f er ent s our ces , ent er i nt o oppos i -
t i on; by t he f act ,
t hen,
t hat i t mus t accompl i s h i t s t as k of conceal i ng t he di vi s i on
by modi f yi ng i t s own s t at ement s or by s i mul t aneous l y havi ng r ecour s e
t o
a
mul t i pl i ci t y
of
r epr es ent at i ons i n or der t o s eal t he cr acks opened by t he
change
i n
t he " r at i onal i t y of r eal i t y" . Thus , t he s i ngul ar r el at i on bet ween i deol ogy and
hi s t or i cal s oci et y i s expos ed. The i magi nar y i s no l onger par t of t he
s ymbol i c
devi ce whi ch t ends t o def i ne t he i ns t i t ut i on of s oci al r eal i t y i n r ef er r i ng t he det ai l
of s oci al or gani zat i on t o a di s cour s e whi ch i s s pl i t f r omi t : I ns of ar as t he ques t i on
of t he genes i s of s oci al r eal i t y f r omi t s own l ocus ar i s es ( t he mas t er y
of
t hi s
genes i s , t he means of denyi ng and cont ai ni ng i t bei ngconceal ed) , a newt ype of
di s cour s e t hen comes i nt o bei ng, concer ned wi t h abat i ng t he oppos i t i ons and
br eaks at
t he
dual l evel of t i me and s pace. I n ot her wor ds , i deol ogy i s t he s equence
of r epr es ent at i ons
whos e f unct i on i s t o r e- es t abl i s h t he di mens i on of t he " ahi s -
t or i cal " s oci et y wi t hi n t he hi s t or i cal s oci et y.
Once agai n, t aki ng f r omMar x' s l anguage, t he i dea of " cons er vat i on" f ul f i l l s a
s t r at egi c f unct i on i n hi s
i nt er pr et at i on; i n al l pr e- capi t al i s t f or mat i ons , t he mode
of pr oduct i on i s
cons er vat i ve, wher eas i n capi t al i s mt he i deol ogy i s cons er vat i ve
andi s as s i gned t he t as k of
conceal i ng
t he r evol ut i on whi ch
r es i des
i n t he
modeof
pr oduct i on. Mar x undoubt edl y s ens ed t hat i n t hi s l at t er cas e, t he i magi nar y
i s
s egr egat ed f r omt he i ns t i t ut i on
of s oci al
r eal i t y, due t o t he mani f es t br eakdown
of ever y s ymbol i c s ys t ems us cept i bl e t o mas t er i ng t hi s i ns t i t ut i on. Mar x, l i ke
Feuer bach, can i ndeed cont i nue t o cons i der r el i gi on as a t ypi cal expr es s i on of
DISAPPEARING
IDEOLOGY
i deol ogy; but ,
i ndemonst rat i ng t hat rel i gi on has
emi grat edi nt osoci al rel at i ons,
hepart i al l y
percei ves t hespeci f i ci t y of i deol ogy:
t het aci t recogni t i onof hi st ori c-
i t y, t he
di vi si on, andeven t he i mpl i cat i on of
t he represent at i on i n t hat whi ch
i t
represent s.
He part i al l y real i zes t hat i n
modern soci et i es, t he process of
t he
i magi nary
goes handi n hand wi t h an
unprecedent ed experi ence of "real i t y" as '
such. In
ai mi ngat t hi s di st i nct i onresul t i ng f romt hereal
andt hei magi nary, he
acqui res t he abi l i t y t o
ret urn i t t o soci al f ormat i ons
wi t hi n whi ch i t woul d be
i ndeci pherabl e. But t hi s
abi l i t y
i s
sust ai nedby t he i l l usi on
whi ch
i s
at t hecent er
of modernsoci et y, t hat t he
i nst i t ut i on of soci al real i t y can expl ai n
i t sel f . Marx
grasps t he pri nci pl e of i deol ogy as
t he speci f i c modeof t he
i magi nary, but he
cont i nues t o suppose t hat i t can be
reduced t o t he conceal ment of
somet hi ng:
cl ass di vi si on, di vi si onof l abour and
capi t al , of t he St at eandci vi l soci et y, of t he
hi st ori cal present and i t s t asks. He does
t hi s wi t hout ever goi ng so f ar as t o
consi der t hat
i f i t act ual l y i nsures t hi s conceal ment ,
i t i s orderedandsupport edby
a pri nci pl e of
occul t at i onwhi chhas been subst i t ut ed
f or t heonewhi chgoverned
t he symbol i c
devi ce of al l t he pre- capt i al i st
f ormat i ons; t he i mpossi bi l i t y of a
di scourse on soci al real i t y bei nggenerat ed
i n al ocus ot her t han i t s own.
Wecannot conf use i deol ogy
wi t h t he ref usal t o recogni ze t hi s
i mpossi bi l i t y
whi ch, f romabroader perspect i ve,
i s t he sameonewhi ch i s conf ront edby
al l
di scourse i n modernsoci et i es,
i n t hat eachdi scourse i s seeki ng i t s own
f ounda-
t i on. In addi t i on, t oday we
woul dnot say t hat Marx' s t hought i s i deol ogi cal
any
moret han we woul dsay
t he
same
of any ot her work t o whi chwe
at t ri but e t he
power of i nst i t ut i on i n modern
t i mes. Moreover, soci al di scourse
and not onl y
t hat whi ch rel at es t o t heoret i cal
works, cannot be consi dered as i deol ogi cal
f or
t he si mpl e f act t hat i t i s
devel oped i n t he f ace of such an i mpossi bi l i t y
. In
addi t i on, weconsi der t he argument
whi chdi scredi t st hepri nci pl esof democrat i c
di scourse i n reduci ng t hemt o
ut t erances of bourgeoi s democracy t o be
a f al se
creat i on, al t hough wedo
poi nt out t hei mpossi bl e at t empt t opl acet he
i nst i t ut or
i n t he i nst i t ut ed
. Wi t h j ust such conf usi on, t he cri t i que of
a f ract i on of t he
i nt el l i gent si a i s
devel opi ngat t he present t i me. Al l around, i t
sees t he si gns of
i deol ogy,
and mul t i pl i es i t s condemnat i ons of pol i t i cal di scourse as
such, of
economi c,
j udi ci al , phi l osophi cal or pedagogi cal di scourse,
wi t hout bei ngabl e t o
assess
what has been brought i nt o pl ay andwhat
st i l l i s each t i me t here i s an
at t empt at cont act bet weeni nst i t ut edknowl edge
and t he i nst i t ut or owi ngt o i t s
i nabi l i t y t o succeed; such an at t empt
t urns t he di scourse i nt o a "workpl ace",
whoseef f ect i s t o keep open t he l i nes
of quest i oni ngwhi ch are at i t s root s, i n
spi t e of al l t he argument s whi chare assert ed
. In t hi s sense (t he paradox bei ng
onl y apparent ), t hi s modeof
di scourse, i n t he act i vi t ywhi ch condemns i t t o a
cert ai n
bl i ndness, at t est s t o t hat whi ch i s beyond
t he grasp of act i on and
knowl edge, a rel at i on t o t he eni gmaof t he
i nst i t ut i on. If we were t o t ake as
i deol ogy t he di scourse whi chconf ront s
t he i mpossi bi l i t y of i t s sel f - genesi s, t hi s
woul dmeant hat wewoul dbe convert i ng
t hi s i mpossi bi l i t y i nt o aposi t i ve f act ;
we woul dbel i eve i n t he
possi bi l i t y of mast eri ng i t ; wewoul d agai n be
pl aci ng
oursel ves i n t he i l l usi onary posi t i on of
overl ooki ng di scourse i n order t o "see"
t he
di vi si on f romwhi chi t emerges, whereas
t hedi scourse canonl y reveal t hi s i n
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
i t sel f . Ont he cont rary, we mai nt ai n
t hat i deol ogy i s organi zedby apri nci pl e
of
occul t at i onwhi ch st rays
' f romi t s t ask: i t i ndi cat es a ret urnof
soci al di scourse
uponi t sel f , suppressi ng al l t he
i ndi cat i ons whi ch woul d t end
t o dest roy
t he
cert ai nt y of t he soci al bei ng:
si gns of hi st ori cal creat i vi t y, of t he unnamed,
of
what
i s
conceal ed
t hrough t he act i onof power, of what breaks
apart t hrought he
scat t ered af f ai rs of soci al i zat i on; si gns whi ch
make asoci et y, or humani t yas such,
est ranged f romi t sel f .
As we have st at ed, such i s t he nat ure
of i deol ogi cal di scourse al ready di scerned
byMarx, but
decept i vel y rel at ed t o a hi ddenreal i t y (t he st at e of t he di vi si onof
l abour det ermi ned by
t hat of t he product i ve f orces) ; i t i s a second di scourse,
f ol l owi ng t he t rack
of
t he
i nst i t ut i ng di scourse whi chdoes not knowi t sel f , and
under
t he l at t er' s i nf l uence, at t empt s t o si mul at e ageneral knowl edge of real i t y
as such. Thi s di scourse, t hen, devel ops i nt he af f i rmat i ve
mode, t he mode of
det ermi nat i on, general i zat i on, reduct i onof di f f erences, of ext ernal i t y
regardi ng
i t s obj ect ; as such, i t al ways i mpl i es t hepoi nt of vi ewof power whi ch
guarant ees
anact ual or possi bl e order andwhi cht ends t oward
anonymi t y t oat t est t o a t rut h
i mpri nt ed i nt hi ngs . Thi s seconddi scourse draws
not hi ngf romi t s owndept hs ;
t hat i s howMarxcanj ust i f y hi s observat i ont hat
i deol ogy has no hi st ory. But i t
woul d be i ncorrect t o consequent l y
assume
t hat
t he di scourse i s l i nked t o a
det ermi ned ensembl e of ut t erances.
We have al ready not ed t hat t hi s dependence wi t h regard
t o t he i nst i t ut i ng
di scourse has several ef f ect s . I nt he f i rst pl ace, i t t ends t o t ake hol d
of
t he si gns
agai ni n' order
t o i ncorporat e t hemi nt o i t s conceal ment of t he hi st ori cal . I t
accompl i shes t hi s i nsuchawayt hat t he "modern" represent at i on(we wi l l ret urn
t o t hi s poi nt ) i s at i t s hi ghest poi nt of ef f ect i veness i nmaski ngt he t emporal
di f f erence. I nt he secondpl ace, i t t ends t o achi eve t he homogeni zat i on
of t he
domai nby t aki ng i nhand t he quest i ons whi ch
ari se i naccordance wi t h t he
di f f erent i at i onof soci al space andconf l i ct s of a cl ass andgroupi norder
t o
di f f use
t hem.
Thus, t he. demarcat i onof a pol i t i cal pract i ce, whi chwe are i n
noway
l ed
t o
descri be as i deol ogi cal as such, gi ves ri se t o a part i cul ar di scourse whi chact i vel y
el aborat es t he i mage of pol i t i cal essence (whet her t hi s i s t omai nt ai ni t s rat i onal -
i t y
or
i t s
f i nal i rrat i onal i t y i s not i mport ant ) . Thi s operat i onrepeat s i t sel f ,
st art i ng f romt he
det ermi nat i onof a j udi ci al , aest het i c, or pedagogi cal pract i ce;
i t s ef f ect i veness
l i es
i nt he
f act t hat t he same schemas goveni neach di scourse,
t hat eachone l eads t oanot her andconst i t ut es
one
l i nk
of t he general di scourse on
soci al real i t y. Yet i t i s equal l y
t rue t hat t he di f f erent l ayers, each i naccordance
wi t h t he condi t i ons i nwhi chi t
i s pl aced andi t s part i cul ar aspi rat i ons, come t o
speak a l anguage at t he servi ce of "rat i onal i t y" and"real i t y",
of t he conceal ment
of anyt emporal or spat i al break, whose ef f ect i s t oi nsure t he compl ement ari t y
of
represent at i ons i nanepoch. Thi rdl y, t he at t empt t o compensat e f or t he short -
comi ngs
of t he general di scourse, al ways subj ect t ot he i mpossi bl e mast eryof t he
i nst i t ut i ng
one, i mposes a successi ve recourse t odi sparat e schemes of expl ana-
t i on, l ogi cal l y
i ncompat i bl e, al t houghone model evi dent l ypredomi nat es . Di f f er-
ent soci al agent s are not
al one i nshari ng t he t ask of i deol ogi cal di scourse; i t i s
dest i nedt o move i t s ref erences t o f eed i t s j ust i f i cat i on- f or
exampl e, ref erences
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
t o
t he past and f ut ur e, t o et hi cs and t echni cal
r at i onal i t y, t o i ndi vi dual and
communi t y . In t hi s sense, i t i s f or ced t o make
t he most
of
what i t has, t o adapt
i t sel f
t o
het er ogenous ver si ons i nor der t o r et ai n
t he ef f ect i veness of i t s gener al
r esponse.
Nonet hel ess, t hese r emar ks ar e not suf f i ci ent .
Even t hus cor r ect ed, t he pr opo-
si t i on t hat i deol ogy
has no hi st or y mi ght wel l be
mi sl eadi ng, because i t hi des t he
cont r adi ct i on
whi ch i deol ogy conf r ont s, and whi ch or der s
i t s t r ansf or mat i ons .
As wel l , i t may conceal
f r omus t he l ogi c of t he i magi nar y i n hi st or i cal soci et y
.
We
can f i nd t he dr i vi ng f or ce of
i deol ogi cal changes, not onl y i n a " r eal " hi st or y, as
Mar xbel i eved; t o some ext ent , t he necessi t y
f or i t s r eor gani zat i on i s det er mi ned
by
t he f ai l ur e of t he pr ocess of conceal ment of
t he i nst i t ut i on of soci al r eal i t y.
Because
i deol ogy cannot oper at e wi t hout showi ng
i t sel f , t hat i s t o say wi t hout
bei ng
exposed as a di scour se, wi t hout l et t i ng t he gap
appear bet ween t hi s,
di scour se and
i t s
obj ect ,
i t i mpl i es an evol ut i on i n whi ch
t he i mpossi bi l i t y of
er asi ng i t s t r acks i s r ef l ect ed
.
Bour geoi s i deol ogy,
whi ch Mar xi st s per si st i n conf usi ng
wi t h i deol ogy i n
gener al - pr i soner s
t hat t hey ar e of an empi r i ci st schema
whi ch r educes i t t o a
det er mi ned st at e of
cl ass di vi si on- onl y const i t ut es one i nst ance
of i t . Indeed, i t
i s i n
exami ni ng t he si gns of i t s f ai l ur e t hat t he genesi s of
t ot al i t ar i an i deol ogy i s
br ought t o
l i ght . In di scover i ng t he boundar i es of t he
l at t er ,
we
may al so obt ai n
some
i ndi cat i on as t o t he mechani sms whi ch gover n t he
i magi nar y i n cont em-
por ar y
west er nsoci et i es and whose ef f ect i veness supposes bot h
t he expl oi t at i on
and t he neut r al i zat i on of t he
t ot al i t ar i an at t empt .
The So- Cal l ed
" Bour geoi s" Ideol ogy
Ever yt hi ng t hat we have sai d concer ni ng t he gener al
pr oper t i es of i deol ogy
appl i es
t o bour geoi s i deol ogy . At i t s peak, i nt he
ni net eent h cent ur y, i t i s possi bl e
t o
di scer n a soci al di scour se ext er nal t o soci al r eal i t y,
a di scour se gover nedby t he
i l l usi on
of an expl anat i on of r eal i t y f r om
wi t hi n t he r eal , and whi ch t ends t o
pr esent i t sel f as an anonymous di scour se
i nwhi cht he uni ver sal speaks of i t sel f
.
What ever suppor t t hi s di scour se f i nds
i n cer t ai nepochs and f or cer t ai nst r at a of
t he domi nant cl ass, i t i s subj ect t o
t he i deal of posi t i ve knowl edge and
expr essl y
or i mpl i ci t l y chal l enges
any r ef er ence t o anot her l ocus wher e knowl edge
about
soci al r eal i t y and
wor l dor der s woul dcol l ect . But wemust not f or get
t he si ngul ar -
i t y of t he devi ce
t hr ough whi ch i deol ogi cal di scour se
at t empt s t o f ul f i l l i t s
f unct i on.
Act ual l y, i t
i s
or gani zed by means of a spl i t bet ween
i deas and t he
supposed
r eal . The ext er nal i t y, of t he ot her l ocus,
l i nked t o r el i gi ous or myt hi cal
knowl edge, i s er ased, but t he di scour se onl y
r ef er s_ back t o i t sel f t hr ough t he
det our of t he t r anscendence of i deas . The t ext of
i deol ogy i s wr i t t en i n capi t al
l et t er s, whet her
i t
i s a quest i on
of Humani t y, Pr ogr ess, Nat ur e,
Li f e or key
concept s of bour geoi s
democr acy i nscr i bed on t he pedi ment of
t he Republ i c, or
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
even
of Sci ence, Ar t , as wel l as Pr oper t y, Fami l y, Or der , Soci et y or Count r y;
i t can
be a cons er vat i veor pr ogr es s i vi s t ver s i on
of bour geoi s di s cour s e, or a s oci al i s t or
anar chi s t ver s i onof ant i bour geoi s
di s cour s e. Thi s t ext car r i es t hecons t ant s i gns
of a t r ut h whi ch det er mi nes t he
or i gi ns of f act s , whi ch encl os es t hemi n a .
r epr es ent at i on and di r ect s t he
ar gument at i on. The det er mi nat i on of anor der of
appear ances i s as s er t ed
or mai nt ai ned t hr ough t het r ans cendence of t he i dea; or
mor egener al l y, t he
pos s i bi l i t y of an obj ect i f i cat i onof s oci al r eal i t y opens up, no
mat t er what poi nt
of vi ewi s adopt ed.
The
doubl enat ur e of t hei dea as r epr es ent at i on and nor m, however , cannot
be
over emphas i zed; nei t her can t hedoubl echar act er of t he
ar gument at i on, whi ch
at t es t s t o a t r ut h i n r eal i t y and t o t hecondi t i ons
of act i oni nconf or mi t y wi t h t he
nat ur e of t hi ngs . Mor eover , an es s ent i al
ar t i cul at i on of i deol ogi cal di s cour s e
s t ands out i n t he f unct i onexpr es s l y
at t r i but ed t o t her ul e. Once agai n, t he s ame
model r emai ns f r om
cons er vat i s mt o anar chi s m: a body of di ct at es i s cons t r uct ed,
whos e
appl i cat i on i s
condi t i oned by knowl edge and act i on. Thes t r engt h of t he
r ul e,
whi ch pr ovi des t he as s ur ance of r eal i t y and i nt el l i gi bi l i t y wher ever
and
however i t i s i nt er pr et ed, i s as cer t ai ned f r ompol i t i cal
or economi c di s cour s e t o
pedagogi cal di s cour s e. I nt hi s s ens e, di s cour s eon
s oci al r eal i t y can onl y mai nt ai n
i t s
ext er nal pos i t i onwi t h r egar d t o i t s obj ect by pr es ent i ng t he
i mageof t her ul e' s
guar ant or ,
who,
t hr ough
hi s exi s t ence, conf i r ms t he i dea' s i ncar nat i on i n t he .
s oci al
r el at i on
. The guar ant or ' s pos i t i on i s i t s el f expl i ci t . He i s par t of t he
r epr es ent at i on;
a whol e ens embl e of i mages i s empl oyed wher e t r ai t s of t he
bour geoi s , t hebos s , t hemi ni s t er , t hef ami l y man, t heeducat or , t he mi l i t ant , et c
. ,
appear .
Undoubt edl y, at oneext r eme of i deol ogi cal di s cour s e, aut hor i t y t ends
t o
be hi dden behi nd t he
power of t hei dea ; however i t i s t r ue, t hen, t hat t hi s power
becomes i nor di nat e, t hat s ci ence i s cl ai med t hr ough t hi s _power wi t h gr eat l y
i ncr eas ed vi gor and t hat i f t he par t i cul ar det er mi nat i ons of s oci al agent s
ar e
s omet i mes engul f ed by i t , t hei mageof manas uni ver s al manef f ect i vel y
comes t o
s uppor t t he
t r ut h of t he r ul e i n s oci al i s mand anar chi s m.
Let
us t ake not e of t he f act t hat t he r epr es ent at i ons of t he
i dea, of
t he
i nt el l i gi bl e
s equence of f act s , of t he r ul e, of t he mas t er hol di ng t he pr i nci pl e of
act i on, and of knowl edge,
pr es umea s i ngul ar t ypeof di s cour s edes t i ned t o di s pl ay
i t s el f
as s uch
.
The di s cour s e on s oci al r eal i t y as s er t s i t s el f as di s cour s e; i t i s ver y
s i gni f i cant l y model l ed
on pedagogy. Thi s char act er i s t i c br i ngs t o l i ght t he di s -
t ance, whi ch t oo i s
r epr es ent ed, bet ween t he s peaker , wher ever he may be
s i t uat ed, and t he ot her . Wedo not mean t o s ay t hat
di s cour s e emanat es f r oman
agent or a s er i es of agent s who woul d onl y be r epr es ent at i ves
of t he domi nant
cl as s . I ns of ar as i t i s pr es ent ed as di s cour s eons oci al r eal i t y, ext r act i ng i t s el f f r om
t he s oci al , i deol ogi cal di s cour s e devel ops i mper s onal l y ; i t conveys knowl edge
whi ch
i s s uppos ed t o ar i s e f r omt he or der of t hi ngs . But i t
i s
.
es s ent i al f or i t
t o
cl ar i f y
at
al l
l evel s t hedi s t i nct i on bet ween t hes ubj ect , who i s es t abl i s hed by hi s
ar t i cul at i on wi t h t he
r ul e, who expr es s es hi ms el f i n s t at i ng t he r ul e, and t he
ot her , who, not havi ng
acces s t o
t he
r ul e, does not havet hes t at us of s ubj ect . The
r epr es ent at i on of t he
r ul e goes hand i n hand wi t h t hat of nat ur e, and t hi s
oppos i t i on conver t s i t s el f i nt o
a s er i es of mani f es t t er ms : f or exampl e, . t he
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
"worker" i s representedopposi te the
bourgeoi s, theuneducated manopposi te
thecul turedone, theunci vi l i zed
man
opposi te
theci vi l i zed, themadmanoppo-
si tethe
sane
one,
thechi l dopposi tetheadul t
. Thus through al l thesubsti tuti ons,
therei s a
natural bei ngwhosei magesupports
theasserti onof soci ety as a
worl d
above
nature. Thi s i s thedevi ceby whi chsoci al
di vi si on i s conceal ed: theposi ti on
of i ndi cators
whi chal l owthedetermi nati onof
thedi f f erencebetweensoci al and
sub-soci al ,
order anddi sorder, worl dand"underworl d"
( adi f f erencewhi chi s of
no i mportance
i n"pre-capi tal i sm" whenthe soci al i s percei ved
f romanother
l ocus, f roman
order
beyond
i t) i nsuch away as to permi t
thei denti f i cati on and
mastery of that
whi chreal i ty conceal s f romdi scourse.
Thus thel atter i s abl eto
cover up thequesti on of i ts
genesi s, or that of the i nsti tuti on of
soci al real i ty
( whi chamounts to thesame
thi ng)
by
l ayi ng out theboundari es of
that whi chi s
f orei gn to any creati on thi s si deof
the i nsti tuti on, by taki ng
i nto account an
overgrowth of i rrati onal f acts whosethrust
must bechecked. Indeed, i t must be
repeated
that thi s representati oni s contestedi n
anti bourgeoi s di scourse, but the
l atter shares, andevenbroadens, pedagogi cal
ai ms . It tends to conf i nei tsel f to
a
counter-di scoursewhi chdetermi nes the
present i rrati onal i ty' s i mageandredu-
ces
theother tothemal evol ent f i gureof
thedomi nator-hei s nol ess haunted
by
thei l l usi on of a transparency of thesoci ety' s
ri ght f or i tsel f .
As wehave
al ready suggestedi ncal l i ng to mi ndMarx' s
anal yses, thestrength
of i deol ogy,
i n the model whi chwearebroadl y sketchi ng,
stems f romthe f act
that thedi scourses, whose
homol ogywehavepoi ntedout,
remai ndi sj oi nted. Let
us repeat that i deol ogy f ol l ows
thel i nes of the i nsti tuti onof soci al
real i ty; i f i t
provi des ageneral "response",
thel atter does not ari seuni quel y i none
pl ace. It i s
mul ti pl i edaccordi ngto a
di f f erenti ati onwhosepri nci pl eMarx
vai nl y i mputedto
thedi vi si onof l abour whi chcannot
i n i tsel f beconsi deredas thedri vi ngf orceof
change, andwhi ch
undoubtedl y woul drather havetobel i nkedto
thedi vi si onof
pol i ti cal power and the
l aw, andas i ts resul t, to the acti vi ty of
segregati ng the
i nsti tui tons
and
soci al
di scourses whi ch underl i e them
. Thus an i deol ogi cal
di scoursecuts across thesi tuati onconsti tutedby
thedetermi nati onof thestate,
busi ness, theschool , theasyl um, of
moderni nsti tuti ons i n general ; i t cuts across
the tracks of determi ned spaces i n
whi ch measurabl e rel ati ons between
gi ven
agents areorgani zed. Thus
taki ngas apoi nt of departurea
hi stori cal arti cul ati on,
i deol ogi cal di scourseoccasi onal l y
presents the i mageof a
necessi ty of essence.
Doubtl ess each
attempt i s onl y possi bl ebecausei t draws on
al l theothers . There
i s aconstant
gi veandtakebetweentheprocesses of
l egi ti mati onanddi ssi mul a-
ti on
i mpl emented: however, "knowl edge" i s not
concentrated at one sol e
extreme,
and i n thi s sense a gap between power
and di scourse i s preserved
everywhere
and al ways . Thetask of homogeni zi ng
anduni f yi ng soci al real i ty
remai ns
i mpl i ci t . For thi s reason, the
possi bi l i ty of a shi f t or evenani nversi onof
utterances i s al ways open, or i nother
words, of contradi ctory versi ons
whi ch, i n
spi teof conf l i ct, i nsure ani denti ty of
ref erence f or soci al agents .
However thecondi ti ons whi ch
assurebourgeoi s i deol ogy' s
ef f ecti veness al so
hol d the
possi bi l i ty of i ts f ai l ure. Assuredl y, to
expl ai n i ts decay, i t woul dbe
necessary to go beyond
i ts l i mi ts, to exami ne
hi story, but weonl y proposeto
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
hi ghl i ght t he i nt er nal cont r adi ct i ons of
i deol ogy whi chcompel i t t o modi f y i t sel f
i n or der t o cont i nue f ul f i l l i ng i t s
f unct i on i n hi st or i cal soci et y .
J udgi ng by a
wi despr ead Mar xi st ar gument , t he decay
supposedl y r esul t s f r om
t he
f undament al cont r adi ct i on of i deol ogi cal di scour se
and r eal pr act i ce whi ch
becomes mor e and mor e per cept i bl e t o t he
eyes of t he domi nat ed. Thear gument
i s t oo wel l known t o r equi r e summar i zi ng,
and
i t
i s known t o have f ound st r ong
suppor t i n Leni ni st cr i t i ci smof "f or mal
democr acy" whose myst i f i cat i on i s
gr adual l y di scover ed by t he
masses
t hr ough
oppr essi on. Whi l e a cer t ai n amount
of t r ut h must be at t r i but ed
t o
i t ,
one i s l ed t o wonder howr eal i t y comes t o appear ,
i f i t i s suf f i ci ent
t o
l ook
at
t he l i ved
exper i ence of a cl ass i nor der t o concei ve
of
t he
f or mat i on of a soci al di scour se whi ch
woul d gr adual l y weaken i deol ogy' s hol d.
Thi s quest i on i s al l t he
mor e i mpor t ant i f we consi der t he soci et i es i n whi ch
f or mal democr acy has
col l apsed
:
wemust agr ee t hat i t yi el ds i t s pl ace not
t o ar eal
' democr acy, but
t o t ot al i t ar i ani sm.
The Mar xi st i nt er pr et at i on seems t o be mor e f r ui t f ul
when i t emphasi zes t he
i nt er nal cont r adi ct i ons of i deol ogi cal di scour se. The
necessi t y t o st at e pr oposi -
t i ons of uni ver sal val ue and, at t he same t i me,
t o pr ovi de a r epr esent at i on of t he
est abl i shed or der j ust i f yi ng cl ass domi nat i on
woul d have t heef f ect of dest r oyi ng
i t s appar ent r at i onal i t y, and woul d pr ohi bi t i t
f r omever goi ng t o t he l i mi t s of i t s
asser t i on
.
Hence, i t woul d gi ve r i se t o cr i t i ci smeven i n i t s
pr act i ce, and t o a
count er - di scour se on each of i t s l evel s
.
Mar x, as we
r ecal l , suggest s i n The 18t h
Br umai r e
t hat bour geoi s di scour se r esponds i n i t s
own way t o t he di vi si on of
l abour . The
i nt el l i gent si a speci al i zes i n t he wor shi p
of abst r act t r ut hs ; i t mai n-
t ai ns t he i l l usi on of an essence of humani t y whi ch
does not admi t t he i mage of
par t i cul ar i nt er est s ; i t speaks t he l anguage of poet r y,
whi l e t hepol i t i cal r epr esen-
t at i ves of t he bour geoi si e
speak i n pr ose. Accor di ng t o t hi s, as soon as t he or der i s
t hr eat ened, t he l at t er r emai n al one
on t he st age. Al t hough he sees t hemas t he
r eal i st i c spokesmen of t he domi nant
cl ass, pl aci ng' t hei r di scour se i n i deol ogy
does not exceed t he l i mi t s
of hi s anal ysi s . Though t hey t ake measur es whi ch
unequi vocal l y mani f est t he def ense of
cl ass i nt er est s, t hey st i l l make use of a
l anguage whi ch cl ai ms t o expl ai n t hi ngs, t o st at e t he l aw
of r eal i t y and t he r eal i t y
of t he l aw. The concept of owner shi p; of t he St at e, or
l abour or
t he
f ami l y i s no
l ess i deol ogi cal t han t hose of a humani st i nt el l i gent si a
. Mor eover , i f one or
anot her
of t he i nt el l i gent si a' s concept s, such as "equal i t y", f i nds i t sel f
r el egat ed
t o cer t ai n
ci r cumst ances because i t mi ght gi ve a t oehol d t o r evol ut i onar y
demands, t he "pr ose" coul d
never compl et el y br eakwi t h t he "poet r y" ; di scour se
on l i ber t y al ways comes t o
back updi scour se on owner shi p j ust as di scour se on
j ust i ce al ways comes t o suppor t di scour se
on or der . As wel l , wi t hout t ouchi ng t he
conf l i ct s whi ch t ear t he agent s f r om
i deol ogi cal di scour se, one coul d deal wi t h
t hi s di scour se gener al l y t o anal yse i t s
opposi t i ons and t o demonst r at e t hat t her e
i s not one i dea whi ch coul d be f or mul at ed, not
one ar gument devel oped i n i t s
ser vi ce, whose asser t i on does not r equi r e an i dea or an ar gument
cont r adi ct i ng
t hem
.
The di scour se cover s up i ncompat i bl e r epr esent at i ons
;
i t l i ves
on t he
"hor r i bl e mel ange" of t he i mage of an uncondi t i onal i ndi vi dual besi de
t hat of
an
uncondi t i onal
soci et y, on t he al l i ance of an ar t i f i ci al i st and mechani st i c t hought
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
wi thonethat i s substanti al i st
andorgani ci st. Furthermore, si ncei t i s essenti al
f or
i t to expl ai n i tsel f as di scourse on soci al
real i ty, and as i t conti nual l y names
thi ngs, through theef f ect of i ts
i nternal conf l i cts, i t unknowi ngl y generates
the
di vergenceof soci al real i ty anddi scourse.
Yet i f wewant todetermi netheextent of
thecontradi cti onwi thout f orgetti ng
that i t stems f romthei mpossi bl eproj ect of a di scourse
whi chcl ai ms topresent
the
transparency of soci al real i ty, andas soci al di scourse, tobedi scourse
onsoci al
real i ty, we
must exami nepreci sel y that si ngul ar property of bourgeoi s
i deol ogy
of real i zi ngi tsel f by
procedures suchas theutterancebei ng nearl y
percepti bl eto
i tsel f , thestatement
bei ng al most def i ned, thei mageof thespeaker
bei ngnearl y
vi si bl e, whereas at
thesameti me, everythi ng i s supposedtodi ssol ve
i ntosoci al
real i ty' s quasi -appearanceto
i tsel f , becausei ni tsel f , the i nternal
contradi cti on
does not destroy thedi scourse. As we
havepoi ntedout, i t gi ves thedi scourse
i ts
strength; i t devel ops an arti cul ati on
between opposi ng terms, assuri ng the
possi bi l i ty of sayi ngeverythi ng, or, to empl oy a more
contemporary vocabul ary,
of "rehabi l i tati ng" everythi ng, eventhe
most subversi ve. Onthe other hand,
i deol ogy i s undermi nedby i ts necessi ty to
produce i deas, whi charepresented- as
transcendent wi thregardtoreal i ty at
thesamemoment as they determi nei t or
onl y seemto express i t .
Nothi ngi s moreremarkabl ethanthi s process : thei dea
of ownershi por of thef ami l y cuts across
thef act of ownershi por of thef ami l y.
Thel atter i s not si l ent ; therei s no
i nsti tuti onwhi chdoes not organi zei tsel f i na
l anguageacti vi ty . But wehaveto
deal wi thal anguageof thesecondpower,
whi ch
seeks to di stancei tsel f wi thregardto
thef i rst andwhi chattempts to avert the
danger wi thi n i t, resul ti ng f rom
the
f act
that speech ci rcul ates i n the l atter,
di f f erenti ati ng theagents f romeach
other at thesameti meas i t rel ates them, and
onl y settl i ng i naccordancewi than
acti vi ty i nwhi chthepossi bi l i ty andthel i mi ts
of exchangearebrought i ntopl ay, a
venturewhosecondi ti ons andef f ects escape
the i nsti tuti on. Thei dea of
the f ami l y encl oses the f act of the i nsti tuti on
and
i mpl i es thebel i ef
that i ts condi ti ons of possi bi l i ty andi ts l i mi ts are
concei vabl e
f rom
wi thi ni t . Thequesti onof thef ami l y then, ari ses throughtheef f ect of
the
representati on. I t does not ari se f romthe si mpl e f act that
there i s a l i mi ted
ki nshi p network; as Levi -Strauss j ustl y observes, thi s supposes speech,
know-
l edge,
someti mes hi ghl y devel opedref l ecti onof i ts
pri nci pl es
of
organi zati on,
but
not
a
vi ewover the i nsti tuti on whi chci rcumscri bes
i t
as
such, wi thi n the
soci al domai n, at a di stance f romothers . The
di f f erenti ati on of f uncti ons, of
rol es, thehi erarchy of ri ghts, i nnoway
supposes that therei s a vi ewover the
f ather, mother, chi l d, or, as we. woul dsuggest,
ani ntensi f i cati onof therepresen-
tati on, owi ngtowhi chanessenceemerges, or
i nthi s case, ani magi nary soci al
rel ati onwhi chamounts tothesame
thi ng.
Wi thout doubt, i t woul dbea
commonpl acetosay that thei deaof thef ami l y i s
f ormedthrough opposi ti onto
the conti ngency of the i nsti tuti on whi ch has
becomeal most
percepti bl e; however, i t i s al ready l ess tri te toremark that
thi s
conti ngency i s
not abol i shed, but di spl acedthroughtheef f ect of thei dea,
that the
l atter, whosef uncti on i s to conceal i t, i s
i mmedi atel y markedby i t, andthat
f i nal l y, a l i mi tl ess acti vi ty i s set i nmoti on, an
acti vi ty attri butabl e to a sequenceof
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
i deas t o remove t he cont i ngency' s ef f ect s f romt he ut t erance
. Thi s i s a t ask of
argument at i on, of j ust i f i cat i on, whi ch,
as we have al ready observed, i s i t sel f
represent ed i n
i deol ogy; i t present s t he i mage of rat i onal i t y ext ri cat i ng i t sel f
f romreal i t y
( i t i s of l i t t l e i mport ance, i t must be made cl ear, t hat i t ends up
concl udi ng on t he i rrat i onal i t y of human nat ure) . Thi s t ask' s onl y. check i s i t s
sudden abol i t i on i n ret urni ng t o t he basi c ut t erance of t he i dea, t hat i s
t o
say,
t o
t he assert i on t hat t he i nst i t ut i on i s sacred : t he f ami l y, t he
soci al
uni t ,
at
t he
f oundat i on of soci et y.
The i dea, t hen, i s real i zed as pure t ranscendence, and i t i s
known t hat t hi s real i zat i on
i s
i n
response t o a pot ent i al i t y of i deol ogi cal di s-
course wherever i t
act s . The l at t er t ends t o ret reat t owards a poi nt of cert ai nt y
where t he
necessi t y f or speaki ng i s annul l ed. It i s haunt ed by t aut ol ogy. The
words
" f ami l y" , " ownershi p" , " soci et y" , as wel l as " l i bert y" , " equal i t y" , " pro-
gress" or " sci ence" condense a knowl edge t hat does wi t hout any j ust i f i cat i on. But
t he poi nt of cert ai nt y i s unt enabl e- t he t ranscendence of t he abst ract i dea-
because what i s sought cannot be at t ai ned. It i s beyond
soci al
real i t y,
a cert ai nt y
about soci al real i t y as such, a ref erent whose l oss
i s preci sel y at
t he
ori gi n of
i deol ogy. Thi s ref erent , t hen, coul d not be adapt ed
t o
t he
ut t erance of i deas,
accordi ng t o whi chi t coul d not devel op a di scourse
on soci al
real i t y,
envi saged as
det ermi ned space . The i dea coul d not t heref ore f al l
back on i t sel f wi t hout a
reappearance of t he necessi t y t o produce i t s f oundat i on by t aki ng hol d of si gns
whi ch, i n t he supposed real i t y, at t est t o i t . We woul d not e t hat t hi s operat i on
i mpl i es a recogni t i on of t he di f f erence bet ween what i s and what i s sai d . In t hi s
sense, t hen, t he di scourse knows i t sel f as di scourse and chooses t o represent i t sel f
as such because i n so doi ng, i t mai nt ai ns t he i l l usi on of a mast ery of i t s ori gi n and
of i t s own space . Paradoxi cal l y, i t i s t he ost ent at i on of t he l anguage whi chal l ows
t he conceal ment of t he eni gma of i t s genesi s, or t hat whi ch we have cal l ed t he
quest i on of soci al di vi si on
.
Yet t he
consequence of t hi s phenomenon i s no l ess
not ewort hy : i f f asci nat i on answers
t o
ost ent at i on, i t
i s equal l y t rue t hat t he
di scourse shows i t sel f , f i nds i t sel f t hreat ened wi t h bei ng percei ved
as act ual
di scourse .
An anal ogous cont radi ct i on
can be poi nt ed out i n t he st at us conf erred upont he
rul e and t he aut hori t y whi ch i s
supposed t o support i t . The soci al uni verse, i t
must be remembered,
i s a uni verse of rul es, and t here are no rul es whi ch, even i n
t he absence of repressi ve apparat us desi gned
t o make t hemrespect ed, do not
i mpl y a knowl edge of t he prohi bi t ed and t he di ct at ed. Yet , i n
i deol ogy, t he
represent at i on of t he rul e i s di vi ded f romt he act ual operat i on of i t . Assuredl y,
t hi s
spl i t i s accompani ed by prof ound modi f i cat i ons i n t he rel at i ons, act ual l y
mai nt ai ned
bet ween soci al agent s, but l et us set asi de t hi s di f f i cul t probl emi n
order
t o consi der onl y t he phenomenon of t he represent at i on. Perhaps t hi s
probl emi s best observed,
as we have al ready suggest ed, wi t hi n t he cont ext of
pedagogy, and part i cul arl y i n t he l earni ng
of a l anguage . Act ual l y, t he domi nant
myt h i s t hat l anguage can be mast ered
by
goi ng
back t o t he pri nci pl es of i t s
, const ruct i on, def i ned by grammar . The rul e i s t hus
ext ract ed f roman experi ence
of t he l anguage, det ermi ned, made f ul l y
vi si bl e,
and
i s supposed t o cont rol t he
condi t i ons of t he possi bi l i t y
of
t hi s
experi ence. The eni gma of t he l anguage,
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
whether i t i s i nternal
andexternal tothespeaker, whether therei s
anarti cul ati on
whi chhedoes
not control fromhi msel f toothers,
marki nga returntohi msel f, i s
conceal ed
by therepresentati onof
somethi ng"external " to thel anguage,
from
wherei t
woul dbegenerated. Weknowthat
i n i ts ori gi nal state, thi s i l l usi on has
reached i ts
hi ghest poi nt whenJ esui t educati on prohi bi ts
theuseof one' s fi rst
l anguageat school and
i mposes an arti fi ci al Lati n i n order to
promoteameans of
persuadi ngonethat speechi s
generatedfromtherul e. Even
thoughthi s i l l usi on
cannot standupto thedemands of
a chi l d' s soci al i zati on i n
hi stori cal soci ety, i t
bri ngs tol i ght thewhol el ogi c
behi nda representati onof pedagogy
whi chcl ai ms
to
overcome the i nsurmountabl edi fference
between the i nsti tuti on of
know-
l edge
andtheknowl edgeof thei nsti tuti on
.
Once
agai n, weuncover theambi gui ty
of the
representati on, as soon as therul ei s stated,
becauseexhi bi ti ng i t under-
mi nes thepower
whi chtherul etakes upon i tsel f to
i ntroducei ntopracti ce. Thi s
i nordi nate power must,
i n fact, be shown, andat the same
ti me, must owe
nothi ngto theacti vi ty
whi chmakes i t appear. Tobetrueto i ts i mage,
therul e
must beabstracted fromanyquesti on
concerni ngi ts ori gi n; thus, i t exceeds
the
operati ons whi chi t
control s . I ts power i s to confer upon
the subj ect a ri ght to
speak, toknow, to
control hi s acti on; whereas l acki ngtherul e, the
subj ect
i s
not
onl ydepri vedof the
means
of
expressi onor knowl edge, but
l i teral l y di smi ssed,
that i s tosay,
thrown outsi dethenetworkof thei nsti tuti on
. But
to
betrueto i ts
i mage, therul emust al so
provei ts val i di ty throughusage; i t i s
constantl y subj ect
to thedemonstrati on of
i ts effecti veness andi s thus
contradi ctori l y represented
as a conventi on. Onl y the
master' s authori ty al l ows thecontradi cti on' s conceal -
ment, but hehi msel f i s an
obj ect of representati on; presentedas adefender of
the
rul e, he l ets the contradi cti on appear
throughhi msel f. On the one hand, he
embodi es an authori ty
whi ch
does
not have to expl ai n i tsel f, or as wesay,
by
di vi neri ght,
whi l e
on
theother, heexpresses si gns of hi s competence
.
Wecan now
poi nt out i n al l sectors of thesoci al domai n
the confi gurati on
whi chi s
madeparti cul arl y vi si bl e by educati on. Not
onl y therepresentati on of
educati on, but al so therepresentati on of l i terature,
of pai nti ngor of phi l osophy
i mpl i es the same set of contradi cti ons . To avoi d
the ambi gui ty whi chi s so
wi despread today (andwhi ch takes i ts pl ace i n a
newformof i deol ogy) , i n
passi ng,
l et us repeat : wecannot hol da vi ewof
thehi stori ci ty of educati on, of
phi l osophy, of l i terature, or of pai nti ng, etc. ,
whi ch woul dsave us fromthe
questi onbrought i nto pl ayi nthei r i nsti tuti on
; wecanonl yspeakof therepresen-
tati on whi chcomes toovershadowthel atter
eachti me, to attempt to cancel i ts
effects andto si mul ate a domi nati on of
the soci al i zati on process, owi ngto a
determi ni ngof thei nstanceof therul eand
thei nstanceof themaster. Yet, l et us
not hesi tatetoexpandthi s anal ysi s .
I n thecontext of producti onenterpri ses,
one
must poi nt out the
di ssoci ati on of the i nsti tuti on andrepresentati on,
of soci al
di scourse
i mpl i edi n thepracti ceandthedi scourseon soci al real i ty
whi chcl ai ms
to
determi nei ts pri nci pl es i npresenti ng thei mageof thedi rector, who,
on the
one
hand, hol ds an authori ty of di vi neri ght, whi l eonthe
other, retai ns acertai n
degreeof competence, andi n
exhi bi ti ngthei mageof therul es, retai ns abodyof
di ctates i nwhi chareexpressedan
uncondi ti onal knowl edgeof i ndustri al
organi -
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
zat i on and t he mundane condi t i ons
of human l abour ' s pr oduct i vi t y .
The i deol ogi cal
di scour se whi ch we ar e exami ni ng
has no saf et y cat ch: . i t
becomes vul ner abl e when
at t empt i ng t o makevi si bl e t he
pl ace f r omwher e soci al
r el at i ons woul dbe
concei vabl e- bot h t hi nkabl e and
cr eat abl e; i t i s vul ner abl e i n
i t s power l essness
t o def i ne t hi s pl ace wi t hout l et t i ng
i t s cont i ngency appear ,
wi t hout bei ng
condemned t o sl i p f r omone posi t i on
t o anot her , wi t hout t her eby
maki ng per cept i bl e t he i nst abi l i t y
of an or der whi ch i deol ogi cal di scour se
must
r ai se t o t he st at us of t he
essence. I n obser vi ng i t , we ar e
per haps i n a bet t er
posi t i on t o under st and why t hi s
di scour se, i n i t s pr oj ect t o ext r act
i t sel f f r om
soci al r eal i t y and t o af f i r m
i t sel f as di scour se, can onl y r emai n
scat t er ed, andwhy
i t s t askof i mpl i ci t gener al i zat i on of
knowl edge and i mpl i ci t
homogeni zat i on of
exper i ence coul d di si nt egr at e,
f aced wi t h t he unbear abl e
bur den of t he r ui n of
cer t ai nt y,
of
a
waver i ng of t he r epr esent at i ons of
di scour se, andconsequent l y, of
a
di vi si on of t he subj ect . Cl ai mi ng i t s di scur si ve
power , i t never coi nci des wi t h
t he
di scour se of power ; i t mani f est s
i n i t sel f t he posi t i on of power . However ,
whet her t he l at t er i s t he power
of t he act ual or pot ent i al gover nment ,
or one of
i t s count l ess subst i t ut es, t hi s
di scour se r epr esent s i t , exposes i t
t o
t he
ot her ' s eye,
but i s not st r uct ur ed or
uni f i ed under t he pr i nci pl e whi ch
woul d condense t he
mul t i pl i ci t y of
st at ement s i nt o t he same asser t i on and
woul d r el at e t hemt o t he
same guar ant or . Wehave al r eady
not ed t hat i deol ogi cal di scour se has no
saf et y
cat ch; t hat i s t o say t hat i t f i nds
i t sel f const r uct ed i n such a way t hat i t i s
mar ked
by t he absence of a guar ant or
of i t s or i gi n. I n r espondi ng t o t he quest i on
of i t s
or i gi n,
i deol ogi cal di scour se i s or der ed;
however , i t changes i t sel f , shi f t s wi t hi n
i t s l i mi t s
. Thi s i s t he cost at whi ch
power oper at es i n t he ef f ect i veness
of soci al
r el at i ons
.
Tot al i t ar i ani smand t he Cr i si s of Bour geoi s
I deol ogy
Thr ough t he phenomenon
of t ot al i t ar i ani sm, wecan di st i ngui sh t he speci f i c
t r ai t s of bour geoi s i deol ogy,
si nce t he l at t er ' s cont r adi ct i on i s r ef l ect ed i n i t . To
some, i t may appear out r ageous
t o t r eat as, var i ant s of t he same model f asci sm
and
Nazi sm, on t heone hand, andon t he
ot her , t hat whi chi s cal l ed communi sm,
but whi ch, i n f act , onl y const i t ut es
a bur eaucr at i c soci et y' s di scour se. Nonet he-
l ess, we speak of t ot al i t ar i ani smwi t hout t aki ng
i nt o consi der at i on t he di f f er en-
ces of r egi me, whi ch i n ot her
r espect s ar e hi ghl y si gni f i cant , because our sol e
concer n i s t o cl ar i f y a gener al aspect
of t he genesi s of i deol ogy .
I n t ot al i t ar i ani sm, t he pr ocess of occul t at i on
of
t he
i nst i t ut i on of soci al r eal i t y
seeks t o
compl et e i t sel f . I n Nazi sm, i t i s not essent i al l y
a mat t er of t he r esur r ec-
t i on of a syst em
of val ues comi ng f r ompr e- capi t al i sm, and'
chal l enged by
bour geoi s
soci et y, even t hough evi dent l y t her e i s an at t empt t o r et ur n
t o
t he
r epr esent at i on
of a communal or der , based on a r el at i on
t o t he ear t h, bl oodt i es,
andper sonal dependence,
a r epr esent at i on whi chhas cont i nued t o sur vi ve
at t he
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
edge
of bourgeoi s i deol ogy i n al l the
forms of conservati sm. Wi th
communi sm, i t
i s
not essenti al l ya matter of attempti ngto
i nsert uni versal i st val ues of
bourgeoi s
soci ety
i nto real i ty, by destroyi ngthe
formof parti cul ar i nterests at
al l l evel s of
soci al
acti vi ty. However, thi s proj ect
evi dentl y i s part of i ts
enterpri se, and i s
rooted
i n the hi story of the prol etari at' s
revol uti onary struggl es
wi thi n the
capi tal i st
worl d. The formati on of
total i tari ani smi s onl y i ntel l i gi bl e
i f one
recogni zes the
"response" whi ch i s brought
to the probl emof thedi vi si on of
i deol ogi cal di scourse
andtheprocess of soci al i zati on,
or that whi chwereadi l y cal l
thehi stori ci ty of soci al
real i ty. Thei l l usi on stems
froma soci al di scoursewhi ch,
i mpl i cated as i t i s
i n practi ce, i nvests i t wi th a
general knowl edge. Thi s
know-
l edgei s al ways
mai ntai nedi n an external di mensi on by
bourgeoi s i deol ogy, and
wherever i t operates, i t
emi ts si gns of i ts uni ty, andthus
si gns of thehomogene-
i ty of the obj ecti ve domai n
. Thus the l i mi ts of sectors
whi ch were formerl y
expressl y recogni zed, such as theeconomi c,
pol i ti cal , j udi ci al , pedagogi cal ,
aes-
theti c
and
even
sci enti fi c, areobl i terated. The
asserti o~of thei denti ty of
real i ty,
as i t appears,
seeks toturn backon i tsel f from
anyparti cul ar statement ; i t feeds a
passi on for tautol ogy and
si mul taneousl y, the quest for a
total i zati on i n the
expl i ci t i s substi tutedfor
thel abour of occul tati on of bourgeoi s
di scourse, whose
parti cul ar qual i ty was to
l eavethegeneral i zati on i n thel atent .
Whereasthel atter
tends to make the essence of
i ts di scourse percepti bl e to
i tsel f, and as such
remai ns out of al i gnment
wi th respect topower, total i tari an
di scourseacts wi th
theconvi cti on of bei ng
i mpri nted
on
real i ty, andof embodyi ng
thepotenti al i ty of
a
conti nuedandgeneral mastery of
i ts arti cul ati ons. I n thi s sense,
i t
i s
enti rel y
pol i ti cal di scourse, but i t deni es
theparti cul ar fact of the
pol i ti cal andattempts to
achi evethedi ssol uti on of
thepol i ti cal i n theel ement of thepure
general i ty of
soci al real i ty.
I
Morepreci sel y, total i tari an di scourse deni es
al l theopposi ti ons taken i n
hand
by
bourgeoi s i deol ogy i n a representati on
whi cheach ti mewas madeto di ffuse
thei r
effects, andwhi chthreatenedthe
foundati on of each termi n exposi ngi t to
thenecessi ty of expl anati on. Before
anythi ngel se, total i tari an di scourse
effaces
theopposi ti on between theStateand
ci vi l soci ety; i t i s dedi catedto bri ngi ng
to
l i ght thepresenceof theStatethroughout
soci al space, that i s to say, totransport-
i ng, through a seri es of representati ves,
thepri nci pl e of power whi ch
i nforms
thedi versi ty of acti vi ti es, andwhi ch
i ncl udes themi n the model of a common
al l egi ance. Yet wemust not l ose
si ght of thefact that thedi scoursedoes
not carry
out thi s operati on wi thi n the
l i mi ts of a commentary whi chexpl oi ts
i ts di stance
wi th regardtothereal i n
order
to
poi nt i t out i n i ts enti rety. Rather,
i t di ffuses
i tsel f i n thenetworkof
soci al i zati on; i t devel ops systems of si gns
whoserepre-
sentati vefuncti on i s no
l onger di scernabl e; i t takes hol dof actors
andpl aces them
wi thi n thesesystems i n such a way
that thedi scourse (al most) speaks
through
themand(al most)
abol i shes thespacewhi chi s i ndeed
i ndetermi nate, but al ways
preservedbetween thearti cul ati on andthe
utterance i n bourgeoi s i deol ogy.
The masses are the i nstrument par
excel l ence of total i tari ani sm, through
whi ch the
consubstanti al i ty of theState and ci vi l soci ety i s
mani fested. At al l
l evel s, theyembody
thepri nci pl eof power ; they spreadthe
general normwhi ch
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
pr ovi des t he assur ance
of a sor t of r ef l ect i on by t he
soci et y of
i t sel f , and,
si mul t aneousl y,
t he assur ance of i t s pol ar i zat i on t owar ds
a goal ,
del i ver i ng
i t
f r omt he si l ent t hr eat
of t he i ner t i a of t he i nst i t ut ed, maki ng i t s i dent i t y
per cept i bl e t hr ough
t he i mper at i ve of act i vi sm. But t he pr act i ce and st r uct ur e
of
t he Par t y
cannot be di st i ngui shed f r omt he di scour se
whose
cent er
i t
woul d
be
( ot her t han by showi ng t he cont r adi ct i ons wi t hi n whi ch
i t oper at es and whi ch i t
conceal s at al l l evel s) . J ust as al l t hose who
f ul f i l l t he same f unct i on at a mor e
, speci f i c l evel - uni ons, associ at i ons f or young
peopl e, women, i nt el l ect ual s, et c.
- t hi s r epr esent at i ve act s i n pr act i ce pr eci sel y i n
. accor dance wi t h t he demandof
t he r epr esent at i on; i t f i gur es i n t he
r el at i ons whi ch ar r ange t he uni t y wi t hi n i t
t hat i t guar ant ees bef or e t he ensembl e
of soci et y
.
In i t sel f , i t i s a syst emof si gns
whi ch al l ows t he f or mat i on
of a hi er ar chy, t he pr oduct i on of a cl eavage bet ween
t he appaeat us and t he
base, t he di r ect or s and t he execut or s, t he par t i t i oni ng
of
act i vi t y sect or s, i n t he
si mul at i on of t r anspar ency t o i t sel f of t he i nst i t ut i on,
of
a
r eci pr oci t y of
deci si ons, of a homogenei t y of t he pol i t i cal body.
In t hi s
sense, i deol ogi cal di scour se t ends t o. become di scour se
of
t he
Par t y- t he
di scour se on t he Par t y bei ng onl y a det achment of t he l at t er , al t hough i t
i s
absol ut el y essent i al t o i t and mar ks t he l i mi t
of t he ent er pr i se t o whi ch wewi l l
r et ur n. Not hi ng br i ngs t hi s phenomenon
i nt o f ocus bet t er t han t he f or mi ng of a
newt ype
of soci al agent , t he mi l i t ant , an i mage t hr ough whi ch
can be seen t he
subj ect ' s posi t i on wi t hi n t he di scour se t hat he i s supposedt o speak. The mi l i t ant
i s not i n t he par t y
as i f i n a det er mi ned mi l i eu wi t h vi si bl e bor der s ; he i s i n
hi msel f a
r epr esent at i ve of i t ; he dr aws f r omi t s sour ce t he possi bi l i t y of f r eei ng
hi msel f
f r omconf l i ct s t o whi ch he i s exposed by hi s par t i ci pat i on' i n di f f er ent
i nst i t ut i ons
gover ned by speci f i c i mper at i ves of soci al i zat i on, t he possi bi l i t y of
embodyi ng t he gener al i t y of soci al r eal i t y . As a bear er of t he r epr esent at i on, t he
mi l i t ant accompl i shes hi s f unct i on by const ant l y r ef l ect i ng t hat whi ch
i s
or gan-
i zed
i ndependent l y of hi mi n t he supposed syst emof soci al r eal i t y. At t he same
t i me, he est abl i shes hi msel f as possessi ng power and knowl edge; he cont r ol s t he
wor ker , t he peasant , t he engi neer , t he pedagogue, t he wr i t er ; he pr of er s t he
nor m, concent r at es t he power s of act i vi smand f i nds t he vocabul ar y and synt ax of
hi s di scour se i mpr i nt ed i n hi msel f i n such a way t hat he f or ms hi msel f i n t he
oper at i on
of i deol ogy.
To t he necessi t y
of col l ect i ng soci al di scour se i n i t sel f beyond al l di vi si on, of
wel di ng t oget her t he
scat t er ed i mages of man i n bour geoi s soci et y, of gr aspi ng
t he key
t o open
al l t he door s
of soci al st r uct ur e, and t o f ocus at t ent i on on al l t he
f or ms of economi c, pol i t i cal
and aest het i c act i vi t y, of ent er i ng i nt o possessi on of
a gener al knowl edge,
of j oi ni ng al l t hese exper i ences t o one pol e of t r ut h, t he
necessi t y i s added of ef f aci ng i t sel f ,
f aced
wi t h t he
anonymi t y of t he i dea, of t he
ar gument at i on, of t he r ul e, of . t he supr eme aut hor i t y, al l
of whi ch appear wel ded
t o each ot her . The mi l i t ant t ype onl y
compl et es
t he
f ul l expr essi on of t he at t empt
t o ef f ace t he di f f er ence bet ween i ndi vi dual and soci et y, bet ween
t he par t i cul ar
and t he gener al , bet ween t he pr i vat e and t he publ i c
.
Thepr i nci pl e
i mage i s t hat
of t he i ndet er mi nat e man, who f i nds hi s def i ni t i on
as f asci st or
communi st :
a
pur e ' soci al agent whoseadher ence t o a cl ass onl y pr ovi des a West er n modal i t y of
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
hi s i nserti oni ntothetotal
soci ety
or
i s evenexpressl y chal l enged
i n a puredeni al
of an i nternal schi smof thi s
soci ety. There can be nodoubt
that i n thi s respect,
"communi st" total i tari ani sm
succeeds most ef f ecti vel y
i nexpl oi ti ng the mecha-
ni sms of i deol ogy. I t i s not
enoughtorej ect cl ass determi nati on
; thi s total i tari an-
i smgoes so f ar as togi vef ormto soci al
rel ati ons i n whi ch
trai ts of thedomi nant
cl ass become l ess andl ess
di sti ngui shabl eunti l they di ssol ve i nto the
i mage of a
purel y f uncti onal hi erarchy, whose
members woul deach be l i nked, step
by step,
to
thecentral f ocus of soci al i zati on, the
edges of thedi vi si onbetween
domi nator
and domi nated
.
Yet
whether i t i s a matter of f asci smor
communi sm, one can see at
work a
l ogi c of the
i denti f i cati on whose moti vati ng
f orce i s the cancel l ati on of
conf l i cts
whi ch devel op
i n accordance wi th opposi ti ons
pecul i ar to bourgeoi s soci ety.
Whereas i n
the l atter, the power of the representati ons
i s mai ntai ned by a
constant shi f ti ng
of the "sol uti on", of a putti ng
of f
of
the contradi cti on due to a
gap between the
i nstances of di scourse, i n
total i tari ani sm, there i s a basi c
asserti on of
the i denti ty of the representati on
andreal i ty, a condensi ngof the
terms of
the contradi cti on i nto i mages
whi ch ref l ect each other . I n the
f i rst, the
di scourseacts accordi ngtoconstant
compromi ses betweenthepri nci pl e
antagon-
i sts,
whereas i n thesecond, i t seeks i ts
ef f ecti veness i na general response
whi ch
woul d
excl ude the traces of the questi on.
But the success of the l atter
woul dbe
uni ntel l i gi bl ei f i t coul dnot bri ngto l i ght
thesi gns of the total i ty i nthedetai l of
soci al
l i f e
.
I ndeed, the mechani smof i denti f i cati on
acts i na modernsoci ety
whi ch
reveal s di f f erenti ati on,
i nternal opposi ti on, change,
at each of i ts l evel s of
acti vi ty ;
not onl y the ef f ects of thedi vi si on of
l abour must be taken i n hand, but
al sothoseof
thesegregati onof soci o-cul tural
spaces
.
Theattempt i tsel f toef f ace
theopposi ti on
betweentheStateandci vi l soci ety,
andtorender the i ndi vi si onof
the
pol i ti cal andnon-pol i ti cal vi si bl e supposes
that thel ogi c of the normappears
i n
the f ormof soci al rel ati ons here and
now, that i s to say, that a systemof
arti cul ati ons i s put i nto practi ce i n accordance
wi th whi ch the power i s abl e to
reduce i tsel f wi thout runni ngthe
ri sk
of
bei ng di vi ded.
I n subj ecti ng al l spheres of soci ety
to the i mperati ve of the organi zati on,
i deol ogi cal di scourse, be i t f asci st or
communi st, i s assuredof masteri ng
opposi -
ti ons whi ch devel op f romand
wi thi n each other, and i t i s abl e to reduce
the
di stance to i ts obj ect
. I ndeed, the representati on of the
organi zati on al l ows the
di f f erence between thesubj ect
andthel awto beconceal ed, a
di f f erencewhi chi s
openi n the
acti vi ty i tsel f of the i nsti tuti on, andwhi ch
i mpl i es the possi bi l i ty of
l i nki ng
the l atter ei ther to a humanacti on (whether
the f ocus i s si tuated i n the
i ndi vi dual or i n the group) or to a transcendent
pri nci pl e. I n one sense,
the
organi zati onobl i terates the traces of thesoci al
subj ect, whatever the
modal i ty
of
i ts appearance; i t does not ef f ace
the posi ti vi smof an empi ri cal l y
determi ned
subj ect, whether i t i s the
domi nant cl ass, the domi natedcl ass, or the
produci ng
i ndi vi dual , but i t does
conceal the questi on of the subj ect as such,
a questi on i n
whi cha rel ati on
betweenonesel f andtheother i s al ways
brought i nto pl ay at the
same
ti me as a rel ati on to the l aw. Thus
the organi zati on, i n representi ng
a
systemof operati ons whi chwoul dassi gn
thei r def i ni ti ons to the agents
andthei r
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
r el at i ons, makes t he gener al ant agoni sm
bet ween t he domi nat or and t he domi -
nat edi nvi si bl e, an ant agoni sm
whi ch ar ose wi t h bour geoi s soci et y i n t he cont ext
of pr oduct i on . But
si mul t aneousl y, t hi s syst emappear s as a pur e const r uct i on,
as
a gl obal
oper at i on sust ai nedby i t sel f , and i n t hi s sense, as a pur e
mani f est at i on of
human Logos, as a pur e mani f est at i on
of
t he
soci al i zat i on put i nt o pr act i ce, of an
i nst i t ut i on i n act i on, onl y deal i ng wi t h i t sel f ,
pol ar i zed t owar ds t he t ot al i t y . The
r epr esent at i on of t he or gani zat i on
t ends t o be achi eved i n t he pr ocess of t he
or gani zat i on i t sel f
because t he l at t er i s or gani zed' on t he i l l usi on of knowl edge
of
soci al r eal i t y, whi ch i s mani f est ed
i n t he net wor kof oper at i ons wher e t he agent
bel ongs .
The
dependence of t ot al i t ar i an i deol ogy wi t h r egar d t o bour geoi s
i deol ogy i s
shown
by
t he
f act t hat i t gr asps t wo pr i nci pl es, a r adi cal ar t i f i ci al i smand
a r adi cal
subst ant i al i sm, whi ch r emai n j uxt aposed i n bour geoi s
i deol ogy. It wel ds t hem
t oget her i n t he asser t i on of a soci et y whi ch woul d
be t hor oughl y act i ve, con-
cer nedwi t h assur i ng i t s f unct i oni ng- a human f act or y,
andas such, t ur nedi n on
i t sel f , i n
possessi on of i t s f oundat i on . Evi dent l y, t ot al i t ar i ani sm
dr aws i t s f ai t h i n
t he or gani zat i on f r omcapi t al i sm,
but whi l e i t f i nds i t sel f t hwar t ed by
t he
necessi t y of r epr esent i ng t he
soci al domai n' s di f f er ences, t hi s f ai t h spi l l s out i n
r esponse t o t he t hr eat
of
t he
di si nt egr at i on of t hi s domai n and makes t he
or gani zat i on
t he essence of soci al r eal i t y . But i t st i l l must be emphasi zed
t hat t he
new
i deol ogy i mpl i es t he vi si on of a cent er , f r omwhi ch soci al l i f e
i s ar r anged; a
cent er whi ch
i s t r ansf er r ed f r omone sect or of ci vi l soci et y t o anot her , but whi ch
hol ds power and
knowl edge at t he hear t of t he St at e appar at us . The or gani za-
t i on' s
di scour se, or gani zed so t hat anonymous knowl edge di r ect s t he t hought
and
pr act i ce
of
i t s
agent s, i s onl y suppor t ed by const ant r ef er ence
t o
t he
aut hor i t y i n
whi ch t he deci si on i s concent r at ed. Wi t h t hi s
doubl e condi t i on, t he cont r adi ct i on
of bour geoi s i deol ogy i s over come by t he concept
of
t he
t ot al St at e; t he or gani za-
t i on' s
net wor k demonst r at es t hat not hi ng i s
l ost
i n t he
act i vi t y of soci al i zat i on
whi ch i mpl i es t he ext er i or i zat i on of soci al di scour ses and
pr act i ces ; t he sel f -
i dent i t y of power exposes t he or i gi n
of
t he nor m.
Fasci smand communi sm, l et us r epeat , st emf r om
a met a- soci ol ogi cal i nt er -
pr et at i on.
Any at t empt t o anal yse t hemas empi r i cal , soci o- hi st or i cal
f or mat i ons
comes up
agai nst a l i mi t , however r i ch t he i nf or mat i on may be, because i t
does
not t ake i nt o
account t he quest i on of soci al exi st ence, of t he hi st or i cal
as
such,
whi ch
i s
br ought
i nt o pl ay i n t ot al i t ar i ani sm. The l at t er i s nei t her an acci dent i n
t he devel opment
of
i ndust r i al
capi t al i sm, nor an aber r at i on f or whi ch psychol ogy
can pr ovi de t he
key :
i t
achi eves a pot ent i al f ound i n soci al r eal i t y f r omt he
moment t hat i t s i nst i t ut i on can
no l onger be concei ved or cont ai ned by a
di scour se whi ch seeks i t s or i gi ns el sewher e. Mor eover , t he
gr eat est er r or i s t o see
i n i t onl y a var i ant of despot i sm, even mor e so si nce St al i n' s
power , as Hi t l er ' s,
r esembl es t hat of a despot , and per haps even mor e : bot h dr awon t he ar chai c
sour ces of Ger mani c
cul t ur e and t he Asi at i c wor l d; a si ngul ar hi st or y i s i naugu-
r at ed wi t h t ot al i t ar i ani sm. It
i s
not t he
r esur r ect i on of a pol i t i cal syst emwhi ch
comes t o make do wi t h i ndust r i al
soci et y, but an at t empt t o cl ose t he soci al space
f r omt he i magi nar y cent er of i t s i nst i t ut i on,
t o make
r eal i t y and
appear ance
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
coi nci dehere andnow
.
Thedespot
andhi s bureaucracy govern
over soci ety, but
thei r strengthi s the
si gn
of
a transcendent strength, a
si gn
of
external i tyf or man.
Total i tari an power, Nazi or
Stal i ni st, i s di f f used i n
the representati on of the
organi zati on, andi t exerci ses
thef asci nati onandterror of
representi ngpreci sel y
the enti re non-di vi dedsoci al
real i ty, i nhuman di scourse as absol utel y
human.
Such, at
l east, i s the pol e towards whi ch
total i tari ani smi deol ogy tends, but
i n
goi ngbeyond
the contradi cti ons of bourgeoi s
i deol ogy, i t conti nues to comeup
agai nst the
i mpossi bi l i tyof , f ul f i l l i ng i tsel f . Ini ts
turn, i t l i ves under thethreat of
the ef f ects of soci al
di vi si on, as our descri pti on has suggested
. Thebureaucracy' s
i deal i s theanonymi ty of soci al
di scourse, themani f estati on of
rati onal i ty i n the
organi zati on, thepl acement of
thesubj ect i n the l ogi c of f asci sm,
i n the l ogi c of
communi sm, suchthat i ts l anguage
onl y appears as nonsensi cal . Yet
f or i t, the
representati on of the center of the deci si on
i s no l ess essenti al , apower
whi ch
asserts
i tsel f i n f ul l conf i dence, beyond
al l di spute. The j oi ni ng of the two
representati ons i s onl y possi bl e i f the opposi ti ons
of power wi thi nthe bureau-
cracy are i gnored, as wel l as theexcl usi on
of the maj ori ty of thosewi thout power
f romthe rul i ng apparatus. Thestrength,
as wel l as the weakness of bourgeoi s
i deol ogy l i es i n the f act that di scourse on
soci al real i ty, i n i ts arti cul ati on
(an
arti cul ati onwhi chi s al ways percepti bl e) to
a real or potenti al posi ti onof power,
does not coi nci de wi thsoci al di scourse,
nor wi ththedi scourseof power, that
i t
can thus pass through di f f erent centers
and can be opposed to i tsel f
wi thout
bei ng destroyed. On the other hand,
total i tari an di scourse has no roomto
manouver
; i t does not al l owa separati onof subj ect
anddi scourse andi t requi res
i ts
i denti f i cati on wi thpower andwi ththose who
hol d i t at the hi ghest echel ons
of theState.
Doubtl ess thi s anal ysi s i s extreme; there i s no
conj uncture, evenat
the
hei ght of total i tari ani sm, where the removal of
the subect i n the di scourse
can be
ef f ected, nor i s there compl ete i denti f i cati on
wi ththe master . Aparal l el
exchange of wordscarri es thesi gns of
the separati on andthedi f f erence. But the
f act remai ns that the opposi ti ons
cannot be ' transcri bed symbol i cal l y: they must
be absol utel y rej ected, or f ai l i ng
that, terror i s substi tuted f or di scourse.
General l y, thecontradi cti onof
total i tari ani smstems f romthe f act that on
the
one hand, power i s
doubl y hi dden, as a representati ve of the
undi vi ded soci ety
and as an agent of
the organi zati on' s rati onal i ty. On the
other hand, power
appears
i n the undi vi ded soci ety, unl i ke i n any other soci ety,
as a repressi ve
apparatus harbouri ng sheer vi ol ence. Thi s i s not a
contradi cti on between the
representati onandthe f act, hence, evenour f ormul amust be
corrected: terror i s
not si mpl y substi tuted f or di scourse; i t i s spoken,
i t sweeps al onga f antasti c
argumentati on whoseef f ect i s to cl ose
the i ntol erabl e gap betweensubj ect and
di scourse. Sti l l , i t must be addedthat
thi s enterpri se cannot be i nterpreted as a
si mpl e response to events
whi chwoul d di srupt the establ i shed order . As the
hi storyof Stal i ni smevi dentl y shows,
thei mageof power asterrori st power, as an
i nordi natepower, has a necessary
f uncti on. Throughi t as wel l , menreveal
thei r
di ssol uti oni ntothegeneral el ement of soci al real i ty,
that
i s to
say, theyreveal the
conti ngency of any parti cul ar
determi nati onregardi ngthe l awprof erredby the
master-theabsol ute master of theState,
but al sohi srepresentati ves at al l l evel s
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
of thehi erarchy andi n al l sectors of acti vi ty.
However, wi thsl i ppi ng f romone
posi ti onof power to another, apri nci pl e
of i nstabi l i ty i s i ntroduced, whi chmi ght
makethe mechani sm
of domi nati onvi si bl e. I f , i nbourgeoi s i deol ogy, thedanger
i s that the power
i s exposedto deri si on, i n total i tari an
i deol ogy, i t runs the
greater
ri skof arousi ng horror . As theef f ects
of
the
contradi cti onaredevel oped,
i t i s true that means of def ence are put i nto
pl ace to attempt to rei nf orce the
i deol ogi cal di scourse' s cohesi on.
Thus, af ter Stal i n' s death, hi s
exampl ei s usedtorepresent andtodenouncethe
excess of power
over rati onal i ty- thi s i s the f uncti on of personal i ty cul ts-
whereas
at the same ti me, the exampl e of the petty bureaucrat i s used to
represent anddenounceanexcess of i rresponsi bi l i ty
over thej ust i mpersonal i ty
of deci si on. But these def ences attest to the l atent
cri si s of the systemof
bureaucrati crepresentati ons. I t i s no l ess i nstructi ve
to
pi npoi nt
thevul nerabi l i ty
of thebureaucracy i nthef ace
of
al l ki nds
of events, f romboththeeconomi c and
cul tural orders, whi chel udethepredi cti on
of thedi rectors andwhi charel i kel y to
mani f est a breakdownof thegeneral norm,
hereandnow, that i s, af ai l ure i nthe
worki ngs
of theorgani zati on. I nonesense, the el aborati ons onsoci al real i ty are
i nexhausti bl e f acedwi th the soci al event. Actual l y the arti cul ati on
of
the
di s-
courseto power andtol awi s suchthat "real i ty" cannot questi oni t ; i ts
access i s
stri ctl y control l edby the
representati on, however, thi s representati on requi res
si gns of the organi zati on' s
ef f ecti veness. The power i s not mi rrored i n the
hi erarchybut i nstructures where
soci al acti onandsoci al ai ms must be attestedto,
where,
more
prof oundl y, menmust di scover thei r commonexi stence i nthepure
di mensi on
of soci al acti onori entedtowards a soci al purpose. Thus, thesi gns of
producti on,
f or exampl e, f everi shl y di spl ayed, are supposed to provi de the
conti nuedproof of thedomi nant di scourse' s val i di ty i nreal i ty. I nshort,
adoubl e
necessi ty i s i mposed, to absol utel y i ncl ude andto absol utel y excl udethe
soci al
event, to i mpri nt i t onto theorgani zati on' s l ogi c andto absol utel y deny i t
as a
f orce of di sorder. The extent of thecontradi cti on woul dnot be measuredi f i t
weref orgottenthat total i tari ani deol ogy i s createdi n"hi stori cal soci ety", that i s
to say, l et us rei terate, i na soci ety whi chcannot berootedi narepresentati onof
i ts l i mi ts, whi ch
i s,
i n
pri nci pl e, opento thequesti onof i ts f uture, desti nedto
excessi veness,
to
conf l i ct,
whi ch, i neachof i ts parts, experi ences the ef f ects of
changes i n the others,
a soci ety
where
the i nternal di f f erenti ati on, the gaps
betweenpracti ces andbetweenrepresentati ons
go
hand
i n
hand
wi thi ts hi story
.
Thebureaucrati cf antasyi s to*abol i sh thehi stori cal i nHi story,
torestore
the
l ogi c
of a "soci ety wi thout hi story", tomatchthe i nsti tutor andthei nsti tuted,
to
deny
theunpredi ctabl e, the unknowabl e, the conti nual l oss of thepast through the,
i l l usi onof asoci al acti on, transparent to i tsel f , whi chwoul dcontrol i ts ef f ects i n
advance, andwhi chwoul dmai ntai n conti nui ty wi th i ts ori gi n.
However strongthe i l l usi on, i t i s apt to beref uted. Undoubtedl y, the ref uta-
ti oni s, i nturn,
conceal ed
; the
breakdowns
i npl anni ng,
f or exampl e, are attri b-
utedto bureaucrati sm, to theresi dual i nerti aof the soci al body, to themani af or
regul ati ons. Agai nonemust bepersuadedthat the representati onof bureaucrat-
i smi s no l ess i deol ogi cal thanthat of soci al acti on; i t i s anessenti al component of
DISAPPEARING
IDEOLOGY
the system, whose f uncti oni s tosupport
the power of therul e i n i ts coi nci di ng
wi th the i nstance of power andto
bri ngi ts corrupti on back i ntothe presence of
parasi ti c agents. But apart f rom
the rul e standi ng out excessi vel y wherever
rati onal i ty i s supposed to showi tsel f , the
total l ogi c of the organi zati on "can"
appear as a l ogi c of the absurd. It i s true
that i deol ogy has another means of
def ence more ef f ecti ve than denounci ng
bureaucrati smto resi st the backl ash
f romthepower' s deci si ons, or moregeneral l y, f romsoci al
real i ty. Theattempt to
assure
i ts mastery of the soci al space i s supportedby
the representati on of the
enemy: an
enemy whocoul d not be presented as an opponent,
but whose
exi stence
stri kes at the i ntegri ty of the soci al body. Moreover, the
enemy
does
much morethan
personi f y the adversi ty, or, as i t i s of tenobserved, serve as a
scapegoat .
Ina soci ety whi ch does not tol erate the i mage
of an i nternal soci al di vi si on,
whi chcl ai ms i ts homogenei ty beyond any actual
di f f erences, , i t i s the other as
such
whoacqui res the f antasti c trai ts of the destroyer
; the other, however he i s
def i ned, to whatever group he bel ongs, i s
the representati ve of the outsi de.
Al though i n bourgeoi s i deol ogy, men' s
essence
i s
af f i rmed wi th regard to a
sub-humani ty (eventhough thel atter i s rel egated to
thedepths of soci ety andi s
never so f ar down i nto "nature" that
i t
does
not pose the probl emof i ts
management, because
i t
i s percei ved
i n soci ety) , total i tari an i deol ogy i s mai n-
tai ned by theexcl usi on of
anevi l agent, the excl usi on of a representati veof the
anti -soci al . Theef f ecti veness of
the representati on coul dnot makeone f orget
that i t does not havethe supreme di sposal of
i ts
ef f ects.
It tends toci rcumscri be
the other' s pl ace, but does not achi eve
thi s due
toa
general i zed deni al (whi ch we
have ampl y emphasi zed) of
the di f f erence between the subj ect and soci al di s-
course. Anysi gnof thi s di f f erence
ri sks denounci ngthesubj ect as theenemy. The
al teri tycannot be
enci rcl ed; the i mageof theconcentrati on campi s not enoughto
di sarmi t . Thei ndi vi dual , wherever he must enter i ntothe di scourse of power,
reveal s
thepossi bi l i tyof hi s excl usi on. Insof ar as heshows hi msel f abl etospeak,
he i s
exposed
as
potenti al l y gui l ty. Inthi s sense, thebureaucrati cworl dconti nues
to be hauntedby i nsecuri ty, even though i t i s
whol l y organi zed torepresent a
basti onof securi ty, tomai ntai na communi tyi nthecertai ntyof i ts cohesi on
. The
asserti onof total soci al real i ty does not get ri d of the f antasy of
sel f -devouri ng;
total i tari andi scourseef f aces theexternal i tyof thei dea; di scourse
onsoci al real i ty
tends tobeabsorbedi ntosoci al di scourse; i t ef f aces theexternal i tyof power
; the
Statetends tocarryout i ts f usi onwi thci vi l soci ety; i t ef f aces theexternal i ty of
the
rul e; theorgani zati ontends tobesuf f i ci ent totransmi t
rati onal i ty; i t ef f aces the
external i ty of the other, soci al di vi si on i s conceal ed
.
However,
the external i ty
returns; di scourse on soci al real i ty i s threatened
wi th appeari ng as general i zed
i l l usi on, as di scourse i n the servi ce of power, si mpl y
maski ng
oppressi on
.
Tot al i t ar i an i deol ogy pr evai l s i n a l ar ge par t
of
t he
wor l d; t hus, a r i gor ous
anal ysi s shoul d t ake i nt o
consi der at i on t he speci f i c t r ai t s i t assumes i n cer t ai n
count r i es,
and par t i cul ar l y i n Chi na. As wel l , i t shoul d consi der t he modi f i cat i ons
whi ch
have come about i n t he USSRand i n East er n Eur ope dur i ng t he l ast f i f t een
year s . I n our eyes, t he obser vabl e di f f er ences i n t i me and space
do
not cal l i nt o
quest i on t he coher ence
of
t he syst em. An under st andi ng
of
t hi s
syst em, we
not i ced, al l owed us af t er war ds t o di st i ngui sh t hat whi ch const i t ut es t he
speci f i c-
i t y of bour geoi s i deol ogy . At pr esent , i t must
be
added t hat i t
equal l y cl ar i f i es
t he
f or mat i on of t he new
i deol ogi cal di scour se i n West er n democr aci es of our t i me.
Our convi ct i on
i s t hat t hi s di scour se cont i nues t o expl oi t a syst emof r epr esen-
t at i ons whi ch r eached i t s f ul l ef f ect i veness i n t he second hal f of t he ni net eent h
cent ur y, but t hat t hi s syst emi s no l onger at t he cent er of t he i magi nar y. Thi s
hypot hesi s makes no cl ai m t o or i gi nal i t y ; an al r eady ext ensi ve cr i t i cal
soci ol ogy- not abl y t o whi ch t he names Mar cuse, Whyt e,
Roszak
and Baudr i l l ar d
ar e at t ached- has br ought t o l i ght . t he f unct i on nowf ul f i l l ed
by
t he
t hemes of
t he
or gani zat i on, of soci al communi cat i on, of member shi p i n a gr oup, of consump-
t i on, et c . Si nce t hese i deas ar e no doubt f ami l i ar t o t he r eader , we need not
el abor at e t hemher e. On t he ot her hand, we shoul d emphasi ze t he r el at i on t hat
cont empor ar y di scour se mai nt ai ns, bot h wi t h t ot al i t ar i ani sm, and wi t h bour -
geoi s i deol ogy, t he way i n whi ch i t i s par t of t he gener al genesi s of i deol ogy .
Al t hough occasi onal l y t he t ot al i t ar i an f i nal i t y of t hi s di scour se has been j ust l y
emphasi zed, i t has har dl y been per cei ved t hat i t s f or mat i on at t est s t o a " r ef l ec-
t i on" of t he cont r adi ct i ons whi ch haunt t ot al i t ar i ani sm, t o an at t empt at f or est al -
l i ng t he t hr eat hangi ng over
soci al
exi st ence, t he
pr oj ect
whi chwoul d r eveal t he
r epr esent at i on of homogeni zat i on and uni f i cat i on of
soci al
r eal i t y . Thi s
pr oj ect ,
l et us emphasi ze, i s at t ached t o i t s opposi t e, t her eby cancel l i ng t he di st ance
bet ween di scour se on soci al r eal i t y and soci al di scour se, pl aci ng t he f i r st wi t hi n
t he second. I t i s i ndeed t hi s ent er pr i se whi ch i s r epeat ed i n t he newi deol ogy, but
i t i s di ssoci at ed f r oman asser t i on of t ot al i t y, br ought back t o a l at ent st at e, and i n
t hi s sense, i s r ear t i cul at ed t o t he pr i nci pl e of t hesyst emof bour geoi s i deol ogy, i n
whi ch a di spl acement of i magi nar y f or mat i ons was r equi r ed, t hei r conf l i ct
t ol er at ed, and compr omi ses const ant l y wor ked out . Conceal i ng t he di st ance
bet ween t he r epr esent at i on and t he r eal , whi ch j eopar di zes bour geoi s i deol ogy,
and
r enounci ng t he achi evement of t he r epr esent at i on i n t he f or mof t ot al i zat i on
of t he
r eal ,
const i t ut e,
i n
our vi ew, t he' doubl e
pr i nci pl e
whi ch or gani zes a
new
l ogi c of
di ssi mul at i on.
I f t he af f i r mat i on of t ot al i t y, not abl y i n communi sm, i s oper at ed
wi t h t he
necessi t y of r ej oi ni ng t he St at e and ci vi l soci et y, of
di scar di ng t he i mage of a
f r agment at i on of power and i t s decl i ne t o
t he or der
of
act ual i t y, i t i mpl i es, we
obser ved,
t hat t he
i deol ogy' s di scour se i s
t r ansf or med i nt o t he power ' s di scour se;
t hi s af f i r mat i on exposes
i t danger ousl y by
r eveal i ng t he di vi ded i nst ance of
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
The I nvi si bl e
I deol ogy
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
deci si on
andcoerci on andthe f eatures of the
master, not onl y at the topof State
bureaucracy, but throughi ts mul ti pl e
"representati ves" . Anewstrategyi s
devel -
oped
to represent a soci ety shel tered
f romthi s hazard. Certai nl y, the term
"strategy"
evokes theacti onof asubj ect who
woul denj oy the f reedomof def i ni ng
the best
means
of
di ssi mul ati on. However, wehave
sai d of ten enoughthat the
ol d i deol ogy was
not that of thebourgeoi si e, so that we
coul d not be accused of
accepti ngthe i l l usi on
that i t woul dhave becomethe
i deol ogy of a newcl ass, f or
exampl e, the technocracy, as
somel i ke to cl ai m. The
strategy to whi ch weare
ref erri ng desi gnates,
the ruses of the. i magi nary, a process
whi ch, al though
unaware and "wi thout
hi story" i n the sense that Marx
i ntended, nonethel ess
takes i ntoaccount theef f ects of
knowl edgeandhi story andi nserts themi nto
new
conf i gurati ons at the servi ce of atask
whi chactual l y remai ns unchanged
.
Thus thegroup, constructedas a
posi ti ve enti ty, regarded bothas
expressi on
andai mof soci al communi cati on, comes to
screen the separati onof theappara-
tus of
domi nati onandthe maj ori ty of those
wi thout power . Therepresentati on
of the group' s structure,
i ndi f f erent tothecondi ti ons whi chdi ctate the status
of
i ts members, tends to excl ude
f romi ts domai n the questi on of ori gi n, of
l egi ti -
macy, of rati onal i ty, of opposi ti ons
andhi erarchi es i nsti tuted i n each sector
. A
newf ai th i s i nvested i n thi s
representati on: a"mastery" of soci al
reai l ty i n the
experi enceof soci al i zati on
i tsel f here andnow, that i s tosay,
wi thi n thepercep-
ti bl eborders of eachi nsti tuti on,
i neachsi tuati onwheremanf i nds
hi msel f pl aced
accordi ng to the "natural "
necessi ty of producti on or, more general l y,
of
eco-
nomi c acti vi ty, but al so of pedagogy or
l ei sure, as wel l as pol i ti cal , uni on, or
rel i gi ous practi ce. So many anal yses have been
devoted to the phenomenonof
human rel ati ons i n i ndustry, to the
expansi on of group techni ques i n a
wi de
vari ety of organi zati ons, tothepracti ceof
semi nars, i nf ormati onconf erences, to
the spreadi ngof soci al psychol ogy
i n busi nesses, school s andhospi tal s,
that i t
woul d be usef ul to l i nger over
the i deol ogy of soci al communi cati on
.
Yet the
f uncti onf ul f i l l edwi thregard
to thi s by thegreat i nstruments at i ts servi ce,
radi o
andtel evi si on, i s nol ess
i nstructi ve. Wi thout them, the newsystemof
represen-
tati on
woul dcertai nl y be non- vi abl e, because i t i s i n propagati ng
i tsel f , not onl y
f romone
parti cul ar pl ace to another, but each ti me
f romanapparentl y ci rcum-
scri bed
f ocus toanapparentl y i ndetermi nate
f ocus, i t i s throughtheef f ect of i ts
repl y, i ndef i ni tel y mul ti pl i ed f romthepri vate
pol eof the i nsti tuti on tothepubl i c
pol e of i nf ormati on, that i deol ogi cal di scourse
attai ns thegeneral i tynecessaryto
i ts task of homogeni zati on of the soci al
domai n i n the i mpl i ci t . Wi th the
i ncessant devel opment of publ i c debates,
encompassi ngal l aspects of economi c,
pol i ti cal andcul tural l i f e,
ri di cul i ngeverythi ngf romthemost tri vi al to themost
revered, ani mageof reci proci tyi s
i mposedas the i mageof soci al rel ati ons
i tsel f .
Thi s i magei s doubl y
ef f ecti ve because si mul taneousl y the communi cati on
i s
val ued i ndependentl y of
i ts agents and of i ts content, and the
presence
of
i ndi vi dual s i s
si mul ated: a head of state conf i des hi s di f f i cul ti es to
someone
desi gnedtol i sten, or thi s l i stener, f romthemasses,
but dul yappoi nted, bears the
contradi cti on to a mi ni ster or
questi ons anexpert desi gned to answer hi m, etc.
Thi s perf ormance goes
so f ar
as
to make the actors' i denti ti es percepti bl e.
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Undoubt edl y
wehavet her eoneof t hemost r emar kabl e f or ces
of
' t he
i magi nar y:
t oabsor bt heper sonal el ement i nt o t hei mper sonal di scour sewhi ch
pr esent s
t he
essence of soci al r el at i ons, but subst ant i at i ng t he i l l usi on
of a l i vi ng speech, a
subj ect ' s speech, when i n f act ,
t he l at t er i s di ssol ved i nt o t he cer emony of
communi cat i on. It
i s
an i l l usi on
because t he l i mi t s of t hedebat e ar e det er mi ned
out si de
of
i t s
vi si bl e domai n; t he l eader ' s neut r al i t y conceal s t hepr i nci pl e
of
i t s
or gani zat i on andi n t heend, t hosewho hol dt hepower ar epr esent ed
on
t he
same
pl ane as t hose whose f at e t hey deci de behi nd. t he scenes.
Wewoul d st i l l not t ake i nt o account t he f ul l
ext ent of t hephenomenoni f we
wer et obecomeobsessed by t hemani f est l y
pol i t i cal aspect s of soci al communi ca-
t i on. The ef f ect i veness of di scour se
such as t hat t r ansmi t t ed by r adi o and
t el evi si onl i es i n t hat i t
i s
onl y
par t i al l y expl ai nedas pol i t i cal di scour se- andi t i s
pr eci sel y f r om
t hi s t hat i t acqui r es a gener al pol i t i cal i mpor t ance. Ever yday
t hi ngs, quest i ons
of sci ence andcul t ur e ar ewhat suppor t t her epr esent at i on
of an
achi eved democr acy wher e speech woul d ci r cul at e f r eel y. The si gns of t hi s
ci r cul at i on
ar e ost ent at i ousl y pr oduced, wher eas t he st at ut es r emai ncr yst al l i zed
accor di ng t o opposi t i ons of power . In no ot her epoch has t her e
been so much
spoken: di scour se on soci al r eal i t y ser ved by t he di f f er ent moder n
means of
communi cat i on i s car r i ed away; i t i s over come by a di zzyi ng
i nf at uat i on wi t h
i t sel f ; not hi ng
escapes conf er ences, i nt er vi ews, t el evi sed debat es, f r omt hegen-
er at i on
gap t o t r af f i c f l ow, f r omsexual i t y t o musi c, f r omspace expl or at i on
t o
educat i on. Thi s
nar ci ssi smi s not t hat of bour geoi s i deol ogy, si nce t he new
di scour se
i s not ar t i cul at ed f r omabove; i t empl oys no capi t al l et t er s; i t f ei gns t o
pr opagat e i nf or mat i on, even pr et ends t oquest i on; i t does not over shadow
ot her s
at a
di st ance, but i ncl udes a r epr esent at i ve i n i t sel f , pr esent s i t sel f as ani ncessant
di al ogue, andt hus' t akes t he spacebet ween t heone andt heot her t o makeapl ace
f or i t sel f . Thr ough t hi s oper at i on, t he subj ect f i nds hi msel f ( al most )
accommo-
dat ed i n t he syst emof r epr esent at i on i n an ent i r el y di f f er ent mannner t han i n
t ot al i t ar i an i deol ogy, si nce at pr esent hei s i nvi t edt oi ncor por at e t he t er ms of al l
opposi t i on. At t hesame t i me, he i s accommodat edi n t hegr oup- ani magi nar y
gr oup i n t he
senset hat t hepower i s t akenaway f r omment oconcei veof t he r eal
act i vi t y
of
t he
i nst i t ut i on by par t i ci pat i ng i n i t , by conf r ont i ng t hei r r el at i on
t hr ough di f f er ent i at i on.
In t hi s sense, t her emar k wemade
about
t he i mpl i cat i on
of t heper sonal i n t he
i mper sonal i s cl ar i f i ed. Thi s event agai n i ndi cat es
t hedi st ance t akenwi t hr egar d
t o t ot al i t ar i an di scour se. The l at t er t ends
t o di ssol ve
t he
per sonal el ement ,
because i t does not t ol er at e t he i mageof adi sper si on
of
t he
cent er s of soci al i za-
t i on, nor does i t per mi t an exper i ence of t he subj ect i n a par t i cul ar
pl ace t hat
escapes f r omt he gener al nor m. But t hi s di sper si on no l onger st r i kes at t he
i nt egr i t y of t her epr esent at i on of soci al r eal i t y f r omt he moment t hat t hesubj ect
f i nds hi msel f capt ur edby hi s owni magei nt henet wor kof soci al i zat i on. Thus t he
t el evi si on
scr een onl y mat er i al i zes an i mpal pabl e scr een on whi ch a soci al
r el at i on
i s pr oj ect ed, a r el at i on suf f i ci ent i n i t sel f i nsof ar as i t condenses t he
doubl e
r epr esent at i on of a r el at i on i n i t sel f and a r el at i on bet ween peopl e. One
coul d measur e, f or exampl e, t he
ef f ect i veness of a cour seof act i on whi ch, f r om
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
commer ci al s
t o pol i t i cal or cul t ur al pr ogr ams,
pr ovi des t he r epeat ed i l l usi on of
an
ent r e- noun.
The
i nf or mant ' s speech i s pl aced at
t he pol e of anonymi t y and neut r al i t y
;
under
t hi s condi t i on, i t di f f uses an obj ect i ve
knowl edge, what ever i t s nat ur e, but
si mul t aneousl y,
i t
makes
i t sel f si ngul ar , mi mi cs l i ve
speech, assumes t he at t r i -
but es of t he per son t o
assur e i t s conj unct i on wi t h
t hose addr essed, who, i n spi t e
of t hei r number s, of
t hei r separ at i on and i gnor ance of
each ot her , wi l l each f i nd
hi msel f per sonal l y r eached
andmut el yassembl ed
owi ng t o t he samepr oxi mi t y
t o t he speaker . I n
t hi s sense, t he most banal pr ogr am
i s an i ncant at i on t o
f ami l i ar i t y; i n mass soci et y
i t i nst al l s t he l i mi t s of a
" smal l wor l d" wher e
ever yt hi ng occur s as i f each per son
wer e al r eady t ur ned t owar d
t he ot her . I t
pr ovokes a hal l uci nat i on of near ness
whi ch abol i shes a sense of di st ance,
st r ange-
ness, i mper cept i bi l i t y, t he si gns of t he out si de,
of adver si t y, of al t er i t y. Let us not e
i n passi ng
t hat i t i s amazi ng t o occasi onal l y see peopl e
st r ol l i ng down t he st r eet
or sunbat hi ng on
t he beach, t r ansi st or r adi o gl ued t o
t he ear , or t o see homes i n
whi ch t he t el evi si on or r adi o ar e on
const ant l y, even wi t hout t he pr esence of
t hose who t ur ned t hemon ; no
ot her phenomenon bet t er demonst r at es t he
i magi nar y di mensi on of communi cat i on
. The l at t er pr ovi des t he assur ance of
a
soci al l i nk, at a di st ance f r om
i t s r eal i t y; i t pr ovi des a backgr ound,
an
accompani ment - j ust as t he musi c of
t he same name, whi ch, however , i s
onl y a
var i ant of gener al i zed
communi cat i on- and t hi s backgr ound i s t he
f oundat i on,
t hi s accompani ment i s t he l i ni ng
cont i nuousl y spun f r omt he i nt ol er abl e f act of
soci al
di vi si on. The cer t ai nt y of t he communi cat i on
coul d, i f necessar y, be
suf f i ci ent , gi ven t hat i n act ual l y r emovi ng hi msel f ,
t he subj ect r emai ns i n hi s
net wor k. I t i s of
l i t t l e i mpor t ance t hat he st ops
wat chi ng or l i st eni ng: hi s
per sonal ghost i s
i n pl ace, once and f or al l , i n t he
ent r e- noun .
What appear s
i n t hi s ent r e- noun, ai r f r eshener
or an i ncr ease i n pr i ces,
hi ghway deat hs or f emi ni sm, i s not of gr eat
i mpor t ance. Mor e i mpor t ant i s t he
power t o i nf er a pr i mor di al r el at i onshi p
whi chcoul d not bebr ought i nt o pl ay i n
t he di scour se' s oper at i on and t he possi bl e
opposi t i ons of i t s agent s . The
f ai t h i n
soci al communi cat i on and i n t he
at t achment t o a gr oup st i l l l eaves r oom
f or t he
i deaof soci al di vi si on when even
t hi s i s camouf l aged, t hat i s t o say, passed
of f as a
f ai l i ng of a di al ogue bet ween
i ndi vi dual s or cl asses, or a br eak
i n t he cohesi on . On
t he ot her hand,
t he r epr esent at i on of t he soci al r el at i onshi p
i s unconsci ous, t he
ent r e- noun assur es
t he st agi ng of t he communi cat i on as wel l as
t he subj ect ' s
i nvol vement
i n t hegr oup . Thi s i nvol vement r equi r es
nei t her i t s bei ngt he ai mof
t he
gr oup i n i t s act ual i t y as a val i d gr oup, nor an
i dent i f i cat i on wi t h t he power
whi ch i s supposedt o r epr esent i t s uni t y. At
t he l evel of t he ent r e- noun, t he " we"
i s not asser t ed but pr esupposed, dest i ned
t o i nvul ner abi l i t y f r omr emai ni ng
i nvi si bl e. Nodoubt a pol i t i cal l eader i s
l ed
t o
pr ocl ai m" We l i ber al s . . . " , " we
men of pr ogr ess" , or " we soci al i st s" , j ust
as t he speaker on t he ai r , out si de of a
pol i t i cal cont ext , pr ocl ai ms " We
t he Fr ench" ; but t hi s " we" , however
ef f ect i ve i t
r emai ns, i s
secondar y, because ar r anged pr i or t o
hi s st at ement ar e t he condi t i ons
of
a net wor k i n whi ch agent s ar e l i nked t o
each ot her t hr ough bei ngdepr i ved of
t he mar ks of t hei r opposi t i ons as wel l as t hoseof
di scour se as di scour se.
I DEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
Onl ythese
condi ti ons
al l ow
i deol ogi cal di scourseto beconstantl yburi edi nthe
soci al i zati onprocess, and si mul taneousl ycreate the i l l usi on that, i npri nci pl e,
nothi ngi s conceal ed fromcommuni cati on. Thedi spute i s centeredoni deas, on
parti cul ar agents, that i s to say, preci sel yonwhat appears, onthat whi chl i ves on
bourgeoi s i deol ogy, oni ts i neradi cabl eresi due,
and
( for
al l
that) onthe represen-
tati on of opposi ti ons, absol utel y necessary to sustai n the di al ogue. Yet what
escapes, or tends to escape the di spute i s the fantasyof reci proci ty, accordi ngto
whi cheverythi ngi s showntobeopento di scussi on, vi si bl e, i ntel l i gi bl e; because
suchi ndeedi s theul ti mateeffect of theoccul tati onof thedi vi si on: the i mageof a
di scourse wi thout l i mi ts i nwhi cheverythi ng comes to appear . Onecanunder-
stand, consequentl y, that thi s di scourse fei gns to i gnore prohi bi ti ons; si nce i t
i nvades the soci al domai n, i t abol i shes al l the di stances contri ved
by
bourgeoi s
i deol ogy. i t
i ntroduces sexual i ty, vi ol ence and madness i nto the entre- noun; i t
effaces the di vi si on between
the
ordi nary worl d
and the depths of soci ety; i t
i gnores thedanger
of nature.
Si mi l arl y,
thi s trai t di sti ngui shes i t fromacommu-
ni st
di scourse
whi ch,
ever hauntedby the representati onof atotal soci al real i ty,
of
a
fl awl ess body, does not tol erateanattachment to si gns whi chwoul dstri keat
i ts i ntegri ty, whi ch supports i tsel f by mul ti pl yi ng taboos about subj ects whi ch
escape soci al control s. Thi s di scourse i s di sti ngui shed, too, by i ts apti tude for
l etti ng
i ts agents speak i nsteadof restri cti ng thegranti ngof speech, defendi ng
i tsel f agai nst the vi ol ati onof i ts space bysi mul ati ngwi thi ni tsel f apl ace for the
contradi ctor.
The
system' s effecti veness si mul taneousl ysupposes
the representati onof the
di scourse' s sci enti fi ci ty
.
I n one sense,
the l atter
was found at the
heart of
bourgeoi s i deol ogy; but wi thi t, sci ence
sti l l
represents a vi si bl e pol e.
Di scourse
on
sci ence exi sts at the same ti me as anexpl oi tati on of sci ence i n order to
el aboratesoci al
real i ty.
I n
thecontext of i ndustri al producti oni tsel f, a knowl edge
of
therati onal i ty
of
l abour i s defused, a knowl edgewhi chi s di spl ayed, but whi ch
i s al so ci rcumscri bed
wi thi nthe l i mi ts of a rul i ng apparatus. Tayl ori sm, as i s
known, wi l l eventual l ygi ve i t i ts ful l expressi on. Assuredl y, thepersi stenceof the
ol d i deol ogy must here agai n
be
recogni zed, but evenmoreso, theextent of the
modi fi cati ons whi chhaveoccurred must bemeasured. Fi rstl y, the l ocus of the
enterpri se must beconsi dered, not to determi ne the features of i ts actual trans-
formati on, but i norder toexami netherepresentati on. I t i s therepresentati onof
the organi zati on, onewhi ch i s not a product nor anappl i cati onof sci ence,
but
whi chembodi es i t, andwhoseformul ai s not thepropertyof the
manageri al
cl ass
but i s i nscri bed i nreal i ty. Thi s representati onno l onger tol erates the
di vi si onof
di rectors and those who execute thei r di recti ves, nor
the
di vi si on
of human
l abour andmeansof producti on;
i t l i nks al l theterms
by
effaci ngthei r subordi na-
ti on, i norder toarti cul ate
themwi thi n
a
structurewhi chwoul dfuncti oni ni tsel f,
throughrati onal i mperati ves, and
i ndependentl y of men' s desi res andchoi ces.
The i mageof the i nstances
of deci si on
andrestrai nt, the i mageof the rul e, are
covered by
thel awof theorgani zati on. Thi s l awcoi nci des wi ththeorgani zati on' s
di scourse
;
i t i s conceal ed fromthe subj ect' s vi ew, al thoughhere andthere they
reveal absurdi tyi nthedetai l s of programmedoperati ons. I ts effecti veness l i es
i n
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
that i t i s not
percei vedas external ; j ust as
theef f ecti veness of
thedi scoursewhi ch
transmi ts
i t
l i es
i nthef act that i t i s not
constrai nedtoappear as
di scourseonthe
organi zati on,
or that the l atter, havi ngj ust
beenexpressed, onl y
represents a part
of the
f ormer, andl eaves as i mpl i ci t
i ts val i di tyandl egi ti macy.
Thi s i nf erenceof
the l awand
di scourse i s onl y possi bl ebecause
theagents f i ndi nthem
the f ormof
thei r establ i shed
rel ati on, because thei r acti on
andcooperati on aresupposed
to
bepref i guredi n
the model of theorgani zati on.
But i t woul dbe a mi staketo
thi nk
that therel ati onbetween
i ndi vi dual s i s rei f i ed, touse
theMarxi st expressi on;
the
model tends to convert
the subj ect i nto the
"organi zati onal man", as
Whyte
i ndi cates . I n other words,
what i s consi dered as real
becomes the organi zati on;
i ndi cati ons of a rati onal i zati on
i n i tsel f of soci al real i ty,
and those of hi s own
i denti ty are provi dedaccordi ng to
a supposedknowl edgethat
the organi zati on
hol ds
over hi m.
Agai n,
i t must be emphasi zed that thi s
representati on i s not
ci rcumscri bed
wi thi n
the l i mi ts of the producti on
enterpri se. I t i s propagated i n
al l the great
soci al
establ i shments, i t!
commerci al enterpri ses, i n publ i c
andpri vate admi ni s-
trati ons i n the uni versi ti es,
i n hospi tal s.
The organi zati on' s di scourse
i s not real i zed i n the total i tari an
f antasy. We
have
al readynotedi ts l i mi ts . Yet
i t
i s
i mportant topoi nt out
thesupport gi vento
i t
by
thedi f f usi on of the
representati on of sci ence outsi de of
the context whi ch
we
havej ust menti oned. Thi s
representati ondoes not al l ow
i tsel f to be l ocal i zed.
I n i t i s
i nvested ageneral i zedbel i ef i n the
sel f -i ntel l i gi bi l i ty of soci al
real i tyand
the
sel f -i ntel l i gi bi l i ty of man. I n
other words, at the l evel of
obj ecti vi ty, the
di sti ncti ons essenti al tobourgeoi s i deol ogy
tendtobeef f aced: those of
nature, of
the psyche,
and
of
the soci ety. I n parti cul ar,
i t
i s
i mpossi bl e to appreci ate
the
range of
the organi zati on' s di scourse and
howi t i s preserved i n the
i mpl i ci t
wi thout poi nti ng out theworkef f ected by
the humansci ences . - As
Marcusehas
ri ghtl y noted, the of f i ci al di scourse of
psychol ogy andsoci ol ogy i s
governedby
arti f i ci al i sm, operati onal i sm
andf ormal i sm. Thepsyche, soci ety
andcul ture are
commonl y def i ned as systems ;
the general model of an
organi zati on, of the
personal i ty' s f uncti oni ng i s
i mposedby the concepts of soci al
i ntegrati on, com-
muni cati on, tensi on
and regul ati on, i n the si mpl est or
the most sophi sti cated
versi ons .
Truthf ul l y, i f
wewi shed to devel op the
anal ysi s of the vari ous f orms of
i deol ogy,
i t woul dbe necessarytoexami ne the
uni quecontri buti on(even moreso
i n that they
are of ten presentedas anti -i deol ogi cal
cri ti ci sm) of l i terature
and
l i terary
theory, of phi l osophy , or aestheti cs .
There i s a search f or a
l anguage
whi ch
makes thequesti onof i ts genesi s
percepti bl e, whi chnol onger accepts
the
assurance of the narrati ve, the novel ,
the i mage, the theory, the
assurance of a
natural di stance between a supposed
subj ect and a supposedobj ect,
a l anguage
whi chdeparts f romthe establ i shed
l i nes of readi ng and
wri ti ng,
of
the vi ewer
and vi si bl e, of the author
and the other, whi ch wel comes
the departure of
meani ng,
the break of ori gi n, as Merl eau-Ponty
woul d say. Thi s l anguage
i s
appl i edto
deci pheri ngunconsci ous
structures i nwhi chdesi re
andthought are at
workbef oreanythought or desi re
takes f orm. I nshort, al l that gi ves
strengthto
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
the i nsti tuti ng di scourse
f i nds i tsel f hi ddenunder thenew
i l l usi on of amachi nery
of the text, of thought,
desi re, the i l l usi on of a gamei n i tsel f ,
of di f f erence, of the
"real " suppressi on
of the subj ect, sense, ori gi n,
hi story. It i s an i l l usi on whi ch
gi ves substance
tonewi ndi cati ons, whi ch i s mai ntai ned
byel udi ngthehazards of
the unconquerabl e di vi si on
between the one and the other, between
sense
and
nonsense, between the
space of the workandthat of the worl d, between
what i s
wi thi n andwhat
i s wi thout, an i l l usi on whi ch, i nal l modes
of
wri ti ng,
resul ts i n a
techni queof i l l egi bi l i ty,
whi chsi gni f i cantl y tends toabatethedanger
of i nterpre-
tati on, provi di ng the
process of occul tati on whi chgoverns the
organi zati ons' s
di scourse wi th i ts
preci se response.
But si ncewemust be content wi th onl yagl i mpse
of thesecontri buti ons, l et us
rather emphasi zepsychol ogy, becausei t
operates,
not
at theperi phery, but at the
center of the newi deol ogy. Indeed, how
can one f ai l to see that i t i s psychol ogy
whi chprovi des the organi zati on
wi th the representati on of a knowl edge
about
thesubj ect, whi chf eeds thei l l usi on
of theagent' s eval uati on, not of hi s apti tude,
but of hi s personal i ty. It
pl aces thi s i l l usi on i nthemateri al i tyof abatteryof
tests,
questi onnai res,
andmai ntenancegui des, i n an apparatus cl ai med
tobesci enti f i c,
whose tri pl e f uncti on
i s to determi ne the i mage of the "organi zati onal man",
to
makehi m
appear to hi msel f through knowl edge of the other, andto conceal the
i mage of those i n power by
generati ng the i l l usi on of an i mpersonal norm.
Undoubtedl y, onecoul dj ustl y
notethat theenti resystemof educati on, andnot
onl ypsychol ogy, i s organi zed accordi ng
to a capaci tyto measureknowl edge and
i mposes the sel f - i mage of an eval uated
i ndi vi dual . It must al so be observed i n
passi ngthat oneof thedomi nant
themes i n modern pedagogy, sel f - eval uati on, i s
amongthe most ef f ecti ve
f or obl i terati ng the educator' s
presence
andf or
i nvi s-
i bl y i mpri nti ng
the power' s di scourse. In any case, di pl oma- worshi p-
i ndependent of
the- educati on system' s ef f orts toprocure the"soci al l y
necessary"
agents f or the worl d
of the organi zati on- generates, i n the enti re
range of
soci ety, the i ndi vi dual ' s
i denti f i cati on wi th the agent of knowl edge.
Even though. i t i s
more parti cul ar, psychol ogy' s acti on i s no l ess deci si ve,
because through i t,
thei magi nary"personal i ty" ari ses : asystemdeci pherabl ef or
the other, or si nce the other takes
ref uge behi ndsci ence, one whi chwoul d
be
of f eredtotheunderstandi ngof the
organi zati on. For the rest, thepsychol ogi st' s
pl ace i n the systemof educati on cannot
recei ve enough attenti on. Even very
young chi l dren are af f ected bytesti ng. Thepsychol ogi st' s
knowl edgepenetrates
themal readyat thi s age, i norder to i mpri nt upon them
the markof i napti tudeor
devi ance. Hei s sl owl ysubsti tuted f or theeducator,
todi spl acetherel ati on to the
l aw, towardof f the
vi si bl e bl owof authori ty, and
to
l i nk
sancti ontothedecree of
a neutral andanonymous
f orce.
Moreover, i t
i s i mpossi bl e not to exami ne the great stagi ng of sci enti f i ci ty
devel oped
by radi o, tel evi si on andthe pri nted medi a. The i ncantati on to soci al
communi cati on
i s doubl ed byone to i nf ormati on. Wecannot underesti mate the
hol dof the experts'
knowl edge, or of theservants of sci enti f i c vul gari zati on, who,
day af ter day, di spense the
truth about chi l d educati on, f or exampl e, about the
coupl e, sexual i ty, thesecrets
of
the
organi smor of space. It i s not onl ythemagi c
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
of the entre-noun
whi chrenders everythi ng
speakabl e; there i s al sothe
magi cof
obj ecti vi ty. One
feature of the system
whi ch must not escape our
attenti on
i ndi cates agai n
the di stance taken
wi th regard to total i tari an i deol ogy.
The
borders of
knowl edge are not represented,
nor i s i t necessary for themto
be. If
everythi ngcanbe
pronounced, the
i ndefi ni teness of what i s sai d must be
noted;
thus i ts perpetual
newness. Total i tari ani sm
i nsures i tsel f agai nst the
hazardof a
fragmentati onof ti me
through the stark asserti onof
a hi stori cal truth,
whi ch
makes
the devel opment of
the present fromfuture
progress ( i n such a way
that
there
are al ways onl y certai n
utterabl e thi ngs
wi thi n the borders of the estab-
l i shed
order, andthat theunknowni s
domesti cated, ci rcumscri bed
tothe l evel of
what i s
known) . Wherei t acts i n that way,
the newi deol ogi cal
di scourse agai n
takes hol dof si gns,
cul ti vates them, i n
order to efface the hi stori cal
threat . As
soci al communi cati on
i s content to be real i zed
here and now,
knowl edge i s
exhi bi tedhereand
now, beari ngthe sol uti ons to
thesecret of nature, thesecret
of
man, arousi ng a fasci nati on
wi th the present. Not
knowi ng, then, si gni fi es
not
coi nci di ng
wi th theti mes, , not coi nci di ng
wi thsoci al exi stenceas i t i s mani fested
.
It si gni fi es
i ncurri ngthe soci ety' s taci t
sancti on, excl udi ngonesel f from
l egi ti -
mate soci al bonds.
"Newness", then, i s
nothi ng morethan the
materi al i zedproof of temporal
di fference, of the
hi stori cal , andthus of i ts
conceal ment behi ndthe i l l usi on of a
di fference i nti me, of a
masterabl e di stance from
the present tothe past, of
a
conquerabl e rel ati on to
the present as such. Invi si bl e
onceagai ni s theoperati on
whi chdi ffuses the
effects of the i nsti tuti on of soci al
real i ty, whi chattempts to
prohi bi t thequesti onabout
thesenseof theestabl i shed
order, thequesti onabout
potenti al i ty. Whereas
potenti al i tyi s l i nkedtodesi re,
whereas i t bri ngs i nto pl ay
therefusal of experi ence,
newnessbl ocks the
vi ew. Inother words, i t i s the
rattl e
whi chani nfanti l i zed
grouptri es tograspor catch,
al ways a moti onbehi nd
the
appearance of
the obj ect they are toknow. Once
agai n wemust not negl ect
to
associ ate
wi th the mani a for newness at
al l the borders of organi zati ons,
the
mani a
mani fested( especi al l yi n Francewhi chi s
exempl ary i nthi s respect) by
the
ci rcl es of
i ntel l i gentsi a, devouredby the fear of
not produci ngor not
graspi ng
that l i ttl e
thi ngwhi chcarri es the guarantee
of the death of the past
andof the
ful l ness or
spl endour of the present
.
In concl usi on, we hol dthat
i t
i s
fromthi s perspecti ve that the
functi onof
i deol ogy
i nconsumer soci ety coul d be
i nterpreted. Toomany
anal yses, i n the
context of a cri ti cal soci ol ogy,
perpetuate ambi gui ty i n
overemphasi zi ng the
consumpti onpracti ce. It maynot be
possi bl etoconcei veof
thi s practi cewi thout
l i nki ngi t to thegenesi s of
hi stori cal soci ety. Wemay
onl y
be
abl e to attempt to
i nterpret through thi s
phenomenonthe si gns of the
i nsti tuti onof soci al real i ty,
of whi ch noone
i s the i nsti gator, andwemay not be
abl e todo better thanto
questi ona worl di n
whi chour owni denti tyi s gi vento us.
Ontheother hand, the
representati on
whi ch haunts the consumpti on
practi ce i s open to cri ti ci sm
preci sel y i n that i t ari ses fromthe
i nsti tuti on' s acti ons to conceal
i t, that i t
devel ops a "response"
desti ned to conj ugate the i nsecuri ty
engenderedby the
di fferenti ati on and
the
"not
knowi ng" of the di fferenti ati on
i nspace andti me.
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
Baudr i l l ar d has shown i n dept h t hat t he consumer pr oduct , what ever i t s
nat ur e, does not exer ci se anat t r act i on i n or der
t o
r espond
t osome need whose
or i gi n
can
bel ocat ed i n t he i ndi vi dual
or
gr oup. It
becomes t he r epr esent at i ve of a
"syst em
of obj ect s"
i n whi ch ar e
r el at ed t he demand, t he sat i sf act i on and t he
ar t i cul at i onof t he si gns t o each ot her , i n such a wayt hat i t t ur ns back oni t sel f and
pr esent s t he i l l usi on of soci al r eal i t y as such. In t hi s sense, t he di scour se of
consumpt i oncondenses t he r epr esent at i onof t he or gani zat i onand of communi -
cat i on. It i nt r oduces a uni ver se wher e t he di f f er ence bet ween pr oducer and
pr oduct i s ef f aced t hr ough t he appear ance of ani ndependent net wor k of obj ect s
and wher et he di f f er ence bet weensomeone and someone
el se
i s si mul t aneousl y
ef f aced t hr ough
t he
appear ance
of
a
common
adher ence
t o t he same
wor l d
. Yet
i t
st i l l
must benot ed t hat what i s consumed i s i ncessant l y new,
t he
r epr esent at i ve
of a di f f er ence i nt i me whi chf eeds desi r e by si mul at i ng ani ndef i ni t e r et ur n t ot he
desi r ed obj ect , at t he pr eci se moment wher e t he desi r e i s hel d by t he r epr esent a-
t i on. Thi s si mul at i on, once agai n, i ndi cat es anat t empt t o r epr esent t he hi st or i cal ,
t o make change i nvi si bl e by det er mi ni ng t he vi si bl e.
Nonet hel ess, by hol di ng t o t hese obser vat i ons
we
mi ght mi ss t he essent i al
i deol ogi cal f unct i on. of consumpt i on
di scour se, because
t he
i l l usi on
i t
subst an-
t i at es i s t hat of a wor l d wher e manper cei ves
onl y si gns
of
men. It i s a wor l d
whosespace i s opent o any r out e, wher eal l i s per cept i bl e pr ovi ded t hat one has
t he means, a wor l d wher e vi si on, t he mani pul at i on of obj ect s, act i vi t y ar e
mul t i pl i ed by ani nst r ument wi t hout obst acl e, and ar e as i f f i t t ed t o somet hi ng
al l - vi si bl e, al l -
mani pul abl e, al l - expl or abl e
. We need onl y consi der t he adver t i s-
i ng whi chpr esent s us wi t h t he house of our dr eams, r eady t o wel comeus, key i n
t he door ; i t summar i zes a ver y l ong di scour se onsoci al r eal i t y whi cht eaches t hat
t he
t hi ngs of t he out si de ar e t her e, wi t hi n, t hat t he uni ver se i s ar r anged f or man,
t hat nat ur e i s t he envi r onment . Ther e, i deol ogy r eaches t he l i mi t of i t s t ask; i t
put s t he gr eat wal l i n pl ace, but makes i t i nvi si bl e, saves i t sel f havi ng t o make a
st at ement about whol e man and t he t ot al soci et y.
But al t hough i deol ogy achi eves i t s t ask, must we t hi nk t hat i t s cont r adi ct i ons
ar e r esol ved? Howcoul d t hey be i f i t i s t r ue t hat hi st or i cal soci et y i s t hat soci et y
whi ch under mi nes any r epr esent at i on of i t s i nst i t ut i on?
The mor e t hat di scour se on soci al r eal i t y seeks t o coi nci de wi t h soci al di s-
cour se, t he mor e i t appl i es i t sel f t o mast er i ng
t he
unmast er abl e
act i vi t y
of
t he
i nst i t ut i on, t o t aki ng hol d of t he si gns of t he i nst i t ut or ,
and
t he
mor e i t r uns t he
r i sk of l osi ng t he f unct i on assumed unt i l t henby i deol ogy; t he l egi t i mat i onof
t he
est abl i shed or der , not onl y t hat of a r egi me of owner shi p, but
t hat
of
r eal i t y as
such
; i t
gener at es
t he condi t i ons f or
a
quest i oni ng whi ch ( i n t he East as wel l as
t he West ) i s ai med beyond t he expr essi ons of power
and expl oi t at i on, at t he
i ndi ces of
soci al i zat i on
i n
t he
moder n
wor l d, and whi chbr i ngs t he quest i onof t he
Ot her and Bei ng back i nt o f ocus
.
Par i s,
Fr ance
CONCEPTSOF
IDEOLOGYINMARX*
Gydr gy
Mar kus
Ther ei s sur pr i si ng agr eement
concer ni ngthesi gni f i canceof
Mar x' stheor y of
i deol ogy,
i nasmuchas i t i s gener al l y
r egar ded as oneof hi s maj or
contr i buti ons
both
to agener al soci al theor y
and
to
phi l osophy. Thr oughthe i ntr oducti on
of
thi s
theor y, Mar x i s sai d to have
ser i ousl y contr i buted to a f undamental
r eor i entati on- an
hi stor i cal l y and soci al l y or i ented
"tur n"- i n thetr eatment of
pr obl ems concer ni ng
human knowl edgeand
cogni ti on. Thi s agr eement about
thehi stor i cal i mpor tanceof
thetheor y never thel ess goes
hand i n hand wi than
al most compl etedi sagr eement
about thecontent of these
si gni f i cant vi ews. Both
Mar xi st and non- Mar xi st
i nter pr etati ons of the Mar xi an concept
of i deol ogy
seemto di sagr ee about
even the most el ementar y -
questi ons concer ni ng i ts
meani ng. Does thenoti on
of i deol ogy car r y a negati ve- pej or ati ve
emphasi s, or i s
i t i n thi s r espect val ue- neutr al
and ther ef or ecapabl eof
bei ng appl i ed toMar x' s
owntheor y, whi chcoul d
i n tur n bechar acter i sed ( at l east
i n i ts i ntenti ons) as a
"sci enti f i c i deol ogy"? Does
sci ence, i ncl udi ng the
natur al sci ences, r epr esent the
pr i nci pal opposi teof
i deol ogy, or i s i t j ust oneof
thef or msof i ts mani f estati ons?
Is the theor y of i deol ogy
essenti al l y a geneti c one, deal i ng
above al l wi th
pr obl ems concer ni ng
the hi stor i cal or i gi n of i deas r egar ded as
ef f ects of other
causes? Or i s i t af uncti onal
theor y that basi cal l y deal s
wi thpr obl ems r el ated to
the ef f ects whi ch i deas
and thei r systems- tr eated as
r el ati vel y i ndependent
causes- can anddo have
i n other ar eas of soci al l y
si gni f i cant behavi our ? Toal l
these, cer tai nl y
ver y basi c, questi onsonecanf i nd
wi del y di f f er i ng, evendi ametr i -
cal l y opposed,
answer s.
Thesi tuati on
becomeseven mor epar adoxi cal
i f
one
tur ns f r omthesecondar y
i nter pr etati ve
l i ter atur e towar d thoseper haps mor e
si gni f i cant wr i ti ngs whi ch
attempt
to conti nuethetr adi ti on i ni ti ated by
theMar xi an concepti on of i deol -
ogy. On
the one hand, i t seems uncl ear
howthese theor i es can appeal to
a
common ancestr y at al l , si nce they
deal wi thqui tedi ver gent, al most
unr el ated
topi cs
. ,
In theso- cal l ed concept of
"i deol ogi cal stateappar atuses"- devel oped
i n
str uctur al i st Mar xi smby Al thusser ,
f or i nstance, the ter m"i deol ogy"
r ef er s
essenti al l y tothef uncti oni ngof such
i nsti tuti ons as thef ami l y, theschool system,
the Chur ch, and the mass medi a.
In the wor ks of Mar xi sts such as
Lukacs or
Luci en
Gol dmann, however , i deol ogy al most
excl usi vel y denotes the par adi g-
mati c pr oducts
of hi gh cul tur e- gr eat
phi l osophi cal systems, exempl ar y wor ks
of
ar t, thehi stor i cal l y most si gni f i cant soci al
andeconomi c theor i es, andso on
.
On
theother hand, anddespi te the
r adi cal l y di ver gent pr obl emati cs they
deal
*Thi s i s an expanded and r evi sed dr af t of a l ectur ef i r st pr esented at theDepar tment
of Phi l osophy,
NewSchool f or Soci al Resear ch, NewYor k, Apr i l 1981.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
wi thunder thecommon
nameof i deol ogy, bothof
thesevi ews haveonethi ngi n
common, namel y, that thei r
standpoi nt i s strangel y
i rreconci l abl e wi th thebest
known, sotosay.
"i ntroductory", statement of Marx
oni deol ogy: i t i s not
i deas
whi chmakeor transform
hi story, becausei deas are
meresubl i mates of materi al
l i fe acti vi ti es i n
the heads of i ndi vi dual s. So
Al thusser regards the i deol ogi cal
state
apparatuses as organi sati ons through
whoseoperati ontheempi ri cal i ndi -
vi dual fi rst becomes consti tuted
as theal l egedl y acti ve subj ect i n
soci ety; these
apparatuses
areascri bedadetermi ni ng
rol ei ntheceproducti on
of
the
domi nant
system
of soci al rel ati ons.
Anal ogousl y, representati ves of
so- cal l edhumani st or
hi stori ci st Marxi sm- especi al l y
fol l owi ng the hi stori cal
traumaof Fasci sm-
haveei ther underl i nedthe
emanci patory potenti al of ( at l east
some) products of
autonomous hi ghcul ture,
or ( l i ke AdornoandHorkhei mer)
they haveempha-
si zed that the
l oss of the autonomy of hi gh cul ture
has been one of the basi c
causes of a forecl osure
of real possi bi l i ti es of
emanci pati on i n modernsoci ety.
I havereferred
here, essenti al l y for rhetori cal
purposes, tothevagari es whi ch
markthehi story
of therecepti onandi nterpretati on
of theMarxi anconcepti on
of i deol ogy,
tofi ndsomej usti fi cati on
for arenewedattempt todi sentangl e
anol d
and
rather bori ng questi on: What di d
Marx mean by "i deol ogy"?
But
the
probl ems j ust i ndi catedmay
perhaps al soprovi de somei ni ti al
support for my
ownemphasi s
onthecompl exi ty and
heterogenei ty of thetheoreti cal concept of
i deol ogy as i t i s actual l y usedwi thi nthe
texts of Marx. I shal l try toarguei nthe
fol l owi ng that
Marxdepl oyed thi s concept i n
di sti nctl y di fferent contexts, for
di fferent
purposes andthat, accordi ngl y, thi s
concept has recogni zabl y di fferent
meani ngs i n
hi s wri ti ngs. Andwhi l ethethreedi fferent
meani ngs of i deol ogy I
shal l try todi sti ngui sh
arecl earl y i nterconnected,
any attempt topercei vethese
as vari ous
aspects of auni fi edbroader
approachcontai ns not onl y
some
si gni fi -
cant l acunae- a
fact i ndi catedby Marx
hi msel f- but maywel l al socontai n
some
i nner strai ns
whi chare not soeasy to
overcome.
I f oneturns totheverytexts
of Marxi nwhi chheei ther
di rectl y addressed( or
at l east al l udedto) the
probl emati cs of i deol ogy, i t becomes
rather evi dent that
the termi s most frequentl y
used i n acri ti cal , di rectl y pol emi cal
way. I n The
GermanI deol ogy, for i nstance, the
concept of i deol ogy i nvari abl y
has anegati ve,
what
i s more, unmaski ngmeani ng.
I t desi gnates those
phi l osophi cal andsoci al -
pol i ti cal
theori es whi chconcei ve i deas and
thei r systems as the
mai nspri ngs of
hi stori cal
progress. I deol ogi cal
theori es transformthemsel ves- and
thereby
thei r
creators, the i ntel l ectual s- i ntothe hi dden
demi urges of hi story.
True, at
somepoi nts
Marxseems tooperate even
i n these pol emi cal contexts wi th
a
broader concept, one that embraces
al l those cul tural obj ecti fi cati ons whi ch
hi story by referencetosomemetahi stori cal , eternal pri nci pl ei ngeneral ( thus the
Feuerbachi an theory of rel i gi on i s regarded as i deol ogi cal si nce i t expl ai ns
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
rel i gi on i n terms of an ahi stori cal
human essence) . But, f undamental l y,
the
cri ti que of i deol ogy i n thi s sense
means the "unmaski ng" of any attempt to
demonstrate the supremacy of spi ri t i n hi story. ' The
concept of i deol ogy i s a
pol emi cal
tool
di rected agai nst al l vari ants of hi stori cal i deal i sm. I n opposi ti on
to
thi s i deal i sm, Marxposes
hi s theoreti cal and, above al l , practi cal materi al i sm
: . i t
i s not
theoreti cal transf ormati ons of i nterpretati ons of the
worl d,
but
thepracti -
cal transf ormati on of
the materi al l i f e condi ti ons of soci ety and the
materi al
l i f e- acti vi ti es of products that
consti tutes the terrai nof deci si ve soci al struggl es
through whi ch the f ate of
human progress i s resol ved. Thi s i s preci sel y the
(rather si mpl e) poi nt of the f amous, andof ten
over- i nterpreted, metaphor about
the camera obscura: i n i deol ogi es, as i n a camera
obscura, everythi ng appears
upsi de- down because- per def i ni ti onem- i deol ogi cal
systems of bel i ef suppose
themsel ves to be theul ti mate determi nants of
humanmateri al acti vi ti es where-
as,
i n real l i f e, the practi cal l y enacted and i nsti tuti onal i sed
rel ati ons between
producers
consti tuteboth theul ti matesource andthecri teri onof
ef f i cacy f or the
cul tural l y el aboratedsystems of soci al bel i ef .
Tothi s concept of i deol ogy corresponds a
def i ni te i ntel l ectual practi ce- that
of cri ti cal l y unmaski ngbel i ef s through a demonstrati on
of thei r soci al determi na-
ti onandgenesi s. I nthesepol emi cal contexts, Marx
empl oys a geneti c methodof
cri ti que of i deol ogi es, theessence of
whi ch consi sts i n the reducti onof systems of
thought to the consci ous or unconsci ous soci al
i nterests whi ch they express. To
di scover behi nd the haughty phrases about the
transcendent . power or eternal
rul e
of
i deas, the hi dden sway of wel l - def i ned- but
compl etel y unthemati zed-
narrow
cl ass
or groupi nterests i s to radi cal l yref utethei r
val i di ty. Andi t i s i nthe
context of thi s cri ti ci smas unmaski ng that i deol ogi es
appear- perhaps at f i rst
gl ance i n a contradi ctory way- both as al i en to
real - l i f e specul ati ons and as
transposi ti ons of the domi nant materi al
rel ati ons of power i nto the real mof
thought . By transf ormi ng def i ni te soci al
i nterests i nto the requi rements of
humanreasonas such, thesesystems of thought
contri bute tothestabi l i sati onof
thegi ven rel ati ons of soci al
domi nati on: the f i xati onof . bel i ef becomesamodeof
l egi ti mati on.
I t i s possi bl e
that by borrowi ng the term"i deol ogy" f romthe l ast representa-
ti ves
of
theFrenchEnl i ghtenment, Destutt deTracy andhi s smal l phi l osophi cal
coteri e, Marxi ndi cates an awareness about the tradi ti ons androots of
hi s own
concepti on
. Whatever the case maybe, i t i s cl ear that hi s pol emi cal ,
unmaski ng
concept of . i deol ogy stands i n a rel ati on of di rect conti nui ty
wi th
some
el ements
i n the heri tage of the Enl i ghtenment, parti cul arl y
wi th i ts "cri ti que of prej u-
di ces", concei ved as soci al l y i nduced
def ormati ons of reason. So one can trace
back- as Hans Barth actual l y di d- the
i ntel l ectual ancestryof thi s concept to. the
Baconi ancri ti ci smof
the i dol s
of
marketpl ace and theatre- or even f urther, to
the sophi sts andtoGreek
enl i ghtenment i ngeneral . But one shoul dal so addthat
Marxi s
thecri ti c
of
thi s tradi ti on as wel l as i ts conti nuator . Fromthestandpoi nt
of hi s theory of i deol ogy, acri ti ci smof prej udi ces
i n the nameof an i mparti al
reason or an eternal and normati vel y
concei ved human nature i s i tsel f deepl y
i deol ogi cal . Marx' s pol emi cs agai nst
the hi dden i nterests consti tuti ng and
IDEOLOGY
AND
POWER
determi ni ng the systems of i deol ogy are not conducted i n the name of an
ahi stori crati onal i tyal l egedl yabl etoovercomeal l hi stori cal l i mi tati ons; they
are
i nsteadconductedi nthenameof hi stori cal l y andsoci al l y def i ned, concrete
and
"l i mi ted" needs and suf f eri ngs whi ch are produced and i nduced by
the
same
soci al i nterests. Inthecontexts wearespeaki ngabout, thetheoryof i deol ogytoa
l arge extent provi des a cri ti ci sm, even a sel f - cri ti ci sm, of the "prof essi onal
consci ousness"
of i ntel l ectual s who, as "producers of i deas", arebent onascri bi ng
a mythi cal ef f i cacy to thei r ownacti vi ty
.
Inthi s way they
create f or thei r own
acti vi ty a bogus l egi ti mati on, and thereby they render themsel ves i ncapabl eof
understandi ng i ts real soci al determi nati on and f uncti on: through thi s l ack of
cri ti cal sel f - awareness they become- of tenqui te unwi tti ngl y- apol ogi sts of a
gi ven, pre- f i xed
systemof soci al domi nati onandi nj usti ce.
If thi s
pol emi cal unmaski ng concept of "i deol ogy" i s the most f requent,
preponderant one
i n
Marx' s
wri ti ngs, thereare, however, passages i n hi s works
where the sametermacqui res another, systemati c- expl anatory meani ng. One
has onl y to l ook at the f amous Pref ace to the Contri buti on to
the Cri ti que of
Pol i ti cal Economy, to see an exampl e of thi s non- pol emi cal type of
meani ng.
Here i deol ogy cl earl y desi gnates not a speci f i c, cri ti ci zabl e type of
soci o-
phi l osophi c theory but a much broader range of
human acti vi ti es: def i ni te
branches of "cul tural producti on" ( gei sti geProdukti on) andthei r
products, anda
correspondi ng
l evel
of
soci al i nteracti onandconf l i ct . Themai nf uncti onof thi s
expl anatory, essenti al l yf uncti onal . concept of i deol ogyi s toprovi deapart of
the
answer to thequesti on
Marxal ready posedi n TheGermanIdeol ogy: How,
and
throughwhat mechani smsdo thei deas of therul i ngcl ass becometherul i ngi deas
i nsoci ety?
Thi squesti oni s evi dentl yequi val ent totheWeberi anprobl emof
how
systems of soci al rul e are l egi ti mated under condi ti ons of i nequal i ty
and
expl oi tati on.
At thi s poi nt one"phi l ol ogi cal " remark i s
perti nent. Inthewhol ecorpusof hi s
wri ti ngs, as Korsch poi ntedout, Marx
never appl i edtheterm"i deol ogy" to the
phenomena of
everyday consci ousness. For hi m. ( and i n opposi ti on to many
l atter- day Marxi sts), thesoci al domi nati onof thei deas of thedomi nati ngcl ass i s
pri mari l ynot theresul t of thel atter' s monopol yover themeansof
di ssemi nati on
of i deas; i t i s not a matter of i ndoctri nati on i nto a def i ni te
type of cul ture
producedasi def romeverydaypracti cal l i f eandonl yi ntel l ectual l y
superi mposed
over i ts actors . Onthecontrary, i t i s Marx' s
theory
of
thesoci al determi nati onof
everyday
thi nki ngwhi chprovi des thebasi s both f or ananswer to thequesti on
posedabove
and
f or an
understandi ng of the f uncti onal rol e of i deol ogi es i n
soci ety
.
It i s theref orenecessary
toel aboratebri ef l y onthi s poi nt, whi chcanbe
desi gnatedas atheoryof "f al se
consci ousness- - atermwhi chof courseappears
onl y
i n Engel s
.
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
Accordi ng t o Marx, asoci al syst eml i ke capi t al i sm, at l east i n somenegat i ve
sense, i s sel f - l egi t i mat i ng. Throught he very worki ng of i t s soci o- economi c
mechani sms i t produces i nt hei ndi vi dual s caught up i n i t s pract i ces amat ri xof
t hought , a way of di rect l y percei vi ng and i nt erpret i ng soci al real i t y whi ch
syst emat i cal l y excl udes t hepossi bi l i t yof i t s overcomi ng, bot ht hroughi magi na-
t i onandact i on. I amref erri nghereof courset o t heMarxi ant heory of f et i shi sm
whi chi s - pri mari l y di scussed i n hi s l at er economi c wri t i ngs . I n t hese wri t i ngs,
Marxargues t hat f or t hosewhoareengagedi n t hemarket act i vi t i es of sel l i ngand
buyi ng- i . e. , pract i cal l y every member of a capi t al i st soci et y- soci al rel at i ons
wi t hot her i ndi vi dual s i nevi t abl y appear
as rel at i ons bet ween t hi ngs ; what i s
more, t heseanonymous
soci al f unct i ons assumet heappearanceof mat t ers whi ch
are seemi ngl y
cont i ngent upon f ree i ndi vi dual choi ce. Thi s personi f i cat i on of
soci al rol es const i t ut es t he reverse si de of t he f et i shi st i c rei f i cat i on of soci al
rel at i ons . Thi s di st ort edandmyst i f yi ngwayof underst andi ngt heworl di n whi ch
i ndi vi dual s l i ve and act i s not
pri mari l y t he resul t
of
somespeci f i c process of
accul t urat i oni n
t he
senseof
t het ransmi ssi on
t o,
andappropri at i onby, i ndi vi du-
al s of some
i nst i t ut i onal l y f i xed"doct ri nes" . Rat her, i t i s t hedi rect out comeof
t he experi encedl i f e- act i vi t i es of t heconcernedi ndi vi dual s . Marxcert ai nl y di d
not
denyt he
rol e
of l anguage; andgeneral l y t hat of abroadl yconcei vedi nheri t ed
cul t ure i n t he f ormat i on of "f al se consci ousness" . As a mat t er of f act , he was
keenl y i nt erest edi n t hesoci al f unct i onof l anguage, t houghhi s remarks ont hi s
count
hardl y
go
beyond
a
somewhat nai vel y hi st ori cal et ymol ogy. But he di d
i nsi st t hat t he"bewi t chment of
i nt el l ect " pri mari l y deri ves not f rom"l anguage
i dl i ng" but
f romhi st ori cal l y const i t ut ed l i f e- condi t i ons . What he underl i nes
agai n
and agai n i s t he f act t hat f et i shi st i c modes of t hought "ari se f romt he
rel at i ons of product i ont hemsel ves", t hat t hey aret he"di rect andspont aneous
out comes" of t he el ement al soci al pract i ces of i ndi vi dual s . These f orms of
t hi nki ng di rect l y f i x and merel y general i ze t he pract i cal l i f e- experi ences of t he
i sol at edsoci al act ors ; f et i shi st i c f orms of t hi nki ngenabl ei ndi vi dual soci al agent s
t o ori ent t hemsel ves successf ul l y wi t hi n t he gi ven syst emof soci al rel at i ons,
whi charet akenas af i xedpri us of t hei r l i f e. Undoubt edl yt he
Marxi ant heory
of
f et i shi smi s
heavi l y
i nf ect ed
by
t heHegel i an
t ermi nol ogyof "appearance", whi ch
ref ers
not
t o meresembl ance, but t oa "f al se
real i t y",
a
f ormof i mmedi acy i n
whi ch real i t y i t sel f di st ort edl y "expresses" and "mani f est s i t sel f " ( "si ch
darst el l t ",
as
Hegel wrot e)
.
Thi s
poses
a whol eseri es of di squi et i ngprobl ems,
andnot onl y hi ghl yabst ract , phi l osophi cal quest i ons concerni ngt hef easi bi l i t y of
anont ol ogi cal t heory of t rut hwhi ch, pri maf aci e, seems t o bei mpl i edby Marx' s
t ermi nol ogy. Hi s const ant i nsi st ence t hat f et i shi st i c percept i ons andnot i ons are
not mere "i l l usi ons" anderrors of a conf used t hi nki ng, t hat t he cat egori es of
bourgeoi s economyare"soci al l yval i d, andt heref oreobj ect i ve f orms of t hought "
f or t hi s whol ehi st ori cal epoch, al socont ai ns t hecompl et el yst rai ght f orwardi dea
t hat t hesef orms. of t hought arenot merel ysoci al l yproducedand
det ermi ned,
but
are i n f act pragmat i cal l y ef f ect i ve, and i n t hi s sense real , val i d and
"correct "
.
I ndi vi dual s caught upi n t heserel at i ons cansuccessf ul l yori ent t hemsel ves wi t hi n
t hei r gi venf ramework onl y i n t heset erms. I f t hey goshoppi nganddonot want
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER-
to
squander thei r money, f or exampl e,
they have to treat the pri ce of di f f erent
commodi ti es as i f i t were
a propertyi ndependent of theuti l i ty
of thesecommodi -
ti es : onl ybycompari ng
rel ati vepri ces wi th rel ati veuti l i ti es
cani ndi vi dual s make
a "reasonabl e"
choi ce, a "goodbuy". Thi s al someansthat
theknowl edgethat the
pri ce of a
commodi tyi s sol el y thephenomenal
f ormof i ts val ue, andthat the
l atter
i s dependent uponsoci al l y
necessary l abour ti me, andso on,
i s
about
as
rel evant toa"goodbuy" asthedetai l ed
knowl edgeof quantumel ectro- dynami cs
i s to someoneexchangi nga bl own
f use. '
Inaddi ti on, andi ndeed
behi ndthi s pragmati c ef f i cacyof f al se
consci ousness,
therel i es hi ddeni ts soci al
ef f ecti vi ty, i ts capaci ty to f orecl osethe
possi bi l i ty of a
rati onal col l ecti ve
transf ormati onof thegi vensoci al
condi ti ons. J ust as f eti shi sti c
i deas
successf ul l y gui dei sol ated i ndi vi dual s i n thei r
ef f ort to assert thei r pri vate
i nterests wi thi n
these gi ven rel ati ons, so
these i deas al so render the total i ty
compl etel yopaque, transf ormi ngi t i nto a matter
of uni ntel l i gi bl e natural ness or
techni cal
necessi ty. In thi s sense, f eti shi sm
represents f or Marx themani f esta-
ti on
onthel evel of everydaythi nki ng
of that gul f betweensoci etal andi ndi vi dual
possi bi l i ti es, the progressi ve wi deni ng
of whi ch i s seen as oneof the basi c
tendenci es of that whol e"pre- hi story"
hedesi gnatedas al i enati on. TouseMarx' s
own
exampl es: as l ongas one
concei ves pri ceor val ueas a mysti cal , "natural "
property
of thi ngs themsel ves, theveryi deaof a
soci ety whereobj ects of uti l i ty
do
not
f uncti on as commodi ti es remai ns i nconcei vabl e
; as l ongas wages are
understood
as remunerati onf or l abour done, onecan
f ormul atethedemandf or
f ai r,
equi tabl e wages but not even i magi nea
soci ety wherehumanproducti ve
acti vi ti es woul d
beposi tedi nsomeother soci al f ormthan
that of wagel abour ;
andso on. The
f eti shi sti c categori es whi ch "i nvert" the
real rel ati ons andmake
them
"i nvi si bl e" arenot onl yexpressi ve
of thi nki ngwhi chunref l exi vel y accepts
the soci al worl d as gi ven: these
absurd "category mi stakes" of spontaneous
everydayunderstandi ngal so
systemati cal l yexcl udethepossi bi l i tyof a total i zi ng
ref l ecti onboth uponthehi stori cal - practi cal
consti tuti on of thi s worl dandthe
soci al determi nati onof thi s way of thi nki ng. And
si ncethesecategori es consti -
tute
that natural l anguageof i magi nati onandthi nki ngwi thi n
thef rameworkof
whi ch
i ndi vi dual s f ormandarti cul atethei r practi cal i ntenti ons,
expectati ons and
moti ves,
theytherebyacqui rea trul y causal ef f i cacy. Fal se
consci ousness i s not a
passi ve ref l ex
of
the
"surf ace rel ati ons" of asoci ety whi ch
i s somehowconsti -
tutedandreproduced
i ndependentl yof thi s consci ousness ; thi s consci ousness
i s a
necessary f actor i n the creati on,
reproducti on anduni ntended, soci al l y uncon-
sci ous transf ormati on of thi s soci ety.
Onequotati onf romtheGrundri sse i l l us-
trates thi s poi nt . Speaki ngabout theearl y
f orms of mercanti l i sm, Marxempha-
si zes that whi l emoneyf eti shi smi s anabsurd
"i l l usi onabout thenatureof money
and
bl i ndness towardthecontradi cti ons contai ned
wi thi ni t", i t hasal so been"an
enormous
i nstrument i nthereal devel opment of the
f orces of soci al producti on",
preci sel y
because"i t gavemoneya real l y magi c si gni f i cance behi nd
thebacks of
i ndi vi dual s"
. 3 Thi s i s whyMarx' s owntheoryof f eti shi smi s aboveal l acri ti que
of
everyday
consci ousness- pri mari l y of theconsci ousness of i ts own
subj ect and
addressee, theworki ng
cl ass. Byunravel l i ngthesoci al determi nati ons
of spon-
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
taneous
soci al awareness, Marxattempts to
f oster a theoreti cal i mpul se towards
the acqui si ti on of real sel f - consci ousness. I n
the l ast i nstance, of course, thi s
sel f - consci ousness
canbeattai nedonl y i npracti ce, si nce
theul ti mateovercomi ng
of
f eti shi sti c thi nki ng i s not a matter of knowl edge,
but of the creati on of
col l ecti ve
practi cal al ternati ves, i n thel i ght of
whi ch the uni ntel l i gi bl e natural -
ness and
mysti cal i mmutabi l i ty of present- day soci al
i nsti tuti ons are di ssol ved.
I f i t i s thi s concepti onof
"f al seconsci ousness" whi ch provi des the f oundati on
of Marx' s answer to thequesti on
concerni nghowthe i deas of the
rul i ngcl ass
"normal l y" rul e the whol eof soci ety, i t i s
neverthel ess evi dent that thetheoryof
f eti shi smdoes not consti tute the
whol e of Marx' s answer . To be sure,
i n
a
negati ve
sensecapi tal i smas a systemof soci al
domi nati on tends to l egi ti mate
i tsel f . But even though a spontaneous,
f eti shi sti c mode of thi nki ng renders
radi cal and rati onal cri ti ci smi mpossi bl e,
i t
i s at
the same ti me too conf used,
f ragmented
and sel f - contradi ctory to i nsul ate i tsel f
f rompracti cal - i ntel l ectual
cri ti ci sm
. Moreover, when the automati c mechani sms of
market producti on do
not
ensuretheundi sturbedreproducti onof the
underl yi ngsoci al rel ati ons, the
f eti shi sti c
categori es al so tendto l ose thei r
pragmati c val i di ty andef f ecti veness.
Duri ng those peri ods of economi c
cri si s, the webof "appearances" tends to
di ssi pate andtherel ati ons of soci al
domi nati onmani f est themsel ves i nrel ati vel y
nakedf orm. Themerereproducti onof
everyday l i f e- practi ces i s not suf f i ci ent to
l egi ti matecapi tal i sm- preci sel ybecause
thi s reproducti onprocess i s i tsel f punc-
tuatedby obj ecti ve tensi ons anddi sturbances.
Thi s
i s thepoi nt wheretheexpl anatory- f uncti onal
concept of i deol ogy enters
i nto
the archi tecture of Marx' s soci al theory
. I nsti tuti onal l y di ssemi nated sys-
tems of rul i ngi deas are seenby Marxto
systemati ze theconf usedandchaoti c
concepti ons of everyday thi nki ng, to l enda
degree of l ogi cal coherence to thei r
f ragmented structure, to expl ai n away (and
thereby apol ogi ze f or) the most
wi del y encountered experi ences that
contradi ct the seemi ng sel f - evi dence of
f eti shi sti c categori es. The Church, the
Church- domi nated school system, and
vari ous pol i ti cal and j uri di cal
i nsti tuti ons are the soci al organi sati ons whi ch
Marxmost f requentl yconnects
wi th the f ul f i l ment of thi s task. Thus, i nhi s l ater
wri ti ngs, Marxsometi mes
appl i es the termi deol ogy to anal yze thef uncti oni ng
of these i nsti tuti ons, whose
personnel are descri bedi nturnas "the i deol ogi cal
strata of therul i ngcl ass". '
Thesei nsti tuti ons areneverthel ess concei vedby
hi m
as
meretransmi tters andpropagators of i deas whi chareel aborated
el sewhere-
i nthesphereof cul tural producti on, of
hi gh cul ture concei vedas ani nternal l y
di f f erenti atedbranchof theoveral l soci al di vi si onof l abour. I ngeneral
i t
i s
these
cul tural - "spi ri tual " obj ecti vati ons bel ongi ngto
the spheres of rel i gi on, phi l os-
ophy, soci al theory, pol i ti cal economy
andart- but not natural sci ence, i t shoul d
benoted- whi ch Marxregul arl y desi gnates by
thecommonnameof i deol ogy.
' These are the f orms, as
Marxstates i n the Pref ace, i n whi ch men become
consci ous
of thei r soci al conf l i cts andf i ght themout.
Despi te the f act that Marxextends the concept of i deol ogy to
al l these
acti vi ti es andthei r soci al f uncti oni ngeneral ,
hi s atti tudetowards thi s wi derange
of cul tural creati ons i s i nf act markedl y
di f f erenti ated. I nthemost el aboratedand
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
best - known case of hi s cr i t i ques of
i deol ogi es,
t hat of t he cr i t i que
of bour geoi s
economy, t hi s di f f er ent i at i on
i s unambi guousl y st at ed and
of ser i ous i mpor t ance
f or Mar x' s own
economi c t heor y. Whi l eMar x
r epeat edl y and emphat i cal l y st at es
t hat
bour geoi s economy as a whol e
i s a f or mof i deol ogy, he at t he same t i me
di r ect l y count er poses t he " sci ent i f i c"
economy of t he cl assi cs ( above al l ,
t he
Physi ocr at s, AdamSmi t h and
Ri car do) t o t he apol oget i c pseudo- sci ence
of
" vul gar " economy. ( Thi s
f act al so cl ear l y i ndi cat es t hat , f or Mar x, bei ng
sci ent i f i c
and bei ng i deol ogi cal
i n a gi ven cont ext ar e not mut ual l y excl usi ve
ent er pr i ses. )
The same t ype of di st i nct i on
can be obser ved i f onecompar es
Mar x' s cr i t i que of
t he. young Hegel i ans
wi t h hi s r epeat ed cr i t i ci sms of Hegel :
not onl y i s t het oneof
t hese cr i t i ci sms
st r i ki ngl y di f f er ent but , mor e
i mpor t ant l y, so al so i s t he whol e
met hod of cr i t i ci sm
i t sel f , and i n ways whi ch def i ni t el y
. par al l el Mar x' s di f f er ent
at t i t udes
t owar d, say, Smi t h and Mal t hus. Eveni n
Mar x' s spar se r emar ks about
ar t - compar e
hi s t r eat ment of EugeneSue and
Bal zac- onecan f i nd a si mi l ar l y
dr awnpr act i cal di st i nct i on.
At t he r i sk of over i nt er pr et at i on,
I woul d suggest t hat Mar x consi st ent l y
di st i ngui shes bet ween what can becal l ed
" i deol ogi es of t he hi st or i cal moment "
and i deol ogi es t hat r epr esent
epochal cul t ur al val ues. 5 Concer ni ng t hef i r st
( e. g. ,
vul gar economy) , t he si t uat i on
i s r at her cl ear . These ar e cul t ur al
" pr oduct s"
whi ch
di r ect l y pr ovi de t he i nt el l ect ual mat er i al
f or t hose ( af or ement i oned)
i nst i t ut i ons
whi ch di ssemi nat e i deas t hat
ser vei mmedi at el y apol oget i c pur poses.
The cl ai m
t o ( sci ent i f i c, phi l osophi cal or ar t i st i c)
t r ut h of t hesei deol ogi es i s a
mer e veneer t hat
conceal s t hei r def ence and ar t i cul at i on
of speci f i c, nar r ow,
par t i cul ar i st i c,
i nt er est s whi ch ar et i ed t o t hei mmedi at e,
pr act i cal r eal i t i es of t he
pr esent . 6
It
i s
i nr el at i ont ot hesei deol ogi es t hat Mar x
adopt s
t he
t ypeof cr i t i ci sm
ear l i er char act er i sed as
" unmaski ng"
:
t he r educt i on of t he cont ent of vi ews
t o a
speci f i c conf i gur at i onof i nt er est s
. If onemer el ygl ances at Mar x' s t r ul y vol umi -
nous cr i t i ci sms of Hegel or Ri car do
f r omt hi s vi ewpoi nt , i t i s i mmedi at el y
st r i ki ng howl i t t l e Mar x
appl i es t o t hemt hi s met hod of " expl anat i on
t hr ough
i nt er est s" . Cer t ai nl y, hechar act er i ses t hem
as t heor et i ci ans of bour geoi s soci et y,
as r epr esent i ng i t s st andpoi nt . Yet Mar x r ef er s
t o t hespeci f i c, concr et e si t uat i on
and i nt er est s of , say, t heGer manbour geoi si e
i nt heear l y ni net eent h cent ur y onl y
i n
cases wher ehe i nt ends t o i ndi cat e and
expl ai nsomei nt er nal i nconsi st ency
of
t he Hegel i an
t heor y of . t hest at e and not t he
t heor et i cal ker nel andsi gni f i canceof
Hegel ' s
phi l osophy.
At t hi s poi nt t wo quest i ons ar i se. Ont he
one hand, how, and on t he basi s of
what
cr i t er i a, does Mar x dr awt hi s di st i nct i on bet ween t wo t ypes of
i deol ogy?
And,
on t he ot her hand, what i s t hesoci al si gni f i canceof t hesecul t ur al
cr eat i ons
her e
descr i bed as " epochal cul t ur al val ues" ? Ina sense, t hese t wo
quest i ons ar e
cl osel y i nt er r el at ed.
Tr ue, t hedi st i nct i onwhi ch Mar xdr aws bet ween, say, vul gar
and cl assi cal economy
i s t o a consi der abl edegr eebased on accept ed and " t r i vi al "
cul t ur al cr i t er i a. In hi s cr i t i que
of Mal t hus or Smi t h, Mar x spends anenor mous
( one i s i ncl i ned
t o say, di spr opor t i onat e) amount of space t o pr ove t hei r l ack of
or i gi nal i t y or even out r i ght
pl agi ar i sm, t he pr esence of ecl ect i c conf usi ons or
l ogi cal cont r adi ct i ons, t he mi ssi ng expl anat or y
power i n r egar d t o el ement ar y
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
observati ons concerni ng regul ari ti es of economi c l i f e,
and
so
on-af act worth
menti oni ngi f onl y because i t suggests that he
treats as sel f -evi dentl yval i dthese
i nheri tedcri teri aof eval uati on speci f i c to,
andacceptedwi thi n, agi vensphereof
cul tural acti vi ti es. But suchconsi derati ons certai nl ydo
not exhaust hi s cri ti ci sms.
For
i t
i s
actual l y the wayMarxcri ti ci zes those
works whi chi n f act meet these
el ementarycri teri athat best demonstrates what
consti tutes f or hi mthei r si gni f i -
cance,
what makes themul ti matel y a "cul tural val ue" .
There i s a
def i ni te methodol ogi cal paral l el i sm( to whi chdel l a Vol pe
has
al readydrawnattenti on)
betweentheMarxi ancri ti ques of Hegel i an
phi l osophy,
ontheonesi de, andthat of
thecl assi cs of Engl i sheconomy, onthe
other . Fi rst, i n
al l thesecases Marxactual l y
departs f romthe cri ti ci smof a methodof
thi nki ng.
Thi s i s rather sel f -evi dentl y so
i n the case of Hegel , but oneshoul dremember
that hi s whol eanal ysi s of
Smi th' s systemi s al soembeddedi n anunravel l i ngof
thecontradi cti ons betweenhi s
dual ,
esoteri c
andesoteri cmodesof expl anati on,
whi l ethe di scussi onof the Ri cardi aneconomydeparts
f roma di ssecti onof the
anal yti c methodof the l atter. '
Andi n al l these cases he actual l y attempts to
demonstrate howadef i ni tewayof
thi nki ngresul ts i ntheexcl usi onof a def i ni te
probl emati cs, i n the f ai l ure even to state
questi ons of a def i ni te type. SoMarx
argues that the seemi ngl y
i nnocent, commonsense empi ri ci smof Ri cardo
prevents hi mf romrai si ngtheoreti cal
questi ons
about
the soci o-hi stori cal gene-
si s of the val ue-f ormi tsel f ; Ri cardo i s l ogi cal l y
f orcedto accept ( as sel f -evi dent)
the val ue- andcommodi ty-character of obj ects
of uti l i ty, as i f they were the
i nevi tabl e,
"natural " characteri sti cs of anyeconomybasedona devel oped
system
of di vi si onof l abour
. 8 Si mi l arl y, the i deal i st hypostati zati onof sel f -consci ousness
i n Hegel i s treatedby Marxas necessari l y l eadi ngto an
i denti f i cati onof al i ena-
ti on
wi ththe materi al l y obj ecti vecharacter of humanacti vi ti es and,
i n
the
f i nal
anal ysi s, wi thhumanf i ni tudeas such-andthereby i nevi tabl yexcl udi ng
thevery
abi l i ty to i magi ne i ts practi cal overcomi ng.
What makes theworkof Ri cardoor Hegel epochal l y
si gni f i cant, what makes
these thi nkers theoreti cal representati ves of a
type of soci ety, andnot merel y
i deol ogues of adef i ni te soci al group
i n agi vencountryat agi venmoment, canbe
summedup i n the f ol l owi ng three
poi nts
:
1 . Thei r unthemati sed,
taken-f or-grantedasserti ons andpremi ses appear not as
arbi trary
assumpti ons, but as necessi ti es of thi nki ng, as outcomes of a
method,
of a
def i ni te type of "l ogi cal constrai nt" .
2. At the sameti me, the"unconsci ous" presupposi ti ons of thei r systems actual l y
express, f i xi nthought, somef undamental characteri sti cs of capi tal i st
soci ety;
these presupposi ti ons are rel ated not to some
momentary constel l ati on of
parti cul ar i nterests wi thi nthi s soci ety, but to i ts essenti al
l i f e-condi ti ons. It i s
thesel atter whi chtheyel evate-through
thei r methodi cal l y unf ol dedl ogi c-
i ntouni versal l ybi ndi ng
norms or, al ternati vel y, i ntountranscendabl enatural
necessi ty
.
3.
Thesethi nkers not onl y consi stentl y ( "cyni cal l y") f ol l owthroughthei r own
consequences, but al so attempt to sol vei ntel l ectual l y-f rom
thei r f i xedpoi nt
of departure-a whol e range of probl ems and contradi cti ons
whi ch
are
mani festedi ntheeveryday l i feof thi s soci ety. The"creati vi ty" of suchworks
of cul ture i s not
to
be found merel y i n thei r i ndi vi dual
ori gi nal i ty, but
pri mari l y i n thei r strenuous effort
to overcome
i n
thi nki ng thoseconfl i cts of
real l i fe whi ch chal l enge
andpotenti al l y undermi ne
the
uni versal val i di ty of
thei r
si l entl y adopted pri nci pl es. I n thi s sense they do not si mpl y parade
i nterests asuni versal ones; rather, they attempt touni versal i sethosei nterests
whi ch domi natethegi ven formof soci al l i fe. I nsofar as they succeed i n thi s
attempt, they makeexpl i ci t and mani fest the defi ni te l i mi ts of a thi nki ng
whi ch takes for granted and posi ts as unal terabl e the basi c condi ti ons of
exi stence of a gi ven, type
of soci ety. These
works of
cul ture are
not onl y
i ntel l ectual , but al sohi stori cal - paradi gmati c cl osures of thought . Theymust
thereforebeunravel l edor cri ti cal l yovercomei f thi nki ngabout another future
i s to befreed, i f thi s future
canbe
cl ai mednot
onl y
as
a desi rabl eutopi a, but
al so
as
rati onal possi bi l i ty.
I n these
senses,
the
Marxi anconcepti onof i deol ogy i s not merel y aformof
soci al expl anati on
;
i t al so represents a defi ni te typeof hermeneuti cs, a "herme-
neuti cs
wi th emanci patory i ntent" ( to borrowan expressi on suggested by S.
Beti habi b) . Theessenceof thi s emanci patory hermeneuti cs cannot bereducedto
the search for some"soci ol ogi cal equi val ent" to thepoi nt of vi ewpresentedi n
any text. The cri ti que
of i deol ogy as hermeneuti cs of course i nsi sts on the
i nsuffi ci ency
of a merel y "i mmanent readi ng" of the text, for i t demands a
comprehensi onand
i nterpretati on of thetransmi ttedcul tural tradi ti on
whi ch
si tuates thi s text i n i ts ownsoci al - hi stori cal context . But i t
doesso
wi th theai mof
di scoveri ng
i n
the"cl assi cal " texts themsel ves those"unconsci ous presupposi -
ti ons", thoseunrefl ected"prej udi ces" whi chboth structure andset al i mi t to the
possi bi l i ty of rati onal di scourse wi thi nthem. Marxoffers a hermeneuti cs whi ch
posi ts theconstrai nt
of concepts as aconsequence of theconstrai nt of
ci rcum-
stances,
a
hermeneuti cs whi ch
i s gui ded by
thei ntenti on
of
contri buti ng
to
the
removal of thesecondthrough theremoval of thefi rst . Accordi ng tohi m, onl y
thi s typeof readi ng can, i noneandthesame
act,
capturetheori gi nal meani ng
and the real hi stori cal si gni fi cance of a text, and thereby real i ze the cl assi cal
hermeneuti cal postul ate of Enl i ghtenment : to understandaworkbetter thani ts
ownauthor di d.
I have tentati vel y i ndi cated two types of contexts i n whi ch theconcept
of
i deol ogyoccurs i nMarxand, correspondi ngtothem,
thetwomeani ngs thi s term
acqui res i nhi s wri ti ngs. But therei s al so athi rdone
whi ch- i ncontrast to the
pol emi cal - unmaski ng andexpl anatory- functi onal uses of
thi s concept- I wi l l
desi gnate as thecri ti cal - phi l osophi cal sense of
i deol ogy. Whendi scussi ng the
overal l resul ts and consequences of the
di vorce between manual and mental
l abour underl yi ng thewhol ecourse of hi stori cal
ci vi l i sati ons, Marx someti mes
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
empl oys or
i mpl i es
a concept of i deol ogywhi chseems to ref er not to speci f i abl e
works (whi chare
ei ther unmaskedandcri ti ci zedor i nterpretedthroughhi stori -
cal expl anati on) but, rather, to a def i ni tetypeof cul turei n general , and to a
def i ni tewayof understandi ngcul tural obj ecti vati ons whi chi s, accordi ng to hi m,
bothdecepti ve andat thesameti me"adequate" to thi s typeof cul ture. "[T]he
autonomi sati onof thoughts andi deas i s onl ya consequenceof theautonomi sa-
ti on of personal rel ati ons and contacts between i ndi vi dual s. . . . [N]ei ther
thoughts, nor l anguageconsti tutea real mof thei r own; theyaremerel yexpres-
si ons
of
real
l i f e. - 9
Thecri ti cal
edgeof
thi s i mpl i ed
concepti on of i deol ogy
i s
di rected
pri mari l y
agai nst any comprehensi onof cul tural creati ons whi chper-
cei ves themas representati ons whi ch"correspond" toreal i ty (or embodi ments
of equal l y transcendent val ues), whi chthereby acqui re an al l egedl y ti mel ess
val i di ty.
Tothi s concepti onMarxcounterposes a vi ewof cul tural obj ecti vati ons,
whi chareanal ysedasexpressi onsof theacti ve- practi cal l i f e- si tuati onof def i ni te
(actual or potenti al ) soci al agents whomayacqui re throughthese l i f e- f orms a
consci ousnessof thei r hi stori cal l y si tuatedneeds andpotenti al i ti es. I nthi ssense
cul ture
never
consti tutes anautonomous real mof val uesover practi cal andsoci al
l i f e
.
I nthef i nal anal ysi s,
i t i s an arti cul ati on of theconf l i cts of thi s soci al l i f e,
whose ul ti mate f uncti on
consi sts
i n maki ng
the sol uti on of these conf l i cts
possi bl e
.
Theapparent autonomyof hi ghcul turef i omsoci al l i f e i s, i n one sense; the
i deol ogi cal
i l l usi on, the i l l usi on
of
a cul turewhi chi n i ts total i ty f uncti ons as
i deol ogy. For the ul ti mate and hi dden preconcepti ons,
and the f undamental
probl em- content of
anywork
of
cul ture, al ways remai ndetermi nedandci rcum-
scri bed by
thosepracti cal possi bi l i ti es andatti tudes that areopento thetypi cal
soci al actors- i ts potenti al addressees- under
the gi ven condi ti ons of thei r
exi stence. SowhenMarxi s engagedi ntheage- ol dpracti ceof al l phi l osophers-
expl i cati ng the "true meani ng"
of
the phi l osophi cal tradi ti on i n hi s own
l anguage- he
i nvari abl yi nsi sts
upona
transl ati onof eventhemost abstract and
ti mel ess probl ems and categori es i nto thepracti co- hi stori cal. I n hi s vi ew, the
specul ati ve questi on concerni ng the rel ati onshi p between
matter and
spi ri t
ul ti matel yref erstothepracti cal probl emconcerni ngtherel ati on of physi cal and
mental l abour ; thephi l osophi cal phrases about "substance" shoul dbedeci phered
as
attempts andproposal s to cl ari f y thepossi bl erel ati onshi pbetween human
acti vi ti es andthat systemof i nheri tedobj ecti vati onswhi chf or everygenerati on
consti tutes theready- f oundpri us of i ts l i f e.
Thei deol ogi cal i l l usi on that
hi gh
cul ture
i s
autonomous i s
i nanother sense
stark
real i ty: the real i ty
of a soci ety
i n whi chhi ghcul turehas becomea sphere
di vorced
f romthel i f e
of the
maj ori ty, wherebothi ts creati onandenj oyment i s
thepri vi l egeof a
f ew.
Cul tural el i ti smi s
not merel y
a
probl em
of
educati onand
the di ssemi nati on of l earni ng: i ts overcomi ng demands a di smantl i ng of i ts
i deol ogi cal transposi ti on, whi chi nturnrequi res a newcul turewhi chdi rectl yand
openl y addresses i tsel f to the probl emof real - hi stori cal l i f e, a cul ture
whi ch
adj udi cates mundaneconf l i cts not f romthe vantage- poi nt of
an eternal truth
bestowed by an i mparti al j udge, but f rom
the poi nt of vi ew
of
a commi tted
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
par t i ci pant
. Ther eal i sat i on of
phi l osophy i s possi bl e onl y t hr oughi t s
over com-
i ng
as phi l osophy. Andi t i s
char act er i st i c t hat Mar x- al ways at gr eat
pai ns t o
avoi d
desi gnat i ng t he nat ur al
sci ences as "i deol ogy"- seems at
somepoi nt s t o
i mpl i cat e t hem, i nsof ar
as t hei r cul t ur al f or mi s
concer ned, i n t hesamet ype of
cr i t i ci sm. "Sci ence
[ he wr i t es concer ni ng t he
devel opment of t he machi nepr o-
duct i on t hat compel s
t he i nani mat e l i mbs
of machi ner y, by i t s ver y const r uct i on,
t o act
as a pur posef ul aut omat on]
does not exi st i n t he consci ousness of t he
wor ker , but act s upon hi mt hr ough
t he machi neas an al i en power ,
as
t hepower
of t he machi ne
i t sel f . . . .
The
accumul at i on of knowl edge and
ski l l s, of t he
gener al pr oduct i ve
f or ces of t he soci al br ai n, i s t hus absor bed
i nt o capi t al , as
opposedt o l abour , and
t her ef or e appear s as an at t r i but e
of capi t al .
. . . "t o
I n t hi s br oadest ,
cr i t i co- phi l osophi cal sense,
i deol ogy i s t he cul t ur e of an
al i enat ed
soci et y wher egoal - r eal i sat i on andgoal - posi t i ng- t he
cr i t i ci smof pr e-
vi ousl y
t r ansmi t t edmeani ngs, t heper f or mance
of soci al l y codi f i ed, meani ngf ul
t asks, andt hecr eat i on of new
soci al meani ngs- becomer adi cal l y di vor cedf r om
eachot her .
Humans t her ef or e
do
not
have- ei t her i ndi vi dual l y or col l ect i vel y-
cont r ol
over t hegener al r esul t s
of t hei r own act i vi t i es andt heensui ng
di r ect i on
of t hei r own devel opment .
I deol ogy i s an al i enat ed f or m
of soci al sel f -
consci ousness, si nce i t br i ngs
hi st or i cal conf l i ct s t o awar eness onl y
by t r anspos-
i ng t hem
i nt o what appear s t o bea
spher eof mer ei magi nat i on andt hought .
Soci al
t asks andpossi bi l i t i es whi ch
can besol vedandr eal i sedonl y i n pr act i cal
col l ect i ve
act i vi t y t her ef or eassumet he
f or mof et er nal quest i ons t o whi chsome
r el i gi ous,
phi l osophi cal or ar t i st i c answer
i s sought . Cr i t i queof i deol ogy i n t hi s
sensei s a cr i t i que
of cul t ur al obj ect i vat i ons whi ch
conf r ont s t hemwi t ht hei r r eal
l i f e- basi s, agai nst
whi cht hey asser t t hei r aut onomy
andwhi cht her ef or er emai ns
f or
t hemhi dden andunr ef l ect ed,
an ext er nal l y i mposed bar r i er t o i magi nat i on
andt hought . Conver sel y, t hi s
cr i t i queof i deol ogy al so- andper haps pr i mar i l y-
assumes
t he f or mof a cr i t i que
of t hi s l i f e- basi s by conf r ont i ng i t wi t h i t s
par adi gmat i c cul t ur al obj ect i vat i ons
. Cr i t i que of i deol ogy i s a cr i t i que
of a f or mof
soci al exi st ence i n whi cht he awar eness
of soci al needs andpossi bi l i t i es can
be
achi eved
onl y i n a spher edi vor cedf r om, and
cont r ast edt o, l i f e, a spher et hat has
t o r emai n a mer e "cul t ur e", a val ue and
i deal whi ch i s bot h unat t ai nabl e and
i r r el evant f or t he over whel mi ng
maj or i t y.
I V
Thi s ver y cur sor y
over vi ewper haps
succeeds i n i ndi cat i ng t hat t he
t hr ee
meani ngs of i deol ogy
whi chseemt o beequal l y
pr esent i n Mar x' s oeuvr ear e not
compl et el y i ndependent
andi sol at ed f r omeach
ot her , but ar e at l east vaguel y
uni f i ed
bot h i n t hei r pr act i cal
i nt ent andi n t he t heor et i cal
f r amewor k t hey al l
ul t i mat el y pr esuppose. However ,
no
di scussi on of
Mar x' s vi ews on i deol ogy i s
adequat e, even i n a mi ni mal
sense, i f i t f ai l s
t o
ment i on
at l east t hose "gaps" i n
hi s
concept i ons t o whi ch i n
some measur e and
on someoccasi ons he hi msel f
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
drawsattenti on
.
Two
probl emati c gaps seemto beof
paramount i mportance
i n
thi s respect.
I nafootnoteto
Capi tal , Marxmakesthefol l owi ng
remark: "I nfact i t i s much
easi er to di scover
through anal ysi s the earthl y kernel
of the mi sty creati ons of
rel i gi on than, i n theopposi te
way, todevel opfrom
the actual rel ati ons of l i fe i n
questi on the formi n
whi ch they havebeen apotheosi zed
.
Thi s
l atter methodi s
theonl y materi al i sti c, andtherefore
sci enti fi c one. "" Thi s passage
agai n makes
abundantl y
cl ear that Marx' s own i deaof
a cri ti que of i deol ogi es i s
i n no way
i denti cal
wi th a reducti oni st, soci ol ogi cal
expl anati on of the content of
certai n
cul tural creati ons
. But thi s remarkal so bri ngs
sharpl y i ntorel i ef a
requi rement
whoseful fi l ment
i n Marx' s own theoreti cal
practi ce seemstobe rather
probl e-
mati c: the need
for an hi stori cal expl anati on
of cul tural forms themsel ves, of
genresl i ke
rel i gi on, art, phi l osophy, sci ence and
thei r vari oussubdi vi si ons. That
the
i nternal di vi si on of cul ture
i nto vari ous types
of practi ces
i s a changi ng
hi stori cal phenomenon
whi ch
at
the same ti me, and
i n
each
hi stori cal moment,
presents a number of
normati vel y fi xed possi bi l i ti es
andcri teri a for creati ve
acti vi ti es, i s
undoubtedl y amaj or probl emwhi ch
atheory of i deol ogy ( especi al l y
i n i ts broadest,
cri ti co- phi l osophi cal sense)
cannot by- pass. Onecan enumerate
a
number of
Marxi anobservati ons that may be
rel atedto the questi on so posed
.
These
observati ons i ncl ude- hi s di scussi on of the
ori gi n andgeneral character of
specul ati ve
phi l osophy i n The German
I deol ogy; hi s note i ntheGrundri sse( one
that hardl y
goes beyondHegel , admi ttedl y)
about the ani mosi ty of bourgeoi s
soci ety toward
defi ni te forms of art such as epi c poetry
; hi s hi ghl y i nteresti ng,
though di spersed
andunsystemati c, remarks i n hi s
vari ous economi c manu-
scri pts about
the soci al precondi ti ons of the emergence of
pol i ti cal economy as
sci ence; and so on
. However, al l these observati ons
have not onl y a hi ghl y
schemati c, but al so
a rather acci dental character
. They certai nl y do not i ndi cate
howtheprobl em, so
energeti cal l y statedby Marx,
canandshoul dbe approached
i n general
terms. Thi s absenceof an answer to
theprobl emof cul tural genres
i s
al l the
more si gni fi cant, because i n hi s
own cri ti cal practi ce- as I i ndi cated
above- Marxdoesseemtoaccept as
sel f- evi dentl y val i dthosecri teri aof
eval ua-
ti onwhi ch ( i n the ni neteenthcentury) were
i nherent andti edto the
predomi n-
ant cul tural forms. I n asense i t
woul d
be
true to say that- especi al l y
i n hi s l ater
wri ti ngs- Marxseemsto take
i nheri tedcul tural genresfor granted,
andthat thi s
makes hi s "phi l osophi cal "
concept of i deol ogy as the cul ture of
an al i enated
soci ety rather ( andat
l east) i ndetermi nate. I t wasonl y amuch
l ater generati onof
Marxi sts- onewhi ch i ncl udedLukacs
andGol dmann, Benj ami n
andAdorno-
whodi rectl y facedthe probl emof
cul tural genres, though
predomi nantl y wi th
reference to the arts al one.
Thesecondprobl emi s
not compl etel y unrel atedto the fi rst,
andcan agai n be
i ntroducedwi th a
quotati on fromMarx. At the endof hi s somewhat
eni gmati c
and
abruptl y termi nati ngmethodol ogi cal di scussi oni n
theGrundri sse, hestates
the fol l owi ng: "The di ffi cul ty l i es not i n
the understandi ngthat Greekart and
epi care boundupwi th
certai nformsof soci al devel opment . Thedi ffi cul ty i s that
they sti l l affordus arti sti c
pl easure andi n acertai n respect they count as
a norm
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
and as an unat t ai nabl e model
. " ' z
It i s agai n cl ear t hat t hi s " di f f i cul t y"
i s much
br oader and
mor e pr of ound t han t he gi ven exampl e
.
For t he
" f unct i onal "
concept of i deol ogy i n
Mar x s omet i mes r es t s upon an
account of t he par adi g-
mat i c char act er
or epochal s i gni f i canceof cul t ur al
cr eat i ons . Thes e par adi gmat i c
cr eat i ons ar e s een t o ar t i cul at e t he l i mi t s
of i magi nat i on and t hought whi ch ar e
bound up not wi t h moment ar y,
pas s i ng gr oup i nt er es t s , but wi t h t he es s ent i al ,
s t r uct ur al char act er i s t i cs
of a whol e s t age of s oci al devel opment . But t hi s concep-
t i onadvanced
by Mar xhas i t s l i mi t s - i t r emai ns s t r i ct l y
hi s t or i cal . As i t s t ands , i t
does not account
di r ect l y f or t he f act t hat , at l eas t i n
s ome cul t ur al genr es l i ke t he
ar t s or
phi l os ophy, s ome of t he cul t ur al her i t age
of pas t epochs ( t he s oci al
condi t i ons of whi ch we may even have di f f i cul t y
r econs t r uct i ng) pr es er ves i t s
s i gni f i cance f or t he pr es ent cul t ur al pr act i ces
of cr eat i on and r ecept i on al i ke.
Thi s pr obl em- t hat cul t ur e may exer t a l i vi ng
r el evance f ar beyond i t s or i gi nal
epoch- cer t ai nl y cannot
be s ol ved by mer el y r ef er r i ng t o t he nowel ement ar y
obs er vat i ont hat t he l i s t
of " cl as s i cal " wor ks i t s el f under goes deepchanges i n t he
hi s t or y of cul t ur al
t r ans mi s s i on and r ecept i on: t hi s f act cer t ai nl y
i ndi cat es t hat a
t heor y of cul t ur al
t r adi t i on ought t o be an hi s t or i cal one, but i t
does
not
r ender
s uch a t heor y
s uper f l uous .

_
Mar x' s own s hor t ans wer t o t hi s " di f f i cul t y" s eems
t o be cont r adi ct ed by t hi s
nowel ement ar y obs er vat i on.
However , t hi s i s not t he onl y andt he mos t di s con-
cer t i ng f eat ur e of hi s r epl y . In gener al ,
he ans wer s t he ques t i on about t he
per s i s t i ng ar t i s t i c s i gni f i cance
of s ome anci ent Gr eek wor ks by r ef er r i ng t o t he
s peci f i c pl ace Gr eek ant i qui t y
occupi es
i n
t he hi s t or y of human devel opment as
s uch. Thi s ant i qui t y i s s een t or epr es ent t he
" nor mal chi l dhood" of humanki nd,
" i t s mos t beaut i f ul unf ol di ng" ; i t s
mani f es t at i ons - as chi l dhood memor i es i n
gener al - t her ef or e
exer ci s e upon us an " et er nal char m" . Leavi ng as i de Mar x' s
( i ndubi t abl e)
Eur opocent r i s m, t hi s r epl y, i f t aken l i t er al l y, i s s ugges t i ve of
a mos t
di s t ur bi ng appl i cat i on
of t he bi ol ogi c i mager y of " mat ur at i on and gr owt h"
t o
hi s t or y. Cl ear l y, t hi s
woul d l end an openl y t el eol ogi cal char act er
t o
t he whol e
Mar xi an concept i on of
s oci al pr ogr es s . Per haps one s houl d i nt er pr et t hi s s t at e-
ment much mor e l i ber al l y,
above
al l
by connect i ng i t wi t h an Hegel i an, her me-
neut i cal concept of memor y
as " Er - i nner ung" . Thi s was act ual l y Lukacs ' pr oj ect :
Hei nhi s l at e Aes t het i cs , devel oped
a concept i onof ar t as t he col l ect i ve memor y
of humanki ndby dr awi ngupon t hi s f or mul at i on
of Mar x. But evengr ant i ng t hi s
mos t l i ber al and i magi nat i ve i nt er pr et at i on, t he di f f i cul t y i ndi cat ed
by Mar x
s eems t o be much br oader and mor e gener al t han any
ans wer al ong t he l i nes
pr opos ed by hi mi s abl e t o s ol ve. Mar x does not account at al l f or
t he di f f er ent
r ol e t r adi t i on
pl ays ( and t he di f f er ent f or mi t t akes ) wi t hi n di f f er ent
cul t ur al
genr es
;
t hat
i s , he i gnor es t he s peci f i c f or mof hi s t or i ci t y i mmanent wi t hi n,
and
char act er i s t i c of , di s t i nct
cul t ur al f or ms . Si nce t he f unct i onof i nher i t edt r adi t i on
i s an i mpor t ant as pect and component of t he
of t en- di s cus s ed pr obl emof t he
" r el at i ve i ndependence" of i deol ogy, t he
ques t i on es s ent i al l y l ef t open by Mar x
becomes of par amount t heor et i cal
s i gni f i cance.
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
V
I t i s cert ai nl y
j ust i f i ed t o i ndi cat eat t hi s poi nt t hat
Marxnever i nt ended nor
cl ai med t o creat ea
syst emat i c t heoryof i deol ogy. The
het erogeneous andmost l y
cri t i cal uses he madeof
t hi s concept canbe seen i nret rospect
t o haveencl osed a
def i ni t e f i el d of
i nvest i gat i on and t o have
suggest ed/ out l i ned an essent i al l y
uni f i ed t heoret i cal approach
t o t hi s f i el d. No doubt , t o speak about
"gaps i n
Marx' s t heoryof i deol ogy"
i mpl i es a cri t i cal j udgment accordi ngt o a
cri t eri on-
comprehensi veness-whi ch i s
i nt hi s casecert ai nl y i nappropri at e. I t i s,
however,
j ust i f i ed
t o ask whet her t he f ai l ure of
t hi s t heoret i cal approach t o account
adequat el y
f or
some
of t he most comprehensi ve
and st ri ki ng charact eri st i cs of
t he domai n
i t
encl oses
i ndi cat es more t han a mere
l ack of (perhaps never
i nt ended)
comprehensi veness . Are not t he "gaps" I
have ment i oned moret han
merel acunae? Are t hey
not expressi ons of i nt ernal st rai ns wi t hi nt he
concept i on
i t sel f ?
Ashort essay
cert ai nl y cannot answer t hi s quest i on
. But si nce no one, whose
i nt erest
i n Marxi s not sol el y ant i quari an, can
si mpl y negl ect i t , I woul d i n
concl usi on
l i ke
t o
suggest some consi derat i ons t hat
may be rel evant t o such an
answer
. Wi t hout f urt her expl anat i on, I wi l l t ake
uponeprobl em, i n respect of
whi ch
t he i nt ernal consi st ency of t he Marxi an
concept i on
of
i deol ogy' has been
very of t en
queri ed, and
t o
whi cht he earl i er exposi t i on has
al so ref erred. Thi s i s
t he quest i on of t he rel at i onshi p
bet ween i deol ogy and t he nat ural sci ences
.
As has al ready been i ndi cat ed,
Marxhadri gorousl y avoi ded
appl yi ngt het erm
"i deol ogy" t o t he cont ent of
t he t heori es of nat ural sci ence, even
t hough hi s
cri t i ci smcl earl y
i mpl i cat ed bot h t he cul t ural -i nst i t ut i onal
f ormof t hei r devel -
opment
andt hecharact er of t hesoci al appl i cat i onof t hei r
resul t s i ncont empor-
ary capi t al i st
soci et y. I n f act , t hough he was compl et el y aware
of t he hi st ori cal
connect i on
bet ween t he emergence of t he nat ural
sci ences and t he capi t al i st
mode of product i on, 13 he consi st ent l y chose t o
charact eri se nat ural sci ent i f i c
knowl edge i n expl i ci t l y uni versal i st i c-rat her
t han hi st ori co-soci al l y speci f i c-
t erms . Hedescri bed i t , f or exampl e, as "t he
general cul t ural " [ gei st i ge] product
of soci al devel opment "; as "t heproduct of
t hegeneral hi st ori cal devel opment i n
i t s abst ract qui nt essence" ; as (i n
cont radi st i nct i on t o co-operat i ve l abour) "uni -
versal l abour"; as "t hegeneral product i ve
f orceof soci al brai n" ; andas "t hemost
sol i d f ormof weal t h, . . . bot h
i deal andat t hesamet i mepract i cal
weal t h". 14 Now
i t cert ai nl y canbe
arguedt hat t heuseof suchuni versal i st i c
met aphors i ndi cat es a
seri ous
i nconsi st ency wi t hi n a t heory whi ch, i nsi st i ng t hat
consci ousness never
can be
anyt hi ng el se but t he consci ousness of an
exi st i ng hi st ori cal pract i ce,
underl i nes t he soci al det ermi nat i on and hi st ori cal
embeddedness and l i mi t at i on
of every syst emof i deas . Accordi ng t o
t hi s argument , t he t reat ment of . nat ural
sci ences as "non-i deol ogi cal "
must
be
regarded as one of t he si gns of
mere
evasi veness,
as a speci f i c i nst ance of a f l i ght f romt he unt enabl e or
undesi rabl e
rel at i vi st i c consequences of a t horoughgoi ng hi st ori ci sm
whi ch renders t he
whol e concept i on of i deol ogy i n Marxbeset by
i nt ernal cont radi ct i ons .
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
As i t
st ands, t hi s cr i t i ci smseems t o
me i nval i d, f or i t f al sel y const r uct s t he
pr obl emt o whi ch t heMar xi an t heor y
of i deol ogy addr esses i t sel f . Thi s
pr obl em
i s not t hat of t he hi st or i ci t y
of al l t hi nki ng i n gener al . Rat her , t he
Mar xi an t heor y
i s concer ned wi t h
t hose speci f i c soci al - hi st or i cal
condi t i ons whi ch make i t
i mpossi bl e f or
t hi nki ng t o r ecogni se sel f - r ef l ect i vel y i t s
own hi st or i cal const i t u-
t i on and
whi ch t her eby l ock t hi s t hi nki ng i nt o a
syst emof cat egor i es or i mages
t hat bot h j ust i f i es and at t empt s
t o per pet uat ei t s ver y hi st or i cal l i mi t at i ons. Mar x
t akes i t f or gr ant ed t hat t her e
i s no
t hi nki ng
"wi t hout pr econdi t i ons", t hat al l
syst ems of i deas- nat ur al sci ent i f i c
as wel l as "i deol ogi cal "- ar e hi st or i cal l y
si t uat ed and t her ef or eal so l i mi t ed
. I t i s equal l y evi dent t ohi mt hat t he
mer e
f or m
of sci ent i f i ci t y, under st ood
as
t he
sat i sf act i on of a set of pur el y epi st emol ogi cal
or
met hodol ogi cal cr i t er i a, i s never
abl e t o ensur e by i t sel f t he excl usi on of t he
possi bl i t y of an "i deol ogi cal
cl osur e" . Hedi st i ngui shes t heor i es
of
nat ur al
sci -
ences f r omf or ms
of i deol ogy not because he ascr i bes
an
ahi st or i c
val i di t y t o t he
f or mer ,
but because hewant s t o di st i ngui sh t wo
di f f er ent - and by vi r t ueof t hei r
di f f er ent soci al const i t ut i on and
f unct i ons- opposed pr ocesses of hi st or i cal
change i n t he br oad f i el d
of cul t ur e. On t he one hand, nat ur al sci ences
ar e
hi st or i cal , i n t he sense t hat
t hey exi st as an uni nt er r upt ed pr ocess
of
cr i t i cal
i nqui r y i n whi ch ear l i er
t heor i es become const ant l y r epl aced by mor e abst r act -
gener al and mot eexact ones on t hebasi s
of an ever - expandi ngexper i ment at i on
and
obser vat i on t hat i s bot h const ant l y
spur r ed on and at t he same t i me con-
t r ol l ed
by t heexper i ences and r equi r ement s
of pr oduct i vemat er i al pr act i ce. I t i s
t hi s or gani c
l i nk of t he nat ur al sci ences wi t h t he
ever yday pr act i cal r esul t s and
exper i ences
of t he pr ocess of pr oduct i on t hat
ul t i mat el y ensur es t hat t hei r
hi st or i cal
change t akes t he f or mof an i nt el l ect ual
pr ogr ess, vi z. , t he accumul a-
t i on and gr owt h of knowl edge
. The concept of i deol ogy, on t he ot her hand,
expl ai ns why such
pr ogr ess cannot be obser ved i n ot her f i el ds of cul t ur al
cr eat i vi t y . The concept
of i deol ogy i ndi cat es t hat , i n ant agoni st i c
soci et i es,
i ndi vi dual s can r each t he l evel
of soci al sel f - consci ousness ( as di st i nct f r omt he
soci al consci ousness of t hei r r el at i on
t o nat ur e) onl y by maki ng del i ber at e choi ces
bet ween cul t ur al obj ect i vat i ons and wor l d- vi ews
whose st r uggl e and di sput e
cannot be r esol ved by pur el y i nt el l ect ual means, and
whosehi st or i cal al t er at i on
t her ef or e
cannot beconcei ved accor di ng
t o
a model
of accumul at i on and gr owt h.
Mar x' s
di st i nct i on bet ween nat ur al sci ence and
i deol ogy i s t her ef or e not onl y
i nt er nal l y coher ent ,
but al so i n compl et e accor dance wi t h some of t he
most
f undament al and
per vasi ve concept ual di st i nct i ons t hat bel ong
t o
t he
basi c
f r amewor k
of
hi s
t heor y of hi st or y : t hedi st i nct i on bet ween mat er i al cont ent and
soci al f or m; bet ween t he
pr oduct i vef or ces and t he r el at i ons of pr oduct i on; and,
i ngener al , bet ween t hepr act i cal
r el at i ons of humans t o nat ur eand t her el at i ons
of soci al i nt er cour se bet ween humans,
a di st i nct i on whi ch he at t hesame t i me
i dent i f i es
wi t h t he axes of cont i nui t y and di scont i nui t y
i n hi st or y. The cont r ast
bet ween t he
nat ur al sci ences and i deol ogi es can t hus be seen
as
t he
consi st ent
appl i cat i on
of t hese pr i nci pal di chot omi es t o t he f i el d
of
cul t ur al
pr oduct i on
pr oper .
So t he pr obl emi ndi cat ed
by cer t ai n cr i t i cs har dl y pr oves Mar x gui l t y of any
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
di rect i nconsi st ency. Nevert hel ess, a si mpl e out l i ne of hi s ( l argel y i mpl i ci t )
"sol ut i on" t ot hi s probl emrai ses a number of rat her di squi et i ngquest i ons. Fi rst ,
suchan out l i nemakes cl ear t hat at l east someof t hepart i cul ar presupposi t i ons of
t he Marxi an concept of i deol ogy are rat her i mmedi at el y t i ed t o a ni net eent h
cent ury vi ewof sci ent i f i c progress whi chi s nowadays di f f i cul t t o def end. One
must
not necessari l y accept t he vi ewpoi nt s of Feyerabend or even Kuhn t o
apprehend t hat t heconcept i onof sci ent i f i c devel opment as auni l i near, cumul a-
t i ve
growt h nei t her
f i t s
t he hi st ori cal f act s
;
nor i s def ensi bl e i n vi ewof t he
compl exi nt errel at i onshi p bet ween observat i on
and t heory i n t he nat ural sci -
ences. Froma cont emporary perspect i ve,
Marx
seems
i n part i cul ar t o have
mi ssed t he poi nt t hat
t he nat ural sci ences' expl i ci t l y empi ri cal basi s does not
render t hei r hi st ori cal si t uat edness
t ransparent , pri mari l y because t he f unda-
ment al underl yi ng paradi gms i n t erms of
whi ch t hei r empi ri cal dat a are con-
st ruct ed can be cl earl y recogni zed as such onl y af t er some
al t ernat i ve and
compet i ng ways of i nt erpret at i on havebeenof f ered. Secondl y, a reconsi derat i on
of t he Marxi an concept i on of i deol ogy i ndi cat es t he ext ent t o whi ch i t i s
embedded i n a t heory of hi st ori cal progress whi ch sust ai ns i t sel f upon
a key
di chot omy bet ween t he cont i nuous growt h i n humanmast ery over
nat ure and
t he di scont i nuous t ransf ormat i ons i n t he rel at i ons of broadl y
concei ved soci al
i nt ercourse-a t heory of progress whi ch t oday can be addressed wi t h
many
quest i ons.
But t heprobl emunder di scussi on here not onl y i ndi cat es di f f i cul t i es concern-
i ng t he rel at i onshi pbet ween t hepart i cul ar det ai l s andt hemost abst ract -general
presupposi t i ons of t he Marxi an vi ew. I t al so makes comprehensi bl e Marx' s
rat her st range combi nat i onof aradi cal phi l osophi cal cri t i ci smof t het ot al
cul t ure
of bourgeoi s soci et y as al i enat ed-i deol ogi cal wi t ht heunquest i oned accept anceof
t he val i di t y of i nheri t ed cul t ural cri t eri a, above al l t hose of t he sci ences. Therei s
no doubt t hat , at l east i n hi s l at e oeuvre, Marxconcei ved hi s
own t heory i n
conf ormi t y
wi t h
t hecul t ural model of t he
nat ural
sci ences
emanci pat edf romt he
domi nat i onof capi t al . Di rect l y connect edwi t ht he everyday l i f e-experi ences of
i t s soci al addressees, t heory makes t hese. experi ences comprehensi bl e i n t hei r
hi st ori cal speci f i ci t y and necessi t y, and t hereby, at one and t he same t i me, i s
convert ed i nt o "t rue sci ence" capabl e of unl i mi t ed progress ( si nce i t makes i t s
ownhi st ori cal presupposi t i ons t ransparent as "empi ri cal l y observabl e andveri f i -
abl e st at es of af f ai rs") and a "popul ar f orce" .
Not onl y Marx' s uncri t i cal at t i t ude t oward t he cul t ural f ormof
t he nat ural
sci ences makes hi s programof a consi st ent "sci ent i sat i ori " of t he cogni t i ve
cont ent of t hecul t ural heri t aget heoret i cal l ysuspect . Thi s weakness appears al so
t o have i t s reverse si de,
namel y, t he Marxi an t heory' s essent i al l y "negat i vi st i c"
concept i on
of
everyday consci ousness.
I t
seems t o be
more t han acci dent al t hat
t he Marxi an t heory of everyday consci ousness, at l east as f ar as i t s syst emat i c
achi evement s are concerned, l ays al l t he emphasi s ont he necessari l y f et i shi st i c
charact er of everyday t hi nki ng i n capi t al i st soci et y i n general . Theory can l ocat e
t he emanci pat ory i mpul ses of i t s ownsubj ect and addressee, t he
worki ng
cl ass,
onl y i n t he. f ormof unart i cul at ed needs, f rust rat i ons
and anxi et i es or, more
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
usual l y, i n t hat of " obj ect i ve
i nt erest s" . It t hereby by- passes t he probl emt hat
even " spont aneous"
resi st ance t ocapi t al i st soci et y f i nds i t s
expressi on i ndef i ni t e
cul t ural f orms. ( It
was Gramsci who f i rst f aced t he probl ems
i nvol ved i n t hi s
phenomenon. )
The Marxi an t heory of i deol ogy
t heref ore i n f act assi mi l at es t he
rel at i onshi p
of cri t i cal t heory and i t s
addressees i nt o t he model of " l earni ng a
sci ence" . Thi s i n t urn seems t o revoke t he
radi cal concept i on of t he cri t i cal t heory
i t sel f . Marx' s near- cont empt uous
at t i t ude t o everyt hi ng t hat t oday woul d
be
l abel l ed as " worki ngcl ass
cul t ure" - consi der hi s di sput e wi t h Wei t l i ng- rat her
dramat i cal l y i l l ust rat es t hi s poi nt .
But , above al l , t he
probl ems associ at ed wi t h t hi s program
of overcomi ngt he
" i l l usi ons of
i deol ogy" t hrough a si mul t aneous
" sci ent i sat i on and popul ari sa-
t i on" of t heory and cul t ure
i n general are of a pract i cal nat ure
. If t he shi bbol et hso
of t en heard t oday- " t he
cri si s of Marxi sm" - has any
meani ngat al l , i t shoul d
desi gnat e a whol e
hi st ori cal process whose end resul t
we are nowf aci ng. Thi s
process i s one i n whi ch,
i n a si t uat i on of deepand
general l y recogni sed soci al
cri si s, Marxi st t heory
enj oys an unprecedent ed
" sci ent i f i c" ( i . e. , academi c)
respect abi l i t y,
whi l e at t he same t i me i t s t heoret i cal l y
" respect abl e" ( i nt el l ect u-
al l y
honest and seri ous) f orms have
no i mpact or connect i on wi t h radi cal
soci al
movement s of any ki nd. In a sense, t he hi st ory
of Marxi smhas t urned f ul l
ci rcl e .
In t hese t i mes, Marxi an
t heory has reproducedt hat i ni t i al
si t uat i on whi ch i t so
conf i dent l y set
out t o change- t he compl et e di vorce
bet ween t heory and prac-
t i ce . If one i s i ncl i ned,
however, t ot race back ( at l east
part i al l y) t hi s f ai l ure t o t he
ori gi nal sel f - i nt erpret at i on
of t he t heory- t o i t s
l ack of cri t i cal ref l ect i on upon
i t sel f as a speci f i c
cul t ural f orm- one shoul d
al so remember t hat t he hi st ori cal
experi ence of radi cal
at t empt s t ochal l enge di rect l y t he
aut onomy of hi ghcul t ure
i n t he name of soci al
emanci pat i on have proved
t o be equal l y negat i ve, andof t en
even much more di sast rous. These chal l enges
t o aut onomous hi ghcul t ure have
been
assi mi l at ed i nt o t he domi nant
i nst i t ut i onal f orms of cul t ural product i on
and
recept i on wi t h conspi cuous ease
( as
i n t he
case of manyart i st i c experi ment s
and
movement s: Brecht , surreal i sm,
et c . ) ; or ( as t he case of t he Bol shevi k
programof t he
" pol i t i ci zat i on" of cul t ure i ndi cat es)
t hey have resul t ed i n t he
t ransf ormat i on of hi gh
cul t ure i nt o i deol ogy i n t he crudest
sense- i nt o sheer
apol ogi es f or t he exi st i ng
rel at i ons of domi nance and oppressi on,
whi ch as a
consequence become cul t ural l y
desol at e. Tounderst and t hi s hi st ory, t o
. " appl y"
t he t heory of i deol ogy
t o
t he
t heory of i deol ogy i t sel f , t oday
seems t o be a
necessary and unavoi dabl e
t ask
.
Not es
1 . Marx- Engel s Werke ( Berl i n, 1958) , vol .
3, p.
49 ( hereaf t er
ci t ed as MEW) .
2 .
1
shoul d i ndi cat e at t hi s poi nt t hat f et i shi sm- t he hi st ori cal l y
speci f i c f ormof everyday con-
General Phi l osophy
Uni versi t y of Sydney
Aust ral i a
3. Gr undr i sse ( Ber l i n, 1953) , pp.
136- 137
.
DI SAPPEARI NG I DEOLOGY
sci ousness under capi tal i sm- does not f or Mar x r epr esent
the sol e type of soci al l y i nduced
di stor ti ons of exper i ence and i nter pr etati on of the wor l d
i n whi chi ndi vi dual s i mmedi atel yl i ve.
I n r el ati on to pr e- capi tal i st soci eti es, he makes at l east
f l eeti ng r ef er ences to the "i dol atr y of
natur e"
as
an hi stor i cal phenomenon anal ogous to f eti shi sm. As
the thi r d vol ume of Capi tal
makes cl ear , thi s i dol atr y i nvol ves both the per soni f i cati on
of natur al f or ces and thi ngs upon
whi chhuman acti vi ti es ar esti l l dependent andthe cor r espondi ng natur al i sati on
of soci al r ol es, i n
whi ch r el ati ons of per sonal dependence and bondage mani f est themsel ves .
4. See, f or exampl e,
MEW, Vol . 26, 1, pp. 145- 146, 256- 259
.
5. Thi s abbr evi ated ter mi nol ogyi s
cer tai nl yqui te al i en to Mar x. The onl y pl ace( tomyknowl edge)
wher e he expl i ci tl y f or mul ates acontr ast
r esembl i ng the one dr awn her e i s i n hi s cr i ti ci smof
Stor ch ( MEW, vol . 26, 1, p. 257; see al so p
.
377) ,
wher e he di sti ngui shes the "i deol ogi cal
components of the r ul i ng cl ass" f r om
i ts "f r eecul tur al - spi r i tual ( gei sti ge) pr oducti on" . Fr om
the
standpoi nt of hi s whol e theor y, thi s l atter ( and
cer tai nl y acci dental ) desi gnati on i s r ather
questi onabl e, and i s ther ef or e not used her e .
6. See,
f or exampl e, Mar x' s gener al char acter i zati on of vul gar economy i n
MEW, vol . 26,
3,
pp. 430- 494.
7. Cf . i bi d. , vol . 26, 1, pp. 40- 48, 60- 69; vol . 26, 2, pp
.
100,
161- 166, 214- 217; vol . 26,
3,
pp. 491- 494, 504.
8. The f ol l owi ng f or mul ati on i s r ather typi cal of thi s
tr ai n
of
thought i n Mar x: "Cl assi cal economi cs
pear as bear er s of the l atter , the var i ous
f i xed and mutual l y al i en f or ms of weal thto thei r i nner
uni ty and to str i pthemof that char acter
due
to
whi chthey stand si de by si de, i ndi f f er ent towar d
each other ; i t seeks to compr ehend
the i nter nal i nter connecti on apar t f r omthe mul ti pl i ci ty of
f or ms of appear ance . . . I n thi s anal ysi s, cl assi cal economi cs
nowand agai n f al l s i nto contr adi c-
ti ons ; i t of ten attempts to accompl i shthi s
r educti on and to demonstr ate the i denti tyof thesour ce
of the var i ous f or ms di r ectl y, wi thout medi ati ng
l i nks
.
However , thi s necessar i l y f ol l ows f r omi ts
anal yti c method, wi thwhi chthe cr i ti que and
compr ehensi on i nevi tabl y begi ns. I t has no i nter est
i n geneti cal l y devel opi ng the
var i ous
f or ms,
onl y
an
i nter est i n thei r anal yti c r educti on and
uni f i cati on, because i t depar ts
f r omthese f or ms as gi ven pr emi ses . . . Cl assi cal economi cs ul ti -
matel y f ai l s, and i s
def i ci ent
because
i t concei ves thegr ound- f or mof capi tal , pr oducti on di r ected
towar ds the
appr opr i ati on
of
al i en l abour , not as asoci al f or m, but as the natur al f or mof soci al
pr oducti on- amode of compr ehensi on f or thedi scar di ngof whi chi t i tsel f cl ear s theway"
( i bi d. ,
vol . 26,
3, pp.
490- 491) .
9. / bi d. , vol .
3, pp.
432- 433
;
see al so Gr undr i sse, pp. 82- 83.
10. Gr undr i sse, pp. 584, 586.
11. MEW, vol . 23, p. 393.
12. Gr undr i sse, p. 31 .
13.
See, f or exampl e, i bi d. , p. 313: ' J ust as
pr oducti on f ounded on capi tal cr eates, on the one hand,
uni ver sal i ndustr i ousness- i . e . ,
sur pl us- l abour , val ue- cr eati ng l abour - soi t cr eates, on the
other
hand, a systemof gener al expl oi tati on of
the natur al and human qual i ti es, a systemof gener al
uti l i ty. Bothsci ence i tsel f and al l
the physi cal and mental qual i ti es appear as bear er s of the
l atter ,
whi l e ther e appear s tobe nothi ng
hi gher - i n- i tsel f , nothi ng l egi ti mate- f or - i tsel f outsi de
thi s ci r cl e
of soci al pr oducti on
and exchange . . . Hence the gr eat ci vi l i si ng i nf l uence of
capi tal
.
. . For the
f i r st ti me, natur e becomes a
mer e obj ect f or humani ty, a mer e matter of uti l i ty
; i t
ceases
to be
r ecogni zed as a power f or i tsel f ; and the
theor eti cal knowl edge of i ts autonomous l aws i tsel f
appear s
mer el y as ar use to subj ugate i t under human needs,
ei ther as an obj ect of consumpti on, or
as ameans of pr oducti on. "
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
14. Thef i r s t of t wo quot at i ons appear i n Res ul t at edes unmi t t el bar en Pr odukt i ons pr ozes s es , Mar x-
Engel s Ar chi v(Mos cow,
1933) ,
vol . 2, vi i , pp. 156 and160; t her ef er encet o " uni ver s al l abour " i s
f oundi n MEW, vol . 25, p. 114; t he l as t t wo s ent ences ar et aken r es pect i vel y f r omGr undr i t t e, pp.
586and
439.
IDEOLOGY
ANDTHEWTLTANSCHAUUNG
OF
THEINTELLECTUALS
Zygmunt
Bauman
It has of tenbeen notedthat
the word"i deol ogy" i n i ts nearl y twocenturi es
l onghi storyunderwent a
trul ybewi l deri ngsemanti c change, acqui ri ngi ntheend
a meani ng exactl y contrary to
i ts ori gi nal connotati on. Indeed, what more
antagoni sti c semanti c domai ns are
there thantruth andf al sehood; sci ence and
common-sense bel i ef s ; i mparti al ,
l asti ng knowl edge and shi f ti ng, narrow-
mi ndedprej udi ce?
Theopposi ti ons areso dazzl i ngl yevi dent that they
easi l ycast si mi l ari ti es i n a
deep shadow. What i s l ost i n thi s contrast i s
the questi on of conti nui ty-more
i mportantl y, thequesti onof asemanti c f i el d
whi chthetwo apparentl y antagoni s-
ti c meani ngs of "i deol ogy" share. Thi s
questi on mayseemstrangeto agenerati on
brought up to thi nk of the
unf ol di ng of i deas i n the undi al ecti cal terms of
Thomas Kuhn' s
"paradi gm", whi ch i denti f i es l ogi cal contradi cti on wi th the
mutual excl usi veness of
underl yi ng worl d-vi ews. The questi on appears more
obvi ous, even i mperati ve, i f i nsteadof paradi gms we
thi nki n terms of Mi chel
Foucaul t"s "di scursi vef ormati on", whi chi s def i nedby
i ts remarkabl ecapaci tyof
"gi vi ng bi rth si mul taneousl y and successi vel y to
mutual l y excl usi ve obj ects,
wi thout havi ng to modi f y i tsel f " . '
Onecanthi nkof anumber of reasons
f or pl aci ngthe uti l i ty of the concept of
di scursi ve f ormati onwel l above that of "paradi gm"
. Themost obvi ous reasoni s
that thi s concept
hel ps to reveal thegenui nedi al ecti cs of thought-i ts
conti nui ty,
the semanti c
i nterdependence of opposi ti ons, the mutual
determi nati on of
obj ects
al l egedl y subj ect to i ndependent l ogi cs, and so on
: But there are other
reasons as wel l . The evi dent f act of the on-goi ng
communi cati on between
separate l anguages, so baf f l i ng f roma Kuhni an
perspecti ve, appears al l but
natural . It becomes cl ear that f ar f rombei ngmutual l y
excl usi ve, di f f erent "f orms
of l i f e" are of tenmembers of the same di scursi ve
communi tyand must acknow-
l edge, eveni f onl y obl i quel y,
thei r j oi nt membershi p byengagi ngtheother f orm
i n a competi ti on. Above
al l , the di scursi ve-f ormati on perspecti ve bri ngs
i nto
rel i ef the soci al mechani sms
behi nd the unf ol di ngof thought . If i n the Kuhni an
worl dsoci ety
appears onl y to i nterf ere wi th the smooth unf ol di ngof the pl ay
between
theory andevi dence, thei deaof di scursi ve. f ormati onreveal s soci ety
and
i ts
authori ty networkas the sol e materi al content of the arti cul ati on
anddel i mi -
tati on of obj ects of di scourseandthedi spersi onof statements
whi chi t contai ns
andl egi ti mi ses. Onecoul d say that Kuhn' s
i dea
of
the paradi gmremai ns f rom
thebegi nni ngto theendi nsi de the
di scursi ve f ormati onof i deol ogy, whi chi s the
obj ect of thi s essay-whi l e
Foucaul t' s methodol ogy of f ers the
sought-af ter
chance of steppi ng
outsi dethi s f ormati onso as to scruti ni se
andcodi f y the rul es
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
whi chmadepossi bl ei t s emergence
.
But t o ret urn t o our proper subj ect
mat t er
:
i t i s t hemai ncont ent i onof t hi s
essay t hat t heprobl emat i cs, of t he
t heory of i deol ogy, wi t hal l i t s bi zarret urn-
about s and
convol ut i ons, canbest beunderst oodwi t hi nt hat t ypi cal l y
modern
di scourseof power whi chi s associ at edwi t hwhat has comet obe
descri bedas t he
"ci vi l i si ng
process" . Thi s process has beenvari ousl y anal yzedi n
t hepast as t he
t ri umphof reasonover i gnorance;
as
t hevi ct ory
of sweet ness andl i ght over
crudeanduncout hexi st ence;
as
t hedi spl acement
of brut al i t y andbarbari smby
pol i t eness andgent l ehabi t s
; as
l aw
andpeacef ul order repl aci ngt hef i st andt he
pandemoni umof uni versal
war; as t het ami ngof passi ons by ci vi l i t y andsel f -
cont rol . Wi t ha
measureof emot i onal det achment , morebecomi ngof t heaca-
demi c
mode, t he process has beencharact eri zed as t he ri se
t o
domi nance
of
i nst rument al
rat i onal i t y over i rrat i onal behavi our; as t het radi ngof f
of
apart
of
f reedomf or apart i al securi t y, andt heconcomi t ant harnessi ngof aggressi on;
as
t hei mposi t i onof t hecourt i er' s i deal of l ' hommehonnet e, and
l at er of !' homme
ecl ai re, uponsuccessi vel y l ower rungs of t hest at us l adder.
Thedescri pt i ons vary i nt hesi zeandi mport ance
of
t he
aspect of t heprocess
t heycapt ure. But noneseems t ograspt hemai nl i nk
i nt hel ongchai nof hi st ori cal
t ransf ormat i ons whi chWest ern
Europeansoci et ywent t hroughi nt hecourseof
t hel ast t hree- and- a- hal f cent uri es. I f t hemai nl i nk i s t heonewhi chart i cul at es al l
t heot hers i nt o acont i nuous chai n, andt hereby cont ai ns t he
key t o
t he
i nt erde-
pendenceof al l uni t s of t het ot al i t y, t hent hegradual emergence
of
t henewf orm
of management of t he soci al l y producedsurpl us seems
t o be a
promi si ng
candi dat e.
Thi s
f ormwas i ndeedrevol ut i onary andset t heeraof "ci vi l i sat i on"

or
,
i ndust ri al capi t al i st soci et y apart f romt heprevi ousl y domi nant t ype
of soci et y. I n
t hi s ol dt ype, surpl us val uewas ext ract edf rom
t heproducers, so t ospeak, i nl eaps
andbounds, say, onceor several t i mes duri ng
t heannual cycl eof t hepredomi -
nant l y agri cul t ural product i on, i n t hef orm
of rent , or at ax, t ri but e, or t i t he.
Owi ngt o wi l l or f ear or bot h, t heproducer had
t o bemadet opart wi t haport i on
of hi s product . Oncehehaddonet hat , hecoul d
be(andhadt o bet o keep t he
process of product i ongoi ng) l ef t al one. I t was l argel y i rrel evant f or t he
ci rcul a-
t i onof surpl us howhewent about hi s dai l y busi ness, how
headmi ni st eredt he
act i vi t i es of hi s bodyandsoul . Theonl yt hi ngwhi chmat t ered- t he
product i onof
surpl us- was qui t e
adequat el yt akencareof byt hedoubl epressureof t henat ural
cycl eandt het hreat of what
Ernest Gel l ner oncecal l edt he"Dent i st ry St at e- - a
st at e speci al i si ng i n
ext ract i onby t ort ure.
Theadvent
of manuf act ure andt he f act ory syst em, and l at er of market
exchangei nt egrat i ngever- l ower rungs
of
t he
soci al l adder, endedt hi s rel at i vel y
si mpl emet hodof surpl us management . The
ext ract i onof surpl us ceasedt o be
t heonl y t ask of t hedomi nant cl ass. Nowi t was
t oassumeresponsi bi l i t y f or t he
very
product i onof surpl us; producers coul dnot bel ef t al oneandrel i ed
upon
f or
t headmi ni st rat i onof t hei r product i veact i vi t i es. Lat er on, wi t ht hespread
of
t he
market , t hey. hadal so t o be i nduced t o organi ze t hei r l i f e- process i n a way
bef i t t i ng
wi l l i ngandpl i abl econsumers.
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
Thesetwodi f f erent systems
of surpl us management were
brought i ntobei ng
by twodi f f erent types of
power . Thef i rst type was to remai n
external and
remote; i ts remoteness, or not- of
- thi s- worl dness, was heavi l y
underl i ned by the
sacral i sati onof theroyal rei gn,
whi chceremoni ousl y reproducedthe
i mmutabi l -
i tyof theeternal order of supremacy.
Thi s supremacy boi l eddown
i n practi ceto
theupward f l owof agri cul tural
surpl us. I n Georges Duby' s words,
the whol e
systemof f eudal i smcoul d wel l be
portrayed "as a method of
keepi ng the
stomachs
of thebarons and thei r
retai ners f ul l " . ' Beyond theserequi rements, i t
wasof
l i ttl e consequencewhat customs or
habi t rul ed thedai l y l i f e of the f ood
suppl i ers
. Thi s was- i f j udged bythel ater standards- a
ti meof ri chand robust
f ol k cul ture,
whi chtheChurch, exacti ngand meti cul ous
i n i ts support f or the
di vi ne ri ghts of
the earthl y powers, was amazi ngl y happy
to l eave to i ts own
resources.
Thesecondtypeof
power i s muchmorecompl ex. I t needs
tosecurenot merel y
theextracti onof surpl usonce
i nawhi l e, but theextracti onof a
conti nuous ef f ort,
dayby day; hour by
hour- anef f ort whi chi s rul ed bythe
rhythmof anexternal
and of ten
meani ngl ess l ogi c. Worsesti l l , acommodi ty
consumer, unl i keamere
tax- payi ngsubj ect,
has tobeachoi ce- maki ngani mal
. whowi l l makethe ri ght
choi ces. Hence
hemust bemaderesponsi veto
external l y mani pul ati vesti mul i i f
hi s choi ces
areto becomeequal l y mani pul abl e
andbythesametokenpredi ctabl e.
Thi s newtask
requi res- to empl oy Foucaul t' s
di sti ncti on- a "power of di sci -
pl i ne", rather than
theol dtypeof "soverei gn power" . Theobj ect
of thenewtype
of power i s not theweal thor
thegoodspossessedor produced
bythesubj ect, but
di rectl y hi sl abour, ti meand
modeof l i f e. I t i s thebodyandthesoul of
thesubj ect
whi ch are to be mani pul ated
. "Thi s newmechani smof
power"- to quote
Foucaul t- "i s moredependent
upon bodi es and what they do than
upon the
Earthand i ts products . . . . I t i s
atypeof power whi chi s constantl y exerci sed
by
meansof survei l l ancerather than
i n di sconti nuous manner by meansof asystem
of
l evi es or obl i gati ons di stri buted over
ti me" . 3
Thus, thenewpower reaches
parts f ormer powers coul d not reach
. I t pene-
trates deepl y i nto
the mundanedai l y acti vi ti es of i ts subj ects.
I t makesabi d f or
the total i ty of
thei r bodi l y acti ons. Thi s ai mcannot be
achi eved wi ththe ol d
means. I t
certai nl y cannot be attai ned wi th the hel p of
the di stant, i nvi si bl e
ki ng- God,
symbol i si ngthei ntractabl eorder of the
uni verse; i t cannot berecal l ed
peri odi cal l y, on theday whenthel evyor the
ti the
are
duef or payment . Thenew
power
must empl oy newresources.
Thenew, muchmoreambi ti ous,
ubi qui tous, al l - penetrati ngorder cannot
rel y
on theri tual i nvocati on of
thedi vi neri ghts of thesoverei gn. I t canrul eonl y
i n
the nameof thenorm, of a
patternof normal i ty, wi thwhi chi t i denti f i es
i tsel f .
Si ncenormal i ty means
i n theend aconti nuous rhythmof
bodi l yexerti on andthe
unbrokenchai nof repeatabl e
choi ces, i t can bemai ntai ned
onl y
by
adensewebof
i nterl ocki ng
authori ti es i n constant communi cati on
wi ththe subj ect and i n a
proxi mi ty to the subj ect whi ch
permi ts aperpetual survei l l ance of hi s l i f e-
process. Ol df orms aretransf ormed
i ntosuchauthori ti es, and newauthori ti es
are
brought to l i f e. Thusf ami l i es
and sexual f uncti onsof thebodyaredepl oyed
i n the
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
new
r ol e: chur ches becometeacher s of busi ness vi r tues
andhar dwor k; f actor i es
andpoor houses j oi nf or ces i ni nsti l l i ng
thehabi t of conti nuous ef f or t ; i di osyn-
cr asy and non- r hythmi cal l i f e
i s cr i mi nal i sed, medi cal i sed
or phychi atr i sed;
i ndi vi dual i sed tr ai ni ng
by appr enti ceshi por per sonal ser vi ce
i s r epl acedwi tha
uni f or msystem
of educati onai medat i nsti l l i ng uni ver sal ski l l s
and, aboveal l , a
habi t of uni ver sal andconti nuous di sci pl i ne.
No
si ngl e
power i s nowtotal , l i ke
that
cl ai med by the absol ute monar ch. Thi s web
of author i tati ve r el ati ons
never thel ess r eaches theki ndof total i ty
no power had dr eamedof r eachi ng
bef or e. I t nowl egi sl ates f or the whol e
of
the
i ndi vi dual ' s l i f e, though the
l egi sl ati on i s exer ci sed sur r epti ti ousl y by
devel opi ng wi thi nthe i ndi vi dual a
tendency to a speci f i cal l y patter ned conduct .
Thesover ei gnty i s al ways sel f -
conf i ned. Ther ear eno l i mi ts to the
gr eedof thenor m.
Thi s
i s theor i gi nof Fr eud' s "gar r i soni ntheconquer ed
ci ty" . Contr ar y to what
Fr eudi mpl i ed,
thi s gar r i soni s not ani nescapabl eef f ect
of soci al l i f e, a uni ver sal
sedi ment
of theeter nal str uggl ebetweenthe
pr er equi si tes of the"l i f e i ncom-
mon"
andi ntr actabl esel f i shness of the
bi ol ogi cal essenceof man. I t appear s to
be, i nstead, a hi stor i cal event anda human
accompl i shment . I t was br ought i nto
bei ng byaconcer ned, thoughuncoor di nated,
acti onof apl ethor a of cr i sscr ossi ng
andover l appi ng author i ti es, al ongsi de
theemer genceof thenewbour geoi s or der
of soci ety. These author i ti es wer e establ i shed
thr ough a di scour se whi ch
spawnednumber l essvar i ants andtr ansubstanti ati ons
of
the
essenti al opposi ti on
betweenthe
humanandtheani mal .
"Di sci pl i nar y
power ", whi chai medat thedr i l l , r egi mentati on
andr outi ni sa-
ti on
of thehumanbody, was not, of cour se, ani nventi onof the
seventeenth
centur y.
I t was, r ather , i ts di scover y. The uni ver sal
contr ol - by- sur vei l l ance
empl oyedf or centur i es- ef f ecti vel y, though
matter - of - f actl y, by communi ti es
and woven i n the thi ck
and ti ghtl y kni t ti ssue of the r epr oducti on
of
quoti di ani ty- was nowl i f ted
to
the
l evel of publ i cconsci ousness, ar ti cul ated
as
a
pr obl emcal l i ng f or consci ous
desi gn, speci al i sed i nsti tuti ons, and thei r
r e-
depl oyment i nther el ati onshi p
betweencl asses. I t r eached theconsci ousness
l evel oncethecommuni ti es
(whether par i shes, gui l ds or vi l l ages) and thei r
essenti al l y unstr etchabl e
r esour ces becamei nsuf f i ci ent as the means of the
r epr oducti on of quoti di ani ty.
Themasses of "unattached" peopl e- vagr ants,
vagabonds, "danger ous cl asses"- wer ethe
f i r st categor i es to "beseen" . Byvi r tue
of r emai ni ng outsi dethenetwor kof communal
sur vei l l ance, thesegr oups, so to
say, madevi si bl e what hadbeenunseenbef or e;
they pr omptedacti onwher e
customs and
unr ef l ectedpr acti ces hadr ul edbef or e. These
peopl ehadto become
theconcer nof
soci etal agenci es, of l egi sl ator s, of centr al l y admi ni ster ed
or gans of
coer ci on. But thel atter
wer esi ngul ar l y unpr epar ed f or thetask, never
bef or e
havi ng beenengageddi r ectl y i nthe
r epr oducti onof dai l y l i f e. Communi ti es l ost
thei r gr i ponquoti di ani ty- but noother
agency, f or theti mebei ng, waspr epar ed
to step i nto thei r pl ace. Thi s cr i si s of
power was thebasi s of theHobbesi an
questi on, "Howi s soci ety possi bl e?", andi t f ound
i ts r esponsei ntheenti r el y new
r ol e
assi gned
to thePr i nce.
The
Pr i ncewas nowto bei nchar geof thesur vei l l ance
power . Thecommunal
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
pract i ce of
" I wat chyou, you wat ch me" was
art i cul at ed as a post ul at e
of one
cat egory
of peopl ewat chi nganot her
. Di sci pl i nary power t urned i nt ot he-
vehi cl e
of t he
asymmet ry of cl ass rel at i ons. Great
numbersof peopl e were nowseen
as
havi ngt obe
assi st ed (and, i f necessary, goaded) t o
become " t rul y human" ; a
f ew
weret oadj ust
t hemsel ves t ot henewrol e of
t ut orsandguardi ans of t he
process.
It was essent i al l y
t hi s newhi st ori cal const el l at i on,
and t he power cri si s
i t
generat ed, whi ch
st rengt hened t he popul ari t y of a
great number of rel at ed
concept s (ci vi l i sat i on,
Kul t ur, Bi l dung, ref i nement ,
i deol ogy, enl i ght enment ,
et c. ) .
Aswe wi l l see l at er, t heseconcept s
t ri ed t o capt ure and art i cul at e
t hi s new
si t uat i on- i na
way whi chwasunmi st akabl y
t ai nt ed wi t ht he group experi ence
of t he
art i cul at ors. Thi s di sci pl i nary power
sought t o t ot al l y assaul t and
vi rt ual l y
dest roy popul ar
cul t ure
;
i t sought t he cruel repressi on
of popul ar rebel l i ons, of
t radi t i onal (but
nowredef i ned as " devi ant " ) conduct ,
of popul ar f est i val s, of
het erodox bel i ef s and of
" wi t chcraf t " - a process
bri l l i ant l y document ed f or
France by Muchembl ed and,
f or Engl and, by St ephen and Ei l een Yeo. 4
In t he
courseof t hi s
st ruggl e, t hehumancondi t i onacqui red
anewconcept ual i sat i on. It
appeared nowas
a dramaof Mani cheanf orcesof
passi onand reason, of t hecrude
and t he ref i ned,
of t he beast l y and t hehuman. " Rul e
over t he f i shi nt he sea, t he
bi rdsof
heaven, and every l i vi ng t hi ng
t hat movesupont heeart h" wasno
morea
gi f t of God
t o be enj oyedi npeace. The
subj ugat i onof t heani mal i nmancame
t o
be a maj or
concernf or humans. One had t o
l i f t onesel f t o t he humancondi t i on
;
bei nga humancame t o
be a t ask, an accompl i shment ,
a dut y. '
Three aspect s of t hi s
newconcept ual i sat i onof t he
humancondi t i on deserve
speci al comment :
1 . The " dual i t y" of
humannat ure i sseent o have a
vert i cal di mensi on. The t wo
ant agoni st i c const i t uent s
of t he sel f are concept ual i sed as
st ages of a process:
t hroughhard
workandconst ant vi gi l ance, one i s t o
bedi spl aced andrepl acedby
anot her
.
Manbecomes
anunf i ni shed product or,
rat her, rawst uf f t o be shaped
and moul ded
i nt o a humanf orm. He becomes anobj ect
of act i vi t y, vari ousl y
cal l ed
cul t ure, ci vi l i sat i on, Bi l dung,
ref i nement - al l t hese nouns, as Luci en
Febvre
poi nt edout , 6 ori gi nal l y connot ed
at ransi t i veact i vi t y and not (as
wasl at er
t he case) achi eved st at es of bei ng.
2. Vert i cal andprocessual i ni t s
appl i cat i on
t o
t hel i f e cycl e of t hei ndi vi dual ,
t hi s
dual i t y i s empl oyed synchroni cal l y and
hori zont al l y i nt hi nki ngabout groups
i n
t hei r
reci procal rel at i ons wi t hi nsoci et i es, or
about rel at i ons bet weensoci et i es
t hemsel ves. The human- ani mal
di chot omy i s proj ect ed upont he
superi ori t y-
i nf eri ori t y rel at i ons bet ween
col l ect i vi t i esor cat egori es: adul t s
andchi l dren, men
and women, sane and
mad, ci vi l i sed andbarbari ans, gent l emen and
t he masses.
In t he vocabul ary of
t he Enl i ght enment , t he masses were
descri bed as " l es
bet es- f eroces, f uri eux, i mbeci l es,
f ous, aveugl es" . AsVol t ai re
wrot e i nhi s not e-
books, " The peopl e
wi l l al ways be composed of brut es; .
t he peopl e i s bet ween
manand beast "
. '
3.
Therei s a t hi rd el ement i nvi si bl y present
i nt hedi chot omy of homodupl ex:
t heposi t i ngof anagent i n
t hepassage f rompassi ont o reason,
and t heguardi ng
of t he supremacy of t he reasonabl e
over t he passi on- bound. The
nat ure of t hi s
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
agent i s determi nedby the
nature of the basi c di chotomy. I t i s anagent si mul -
taneousl y enl i ghteni ng and
repressi ng, benevol ent andhi gh- handed, offeri ng
the l i ght of reason
but appl yi ngaharshmedi ci nefor thegoodof thoserel uctant
or too i ndol ent toaccept the offer wi l l i ngl y. Superi or knowl edgeandsuperi or
force, gui danceanddi sci pl i ne, reasonandpower,
cometogether as theydoi n the
symbol i c uni ty of the patri archal father . Knowl edgeandpower
are
meant for
eachother; di saster fol l ows thei r di vorce
.
For Di derot,
"i nstrui reunenati on, s' est
l a ci vi l i ser ; y etei ndre l es connai ssances,
c' est l a ramener a 1' etat pri mi ti f de
barbari e" . Accordi ngtoCondorcet, "ce n' est poi nt
l a
pol i ti que
des pri nces, cesont
l es l umi eres des peupl es ci vi l i ses",
whi chwi l l guarantee peace andprogress on
earth. Ahal f century
l ater, Gui zot woul dcasti gateEngl andfor i ts emphasi s sol el y
on soci al devel opment, wi th di re negl ect for the refi nement of spi ri t, and
Germany
for the reversebl under : the fai l ure to i ncorporate i ts thought i ntothe
busi ness of soci al admi ni strati on.
I t was wi thi nthi s di scourseconsti tutedby the
opposi ti on
between
reason
and
passi onthat theconcept of i deol ogy was ori gi nal l y arti cul ated, andi t
i s
there that
i t remai ns fi rml y entrenched. ToDestutt deTracy,
commonl y acknowl edgedas
the person responsi bl e for the
coi ni ng of the word, i deol ogy was to be a
meta- theoryof themoral andpol i ti cal
sci ences andof the "great acti vi ti es whi ch
i mmedi atel y i nfl uence the prosperi ty of soci ety" . The si gni fi cance of i deol ogy
woul dconsi st sol el y i n i ts practi cal appl i cati ons ; i ts many concerns woul d
be
uni tedbythepower of acti on, al l of thembent onenhanci ng. Power woul dbe the
content andthe consequenceof al l the tasks i deol ogywoul dhave toput i n front
of i tsel f : the sci ence of communi cati ng i deas, of entrenchi ng l ogi c i n human
conduct, of formi ngmoral i ty, of regul ati ngdesi res, of educati on- i nshort, al l the
tasks of uni ti ngtheefforts of thehumanarts i n "regul ati ng
soci ety
i n
such away
that manfi nds there the most hel p andthe l east possi bl e
annoyance
fromhi s
own
ki nd" . ' TheI nsti tut Nati onal e, createdtocul ti vate
i deol ogy as thepracti cal
sci ence of the regul ati onof soci ety, decl areda
publ i c competi ti onon the topi c
"What
are thei nsti tuti ons for establ i shi ngmoral i ty
i napeopl e?" Tracy, Vol nay,
Cabani s,
Lapl ace, Cheni er andother members of theI nsti tut, the
l eadi ngl i ghts of
post- revol uti onary
Pari s, gatheredaroundthesal onof Madame
Hel veti us, know-
i ng wel l what the
answer shoul d be. Tracy i n fact notedthe answer
on the
margi ns of hi s readi ng
of
Spi noza
: thegoodandbadtendencyof our wi l l i s al ways
di rectl y proporti onal
to theextent andexacti tudeof our knowl edge
.
Knowl edge
i s power over wi l l . The
i dea of i deol ogy i mpl i ed confi dence i n the essenti al
mal l eabi l i ty of popul ar cul ture i n
the hands of the l egi sl ator, andi n the cruci al
rol e of the i deol ogi st i n the
l egi sl ator' s effort to create a consci ous, rati onal ,
i deol ogi cal order . Now, wi th the revol uti on
tri umphant i n the nameof reason,
the ti me hadperhaps arri ved
to
real i se
thedreamexpressedby d' Hol bach i n hi s
Lapol i ti que naturel l e: "Enl i ghtened
pol i ci es i nsure that every ci ti zen wi l l be
happy
i n the
rank where bi rth pl aced hi m. There
exi sts a happi ness for al l
cl asses ; wherethe statei s properl yconsti tuted, thereemerges achai nof fel i ci ty
extendi ng
fromthemonarch tothe peasant . Thehappy manrarel y consi ders
l eavi ng hi s
sphere. . . Thepeopl e are sati sfi ed as l ong as they do not suffer ;
DI SAPPEARI NG
I DEOLOGY
l i mi ted to thei r si mpl e,
natural needs, thei r vi ewrarel y
extends beyond". By
of f eri ng "the most hel pand
the l east possi bl eannoyance",
i deol ogy was to
hel p
the l egi sl ator by enl i ghteni ng hi s
pol i ci es.
I f the di chotomy
of passi on and reason
i mpl i es that man, unl ess taught
and
trai ned, may wel l act
agai nst hi s own good
i nterest, then i t al so i mpl i es
a
prof ound l ack of
preordai nedcoordi nati onbetween
needs and wants. Needs are
what reason di ctates;
wants are what passi on
prompts. The subordi nati on of
wants to needs i s theref ore a task
whi chmay, andshoul d, be
accompl i shedf or the
sake of
man hi msel f -"i n hi s best
i nterest". Fromi ts very bi rth,
the i dea of
i deol ogy as
the sci enti f i c code of enl i ghtened
pol i cy al l owed f or the
possi bi l i ty
that maki ngpeopl e
happy may i nvol ve f orci ng
themto abandon thei r wants,
maki ng themdo what they
woul drather not .
Thedi sti ncti on between
wants and needs theref ore
consti tutes the di scourse
of
power. Thi s di sti ncti on does
not, by i tsel f , determi ne
pol i ti cal al i gnments-
the atti tude of support or
di ssent towards a speci f i c power
structure i n the here
and now. I t provi des,
however, f or the possi bi l i ty of both
atti tudes. I t al l ows f or
an account of the human
condi ti on as "knowi ng not
what they trul y need" ; or
"wanti ng what they
trul y do not need" ; or "wanti ng
not what they trul y need"
. I t
opens upa number of
i nterpretati ons, some
readi l y cl assi f i abl e as conservati ve,
others as
revol uti onary. Thegapbetween
wants and needs maybeaccounted
f or
by
ref erence to the i nbred or nati ve obtuseness
or sel f i shness of parti cul ar
col l ecti vi ti es, whi ch
cannot l i f t themsel ves by thei r
ownresources to thel evel of a
genui ne understandi ng of
thei r condi ti ons. The same gap
may al so be expl ai ned
by mani pul ati on,
conspi racy, decepti on by exi sti ng
powers, or by thebarri ers to
sel f -awareness
entai l ed i n the i mmedi ate context of
l i f e-busi ness. The i nterpre-
tati ons may l eadto
concl usi ons l i kel y tobe pl otted on
the opposi te extremes of
the pol i ti cal
spectrum. Al l of them, however, remai n
i nsi dethe same di scursi ve
f ormati on: the
di scursi ve f ormati on of di sci pl i nary power
.
Thi s di scourse
establ i shes the i ndi spensabi l i ty of
an external f actor i n the
process
l eadi ngtothe di scovery of , and the
submi ssi onto, thedi ctate of reason.
I t
al so
del egi ti mi ses the authori ty of the i ndi vi dual or
a group of i ndi vi dual s
i n
determi ni ng the acti on whi ch reason
requi res. I t deni es the sel f -suf f i ci ency
of
mani nf i ndi ngout about andf ol l owi ng
theadvi ce of reason. By thesametoken,
i t
establ i shes the necessi ty of power as a
posi ti veor negati ve, but al ways
i rremov-
abl e, el ement of thehuman
condi ti on. Therati onal i ty of the l atter i s
i ncompl ete
wi thout power . So i s man' s urge
toward thegoodl i f e. Metaphori cal l y
speaki ng,
i n thesecul ar versi on of
thesearch f or themeani ngof l i f e ( i . e. ,
wheresal vati oni s
re-phrased as the good
l i f e) , the di scourse of i deol ogy
paral l el s the Cathol i c, i n
contrast to the di ssi dent
Churches' , conceptual i sati on.
But the power
that the concept of i deol ogy cal l s i nto
bei ng and l egi ti mi ses i s
not
any power. As wi th al l power, i t i s concerned
wi th maki ngpeopl e do what
otherwi se they woul dnot, or al l owi ng themto do
what they evi dentl y are not
doi ng. But the ki nd of power
generated and sustai ned wi thi n the i deol ogi cal
di scourse achi eves thi s
change i n human behavi our by speci f i c
means. These
means bel ongtothecategory of
persuasi on. Theyi nvari abl y consi st
of thesuppl y
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
of i nf ormati onandthe
argument
.
Theyare conversati onal means. Theyoperate
through adebate i nthe
course of whi chamodi f i cati onof the partner' s moti ves,
mental map
or i magi nati oni s sought . The modi f i cati oni s to
be
attai ned
through
ei ther
l egi ti mati on of evi dence or i nterpretati on heretof ore
i l l egi ti mate, or
through the
del egi ti mati onof currentl yacceptedevi denceand
i nterpretati ons. In
both cases, the essenti al strategyi s
to
change the
bel i ef s of the partner. The
debate whi chi s to accompl i sh thi s i s envi saged
as i nherentl yasymmetri cal . It i s
wagedbetweentheknowi ngandthe
i gnorant ; betweenteachers andthetaught ;
between
those
who
enj oyacertai npri vi l egedaccess togoodknowl edgeandthose
who have not
sought, or do not seek, such access.
In
short, thedramaof i deol ogyi s pl ayedi nthe worl d
of i deas. As Destutt de
Tracyput i t i nhi s Memoi resur l af acul tede
penser : "Nothi ngexi sts f or us except
bythe i deawehave of i t, because our
i deas are our whol e bei ng, our exi stence
i tsel f ". Ideas make the worl d
we
know;
i deas maytheref ore change thi s worl d.
Thei deol ogi cal
di scourseestabl i shes i deas as power ; andpower as the admi ni s-
trati on
of i deas.
Inthi s perspecti ve, the al l egedl yradi cal change
of
meani ng
whi ch the word
"i deol ogy" has undergonesi ncetheheydayof theInsti tut
Nati onal eseems much
l ess dramati c. Thi s changecertai nl y di dnot i nvol ve anabandonment
or evena
substanti al
transf ormati onof the ori gi nal di scursi ve f ormati on. Thechangedi d
not go f ar beyond
amere termi nol ogi cal re-shuf f l e. Thi s verbal shi f t was al l the
easi er andmoreconveni ent
f or the di scredi ti ngof the term"i deol ogy" i n the
wakeof the
f amous condemnati onof i deol ogybyNapol eonaf ter Mal et' s abor-
ti ve conspi racyof December 1812.
("Wemust l aythebl ame f or the i l l s that our
f ai r France has suf f ered oni deol ogy, that shadowy
metaphysi cs whi ch subtl y
searches f or f i rst
causes onwhi chto base the l egi sl ati onof peopl es, rather than
maki nguse of
l aws knownto the human heart andof the l essons of hi sto-
ry. . . . Indeed,
whowas i t that procl ai med the pri nci pl e of i nsurrecti onto be a
duty?
Whoeducatedthe peopl e andattri butedto i t asoverei gntywhi ch i t was
i ncapabl e of exerci si ng?")
Havi ngcharacteri sed the concept of i deol ogyas a
strai ghtf orwardpower-bi d,
Napol eonrendereddi f f i cul t, i f not f ul l y i nef f ecti ve,
f urther attempts to l egi ti mi se i t i nterms
of the i mparti al soverei gntyof reason.
Fromthat moment on, anysel f -conf essed
preachi ngof i deol ogywas i nextri cabl y
associ ated wi th power
di sputes. More
of ten
than not, parti cul arl y si nce the
Mannhei m-i nducedrenai ssanceof the word,
i deol ogywas nowcast onthesi deof
wants rather than needs, parti al i ty of i nterests rather than uni versal truth,
sel f -i nf l i ctedor enf orcederror rather thansoundj udgment, theconti ngent
"i s"
rather thanthecompel l i ng"ought". But thestructure of thedi scursi vef ormati on
wi thi nwhi ch
thi s termi nol ogi cal reversal tookpl ace remai nedi ntact . Indeed, the
very
conti nui tyof thi s structure renderedthe reversal possi bl e.
For a soci ol ogi st, then,
' a central task i s to l ocate the structural l ydetermi ned
groupexperi ence whi ch l ent i tsel f
to
bei ng
arti cul atedi nto a Wel tanschauung
presupposedbythe concept
of i deol ogy; to
f i nd
a group. whi chcoul dprocl ai m
wi threasonandconvi cti on, wi thDestutt de
Tracy, that "our i deas areour whol e
bei ng, our exi stencei tsel f " (or, f or that matter, wi thMarx-that
"i deas turni nto
DISAPPEARINGIDEOLOGY
a materi al f orce once they capture
the
masses") .
Not unexpectedl y, the search
turns towards i ntel l ectual s- peopl e who,
i n
Lewi s
Coser' s words, "l i ve f or,
rather thanof f , i deas" . '
Af ul l study reveal i ng the resonance
betweenthedi scourseof i deol ogyandthe
group experi ence of i ntel l ectual s woul d of course
requi re an extended and
detai l ed documentati on coveri ng both the macro- soci al
ci rcumf erence
of
the
phenomenonandi ts mi cro- soci al structure. I haveto conf i ne
mysel f
hereto
an
i nventory of such attri butes of the i ntel l ectual mode of l i f e as may assi st
the
expl anatory understandi ngof the emergence, andsustenance, of
the concepti on
of
theworl das a battl eof i deas wagedbetweenreasonanderror, abattl e i n
whi ch
the menof i deas pl ay the rol e of general s. I must l eave asi de the parti cul ar
ci rcumstances of ei ghteenthandearl y- ni neteenth century France, Germany, or
Russi a, where these di f f erent but rel ated vari eti es of
i ntel l ectual s
were
sedi -
mented i n the wi deni ng gul f between outl i ved power structures
and a new
networkof soci al dependenci es andreci proci ti es. Inthesecountri es,
i t
suf f i ces
to
note that there emerged a l egi ti mati on gap whi ch created a demand,
and an
opportuni ty, f or thesei ntel l ectual s toappear as f ree- l ance actors
i nthedrama of
power .
Thecri si s of the tradi ti onal f ormsof pol i ti cal soci abi l i ty (bywhi chI meanthe
organi sed modeof rel ati ons between subj ects and the rul ers) rendered them
i ncapabl e of securi ng theki ndof conti nuousdi sci pl i netheemergent soci al
order
requi red. Thi s l egi ti mati ongapwas subsequentl y f i l l edbysoci etes depensee, the
f ocal poi nts of newpol i ti cal soci abi l i ty devel opi ng wi thi ntheemptyshel l of the
ol d. The newsoci abi l i ty was f ounded, i n the words of the French hi stori an
Frangoi s Furet, onthat conf used thi ng cal l ed "opi ni on, " whi chwas generatedi n
caf es, sal ons, l odges, soci eti es, and i ndi vi dual col l eges i ntegrated by correspon-
dence. Separatedf romal l practi cal l evel s of power, the i ndi vi dual s engagedi n the
domai nof soci abi l i ty- by- opi ni onpercei vedi ts i mpotence as theunhamperedand
uncompromi si ngrul e of thought. Untroubl edby cumbersome practi cal i ti es of
soci al acti on, and never conf rontedwi ththe necessi ty of humi l i ati ngcomprom-
i seor trade- of f or the needto accept grudgi ngl y the, possi bl e whi l edreami ngof
the i deal , theycoul d(andthey di d) concei veof asoci al
worl d
subj ect sol el y to
the
rul eof reason. Not f or thef i rst andnot
f or
the l ast
ti me, margi nal i ty
concei vedof
i tsel f as
soverei gnty.
In the
domai n
of
soci abi l i ty- by- opi ni on, nothi ngcounted
but
the
power of
persuasi on and the authori ty of argument . Onl y wi sdom,
i ncarnatei ncompel l i ng l ogi cal wi zardry, coul dcommandthere. Caf esandsal ons
were
parl i amentspermanentl y i nsessi on. Thedebatewasconti nuous. Therewas
nobody
present except parti ci pants
.
It seemed that onl y the power of thought
gui ded
the
course of the- debate; no pri vi l eges of bi rth, rank, or money were
al l owedto i ntef ere wi th the ul ti mate vi ctory of better argument .
Theunmi stakabl e anddi sti ncti vequal i tyof i ntel l ectual groupi ngs- vari ousl y
ref erredto as the i ntel l ectual styl e, or mode, or cul ture- canthus be tracedback
to the emergence of
a sel f - moni tori ng communi ty
of
men engaged f ul l or
part- ti me i n argument about i ssues somewhat detached f romthe concerns and
preoccupati ons of thei r more mundane, banausi c acti vi ti es. Thi s phenomenon
IDEOLOGY
AND
POWER
has
recei ved
the f ul l est anal ysi s to
date
i n
f ti rgen Habermas' i mpressi vestudyof
the structureof "thepubl i c sphere" . As Habermas i ndi cates, thecommuni ty i n
questi on was consti tuted by the acti vi ty of di scussi on. Thi s devel opment was
vi rtual l y unprecedented. Acommuni ty consti tuted by di scussi on was l i kel y to
concei veof the worl das a predomi nantl y verbal acti vi ty. Sucha communi ty was
al so proneto attachto i ts argumentati onapecul i ar potency to i nf l uence andal ter
thestateof thi ngs; i t tendedto concei ve of l exi s ( the acti vi ty of tal ki ng) as praxi s,
or acti on. The
way
i n whi ch
the i ntel l ectual communi ty was f ormed
and
sus-
tai ned
goes a
l ong
way towards expl ai ni ng i ts speci f i cal l y i ntel l ectual bi as i n
f avour of
thought
as wel l as i ts l atent tendency to pl ay downthe l i mi ts i mposed
upon the potenti al of thought, def i ni ti on, moti ve, or wi l l by el ements of real i ty
whi ch resi sted bei ng "verbal i sed away". "
Therewereother f eatures of the group- consti tuti ve debate whi chhel pus to
understand the concepti on of the soci al worl d as a battl e of i deol ogi es. The
i ntel l ectual debate was seen as bei ng wagedoutsi de the context of those mun-
dane, sel f - i nterested concerns whi chengagedthe parti ci pants
at
other ti mes i n
thei r capaci ty as "pri vate
persons"- as
househol d
heads, property managers,
breadwi nners. An i nvi si bl e wal l
seemed to ri se between
the two
rol es
the
parti ci pants pl ayed i n thei r l i ves. Theyentereddebate as pri vate persons, but the
debate requi red- and i mpl i ed by thesheer f act
of
bei ngcarri ed out
as
a debate-
that therul es whi chgovernedthei r pri vateacti ons were to bedecl ared i rrel evant
f or
the
durati on
of the debate. In consequence, the dependenci es whi ch so
evi dentl y conf i ned thei r f reedomi n mundane l i f e
seemed
( counterf actual l y)
to
stop short of the' debati ng chamber . If debate were to go on and pursue i ts
decl ared obj ecti ve- the convi cti on
of
truth- then the parti ci pants
were to be
f orced to agree
not
to recogni sethei r external constrai nts. Theywereto rel ateto
each other sol el y through arguments ai med at common themes. Whatever
rel ati ve superi ori ty emergedduri ng thedebatewas supposedto be f ul l y expl i c-
abl e i n ref erence to the strengthof the argument advanced; no other cri teri a of
superi ori ty or i nf eri ori ty wereal l owed. Soci al posi ti on, status, power connecti ons
andother properti es whi chconsti tuted thepri vate i denti ti es of theparti ci pants
wereei ther si l enced
or
procl ai medunrel ated to the topi c at hand. Thepol i ti cs of
equal i ty provi dedtheexperi enti al basi s f romwhi chthe i deas
of
"speci es bei ng",
"manas such", "theessence
of
man" or, i ndeed, "purereason", wereperpetual l y
generated.
As mi ght be expected, thef i cti tous assumpti ons andthecounterf actual rul es of
the debate whi chconsti tuted thei ntel l ectual modeof l i f e weref i rst appl i ed and
entrenchedi n f i el ds rel ati vel y remote f romthe concerns of dai l y l i f e; or, rather,
i n those f i el ds whi ch were onl y weakl y control l ed by the powers- that- be, and
whi chweretheref ore capabl e of bei ng easi l y annexedandsel f - governed. Such
f i el ds came to be known i n the ei ghteenth century as "art" or, someti mes,
"cul ture". It wasover these weakest l i nks
i n
the chai nof establ i shed
power that
thedebati ngpubl i c f i rst assertedi ts authori ty, establ i shi ngan earl y prototypeof
the "Yenan republ i c" i n whi ch i t coul d depl oy andtest i ts own rul es. Debati ng
soci eti es, sal ons, caf es, weresi mul taneousl y theconqueredterri tori es andi nvad-
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
i ng armi es. What came to
beknown as cul ture was a
hypostati zedmodeof l i f e
that these
armi es admi ni stered wi thi n thei r terri tori es.
I nasmuchas art and
cul ture hadbeen
consti tuted ( as hadeverythi ngel se concei ved
wi thi n thei ntel -
l ectual mode) as
"meani ngf ul " or "si gni f i cant"- and not
merel y usef ul or
ef f i ci ent- obj ects
and acti ons, they were seen to be natural
and undi sputed
domai nsof i ntel l ectual
authori ty. Si ncerarel y chal l engedby
al ternati vepowers,
art and cul ture appeared
to be admi ni stered by the rul es of
argumentati ve
consensus. Thei r eval uati on
seemed to cl ai mno other ground but
that of an
achi evedconsensus al ways
renewabl ei n a f reedebate. betweenequal s. I t was
thi s
qual i ty of consensus- produci ng debate- i ts
puri ty and f reedomf rom
f orei gn
contami nants- whi chwasgeneral i sedas the
phi l osophi cal pri nci pl eof obj ecti v-
i ty of
j udgment. AsJ ohn Stuart Mi l l wasto say, "[the]
bel i ef s whi chwehavemost
warrant f or, haveno saf eguard to rest on, but a
standi ng i nvi tati on to thewhol e
worl d to prove
themunf ounded". "
Thi s
val uati onof obj ecti vi ty seemedsaf eandsoundi n a
debatewhi chwas the
whol e
worl d; i t was l ess secure i n a worl d whi ch
ref used to be a debate. I f
i ntel l ectual s
wereever to usei nwi der battl es thearmour
f orgedby thesmi thyof
cul tural
argument, i f theywereever to movebeyondthe
conf i nesof thei r "Yenan
republ i c", they, had
to conf ront the task of re- negoti ati ng
f i el ds other than
cul ture- f i el ds
l i ke economi cs or pol i ti cs, whi chwere
under the control of
di f f erent
authori ti es, but whi chwereneverthel esscapabl eof
bei ngconqueredby
terms si mi l ar to those
al readyworkedout f or thearti cul ati onof the
domai nof art
andcul ture.
Natural l y, the
i ntel l ectual mode of l i f e compl ete wi th i ts
counterf actual
assumpti ons servedas
thestarti ngpoi nt of thi s re- negoti ati on. The
substanceof
the
re- negoti ati on was the uni versal extensi on of the
pri nci pl e of obj ecti vi ty,
whi ch
was understood to be, themonopol y of argumentati ve
consensus i n the
groundi ng
of l egi ti mate bel i ef s. The pri nci pl e of obj ecti vi ty
demanded, f or
exampl e, arej ecti on of thepri nci pl ecui usregi o, ei us
rel i gi o. I t mi l i tatedagai nst
thecri teri a of i ndi vi dual or group uti l i ty. I t
was, i n essence, conceptual i sed i n
opposi ti on to any non- i ntel l ectual power
over the authori ty of argument. The
moment the i ntel l ectual modeof
l i f e steppedover theboundary of i ts proper,
sel f - admi ni stered encl ave, i ts matter- of - f act,
unprobl emati c rul es of consensus
reachedthel evel of consci ous
arti cul ati on i n suchopposi ti ons as obj ecti vi ty
and
bi as, reasonandi nterest,
uni versal truthandsel f i shends. Thevari ous opposi tes
al l ref l ected the
newexperi ence of a resi stance of al i en f orms of
power to
authori ty groundedi n the i ntel l ectual way.
For a
communi ty consti tuted by di scussi on andargument, al l other groups or
structures
appear as so manyobstacl es to thesmoothunravel i ng of
argumenta-
ti ve consensus. Thel i mi ts i mposedoni ntel l ectual l y
admi ni steredauthori ty are
experi encedas thestubbornness of counter- bel i ef s; as
unwhol esomeandobsti -
nate i deas whi chwoul d not stand that test,
whi chwas bi ndi ng wi thi n the
"l i berated
terri tory"
of
argument. Thi s amazi ng ref ractori ness of not- properl y-
grounded
bel i ef s coul dbeunderstoodonl y as an ef f ect of thebreachi ng of
rul es
whi ch, i f appl i ed,
woul d
soon
di scl ose these bel i ef s' groundl essness. Thi s
sel f -
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
understandi ngof argumentati on
precededi nqui ry; as such, i t was
i mmunetothe
test of ref utati on. Each
successi vef ai l ure to stampout thebel i ef s
whi ch di dnot
pass muster was
seen as another conf i rmati on that the
understandi ng was
correct
and
"obj ecti ve" i nthef i rst pl ace.
The
i deaof breachi ngtherul es
bri ngs therul es themsel vesupto the
l evel of
consci ousness. The
counterf actual assumpti ons whi ch underl ay
theexerci seof
authori ty i nsi de the
i ntel l ectual communi ty were now
codi f i ed i nto a set of
sti pul ati ons whi ch the
worl dat l argewas supposed
toobserve. Thi s codi f i cati on
took the f ormof the
vi si onof "undi storted- communi cati on"
. Gi venthi s name
qui terecentl y
byf argenHabermas, thi s vi si oni n
i ts essencehas beenuphel df or a
very l ong ti me i n
a vari ety of ci rcl es : i npost- Marti an
di agnoses of f al se con-
sci ousness
; i ncl ai msabout thei deol ogi cal
i mpact of dai l yl i f eor statei deol ogi cal
apparatuses
; i n Weber' s concept
of
the
i deal type, whi chpostul atedthepossi bi l -
i ty
of knowl edgeabl eactors rati onal l y
pursui ngthei r i nterests ; and,
moregener-
al l y, i n the
uni versal bel i ef that
i gnorance equal s error and that error deri ves
f romthe
i nsuf f i ci ent control of
reasonover conduct . I n thi s sense, Habermas'
vi si onof "undi storted
communi cati on" crowns sometwo
centuri es of negoti a-
ti ongui dedby the
i ntel l ectual i st utopi aof theworl dre- madeaf ter
thepatternof
i ntel l ectual communi ty,
aworl dorgani sedas anunbri dl ed
debateandgrounded
onthepri nci pl es of equal i ty,
power of argument andtheopenness
of consensus
to scruti ny andcri ti ci sm.
The two successi ve meani ngs
commonl y attached to the word
"i deol ogy"
marked(andperhaps sti l l mark) the
rol eassi gnedto thesecul ar powers- that- be
i nbri ngi ngabout thereal i sati on
of thi s i ntel l ectual i st utopi a. Someti mes
these
powers havebeentrusted
as themaj or l evers of change;
someti mesthey arecast,
i n di sappoi ntment,
i ntotherol eof vi l l ai ns of the
pi ece,
i
. e. , as theverysourceand
agent of i gnorance
. Themost dramati c changes i n the
percepti on of pol i ti cal
authori ty havenot,
however, modi f i edtheessenti al f eatures
of
thi s
worl d- vi ew.
Onthecontrary, theconti nui ty
of thi s Wel tanschauungorgani sedby the
i ntel l ec-
tual i st utopi ai s the very
condi ti onwhi ch makes f easi bl e theabove- menti oned
f l uctuati ons of meani ngof the
concept of i deol ogy.
The
percepti on of the worl das a
battl e between reason and
error- as a
"ci vi l i si ng"
struggl eof reasonagai nst passi on,
of trueagai nst f al se
i nterests, of
needs
agai nst wants- reserves theword
"i deol ogy" f or ei ther si de of the barri -
cade andarti cul ates
menandwomenas bundl es of moti ves
. Thesemoti ves are
represented
as thepri nci pal obj ects of soci al acti on.
Acti onuponmoti ves, ai med
at thei r al terati on,
i s arti cul ated as the mai nl ever
of soci al change as such,
i ndeed- f or al l practi cal
i ntents andpurposes- as soci al
change i tsel f . By the
sametoken, i ndi vi dual s,
groups or i nsti tuti ons devoted
to
the
di ssemi nati onof
i deas and thus acti ng
upon moti ves, are cast i n the rol e of the
subj ects of
change- as i ts pri nci pal
i ni ti ators and agents. Amongsuch i ndi vi dual s, groups
or i nsti tuti ons aspeci al rol e
i s al l ocatedto thosewho haveapri vi l egedaccess to
reason and operate rel i abl e methods
of correcti ngerroneous j udgments. I n a
worl d
concei vedasapermanent "l earni n"
or "teach i n" sessi on, such i ndi vi dual s,
groups
or i nsti tuti ons are rel ated to the rest
of soci ety af ter the pattern of
DI SAPPEARI NGI DEOLOGY
teachers.
Theconcept of
i deol ogy bel ongs, i nsum, to
the rhetori c of power . I t i s i n ful l
harmony
wi ththemodernformof power as a di sci pl i ni ng
force. But wi thi nthi s
modernformi t
arti cul ates thepower struggl eas seenfrom
theperspecti veof the
i ntel l ectual modeof
l i fe
.
I ni ts pragmati c repercussi ons, the concept
of i deol ogy
arti cul ates the i ntel l ectual i st
bi d for authori ty; i t conceptual i ses
the worl d i n a
way whi ch l ocates
the i ntel l ectual s al ongsi de the strategi c
boundari es where
probl ems, i nterests
andprogrammes are del i neated andverbal i sed
.
To
concl ude
i n thi s way i s not to
drawconcl usi ons about the cogni ti ve useful ness of
the
concept of i deol ogy. Theconcept, as
I have tri ed to show, i s i nterwoven
wi th the
type of soci al real i ty i t attempts to capture.
I t was born as a response to a new
hi stori cal si tuati onandthenbecame a factor
i npromoti ngoneof i ts resol uti ons.
Thequesti on
of "cogni ti ve rel evance" i n the
sense of truth as correspondence
does not,
therefore, ari se. What has beenemphasi sed-i n
opposi ti on to many
recent and
hi ghl y fashi onabl e denunci ati ons of the theory of
i deol ogy-i s that
thequesti oni ngof theconcept of i deol ogymakes sense
onl y
as
thequesti oni ngof
the
speci fi c soci o-hi stori cal constel l ati on wi th
whi ch the concept has been
i nextri cabl yi ntertwi ned. Thi s constel l ati onof
di sci pl i nary power i s anhi stori cal
devel opment whi ch the "i deol ogi cal " perspecti ve
takes for granted: i t "natura-
l i ses"
i ts products andnever l ooks beyond
the uni verse whi chi t has consti tuted.
Conservati ve or radi cal i n i ts
current pol i ti cal appl i cati ons, the perspecti ve of
i deol ogyi s boundtoremai nwi thi nthe
hori zondrawnbyasoci al systemi nwhi ch
the asymmetry of power i s the
i ndi spensabl e vehi cl e of soci al reproducti on.
Wi thi nthi s hori zon, no
doubt, the i deol ogi cal perspecti ve tends to i l l umi nate
some aspects of soci al
reproducti on better than others. Among the factors
confi ni ng and
channel l i ng human agency and i ts choi ces, i t bri ngs to
l i ght
pressures
vari ousl y cal l ed "soci al i zati on", "cul tural i nfl uences", "di storted
com-
muni cati on",
"propaganda", "l i ngui sti c depri vati on", or "fal se
consci ousness" .
Yet i t l eaves
pre-di scursi ve practi ces of bodi l ydri l l i n theshadows.
I nadvertentl y,
the perspecti ve of i deol ogy transl ates the
pol i ti cal i ssue of the rel ati onshi p
between the control l ers and the control l ed
i nto the theoreti cal i ssue of the
rel ati onshi p betweenenl i ghtened reason
andi gnorant supersti ti on.
Notes
Uni versi ty of Leeds
1 .
Mi chel Foucaul t, TheArcheol ogy of
Knowl edge (London, 1 974) , p. 44.
2. Cf
. Georges Duby, L' econonti e rural e et l a
vi ede. r cantpagnes duns Cocci dent ntedi er
al (Pari s,
1 962) , p. 98.
3.
Mi chel Foucaul t, Power and
Knowl edge (Bri ghton, 1 980) , p. 1 04.
4. Robert
Muchernbl ed, Cul ture popul ai re et cul ture de. t el i ter
dans l a France ruoderne (XV'
-XVl l esi ecl es) (Pari s,
1 978) ; StephenandEi l eenYeo(eds . ) ,
Popul ar Cul tureandCl ass Confl i ct
(Bri ghton, 1 981 )
.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
5.
Cf. Paul
Cl avel , Le. r mythesfondateur s de. r sci ences r oci al e' ( Par i s,
1980) , p. 38: "the r ati onal i sts
of the 17th centur y knewthat man
cannot be ful l y r educed to r eason. . . . Between the or der of
r easonandthi s of dr i ves andpassi ons, ther e
wasanabyss. An i ndi vi dual i ncapabl eof confor mi ng
to the advi ceof hi sj udgment
l eadsa di ssol ute l i fe andcr eates di sor der whi chsoci etymust
contai n.
Nobody doubted that
peopl e can behave l i ke ani mal s. . . . I f man' ' s ways cannot
be amended, the
onl y sol uti on
i s to i sol ate hi mfr omthesoci etyhe thr eatens. Theage
of r easonwasal so anage of
confi nement" .
6. Luci enFebvr e et al . , Ci vi l i sati on. Le mot et l ' i dee
( Par i s, 1930) , pp. 9- 10 andthe note onp. 48.
7. Quotedafter Har r yC. Payne, The Phi l osopher and
the Peopl e ( NewHaven, 1976) , p. 29.
8. Emmet Kennedy, Destutt de Tr acy
andthe Or i gi ns of ' I deol ogy" ( Phi l adel phi a, 1978) , p. 47.
9. / hi d. , pp. 66, 68.
10. Lewi s Coser , Menof I deas
( Gl encoe, 111. , 1970) , p. vi i i .
11. fti r gen Haber mas,
5tr uktur wandel der Offentl i chkei t ( Neuwi ed andBer l i n, 1962) .
12. J . S. Mi l l ,
On
Li ber ty
( London, 1884) , p. 72.
POWERANDSEDUCTI ON
CYNICAL
POWER: THEFETISHISMOF
THESIGN
Arthur Kroker and
Charl es Levi n
Thewhol echaoti cconstel l ati onof thesoci al
revol ves aroundthat spongyref erent, that opaque
but
equal l y
transl ucent real i ty, that nothi ngness: the masses .
Astati sti cal crystal bal l , the masses are
"swi rl i ng
wi th currents andf l ows", i nthei mageof matter
andthe natural el ements . Soat l east they
are representedto us
.
C' est l e vi dequ' i l yaderri ere l e pouvoi r, ou
au coeur memedupouvoi r, au coeur de l aproducti on,
c' est ce
vi dequi l eur donneauj ourd' hui unederni ere l ueur de
real i te. Sans cequi l es reversi bi l i se,
l es annul e,
l es sedui t, i l s n' eussent meme j amai s pri s f orcede real i te
.
J
. Baudri l l ard
Oubl i er Foucaul t
Tal i sman
J. Baudri l l ard
/ ntheShadowof the
Si l ent Maj ori ti es
The representati ve probl emof
modemFrenchthought i s the probl emof
representati on. Thewhol e movement of thought
i nFrancehas beentowardthe
speci f i cati onof representati onal f eatures not
reduci bl e to subj ect andobj ect ;
and
then
theredi scoveryof energy( desi re) , f orce
( di f f erance) andpower wi thi n
the terms of
the l anguage paradi gmi tsel f . But, as the arti cl es to f ol l ow
al l
suggest, the
structural i st and post- structural i st programmati c attenti on to
representati ons has
achi eved onl y ambi guous i nsi ghts i nto the power of
representati ons as such
. Asynopti c revi ewof the structural i st tradi ti on
i ndi cates that the
f oundi ngpremi ses were never outl i vedandi ndeedthat they
al ways actedas the gravi tati onal centre
f or l ater ventures . It i s al most as i f
structural i smandpost- structural i sm
together f ormaki ndof cl oseduni verseof
di scourse i nwhi chquesti ons
are i nteresti ngbut l i ke Hegel ' s ni ght theanswers
are i ndi sti ngui shabl e. Onceentered, sucha' uni verse
i s di f f i cul t to escape; yet
the postmodern proj ect has achi eved the
coherence of a hermeneuti cal
tradi ti onwi ththe i nel ucti bl i ty of ari te de
passage. The j ournal has chosenthe
work of JeanBaudri l l ardas atal i sman: asymptom,
asi gn, acharm, andabove
al l , apasswordi nto the next uni verse.
NewFrenchThought andthe Metaphysi cs of Representati on
Thecri ti queof theMetaphysi cs of Representati ondepends
paradoxi cal l yon
the asserti on of the autonomyof representati ons. Thi s pecul i ar turnof i deas
takes us back nearl y acentury to Ni etszche' s pragmati sm
: al l worl dvi ews are
arbi trary because they are
al l equal l y moti vated. The sameprobl ememerges i n
the moderncontroversy of the
si gn. Where i n the chai nsi gni f i er- si gni f i ed-
ref erent- real i ty does one
f i ndthe determi nate l i nk that guarantees communi -
cabl eref erence? Is i t "real i ty" - so that
l anguage i s reducedto acol l ecti onof
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t okens? I s i t i n t he. " si gni f i er " ,
r educi ng r eal i t y t o a bl ur r ed hyl e? or i s i t
somewher e
i n t he mi ddl e, i n. t he r egi ons of t he i l l usi ve concept or of nai ve
r eal i sm? What gave Baudr i l l ar d hi s l ever age i n t hi s debat e was hi s awar eness
t hat t he basi c f or mal i zat i on of t he meani ng pr ocess ( Saussur e,
J acobson,
Levi -
St r auss, Lacan, Al t husser ) was i n f act
a vi ci ous ci r cl e of mot i vat i on- i mmot i vat i on
desi gned
t o excl ude t he act of r ef er ence whi l e r et ai ni ng t he val ue of t he
r ef er ent . Post - st r uct ur al i smsawt hi s t oo, and pr oposed by way of sol ut i on t he
si mpl e non- val ue of val ue and t he non- meani ng of meani ng . Baudr i l l ar d' s wor k
was al l i ed t o t hi s, but r emai ned i ndependent i n cer t ai n cr uci al
r espect s
.
Hedi d
not deny a cer t ai n necessi t y
t o t he f or mal abst r act i on of t he si gn- l ogi c, but he
. saw
t hi s as
a
hi st or i cal concat enat i on ( t hemat i zed i n t er ms of t he commodi t y) ,
r at her
t han as a uni ver sal condi t i on of exper i ence and l anguage. Fr omt he
vant age poi nt of Baudr i l l ar d' s cr i t i que of t he pol i t i cal economy of t he si gn, he
was abl e t o ar gue t hat t he hei r s of st r uct ur al i sm, i n t hei r
hast e t o expunge t he
vest i ges of nat ur al i sm, had nat ur al i zed
t he ar bi t r ar y, t he al eat or y and. t he
cont i ngent , t her eby cr eat i ng a newi deol ogy, an i deol ogy wi t hout cont ent -
an i deol ogi st ' s i deol ogy .
I n t he ni net een- si xt i es, t he var i ous at t empt s t o f or mal i ze t he l ogi c of
r epr esent at i ons i n soci al ant hr opol ogy, l i ngui st i cs, poet i cs, mar xi sm, andsoon,
conveyed a mar kedl y posi t i vi st et hos . Yet , however r i gi dl y def i ned t hey wer e,
t he l anguage model s her al dedas t he uni f i er s of al l sci ence act ual l y di scour aged
a compl et e r egr essi on t o ni net eent h- cent ur y Posi t i vi sm. Per haps i t was t hi s
nar r owand cont i nui ng scr ape wi t h t he Posi t i vi st t empt at i on t hat gener at ed t he
most f r ui t f ul t ensi on wi t hi n t he st r uct ur al i st movement
as a
whol e
. St r uct ur al i sm
never succeeded i n est abl i shi ng i t sel f as a pur el y f or mal
met hod; yet t he or i gi nal
pr oj ect has r emai ned i mpl i ci t i n t he unshakabl e assumpt i on
t hat
an
excl usi ve
at t ent i on t o t he pr obl emof r epr esent at i on canpr oduce a new, non- met aphysi cal ,
t hor oughl y agnost i c par adi gm. The sheer r esi l i ence of t hi s bel i ef - syst emhas
obscur ed t he f act t hat st r uct ur al i smcoul d onl y save i t sel f f r omt he i nt er nal t hr eat
of posi t i vi smby r et ur ni ng t o met aphysi cs - t hi s t i me i n t he f or mof an i nt i mat e
( d) enunci at i on of i t . What has r emai ned const ant t hr oughout , conceal ed i n t he
r i gor of i t s at t ent i on t o r epr esent at i on, i s t he met aphysi cal desi r e t o det er mi ne t he
nat ur e of t he r eal i t y al l uded t o andf al si f i ed i n t he r epr esent at i onal syst ems under
st r uct ur al i st scr ut i ny. The speci f i c concer n wi t h semi ot i c, di f f er ent i al , t ext ual ,
opposi t i onal , decent r ed, r hi zomat i c and mol ecul ar model s i s desi gned f r omt he
out set t o guar ant ee cer t ai n st at ement s about t henat ur e of t he cont ext wi t hi nwhi ch
r epr esent at i on happens . Each model at t empt s t o pr ecl ude t he quest i on of i t s
cont ext on t he gr ounds t hat such a quest i on canonl y be answer edwi t h anot her
model - and so eachmodel bui l ds wi t hi n i t sel f as i t s ownpr edi cat e t he model of
i t s cont ext and possi bi l i t y of r ef er ence. The r esul t i s a t heor et i cal t r ope whi ch
decl ar es t hat r eal i t y i s al ways goi ng
t o be a model and t hat t hi s
model
wi l l t r y t o
f ost er t he i l l usi on t hat i t i s gr oundedi n
or
t endi ng
t owar dsomet hi ng out si de i t sel f
.
The gener al pi ct ur e i s si mi l ar t o what Mi chel Ser r es cal l ed ( wi t hout i nt endi ng t o
r ai se any pr obl em) " an i somor phi c
r el at i on bet ween f or ce and
wr i t i ng . "
POWERAND
SEDUCTION
Thecr i t i que of t he Met aphysi cs of Repr esent at i on i s based
on t heassumpt i on
of a deduct i ve
( or st r uct ur al ) causal i t y: t he r epr esent er
and
t he
r epr esent ed ar e
al ways pr ecededas ef f ect s by t hei r r epr esent at i ons as
cause. Thus, deconst r uct i on,
schi zo- anal ysi s and geneal ogy r et ur n us, i n spi t e of
t hei r own war ni ng, t o t he
det er mi nat e l i near i t y
of t hecause- ef f ect sequence. Indeed, t he mor e
onel ooks at
post - st r uct ur al i st
devel opment s, t he mor e one i s i mpr essed wi t ht he movement ' s
f ai l ur e t o br eak wi t ht hepast .
Henr i Lef ebvr er ef er r ed t o st r uct ur al i smas t he "New
El eat i sm" because i t r esembl ed i n i t s nai ve
sci ent i st i c phase t he cl assi cal
i deal i zat i on of
t he concept as pur e gener at i ve f or m. Ri coeur
cal l ed L6vi - St r auss'
st r uct ur al i sm"Kant i sm
wi t hout a subj ect . " And i f t her e was a r epudi at i on of
t he
phenomenol ogi cal and Hegel i an
t r adi t i ons at t hebegi nni ng, t hese soon r et ur ned,
l i ke
t he r epr essed, i n t he f or mof al l t heneo- st r uct ur al i st
pr obl emat i cs of t hebody
and
desi r e i n t hewor k of Der r i da, Foucaul t , Kr i st eva,
Lacan, Del euze and Bar t hes .
Thi s was
not onl y a r esur genceof danger ous mat er i al i t y; i t was f el t t hat t hesei ssues
coul d be accomodat ed
wi t hi n t he gener al i zed model of t er mi nol ogi cal
combi nat i on and
exchange. Ever yt hi ng f i t t ed i nt o a newMast er Met aphor of
pr oduct i on
t hr ough mar ki ng or i nscr i pt i on ( t he body' s act i on upon i t sel f ? )
.
The Ni et szchean
r evi val opened a gap i n soci al - phi l osophi cal di scour se f or t he
"r et ur n t o Fr eud, "
and so Fr eud was qui ckl y st r uct ur al i zed. The "seet hi ng
caul dr on" was
t ur ned f r oma ' cont ent ' i nt o a ' f or m' , f r oma dr i ve i nt o a si gni f i er
( whi chr et ai ned t he f or ce of a
dr i ve) , and f r omsomet hi ng whi chi s subst i t ut ed
i nt o t he pr i nci pl e of subst i t ut i on i t sel f . Yet
i n spi t e of t he i nf l uent i al cl ai ms of
t he Lacani an l anguage model , t he post - st r uct ur al i st
ver si on of Fr eud usual l y
meant a r ecuper at i on of i nst i nct ual at omi sm
and i t s at t endant ni net eent h
cent ur y ener gy and engi neer i ng model s . Those
hoar y r epr esent at i ons of
r epr esent at i on i n gener al , t ended t o be excl usi vel y
epi st emol ogi cal ef f or t s t o
di scover t he
i r r educi bl e par t i cl es or "const i t uent el ement s" of Bei ng.
L6vi -
St r auss' s
t abul ar cul t ur al unconsci ous and Lacan' s mast er - sl ave t heor y of
desi r e wer e
f used and gener al i zed. Ever yt hi ng was seen i n t er ms of t he l aws of
combi nat i on
and subst i t ut i on. The mi cr ophysi cs of power , t he pr i mar y
pol yt ext ual
per ver si t y, and var i ous specul at i ve l i bi di nal dynami cs al l par t i ci -
pat ed
i n t he or i gi nal exci t ement of t he Fr eudi an sci ent i f i c i magi nar y. The
Del euzi an
ver si on i s especi al l y r emar kabl e i n t hat i t pr esent s a t heat r e of
i ndust r i al st r i f e i n whi ch
t he per sonal i t i es of t he act or s ar e expr essed as
machi ne- l i ke appar at uses
whose exper i ences of ot her s t ake t he f or m of
i nf ant i l e par t - obj ect r el at i ons,
br eaks, f l ows, gr af t s, di sj unct i ons and di spl a-
cement s . Any at t empt
t o gr asp t he i dea of anot her per son out of al l t hi s i s
condemned as
an Oedi pal r epr essi on of t hel evel l i ng f l owof l i bi do, whosei deal
r epr esent at i on i s t he
"r hi zomat i c" spr ead of gr ass . Li ke st r uct ur al i smbef or e i t ,
t he mor e r ecent Fr ench t hought
i s
a
power f ul agent of r educt i on. It t r i es t o
const i t ut e a uni f i ed f i el d i n whi ch al l "ef f ect s"
ar e i n pr i nci pl e account ed f or
bef or e t hey happen
.
Ther e
i s somet hi ng bur eaucr at i c about t hi s : i ndeed, t he
scr i bal model s al l ude t o t he bur eaucr at i c f or ms of power . Foucaul t ' s power i s
t he omni pr esent pol i ce st at e: Fasci st , r i gi d, cont r ol l i ng. It appeal s t o soci al
sci ent i st s . The Der r i dean model i s mor e l i ke a par l i ament ar y democr acy
:
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
ambi val ent ,
f l acci d, and obf uscat i ng. ' It appeal s t o t he l i t er at i . One i s
i nf i ni t esi mal l y ef f i caci ous, t he ot her , i ndef i ni t el y absor pt i ve
.
St r uct ur al i smabsor bs di f f er ence by maki ngever yt hi ng
di f f er ent i n t he same
way and f or t he same r eason. The post - st r uct ur al i st
gest ur e ext ends and r eal i gns
t he st r uct ur al f i el d,
but
i n
so doi ng, i t onl y i nt ensi f i es t he pr ocedur es of
r educt i on and abst r act i on. In Der r i da' s deconst r uct i on. of Levi - St r auss ( Of
Gr ammat ol ogy) , post st r uct ur al i smper f or ms t hi s oper at i on di r ect l y ont he body
of i t s pr edecessor . The r edoubl i ng of t he met hod emer ges as an
ef f or t t o
expunge syst emat i cal l y any r esi dues
of
i nf or mal i t y st i l l
appar ent i n t he .
st r uct ur al i st anal ysi s . Thus, what
appear s t o us i n Levi - St r auss as schemat i c
r at i onal i smand a nai ve r eal i smof t he concept , st r i kes Der r i da as "anar chi sm",
"l i ber t ar i an i deol ogy", and "Anar chi st i c and Li ber t ar i an pr ot est at i ons agai nst
Law, t he Power s, and t he St at e i n gener al . . . " ( 131, 132, 138) . In Der r i da' s
exampl e ( Tr i st es Tr opi ques) ,
Levi - St r auss i s t r yi ng, r at her cl umsi l y, t o t hi nk t he
ot her ness of t he Nambi kwar a: he does t hi s i n t er ms of t he opposi t i ons
non- wr i t i ng/ wr i t i ng, Fest i val / St at e, communi t y/ bur eaucr acy, speech/ codi ng,
et c . Der r i da poi nt s out t hat t hese opposi t i ons have
al r eady beenabsor bed, t hat
wr i t i ng i s ( al ways al r eady) ever ywher e, and
t hat t he Nambi kwar a ar e conse-
quent l y t he Same. Ever y suggest i on of t hei r di f f er ence i s di ssol ved
i nt o
t he
met aphysi c of pr esence. Agai nst t he t hesi s of col oni al vi ol ence, Der r i da
advances t he ar che wr i t i ng - t he i mmemor i al "uni t y
of vi ol ence and wr i t i ng. "
( 106) The whol e oper at i on i s achi eved
by what Der r i da hi msel f cal l s t he
"apr i or i st i c or t r anscendent al r egr essi on. " ( 135) The
t er ms of ever y pr obl emar e
r educed t o an a pr i or i st r uct ur e of i ndi f f er ence
:
a
f i el d of f or mal f eat ur es i s
del i neat ed and pr epar ed f or
"i nci ssi on. " Hencef or t h, any hi nt s of di f f er ence i n
t he t ext t o be const i t ut ed canbe r edesi gned
as t he ef f ect of t he pl ay of si gni f i er s,
so t hat r ef er ence i s cent r i pet al l y t r apped . It i s a met hod of "mi mesi s and
cast r at i on. " ( Posi t i ons, 84)
Gi ven
t he power of t hese uni f or mf i el ds of seaml ess i nt er r el at i onal i t y, i t i s
l ess sur pr i si ng t hat Baudr i l l ar d, wi t h one eye ont he soci al t er r ai n, t he ot her on
successi ve waves of met at heor y, has begun t o concei ve t he onl y possi bi l i t y of
di f f er ence, ot her ness and t he symbol i c, i n t er ms of a vi ol ent er upt i on.
Baudr i l l ar d has been t oo of t en mi sunder st ood on t hi s poi nt , f or i t i s nat ur al t o
assi mi l at e t hi s commot i on ( as opposed t o t heor et i cal
"conj unct ur e") of hi s wor k
t o t he Gal l i c t heme of t he epi st emol ogi cal
br eak, t r ansgr essi on, r ever sal and
r upt ur e. But t her e i s ani mpor t ant di st i nct i on, whi ch f ol l ows
ont he Baudr i l l ar di an
concept i on of di f f er ence and ot her ness i n t he Symbol i c
. It i s
i n
t hese t er ms t hat
we may be abl e t o per cei ve, t hr ough
r ef l ect i on on Baudr i l l ar d, t he out l i ne of a
gr oup of i mpor t ant quest i ons whi ch
per haps onl y st r uct ur al i smcoul d have
r ai sed,
but
whi ch i t has al so suppr essed i n t he sameness of i t s answer s . If t he
cont i nui t y
of st r uct ur al i smhas been t o est abl i sh a Gener al Isomor phol ogy,
whi ch
can
onl y
be achi eved t hr ough pr ogr essi ve f or mal i zat i on, whet her
posi t i vi st i c
or
met aphysi cal ,
t hen t he Cr i t i que of Logocent r i sm and t he
Met aphysi c
of Repr esent at i on woul d appear t o have beenunder mi ned f r omt he
st ar t . In f act , i nsof ar as t he whol e ant i l ogocent r i c pr oj ect came t o be t i ed t o a
POWERANDSEDUCTION
r ef l ect i on on " ont ol ogi cal
di f f er ence" ( Hei degger ) , i t was bound t o
f ai l , f or
di f f er ence and " al t er i t y" ar e
not l i kel y t o be secur ed ont ol ogi cal l y, any
mor e
t han
t hey may be per cei ved or appr eci at ed
wi t ht he t ool s of f or mal epi st emol ogy
al one. Thi s pr obl emar i ses
i n Lacan' s wor k, wher e t he symbol i c i s gr asped
t hr ough t he ont i c- ont ol ogi cal di st i nct i on of
t he Phal l us, a ki nd of Ur - si gni f i er
whi ch " i nser t s" t he subj ect i nt o t he f i el d of
l anguage by i naugur at i ng . a ser i al
pr ocess of
subst i t ut i ons . Her e I. kvi - St r auss' s i dea of meani ng as an
i nst ant aneousl y
gener at ed net wor k
ser ves t o absor bt he pr obl emof t he ot her
( t he symbol i c) i nt o
t he combi nat or y
mat r i x ( Pat r i x? ) . In cont r ast , t he t heme of
di f f er ence f or
Baudr i l l ar d i s nei t her epi st emol ogi cal
nor ont ol ogi cal i n t he schemat i c
st r uct ur al i st sense, but soci al and psychol ogi cal
. In or der t o secur e t hi s domai n
beyond
t he pur vi ewof f or mal i zat i on- r at i onal i zat i on,
Baudr i l l ar d def i ned t he
symbol i c
i n opposi t i on t o t he subst i t ut i ve l ogi c of t he si gn. The
" cr i t i que
of
t he
pol i t i cal economy of t he
si gn" t hus emer ged f r omt he st andpoi nt of an
i r r educi bl e soci al symbol i c excl uded f r om
f or mal f i el ds of coded si gni f i cat i on .
The uni queness of t hi s appr oach
was t hat i t al l owed Baudr i l l ar d t o r esi t uat e t he
cr i t i que of r epr esent at i on
( and l ogocent r i sm) i n t er ms of t he suppr essed
quest i on of t he r el at i on of t he model t o
r eal i t y . Sei zi ng on t he ont ol ogi cal
ambi gui t y of t he l anguage par adi gm,
Baudr i l l ar d answer ed t hi s quest i on by
devel opi ng t he t heme of oper at i onal i zat i on i n t er ms
of st r uct ur es of soci al
si gni f i cat i on . ( L Echange symbol i que et l a mor t )
The most
power f ul met aphor i n Baudr i l l ar d i s pr eci sel y t he
l oss of met aphor
wi t h t he advent of a
sci ence of " meani ng" . The ul t i mat e r epr esent at i on, t he
apot heosi s of t he
subj ect - obj ect di al ect i c, t hen appear s as t he i magi nar y
def l at i on of al l
symbol i c t ensi on - a ki nd of mat er i al i zat i on of r at i onal i sm
t hr ough t he
act ual i zat i on of t he model . In t he r adi cal f or mof t hi s t hesi s,
however , t he di f f er ence of t he
symbol i c i s di ssol ved i n t he si gn' s absor pt i on of
ot her ness, a devel opment
whi chent ai l s not hi ng l ess t han t he " end of t he soci al "
and t he expi r y
of measur ed cr i t i que ( In The Shadowof The Si l ent
Maj or i t i es)
Baudr i l l ar d i s f or ced
t o shi f t t he bur den of hi s symbol i c st ance ont o t he cat egor y
of ambi val ence .
Thi s al l ows hi mt o r ecover t he expr essi ve di mensi on of
symbol i c exchange,
but at t he cost of havi ng t o vi ewt he l at t er as t he i mmanent
pr i nci pl e of
sel f - dest r uct i on at wor k i n al l soci al f or ms . Thi s expl ai ns
Baudr i l l ar d' s r et ur n t o
t he mode of a skept i co- t r anscendent al cr i t i que of wor l dl y
r epr esent at i onal i l l usi ons
: a sor t of t heor y and pr act i ce of anamor phosi s.
( Les st r at egi es f at al es)
Baudr i l l ar d' s Doubl e Ref usal
Baudr i l l ar d i s l i ke Ni et zsche t o t hi s ext ent . Eachof hi s wr i t i ngs ar e wor ks of
ar t whi chseek t o
ar r ai gn
t he
wor l d bef or e poet i c consci ousness. In Baudr i l l ar d' s
t heor i sat i ons, t her e i s a cer t ai n r et ur n t o a t r agi c sense of hi st or y, and t hi s
because hi s i magi nat i on moves j ust al ong t hat t r aj ect or y wher e ni hi l i sm, i n i t s
deval or i zed f or mas a cr i t i que of abst r act power , i s bot h t he ant i t hesi s of and
condi t i on of possi bi l i t y f or hi st or i cal emanci pat i on. Baudr i l l ar d' s t r agi c sense
The Deval or i sat i on of t he
Soci al
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
der i ves di r ect l y f r omhi s
under st andi ngof our i mpr i sonment i n t hecar cer al
of a
cyni cal power , a power whi ch wor ks i t s ef f ect s
symbol i cal l y ; and whi ch i s,
anyway, t he di sappear i ng l ocus of a soci et y whi ch
has nowpassed over i nt o i t s
opposi t e: t he cycl e of
deval or i sat i on and desoci al i sat i on wi t hout l i mi t .
But i f Baudr i l l ar d canbeso unspar i ngi n hi s t r agi c vi si on of
abst r act power as
t he essence of modemsoci et y, t hen t hi s i s
j ust becausehi s t heor et i cal agenda
i ncl udes t wo' gr eat r ef usal s of t he l ogi c of r ef er ent i al f i nal i t i es
: a deval or i sat i on
of t hesoci al ; and a r ef usal of t heaut onomous hi st or i cal
subj ect . I Mor et han, f or
exampl e, Foucaul t ' s
t heor et i cal cr i t i queof aj ur i di cal concept i onof power whi ch
r eaf f i r ms, i n t he end;
t he pr i vi l eged posi t i on of t he soci al i n moder n cul t ur e,
Baudr i l l ar d has t aken st r uct ur al i smt o i t s l i mi t s . Baudr i l l ar d' s t hought sei zes on
t he essent i al i nsi ght of st r uct ur al i st di scour se: t he ecl i pse
of Weber ' s t heor y of
r at i onal i zat i on as an adequat e basi s f or under st andi ng
modemsoci et y, and t he
emer gence of McLuhan' s
concept of t he ext er i or i zat i on of t he senses as t he
dynami c l ocus of t he moder n cul t ur e
syst em? Baudr i l l ar d' s t heor i sat i on of t he
meani ng of consumer soci et y
begi ns wi t har adi cal chal l enget o soci ol ogy as an
al r eady passe way of r et hi nki ng soci et y as a bi gsi gn- syst em, and wi t h a r ef usal
of t he pr i vi l i ged posi t i on of t he pol i t i cs of hi st or i cal emanci pat i on.
The
ambi val ence of Baudr i l l ar d i s j ust t hi s : hi s cul t ur e cr i t i que
( l a soci et e de
consommat i on, De l a seduct i on) i s t he degr ee- zer o bet ween
t he hi st or i cal
nat ur al i sm
of Mar xi st cul t ur al st udi es ( Baudr i l l ar d' s st r uct ur al l awof val ue i s
t he
ant i t hesi s of St uar t Hal l ' s i deol ogy as t he " r et ur n of t he
r epr essed" ) and t he
soci ol ogi cal r eal i smof cr i t i cal t heor y . Agai nst Haber mas,
Baudr i l l ar d ( In t he
Shadowof t he Si l ent Maj or i t i es) r ei nvokes t he si gn of Ni et zsche
as t he el ement al
memor y of t he t r agi c t r adi t i on i n cr i t i cal
t heor y . Agai nst Foucaul t , Baudr i l l ar d
( Oubl i er Foucaul t )
nomi nat es a pur el y cyni cal power . And beyond Mar xi st
cul t ur al
st udi es, Baudr i l l ar d br eaks f or ever wi t h a r epr esent at i onal
t heor y of
i deol ogi cal hegemony . J ust l i ke t he bl eak, gr i sl y, and ent i r el y semi ol ogi cal
wor l d of Gi or gi o de Chi r i co' s LandscapePai nt er , Baudr i l l ar d' s t hought i nt r oduces
a gr eat
sci ssi on i n t he r ecei ved cat egor i es of west er n di scour se. And i t
does so
j ust because al l of Baudr i l l ar d' s cul t ur al t heor y t r aces out t he i mpl osi on of
moder nexper i ence: t he cont r act i on andr ever sal of t hebi gcat egor i es of t her eal
i nt o a dense, seduct i ve, and ent i r el y ni hi l i st i c soci et y of si gns .
Aspeechl ess mass f or ever y hol l owspokesmanwi t hout a past
.
Admi r abl e conj unct i on, bet ween t hose who have not hi ng
t o
say, and t hemasses, whodonot speak.
Omi nous empt i ness of
al l di scour se. Nohyst er i a or pot ent i al f asci sm,
but si mul at i on
by pr eci pi t at i on of ever y l ost r ef er ent i al . Bl ack box of ever y
r ef er ent i al , of ever y uncapt ur ed meani ng, of i mpossi bl e
hi st or y, of unt r aceabl esyst ems of r epr esent at i on, t he mass i s
what r emai ns whent he soci al has been
compl et el y
r emoved
.
J . Baudr i l l ar d
In t heShadowof t he
Si l ent Maj or i t i es
128
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
Baudr i l l ar d i s
expl i ci t i n hi s accus at i on
concer ni ng t he deat h of t he
s oci al , and
of t he l os s of t he
" r ef er ent " of t he s oci ol ogi cal
i magi nat i on. It ' s not s o much t hat
s oci ol ogi cal
di s cour s e, t he mas t er par adi gmof
t he cont empor ar y cent ur y, has
been s uper ceded by
compet i ng ens embl es of
nonnat i ve meani ng, but , i ns t ead,
t hat t he pr i vi l eged pos i t i on
of t he s oci al as a
pos i t i ve, and hence nor mat i ve,
r ef er ent has s uddenl y
been ecl i ps ed byi t s own
" i mpl os i on" i nt o t he dens i t y of
t he mas s .
The s oci al wor l d i s
s cat t er ed wi t h i nt er s t i t i al obj ect s
and
cr ys t al l i ne obj ect s whi ch s pi n
ar ound and coal es ce i n a
cer ebr al
chi ar os cur o. So i s t he mas s , an
i n vacuoaggr egat i on of
i ndi vi dual par t i cl es ,
r ef us e of t he s oci al
and of medi a
i mpul s es : an opaque nebual a
whos e gr owi ngdens i t y
abs or bs
al l
t he s ur r oundi ng ener gy and
l i ght r ays , t o col l aps e f i nal l y
under
i t s own wei ght . Abl ack hol e~whi ch
engul f s t he s oci al ?
Two,
i n par t i cul ar , of Baudr i l l ar d' s t ext s
-1ef f et beaubour gand In t he
Shadowof
t he Si l ent
Maj or i t i es -t r ace out , i n an al mos t
des par at e l anguage of abs ence,
t hat
r upt ur e i n moder n
di s cour s e r epr es ent ed by
t he r ever s al of t he
pos i t i ve,
nor mal i zi ng and
expandi ng cycl e of t he s oci al
i nt o i t s oppos i t e : an
i mpl os i ve
and s t r uct ur al
or der of s i gns . Thi s i s j us t t hat
br eak-poi nt i nt he s ymbol i c
t ot al i t y
wher e t he " nor m"
under goes an i nver s i on i nt o
a f l oat i ng or der of s i gns , wher e
s t r at egi es of nor mal i zat i on
ar e r epl aced byt he " s i mul at i on of t he mas s es "
, 4
and
wher e t he " hyper eal i t e de l a cul t ur e"
5 i ndi cat es a gr eat
di s s ol ut i on of t he s pace
of t he s oci al . Baudr i l l ar d' s
t heor i s at i on of t he end of
s oci ol ogy as a r eal i t y-
pr i nci pl e, or what i s t he
s ame, t he exhaus t i on of t he
s oci al as a t r ut h-ef f ect of a
nomi nal i s t i c power ,
pr i vi l eges a vi ol ent and i mpl os i ve
per s pect i ve on s oci et y.
" Vi ol ence i mpl os i ve qui
r es ul t e non pl us de 1' ext ens i on d' un
s ys t eme, mai s de s a
s at ur at i on et de s a
r et r act i on, comme i l en es t des
s ys t emes phys i ques
s t el l ai r es " 6
In t he t ext , In t he Shadow
of t he Si l ent Maj or i t i es , Baudr i l l ar d
pr ovi des t hr ee
s t r at egi c hypot hes es
( f r om mi ni mal and maxi mal
per s pect i ves ) about t he
exi s t ence of t he s oci al
onl y as a mur der ous ef f ect ,
whos e " uni nt er r upt ed
ener gy" over t wo
cent ur i es has come f r om " det er r i t or i al i s at i on
and f r om
concent r at i on i n ever mor e
uni f i ed agenci es "
. 7
The f i r s t
hypot hes i s has i t t hat
t he s oci al may onl y r ef er t o
t he s pace of a del us i on : " The s oci al
has bas i cal l y
never exi s t ed. Ther e
has never been any " s oci al r el at i on"
. Not hi ng has ever
f unct i oned s oci al l y. On
t hi s i nes capabl e bas i s of chal l enge,
s educt i on, and
deat h, t her e has never been
anyt hi ngbut s i mul at i on of t he s oci al
and t he s oci al
r el at i on" . On t he bas i s
of t hi s " del us i onal " hypt hes i s , t he
dr eamof a " hi dden
s oci al i t y" , a " r eal "
s oci al i t y, j us t " hypos t at i s es a s i mul at i on" . And
i f t he s oci al i s
a s i mul at i on, t hen t he
l i kel y cour s e of event s i s a " br ut al
de-s i mul at i on" : " a de-
s i mul at i on
whi ch i t s el f capt ur es t he s t yl e of a
chal l enge ( t he r ever s e of capi t al ' s
chal l enge of t he s oci al and s oci et y) : a chal l enge t o t he bel i ef t hat capi t al
and
power exi s t accor di ng t o t hei r own l ogi c - t hey have none
t hey vani s h as
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
appar at uses as soonas t he si mul at i on of soci al space
i s done" . 1 0 The second
hypot hesi s i s t he r ever se, but
par al l el , i mageof t he del usi onal t hesi s : t he soci al ,
not as t he space of
del usi onunder goi nga "br ut al de- si mul at i on", but
t he soci al
as r esi due, "expandi ng
t hr oughout hi st or y as a' r at i onal ' cont r ol of r esi dues, and
a r at i onal
pr oduct i on of r esi dues" . Baudr i l l ar d i s expl i ci t about
t he pur el y
excr ement al f unct i onof t he soci al , about t he soci al
as t he "f unct i onal vent i l at i on
of r emai nder s" . 1 z I t ' s j ust t he exi st ence of t he soci al as i t sel f
"r emai nder " whi ch
makes of t he soci al machi ne "r ef use pr ocessi ng" ; amor e
subt l e f or mof deat h,
i ndeed t he
scene of a "pi l i ng up andexor bi t ant pr ocessi ng of deat h" . "I n t hi s
event , we ar e evendeeper i n t he soci al ,
evendeeper i n pur e excr ement , i nt he
f ant ast i c congest i on
of dead l abour , of dead and i nst i t ut i onal i sed r el at i ons
wi t hi n
t er r or i st bur eaucr aci es, of deadl anguages and gr ammar s. Then
of cour se
i t can
no l onger be sai d t hat t he soci al i s
dyi ng, si nce i t i s al r eady t he
accumul at i on of deat h. I nef f ect wear e i n a
ci vi l i sat i on of t he super soci al , and
si mul t aneousl y i n a ci vi l i sat i on
of non- degr adabl e, i ndest r uct i bl e r esi due,
pi l i ng
up as t he soci al spr eads . "
1 3
The t hi r dhypot hesi s speaks onl y of t he endof
t he "per spect i ve space of t he soci al " . "The soci al has
not al ways been a
del usi on, as i n t he f i r st hypot hesi s, nor r emai nder , as i n
t he second: But
pr eci sel y, i t has onl y hadanendi nvi ew, a meani ng
as power , as wor k, as capi t al ,
f r omt he per spect i ve space of an i deal conver gence, whi ch
i s al so t hat of
pr oduct i on - i n
shor t , i n t he nar r owgap of second- or der si mul acr a, and,
absor bedi nt ot hi r d- or der si mul acr a, i t i s dyi ng
. "I 4
Thi s, t hen, i s t he hypot hesi s
of t he "pr ecessi onof si mul acr a", of a "vent i l at i on
of i ndi vi dual s as t er mi nal s of
i nf or mat i on", of , f i nal l y, t he deat h of t he soci al ( "whi ch
exi st s onl y i n
per spect i ve space") i n t he ( hyper r eal and hyper soci al ) "space
of si mul at i on" . 1 5
End of t he per spect i ve space of t he
soci al . The r at i onal
soci al i t y of t he cont r act , di al ect i cal soci al i t y ( t hat of t he
St at e
andof ci vi l soci et y, of publ i c and
pr i vat e, of t he soci al andt he
i ndi vi dual ) gi ves way t o
t he soci al i t y of cont act , of t he ci r cui t
and
t r ansi st or i sed net wor k of mi l l i ons of mol ecul es and
par t i cul es mai nt ai ned i n a
r andom gr avi t at i onal f i el d,
magnet i sedby t he
const ant ci r cul at i on andt he t housands of
t act i cal combi nat i ons whi ch el ect r i f y t hem. 1 6
2.

The Ref usal of Hi st or i cal
Subj ect hood
Baudr i l l ar dal sohas a hi dden, andr adi cal ,
pol i t i cal agenda. Hi s pol i t i cal at t i t ude
i s di r ect ed not agai nst , t he al r eady
obsol escent "per spect i ve space of t he
soci al ", i 7 but i n opposi t i on t o t he vent i l at ed and t r ansi st or i sed
or der of t he
si mul acr um. I n t he nowpasse wor l d
of t he soci al , pol i t i cal emanci pat i on
ent ai l ed t he pr oduct i on of meani ng,
t he cont r ol of i ndi vi dual and col l ect i ve
per spect i ve, agai nst a nor mal i z i ng
soci et y whi ch i nsi st ed on excl udi ng i t s
opposi t i ons . Thi s was t he r egi on of power / sacr i f i ce : t he si t e of a gr eat
conf l i ct
wher e t he f i nal i t i es of sex, t r ut h, l abour ,
and hi st or y, wer e danger ous j ust t ot he
POWERANDSEDUCTION
ext ent t hat t hey r epr esent ed t he
hi t her t o suppr essed r egi on of use- val ue,
beyond and f or ever i n opposi t i on t o
a pur el y sacr i f i ci al pol i t i cs . In t he
per spect i val
space of t he hi st or i cal , power coul d be t hr eat ened by speech, by t he
agency of t he emanci pat or y
subj ect who demanded a r i ght f ul i ncl usi on i n t he
cont r act ual space of pol i t i cal economy. Apol i t i cs of
r i ght s dependedf or i t s ver y
exi st ence on t he val or i sat i on of use- val ue as a pr i vi l eged and
uni ver sal l y
accessi bl e f i el d of t r ut h/ et hi cs ; and on t he pr oduct i on of t he emanci pat ed
hi st or i cal subj ect
as an obj ect of desi r e.
Wi t h
Baudr i l l ar d, i t ' s j ust t he opposi t e. Hi s pol i t i cal t heor y begi ns wi t h a
r ef usal of t he pr i vi l eged posi t i on of t he
hi st or i cal subj ect , and, what i s mor e, wi t h
an i mmedi at e negat i on of t he quest i on of
hi st or i cal emanci pat i on i t sel f .
Baudr i l l ar d' s i s not t he soci ol ogi cal per spect i ve of
di sci pl i nar y power i n a
nor mal i zi ng soci et y ( Foucaul t ) nor t he her meneut i cal i nt er pr et at i on of
t echnol ogy and sci ence as
" gl assy, backgr ound i deol ogy" 1 e ( Haber mas) . In t hi s
t heor et i c, t her e i s no pur el y per spect i val
space of t he " panopt i c" nor f r ee zone
of " uni ver sal
pr agmat i cs" . ]
9
Baudr i l l ar d' s pol i t i cal anal ysi s r epr esent s a r adi cal
depar t ur e
f r om bot h t he soci ol ogy of knowl edge and t heor i sat i ons of
power / nor mj ust
because hi s t hought expl or es t he br ut al pr ocesses of
dehi st or i ci sat i on
and desoci al i sat i on whi ch st r uct ur e t he newcommuni cat i ve
or der of power / si gn. In t he
new
cont i nent of
power / si gn ( wher e power i s
r adi cal l y semi ur gi cal ) : t he r el evant pol i t i cal
col l ect i vi t y i s t he " mass medi a as
si mul acr a" ; t he exchange- pr i nci pl e i nvol ves pur el y
abst r act and hyper -
symbol i c di f f usi ons of i nf or mat i on; and what i s at st ake i s t he " maxi mal
pr oduct i on of meani ng" andt he " maxi mal pr oduct i on of wor ds"
f or const i t ut ed
hi st or i cal subj ect s who ar e bot h condi t i on andef f ect of t he or der of
si mul acr a20
It ' s j ust t hi s i nsi st ence onr espondi ng t o t he chal l enge of hi st or y whi chdr aws us
on, t r appi ng us f i nal l y, wi t hi n t he i nt er st i ces of a vast soci al si mul at i on: a
si mul at i on whi chmake i t s aut onomous subj ect s onl y t he st r at egi c
count er par t s of
t he syst em' s despar at e need;
gi ven
i t s pr evi ous
di sf i gur at i on of t he soci al and of
t he r eal , f or t he sur pl us- pr oduct i on of
meani ng and
of
wor ds .
Now, Baudr i l l ar d' s wor l d i s t hat of t he el ect r oni c
mass medi a, and
speci f i cal l y, of t el evi si on. Hi s nomi nat i on of t el evi si on as a pr i vi l eged
si mul acr umi s st r at egi c : t el evi si on has t he unr eal exi st ence of an i magi c si gn
syst emi n whi ch may be r ead t he i nver t ed and i mpl osi ve l ogi c of t he soci al
machi ne. The " nebul ous hyper r eal i t y" of t he masses ; " st aged communi cat i ons"
as t he modus vi vendi of t he power - syst em; t he " expl osi on of
i nf or mat i on" and
t he " i mpl osi on of meani ng" as t he keynot e of t he newcommuni cat i ons
or der ; a
massi ve ci r cul ar i t y of al l pol es i n whi ch " sender i s r ecei ver " ( t he medi umi s
t he
massage: McLuhan' s f or mul a of t he endof panopt i c and per spect i val space as
t he " al pha and omega of our moder ni t y" ) ; an " i r r ever si bl e medi um of
communi cat i on wi t hout r esponse": such ar e t he st r at egi c consequences of t he
pr ocessi ng of ( our ) hi st or y and ( our ) aut onomous subj ect i vi t y t hr ough t he
si mul acr a of t he mass medi a,
and expl i ci t l y, t hr ough t el evi si on. In a br i l l i ant
essay, " The Impl osi on of Meani ng i n t he Medi a" ,
22
Baudr i l l ar d had t hi s t o say of
t he i nt r acat i on
of t he mass medi a i n t he soci al or , mor e speci f i cal l y, t he " i mpl osi on
of t he medi a
i n
t he
masses"
; 23
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
Arethemass medi aonthesi deof power i nthemani pul ati on
of the
masses, or arethey onthesi de of the masses i nthe
l i qui dati onof meani ng,
i n
thevi ol ence
done
to
meani ng, and
i nthef asci nati onwhi chresul ts? Is i t the medi a
whi chi nduce
f asci nati oni nthemasses, or i s i t themasseswhi chdi vert the
medi ai nto spectacl es? Mogadi shuStammhei m: themedi aare
made
thevehi cl e of themoral condemnati onof terrori smand
of the
expl oi tati onof f ear f or pol i ti cal ends, but, si mul taneousl y,
i n the most total ambi gui ty, they propogate the
brutal
f asci nati onof theterrori st act . They arethemsel ves
terrori sts,
to the extent to whi chthey workthroughf asci nati on. . . The
medi acarrymeani ngandnon- sense; theymani pul atei nevery
sense si mul taneousl y
. Theprocess cannot be control l ed, f or
the medi aconvey the
si mul ati on i nternal to thesystemand
thesi mul ati ondestructi ve of the system
accordi ngto al ogi c
that i s absol utel y Moebi anandci rcul ar - andthi s i s exactl y
what i t i s l i ke. There i s no
al ternati ve to i t, no l ogi cal
resol uti on.
Onl y
a
l ogi cal exacerbati on and a catastrophi c
resol uti on
24
Baudri l l ard' s ref usal of
the "real i ty" of processed hi story i s based on thi s
hypothesi s: the newi nf ormati on of the
el ectroni c mass medi a i s "di rectl y
destructi ve of meani ngandsi gni f i cati on, or
neutral i zes i t . " 25 Inf ormati on, f ar
f romproduci ng an "accel erated ci rcul ati on of
meani ng, a pl us- val ue of
meani nghomol ogous to the economi c pl us- val ue
whi ch resul ts f romthe
accel erated rotati on of capi tal "
26
di ssol ves the
possi bi l i ty of any coherent
meani ng- system. Conf rontedwi th thi s si tuati onof the "doubl ebi nd"
i nwhi ch
the medi umi s the real andthe real i s the ni hi l i smof the i nf ormati onsoci ety, our
pol i ti cal al ternati ves
are twof ol d. Fi rst, there i s "resi stance- as- subj ect", the
response of
the autonomous hi stori cal subj ect whoassumes the "uni l ateral l y
- val ori zed" and
"posi ti ve" l i ne of resi stance of "l i berati on, emanci pati on,
expressi on,
andconsti tuti on . . . ( as somehow) val uabl e andsubversi ve"?7
But Baudri l l ard i s enti rel y real i sti c concerni ng how
the "l i berati ng cl ai ms of
subj ecthood" respondto the ni hi l i sti c demands of
the i nf ormati onorder of
mass medi a.
Toasystem
whoseargument i s oppressi onand
repressi on, the
strategi c resi stancei s thel i berati ngcl ai mof
subj ecthood. But
thi s ref l ects thesystem' s previ ous phase,
andeveni f we are
sti l l conf rontedwi th i t, i t i s nol onger thestrategi c
terrai n: the
system' s
current argument i s the maxi mi zati on of
the word
andthe maxi mal producti on of meani ng
. Thus the strategi c
resi stance i s that of aref usal of meani ng
andaref usal of the
word - or of the hyperconf ormi st
si mul ati on of the very
mechani sms of thesystem, whi chi s
af ormof ref usal andof
non- recepti on?e
Agai nst t he emanci pat or y cl ai ms of hi st or i cal subj ect hood, Baudr i l l ar d pr oposes
t he mor e r adi cal al t er nat i ve of " r esi st ance- as- obj ect "
29
as t he
l i ne
of
pol i t i cal
r esi st ance most appr opr i at e t o t he si mul acr um. Toa syst emwhi chr epr esent s
a
gr eat conver gence of power and seduct i on, and whi ch i s ent i r el y cyni cal i n i t s
deval or i sat i on of
meani ng, t he r el evant and per haps onl y pol i t i cal r esponse i s
t hat of
i r oni c det achment .
Baudr i l l ar d t hus val or i zes t he posi t i on of t he " punk gener at i on" : t hi s new
gener at i on of r ebel s whi ch si gnal s i t s knowl edge of i t s cer t ai n doomby a
hyper conf onni st si mul at i on ( i n f ashi on, l anguage, and l i f est yl e) whi chr epr esent s
j ust t hat moment of r ef r act i on wher e t he si mul at i onal l ogi c of t he syst emi s
t ur ned, i r oni cal l y and neut r al l y, back agai nst t he syst em. Baudr i l l ar d i s a new
wave pol i t i cal t heor i st
j ust because he, mor e t han most , has under st ood t hat i n a
syst em" whose
i mper at i ve i s t he over - pr oduct i on and r egener at i on of meani ng
andspeech" 31
al l t he soci al movement s whi ch" bet on l i ber at i on, emanci pat i on,
t he r esur r ect i on of
t he subj ect of
hi st or y,
of t he gr oupof speech as a r ai si ng of
consci ousness, i ndeed of a ' sei zur e of
t he
unconsci ous' of subj ect s and of
t he
masses" 32 ar e act i ng f ul l y
i n
accor dance wi t h t he pol i t i cal l ogi c of
t he
syst em.
1 . Baudr i l l ar d' s t heor et i cal agenda
i n
r el at i onshi p t o Fr ench
post - st r uct ur al i sm and cr i t i cal
t heor y i s
f ur t her. devel oped i n A. Kr oker ' s " Baudr i l l ar d' s Mar x" , mi meo.
2.

Mi chael Wei nst ei n i n
a pr i vat e communi cat i on t o one of t he aut hor s has suggest ed t hi s
i mpor t ant i nsi ght i nt o " ext er i or i sat i on of
t he mi nd"
as
t he st r uct ur al i st successor t o Weber ' s
t heor y of r at i onal i sat i on.
3. J . Baudr i l l ar d, I n t he
Shadow of t he Si l ent
Maj or i t i es,
NewYor k: J ean Baudr i l l ar d and
Semi ot ext ( e) , 1 983, pp
.
3- 4.
4.

l bi d; p
.
6.
POWERANDSEDUCTI ON
Thi s i s t he r esi st ance of t he masses : i t i s
equi val ent
t o
sendi ng
backt o t he syst emi t s own l ogi c by doubl i ng i t , t o
r ef l ect i ng,
l i ke a mi r r or , meani ng wi t hout absor bi ng i t . Thi s st r at egy ( i f
one can
st i l l
speak of st r at egy)
pr evai l s t oday because i t was
usher ed i n by t hat phase of
t he syst em
30
Not es
5.

For Baudr i l l ar d' s most expl i ci t
di scussi on
of
t he si mul acr um, see " L' hyper r eal i sme de l a
si mul at i on" ,
Li change symbol i que et l a mor t , pp. 1 1 0- 1 1 7.
6.

" C' est Feuphor i e meme de l a si mul at i on qui se veut abol i t i on de l a cause et de 1 ' ef f et , de
1 ' or i gi ne et de l a f i n, A quoi el l e subst i t ue l e r edoubl ement " . Uchange symbol i que
et
l a
mor t ,
Par i s : hdi t i ons Gal l i mar d, 1 976, pp. 1 1 4- 1 1 5.
7.

J . Baudr i l l ar d, i n t he Shadowof t he Si l ent Maj or i t i es, p. 68.
8.

I bi d; pp. 70- 71.
9.

l bi d; p.
71 .
10. I bi d.
11 .

I bi d; p. 73.
12.

I bi d
; p.
77.
13.

I bi d; pp
.
72- 73
.
14.

l bi d; pp. 82- 83.
1 S.

I bi d.
16.

I bi d; p. 83.
17. I bi d.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
18.

Baudr i l l ar d' s r ef usal of the "per specti val spaceof the soci al " i s ai meddi r ectl y at Foucaul t' s
theor i sati on of the cl osed space of the "panopti c" . Baudr i l l ar d' s cl osi ng of the r i ng of
si gni f i er / si gni f i ed or , what i s thesame, hi s theor i sati on of si mul acr a i n conj uncti on wi ththe
str uctur al . l awof val ue br eaks di r ectl y wi th Haber mas' her meneuti cal i nter pr etati on of
i deol ogy.
19. Agai nst Haber mas and Foucaul t, Baudr i l l ar d theor i zes a non- r epr esentati onal and
non-
f i gur ati ve spati al i zed uni ver se.
20.

J . Baudr i l l ar d, "The I mpl osi onof Meani ngi n theMedi a", as tr ansl ated i n I n theShadowof the
Si l ent Maj or i ti es, pp. 95- 110.
21.

Seepar ti cul ar l y, "Requi emf or the Medi a", For aCr i ti que of thePol i ti cal Economy of theSi gn, pp.
165- 184; and "The I mpl osi on of Meani ng i n the Medi a" . p. 101.
22. I bi d.
23.

I bi d; p. 103.
24.

l bi d; pp. 105- 106.
25.

I bi d; p. 96.
26.

I bi d; p. 97.
27 .

I bi d; p. 107.
28.

I bi d; p. 108.
29. I bi d
30.

I bi d; pp. 108- 109.
31. I bi d
32.

I bi d; p. 109.
WHENBATAI LLEATTACKEDTHEMETAPHYSI CAL
PRI NCI PLE
OF
ECONOMY'
J ean
Baudr i l l ar d
Cont i nui t y, sover ei gnt y, i nt i macy, i mmanent
i mmensi t y: asi ngl e t hought i n
t hewor kof Bat ai l l e,
asi ngl emyt hi c t hought behi ndt hesemul t i pl et er ms: " I am
of t hose who dest i ne ment o t hi ngs ot her
t han t he i ncessant gr owt h of
pr oduct i on, who i nci t e t hemt o t hesacr ed hor r or . "
Thesacr ed i s par excel l ence t hespher e of " Lapar t maudi t e" [ t he accur sed
shar e] ( t he cent r al essay of t hi s sevent hvol umeof Bat ai l l e's wor ks), spher e of
sacr i f i ci al
expendi t ur e, of weal t h [ l uxe] and of deat h; spher e of a" gener al "
economywhi chr ef ut es al l t heaxi oms of economyas i t i s usual l y
under st ood( an
economywhi ch, i ngener al i zi ng i t sel f , over r uns [ br t l l e] i t s boundar i es andt r ul y
passes
beyond pol i t i cal economy, somet hi ng t hat t he l at t er , and al l Mar xi st
t hought ,
ar epower l ess t o do i naccor dancewi t ht hei nt er nal l ogi c of val ue). I t
i s al so t hespher e of
non-knowl edge [ non-savoi r ] .
Par adoxi cal l y, t he wor ks col l ect ed her e
ar e i n a way Bat ai l l e's " Bookof
Knowl edge, " t heone
wher e
he
t r i es t o er ect t hebut t r esses of avi si onwhi ch, at
bot t om, doesn't
need t hem; i ndeed, t he dr i ve [ pul si on] t owar d t he sacr ed
ought , i n i t s
dest r uct i ve i ncandescence, t o deny t he ki nd of apol ogy and
di scur si ve r endi t i on
cont ai ned
i n
" La Par t maudi t e" and " La Theor i e de
Rel i gi on. "
" Myphi l osophi cposi t i oni s basedonnon-knowl edgeof t hewhol e,
onknowl edgeconcer ed
onl y wi t h det ai l s. " I t i s necessar y, t her ef or e, t o r ead
t hesedef ensi ve
f r agment s f r omt het woant i t het i cal per spect i ves [ sur l edoubl e
ver sant ] of knowl edgeandnon-knowl edge.
TheFundament al Pr i nci pl e
Thecent r al i deai s t hat t heeconomywhi chgover ns our soci et i es r esul t s f r om
a mi sappr opr i at i on of t he f undament al human pr i nci pl e, whi ch i s a sol ar
pr i nci pl e of expendi t ur e. Bat ai l l e's t hought goes, beyond pr oper pol i t i cal
economy( whi chi nessencei s r egul at edt hr oughexchangeval ue), st r ai ght t ot he
met aphysi cal pr i nci pl eof economy. Bat ai l l es's t ar get i s ut i l i t y, i ni t s r oot . Ut i l i t y .
i s, of cour se, anappar ent l y posi t i vepr i nci pl e of capi t al : accumul at i on, i nvest -
ment , depr eci at i on, et c
.
But i n f act i t
i s,
on Bat ai l l e's account , apr i nci pl e of
power l essness,
an ut t er i nabi l i t y t o expend. Gi vent hat al l pr evi ous soci et i es
Geor ges Bat ai l l e, Oeuvr es Compl et es: vol . VI I . Par i s: Gal l i mar d. 618
pp
. '
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
knewhowt oexpend, t hi s i s, an
unbel i evabl edef i ci ency: i t cut s t hehumanbei ng
of f f romal l possi bl esoverei gnt y. Al l economi cs
aref oundedont hat whi chno
l onger can, nol onger knows howt oexpendi t sel f
[ sed6penser] , ont hat whi ch
i s i ncapabl eof becomi ngt hest akeof asacri f i ce
. I t i s t heref oreent i rel y resi dual ,
i t i s al i mi t edsoci al f act ; andi t i s
agai nst economy as al i mi t edsoci al f act t hat
Bat ai l l ewant st orai seexpendi t ure,
deat h, andsacri f i ceas t ot al soci al f act s- - such
i s t hepri nci pl eof general economy.
Thepri nci pl e
of ut i l i t y ( useval ue) bl ends wi t ht hebourgeoi si e,
wi t ht hi s
capi t al i st cl ass
whosedef i ni t i onf or Bat ai l l e( cont raryt o
Marx) i s negat i ve: i t no
l onger knows how
t o expend. Si mi l arl y, t hecri si s of capi t al , i t s
i ncreasi ng
mort al i t yandi t s i mmanent deat ht hroes, are
not
bound,
as i nt heworkof Marx,
t oahi st ory, t odi al ect i cal reversal s
[ p6ri p6di es] , but t ot hi s f undament al l awof
t hei nabi l i t y t oexpend, whi ch
gi vecapi t al over t ot hecancer of product i on
and
unl i mi t edreproduct i on.
Therei s nopri nci pl eof revol ut i oni nBat ai l l e' s
work:
"Thet error of revol ut i ons
has onl y donemoreandmore( demi eux
enmi euxl
t o subordi nat ehuman
energy t o i ndust ry. " Therei s onl y a
pri nci pl e of
sacri f i ce- t hepri nci pl e
of soverei gnt y, whosedi versi onby
t hebourgeoi si eand
capi t al
causes al l humanhi st oryt opass f romsacred
t ragedy t ot hecomedy of
ut i l i t y.
Thi s cri t i que
i s anon- Marxi st cri t i que, anari st ocrat i c
cri t i que; becausei t ai ms
at ut i l i t y,
at economi c f i nal i t y as t heaxi omof
capi t al i st soci et y. TheMarxi st
cri t i que
i s onl y a cri t i que of capi t al , a cri t i que
comi ng f romt heheart of t he
mi ddl e
and
pet i t bourgeoi s cl asses, f or whi chMarxi sm
has servedf or acent ury
as a l at ent i deol ogy: a cri t i que of
exchangeval ue, but anexal t at i onof use
val ue- andt hus acri t i que, at t he
samet i me, of what madet heal most del i ri ous
great ness of capi t al ,
t hesecul ar remai nsof i t s rel i gi ous qual i t y: 3
i nvest ment at any
pri ce, evenat t he
cost of useval ue. TheMarxi st seeks agooduse
of economy.
Marxi smi s t heref oreonl y
al i mi t edpet i t bourgeoi s cri t i que, onemorest ep
i nt he
banal i zat i onof l i f et owardt he"good
use" of t hesoci al ! Bat ai l l e, t ot hecont rary,
sweeps awayal l t hi s sl ave
di al ect i c f romanari st ocrat i c poi nt of vi ew, t hat
of
t he
mast er st ruggl i ng
wi t hhi s deat h. Onecanaccuset hi s perspect i ve
of bei ngpre-
or post - Marxi st . At
any rat e, Marxi smi s onl y t hedi senchant ed
hori zonof
capi t al - al l t hat precedes
or f ol l ows i t i s moreradi cal t hani t i s .
What remai ns uncert ai n
i nt heworkof Bat ai l l e ( but wi t hout a doubt
t hi s
uncert ai nt y cannot beal l evi at ed) , i s
t oknowwhet her t heeconomy ( capi t al ) ,
whi chi s
count erbal ancedonabsurd, but never usel ess, never sacri f i ci al
expen-
di t ures ( wars, wast e. . . ) ,
i s nevert hel ess shot t hroughwi t hasacri f i ci al dynami c
.
I s pol i t i cal economyat
bot t omonl y af rust rat edavat ar of t hesi ngl egreat
cosmi c
l awof expendi t ure?
I s t heent i re hi st ory of capi t al onl y ani mmense
det our
t oward i t s owncat ast rophe, t oward
i t s ownsacri f i ci al end? I f t hi s i s so, i t i s
because, i nt heend, onecannot not expend
. Al onger spi ral perhaps drags
capi t al beyondeconomy, t owarda
dest ruct i onof i t s ownval ues; t heal t ernat i ve
i s t hat wearest uckf orever"i n
t hi s deni al of t hesacred, i nt hevert i goof suppl y,
whi chsi gni f i es t herupt ure
of al l i ance ( of symbol i c exchangei npri mi t i ve
soci et i es) andof soverei gnt y.
POWERAND
SEDUCTION
Bat ai l l e
woul dhave beeni mpassi onedby
t hepresent evol ut i onof capi t al i n
t hi s eraof f l oat i ng
currenci es, of val uesseeki ngt hei r
ownl evel (whi chi snot t hei r
t ransmut at i on) ,
andt he dri f t of f i nal i t i es [ l a d6ri ve
desf i nal i t 6s] (whi ch i s
nei t her
soverei gnusel essness nor t he absurd
grat ui t ousness of l aught er
and
deat h) . But
hi s concept of expendi t ure woul d
have permi t t edonl y a l i mi t ed
anal ysi s:
i t i s st i l l t ooeconomi c, t oomucht he f l i p
si de of accumul at i on, as
t ransgressi oni s t oocl ose
t ot he i nverse f i gure of prohi bi t i on. 4
Inanorder whi ch
i s nol onger t hat of ut i l i t y,
but anal eat oryorder of val ue, pure
expendi t ure,
whi l e ret ai ni ng t he romant i c
charmof t urni ng t he economi c i nsi de
out , i s no
l onger suf f i ci ent f or radi cal
def i ance [ aud6f i radi cal ] - i t shat t ers
t he mi rror of
market val ue, but i s powerl ess
agai nst t he shi f t i ng mi rror [ l e mi roi r en
d6ri ve]
of st ruct ural val ue.
Bat ai l l e
f ounds hi sgeneral economyona "sol ar
economy" wi t hout reci procal
exchange, ont he
uni l at eral gi f t t hat t he sunmakes of i t s energy
: a cosmogony
of expendi t ure, whi ch
he depl oysi narel i gi ous andpol i t i cal
ant hropol ogy. But
Bat ai l l e has
mi sreadMauss: t he uni l at eral gi f t does
not exi st s Thi s i s not t he l aw
of t he
uni verse. He whohas sowel l expl oredt he
humansacri f i ce of t he Azt ecs
shoul d
have knownas t hey di dt hat t he sun
gi ves not hi ng, i t i s necessaryt o
nouri shi t
cont i nual l ywi t hhumanbl oodi n order t hat i t shi ne. It
i s necessaryt o
chal l enge
[ d6f i er] t he gods t hroughsacri f i ce i norder
t hat t heyrespondwi t h
prof usi on. In
ot her words, t he root of sacri f i ce andof
general economyi s never
pure and
si mpl e expendi t ure- or what ever dri ve
[ pul si on] of excess t hat
supposedl y comes t ous f rom
nat ure- but i s ani ncessant process of
chal l enge
[ Wf i ] .
Bat ai l l e has "nat ural i zed" Mauss
The "excessof energy"
does not come f romt he sun(f romnat ure) but f rom
a
cont i nual hi gher bi ddi ng i n
exchange- t he symbol i c processt hat canbe f ound
i nt he work of Mauss,
not t hat of t he gi f t (t hat i s t he nat ural i st myst i que i nt o
whi chBat ai l l e f al l s) , but t hat of t hecount er- gi f t . Thi s i s
t he si ngl e t rul ysymbol i c
process,
whi chi n f act i mpl i es deat h as a ki ndof maxi mal
excess- but not as
i ndi vi dual esct asy, al ways as t he maxi mal pri nci pl e of soci al exchange. In
t hi s
sense,
one can reproach Bat ai l l e f or havi ng "nat ural i zed" Mauss (but i n
a
met aphysi cal spi ral so
prodi gi ous t hat t he reproachi s not real l y one) , andf or
havi ng made
symbol i c exchange a ki ndof nat ural f unct i onof prodi gal i t y,
at once
hyper- rel i gi ous
i ni t s grat ui t ousness andmucht oocl ose st i l l , a cont rari o,
t ot he
pri nci pl e of ut i l i t y andt ot he economi c order t hat i t exhaust s i n
t ransgressi on
wi t hout ever l eavi ng behi nd.
It i s "i nt he
gl oryof
deat h" [ d
haut eur de mort ] t hat one redi scovers Bat ai l l e,
andt he real
quest i onposedremai ns: "Howi s i t t hat al l menhave encount ered
t he needandf el t t heobl i gat i ont oki l l l i vi ng
bei ngs ri t ual l y?For l ack of havi ng
knownhowt orespond, al l menhave remai ned
i n i gnorance of t hat whi ch
t hey are. " There i s ananswer t o t hi s
quest i on beneat h t he t ext , i n al l t he
i nt erst i ces of Bat ai l l e' s t ext , but i n
myopi ni on
not
i nt he not i onof expendi t ure,
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
nor i nt hi s ki ndof ant hropol ogi cal
reconst ruct i ont hat het ri es t o est abl i sh
f rom
t he"obj ect i ve" dat aof hi s day:
Marxi sm, bi ol ogy, soci ol ogy, et hnol ogy,
pol i t i cal
economy, t heobj ect i ve
pot ent i al of whi chhet ri es t o bri ng
t oget her nevert he-
l ess, i naperspect i vewhi ch
i s nei t her exact l yageneal ogy, nora
nat ural hi st ory,
nor aHegel i an
t ot al i t y, but a bi t of al l t hat .
But t he
sacred i mperat i ve i s f l awl ess i n
i t s myt hi c assert i on, andt he
wi l l t o
t each
i s cont i nual l y breached by Bat ai l l e' s
dazzl i ng vi si on, by a "subj ect
of
knowl edge" al ways "at t heboi l i ng
poi nt . " Theconsequenceof t hi s
i s t hat even
anal yt i c or document ary
consi derat i ons have t hat myt hi c f orce
whi ch const i -
t ut es
t he sol e- sacri f i ci al - f orce of wri t i ng.
Not es
Transl at ed byDavi dJ ames Mi l l er
Purdue Uni versi t y
1 .

J eanBaudri l l ard, "Le Li vre de
l a qui nzai ne: QuandBat ai l l e at t aquai t l e
pri nci pe met aphysi que de
1 ' economi e, " LaQui nzai ne l i t t 6rai re
234( 1 - 1 5 l ui n1 976) : 4- 5
.
2.

Transl at or' s not e:
Onl yt woessays f romt hi s sevent h vol ume
havebeent ransl at edi nt oEngl i sh- "Le
sacri f i ce" ( dat ed 1 939- 1 940) ,
a port i onof La Li mi t e def ut i l e ( anabandoned
versi onof La Part
Maudi t e) ; and"Not i ce
aut obi ographi que" ( dat ed1 958) . Bot hessays have
beent ransl at edbyAnnet t e
Mi chel son
andappear i nOct ober( Spri ng, 1 986) respect i vel y
as "Sacri f i ce
( pp.
61 - 74) and"Aut obi o-
graphi cal Not e"
( pp
.
1 07- 1 1 0) .
Anumber of Bat ai l l e' s works have been
t ransl at ed i nt o Engl i sh . I n addi t i ont o Vi si ons
of Excess
( Mi nnesot a
1 985) , t ransl at ed byAl anSt oekl , t hesei ncl ude: Li t erat ure
andEvi l ( Uri zenBooks 1 985
;
ori g.
1 957) , t ransl at ed byAl ast ai r Hami l t on, andDeat h
andSensual i t y. ASt udyof Erot i ci smand
t he Taboo
( ArnoPress, 1 977; ori g.
1 957) .
3.

The"Puri t an
mani aof busi ness" ( moneyearnedi s earned
i norder t obei nvest ed. . . havi ngval ueor
meani ngonl yi nt he endl ess weal t h i t
ent ai l s) , i nt hat i t st i l l ent ai l s asort of madness,
chal l enge, and
cat ast rophi c
compul si on- a sort of ascet i cmani a- i s
opposedt owork, t ot he gooduse of energyi n
workandusuf ruckt .
4.

Dest ruct i on( evengrat ui t ous) i s al ways ambi guous,
si nce i t i s t hei nverse f i gure of
product i on, and
f al l s under t he
obj ect i on t hat i norder t o dest royi t i s f i rst
necessaryt o have produced, t o whi ch
Bat ai l l e i s abl e t ooppose onl yt he sun.
5.
Marcel Mauss, 7heGi f t
: FormsandFunct l onsof Fxchangei nArchai cSoci et i es, t rans
. J anCunni son
( London: RKP, 1 954) .
BAUDRI LLARD' SSEDUCTI ON
Bri an Si nger
Peut - et rc f al l ai t - l l
arret er cet t e
hemorragi c dc l a val cur .
Asscz
dc
radi cal i t e t errori st c,
assez
dc
si mul acres- recrudescence dc
l a
moral e, dc l a croyancc, du sens .
Abas l es
anal yses
crcpuscul ai res!
Les st rat kgi esf at al es
Thef ol l owi ng
essaywas wri t t ent o come t o
t erms wi t hanabi di ng f asci nat i on
wi t h t he
work of J ean Baudri l l ard. To be
f asci nat ed i mpl i es, at l east at a f i rst
moment , t hat
onei s at t ract edt o somet hi ng
despi t e onesel f , t hat onei s drawni n
wi de- eyed
wi t h al l bel i ef suspended. Many
t i mes
I
have put hi s work down,
somet i mes vi ol ent l y,
onl y t o ret urncharmed, nay seducedby
t he subl i mei rony
of Baudri l l ard' s sense of
t he absurd. Havi ng recent l y t ransl at ed
oneof hi s more
pi vot al works,
Seduct i on, I f i nd mysel f compel l edt o
expl ai n t hi s f asci nat i on,
wi t hal l i t s accompanyi ng
ambi val ence, andexpl orei t s
i mpl i cat i ons . Perhaps t he
reader shares t hi s f asci nat i on,
i nwhi chcase s/ he mayrecogni ze
somet hi ngof hi s
or her - own
cont rary react i ons i n my own, and wi l l wi sh t o
share my l i ne of
quest i oni ng. Or
perhaps t he reader has never read Baudri l l ard
. Perhaps t he
reader ref uses t o
read hi s works because of t hei r l anguage,
st yl e, f ashi onabi l i t y
or pol i t i cs . I nt hi s
case t hereader mayconsi der t hi s as an
i nci t ement andagui de
t o readi ng
Baudri l l ard, f or he cannot , I submi t , be approached
nai vel y andread
l i ke any ot her
aut hor.
The book Seduct i on
present s i t sel f as an at t ack on t he not i on of
t rut h, i t s
pret ensi ons andi mperi al i sm. A
post - moderncommon- pl ace, t o be sure. But
t hi s
i s no mere def ense of
rel at i vi sm, wi t h i t s mul t i pl e or part i al t rut hs
. Nor i s i t a
search f or some met aphysi cal
f i ssure t hat woul drender t he i dea of
Trut h
i mpossi bl e, yet i nsurmount abl e;
nor even t he, uncoveri ng of some mot i ve t hat
woul dreveal t he search f or
t rut h as our ul t i mat e i l l usi on. Here t he st rat egy
i s
di f f erent , andpossi bl y more radi cal .
Cal l i t ni hi l i smi f onewi l l , but onl y i f t hi s i s
not t he l ast word.
Trut h, Baudri l l ardbegi ns, i s
associ at edwi t ht he real mof dept hs, andi s t obe
at t ackedal ongwi t hal l t heot her
f i gures of dept h: t hat of t heessencebehi ndt he
appearance, t he
unconsci ous desi rebehi ndt hesympt om, t het rue
nat ure behi nd
t heart i f i ce,
t hesphere of product i onbeneat h t he
superst ruct ure, t herel at i ons
of f orce
or power beneat h t he i deol ogi cal or normat i ve shel l - i n
short , al l t he
" real i t i es"
uneart hed
by
sci ence, i nt erpret at i on, cri t i que or
some combi nat i on
t hereof . I n opposi t i on t o t rut h wi t h i t s
underl yi ng real i t y l i es t he real mof
139
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
appearances. Andthebookpresents i tsel f asadef enseof appearances- i ncl udi ng
f rankl yi l l usoryappearances- agai nst depths. Seducti oni tsel f i nvol vesthepl ay
of
appearances, thei r mani pul ati on, thei r mastery.
I mmedi atel y onewi l l ask,
no doubt, howonecanspeakof appearances
wi thout
seeki ngtoaccount f or themi n terms of someunderl yi ngtruth? Anda
somewhat di f f erent questi on, howcanonewri teapi eceof "soci ol ogy" that does
not seektopenetratethesoci al surf acei n order toextract somedeeper truth
about soci ety? ( Note, wewi l l bespeaki nghereof somethi ng
morethanawork
of soci ol ogyf i cti onwhi ch, i f i t f ol l owsthegeneral canons
of mi meti c represen-
tati on, demands theappearanceof truth, that i s, veri si mi l i tude) .
Consi der af i rst response, onethat di rectl y addressesthef i rst questi onwhi l e
di rectl y appeal i ngtotheprobl emof seducti on.
Seducti on, i f i t serves tomaster
real i ty, does so not by
narrowi ng
thegapbetweenreal i ty andappearances i n
order to el i mi natethel atter andact di rectl y on the f ormer . Onthe contrary
seducti onacts i ndi rectl y, wi deni ngthegapbymani pul ati ngtheappearances i n
order to tri ck one' s sense of "real i ty. " Thosewhoact i n accordwi th the
underl yi ngreal i tysi gnal l edbytheappearance, or whof ol l owthe"truth" of thei r
desi res, f i ndthemsel ves entrappedbythei r ownsearchf or atransparent truth.
I nthi s sensethei ndi rect method, by vi rtue of i ts pl ayf ul ness, artf ul ness and
agnosti ci sm, subverts the f uncti oni ng of the sol emn truth of depths
. The
mani pul ati on of appearances has abackhandedsuperi ori ty over thethedi rect
mani pul ati on of real i ty becausecapabl eof havi ngthel ast l augh.
Onemay, of course, respondthat the"real truth" behi ndtheappearanceof
truthconstructedbytheseducerl i es wi ththestrategy consci ousl y producedby
thel atter . But what i f theseducer i s seducedbyhi s/ her owngame, andf i ndsthat
s/ he
has l i ttl e
control over hi s/ her strategy? What i f both seducer andseduced
areseduced
bythereal mof appearancessuchthat i t i s thel atter that determi nes
"real i ty" ( asopposed
toreal i ty determi ni ngappearances) ? What i f l argeareasof
soci etyoperatedaccordi ngtoa
seemi ngl ynon- consci ous, unmoti vatedl ogi cof
seducti on? Must onethi nk that appearances are merel y anextensi on, al i bi
or
f ront f or somethi ng that l i es beneath? Canthey not
convey i mperati ves or
determi nati ons ( that
i s,
a
power,
anda
potenti al l ysuperi or power) of thei r own?
Beyondthe truth behi nd
appearances can we not speak about a truth of
appearances?
But thenarewereal l y tal ki ngabout anattack
onthenoti onof truth? Arewe
not si mpl y suppl ementi ngonetruthwi th
another, that of depths wi th that of
appearances?
I s
Baudri l l ard
not si mpl y tel l i ngus that wecannol onger si mpl y
cl ai m
that soci ety f uncti ons accordi ng to some underl yi ng l ogi c, whether
f uncti onal or conf l i ctual , tel eol ogi cal or aeteol ogi cal , or that textsembodysome
underl yi ngi ntenti onor structure. . . that wemust al sol ookat thepl ay of surf aces,
the strategi es
thel atter embodi es, thepossi bi l i ti es i t af f ords. Thesci ence ( or
hermeneuti cs) of depths cannol onger rei gnsupreme. I t wi l l havetomakeroom
f or a second branch of knowl edge dedi catedto anal yzi ng the "truth" of
appearances
and( whynot?) athi rdthat exami nes thepl ay betweendepths and
appearances. Onethen i magi nes thef i rst movi ng verti cal l y i n an attempt to
decodethesoci al text, thesecondmovi nghori zontal l y toexami nethel atter' s
POWERANDSEDUCTION
recodi ngs, whi l e the thi rd
woul d move between the two, exami ni ng thei r
conj uncti ons, i ntrusi ons,
i nterf erences andi nversi ons- i n short, thei r "commu-
ni cati on. " Thepretensi ons of the
f i rst may
be
severel y curtai l ed, but the f i nal
resul t wi l l not be so radi cal .
Thecontent wi l l have changedbut the proj ect, i ts
f i nal i tyrel ati ve to anoti on of
truth, wi l l have been preserved i ntact .
Baudri l l ard, however, i s not ( or i s
not si mpl y) seeki ngto establ i sh a new,
suppl ementaryareaof study, even onethat throws
acurveat al l knowl edgeas
heretof ore constructed. Byspeaki ngof appearancesi nandf or
themsel ves, ( that
most vi si bl e of spheres whi chremai ns, nonethel ess, outsi de the vi si on of
the
soci al
sci ences) , he i s not seeki ngto addanewf i el d to the store of
knowl edge,
onethat,
admi ttedl y, i s f ul l of i roni c i nversi ons andsubtl e revenges. Tocl ai mthe
l atter woul dbeto mi ss
the deeppessi mi smof hi s epi stemol ogyand, evenmore,
the deepl ypessi mi sti c character of hi s
anal ysi s of present tendenci es rel ati ve to
epi stemol ogy. In ef f ect, f or Baudri l l ard hi story
has epi stemol ogi cal ef f ects: i t i s
not j ust that sci enceor knowl edgehaveahi story, but
that theveryterms sci ence
or knowl edge suppose as
ontol ogi cal precondi ti ons- here terms l i ke appear-
ances, depths, truthand real i ty- are
al so to be radi cal l yhi stori ci zed. Wi ththe
ul ti matecl ai mbei ngthat thetendenci es
of thepresent aresuchthat theseterms
canonl ybesustai nedwi thi ncreasi ng
di f f i cul ty. Moreparti cul arl y, theprobl em,
accordi ngto Baudri l l ard, i s that
thedi sti ncti onbetweenappearances anddepths
i s col l apsi ng, andthat, as i t were, f romboth
si des.
Consi der f i rst theappearances col l apsi ng i nto real i ty.
Suppose the enl i ghten-
ment
dreami s bei ng real i zed andweare l i vi ng i n an i ncreasi ngl y
transparent
soci ety, asoci etywi thout secrets or areas of darkness, wi thout vei l s,
bl i nders or
i l l usi ons,
asoci etywherewhat was hi dden i s becomi ngvi si bl e andal l that
i s
vi si bl ei s, as aresul t, becomi ngsubstanti al . It woul dbeasoci etyof
appearances
because wi thout underl yi ng real i ti es. It woul d be asoci ety
where al l appear-
ances woul dbe real , equal l yreal and, accordi ngl y, equal l y
unreal
. ( One of ten
encounters i n Baudri l l ardsoci al utopi as- andtheoreti cal utopi as- shi pwrecked
by
the l ogi cal extensi onof thei r premi ses to thei r ul ti mate real i zati on) .
Nowconsi der the other si de of thecoi n, real i tycol l apsi ngi nto appearance.
Suppose the appearances substi tute themsel ves f or the underl yi ng real i tyand
becomethat bywhi chwegaugewhat i s "trul yreal " i npl aceof ( or i ntheabsence
of ) anyreal f uncti oni ngref erent . Inthi s case onehas movedbeyondaworl dof
veri si mi l i tude, where appearances appear real , i nto a worl d of si mul ati on,
where appearances appear more real than real i ty- what
Baudri l l ard cal l s the
"hyper- real "- because "real i ty" as weexperi encei t i s model l ed on
appearances
( rather than appearances bei ng model l ed on real i ty) . Agai n one
conf ronts a
soci etyof appearances ( i n the f ormof si mul ated model s) , whereappearances
are "real " and "real i ty" ( as expressed i n the hyper- real ) appears as the most
si gni f i cant of "i l l usi ons . "
In bothcases, whether real i tycol l apses i nto appearances or vi ce
versa- and
thetwocases arei ndi sti ngui shabl ei nthei r
consequences- the verymeani ngand
val ue of truthbegi ns to f ade. And howcoul di t not
f ade gi venthe l oss of the
underl yi ng real i tyof aref erent wi thwhi chto anchor
appearances? One' s very
sense of real i tyteeters whenconf rontedwi than
excess
of
unassi mi l ated ( and
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
unassi mi l abl e) i nf ormat i on, or wi t h a host of hyper- real
i mages whi chpre-
const ruct t he " real i t y" of desi re, not t oment i ont he quasi - compul sory vi si bi l i t y
of a conf essi onal cul t ure. Hi st ory does not si mpl y af f ect epi st emol ogy; i n t he
l i vi ngf ut ure of t hepresent i t i s seent o subvert t heverypossi bi l i t y of epi st emol -
ogy, part i cul arl y i n i t s quot i di enf orms. Andwi t ht rut hl osi ng i t s meani ngand
val ue,
i t
onl y
f ol l ows t hat meani ngi s l osi ng
i t s meani ngandval uei t s val ue. Wi t h
al l t henot i ons t hat t heset erms nouri shedbegi nni ngt o f adei nt andem. The
val ue
and meani ngof t he soci al and t he pol i t i cal , not t o ment i onsoci al or pol i t i cal
act i on, of hi st ory and t he event , of sex, war. . . wi t h each book t he l i st of
" ref erent s" dest i ned t odi sappear grows l onger . Ont he hori zonof Baudri l l ard' s
radi cal hi st ori ci sm, t he vani shi ngpoi nt s are t o bet akenl i t eral l y- even as t hese
" ref erent s" aresomet i mes deni ed t hei r subst ancel ess i nt erms of af ade- out t han
by
way
of
t hei r parodi cexcess. As such, ananal ysi s of t hereal mof appeareances
provi des, at best , anant i - cl i mact i c, f unereal
t rut h( as
i f
t heowl
of
Mi nervawere
t urni ngi nt o avul t ure, evenas i t wasf l yi ngaway) . Agai nonewonders: i f wi t ht he
di sappearance of anyunderl yi ng real i t y, meani ngandval ueare
wi t heri ngaway
al ong wi t h t rut h, howt hen can onewri t e aworkof soci ol ogy? Indeed one
wonders howonecanwri t e anyt hi ngat al l ?
And yet , t o st at e t he obvi ous, t he workhas been wri t t en and i t , i s, i f not
soci ol ogy, t hensoci al t heory. Inorder t o underst and t heapparent paradoxof i t s
wri t i ng, l et us begi n by sayi ng t hat Baudri l l ard i s not ( or not pri mari l y)
concerned wi t hwri t i nga workof " t rut h. " He i s more i nt erest ed i n t hrowi ng
downachal l enge t o t hosewhoaresoconcerned. To al l t hose" soci al sci ent i st s"
whobel i evet hemsel ves t o be expl ai ni ngsomet hi ngof soci et y byref erence t o
i t s underl yi ngreal i t y, Baudri l l ard i s sayi ngt hat t heyarenot ( becauseseducedby
and ent rapped i n t hei r own t heoret i cal si mul at i ons) and
t hat t hey cannot
( because t he underl yi ngreal i t y t hey areproposi ngt o descri be,
f or al l i nt ensi ve
purposes, no
l onger exi st s) . Andt hat he hi msel f , by not t ryi ng t o wri t e sucha
work, wi l l wri t e somet hi ngt hat resonat es our present predi cament wi t hmuch
great er f orce. Inshort , hewi l l beat t hemat t hei r owngame. Thoughbysodoi ng
he wi l l have changed t he rul es, f or wri t i ng soci al t heory wi l l nowt rul y be a
game. Andconsequent l y, wet he readers wi l l , wi t hout havi ngent i rel y l ef t t he
" real , " f ami l i ar worl d, f i nd oursel ves ent eri ng a very di f f erent t errai n, wi t h
di f f erent expect at i ons and di f f erent st akes. Thi s becomesi mmedi at el yevi dent
whenoneconsi ders t he absenceof t hat t oneof hi ghseri ousness t hat general l y
marksworksof soci al t heory. Baudri l l ard' s wri t i ngi s, bycont rast , hi l ari ous- and
t hi s despi t e
i t s f i n de si ecl e ( or f i n de mi l l 6nai re?) mel anchol i a.
Consi der
somet hi ng
of t he
nat ure
of t hi s
" game
. " Thef i rst t hi ngt o
not ei s t hat
concept s t ake on adi f f erent charact er, wi t h a
new,
st rat egi c
val ue. In most
works, and i ndependent of t he t heoret i cal modal i t y, concept s areconst ruct ed
as i nst rument s of
i nt erpret at i on t hat enabl e onet openet rat ebel owt hesurf ace
obst acl es const i t ut ed byappearances ( bet heycomposedof f al seobj ect s or f al se
concept s) t o t he
real i t y bel ow.
By
cont rast , Baudri l l ard t reat s concept s as al l
surf ace; f or
he,
as
i t
were, bracket s
t hei r
ref erent s- t hat i s, t heunderl yi ngreal i t y
t o
whi chref er- andt hus t hei r t rut hval ue. ( It i s as t houghonewerebei ngpl aced
bef oreani nvert ed versi onof t hephenomenol ogi cal i nversi on) . In ef f ect , j ust as
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
Baudr i l l ar d i s
cl ai mi ng t hat s oci et y i s . becomi ng al l
s ur f ace, he t ends t o t r eat
concept s as
t hought hey wer eal l appear ance, and
t hus hadar eal i t y of t hei r own.
Onecan, t o bes ur e,
per cei veas t r uct ur al i s t i nf l uenceher e: t he
s i gns or concept s
bei ng
cons t i t ut ed l es s i nr el at i on wi t h t hei r r ef er ent s t han
wi t hot her s i gns or
concept s . The
br acket i ng, however , pr oceeds beyond t he
r ef er ent t o t he
s i gni f i eds , t hemeani ngs
t hems el ves , t hus f r eei ngt heconcept s f r om
t oos er i ous
a concer nwi t h t hei r f i nal i t i es ,
whet her des cr i pt i ve, i nt er pr et at i ve or expl ana-
t or y. And once t hey have been
del i ver ed f r omt he bal l as t of r ef er ent and
f unct i on, Baudr i l l ar d i s f r ee t o pl ay
wi t h t hem, t o. cal l upon t hei r s ymbol i c
r es our ces (t houghnot , as i nLacan,
wi t hr ef er encet oanuncons ci ous ), combi ne
t hemi n newways , pl ace t hemi n newl ogi cs
and, mor e gener al l y, put t hemt o
f l i ght . Does he
bel i evei nwhat hei s s ayi ng?Thei mpl i cat i on
her ei s t hat , wi t ht he
t r ut hval ueof t he
t er ms moment ar i l ybr acket ed, t heques t i oni s
bes i det hepoi nt
(at l eas t at af as t moment ).
Thus ones houl dnot bes ur pr i s ed t o s ee hi mt r yi ng
out , oneaf t er anot her , di f f er ent , even
cont r ar y hypot hes i s , wi t hout anyof t hem
bei ngei t her
r ej ect ed or r et ai ned. (Thi nk of t he mul t i pl e us
of t he wor ds "or
el s e" . . . - as i nt he
book' s s econdpage) . Or cons i der mor egener al l yt heconcep-
t ual es cal at i on t o t heor et i cal
ext r emes . For once t hey have l os t anchor t he
concept s ar eabl e t o ci r cul at ewi t h
br eat h- t aki ngr api di t y i namanner s i mul t ane-
ous l y decl amat or y andpoet i c. Thecont r as t
wi t h mor e convent i onal f or ms of
s oci al anal s ys i s coul d not be mor e bl at ant .
Wher e mos t t heor i zi ng, wi t h i t s
unas s umi ngpr os e, hol ds t o as t eady cour s ei n
or der t o moveever cl os er t owar ds
i t s obj ect andcar r es s i t s det ai l s , her e t he
l ooki nggl as s has , as i t wer e, been
t ur nedt hewr ongwayr ound. Onef i nds ones el f pus hed awayf r om
t he obj ect s
under anal ys i s , f or ced
t oobs er vet hemf r omanas t oni s hi ngdi s t ance, andi n
r api d
s ucces s i on.
Thevel oci t y of t he t ext ' s movement s i s di zzyi ng, andi t
appear s a
mi r acl e
i f any under l yi ng s ubs t ance s t i cks .
Nonet hel es s , evenwhent heconcept s ar ei nr api dmot i on,
s omet hi ngof t hei r
r ef er ence andmeani ng mus t neces s ar i l y be
r et ai ned (even i f onoccas i on one
f i nds ones el f dr aggedwi l l y- ni l l y bya r unawaymet aphor ) . Af t er
al l , t o br acket a
concept ' s t r ut hval uei s not t o deny t hel at t er , whi ch r et ur ns , as i t wer e, al mos t
i mmedi at el y. If
t he t ext i s t o make anys ens e at al l , i f i t i s t o be mor e t han j us t
s oundand
f ur y, s omet hi ngmus t s t i ck, i f onl y byas s oci at i on. It i s as t hough
t he
pr oces s
Baudr i l l ar d des cr i bes - t he hemor r hagi ng of t r ut h and meani ng- i s
s i mul t aneous l y apr emi s eof hi s wr i t i ng. But by
t he s ame t oken, t hi s wr i t i ngal s o
s uppos es , i f i t i s t o r et ai n even a s hadowof
s ens e, t hat t he pr oces s i s never
compl et e, t hat "s oci et y" cannever be compl et el y
bl oodl es s - onl y anemi c. It i s
not j us t t hat t hi s s oci et al anemi a enabl es t he concept s t o l os e
much of t hei r
r ef er ent i al wei ght , or t hat t her el at i onof s oci et al anemi at o
concept ual l i ght nes s
pr ovi des t he wor k wi t h much of i t s s oci al
r es onance. It i s becaus e of t hi s
r el at i on, . pr es umabl y,
t hat we ar e abl e t o l ear n s omet hi ngabout s oci et y f r om
r eadi ngBaudr i l l ar d, but of t en, as i t
wer e, on t he wi ng. Per haps wes houl d not
s peak her e of "t r ut h" but of "t r ut h ef f ect s . " For what we "l ear n" s omet i mes
appear s as
a ki nd of s er endi pi t ous bypr oduct of . t he concept ual pl ay, wher eby
s uddenl y we
gl i mps e s omet hi ng i n a compl et el y unt owar d and unexpect ed
manner . Onef i nds
ones el f gas pi ng: bet weent wocommas onecoul deas i l y dr i ve
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
an
exposi torytruck; si ngl e sentencescoul deasi l y be turnedi nto
books. Thi s i s,
no doubt, part of thework' s f asci nati on, i ts verti go.
However, onecannot stop here. I t i s not j ust
i nterms of i ts conceptual pl ay,
but i ncertai nof i ts l arger trai ts that the
workbreaks (andbreaks wi th) the"l aws"
of doi ng soci al
sci ence andtakes onthe character of agame (as the author
hi msel f descri bes i t, most notabl y i nthe chapter i n Seducti onenti tl ed
"The
Passi onf or Rul es") . Onemi ght wi sh to seetheapparent l ack of
concernwi th
truth, or wi ththeref erenti al i ty supposedbythenoti on
of truth, as ref l ecti ng the
book' s game- l i kecharacter (games donot have
anexternal truth: thei r "truth" i s
enti rel y i mmanent, whi chi s to saythey knownei ther
truth nor f al sehood) . Or
onemi ght seeas i ndi cati ve of i ts l udi c nature
thef act that thebook avoi ds the
si ngl e- mi nded
character of a l i near andcumul ati ve progressi on, but i nstead
seems
to
j ump
f romtopi c totopi cwhi l esi mul taneousl yci rcl i ng i noni tsel f , wi th
aprosethat
someti mes takes onarepeti ti ve, al most ri tual i sti c qual i ty. But most
of al l , the game- l i ke qual i ty of the wri ti ng i s to be seen i n the rel ati on i t
establ i shes wi th the reader- a rel ati on that canbest be descri bed as a duel .
Baudri l l ard i s constantl y throwi ng hi s readers' chal l enges- - chal l enges
to thei r
credi bi l i ty, chal l enges to thei r tol erance.
I t must becl earl ystatedthat there
i s somethi ngi nhi sworktoupset everyone.
Onef i nds f or exampl eadef enseof astrol ogy
(andi nanother work, of thearms
bui l dup) . Evenmoretypi cal i s thebrutal assaul t
onf emi ni sm, psychoanl ysi sand
Marxi sm(thoughi nthel atter caseonei s merel y
deal i ng wi ththeaf ter- shocks of
The Mi rror of Producti on), not
to menti on structural i st semi oti cs and the
Del euzi anpol i ti cs
of desi re (al l
the
currents of theri ght- thi nki ng l ef t, al l those
whowoul dbe
onthesi deof truth, j usti ce, hi storyandtheRevol uti on- i nshort,
al l hi s potenti al readers) . Baudri l l ard' s attacks
areof tenqui te "deep, " but they
are never i ndepth; theyareal ways rapi d, al most
scattershot, of tenbol d, some-
ti mes outrageous.
Consi der someof the di f f erent, but i nterrel ated strategi es of theseattacks.
Fi rst, therei s therej ecti onof theradi cal i ty of i ntel l ectual currents under attack.
Theyare, i t i s cl ai med, secretl y compl i ci t wi th what theywoul d
cri ti ci ze: they
are part of thesame i magi nary, theyhol dtothesame l ogi cs and
reveal thesame
bl i ndspots (Marxi smshares wi th market i deol ogy anai vel y
uti l i tari anvi ewof
the obj ect, f emi ni smshares aphal l ocentri c di smi ssal of appearances,
etc) .
Second, therei s the
rej ecti onof theontol ogi cal f oundati ononwhi chthecurrent
seeks
togroundi tsel f andacqui re i ts cri ti cal l everage: (useval uei s not anatural
propertyof theobj ect, but theother f aceof exchangeval ue; f emi ni sm, at
l east
i ntheversi onparl ayed by Luce I ri garay, swi ms i n a si mul ated
bi ol ogy, etc) .
Thi rd, therei s thedeni al of theveryobj ect of theschool (therei s
no unconcon-
sci ous; there i s onl y one sexandi t i s mascul i ne), or at l east of i ts conti nued
exi stence
(there i s no l onger any desi re, onl y sex, whi ch i tsel f i s bei ng
neutral i zed
by the vi ol ence of pornography), or perhaps onl y i ts conti nued
rel evence i f i t sti l l exi sts (the sexual di f f erence i s becomi ng l ess si gni f i cant
soci al l y because def i ned bi ol ogi cal l y; the soci al i s brai n- dead, but arti f i ci al l y
mai ntai nedonal i f e support systemto mai ntai nthewarmed- over corpse of a
pol i ti cal proj ect) . Fourth, onemust speakof thepl ayof reversi bi l i ty, whereby
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
upper andl ower,
domi nant anddomi nated, mani pul ator
andmani pul ated,
knower andknownaremade
toexchange, pl aces bywayof al l
thesubtl yi roni c
strategi esthat pl aywi th
appearancessoas toensurethat thi ngs
arenot what they
seem( the mute
i mpermeabi l i tyof themasses as astrategy
of resi stanceto the
despoti smof
enl i ghtenment, f ri gi di tyas asubversi onof
mal edesi re) . Andl ast but
not l east- f or i mpl i ci t i n
al l of the above- there i s the qui ck,
conti nuous,
theoreti cal outbi ddi ng, of tenf ol l owedby
themi rror pl ayof reversehypothesi s
( e. g. ,
therei s nol onger aworki ngcl ass, nor
i s therearevol uti onarysubj ect, nor
anysubj ect
whatever, whether col l ecti ve or
. i ndi vi dual . . . andi f thesubj ect i s
di sappeari ng, theobj ect must betoo. . .
but thenmaybetheobj ect i s seeki ng
i ts
revengeandcl ai mi ngtheposi ti on, autonomy
andsoverei gntyof thesubj ect, and
thi s outsi de
al l ref erenceto "al i enati on") .
Therapi di ty of
theanal ysi s, theexaggeratedcharacter of the
cl ai ms, thef ast
andl ooseexperi mentati on
wi ththeoreti cal proposi ti ons, theapparent
uncon-
cern
wi thl ogi cal or anyother f ormof
consi stency, not to menti onthecontent
of what i s bei ng
sai d- al l thi s i s shocki ng. Af act that i s
perhapsi ni tsel f shocki ng.
Af ter al l , we have
been tol d that i n thi s age of
post- moderni smcul tural
moderni smi s passe, and
preci sel ybecausei t has l ost i ts capaci ty
to shock- i n
whi chcase, soci al theory
maywel l bethel ast ref ugef or cul tural
avant- gardes
( whi ch mi ght expl ai n the attracti on
of Baudri l l ard f or arti sti cal l y
i ncl i ned
ci rcl es) . Onecertai nl ydoes sensei n
Baudri l l ardapl easureof transgressi on,
even
as hetel l s us that such
pl easures bel ongtoanearl i er peri od, when
thel awsti l l
hel dswayanddevi ancehadnot
yet beenbanal i zed.
Thepoi nt herei s that Baudri l l ardi s not
to betakenl i teral l y ( howcanhebe
takenl i teral l y, whenhetel l s us that
nothi ng el se can?) . Hehas createdan
arti f i ci al , si mul atedspacewi thi nwhi chtopl ay
hi s hand( andgamessupposethe
most
arti f i ci al andsi mul atedof spaces because
theyrequi re no ref erence to a
real i ty
outsi de themsel ves) . Thi s i s not a
pol i ti cal space ( whi ch, wi thout
excl udi ngacertai ngamesmanshi p, must seek
i ts f oundati onsi nnoti ons of l aw,
j usti ce
and, yes, truth, i ncompati bl e wi th a'
l udi c uni verse) . As such, i t i s
somewhat besi dethepoi nt to respondtoi t
pol i ti cal l y. Evenl ess hel pf ul woul d
be
to respondsi mpl ywi thoutrage, andref use to
readanyf urther. Onecannot
take
upthechal l engebyqui tti ng thegame, whi l e
tryi ng to changetherul es
woul dbe
equi val ent to cheati ng.
Of courseonemi ght ask, whypl ayat al l ?
Presumabl y, becausethegamei s not
si mpl yaj oke. Becausei t i s not wi thout
seri ousness, becausetherearewhat I
termedearl i er "truth ef f ects, " because
the text resonates beyondthepri nted
page, becausetheattacks of tenhi t thei r
target, becausethestakes are "real "-
because,
i nshort, i t i s morethanagame. Howthendoes
onepl ay? Howdoes one
respond
toBaudri l l ard' s chal l enge? Si mpl ybypurchasi ng
andreadi ngthebook?
But presumabl y, bypurchasi ngthebook, wearei n
asomewhat better posi ti on
thanthosewhodaredtheabsurdby
respondi ngtotheadverti sement that asked
oneto senda
dol l ar . Andpresumabl y, byreadi ngthebook, wearedoi ngmore
thansubj ecti ng out i ntel l ectual
convi cti ons andgoodconsci enceto thethri l l s
of anavant- garde rol l ercoaster ri de?
There must be some way to respond
acti vel y. It cannot si mpl ybethat
Baudri l l ardi s duel l i ngwi thhi msel f whi l e
we,
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
the
r eader s, l ook
ondumbfounded; absor bedi nthat newest of spectator spor ts,
soci al
theor y.
Befor e, however , onecanr espond, eveni ndi r ectl y, tothepr obl emof "r eadi ng
Baudr i far d, " onemust take another l ook at hi s anal ysi s andi ts i mpact onwhat
for hi mmust be thepr obl emof wr i ti ng. Suchaquer ymust necessar i l yi ncl ude
another l ook at games as theyar epl ayed both wi thi nandwi thout thetext .
Thr oughout hi s wor k, Baudr i l l ar d sets up
a ser i es
of i nter connected
opposi ti ons- tr uthvs. i l l usi on, depthvs. appear ance, pr oducti onvs. seducti on,
the l awvs . thegame- r ul e, to namethemost i mpor tant . Andi neachcase the
second ter m, whi ch has al most al ways beendeni ed, der i ded or tr eated as
fr i vol ous, i s r ecover edand, i ndeed, cel ebr ated. NowBaudr i l l ar di s r escui ngand
r evi vi ngtheseter ms not somuchbecausehehol dsthat thefi r st ter mcannot exi st
wi thout the second ( at l east some of the opposi ti ons, as noted ear l i er , ar e
col l apsi ng: appear ances ar e becomi ng r eal i tyandr eal i ty becomi ng al l appear -
ance)
;
nor becausehebel i eves that thei r opposi ti onhol ds thepr omi seof some
di al ecti cal
over comi ng( the col l apseof theopposi ti onbetweenappear anceand
r eal i ty i s pr oduci nganob- scene wor l d- onemi ght, per haps, speakher e. of a
r egr essi vedi al ecti cs) . Thesecondter mi s not, or not necessar i l y, r esi dual r el ati ve
to thefi r st,
that i s, consti tuted
by
i ts opposi ti onto thedomi nant pr i nci pl e, and
thus for med by andr efl ecti ve of the l atter .
For
Baudr i l l ar d theopposedter ms
eachhave thei r own"l ogi c" andsofor mtwodi ffer ent uni ver ses whi ch, though
theymay"communi cate, " ar efundamental l yi ncommensur abl e. I nother wor ds,
the
wor l d of tr uth, r eal i ty,
pr oducti on,
l awand
desi r e i s shadowed byapar al l el
wor l d of appear ance, i l l usi on, seducti onandgames whi chcanbe exal tedi na
manner bothfor ceful andi r oni c byvi r tue of i ts "l ogi cal " autonomy. But thenthe
questi onbecomes, i f thesecondwor l dhas beenfor sol ongoccl udedbythefi r st,
par ti cul ar l y i nther eal mof soci al theor i zi ng, howdi dBaudr i l l ar ddi scover i t, l et
al oneexpl or ei tsconti nents?I f i t appear s sor esi dual wi thi nthepr esent, ' howhas
he beenabl e to endowi t wi th i ts ownpr i nci pl e?
At thi s poi nt onei s br ought facetofacewi thater r i bl enostal gi a. Over andover
agai nonei s r efer r ed to a noti onof thepr i mi ti ve( whi chi npr evi ous wor ks was
conveni entl ycondensedi ntheconcept of "symbol i cexchange") . Thepr i mi ti ve
her e acqui r es
i ts cr i ti cal l ever age not as
apoi nt
of
or i gi n
that
woul d
gi vesome
anthr opol ogi cal foundati onto thehumanadventur e, but as apoi nt of maxi mum
al ter i tywhi chspeaks of soci eti es that oper atedaccor di ngtoal together di ffer ent
pr i nci pl es, i ndependent of al l the master schemata of tr uth, r epr esentati on,
equi val ence or desi r e so fami l i ar to us. Wi ththe pr i mi ti veBaudr i l l ar d woul d
conj ur eupati mewhenr i tual s commandedsoci al bei ng, games wer eat thehear t
of soci al
l i fe,
seducti onwas omni pr esent
( not j ust
r el ati ve
to theother sex, or
other peopl e,
but to thegods),
wor ds coul d
be del i ver ed of thei r
meani ng
i n
i ncantati on, anddeath( and fate) coul d bewi l l i ngl ychal l enged andembr aced.
I n other wor ds, for our author thepr i mi ti ver epr esents that state wher ethe
"wor l d" for medbythe"secondter ms" functi ons wi th maxi mumautonomyand
maxi mumeffecti veness.
Once r ecover ed i n i ts ful l i ntegr i ty, si gns of theconti nued exi stence of the
l ogi c of thi s other wor l d canbe detected wi thi nthe pr esent, i n
however a
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
t r ansf i gur ed f or m
. Indeed suchi s t he occasi on of manyof Baudr i l l ar d' s most
br i l l i ant aper Fus. But
not e, t he "l ogi c of seduct i on" i s r ecover ed not j ust wher e
onewoul dmost expect
i t - i ncour t shi pr i t ual s, adver t i si ng, andent er t ai nment -
but al so
i n t hosear eas wher eone shoul dbe l east expect ed t of i ndi t , t hat i s, i n
t hose ar eas most i nvest ed bynot i ons of t r ut h, power andj ust i ce- t he macr o-
r eal mof pol i t i cs,
as
wel l as t he mi cr o- r eal ms
of i nt er - per sonal communi cat i on,
sexual i t yandsel f ( Baudr i l l ar d has not ent i r el yf or got t en
Foucaul t ) . In t hesel at t er
ar eas t hel ogi cof seduct i onof t enappear s, as onemi ght expect , t of or ma
shadow
wor l dwhi ch, al t houghdi smi ssed anddi spar aged, haunt s our concept i ons of
or der and coher ence, secr et l y subver t i ng t hei r cl ai ms . But j ust as
of t en
i n
Baudr i l l ar d' s anal ysi s, t hi s l ogi cappear s t o qui t t heshadows andmovet o
cent er
st age, l eavi ngt heot her "r eal wor l d" wi t honl yasecondar y, car dboar dexi st ence.
Andt hi s i s nosi mpl e t r i ck of per spect i ve,
f or accor di ng t o our aut hor wear e
ent er i ng a br ave, newandl udi c wor l d.
Consi der t hef at e of pol i t i cs . It i s not si mpl yt hat pol i t i cs i s nol onger what i t
seems; i t i s t hat we no
l onger l i ve i n aner a of pol i t i cs . Dur i ngt he er a of pol i t i cs
t hef undament al t er ms of
t he pol i t i cal i magi nar y, t het er ms t hat gi ve pol i t i cs i t s
val ue andmeani ng- t er ms
l i ke power , l aw, j ust i ce, equal i t y, t hepubl i c goodor
t he peopl e- st i l l
r et ai ned
t hei r
f or ce
. Let i t be
not edt hat t hese ar e "t r anscen-
dent " t er ms ( andcannot bei dent i f i edwi t ht her eal i t yof soci et y) ; t heyf or masor t
of mi r r or i deal above soci et ybywhi cht he col l ect i ve gat her s i t sel f t oget her ,
at t empt s t o est abl i shi t s
i dent i t y
and
or i ent at i ons, det er mi nei t s act i ons andgi ve
i t sel f t he means t o car r yout t hese act i ons. ( And as such, t hese t er ms
ar e
const i t ut i ve of and par t i ci pat e i n t he di st i nct i ons bet ween
appear ances and
dept hs, i l l usi ons and r eal i t i es, t r ut hs and f al sehoods- and t he concer n wi t h
r epr essi on andl i ber at i on t heyent ai l - whi ch Baudr i l l ar d woul dat t ack) . If one
t henspeaks of ademocr at i c pol i t i cs, onemust addt hat t heset er ms ar enot onl y
wi t hout posi t i ve r eal i t y; t heyar e wi t hout anydef i ni t e cont ent , t he l at t er bei ng
subj ect t o cont i nuous debat e. As a r esul t t heygi ve r i se t ot he expr essi on of
a
di vi si on i nt er nal t o soci et y, wher ebyt he pr i nci pl es supposedl yconst i t ut i ve of
t hat soci et yar e subj ect ed t o const ant quest i oni ng and conf l i ct . Nowsuppose
t hat anot her soci al "l ogi c" emer ges, i n par t as ar esponse t o, or bet t er , as away
of avoi di nganyr esponse t o t heunder l yi ng uncer t ai nt yof t heer aof democr at i c
pol i t i cs, andt hepubl i c debat e, soci al act i on andpol i t i cal conf l i ct i t cal l s f or t h.
And t hat t hi s new"l ogi c" i nf i l t r at es t he pol i t i cal scene, dr ai ni ng i t of i t s
subst anceandener gy, l eavi ngi t onl yashel l of i t s f or mer sel f , whi l ei mposi ngon
t he soci al or der at l ar ge a ver y di f f er ent mode of oper at i onal i t y, wi t h ver y
di f f er ent mot i vat i ons, concer ns andst akes . Thi s, of cour se, i s Baudr i l l ar d' scl ai m,
wi t h t he f ur t her cl ai mbei ng t hat t hi s "l ogi c" i s not wi t hout l i nks t o t hat
"pr i mi t i ve" l ogi c of seduct i on not ed above, wi t h t he pr omi nence i t gave t o
games andt he pl ayof appear ances. ' If as was suggest ed, Baudr i l l ar d i s seeki ng
t o r ecover awor l dl ong negl ect ed, t hen "hi st or y, " one mi ght say, i s onhi s si de,
andt heant hr opol ogi cal nost al gi abecomes pr esci ent
of
a
l i vi ng
f ut ur e
. But t he
r epr essed r et ur ns i n aver ydi f f er ent f or m, wi t hat r oubl i ng, par odi c char act er.
Wehave al r eadynot edt hat , accor di ng t o Baudr i l l ar d, wel i ve i n a wor l dof
appear ances, but t hese appear ances ar e of ar adi cal l ychanged
char act er . They
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
nol onger si t ast ri de somei nvi si bl e and underl yi ng real i t y; t hey are becomi ng
real i t y f or us-whi ch i s t o say t hat our sense of real i t y i s nowmodel l ed on
appearances, t hat ours i s a si mul at ed real i t y madet o appear real .
Int hi s sense
appearances arel osi ngt hei r i l l usory, i magi naryandevenrepresent at i ve
charac-
t er; f or i nst ead of mai nt ai ni ngt hei r di st ancef romreal i t y, t heywoul d overt ake
real i t y i nt hemodel s of t hehyper-real . Wi t hi nt hi s worl dof appearances, onecan
speak of seduct i on ( i n a worl d of appearances one cannot but speak of
appearances) but i t t oowi l l have a radi cal l y changed charact er
. Nomoret he
games of passi onwi t ht hei r unpredi ct abl e
out comes and hi ghst akes . Nomore
t hat hot seduct i onsubversi ve of one' s senseof real i t y. Onemust speaki nst ead
of a sof t seduct i on, onet hat act s as asoci al l ubri cant t o t heconsumer soci et y,
rat i oni ng of f
mi ni mal
grat i f i cat i ons
i n
homeopat hi c
doses . Suchseduct i ondoes
not i nvol ve t he mast ery of i l l usi ons ( t hus supposi ng t he di f f erence bet ween
appearance and real i t y) ; onei s l ess ent rappedby i l l usi on t hanabsorbed byt he
si mul at edmodel s of areal i t y t hat woul dwoul dmodel t heapparent
real i t y of our
desi re. Inef f ect , t hecol l apse of t hedi st i nct i onbet weenappearanceandreal i t y
i s accompani ed by t he col l apse of t hat bet ween
t he pl easure and real i t y
pri nci pl es . Whi chi nt urnmust be consi dered t he
begi nni ngof t heend of t hat
perspect i val spacewi t hi nwhi cht hesel f si t uat es
i t s
rel at i on
t o ot hers and t hei r
di f f erence, andbyi ncorporat i ngt he
perspect i ve of ot hers, si t uat es i t sel f and i t s
l i mi t s . If onet hen pushes t hi s hypot hesi s
f urt her, wi t h i t s el i mi nat i onof t he
mi rror st at e ( and t hus of al l rel at i onal al t eri t y of sel f andot her), one
i magi nes a
radi cal l y " narci ssi st i c" or " di gi t al " uni verse where communi cat i onbecomes
ubi qui t ous andi nst ant aneous, but al soempt yandci rcul ar, anendl ess
prol i f era-
t i onwi t hout ext ernal medi at i on. It
i s
at
t hi s
poi nt
t hat
onebegi ns
t opercei vet he
ul t i mat et ri umphof al udi cworl d. But t hegames pl ayed herearet hosedescri bed
by game t heory-t he f ormal i zed expressi on of al l possi bi l i t i es under l i mi t ed
condi t i ons-whi l e t he" pl ay" i s t hat of acybernet i cuni verse-t hemodul at i onof
a net work
of mul t i pl e connect i ons and di sconnect i ons-al l i n t he name of a
search f or maxi mi zat i on, whet her t hat
of operat i onal ef f i ci ency or sensual
pl ast i ci t y. Such
aworl d canbarel y
becal l ed f un. It s games donot enchant ; t hey
l eavet he" pl ayer"
absorbed, t ransf i xed byanumbf asci nat i onor bywhat Baudri l -
l ard t erms at onepoi nt " a
psychedel i cgi ddi ness . "
Earl i er I suggest ed t hat Baudri l l ard woul d combat t he t rut h of dept hs by
speaki ng of t hesuperf i ci al real i t y of appearances
.
But what
i s t hesenseof t hi s
combat whent rut hnol onger at t aches
i t sel f t o anunderl yi ng real i t y, wheni t i s
appearances
t hat al onearet ruebecauset heapparent hei r t o t hesoverei gnt yof
t hereal ? Int hef ace of suchasi t uat i on, onemi ght swi t chst rat egi es, andi nst ead
of count erposi ng superf i ci al t rut hs t o t he deeper real i t i es ( di scovered by
sci ence, i nt erpret at i onor cri t i que), qui t t hereal mof t rut handreal i t y al t oget her
byent eri ngwhat i npri nci pl e
i s
t he
" un-real " and " un-t rue" real mof games . But
what i s t hesense
of suchaf ei nt whent hebl urri ng of appearance andt rut hhas
produced a
l udi c real i t y, and
one
i nwhi chgames have l ost t hei r def i ant and
subversi ve charact er? Asi t uat i on al l t he moreprobl emat i c whenone i s not
si mpl ywri t i ng
about games ; what onei s wri t i ngi s i t sel f agame. When, i not her
words, t hewayt hebooki s wri t t en( and t hewayi t i s t oberead) i s madet o
ref l ect
POWERANDSEDUCTION
andrespondt o t he
cont ent of what i s wri t t en. But t henhow
canonewri t e a
seduct i veworkt hat
woul densnareandent rancei t s readers
whent hecharact er
of seduct i onhas
become sodegraded? Howcanone
chal l engeone' s readers
when
t hereadi ngpubl i c, i t s t ast es shapedby
t het el evi sual medi a, has become
i mpervi ous
t o ref l ect i on? Howcanoneevencommuni cat e
wi t h t hi s publ i c
whent hel anguage
i t underst ands syst emat i cal l y deni es al l
al t eri t y? Or put i n
anot her way, what sort
of anal yt i c st rat egycanonedevi set o
count er t herose-
col ouredni ght mareonei s
at t empt i ngt odeconst ruct ? What sort
of t heoret i cal
response mi ght ret ai ni t s
subversi ve chargei n t hef aceof aworl d
drai nedof
subst ance, meani ng,
val ueanddi f f erence?
Int hi s regXrdt hereare, I bel i eve,
t woverydi f f erent , evencont raryresponses
i n
Baudri l l ard' s work. Thef i rst moves as
f ar out si det he col dseduct i onof t he
di gi t al uni verseas
possi bl e, t owardst hat poi nt of maxi mal al t eri t y, t he
seduct i on
of apri mi t i veworl d. . . andt hat wi t hout
moral t ergi versat i on. Howel se i s onet o
i nt erpret
t het heoret i cal embraceof t het erms of
ri t ual andsacri f i ce, andt he
cruel , f at al i st i c worl di t
i mpl i es? Andwhat about t hedi scussi on,
most not abl y
t owards t heendof
Fat al St rat egi es, of auni versedet ermi nednot by
uni versal
l aws of causeand
ef f ect , or t hoseof chance, nor somecombi nat i ont hereof , but
by t he al ways part i cul ar, charmed
andf or us, sensel ess "l ogi c" i mpl i ed by
predest i nat i on?Asi f t heworl dof
gameswoul dst i l l , byvi rt ueof somef i nal i rony
or desperat ehope, secret l y
rei gnsupreme. Arewet osee t hi s as t he hi dden
det ermi nat i onbeneat hat ransparent
worl d? Or as t hedi al ect i cal reversal at t he
endof t he endof hi st ory? Onehas
t he i mpressi ont hat Baudri l l ard i s here
creat i ngamyt hi nt hef ul l senseof t he
word, andt hat t hi s myt hi s agambl ei n
t he Pascal i an sense- t heunreasonabl e but
necessary bel i ef i n ani nvi si bl eand
sacredpri nci pl et hat hol ds t hef at e of eachand
al l of us i nt hebal ance.
Theot her responsemoves i nt heopposi t e
di rect i on, t owards t hat whi ch i t
descri bes, appropri at i ng i t s mat eri al s
andext endi ng i t s l ogi c i n t he hope of
i mpl odi ngi t f romwi t hi n. Baudri l l ard' s
anal ysi s i s ext remeanddescri besaworl d
t hat i s "goi ngt oext remes" . Throughout
hedet ai l s asort of l ogi cal f l i ght f orward
whereby, i nt heabsenceof t heanchorageof ref erent s,
f i nal i t i es, l i mi t s, l aws or
rul es, some pri nci pl e i s "doubl ed, " produci ng anunreal
anddi sconcert i ng
excess. Thus real i t y i s mademore real t hanreal i n
t he si mul at i ons of hyper-
real i t y, speedbecomesf ast er t hanf ast as i t reaches
t hepoi nt of i nst ant anei t y,
obesi t yt akesonebeyond
f at ness( t ot akeanexampl ef romFat al St rat egi es) , and
pornographyrenders sexmore
t hanvi si bl ewhi l e neut ral i zi ng i t byi t s excess.
Suchan"escal at i ont o
ext remes"
i nvol ves
bot h al ogi c of prol i f erat i on- bef ore
al l t heexorbi t ant "i mages" of real i t y,
sex, speedor f l at ul ence, onecanonl yrepl y
t hat i t i s "t oomuch"- anda
l ogi c of di sappearance- t he di sappearanceof ( t he
meani ngandval ueof ) real i t y, sex,
t hebody, movement anddi st ance. Inef f ect ,
wi t hi n t he
space of hi s t ext , Baudri l l ard i s creat i ng asi mul at i on model of a
t raj ect oryi dent i f i edwi t hpresent - dayt endenci es, speedi ngi t up, whi chhecan
t henwat chwi t hwhat must beami xt ureof pl easureandhorror as i t al l col l apses
i non
i t sel f . Andi nt heprocesshehasmanagedt owri t esomet hi ngt hat i s t ruer
t hant rue, somet hi ngt hat hemi ght cal l an"ecst at i c" t rut h( ecst asybei ngdef i ned
at onepoi nt i n St rat egi es f at al es as "t he vert i gi nous super- mul t i pl i cat i on
of
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
f ormal propert i es") . Perhaps t hi s i s where Baudri l l ard i s uppi ng t he ant e and
t hrowi ngdownhi s ul t i mat e chal l enge, dari ngt hel ogi c t o go beyondt hepoi nt
where i t canbe meani ngf ul l y sust ai ned and becomes absurder t han absurd.
Perhaps t hi s i s how, i n hi s i magi nat i on, hewoul dseduce anddest royt he unreal
real i t yhe
f eel s soest rangedf rom,
by
cal l i ngon
i t s
resources
t ot rapi t wi t hi ni t s
ownmovement . Perhaps byi t s veryf at al i smsuch a st rat egy i s ( pri mi t i vel y)
seduct i ve.
I nmanyways t hi s i s t hemoresat i sf yi ngresponse, andyet does i t not t hreat en
t obecomeonewi t hwhat i t descri bes- asi mul acrumof t hedyst opi aof t hel i vi ng
f ut ure? Does i t not , byvi rt ue of i t s concept ual sel f - ref erent i al i t ybegi nt o t urni n
oni t sel f t ot he poi nt wherei t t urns t oani ncant at oryprose andbegi ns t ol ose al l
meani ng? Wi t h i t s t heoret i cal
escal at i on
t o ext remes and i t s hypot het i cal
exhaust i onof al l al t ernat i ves i n t hemi rror- pl ayof reversi bi l i t y, does i t not deny
i t sel f al l st akes i nt he f orecast of anunal t erabl e doomsdayscenari o? Andi s not
t he l at t er not j ust anot her one of t hose banal apocal ypses, one of t hose
cat ast rophes wi t hout consequences, whi ch we are, as Baudri l l ard hi msel f
recogni zes, soeager t o
consumei nt hi s pre- mi l l eni al era? Af t er al l t he rapi d- f i re
anal yt i c connect i ons and di sconnect i ons t hat pl ay so f ast and l oose wi t h
meani ng and val ue, doesn' t t he reader emerge f romt he book i n a
gi ddy
t heoret i cal
daze? Andwhat i s t he nat ure
of
t he f asci nat i on? Howmanyof t hose
who are at t ract ed t o t he work are l ef t l i t eral l y speechl ess, i n a
st at e of
"somnambul ar euphori a"?
Whenbegi nni ngt owri t et hi s essay, I t ol d mysel f t hat I woul dbevent i ngmy
ownambi val ence rel at i ve t o Baudri l l ard' s work. But nowt hat I amneari ngt he
endI amconvi ncedt hat t heambi val encei s i mmanent t ot heworki t sel f . Though
wri t t eni next remes, i t perhaps al l ows of onl yequi vocal responses. I f i t s cl ai ms
were t o bet akent ooseri ousl y, or t ool i t eral l y, byei t her aut hor or reader, t hen
t he f ormer shoul d havef oundi t i mpossi bl e t owri t e t he book, andt he l at t er t o
readi t . Ont heot her hand, i f t hecl ai ms coul dsi mpl ybe deni ed, t hebook woul d
be l ess t hanuni nt erest i ng. Yet i t remai ns f asci nat i ng: awork of soci ol ogyt hat
vi ol at es al l t he canons of soci al sci ence, awork of et hi cs t hat woul ddi spense
wi t hmoral i t y, aradi cal work t hat woul dbewi t hout hopes. Awork t hat woul d
rej ect t he veryi dea( 1) of t rut h, but supposes aresi dual t rut hf or i t s i mpact . And
t hat woul dqui t real i t yt oent er t he "unreal " space of games, but as agamewoul d
ref l ect t hespacet hat i t has qui t . I t i s aworkt hat woul dshocki t s readers t hough
t heybe rendered i nsensi bl e byt he sat urat i on of obscene i mages ; t hat woul d
chal l enge i t s readers t hought heybe. i nocul at ed t o al l but t hemost f ormal ( and
l east
ant agoni st i c)
of
dual i sms; andwoul dcommuni cat eevenascommuni cat i on
i s i ncreasi ngl y
bei ngreduced t o what one ei ght eent h cent uryut opi ant ermed
t he "l anguage of t he bees. " Awork t hat resonat es wi t ht he i rreal i t yof t he real ,
t hat f ant asi zes aworl dwi t hout f ant asy, andwoul dpl ayi nways t hat i t decl ares
obsol et e. Aworkt hat bemoans aworl d of si mul at i on, andwoul dt henproduce
aradi cal si mul at i onof t heory. Aworkwhosemaj or concept s are, l i ke
somany
t ops, sent spi nni ng at such a speed t hat t hey woul d di sappear f romhuman
hi st ory. Si mul t aneousl y agoni st i cs and agnost i cs, augur and agony,
i t i s a
marvel ousl yi mpossi bl e book. Somet hi ngone cannei t her accept nor rej ect . A
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
workt hat bot h at t ract s andrepel s, absorbs and
t orment s
.
In
a
word, t he perf ect
post modernf et i sh.
1.

1sai d earl i er t hat
one coul d
not
respondt oBaudri l l ard' s t ext s pol i t i cal l y. The reasons are not si mpl y
"epi st emol ogi cal " (he i s not wri t i ngabout t heunderl yi ngreal i t yof soci et y, nori s he
wri t i ng
awork
of pol i t i cs- hi s wri t i ngi s agame) but al so"hi st ori cal " (t he pol i t i cal scene no
l onger has any meani ng
i nt he present and, t heref ore, not hi ngcanbe expect edof i t ) . Tobe sure, t hi s cont i nuous t acki ng
bet ween "epi st emol ogy" and"hi st ory" canproduce f or t he woul d- be cri t i c a very sl i ppery, even
dupl i ci t ous t ext
.
Not es
Soci ol ogy
Gl endonCol l ege
SI GNANDCOMMODI TY: ASPECTSOFTHECULTURAL
DYNAMI COFADVANCEDCAPI TALI SM
AndrewWerni ck
I t i s noacci dent t hat Marx s houl dhavebegunwi t h ananal ys i s of commodi t i es when, i nt het wo
great works of hi s mat ureperi od, hes et out t oport ray capi t al i s t s oci et y i ni t s t ot al i t y andt ol ay bare
i t s f undament al nat ure. Forat t hi s s t agei n
t hehi s t ory of manki ndt herei s noprobl emt hat does not
ul t i mat el y l eadbackt ot hat ques t i onand
t herei s nos ol ut i ont hat coul dnot bef oundi nt hes ol ut i on
t o t heri ddl eof t hecommodi t y- s t ruct ure.
Baudri l l ardandFrankf urt
G. Lukacs
Hi s t ory andCl as s Cons ci ous nes s
I deol ogy can
no
l onger
beunders t oodas ani nf ra- s upers t ruct ural rel at i on bet weena mat eri al
product i on(s ys t emandrel at i ons of product i on) anda product i onof s i gns (cul t ure, et c. ) whi ch
expres s es andmarks t hecont radi ct i ons at t he"bas e" . Hencef ort h, al l of t hi s compri s es , wi t h t he
s amedegreeof obj ect i vi t y, ageneral pol i t i cal economy(i t s cri t i que), whi chi s t ravers edt hroughout
by t hes amef ormandadmi ni s t eredby t hes amel ogi c.
J eanBaudri l l ard
ForACri t i queof t he
Pol i t i cal Economyof t heSi gn
I nt heaf f l uent conf ormi s mof
t hepos t - war boom, andnowagai ni nt he
pos t - 60s di s i l l us i onment of our ownmean- s pi ri t edandre- di s ci pl i nedt i mes ,
cri t i cal s oci al
t hought has revi ved
t heFrankf urt School ' s s pect reof a capi t al i s m
t hat has f i nal l y mas t eredi t s ownhi s t ori ci t y and
s o
l i qui dat edany
endogenous
capaci t y
i t
may oncehavehadf or redempt i ve
s el f - t rans f ormat i on
.
I t i s perhaps not ewort hy t hat t hel at es t avat ars of t hi s gl oomy ent el echy
haveemergednot f romGermany, t hel andof i t s bi rt h, but f romFrance; and, at
t hat , f romamongani nt el l ect ual generat i ont hat cut i t s t eet h ona pol emi c
agai ns t humani zedHegel anddedi cat edi t s el f t hereaf t er t o t hephi l os ophi cal
di s mant l i ngof al l t heot hercrumbl i ngremnant s of Wes t ernl ogocent ri s ri m. I The
reas ons f or t hi s s t rangeparadi gmat i c cros s - over arepart l y pol i t i cal . I npos t -
Hi t l er Germany, t heneo- Kant i anandant i - Romant i ct urnt akenbycri t i cal t heory
under Habermas andhi s f ol l owers was predi cat edont herecovery of evol u-
t i onary opt i mi s m. That (Wes t ) Germant hought s i ncet henhas beenabl et o
s us t ai nt hi s l i beral moodi s i ns omemeas ureduet o t herel at i vepers i s t encei n
t hat count ry of t heext ra- Parl i ament ary act i vi s mi ni t i at ed duri ng t he 60s . I n
Francet ot hecont rary, May68was abol t f romt hes t ars , as del i ri ous l y f es t i ve
and
POWERANDSEDUCTION
t ot al as i t was ephemer al
: har d
event o r ecal l
i n
t he
busi ness- as- usual nor mal i t y
whi ch so r api dl y and depr essi ngl y f ol l owed. Faced af t er war ds
wi t h a
choi ce
bet ween t he PCF ( and Uni ondes Gauches) and Gaul l i sm, i t i s not sur pr i si ng t hat
r adi cal Fr ench t heor y shoul d begi n t o di spl ay si gns of ul t i mat i smand despai r .
But besi des t hese mat t er s of cont ext , Fr ench t hought i n i t s moment of
deconst r uct i onhas al so comet o di spl ay pr of ound concept ual par al l el s wi t ht he
ear l i er ent er pr i se of negat i ve di al ect i cs . Bot h
r ef l ect t he out comeof a woul d- be
synt het i c medi t at i on on Mar x, Ni et zche and Fr eud; bot h shar e a mor t al f ear of .
t he soci al wor l d' s i deol ogi cal sel f - encl osur e; and bot h exhi bi t a moder ni st
det er mi nat i ont o demol i sh syst emat i ci t y, evenat t he l evel of cr i t i que i t sel f . For
t hat r eason, and despi t e t hei r ot her wi se i r r econci l abl e epi st emi c di f f er ences,
post - st r uct ur al i smt oday enj oys an al most pr i vi l eged access t o t he pr evi ousl y
i nadmi ssi bl e ( because
Hegel i an and ant i - obj ect i vi st ) t er r ai n of Hor khei mer ,
Ador no
and Mar cuse, and t hus al so
t o
t hoset hi nker s' t r agi c r eadi ng of moder n
hi st or y as t he st or y of Enl i ght enment ' s i nel uct abl e pr ogr ess t owar ds
t ot al
unf r eedom.
Per haps t he cl ear est and cer t ai nl y t he most soci ol ogi cal l y expl i ci t i nst ance
of what one mi ght cal l neo- Mar cusi an
r easoni ng i n cont empor ar y Fr ench
t hought i s t he wor k of J ean Baudr i l l ar d?
Ther e i s admi t t edl y a wor l d ( i . e. an ont ol ogy) of
di f f er ence
bet ween
Mar cuse' s one- di mensi onal soci et y and Baudr i l l ar d' s code- domi nat ed or der of
gener al i zed exchange. In t he pr axi s- based cat egor i es of t he f or mer i t i s
i nst r ument al r eason whi ch i s i dent i f i ed as t he gl aci al l y r ei f yi ng agent ; wher eas
i nt he l at t er , f ounded on a neo- Dur khei mi an ant hr opol ogy of mor al r eci pr oci t y,
t he cul pr i t i s commodi t y semi osi s and t he uni ver sal i zed commut abi l i t y of
val ues . But at a deeper l evel t hese cr i t i cal vi si ons conver ge i n t hei r common
pr oj ect i on of advanced capi t al i st soci et y as a model whose f i xed det er mi na-
t i ons pr opel t he col l ect i vi t y t owar ds a ki nd of sl owbut pai nl ess spi r i t ual deat h.
Baudr i l l ar d, l i ke Mar cuse, has al so t r i ed
t o
pr ovi de psychoanal yt i c gr oundf or
t hi s dyst opi an t el eol ogy by demonst r at i ng i t s consonance wi t h t he mor bi d
pr ompt i ngs of a syst emat i cal l y r epr essed desi r e
.
3
Li kewi se, Baudr i l l ar d' s
soci ol ogi cal i nvest i gat i ons i nt o mass- medi at i zed consumer i sm, t he mai n
subst ance of hi s oeuvr e, essent i al l y pur sue l i nes of enqui r y pr evi ousl y opened
upby t he Fr ankf ur t School . Thegui di ng assumpt i ons ar e i dent i cal : t hat t he mass
cul t ur al i nst ance has become cr uci al t o soci al r epr oduct i on, t hat i t r epr esent s
i ndeed a st r at egi c bui l t - i n mechani smf or ensur i ng t he soci al or der ' s r eal st at i s
t hr ough al l t he i nci pi ent upheaval s i t cont i nues t o i nduce, andt hat t hi s i s why
t he Revol ut i on ( i f t he t er mr et ai ns any meani ng) has per haps per manent l y
mi ssed t he hi st or i cal boat .
Ther e i s no doubt t hat Baudr i l l ar d' s expl or at i on of t hese t hemes i s pat h-
br eaki ng. Hi s pr obl emat i zat i on of what one mi ght cal l commodi t y semi osi s i n
t he ageof t el evi sedr epet i t i onr epr esent s i nmany r espect s a si gni f i cant advance
over Benj ami n,
and cer t ai nl y
over t he Nor t h Amer i can mass soci et y cr i t i cs he
al so appr opr i at es . Mor et hanany ot her cont empor ar y t hi nker he has succeeded
i n pl aci ng t he, changed ar t i cul at i on of cul t ur e and economy i n advanced
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
capi t al i st
soci et y f i r ml y ont he t heor et i cal agenda . But ul t i mat el y, i woul dar gue,
t he
t heor et i cal power of hi s anal ysi s i s r est r i ct ed by t he same quasi - f at al i st i c
ci r cul ar i t y t hat vi t i at ed t he
Fr ankf ur t School ' s or i gi nal ci vi l i zat i onal l ament . In
Der r i di an t er ms : however decent r ed and i ndet er mi nat e,
t he code t hat has
al l egedl y t r i umphed i s never t hel ess a l ogos, par t i cul ar l y when
i dent i f i ed wi t h
deat h; and such an ascr i pt i on must i t sel f f al l pr ey t o t he suspi ci on of
l ogocent r i sm. Ot her wi se put : we do not
escape t he i dent i t y pr i nci pl e si mpl y by
i dent i f yi ng t he wel t gei st as a cor pse .
Mor e pr agmat i cal l y, any r epr esent at i on of soci al r eal i t y as
cul t ur al l y ( and
t her ef or e pol i t i cal l y) encl osed
i n
t he
uni di mensi onal i t y of a si ngul ar psychi c
space -
wi t h Baudr i l l ar d t hi s i s st r uct ur al , abst r act and at t he second degr ee -
i s vul ner abl e t o
t he count er f act ual exper i ence of ' act ual ' hi st or y. Theor y must
be adequat e t o
expl ai nand account f or gl obal di st ur bances l i ke t hose of t he 60s
whi chshake t he syst emof hegemony t o i t s f oundat i ons
.
It
i s al so i mpor t ant t o
expl i cat e t he nor mal pl ay of cul t ur al andmor al pol i t i cs -
st r uggl es over sexual ,
f ami l i al , aest het i c, r el i gi ous, et c . , modes and symbol s -
whi ch cont i nual l y
medi at e, somet i mes
expl osi vel y, t he hi er ar chi cal f or ce- f i el d of compet i ng
mat er i al
sel f - i nt er est s .
On
t hi s scor e, per haps, i t mi ght be cl ai med t hat Baudr i l l ar d i s i n
f act
somewhat l ess undi al ect i cal t hansome of hi s Fr ankf ur t f or ebear s . Wher eas i n
The Di al ect i c of
Enl i ght enment i t i s cr i t i cal t heor y i t sel f whi ch must bear t he f ul l
wei ght of opposi t i on
, 4
hi s ownant hr opol ogi cal ont ol ogy of symbol i c exchange
comes cl ose t o endowi ng even t he whol l y
r ei f i ed wor l d of l a soci et e de
consommat i onwi t h a pr i nci pl e of
i nt er nal cont r adi ct i on. Symbol i c exchange, i n
t he pr i mor di al f or ms of gi f t , f est i val , and
sacr i f i ce, canno mor e be r epr essed
t hanl anguage; and so t he mor e t he ' st r uct ur al l awof val ue' dessi cat es
soci al
space, t he mor e i t s unsat i sf i ed r eci pr oci t i es, i nvest ed wi t h r epr essed l i bi di nal
ener gy, come t o
haunt al l t he comer s of soci al l i f e, t hr eat eni ng const ant l y t o
di sr upt t he r epet i t i ve
dumb- showt hat has come t o monopol i ze t he st age.
Hence,
f or Baudr i l l ar d, t he Days of May. And al so, t he pr of ound si gni f i cance
of
evensucht r i vi al
occur r ences as t he gr eat NewYor k gr af f i t i out br eak i n
1972, 5
and ( i n a dar ker vei n) of t hat mor e per manent r oundof
medi a- at t unedsymbol i c-
come- act ual pol i t i cal vi ol ence t o whi ch t he West er n wor l d
has become
accust omed
over t he past t wo decades :
Int he
f ace of pur el y symbol i c bl ackmai l ( t he bar r i cades of 68,
host age- t aki ng) power f al l s apar t : si nce i t l i ves of f my sl ow
deat h, I oppose i t wi t h my vi ol ent deat h. And i t i s because we
l i ve
of f a sl owdeat ht hat we dr eamof a vi ol ent one. Thi s ver y
dr eam
i s i nt ol er abl e t o power
. 6
But i f Baudr i l l ar d' s soci al t opol ogy does pr ovi de a space f or
ot her ness andby
t he same
t okenf or cr i si s i t never t hel ess t akes f or gr ant ed t hat
t he pr ospect of
cl ass
upheaval has passed andt hat capi t al i sm' s cont r adi ct or i ness has come t o
be conf i ned t o t he pl ane of i t s cul t ur al
det er mi nat i ons . Occl udi ng t he pl ay of
POWERANDSEDUCTION
i nt er est s and cont r a Mar x, t r ansf or mat i on i s onl y i magi nabl e i n t hi s per spect i ve
as t he quasi - magi cal i r r upt i on of symbol i c pol i t i cs so t hat we ar e l ef t wonder i ng
whet her Baudr i l l ar d has abandoned al l hope of t her e bei ngany act ual exi t f r om
capi t al i smat al l . Mor eover , t he ant agoni smhe posi t s bet ween symbol i c and
semi ot i c exchange? i s pi t ched at so abst r act i ndeed met aphysi cal a l evel t hat t he
whol e
t heor et i cal
const r uct ,
despi t e i t sel f , ef f ect i vel y
r epl i cat es t he hi st or i cal
cl osur e t hat f or ms t he ' r eal ' obj ect of i t s cr i t i que . In t hi s sense, however sel f -
cr i t i cal l y, Baudr i l l ar d' s soci ol ogy r emai ns t r apped wi t hi n t he or der of t he
si mul acr um. Far f r omhavi ng smashed t hat mi r r or , hi s deconst r uct i on of
pol i t i cal economy ser ves ul t i mat el y onl y t o shi f t i t s angl e ; so t hat wher e i t once
r ef l ect ed t he code of pr oduct i on i t nowr ef l ect s t he code of t he Code i n a
met apsychol ogi cal si mul at i on of t he f our t h
degr ee . 8
Cor r el at i vel y, andbeyonda
cer t ai n l evel of i ncr easi ngl y poet i c abst r act i on, Baudr i l l ar d' s f or mul at i ons
l eave
t he medi at edand conf l i ct ual i nst i t ut i on of commodi f i edcul t ur e i n r eal hi st or y,
andt he act ual pol i t i cs t o whi ch t hat pr ocess gi ves r i se, deepl y i n t he t heor et i cal
shade .
Nowwhat i s
not ewor t hy about t he Baudr i l l ar di an ci r cl e, beyond t he
pr of undi t y
of
t he pessi mi smwhi ch
mot i vat es i t , i s t hat i t der i ves f r oma
concept ual r educt i on at t he cent r e of what i s at t he same t i me i t s most i nci si ve
soci o- hi st or i cal i nsi ght : namel y, t hat i n l at e capi t al i smsi gn and commodi t y
have f used, gi vi ng r i se t o a newf or mof obj ect ( t he si gn- commodi t y) and a new
or der of domi nat i on ( t he ensembl e of i nst i t ut i ons and di scour ses whi ch make
up consumer cul t ur e) nei t her of whi ch oper at e any l onger accor di ng t o t he
di ct at es of a st r i ct l y capi t al i st ( i . e, economi c) l ogi c .
The pr obl em i s t hat i n t hemat i zi ng t hi s devel opment Baudr i l l ar d has
conf l at ed t wo qui t e di f f er ent aspect s
of t he pr ocess : t he t r ansf or mat i on of si gns
i nt o commodi t i es, ul t i mat el y r epr esent edby t he r i se of t he cul t ur e i ndust r y, and
t he t r ansf or mat i on, vi a mass mar ket i ng, f ashi on and st at us compet i t i on,
of
commodi t i es i nt o si gns . It i s t he l at t er whi ch i nt er est s hi m, pr ovi di ng as
i t
does a
f r amewor kf or anal yzi nghowt he sacr ed andsoci al l y essent i al r eal mof symbol i c
val ue has been ef f ect i vel y evacuat ed by publ i c di scour se . But t he ot her
moment , t he penet r at i on of cul t ur e
by
t he
commodi t y f or m, whi ch t o be sur e
al so has f ar - r eachi ng consequences
f or syst emi c i nt egr at i on, needs t o be
separ at el y consi der ed. Not onl y does Baudr i l l ar d f ai l t o
do
t hi s, but
by
pal mi ng
t he commer ci al di mensi on of post - i ndust r i al cul t ur al f or mat i on under t he si gn
of t he Si gn, hi s at t ent i on i s def l ect ed f r omany di r ect consi der at i on of t he
cul t ur al dynami cs associ at ed wi t h t he br oader and al ways ongoi ng pr ocess of
commodi f i cat i on as such.
If , t hen, t he Baudr i l l ar di an pr obl emat i c' i s t o be pot ent i at ed as t he st ar t i ng-
poi nt f or a f r esh r ound of enqui r i es and r ef l ect i ons on our hi st or i cal
si t uat i on,
i t s cr uci al el i si ons must be addr essed, and t he t ot al i smof t he model cor r es
pondi ngl y deconst r uct ed i n t he l i ght of t he compl exi t i es whi ch t hat woul d
i nt r oduce . It i s i n t hat spi r i t , and wi t h t he admi t t edr i skof f al l i ng backi nt o t he
swamp
of second- or der , i . e . pol i t i cal economi c si mul at i on, t hat t he f ol l owi ng
ver y pr el i mi nar y
consi der at i ons ar e put f or war d. Above al l , t hei r mai n ai mi s t o
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
openupt he quest i onof how, besi des pr ovi di ng t hebasi s
f or a new( post - cl ass?)
modeof hegemony, cul t ur al commodi f i cat i onand t he i mpact of
commodi f i ca-
t i on on cul t ur e
can cr eat e t he space f or a ki nd of pol i t i cs .
Commodi f i cat i on as cul t ur al pr ovocat eur
The expansi oni st
pr i nci pl e bui l t i nt o t he accumul at i on pr ocess, wher ei n
mar ket sur vi val necessi t at es gr owt h, has cr eat ed
a f or mof soci et y whose
devel opment t o an unpr ecedent ed degr ee has f ol l owed
a pat h of const ant
upheaval
and sel f - over haul . Evi dent l y, andher et oocapi t al i smhas changed, t he
mat er i al
cont r adi ct i ons of cl ass andeconomy anal yzed at l engt h by Mar x byno
means exhaust t he l i st of per t i nent ef f ect s
. For besi des gener at i ng anever mor e
el abor at e, di f f er ent i at ed and at t hesamet i me
i nt er nat i onal i zed pl ay of i nt er est
ant agoni sms, and medi at i ng i t t hr oughout , capi t al has al so t ended t o
make
soci o- cul t ur al
waves as i t s i mper at i ves and modal i t i es havest eadi l y i mposed
t hemsel ves and t hei r
r est l ess dynami c over t he ent i r e sur f ace and dept h of
soci al l i f e.
The waves t hat have emanat ed f r omcapi t al i st dynami smat t he poi nt of
pr oduct i on ar e
per haps t he most f ami l i ar aspect s of t hi s pr ocess . Si nce t he
dawni ng of i ndust r yi t has beencl ear t hat t he t echnol ogi cal r evol ut i on
usher ed
i n byt he
Renai ssanceand i nst al l ed bymar ket soci et y at t heper manent cent r e of
i t s pr oduct i on
pr ocess was boundt o t r ansf or mnot onl y t hephysi cal and soci al
envi r onment s but t he
char act er of exper i enceandt henat ur eof i deol ogyas wel l .
The medi t at i ons of cl assi cal soci ol ogy on
i ndust r i al i sm, bur eaucr acy and
secul ar i zat i onwer ef i xed pr eci sel yont hat poi nt ; and cr i t i cal
t heor y' s ownr i ch
di scour se ont echnocr acy, sci ent i sm, and i nst r ument al i t y has
i n t ur nr adi cal i zed
t he anal ysi s and i ncor por at ed i t i nt o t he convent i onal
weaponr y of ant i -
capi t al i st cr i t i que. Mor e r ecent l y, t he r i se of
l i ngui st i c i nt er est s and t he,
i nci pi ent obsol escence of pr i nt , have l ed a
non- Mar xi st cur r ent of t hi nker s
cul mi nat i ng i n Inni s andMcLuhant opusht hequest i ont o
a st i l l deeper l evel by
consi der i ng t he cul t ur al i mpact of ever - advanci ng t echnol ogy
wi t hi n t he
communi cat i onpr ocess i t sel f . .
However , much l ess at t ent i on, and cer t ai nl y l ess t han
deser ved, has been
gi ven t o t he equal l y pr of ound ef f ect s of capi t al i sm' s
par al l el but di st i nct
t endencyt oext end t her angeof t he pr i ce- syst emandt he
commodi t yf or mpei se
as a uni ver sal model f or soci al r el at i ons . Evenwhenposed
mor eover t hi s i ssue
has pr oved di f f i cul t t o di sent angl e f r omt hef or mer , cr oss- cut t i ng,
pr obl emat i c
of t echni que. Thus, Lukacs' pat hbr eaki ng t heor y of
r ei f i cat i on ef f ect i vel y
assi mi l at ed Mar x' s cat egor y of commodi t y f et i shi smt o
Weber ' s cat egor y of
i nst r ument al r at i onal i zat i on; and Benj ami n' s
f or mat i ve t heses ont he cr i si s of
ar t si mi l ar l y devol ve, i n t he end, on a pur el y t echnol ogi cal
poi nt . For al l hi s
semi ol ogi cal conf l at i ons, Baudr i l l ar d' s si ngul ar
achi evement i ndevel opi ng and
updat i ng t hi s l i ne of t hought has beenf i nal l yt oconf r ont
t he cul t ur al i mpact of
POWERANDSEDUCTI ON
commodi f i cat i on on somet hi ng l i ke i t s own, economi cal l y concat enat ed,
ground: i n t erms, t hat i s, of how an expandi ng ci rcul at i on process has
t ransf ormed t he nat ure of soci al exchange.
But i f Baudri l l ard has t hereby hel ped emanci pat e t he cri t i cal t heory of
cul t ure f romi t s one- si ded pre- occupat i onwi t ht echne hehas mai nt ai nedi t s one-
si dedness i nanot her respect by t hemat i zi ng t he cul t ural dynami cs of commodi
f i cat i on( whi ch he
di sdai ns
t o
exami ne i n any but i t s most cont emporary f orms)
excl usi vel y f romt heperspect i ve of t hat process' s
conservat i vemoment . Behi nd
t heprobl emat i c of cont ai nedconsci ousness t o whi chhi s f i gurat i onof t he si gn-
economy responds l i es an archai c and paradoxi cal l y economi st i c f ormul a
accordi ng t o whi ch syst emi cal l y deri ved i deol ogy f unct i ons sol el y t o paci f y
cont radi ct i ons t hat emanat ej ust as sol el y f romi nt erest ant agoni sms at t hebase.
I n Baudri l l ard' s case, adhesi on t o t hi s schema
i s cont radi ct ed by hi s expl i ci t
rej ect i on of t he ort hodox cl ass paradi gm, and so here
t he
occl usi on of
commodi f i cat i on' s di srupt i ve cul t ural moment act ual l y l eaves a l ogi cal gap.
To be i nt el l i gi bl e, any syst emof hegemony must be underst oodi n t erms of
what t hreat ens i t . But what t hreat ens t he soci al order guarant eed i deol ogi cal l y
by t he Code? Not , apparent l y, cl ass conf l i ct ; and t he revanche of symbol i c
exchangei s i t sel f a cont i ngency beyondt hescope of al l cont rol . Weare l ef t t hen
wi t h t he mere t aut ol ogy of a st ruct ural l awof val ue f or whi ch sel f - repl i cat i on
- l a repet i t i on - i s si mpl y a mode of bei ng. Mi ssi ng f romBaudri l l ard' s account ,
i n
short , i s
an
appreci at i on of
howt he whol e normat i ve apparat us of t he si gn-
commodi t y, publ i ci t y
and consumer
cul t ure
i s mobi l i zed, at l east i n part , t o
manage t he cul t ural t ensi ons provoked by t hat
same ext ensi on of t he
commodi t y- f ormwhi ch produced t he one- di mensi onal
worl d
of
consumeri sm
i t sel f
.
An anal ysi s of
t hel at t er ought properl y t o begi nt heref ore byconsi deri ng
i n what t hese f ormer mi ght consi st . I n t he f i rst i n" st ance, l et me suggest , t he
cul t ural t ensi ons of commodi f i cat i on t ake t he f ormof conf l i ct s
and
st ruggl es
over mundane i deol ogi cal val ues; and t hey areprovoked al l al ong t he seamof
economy andand cul t ure where t hemarket ' s l ust f or expansi on rubs upagai nst
pre- exi st i ng f orms of normat i vi t y and moral val ue.
I t woul dbe mi sl eadi ng t o represent t hi s di al ect i c, as bot hconservat i ve and
radi cal opponent s of t headvanci ng market havebeenpronet o do, i nt erms of a
si mpl e opposi t i on bet weenanamoral f orce anda moral obj ect .
For t he f reedom
of
commodi t i es t o ci rcul at e and t he f reedomof buyers andsel l ers t o exchange
what t hey wi l l wi t hout ext ernal i nt erf erence acqui res t he f orce of a moral
argument ; one whose cent ral pri nci pl e, t he aut onomi zed i ndi vi dual , rest s i t s
appeal on a whol e i deol ogi cal t radi t i on, st ret chi ng f romRef ormed Chri st i ani t y
t o cont emporary l i bert ari ani sm. Thi s i s not t o denyt hat " personal f reedom, " l i ke
al l i deol ogi es, can be champi oned i n st unni ngl y obt use or cyni cal bad f ai t h.
There are, rat her, t wo poi nt s:
Fi rst , t he soci al rel at i ons of commodi t y product i on - whi ch i n t hei r
i mmedi at e
operat i on
al ways cent re
ont he
nexus
of
exchange - are t horoughl y
sat urat edi nt hemedi umof normat i vi t y, wi t hout
whi ch
t hey coul d not
f unct i on.
Themarket , as Durkhei mwoul dsay, 9 rest s on
amoral basi s. Hi s argument canbe
I DEOLOGY
AND
POWER
ext ended. Est abl i shed commerce requi res
not onl y t hat t he t erms of t rade be
cont ract ual l y agreedupon, but
al so
t hat
t here be a soci al consensus over what i s
f or t rade and over t he condi t i ons under whi ch ( i f at
al l )
t hat
t rade i s al l owed t o
t ake
pl ace.
Correl at i vel y, and t hi s i s t he second poi nt , t he const ant advance of t he
market i nt o
symbol i cal l y l oaded sect ors of soci al l i f e preci pi t at es ' at t he
i deol ogi cal l evel i n each si gni f i cant new
i nst ance a bi nary count erposi t i on of
pro- market l i beral i smand ant i - market conservat i sm,
communal i sm, nat i onal i sm,
f ami l i sm, et c. , whoserespect i ve support ers f i ght l i ke f oot bal l
t eams t oest abl i sh
a successi on of symbol i c l i nes beyond whi ch ( t emporari l y at
l east ) nei t her t he
market nor i t s enemi es are al l owedt o encroach. Out comes, whet her
i nt he f orm
of t ruce, compromi se or
compl et e rout by onesi deor t he ot her, are peri odi cal l y
arbi t rat ed by t he st at e on t he
t errai n
of
l aw.
The perenni al Canadi an cont est bet ween
part i sans of f ree t rade and
prot ect i oni sm provi des a ki nd of paradi gmcase. Symbol i cal l y
at st ake i n
cont i nent al economi c
i nt egrat i on i s t he reduct i on, break- up and
de- aurat i sat i on
of a so- t o- speak nat i onal l y
sacral i zed si gni f i er. Mai nst reampol i cy debat e has
been conduct ed i n t hat
cont ext as a pragmat i c but i deol ogi zed negot i at i on
bet ween
nat i onal i st s and l i beral s over t he ext ent t owhi ch t he boundary of
t he
border shoul d
be emphasi zed or de- emphasi zed i n t he f ace of a mount i ng
ci rcul at i on of goods, capi t al
and i nf ormat i on whi ch const ant l y t hreat en t o
erode i t . The poi nt i s not j ust t hat economi c
pol i t i cs are l i ved out as i deol ogy,
but t hat t he economi c process
has i deol ogi cal rami f i cat i ons whi ch creat e t he
basi s i n i t sel f f or a f ormof
pol i t i cs .
Fromt he very begi nni ngs of capi t al i st devel opment t he
sphereof consump-
t i on, ori gi nal l y
andwi t hout i rony concei ved as pri vat e and publ i c
l ei sure, 1o has
been especi al l y subj ect t ot he erupt i on of such conf l i ct s ; and
t he more sot he
more an expandi ng
product i ve compl ex has been abl e t o ext end and
cul t i vat e
t he range of enj oyment s
f romorgasmt o est eemt hat money t here can buy.
The
court - i mposed sumpt uary
l aws of l at e Medi eval absol ut i smandt he sevent eent h
cent ury
puri t an ban ont heat re provi de earl y as i t wereThermi dorean
exampl es .
More l at t erl y, t he
growi ng sex and drug i ndust ri es, each i nconsi st ent l y
and
f uzzi l y di vi ded i nt o
l i ci t and i l l i ci t zones, have provi ded advanced capi t al i st
soci et y wi t h i t s own
nodal poi nt s of cul t ural t ensi on.
Whet her and
i n what degree t o permi t t he commerci al ci rcul at i on
of
( addi ct i ve) st i mul ant s
and ( degradi ng) sexual servi ces i n f act t ouches
modem
cul t ure on a
part i cul arl y sore nerve: our chroni cal l y i nconsi st ent
at t i t ude
t owards t he
grat i f i cat i on and cont rol of somat i c i mpul se. Dani el Bel l
has even
argued t hat
t hi s mot i vat i onal ambi val ence, whi chhe at t ri but es t o a
deepeni ng
ant agoni smbet ween
t he emergent norms of l ei sure and
work, represent s
capi t al i sm' s pri mary cul t ural cont radi ct i on. , ' Hi s
model of t he probl emi s
si mpl i st i c and i gnores t he rol e of consumeri zed
commodi f i cat i on i n i t s genesi s .
Nevert hel ess i t remai ns t ruet hat part i cul ar i ssues of
permi ssi bl e consumpt i on
( t oday, par excel l ence, t hose
pert ai ni ng t o pornography and censorshi p)
can resonat e deepl y wi t h broader i ssues of soci al
reproduct i on.
POWERANDSEDUCTION
It i s pr eci s el y f or t hi s r eas on
t hat t he mar ket , and s t i l l mor e t he vol at i l e
l i ber al i ndi vi dual i s mt hat i s i t s i deol ogi cal
s hadowandhar bi nger , have s uch a
danger ous edge. The nor mat i ve
l i mi t s , i n s ome cas es t aboos , agai ns t whi ch
t hey
pr es s ar e not mer el y ( i n
f act decr eas i ngl y) t r adi t i onal s ur vi val s but
s ymbol i c
mar ker s
of oper ant mechani s ms of cont r ol . For t he s ame r eas on,
t he mor al
i s s ues of ci r cul at i on
t end t o get l i nked up, and at t he l i mi t gener al i ze
on t he
pl ane of an ongoi ng s oci al cont es t whi ch dr aws i n al l
t he maj or i deol ogi cal
i ns t i t ut i ons and pl ayer s over how
t he axi al pr i nci pl es gover ni ng i ns t i t ut ed
nor mat i vi t y as a whol e ar e t o be def i ned
.
Mar ket pr es s ur e t o s hi f t t he
mor al boundar i es , t o s ome degr ee aneces s ar i l y
di s cont i nuous pr oces s , al ways
r uns t he r i s k of openi ng up a r adi cal
cul t ur al
s pace. But s uch openi ngs ,
whenor der i s f i nal l y r es t or ed, cant hems el ves
pr ove
mer el y
t o have f aci l i t at ed t he pas s age f r omone mat r i x
of mar ket - r egul at i ng
obedi ency t o anot her . Such i ndeed has s o f ar been
t he mai n axi ol ogi cal dr ama
of pos t - war Nor t h Amer i ca: f i r s t , t he
es t abl i s hment of a, s ur pl us - r epr es s i ve
cul t ur al hegemony; t hen i t s ul t r a- l i ber al
di s s ol ut i ons ; andt hen, wi t h s ui t abl e
adj us t ment s and cont i nui ng i ns t abi l i t i es ,
"t he r et ur n of t r adi t i onal val ues "
( t o quot e a 1976 l i quor ad) and nor mal i zat i on
.
If i n l at e capi t al i s mmar ket penet r at i on
at t he poi nt of cons umpt i on ( i . e . of
pr i vat e l i f e) has become t he mai n axi s of what
we can cal l ci r cul at i on pol i t i cs
t hi s i s becaus e t he devel opment
of cons umpt i on as a pr oduct i ve f or ce has
r epl acedt he geogr aphi cal
ext ens i on of t he i ndus t r i al s ys t emas t he cent r al
mot i f
of economi c
gr owt h . Never t hel es s i t s houl d be emphas i zed
t hat anal ogous
modal i t i es of conf l i ct
cont i nue t o be gener at ed at t he poi nt of pr oduct i on
al s o.
( Ar i gor ous
di s t i nct i on needs t o be made her e bet ween
t he pr oper l y cul t ur al
cont r adi ct i ons
t hat at t end t he di s pl acement of nat ur al by
exchange economy
andt he
pol i t i cal - economi c ones t hat f l owf r omt he economi c
i nequal i t y and
expl oi t at i on
whi ch t he mar ket or gani zat i on of
pr oduct i on comes t o i ns t al l .
We may
t hi nk of t he f or mer cont r adi ct i ons as pr oces s ual ,
t he l at t er as s t r uct ur al ,
except t hat ,
j us t as i n t he cas e of t he commodi f i cat i on
pr oces s at wor k i n t he
s pher e of cons umpt i on,
t he nor mat i ve i ner t i a agai ns t whi ch t he
s pr ead of
commodi f i ed pr oduct i on
mus t cont end has s ynchr oni c s i gni f i cance
i n t he
wi der
pr oces s of s oci al r epr oduct i on as a whol e) .
The cul t ur al dynami c
as s oci at ed wi t h t he i ni t i al es t abl i s hment
of capi t al i s t
pr oduct i oni s of cour s e
l ar gel y pl ayedout . Ar t i s anal i deal s , l ocal
par t i cul ar i s ms
and t r adi t i onal ki n
s t r uct ur es have l os t t hei r vi t al i t y i n t he
i ndus t r i al i zed
hear t l ands andonl y r es i s t
t he expandi ng s ys t emat i t s Thi r d andFour t h
Wor l d
mar gi ns . However , even
on mat ur e capi t al i s m' s i nt er nal f r ont i er ,
t her e ar e s t i l l
t wo r es pect s i n whi ch
t he mar ket penet r at i on of pr oduct i on i s
i ncompl et e and
cont i nues t o gener at e
maj or cul t ur al per t ur bat i ons .
The f i r s t concer ns
t he s pr ead of economi c exchange
r el at i ons i nt o s uch
r el at i vel y ( or ambi val ent l y)
non- commodi f i ed s ect or s of s oci al
act i vi t y as
r el i gi on, t he f ami l y, hi gher l ear ni ng and
t he ar t s . In none of t hes e di ver s e
i ns t ances i s t he per s i s t ence of _ a pr e- capi t al i s t
mode of as s oci at i on andwor k a
mer e cas e of cul t ur e- l ag, f or t hat mode
i s
vi t al
t o t hei r f unct i oni ng as wel l as t o
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t he aut hent i ci t y on whi ch t he cr edi bi l i t y of t hei r var i ous pr oduct s depends .
Under t he
ci r cumst ances t he mar ket , whet her t hr ough exampl e, t hr ough t he
emer gence of
f ul l y commer ci al i zed r i val s, or t hr ough t he act ual mobi l i zat i on of
mat er i al i nt er est s, can onl y advance sl owl y. As i t
does so what comes t o be
est abl i shed on each i nst i t ut i onal si t e i s, a semi - per manent
f or ce- f i el d of
conf l i ct i ng
pr essur es i nt er nal i zed by t he act or s t hemsel ves ( cl er gy, housewi ves,
st udent s,
ar t i st s, et c . ) as r ol e- conf l i ct and ext er nal i zed as t endency st r uggl es
bet ween
compet i ngmor al / i deol ogi cal cur r ent s and movement s over t her el at i ve
vi r t ues of l i ber al accommodat i on
and t r adi t i onal i st host i l i t y t o t he f or ces of
pr ogr ess .
These f r i ct i ons ar e har d t or egul at e. f r omabove. I ndeed t hey
ar e exacer bat ed
by t he ambi val ence wi t h whi ch t hey must be of f i ci al l y r egar ded
.
On t he
one
hand, t he
char t er val ues of Tr ut h, Knowl edge, Love, Beaut y, et c . , ceasel essl y
act i vat ed i n
val ue- t r ansmi t t i ng i nst i t ut i ons by t he i r r i t ant of cr eepi ng commer -
ci al i sm, pl ay an
i mpor t ant r het or i cal r ol e i n capi t al i sm' s t r adi t i onal l egi t i mat i on
as a ci vi l i zi ng f or ce; but when r oused t hey can al so
f unct i on as genui ne
t r anscendent al s t hat pr ovi de t r oubl esome r emi nder s of l oss, super cessi on
and
di f f er ence . Thus,
f or t he chur ches of t he West , wher e Chr i st i ani t y was t hought
t o have been t amed, t he' r i se of TVevangel i smand ot her
qui nt essent i al l y
busi ness ent er pr i se f or ms of pr i est cr af t r epr esent s not mer el y
an economi c
t hr eat i n t he compet i t i on f or congr egat i ons12 but
a r epul si ve count er - pol e of
' bad r el i gi on' agai nst whi ch count er vai l i ng cur r ent s of i ncr easi ngl y
r adi cal
t r ansf or mi smhave been dr i ven t o def i ne t hemsel ves . As one
i mpor t ant cor ol l ar y
t he
pr evi ousl y cosy r el at i on bet ween or gani zed r el i gi on and t he capi t al i st
st at e
has
begun t o be r adi cal l y upset .
Anot her , and
per haps mor e pr i mor di al , l evel at whi ch st r uct ur al r esi st ance
t o t he mar ket penet r at i on of
pr oduct i on r el at i ons pr ovi des ongoi ng cul t ur al
conf l i ct concer ns t he
pr essi ng i nt o ci r cul at i on of t hat st r angest commodi t y of
t hemal l : l abour - power . Qui t e apar t f r omt he
shat t er i ng of t r adi t i onal t i es and
at t endant soci o- cul t ur al expl osi ons t hat gr eet ed t he
i ni t i al est abl i shment of a
mass- mar ket f or ' f r ee l abour ' , conf l i ct s have
cont i nued t o ar i se t her eaf t er by
vi r t ue of t hat dynami c
pr opensi t y of t he mar ket t or edef i ne al l wor k- f unct i onal
ener gy as commer ci al l y
avai l abl e, r egar dl ess of t he i nst i t ut ed st at us of i t s
al i enabl e owner s . The
r esul t ant i deol ogi cal di al ect i c i s anal ogous wi t h t he one
al r eady descr i bed i n t he case of
commodi f i cat i on at t he poi nt of consumpt i on,
except t hat her e t he
codi ngs at i ssue mar k human agent s, and i ndeed at t he ver y
j unct ur e of t hei r
l i t er al i nscr i pt i on wi t hi n t he di f f er ent i al or der s of weal t h and
power .
Al so, t he pr ocess
can cut mor e t han one way. Wher e t he change i n st at us
i mpl i ed by t he
commodi f i cat i on of l abour - power r epr esent s r eal demot i on or
l oss of aut onomy ( one t hi nks her e of
smal l f ami l y f ar ms and i ndependent
pr of essi onal s) i t wi l l nat ur al l y be opposed
by t hose af f ect ed i n t he r omant i cal l y .
conser vat i ve nameof t he
symbol i c or der t her eby di spl aced . But t he r ever se can
occur when l abour mar ket
par t i ci pat i on pr ovi des t he basi s f or r escui ngascr i bed
soci al cat egor i es ( women,
Cat hol i cs ; bl acks, et c . ) f r omt he even mor e subor di nat e
POWER
ANDSEDUCTION
st at us, out si de t he r eal
wor l d
of
exchange- economy, t o
whi ch t hey woul d
ot her wi se be cul t ur al l y r el egat ed
. Her e r esi st ance t o t he
expandi ng l abour
mar ket comes f r omt hose
al r eady i n i t , whi l e i t s newest
r ecr ui t s appeal t o
exchangi st
i deol ogy agai nst t he
cont i nued appl i cat i on t o t hemsel ves
of t he ol d,
di scr i mi nat or y
nor ms .
Wi t hi n t he
l abour mar ket i t sel f , t hese
l at t er , r ef l ect i ng pr e- ( or t r ans- )
capi t al i st
hi er ar chi es of r ace, age and gender ,
cr yst al l i ze out as so many
mechani sms of domi nant gr oup
pr ot ect i oni sm; whi ch f unct i on t o
ensur e t hat
i nsof ar as
i nf er i or i zed cat egor i es ar e
not excl uded f r ompai d empl oyment
al t oget her ,
t hey ent er i t s equi val ence syst em
on mar kedl y non- egqui val ent
t er ms . The
poi nt her e, as wi t h t he cont r adi ct i ons
of commodi f i cat i on i ngener al ,
i s t hat over
and above t he mat er i al conf l i ct s t hey
pr ovoke, such i nst ances of
unequal exchange ar e
shot t hr ough wi t h i deol ogi cal
cont r adi ct i ons whi chcan
become act i ve i n t hei r own
r i ght
.
' Mi nor i t y' movement s f or equal oppor t uni t y
t hat get bl ocked t end t o r adi cal i ze by
t r ansval ui ng t hat whi ch has set
t he
col l ect i vi t y t heyr epr esent
st i gmat i cal l y or condescendi ngl y apar t .
Conver sel y,
cul t i vat i on of cul t ur al i dent i t y
among t he oppr essed can t r i gger
st r uggl es f or
j ust i ce.
The i deol ogi cal cont r adi ct i ons
at t endi ng t he appl i cat i on of equi val ency
nor ms t o women i n t he f ace of pat r i ar chal
gender ascr i pt i ons have been
par t i cul ar l y dense and sl owt o r esol ve. As ear l y as t he
1780' s, Mar yWool st encr af t
showed howt he
abst r act egal i t ar i ani smof possessi ve
i ndi vi dual i smcoul d
pr ovi de t he basi s f or a
cr i t i que of pat r i ar chal r est r i ct i ons onl egal
r i ght s ; and
si nce t hensuccessi ve
waves of f emi ni st agi t at i on, bol st er ed
bot h byt he gr adual
del egi t i mat i on of expl i ci t
mal e supr emaci smand by t he
i ncr easi ng de f act o
nor mal i t y of ext r a- domest i c
f emal e empl oyment have ext ended
t he bat t l egr ound
t o ever y spher e of
l i f e. However , even mor e t han i nt he case of r aci sm,
whi ch
f r equent l y ar t i cul at es
wi t h deepl yr oot ed i mper i al / nat i onal
l egi t i mat i ons of t he
st at e, t he f r eedomof
woment o ci r cul at e ont he same economi c
andsoci al t er ms
as men has al so been
r esi st ed not j ust because i t chal l enges
an ent r enched
syst emof power
and pr i vi l ege, but because t he
pat r i ar chal i deol ogy t hat
j ust i f i es t hat
r esi st ance ( al ways ci r cl i ng ar ound
t he cl ai mt hat women ar e
somehow
" di f f er ent " ) has cont i nued, t hr ough al l t he vi ci ssi t udes
of cul t ur al
l i ber al i zat i on, t o pl ay
a cr uci al r ol e i n t he mai nt enance
and mot i vat i on of
capi t al i st or der . At
t hi s l evel , t he need t o sust ai nef f ect i ve
soci al mechani sms of
bi ol ogi cal
r epr oduct i on has f unct i oned l ar gel y as
an al i bi not onl y f or t he
cont i nued
val or i zat i on of an asymmet r i cal
gender code but al so f or t he
mai nt enance of
t he hi er ar chi cal f ami l y/ cl ass syst em
whi cht hat code under wr i t es .
In
t he bi bl i cal l y r esusci t at ed i magi nar y of ear l y
i ndust r i al i sm, t he cul t ur al
i dent i f i cat i on
of wage- l abour wi t h t he ' mascul i ne'
r ol es of br eadwi nner and
househol d
head pl ayed a cr uci al paci f yi ng r ol e -
over and above i t s var i ous
economi c
advant ages t o capi t al - by secur i ng
f or t he subor di nat ed mal e
wor ker a ki nd of compensat or y,
Adami c sel f - r espect . At f i r st ,
l acki ng t he
cumul at ed cul t ur al f or ce t o
wage a di r ect at t ack on t he t r i adi c f or t r ess of
f ami l y/ chur ch/ school er ect ed t o
pr ot ect t hi s pr oduct i vi st nexus, t he
women' s
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
movement andtheequi val encypr i nci pl ei t champi onedgnawedawayi nstead
at
j ur i di ci al i nequal i ti es i nthef i el ds of f ami l y l aw, ci vi l r i ghts and
thef r anchi se.
Later , as thef or tr ess begantocol l apseunder
thewei ght of mor etechni cal l yand
soci al l ydevel opedcondi ti ons, i t becamepossi bl ef or secondwavef emi ni smto
cr ashover thesacr edboundar i es of hear thandhomeandf i nal l yconf r ont the
eter nal ver i ti es of constr uctedgender di f f er enceat thei r i nti matei nsti tuti onal
sour ce.
Her eas el sewher e, however , capi tal i st moder ni zati onbr i ngs noguar antees
of f undamental pr ogr ess. For thedi spl acement of wor k- centr edr el i gi o- mor al i ty
by andwi thi nthetheatr eof consumer i smmer el yshi f tedther egi ster of gender i c
contr adi cti ons wi thout ceasi ngto engage i ntr actabl ei ssues of gl obal i ntegr a-
ti onandcontr ol . I nthi s r espect, i t i s of mor ethantokensi gni f i cancethat the
book by Fr i edann whi ch di d so much to popul ar i ze the moder n women' s
movement i n Nor th Amer i ca was based on ani nsi der ' s cr i ti que of f ashi on
magazi nes. Aboveal l , i t was theentr y of si gns, par ti cul ar l y i coni c ones, i nto
mass commer ci al ci r cul ati onwhi chgavepatr i ar chal i deol ogyanewl easeonl i f e
by f aci l i tati ng thespectacul ar passageof i deal f emi ni ni ty, as abstr act si gni f i er
of status
and
desi r e,
f r om
theesoter i c wor l dof ar ttotheubi qui tous i conogr aphy
of mass cul tur eandpubl i ci ty. I nthat r eal m, themythol ogi cal f emal ehas come
to embody not j ust the r ewar d and condi ti on f or wor k but the pr omi sed
happi ness of consumpti onas wel l . Thus weseehowar useof commodi f i cati on
has evol vedanewobstacl etothepr ocess wher ei n
the
egal i tar i ani smi mpl i ci t i n
uni ver sal i zed mar ket exchange
str i ves, ever mor e
power f ul l y,
f or i ndependent
r eal i zati on.
The
di al ecti c of
cour se does
not
si mpl y
ter mi nate i n the vi ctor y of the
Pl ayboysyndr ome; andaquar ter centur yof f emi ni st andmar ket pr essur e, the
l atter oper ati ngbywayof apseudo- equal i zi ngextensi onof sexual obj ecti f i cati n
tothemal e, has beguntoser i ousyunder mi neconsumer i sm' s heavymascul i ni st
ethos . Sexual bi as wi l l onl y f i nal l y beel i mi natedf r omconsumer cul tur ewhen
thecommodi ty' s pl easur epr i nci pl ehas become( dysf uncti onal l y) pol ymor phuous.
So, evenonthesecond- or der pl aneof medi ai mager y, thestr uctur al char acter of
thecontr adi cti oni s l i kel y to per si st.
Thesi gn- commodi ty andhegemoni c r egul ati on
Thecul tur al pr ovocati ons of commodi f i cati onandthepol i ti cs of nor mati vi ty
towhi chtheygi ver i sedonot unf ol di navacuumbut i naf i el dal r eadyi ndexed
toi ssues of hegemoni cr egul ati onandal r eady occupi edbythat whol er angeof
i nsti tuti ons f r ompol i ti cal par ti es andchur ches toshowbi z andschool s whi ch
ar eengagedi nthecol l ecti vef or mul ati onanddi ssemi nati onof val ues.
Ther ei s noabsol utesensei nwhi chanyof thesei deol ogi cal appar atus can
be consi der ed str uctur al l y domi nant14 si nce thei r f or ms of i nf l uence ar e
i ncommensur ateandther e i s al ways adegr eeof f r ee pl ay betweenthemi n
POWERAND
SEDUCTION
whi cht he r el at i ons of i nt er - i nst i t ut i onal f or ce can r adi cal l y and conj unct ur al l y
al t er . Never t hel ess t her e i s one i nst i t ut i onal compl exwi t hi n t he super st r uct ur al
conf i gur at i on of advanced capi t al i smwhi ch can cl ai msome ki nd of si gni f i cat i ve
pr i or i t y i n t hat i t i s t hr ough t he omni pr esent r ef r act i ons of i t s l ens ( i n ever y
sense a scr eeni ng) t hat t he
whol e
pr ocess of
cul t ur al f or mat i on i s cont i nuousl y
and publ i cl y
r epr esent ed; and t hi s i s
t he
one compr i sed by t he ( f or t he most par t )
commer ci al l y oper at ed or gans of mass communi cat i on al ong wi t hal l t he r el at ed
i ndust r i es f or t he pr oduct i on of news, publ i ci t y and ent er t ai nment . In addi t i on
t o i t s i mpor t ance wi t hi n t he game of capi t al i st sel f - mai nt enance t hi s sect or i s
al so si gni f i cant syst emi cal l y as t he ver y i ncar nat i on of t he commodi t y- f or m' s
seduct i ve penet r at i on of cul t ur e.
And
so i t
i s pr eci sel y her e, i n t he r epr essi ve
desubl i mat i ons and codi f yi ng bi ases of t he cul t ur e/ consci ousness/ si gn
i ndust r y
t hat we conf r ont t he puzzl e of commodi f i cat i on' s ot her , i . e. conser vat i ve,
i nt egr at i ve, di mensi on; and wi t h t hat puzzl e, as I have suggest ed, t he br oader
myst er y of howt he uni ver sal i zi ng commodi t y i n i t s ar t i cul at i on wi t h t he
cul t ur al pr ocess est abl i shes aut omat i c mechani sms t o r egul at e t he nor mat i ve
di sor der i t si mul t aneousl y hel ps t o pr ovoke.
The aut omat i c char act er of mass consumer cul t ur e' s i deol ogi cal oper at i on
needs t o be st r essed f or i t i s t he ver y hal l mar k of i t s wor k, an unpr ecedent ed
i ndi cat i on t hat her e at l ast i s a consci ousness- shapi ng i nst i t ut i on whi chby i t s
ver y
nat ur e f unct i ons f unct i onal l y and can never get whol l y out
of
hand.
Expl anat i ons of t hi s f unct i onal i t y i n t er ms of cl ass pol i t i cal mani pul at i on
- evocat i ve phr ases l i ke Ewen' s ' capt ai ns of consci ousness' spr i ng t o mi nd -
mi ss t he poi nt ent i r el y . The r i se of Madi son Avenue, Di sneyl and, Ti n Pan Al l ey
and t he whol e cor por at e capi t al i st dr eammachi ne mar ks a deci si ve shi f t away
f r omper sonal i zed i deol ogi cal power s and t he emer gence, t o t he cont r ar y, of a
f ul l y pr ogr ammed cul t ur al spher e wher ei n, t o use Lai ngi an t er ms, ' pr axi s' on
bot h si des of t he pr oduct i on/ consumpt i on di vi de has been ef f ect i vel y super -
ceded by ' pr ocess . ' 1 5 In ef f ect , t he power f ul i deol ogi cal i nf l ect i on of commer ci al
mass cul t ur e, whet her i n t he di r ect f or mof cul t ur e- f or - sal e or at t he second
degr ee as sel l i ng- by- cul t ur e, i s no mor e t han a by- pr oduct of t he accel er at ed
ci r cul at i on and i ncr eased sur pl us i t makes possi bl e. That i nf l ect i on has
t her ef or e t o be account ed f or i n t he same way : i n t er ms of t he cul t ur e i ndust r y' s
i nner economi c det er mi nat i ons and t he ef f ect of t hese on i t s manner of
pr ocessi ng and r epr esent i ng pot ent i al l y hot cul t ur al mat er i al s .
Baudr i l l ar d' s cr uci al r ef i nement of t hi s t hesi s i s t hat at t he most basi c l evel
t he i deol ogi cal el ement of mass- medi at ed cul t ur e i s det er mi ned
by
t he i nt er pl ay
est abl i shed t her e bet ween mass- pr oduced si gns and mass- pr oduced commodi
t i es ; and, f ur t her , t hat t hi s newal i gnment of si gn and commodi t y i s r esponsi bl e
not onl y f or i t s syst emat i cal l y bi ased cont ent but al so, and mor e f undament al l y,
f or bi as i n i t s ver y mode of si gni f i cat i on as wel l . The saga of t he si gn he unf ol ds
r eads l i ke a
post - moder ni st updat e of al i enat i on t heor y . Inf i ni t el y r epl i cabl e,
di spl aced f r omsymbol i c t i me and
pl ace, conver t ed i nt o commodi t i es i n t hei r
own r i ght , si gni f i er s
become f r ee t o f l oat i ndependent l y of any or gani c
communi cat i ve pr ocess ; and. i n t hat condi t i on l i ke l andl ess
pr ol et ar i ans t hey
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
r ej oi n soci al
r eal i t y ar t i f i ci al l y i n t he f or mof t he semi ot i cal l y- endowed mass
consumabl e commodi t y . Fi nal l y, as ar bi t r ar y mar ker s l i nki ng t he cor por at e
game of pr oduct di f f er ent i at i on t o t he consumer mer r y- go- r ound of st at us and
f ashi on, t he si gni f yi ng el ement s of desi gn, packagi ng and pr omot i on ar e
dr ai nedof meani ng
i n t he sel f - r ef er ent i al
pl ay of
t hei r codeddi f f er ences, whi ch
i s exact l y how, i n deadeni ng abst r act i on, t hey come t o r ul e.
Consci ousness, i n
Baudr i l l ar d' s account , i s not so much f al si f i ed as headed of f at t he pass : t he
medi a f act or i es of commer ci al semi osi s pr evai l , i n hi s pr egnant phr ase, by
" f abr i cat i ng non- communi cat i on. "
16
Wi t hout denyi ng t hat such a t endency t owar ds enf or cedmeani ngl essness i s
r el ent l essl y at
wor k, i t woul d be pr emat ur e however t o decl ar e i t compl et e. Even
adver t i si ng copy has become a zone of i deol ogi cal
cont r over sy, and out r aged
r esponses t o medi a st er eot ypes of women and et hni c gr oups t est i f y t o
t hei r
cont i nui ng r ef er ent i al power . Thi s bei ng so, t he axi ol ogi cal cont ent of mass-
medi at i zed cul t ur e, and not j ust i t s semi ol ogi cal or , f or t hat mat t er , sensor y
f or ms, r emai ns r el evant t o
an under st andi ng of i t s cul t ur al ef f ect i vi t y .
I n f act at t he
l evel of communi cat i ve subst ance, t he semi o- economi c
det er mi nat i ons of t he cul t ur e
i ndust r y doubl y st ampi t s ef f l uvi a as t oken- bear er s
of a woul d- be paci f yi ng i deol ogy . On t he
one
hand, t he subj ect - obj ect
i nver si on
pr escr i bedby t hei r consi st ent l y consumer i st mode of
addr ess occul t s cl ass and
makes a wor l d wi t hout capi t al
uni magi nabl e .
On
t he ot her hand, t he pseudo-
r econci l i at i ons of gender , nat ur e/ cul t ur e et c . , made
possi bl e on t hat myt hol o-
gi cal basi s, and posi t i vel y r ei nf or ced by t he pr emi um
pl aced on popul ar i t y
val ues, ser ve t o exor ci ze cul t ur al l y- based sour ces of conf l i ct as wel l
. The f or mer
of t hese mechani sms, consumer i sm, i s per haps t oo f ami l i ar t o r equi r e f ur t her
el abor at i on. But t he
l at t er , whi ch mi ght be dubbed t he mi ddl e- of - t he- r oad
ef f ect , does cal l f or some comment : not
onl y as a compar at i vel y unexami ned
t opi c, 17 but al so because t he
consensual i st modal i t y of mass cul t ur e hol ds t he
key, or so
I woul d ar gue, t o t he r i ddl e of t he commodi t y' s l i mi t ed but ef f ect i ve
capaci t y
f or cul t ur al sel f - cont r ol .
Wi t h r espect t o t hi s i ssue, Baudr i l l ar d' s i nsi st ence on t he cent r al i t y of
commodi t y semi osi s
wi t hi n t he mass cul t ur al ensembl e whi l e not wr ong i s
unhel pf ul , and f ur t her cl ar i f i cat i on depends on our di sent angl i ng t he r el at i on
he
condenses bet ween t hat moment , r epr esent ed by publ i ci t y, and i t s obver se,
t he
commodi f i cat i on of si gns, r epr esent ed by ent er t ai nment . What we di scover
i n f act i s t hat wi t hi n t hi s same compl ex dual i t y t he or der of ef f ect i vi t y i s her e
r ever sed: i n t he case of cul t ur al t ensi on management as opposed t o t hat of
consumer i st i nver si on i t i s ent er t ai nment r at her t han adver t i si ng t hat pr ovi des
t he
domi nant par adi gmf or a t ype of nor mat i ve i nt er vent i on whi ch t he cul t ur e
i ndust r y, j ust by vi r t ue of what i t i s, i s dr i ven t o make.
The gol den r ul e of showbusi ness i s not t o ant agoni ze t he audi ence, f or t hat
i s t he hand t hat f eeds . I ndeed, i t s member s shoul d be posi t i vel y
st r oked,
bot h
as
t he f i ne peopl e t hey ar e and f or t he decent or at any r at e nor mal val ues t hey
hol d. To be
ent er t ai ned i s above al l t o be madet o f eel good. Wher e t he audi ence
i s l i ve, l ocal ,
and soci al l y homogeneous, t he col l ect i ve t ot ems must be ver y
POWERANDSEDUCTION
pr eci sel y
acknowl edged; but t he mor e mass andt her ef or e
i deol ogi cal l y di ver se
i t i s, t he mor e gener al
t he l evel of convent i onal i t y t o
whi ch appeal must be
made. Wher e t her e i s not
mer el y di ver si t y but conf l i ct , t he t ask
of f l at t er i ng and
i n t he same moment
def i ni ng t he col l ect i ve i dent i t y of t he
audi ence i s
par t i cul ar l y di f f i cul t . The
most cl i che- r i ddendept hs of popul ar
myt hol ogy must
t hen be pl umbed, andawkwar d
t opi cs, cont r over si al i ssues, and even
pot ent i al l y
abr asi ve
accent uat i ons of genr e andst yl e must be
avoi ded. Asaf e st r at egy f or
maxi mi zi ng
sal es, box- of f i ce and r at i ngs, i n shor t , i s t o
go mi d- mar ket and
assi duousl y hugt he
mi ddl e- of - t he- r oad.
Of cour se, i f t he ent er t ai nment
i ndust r y, t hr oughout al l i t s
br anches,
exhi bi t ed not hi ng but t hi s ent r opi c
t endency, t heni t s equal l y i mpor t ant need
f or const ant
t hemat i c and st yl i st i c i nnovat i on
coul d not be met . But i n t hi s
di al ect i c, t he
exper i ment er ' s l i cence t o pr act i ce i s
gr ant edi n r et ur nf or bear i ng
al l t he economi c
r i sks, andsuccessf ul novel t i es ar e r api dl y
co- opt ed, conver t ed
i nt o manner i sms,
and embal med f or l at er r ecycl i ng as pseudo- hi st or i cal
nost al gi a.
Onl y i npopul ar
musi c has t hi s cont r ol l ed osci l l at i onever got t en
at al l out of
hand. The r eason i s not
har d t o f i nd. Because of i t s i nt i mat e r el at i on t o
r i t ual ,
emot i onand
physi cal i t y, musi c as t he l east di r ect l y r epr esent at i onal
ar t - f or mi s
al so t he l east suscept i bl e,
what ever t he t echnol ogi cal andeconomi c mode, t o
whol e- scal e ser i al i zat i on
.
It
i s t he one sect or of mass cul t ur e t r ul y haunt ed by
t he r et ur nof symbol i c exchange, andi t s hi st or y has
const ant l y i nt er t wi nedwi t h
t hat of t he
nat i onal , cl ass andgener at i onal movement s
whose t r agi c, r ebel l i ous
or cel ebr at or y
moods i t has beenabl e, wi t h f l uct uat i ngdegr ees of
i mmedi acy, t o
expr ess . A
cent r al t hr eadi n t hi s st or y has beent he emer gence of
Af r o- Amer i can
musi c
andi t s phasedappr opr i at i on by successi ve l ayer s of
whi t e wor ki ng and
mi ddl e
cl ass yout h as aquasi - Di onysi an dance cul t . However ,
t he poi nt shoul d
not be
over - emphasi zed; f or even at t hi s r el at i vel y or gani c
l evel t he maj or
r upt ur es wi t h
mi ddl e- of - t he- r oadi sm- r ag- t i me, j azz, swi ng, r ock,
r eggae,
punk - have been ambi guous i n t hei r meani ng and
ul t i mat el y subj ect t o
absor pt i on by, or evenas, t he i ndust r y- domi nat ed mai nst r eam
.
Whi l e t he ent er t ai nment i ndust r y' s penchant f or
sel f - censor shi p, cul t ur al
compr omi se and nor mat i ve convent i onal i smhas been
a genui ne expr essi onof
i t s ownbad essence, t hese t endeni ces have of cour se been st r ongl y
r ei nf or ced
by
i t s
t i es
wi t h t he whol e machi ner y of mass medi a adver t i si ng.
The degr ee t o
whi ch adver t i si ngr evenues di r ect l y pay t he cost s of mass
ent er t ai nment var i es
f r om
medi umt omedi um, al t hough gi vent he ext ent of f i nanci al
andf unct i onal
i nt er l ock t hese di f f er ences may be mi sl eadi ng. In t he
l i mi t case, Amer i can
net wor kTVandr adi o, t he subsi dy i s t ot al , andsot oo
i s t he r evenue- dependence
of t he medi umont he si ze ( and t o a l esser degr ee t he mi x) of t he audi ences
i t s
pr ogr ammi ng can command; f or i t i s on t he r at i ngs t hat adver t i si ng r at es
t hemsel ves r i gi dl y depend. Her e al so, wher e t hey ar e compul sor y,
t he conser va-
t i ve i deol ogi cal i mpl i cat i ons of popul ar i t y
val ues ar e most r i gi dl y i n evi dence.
Even l ess t han medi a pr ogr ammer s,
commer ci al sponsor s cannot af f or d t o
al i enat e pot ent i al sl i ces of t hei r mar ket .
In ef f ect , a doubl e vi gi l ance must
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
t heref ore be mai nt ai ned: on
t he one hand t o ensure t hat onl y accept abl e
cul t ural
ri sks are t aken i n sat i sf yi ng and
compet i ng f or t he medi um' s own
audi ence; andon t he ot her t o ensure t hat t he
advert i si ng mat eri al i t sel f hi t s
absol ut el y t he
ri ght consensual spot when addressi ng
i t s t arget market .
Ini t s act ual f unct i oni ng,
advert i si ng i n f act represent s t he degree
zero of
showbusi ness audi ence
t echni que. Thef l at t ery of t heperf ormer was at bot t om
al ways af ormof sel f - promot i on. In consumer
advert i si ng, however, t het ri ck i s
ref i ned by
nat ural i zi ng and i n t he f ul l sense
normal i zi ng t he convent i onal
cul t ural
val ues whi ch t hat f l at t ery sought t o
conf i rm, and whi ch, mut at i s
mut andi s, are here
i nvokedt o val ori ze t heproduct . The
sal es ai mof commodi t y
semi osi s i s t o di f f erent i at e
t he product as a val i d, or at l east
resonant , soci al
t ot em, andt hi s woul dbe
i mpossi bl e wi t hout bei ng abl et o appeal t o
t aken- f or-
grant ed
syst ems of cul t ural ref erence.
In
t hi s sense advert i si ng must go evenf urt her al ong
t hepat h of popul ari t y
t hanent ert ai nment .
Thel at t er, f aced by embarrassi ng cul t ural
di vi si ons, can
ret reat t o j okes and good humour
. In- so f ar as convent i onal i t y i s t orn
or
cont ort ed
by ongoi ng i deol ogi cal
cont radi ct i ons advert i si ng, however, i s
const rai nedt o
at l east const ruct t he appearanceof
anon- cont radi ct oryval ue-
consensus. Thi s i s obvi ousl y t he case
where t he product ' s i nt ended market ,
e. g.
f or "f emi ni ne" ci garet t es or
"mascul i ne" perf ume, i s bydef i ni t i onambi val ent
t owardt he cul t ural codi ngspri maf aci e associ at ed
wi t h i t . But i namoredi f f use
sense, t he
whol edi scourse of publ i ci t y, i ncl udi ng,
byext ensi on, t hesubsi di zed
programmi ng
whi ch col oni zes t he mass
consumer market as an audi ence,
absol ut el y
requi res anormal i t y- pol e. Thecreat i ve
geni us of advert i si ng andi t s
pl at f orms of
associ at ed messages i s t hat i t i s abl e t o
est abl i shone, myt hi cal l y;
andi n such a way,
moreover, as t o occl ude t he
consumeri st ont ol ogy t hat
anchors i t , t o
reconci l e al l t he cul t ural ant i nomi es of anunst abl e
i deol ogi cal
uni verse, andt hen - t hrough
an i conographyt hat adheres even i n i t s
most
st ark t ypi f i cat i ons t ot hecanons of
real i st represent at i on - t o pass
t he whol e
t hi ng of f , despi t e i t s
uncanny resembl ance t o t he f ami l i ar
worl d i n whi chwe
l i ve, as a wi st f ul dream
.
N
Breaki ng t he ci rcl e
Duri ngt he 1960' s advert i si ng
wast hemost , perhapst heonl y,
st abl emedi um
of mass i deol ogi cal
communi cat i on. Besi des t hedownpl ayi ng
of t echnol ogi cal
f ut uri smand t he
i ncreased use of sexual t hemes ( t he l at t er a
cause of
di st urbance i n i t sel f ) ,
publ i ci t y' s i deol ogi cal f eat hers seemed
hardl yruf f l edby
t he cul t ure- st orm1 e
bl owi ng, apparent l y, al l around. Yet t hat
st ormdi dbreak out;
and, as I have
t ri ed t o i ndi cat e, t he superst ruct ural
decal l age wi t hi n whi ch i t
brewedandgrewt o
hurri cane f orceexpresseda
det ermi nat ehi st ori cal moment
of t hat same
di al ect i c of cul t ureandcommodi t ywhi ch
was al so responsi bl e f or
t he spel l - bi ndi ng i nt egrat i on
of t he commerci al i zed si gn.
POWERANDSEDUCTION
Baudr i l l ar d,
whoi gnor ed t he medi at i ons by whi chbot ht hese
moment s ar e
connect ed t o capi t al i sm' s commodi f i cat i on dr i ve, was
t r ansf i xed by t he
Mani chaean absol ut eness of t hei r opposi t i on. Had t he
medi at i ons been
at t ended t o, t he
oper at i ons of ar t i f i ci al semi osi s woul d doubt l ess haveseemed
l ess omni pot ent and t he
mass out br eak of t he Symbol i c l ess conj unct ur al l y
myst er i ous t han he made t hemout t o be. Of
cour se, i t i s har dl y sur pr i si ng t hat
t he
Edeni c epi phani es and st r eet - f i ght i ng
psycho- dr amat i cs of 1968 nowher e
usher ed i n t he NewAge: t he r equi si t e pr ogr amme,
or gani zat i on and pol i t i cal
f or ces
wer e al t oget her l acki ng. But what t hat t empor ar y br eakdown of
nor mal
cul t ur al cont r ol s
di d demonst r at e, agai nst al l t he end- of - i deol ogy soot hsayi ng
of t he pr evi ous decade, i s t hat at
t he i deol ogi cal l evel par excel l ence t he
devel opment of post - i ndust r i al
capi t al i smi s as conf l i ct ual as i t i s consensual i st ;
and, i ndeed, t hat under t he r i ght ci r cumst ances accumul at ed
cul t ur al t ensi ons
can even
engender a gl obal soci al cr i si s .
Theor y and t he
evi dence of hi st or y t hus combi ne t o pr ovi de gr ounds
f or
hopi ng t hat t he
ci r cl e of t he commodi t y- f or m' s nor mat i ve sel f - r egul at i on
can
i ndeed be
br oken. To what ext ent sucha f at ef ul out come can be del i ber at el y
st r at egi zed
i s, however , a di f f er ent quest i on. Because of t he compl exi t yof t he
pr ocess wher ei n
cul t ur al pol i t i cs ar i se, t he r ect i l i near r el at i on i t s i ssues bear t o
mat t er s of cl ass
hegemoni c cont r ol , and t he pot ent i al l y sel f - under mi ni ng
char act er of any t r anspar ent l y
i nst r ument al i nver vent i on i nt o hot zones of
consci ousness, we may doubt t he f easi bi l i t y of
anyt hi ng soambi t i ous as a co-
or di nat ed, mul t i - l evel , pl anof cul t ur al campai gn
.
But
i n a mor eci r cumspect and
ad hoc sense, Mar x' s di r ect i ve t oent er t he " r eal bat t l es" of t he
wor l d i n or der t o
" showi t what i t i s act ual l y f i ght i ng about - 19 does r et ai n
her e i t s moment of
act i vi st t r ut h.
Of cour se, f or us i t i s
t he commer ci al medi a mor e t han or gani zed r el i gi on
whi ch r equi r e demyst i f i cat i on
; and wi t hi n t he f i el d of cul t ur al
pol i t i cs
consi der ed i n t hi s
paper demyst i f i cat i on i s har dl y enough
. The posi t i ve
depl oyment of
t r anscapi t al i st di scour se and symbol ogy i s
al so necessar y,
i ndeed cr uci al ,
si nce unl i ke t he r ecogni t i on st r uggl e of mast er
and sl ave whi ch
under l i es
Mar x' s concept of cl ass conf l i ct t he cul t ur al di al ect i c of
commodi f i ca-
t i on has not r ul y
i nner pr i nci pl e of subl at i on. Thi s, ont he pl ane of
t r ade- uni on
consci ousness,
and l eavi ng asi de i t s J acobi n i nspi r at i on, i s
pr esumabl y what
Leni n
meant by sayi ng t hat r evol ut i onar y consci ousness
had
t o
come " f r om
wi t hout . " Ont he
pl ane of nor mat i ve consci ousness and i n a spi r i t of
pr epar at or y
at t ent i sme an evenmor e i deal i st f or mul a coul d easi l ybe pr oposed
: t he st r onger
and r i cher t he t r anscendent al cul t ur al r esour ces l yi ng t ohand at
t he moment
whensome
f r eshr ound of super st r uct ur al t r oubl es br eak out , t he mor e
l i kel y i t
i s t hat
somet hi ng t r ul y human wi l l st r i ve t o emer ge -
and t he gr eat er t he
chance, per haps, t hat we f i nal l y wi l l .
Pet er - Robi nson Col l ege
Tr ent Uni ver si t y
' IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Notes
l .

See
V.
Descombes, Le Memeet l Autr e ( hdi ti ons de Mi nui t, Par i s 1979) , tr ansl ated as Modem
Fr ench Phi l osophy
( Cam. U. Pr ess, 1980) .
2.

In thi s essay I amf ocussi ngmai nl y onBaudr i l l ar d' s ear l y wr i ti ngs, par ti cul ar l yLeSystemedes
Obj ets ( Gal l i mar d 1968) ; LaSoci ety deConsommati on ( Dengel 1970) ;
Pour uneCr i ti quede
1
L`conomi e
du Si gne( Gal l i mar d 1972) ; LeMi r oi r del a Pr oducti on ( Caster man 1973) ; andLEchangeSymbol i que
et
l a Mor t
( Gal l i mar d 1976). For Engl i shtr ansl ati ons of thel atter , seeMi nor of Pr oducti on ( Tel os
1975)
;
For
A
Cr i ti que
of
the
Pol i ti cal Economy of the Si gn ( Tel os 1981) , and theexcer pts f r om
IEchange Symbol i quei n J . Fekete ( ed. ) TheStr uctur al Metaphor ( Uni v. of Mi n. Pr ess, 1984) .
It woul d r equi r e a whol e separ ate anal ysi s to consi der whether , i n swi tchi ng f r oma
soci ol ogi cal toametaphysi cal expl or ati onof ni hi l i smi n thel ater texts l i keOubl i er
Foucaul t, La
Seducti on and Str ategi es Fatal es, Baudr i l l ar d' s soci al
ontol ogy of si gn
and
commodi ty has
r emai ned basi cal l y
thesame.
3.

Thi s i s thebasi c moti f of L' EchangeSymbol i que et l a Mor t.
4.

Pessi mi smabout pr ol etar i an
consci ousness andcor r el ati veel evati onof ( cr i ti cal ) theor y' s r ol e
wi thi n the soci al di al ecti c, whi l e
absol uti zed i n thi s 1944 text, was an expl i ci t theme of
Fr ankf ur t thi nki ngf r omtheear l y 30' s. SeeM. Hor khei mer , Cr i ti cal Theor y ( Her der and Her der ,
1972) pp.
211-216.
S.

Baudr i l l ar d, L' tchangeSymbol i que, pp. 118-28.
6.

Ibi d. , p.
73.
7.

Baudr i l l ar d, Pour uneCr i ti que de I tconomi ePol i ti que
du Si gne, pp. 194-99.
8.

Thel ament si mul ates what i t pr oj ects, and f or
neo-Kanti ans ( ar en' t weal l ?) ther ecan beno
escapi ngthef i cti ti ous char acter of thewor l d. For Baudr i l l ar d' s most expl i ci t attempt topl ace
hi msel f outsi dethi s ci r cl e, seeL' tchange Symbol i que, pp. 7-10 and pp. 110-17.
9.

Thecl assi cstatement i s tobef oundi n E. Dur khei m, TheDi vi si on of Labour i n Soci ety ( Fr ee Pr ess,
1964) Chap. 7.
10.

For abr i l l i ant tr adi ti onal i st cr i ti queof themodemevol uti onof l ei sur eseeJ . Pi eper , Lei sur e. The
Basi s of Cul tur e ( Pantheon, 1952) .
11.

D. Bel l , TheCul tur al Contr adi cti ons of Capi tal i sm( Basi c Books, 1976) .
12.

Eccl esi asti cal ecumeni ci sm, f r omtheangl eof r el i gi on' s absor pti on i ntothecul tur ei ndustr y,
r epr esents a movement towar ds car tel i zati on between thel ar gest enter pr i ses. The per ver se
Pai sl ey
pr otest
has i ts
moment of
tr uth
her e. -
13.

B.
Fr i edan, TheFemi ni ne Mysti que.
14.

For thenoti on of ' domi nance' i n thi s context seeL. Al thusser , Ideol ogy and theState' i n hi s
Leni n and Phi l osophy ( NLB, 1971) . Al thusser ' s f or mul ati on i s much toor i gi d, however. It i s
cr uci al , especi al l y, todi sentangl edomi nance( of anappar atus) vi s-A-vi s i ndi vi dual f or mati on
f r omthequesti on of i nter -i nsti tuti onal i nf l uence and power wi thi n soci ety as a whol e.
15.

For a good soci al psychol ogi cal el abor ati on of thi s ul ti matel y Sar tr i an di sti ncti on see A.
Ester son, TheLeaves of Spr i ng ( Tavi stock, 1970) .
16.

Baudr i l l ar d, For a Cr i ti que of thePol i ti cal Economy of theSi gn, p. 169.
17
.

Al t hough t hey do not el abor at e t he poi nt , a r ecent essay by G. Mur doch
and P . Gol di ng,
' Capi t al i sm, Communi cat i on and Cl ass Rel at i ons' st at es t he mai n i ssue ver y wel l :
. . . t he det er mi ni ng cont ext f or pr oduct i on i s al ways t hat of t he mar ket . I n seeki ng t o
maxi mi ze t hi s
mar ket , pr oduct s must dr awon t he most wi del y l egi t i mat ed cent r al cor e val ues
whi l e r ej ect i ng
t he di ssent i ngvoi ce or t he i ncompat i bl e obj ect i on t o a r ul i ng myt h. The need
f or easi l y under st ood,
popul ar , f or mul at ed, undi st ur bi ng, assi mi l abl e f i ct i onal mat er i al i s at
once a commer ci al i mper t i ve and
an aest het i c r eci pe" . Cur r an, Gur evi t ch andWol l acot t , ( eds . )
Mass Communi cat i on andSoci et y ( Edwar d
Ar nol d, 1977) p. 40.
18
.

Thi s evocat i ve phr ase was coi ned by H. L . Ni ebur g i n hi s i nsi ght f ul
ant hr opol ogi cal st udy of
1960' s count er - cul t ur e, Cul t ur e St or m: Pol i t i cs andt he
Ri t ual Or der ( St . Mar t i n' s, N. Y . , 1973) .
19 .

Let t er f r omMar x
t o Ruge 1843. See D. McLel l an ( ed. ) Kar l Mar x: Ear l y Text s
( Bl ackwel l , 1979)
.
POWER ANDSEDUCTI ON
BAUDRI LLARD, CRI TI CALTHEORYAND
PSYCHOANALYSI S
Char l es Levi n
I nt r oduct i on
Thi s
essay pr esent s a condensedver si on of anar gument
about t he si gn, t he
obj ect and t he symbol . , I t s pur pose, t hen,
i s t o suggest howpsychoanal yt i c
t hought , par t i cul ar l y " obj ect - r el at i ons
t heor y" , may pr ovi de a way out of t he
st al emat e i n cr i t i cal t heor y. 2
The t heor y of r ei f i cat i on, al t hough
essent i al t o cr i t i cal t heor y, i s i t sel f based
on i nt el l ect ual i zed r ei f i cat i ons
of what i t means t o be a " subj ect " . and
not an
obj ect
. 3
The t r adi t i onal
t heor y of r ei f i cat i on i s descr i bed
i n t he l i ght of
Baudr i l l ar d' s
wor k and t hen r ej ect ed i n f avour
of anot her whi ch vi ews
r ei f i cat i on as an
obsessi onal pr oj ect of cl osi ng
downor empt yi ng out " pot ent i al
space" .
The phr ase " pot ent i al space" was coi ned by D. W. Wi nni cot t
t o r ef er t o a
di mensi on
of " t r ansi t i onal " phenomena i nt er medi at e
t o subj ect i vi t y and
obj ect i vi t y. My most basi c t heor et i cal assumpt i on
i s t hat t he " space" of t he
" t r ansi t i onal obj ect " i s a pl ace wher e peopl e act ual l y l i ve,
wher e t hey ar e
cr eat i ve, wher e t hey i nt er act i n dept h, and wher e - t hi ngs ar e
i nvest ed wi t h
meani ng.
The
best gener al appr oach t o Baudr i l l ar d i s t hr ough t he phi l osophi cal
t ensi on i n hi s wor k
bet ween st r uct ur al i st soci al t heor y
( Levi - St r auss, Bar t hes)
and cr i t i cal t heor y
( Lukacs, Mar cuse) . These ar e t he t wo moder n
t r adi t i ons,
dr aggi ng t hei r Fr ench and
Ger man ant ecedent s wi t h t hem, whi ch ar e
most
obvi ousl y at wor ki nBaudr i l l ar d' s
ear l y t ext s . I t woul dbe a mi st ake, however , t o
t hi nk t hat he ever synt hesi zed t hem,
al t hough i t i s t r ue t hat t he i nt er pl ay of
st r uct ur al i smand cul t ur al Mar xi sm
det er mi ned, t o some ext ent , Baudr i l l ar d' s
owndi st i nct i ve wayof choosi ng
a post - st r uct ur al i st posi t i on. The net t heor et i cal
ef f ect i s mor e l i ke t he i nt r oduct i on
of t wo cor r osi ves whi ch, havi ng devour ed
each ot her , l eave not hi ngbehi ndbut a l umi nous
t heor et i cal vacuum. Baudr i l l ar d' s
wr i t i ng has, si nce LEchange symbol i que
et l a mor t 4i ncr easi ngl y appr oxi mat ed a
bl ank sur f ace r ef l ect i ngonl y t he awf ul t er r or of what
i t
had
once t r i ed t o name.
What i s i nt er est i ng about cr i t i cal t heor y and st r uct ur al i sm
t oget her ( at l east ,
i n t he medi umof Baudr i l l ar d) i s t he
di l at i on of t hei r t heor i es of t he obj ect . A
r eadi ng of Baudr i l l ar d makes one want
t o
r et ur n
t o t hese t r adi t i ons si mpl y t o
l i st en t o t he way obj ect s ar e t al ked about . Baudr i l l ar d
caught t hi s el ement i n
t hei r di scour se ear l y on
,
5 and devel oped i t r api dl y. Ar med wi t h
j ust t he t wo
POWERANDSEDUCTI ON
t heor et i cal
l anguages, t he neo- Mar xi an and t he st r uct ur al i st ,
he abandoned
hi msel f t o t he
wor l d of t hi ngs .

-
J ean
Baudr i l l ar d has a knack f or a ki nd of
McLuhanesque " i n dept h
par t i ci pat i on, "
and he t ur ns t he t wo t heor et i cal l anguages i nt o
qui t e pr eci se
t ool s of descr i pt i on whi ch
evoke t he obj ect wor l dwi t h amazi ng poet i cal f or ce and
t ensi on. Al t hough i n t he endhe vi r t ual l y
dest r oys bot h st r uct ur al i smandcr i t i cal
t heor y ( somet hi ng Baudr i l l ar d does t o al most
ever yt hi ng he t ouches) , he has
managed t o ext r act and del i ver a l ot of what i s
i nt er est i ng i n t he t wo t r adi t i ons
bef or e br i ngi ng
t hemi nt o mut ual di sr eput e. Most of
t hi s mat er i al has t o do wi t h
obj ect s .
Bef or e
Baudr i l l ar d cr i t i cal t heor y had a gr eat deal t o say
expl i ci t y about
obj ect s, whi ch i s
odd because cr i t i cal t heor y has al ways cl ai med t o be mor e
concer ned wi t h t he f at e of subj ect s
. I t can be ar gued, however , t hat cr i t i cal
t heor y has ver y l i t t l e of val ue t o say about
subj ect s . Accor di ng t o cr i t i cal
t heor i st s,
subj ect s ar e bei ngs t hat make t hi ngs ; t hey exper i ence
a wor l d( usual l y
one t hey
have made t hemsel ves wi t hout
knowi ng i t ) ; t hey t r ansf er t hei r f eel i ngs
ont o
t he wor l d, and t hey i nt er nal i ze
aut hor i t y . I n ot her wor ds, subj ect s ar e
bei ngs who ( accor di ng t o cr i t i cal t heor y)
pr oduce, pr oj ect and i nt r oj ect .
St r uct ur al i st s ar en' t much bet t er ont hi s scor e,
al t hough
on
t he sur f ace t hey
may appear t o be mor e
sophi st i cat ed. Usual l y, a st r uct ur al i st
begi ns by ar gui ng
t hat t he subj ect
i s not an ont ol ogi cal cat egor y . Ther e
i s some val ue i n t hi s
ar gument . But
t hen t he st r uct ur al i st s go on t o i mpl y t hat subj ect s
ar e not
epi st emol ogi cal cat egor i es ei t her
.
They
do t hi s by ar gui ng t hat t he subj ect i s
" decent er ed" . Thi s i s
t r ue, but not ver y i nt er est i ng by i t sel f , and not ver y
di f f er ent f r omwhat
cr i t i cal t heor y has al r eady sai d. Af t er al l , what does
decent er i ng mean, i f not pr oduci ng, pr oj ect i ng
and i nt r oj ect i ng? The onl y
di f f er ence i s t hat
cr i t i cal t heor y di sappr oves of i bi s sor t of het er onomy,
and
want s t o get r i d of i t ,
wher eas st r uct ur al i smt hi nks i t i s a goodt hi ng, andwant s t o
ext end i t . Bot h t r adi t i ons agr ee t hat t he
subj ect ' s exper i ence i s f al se, but not on
t he r easons why . Ther e i s
not hi ng newi n t hese ar gument s, t aken by t hemsel ves,
but somet hi ng
qui t e i nt er est i ng happens when Baudr i l l ar d pl ays t hemof f , one
agai nst t he ot her .

'
Baudr i l l ar d i s usual l y t hought of as
a st r uct ur al i st or a post - st r uct ur al i st
t hi nker r at her
t han as a cr i t i cal t heor i st i n t he t r adi t i on of t he Lukacs/ Fr ankf ur t
School . But i n f act ,
he r emai ns deepl y i nvol ved i n t he l at t er t r adi t i on. I t i s t r ue
t hat he has made hi s name
as a debunker of Teut oni c t heor y and i s not abl e f or
bei ng openl y ant i - di al ect i cal
. But Baudr i l l ar d i s not j ust cont r a Mar x: he i s al so
cont r a Foucaul t , cont r a Saussur e,
cont r a Levi - St r auss, cont r a Fr eud, cont r a
Del euze, et c . I n f act , Baudr i l l ar d i s agai nst
any t hi nker whose i deas he t akes
ser i ousl y . To use a wor d of Mar x' s, he i s a
" count er dependent " t hi nker . Hi s
ar gument s near l y
al ways dependont he cr edi bi l i t y of t he cat egor i es of t he ot her
t hi nker s
he def i nes hi msel f agai nst . Thi s f eat ur e of Baudr i l l ar d' s di scour se i s
qui t e t ypi cal of cr i t i cal t heor y, and secr et l y di al ect i cal . Per haps he i s sayi ng t hat
i f di al ect i cs ar e not , i n hi s vi ew, an i nt r i nsi c pr oper t y of t he
wor l d, t hey ar e
cer t ai nl y a f eat ur e of di scour se about subj ect s and obj ect s . At
any r at e, when
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Baudr i l l ar d
l aunches hi s cr i t i que of cr i t i que i n TheMi r r or of Pr oduct i on, hi s
t one
i s
not so much t hat of a dyed- i n- t he- wool st r uct ur al i st as t hat of a cr i t i cal t heor i st
denounci nghi msel f .
Ther e i s anot her , mor e
f undament al r eason why Baudr i l l ar d shoul d be
consi der ed a cr i t i cal t heor i st . In f i f t een
year s, si nce hi s f i r st soci ol ogi cal
publ i cat i ons,
whi ch wer e a r evi ewof McLuhan' s Under st andi ng Medi al and hi s
ownLesyst emedesobj et s, Baudr i l l ar d has not wr i t t en a si ngl e t hi ngwhi chwas not
anat t empt t o el abor at e a t heor y of r ei f i cat i on a l a Lukacs, Hor khei mer , Ador no,
Mar cuse- wi t ha st r ong dose of Benj ami n. Thet heor y of r ei f i cat i on i s of cour se
a st or y about a st r uggl e bet weensubj ect s and
obj ect s
i n
whi chobj ect s appear , i f
onl y t empor ar i l y, t o havegai ned t he upper hand.
Br oadl y, a t heor y of r ei f i cat i on
i s not onl y a t heor y of mi spl aced
concr et eness or of f al se obj ect i vi t y ( whi ch
i mpl i es
a f al se subj ect i vi t y, of cour se) ; i t goes f ur t her and cl ai ms t hat when
obj ect s ar e mi sunder st ood i n t hi s way, t heyr et ur n t o haunt t he subj ect and spoi l
hi s whol eexper i ence. Thet heor y of r ei f i cat i on whi chBaudr i l l ar d wor ks
wi t hhas
def i ni t e r oot s whi ch go al l t he way back t o Geor g Lukacs and Kar l Mar x. Li ke
Lukacs' i mpor t ant wor k, al l of Baudr i l l ar d' s wor k i s a medi t at i on
on Mar x' s
t heor y of commodi t y
f et i shi sm
.
Thi s makes Baudr i l l ar d a cr i t i cal t heor i st . Ther e
i s not hi ng mor e essent i al t o cul t ur al Mar xi smt han t he t heor y of r ei f i cat i on,
whi ch at r oot i s al ways based on t he
i dea
t hat t he
st r uct ur e of t he commodi t y i s
i n some way t he abst r act essence
of capi t al i st l i f e. If i n hi s l at er wor k
Baudr i l l ar d seems t o par t mor e and
mor e
wi t h
t he
r at i onal i t y
of cr i t i cal t heor y
and i t s i nt er est i n t he emanci pat i on of subj ect s, I t hi nk
i t i s because hi s t heor y
has
devel oped
gr adual l y
i nt o somet hi ng qui t e di f f er ent f r omt he t r adi t i onal
cr i t i cal t heor y of r ei f i cat i on: i t has
t ur ned i nt o what Baudr i l l ar d now cal l s
"si mul at i on" . But t hi s i s st i l l a t heor y of r ei f i cat i on.
In or der t o expl ai n t hi s devel opment , i t i s usef ul t o r et ur n t o Baudr i l l ar d' s
ver y cl ear anal ysi s i n Cr i t i que of t hePol i t i cal Economy of t heSi gn? The ar gument i s
qui t e compl ex,
and i t depends f i r st of al l on a r eadi ng of Mar x' s t heor y of
commodi t y f et i shi sm.
Mar x ar gued t hat
obj ect s ( i . e. , pr oduced goods, or use val ues) ar e t ur ned i nt o
commodi t i es when t hey acqui r e t hr ough a - compl i cat ed soci o- hi st or i cal
devel opment t he addi t i onal char act er i st i c
of exchange val ue . Apar t f r omt he
det ai l s whi chmaket hi s
devel opment speci f i cal l y capi t al i st , onecansay t hat , i n
Mar x,
t o t he ext ent t hat obj ect s seemt o become pur e exchange val ues, t hey ent er
i nt o a syst em, t he commodi t y
syst em, whi ch appear s t o act i ndependent l y of
t hei r pr oducer s
and consumer s. The or i gi n of obj ect s i n l abour and t hei r
pur pose i n sat i sf yi ng needs t end t o be obscur ed f r ompubl i c vi ew. Thi s i s t he
ar gument t hat Lukacs el abor at ed i nt o t he t heor y of r ei f i cat i on. 8 It cl ai ms t hat
t hi s f al se and bor r owed power of obj ect s can oper at e ont hr ee and per haps even
f our l evel s : 1 ) t he soci o- economi c; 2 ) t he epi st emol ogi cal ; 3) t he pr act i cal ; and
4) somet i mes al so t he er ot i c.
Thr ought he l ens of cr i t i cal
t heor y, Mar x can be r ead as havi ng sai d or near l y
havi ngsai d: 1 ) t hat soci al bei ngs ar e depr i ved of t hei r soci al gr ound by a pr ocess
of ext r act i on, whi ch r obs t hemof economi c power ; 2 ) t hat t hey ar e t her eby al so
POWERANDSEDUCTION
depr i ved of t hei r ( s oci al ) knowl edge bya pr oces s of abs t r act i on whi ch i s i nduced
by
t he s ys t emat i c and obj ect i vi s t i c qual i t y of exchange val ue; 3) havi ng been
economi cal l y
r educed and cogni t i vel y s educed, peopl e begi n t o f or get howt o
r es pond:
t hey can
no
l onger act or r eci pr ocat e. They can onl yr eact t o what i s
" gi ven" , as i f what i s gi ven wer e an i nt r act abl e " s econd
nat ur e" . 9 And f i nal l y,
4) wemi ght add, f ol l owi ng t he ar gument s of
manycr i t i cal t heor i s t s , t hat t her e i s
a f our t h di mens i on t o t he ef f ect s of r ei f i cat i on -t he one
t hat
I have des cr i bed as
er ot i c . Soci al bei ngs not onl y t end t o l os e t hei r power t o be, t o per cei ve and t o
act : r ei f i cat i onal s o neut r al i zes or r es t r i ct s or damages t hei r abi l i t y t o f ant as i ze,
whi ch l i es
at
t he ver y r oot of ever ybody' s abi l i t y t o t hi nk.
Of cour s e,
t hi s
l as t
di mens i onowes s omet hi ngt o Fr eud. Al l t ol d, r ei f i cat i on
amount s t o a ver y s er i ous char ge t o make agai ns t anybody,
l et
al one a
whol e
s oci et y. It means t hat commodi t y f et i s hi s m-or i f you l i ke,
f al s el y per cei ved
obj ect s -ar e s uch a power f ul f or ce t hat t heypenet r at e deepl yenough i nt o t he
l i ves of i ndi vi dual s ubj ect s t o cont r ol t hei r i nner wor l ds . It s oundl i ke a par anoi d
f ant as y, l i ke s omet hi ng J udge Schr eber mi ght have t hought up.
Nowt her e ar e t wo t hi ngs about t hi s t heor y of
r ei f i cat i ont hat ar e i mpor t ant
t o not e . The f i r s t i s t hat i t i s har d t o i magi ne howcr i t i cal t heor y coul d ever do
wi t hout i t , f or t he not i ont hat t he commodi t yf or ms omehowcongeal s al l t he bad
cont i ngenci es of an hi s t or i cal er a i s f undament al . Howcan cr i t i cal t heor y
cont i nue t o be cr i t i cal i n t he abs ence of s ome s uch hypot hes i s ? The s econd i s
t hat i t
i s har d
t o
i magi ne howt he
t heor y of
r ei f i cat i on coul d pos s i bl y be t r ue .
Now, t hes e ques t i ons have beenr ai s ed i n
a
way
t hat
i s
obvi ous l y s l ant ed f or
t he pur pos e of di s cus s i on Baudr i l l ar d' s wor k. Some det ai l
may
be di s t or t ed,
but
t he under l yi ng i s s ues ar e f undament al , and Baudr i l l ar d has r es ponded t o t hem
i n a hi ghl y or i gi nal way whi ch i s s t i l l coher ent wi t h t he cr i t i cal t r adi t i on.
Equi pped wi t h t he t heor et i cal l anguage of s t r uct ur al i s mands ome i ns i ght s f r om
Fr ench wr i t er s s uch as Bat ai l l e and Foucaul t , Baudr i l l ar d waded i nt o s omever y
deepwat er i ndeed i nt he mi d 1970' s , and he t ookcr i t i cal t heor yal ongwi t h hi m. 10
Ther e
was s omet hi ng qui t e i nnocent about t hi s at t he begi nni ng. In hi s 1967
r evi ewof
McLuhan,
he
s ai d t hat whenyou
gener al i ze
t he
s l ogan
" t he
medi umi s
t he mes s age" you
have
t he
" ver y f or mul a of al i enat i on i n a t echni cal s oci et y" .
He was i nt er es t ed
i n l ooki ng
at
t he
commodi t y as a medi umof s oci al val ues and
as a model of publ i c di s cour s e. The i dea was
ver y
s i mpl e.
Al l t hat Baudr i l l ar d di d, i n f act , was
t o
poi nt
out
t hat t he
obj ect becomes a
commodi t y not onl y by vi r t ue of bei ng an exchange
val ue,
t o
be
meas ur ed and
exchanged agai ns t ot her exchange val ues
;
t he
obj ect i s al s o
and
es peci al l y a
commodi t y becaus e i t i s a s i gn. , I ( Thi s s eems s o obvi ous
t o
many
of
us
nowt hat
per haps i t s houl d be di s put ed i n or der t o make t he whol e di s cus s i on mor e
i nt er es t i ng. ) It means of cour s e t hat t he commodi t yi s a s i gni f i er and a s i gni f i ed,
wi t h al l t he f eat ur es of abs t r act i on, r educt i on, equi val ence, di s cr et enes s and
i nt er changeabi l i t y i mpl i ed i n t he Saus s ur eant heor yof t he s i gn. Acommodi t y i s
not j us t anexchange val ue whi ch
obs cur es i t s or i gi ni nl abour as anobj ect of , by
andf or ut i l i t y; i t i s anobj ect whi ch
has been i ns er t ed as an ar bi t r ar y t er mi nt o
a
pur el y s el f -r ef er ent i al s ys t emof s i gni f i er s
whi ch deci des t he obj ect ' s meani ng
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
bef or e anyone canpossess i t or consume i t or gi ve i t away. The commodi t yi s an
obj ect i n a syst emof obj ect s ; i t i s consumed as a si gn of t hat syst em
.
Baudr i l l ar d cal l s t hi s phenomenon t he " si gn- obj ect " . He r epl aces Mar x' s
not i on of t he commodi t y f or m( whi ch i s a soci al f or mt endi ng t o obscur e t he
obj ect ' s cont ent ) wi t h t he i dea of an " obj ect - f or m" . Thi s obj ect f or mi s al so a
soci al f or m, l i ke
Mar x' s commodi t y, but i t has muchdeeper i mpl i cat i ons . What
i t " vei l s i n myst er y" i s not t he obj ect ' s r eal val ue:
i t s or i gi n i n l abour and i t s
f i nal i t y i n t he moment of consumpt i on - i . e. , i t s use val ue.
What
t he obj ect
f or mconceal s i s t he obj ect ' s own " nul l i t y" . The commodi t y i s a r es nul l a: a
symbol i c absence. Or t o put i t anot her way, t he obj ect f or m( t he commodi t y as
si gn) exhaust s andevacuat es t he soci al space i t occupi es . I t hi des t he f act t hat
i t s meani ng does not
exi st i n a r el at i onshi p bet weenpeopl e ( what Baudr i l l ar d
woul d cal l Symbol i c Exchange) , but i n t he i nner r el at i ons of si gns
and
commodi t i es among t hemsel ves. 1 z
As a st r uct ur al model of r ei f i cat i on, t hi s " obj ect - f or m"
i s a much mor e
r adi cal hypot hesi s. I t cut s deeper andget s t o t he ' r eal ' sub- st r at umof t he soci al
obj ect :
i t s use val ue. Wi t ht he l ogi c of si gni f i cat i on as hi s t ool , Baudr i l l ar d pr i es
apar t t he bundl e of r el at i ons whi chconst i t ut e t he commodi t y, onl y t o di scover
t hat use val ue does not desi gnat e
t he ot her ness of pol i t i cal economyat al l , but
i t s i deol ogi cal gr oundwor k . For i ncl uded i n t he obj ect f or mi s pr eci sel y t he
assumed f unct i onal i t y and ut i l i t y of commodi t i es t hat Mar x had want ed t o
r est or e t o soci et y by l i ber at i ng t he means of pr oduct i on and abol i shi ng
exchange
val ue. Accor di ng t o Baudr i l l ar d, use val ue i s si mpl y a pr oduct of t he
al i enat edsyst emof
exchange i t sel f . I t i s not t he meani ngof t he obj ect , anymor e
t han t he si gni f i ed i s t he
meani ng of t he si gn: i t i s t he ef f ect of t he pl ay of
si gni f i er s . To use aphr ase of Ador no, use val ue
i s not t he " non- i dent i cal si de" of
t he obj ect ; i t i s not a moment of par t i cul ar i t y or of qual i t y, suchas mi ght be
f oundout si de t he f or mi nt he ' r eal ' act of " consumpt i on" . Per haps t hi s
expl ai ns
t he somewhat st r ai nedat mospher e of t he Fr ankf ur t School ' s at t empt s t o expl ai n
t he
f et i shi z at i onof cul t ur e i nt er ms of exchange val ue. 1 3 For use val ue t ur ns out
t o be anal i bi f or t he exchange val ue syst em, r at her t han i t s hi dden or
r epr essed
t r ut h. I t does not escape t he l ogi c of r educt i on, equi val ence
andf ungi bi l i t y
i mposed by pol i t i cal economy. Ont he cont r ar y, i t i s pol i t i cal economy
- i t s
i deal and i deol ogi cal r ef er ent . 1 4
The consequence of t hi s ar gument , of cour se, i s gr adual l yt o
shi f t t he st ance
of
t r adi t i onal cr i t i cal t heor y away f r omant i - obj ect i vi smt o an
i nt ensi f i ed
cr i t i que of nat ur al i sm. Event ual l y Baudr i l l ar d wi l l car r y t hi s
f or war d f r omt he
nat ur al i smof Pol i t i cal EconomyandMar x' s
cr i t i que
of
i t
t o
t he f unct i onal i smof
t he Bauhaus, t o t he nat ur al i smof t he
unconsci ous i n var i ous school s of
t hought , f r omSur r eal i smont o Del euz e, and
f i nal l y
t o
t he " hyper - r eal i t y" ( as
Baudr i l l ar d cal l s i t ) of const i t ut edsel f - r egul at i ng syst ems, whi chr ange f r om
t he
nat ur al i z at i on of codeddi f f er ence i n mol ecul ar bi ol ogy ( DNA) t o
t he cyber net i c
desi gn of soci al l i f e i t sel f . 1 s
But t he cr i t i que of t he pol i t i cal economyof t he si gnr emai ns
t he cent r epi ece
of Baudr i l l ar d' s wor k . One cannot
r ead hi s ear l i er books on obj ect s and
POWERANDSEDUCTION
consumpt i on wi t hout ant i ci pat i ng t hi s r e- eval uat i on of al l soci o- economi c
val ues . The new model of r ei f i cat i on t hat emer ges t r ansf or ms t he whol e
pr obl emat i c of t he commodi t y, whi ch has beent he cor e of cr i t i cal t heor y and
cul t ur al Mar xi smsi nce Lukacs . Andal l of Baudr i l l ar d' s subsequent wor kf l ows
f r omt hi s concept ual r eal i gnment . The key t oi t , of cour se, was t or eadsemi ol ogy
r i ght i nt ot he pr ocess of pol i t i cal economy, t o f i nd t he l ogi c of si gni f i cat i on i n
t he ver y
st r uct ur e of t he commodi t y. What i s i mpor t ant t ogr asp, however , i s t hat
t hi s i s not j ust
anot her synt hesi s. Ther e have beenpl ent y of at t empt s t ocombi ne
Mar x and Fr eud. Baudr i l l ar d' s i nspi r at i on was di f f er ent . He want ed t o use
st r uct ur al i st t heor y as t he mi met i c descr i pt i onl anguage of r ei f i cat i on as such.
In Baudr i l l ar d, t he Saussur ean model of l anguage r eal l y becomes t he act i on
l anguage of
t he
commodi t y; andt he appar ent sel f - suf f i ci ency of t he st r uct ur al i st
model of t he
si gn del i neat es f or hi mt he f or mof r ei f i cat i on as a soci al
phenomenon.
An
i nt er est i ng consequence of t hi s i n t he l at er books, begi nni ng
wi t h LEchange symbol i que et l a mor t , i s t hat t he equat i on commodi t y =si gn =
r ei f i cat i on evol ves
wi t h t he i nt er nal t r ansf or mat i ons of t he t heor y of t he si gn. As
semi ol ogy begi ns t odevour i t s ownt ai l i npost - st r uct ur al i st di scour se andi nt he
wor k of Der r i da i n par t i cul ar , t he t heor et i cal descr i pt i on l anguage of st r uct ur al i st
di scour se i s no l onger pr oj ect ed i nt o t he commodi t y, but hypot het i cal l y
r eembodi edas t he pur e medi umof r ei f i cat i on, sot hat t he opaque i nvol ut i ons of
t heor et i cal l anguage come t o ser ve as t he per f ect l y t r anspar ent andunwi t t i ng
sur f ace of soci al r eal i t y. 1 b Baudr i l l ar d cal l s t hi s i nvol ut i on, " si mul at i on" , whi ch
i s not hi ng ot her t hanr ei f i cat i onas t ot al semi osi s, whi chnowi ncl udes t he body
- or cor pse - of soci al t heor y i t sel f .
If t he cut t i ng edge of t hi s concept ual r econf i gur at i on i s Baudr i l l ar d' s
at t empt t o i nt r oduce t he quest i on of meani ng t o Mar xi an di scour se, t hi s does
not meant hat he i s abl e t o t el l us so much about t he nat ur e of soci al l i f e t oday
t hat we mi ght not al r eady have guessed. For t hi s cut t i ng edge i s t ur nedal most
compl et el y i nwar ds, t owar dcr i t i cal t heor y. Looki ng t hr ough t he cl osi ng pages
of Le syst eme t i es obj et s or La soci et e de consommat i on, t he ear l y wor ks, we al r eady
f i nd a host of di scl ai mer s whi ch t est i f y, somet i mes i n a
br i l l i ant
way, t o t he
pr of oundmoment of sel f - doubt i nt he act of cr i t i que. What i s r el at i vel y newi n
Baudr i l l ar d i s t he r ecogni t i on t hat t hi s moment of doubt r edeems t he
r ecal ci t r ant obj ect , and t hat t her e i s no sal vat i on wi t hout t he obj ect . The
anal ysi s of consumpt i on begs t he quest i on of i nt er pr et at i on; i t f or ces cr i t i cal
t heor y up agai nst t he consequences: i t ' s i nt er pr et at i on or di e. ) r change
symbol i que or l a Mor t .
The f act t hat cr i t i cal t heor y has syst emat i cal l y avoi dedt hi s quest i on i s
no-
wher e mor e obvi ous t han i n t he t r adi t i onal t heor y of r ei f i cat i on, or mor e
pr eci sel y, i nt he doct r i ne of commodi t yf et i shi sm, whi chunder l i es al l of cr i t i cal
t heor y' s
and
cul t ur al Mar xi sm' s vi si on of t he moder n age . Mar x was never
i nt er est ed, i n t he i nt er pr et at i on
of commodi t i es . He was concer ned wi t h t hei r
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
" hi st or i cal char act er " , but not wi t h t hei r " meani ng" , whi ch he di smi ssed as
an
i l l usi on i n t he ear l y chapt er s of Capi t al . 1 7 We can har dl y bl ame Mar x f or not
bei ng at t r act ed t o t he pr obl em, but i t i s di f f i cul t t o f or gi ve t he Fr ankf ur t School ,
whi ch pr of essed t o be concer ned wi t h cul t ur e . For what t hey f ai l t o achi eve, on
t he whol e, i s any char i t abl e under st andi ng of t he r ol e of t hi ngs i n t he l i ves of
peopl e. Inst ead, t he st andar d di scour se of cr i t i cal t heor y i s l aced wi t h ol d
Chr i st i an sent i ment s about peopl e dest r oyi ng t hei r soul s by wor shi ppi ng
power s t hey do not under st and because t hey have pr oj ect ed t hemont o mat er i al
obj ect s . Thi s i s anot her way of sayi ng
t hat peopl e
ar e wor shi ppi ng
a
f al se
god, a
gr aven
i mage. Ador no
was somet hi ng
of an except i on t o t hi s at t he t heor i t i cal
l evel , but he was j ust as i nt ol er ant i npr act i ce . He descr i bed j azz ent husi ast s as
" t empl e sl aves" pr ost r at i ng t hemsel ves " bef or e t he t heol ogi cal capr i ces of
commodi t i es" . He descr i bed peopl e goi ngt o a Toscani ni concer t as wor shi ppi ng
t he money t hey had spent on t he t i cket . Thi s i s t he t heor y of commodi t y
f et i shi sm. It i s par t of a ki nd of r el i gi ous or mor al
cont r over sy,
a
sor t of
monot hei st i c at t ack on ani mi sm.
Whencr i t i cal t heor y i s at i t s wor st , what i t want s, what i t st r i ves f or , i s a wor l d
wi t hout obj ect s . The pr oj ect ed i deal i s a ki ngdomof ends, t he endof medi at i on.
Ther e i s not hi ngout si de absol ut e spi r i t anyway. It does not i nt er pr et
;
i t
decr ees .
The t r adi t i onal t heor y of r ei f i cat i on i mpl i es t hat so l ong as t he t ot al i t y r emai ns
i naccessi bl e i n i t s t ot al i t y t o t he subj ect , t he subj ect has been depr i ved of i t s
essence. It i s a vi si onof soci al r eal i t y whi ch t ends t o equat e emanci pat i on wi t h
omni pot ence
.
Int er pr et at i on i s i mpossi bl e f or cr i t i cal t heor y dur i ng t hese bad t heor et i cal
moment s because i t does not appr ove of peopl e endowi ngobj ect s wi t h magi cal
pr oper t i es,
or pr oj ect i nghumanqual i t i es ont o t he wor l d of t hi ngs .
Inst ead, t hey
ar e expect ed t o exer ci se magi cal cont r ol over obj ect s . Thi s i s wr i t t en di r ect l y
i nt o t he t heor y of commodi t y f et i shi sm. Obj ect s can onl y have use val ue;
ever yt hi ng el se i s myst i f i cat i on. As, soon as peopl e at t ach meani ng t o t hi ngs,
t hey pl ummet i nt o f al se consci ousness . The endof r ei f i cat i on woul damount t o
r at i onal knowl edge of t he t ot al i t y . Peopl e woul d have t ot al l y t r anspar ent
r el at i ons wi t h each ot her , ei t her because t her e woul dbe no obj ect s t o get i nt he
way, or because obj ect s woul d onl y exi st i nsof ar as t hey wer e r at i onal l y
di st r i but ed accor di ng t o need ( pr esumabl y f r oma cent r e) , or because t hey ar e
onl y obj ect s of di si nt er est ed aest het i c r ef l ect i on, a t ype of r el at i onshi p t o an
obj ect whi ch pr esumabl y does no har mt o t he spi r i t . Thi s i s why Mar xmust have
pr ef er r ed capi t al i smt o f eudal i sm: i t was mor e r at i onal , i t made t he r eal soci al
r el at i ons cl ear er , t her e was l ess meani ng t o cl oud t he vi si on. 1 9 On t hi s vi ew,
commodi t y f et i shi smi s si mpl y a r esi due of t he ol d bar bar i c consci ousness .
The
commodi t y
el l i ci t s
a
sor t of soci al pr oj ect i on whi ch di sgui ses t he r eal
r el at i ons under pi nni ng i t . The obj ect hi des soci al r eal i t y. It must be el i mi nat ed.
Baudr i l l ar d' s cr i t i que of
t he
si gn t r i es t o cut t hr ough al l t hi s met aphysi cs .
Rei f i cat i onceases t o be a myst i cal vei l , a t r i ck of consci ousness, anal i enat i onof
t he subj ect ' s power , t he r obber y of an essence, or a pr i mi t i ve pr oj ect i onbased
oni gnor ance. Inst ead i t i s a posi t i ve pr esence i n i t s ownr i ght . It i s physi cal and
POWERANDSEDUCTION
i t i s or gani zed i n ades cr i babl e
way. It does n' t hi de s oci al r el at i ons ; i f anyt hi ng, i t
i s a t endencyt o pr event t hem
f r omoccur i ng. Thes el f - s uf f i ci ent obj ect
demands
a s el f - s uf f i ci ent s ubj ect . Thi s
aut onomi zat i on and s oci al i s ol at i on
i s achi eved
t hr ough what Baudr i l l ar d cal l s t he
" s emi ol ogi cal r educt i on" , whi ch er odes t he
pos s i bi l i t y of s ymbol i c exchange. Wher e
t he commodi t y i s , t her e t he s ubj ect
s hal l not
be. But t hi s i s not t he s ameas
Mar xi anf et i s hi s m. It i s t he oppos i t e, f or
t he pr obl em
wi t h t he commodi t y as a s ys t emi c obj ect
i s not , accor di ng t o
Baudr i l l ar d,
t hat peopl e at t ach emot i onal i mpor t ance t o
i t , but pr eci s el y t hat
t hey cannot , becaus e t he
commodi t yi s al r eadya s i gn. Thel ogi c of
s i gni f i cat i on
i s no l onger s omet hi ng t o
be i gnor ed becaus e i t i s a
s uper s t r uct ur al as pect of
t hi ngs whi ch conceal s a
mor epr of ound economi c l ogi c, as cr i t i cal
t heor yonce
bel i eved
; t he l ogi c of s i gni f i cat i on l i es , as
Baudr i l l ar d wr i t es , at t he " ver yhear t of
t he
commodi t y" . Andbecaus e t he s i gn- obj ect i s
s ys t emi c, i t comes wi t h i t s pl ay
of meani ngs
al r eadycoded. So t he pr obl emof r ei f i cat i on, at l eas t
at t he cul t ur al
l evel , i s not t hat peopl e
have pr oj ect ed t hei r power s ont o t hi ngs , but
r at her t hat
obj ect s have
become i ncr eas i ngl y cl os ed of f f r om
human i nt er act i on i n t hei r
s ys t emat i c
s el f - r ef er ent i al pl ay. Peopl e pr obabl yhave an
i ncor r i gi bl e t endency
t o " f et i s hi ze" obj ect s
anyway; but t he l ogi c of s i gni f i cat i on bl ocks even t hi s
s ymbol i c r el at i on,
and i nvi t es peopl e t o f et i s hi ze s ys t ems of
r el at i ons hi p whi ch
ar e abs t r act and wi t hout
much per s onal s i gni f i cance . . Thi s , I bel i eve, i s what
Baudr i l l ar d means byt he par adoxt hat
cons umpt i on has t ur nedi nt o a" s ys t emof
i nt er pr et at i on" wi t hout meani ng?0 Ther e
i s no meani ng becaus e t her e i s no
s ymbol i c
exchange. The s ymbol i c i s al ways
about t he pot ent i al i t y of a
r el at i ons hi p. Thes emi ur gyof s oci al obj ect s r educes
t he avai l abi l i t yof t hi ngs f or
medi at i ng s oci al r el at i ons ( s ymbol i c exchange)
and as s i gns t hemt o medi at i ng
s ys t ems
of s i gns i ns t ead . If commodi t y f et i s hi s m
exi s t s , i t i s becaus e i n our
cul t ur e t he obj ect has become t oo r at i onal :
commodi t i es come pr e- f et i s hi zed.
Tr adi t i onal cr i t i cal t heor y
has t endedt o par odyt he pat t er n of r ei f i cat i on t hat
Baudr i l l ar d des cr i bes t o
t he ext ent t hat i t hol ds out t he vague pr omi s e of
r et ur ni ng t o awor l d of s i mpl e
obj ect s admi ni s t er ed bys i mpl e s ubj ect s . But t her e
canbe no s uchwor l d. In t he s pher e of cul t ur e,
obj ect s ar e never obj ect i ve - but
t hen t hey ar e us ual l y not s ubj ect i ve
ei t her : t hey ar e nei t her neut r al or nat ur al
f act s nor hal l uci nat i ons . Thi s i s even
t r ue f or t he r eal f et i s hi s t . For t he
i nt er es t i ng t hi ng about a f et i s h, pr es umabl y, i s
t hat i t i s never cl ear what i t i s -
whet her i t i s r eal l y an obj ect or whet her i t
i s par t of t he s el f . Af et i s h i s pr obabl y
undeci dabl e, andf or t hi s r eas on, i t can be t hought of
as exi s t i ng i n af r ee s pace
bet ween t he s ubj ect and t he obj ect . But f or t he f et i s hi s t ,
t hi s s pace i s char ged
wi t h an ext r aor di nar y amount of t ens i on. The
f et i s hi s t cannot t ol er at e hi s
obj ect ' s ambi gui t y, and want s t o r es ol ve i t .
What mi ght havebeenas ymbol , t he
s ymbol of a
connect i on, has t ur ned i nt o a cur s e of s or t s . The f et i s hi s t i s l i ke- a
l over whodoes n' t
have a l over andt her ef or e, i n as ens e, cannot have anobj ect
ei t her . He cannot s har e
hi s f ai l ed des i r e t o mer ge wi t h hi s l over wi t h hi s l over ' s
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
f ai l ed desi r e t o mer ge wi t h hi m.
He i s al one wi t h a t hi ng t hat i s not a t hi ng -
nei t her anot her nor hi msel f . He
cannot whol l y . possess i t because
i t
i s not
sel f
and he cannot abandon i t because
i t i s not ot her . The space bet weent he
subj ect
and obj ect wher e
t he . f et i sh obj ect osci l l at es so pai nf ul l y
i s si mpl y t oo
danger ous . he
want s somehow t o cl ose t hi s
space, but he cannot , because
nei t her
subj ect i vi t y nor r ei f i cat i on ar e ever
compl et e except i n t he moment of
sui ci de .
The newmodel of r ei f i cat i on
changes our vi ewof t he subj ect . The subj ect i s
no l onger a t heor y-pr axi s
const r uct whose per cept i on i s cl ouded by t he t r i cker y
of t hi ngs . The
subj ect i s nowan ambi val ent psychol ogi cal bei ng
whose space
f or l i vi ng i s gr adual l y
bei ng cl osed of f . Anot her way of sayi ng
t hi s i s t hat t he
subj ect
cannot be, and has not been, st r i ct l y
demar cat ed f r omt he obj ect -
decoupe . The r eal mof f r eedomcannot be
abst r act ed f r omand separ at ed f r om
t he r eal mof necessi t y, except as a
si gn -but t hi s si gn happens t o be t he
ul t i mat e i l l usor y r ef er ent of t he
i ndust r i al i zed wor l d, capi t al i st and communi st .
On t hi s quest i on, t he
onl y di f f er ence bet ween t he gr eat bl ocks
of pol i t i cal
economy
l i es i n t hei r t heor i es of di st r i but i on: t he
bur eaucr at i c ver si on i s qui t e a
bi t
mor e obsessi ve about cont r ol l i ng
obj ect s i n t he name of f r eedom.
The subj ect and t he
obj ect . cannot f i nal l y be di st i ngui shed .
They over f l ow
i nt o t he ambi guous
space t hat exi st s bet ween t hem, wher e peopl e
act ual l y l i ve,
and
t hi ngs have meani ng. Thi s i s wher e cul t ur e t akes pl ace .
It
cannot
be wi shed
away.
It ' cannot be compl et el y dest r oyed i n a
whol e soci et y, even by r ei f i cat i on.
It canonl y
be mor e or l ess r est r i ct ed, at t enuat ed, under
t hr eat . We have l i ved i n
t hi s ambi guous space ever si nce we wer e chi l dr en,
and we wi l l never succeed i n
compl et el y sor t i ng i t out i nt o t he cat egor i es
of what i s pr oper l y subj ect and what
i s obj ect , or of what we
act ual l y made or t hought up and what we si mpl y f ound
by l uck or acci dent
. Cr i t i cal t heor y demands of us ani mpossi bl e and debi l i t at i ng
mat ur i t y.
We r at i onal i ze t he ambi guous space as muchas we canand as muchas
we have
t o, but we never do away wi t h i t because t hen
we
woul d
not be abl e t o
l i ve, we woul d have
no wher e t o pl ay. Thi s i s what Baudr i l l ar d or i gi nal l y meant
by symbol i c exchange, and what
he meant whenhe ar gued t hat t he l ogi c of t he
si gn er adi cat es t he soci al symbol i c. ( I
cannot f i nd any ot her meani ngf or i t . ) So
r ei f i cat i on ceases t o be anyt hi ng l i ke t he
obj ect ' s st ol en power s r et ur ni ng t o
haunt t he subj ect , and becomes
mor e l i ke t he r el at i ve cl osur e of a psychosoci al
space wher e, . t o bor r ow anot her
phr ase of Ador no, we mi ght l i ve i n "har mony
wi t h t he obj ect ", and wi t h our own
ambi val ence .
The psychoanal yst Wi nni cot t cal l ed
t hi s i nt er medi at e ar ea "pot ent i al space"
-i t i s wher e t he t r ansi t i onal
obj ect exi st s f or t he chi l d, bet weent he mor e or l ess
,' me" and t he mor e
or
l ess "not me". The
t r ansi t i onal obj ect i s not anel i mi nat i on
of di f f er ence . It j ust l eaves t he par adox
unr esol ved. z1 "Thi s pot ent i al space i s at
t he i nt er pl ay bet ween t her e bei ng
not hi ng but me and t her e bei ng obj ect s and
phenomena out si de omni pot ent cont r ol "
22
The chi l d
i s not chal l enged as t o t he
l ogi c of t he si t uat i on. It 4s not expect ed
t o deci de whet her i t r eal l y concei ved t hi s
t hi ng, or whet her i t j ust f ound a t r i vi al pi ece
of t he obj ect i ve wor l d t hat i t
suspect s i t cannot cont r ol . The chi l d
i s
al l owed
t o have i t s i nt ense symbol i c
POWERANDSEDUCTION
exper i ence . Nobody
t r i es
t o
def i ne t he obj ect . Nobodyt el l s t he
chi l d, " t hat ' s j us t
your i magi nat i on" , or . " t hat ' s
j us t a bi t of di r t y ol d s t uf f ed cl ot h" .
The chi l d i s
al l owed t o pl ay.
The t r agedy of cr i t i cal t heor y
i s t hat i t has never been abl e t o t heor i ze
t hi s
pot ent i al ,
t r ans i t i onal , s ymbol i c s pace,
al t hough i t has al ways beenconcer ned
wi t h i t .
Cr i t i cal t heor yexpect s s o muchf r omt he
s ubj ect t hat i t canonl y expl ai n
away
t he damage byat t r i but i ng f ant as t i c, demoni c
power t ot he obj ect . It l eaves
not hi ng human i n
bet ween. Ther e i s nopos s i bl e r es ol ut i on
but t he des t r uct i on
of one or t he ot her : t he
deat h of t he s ubj ect or t he ni hi l at i ng
abs or pt i on of t he
obj ect ?
3
It i s i r oni c t hat i t
was t he gr eat es t of cr i t i cal t heor i s t s ,
Theodor Ador no,
whopr es ent ed t hes e abs t r act
al t er nat i ves t o us mos t f or cef ul l y; andyet i t
was
al s o he
whogr as pedt he l i f e- s avi ng compr omi s e
i nt he " noni dent i cal s i de of t he
obj ect " . The
noni dent i cal s i de of t he obj ect , or
s ymbol i c exchange or t he
pot ent i al s pace of t he
t r ans i t i onal obj ect ar e al l names f or a pos s i bi l i t y
whi ch
mus t be kept open, andopened
f ur t her i f r ei f i cat i on i s t o be def eat ed.
Let me s ugges t , br i ef l y, an
ext ens i on of t hi s t hes i s . The t er mpot ent i al
s pace
i mpl i es t hat t her e i s a dynami c
gapbet weent he t wor el at i ve pol es t hat
Wi nni cot t
- but al s oHaber mas - cal l
t he s ubj ect i ve wor l dands har edobj ect i ve
r eal i t y-
or , i n Haber mas ' t er ms , t he
" i nner , pr i vat e wor l d" andt he " out er , publ i c
wor l d" .
My addi t i onal r ef l ect i on i s t hat
t hi s i nt er medi at e di mens i on, t he wor l d whi ch
gr ows out of t he t r ans i t i onal obj ect , has t o be
enr i chedandexpandedbef or e any
i dea of a
publ i cl y s har edobj ect i ve wor l d s uch as
Haber mas envi s i ons can be
cons t i t ut ed i n a
genui ne and heal t hy way. Thi s i s a cr uci al
i s s ue f or cul t ur al
pol i t i cs
becaus e t her e can be no " i deal ( publ i c)
s peech s i t uat i on" wi t hout a
f oundat i on
t hat openl yandhones t l yembodi es t he
pr e- l ogi cal , s ymbol i c r oot of
act i on,
r el at i ons hi p andmeani ng. Rei f i cat i on i s
ul t i mat el y not hi ng mor et han a
bet r ayal
or deni al of t hi s s oci al s ymbol i c r oot - whi ch i s
why s t r uct ur al i s t
f or mal i s m
makes s uch a good model of r ei f i ed cul t ur e?
4
The mai nbat t l e amongcr i t i cal t heor i es
andcul t ur al Mar xi s ms t oday s eems
t o be
over t he def i ni t i on of t hi s pot ent i al
s pace. Fr ench t heor yhas occupi edi t
andcal l ed val uabl e at t ent i on t o i t . My
cr i t i ci s mof t he NewFr ench Thought i s
s i mpl yt hat i n havi ng cal l ed
at t ent i on t oi nt er medi at e ar eas of s oci al exper i ence,
i t has hada t endencyt oaut onomi ze t hemas
unboundedmedi a ( wi t hout s ubj ect
andobj ect ) , as pur e medi a wher e s i gns l i t er al l y
devour t hei r ownmeani ng. So
what
I have been cal l i ng t r ans i t i onal s pace
and what Baudr i l l ar d us edt o cal l
s ymbol i c exchange, Foucaul t nowcal l s
power , Del euze andLacan cal l des i r e,
Der r i da cal l s t ext andBaudr i l l ar d cal l s
s i mul acr um. Ther e i s l i t t l e ef f or t i n t hes e
t r aj ect or i es t o r ecover t he cons t r uct i ve
pot ent i al of t he pr e- l ogi cal s ymbol i c
di mens i on of exper i ence. Ther e i s al t er nat i vel y a
t endency t o s t r es s t he
equi val ence of
t hr ee al l - embr aci ng t er ms : power =t ot al i t y
=i r r at i onal i t y, f ul l
s t op.
Foucaul t andBaudr i l l ar d andDer r i da ul t i mat el y
f ai l
t o
s ol ve t he pr obl ems
of cr i t i que
becaus e t heyr epr oduce, i n t hei r aut onomous
t heor et i cal model s of
" power " and " t ext " what
Baudr i l l ar d had or i gi nal l y des cr i bed as t he " ver y
f or mul a of al i enat i on i n a
t echni cal s oci et y" - The Medi umi s t he Mes s age .
Ins t ead of ar t i cul at i ng an al t er nat i ve,
t heyr eembodyt he ol d Hegel i ant heor yof
r ei f i cat i on t hey at t ack.
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
The
probl emwi t h Baudri l l ard' s l at er work -t he books t hat f ol l ow
t he
Cri t i que
of
t he
Pol i t i cal Economyof t he Si gn and TheMi nor of Product i on -
i s t hat
what began as a cri t i que of nat ural i st i c cat egori es
has grownst eadi l y i nt o an
obsessi on, a ki nd of desi ret oexpunge
nat urei t sel f , or more preci sel y, t oconvert
i t i nt o anenormous and meani ngl ess
cycl e of col l apsi ng cul t ure. Baudri l l ard' s
si mul at i oni s j ust anot her
word f or rei f i cat i on; i t i s a t ype. of rei f i cat i onbeari ng
no ref erence t o any subj ect or obj ect , wi t hout any count erpraxi s
. The
consequence i s t hat t heory-evencri t i cal t heory -i s
al ways f al t eri ng behi nd:
i t can onl y mi rror what passes i t
by, wi t h t he same ai ml essness of si mul at i on
i t sel f . Si mul at i on
means t he deat h of pl ay i nt he t ot al omni presence of
pl ay.
Baudri l l ard has
aut onomi zed t he i nt ermedi at e area and got t en l ost i n
i t ,
f orget t i ng
t he vi rt ual di f f erence bet ween t he me and
t he not me whi ch
st ruct ures humanpl ay. He has t urned cul t ure i nsi de
out
and
madei t a nat ural
process . Pl ay has become si mpl yt he f unct i on
of t he uni verse. And so you have
t he French Ideol ogy, and J acques Derri da .
Agai nst t hi s cat ast rophe, Baudri l l ard
has onl y one st rat egy l ef t
: symbol i c exchange, whi ch f i ndi ng t hat i t can no
l onger def i ne i t sel f i nopposi t i ont o t he si gn, abandons exchange
f or absol ut e
i rreversi bl e reversi bi l i t y i ndeat h; i n ot her
words, ni hi l i sm.
Baudri l l ard' s
argument t hat rei f i cat i on i s not f al se consci ousness
but t he
syst emat i c
cl osure of aut ot el i c si gni f yi ng syst ems probabl y l eads
f ai rl y
i nevi t abl yt ot hi s ni hi l i sm. But i t i s st i l l ani nt erest i ng argument
becausei t f orces
cri t i cal t heory t o begi nt heori zi ng t he area of t ransi t i onal phenomena
. Whet her
i t i s t he commodi t y al one whi ch produces t he soci al
ef f ect of rei f i ed
const ri ct i on or whet her t he commodi t y has onl y been
t he most conveni ent
t heme f or a cri t i cal hermeneut i c i s anot her quest i on.
There i s no i nherent
reasonwhyt he probl emof rei f i cat i on
shoul d be posed excl usi vel y i nt erms of
consumpt i on. The poi nt of Baudri l l ard' s argument
i s t hat wef eel not so much
myst i f i ed byt he commodi t y as excl uded byi t .
Wef eel excl uded f romt he si gn
obj ect i n much t he same way t hat
we f eel excl uded f rom( and even host i l e
t oward) a cl osed groupwi t hi t s excl usi vel y
i nt ernal syst emof ref erence. Wet end .
t o get l ost i n such syst ems, however, because
we f eel we have no choi ce: we
have t o have obj ect s, part l y because wehave t ohave
meani ng, and somet i mes
we
wi l l t akewhat ever wecanget , event houghnowadays weof t endon' t
expect i t
t o be verysi gni f i cant .
N
The i nt ent i onof t hi s paper canbe summari zed i na
sl i ght l y di f f erent set of
t erms .
Cri t i cal t heory has t ended t o ski rt around t he i ssue of i nt erpret at i on.
There
are pl ent yof except i ons, workt hat comes out of Benj ami nf or
exampl e, but on
t he whol e t hi s at l east has beenmyexperi ence of cri t i cal di scourse
. What t hi s
means i nknowl edget erms i s t hat cri t i cal t heorywon' t come
t o
gri ps
wi t ht hef act
of uncert ai nt y. Hence t he t remendous rel uct ance, unt i l recent l y,
t o
open
up
Marx' s cat egori es f or cul t ural i nt erpret at i on.
POWERANDSEDUCTION
In psychoanal yt i c
t er ms, i nt er pr et at i on pr obabl y means l ear ni ng
how
t o
l i ve
wi t h onesel f af t er one has t r i ed t o
dest r oy t he obj ect . We al l t r y t o dest r oy
t he
obj ect , even i f onl y i n f ant asy.
The wi sdomof Mel ani e Kl ei n and ot her s
i s t hat i f
t he obj ect
sur vi ves our bi t t er at t ack, t hen we
can not onl y l ove t he obj ect , but
l ear n t o use i t
as wel l . But bef or e we can achi eve
al l t hi s, we have t o gr ant t he
obj ect j ust
enough i ndependent exi st ence so t hat
t he possi bi l i t y of i t s l oss i s
r eal , and we
can l ear n t o mour n t hi s possi bl e l oss?
5
Tr ue, t hi s
means a ki nd of depr essi on. But depr essi on i s not
so bad -i f we
have t he cour age t o r epai r t he damage i t was caused
by. Af t er al l , we our sel ves
have
al r eady i magi ned t hi s dest r uct i on,
per haps wi l l ed i t , wi t hout r eal i zi ng what
we wer e
doi ng. The ver y i dea of our
own dest r uct i ve pot ent i al makes us
par anoi d,
because we di dn' t knowwhat i t meant
unt i l we had t r i ed i t . But i f we
can be so vi ol ent
wi t hout meani ng i t , t hen so can
ot her s, even when t hey don' t
mean i t . Thi s i s t he
essence of par anoi d t hi nki ng: t hey' r e out t o
get me, even
t hough I knowt hey
ar en' t .
Depr essi on i s
much l ess cat ast r ophi c, t hough i t i s ver y
pai nf ul . Recent
cr i t i cal t heor y i s a case
- i n poi nt . Thi nk of t he t i t l es : Negat i ve
Di al ect i cs . . . The
Tr agedy of Enl i ght enment . . .
The Di al ect i c of Def eat . . . The Cr i t i cal
Twi l i ght
. . .
L' echange symbol i que et l a mor t . . .
La St r at egi e f at al e. It al l sounds depr essed
.
But t hi s i s pr obabl y a
heal t hy depr essi on, a r epar at i ve one, per haps a
depr essi on
t hat wi l l l ead cr i t i cal t heor y t o
shi f t i t s at t ent i on away f r omal l t he bad t hi ngs i t
want s t o
get r i d of i n t he wor l d, and ont o t he newt hi ngs i t
want s t o put i nt o i t .
Thi s i s not
j ust a t her apeut i c suggest i on, i t i s a t act i cal
necessi t y, because
cer t ai n t hi ngs
wi l l never go away compl et el y, t hey can
onl y be cr owded out by
somet hi ng bet t er
. Por nogr aphy i s an excel l ent exampl e.
Cr i t i cal
Theor y must t r y t o f i nd ways t o open up
t r ansi t i onal ar eas of
exper i ence,
so t hat we can al l br eat he mor e f r eel y
. And so t hat event ual l y
pat er nal i st i c syst ems wi l l not be abl e t o t r ap us wi t h
t he
i mpossi bl e
deci si on
whet her we
made our own l i ves and l anguage, or whet her we j ust
f ound t hemor
got t hemf r om
somebody el se and owe t hemback. But Cr i t i cal Theor y
won' t
achi eve t hi s
l evel of cr eat i vi t y unt i l i t admi t s i t i s ( met aphysi cal l y?)
depr essed -
because
onl y t hen wi l l i t have t he i mpul se t o r epai r t he
damage.
Ador no
pr obabl y under st ood t hi s . He was so i mpr essed by
hi s own vi ol ence
as he saw
i t mi r r or ed i n t he vi ol ence ar ound hi mt hat he want ed
al l
of us t o get
down of f our " r oyal
t hr ones" and commune wi t ht he obj ect . But Ador no coul dn' t
t r ansl at e t hi s t heor et i cal under st andi ng i nt o pr act i ce.
Nei t her have we -
t hough
i n cer t ai nways as a gener at i on we mayhave begun
i nt he 1960' s, wi t ht he
count er cul t ur e, and f emi ni sm. At any r at e, Ador no
was pr obabl y t oo ol d, and
r el uct ant
t o gi ve up hi s r age.
The possi bi l i t y of any
f ut ur e pr act i ce, and t he keyt o i nt er est i ng i nt er pr et at i ons,
wi l l depend on our r eal i zat i on t hat obj ect s
ar e never si mpl y t her e t o be used i n
t he way we mer el y choose -
f or i n t he l ast , dept h-psychol ogi cal anal ysi s, t hey
al ways
r epr esent anot her per son, and t he i dea of a
r el at i onshi p wi t h anot her
per son .
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Appendi x: Theses onCr i t i cal Theor y
-

I
Af t er Mar x, Fr eudr evi ved
t he whol ei dea of badani mal nat ur e as a ki nd
of
psychi c myt h, and
r esur r ect ed evi l as t he pol i t i cal pr obl em
of humansel f -
def i ni t i oni nhi st or y. Mar xwas r i ght t ohave
concent r at edhi s at t ent i ononsoci al
r el at i ons i nst ead, but Fr eud' s r egr essi onwas
al so ver y f r ui t f ul : i n t he end, he
savedt hei magi nat i on. Af t er Fr eud, badani mal
nat ur e coul dbeconst r uedeven
mor ef undament al l y as ' bad' r el at i ons
bet weeni nt er nal obj ect s andt hei r spl i t -
of f ,
r epr essedegocount er par t s. Thi s does not mean, as a Mar xi st woul dsay, t hat
bad soci al
r el at i ons ar e si mpl y "r epr oduced" i n t he i ndi vi dual .
Al t hough bad
ani mal nat ur e i s cer t ai nl y a ki ndof myt h, a
hypost at i zat i on of badr el at i ons i n
hi st or y, t he ego def enses ar e qui t e
r eal .
Somet i mes t he"bad
obj ect " has t obet akeni nsi dei f t hepossi bi l i t yof f ut ur e
l ove and pl easur e i s t o bepr eser ved
somewher ei nt he i magi nat i on. Webl ame
our sel ves t o save ot her s and
t hei r l ove; and t hen we bl ame ot her s
t o save
our sel ves. I nal l t hi s ef f or t t ocont r ol andel i mi nat epai n,
l ovecanwi t her . Thi s i s
a t r agedy t hat Mar x over l ooked.
The
ego def enses ar e par t of t he di st i nct i ve or gani zat i on and
ener gy of
psychi c r eal i t y. They ar e not ' cr eat ed' by bad r el at i ons,
t hey ar e pr ovoked,
nur t ur ed, encr ust ed, moul ded - and t hey ar e power f ul i n t hei r
ownr i ght . At
r el at i vel ycr udel evel s, t he f or mandper haps even
t he cont ent of soci al l i f e ar e
r ecogni zabl y t hoseof t he egodef enses, andt hi s i s especi al l y
t r ue dur i ng ear l y
emot i onal mat ur at i on. They ar e cat al yzed
pr ef i gur at i ons of humanr el at i ons,
andpsychoanal ysi s
i s ver y l i t t l e or not hi ng at al l i f t hey cannot
ul t i mat el y be
di st i ngui shed f r omt he behavi our i st t hesi s.
` I I
Cr i t i cal t heor y shoul dbe mor e pl ayf ul .
Thei nner wor l di s f ant ast i c . I t i s al r eadyi nf or mat i onbef or e cogni t i on, and
emot i on ar e pr epar ed t o j oi n i nt el l i gent l y wi t h t he
envi r onment . The. i nner
wor l d, or psychi c r eal i t y, i s composed not of i mpul ses
or "i nst i nct s", but of
i nt er nal i zed r el at i ons, whi char e not easi l y changed. Ver y ear l y oni n t hi s
i nner
wor l d,
t her e ar eat l east goodandbad. Nei t her t hegoodnor t he badcandevel op
i nt o anyt hi ng r eal or r easonabl ei nl i f e i f t hey ar e not al l owedt o pl ay.
But t he
f ant ast i c opposi t i onof t hegoodandt he badcangener at e so muchanxi et y
t hat
pl ay seems i mpossi bl e.
I I I
Cr i t i cal t heor y i s i nsuf f i ci ent l y f ant ast i c .
Fant asy i s t hought and act i onbef or e t he i magi nat i on and
t he wor l d have
mut ual l y adapt ed. Mel ani eKl ei n, f ol l owi ng Fr eud, l i nkedf ant asy and
pl ay,
and
t hen demonst r at ed an i nver se r el at i onshi p bet ween f ant asy andanxi et y. The
mor e of one, t he l ess of t he ot her . But t he r el at i onshi p i s not bal anced. An
i nhi bi t i on i npl ay i s a si gn of anxi ous r i gi di t y; but i t i s never cl ear how
one
r ever ses t he al i gnment i nf avour of f ant asy and pl ay: why el abor at e a f ant asy
t hat pr ovokes anxi et y? Per haps i t wi l l comet r ue?
POWER
ANDSEDUCTI ON
I n t hi s way,
psychoanal ysi s r est or es t he
i magi nat i on t o t he l i f e of t he
body
pol i t i c -but at
t he pr i ce of i t s de-i deal i zat i on
.
N
Fr eedomcan i ncr ease.
Ther e
i s no l onger much
r eason t o doubt t hat ear l y
exper i ence ( whi ch i s
t hankf ul l y
st i l l beyonddi r ect soci al cont r ol )
i s deci si ve i n t he
f or mat i on of a
r eact i ve sel f
gover ned by a compl i ant ego
-or i n t he f or mat i on
of i t s
al t er nat i ve, an
act i ve sel f cent r edon a
cr i t i cal ego. The pr obl emi s t hat
wher e t he
al t er nat i ve i s
not wel l -gr ounded i n psychi c
r eal i t y, i t i s di f f i cul t t o choose
i t
( of t enf or t he best of
r easons) . Yet Sar t r e was pr obabl y
r i ght t hat t he al t er nat i ve i s
st i l l
a r eal choi ce. I t i s even
a ki nd of choi ce i n a
deat hcamp. St i l l , pur e
expr essi ons of
f r eedom, however
modest , ar e ver y har d t o
r econci l e wi t h t he
cont i nui t i es of
psychi c and soci al r eal i t y.
The t her apeut i c l esson of psycho-
anal ysi s has beenf r om
t hebegi nni ngt hat ever y
r ecogni t i onor under st andi ng of
det er mi ni sm
i mpl i es an act or exper i ence of
f r eedomandvi ce ver sa. Ther e i s no
necessi t y t o
det er mi ni sm, but i t i s necessar y, t o
be det er mi nedt o be f r ee.
V
Cr i t i cal t heor y i s
gener at ed wi t hi n aver y nar r owband
of human exper i ence;
i t doesn' t cr eat e
enough space f or i t sel f .
An unusual envi r onment i s
r equi r ed i f t he act i ve, want i ng,
wi l l i ng
t endenci es of
a baby ar e t o be r econci l ed
wi t h t he emot i onal chal l enge
of
separ at i on and
i ndi vi duat i on . I n t he absence of
-such a t ender envi r onment ,
act i on, want i ng
andwi l l i ng ar e l i kel y t o be spl i t -of f
andhi dden away, r emai ni ng
f or ever i nf ant i l e and
sor el y hel pl ess .
Nobody out l i ves
t he pl easur e of bei ng al one, yet ,
st i l l i n t he saf e pr esence of
t he ( m) ot her , once
t hey have hadi t . We ar e al ways i n
t r ansi t i on andwe al ways
cr eat e some ki nd of "space"
f or t hi s pr ocess . I t cannot be pl ayed
out .
VI
The f r agi l i t y of t he pot ent i al
space bet weent he subj ect and
t he obj ect canbe
so
at t enuat edi n l i f e t hat pl ay
becomes adesper at e ef f or t t o sust ai n
t he meani ng
of a
f ewhar denedsymbol s whi ch
ar e easi l y coer cedandhar nessed
. The space i n
whi ch
t he uni t y of ear l i er and
l at er exper i ence i s pr eser ved as
t he gr owi ng f und
of t he
sel f ' s l i f e i n t he wor l dandt he
psyche' s l i f e on t he pl anet can be over r un
by
t he conquer i ngdr i ve of subj ect or obj ect , or
col l apsed i n pat hol ogi cal i dent i t y,
omni pot ent f usi on, and t he l ogi c of
def ensi ve cont r ol , none of
whi ch ever
out l ast what t hey dest r oy. Cr i t i cal
t heor y shoul dbe much mor e awar e of
al l t hi s .
VI I
On
t he ot her hand, t he
unusual l y t ender envi r onment whi ch
f ost er s t he
gr owt h of t he act i ve sel f i s
pr eci sel y what makes t he pr ospect of
separ at i on and
i ndi vuat i on so pai nf ul . I t i s
ver y har dt o l ear n t o cr eat e t hi s
envi r onment f or
onesel f , andhar der f or
soci et y. Acer t ai n amount of "aggr essi on"
i s neededon
al l si des i f t he pr ocess
i s t o be car r i edt hr ough -af act obser vabl e
i n mammal s
gener al l y
. But t he human psyche i s -i ni t i al l y
so adapt i ve andr esponsi ve and
i nnat el y
i nt r i cat e i n pot ent i al t hat i t s
bi r t h i s never easi l y achi eved. "Nat ur e" has
r ef i ned
a pr ocess of speci al i zed di f f er ent i at i on t o t he
poi nt wher e not onl y i t s
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
meani ngbut i t s s ubs t ance ar e
as t oni s hi ngl y s ymbol i c.
The pr i ce of i nt el l i gence i s pr obabl y
s ymbol i s m whi ch t hr i ves on
i ndef i ni t i on whi ch
r ef l ect s di f f i cul t y but t he hi gher f or ms of pl eas ur e t oo .
VIII
Cr i t i cal t heor y has madea
gr eat deal of f us s about ( what s houl d be cal l ed)
s econdar y adapt at i on -
as i f t hi s i s s omes or t of r ecogni t i on of ps ychoanal yt i c
t r ut h . Over and over agai n,
we hear t hat t he i ndi vi dual . i s "pr oduced" by t he
cul t ur e. -In t he s amebr eat h, ps ychoanal ys i s i s di s mi s s ed as conf or mi s t becaus e
i t s t heme i s t he adapt i ve gr owt h of ' t he i ndi vi dual . Cr i t i que
i s cheap when i t
i gnor es or l aughs at t he needs and s t r at egi es
of t he chi l d. Human bei ngs ar e
al ways dependent -ei t her i n an i nf ant i l e
or a nat ur e way -but dependent
never t hel es s .
IX
Coer ci on can be br ut al l y ext er nal and s oci al but i t s condi t i ons
of
pos s i bi l i t y
ar e us ual l y l ai d down i n s ubt l er ways . To achi eve a genui ne
i nt egr at i on of
ps ychoanal yt i c i ns i ght , cr i t i cal t heor y mus t
s ee howpr i mar y ps ychol ogi cal
adapt i ons ar e not al ways i n det ai l
di r ect l y concer ned wi t h t he cul t ur e at l ar ge:
t hey ar e not pol i t i cal deci s i ons , t hey ar e obs cur e movement s wi t hi n t he
i mmedi at e. ps ychi c envi r onment i n
a cont ext of i nf ant i l e dependency. Such
awar enes s woul d weaken t he gr andi os e
i l l us i on t hat cr i t i cal di al et i c can s o
eas i l y penet r at e t he s oci al vei l ;
but i t woul d s t r engt hen under s t andi ng
i mmeas ur abl y.
X
Nat ur e i s per f ect l y capabl e
of pat hol ogy, whi ch i s cont ai ned gr os s l y i nt he
pai nf ul di f f i cul t y of choi ce. Choos i ng and s ymbol i zi ng ar e per f ect l y nat ur al -
weonl y pr et end t hat t hey ar eoppos ed
t o
nat ur e
becaus ewef or get t hat choos i ng
i s l i vi ng, s ymbol s ar e br eat hi ng, and nei t her choi cenor
s ymbol f l i cks onand of f
i n di mens i onl es s moment s of pur e r at i onal i t y and mor al i t y.
Nat ur e can deci de
i t s el f , but i t of t en does
s o
i n
pai nf ul and di f f i cul t ways , and a l ot of t hi s i s
l ocal i zed i nus . Bei nghumani s l i kebei ng
t ol d t hat t her es ul t depends onyoubut
f i e on you i f you t hi nk you knowwhat t he
pr oces s i s .
As pai nf ul , di f f i cul t , deci di ng
par t s of t heuni ver s e, weneed medi at i ons . For
t hi s r eas on, cr i t i cal t heor y s houl d
pay a gr eat deal mor e at t ent i on t o t he
s ymbol i c and t o t he pr es s ur es and
l i mi t s of t he s ymbol i c becaus e i t i s at t hi s
deep l evel t hat we act ual l y pl ay
out t he l i mi t s of nat ur e. We cr eat e t he
medi at i ons we need our s el ves ahd
we ar e r es pons i bl e f or t he qual i t y of t he
medi at i ons
wecr eat e. Or t o put i t anot her way, wear e al mos t ent i r el y s ymbol i c
i n our di f f er ence,
but t hi s i s a r es pons i bi l i t y r at her t han a t r ans cendence:
s ymbol s ar e
nat ur al bei ngs .
XI
Wes houl d not be over l y as hamed
of our f eebl e-mi ndednes s wi t h r egar d t o
t he Symbol i c, however . Cr i t i cal
t heor y cont i nues t o el abor at ei t s f ant as y wi t hout
i magi ni ng
t oo s er i ous l y t hat i t can ever br i ng t he Symbol i c t o heel . That i s
pr obabl y agood t hi ng, f or t heexci t i ng
al t er nat i vei s onl y ani l l us i on: t hei l l us i on
of Power , t he hal l uci nat i on of t he el i mi nat i on
of t he obj ect -al l i nt he nameof
POWERANDSEDUCTION
per sonal or col l ect i ve t r anscendence . Peopl e ar e l i abl e t o cal l
f or t he end of t he
obj ect
( whi ch mi ght be anot her per son) because as ever ybody knows i t i s so easy
f or us t o
pr oj ect t he unwant ed ont o t he obj ect . But not onl y can nat ur e not be
t r anscended, i t cannot
evenbe t r i cked. Obsessi onal cont r ol , par anoi dvi gi l ance,
schi zoi ddet achment , psychot i c
mi ser y -al l ar e r el at i vel y usel ess par al yses of
human f ant asy.
The badobj ect
has i t s pl ace; i t maybe t he l oser , but i t never ceases t o exi st as
a possi bi l i t y whi chmust be account ed
f or i n t he exi st ence of t he goodobj ect . If
pr ol onged, spl i t t i ng,
per haps t he most basi c f or m of cont r ol , dest r oys t he
medi at i ng power of
symbol i zat i on . Thi s i s whypot ent i al space cannot easi l y be
di vi ded up i n a wor t hwhi l e
way. The bad, af t er al l , i s ever y bi t as symbol i c as t he
good.
Not es
Mont r 6al
I .

Thi s i s asl i ght l y al t er ed
ver si onof a paper del i ver ed at t he CJ PST' s "1983Theor y Wor kshops"
Uni ver si t y of
Br i t i sh Col umbi a, Lear ned Soci et i es, J une, ' 1983.
2.

The t r end away f r omcl assi cal mechani st i c
at omi smi n psychoanal yt i c t heor y has been
devel opi ng i n Br i t ai n si nce t he 1930' s i n a
var i et y of qui t e di f f er ent ways whi ch have been
gr oupedt oget her under t he headi ng
"Obj ect -Rel at i ons Theor y. " Theobj ect -r el at i ons t heor i st s
i ncl ude, not abl y: Mel ani e Kl ei n, J oan Ri vi er e, and
HannaSegal ( al l of whomhave never been
abl e t o gi ve upt he i deaof a "deat h-i nst i nct ") ; W. R
. D. Fai r bai r n andHar r yGunt r i p( t heor et i cal l y
t he most coher ent gr oup) ; and D. W. Wi nni cot t and
Mar i on Mi l ner .
Thet er m"Obj ect -r el at i ons t heor y"
can
be
ext ended t o i ncl ude t he wor kof some Amer i can
psychoanal yst s, such as Edi t h J acobson andOt t o
Ker nber g, andmor e r emot el y, t he l at e Hei nz
Kohut . But t hi s i mpor t ant Amer i can wor k has
been hamper ed by cl i ngi ng t o dubi ous
or t hodoxi es such as "pr i mar y nar ci ssi sm" and "nar ci ssi st i c
l i bi do . "
Apr omi nent Canadi an member of t he Br i t i sh school
i s W. Cl i f f or d M. Scot t , i n Mont r eal .
It i s di f f i cul t t o summar i ze br i ef l y t he obj ect -r el at i ons
poi nt of vi ew. It i nvol ves a
cl i ni cal l y-i nspi r ed shi f t away f r omconcer nwi t h
i nst i nct ual devel opment andmanagement t o
an expl or at i on of t he emot i onal l ayer i ngs of emer gi ng ego-obj ect
st r uct ur es . Thepot ent i al ego
i s no l onger vi ewed as i nher ent l y t he "ser vant of t hr ee
mast er s" -t he somewhat schi zoi d
def ense cent r e of cl assi cal Fr eudi ant heor y. Ver y of t en, however , so
much of t he egoi s spl i t of f
or r epr esseddur i ng devel opment t hat adet ached, r eact i ve
sur f ace st r uct ur e i s al l t hat r emai ns
of t he out war dl y f unct i oni ng per sonal i t y.
( Some r ef l ect i ons on cr i t i cal t heor y f r oman obj ect -r el at i ons
poi nt of vi ewar e sket ched i n
t he Appendi x t o t hi s ar t i cl e. )
3.

Thef undament al anxi et y whi chunder l i es t hi s ever -col l apsi ng
di st i nct i on i s di scussedf r oma
psychoanal yt i c andecol ogi cal poi nt of vi ewby Har ol d
F. Sear l es i n TheNonhuman Envi r onment
( NewYor k: Int er nat i onal Uni ver si t i es Pr ess, 1960) .
4.

J ean Baudr i l l ar d,
L' echange symbol i que et l a mor t ( Par i s: Gal l i mar d, 1976) .
5. '

In Le
syst er i e des obj et s ( Par i s : Denoel -Gont hi er , 1968) and La soci &g de consommat i on ( Par i s :
Gal l i mar d, 1970) .
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
6.

"Compte Rendu de Mar shal l MacLuhan
( si c) : ' Under standi ng Medi a. The Extensi ons of
Man, "
L' Hommeet l a soci ete, no. 5 ( 1967) , p .
230.
7 .

For a Cr i ti que of thePol i ti cal
Economyof theSi gn, tr ans . and i ntr od. Char l es
Levi n( St . Loui s : Tel os
Pr ess, 1981) .
8.

Onecan see howthi s i s r ather l i ke anhi stor i ci zedr eadi ng
of Kant' s thi ng- i n- i tsel f pr obl em. For
i nter esti ng di scussi ons onthi s theme,
see, among other wor ks of Theodor W. Ador no: "The
Actual i tyof Phi l osophy, " Tel os. no. 31
( 1977) , p. 128; Negati ve Di al ecti cs, tr ans . E. B. Ashton ( New
Yor k : Seabur yPr ess, 1973) , Par t 1
11
;
and "Subj ect and Obj ect, " i n TheEssenti al Fr ankf ur t School
Reader , ed. and i ntr od.
Andr ew- Ar ato and Ei ke Gebhar dt ( NewYor k : Ur i zen
Books, 1978) ,
passi m
.
The deep i nner connecti on between thi s shor t- ci r cui ti ng
of soci al communi cati on and
the str uctur e of the commodi ty i s anal ysed
byBaudr i l l ar d i n For a Cr i ti que of the Pol i ti cal
Economyof the Si gn. Ch. 8.
10.

I amr ef er r i ng
to the f act that si nce L' echange symbol i queet l a mor t,
Baudr i l l ar d has made a
nonsense of cr i ti cal theor y as i t i s under stood bymost of i ts
pr acti ti oner s, especi al l y the
f ol l ower s of Haber mas .
11 .

For Baudr i l l ar d, the r i se of the
commodi ty coi nci des hi stor i cal l y wi th the passage f r om
symbol i c to semi ol ogi cal soci eti es . The r ecent
devel opment i s not the r i se of the si gn
( consumer i sm) , but the col l apse of the r ati onal i ty
of si gni f i cati on, whi ch has shi f ted the
pr obl emof the soci al obj ect awayf r omthe commodi ty
and onto si mul ated total i ti es .
12.

It shoul d bepoi nted out that thi s
ar gument by i tsel f does not commi t Baudr i l l ar d tor adi cal
i ndeter mi ni sm. On the contr ar y, hi s
ar gument seems to be, not that ther e i s no l onger any
r ef er enti al i tyi n neo- capi tal i st cul tur e,
but that ther e i s al together toomuch of i t : r ef er encei s
no l onger an act. i t i s somethi ng
r ecei ved i n combi nator y f or ms .

. ,
13.

See, f or exampl e, Theodor Ador noandMax Hor khei mer ,
Di al ecti cs of Enl i ghtenment, tr ans . J ohn
Cummi ng ( NewYor k : Seabur y Pr ess, 1969) , p. 158.
14.

See the ar ti cl e, "Beyond Use Val ue" i n For a Cr i ti que. of the Pol i ti cal Economy
of the Si gn.
15 .

See "Desi gn
and Envi r onment, " i n For a Cr i ti que; Lechange symbol i que et l a
mor t and al l
subsequent wor ks
byBaudr i l l ar d.
16.

See Lechange symbol i que et
l a mor t, wher e Baudr i l l ar d' s expr essi ons of utter despai r
at the
i nvol uti on of
post- moder n soci al l i f e can be r ead as br i l l i ant par odi c cr i ti ques of Der r i da,
Del euze, Bar thes, Foucaul t
and Kr i steva. Baudr i l l ar d' s Oubl i er Foucaul t ( Par i s : Edi ti ons
Gal i l ee,
1977) i s per haps the
best exampl e of hi s techni que of di l ati ng a mi meti c theor eti cal
descr i pti on l anguage
.
17 .

Kar l Mar x, Capi tal , l , tr ans
. Samuel Moor e and Ri char d Avel i ng, ed. , Fr eder i ck
Engel s ( New
Yor k: Inter nati onal
Publ i sher s, 1967) , p. 75 .
18.

Theodor Ador no,
"On
the
Feti sh- Char acter i n Musi c andtheRegr essi onof Li steni ng, " i nThe
Essenti al Fr ankf ur t School Reader , pp.
278- 279.
19 .

See anyedi ti onof the Communi st Mani f esto
Or Kar l Mar x, Gr undr i sse: Foundati ons of theCr i ti que of
Pol i ti cal Economy ( Rough Dr af t) , tr ans .
Mar ti n Ni col aus ( Har mondswor th: Pengui n, 1973) ,
passi m.

'
POWERAND
SEDUCTI ON
20. J ean
Baudr i l l ar d, La soci et e de consommat i on
( Par i s : Gal l i mar d, 1970) , passi m; and
"The
I deol ogi cal
Genesi s of Needs, " i n For a Cr i t i que.
21 .

"I amdr awi ng
at t ent i on t o t he par adoxi nvol ved i n t he use by
t he i nf ant of what I have cal l ed
t he t r ansi t i onal obj ect
. Mycont r i but i oni s t o askf or a
par adoxt o beaccept ed and t ol er at ed
and
r espect ed, and f or i t not t o be
r esol ved ( by) f l i ght t o spl i t - of f i nt el l ect ual
f unct i oni ng . . . " D. W.
Wi nni cot t , Pl ayi ng and
Real i t y ( Har mondswor t h: Pel i can, ,
1971) , p. xi i .
22.

Wi nni cot t , p. 118.
23.

"Once
r adi cal l y par t ed f r omt he obj ect , t he subj ect
r educes i t t o i t s ownmeasur e; t he
subj ect
swal l ows
t he obj ect , f or get t i ng howmuchi t i s anobj ect
i t sel f . " Theodor Ador no, "Subj ect
and
Obj ect , " The Essent i al Fr ankf ur t School
Reader , p. 499. Congeal ed f ant asi es of devour i ng
t he
ot her or of bei ng devour ed
by t he ot her ar e of cour se of t en di scover ed at t he r oot s of
per secur or y anxi et y and gui l t y t hi nki ng.
24
.

See
my "I nt r oduct i on t o Baudr i l l ar d" i n J ohn Feket e, ed
. , The St r uct ur al Al l egor y ( Mi nneapol i s :
Uni ver si t y of Mi nnesot a Pr ess, f or t hcomi ng) .
25.

Wi nni cot t , "The Use of anObj ect
and Rel at i ng t hr ough I dent i f i cat i ons, " i n Pl ayi ng and
Real i t y.
PP.
101- 111 . For t he Kl ei ni an poi nt of
vi ew, see Hanna Segal , ' Not es on Symbol - For mat i on, "
I nt er nat i onal
J our nal of Psychoanal ysi s, vol . 38 ( 1957) , pp. 391- 397 .
26.

These
r ef l ect i ons owe somet hi ng t o a mi dsummer ni ght ' s
conver sat i on wi t h J ohnFeket e on
Pr i nce Edwar d
I sl and .
rCs~
ii~~
DEMON
POLI TI CS
HOBBESAND/ORNORTH
:
THERHETORICOFAMERICAN
NATIONALSECURITY
Fr eder i ck M. Dol an
Thus Sat an, t al ki ng
t o hi s near est mat e,
Wi t hhead upl i f t above
t he wave
and
eyes
That spar kl i ng bl azed; hi s ot her
par t s besi des
Pr one on t he f l ood, ext ended l ong and l ar ge,
Lay f l oat i ng may a r ood, i n bul k as huge
As whomt he f abl es name of monst r ous si ze,
Ti t ani an or Ear t h- bor n, t hat war r ed onJ ove,
Br i ar eos or Typhon, whomt he den
By anci ent Tar sus hel d, or t hat sea- beast
Levi at han, whi chGod of al l hi s wor ks
Cr eat ed
hugest t hat swi mt he ocean- st r eam.
Hi m, hapl y sl umber i ng
on
t he
Nor way
f oam,
The pi l ot
of some
smal l
ni ght - f ounder ed ski f f
Deemi ng some i sl and, of t ,
as seamen
t el l ,
Wi t hf i xed anchor i n hi s scal y r i nd, .
Moor s by hi s si de under t he l ee, whi l e ni ght
Invest s t he sea, and wi shed
mor n del ays.
- Mi l t on, Par adi se
Lost ,
I
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Paradi seLost , compl et edl i t t l e more t han a decade af t er t hepubl i ca-
t i onof Thomas Hobbes' s Levi at han( 1651) , reassert s t hesea- beast ' s si nf ul
decept i veness. For Hobbes, t hedi ssol ut i onof t hemet aphysi cal underpi n-
ni ngs
of rul eby
di vi neri ght
occasi oned
t heconst ruct i onof an`Art i f i ci al )
Man. . . of great er st at ure and
st rengt h t han t he Nat ural l
. . .
.
" I
Al t hough t he breakupof t heanci en regi meappearedt o cast manout
of hi s Chri st i an, eschat ol ogi cal " paradi se" andi nt o aworl dberef t of sure
moori ngs, manmi ght bui l dal andi ng of hi s own, i f onl y heri dhi msel f
of
t heschol ast i c f ant asi es t hat kept hi mi gnorant of hi s powers as a God-
l i ke art i f i cer. Levi at hanperf orms t hi s
t ask
i n part
by
i roni cal l y i nvert i ng
t hest oryof Genesi s:
Eden, i n
Hobbes' s opt i c, i s
t heharshandunrul yst at e
of nat ure, of whi cht o becast out i s abl essi ng; and" t hat sea-
beast / Levi a-
t han, " cl assi csymbol of Sat an, becomesman' s t rueandonl y Savi or. I nMi l -
t on' s epi c, t heshi f t i ng, unrel i abl el evi at hani s mi st aken f or " somei sl and"
- l i t eral l yl and, or aground- t owhi chasai l or adri f t mi ght anchor hi m-
sel f , escapi ngt het urbul ent wi ndsandt he dangers of t heni ght . Man' s at -
t empt t o anchor hi msel f i n t he ground- i n mat t er, t hat i s, rat her t han
spi ri t - bi nds hi mi nt i mat el y, Mi l t onsuggest s, t o Sat an' s revol t agai nst God,
andso i nreal i t y t o aperpet ual de- anchori ng, apermanent meconnai s-
sanceof t heprof anef or t hesacred. Hobbesai ms t o showt hat t heSat ani c
revol t was wel l - consi dered, f or what manl ef t behi ndwhen
di smi ssed
f romparadi sewasnot hi ngot her t hanGod' s " nat ural " worl d( " Nat ure . . .
t heArt wherebyGodhat hmadeandgovernes t heWorl d" ( 81) ) , i n whi ch,
as
Hobbes t el l s us, man' s l i f e wasi n f act sol i t ary, poor, nast y, brut i sh, and
short . Thest at e- man' s art i f i ci al l y creat edground- i s t het rul y l i mi t l ess
power, great er,
pot ent i al l y, t han
God' s nat ure.
Thel evi at han- st at ecannot si mpl y repl acet heanchor of God, however,
because
Hobbes' s at t empt
t o
i nvent anewanchor andanewgroundre-
l i es upont hepri vi l egi ngof capaci t i es t hat are adri f t owi ngt o qual i t i es
i n-
herent i n t he ground- creat i ng, worl d - i nt erpret i ng bei ng, Hobbes' s
" nat ural " i ndi vi dual . Wi t ht hesamegest uret hat l i berat es man' s creat i vi t y,
Hobbes t akes i t backbyi nsi st i ngont ot al obedi encet o hi s sel f - creat ed st at e,
rei nvest i ngi nt henot i onof si nandt hebal ef ul consequences of
revol t -
not agai nst God, now, but agai nst t hest at e. Despi t et hei r chronol ogi cal
order, Levi at hanmi ght prof i t abl y bereadas aSat ani c backward
maski ng
of Paradi seLost - aki ndof bl ackmass i n whi cht he
puni shment f or di s-
obedi encei s bei ngcast out of t heparadi seof awel l - orderedsoci et y
and
i nt o God' s st at el ess, i ndeedhel l i sh, " Nat ure. " Wi t h t he groundi ngof
t he
onl y possi bl eparadi sei n t hedecept i vesea- beast of
humanart , t heground
i s no l onger aground.
Li keMi l t on' s Sat an, manwi t hhi s art i f i ci al l evi at han
has been
dri ven i nt o t hedeep, i nt o Ni et zsche' s " darkl y choppi ngsea" of
uncert ai nt y. 2 Seachanges i n t hi s groundl ess groundare t o be expect ed;
t hecovenant sout of whi chhumansoci et i es aremadewi l l respondt o
t he
DEMONPOLI TI CS
constant seducti ons of man' s own
natur e, or what Hobbes cal l s hi s "pas-
si ons. " Obedi enceto state author i ty emer ges as bothabsol utel y necessar y
andabsol utel y i mpossi bl e to guar antee: the ar ti f i cer that makes the l evi a-
than canal ways undo i t . Hobbes' s sol uti on
to
thi s pol i ti co- metaphysi cal
pr obl emi s an el abor ate and del i catel y
bal anced
networ k
of di sci pl i nes,
constr ai nts, andcontr ol s as thecondi ti on
of
man' s
"f r eedom" and"power
. "
Hobbesi anman, then, i s l i ke the
"doubl et empi r i co- tr anscendental " of
Mi chel Foucaul t' s Les
mots et l es choses: absol utel y sover ei gnandutter l y
di sci pl i ned. An
anal ogous "undeci dabi l i ty" i s centr al , I shal l suggest, to
the vocabul ar y of "contai nment, ", whi chhas domi natedAmer i candi scus-
si onof
f or ei gn
af f ai r s si nceWor l dWar Two. Al thoughsai d to beaLockean
soci ety devotedto maxi mi zi ngi ndi vi dual f r eedom, Amer i canpubl i c and
quasi - publ i c f i gur es havepr omul gatedadi scour se that taci tl y speci f i es the
condi ti ons under whi chtheUni tedStates must put asi dei ts Lockeancom-
mi tments. Ronal dReagan, Ol i ver L. Nor thandhi s cabal , andanonymous
Pentagonpl anner s havebui l t adi scur si ve br i dge l eadi ngbackbehi ndLocke
to
Hobbes. They
havedi scl osed- i n aHei degger i ansense- anAmer i ca
i n whi chLockeancategor i es
of thought andacti onar ei ndi scer ni bl e, but,
as weshal l see, they have
not
f i xed
thegr oundl ess gr oundthat haunts Hob-
bes' s pr oj ect . I nstead, they have
pushedto the
l i mi t
theAmer i cananxi ety
over our schi zophr eni c
coupl i ngof r adi cal f r eedomwi thsubj ecti onto na-
tur e, or what Nor thcal l s our "danger ous wor l d. " For what must str i ke any-
onewhof ol l owedthe debates sur r oundi ngtheI r an- contr a af f ai r was thei r
eni gmati c i ncoher ency. Watchi ngCongr ess' s passi onate def enseof thepub-
l i c' s
r i ght
to know, coupl edwi thcar ef ul avoi dance of anyl eads suggesti ng
i mpr oper acti ons
by the, Centr al I ntel l i gence Agency, i t was di f f i cul t not
to concl udethat most member s
of the' commi ttees i nvesti gati ngthe I r an-
contr a af f ai r
sensed that thei r wor l dno l onger r ef l ected, andcoul dnot
r ef l ect, the
theor yof consti tuti onal l y l i mi tedr epr esentati ve democr acythey
al l - too- hesi tantl y i nvoked. I t was
as
i f
ther hetor i c of democr acyi tsel f had
beenpl acedsous r atur e: thecommi tteemember s
coul d. not not speakof
democr acy, but nei ther coul dthey f ul l y convi ncethemsel ves
of
the
con-
tempor ar yr el evanceof democr ati c pr i nci pl es
. What haunts Amer i canow
i s apol i ti cal i denti ty cr i si s : Ar e we aLockean
or an Hobbesi an. soci ety?
2
Hobbes' s "natur al ",
subj ect of knowl edge andpower poses a cur i ous
(thoughf or the
postmoder n sensi bi l i ty, f ami l i ar ) di l emma: i t cangr ound
i tsel f onl y i n what i t
cr eates out of i ts ownr esour ces, yet thewor l dthat
i t ther eby di scl oses, i f i t i s
to
be
compel l i ng, must appear to i t as thedi s-
cover y of apr i vi l egednatur al obj ect, si gn, or ki nd.
To
be sur e, Hobbes' s
attempt at epi stemol ogi cal r ecover y cannot si mpl y
be assi mi l ated to
"Pl atoni sm. " For
Hobbes, whosemodel of i nqui r y der i ves f r omEucl i de-
an geometr y r ather thanPl atoni c
di al ecti c, "tr uth consi steth i n the r i ght
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
orderi ng
of
names"
( 105) andnot i n the di rect mi rrori ngof an uni nter-
preted real i ty. Thevery i deaof anuni nterpretedreal i ty i s, for Hobbes, a
l egacy of the "Vai nPhi l osophy, andFabul ous Tradi ti ons" that heattacks
i n Chapter 46of Levi athan. "Vai nPhi l osophy" teaches that fromastate-
ment suchas "Man
i s a
l i vi ng
body" wemust i nfer theexi stence of three
ontol ogi cal l y di sti nct essences: man, l i vi ng body, andbei ngi tsel f . Infact,
termssuchas "Enti ty, Essence, Essenti al l , Essenti al i ty" are "noNamesof
Thi ngs; but Si gnes, by whi chweemake known, that weeconcei ve the
Consequence of one name or Attri bute to another" ( 691) . Nonethel ess,
Hobbesi s very far fromputti ngal l di scourseonthesame l evel : the doc-
tri ne of separatedessences, for exampl e, i nvol ves taki ng l i teral l y what are
i n fact onl y "empty names, "
as opposedto Hobbes' s
nomi nal i smwhi ch
attendsscrupul ousl y to thenatureof l anguage. Maki nggoodthe Hobbe-
si an cri ti que of separatedessences depends upon consti tuti ng asubj ect
of knowl edge
who
can"remember what every nameheuses stands for, "
and
who
can "pl ace i t accordi ngl y" ( 105) ; i t depends, that i s, uponfi xed
defi ni ti ons andunambi guous di sti ncti ons purgedof fi gural l anguage. In
constructi ng hi s ri gorousl y unambi guousandl ogi cal l y consi stent system,
however, Hobbes rel i es upon the suppressed fi gural di mensi onof terms
that are cruci al to hi s di scussi on of manandsoci ety. Attenti on to Hob-
bes' s rhetori c -
i n
parti cul ar,
the
tropes wi th whi chheappears to mobi -
l i ze theauthori ty of nature to compel obedi ence to di scourse- reveal s
the shi fti ng ground of Hobbesi an pol i ti co- l i ngui sti c authori ty.
Asasubj ect of sci enti fi c knowl edgethat transcends that of the"School e-
men, " Hobbes' s natural man needs a l ong memory to support hi s
"Knowl edgeof Consequences. " Neverthel ess, asasubj ect capabl eof aban-
doni ngthe state of nature andenteri ngi nto pol i ti cal covenants, suchasub-
j ect must beabl e to rei nterpret pol i ti cal meani ngseffortl essl y. Thesubj ect
whosememory of nature i sl ongdemandsacorrespondi ngl y short pol i ti -
cal memory. Howcantheseepi stemol ogi cal fi gures be combi ned i n one
subj ect? Hobbes reconci l es thetwoby foundi ngknowl edge
on
what he
cal l s "fancy, " awordthat can
refer
bothto anaccurate mental
representa-
ti onof anexternal obj ect, andani nventi on, capri ce, del usi on, or fi cti onal
i mage. Asanambi guoussi gn, "fancy" performsessenti al functi ons
i n
Hob-
bes' ssci enceof pol i ti cs, despi te thel atter' s al l egeddependenceuponwords
"purgedfromambi gui ty. " Toavert thei mpotenceof "Insi gni fi cant Speech, "
thesubj ect must avoi dthe"Absurdi ty" of wordsseveredfrom
thei r "Defi -
ni ti ons" - thedark vocabul ary
of schol asti c fantasy
that, for Hobbes, has
affi ni ti es
to
i mmaturi ty
and madness.
Thi s
i s no mere
epi stemol ogi cal
probl em, for i t
i s
the regul ati on
of
the passi ons by thought, as refi ned,
i deal l y, i nto amethod, that enabl esi ndi vi dual s
to percei ve
thei r l ong- term
i nterest i n securi ty andthereforesacri fi cetheunl i mi tedexerci se of natur-
al ri ghts to the stabi l i ty of asoci al contract .
Consi der
fi rst
Hobbes' s evocati onof
the mechani cs
of
"Sense, " whi ch
i n turnexpl ai ntheori gi n of "Thoughts. " Thoughts, hewri tes, are "every
DEMONPOLI TI CS
oneaRepresentati onor Apparance. " Arepresentati ondesi gnates an" Ob-
j ect, . . . a bodywi thout us. " Therel ati on of thought toi ts obj ect, then,
i ni ti al l yappears as thecl assi cal epi stemol ogi cal puzzl econcerni ng thepos-
si bi l i tyof knowl edgeof theexternal worl d. Hobbes proposes, of course,
amechani cal sol uti on: themovement
of obj ects
i n
space
produces acor-
respondi ngmovement i nthesenses. The" causeof Sense, " Hobbes tel l s us,
i s theExternal l Body, or Obj ect, whi chpresseththeorganproper
toeachSense. . . whi chpressure, bythemedi ati on
of
Nerves, and
other stri ngs,
andmembranes of thebody, conti nued i nwards to
the
Brai n,
andHeart, causeththerearesi stance, or counter-pressure,
or endeavour of theheart, to del i ver i tsel f : whi chendeavour be-
causeOutward, seemeth
to
be
somematter
wi thout
.
And
thi s seem-
i ng, or f ancy, i s that whi chmencal l Sense( 85) .
Al though thi s theoryshows themethod bywhi chthesubj ect canhave
thoughts of the" bodywi thout, " i t cannot account f or thepossi bi l i ty of
ref l ecti onuponobj ects that arenot i mmedi atel ypresent tothesenses. I f
representati ons are caused by " pressure" onthesense organs f romthe
" bodywi thout, " howi s memorypossi bl e? Howcantheobj ect bepresent
i n the
i magi nati on
wheni t i s not exerti ng pressureonthesenses?
Hobbes' s answer i s that the" counter-pressure, " or themovement of the
sensoryorgan, reverberates f or someti me af ter the ori gi nal pressureof
theobj ect has ceased, thoughnot i ndef i ni tel y; thereverberati ongradual -
l y " decays. " Si ncethemovement of thesensoryorganoutl asts themove-
ment of theobj ect, wi thout, however, outl asti ng i t i ndef i ni tel y, aki nd of
thought not under thei mmedi ateswayof desi rebecomes possi bl e, name-
l y del i berati on
.
Themechani smof " decay" ensures that thesubj ect may
entertai n, i nthei magi nati on, a" f ancy" or " rel i que" of theobj ect' s i mpact,
thus establ i shi ng thepossi bi l i tyof knowl edgeof theconnecti ons between
past events and, theref ore, of i nstrumental acti onori ented towards thef u-
ture. 3 Thi s f oundati onhas beensecured, however, at thecost of consti tut-
i ng the knowl edgeof events as " f ancy. " Themental representati on
of
a
thi ng, a f ancy, canal so beani nventi onor capri ce, andas suchtends to
bl ur thedi sti ncti ons betweenthenames that Hobbes stri ves tokeepcare-
f ul l y" pl aced. " Thedepi cti onof knowl edgeof thepast as theremai ns of
anori gi nal l yf ul l ypresent ( but nowdecayi ng)
" f ancy" necessari l yrenders
knowl edgeopaque, vague, and ambi guous.
Thi s becomes cl earer i f weconsi der that f or Hobbes, themechani sm
of decayi s not onl ythedwi ndl i ngof sensorymoti ons set of f bythepres-
sureof anobj ect, but rather thei nterf erence
of
other
obj ects, nearer
i n
ti me, whi chobscure, muf f l e, and cover over theprevi ous movement. I f
f anci es di dnot decayandcoul d not bepushed asi debythepressureof
other
obj ects,
the
subj ect woul d, af ter al l , beconf i ned to a perpetual
present -or past . I roni cal l y, the
mechani smthat makespossi bl ethegrowth
of
knowl edge
i s aconti nuous l ayeri ng process that mi ght equal l ywel l be
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
sai d to
yi el d a l oss
of
knowl edge, as the apprehensi on of the "body
wi thout" i s compl i catedby a conti nual l y revi sed mass of
experi ence that
has
thestatus
of
anambi guous f ancy, capri ce, or i nventi on. Sucha vi ew
of experi ence i s cruci al , of course, to Hobbes' s vi si onof anuncondi ti oned
i nventi onof thepol i ti cal order:
the
subj ect of
pol i ti cal
acti on
must bef ree
of
past conti ngenci es andtradi ti onal val ues, vi ewi ngtheaccumul ati onof
knowl edge as rawmateri al f or creati ve mani pul ati on
. At the same ti me,
however, knowl edgeof the connecti ons betweenpast events i s
essenti al
to a sci enti f i c subj ect whoabandons schol asti c f antasy
i n f avor
of
exact
knowl edgeof causal rel ati ons. "Fancy" i s a termwhosedual meani ngs are
equal l y necessary to Hobbes' s deri vati on of
soverei gnpower.
Thecontradi ctory character of "decay" appears agai ni n Hobbes' s di s-
cussi onof howrati onal speechwards of f theerror threatened
by theun-
avoi dabl e
l ayeri ng
of
f ancyi nknowl edge. InHobbes' s genesi s of thenatural
i ndi vi dual ; a cruci al propertyof speechi s i ts capaci ty to of f set ' the
unrel i a-
bi l i ty and i nsubstanti al i ty of
ambi guous sensory phenomena. Thesi gns
of
l anguage, Hobbes says, attenuate or "del ay" the decay of si gns l ong
enough to enabl e these"rel i ques" of
external moti onto perf ormas the
obj ects of an
i ntel l i gi bl e di scourse
of
del i berati onandexpl anati on. Decay
cannot andmust not be el i mi nated, but thanks to ri ghtl y
orderedspeech
i t canbe postponed
l ongenough f or the accumul ati on of "Knowl edge
of Consequences, " or memory. Thi s stabl e l anguage of
consequences, i n
turn, provi des the f oundati on i n the natural i ndi vi dual f or those
ef f ects
of power speci f i c to Hobbes' s
"Arti f i ci al l Man": f or wi thout thi s f acul ty of
knowl edge, as
Hobbes puts i t, "there had been amongst men, nei ther
Common- weal th, nor Soci ety, nor Contract,
nor Peace, no more than
amongst Lyons, Bears, andWol ves" ( 100) . If , however, the del ay
af f orded
by l i ngui sti c si gns i s
the
mechani sm
that l ends stabi l i ty to a sel f - i nval i dati ng
sensory apparatus, Hobbesi anl anguage i tsel f rai ses, al bei t
i n
a
di f f erent
f orm, thevery di f f i cul ti es boundupi n theambi gui ti es of f ancy. For Hobbes,
thehori zonof cl ear and di sti nct i deas i s
popul atedby dream- l i ke vi si ons,
absurdi ty, gi ddi ness, andf i nal l y madness. Speech,
whi chenabl es memory
and the knowl edge of consequences, i s i n i tsel f no guarantee of
reason.
Hobbes' s vi vi d
exampl es
of
i ntel l ectual error are governed by the f i gure
of a subj ect whohas l ost control over speech,
trapped i n a meani ngl ess
showof
vai n i mages that are i ncapabl e of reachi ng the real worl d.
The
di scourseof
the"School e- men" aptl y symbol i zes thi s madspeechi nwhi ch
words are j uggl edf or purel y ornamental ef f ect
. Far f romhavi ngmastered
l anguage
to escape theuncertai ntyof f ancy, thesubj ect of
dogmati c f anta-
sy i s l i teral l y
di ssol ved i nto thesi gns of l anguage themsel ves, a
pl aythi ng
of di scourse rather thanan
agent whoorders the worl d by "settl i ng on
.
. . def i ni ti ons. " So radi cal l y i mpotent a subj ect, absorbed
not i nthestri ct
cal cul ati on of consequences but by the contempl ati onof
a di spl ay of
representati ons,
i s i n no respect the stuf f of the `Arti f i ci al l Man
. " .
DEMON
POLI TI CS
Theemergenceof aHobbesi ansubj ect of power i s l i nked tothei nven-
ti onof al anguage
"purgedfromambi gui ty, " but howdoes onemovefrom
theaestheti c pl ay of si gns to adi scourseof
empi ri cal
causes
andeffects,
whenthevery condi ti onof thought and representati oni s the
permanent
possi bi l i ty of decay, l ayeri ng, andsubsti tuti on? Hobbesdeal swi ththeam-
bi gui ti es that ari sehereby referri ngthemto other domai ns, vi athetextu-
al strategi es that J acques Derri da has i sol ated under the rubri c of
"suppl ementati on
. "'
Wehavenotedhowthegradual decay of sensory moti onestabl i shes both
thepossi bi l i ty of thought andthel ayeri ngover of i ts obj ect . Hobbes i n-
si sts that "Therei s no
concepti oni n aman' s mi nd, whi chhathnot fi rst,
total l y, or by parts, beenbegottenupontheorgans of Sense" ( 94)
. Mental
representati onsarederi vedfromthepressureof bodi es uponthesenses,
as wehaveseen, but si ncethel atter persi st as "rel i ques" and"fanci es, "
representati onscanbe
l i nked
together by the
mi ndi na vi rtual l y unl i mi t-
edvari etyof
combi nati ons. Anevent can
be
mental l y attached toany other
event, therefore becomi ngi magi nati vel y ti ed together; and, as Hobbes
notes, they canas easi l y beunti ed, di ssol ved, andrecombi ned. I f thi s ver-
ti gi nousopti oni s extended, i t "comes to passi nti me, " Hobbessays, "that
i nthei magi ni ngof anythi ng, therei s nocertai nty what weshal l i magi ne
next .
"5
Theterror of unregul atedthought i s arti cul ated throughi mages of
vari anceand eccentri ci ty: persons fri endl ess and al one, wi l l s empty of
desi re, di sharmoni ous, andcaught i nthe"wi l drangi ngof the
mi nd
. "
Thi s
"uncertai nty about what weshal l i magi nenext, " Hobbessays, i s del i ri um.
Sani ty, of course, consi sts i n experi enci ngoursel ves as enduri ngsubj ects
acti ngi n ti me. Si nce, onHobbes' s account, i t i s i n thenatureof human
bei ngs as speakers that del i ri umremai ns a constant possi bi l i ty - that
thought mi ght become"ungui ded, wi thout Desi gne, andi nconstant" -
somepri nci pl ei s requi red toestabl i shhowthesubj ect avoi ds fal l i ngprey
to theanarchi c pl ay of i magi nati on
.
Speech, whoseresources werei n-
troducedto correct theambi gui ti es of sense, i s nowi tsel f fel t to requi re
si mi l ar treatment .
"Passi on, " "desi re, anddesi gne" are thefi gures that Hobbes nowi n-
troduces to di sci pl i netheparal yzi ngchaosof memory, i magi nati on, and
fancy unl eashed by adi sorderl y l anguage. Desi re accompl i shes thi s task
by posi ti ngsomeai mfor thesubj ect, l endi ngdi recti on
to
theassoci ati ve
spontanei ty of thought by organi zi ngi t accordi ngto atel eol ogi cal move-
ment towards thereal worl dof consequences. "Thoughts, " whenordered
by desi res, becomeorgani zedas "Scouts, andSpi es, to rangeabroad, and
fi nd thewayto thethi ngs desi red. " Not onl y does desi resuppl y di recti on
and coherency to thei magi nati on, i t al soi ncreases thesenseof substan-
ti al i ty attached to i ts representati ons: "Thei mpressi onmadeby suchthi ngs
as weedesi re, " i n Hobbes' s pi thy phrase, "i s strongandpermanent" ( 95) .
Desi re andspeech
rei nforce
oneanother, prol ongi ngthel i fe of a gi ven
i mpressi ondespi tetheconstant i ntrusi onof freshexperi ence. Yet i nasense,
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Hobbes i s
expl oi t i ng st i l l
anot her meani ng of
t he
met aphor wi t hwhi ch
hebegan hi s geneal ogy of t henat ural i ndi vi dual : "f ancy" can mean not
onl y ament al represent at i on, but al so somet hi ngdesi redbyan i ndi vi du-
al . I n appeal i ng
t o
passi on
t o regul at e
t he
chaos of
senseand t hought ,
Hobbes i s rel yi ng upont hemul t i pl esi gni f i cat i ons of hi sori gi nal met aphor.
Desi real l owsf or t hecreat i on of aki nd of subj ect i veont ol ogy, si ngl i ng
out andi nvest i ng wi t hspeci al si gni f i cance apart i cul ar cl ass
of
i mpressi on.
More
i mport ant l y, i t
i s what provokes
t he
subj ect t o
makeconnect i onsbe-
t weent hedesi redobj ect andt heperf ormancesrequi red t oat t ai n i t , as wel l
as t ocol l ect i n memoryand recal l al l t heef f ect sassoci at ed wi t h suchob-
j ect s. At t hi s poi nt , t het erm"power" acqui res someconcret eness,
f or i t
i s by, proceedi ng backwardsi n t hechai nof meanst owardssome
desi red
end t hat onearri ves at a "begi nni ngwi t hi n our ownpower" ( 96) andcan
const ruct apract i cal
syl l ogi sm
rel evant
t o
t he
subj ect ' sact ual
si t uat i on. Wi t h
t hi s concept , Hobbes l i nks t hought and power by const i t ut i ng
t hought
as a t ool f or at t ai ni ng t he end desi redby a concret e, si t uat ed subj ect , as
opposed t o
f anci es di vorced f rompract i ce.
Yet Hobbes' svocabul aryof desi re, nol ess t han t hat of senseandspeech,
generat es mul t i pl e meani ngs whoseef f ect s must bet aken
i nt o account .
Asaregul at or of errant si gns, t hef i gureof desi re
we
have
j ust i sol at ed pl ays
a posi t i verol ei n Hobbes' s proj ect , bri ngi ng order t o t he"wi l d
rangi ng"
of t hemi ndand const i t ut i ng a necessary st ep i n t hegeneal ogyof asub-
j ect of power. Nevert hel ess, Levi at han of f ers adi f f erent pi ct ureof desi re,
emergi ng as Hobbes l ooks' morecl osel yat. t henat ureof t hepassi ons and
whi chagai nengendersambi gui t i esi t wasdesi gned t of orecl ose. Passi on
t oo, i t seems, cont ai ns i t s ownpri nci pl es of di sharmony and excess, so
t hat t hesamedi sabi l i t y - t hef ai l uret omast er adi scourseof causesand
ef f ect s- andt hesameprobl em- howcant hi s excessbel i mi t ed or regu-
l at ed? - emergeagai n. Thedi sci pl i neof i nst rument al t hi nki ngcanbe
up-
set by what Hobbes cal l s "t hemoreor l esseDesi re of
Power, " marki ng
passi on t oowi t h an i nconst ancyt hat onceagai ncul mi nat es i n madness:
For as t ohavenoDesi re, i s t o beDead: sot ohaveweak
Passi ons,
i s
Dul nesse; and
t o
havePassi onsi ndi f f erent l yf or everyt hi ng, GI D-
DI NESSE, andDi st ract i on; andt o havest ronger, and morevehe-
ment Passi ons
f or anyt hi ng, t hani s normal l y seen i n ot hers, i s t hat
whi chmencal l MADNESSE
( 139) .
Hobbescomesf ul l ci rcl eby
l i nki ng
t o
madnesst he"I nsi gni f i cant Speech"
of t he "School e- men, " who"speak such words, as put
t oget her, havei n
t hemnosi gni f i cat i on at al l " ( 146) . Thecat egoryof passi on,
whoseuni t y,
i t washoped, woul dt emper t heHobbesi anmi nd' s"wi l d
rangi ng, " emerges
as an ambi guousnewsourceof error.
Tot hedangerousent angl ement of desi reand
l anguage, Hobbesenvi sages
aradi cal sol ut i on: repl acet hecommonvocabul arywi t hone"purged
f rom
ambi gui t y" t hat al l ows t hededuct i on of compl expassi ons
f romsi mpl er,
DEMONPOLI TI CS
sel f - evi dent el ement s, as demanded byHobbes' s concept i on of sci ent i f i c
met hod. Wi t hpassi ondi sci pl i ned byan unambi guous l anguage - t hat i s,
wi t h. ani mpersonal met hod - t he subj ect can hope t o ward of f t he aes-
t het i c pul l of
f anci f ul represent at i ons, i nvent a t rue di scourse of causes,
and enj oyt he ef f ect s of power. The hazards of t hi s proj ect reach
t hei r
zeni t h, of course, i n Hobbes' s vi si on of a bodypol i t i c. An associ at i on of
acqui si t i ve i ndi vi dual s requi res a soverei gn power t hat cannever qui t e be
- guarant eed, because
t he f abri cat i on
of
t he `Art i f i ci al ) Man" rel i es upon an
"I nconst ancy" t hat persi st s
i n
haunt i ngi t . What i s
st ri ki ngabout t he st at e
of nat ure i s l ess t he f ear engendered byt he unrest rai ned exerci se of
' nat ur-
al ri ght s t han t he rel at i ve absence of l ogos. Li f e i s not onl y"sol i t ary, poore,
nast y,
brut i sh, andshort , " but al soi t i s uni nt el l i gi bl e: "I nsuchcondi t i on,
t here i s . . . noKnowl edge of t he f ace of t he Eart h; noaccount of Ti me;
noArt s; noLet t ers; noSoci et y" ( 186) . Theabsence of speechdi sci pl i ned
byl ogos means t hat i ndi vi dual s i n t he st at e of nat ure are "di ssoci at e( d) "
f romone anot her, so t hat t hei r act i ons are "governed" onl ybyt he
ant i -
l ogi c of t he passi ons . Thei ndi vi dual del i ri umt hat Hobbes f orecast s when
passi on
overcomes t hought re- emerges at t he l evel of col l ect i ve l i f e as t he
"war of eachagai nst al l . " The st at e of nat ure i s a
st at e
of
general i zed
"madnesse:
' 6
To overcome t hi s pandemi c madness, an undi vi ded soverei gn power
must coordi nat e t he anarchi c pl ay of desi re- cum- del i ri um. Even t hough
covenant s wi t hout t he swordare meani ngl ess, t hi s i s t o be accompl i shed
not onl ybyf orce of arms, but bysuppl yi ngt he l ogos t hat t he st at e of na-
t ure l acks: t he soverei gnpower di scharges i t s dut i es bypronounci ngl aws
t o regul at e andregi ment t he passi onat e pursui t of
i ndi vi dual i nt erest s. The
soverei gn power, as `J udge of what i s Commodi ous, or
I ncommodi ous
t o t he Common- weal t h, " must , as Hobbes put s i t ,
promul gat e `good
Lawes'
17
( 327 ) , i . e. , regul at i ons t hat ensure commodi ous l i vi ng. Whi l esub-
j ect s, t hen, have a dut yof "si mpl e obedi ence, " t he soverei gn' s dut i es are
more subt l e and demandi ng. The Hobbesi an soverei gn must t eachobe-
di ence, and l earn t he art s t hat Foucaul t st udi es under t he name of "di s-
ci pl i ne. "
Whi l e t he soverei gn' s i nj unct i ons ai mt o endowsoci et ywi t hcert ai nt y
andpredi ct abi l i t y, t he capaci t y of t he soverei gn power t o doso depends
i n t urn on i t s "const ancy. " The f i gure of t he soverei gn, however, opens
t he door t o t he same probl emof i nconst ancyt hat we sawi n t he del i ri um
of
passi ons and t he chaos of t he st at e
of
nat ure. I f t he soverei gn power
t akes t he
f orm
of an
assembl y, i t wi l l be t hreat ened, Hobbes f ears, bydi s-
agreement amongt hose whocompri se i t ( accordi ngl y, Hobbes advi ses
agai nst democracyandari st ocracy) .
Even when
vest ed
i n
an
i ndi vi dual ,
i nconst ancymayspri ngf romhuman nat ure, i . e. , f romt he passi ons : t he
soverei gnpower mi ght f ai l t operf ormi t s dut i es owi ngt o excessi ve t i mi di -
t yor arrogance. Thesoverei gni s, af t er al l , a "mort al god, "$ "compound-
ed of t he power of al l men"
( 227 ) ,
and t hus f ul l ysubj ect t o t he di al ect i c
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
of desi re and l anguage we have al ready adopted. Here agai n, the i nven-
ti onof ani mpersonal di scourse i s necessary to correct for thi s excess of
desi re, i n thi s case the knowl edge of howto governand be governed:
educati ngsubj ects to adhere to the prevai l i ng formof government ; to di s-
mi ss competi ngcl ai ms of authori ty, to obeyestabl i shed authori ty; to memo-
ri ze the duti es
of
ci ti zenshi p,
to
respect parental authori ty, tonurture the
habi ts of compl i ance, andtoadj ust thei r "desi gnes andi ntenti ons" to the
l aw
.
Knowl edgeof howto rul e i s anal l - embraci ngpedagogyof obedi ence
i n whi ch"thought" i s removed fromthe worl d of ai ry abstracti onand
concreti zed as amechani sm
of
pol i ti cal control .
The systemof concepts organi zed by the soverei gn' s l aws are subj ect,
however, toachaos of thei r own. The soverei gn, as we have noted, per-
forms i ts duti es "byageneral l Provi dence, . . . andi nthemaki ng, andex-
ecuti ng
of good
Lawes. . . , " but l aws may be mi sunderstood. The need
to i nterpret the soverei gn' s commands i s another source of i nconstancy,
threateni ng the commonweal th. Nei ther brevi ty nor verbosi ty are of, any
use:
Thewri ttenLaws, i f they be short, are easi l y mi s- i nterpreted, from
the di vers si gni fi cati ons of aword, or two: i f l ong, they be more
obscure by
the di vers
si gni fi cati ons of
many
words
( 322) .
By mul ti pl yi ngthe senses of atext, i nterpretati oncreates more probl ems
thani t resol ves:
For Commentari es are commonl y more subj ect to cavi l l , thanthe
Text ;
and
therefore need other Commentari es
;
and
so
therewi l l be
noend of such I nterpretati on ( 326) .
Mi sunderstandi ngthesoverei gn. canbe mi ti gated, f6r Hobbes, onl y by
i nsi sti ng
on
the "l i teral "
sense of
the l aw: "that, whi chthe Legi sl ator i n-
tended, shoul d by the l etter of the Lawbe si gni fi ed. "
Di sputes over the
scope andmeani ngof l aws, of course, are to be settl ed by the
soverei gn
power al one. More thanbrute force, however, l i es behi nd the soverei gn' s
authori ty over the meani ngof i ts words. I t i s not si mpl y the sheer power
of soverei gni ntenti on
that
adj udi cates di sputes over
i nterpretati on, but hi s
"perfect understandi ngof the fi nal l causes, for whi chtheLawwas
made"
( 322) . Thesoverei gn' s i ntenti on, obscured by the "di vers si gni fi cati ons"
of hi s words, canbe saved, once
more, ` onl y
by
apol i ti cal sci ence "purged
fromambi gui ty" andembodyi nga"perfect understandi ng. " The
probl em
of
i nterpreti ngthecommonweal th' s l aws, then, i s referredtosoverei gn
i n-
tenti onas thecontent of
thel aw, whi l ethe probl em
of
i nterpreti ngsover-
ei gn i ntenti oni s referred to the "l aws" of a newpol i ti cal
sci ence. The
mai nspri ngof theci vi l order remai ns as fragi l e as theever- threatened
l i ne
betweenpassi onanddel i ri um- nomore, fi nal l y, thana"Fi at, " as Hobbes
puts i t i nthe I ntroducti onto Levi athan
.
Levi at han
at t empt s
t o
est abl i sh anunambi guous pol i t i cal vocabul ar y on
t he basi s of f i gur es whose
mul t i pl e meani ngs necessar i l y t hwar t any such
pr oj ect . At each st age, t he hoped- f or
"const ancy" - pol i t i cal , psychol ogi -
cal , met aphysi cal - appear s
compr omi sed by t he r esour ces of t he f i gur es
i n whi chHobbes chooses t o st at e i t , andmust beguar ant eed by
suppl emen-
t ar y measur es . Pol i t i cal act i on i s concent r at ed as much
as possi bl e i nt o t he
sover ei gn' s l aw- maki ng dut i es ; l aw- maki ng, t o
ci r cumnavi gat e t hepassi ons,
must at t ai n t he st at us of asci ence; andf i nal l y, t he
i mper at i ve
of
guar ant ee-
i ng a "f el i ci t ous" spher e of i ndi vi dual act i on necessi t at es
a compr ehen-
si ve educat i on f or obedi ence.
Thi s r out e, however , mer el y r et ur ns us t o
t he passi ons, and t o Hobbes' s r ecogni t i on
t hat t he ar t i f i ci al i t y of covenant s
amongsel f - suf f i ci ent i ndi vi dual s r equi r es
t hat t hese be enf or ced by t he
swor d, by a power abl e t o
"keep t hemi n awe. "
That t he i ndi spensabl e uni t y of t he sover ei gn r est s on
a del i cat e weave,
easi l y unr avel ed, hel ps t o expl ai n Hobbes' s host i l e r eact i on t o
t he sugges-
t i on t hat t he sover ei gn be
subj ect
t o
t he l aw
.
Thi s i dea i s "r epugnant , " he
says, because
i t woul d l ead
t o
an i nf i ni t e chai n
of
equi vocat i on, "cont i nu-
al l y wi t hout end, t o t he Conf usi on, and Di ssol ut i on of t he Common-
weal t h"
( 367) .
Thi s pr oper l y Hobbesi an r epugnance t owar ds execut i ve
power bei ngsubj ect t o
l aw
i s
nowvoi ced wi t h i ncr easi ngshr i l l ness i n what
i s commonl y supposedt o be t he most
aut hent i cal l y Lockean pol i t i cal cul -
t ur e, t he Uni t ed St at es .
Amer i ca was pr omi ses .
DEMON
POLI TI CS
3
Ar chi bal d MacLei sh
Theconundr ums f ol l owi ng Hobbes' s demand t hat i ndi vi dual s make an
al most uncondi t i onal gr ant of aut hor i t y t o t he st at e appear l ess pr obl e-
mat i cal f or Locke, f or whomt he peopl e' s power i s hel d condi t i onal l y, on
t r ust . Hobbes' s unhol y coupl i ng of humanpower wi t h t he despot i c st at e,
wel i ke t o t hi nk, i s si mpl y an expr essi on of bour geoi s pessi mi smt hat mor e
r easonabl e t hi nker s, upon whomwe r el y f or our pol i t i cal i dent i t y, saw
t hr ough. But Lockean l i ber al i smencount er s i t s ownpr obl ems of undeci d-
abi l i t y. At t he cent er of bot h Hobbesi an and Lockean account s of
pol i t i cs,
of cour se, i s t he cont r act ,
t hepr omi se - t he i ndi vi dual ' s pr omi se not t o
usehi s unl i mi t ed nat ur al r i ght t o i nvade ot her s as
l ong
as
al l
ot her
i ndi vi du-
al s make t he
si mi l ar pr omi se
.
Accor di ngl y,
t he gr eat f ear of
cont r act ar i an
exper i ence i s t hat oneor mor e of t he par t i es t o t he cont r act mi ght make
a l yi ngpr omi se, a ci r cumst ance t hat pushes her meneut i cs cl ose t o t he
cent er of pol i t i cs :
now, pol i t i cal l i f e demands ways
of
di scer ni ng si ncer i t y,
and l i ber al i smdemands a pol i t i cal semi ot i c t hat can t abul at e t he r el i abl e
si gns of t he si ncer e pr omi se.
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
Preci sel y
t hi s ri ddl e of promi si ngandkeepi ngpromi ses, i nfact , was
en-
count ered earl y i nt hehi st ory of
semi ot i cs by Umbert oEco, whodefi ned
t hefi el d as "a
t heory of t hel i e. " Semi ot i cs, whi ch t reat s
"si gn- funct i ons"
abst ract ed away from
t hei r referent i al di mensi on, i s t hest udy of
what ever
canbeused t o depart fromt hereal . Eco' s
paradoxi cal defi ni t i on of adi s-
ci pl i ne
devot ed t o t el l i ng t he t rut h about l i es capt ures
t he charact er of
modern
pol i t i cal t heory as Hobbes sees i t . For Hobbes,
sheer humanar-
t i fi ce coul dfashi ona
si mul acrumof t he "nat ural " rul er, but
t he coopera-
t i onuponwhi ch t hi s art depended
rel i ed i n t urn onpromi ses t hat were
l i kel y t o be overwhel medby t hepassi ons.
Si nce promi ses are sot hi n, on-
t ol ogi cal l y speaki ng, t he necessary part ner of
consent i s st at e coerci on,
whi chat i t s
root s i s t hat whi ch moors us t o t he decept i ve
sea- beast , Levi a-
t han, t heonl y ground
for whi chwemay hope. Thi s di al ect i c of
consent
and coerci on was anal yzed
by Ni et zschei nhi s -earl y draft "On
Trut h and
Li es i naNonmoral Sense, " wherehe
emphasi zes t heconformi t y i mpl i ed
by
t he not i on of asoci al cont ract . '
I ndi vi dual s "by t hemsel ves, "
Ni et zsche wri t es,
wi l l i nt he ordi nary course of event s rel y onsubt erfuge,
camoufl age, and t he l i e for
survi val . Through "boredomand necessi t y, "
however, t hey mi ght
cont ract t o l i ve accordi ng t o cert ai n
rul es, i . e. ,
promi ses. The essence of t he
soci al cont ract i s t o. t el l t he t rut h,
but al so
t o
defi ne t rut h as t he conformi t y t o t he
convent i ons of t he group, t o "l i e
accordi ng
t o fi xed convent i ons. " Lat er, i nOn
t he Geneal ogyof Moral s and
el sewhere, Ni et zsche
det ai l ed t heforms of di sci pl i ne requi red
t o produce
acreat ure- t hemodern,
gui l t - ri ddeni ndi vi dual - wi t h amemory
capa-
bl e of
keepi ngpromi ses. - Li ke Hobbes, Ni et zsche
emphasi zes t he paradox
of t hepromi ser : t hel anguageof
commi t ment , st abi l i t y, andt rust most
l ends
i t sel f t o decept i onandruses.
Cont ract ari ansoci et i es, t herefore,
encourage
ambi val encet owards t hepromi se,
al t ernat el ygroundi ngi t i na
dangerous-
l y
unmanageabl e humanwi l l and i nanat ure t hat
canovercome t he haz-
ards of
t he former. The foundi ng document of
t he Ameri can pol i t y,
J efferson' s
Decl arat i on of I ndependence,
conforms t o t hi s pat t ern: i t
cel ebrat es
t he capaci t y of i ndi vi dual s act i ngwi t h
ot hers t o al t er, i nvent ,
andest abl i sh new
forms
of
pol i t i cal associ at i on, but i t i s careful t o
ground
t hese capaci t i es i n "t he
Laws
of
Nat ure" and "Nat ure' s God, "
consi st ent
wi t h at heory of t he
i ndi vi dual ' s nat ural ri ght t o be agai nst
and cont rol
nat ure. "
The most vi vi d recent expressi on of
l i beral anxi et y over t he
promi se
i s t he di scourse of Ronal d Reagan
. I ndeed, for Reaganour enemi es are
t hose
whocannot keept hei r promi ses.
Referri ngt o t he l eaders of t he Sovi et
Un-
i on, Reagan
cl ai ms t hat "t hey reserved t hese
ri ght s t o breakapromi se, t o
change t hei r ways, t o be
di shonest , and so fort h i f i t
furt hered t he cause
of soci al i sm. . . .
(P)romi ses are l i ke pi e crust s, made t o
bebroken"' 2 Ac-
cordi ngl y, Reagan' s
obj ect i ons t o t he Sandi ni st a
government i nNi caragua
cent er not ont he
government ' s humanri ght s
vi ol at i ons, but ont hecl ai m
t hat t he
Sandi ni st as brokeapromi se: t hey, Reaganal l eges,
"l i t eral l y made
DEMONPOLI TI CS
acontract" wi th theOrgani zati on of Ameri can States f or support i n return
f or "true democracy
. "' 3
I n such statements, the emphasi s i s l ess ontheab-
senceof true democracyi n Ni caraguathan ontheal l egedf act that theSan-
di ni stas broke a promi se - that i s, that they vi ol ated a pri nci pl e that i s
central to l egi ti mate government as we understandi t . At the same ti me,
thestate over whi chthi s Lockeanl i beral presi des rel i es overwhel mi ngl y
on what one of hi s operati ves cal l s "great decei t":
I thi nki t i s veryi mportant f or the Ameri can peopl e to understand
that thi s i s adangerous worl d; that wel i ve at ri sk andthat thi s na-
ti on i s at ri sk i na
dangerous worl d. Andthat theyought not to be
l edto bel i eve . . . that thi s nati oncannot or shoul dnot conduct covert
operati ons . Bythei r verynature covert operati ons or speci al oper-
ati ons are a
l i e. Therei s great decei t, decepti onpracti cedi n thecon-
duct of covert operati ons . They are at essence a l i e. "
For Lt . Col . Ol i ver North, i ts i s i mperati ve that Ameri cans understandthat
thi s nati on canandshoul dengage i n "great decei t, " eventhoughsuchac-
ti on vi ol ates thepri nci pl es of l egi ti mate government embodi edi n theU. S.
consti tuti on. The"dangerous worl d" i n whi chwe l i ve demands that we
resort
to
"covert
acti ons" or "speci al operati ons" that "are at essence a
l i e. " Thecovert acti on, however, has theepi stemol ogi cal andmoral status
of anobl el i e, f orceduponthel i beral democraci es bythe di f f i cul t choi ce
between "l i ves andl i es" andbythe f act that those, such as North, who
possess anesoteri c knowl edgeof thenature of thethreat to Ameri can f ree-
dom, arehamperedbyan unwi el dybureaucracy, ami si nf ormedCongress,
andan apatheti c publ i c.
' 5
Sti l l , North' s testi mony, taken byi tsel f , l eaves uncl ear the basi s upon
whi chtherepresentati ve of apol i tydedi cated
to open
contracts andseri -
ous promi ses cani nsteaddevote hi msel f
to
"great
. . . decepti on
. " A
com-
pl ete answer to thi s questi on woul drequi re astudy
of
the rhetori c
of
the
great documents of contai nment, suchas George Kennan' s "Mr. X" essay,
Nati onal Securi ty Counci l Memorandum#68, HenryKi ssi nger' s Nucl ear
Weapons andForei gn Pol i cy, andthe Pentagon Papers . Some i nsi ghts,
however, can be gai nedf romacl ose readi ng of one of those hundreds
of i gnoredgovernment pl anni ngdocuments : "Prospects f or Contai nment
of Ni caragua' s Communi st
Government, " datedMay1986 andi ssuedby
theU. S. Department of Def ense
. Readnot as aprosai c pl anni ngstudybut
as pol i ti cal al l egory, the Def ense
Department document bri dges thegap
between Lockeand
Hobbes,
showi ng
whythecharacter of our "danger- .
ous worl d" i s such that our pri nci pl es of l egi ti macy no l onger appl y. I t
provi des
the
theory that Northdi dnot expl i ci tl y pronounce, but upon
whi ch he acted.
"Contai nment" ref ers broadl yto thepostwar commi tment
of
the Uni t-
edStates to prevent thespreadof Communi sm. ' 6 I n the debate, however,
over howto accompl i shthi s goal , twocamps qui ckl yemerged. Thedocu-
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
ment' s ti tl e r ef er s to the debatebetween
pr oponents
of
"r ol l back" anda
l ess extr emevar i ant that becameknownsi mpl yas "contai nment . "
Inthi s
sense,
contai nment envi sagedapol i ti cal deal i n whi chthe Sovi et Uni on
andthe Uni tedStates enj oyedtaci tl y
r ecogni zedspher es of i nf l uence, and
i t assumedthat bothpar ti es wer e capabl eof honor i ngtr eati es,
i . e. , mak-
i ngcontr acts andkeepi ngpr omi ses. Pr oponents of r ol l back under stood
the Sovi et
Uni onas i ncapabl e of such behavi or - i n Reagan' s ter ms, i t
r eser ves the
r i ght
to l i e,
cheat, andsteal i n pur sui t of Communi st expan-
si on. Inaddi ti on, r ol l back, byi ts natur e, i nvol ves mi l i tar y
conf l i ct because
anadver sar ythat does not r ecogni zethesancti ty of contr acts cannot be
apar tyto apol i ti cal sol uti on. Inar gui ngthat
thepr ospects f or mer el ycon-
tai ni ngNi car agua' s communi st gover nment ar ebl eak,
thestudyi s ani m-
pl i ci t cal l f or a mi l i tar y sol uti on: r ol l back.
Thedocument
begi ns bynoti ngdi f f er ences of opi ni oni nCongr essover
U. S. pol i cy towar ds theSandi ni sta
r egi me, di f f er ences that cameto thef or e
af ter Reagan' s l ur i d speech i n
Mar ch
of
1986 about Ni car agua as a "saf e
haven"
f or ter r or i sts f r omar oundthewor l dcausedsome to cal l f or pol i ti -
-cal compr omi se
r ather than mi l i tar y conf l i ct :
The Pr esi dent' s r equest to
Congr ess on ai d to the Ni car aguan
Democr ati c Resi stance has l edto
anextensi vedebate i n Congr ess.
Ther e i s adi f f er ence of vi ews as to
howef f ecti ve anagr eement
woul dbe i n pr ovi di ng the needed secur i ty
f or Centr al Amer i ca.
Thedocument
begi ns, i nother wor ds, bystr essi ngthel i ber al , democr ati c,
context of U. S. pol i cymaki ng: the"di f f er enceof
vi ews" ; but i t subsequentl y
emphasi zes that despi te di f f er ences over pol i cy,
al l par ti es to the debate
agr eethat theSandi ni stas ar eathr eat to becombated, and
that whi l esome
i n Congr ess "mai ntai nthat agr eater
ef f or t shoul dbemadeto secur eapo-
l i ti cal agr eement whi chwoul dser veto
contai nCommuni smi nNi car agua, "
"Many. . . r ecal l thef ai l ur eof
pr evi ous tr eati es andagr eements wi th the
Communi sts: " "Pr ospects
f or Contai nment, " then, wi l l j ogtheshor t
pol i t-
i cal memor i es of
thosewho f or get that tr eati es wi th "the Communi sts"
ar e mer e scr aps of
paper.
Thi s i s accompl i shedi n asecti on
mi sl eadi ngl y enti tl ed "Hi stor i cal Per -
specti ve. " The
ti tl e i s mi sl eadi ngnot becausetheaccounts hi stor i cal l y
i n-
accur ate ( theyar e,
i n
f act,
gr otesquel yover si mpl i f i ed) , but becausethestudy
pur por ts to deal wi th U. S
. pol i cytowar ds Ni car agua, but not awor di s devot-
ed to r el ati ons
betweenthese two countr i es. Rather , "Hi stor i cal
Per spec-
ti ve" meansr evi ewi ng
si tuati ons i n whi chthe Uni ted States enter edi nto
pol i ti cal agr eements wi th "theCommuni sts, "
who, i n thever nacul ar of the
document, ar e a ki nd of J ungi an
ar chetype that ever ywher e andal ways
r emai ns the same. ( I can r ecal l
chi l dhoodmemor i es of TVnews br oad-
casts about the "Vi et Cong, "
whi chI di ml y i magi ned must be an ethni c
gr oupdi f f er ent f r omtheVi etnamesewe
wer edef endi ng. ) Si nce"theCom-
muni sts" ar eal ways
thesame, i t f ol l ows that thebehavi or of anyoneCom-
DEMONPOLI TI CS
muni st enti ty i s enti r el y pr edi ctabl e. I f the f ur ther assumpti onthat the San-
di ni stas ar e Communi sts i s al so made, nof ur ther i nqui r y i s necessar y i nto
the hi stor i cal pecul i ar i ti es
of U. S. - Ni car agua r el ati ons: Sandi ni sta pol i cy i s
deter mi ned
by thei r bei ng par t of "the Communi sts, " and not as
Ni car aguans.
The document then contai ns
di scussi ons onvi ol ati ons of tr eati es wi th
Communi sts enter edi ntoby the Uni ted States, whi chamount, of cour se,
to Communi sts' br eaki ng thei r pr omi ses, j ust as, accor di ngto Reagan, they
af f i r mthei r r i ght
to do.
I n
the case of Vi etnam, f or exampl e, Nor thVi et-
nam"begani l l egal
subver si ve oper ati ons i n SouthVi etnami mmedi atel y
af ter si gni ng the 1954GenevaAccor ds, " al though "Communi st mi l i tar y
vi o-
l ati ons of the GenevaAgr eement
beganto escal ate shar pl y onl y i nthel ate
1950' s; whenHanoi star ted to i nf i l tr ate ar medcadr es andsuppl i esi nto
Vi et-
nam. " The same i s tr ue, accor di ng to the document,
of
"communi st
bel -
l i ger ents" i nKor ea, other I ndochi nese countr i es, andCuba. Tr ue
to
f or m,
theNi car aguan Communi sts "l i ter al l y made a contr act, " i nReagan' s wor ds,
wi th the Or gani zati on of Amer i canStates
to establ i sh "tr ue democr acy, "
onl y to vi ol ate i t af ter assumi ng power. The
Communi sts, then, ar e boi
bar bar oi , a gr oupthat cannot
keep pr omi ses andhencei s not f i t to enter
i nto the sor t
of contr actual ar r angements f ami l i ar to Lockeanl i ber al s.
Not onl y doCommuni sts f ai l to keep pr omi ses, they acti vel y,
i ntenti on-
al l y uti l i ze the r hetor i c of pr omi si ng - l i kel y
per suasi ve f or l i ber al pol i -
ti es - to pur sue the expansi on
of Communi st power. As Reaganhas i t,
f or Communi sts pr omi ses ar e
made
i n
or der to be br oken. Equal l y al i en
to
l i ber al
sensi bi l i ti es i s the f act that the Communi sts pl anto br eak thei r
pr omi ses: the Ni car aguans "never i ntended tohonor the pl edge" they made
to the Or gani zati on of Amer i canStates, and the
Vi etnamese and Kor ean
Communi sts "wer e pl anni ng the i nf r i ngements evenas they
wer e negoti at-
i ng. " Themer e f act that the
Communi stspl ani s a mar k of thei r di f f er ence
f r omus. Str i ctl y speaki ng, a l i ber al pol i ty
cannot pl an; i t onl y cr eates a
f r amewor k of or der wi thi n whi ch
i ndi vi dual s contr act wi thone another
andthus deter mi ne thei r f ates. Pl anni ng i n
a l i ber al pol i ty i s possi bl e onl y
onani ndi vi dual , not
ona col l ecti ve, basi s. The Communi sts, wi th thei r
Fi ve Year Pl ans and
hi stor i cal i nevi tabi l i ti es, evenpl anto br eakpr omi ses.
TheCommuni sts, then,
pl anwi thnor egar d f or past pr omi ses, anduse
pr omi ses onl yas ar hetor i ca!
devi ce wi thwhi chto mani pul ate l i ber al pol -
i ti es. TheSandi ni stas,
ther ef c) r e, canbe expected to vi ol ate a Centr al Amer i -
canpeace tr eaty. The
questi ons then become: What woul d a Centr al
Amer i cantr eaty
cal l
f or ,
andwhat Sandi ni sta vi ol ati ons ar e l i kel y to oc-
cur ? The
key el ement of any suchtr eaty, the Pentagon emphasi zes, i s the
sti pul ati onthat the
gover nmentsof ther egi onr ef use toal l owf or ei gn
tr oops
or mi l i tar y advi sor s onthei r soi l , and r ef r ai n
f r omsuppor ti ng i nsur gen-
ci es i nnei ghbor i ngcountr i es. Thi s entai l s that Sovi et
andCubanadvi sor s
l eave Ni car agua, and that the Uni ted States di sconti nue i ts
suppor t
f or
El
Sal vador , Guatemal a, andHondur as
.
Onthe
theor y that the Communi sts
IDEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
pl an t o breakpromi ses, t herecanbeonl y one
reason f or t heSandi ni st as
t o agreet o such
anarrangement : t o i nducet heUni t ed St at es t o
wi t hdraw
f romt heregi onwhi l et hey secret l y pursuea
mi l i t ary bui l d- upt hat woul d
enabl et hemt o become
mast er of t heregi on. As t hePent agoni magi nes
i t :
TheNi caraguan
government woul dsi gn aCont adoraagreement . . .
t heNi caraguans woul dci rcumvent andvi ol at et heagreement
i n ord-
er t o mai nt ai n or i ncrease t hei r
mi l i t aryst rengt h andt o . . . support
. .
. Communi st
i nsurgenci es t hroughout Cent ral Ameri ca.
Ni caragua
woul d seek t o conceal i t s vi ol at i ons as l ong as
possi bl e. TheU. S.
and ot her
Cent ral Ameri can nat i ons woul d f ul l y abi de by
t he
agreement . . . .
Const rai nedbycont ract ari an
pri nci pl es, t heUni t ed St at es woul d
abi de
byi t s
promi ses whi l et heNi caraguans secret l y break
t hei rs, resul t i ngul t i -
mat el yi n t heCommuni st
conquest of Cent ral Ameri ca. What , under
t he
ci rcumst ances,
canal i beral pol i t y do? TheUni t ed
St at es coul dnot si mpl y
announcei t s ref usal t o abi debyat reat y support ed
by t hegovernment s
of
t heregi on. Yet t o abi debyt heagreement
whi l et heCommuni st s secret l y
subvert i t i s t o accept Communi st rul eover Cent ral
Ameri ca, i n t hel ong
run. Al t hough t hePent agonst ops
short
of
drawi ngt hi s consequence
ex-
pl i ci t l y, t herhet ori cal cont ext of t hedocument
encourages t heconcl usi on
t hat t heUni t ed St at es
must , l i ke t heCommuni st s, secret l yvi ol at e
t heagree-
ment bysupport i ngwhat i t cal l s t he
"Democrat i cResi st anceForces" ( t he
cont ras) ' covert l y wi t h t he
met hods devel oped by Nort h
. Faced wi t h an
ent i t y
i ncapabl eof part i ci pat i ngi n cont ract ari an
l i f e, t heUni t ed St at es has .
no choi ce but t o resort t o
"great decei t . "
Therhet ori cal st rat egyt hat Nort hadopt ed
i n hi s t est i monyt o t heCon-
gressi onal
commi t t ees i nvest i gat i ngt heIran- cont ra
af f ai r was t o present
, t hegreat decei t as
nat ural , real i st i c, andsel f - evi dent l y j ust i f i ed. Al t hough
t heU. S. Const i t ut i on grant s t he execut i ve
branch l i mi t edpowers i n f or-
ei gnaf f ai rs, Nort hspeaks
as i f i t weresel f - evi dent t hat t he
presi dent i s "i n
charge" of f orei gnpol i cy.
Congress neednot bei nf ormed of
government
act i oni nt hat area, accordi ngt o
Nort h, becauset hepresi dent i s account a-
bl edi rect l y t o
"t he peopl e. "" ' Nort h makes i t cl ear
t hat t hegreat decei t
i s not l i mi t edt o
t heCommuni st enemy, but i ncl udes
al l el ement s of t he
l i beral pol i t y ( e. g. , t hepress
andCongress) t hat t hreat ent he
i mpl ement a-
t i on. of t hecovert pol i cy: t hedecei t was
st agedi n part , accordi ngt o Nort h,
"t o
l i mi t t hepol i t i cal embarrassment . "
1s
Nort h assert s
t hat t o prevent po-
l i t i cal embarrassment ,
members of t heexecut i vebranchcan
dest royof f i -
ci al document s or f ai l t o
i nf ormCongress of current pol i cy
( "decei t by
omi ssi on")
. Al l of t hi s i s, by def i ni t i on, l egal ,
becausei t i s doneat t hebe-
hest of t he
"Commander- i n- Chi ef , " who, onceagai n,
act s i n t hei nt erest s
of t henat i onas a
whol eandnot i n t heparochi al i nt erest s
represent edi n
Congress.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
Thel ogi c of contai nment, as expressedbothi n North' s testi mony and
thePentagonstudy, speci f i es thecondi ti ons under whi chtheUni tedStates
moves f romLockeancommi tments of l i mi ted, open government to an
Hobbesi an state of near- total authori ty and detai l ed admi ni strati on of
ci ti zenshi p, f or what wereNorth' s sl i deshows - andi ndeedhi s testi mo-
ny- other thananexerci sei n "nurturi ng thehabi ts of compl i ance"? Yet
anaggi ngpol i ti co- epi stemol ogi cal questi onremai ns: I f statepol i cy must
besecret, howcani t berati f i ed bythepeopl e? Senator
Mi tchel l rai sedthi s
i ssuei n thecourseof hi s questi oni ngof North: "i f , bydef i ni ti on, covert
acti on i s secret and( thepresi dent) doesn' t tel l themabout i t, there' s no
waythe
Ameri can
peopl ecan
know
about
i t
to be
abl e
to
votehi mout
of of f i ce. . .
. "l 9
Covert acti on emerges as avul gar
Pl atoni smi n whi cha
systemof hi erarchi cal , Hobbesi anstateauthori tyi s maskedf or themul ti -
tudeby a di spl ay of i mages staged f or thepurposes of
rati f yi ng the
peo-
pl e' s sense
of
l i vi ngi naLockeansoci ety
of
maxi mumi ndi vi dual _f reedom
andgovernment ontrust . Thus, thei nescapabl edupl i ci ty of
North' s presen-
tati ons, emphasi zi ngSovi et desi gns onCentral Ameri cawhi l eat thesame
ti me
i mpl yi ngthat theUni ted
States was
doi ng
no more
f or
the
"Democrati c
Resi stance" thanal l owi ng themto di ef or thei r country. I npubl i c, North
of f eredarhetori c i n whi chtheci ti zenof al i beral pol i ty mi ght comf orta-
bl y dwel l , maki ng arguments i n f avor
of
aparti cul ar pol i cy; whi l epri vate-
l ycarryi ng out awar hi s "i ntel l i gence" tol dhi mwas necessarybut towards
whi chthepubl i c remai ned unsupporti ve.
Contai nment depi cts a "dangerous worl d" i nwhi chl i beral pri nci pl es
areput "at ri sk" to thepreci seextent that l i beral pol i ti es adhereto them.
Contai nment - i nbothi ts moderateandextremeversi ons - sees thepost-
modernpol i ti cal condi ti onas demandi ngpri vateHobbesi anacti on cou-
pl edwi thpubl i c Lockeanrhetori c. At thel i mi t, contai nment eventhreatens
to
di ssol vethedi f f erencebetween
publ i c and
pri vate
upon
whi chl i beral -
i smthri ves. Many
of
North' s
associ ates, suchas
Ri chardV
Secordand
Al -
bert
Haki m,
werepri vatei ndi vi dual s i mpl ementi ng statepol i cy,
whi ch
resortedto pri vate
f undi ng
andoperati ves becausewhat i t wantedto do
was i l l egal . Thei mpl osi onof thepri vatei nto thepubl i c enabl edal l to cl ai m
al ackof responsi bi l i ty: government of f i ci al s coul dsaythat no appropri at-
ed f unds weregoi ng to support thecontras, even thoughthepol i cy of
support was workedout i n theWhi teHouse; whi l eci ti zens, vi ol ati ng the
l awat thebehest of theexecuti vebranch, coul dsay they weredoi ngso
as patri ots comi ng to theai d of thei r presi dent . Perhaps North, Secord,
Haki m, andeven Reaganarenei ther pri vatenor publ i c f i gures, but anun-
deci dabl e, postmodern amal gamati on of theseterms, f i gures capabl eof
si mul ati ng thepubl i c andthepri vate accordi ng to necessi ty. I n acom-
pl ementaryway, contai nment gi ves us anewAmeri canstatethat i s nei ther
Lockeannor Hobbesi an, but bothi n thesensethat i t i s commi ttedto stag-
i ng
i tsel f i nei ther modeaccordi ng to thedemands of statepower
. I n
the
l ast anal ysi s,
theI ran- contra
af f ai r ( l i ketheaf f ai r of GaryHart, whi chcon-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
densedsi mi l ar conf usi ons over thedi f f er encebetweenpubl i c andpr i vate)
i s but a symptomof anAmer i cani denti ty cr i si s
-
a cr i si s, pr eci sel y, of
i denti ty: ther epr essedHobbesi ani denti tyof f r eedomandcontr ol
.
Notes
Depar tment of Rhetor i c
Uni ver si tyof Cal i f or ni a
Sever al i ndi vi dual s r eadandr espondedtoear l i er ver si ons of thi s essay. I woul dl i k e i npar -
ti cul ar to ack nowl edge the gener ous comments, cr i ti ci sms, andl eads suppl i edby: Phi l i p
Kuber sk i ; the f acul tyandgr aduate students of theDepar tment of Rhetor i c, Uni ver si tyof
Cal i f or ni a, Ber k el ey; andtwoanonymousr eader sf or theCanadi anJ our nal of Pol i ti cal and
Soci al Theor y
1 .

Thomas Hobbes, Levi athan, ed. C. B. Macpher son( Har mondswor th, Mi ddl esex, En-
gl and
:
Pengui n
Book s, 1 985) , p. 81
.
Fur ther quotati ons f r omthi s text
wi l l
be
par en-
theti cal l yr ef er encedi n the mai nbodyof theessay.
2 .

Fr i edr i ch Ni etzsche, "OnTr uth andLi es i n a
Nonmor al
Sense, "
i n Phi l osophyand
D-uth: Sel ecti ons
Fr omNi etzsche' sNotebook sof the
Ear l y
1 870' s, tr ans.
anded. Dani el
Br eazeal e, ( NewJ er sey: Humani ti es Pr ess,
1 979) .
3.

Hobbes' s useof "r el i que" to r ef er to sensor yexper i encemaybei nnovati ve. Thewor d
nor mal l yr ef er s to thephysi cal obj ects of asai nt, andmor egener al l ytothephysi cal
tok ensof apast ci vi l i zati on, pr acti ce, or exper i ence. Accor di ng to theOxf or dEngl i sh
Di cti onar y, however , i ts r ef er enceseems tohavebeenr estr i cted to exter nal physi cal
or mater i al obj ects. Bynami ng i deasandsensor yexper i ences as "r el i ques" ( tr aces,
r emnants, r esi due) of past moti on, Hobbes extends thewor d' s r angeand
i r oni cal l y
har nessesi ts honor i f i c connotati ons to hi s pr oj ect . J ust as ar el i c pr ovi desal i nk wi th
vener ated per sons or pr acti ces, andi s consi der edespeci al l yval uabl e owi ngto the
connecti oni t establ i shes betweenaphysi cal , tempor al enti tyandaspi r i tual one, the
depi cti onof senseas ar el i c of actual movement pr ovi des a f i r montol ogi cal f ounda-
ti onf or the"seemi ngs" of thei magi nati on, al l owi ngHobbestocombi nei nonef i gur e
thel aws of mechani cs andthe pr eser vati on of thesacr ed.
4.

SeeJ acquesDer r i da, Of Gr ammatol ogytr ans. Gayatr i Spi vak ,
( Bal ti mor e: TheJ ohns
Hopk i ns Uni ver si tyPr ess, 1 976) , p. 1 50f f
.
5.

I bi d.
Hobbes notes that thecour se
of
appar entl yundi sci pl i ned "f anci es" i nthei m-
agi nati oni s i n f act deter mi ned by the or i gi nal successi on "madei n theSense. "
6.

I t mi ght beobj ected that thi s char acter i zati on over states theabsenceof a l ogos i n
thestate of natur e, wi thout whi chi t i s di f f i cul t to i magi nehowi ts i nhabi tants coul d
ever contr act tomak eover thei r r i ghts to a sover ei gnpower. Ontheother hand, the
tr ansi ti onf r omthestateof natur etopol i ti cal soci etyhas al ways pr esented
pr obl ems
f or contr actar i ans, whohavegener al l ytak entheposi ti onthat
thei dea
of
anor i gi nal
contr act does not descr i be anhi stor i cal event at al l
.
7.

Emphasi s added.
8.

Thomas Hobbes, Engl i sh Wor k s, ed. Si r Wi l l i amMol eswor th, ( London:
Bohn,
1 839-1 845) ,
vol . 6, p. 251 . Emphasi s added.
9.

Umber toEco, ATheor yof Semi oti cs,
( Bl oomi ngton: I ndi anaUni ver si tyPr ess, 1 976) ,
pp.
6-7.
10.

Ni etzsche, Secti on 1. See al so On the Geneal ogyof
Moral s, trans. Wal ter Kaufmann
andR. J . Hol l i ngdal e, (NewYork: Vi ntage
Books, 1967) , SecondEssay, Secti ons 5, 19,
et passi m.
11.

' ADecl arati onbythe Representati ves of
theUni tedStates of Ameri ca, i nGeneral Con-
gress Assembl ed, " i n ThomasJ efferson
: Wri ti ngs, (NewYork: TheLi braryof Ameri -
ca, 1984) , p. 19.
12.

Ronal dReagan, speech of J anuary20, 1983, quoted
i nReagan' s Rei gnof Error, ed.
Mark GreenandGai l MacCol l , (New
York: Pantheon Books, 1987) , p. 41.
13.

Ronal dReagan, speech of J ul y, 1983, quotedi n Roy
Gutman, `Ameri ca' s Di pl omati c
Charade; ' Forei gnPol i cy, Fal l 1984. For adi scussi onof the
substanceof Reagan' s cl ai ms,
seethe
aboveessayandNoamChomsky, "Ni caragua; ' TheChomsky
Reader, ed. J ames
Peck,
(NewYork: Pantheon Books, 1987) , p. 352.
14.

Lt . Col .
Ol i ver L. North, quotedi n Taki ngtheStand: TheTesti monyof Lt . Col
. Ol i ver
L. North, (New
York: Pocket Books, 1987) , p. 12.
15 .

For documentati onof North' s vi ews, see the secti onenti tl ed "Reasons
for the
De-
cepti on" i ntheReport of theCongressi onal Commi ttees
I nvesti gati ngtheI ran-Contra
Affai r, (Washi ngton, D. C. : Government Pri nti ngOffi ce, 1987) , p. 150,
et passi m.
16.

Pri marydocumentsrel ati ngtothecontai nment
androl l backdoctri nes canbefound
i n Contai nment, ed. Thomas Etzol dandJ ohn
Lewi s Gaddi s, (NewYork: Col umbi a
Uni versi ty Press, 1978) .
17.

On the si gni fi cance, i n thi s context, of the
presi dent' s di rect accountabi l i ty to the
peopl e, see Shel donS. Wol i n, "Democracyand
the Wel fare State: ThePol i ti cal and
Theoreti cal Connecti ons BetweenStaatsrason and
Wohl fahrtsstaatsrason; " Pol i ti
cal Theory, Vol . 15, No. 4 (November 1987) .
Wol i nargues that Locke' s defense of
"Prerogati ve, " or "thepower to act . . .
for the Publ i ckgood, wi thout theprescri p-
ti on of Law, andsometi mes even
agai nst i t, " provi des the means wherebyLockean
pol i ti cal l eaders can "i nheri t
the same ri ght of Reason of State to summonthe ful l
power of soci ety,
but nowi t i s not for si mpl edefenseor domi nati onbut for thegood
of
al l " (p. 488) . The resul t i s that the overwhel mi ng needto control
di sorder that
i s characteri sti c of thestateof naturei s i mportedi ntodomesti c soci etyi n
the
person
of
theexecuti ve. Thebri dgebetweenLockeandHobbes, i n Wol i n' s readi ng, i s
provi ded
byLockehi msel f.
18.

Taki ngthe Stand, p.
525.
19.

I bi d. , pp. 674-680.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
THEDARKNIGHT
OF
THELIBERAL
SPIRIT
ANDTHEDAWN
OF
THE
SAVAGE
Mi chael A. Wi nst ei n
I proposet o undert akeacri t i que of cont emporaryAmeri can l i beral i sm,
speci f i cal l y what i s commonl y cal l ed " neo- l i beral i sm, " f romt he f ounda-
t i on of aphenomenol ogi cal ref l ect i on on modern consci ousness . Li beral -
i sm, as apol i t i cal f ormul a f or sel f - consci ousl y organi zi ng soci et y, i s f at ef ul l y
boundt o t he cont i nuance of t he modern underst andi ng of l i f e andcan-
not survi ve t he f ai l ure t o i nst ant i at e t hat underst andi ng i nt o consci ousness,
t o makei t t he very const i t ut i on of consci ousness. Thecurrent t al k about
apost modern hi st ori cal peri od appears, t heref ore, t o be an admi ssi on
t hat
l i beral i smi s at hi ng of t hepast : Yet t he very t erm" post modern" i s empt y
of anyposi t i ve cont ent , subsi st i ng t ensel y t o si gni f y a cravi ng
f or
i t s
own
t ransmut at i on i nt o
somet hi ng f undament al l y new, af resh descri pt i on of
t he st ruct ure
of
l i f e t hat woul d carry wi t h i t a t ransf i gured pol i t i cs . There
i s al so a
radi cal uncert ai nt y i n t he post modern mi nd, a suspi ci on t hat t here
i s no
t ransf ormat i on
on
t he hori zon, t hat consci ousness i s i ncarcerat ed
i n t he cat egori es of moderni t y andmust f ace t he real i zat i on t hat t he hu-
man sel f has at l ast become f ul l y l uci d t o i t sel f , t hat nowi s t he t i me t o
l earn t o l i ve wi t hi n a f i nal sel f - underst andi ng andnot t o escape i nt o new
vi si ons . Taken t oget her t he cravi ng f or radi cal novel t y and t he
naggi ng
doubt t hat i t i s a genui ne possi bi l i t y makepost moderni smanot her i nst ance
of avant - gardemoderni sm, perhaps t he l ast
one, t he f i nal modern i rony.
Post moderni smi s t he modern ref l ect i on on t he l oss of
dynami smi n
moderni t y, i t s sel f - cl osure, andt he
i nabi l i t y t o get beyond i t : post modern
consci ousness bounds t he boundl ess, but t he " dynami c i nsi ght " of con-
t i nuous change,
as
Karl Mannhei m
cal l ed
i t , has
been i next ri cabl y associ at ed
DEMONPOLI TI CS
wi thmoderni ty. Thus, postmodern
consci ousness i s thepuredi al ecti cal
negati onof modernconsci ousness, l ockedi nanembrace
wi thi t, decree-
i ng that i t must assent to
j ust what i t i s most unwi l l i ng to hol dcl oseto
i tsel f , i ts ownbei ngas a stati c f orm. Postmoderni ty
i s themost acutei n-
stanceof
the"unhappy consci ousness, " anemptycravi ng f or l i berati on,
f or theunl i mi ted, crashi ngagai nst thesuccess of sel f - determi nati on
.
Po-
l i ti cal l y, i t i s decomposedor
deconstructedl i beral i sm, a spasmodi chope
f or progress unhi ngedf roml i f e by a corrosi ve, nostal gi c doubt.
Postmoderni smi s themost recent of
the"wai ti ng phi l osophi es" that
havecharacteri zedtwenti eth- centuryWesterncul ture, themost prof ound
of whi chi s Marti nHei degger' s ef f ort to open
hi msel f to thevoi ceof Be-
i ng, undertakenwi thi nan"i nterregnum. " I shal l i ni ti ate a phenomenol og-
i cal ref l ecti ononmodernconsci ousnessby
questi oni ngwai ti ngphi l osophy,
whi ch
i s
consti tutedbythepurei ntenti onal i ty of a recepti vestrai ntowards
that whi chdoes not appear andtheappearance of that whi chi s hel d
i n
doubt . The
i ntenti onal i ty i tsel f cannot becri ti ci zed oni ts ownterms: i t
i s a possi bl estructureof consci ousness that i s not sel f - contradi ctory; that
i s, onecanf ormone' s bei ng- i n- the- worl daccordi ngto
uncertai nexpecta-
ti on. Thus, a cri ti cal approachto theunhappyconsci ousnessof postmoder-
ni ty
wi l l have
to
proceedby treati ng i t as a symptomof anact of evadi ng
amore
pri maryi ntenti onal i ty, as a f ormof neuroti c compromi sebetween
aj udgment of thetruthabout personal exi stenceanda
wi shthat thej udg-
ment was f al se. Thel i f e of uncertai nexpectati oni s a f ormof di ssoci ated
exi stence
i nwhi chonecarri es out al l dai l yacti vi ti es accordi ngto there-
qui rements of soci al f uncti on andl egal f i cti on, whi l eexperi enci ng
these
acti vi ti es as detachedf romanyuni f yi ngsi gni f i cance. Thesenseof i mpor-
tancei s f ul l ytranscendental i zedi ntotheexperi enceof wai ti ng- theround
of l i f e becomes reducedto ki l l i ngti me, whereas i nwardness i s
i ntensi f i ed
i nto a restl ess tensi onanddi s- tensi on, accordi ng to the vi ci ssi tudes of
doubt. Sucha consci ousness
wrenches i tsel f i nto a groundl ess hopef ul -
ness throughnostal gi a f or a l ost uni ty, transl ati ng
depri vati oni ntocravi ng
f or novel ty. I t i s thebreakdownproduct of therel i gi ous wi l l , thehi stori -
ci zedwi sh
f or
sal vati ondi vestedof
i ts
obj ect
andevenof anysymbol i za-
ti onof aquesti onabl eobj ect . Thewai ti ngatti tude i s basedon
thej udgment
that i t i s better to hol donto therel i gi ous i ntenti onal i ty thani t i s to be-
comecoi nci dent
wi thl i f e, veri f yi ng Max Weber' s observati onthat the
modernl i f e that they hadcreatedf or themsel ves was toomuchf or hu-
manbei ngs tobear. Postmodernconsci ousnessi s theverythi nnest, al most
transparent
vei l thrownover the modern understandi ng of l i f e, a ni sus
towards thebeyondsuperaddedto f i ni te
mundani tyand, theref ore, the
most austereof themoderncul tural neuroses. As thepure
wi shf or a trans-
f ormati onthat i s hel dto bequesti onabl e or even, more
purel y, i mpossi -
bl e, i t di scl oses i ts other, i ts di al ecti cal reci procal , wi thout anynecessi ty
of
i nterpretati on. That other, detachedf romthevacantl ystrai ni ngexpec-
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t at i on, but
al ways j uxt aposedt o
i t ,
i s t heformed cont ent of modern l i fe
i t sel f.
Modern consci ousness maybe graspedmost general l yt hrought heact
bywhi cht he sel f sei zes i t sel f fromwi t hi n i n a decl arat i on- deed; t hat i s,
t hesel f act ual i zes i t s own bei ngt hrougha decl arat i on. Myparadi gmhere
i s t heCart esi an cogi t o t hroughwhi cht hesel f i s real i zedpart i al l y as a"t hi nk-
i ng subst ance" t hough not yet as a compl et e l i fe. I ndeed, t he phenome-
nol ogy of t hemodernmi ndi s a remorsel ess, uncompromi si ngprocess of
enri chi ngandi nt ensi fyi ng t he i nward cent er of i ndi vi duat ed l i fe unt i l i t
reaches t hel i mi t of i t s empi re, andmust t henei t her t ry desperat el yt o t ran-
scendi t sel f or l earn t o l i ve wi t hi n t he boundari es t hat i t has madel uci d
t o i t sel f
. The
hi st ori cal moment s of modern consci ousness are
fami l i ar.
Fromt he Cart esi an st art i ng poi nt of t he t hi nki ng ego onepasses t o t he
sel f- l egi sl at i ngwi l l of Kant andfi nal l y t o Ni et zsche' s passi onat e andperson-
at ed
fl esh,
best capt uredby Unamuno' sdesi gnat i on, "t he
man
of
fl eshand
bone, who i s born, suffers, anddi es. " Oneof t he great i roni es of
post -
modern consci ousness i s t hat i t recreat es t he Cart esi an st art i ng poi nt
t hroughan i nversi on. WhenDescart es, frust rat ed i n hi seffort s t o di scover
cert ai nknowl edget hat woul d
enabl e
hi m"t o wal k wi t hconfi dence i n t hi s
l i fe, " fi nal l y was i mpel l edt o make hi msel f t heobj ect of i nquest , hesei zed
at hi nki ngego fromwhi chno l i nkages coul dbemadet o hi s dai l y l i fe. I n-
deed, hi s onl y connect i on t o t heot her- t han- sel f was t ranscendent al , was
t o t he i dea of perfect i on. Lacki nga bri dge t o mundani t y, he devi sed a
"provi si onal moral i t y" t hat enj oi nedhi mt o l i ve wi t hgoodwi l l accordi ng
t o t he usages of . t hose around hi m. For Descart es t here was hope t hat
genui neandsat i sfact ory connect i ons woul dbemadet o t heworl dt hrough
rat i onal i nvest i gat i on, so hi s was apat i ent wai t i ng. Nowwi t ht hemodern
cl osed i n upon i t sel f t he wai t i ng ret urns, onl y i t i s desperat e andi mpa-
t i ent . Therei s t he same det achment of l i fe fromspi ri t , but i t i s not t he
pregnant suspensi on fi l l edwi t hexpect at i on of t heunfol di ngof a newage;
i t i s bi t t er nost al gi a ungi rdl edfromperfect i on, cravi ngfor mi racl e: t hecogi -
t o
hasbecomet hepour soi , t hought has becomet hemani pul at i onof si gns,
andonl y t hebarest i nt eri ori t y remai ns at t hevery margi n. Thi s i nt eri ori t y
i s necessary t o express t he j udgment t hat i nt eri ori t y i s a usel ess passi on
or, i n a fl i ght
of
badfai t h, a wordfunct i oni ngt o l egi t i mat e raci al , pat ri ar-
chal , capi t al i st i c, or, most radi cal l y, l i ngui st i c domi nat i on.
Theburnout of moderni t yi s t hescorchi ngof t hedesi re t o l i ve as a fi ni t e .
i ndi vi dual . What
came
bet ween
Descart es
andt hepost modernswas a dar-
i nggrowi ng- i nt o l i fe: Descart es neededaway i nt o
l i fe
;
t hepost moderns
crave for awayout . Themai nst reamof
moderni t y want ed l i fe andfol -
l owedGoet he' s di ct um
:
"Become
who
youare. "
Thesel f- cl osure
of
moder-
ni t y i s t he success of
t hi s great
pedagogi cal
proj ect : a compl et e
sel f- underst andi ng t hrought hei nwardl y graspedsel f i s nowavai l abl e t o
anyonewhoi s
st rong
enought o t ol erat e
i t , and, as i n t hecaseof anyfoun-
dat i on, i t i s
al l
t oo
si mpl e
t o express,
al l
t oo obvi ousl y
t rue
t o
t hose who
DEMONPOLI TI CS
graspi t , andal l t oodi f f i cul t t o bear. WhenI grasp
mysel f f romwi t hi n, now,
as t he t went i et hcent ury moves t o i t s cl ose, wi t hal l t he modern
sel f -
di scoveri es suf f usedt hroughmy
bei ng, I
sei ze
mysel f concret el y as con-
sci ous
f l esh, as a sensi bl e, desi ri ng, andsel f - i nt erpret i ng body. And
t hat
i s t hemodernt rut h, t heendof t hesearchf or t heres
vera, t heri chl y- l aden
t rut h, beari ng t he purest pl easure andt he most agoni zi ng hat redwi t hi n
i t ; t hat al l I canassent t o
pri mordi al l y i s anut t er surd, af ai l ure by i t s own
requi rement s, yet t he very pl eni t ude of bei ngi t sel f andt he generat or of
al l of t hei nt erpret at i ve proj ect i ons t hat t ake i t awayf romi t sel f
- rest l ess,
consci ous
f l esh. Yes, I acknowl edget hat I sprangf romawomb. But I f eel
t he t ensi ons of myorgans dest royi ngme andI f eel t he
pl easures t hat are
f ul l er t han
anyi deas
of
perf ect i on. Myi mmanencei s i mmedi at e, myt ran-
si t i vi t y phant asmi c . I cannot begrat ef ul f or bei ngborn, nor canI
f eel , any
obl i gat i ont o t hat
whi chsust ai ns me, becausemyexi st ence i s agreat t ease:
l i f e i s t oo marvel ous t o surrender
and
t oo
horri bl e t o af f i rm.
For Dost oevsky, l i vi ng i n t he peri odbet weent he
Kant i anmoment of
moral
wi l l
and
t hepresent hori zon
of
carnal consci ousness - t he t ransi -
t i onal moment of t he arbi t rary, i rrat i onal , and, f or
hi m,
spi t ef ul
wi l l -
everyt hi ngwas possi bl e becausenot hi ngwas f orbi dden. NowDost oevsky' s
consci ousness has spl i t i n t wo. Those whoare woundedby
t he absence
of
prescri pt i onyearnf or a neworder. Those whol i ve i nt he pl eni t ude
of possi bi l i t y knowt hat not hi ngi s necessary - t hey have no
obl i gat i on,
onl y adef aul t dri ve, t hebodyl i vi ngt hem. Andhere i s t hecurset hat pl agues
and
haunt s l i beral i sm- t herest l ess monkeywhoi s reveal edt hrought he
i nsi st ent demyst i f i cat i onandconcret i zat i onof l i f e, whohasf i nal l y demyst i -
f i edsoci et ysuf f i ci ent l y t o obj ect i f yi t as anaspect of t henat ural envi ron-
ment , asi mpl e opport uni t y st ruct ure. Eachi ndi vi dual i n t he West t oday
l i ves i n consci ous or unconsci ous t ensi onwi t ht he
f i nal i t y
of
t he f i ni t e
f l esh, acknowl edgi ngor suppressi ngt he enormous i dea t hat everyt hi ng
about l i f e' s conduct i s a
mat t er
of
st rat egy andt hat not hi ngi s amat t er of
dut y. I ndeed, anexami nedl i f e i s sodi f f i cul t t o l i ve t hat i t i s
t empt ed, nay,
compel l ed, t o t el l i t sel f t hat t herearenomoral rest rai nt s oni t becauset he
great t ease i s adi rt yt ri ck - i ndi vi duat edl i f e i s al osi ngproposi t i on, but
i t i s t he onl y game i n t own. Who can swal l ow t he
deromant i ci zed
Ni et zsche? Whocanacknowl edge t hemsel ves t o be t he savage, t he t rue
savage whoi s t hesecret of moderni t y; not t henobl esavage, but t heci vi l
savage, t he onewhoknows ci vi l i zat i onas anani mal knows i t s ecol ogi cal
ni che, as awi l derness? Thi s i s t hewi l dcardof l i beral soci et yandi t i s deal t
t o every hand. But whodoes not t ry t o domest i cat e i t by convert i ng i t
t o
aregul ar member of t he deck? Andi ndoi ngso l i beral soci et y i s made
t o suf f er i t s deat hagony. But i t i s ani nt ermi nabl e deat h. Theci vi l savage,
t hef rui t of moderni t y, t hemast erl ess mandi sposi ngof hi s est at e, hi sbody,
dwel l s
wi t hacrowdt hat hascommi t t edi t sel f t o t hehospi cecal l edl i beral
soci et y. Woul dt hat i t wereahal f - way house, but hospi ce
i t must be f or
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
the l egi ons who
cannot
l i ve
wi th the f i ni te eschatol ogy of the modern
process.
Li beral i smcannot tol erate theNi etzschi anf ul f i l l ment of moderni ty, the
appearance of adi s- bandedapewhoreturns
to
hi s wi ts af ter al ong romance
wi threason. Andthi s apecannot tol erate hi msel f , unl ess gi f tedwi thmas-
si ve i nf usi ons of Hume' s "moral senti ment, " theemoti onal l i thi umf or di s-
pel l i ngauti sm. But moral senti ment has never been i n suf f i ci ent suppl y
to sustai naci vi l i zati on andtoday even l ess
so
than ever wi th the di sap-
pearance of i ts tradi ti onal supports i n customarycommuni ty. The f amous
"cakeof custom" of Wal ter Bagehot has onceandf or al l beenbroken be-
yondrepai r andmi l dcases of schi zophreni aare i ncreasi ng at af aster rate
than are cases of
AIDS
.
Li beral i sm' s
i mmunesystem, thesenseof
duty, has
brokendown, di vi di ngsoci etyi nto twol i f e- f orms, predators andparasi tes,
bothof whi chsymptomi ze ani ntol erancef or thel i vi ng moderntruth, the
ci vi l savage,
and
f romthat i ntol erancef al l
i nto a
chroni c demoral i zati on.
Thepredators are thosewhoare f ortunatetobe i n asoci al posi ti on
i n whi ch
they canexpl oi t thel ess f avored, so they decl arethei r i ndependence f rom
any obl i gati on to serve others. Yet they are poi sonedby gui l t andmust
perf ormthedi sgusti ng andunedi f yi ng ri te of j usti f yi ng themsel ves: Ivan
Boeskyponti f i cated, "You can be greedy ' andsti l l f eel goodabout your-
sel f , "
and
the crowd
of students at UCLAcheered.
Theparasi tes are the
unf ortunates who
areever
remi ndedof
thei r
dependence on
others and
seek, theref ore, to makeeveryone servants. Theymewl about
communi ty
or snarl about al ternati ve l i f e- styl es, but thei r ai mi s to pl ace everyone
i n
thei r posi ti on of soci al f ai l ure, whi chi s whythei r i ntel l ectual advocates
scream
that theego
i s
al i ngui sti c f i cti on. Cal cul ati ngandconsumi ngegos
versus l i ngui sti c f i cti ons i s what the f ashi onabl e Ni etzsche/ Marx debate
comes downtoonthestreet- l evel of academi a, theconventi on
f l oor. Li ber-
al i smhas i mpl odedandtwoi l l i beral i sms have beensuckedi nto thevoi d,
the ol danarcho- capi tal i smstrutti ng i n the bl ack mask of Ni etzsche and
the even stal er J acobi ni smparadi ng under the redf l ag of Marx. Andsi t-
ti ngonthe i mperi al throne of theWest as 1986ends i s thepredator- parasi te,
Ronal dReagan, thel ogi cal successor of the parasi te- predators, Hi tl er, Sta-
l i n, Mussol i ni et al .
Modernl i f e has devel opedbeyondl i beral i sm, beyondi ts ownsoci al sup-
port systemof i nsti tuti ons, andconf ronts radi cal humanweakness, whi ch
i s expressedas thespeci ous i ndependence of thedependent expl oi ter and
theresentf ul dependence of theanxi ous expl oi ted: i t i nscri bes the f ul f i l l -
ment of
themaster- sl ave di al ecti c wi thout thesavi ng graceof theservant' s
sel f - overcomi ng. The l i f e
of
strength, whi chi s thedemandof anoverri pe
moderni ty, i s basedon the si mpl e acknowl edgment of i rremedi abl e
hu-
manf rai l ty
and
f ai l ure
wi thout
any
superadded
compensati on. Fromthere
onemakes
do,
creati ng the soci al bondout of senti ment andsensi bi l i ty,
whether i t
i s a
morepri maryeroti c f eel i ngor amoreref l ecti ve sympathy.
Strength i s assent to weakness f ol l owedby
the
determi nati onto
hang
on
tenaci ousl y and,
perhaps, to f i nd andcul ti vate theEpi cureangarden,
not
behi nd
wal l s but i n the streets. Andstreet l i f e has become
ubi qui tous, i f
onl y i n the
bi zarre si mul acrumof vi deo. The modernromancehas come
f ul l ci rcl e, returni ng to
the ground of al l ci vi l i zati on, to the
recogni ti on
of thei nsuf f i ci ency of the f l esh, but wi thout
any symbol i c escape f rom
i t andpromi si ngonl y the di sturbi ng tubes and swi tches of
thei ntensi ve-
care uni t . And
everywhere thesi gns i ntrude and i ndi cate that human
be-
i ngs cannot tol erate such an
exi stence. Peopl e cl utch andcl aweach other,
seek compl eti on i n theother, anef f ort doomed to
f ai l ure becausei n the
other theyconf ront themsel ves, thoughthi s i s theone
thi ngthat they wi l l
not admi t .
Thi s i s not the war of al l agai nst al l but the ramshackl e
pl ay-
roomof the
bourgeoi s man- chi l d, Di sneyl and af ter the ri des have rusted
out andtheparents have gone home.
Moderni ty
i s
the deconstructi on of
ci vi l i zati on i tsel f , demysti f yi ng thesymbol s of transcendenceand
l eavi ng
onl y the ref l ecti on of humanf al l i bi l i ty andal l of the desperate
attempts
to
avoi d owni ng up to i t .
I t i s f ar moreaccurate tocal l thepresent era postl i beral thanpostmodern
.
For the
great l i beral s, such as Hobhouse, Dewey, Croce, and
Ortega, the
statement woul d
beacontradi cti oni n terms, becausei n thei r ti me moder-
ni tyhadnot yet
deconstructedi tsel f , hadnot f oundi ts basi s i nthei ndi vi du-
ated f l esh whi chi s resi stant to andunassi mi l abl e by
any i nsti tuti on. The
hi gh poi nt of
l i beral i smwas reachedat thesecondgreat
moment
of
moder-
ni ty, that of
the Kanti anmoral wi l l . Bef ore the turnof theni neteenth
cen-
tury l i beral i smhad
been a counterpoi nt to absol uti sm, but l acked
a
f oundati on f or organi zi ngsoci al l i f e,
openi ngrestri cted spheres of autono-
mous acti vi ty suchas commerci al
enterpri se, sci enti f i c i nvesti gati on, and
secul ar art . Under the si gn of the
Cartesi an
ego,
the modern spi ri t f i l l ed
i tsel f out i n eachspeci al area of l i f e, but had no
themati c organi zati on of
i ts ownsave the passi veref l ecti on ontotal i ty through
ref l ecti ve thought
- rati onal i st metaphysi cs andempi ri ci st epi stemol ogy.
Thenotori ousspl i t
i n Locke' s thought betweenanempi ri ci st theory of
knowl edgeandavol un-
tari sti c pol i ti cal phi l osophy epi tomi zes the
adol escence of l i beral i sm, an
i nci pi ent i deal f or soci al l i f e not yet i nteri ori zed by the sel f as
essenti al
to i tsel f . Kant undertookThat i nteri ori zati on by maki ngthewi l l
i ntri nsi c
to
thesel f , determi ni ngi t moral l y. Kant l i berated the wi l l f rom
rel i gi ous
mysti f i cati on,
thereby removi ngthetradi ti onal supports f or soci al
rel ati ons,
suchas,
EdmundBurke' s "pl easi ngi l l usi ons", andl eavi ngas thei r di sti l l ed
essence
apri nci pl eof conduct, knownas thecategori cal i mperati ve,
whi ch
he
bel i evedto be i nherent to humanthought . Suddenl ytheCartesi anego,
was
transf ormedi nto amoral sel f , capabl e of consti tuti ngsoci ety out of
i ts ownresources, at l east
i n pri nci pl e. At thi s poi nt, l i beral i smencounters
i ts
sustai ni ng truce, i ts pri nci pl e of sel f - organi zati on, whi chi s reveal edto
be
an i deal : l i beral soci ety i s consti tutedby the proj ect of
uni versal i zi ng
themoral wi l l , that i s, of creati ng avol untary
sol i dari ty
of
humanbei ngs
based, most prof oundl y, onpracti cal assent tothei mperati ve to treat
others
DEMONPOLI TI CS
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
as ends- i n- themsel ves,
never as means onl y; thus i t i s the moral i zati on of
pol i ti cs .
Vi ewedhi stori cal l y, the fai l ure of l i beral i smi s the fai l ure of the duty to
sustai n modernsoci ety. At theroot of theKanti an
revol uti on i s
the
bol d
dare
to
l i ve wi th
others i n a di sposi ti onof forbearance, to sacri fi ce thepur-
sui t
of
obj ects
of one' s owni ncl i nati ons whenthat pursui t woul ddepri ve
others of thei r freedomtocreate a l i fe. Kant, i n thedawnof thedemocrat-
i c age, di dnot bel i evethat themoral wi l l actual l y coul dconsti tute a soci al
order. He di scoursed about a rati onal bei ng, not
a manof
fl esh
andbone,
andwas cl ear about the di sti ncti on, affi rmi ng
most of theearl y- modern
real i smabout thenecessi tyof external threat andpuni shment for di sci pl i n-
i ng hi s concrete i ndi vi dual , the "unsoci abl e soci al bei ng. " Hi s real i sm,
however, hadnoi nward foundati on andwas merel y themi rror i mage
of
Locke' s vol untari sm- the counterpoi nt had
become themel ody.
I n the
generati ons succeedi ng Kant, l i beral s werel eft wi ththe task of showi ng
howsoci etywas, coul dbe, or i nevi tabl y woul dbeconsti tutedon theba-
si s of vol untarysol i dari ty. Hegel ' s noti on of vol untary sol i dari ty as a sel f-
consci ous affi rmati on of rati onal necessi ty, Sti rner' s procl amati on of the
uni on of egoi sts, andMarx' s subl i mepri nci pl e "fromeach accordi ng to
hi s abi l i ti es, to each accordi ng to hi s needs" are thegreat expressi ons of
thel i beral i deal . Andal l
of
them
founder ontherock of the end- i n- i tsel f,
whi chi s progressi vel yreveal ed
to be
the
"i l l - construed
organi sm"
of
Al fred
North
Whi tehead.
As i n the case of every di al ecti cal process, the negati on of the l i beral
moment began al most si mul taneousl y wi th i ts affi rmati on. Ki erkegaard,
wi th a desperatenostal gi a, chal l enged thefundamental i tyof themoral
wi l l ,
j ust as Pascal hadearl i er attacked theCartesi anego, becausei t di dnot ex-
press the cl ai ms of hi s i nwardness for a sati sfacti on unavai l abl e i n mun-
dani ty. But even more fateful was Schopenhauer' s procl amati on of the
i nsati abl eandever- frustrated wi l l to l i ve, soastutel yunderstoodbyGeorg
Si mmel to be the resul t of the fi rst pure refl ecti on of l i fe uponi tsel f, the
moment at whi chl i fe i tsel f becomes ful l y i ts ownobj ect . Thi s i s the ap-
pearance of the wi l d card i n moderni ty, of i ts deconstructi ng el ement,
whi chrenders- anypri nci pl eof soci al organi zati on gratui tous bybri ngi ng
to l uci di ty that whi chcannever be soci al i zed, but whi chcanonl ybesup-
pressed
or
repressedi n the i nterest of commonl i fe, i f i t i s not sel f- l i mi ted
i nanact
of
compassi onatehumi l i ty. Moderni tynowbegi ns to outrunl i ber-
al i sm, to bl ast i ts synthesi s of wi l l andmoral i ty, therati onal bei ngas ci ti zen. .
, I t i s onl y a short run
fromSchopenhauer through Dostoevsky' s "under-
ground
man, " whowi l l not be a pi anokeyfor others to pl ay uponand
whoasserts wi th futi l i ty the "freedomto be free, " to Ni etzsche' s menda-
ci ous
ani mal whowi l l not
face
thetruth
of
hi s consti tuti ve i mperfecti on
and
ends
up
avoi di ng i t bythespi ri tual surgeryof the"l ast man, " thebl i nk-
i ngconsumer. ThroughNi etzsche' s condui t streams themoderni st under-
standi ng of theconsci ous fl esh - Freud' s
mordant i nsi ght that theconfl i ct
r
DEMONPOLI TI CS
of
Eros andThanatos i s resol vedf or
the i ndi vi dual throughthewi l l to
di e
at one' s ownproper bi ol ogi cal
ti me; Sartre' s gaspof the usel ess
passi on,
so
chi l l i ngthat i t transmutes i nto the
purest l i beral ressenti ment, the ter-
rori sti c
decree that "nonei s f ree unti l al l aref ree, "
i nverts vol untarysol i dar-
i ty, thegri maci ngmaskof
i ntol erance; andf i nal l y, the
phi l osophy of the
nursery, the current f asci nati on
wi th the Ni etzsche of the
devol uti onary
di al ecti c of camel , l i on, andchi l d. Li beral i sm
was apassi ngphaseof
moder-
ni ty, i ts
youngadul thood, andnot i ts permanent
structure, ahopeandnever
af ul f i l l ment, as much
aromanti ci sm, amysti f i cati on, as
the total i tari an-
i sms i t destroyedand
the chi l i asms that have overwhel med
i t, especi al l y
theul ti mate chi l i asmof theoverman
as bi oni c man. Li beral i sm' i s burned
out because the crawl i ng f l esh does
not
aspi re
to be amoral bei ng,
the
l i beral
substi tute f or thei mmortal soul . I t has (passed
that wi shby i n) f a-
voredbi ol ogi cal
romanti ci sm. Nazi smwas not an
enormous aberrati on,
nor was
i t therevel ati onof thedepthof "man' s
i nhumani ty to man, " nor
thecul mi nati onof
moderni ty, capi tal i sm, German
i deal i sm, the modern
state system, or
desacral i zati on, but merel y ani nstance of
l i f e ref l ecti ng
uponi tsel f
wi th i ntol erance, wi thhatred. I t i s theprecursor of
thesubsti -
tuti on of tubes and
swi tches f or the f l esh, of the l aboratory
f or l i f e.
Pri or to theFrench
Revol uti on, l i beral i smwas al eaveni ng
agency i nab-
sol uti st i nsti tuti ons . Now, i nthe
Ni etzschi anmoment, i t i s atromped
bel l
coveri ng techno- bureaucrati c organi zati on
. Duri ngi ts ownti me, l i beral -
i smf ought
to concreti ze the moral uni versal .
I ndeed, the i nsti tuti ons of
l i beral
democracymaybeunderstoodas neuroti c
compromi sef ormati ons
betweenthe i deal of
vol untary sol i dari ty andthe predatory and
parasi ti -
cal wi l l s. Suchi s apost- Freudi an
i nterpretati onof consti tuti onal i sm,
bi l l s
of ri ghts, . representati ve
government, checks andbal ances, separati on
of
powers, rul e of l aw, l oyal opposi ti on,
competi ti ve partysystems,
andal l
of
theother devi ces of l i beral pol i ti cal mechani cs -
al l of whi chareneu-
roses synthesi zi ngtheKanti ansuper- egoand
theol dAdam. Of course, they
are
not as suchf or l i beral s, whocl utchthemas
earnests onthef ul f i l l ment
of
the i deal , as hard- wonvi ctori es i nthestruggl e
f or l i berty that warrant
appreci ati onand
grati tude, andthat shoul di nci te to f reshef f orts at
ref orm.
Whether or not one-
i s al i beral depends, i nthe terms I am
usi nghere, on
howoneval ues these
i nsti tuti onal devi ces andthewhol e
proj ect of spi n-
ni ngout medi ati ons
betweenmoral i ty andorgani zed
predatory- parasi ti cal
l ust . Amedi ati onbetween
conf l i cti ngi ntenti onal i ti es becomes neuroti c
whenthewi shes that must be
restrai nedandreshapedbecometooref rac-
tory to besati sf i edi nasubl i mati onand
begi nto i nf ect andtransf ormthe
bl ocki ngwi shi nto adi storted
representati onof themsel ves; i n thi s case
the moral wi l l i s i mpressedi nto the servi ce of the
expl oi tati ve wi l l and,
thus, becomes demoral i zed,
taki ngsuch f orms as ressenti ment, proj ecti on,
rati onal i zati on,
spl i tti ng, di spl acement, andreacti on
f ormati on- the
def ensemechani sms. Andthenadeadl y repeti ti onproceeds, asl ow
down-
wardcycl eof
corrupti onmarkedbyever- new"adapti vestructures, "
ever-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
moremechani sms -boards, commi ttees, agenci es,
speci al prosecutors,
consul tants -to recti f y thef ai l ure
of
the
ol der mechani sms. Fi nal l y, as
E. M. Forster wrote, "The
machi nestops, " but probabl y not f or al ongti me.
Thel i beral wi l l say
that therei s nothi ngel se to dobut keep worki ngon
thesystembecausei t' s sti l l thebest mechani smaround -one-hal f
of a
cheerf or democracy, maybe?Theal ternati ves
areworse, aren' t they?Li ber-
al i smwi thaf asci st streakl ooksbetter
thansoci al i smwi thani nhumanf ace,
doesn' t i t? There' s
no
harm
i n tryi ng; somethi nggoodmi ght comeof i t .
Anyway wehaveour whol eworl dto l oseandi t doesn' t-l ook l i ke there' s
anythi ngel setowi n. Ri chardRortyl ooks
aroundand
f i ndsnothi ng
better
thanbourgeoi sdemocracy. Hi si magi nati onf ai l s
hi m. Theci vi l savagemaps
thenewwi l derness
andappl i eshi si magi nati ontostrategy andtacti cs -
Leni ni nteri ori zed, wi thal l theproj ecti onswi thdrawnf romthel i beral rui ns.
Asacompromi sef ormati on, l i beral i smundergoesaconti nuous process
of al terati onas therel ati onbetweenthesuper-ego, theKanti anmoral wi l l ,
andthedesi res that ever threatento di ssol ve
publ i corder change. Desi re
here i s understood not merel y as an i nward experi ence of i ndi vi dual s,
thoughi t i s most pri mordi al l y that, never sheddi ngi ts subj ecti veroot, but
as theenti reorgani zati on
of thepursui t of obj ects i n thepubl i c f i el dof
soci al acti on. Thus, theproj ect of mappi ngthewi l derness takesthef orm
of presenti ng a"di agnosi s of theti mes, " as Mannhei mcal l ed i t . Theci vi l
savage
i s
thehei r
of the"f ree-f l oati ng i ntel l ectual , " thel i vi ng preci pi tate
of theburned-out l i beral pol i ty; not ahyper-ci vi l i zed f uncti onary com-
posi ng soci al conf l i ct i ntoaputati veharmony, as suchmaturel i beral s as
Mannhei m
andOrtegaenvi si oned, but agenui nenegati on, thedi al ecti cal
other, of hi s spi ri tual progeni tor. Thef ree-f l oati ng i ntel l ectual , awareof
al l thepossi bi l i ti es of programmati csoci al change, perf ormedasecondary
ref l ecti ononthem, creati ng ani deal synthesi s, ani mageof acomprehen-
si veorder that al l owedf or the
preservati onof every val uebacked by or-
gani zedpower. Thi s ref l ecti ve
operati oni s thef i nal moment of theKanti an
procedureof recei vi ng
the
cul tural l y-f ormedgi venandel i ci ti ngtheground
of i ts possi bi l i ty throughatranscendental move. I ncontrast toKant' s tran-
scendental cri ti que, whi chresul ts i ntheseparati onof thef ormsof thegi ven
f romthei r contents, however, thef ree-f l oati ngi ntel l ectual ' sref l ecti oneven-
tuates i n anewf ormed-content, areconci l i ati on of i deol ogy andutopi a,
acompromi sef ormati onat asecondremovef romtheconf l i ct of l ust and
moral i ty, asubl i mated neurosi s. As thenegati vi ty
of the
f ree-f l oati ng i n-
tel l ectual , theci vi l savageretai ns thehyper-ci vi l i zedawareness
of
themul -
ti pl i ci ty andrel ati vi ty
of
programmati c possi bi l i ty,
but appropri ates
the
.
soci ol ogy of
knowl edgeas a means
to
mappi ng
and
charti ng, not as a
spri ngboard
to
total i zati on.
I nstead of that total i zati on, heundertakes a
deconstructi on,
ananal ysi s that bri ngs thegi venof programmati cpol i ti -
cal thought back to theel ements out of whi chi t wascomposed, those
f orces
that
created
i ts
bei ngas. pol i ti cal neurosi s; that i s, thedi al ecti cal
other
of thef ree-f l oati ngi ntel l ectual ' s reconstructi oni s deconstructi on. Theci vi l
DEMONPOLI TI CS
savagei s as muchaheal er as hi s f orebear, but hei s not soci ety' s physi ci an:
hetakes seri ousl y thedi ctumof LevChestov: "Phi l osopher, heal thysel f . "
Whol eness, f or the ci vi l savage, cannot be recl ai medwi thi n the bounds
of
thel i beral - democrati cmachi nerybut onl y throughtherecovery of cor-
poreal i ty, whi chi s accompl i shedby radi cal l y obj ecti f yi ngal l soci al i mages
of the
sel f , appropri ati ngthem
as masks,
personae,
or
better, as themasks
of the pri mi ti ve. Thenewsoci al therapy i s thewi thdrawal of proj ecti on,
thereversal of i nserti ngthesel f
i nto
agreater
whol e,
of
i nvesti gati nghow
the many i ndi vi dual s become one soci al order. Nowi t i s a matter, as
Ni etzsche
understood, of
what thef l esh
canassi mi l ate
f romci vi l i zati on,
of treati ng ci vi l i zati on accordi ngto the standards of nutri ti on.
There i s anewl i beral i smri si ng i n the Uni ted States ami dthe col l apse
of theri ght- wi ngreacti onthat f ol l owedthesuppressi onof the"l i berati on
movements" i n 1968. I n order
to
chart that l i beral i smi t i s necessary to
understand what the reacti on si gni f i ed, whi chi s noweasy
to
do, si nce
i t reveal s i ts essencei ni ts demi se. I shal l begi nwi ththe f i gure of Ronal d
Reagan, the representati ve man
of
thereacti on, the
negati onof
Machi avel l i ' s
Pri nce andal l of hi s of f spri ng, the soci al type of l eader. I n the di al ecti c
of the modernspi ri t Reagan i s determi ned as thepurest i ndi vi duati on of
Ni etzsche' s "l ast
man, "
the predator- parasi te,
agutl ess bl i nker, acreati on
of publ i c rel ati ons, voi dof wi l l , exi sti ng at the margi ns of Machi avel l i ' s
di scourse,
attempti ng,
unsel f - consci ousl y, to maketheappearance of
vi r-
tue standcompl etel y f or i ts real i ty. Thephenomenonof Reagan can- be
understoodonl y throughthe i nsi ght that moderni ty has outrun l i beral -
i sm.
From
the very start nei ther henor hi s advi sors evi ncedany respect
f or thel egal mechani cs of a l i beral soci ety. Perhaps hi s great j oke oncon-
sti tuti onal i smwas
to
of f er
Geral dForda
"condomi ni um"
over
thePresi den-
cy i n returnf or hi s accepti ngthepl aceof Vi ce- Presi dent onhi s ti cket . But
Reagan was never i ntendedto be a. Presi dent, i n the sense of governi ng
anyway. Themanwho
woul dnot even broachthe questi onof
tradewi th
Nakasone, becausehedi dn' t want to argue
wi th
a "f ri end, "
who
hates con-
f l i ct andi s, theref ore, themanwhoi s wel l l i kedbyeveryman- thei ncar-
nati onof Wi l l Loman- styl es hi msel f as a "marketer" of pol i cy, not as
an
executi ve, that
i s, anexecutor. Themanwhoneeds cuecards to thi nk,
whoreads pol i ti cal f antasi es andwatches movi es to preparef or summi ts,
whocal l s hi swi f e "Mommy" andkeeps aNancy dol l wi thhi mi nthehospi -
tal , embodi es the
consci ousness that the soci al worl di s asecondnature,
madef or hi m, whi chtakes care of i tsel f . Far moredeepl y than anegati on
of l i beral i sm, Reagan represents the negati on of modernpol i ti cs i tsel f ,
whi chi s predi catedon the f i gure of the protector, the Pri nce, Hobbes' s
soverei gn. He i s what the medi acal l a
"di sengaged" Presi dent,
thei r
eu-
phemi smf or thepredator- parasi tewhof eeds uponaci vi l i zati on unaware
of the vi rtue requi red to sustai n i t, the f ul f i l l ment of J osi ahRoyce' s "vi -
ci ousl y acqui red nai vete. "
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
ThePresi dent as sal esman, as cheerl eader,
and-most deepl y-as ra-
ti onal i zer of hi s
consti tuents' predatoryandparasi ti cal l usts i s themeas-
ureof ci ti zenshi p i n thecontemporary Uni ted States
. I ndeed, Reagan' s
Presi dencysymbol i zes theAmeri can mi ndbecause, unl i kethe
modernl ead-
er, whohas qual i ti es
of wi l l anddetermi nati onthat di sti ngui shhi mf rom
the
f ol l owers, Reagan i s but the publ i c i mage of the ordi nary sel f -
understandi ngof themass. Thel ong-observedspl i tti ng
of
Reagan' s men-
tal i ty i nto"i deol ogue" and"pragmati st, " agai na
euphemi sti c characteri za-
ti on,
i s
merel y
thestructurethat i s encountered i n every panel l ed den,
cocktai l l ounge, cof f eeshop, caf eteri a, andmeeti ng roomi n theUni ted
States, wherethe "cheap
grace" depl ored by Di etri chBonhoef f er i s di s-
pensed
wi th
pol i ti cal f l avori ng. Everyday pol i ti cal consci ousness i n the
postl i beral era empl oys pol i ti cal i deas pri mari l y as i nci tements
to
f eel i ng
goodabout onesel f , speci f i cal l y throughthesti mul ant-depressant
of
res-
senti ment . Thenobl esavagebecomes the
nobl esucker andi s proudof
hi msel f f or bei ng
so. What canbemoresel f -f l atteri ng than totakepot shots
at theEvi l Empi re, to degrade"Washi ngton" whi l ebei ngat i ts center -
thebl i nd eyeof the hurri cane-andto rai l agai nst parasi tes when one
i s theparasi teki ng? That i s theso-cal l ed"i deol ogi cal si de" of theReagan
mi nd, . but i t does not comprehend i deol ogy i n theconventi onal senses
of vi si on or apol ogy. I t i s pol i ti cs
servi ngneurosi s, thethought of the"good
man" whoexcuses hi s f ai l ures
andvents hi s hatreds by pretendi ng that
the
wi ckedhavestompedal l over hi monl ybecausehewas tooni cea guy
to
f i ght
themi n thegutter. But now, thegood manwi l l tel l you, thi ngs
aregoi ng to bedi f f erent -we' regoi ng
on a crusade. Of course, that i s
al l tal k andmeant
to benomore. Thepredator-parasi tei s f undamental l y
a parasi te, not a predator l i ke Hi tl er was. As parasi te, hei ntends that hi s
thought betakenseri ousl yonl yas provocati veof emoti on. What hereal -
l ywants i s tol i vehi s ordi naryl i f eas comf ortabl yas possi bl e, stri ctl y def i n-
i nghi s obl i gati onstothebaremi ni mum, l eavi ngmaxi mum"qual i ty ti me"
f or theenj oyments of mass consumpti on, . l i ke-thesupremegrati f i cati on
of tel evi sed f ootbal l . Andthi s i s what passes f or "pragmati sm. " But, of
course, i t i s not
that, not even expedi ency. I t i s sheer f l acci di ty, l etti ng thi ngs
go, doi ng nomorethan what onei s i nti mi dated
i nto
doi ngbecauseone
hates tof i ght, whi chi s why, i n theReagan era, i t has f requentl ybeen so
di f f i cul t todetermi nej ust what governmental pol i cyi s: i t i s not that Rea-
gani s a "yes man, " rather hecan' t say"no. " Strutti ngaroundas theapos-
tl eof anti -terrori smandthen deal i ngarms f or hostages i s not, essenti al l y,
ani nstance
of
hypocri sy
or of sel f -consci ous mendaci ty, as
thel i beral mi nd
must understand i t, but an
evi dence of a
neuroti c spl i tti ng, themoral
equi val ent of a stroke, i n whi ch
the
ri ght
hand does
not knowwhat the
l ef t handi s doi ng. Theuni ty
of
the
Reagan
mi nd
i s
not i deati onal , but i s
consti tutedbyhi s i mpul setof eel
goodabout
hi msel f , todesperatel ygi ve
a
hopef ul emoti onal cover
to
hi s owni nadequacy, andi t i s thi s passi on
that
uni tes hi mtothepubl i c-at-l arge. Thecrusadeagai nst
"state-sponsored
DEMON
POLI TI CS
t errori sm" i s not meant t o be undert aken, but t o
make Ameri cans ex-
peri ence t hef eel i ngof moral st rengt h and
resol ve. Deal i ngarms f or host ages
was t heeasi est t hi ng t o approvewhensome
parasi t e- predat ors proposed
i t : i t was t oohardt o say "no, " or event o t hi nkof sayi ng "no, "
andf ar t oo
easy t o whi p up suf f i ci ent
ent husi asmand rat i onal i zat i on t o say "yes. "
Theref ore, di rect act i on, whi chOrt ega
i dent i f i ed as t henegat i onof l i ber-
al i sm, became t heessenceof Ameri canpol i t i cs,
i nt hef ormof "l oosecan-
nons, " t he cut e medi aeuphemi smf or advent uri sm.
Reagan' s i s t he
post modernmi ndencount eredat t hel evel of t hepanel l ed
basement den, t he
pref erred "si t e"
of
hi s mass const i t uency. Ensconced
i n hi s easy chai r, ni bbl i ng onsnacks wi t hhi s croni es
i nf ront of t he TV,
he i s f ree t o t urnpol i t i cal programi nt o t he qui p, soot hi ng t he wounds
of hi s mascul i ne pri de l ef t by al l of t he craven
concessi ons he made t o
t heambi t i ous expl oi t ers whoweasel edt hei r ways i nt o access t o
hi mdur-
i ngt he day. Thenhe appears wi t h t hose same vi ci ousl y
nai ve qui ps on
. t he screens of TVs i ndens across t hecount ry.
Li f e goes
on
i ni t s everyday
roundandso does t he engl obi ngf ant asy of t he ext ernal i zed i magi nat i on,
t hebi zarre si mul acrumof TVHere popcul t ure becomes f ul l y
coi nci dent
wi t havant - gardemoderni sm. For what i s t heReaganmi ndbut t he chi l d-
man' s wai t i ng phi l osophy, t hel ast
man' s embrace of everyday l i f e wi t ha
t ranscendent al ref l ect i onsuperaddedt o i t ? ThePresi dency i s a
ret i rement
vi l l age, t he of f i ce i s part - t i me work, execut i oni s pure del egat i on. Onl y
now,
at
t he end
of 1987,
t hemass rebel s agai nst i t s owni mage- i t doesn' t
real l y want aPresi dent whowant s t o be prot ect ed by ot hers; i t want s a
prot ect or. I t al so want s t o keepdreami ng: i t doesn' t want a
prot ect or who
wi l l demand
anyt hi ng f romi t but one whowi l l keep di spensi ng cheap
grace t o i t - i t doesn' t want aparasi t e- predat or who
wi l l put i t
t o
work
andwar, because i t want s t o remai napredat or- parasi t e
. I t want s t he i m-
possi bl e, al i beral f asci smrul edby abenevol ent prot ect or
;
someone
who
l i kes i t - si nce i t i s i ncapabl e of f eel i ng l ove - j ust
f or what i t
i s.
And
above al l , t he mass want s t o f eel good about i t sel f
.
"Youcanbe greedyandst i l l f eel goodabout
yoursel f . " I vanBoesky, t hat
ot her represent at i ve manof t he l at e `80' s, t he parasi t e- predat or, t he ar-
bi t rageur whoepi t omi zes t hesel f - canni bal i zat i onof corporat ecapi t al i sm,
i s t hel egacy of t he "megenerat i on" t o t heemergi ng neo- l i beral i sm. The
mi l i t ary sci encef i ct i onof "St ar Wars" andt he f i nanci al sci ence f i ct i onof
"suppl y- si de economi cs" maypass wi t h economi crecessi on, but t he degra-
dat i on of modernconsci ousness, t he dark ni ght of t he
l i beral spi ri t wi l l
not go away. I nt he current soci al - sci ence bl ockbust er, Robert Bel l ah' s
Habi t s of t he Heart ' , at renchant anal ysi s of t he st andard i nt erpersonal re-
l at i on
i n
t he Uni t edSt at es t odayi s depi ct edas at herapeut i cconnect i on
;
t hat i s, t hecommongroundof meet i ng t he ot her i s t he i mpl i edcont ract
- "I ' mOK, you' re OK. " Each of f ers t o t he- ot her anaf f i rmat i onof sani t y
andasks i nret urnt hat not hi ng more berequest edbut t hat whi chi s re-
qui redby convent i onal andmi ni mal expect at i ons . Al l i ndi vi dual s are f ree
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
t o cr eat e a sel f - sat i sf i ed sel f out of what ever t hey canscr ounge f r omt he
envi r onment , as l ongas t hey
don' t bot her ot her s i nt he pur sui t of t he same
-
ever yone a bagl ady, t he yuppi e as bagl ady, t he bagl ady as yuppi e.
I f t he pur sui t of al onel ysel f - consumpt i onf ai l s, onemust suf f er i n
si l ence,
because i f one gi ves way
t o over t di scont ent t her e i s a pl ace wai t i ngi n
t hat f ast - gr owi ng
ser vi ce i ndust r y, t he pr i vat e psychi at r i c hospi t al or i na
hal f - way
house or mass shel t er. Ther ei s not hi ngwor se f or t he pr edat or -
par asi t e t hant o mi ss t he "good" exper i ences t hat he or she "deser ves"
f r oml i f e. Mor al gr ace i s best owed
ont hose
who
"do somet hi ngf or t hem-
sel ves . " The pr edat or - par asi t e
i s a weakego, ever - sl i ppi ngi nt o t he l onel y
despai r
of
t he
dyi ngf l esh, ever - l ooki ng t o i nf l at e i t sel f wi t hwhat i t has
acqui r ed, especi al l y t he empt y"st r okes" t hat ot her s gi ve i t . j ust t hi s t ype
of ment al i t y bel i eves Ronal d Reagan
t o
be
a"ni ce" man. I t , i ndeed, l i ves
i ndr ead of t he "not ni ce, " t he
r emi nder s of ever yt hi ngt hat goes wr ong
wi t hl i f e. The
f or mul a f or t he mi nd of t he Uni t ed St at es i s ast r ongsense
of sel f andaweakego, t he deepf eel i ngof me- ness and t he deeper i nsecu-
r i t y about one' s abi l i t y t o cope wi t ht he t r i al s
of
l i f e.
Ent husi asmt hat masks
f ear i s per vasi ve
; t hi s i s
how
Ronal d Reaganhas cast hi s spel l f or year s.
Nowt hat t he spel l has beenbr oken, what wi l l r est r ai n t he par asi t e-
pr edat or s? Thi s i s t he quest i ont hat neo- l i ber al i sm
addr esses ; i t i s t he popu-
l ar al t er nat i ve t o f asci smand, t her ef or e,
t he wayi nwhi chmoder npol i t i cs
dr ags i t sel f al ongas i t l i ves out i t s pr ol onged
deat hagony.
Ther ear enopar adi gmat i c t ext s expr essi ngt he newl i ber al i sm, j ust st at e-
ment s of Democr at s pl ot t i ng appeal s f or 1988, over vi ews of j our nal i st s,
and f r agment s of opi ni onwr i t er s . Thi s
absence of pr ogr ammat i c cont ent
i s sympt omat i c of l i ber al bur nout , but i t i s sur el y i nt el l i gi bl e i n l i ght of
t he spol i at i onwr ought by t he l at e r eact i on, because l i ber al i smt oday has
t he unhappyand t hankl ess t ask of bui l di nguponscor ched ear t h, of i m-
posi ngaust er i t yona debt - r i ddensoci et y t hat has gl ut t ed i t sel f wi t hi m-
por t s; of scal i ng backi t s mi l i t ar y mi ght and, t her ef or e, r et r eat i ng f r om
spher es of i nf l uence; of savi ng a ser vi ce economywhent he r est of t he
wor l d has l ear ned t he secr et t hat anyone cansel l i nsur ance. TheUni t ed
St at es, ki ngof t he debt or nat i ons, i s t he newAr gent i na: i t wi l l be handed
over t o t he l i ber al s nowt hat i t i s goi ngbr oke and has suf f er ed humi l i at i on
i nf or ei gnaf f ai r s at t he hands of t he r i ght wi ng. But t he chi l dr enwhoi n-
habi t t hi s r ust ed Di sneyl and want not hi ngt o do wi t haust er i t y; t hey don' t
want t o be wakened f r omt hei r dr eam. Thi s i s t he t er r i bl e di l emma of t he
newl i ber al i sm, whyi t has no pr ogr am, no t ot al i zi ng vi si on: i t must i m-
pose pai nwhi l e seemi ngt o pr ovi depl easur e. I nt he wakeof t he bankr upt cy
of t he publ i c t r easur yt hr ought he "ar ms bui l dup" i t must become t hel oyal
f r i end of capi t al i smr at her t hani t s f r i endl y adver sar y, as i t has beensi nce
t he Gr eat Depr essi on: l i ber al i smmust become f asci smwi t hahumanf ace
mer el yt o save a sever el y weakenedsoci et y, const i t ut ed byacor r upt mass,
f r omt he r i gor s of t he cl assi cal cor por at e st at e of t he 1930s. I t s medi at i on
bet weenmor al i t y and desi r e must t her ef or e be mor e st r ai ned t hani t ever
DEMON
POLI TI CS
wasi n thepast ; i t must r esor t to
compul si onor si mpl ybecomethepr ecur -
sor of fasci sm. I f I van Boesky andRonal dReagan
ar e thepr obl em, then
thesol uti on
must be thefabr i cati on of a"wegener ati on" out of thescant
mater i al sof "Li veAi d, " "Far mAi d, " and"Hands Acr oss
Amer i ca. " Peopl e
must beconvi ncedto "feel goodabout
themsel ves, " asJ oan Baez cl ai med
that she "fel t good" about her sel f after par ti ci pati ng
i n "Hands, " byj oi n-
i ngasacr i fi ci al
communi ty. Thepol i ti cal for mul aof neo- l i ber al i smi s the
capi tal i sti c communi tyof sacr i fi ce, the
j ammi ngtogether of the tensi on
of
moder n l i ber al i smi n theapotheosi s of ther apeuti cfantasy. The
r hetor i -
cal devi ce of thenewl i ber al i smhasbeen
soundedbyMar i o Cuomo: Amer i -
cansar eone bi gfami l y andmust tr eat oneanother as good
r el ati ons. Tr y
i t, you' l l l i ke i t .
Theci vi l savage l aughs wi thout anybi tter ness at thi s vai n
postur i ng. I t i s mor esadthan di sgusti ng. Ther ewi l l have to be a
newcr u-
sade, a
newdr eam, but howuni nspi r i ng- Amer i camust get i tsel f i nto
shape to . . . wi n the tr ade
war. Wi l l i t be Wor l dWar I I al l over agai n?
Under standabl y, thenewl i ber al s r esi st bei ngfor cedto themati ze
apr o-
gr am. They have
i n
common
onl y aconcer n wi th keepi ngthe l ess for -
tunate i n the fol dof the Democr ati c Par tyas they br oaden
the coal i ti on
to i ncl ude the good
peopl e of the br oadmi ddl e cl ass andgai n suffi ci ent
fi nanci al suppor t to mount asuccessful
campai gn. Theessence of thei r
medi ati on may, i ndeed, never be expr essedi n anypopul ar for um, because
i t j uxtaposes anar cho- capi tal i sm
andJ acobi ni smfar too cl osel y, wi thout
anybuffer to comfor t theor di nar ymi nd. That essencehasbeen
descr i bed
by
Mi ckey Kaus, aj our nal i st for TheWashi ngton Monthl y, i n hi sr epl yto
Randal l Rothenber g' s over vi ew,
TheNeol i ber al s. 2 Accor di ngto Kaus, hi s
br andof neo- l i ber al i smhas two pr i nci pl es:
Fi r st, i nsteadof tol er ati ng capi tal i sm, neol i ber al i smchampi onsi ts
posi ti ve vi r tues - r i sk- taki ng, cr eati vi ty, andthe exci tement of
changeandaccompl i shment . . . . Second, i nsteadof
tr yi ng
to
muffl e
themater i al i nequal i ti es gener atedbythemar ketpl ace
neol i ber al s
woul dr estr i ct the wor l di n whi ch these i nequal i ti es matter. They
woul dcar ve out acommuni tar i an spher e wher e cl ass di sti ncti ons
ar e di ssol ved,
wher e
the pr i nci pl e of equal di gni ty
i n ci ti zenshi p
pr evai l s, wher ei t i s r ecogni zedthat moneyi s, after al l , onl ymoney.
Thei deaof nati onal ser vi ceandtheneol i ber al i nsi stenceon savi ng
the publ i c school sshoul dbe seenas attempts not j ust to
hel p out
the- economy, but to pr eser ve acommuni tyl i fe wher e aki dfr om
the ghetto andaki dfr omBever l y Hi l l s meet as equal s. '
Thi si s thepr escr i pti on for capi tal i st J acobi ni smor J acobi n capi tal i sm, de-
pendi ngupon whi chof the two pr i nci pl es i s made the domi nant theme
andwhi chthe counter poi nt . Or , i t mi ght best be cal l edl i ber al fasci sm,
amanagedcapi tal i smi nthecontext of a
compel l edcommuni ty, under the
motto "di gni ty i n ci ti zenshi p. ".
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Neo- l i beral i smi s the romance of rei ndustri al i zati on,
the fantasy of i n-
dustri al pol i cy. Most deepl y,
though
i t
i s l i beral i smthat has outruni tsel f,
that has l ost i ts footi ngi n
vol untary sol i dari ty andhas at l ast surrendered
to thestate as the
basi s of communi ty, anacti onwhi chpol i ti cal thought
must do when
tradi ti onal sol i dari ti es have beenwornaway and there i s
no
l onger any
hopefor vol untary sol i dari ty. FromKaus' s pri nci pl es fol l ow
al l of thespeci fi c neo- l i beral
pol i ci es - arevi ved NRA, anewCCC, sub-
si di zati on
of entrepreneurshi p i ngrowthi ndustri es, workfare rather than
wel fare, restorati onof thedraft, uni versi ty- i ndustry researchcenters, edu-
cati onfor ski l l s, worker parti ci pati oni nmanagement, andthescal i ngback
of enti tl ements. Someof thesemeasures wi l l surel ybeenacted, others wi l l
bedi l uted, andothers passed by, dependi ngupontheseveri ty of economi c
condi ti ons andthe
degreeof fear wi thi nthepopul ati on; but what appears
cl earl y onthehori zoni s theappeal to state- sponsored communi ty, enj oi n-
i ngsacri fi ce andhol di ngout safety under the cover of thej oy of servi ng
together i nagrand nati onal effort to catchupandpul l ahead i nthegreat
technol ogi cal race. Thepredator- parasi tes wi l l .
acqui esce more or l ess i n
thi s ki nd of program- they areal ready fri ghtened, nowthat theReagan
mythi s bei ng
di spel l ed, andneed moretogetherness thanthe"newpatri -
oti sm"
provi ded. They wi l l , of course, be refractory, whi chonl y means
that thenewl i beral i sm
wi l l beahol di ngacti onagai nst theday i nwhi ch
J acobi ni smand
capi tal i smfi nal l y fuse i nto techno- fasci sm. Therewi l l be
pl enty to managei nthe comi ng
order for theparasi te- predators, whowi l l
bri ngthemani pul ati on
of consent to a
hi gh
art . Theci vi l savagewi l l exi st
i nthei ntersti ces
of theneworder, feasti ngonthel eavi ngs of theol dl i beral
ci vi l i zati onwhi l ebui l di ngupatol erance for thehumi l i ati onof thefl esh.
Notes
Department of Pol i ti cal Sci ence
Purdue Uni versi ty
1 .

Robert Bel l ahet al . , Habi ts of theHeart: I ndi vi dual i smandCommi tment i nAmeri -
canLi fe (Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of Cal i forni a Press,
1985).
2.

Randal l Rothenberg, TheNeol i beral s: Creati ngthe NewAmeri canPol i ti cs (NewYork:
Si monand Schuster, 1984) .
3.

Mi ckey Kaus, "TooMuchTechnol ogy, Not EnoughSoul , " Washi ngtonMontbl y, 16,
8(September, 1984), p.
53.
A
THOROUGHLYHIDDEN
COUNTRY:
RESSEISMMENT,
CANADIANNATIONALISM,
CANADIAN
CULTURE
Mi chael Dorl and
Theobj ect i s t o expl ore t he huge,
di s t ant and t horoughl y hi dden
count ry of moral i t y
. . . t he Canadi an
cul t ural obs es s i onwi t h vi ct i mi z at i on i s t he
f l i p s i de
of a
bel i ef i n t ot al s uperi ori t y
Int roduct i on
Ni et z s che, Geneal ogy of
Moral s
B. W. Powe, The
Sol i t ary Out l aw
. . . t he mos t t erri bl e ant i dot e us ed
agai ns t . . . peopl e i s t o dri ve t hem
s odeep i nt o
t hems el ves
t hat
t hei r re- emergence i s i nevi t abl y avol -
cani c erupt i on
Ni et z s che, Schopenhauer As Educat or
Wi t ht he di s t i ngui s hedyet qual i f i edexcept i onof
George Grant andt he
wri t i ngs of s omeCanadi anhi s t ori ans ,
t he t hemeof res s ent i ment as s uch
has been al l t oo negl ect ed i n
t he cri t i cal l i t erat ure onCanadi an cul t ure.
Not becaus e t he t heme
i s not a maj or onei n t he Canadi andi s cours e,
but
on
t he cont rary perhaps becaus e i t i s s o mas s i vel y pervas i ve
by i t s abs ence.
For i n t hi s negat i ve f orm, res s ent i ment pres ent s
prof oundprobl ems i n t he
devel opment of cul t ural expres s i on,
andt he f ormat i onandappl i cat i onof
acul t ural pol i t i cs t hat woul d
i ncl ude art i s t i c pract i ces , t hei r i ns t i t ut i onal
ori ent at i onand
cri t i cal i nt erpret at i on - i n s hort , f or t heprobl ems of
Cana-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
than cul ture. I f as wi l l
be arguedhere, ressenti ment
does, i n f act, consti -
tute a domi nant theme
expl i ci tl y i n Canadi an pol i ti cal
andcul tural prac-
ti ces andi mpl i ctl y
i n the admi ni strati ve practi ces
of
thei r
i nsti tuti onal
ori entati on,
i ts non- recogni ti onhi therto i n Canadi an
cri ti cal wri ti ngmi ght
i ndi cate i f not i nterpreti ve ti mi di ty,
then at l east a strategy of avoi dance
worthexami ni ngi n greater
detai l
.
Ontol ogy of Canadi an
ressenti ment : the di scourses of Canadi an si l ence
I hadcome to
see that everythi ngwas radi cal l y
connectedwi th po-
l i ti cs, andthat,
however oneproceeded, no peopl ewoul d
beother
than
the nature of i ts government made i t
Rousseau,
Conf essi ons
Ref l ecti ng, f orty years ago, onhi s
"unhappy experi ences" at academi c
conf erences, Harol dI nni s haddi scerneda
rhetori cal patternat suchmeet-
i ngs,
namel y that Ameri cans andEngl i shmen,
"qui ckl y madeawareof our
sensi ti veness", spent much of thei r ti me commenti ng
onhowmuch bet-
ter thi ngs were done i n Canadathan i n
Great Bri tai nor the Uni tedStates .
As I nni s observed,
"The demandf or thi s type
of speech i mpl i es a l ack
of i nterest i n a
Canadi anspeaker whomi ght say somethi ng
di stastef ul about
domesti c af f ai rs . "'
As I nni s woul dgo on
to expl ai n, the "l ack of i nterest" came not f rom
f orei gnguests, i n any event i nvi ted
onl y toprai se, but f romCanadi ans and
so suggested, as I nni s
was aware, the presence of somethi ng more
probl emati c than
mere l ack of i nterest . I n f act, i t suggestedsomethi ng
deep-
l y rootedi n
Canadi an experi ence, the presence, as he put i t,
of "aconti nu-
ous repressi on'
12
of "a
very great f ear of pronouncements" by Canadi ans,
i ndeed, that there was somethi ng,
possi bl y dreadf ul , about Canada that
onl y aCanadi anmi ght be abl e
to
utter
"si nce . . . non- Canadi ans . . . coul d
not make statements
about Canadi an af f ai rs whi ch woul d be taken
seri ousl y. "
3
But i f tastef ul statements about domesti c af f ai rs
by non- Canadi ans woul d
not be
taken seri ousl y andthere was such a great
f ear of di stastef ul
pronouncements
on
the
part of Canadi ans suchthat, i f they were actual l y
goi ngto attempt
to say somethi ng, thei r onl y recourse was, as I nni s put
i t of hi s ownexperi ence, "wri ti ng
i n such guardedf ashi on that no one
can understand what i s
wri tten", what was bei ngmai ntai nedi n si l ence,
and
si l enced to such an extent as to suggest, agai n, somethi ng
possi bl y
more
consi derabl e than l apses of taste?
The
noti onof adi stastef ul statement, however, provi des acl ue as to what
mi ght be i nvol ved, si nce the
i dea of taste suggests, narrowl y, that whi ch
goes i nto or comes out of the mouth
( as f ood, dri nk or words) andso more
broadl y ani dea of pol i teness, manners, i . e. , cul ture
.
The
di stastef ul state-
ment, then, woul d
be
the
expressi on of af ormof cul ture ( or perhaps, more
preci sel y, non- cul ture)
whose ` taste' has beenso af f ectedor al teredi n such
DEMON
POLI TI CS
awayas t o havebecome`di st ast ef ul '
.
As
f or t henat ur eof t hat di st ast e, suf f i ce
i t f or nowmer el yt o
i ndi cat e i t s l ack of speci f i ci t ybywayof a
pot ent i al i t y
t hat coul d r angef r omt hemer el y
unpl easant t hr ought hebi t t er t o t he
ex-
t r emi t i es of t he poi sonous or
even t he monst r ous. Mor e i mpor t ant ,
however ,
mi ght be t he quest i on of what happens when
t hemout h, i . e. ,
t he or gan of
communi cat i onand cul t ur e, i s f i l l ed wi t h
unpl easant r i es t o
t hepoi nt of becomi ngso
unspeakabl et hat t hesecannot be
expr essed open-
l y, or whosepubl i c f or ms of
expr essi on must , t her ef or e, be
subj ect ed t o
r i gor ous pol i ci ng or st r i ct mor al i t y? What happens
when a nat i on, i . e. a
t er r i t or i al conf i gur at i onof mout hs, est abl i shes
si l enceas t hecul t ur al nor m
f or domest i c
af f ai r s?
Thi s paper
wi l l at t empt t o begi n t o account , bymeans of
a t heor y of
r essent i ment , f or t he
di scr epanci es bet weent hever ygr eat f ear of
unaut ho-
r i zed pr onouncement s by
Canadi ans t hat I nni s i ndi cat ed, and
t he mer e
t al k of anof f i ci al i zed nat i onal i st
and cul t ur al i st di scour sewhose
pr econ-
di t i on- i s si l ence,
i . e. t he secur i t y t hat comes f r om
knowi ngt hat not hi ng
canever be
cont r adi ct ed becausenot hi ngwi l l ever besai d.
And t hi s pr i n-
ci pal l y
because, i n Wi l l i amKi l bour n' s gr i mf or mul at i on,
Canadi annat ur e
"dr eadf ul and
i nf i ni t e has i nhi bi t ed t hegr owt hof t hehi gher
ameni t i es i n
Canada":
"Out number ed byt het r ees andunabl e t o l i ck
t hem, al ot of Cana-
di ans l ook
as t hough t heyhad j oi ned t hem- havi nggone
al l f acel ess or
a bi t pul p- and- paper y,
and mour nf ul as t he eveni ng j ackpi ne
r ound t he
edges of t hevoi ce, as
i f . . . somet hi ngl ong l ost and dear wer e
bei ngend-
l essl yr egr et t ed. " 5
Suchanaccount must t hen begi nwi t han
i nt er r ogat i on
of t he nat ur e of Canadi an
si l ence. b
Wr i t i ngl ast year somemont hs af t er t heopeni ngof
t hecur r ent (and l ar ge-
l y
secr et ) r ound of Canada- USf r ee- t r ade t al ks, Repor t on
Busi ness Maga-
zi ne edi t or Pet er Cook r emar ked t hat "Ther e i s
pr obabl yno bet t er si gn
of our
ownmat ur i t y t han t hef act t hat t heaver ageCanadi an
spends t wi ce
as muchon
i mpor t ed goods as t heaver ageAmer i can
wi t hout f eel i ngbi t -
t er
or
r esent f ul about i t . ' . ' ' Theval or i zat i on of anabsence
of r essent i ment
i s
what onemi ght t er m, af t er I nni s, a t ast ef ul Canadi an
st at ement about
domest i caf f ai r s, especi al l ywhen, accor di ngt o Cook,
Amer i cans bycon-
t r ast ar e not onl ybi t t er and r esent f ul but
i n addi t i on "pugnaci ous" and
"xenophobi c" as a r esul t of t hei r t r ade def i ci t .
However ,
Cook
went on, '
i f Canadi ans di spl ayr emar kabl e mat ur i t yby
t hei r absence of r esent ment
and bi t t er ness, Amer i can
"t ant r ums and t i r ades" ar enever t hel ess
"par t i c-
ul ar l yvexi ng"
f or Canadi ans who i n openi ngt he f r ee- t r ade t al ks
"made
t he deci si on t hat Amer i ca i s t he t r ade par t ner wi t h whom
t heywant t o
shar e t hei r f ut ur e. "
Cook' s st at ement at ar emoveof f or t yyear s
i l l umi nat eswhat I nni s, meant ,
at l east
i n par t , byt he"di st ast ef ul ", namel y, bi t t er ness and
r esent ment . But
i f , on Cook' s account , Canadi ans t odaypossess such
mat ur i t y as t o not
f eel bi t t er ness and r esent ment oneconomi c
quest i ons, t heyar est i l l capa-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
bl e
of f eel i ng par t i cul ar l y vexedon ot her
account s, suchas bei ng r ebuf f ed
by t he t r adepar t ner wi t hwhomt hey
want t o shar et hei r f ut ur e. I n ot her
wor ds, andcont r ar y
t o what Cookwr i t es expl i ci t l y, Canadi ans
do i mpl i ci t l y
f eel economi c bi t t er ness
andr esent ment , andso much
so
t hat i n
addi t i on
t hey f eel emot i onal l y vexedas wel l . But
vexat i on, l i ke r esent ment , i s an
emot i on or a f or m
of expr essi on t hat does not suddenl y sur f ace;
.
r at her ,
i t i s sl ow-bur ni ng
andl ong-t er m: t o say of somet hi ng t hat i t
i s vexed, as
i n ` a vexed
quest i on' , i s t o say t hat i t has occur r edagai n
andagai n, t hat
i t i s t or ment i ng, andt hat i t i s
somet hi ngt hat needs t o bemuchdebat ed
anddi scussed. Li ke r esent ment ,
andper haps t hi s becomes cl ear er i n i t s
Fr ench f or mas r e-sent i ment
( l i t . , f eel i ng agai n) , -vexat i on
i s exper i enced
r epeat edl y,
r epet i t i vel y, compul si vel y, andobsessi onal l y:
"a gr uesome si ght
i s aper son si ngl e-mi ndedl y obsessed
by awr ong" ( Ni et zsche) . 9 Fur t her -
mor e, Cook' s use
of met aphor suggest s t hat Canadi an vexat i on
or
r esent -
ment ar i ses f r om
a per cept i on of i nt i macy and( f ear of )
t he r ej ect i on of
t hat
pr oposedi nt i macy by achosenpar t ner. As f or t he
gender of t hechosen
par t ner , Cookmakes cl ear ,
by t wo r ef er ences t o Amer i can f i l ms ( RAMBO
andCONANTHEBARBARI AN) ,
howhe r egar ds at l east onepar t ner i n t he
f ut ur e
r el at i onshi p. Thegender of t he
Canadi an par t ner , however , i s am-
bi val ent : ". . . i f t he deal i s not . . .
r ushedt hr ough Par l i ament andCongr ess,
wewi l l f ace a f r eshadmi ni st r at i on
i n Washi ngt onwhi ch, l i ke aspoi l t chi l d,
wi l l have t o be t ut or edi n
t he ways of t he wor l danew. " 1 0
Canadi an deni al
of r essent i ment - t he cul t ur al cel ebr at i on
of si l ence
as t he hi ghest f or m
of our moder ni t y - t hus conceal s a compl exi nt er -
l ocki ng
of mul t i pl e r esent ment s: 1 ) a r esur f aci ng
of economi c r esent ment
t hat
i s
2)
t hen di spl aced t o a gener al emot i onal
r esent ment wher e i t
r echar ges i t sel f as vexat i on and
3)
i s di spl acedagai n
as an i nt er per sonal
r el at i onshi p i n whi chf ear of ( andr esent ment of )
r ej ect i on causes i t t o shi f t
oncemor et o 4) amor al pl anenow,
wher e, f r omr ebuf f t o r ej ect i on, Cana-
da emer ges r adi ant l y as mast er of t heways
of t hewor l d. I n addi t i on, Cook' s
use of what one coul dt er ma
gender -boundmet aphor ( of t he f ami l y, i n
whi chr esent ment i s pr ocessed
bymor al i t y andt r ansf or medi nt o l ove, t he
r ej ect i on of whi chbecomes an
occasi on f or sel f -pi t y andso f ur t her r esent -
ment ) evokes si mi l ar
such r ecur r ences i n Canada' s past t hat , as wi t h t he
1 987 r ound
of f r ee-t r ade t al ks, i nvol vedf undament al r el at i onshi ps and
or i ent at i ons i n Canadi an
hi st or y, i nt er nal andext er nal , i nwhi chmet aphor s
of
t he f ami l y
encode f ar gr eat er vi ol ences. Thef i r st exampl e
i s i nt er nal
andr ef er s
t o
t hel ong
andnever -decl ar edci vi l war bet ween
Canada and
Quebec
or what Huber t Aqui n i n 1 964 cal l ed"t he t heme
of t he shot gun
-mar r i age" i n Conf eder at i on, namel y "t he coexi st encebet ween
t wonat i ons
[mi ght t hi s not equal l y appl y t o Canada andt he
US?] [t hat ] seems t o f or m
a vener eal r el at i onshi p pushed t o a par oxysm
of di sgust , when i t i s not
[i n]
t he ver y i mage of a Chr i st i an mar r i age, i ndi ssol ubl e
andi n r ui ns. . . . ""
Thesecondexampl e
i s ext er nal ( Canada' s pl acei n i mper i al
r el at i ons) and
t hus
ent ai l s a r ever sal i n vener eal r el at i onshi ps, f r omt he
aggr essi ve wag-
DEMON
POLI TI CS
i ngof i nt er nal ci vi l war t o a mor e passi ve
f or mof commodi t y- t r ansf er , her e
f r omone pi mp( t he Br i t i sh Empi r e) t o
anot her ( t he Amer i can Empi r e) . As
Wi l l i amL. Gr ant put i t i n a
1911- 1912 addr ess on "The Fal l acy of
Nat i onal -
i sm" : "I have nodesi r e t hat t hi s
count r yof mi ne shoul dbe ei t her t he kept
woman
of
t he Uni t edSt at es, or t he har l ot of t he
Empi r e. "" At hi r dexam-
pl e f r om
t he t i me of Canada' s ent r y i nt o t he
Second Wor l dWar sees an
Amer i can
wr i t er descr i bi ng Canada as "t he
pr obl emchi l dof t he West er n
Hemi spher e", a
t ypi cal pr oduct of f ami l y
est r angement wi t han Oedi pus
compl exwi t h
t he mot her count r yt hat pr event s
her ever gr owi ngup. As
t he wr i t er put s
i t : "`Canada, ' expl oded one of her
r esent f ul i nt el l ect ual s,
`i s i n i nt er nat i onal
af f ai r s not a manbut a woman! "'
' 3
I n ot her wor ds, andi n a
concr et i zat i on of Geor ge Gr ant ' s
"l i st eni ngf or
t he i nt i mat i ons of depr i val , ' 11
at t endi ng t o i nt i mat i ons of
r essent i ment be-
comes a wayof hear i ng
Canadi ansi l ence speak. I nst ead of
mer e si l ence,
f ol l owi ngt he chai ns of
Canadi an r esent ment soonunconceal s
di scur si ve
f i el ds t hat ext end
f r omt he l andscape t oeconomi cs,
t o pol i t i cs, t o soci ol o-
gy, t o t echnol ogy, t o t he i nt i maci es of sexual i t y, andt o
t he "hi gher ameni -
t i es" of
cul t ur e. What I ' msuggest i ngher e, i n
f act , i s t hat t her ear e f ewar eas,
i f
any,
of
Canadi an exper i ence wher e one i s
not st r uck by t he ext ent t o
whi ch t he di scour se upon t hat
exper i ence, whet her acknowl edged
or
r epr essed, whet her of f i ci al
( gover nment andpr ess), i nt el l ect ual ( academ-
i c), or
cul t ur al ( l i t er ar y andar t i st i c), t o
make some possi bl y ar bi t r ar y di s-
t i nct i ons, ' i s a di scour se of r essent i ment
. Thi s may sound a l ot mor e
over whel mi ngt han i t mi ght act ual l y
t ur n out t o be; i n f act , t hi s may
si m-
pl ybe a guar dedwayof sayi ng t hat , so
f ar per haps, Canadi anexper i ence
has beeni nt ensel y gi ven
over
t o
nur si ng t he pet t y wounds of t he
smal l ,
as Denys Ar cand has
suggest ed i n f i l ms such as LECONFORT
ET VI N-
DI FFERENCEand
LEDECLI NDEUEMPI REAMERI CAI Nor Har ol d
Town
i n hi s pai nt i ng "Canadi an
Ret i r ement Dr eam" or t he many
ot her Canadi an
ar t i st s who,
l i ke Ni et zsche' s Zar at hust r a, may
have si ghed f or a homel and
wher e
t hey neednol onger "st oop bef or e t hose
whoar e smal l . " But Cana-
di an
ar t i st i c expr essi on maybe j ust as
i mbr i cat ed wi t hr esent ment as
any
ot her di mensi on of Canadi an exi st ence.
The poi nt i s si mpl y t hat , at t he
out set , we donot knowt hi s wi t hout ,
f i r st , a bet t er gr aspof Canadi anr es-
sent i ment : what i s i t ? how
pr eval ent i s i t ? . howdoes i t ar t i cul at e
i t sel f ? what
have beeni t s ef f ect s? and
l ast l y howdoes one over come i t ?
si nce, accor d-
i ngt o
Ni et zsche, r essent i ment does not di sappear wi t hout
bei ngover come.
Ressent i ment as a concept f or
cul t ur al st udi es
As a concept f or cont empor ar y
cul t ur al st udi es, r essent i ment has been
cur i ousl y
under - empl oyed, t houghI suspect t hat as Ni et zsche
i ncr easi ng-
l y comes t o be seen as t he phi l osopher of
( t he over comi ng of )
r essent i ment ' 5 , t hi s i s l i kel y t o change.
For cer t ai nl y, i n some of i t s
ear l i -
er appl i cat i ons
i ncl udi ngNi et zsche' s, r essent i ment woul dappear t o of f er
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
ani nf i ni t el y ri ch t errai nf or
cul t ural st udi es. Thus, f or i nst ance,
Ni et zsche' s
owncharact eri zat i on
of t he ent i re J udeo- Chri st i an t radi t i on
as "t he very
seat
of
ressent i ment "'
6,
or Mi chel et ' s and Thi ne
: s use of ressent i ment as
t he mot i ve of t hel rench
Revol ut i on", or Si mmcl ' s ascri pt i on of ressen-
t i ment as "f or al l t i me
t he most sol i d support of
bourgeoi s moral i t y"' " or
MaxSchel er' s
observat i ont hat "There i s
no l i t erat ure more chargedwi t h
ressent i ment t han Russi an l i t erat ure"' 9 Or,
i n more recent st udi es, Fri t z
St ern' s i dent i f i cat i onof "t he i deol ogy
of Resent ment " as havi ngappeared
al most si mul t aneousl y i n
al most every cont i nent al count ry i n
t he l ast de-
cades of t he ni net eent h
cent ury, i ncl udi ngas wel l i n cert ai n
aspect s of
Ameri can Popul i sm"' . And, i n f i l mst udi es,
hi st ori ans of Hol l ywood(such
as t he Bri t i sh wri t er Davi dThomson
or t he Ameri canbusi nessmanBenj a-
mi nHampt on) ascri be
t o ressent i ment one of t he key
dri ves i nAmeri can
popul ar
cul t ure" .
Inot her
words, evena bri ef overvi ew
of some . of t he appl i cat i ons t hat
have beenmade of ressent i ment mi ght
pot ent i al l y at l east i ndi cat e acon-
cept f or t he st udy
of cul t ural f ormat i ons (eg. , rel i gi on,
secul ar i deol ogy.
f orms of popul ar cul t ure
such as l i t erat ure andci nema) i nt he wi de range
of count ri es
or cont i nent s t hat coul d be embraced wi t hi n such not i ons
as "t he J udeo- Chri st i an
t radi t i on" or "bourgeoi s moral i t y"
or
t he West ern
t radi t i on of pol i t i cal ,
soci al and cul t ural moderni t y.
Ont he ot her
hand, i t i s perhaps t he very al l - embraci ngness
of ressent i -
ment t hat has
mi l i t at ed agai nst i t s wi der use i n recent schol arshi p,
at l east
unt i l t he
broader devel opment of al l - embraci ngf i el ds
such as t he humani -
t i es and/ or cul t ural st udi es. Indeed,
i nanext ensi onof t he Mi chel et - Tai ne
hypot hesi s t hat ressent i ment
i s t he cont ent of revol ut i on, J amesonargues
t hat "t he
t heory of ressent i ment , wherever i t appears, wi l l al ways. . . be
t he expressi onand
product i on of ressent i ment " (emphasi s
added)"" .
Thi s
i s t o say t hat t he
product i onof ressent i ment as at heory
cannot be di st i n-
gui shed(or at
l east onl y wi t h di f f i cul t y) f romt heproduct i on(s)
of t heori st s.
Acc<
>rdi ng
t oJ ameson, t hese are "t he i nt el l ect ual s
. . . - unsuccessf ul wri t ers
and poet s, badphi l osophers, bi l i ous j ournal i st s, and
f ai l ures of al l ki nds
- whose pri vat e di ssat i sf act i ons
l ead t hemt o t hei r vocat i ons as pol i t i cal
and revol ut i onary mi l i t ant s
[who]. . . wi l l f urni sh t he i nner dynami c f or a
whol e t radi t i onof
count errevol ut i onary propagandaf romDost oyevsky and
Conrad t o Orwel l . . .
. ""3
However,
maki ng of some i nt el l ect ual s, whet her
revol ut i onary or count errevol ut i onary,
t he producers of ressent i ment i s
onl y rest at i ng t he t heory (or
phenomenon) of ressent i ment whereby, i n
J ameson' s concept , `aut hent i c
ressent i ment ' , once st ri ppedof i t s badf ai t h,
"may be sai d t o have acert ai n
aut hent i ci t y""
4 ,
i . e . , t hat ressent i ment , l i ke
t he rose by any
ot her name, i s ressent i ment .
But what exact l y
i s ressent i ment , t hi s word whi ch
has no exact cor-
respondence i n German,
but whi ch a German t hi nker (Ni et zsche) i n-
t roduced i nt o phi l osophy "i n
i t s t echni cal sense""
5
? If of Ni et zsche and
ressent i ment ,
i t
mi ght
be possi bl e t o say, as Ni et zsche remarked of Schopen-
hauer , t hat
"He hadonl y one t ask anda
t housand means of accompl i sh-
i ng
i t : one meani ng and count l ess hi er ogl yphs t o
expr ess i t "2 6 , i t coul d
per haps be sai d t hat
t her e ar e al so a t housand ways of
def i ni ng r essent i -
ment i n i t s t echni cal or any
ot her sense. I t i s t hus i nt er est i ng
t hat Wal t er
Kauf mann,
f or i nst ance, f i nds i t i mpossi bl e t o
def i ne r essent i ment
ot her
t han quot i ng
Ni et zsche who i n t ur n var i ousl y
sket ches r essent i ment as
"hat r ed, " "t yr anni c
wi l l ", or "pi ct ur e- hat i ng dr i ves"
( Hei ne) 2 7 . Si mi l ar l y,
Schel er whose book i s a
r ef ut at i on not so much of r essent i ment
per se,
whi ch
l i ke Si mmel he consi der s t he basi s of
bour geoi s mor al i t yandmoder n
humani t ar i ani sm,
as of Ni et zsche' s char ge t hat r essent i ment
i s t he cont ent
of Chr i st i an ( or mor e pr eci sel y
Cat hol i c) l ove; but Schel er at
l east si de-
st eps
Ni et zsche t o t he ext ent of
pr ovi di ng a wor ki ng def i ni t i on of
r essen-
t i ment as :
and
DEMON
POLI TI CS
t he
exper i ence andr umi nat i onof a cer t ai n
af f ect i ve r eact i on di r ect ed
agai nst an ot her t hat al l ows t hi s
f eel i ng t o gai n i n dept h andpene-
t r at e l i t t l e by l i t t l e t o t he ver y hear t of
t he per sonwhi l e at t he same
t i me abandoni ng t he r eal mof expr essi on
andact i vi t y
t hi s obscur e, r umbl i ng, cont ai ned
exasper at i on, i ndependent of t he
act i vi t y of t he ego, [ t hat ] engender s
l i t t l e by l i t t l e a l ong r umi na-
t i on of
hat r edor ani mosi t y wi t hout a
cl ear l y det er mi nedobj ect of
host i l i t y,
but f i l l ed wi t h an i nf i ni t y of host i l e
i nt ent i ons . ( emphasi s
added) 1 8
Thi s i s t o say,
t hen, t hat r essent i ment i s not somuch a t heor y
( or at l east
not t o begi n wi t h) as a
( si l ent ) f eel i ng. To say of what ,
however , r equi r es
t r ansf or mi ng
r essent i ment f r oman emot i oni nt o a t heor y,
i n ot her wor ds,
r educi ng Ni et zsche t o
a phi l osopher or t heor i st of
r essent i ment when, i f
anyt hi ng, he was
i t s gr eat est dr amat i st , i . e. , not a pr eacher of
r essent i ment ,
but t he poet of
i t s over comi ng. Be t hat as i t may, t he Ni et zschean
def i ni -
t i on of r essent i ment
t hat I wi l l empl oy her e i s t hat wher e
r essent i ment
becomes a . r evol t t hat
t ur ns cr eat i ve:
The sl ave r evol t
i n mor al s begi ns byr ancor t ur ni ng cr eat i ve and
gi v-
i ng bi r t h t o
val ues - t he r ancor of bei ngs who, depr i vedof
t he
di r ect
out l et of act i on, compensat e by an
i magi nar y venge-
ance. . . . Sl ave
et hi cs . . . begi ns by sayi ng "no" t o anout si de,
an ot her ,
a non- sel f , andt hat no
i s i t s cr eat i ve act . Thi s r ever sal of t he di r ec-
t i onof t he eval uat i ng
l ook, t hi s i nvar i abl e l ooki ng out war d
i nst ead
of i nwar d, i s a
f undament al f eat ur e of r ancor . Sl ave et hi cs
r equi r es . . . a
spher e
di f f er ent f r omandhost i l e t o i t s own. . . i t
r equi r es an out si de
st r uct ur e i n or der t o act at al l ; al l i t s act i on i s
r eact i on
. 2 9
However , l et meel abor at e
t hat
a
l i t t l e by suggest i ng af t er Ni et zsche t hat
r essent i ment i s t he emot i onal
cont ent of t he cat ast r ophe of moder n
cul -
t ur e whose advent - i n t he f or mof
what Ni et zsche cal l edt he t hr ee
M' s
:
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Moment, ModeandMob3 , andto whi chwe
canaddaf ourth, namel y,
Mood(andl ater perhaps af i f th: Movi es)
-entai l s agreat si l enci ng of every-
thi ngel se that wasor mi ght
havebeen. If f or Ni etzsche, Westerncul ture
i s the
progressi ve advent of ever-l arger adi aphora-spheres
of non-
determi nacy or theneutral i zati on
of di f f erence (di apherei n, to di f f er) -
ressenti ment
i s
the
moodof theadi aphoraof the "absol utesi l ence"
of
any other cul tural possi bi l i ty save(total i tari an)
Moderni ty, i ts; Hi story, i ts
Cul tureandi ts mul ti -nati onal
organi zati onas States whi ch"Inthei r hosti l -
i ti es. . . shal l becomei nventors of i mages and
ghosts, andwi ththei r i mages
andghosts they shal l yet f i ght
thehi ghest f i ght agai nst oneanother"
3 1 .
Inwhat
f ol l ows, however, rather thanextrapol ati ng Ni etzsche
quotati ons,
I woul dl i keto i l l ustrate thi s theory
of ressenti ment wi thparti cul ar ref er-
encetothef orms
of
the
`creati veno' devel opedby onemodernstate, name-
l y
Canada, i ni ts experi encewi ththeadi aphora
of
thehi story,
cul ture, and
mul ti nati onal organi zati on
of moderni ty.
Ressenti ment i n Canadi andi scourse: cul tural i mpl i cati ons
. . . there
i s asort of mi xtureof i nqui si ti onandcensorshi pwhi chthe
Germans havedevel opedi ntoaf i neart -i t i s
cal l edabsol utesi l ence
Ni etzsche,
Schopenhauer As Educator
Thegreatest mel anchol y
of
thewi l l ,
eventhel i berati ng wi l l , andthus
thesource
of
i ts
ressenti ment andrevenge-seeki ng, i s i ts i nabi l i ty
to
change
thepast: "Powerl ess agai nst what has been
done, he[ the wi l l ] i s anangry
spectator
of
al l that
i s past
. " 3 z
As aresul t, accordi ngto Ni etzsche, hi story,
j usti ce, wi l l i ng i tsel f and"al l l i f e" becomeaf ormof suf f eri ng or puni sh-
ment, i . e. , revenge-seeki ng but wi th
agoodconsci ence. Insucha. f orm
of suf f eri ng or puni shment -not
somuchatheory but "as anal most i n-
tol erabl e anxi ety" 3 3 -
thi s corresponds to the wri tten experi ence of
Canadi anhi story
andl i terature, i naword, theCanadi anexperi enceof cul -
ture, pri mari l yi nthef ormof chroni cl es of the(usual l y deserved) admi ni s-
trati onof puni shment . Thus, to take what woul dbe, i nef f ect, thef i rst
of
i nnumerabl e Royal
Commi ssi onReports, LordDurham' s (1 83 9) recom-
mendedthe"obl i terati on"
of thenati on(hereFrench-Canada) out of f ear
that "themass of FrenchCanadi ans" woul dotherwi sesuccumb
to
the
"spi ri t of j eal ous andresentf ul nati onal i ty" (emphasi s added)
. 3 4
Crushi ng
the`resentf ul nati onal i ti es' of NorthAmeri ca(f i rst FrenchCanada, then
-unsuccessf ul l y -theThi rteenCol oni es, andthi rdl y Engl i shCanada)
"seems. . . tohavebeen. . . thepol i cy of theBri ti sh
Government [ : ] togovern
i ts col oni es by means
of
di vi si on,
andto break themdownas muchas
possi bl ei nto petty i sol ated
communi ti es, i ncapabl eof combi nati on, and
possessi ng
nosuf f i ci ent strengthf or i ndi vi dual resi stancetotheEmpi re. "
3
s
The
absence, i nCanadi anexperi ence, of anyki ndof revol uti onary (or mere-
DEMON
POLI TI CS
l y
combi natory) di srupti on(of i sol ati on)
meant that thetradi ti onof
puni -
ti ve
admi ni strati onassumedadeepand
uni nterrupteddevel opment i nthe
f ormof "a
conti nuous repressi on" (I nni s) of
Canadi ancul tural expressi on
as resentf ul
nati onal i ty (or i n themoremodern
admi ni strati ve di scourse
of
theCanadi anstate, `narrow
nati onal i sm' ) . What nati onal i sm
andcul ture
there
woul dbei n Canada
woul dthus bei ) f i rml y Erasti an, i . e.
under the
authori ty
of the State, both i n character and
i n organi zati on36 , i i ) andi f
not under thecontrol of
thestate, ei ther margi nal i zed,
f ragmentary or non-
exi stent, or i f nei ther of the
above, i i i ) i mported. Whi ch i s to
say that, i n
Canada, ressenti ment takes the
f ormof theadmi ni strati ve
practi ceof an
absent
di scourseontherel ati onshi p between
nati onal i smandcul ture. Thi s
absencei s
structured arounda) i ts preservati onby
b) thedeni al of therel a-
ti onshi p between
nati onal i smandcul turei nsti tutedas c)
threeseparati ons:
i ) anadmi ni strati ve separati on
(knowni nthedi scourseof cul tural
pol i cy
as
"arm' s l ength") of statecul tural agenci es
f romboth nati onandcul ture,
i i ) aneconomi c
separati onby thestate of
cul turei nto publ i c and
pri vate
admi ni strati ve
real ms, andi i i ) a cul tural separati on
by nati onal i ty i n that
thecontent
of thepubl i c real mi s of f i ci al l y
(and i ncremental l y) Canadi an
whereas that of
thepri vatereal mi s unof f i ci al l y
(andexponenti al l y) Ameri -
can. 37 Put
sl i ghtl y l ess rebarbari ti vel y, Canadi an
ressenti ment arti cul ates i t-
sel f as the three
absent di scourses of a soci al structuri ng of
cul tural
contempt : that of theadmi ni strators
f or thosewhomthey admi ni ster
: "I n-
si deevery
Canadi an, whether sheor heknows
i t
or
not, therei s, i n f act,
anAmeri can,' ;
that of mi ddl e- andupper- cl ass
Canadi ans "concerned wi th
theheal th andvi abi l i ty of
Canadi ancul ture" ; andthi rdl y, that of
l ower-
cl ass Canadi ans who
express thei r ressenti ment i n pref erri ng
Ameri can
popul ar cul ture: ". . . themore
l ow- browanAmeri cancul tural
acti vi ty, the
wi der i ts appeal i n Canada" 38
What
characteri zes theseabsent di scourses as absences i s
that each f orms
a di scursi ve
whol ewhoserhetori cal strategy, but not i ts
practi ces, con-
si sts i nthedeni al of
i ts ownressenti ment . Thus, the
di scourseof Canadi -
ancul tural
pol i cy i s al ways mel i orati ve, trough i ts
puni ti vecharacteri sti cs
dotranspi re. - To take
but oneexampl ef romthecul tural pol i cy area
that
has hadthel ongest hi story of
of f i ci al Canadi anpreoccupati on,
namel y ci ne-
ma, . Peter Pearson,
current. headof thepri nci pal stateagency wi th
respon-
si bi l i ty f or f eature- f i l mand
tel evi si on seri es producti on, reported
i n a
speech l ast wi nter bef ore theCanada
Cal i f orni a Chamber of Commerce
that "We, thepri vatesector and
Tel ef i l mnowaref ul f i l l i ng our j oi nt goal
:
to beonnetworkpri meti meand
pl ayi ngthemai nstream, not onl y i nCana-
da, but l i ke theHol l ywood
studi os, al l over theworl d. " I won' t
di scuss
theval i di ty of the. cl ai m
other than to notei ts si mi l ari ty to Peter Cook' s
vi si on of Canadaas
master of theways of theworl d; suf f i cei t
herethat,
accordi ng
to Pearson, thi s worl dwi deexpansi onof
Canadi an ci nema i s
predi cated uponandmadepossi bl eby the
si l enci ng of thenati onal i sm
that had, unti l thi s poi nt, beenthecontent of
Canadi anf i l ms, though the
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
bl amef or
t hi s i s at t ri but ed t o Canadi anyout h who
must nowbepuni shed:
"Now
t hi s `nat i onal gl ue t heory' i s comi ng
unst uck. Thereal i t y i s t hat
t eenagers i nCanadawon' t
got oaCanadi anmovi ei f youpayt hem. Unl ess
of courset hey want
t o. " But as t heydon' t want t o, maki ngt hemwant
t o
woul dhencef ort h bet het hrust of Canadi an
pol i cy; as Pearsonput i t , "Cana-
di an f anni es aregoi ng t o have
t o
f i l l
t het heat er seat s, andCanadi aneye-
bal l s wat ch t heprograms . "
39
Si mi l arl y, t he
di scourseof Canadi anl i t erarycul t uredeni es i t s
doubl eres-
sent i ment (whi ch woul dot herwi se
bedi rect edupwards at t hel i t erary pa-
t ron, t hest at e, and downwards
ont o t heant i nat i onal i st and uneducat ed
masses, t he
cul t ural consumers) and i nst ead
repl aces i t wi t h t heori es of
vi ct i mi zat i on, i . e. , ressent i ment t urned i n uponi t sel f
as sel f - puni shment .
As I shal l bel owof f er i ngreat er det ai l
ananal ysi s of t heworki ngs of t hi s,
t hecl earest f ormof
Canadi anressent i ment , l et mef or nowgi veonebri ef
exampl e, f rom
Margaret At wood' s cl assi c, Survi val : "Let us suppose, f or
t hesake
of
argument ,
t hat Canadaas awhol ei s avi ct i m. . . . " Thesupposi -
t i on, of course, soonbecomes sel f - f ul f i l l i ng: ". .
. st i ck api ni nCanadi anl i t er-
at ure at random,
and
ni ne
t i mes out of t enyou' l l hi t a
Vi ct i
m
.
1140
I f t he
perspect i ves of vi ct i m- product i on
seemi ngl yprovi deCanadi anl i t erat ure
wi t h adi scourset hat i s not about
ressent i ment , t heprobl emwi t h vi ct i ms
as al i t erary nat ural
resource i s t hat suppl i es runout unl ess consci ousl y
produced. As At wood
not es, t heproduct i veresources of vi ct i mi zat i onover
t i meonl y become
depl et ed and i ncreasi ngl y obscure, t hus creat i ng t he
(st at e- support ed) demand t hat makes of CanLi t t heproducer of anot her
Canadi anst apl e, l i kef ur,
wheat or hydro- el ect ri ci t y: namel y, t hecul t ure-
vi ct i m:
I n
earl i er wri t ers t heseobst acl es areext ernal - t hel and, t hecl i -
mat e, andso f ort h. I nl at er wri t ers
t heseobst acl es t end t o become
bot h harder t o i dent i f y and morei nt ernal ; . . .
no l onger obst acl es
t o physi cal survi val but . . . spi ri t ual
survi val , t ol i f e as anyt hi ng more
t hanami ni mal l yhumanbei ng. . . . andwhenl i f e
becomes at hreat
t o l i f e, youhaveamoderat el yvi ci ous
ci rcl e. I f amanf eel s he can
survi veonl ybyamput at i nghi msel f , t urni ng
hi msel f i nt o acri ppl e
or aeunuch, what pri ce
survi val ?"
Wi t h t hat quest i on- what pri cesurvi val ? -
wecomet o t het hi rd and
most l i t eral l y absent di scoursei n Canadi anressent i ment , namel yt he
ab-
sol ut esi l enceof t heCanadi anpubl i ci t sel f : gl aci al , i nert , andso t ot al l y i m-
penet rabl et hat i t canonl y berepresent ed: "Haveyounopubl i c opi ni on
i nt hat provi nce?" aBri t i sh st at esmanonceasked
Ont ari o' s
equi val ent
t o
Dupl essi s, Si r Ol i ver Mowat , whi l e Si r Ri chard Cart wri ght , mi ni st er of
f i nance, comment edseverel y ont hewort hl essness of publ i c opi ni oni n
t hesameprovi nce
. 42
Thi s
absol ut esi l ence, however, i s presumed by t he
ot her Canadi an
di scourses of ressent i ment t o bet heonemost dri venby
revenge- seeki ng and
so most t o bef eared and despi sed. For herei s t he
DEMONPOLI TI CS
(presumed) sourceof the `resentful nati onal i ty' that, i n theadmi ni strati ve
di scourse(Durham), "woul dseparate theworki ngcl ass of the
communi -
ty fromthe possessors of weal th andtheempl oyers of l abour"
43
: name-
l y, thei nhabi tants of NorthAmeri ca who, i n Canadi an hi stori cal di scourse,
"someti mes found
thei r
greatest andmost
mal i ci ous pl easurei n the ' free-
domto wreak upon thei r superi ors the
l ong l ocked-uphatred of thei r
hearts'
1141
; a peopl e who i n Canadi an l i terary di scourse
"make up for
the[ i r] meekness [ i n theprovi nce of publ i c cri ti ci sm] . . . by a generous use
of the correspondi ng pri vi l ege i n pri vate
"45;
and that Canadi an
phi l osophi cal di scourse (George Grant) has
desi gnated as the maj ori ty
popul ati on of the conti nent, the l ast men of an achi eved
moderni ty.
Todwel l i n moderni tymi ght thus beassumedto betheani musof Cana-
di an ressenti ment . Thesi gnsof moderni ty (eg. ,
popul ati on, urbani zati on,
technol ogi zati on, or i n i ts cul tural form, Ameri cani zati on)
woul dthen be
experi encedwi th somethi ngaki n to pani c, an unbal anci ngandl i teral di s-
l ocati on that NorthropFrye, i n a profound i nsi ght, states perfectl y
when
hewri tes that: ". . . Canadi an sensi bi l i ty has been profoundl y di sturbed, not
so
muchby our famous probl emof i denti ty. . . as by a seri es of paradoxes
i n
what confronts that i denti ty. . . . l ess. . . thequesti on `WhoamI ? ' than. . . some
such
ri ddl e
as
`Where i s here? "'
46 .
Understandi ngCanadi an ressenti ment
as preci sel y such a
di sl ocati on, thi s woul dsuggest, wi th the advent of
moderni ty, an accel erati on of thei nabi l i ty to change no l onger the
past
now(as i n Ni etzschean ressenti ment) but an i ntensi fi cati onof ressenti ment
to
i ncl udethepresent andfuture as wel l . ASWi l l i amNorri s, a Canadi an
author of the 1870s, expressedi t, hal f-seri ousl y
: "Under the present sys-
tem
[ i n
Canada]
there i s
no past to be
proudof,
no
present to gi ve rel i -
ance, andno
future
to hope
for. Devoi d
of
nati onal l i fe the country l i es
l i ke a corpse,
deadandstagnant ; but not so badas i t has been"4' . Thi s
fear of l oss -of one' spl ace
i n
ti meor hi story and
i n
thespaceof
commu-
ni ty, of nati on, of cul ture; i n short, of ' group val ues- i s what
Fryecal l s
"the real terror" of the Canadi an (garri son) i magi nati on, namel y,
the i n-
di vi duati on that i s al so part of moderni ty, i n whi chthe
i ndi vi dual
i s
con-
frontedwi th nothi ngness: "Thereal terror comeswhen thei ndi vi dual feel s
hi msel f becomi ngan i ndi vi dual , pul l i ngaway fromthegroup, l osi ngthe
senseof dri vi ngpower that the groupgi ves hi m, awareof a confl i ct wi -
thi n hi msel f far subtl er than the struggl eof moral i ty agai nst evi l , " a strug-
gl e whi ch Frye does not i denti fy but whi chwe may suggest i s that of
moral i ty as ressenti ment deni ed. I nsteadof engagi ngwi th thi s struggl e,
as Frye remarks, "I t i s much easi er to mul ti pl y garri sons, andwhen that
happens, somethi nganti -cul tural comes i nto Canadi an l i fe, a domi nati ng
herd-mi ndi n whi chnothi ngori gi nal can grow. Thei ntensi ty of the sec-
tari an di vi si veness i n Canadi an towns, both rel i gi ous andpol i ti cal , i s an
exampl e. . . " 48.
Deni ed,
ressenti ment
prol i ferates,
rooted i n the Canadi an
soci al structure-"Thegarri son mental i ty i s that of i ts offi cers: i t can tol er-
ate onl y the conservati ve i deal i smof i ts rul i ng cl ass, whi ch for Canada
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
meansthemoral
andproperti edmi ddl ecl ass'
149
-garri sons mul ti pl y, the
anti -cul tural herd-mi nd
domi nates and"fromtheexhaustedl oi ns
of
the
hal f-dead
massesof peopl ei nmodernci ti es" ( as Fryeputs i t i n
araredi s-
pl ay of hi s own
ressenti ment"), the l i terature the garri son
( but
now
metropol i tan) soci ety produces "at every stage,
tendsto berhetori cal , an
i l l ustrati onor al l egory of certai nsoci al
atti tudes" ( emphasi sadded) . 5 ' . And
i t i s rhetori cal , as opposedto poeti c,
( hi stori cal as opposedto mythi c,
documentary as opposedto i magi nati ve,
andsi ngl e-mi ndedl y obsessed
wi th asserti onas opposed
to anautonomous l i terature) because, accord-
i ngtoFrye, i t avoi ds thetheme
of sel f-confl i ct 5 z , i . e. , thethemeof ressen-
ti ment, preferri ng i nstead the
sel f-i nfl i cted puni shment of a good
consci ence.
I nni s
Ressenti ment and
theCanadi anMi nd: I nni s, McLuhan, Grant
I f Canadi anressenti ment
canthus beunderstoodas strategi es for the
avoi dance
of
the
( nati onal andcul tural ) i mpl i cati ons of moderni ty, even
thoughas Fryeremarks, "Canadai s not `new' or `young' : i t
i s exactl y the
sameageas any other country
under asystemof i ndustri al capi tal i sm"
5 3
,
does Canadi ani ntel l ectual
di scourseshare i n theavoi danceof ressenti -
ment?Taki ngthethree"embl emati c fi gures i n
Canadi anthought
115 4
of I n-
ni s, McLuhanandGrant, onewoul dhave
to say that they toopracti ce
survi val i st strategi es of avoi dance, but pri mari l y
by way of attempts at di s-
pl aci ngCanadi anressenti ment onto l arger
transnati onal andtechnol ogi -
cal enti ti es. I f I nni s, McLuhanandGrant wri te
al waysguardedl y of Canadi an
ressenti ment, thei r occasi onal l apses
are, therefore, al l themorepowerful .
I nni s' most
unguardedtext, andperhapshi smost bl unt, i s hi s 1947"The
Church i n Canada: " ". . . i n
thi s country [w]eareal l toomuch concerned
wi th thearts of suppressi o
veri , suggesti ofal si . `Thei nexorabl ei sol ati on
of thei ndi vi dual i s abi tter
fact
for the
humanani mal . . . andmuch of hi s
verbal i z i ng refl ects hi s obsti naterefusal
toface squarel y so unwel comea
real i z ati on
. ' ' 5 5
ThustheCanadi anpreferencefor publ i c l i es, thei nerti a
of
publ i c
opi ni on,
thenotori ousl ongevi ty of thepol i ti cal l i fe of publ i c fi gures,
andthesettl i ng
of
"al l great
publ i c questi ons" onthebasi sof petty, per-
sonal prej udi ces
had
for I nni s
"parti cul ar si gni fi cancefor thefundamental
corrupti on of Canadi anpubl i c l i fe. " 5 6 The
uni nterruptedandcounter-
revol uti onary tradi ti onof thedomi nanceof church
andstatebureaucra-
ci es i n both Engl i sh andFrench Canada, whi chal l owedthe Bri ti sh to
governNewFrance,
brought Quebec i nto Confederati onandthi rdl ymade
possi bl eCanadi an
resource devel opment . by government ownershi p of
canal s, rai l ways, hydro-el ectri c and
communi cati onsfaci l i ti es, hadal so pro-
foundl y i mpri ntedCanadi ancul tural devel opment wi th what I nni stermed
DEMONPOLI TI CS
"eccl esi asti ci sm" Thi s compri sedaPuri tani cal repressi on of art andother
expressi ons of cul tural l i fe, dogmati sm, heresytri al s, fanati ci sm, andsupi -
nati on before the state' s i nci pi ent total i tari an encroachments upon
ci vi l
l i berti es i ngeneral andi ntel l ectual freedomi n parti cul ars' . These
aspects
of the corrupti on of Canadi an publ i c l i fe thus madei t "not onl ydanger-
ousi nthi s countrytobeasoci al sci enti st wi thani nterest i ntruthbut . . . ex-
hausti ng: "
On
a wi der pl ane i t i s a source of constant frustrati on toattempt
to
beCanadi an. BothGreat Bri tai nandthe Uni tedStates encourage
us i n
assumi ng
the
fal se
posi ti on
that weare a great power andi n
urgi ngthat we
have great nati onal andi mperi al possi bi l i ti es. From
bothgroups weare
i ncreasi ngl y
subj ected. . . to
bureaucrati c tenden-
ci es
di ctated byexternal forces. We have nosense of our l i mi -
tati ons. "'
Wi thout onceusi ngthe word, I nni s manages i n thi s text toprovi de what
amounts. toa model or researchagenda for understandi ngCanadi an res-
senti ment .
McLuhan
ThoughMcLuhan di dnot at anyl engthwri te speci fi cal l yonCanada,
i n
Counterbl ast ( 1954) heofferedthe fol l owi ngpoemonCanadi an cul ture:
OhBLAST
The
MASSEYREPORTdampcul tural i gl oo
for canadi an devotees of
TI ME
LI FE
OhBLAST. . . ( t) he cri ng-
i ng, fl unkey
spi ri t of canadi an cul ture, i ts
servant- quarter snobbi shness
resentments
i gnorance
penury
BLESS
TheMASSEYREPORT,
HUGEREDHERRI NGfor
derai l i ng Canadi an kul cha whi l e i t i s
absorbedby Ameri can ART&Technol ogy59
I n other words, Canadi ancul ture, as oneparti cul arl yresentment- charged
i di omi n the resi dues
of
European nati onal i st pri nt- cul ture, woul dbe
( deservedl y) puni shedfor i ts ressenti ment bybei ngj oyousl ygroundi nto
"cosmi c t al c" by t he Ameri cancrusher
of art andt echnol ogy. McLuhan' s
fl i ght i nt o t he cosmos of t he
t echnol ogi cal Pent ecost of uni versal under-
st andi nganduni t y6 i s
t hus but anot her versi onof t he deni al of Canadi -
an ressent i ment
by a moral i zi ng fant asy of worl d( or nowcosmi c)
proport i ons. I nt hi s
sense, McLuhan, as Art hur Kroker has wri t t en,
by
t he
t i me "he became ful l y
aware of . t he ni ght mari sh qual i t y of. . . hi s
t hought . . . . was. . . .
i n
t heend, t rappedi nt he `fi gure' of hi s ownmaki ng
. . . .
I n
a ful l y t ragi c sense. . . . he was t hepl ayful perpet rat or, andt henvi ct i m, of
a si gn- cri me. "6'
Grant
I DEOLOGY
AND
POWER
I nGrant , Canadi anressent i ment i s
not deni edqua ressent i ment ; ont he
cont rary, i t i s uni versal i zedas t he psychol ogy
of
t he
"l ast
menwhowi l l
come t o be t he maj ori t y i n any real i zed t echni cal
soci et y".
61
( Saved
perhaps byt he "nemesi s" of i t s aspi rat i on
t onat i onhoodor at l east pro-
t ect edbyrel i gi ousremnant s of ani dent i fi cat i on
of vi rt ue andreason, Cana-
da for Grant , as for Frye, i s not a real i zed
but a "decadent " t echni cal
soci et y63 . ) The
wi l l ' s despai r at bei ng unabl e t o reverse or change t he
abyss of exi st ence - l i fe experi encedas publ i c
andpri vat e fi el ds of pai n
anddefeat - becomest hespi ri t
of revengeagai nst oursel ves, agai nst ot hers,
agai nst t i me i t sel f . But t he
cent ral fact about t hel ast meni s t hat because
t heycannot despi set hemsel ves, t heycan
t hus i nocul at e t hemsel ves agai nst
exi st ence: "Thel i t t l e t heyaskof l i fe ( onl yent ert ai nment
andcomfort ) wi l l
gi ve t hemendurance"64 . Because
t hey
t hi nk
t hey have foundhappi ness,
t hel ast menof t henort hernhemi sphere i nt he
modernagehave not over-
comeressent i ment , but "want revenge. . . agai nst anyt hi ngt hat t hreat ens t hei r
expect at i ons fromt ri vi al i t y"
65 : i mpot ent t o l i ve i nt he worl d, "i n t hei r
sel f- pi t y ( t hey) ext rapol at e t o a non- exi st ent
perfect i on i nwhi ch t hei r
fai l ures wi l l be made good. " They are t he l ast menbecause
t hey
are t he
i nheri t ors of a decadent rat i onal i sm, t heproduct s of ( resent ful ) Chri st i ani -
t y
i n
i t s secul ari zedform.
Thus, Grant ' s cel ebrat i onof t hedefeat of Canadi annat i onal i smi nLa-
ment
For ANat i on- "I
l ament as a cel ebrat i onof memory"66 - mi ght
beseenas a model - for t he
overcomi ngof ressent i ment , a Ni et zscheanex-
erci se i n amorfat i : a wi l l eddel i verance fromt he spi ri t
of revenge.
For,
i n t he real i zat i on t hat t hi s "l ast - di t ch st andof a l ocal cul t ure"
67
was not
a t ri vi al i ssue( unl i ke t hebranch- pl ant cul t ure of t hel ast men) but i nvol ves
"t he di amondst uff of whi chnat i onal i st s must be madei nt heseci rcum-
st ances, " Grant suggest s a heroi c or nobl e accept at i onof defeat :
Perhaps weshoul drej oi ce i nt he di sappearanceof Canada . Wel eave
t he narrowprovi nci al i smandour backwoods cul t ure; weent er t he
exci t ement
of
t he
Uni t edSt at es whereal l t hegreat t hi ngs are bei ng
done.
Whowoul dcompare
t hesci ence, t heart , t hepol i t i cs, t he en-
t ert ai nment of our pet t yworl d
t o
t he overfl owi ngachi evement s
of
DEMON
POLI TI CS
NewYor k, Washi ngt on, Chi cago andSan Fr anci sco? . . . . Thi s i s t he
pr of oundest ar gument f or. . . br eak [ i ng] downour par ochi al i sm
and
l ead[ i ng]
us
i nt o t hef ut ur e. '
But i s t hi s accept at i on
not ,
as
Gr ant r emar kedof hi s "i ncompr ehensi on"
of Ni et zsche, si mpl y t oo mucht o
demand? Woul dt hedef eat of Canada' s
l ocal cul t ur ebe,
i n f act , an over comi ng of r essent i ment or , on t hecon-
t r ar ybyi t s def eat t he
gener al i zat i on of r essent i ment t o t hecor eof moder n,
t echni cal
ci vi l i zat i on? For Gr ant , amor f at i "seems t o mea vi si on t hat woul d
dr i vemenmad- not i n t hesenseof
a di vi nemadness, but amadnesss
dest r uct i veof good. " 69 I n t hi s sense,
Gr ant i mpl i es t hat accept i ng t he
def eat of Canadi an nat i onal i sm
woul d besuch a f or mof madness -
dest r uct i veof t hegood. But
what t hen woul dbet he"good" of Canada' s
l ocal cul t ur e? Her e, r at her t han
f ur t her expl or i ngGr ant ' s wr i t i ngs, I woul d
l i ket o submi t t hat such a
def i ni t i onwoul dbet he( gr at ui t ous) under t aki ng
of
Canadi an cul t ur ei t sel f , i n t heAppl ebaum- Heber t Repor t ' s
senset hat
"t hel ar gest subsi dy t o t hecul t ur al l i f eof Canada [ has] come
. . . not f r om
gover nment s, cor por at i ons or ot her pat r ons, but
f r omt hear t i st s t hem-
sel ves, t hr ough t hei r unpai dor
under pai dl abour . "' Def i ni ng t hegoodof
Canada woul dt hus bea
' gi f t '
t o
t henat i on f r omi t s ar t i st s ( e. g. , novel i st s,
pai nt er s, f i l mmaker s) .
However , bef or e
t ur ni ng speci f i cal l y t o an exami nat i on of t hesedi s-
cour ses,
I woul dl i ket o begi n wi t h a cat egor y of l i t er ar y pr act i t i oner
not
cur r ent l y consi der ed an
ar t i st - namel y, t hehi st or i an- but who can, I
t hi nk, beso
consi der edher e. ' ' For onebecauseof t hel i t er ar y or i gi ns of
Canadi an
hi st or i cal wr i t i ng; f or anot her becauseCanada' s hi st or i ans ( at l east
unt i l t he
mi d- 1960s) haveal l beennat i onal i st s ; andt hi r dl ybecause"t her e
ar e
hi dden andunsuspect edf act or s behi ndanynat i onal
t r adi t i on
of
hi st or -
i cal wr i t i ng, andt heseneedber ai sedas f ar as possi bl et o
t hel evel of cons-
ci ousness. . . . . . T2 I n ot her wor ds, what has "t he
di amondst uf f ' of Canadi an
nat i onal i smconsi st ed i n?
Ressent i ment andCanadi an Hi st or y
Lhi st oi r eest cul t i vdeau Canada pl us peut - 8t r equ' en aucunaut r e
pays au monde
Remy de
Gour mont
( 1893)
Unt i l t hemi d- 1960s, Canadi anhi st or i cal
wr i t i ng, Fr ench andEngl i sh, was
pr edomi nant l y and
unpr obl emat i cal l y nat i onal i st . 73 I n 1971, Ramsay Cook
ar t i cul at ed a cr i t i ci smof Engl i sh- Canadi an hi st or i cal nat i onal i smt hat
Engl i sh- Canadi an hi st or i ans hadl ong l evel l ed agai nst t henat i onal i smof
Fr ench- Canadi an
hi st or i cal wr i t i ng, namel y "mi susi nghi st or y f or nat i on-
al i st pur poses. "' 4
Whi l et her ewoul d besomet hi ng t o say about Cook' s
conf l at i on of
nat i onal i sm, sur vi val i smandhi st or i ci sm, hi s mai nar gument
f or r epudi at i ngt henat i onal i smof ( Engl i sh- ) Canadi an hi st or i ans was t hat :
I DEOLOGY
ANDPOWER
becauseof t hei r commoncommi t ment t o t he nat i onal i st cr i t er i on
of sur vi val . . . ( t ) hi s has meant t hat t he conf l i ct has beenabat t l e of
pat r i ot s. . . f or nat i onal gr eat ness. And
. . .
t her e
i s no
war
mor e bi t t er
t han. . . awar bet weenpat r i ot s, eveni f t he bat t l e i s
r est r i ct edt o abat t l e
of t he books. "
I not her wor ds, t hat t her e
was apar t i cul ar l y f ear f ul bi t t er ness t o Cana-
di anexpr essi on,
whet her i nl i t er ar y or schol ar l y books, r el at i ve t o not one
but t hr eesepar at e r eal ms of sel f -def i ni t i on: a) acommoncommi t ment , b)
sur vi val , c) nat i onal gr eat ness. To put i t mor ebl unt l y,
i s
t hi s not si mpl y
a f ear f ul way of st at i ng t he t r ui smt hat Canadi anpol i t i cs ( commoncom-
mi t ment ) , economi cs andcul t ur e( sur vi val ) ,
andst at ecr af t
i n
bot h domes-
t i c andf or ei gnaf f ai r s ( nat i onal gr eat ness) have beenbi t t er ? I f
so,
t henwhat
i s at i ssue woul dbe l ess t hebi ases
of Canadi anhi st or i cal
schol ar shi p
t han
a qual i t y of Canadi anhi st or y i t sel f .
By
way of i l l ust r at i on, l et us t ake Ramsay Cook' s 1963gener al hi st or y
of Canada, Canada: AModer nSt udy76, i n t he pr ef ace t o whi ch Cook
pr esent s
al l
t he bi ases of ( Engl i sh-) Canadi anhi st or i cal nat i onal i smt hat he
woul dr epudi at e sever al year s l at er : eg. , t he `mi r acul ous' sur vi val i smof
Canadi anhi st or y. Thus " I f
Canada' s
hi st or y
i s di st i ngui shedby
anyt hi ng
i t i s a det er mi nat i ont o sur vi ve andl i ve accor di ng t o t he. di ct at es of our
hi st or i cal exper i ence. " However , acl ose r eadi ng of Cook' s hi st or y mi ght
suggest i nst eadt hat i f Canada' s moder nhi st or y i s di st i ngui shedby any-
t hi ng, i t i s t hebi t t er ness anddi vi si veness of t he hi st or i cal exper i ence he
descr i bes f r om, ont he f i r st page, t he " t r agedy" f or Fr ench Canadi ans of
Br i t ai n' s conquest of Canada t o, ont he l ast page, t he nat i onwhosef our -
t eent h pr i me mi ni st er f ound
f aci ng " ser i ous economi c pr obl ems. . . , was
sor el y di vi dedbet weenci t y ar i d
count r y,
bet ween
Fr ench
andEngl i sh,
and
st i l l hadnot sol vedt he. . . pr obl ems of f or ei gnanddef encepol i cy" - i n
shor t ,
whose" pr obl ems. . . t akent oget her seemedt ochal l enget hecont i nued
andheal t hy exi st ence of t he nat i on
i t sel f '
( pp. 260-1) .
I nsuch al i ght , Canadi anhi st or ywoul dappear as af or mof r esent ment -
management , acont r ol l i ng
of
t hecompl ex
pl ay of l i ngui st i c, cl ass,
r egi on-
al ,
nat i onal andi nt er -nat i onal r essent i ment s t hat const i t ut e Canadi anhi st or -
i cal exper i ence. Thus, t aki ng f r omCook' s t ext onl y t hoseexampl es wher e
he speci f i cal l y uses t he ver b " t o r esent " ( and one coul dsubst ant i al l y
br oadent he sampl i ng by
use of such cognat es of r essent i ment as
`f ear ' ,
`bi t t er ness' , `envy' , `i r r i t at i on' , `unhappi ness' , ' obnoxi ousness' et c. ) , wef i nd
t he f ol l owi ng:
" The Pr esbyt er i ans, Met hodi st s and Bapt i st s deepl y r esent ed t he
pr i vi l eges gr ant edt o t heAngl i cans" ( p. 44) ; " Thef ar mer s r esent edt hehi gh
r at es char gedby t he Canadi anPaci f i c Rai l way f or car r yi ng gr ai n. t o mar -
ket " ( p. 121) ; ". . . i n1914 Canadawas not ani ndependent st at e andBr i t ai n' s
decl ar at i on' of war was madeonbehal f of al l t heEmpi r e, i ncl udi ng Cana-
da. FewCanadi ansr esent edt hi s f act " ( p.
165) ;
" Whent hedepr essi ont hr ew
t housandsof Fr ench Canadi ans out of wor k, smoul der i ng r esent ment ex-
DEMONPOLI TI CS
pl odedi nt o anger agai nst `f orei gn' empl oyers" (p. 200) ;
"Thi s sl i ght f eel -
i ngof resent ment at t heat t i t ude of t heUni t edSt at es t o t heSeaway
was
part
of
agrowi nganxi et yi n Canadaabout t hedegreeof i nf l uence
whi ch
t heUni t edSt at es seemedt oexerci sei n Canadi an af f ai rs" (p.
243) ; and
"The
Li beral s hadbeen
part i cul arl yworri edabout t hei r abi l i t y t oret ai n t hesup-
port of Quebec, f or t he
French Canadi ans hadresent ed t heconscri pt i on
pol i cy of 1944" (p. 250) . Thus, even i n t he
wri t i ngs of a hi st ori an who
woul dcomet oi dent i t y "t hel ack of `soundt hi nki ngon t he
nat i onal ques-
t i on"' as "one of
t hemost seri ous weaknesses of Canadi an i nt el l ect ual
l i f e"", onef i nds l evel s of Canadi an ressent i ment
t hat are not at t ri but abl e
t o
nat i onal i sm. Ont hebasi s of t heexampl es above, rel i gi ous,
economi c
and
domest i c pol i t i cal ressent i ment woul dappear on t hei r
own
t o
of f er
suf f i ci ent grounds f or di vi si veness
wi t hout t headdedressent i ment provi d-
ed by nat i onal i sm. Curi ousl y, i n Cook' s
exampl es of t he t woi nst ances
wherenat i onal i smi s di rect l yaf act or, t hel evel of
ressent i ment i s l ess t han
i t i s wi t ht henon- nat i onal i st
f orms
:
Canada' s 1914 l ack of i ndependence
vi s- a- vi s Bri t ai n causedl i t t l e resent ment amongCanadi ans, and
t hegrow-
i ngearl y t o mi d- 1950s suspi ci on of Uni t ed St at es i nf l uencei n Canadi an
af f ai rs
caused
onl y sl i ght resent ment .

'
However, i f onet urns t ot hewri t i ngs of avowedl y(as opposedt ouneas-
i l y) nat i onal i st Canadi an
hi st ori ans suchas Crei ght on, Lower andWL. Mor-
t on; t he rel at i ons bet ween ressent i ment and
nat i onal i smbecome more
pronouncedandat t hesamet i me morecompl ex
. I ndeed, Crei ght on, of
t heAl aska boundary di sput e, wri t es t hat "t he backgroundof
brut al i m-
peri al i sm
on
bot h si des of t heAt l ant i c. . . produceda nat i onal i st react i on
i n Canadamorevi ol ent andsust ai nedt hananyt hi ng i n t hehi st oryof
t he
count ry. . . . t hi s doubl eresent ment . . . socharact eri st i c of Canadi an
nat i on-
al i sm. " 78 Crei ght on' s not i on of t hedoubl e resent ment of Canadi an
nat i on-
al i smi s
i mmensel ysuggest i ve of t hecompl ex i nt erpl ay of ressent i ment
and
nat i onal i smi n Canadai n i t s doubl eart i cul at i ons: 1] a) anext ernal res-
sent i ment of
Engl i sh
Canadi an
nat i onal i smt owards bot hBri t i shandAmeri -
can i mperi al i smand
1] b) si mi l arl y of FrenchCanadi an nat i onal i smt owards
i t s f ormer met ropol i s as wel l as Angl o- Canadi an i mperi al i sm; and
2]
an
i n-
t ernal ressent i ment t hat i s i t sel f doubl e: a) di rect ed downwards
ont ot he
popul at i ons of Canadaandb) ref l ect edback upagai nas
t heregi onal i sms,
separat i sms or ot her f orms of al i enat i on t hat have
const i t ut edt heperma-
nent cri si s of t heCanadi an conf ederat i on.
I f
t he
wri t i ngs
of
Crei ght on andMort on7' arei nval uabl ef or underst and-
i ngext ernal ressent i ment i n Canadi an nat i onal i sm, t hoseof A. R. MLower
di spl ay asi mi l ar candour i n gi vi ngvoi cet o i nt ernal ressent i ment : "The
weakness
of
Canadi an democracyhas l ai n not somuchi n i t s l eaders as
i n i t s f ol l owers. . . . Canadi an nat i onal i smwas f ormedf romt het op.
Thef ar-
.
t her down t hescal e onewent , t he l ess consci ousness
t herewas of t he
whol ecount ry. . . . . . e That t he"f ol l owers"
onl y ret urnedt hi s ki ndof res-
sent i ment , of course, was not l ost on Lower: "Secessi on
t al k andot her
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
phenomena
of di si nt egr at i onpr oceededei t her fr omeconomi c di sappoi nt -
ment
or
i t s
by- pr oduct , par t i sansni pi ng. Of t hefor mer t her ewas much
andi t was gr avendeepi nt hefai l ur eof t hecount r yt ogr ow"
8
'
Lower ex-
pr esses aCanadi an- nat i onal i smmadeupof i nt er l ocki ng r essent i ment s t hat ,
i nMor t on' s vi ew,
conveyed t hecol oni al fi xat i onof anent i r egener at i on:
"Theyl ovet henat i onCanada, but t hey hat ei t al so. They hat ei t because
t hey hat ei t s col oni al or i gi ns, whi cht hey wi sht odeny but cannot , and
must t her efor et r amponendl essl y i never l ess meani ngful fr enzy. "
8
x
Thus,
i nLower ' s wor ds:
. . . Engl i sh Canadi ans. . . ar eadour and uni magi nat i vefol k. Havi ng
fai l ed t ofi nd acent r ei nt hemsel ves, t hey
bor r owt heher oes, t he
hi st or y, t hesongs andt hesl angof
ot her s. Wi t hnovi vi dl y r eal i zed
r es publ i caof t hei r ownt o t al k about ,
t hey t aker efugei nsi l ence,
unabl e
t o
for mul at e
t hei r l oyal t i es, confused over t hei r deepest aspi -
r at i ons
. Yet t hey. . . must sur el y haveani nt ui t i vefai t hi nt heunex-
pr essedessenceof t hei r t r adi t i ons . . . . I f t heCanadi anpeopl ear e
t o
fi nd t hei r
soul , t hey must seek. . . i t , not i nt heEngl i shl anguageor
t heFr ench, but i n. . . . t hel and. e'
For Lower ,
however , t hefai l ur eof Canadi annat i onal i sm, al ways choked
back i nt osi l ence
on
i t s
r essent i ment , meant t hepossi bi l i t y t hat t heCana-
di anar t i st mi ght succeed wher e
t hehi st or i ancoul d not .
Ressent i ment and Canadi an
Li t er at ur e:
SusannaMoodi eand
Sar aJ eannet t eDuncan
Her r esent ment was onl y hal f- ser i ous
but
t he
not e
was t her e
Sar aJ eannet t e Duncan, TheI mper i al i st
I f i nLower , r essent i ment of t hesoul l essness
of t heCanadi anpeopl ei s
defl ect edont ot hel andscapewhosedi st i ngui shi ng char act er i st i c t hus be-
comes t hecel ebr at i onof what i s i neffect
a
puni t i ve
absenceof popul a-
t i on, hewas onl y r epeat i ngast r at egy pr act i ced by Canadi anl et t er s i na
l ong t r adi t i onof embi t t er ed or i r oni c cr i t i ci smof Canadi ansoci et ysi nce
Hal i bur t on. As I don' t pr oposet or evi ewt hat t r adi t i onher e, I wi l l r est r i ct
mysel f t ot heexampl es
offer ed by SusannaMoodi e' s Roughi ng I t i nt he
Bush( 1852) , t oget her wi t h
abr i ef di scussi onof Sar aJ eannet t eDuncan' s
TheI mper i al i st ( 1904) .
I nMoodi e, t hesoci al basi s
of
r essent i ment
pr ecedes emi gr at i ont oCana-
da. Emi gr at i oni s for ced "upont he
pr oudandwoundedspi r i t of t hewel l -
educat ed sons anddaught er s of ol dbut i mpover i shed fami l i es
. "
That
r es-
sent i ment , whi l eacknowl edged as acomponent of t heOl d Wor l d, i s
however
deni ed as const i t ut i veof t heNewWor l d:
But t her ei s ahi gher
mot i ve[ t oemi gr at i on] . . . t hat l oveof i ndepen-
dencewhi chspr i ngs upspont aneousl yi nt he. . . hi gh- soul edchi l dr en
DEMONPOLI TI CS
of agl or i ous l and.
They
cannot
l abour i n ameni al capaci ty i n the
countr ywher ethey wer ebor n and educated to command. They
can tr aceno di f f er ence between
themsel ves andthemor ef or tunate
i ndi vi dual s of a r ace whosebl ood
war ms thei r vei ns, andwhose
names they bear . Thewant of weal th al one pl aces an
i mpassi bl e
bar r i er betweenthemand themor ef avour edof f spr i ng
. . .
and
they
go f or th to makef or themsel ves anewnameandto f i nd another
countr y, to f or get thepast andto l i ve i n thef utur e, to exul t i n the
pr ospect
of
. . . the l and
of
thei r
adopti on
[ becomi ng] gr eat . e'
Revengeagai nst thepast, i e. ,
r essenti ment, thus f uel s thevi si onof gr eat-
ness (i ndependence) pr omi sed bythe
i deal i zed andmor al i zed Canada. I n
theencounter between thei deal and the i mpover i shed r eal i ty,
not onl y
i s ther edi sappoi ntment, but thebi tter ness of that di sappoi ntment
r el eases
ther essenti ment that was "the or di nar y moti ve" f or
emi gr ati on: "Di sap-
poi ntment, as a matter of cour se, f ol l owed. . .
hi gh- r ai sed expectati ons . . . . "
but the di sappoi ntment i s dueto the "di sgusti ng scenes of
r i ot and l ow
debaucher y. . . [ the] dens of di r t andmi ser ywhi chwoul d,
i nmanyi nstances,
beshamed by an
Engl i shpi g- sty
.
"85
Not
onl y
does
the popul ace compar eunf avor abl y to Br i ti sh pi gs, but
the state- appar atus and i ts i ndustr i ous pamphl eteer s and
hi r ed or ator s,
whosegl owi ng descr i pti ons of Canada hadpr oduced a "Canada
mani a"
i n the mi ddl e r anks of Br i ti sh soci ety, wer e scar cel y better
:
Oh, ye deal er s i n wi l dl ands - ye specul ator s i n thef ol l yandcr edul -
i tyof your f el l ow- men - what amass of mi ser y, andof mi sr epr esen-
tati on pr oducti veof that mi ser y, have yet not to
answer f or ! You
hadyour acr es to
sel l ,
and
what
to you
wer ethewor n- downf r ames
andbr oken hear ts of thei nf atuated pur chaser s?
The
publ i c
bel i eved
thepl ausi bl estatements you madewi thsuchear nestness,
andmen
of
al l
gr ades
r ushed
to
hear your hi r ed or ator s decl ai mupon the
bl essi ngs to beobtai ned by the cl ear er s of the wi l der ness . "86
Bycontr ast, the l and i tsel f , as wi l der ness, i . e. , once empti edof i ts cor -
r upt i nhabi tants, pr esents thestandar d j oui ssances of theBur keansubl i me
as r eper tor i ed by Chauncey Loomi s : "sound andsi l ence, obscur i ty, sol i -
tude, vastness and magni f i cenceas sour ces of subl i me
astoni shment and
ter r or
. "e'
Thus Moodi e wr i tes of Canada' s
"awf ul beauty, " "excess of beau-
ty, " "astoni shi ng beauty" whose"ef f ect was str angel y novel and i mpos-
i ng. . . her e the f or est has never yet echoed to the woodsman' s axe or
r ecei ved thei mpr i nt of ci vi l i zati on, thef i r st appr oach[ to whi ch]
. .
. i nspi r es
a mel anchol y awewhi chbecomes pai nf ul i n i ts i ntensi ty
. "ee
I f thesi ght of Canadi an shor es pr oduces i n Moodi ea
cul tur al l y di sti nct
r esponse- "I never bef or ef el t so over power i ng myowni nsi gni f i cance"
(p. 29) - thef act that thesameshor es pr oducear adi cal l ydi f f er ent cul tur -
al r esponse
among
thel ower cl asses onl ybr i ngs out Moodi e' s r essenti ment
i n whi chcul tur al and cl ass di f f er ences ar e f used i nto thel andscape:
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
It was ascene over whi ch
t he spi ri t of peace mi ght broodi n si l ent
adorat i on; but howspoi l edby
t he di scordant yel l s of t he f i l t hy be-
i ngs whowere
sul l yi ng t he puri t y of t he ai r andwat er wi t hcon-
t ami nat i ng si ght s andsounds!
Thesi ght of t he Canadi an shores
hadchangedt hemi nt o persons
of great consequence. The poorest and
worst - dressed, t he l east
deservi ngandt he
most repul si vei nmi ndandmoral s exhi bi t edmost
di sgust i ngt rai t s of sel f - i mport ance
. Vani t y andpresumpt i onseemed
t o possess t hemal t oget her . 89
She cont i nues:
Gi rl s, whowere scarcel y abl e
t o
washa f l oor decent l y,
t al ked of
servi ce wi t hcont empt , unl ess t empt ed
t o change t hei r resol ut i on
byt he of f er
of $12 amont h. To endeavour t o undecei ve t hemwas
ausel ess and
ungraci ous t ask . . . . I l ef t i t t o t i me andbi t t er experi ence
t o rest ore
t hemt o t hei r sober senses. '
Moodi e' s resent f ul observat i ons of t he
ef f ect s of Canadi an shores upon
t he l ower cl asses hadal readybeen not edsome t hi rt y
years
earl i er
byJ ohn
Howi son i n hi s 1821 Sket ches of Upper Canada:
Manyof t he emi grant s
I sawhadbeen onshore af ewhours onl y,
duri ngt hei r passage bet ween
Mont real . and Ki ngst ori , yet t hey had
al readyacqui redt hoseabsurd
not i onsof i ndependenceandequal -
i t y, whi chare so deepl yengraf t ed i n t he mi nds
of t he l owest i n-
di vi dual s of t he Ameri can
nat i on. 9'
In Moodi e, ressent i ment
becomes t he basi s of avi si on of Canadi an na-
t i onal i sm(pp.
29- 30)
i n whi ch
she urges Canadi ans t o "remai nt rue t o your-
sel ves", i e. ,
t o t he (si l ent ) l andscape ("Look at t he St . Lawrence. . . t hat great
art ery. . . t ransport i ng. . . t he
ri ches andproduceof at housanddi st ant cl i mes") .
Inst eadof becomi nga"humbl edependant
ont he great republ i c, " Canada
shoul d "wai t pat i ent l y, l oyal l y, l ovi ngl y"
f or
t he
daywhen Bri t ai n "wi l l
procl ai myour chi l dhoodpast , andbi d
youst and. . . a f ree Canadi an peo-
pl e": ". . . do t hi s, and. . . youwi l l . . . l earn t o l ove
Canadaas
I
nowl ove i t , who
once vi ewed i t wi t hhat red so i nt ense t hat . I l onged
t o
di e. . . "
It i s perhaps appropri at e t hat Moodi e' s book arousedresent ment i nCana-
da- - as she put i t , "amost unj ust prej udi ce. . . because I daredgi ve myopi n-
i onf reel y" - and
woul dnot be repri nt edi n Canadaunt i l 1871, or al most
t went y years af t er i t s f i rst edi t i on.
In cont rast , i f SaraJ eannet t e Duncan' s j ournal i st i c ressent i ment
of t he
popul at i on of Ont ari o whomshe descri bedcol l ect i vel y as "Maori s" and
a
"gi ant
camp of t he Phi l i st i nes" has beendocument ed9z , t he absence of
anysuchout spoken
ressent i ment i n her novel TheImperi al i st i s not ewor-
t hy. Duncan' s novel af f ect s an
al most cl i ni cal det achment i nwhi chressen-
t i ment has si mpl y
become nat ural i z ed, i . e. , i t ' s merel ypart of t he l andscape,
andso t here are no descri pt i ons
of
t he l andscape, ot her t han
t he soci al
t opol ogy of t he t own of El gi n, unt i l pp. 70- 71:
DEMON
POLI TI CS
. . . he had
not hi ng
t o say ; t he si l ence i n whi ch t hey pur sued
t hei r
way was no doubt t o hi mj ust t he embar r assi ng condi t i on he
usual -
l y had t o cont end wi t h. To her i t seemed pr egnant , auspi ci ous ; i t
dr ewsomet hi ng f r omt he l owgr ey l i ght s of t he wet
spr i ng. af t er -
noon and t he unbound hear t l i f t i ng wi nd. . . . They went on i n t hat
st r ange bound way, and t he day dr ewaway f r omt hemt i l l t hey
t ur neda sudden cor ner , when i t l ay al l al ong t heyel l owsky acr oss
t he r i v er , behi nd a f r i nge of wi nt er woods, st ayed i n t he moment
of i t s r et r eat on t he edge of unv exed l andscape. 9 '
For t he youngEngl i shman, Hugh Fi nl ay, t he Canadi an si l ence i s j ust t he
embar r assi ng condi t i on heusual l y had t o cont ent wi t h; f or t he Canadi an,
Adv enaMur chi son, ( "occupi ed i n t he aest het i c ecst asy of sel f - t or t ur e"p. 184)
her f eel i ngs ar e dr awn f r omt he or di nar y l andscape: what t he: } , suddenl y
see and shar e i n, howev er , i s not t he or di nar y l andscape, but t he ext r aor -
di nar y l andscape; i n Duncan' s wor ds, t he t i nv exed l andscape. I ) uncan con-
t i nues :
They st opped i nv ol unt ar i l y t ot I t t ak, ar i d she sawa smi l e
come up
f r omsome dept h i n hi m.
"Ah, wel l , " hesai d, as i f t o hi msel f , "i t ' s somet hi ng t o he i n a coun-
t r y wher e t he sun st i l l goes down
~r i t h a
t hought of
t he pr i ni acv al . "
"I t hi nk I
pr ef er
t he sophi st i cat i on 4 chi mney- pot s ; " she r epl i ed
.
"I ' v e al ways l onged t o seea sut r sv i i n I . t r ndon, wi t h dt c
. f t t g
br eak-
i ng ov er West mi nst er . " ,
"Thenyoudon' t
car eabout t hemf or t hemsel v es,
sunset s?" heasked,
wi t h t he si mpl est absence of mi n&
"I nev er yet coul dsee t hesun
got
down, But I was angr y i n my hear t ; '
she sai d, and t hi s t i me he l ocked : u her .
". . . I t ' s t heseal uponan act of v i 4 - i l ct i cv , i st t ' t i t , a sunset ? Somet hi ng
t aken f r omus agai nst our wi l l I t ' s a I t awf ul r emi nder , i n t he mi dst
of our
del i ght f ul
v ol i t i ons, of
how
ar bi t r ar y
ev er y condi t i on of l i f e
i s .
"94
For Fi nl ay, t hesunset
i s, as t he depopul at ed Canadi an
l andscape was f or
Moodi e, an i nst ance of subl i mi t y For Adv ena, i f t he l andscape was "i n-
v ol unt ar i l y" and moment ar i l y unv exed, v exat i on or r essent i ment i mmedi -
at el y r et ur ns such t hat she pr ef er s an i magi nar y l andscape ( a sunset i n a
London she' s
nev er
seen) t o t he( popul at ed) oneshe can see ( and l i v es i n)
si nce t hi s i s a hat ef ul r emi nder of t he cul t ur al anger i n her hear t ( t hepoem
she quot es) , of t he v i ol ence
of
unsophi st i cat i on, i . e. , t he r essent i ment
of
t he wi l l ' s i nabi l i t y t o al t er t he past . That r essent i ment ( somet hi ng t aken
f r omus agai nst our wi l l s) i s f ur t her r ei nf or ced by t hedi scussi on t hey hav e
as
t o
wher e t he l i ght
goes: "I nt o
t he v oi d behi nd
t i me, "
Fi nl ay
suggest s ;
"I nt o t he t ext ur e of t he f ut ur e, " Adv ena answer s
.
Howev er , i t ' s Adv ena' s br ot her , Lor ne, t he i mper i al i st of t he nov el ' s t i t l e,
who def i nes t he t ext ur e of t hat f ut ur e i n l anguage t hat woul d be r emi ni s-
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
cent of Grant' s ressenti ment- f i l l ed l ast menwi ththei r tri vi al desi re f or en-
tertai nment and comf ort : ". . . i t' s f or the moral advantage [ of bel ongi ngto
anempi re] . Waydownat thebottom, that' s what i t i s. Wehave thesense
to want al l wecanget of that sort of thi ng. They' ve devel opedthef i nest
humanproduct there
i s, thecl eanest, themost di si nterested, andwewant
to keep upthe rel ati onshi p. . . .
1195
I ncompari ngthese two
moments
i n
thedevel opment of Canadi an
l i ter-
ature, Mo odi e' s vi si on of f ers an unvexed natural l andscape, but a vexed
soci al l andscape, whi l e Duncan bl ends the onei nto the other. As Lorne
Murchi son' s words suggest, theadvent of mechani cal meansof reproduc-
ti onsuchas photographyor ci nema ( the f i nest product, the cl eanest, the
most di si nterested) mi ght at l ast provi deapatharound thevexaci ousCana-
di anl i terary l andscape, bei t that of i ts phi l osophers, hi stori ans, or novel i sts.
Ressenti ment
andCanadi anVi sual Arts :
The
cl i chei zati onof the
l andscape
Onemust guess thepai nter i n order tounderstand thepi cture. But
nowthe whol esci enti f i c f raterni tyi s out to understand thecanvas
and the col ours - not the pi cture"
Ni etzsche, Schopenhauer As Educator
Denni s Rci d has suggestedthat "of al l thearts i n Canada, pai nti ngi s the
onethat most di rectl y presents tl tc Canadi an experi ence. "96 However, i f
there i s anycvtnsi stencyto Canadi an experi ence ( and thi s paper has ar-
gued that therei s) , that expcri ctuc has beenpredomi nantl ycharacteri zed
byresscmi ni ci a andthequest f t tr i ts rel ocati on bydi stanci ngi n i ) ameta-
Canadi ai t rtt0 tral i sm, i i ) apan- Canadi ani nati onal i sm, andi i i ) atrans- Canadi an
l andscapi sm. hi thi s sense, Canadi anart rather thanmost di rectl ypresent-
i ngCanadi an experi ence woul dc ( ) ttti nue al ongthesametraj ectoryof rel o-
cati onthat we haveencounteredi n Canadi anphi l osophy, hi stori cal wri ti ng
and l i terature. As Vancouver arti st Robert Kl eynhas put i t :
Pl agued by questi ons of i denti ty, Canadi an art of ten proposes
prescri pti ve f rameworks whi cheasi l yl eadtodeci pheri ngrather than
i ntermgati ngtheauthori tyof therepresentati onbehi ndthepresen-
tati on. Thi s i denti tyi s posedi n terms of recogni ti on, recogni ti on
outsi de Canada. "
That recogni ti on, however,
woul d onl y
be made
possi bl e, i n Crei ght-
on' s bi tter
observati on, "byabandoni ng a part,
or
the whol eof [ the ar-
ti st' s]
owntradi ti on
or
speci al poi nt- of - vi ew. . . ACanadi an arti st . . . coul d
ei ther l eaveCanadaf or the. rnetropol i tancentreof hi s choi ce, or hecoul d
gi ve up Canadi an themes, except those. . . regarded as quai nt or barbari c,
andtheref ore i nteresti ng, i n thearti sti c andl i terarycapi tal s of WesternEu-
rope and Ameri ca"9g But, i n f act, there was another, and more
i ntri cate,
possi bi l i tyf or
the
devel opment of Canadi anart as astrategyof
avoi dance
of Canadi anressenti ment, and
I ' d l i ke
to term
thi s thecl i chei zati on of the
l andscape.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
BetweenConf ederati onandtheendof thecentury, Canadi anart f ol -
l owed
no
di recti onsavethat of `pl easi ng thepubl i c. ' 99 I f most Canadi an
arti sts approached
pai nti ng i nthespi ri t of theage- to becomeri ch f ast-
that spi ri t
woul d
i ncreasi ngl y be one
marked by the devel opment of
mechani cal ( or photo- chemi cal ) meansof reproducti on. Thei mpact of the
cameraonCanadi anart woul dbedeci si veas part of the"pragmati c materi -
al i smand
commerci al i sm[ that] permeatedthewhol ef abri c of Canadi an
l i f e ( emphasi s added)"' .
As i ndi cati ve el ements i n a total transf ormati ve
process af f ecti ngCanadi anart, I ' l l si ngl eout three:
i )
the
i nsti tuti onal i za-
ti onof art, i i ) thecommerci al i zati onof arti sts, andi i i ) the
mechani zati on
of vi si on.
i ) The
i nsti tuti onal i zati on
of
art as
of
the1870s, begunwi th theOntari o
Soci ety of Arti sts, theRoyal Soci ety, andtheRoyal Canadi anAcademy of
Arts, woul dbe di rectedby thestate( the Marqui s of
Lorneas Governor-
General ) andmodel l ed ontherecreati onof
"l i ttl erepl i cas of Bri ti sh cul -
tural organi zati ons" 101 . Theprocess of stati f i cati on
woul dbedi sti ngui shed
by outbursts of ressenti ment or a "marvel ous amount of
bi tterness and
badl anguage; hal f thearti sts areready j ust nowto choketheother
hal f
wi th thei r pai nt brushes".
102
i i ) Thecommerci al i zati onof art amountedto thesubordi nati onof pai nt-
i ng tophotography' and
the
ri seof
photographi c f i rms such as Wi l l i amNot-
manof Montreal , Notmanand Fraser of Toronto, and
l ater the other
commerci al studi os suchas Toronto' s Gri p, theBri gdenOrgani zati on
and
Phi l l i ps- Gutki nAssoci ates i nWi nni peg, andGraphi cs Associ ates
i n
Toronto,
al l of whi chpl ayedessenti al rol es i nthedevel opment of modernCanadi -
anart andf i l m. '
3
To take but onesi gn of thegeneral subordi nati onof
pai nti ng
to
photography ( though photography woul d "i ndi rectl y en-
courage. . . thespreadof pai nti ng throughCanada" [ Harper] ), theOntari o
Soci ety
of
Arti sts' f i rst exhi bi ti on
( 1873)
woul dbehel dat theNotmanand
Fraser Photographi c Gal l ery i n Toronto.
i i i ) Theaestheti c of Erasti an i nsti tuti onal i zati onontheonehandand
commerci al i zati onon
theother
was
aphotographi c vi si onor real i smthat,
at i ts best, aspi redto be"apreci secl ear
ref l ecti on
of
theworl d" whi ch,
i nCanadi anterms,
meant thesearch f or ever wi l der Canadi anterrai nthat
woul dreach
i ts f ul l est expressi oni ntheGroupof Seven. At i ts worst, such
photographi c real i smwas "pedestri anandl abori ous" ; and, i n between,
l eadto a
Canadi annati onal styl ewhosebegi nni ngs woul dbetheproduc-
ti onof
the
doubl evol ume
enti tl edPi cturesqueCanada( 1882) by whi ch
a"veri tabl e
army"
of
arti sts, i ncl udi ngAmeri cannewspaper i l l ustrators who
hadworkedon
theearl i er Pi cturesqueAmeri ca, "madeavai l abl eto pub-
l i c and arti sts
al i ke
the
f i rst
great seri es of
l ocal l y
produced
Canadi an
scenes. . . at a ti me whennati onal i smwas bei ng arousedonal l si des.
11104
For theprobl emposedby thecl i chei zati onof thel andscapei nvol ves
amaj or ( andI ' mtemptedto say absol ute) di spl acement. I npart, thi s di s-
pl acement i s themedi umi sti c probl em
of
theshi f t f roml andscapeas al i ter-
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
ar y f i gur e t o l andscape as backdr op or cl i che ( f r om
t he Ger man, kl i t scb,
l ump or mass, and t hus i t s aest het i c, ki t sch) ; i n ot her
wor ds, t he shi f t f r om
f i gur e t o i mage t hat Wal t er
Benj ami n under st ood as t he anni hi l at i on of
met aphor i ci t y
by t he advent of " t he l ong- sought i mage spher e. . . t he wor l d
of uni ver sal and i nt egr al act ual i t i es, wher e t he ' best r oom' ` i s mi ssi ng -
t he spher e, i n a wor d, i n whi ch pol i t i cal mat er i al i smand physi cal nat ur e
shar e t he i nner man. " '
5
To put i t anot her
way, t he t r ansi t i on f r oml i t er -
ar y t o mechani zed
medi umi nvol ved a doubl e di spl acement of t he Cana-
di an l andscape : f i r st l y, t he obj ect i f i cat i on of t he vacant l andscape ( whose
evacuat i on, as we have seen, i s an ef f ect of r essent i ment ) as ' r eal i t y' ; se-
condl y, t he det er r i t or i al i zed non- speci f i ci t y
or uni ver sal i zat i on of a va-
cant r eal i t y by mechani cal means. I f Amer i can
newspaper i l l ust r at or s coul d
r eadi l y pr oduce Canadi an
scenes, Amer i can f i l mcr ews woul d wi t hi n af ew
year s
pr oduce ' Canadi an' f eat ur es shot ent i r el y i n t he U. S. , j ust as Canadi -
anf i l mpr oducer s woul d one day come t o speci al i ze i n maki ng Amer i can'
f eat ur es shot ent i r el y i n Canada.
The anni hi l at i on,
or at l east uni di mensi onal i zat i on, of met aphor i ci t y by
t he cl i chei zat i on
of
t he
l andscape t hus nat ur al i zed Canadi an si l ence t o a
degr ee Canadi an l et t er s ( or any l i t er ar y medi um, i ncl udi ng newspaper s)
coul d never . Li ke t he owner shi p of t he l and
by
t he Cr own, t he
devel op-
ment of Canadi an
communi cat i ons woul d be a st at e- monopol y. But be-
f or e
f ur t her
r ef er ence t o moder n medi a, i t i s necessar y t o concl ude t hi s
di scussi on of Canadi an vi sual ar t s by exami ni ng t he r essent i ment pr oduced
by t he Gr oup of Seven' s at t empt ed r evol t agai nst t he cl i ched l andscape.
I f t he member s of t he Gr oup wer e " t he f i r st
t o speak l oudl y as cons-
ci ousl y nat i onal Canadi an pai nt er s, " '
6
t he sear ch f or somet hi ng Canadi -
an i n pai nt i ng had
been t he obj ect i ve of sever al Tor ont o pai nt er s si nce t he
1890s. But
as MacDonal dsai d of one of hi s t eacher s ( " t he Canadi ani n hi m
i s not qui t e dead" ) , t hi s obj ect i ve kept get t i ng " swi t ched of f t he
t r acks. . . " ' ' , and t he Gr oup was no except i on: eg . , t he 1914- 1918 war ; Har -
r i s' t r ai ni ng
i n
Ger many; Thomson' s dependency on phot ogr aphs ; or t he
" t r emendous" i mpact on Har r i s and MacDonal d of a
1913
exhi bi t i on of
Scandi navi an pai nt i ng seen i n Buf f al o. The act ual or i gi ns of t he Gr oup' s
" cul t of Canadi ani sm" ( Har per ) need not concer n us her e ; what mat t er s
was i ) t hat t hey f el t t hey wer e pai nt i ng ' Canada' , and i i ) t he r essent i ment
t hat such a pr esumpt i on unl eashed.
As Har per put s i t , " Tor ont o cr i t i cs i n par t i cul ar wer e
so
i ndi gnant t hat
anobser ver coul d but assume t hey had beenper sonal l y i nsul t ed" ; Har per
al so wr i t es of an " i ncr edi bl e f l ood of adver se publ i ci t y, " " massi ve cr i t i ci sm" ,
and ci t es Har r i s' cl ai mt hat t he f i r st Gr oup show( May 1920) pr oduced
whol e pages i n newspaper s and per i odi cal s of " anger , out r age and cheap
wi t [ such as) had never occur r ed i n Canada bef or e
. " ' 8
Cr i t i cs
( and
wr i t er s
l i ke Hugh Macl ennan) sawi n t hei r wor k al ar mi ng expr essi ons
of
t er r or and
vi ol ence . Hect or Char l eswor t h f el t t hat t he Gr oup' s wor k was det r i ment al
t o Canada' s f or ei gni mage because i t was l i kel y t o di scour age i mmi gr at i on.
DEMON
POLI TI CS
Members of Parl i ament j oi ned i n thebi tter cri ti ci sm, hurl i ngabuse
and
humi l i ati onat theheadof thedi rector of theNati onal
Gal l ery of Canada
f or hi schoi ceof Groupof Sevenpai nti ngsto besent to
theBri ti shEmpi re
Exhi bi ti onat Wembl ey( 1924) . '
9
TheRoyal Canadi an
Academy "resented
theGal l ery' s i nvol vement i n theorgani zati on of an
i nternati onal exhi bi -
ti on. . : ' " But thecol l ecti veresentment suddenl y
evaporatedwhenover-
seas cri ti cs pronounced theGroup' s workthemost
vi tal pai nti ng of the
century. Wi thi n two years theGroupwerethe
acknowl edged center of
seri ousart acti vi ty i nCanada; by 1931, theyear of thei r l ast group
exhi bi -
ti on, "thei r supremacywasacknowl edged - both
grudgi ngl y andwi l l -
i ngl y - ri ght across thecountry. ""'
For perhapsthemost probl emati c ef f ect of thecl i chei zati onof
thel and-
scape, andi n thi s senseGroup`Canadi ani sm' f ai l ed, i n becomi ng by
the
30sandwel l i nto the 50s a suf f ocati ng arti sti c orthodoxy, i s
that i t was
theneutral i zati on of theonl y val i demoti onal outl et f or Canadi an ressen-
ti ment . Thuscontai ned, what resul ted wasthedramati c
i ntensi f i cati on of
ressenti ment that consti tutes theenti re. hi story of Canadi an
ci nema.
Ressenti ment andCanadi an Ci nema or ' Lemepri s n' aura qu' un temps'
As themost successf ul Canadi an f eature
f i l mever, that LEDECLI NDE
LEMPI RE
AMERI CAI N
shoul dbea
f i l m
about
ressenti ment i s cl earl y vi si -
bl eonanumber of l evel s: 1) the( i ntel l ectuti o
ressenti ment of thef i l m' s
hi stori ans or l ast menof hi story who, becausethey
knowthey wi l l never
amount to Braudel s or Toynbees, can
general i zei nto thef utureandthe
past thesoci al and
cul tural decl i nethey al readyi nhabi t : thel oss of aso-
ci al proj ect,
( to acti vate ressenti ment, onemakesseparatef actors causa-
ti ve: thus, as a resul t of ) thei nsti tuti onal andi nsti tuti onal i zed cyni ci sm
of el i tes, and( causedby) theef f emi ni zati onof acul turethey resent; 2) the
( emoti onan ressenti ment of mentoday toward women( andof women
towardwomen: eg. , Domi ni quevi s- a- vi sLoui se; 3) the( i nter- el i te)
ressen-
ti ment whi chthef i l marti cul ates on two
l evel s: that of Thi rd Worl di n-
tel l ectual s andmorel ocal l yof untenuredchargesde
toursf or thepri vi l eges
( economi c
andsexual )
of
theFi rst or SecondWorl dtenuredprof essorate
that
thef i l mdescri besas
havi ngthebest l abour contract i n NorthAmeri -
ca;
4)
the( cl ass)
ressenti ment
of
theuneducatedtowardtheeducatedwho
do
not do anythi ngbut onl y tal k, and
5)
Arcand' s acknowl edgement of
Canadi an( cul tural ) ressenti ment i n expungi ngf romthescri pt al l speci f i c
ref erence to Canada or Quebec - al l , that i s, but one.
Andthat i s thel andscapeof LakeMemphremagogandthenature
f ootage
of thewater, f eedsandl ater thesnow- bound houseat thef i l m' s end; i n
other words( and as Pi erre, the cyni c, says: theonl y real i ty that
wi l l re-
mai nonce
al l
the[ se] peopl e
havedi ed) , theromanti c pri mal of theCana-
di anl andscapewhere, si nceMoodi e, Canadi anarti sts havesought ref uge
f rom( and di scharged) theaccumul ated ressenti ment of Canadi an soci al
exi stence.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
I t i s t hus pos s i bl e t o make t wo obs ervat i ons : 1) LEDECLI N, as af i l m
about res s ent i ment , renews (andl egi t i mi zes ) t heres s ent i ment t hemat i c i n
Canadi an (ci nemat i c) cul t ure as expl ored
by
s uch f i l ms as , f or i ns t ance,
Mi chel Braul t ' s LESORDRES, Art hur Lamot he' s LEMEPRI S
NAURAQU' UN
TEMPS, or Gi l l es Groul x' s NORMETAL, goi ngbackt o, at l eas t , t hat ext raor-
di narypos t - Gri ers oni an moment of t he s el f - revel at i on of t he Canadi an
ps yche, i n Robert Anders on' s "Ment al Mechani s ms " s eri es f or t heNat i on-
al Fi l mBoard of Canada(1947- 1950) . Thes eri es i dent i f i ed, i n order, t he
f our pri nci pal dri ves
of
t he Canadi an s ens i bi l i t y: THEFEELI NGOF RE-
JECTI ON; THEFEELI NGOFHOSTI LI TY;
OVER- DEPENDENCY, andFEEL-
I NGSOF DEPRESSI ON. "' Andyet whi l es i gnal l i ng t hat Canadi an
ci nema
may, andwi t h cons i derabl e hi s t ori cal j us t i f i cat i on, be l egi t i mat el yaci ne-
maof res s ent i ment "
3,
LEDECLI N
i s ,
I t hi nk, at t empt i ng s omet hi ng more.
2) I npart becaus eof t hel ands cape
pri mal but al s o becaus eof t hef i l m' s
humour anddi eget i c s ympat hyf or i t s charact ers (s i nce as as t udent of
Cana-
di an hi s t oryandaf i l mmaker i n bot h s t at e andpri vat e i ndus t ry
f or s ome
20 years
now, Arcand unders t ands t hat Canadi an res s ent i ment i s doubl e
ands o i ncl udes FrenchandEngl i s h, mal eandf emal e, et c. ) ,
t hef i l mi s s eek-
i ng, t hough not wi t hout hes i t at i ons , t o
i ncl ude wi t hi n i t s l ands cape hu-
mancharact ers i n awayt hat Canadi an
l i t erat ure
or
hi s t oryor pai nt i ng has
not . I n ot her words , LEDECLI Nat t empt s apat hbeyond
res s ent i ment . I f
t hat at t empt f ai l s - byt he f i l m' s of f eri ng i n concl us i on
onl yt he s ol ace
of anot her vi s t aof t hedepopul at edCanadi an l ands cape - i t does
bri ng
t o
t he f ore once agai n t he cl i chei zat i on of t hat l ands cape t hat has been
a, i f not t he onl y, cons t ant of Canadi an ci nemas i nce
i t s
earl i es t years.
Thi s i s t o s ay, t hen, t hat t he f i rs t Canadi an f eat ures f rom, f or
i ns t ance,
EVANGELI NE(1914) t o BACKTOGOD' SCOUNTRY(1919) were cl i ches ,
as
weret he Hol l ywood' nort herns ' s et i n Canadat hrough t hemi d- 20s , as
was
t hef i rs t i ndi genous radi o dramabroadcas t byt he CNRi n 1930 (The
Romanceof Canada) s i nce `Audi ences never t i red of vi ewi ng Canada' s
s t ereot yped
i mage.
11114
Pet er Morri s has s ummari zed t hef i l ms of t hes eear-
l y "years of
promi s e"
as
f ol l ows :
I f t here was adef i nabl e
qual i t y. . and i t was at ent at i ve one. . . i t l ay
i nrel at i ng f i ct i onandreal i t y, i nt hei deat hat s t ori es s houl dbe f i l med
not
on
s et but i n nat ural l ocat i ons , i n appl yi ng adocument aryap-
proacht odrama. Suchanapproachcharact eri zed manyof t hemos t
s ucces s f ul
f i l ms
of
t heperi od. . . t hos eof Ernes t Shi pman[ eg. , BACK
TOGOD' S. COUNTRY1
and
was t o
f i ndi t s mos t pot ent expres s i ons
i nt hree quas i - Canadi an
f i l ms : Nanookof t heNort h, TheSi l ent Ene-
myandThe
Vi ki ng.
"5
As producer Erni e
Shi pmanexpl ai ned i t , t hi s nat ural i s t i c or documen-
t aryquas i - real i s mori gi nat ed
i n Canadi anl i f e, i n"ademandf or Canadi an-
made mot i on pi ct ures as
real and f ree and whol es ome as . . . Canadi an
l i f e. "
"6
However, as
Bart hes remarks i n S/Z: ". . . real i s mcons i s t s not i n
DEMONPOLI TI CS
copyi ng
the r eal but i ncopyi nga ( depi cted) copyof ther eal . Thi s famous
r eal i ty, , as though
suffer i ngfr om
a
fear ful ness whi chkeeps i t fr ombei ng
toucheddi r ectl y, i s set far ther away, postponed. " " ' I nother wor ds, Cana-
di anr eal i smor i gi nates not i nthewhol esomeness of
Canadi anl i fe, but i n
thefear ful ness of
i t, i e. , i nr essenti ment andi ts avoi dancebydupl i ci ty, spe-
ci fi cal l y thedecepti ve i mmi gr ati onadver ti si ng, bi tter l y commentedon
by
Susanna Moodi e, that begani nthe1830s as par t of publ i c ( i e. , State) effor t
- agover nment Bur eauof I mmi gr ati on
woul dbefor mal l yestabl i shed i n
the 1850s - and woul d conti nue wi ththe cr eati onof the Nati onal Fi l m
Boar di n
1939
( and,
i ndeed, haschar acter i zedever ystage of state i nvol ve-
ment i n Canadi anci nema fr omthe teens of thecentur y
. t
o
the pr esent) .
Fr omthe
fi l ms
of
theCPRwi th thei r i nter di cti on agai nst showi ngsnow
or i ce scenes"
8,
toBeaver br ook' s pr opaganda
War Offi ce Ci nematogr aph-
i c Commi ttee, to
theCanadi anGover nment Moti onPi ctur e Bur eauwhose
fi l mpubl i ci ty ai med to
" make Canada known, as she r eal l y i s" , the ' r eal -
i sm' of Canadi an fi l mmaki ng i s i nscr i bed wi thi n a state-suppor ted
tr adi -
ti on of
decepti veness. As a r esul t, the r el ati onshi p between fi cti on and
r eal i smi nCanadi ani mage-pr oducti onhas, at ever ystage,
beenpr obl emati c,
whether oneconsi der s thepost-Gr i er sondocumentar y, Canadi anci nema
di r ect, Car l e-Owen' s
( r e) di scover y of the featur e under the cover of
documentar y, Peter Pear son' s andtheCBC' s l awsui ts over THETARSANDS,
or the mor e r ecent exper i ments of the NFB' s
Al ter nati ve Dr ama Pr o-
gr am.
" 9
And yet for al l that, ther e was never any doubt i n Canadi an
phi l osophi cal r eal i sm( cf. J ohnWatson: " wear e capabl eof knowi ngReal i -
ty as i t actual l y i s . . . . Real i ty whenso knowni s absol utel y r ati onal " ) and
i ts der i vati ves i nCanadi andocumentar y, especi al l y Canadi anexper i men-
tal ci nema, as to the
epi stemol ogi cal val i di ty of i ts r eal i sm. Or noneunti l
the contempor ar y Canadi an phi l osopher ( and fi l mmaker ) Br uce
El der
r etheor i zedCanadi anr eal i smas theawar eness of anabsence: " onl ywhen
theabsenceof the
r epr esentedobj ect i s acknowl edged canr epr esentati on
actual l y occur . "
' 2
El der thus suggests a Canadi ancontr i buti on to the cr i ti cal theor y of
r epr esentati oni nwhi chpr esentati onor thepr esent that canber e-pr esented
i s pr obl emati zedbytheabsent concept of
`r esentati on' , not
a pr esent
that
canbe r e-pr esentedbut anabsent pr esent that cannot :
namel y, the `r esent'
or
r essenti ment that Geor ge Gr ant has defi ned`At i ts si mpl est . . . [ as] r evenge
agai nst what i s pr esent
i n
our pr esent . " ' 2 '
I n any
event, as
Peter Mor r i s has
r emar ked, excel l ence i nthedocumentar yfor mdevel opedbecauseCana-
di ans " wer e deni ed access to pr oduci ngfeatur e fi l ms. "
122
At the end of
thi s study,
Canadi anci nema, l i ke l i ter atur e or pai nti ng, becomes vi si bl e
as j ust another par t of the
r essenti ment-fi l l ed di scour se
of
the conti nua-
ti onof anabsent pr esent i ntheevacuatedl andscapeof i ndefi ni te cul tur al
postponement i ntheadmi ni str ati onof thenon-exi stent r eal i ty of Canadi -
an
cul tur e.
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Concl usi on: Moderni ty, the reacti onary
l andscape
andthe bi as of ressenti ment
Ona wi der pl ane, i t i s asource of constant frustrati on
to
attempt
tobeCanadi an
H
. A.
Inni s
At theconcl usi on, of thi s study
of Canadi ancul tural forms, i s i t possi bl e
to at l east begi n
to si tuate Canadi anressenti ment? I bel i eve i t i s, i f onl y
to attempt toput the tormentedquesti on of Canadi anressenti ment toa,
by nowperhaps, much deserved rest .
Si ncetheSecondWorl dWar, i e, si nceCanada' s ful l - scal e i ntegrati oni nto
theAmeri canempi reafter adecadeof proto- nati onhood, theredevel oped
i nCanadi anl i terature andi nl i terary cri ti ci smpri nci pal l y - morebroadl y
speaki ng wi thi n the i nstrumental i zati on of the humani ti es- a l argel y
southernOntari oschool wi th acuri ous ki ndof awarenessof theCanadi -
anl i terary l andscape. " I havel ong
been
i mpressed
i n Canadi anpoetry, "
wroteFrye i n hi s 1965 concl usi on
to
a l i terary hi story
of Canada, " by a
tone of deepterror i nregard to nature. " 123 Comparethat wi th
anobser-
vati onof Emi l yCarr' s: " I haveoftenwonderedwhat causedthat fear, al most
terror, of NewYorkbefore I sawher. "
' 24
I woul dl i ke
to
suggest, therefore,
that i n the Canadi ani magi nary `nature' and`moderni ty' are oneandthe
same, andbothevokeani denti cal response: terror experi encedas ressen-
ti ment. Terror i n some cases admi tted but more often i n what Gai l e
, McGregor terms`the wacousta syndrome' ' 25,
deni edbecause i t i s terri bl e.
However, the awareness of thi s, I
woul dsuggest, makes of
ressenti ment
thepri marycharacteri sti c
of
the
Canadi an
i magi nary,
ressenti ment
whi ch
i ) i s di spl aced or proj ectedonto thel andscape andi i ) deni es thi s. Gi ven
that thel andscape,
or
rather
representati ons of
the
l andscape, by thei r i n-
dexi cal i ty or referenti al i ty cancl ai m
topoi nt to, refer to, or showa' natur-
al ' or `obj ecti ve out there' , i t maybe possi bl e
to say
that the l andscape i s
the l east medi ated or non- i nsti tuti onal i zed formof Canadi an i deas of
moderni tyi tsel f . Thus, theCanadi an`i denti ty' canonl ybesai dtobe" ful -
l y i ntegral tothequesti onof technol ogy, " as Arthur Kroker haswri tten,
126
i n the senseof bei ngdi ssi mul ated therei n i ntheattempt to di spl ace i tsel f
beyond
the
ressenti ment occasi onedby moderni ty. For i f McGregor i s cor-
rect i ndefi ni ngCanadi anbei ng
as " a
ki nd
of normal i zed dupl i ci ty"
127 , i t
becomes al most i mpossi bl e tomake a di sti ncti onbetweenathreateni ng
external i ty ( for i nstance, technol ogy or moderni ty or nature) andthe i n-
ternal coreof that bei ngi tsel f ( terror) ; i ndeed, i s i t possi bl e toassi gnl i mi ts
to ani magi nary?
But, for the
sake of argument, taki ng the external threat as so ( nature
as terri fyi ng) , what thi s
produces i s Frye' s garri sonmental i ty or the
rei n-
forcement
of
i nsti tuti onal i zati on
. If spacei s, as McGregor says, " the i den-
ti fyi ng
feature of the Canadi an i nteri or"
1211,
then i t i s space- bi ndi ng
i nsti tuti ons andtechni ques ( nati onal i sm, the state, communi cati ons and
DEMONPOLI TI CS
cul t ur e) t hat ar e pr i vi l eged as
a r esul t -but onl y t o si l ence t hat space
by
bi ndi ng
i t . For t he i nst i t ut i ons of over comi ng space
ar e t hemsel ves sub-
j ect t o t he same nor mal i zed dupl i ci t y.
McGr egor , anal yzi ngCanadi anl i t er -
at ur e, uncover s a
si mi l ar ambi val ence or as she t er ms i t "i nst i t ut i onal i zed
ambi val ence"
wi t h r espect t o i nst i t ut i ons : "The st at e, " she r emar ks, " i s
si mpl y
al i en, and t hat ' s what makes i t danger ous. . . `soci et y'
i n Canada i s
vi ewed as f ear f ul speci f i cal l y because i t i s
not machi nel i ke, pr edi ct abl e,
mechani cal but [because i t i s] pr ey t o conf usi on
anddi sor der . . . i n Canadi -
an l i t er at ur e. . . t he publ i c wor l d i s somehowdemoni c,
an ut t er l y f or ei gn
el ement . . . . " ( p.
173)
I f nat ur e i nCanada i s t er r i f yi ng and
t he Canadi ansoci al wor l di s demoni c,
t hen what i s saf e?
What becomes compl et el y saf e i s pr eci sel y
what i s
genui nel yf or ei gn,
"machi nel i ke, pr edi ct abl e, mechani cal " -t echnol ogy,
or t he empt y
wi l l t o wi l l , but j ust t o be absol ut el y pr eser ved
f r omex-
per i enci ng Canadi an
r essent i ment , t hat t echnol ogy and t hat
wi l l i ng ar e
pr ef er abl e
i n t hei r i mpor t ed as opposed t o t he i ndi genous ( i
. e, absent or
si l enced)
f or ms. For , as McGr egor put s i t , `J udgi ng byour l i t er at ur e
. . . many
Canadi ans bel i eve. . . t hat f or us . . . symbol i c
capi t ul at i ons t o t he vi ct i mi zi ng
f or ces i s l i ber at i on"
129
-because capi t ul at i on, symbol i c or r eal , i s l i ber -
at i on
f r omCanadi an r essent i ment .
I sai d ear l i er t hat t hese vi ews of nat ur e wer e char act er i st i c of
a l ar gel y
sout her nOnt ar i oschool ,
i . e. , wer e f or med i nt he i nt el l ect ual andcul t ur al
cent er of
Canadi anmoder ni t y. However t he "st abl e and
r est r ai nedsoci et y
of Ont ar i o, " as geogr apher Col e
Har r i s r emar ked i n anessayont he myt h
of t he l and i n Canadi an
nat i onal i sm, "devel opedi nanenvi r onment whi ch
has been l ess a chal l enge t han a neut r al backdr op"' 3
I f "The l and, " as
Har r i s i nsi st s, "di d
not cr eat e t ensi ons, " t hen t he l andscape i t sel f becomes
t he pr i mar y cul t ur al myt h of Canadi an avoi dance of
i t s ownmoder ni t y;
namel y, what
t he
Canadi an
ar t hi st or i anDavi dSol ki nhas t er med "t he l and-
scape of r eact i on
"131 .
Canadi an r essent i ment woul d
t hus be t he f ul l est
f or mof t he
expr essi onof Canada' s r eact i onar ymoder ni t y; t hat
i s
t o
say,
a f or mof nost al gi a t hat i s i t sel f a
( pur el y myt hi cal ) di mensi on of
moder ni t y
132
I f t hi s i s so, and i n t he l i ght of what we' ve
exami ned her e, i t maybe
enough t o r ai se some quest i ons
bot h i n t er ms of t he r egnant i nt er pr et a-
t i ons and pr act i ces of Canadi an cul t ur al exi st ence. Such
a quest i oni ng
woul dcl ear l y, I t hi nk, br i ngt o t he
f or ef r ont what I havear guedi s t he dual
di spl acement of t he nat ur e andi nst i t ut i ons of moder nCanadi an
nat i onal -
i smand cul t ur e by a
r eact i onar y r essent i ment .
I f Canadi an t hought has excel l ed i n compr ehensi ve
anal yses of t he bi -
ases of
communi cat i ons ( I nni s) andt echnol ogy ( Gr ant , Kr oker ) , i t woul d
seemt hat t hi s ent er pr i se coul donl y-be
f r ui t f ul l ycompl ement edbyanun-
der st andi ngof t he bi as of t he cul t ur e t hat connect s t hem.
Then, andonl y
then, mi ght somethi ngof thi s huge, di stant andthoroughl y hi ddencoun-
try of ressenti ment emerge fi nal l y i nto vi ew.
1 .

Essays i n Canadi an Economi cHi story, ed. MaryQ. I nni s, (Toronto: Uni versi ty of
Toronto Press,
1956) , 383.
2.

I bi d. , 386.
3.

I bi d. , 387.
4. I bi d.
5.

I n Canada: AGui de
To
The
Peaceabl e Ki ngdom(Toronto: Macmi l l anof Canada,
6.

Thi s i s aswel l thestarti ng
poi nt for Marc HenrySoul et' s recent studyof the Quebec
i ntel l i gentsi a, Le Si l ence des I ntel l ectuel s: Radi oscopi e de i ' i ntel l ectual qut becoi s
(Montreal : Edi ti ons Sai nt-Marti n) , 1987.
7.

ROBMagazi ne, September 1986,
15.
8. I bi d.
1971) , xi v.
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
Notes
Communi cati ons Studi es
Concordi a Uni versi ty
9.

"OntheAdder' s Bi te, " ThusSpakeZarathustra, i n Wal ter Kaufmann, ed. ThePorta-
bl e Ni etzscbe (Harmondsworth: Pengui n,
1959) ,
180.
10.

ROB, op. ci t. , 16.
11 .

Hubert Aqui n, "Le
CorpsMysti que, " i n Bl ocserrati ques, (Montreal
:
10/ 10, 1982) , 105.
12.

I n Carl Berger, ed. I mperi al i smandNati onal i sm, 1884-1914: AConfl i ct i n Cana-
di an Thougbt, (Toronto: Copp Cl ark,
1969) ,
60-61.
13.

J ohn MacCormac, Canada: Ameri ca' sProbl em(NewYork: TheVi ki ngPress, 1940) ,
32
.
14.

Tecbnol ogy and Empi re, (Toronto: Anansi ,
1969) ,
141.
15.

Cf. , Fredri cJ ameson, "Ni etzsche' s whol evi si onof hi story, hi shi stori cal master nar-
rati ve i s organi zedaround
thi s
proposi ti on [ressenti mentl ; " i n
' Authenti c Ressenti -
ment
:
Generi c
Di sconti nui ti es and I deol ogemes i n
the
' Experi mental ' Novel s of
George Gi ssi ng, " The Pol i ti cal Unconsci ous, (I thaca: Cornel l UP, 1981) , 185-205
.
16.

The Wi l l ToPower, trans. Wal ter Kaufmann and R. J . Hol l i ngdal e, (NewYork: Vi n-
tage, 1967) , 100-101.
17.

J ameson, op. ci t . , 201.
18.

GeorgSi mmel , Le Bourgeoi s, trans
.
J ankel evi tch, (Pari s: Payot, 1926) , 411-412.
19.

Uber
Ressenti ment
andMoral i scbeWferturi ei l e (1912) transl ated
i nFrench
as
LHomme
du ressenti ment, (Pari s: Gal l i mard, 1970) , 49, note 1 .
20.

Fri tzStern, ThePol i ti cs of Cul tural Despai r (Berkel ey and Los Angel es: Uni versi ty
of Cal i forni a Press, 1961) , xx-xxi .
21.

SeeDavi dThomson, Ameri ca I n TheDark
: TheI mpact of Hol l ywoodFi l mson
Ameri canCul t ure(NewYork: Wi l l i amMorrow, 1977) ,
passi m, andBenj ami nB. Hamp-
t on, Hi st ory of t heAmeri canFi l mI ndust ry
:
From
I t sBegi nni ngs To1931(NewYork:
Dover, 1970) , esp. i x-x.
22.

J ameson, op. ci t. , 202.
23. I bi d.
24.

I bi d. , 205.
25.

Max Schel er, L' Homme
du ressent i ment , op. ci t . , 11.
26.

I nSchopenhauer As
Educat or (Sout hBend, I ndi ana: Regnery/ Gat eway, 1965) , 91
.
27.

SeeWal t er Kauf mann, Ni et zsche: Phi l osopher,
Psychol ogi st , Ant i chri st (NewYork:
Meri di an, 1956) , esp. 319-325.
28.

Schel er, 11.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
29.

TheGeneal ogy of Moral s, t rans. Franci s
Gol f f l ng, (NewYork: Doubl eday, 1956) ,
170-171.
30
.

SeeSchopenhauer As Educat or, op. ci t . , 69.
31
.

Zarat hust ra, op. ci t . , 213
.
32. - I bi d. , 251.
33.

Margaret At wood, Survi val : AThemat i c Gui deToCanadi anLi t erat ure (Toront o:
Anansi , 1972) ,
33 .
34
.

Ci t edi nTony Wi l den, TheI magi naryCanadi an
(Vancouver: Pul p Press, 1980) , 71.
35.

DurhamReport , 1839, al so ci t ed i nWi l den, 43 .
36
.

SeeI nni s, op. ci t . , 384.
37
.

Seef or i nst ancet heReport of
t heFederal Cul t ural Pol i cy Revi ewCommi t t ee(Ot t a-
wa: I nf ormat i on
Servi ces, Depart ment of Communi cat i ons, Government of Cana-
da,
1982) ,
15:
"West art f romavi ewof Canadi ansoci et y t hat sees i t as anaggregat e
of
di st i nct i vespheresof act i vi t y. Eachof t hesehasi t s ownval uesandpurposes
and
i t s ownnet workof i nst i t ut i ons, i nt eract i ng wi t honeanot her i nmyri adways
but
equal i nt hei r soci al i mport ance. Thepol i t i cal order -t hest at e-i s oneof
t hese
great spheres andi nst i t ut i onal syst ems; t hecul t ural worl di s anot her. "
Seeal soTheodor W. Adorno, "Cul t ureandAdmi ni st rat i on
; ' TELOSNo. 37, Fal l 1978,
93-111.
38
.

J ohnMei sel , "Escapi ng
Ext i nct i on: Cul t ural Def enceof anUndef endedBorder ; " Cana-
di anJ ournal of
Pol i t i cal andSoci al Theory, 10. 1-2, Wi nt er/ Spri ng 1986, 248, 252.
39
.

"Tel ef i l mFundReady To
Make' Movi es,' Not ' Fi l ms,' Sez Pearson; ' Vari et y, Dec. 3,
1986,
32
. Acert ai nsenseof dej A vu or perhaps ddj A ent endu wasechoed
by t he
Vari et y
wri t er' s
l ead
paragraph: `Asi t makesi t s decades-ol d pi t chagai nt o ' st ri ke
anewdeal ' i nt hei nt ernat i onal f i l mi ndust ry andunhi t cht he' ol d hegemony' of
Hol l ywood, Canada i s get t i ng ready t omake' movi es' rat her t han
40.

Survi val , op.
ci t . ,
35, 39.
41.

I bi d. , 33.
42.

SeeI nni s, opci t . , 386, al soA. R. M. Lower, Col ony ToNat i on (Toront o: Longmans,
1946) , 399.
43.

Wi l den, op. ci t . ,
71
.
44.

D. G. Crei ght on, Domi ni onof t heNort h(Toront o: Macmi l l an of Canada, 1967) , 217.
45.

SaraJ eannet t eDuncan, TheI mperi al i st (Toront o: McLel l andandSt ewart , 1971) , 61- 62.
46.

I n TheBushGarden: Essays on t he
Canadi an I magi nat i on (Toront o: Anansi , 1971) ,
220.
47
.

TheCanadi an Quest i on, 1875, ci t edi n Wi l den, op. ci t . , 123
.
48.

TheBushGarden, op. ci t . , 226.
49.

I bi d. , 236.
50.

I bi d. , 135.
51
.

I bi d, 231.
52. I bi d.
53.

I bi d, 135.
54.

Art hur Kroker, Technol ogyandt heCanadi an Mi nd:
I nni sl McLuhan/ Grant (Mon-
55.

I nni s, op. ci t . , 386.
56
. I bi d.
t real : NewWorl dPerspect i ves, 1984) , 15.
57 .

I bi d, 385- 389.
58.

I bi d. , 392.
59.

Ci t edi n Wal l aceCl ement andDani el Drache, APract i cal Gui de7b
Canadi anPol i t -
i cal Economy(Toront o: J ames Lori mer &Co. , 1978) ,
24. Thepoemdoes not appear
i n t heCanadaCounci l grant - support edsubsequent edi t i ons of
Count erbl ast : Toront o
(1969) , NewYork (1969)
andMont real (1972) .
60.

See
Kroker,
op.
ci t . , 80.
61.

I bi d. , 86.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
62.

George
Grant , Ti meAs Hi st ory (Canadi an Broadcast i ngCorporat i on, 1969) , 33.
63.

See
Ti meAs Hi st ory,
34- 35;
al soGeorgeGrant , Technol ogy andJ ust i ce(Toront o:
Anansi , 1986) , 100,
andJ oan E. O' Donovan, GeorgeGrant andThe7f oi l i ght ofj ust i ce
(Toront o: Uni versi t y of Toront oPress, 1984) , 4, 87.
64
.

Ti meAs Hi st ory, op. ci t . ,
33.
65.

I bi d. , 40.
66.

Lament For ANat i on: TheDef eat of Canadi anNat i onal i sm(Toront o: McCl el l and
&St ewart ,
1965) , 5.
67.

I bi d. ,
66,
76
.
68.

I bi d. , 88.
69.

SeeTi meAs
Hi st ory, 46- 47.
70.

Op. ci t . , 4.
71.

For sucha "superl at i ve" vi ewof t he hi st ori an, see Emery
Neff, ThePoet ryof Hi st o-
ry: TheCont ri but i on of Li t erat ureandLi t erarySchol arshi p
t o t he Wri t i ngof Hi s-
t orysi nce Vol t ai re, (NewYork and London: Col umbi a
Uni versi t yPress, 1947) .
72.

See
Carl Berger, TheWri t i ng of Canadi an Hi st ory: Aspect s of Engl i sh- Canadi an
Hi st ori cal Wri t i ng: 1900t o 1970, (Toront o: OxfordUni versi t yPress, 1976), i x, 259
and passi m. '
73.

"Canada' s hi st ori ans have al l been nat i onal i st s, "
Berger, op. ci t. ,
259.
74
.

"LaSurvi vance Engl i sh- Canadi an St yl e, " i n TheMapl eLeaf Forever: EssaysonNa-
t i onal i smandPol i t i cs i n Canada, (Toront o: Macmi l l an of Canada, 1977), 144.
75.

I bi d. , 126.
76
.

Wri t t en wi t hJ ohn T. Saywel l andJ ohn C. Ri cker (Toront o andVancouver: Cl arke,
I rwi n &Co. Lt d. ) .
77.

I bi d. , p. xi .
78
.

Op. ci t . , 409
.
79.

On t hedept hs of Canada' s "l ong- accumul at ed" and"suppressed
resent ment s" t owards
t he Uni t ed St at es, see
Mort on' s "Canadaandt he Uni t ed St at es, " i n TheCanadi an
I dent i t y(Toront o andBuffal o: Uni versi t yof Toront o Press, 1972), 58- 87.
80.

SeeCol ony To Nat i on (Toront o: Longmans, Green &Co. , 1946), 399- 401
.
81.

I bi d. , 404.
82.

Ci t ed i n Berger, op. ci t . , 252
.
83.

Col onyt o Nat i on, 560.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
84.

SusannaMoodi e, Roughi ng I t i n t he Bushor Forest Li fe i n Canada(1852), (Toron-
t o: McCl el l and andSt ewart , 1962), xv.
85.

I bi d. , xvi .
86.

I bi d. , xvi - xvi i .
87.

Ci t ed
i n I
. S . Macl aren, "The Aest het i c
Mappi ng
of
Nat ure i n t he SecondFrankl i n
Expedi t i on, " J ournal
of
Canadi an
St udi es, 20
: 1, Spri ng
1985,
41.
88.

Moodi e, op.
ci t . , 22, 23, 24.
89.

I bi d. , 26, 31.
90
. I bi d.
91
.

Ci t edi n Wi l den, op. ci t . ,
3.
92
.

See Karen Davi son- Wood, A Phi l i st i ne Cul t ure? Li t erat ure, Pai nt i ng and t he
Newspapers i n Lat eVi ct ori an 7bront o, PhDDi ssert at i on, Concordi aUni versi t y, 1981,
pp.
267- 8.
93.

Duncan, op. ci t . , 70.
94
.

I bi d. , 70- 71.
95
.

I bi d. ,
98
.
96.

AConci se Hi st or y of Canadi anPai nt i ng (Tor ont o: Oxf or dUni ver si t y Pr ess, 1973) , 7.
97
.

Rober t Kl eyn, "Canadi an Ar t
or Canadi an Ar t i st s?", Vanguar d, Febr uar y 1985, 29.
98
.

Op. ci t . , 578.
99.

J . Russel l Har per , Pai nt i ng i n Canada: AHi st or y, 2nded. (Tor ont o andQuebec Ci t y:
Uni ver si t y of Tor ont o Pr ess andLes pr esses de l ' uni ver si t t s Laval , 1977) , 180.
100
.

I bi d. ,
181.
101.

I bi d. , 183
.
102.

W.
St ewar t McNut t , Days of Lor ne(Fr edr i ct on, 1955) , ci t edi n Har per , 184. Seeal so
Davi son-Wood, op. ci t . , 121.
103
.

See Har per , 182-183; GeneWal z, "Fl ashback: An I nt r oduct i on" i n Gene Wal z, ed. ,
Fl ashback: Peopl eandI nst i t ut i ons i n Canadi an Fi l mHi st or y, (Mont r eal : Medi at ext e
Publ i cat i ons, 1986) ,
9-15
; John Por t er , ' Ar t i st s Di scover i ng Fi l m: Post war Tor ont o; '
Vanguar d, Summer 1984, 24-26.
104.

Har per , op. ci t . , 180,
183,
194.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
105.

Sec "Sur r eal i sm: The
Last Snap-shot of t he Eur opeanI nt el l i gent si a, " i n Ref l ect i ons,
.
ed. andi nt r o. Pet er Demet z, (NewYor k: Har cour t ,
Br ace,
Jovanovi t ch, 1978) , 192;
al so Abr ahamMol es, Psycbol ogi e duKi t sch: Lar t du bonbeur (Par i s : HMH, 1971.
106.

Har per , op. ci t . , 288; see al so Ramsay Cook, "Landscape Pai nt i ng andNat i onal Sen-
t i ment i n Canada, " i n The Mapl e Leaf
For ever , op. ci t . ,
158-179
.
107.

Ci t edi n Har per , 264.
108.

I bi d. ,
263,
279
.
109
.

I bi d. , 288.
110.

Rei d, op. ci t . , 151.
111.

I bi d. , 152.
112.

SeePet er Mor r i s, ' Af t er Gr i er son: TheNat i onal Fi l mBoar d1945-1953
; '
i nSet hFel d-
man, ed. Take 71vo: A711but e 7bFi l mi n Canada(Tor ont o: I r wi n, 1984) , 182-194.
113
.

I nacomment onpar t of t hi s paper pr esent edat t heFi l mSt udi es Associ at i onof Cana-
da/ Associ at i on qudbdcoi se des dt udes ci ndmat ogr aphi ques Annual Conf er ence(May
21-24, 1987) i n Mont r eal , Pr of essor Paul War r enof Laval suggest edt hat , of al l moder n
ar t f or ms, ci nemami ght bet heonewhosecont ent i s most di r ect l y andl i t er al l y ' pur e'
r essent i ment , i e. , amat t er of t he r e-exper i enci ng of
f eel i ngs
.
114.

Pet er Mor r i s, Embat t l edShadows: AHi st or y of Canadi an Ci nema,
1895-1939
(Mon-
t r eal : McGi l l -Queen' s Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1978) ,
37
.
115
.

I bi d
. , 93 .
116.

I bi d,
95
.
117.

Rol andBar t hes, SI Z(NewYor k: Hi l l andWang, 1974) ,
55.
118.

Mor r i s,
op.
ci t . ,
33 .
119.

SeeSet hFel dman, ed. Take 71uo, op. ci t . , passi m, but especi al l y hi s ver y i mpor t ant
ar t i cl e, "The Si l ent Subj ect i n Engl i shCanadi an Fi l m", 48-57.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
120.

SeeR. BruceEl der, "I mage: Representati on
andObj ect -ThePhotographi c I mage
i n Canadi an Avant-GardeFi l m" i n Take
71uo, 246-263
.
121.

Ti meAs Hi story, op. ci t . , 40.
122.

Op. ci t,
93.
123
.

Op. ci t . , 235.
124.

Ci ted i n Cook, Mapl eLeaf , op. ci t . , 158.
125
.

TheWacoustaSyndrome: Expl orati ons i ntheCanadi an
Langscape(Toronto: Unj ver-
si ty of TorontoPress, 1985) , passi m.
126.

Op. ci t. , 12.
127
.

Op. ci t,
53.
128.

Op. ci t . ,
13.
129
.

Op. ci t. , 229
.
130.

I n Peter Russel l , ed. Nati onal i sm
i n Canada(Toronto: McGraw-Hi l l , 1966) , 27-46.
131.

SeeNei l McWi l l i amandAl ex Potts,
"TheLandscapeof Reacti on" i n A. L. Rees &F.
Borzel l o, eds. , TheNewArt
Hi story (London: CamdenPress, 1986) , 106-119.
132.

SeeR. K. Crook, "Moderni zati on
andNostal gi a: ANoteontheSoci ol ogy of Pessi -
mi sm", Queen' s Quarterl y,
LXXI I I : 2, Summer 1966, 289-283
.
PROMOTIONALCULTURE
AndrewWerni ck
Thedi vi si onof l abour, f romwhi chso manyadvant ages areder-
i ved
. . . i s t henecessaryt houghverysl owandgradual , consequence
of a cert ai npropensi t yi nhumannat urewhi chhas i nvi ewnosuch
ext ensi ve
ut i l i t y; t hepropensi t y t o
t ruck, bart er andexchange.
AdamSmi t h
Theweal t hof modernsoci et i es i n
whi cht hecapi t al i st modeof
product i on
prevai l s
appears as an
i mmensecol l ect i onof comodi t i es.
Karl Marx
Insoci et i es wheremoderncondi t i ons of product i onprevai l , al l of
l i f epresent s i t sel f as- ani mmenseaccumul at i onof spect acl es. Every-
t hi ngt hat was di rect l yl i vedhas movedawayi nt o a represent at i on.
GuyDebord
1: Promot i onandcul t ure
Wi t ht hei ndust ri al i sat i onof publ i shi ng i nt hel at eni net eent hcent ury, "wri t -
i ng" wrot eInni s "becomes a devi cef or advert i si ngadvert i si ng
. " I Most i m-
medi at el y, t hegreat Canadi anmedi ahi st ori anwas t hi nki ngof newspapers,
ci rcul at i onwars, andt herol eof Hearst - t ype
j ournal i smi npromot i ngads
f or i ndust ri al i sm' s newconsumer goods. But heal so hadi nmi ndt he
growt hof t he
publ i shi ng i ndust ry' s ownpromot i onal needs, byvi rt ueof
whi ch
even
seri ous andseemi ngl yaut onomous f orms of wri t i ngbecame
deepl yt angl edupi nt headvert i si ngf unct i onas wel l . Hence
t heenhanced
DEMONPOLI TI CS
"i mportanceof names" amarkedtendency
i n al l corners of thel i terary
market towards topi cal i ty, faddi sm, andsensati on
.
Nor wasI nni sonl yconcernedwi th pri nt . Asscatteredreferencesto
other
medi amakecl ear, " hi saphori smwasi ntendedas abroader comment on
thefate of
commerci al i sed"wri ti ng" i nal l i ts forms. I nthat l i ght, the( Vi c-
tori an) assi mi l ati onof l i terature to
adverti si ng
on
whi chhe focussedcan
bereadas afi gurefor al onger- termstructural tendency- onethat
cul mi -
natedi nhi sowndaywi th theri setocul tural power of amul ti - medi acom-
muni cati onscompl exthat wasmoresaturatedwi thpromoti onthanthe
onei t hadtechnol ogi cal l y surpassed.
Themai npurposeof thefol l owi ng refl ecti ons
that fol l ow
i s to
seeto
what extent I nni s' s poi nt can, i n fact, bepushed. Summari l yexpressed,
thethesi s I want to
expl ore
i s
that North Ameri cancul ture has cometo
present i tsel f at
everyl evel
as
anendl essseri es of promoti onal messages;
that adverti si ng, besi deshavi ngbecomeamost powerful
i nsti tuti oni ni ts
ownri ght, hasbeen
effecti vel yuni versal i sedas asi gni fyi ngmode; andthat
thi s
devel opment
goes
far
to
expl ai nsuch characteri sti cfeatures of thecon-
temporary( "post- modern") cul tural fi el das i ts pre- occupati on
wi thstyl e;
i ts sel f- referenti al i sm, i ts ahi stori ci ty, andi tsvacuousbl endof
ni hi l i smand
goodcheer.
So
total i sti c aformul ati on, i nl i ne wi th theexhaustedcharacter of our
age, may
seem
to
i mpl yhi stori cal cl osure. I f so, that i s not myi ntent, whi ch
i ssi mpl ytodi sentangl eoneaspect of
modernsoci ety' s cul turo- economi c
l ogi c, and, for themoment, l eaveother l evel s of
determi nati on( andcon-
tradi cti on) toonesi de. Eveni ni tsel f, moreover, theri se of apromoti onal - .
Y
y
domi natedcul ture hasnot beenexactl yconfl i ct free. Asthe"i deol ogi cal "
revol t
of
thesi xti es attests, the structural shi ft i n therel ati on of cul ture
to economy
wi th whi chtheri se of promoti onhas beenassoci ated has
brought
newtensi ons and, i ndeed, newopportuni ti es for theformati on
of an
emanci patory wi l l .
I t woul dbe
wrong, at thesame ti me, to overcorrect. Movementscan
di e fromthe attenti on they seek. Where al l the channel s have been
col oni sedbyexchange, themost opposi ti onal di scoursegets easi l y bl unt-
edandtheNovumi tsel f ( "the Revol uti on, " as weusedtosay) rapi dl y be-
comes
j ust one more( sel f- ) promoti onal si gn. 3 What i s true for radi cal
acti on, moreover, i s truer sti l l for radi cal thought . Publ i cati onmeanspub-
l i ci ty, andtheseverywords, i nbei ngpubl i shed, cannot avoi dbei ngpart
of what they seek to overcome.
Onel ast
openi ngremark. I n contemporary usage, "adverti si ng, " "pub-
l i ci ty, " and
"promoti on" havebecomevi rtual l yi nterchangeabl e. But i f thei r
referents are thesame
thei r
ways of
graspi ng the
concepts
arenot,
and
for present purposes, as theti tl e of thi s pi ecei ndi cates, I haveamarked
preference for the l atter of these terms.
"Adverti si ng" i s l i teral l y theact of catchi ng someone' s attenti on; and
"publ i ci ty" ( Berger' stermfromtheFrench4) emphasi zes thequal i ty of ob-
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
t r usi ve
vi si bi l i t y. Bot har e descr i pt i ve l abel s
t hat appr oacht he phenome-
nonfr omt he concept of r ecept i on- wi t hout
r efer ence t ot he whol eback-
st age ci r cui t r y of di st r i but i onand exchange
t o whi chi t s exi st ence, as a
pr omi nent for mof communi cat i on,
i s fundament al l y t i ed. Thewor d"pr o-
mot i on, " by cont r ast , i s
abst r act l y oper at i onal and i ni t s der i vat i on(fr om
t he Lat i npr o-mover e)
conveys ver y pr eci sel y t he sense of what pr omo-
t i on/ adver t i si ng/ publ i ci t y
act ual l y does: i t at once ant i ci pat es, st ands for
andpr opel s
for war ds t hose ot her ci r cul at i ngent i t i es t owhi chi t s messages
sever al l y r efer.
I naddi t i on,
mor e t hani nt he case of i t s t er mi nol ogi cal r i val s, moder n
usagehas st r et ched "pr omot i on" t ocover not j ust ads as suchbut t hewhol e
fi el d
of publ i c r el at i ons, i ncl udi ng r el i gi ous andpol i t i cal pr opaganda, as
wel l as t he mor e i nfor mal ki nds of boost er i smpr act i ced i never yday l i fe
.
I nananal ysi s concer ned wi t hst r essi ng
t he gr owt hof sal esmanshi p not
j ust wi t hi nbut beyond t he st r i ct l y commer ci al
spher e, t hi s gr eat er
gener -
al i t y pr ovi des a second gr ound
of choi ce.
Theenl ar gedr efer ent i al
meani ngof "pr omot i on" cor r esponds, i nshor t ,
t o t he phenomenon' s r eal expansi oni n
t he wor l d, whi chi n t ur ncor -
r esponds t o "t he penet r at i ve power s
of
t he pr i ce-syst em"5 and t o t he
spr eadof anal ogous r el at i ons i nt oever y aspect of soci al l i fe. Theendr esul t
has beent he emer gence of anal l -per vasi ve confi gur at i ont hat mi ght fi t -
t i ngl y be cal l ed pr omot i onal cul t ur e. I nposi ngt he quest i on
of
t hi s com-
pl ex' s meani ng,
l ogi c, and const i t ut i ve power l et me nowr et r ace t he
movement
t hat br ought i t i nt obei ng, al ongwi t ht he ever mor e convol ut -
edfor ms of expr essi ont o whi cht he ext ensi ons of pr omot i onhave cu-
mul at i vel y gi venr i se.
2: Commodi t i es and Communi cat i on
' The spect acul ar devel opment of adver t i si ngas adi st i nct appar at us, and
t hewi der per meat i on
of cul t ur e by pr omot i onul t i mat el y der i ve fr omt he
pr i mor di al char act er i st i c of
commodi t y t hat i t s cl assi cal t heor i st s, fr om
AdamSmi t h
t o
Kar l
Mar x, t ended t o over l ook: t he dependence of any
money-medi at edmar ket
on
afunct i onal l y speci fi c
t ypeof
communi cat i on.
For goods and money t oexchange, i nfor mat i on
must be exchangedal so.
Buyer s must knowwhat i s for sal e, when, wher e, andat what pr i ce, and
sel l er s must knowwhat goods canbe mar ket ed and onwhat t er ms.
I nt he pr e-capi t al i st . case, wher e pr oduct i onand di st r i but i onar e l ocal
andcommuni cat i oni s face-t o-face, t hi s doubl e exchange of commodi t i es
andi nfor mat i ont akes pl ace al l at once, at t he
poi nt of sal e. The desi gnat -
ed si t e for such act i vi t y - t he Romanfor um, t he
' 1Lr ki sh bazaar , t he
Medi eval fai r - t ypi cal l y has t he added char act er of a publ i c i nst i t ut i on
for gener al soci al i nt er cour se. But t hi s coi nci denceof funct i ons shoul d not
be mi sr ead. Whet her i t i s st r eet vendor s cr yi ng t hei r war es or anci ent t ex-
t i l e t r ader s haggl i ng
over pr i ce andsuppl y, t he i nfor mat i onal aspect of
. t he
DEMON
POLI TI CS
market al ways has i ts
ownmodal i ti es andrepresents aformof soci al prac-
ti ce i ni tsel f.
Thesecond ci rcui t, l i ke thefi rst, i s formal l y consti tutedas asystemof
exchange, but there i s al soa cruci al di fference. For eveni nthe pri mi ti ve
case, wherethetwoprocesses
overl ap, eachact of money/goods exchange
i s consummatedat once, whereas the two
moments of i nformati onex-
changearetypi cal l y separatedi nti me. I nformati onabout suppl y
precedes
purchase, but i nformati onabout demandremai nsi ncompl eteunti l thepur-
chasei s
compl ete. Besi desmaki ngi t possi bl efor eachhal f of thei nforma-
ti on transacti on to go
i ts ownspeci al i sed way(i nmodernparl ance:
adverti si ngandmarket research) , thi s di fferenceal someans
that, however
perfect themarket, the communi cati verel ati onwi l l tend tofavour theven-
dor. For thel atter gi ves mereassurance, but on
compl eti onof thesal egets
harddatai nreturn. Theol dtag"buyer beware"
si gnposts thi s i nequal i ty,
whosesi gni fi cancei s not exhaustedby thebaddeal s towhi chi t may
evi -
dentl y l ead.
Fromtheearl i est days of capi tal i st devel opment, as commodi typroduc-
ti onbegi ns toexpand, ousti ngnatural economyand i nvol vi ngl ocal mar-
kets i na far- fl ungnexus of trade, thecommuni cati veacti vi ty associ ated
wi thi t not onl y expands as wel l but al soundergoes anumber of qual i ta-
ti ve changes whoseeffect i s toactual i sethel atent i mbal ancej ust
sketched
out.
Fi rst, thegreater thedi stanceof goods fromthei r market themorethat
i nformati onabout themhas l i kewi setobecommuni catedfromafar. Whi l e
thi s by
no
means abol i shes ei ther retai l acti vi ty
or
theface- to- face ("oral ")
cul ture that surrounds i t, , the moregeographi cal l y extended
the market
themoresuchdi rect
forms
of i nformati onexchangebecome
onl y the
end-
poi nts
i n
a
chai n
of communi cati onwhosedeci si ve
l i nks
are
anythi ngbut
face- to- face. I ntheOl dWorl dthesteadydi spl acement of l ocal i sedcul ture
begani nthe "ageof di scovery" wi thpri nti ngandtheport town
shi ppi ng
mani fests that
were
theforerunner of themodernnewspaper. Si ncethen,
theever- wi deni ngmarket has sti mul ated techni cal i mprovements i ncom-
muni cati ons tothe poi nt where, wi thtel egraphandtel ephone, themove-
ment of i nformati onhas becomemateri al l yi ndependent of themovement
of peopl e andtangi bl e goods. 6But evenat anearl i er stage - wherei n-
formati onhadtotravel vi ashi p, horse, andhandbi l l - the i mpact of ge-
ographi cal l y extendedtradeoncommerci al communi cati onwasrupturabl e.
Gonewas the si mpl e overl ap of commodi ty andi nformati onexchange,
l eavi ng the l atter free (wi thi nthe l i mi ts of i ts economi c functi on) tode-
vel op a l uxuri ant l i fe of i ts own.
As afurther consequenceof de- l ocal i sati onthetwohal ves of thei nfor-
mati ontransacti on- that i s, from
thesi des of demandandsuppl y - them-
sel ves begi n to spl i t, and i n doi ng
so
thei r soci al character as
communi cati onl i kewi sebegi ns todi verge. Thel argerandmoredi spersed
themarket, themorethat sal es i nformati on, as adverti si ng,
becomes
anony-
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
mousl ypubl i c. I nf ormati onprovi dedbythe
buyer, onthe other hand,
i n
the f i rst i nstance as rawsal es data, i ncreasi ngl y domes
to
have apri vate
character as pri vi l eged communi cati on wi thi n andbetween the prof i t-
maki ng enterpri ses i nvol ved
.
Wi ththi s step, f i nal l y, thewhol eci rcui t of commerci al communi cati on
comesunder thesi ngul ar control of thosewhocontrol suppl y- where-
wi thi ts veryqual i tyas exchangebegi ns todi sappear. Nodoubt therecep-
ti onof pri nt- ageadverti si ng, as of commerci al broadcasti ngl ater on, was
never whol l ypassi ve;
and, onthe other hand, theacqui si ti onof demand
i nf ormati onmust al ways start wi ththe
consumer' s
ownwantsandneeds.
But a systemi n whi chdata about the l atter
i s
appropri ated bythe same
agencywhi chtransmi ts thesel f - i nterested
messages
consti tuti ng thef ormer
i s
cl earl yuni l ateral , i mpl yi ng
amonopol yof knowl edgewherei t does
not,
i n any case, rest on a monopol yi n the goods bei ng sol d.
At thel evel of medi ahi storyi t wastheestabl i shment of thepopul ar. press
( the f i rst regul ar Ameri candai l ywastheNewYorkSuni nthe 1830s) com-
bi nedwi th thegrowi nguse of soci al stati sti cs' whi chf i rst brought such
a systemi nto bei ng, pavi ng the wayf or the moregeneral establ i shment
i n thi s centuryof amedi aenvi ronment that has been
f l atl y descri bedas
"speech. wi thout response. " Response,
i n
the di al ogi cal sense,
has i n ef -
f ect nowbeenrepl aced byf eedback whi ch, at the al i enated
l i mi t
-
i n
the mute andautomati c f ormof sal es curves, product testi ng,
andpol l s
- merel y
regi sters
the
ef f ects of apromoti onal monol oguespoken
f rom
el sewherei nto the di spersedvacuuml and
of
mass opi ni onandtaste.
3: Mass Producti on andManagedDemand
Theprecondi ti on f or thi s andthe more general emergenceof promo-
ti on as adi sti nct cul tural f orce was i ndustri al i sati on, or more preci sel y:
the devel opment of a capi tal i ntensi vemanuf acturi ng sector,
corporatel y
organi sedandori entedto
the
mass- producti onof
f i ni shedconsumer goods.
Begi nni ngi ntheearl yni neteenth centurywi th f ood, cl othi ng, andpa-
tent medi ci nes, andthenmovi ngontof urni ture, ki tchenappl i ances, cars,
andl ei suregoods, massproducti onmethodsswept throughthe capi tal i st
economyl i ke awave, eachadvancerepresenti ng at once anewi ncursi on
of standardi sedproducti oni nto
theneedsstructureof everydayl i f e, anew
substi tute f or domesti c l abour, andanewwaytocapi tal i seonthedemands
anddesi res ( e. g. , f or rel i ef f romstressandf or perpetual youth) createdby
theexi genci esof i ndustri al re- organi zati oni tsel f . Setti ngasi deother di men-
si ons of thi s compl exshi f t to consumer capi tal i sm, 9 i ts most
i mportant
i mpl i cati ons f or the devel opment of promoti oncan be
summari zed as
f ol l ows.
Fi rst, ( and
most obvi ousl y, ) mass producti on, i mpl i es mass consump-
ti onwhi ch,
i nturn, i mpl i esmassdi stri buti onandmassmarketi ng. I nthi s
newensembl e, adverti si ng i nf act comestopl ayastrategi c economi c
rol e.
DEMONPOLI TI CS
For i f i ndust ri al t echnol ogy vast l y i ncreases t heproduct i vi t y of l abour i t
al so i ncreases
compet i t i ve ri sk by t yi ngup t hel arger amount s of capi t al
t hat havet o bei nvest ed
i n
eachphaseof
t heproduct i on cycl e. Capi t al i st s
i n t he i ndust ri al agehave t hus become
f aced wi t ha recurrent probl emof
surpl us real i sat i on; andt hi s has requi red a sust ai ned ef f ort , on t hei r part ,
t oensuret hat t heever great er abundanceof manuf act ured goods get s t o
market and t hen act ual l y get s t o be sol d. '
Theobst acl es t o be
overcomearebot hphysi cal andcul t ural . Concern-
i ngt hef ormer, di st ri but i on andmarket i ngmust be organi zed on at rans-
regi onal scal e.
Concerni ngt he l at t er, t hedemand f or what i s bei ngmass-
produced must be cont i nuousl y cul t i vat ed amongt hepopul at i on
reached
by t he manuf act urer. Hencewi t h mass product i on not
onl y
does
t hei n-
f ormat i onci rcui t associ at ed wi t hcommodi t yexchangeundergoa prodi -
gi ous
expansi on-
t o
t hepoi nt wherei t becomes a maj or i ndust ry i n i t sel f
- but i t i s al so f orced t o becomepro-act i ve.
Manuf act urers must survey
consumers
t o
knowwhat t heyarel i kel y t o buybef oreproduct i onbegi ns;
and f or t he f l owof anyexi st i ng product , t he requi si t e demand must be
creat ed or at l east channel l ed so as t o absorb avai l abl e suppl y
.
Thecybernet i c ci rcul ari t y of advert i si ngandmarket research, eachsys-
t emat i cal l y compl ement i ngt heot her i n t hemani pul at i vepract i ces of t he
modern advert i si ngagency, i s a f ami l i ar t arget of humani st cri t i que. " But
quest i ons of
f reedomasi de, t heparadoxrepresent ed byt heveryexi st ence
of such a syst em
f or demand management i s al so wort hponderi ng.
I n ef f ect , t he l arger our product i vecapaci t y,
t hehi gher t heproport i on
of resources t hat havet obedevot ed t o t he " non-product i ve" domai ns of
di st ri but i on andexchange.
Accordi ng
t o St uart
Ewen, " over
40%of
t he
cost of produci ng
assembl y-l i ne
aut omobi l es
i n
t heboom
years
of
t het wen-
t i es was spent on t hedeal ershi ps and
advert i si ngcampai gns used t o mar-
ket t hemoncet heyl ef t t hepl ant . I n t hecont emporary f ragrancei ndust ry,
t hi s f i gure ri ses t o over 90per cent . Overal l , i n consequence, an obses-
si vel y product i vi st f ormof economyhas madeconsumpt i on i t s most sal i ent
obj ect i ve, whi l et heenhanced power of i t s product i veapparat us has been
expressedi n t heevengreat er devel opment of i t s communi cat i ons appara-
t us whi ch, t houghparasi t i c on prof i t s of t hef ormer, has i n f act become
t he most mass-product i ve sect or of al l .
Asecond cl ust er of i mpl i cat i ons concerns t henat ure of advert i si ngi t -
sel f , bot h wi t h respect t o i t s rhet ori cal modeandi n t hechangedrel at i on
ads have come t o bear t o t he goods t hey are meant t o promot e.
Thef act t hat mass produced consumabl es have t obe cont i nual l y of f -
l oaded, t hat t hey must compet ewi t h t he vi rt ual l y i dent i cal product s of
t hei r ri val s, andt hat product promot i onandi nnovat i on, t he conquest of
newmarket s, requi res const ant consumer educat i on t o break t he hol d of
ol d habi t s, al l mean t hat advert i si ngi n t he age of mass product i on must
go f ar beyond t he mere provi si on of not i ce and i nf ormat i on i f t hose
product s are t o sel l . Thi s excess of meani ngpri mari l y condenses i n t hat
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
panopl y of i mages commodi ti es ar e l abor i ousl y gi ven to maxi mi se thei r
consumer appeal .
Thi s i s not to say that ear l i er f or ms
of
adver ti si ng
wer eal ways
pur el y
andneutr al l y i nf or mati ve
. Sal es
tal k,
however si mpl e, i mmedi ate, andl ow-
key, has al ways hada demonstr ati ve el ement (Hey you! Thi s i s f or sal e. . . ) ,
and the pr acti ce of hypi ng andpr of i l i ng the war es had i ts or i gi ns i n the
str eet cr i es, stor e si gns, andcar ni val pi tches
of
petty commodi ty tr ader s
l ongbef or eJ . Wal ter Thompson tur ned i t i nto
a
cor por ate ar t .
' 3
The pr e-
i ndustr i al Mol l y Mal one, wemay r ecal l , sang- sang! - about her shel l -
f i sh andtook goodcar e, as i nany moder nj i ngl e,
to
emphasi se thei r sal ea-
bl e qual i ty of pr aeter natur al f r eshness.
The speci f i c novel ty of moder n adver ti si ng l i es not i n i ts mer e depar -
tur e f r omsome f or esaken r ati onal i st nor mbut, f i r st, i n the way that i ts
demonstr ati ve f uncti on has expanded to the poi nt wher e buy- me si gns
get to bepostednot j ust at the poi nt
of
sal e
but
ever ywher e; and, second-
l y, i n
the par ti cul ar
ki nd
of non- r easonto whi ch these
si gns
makeappeal
.
Inthe i mage- maki ng compani es of Madi sonAvenue, adver ti si ngmoves be-
yond har dsel l i nsi stence onthe pr oduct' s per f or mati ve qual i ti es, beyond
evensi mi l e (Bovr i l : as str or i g andnutr i ti ous as the oxf r omwhi ch i t i s sup-
posedl y made) to the stage of outr i ght symbol i c i denti f i cati on. It f ol l ows
that a. cul tur al thr eshol d i s al so r eached: by r epr esenti ng the pr oduct as
theembodi ment of someexi sti ng cul tur al or psychol ogi cal val ue - Coke
i s i t ; Pepsi the choi ce of anewgener ati on- moder nmass pr omoti onat
once ether eal i ses
the
pr oduct
andtur ns
i t
i nto a cul tur al totem.
Fr omthi s momentous change i n adver ti si ng techni que a number of con-
sequences f ol l ow. At a textual l evel , adver ti si ng messages have becomel ess
ver bal , di scur si ve, andar gumentati ve, andmor ef i gur ati ve, al l usi ve, andpi c-
tor i al . Wi thout di scounti ng r adi o (whose use of nar r ati ve wor d- pi ctur es
al l ows i t to f uncti on as aki ndof vi sual medi umat oner emove) , the most
pr omi nent adver ti si ngmedi ahave ther ef or ebeenvi sual - f r ombi l l - boar ds
andmagazi nes to TV- f or whi ch the cr uci al techni cal br eakthr ough, mor e
than a centur y and a . hal f ago, was the devel opment of photogr aphy,
together wi th r el ated i mpr ovements i n the capaci ty of pr i nti ng to mass-
r epr oduce gr aphi c desi gn.
The vi sual ad, at once a mi r r or and a scr een f or the consumer ' s own
pr oj ecti ons, achi eves a power and economy. that the abstr acti ons of ver -
bal l anguage cannever match. Its mai ntr ope i s metaphor , andi ts moti va-
ti onal f or ce r el i es l ess onper suasi onthanonmi meti c magi c: wear ei nvi ted
to
want the pr oduct as a wayto r e- uni te wi th our f antasy sel ves. To gai n
thi s ef f ect, the vi sual adpl aces at i ts si gni f yi ngcentr e aeuphor i c, connota-
ti onal l y satur ated i mageof
the
pr oduct
pr of er r edf or sal e;
an
i mage that
i s at once natur al i sti c (or at
l east set amongi mages we wi l l r ecogni se as.
" r eal " ) andsymbol i cal l y endowed; so that we
wi l l
r eadthe
ver bal andpi c-
tor i al r ef er ences to the pr oduct as
si gni f i er s i n
tur n
f or the myth or desi r e
the pr oduct i s
made
to connote. ' 4
DEMON
POLI TI CS
Mul ti pl i ed a
mi l l i on- f ol d andconsi dered at the l evel of
thewhol e cul -
turescape, the
ef f ect has not onl y been our ubi qui tous
enci rcl ement by
messages enj oi ni ngus to
buy, but our sensory i mpl i cati on
i n af antasti c
webof si gni f i cati on
whi ch, bef ore our very eyes, dupl i cates and
redupl i -
cates the very commodi ti es i t presents
f or sal e. Everyday l i f e, wi thout the
exerti on that atri p to the stores woul d
normal l y i nvol ve, has i n thi s way
cometo resembl e
onel ongandsemi - conti nuous roundof
wi ndow- gazi ng.
Andoveral l , to useSi tuati oni st
phraseol ogy, advancedcapi tal i smhas
gi ven
ri se to a
"soci ety of thespectacl e, " cul tural l y
consti tuted bythat "i mmense
f l otati onof
si gns" whi chthemachi neryof commerci al
promoti onhas been
dri ven to
generate andset i nto general ci rcul ati on. ' 5
Thesi gns
whi ch
so
ci rcul ate, be i t noted, are themsel ves
si gns of si gns.
For the commodi tywhi ch
i ndustri al promoti on i nsi stentl y represents as
thei mage of amythbecomes
mythi ci ntheactual l y i magi nedrel ati onthe
purchasi ngconsumer has wi thi t . What thi s means i s that
modernpromo-
ti on
ef f ecti vel y j oi ns together twodi sti nct
si gni f yi ngchai ns - thosedenot-
i ngproducts andthoseconnoti ngval ues - and
that
both
of thesedomai ns,
styl i sed andconventi onal i sed to render them
f i t f or mai nstreamconsump-
ti on,
come
toci rcul atevi athesamemessages and
thesamemedi achannel s.
Adverti si ngthus comesto serveas amaj or
transmi ssi on bel t f or i deol o-
gy. But i deol ogy
i tsel f undergoes an i mportant change to thesame
extent .
Thecl osed systemof l oadedconcepts i s
repl aced bythemovi ngcodeof
theul tra- conventi onal ; andi n the
di sconti nuous kal ei descope of endl ess
ads thecomponents of thi s normal i ty- based
val ue systemare shreddedi nto
l i ttl e
stereotypi cal bi ts. These too, l i ke the
commodi ti es they hel p ci rcu-
l ate,
andpreci sel y because of thei r pl acement
i n promoti onal messages,
become
exchangeabl e tokens i n aworl dwhereval ue of
al l ki nds i s bei ng
undermi ned
by the i nf l ati on of hyper- producti vi ty.
Theconj uncti on
i n the i magi sti c adverti si ng of i deol ogy andproduct
si gni f i cati on al so
changes thecharacter of commodi ti es themsel ves. To
the
extent that such
promoti onsucceeds, themythi c, psychol ogi cal , or
status-
rel ated
meani ngthat ads associ ate wi ththecommodi ti es they
depi ct be-
comes
transf erred to them, so that f romthestandpoi nt of consumpti on
the ads
merel yref l ect (and rei nf orce) what has actual l y become
the
case:
that toi ts users
Chanel
No. 5
i s not j ust asweet- smel l i ngtransparent l i qui d
but bottl ed
Pari si an chi c, that Smi rnof f real l y does "mean f ri ends, "
and
that Marl boroughs, over andabove
thei r qual i ty as addi cti vecarci nogens,
are the
very embodi ment
of
Fronti er toughness.
Onl y a
l i ngeri ng nostal gi a f or what Vebl en cal l ed "the i nsti nct
f or
workmanshi p"
16
coul dl ead us to i magi ne that the use- val ue of commodi -
ti es has ever beenreduci bl etothei r practi cal
f uncti on. Apart f romthef act,
however, that
human
goups
al ways attachsymbol i smto thi ngs, theexi gen-
ci es of
mass marketi ngsuchmargi nal l y di f f erenti ated(and
si mi l arl y pri ced)
products as shoe pol i sh, beer, or soap makethei r mere
perf ormancecharac-
teri sti cs recede even moreas amark of i denti f i abl e di f f erence
whi l e thei r
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
i mmateri al f eatures as tokens
of status, i deol ogy or desi re, become ever
more pronounced.
As ani mportant corol l ary, thei ni ti al l y di sti nct worl ds of promoti onand
producti onbegi n to i ntersect, wherewi ththe rel ati on betweenthembe-
gi ns to undergoastrange reversal . Promoti on
f eeds back i nto theproduct' s
concept anddesi gn
so
that
what i s producedhas al ready been concei ved
f rom
thevantagepoi nt of the
campai gn
wherei ni t wi l l be promoted. Con-
versel y: thecampai gnto promotetheproduct, f ar f rombei ng
a
mereadd-
on, becomes i tsel f themai nproducti ve acti vi ty
at thecentre of
the whol e
commodi ty process. "
Rol and Barthes provi des acl assi c i nstance i n hi s cel ebratedanal ysi s of
theCi troenDS, desi gned i n shapeandappurtenaces to resembl e theseduc-
ti ve goddess of technol ogythat i ts name ( De- esse) punni ngl yco>nnotes. ' e
Amore contemporary exampl ei s provi dedbyal l the bal l yhoo surround-
i ng
Coca
Col a' s i l l - consi dered
1985 deci si on to promote a
newf ormul a
f or i ts l eadi ng
beverage. Probl ems of i mage not taste di ctated thechange,
andeven the humi l i ati ng reversal of Coca Col a' s deci si on i n the f ace of
consumer resi stance was recuperated ( one i s temptedto see thi s too as
pl anned) i n the massi ve f ree publ i ci ty that re- l aunchi ng the ori gi nal
f or-
mul a i nstantl y gai ned.
4: TheCul ture Industry
So f ar I have onl y consi dered the extensi on of promoti oni n rel ati on
to materi al goods, that i s, i n rel ati on tothosecommodi ti es whoseuse- val ue
i s not exhaustedby thei r symbol i c f uncti on. Neverthel ess, theproducti on
of symbol s has al so beencommodi f i edl eadi ngto thegrowth of a vast i n-
dustry
f or the
producti on anddi ssemi nati onof cul ture,
consci ousness, and
i nf ormati on. Thel atter, moreover, has becomecruci al to thef ormer si nce
those whocontrol the cul ture i ndustry al so control the maj or channel s
through
whi chal l
mass- di ssemi nated promoti onmust f l ow.
Thei nterdependence, at
once
technol ogi cal andf i nanci al , betweenad-
verti si ngandpopul ar cul turehas changedthe character of both - most
i mportantl y, bydi ssol vi ngtheboundary betweenpromoti onandthe wi der
worl dof expressi ve communi cati on. Through thi s breach, whi chcoi n-
ci dedwi th the ri se of themass medi a, adverti si ngmessages have
swi rl ed
i nto every corner of commerci al i sed cul ture, transf ormi ng the l atter, as a
moreor
l ess i ntegrated total i ty of ads, entertai nment, andnews, i nto one
gi ganti c promoti onal vehi cl e.
Bef ore consi deri ng the wi der i mpl i cati ons of thi s, however, i t shoul d
be notedthat themedi ai ndustri es were themsel ves promoti onal i n charac-
ter bef ore, and- i ndependentl y of , thewayi n whi chthei r programmes came
to pi ggy back onother peopl e' s ads.
For one
thi ng, the modernrenderi ng
of
popul ar cul ture as a publ i ci ty-
seeki ngdi spl ay bel ongs to atradi ti onof ri tual entertai nment that reaches
DEMONPOLI TI CS
back t o t he spect acl es of t he anci ent worl d. Such " art f or exhi bi t i on
val ue
" ' 9
advert i sed( at l east ) i t sel f f romt he very st art -even when " f ree"
as ast at e-sponsored occasi on, andwel l bef ore t he t i me when pl ays, com-
pet i t i ve sport , musi c
concert s, et c
. ,
became f ul l y commodi f i ed. I n addi -
t i on t o ( andi n t he f ace of i ndust ri al i sm' s ownmyt hs of
whi ch
we
const ant l y
needt o be remi nded) , t he whol e hi st ory of mass product i on, andof mass
market i ngi t sel f , begant hree cent uri es bef ore Wonderbreadandt he Model
T wi t h Gut enberg' s pri nt i ng press : t hat i s, wi t h t he mass product i on of
si gns . Frompubl i shi ng t o t el evi si on, t he cul t ure i ndust ry has, i n f act , not
merel y f ol l owed but pi oneered t he whol e devel opment t hat l ed, vi a
i n-
dust ri al i sat i on, t o t he great er promi nence of di st ri but i on andpromot i on,
andf i nal l y, t o t he conversi on of t he mass producedproduct i nt o a promo-
t i onal si gn of i t sel f .
Moreover,
t he
t endency of mass product i on t o i ssue
i n sel f -promot i ng
product s has been rei nf orced i n t he case of t he cul t ure i ndust ry by t he
very nat ure of t he act i vi t y
i n whi ch
i t i s engaged:
preci sel y because i t s bus-
i ness i s communi cat i on, t he mechani smf or di st ri but i ng t he product i s t he
same as t he one f or di st ri but i ng promot i onal messages about i t .
Sel f -advert i si ng by andi n t he medi ahas t aken
many
f orms,
rangi ng f rom
t he di rect i nsert i on of spot ads ( e. g. , f or " ot her books i n t he seri es" ) t o
t he use of audi ence bui l d up f or t he sequel ( Ri chardson' s Pamel a, St al -
l one' s Rocky I -I V) . More general l y, t he mass cul t ural art i f act advert i ses i t -
sel f t hrough t he sheer . vi si bi l i t y t hat t he organs of mass
communi cat i on
aut omat i cal l y conf er on what ever t hey t ransmi t . Such vi si bi l i t y, i ndeed,
can creat e t he success i t f eeds on; andi n j ust t hat spi ri t every mass medi -
um, f rommusi c andl i t erat ure t o t heat re, f i l m, andbroadcast i ng, has deve-
l oped ( and const ant l y updat es) i t s own rost er of st ars, hi t s, and cl assi cs .
Li ke t he regi st ered t rade-mark whose prot ot ype t hey are, t he f unct i on of
t hese bi g names and t i t l es i s at once t o rat i f y and push t o t he cent re of
t he st age t he product s whi ch t he i ndust ry bel i eves can most
readi l y
be
sol d. The game of cel ebri t y al so provi des a ready-made market f or t he
secondary cul t ural product s ( l i t erary gazet t es,
f anzi nes, t al k shows, et c
. )
whi chhel p
t o sust ai n i t . These product s' whol e l ot t ery-l i ke sagaof i nst ant
f ame, whi ch repl aces t he oral mode of gradual reput at i on, onl y f ans t he
f l ames of t hat envi ous i dent i f i cat i on whi ch gi ves t he cel ebrat edworks and
st ars t hei r prodi gi ous power i n t he f i rst pl ace t o move t he merchandi se
and t o keep i t movi ng.
The promot i onal act i vi t i es of t he cul t ure i ndust ry f an out al ong al l i t s
medi abranches, bi ndi ngt hemt oget her i n aspreadi ng syst emof i nner ref er-
ences t hat convert s t he whol e i nt o a si ngl e promot i onal i nt ert ext . Aut hors
appear on TV, newspapers publ i ci se movi es, andradi o, suppl ement edf i rst
by f i l mand l at er by t el evi si on, provi des avi t al advert i si ng out l et f or t he
recordi ng i ndust ry. Nor
i s
al l
t hi s i nt ermedi a promot i on i nci dent al t o
programme cont ent . Where t he
product i s desi gned
f or
appropri at i on
.
t hrough aset of repeat edact s, t he present at i on
of an
ext ract , chapt er,
or
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
epi sodecandoubl e
bothas anadandasf i r st- or der pr ogr ammi ng. Besi des
the
pur e case, exempl i f i edby thepubl i cati on of bookextr acts i n maga-
zi nes, or bythebr oadcast medi a' s useof r ecor ds andmusi cvi deo, cul tur e
i ndustr y news andgossi pabout i tsel f comesto ser veas astapl e- of i ts own
enter tai nment
f ar e.
As a f ur ther ef f ect of popul ar cul tur e' s i ntegr ati onwi thadver ti si ng, the
r i se of newmedi a technol ogi es, f r omthe r otar y pr ess
to
r ecor di ngand
br oadcasti ng,
has
combi nedwi th
commer ci al l ogi c to
systemati cal l y subor -
di natesomef or ms, of medi apr esentati on to other s, as thei r anti ci pator y
pr omoti on. Si ncea pr i ntedtext, photogr aph, r ecor d, or br oadcast has a
l ar ger audi ence andi s easi er to val or i se as acommodi tythanthe ( staged)
per f or manceonwhi chi t i s based, thel atter tends to betr ansf or medi nto
anadver ti sement f or i ts r epl i ca. Not onl y, as ar esul t, dol i ve events, even
whencommodi f i edthr oughagate, cometobestagedexpr essl y f or thei r
mass- medi atedr epr oducti on ( Br uce Spr i ngsteen, Li ve! ) ; but al so, wher e
such
f abr i cated r epr oducti on has al r eady occur r ed, the " l i ve" i s i ts
r educedto si mul ati ngthe" or i gi nal " tr anscr i pti on, andtheaur aof i ts " l i ve-
ness" becomesj ust apr omoti onal devi cef or i nvesti ngthestudi o r ecor ded
per f or mance wi th a pseudo- aur ati c r esonanceof i ts
own.
For thi s r eason, popstar s, poets, andpubl i shi ngacademi cs
ar eper i odi -
cal l y encour aged by thei r commer ci al handl er s to takethei r pr oduct out
can ther oad. Whether i n the f or mof a r ockconcer t or apubl i c l ectur e
the
r esul t i never y case i s anambi guous per f or mance, del i ver edontwo
l evel s, i n whi chtheaspect of i mmedi acyessenti al to a
cul tur e' s l i vi ng
sub-
str atumi s conti nuousl y nul l i f i edbythepr omoti onal r ol e whi ch the l i ve
per f or mance i s contextual l y cal l ed upon to pl ay.
Al l i n al l , then, theuni on
of
cul tur eandadver ti si nghas donemor ethan
j ust col oni sethe
f or mer byextendi ngtheswayof thel atter : i t has br ought
about thei nter f usi onof what ar eal r eadytwoextr emel ydensepr omoti onal
appar atus. The f or ms of pr omoti on andpr omoti onal cul tur e that have
r esul ted f r omthi s uni on have tended cor r espondi ngl y, ther ef or e, to be-
comeeven mor e convol uted andcompl ex.
Let us
f i r st
consi der
some
of
ther ami f i cati ons
of
what Smythe, Bagdi ki -
an,
and
other s have dubbedthe " f r ee l unch"
. z
Setti ngasi de the vexed
questi on of
the " audi ence commodi tyandi ts wor k, " theeconomi c pr i n-
ci pl edenotedby
thi s ter mi s si mpl eenough. I n themar r i ageof conveni ence
betweenadver ti si ngandthe i nf or mati on/ enter tai nment
i ndustr y, thel at-
ter attr acts anaudi encef or thef or mer i n r etur n
f or
i ts
subsi di sati onthr ough
thesal eof spaceandti me. Totheextent of
thi s subsi dy, medi apr oducti on
anddel i ver ycosts ar e bor nbythesponsor and
theconsumer gets a " f r ee
l unch" - i n r etur n f or thel atter ' s vol untar y subj ecti on to theads
car r i ed
al ongwi ththepaper , event, or pr ogr amme. Pr i cesubsi dy
var i es f r ommedi -
umto medi um, r ar el y total i n thecase of pr i nt and100%
i n the case of
r adi oandnetwor kTVWi thbr oadcast medi a, the
r equi si ter ecepti onequi p-
ment has to bepr i vatel y pai d
f or , wi th
a
f ur ther gai n f or theel ectr oni c
DEMONPOLI TI CS
compani es t hat spawnedt hemedi ai n t hef i r st pl ace. Nonet hel ess, once
youhaveyour set , t hepr ogr ammi ngcomes( gr at i s) , anyamount " of i t ,
ul t i -
mat el ysuppor t edbyahi ddenchar gebui l t r i ght i nt ot hepr i ceof al l adver -
t i sedconsumer goods.
As
concer ns cont ent , t hemost obvi ousef f ect of medi adependencyon
adver t i si ngi s t o cr eat e asi t uat i on
wher enot onl yar eads desi gnedwi t h
avai l abl eadver t i si ngoppor t uni t i es i nmi nd, but t he
non- adver t i si ngcom-
ponent i t sel f , i . e. , t hespacebet weent heads, i s al sof ashi onedt osui t
t he
ads
wi t hi ni t s space.
To
somedegr eet heobj ect i vesof adver t i si ngandr egu-
l ar
pr ogr ammi ng
al r eadycoi nci de
i nt hel at t er ' s pur sui t of hi gh r at i ngs. By
at t r act i ngamass audi encet oi t sel f apr ogr ammeor
publ i cat i onal socl ear -
l y at t r act s at t ent i ont o t hebi l l - boar ds i n i t s mi dst . At t hi s l evel , per haps,
t he
car r yi ng
of
pai dads onl yser ves t o r ei nf or cet hei nher ent t endency
of al l commer ci al i sedcul t ur e, f r omnews t o
t he
ser i ous
ar t s, t o embr ace
t heval ues of popul ar i t y, di ver si on, andf un.
Theef f ect , however , goes deeper . What
mat t er s
t o
adver t i ser s i s not j ust
t hescal ebut t hecomposi t i onof t hei r audi ence. Thi s i s par t l y aquest i on
of opt i mi si ngt hemi xi nt er msof t heaver agedi sposabl ei ncome. ( A
spec-
t acul ar i nst ance, i n t heear l y 1920s, was t hef at e of t heBr i t i sh
Dai l yHer -
al d. Despi t ebr eaki ngal l ci r cul at i onr ecor ds, t hepaper went br okebecause
i t s l ar gel y wor ki ng- cl ass r eader shi pwast oodown- mar ket t oat t r act suf f i -
ci ent adver t i ser suppor t. "
Wi t h gr owi ngaf f l uence, however , andt hemass
mar ket ' senvel opment of mor eandmor esoci al l ayer s, t hepr obl ems of
au-
di encecomposi t i onhavebecomemor e
compl ex. Adver t i ser s, i nr esponse,
havesought t ot ar get t hespeci f i c mar ket s t heywant , adopt i ngcampai gn
st r at egi es whi ch, wi t h t her i seof demogr aphi cs andpsychogr aphi cs, have
becomeever mor esophi st i cat edandst at i st i cal l y pr eci se.
Asi mi l ar dynami chasl edt oapr ocessof di f f er ent i at i onamongt heme-
di achannel s
aswel l ,
so
t hat t hemat i cal l y,
i deol ogi cal l y,
- andst yl i st i cal l y
t he
non- adver t i si ng
cont ent s of
TVshows, magazi nes et c. , havecomet o
beangl edandcoded
i nt er ms
of
t hesameeconomi cal l yf unct i onal gr oup
i dent i t i es ( of age, sex, i ncome, " l i f e- st yl e, " et c. ) as t hoseunder l yi ngt heads
t hemsel ves.
Not al l
pr oduct s,
however , havesuch si ngul ar t ar get mar ket s.
As ar esul t , cr oss- cut t i ngt het endencyt o
audi encef r agment at i on, ami d-
mar ket mi ddl e- of - t he- r oadi smhasal socomet o besuf f used,
whoseover -
ar chi ng ef f ect , beyondt or por , has beent o anchor
t hef al se uni ver sal i t
pr oj ect s ever ywher e: t hat gr eat mass cul t ur al mi r age of t he nor mal i sed
" mi ddl ecl ass. "
Ther esembl ancebet weenads andt hei r medi asur r oundsspr eadsal so
t ost yl e. Li ngui st i c, acoust i c, andpi ct or i al compr essi onhasshaped
t he
l an-
guageof t el evi si onas pr of oundl yas i t hadear l i er shapedt hesensor yand
i deat i onal t ext ur eof newspaper s andr adi o. Hence, t hepr eval encewi t hi n
popul ar
medi a
of
qui ck- f i r e andl aconi c f or ms
of
communi cat i on, t hei r
sensor ypl ay
wi t h vi sual andaudi t or ypuns, t hei r i nconsequent i al sequenc-
i ngof onemessageaf t er anot her , andt hei r magazi ne- t ypef or mat swhi ch
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
reconf i gure l i f e andi t s experi ence i nt o anever- s hi f t i ngmos ai c of di s parat e
s hi nybi t s . Moderni s t poet i cs , as t hel i t eraryandvi s ual art of t heearl y t wen-
t i et h cent uryexpl i ci t l y at t es t s , t rans f ormedt he res ul t s i nt o anowt ri um-
phant poi nt of aes t het i c pri nci pl e- whos e
pros ai c
bas i s cont i nues t o l i e
i n t he hi gh cos t of medi as pace andt i me, andt he compres s i onal ef f ect s
of t hi s on t he s ynt ax ands emant i cs of al l f orms of mas s - medi at edt al k .
At adeeper l evel , t hough, t he f ree l unch
comes t o res embl e
i t s - ac-
companyi ngads not j us t becaus eof t he commonrepert oi re
of
s i gni f yi ng
f orms andel ement s t hey bot h put i nt o pl ay, but becaus e, preci s el y as a
f ree l unch, i t i s equal l ypromot i onal i n i nt ent . In i t s capaci t y as anaudi ence
magnet f or a part i cul ar ad- carryi ng channel , t he s port s page of t he
news paper, or anepi s ode
of
Dal l as ,
or
rock concert s i mul cas t ef f ect i vel y
advert i s es t he whol e channel i n whi ch i t appears . In s o doi ng, i t s erves
as an adf or ot her ads. Indeed, s i ncemas s - medi at edi ns cri pt i on, evenon
a
f i rs t
order
l evel ,
t ends t o doubl e as promot i on f or i t s el f , what pres ent s
i t s el f on
t he
s urf ace as t he
l i t eral
ands el f - evi dent cont ent of mas s
medi a
programmi ng, i s act ual l y cons t i t ut edas af ormof advert i s i ng rai s edt o at
l eas t t he power of t hree.
The requi rement s of modern mas s market i ng t hus reverberat e wi t hi n
t heconvol ut edhypeci rcui t s of t hecommerci al i s eds i gn t o produceamas s
cul t ural
envi ronment t hat i s not j us t promot i onal i n
f eel
andf unct i on, but
promot i onal i ndept h. At everypoi nt i n i t s programmat i c f l ow, l ayer upon
i nt er- connect edl ayer
of
advert i s i ngact i vi t y i s al ways happeni ng, andev-
ery l ayer
ref ers
us t o
anot her l ayer,
ands o on
i n
an endl es s dance
.
Wi t hi nt hi s s el f - ref l ect i ng vort ex even t he commodi t y, as advert i s i ng' s
real - worl dref erent , l os es i t s anchori ngf i nal i t y. Someads areads f or ot her
ads as wel l f or i mmedi at el ypurchas abl ecommodi t i es , ands omeproduct s
( es peci al l y cul t ural ones ) do doubl e- dut yas ads
f or ot her. product s as wel l .
Thus when Mi chael J acks ondi davi deof or Peps i , Peps i was i n t hes ame
proces s boos t i ngMi chael J acks on; and
t hei r
mut ual promot i on, each
t i me
t headwas broadcas t , al s o hel pedboos t t herat i ngs of t he
net work carry-
i ng i t by at t ract i ng, wi t h s ome predi ct abl e f ol l ow- t hrough, aproport i on
of t hechannel - f l i ppers whohappenedt o be l ooki ngout f or j us t s uch i m-
ages at t he t i me.
Underl yi ng t he f eel i ngof prof ound, i f f as ci nat i ng, hol l ownes s t hat t he
decept i vel yl egi bl e s urf aces of mas s - medi at edcul t ure t endt o evokei s t he
curi ous s t ruct ural devel opment t hey i ns t ant i at e. Thi s i s t he f act t hat t he
mas s product i on of cul t urevi aaudi o- vi s ual medi ahas brought about not
j us t t he merger of ci rcul at i ng s i gns andci rcul at i ng commodi t i es , but t he
merger of bot h wi t ht headvert i s i ngact i vi t y t hat was ori gi nal l y t hei r medi -
at i ngt erm. What commodi t yproduct i on has s everedi t s f urt her devel op-
ment has re- uni t ed, t hough not i n t he s ameway. For t hi s t i me, not s oci al
i ns t i nct andeveryday conveni ence, but t he ext rudedci rcui t of commer-
ci al s i gni f i cat i on, wi t h i t s ever- ext endi ngpromot i onal act i vi t y, has provi d-
edt hepri nci pl eof uni t y, andonl yoncondi t i ont hat t herej oi neds pheres
DEMON
POLI TI CS
of
cul t ur e andcommer ce, si gni f i cat i on andcommodi t ypr oduct i on, bot h
submi t t o i t s empt yembr ace. Empt y, because pr omot i on al ways def i nes
i t sel f byr ef er ence t osomet hi ng el se, i n r el at i on t o whi chi t s
ownper pet u-
al pr esence i s t he per pet uat i onof a l ack, a cont i nual r emi nder of t he un-
sat i sf i ed desi r e
i t
i s
desi gned
t o
pr ovoke. Pr omot i onal cul t ur e i s t hus
i nher ent l yni hi l i st i c because sust ai ni ng t hi s ar t i f i ci al andunbr i dgeabl e gap
-
cul t i vat i ng demand, movi ng t he commodi t i es, st i mul at i ng ci r cul at i on
-
i s
t he whol e and onl y poi nt of t he exer ci se.
5:
Gener al Exchange
Tocompl et e t he pi ct ur e, t her e ar e t wo
f i nal ext ensi ons of pr omot i onal
act i vi t y t hat I must ment i on. Bot hhave al r eadybeen al l udedt o, but t hei r
f ul l er si gni f i cance i n t he unf ol di ng di al ect i c of cul t ur e andeconomycoul d
not be cl ear l y st at edt i l l now. Wi t ht hei r devel opment , i n f act ,
pr omot i on-
al act i vi t y i s br ought i nt o
l i ne wi t h yet a f ur t her st age i n t he evol ut i onof
commodi t ypr oduct i on: t hat of t he commodi t y' s
uni ver sal i sat i onas a so-
ci al f or m,
wher ei nt he modal i t i es
of
commer ci al ci r cul at i on, havi ng com-
pl et el y per meat ed
t he
mass cul t ur al f i el d,
begi n
t o
gener al i se beyondt he
boundar i es of commer ce i n t he
or di nar y sense.
The Fr ench soci ol ogi st J ean
Baudr i l l ar d has t er med t hi s ul t r a-
commodi f i edor der t he soci et y of
"gener al i sed
exchange"
.
22
To whi chone
need
onl y
add
t hat , wi t ht he ar r i val
of
gener al i sedexchange, t he pr omo-
t i onal
act i vi t y t hat has al ways beeni nt r i nsi c t o commodi t ypr oduct i on,
andt hat has become
i ncr easi ngl y pr omi nent as t hat mode has spr ead, has
l i kewi se begunt o gener al i se; and t hat , as i t has done so, t he ent i r e space
of si gni f i cat i on has begunt o be r econst i t ut ed as one vast , i mpl osi ve and
mul t i pl y i nt er - connect ed pr omot i onal cul t ur e.
The f i r st of t hese ext ensi ons concer ns t he wayt hat
pr omot i onal i smhas
come t o shape, not j ust t he commer ci al out put of
medi a, but publ i c di s-
cour se
as such. The newel ement her e i s not si mpl y t hat publ i c i nf or ma-
t i on channel s have beeni ncr easi ngl y usedt ot r ansmi t commer ci al messages,
f or t he hi st or i es of t he assembl y and t he mar ket - pl ace have l ong beeni n-
t er t wi ned. Nor i s t her e anynovel t yt o t he wayi n whi chnews and
opi ni on
have t hemsel ves become commodi t i es, f or i n t hi s t he cont empor ar yme-
di a have si mpl y f ol l owed a t r aj ect or y
newspaper s hadal r eadyset . What
i s
new, however , i s t hat t he doubl i ng andr edoubl i ng of pr omot i onal ac-
t i vi t y wi t hi ncommer ci al medi a, whi chqual i t at i vel y i nt ensi f i ed as t he t i e-
i n bet weenpr oduct adver t i si ng and t he cul t ur e i ndust r y gr ew, has t r ans-
f or medt he whol e pr ocess of publ i c communi cat i on t o
t he
poi nt
wher e
t he i nt er change of pol i t i cal andcul t ur al i deas has i t sel f come t o r esembl e
not hi ng
so
muchas a per manent adver t i si ng cont est bet ween r i val br ands
and f i r ms .
Thi s has i nvol vedmor e t han a t act i cal shi f t . Mai nst r eam
el ect or al pol i t -
i cs, and i ndeedt he
compet i t i ve
pr opaganda of
i nt er nat i onal r el at i ons as
IDEOLOGYAND
POWER
wel l , have come
t o be conduct ednot onl y by means
of adver t i si ng but
t oan i ncr easi ng degr ee i nt er ms of whocanmanage t he whol e
busi ness
of adver t i si ng best . Nor i s t hi s cr i t er i on
of sui t abi l i t y ent i r el y i r r at i onal ,
si nce i n a pr omot i onal cul t ur e
t he capaci t y t opr omot e becomes anobj ec-
t i ve at t r i but e of pol i t i cal l eader shi p. The
head of st at e i s aut omat i cal l y a
medi a st ar and, as we know,
medi ast ar s whoknowhowt omanage t hei r
owni mage can
al so become heads of st at e.
Awhol e anal ysi s
woul dbe neededt oshowhowot her i nst i t ut i onal agen-
ci es t hat si mi l ar l y compet e f or publ i c
at t ent i on, f avour , or f unds -
chur ches, school s, hospi t al s, char i t i es,
pr of essi onal gr oups, i deol ogi cal l ob-
bi es, et c. - have si mi l ar l y
come t o r ecast t hei r pr opagandi st i c act i vi t i es
al ong quasi - commer ci al
l i nes. Suf f i ce t osay t hat , j ust . as t he mass- medi at ed
scene of publ i copi ni oncomes t obe r econst i t ut ed
as asi mul acr umof t he
mass comsumer mar ket ,
soal l
i t s
pl ayer s, what ever t hei r pol i t i cal or i deo-
l ogi cal
obj ect i ves, come t o modi f y t hei r means andul t i mat el y t hei r ends
i n l i ne wi t h t he publ i cr el at i ons mode t hi s i mpl i es. Fr ombot h di r ect i ons,
t hen, pol i t i co- i deol ogi cal ,
and commer ci al di scour ses have begun t o i n-
t er penet r at e. In
pl ace of t hei r di f f er ence ani nt er - r el at ed compl ex
of me-
di a ci r cui t s, publ i c
and pr i vat e, f or (what one mi ght cal l ) gener al i sed
pr omot i onal exchange
has ar i sen.
The
secondway i n whi chpr omot i onal act i vi t y has ext endedt osi gni f y-
i ng pr act i ces
beyond t he st r i ct l y commer ci al spher e i s
as an
out gr owt h
of t he pr ocess i n whi ch t he humani ndi vi dual , as wel l ,
has
been
caught
upi n t he expandi ng syst emof exchange.
Tot hi s pr ocess t her e have been
t hr ee di st i nct moment s, eachof whi ch
hasgener at edi t s ownf or ms of i nt er -
i ndi vi dual compet i t i on,
andi t s ownl evel of r el at ed pr omot i onal pr act i ce.
Most i mmedi at el y
commer ci al i n char act er i s t he compet i t i on t hat
mar ket - basedsoci et y has set upbet weenal l "f r ee" i ndi vi dual s as owner s
and t r ader s of t hei r ownl abour power. Of speci al si gni f i cance, br acket i ng
al l t he mat er i al
di mensi ons of t hi s cont est , i s t he i ncr easi ng ext ent t owhi ch
t he
cont est
f or
j obs andmor e gent eel l y, f or posi t i ons, has t akenoni ncr eas-
i ngl y ot her - di r ect edf or ms
. The j obi nt er vi ew, t he r esume, depor t ment at
wor k, t he choi ce
of consumpt i onst yl e, t he pr oj ect edf ami l y f r ont , al l be-
come not j ust i ndi ces of success but per manent zones of compet i t i on i n
t he
st r uggl e t o get ahead. As a soci al psychol ogi cal cor r el at e, sel f -
pr omot i onal
car eer i sm- Hobbes pl us Nar ci ssus - has beeni nst al l ed as
t he nor mal i sed f or mof adapt i ve behavi our and i dent i t y.
The st eady i nt ensi f i cat i on of st at us compet i t i onbet weeni ndi vi dual s as
consumer s i s cl osel y r el at ed. Agai n, t he cont est has a mat er i al di mensi on
(t he mor e weal t h, t he mor e scope f or compet i t i ve di spl ay) but evenmor e
cl ear l y t hani nt he case of posi t i onal compet i t i on, wi t h
i t s
cr edent i al i sm
andl i f est yl e management , suchcompet i t i onunf ol ds as a game of st aged
appear ances
. Indeed, gi ven t he i nst abi l i t y of consumpt i on- basedhi er ar -
chi es i n t he
f ashi on- dr i ven cent r es of advancedcapi t al i sm, t he appar ent ,
her e, i s vi r t ual l y synonymous
wi t ht he r eal . The vogui shbecomes out mod-
DEMONPOLI TI CS
ed, onl ytobe resurrectedas hi ghcamp-
betweenwhi chthere maybe
theonl y
di f f erence of i ntenti oni mpl i edbyother marks of
sophi sti cati on
( or i ts absence) whi chthe possessi ng
actor drapes around the stage.
The
gi ddi er
thegame, themorei t resol ves i nto a
merestruggl e to establ i shthe
dramaturgi cal credenti al s of
the consumer/ actors whoconduct i t -
a
promoti onal
parodyof theromanti c i deal that
i ndi vi dual s shoul dre-create
themsel ves as arti sts, and
thei r ownl i ves as works of art .
The
pri macyof promoti on, however,
i n i nter-i ndi vi dual exchange as-
serts i tsel f most cl earl y wi ththe
emergence of yet a thi rd f ormof status
contest i n
whi chwhat i s at stake i s thesi gn-exchangeval ueof
i ndi vi dual s,
not as worker/ prof essi onal s nor as
accumul ators of status-beari ng
i nsi gni a,
but as exchangeabl e
( and consumabl e) tokens i n
themsel ves. Here, above
al l , thepol i ti cal economi st of cul ture
encounters Gof f man' s i mpressi on-
managi ng
sel f , brought to i ts hi ghest pi tch of
anxi ety and al i enati on,
perhaps, i n the
rati ng-dati ngri tual s of hi gh school andbeyond
wherei n
thef ami l i al coupl e at thecentre of
thecontemporaryki nshi psystem
con-
ti nues to be i nter-generati onal l y reproduced.
I nef f ect, the
f reer i ndi vi dual s havebecometo f orm
l i ai sons andattach-
ments, themoretheyhave been
constrai nedbytheensui ngcompeti ti on
f or
sui tabl e partners wi thwhomtostrategi se thei r personal
l i ves, caref ul
to cul ti vate thei r ownassoci ati ve worth
. Si nceat l east Shakespeare' s ti me,
i t i s Romanti c Love
that has provi dedthe mai nmoti ve and
al i bi f or thi s
gi ganti c roundal ay, z3 whose
obj ecti veonal l si des i s to maxi mi se
thesel f ' s
trade-i n
val ueonthemarri age/ f ri endshi p/ personal i ty
market ( vi a publ i ci ty-
consci ous
al l i ances andsel f -prestati ons) andto get
as good a bargai ni n
returnas one can.
Themodernde-patri archal i sati on of
romanceandthe
emergence of an i nter-subj ecti ve
rhetori c of cari ng and
shari ng abol i sh
nei ther the market character of thi s
process nor i ts mysti f i cati onas Love.
They
represent, rather, theenl i ghtenedadaptati onof such
romanti c i deol -
ogyto a moreadvanced,
i . e. , moreegal i tari an, secul ar, andpsychol ogi cal -
l y sel f -consci ous stage i nthe
devel opment of theexchange system
i nwhi ch
i t i s
soci al l y rooted.
I nthi s
respect, as i nothers, thewi der commodi f i cati onof
thei ndi vi du-
al has beenrei nf orced
bythespreadof market-deri vednorms
concerni ng
the abstract equi val ence of
persons. Wi ththe ascendancyof that
pri nci -
pl e,
thebarri ers of ascri bed status ( especi al l y
as theyaf f ect youthandwom-
en) have
successi vel ycrumbl ed, l eadi ngto amarkedl i beral i sati on
i nterms
of i nterpersonal trade. Si ngl es cl ubs,
dati ngservi ces, and`compani onswant-
ed'
secti ons i nthecl assi f i ed ads represent
onl ythemost vi si bl e contem-
porary resul t of
such accel erated ci rcul ati on,
whi ch has necessari l y
unf ol ded
mai nl yi nthepri vate domai n. Yet thef act that the
i nter-i ndi vi dual
quasi -market has here f ol dedover i ntothecapi tal i st market
i ndi cates that,
j ust as
general i sedexchange establ i shes deepeni ngl i nes of
conti nui tybe-
tweenpubl i c and
commerci al communi cati onso, too, does i t connect
the
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
moneyeconomyand
i t s promot i onal support s wi t hevent he
most i nt i -
mat e
t ransact i ons of pri vat el i fe as wel l .
Suchl i nkages, of course, arenot onl y
economi c. Beyondt hedi rect pro-
vi si onof advert i si ng servi ces, t he
commerci al sphereal soi ncorporat es t he
promot i onal
moment of i nt er- i ndi vi dual exchangei deol ogi cal l y, byt he
way
i n
whi chi t s forms andi mperat i ves areembeddedi nt hehumani nt erest
st ori es andgl ossi l yconsumeri sedenvi ronment s
t hat compri set hefi gure
andgroundof t hecul t urei ndust ry' s
regul ar programmat i c fare. Thei n-
scri pt i on
of
general i sed
i nt er- i ndi vi dual exchange andi t s promot i onal
correl at ei nt he
pi vot al i mages andi deol ogy
of
ad- carryi ng
medi aserves
bot ht onat ural i set heformer andt omaket he
l at t er seemcredi bl ebysoak-
i ngt hemi nt heest abl i shedforms of everydayl i fe
.
The
pri macyof promo-
t i on i n t he pri vat e and
publ i c real ms t hus becomes mut ual l y
sel f- confi rmi ng, andt hei ncommensurabi l i t yof t heset wospheres i ncl as-
si cbourgeoi s t hought ("hommeet ci t yoen") resol ves i nt o
t hei l l usoryt wo-
si dedness of aMoebi us st ri p, onwhi ch
i s i nscri bedonesi ngl eandcon-
t i nuous promot i onal t ext .

.
At t hel evel of pri vat ei nt eract i on,
t hen, as wel l as at t hel evel of t hepo-
l i t i cal process, t heext ensi ons
of exchangeprogressi vel yabsorbal l maj or
di mensi ons of si gni fyi ng pract i ce
i nt ot hedi scourseof promot i on. And
wi t ht hi s
devel opment , whoseori gi ns canbet racedt ot hemerger of ad-
vert i si ng
andent ert ai nment i nt heformat i vephase
of corporat ecapi t al ,
promot i onal cul t urecanbesai dt ohavebecomenot
j ust hegemoni c, but
al l - i ncl usi ve.
-

6: BeyondPromot i on?
BeyondExchange
Thefurt her t hought t owhi ch
suchrefl ect i onl eads i s t hat t hecompl ex
el sewheredubbed
"post - moderni sm, "" andi t sel f hel d t ohavebecome
cul t ural l ydomi nant , i s, i f
di fferent l yaccount edfor, t hesel f- samecompl ex,
nowt het erm"post moderni sm" has i t s
uses. Thecharact eri st i cs i t draws
t oget her - mul t i - perspect i val i sm,
de- cent eri ng
;
sel f- referent i al i t y, et c. , -
doi ndeedcombi ne. Andt hepre- fi x
("post - ") draws at t ent i ont oareal di ffer-
encebet weent hi s confi gurat i on
andt hemoreut opi anandcont est at i ve
st rai ns of "hi gh" moderni sm
t hat fl ouri shedearl i er t hi s cent urywi t hJ oyce,
cubi sm, andj azz .
It i s i mport ant , however,
nei t her t ooverst ress t hedi scont i nui t ynor t o
concedet oomuch
t o
t he
cul t ural i st not i ont hat t hesymbol i csomehow
devel ops accordi ng t oi t s own
t ranscendant l ogi c. Tot hecont rary, as I have
suggest ed, t he
endl ess i nt ert ext ual cont ort i ons t hat const i t ut e post -
moderni t y
arenot j ust root edi nal arger soci al hi st ory: t heyaret heeffect
of ast ruct ural mut at i onwi t hi n
market soci et ywhi ch, byfusi ng economy
andcul t uret oget her
andusheri ng i naworl dof general i sedexchange, has
depri vedt hecul t ural
moment of event hat degreeof aut onomywhi chgave
DEMONPOLI TI CS
i t s former act i vi s t part i s ans , romant i c
andavant - garde, t hei r
s embl anceof
radi cal
pract i cal i t y.
Of
cours e, t o acknowl edget hat al l
s i gni fyi ng act i vi t y has beenabs orbed
i nt oa s ys t em
of expandi ngs i gn- ci rcul at i on t o
whi ch promot i on has be-
comecent ral i s not , i n i t s el f, t obe
cri t i cal . Art , for exampl e, has
l ongs i nce
madei t s peacewi t h t hecorporat e
boardroom, andi n t heamoral
neut ral i -
t y of cont emporary
cool - epi t omi s edby
fi gures l i ke Warhol and
Bowi e
- t hepervas i venes s of
t hepromot i onal i s accept ed
as an obvi ous and
i n-
es capabl efact .
Nevert hel es s , real i s mi s bet t er t han
mi s recogni t i on, andt o
gras p t he es s ent i al l i nk
bet ween t he forms ands pi ri t of
our cul t ure and
t he
as cendancy of promot i onal i s m
i s
t o
gai na pers pect i ve, beyondt he
fl at ,
di s s ol vent
i roni es of pos t - moderni t y i t s el f,
fromwhi cha cri t i que, grounded
i n t he pos s i bi l i t y of an
act ual s uperces s i on, becomes at
l eas t t hi nkabl e.
Thi nkabl e? How? The
cat egory of promot i ondi rect s us t o a
s oci al form,
t hecommodi t y, whos e
di al ect i cal capaci t y t o engender progres s i ve
change,
Marxi s m, anda
cent ury of upheaval , has been made
i nt oan art i cl eof fai t h.
Yet i f promot i onal
cul t urei s al l - i ncl us i ve does i t not s mot her
i t s owncon-
t radi ct i ons ? I f i t
expres s es a uni vers al devel opment ; t he
general i s at i on of
exchange, i s t hereany hi s t ori cal
warrant for pos i t i ngor s t ri vi ng for a
di ffer-
ent cul t ural fut ure? What s pace,
i n s hort , does t he t endency
t o pan-
promot i onal i s m- or a cri t i que
t hat proj ect s i t - l eavefor
t rans format i ve
pract i ce, part i cul arl y ( s i ncet hat i s
what concerns us here) i n t he
cul t ural
s phere?
I n res pons e I woul doffer j us t t hree
obs ervat i ons .
Thefi rs t
i s t hat t o s ei ze on advert i s i ng as
t hees s ent i al modei n whi ch
t hes i gni fyi ng
pract i ces of advancedcapi t al i s t s oci et y ares et i s
not s i mpl y
t o ret urn t he di s cus s i on
t o Marx, s t i l l l es s t o cert ai n rot e
formul ae about
cl as s confl i ct andi deol ogy
whi chbecameas s oci at ed
wi t h hi s name. I t i s ,
rat her, t o fi nda new
rel evance t o t hat broader debat eabout
s oci et y and
economy whi ch at t ended
t he whol e bi rt h ( from1750- 1850) of
modern
capi t al i s m, andwhi ch
cent redon t heprobl emat i c of exchange
. zs
Marx' s owncont ri but i on t o
t hi s debat ewas nodoubt pat h- breaki ng
. But
even as an anat omy of economi cal l y
bas eds oci al rel at i ons , hi s
workwas
al s o fl awed,
andfl awedpreci s el y by what
madei t powerful : i t s i ns i s t ence
on t he
s oci al ( not j us t economi c) cent ral i t y of
product i on .
Marx' s
product i vi s mwas i t s el f i n react i on t ot he
over- emphas i s i n l i ber-
al economi c
t heory on di s t ri but i on and
exchange. What ever t he vi rt ues
of t hi s correct i on, at
t hel evel of cul t ural anal ys i s i t l eft a gap
t hat Marx' s
fol l owers coul d
onl y fi l l by devel opi ng t he domi nat i on model
s ket ched
out i n t heGerman I deol ogy and
t hebas e/ s upers t ruct urenot i on
ment i oned
l at er on. zb Theres ul t ,
for radi cal t heory, has been an
anachroni s m: on t he
onehand, a map of t he cul t ural
rel at i ons of advancedcapi t al i s mt hat ex-
t rapol at es fromt hos eof
previ ous cl as s s oci et i es , part i cul arl y
medi eval Eu-
rope
;
on
t heot her, an act ual formof s oci et y
i n whi ch, preci s el yas a res ul t
of t he
commodi fi cat i on proces s t hat defi nes i t , s uch
a s harpl y s t rat i fi ed
modeof cul t ural
organi s at i on has t endedmoreandmoret o
breakdown.
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Wi thi n Ameri can
thought, i t was the non- Marxi st
Vebl en
17
who di d
most to
re- i ntroducei nto cul tural di scussi onthei mportance
of ci rcul ati on
andexchange. But Vebl en
hi msel f wasworki ngagai nst thebackground
of anol der tradi ti on,
andhere, at l east wi threspect to thecri ti que
of con-
sumeri smand
status competi ti on, thekey
voi cerevi vedwasundoubtedl y
that of Rousseau.
Rousseau, f or hi s part,
absol uti sedtheprobl em. For hi m, competi ti ve
di spl ay - as evi denced
i n thef opperi es andsal on cul ture
of
ei ghteenth
centuryPari s - was
not onl yhi stori cal l y pri or to theri se
of themarket,
but pri or
to the i nsti tuti onal i sati on of soci al l i f e as
such
.
It was, i ndeed,
thepri mal consequenceof
associ ati on i tsel f , theAdami cf al l f romwhi ch
al l subsequent soci al evi l
f l owed. Under theci rcumstances(went theargu-
ment i n hi sEssay
onInequal i ty) progress
meant regress and themost that
coul dbeaccompl i shed wasami ti gati on
of thesoci al i nequal i tyandcul -
tural hypocri sythat, i n astate
of devel opedci vi l i sati on, werestatus com-
peti ti on' s entrenchedbad
ef f ects. Hencehi sarguments, ontheonehand,
f or anewcontract
to reconsti tute thecol l ecti vi ty as
a
l egi ti mated
power,
and, onthe
other, f or anatural i st ref ormof educati on/ soci al i sati on
to
max-
i mi se the
pre- soci al i ndi vi dual ' s real moral capaci ty.
Rousseau' s sol uti on
hasbeenattacked f romal l si des. But
beyonda
sharp-
er appreci ati on
of
the
propertyquesti oni t cannot
besai d that progressi ve
praxi shasf ound
abetter way. At themost radi cal l evel , attempts
havebeen
made
(most recentl yi n Chi na) to abol i shcompeti ti ve
ci rcul ati onas such.
These, though, havei nvari abl y f oundered byexacerbati ng
thecontradi c-
ti on betweeni ndi vi dual
andsoci ety they hopedto transcend. Thepen-
dul um, i n
consequence, hasbeguntoswi ngtheother way- wi thref orm
movementsi n
soci al i st soci eti es, l i ke thosei n capi tal i st ones, tendi ng
to
accept
that thewheel of exchangecannot bestopped,
or
even
(heresyof
heresi es) that amodest restorati on
of
the
market mi ght have al i berati ng
ef f ect . Radi cal thought, i t seems, i s bei ng
pressed to adopt thenoti onof
a"sel f - l i mi ti ng revol uti on,
"28
arevol uti oni n
whi chthecommuni tygai ns
power, but not wi thout l eavi ngthe
ci rcul ati onof goodsandsi gns some
scope f or
pl ay.
It woul d
bewrongto. concl ude, however, that adi al ecti cal
approachmust
beabandoned
al together. To decoupl etheprobl emati c
of
advanci ngex-
change
f romthe(sti l l vi tal ) i ssues of cl ass, pri vateproperty, and
economi c
di stri buti on doesnot at al l meanthat
promoti onal cul tureshoul dberegard-
ed as homogeneousor wi thout contradi cti on.
Conf l i cts, f or onethi ng, areconti nual l y
provokedbytheunsettl i ng i m-
pact of theever- expandi ng market
onexi sti ng val ues, parti cul arl y where
these serve as moral
restrai nts to trade. 29 Thecurrent controversy
over
street prosti tuti on, whi ch
aboveal l concernsi ts adverti si ng aspect, i s acl ear
casei n poi nt . Such
i ssues - codedas l i beral versus conservati ve, i ndi vi dual
versus soci ety, f or
andagai nst "the f ami l y" etc. , - create thebasi s f or an
ongoi ng
cul tural pol i ti cs whi ch, at thel i mi t, canevencombi newi thother
DEMONPOLI TI CS
aspects of the si tuati on
(Wei mar Germany, North Ameri ca
i n the 1960s,
I ran i n the l ate 1970s, etc. ) to
provoke a total soci al cri si s.
I t i s hard to
def i ne thi s dynami c i n ways that do
not capi tul ate to one
or other of i ts pol es. Suf f i ce to say
that whi l ethecontradi cti on i s
materi al
(i n the soci ol ogi cal
sense) i ts expressi on i s cul tural
; andthat the most i m-
portant zone of combat i s at
the i nterf ace betweenpromoti on(as
propagan-
da f or
trade) andtheentrenchedval ues through
whi chasoci al f ormati on,
and, i ndeed, the soci al as such, i s
cul tural l y reproduced.
Myf i nal poi nt
concerns medi a. I have al ready noted
that wi th the de-
vel opment of techni ques f or
recordi ng, si mul ati ng, andmass reproduc-
i ng the l i ve, the l atter has
i ncreasi ngl y come to be subordi nated
as
promoti on f or the f ormer; andthat thi s devel opment
mi rrors andi nter-
sects wi th thepromoti onal reducti on(vi a
i nter-i ndi vi dual status competi -
ti on) of everyday
l i f e i tsel f . As aphi l osophi cal anal ogue,
theGrandTheori sts
of our cul ture, morbi dl y
f asci nated wi th thedeathof meani ngthat
has ac-
compani edtheprol i f erati on of cross-ref erri ng
texts, have decl ared
war
on
thetradi ti onal
pri vi l egi ngof thespoken wordas thef ount of
thought and
speech. I n Grammatol ogy,
Derri dahas i nsi sted that speaki ngi s
onl ya
spe-
ci al case of
wri ti ng andthat theauthenti ci tyval ues
whi chromanti cs, tradi -
ti onal i sts, and
mysti cs f romPl ato to Hei degger have
i denti f i ed wi th the
humanvoi cerest onamythi c vi ewof l anguage
- one that modern l i n-
gui sti cs has f ortunatel y begun to
correct .
Whatever thephi l osophi cal meri ts of thi s l i ne of
reasoni ngi ts pol i ti cal
val ue i s enti rel y suspect si nce
i t seems onl yto rati f y amovement
that has
produced
acul turebasedon substi tuti ons, vacui ti es, and
outwardshow.
To di smi ss the
f ace-to-f ace, the i mmedi ate, the oral i s i ndeed
to deval ue
a di mensi on i n whi chval ues ari se
counter to promoti onal cul ture,
ones
that canbe appeal edto, at theveryl east, as
establ i shi ng thebasi s of acri -
ti que. Nor does such
a cri ti que have to conf i ne i tsel f to nostal gi a
andl a-
ment . For, as every acti vi st knows, tal k
- f or al l i ts i mpoveri shment -
i s
sti l l the l east promoti onal l y medi ated of
medi a. Not onl y does i t thus
remai n
theoxygen of tradi ti ons andi nsti tuti ons; i t i s al sopar
excel l ence
the communi cati ve modei n whi chnewi deas ari se and
popul ati ons can
mobi l i se
themsel ves, i f onl y f or an i nstant, to assert thei r deepest,
most
emanci patory desi res.
Notes
1 .

Note
15/ 24 reads i n f ul l : "Pervasi ve i nf l uence of adverti si ng - wri ters of one medi a
[ si c) pl acearti cl es i n another medi aand
secure adverti si ng f or f ormer as wel l as l atter
- wri ti ng becomes a devi cef or adverti si ng. " W. Chri sti an, ed. ,
TheI deaFi l e of Harol d.
Adams I nni s (1980) , Toronto, Uni versi ty of Toronto Press, ) p. 125.
For I nni s
Department of Soci ol ogy
Trent Uni versi ty
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
onthe publ i shi ngi ndustry, seeH. A. Inni s,
TheBi asof Communi cati on( 1952, Toronto,
Uni versi ty of TorontoPress) pp. 142- 189
.
2.

WChri sti an
( ed. )
The
IdeaFi l e of Harol d Adams Inni s p. 72 andpassi m.
3.

Thephrasei s Loui s Al thusser' s.
See
hi s
essay onMay' 68i nPol i ti cs andHi story: Mon-
tesqui eu,
Rousseau, Hegel , andMarx, ( 1978, NewYork, Schocken) .
4.

J ohnBerger, Ways
of Seei ng( 1977, London, Bri ti sh Broadcasti ngCorporati onandPen-
gui n) ,
especi al l y
pp.
129- 155.
5.

Theti tl e of akeyessay i nInni s' s Essays i nCanadi anEconomi cHi story, ( 1956, Toronto,
Uni versi ty of TorontoPress, ) pp. 252- 272.
6.

"It was not unti l the advent of the tel egraph that messages coul d travel f aster than
amessenger. Bef ore thi s, roads andthe wri ttenword were cl osel y i nterrel ated. " M.
McLuhan, Understandi ngMedi a: theExtensi ons of Man( 1965, Newyork, McGraw-
Hi l l ) , p. 89.
7.

The twopracti ces were conj oi nted whenRi chard
Gal l up
l ef t academi a, toj oi nthe
Young
and
Rubi cam
agency i n1932. SeeS. FoxTheMi rror Makers: aHi storyof
Ameri -
canAdverti si ng andi ts Creators ( 1984, NewYork, Vi ntage) p. 138.
8
.

J
.
Baudri l l ard, TowardsaCri ti queof thePol i ti cal Economy of theSi gntransl ated by
Charl es Levi n( 1981, St . Loui s, Tel os Press) p.
169
andf f .
9.

Agood account of thi s shi f t i s to be f oundi nS. Ewen, Captai ns of Consci ousness
( 1976, NewYork, McGraw- Hi l l ) .
10.

Thecl assi cmodernstatement of thereal i sati ondi l emmai s tobef oundi nJ . Gal brai th,
TheAf f l uent Soci ety, ( 1956, Boston, Houghton- Mi f f l i n) . For agooddi scussi onof the
arguments f or andagai nst thi s vi ewof adverti si ng' s l arger rol e see W. Lei ss, S. Kl i ne
andS. J hal l y, Soci al Communi cati oni nAdverti si ng( 1986, Torontoand NewYork,
Methuen) pp. 13- 19 andf f .
11.

Seeespeci al l y ' Thecul ture i ndustry: enl i ghtenment as mass decepti on' i nM. Hork-
hei mer andT. AdornoTheDi al ecti cof Enl i ghtenment ( 1972, NewYork, Herder and
Herder).
12.

Op. ti t. pp.
23- 30
.
13.

For the earl y hi story of adverti si ng see F. Presbrey, TheHi story andDevel opment
of Adverti si ng ( 1968, NewYork, GreenwoodPress) and R. Fox, op. ti t .
14.

The
most thoroughaccount of thi s mechani smi s tobef oundi nJ . Wi l l i amson, Decod-
i ngAdverti si ng
( 1978,
London, Mari oBoyars) .
Seeal so
R.
Barthe' s
essay"Ti l e rhetori c
of the i mage" i nhi s TheResponsi bi l i ty
of Forms: Cri ti cal Essays
onAl usi c, Art and
Representati on,
( 1985,
New
York,
Hi l l
andWang) pp. 21- 40andA.
Werni ck ' Adverti s-
i ngandIdeol ogy", Theory, Cul tureandSoci ety, 1984, Vol . 2 no. 1. Lei ss, Kl i ne and
J hal l y suggest that i magi si ti c adverti si ng becomes adomi nant moti f f romthe earl y
1930s on, andthat sof ar i t hasgone throughthree psycho- semi ol ogi cal shi f ts. These
they l abel Symbol i sm, Grati f i cati onandLi f estyl e, argui ngthat each i nturncorresponds
toadi f f erent symbol i cmode, respecti vel y Iconol ogy, Narci ssi smandTotemi sm. See
Soci al Communi cati ons i nAdverti si ng pp. 259- 298.
15.

Seeespeci al l y
"Requi em
f or thei r
medi a"
i nJ .
Baudri l l ard' s
7bwards Cri ti que of
the Pol i ti cal Economy
of the Si gn
.
16.

TVebl en, TheInsti nct of Workmanshi p( NewYork, Vi ki ng, 1914) .
DEMONPOLI TI CS
17.

Semi ol ogi cal sel f - consci ousness about desi gn
canbe
traced to theearl i est days
of
mass
producti on. Seef or exampl ethe
di scussi onof Wedgwoodpottery
desi gni nA. Forty
Theobj ects of Desi re, 1986, NewYork, Pantheon).
18.

SeeR. Barthe' s, Mythol ogi es
( 1973,
London, Pal adi n).
19.

Qv. W. Benj ami n' s cel ebratedessay' Art i n theAgeof Mechani cal Reproducti on", pub-
l i shed i n thecol l ecti on I l l umi nati ons
.
20.

D. SmytheDependencyRoad: Communi cati ons, Capi tal i sm, Consci ousnessandCana-
da, ( 1981, NewJ ersey, Abl ex) ; B. Bagdi ki anMedi aMonopol y, ( 1984, Boston, Beacon).
21.

SeeJ . Curran "Capi tal i smandControl
of
thePress" i n J . Curran, M. Gurevi tchand
J .
Wool l acott ( eds. ) Mass Communi cati onandSoci ety( 1977, London, EdwardArnol d)
p. 225
.
22.

Especi al l y i n earl i er worksl i ke 7bwards aCri ti queof thePol i ti cal Economyof
Si gns
andh' Fchangesymbol i que et l a mort. Onesuspects that Baudri l l ard' s f ormul ati on
wasi tsel f deri vedf romC. Levi - Strauss' s di scussi onof modernki nshi pi nEl ementary
Forms of Ki nshi p ( 1969, Boston, Beacon).
23.

For amasterf ul account of theroots of thi s compl exi n the
chi val ri c tradi ti onsee
C. S
.
Lewi s TheAl l egoryof Love: AStudy
i n Medi eval
71-adi ti on
( 1939,
London, Oxf ord
Uni versi ty Press) .
24.

J - F. Lyotard, ThePost- modern Condi ti on: AReport on Knowl edge( 1984, Mi nneapo-
l i s, Mi nnesotaUnversi ty Press) ; H. Foster ( ed. ),
TheAnti - aestheti c: Essays on Post-
modern Cul ture
( 1983,
Washi ngton, BayPress); FJ ami eson, "Post- moderni sm, or The
Cul tural
Logi c of Late Capi tal i sm", NewLef t Revi ew
1984 pp.
53- 92
.
25.

Besi des
Rousseau andthe
French
tradi ti onof
anthropol ogy andsoci ol ogy deri vi ng
f romhi m,
key
f i gures
i ncl ude
Ferguson, Smi th, J ames Mi l l , andMandervi l l e
on
the
Bri ti sh si de and Hegel , Tonni es
andWeber on theGerman
.
26.

Seeespeci al l y AContri buti on to the Cri ti que of Pol i ti cal Economy transl ated f rom
thesecond Germanedi ti on by N. Stone( 1904, Chi cago, Charl es Kerr andCo. )
27.

TheRousseaui an i nf l uence i n parti cul arl y strong i n hi s Theoryof the Lei sure Cl ass,
( 1899, NewYork,
Vi ki ng).
28.

Thi s f ormul a
i s
parti cul arl y
associ ated wi th the Pol i sh Sol i dari ty i ntel l ectual , Adam
Mi chni k. I n acuri ous way, theLef t i n theWest andref ormmovements i n theEast,
i ncl udi ng Gorbachev' s, have come to converge i n a redi scovery of the vi rtues of a
' mi xed economy' .
29.

1 havedevel opedthi s argument at somel engthi n "Si gnandCommodi ty: SomeAspects
of
the
Cul tural Dynami cof AdvancedCapi tal i sm", TheCanadi anJ ournal of Pol i ti -
cal andSoci al Theory, Vol . VI I I ,
Number 2 ( Wi nter/ Spri ng) 1984.
. . . ANDTHEINSURRECTIONOF
SUBJUGATED
KNOWLEDGE
WEOBJ ECTSOBJ ECT:
PORNOGRAPHY
ANDTHEWOMEN'SMOVEMENT
Ei l een Mani on
"Awoman has a pr oduct and she shoul d use i t . "
Chuck Tr aynor t o
Li nda Lovel ace, quot ed i n Or deal
"Al l st r uggl ef or di gni t y andsel f - det er mi nat i oni s r oot ed
i nt he st r uggl e f or act ual
cont r ol over one's own body, especi al l y cont r ol over access t o one's
body. "
Andr eaDwor ki n, Por nogr aphy. - Men
Possessi ng Women
0
0
0
a
w
Si nce t he mi d- sevent i es i n t he
Uni t ed St at es and t he l at e sevent i es her e i n
Canada, f emi ni st s have been
di scussi ng por nogr aphy as apr obl emf or women, a
danger t owomen, not j ust
a sympt omof mi sogyny, but al so one of i t s causes.
Lar ge number s of
women r epor t t hat t hey bot h f ear assaul t t r i gger ed by
por nogr aphy, and exper i ence por nogr aphy i t sel f - as
vi ol ent assaul t . As Susan
Gr i f f i n put i t : "Por nogr aphy i s sadi sm. " 2 I t s
ver y exi st ence humi l i at es us .
Mor e and mor e f or cef ul l y women have been demandi ng t hat somet hi ng be
done about por nogr aphy. St r at egi es di f f er . Femi ni st s wi t h ci vi l
l i ber t ar i an
backgr ounds advocat e open di scussi on, demonst r at i ons, educat i on,
consumer
boycot t s . The mor e i mpat i ent pr ef er t he consci ousness
r ai si ng of di r ect act i on,
as i n t he bombi ng of Vancouver 's Red Hot
Vi deo. Ot her s l ook t o t he st at e t o
enf or ce
exi st i ng obsceni t y l aws or t o f r ame newl egi sl at i on whi ch woul d
suppr ess por nogr aphy, not because i t i s sexual , but because i t i s hat e l i t er at ur e
and i nci t es
vi ol ence.
As
Susan Br ownmi l l er decl ar ed: "Por nogr aphy i s t he
undi l ut ed essence of ant i - f emal e pr opaganda. " 3
Though
ant i - por nogr aphy t act i cs var y, f emi ni st s gener al l y agr ee t hat
por nogr aphy i s a bad t hi ng, t hat i t does har mt o women, and t hat
i f we have
t r oubl e def i ni ng i t , 4 we st i l l r ecogni ze i t when we see i t . Thi s i s not unr easonabl e
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
si nce t he pornography most f emi ni st s
at t ack does not di sgui se i t sel f . However,
when we l ook cri t i cal l y at
ot her cul t ural product s - advert i sement s,
mai nst ream
movi es and t el evi si on programs - t hey of t en resembl e
pornography.
One probl emwi t h t he f emi ni st consci ousness rai si ng t hat has t aken
pl ace
around pornography i s t hat i t i nt ends
t o generat e f ear andanxi et y, or t o bri ngt o
t he surf ace f ears women al ready experi ences
I n
our
soci et y,
every
young gi rl ' s
devel opi ng sexual i t y i s hedged wi t h
awareness of f ri ght eni ng possi bi l i t i es :
vi ol ent assaul t ' and unpl anned
pregnancy. As adol escent s, we l earn bot h t o f ear
men andt o mi st rust our own
amorphous desi res, whi ch may bet ray us. Femi ni st
di scussi ons of pornography address t hese f ears and emphasi ze pornography' s
danger t o women, epi t omi zed i n Robi n Morgan' s sl ogan: "Pornography i s t he
t heory, and rape t he pract i ce. "6 Gl ori a St ei nemmakes t he same poi nt i n her
essay, "Erot i ca vs . Pornography. " Fol l owi ng
a
bri ef
di scussi on of t he f emi ni st
movement ' s havi ng rai sed i ssues such as rape, wi f e bat t eri ng and enf orced
prost i t ut i on t o publ i c consci ousness, she
says
:
"Such i nst ances of real
ant i women warf are l ed us di rect l y t o t he
propaganda t hat t eaches and
l egi t i mi zes t hem-pornography. "'
Pornography makes us nervous f or a number of ot her compl ex reasons .
Beyondt he f ear
t hat
i t
i nci t es vi ol ence, i t represent s an anal ogue of what al cohol
symbol i zed f or
ni net eet h cent ury f emi ni st s at a t i me when most respect abl e
women di d not dri nk.
Not
onl y was
al cohol f or t hema l ower cl ass soci al evi l
cont ri but i ngt o domest i c vi ol ence andpubl i c corrupt i on ( associ at ed as dri nki ng
was wi t h part y pol i t i cs) , but i t
was al so, f or more powerf ul
men
of t hei r owncl ass,
a gl ue, a muci l age
bondi ng mal es i n excl usi ve encl aves of f -l i mi t s t o "good"
women. Ni net eent h cent ury f emi ni st s i magi ned
t hat i f t hey coul d remove t he
al cohol , t hese
mal e bast i ons woul d open up and admi t t hem. Si mi l arl y f or
f emi ni st s t oday,
pornography represent s a uni f yi ng f orce i n mal e power
groupi ngs . Pornography
i s qui nt essent i al macho cul t ure: one t hi nks of
busi nessmen
enj oyi ng an eveni ng at a st ri p cl ub -t he "good"
women
who
aspi re t o be part ners i n t he f i rmmi ght
wel l f eel uncomf ort abl e.
We are al so uneasy about pornography f or
i t seems t o promot e i sol at i on of
men f romwomen, t he subst i t ut i on of f ant asy f or rel at i onshi p.
i f
soci al i zat i on
i nt o macho val ues deni es t enderness and compassi on, pornography promi ses
sexual grat i f i cat i on wi t hout t he necessi t y of t hose "ef f emi nat e" f eel i ngs . 8 "Real
men, " we somet i mes suspect , don' t need women at al l , 9 or t hey want onl y t he
compl i ant ,
pre-packaged woman of t he ski n magazi ne. Pornography, l i ke
advert i si ng,
appeal s t o a whol e range of i nsecuri t i es, evokes envybysuggest i ng
somehow, somewhere, more pl easure
i s avai l abl e.
I n addi t i on, f emi ni st s f ear t hat pornography not onl ydi st ort s t he port rayal of
f emal e sexual i t y by depi ct i ngwomen
as nomore
t han
obj ect s-f or-men,
but
t hat
i t al so bl ocks expl orat i on of women' s "t rue" sexual i t y. J ust when women were
begi nni ng t o di scuss what a sexual i t y emanci pat ed f romdoubl e st andards and
procreat i ve t el eol ogy mi ght mean f or t hem, pornography t urned up i t s vol ume
and drowned out wi t h a quadrophoni c bl ast women' s t ent at i ve whi spers .
Vi ol ence agai nst womenexi st s andwomen must
def end
t herri sel ves agai nst
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
i t . Our
ot her
concerns
about pornography are
equal l y seri ous . However,
f ocussi ng
anal ysi s of pornography onpot ent i al
vi ol ence or ot her sources of
anxi et y
makes i t di f f i cul t t o t hi nk cl earl y
i n t he ensui ng t ense, over- charged
at mosphere
.
I ' m
not argui ng t hat our anxi et y i s
unj ust i f i ed. However, I do t hi nk
t here' s a real danger t hat t he cl i mat e of f ear we
are hel pi ng t o creat e wi l l
st rengt henrepressi ve soci al f orces and t hat some of
our demands wi t h regard t o
pornograhy
wi l l backf i re and resul t i nunant i ci pat ed l osses
f or women. Thus as a
f emi ni st I ' d l i ke t o t ake one
st ep back f romt he f emi ni st
di scussi on of
pornography
and l ookat whywe began t o percei ve
pornography as a probl em,
what some of
t he cont emporary rhet ori c about
pornography i s sayi ng, and how
t he cont emporary
ant i - pornography consensus' f i t s i nt o
t he hi st ory of f emi ni st
causes and
demands. Si nce I am' pri mari l y concerned about
pornography i n
rel at i on t o t he women' s
movement , I wi l l not deal wi t h t he separat e
t hough
rel at ed quest i ons of chi l d
pornography or gay mal e pornography.
Once upon a t i me t here were
norms of correct mascul i ne and
f emi ni ne
behavi our
.
A
number of f act ors - economi c and soci al
changes beyond t he
cont rol of anyone group- have ensured t hat t hese
norms remai nunchal l enged
i nvery f ewmi l i eus wi t hi nNort h Ameri ca t oday. Femi ni sm,
needl ess t o say, has
been di rect l y i nvol ved i n overt hrowi ng recei ved
i deas about bot h mal e and
f emal e propri et y. I I Paral l el wi t h t hese changes,
pornography, presumabl y t o
creat e and sust ai nnewmarket s, has
ext ended t he bounds of what can, wi t hout
i ncurri ng prosecut i on, be shown
and descri bed. Pornography al l egedl y breaks
t aboos of accept abl e represent at i on, of t en
i n a cont ext whi ch cl ai ms t o be
f unny, i roni c, sel f - ref erent i al . Pornography
provokes t he shocked response, t he
censor
i n our heads who t el l s us t he i mage i s bad or
di rt y, and t heref ore
pl easurabl e. Pornography cl ai ms t o push back
barri ers i n order t o cont i nue t o
t i t i l l at e. Perhaps pornography even needs
censorshi p so t hat i t wi l l have norms
t o vi ol at e.
However, ani mport ant
el ement i nt he f emi ni st anal ysi s of pornography has
been t he argument
t hat pornography does not , i n f act , vi ol at e norms of mal e
domi nance and f emal e submi ssi veness, but operat es t o sust ai n t hem
.
I n
t hi s
vi ew, pornography onl y seems t o have a radi cal , l i berat ory
appeal t o t he
unconsci ous. I n real i t y, pornography gi ves us t he
same ol d worl d vi ewwe see
everywhere el se: men are subj ect s,
women are obj ect s, not even obj ect s t o be
"known, " but di scret e i t ems t o be scanned,
vi ewed, t aken i n, or exchanged, l i ke
bi t s of i nf ormat i on.
But t hen, so
what ? Whydi d f emi ni st s become concerned about pornography
i f i t s val ues are j ust t hesame as t hose we see everywhere el se i nt he cul t ure?
Why
i sol at e pornography f or speci al at t ent i on?
I f we' re not af f l i ct ed wi t h hi st ori cal amnesi a or
gui l t y sel f - deni al , we must
remember t hat i n t he si xt i es
most
of
us assumed sexual openness and
expl i ci t ness had somet hi ng t o do wi t h human l i berat i on: we were creat i ng a
j oyous emanci pat ory f est i val whi ch woul d l i berat e us
f romour f ears, t i mi di t i es,
hang- ups, doubl e st andards . I n t he present cl i mat e, when so many of us see
oursel ves as
t he wal ki ng wounded of t he sexual revol ut i on, t hat vi ew at best
seems nai ve, at worst a mal e- conspi rat ori al ri p- of f .
I DEOLOGYAND
POWER
Femi ni st s of t en suggest t hat t he
sevent i es' pr ol i f er at i on of por nogr aphy, as
wel l as i t s i ncr eased
expl i ci t ness and vi ol ence, i s a mal e chauvi ni st backl ash t o
t he
women' s movement . I n por nogr aphy men t ake r evenge on uppi t y women.
Mal e consumer s buy i nt o t he f ant asy and keep " t hei r " women of f bal ance by
br i ngi ng home por nogr aphy or by goi ng out openl y t o vi ew i t . Rel i gi ous
f undament al i st s bl ame t he women' s
movement mor e di r ect l y f or augment i ng
t he avai l abi l i t y and popul ar i t y
of por nogr aphy. Di dn' t we ur ge women t o be
" l i ber at ed, " i ndependent of men and mar r i age?
Many Nor t h Amer i cans can' t
di st i ngui sh t he i dea of l i ber at i on
pr omot ed by Gl or i a St ei nemf r omt he or e
mar ket ed by Hel en
Gur l ey Br own. Di dn' t f emi ni st s r ai se " new" i ssues r el at ed t o
sexual i t y t o publ i c
consci ousness? Di dn' t we say t hat " t he per sonal i s
pol i t i cal " ?' 2 For manyt hat t r ansl at es i nt o " t he pr i vat e i s publ i c" -so t her e we
get por nogr aphy t aki ng us at our wor d and maki ng women' s pr i vat es publ i cal l y
vi si bl e j ust about ever ywher e we t ur n. Howcan we obj ect t o t hat ? mi ght t he
j er emi ahs ask, and howshal l wer espondt o such a ni ght mar i sh per ver si on of our
message?
For f emi ni st s, t her e i s not hi ng
l i ber at ed, l i ber at i ng, or l i ber t ar i an i n t he
cur r ent avai l abi l i t y of expl i ci t sexual
i mages
cat er i ng
t o
al l
speci al i zed t ast es . At
best t hi s wi de open mar ket const i t ut es " r epr essi ve t ol er ance
; "
at wor st , sexi st
pr opaganda as nef ar i ous as Mei n Kampf . On t he evi l ness of por nogr aphy,
f emi ni st s and f undament al i st s ar e at one. They di f f er , of cour se, on whyi t ' s so
bad.
Femi ni st s havei sol at ed por nogr aphy as a pr obl emas a r esul t of t wo par al l el
t r ends wi t hi n t he women' s movement . Onei s t he f ocus onmal evi ol ence, whi ch I
ment i oned ear l i er , andt he ot her i s t he at t empt t o devel op a women' s per spect i ve
t hat cal l s i nt o quest i on mal e " uni ver sal " val ues . Whet her or not connect i ons
bet ween por nogr aphy and r ape can
be demonst r at ed
" sci ent i f i cal l y" i n
l abor at or y exper i ment s wi t h bi zar r e met hodol ogi es and dubi ous t heor et i cal
assumpt i ons, women asser t t hat t he degr adat i on
of
women i mmedi at el y vi si bl e
t o t hemi n por nogr aphy i s r eason enough t o bel i eve t hat boys and men who
r egul ar l y consume i t must be cor r upt ed. Beyond t hat , women quest i ont he way
por nogr aphy depi ct s sexual i t y, cl ai mi ng t hat i t ' s not about sex at al l , but onl y
about domi nance, or t hat i t r epr esent s onl y mal e sexual i t y.
Thi s concer nwi t h por nogr aphy can be cor r el at ed wi t h escal at i ng f r ust r at i on
over
t he r esi st ance
of " t he syst em" t o gr ant our j ust and r easonabl e demands .
Dur i ng
t he
l at e si xt i es andear l y sevent i es, enor mous amount s of i nvest i gat i ons
wer e done, i nf or mat i on was
col l ect ed,
anal yses
wer e made; we
di scover ed and
demonst r at ed how empt y was t he egal i t ar i an r het or i c of our soci et y when i t
camet o men andwomen' s r eal l i f e pr i vi l eges andoppor t uni t i es . Thenby t he l at e
sevent i es, many t hi ngs seemed t o be get t i ng wor se i nst ead of bet t er . I ncr eased
di vor ce r at es and t he j ump i n si ngl e par ent f emal e-headed househol ds, we
r eal i zed, wer e l i ber at i ng many women i nt o pover t y. 1 3
However , j ust as ni net eent h cent ur y f emi ni st s
over est i mat ed t he pot ency
t hat woul d accr ue t o t hemwi t h t he vot e, we al so may at f i r st haveexagger at ed
t he power of l egal change. Hi st or i cal l y f emi ni st s of t en conf l at ed l egal r i ght s wi t h
pol i t i cal power and assumed onedevol ved di r ect l y f r omt he ot her
.
1 4
Per haps we
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
al so assumed, i n t he ear l y days of t he cont empor ar y movement , t hat cogent
ar gument , al ong
wi t h t i dyi ng upof t hel aw, woul dbe enough, or al most enough,
t o
af f ect change
.
Our ear l y
opt i mi smhas si nce gi ven way t o r age, and we have
been f or cedt o exami ne
aspect s of
our cul t ur e
whi ch mai nt ai n mal edomi nance
at t he i r r at i onal l evel and under cut our r at i onal demands .
Thi s sear ch has l ed
some
f emi ni st s l i ke
Nancy Chodor ow and Dor ot hy
Di nner st ei n 1 5 t o t akea cl oser l ook at mot her i ng anduse psychoanal yt i c t heor y
t o expl or e mi sogyny and per sonal / cul t ur al ambi val ence t owar d women. I t has
l ed ot her s t o por nogr aphy, whi ch, i nsof ar as i t bl at ent l y sneer s at us, t edi ousl y
i nsi st s we ar e not hi ng but cunt s, bunni es, pussi es, and chi cks, seems l i ke t he
gr andi ose r evenge of t he ( mal e) i nf ant i l e i magi nat i on. For , adopt i ngt he vi si on
por nogr aphy pr esent s of women, who woul dt r ust us wi t h any aut hor i t y i f al l we
r eal l y want , no mat t er what our pr et ensi ons, i s a good l ay? But t hen who woul d
t r ust t he men we seei n por nogr aphy ei t her ? Woul dwebuy usedcar s f r omt hem
or el ect t hemt o pol i t i cal of f i ce? No mat t er what t hei r pr et ensi ons, al l t hey want
i s
a goodl ay . Suppose weas women r eal l y do l ook at por nogr aphy wi t h our own
eyes and not
as we
i magi ne
men l ook at i t . Thi s may seeml i ke a r i di cul ous,
ut opi an wi sh, gi ven t hepower r el at i ons of our
cul t ur e. But t hen who can endow
us wi t h t he l egi t i macy
of
our
own per spect i ve?
I f we do l ook agai n at por nogr aphy, I
t hi nk we' l l see not onl y women' s
degr adat i on, but al so human
pat hos and pai n. Par adoxi cal l y, f emi ni st
condemnat i on of por nogr aphy acccept s
t hebr i t t l e mal ef ant asy -t hat t her eal -
l i f e, unr el i abl e peni s i s magi cal , power f ul ,
i r r esi st i bl e -andover l ooks t hef ear s
and i nsecur i t i es such f ant asy i s meant t o
di ssol ve.
I r eal i ze t hat I ' ve st r ayed her e f r om
f emi ni st or t hodoxy and r ai sed
pr ovocat i ve quest i ons whi ch some may r egar d as
f r i vol ous. Nonet hel ess, i n
t aki ng uppor nogr aphy as a pol i t i cal i ssue, I
t hi nk wehave not t aken account of
hi st or i cal par al l el s wi t h var i ous ni net eent h cent ur y f emi ni st s' mor al and
pol i t i cal concer ns . For a f ewmoment s, I woul dl i ke t o expl or e some of t hese and
t hen r et ur n t o cont empor ar y f emi ni smand por nogr aphy .
Ni net eet h cent ur y f emi ni smwas not l i mi t ed i n scope t o a uni di mensi onal
st r uggl e f or women' s suf f r age, as hi st or i ans woul d havehadus bel i eve
f or many
year s . Women' s demands f or
ci vi l
r i ght s andexpanded
par t i ci pat i on i n t hewor l d
out si de t he
home
wer e l i nked wi t h a wi de r ange of ot her i ssues, i ncl udi ng
concer ns r el at edt o sexual i t y . Di scussi ons of "vol unt ar y mot her hood" r ai sedt he
possi bi l i t y of women' s sexual aut onomy wi t hi n mar r i age. ' 6 Af ew ut opi an
communi t i es and f r ee l ove advocat es went f ur t her , , quest i oned t he sanct i t y of
mar r i age and champi oned women' s r i ght t o a sexual i t y f r ee of mar r i age' s
excl usi vi t y .
Nonet hel ess, most
f emi ni st s
f or esawa
t r ansf or med i nst i t ut i on of
mar r i age, pur gedof bot h mal esupr emacy and sexual i gnor ance. " However , on
t he dar ker si de, women di d r ecogni ze t hat sexual i t y coul d pose a
t hr eat ,
and
t hei r f ear s became or gani zed ar ound var i ous campai gns deal i ng wi t h
pr ost i t ut i on, whi t e sl aver y and "soci al pur i t y . "
El l en Duboi s and Li nda Gor donhavepoi nt ed
out
t hat
f or ni net eent h cent ur y
f emi ni st s t hepr ost i t ut er epr esent edt he"qui nt essent i al sexual t er r or , ""' f or she
epi t omi zed
f emal e vi ct i mi zat i on at t he hands of l ust f ul , expl oi t at i ve men
.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Ref or mer s i n
bot h Br i t ai n andt he Uni t ed St at es f ocussed t hei r ener gy bot h on
r escui ng pr ost i t ut es f r omt hei r degr adedl i f e and on opposi ngst at e r egul at i on of
pr ost i t ut i on . Li censi ng pr ost i t ut es and coer ci ng t hem i nt o physi cal
exami nat i ons, r ef or mer s ar gued, cyni cal l y at t empt ed t o pr ot ect men f r om
vener eal di sease at t he expense of t he women' s ci vi l r i ght s . Si ncet he def i ni t i on
of pr ost i t ut i on even at t he t ur n of t he cent ur y was not or i ousl y vague,
' 9
and
coul di ncl ude non- commer ci al ext r amar i t al
f emal esexual act i vi t y, t he danger of
i nf r i ngement on any woman' s ci vi l r i ght s
was evi dent . However , many f emi ni st s
al so i magi nat i vel y i dent i f i ed wi t h t he act ual pr ost i t ut e
and made her out r age
t hei r own.
I n Br i t ai n, J osephi ne But l er
l ed
t he
f emi ni st wi ng of t he ant i - Cont agi ous
Di seases Act s movement . The Cont agi ous Di seases Act s, a ser i es
of l aws passed
bet ween
1864 and 1869, pr ovi ded f or t he " sani t ar y i nspect i on" of al l eged
pr ost i t ut es
near desi gnat ed mi l i t ar y depot s i n Engl and and I r el and. Some
doct or s and
pol i t i ci ans want ed t o see t he Act s ext ended t o t he ci vi l i an
popul at i on. Si mi l ar l y i n ni net eet h cent ur y Amer i ca, f emi ni st s t ook par t i n
st r uggl es
t o oppose t he passage of such r egul at or y l egi sl at i on. 2 I n Canada, a
Pur i t y Educat i on Associ at i on exi st ed i n Tor ont o bet ween 1906 and 1915, and a
Nat i onal Counci l f or t he Abol i t i on of Whi t e Sl aver y was f ounded i n 1912 , but
most of t he act i vi t y ar ound sexual
concer ns was connect ed wi t h t he Women' s
Chr i st i an Temper ance
Uni on. 2 '
The pr ost i t ut e, however , was not onl y a symbol f or f emi ni st s
of
women' s
oppr essi on; shewas al so a symbol f or mor al i st s of t he soci al di sl ocat i on caused
by i ndust r i al i sat i on. When we l ook at t he ant i - Cont agi ous Di seases Act s
campai gn i n Br i t ai n or t he ant i - r egul at i on campai gns i n t he Uni t edSt at es, wesee
t hat mor al i st s
andf emi ni st s hadconcer ns t hat bot h di f f er ed and over l apped.
Femi ni st s want ed t o abol i sh pr ost i t ut i on by " savi ng" pr ost i t ut es and
r echannel i ng men' s sexual i mpul ses i nt o " accept abl e" r el at i onshi ps . They
r ej ect edt he vi ewt hat t he pr ost i t ut e was a " f al l en woman, " a per pet ual out cast , a
pot ent i al pol l ut er of men. I nst ead she was a vi ct i mof " mal e pol l ut i on . . . who
had been i nvaded by men' s bodi es, men' s l aws, andby t hat ' st eel peni s, ' t he
specul um. "
2 2
Femi ni st s deepl y r esent ed t he sexual l i cense men cl ai med f or
t hemsel ves andcondemned i n women. Bot h f emi ni st s andot her s i n t he
pur i t y
movement advocat ed a " si ngl e st andar d of mor al i t y" f or bot h men and women.
I n addi t i on, f emi ni st s coul d use t he assumed mor al super i or i t y and" passi on-
l essness" of goodwomen t o ar gue t hat t hey shoul dwei l dpol i t i cal power t o cl ean
up t he cor r upt publ i c wor l d.
2 3
However , t hi s st r at egy under mi ned at t empt s t o
make posi t i ve cl ai ms f or women' s sexual i t y.
Ent husi asmf or t he t emper ance, soci al pur i t y andot her r ef or mmovement s
whi ch ai medat mor al i mpr ovement t hr oughl egi sl at i ve
i nt er vent i on was f uel ed
par t l y by what we mi ght see as f emi ni st
concer ns, and par t l y
by
anxi et y
over
ur bani zat i on, commer ci al i zat i on, i ndust r i al i sat i on - al l t he
" - i zat i ons" t hat
t hr eat ened f ami l y and r ur al val ues wi t h r ampant , expl oi t at i ve i ndi vi dual i sm.
2 4
Ver y of t en ot her anxi et i es wer e di spl aced ont o sexual i ssues, whi ch ar e
guar ant eed t o pr ovoke at t ent i on andi ndi gnat i on. However , as we' l l see, women
di d not necessar i l y benef i t f r omt he r esul t i ng cl i mat e and/ or
r ef or ms .
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
By
emphasi zi ng t he Vi ct or i an not i on of women' s passi onl essness
and mor al
super i or i t y
women wer e abl e t o chal l enge mal e sexual pr er ogat i ves wi t hi n
and
out si de t he f ami l y
and f or ge an ar gument i n f avor of t hei r ownpol i t i cal
power .
However , t hi s .
l ed f emi ni st s t o sacr i f i ce f or sever al decades an
oppor t uni t y t o
def i ne t hei r sexual i t y on
t hei r own t er ms. ( As we know, numer ous
" exper t s"
r ushedi nt o f i l l t he
vaccuum. ) Even ear l y bi r t h cont r ol advocat es r anup agai nst
t he f ear t hat cont r acept i on woul d
l eave women mor e vul ner abl e t o mal e sexual
expl oi t at i on. Thi s r est r i ct ed
vi ew
of
women' s sexual i t y al so made i t i mpossi bl e
f or many f emi ni st s t o under st and
t he compl ex r eal i t y of t he pr ost i t ut e her sel f .
Consequent l y t hey coul d be
shocked by pr ost i t ut es who r ef usedt o behave l i ke
pr oper vi ct i ms andaccept " r escue. " They
wer eal so hi ghl y suspi ci ous of wor ki ng
cl ass cul t ur e and mor es, and
coul d t ake a r epr essi ve at t i t ude t owar d sexual
act i vi t y on t he par t of young wor ki ng gi r l s
.
One
mi ght even go so f ar as t o ar gue
t hat manyor di nar y womenwer eput of f by a vi ewof
f emal esexual i t y t hat di dnot
cor r espond t o t hei r own exper i ence
. 2 5
Consequent l y, al t hough
f emi ni st s succeeded i n Br i t ai n i n havi ng t he
Cont agi ous Di seases Act s
r epeal ed, and bl ocked i n many i nst ances t he passage
of
r egul at i oni st l egi sl at i on i n Amer i ca, t hey ul t i mat el y di d not cont r ol
t he
di r ect i on of t he pur i t y
movement s andt hei r wor ki r oni cal l y hel ped pave
t he way
f or l egi sl at i on
ai med at r epr essi ng pr ost i t ut i on, whi ch, t hough
i t di d not
el i mi nat e t he " soci al
evi l , " madet he l i f e of t he pr ost i t ut e her sel f
l onel i er , har der ,
and r i ski er .
As l ongas pr ost i t ut i on
had been i nf or mal l y t ol er at ed, pr ost i t ut es coul d
l i ve
among or on t he f r i nges of
t he casual l abor i ng poor . They had a degr ee of
aut onomy, and wer e not
usual l y expl oi t ed by pi mps. However , i n Br i t ai n t he
debat e over
pr ost i t ut i on was r ai sed t o a mor e i mpassi oned l evel
wi t h t he
publ i cat i on of W. T. St ead' s i nf amous " Mai denTr i but e of Moder n
Babyl on" ser i es
i n 1885 . St ead' s document at i onof t he sal e of " f i ve pound
vi r gi ns" t o ar i st ocr at i c
r akes, al ong wi t h ot her sensat i onal i st i c account s
of " whi t e sl ave" t r af f i c, l ed t o
t he passage of t he Cr i mi nal LawAmendment Act
( 1885 ) whi ch r ai sed t he age of
consent f or gi r l s f r omt hi r t een
t o si xt een. However , i t al so gave t he pol i ce
i ncr eased j ur i sdi ct i on over wor ki ng cl ass gi r l s andwomenand
enabl ed t hemt o
car r y out r ai ds on l odgi ng house br ot hel s . The
cl osi ng of br ot hel s f ai l ed t o
el i mi nat e pr ost i t ut i on, but i t di dr ender
pr ost i t ut es subj ect t o ar bi t r ar y exer ci ses
of pol i ce power and i t f or ced t hemt o seek
pr ot ect i on f r ompi mps and ot her
under wor l d men. I n 1912 Syl vi a
Pankhur st r emar kedof t he Whi t e Sl aver y Act : " I t
i s a st r ange t hi ng
t hat t he l at est cr i mi nal Amendment Act , whi ch was passed
ost ensi bl y t o
pr ot ect women, i s bei ngusedexcl usi vel y t o puni sh
women. " 2 6 I t i s
al so wor t h not i ng t hat t he ear l i er 1885 Act
pr ohi bi t ed " i ndecent act s" bet ween
mal e consent i ng adul t s, al l owi ng f or t he pr osecut i on of
homosexual s.
Par adoxi cal l y, t he pur i t y movement ,
i n i t s ef f or t s t o est abl i sh " ci vi l i zed
mor al i t y, " a pr e- Fr eudi an not i onof
t he passi ons under t he t ot al cont r ol of wi l l
and r eason, hel ped t o l aunch an ai r i ng of t opi cs f or mer l y
unt ouchabl e.
I r oni cal l y i n i t s ver y desi r e t o
suppr ess passi on and di sr upt i ve sexual i t y i t
cont r i but ed t o a cl i mat e i n whi ch such
i ssues coul d be r esear ched and
i nvest i gat ed. Nonet hel ess,
t hi s " openness" al so meant behavi our must be mor e
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
car ef ul l y
scr ut i ni zed. As I have not ed, f or women, especi al l y youngwor ki ng
cl ass women,
ext r amar i t al sexual act i vi t y of t en became not onl y unaccept abl e
and i mmor al , but al so cr i mi nal , and mor e l i kel y t o r esul t i n ar r est and
i mpr i sonment . 2 1
Thus i n t he Uni t ed St at es, ni net eent h cent ur y evangel i cal movement s t o
r escue pr ost i t ut es gave way t o Pr ogr essi ve Er a soci al wel f ar e ef f or t s t o "r ef or m"
t hem. Dur i ngt he post - bel l umer a, f or mer
abol i t i oni st s t ur ned t hei r
at t ent i on
t o
pr ost i t ut i on
and br ought t o t he cr usade agai nst "whi t e sl aver y" al l t he
ener gy
and mor al
ent husi asmt hey' d devel oped i n t he f i ght f or bl ack emanci pat i on.
However , as i n
Engl and, l egi sl at i on passed t o el i mi nat e pr ost i t ut i on
l ed
t o
ar bi t r ar y
pol i ce r ai ds, pr essur i ng pr ost i t ut es i nt o dependence on pi mps .
I r oni cal l y
t he newr ef or mat or i es i nst i t ut ed af t er t he t ur n of t he cent ur y t o puni sh
devi ant f emal e sexual behavi our cr eat ed condi t i ons wher eby gi r l s l i ke Mai mi e
Pi nzer , whose l i f e has become knownt hr oughpubl i cat i on of her l et t er s t o Fanny
Qui ncy Howe, 2 8 mi ght be pushed i nt o pr ost i t ut i on by t he ver y j ust i ce/ soci al
wel f ar e syst emdesi gned t o r edeemt hem.
The ul t i mat e r esul t of t he al l i ance of f emi ni st s and ot her soci al pur i t y
advocat es was t hat t he f emi ni st di mensi on of t he at t ack on pr ost i t ut i on was l ost
and onl y t he at t ack on t he pr ost i t ut e her sel f sur vi ved. Thi s can be seen at i t s
most vi r ul ent af t er Amer i can ent r ance i nt o Wor l d War 1 . The f eder al gover nment
was so concer ned wi t h mai nt ai ni ng a "pur e" ar my t hat i t ar r est ed and det ai ned
mor e t han 1 5, 000 suspect ed pr ost i t ut es . I n addi t i on, i t ' s wor t h
not i ng t hat t he
soci al pur i t y
campai gns agai nst obsceni t y i n l i t er at ur e, ar t , and
popul ar cul t ur e
l ed by J osi ah Leeds and Ant hony Comst ockcr eat ed t he l egi sl at i on ( 1 8 73) under
whi ch t he Sanger s wer e l at er pr osecut ed f or sendi ng women
bi r t h
cont r ol
i nf or mat i on. Thi s l egi sl at i on al so made i t di f f i cul t f or f emi ni st s t o wr i t e openl y
about t opi cs l i ke r ape and i ncest .
We can see t hat ni net eent hand t ur n of t he cent ur y campai gns ar ound sexual
t hemes coagul at ed anxi et i es pr ovoked by, i ncr eased
commer ci al i zat i on,
commodi f i cat i on, and ot her t ypes of soci al change, and ul t i mat el y, i n or der t o
al l ay f ear s, l egi t i mat ed mor e gover nment i nt er vent i on, mani pul at i on and
cont r ol . Al t hough we must be car ef ul about dr awi ng hi st or i cal par al l el s i n a
f aci l e way, one t hi ngwe can not e i s t hat publ i c di scussi ons of sexual i ssues ar e
ext r emel y vol at i l e, encour age di spl acement , and pr ovoke r epr essi on as wel l as
per mi t enl i ght enment .
Twent i et h cent ur y f emi ni st s
cer t ai nl y
do not cl ai m, as
di d
so
many
of
our
ni net eent h cent ur y
si st er s,
t hat women ar e "passi onl ess"
or
"sexl ess" and f or
t hat r eason deser vi ng of mor e power and aut hor i t y . However , i n t he f emi ni st
di scussi on of por nogr aphy we f i nd t he assumpt i on t hat men' s sexual i t y i s
essent i al l y di f f er ent f r omwomen' s and mor e pat hol ogi cal . I n Susan Gr i f f i n' s
anal ysi s, sexual i t y i t sel f i s nat ur al and good but menhave cor r upt ed i t
wi t h
bad
cul t ur al const r uct i ons . 2 9 I n Andr ea Dwor ki n' s
vi ew,
por nogr aphy
l i es about
f emal e sexual i t y, r epr esent i ng woman as "a l ewd, di ssol ut e br azen t hi ng, a
whor e al ways sol i ci t i ng, " but i t t el l s t he t r ut h about mal e sexual i t y : "That men
bel i eve what por nogr aphy says about women . . . Fr omt he wor st t o t he best of
t hem, t hey do. "
3
To t ake t hi s poi nt one st ep f ur t her ,
por nogr aphy por t r ays
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
womenand t hei r sexual i t y as essent i al l y
cont rol l abl e by men(bondage
pornography i s t hel ogi cal resul t ) ; f emi ni st
di scourseonpornography port rays
menandt hei r sexual i t y as
essent i al l y cont rol l abl e by pornography.
Thi s
mi rrori ng of what i s a di st ort ed i dea
of our ownsexual i t y ought t ogi veus
pause.
Al t hough f emi ni st wri t ers onpornography
do not presumewomenare
sexl ess, t hey doi mpl y t hat , l ef t t oour
owndevi ces, f ree of mal ecoerci ve
i nt erf erence,
womenarereasonabl e, sel f - det ermi ni ng
bei ngs wi t h asexual i t y
t hat i s
unprobl emat i c, unpat hol ogi cal , gent l e
andgood. 3 ' I nf emi ni st di scourse
onpornography
al l dangerous, di srupt i veaspect s of
sexual i t yareproj ect edont o
menor
"mal ecul t ure. " I nt erest i ngl y, t hi s proj ect i onmi rrors
what SusanGri f f i n
t el l s us pornography
does wi t h men' s "good" f eel i ngs;
pornography proj ect s
men' s vul nerabi l i t i es
ont owomensot hat t hesef eel i ngs can
becont rol l ed. We
reverset heprocess
andproj ect our unf emi ni nenast i ness and
aggressi onont o
men. I nsof ar as such
humannast i ness surf aces i npornography,
we' dl i ket o
suppress i t . LorenneCl ark provi des agood
exampl eof t hi s at t i t udewhenshe
says: "Wearenot i nanywayopposedt o- t hemanuf act ure,
sal e, or di st ri but i onof
mat eri al s whi ch st ress t heposi t i veaspect s of
humansexual i t y. "
32
As f emi ni st s,
canwereal l y set oursel ves upas cul t ural
commi sars, deci di ngwhat i s andwhat
i s not "posi t i ve" enough about sex t obe
represent ed?
Wemay not preci sel y be
passi onl ess anymore, but someof t hesehi dden
assumpt i ons about our
sexual i t y
are
equal l y di st ort i ng. They accompany a
not i onof t hesel f as anent i t y di st i nct f romt hebody
;
f or Andrea
Dworki n: "Al l
st ruggl ef or di gni t y andsel f - det ermi nat i oni s root ed
i nt hest ruggl ef or act ual
cont rol over one' s ownbody, especi al l y cont rol over
access t oone' s own
body. "33 But , wemi ght ask here, arewomenembodi ed
bei ngs or areweowners of
bodi es whomakerat i onal deci si ons
about ot hers' ri ght s of way? Thi s i s not a
f ri vol ous,
hai r- spl i t t i ngquest i on, i f , af t er al l , wedon' t l i kepornography because
i t market s womenas
sal abl eobj ect s or mal epubl i c propert y accessi bl et o
anyone. I f weposssess our bodi es, surel y wecansel l t hemi na commodi t y
cul t ure. Onl y i f , as f emi ni st s, wedevel opavery di f f erent vi ewof t hesel f , and
arguef romt hat , cansel f - sal ebeunt hi nkabl e.
Anot her poi nt of cont i nui t y bet weenni net eent h and
t went i et h cent ury
f emi ni st s revol ves aroundt heword"prot ect i on. " Oneof
t hemost i mport ant
emphases onwhi ch f emi ni st s andot hers
i nt hesoci al puri t y movement agreed
was t heprot ect i onof t he
f ami l y, whi chseemedt hreat enedby anywaywardand/
or
commerci al i zed sexual i t y. Gi vent hat t heni net eent h cent ury f ami l y was
al ready anabst ract i onf romt hel arger communi t y, i t ' s ameasureof j ust how
at omi zedour soci et y has becomet hat wehear l i t t l ef rommodernf emi ni st s
about prot ect i onof t hef ami l y, t hough wedohear agooddeal about prot ect i ng
women and chi l dren f romharmresul t i ng di rect l y or
i ndi rect l y f rom
pornography.
Theat t empt t odemonst rat esuch harmempi ri cal l y has beencreat i ngt he
reput at i ons of l arge numbers of behavi oural
psychol ogi st s t hese days
34
Concernshi f t s f romwhat pornographymi ght encouragement odot o
woment o
what pornography encourages
ment ot hi nk about womenandsexual i t y. Al l
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
such exper i ment s i sol at e por nogr aphi c i mages of women andt henpost ul at e an
ext r emel y si mpl i st i c r el at i onshi p bet ween r epr esent at i on and act i ons or
at t i t udes . They pr esume, as do many f emi ni st s
who base t hei r anal yses on
si mi l ar assumpt i ons, t hat seei ng cer t ai n ki nds
of i mages "condi t i ons" men t o
degr ade and despi se women. Lor enne Cl ar k
makes t hi s poi nt when she says:
"Por nogr aphy i s a met hod of soci al i zat i on
. "
35
Such use of t he wor d
"soci al i zat i on"
r educes i t t o t he t hi nnest , most psychol ogi cal l y super f i ci al
behavi our i st model . In t hi s vi ewsexual i t y -or mor especi f i cal l y mal e sexual i t y
-i s l i f t ed ent i r el y out of t he f abr i c of f ami l y or ot her deep emot i onal
r el at i onshi ps and i s vi ewed as i nf i ni t el y mal l eabl e. Ir oni cal l y, t hi s t hi n,
cont i gent vi ewof humanr el at i onshi ps i s j ust t he por t r ai t we get i n por nogr aphy
i t sel f .
In addi t i on, exper i ment s deal i ng wi t h por nogr aphy assume t hat por no-
gr aphi c i mages and nar r at i ves af f ect vi ewer s/ r eader s i n a way t hat i s ent i r el y
di f f er ent f r omot her t ypes
of
nar r at i ves
and i mages so t hat audi ences wi l l t r eat
por nogr aphy muchmor e l i ke "i nf or mat i on" t hant hey wi l l ot her t ypes of popul ar
cul t ur e, t hat t hey wi l l br acket i t i n an ent i r el y di f f er ent
way f r omsay,
west er ns
or
sci ence f i ct i on. 36 Por nogr aphy i n t hi s vi ew
becomes a ki nd of "howt o" manual :
"It i s a vi vi d depi ct i on of howt o depl oy mal e sexual i t y i n j ust t he way t hat wi l l
achi eve maxi mumef f ect i n mai nt ai ni ng t he st at us quo . "
31
Per haps t he under l yi ng concer n her e i s t he f ear of a ki nd of epi demi c
degener at i on
of i nt er pr et i ve ski l l s. We l i ve i n a wor l d whi ch demands an abi l i t y
t o scan mat er i al
f or f act s and ar gument s, whi ch encour ages t he di f f usi on of
at t ent i on
or concent r at i on, whi ch r el egat es "i nt er pr et at i on, " f or mer l y at t he
cul t ur al cent r e, at l east i n r el i gi on, t o t he r el at i ve per i pher y of l i t er ar y cr i t i ci sm
and psychoanal ysi s. Havemost peopl e' s i nt er pr et i ve ski l l s degener at ed t o such
a degr ee t hat t hey can no l onger di st i ngui sh, at t he most basi c l evel , l i t er al f r om
symbol i c meani ng? Or i s t hi s a pecul i ar l y mal e f oi bl e i n t he r eal m of
por nogr aphy?
If we ask t hat quest i on, however , we mi ght al so ask our sel ves how
sophi st i cat ed f emi ni st cr i t i ques of por nogr aphy have been? Is t her e r oomf or
i mpr ovi ngour
owni nt er pr et at i ons? Does t hi s mat t er i f what wear e engagedi n i s
a st r uggl e f or power ?
One t hi ng t hat di st ur bs me about t he f emi ni st
di scussi onof
por nogr aphy i s
t he way al l por nogr aphy i s l umpedt oget her andf l at t ened out . Woul dwe make
t he bl anket st at ement s we make about por nogr aphy i f we wer e di scussi ng any
ot her popul ar genr e? Some f emi ni st s do di st i ngui sh bet ween vi ol ent and non-
vi ol ent por nogr aphy, ar gui ng t hat onl y t he l at t er i s danger ous, but mor e
commonl y
we see t he cont ent i on t hat al l por nogr aphy i s obj ect i f yi ng,
degr adi ng, and t her ef or e vi ol ent .
If
a young man begi ns
by
subscr i bi ng t o
Pl ayboy, he wi l l end wi t h a cr avi ng f or snuf f movi es, much t he way we wer e
war ned about t he danger
of
mar i j uana' s l eadi ng us i nevi t abl y
t o
her oi n
addi ct i on.
Cer t ai nl y t he por t r ayal of women i n por nogr aphy i s, by andl ar ge, i nsul t i ng,
i r r i t at i ng andwor t hy of cr i t i que. However , when we i nvoke mor e "pr ot ect i on"
f r omt he st at e, we must be car ef ul howwe do i t . I t hi nk t hat t he ver y wor d
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
" pr ot ect i on, "
gi ven what i t i mpl i es f or women, shoul d make us
hesi t at e, f or t he
hi st or i cal r ecor d of " pr ot ect i ve" l egi sl at i on -whet her i n t he
r eal mof mor al s or
t he l abour mar ket -i s cer t ai nl y an ambi guous one.
When we demand
gover nment pr ot ect i on f r ompor nogr aphy,
gi ven t he ar bi t r ar y, pat er nal i st i c,
aut hor i t ar i an modes suchl egi sl at i on and i t s enf or cement
al ways t ake, ar en' t we
aski ng f or
mor e of what we don' t l i ke i n ot her ar eas?
I nsi st i ng on our needt o be
pr ot ect ed, we hol d ont o t he r ol e of vi ct i mor
pot ent i al vi ct i m, t he ver y posi t i on
f r omwhi chour ef f or t s as f emi ni st s ar e desi gnedt o
ext r i cat e us . 38 Our st at us as
vi ct i ms of
mal e vi ol ence may seemt o gi ve us a ki nd of
mor al aut hor i t y . Andt he
det achment
we cl ai mf r ommal e sexual pat hol ogy may
gi ve us an ar gument f or
appr opr i at i ng
mor e power . But hi st or i cal l y i n t he gender bat t l es we
have seen
howl i mi t i ng and
under mi ni ng t hese t act i cs wer e, as wel l as howt hey
of t en
backf i r ed i n t hei r ul t i mat e
ef f ect s . I t hi nkt oday we shoul d j et t i son
t hemi n our
cur r ent st r uggl es .
Of cour se women do
suf f er r eal l i f e act s of vi ol ence ever yday. Thi s i s
af act
whi ch bei ng f ast i di ous about wor ds l i ke " pr ot ect i on"
wi l l not make go away.
Cer t ai nl y a gooddeal of our anger about por nogr aphy r esul t s f r om
our f ear t hat
we
may be vi ct i mi zed ei t her by t he man whose f r ee-f l oat i ng
psychot i c mi sogyny
has been set of f by por nogr aphy, or by t he mor e or di nar y
mal ewho sees r ape as a
mi nor peccadi l l o, f or i f sex i s a commodi t y, i sn' t
r ape j ust pet t y t hef t ?
Si nce our cul t ur e const i t ut es i t sel f t o
suchan ext r eme degr ee f r omi mages
and spect acl e, i t ' s i nevi t abl e t hat pol i t i cal
st r uggl e wi l l r evol ve ar oundj ust such
i ssues . For t he i mage of woman as mor oni c sex obj ect ,
we woul d l i ke t o
subst i t ut e t he i mage of woman as compl ex
per son, act i ve subj ect -someone t o
be r eckonedwi t h and r egar ded
ser i ousl y. I t ' s qui t e obvi ous t hat i n t hi s st r uggl e
over i mages we can' t st op wi t h
por nogr aphy ; we al so have t he whol e domai n of
adver t i si ng t o cont end
wi t h, not t o ment i on a st agger i ng pr opor t i on of
our
t el evi si on,
movi es and books . Af t er al l , one coul d ar gue t hat many mai nst r eam
movi es ar e mor e
danger ous t han por nogr aphi c ones . i nsof ar as t hey ar e bet t er
made,
wi t hmor e t al ent ed di r ect i on andact i ng, mor e sophi st i cat ed
nar r at i on and
f i l mi ng, t hey ought t o be mor e power f ul , mor e compel l i ng t han
t he l owbudget
dr i vel r egul ar l y t ur ned out by t he ski nf l i ck t r ade.
Thi s i s not t o say t hat j ust because
humi l i at i ng i mages per vade our cul t ur e
we ought t o f or get about por nogr aphy as an i ssue, but we
shoul dbe car ef ul not
t o l egi t i mi ze ot her sexi st i mages by f ocussi ng
excl usi vel y on por nogr aphy . I
don' t t hi nk we can sol ve our " i mage
pr obl em" wi t h bet t er def i ni t i ons of
obsceni t y, i ncl usi on of an accept abl e
def i ni t i on of por nogr aphy i n t he cr i mi nal
code, or mor e censor shi p
. I nst ead of demandi ng mor e r est r i ct i ons f r omt he
st at e, we shoul d demand mor e
r esour ces -f or women ar t i st s, f i l mmaker s,
publ i sher s
.
" Bet t er "
censor shi p wi l l not benef i t women, but i t wi l l cer t ai nl y
benef i t pol i ce f or ces and pr osecut or s who wi l l see t hei r al r eady f at budget s
swel l .
Anew appr oach t o l egi sl at i on
on por nogr aphy has been pr oposed i n
Mi nneapol i s by Cat her i ne MacKi nnon and Andr ea Dwor ki n. Thei r
or di nance
woul dper mi t ci vi l l i t i gat i on agai nst por nogr apher s by women who cl ai medt hat
har m had occur r ed t o t hem: t hat t hey had been coer ced i nt o
maki ng
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
pornography; t hat
t hey had been f orced t o vi ew i t ; or t hat t hey had
been
assaul t ed due t o pornography.
MacKi nnon' s purpose i s t o t ransf er t he debat e
out of i t s current
l egi sl at i ve cul de sac and rai se i n t he court s t he i ssue t hat
pornography vi ol at es women' s ci vi l ri ght s .
Thi s approachhas some at t ract i ve f eat ures, si nce i t does shi f t emphasi s f rom
t he i dea t hat sexual expl i ci t ness per se i s of f ensi ve t o t he not i on t hat cert ai n
ki nds of sexual represent at i on are harmf ul because t hey promot e i nequal i t y.
Nonet hel ess, I st i l l wonder whet her we can or want t o l egi sl at e onl y a cert ai n
ki nd of sexual represent at i on -i . e. , sex under condi t i ons of mut ual i t y,
reci proci t y, equal i t y. Do we real l y want t o say t hat our ci vi l ri ght s i ncl ude t he
ri ght t o see onl y cert ai n ki nds of i mages?
Sexual i t y has shoul dered an
enormous wei ght of expect at i ons i n our
cul t ure39 expect at i ons t hat sexual " f ul f i l l ment " wi l l
compensat e f or t he
sensual
i mpoveri shment of urban l i f e, t he emot i onal i mpoveri shment
of
a cul t ure t hat
promot es t hi n soci abi l i t y at t he expense
of
l ong-t erm
deep connect i on, t he
spi ri t ual i mpoveri shment resul t i ng f romt he abst ract qual i t y of most work. 4
o
Pornography capi t al i zes
on
t hese
expect at i ons, i nduci ng us t o bel i eve
t hat
sexual " f ul f i l l ment " i s avai l abl e but el usi ve, j ust l i ke t he grat i f i cat i on of aSal em,
a Budwei ser - i t ' s t here f or sure, i n
t he next , al ways t he next act of
consumpt i on.
As women, we are more aware of t he f raud here; we not onl y recei ve t he
i l l usory promi se of f ul f i l l ment , we are t he promi se. The t erri bl e i rony of f emal e
sexual i t y i s t hat women are expect ed t o embody a oneness wi t h t he body, a
physi cal sel f -conf i dence associ at ed wi t h i deal mot herhood -t hi s t hey are
supposed t o gi ve
t o
men.
However, i t ' s rare f or women t o devel op a t rue
conf i dence
i n
t hei r owndesi re anddesi rabi l i t y si nce f emal e sexual devel opment
i s so permeat edwi t hf ear, andeverybody' s i dent i t y i s const ant l y undermi nedi n
t hi s cul t ure of envy
.
Pornography conf ront s us not onl y wi t h mal e power, but al so wi t h mal e
resent ment ,
resent ment at what has seemi ngl y been promi sed and t hen
wi t hhel d. We, on t he ot her hand, shoul d knowt hat t hi s sensual pl easure
does not bel ong t o us, i s not ours t o gi ve
or
deny
f or i t i s not a
t hi ng, not
a product , but , where i t exi st s, i s act i vi t y, process, f eel i ng, rel at i onshi p. In
sexual i t y we woul dl i ke t o preserve some pri vi l eged area, some space f ree f rom
t he commodi f i cat i onof so muchof t he rest of our l i ves . Whensexual i t y seems
l i ke t he l ast vest i ge of our romant i c i ndi vi dual i t y, pornographyi nsi st s t hat here
t oo t here' s not hi ngbut aki ndof Eat on' s cat al ogue of i mages -arest ri ct ed code
reduci ng al l " sel f -expressi on" t o grot esque banal i t y.
Thi s
paper
i s
meant
t o be provocat i ve. It may seeml i ke a bet rayal of t he
f orces of good, anover-i nt el l ect ual i zed sel l -out t ot he pornocrat s . However, I' m
wri t i ng i t because as a f emi ni st I' mconcerned about our di rect i ons, demands
andal l i ances
. We shoul dkeep i n mi ndwhenf ormi ng pol i t i cal al l i ances ont hi s
i ssue t hat , no mat t er what
we
say,
most peopl e
wi l l
become
i ndi gnant
about
pornography, not because t hey see i t as mi sogyni st i c, but because t hey see i t as
sexual , andf or t hat reason i t rai ses al l ki nds of anxi et i es about " proper" gender
rel at i ons we cal l i nt o quest i on i n ot her cont ext s .
SUBJUGATED
KNOWLEDGE
As wesawwi t ht hef i r st waveof f emi ni sm, sexual i ssues f ocussed al l ki nds of
ot her f ear s . Today wehave even mor e t o be af r ai d of - aci d r ai n, nucl ear
r eact or s, chemi cal wast es -t o namebut a f ewat r andom. To even t he most
opt i mi st i c, our wor l d seems qui t e out of cont r ol . Ar e-or der i ng of gender
r el at i ons, al ong wi t h suppr essi on of sexual expl i ci t ness, can t akeon power f ul
at t r act i on
.
Wesee t hi s i n Amer i can
r i ght -wi ng ant i -f emi ni sm.
A number of ot her t hi ngs di st ur b me about f emi ni st di scour se on
por nogr aphy. Of t en we cat ch an echo of t he ni net eent h cent ur y t emper ance
movement ' s assumpt i on t hat el i mi nat i ng dr i nk woul d abol i sh wi f e beat i ng i n
moder n f emi ni st s' not i ont hat suppr essi ng por nogr aphywoul dr educer apeand
ot her f or ms of act ual mal e vi ol ence. I n addi t i on, a cont empt f or "f r eedomof
expr essi on" cr eeps i nt o manyf emi ni st s' wr i t i ngs
.
"Ci vi l l i ber t ar i an" i s becomi ng
ani nsul t , not yet qui t eequi val ent t o "f asci st . "
Al t hough
wemaybe
di si l l usi oned
wi t hl i ber al pol i t i cal phi l osophy and agr eet hat "f r eedomof
expr essi on" i s at best
an abst r act i on and at wor st a cyni cal def ensewhenwe' r et al ki ng about a mul t i -
mi l l i on dol l ar i ndust r y l i ke por nogr aphy, i t st i l l seems t o me danger ous t o
encour agegover nment t o get mor ei nvol ved i n t hebusi ness of def i ni ng what we
ar e al l owed t o see or r ead. I f weconcer n our sel ves wi t h por nogr aphy as an
i ndust r y
r at her t hanas apur veyor of badi deas, wemi ght t hi nk i n t er ms di f f er ent
f r om
censor shi p: e. g. , uni oni zi ng wor ker s i n t he i ndust r y, pr event i ng
monopol i es, i nvest i gat i ng di st r i but i on net wor ks, t axi ng pr of i t s mor er i gor ousl y.
Weshoul d never l osesi ght of t hef act t hat t hepor nogr aphyi ndust r y coul d not
exi st wi t hout i t s womenwor ker s . Womenwhowr i t eabout por nogr aphy must not
i dent i f y wi t h t hesewomen sol el y at an abst r act l evel , as di d many ni net eent h
cent ur y f emi ni st s wi t h pr ost i t ut es . Weknowwhat ki nds of pr essur es dr i ve
womeni nt o t hesex t r ades ; weknowhowexpl oi t ed t hewomen whowor k i n t he
st r i p
cl ubs, sex act s, and
ski n f l i cks
ar e. I n
maki ng demands
on
t he st at e, we
shoul d bever y war yof f al l i ng i nt o t hesamet r ap as f i r st wavef emi ni st s. I nst ead
weneed t o f i nd ways of suppor t i ng t hesewomen. Pushi ng por nogr aphyf ur t her
i nt o a shadowwor l d wher e, l i ke dr ugs, por nogr aphi c mat er i al s ar ei l l egal but
cl andest i nel y avai l abl ewi l l onl y maket he l i ves of t he women i n t hei ndust r y
mor er i sky, mor eendanger ed4'
I n addi t i on, I t hi nk wemust becar ef ul as women, who have never had t he
same"f r eedomof expr essi on" as men, ei t her becausewewer e not al l owed t o
speak i n publ i c f or ums, or becausewhen wedi d speak our wor ds car r i ed no
aut hor i t y, wer e di smi ssed as hyst er i cal r avi ngs, we must be car ef ul at t hi s
j unct ur e, not
t o
deni gr at e "f r eedom
of
expr essi on, "
but t o demand i t , sei zei t ,
appr opr i at e i t , al l owi t t o one anot her . Hi st or i cal l y as women wehave been
si l enced, and t oday we do not have t he access or deci si on maki ng power i n
r el at i on t o mai nst r eammedi aweneed. Por nogr aphyhas becomesymbol i c f or us
of t hebl at encyof mal esupr emacy, act edout , r epr esent edandenj oyed. I t seems
par t i cul ar l y i nsi di ous becausei t di r ect s i t s appeal t o t hemost vul ner abl ear eas
of t he psyche. The pr ol i f er at i on of por nogr aphy i s cer t ai nl y par t of a whol e
cul t ur al or der t hat under mi nes our sense of secur i t y and aut hor i t y, but
di spl aci ng t oo much anxi et y ont o i t may not onl y wast e someof our t i meand
ener gy,
but al so may encour aget hest at e t o t hi nk i t can t hr owus a censor shi p
sopandkeep us happy, mayevenbackf i r e i n an unexpect edwave of r epr essi on
pr ovokedby f ear s we' ve hel ped t o gener at e.
1 .

For Amer i can f emi ni st di scussi ons of por nogr aphy, see: SusanBr ownmi l l er , Agai nst Our Wi l t
Men, Women and Rape (NewYor k
: Si mon and Schust er , 1 975) ; Robi n Mor gan, ' . ' Theor y and
Pr act i ce: Por nogr aphy andRape, "
i n Goi ng TooFar. ThePer sonal Chr oni cl eof aFemi ni st (NewYor k:
Vi nt age Books, 1 978) , pp. 1 63- 1 69; Kat hl een Bar r y, Femal e Sexual
Sl aver y (NewYor k: Avon,
1 979) ; Andr ea Dwor ki n, Por nogr aphy
:
Men
Possessi ng Women(NewYor k: Per i gr ee Books, 1 979) ;
Laur aLeder er , ed. , TakeBack t heNi ght
:
WomenonPor nogr aphy (New
Yor k: Wi l l i amMor r owand
Company, I nc . , 1 980) ; SusanGr i f f i n, Por nogr aphy andSi l ence: Cul t ur e' s Revenge
agai nst Nat ur e
(NewYor k: Har per &Row, 1 981 ) ; Gl or i a St ei nem, "Er ot i cavs . Por nogr aphy, "
i n Out r ageous Act s
andEver yday Rebel l i ons (NewYor k: Hol t , Ri nehar t andWi nst on, 1 983) , pp. 21 9- 230. For some
f emi ni st di scussi ons of por nogr aphy publ i shed i n Canada, see:
Myr na Kost ash, "Power and
Cont r ol , a Femi ni st
Vi ew
of
Por nogr aphy, " Thi s Magazi ne 1 2: 3, pp. 5- 7 ; Thel ma McCor mack
"Passi onat e
Pr ot est s: Femi ni st s and Censor shi p, " Canadi an For um59: 697, pp. 6- 8 ; Lor enne
Cl ar k, "Por nogr aphy' s Chal l enge t o Li ber al I deol ogy, " Canadi anFor um59: 697, pp. 9- 1 2; Maude
Bar l ow, "Por nogr aphy and Fr ee
Speech, " Common Gr ound 2: 3, pp. 28- 30; J i l l i an Ri ddi ngt on,
"Por nogr aphy: What Does t he NewResear ch Say?" St at us of Women News 8: 3, pp. 9- 1 3;
Mi chel i ne
Car r i er ,
La
pomogr aphi e. base i deol ogi que de 1 ' oppr essi on des f emmes (Si l l er y, Quebec :
Apost r ophe,
1 983) ;
Sar a Di amond, "Of Cabbages and Ki nks : Real i t y and Repr esent at i on i n
Por nogr aphy, " Pi nk I nk 1 : 5, pp. 1 8- 23; Canadi an
Woman St udi es 4 : 4 (i ssue onvi ol ence) .
2.

Gr i f f i n, p. 83:
3.

Br ownmi l l er ,
p.
394 .
4 .

Davi dCopphas ausef ul di scussi onof t he pr obl emof def i ni ng por nogr aphy i n hi s i nt r oduct i on
t o Por nogr aphy and Censor shi p, ed. Davi d Copp and Susan Wendel l (NewYor k
: Pr omet heus
Books_ 1 983) . pp. 1 5- 41 .
5 .

El l en
Duboi s
and
Li nda Gor don
makeasi mi l ar poi nt i n t hei r ar t i cl e, "Seeki ng Ecst asy ont he
Bat t l ef i el d: Danger and Pl easur e i n Ni net eent h
Cent ur y Femi ni st Sexual Thought , " Femi ni st
St udi es
9
: 1 , p. 8 . Accor di ng t o Duboi s and Gor don, "The f emi ni st movement has pl ayed an
i mpor t ant r ol e i n or gani zi ng andeven cr eat i ng women' s sense of sexual danger i n t he l ast one
hundr ed and f i f t y year s . " For a di scussi on of ni net eent h cent ur y f emi ni st s' or gani zat i onal
r esponses t o t hi s sense of danger f r ommal e vi ol ence, see El i zabet h Pl eck, "Femi ni st Responses
t o' Cr i mes agai nst Women, ' 1 868- 1 896, " Si gns 8 : 3, pp. 451 - 470.
6.

Mor gan, p. 1 69.
7 .

St ei nem, p. 221 .
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Not es
8 . Susan Gr i f f i n makes t hi s poi nt : por nogr aphy "woul d have sexual i t y and puni sh
f eel i ng. "
Por nogr aphy andSi l ence, p. 1 78 .
9 .

Accor di ng t o Kat hl een Bar r y: "One of
t he ef f ect s
of
wi despr ead por nogr aphy has been t o
i nt r oduce movi es, books, or
pi ct ur es as t he er ot i c st i mul ant bet ween t wo peopl e, t her eby
r educi ng t he needf or peopl e t o
r el at e t o each ot her . " Femal e Sexual Sl aver y, p. 21 3.
Depar t ment of Engl i sh
DawsonCol l ege
10.

Not al l f emi ni sts have j umpedontheanti - pornography bandwagon. I n 1979El l enWi l l i s wrote
a cri ti que of Women
agai nst
Pornography enti tl ed, "Femi ni sm, Moral i smandPornography, "
ori gi nal l y publ i shedi n TheVi l l age Voi ceandrepri ntedi n Powers of Desi re: ThePol i ti cs of Sexual i ty,
ed.
AnnSni tow,
Chri sti neStansel l
andSharon Thompson(NewYork: Monthl y Revi ewPress,
1983) , pp. 460- 467. Dei rdre Engl i shal sopubl i sheda
si mi l ar cri ti que,
"The
Pol i ti cs of Porn, " i n
MotherJ ones 5: 3, pp. 20- 23, 43- 49. Betty Fri edan
di smi ssedthe anti - pornography marches i n
NewYorkas "i rrel evant"
i n
The
SecondStage (NewYork: Summi t Books, 1981) , p. 20. Here i n
Canada Thel ma McCormack has been
cri ti cal
of
f emi ni sts who advocate censorshi p of
pornography. Shemakes thepoi nt that
such advocacy"mani pul ates women' s anxi eti es about
rape and the saf ety of chi l dren whi l e strengtheni ng a
systemwhi chcreates these f ears. "
"Passi onate Protests : Femi ni sts and
Censorshi p, " Cunadi an Forum59: 697, p. 8.
11 .

Barbara Ehrenrei chi n TheHearts of Men: Ameri canDreams andthe
Fl i ght f romCommi tment (Garden
Ci ty: Doubl eday, 1983) argues that mal e rebel l i onagai nst the"breadwi nner rol e"
precededthe
women' s movement . I n thi s context she has an i nteresti ng
di scussi on
of
Pl ayboy whi ch, i n
promoti ng a "new" consumeri smf or menemanci patedf romf ami l i es, needed
thenudes
to
demonstratethat these menwere not ef f emi nate. Pl ayboy popul ari zed the
noti on that "real
men" di dnot needto be heads of househol ds .
12.

I n Publ i c Man. Pri vate Woman: WomanandSoci al andPol i ti cal Thought (Pri nceton, N. J . : Pri nceton
Uni versi ty Press, 1981) J ean Bethke
El shtai n has ani nteresti ngandcri ti cal di scussi onof thi s
sl ogan.
13.

Dei rdre Engl i shdi scusses thi s i n "The Fear that Femi ni smWi l l Free MenFi rst, " i n Powers of
Desi re, pp. 477- 483.
14.

El shtai n, p. 236.
15.

Nancy Chodorow, The Reproducti on of Motheri ng
Psychoanal ysi s
and
the Soci ol ogy of Gender
(Berkel ey: Uni versi ty of Cal i f orni a Press, 1978) .
Dorothy Di nnerstei n, The Mermai dandthe
Mi notaur Sexual Arrangements andHumanMal ai se (New
York: Harper &Row, 1976) .
16.

SeeLi nda
Gordon' s di scussi on
i n Woman' s
Body.
Woman' sRi ght ASoci al Hi storyof Bi rthControl i n
Ameri ca (Harmondsworth:
Pengui n
Books,
1974) .
17.

SeeWi l l i amLeach, True andPerf ect Uni on: The Femi ni st Ref ormof SexandSoci ety(NewYork:
Basi c
Books, 1980) .
18.

Duboi s andGordon, p. 9. ,
SUBJ UGATEDKNOWLEDGE
19.

MarkConnel l y di scusses theprobl emof def i ni ngprosti tuti on andmeasuri ng i ts extent i n The
Response to Prosti tuti on i n theProgressi ve Era (Chapel Hi l l : Uni versi ty of NorthCarol i na Press,
1980) , p. 16.
20.

See Davi d
Pi var,
Puri ty Crusade.
Sexual Moral i ty andSoci al Control 1868- 1900 (Westport, Conn. :
Greenwood
Press, 1973) .
21 .

SeeJ ames H. Gray, RedLi ghts onthePrai ri es (Toronto: Macmi l l anof Canada, 1971) andCarol Lee
Bacchi , Li berati on Def erred? The I deas of the Engl i sh Canadi an Suf f ragi sts, 1877- 1918 (Toronto:
Uni versi ty of Toronto Press, 1983).
22.

J udi th
R.
Wal kowi tz. "Mal e Vi ceandFemal eVi rtue: Femi ni smandthePol i ti cs of Prosti tuti on i n
Ni neteenthCentury Bri tai n, "i n Powers of Desi re, p. 442.
23.

Thi s argument i s madeby J udi thR. Wal kow?tz wi thregardtoBri tai ni n her bookProsti tuti on and
Vi ctori an Soci ety(Cambri dge Uni versi ty Press, 1980) . p. 117, andi n rel ati on totheUni tedStates
by Carl Degl er i nAt Odds: WomenandtheFami l y i n Ameri ca f romtheRevol uti on tothePresent (New
York:
Oxf ordUni versi ty Press, 1980) , p. 258.
24.

Connel l y, p. 30.
25.

Pet er Gayar gues t hat many Vi ct or i anwomenacknowl edged andexpect ed sexual pl easur e i n
The Bour geoi s Exper i ence. Vi ct or i at o Fr eud Vol ume One, Educat i onof t he Senses (NewYor k: Oxf or d
Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1983) .
26.

Quot edi nWal kowi t z: "Mal e Vi ce andFemal e Vi r t ue : Femi ni smandt he Pol i t i cs of Pr ost i t ut i on
i n Ni net eent h Cent ur y
Br i t ai n, " p. 443
.
27.

See Rut h Rosen, The Lost Si st er hoodPr ost i t ut i oni n Amer i ca1900- 1918 (Bal t i mor e
: J ohns Hopki ns
Uni ver si t y Pr ess, 1982) .
28.

Rut h RosenandSue Davi dson, eds . , TheMai mi ePaper s (Ol d West bur y, N. Y. : The
Femi ni st Pr ess,
1977) .
29.

Gr i f f i n. , passi m.
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
30.

Dwor ki n, p. 167.
31.

Ther ehas beensome f emi ni st expl or at i onof t he "dar ker " si des of f emal e sexual i t y: see Her esi es
12 (Sex I ssue) andComi ng t o Power. Wr i t i ngs andGr aphi cs onLesbi anS/ M, publ i shed bySamoi s, a
l esbi anf emi ni st S/ Mor gani zat i on (Bost on: Al yson Publ i cat i ons, I nc . , 1981) .
Lor enne Cl ar k, "Por nogr aphy' s Chal l enge t o Li ber al I deol ogy, " Canadi an
For um
59
: 697, p.
10. 32.
33.

Dwor ki n, p. 203. Dwor ki n' s vi ewr esur r ect s t he "possessi ve i ndi vi dual i sm" t o
whi ch many
ni net eent h cent ur y f emi ni st s sawt hemsel ves opposed i n t hei r at t empt t o f ashi on a mor e
communi t ar i ansoci al vi si on. See Leach, p. 10.
34.

See Mi chael J .
Gol dst ei nandHar ol d
S.
Kant , eds . , Por nogr aphyandSexual Devi ance ARepor t of t he
Legal andBehavi or al I nst i t ut e, Bever l y Hi l l s Cal i f or ni a (Ber kel ey: Uni ver si t y of Cal i f or ni a Pr ess,
1973)
;
Maur i ce Yaf f e and Edwar d C. Nel son, eds . , The I nf l uence of Por nogr aphy on Behavi our
(London: Academi c Pr ess, 1982) ; Davi d Copp and Susan Wendel l , eds . , Por nogr aphy and
Censor shi p (NewYor k: Pr omet heus Books, 1983) .
35
.

Lor enne
Cl ar k, "Li ber al i smand Por nogr aphy, " i n Por nogr aphy and Censor shi p, p. 53.
36.

SusanSont ag makes t hi s poi nt i nher essay, "The Por nogr aphi c I magi nat i on, "
i nPer spect i ves on
Por nogr aphy, ed. Dougl as A. Hughes (NewYor k: St . Mar t i n' s Pr ess, 1970) , pp. 131- 169.
37.

Cl ar k, "Li ber al i smand Por nogr aphy, " p. 53.
38.

El sht ai n, p. 225.
39.

See J essi caBenj ami n' s essay, "Mast er and Sl ave : The Fant asyof Er ot i c Domi nat i on, "
Power s of
Desi r e, pp. 280- 299.
40.

Meg Luxt ondi scusses t he
connect i onbet weent he wor k l i ves andsexual i t y of her subj ect s i n
Mor eThanaLabour of Love: Thr ee Gener at i ons of Women' s Wor k i n t heHome(Tor ont o : The Women' s
Pr ess, 1980) , pp. 55- 65.
41 .

See Anne
McLean, "Snuf f i ng Out Snuf f. Femi ni st s React , " Canadi anDi mensi ons 12: 8, pp. 20- 23.
THEEND/SOFWOMAN
N. P. Ri cci
Ast he ar chaeol ogy
of our t hought easi l y shows, mani s ani nvent i onof
r ecent dat e.
And
one
per haps near i ng i t s end.
Mi chel Foucaul t , The Or der of Thi ngs'
Wi t h t he di sappear ance of man, what happens t o
woman? Havi ng
onl y r ecent l y gai ned avoi ce as women,
f emi ni st s ar e nowconf r ont ed wi t h
t he pr oposi t i ont hat t o speak as a womani s mer el y t o
r ei nscr i be onesel f
wi t hi nt he l ogi c of anandr ocent r i c epi st emol ogy,
t he ver y l ogi c, i not her
wor ds, whi chf emi ni st shave beent r yi ng t o combat
. The decent er i ngof t he
subj ect advocat ed by Mi chel Foucaul t
and ot her Fr ench t heor i st s has
movedus, appar ent l y, beyond
sexual i dent i t y, i nt o a newl andscape wher e
mencanbe womenandwomen
men, and wher e subj ect s ar e si mpl y pr oper
nouns. But i f t he
di sappear ance of ' man, ' t he di ssol ut i onof t he sover ei gn
Car t esi anego,
ensur es t hat "Menwi l l nol onger speak f or manki nd[ , s] houl d
women, by i mpl i cat i on, no
l onger , i . e . never speak as women?"' Whi l e,
wr i t er s
l i ke Foucaul t have pr ovi ded womenwi t h t he t ool s r equi r ed t o
' deconst r uct '
t he syst ems of power t hat have oppr essed t hem, doesn' t t he
cur r ent el i di ngof sexual i dent i t y r equi r e f r omf emi ni st sanot e of skept i ci sm,
awar i ness t hat t he newpol emi c does not si mpl y r eaut hor i ze ol d
i nj ust i ces?
1 : Subj ect s and Subj ect i on
Thei ndi vi dual i s anef f ect of power , and at t he same t i me, or
pr eci sel y
t o t he ext ent t o
whi ch
i t i s t hat
ef f ect ,
i t
i s t he el ement of i t s ar t i cul at i on.
The i ndi vi dual whi ch power has const i t ut ed
i s at t he same t i me i t s
vehi cl e.
301
Foucaul t , Power /Knowl edge3
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
Thequest i on of i dent i t y, and henceof sexual i dent i t y, ar i ses out of t he,
gener al post st r uct ur al i st cr i t i que of humani smand West er n met aphysi cs.
I n cur r ent t heor y, i dent i t y -i ndi vi dual i t y, subj ect -hood -
i s
hel d
t o be
a
const r uct
compl i ci t ous wi t h cer t ai n modes of r est r i ct i ve l ogi c. What
Fr ench
t heor i st s havebeent r yi ng t o do -wr i t er s l i keJ acques Der r i daand
Rol and Bar t hes -i s t o wear away t he ont ol ogi cal gr ound whi ch has
t r adi t i onal l y accr ued ar ound t he " I " of di scour se, t o quest i on t he sel f -
pr esence of t he speaki ng subj ect , t o showhowsubj ect s ar espoken r at her
t han speak -t hat i s, howt hey ar econst i t ut ed
by
a
webof f or ces of
whi ch
consci ousness i s t he ef f ect r at her t han
t he poi nt of or i gi n.
The
most t hor oughl y hi st or i cal cr i t i que of t he subj ect , and per haps
t he one most usef ul t o f emi ni st s, i s t hat of Mi chel Foucaul t . Though
Foucaul t does not speci f i cal l y poset hequest i on of sexual i dent i t y, hi s wor k
on t he subj ect ' s hi st or i cal const i t ut i on l ays out t he t er ms i n whi chsuch a
quest i on mi ght t ake f or m. Thr oughout hi s r esear ch, Foucaul t has been
concer ned t o showhowt hei ndi vi dual i s const i t ut ed " as ef f ect and obj ect
of power , as ef f ect and obj ect of knowl edge
. " '
I n aFoucaul di anf r amewor k,
t hen, t hequest i on of womancomes down t o a quest i on of knowl edgeand
power .
I n hi s anal ysi s of penal r ef or mi n Di sci pl i neandPuni sh, Foucaul t shows
how" a r ef i nement of power r el at i ons" i n t heni net eent h cent ur y hel ped
f ost er t hegr owt hof t hosesci ences known( apt l y, f emi ni st s havenot ed) as
" t he sci ences of man. " At t he cent er of t hese newsci ences st ood a new
obj ect of knowl edge, t hei ndi vi dual ,
i nvest ed t hr ough
and t hr ough
by t he
syst ems
of
power whi chhad cr eat ed
i t . Hencet her ecent
vi nt age
of
" ' man' " :
i n Foucaul t ' s vi ew, " i ndi vi dual i t y" i s asoci al const r uct i on whoseor i gi ns ar e
t r aceabl e t o t hei nst i t ut i on of anewt echnol ogy of power . By cr eat i ng new
f or ms of knowl edge, power const i t ut es i t s own obj ect s ; and t he obj ect s
whi chpower has t hus const i t ut ed t hen become t he el ement s of i t s own
ar t i cul at i on. " I t i s a doubl epr ocess, t hen: an epi st emol ogi cal ' t haw' t hr ough
a r ef i nement of power r el at i ons ; amul t i pl i cat i on of t he ef f ect s of power
t hr ough t he f or mat i on and accumul at i on of newf or ms of knowl edge"
( DP, 224) . Thus t he human sci ences, whi chgr ewout of a web of power
r el at i ons spanni ng ever yt hi ng f r ommedi ci ne, psychi at r y and educat i on t o
mi l i t ar y t r ai ni ng and penal r ef or m, hel ped per pet uat et hosever y r el at i ons
by const i t ut i ng t he i ndi vi dual as a newobj ect of knowl edge.
Foucaul t ' s per spect i veonsubj ect -hood, t hen, i s deci dedl y pol emi cal :
t o becomesubj ect means t o besubj ect ed. " Weshoul d t r y t ogr asp subj ect i on
i n i t s mat er i al i nst ance as aconst i t ut i on of subj ect s" ( P/ K, 97) . Thehuman
sci ences, by r eor der i ng our ways of knowi ngand f ocussi ng our at t ent i on on
t he i ndi vi dual , have made i t possi bl e f or power t o ent r ench i t sel f mor e
f i r ml y
i nt o
t hesoci al
body. Foucaul t gi ves t he
exampl e
of
t hehomosexual ,
whoar oseas ' a speci es' at t hepoi nt wher ehomosexual i t y was char act er i zed
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
" l ess by a t ype of sexual r el at i ons
t han
by
a cer t ai n qual i t y of sexual
sensi bi l i t y' ' -when, i n ot her wor ds, emphasi s
shi f t ed f r omt he act t o t he
i ndi vi dual . ' But i t has been t hi s ver y sor t of shi f t , accor di ng t o
Foucaul t ,
t hr ough whi ch i ndi vi dual i t y has been const i t ut ed. Ar oundt hi s
newobj ect
ar i se newdi scour ses
-i n t he r eal mof medi ci ne, psychi at r y, cr i mi nol ogy-
and t hr ough t hem
" power r eaches i nt o t he ver y gr ai n of i ndi vi dual s,
t ouches t hei r bodi es and i nser t s i t sel f i nt o
t hei r act i ons and at t i t udes, t hei r
di scour se, l ear ni ng pr ocesses and
ever yday l i ves" (P/K, 39).
But i n Foucaul t ' s vi ewi t woul d be wr ong t o
i magi ne t hat power
si mpl y act s agai nst . i ndi vi dual s, i n t he f or mof pr ohi bi t i on and oppr essi on
.
On t he
cont r ar y, " i ndi vi dual s ar e t he vehi cl es of power , not i t s poi nt of
appl i cat i on" (P/K, 97); i n ot her wor ds,
power passes t hr ough i ndi vi dual s,
usi ng t hemt o f ur t her -i t s own ends .
Thus t he " I " whi ch power and
knowl edge have j oi nt l y const i t ut ed i s al so t he " eye" of
power and know-
l edge, t hat whi chsubj ect s ever yt hi ngt oi t s
nor mal i zi ng, hi er ar chi zi nggaze.
Tobecome subj ect , t hen, al so
means
t o
subj ect , t o gi ve pr i or i t y t oi dent i t y,
t o aut hor shi p, t o owner shi p, t o si t uat e
consci ousness at t he or i gi n of t r ut h
whi l e excl udi ng ever yt hi ng t hat i s
di f f er ent and `ot her . '
I t i s t hi s aspect of t he subj ect
whi chFoucaul t at t acks i n hi s cr i t i que of
t r adi t i onal hi st or i ci sm. I n hi s pr ef ace t o The Or der of
Thi ngs, Foucaul t
di ssoci at es hi msel f f r omt he " phenomenol ogi cal appr oach" t ohi st or y,
t hat
" whi ch gi ves absol ut e pr i or i t yt o t he obser vi ngsubj ect ,
whi chat t r i but es a
const i t uent r ol e t oan act , whi chpl aces i t s own
poi nt
of
vi ewat t he or i gi n of
al l hi st or i ci t y -whi ch, i n shor t , l eads t o a
t r anscendent al consci ousness"
(OT, xi v). The same t echnol ogy of power
whi ch has cr eat ed i ndi vi dual s as
obj ect s of knowl edge al so si t uat es
t hemas subj ect s of knowl edge. Thi s
" sover ei gnt y of t he subj ect " has l ed t o what
Foucaul t cal l s " cont i nuous
hi st or y" :
Cont i nuous hi st or y i s t he i ndi spensabl e cor r el at i ve of t he f oundi ng
f unct i on of t he subj ect : t he guar ant ee t hat ever yt hi ng t hat has el uded
hi mmay be r est or ed t o hi m; t he cer t ai nt y t hat t i me wi l l di sper se
not hi ngwi t hout r est or i ngi t i n ar econst i t ut ed uni t y; t he pr omi se t hat
one dayt he subj ect -i n t he f or mof hi st or i cal consci ousness -wi l l
once agai n br i ngbackunder hi s sway, al l t hose t hi ngs t hat ar e kept at
a
di st ance by di f f er ence, and f i nd i n t hemwhat mi ght be cal l ed
hi s
abode. 6
Tot al i zi ng
and t ot al i t ar i an, cont i nuous hi st or y, t he hi st or y of " t r ans-
cendent al consci ousness, " st r i ves t o si t uat e i t sel f at t he pr i vi l egedsour ce of
t r ut h, and so " t o pr eser ve, agai nst al l decent er i ngs, t he sover ei gnt yof t he
subj ect , and t he t wi n f i gur es bf ant hr opol ogy and humani sm" (AK, 12) .
Thus t he subj ect emer ges i n Foucaul t ' s
wor k
as
t he nexus
of
cer t ai n
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
"mechani cs
of
power" -
as
bot h ef f ect andvehi cl e
of
power, as t hat whi ch
subj ect s andi s subj ect ed. Foucaul t ' s t ask has beent o wri t eahi st ory wi t hout
a subj ect , "t o get ri d of t he subj ect i t sel f ' ( PIK, 117) , . and so t o expose t he
compl i ci t i es of knowl edge and power whi ch have l ed t o t he subj ect ' s
hi st ori cal const i t ut i on.
II : Foucaul t andFemi ni sm
Int ervi ewer :
Doyou
f eel
t hat your ' Hi st ory of
Sexual i t y' wi l l advance
t he women' s quest i on? I have i n mi ndwhat you say about t he hyst er-
i sat i on and psychi at ri sat i on of t he f emal e body.
Foucaul t : There are [ a] f ewi deas t here, but onl y hesi t ant ones, not yet
f ul l y cryst al l i sed. It wi l l be t he di scussi on and cri t i ci smaf t er each
vol ume t hat
wi l l perhaps al l owt hem
t o become
cl ari f i ed. But i t i s not
upt o me t o l ay down howt he book shoul d be used ( PK, 192) .
Foucaul t ' s cri t i que of humani smand of t he subj ect of f ers obvi ous
poi nt s of convergence wi t h f emi ni st i nt erest s. Throughout
hi s work,
Foucaul t has been concerned wi t h
margi nal groups, t he i nsane, t he del i n
quent , t he sexual l y perverse -groups whi ch, l i ke women,
have been
t radi t i onal l y si l enced by t hepowers-t hat -be, andexcl uded
f rom
t he
pri vi -
l eged real mof "t rut h. " But t rut h, i n Foucaul t ' s vi ew, as t he
endpoi nt
of
knowl edge, "i s l i nked i n a ci rcul ar rel at i on wi t h syst ems of power whi ch
produce andsust ai n i t , andt o ef f ect s of power whi ch i t i nduces andwhi ch
ext end i t " ( PIK, 133)
-
t hus t hose groups whi ch are barred f romi t wi l l
al ways be f orced t o t he margi ns of di scourse. Women have t radi t i onal l y
occupi ed t hat margi n, and t he androcent ri c humani smwhi ch Foucaul t
deconst ruct s -wi t h i t s "uni versal s, " i t s canons, i t s pri vi l egi ng of ( an
overwhel mi ngl y mal e) t radi t i on -has cert ai nl y been one
more l i nk i n a
l ong hi st ory of women' s oppressi on.
But a t horoughl y Foucaul di an
anal ysi s woul dhave t o proceed at t he
l evel of t he "mi cro-t echni ques
of power" t hrough whi ch womanhas not
onl y been si l enced, but const i t ut ed
as obj ect of power andknowl edge, much
as del i nquent s,
t hei nsane, andt hesexual l y perverse have become "speci es"
whi chpower has used f or i t s ownends . What hi st ori cal det ermi nant s have
moul ded what we underst and by t he t erm"woman"? What nexus have
women occupi ed i n t he web of power rel at i ons- wi t hi n
a gi ven epi st eme,
what f unct i ons have t hey served? Foucaul t gi ves t he
exampl e
of
howt he
creat i on and medi cal i sat i on ' of f emal e
sexual i t y served part of a l arger
st rat egy f or t he pol i ci ng of
f ami l i es andpopul at i ons.
It
i s wort h rememberi ng t hat t he f i rst f i gure t o be i nvest ed by t he
depl oyment of sexual i t y, one of t he f i rst t o be ' sexual i z ed, ' was t he
30
4
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
' i d l e ' woman. She i nhabi t e d t he out e r e d ge of t he " wor l d , "
i nwhi ch
she al ways had
t o
appe ar as aval ue , and of t he f ami l y, whe r e she
was
assi gne d
a ne w d e st i ny char ge d wi t h conj ugal and par e nt al
obl i gat i ons (HS, 121) .
AFoucaul d i an hi st or y of
wome n, t he n, woul d be gi n at t he poi nt whe r e
" woman" i s r e ve al e d t o be asoci al
const r uct i on.
But i t woul d be wr ong, t he r e f or e , t o se e
i n Foucaul t me r e l y apr oj e ct
f or t he r e cl amat i onof l ost voi ce s . Whi l e Foucaul t ' s
ownst ud i e s ar e of t e n
e xe mpl aof t he r e cupe r at i on of mar gi nal or se l d omconsi d e r e d
mat e r i al s,
f e mi ni st hi st or i e s whi ch conce nt r at e sol e l y on f i l l i ng i n t he gaps
and
l acunae of
t r ad i t i onal hi st or y, on gi vi ng a voi ce t o wome n' s si l e nce d
" si st e r s, " may
f i nd t he mse l ve s f i r ml y r e i nscr i be d wi t hi n t he t e ne t s of
humani st i c
hi st or i ci sm, subst i t ut i ng, f or e xampl e , a" gr e at wome n' s" hi st or y
f or t hat of t he " gr e at me n. " One of t he buzz wor d s of humani smwhi ch
Foucaul t d e const r uct s i n The Ar chae ol ogy of Knowl e d ge i s " t r ad i t i on. " " The
pr obl e m, " wr i t e s Foucaul t , " i s nol onge r one of t r ad i t i on, of t r aci ng al i ne ,
but one of d i vi si on, of l i mi t s ; i t i s nol onge r one of l ast i ng f ound at i ons, but
one
of
t r ansf or mat i ons t hat se r ve as ne wf ound at i ons, t he r e bui l d i ng of
f ound at i ons" (AK, 5) .
Once " woman" i s se e n as asoci al const r uct i on, t he
que st i onof " t r aci ng al i ne , " of r e cl ai mi ng
wome n' s l ost hi st or y, be come s
some what anachr oni st i c .
But onwhat " ne wf ound at i on, "
t he n, i s f e mi ni smt o bui l d i t s abod e ?
As f e mi ni st s be gi nt o e xami ne t he i r ownwor k
i n t he l i ght of aFoucaul d i an
cr i t i que , t he y ar e f i nd i ng t hat
what Foucaul t may of f e r i s not somuch an
e xt e nsi onof wor ks- i n- pr ogr e ss as
achange i nd i r e ct i on.
HEDe - se xual i sat i on
The
r e al st r e ngt h of t he wome n' s l i be r at i onmove me nt s i s not t hat of
havi ng l ai d cl ai mt o t he spe ci f i ci t y of t he i r se xual i t y and t he r i ght s
pe r t ai ni ng t oi t , but t hat t he y have act ual l y d e par t e d f r omt he d i scour se
cond uct e d wi t hi n t he appar at use s of se xual i t y . The se move me nt s d o
i nd e e d e me r ge i n t he ni ne t e e nt h ce nt ur y as d e mand s f or se xual
spe ci f i ci t y. What has t he i r out come be e n? Ul t i mat e l y a ve r i t abl e
move me nt of d e - se xual i sat i on, a d i spl ace me nt e f f e ct e d i nr e l at i on t o
t he se xual ce nt e r i ng of t he pr obl e m, f or mul at i ng t he
d e mand
f or
f or ms of cul t ur e , d i scour se , l anguage and so on, whi ch ar e no l onge r
par t of t hat r i gi d assi gnat i on
and
pi nni ng- d ownt o
t he i r se xwhi ch t he y
had i ni t i al l y
i nsome se nse be e npol i t i cal l y obl i ge d t oacce pt i nor d e r t o
make t he mse l ve s he ar d
(PK, 219- 220)
.
AmongFr e nch wome n
t he or i st s, t he wr i t e r whose e ms t ohave come
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
cl osest t o Foucaul t ' s
i deas on de- sexual i sat i on i s J ul i a Kr i st eva. In her
ar t i cl e "Women' s Ti me, " Kr i st eva i sol at es t wo phases i n t he women' s
movement ' s st r at egi es f or deal i ng
wi t h women' s t r adi t i onal excl usi on
f r omt he.
soci al
cont r act
. ' In
t he
f i r st , women"aspi r ed t o gai n a pl ace i n
l i near t i me
as
t he
t i me of pr oj ect and hi st or y" ( WT, 36) - i n ot her wor ds,
t o
r i ght
t he f act of t hei r excl usi on by maki ng cent r al what had been
mar gi nal i zed, by br i ngi ng womeni n, onan equal f oot i ng wi t h men, t o a
syst emwhi chwoul d not be f undament al l y changed by t he f act of women' s
i ncl usi on. In t he second phase, "l i near t empor al i t y has beenal most t ot al l y
r ef used, and as a consequence t her e has ar i senanexacer bat ed di st r ust of t he
ent i r e pol i t i cal di mensi on" ( i PT, 37) . In t hi s phase
womenhave r ej ect ed
t r adi t i onal soci opol i t i cal and cul t ur al
model s as i ni mi cal t o women' s needs,
si nce suchmodel s ar eper meat ed t hr ough
and t hr oughby t he mal e l i bi di nal
economy whi ch
has cr eat ed t hem
.
Inst ead, womenof t hi s second gener at i on
have sought
al t er nat i ve cul t ur al model s whi chwi l l be mor e expr essi ve of a
uni que
f emi ni ne i dent i t y.
The danger of t hese st r at egi es - and I t hi nk Kr i st eva and Foucaul t
woul d agr ee her e - i s t hat
bot h canbe easi l y r eappr opr i at ed by t he syst ems
of power t hey st r uggl e agai nst
. The f i r st most cl ear l y, si nce i t st r i ves not so
much t o change t he
syst emas t o f i nd a pl ace f or womenwi t hi n i t . But t he
second al so, despi t e
i t s r ej ect i on of mal e- cent r ed model s, si nce i nposi t i ng a
f emi ni ne
i dent i t y i t t ends t o el i de t he quest i on of soci al const r uct i on and
t ake r ef uge i n apr ecar i ous essent i al i sm. Pr oponent s of a uni que f emi ni ne
i dent i t y have usual l yhad t o r esor t
t o
at heor y
of bi ol ogi cal di f f er ence whi ch
t r i umphs f emal e sexual i t y as t he
basi s
f or
t he subver si on of mal e- domi nat ed
syst ems . " But i t has beenpr eci sel y ont he basi s of bi ol ogi cal di f f er ence
t hat
womenhave beent r adi t i onal l y oppr essed ; any
t heor y
whi ch
r esor t s t o such
di f f er ence as i t s gr ound mer el y r ei nscr i bes i t sel f wi t hi n an ol d l ogi c and
r i sks per pet uat i ng ol d st er eot ypes . AndFoucaul t s anal ysi s of t he depl oyment
of , sexual i t y shoul d al er t f emi ni st s t o t he danger s of seei ng any gr eat
l i ber at i ng pot ent i al i n f emal e sexual i t y; sexual i t y i t sel f , accor di ng t o
Foucaul t , i s a soci al const r uct , one whi chhas beendepl oyed f or t he ends of
power . "The i r ony of t hi s depl oyment , " Foucaul t wr i t es i n t he l ast l i nes of
The
Hi st or y
of
Sexual i t y, "i s i nhavi ng us bel i eve t hat our ' l i ber at i on' i s i n t he
bal ance" ( HS, 159) . .
An essent i al i st
posi t i on can onl y per pet uat e an opposi t i onal l ogi c
whi chmany Fr ench
t heor i st s - most not abl yJ acques Der r i da - have been
t r yi ng t o undo. Sucha
posi t i onposi t s a not i onof "di f f er ence" as "absol ut e
ot her ness" r at her t han as an"al t er i t y" whi chcan
be
shown
t o be
i nt er nal
t o
She syst emwhi chhas excl uded i t . Tr adi t i onal l y,
opposi t i ons
l i ke speech/
wr i t i ng, pr esence/ absence,
cul t ur e/ nat ur e, man/ woman, have
i mpl i ed a
hi er ar chy, wi t hpr i vi l ege bei ng gi vent o t he f i r st t er m. Anot i on of al t er i t y,
however , di spl aces t he hi er ar chy by showi ng t he second t er mt o be t he
306
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
necessar y condi t i on of t he f i r st -not as absol ut e
ot her , but as a di f f er ence
at t he ver y hear t of t he pr i vi l eged f i r st t er m. I n Foucaul di an
t er ms,
hi er ar chi zed opposi t i ons can be seenas anot her i nst ance of t he
compl i ci t y
of knowl edge and power . Thus woman' s const i t ut i on as man' s ot her -
passi ve r at her t hanact i ve, emot i onal r at her t hanr at i onal , secondar y r at her
t hanpr i mar y-has ser ved t osol i di f y mal e domi nat i on. Thepr obl emwi t h
essent i al i st vi ews
whi ch emphasi ze t he posi t i ve qual i t i es of "woman"
agai nst t he r epr essi ve aspect of
mal e-cent r ed syst ems i s t hat t hey t end t o
r ever se t hehi er ar chywi t hout di spl aci ngi t -t hat
i s, t hey pl ace"woman" i n
t he pr i vi l egedposi t i on -and t hus r emai n
caught
up
i n t he ver y l ogi c t hey
ar e t r yi ng t o subver t , a l ogi c whi ch i s compl i ci t
wi t h t he syst ems of power
t hat have t r adi t i onal l y si l enced women.
Kr i st eva r ecogni zes t he necessi t y
of t hese f i r st i mpul ses of t he
women' s movement -bot h t he at t empt ed i nser t i on i nt o
t he syst emand
t her ej ect i on of t hat syst em
i n t he name of absol ut e di f f er ence; t hey maybe
seen t o cor r espond
r oughl y t o what Foucaul t cal l s "t hat r i gi d assi gnat i on
and pi nni ng-down t o t hei r sex
whi ch women had i ni t i al l y i n some sense
been pol i t i cal l y obl i ged t o
accept i n or der t omake t hemsel ves hear d. " But
Kr i st eva sees her sel f
as par t of a "t hi r dgener at i on. " -exi st i ng i n par al l el
r at her t han chr onol ogi cal r el at i on t o t heot her t wo -
f or whom"t he ver y
di chot omy man/womanas an opposi t i onbet ween t wo
r i val ent i t i es may
be
under st ood as bel ongi ng t o met aphysi cs. What can ` i dent i t y, '
even ` sexual
i dent i t y, ' mean i n a newt heor et i cal and sci ent i f i c space
wher e t he ver y
not i on of i dent i t y i s chal l enged?" (WT, 51-52)
. Her e i s t he "movement of
de-sexual i sat i on" whi chFoucaul t i dent i f i es as t he most posi t i ve el ement of
t he women' s movement s, t he "di spl acement
ef f ect ed i n r el at i on
t o
t he
sexual cent er i ng of t he pr obl em. " Thi s di spl acement pushes
t he i ssue
of
"woman" out si de t her est r i ct ed
l ogi c of met aphysi cs andopens i t up t o t he
quest i onof soci al const r uct i on, t o
quest i ons of knowl edgeandpower . But
i s t hi s, t hen, t he end of woman?'
I V: NewWoman/Ol d St er eot ypes
The Ger mans ar e l i ke women. You can never f at homt hei r dept hs.
They have none.
Fr i edr i ch Ni et zsche
1
. . . Ni et zsche r evi ves t hat bar el y al l egor i cal f i gur e (of woman) i n hi s
own i nt er est . For
hi m,
t r ut h i s
a woman. I t r esembl es t he vei l ed
movement of f emi ni ne modest y.
Jacques Der r i da, Spur s"
Weent er nowt he newl andscape, beyond sexual i dent i t y. Howhave
307
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
t hi ngs changed? For one t hi ng,
Ni et zsche nowl ooks l i ke aprot o- f emi ni st
-
at l east i n t he t reat ment he recei ves i n Derri da' s Spurs, wherehe appears
t ohavepre- f i guredwomanas t he "unt rut hof t rut h, " as t hat whi chunder-
mi nes t rut h f romwi t hi n ( Spurs, 51) . 1 z But af t er al l i t i s not bi ol ogi cal
womenDerri dai s t al ki ng about here; womanf or Derri dai s t hesuppl ement ,
di f f erence, t he l ack at t he cent er whi ch di spl aces t he cent er, andi f t herei s
anybody i nvol vedi n
al l of t hi s, as Al i ceJ ardi ne poi nt s out , i t i s t he body of
t he t ext as &ri t ure
. 11
Woman, t hen, has not di sappeared i n t he post st ruct ural i st l andscape,
t hough she has apparent l y changed her f orm. For one t hi ng, she has shed
her body; f or anot her, she i s nol onger t he absol ut e ot her but preci sel y t he
poi nt of al t eri t y, t he i nt ernal excl usi on whi ch undermi nes t he syst em.
Si mpl yspeaki ng, womanhas become, under several headi ngs
-
suppl ement ,
&ri t ure, f emi ni nej oui ssance,
seduct i on, t heunconsci ous, t hevre~l - at rope,
a met aphor f or t hat whi ch burst s t hrough t he boundari es of t radi t i onal
codes.
Of course, i n t hi s neworder of t hi ngs, bi ol ogi cal women have not
ent i rel y dropped out of
t he
scene. Preci sel y
because t hey
have been
t radi t i onal l ymargi nal i zed, womenmayhavespeci al access
t o
what has been
now
codedas
a "f emi ni ne
operat i on, " t he act of subversi on. For
Kri st eva,
f or
i nst ance,
women,
because of t hei r i ncompl et e accessi on i nt o t he soci al
order, are
al ways "l e suj et - enprods, " t he subj ect i n process/ on t ri al , on t he
t hreshol d bet weensel f hoodandi t s di ssol ut i on; t heyaret husi napri vi l eged
posi t i on t o quest i on t he soci al const ruct i on of i dent i t y. But i t i s not a
bi ol ogi cal di f f erence whi ch t hus di st i ngui shes women, onl y a soci al one.
Thecase wi t h someone l i ke Hel ene Ci xous i s moreprobl emat i c. At
t i mes she t ends t owards a bi ol ogi cal essent i al i sm, suggest i ng t hat women' s
bodi es are t he basi s f or asubversi ve pract i ce: "womenmust wri t et hrough
t hei r bodi es, t hey must i nvent t he i mpregnabl e l anguage t hat wi l l wreck
part i t i ons, cl asses andrhet ori cs, regul at i ons andcodes, t heymust submerge,
cut t hrough, get beyondt heul t i mat ereservedi scourse . . . . " ( NFF, 256) . Yet
she
i s
wi l l i ng t o al l ow
t hat someone
l i ke a
Genet
can
wri t e
f rom
t he
f emi ni ne ( NFF, 255) , and she shows an al l egi ance t o a Derri dean de-
const ruct i on of opposi t es : "sexual opposi t i on, whi ch has al ways worked
f or man' s prof i t t o t he poi nt of reduci ngwri t i ng, t oo, t ohi s l aws, i s onl y a
hi st ori co- cul t ural l i mi t " ( NFF, 253
;
see al so NFF, 90f f ) . Nonet hel ess, i t
woul dseemt hat women, t hat i s womenwi t hbodi es, arei n abet t er posi t i on
t o t ake hol dof f emi ni ne wri t i ng t han men. "More so t han men who are
coaxed t owardsoci al success, t oward subl i mat i on, womenare body. More
body, hence more wri t i ng" ( NFF, 257) .
But despi t e t he recodi ngof t he f emi ni neas "t heunt rut h of t rut h, " as
t hat
whi ch
burst s
"part i t i ons,
cl asses
and
rhet ori cs,
regul at i ons andcodes, "
we mi ght
ask, as J ardi ne has, i n what ways t he New
Woman - wi t h
or
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
wi t hout a body-i s s o di f f er ent f r omt he ol d.
14
ThoughDer r i da' s woman,
f or exampl e, i s ( as one expect s wi t h Der r i da) hi ghl ypr obl emat i c, t her e ar e
s ent ences
i n Spur s whi chwr ench
as
s har pl y as anyof t he ol ds t er eot ypes . "A
woman s educes f r oma di s t ance, " Der r i da wr i t es . "I n f act di s t ance i s t he
ver y el ement of her power . Yet one mus t bewar e t o keep one' s own
di s t ance f r omher begui l i ng s ong of enchant ment " ( Spur s , 49) . Her e,
cer t ai nl y, i s a depi ct i on of woman as ol das Genes i s : woman as s educt r es s ,
woman
as
s or cer es s . Andagai n: "Becaus e womani s ( her own) wr i t i ng, s t yl e
mus t r et ur n t o her . I n ot her wor ds , i t coul dbe s ai d t hat i f s t yl e wer e
aman
( muchas t he peni s accor di ngt o Fr eudi s t he `nor mal pr ot ot ype of
f et i s hes ' ) ,
t hen wr i t i ngwoul dbe a woman" ( Spur s , 57) . Thepr obl emwi t ht hi s equat i on
of woman wi t h t ext i s t hat i t exact l y r ei t er at es a par adi gmwhi chhas l ong
hel ped keep women s i l ent : woman i s s he who i s wr i t t en, not s he who
wr i t es . "The model
of t he
pen-peni s wr i t i ng
on
t he vi r gi n page, " wr i t es
Sus an Gubar , i n anot her cont ext , "par t i ci pat es i n a l ongt r adi t i on i dent i f yi ng
t he aut hor as a mal e whoi s pr i mar yandt he f emal e as hi s pas s i ve cr eat i on -
a s econdar y obj ect l acki ngaut onomy, endowed wi t h of t en cont r adi ct or y
meani ngbut deni edi nt ent i onal i t y. "
11
But f i nal l yDer r i da al s o has a wor dor
t wo f or t he f emi ni s t s : "And i n t r ut h, t hey t oo ar e men, t hos e women
f emi ni s t s s o der i dedby Ni et zs che.
Femi ni s mi s not hi ngbut t he oper at i on
of
awomanwhoas pi r es t o be l i ke a man . . . . Femi ni s mt oos eeks t o cas t r at e"
( Spur s , G5) .
We have t o as k: does Der r i da' s decons t r uct i ve i nt ent
j us t i f y
comment s
t hat i n anot her cont ext mi ght be s een as
bl at ant chauvi ni s m? Gr ant ed
i t
maybe unf ai r t o
t ake Der r i da' s s t at ement s out of cont ext , but per haps
t o
do
s o
demons t r at es t he pot ent i al danger of t hi s newappr opr i at i on of
woman.
Topos e
a ver yFoucaul di an ques t i on, t o what ol dus es mi ght t hes e
"new" r epr es ent at i ons of woman be put ? Whos e i nt er es t s do t hey s er ve?
What ar e t he danger s of a t heor y of woman t hat can el i de Ni et zs che' s
bl at ant mi s ogyny? Even i f Der r i da i s not r ef er r i ngt o "r eal " womenwhen
he us es t hat name i n hi s wr i t i ng, Ni et zs che ( des pi t e al l t he t heor et i cal
baggage t hat accr ues ar ound a wor dl i ke "r eal " nowadays ) cer t ai nl y was .
And f or al l t he r i gour s of
Der r i da' s
t hought , t he l i ne bet ween decon-
s t r uct i on -t he
wear i ngaway
of
ol d ont ol ogi cal gr ound -andr econ-
s t i t ut i on -t he poi nt at whi chs ubver s i ve concept s
cr ys t al l i ze
i nt o es s ences
-i s of t en r at her t hi n. Oneneedonl y l ook at t he Amer i can appr opr i at i on
of t he Der r i dean concept of mi ce en abyme t o s ee howr adi cal concept s can be
us ed t o j us t i f y ol d i ns t i t ut i ons . "
Even Ci xous ' s depi ct i on of t he NewWoman s ounds s us pi ci ous l y l i ke
an ol dt al e . For Ci xous ,
woman
i s "a gi ver " : "She
does n' t `know' what
s he' s
gi vi ng, s he does n' t meas ur e i t ; s he gi ves , t hough, nei t her a count er f ei t
i mpr es s i on nor s omet hi ngs he has n' t got . She gi ves mor e, wi t hnoas s ur ance
t hat s he' l l get back even s ome unexpect edpr of i t f r omwhat s he put s out "
(NFF, 264)
. El s ewher e, woman
i s
a mot her : "I nwoment her e i s al ways mor e
or l es s of t he mot her who
makes ever yt hi ng al l r i ght , whonour i s hes , and
whos t ands up agai ns t s epar at i on; a f or ce t hat wi l l not be cut of f but
wi l l
knock t he wi nd out of codes " (NFF, 252) . Woman as gi ver , woman as
mot her -Ci xous mi ght be , des cr i bi ng a pos i t i ve et hos , but what i s
t r oubl i ng i s t hat s he does n' t ques t i on t he' s oci al cons t r uct i on of t hes e t wo
f ai r l y s t andar ddepi ct i ons of woman, or l ook at t hemi n t er ms of what r ol e
t hey have s er ved
i n per pet uat i ng
women' s oppr es s i on
. Per haps i t i s not
enough s i mpl y t o as s er t t hat t he mot her i n women "wi l l knock t he
wi nd
out of codes . "
One of t he i r oni es of t hi s pos t r uct ur al i s t r eappr opr i at i onof womani s
t hat mos t of t he l eadi ng t heor i s t s of t he f emi ni ne -apar t f r omDer r i da,
t her e i s Lacan, Bar t hes , Baudr i l l ar d -ar e mal e .
17
Even Kr i s t eva and
Ci xous t ake t hei r bas i c f r amewor k f r ommal e t heor i s t s -Kr i s t eva f r om
Lacan and Ci xous f r omDer r i da -and bot h of t hem, when i nvoki ng
par adi gms of s ubver s i ve or "f emi ni ne" wr i t i ng, r ef er back t o a mal e
t r adi t i on (t ypi cal l y Mal l ar me, Genet and J oyce) . I f t hes e f act s
ar e not
s us pi ci ous , t hey ar e cer t ai nl y cur i ous . Wher e, i n f act ,
ar e womeni nt he mi ds t
of al l t hi s t al k about woman? I t s eems men, on t op of ever yt hi ng el s e, ar e
even bet t er at bei ngwoment han womenar e . Andwhat , f or exampl e,
does
hi s t or y l ook l i ke when we get beyond s exual i dent i t y, and "woman"
becomes an at t i t ude r at her t han a s i gnat ur e?
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
V: WomenandHi s t or y
What i s a woman? I as s ur e you I do not know. I do not bel i eve you
know.
Vi r gi ni a Wool f "
Fr omt he per s pect i ve of t hos e whohave movedbeyond s exual
i dent i t y,
f emi ni s m, as a women' s movement , cannot hel p but s eem
out dat ed, "not hi ng
but t he oper at i onof awomanwhoas pi r es t obe l i ke .
a man" -
who,
i not her
wor ds , r emai ns caught up i n t he s ys t ems
of power def i ned by t he r ul i ng
(pr edomi nant l y mal e) hegemony
. Femi ni s t s ar e t hus f aced, as Peggy Ka. muf
admi t s , wi t h "t he er os i onof
t he
ver y
gr ound onwhi ch t ot ake a s t and. " 19 I f
f emi ni s m
r es t s
on a bi ol ogi cal di s t i nct i on, i t r emai ns open t o char ges of
es s ent i al i s m: t he "f emi ni ne, " wr i t es Der r i da, s houl d not "be has t i l y
mi s t aken f or a woman' s f emi ni ni t y, f or f emal e s exual i t y, or f or any ot her of
t hos e es s ent i al i zi ng f et hi s hes . whi ch mi ght s t i l l t ant al i ze t he dogmat i c
phi l os opher , t he i mpot ent ar t i s t or t he i nexper i enceds educer whohas not
yet es caped hi s f ool i s h hopes of capt ur e" (Spur s , 55) . But
i f f emi ni s mr es t s
ona s oci al di s t i nct i on, t heni t becomes ver y
di f f i cul t t os aywho, under what
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
ci r cumst ances, i s a woman. Femi ni st s whot r y t ohave i t bot hways wi l l f i nd
t hemsel ves t angl ed i n t hor ny met hodol ogi cal pr obl ems .
Tot ake oneexampl e: i n an ar t i cl e on t he i mage of Evei n Par adi se Lost ,
Chr i t i ne Fr oul a, al l udi ng t o a passage f r omWool f s Jacob' s Room, def i nes
"woman" as someonewhodi vi nes "t he pr i est " of cul t ur al aut hor i t y, and so
cal l s t hat aut hor i t y i nt o quest i on.
Thi s
def i ni t i oni dent i f i es' woman' not by sexbut by a compl exr el at i on
t o t he cul t ur al
aut hor i t y whi chhas t r adi t i onal l y si l enced and excl uded
her . She r esi st s t he at t i t ude of bl i nd submi ssi on
whi cht hat aut hor i t y
t hr eat ens t oi mpr i nt upon her ; f ur t her , her r esi st ance t akes f or mnot
as envy of t he ' pr i est ' and desi r e t opossess hi s aut hor i t y her sel f but as a
debunki ng of t he ' pr i est l y' depl oyment of
cul t ur al aut hor i t y and a
r ef usal t o adopt t hat st ance her sel f . Women,
under t hi s l ocal r ul e, can
be ' men, ' and men can be ' women. "'
But one pr obl emwi t h such "l ocal r ul es, " cl ear l y, i s t hat t hey ar e sel f -
ser vi ng: i f def i ni t i ons of woman ar e up f or gr abs, t her e i s l i t t l e t ost op one
f r omchoosi ng a def i ni t i on t hat i s t ai l or - made t of i t one' s own ar gument s .
Anot her pr obl em, wi t hi n t he speci f i c cont ext of Par adi se Lost , i s t hat one
mi ght
concei vabl y make a case - t houghFr oul a' s def i ni t i on does seemt o
be t r yi ng t oavoi d t hi s possi bi l i t y - f or Sat an as a woman. And onecoul d
cer t ai nl y make a case f or t he aut hor of "On t he NewFor cer s of Consci ence
Under t he LongPar l i ament " andAr eopagi t i ca - t hat i s, f or Mi l t on hi msel f
. 21
Per haps, af t er al l , Mi l t on was of woman' s par t y wi t hout knowi ngi t , and he
mi ght t ake hi s pl ace next t o Ni et zsche as one of hi st or y' s mi sogyni st s
r ecl ai med f or t he f emi ni st r anks by newdef i ni t i ons of woman.
Li t t l e at t empt has been made t o showwhat a "hi st or y of women"
woul d l ook l i ke f r ombeyond sexual i dent i t y. We have t o ask, i n f act , ,
whet her suchahi st or y woul d be possi bl e . I f we t ake Foucaul t as amodel ,
t hen muchof t he hi st or i cal wor k whi chhas been done by f emi ni st s t odat e
- t he t r aci ng of a women' s her i t age, t he est abl i shment of a women' s
"canon" - woul d have t obe r egar ded as caught upwi t han ol d, essent i al l y
sel f - def eat i ng, hi st or i ci sm. Jef f r ey Weeks has out l i ned some of t he
pr obl ems conf r ont i ng a hi st or y of homosexual i t y conduct ed wi t hi n a
Foucaul di an f r ame; 21 a hi st or y of women woul d f ace t he same ki nds of
pr obl ems . I f "woman" i s a soci al const r uct i on, t hen women can cl ai mno
uni ver sal essence
whi ch
has uni t ed t hem
t hr ough
t he ages, no
"t r adi t i on"
t hey can
cl ai m
t o
f ol l owi n t he l i ne of . And i n f act , even any synchr oni c
movement based on a common sexual bond woul d have t o be seen as
r oot ed i n an out moded concept of sexual i dent i t y . , Hence t he move among
some womeni n Fr ance t oday t owar ds "ant i - f emi ni sm, " i . e . t he r ej ect i on of
a st ance whi cht akes sexual sol i dar i t y as i t s base. "
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
Yet
i t i s
Foucaul t hi ms el f who has made us s ens i t i ve t o t he s ubt l e
machi nat i ons of power , t o t he waypower al mos t s eems t o pl an ahead f or
t he r eappr opr i at i on of i t s own f ai l ur es -as Foucaul t
demons t r at es , f or
exampl e, i n hi s anal ys i s i n Di s ci pl i ne andPuni s h of t he " f ai l ur e" of
pr i s on
r ef or m: pr i s on r ef or mhas f ai l ed, i n Foucaul t ' s vi ew, not t hr ough an
i nef f i ci ency of power , but as a s t r at egyof power , as a means of cr eat i nga
cl as s of " del i nquent s " whi ch power can t hen us e f or i t s own ends . So i t
woul dbe t i mel y
t o
as k what i nt er es t s t hi s " beyondi ng' of s exual i dent i t y
mi ght s er ve. Why
i s
i t , f or i ns t ance, t hat s exual i dent i t y i s bei ngel i ded at
t he
ver y poi nt at whi ch women, af t er
cent ur i es
of
s ubj ugat i on, have been
emer gi ng as a pot ent pol i t i cal f or ce? Cer t ai nl y any move
whi ch coul d
ef f ect i vel yunder mi newomen' s s ol i dar i t ycoul deas i l yber eappr opr i at ed
by
t he ver y s ys t ems of power whi ch have t r adi t i onal l y wor kedt o oppr es s
women. Andt he " new" r epr es ent at i ons of woman whi ch have ar i s en as a
r es ul t ( as a s ympt om?) of t hi s el i di ng of s exual i dent i t y s houl d al s o be
exami nedi n t he l i ght of a
Foucaul di an cr i t i que
. We
mi ght as k of t he new
di s cour s e on woman t he ques t i ons
whi ch Foucaul t pos es at t he endof
" What i s
an Aut hor ?" :
What ar e t he modes of exi s t ence of t hi s di s cour s e?
Wher e does i t come f r om; howi s i t ci r cul at ed; who cont r ol s i t ?
What pl acement s ar e det er mi nedf or pos s i bl e s ubj ect s ?
Who
can f ul f i l l t hes e di ver s e f unct i ons of t he s ubj ect ?"
Ther e i s no
guar ant ee t hat t he newdi s cour s e wi l l be " l i ber at i ng' f or
women. Foucaul t hi ms el f war ns t hat di s cour s es can " ci r cul at e wi t hout
changi ng t hei r f or mf r omone s t r at egy t o anot her , oppos i ng s t r at egy"
( HS,
102) -f or exampl e, f r omas t r at egyof s ubver s i on t o oneof s uppr es s i on.
But t hi s l ogi c al s o s ugges t s -
andFoucaul t ' s ownanal ys es , des pi t ehi s
cal l f or
" de-s exual i s at i on, " s uppor t t hi s ar gument -t hat r es i s t ances can
al s o oper at ewi t hi n
agi ven di s cour s e. Thus Ros al i ndCowar d, f or i ns t ance,
i s not
qui t e cor r ect t o s ayt hat Foucaul t ' s Hi s t or yof Sexual i t y, i n denyi ngt hat
t her e has been anys udden change f r omr epr es s i on t o l i ber at i on over t he
pas t
cent ur y i n t he di s cour s e on s exual i t y, i mpl i es al s o a deni al of t he
i mpor t ant changes i n r epr es ent at i ons of f emal e s exual i t y whi ch have
occur r ed dur i ng r ecent year s . " " We mus t make al l owance, " Foucaul t
wr i t es , " f or t he compl ex anduns t abl e pr oces s wher ebydi s cour s e can be
bot h an i ns t r ument andan ef f ect of power , but al s o ahi ndr ance, as t umbl i ng
bl ock, apoi nt of r es i s t ance anda s t ar t i ngpoi nt f or an oppos i ng s t r at egy. "
Foucaul t agai n gi ves t heexampl eof homos exual i t y, whi ch " began t o s peak
i n i t s own behal f , t o demandt hat i t s l egi t i macyor ' nat ur al i t y' be
acknow-
l edged, of t en i n t hes amevocabul ar y, us i ng t hes amecat egor i es
bywhi ch i t
was medi cal l y di s qual i f i ed" ( HS, 101) . As i mi l ar anal ys i s woul d
per t ai n,
312
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
cer t ai nl y, t o
t he women' s movement and i t s f i ght f or changes i n t he
r epr esent at i on of f emal e sexual i t y .
One mat t er I have not
yet addr essed i s t he shi f t whi ch occur s i n
Foucaul t ' s l at er wor k, when he moves
away f r omt he cl assi cal per i od i n
Fr ance t o cl assi cal ant i qui t y . I n
t hi s l at er wor k, we f i nd a cont i nui ng
concer n wi t h t he quest i on of t he subj ect , but whi l e Foucaul t speaks of
t he
subj ect i n r el at i on t o t he Gr eeks, speaks, f or exampl e, of
" t he mode
of
subj ect i on" by whi ch " t he i ndi vi dual est abl i shes hi s r el at i on t o
[ a] r ul e and
r ecogni zes hi msel f as obl i ged t o put i t i n pr act i ce, " of a Gr eek boy' s
at t empt s t o t r ansf or mhi msel f f r om" obj ect of pl easur e i nt o a subj ect who
was i n cont r ol of hi s pl easur es, " of Gr eek et hi cs as " t he el abor at i on of a
f or mof r el at i on t o t he sel f t hat enabl es an i ndi vi dual t o f ashi on hi msel f i nt o
a subj ect of et hi cal conduct , " i t seems he i s t al ki ng her e of a f undament al l y
di f f er ent phenomenon t han t he subj ect he ear l i er def i nedas a pr oduct of
t he human sci ences.
16
" Because no Gr eekt hi nker ever f ounda def i ni t i on of
t he subj ect andnever sear chedf or one, " Foucaul t has sai d, " I woul dsi mpl y
say t hat t her e i s no subj ect . '
127
The Gr eeks, i n Foucaul t ' s vi ew, haddevel oped
what he cal l s an " aest het i cs of exi st ence, " a syst emof et hi cs whi ch al l owed
mor e r oomf or i ndi vi dual i t y andsel f - cr eat i on t han t he l at er j ur i di cal et hi cs
of Chr i st i ani t y . I t i s i n t he dawni ng of Chr i st i ani t y t hat Foucaul t sees t he
f i r st move t owar ds subj ect - hood, wi t h t he begi nni ngs of a code- or i ent ed
mor al i t y whi chspeci f i edmuch mor e di st i nct l y t he l i mi t s of et hi cal behavi our ,
wi t h t he i nt r oduct i on of conf essi on as a means of subj ect i ng t he ver y soul
of an
i ndi vi dual
t o
t he gaze of aut hor i t y, andwi t h t he devel opment of
consci ence as a way of t ur ni ng t hat aut hor i t ar i an gaze i nwar d, of t ur ni ng
sel f agai nst sel f as a mode of subj ect i on .
But i f we f ol l owFoucaul t i n t hi s f or mul at i on of t he subj ect s geneal ogy,
t hen some l i mi t s i n a f emi ni st appr opr i at i on of hi s cr i t i que of t he subj ect as
a poi nt of ent r y f or anal yzi ng woman' s const r uct i on as " ot her " become
appar ent . As Nancy Mi l l er poi nt s out , " soci et y di d not wai t f or t he
i nvent i on of man t o r epr ess `woman' or oppr ess women" " - di dnot wai t ,
i n ot her wor ds, unt i l t he subj ect was const i t ut ed by humani smbef or e
cr eat i ng t he cat egor i es of gender opposi t i on whi ch have ser ved t o sol i di f y
mal e domi nat i on . Whi l e Foucaul t s anal ysi s of homosexual r el at i ons i n
anci ent Gr eece, f or exampl e, shows t hey wer e vi ewedt hen i n a f undament -
al l y di f f er ent l i ght t han i n t he
moder n er a, hi s
consi der abl y l ess t hor ough
andl ess sat i sf yi ng anal ysi s of women i n t hat soci et y r eveal s what seemst o be
a
f undament al
cont i nui t y:
women wer e vi ewedby t he Gr eeks
as
i nf er i or
by
nat ur e, t o be r ul edover andcont r ol l ed, much as t hey wer e vi ewedl at er by
t he Chr i st i an chur ch f at her s, andmuch as t hey have been vi ewedal most up
t o t he pr esent day . Foucaul t does suggest a poi nt at whi ch r epr esent at i ons
of gender i dent i t y may have under gone an i mpor t ant shi f t , when t he
emphasi s on t he r el at i onshi p bet ween men and boys as " t he most act i ve
I DEOLOGYANDPOWER
f ocus of r ef l ect i on andel abor at i on" i n cl assi cal Gr eekt hought gave
way, i n
t he Roman and ear l y Chr i st i an er a, t o t he emphasi s on r el at i ons
bet ween
men andwomen, on vi r gi ni t y, andon " t he val ue at t r i but ed t o
r el at i ons of .
symmet r y andr eci pr oci t y bet ween
husbandandwi f e" (Use, 253)
.
But even
t aki ng i nt o account such ashi f t , an i mpor t ant
r esi due r emai ns. I f Gr eek
women wer e not " subj ect s" i n
Foucaul t ' s sense of t he wor d, t hey wer e
cer t ai nl y subj ect ed, and t he mai n t er ms of
t hat subj ect i on -t hat i s, a
f undament al gender spl i t , andahi er ar chi cal
or gani zat i on of t hat spl i t -ar e
t he same ones t hat f emi ni st s ar e deal i ngwi t h t oday.
The hi st or y of women,
t hen, may i n some r espect s be acont i nuous one, i n t hat bot h
t he f act of t hei r
oppr essi on,
andt he t heor et i cal t er ms whi chhave been used t o
j ust i f y t hat
oppr essi on, have demonst r at ed
a t r emendous st ayi ng power f r omer a t o
er a.
But Foucaul t ' s t heor i es do not
necessar i l y pr ecl ude t hi s ki nd of
cont i nui t y . Foucaul t hi msel f has bemoaned t he
emphasi s whi chcommen-
t at or s have pl aced on hi s not i on of
di scont i nui t y:
My pr obl emwas not at al l t o say, ' Voi l a, l ong
l i ve di scont i nui t y, we ar e
i n t he di scont i nuous anda good
t hi ngt oo, ' but t o pose t he quest i on,
' Howi s i t t hat at cer t ai n moment s andi n
cer t ai n or der s of knowl edge,
t her e ar e t hese sudden t ake-of f s,
t hese hast eni ngs of evol ut i on, t hese
t r ansf or mat i ons whi chf ai l t o cor r espondt o
t he cal m, cont i nui st i mage
t hat i s nor mal l y accr edi t ed? (PI K, 112)
.
Yet onl y r ecent l y
has t he st at us of women shown si gns of bei ng i n t he
pr ocess of af undament al
t r ansf or mat i on, one whi chi s shaki ng
t he r oot s of
sexual
di f f er ent i at i on anddi scr i mi nat i on. Andwhi l e i t woul dbe
r educt i ve
t o deny
t hat any changes have occur edi n t he i mage of
woman f r omer a t o
er a,
many of t hese changes -f or exampl e,
t he " medi cal i sat i on" of t he
f emal e body
whi ch Foucaul t has poi nt ed t o -
have mer el y ser ved t o
r eaf f i r mwomen' s mar gi nal st at us . Thus
whi l e r el at i ons of power may al t er
accor di ng t o t he ki nds of maj or t r ansf or mat i on
whi chFoucaul t has not ed,
cer t ai n st r ands i n each er a' s web,
speci f i cal l y t hose whi ch have accr ued
ar ound gender opposi t i ons,
have r emai ned st r ong t hr oughout t he l ong
hi st or y of women' s oppr essi on
. The f or ces whi chhave hel d t hese st r ands
i n
pl ace wi l l al so have t o
be l ooked at bef or e we have f i ni shed
wi t h t he
quest i on of woman
.
VI : I nt el l ect ual s and
Power
The
i nt el l ect ual no l onger has t o pl ay
t he r ol e of advi sor . The pr oj ect ,
t act i cs andgoal s ar e a mat t er
f or t hose who do t he f i ght i ng.
What t he
i nt el l ect ual can do i s pr ovi de t he
i nst r ument s of anal ysi s (PK, 62) .
314
SUBJUGATEDKNOWLEDGE
Foucaul t ' s " t ool ki t " vi ewof t heor y shoul d hel p put hi mi n per spect i ve
f or
f emi ni st s . Whi l e he seems t o sympat hi se wi t h t he move " beyond"
sexual i dent i t y, hi s wor k st i l l pr ovi des t ool s f or t hose f emi ni st s st i l l f i ght i ng,
as women, i n t he t r enches, wher e t he bat t l e i s f ar f r omover . As Bi ddy
Mar t i n poi nt s out wi t h r espect t o t he cur r ent el i di ng of sexual i dent i t y,
" t hepr oj ect s of mal e" ( and, I woul dadd, somef emal e) " cr i t i cs and f emi ni st
cr i t i cs ar enecessar i l y non- synchr onous despi t ecommonal i t i es . " 2' Femi ni st s
haveonl y j ust begun t he wor k
of
r ecl amat i on and
pr oduct i on necessar y t o
guar d agai nst
women' s bei ng ecl i psed once agai n at t he ver y moment of
t hei r emer gence
i nt o hi st or y. Woul da moveaway f r omsexual opposi t i ons
t owar ds a mor e epi st emol ogi cal l y " cor r ect " posi t i on i mpl y, f or i nst ance,
t hat women academi cs shoul d st op l obbyi ng t o get mor e women' s wor k
i ncl uded on cour se l i st s? That r eadi ngJoyce ( whose own vi ews
on
women
ar e f ar f r omt r oubl e- f r ee) may br i ng
one cl oser t o t he " f emi ni ne" t han
r eadi ng, say, Vi r gi ni a Wool f ? Someonel i ke Der r i da ( af t er al l a man) may
r ej oi ce i n t he subver si ve pot ent i al of a woman who i s " a non- i dent i t y, a
non- f i gur e, a si mul acr um" ( Spur s, 49) ; but such " non- i dent i t y, " as count l ess
f emi ni st anal yses have shown, has been pr eci sel y t hest at us
of
women si nce
t i me i mmemor i al , and t hi s st at us - f or al l i t s supposedl y
subver si ve
pot ent i al
- has
been t he
mai n
sour ce of t hei r oppr essi on .
I am
not suggest i ng t hat f emi ni st s r ej ect t he new di scour ses on
" woman" out of hand, or t hat t hey i gnor e t he epi st emol ogi cal concer ns
whi ch have pr ompt ed t hose di scour ses . I nst ead t hey shoul d get t hel ay of
t he l and, see what ol d f aces l ur k i n t he newl andscape, j udge what i s
ger mane t o t he pol i t i cal r eal i t y t hey f ace. Next t o t he Mar xi st " al ways
hi st or i ci z e, " we
mi ght
add t he ver y post - moder n " al ways pr obl emat i z e. "
At
t he
end
of
The
Or der of Thi ngs, Foucaul t wr i t es t hat i f t he
ar r angement s whi ch
l ed t o t he bi r t h of t he human sci ences wer e t o
di sappear , " t hen onecan cer t ai nl y wager
t hat man woul d be er ased, l i ke a
f ace dr awn i n sand at t he edge
of
t he
sea" ( OT, 387) . But bef or e t hat
happens per haps woman' s f acewi l l havet o beet ched f i r ml y
besi dei t , i f onl y
as a net wor k of scar s on a once- smoot h sur f ace.
Not es
Mont r eal
1 .

Mi chel Foucaul t , The or aer of l hi ngt ( NewYor k : Vi nt ageBooks,
1973) , p.
387. Her eaf t er ci t ed
as
OT.
2
.
Bi ddy Mar t i n, " Femi ni sm, Cr i t i ci sm, and Foucaul t ; " NewGer man Cr i t i que, 27 ( 1982) , 17.
Emphasi s added.
IDEOLOGYANDPOWER
3 .

Mi chel Foucaul t ,
Power / Knowl edge: Sel ect edInt er vi ews and Ot her Wr i t i ngs, 1972- 1977, t r ans . Col i n
Gor don
et al . , ed. Col i n Gor don (NewYor k: Pant heon Books, 1980) , p. 98. Her eaf t er P/ K.
4.

Mi chel Foucaul t , Di sci pl i ne and Puni sh: The Bi r t h of t he Pr i son, t r ans . Al an Sher i dan (NewYor k:
Vi nt age Books, 1979) , p. 192. Her eaf t er DP.
5 .

Mi chel Foucaul t ,
The Hi st or y of Sexual i t y, t r ans . Rober t Hur l ey (NewYor k: Vi nt age Books,
1980) ,
p. 43 . Her eaf t er HS.
6.

Mi chel
Foucaul t , TheAn- hael ogy of Knowl edge, t r ans . A. M. Sher i dan Smi t h(NewYor k: Har per &
Row, 1976) , p. 12. Her eaf t er AK.
7.

J ul i a Kr i st eva, "Women' s Ti me, " t r ans. Al i ce J ar di ne and Har r y Bl ake, i n Femi ni st Theor y: A
Cr i t i que of Ideol ogy, ed. Nanner l O. Keohane et al . (Chi cago : Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1982) .
Her eaf t er WT.
8.

See, f or exampl e, Luce Ir i gar ay, "Thi s Sex Whi chi s Not One, " t r ans. Cl audi a Reeder , i n New
Fr ench Femi ni sms, ed. El ai ne Mar ks and Isabel l e
de
Cour t i vr on
(New
Yor k:
Schocken
Books,
1981) , pp. 99- 106. H612neCi xous, i n"TheLaughof t he Medusa; " (t r ans . Kei t hCohenandPaul a
Cohen,
NewFr ench Femi ni sms,
pp.
245- 264)
al so suggest s
a
di f f er ence bet ween mal e and
f emal e
sensi bi l i t y gr oundedi n di f f er i ngsexual economi es, but t hecase wi t h Ci xous, as i ndi cat ed bel ow,
i s pr obl emat i c. (NewFr ench Femi ni sms wi l l her eaf t er be ci t ed as NFF. )
9.

AmongAmer i can cr i t i cs, Peggy Kamuf has used aspeci f i cal l y Foucaul di an f r amewor kt o ar r i ve
at a posi t i on si mi l ar t o Kr i st eva' s . See her ar t i cl e, "Repl aci ng Femi ni st Cr i t i ci sm, " Di acr i t i cs, 12,
No. 2 (1982) , 42- 47. ThoughKamuf does not acknowl edge any debt t o Kr i st eva, sheal so
seems
t o see her sel f as par t of a "t hi r d gener at i on" ; she i sol at es t wo f emi ni st st r at egi es,
st r i ki ngl y
si mi l ar t o t he t wo "phases"
Kr i st eva i dent i f i es, whi ch ar e
doomed t o
per pet uat e t he syst em
- womenhave been t r yi ng t o subver t : "on t he onehand an expansi on of i nst i t ut i ons t o
i ncl udeat
t hei r cent er what has been hi st or i cal l y excl uded; on t he ot her hand, t he i nst al l i ng of a count er -
i nst i t ut i on based on f emi ni ne cent r ed cul t ur al model s" (Kamuf , p
.
45) .
10.

Quot ed i n The Gr eat Quot at i ons, comp. Geor ge Sel des (Secaucus, NJ . : Cast l e Books, 1960) ,
p. 530.
11.

J acques Der r i da, Spur s: Ni et z sche' s St yl es/ Eper msr Les St yl es de Ni et z sche, t r ans . Bar bar a Har l ow
(Chi cago :
The Uni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1979) , p.
51
. Her eaf t er Spur s.
12.

Der r i da, ant i ci pat i ngobj ect i ons t o hi s r at her "eccent r i c" r eadi ngof Ni et z sche, summar i z es hi s
own posi t i on t hus : "Must not t hese appar ent l y f emi ni st pr oposi t i ons be r econci l ed wi t h t he
over whel mi ng cor pus of Ni et z sche' s venomous ant i - f emi ni sm? Thei r congr uence (a not i on
whi chI oppose by convent i on t o t hat of coher ence) , al t hough i nel uct abl y eni gmat i c, i s j ust as
r i gor ousl y necessar y. Such, i n any case wi l l be t he t hesi s of t he pr esent communi cat i on" (Spur s,
57) .
It i s i mpossi bl e t o doj ust i ce t o t he r i gour s of Der r i da' s anal ysi s her e; what concer nmemor e.
ar e t he pot ent i al uses of t hat anal ysi s.
13 .

Al i ceJ ar di ne, "Gynesi s, " Di acr i t i cs, 12, No. 2 (1982) , 64. J ar di ne gi ves a good over vi ewof t he
r ol e of "woman" i n cur r ent Fr ench t heor y, t hough she concent r at es mai nl y on Lacan and
hi s
f ol l ower s . I t ake her ar t i cl e as a poi nt of depar t ur e f or what
f ol l ows
.
14.

J ar di ne, p. 64.
15 .

Susan Gubar ,
"The Bl ank Page and t he Issues of Femal e Cr eat i vi t y; " i n Wr i t i ng and Sexual
Di f f er ence, ed. El i z abet h
Abel (Chi cago
:
TheUni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1982) , p. 77.
16.

For t he best
cr i t i que
of
t hi s appr opr i at i on, see Fr ank Lent r i cchi a' s chapt er on post st r uct ur al i sm
i nAf t er t heNewCr i t i ci sm(Chi cago : TheUni ver si t y of Chi cago Pr ess, 1980) , pp. 156- 210; al so hi s
chapt er
on
Paul de Man, pp. 282- 317. Paul A. Bov6 pr ovi des a si mi l ar anal ysi s i n hi s essay
"Var i at i ons onAut hor i t y : SomeDeconst r ut t i veTr ansf or mat i ons of t he NewCr i t i ci sm, " i n
The
Yak Cr i t i cs : Deconst r uct i on i n Amer i ca, ed. J onat han Ar ac, Wl ad Godz i ch and Wal l ace
Mar t i n
(Mi nneapol i s : Uni ver si t y of Mi nnesot a Pr ess, 1983) , p. 2- 19. See al so
Wl ad Godz i ch, "The
Domest i cat i on of Der r i da; "
i n t he samevol ume, pp. 20- 40.
17.

See J acques Lacan, Encor e ( Par i s : Edi t i ons du Scui l , 1975) ;
Rol and Bar t hes, Rol and Bar t hes by
Rol andBar t hes, t r aps . Ri char dHowar d ( NewYor k
: Hi l l and Wang, 1978) ; J ean Baudr i l l ar dDel a
s6duct i on ( Par i s : Gal i l 6c, 1980) .
18.

Vi r gi ni a Wool f , "Pr of essi ons f or Women, "
i n The Nor t onAnt hol ogyof Engl i shLi t er at ur e, Vol .
2, ed.
M. H. Abr ams et al . ( NewYor k: W. W. Nor t on &
Company, 1979) , p. 2047.
19.

Kamuf , p. 42 .
SUBJ UGATED
KNOWLEDGE
20.

Chr i st i ne Fr oul a, "When Eve Reads Mi l t on: Undoi ng
t heCanoni cal Economy, " Cr i t i cal I nqui r y,
10 ( 1983) , 321- 347. TheWool f passage al l udcd t o i s f r omj acoh' s
Room( 1922 ; NewYor k,
1978) ,
pp. 40- 41.
21.

Edwar d Pecht er , i n a r esponse
t o Fr oul a ( "When Pecht er Reads Fr oul a
Pr et endi ngShe' s Eve
Readi ngMi l t on; or , New
Femi ni st I s But Ol d Pr i est Wr i t Lar ge, " Cr i t i cal I nqui r y,
11, 1984, 163-
170) not es t he f act of Mi l t on' s
ownant i - aut hor i t ar i ani sm, t hough he does not t akespeci f i c
i ssue
wi t h Fr oul a' s def i ni t i on of
woman.
22 .

J ef f r ey Weeks, "Di scour se, desi r e and sexual
devi ance : some pr obl ems i n a hi st or y of homo-
sexual i t y, " i nTheMaki ngof t i e Moder n Homosexual , ed
. Kennet h Pl ummer ( Tot owa, N. J . : Bar nes
&Nobl e Books, 1981) , pp. 76- 111
.

-
23.

J ar di ne di scusses Fr ench
ant i - f emi ni smi n "Gynesi s . "
24.

Mi chel Foucaul t , "What i s
an Aut hor ?" i n Language, Count er - Memor y, Pr act i ce,
t r ans
.
Donal d F.
Bouchar d and Sher r y
Si mon,
ed
. Donal d F. Bouchar d ( Oxf or d: Basi l Bl ackwel l , 1977) ,
p. 138.
25.

Rosal i nd Cowar d, "Ar c
Women' s Novel s Femi ni st Novel s?" i n The NewFemi ni st
Cr i t i ci sm, ed.
El ai ne Showal t er ( New
Yor k: Pant heon Books, 1985) , p. 234.
26 .

Mi chel Foucaul t , The Useof Pl easur e, t r ans . Rober t
Hur l ey ( NewYor k: Pant heon Books, 1985) ,
pp. 27, 225, 251. Her eaf t er Use
.
27.

Mi chel Foucaul t , "Fi nal I nt er vi ew, "
Rar i t an,
5,
No. 1 ( 1985) , 1- 13.
28.

Nancy Mi l l er , "The Text s
Her oi ne: AFemi ni st Cr i t i c and Her Fi ct i ons, " Di acr i t i cs, 12, No.
2
( 1982) , 49. Mi l l et s ar t i cl e i s
a r esponse t o Kamuf s "Repl aci ngFemi ni st Cr i t i ci sm, " i n t he
same
i ssue.
29.

Mar t i n, p. 21.
$15. 95