actuality of agonin the name of messianic values of linguistic irenism, just
as we concede the existence of exploitation and struggle against it in the name
of values that demand its disappearance. In so doing, we become conscious
of the linguistic form taken by exploitation. This is called the dominant
ideology, whose vector and privileged instrument is language. This leads us
to realise that, when it comes to philosophy of language as well, there is also
a dominant ideology. It is time to say a little more on this subject.
The philosophy of language and the dominant ideology
It might be feared that the expression ‘dominant philosophy of language’ is
one of those phrases-slogans to which the Marxist tradition is partial and
which can be summarised in the circular definition according to which ‘the
dominant ideology is the ideology that dominates’. The drawbacks of this
tautology are clear: it amalgamates very different ways of thinking about
language (Chomsky, Habermas, Saussure, one struggle, one fight!) and permits
a cheap victory over them. We must therefore try to impart a more precise
content to the phrase. I shall do so in three stages. I am going to indicate the
structure of a dominant ideology; I shall enumerate six characteristics of the
dominant philosophy in linguistic matters; and I shall suggest the converse
characteristics, foreshadowing the reconstructive phase of my enterprise.
A dominant philosophy dominates in three ways. First of all, in the form
of a doxa. When it comes to language, this doxais usually called ‘ideology of
communication’, where the term ‘ideology’ must be understood in Barthes’s
sense – that is, as a purely negative term (there is no question here of an
allusion inseparable from illusion).^14 This ideology is embodied in a simple
formula: ‘language is an instrument of communication’.
What is striking about this formula is its irrefutable character. For it is clear
that I speak in order to communicate with another person – that is, in order
to exchange information with her. ‘Can you tell me what the time is?’ is the
canonical utterance: this is what language is for, that is why it is at my disposal.
Linguistic particles flow from a mouth to an ear and this flow is then recip-
64 • Chapter Three
(^14) See Barthes 2002.