Major arguments from the reading materials
Louis Althusser, Ideology
and ideological State apparatuses: notes towards an investigation
Louis
Althusser through his piece explains the control of a State over its Subjects, and the
dynamics of the Subject-State relationship. He argues that the ideology
is the greatest material power, and in order for the continuity of a
society, it must "reproduce the productive forces", and current "relations of
production", which are actualized by the State power in both Repressive and
Ideological State regimes. The forms of reproduction involves the "reproduction
of the means of production", and the "reproduction of labor power" which again is
influenced by the "reproduction of its submission" to the ruling ideology.
He argues that
the basic Marxist mode of society is divided into an economic infrastructure
and a superstructure, and the relation between the two is mainly determined by
its economic base. Critiquing the Marxist theory of a State, Althusser argued
that the State is a repressive machine, that enables the ruling classes to
ensure their power over the working class. The State consists of two
apparatus: RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) and ISA (Ideological State
Apparatus). RSA functions by mode of violence, whereas, ISA functions by
an ideology. He says that violence is imminent irrespective of the nature of the
State Apparatus. The two forms of State Apparatus follow one another in certain
conditions i.e. RSA even though function by repression, it is eventually
followed by an ideology, similarly, an ideology bound ISA can resort to
repression at a later stage.A plurality bound ISA must precede before attaining
a dominant RSA. In the transition stage from RSA to ISA, the ruling class
can underplay the rising ideology in order to remain in power for long periods.
The system to create and enforce laws become easier in RSA. Althusser expresses
Ideology as an eternal illusion of the ideas and representations which dominate
the mind of men or social groups, making them feel a sense of connection with
their present real conditions. Ideology even though doesn’t have a history of
its own is capable of converting individuals into subjects.
Antonio Gramsci, State and Civil Society
Gramsci argues
that the State and the outer defense of a military are similar in its forms of
portrayal. The crux component of both entities are much deeper than the outer
depictions. For a State the super structure of civil societies (and its resilience)
is an integral part which offers the same kind of purpose and support to that
of a trench-system in modern warfare. The civil societies and trench-systems
provides resistance against external catastrophes. The concept of civil society
intertwined with the theory of hegemony, whereby, civil society can be more
appropriately defined as hegemony than as freedom because consent is
manufactured through various institution and not even in its distribution.
A State is
incorrectly understood only for its political angles, as a combination of
hegemony and dictatorship as it has a cultural angle rooted in societies. The State
uses the three powers of legislature, judicial and executive for a hegemonic
advantage. Law along with education, thereby, helps the State to uphold certain
customs and attitudes, and also to eliminate few others. Aim of educative and
formative role of the State is always to create new and higher types of
civilizations and its adaptations, or in a way its own version of a
civilization, whereby, the focused role is to develop the great masses of
population to levels that enhance the productive forces for development, which
may favor the ruling class, but at times may seem ethical. Gramsci agrees with
Croce on the existence of perpetual conflict with the State and civil Society
over the expression of freedom.
Partha Chatterjee, The Nation and its
Fragments: Colonial and Postcolonial Histories
Partha
Chatterjee agrees with Benedict Anderson’s idea that nations imagine themselves
into existence. However, he challenges Anderson’s whether all nations obey the
western rationalist imagination in defining themselves. He asks “if
nationalisms in the rest of the world have to choose their imagined community from
certain ‘modular’ forms made available to them by Europe and the Americas, what
do they have left to imagine?” He further argues that Postcolonial societies
have been engrossed by such views forever rather than being creators of
modernity arising from local imagination and local polity.
Chatterjee aims
to separate Indian historiography from being mere satellites to the knowledge
generated by the British empirical tradition, which places a universalized
western subject at the center to its discourses on India. He contests the
discourses of history in general being linked to the period of European
enlightenment, including the understanding on the terms like nationalism, civil
society, political society etc.
No comments:
Post a Comment