Better Read Than Dead: Althusser and the Fetish of Ideology

Author(s): Ellen Rooney

Source: Yale French Studies, No. 88, Depositions: Althusser, Balibar, Macherey, and the Labor
of Reading (1995), pp. 183-200
Published by: Yale University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2930107 .
Accessed: 22/11/2014 15:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Yale University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Yale French
Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY

BetterRead Than Dead:

Althusserand the FetishofIdeology*
Whofailshereto call to mindourgoodfriend, Dogberry,who informs
neighbourSeacoal,that,"To be a well-favoured
man is thegiftof
butreadingandwritingcomesbyNature."
fortune;
-Karl Marx,"The FetishismofCommodities
and theSecretThereof"

The polemicalformofmy argumentcontendsthatthe receptionof

Louis Althusser'sworkhas fetishizedhis theoryofideologyand vir-
tuallyoverlooked,leftunread,his theoryand his practiceofreading.
The essay"IdeologyandIdeologicalStateApparatuses"and theoppo-
sition betweenideologyand science,as it emergesin the courseof
Reading "Capital,"' have dominatedourresponseto Althusser'sen-
tireoeuvrein a remarkableand unproductive way,while the crucial
place ofreadinghas been obscured,evendisavowed.The relativene-
glectofthisaspectofAlthusser'sworkis puzzling,notto sayperverse,
insofaras his theoryofreadingactuallyhelps to resolvesome ofthe
verytheoreticalandpoliticaldifficultiesthatmanycommentators on
his theoryofideologyfindso troubling.I will arguethattheemphasis
on thetheoryofideologyin Althusser'sworkis in facta formofresis-
tanceto readingas such.The debateaboutideologynotonlytakesthe
place of any debate about reading,but actuallyenables the relative

*Thisessaywasinitiallywritten fora 1991MLApanel,"IdeologyIII: ForAlthusser, "

and I haveretainedits polemicalqualityas an objectionorquestionputto thepanel's
identificationofAlthusserwitha theory ofideologyas muchas possible.I wouldliketo
thankAndrzejWarminski, who organizedthe panel,and GeraldineFriedman,who
chairedit,as well as JacquesLezra,forbringingit to print.I wouldalso like to thank
KhachigTololyan,SusanBernstein, ChristinaCrosby, MaryAnnDoane,CoppdliaKahn,
and KarenNewman,fortheircommentsand criticisms.
1. Louis Althusserand EtienneBalibar,Reading"Capital," trans.Ben Brewster
(New York:Verso,1979).All references to Marx'sCapitalin thetextareto Capital:A
CritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,ed. Frederick Engels,trans.SamuelMooreand Edward
Aveling(NewYork:International Publishers,1967).

YFS 88, Depositions, ed. Lezra, ? 1995 by Yale University.

183

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184 Yale FrenchStudies
silenceon thequestionofreading, andthushas contributed in a crucial
wayto theconsensus(in manycircles)thatAlthusser'swork(and/or
somethingcalled "Althusserianism") is dead.2Ironically,or,rather,
with what we once called "poetic justice," the refusalto read Al-
thusser'stheoryofreadingseems entwinedwitha refusalto readhis
textat all,thatis to say,witha stubborn refusal"to abandonthemirror
myths ofimmediate visionand reading,and conceiveknowledgeas a
production,"thatis, as a productof reading(RC, 24). It is, in other
words,profoundly ideological.
Marx'saccountoffetishismin Capital providesthe best descrip-
tion of the positionAlthusser'stheoryof ideologyhas in the hege-
monicreadingofhiswork.(I shouldsaythatI readthe"Commodities"
chapter"after"Althusser,ifnot "for"Althusser.)To speak schemat-
ically,in muchcontemporary criticalworkthecorrecttheoryofideol-
ogystandsin fora correctpoliticalpositionvis a vis the exploited,
oppressed,and potentiallyrevolutionary classes. (The most imme-
diatelyrelevant"class" is theproletariat, ofcourse,butin a periodof
"post-Marxisms, " anyone ofthenewsocialmovementscan serveas a
substitute. Whatis crucialis thatthepoliticalprojectorpositionofthe
"other"be adequatelyrepresented/theorized/known in advance by
meansofideologycritique;thispreference fora theoryofideologyover
a theoreticalpracticeofreadingis certainly notlimitedto Marxismor
Marxists.)The headypursuitofa "correct"theoryofideologypermits
a disavowalofthe elusivenessofthis "correct"politicalposition,si-
multaneouslyaffirming and denyingpolitical engagementand en-
ablingan evasionoftheabsolutelyunavoidableriskentailedin "read-
ing," where readingis recognizedas a relationamong readers,a
productive relation,butone thatallowsforno theoreticalguarantee.3

2. The observation that"in Francetoday,Althusseris, as Hegeloncewas,treated

like a 'deaddog,"'is fairlycommonplace, perhapsespeciallyin theworkofthosewho
protestagainstthisdismissal.See AlainLipietz,"FromAlthusserianism to 'Regulation
Theory,"'in TheAlthusserian Legacy,ed.E. AnnKaplanandMichaelSprinker (London:
Verso,1993),134,whosephraseI citeabove,andGregory Elliott,Althusser:TheDetour
of Theory(London:Verso,1987),1. Alex Callinicosturnsthisfigureagainstitselfin
"WhatIs Livingand Whatis Dead in the Philosophyof Althusser,"in Kaplan and
Sprinker, 39-49.
3. I echoStuartHall'sessay,"TheProblemofIdeology-MarxismWithoutGuaran-
tees"(inMarx100 YearsOn,ed.B. Matthews[London:LawrenceandWishart,1984]),in
partbecauseHall has avoidedthetemptation tofetishize,
evenas he takesup thetheory
ofideologyandAlthusser, whetherin thisessay,orin a worklike "Signification,
Repre-
sentation,Ideology:AlthusserandthePost-Structuralist Debates,"CriticalStudiesin
Mass Communication2/2 (June1985): 19-114. In "MarxismWithoutGuarantees,"

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 185
("Unlikethe'theoryofknowledge'ofideologicalphilosophy, I am not
tryingto pronouncesome de jure (orde facto)guaranteewhichwill
assureus thatwe reallydo knowwhatwe know,andthatwe can relate
this harmonyto a certainconnectionbetweenSubjectand Object,
Consciousnessand World"[RC,69].)To fetishizethe theoryofideol-
ogy,and thusto disavowthe theoryofreading,is implicitlyto seek
sucha guarantee.The theoryofideologythatcouldrendertransparent
to thecriticalintelligenceany(andevery)ideologicaloperationmight
also protectus fromtheuncertainworkofreading.
To read,forAlthusser, is to undertakea politicaltask,thatofseek-
ing(producing) alignmentsand markingexclusions,throughclose at-
tentionto theformofa text's"problematic." Explicitly rejectingwhat
he calls "fetishism,"Althusserproposesan accountof readingas a
guilty,dynamic,flawed,open-ended,historicallycontingent,and
whollypoliticalpracticeof displacements:readingas antifetishism.
Finally,in his model,readingis theactivitythatkeeps"science"alive,
wherescienceis understood as thecontinuousand"endless"projectof
disrupting ideologies.4Insofaras ideologyis immortaland ideologies
are eternallyrewritten, all the formsofresistanceand displacement
mustalso be constantly repeated, renewed(revolutionized). "A science
thatrepeatsitselfwithoutdiscovering anything is a deadscience,is no
longera science,but a frozendogma.A science only lives fromits
development, i.e., fromits discoveries."5

Hall explicitly notso muchthetheoryas theproblemofideology"(29),

"foreground[s],
and he proceedsby means of what he calls "rereading"(36) to "establishthe open
horizonof Marxisttheorizing-determinacy withoutguaranteedclosures"(43). His
seemsto me an exemplary instanceoftakingtheforceofAlthusser'stheoryofreading
andreadingitbackintotheproblemofideology. EtienneBalibarhasalsobeenatpains,in
"The Non-Contemporaneity ofAlthusser"(in TheAlthusserian Legacy),to arguethat
Althusser'stheoryofideologyoffers "absolutelyno guarantee"thattherevolutionary
impulseoftheexploitedclasseswilltriumph overtheir"normalbehaviorintheIdeolog-
ical StateApparatuses"(13).This kindofworkis theexceptionto thefetishizing rule.
AnotherexceptionalreadingofAlthusserthattakesreadingintoaccountis Michael
Sprinker's ImaginaryRelations:Aestheticsand Ideologyin theTheoryofHistorical
Materialism(London:Verso,1987).
4. As Althusserobserves,in his Essaysin Self-Criticism (trans.GrahameLocke
[London:New LeftBooks,1976]),theory/science emerges fromitsideologicalprehistory
not once, at its inception,but repeatedly,and it "continuesendlesslyto do so (its
prehistory remainsalwayscontemporary)" (114).See mydiscussionin SeductiveRea-
soning:Pluralismas theProblematic ofContemporary Theory(Ithaca:Cornell
Literary
University Press,1989),12-13.
5. Althusser,"Theory,TheoreticalPracticeand TheoreticalFormation:Ideology
andIdeologicalStruggle," in Philosophyand theSpontaneousPhilosophy oftheScien-

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186 Yale FrenchStudies
Readingis the onlyway to producesuch discoveries;thatis Al-
thusser'spointwhenhe arguesthat"we mustcompletelyreorganize
theidea we haveofknowledge, we mustabandonthemirror mythsof
immediatevision and readingand conceiveknowledgeas a produc-
tion" (RC, 24). Knowledgeis producedonly as an effectof reading
practices,andthismostemphatically includesknowledgeofideology.
Althusser'stheory(andhis ownpractice)ofreadingmakesitpainfully
clearthatthisis a taskthatwe mayverywellfail(willrepeatedly fail)to
complete.The fetishization ofa theoryofideologywardsofftheinevi-
tablefailuresthatreadingsuffers.6 Forthefetishist,politicstakesthe
formofa correcttheoryofideology;politicsas a practiceofreading-a
guiltyanddoublepracticethatneverendsandso neverfullysucceeds:
thisAlthusserianunderstanding ofpoliticsis obscured.
I will arguethat the fetishof ideology(thatis, of the theoryof
ideology)has maskedthewayinwhichAlthusser'swork(especially, in
Reading"Capital," and in Essaysin Self-Criticism) in factprivileges
botha rhetoricand a politicsofreading;thismaskingor elisionper-
sists,despitetheprominencehe himselfassignsto reading,mostdra-
maticallyin reference tohis readingofMarx.In readingAlthusseras a
theoristofreading,I am in the most obviouswayrepeatinghis own
gesture,his readingofMarxas theauthorof"a theoryofhistorycapa-
ble ofproviding us witha new theoryofreading."7This structure of
repetitionis in factessentialto Althusser'sfigureofreading,begin-

tistsand OtherEssays,ed. Gregory Elliott,trans.JamesH. Kavanagh(London:Verso,

1990),16-17.
6. Working in a Lacanianidiom,JaneGallopnarrates theconsequencesofa readingthat
acknowledgesits failuresin ReadingLacan (Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press,1985),
wheresherecountsa reader'sreport thatcomplained ofherwillingness toacknowledge a
necessarily"insufficientcommandofthematerial"(20).She respondsbyarguingthat
"Lacan'smajorstatementofethicalpurposeand therapeutic goal ... is thatone must
assume one's castration.Womenhave alwaysbeen considered'castrated'in psycho-
analytictheory. But castrationforLacanis notonlysexual;moreimportant, it is also
linguistic:we areinevitablybereftofanymasterful understanding oflanguage,andcan
only signifyourselvesin a symbolicsystemthatwe do not command,thatrather,
commandsus.... Myassumptionofmyinadequacyandmyattemptto readfromthat
positionarethus,to mymind,bothLacanianandfeminist"(20).It is also,I wouldsay,
Althusserian.Thissortof"assumption"is whatthefetishofideologyis meanttoward
off.
7. Forthepurposesofthispaper,I willleaveentirely to thesidethequestionofthe
correctness ofAlthusser'sreadingof Marx; thatoftenMarxologicaldebateis deeply
woveninto thefetishization ofthe theoryofideology,but requiresits own analysis.
Howeverone judgesthe"accuracy"ofAlthusser's accountofMarx,thequestionofthe
disavowalofhis theoryofreadingremainsa problem.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 187
ning,as it does,with"guilt,"and endingwitha warningagainstthe
"risk"of"entering a futurestillchargedwithdangersandshades,with
a virginconscience."8Althusser'stheoryofreadingoriginates withhis
rejectionof the possibilityof "innocent"reading,readingat "first
sight,"readingwithoutrepetitionor withoutguilt.Employingthe
metaphorsofblindnessand insight,he proceedsto arguethata struc-
turallimit or horizonis essentialto the productionof any reading
whatsoever.9 This view generatesthe conceptof the "problematic"
andwithitthemetaphorofterrain, anda certaincrisisofform.Itis out
ofthis crisis-and Althusser'sinsistenceon its politicalforce-that
readingemergesas a strategy ofdoubling,offirstand secondreadings,
orof"symptomatic" readingas a guiltyshiftin theterrain.Symptom-
atic readingactivelyproduces"discontinuity," an irreduciblegap be-
tweenproblematics orforms,a gapthatis nevertheless politicallyand
historicallysituatedand therefore vulnerableto erosion,displace-
ment,andrereading. Thisdiscontinuity is specifiedbythearticulation
ofan "unposed"or "absent"question,the questionthatthe reading
(thereader)establishesas unthinkable withinthetext'sownproblem-
atic. "Symptomatic" readingis preciselytheproductionofthisabsent
question,whichfiguresthepoliticaland rhetorical relation-or more
accurately,conflict-betweena textand its reader,betweenreaders,
betweenpositions.To readis to giveformto thisconflict,to pose the
questionthatgivestheproblematicits structure. Butthesymptomis
not somethingthatafflicts onlythe textsofouropponents;our own
symptomis visibleas ourguilt,theguiltthatourreadingwill expose
ratherthanconceal,theguiltthatopensthetext.Thereinlies thevery
possibilityofa politicsofreading.
8. Reading"Capital," 198. These are thelast wordsoftheappendixto theessay
"The ObjectofCapital,"whichstandsin theplaceofJacquesRanciere's"Le conceptde
Critiqueet la Critiquede l'6conomiepolitiquedesManuscritsde 1844 au Capital" in
theEnglishtranslation ofLirele Capital.Althusser'sdelightin appendicesand post-
scriptssignalstheproblematic ofreadingin his work.
9. In my "The Problematicof Blindnessand Insight:ReadingAlthusserand de
Man" (unpublished), I suggesta deepaffinity
betweentheopeninggesturesin thesetwo
bodiesofwork,althoughthe mannerin whichde Man playsthistensionout in his
appropriation ofthesetropesis quitedistinctfromAlthusser'spath,as aporiadiffers
fromthe unposedquestion.Althoughbothmen beginwith the interdependence of
blindnessand insightand insiston the urgentneed to reconceptualizereading,for
de Man,toreadis tocharttheunlimitedoperationoftropes:"Thereseemstobeno limit
towhattropescangetawaywith"(Allegories ofReading:FiguralLanguagein Rousseau,
Nietzsche,Rilke,and Proust[New Haven: Yale University Press,1979],62). ForAl-
thusser,topropose"no limits"is toprofess one'sinnocence;toreadis tounmasklimits,
problematics we can displaybutneverescape.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188 Yale FrenchStudies
Althusserneverflinchesfromthe acknowledgment,with which he
begins Reading "Capital," that "guilt" is the burden of and the
groundsforany reading.I propose an analysis thatreturnsthe question
"what is it to read?" to the Althusserian text.

In Reading "Capital," Althusser argues:

The YoungMarxofthe 1844 Manuscriptsreadthehumanessenceat
sight,immediately, in the transparencyofits alienation.Capital,on
the contrary,exactlymeasuresa distanceand an internaldislocation
(d6calage)inthereal,inscribedinitsstructure,
a distanceanda disloco.-
tion such as to make theirown effectsthemselvesillegible,and the
illusionof an immediatereadingof themthe ultimateapex of their
effects:
fetishism.[17]
Insofaras we seek in Althusser's texta theoryofideologythatdisavows
these dislocating effects-and thus appears to allow us to escape them,
eitheras readersor as political agents-we returnto the illusoryfetish
of "immediate reading" and thus squander the genuinely productive
portion ofAlthusser's (and Marx's) political insightinto what reading
is. In our embrace of the transparent,we deaden the most lively ele-
ment of their texts and commit ourselves to a kind of deathly "sci-
ence," even as we rail against its totalizingillusions. In fact,Althusser
suggeststhat between the "immortalityofideology" (Elliott, 172) and
the death of labor-powerlies the unnatural structureof reading and
writing.10Inhabitingthat structure,a structureof repetitionwithout
end, once we have "broken with the religious complicity between

10. Theword"fetish"is obviouslynottobe takenforgranted.

Althusser's
reference
is to Capitaland "The FetishismofCommoditiesandtheSecretThereof," andMarxis
myprimary as well.ButI agreewithEmilyApter'ssuggestionthat"Marx's
reference
conceptionof the fetishas socioeconomichieroglyphic and opaque verbal sign
emerge[s]... as curiouslycompatiblewithFreud'ssense ofthestrangeness offetish
consciousness:a stateofminddividedbetweentherealityofnoncastrationandthefear
of it all the same" (Feminizing the Fetish: Psychoanalysis and Narrative Obsession in
Turn-of-the-CenturyFrance[Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press,1991],1),and I findthe
psychoanalytic termdisavowalaptforthenaturalizing ofvaluethatMarxexposes.See
also Slavojtizek on Marxas theinventorofthe symptomand on the "secretofthe
[commodity] formitself" (TheSublimeObjectofIdeology[London:Verso,1989]),and
MichaelTaussigon theprocessof"defetishizing" andfetishistic
"reenchanting" (The
NervousSystem[London:Routledge, 1992]).Fetishismas thepersistent
naturalization
ofvalue,the dogberryish mistakingofreadingand writingas thingsthat"com[e]by
Nature, " andfetishismas a disavowalthatsimultaneously affirms
anddeniesa percep-
tionbothseemto workin thefetishism ofAlthusser'stheoryofideology.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 189
Logos and Being; between the Great Book that was, in its verybeing,
the World,and the discourse of the knowledge of the world; between
the essence of thingsand its reading, . . . [we findthat]a new concep-
tion of discourse at last becomes possible" (RC, 17). In our readingsof
Althusser,this new conception of discourse has been obscured by our
eagerness to perfecta theoryof ideology that strangelyrevivesthe old
trope of complicity "between Logos and Being," thus helping us to
conceal our own. Why does the theoryof ideology compel us so?
In Chapter Six of Capital, "The Buying and Selling of Labour-
Power,"Marx observes:

The ownerof labour-power is mortal.If thenhis appearancein the

marketis to be continuous,[andthecontinuousconversionofmoney
intocapitalassumesthis,]theselleroflabour-power mustperpetuate
himself,"in the way everylivingindividualperpetuateshimself,by
procreation."The labour-power withdrawn fromthemarketbywear
andtearanddeathmustbe continually replacedby,at theveryleast,an
equal amountoffreshlabour-power. Hence the sum ofthemeans of
subsistencenecessaryfortheproduction oflabour-power mustinclude
themeansnecessaryforthelabourer'ssubstitutes, in
i.e.,hischildren,
orderthatthisraceofpeculiarcommodity ownersmayperpetuateits
appearancein themarket.[172]

From the perspective of capital, which is the perspective of Capital,

death leads to life,thatis, it is the inevitabledeath ofthe seller oflabor-
power that makes reproductionor procreationnecessary; the natural
narrativeofthe life-cycleis reversed.In this counter-narrative, labor is
a commodity,not a use-value, and capital requiresa steadysupply.One
of the conclusions Marx draws fromhis reflectionon the mortalityof
the laboreris that "the minimum limit of the value oflabour-poweris
determinedby the value ofthe commodities without the daily supply
ofwhich the labourercannot renewhis vital energy,[. .. thatis,]bythe
value ofthose means ofsubsistence that are physicallyindispensable"
(Capital, 173). Death thus imposes twice on the marketeconomy and
its laborers. In order to stave offher own death, the owner of that
peculiar commodity,labor-power,must never sell it for less than a
subsistence wage; and to compensate capital forher neverthelesscer-
tain mortality,she must also earn enough to procreate,to reproduce
herselfphysically in the flesh of her children.
In "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," Althusser reiter-

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190 Yale FrenchStudies
ates Marx's point when he argues that "the ultimate condition ofpro-
duction is .. . the reproductionofthe conditions ofproduction."" As
you doubtless recall, he touches only momentarilyon the problem of
reproducingthe means of production. He quickly moves to his main
concern: the reproductionoflabor-poweras such, and he echoes Marx's
remarksin Capital, although with a slight shiftin emphasis:

Wagesrepresent onlythatpartofthevalueproducedbytheexpenditure
oflabourpowerwhichis indispensable foritsreproduction:
indispens-
able to thereconstitution ofthelabourpowerofthewageearner(the
wherewithal to payforhousing,foodand clothing,in shortto enable
thewage-earner to presenthimselfagainat thefactory
gate the next
day-and everyfurther dayGod grantshim);andwe shouldadd: indis-
pensableforraisingand educatingthe childrenin whom the prole-
tarianreproduceshimself(in n modelswheren = 0, 1, 2, etc ... ) as
labourpower.[1311

The erasure of the feminine contributionto this process is far from

trivial; the historyof Marxist feministdiscourse on the familywage,
domestic labor,and class itselfis the arduous historyofrethinkingthis
proletarianand his children to the nth power. Ironically (I think),the
polemical thrustofAlthusser's argumentlies in his assertion that the
"perpetuation" or "reproduction"ofthese peculiar commodityowners
is not guaranteedbyphysiologicalreproductionalone and thatit is (has
been) a fundamentalmistake ofMarxist theoryto thinkit is. "It is not
enough to ensure forlabour power the material conditions ofits repro-
duction ifit is to be reproducedas labour power" ( 131, my emphasis).
There is a "surplus" task ofreproduction,over and above the indis-
pensable (historic) minimum of calories, health care, and, perhaps,
parental leave; this surplus task is carriedout "more and more outside
production" itself,"by the capitalist education system and by other
instances and institutions" (132),includingthe family,and it goes well
beyond "training" the labor force in necessary production skills. As
Althusser puts it:

"IdeologyandIdeologicalStateApparatuses,"
11. Althusser, in Leninand Philoso-
phyand OtherEssays,trans.Ben Brewster (New York:MonthlyReviewPress,1971),
127.He alsonotesthattostresstheprocessofreproduction is to "ente[r]a domainwhich
is bothveryfamiliar(sinceCapital,VolumeTwo)anduniquelyignored"(127-28),andhe
complainsthat"thetenaciousobviousnesses (ideologicalobviousnesses ofanempiricist
type)ofthepointofview ofproductionalone . .. are so integrated intooureveryday
'consciousness'thatitis extremelyhard,nottosayalmostimpossible,toraiseoneselfto
thepointofviewofreproduction" (128).This was a longtimeago.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 191
Thereproduction oflabourpowerrequires notonlya reproduction of
itsskills,butalso,at thesametime,a reproduction ofitssubmission
totherulesoftheestablished order,i.e.a reproductionofsubmission to
theruling ideology fortheworkers,anda reproduction oftheability to
manipulate theruling ideologycorrectly fortheagentsofexploitation
andrepression....Thereproduction oflabour power thusrevealsas its
sine qua nonnotonlythereproduction ofits "skills"butalso the
reproduction ofitssubjectiontotheruling ideologyorofthe"practice"
ofthatideology, withtheproviso thatitis notenough tosay"notonly
butalso," forit is clearthatit is in theformsand undertheformsof
ideologicalsubjectionthatprovisionis made forthereproduction of
theskillsoflabourpower.[133,myemphasis]

Althusserarguesfortheindispensability ofideologyas a form,firstto

capitalismas a specificmodeofproduction, butthen,in principle,for
all socialformations; unlikethelaborer, ideologywillneverdie,andits
"life" is closelyboundup withhers.This assertionof the "immor-
talityof ideology"is one of the most frequently commentedupon
elementsofAlthusser'sworkon ideology, whetherit is attackedas an
irredeemablebreakwithMarx and Marxism,quietismand counter-
revolution, antihistoricism,andthesignofa post-Marxist reversion to
thinking a generalizedconsciousness(orsubjectivity), orcelebratedas
an openingthatbothacknowledges theemphasisMarx(fromTheEigh-
teenthBrumaireonward)puton ideology, representation, andpolitics
and registers theoverdeterminations ofsocial lifeand social subjects.
In eithercase, commentators haverecognizedthattheargumentthat
placesideologyat thecenteroftheproblemofreproducing labor-power
shiftsthe internaldynamicof Marxistanalysis(in the directionof
ideologicalstateapparatuses)andrewrites therelationbetweenMarx-
ism as a theoryof exploitationand otherformsof social critique:
feminism,"minority"discourse,postcoloniality, queer theory.The
"outside"ofideology, whichis its death,no longerbeckons.Wefacea
moreintimateenemy,and therecognition ofideologyas a permanent
form,withpotentiallynew and shifting contents,mayleave us with
thesense thatourtaskis strangely inchoate.
This analysisoftheessentialtaskofideologicalreproduction, as it
is elaboratedin "IdeologyandIdeologicalStateApparatuses"andelse-
wherein Althusser'swork,seems indispensableto me, forall ofthe
significant critiquesithas sustained.Yet,manyofhisreaders(I realize
thatthis phraseitselfmarksa largeifnecessaryoversimplification:
national,disciplinary, andpoliticaldifferences distinguish thevarious

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
192 Yale FrenchStudies
readersofhis text),especiallyreaderswho are interestedin theprob-
lemsofideologyandthesubject,havefocusedourattentiontoo exclu-
sivelyon momentsin Althusser'stextwherehe literallyspeaks of
ideology,to thedetriment ofotheraspectsofhis workand,ultimately,
to no goodpurposeevenwhenconsideredsolelyin termsofthedevel-
opmentoftheoriesofideology.'2Perhapsit is the veryintimacyand
elusivenessofideology,once it is understoodas an unconsciousand
permanentfeatureof social practice,that gives it its mesmerizing

12. I havedeliberately chosennotto "makean example"ofanyparticular readerof

Althusser;thefetishization ofthetheory ofideologyis nota matterofindividualreaders
orofmisreading as such,butofa far-reaching problematic thatis finallya symptom of
thelongingfora confident politicalsolidarity,whichis in itselfpositiveandonlyinad-
vertently (andcontingently) boundup withthedesireforprotection fromtherisksof
reading.I havein mind,broadlyspeaking, discursiveinstancessuchas: "screentheory"
and its Americancounterparts; thoseelementswithinfeministand Marxist-feminist
discoursethathave foundideologya usefulwayto speak about genderand the Al-
thusserian subjectofideologya plausiblefigure forwoman;all oftheaccountsofRead-
ing "Capital"thatstresstheepistemological argument withoutactuallyacknowledging
theoperativerolethatreadingas suchplaysin it; anyappropriation ofAlthusserthat
detachesthearguments concerning ideologyin certaintextsfromthetropeofreading. In
mostoftheseinstances,iftheproblematic of"reading"is acknowledge atall,itis onlyto
be subordinated totheideology/science pair.A glanceat tworecentanthologies devoted
toAlthusser's workrevealsthesubordinate placeofreading. In TheAlthusserian Legacy,
onlyMariaTurchetto ("TheHistoryofScienceandtheScienceofHistory, " 73-80)putsa
sustainedand directemphasison Reading"Capital" and on readingin thattext,an
emphasissheseemspartially towithdraw byinsistingonthe"philosopher's reading"(as
distinctfromthehistorian'sor thelogician's),whereshe mighthavealso markedthe
"philosopher'sreading."In the same volume,WarrenMontag,in "Spinoza and Al-
thusserAgainstHermeneutics: InterpretationorIntervention?," addressesreadingbya
quitedifferent route,butin a verypersuasiveway.In Althusser:A CriticalReader(ed.
Gregory Elliott[Oxford: Blackwell,1994]),Paul Ricoeur's"Althusser's TheoryofIdeol-
ogy"(a selectiondrawnfromLecturesonIdeologyand Utopia)is a fairly representative
piece, whichdoes not cite Reading "Capital" or connectthe theoryof ideologyto
reading.EvenFrancesMulhern,whoseessayis entitled"Messagein a Bottle:Althusser
in Literary Studies,"findslittleofinterest in Althusser's theoryofreading, whichsome
wouldsayis thetaskofliterary studies.
I hastento add twopoints.I do notmeanto suggestthatReading"Capital" andits
viewofreadingaretheonlyworthy textsinAlthusser's oeuvre.Nordoesmyregret atthe
marginalization ofReading"Capital"andofreadingwithinitsignala lackofrespectfor
the workthathas been pursuedunderthesignsofideology, epistemology, history,or
overdetermination, tonamea few.Furthermore, mypolemicon behalfofreadingis not
meantas a covertpolemicon behalfof"literature" or "literariness."I do not,in other
words,hope to annexAlthusser'sconceptof readingto an already-in-place literary-
criticalproject,as, forexample,Derrida'snotionofwritinghas been appropriated by
somestudentsofliterature as a paradigm forliterary
criticism. In Althusser'scase,as in
Derrida's,a familiartermappearsin a significantly new problematicand offers possi-
bilitiesundreamedofin theEnglishdepartment.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 193
power.Certainly,the constantthreatof submission/subjection that
Althusser'saccountemphasizeshas thepotentialto call up a fetishis-
tic refusal,a passionatedisavowalofcomplicity. ButAlthusser'sthe-
oryofreading,as itemergesin Reading"Capital," respondstothevery
theoreticaland politicalobjectionsthatmanycommentators on his
accountofideologyraise,includingitstracesofscientismandahistori-
cism,not to say Stalinism,Althusser'salleged"severanceof theory
fromanyrealreferent" (Elliott,111),and,perhapsmostimportantly,
thechargethathisviewofthesubjectofideologyis "mechanistic"and
"inflexible"or leads to a functionalismin which "the 'subject' in
historyis alwayswhollysubjectedto dominantideologyand thusby
definitionincapableofresistance"(Smith,21) oranybreakwhatsoever
withideologicaleffects.13
The importance ofAlthusser'saccountofreadingto theproblemof
ideologicalreproduction (whichis always,in part,a problemofcom-
plicity)makestheneglectofthisaspectofhis workalmostincompre-
hensible,save insofaras readingis seen merelyas a protocolin the
serviceofmorefundamental ButAlthusser'stheoryofread-
categories.
ing is not an adjunctto his theoryof ideology;his argumentabout
reading-and what he does in his readingpractice-establishesthe
relationbetweenideologyandscience;readingprecipitates ideologyas
such: "We have to think(in a completelynovelway)therelationbe-
tween a science and the ideology which gave rise to it.... [E]very
science,in therelationshipit has withtheideologyit emergesfrom,
can onlybe thoughtas a 'scienceoftheideology.''14

13. Paul Smith,in DiscerningtheSubject(Minneapolis:University ofMinnesota

Press,1988),also arguesthatAlthusser conflates the"individual"andthe"subject"(19)
andultimately "rejoinsMarxina crudesenseofideologyas distortion andof'subject'as
simplyTrager(support)" (21).Allthreeofthesereadings seemproblematic tome.On the
contrary,I agreewith2izek thatforAlthusserthe"'individual'whichis interpellated
intosubjectis not conceptually it is simplya hypothetical
defined, X whichmustbe
presupposed"(101),and I readCapital itselfas an accountofthe "takingofforms"in
capitalism-a takingofformthatalways(andwillalways)require(s) readingandis never
a crudematterofdistorting thepreformed orpristinereal.
14. Reading "Capital," 4. Althusserwarnsin this same passagethat "eventhe
theoreticallyessentialandpractically decisivedistinctionbetweenscienceandideology
getssomeprotection fromthis[the"surprises"discovered bythehistoricalinvestiga-
tionofthesciences]againstthedogmatistor scientistictemptations whichthreaten
it-since in thisworkofinvestigation and conceptualizationwe have to learnnot to
makeuse ofthisdistinction in a waythatrestores theideologyofthephilosophy ofthe
Enlightenment" (45).He ofcoursereturns, ina criticalsecondreadingofhisowntext,to
thesequestionsin Essaysin Self-Criticism.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
194 Yale FrenchStudies
The criticalemphasisin readingsof Althusseron the theoryof
ideologydismissesreadingas such; as I have suggested, thefetishism
ofthetheoryofideologysimultaneously disavowstheelusivenessofa
correctpoliticalpositionvis a vis theoppressedorpotentiallyrevolu-
tionaryclasses, an elusivenessthatis painfullyobviousin political
practice and insisted upon (and therebyexacerbatedratherthan
soothed)in Althusser'stheoryof"symptomatic"reading.The search
forthecorrecttheoryofideologysimultaneously affirms
politicalen-
gagementand allowsan evasionoftherisksentailedin "reading,"the
threatthatone's readingwill simplybe disownedordenounced,even
(orespecially)byone'spotentialpoliticalallies.(Indeed,thisis thevery
fatethatAlthusser'sworkhas met in some quarters;the threatis
originallyone of schism.)As Althusserdescribesit, readingis risky
becauseitis alwaysa relationamongreadingsandreaders,a productive
andpoliticalrelation,butproductive preciselyin thatit intervenes in
theprocessofreproduction and thuscannotbe guaranteed. The privi-
legingofthetheoryofideology-and theideology/science opposition
in Reading"Capital-expresses thedesireforsucha politicalguaran-
tee,evenwhenthecriticmayendbydismissingAlthusser'sefforts in
thisarea (as manyhave); a science of ideology is invulnerableto the
politicalcontemptofthesanctionedOther.
By contrast,forAlthusser,to readis to undertakethe task ofpro-
ducingpoliticalalignments, whichrequiresharedreadings,which,in
turn,areneversimplypresentto be excavated.This is themeaningof
hisassertionthatideologyis immortal-readingis an endlessprocess.
The fetishization ofideologyseeks to wardoffthenecessaryfailures
thatreadingsuffers; politicstakestheformofa correcttheoryofideol-
ogy,anda correctrelationto thattheorysubstitutesfor(alwayspoten-
tiallyincorrect)politicalrelations.Politicsas a practiceofreading-a
double and guiltypracticethatneverends and neverfullyor finally
succeeds-this Althusserianunderstanding ofpoliticsis obscured.In
its place we finda double fetishism:a fetishisticattachmentto a
theoryofideologyand a theoryofideologythatis itselffetishistic,
returning to theillusionofa transparent ratherthana dislocatedtext.
The theoryofideologythusplaystheroleofthecommodityas Marx
describesit in Capital: the "social hieroglyphic" whose characteris
"stamped"upon it and whichmustthusbe read as an unpredictable
"takingofform"is takenforthestateofnature,acquiringthe"stabil-
ityofnatural,self-understood formsofsocial life."The taskofreading

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 195
is elided,for,as Dogberry
assuresSeacoal,"readingandwritingcomes
byNature."'15

The unnaturalcharacter ofreadingis reiterated

at everylevelofRead-
ing "Capital." Althusserargues"thatonlysinceMarxhavewe had to
beginto suspectwhat,in theoryat least,readingand hence writing
means (veutdire)"(16).His owntextsarein factfrequently figuredas
"readings,"thatis, as tentative,contextual,appropriative, interven-
tionist,andunfinished efforts
toshifttheterrain.The openingwordsof
Reading"Capital" provideone such example,insistingthat"thefol-
lowingpapersweredeliveredin thecourseofa seminaron Capitalheld
at theEcole NormaleSuperieureearlyin 1965.Theybearthemarkof
these circumstances:not only in theirconstruction, theirrhythm,
theirdidacticororalstyle,butalso andaboveall in theirdiscrepancies,
the repetitions,hesitationsand uncertainsteps in theirinvestiga-
tions."Such commentsappearthroughout Althusser'soeuvre:"Con-
tradictionand Over-determination" is subtitled"Notesforan Investi-
gation," and the endlesslycited "Ideologyand Ideological State
Apparatuses"carriesthe same disclaimerand the followingnote:
"This textis madeup oftwoextractsfroman ongoingstudy.The sub-
title'Notes towardsan Investigation'is the author'sown. The ideas
expoundedshouldnotbe regardedas morethantheintroduction to a
discussion";"Freudand Lacan" arrivesundertheauspicesof"friends
[who] have correctlycriticizedme for discussingLacan in three
lines.... They have asked me fora fewwordsto justifyboth the
allusion and its object.Here theyare-a fewwords,wherea book is
needed"; "Leninand Philosophy"beginsbymockingtheverynotion
ofa "philosophicalcommunication"andendswithan "appendix"(the

15. I pursuethisargument aboutthe"Commodities"chapter, the"takingofform"

andthenature/reading oppositionin anotheressay,"B(u)yNature"(unpublished). Fora
summary oftheargument aroundtheproblematic ofideologyanditsrelationto Marx's
understanding offetishism,
see WilliamPietz,"FetishismandMaterialism," in Fetish-
ism as CulturalDiscourse,ed. EmilyApterandWilliamPietz(Ithaca:CornellUniver-
sityPress,1993),119-51,especially125ff. Fora countervailingview,whichplacesfetish-
ism withinthe problematicof ideology,see EtienneBalibar,"The Vacillationof
Ideology," inMarxismand theInterpretation ofCulture,ed.CaryNelsonandLawrence
Goldberg (Urbana:UniversityofIllinois,1988).Pietzis theauthorofa definitive
seriesof
essayson the fetish;see "The Problemof the Fetish,I," Res 9 (1985): 5-17; "The
ProblemoftheFetish,IIIa: Bosman'sGuineaandtheEnlightenment TheoryofFetish-
ism,"Res 16 (1988): 105-23.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
196 Yale FrenchStudies
same is trueforForMarx);16 "Marxismand Humanism"appends"A
Complementary Note on 'RealHumanism"'andthefinalparagraph of
"On the MaterialistDialectic" reads"This could and shouldbe the
occasionfornew investigations" (ForMarx,218). WhileI am veryfar
fromsimplyaccepting these disclaimersand deliberatelyloosened
endsas "true"accountsofeitherthestylisticorthetheoreticalmode
ofAlthusser'swork(thatwouldbe to refuseto read his text),to take
themseriouslyis tobegina readingofthedegreetowhichhis theoryof
"what it is to read" shapeshis readingpractice.Althusserconcedes
thatas theessaysofReading"Capital" becamea booktheymighthave
been subjectto some revision:
Wecould... havegoneoverthem... corrected themoneagainstthe
other,reduced themarginof variation
between them,unifiedtheir
terminology ... andsetouttheircontentsin thesystematicframe-
workof a single other
discourse-in words,wecouldhave to
tried make
a finishedworkoutofthem.[13]
the possibilityofa systematic"finish,"is rejected:
This possibility,
"Butratherthanpretending theyarewhattheyshouldhave been,we
preferto presentthemforwhattheyare: precisely, incompletetexts,
themerebeginnings ofa reading"(RC, 13).The finishedworkis like
thedeathofideology,an old fetish.Andreadingis alwaysin its begin-
ningstages,evenat its mostpolishedand emphatic.
Althusseris concernedto retainthe"variousindividualprotocols"
and "peculiaroblique path(s)" (RC, 14) of the readingsin Reading
"Capital," preciselyin orderto maintaintheemphasison readingas
such,on risk,adventure, thenew-born, and a certainviolence.As he
putsit:
Wepresentthemin theirimmediateformwithoutmakinganyalter-
ations so thatthe risksand advantagesof this adventureare repro-
duced; so thatthe readerwill be able to findin themnew-bornthe
experienceofa reading;and so thathe in turnwill be draggedin the
wake of thisfirstreadinginto a secondone whichwill take us still
further.[RC, 14]
farfromthisnew-born
Readingneveractuallyprogresses orbeginning
momentforAlthusser,preciselybecause a second reading-a newly
new-born-isalwaysin theprocessofbeginning. is always
(Everything

16. Althusser,Lenin and Philosophyand OtherEssays, 195, my emphasis;A1-

ForMarx,trans.BenBrewster
thusser, (London:Verso,1979).

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 197
a "notetoward"or dragging appendicesbecause theendpointor last
instanceis foreverreceding.In Althusser'sview,thisis trueofMarx's
textas well,ofcourse;thatobservation provokedoutrageamongsome
and yawnsfromothers,both "symptomatic"responsesfroman Al-
thusserianperspective.)
The unfinishedqualityofeveryreadingis notto be confusedwith
ambiguity. Althusserstressestheopenstructure ofreadingas a wayof
acknowledging theinterplayamongreaders, readerspastandreadersto
come,andwiththemhistoriesandpolitics.Hencehis viewofreading
as an endlessstrategyofdoubling, a structure ofrepetitionthatmarks
bothourhistoricalsituatedness(readingis not ahistoricalin thisac-
count,as theEssays in Self-Criticismreiterate)andourpoliticalinter-
estedness.To acknowledgethis structure is, in fact,to acknowledge
ideology;butAlthussermakesthispointbyrejecting thepossibilityof
"innocentreading,"readingat firstsight,and byembracing"guilty"
readings.In Reading "Capital," he argues:
As thereis no suchthingas an innocent reading,we mustsaywhat
readingweareguilty of... a philosophicalreadingofCapitalis quite
theopposite ofan innocent Itis a guilty
reading. reading,
butnotone
thatabsolvesitscrimeon confessing it.On thecontrary,
it takesthe
responsibilityforits crimeas a "justified crime"anddefends it by
proving Itis therefore
itsnecessity. whichexculpates
a specialreading
itself
as a reading
byposingevery guilty readingtheveryquestion that
unmasksits innocence.. . : whatis it toread?[15]

The necessityAlthusserspeaksofis equallya politicalanda rhetorical

one. The necessityofgivinga politicaland a rhetorical, as well as an
epistemological answertothequestion"Whatis ittoread?" leadshim
totherhetoric ofblindness(oroversight)andinsight.Withouttheguilt
that establishesthe necessityof reading,no symptomwould ever
emergefroma text;guiltis theproductiverelation,therelationthat
preventsreadingfromever being an explicationof what the text
"expresses."
Havingabandonedthe "mythofimmediatevision"and thepossi-
bilityof innocentreading,Althussermust radicallyrevisehis epis-
temologicalassumptionsaboutreading.The rhetoric ofblindnessand
oversight articulatesa structural
limitas essentialtotheproductionof
anyreadingwhatsoever. "Guilt"is onenameforthislimit,a namethat
exposestheirreducibility of"positioning," bothas "perspective"and
as "investment."(The symptomis also such a name.)The "internal

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
198 Yale FrenchStudies
dislocation"or structurallimitofeveryreading,the "oversightthat
concernsvision[and]. . . is a formofvisionandhencehas a necessary
relationshipwithvision" (RC, 21),leads Althusserto the conceptof
the"problematic, " themetaphorofterrain, anda defetishizing reading
ofsymptomaticity. ForAlthusser, blindnessor "oversight"is a conse-
quenceofthefundamental andirreducible discontinuities
amongvari-
ouslyguiltyproblematics.Thus,he observes:
Whatpoliticaleconomy doesnotseeisnota pre-existing
objectwhich
it couldhaveseenbutdidnotsee-but an objectwhichit produced
itselfin its operation
ofknowledge andwhichdidnotpre-exist it:
preciselytheproductionitself.... [Politicaleconomy]made "a com-
pletechangein thetermsoftheoriginalproblem," andtherebypro-
duceda newproblem, butwithoutknowing it. . . it remained
con-
oftheoldproblem,
vincedthatitwasstillontheterrain whereas
ithas
"unwittinglychanged terrain."
Itsblindness
andits"oversight" liein
thismisunderstandingbetweenwhatitproducesandwhatitsees.[RC,
24]
In themetaphorofterrain, thestructurallimitofreadingappearsin the
formofthe "problematic."Problematicsare inevitablyhistorical,or
better,political,formsand as such theyconstitutethe conditionsof
possibilityofanyreading, includinghisown,insofaras theydetermine
"the formsin which all problemsmust be posed, at any givenmo-
ment."117 A problematicis thusa position-althoughnotnecessarilya
consciously (or wittingly)held position-and the discontinuity
amongproblematicsis the difference acrosswhich "symptomatic"
reading,doublereading,plays.
Readingthusemergesas an unavoidablepracticeoffirstand second
readings,indeed,as a violent,deliberate,and politicallymotivated
(thoughneverwhollydetermined) shiftin theproblematicor terrain.
Symptomaticreadingactivelyproduces"discontinuity," an irreduc-
ible gap betweenproblematics, a gap thatis historicallysituatedand
therefore alwaysvulnerableto erosion,displacement,and rereading.

17. Reading"Capital,"25,myemphasis.See thediscussionof"ScienceandIdeol-

ogy"in Essaysin Self-Criticism,119-25: Marx"was onlyable tobreakwithbourgeois
ideologyin its totalitybecausehe tookinspiration
fromthebasicideas ofproletarian
ideology,and fromthefirstclass struggles in whichthisideology
of theproletariat,
becamefleshand blood.This is the'event'which,behindtherationalistfacadeofthe
contrastbetween'positivetruth'and ideologicalillusion,gave this contrastits real
historicaldimension"(121).

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 ELLEN ROONEY 199
The gapprecipitates ideologyas a form,and it is thisviewofideology
and ideologycritiquethatplacesAlthusserdistinctlyoutsidetheno-
tion of ideologyas falseconsciousness,withoutrobbinghis reading
practiceofitspoliticaledge.The problematicis neversimplya theme
in Althusser'stext;whatreadingmustalwaysdiscloseis thesecretof
theformoftheproblematic, its fetishcharacter,
hencetheantifetish-
ist gestureat its beginning.18This discontinuity thatideologizesand
gives form is
at once what "science" it
achieves; is specifiedby the
articulationofwhatAlthussercalls the "unposed"or "absent"ques-
tion,the questionthatthesecondreadingestablishesas unthinkable
withinthetext'sownproblematic, This absentquestion
on itsterrain.
is one thatthetextanswers,butneverexplicitly posits.It is thesymp-
tomaticallyoverlookedtermin any discourse,or rather,one such
term-I findno warrantin Reading"Capital" forthesuggestionthat
anytextproducesonlyone symptom;thiswouldindeedbe readingas
fetishism.(This multiplication[or production]of symptomsis, of
course,forsome ofAlthusser'sreaders,a fatalshortcoming; one re-
sponse to this shockingpossibilityis to fetishizethe theoryof
ideology.)
As Althusserputsit in describing Marxreadingpoliticaleconomy:
A correct
answeris a correct
answer.Anyreader inthe"firstmanner"
willgiveSmithandRicardo a goodmarkandpassontootherobserva-
tions.NotMarx.Forwhatweshallcallhiseyehasbeenattracted bya
remarkablepropertyofthisanswer;itis thecorrectanswertoa ques-
tionthathasjustonefailing:itwasnever posed.[22]
WhatAlthusserfiguresas "his eye"is Marx'sproblematic, whichpro-
duces both a readingand a question that are absent in Smithand
Ricardo'stexts.In theAlthusserian practiceofsymptomatic reading,
thetermmustbe comparedwithitselfthrougha doublereadingthat
confronts its "non-visionwithitsvision"in a deliberatelydefetishiz-
ingcrisisthatexposesthe"connectionbetweenthefieldofthevisible
and thefieldoftheinvisible"(RC,20, 21),thatrefusesto mystify that
is
relation,which also the relationofreading.As FrancisBarkersug-
gests,"thepointis notto supplythisabsence,to makewholewhatis
oftheproblematic
18. ChristinaCrosbyhas pointedout thata thematizing is the
thatdefines
gesture standpoint
theory'sepistemology;theshift
interrain
thatAlthusser
as thetaskofreading
defines intoa subject
is reified andtheworkofreading
position is
Thisis oneofthemanysymptoms
obscured. thetheory
offetishizing ofideology.

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
200 Yale FrenchStudies
lacking [-to fetishize-], but to aggravateits historicalsignifi-
cance."19
The unposedquestionfigurestheirreducible ofview,of
difference
terrain,thatis reading,and disclosesdoublereadingas a hopelessly
politicalandhistoricalprocess,one thatno textcan escape,foreclose,
ordefenditselfagainst.Symptomatic readingis theproductionofthe
absentquestionthatfiguresthepoliticaland rhetoricalrelation-or,
moreaccurately, conflict-betweena textanditsreader,betweenread-
ings and amongreaders.This is the sense in which a readingmay
"break"withan ideologyandconsequently withitsowntext,evenas it
clings tightlyto it, insisting that "the classical text itself . . . tells us
thatit is silent:its silence is its own words."20If the symptomatic
readingexposesbotha blindnessand its oversight whenit uttersthe
unposedquestion,figuring forththe differencebetweenwhat a text
"producesand what it sees," Althusserstressesthatit achievesthis
insightby means of what "Marx elsewherecalls a 'play on words'
(Wortspiel)" (RC,24).Thisplayis the"surprise"ofreadingas Althusser
has read,a surprisethatsetsthetermsof"theformofitswriting"(RC,
69) and enables us to see ideologyfinallyas a "circle perpetually
openedbyits closuresthemselves"(RC,45) and to undertaketo read
thesecretthereof.

19. FrancisBarker,The TremulousPrivateBody:Essays on Subjection(London:

Methuen,1984),38.
20. Reading"Capital," 22. Althusser
was veryattentive
to words;hence,his insis-
tencethattheywereweaponsandwellworththebattlestheycaused,andhis attention
to "nuance,"to thedifference,forexample,betweenan "error"and a "deviation"(Es-
says,105).

This content downloaded from 169.230.243.252 on Sat, 22 Nov 2014 15:58:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions