Unpacking Interpellation and Its Role in the Maintenance of Ideology

Introduction

In any pattern of exploitation, such as domestic violence, an abusive work environment, or even a political relationship between conflicting groups, outside observers often gravitate toward the same line of questioning:  why do people willingly and continuously engage in relationships that ultimately hurt them?  Millions of Americans pay for therapy to help answer the same question:  why do I continue to make self-destructive choices?  In politics, this can be especially jarring because we are talking about groups that make up hundreds, thousands, or millions of individuals.  How can so many people, who are in the quantitative majority, buy into, participate in, and even defend a hierarchical arrangement that ultimately undermines their human potential? In this post, I will explain how individuals come to internalize the ideologies that support capitalist hierarchy, leading to their passive consent to accept and even perpetuate a socio-economic structure that depends on exploitation.  First, I will cover why an ideological superstructure inevitably emerges as a necessity for the reproduction of society.  I’ll focus on two broad needs that generate this inevitability: one is the reproduction of the conditions of production-the types of material structures that need to be supported to ensure the smooth flow of capital.  The other is the reproduction of the relations of production-the social relationships necessary to maintain capitalist production. That consent creates the need for an ideological superstructure. Second, I will discuss the types of institutions engaged in these forms of reproduction, repressive state apparatuses (RSAs) and ideological state apparatuses (ISAs).  While both contribute to reproducing conditions and relations of production, RSAs are generally used to ensure the material survival of institutions, while ISAs generate the necessary ideological buy-in to get individuals to engage in the social relationships of production.  Third, I will show how these institutions get individuals to internalize ideologies. This rests on the theory of interpellation- the ways that individuals are addressed by social structures. Ideology, normalization, and naturalization are all processes that build over time, as individuals come to align their own subjectivity with the needs of the material structures that orient their lives. This phenomenon is called interpellation. Finally, I will analyze the prospects and mechanisms of resistance often articulated under these theories.  While this post won’t have citations, I am drawing on a variety of readings, namely the works of Louis Althusser, specifically his Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes Towards an Investigation).

Race, Ideology, and Depoliticization (Pt 1)

 

Introduction

Race is still undeniably a structuring force in the United States.  Nearly every measure of resource distribution (wealth, income, housing, food, etc) and social problems (alcoholism, violence, etc) show stark divisions along racial lines: see my earlier post on healing divisions. The US faces these problems despite the liberal narrative of progress that dominates American culture. The rhetoric of multiculturalism, now often phrased as “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has permeated corporations, schools, and government. These sites are traditional ideological state apparatuses- the locations where ideology is forged as common sense to gain cultural hegemony. Yet, despite this colorblind approach, racial polarization is as apparent as any point in recent history. By some measures, society is more racially segregated and unequal than in the past.  These stark inequities stand in direct opposition to the principles of equality, liberty, and justice that define American exceptionalism.

How do these contradictions persist? I will show that this is the role of ideology: to provide the cultural and social support necessary to continue the hierarchical relationships of the status quo.  It does so by naturalizing and normalizing the structures that sustain racial exclusion. To unpack the relationship between ideology, race, and depoliticization, I will begin by outlining the contours of status quo racial ideology, which relies on colorblindness- whether conservative or liberal, colorblind racial ideology forms the backdrop of mainstream thinking on race.  Then, I will unpack the consequences of this ideology; namely, its depoliticizing outlook on race, one that deflects race’s dialectic relationship with material structures and instead emphasizes the interpersonal, ideational components of racism.  Depoliticization is the purpose of current ideology on race, serving to naturalize, historicize, and eternalize social structures organized along a racial hierarchy by presenting this stratification as a product of normal, rational, common sense.  

The Normalization of Militarism in the US (Normalization Pt 2)

In my first post on normalization and ideology, I laid out the case for the relationship between those two concepts.  This post is a continuation on my analysis of normalization, as I dive into more specific examples.  First up:  militarism.

Introduction

The transition to a new political regime is a phenomenon well-suited to ideological analysis because it helps reveal what is normal versus what is exceptional:  the new regime will change some things while keeping others the same.  While political and media coverage will focus on the changes, any serious study of ideology demands focus on the continuity, because ideology is constitutive of our common-sense understandings of the world.  One of the most pervasive ideologies in American political discourse is militarism.  There has been incredible continuity in the ideological and social perspectives that are tapped to run US foreign and defense policy.  This post will focus on how militarism continues to be normalized in politics.  First, I will outline the contours of militarism, showing that it is an ideology.  Second, as all acts of normalization also require the invocation of the exceptional, often portrayed as crisis, I will analyze the role of crisis discourse in militarism.  Third, I will examine the continuity of militarism across supposedly divergent political parties.  Finally, I will discuss the implications of the ideological hegemony of militarism.

The phrase “forever wars” has gained much political currency in recent years, due (among other factors) to a combination of the catastrophic failures of the imperial project in Afghanistan and Iraq, the continued expansion of national security operations into other countries (with no congressional approval), and the brief national relevance of Tulsi Gabbard as a combat veteran who ran for president on an anti-war platform.  Despite this resurgence in anti-war rhetoric, military budgets are as bloated as ever and the US is not winding down any of its ongoing operations- Libya, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan are just a few.  The new presidential administration has also shown that an area of continuity between Democrat and Republican leadership is their embrace of the national security state. Militarism is the ideology that generates the consent of the public to support all aspects of the military-industrial complex.