Political Ideologies
On page 376 of Selections from the Prison Notebooks, Antonio Gramsci specifies that:
“‘ideology’ itself must be analyzed historically, in the terms of the philosophy of praxis, as a superstructure.”
Indeed, Gramsci argues that “it seems to me that there is a potential element of error in assessing the value of ideologies, due to the fact (by no means casual) that the name ideology is given both to the necessary superstructure of a particular structure and to the arbitrary elucabrations of particular individuals.”
Gramsci goes on to identify three processes that lead up to what he believes is an erroneous theorization or “bad sense” of ideology, writing that the first error occurs when “ideology is identified as distinct from the structure, and it is asserted that it is not ideology that changes the structure but vice versa.”
Compare and contrast Gramsci’s critique of ideology on pages 376-377 to Michel Foucault’s claim that “a régime of truth is not merely ideological or superstructural; it was a condition of the formation and development of capitalism” (in Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews & Other Writings, pages 131-133), and also to Louis Althusser’s argument that under ideological state apparatuses, “individuals are always-already subjects” (On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses, page 192). Additionally, how does Gramsci’s conception of organic ideologies, hegemony, and common sense compare to, and differ from, Michel Foucault’s and Louis Althusser’s respective theorizations of power?
Student
Institution
Course
Professor
Date
Political Ideologies
Political ideologies can be crudely defined as a set of principles or doctrines that explains how a society should run and dictate a particular social order. Several thinkers have given their thoughts on what should constitute a political ideology. Antonio Gramsci, in his discourse, reiterates that “ideology’ itself must be analyzed historically, in the terms of the philosophy of praxis, as a superstructure (Gramsci, 2007).” Gramsci believes that the term ideology is assigned to two elements, arbitrary elucubrations of particular individuals and the necessary superstructure of a particular superstructure. Gramsci faults other thinkers for not having the right sense of the idea of ideology. He terms this, a ‘bad sense’ in that people often misconstrue the idea that ideology is distinct from the structure (Gramsci, 2007). Ideology does not have the capacity to change structure. Instead, it is the structure that can change an ideology. Deep as these thoughts may be, various scholars have come out to agree or disagree with these sentiments in different ways.
Michel Foucault highlights that “a régime of truth is not merely ideological or superstructural; it was a condition of the formation and development of capitalism (Foucault, 1980).” Foucault reiterated that t regime of knowledge cannot be separated from power and that the two are intimately tied side by side in the political space. Foucault’s idea is different from that of Gramsci primarily in what constitutes a superstructure. While Gramsci reiterates that it is the structure that changes ideology, Foucault agrees with him on the fact that it is the p...