Discursive Ideological

Construction in Social Text

Abstract

Ideology is a key term in literary, cultural, political, and

film studies. In this paper i will chart the concept of

ideology from a Marxist point of view. The story of the

emergence of the concept is complex under Marxist wing and

does not seem to have reached at any consensual conclusion.

But we can identify the individuals who greatly contributed to

the concept. In the 20th century Antanio Gramci and Louis

Althuesser are two cultural theorists who, operating within

the Marxist premise added to the meaning of the concept which

broadened our horizon of the understanding of the concept.

Though it is true that the concept has come a long way and

many academicians, cultural theorists from diverse range of

disciplines have refocused the way we understood the concept,

the real contribution of these two was to transform our

conception of ideology contextualizing it within the deep

socio-political and economic framework of society and removed

negative connotation associated with the concept. The paper is

divided into two sections-1 and 2. The first section will

present the account of intellectual treatment that Gramci and

Althusser gave to the concept. In the second section of the

paper there is an attempt to locate the site of ideology in

the social texts- judgement of Supreme Court of India on IPC

section 377 to understand how ideologies are or a singular

ideology is an inherent undertone of our sociolinguistic

transactions.

Keywords

Ideology, Marxism, interpellation, hegemony, Ideological State

Apparatus, Repressive Apparatus, law, society, IPC 377 ,

homosexuality, homosexuality, discourse

1-Introduction

Ideology is one of the most controversial and elusive concepts

in social science with a variety of connotations associated

with the use of the term. It is open to various

interpretations. The inherent nature and scope of concept, its

application, is such that it makes various formulations across

a wide range of disciplines: namely- political science,

sociology, cultural studies etc. Whether ideology is conceived

negatively (as Marks puts it- ‘‘false consciousness’’ ) or

positively (as a world-view, manifestation of socio-cultural

and political framework of a particular group); whether it is

seen as subjective, psychological phenomenon or objective or

just a social one; whether it is as a specific element in the

‘superstructure’ of society or is identical with the whole

sphere of culture, it is all pervasive. And as a matter of

fact we produce, disseminate, and consume ideologies all our

lives, whether we are aware of it or not. So, yes, we are all

ideologists in that we have some understandings of the

political environment of which we are part of, and have views

about the merits and failings of that environment. This claim

can be attested if we read newspapers or even have informal

discussions with our peer groups, with teachers, we are told,

suggested that educational institutes also circulate some sort

of ideology e.g JNU leftist, BHU Right Wing Politics, AMU

traditionalism or conservative.

Ideology is considered to be somebody else’s thought. The

moment we are made to realize that our thought is

ideological, we tend to vehemently oppose any such allegation

and defend that we do not subscribe to any pre-existing socio-

political ideology and our thoughts are results of our own

filtered understanding of socio-political affairs, they may

accidently be related to some ideology. This is the position

we usually take at personal level. Likewise placing ideology

in the academic sphere is fraught with a variety of problems.

History of the concept of ideology is a history of attempts of

finding a vantage objective point outside the sphere of

ideological discourse. Nobody has hitherto come up with a

single necessary and sufficient definition of ideology. The

reason behind not being able to propose a single adequate

definition is not that it requires extraordinary level of

intelligence rather the ‘ideology’ has a whole range of useful

meanings, not all compatible with each other. Efforts to

compress all the possible meaning into single comprehensive

definition is unhelpful, as the term ‘ideology’ is present in

different conceptual strands emerging from divergent

histories- Marxism, feminism, Frankfurt school etc.

The concepts of ideology emerged out of various socio-

political movements happened during the eighteen and nineteen

century. Looking at the etymology of the term, to be specific,

the word ideology is of French origin and is basically thought

to be a product of French Enlightenment. The Enlightenment

thinkers were intellectual precursors of the French Revolution

of 1789; and it was immediately after French Revolution the

word ideology was coined. It was Antoine Destutt de Tracy who is the

originator of this term. De Tracy in 1790 explained ideology

as ‘science of ideas’ as opposed to metaphysics. Over a period

of time the concept of ideology has seen a great deal of

changes in its use across the disciplines. Van Dijk describes

“Ideology as the basis of social practices”. Bourdieu opines

that the concept of ideology is so much used that it is devoid

of meaning now. For Marx, ideology is “false conciousness’’.

However. Marx’s analysis of material conditions of existence

of human being placed ideology at the forefront of political

science. Marx investigated how material production is socially

organized and how these conditions of material production

directly/indirectly determine society and politics.

I.Marx and Ideology

Marx with Engel in the book German Ideology paid a greater

attention to the concept of ideology. Using temporal metaphor

he bifurcated the material condition of living into two parts-

base and superstructure. He related ideology with

superstructure of society. Marx saw the role of ideology

specifically in relation to the material reproduction of

commodities as he points out, “legal relation” and “form of

the state . . . have their roots in the material conditions of life”.

With respect to Ideology he explains that "The ideas of the

ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas … The class

which has the means of material production at its disposal,

has control at the same time over the means of mental

production." The entirety or the system of ideas of the ruling

class would be the Ideology of a given society. The function

of ideology would be the continual reproduction of the means

of production and thereby ensuring the continuous dominance

of the ruling class. Ideology achieves this by distorting

reality. While in fact the split in ruling and subservient

social classes is artificial (i.e. man made) and serves the

needs of the economic system, the ideas of ideology make it

appear natural. He believes that the bourgeoisie sustains its

rule through ideological conditioning. He sees modern liberal

democratic states as the major institutional means of

‘managing affairs of the whole bourgeoisie’, while ‘political

power is . . . merely an organized power of one class for

oppressing another’. In other words the role of state and

ideology (superstructure) are to maintain class domination in

which state is a coercive force and ideology is used to

inculcate “false consciousness”. With the use of both means,

it is made to believe to subordinate classes that they have to

sell their labour to in order to survive and this is how the

world works.

II. Antonia Gramci and Ideology

Gramci basically modified the Marxist understanding of the

term keeping it largely within Marxist tradition. He is best-

known to expound and propound the concept of Hegemony. He

explained that ideological hegemony could be exercised by

dominant class through variety of socio-cultural means.

Dominant class necessarily need not use state coercive bodies

rather they force upon its ideological hegemony by drawing

upon other sources. He, here, shifted the focus on ideology

from a state tool and contextualized it under the purview of

society. Ideology is produced and operated in civil society

and civil society by wielding cultural authority efforts are

made to manufacture consent among the population at large so

that the masses give its assent subconsciously and

spontaneously to the dominant class.

The process of securing a common consent, Gramci termed

leadership- a different variant of domination. Domination

according to him is wielded through governmental powers.

‘‘Gramsci was therefore inclined to sharpen the distinction

between ideology as a more conscious creation for its

producers, and a more unconscious one for its consumers’’

(cited in Freeden 2003:31).

Gramci’s analysis was a step forward in the direction of

understanding the concept in terms of his sensitivity to its

importance, although from a Marxist perspective. Hegemony to

Gramci is an all encompassing magnet which attracts

ideological expressions, interest, possibly society as a

whole. It is a device to seek compromise at societal level

especially from subordinate group. Whereas Marx laid emphasis

on class confrontations as to him ideologies are at conflict

‘‘until one of them, or combination of some, prevailed’’

(cited in Freeden 2003:31) which results in a semblance of

universality at economic, moral, intellectual, and political

level.

Gramci’s theory of ideology carries a liberal undertone. His

theory implies that there exists an embedded social

voluntarism in civil society- with free choice, consent or

material or intellectual market.

Gramci, actually, investigated some of the questions that Marx

left to prove. He probed deep into the nature of concept-

forms of ideological control, relationship and the difference

between ideological and political domination, accounting for

multiplicity of domination, if people believe in an ideology.

He placed the concept of hegemony both at the philosophical

and political front to garner a critical and a unified

understanding of reality.

Gramci sought to explore the working of ideology as a practice

in the world. It can be inferred from his analysis that

ideology, to him, is thought-practice: a recurring pattern of

political thinking.

e.g casting vote can be held as conscious general ideological

principle, respecting national flag is an another example of

voluntary expression of identical thinking at national level.

Visiting Malls is an instance of participating in an economic

free-market truncation, although visitors are hardly aware of

the fact that they are representing the principle of free

trade.

Cultural hegemony was the response of gramci to the complex

mechanism of capitalism. Gramci envisioned that the war

against capitalism cannot be waged with the means of political

institutions. He conceived that roots of capitalism or

bourgeoisie are firmly anchored in ideological and cultural

hegemony of the ruling class. His understanding of the

concept was different from Lenin and Lukacs, he was not

interested in ideology in terms of highly rationalized forms

as systematic ideology. He rather understood it as a religious

‘common sense’. Thus his analysis of ideology bridged the gap

between classical Marxism and the use of ideology in everyday

life.

III. Louis Althusser and Ideology

Althusser’s analysis of the concept of ideology is strikingly

different from Marx’s understanding of the concept. For Marx

“ideology is a misleading system of ideas”, on the contrary,

for Althusser, it is “a practice’ all pervasive and generative

in varying degrees in all the social activity”.

Interestingly, Althusser’s analysis of the concept challenges

the idealist platonic notion of ideology. Plato believed that

ideas, beliefs, and meanings are abstract entity already

existing in the world. We just happen to be in contact of

these pre-existing ideas and become their subject or they are

formed by our consciousness irrespective of references. His

thesis has satisfactorily proved that ideologies are

disseminated through concrete practices and have material

existence and consciousness is formed by ideology embedded in

certain concrete practices. This claim of Althusser discredits

platonic view of ideology. He later on mentions such ideology-

inculcating agencies and terms them Ideological State

Apparatus.

Althusser draws on the works of Jacques Lacan to garner an

understanding of how ideology functions in the society. He

thus departs from Marxist understanding of ideology. Marx

understood ideology primarily as “false consciousness”.

e.g. Suppression of the fact the products we buy from open

market are, in fact, results of exploitation of labours. In

his famous discussion – ‘Commodity Fetishism’ Marx explicates

that in capitalistic society commodities are presented as if

they inherently hold value whereas the value is produced by

human labour. And credulously believing this proposition is

yet another example of false consciousness.

Althusser explains that for Marx “ideology is . . . thought as

an imaginary construction whose status is exactly like the

theoretical status of the dream among writers before Freud.

For those writers the dream was purely imaginary, i.e. null,

result of the ‘day’s residues”

Althusser postulates a series of hypotheses that he examines

to clarify his understanding of ideology.

"Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real

conditions of existence". Althusser, following the understanding of

the Lacanian concept of imaginary and real, asserts that ideology

is a representation of the imaginary relationship of

individual to the real world. This assertion about ideology

does not bear a relation with traditional Marxist thinking of

ideology which maintains that ideologies are false and they

hide reality. Althusser further points out that we are always

within ideology as we heavily rely on language to establish

our reality.

‘’ Ideology has a material existence”. Althusser firmly presumes that

ideology is a material entity as "an ideology always exists in

an apparatus, and its practice, or practices". Ideology is

reflected through actions which are embedded into our social

practices- rituals, conventional behaviour, etc. here

Althusser supports Pascal’s formula of belief: "Pascal says

more or less: 'Kneel down, move your lips in prayer and you

will believe'". It is our social roles assigned by different

socio-political institutions and actions which convert us into

subject to ideology.

"all ideology hails or interpellates concrete individuals as concrete subjects" .

According to Althusser the primary objective of ideology is to

produce ‘’concrete individuals as subjects." Ideology is so permeating

in our life that it constitutes our very reality and therefore

ideology appears to us “true”. To underpin his assumption

Althusser gives an example of "Hey, you there!" a police

officer hails on the street and we turn “By this mere one-

hundred-and-eighty-degree physical conversion, he becomes

a subject" and then “we are indeed concrete, individual,

distinguishable and (naturally) irreplaceable subjects".

Through “interpellation” individuals are transformed into

ideological concrete subjects.

It is observed that most subjects easily and subliminally

succumb to their ideological self-conditioning and those who

oppose run afoul of the repressive State apparatus, which is

designed to punish anyone who rejects the dominant ideology.

Althusser’s insights into the nature of ideology add another

dimension to the concept of Hegemony which limits its

understanding of ideology to society and to repressive state

apparatus.

In his further treatment of the concept of ideology he

proposes two significant tools which allow the existence of

capitalism to hold its sway. He calls them the Ideological

State Apparatus and Repressive State Apparatus.

He in his essay “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses”

which largely draws from Marxist understanding of capitalism

and class structure, agrees with Marx that “social formation

which did not reproduce the conditions of its production at

the same time as it produce (1969:127)” does not have

prospects of success at all. For such social formation

therefore it is necessary to reproduce the means of

production, what he calls ‘‘material conditions of

productions’’ i.e machine, raw materials etc. by reinvesting

its profit in fresh capital ventures. It also needs to produce

forces of production, what he calls ‘‘productive forces’’ or

“labour forces” and this can be done by not just paying wages

which ensures their physical survival. It should also develop

their productivity through skills training and education. To

achieve this Althusser argues that

reproduction of labour power requires not only a

reproduction of its skills, but also, at the same

time, a reproduction of its submission to the rules of

the established order, i.e. a reproduction of

submission to the ruling ideology for the workers, and

a reproduction of the ability to manipulate the ruling

ideology correctly for the agents of exploitation and

repression, so that they too will provide for the

domination of the ruling class ‘in words.’ (132-133)

Though he operated with the Marxist premise of the

understanding of social structure, he approached the relation

between state and ideology from a different perspective, and

his analysis presented a better and clearer picture of the

complex relationship between state and society. Marx presented

his understanding of society, economy and role of state by

using a metaphor of topography. To him society is a two story

building containing-

“infrastructure, or economic base (the unity of the

productive forces and the relations of production) and

the superstructure, which itself contains two ‘levels’ or

‘instances’: the politico-legal (law and the State)

and ideology (the different ideologies, religious,

ethical, legal, political, etc.” (134)

He complicated Marx's understanding of the relation between

base and superstructure by adding his concept of "ideological

state apparatuses." Marx distinguished among various "levels"

in a society: the infrastructure or economic base and the

superstructure, which includes political and legal

institutions (law, the police, the government) as well as

ideology (religious, moral, legal, political, etc.). The

superstructure has a relative autonomy with relation to the

base; it relies on the economic base but can sometimes persist

for a long period after major changes in the economic base.

Althusser does not reject the Marxist model; however, he

explores the ways in which ideology is more pervasive and more

"material" than previously acknowledged. As a result, he

proposes to distinguish "ideological state apparatuses" (ISAs

for short) from the repressive state apparatus (SA for short).

The state apparatus includes "the Government, the

Administration, the Army, the Police, the Courts, the Prisons,

etc." These are the agencies that function "by violence," at

some point imposing punishment or privation in order to

enforce power.

To distinguish ISAs from the SA, Althusser offers a number of

examples:

The religious ISA (the system of the different public and

private 'Schools'),

the family ISA

the legal ISA

the political ISA (the political system, including the

different Parties)

the trade union ISA

the cultural ISA (Literature, the Arts, sports, etc.)

the communications ISA (press, radio and television,

etc.)

This assortment of mixed strategies is very tactfully employed

by state to lend its favour to capitalism or to say dominant

class. Though the concept of ideology has been extended and

furthered by a number of other scholars also, the contribution

of above mentioned scholars is immense. Their original

insights and seminal works have helped us understand the

nature and mechanism of certain allied concept of social

science. This is a major reason that in this paper the

contribution of these people is discussed.

2- Text and AnalysisIn this section of the paper an attempt to apply the concept

of ideology is made. For this the judgement given by the

Supreme Court on gay rights on 13 December 2013 is chosen.

The Supreme’ court quashed the judgement announced by the

Delhi High Court in 2009. The Delhi High court decriminalized

the act of sex between the people of the same sex pronouncing

on the constitutional infirmity of IPC (Indian Penal Court)

section 377. In 2013 this judgement was challenged by a large

number of organizations and individuals including Joint Action

Council Kannur and Shri B.P. Singhal who intervened in the

high court during the hearing of case in the 2009. Therefore,

a good number of lawyers appeared in the court to plead

against High Court decision and Supreme Court of India

consequently reinstated the section IPC 377 announcing that

the section does not suffer from any constitutional infirmity.

The judgement runs into 105 pages and a number of cross

references are given during the case hearing and pronouncing

the judgement. I have picked some argument given by lawyers

favouring article 377. I will make an attempt to locate the

site of ideology in them. The attempt will be to spot ideology

in terms of underlying social schema and how does it

reinforces pre-existing ideology through court which in

Althusser’s framework of analysis of ideology serves as ISA.

It is observed that court does not just act as ISA but it

transgresses and acts also as RSA.

The case is opted on the merit that it involved debate between

state and societal norms- gay rights to be specific. Gay

rights or homosexuality is generally seen as morally offensive

and against the institution of heterosexuality. The Court

serves as an agency between state and society. It is a place

where social norms are negotiated and it is within the purview

of court if it grants asked social norms or not.

The analysis of court judgement proves that the decision of

court about gay rights reproduces this wide-held ideological

belief.

Here is a brief history of the case and facts

• Date of Judgment: 2 July, 2009

• Petitioner: Naz Foundation, with Min. of Health & Family

Welfare, NACO, “Voices against Sec. 377”

• Respondents: Govt. of NCT of Delhi; Min. of Home Affairs;

Joint Action Council, Kannur

IPC section 377

• Unnatural Offences – Whoever voluntarily has carnal

intercourse against the order of nature with any man,

woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for

life, or with imprisonment of either description for a

term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be

liable to a fine.

• Explanation – Penetration is sufficient to constitute the

carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in

this section.”

Arguments in support of Sec. 377 IPC

• necessary since the deletion thereof would well open

flood gates of delinquent behaviour and can possibly be

misconstrued as providing unfettered licence for

homosexuality”

• “Indian society by and large disapproves of

homosexuality, which disapproval was large enough to

justify it being treated as a criminal act even where the

adults indulge in it in private. […] law cannot run

separately from the society since it only reflects the

perception of society.”

• Indian society considers homosexuality to be repugnant,

immoral and contrary to the cultural and religious norms

of the country.”

• “Social and sexual mores in foreign countries cannot

justify de-criminalisation of homosexuality in India. […]

in the Western societies the morality standards are not

as high as in India.”

• If Section 377 IPC is struck down there will be no way

the State can prosecute any crime of nonconsensual carnal

intercourse against the order of nature or gross male

indecency.”

• “Section 377 IPC prevents HIV by discouraging rampant

homosexuality.”

• Section 377 IPC helps in putting a brake in the spread of

AIDS and if consensual same-sex acts between adults were

to be de-criminalised, it would erode the effect of

public health services by fostering the spread of AIDS.”

• Homosexuality is:

• Against nature

• Against morality and cultural norms

• Violative of cultural integrity of Indian society

• Incites criminal acts (homosexual rape, child abuse)

• Spreads disease (a pathological sexuality)

Argument against the IPC 377

• “An unconstitutional and arbitrary law based on archaic

moral and religious notions of sex only for procreation.

[…] the continued existence of this provision on the

statute book creates and fosters a climate of fundamental

rights violations of the gay community, to the extent of

bolstering their extreme social ostracism.”

• “The legislation criminalizing consensual and anal sex is

outdated and has no place in modern society.”

• “morality by itself cannot be a valid ground for

restricting the rights under Articles 14 [right to

equality before law] and 21 [right to protection of life

and personal liberty]. Public disapproval or disgust for

a certain class of persons can in no way serve to uphold

the constitutionality of a statute.”

• “courts in other jurisdictions have struck down similar

laws that criminalize same-sex sexual conduct on the

grounds of violation of right to privacy or dignity or

equality or all of them.”

• “the fields of psychiatry and psychology no longer treat

homosexuality as a disease and regard sexual orientation

to be a deeply held, core part of the identities of

individuals. […] no aspect of one’s life may be said to

be more private or intimate than that of sexual

relations, and since private, consensual, sexual

relations or sexual preferences figure prominently within

an individual’s personality and lie easily at the core of

the ‘private space’, they are an inalienable component of

the right to life.”

• “those in High Risk Groups [for AIDS] are most reluctant

to reveal same sex behaviour due to the fear of law

enforcement agencies, keeping a large section invisible

and unreachable and thereby pushing the cases of

infection underground making it very difficult for public

health workers to even access them.”

• Shift from social to individual, ‘public morality’ to

‘private space’: individualisation

• Shift from cultural norms to constitutional rights

• Shift from ‘tradition’ to ‘modernity’

• Shift from Indian law to international jurisdiction

• Shift from ‘acts’ to ‘identity’: homosexual as

personality

• Shift from ‘pathology’ to ‘preference’

• Shift from coercive power of law to pedagogic power of

public health agencies

• Medical regulation of society the common plank for both

arguments

• Principles of social ordering:

• Pro-377: Social order functions through binary division &

exclusion: normal/abnormal, natural/unnatural,

moral/immoral, healthy/diseased, licit/illicit,etc.

• Anti-377: Social order functions through diversity &

inclusion:

• “The inclusiveness that Indian society traditionally

displayed, literally in every aspect of life, is

manifested in recognising a role in society for everyone.

Those perceived by the majority as ‘deviants’ or

‘different’ are not on that score excluded or ostracised.

Where society can display inclusiveness and

understanding, such persons can be assured of a life of

dignity and non-discrimination.”

• Questions of privacy & governance:

• Pro-377: “there is no fundamental to engage in same sex

activities … homosexuality is abhorrent and can be

criminalised by imposing proportional limits to the citizens’ right to

privacy and equality” (ASG’s petition)

• Anti-377: “It is not within the constitutional competence of the State

to invade the privacy of citizens’ lives or regulate

conduct to which the citizen alone is concerned solely on

the basis of public morals” (Judgment)

Decision of High Court

• “Section 377 IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual

sexual acts of adults in private, is violative of

Articles 21, 14 and 15 [right against discrimination] of

the Constitution. The provisions of Section 377 IPC will

continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex

involving minors. […] This clarification will hold till

[…] Parliament chooses to amend the law to effectuate the

recommendation of the Law Commission of India in its 172nd

Report.”

A brief note on the verdict of the Supreme Court on 11

December 2013

This decision quashed the verdict delivered by the Delhi

Court. It must be borne in mind here that the Delhi High Court

declared the IPC 377 infirm. And on the ground of

constitutional infirmity it enunciated the section null and

void. The petitions were filed by many individuals, NGO and

religious wings to review the High Court verdict and the

Supreme Court in its review did not find the section

constitutionally infirm. There are slew of references and

cross references given in the court to establish the

constitutional relevance of the section. I have chosen the

basic argument presented by counsels of petitioners.

Argument in Favour of IPC 377

16.12 Shri K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior counsel appearing

for intervener in I.A. No.7 – Trust God Missionaries argued

that Section 377 IPC was enacted by the legislature to protect

social values and morals. He referred to Black’s Law

Dictionary to show that ‘order of nature’ has been defined as

something pure, as distinguished from artificial and

contrived. He argued that the basic feature of nature involved

organs, each of which had an appropriate place. Every organ in

the human body has a designated function assigned by nature.

The organs work in tandem and are not expected to be abused.

If it is abused, it goes against nature. The code of nature is

inviolable. Sex and food are regulated in society. What is

pre-ordained by nature has to be protected, and man has an

obligation to nature. He quoted a Sanskrit phrase which

translated to “you are dust and go back to dust”. Learned

senior counsel concluded by emphasising that if the

declaration made by the High Court is approved, then India’s

social structure and the institution of marriage will be

detrimentally affected and young persons will be tempted

towards homosexual activities.

16.14 Shri Huzefa Ahmadi submitted that the right to sexual

orientation can always be restricted on the principles of

morality and health.

16.17 Shri Praveen Aggarwal argued that all fundamental rights

operate in a square of reasonable restrictions. There is

censorship in case of Freedom of Speech and Expression. High

percentage of AIDS amongst homosexuals shows that the act in

dispute covered under Section 377 IPC is a social evil and,

therefore, the restriction on it is reasonable.

16.9 That the term used in Section 375 IPC, which defines rape

as ‘sexual intercourse’, whereas in Section 377 IPC the

expression is ‘carnal intercourse’. In Khanu v. Emperor AIR

1925 (Sind), it was held that the metaphor ‘intercourse’

refers to sexual relations between persons of different sexes

where the ‘visiting member’ has to be enveloped by the

recipient organization and submitted that carnal intercourse

was criminalized because such acts have the tendency to lead

to unmanliness and lead to persons not being useful in

society.

Analysis

Looking critically at the arguments, it can be made out that

these arguments carry the undertone of prevalent ideological

norms which are in favour of homosexuality. In the argument

16.17 the lawyer considers homosexuality a social evil and for

Huzefa Ahmadi homosexuality be restricted on the principles of morality and

health. K.Radhakrishnan argues that IPC 377 was legislated to

protect social values and moral. In his long enunciated argument, he

further explains the functions of organs designated to perform

and relate the function of organ with nature. His argument

implies that the onus is on the state to ensure that its

citizens use their organ in accordance with nature and if

abused (by indulging in homosexuality) should be regulated

(punished) by court. His argument heavily tilts the balance of

power in favour of state. The argument obliquely is suggestive

of the fact that state has ownership of your body and

therefore it must be regulated by state machinery. Critically

approaching this argument gives an understanding that we are

subjects to state powers and state power must exercise its

arbitrary power to interpellate to transform ‘deviant’(community

which is asking for judicial permission for homosexuality)

subjects into its pre-existing ideologically conditioned

entity.

Ideology is more a matter of discourse as Van Dijk explains

“Ideologies are expressed and generally reproduced in the

social practices of their members, and more particularly

acquired, confirmed, changed and perpetuated through

discourse” (2006:115) as a social practice over a period of

time and validate and naturalize certain practices.

These taken for granted ideologies become an undercurrent of

our social transactions in our everyday day life. Discourse

created in this argument shows how society and law are

interface of each other. The Lawyer here is requesting the

state to wield its discretionary powers to maintain social

fabric of society intact. This whole argument is structured

around prevalent social ideology of heterosexuality. It can be

deduced from the sentences like India’s social structure and the institution

of marriage will be detrimentally affected and young persons will be tempted

towards homosexual activities and What is pre-ordained by nature has to be

protected, and man has an obligation to nature.

Heterosexuality is “a cultural construction relying on

strictly enforced norms for its continuing Dominance”. We in

our daily conversations ‘do’ heterosexuality thus

heterosexuality is ‘actively produced in specific

sociocultural contexts and situated interactions’ (Cameron and

Kulick, 2003: 55). It is because the concept of

heterosexuality is coterminous with gender which is a social

category; sexual relation between opposite gender is deemed to

be natural. In the argument presented in 16.9 the normative

role of a specific gender is highlighted- . . . carnal intercourse

was criminalized because such acts have the tendency to lead to unmanliness and

lead to persons not being useful in society. This statement favours the

idea that the qualities of manliness reside in keeping

relationship with opposite gender. The ideology working in

this argument recast man in their widely–held stereotypical

image subverting the new dynamics of gender relationship

emerging. This is long held social belief that natural bond

exists and should exist between opposite gender only.

Discourse created in the argument evokes many other

discourses. A discourse broadly speaking can be described as

text carries many sub-texts. The sub-texts help in

constituting micro social realities and perceptions embedded

in discursive practices. The counsel brings in an element of

religiousness. He quotes in Sanskrit which means “you are dust

and go back to dust”. He subtly sends a message that you must

comply with nature. Finally court acted on these arguments and

reinstated the section.

References

.Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Lenin and

Philosophy, and

Other Essays. Trans. Ben Brewster. London: New Left Books,

1971. 127-188.

Bloommaert, Jan. Discourse: A Critical Introduction.NewYork: CUP, 2005

Coates, Jennifer. “The Discursive Production of Everyday

Heterosexualities.” Discourse and Society 17.2 (2013): 536-53.

Eagelton,T.(ed.) Ideology: A introduction.London:Verso,2007.

Freeden.M. Ideology: A very short introduction.USA:OUP,2003

Howarth, D. Discourse .New Delhi:Viva Books Private Limited,2005

Woods, N. Describing Discourse. London: Oxford University Press,

2006

Van Dijk, T.A. “Ideology and Discourse Analysis .” Discourse

and Society 11.2 (2006): 115-40.

.