Page 60 - Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies

48 JORGE LARRAIN

contradiction which manifests or expresses itself at all levels but must be
thought of as ‘a unity which is constructed through the differences
between, rather than the homology of, practices’ (Hall, 1981b:32); and
second, that although not every contradiction in society can be reduced to
a class contradiction, ‘every contradiction is overdetermined by class
struggle’ (Laclau, 1977:108). Laclau starts by establishing against
Althusser that ideology cannot be simultaneously a level of any social
formation and the opposite to science. So he decides to abandon the
negative connotation of the concept (1977:101n). Hall underlines this
point by defining ideology as ‘those images, concepts and premises which
provide the frameworks through which we represent, interpret, understand
and “make sense” of some aspect of social existence’ (Hall, 1981a:31).
Three aspects of this conception are highlighted. ‘First, ideologies do not
consist of isolated and separate concepts, but in the articulation of different
elements into a distinctive set or chain of meanings’ (1981a:31). ‘Second,
ideological statements are made by individuals; but ideologies are not the
product of individual consciousness or intention. Rather we formulate our
intentions within ideology’ (1981a:31). ‘Third, ideologies “work” by
constructing for their subjects (individuals and collective) positions of
identification and knowledge which allow them to “utter” ideological
truths as if they were their authentic authors’ (1981a:32).
Both Laclau and Hall take Althusser’s idea that ideology interpellates
individuals as subjects as the basic explanation of how ideology works.
Ideologies are not really produced by individual consciousness but rather
individuals formulate their beliefs, within positions already fixed by
ideology, as if they were their true producers. However, individuals are not
necessarily recruited and constituted as subjects obedient to the ruling
class, the same mechanism of interpellation operates when individuals are
recruited by revolutionary ideologies. Laclau’s key insight is that ideologies
are made of elements and concepts which have no necessary class
belongingness and that these constituent units of ideologies can be
articulated to a variety of ideological discourses which represent different
classes. The class character of a concept is not given by its content but by
its articulation into a class ideological discourse. Hence, there are no ‘pure’
ideologies which necessarily correspond to certain class interests. Every
ideological discourse articulates several interpellations, not all of which are
class interpellations. In fact Laclau identifies two possible kinds of
antagonism which generate two types of interpellations. At the level of the
mode of production there exist class contradictions and class
interpellations. At the level of the social formation there are popular-
democratic contradictions and interpellations, that is to say, ideological
elements which interpellate individuals as ‘the people’, as the underdog.
The idea is that class interpellations work by trying to articulate popular-
democratic interpellations to the class ideological discourse: