Althusser, Louis

From New World Encyclopedia
(19 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{claimed}}
+
{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}
 +
{{epname|Althusser, Louis}}
 
{{Infobox_Philosopher |
 
{{Infobox_Philosopher |
 
   <!-- Scroll down to edit this page —>
 
   <!-- Scroll down to edit this page —>
  <!-- Philosopher Category —>
+
  <!-- Philosopher Category —>
 
   region          = Western Philosophy |
 
   region          = Western Philosophy |
   era            = [[20th-century philosophy]] |
+
   era            = [[twentieth-century philosophy]] |
 
   color          = #B0C4DE |
 
   color          = #B0C4DE |
  
Line 13: Line 14:
 
   <!-- Information —>
 
   <!-- Information —>
 
   name            = Louis Althusser |
 
   name            = Louis Althusser |
   birth            = [[October 16]], [[1918]] ([[Birmendreïs]], [[Algeria]]) |
+
   birth            = October 16, 1918 ([[Birmendreïs]], [[Algeria]]) |
   death            = [[October 23]], [[1990]] ([[Paris]], [[France]]) |
+
   death            = October 23, 1990 ([[Paris]], [[France]]) |
 
   school_tradition = [[Marxism]], [[Structuralism]] |
 
   school_tradition = [[Marxism]], [[Structuralism]] |
 
   main_interests  = [[Politics]], [[Economics]], [[Ideology]] |
 
   main_interests  = [[Politics]], [[Economics]], [[Ideology]] |
   influences      = [[Karl Marx]], [[V. I. Lenin]], [[Mao Zedong]], [[Antonio Gramsci]], [[Benedict de Spinoza]], [[Georges Canguilhem]], [[Gaston Bachelard]],  [[Sigmund Freud]], [[Jacques Lacan]] |
+
   influences      = [[Karl Marx]], [[V. I. Lenin]], [[Mao Zedong]], [[Antonio Gramsci]], [[Baruch de Spinoza]], [[Georges Canguilhem]], [[Gaston Bachelard]],  [[Sigmund Freud]], [[Jacques Lacan]] |
 
   influenced      = [[Michel Foucault]], [[Alain Badiou]], [[Étienne Balibar]], [[Judith Butler]], [[Anthony Giddens]], [[Perry Anderson]] |
 
   influenced      = [[Michel Foucault]], [[Alain Badiou]], [[Étienne Balibar]], [[Judith Butler]], [[Anthony Giddens]], [[Perry Anderson]] |
 
   notable_ideas    = The 'Epistemological Break', Problematic, [[Overdetermination]], Ideological State Apparatuses, [[Interpellation]] |
 
   notable_ideas    = The 'Epistemological Break', Problematic, [[Overdetermination]], Ideological State Apparatuses, [[Interpellation]] |
 
}}
 
}}
  
'''Louis Pierre Althusser''' (Pronunciation: altuˡseʁ) ([[October 16]], [[1918]] - [[October 23]], [[1990]]) was a [[Marxist philosophy|Marxist philosopher]]. He was born in [[Algeria]] and studied at the prestigious [[École Normale Supérieure]] in [[Paris]], where he eventually became Professor of Philosophy. He was a leading academic proponent of the [[French Communist Party]] and his arguments were a response to multiple threats to the ideological foundations of that socialist project. These included both the influence of [[empiricism]] which was beginning to influence [[Marxist]] sociology and economics, and growing interest in humanistic and democratic socialist orientations which were beginning to cause division in the European Communist Parties. Althusser is commonly referred to as a [[Structural Marxism|Structural Marxist]], although his relationship to other schools of French [[structuralism]] is not a simple affiliation.
+
'''Louis Pierre Althusser''' (Pronunciation: altuˡseʁ) (October 16, 1918 - October 23, 1990) was a [[Marxism|Marxist philosopher]]. He was born in [[Algeria]] and studied at the prestigious [[École Normale Supérieure]] in [[Paris]], where he eventually became Professor of Philosophy. He was a leading academic proponent of the [[French Communist Party]] and his arguments were a response to multiple threats to its ideological foundations, including the influence of [[empiricism]] and a growing interest in humanistic and democratic [[socialism|socialist]] orientations. Althusser is commonly referred to as a [[Structural Marxism|Structural Marxist]], although his relationship to other schools of French [[structuralism]] is not a simple affiliation.
  
== Biographical information ==
+
Althusser believed that [[Marxism|Marx]]’s theories had been incorrectly interpreted because they had been viewed as a single body of work, when in fact Marx had experienced an “[[epistemology|epistemological]] break” which separated his later work from his earlier [[humanism]]. He declared that Marx had developed a ground-breaking historical theory which regarded the individual as a product of society, culture and “[[ideology]].” He claimed that Marx analyzed society in terms of social and political units called “practices” rather than in terms of the individual. His ideas influenced a number of twenty-first century thinkers, including [[Jacques Derrida]], [[G. A. Cohen]], [[Anthony Giddens]], [[Judith Butler]], and [[Slavoj Žižek]], and several of his students became eminent intellectuals.
{{Marxist theory}}
 
===Early life===
 
Althusser wrote two autobiographies, ''L'Avenir dure longtemps'', or "The Future Lasts a Long Time," which is published in America as "The Future Lasts Forever," in a single volume with Althusser's other, shorter, earlier autobiography, "The Facts." These documents provide most of the information we know about his life, although, as with all autobiographies, the information they provide is somewhat suspect.
 
  
Althusser was born in [[French Algeria]] in the town of [[Birmendreïs]], to a ''[[pied-noirs]]'' family. He was named after his paternal uncle who had been killed in the [[First World War]]. Althusser alleged that his mother had intended to marry his uncle and married his father only because of the brother's demise. Althusser also alleges that his mother treated him as a substitute for his deceased uncle, to which he attributes deep psychological damage.
+
== Life ==
 +
===Early Life===
 +
Most of the information about Althusser’s life comes from his two autobiographies, ''L'Avenir dure longtemps'' ("The Future Lasts a Long Time") published in America as "The Future Lasts Forever," in a single volume with Althusser's other, shorter, earlier autobiography, "The Facts."
  
Following the death of his father, Althusser moved from [[Algiers]] with his mother and younger sister to [[Marseilles]], where he spent the rest of his childhood. He joined the [[Catholic]] youth movement Jeunesse Etudiante Chrétienne in 1937. Althusser performed brilliantly at school and was accepted to the elite [[École normale supérieure|Ecole Normale Supérieure]] (ENS) in [[Paris]]. However, he found himself enlisted in the run-up to [[World War II|World War Two]], and like most French soldiers following the [[Fall of France]] Althusser was interned in a [[Germany|German]] [[Prisoner of war|POW]] camp. Here, he came into contact with Jacques Martin, and his move towards [[Communism]] began. He was relatively content as a prisoner, and remained in the camp for the rest of the war, unlike many of his contemporaries who escaped to fight again&mdash;for this, Althusser later had reason to chastise himself.
+
Althusser was born October 16, 1918 in [[French Algeria]] in the town of [[Birmendreïs]], to a ''[[pied-noirs]]'' (European-Algerian) family. He was named after his paternal uncle who had been killed in the [[First World War]]. According to Althusser, his mother had intended to marry this uncle, and married his father only because of the brother's demise. Althusser claimed that he suffered deep psychological damage because his mother treated him as a substitute for his deceased uncle.  
  
===Health===
+
Following the death of his father, Althusser moved from [[Algiers]] with his mother and younger sister to [[Marseilles]], where he spent the rest of his childhood. He joined the [[Catholic]] youth movement ''Jeunesse Etudiante Chrétienne'' in 1937. Althusser performed brilliantly at school and was accepted to the elite [[École normale supérieure|Ecole Normale Supérieure]] (ENS) in [[Paris]]. However, he found himself enlisted during the run-up to [[World War II|World War Two]], and like most French soldiers following the [[Fall of France]], Althusser was interned in a [[Germany|German]] prisoner of war camp. Here, he came into contact with Jacques Martin, and became interested in [[Communism]]. He was relatively content as a prisoner, and remained in the camp for the rest of the war, unlike many of his contemporaries who escaped to fight again; a circumstance which Althusser later regretted.
After the war, Althusser was able finally to attend ENS. However, he was in poor health, both mentally and physically. In [[1947]], he received [[electroconvulsive therapy]]. Althusser was from this time to suffer from periodic mental illness for the rest of his life. The ENS was sympathetic however, allowing him to reside in his own room in the school infirmary. Althusser found himself living at the ENS in the Rue d'Ulm for decades, except for periods of hospitalization.
 
  
 
===Post-War===
 
===Post-War===
In [[1946]], Althusser met Hélène Rytman, a [[revolutionary]] of [[Lithuanians|Lithuanian]]-[[Jewish]] ethnic origin, eight years older than him, who was to remain his companion until her murder, by Althusser, in [[1980]].  
+
After the war, Althusser was able finally to attend ENS. However, he was in poor health, both mentally and physically, and in 1947, he received [[electroconvulsive therapy]]. From this time, Althusser suffered from periodic [[mental illness]] for the rest of his life. The ENS was sympathetic however, and allowed him to reside in his own room in the school infirmary. Althusser lived at the ENS in the Rue d'Ulm for decades, except for periods of hospitalization.
  
Formerly a devout, if [[left-wing]], [[Roman Catholic]], Althusser joined the [[French Communist Party]] (PCF) in [[1948]], at a time when others, such as [[Merleau-Ponty]], were losing sympathy for it. That same year, Althusser passed the ''[[agrégation]]'' in [[philosophy]] with a dissertation on [[Hegel]], which allowed him to become a tutor at the ENS.
+
In 1946, Althusser met Hélène Rytman, a [[Lithuanians|Lithuanian]]-[[Jewish]] [[revolutionary]] eight years older than him, who remained his companion until her murder, by Althusser, in 1980.  
  
With the [[Twentieth Party Congress]] in [[1956]], [[Nikita Khrushchev]] began the process of "[[de-Stalinisation]]". For many Marxists, including the PCF's leading theoretician [[Roger Garaudy]], this meant the recovery of the [[humanist]] roots of [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] thought, such as the [[Marx's theory of alienation|theory of alienation]]. Althusser, however, opposed this trend, sympathising instead with the criticisms made by the [[Communist Party of China]], albeit cautiously. His stance during this period earned him notoriety within the PCF and he was attacked by its [[secretary-general]] [[Waldeck Rochet]]. As a [[philosopher]], he was treading another path, which would later lead him to "random materialism" (''matérialisme aléatoire''); however, this didn't stop him from enforcing the marxist orthodox thought to supposed "heretics", such as during his [[1973]] answer to [[John Lewis (philosopher)|John Lewis]].
+
Formerly a devout, if [[left-wing]], [[Roman Catholic]], Althusser joined the [[French Communist Party]] (PCF) in 1948, at a time when others, such as [[Merleau-Ponty]], were losing sympathy for it. That same year, Althusser passed the ''[[agrégation]]'' in [[philosophy]] with a dissertation on [[Hegel]], which allowed him to become a tutor at the ENS.
  
Despite the involvement of many of his students in the events of [[May 1968]], Althusser initially greeted these developments with silence. He was later to follow the official PCF line in describing the students as victim to "infantile" [[Left-wing politics|leftism]]. As a result, Althusser was attacked by many former supporters. In response to these criticisms, he revised some of his positions, claiming that his earlier writings contained mistakes, and a significant shift in emphasis was seen in his later works.
+
In 1956, at the [[Twentieth Party Congress]], [[Nikita Khrushchev]] began the process of "de-Stalinization." For many Marxists, including the PCF's leading theoretician [[Roger Garaudy]], this meant the recovery of the [[humanist]] roots of [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] thought, such as the [[Marx's theory of alienation|theory of alienation]]. Althusser, however, opposed this trend, sympathizing instead with the criticisms made by the [[Communist Party of China]], although cautiously. His stance during this period earned him notoriety within the PCF and he was attacked by its [[secretary-general]] [[Waldeck Rochet]]. As a [[philosopher]], he was taking another path, which eventually led him to "random materialism" ''(matérialisme aléatoire),'' but this did not stop him from aggressively promoting orthodox Marxist thought to supposed "heretics," as he did in his 1973 answer to [[John Lewis (philosopher)|John Lewis]].
 +
 
 +
Despite the involvement of many of his students in the protests and strikes of May 1968, which bought down the [[Charles DeGaulle|DeGaulle]] government in France, Althusser initially greeted these developments with silence. Later he followed the official French Communist Party line in describing the students as victims of "infantile" [[Left-wing politics|leftism]]. As a result, Althusser was attacked by many former supporters. In response to these criticisms, he revised some of his positions, claiming that his earlier writings contained mistakes, and his later works demonstrated a significant shift in emphasis.  
  
 
=== 1980s ===
 
=== 1980s ===
On [[November 16]], [[1980]], Althusser strangled his wife to death. This had been preceded by a period of intense mental instability. The exact circumstances are debated, with some claiming it was deliberate, others accidental. Althusser himself claimed not to have a clear memory of the event. Since he was alone with his wife when she died, it is difficult to  come to firm conclusions. Althusser was diagnosed as suffering from [[diminished responsibility]], and he was not tried, but instead committed to the Sainte-Anne psychiatric hospital. Althusser remained in hospital until [[1983]]. Upon release, he moved to Northern Paris and lived reclusively, seeing few people and no longer working, except for producing his autobiography. He died of a [[cardiovascular disease|heart attack]] on October 22nd 1990 at the age of 72.
+
On November 16, 1980, after a period of intense mental instability, Althusser strangled his wife to death. The exact circumstances of her death are debated; some believed it was deliberate, others accidental. Althusser himself, who had been alone with his wife when she died, claimed not to have a clear memory of the event. He was diagnosed as suffering from "diminished responsibility," and was not tried, but instead committed to the Sainte-Anne psychiatric hospital. Althusser remained in the hospital until 1983. After his release, he moved to Northern Paris and lived reclusively, seeing few people and no longer working, except for the production of his autobiography. He died of a [[cardiovascular disease|heart attack]] on October 22, 1990, at the age of 72.
  
== Thought ==
+
== Thought and Works==
Althusser's earlier works include the influential volume ''[[Reading Capital]]'', which collects the work of Althusser and his students on an intensive philosophical re-reading of [[Karl Marx|Karl Marx's]] ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]]''. The book reflects on the philosophical status of Marxist theory as "critique of political economy," and on its object. The current English edition of this work includes only the essays of Althusser and [[Étienne Balibar]], while the original French edition contains additional contributions from [[Jacques Ranciere]] and [[Pierre Macherey]], among others. The project was approximately analogous, within Marxism, to the contemporary [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] return to [[Sigmund Freud|Freud]] undertaken by [[Jacques Lacan]], with whom Althusser was also involved. (Althusser's personal and professional relationship with Lacan was complex; the two were at times great friends and correspondents, at times enemies.)
+
Althusser's earlier works include the influential volume ''[[Reading Capital]],'' a collection of the work of Althusser and his students on an intensive philosophical re-reading of [[Karl Marx|Karl Marx's]] ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]].'' The book reflects on the philosophical status of Marxist theory as "critique of political economy," and on its object. The current English edition of this work includes only the essays of Althusser and [[Étienne Balibar]], while the original French edition contains additional contributions from [[Jacques Ranciere]] and [[Pierre Macherey]], among others. The project was somewhat analogous, within Marxism, to the contemporary [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] return to [[Sigmund Freud|Freud]] undertaken by [[Jacques Lacan]], with whom Althusser was also involved. (Althusser's personal and professional relationship with Lacan was complex; the two were at times great friends and correspondents, at times enemies.)
  
Several of Althusser's theoretical positions have remained very influential in [[Marxist philosophy]], though he sometimes overstated his arguments deliberately in order to provoke controversy. Althusser's essay ''On the [[Young Marx]]'' draws a term from the [[philosopher of science]] [[Gaston Bachelard]] in proposing a great "epistemological break" between Marx's early, "[[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegelian]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach|Feuerbachian]]" writings and his later, properly [[Marxist]] texts. His essay ''Marxism and Humanism'' is a strong statement of anti-[[Marxist humanism|humanism]] in Marxist theory, condemning ideas like "human potential" and "[[species-being]]," which are often put forth by Marxists, as outgrowths of a [[bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] ideology of "humanity." His essay ''Contradiction and Overdetermination'' borrows the concept of [[overdetermination]] from [[psychoanalysis]], in order to replace the idea of "contradiction" with a more complex model of multiple [[causality]] in political situations (an idea closely related to [[Antonio Gramsci]]'s concept of [[hegemony]]).
+
Several of Althusser's theoretical positions have remained very influential in [[Marxist philosophy]], though he sometimes overstated his arguments deliberately in order to provoke controversy. Althusser's essay ''On the [[Young Marx]]'' draws a term from the [[philosopher of science]] [[Gaston Bachelard]] in proposing a great "epistemological break" between Marx's early, "[[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegelian]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach|Feuerbachian]]" writings and his later, properly [[Marxist]] texts. His essay ''Marxism and Humanism'' is a strong statement of anti-[[Marxist humanism|humanism]] in Marxist theory, condemning ideas like "human potential" and "[[species-being]]," which are often put forth by Marxists, as outgrowths of a [[bourgeoisie|bourgeois]] ideology of "humanity." His essay ''Contradiction and Overdetermination'' borrows the concept of [[overdetermination]] (the idea that a single observed effect is determined by multiple causes at once) from [[psychoanalysis]], in order to replace the idea of "contradiction" with a more complex model of multiple [[causality]] in political situations. This idea is closely related to [[Antonio Gramsci]]'s concept of [[hegemony]]). According to Gramsci, hegemony consists of socio-political power that flows from enabling the "spontaneous consent" of the populace through intellectual and moral [[leadership]] or authority, as employed by the subalterns of the State.
  
Althusser is also widely known as a theorist of [[ideology]], and his best-known essay is ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation'' <ref> ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation'' is available in several English volumes including ''Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays'' </ref>. The essay establishes the concept of ideology, also based on [[Antonio Gramsci|Gramsci's]] theory of [[hegemony]]. Whereas hegemony is ultimately determined entirely by political forces, ideology draws on [[Sigmund Freud|Freud's]] and [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan's]] concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that allow us to meaningfully have a concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable - it is impossible to escape ideology; to not be subjected to it. The distinction between ideology and science or philosophy is not assured once and for all by the ''epistemological break'': this "break" is not a chronologically-determined event, but a process. Instead of an assured victory, there is a continuous struggle against ideology: "Ideology has no history".
+
Althusser is also widely known as a theorist of [[ideology]], and his best-known essay is ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation'' <ref> ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation'' is available in several English volumes including ''Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays'' </ref>. The essay establishes the concept of ideology, also based on [[Antonio Gramsci|Gramsci's]] theory of [[hegemony]]. Whereas hegemony is ultimately determined entirely by political forces, ideology draws on [[Sigmund Freud|Freud's]] and [[Jacques Lacan|Lacan's]] concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that allow us to have a meaningful concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable, it is impossible not to be subjected to ideology.  
  
 
===The 'epistemological break'===
 
===The 'epistemological break'===
It was Althusser's view that [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] thought had been fundamentally misunderstood and underestimated. He fiercely condemned various interpretations of his works - [[historicism]], [[idealism]], [[economic determinism|economism]] - on the grounds that they had failed to realise that with the "science of history", [[historical materialism]], Marx had constructed a revolutionary view of social change. These errors, he believed, resulted from the notion that Marx's entire body of work could be understood as a coherent whole. Rather, Althusser held, it contains a radical "epistemological break". Though the early works are bound by the categories of German [[philosophy]] and classical [[political economy]], with ''[[The German Ideology]]'' (written in 1845) there is a sudden and unprecedented departure which paves the way for Marx's later works. The problem is compounded by the fact that even [[Karl Marx|Marx]] himself did not fully comprehend the significance of his own work, being only able to communicate it obliquely and tentatively. The shift can only be revealed by way of a careful and sensitive "symptomatic reading". Thus, it is Althusser's project to help us fully grasp the originality and power of Marx's extraordinary theory, giving as much attention to what is not said as to the explicit. He held that [[Karl Marx|Marx]] had discovered a "continent of knowledge", History, analogous to the contributions of [[Thales]] to [[mathematics]], [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]] to [[physics]] or, better, [[Freud]]'s [[psychoanalysis]], in that the structure of his theory is unlike anything posited by his predecessors.  
+
It was Althusser's view that [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] thought had been fundamentally misunderstood and underestimated. He fiercely condemned various interpretations of Marx’s works - [[historicism]], [[idealism]], [[economic determinism|economism]] - on the grounds that they had failed to realize that with the "science of history," [[historical materialism]], Marx had constructed a revolutionary view of social change. Althusser believed that these misinterpretations resulted from the mistaken notion that Marx's entire body of work could be understood as a coherent whole. Instead, Althusser held that the work of Marx contains a radical "epistemological break." Though the early works are bound by the categories of German [[philosophy]] and classical [[political economy]], ''[[The German Ideology]]'' (written in 1845) is a sudden and unprecedented departure which paves the way for Marx's later works.  
  
Althusser believed that underlying Marx's discovery was a ground-breaking [[epistemology]] centred on the rejection of the dichotomy between [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] and [[object (philosophy)|object]], which makes his work incompatible with its antecedents. At the root of the break is a rejection of the idea, held by the classical [[economists]], that the needs of individuals can be treated as a fact or 'given' independent of any economic organisation, and could therefore serve as a premise for a theory explaining the character of a [[mode of production]] and as an independent starting-point for a theory about society. In Althusser's view, Marx did not simply argue that people's needs are largely created by their social environment and thus vary with time and place; rather, he abandoned the very idea that there could be a theory about what people are like which was prior to any theory about how they come to be that way.  
+
The misunderstanding is compounded by the fact that even [[Karl Marx|Marx]] himself did not fully comprehend the significance of his own work, being only able to communicate it obliquely and tentatively. The shift in Marx’s thought can only be revealed by a careful and sensitive "symptomatic reading" of his works. It was Althusser's project to help the world fully grasp the originality and power of Marx's extraordinary theory, giving as much attention to what is not said as to the explicit. He held that Marx had discovered a "continent of knowledge." He compared Marx’s ideas on history to the contributions of [[Thales]] to [[mathematics]], [[Galileo Galilei|Galileo]] to [[physics]] or, [[Freud]] to [[psychoanalysis]], claiming that the structure of his theory was unlike anything posited by his predecessors.  
  
As well as this, Marx's theory is built on concepts - such as [[Means of production|forces]] and [[relations of production]] - that have no counterpart in classical [[political economy]]. Even when existing terms are adopted - such as the combination of [[David Ricardo|David Ricardo's]] notions of rent, profit and interests through the theory of [[surplus value]] - their meaning and relation to other concepts in the theory is significantly different. Furthermore, apart from its unique structure, [[historical materialism]]'s explanatory power is unlike that of classical [[political economy]]; whereas [[political economy]] explained economic systems as a response to individual needs, Marx's analysis accounted for a wider range of social phenomena in terms of the parts they play in a structured whole. Resultantly, ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]]'' provides both a model of the economy and a description of the structure and development of a whole society.
+
Althusser believed that underlying Marx's discovery was a ground-breaking [[epistemology]] centered on the rejection of the dichotomy between [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] and [[object (philosophy)|object]], which made his work incompatible with its antecedents. At the root of Marx’s “epistemological break” was a rejection of the idea, held by classical [[economists]], that the needs of individuals could be treated as a fact or 'given,' independent of any form of economic organization, and could therefore serve as a premise for a theory explaining the character of a [[mode of production]], and as an independent starting-point for a theory about society. According to Althusser, Marx did not simply argue that people's needs are largely created by their social environment and thus vary with time and place. Instead, Marx abandoned the very idea that there could be a theory about the essential nature of human beings that preceded any theory about how they come to be that way.  
  
Though Althusser steadfastly held onto the claim of its existence, he later asserted that the turning point's occurrence around 1845 was not so clearly defined, as traces of [[humanism]], [[historicism]] and [[Hegel|Hegelianism]] were to be found in ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]]''. He even went so far as to state that only Marx's ''[[Critique of the Gotha Programme]]'' [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/] and some notes on a book by [[Adolph Wagner]] [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/01/wagner.htm] were fully free from humanist [[ideology]]. In fact, Althusser considered the epistemological break to be a ''process'' instead of a clearly defined ''event''. He described Marxism and psychoanalysis as "scissional" sciences, which always had to struggle against ideology, thus explaining the succeeding ruptures and splittings. They are scissional sciences because their object ("class struggle" or the topic of the unconscious) is itself split and divided.
+
Althusser also believed that Marx's theory was built on concepts, such as [[Means of production|forces]] and [[relations of production]], that had no counterpart in classical [[political economy]]. Even when existing terms were adopted, such as the combination of [[David Ricardo|David Ricardo's]] notions of rent, profit and interests through the theory of [[surplus value]], their meaning and relation to other concepts in the theory was significantly different from their conventional usage. Apart from its unique structure, the [[historical materialism]] had an explanatory power unlike that of classical political economy. Whereas political economy explained economic systems as a response to individual needs, Marx's analysis accounted for a wider range of social phenomena and their roles in a structured whole. Althusser concluded that ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]]'' provided both a model of the economy and a description of the structure and development of a whole society.
 +
 
 +
Though Althusser steadfastly held onto the claim that Marx’s “epistemological break” existed, he later acknowledged that the occurrence of Marx’s turning point around 1845 was not clearly defined, because traces of [[humanism]], [[historicism]] and [[Hegel|Hegelianism]] were to be found in ''[[Das Kapital|Capital]].'' He noted that only Marx's ''[[Critique of the Gotha Programme]]'' [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/] and some notes on a book by [[Adolph Wagner]] [http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/01/wagner.htm] were completely free from humanist [[ideology]]. Althusser considered the epistemological break to be a ''process'' instead of a clearly defined ''event.'' He described Marxism and psychoanalysis as "scissional" sciences, which always had to struggle against ideology, thus explaining the succeeding ruptures and splits. They were scissional sciences because their objects, "class struggle" and the human unconscious mind, were themselves split and divided.
  
 
===Practices===
 
===Practices===
Because of [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] belief in the close relation between the individual and society, it is, in Althusser’s view, pointless to try to build a social theory on a prior conception of the individual. The subject of observation is not individual human elements, but rather 'structure'. As he has it, Marx did not explain society by appealing to one factor (individuals), but broke it up into related units called ‘practices’. He uses this analysis to defend Marx’s [[historical materialism]] against the charge that it crudely posits a base and [[superstructure]] and then attempts to explain all aspects of the [[superstructure]] by appealing to features of the base. For Althusser, it was a mistake to attribute this view, based on [[economic determinism]], to Marx: much as he criticises the idea that a social theory can be founded on an historical conception of human needs, so does he dismiss the idea that an independently defined notion of [[economic]] practice can be used to explain other aspects of society. Like [[Georg Lukács|Lukács]], Althusser believed that both the base and the superstructure were dependent on the whole. The advantage of practices over individuals as a starting point is that although each practice is only a part of a complex whole of society, a practice is a whole in itself in that it consists of various different kinds of parts; [[economic]] practice, for example, contains raw materials, tools, individual persons, etc. all united in a process of production. Althusser conceives of society as an interconnected collection of these wholes – [[economic]] practice, [[ideology|ideological]] practice and [[politics|politico]]-[[legal]] practice which together make up one complex whole. In his view all practices are dependent on each other. For example, amongst the [[relations of production]] are the buying and selling of [[labor power|labour power]] by [[capitalists]] and [[workers]]. These relations are part of economic practice, but can only exist within the context of a legal system which establishes individual agents as buyers and sellers; furthermore, the arrangement must be maintained by [[political]] and [[ideological]] means. From this it can be seen that aspects of [[economic]] practice depend on the [[superstructure]] and vice versa.
+
Because of [[Karl Marx|Marx's]] belief in the close relation between the individual and society, Althusser believed it was pointless to try to build a social theory on a prior conception of the individual. The subject to be observed was not individual human elements, but rather 'structure.' According to Althusser, Marx did not explain society by appealing to one factor (individuals), but broke it up into related units called ‘practices.’ Althusser defended Marx’s [[historical materialism]] against the charge that it crudely posited a base and [[superstructure]] and then attempted to explain all aspects of the superstructure by appealing to features of the base, saying it was a mistake to attribute this view, based on [[economic determinism]], to Marx. Just as Marx criticized the idea that a social theory can be founded on an historical conception of human needs, he dismissed the idea that an independently defined notion of [[economic]] practice can be used to explain other aspects of society.  
 +
 
 +
Like [[Georg Lukács|Lukács]], Althusser believed that both the base and the superstructure are dependent on the whole. The advantage of using practices over individuals as a starting point for analysis is that, although each practice is only a part of a complex whole of society, a practice is a whole in itself, consisting of various different kinds of parts; [[economic]] practice, for example, contained raw materials, tools, individual persons, and management policies, all united in a process of production. Althusser conceived of society as an interconnected collection of these wholes, economic practice, [[ideology|ideological]] practice and [[politics|politico]]-[[legal]] practice, which together made up one complex whole. In his view, all practices are dependent on each other. For example, among the [[relations of production]] are the buying and selling of labor power by [[capitalists]] and [[workers]]. These relations are part of economic practice, but can only exist within the context of a legal system which establishes individual agents as buyers and sellers; furthermore, the arrangement must be maintained by [[political]] and [[ideological]] means. From this it can be seen that aspects of economic practice depend on the [[superstructure]] and that the reverse is also true.
  
 
===Contradiction and overdetermination===
 
===Contradiction and overdetermination===
An analysis understood in terms of interdependent practices helps us to conceive of how society is organised, but also allows us to comprehend social change and thus provides a theory of [[history]]. Althusser explains the reproduction of the [[relations of production]] by reference to aspects of [[ideological]] and [[political]] practice; conversely, the emergence of new production relations can be explained by the failure of these mechanisms. [[Karl Marx|Marx’s]] theory seems to posit a system in which an imbalance in two parts could lead to compensatory adjustments at other levels, or sometimes to a major reorganisation of the whole. To develop this idea Althusser relies on the concepts of contradiction and non-contradiction, which he claims are illuminated by their relation to a complex structured whole. Practices are contradictory when they grate on one another and non-contradictory when they support one another. Althusser elaborates on these concepts by reference to [[Lenin|Lenin’s]] analysis of the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]].
+
An analysis in terms of interdependent practices helps us to conceive of how society is organized, but also allows us to comprehend social change and thus provides a theory of [[history]]. Althusser explained the reproduction of the [[relations of production]] by reference to aspects of [[ideological]] and [[political]] practice; conversely, the emergence of new production relations could be explained by the failure of these mechanisms. [[Karl Marx|Marx’s]] theory seemed to posit a system in which an imbalance between two parts could lead to compensatory adjustments at other levels, or sometimes to a major reorganization of the whole. To develop this idea, Althusser relied on the concepts of “contradiction” and “non-contradiction,which he claimed were illuminated by their relation to a complex structured whole. Practices are contradictory when they grate on one another and non-contradictory when they support one another. Althusser elaborated on these concepts by referring to [[Lenin|Lenin’s]] analysis of the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]].
  
Lenin posited that in spite of widespread discontent throughout [[Europe]] in the early [[20th century]], [[Russia]] was the country in which revolution occurred because it contained all the contradictions possible within a single state at the time. It was, in his words, the ‘weak link’ in a ‘collection of imperialist states’. The revolution is explained in relation to two groups of circumstances: firstly, the existence within [[Russia]] of large-scale exploitation in cities, mining districts, etc., disparity between urban industrialisation and medieval conditions in the countryside, and lack of unity amongst the ruling class; secondly, a foreign policy which played into the hands of revolutionaries, such as the elites who had been exiled by the [[Tsar]] and had become sophisticated [[socialists]].
+
Lenin posited that in spite of widespread discontent throughout [[Europe]] in the early twentieth century, [[Russia]] was the country in which revolution occurred because it contained all the contradictions possible within a single state at the time. It was, in his words, the ‘weak link’ in a ‘collection of imperialist states.The revolution was explained in relation to two groups of circumstances: first, the existence within Russia of large-scale exploitation in cities, mining districts, disparity between urban industrialization and medieval conditions in the countryside, and lack of unity among the ruling class; second, a foreign policy which played into the hands of revolutionaries, such as the elites who had been exiled by the [[Tsar]] and had become sophisticated [[socialists]].
  
This example is used by Althusser to reinforce his claim that [[Karl Marx|Marx]] did not see social change as the result of a single contradiction between the [[means of production|forces]] and the [[relations of production]], but rather held a more complex view of it. The differences between events in [[Russia]] and [[Western Europe]] highlight that a contradiction between [[productive forces|forces]] and [[relations of production]] may be necessary, but not sufficient, to bring about revolution. The circumstances that produced revolution in [[Russia]], mentioned above, were heterogeneous, and cannot be seen to be aspects of one large contradiction. Each was a contradiction within a particular social totality. From this, Althusser draws the conclusion that Marx’s concept of contradiction is inseparable from the concept of a social whole. In order to emphasise that changes in social structure relate to numerous contradictions, Althusser describes these changes as "''[[overdetermination|overdetermined]]''", using a term taken from [[Sigmund Freud]]. This interpretation allows us to account for how many different circumstances may play a part in the course of events, and furthermore permits us to grasp how these states of affairs may combine to produce unexpected social changes, or ‘ruptures’.
+
This example was used by Althusser to reinforce his claim that [[Karl Marx|Marx]] did not see social change as the result of a single contradiction between the [[means of production|forces]] and the [[relations of production]], but rather held a more complex view. The differences between events in [[Russia]] and [[Western Europe]] showed that a contradiction between [[productive forces|forces]] and relations of production may be necessary, but is not sufficient, to bring about revolution. The circumstances that produced revolution in Russia, were heterogeneous, and could not be regarded as aspects of one large contradiction. Each was a contradiction within a particular social totality. From this, Althusser drew the conclusion that Marx’s concept of contradiction was inseparable from the concept of a social whole. In order to emphasize that changes in social structure relate to numerous contradictions, Althusser described these changes as "''[[overdetermination|overdetermined]],''" taking a term which [[Sigmund Freud]] used to describe a situation in which a single observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which might be able to account for the effect on its own. This interpretation accounts for how many different circumstances may play a part in the course of events, and explains how these states of affairs may combine to produce unexpected social changes, or ‘ruptures’.
  
However, Althusser does not mean to say that the events that determine social changes all have the same causal status. While a part of a complex whole, [[economic]] practice is, in his view, a structure in dominance: it plays a major part in determining the relations between other spheres, and has more effect on them than they have on it. The most prominent aspect of society (the [[religious]] aspect in [[feudal]] formations and the [[economic]] aspect in [[capitalist]] ones) is called the 'dominant instance', and is in turn determined 'in the last instance' by the economy. For Althusser, the [[economic]] practice of a society determines which other aspect of it dominates the society as a whole.
+
However, Althusser did not give all the events that determine social changes the same causal status. While a part of a complex whole, [[economic]] practice was, in his view, a structure in dominance: it played a major part in determining the relations between other spheres, and had more effect on them than they had on it. The most prominent aspect of society (the [[religious]] aspect in [[feudal]] formations and the economic aspect in [[capitalist]] ones) was called the 'dominant instance', and was in turn determined 'in the last instance' by the economy. Althusser believed that the economic practice of a society determined which other aspect of it would dominate the society as a whole.
  
 
===Ideological state apparatuses ===
 
===Ideological state apparatuses ===
Althusser held that it was necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image. Within [[capitalist]] society, the human individual is generally regarded as a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] endowed with the property of being a self-conscious agent. For Althusser, however, a person’s capacity for perceiving herself in this way is not innate. Rather, it is acquired within the structure of established social practices, which impose on individuals the role (''forme'') of a subject. Social practices both determine the characteristics of the individual and give her an idea of the range of properties they can have, and of the limits of each social practice. Althusser argues that many of our roles and activities are given to us by social practice: for example, the production of steelworkers is a part of [[economic]] practice, while the production of lawyers is part of [[politics|politico]]-[[legal]] practice. However, other characteristics of individuals, such as their beliefs about the good life or their [[metaphysical]] reflections on the nature of the self, do not easily fit into these categories. In Althusser’s view, our values, desires and preferences are inculcated in us by [[ideological]] practice, the sphere which has the defining property of constituting individuals as subjects through the process of ''[[interpellation]]''. Ideological practice consists of an assortment of institutions called ''Ideological State Apparatuses'' (ISAs), which include the family, the media, religious organisations and the education system, as well as the received ideas they propagate <ref>The concept may be found in the text ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses'', published in English in ''Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays'', available online [http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Other/LPOE70ii.html#s5 here]</ref>. There is, however, no one ISA that produces in us the belief that we are self-conscious agents. Instead, we learn this belief in the course of learning what it is to be a daughter, a schoolchild, black, a steelworker, a councillor, and so forth.
+
Althusser held that it was necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image. Within [[capitalist]] society, the human individual is generally regarded as a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] endowed with the property of being a self-conscious agent. For Althusser, however, a person’s capacity for perceiving himself or  herself in this way is not innate, but acquired within the structure of established social practices, which imposes on individuals the role ''(forme)'' of a subject. Social practices both determine the characteristics of the individual and provide an idea of the range of properties they can have, and of the limits of each social practice. Althusser argued that many of our roles and activities are given to us by social practice: for example, the production of steelworkers is a part of [[economic]] practice, while the production of lawyers is part of [[politics|politico]]-[[legal]] practice. However, other characteristics of individuals, such as their beliefs about the good life or their [[metaphysical]] reflections on the nature of the self, do not easily fit into these categories. Althusser proposed that human values, desires and preferences are inculcated by [[ideological]] practice, the sphere which has the defining property of constituting individuals as subjects through the process of ''[[interpellation]].'' “Ideological practice” consists of an assortment of institutions called ''Ideological State Apparatuses'' (ISAs), which include the family, the media, religious organizations and the education system, as well as the received ideas they propagate <ref>The concept may be found in the text ''Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,'' published in English in: Louis Althusser. 1972. ''Lenin and philosophy, and other essays.'' (New York: Monthly Review Press). </ref> There is, however, no one ISA that produces in us the belief that we are self-conscious agents. Instead, we learn this belief in the course of learning what it is to be a daughter, a schoolchild, black, a steelworker, a councillor, and so forth.
  
Despite its many institutional forms, the function and structure of ideology is unchanging and present throughout history; as Althusser's first thesis on ideology states, "ideology has no history". All ideologies constitute a subject, even though he or she may differ according to each particular ideology. Memorably, Althusser illustrates this with the concept of ''[[interpellation]]''. He uses the example of an individual walking in a street: upon hearing a police whistle, or any other form of hailing, the individual turns round and in this simple movement of her body she is transformed into a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]]. Althusser discusses the process by which the person being hailed recognizes herself as the subject of the hail, and knows to respond. Even though there was nothing suspicious about her walking in the street, she recognizes it is indeed she herself that is being hailed. This recognition is a mis-recognition (''méconnaissance'') in that it is working retroactively: a material individual is always-already an ideological subject. The "transformation" of an individual into a subject has always-already happened; Althusser acknowledges here a debt toward [[Spinoza]]'s theory of [[immanence]]. That is to say, our idea of who we are is delivered by ideology. The second of Althusser's theses is that "ideology has a material existence":
+
Despite its many institutional forms, the function and structure of ideology is unchanging and present throughout history; as Althusser's first thesis on ideology states, "ideology has no history." All ideologies constitute a subject, even though he or she may differ according to each particular ideology; each person’s idea of who he or she is, is delivered by ideology. The second of Althusser's theses is that "ideology has a material existence:"
 +
<blockquote>
 +
Ideas have disappeared as such (insofar as they are endowed with an ideal or spiritual existence), to the precise extent that it has emerged that their existence is inscribed in the actions of practices governed by rituals defined in the last instance by an ideological apparatus. It therefore appears that the subject acts insofar as he is acted on by the following system (set out in the order of its real determination): ideology existing in a material ideological apparatus, describing material practices governed by a material ritual, which practices exist in the material actions of a subject acting in all consciousness according to his belief.'' <ref>Louis Althusser. 1972. ''Lenin and philosophy, and other essays.'' (New York: Monthly Review Press), 169-170</ref></blockquote>
  
{{cquote|Ideas have disappeared as such (insofar as they are endowed with an ideal or spiritual existence), to the precise extent that it has emerged that their existence is inscribed in the actions of practices governed by rituals defined in the last instance by an ideological apparatus. It therefore appears that the subject acts insofar as he is acted by the following system (set out in the order of its real determination): ideology existing in a material ideological apparatus, describing material practices governed by a material ritual, which practices exist in the material actions of a subject acting in all consciousness according to his belief.'' <ref>''Ibid.'', p.169-70</ref>}}
+
Althusser offers the example of the Voice of [[God]] - an embodiment of [[Christian]] [[religious]] ideology - instructing a person on what her place in the world is and what she must do to be reconciled with [[Christ]]. In order for that person to identify herself as a Christian, she must first already be a subject of the “material ideology” of Christianity. People acquire their identities by seeing themselves and their social roles mirrored in material ideologies.
 
 
These material [[rituals]] may be compared with [[Bourdieu]]'s concept of ''[[habitus]]'', as the ISA may in a sense be compared with [[Foucault]]'s [[disciplinary institutions]]. Althusser offers the example of the Voice of [[God]] - an embodiment of [[Christian]] [[religious]] ideology - instructing a person on what her place in the world is and what she must do to be reconciled with [[Christ]]. From this, Althusser draws the point that in order for that person to identify herself as a [[Christian]], she must first already be a subject. We acquire our identities by seeing ourselves and our social roles mirrored in material ideologies.
 
  
 
==Influence==
 
==Influence==
Although Althusser's theories were born of an attempt to defend [[Communist]] orthodoxy, his endeavour to present [[Marxism]] as a form of [[structuralism]] reflected a move away from the intellectual isolation of the [[Stalinist]] era, and furthermore was symptomatic both of Marxism's growing academic respectability and of a push towards emphasising Marx's legacy as a [[philosopher]] rather than as an [[economist]].
+
Although Althusser's theories were developed in an attempt to defend [[Communism|Communist]] orthodoxy, his endeavor to present [[Marxism]] as a form of [[structuralism]] reflected a move away from the intellectual isolation of the [[Stalinism|Stalinist]] era, and was symptomatic of Marxism's growing academic respectability and of a movement to emphasize Marx's legacy as a [[philosopher]] rather than as an [[economist]].
  
Althusser has had broad influence in the areas of [[Marxist philosophy]] and [[post-structuralism]]: [[Interpellation]] has been popularised and adapted by the [[feminist]] philosopher and critic [[Judith Butler]]; the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses has been of interest to Slovenian philosopher [[Slavoj Žižek]]; the attempt to view history as a process without a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] garnered sympathy from [[Jacques Derrida]]; [[historical materialism]] was defended as a coherent doctrine from the standpoint of [[analytic philosophy]] by [[G. A. Cohen]]; the interest in [[structure and agency]] sparked by Althusser was to play a role in [[Anthony Giddens]]'s [[theory of structuration]]; Althusser was vehemently attacked by British [[historian]] [[E. P. Thompson]] in his book ''The Poverty of Theory''. As well as this, several of Althusser's students became eminent intellectuals in the [[1970s]], [[1980s]] and [[1990s]]: [[Alain Badiou]] and [[Étienne Balibar]] in [[philosophy]], [[Jacques Ranciere]] in [[history]] and the [[philosophy of history]], [[Pierre Macherey]] in [[literary criticism]] and [[Nicos Poulantzas]] in [[sociology]]. The prominent [[Guevarist]] [[Régis Debray]] also studied under Althusser, as did the pre-eminent Lacanian psychoanalyst [[Jacques-Alain Miller]].
+
Althusser has had broad influence in the areas of [[Marxist philosophy]] and [[post-structuralism]]: [[Interpellation]] has been popularized and adapted by the [[feminist]] philosopher and critic [[Judith Butler]]; the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses has been of interest to Slovenian philosopher [[Slavoj Žižek]]; the attempt to view history as a process without a [[subject (philosophy)|subject]] attracted [[Jacques Derrida]]; [[historical materialism]] was defended as a coherent doctrine from the standpoint of [[analytic philosophy]] by [[Gerald A. Cohen]]; the interest in [[structure and agency]] sparked by Althusser played a role in [[Anthony Giddens]]'s [[theory of structuration]]; Althusser was vehemently attacked by British [[historian]] [[E. P. Thompson]] in his book ''The Poverty of Theory.'' <ref>E.P. Thompson. ''The Poverty of Theory and other Essays.''(New York: Monthy Review Press, 1979.)</ref>
  
== Endnotes ==
+
Several of Althusser's students became eminent intellectuals in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s: [[Alain Badiou]] and [[Étienne Balibar]] in [[philosophy]], [[Jacques Ranciere]] in [[history]] and the [[philosophy of history]], [[Pierre Macherey]] in [[literary criticism]] and [[Nicos Poulantzas]] in [[sociology]]. The prominent [[Che Guevara|Guevarist]] [[Régis Debray]] also studied under Althusser, as did the pre-eminent Lacanian psychoanalyst [[Jacques-Alain Miller]].
<references />
 
  
 
== See also ==
 
== See also ==
Line 116: Line 120:
 
*[[Alain Badiou]]
 
*[[Alain Badiou]]
 
*[[Young Marx]]
 
*[[Young Marx]]
 +
 +
 +
== Notes ==
 +
<references />
  
 
== References ==
 
== References ==
* Althusser, Louis. ''Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays''. ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70NB.html Online version])
+
 
** ''Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists''.
+
* Althusser, Louis. 1972. ''Lenin and philosophy, and other essays.'' New York: Monthly Review Press. ISBN 085345213X
** ''For Marx''. ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/FM65NB.html Online version])
+
* Althusser, Louis, Olivier Corpet, and François Matheron. 1996. ''Writings on psychoanalysis Freud and Lacan. European perspectives.'' New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0585041474
** ''[[Reading Capital]]'' (with [[Étienne Balibar]], [[Pierre Macherey]], etc.). ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/RC68NB.html Online version])
+
*F erretter, Luke. 2006. ''Louis Althusser.'' (Routledge critical thinkers.) London: Routledge. ISBN 0415327318
** ''The Spectre of Hegel: Early Writings''.
+
* Hansom, Paul. 2001. ''Twentieth-century European cultural theorists,'' First series. ''Dictionary of literary biography,'' v. 242. Detroit, MI: Gale Group. ISBN 0787646598
** ''Essays in Self-Criticism''. ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/ESC76NB.html Online version])
+
* Kurzweil, Edith. 1980. ''The age of structuralism Lévi-Strauss to Foucault.'' New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 023104920X
** ''Philosophy and the Spontaneous Philosophy of the Scientists''. ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/PSPS90NB.html Onlive version])
+
* Lewis, William S. 2005. ''Louis Althusser and the traditions of French Marxism.'' Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 0739109839
** ''Machiavelli and Us''.
+
* Montag, Warren. 2003. ''Louis Althusser.'' Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333918983
** ''Politics and History''. ([http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/PH72.html Online version])
+
* Thompson, E.P. ''The Poverty of Theory and other Essays.'' New York: Monthy Review Press. ISBN 0853454892
** ''The Humanist Controversy and Other Texts''.
 
** ''Writings on Psychoanalysis''.
 
** ''The Future Lasts Forever: A Memoir''.
 
** ''Althusser: A Critical Reader'' (ed. Gregory Elliott).
 
* [[Perry Anderson|Anderson, Perry]], ''Considerations on Western Marxism''
 
* [[Alex Callinicos|Callinicos, Alex]] (ed.), ''Althusser's Marxism'' (London: Pluto Press, 1976).
 
* James, Susan, 'Louis Althusser' in Skinner, Q. (ed.) ''The Return of Grand Theory in the Human Sciences''.
 
* Waters, Malcolm, ''Modern Sociological Theory'', [[1994]], page 116.
 
*Lewis, William, "Louis Althusser and the Traditions of French Marxism." Lexington books, 2005. ([http://www.lexingtonbooks.com/Catalog/SingleBook.shtml?command=Search&db=^DB/CATALOG.db&eqSKUdata=0739109839 link])
 
  
 
== External links ==   
 
== External links ==   
* [http://samvak.tripod.com/althusser.html Althusser's concept of interpellation]  
+
* [http://samvak.tripod.com/althusser.html Althusser - A Critique: Competing Interpellations and the Third Text] by Dr. Sam Vaknin.
* [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/index.htm The Louis Althusser Internet Archive at Marxists.org]
+
* [http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/index.htm The Louis Althusser Internet Archive at Marxists.org].
* [http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism09.html Marxist Media Theory - Althusser]
+
* [http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/marxism/marxism09.html Marxist Media Theory - Althusser].  
* [http://ptb.sunhost.be/marx2mao/Other/Index.html#LA Althusser texts at mirror site Marx2Mao]
+
* [http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9646 A critical review of Louis Althusser's For Marx].  
* [http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=9646 A critical review of Louis Althusser's For Marx]
+
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=383 Texts from Althusser & texts about him - in French] on ''Multitudes'' website.  
* [http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Issues/marx/judt-alth.html A critical review of Althusser's memoir]
+
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/auteur.php3?id_auteur=311 Althusser's texts on ''Multitudes''].
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=383 Texts from Althusser & texts about him - in French] on ''[[Multitudes]]'' website.
+
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1144 Texts from the October 1995 symposium "''Lire Althusser aujourd'hui''"].
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/auteur.php3?id_auteur=311 Althusser's texts on ''Multitudes'']
+
*[http://www.psikeba.com.ar/recursos/autores/althusser.htm Louis Althusser  en Psikeba].  
* [http://multitudes.samizdat.net/article.php3?id_article=1144 Texts from the October 1995 symposium "''Lire Althusser aujourd'hui''"]
 
*[http://www.psikeba.com.ar/recursos/autores/althusser.htm Louis Althusser  en Psikeba]
 
* [http://www.labortribune.net/ArticleHolder/200607_Althusser/tabid/102/Default.aspx A review of Althusser's Philosophy of the Encounter: Later Writings, 1978-1987]
 
 
 
{{portalpar|Philosophy|Socrates.png}}
 
  
[[Category:Philosophy and religion]]
+
===General Philosophy Sources===
[[Category:20th century philosophers|Althusser, Louis]]
+
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].
[[Category:Alumni of the École Normale Supérieure|Althusser, Louis]]
+
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]. R
[[Category:Continental philosophers|Althusser, Louis]]
+
*[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/gpi/index.htm Guide to Philosophy on the Internet].
[[Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease|Althusser, Louis]]
+
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online].
[[Category:French Communist Party members|Althusser, Louis]]
+
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg].
[[Category:French philosophers|Althusser, Louis]]
+
[[Category:Marxist theorists|Althusser, Louis]]
+
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
[[Category:Political philosophers|Althusser, Louis]]
+
[[Category:philosophy]]
 +
[[Category:Politics and social sciences]]
 +
[[Category:philosophers]]
  
  
{{Credit|76133304}}
+
{{Credits|Louis_Althusser|76133304|Hegemony|166877989|Overdetermination|163476497}}

Revision as of 16:21, 24 September 2012

Western Philosophy
twentieth-century philosophy
Name: Louis Althusser
Birth: October 16, 1918 (Birmendreïs, Algeria)
Death: October 23, 1990 (Paris, France)
School/tradition: Marxism, Structuralism
Main interests
Politics, Economics, Ideology
Notable ideas
The 'Epistemological Break', Problematic, Overdetermination, Ideological State Apparatuses, Interpellation
Influences Influenced
Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin, Mao Zedong, Antonio Gramsci, Baruch de Spinoza, Georges Canguilhem, Gaston Bachelard, Sigmund Freud, Jacques Lacan Michel Foucault, Alain Badiou, Étienne Balibar, Judith Butler, Anthony Giddens, Perry Anderson

Louis Pierre Althusser (Pronunciation: altuˡseʁ) (October 16, 1918 - October 23, 1990) was a Marxist philosopher. He was born in Algeria and studied at the prestigious École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he eventually became Professor of Philosophy. He was a leading academic proponent of the French Communist Party and his arguments were a response to multiple threats to its ideological foundations, including the influence of empiricism and a growing interest in humanistic and democratic socialist orientations. Althusser is commonly referred to as a Structural Marxist, although his relationship to other schools of French structuralism is not a simple affiliation.

Althusser believed that Marx’s theories had been incorrectly interpreted because they had been viewed as a single body of work, when in fact Marx had experienced an “epistemological break” which separated his later work from his earlier humanism. He declared that Marx had developed a ground-breaking historical theory which regarded the individual as a product of society, culture and “ideology.” He claimed that Marx analyzed society in terms of social and political units called “practices” rather than in terms of the individual. His ideas influenced a number of twenty-first century thinkers, including Jacques Derrida, G. A. Cohen, Anthony Giddens, Judith Butler, and Slavoj Žižek, and several of his students became eminent intellectuals.

Life

Early Life

Most of the information about Althusser’s life comes from his two autobiographies, L'Avenir dure longtemps ("The Future Lasts a Long Time") published in America as "The Future Lasts Forever," in a single volume with Althusser's other, shorter, earlier autobiography, "The Facts."

Althusser was born October 16, 1918 in French Algeria in the town of Birmendreïs, to a pied-noirs (European-Algerian) family. He was named after his paternal uncle who had been killed in the First World War. According to Althusser, his mother had intended to marry this uncle, and married his father only because of the brother's demise. Althusser claimed that he suffered deep psychological damage because his mother treated him as a substitute for his deceased uncle.

Following the death of his father, Althusser moved from Algiers with his mother and younger sister to Marseilles, where he spent the rest of his childhood. He joined the Catholic youth movement Jeunesse Etudiante Chrétienne in 1937. Althusser performed brilliantly at school and was accepted to the elite Ecole Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris. However, he found himself enlisted during the run-up to World War Two, and like most French soldiers following the Fall of France, Althusser was interned in a German prisoner of war camp. Here, he came into contact with Jacques Martin, and became interested in Communism. He was relatively content as a prisoner, and remained in the camp for the rest of the war, unlike many of his contemporaries who escaped to fight again; a circumstance which Althusser later regretted.

Post-War

After the war, Althusser was able finally to attend ENS. However, he was in poor health, both mentally and physically, and in 1947, he received electroconvulsive therapy. From this time, Althusser suffered from periodic mental illness for the rest of his life. The ENS was sympathetic however, and allowed him to reside in his own room in the school infirmary. Althusser lived at the ENS in the Rue d'Ulm for decades, except for periods of hospitalization.

In 1946, Althusser met Hélène Rytman, a Lithuanian-Jewish revolutionary eight years older than him, who remained his companion until her murder, by Althusser, in 1980.

Formerly a devout, if left-wing, Roman Catholic, Althusser joined the French Communist Party (PCF) in 1948, at a time when others, such as Merleau-Ponty, were losing sympathy for it. That same year, Althusser passed the agrégation in philosophy with a dissertation on Hegel, which allowed him to become a tutor at the ENS.

In 1956, at the Twentieth Party Congress, Nikita Khrushchev began the process of "de-Stalinization." For many Marxists, including the PCF's leading theoretician Roger Garaudy, this meant the recovery of the humanist roots of Marx's thought, such as the theory of alienation. Althusser, however, opposed this trend, sympathizing instead with the criticisms made by the Communist Party of China, although cautiously. His stance during this period earned him notoriety within the PCF and he was attacked by its secretary-general Waldeck Rochet. As a philosopher, he was taking another path, which eventually led him to "random materialism" (matérialisme aléatoire), but this did not stop him from aggressively promoting orthodox Marxist thought to supposed "heretics," as he did in his 1973 answer to John Lewis.

Despite the involvement of many of his students in the protests and strikes of May 1968, which bought down the DeGaulle government in France, Althusser initially greeted these developments with silence. Later he followed the official French Communist Party line in describing the students as victims of "infantile" leftism. As a result, Althusser was attacked by many former supporters. In response to these criticisms, he revised some of his positions, claiming that his earlier writings contained mistakes, and his later works demonstrated a significant shift in emphasis.

1980s

On November 16, 1980, after a period of intense mental instability, Althusser strangled his wife to death. The exact circumstances of her death are debated; some believed it was deliberate, others accidental. Althusser himself, who had been alone with his wife when she died, claimed not to have a clear memory of the event. He was diagnosed as suffering from "diminished responsibility," and was not tried, but instead committed to the Sainte-Anne psychiatric hospital. Althusser remained in the hospital until 1983. After his release, he moved to Northern Paris and lived reclusively, seeing few people and no longer working, except for the production of his autobiography. He died of a heart attack on October 22, 1990, at the age of 72.

Thought and Works

Althusser's earlier works include the influential volume Reading Capital, a collection of the work of Althusser and his students on an intensive philosophical re-reading of Karl Marx's Capital. The book reflects on the philosophical status of Marxist theory as "critique of political economy," and on its object. The current English edition of this work includes only the essays of Althusser and Étienne Balibar, while the original French edition contains additional contributions from Jacques Ranciere and Pierre Macherey, among others. The project was somewhat analogous, within Marxism, to the contemporary psychoanalytic return to Freud undertaken by Jacques Lacan, with whom Althusser was also involved. (Althusser's personal and professional relationship with Lacan was complex; the two were at times great friends and correspondents, at times enemies.)

Several of Althusser's theoretical positions have remained very influential in Marxist philosophy, though he sometimes overstated his arguments deliberately in order to provoke controversy. Althusser's essay On the Young Marx draws a term from the philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard in proposing a great "epistemological break" between Marx's early, "Hegelian and Feuerbachian" writings and his later, properly Marxist texts. His essay Marxism and Humanism is a strong statement of anti-humanism in Marxist theory, condemning ideas like "human potential" and "species-being," which are often put forth by Marxists, as outgrowths of a bourgeois ideology of "humanity." His essay Contradiction and Overdetermination borrows the concept of overdetermination (the idea that a single observed effect is determined by multiple causes at once) from psychoanalysis, in order to replace the idea of "contradiction" with a more complex model of multiple causality in political situations. This idea is closely related to Antonio Gramsci's concept of hegemony). According to Gramsci, hegemony consists of socio-political power that flows from enabling the "spontaneous consent" of the populace through intellectual and moral leadership or authority, as employed by the subalterns of the State.

Althusser is also widely known as a theorist of ideology, and his best-known essay is Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation [1]. The essay establishes the concept of ideology, also based on Gramsci's theory of hegemony. Whereas hegemony is ultimately determined entirely by political forces, ideology draws on Freud's and Lacan's concepts of the unconscious and mirror-phase respectively, and describes the structures and systems that allow us to have a meaningful concept of the self. These structures, for Althusser, are both agents of repression and inevitable, it is impossible not to be subjected to ideology.

The 'epistemological break'

It was Althusser's view that Marx's thought had been fundamentally misunderstood and underestimated. He fiercely condemned various interpretations of Marx’s works - historicism, idealism, economism - on the grounds that they had failed to realize that with the "science of history," historical materialism, Marx had constructed a revolutionary view of social change. Althusser believed that these misinterpretations resulted from the mistaken notion that Marx's entire body of work could be understood as a coherent whole. Instead, Althusser held that the work of Marx contains a radical "epistemological break." Though the early works are bound by the categories of German philosophy and classical political economy, The German Ideology (written in 1845) is a sudden and unprecedented departure which paves the way for Marx's later works.

The misunderstanding is compounded by the fact that even Marx himself did not fully comprehend the significance of his own work, being only able to communicate it obliquely and tentatively. The shift in Marx’s thought can only be revealed by a careful and sensitive "symptomatic reading" of his works. It was Althusser's project to help the world fully grasp the originality and power of Marx's extraordinary theory, giving as much attention to what is not said as to the explicit. He held that Marx had discovered a "continent of knowledge." He compared Marx’s ideas on history to the contributions of Thales to mathematics, Galileo to physics or, Freud to psychoanalysis, claiming that the structure of his theory was unlike anything posited by his predecessors.

Althusser believed that underlying Marx's discovery was a ground-breaking epistemology centered on the rejection of the dichotomy between subject and object, which made his work incompatible with its antecedents. At the root of Marx’s “epistemological break” was a rejection of the idea, held by classical economists, that the needs of individuals could be treated as a fact or 'given,' independent of any form of economic organization, and could therefore serve as a premise for a theory explaining the character of a mode of production, and as an independent starting-point for a theory about society. According to Althusser, Marx did not simply argue that people's needs are largely created by their social environment and thus vary with time and place. Instead, Marx abandoned the very idea that there could be a theory about the essential nature of human beings that preceded any theory about how they come to be that way.

Althusser also believed that Marx's theory was built on concepts, such as forces and relations of production, that had no counterpart in classical political economy. Even when existing terms were adopted, such as the combination of David Ricardo's notions of rent, profit and interests through the theory of surplus value, their meaning and relation to other concepts in the theory was significantly different from their conventional usage. Apart from its unique structure, the historical materialism had an explanatory power unlike that of classical political economy. Whereas political economy explained economic systems as a response to individual needs, Marx's analysis accounted for a wider range of social phenomena and their roles in a structured whole. Althusser concluded that Capital provided both a model of the economy and a description of the structure and development of a whole society.

Though Althusser steadfastly held onto the claim that Marx’s “epistemological break” existed, he later acknowledged that the occurrence of Marx’s turning point around 1845 was not clearly defined, because traces of humanism, historicism and Hegelianism were to be found in Capital. He noted that only Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme [1] and some notes on a book by Adolph Wagner [2] were completely free from humanist ideology. Althusser considered the epistemological break to be a process instead of a clearly defined event. He described Marxism and psychoanalysis as "scissional" sciences, which always had to struggle against ideology, thus explaining the succeeding ruptures and splits. They were scissional sciences because their objects, "class struggle" and the human unconscious mind, were themselves split and divided.

Practices

Because of Marx's belief in the close relation between the individual and society, Althusser believed it was pointless to try to build a social theory on a prior conception of the individual. The subject to be observed was not individual human elements, but rather 'structure.' According to Althusser, Marx did not explain society by appealing to one factor (individuals), but broke it up into related units called ‘practices.’ Althusser defended Marx’s historical materialism against the charge that it crudely posited a base and superstructure and then attempted to explain all aspects of the superstructure by appealing to features of the base, saying it was a mistake to attribute this view, based on economic determinism, to Marx. Just as Marx criticized the idea that a social theory can be founded on an historical conception of human needs, he dismissed the idea that an independently defined notion of economic practice can be used to explain other aspects of society.

Like Lukács, Althusser believed that both the base and the superstructure are dependent on the whole. The advantage of using practices over individuals as a starting point for analysis is that, although each practice is only a part of a complex whole of society, a practice is a whole in itself, consisting of various different kinds of parts; economic practice, for example, contained raw materials, tools, individual persons, and management policies, all united in a process of production. Althusser conceived of society as an interconnected collection of these wholes, economic practice, ideological practice and politico-legal practice, which together made up one complex whole. In his view, all practices are dependent on each other. For example, among the relations of production are the buying and selling of labor power by capitalists and workers. These relations are part of economic practice, but can only exist within the context of a legal system which establishes individual agents as buyers and sellers; furthermore, the arrangement must be maintained by political and ideological means. From this it can be seen that aspects of economic practice depend on the superstructure and that the reverse is also true.

Contradiction and overdetermination

An analysis in terms of interdependent practices helps us to conceive of how society is organized, but also allows us to comprehend social change and thus provides a theory of history. Althusser explained the reproduction of the relations of production by reference to aspects of ideological and political practice; conversely, the emergence of new production relations could be explained by the failure of these mechanisms. Marx’s theory seemed to posit a system in which an imbalance between two parts could lead to compensatory adjustments at other levels, or sometimes to a major reorganization of the whole. To develop this idea, Althusser relied on the concepts of “contradiction” and “non-contradiction,” which he claimed were illuminated by their relation to a complex structured whole. Practices are contradictory when they grate on one another and non-contradictory when they support one another. Althusser elaborated on these concepts by referring to Lenin’s analysis of the Russian Revolution of 1917.

Lenin posited that in spite of widespread discontent throughout Europe in the early twentieth century, Russia was the country in which revolution occurred because it contained all the contradictions possible within a single state at the time. It was, in his words, the ‘weak link’ in a ‘collection of imperialist states.’ The revolution was explained in relation to two groups of circumstances: first, the existence within Russia of large-scale exploitation in cities, mining districts, disparity between urban industrialization and medieval conditions in the countryside, and lack of unity among the ruling class; second, a foreign policy which played into the hands of revolutionaries, such as the elites who had been exiled by the Tsar and had become sophisticated socialists.

This example was used by Althusser to reinforce his claim that Marx did not see social change as the result of a single contradiction between the forces and the relations of production, but rather held a more complex view. The differences between events in Russia and Western Europe showed that a contradiction between forces and relations of production may be necessary, but is not sufficient, to bring about revolution. The circumstances that produced revolution in Russia, were heterogeneous, and could not be regarded as aspects of one large contradiction. Each was a contradiction within a particular social totality. From this, Althusser drew the conclusion that Marx’s concept of contradiction was inseparable from the concept of a social whole. In order to emphasize that changes in social structure relate to numerous contradictions, Althusser described these changes as "overdetermined," taking a term which Sigmund Freud used to describe a situation in which a single observed effect is determined by multiple causes, any one of which might be able to account for the effect on its own. This interpretation accounts for how many different circumstances may play a part in the course of events, and explains how these states of affairs may combine to produce unexpected social changes, or ‘ruptures’.

However, Althusser did not give all the events that determine social changes the same causal status. While a part of a complex whole, economic practice was, in his view, a structure in dominance: it played a major part in determining the relations between other spheres, and had more effect on them than they had on it. The most prominent aspect of society (the religious aspect in feudal formations and the economic aspect in capitalist ones) was called the 'dominant instance', and was in turn determined 'in the last instance' by the economy. Althusser believed that the economic practice of a society determined which other aspect of it would dominate the society as a whole.

Ideological state apparatuses

Althusser held that it was necessary to conceive of how society makes the individual in its own image. Within capitalist society, the human individual is generally regarded as a subject endowed with the property of being a self-conscious agent. For Althusser, however, a person’s capacity for perceiving himself or herself in this way is not innate, but acquired within the structure of established social practices, which imposes on individuals the role (forme) of a subject. Social practices both determine the characteristics of the individual and provide an idea of the range of properties they can have, and of the limits of each social practice. Althusser argued that many of our roles and activities are given to us by social practice: for example, the production of steelworkers is a part of economic practice, while the production of lawyers is part of politico-legal practice. However, other characteristics of individuals, such as their beliefs about the good life or their metaphysical reflections on the nature of the self, do not easily fit into these categories. Althusser proposed that human values, desires and preferences are inculcated by ideological practice, the sphere which has the defining property of constituting individuals as subjects through the process of interpellation. “Ideological practice” consists of an assortment of institutions called Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs), which include the family, the media, religious organizations and the education system, as well as the received ideas they propagate [2] There is, however, no one ISA that produces in us the belief that we are self-conscious agents. Instead, we learn this belief in the course of learning what it is to be a daughter, a schoolchild, black, a steelworker, a councillor, and so forth.

Despite its many institutional forms, the function and structure of ideology is unchanging and present throughout history; as Althusser's first thesis on ideology states, "ideology has no history." All ideologies constitute a subject, even though he or she may differ according to each particular ideology; each person’s idea of who he or she is, is delivered by ideology. The second of Althusser's theses is that "ideology has a material existence:"

Ideas have disappeared as such (insofar as they are endowed with an ideal or spiritual existence), to the precise extent that it has emerged that their existence is inscribed in the actions of practices governed by rituals defined in the last instance by an ideological apparatus. It therefore appears that the subject acts insofar as he is acted on by the following system (set out in the order of its real determination): ideology existing in a material ideological apparatus, describing material practices governed by a material ritual, which practices exist in the material actions of a subject acting in all consciousness according to his belief. [3]

Althusser offers the example of the Voice of God - an embodiment of Christian religious ideology - instructing a person on what her place in the world is and what she must do to be reconciled with Christ. In order for that person to identify herself as a Christian, she must first already be a subject of the “material ideology” of Christianity. People acquire their identities by seeing themselves and their social roles mirrored in material ideologies.

Influence

Although Althusser's theories were developed in an attempt to defend Communist orthodoxy, his endeavor to present Marxism as a form of structuralism reflected a move away from the intellectual isolation of the Stalinist era, and was symptomatic of Marxism's growing academic respectability and of a movement to emphasize Marx's legacy as a philosopher rather than as an economist.

Althusser has had broad influence in the areas of Marxist philosophy and post-structuralism: Interpellation has been popularized and adapted by the feminist philosopher and critic Judith Butler; the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses has been of interest to Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek; the attempt to view history as a process without a subject attracted Jacques Derrida; historical materialism was defended as a coherent doctrine from the standpoint of analytic philosophy by Gerald A. Cohen; the interest in structure and agency sparked by Althusser played a role in Anthony Giddens's theory of structuration; Althusser was vehemently attacked by British historian E. P. Thompson in his book The Poverty of Theory. [4]

Several of Althusser's students became eminent intellectuals in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s: Alain Badiou and Étienne Balibar in philosophy, Jacques Ranciere in history and the philosophy of history, Pierre Macherey in literary criticism and Nicos Poulantzas in sociology. The prominent Guevarist Régis Debray also studied under Althusser, as did the pre-eminent Lacanian psychoanalyst Jacques-Alain Miller.

See also


Notes

  1. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses: Notes Toward an Investigation is available in several English volumes including Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays
  2. The concept may be found in the text Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, published in English in: Louis Althusser. 1972. Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. (New York: Monthly Review Press).
  3. Louis Althusser. 1972. Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. (New York: Monthly Review Press), 169-170
  4. E.P. Thompson. The Poverty of Theory and other Essays.(New York: Monthy Review Press, 1979.)

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Althusser, Louis. 1972. Lenin and philosophy, and other essays. New York: Monthly Review Press. ISBN 085345213X
  • Althusser, Louis, Olivier Corpet, and François Matheron. 1996. Writings on psychoanalysis Freud and Lacan. European perspectives. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0585041474
  • F erretter, Luke. 2006. Louis Althusser. (Routledge critical thinkers.) London: Routledge. ISBN 0415327318
  • Hansom, Paul. 2001. Twentieth-century European cultural theorists, First series. Dictionary of literary biography, v. 242. Detroit, MI: Gale Group. ISBN 0787646598
  • Kurzweil, Edith. 1980. The age of structuralism Lévi-Strauss to Foucault. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 023104920X
  • Lewis, William S. 2005. Louis Althusser and the traditions of French Marxism. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. ISBN 0739109839
  • Montag, Warren. 2003. Louis Althusser. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333918983
  • Thompson, E.P. The Poverty of Theory and other Essays. New York: Monthy Review Press. ISBN 0853454892

External links

General Philosophy Sources


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.