This paper is aimed at discussing Louis Althusser’s notion of ideological state apparatuses and the views on violence expressed by Slavoj Žižek. The comparison of their theories can throw light on the origins of conflict within a community.
On the whole, Althusser’s views can be reconciled with Žižek only if one removes the premise that the state is the instrument of oppression, which is necessary only for the preservation of the existing social order. Furthermore, it is necessary to discard the idea that the conflict between classes is inevitable. These are some of the main arguments that should be elaborated more closely.
It should be noted that Louis Althusser explores the work of institutions that make a person comply with the dominant ideology established in society. For example, he distinguishes the repressive state apparatuses that predominantly rely on violence or coercion to maintain the existing social order. Among them, one can distinguish such institutions as police, prisons, or courts.
In turn, there are ideological state apparatuses that make use of propaganda, social norms, ideology, and so forth. In this case, one should focus on educational institutions, church, trade unions, and other organizations that influence the opinions of people. To some degree, their goal is to make the idea of state violence acceptable. In turn, Slavoj Žižek focuses on a slightly different topic.
He speaks about different types of violence existing in the community. Much attention should be paid to the systemic violence which occurs due to political and social trends. For example, one can speak about such factors as social inequalities or discrimination. In turn, these phenomena result in individual acts of violence, such as homicide. These are the main points that can be made.
There is a critical difference that should be taken into account. In particular, Louis Althusser believes the state is the major source of violence. To a great extent, it is an instrument of oppression which is supposed to make people accept the dominance of ruling classes. This is one of the main assumptions that he postulates. In turn, Slavoj Žižek believes that violence is the result of conflict and people’s inability to overcome social injustice.
Moreover, it originates from political and economic processes within society. However, this scholar does not focus on the conflict between classes. He provides examples suggesting that many individuals, who represent the upper classes, may help the disadvantaged groups of the population.
Therefore, one should not suppose that social groups will inevitably enter into a violent conflict. This idea is not discussed by Louis Althusser, who examines this topic mostly from a Marxist viewpoint. These are some of the main aspects that can be singled out.
On the whole, it is possible to argue that the views of Louis Althusser are not fully compatible with Žižek’s analysis of violence. The problem is that Louis Althusser describes this question from the Marxist perspective in which violence originates from the conflict between classes. Certainly, Slavoj Žižek shows that this violence can be explained by social injustice.
Nevertheless, he shows that systemic violence can be avoided provided that different stakeholders reach a compromise. Therefore, Louis Althusser’s views can be made compatible with Slavoj Žižek’s only if the idea of class struggle is rejected. These are the main details that can be distinguished.