Page 10 - Vinkler, Jonatan, Ana Beguš and Marcello Potocco. Eds. 2019. Ideology in the 20th Century: Studies of literary and social discourses and practices. Koper: University of Primorska Press
P. 10
Ideology in the 20th Century: studies of literary and social discourses and practices
However, we have to be careful in determining the relation between
the imaginary and ideology, since the imaginary cannot be understood
in only one possible way. It is especially important to note that the imagi-
nary, as the primary ability of an individual to build an arbitrary link be-
tween the image and its signification, must be limited by a kind of social
institution. This is why it is useful to follow Cornelius Castoriadis’s ex-
planation of the role of the imaginary in any society. Castoriadis argues
that the imaginary mostly manifests as the institutionalising set of rep-
resentations common to a society. It is only through such sets that a socie-
ty is seamed together, as we can understand each other only by using a set
of common representations. Paradoxically, ideology can be understood as
an order of such institutionalising sets. The problem of meaning, i.e. the
10 relation between the signifier and the signified, is fundamental to under-
standing both ideology and the role of an individual. While the imagi-
nary—in its primary existence—is open to any possible link between the
signifier (the image) and the signified, ideology, on the contrary, attempts
to close this gap and establish a fixed meaning. Due to this tendency, ide-
ology can be defined as a discourse of modernity, as discourses of moder-
nity strive to suppress and eliminate differences and ambivalences, using
rational control and action.
Althusserian definitions would therefore lead us to think that the
ideological relation is given as an a priori relation to the world. The pro-
cess of ideological interpellation achieved by means of identification pro-
duces an empty space in the inter-discursive set, and the subject necessar-
ily fills in the empty space. A similar stance was later taken up by Michel
Foucault. However, Stuart Hall emphasises that the link between the sig-
nifier and the signified can never be completely closed, and, consequent-
ly, meaning can never be totally fixed. This means that even in discourses
of modernity the subject may not comply to identifying with one mean-
ing only. Hall thus argues for the autonomy of the subject that was denied
to the individual in Althusserian thought. Parallel to the interpellation
provided by a discourse, there must exist the subject’s response, a praxis
through which “individual constitutes and recognises himself qua sub-
ject”, “as a subject of desire”. This is why Foucault was substituting the no-
tion of discourse with the analysis of power in the structure of discours-
es as well as institutions. Terry Eagleton agrees and takes a step further:
if the subject were but an effect of the discourse or power, there would be
no reason for the ideological control of the subject and there would be no
possible way to oppose an ideology.
However, we have to be careful in determining the relation between
the imaginary and ideology, since the imaginary cannot be understood
in only one possible way. It is especially important to note that the imagi-
nary, as the primary ability of an individual to build an arbitrary link be-
tween the image and its signification, must be limited by a kind of social
institution. This is why it is useful to follow Cornelius Castoriadis’s ex-
planation of the role of the imaginary in any society. Castoriadis argues
that the imaginary mostly manifests as the institutionalising set of rep-
resentations common to a society. It is only through such sets that a socie-
ty is seamed together, as we can understand each other only by using a set
of common representations. Paradoxically, ideology can be understood as
an order of such institutionalising sets. The problem of meaning, i.e. the
10 relation between the signifier and the signified, is fundamental to under-
standing both ideology and the role of an individual. While the imagi-
nary—in its primary existence—is open to any possible link between the
signifier (the image) and the signified, ideology, on the contrary, attempts
to close this gap and establish a fixed meaning. Due to this tendency, ide-
ology can be defined as a discourse of modernity, as discourses of moder-
nity strive to suppress and eliminate differences and ambivalences, using
rational control and action.
Althusserian definitions would therefore lead us to think that the
ideological relation is given as an a priori relation to the world. The pro-
cess of ideological interpellation achieved by means of identification pro-
duces an empty space in the inter-discursive set, and the subject necessar-
ily fills in the empty space. A similar stance was later taken up by Michel
Foucault. However, Stuart Hall emphasises that the link between the sig-
nifier and the signified can never be completely closed, and, consequent-
ly, meaning can never be totally fixed. This means that even in discourses
of modernity the subject may not comply to identifying with one mean-
ing only. Hall thus argues for the autonomy of the subject that was denied
to the individual in Althusserian thought. Parallel to the interpellation
provided by a discourse, there must exist the subject’s response, a praxis
through which “individual constitutes and recognises himself qua sub-
ject”, “as a subject of desire”. This is why Foucault was substituting the no-
tion of discourse with the analysis of power in the structure of discours-
es as well as institutions. Terry Eagleton agrees and takes a step further:
if the subject were but an effect of the discourse or power, there would be
no reason for the ideological control of the subject and there would be no
possible way to oppose an ideology.
