through violence (what he called ‘the repressive
state apparatuses’), the main part of the work of
getting us to accept our condition is through ideo-
logy. Althusser opens the term to what he called
‘the ideological State apparatuses’. These include
the family, education, religion and most of the
legal procedures. Akin to Pierre Bourdieu’s (1984)
emphasis on class and education, Althusser’s point
was that we are informed at an early age by the
work of these ideological apparatuses.
One of his central arguments is that we are
‘interpellated’ or ‘hailed’ by ideology. The classic
example is the following scenario: you are walk-
ing on the street and a cop calls out ‘hey, you’;
seemingly we instinctively turn, ‘what, me?’ At
that moment, says Althusser, we have gone from
being an ordinary individual and have become a
subject of and for the law. There are other sce-
narios that Althusser doesn’t mention. For
instance, if you are walking on the street and
someone wolf-whistles, and you turn, more
likely than not you are being interpellated as a
(‘pretty’) woman. In other words, we may be
walking along unconcerned whether we are male
or female, black or white, straight or gay, when
something happens that forces recognition of the
fact that we are gendered, raced and sexed. To go
back to the example of the policeman who hails
you on the street: if you are, say, young, black
and male the chances are that the interpellation of
the law will strike more deeply than if you are
white and middle class. In the case of the latter,
you may not even recognize that you are being
hailed. You may think that the apparatus of the
law is there to serve you, not that you are a likely
subject of its force.
One of Althusser’s key points is that ideas
about who is a good or a bad subject are always
present in our society. Given the huge range of
experiences it is surprising how limited are the
choices in terms of good and bad subjects. These
notions are not ephemeral but are stitched into us
through our everyday practices. As Althusser
states, ‘an ideology always exists in an apparatus
and its practices. This existence is always mater-
ial’ (1971: 155). In this way we can begin to
understand that the ideas that a society has about
what is feminine or masculine, what is ‘normal’,
etc. do not just seep into our heads; these ideas
are reproduced over and over again through the
practices defined by different apparatuses, and
then in our own practices. This is a more nuanced
and much more pervasive view than was evident
in the ways in which ideology was previously
theorized. We are subjected to the practices of
different ideological apparatuses, and we
become subjects in terms of them. This leads to
Althusser’s argument that there is ‘no ideologyexcept by and in an ideology; there is no ideology
except by the subject and for the subject’ (1971:
160). Further, ideology has the function (which
defines it) of ‘constituting’ concrete individuals
as subjects.
Althusser also forcefully raised the fact that
we are all informed by ideology. Indeed, we all
are inideology, and to a certain extent the very
fact of being within ideology is comforting.
Althusser uses the example of religion as a per-
fectly hermetic system which gives its believers
absolution. In giving yourself to God you are not
only assured of a place in the afterlife; here on
earth you will know your position. In Althusser’s
terms, you are a subject in as much as you are
subjected to a higher subject, God. This higher
subject guarantees your existence: ‘Peace be
with you.’
This structure of subject formation is also
common outside religion. For example, in 12-step
programmes modelled on AA, individuals give
themselves over to a ‘higher power’ which then
secures a subjectivity as ‘a recovering alcoholic’.
The 12-step system is a very simple ideological
structure which allows us to see the process of
subjection and subjectivity. The individual says
to the group, ‘Hi, my name is Fred, and I’m an
alcoholic.’ There is no last name because the
system is not interested in other subjectivities
you may bring to the group. The whole process is
aimed at verbalizing, uttering and outing one
subjectivity. This is secured by the promise that
if you do articulate this subjectivity you can also
give over to the higher subject all your other
problems and worries. And that you will not
drink. Ideological structures work on the concept
of mutual recognition that by subjecting yourself
to a higher subject, you exist.
To recap the points of this system of ideologi-
cal recognition, we can state:- Ideology interpellates individuals as subjects.
- Through practices they enact their subjection
to the higher subject. - This entails that there is a mutual recognition
of subjects and higher subject, the subjects’
recognition of each other, and finally the sub-
ject’s recognition of him/herself. - In turn, this provides the absolute guarantee
that everything is so, and that on the condi-
tion that the subjects recognize what they are
and behave accordingly, everything will be
alright: ‘Amen, so be it.’
The result of this process is that most individuals
enact themselves as ‘good’ subjects. What
emerges from this argument is that the category
of the subject is absolutely central at the same292 PLACING SUBJECTIVITIES3029-ch14.qxd 03-10-02 10:54 AM Page 292