Interpellation is a concept that was developed by the Marxist philosopher, Louis Althusser. In this concept, ideology is used to address the pre-ideological individual who at the end of the day produces the person as a subject proper.
In this matter, ta he logician goes converse to the classical description of the area under discussion as the grounds and essence. In such a condition, the focus, be it individual-based or of a collective nature is headed thus in specific terms; the focus is “always-already interpellated.”
Althusser has drawn his arguments from the “Mirror stage” concept by Jacques Lacan. Most thinkers have, over the last few decades confused the concepts of Althusser with the thinking and concepts of Michael Foucault.
The main reason for this is due to the manifestation of the thinkers in an anti-humanist persistence on the subject’s secondary status as sheer social relations effects and also the other way round.
Sawyer (2002) said that another immense basis of this puzzlement is the allocation in the use of expressions through a disparity in the discussion concepts.
Althusser, basing his thought on that of Lacan has precise participation of the instantaneous recognition of communications with the ideology that is within reach.
Ideology and interpellation
The theory of ideology by Althusser has taken part in his provision of a language which has been used to explain the ever-present control of the society by the ideology.
The structure that he has employed has additionally provided a mechanism which is systematic in terms of the forces to the culture and also which has a perpetuation of an ideology which is hegemonic.
In his edifying theory, Althusser has given details of the structure and the way the ideology functions. In his theory, there is a large amount of information ion from the impression or the description of supremacy from the works of Gramsci, Antonio.
In the beginning, he terms hegemony was used in the following manner, “referred to the way that one nation could exert ideological and social, rather than military or coercive, power over another” (Fiske, 1998; 310).
In the present day, the term has changed to some other ways where it has been coined to refer to the vibrant nature by “which a dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate class to the system that ensures their subordination” (Fiske, 1998; 310).
According to Fiske (1998), there is no consent which is static by nature. It is something which must be struggled for and consistently won over and over again.
This is because some individuals can go to the contrary and instead opt for a different and contrary ideology as opposed o the hegemonic individuals.
According to this hypothesis of Althusser, there is an explanation for the technique in which the verdict dialogue or in this issue the hegemonic-discourses are responsible for becoming accountable for the necessary approval which should then be able to hold for them to stay centralized.
For the hegemonic institutions to remain dominant, there has to be a ve, very powerful driving case which can be seen to be ideology.
According to Althusser, the concept of dominance can be visualized as a virtual relationship to the actual existence relationships. The ideas “make up ideology do not have an idea or spiritual existence, but a material existence” (Althusser, 1969; 296).
He has termed existence to be in two courses in the world which are based on substance. The material globe is the standing point for those makes ups that make up the concept of ideology.
Such kinds of depictions are found in those individuals who call for a particular set of ideologies and also their group ideas and the systems which they believe in.
In the subsequent part, ideologies have also been found in the realm of apparatus and also the performance allied to them which more than usually have support in material subsistence.
The said apparatus is referred to as ISAs which comprise of such establishments as marriages, educational institutions, patriarchy-basis and religion including others (Althusser, 1998). Althusser also asserts that there exists no practice “except by and in ideology.”
For the social institutions which are viewed as the powerful ones, ideology is brought out as a process which is particularly very dynamic processes which keep on changing time after time.
For those people who are natural “subjects,” in the essence of some particular kinds of ideology have no option but to be called in to take part in some leading realms of ideologies in the institutions. The description of this process has been termed as a circular one by Althusser.
Althusser (1998) said that through an “except by and in an ideology” the person or the individual has the belief that he is a subject who has the opportunity to be conscious enough such that he can form or recognize some ideas in a free manner for what he believes in.
The person, in this case, has a belief that the ideas which he has to require to be actualized. To put the ideas into practice, they should be governed by the traditions which fall behind the exact ISAs.
Althusser (1998) said that these rituals originate from ISA ideologies which are also the sources of the beliefs.
The individuals do not have a realization of their position as subjects. They instead believe that they have freedom in the forming and also the recognition of their ideas and their participation in the ritual practices is such as in a way to exercise those ideas.
In this case, ideology is somehow enabled by the ISAs in an ever-changing process which cannot be resisted.
It is in this realm that Fiske (1998) states that the concept of ideology is not something static that is put on the subjects but is a continuous process that is constantly imposed by the dominant classes time and again. The process in totality is what is called “interpellation” (Althusser, 1998).
Interpellation begins when a person calls for participation in various kinds of ideology. There is a temptation for other individuals to take part in the recognition and acceptance of some ideology forms. The process of hailing is omnipresent and very overwhelming.
It is found at the hub of all kinds of ideological systems. Althusser (1998) said that through this hailing process, the effect on ideology is that it acts “acts or functions in such a way that it recruits subjects among individuals.”
The subjects do not realize the fact that they are under subjection and that they can only be freed once the subjection has been fully accepted. Althusser exemplifies the hailing of an individual by another one as the same way a policeman does to someone any time.
It, therefore, becomes triumphant when the personality to whom the flag down was being meant for realizes that it was, in fact, him who was being called over and at one fell swoop, he was the one being concentrated on.
This can be seen or visualized o be a success if for example, when a person who was advocating for a particular ideology on a religion identifies himself with that religion.
When the calling or summon is regarded as being successful, the person becomes a subject of a given ideology and is in turn “interpellated.” According to Althusser, interpellation is a successful hailing process where he vividly states that “Ideology interpellates individuals as subjects.”
In the words of Althusser (1998), there is a creation of a “quadruple system of interpellation as subjects, of subjection to the Subject, of universal recognition, and absolute guarantee” by the process of ideology.
Interpellation is concerned with the making of particular subject matters to be definite subjects of picky ideologies when they have been capable of recognizing and also have been capable of being recognizable with their personality and also with the others as bona fide subjects of those ideologies that they are content with.
They have the responsibility and compulsion to be acquainted with the said ISAs that are governing and also partake entirely in their intended performances for that interpellation to be victorious. According to Althusser, success is a “guarantee of ideology” (Althusser, 1998).
In the realm of hegemonic ideology, if “the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right: Amen—‘So be it’” (Althusser, 1998; 303).
Althusser believes that once the various subjects operate as stipulated by the beliefs as well as completely take part in observing the ISAs that are highly dominant, it is then that they can acquire a place within the hegemonic.
As much as the force of ideology, which is implied as interpellation through hailing, is very powerful, it is not as irresistible as it has been visualized here. Subjects have the freedom to either adhere to or resist ideology though it should be noted that resistance has its implications.
Althusser has for this matter described the subjects as being either bad or good. For the good ones, they are characterized by the adherence to the principles of ideology which is dominant. They achieve this through recognizing, accepting and maintaining the set practices of that ideology.
On the other hand, bad subjects are those who are against the dominant ideological discourse. They do so by being in opposition to the ideologies and get chastised through conventional ridicule by society and being ostracized.
The ideological theory by Althusser has an allowance for resistance to any kind of ideology..those individuals who have a scientific comprehension of the ideological systems have the power to resist the powerful influence that comes with ideology.
Conclusion
This paper has sought to clarify the views of Althusser on the concept of ideology. It has first explained the meaning behind the philosophical ideas.
The paper has also tried to explain interpellation in terms of ideology. The principles and the conditions to be met before interpellation have been looked into in details.
It thus falls inconclusively that interpellation can be refined to be, in terms of Althusser that “ideology shapes the experiences of human existence through its control of aspects such as social milieu, class, and power.” (Althusser, 1998).
References
Althusser, L. (1998). “Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.” Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Fiske, J. (1998). “Culture, ideology and interpellation.” Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers.
Sawyer, R. (2002). “A Discourse on Discourse: An Archaeological History of an Intellectual Concept”. Cultural Studies, vol. 16 (3): 433-456.