Concepts of Ideology Petitclerc

7/30/2019 Concepts of Ideology Petitclerc

1/13

Adle PETITCLERC [email protected] 21 April 2008

1

Adle PETITCLERC, [email protected] , Universit de Franche-Comt, France.

Visiting Doctoral Student, Lancaster Universit

Language Ideology & Power Group Presentation

Lancaster University 21 April 2008

Ideology: From Destutt de Tracy to CDA

This presentation will provide an overview of the notion of ideology. From itscoinage by the French philosopher Destutt de Tracy to its use in CDA, this notion has

undergone several twists in its definition and usage. It is used as an everyday term in

politics, and as a more specialized concept in several academic domains, such as

sociology and discourse analysis.

I will first try to explain the history of the word and the different connotations

attached to it, and then will give the definitions of it by several critical discourse

analysts, including Pcheux, Fairclough, Wodak, Van Dijk and Bill ig.

OUTLINE

I . H istory

1. Destutt de Tracy2. Napoleon Bonaparte3. Marx

a. Polemical conception

b. Epiphenomenal conception

c. the laten t concept ion of i deology

4. Rereading Marx: neutralization of ideology5. A lthusser

I I . D iscourse Analysis

1. FDA Michel Pcheux2. Norman Fairclough3. Ruth Wodak John B. Thompson4. Teun A. Van Dijk5. Michael Billig


2/13


2

INTRODUCTION

Today I m going to talk about the concept of ideology. Firstly I would li ke to go over

the history of this concept to show the different definitions and the controversial

connotations it has acquired through time. And then I am going to talk about thedifferent ways it is used in by CDA, and I will detail the conception shared by

Fairclough and the French Discourse Analysis, then Wodaks, Van Di jks and Billigs.

I . History of the concept

1. Destutt de Tracy

Ideology comes from the French word idologie coined in 1796 by the French

philosopher Destutt de Tracy. The word was built from two Greek components: the

combining form ideo- derives from idea () and indicates that the associated

element denotes an idea or an image. The combining form logie derives from the

lexical item logos, which means either to speak about or to study or word or

discourse.

Destutt de Tracy coined the term idologieto refer to a new type of science he wanted

to create, a science which would be concerned with the systematic analysis of ideas

and sensations . Destutt de Tracy set this project in legacy of the Enl ightenment and of

philosophers like Condillac or Condorcet. He thought that such a science would help

to regulate society and morale for a better and fairer world.

2. Napoleon

However, because he was loyal to the ideas of the French Revolution, he publicly

disagreed with the way Napoleon Bonaparte was conducting the state. And Bonaparte

was not really happy about that and started to accuse those he called the Idologues ofbeing willing to undermine the state and the rules of law, and of just being dreamers


3/13


3

who didnt know anything about the reality of the state. And so, during this

controversy, the term ideology came to mean a body of ideas which are alleged to be

erroneous and divorced from the practical realities of political life. So because of

Napoleon, idologie acquired a negati ve connotation.

3. M arx

This connotation was then reinforced by the use of the term by Marx. I am not a

specialist on Marx, so in this part I am using Thompsons account of the Marxist

definition of i deology, that you can read in Thompsons 1990 Ideology and Modern

Culture (Thompson 1990).

a. P olemical concept ion

Marxs first use of ideology is qualified by Thompson as a polemical conception

because Marx first used ideology in a controversy with the Young Hegelians. It

defines ideology as a theoretical doctrine and activity which erroneously regards ideas as

autonomous and efficacious and which fails to grasp the real conditions and characteristics of

socio-histor ical li fe .

Marxs concern was on the characterization of labour, and this definition underlies tw o

assumptions. First, the forms of consciousness of human beings are determined by their

mater ial condi ti ons of li fe , and second, the development of an ideology as it is defined is

only possible because there is a division between material and mental labour.

Basically, he reproaches the Young Hegelians conception of labour, where mental

labour is separated from material labour. Therefore, for the Young Hegelians, ideas are

seen as having a life of their own and are not grounded into a sociological context.

Marx sees the theories of the Young Hegelians as shallow and extremely conservative,

and by saying they are an ideology, he wants to stress the fact that they are theoreticaldoctrines and activities which are the product of a socio-historic context (here the


4/13


4

Young Hegelians conception is the product of Industrial Revolution era and

bourgeois society) and therefore, ideology can be explained by and should be replaced

by pure science according to Marx.

b. Epiphenomenal concept ion

Later in his work, Marx slightly changed the way he uses the term ideology. However

it has to be said that he has never written a proper definition of ideology. This second

definition is called by Thompson the epiphenomenal conception . Ideology is a

system of ideas w hich expr esses the in ter ests of t he dominant class but r epr esents class relati ons

in an il lusory form (p37). In this conception, society is made of different components:

(i) the economic conditions of productions, (ii) the legal and political superstructure

and (iii) the ideological forms of consciousness. The ideological forms of consciousness

have to be explained regarding the socio-economic conditions of productions. And

with modern capi talism and the brutali ty of i ts class antagonism upon which ideology

depends, Marx thinks that the conditions for a clear understanding of these class

antagonisms by the proletariat are final ly there. Hence, Marx thinks this wil l inevi tably

lead to a revolut ion and to a victory of the proletariat.

c. The latent concept ion of ideology

However, years go by, and the revolution expected by Marx doesnt happen. So he

looks for an explanation and formulates the hypothesis of ghosts of the past . He

never uses the term ideology in this respect but Thompson makes the link and says

that ghosts of the past are a latent conception of ideology, where ideology is a

system of representations which serves to sustain existing relations of class domination by

orienting individuals towards the past rather than the future, or towards images and ideas

which conceal class relations and detract from the collective pursuit of social change (p.41).

Marx illustrates this with the coup dtat of Louis Napoleon in France in 1849, where


5/13


5

people didnt revolt, but welcomed the new king because he reminded them of the

grandeur of the empire and of N apoleon Bonaparte.

4. Rereading M arx: neutralization of ideologyWhat is interesting there is that ideology has always a negative connotation: Marx

would have never spoken of a proletariat ideology , contrary to Lenin and Lukcs

later, because he conceived ideology for the dominant classes as a tool they use to

impose their views. He also had in mind the definition of ideology as a bunch of

foolish ideas.

However, when Marxs work was reinterpreted by Lenin, Lukcs and Althusser,

ideology was neutralised and referred to the ideas which express and promote the

interest of the main classes engaged in confl ict.

5. Althusser

As such, for Althusser, the production and diffusion of the dominant ideology is

regarded as a task/ an accomplishment of the state, at different levels and through

different devices. What he calls Ideological State Apparatuses are the method by

which organizations propagate ideology, and at the same time they are the primary

site of the ideological struggle. They are there to interpellate people into ideologically

defined subject positions. Ideological State Apparatuses include those used in

religion, law, politics, trade unions, media and the family. Althusser puts educationas the most important one. (Althusser 1971)

Althusser establishes a strong link between ideology and language. Here is a quote

where he equates ideology and logos: Comme le disait admirablement Saint-Paul, cest

dans le Logos , entendons dans lidologie, que nous avons ltre, le mouvement et la vie

(which roughly means Just l ike St Paul admirably said, existence, movement, and li fe

are situated in the Logos, i.e. in ideology ) (ALTHUSSER 1995): 224).


6/13


6

One of Althussers aims was to find out how you can produce a scientific discourse,

that is a non-ideological discourse. Therefore, he calls for a new science whose topic

would be discourse because it is only through the study of discourse that the analyst

can reach ideology.

II. Ideology in Discourse Analysis

1. French Discourse Analysis Pcheux

As we can imagine, this conception was very important for researchers in France in the

1970s (the French communist party was very important on the political scene at that

time and many linguists had their membership card) and it was developed and taken

back by Michel Pcheux, one of the founders of the French School of Discourse

Analysis.

Following Althusser, Pcheux thinks that being a free subject is an illusion brought

about by ideology, and therefore, the question is not about being a subject but about

belonging to what he calls a social formation. These social formations are defined

according to one another and give a social position determined by the state of the class

struggle. Pcheux calls this social position an ideological formation. And ideological

formations correspond to discursive formations which determine what can be said andwhat cannot be said according to the ideological formation you speak from.

(PCHEUX 1975)


7/13


7

2. Norman Fairclough

Norman Fairclough draws his definition of ideology mainly from Althussers and

Pcheuxs work. He acknowledges being very much influenced by Western Marxism

and French Discourse Analysis, especially in the 70s and 80s.One of Faircloughs early theories tries to account for the socio-semantic change. He

says that this theory includes in its notion of cultural power the capacity to impose and

maintain relations of dominance between registers, such registers which accord ideologically

w i th t he in ter ests of the power-holder s are dominant . This capaci t y may be exer cised at t he level

of the social formation, or of the institution, or in respect to a particular situation-type.

Registers are also viewed as being ideologically productive in the sense that they produce

and reproduce subjects, the sociologically significant categories of agent. (Fairclough 1988

[2002]). In these two quotes, we can clearly see the influence of Althusser and Pcheux

who appear in the bibl iography of his art icle.

Nowadays, this influence is still vivid for Fairclough, especially when he declares that

ideologies are partial representations and misrepresentations (Fairclough 2001) [1989]:

134) and adds that the operation of ideology can be seen in terms of ways of constructing

text s whi ch constantl y and cumu lati vel y i mpose assum pti ons u pon text in ter pr eter s and text

pr oducer s, typicall y w it hou t bein g aw ar e of it . (Fairclough 2001 [1989]: 69)

We can again see the influence of Althusser when Fairclough defines the ideological

commonsense: he says that it is a commonsense in the service of sustaining unequal

relations of power and in establishing and consolidating solidarity relations among members

of a particular social groupings (Fairclough 2001 [1989]: 70). Faircloughs defini tion of

ideology is very close to A lthussers idologie.


8/13


8

3. Ruth Wodak

Wodak has influences other than Marxist theories on ideology. She claims to agree

with the definition as it is given by John B. Thompson (1990), and also to add the

cognitive input of Van Dijks work. (Wodak 2001)For Thompson, there is no question of a neutral definition of ideology: he completely

disagrees with the fact that ideology could be one aspect of social life, present as a tool

in every social group. He understands ideology to be held by the dominant and ruling

groups. For him, to study ideology is to study the way in which meaning [symbolic forms]

serves to establish and sustain relations of dominations (p.56). He calls symbolic forms

a br oad r ange of acti ons and u t ter ances, images and t exts, which ar e pr oduced by subjects and

recognized by them and others as meaningful constructs. He pinpoints the fact that a

symbolic form may not be ideological at fi rst but can become ideological if i t is used to

maintain relations of dominations, whatever they are: class, gender, ethnic groups,

individual vs state, nation-states vs blocks of nation-states

Given this definition of ideology, contesting discourses are not ideological because

they challenge the existing relations of power.

Thompson also stresses the fact that its the reception which decides whether a

discourse is ideological or not. If it is designed to sustain relations of power, but the

receptor doesnt read it in this way, then it is not ideological. Which in a way I

understand: for example, in our recent cartoon discussion, as Im not a specialist of the

stereotype of Jews, I missed some elements and fi rst didnt read some cartoons as anti-

semitic. But I am not happy at all with this idea of something not being ideological

intrinsically and I know that Ruth does not support this idea neither because we talked

about it together, even if it has to be stressed that the reception side is indeed the only

way to analyse something since the analysts have not designed it themselves. In a way,this is also indirectly acknowledged by Thompson when he says that an ideological


9/13


9

analysis cannot produce incontestable demonstrations but some interpretations are

more valid than others regarding facts: there may be good reasons for offering a particular

in ter pretati on and adher in g to it (p. 71).

From his definition, Thompson impl ies that ideology is conveyed through a number ofmeaningful devices, and that is possible because we live in a society of mass

communication. So a study of ideology will also need to investigate the context, i.e. the

social field in which symbolic forms circulate. As I said, Ruth Wodaks conception of

ideology is a mixture of Thompsons and Van Dijks and this focus on context is the

common point betw een both.

4. Teun Van Dijk

For Teun Van Dijk, ideologies are first of all mental representations and he tries to

develop cognitive models for explaining the construction of meaning at a societal

level. H is definit ion is very much a neutral one from the point of v iew of Thompson.

Van Dijk is interested in the social functions of ideologies and says that seeing

ideology merely as a means developed by dominating groups to reproduce and

legitimate their power is not fundamentally wrong but one-sided and much too

superficial (Van Di jk 1997). Ideologies basic function is rather to manage the problem of

coordination of the acts or practices of individual social members of a group. Once shared,

ideologies make sure that members of a group will generally act in similar ways in similar

situations [] and will thus contribute to group cohesion. On this, he draws from

Bourdieus definition of doxa(doxa is a neutral version of ideology) as the means of

defining the social groups and their position within society in relation to the other

groups. Ideology then addresses the question of the identity of a group and Van Dijk

explains ideologies describe this identity in terms of membership, activities, aims,values, norms, position and resources.


10/13


10

All these features are shared under the form of mental representations and this is

made possible by the fact that ideologies resemble the knowledge shared by the group.

Knowledge here can be either scientific knowledge or techniques related to a craft or

a profession, but also more controversial knowledge, that is to say that what isknowledge for one group may be seen as an ideology by others and ideologies do of course

control what groups themselves hold to be true beliefs (Van Dijk 1997). Van Di jk gives the

example of information of the environment that can be held as knowledge for

environmentalists and as propaganda for industrials owning polluting factories. That

is why he adds that ideologies also monitor the structure of knowledge as well as its

acquisition: as they define the interests of a group, it wil l influence on how important,

detailed and specialized this knowledge is.

Finally, ideologies control the evaluative belief system of a group: Van Dijk says

ideologies are the axiomatic basis of the mental representations shared by the members of a

social group (VA N DIJK 1998): 24). Ideologies are the basis for judgment inside the

social group. Ideologies rule what is evaluated as in or out of the social group, true or

false, good or bad. In that sense, they enable the establishment of an us versus

them dichotomy, regulating the outgroup as well as the ingroup, mostly thanks to a

posit ive self- and negative other- presentation.

5. Michael Bil lig and the Loughborough Group

This cognitive input can also be found in Micheal Billigs account for ideology. I base

this review on two books: I deological D il emm as, published collectively by the

Loughborough Discourse and Rhetoric group in 1988 (Billig et al. 1988), and Ideology

and Opinions, a collection of already edi ted articles, published in 1991 (Billig 1991).

Billig wants to bridge the gap between cognitive psychologists on the one hand, andtheorists of ideology on the other hand. His opinion is that both groups look at one


11/13


11

side of the coin, but neither look at both: cognitive psychologists take in account the

individuals own thinking, but they are considered outside of the social and historical

context, as Robinson Crusoes parachuted in a psychology lab; whereas theorists of

ideology are well aware of the historical and societal processes of creation of normsand beliefs in particular societies, but they ignore individuals who are seen as puppets

governed by ideology, as can be well seen in Marxist thinkers theory, such as

Althusser or Gramsci.

Billig says that In contrast to cognitive psychologists, we stress the ideological nature of

thought; in contrast to theorists of ideology, we stress the thoughtful nature of ideology.

(Billig et alii, 1988: 2).

Billig doesnt speak about ideologies as being specific to social groups, just like Van

Dijk does. Firstly he rarely uses the plural form. For him, ideology has to be

understood in a more political way as a whole framing of the world, which acts

through common sense and social representations (such as stereotypes).

Billigs interesting point of view is that ideology and common sense compr ise contrary

themes which enable individuals to make up their own mind, and therefore they are

experiencing dilemmas when stuck in between contrary themes. The ideology is not

reproduced as a closed system for talking about the world. Instead it is reproduced as an

incomplete set on contrary themes, which continually give rise to discussion, argumentation

and di lemm as. (Billig et alii, 1988: 6)

As such, you dont have capitalism and anti-capitalism ideologies, but a single

ideology which comprises in i tself all the arguments for and against capi talism. Hence,

the study of ideology needs to take in account rhetoric to see how individuals argue

and negotiate their opinions.


12/13


12

Because of these contrary themes, individuals may face ideological dilemmas which

often take the form of a conflict between what Billig calls the lived ideology and the

intellectual ideology. Billig suggests that individuals may embrace a great but

idealistic theory of how to change society for an ideal one, and at the same timeendorse the everyday beliefs which enable one to conduct their business in the same

society they cri ti cise. He gives the example of Cri tical Discourse Analysts who believe

in equal chance for everyone in the society, but who at the same are teaching as part of

educational structures such universities which ask for a selection and a grading of

students.

Conclusion

I hope that this overview of the concept of ideology was useful, and if you have any

questions, Ill be happy to answer them as best as I can. Thank you.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Althusser, L. 1971. Leni n and Phil osophy and O ther Essays.London: Left Books.Althusser, L. 1995. "De lIdologie" in Sur la reproduction.Paris: Presses universitaires de France.Billig, M. 1991. Ideologies and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology.London: Sage.Bill ig, M ., et al. 1988. I deological D il emm as.London: Sage.Fairclough, N. 1988 [2002]. "Register, Power and Socio semantic Change". In M. Toolan. (Ed.) Crit ical

D iscour se A naly sis, Londres/N ew York: Routledge.Fairclough, N. 2001 [1989]. Langu age and power.Harlow: Longman.Pcheux, M. 1975. Les Vr i t s de La Pal ice : li ngui sti que smant iqu e, phi losophie.Paris: Franois Maspero.Thompson, J. B. 1990. Ideology and M odern Cul tu re.Cambridge: Poli ty Press.Van Dijk, T. A. 1997. "Discourse as Interaction in Society". In T. A. Van Dijk. (Ed.) D iscourse Stu dies: A

M ult id iscipl inary Int roduct ion, London: Sage.Van Dijk, T. A. 1998. "Opinions and Ideologies in the Press". In A. Bell & P. Garrett. (Eds.) A ppr oaches

t o M edia D iscour se, Oxford: Blackwell.Wodak, R. 2001. "What CDA is about". In M. Meyer & R. Wodak. (Eds.) M ethods of Cr it ical di scour se

analysis, London: Sage.


13/13


13

Documents

Concepts of Ideology Petitclerc