Ideological and Repressive State Apparatuses
06.12.2014-Meryem Rabia Tasbilek
Ideological
and Repressive State Apparatuses works together. The state power creates
different synthesis from them in different times. In my opinion, Repressive
State Apparatus is the sub-tool of Ideological State apparatuses. Althusser
argues that “I shall say rather that every state apparatus, whether repressive
or ideological, ‘functions’ both by violence and by ideology, but with one very
important distinction which makes it imperative not to confuse the Ideological
State Apparatuses with Repressive State Apparatus.”[1] For him, the distinction
was the massive and predominantly the use of violence by the Repressive State
Apparatus. On the other hand, according to him ideology uses these tools
secondarily. In the next several pages, I will create some synthesis about his
argument and my observation about these two types of State Apparatuses and try
to enrich my argument by more specific examples and arguments from Patricia
Daley, Angela Davis, and Michel Foucault critiques.
First
of all, even though I find Althusser's argument very useful and intellectual, I
need to confess that I had hard time to understand why he pays this much
attention to separate these Apparatuses. At one point, I agree with him about
the necessity of having more specific notions for each problems of the system.
On the other hand, it seems like when we separate the Ideological State
Apparatuses from the Repressive one, for some people this may create a
misunderstanding and/or ignorance about the repression of the ideologies. I
might be wrong about this, but are the ideologies and Ideological State
Apparatuses really using the violence secondarily? In my opinion, their whole
existences are pure violence, especially, because the ideologies and
Ideological State Apparatuses do not leave any space for us to live outside of
them. This is the highest level of violence against our existences. As
Althusser argues, “there is no practice except by and in an ideology. There is
no ideology except by the subject and for subjects.”[2] When we think that we
gained some free spaces or had some freedom that was cut off from the system,
it is only an alteration of the system and a new form of the current
Ideological State Apparatus. It seems like the system, the State gives us a
kind of hush money by altering the style of Repressive State Apparatuses. This
“change” creates an illusion and makes us think that with this alteration
Ideological State Apparatuses or the dominant ideology is also changed. The appearances
of them seem less violence. I believe that this is similar with Foucault’s
argument about new types of punishments and prison systems. Foucault emphasizes
that “what they were attacking in traditional justice, before they set out the
principles of a new penalty, was certainly the excessive nature of the
punishments, but an excess that was bound up with an irregularity even more
than with an abuse of the power to punish.”[3]
Moreover,
it seems like the relation between Repression and Ideology is circular. They
reproduce each other and secure each other and more than that they make the
existence and the stability of the State possible by their cooperation. It
seems like another Althusser’s argument fits that place very well to support my
argument about the nature and function of these two Apparatuses. Althusser
argues that “the state, which is the state of the ruling class, is neither
public nor private; on the contrary; it is the precondition for any distinction
between public and private… It is unimportant whether it is institutions in
which they are realized are public or private. What matters is how they
function.”[4] In my opinion, it is same for different types of apparatuses,
too, whether it is ideological or repressive the apparatuses, they are both
violent. However, we may make a kind of reverse statement about the apparatuses
by saying that they are pre and after conditions for the system, for the
dominant ideology. The state needs them to exist and continue to exist. I
think, Althusser’s this statement also support my argument: “To my knowledge,
no class can hold state power a long period without at the same time exercising
its hegemony over and in the Ideological State Apparatus.”[5] And he continues,
“Ruling ideology that ensures a ‘harmony’ between the Repressive State Apparatus
and the Ideological State Apparatuses and between the different Ideological
State Apparatus.”[6] We may link this argument with Delay’s argument that
emphasizes “the language of genocide is used instrumentally by each ethnic
group and by different parties. Genocidal violence became further
institutionalized with the realization by military officers and politicians
that it could be used to gain political advantage without international
sanctions.”[7] It is clear that in this example, we become witness the
collective work of Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses and how the
dominant groups in the society manipulates them based on new social conditions.
If
I link these arguments with the prison industry complex and Davis’ arguments,
first of all I think we need to talk about the impact of Ideological State
Apparatuses such as school; media etc. which make people accept and internalize
the practices of Repressive State Apparatuses, especially in the prisons and
about the prisons and prisoners. As Althusser mentions that “ideology
represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions
of existence,” [8] Davis also argues that “the prison is present in our lives
and, at the same time, it is absent from our lives.”[9] The state and the
dominant power make us to believe that we are aware of the conditions and the
function of the prison system and also other types of repressive state
apparatuses. Of course, this is an illusion! To fulfill this goal, the state
uses countless types of apparatuses from ideological and repressive types. In
my opinion, if we stick with Althusser's dualistic argument, the system uses
ideological state apparatuses more, because it is more useful to hide the real
motivations behind it. Also, it is everywhere in the society like air.
When
the state masses its hands, it gets more aggressive and uses more visual and
physical violence. The extreme use of repressive state apparatuses does not
mean to stop using the ideological apparatuses. Foucault supports my argument
by saying that “one has only to point out so many precautions to realize that
capital punishment remains fundamentally, even today, a spectacle that must
actually by forbidden.”[10] In my opinion, we can link the fake progress and
the switch between ideological and repression types of the state apparatus by
the help of Foucault’s another argument: “Crime became less violent long before
punishment became less severe.”[11] Also, similarly Davis argues that “the
long-running HBO program Oz has managed to persuade many viewers that they know
exactly what goes on in male maximum-security prisons.”[12] For these types of
people, Ideological State Apparatuses are enough. However, if they do not
internalize these delusional realities and decide to riot for change or abolish
the prison than the Repressive State Apparatuses are ready for them. Probably,
in the society even people who experience particular types of repression from
the system can rationalize his or her violent experiences especially by the
force of ideological state apparatuses. For instance, Davis mentions that
“people wanted to believe that prisons would not only reduce crime, they would
also provide jobs and stimulate economic development in out-of-the-way places.”[13]
The Ideological State Apparatuses makes people rationalize the violence of the
Repressive State Apparatuses even in the prisons. As Althusser argues, “the
essential point is that on condition that we interpret the imaginary
transposition and inversion of ideology we arrive at the conclusion that in ideology
‘men represent their real conditions of existence to themselves in an imaginary
form.”[14] For the same reason, I believe that we have hard time to improve our
imaginary to produce new and different types of resistance. As Davis suggests,
we need to get rid of the dualistic solutions against the current system. Our
minds have been forced to see the situation as prison industry complex or
society with full of criminals. We need to break the rigid cycle of the
systematic oppression of the state and its various apparatus. She emphasizes
this clearly by saying that “the first step, then, would be to let go of the
desire to discover one single alternative system of punishment that would
occupy the same footprint as the prison system.”[15]
Ultimately,
if we link all of these arguments and try to produce something against the
collective oppression of Repressive and Ideological State Apparatuses, in my
opinion we may receive some intellectual help from Lugones. The way ideology
reach every point of our lives and society, it seems like the resistance and
critique of it should cover all sides of our lives and society, too, if we
really want to create some changes. As she argues “this is clear when we
understand that resistant sense cannot reside in “the individual” as the
institutional backing that makes possible the appearance of individuality, is
absent.”[16] It is clear that either Repression or Ideology of the state is not
individual. For this reason, our resistance should be the same way to reach
some meaningful and effective solutions. As Foucault emphasizes “the public
execution is to be understood not only as a judicial, but also as a political
ritual. It belongs, even in minor cases, to the ceremonies by which the power
is manifested.”[17] People who resist against this dominant power and its
various apparatuses, we need to find our own authentic and collective
manifestations.
[1] Althusser, Louis. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. Appendix 2. Trans. Ben Brewster. Lenin and Philosophy and other Essays. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971. Pg. 303.
[2] Althusser. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Pg. 323.
[3] Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1979. Pg. 78.
[4] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 302, 303.
[5] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 304.
[6] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 306.
[7] Delay, Patricia. “The Masculinized Stat and the History of Genocide.” Pg. 77.
[8] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 317.
[9] Davis, Y. Angela. Are Prisons Absolute? New York: Seven Stories Press. 2003. Pg. 15.
[10] Foucault. Discipline and Punish. Pg. 15.
[11] Foucault. DP. Pg. 76.
[12] Davis. Are Prisons Absolute? Pg. 18.
[13] Davis. APA? Pg. 15.
[14] Althusser. IISSA. Pg. 318.
[15] Davis. APA? Pg. 106.
[16] Lugones, Maria. Pilgrimages/Peregrinajes. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers Inc. 2003. Pg. 218.
[17] Foucault. DP. Pg. 47.
No comments:
Post a Comment