Page 69 - Critical Dialogues in Cultural Studies

STUART HALL AND THE MARXIST CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGY 57

of bourgeois ideology, finally consolidated this usage when he wrote What
Is to Be Done? He depicted a highly polarized political struggle which
determined that ‘the only choice is—either bourgeois or socialist ideology.
There is no middle course (for mankind has not created a “third” ideology,
and, moreover, in a society torn by class antagonisms there can never be a
non-class or an above-class ideology)’ (Lenin, 1975:48). Ever since that
moment, the critical concept of ideology all but disappeared from marxism
until under the influence of both critical theory and, paradoxically, the
work of the early Althusser, it was rediscovered. 5
So when Laclau, Poulantzas and Hall criticize the classical theory for
conceiving of ideology as the ‘number-plates’ on the back of social
classes and for overlooking ideological differences within the dominant
classes, they are not criticizing Marx’s concept but a version of Lenin’s, and
are proposing an alternative which, admittedly, improves on certain
interpretations of Lenin’s conception. However, by conflating Marx and
Lenin on this issue, they fail to make a crucial distinction between two
different traditions within marxism and they do not seem to be aware of
any difference between Marx and Lenin in relation to the concept of
ideology.
Second, the charge that with Marx’s theory of ideology Thatcherism
would be understood as in no significant way different from traditional
conservative ruling ideas misses the crucial point, again, that for Marx
ideology and ruling ideas are not the same. By definition, Marx’s theory of
ideology did not and could not address the question of competing political
outlooks within a ruling party. Hall’s argument is right against an
interpretation of the leninist concept of ideology which rigidly imputes an
ideology to a particular class position, but not right against Marx’s
conception. But even addressing a neutral leninist definition of ideology,
the charge must be made with caution. True, Thatcherism and traditional
conservatism are different forms of political thought corresponding to
different stages of accumulation in the capitalist system. But one must not
forget that there is also an element of continuity. Both ideological forms
are concerned with the protection and expansion of the capitalist system
under a different form. Mrs Thatcher was not presiding over any change of
the mode of production, she was propping up and defending the same
capitalist system at a different stage of development. The novelty of her
position should not therefore be exaggerated.
Third, Hall criticizes Marx’s alleged recourse to false consciousness in
order to explain the success of ruling ideas, and its implicit empiricist
connotations. First of all, it must be clarified that Marx never defined
ideology simply as false consciousness or even used such expression. It was
Engels who used this expression, and only once (Engels, 1975:434). It is not
that I am trying to deny that ideology for Marx and Engels involved a form
of false consciousness. It certainly did, but it was not false consciousness in