marx's concept of ideology - h. m. drucker

8/6/2019 Marx's Concept of Ideology - H. M. Drucker

1/10

MARX'S CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGYH. M. DRUCKER

THE CONCEPT of ideology plays an important part in contemporary socialand political thinking. In many works which raise the question aboutthe relationship between what men think and how their societies operatesome mention of ideology is made. Since the variety of thinkers who writeabout this relationship have a variety of views on the subject, it is not atall surprising that they disagree about just what an ideology is. It mightbe helpful if we could agree on just one usage, or, failing that, understandwhy a variety of usages is necessary and understand them.I do not propose to undertake here the enormous task of reconcilingthese varied understandings. Neither do I propose to seek to change thesituation by proposing yet another definition of ideology. But I do thinka great deal of the confusion and disagreement on the subject could bedissipated by an analysis of the original use of the term. The concept ofideology as we now use itall theories agree in this whatever their otherdisagreementsstems from Karl Marx. Marx was not the man whocoined the term; that man was Antoine Louis Claude Destutt de Tracy. 1Neither was Marx the first to take up the coinage. The word appears in

something like its original usage in Napoleon's correspondence; it is usedby John Adams and Thomas Jefferson in their correspondence and its usewas known to Jeremy Bentham.2 But all these pre-Marxist usages canbe safely relegated to the preserves of early nineteenth century intellectualhistorians. For practical purposes the career of ideology begins withMarx.That a newly coined word did not immediately become popular cur-rency but had to wait somefiftyyears (from 1798 to 1846) before achievingany importance is itself worthy of wonder. Why, we may ask, did Marxuse a word which had previously been all but neglected to refer to one ofhis central concepts? Why, more interestingly, did Marx's use of theterm achieve wide currency where its predecessors failed? I cannot giveanything like a full answer to these questionsfull answers would involvesomething like a complete theory of languagebut I do hope to showthat one major cause of the confusion about 'ideology' is due to the failureof its successive users to appreciate tha t what Marx did with the word wasconsiderably more complex than they seem to appreciate. Marx was no t

merely giving a name to a thing; he was not behaving in the way nominal-ists say men behave when they use new words.There is, of course, a simple and temptingly cynical view of why Marx'scomplex concept of ideology became popular where its predecessors didnot. This cynical view comes to light when we realise tha t M arx's viewis considerably more complex, and consequently difficult to understand,than his predecessors. Even the most superficial reading of De Tracy

152


2/10

MARX'S CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGYreveals what he understands ideology to be. For De Tracy 'ideology' wasthe name of the new science which he was in the process of inaugurating.3He intended his new science to give a correct and universally compre-hensible explanation of politics, based on an equally clear natural science.'Ideology', in its author's intention, was to replace opaque disciplines suchas metaphysics, theology and political philosophy. While the other pre-Marxist uses of 'ideology' were different from De Tracy's they werederived from his use, and what is equally im portant were as unambiguousas his.

De Tracy and his friends formed a political club to publicise his ideasand to examine their ramifications. De Tracy published a three-volumework, Elements of Ideology, which elaborated these notions. Jefferson,who approved of them, had the politically relevant portions of theElements translated into English, for the enlightenment of the Americans.4Napoleon made a practice of flattering the group of "Ideologues", as theycalled themselves, when on his return from Egypt he sought to gain publicapproval as more than a soldier. Since the "Ideo logues", political naivetymatched their philosophical optimism, they were easily taken in by thisflattery. So much were they taken in that they came to support Napoleon'sclaims in the hope that he would rule according to the precepts of theirprogramme once in power. When their hopes were disappointed, theyattacked him and he reciprocated by attacking ideology. In the course ofthis attack (which consists of little more than a few remarks scatteredover a period of several years) ideology was aptly portrayed as a vacuous,naive form of political pretension.5

Although Napoleon was originally talking about the "Ideologues", thisreference became lost as 'ideology' came to stand for any form of wishfulpolitical thinking. Perhaps the only element of De Tracy 's original useto be found in this newer use was the contrast between 'ideology' andtraditional political theory; the inversion involved in the newer meaningis seen in De Tracy's approval of the former and Napoleon's approval ofthe latter. But the major point for our purpose is tha t all these pre-Marxist uses were readily comprehensible and of little subsequent interestwhere Marx's use was neither of these things.

I am convinced that any such simple attempt to explain the success ofMarx's use and the failure of De Tracy by reference to the former'sseeming obscurity must fail precisely because the obscurity is merelyseeming and does not exist in Marx's theory.6 Further, I am convincedthat far from being obscure Marx's concept of ideology is of value pre-cisely because it points to a complex relationship between phenomena notusually seen to be related at all.IIEven those who dislike Marx intensely cannot deny that he possessed afine sense of historical understand ing. Even they cannot deny the

153


3/10

PHILOSOPHYpoignancy of his work which derives from his judicious use of this power.Marx places all social facts within an historical context. Thus, when heexamines, say, the teachings of Aristotle, he keeps in mind that Aristotlelived in a slave-owning city-state.7 He never makes the mistake ofspeaking of these teachings as if they were meant to apply to bourgeoissociety. Of course, we would be making such a mistake ourselves if weexpected him to do so since he lived in an intellectual milieu in whichhistorical consciousness was common.

For these reasons it is rather startling to realise that a good deal, if notall, of the commentaries on Marx's concept of ideology ignores this fact.This ignorance is all the more startling once one does raise the matterbecause it is clear that when Marx refers to ideology he is using the wordin two different historically differentiated ways. When he refers to thethinking characteristic of an ascendant classspecifically of the bourgeoisbefore they seized powerhe is talking about something very differentfrom the thinking characteristic of a ruling classspecifically of the bour-geois once they were in power. While recognising that they are different,Marx uses the same word 'ideology' to describe both of them thus indi-cating that they have much in common, to wit, they are both the productof a particular class (as opposed to humanity in general), both these kindsof thinking, different though they are in content, guide and defend thatclass and both are, what is more important, wrong.

Putting the matter as concisely as is consistent with veracity we mayexpress Marx's thinking thus: Today's established rulers were yesterday'sparvenus; they may well be tomorrow 's has-beens. Today their needsare different from tomorrow 's. One of the needs of every class is a theorywhich will orient it to its world and prescribe its future tasks. Since theneeds of the class change quite radically it will have to change its theorytoo. Throughout its life the theorists of this class will search assiduouslyfor whatever factual or scientific basis for their preconceptions they canfind. When no such basis can honestly be found something which lookslike one will be patched up and put forward. Honest or not, a class willexalt as 'true' that theory which seems to provide good reason for actionsit wants to take in any case.

Today's established rulers (Marx developed his concept of ideology inthe mid-1840s) are the bourgeois; not so long ago they were an ascendantclass faced with the task of overthrowing the landed classes. In theirearlier period the bourgeoisie found, in the political economy of AdamSmith and his school, an honest scientific basis for their claims. Amongother things, Smith taught that the lifting of restrictions on trade wouldaid the process of capital-accumulation and tha t the first nations to over-throw the shackles of restriction, which had been originally inspired bythe Physiocrats, would become wealthy fast.8 This was just what theCapitalists wanted to hear. When they achieved power they did just asSmith prescribed and his predictions proved true. But once this had been154


4/10


5/10

PHILOSOPHYIn the Holy Family Marx mentions Bentham only in passing. By wayof relating the history of Materialism, which led to his own thought, henotes that Bentham, along with Mandeville, was a British Materialist.

He writes:"Bentham based his system of correctly understood interest on Hel-vetius' morality and Owen proceeded from Bentham's system to foundEnglish Communism".11Marx also credits Bentham with founding a plan for penal reform andcodification of the laws.12 And, while there is nothing in the HolyFamily to indicate that Marx took any great interest in Bentham's works,he is obviously sympathetic.The German Ideology, which Marx wrote with Engels immediatelyfollowing the Holy Family, presents a more detailed view of Bentham'scontributions. Marx notes tha t Hegel had seen that the theory of utilityBentham's theorywas the final result of the Enlightenment.13 Heexplains this theory in some detail, showing its progress through Hobbesand Locke and the French Materialists and examining the relationbetween Materialism and Capitalism.14 Here, again, Marx notes that thetheory reduces all human relations to the relation of utility. This is tosay that in bourgeois theory, as in bourgeois society, love, honour and

beauty are manifest only in so far as they are useful to the person professingthem. Pu tting this the other way round , the only relations betweenpeople are those in which they exploit one another. All this Utilitarian-ism, in Marx's understanding of it, reaches its zenith in Bentham.15But even at the moment of Bentham's writing, this social order waschanging. Ideology was now becoming more than an unscientific theoryit was becoming an apology. Thus, as well as leading the bourgeois, ittook on the role of misleading the proletariat. Marx hints at this change

in the German Ideology:"The economic content gradually turned the utility theory into a mereapologia for the existing state of affairs, an attempt to prove that underthe existing conditions the mutual relations of people are today themost advantageous and generally useful. It has this character in allmodern economists.1 6In Capital these hints become more explicit and detailed. Capital waswritten almost two decades after the German Ideology and the HolyFamily. It is tempting to suggest that Marx developed his notion ofideology as an apologetic technique in the later period of his life. But itmust be remembered that he wrote of religion in a similar manner in hisCritique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right as early as 1844. It seems moreaccurate to suggest that it was Marx's interest rather than his notion whichchanged as he matured. We find much more attention given to the laterperiod of bourgeois ideology in the later par t of his life, and hence we findmore vehement condemnations of bourgeois ideology in his later writings.

156


6/10

MARX'S CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGYThus, Bentham, once so unobjectionable to Marx, becomes the butt ofsevere vituperation:

"Had I the courage of my friend Heinrich Heine, I should call Mr.Jeremy Bentham a genius in the way of bourgeois stupidity".17Writing in 1867 Marx characterised the change in the bourgeois ide-ology thus:"With the development of the class struggle between the bourgeois andthe proletariat the character of bourgeois political economy undergoesa sharp change. From the time of the conquest of political power bythe bourgeoisie in France and England, the class struggle, practically aswell as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threaten-ing forms. It sounded the death knell of scientific bourgeois economy. . . In place of disinterested inquiries, there were hired prize-fighters;in place of genuine scientific research, the bad conscience and the evilintent of apologetic." ! 8

IIIIt is well known that Marx characterised all thinking prior to his ownand not only bourgeois thinkingas ideological. By way of contrasthis own thinking was 'scientific'. Characteristically, he offers in thepreface to the German Ideology to exorcise the "phantoms" from men'sminds.19 Later he lumps all these phantom s together under the headingof ideology so that the word applies to ideas from Plato's Republic (theideology of the Pharaohs) to Burke's Reflections on the Revolution inFrance (reactionary aristocratic ideology).20Such an uncompromising procedure was not calculated to charm thehistorically sensitive and it certainly calls for some explanation, for itwould seem that by lumping together such temporally disparate works, he

has broken the constraints of historical criticism. Marx's procedure alsocalls for explanation when we recall that after carefully separating thehonest and apologetic periods of bourgeois thinking he calls them bothbourgeois ideology. Would it no t make more sense to preserve the dis-tinction as Karl Mannheim did in his subsequent attack on Marx when hedistinguished between Utopias (ideas of an ascendant class) and ideologies(ideas of a declining class)?Until very recently 'ideology' was almost always used pejoratively. It

was, as the philosophers used to put it, a 'boo-w ord'. This is to saythat describing something as 'ideological' or saying that something wasan 'ideology' was a way of condemning it. In this 'ideology' was oftenopposed to 'science'; 'science' was a 'hurrah-word', its use bespokeapproval. Now a science is a body of theory with some more or less completeconfirming evidence Gust to simplify a bit), so that if a thinker contrastedideology to science he was implying that the ideology was also a body oftheory. When 'ideology' is used in this way the implication is tha t the157


7/10


8/10

MARX'S CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGYheld values or theory is a precondition of politicson the argument thatagreement on some values or other, say tolerance, is necessary to inducemen to live peaceably together, then the business of exploring the logicalrelations of these values can be of considerable political importance. Forexample, it might be questioned whether a country dedicated whole-heartedly to liberty and equality can long stand, since such a country seemsto be committed to granting its enemies the liberty unrestrictedly to attackit.

But Marx perceives the relation between political theories and practicesto be even closer than this. He is urging that political theorists have aresponsibility to see to it that their theories are conducive to the creationand protection of moral policy: and that this responsibility is the mostimportant task such theorists have. No wanton uncoverer of the idolsof the market place he. Tha t M arx is frequently taken to be such anuncoverer is some measure of the degree to which his practical intentionis often ignored. Marx is careful to uncover only other men's idols. Itis only when this is appreciated that Marx's procedure in describing allprevious thought as ideological makes any sense at all.Precisely because Marx is partisan, and makes it his business to claimthat all other theories are partisan as well, he sees the similarity between

the types of ideology as of greater importance than their differences.The harmony of theory and practice, which amounts to the demandthat rhetoric be given precedence over logic, seeks to keep the differencesbetween the kinds of ideology hidden from view. For practical, tha t ispartisan, purposes the two are 'birds of a feather'.The classical anti-Marxian statement on ideology is found in KarlMannheim's Ideology and Utopia.11 A comparison of their respectiveremarks will bear out jus t how closely related are M arx's partisanship andhis perception of ideology. In m ost of the important respects Mannheimdisagrees with Marx. Most relevant is his disagreement with Marx aboutthe proper relationship between theory and practice and his consequentdisagreement with Marx about the relationship between the kinds offalse-consciousness.

Mannheim distinguishes between ideologies and Utopias. The differ-ence, according to Mannheim, between an ideology and a Utopia, arisesprimarily from the fact tha t the former is thinking characteristic of adeclining class, while the latter is thinking characteristic of an ascendantclass. 2 2 From this it is clear that Mannheim and Marx are making arather similar distinction. The difference between the distinctions madelies in Marx's refusal to see it as important enough for him to assigndifferent words to the two forms of consciousness where Mannheimthought the difference of fundamental importance.According to Mannheim, classes which cannot accept that they havelost, or are about to lose, power, create ideologies to bide harsh realityfrom their eyes.23 They are trying to bury their heads in the sand. On

159


9/10

PHILOSOPHYthe other side are those who need to kid themselves into thinking that theyare about to assume power in order, thereby, to bolster their morale. Theyare the Utopians. All classes create one or other kind of false conscious-ness and hence all are deluded (and none are securely in power?).Mannheim claims that his position is opposed alike to both ideologyand Utopia. In distinction to these deluded partisans he is an objectivescientist.24 Putting this another way, we can say that M annheim's theor-etical activity is conspicuous by its freedom from the taint of practicalexigency. Since practical considerations, such as the need to bolstermorale, cloud the vision, Mannheim's theoretical purity is held to be anecessary condition of the tru th of his ideas.

How, we may wonder, does Mannheim justify his claim to be abovethe practical battle? He does this by making the fantastic further claimthat his Sociology of Knowledge will be scientific because its practitionerswill come in equal numbers from the opposed c lasses.25 Presumably theconflict thus engendered will ensure that neutrality wins the day. Withthis further claim we can see that it serves Mannheim's purposes toemphasise the differences between the two types of false consciousness.He needs (at least) two differing errors so that this can arise in theoreticalpurity out of the negation of both.As it happens, Mannheim's ideas in these respects do not commandmuch respect. To mention only the most obvious difficulty, it is far fromclear that Mannheim actually attained the non-partisan purity which hisprocedure is supposed to ensure. His preference for the Utopian form isill concealed. He describes it as a relatively diseased form of socialthinking; nothing like so bemused as the ideological. But these diffi-culties are by the way; there are more than a few difficulties with Marx'sposition too. Fo r whatever reason, there seems little enough evidencethat the proletariat want the revolution towards which Marx urges them.The central point is tha t M arx's perception of the two different kinds offalse consciousness and bis conflation of them are perfectly pellucid onceone takes his historical sensitivity and practical intention into account.

University of Edinburgh.

160


10/10

r

MARX'S CONCEPT OF IDEOLOGY^Destutt de Tracy, "Memoire sur lafaculte depenser", Memoires de I'lttstitut Nationaldes Sciences et Arts pour Van IV de la Republique; sciences morales et politiques Tome

premier, Paris. Therm idor An VI, p. 324.2See Picavet, F., Les Ideologues: Essai sur Vhistoire des Idees et des Theories Scienti-fiques, Philosophiques, Religieuses etc. en France Depuis 1759 (Paris, 1891) and VanDuzer, C. H., Contributions of the Ideologues to French Revolutionary Thought (Balti-more, 1935).3De Tracy, op cit., p . 324.4Destutt de Tracy, A Treatise on Political Econ omy; to which is prefixed a supplementto a preceding work on the understanding of Elements of Ideology (Georgetown, 1817).5For a list of these remarks see Drucker, H., "The Nature of Ideology and its placein Modern Political Thought", Appendix (unpublished Ph.D. Thesis at LondonUniversity).cf. Gould, J. and Kolli, W. T., A Dictionary of the Social Sciences (London, 1964),pp. 315-317, esp. p . 316.?See Marx, K., Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (London, 1928), Volume I,pp. 387-8.Marx, K., Theories of Surplus Value (Moscow, 1954), Part I, pp. 41, 68-9, 71 , 77-79,83, 85-6, 100, 153.'M arx , K., op cit., p. 278. See Meek, R., Marx and Engels on Malthus, (London,1953), pp. 11, 121-2.lOMarx is harder on M althus than his Socialist Theory requires. There is no reasoninherent in Socialism why a Socialist state could not limit birth con trol. See the intro-duction by Anthony Flew: Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population, Har-mon dswo rth, 1970), pp. 48-54.UMarx, K., Holy Family or Critique of Critical Critique, (Moscow, 1957), p. 176.12Marx, K., Holy Family or Critique of Critical Critique (Moscow, 1957), pp. 237,249.1 3MPJX, K., German Ideology (Moscow, 1965), pp. 448-9.Hop. cit., p. 449.1 sop. cit., p . 454; cf. p . 452 on the role of J. S. Mill "T he complete union of the theoryof utility with political economy is to be found, finally, in Mill".

17Marx, K., Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (Moscow, 1954), Volume I,p. 620.1'Marx, K., Theories of Surplus Value (Moscow, 1954), p. 25.1 "Marx, K., German Ideology, preface.2Marx, K., Capital: A Critique of Political Economy (New York, 1967), p. 365;760 fn."Mannheim, K. , Ideology and Utopia (London, 1936).22 Mannheim, K., Ideology and Utopia (London, 1936), p. 173." o p . cit., p. 175." o p . cit., p. 76.2sop. cit., pp . 139-142. The claim mentioned is not, of course, the only guarantee ofthe scientific purity of Mannhe im's new science. But it is crucial.

161

marx's concept of ideology - h. m. drucker

Documents