It will be understood why this philosophy must be a Marxist philosophy.
Not only because its definition, as an instrument of class struggle in theory,
is Althusserian – hence Marxist – in origin, but because what is involved is
a struggle against the dominant philosophy in the domain of language: Anglo-
American analytical philosophy. This philosophy is based on presuppositions
which, if not directly utilitarian, are at least intentionalist and methodological-
individualist: it articulates the liberal position as regards philosophy of
language. To understand and criticise such a philosophy, we need the critical
power that Marxism alone can still provide.
There is another reason. The most important contemporary philosophical
work in this domain – that of Habermas – is explicitly derived from Marxism,
which it aims to reconstruct on new bases (those supplied by the concept of
communication, rather than that of labour). This philosophy merits criticism
and the objective of this book is not to go back, but to enter, into the house
of the bearded prophet. Hence some introductory theses.
Thesis no. 1. Despite a rich and varied tradition of thinking about language
by authors identified with Marxism, there has never hitherto been a Marxist
philosophy of language.
Thesis no. 2. This absence has deleterious consequences. The most important
is the domination of the dominant ideology. What Marxist theory understands
by ideology is, in reality, composed of language (and institutions, rituals and
practices that furnish utterances and discourses with their pragmatic context).
Not to produce a critique of language is to give free rein to the spontaneous
philosophies that sustain the dominant ideology and reflect its practice.
Thesis no. 3. The class enemy has always understood the importance of
linguistic issues. She has always employed armies of specialists charged with
managing linguistic and cultural problems: teachers, jurists, journalists – i.e.
the functionaries of the ideological state apparatuses, which do not function
by duress because they function by language. It is not a question of practising
an ingenuous ultra-leftism and condemning all journalist or teachers: being
a functionary in an ideological state apparatus does not prevent one from
criticising it (I am living proof of this); and if Marxism still survives today –
especially in the anglophone countries – it is often thanks to academics. It is
a question of weighing objective realities, the massive existence of discursive
practices and theoretical reflections that furnish the bourgeoisie with the
intellectual means for its domination. It can be said that the recent spectacular
12 • Chapter One