Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses

(Notes towards an Investigation)

First published: in La Pense, 1970; Translated: from the French by Ben Brewster; Source: Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, Monthly Review Press 1971; Transcribed: by Andy Bl nden!

On the Reproduction of the Conditions of Production[1]

" m st now e#$ose more f lly somethin% which w&s briefly %lim$sed in my &n&lysis when " s$o'e of the necessity to renew the me&ns of $rod ction if $rod ction is to be $ossible! (h&t w&s & $&ssin% hint! )ow " sh&ll consider it for itself! As M&r# s&id, every child 'nows th&t & soci&l form&tion which did not re$rod ce the conditions of $rod ction &t the s&me time &s it $rod ced wo ld not l&st & ye&r! [2] (he ltim&te condition of $rod ction is therefore the re$rod ction of the conditions of $rod ction! (his m&y be *sim$le+ ,re$rod cin% e#&ctly the $revio s conditions of $rod ction- or *on &n e#tended sc&le+ ,e#$&ndin% them-! .et s i%nore this l&st distinction for the moment! /h&t, then, is the reproduction of the conditions of production0 1ere we &re enterin% & dom&in which is both very f&mili&r ,since Capital 2ol me (wo&nd ni3 ely i%nored! (he ten&cio s obvio snesses ,ideolo%ic&l obvio snesses of &n em$iricist ty$e- of the $oint of view of $rod ction &lone, or even of th&t of mere $rod ctive $r&ctice ,itself &bstr&ct in rel&tion to the $rocess of $rod ction- &re so inte%r&ted into o r everyd&y *conscio sness+ th&t it is e#tremely h&rd, not to s&y &lmost im$ossible, to r&ise oneself to the point of view of reproduction. )evertheless, everythin% o tside this $oint of view rem&ins &bstr&ct ,worse th&n one4sided: distorted- 5 even &t the level of $rod ction, &nd, a fortiori, &t th&t of mere $r&ctice! .et s try &nd e#&mine the m&tter methodic&lly!

(o sim$lify my e#$osition, &nd &ss min% th&t every soci&l form&tion &rises from & domin&nt mode of $rod ction, " c&n s&y th&t the $rocess of $rod ction sets to wor' the e#istin% $rod ctive forces in &nd nder definite rel&tions of $rod ction! "t follows th&t, in order to e#ist, every soci&l form&tion m st re$rod ce the conditions of its $rod ction &t the s&me time &s it $rod ces, &nd in order to be &ble to $rod ce! "t m st therefore re$rod ce: 1! the $rod ctive forces,

6! the e#istin% rel&tions of $rod ction! Reproduction of the Means of Production 7veryone ,incl din% the bo r%eois economists whose wor' is n&tion&l &cco ntin%, or the modern *m&cro4economic+ *theoretici&ns+- now reco%ni8es, bec& se M&r# com$ellin%ly $roved it in Capital 2ol me (wo, th&t no $rod ction is $ossible which does not &llow for the re$rod ction of the m&teri&l conditions of $rod ction: the re$rod ction of the me&ns of $rod ction! (he &ver&%e economist, who is no different in this th&n the &ver&%e c&$it&list, 'nows th&t e&ch ye&r it is essenti&l to foresee wh&t is needed to re$l&ce wh&t h&s been sed $ or worn o t in $rod ction: r&w m&teri&l, fi#ed inst&ll&tions ,b ildin%s-, instr ments of $rod ction ,m&chines-, etc! " s&y the &ver&%e economist 9 the &ver&%e c&$it&list, for they both e#$ress the $oint of view of the firm, re%&rdin% it &s s fficient sim$ly to %ive & comment&ry on the terms of the firm+s fin&nci&l &cco ntin% $r&ctice! B t th&n's to the %eni s of : esn&y who first $osed this *%l&rin%+ $roblem, &nd to the %eni s of M&r# who resolved it, we 'now th&t the re$rod ction of the m&teri&l conditions of $rod ction c&nnot be tho %ht &t the level of the firm, bec& se it does not e#ist &t th&t level in its re&l conditions! /h&t h&$$ens &t the level of the firm is &n effect, which only %ives &n ide& of the necessity of re$rod ction, b t &bsol tely f&ils to &llow its conditions &nd mech&nisms to be tho %ht! A moment+s reflection is eno %h to be convinced of this: Mr ;, & c&$it&list who $rod ces woollen y&rn in his s$innin%4mill, h&s to *re$rod ce+ his r&w m&teri&l, his m&chines, etc! B t he does not $rod ce them for his own $rod ction 5 other c&$it&lists do: &n A str&li&n shee$ f&rmer, Mr <, & he&vy en%ineer $rod cin% m&chine4tools, Mr =, etc!, etc! And Mr < &nd Mr =, in order to $rod ce those $rod cts which &re the condition of the re$rod ction of Mr ;+s conditions of $rod ction, &lso h&ve to re$rod ce the conditions of their own $rod ction, &nd so on to infinity 5 the whole in $ro$ortions s ch th&t, on the

n&tion&l &nd even the world m&r'et, the dem&nd for me&ns of $rod ction ,for re$rod ction- c&n be s&tisfied by the s $$ly! "n order to thin' this mech&nism, which le&ds to & 'ind of *endless ch&in+, it is necess&ry to follow M&r#+s *%lob&l+ $roced re, &nd to st dy in $&rtic l&r the rel&tions of the circ l&tion of c&$it&l between >e$&rtment " ,$rod ction of me&ns of $rod ction- &nd >e$&rtment "" ,$rod ction of me&ns of cons m$tion-, &nd the re&li8&tion of s r$l s v&l e, in Capital, 2ol mes (wo &nd (hree! /e sh&ll not %o into the &n&lysis of this 3 estion! "t is eno %h to h&ve mentioned the e#istence of the necessity of the re$rod ction of the m&teri&l conditions of $rod ction! Reproduction of Labour-Power 1owever, the re&der will not h&ve f&iled to note one thin%! /e h&ve disc ssed the re$rod ction of the me&ns of $rod ction 5 b t not the re$rod ction of the $rod ctive forces! /e h&ve therefore i%nored the re$rod ction of wh&t distin% ishes the $rod ctive forces from the me&ns of $rod ction, i!e! the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower! From the observ&tion of wh&t t&'es $l&ce in the firm, in $&rtic l&r from the e#&min&tion of the fin&nci&l &cco ntin% $r&ctice which $redicts &morti8&tion &nd investment, we h&ve been &ble to obt&in &n &$$ro#im&te ide& of the e#istence of the m&teri&l $rocess of re$rod ction, b t we &re now enterin% & dom&in in which the observ&tion of wh&t h&$$ens in the firm is, if not tot&lly blind, &t le&st &lmost entirely so, &nd for %ood re&son: the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower t&'es $l&ce essenti&lly o tside the firm! 1ow is the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower ens red0 "t is ens red by %ivin% l&bo r $ower the m&teri&l me&ns with which to re$rod ce itself: by w&%es! /&%es fe&t re in the &cco ntin% of e&ch enter$rise, b t &s *w&%e c&$it&l+,[3] not &t &ll &s & condition of the m&teri&l re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower! 1owever, th&t is in f&ct how it *wor's+, since w&%es re$resents only th&t $&rt of the v&l e $rod ced by the e#$endit re of l&bo r $ower which is indis$ens&ble for its re$rod ction: so indis$ens&ble to the reconstit tion of the l&bo r $ower of the w&%e4 e&rner ,the wherewith&l to $&y for ho sin%, food &nd clothin%, in short to en&ble the w&%e e&rner to $resent himself &%&in &t the f&ctory %&te the ne#t d&y 5 &nd every f rther d&y ?od %r&nts him-; &nd we sho ld &dd: indis$ens&ble for r&isin% &nd ed c&tin% the children

in whom the $rolet&ri&n re$rod ces himself ,in n models where n 9 0, 1, 6, etc!!!!- &s l&bo r $ower! Remember th&t this 3 &ntity of v&l e ,w&%es- necess&ry for the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower is determined not by the needs of & *biolo%ic&l+ ? &r&nteed Minim m /&%e ,Salaire Minimum Interprofessionnel Garanti- &lone, b t by the needs of & historic&l minim m ,M&r# noted th&t 7n%lish wor'ers need beer while French $rolet&ri&ns need wine- 5 i!e! & historic&lly v&ri&ble minim m! " sho ld &lso li'e to $oint o t th&t this minim m is do bly historic&l in th&t it is not defined by the historic&l needs of the wor'in% cl&ss *reco%ni8ed+ by the c&$it&list cl&ss, b t by the historic&l needs im$osed by the $rolet&ri&n cl&ss str %%le ,& do ble cl&ss str %%le: &%&inst the len%thenin% of the wor'in% d&y &nd &%&inst the red ction of w&%es-! 1owever, it is not eno %h to ens re for l&bo r $ower the m&teri&l conditions of its re$rod ction if it is to be re$rod ced &s l&bo r $ower! " h&ve s&id th&t the &v&il&ble l&bo r $ower m st be *com$etent+, i!e! s it&ble to be set to wor' in the com$le# system of the $rocess of $rod ction! (he develo$ment of the $rod ctive forces &nd the ty$e of nity historic&lly constit tive of the $rod ctive forces &t & %iven moment $rod ce the res lt th&t the l&bo r $ower h&s to be ,diversely- s'illed &nd therefore re$rod ced &s s ch! >iversely: &ccordin% to the re3 irements of the socio4technic&l division of l&bo r, its different *@obs+ &nd *$osts+! 1ow is this re$rod ction of the ,diversified- s'ills of l&bo r $ower $rovided for in & c&$it&list re%ime0 1ere, nli'e soci&l form&tions ch&r&cteri8ed by sl&very or serfdom this re$rod ction of the s'ills of l&bo r $ower tends ,this is & tendenti&l l&w- decre&sin%ly to be $rovided for *on the s$ot+ ,&$$renticeshi$ within $rod ction itself-, b t is &chieved more &nd more o tside $rod ction: by the c&$it&list ed c&tion system, &nd by other inst&nces &nd instit tions! /h&t do children le&rn &t school0 (hey %o v&ryin% dist&nces in their st dies, b t &t &ny r&te they le&rn to re&d, to write &nd to &dd 5 i!e! & n mber of techni3 es, &nd & n mber of other thin%s &s well, incl din% elements ,which m&y be r diment&ry or on the contr&ry thoro %h%oin%- of *scientific+ or *liter&ry c lt re+, which &re directly sef l in the different @obs in $rod ction ,one instr ction for m&n &l wor'ers, &nother for technici&ns, & third for en%ineers, & fin&l one for hi%her m&n&%ement, etc!-! (h s they le&rn 'now4how! B t besides these techni3 es &nd 'nowled%es, &nd in le&rnin% them, children &t school &lso le&rn the *r les+ of %ood beh&vio r, i!e! the &ttit de th&t sho ld be observed by every &%ent in the division of l&bo r, &ccordin% to the @ob he is *destined+ for: r les of mor&lity,

civic &nd $rofession&l conscience, which &ct &lly me&ns r les of res$ect for the socio4 technic&l division of l&bo r &nd ltim&tely the r les of the order est&blished by cl&ss domin&tion! (hey &lso le&rn to *s$e&' $ro$er French+, to *h&ndle+ the wor'ers correctly, i!e! &ct &lly ,for the f t re c&$it&lists &nd their serv&nts- to *order them &bo t+ $ro$erly, i!e! ,ide&lly- to *s$e&' to them+ in the ri%ht w&y, etc! (o $ t this more scientific&lly, " sh&ll s&y th&t the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower re3 ires not only & re$rod ction of its s'ills, b t &lso, &t the s&me time, & re$rod ction of its s bmission to the r les of the est&blished order, i!e! & re$rod ction of s bmission to the r lin% ideolo%y for the wor'ers, &nd & re$rod ction of the &bility to m&ni$ l&te the r lin% ideolo%y correctly for the &%ents of e#$loit&tion &nd re$ression, so th&t they, too, will $rovide for the domin&tion of the r lin% cl&ss *in words+! "n other words, the school ,b t &lso other At&te instit tions li'e the Bh rch, or other &$$&r&t ses li'e the Army- te&ches *'now4how+, b t in forms which ens re su !ection to the rulin" ideolo"y or the m&stery of its *$r&ctice+! All the &%ents of $rod ction, e#$loit&tion &nd re$ression, not to s$e&' of the *$rofession&ls of ideolo%y+ ,M&r#-, m st in one w&y or &nother be *stee$ed+ in this ideolo%y in order to $erform their t&s's *conscientio sly+ 5 the t&s's of the e#$loited ,the $rolet&ri&ns-, of the e#$loiters ,the c&$it&lists-, of the e#$loiters+ & #ili&ries ,the m&n&%ers-, or of the hi%h $riests of the r lin% ideolo%y ,its *f nction&ries+-, etc! (he re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower th s reve&ls &s its sine #ua non not only the re$rod ction of its *s'ills+ b t &lso the re$rod ction of its s b@ection to the r lin% ideolo%y or of the *$r&ctice+ of th&t ideolo%y, with the $roviso th&t it is not eno %h to s&y *not only b t &lso+, for it is cle&r th&t it is in the forms and under the forms of ideolo"ical su !ection that provision is made for the reproduction of the s$ills of la our power. B t this is to reco%ni8e the effective $resence of & new re&lity: ideolo"y. 1ere " sh&ll m&'e two comments! (he first is to ro nd off my &n&lysis of re$rod ction! " h&ve @ st %iven & r&$id s rvey of the forms of the re$rod ction of the $rod ctive forces, i!e! of the me&ns of $rod ction on the one h&nd, &nd of l&bo r $ower on the other! B t " h&ve not yet &$$ro&ched the 3 estion of the reproduction of the relations of production. (his is & crucial #uestion for the M&r#ist theory of the mode of $rod ction! (o let it $&ss wo ld be & theoretic&l omission 5 worse, & serio s $olitic&l error!

" sh&ll therefore disc ss it! B t in order to obt&in the me&ns to disc ss it, " sh&ll h&ve to m&'e &nother lon% deto r! (he second comment is th&t in order to m&'e this deto r, " &m obli%ed to re4r&ise my old 3 estion: wh&t is & society0

nfrastructure and Superstructure

Cn & n mber of occ&sions[4] " h&ve insisted on the revol tion&ry ch&r&cter of the M&r#ist conce$tion of the *soci&l whole+ insof&r &s it is distinct from the 1e%eli&n *tot&lity+! " s&id ,&nd this thesis only re$e&ts f&mo s $ro$ositions of historic&l m&teri&lism- th&t M&r# conceived the str ct re of every society &s constit ted by *levels+ or *inst&nces+ &rtic l&ted by & s$ecific determin&tion: the infrastructure, or economic b&se ,the * nity+ of the $rod ctive forces &nd the rel&tions of $rod ction- &nd the superstructure, which itself cont&ins two *levels+ or *inst&nces+: the $olitico4le%&l ,l&w &nd the At&te- &nd ideolo%y ,the different ideolo%ies, reli%io s, ethic&l, le%&l, $olitic&l, etc!-! Besides its theoretico4did&ctic interest ,it reve&ls the difference between M&r# &nd 1e%el-, this re$resent&tion h&s the followin% cr ci&l theoretic&l &dv&nt&%e: it m&'es it $ossible to inscribe in the theoretic&l &$$&r&t s of its essenti&l conce$ts wh&t " h&ve c&lled their respective indices of effectivity. /h&t does this me&n0 "t is e&sy to see th&t this re$resent&tion of the str ct re of every society &s &n edifice cont&inin% & b&se ,infr&str ct re- on which &re erected the two *floors+ of the s $erstr ct re, is & met&$hor, to be 3 ite $recise, & s$&ti&l met&$hor: the met&$hor of & to$o%r&$hy ,topi#ue-![5] .i'e every met&$hor, this met&$hor s %%ests somethin%, m&'es some thin% visible! /h&t0 Precisely this: th&t the $$er floors co ld not *st&y $+ ,in the &ir- &lone, if they did not rest $recisely on their b&se! (h s the ob@ect of the met&$hor of the edifice is to re$resent &bove &ll the *determin&tion in the l&st inst&nce+ by the economic b&se! (he effect of this s$&ti&l met&$hor is to endow the b&se with &n inde# of effectivity 'nown by the f&mo s terms: the determin&tion in the l&st inst&nce of wh&t h&$$ens in the s $erstr ct re- by wh&t h&$$ens in the economic b&se! ?iven this inde# of effectivity *in the l&st inst&nce+, the *floors+ of the s $erstr ct re &re cle&rly endowed with different indices of effectivity! /h&t 'ind of indices0 $$er *floors+ ,of the

"t is $ossible to s&y th&t the floors of the s $erstr ct re &re not determin&nt in the l&st inst&nce, b t th&t they &re determined by the effectivity of the b&se; th&t if they &re determin&nt in their own ,&s yet ndefined- w&ys, this is tr e only insof&r &s they &re determined by the b&se! (heir inde# of effectivity ,or determin&tion-, &s determined by the determin&tion in the l&st inst&nce of the b&se, is tho %ht by the M&r#ist tr&dition in two w&ys: ,1- there is & *rel&tive & tonomy+ of the s $erstr ct re with res$ect to the b&se; ,6- there is & *reci$roc&l &ction+ of the s $erstr ct re on the b&se! /e c&n therefore s&y th&t the %re&t theoretic&l &dv&nt&%e of the M&r#ist to$o%r&$hy, i!e! of the s$&ti&l met&$hor of the edifice ,b&se &nd s $erstr ct re- is sim lt&neo sly th&t it reve&ls th&t 3 estions of determin&tion ,or of inde# of effectivity- &re cr ci&l; th&t it reve&ls th&t it is the b&se which in the l&st inst&nce determines the whole edifice; &nd th&t, &s & conse3 ence, it obli%es s to $ose the theoretic&l $roblem of the ty$es of *deriv&tory+ effectivity $ec li&r to the s $erstr ct re, i!e! it obli%es s to thin' wh&t the M&r#ist tr&dition c&lls con@ointly the rel&tive & tonomy of the s $erstr ct re &nd the reci$roc&l &ction of the s $erstr ct re on the b&se! (he %re&test dis&dv&nt&%e of this re$resent&tion of the str ct re of every society by the s$&ti&l met&$hor of &n edifice, is obvio sly the f&ct th&t it is met&$horic&l: i!e! it rem&ins descriptive. "t now seems to me th&t it is $ossible &nd desir&ble to re$resent thin%s differently! )B, " do not me&n by this th&t " w&nt to re@ect the cl&ssic&l met&$hor, for th&t met&$hor itself re3 ires th&t we %o beyond it! And " &m not %oin% beyond it in order to re@ect it &s o tworn! " sim$ly w&nt to &ttem$t to thin' wh&t it %ives s in the form of & descri$tion! " believe th&t it is $ossible &nd necess&ry to thin' wh&t ch&r&cteri8es the essenti&l of the e#istence &nd n&t re of the s $erstr ct re on the asis of reproduction. Cnce one t&'es the $oint of view of re$rod ction, m&ny of the 3 estions whose e#istence w&s indic&ted by the s$&ti&l met&$hor of the edifice, b t to which it co ld not %ive & conce$t &l &nswer, &re immedi&tely ill min&ted! My b&sic thesis is th&t it is not $ossible to $ose these 3 estions ,&nd therefore to &nswer them- e%cept from the point of view of reproduction. " sh&ll %ive & short &n&lysis of .&w, the At&te &nd "deolo%y from this point of view. And " sh&ll reve&l wh&t h&$$ens both from the $oint of view of $r&ctice &nd $rod ction on the one h&nd, &nd from th&t of re$rod ction on the other!

The State
(he M&r#ist tr&dition is strict, here: in the Communist Manifesto &nd the Ei"hteenth &rumaire ,&nd in &ll the l&ter cl&ssic&l te#ts, &bove &ll in M&r#+s writin%s on the P&ris Bomm ne &nd .enin+s on State and 'evolution-, the At&te is e#$licitly conceived &s & re$ressive &$$&r&t s! (he At&te is & *m&chine+ of re$ression, which en&bles the r lin% cl&sses ,in the nineteenth cent ry the bo r%eois cl&ss &nd the *cl&ss+ of bi% l&ndowners- to ens re their domin&tion over the wor'in% cl&ss, th s en&blin% the former to s b@ect the l&tter to the $rocess of s r$l s4v&l e e#tortion ,i!e! to c&$it&list e#$loit&tion-! (he At&te is th s first of &ll wh&t the M&r#ist cl&ssics h&ve c&lled the State (pparatus. (his term me&ns: not only the s$eci&li8ed &$$&r&t s ,in the n&rrow sense- whose e#istence &nd necessity " h&ve reco%ni8ed in rel&tion to the re3 irements of le%&l $r&ctice, i!e! the $olice, the co rts, the $risons; b t &lso the &rmy, which ,the $rolet&ri&t h&s $&id for this e#$erience with its blood- intervenes directly &s & s $$lement&ry re$ressive force in the l&st inst&nce, when the $olice &nd its s$eci&li8ed & #ili&ry cor$s &re *o tr n by events+; &nd &bove this ensemble, the he&d of At&te, the %overnment &nd the &dministr&tion! Presented in this form, the M&r#ist4.eninist *theory+ of the At&te h&s its fin%er on the essenti&l $oint, &nd not for one moment c&n there be &ny 3 estion of re@ectin% the f&ct th&t this re&lly is the essenti&l $oint! (he At&te A$$&r&t s, which defines the At&te &s & force of re$ressive e#ec tion &nd intervention *in the interests of the r lin% cl&sses+ in the cl&ss str %%le cond cted by the bo r%eoisie &nd its &llies &%&inst the $rolet&ri&t, is 3 ite cert&inly the At&te, &nd 3 ite cert&inly defines its b&sic *f nction+! Fro! "escripti#e Theor$ to Theor$ as such )evertheless, here too, &s " $ointed o t with res$ect to the met&$hor of the edifice ,infr&str ct re &nd s $erstr ct re-, this $resent&tion of the n&t re of the At&te is still $&rtly descri$tive! As " sh&ll often h&ve occ&sion to se this &d@ective ,descri$tive-, & word of e#$l&n&tion is necess&ry in order to remove &ny &mbi% ity! /henever, in s$e&'in% of the met&$hor of the edifice or of the M&r#ist *theory+ of the At&te, " h&ve s&id th&t these &re descri$tive conce$tions or re$resent&tions of their ob@ects, " h&d no lterior critic&l motives! Cn the contr&ry, " h&ve every %ro nds to thin' th&t %re&t scientific discoveries c&nnot hel$ b t $&ss thro %h the $h&se of wh&t " sh&ll c&ll descriptive *theory )! (his is the first $h&se of every theory, &t le&st in the dom&in which

concerns s ,th&t of the science of soci&l form&tions-! As s ch, one mi%ht &nd in my o$inion one m st 5 envis&%e this $h&se &s & tr&nsition&l one, necess&ry to the develo$ment of the theory! (h&t it is tr&nsition&l is inscribed in my e#$ression: *descri$tive theory+, which reve&ls in its con@ nction of terms the e3 iv&lent of & 'ind of *contr&diction+! "n f&ct, the term theory *cl&shes+ to some e#tent with the &d@ective *descri$tive+ which " h&ve &tt&ched to it! (his me&ns 3 ite $recisely: ,1- th&t the *descri$tive theory+ re&lly is, witho t & sh&dow of & do bt, the irreversible be%innin% of the theory; b t ,6- th&t the *descri$tive+ form in which the theory is $resented re3 ires, $recisely &s &n effect of this *contr&diction+, & develo$ment of the theory which %oes beyond the form of *descri$tion+! .et me m&'e this ide& cle&rer by ret rnin% to o r $resent ob@ect: the At&te! /hen " s&y th&t the M&r#ist *theory+ of the At&te &v&il&ble to s is still $&rtly

*descri$tive+, th&t me&ns first &nd foremost th&t this descri$tive *theory+ is witho t the sh&dow of & do bt $recisely the be%innin% of the M&r#ist theory of the At&te, &nd th&t this be%innin% %ives s the essenti&l $oint, i!e! the decisive $rinci$le of every l&ter develo$ment of the theory! "ndeed, " sh&ll c&ll the descri$tive theory of the At&te correct, since it is $erfectly $ossible to m&'e the v&st m&@ority of the f&cts in the dom&in with which it is concerned corres$ond to the definition it %ives of its ob@ect! (h s, the definition of the At&te &s & cl&ss At&te, e#istin% in the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s, c&sts & brilli&nt li%ht on &ll the f&cts observ&ble in the v&rio s orders of re$ression wh&tever their dom&ins: from the m&ss&cres of D ne 1EFE &nd of the P&ris Bomm ne, of Bloody A nd&y, M&y 190G in Petro%r&d, of the Resist&nce, of Bh&ronne, etc!, to the mere ,&nd rel&tively &nodyneinterventions of & *censorshi$+ which h&s b&nned >iderot+s La 'li"ieuse or & $l&y by ?&tti on Fr&nco; it c&sts li%ht on &ll the direct or indirect forms of e#$loit&tion &nd e#termin&tion of the m&sses of the $eo$le ,im$eri&list w&rs-; it c&sts li%ht on th&t s btle everyd&y domin&tion bene&th which c&n be %lim$sed, in the forms of $olitic&l democr&cy, for e#&m$le, wh&t .enin, followin% M&r#, c&lled the dict&torshi$ of the bo r%eoisie! And yet the descri$tive theory of the At&te re$resents & $h&se in the constit tion of the theory which itself dem&nds the *s $ersession+ of this $h&se! For it is cle&r th&t if the definition in 3 estion re&lly does %ive s the me&ns to identify &nd reco%ni8e the f&cts of o$$ression by rel&tin% them to the At&te, conceived &s the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s, this *interrel&tionshi$+ %ives rise to & very s$eci&l 'ind of obvio sness, &bo t which " sh&ll h&ve somethin% to s&y in & moment: *<es, th&t+s how it is, th&t+s re&lly tr eH+[6]

And the &cc m l&tion of f&cts within the definition of the At&te m&y m lti$ly e#&m$les, b t it does not re&lly &dv&nce the definition of the At&te, i!e! the scientific theory of the At&te! 7very descri$tive theory th s r ns the ris' of *bloc'in%+ the develo$ment of the theory, &nd yet th&t develo$ment is essenti&l! (h&t is why " thin' th&t, in order to develo$ this descri$tive theory into theory &s s ch, i!e! in order to nderst&nd f rther the mech&nisms of the At&te in its f nctionin%, " thin' th&t it is indis$ens&ble to &dd somethin% to the cl&ssic&l definition of the At&te &s & At&te A$$&r&t s! The %ssentials of the Mar&ist Theor$ of the State .et me first cl&rify one im$ort&nt $oint: the At&te ,&nd its e#istence in its &$$&r&t s- h&s no me&nin% e#ce$t &s & f nction of At&te $ower! (he whole of the $olitic&l cl&ss str %%le revolves &ro nd the At&te! By which " me&n &ro nd the $ossession, i!e! the sei8 re &nd conserv&tion of At&te $ower by & cert&in cl&ss or by &n &lli&nce between cl&sses or cl&ss fr&ctions! (his first cl&rific&tion obli%es me to distin% ish between At&te $ower ,conserv&tion of At&te $ower or sei8 re of At&te $ower-, the ob@ective of the $olitic&l cl&ss str %%le on the one h&nd, &nd the At&te A$$&r&t s on the other! /e 'now th&t the At&te A$$&r&t s m&y s rvive, &s is $roved by bo r%eois *revol tions+ in nineteenth4cent ry Fr&nce ,1EI0, 1EFE-, by coups d*tat ,6 >ecember, M&y 19GE-, by coll&$ses of the At&te ,the f&ll of the 7m$ire in 1E70, of the (hird Re$ blic in 19F0-, or by the $olitic&l rise of the $etty bo r%eoisie ,1E9049G in Fr&nce-, etc!, witho t the At&te A$$&r&t s bein% &ffected or modified: it m&y s rvive $olitic&l events which &ffect the $ossession of At&te $ower! 7ven &fter & soci&l revol tion li'e th&t of 1917, & l&r%e $&rt of the At&te A$$&r&t s s rvived &fter the sei8 re of At&te $ower by the &lli&nce of the $rolet&ri&t &nd the sm&ll $e&s&ntry: .enin re$e&ted the f&ct &%&in &nd &%&in! "t is $ossible to describe the distinction between st&te $ower &nd st&te &$$&r&t s &s $&rt of the *M&r#ist theory+ of the st&te, e#$licitly $resent since M&r#+s Ei"hteenth &rumaire &nd Class Stru""les in +rance. (o s mm&ri8e the *M&r#ist theory of the st&te+ on this $oint, it c&n be s&id th&t the M&r#ist cl&ssics h&ve &lw&ys cl&imed th&t ,1- the st&te is the re$ressive st&te &$$&r&t s, ,6- st&te $ower &nd st&te &$$&r&t s m st be distin% ished, ,I- the ob@ective of the cl&ss str %%le concerns st&te $ower, &nd in conse3 ence the se of the st&te &$$&r&t s by the cl&sses ,or &lli&nce of cl&sses or of fr&ctions of cl&sses- holdin% st&te $ower &s & f nction

of their cl&ss ob@ectives, &nd ,F- the $rolet&ri&t m st sei8e st&te $ower in order to destroy the e#istin% bo r%eois st&te &$$&r&t s &nd, in & first $h&se, re$l&ce it with & 3 ite different, $rolet&ri&n, st&te &$$&r&t s, then in l&ter $h&ses set in motion & r&dic&l $rocess, th&t of the destr ction of the st&te ,the end of st&te $ower, the end of every st&te &$$&r&t s-! "n this $ers$ective, therefore, wh&t " wo ld $ro$ose to &dd to the *M&r#ist theory+ of the st&te is &lre&dy there in so m&ny words! B t it seems to me th&t even with this s $$lement, this theory is still in $&rt descri$tive, &ltho %h it does now cont&in com$le# &nd differenti&l elements whose f nctionin% &nd &ction c&nnot be nderstood witho t reco rse to f rther s $$lement&ry theoretic&l develo$ment! The State deolo'ical (pparatuses (h s, wh&t h&s to be &dded to the *M&r#ist theory+ of the st&te is somethin% else! 1ere we m st &dv&nce c& tio sly in & terr&in which, in f&ct, the M&r#ist cl&ssics entered lon% before s, b t witho t h&vin% system&ti8ed in theoretic&l form the decisive &dv&nces im$lied by their e#$eriences &nd $roced res! (heir e#$eriences &nd $roced res were indeed restricted in the m&in to the terr&in of $olitic&l $r&ctice! "n f&ct, i!e! in their $olitic&l $r&ctice, the M&r#ist cl&ssics tre&ted the At&te &s & more com$le# re&lity th&n the definition of it %iven in the *M&r#ist theory of the st&te+, even when it h&s been s $$lemented &s " h&ve @ st s %%ested! (hey reco%ni8ed this com$le#ity in their $r&ctice, b t they did not e#$ress it in & corres$ondin% theory![7] " sho ld li'e to &ttem$t & very schem&tic o tline of this corres$ondin% theory! (o th&t end, " $ro$ose the followin% thesis! "n order to &dv&nce the theory of the At&te it is indis$ens&ble to t&'e into &cco nt not only the distinction between state power &nd state apparatus, b t &lso &nother re&lity which is cle&rly on the side of the ,re$ressive- st&te &$$&r&t s, b t m st not be conf sed with it! " sh&ll c&ll this re&lity by its conce$t: the Ideolo"ical State (pparatuses. /h&t &re the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses ,"AAs-0 (hey m st not be conf sed with the ,re$ressive- At&te &$$&r&t s! Remember th&t in M&r#ist theory, the At&te A$$&r&t s ,AA- cont&ins: the ?overnment, the Administr&tion, the Army, the Police, the Bo rts, the Prisons, etc!, which constit te wh&t " sh&ll in f t re c&ll the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s! Re$ressive s %%ests th&t the At&te A$$&r&t s in

3 estion *f nctions by violence+ 5 &t le&st ltim&tely ,since re$ression, e!%! &dministr&tive re$ression, m&y t&'e non4$hysic&l forms-! " sh&ll c&ll "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses & cert&in n mber of re&lities which $resent themselves to the immedi&te observer in the form of distinct &nd s$eci&li8ed instit tions! " $ro$ose &n em$iric&l list of these which will obvio sly h&ve to be e#&mined in det&il, tested, corrected &nd re4or%&ni8ed! /ith &ll the reserv&tions im$lied by this re3 irement, we c&n for the moment re%&rd the followin% instit tions &s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses ,the order in which " h&ve listed them h&s no $&rtic l&r si%nific&nce-:

the reli%io s "AA ,the system of the different ch rches-, the ed c&tion&l "AA ,the system of the different $ blic &nd $riv&te *schools+-, the f&mily "AA,[8] the le%&l "AA,[9] the $olitic&l "AA ,the $olitic&l system, incl din% the different $&rties-, the tr&de4 nion "AA, the comm nic&tions "AA ,$ress, r&dio &nd television, etc!-, the c lt r&l "AA ,liter&t re, the &rts, s$orts, etc!-! " h&ve s&id th&t the "AAs m st not be conf sed with the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s! /h&t constit tes the difference0 As & first moment, it is cle&r th&t while there is one ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s, there is & plurality of "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! 7ven $res $$osin% th&t it e#ists, the nity th&t constit tes this $l r&lity of "AAs &s & body is not immedi&tely visible! As & second moment, it is cle&r th&t where&s the nified 5 ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s belon%s entirely to the pu lic dom&in, m ch the l&r%er $&rt of the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses ,in their &$$&rent dis$ersion- &re $&rt, on the contr&ry, of the private dom&in! Bh rches, P&rties, (r&de Jnions, f&milies, some schools, most news$&$ers, c lt r&l vent res, etc!, etc!, &re $riv&te! /e c&n i%nore the first observ&tion for the moment! B t someone is bo nd to 3 estion the second, &s'in% me by wh&t ri%ht " re%&rd &s "deolo%ic&l State A$$&r&t ses, instit tions which for the most $&rt do not $ossess $ blic st&t s, b t &re 3 ite sim$ly private instit tions! As & conscio s M&r#ist, ?r&msci &lre&dy forest&lled this ob@ection in one sentence! (he distinction between the $ blic &nd the $riv&te is & distinction intern&l to bo r%eois l&w, &nd v&lid in the ,s bordin&tedom&ins in which bo r%eois l&w e#ercises its *& thority+! (he dom&in of the At&te

esc&$es it bec& se the l&tter is *&bove the l&w+: the At&te, which is the At&te of the r lin% cl&ss, is neither $ blic nor $riv&te; on the contr&ry, it is the $recondition for &ny distinction between $ blic &nd $riv&te! (he s&me thin% c&n be s&id from the st&rtin%4$oint of o r At&te "deolo%ic&l A$$&r&t ses! "t is nim$ort&nt whether the instit tions in which they &re re&li8ed &re *$ blic+ or *$riv&te+! /h&t m&tters is how they f nction! Priv&te instit tions c&n $erfectly well *f nction+ &s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! A re&son&bly thoro %h &n&lysis of &ny one of the "AAs $roves it! B t now for wh&t is essenti&l! /h&t distin% ishes the "AAs from the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s is the followin% b&sic difference: the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s f nctions *by violence+, where&s the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses function * y ideolo"y*. " c&n cl&rify m&tters by correctin% this distinction! " sh&ll s&y r&ther th&t every At&te A$$&r&t s, whether Re$ressive or "deolo%ic&l, *f nctions+ both by violence &nd by ideolo%y, b t with one very im$ort&nt distinction which m&'es it im$er&tive not to conf se the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses with the ,Re$ressiveAt&te A$$&r&t s! (his is the f&ct th&t the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s f nctions m&ssively &nd $redomin&ntly y repression ,incl din% $hysic&l re$ression-, while f nctionin% second&rily by ideolo%y! ,(here is no s ch thin% &s & $ rely re$ressive &$$&r&t s!For e#&m$le, the Army &nd the Police &lso f nction by ideolo%y both to ens re their own cohesion &nd re$rod ction, &nd in the *v&l es+ they $ro$o nd e#tern&lly! "n the s&me w&y, b t inversely, it is essenti&l to s&y th&t for their $&rt the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses f nction m&ssively &nd $redomin&ntly y ideolo"y, b t they &lso f nction second&rily by re$ression, even if ltim&tely, b t only ltim&tely, this is very &tten &ted &nd conce&led, even symbolic! ,(here is no s ch thin% &s & $ rely ideolo%ic&l &$$&r&t s!- (h s Achools &nd Bh rches se s it&ble methods of $ nishment, e#$ lsion, selection, etc!, to *disci$line+ not only their she$herds, b t &lso their floc's! (he s&me is tr e of the F&mily!!!! (he s&me is tr e of the c lt r&l "A A$$&r&t s ,censorshi$, &mon% other thin%s-, etc! "s it necess&ry to &dd th&t this determin&tion of the do ble *f nctionin%+ ,$redomin&ntly, second&rily- by re$ression &nd by ideolo%y, &ccordin% to whether it is & m&tter of the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s or the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, m&'es it cle&r th&t very s btle e#$licit or t&cit combin&tions m&y be

woven from the inter$l&y of the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s &nd the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses0 7veryd&y life $rovides s with inn mer&ble e#&m$les of this, b t they m st be st died in det&il if we &re to %o f rther th&n this mere observ&tion! )evertheless, this rem&r' le&ds s tow&rds &n nderst&ndin% of wh&t constit tes the nity of the &$$&rently dis$&r&te body of the "AAs! "f the "AAs *f nction+ m&ssively &nd $redomin&ntly by ideolo%y, wh&t nifies their diversity is $recisely this f nctionin%, insof&r &s the ideolo%y by which they f nction is &lw&ys in f&ct nified, des$ite its diversity &nd its contr&dictions, eneath the rulin" ideolo"y, which is the ideolo%y of *the r lin% cl&ss+! ?iven the f&ct th&t the *r lin% cl&ss+ in $rinci$le holds At&te $ower ,o$enly or more often by me&ns of &lli&nces between cl&sses or cl&ss fr&ctions-, &nd therefore h&s &t its dis$os&l the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s, we c&n &cce$t the f&ct th&t this s&me r lin% cl&ss is &ctive in the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses insof&r &s it is ltim&tely the r lin% ideolo%y which is re&li8ed in the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, $recisely in its contr&dictions! Cf co rse, it is & 3 ite different thin% to &ct by l&ws &nd decrees in the ,Re$ressiveAt&te A$$&r&t s &nd to *&ct+ thro %h the intermedi&ry of the r lin% ideolo%y in the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! /e m st %o into the det&ils of this difference 5 b t it c&nnot m&s' the re&lity of & $rofo nd identity! (o my 'nowled%e, no class can hold State power over a lon" period without at the same time e%ercisin" its he"emony over and in the State Ideolo"ical (pparatuses. " only need one e#&m$le &nd $roof of this: .enin+s &n% ished concern to revol tioni8e the ed c&tion&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s ,&mon% others-, sim$ly to m&'e it $ossible for the Aoviet $rolet&ri&t, who h&d sei8ed At&te $ower, to sec re the f t re of the dict&torshi$ of the $rolet&ri&t &nd the tr&nsition to soci&lism![10] (his l&st comment $ ts s in & $osition to nderst&nd th&t the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses m&y be not only the sta$e, b t &lso the site of cl&ss str %%le, &nd often of bitter forms of cl&ss str %%le! (he cl&ss ,or cl&ss &lli&nce- in $ower c&nnot l&y down the l&w in the "AAs &s e&sily &s it c&n in the ,re$ressive- At&te &$$&r&t s, not only bec& se the former r lin% cl&sses &re &ble to ret&in stron% $ositions there for & lon% time, b t &lso bec& se the resist&nce of the e#$loited cl&sses is &ble to find me&ns &nd occ&sions to e#$ress itself there, either by the tili8&tion of their contr&dictions, or by con3 erin% comb&t $ositions in them in str %%le![11] .et me r n thro %h my comments!

"f the thesis " h&ve $ro$osed is well4fo nded, it le&ds me b&c' to the cl&ssic&l M&r#ist theory of the At&te, while m&'in% it more $recise in one $oint! " &r% e th&t it is necess&ry to distin% ish between At&te $ower ,&nd its $ossession by !!!- on the one h&nd, &nd the At&te A$$&r&t s on the other! B t " &dd th&t the At&te A$$&r&t s cont&ins two bodies: the body of instit tions which re$resent the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s on the one h&nd, &nd the body of instit tions which re$resent the body of "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses on the other! B t if this is the c&se, the followin% 3 estion is bo nd to be &s'ed, even in the very s mm&ry st&te of my s %%estions: wh&t e#&ctly is the e#tent of the role of the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses0 /h&t is their im$ort&nce b&sed on0 "n other words: to wh&t does the *f nction+ of these "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, which do not f nction by re$ression b t by ideolo%y, corres$ond0

On the Reproduction of the Relations of Production

" c&n now &nswer the centr&l 3 estion which " h&ve left in s s$ense for m&ny lon% $&%es: how is the reproduction of the relations of production secured, "n the to$o%r&$hic&l l&n% &%e ,"nfr&str ct re, A $erstr ct re-, " c&n s&y: for the most $&rt,[12] it is sec red by the le%&l4$olitic&l &nd ideolo%ic&l s $erstr ct re! B t &s " h&ve &r% ed th&t it is essenti&l to %o beyond this still descri$tive l&n% &%e, " sh&ll s&y: for the most $&rt, it is sec red by the e#ercise of At&te $ower in the At&te A$$&r&t ses, on the one h&nd the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s, on the other the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! /h&t " h&ve @ st s&id m st &lso be t&'en into &cco nt, &nd it c&n be &ssembled in the form of the followin% three fe&t res: 1! All the At&te A$$&r&t ses f nction both by re$ression &nd by ideolo%y, with the difference th&t the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s f nctions m&ssively &nd $redomin&ntly by re$ression, where&s the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses f nction m&ssively &nd $redomin&ntly by ideolo%y! 6! /here&s the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s constit tes &n or%&ni8ed whole whose different $&rts &re centr&li8ed bene&th & comm&ndin% nity, th&t of the $olitics of cl&ss str %%le &$$lied by

the $olitic&l re$resent&tives of the r lin% cl&sses in $ossession of At&te $ower, the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses &re m lti$le, distinct, *rel&tively & tonomo s+ &nd c&$&ble of $rovidin% &n ob@ective field to contr&dictions which e#$ress, in forms which m&y be limited or e#treme, the effects of the cl&shes between the c&$it&list cl&ss str %%le &nd the $rolet&ri&n cl&ss str %%le, &s well &s their s bordin&te forms! I! /here&s the nity of the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s is sec red by its nified &nd centr&li8ed or%&ni8&tion nder the le&dershi$ of the re$resent&tives of the cl&sses in $ower e#ec tin% the $olitics of the cl&ss str %%le of the cl&sses in $ower, the nity of the different "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses is sec red, s &lly in contr&dictory forms, by the r lin% ideolo%y, the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss! (&'in% these fe&t res into &cco nt, it is $ossible to re$resent the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction[13] in the followin% w&y, &ccordin% to & 'ind of *division of l&bo r+! (he role of the re$ressive At&te &$$&r&t s, insof&r &s it is & re$ressive &$$&r&t s, consists essenti&lly in sec rin% by force ,$hysic&l or otherwise- the $olitic&l conditions of the re$rod ction of rel&tions of $rod ction which &re in the l&st resort rel&tions of e#$loit&tion! )ot only does the At&te &$$&r&t s contrib te %enero sly to its own re$rod ction ,the c&$it&list At&te cont&ins $olitic&l dyn&sties, milit&ry dyn&sties, etc!-, b t &lso &nd &bove &ll, the At&te &$$&r&t s sec res by re$ression ,from the most br t&l $hysic&l force, vi& mere &dministr&tive comm&nds &nd interdictions, to o$en &nd t&cit censorshi$- the $olitic&l conditions for the &ction of the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! "n f&ct, it is the l&tter which l&r%ely sec re the re$rod ction s$ecific&lly of the rel&tions of $rod ction, behind & *shield+ $rovided by the re$ressive At&te &$$&r&t s! "t is here th&t the role of the r lin% ideolo%y is he&vily concentr&ted, the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss, which holds At&te $ower! "t is the intermedi&tion of the r lin% ideolo%y th&t ens res & ,sometimes teeth4%rittin%- *h&rmony+ between the re$ressive At&te &$$&r&t s &nd the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, &nd between the different At&te "deolo%ic&l A$$&r&t ses!

/e &re th s led to envis&%e the followin% hy$othesis, &s & f nction $recisely of the diversity of ideolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses in their sin%le, bec& se sh&red, role of the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction! "ndeed we h&ve listed & rel&tively l&r%e n mber of "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses in contem$or&ry c&$it&list soci&l form&tions: the ed c&tion&l &$$&r&t s, the reli%io s &$$&r&t s, the f&mily &$$&r&t s, the $olitic&l &$$&r&t s, the tr&de4 nion &$$&r&t s, the comm nic&tions &$$&r&t s, the *c lt r&l+ &$$&r&t s, etc! B t in the soci&l form&tions of th&t mode of $rod ction ch&r&cteri8ed by *serfdom+ , s &lly c&lled the fe d&l mode of $rod ction-, we observe th&t &ltho %h there is & sin%le re$ressive At&te &$$&r&t s which, since the e&rliest 'nown Ancient At&tes, let &lone the Absol te Mon&rchies, h&s been form&lly very simil&r to the one we 'now tod&y, the n mber of "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses is sm&ller &nd their individ &l ty$es &re different! For e#&m$le, we observe th&t d rin% the Middle A%es, the Bh rch ,the reli%io s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s&cc m l&ted & n mber of f nctions which h&ve tod&y devolved on to sever&l distinct "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, new ones in rel&tion to the $&st " &m invo'in%, in $&rtic l&r ed c&tion&l &nd c lt r&l f nctions! Alon%side the Bh rch there w&s the f&mily "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, which $l&yed & consider&ble $&rt, incommens r&ble with its role in c&$it&list soci&l form&tions! >es$ite &$$e&r&nces, the Bh rch &nd the F&mily were not the only "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses! (here w&s &lso & $olitic&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s ,the 7st&tes ?ener&l, the Parlement, the different $olitic&l f&ctions &nd .e&% es, the &ncestors of the modern $olitic&l $&rties, &nd the whole $olitic&l system of the free Bomm nes &nd then of the -illes-! (here w&s &lso & $owerf l *$roto4tr&de nion+ "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, if " m&y vent re s ch &n &n&chronistic term ,the $owerf l merch&nts+ &nd b&n'ers+ % ilds &nd the @o rneymen+s &ssoci&tions, etc!-! P blishin% &nd Bomm nic&tions, even, s&w &n indis$ t&ble develo$ment, &s did the the&tre; initi&lly both were inte%r&l $&rts of the Bh rch, then they bec&me more &nd more inde$endent of it! "n the $re4c&$it&list historic&l $eriod which " h&ve e#&mined e#tremely bro&dly, it is &bsol tely cle&r th&t there was one dominant Ideolo"ical State (pparatus, the Church, which concentr&ted within it not only reli%io s f nctions, b t &lso ed c&tion&l ones, &nd & l&r%e $ro$ortion of the f nctions of comm nic&tions &nd *c lt re+! "t is no &ccident th&t &ll ideolo%ic&l str %%le, from the si#teenth to the ei%hteenth cent ry, st&rtin% with the first shoc's of the Reform&tion, w&s

concentrated in &n &nti4cleric&l &nd &nti4reli%io s str %%le; r&ther this is & f nction $recisely of the domin&nt $osition of the reli%io s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s! (he foremost ob@ective &nd &chievement of the French Revol tion w&s not @ st to tr&nsfer At&te $ower from the fe d&l &ristocr&cy to the merch&nt4c&$it&list bo r%eoisie, to bre&' $&rt of the former re$ressive At&te &$$&r&t s &nd re$l&ce it with & new one ,e!%!, the n&tion&l $o$ l&r Army- b t &lso to &tt&c' the n mber4one "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s: the Bh rch! 1ence the civil constit tion of the cler%y, the confisc&tion of ecclesi&stic&l we&lth, &nd the cre&tion of new "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses to re$l&ce the reli%io s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s in its domin&nt role! )&t r&lly, these thin%s did not h&$$en & tom&tic&lly: witness the Boncord&t, the Restor&tion &nd the lon% cl&ss str %%le between the l&nded &ristocr&cy &nd the ind stri&l bo r%eoisie thro %ho t the nineteenth cent ry for the est&blishment of bo r%eois he%emony over the f nctions formerly f lfilled by the Bh rch: &bove &ll by the Achools! "t c&n be s&id th&t the bo r%eoisie relied on the new $olitic&l, $&rli&ment&ry4democr&tic, "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, inst&lled in the e&rliest ye&rs of the Revol tion, then restored &fter lon% &nd violent str %%les, for & few months in 1EFE &nd for dec&des &fter the f&ll of the Aecond 7m$ire, in order to cond ct its str %%le &%&inst the Bh rch &nd wrest its ideolo%ic&l f nctions &w&y from it, in other words, to ens re not only its own $olitic&l he%emony, b t &lso the ideolo%ic&l he%emony indis$ens&ble to the re$rod ction of c&$it&list rel&tions of $rod ction! (h&t is why " believe th&t " &m @ stified in &dv&ncin% the followin% (hesis, however $rec&rio s it is! " believe th&t the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s which h&s been inst&lled in the dominant $osition in m&t re c&$it&list soci&l form&tions &s & res lt of & violent $olitic&l &nd ideolo%ic&l cl&ss str %%le &%&inst the old domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, is the educational ideolo"ical apparatus. (his thesis m&y seem $&r&do#ic&l, %iven th&t for everyone, i!e! in the ideolo%ic&l re$resent&tion th&t the bo r%eoisie h&s tried to %ive itself &nd the cl&sses it e#$loits, it re&lly seems th&t the domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s in c&$it&list soci&l form&tions is not the Achools, b t the $olitic&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, i!e! the re%ime of $&rli&ment&ry democr&cy combinin% s ffr&%e &nd $&rty str %%le! nivers&l

1owever, history, even recent history, shows th&t the bo r%eoisie h&s been &nd still is &ble to &ccommod&te itself to $olitic&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses other th&n $&rli&ment&ry democr&cy: the First &nd Aecond 7m$ires, Bonstit tion&l Mon&rchy ,.o is ;2""" &nd Bh&rles ;-, P&rli&ment&ry Mon&rchy ,.o is4 Phili$$e-, Presidenti&l >emocr&cy ,de ?& lle-, to mention only Fr&nce! "n 7n%l&nd this is even cle&rer! (he Revol tion w&s $&rtic l&rly *s ccessf l+ there from the bo r%eois $oint of view, since nli'e Fr&nce, where the bo r%eoisie, $&rtly bec& se of the st $idity of the $etty &ristocr&cy, h&d to &%ree to bein% c&rried to $ower by $e&s&nt &nd $lebei&n *!ournes rvolutionnaires+, somethin% for which it h&d to $&y & hi%h $rice, the 7n%lish bo r%eoisie w&s &ble to *com$romise+ with the &ristocr&cy &nd *sh&re+ At&te $ower &nd the se of the At&te &$$&r&t s with it for & lon% time ,$e&ce &mon% &ll men of %ood will in the r lin% cl&ssesH-! "n ?erm&ny it is even more stri'in%, since it w&s behind & $olitic&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s in which the im$eri&l D n'ers ,e$itomi8ed by Bism&rc'-, their &rmy &nd their $olice $rovided it with & shield &nd le&din% $ersonnel, th&t the im$eri&list bo r%eoisie m&de its sh&tterin% entry into history, before *tr&versin%+ the /eim&r Re$ blic &nd entr stin% itself to )&8ism! 1ence " believe " h&ve %ood re&sons for thin'in% th&t behind the scenes of its $olitic&l "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, which occ $ies the front of the st&%e, wh&t the bo r%eoisie h&s inst&lled &s its n mber4one, i!e! &s its domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, is the ed c&tion&l &$$&r&t s, which h&s in f&ct re$l&ced in its f nctions the $revio sly domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, the Bh rch! Cne mi%ht even &dd: the Achool4F&mily co $le h&s re$l&ced the Bh rch4F&mily co $le! /hy is the ed c&tion&l &$$&r&t s in f&ct the domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s in c&$it&list soci&l form&tions, &nd how does it f nction0 For the moment it m st s ffice to s&y: 1! All "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses, wh&tever they &re, contrib te to the s&me res lt: the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction, i!e! of c&$it&list rel&tions of e#$loit&tion! 6! 7&ch of them contrib tes tow&rds this sin%le res lt in the w&y $ro$er to it! (he $olitic&l &$$&r&t s by s b@ectin% individ &ls to the $olitic&l At&te ideolo%y, the *indirect+ ,$&rli&ment&ry- or *direct+ ,$lebiscit&ry or f&scist- *democr&tic+ ideolo%y! (he comm nic&tions &$$&r&t s by cr&mmin% every *citi8en+ with d&ily doses of

n&tion&lism, ch& vinism, liber&lism, mor&lism, etc, by me&ns of the $ress, the r&dio &nd television! (he s&me %oes for the c lt r&l &$$&r&t s ,the role of s$ort in ch& vinism is of the first im$ort&nce-, etc! (he reli%io s &$$&r&t s by rec&llin% in sermons &nd the other %re&t ceremonies of Birth, M&rri&%e &nd >e&th, th&t m&n is only &shes, nless he loves his nei%hbo r to the e#tent of t rnin% the other chee' to whoever stri'es first! (he f&mily &$$&r&t s !!!b t there is no need to %o on! I! (his concert is domin&ted by & sin%le score, occ&sion&lly dist rbed by contr&dictions ,those of the remn&nts of former r lin% cl&sses, those of the $rolet&ri&ns &nd their or%&ni8&tions-: the score of the "deolo%y of the c rrent r lin% cl&ss which inte%r&tes into its m sic the %re&t themes of the 1 m&nism of the ?re&t Foref&thers, who $rod ced the ?ree' Mir&cle even before Bhristi&nity, &nd &fterw&rds the ?lory of Rome, the 7tern&l Bity, &nd the themes of "nterest, $&rtic l&r &nd %ener&l, etc! n&tion&lism, mor&lism &nd economism! F! )evertheless, in this concert, one "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s cert&inly h&s the domin&nt role, &ltho %h h&rdly &nyone lends &n e&r to its m sic: it is so silentH (his is the Achool! "t t&'es children from every cl&ss &t inf&nt4school &%e, &nd then for ye&rs, the ye&rs in which the child is most *v lner&ble+, s3 ee8ed between the F&mily At&te A$$&r&t s &nd the 7d c&tion&l At&te A$$&r&t s, it dr ms into them, whether it ses new or old methods, & cert&in &mo nt of *'now4how+ wr&$$ed in the r lin% ideolo%y ,French, &rithmetic, n&t r&l history, the sciences, liter&t re- or sim$ly the r lin% ideolo%y in its $ re st&te ,ethics, civic instr ction, $hiloso$hy-! Aomewhere &ro nd the &%e of si#teen, & h %e m&ss of children &re e@ected *into $rod ction+: these &re the wor'ers or sm&ll $e&s&nts! Another $ortion of schol&stic&lly &d&$ted yo th c&rries on: &nd, for better or worse, it %oes somewh&t f rther, ntil it f&lls by the w&yside &nd fills the $osts of sm&ll &nd middle technici&ns, white4coll&r wor'ers, sm&ll &nd middle e#ec tives, $etty bo r%eois of &ll 'inds! A l&st $ortion re&ches the s mmit, either to f&ll into intellect &l semi4em$loyment, or to $rovide, &s well &s the *intellect &ls of the collective l&bo rer+, the &%ents of e#$loit&tion ,c&$it&lists, m&n&%ers-, the &%ents of re$ression ,soldiers, $olicemen, $olitici&ns, &dministr&tors, etc!- &nd the $rofession&l ideolo%ists ,$riests of &ll sorts, most of whom &re convinced *l&ymen+-! 7&ch m&ss e@ected en route is $r&ctic&lly $rovided with the ideolo%y which s its the role it h&s to f lfil in cl&ss society: the role of the e#$loited ,with & *hi%hly4 develo$ed+ *$rofession&l+, *ethic&l+, *civic+, *n&tion&l+ &nd &4$olitic&l

conscio sness-; the role of the &%ent of e#$loit&tion ,&bility to %ive the wor'ers orders &nd s$e&' to them: *h m&n rel&tions+-, of the &%ent of re$ression ,&bility to %ive orders &nd enforce obedience *witho t disc ssion+, or &bility to m&ni$ l&te the dem&%o%y of & $olitic&l le&der+s rhetoric-, or of the $rofession&l ideolo%ist ,&bility to tre&t conscio snesses with the res$ect, i!e! with the contem$t, bl&c'm&il, &nd dem&%o%y they deserve, &d&$ted to the &ccents of Mor&lity, of 2irt e, of *(r&nscendence+, of the )&tion, of Fr&nce+s /orld Role, etc!-! Cf co rse, m&ny of these contr&stin% 2irt es ,modesty, resi%n&tion, s bmissiveness on the one h&nd, cynicism, contem$t, &rro%&nce, confidence, self4 im$ort&nce, even smooth t&l' &nd c nnin% on the other- &re &lso t& %ht in the F&mily, in the Bh rch, in the Army, in ?ood Boo's, in films &nd even in the footb&ll st&di m! B t no other "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s h&s the obli%&tory ,&nd not le&st, free- & dience of the tot&lity of the children in the c&$it&list soci&l form&tion, ei%ht ho rs & d&y for five or si# d&ys o t of seven! B t it is by &n &$$renticeshi$ in & v&riety of 'now4how wr&$$ed $ in the m&ssive inc lc&tion of the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss th&t the relations of production in & c&$it&list soci&l form&tion, i!e! the rel&tions of e#$loited to e#$loiters &nd e#$loiters to e#$loited, &re l&r%ely re$rod ced! (he mech&nisms which $rod ce this vit&l res lt for the c&$it&list re%ime &re n&t r&lly covered $ &nd conce&led by & nivers&lly rei%nin% ideolo%y of the Achool, nivers&lly rei%nin% bec& se it is one of the essenti&l forms of the r lin% bo r%eois ideolo%y: &n ideolo%y which re$resents the Achool &s & ne tr&l environment $ r%ed of ideolo%y ,bec& se it is !!!l&y-, where te&chers res$ectf l of the *conscience+ &nd *freedom+ of the children who &re entr sted to them ,in com$lete confidence- by their *$&rents+ ,who &re free, too, i!e! the owners of their children- o$en $ for them the $&th to the freedom, mor&lity &nd res$onsibility of &d lts by their own e#&m$le, by 'nowled%e, liter&t re &nd their *liber&tin%+ virt es! " &s' the $&rdon of those te&chers who, in dre&df l conditions, &ttem$t to t rn the few we&$ons they c&n find in the history &nd le&rnin% they *te&ch+ &%&inst the ideolo%y, the system &nd the $r&ctices in which they &re tr&$$ed! (hey &re & 'ind of hero! B t they &re r&re &nd how m&ny ,the m&@ority- do not even be%in to s s$ect the *wor'+ the system ,which is bi%%er th&n they &re &nd cr shes themforces them to do, or worse, $ t &ll their he&rt &nd in%en ity into $erformin% it with the most &dv&nced &w&reness ,the f&mo s new methodsH-! Ao little do they s s$ect it th&t their own devotion contrib tes to the m&inten&nce &nd no rishment of this ideolo%ic&l re$resent&tion of the Achool, which m&'es the Achool tod&y &s

*n&t r&l+, indis$ens&ble4 sef l &nd even benefici&l for o r contem$or&ries &s the Bh rch w&s *n&t r&l+, indis$ens&ble &nd %enero s for o r &ncestors & few cent ries &%o! "n f&ct, the Bh rch h&s been re$l&ced tod&y in its role as the dominant Ideolo"ical State (pparatus by the Achool! "t is co $led with the F&mily @ st &s the Bh rch w&s once co $led with the F&mily! /e c&n now cl&im th&t the n$recedentedly dee$ crisis which is now sh&'in% the ed c&tion system of so m&ny At&tes &cross the %lobe, often in con@ nction with & crisis ,&lre&dy $rocl&imed in the Communist Manifesto- sh&'in% the f&mily system, t&'es on & $olitic&l me&nin%, %iven th&t the Achool ,&nd the AchoolKF&mily co $leconstit tes the domin&nt "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, the A$$&r&t s $l&yin% & determin&nt $&rt in the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction of & mode of $rod ction thre&tened in its e#istence by the world cl&ss str %%le!

On deolo'$
/hen " $ t forw&rd the conce$t of &n "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s, when " s&id th&t the "AAs *f nction by ideolo%y+, " invo'ed & re&lity which needs & little disc ssion: ideolo%y! "t is well 'nown th&t the e#$ression *ideolo%y+ w&s invented by B&b&nis, >est tt de (r&cy &nd their friends, who &ssi%ned to it &s &n ob@ect the ,%enetictheory of ide&s! /hen M&r# too' $ the term fifty ye&rs l&ter, he %&ve it & 3 ite different me&nin%, even in his 7&rly /or's! 1ere, ideolo%y is the system of the ide&s &nd re$resent&tions which domin&te the mind of & m&n or & soci&l %ro $! (he ideolo%ico4$olitic&l str %%le cond cted by M&r# &s e&rly &s his &rticles in the 'heinische .eitun" inevit&bly &nd 3 ic'ly bro %ht him f&ce to f&ce with this re&lity &nd forced him to t&'e his e&rliest int itions f rther! 1owever, here we come $on & r&ther &stonishin% $&r&do#! 7verythin% seems to le&d M&r# to form l&te & theory of ideolo%y! "n f&ct, /he German Ideolo"y does offer s, &fter the 0122 Manuscripts, &n e#$licit theory of ideolo%y, b t !!!it is not M&r#ist ,we sh&ll see why in & moment-! As for Capital, &ltho %h it does cont&in m&ny hints tow&rds & theory of ideolo%ies ,most visibly, the ideolo%y of the v l%&r economists-, it does not cont&in th&t theory itself, which de$ends for the most $&rt on & theory of ideolo%y in %ener&l!

" sho ld li'e to vent re & first &nd very schem&tic o tline of s ch & theory! (he theses " &m &bo t to $ t forw&rd &re cert&inly not off the c ff, b t they c&nnot be s st&ined &nd tested, i!e! confirmed or re@ected, e#ce$t by m ch thoro %h st dy &nd &n&lysis! deolo'$ has no )istor$ Cne word first of &ll to e#$o nd the re&son in $rinci$le which seems to me to fo nd, or &t le&st to @ stify, the $ro@ect of & theory of ideolo%y in "eneral, &nd not & theory of $&rtic l&r ideolo%ies, which, wh&tever their form ,reli%io s, ethic&l, le%&l, $olitic&l-, &lw&ys e#$ress class positions. "t is 3 ite obvio s th&t it is necess&ry to $roceed tow&rds & theory of ideolo%ies in the two res$ects " h&ve @ st s %%ested! "t will then be cle&r th&t & theory of ideolo%ies de$ends in the l&st resort on the history of soci&l form&tions, &nd th s of the modes of $rod ction combined in soci&l form&tions, &nd of the cl&ss str %%les which develo$ in them! "n this sense it is cle&r th&t there c&n be no 3 estion of & theory of ideolo%ies in %ener&l, since ideolo%ies ,defined in the do ble res$ect s %%ested &bove: re%ion&l &nd cl&ss- h&ve & history, whose determin&tion in the l&st inst&nce is cle&rly sit &ted o tside ideolo%ies &lone, &ltho %h it involves them! Cn the contr&ry, if " &m &ble to $ t forw&rd the $ro@ect of & theory of ideolo%y in "eneral, &nd if this theory re&lly is one of the elements on which theories of ideolo%ies de$end, th&t ent&ils &n &$$&rently $&r&do#ic&l $ro$osition which " sh&ll e#$ress in the followin% terms: ideolo"y has no history. As we 'now, this form l&tion &$$e&rs in so m&ny words in & $&ss&%e from /he German Ideolo"y. M&r# tters it with res$ect to met&$hysics, which, he s&ys, h&s no more history th&n ethics ,me&nin% &lso the other forms of ideolo%y-! "n /he German Ideolo"y, this form l&tion &$$e&rs in & $l&inly $ositivist conte#t! "deolo%y is conceived &s & $ re ill sion, & $ re dre&m, i!e! &s nothin%ness! All its re&lity is e#tern&l to it! "deolo%y is th s tho %ht &s &n im&%in&ry constr ction whose st&t s is e#&ctly li'e the theoretic&l st&t s of the dre&m &mon% writers before Fre d! For these writers, the dre&m w&s the $ rely im&%in&ry, i!e! n ll, res lt of *d&y+s resid es+, $resented in &n &rbitr&ry &rr&n%ement &nd order, sometimes even *inverted+, in other words, in *disorder+! For them, the dre&m w&s the im&%in&ry, it w&s em$ty, n ll &nd &rbitr&rily *st c' to%ether+ , ricol-, once the

eyes h&d closed, from the resid es of the only f ll &nd $ositive re&lity, the re&lity of the d&y! (his is e#&ctly the st&t s of $hiloso$hy &nd ideolo%y ,since in this boo' $hiloso$hy is ideolo%y par e%cellence- in /he German Ideolo"y. "deolo%y, then, is for M&r# &n im&%in&ry &ssembl&%e , ricola"e-, & $ re dre&m, em$ty &nd v&in, constit ted by the *d&y+s resid es+ from the only f ll &nd $ositive re&lity, th&t of the concrete history of concrete m&teri&l individ &ls m&teri&lly $rod cin% their e#istence! "t is on this b&sis th&t ideolo%y h&s no history in /he German Ideolo"y, since its history is o tside it, where the only e#istin% history is, the history of concrete individ &ls, etc! "n /he German Ideolo"y, the thesis th&t ideolo%y h&s no history is therefore & $ rely ne%&tive thesis, since it me&ns both: 1! ideolo%y is nothin% insof&r &s it is & $ re dre&m ,m&n f&ct red by who 'nows wh&t $ower: if not by the &lien&tion of the division of l&bo r, b t th&t, too, is & ne"ative determin&tion-; 6! ideolo%y h&s no history, which em$h&tic&lly does not me&n th&t there is no history in it ,on the contr&ry, for it is merely the $&le, em$ty &nd inverted reflection of re&l history- b t th&t it h&s no history of its own. )ow, while the thesis " wish to defend form&lly s$e&'in% &do$ts the terms of /he German Ideolo"y ,*ideolo%y h&s no history+-, it is r&dic&lly different from the $ositivist &nd historicist thesis of /he German Ideolo"y. For on the one h&nd, " thin' it is $ossible to hold th&t ideolo%ies have a history of their own ,&ltho %h it is determined in the l&st inst&nce by the cl&ss str %%le-; &nd on the other, " thin' it is $ossible to hold th&t ideolo%y in "eneral has no history, not in & ne%&tive sense ,its history is e#tern&l to it-, b t in &n &bsol tely $ositive sense! (his sense is & $ositive one if it is tr e th&t the $ec li&rity of ideolo%y is th&t it is endowed with & str ct re &nd & f nctionin% s ch &s to m&'e it & non4historic&l re&lity, i!e! &n omni3historical re&lity, in the sense in which th&t str ct re &nd f nctionin% &re imm t&ble, $resent in the s&me form thro %ho t wh&t we c&n c&ll history, in the sense in which the Communist Manifesto defines history &s the history of cl&ss str %%les, i!e! the history of cl&ss societies! (o %ive & theoretic&l reference4$oint here, " mi%ht s&y th&t, to ret rn to o r e#&m$le of the dre&m, in its Fre di&n conce$tion this time, o r $ro$osition:

ideolo%y h&s no history, c&n &nd m st ,&nd in & w&y which h&s &bsol tely nothin% &rbitr&ry &bo t it, b t, 3 ite the reverse, is theoretic&lly necess&ry, for there is &n or%&nic lin' between the two $ro$ositions- be rel&ted directly to Fre d+s $ro$osition th&t the unconscious is eternal, i!e! th&t it h&s no history! "f etern&l me&ns, not tr&nscendent to &ll ,tem$or&l- history, b t omni$resent, tr&ns4historic&l &nd therefore imm t&ble in form thro %ho t the e#tent of history, " sh&ll &do$t Fre d+s e#$ression word for word, &nd write ideolo"y is eternal, e#&ctly li'e the nconscio s! And " &dd th&t " find this com$&rison theoretic&lly @ stified by the f&ct th&t the eternity of the nconscio s is not nrel&ted to the eternity of ideolo%y in %ener&l! (h&t is why " believe " &m @ stified, hy$othetic&lly &t le&st, in $ro$osin% & theory of ideolo%y in "eneral, in the sense th&t Fre d $resented & theory of the nconscio s in "eneral. (o sim$lify the $hr&se, it is convenient, t&'in% into &cco nt wh&t h&s been s&id &bo t ideolo%ies, to se the $l&in term ideolo%y to desi%n&te ideolo%y in %ener&l, which " h&ve @ st s&id h&s no history, or, wh&t comes to the s&me thin%, is etern&l, i!e! omni$resent in its imm t&ble form thro %ho t history ,9 the history of soci&l form&tions cont&inin% soci&l cl&sses-! For the moment " sh&ll restrict myself to *cl&ss societies+ &nd their history! deolo'$ is a *Representation+ of the !a'inar$ Relationship of ndi#iduals to their Real Conditions of %&istence "n order to &$$ro&ch my centr&l thesis on the str ct re &nd f nctionin% of ideolo%y, " sh&ll first $resent two theses, one ne%&tive, the other $ositive! (he first concerns the ob@ect which is *re$resented+ in the im&%in&ry form of ideolo%y, the second concerns the m&teri&lity of ideolo%y! Thesis , "deolo%y re$resents the im&%in&ry rel&tionshi$ of individ &ls to their re&l conditions of e#istence! /e commonly c&ll reli%io s ideolo%y, ethic&l ideolo%y, le%&l ideolo%y, $olitic&l ideolo%y, etc!, so m&ny *world o tloo's+! Cf co rse, &ss min% th&t we do not live one of these ideolo%ies &s the tr th ,e!%! *believe+ in ?od, > ty, D stice, etc!!!!-, we &dmit th&t the ideolo%y we &re disc ssin% from & critic&l $oint of view, e#&minin% it &s the ethnolo%ist e#&mines the myths of & *$rimitive society+, th&t these *world o tloo's+ &re l&r%ely im&%in&ry, i!e! do not *corres$ond to re&lity+!

1owever, while &dmittin% th&t they do not corres$ond to re&lity, i!e! th&t they constit te &n ill sion, we &dmit th&t they do m&'e &ll sion to re&lity, &nd th&t they need only be *inter$reted+ to discover the re&lity of the world behind their im&%in&ry re$resent&tion of th&t world ,ideolo%y 9 illusion4allusion-! (here &re different ty$es of inter$ret&tion, the most f&mo s of which &re the mechanistic ty$e, c rrent in the ei%hteenth cent ry ,?od is the im&%in&ry re$resent&tion of the re&l Lin%-, &nd the *hermeneutic ) inter$ret&tion, in& % r&ted by the e&rliest Bh rch F&thers, &nd revived by Fe erb&ch &nd the theolo%ico4 $hiloso$hic&l school which descends from him, e!%! the theolo%i&n B&rth ,to Fe erb&ch, for e#&m$le, ?od is the essence of re&l M&n-! (he essenti&l $oint is th&t on condition th&t we inter$ret the im&%in&ry tr&ns$osition ,&nd inversion- of ideolo%y we &rrive &t the concl sion th&t in ideolo%y *men re$resent their re&l conditions of e#istence to themselves in &n im&%in&ry form+! Jnfort n&tely, this inter$ret&tion le&ves one sm&ll $roblem nsettled: why do men *need+ this im&%in&ry tr&ns$osition of their re&l conditions of e#istence in order to *re$resent to themselves+ their re&l conditions of e#istence0 (he first &nswer ,th&t of the ei%hteenth cent ry- $ro$oses & sim$le sol tion: Priests or >es$ots &re res$onsible! (hey *for%ed+ the Be& tif l .ies so th&t, in the belief th&t they were obeyin% ?od, men wo ld in f&ct obey the Priests &nd >es$ots, who &re s &lly in &lli&nce in their im$ost re, the Priests &ctin% in the interests of the >es$ots or vice versa, &ccordin% to the $olitic&l $ositions of the *theoretici&ns+ concerned! (here is therefore & c& se for the im&%in&ry tr&ns$osition of the re&l conditions of e#istence: th&t c& se is the e#istence of & sm&ll n mber of cynic&l men who b&se their domin&tion &nd e#$loit&tion of the *$eo$le+ on & f&lsified re$resent&tion of the world which they h&ve im&%ined in order to ensl&ve other minds by domin&tin% their im&%in&tions! (he second &nswer ,th&t of Fe erb&ch, t&'en over word for word by M&r# in his 7&rly /or's- is more *$rofo nd+, i!e! @ st &s f&lse! "t, too, see's &nd finds & c& se for the im&%in&ry tr&ns$osition &nd distortion of men+s re&l conditions of e#istence, in short, for the &lien&tion in the im&%in&ry of the re$resent&tion of men+s conditions of e#istence! (his c& se is no lon%er Priests or >es$ots, nor their &ctive im&%in&tion &nd the $&ssive im&%in&tion of their victims! (his c& se is the m&teri&l &lien&tion which rei%ns in the conditions of e#istence of men themselves! (his is how, in /he 5ewish 6uestion &nd elsewhere, M&r# defends the Fe erb&chi&n ide& th&t men m&'e themselves &n &lien&ted ,9 im&%in&ry-

re$resent&tion of their conditions of e#istence bec& se these conditions of e#istence &re themselves &lien&tin% ,in the 0122 Manuscripts: bec& se these conditions &re domin&ted by the essence of &lien&ted society 5 *alienated la our+-! All these inter$ret&tions th s t&'e liter&lly the thesis which they $res $$ose, &nd on which they de$end, i!e! th&t wh&t is reflected in the im&%in&ry re$resent&tion of the world fo nd in &n ideolo%y is the conditions of e#istence of men, i!e! their re&l world! )ow " c&n ret rn to & thesis which " h&ve &lre&dy &dv&nced: it is not their re&l conditions of e#istence, their re&l world, th&t *men+ *re$resent to themselves+ in ideolo%y, b t &bove &ll it is their rel&tion to those conditions of e#istence which is re$resented to them there! "t is this rel&tion which is &t the centre of every ideolo%ic&l, i!e! im&%in&ry, re$resent&tion of the re&l world! "t is this rel&tion th&t cont&ins the *c& se+ which h&s to e#$l&in the im&%in&ry distortion of the ideolo%ic&l re$resent&tion of the re&l world! Cr r&ther, to le&ve &side the l&n% &%e of c& s&lity it is necess&ry to &dv&nce the thesis th&t it is the ima"inary nature of this relation which nderlies &ll the im&%in&ry distortion th&t we c&n observe ,if we do not live in its tr th- in &ll ideolo%y! (o s$e&' in & M&r#ist l&n% &%e, if it is tr e th&t the re$resent&tion of the re&l conditions of e#istence of the individ &ls occ $yin% the $osts of &%ents of $rod ction, e#$loit&tion, re$ression, ideolo%i8&tion &nd scientific $r&ctice, does in the l&st &n&lysis &rise from the rel&tions of $rod ction, &nd from rel&tions derivin% from the rel&tions of $rod ction, we c&n s&y the followin%: &ll ideolo%y re$resents in its necess&rily im&%in&ry distortion not the e#istin% rel&tions of $rod ction ,&nd the other rel&tions th&t derive from them-, b t &bove &ll the ,im&%in&ryrel&tionshi$ of individ &ls to the rel&tions of $rod ction &nd the rel&tions th&t derive from them! /h&t is re$resented in ideolo%y is therefore not the system of the re&l rel&tions which %overn the e#istence of individ &ls, b t the im&%in&ry rel&tion of those individ &ls to the re&l rel&tions in which they live! "f this is the c&se, the 3 estion of the *c& se+ of the im&%in&ry distortion of the re&l rel&tions in ideolo%y dis&$$e&rs &nd m st be re$l&ced by & different 3 estion: why is the re$resent&tion %iven to individ &ls of their ,individ &l- rel&tion to the soci&l rel&tions which %overn their conditions of e#istence &nd their collective &nd individ &l life necess&rily &n im&%in&ry rel&tion0 And wh&t is the n&t re of this im&%in&riness0 Posed in this w&y, the 3 estion e#$lodes the sol tion by & *cli3 e+[14], by & %ro $ of individ &ls ,Priests or >es$ots- who &re the & thors of

the %re&t ideolo%ic&l mystific&tion, @ st &s it e#$lodes the sol tion by the &lien&ted ch&r&cter of the re&l world! /e sh&ll see why l&ter in my e#$osition! For the moment " sh&ll %o no f rther! Thesis - "deolo%y h&s & m&teri&l e#istence! " h&ve &lre&dy to ched on this thesis by s&yin% th&t the *ide&s+ or *re$resent&tions+, etc!, which seem to m&'e $ ideolo%y do not h&ve &n ide&l ,idale or idelle- or s$irit &l e#istence, b t & m&teri&l e#istence! " even s %%ested th&t the ide&l ,idale, idelle- &nd s$irit &l e#istence of *ide&s+ &rises e#cl sively in &n ideolo%y of the *ide&+ &nd of ideolo%y, &nd let me &dd, in &n ideolo%y of wh&t seems to h&ve *fo nded+ this conce$tion since the emer%ence of the sciences, i!e! wh&t the $r&ctici&ns of the sciences re$resent to themselves in their s$ont&neo s ideolo%y &s *ide&s+, tr e or f&lse! Cf co rse, $resented in &ffirm&tive form, this thesis is n$roven! " sim$ly &s' th&t the re&der be f&vo r&bly dis$osed tow&rds it, s&y, in the n&me of m&teri&lism! A lon% series of &r% ments wo ld be necess&ry to $rove it! (his hy$othetic&l thesis of the not s$irit &l b t m&teri&l e#istence of *ide&s+ or other *re$resent&tions+ is indeed necess&ry if we &re to &dv&nce in o r &n&lysis of the n&t re of ideolo%y! Cr r&ther, it is merely sef l to s in order the better to reve&l wh&t every &t &ll serio s &n&lysis of &ny ideolo%y will immedi&tely &nd em$iric&lly show to every observer, however critic&l! /hile disc ssin% the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses &nd their $r&ctices, " s&id th&t e&ch of them w&s the re&li8&tion of &n ideolo%y ,the nity of these different re%ion&l ideolo%ies 5 reli%io s, ethic&l, le%&l, $olitic&l, &esthetic, etc! 5 bein% &ss red by their s b@ection to the r lin% ideolo%y-! " now ret rn to this thesis: &n ideolo%y &lw&ys e#ists in &n &$$&r&t s, &nd its $r&ctice, or $r&ctices! (his e#istence is m&teri&l! Cf co rse, the m&teri&l e#istence of the ideolo%y in &n &$$&r&t s &nd its $r&ctices does not h&ve the s&me mod&lity &s the m&teri&l e#istence of & $&vin%4 stone or & rifle! B t, &t the ris' of bein% t&'en for & )eo4Aristoteli&n ,)B M&r# h&d & very hi%h re%&rd for Aristotle-, " sh&ll s&y th&t *m&tter is disc ssed in m&ny senses+, or r&ther th&t it e#ists in different mod&lities, &ll rooted in the l&st inst&nce in *$hysic&l+ m&tter! 1&vin% s&id this, let me move str&i%ht on &nd see wh&t h&$$ens to the *individ &ls+ who live in ideolo%y, i!e! in & determin&te ,reli%io s, ethic&l, etc!-

re$resent&tion of the world whose im&%in&ry distortion de$ends on their im&%in&ry rel&tion to their conditions of e#istence, in other words, in the l&st inst&nce, to the rel&tions of $rod ction &nd to cl&ss rel&tions ,ideolo%y 9 &n im&%in&ry rel&tion to re&l rel&tions-! " sh&ll s&y th&t this im&%in&ry rel&tion is itself endowed with & m&teri&l e#istence! )ow " observe the followin%! An individ &l believes in ?od, or > ty, or D stice, etc! (his belief derives ,for everyone, i!e! for &ll those who live in &n ideolo%ic&l re$resent&tion of ideolo%y, which red ces ideolo%y to ide&s endowed by definition with & s$irit &l e#istencefrom the ide&s of the individ &l concerned, i!e! from him &s & s b@ect with & conscio sness which cont&ins the ide&s of his belief! "n this w&y, i!e! by me&ns of the &bsol tely ideolo%ic&l *conce$t &l+ device ,dispositif- th s set $ ,& s b@ect endowed with & conscio sness in which he freely forms or freely reco%ni8es ide&s in which he believes-, the ,m&teri&l- &ttit de of the s b@ect concerned n&t r&lly follows! (he individ &l in 3 estion beh&ves in s ch &nd s ch & w&y, &do$ts s ch &nd s ch & $r&ctic&l &ttit de, &nd, wh&t is more, $&rtici$&tes in cert&in re% l&r $r&ctices which &re those of the ideolo%ic&l &$$&r&t s on which *de$end+ the ide&s which he h&s in &ll conscio sness freely chosen &s & s b@ect! "f he believes in ?od, he %oes to Bh rch to &ttend M&ss, 'neels, $r&ys, confesses, does $en&nce ,once it w&s m&teri&l in the ordin&ry sense of the term- &nd n&t r&lly re$ents &nd so on! "f he believes in > ty, he will h&ve the corres$ondin% &ttit des, inscribed in rit &l $r&ctices *&ccordin% to the correct $rinci$les+! "f he believes in D stice, he will s bmit ncondition&lly to the r les of the .&w, &nd m&y even $rotest when they &re viol&ted, si%n $etitions, t&'e $&rt in & demonstr&tion, etc! (hro %ho t this schem& we observe th&t the ideolo%ic&l re$resent&tion of ideolo%y is itself forced to reco%ni8e th&t every *s b@ect+ endowed with & *conscio sness+ &nd believin% in the *ide&s+ th&t his *conscio sness+ ins$ires in him &nd freely &cce$ts, m st *act &ccordin% to his ide&s+, m st therefore inscribe his own ide&s &s & free s b@ect in the &ctions of his m&teri&l $r&ctice! "f he does not do so, *th&t is wic'ed+! "ndeed, if he does not do wh&t he o %ht to do &s & f nction of wh&t he believes, it is bec& se he does somethin% else, which, still &s & f nction of the s&me ide&list scheme, im$lies th&t he h&s other ide&s in his he&d &s well &s those he $rocl&ims,

&nd th&t he &cts &ccordin% to these other ide&s, &s & m&n who is either *inconsistent+ ,*no one is willin%ly evil+- or cynic&l, or $erverse! "n every c&se, the ideolo%y of ideolo%y th s reco%ni8es, des$ite its im&%in&ry distortion, th&t the *ide&s+ of & h m&n s b@ect e#ist in his &ctions, or o %ht to e#ist in his &ctions, &nd if th&t is not the c&se, it lends him other ide&s corres$ondin% to the &ctions ,however $erverse- th&t he does $erform! (his ideolo%y t&l's of &ctions: " sh&ll t&l' of &ctions inserted into practices. And " sh&ll $oint o t th&t these $r&ctices &re %overned by the rituals in which these $r&ctices &re inscribed, within the material e%istence of an ideolo"ical apparatus, be it only & sm&ll $&rt of th&t &$$&r&t s: & sm&ll m&ss in & sm&ll ch rch, & f ner&l, & minor m&tch &t & s$orts+ cl b, & school d&y, & $olitic&l $&rty meetin%, etc! Besides, we &re indebted to P&sc&l+s defensive *di&lectic+ for the wonderf l form l& which will en&ble s to invert the order of the notion&l schem& of ideolo%y! P&sc&l s&ys more or less: *Lneel down, move yo r li$s in $r&yer, &nd yo will believe!+ 1e th s sc&nd&lo sly inverts the order of thin%s, brin%in%, li'e Bhrist, not $e&ce b t strife, &nd in &ddition somethin% h&rdly Bhristi&n ,for woe to him who brin%s sc&nd&l into the worldH- 5 sc&nd&l itself! A fort n&te sc&nd&l which m&'es him stic' with D&nsenist defi&nce to & l&n% &%e th&t directly n&mes the re&lity! " will be &llowed to le&ve P&sc&l to the &r% ments of his ideolo%ic&l str %%le with the reli%io s "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s of his d&y! And " sh&ll be e#$ected to se & more directly M&r#ist voc&b l&ry, if th&t is $ossible, for we &re &dv&ncin% in still $oorly e#$lored dom&ins! " sh&ll therefore s&y th&t, where only & sin%le s b@ect ,s ch &nd s ch &n individ &l- is concerned, the e#istence of the ide&s of his belief is m&teri&l in th&t his ideas are his material actions inserted into material practices "overned y material rituals which are themselves defined y the material ideolo"ical apparatus from which derive the ideas of that su !ect. )&t r&lly, the fo r inscri$tions of the &d@ective *m&teri&l+ in my $ro$osition m st be &ffected by different mod&lities: the m&teri&lities of & dis$l&cement for %oin% to m&ss, of 'neelin% down, of the %est re of the si%n of the cross, or of the mea culpa, of & sentence, of & $r&yer, of &n &ct of contrition, of & $enitence, of & %&8e, of & h&nd4 sh&'e, of &n e#tern&l verb&l disco rse or &n *intern&l+ verb&l disco rse ,conscio sness-, &re not one &nd the s&me m&teri&lity! " sh&ll le&ve on one side the $roblem of & theory of the differences between the mod&lities of m&teri&lity!

"t rem&ins th&t in this inverted $resent&tion of thin%s, we &re not de&lin% with &n *inversion+ &t &ll, since it is cle&r th&t cert&in notions h&ve $ rely &nd sim$ly dis&$$e&red from o r $resent&tion, where&s others on the contr&ry s rvive, &nd new terms &$$e&r! >is&$$e&red: the term ideas. A rvive: the terms su !ect, consciousness, elief, actions. A$$e&r: the terms practices, rituals, ideolo"ical apparatus. "t is therefore not &n inversion or overt rnin% ,e#ce$t in the sense in which one mi%ht s&y & %overnment or & %l&ss is overt rned-, b t & resh ffle ,of & non4 ministeri&l ty$e-, & r&ther str&n%e resh ffle, since we obt&in the followin% res lt! "de&s h&ve dis&$$e&red &s s ch ,insof&r &s they &re endowed with &n ide&l or s$irit &l e#istence-, to the $recise e#tent th&t it h&s emer%ed th&t their e#istence is inscribed in the &ctions of $r&ctices %overned by rit &ls defined in the l&st inst&nce by &n ideolo%ic&l &$$&r&t s! "t therefore &$$e&rs th&t the s b@ect &cts insof&r &s he is &cted by the followin% system ,set o t in the order of its re&l determin&tion-: ideolo%y e#istin% in & m&teri&l ideolo%ic&l &$$&r&t s, $rescribin% m&teri&l $r&ctices %overned by & m&teri&l rit &l, which $r&ctices e#ist in the m&teri&l &ctions of & s b@ect &ctin% in &ll conscio sness &ccordin% to his belief! B t this very $resent&tion reve&ls th&t we h&ve ret&ined the followin% notions: s b@ect, conscio sness, belief, &ctions! From this series " sh&ll immedi&tely e#tr&ct the decisive centr&l term on which everythin% else de$ends: the notion of the su !ect. And " sh&ll immedi&tely set down two con@oint theses: 1! there is no $r&ctice e#ce$t by &nd in &n ideolo%y; 6! there is no ideolo%y e#ce$t by the s b@ect &nd for s b@ects! " c&n now come to my centr&l thesis! deolo'$ nterpellates ndi#iduals as Sub.ects (his thesis is sim$ly & m&tter of m&'in% my l&st $ro$osition e#$licit: there is no ideolo%y e#ce$t by the s b@ect &nd for s b@ects! Me&nin%, there is no ideolo%y

e#ce$t for concrete s b@ects, &nd this destin&tion for ideolo%y is only m&de $ossible by the s b@ect: me&nin%, f nctionin%! By this " me&n th&t, even if it only &$$e&rs nder this n&me ,the s b@ect- with the rise of bo r%eois ideolo%y, &bove &ll with the rise of le%&l ideolo%y,[15] the c&te%ory of the s b@ect ,which m&y f nction nder other n&mes: e!%!, &s the so l in Pl&to, &s ?od, etc!- is the constit tive c&te%ory of &ll ideolo%y, wh&tever its determin&tion ,re%ion&l or cl&ss- &nd wh&tever its historic&l d&te 5 since ideolo%y h&s no history! " s&y: the c&te%ory of the s b@ect is constit tive of &ll ideolo%y, b t &t the s&me time &nd immedi&tely " &dd th&t the cate"ory of the su !ect is only constitutive of all ideolo"y insofar as all ideolo"y has the function ,which defines it- of *constitutin" ) concrete individuals as su !ects. "n the inter&ction of this do ble constit tion e#ists the f nctionin% of &ll ideolo%y, ideolo%y bein% nothin% b t its f nctionin% in the m&teri&l forms of e#istence of th&t f nctionin%! "n order to %r&s$ wh&t follows, it is essenti&l to re&li8e th&t both he who is writin% these lines &nd the re&der who re&ds them &re themselves s b@ects, &nd therefore ideolo%ic&l s b@ects ,& t& tolo%ic&l $ro$osition-, i!e! th&t the & thor &nd the re&der of these lines both live *s$ont&neo sly+ or *n&t r&lly+ in ideolo%y in the sense in which " h&ve s&id th&t *m&n is &n ideolo%ic&l &nim&l by n&t re+! (h&t the & thor, insof&r &s he writes the lines of & disco rse which cl&ims to be scientific, is com$letely &bsent &s & *s b@ect+ from *his+ scientific disco rse ,for &ll scientific disco rse is by definition & s b@ect4less disco rse, there is no *A b@ect of science+ e#ce$t in &n ideolo%y of science- is & different 3 estion which " sh&ll le&ve on one side for the moment! As At P& l &dmir&bly $ t it, it is in the *.o%os+, me&nin% in ideolo%y, th&t we *live, move &nd h&ve o r bein%+! "t follows th&t, for yo &nd for me, the c&te%ory of the s b@ect is & $rim&ry *obvio sness+ ,obvio snesses &re &lw&ys $rim&ry-: it is cle&r th&t yo &nd " &re s b@ects ,free, ethic&l, etc!!!!-! .i'e &ll obvio snesses, incl din% those th&t m&'e & word *n&me & thin%+ or *h&ve & me&nin%+ ,therefore incl din% the obvio sness of the *tr&ns$&rency+ of l&n% &%e-, the *obvio sness+ th&t yo &nd " &re s b@ects 5 &nd th&t th&t does not c& se &ny $roblems 5 is &n ideolo%ic&l effect, the element&ry ideolo%ic&l effect![16] "t is indeed & $ec li&rity of ideolo%y th&t it im$oses ,witho t &$$e&rin% to do so, since these &re y the cate"ory of the su !ect &nd its

*obvio snesses+- obvio snesses &s obvio snesses, which we c&nnot fail to reco"ni7e &nd before which we h&ve the inevit&ble &nd n&t r&l re&ction of cryin% o t ,&lo d or in the *still, sm&ll voice of conscience+-: *(h&t+s obvio sH (h&t+s ri%htH (h&t+s tr eH+ At wor' in this re&ction is the ideolo%ic&l reco"nition f nction which is one of the two f nctions of ideolo%y &s s ch ,its inverse bein% the f nction of misreco"nition 5 mconnaissance-! (o t&'e & hi%hly *concrete+ e#&m$le, we &ll h&ve friends who, when they 'noc' on o r door &nd we &s', thro %h the door, the 3 estion */ho+s there0+, &nswer ,since *it+s obvio s+- *"t+s me+! And we reco%ni8e th&t *it is him+, or *her+! /e o$en the door, &nd *it+s tr e, it re&lly w&s she who w&s there+! (o t&'e &nother e#&m$le, when we reco%ni8e somebody of o r ,$revio s- &c3 &int&nce ,8re94connaissancein the street, we show him th&t we h&ve reco%ni8ed him ,&nd h&ve reco%ni8ed th&t he h&s reco%ni8ed s- by s&yin% to him *1ello, my friend+, &nd sh&'in% his h&nd ,& m&teri&l rit &l $r&ctice of ideolo%ic&l reco%nition in everyd&y life 5 in Fr&nce, &t le&st; elsewhere, there &re other rit &ls-! "n this $relimin&ry rem&r' &nd these concrete ill str&tions, " only wish to $oint o t th&t yo &nd " &re always already s b@ects, &nd &s s ch const&ntly $r&ctice the rit &ls of ideolo%ic&l reco%nition, which % &r&ntee for s th&t we &re indeed concrete, individ &l, distin% ish&ble &nd ,n&t r&lly- irre$l&ce&ble s b@ects! (he writin% " &m c rrently e#ec tin% &nd the re&din% yo &re c rrently[17] $erformin% &re &lso in this res$ect rit &ls of ideolo%ic&l reco%nition, incl din% the *obvio sness+ with which the *tr th+ or *error+ of my reflections m&y im$ose itself on yo ! B t to reco%ni8e th&t we &re s b@ects &nd th&t we f nction in the $r&ctic&l rit &ls of the most element&ry everyd&y life ,the h&nd4sh&'e, the f&ct of c&llin% yo by yo r n&me, the f&ct of 'nowin%, even if " do not 'now wh&t it is, th&t yo *h&ve+ & n&me of yo r own, which me&ns th&t yo &re reco%ni8ed &s & ni3 e s b@ect, etc!5 this reco%nition only %ives s the *conscio sness+ of o r incess&nt ,etern&l$r&ctice of ideolo%ic&l reco%nition 5 its conscio sness, i!e! its reco"nition 5 b t in no sense does it %ive s the ,scientific- $nowled"e of the mech&nism of this reco%nition! )ow it is this 'nowled%e th&t we h&ve to re&ch, if yo will, while s$e&'in% in ideolo%y, &nd from within ideolo%y we h&ve to o tline & disco rse which tries to bre&' with ideolo%y, in order to d&re to be the be%innin% of & scientific ,i!e! s b@ect4less- disco rse on ideolo%y!

(h s in order to re$resent why the c&te%ory of the *s b@ect+ is constit tive of ideolo%y, which only e#ists by constit tin% concrete s b@ects &s s b@ects, " sh&ll em$loy & s$eci&l mode of e#$osition: *concrete+ eno %h to be reco%ni8ed, b t &bstr&ct eno %h to be thin'&ble &nd tho %ht, %ivin% rise to & 'nowled%e! As & first form l&tion " sh&ll s&y: all ideolo"y hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete su !ects, by the f nctionin% of the c&te%ory of the s b@ect! (his is & $ro$osition which ent&ils th&t we distin% ish for the moment between concrete individ &ls on the one h&nd &nd concrete s b@ects on the other, &ltho %h &t this level concrete s b@ects only e#ist insof&r &s they &re s $$orted by & concrete individ &l! " sh&ll then s %%est th&t ideolo%y *&cts+ or *f nctions+ in s ch & w&y th&t it *recr its+ s b@ects &mon% the individ &ls ,it recr its them &ll-, or *tr&nsforms+ the individ &ls into s b@ects ,it tr&nsforms them &ll- by th&t very $recise o$er&tion which " h&ve c&lled interpellation or h&ilin%, &nd which c&n be im&%ined &lon% the lines of the most common$l&ce everyd&y $olice ,or other- h&ilin%: *1ey, yo thereH+[18] Ass min% th&t the theoretic&l scene " h&ve im&%ined t&'es $l&ce in the street, the h&iled individ &l will t rn ro nd! By this mere one4h ndred4&nd4ei%hty4de%ree $hysic&l conversion, he becomes & su !ect. /hy0 Bec& se he h&s reco%ni8ed th&t the h&il w&s *re&lly+ &ddressed to him, &nd th&t *it w&s really him who w&s h&iled+ ,&nd not someone else-! 7#$erience shows th&t the $r&ctic&l telecomm nic&tion of h&ilin%s is s ch th&t they h&rdly ever miss their m&n: verb&l c&ll or whistle, the one h&iled &lw&ys reco%ni8es th&t it is re&lly him who is bein% h&iled! And yet it is & str&n%e $henomenon, &nd one which c&nnot be e#$l&ined solely by *% ilt feelin%s+, des$ite the l&r%e n mbers who *h&ve somethin% on their consciences+! )&t r&lly for the convenience &nd cl&rity of my little theoretic&l the&tre " h&ve h&d to $resent thin%s in the form of & se3 ence, with & before &nd &n &fter, &nd th s in the form of & tem$or&l s ccession! (here &re individ &ls w&l'in% &lon%! Aomewhere , s &lly behind them- the h&il rin%s o t: *1ey, yo thereH+ Cne individ &l ,nine times o t often it is the ri%ht one- t rns ro nd, believin%Ks s$ectin%K'nowin% th&t it is for him, i!e! reco%ni8in% th&t *it re&lly is he+ who is me&nt by the h&ilin%! B t in re&lity these thin%s h&$$en witho t &ny s ccession! (he e#istence of ideolo%y &nd the h&ilin% or inter$ell&tion of individ &ls &s s b@ects &re one &nd the s&me thin%!

" mi%ht &dd: wh&t th s seems to t&'e $l&ce o tside ideolo%y ,to be $recise, in the street-, in re&lity t&'es $l&ce in ideolo%y! /h&t re&lly t&'es $l&ce in ideolo%y seems therefore to t&'e $l&ce o tside it! (h&t is why those who &re in ideolo%y believe themselves by definition o tside ideolo%y: one of the effects of ideolo%y is the $r&ctic&l dene"ation of the ideolo%ic&l ch&r&cter of ideolo%y by ideolo%y: ideolo%y never s&ys, *" &m ideolo%ic&l+! "t is necess&ry to be o tside ideolo%y, i!e! in scientific 'nowled%e, to be &ble to s&y: " &m in ideolo%y ,& 3 ite e#ce$tion&l c&se- or ,the %ener&l c&se-: " w&s in ideolo%y! As is well 'nown, the &cc s&tion of bein% in ideolo%y only &$$lies to others, never to oneself , nless one is re&lly & A$ino8ist or & M&r#ist, which, in this m&tter, is to be e#&ctly the s&me thin%-! /hich &mo nts to s&yin% th&t ideolo%y has no outside ,for itself-, b t &t the s&me time that it is nothin" ut outside ,for science &nd re&lity-! A$ino8& e#$l&ined this com$letely two cent ries before M&r#, who $r&ctised it b t witho t e#$l&inin% it in det&il! B t let s le&ve this $oint, &ltho %h it is he&vy with conse3 ences, conse3 ences which &re not @ st theoretic&l, b t &lso directly $olitic&l, since, for e#&m$le, the whole theory of criticism &nd self4criticism, the %olden r le of the M&r#ist4.eninist $r&ctice of the cl&ss str %%le, de$ends on it! (h s ideolo%y h&ils or inter$ell&tes individ &ls &s s b@ects! As ideolo%y is etern&l, " m st now s $$ress the tem$or&l form in which " h&ve $resented the f nctionin% of ideolo%y, &nd s&y: ideolo%y h&s &lw&ys4&lre&dy inter$ell&ted individ &ls &s s b@ects, which &mo nts to m&'in% it cle&r th&t individ &ls &re &lw&ys4&lre&dy inter$ell&ted by ideolo%y &s s b@ects, which necess&rily le&ds s to one l&st $ro$osition: individuals are always3already su !ects. 1ence individ &ls &re *&bstr&ct+ with res$ect to the s b@ects which they &lw&ys &lre&dy &re! (his $ro$osition mi%ht seem $&r&do#ic&l! (h&t &n individ &l is &lw&ys4&lre&dy & s b@ect, even before he is born, is nevertheless the $l&in re&lity, &ccessible to everyone &nd not & $&r&do# &t &ll! Fre d shows th&t individ &ls &re &lw&ys *&bstr&ct+ with res$ect to the s b@ects they &lw&ys4&lre&dy &re, sim$ly by notin% the ideolo%ic&l rit &l th&t s rro nds the e#$ect&tion of & *birth+, th&t *h&$$y event+! 7veryone 'nows how m ch &nd in wh&t w&y &n nborn child is e#$ected! /hich &mo nts to s&yin%, very $ros&ic&lly, if we &%ree to dro$ the *sentiments+, i!e! the forms of f&mily ideolo%y ,$&tern&lKm&tern&l con@ %&lKfr&tern&l- in which the nborn child is e#$ected: it is cert&in in &dv&nce th&t it will be&r its F&ther+s )&me, &nd will therefore h&ve &n identity &nd be irre$l&ce&ble! Before its birth, the child is therefore &lw&ys4&lre&dy & s b@ect, &$$ointed &s & s b@ect in &nd by the s$ecific f&mili&l ideolo%ic&l

confi% r&tion in which it is *e#$ected+ once it h&s been conceived! " h&rdly need &dd th&t this f&mili&l ideolo%ic&l confi% r&tion is, in its ni3 eness, hi%hly str ct red, &nd th&t it is in this im$l&c&ble &nd more or less *$&tholo%ic&l+ ,$res $$osin% th&t &ny me&nin% c&n be &ssi%ned to th&t term- str ct re th&t the former s b@ect to4be will h&ve to *find+ *its+ $l&ce, i!e! *become+ the se# &l s b@ect ,boy or %irl- which it &lre&dy is in &dv&nce! "t is cle&r th&t this ideolo%ic&l constr&int &nd $re4&$$ointment, &nd &ll the rit &ls of re&rin% &nd then ed c&tion in the f&mily, h&ve some rel&tionshi$ with wh&t Fre d st died in the forms of the $re4%enit&l &nd %enit&l *st&%es+ of se# &lity, i!e! in the *%ri$+ of wh&t Fre d re%istered by its effects &s bein% the nconscio s! B t let s le&ve this $oint, too, on one side! .et me %o one ste$ f rther! /h&t " sh&ll now t rn my &ttention to is the w&y the *&ctors+ in this mise en sc:ne Msettin%N of inter$ell&tion, &nd their res$ective roles, &re reflected in the very str ct re of &ll ideolo%y! (n %&a!ple- The Christian Reli'ious deolo'$ As the form&l str ct re of &ll ideolo%y is &lw&ys the s&me, " sh&ll restrict my &n&lysis to & sin%le e#&m$le, one &ccessible to everyone, th&t of reli%io s ideolo%y, with the $roviso th&t the s&me demonstr&tion c&n be $rod ced for ethic&l, le%&l, $olitic&l, &esthetic ideolo%y, etc! .et s therefore consider the Bhristi&n reli%io s ideolo%y! " sh&ll se & rhetoric&l fi% re &nd *m&'e it s$e&'+, i!e! collect into & fiction&l disco rse wh&t it *s&ys+ not only in its two (est&ments, its (heolo%i&ns, Aermons, b t &lso in its $r&ctices, its rit &ls, its ceremonies &nd its s&cr&ments! (he Bhristi&n reli%io s ideolo%y s&ys somethin% li'e this: "t s&ys: " &ddress myself to yo , & h m&n individ &l c&lled Peter ,every individ &l is c&lled by his n&me, in the $&ssive sense, it is never he who $rovides his own n&me-, in order to tell yo th&t ?od e#ists &nd th&t yo &re &nswer &ble to 1im! "t &dds: ?od &ddresses himself to yo thro %h my voice ,Acri$t re h&vin% collected the /ord of ?od, (r&dition h&vin% tr&nsmitted it, P&$&l "nf&llibility fi#in% it for ever on *nice+ $oints-! "t s&ys: this is who yo &re: yo &re PeterH (his is yo r ori%in, yo were cre&ted by ?od for &ll eternity, &ltho %h yo were born in the 1960th ye&r of C r .ordH (his is yo r $l&ce in the worldH (his is wh&t yo m st doH By these me&ns, if yo observe the *l&w of love+ yo will be s&ved, yo , Peter, &nd will become $&rt of the ?lorio s Body of BhristH 7tc!!!!

)ow this is 3 ite & f&mili&r &nd b&n&l disco rse, b t &t the s&me time 3 ite & s r$risin% one! A r$risin% bec& se if we consider th&t reli%io s ideolo%y is indeed &ddressed to individ &ls,[19] in order to *tr&nsform them into s b@ects+, by inter$ell&tin% the individ &l, Peter, in order to m&'e him & s b@ect, free to obey or disobey the &$$e&l, i!e! ?od+s comm&ndments; if it c&lls these individ &ls by their n&mes, th s reco%ni8in% th&t they &re &lw&ys4&lre&dy inter$ell&ted &s s b@ects with & $erson&l identity ,to the e#tent th&t P&sc&l+s Bhrist s&ys: *"t is for yo th&t " h&ve shed this dro$ of my bloodH+-; if it inter$ell&tes them in s ch & w&y th&t the s b@ect res$onds: *;es, it really is me<+ if it obt&ins from them the reco"nition th&t they re&lly do occ $y the $l&ce it desi%n&tes for them &s theirs in the world, & fi#ed residence: *"t re&lly is me, " &m here, & wor'er, & boss or & soldierH+ in this v&le of te&rs; if it obt&ins from them the reco%nition of & destin&tion ,etern&l life or d&mn&tion- &ccordin% to the res$ect or contem$t they show to *?od+s Bomm&ndments+, .&w become .ove; 5 if everythin% does h&$$en in this w&y ,in the $r&ctices of the well4'nown rit &ls of b&$tism, confirm&tion, comm nion, confession &nd e#treme nction, etc! !!!-, we sho ld note th&t &ll this *$roced re+ to set $ Bhristi&n reli%io s s b@ects is domin&ted by & str&n%e $henomenon: the f&ct th&t there c&n only be s ch & m ltit de of $ossible reli%io s s b@ects on the &bsol te condition th&t there is & Jni3 e, Absol te, Other Su !ect, i!e! ?od! "t is convenient to desi%n&te this new &nd rem&r'&ble A b@ect by writin% A b@ect with & c&$it&l A to distin% ish it from ordin&ry s b@ects, with & sm&ll s! "t then emer%es th&t the inter$ell&tion of individ &ls &s s b@ects $res $$oses the *e#istence+ of & Jni3 e &nd centr&l Cther A b@ect, in whose )&me the reli%io s ideolo%y inter$ell&tes &ll individ &ls &s s b@ects! All this is cle&rly[20] written in wh&t is ri%htly c&lled the Acri$t res! *And it c&me to $&ss &t th&t time th&t ?od the .ord ,<&hweh- s$o'e to Moses in the clo d! And the .ord cried to Moses, OMosesHP And Moses re$lied O"t is ,re&lly- "H " &m Moses thy serv&nt, s$e&' &nd " sh&ll listenHP And the .ord s$o'e to Moses &nd s&id to him, OI am that I amQ+! ?od th s defines himself &s the A b@ect par e%cellence, he who is thro %h himself &nd for himself ,*" &m th&t " &m+-, &nd he who inter$ell&tes his s b@ect, the individ &l s b@ected to him by his very inter$ell&tion, i!e! the individ &l n&med Moses! And Moses, inter$ell&ted4c&lled by his )&me, h&vin% reco%ni8ed th&t it *re&lly+ w&s he who w&s c&lled by ?od, reco%ni8es th&t he is & s b@ect, & s b@ect of ?od, & s b@ect s b@ected to ?od, a su !ect throu"h the Su !ect and su !ected to

the Su !ect. (he $roof: he obeys him, &nd m&'es his $eo$le obey ?od+s Bomm&ndments! ?od is th s the A b@ect, &nd Moses &nd the inn mer&ble s b@ects of ?od+s $eo$le, the A b@ect+s interloc tors4inter$ell&tes: his mirrors, his reflections. /ere not men m&de in the ima"e of ?od0 As &ll theolo%ic&l reflection $roves, where&s 1e *co ld+ $erfectly well h&ve done witho t men, ?od needs them, the A b@ect needs the s b@ects, @ st &s men need ?od, the s b@ects need the A b@ect! Better: ?od needs men, the %re&t A b@ect needs s b@ects, even in the terrible inversion of his im&%e in them ,when the s b@ects w&llow in deb& chery, i!e! sin-! Better: ?od d $lic&tes himself &nd sends his Aon to the 7&rth, &s & mere s b@ect *fors&'en+ by him ,the lon% com$l&int of the ?&rden of Clives which ends in the Br cifi#ion-, s b@ect b t A b@ect, m&n b t ?od, to do wh&t $re$&res the w&y for the fin&l Redem$tion, the Res rrection of Bhrist! ?od th s needs to *m&'e himself+ & m&n, the A b@ect needs to become & s b@ect, &s if to show em$iric&lly, visibly to the eye, t&n%ibly to the h&nds ,see At! (hom&s- of the s b@ects, th&t, if they &re s b@ects, s b@ected to the A b@ect, th&t is solely in order th&t fin&lly, on D d%ement >&y, they will re4enter the .ord+s Bosom, li'e Bhrist, i!e! re4enter the A b@ect![21] .et Su !ect. /e observe th&t the str ct re of &ll ideolo%y, inter$ell&tin% individ &ls &s s b@ects in the n&me of & Jni3 e &nd Absol te A b@ect is speculary, i!e! & mirror4 str ct re, &nd dou ly s$ec l&ry: this mirror d $lic&tion is constit tive of ideolo%y &nd ens res its f nctionin%! /hich me&ns th&t &ll ideolo%y is centred, th&t the Absol te A b@ect occ $ies the ni3 e $l&ce of the Bentre, &nd inter$ell&tes &ro nd it the infinity of individ &ls into s b@ects in & do ble mirror4conne#ion s ch th&t it su !ects the s b@ects to the A b@ect, while %ivin% them in the A b@ect in which e&ch s b@ect c&n contem$l&te its own im&%e ,$resent &nd f t re- the "uarantee th&t this re&lly concerns them &nd 1im, &nd th&t since everythin% t&'es $l&ce in the F&mily ,the 1oly F&mily: the F&mily is in essence 1oly-, *?od will reco"ni7e his own in it+, i!e! those who h&ve reco%ni8ed ?od, &nd h&ve reco%ni8ed themselves in 1im, will be s&ved! .et me s mm&ri8e wh&t we h&ve discovered &bo t ideolo%y in %ener&l! s deci$her into theoretic&l l&n% &%e this wonderf l necessity for the

d $lic&tion of the Su !ect into su !ects &nd of the Su !ect itself into a su !ect3

(he d $lic&te mirror4str ct re of ideolo%y ens res sim lt&neo sly: 1! the inter$ell&tion of *individ &ls+ &s s b@ects; 6! their s b@ection to the A b@ect; I! the m t &l reco%nition of s b@ects &nd A b@ect, the s b@ects+ reco%nition of e&ch other, &nd fin&lly the s b@ect+s reco%nition of himself;[22] F! the &bsol te % &r&ntee th&t everythin% re&lly is so, &nd th&t on condition th&t the s b@ects reco%ni8e wh&t they &re &nd beh&ve &ccordin%ly, everythin% will be &ll ri%ht: Amen 5 *So e it+! Res lt: c& %ht in this 3 &dr $le system of inter$ell&tion &s s b@ects, of s b@ection to the A b@ect, of nivers&l reco%nition &nd of &bsol te % &r&ntee, the s b@ects *wor'+, they *wor' by themselves+ in the v&st m&@ority of c&ses, with the e#ce$tion of the *b&d s b@ects+ who on occ&sion $rovo'e the intervention of one of the det&chments of the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s! B t the v&st m&@ority of ,%ood- s b@ects wor' &ll ri%ht *&ll by themselves+, i!e! by ideolo%y ,whose concrete forms &re re&li8ed in the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t ses-! (hey &re inserted into $r&ctices %overned by the rit &ls of the "AAs! (hey *reco%ni8e+ the e#istin% st&te of &ff&irs ,das &estehende-, th&t *it re&lly is tr e th&t it is so &nd not otherwise+, &nd th&t they m st be obedient to ?od, to their conscience, to the $riest, to de ?& lle, to the boss, to the en%ineer, th&t tho sh&lt *love thy nei%hbo r &s thyself+, etc! (heir concrete, m&teri&l beh&vio r is sim$ly the inscri$tion in life of the &dmir&ble words of the $r&yer: *(men = So e it+! <es, the s b@ects *wor' by themselves+! (he whole mystery of this effect lies in the first two moments of the 3 &dr $le system " h&ve @ st disc ssed, or, if yo $refer, in the &mbi% ity of the term su !ect. "n the ordin&ry se of the term, s b@ect in f&ct me&ns: ,1- & free s b@ectivity, & centre of initi&tives, & thor of &nd res$onsible for its &ctions; ,6- & s b@ected bein%, who s bmits to & hi%her & thority, &nd is therefore stri$$ed of &ll freedom e#ce$t th&t of freely &cce$tin% his s bmission! (his l&st note %ives s the me&nin% of this &mbi% ity, which is merely & reflection of the effect which $rod ces it: the individ &l is interpellated as a ,free9 su !ect in order that he shall su mit freely to the commandments of the Su !ect, i.e. in order that he shall ,freely9 accept his su !ection, i!e! in order th&t he sh&ll m&'e the %est res &nd &ctions of his s b@ection *&ll by himself+! /here are

no su !ects e%cept y and for their su !ection. (h&t is why they *wor' &ll by themselves+! *So e it< ...+ (his $hr&se which re%isters the effect to be obt&ined $roves th&t it is not *n&t r&lly+ so ,*n&t r&lly+: o tside the $r&yer, i!e! o tside the ideolo%ic&l intervention-! (his $hr&se $roves th&t it has to be so if thin%s &re to be wh&t they m st be, &nd let s let the words sli$: if the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction is to be &ss red, even in the $rocesses of $rod ction &nd circ l&tion, every d&y, in the *conscio sness+, i!e! in the &ttit des of the individ &l4s b@ects occ $yin% the $osts which the socio4technic&l division of l&bo r &ssi%ns to them in $rod ction, e#$loit&tion, re$ression, ideolo%i8&tion, scientific $r&ctice, etc! "ndeed, wh&t is re&lly in 3 estion in this mech&nism of the mirror reco%nition of the A b@ect &nd of the individ &ls inter$ell&ted &s s b@ects, &nd of the % &r&ntee %iven by the A b@ect to the s b@ects if they freely &cce$t their s b@ection to the A b@ect+s *comm&ndments+0 (he re&lity in 3 estion in this mech&nism, the re&lity which is necess&rily i"nored ,mconnue- in the very forms of reco%nition ,ideolo%y 9 misreco%nitionKi%nor&nce- is indeed, in the l&st resort, the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction &nd of the rel&tions derivin% from them! D&n &ry4A$ril 19R9 P.S. "f these few schem&tic theses &llow me to ill min&te cert&in &s$ects of the f nctionin% of the A $erstr ct re &nd its mode of intervention in the "nfr&str ct re, they &re obvio sly a stract &nd necess&rily le&ve sever&l im$ort&nt $roblems n&nswered, which sho ld be mentioned: 1. (he $roblem of the total process of the re&li8&tion of the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction! As &n element of this $rocess, the "AAs contri ute to this re$rod ction! B t the $oint of view of their contrib tion &lone is still &n &bstr&ct one! "t is only within the $rocesses of $rod ction &nd circ l&tion th&t this re$rod ction is reali7ed. "t is re&li8ed by the mech&nisms of those $rocesses, in which the tr&inin% of the wor'ers is *com$leted+, their $osts &ssi%ned them, etc! "t is in the intern&l mech&nisms of these $rocesses th&t the effect of the different ideolo%ies is felt ,&bove &ll the effect of le%&l4ethic&l ideolo%y-!

B t this $oint of view is still &n &bstr&ct one! For in & cl&ss society the rel&tions of $rod ction &re rel&tions of e#$loit&tion, &nd therefore rel&tions between &nt&%onistic cl&sses! (he re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction, the ltim&te &im of the r lin% cl&ss, c&nnot therefore be & merely technic&l o$er&tion tr&inin% &nd distrib tin% individ &ls for the different $osts in the *technic&l division+ of l&bo r! "n f&ct there is no *technic&l division+ of l&bo r e#ce$t in the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss: every *technic&l+ division, every *technic&l+ or%&ni8&tion of l&bo r is the form &nd m&s' of & social ,9 cl&ss- division &nd or%&ni8&tion of l&bo r! (he re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction c&n therefore only be & cl&ss ndert&'in%! "t is re&li8ed thro %h & cl&ss str %%le which co nter$oses the r lin% cl&ss &nd the e#$loited cl&ss! (he total process of the re&li8&tion of the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction is therefore still &bstr&ct, insof&r &s it h&s not &do$ted the $oint of view of this cl&ss str %%le! (o &do$t the $oint of view of re$rod ction is therefore in the l&st inst&nce, to &do$t the $oint of view of the cl&ss str %%le! . (he $roblem of the cl&ss n&t re of the ideolo%ies e#istin% in & soci&l form&tion! (he *mech&nism+ of ideolo%y in "eneral is one thin%! /e h&ve seen th&t it c&n be red ced to & few $rinci$les e#$ressed in & few words ,&s *$oor+ &s those which, &ccordin% to M&r#, define $rod ction in "eneral, or in Fre d, define the nconscio s in "eneral-! "f there is &ny tr th in it, this mech&nism m st be a stract with res$ect to every re&l ideolo%ic&l form&tion! " h&ve s %%ested th&t the ideolo%ies were reali7ed in instit tions, in their rit &ls &nd their $r&ctices, in the "AAs! /e h&ve seen th&t on this b&sis they contrib te to th&t form of cl&ss str %%le, vit&l for the r lin% cl&ss, the re$rod ction of the rel&tions of $rod ction! B t the $oint of view itself however re&l, is still &n &bstr&ct one! "n f&ct, the At&te &nd its A$$&r&t ses only h&ve me&nin% from the $oint of view of the cl&ss str %%le, &s &n &$$&r&t s of cl&ss str %%le ens rin% cl&ss o$$ression &nd % &r&nteein% the conditions of e#$loit&tion &nd its re$rod ction! B t there is no cl&ss str %%le witho t &nt&%onistic cl&sses! /hoever s&ys cl&ss str %%le of the r lin% cl&ss s&ys resist&nce, revolt &nd cl&ss str %%le of the r led cl&ss! (h&t is why the "AAs &re not the re&li8&tion of ideolo%y in "eneral, nor even the conflict4free re&li8&tion of the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss! (he ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss does not become the r lin% ideolo%y by the %r&ce of ?od, nor even by

virt e of the sei8 re of At&te $ower &lone! "t is by the inst&ll&tion of the "AAs in which this ideolo%y is re&li8ed &nd re&li8es itself th&t it becomes the r lin% ideolo%y! B t this inst&ll&tion is not &chieved &ll by itself; on the contr&ry, it is the st&'e in & very bitter &nd contin o s cl&ss str %%le: first &%&inst the former r lin% cl&sses &nd their $ositions in the old &nd new "AAs, then &%&inst the e#$loited cl&ss! B t this $oint of view of the cl&ss str %%le in the "AAs is still &n &bstr&ct one! "n f&ct, the cl&ss str %%le in the "AAs is indeed &n &s$ect of the cl&ss str %%le, sometimes &n im$ort&nt &nd sym$tom&tic one: e!%! the &nti4reli%io s str %%le in the ei%hteenth cent ry, or the *crisis+ of the ed c&tion&l "AA in every c&$it&list co ntry tod&y! B t the cl&ss str %%les in the "AAs is only one &s$ect of & cl&ss str %%le which %oes beyond the "AAs! (he ideolo%y th&t & cl&ss in $ower m&'es the r lin% ideolo%y in its "AAs is indeed *re&li8ed+ in those "AAs, b t it %oes beyond them, for it comes from elsewhere! Aimil&rly, the ideolo%y th&t & r led cl&ss m&n&%es to defend in &nd &%&inst s ch "AAs %oes beyond them, for it comes from elsewhere! "t is only from the $oint of view of the cl&sses, i!e! of the cl&ss str %%le, th&t it is $ossible to e#$l&in the ideolo%ies e#istin% in & soci&l form&tion! )ot only is it from this st&rtin%4$oint th&t it is $ossible to e#$l&in the re&li8&tion of the r lin% ideolo%y in the "AAs &nd of the forms of cl&ss str %%le for which the "AAs &re the se&t &nd the st&'e! B t it is &lso &nd &bove &ll from this st&rtin%4$oint th&t it is $ossible to nderst&nd the $roven&nce of the ideolo%ies which &re re&li8ed in the "AAs &nd confront one &nother there! For if it is tr e th&t the "AAs re$resent the form in which the ideolo%y of the r lin% cl&ss m st necessarily be re&li8ed, &nd the form in which the ideolo%y of the r led cl&ss m st necessarily be me&s red &nd confronted, ideolo%ies &re not *born+ in the "AAs b t from the soci&l cl&sses &t %ri$s in the cl&ss str %%le: from their conditions of e#istence, their $r&ctices, their e#$erience of the str %%le, etc! A$ril 1970

Notes
1, (his te#t is m&de $ of two e#tr&cts from &n on%oin% st dy! (he s b4title *)otes tow&rds &n "nvesti%&tion+ is the & thor+s own! (he ide&s e#$o nded sho ld not be re%&rded &s more th&n the introd ction to & disc ssion!

/, M&r# to L %elm&nn, 11 D ly 1ERE, Aelected Borres$ondence, Moscow, 19GG, $! 609! 0, M&r# %&ve it its scientific conce$t: varia le capital. 1, "n +or Mar% &nd 'eadin" Capital, 19RG ,7n%lish editions 19R9 &nd 1970 res$ectively-! 2, /opo"raphy from the ?ree' topos> $l&ce! A to$o%r&$hy re$resents in & definite s$&ce the res$ective sites occ $ied by sever&l re&lities: th s the economic is at the ottom ,the b&se-, the s $erstr ct re a ove it. 3, Aee $! 1GE below, On Ideolo"y. 4, (o my 'nowled%e, ?r&msci is the only one who went &ny dist&nce in the ro&d " &m t&'in%! 1e h&d the *rem&r'&ble+ ide& th&t the At&te co ld not be red ced to the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s, b t incl ded, &s he $ t it, & cert&in n mber of instit tions from *civil society+: the Bh rch, the Achools, the tr&de nions, etc! Jnfort n&tely, ?r&msci did not system&ti8e his instit tions, which rem&ined in the st&te of &c te b t fr&%ment&ry notes ,cf! ?r&msci, Selections from the Prison ?ote oo$s, "ntern&tion&l P blishers, 1971, $$! 16, 6G9, 6R04I; see &lso the letter to (&ti&n& Ach cht, 7 Ae$tember 19I1, in Lettre del Carcere, 7in& di, 19RE, $! F79! 7n%lish4l&n% &%e tr&nsl&tion in $re$&r&tion! 5, (he f&mily obvio sly h&s other *f nctions+ th&n th&t of &n "AA! "t intervenes in the re$rod ction of l&bo r $ower! "n different modes of $rod ction it is the nit of $rod ction &ndKor the nit of cons m$tion! 6, (he *.&w+ belon%s both to the ,Re$ressive- At&te A$$&r&t s &nd to the system of the "AAs! 17, "n & $&thetic te#t written in 19I7, Lr $s'&y& rel&tes the history of .enin+s des$er&te efforts &nd wh&t she re%&rds &s his f&il re! 11, /h&t " h&ve s&id in these few brief words &bo t the cl&ss str %%le in the "AAs is obvio sly f&r from e#h& stin% the 3 estion of the cl&ss str %%le! (o &$$ro&ch this 3 estion, two $rinci$les m st be borne in mind: /he first principle w&s form l&ted by M&r# in the Pref&ce to ( Contri ution to the Criti#ue of Political Economy> *"n considerin% s ch tr&nsform&tions M& soci&l revol tionN & distinction sho ld &lw&ys be m&de between the m&teri&l tr&nsform&tion of the economic conditions of $rod ction, which c&n be determined with the $recision of n&t r&l science, &nd the le%&l, $olitic&l, reli%io s, &esthetic or $hiloso$hic 5 in short, ideolo%ic&l forms in which men become conscio s of this conflict &nd fi%ht it o t!+ (he cl&ss str %%le is th s

e#$ressed &nd e#ercised in ideolo%ic&l forms, th s &lso in the ideolo%ic&l forms of the "AAs! B t the cl&ss str %%le e%tends far eyond these forms, &nd it is bec& se it e#tends beyond them th&t the str %%le of the e#$loited cl&sses m&y &lso be e#ercised in the forms of the "AAs, &nd th s t rn the we&$on of ideolo%y &%&inst the cl&sses in $ower! (his by virt e of the second principle: the cl&ss str %%le e#tends beyond the "AAs bec& se it is rooted elsewhere th&n in ideolo%y, in the "nfr&str ct re, in the rel&tions of $rod ction, which &re rel&tions of e#$loit&tion &nd constit te the b&se for cl&ss rel&tions! 1/, For the most $&rt! For the rel&tions of $rod ction &re first re$rod ced by the m&teri&lity of the $rocesses of $rod ction &nd circ l&tion! B t it sho ld not be for%otten th&t ideolo%ic&l rel&tions &re immedi&tely $resent in these s&me $rocesses! 10, +or that part of re$rod ction to which the Re$ressive At&te A$$&r&t s &nd the "deolo%ic&l At&te A$$&r&t s contri ute. 11, " se this very modern term deliber&tely! For even in Bomm nist circles, nfort n&tely, it is & common$l&ce to *e#$l&in+ some $olitic&l devi&tion ,left or ri%ht o$$ort nism- by the &ction of & *cli3 e+! 12, /hich borrowed the le%&l c&te%ory of *s b@ect in l&w+ to m&'e &n ideolo%ic&l notion: m&n is by n&t re & s b@ect! 13, .in% ists &nd those who &$$e&l to lin% istics for v&rio s $ r$oses often r n $ &%&inst diffic lties which &rise bec& se they i%nore the &ction of the ideolo%ic&l effects in &ll disco rses 5 incl din% even scientific disco rses! 14, )B: this do ble *c rrently+ is one more $roof of the f&ct th&t ideolo%y is *etern&l+, since these two *c rrentlys+ &re se$&r&ted by &n indefinite interv&l; " &m writin% these lines on R A$ril 19R9, yo m&y re&d them &t &ny s bse3 ent time! 15, 1&ilin% &s &n everyd&y $r&ctice s b@ect to & $recise rit &l t&'es & 3 ite *s$eci&l+ form in the $olicem&n+s $r&ctice of *h&ilin%+ which concerns the h&ilin% of *s s$ects+! 16, Altho %h we 'now th&t the individ &l is &lw&ys &lre&dy & s b@ect, we %o on sin% this term, convenient bec& se of the contr&stin% effect it $rod ces! /7, " &m 3 otin% in & combined w&y, not to the letter b t *in s$irit &nd tr th+! /1, (he do%m& of the (rinity is $recisely the theory of the d $lic&tion of the A b@ect ,the F&ther- into & s b@ect ,the Aon- &nd of their mirror4conne#ion ,the 1oly A$irit-!

//, 1e%el is , n'nowin%ly- &n &dmir&ble *theoretici&n+ of ideolo%y insof&r &s he is & *theoretici&n+ of Jnivers&l Reco%nition who nfort n&tely ends $ in the ideolo%y of Absol te Lnowled%e! Fe erb&ch is &n &stonishin% *theoretici&n+ of the mirror conne#ion, who nfort n&tely ends $ in the ideolo%y of the 1 m&n 7ssence! (o find the m&teri&l with which to constr ct & theory of the % &r&ntee, we m st t rn to A$ino8&!