Ideology Today: Economic Jargon and the Docile Subject
Let’s remember Althusser’s definition of Ideology. Ideology serves the reproduction of the social relations of production. That is, ideology functions as a means to secure social relations which support and perpetuate a certain mode of economic production. Thus ideology at its core is a way of producing submissive, docile subjects. It is,
“a reproduction of submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and repression, so that they, too, will provide the domination of the ruling class ‘in words’” (Althusser, 1984: 6)
The ability to manipulate the ruling ideology… Let’s think about that. What is the ruling ideology of the day? Perhaps today we mostly think of ourselves as free from large oppressive ideologies. Aesthetically, “we” have untold freedoms today and there seems to be a boundless selection of countercultures and subcultures to choose from which may give us a sense of fulfillment. Moreover there is no dearth of oppositional voices challenging the so-called status quo. One might claim however that the hegemonic ideology is precisely the one that undergrids these voices of apparent opposition or countercultural expressivity. That today it is Economic Jargon that most surely plays to role and constitutes the language of what Althusser calls “the ruling ideology” (and what Gramsci calls “Hegemony”).
When we submit readily to the technocratic jargon of neoliberal or neo-Keynesian economists and accept their expertise, or otherly, when dismiss the political economic level of discourse and retreat into pure aestheticism, we perform the classic “submission to the ruling ideology.” Of course other interpretations of the economic crisis abound. But the battle over the “correct” interpretation of economic phenomena has a long an troubled history. Indeed, it is a history of immense power struggles over the definition and interpretation of what it means to be human. Albert Hirschman’s The Passions and the Interests goes back into the early history over such struggles to define homo economicus in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries and shows how behind the ostensibly objective language of economic thinking there always lies deeply embedded moral judgments about “human nature.” Today it is all too clear that all but the most apologetic and uncritical economic analysis has been pushed from the main framework for interpretation.
The Marxist wager is that Capitalism, as the endless accumulation of wealth, must either revolutionize itself and become more rational, or it will destroy itself. The Marxist theory of crisis states that there will be systemic economic crises escalating in scale over the course of Capitalist development. Each of these crises open up the possibility for reform, revolution, or the consolidation of class power. The latter always means staving off serious systemic reform and fostering the grounds for a larger and more devastating crisis later on. Many commentators have viewed the last 30′s as a constant battle to stave off or control capitalist crises, (see the work of Arrighi, Robert Brenner, and David Harvey) in face of falling (global) rates of profit. The overheating of the market with the explosion of the derivatives trading and real estate speculation were only symptoms of a deeper stress on a system which requires perpetually compounding growth rates for its continued success. Today we are at risk of falling back into the precisely the same old pattern that Marx analyzed 140 years ago, and which has reached global proportions in the last 30 years. With everyone rejoicing at the temporary stabilization and partial recovery of some stock values, we are turning away from the deep structural problems of the organization of an economic system that is inherently unstable and self-destructive. (to this people often are inclined to give the apathetic pseudo-existential response that ‘all things must come to an end some day,’ so too does capitalism. and conveniently there are also plenty of indicators that human life as such is indeed under an existential threat from the ecological collapse, allowing people feel justified in their political and economic apathy and docile submission). What is at stake is (as always) nothing less than the future itself. What does this have to do with ideology? Well, one plausible definition of ideology is that it is a mode of automated behavioral and dispositional patterns that forestall critical thinking. As such it can be likened to sleeping. By turning away from political economic jargon and allowing ourselves to be carried along we are (as Beckett said) “sleeping while the others suffered.”
Where are the angry protesters? Where is class struggle? Why is there no fight for a more rational mode of production? The answer is that there is indeed struggle. Of course Labor movements were broken down in the US and Western Europe — and the economic function of citizens of these happy republics became more and more reduced mostly to consumption (and the reabsorption of surpluses) – so mostly struggle there does not take the form of revolutionary social movements anymore. But hasn’t it been that with the outsourcing of production we have also outsourced class struggle? There are over 20 million newly unemployed laborers in China since last October. The Lumpenproletariat (those who have been pushed out of all sectors of formal economy) are now armed. Yes, there is a Marxist interpretation of the Somalian pirate phenomenon.
What comes next? Adorno long ago lost all hope in the potential for the European and American labor and middle classes to articulate an intelligent response to their submission. In his analysis they had become too contented with the illusory happiness of serial television, Keds, fixed gear bicycles and Indy rock. But, as even the bloated hubristic economists at the Financial Times and the Economist admit, the era of American conspicuous consumption is most likely over. The dialectical understanding of this however is not resignation à la Adorno, but rather should (always) be hope, and an acknowledgment of the possibility of change. As we become less able to divert ourselves (in Spanish they say divertirse), and hide our ostrich heads in the intellectual asphyxia of Desperate Housewives and Marc Jacobs, due to contracting personal funds and contracting luxury commodity markets, perhaps we will begin also to reformulate our ideas. If it is possible for someone as self-assured and self-contented dirtbag-Greenspan to reform his ideas, it is possible for anyone.
The second thing that is important to remember about ideology is that it is always affected by changes in the economic structure. We are seeing the unfurling of the Republican party, the collapse of neoliberal governments in Eastern Europe (and, unfortunately, the rise of right wing nationalism in their stead). Is it too optimistic to hope for a revival of a breed of Critical Utopian Humanism that rejects the cynicism an political apathy that are the mainstays of our generation? Probably, but it doesn’t hurt to fight.
Remember what Terry Eagleton wrote:
“the study of ideology is among other things an inquiry into the ways in which people invest in their own unhappiness.” (Eagleton, 1991)
———–
Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Trans. Ben Brewster. Essays on Ideology. London: Verso, 1984.
Eagleton, Terry. Ideology, An Introduction. London: Verso, 1991.
