Understanding Culture, Society, and Politics

1. Who is Louis Althusser?

- French philosopher who attained international renown in the 1960s for his attempt to fuse Marxism and
structuralism.
LOUIS ALTHUSSER builds on the work of Jacques Lacan to understand the way ideology functions
in society. He thus moves away from the earlier Marxist understanding of ideology. In the earlier model,
ideology was believed to create what was termed "false consciousness," a false understanding of the way the
world functioned (for example, the suppression of the fact that the products we purchase on the open
market are, in fact, the result of the exploitation of laborers). Althusser explains that for Marx "Ideology is
[...] thought as an imaginary construction whose status is exactly like the theoretical status of the dream
among writers before Freud. For those writers, the dream was the purely imaginary, i.e. null, result of the
'day's residues'". Althusser, by contrast, approximates ideology to Lacan's understanding of "reality," the
world we construct around us after our entrance into the symbolic order. For Althusser, as for Lacan, it is
impossible to access the "Real conditions of existence" due to our reliance on language; however, through a
rigorous"scientific" approach to society, economics, and history, we can come close to perceiving if not those
"Real conditions" at least the ways that we are inscribed in ideology by complex processes of recognition.
Althusser's understanding of ideology has in turn influenced a number of important Marxist thinkers,
including Chantalle Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, Slavoj Zizek, and Fredric Jameson.
Althusser posits a series of hypotheses that he explores to clarify his understanding of ideology:
1) "Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of
existence". The traditional way of thinking of ideology led Marxists to show how ideologies are false by
pointing to the real world hidden by ideology (for example, the "real" economic base for ideology). According
to Althusser, by contrast, ideology does not "reflect" the real world but "represents" the "imaginary
relationship of individuals" to the real world; the thing ideology (mis)represents is itself already at one
remove from the real. In this, Althusser follows the Lacanian understanding of the imaginary order, which
is itself at one step removed from the Lacanian Real. In other words, we are always within ideology because
of our reliance on language to establish our "reality"; different ideologies are but different representations of
our social and imaginary "reality" not a representation of the Real itself.
2) "Ideology has a material existence". Althusser contends that ideology has a material existence
because "an ideology always exists in an apparatus, and its practice, or practices". Ideology always
manifests itself through actions, which are "inserted into practices", for example, rituals, conventional
behavior, and so on. Indeed, Althusser goes so far as to adopt Pascal's formula for belief: "Pascal says more
or less: 'Kneel down, move your lips in prayer, and you will believe'". It is our performance of our relation to
others and to social institutions that continually instantiates us as subjects. Judith Butler's understanding
of performativity could be said to be strongly influenced by this way of thinking about ideology.
3) "All ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects". According to
Althusser, the main purpose of ideology is in "'constituting' concrete individuals as subjects". So pervasive
is ideology in its constitution of subjects that it forms our very reality and thus appears to us as "true" or
"obvious." Althusser gives the example of the "hello" on a street: "the rituals of ideological recognition [...]
guarantee for us that we are indeed concrete, individual, distinguishable and (naturally) irreplaceable
subjects". Through "interpellation," individuals are turned into subjects (which are always ideological).
Althusser's example is the hail from a police officer: "'Hey, you there!'" "Assuming that the theoretical scene
I have imagined takes place in the street, the hailed individual will turn round. By this mere
one-hundred-and-eighty-degree physical conversion, he becomes a subject". The very fact that we do not
recognize this interaction as ideological speaks to the power of ideology:
what thus seems to take place outside ideology (to be precise, in the street), in reality takes place in
ideology [....] That is why those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology: one of
the effects of ideology is the practical denegation of the ideological character of ideology by ideology: ideology
never says, "I am ideological."
4) "Individuals are always-already subjects". Although he presents his example of interpellation in a
temporal form (I am interpellated and thus I become a subject, I enter ideology), Althusser makes it clear
that the "becoming-subject" happens even before we are born. "This proposition might seem paradoxical",
Althusser admits; nevertheless, "That an individual is always-already a subject, even before he is born, is
[...] the plain reality, accessible to everyone and not a paradox at all". Even before the child is born, "it is
 certain in advance that it will bear its Father's Name, and will therefore have an identity and be
irreplaceable. Before its birth, the child is therefore always-already a subject, appointed as a subject in and
by the specific familial ideological configuration in which it is 'expected' once it has been conceived".
Althusser thus once again invokes Lacan's ideas, in this case Lacan's understanding of the
"Name-of-the-Father."
Most subjects accept their ideological self-constitution as "reality" or "nature" and thus rarely run
afoul of the repressive State apparatus, which is designed to punish anyone who rejects the dominant
ideology. Hegemony is thus reliant less on such repressive State apparatuses as the police than it is on
those Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs) by which ideology is inculcated in all subjects. (See the next
module for an explanation of ISAs.) As Althusser puts it, "the individual is interpellated as a (free) subject in
order that he shall submit freely to the commandments of the Subject, i.e. in order that he shall (freely)
accept his subjection, i.e. in order that he shall make the gestures and actions of his subjection 'all by
himself'".
2. What are his two apparatuses?
LOUIS ALTHUSSER complicates Marx's understanding of the relation between base and
superstructure by adding his concept of "ideological state apparatuses." Marx distinguished among various
"levels" in a society: the infrastructure or economic base and the superstructure, which includes political
and legal institutions (law, the police, the government) as well as ideology (religious, moral, legal, political,
etc.). The superstructure has a relative autonomy with relation to the base; it relies on the economic base
but can sometimes persist for a long period after major changes in the economic base. Althusser does not
reject the Marxist model; however, he does want to explore the ways in which ideology is more pervasive
and more "material" than previously acknowledged. As a result, he proposes to distinguish "ideological
state apparatuses" (ISAs for short) from the repressive state apparatus (SA for short). The state
apparatus includes "the Government, the Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons,
etc." These are the agencies that function "by violence," by at some point imposing punishment or privation
in order to enforce power.
To distinguish ISAs from the SA, Althusser offers a number of examples:
● the religious ISA (the system of the different public and private 'Schools'),
● the family ISA,
● the legal ISA,
● the political ISA (the political system, including the different Parties),
● the trade union ISA,
● the communications ISA (press, radio and television, etc.),
● the cultural ISA (Literature, the Arts, sports, etc.)
These ISAs, by contrast to the SA, are less centralized and more heterogeneous; they are also
believed to access the private rather than the public realm of existence, although Althusser's goal here is to
question the bourgeois distinction between private and public: "The distinction between the public and the
private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois
law exercises its 'authority'". The main thing that distinguishes the ISAs from the SAs is ideology: "the
Repressive State Apparatus functions 'by violence,' whereas the Ideological State Apparatuses function 'by
ideology'". To be more precise, Althusser explains that the SA functions predominantly by violence or
repression and only secondarily by ideology. Similarly the ISAs function predominantly by ideology but can
include punishment or repression secondarily: "Schools and Churches use suitable methods of
punishment, expulsion, selection, etc., to 'discipline' not only their shepherds, but also their flocks. The
same is true of the Family... The same is true of the cultural IS Apparatus (censorship, among other
things), etc.".
Although the ISAs appear to be quite disparate, they are unified by subscribing to a common
ideology in the service of the ruling class; indeed, the ruling class must maintain a degree of control over
the ISAs in order to ensure the stability of the repressive state apparatus (the SA): "To my knowledge, no
class can hold State power over a long period without at the same time exercising its hegemony over and in
the State Ideological Apparatuses". It is much harder for the ruling class to maintain control over the
multiple, heterogeneous, and relatively autonomous ISAs (alternative perspectives can be voiced in each
ISA), which is why there is a continual struggle for hegemony in this realm.
 It is also worth mentioning that, according to Althusser, "what the bourgeoisie has installed as its
number-one, i.e. as its dominant ideological State apparatus, is the educational apparatus, which has in
fact replaced in its functions the previously dominant ideological State apparatus, the Church" . Through
education, each mass of individuals that leaves the educational system at various junctures (the laborers
who leave the system early, the petty bourgeoisie who leave after their B.A.s, and the leaders who complete
further specialist training) enters the work force with the ideology necessary for the reproduction of the
current system: "Each mass ejected en route is practically provided with the ideology which suits the role it
has to fulfill in class society" . Other ISAs contribute to the replication of the dominant ideology but "no
other ideological State apparatus has the obligatory (and not least, free) audience of the totality of the
children in the capitalist social formation, eight hours a day for five or six days out of seven". The very
importance of this function is why schools are invested in hiding their true purpose through an obfuscating
ideology: "an ideology which represents the School as a neutral environment purged of ideology (because it
is...lay), where teachers respectful of the 'conscience' and 'freedom' of the children who are entrusted to
them (in complete confidence) by their 'parents' (who are free, too, i.e. the owners of their children) open up
for them the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults by their own example, by knowledge,
literature and their 'liberating' virtues"). So pervasive is this ideology, according to Althusser, that "those
teachers who, in dreadful conditions, attempt to turn the few weapons they can find in the history and
learning they 'teach' against the ideology, the system and the practices in which they are trapped... are a
kind of hero".
- Louis Althusser argued that the education system was part of what he called the ideological state
apparatus.
Althusser argued that the bourgeoisie maintain power by using both repressive state apparatus (coercive
power like the police and the army) and ideological state apparatus: institutions that spread bourgeois
ideology and ensure that the proletariat is in a state of false class consciousness. Schools and educational
institutions are, for Althusser, part of the ideological state apparatus: they prepare working-class pupils to
accept a life of exploitation.
In a way this is similar to Durkheim’s view that education serves to teach people the norms and values of
society, to preserve the value consensus, only for Althusser these norms and values are those that serve the
interests of the ruling class and it is a capitalist consensus that prevents necessary social change.
Education can perform this ideological role through both the formal curriculum and through other aspects
of school life (which is often described as the hidden curriculum). In terms of the formal curriculum,
decisions about what is taught and what is not taught impact the nature of the value consensus that the
education system produces.
Outside the formal curriculum, education also teaches us about hierarchy, respect for authority, obeying
the rules. Again, while functionalists might argue these are important values and skills for society to
function properly, Marxists like Althusser would argue that these serve to keep the rich and powerful in
their positions and to prevent rebellion and revolution. It is a good example of how sociological perspectives
work: two groups are observing the same social phenomena but from very different points of view.
3. Who is Talcott Parsons?
American sociologist and scholar whose theory of social action influenced the intellectual bases of
several disciplines of modern sociology. His work is concerned with a general theoretical system for the
analysis of society rather than with narrower empirical studies. He is credited with having introduced the
work of Max Weber and Vilfredo Pareto to American sociology.
In The Social System (1951), he turned his analysis to large-scale systems and the problems of
social order, integration, and equilibrium. He advocated a structural-functional analysis, a study of the
ways in which the interrelated and interacting units that form the structures of a social system contribute
to the development and maintenance of that system.
Other works by Parsons include Essays in Sociological Theory (1949; rev. ed. 1954), Economy and
Society (1956; with Neil J. Smelser), Structure and Process in Modern Societies (1960), Societies: Evolutionary
and Comparative Perspectives (1966), Sociological Theory and Modern Society (1967), Politics and Social
Structure (1969), and The American University (1973; with Gerald M. Platt and Neil J. Smelser).
 Most of Talcott Parsons' writings focused on Structural Functionalism, the theory that the
structure of society is shaped by its function and that social roles that individuals adopt are shaped by how
these roles support the society as a whole.
Parsons is most well known as a sociologist, however, he also taught courses and made
contributions to other fields, including economics, race relations, and anthropology. Most of his work
focused on the concept of structural functionalism, which is the idea of analyzing society through a general
theoretical system.
Talcott Parsons played a major role in developing several important sociological theories. First, his
theory of the "sick role" in medical sociology was developed in association with psychoanalysis. The sick role
is a concept that concerns the social aspects of becoming ill and the privileges and obligations that come
with it. Parsons also played a crucial role in the development of "The Grand Theory," which was an attempt
to integrate the different social sciences into one theoretical framework. His main goal was to utilize
multiple social science disciplines to create one single universal theory of human relationships.
Parsons was often accused of being ethnocentric (the belief that your society is better than the one
you are studying). He was a bold and innovative sociologist for his time and is known for his contributions
in functionalism and neo-evolutionism. He published more than 150 books and articles during his lifetime.

4. What is the AGIL Scheme?

- Represents the four basic functions that all social systems must perform if they are to persist. It was one of
the first open systems theories of organizations.
Talcott Parsons is best known for the four functional imperatives for the “action” system, namely
the AGIL scheme. AGIL, a function is a group of activities directed to meet one or more system
requirements. Parsons believes that community development is closely related to the development of the
four main subsystem elements, namely culture (education), justice (integration), government (attainment of
goals), and economy (adaptation). Using this definition, Parsons believes that there are four functional
imperatives or characteristics of the whole system necessary: (a) Adaptation, the system must cope with
situational needs that come from outside. It must adapt to the environment and adapt the environment to
its needs; (b) Achieving goals, the system must define and achieve its primary goals; (c) Integration, the
system must regulate the relationship of the parts that are its components; and (d) Latency (pattern
maintenance), the system must complement, maintain and renew individual motivation and cultural
patterns that create and maintain that motivation. From some of these understandings and schemes, it can
analyze that the social system can work well if: (a) the social system can harmonize with the whole system;
(b) the harmony and sustainability of a system can run in harmony if there is support from other systems,
meaning that the planting of a loving character for the environment can be realized if various elements in
society can be in synergy with one another; (c) the social system can meet expectations or expectations and
can move statically and dynamically, adaptively in various changes, especially in anticipating the millennial
generation; (d) the social system is able to give birth to holistic community participation; (e) the social
system must also be able to be adaptive in dealing with problems if there is a potentially parasitic or
negative system; (f) keeping the system in balance through creativity.
AGIL is an acronym from the initials of each of the four systemic necessities. The AGIL system is
considered a cybernetic hierarchy and has generally the following order L-I-G-A, when the order is viewed
from an "informational" point of view; this implies that the L function could "control" or define the I function
(and the I the G and so on) approximately in the way in which a computer-game-program "defines" the
game. The program does not "determine" the game (which actual outcome would depend on the input of the
player, that was what Parsons in a sense called the voluntaristic aspect of action) but it "determined" the
logical parameter of the game, which lies implicit in the game's concrete design and rules. In this way,
Parsons would say that culture would not determine the social system but it would "define it." The AGIL
system had also an energy side (or a "conditional" side), which would go A-G-I-L. So that the Adaptive level
would be on the highest level of the cybernetic hierarchy from the energy or "conditional" point of view.
However, within these two reverse sequences of the hierarchy Parsons maintained that in the long historical
perspective, a system which was high in information (that is, a system that followed the L-I-G-A sequence)
would tend to prevail over a system which was high in energy. For example in the human body, the DNA is
the informational code which will tend to control "the body" which is high in energy. Within the action
system, Parsons would maintain that it was culture which was highest in information and which in his way
was in cybernetic control over other components of the action system, as well as the social system.
However, it is important to maintain that all action systems (including social systems) are always depending
on the (historically specific) equilibrium of the overall forces of information and condition, which both shape
the outcome of the system. Also it is important to highlight that the AGIL system does not "guarantee" any
historical system survival; they rather specify the minimum conditions for whether societies or action
systems in principle can survive. Whether a concrete action system survives or not is a sheer historical
question.

● Adaptation, or the capacity of society to interact with the environment. This includes, among other
things, gathering resources and producing commodities for social redistribution.
● Goal Attainment, or the capability to set goals for the future and make decisions accordingly.
Political resolutions and societal objectives are part of this necessity.
● Integration, or the harmonization of the entire society is a demand that the values and norms of
society are solid and sufficiently convergent. This requires, for example, the religious system to be
fairly consistent, and even at a more basic level, a common language.
● Latency, or latent pattern maintenance, challenges society to maintain the integrative elements of
the integration requirement above. This means institutions like family and school, which mediate
belief systems and values between an older generation and its successor.