THE SPATIAL IMPERATIVE OF SUBJECTIVITY 291longer as central as it was in cultural theory, it is
nonetheless key to how the subject and subjec-
tivity have been theorized.
In the early 1970s following the publication of
an article by the French philosopher Louis
Althusser, new ways of exploring ideology
emerged within Anglo-American cultural theory.
Althusser’s theory was remarkable for the way in
which it brought together a structural Marxist
conception of society, and a Lacanian-influenced
account of the structure of the psyche. Previ-
ously, ideology had been conceived of in the
narrower sense of ‘false consciousness’. This
Marxist term referred to the ways that individuals
were duped by ideology, and in vulgar terms,
how we are brainwashed by capitalism. It is a
simplification, yet we can say that ideology in
this sense was seen as a force bearing down on
passive individuals. Contrary to this tradition,
Althusser advanced the question of how individ-
uals are actively constituted as subjects through
ideology. Crucially, Althusser laid the way for
understanding ideology as sets of practices
which engage us, and in which we are always
engaged. And as I will describe in more detail,
Althusser’s theory of the subject is an influential
cornerstone in thinking about the spatial nature
of subjectivity.
While it has become commonplace to speak of
identities and subjectivities as performative,
Althusser’s account of ideology compels us to
consider closely the material contexts which
allow and delimit our individual and collective
performance of selves. Althusser may have fallen
out of favour, but interestingly enough there is an
increasing awareness in cultural theory of the
need to instil some sense of the material within
theorizations of the complex relations between
individuals, selves, economic and structural
forces, history and the present. This plays out in
various directions but may be due to a collective
turning away from some of the excesses of post-
modernism and even poststructuralist thought
which, it can be argued, diluted a clear sense of
the constraints of context. It must be said that
equally many of the theories grouped within
these unwieldy categories have forcefully con-
tributed to an expanded notion of what counts as
material, or even as political. Nonetheless there
is evidence of a return to something that might
ground ‘theory’, that ‘theory’ must be put to
some use. In the terms of a recent book edited by
Butler, Guillory and Thomas, the question is
‘what’s left of theory?’ Their introduction attests
both to the need to make theory work in political
contexts, and also to the unproductive divide that
has operated in terms of who is seen as material
and who is not:If some of those who turn against theory in the name of
politics do so by laying claim to referentiality and
thematic criticism, then some of those who turn against
politics in the name of theory do so by sacralizing the
suspension of all reference to context. (2000: x)While their concern is literary theory, a general
rethinking of politics and theory can be seen
across much of cultural theory. Equally it is
interesting to note that the tide is turning against
‘identity’, and especially ‘identity politics’. While
much of this has been of a conservative ilk – that
somehow ‘identity’ took us away from the
proper study of disciplinary objects – it can be
argued that there is a need to reground identity.
For these reasons, a return to the notion of sub-
jectivity offers us a way of thinking through
anew some of the important questions of the past
several decades.
In this sense Althusser is of note for several
reasons. First and foremost, the combination of
structural Marxism and an attention to the pro-
duction of subjectivity allows his theory to be
used across a wide spectrum of analyses. For
instance, in the heyday of ‘high theory’ Althusser
was used to analyse the operations of the filmic
apparatus. Yet his insights also provide ways of
understanding the interrelation between societal
structures, their history and spatiality, and how
they are experienced and incorporated.
At a very basic level, Althusser was interested
in why society continues to run so smoothly even
in the face of considerable inequities and
inequalities amongst individuals. It’s a question
that in its simplicity continues to express some of
the most pressing questions of our time. As we’ll
see, his model allowed for contradiction, a key
notion of 1970s and early 1980s cultural theory
that is still germane. For instance in terms of
‘globalization’ the contradictory ways in which
we are placed and experience ourselves as sub-
jects quite rightfully hold much current theoreti-
cal attention. And they are, of course, the subject
of overt political action in the western world, and
increasingly beyond. In both cases, there is a
clear sense of the need to come to grips with the
imbrication of the economic (which may be
experienced, as Althusser argued, only in ‘the
final instance’), the cultural, ways of living and
perceiving. In turn, and as I discuss later, this
raises questions about how we are positioned in
relation to each other: what are the relations of
proximity that impinge on very differently expe-
rienced subjectivities?
Althusser’s response to why the world keeps
turning in the face of dissent, and experienced
inequality, was to remark on the fact that while
there are instances where people are kept in line3029-ch14.qxd 03-10-02 10:54 AM Page 291