1) What is the nature of The Object? The question seems obtuse so I'll attempt to explain what I mean in the context of Althusser's use or at least implications of what I am referring to as The Object. Essentially, what I see Althusser grappling with in his discussion of ideology and ideological apparatuses is the relationship between the subject (the always-already subject, the ideological subject, etc.) and objectivity or at least objects. This comes through in both theses where the first depicts ideology as the imaginary and representational relations between subjects and (to steal a Lacanian term) the Real and the second depicts ideology as almost a trace or residue from material conditions in a directly Marxian way. The issue I want to address and the true issue of my question concerns the positionality of the entities involved in the Subject-Object relation, particularly how one denotes either entity in this presumed dichotomous relationship.
When one engages in the discussion of Subject-Object relations, positioning both entities in a dialectical interaction as Althusser and Marx often do, then one walks into the analysis with the presumption of two different axioms I argue. Firstly, that there is the possibility of denotatively defining or understanding either entity (i.e. in some sense imparting onto them not only some sense of at least semi-stable essence but also some sense of sovereignty). Secondly, that there is a measurable positionality of either entity in this relationship (not only in concerns to abstract relationality but also physical positionality I would argue to an extent). The second axiom I would say is concerned with concepts like Wars of Position a la Gramsci, however, I am only briefly glossing this here and still have to think through it. However, this leads back to my initial question in concerns to The Object which I will define (perhaps inaccurately) as the presumption of the two axioms I discussed above being the possibility of denotation and measurable positionality and their application to the Real. When engaging in analysis (perhaps conjunctural), should we walk in with the presumption of The Object or must we perhaps destabilize the notion and thus our own beliefs in the sovereignty of our subjectivities and identities?
2) I want to push on Marx and Engels here for a moment as I believe the ideas they put forward in regards to the generation of dominant ideological structures from the ruling class's focus on certain material relations may perhaps be an ideational strain which still negatively impacts modern Marxist thought. Particularly, I find issue with the general schema of ideological production they theorize, the idea that the agentic upper classes trickle down ideational strands which become the prevailing ideologies of not only the ruling classes but also the subjugated classes. This idea engages in a belief of an active/passive relationship (the active ruler, the passive subject) which I believe could miss important issues for political analysis. In this belief we walk in with the notion that the subjugated have no part (or little part) in the construction of dominant ideologies which misses a huge point in regards to the perpetuation of ideology: desire. As Deleuze and Guattari famously (infamously perhaps) point out, the subjects of Fascism often desired that Fascism. Ideology isn't sustained solely on material dominance (either economically or, as Weber points out, by monopolizing violence) but also the mobilization of the libidinal and psychical. My question is then how do we read into Marx and Engels elements of desire and other forgotten factors of ideology? How can one perhaps selectively read Marx and Engels?
Comments
Post a Comment