nmediacbanner
 


Althusser, Ideology, and Theoretical Foundations: Theory and Communication

By Jennifer B. Gray

 

Abstract

From a Marxist perspective, hegemonic parties and institutions influence each decision made regarding the content and distribution of mass media. The manner in which the privileged and powerful, or hegemonic, discourses, individuals, groups, and institutions, maintain the necessary consent for their dominance has been posited by Louis Althusser, through his theory of ideology, a scientific interpretation and restructuration of Marxism. Althusser's theories of ideology and interpellation may be readily applied to the study of mass communication, in the context of perpetuation of hegemonic ideology via the mass media. In this paper, the author explores Althusser's life and the development of his work. This exploration is followed by a more detailed account of ideology and interpellation in particular, as well as a brief overview of extensions and criticisms of Althusser in media and cultural studies. In closing, Althusser's theories are considered in the context of current media issues, communication theory, and research.

Althusser, Ideology, and Theoretical Foundations: Theory and Communication

A young woman watches a sitcom on television each evening. The characters on this program, her favorite "show," are young, thin, Caucasian, and attractive. She is also young, attractive, and Caucasian; watching the program informs and reinforces her perceptions of her successful appearance, her sense of belonging, and her identity as part of "her generation."

How are the presentations of television, such as those previously described, or other media, for that matter, formed? Arguably, multiple parties and institutions influence each decision on each program and advertisement. These factions are those with the most power and privilege, from a Marxist perspective. The manner in which the privileged and powerful, or hegemonic, discourses, individuals, groups, and institutions, maintain the necessary consent for their dominance and perpetuation has been posited by Louis Althusser, through his theory of ideology, a scientific interpretation and restructuration of Marxism. Althusser's theories of ideology and interpellation may be readily applied to the study of mass communication, in the context of perpetuation of hegemonic ideology via the mass media.

In the following sections, Althusser's life and the development of his work will be discussed. This exploration is followed by a more detailed account of ideology and interpellation in particular, as well as a brief overview of extensions and criticisms of Althusser in media and cultural studies. In closing, Althusser's theory is considered in the context of current media issues, communication theory, and research.


Louis Althusser: Life and Legacy

Louis Althusser, a soldier, philosopher, professor, writer, and ideological and political critic, was born in France in 1918. He is best known for his criticisms and reconceptualizations of Marxism, as well as for his theory of ideology (Baldwin et al, 1999).

Althusser fought for the French army during World War II and spent five years in a German prisoner-of-war camp. After the war ended, he studied philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure in Paris, where he later held a long tenure as a professor. His former students included French philosophers Étienne Balibar, Pierre Macherey, and Jacques Rancière (Baldwin, et al, 1999).

Althusser joined the French Communist Party in 1948, and began writing critical analyses of the work of Karl Marx. Althusser categorized Marx's writings into two stages, an early humanistic or ideological period, and a later scientific phase that culminated in Marx's writing of DasKapital (1867). Althusser noted an "epistemological break" between the two periods (1965). He posed that scientific developments do not occur through gradual change, but rather, are the result of sudden fractures in knowledge in which entire theoretical frameworks are redesigned or replaced.

Also in his writings on Marx, Althusser rejected the concept of strict economic determinism (1965). He posed an idea of "relative autonomy," creating a more complex model of historical change than that presented by Marx. Althusser posited that it was possible to study politics, law, and philosophy as activities independent of economic production. He also posed that Marxism was not a moral philosophy concerned with the alienation of humankind under capitalism and its possible redemption under socialism, but rather, it was a science (Clarke, 1980). The result of Althusser's work, which was criticized by traditional Marxists, was to frame Marxism as a purely theoretical model, concerned with the conditions of scientific knowledge, rather than as a plan for revolution, concerned with liberating the working class (Althusser, 1970).

Althusser's conceptualization of ideology is situated within a modified Marxist base-superstructure model (Dowling, 1984). Rather than a strict relationship between ideology and the economic base of society, where one class imposes its values on another, ideology is a dynamic set of practices in which all groups and classes participate (Althusser, 1969).

In 1980, Althusser murdered his wife, Hélène Rytmann, and was subsequently confined to a psychiatric institution until his death in 1990 (Benton, 1984). Althusser's writings include For Marx (1969), Lenin and Philosophy (1969), and Reading Capital (1970). His autobiography, The Future Lasts Forever, was published posthumously in 1994 (Baldwin, et al, 1999).

His philosophical legacy lives on. Althusser’s work had its heyday in circles of academe during the 1960s and 1970s, and today, his terms, ideology, interpellation, and ideological state apparatuses (ISAs), are used in multiple academic circles. A more in-depth discussion of his ideological theory follows, including specific sections on his conceptualizations of the phenomenal world and of the individual. In closing, ideological theory in the context of communication theory and research will be explored and examined.

Ideology and Interpellation

Althusser’s theory of ideology provides a language to explain the ubiquitous societal control of ideology. His framework further provides a systematic mechanism of cultural force and its perpetuation of hegemonic ideology.

Althusser’s cultural theory explains the structure and function of ideology. His thesis works from Antonio Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. Originally, hegemony “referred to the way that one nation could exert ideological and social, rather than military or coercive, power over another” (Fiske, 1998; 310). Today, in cultural theory, the term describes the dynamic by “which a dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate class to the system that ensures their subordination” (Fiske, 1998; 310). Consent is not static, but must be “won and rewon” (Fiske, 1998, 310), for courageous individuals may rebel and advocate alternative or oppositional ideologies, rather than hegemonic ones. Althusser’s theory of ideology accounts for the manner in which ruling, or hegemonic, discourses and institutions perpetuate the necessary consent for their dominance.

Ideology is the powerful force behind the dominance of hegemonic institutions. Althusser defines ideology as an imaginary relation to the real relations of existence. He posits that the ideas of representations that “make up ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence, but a material existence” (Althusser, 1969; 296). This material existence is twofold. The representations that constitute ideology are based in the material world. Such representations exist in those individuals who advocate particular ideologies, as well as their collective ideas and belief systems. Secondly, ideologies exist in apparatuses and their practices, which also have material existences.

These apparatuses and their accompanying practices, termed “Ideological State Apparatuses,” or “ISAs,” are institutions such as religion, patriarchy, marriage, educational systems, and the like (Althusser, 1998; 303). Althusser (1998) states that there are no practices “except by and in an ideology” ( 299). Practices of particular powerful social institutions reproduce ideology in an ever-changing dynamic process. Individuals, who are born as “subjects” (Althusser, 1998; 303) into the realm of some form of ideology, are inevitably called to participate in practices of particular dominant institutional ideologies. Althusser describes this process systematically, as a circular relationship. Through a “conceptual device or dispositif,” an individual believes himself a subject endowed with a consciousness in which he freely forms or freely recognizes ideas in which he believes (Althusser, 1998; 297). The individual believes his ideas must be inserted into actions, or ought to exist in his actions, and these are inserted into practices governed by the rituals of particular ISAs. The rituals stem from the ideology of the ISAs, which are the origin of the recognized or formed beliefs of the individual (Althusser, 1969).

Individuals do not realize their subjection, believing that they freely form or recognize ideas and participate in ritual practices in order to “act according to their ideas” (Althusser, 1998; 297). Ideology is perpetuated by subjects and by ISAs in a dynamic, highly irresistible process. As John Fiske (1998) states, “for Althusser, ideology is not a static set of ideas imposed upon the subordinate by the dominant classes, but rather a dynamic process constantly reproduced and reconstituted in practice” (306). This process or mechanism is termed “interpellation” (Althusser, 1998; 299).

The process of interpellation begins with “hailing,” a calling to participate in a form of ideology (Althusser, 1998; 302). Hailing is ubiquitous, and almost entirely irresistible and is at the center of any ideological system. It attempts to make another individual recognize and accept a form of ideology. Through hailing, ideology “acts or functions in such a way that it recruits subjects among individuals” (Althusser, 1998; 301). Individuals are born into ideology, but hailing recruits subjects of particular ideologies. Subjects do not realize their subjection, and are only free in that subjection is freely accepted. Althusser (1998) states that an institution or individual hails another individual much as the “common everyday police (or other) hailing: ‘Hey, you there!’” (301). A successful hailing occurs if the individual “recognizes that the hail was really addressed to him, and that it was really him who was hailed” (Althusser, 1969; 41). This recognition, for example may be the acceptance of a particular social practice or label, such as an advocate of Christian religious ideology terming himself a Christian. If a hailing is successful, an individual becomes a “subject” of a particular ideology, and, hence, is “interpellated, ” interpellation being a successful hailing (Althusser, 1998; 303). Althusser (1998) succinctly states this process in his central thesis: “Ideology interpellates individuals as subjects” (299).

Ideological process creates a “quadruple system of interpellation as subjects, of subjection to the Subject, of universal recognition, and of absolute guarantee” (Althusser, 1998; 302). Interpellation recruits subjects of particular ideologies only if subjects recognize each other and themselves as subjects of particular ideologies. Subjects also must recognize dominant ISAs and participate in their practices for interpellation to be successful. Success is ensured through what Althusser (1998) terms, the “absolute guarantee” of ideology (302). Hegemonic ideology insists that if “the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right: Amen—‘So be it’” (Althusser, 1998; 303). According to Althusser, if subjects act according to their beliefs, participating in the practices of dominant ISAs, they are assured a place in hegemonic society.

Although ideological force, exerted as hailing and interpellation, is highly powerful, it is not entirely irresistible. Subjects may adhere to ideology or may resist, though there are normally consequences to the latter. Althusser (1998) notes that subjects may be “good” or may be “bad” (303). Good subjects adhere to the dictates of dominant ideology through the recognition, acceptance, and maintenance of its practices. Bad subjects rebel against dominant discourse, often by adopting alternative or oppositional ideologies, and are “punished” through mainstream societal ridicule, obsequy, or ostracism. Althusser’s ideological theory does allow for resistance to ideology. Only through the “scientific understanding” of ideological systems may those who wish to escape ideology elude its powerful influence (Althusser, 1998; 303). In this manner, Althusser contends that ideology shapes the experiences of human existence through its control of aspects such as social milieu, class, and power.

Althusser: Inspirations, Extensions, and Criticisms

Contemporary cultural and media critics, such as Stuart Hall, John Fiske, Ernesto Laclau, and Chantal Mouffe, arguably have their roots in the Althusserian framework of ideology and the Gramscian conceptualization of hegemony. Each also has his or her criticisms and alternative views regarding significant aspects of Althusser's central theses (Althusser, 1998; Bryant & Zillmann, 2002; Durham & Kellner, 2001; Fiske, 1998; Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001; Laclau & Mouffe, 1985; McQuail, 2000; Salwen & Sacks, 1996; Wood, 1998).

Hall, one of the most influential cultural and media critics in the field, acknowledges the power relations and negotiation of meaning behind discourse, including both everyday language and media messages. In his reception theory, he poses that audiences receive pieces of messages and ignore others, depending on their particular beliefs, cultural circumstances, and individual differences. This is more systematically outlined in his encoding-decoding typology, which posits that senders encode messages with particular meanings and audiences decode these messages, accepting some of the intended meaning, while negotiating new meaning and rejecting some of the intended message. Hall has noted that Althusserian ideological theory does not allow for multiple, simultaneous hails, and does not allow for oppositional ideologies through its process. Almost as entirely systematic as Althusserian ideological theory, Hall’s framework presents what some have said is a more audience-controlled theory, where ideology is not so much “imposed from above,” but is more or less negotiated by the individual receiver (Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001).

Laclau and Mouffe, postmodernist neo-Marxists, do not advocate a kind of systematic process of ideology and hegemony. They embrace Gramscian hegemony, but take hegemonic struggle as a given. The process is moot within their framework. Hegemonic struggle is a constant, democratic negotiation of culture and society. Democratic hegemonic negotiation is constant, with antagonism keeping society from reaching a static state. Laclau and Mouffe also do not advocate a singular “subject” position for any given individual, or a singular hegemonic dominant force. They note that any given individual occupies several subject positions, i.e., a single Catholic female does not just have the singular identity of a “single Catholic female.” She is single, a Catholic, and a female. They also theorize that there are many hegemonic forces constantly operating in a dynamic manner. Unlike Althusser, Laclau and Mouffe do not emphasize the process of power negotiation, and do not highlight individual subject and power positions (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985).

The theory utilized in the writings of Fiske (1998) most closely resembles Althusser’s conceptualizations of ideology. He uses the terminology of hailing and interpellation and analyzes media texts, in particular, television, in terms of this framework. He describes the hailings of television programs, through content analysis techniques, noting that various hails, if successful, interpellate us to particular ideas and roles, largely those encoded into programming by the dominant, hegemonic media institutions (Fiske, 1998). This method may be expanded to various realms of communication research, both in theoretical, cultural, and political exploration and analysis, and as a framework for empirical investigation and application. This topic will be expanded upon in subsequent sections.

Despite these criticisms and elaborations upon the Althusserian conceptualization of ideology, a central component of Althusser's work remains vital and highly useful in media and cultural studies. Hall's process of encoding and decoding arguably places the receivers of messages in a more volitional position than does the process of interpellation. Hall notes that Althusser's conceptualization of ideology is dogmatic and “uni-accentual,” while his conceptualization of the "subject" is singular (Hall, 1998; 1068). He posits that it is impossible in the theory of Althusser to account for how anything but the dominant ideology is reproduced (Hall, 1998; Hall, 2001). However, though interpellation does involve the irresistible force of ideology, there is choice. The type of overwhelming saturation of images, hard to resist and understand, what we see in the media everyday, is well reflected in Althusser's work. Though Hall and others have criticized Althusser's work as not allowing for multiple demands, or "hailings," of the "subject," it seems clear that more than one hailing may occur at the same time. Though the process is described in Althusser's writings in a singular manner, multiple hailings may be inferred. As he notes, we are born into ideology, but are called to participate in particular ideologies (Althussser, 1998). We are hailed in a constant manner.

Further, Althusser does allow for opposition to the hails of dominant discourse. Those who oppose will be "punished," perhaps through ridicule or ostracism from hegemonic elements of society. Alternative "receptions," to use Hall's term (Hall, 2001), may be allowed, as long as they do not threaten the dominant ideology.

The system behind the perpetuation of ideology, hegemonic, alternative, and oppositional, is the key to the utility of Althusser’s theory in communication theoretical analysis and empirical research. Laclau and Mouffe adopt the postmodernist stance of taking hegemony for granted and advocate a kind of positive contentment with constant struggle and potential discontent. The process behind the dynamic negotiation is irrelevant within their framework. However, Fiske, Hall, and Althusser, in particular, advocate and present processes behind this dynamic negotiation. Understanding this process is central to accepting, negotiating, or opposing ideological messages in the media. This understanding has implications for senders and receivers of messages--for the sender in how to make messages more apt to be fully decoded as encoded, and for the receiver in how to resist or adapt messages according to individual conscience.

The systematic process of interpellation, in the context of the conveyance of hegemonic ideology through media messages, and the hegemonic maintenance of power and the "status quo," in the context of mass media ISAs, is a strategy worth exploring further, both through the examination of contemporary issues and application to research in the field. Prior to this discussion of theoretical application, the foundations of Althusserian theory will be briefly reviewed.

Althusser & Theoretical Foundations

Althusser’s theory may be more closely examined by applying epistemological foundations of theory to his overall framework. In Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations, Anderson (1996), explores the foundations of theory, particularly in the context of communication theory and research. Two of the most basic foundations of theory center around the conceptualizations of the individual and of the phenomenal world. Both concepts are central to understanding individuals, behavior, processes, and phenomena, in the context of communication, as well as in other arenas. In the sections that follow, Anderson’s basic assumptions regarding these two basic foundational concepts are explored in the context of Althusser’s theoretical framework.

Conceptualization of the Phenomenal World

Anderson (1996) poses several questions regarding the phenomenal world, including: “(1) What is the real?(2); What are the domains of reality?(3); What is the structure of the reality domain(s)?(4); and What are the sources of that structure” (15). Anderson poses varying positions and multiple perspectives in the macrocosmic context of the nature of the phenomenal world. He explores “the underlying assumptions concerning the nature of the world outside the conscious mind as it presents itself as an object of inquiry” (Anderson, 1996; 15). The discussion works from and between two ideas, an “actual world,” completely apart from the mind, and a “virtual reality,” the result of a construction of our perceptions. The former “world” may be explored and “engaged” properly to validate a line of inquiry, while the latter exists as a result of a line of inquiry. In simple terms, knowledge of reality may be always already there, and may be discovered through inquiry, or knowledge may become real through our perceptions, based in inquiry.

Althusser’s conception of the phenomenal world is more of a “virtual reality,” the result of a construction of our perceptions. It is a product of cultural forces and ideology, and is based in our perceptions, but these perceptions are created by hegemonic institutions and values. Those in power perpetuate the necessary consent for their dominance through interpellation. Through ISAs, individuals are called to participate in particular ideologies, and accept these hailings, to participate in mainstream societal activities, groups, and functions.

The phenomenal world is perceived through ideology, and there is no practice or institution except by or in an ideology (Althusser, 1998). Althusser (1969) terms ideology our imaginary relation to the real relations of existence. Thus, Althusser may believe that there is a material world, though not an objective one, but the society we live in is constantly shaped and reshaped according to hegemonic ideology and the mechanism of interpellation.

Conceptualization of the Individual

Questions such as “Who are you?” or “Who am I?” are often answered in simple ways, with responses couched in terms of given name, age, sex, or occupation. Questions such as these are seemingly innocuous, but are, in actuality, of the most complex in existence. The individual is conceptualized in numerous forms and models, for there are multiple ways that we know ourselves, and also, innumerable ways in which we are known.

Anderson (1996) explores claims regarding the conceptualization of the individual, working from several tools of analysis, identity, both as an inward and outward concept, subjectivity, both invoked and evoked, and agency, the character of action. He also uses tools in the domain of explanation, as the individual may be approached from various domains--the material, the biological, and the semiotic. Using these tools, Anderson focuses on four models of conceptualization in particular--the attribute individual, the conjunctive individual, the situated individual, and the activative individual. Althusser’s conceptualization falls within the conjunctive model of the individual.

The conjunctive individual is the site of the intersection of material, cultural and social influences. The individual is formed collectively. Systems are important in this model, as cultural institutions and ideology work together to constitute the individual. The individual is couched in history, between oppositions of class, race, and the like. Subjectivity is the focus of the model, as the individual is collectively formed and constituted (Dowling,1984). Some forms see the individual as less of a subject with choices and more of a product of material conditions and ideology. Some, such as cultural forms, see the individual as having more control over the system in which he or she lives, and may “escape” or “use” ideological systems to his or her advantage. This may come through what Althusser terms a “scientific understanding” of ideology (Althusser, 1998).

Anderson (1996) notes that any theory and any manner of inquiry have key relationships with the conceptualization of the individual. Arguments are often situated within some constitution of the self. These frames of the individual shape inquiry itself, as well as its purpose, in that, for example, one conception of the self may allow for discovery, and another for interpretation. The frame of the individual shapes the frame of inquiry. For Althusser (1969), the individual is collectively formed, and he or she may interpret culture and ideology, and escape its powerful influences, through the use of a “critical eye.” The individual, for Althusser, does not discover knowledge, as there is no objective reality, and can only interpret the phenomenal world through a scientific understanding of cultural and ideological processes.

Althusser & Communication Research: Media Issues and Possible Applications

Contemporary Issues

Althusser provides a language to explain the ubiquitous societal control of ideology, as well as a systematic mechanism of cultural force and its perpetuation of hegemonic ideology. In the context of communication research, Althusser's conceptual framework may provide a language through which the influence the mass media exerts over the public may be identified and articulated.

Althusser’s cultural theory explains the structure and function of ideology, and his thesis works from the concept of hegemony. Though his writings are brilliant, they are quite obtuse in many respects, and this may have been remedied with more practical analysis and application in his writing. Still, it provides an excellent language and mechanism, particularly in its articulation of interpellation and its connection of Marxism, structuralism, cultural critique, and ideological critique. Interwoven through all of these concepts is hegemony.

As previously stated, hegemony describes the dynamic by “which a dominant class wins the willing consent of the subordinate class to the system that ensures their subordination” (Fiske, 1998; 310). Consent is not static, but must be “won and rewon” (Fiske, 1998, 310). Ideology accounts for the manner in which ruling, or hegemonic, discourses and institutions perpetuate the necessary consent for their dominance.

The mass media may be conceptualized as a tool for hegemonic discourses in maintaining power, as several ISAs may influence the various outlets of the mass media, and through the messages sent, the media hails and interpellates viewers, readers, and consumers, into particular forms of hegemonic ideology. However, a more accurate and useful conceptualization may be to view the mass media as an ISA in and of itself, that has its own hegemonic agenda, fueled by other ISAs and their accompanying objectives.

The idea of the mass media as an ISA may be more adequately explicated through a brief restatement of the concepts of ISA and ritual practices. Althusser (1998) states that there are no practices “except by and in an ideology” (299), and individuals, believing they are "acting according to their beliefs," (299) insert their actions into practices governed by the rituals of particular ISAs. Practices of particular powerful social institutions reproduce ideology in an ever-changing dynamic process. Individuals, who are born as “subjects” (Althusser, 1998; 303) into the realm of some form of ideology, are inevitably called to participate in practices of particular dominant institutional ideologies. Through the circular process of “dispositif,” an individual believes himself a subject endowed with a consciousness in which he freely forms or freely recognizes ideas in which he believes (Althusser, 1998; 297). The individual believes his ideas must be inserted into actions, or ought to exist in his actions, and these are inserted into practices governed by ISAs. As stated previously, the rituals stem from the ideology of the ISAs, which are the origin of the recognized or formed beliefs of the individual (Althusser, 1969). Individuals do not realize their subjection, believing that they freely form or recognize ideas and participate in ritual practices in order to “act according to their ideas” (Althusser, 1998; 297). Ideology is highly irresistible, and reproduces itself in a dynamic process, through the mechanism of interpellation (Althusser, 1998). In the case of mass communication, hailing and interpellation function through the messages of the mass media.

Althusser's framework may be readily applied to any number of texts and discourses, including literary works, societal structures, and entities such as the mass media. The influence of the mass media upon society and individuals may be articulated via ideology and interpellation, as messages produced by the media, an ISA influenced by other ISAs, call receivers to participate in particular forms of ideology. Receivers, viewers, readers, and consumers do not realize they are being subjected to anything, and when called to a form of ideology, accept, and hence, become interpellated. These receivers insert their ideas into practices of dominant ISAs, to "act according to their ideas" (Althusser, 1998; 297); thus they participate in perpetuation of the hegenomic discourses advocated in the message relayed via the mass media outlet or channel of influence. Though a full exploration of all cultural and media issues is beyond the scope of this paper, several contemporary issues may be briefly considered.

Advertising in General

A most applicable area to examine Althusserian ideology is in general advertising. Consider the following hypothetical example:

A ten-year-old boy is watching a cartoon program on television. During the program, he views an advertisement for a new type of breakfast cereal. The commercial touts the cereal as a "taste sensation that is packed full of vitamins to help kids grow into strong healthy adults." Its characters are a young man, a "hip, cool" teenage boy, and his younger brother. The teenager eats the cereal and interacts with his younger brother. The younger brother does not want to eat breakfast, and the older boy convinces him that it is cool to eat breakfast and that the cereal will help him to grow up to be a tall, "cool guy, just like him." The brothers eat the cereal together and play air guitar, as the commercial fades out, with a soundtrack of upbeat alternative rock music. Later that evening, the boy--the viewer, and now a “subject”--asks his mother to buy the cereal; she does so the next week and he eats it regularly.

Though the description above is arguably simplistic, it will serve its purpose as a media-based scenario in which to apply Althusser's framework. The messages in the described commercial hail the hypothetical viewer as a young, impressionable boy, wanting nothing more than to grow up to be a "cool" teenager that listens to rock music. It also hails him as a consumer. The messages seek to make this viewer, and others, recognize and accept particular forms of ideology, in this case, to sell a product, but also, to sell an ideology of consumerism, as well as rebelliousness and accepted adolescent popularity. Through hailing, ideology “acts or functions in such a way that it recruits subjects among individuals” (Althusser, 1998; 301). This boy was born into ideology, but this hailing, and others, will recruit him as a subject of particular ideologies. He does not realize his subjection, and may not realize future subjection.

As Althusser notes, a successful hailing occurs if the individual “recognizes that the hail was really addressed to him, and that it was really him who was hailed” (Althusser, 1969; 41). This is such the case with the situation described above. The boy accepts the hailings of the mass media messages presented in the commercial, and is interpellated to the ideologies presented. The success of his interpellation is virtually ensured, as ideology insists that if “the subjects recognize what they are and behave accordingly, everything will be all right: Amen—‘So be it’” (Althusser, 1998; 303). According to Althusser, if subjects act according to their beliefs, participating in the practices of dominant ISAs, they are assured of a place in hegemonic society. This boy arguably believes that if he behaves like a "cool guy," in this case, eating what "cool guys" eat, he, as he ages, will be accepted into the mainstream adolescent subculture.

This young boy is undoubtedly exposed to multiple hailings, even while watching the television program during which the cereal commercial was aired. He is hailed through other commercials, through the television programs that he watches, through the music that he listens to, and through countless other media messages. He is subjected to particular ideologies, largely hegemonic, though he does not realize his subjection or rejection of these messages and hails.

Pharmaceutical Advertising

Advertisements, both print and broadcast, for prescription drugs, are a fairly new phenomenon. Much like the cereal commercial scenario above, pharmaceutical advertisements hail viewers as not only patients, in that “medical problems” are presented as “diseases that may be cured,” but also hail patients as consumers. Drugs are products for sale and viewers of their advertisements are hailed as participants in the health marketplace. Those that are successfully hailed as consumers, are interpellated to this new patient role, and with multiple successful hailings, may perceive their relationship with providers in a much different light.

Such a change in the way that health information is distributed and the changing role of patients likely affects the doctor-patient relationship, changing its dynamics. This arguably may be positive, as a consumer position places the patient in a somewhat more powerful role, perhaps, as opposed to the once common paternalistic dyad. However, is such a change in this relationship, the center of healthcare, a positive or a negative one, and how prevalent is this change?

Media Conglomeration

Due to federal legislation and the growth of the media, news, and entertainment industries, the conglomeration of the mass media is ever increasing. Those media organizations, or ISAs, with the most power, may own the most outlets, with greater opportunity to spread hegemonic ideologies, via hailing through mass media message content. The scope of ownership is not always apparent, as consumers are often unaware that their favorite magazine is published by the same central ownership as their favorite cable network.

As media conglomeration continues, those with the most power and the most money, those that have the most control over the predominant hegemonic discourse, will have the most control over the distributed media messages, and the most opportunity for mass distribution through multiple outlets. Consumers may not realize their exposure to messages from the same source, another layer of subjection to the dominant ideology, which they do not normally realize from a singular ISA, through the circular “dispotif.”

Global Village and Media Choice

Many would argue that the vast amount of media choice, given multiple broadcast channels and print publications, coupled with new media technologies, including the spread of computer technology and Internet access, offers consumers more choice of exposure to diverse messages. New media is often perceived as a democratizing force, a way for culture to be shared so that no individual may be left behind and may potentially be an “early adopter,” or at least, have more opportunity not to be a “laggard” (McQuail, 2001). However, the expansion of new media and multiple channels may offer more opportunity for control of media content by the dominant media ISAs and offer more outlets for the same hegemonic messages.

Given media conglomeration, those with the most power, money, and control own multiple media outlets and may distribute their messages to meet their own ends. Their agendas may be furthered through hailings and interpellations of hegemonic ideology through radio, television, advertising, web-based, and print messages. Second, the spread of the dominant culture, in a financial and political sense, the U.S. culture, is reaching across the globe at an incredible rate, through the spread of cable television, international media ownership, and distribution of new media. Will we share in a global village of culture, or will the dominant culture spread and wipe out or alter traditional cultures through successful hailings of hegemonic ideology (McQuail, 2001)?

Future Directions for Research

There are, of course, other areas in which an Althusserian framework may be used to explore current issues in the media. More useful, however, would be consideration of possible specific applications of this framework to new media research. Hence, suggested projects and directions for future new media research using Althusserian ideological theory are outlined below.

Content Analysis of Pharmaceutical Advertising

Content analysis, utilizing an Althusserian framework, of one or several prescription drug advertising campaigns may constitute a worthy project. Specific hails within ads may be identified and analyzed. Perhaps viewers may also be surveyed pre- and post-administration of an ad, actual or simulated, according to their acceptance or rejection of the discovered messages/hails.

Local News Discourse Analysis

A discourse analysis of local news content may be another worthy project. What hails are presented during a local newscast? Are viewers hailed as friends, as part of the “news family”? Are viewers interpellated to particular roles as purveyors of news, and as members of the "news family"? A cross-sectional study of multiple outlets may be interesting to determine if similar types of hailing are used in local newscasts in various parts of the U.S.

Reporters--Organizational Hailing

A field study of reporters in a news organization may yield interesting organizational findings. How are reporters hailed in the newsroom? Observational work in one or several newsrooms may provide ample opportunity to observe hails in action. How do these hails shape their identities as reporters and how does this, in turn, shape the news content that they produce? Their interpellations to the role of reporter influence the hails in their reporting. An analysis of the content of the hails directed at a particular reporter, and the content of his or her reporting, may be a worthy project.

Ads and the Programs that Surround Them-Matching Hails

A content analysis of one or more television programs and the advertisements within them would likely offer interesting ideological findings. Would hails to similar message acceptance be present in the programming and the advertisements within it? Would there be a kind of targeted placement of particular hails within advertising to reach the audience for which the program is aimed, a kind of ideological targeting? Intuitively, it seems highly possible.

Health Models-Hailing for Health

The use of identifiable characteristics in health models, i.e., Theory of Reasoned Action, could potentially be used to create particular identities for healthful behavior, and in turn, to design and test programs that hail the target audience to participate in these behaviors and take on these identities. If hailings were successful, and shaped toward the hegemonic ideal, and at the same time, tailored toward the proven elements of health behavior interventions in successful health behavior models, then perhaps successful, ideologically-based interventions may be created.

Media Literacy Training

Althusser notes that only through a scientific understanding of ideology may we escape its influence if we choose to do so. A scientific understanding in the context of mass media messages translates to media literacy training. A possible worthy endeavor may be to design and test a media literacy training module based in an Althusserian framework of hailing and interpellation. Hands-on training and analysis of media content, identifying messages and hails within programming and other forms of media, may be a central component.

Conclusion

Althusser’s ideological theory does allow for resistance to ideology, and the hypothetical young boy watching the cereal ad may do so. Only through the “scientific understanding” of ideological systems, according to Althusser (1998; 303), may those who wish to escape ideology elude its pervasive influence. The boy may be taught to view media messages with a critical eye through media literacy training, and may be taught to see things through the lens of ideology and interpellation as well. Ideology is all around us, and an understanding of its attributes and mechanisms, in the context of mass communication and in other realms, may aid us in evading its influence, or using it to our ends.


References

Althusser, L. "Ideology and ideological state apparatuses." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 294-304.

---. Lenin and philosophy. New York: Monthly Review, 1969.

---. For Marx. New York: Pantheon, 1965.

---. Reading Capital. London: NLB, 1970.

Anderson, J.A. "The nature of the individual." Ed. J.A. Anderson. Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations. New York: The Guilford P, 1996. pp. 77-101.

---. "The nature of the phenomenal world." Ed. J.A. Anderson. Communication Theory: Epistemological Foundations. New York: The Guilford P, 1996. pp. 13-45.

Baldwin, E., Longhurst, B., et al. Eds. Introducing cultural studies. Hernel Helmstead: Prentice Hall, 1999.

Benton, T. The rise and fall of structural Marxism: Althusser and his influence. London: Macmillan, 1984.

Bryant, J., & Zillmann, D. Eds. Media effects: Advances in theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.

Clarke, S. One-dimensional marxism: Althusser and the politics of culture. London: Allison & Busby, 1980.

Dowling, W. C. Jameson, Althusser, Marx : an introduction to the political unconscious. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984.

Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. Eds. Media and cultural studies: Key works. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2001.

Fiske, J. "Culture, ideology and interpellation." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 305-311.

Hall, S. "The rediscovery of ideology." Eds. J. Rivkin & M. Ryan. Literary theory: An anthology. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. pp. 1050-1087.

---. "Encoding decoding." Eds. Durham, M.G., & Kellner, D.M. Media and cultural studies: Key works. Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. pp. 166-176.

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. Hegemony and Socialist Strategy: Towards a Radical Democratic Politics. New York: Verso, 1985.

McQuail, D. Ed. McQuail’s Mass Communication Theory, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2000.

Salwen, M.B., & Sacks, D.W. Eds. An integrated approach to communication theory and research. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.

Wood, B. "Stuart Hall's cultural studies and the problem of hegemony." British Journal of Sociology 49,3 (1998): 399-414.

   
 
 
About | Issues
© NMEDIAC & individual NMEDIAC authors, editors, and programmers.
About Issues Winter 2005: Volume 3, Issue 1