POLSAM | POLİTİK STRATEJİLER ARAŞTIRMA MERKEZİ
ESOGÜ, Siyaset Bilimi ve Kamu Yönetimi ABD, Yüksek Lisans
“More often, people were irritated with freedom. ‘I buy three newspapers, and each one of them has its own version of the truth. Where’s the real truth? You used to be able to get up in the morning, read Pravda, and know all you needed to know, understand everything you needed to understand.’ People were slow to come out from under the narcosis of old ideas. If I brought up repentance, the response would be, ‘What do I have to repent for?’ Everyone thought of themselves as a victim, never a willing accomplice” (Alexievich, 2016).
In this article, starting from Svetlana Alexievich’s quote from Second-Hand Time, the concept of ideology will be discussed within the scope of Heywood, Althusser, and Saussure. It can be started by referring to Aristotle’s statement that “Man is a political animal.” Every person is a part of political processes, consciously or unconsciously, within the framework of the society in which they live or the truths that are characterized. In this context, ideologies emerged as systematic thoughts that people put forward as a result of these policies and took a role in the construction processes collectively. In fact, as Heywood (2021) points out in Political Ideologies, it is a very difficult and complex task to express ideologies with specific and precise definitions. There are no definite answers to what is necessary for a concept to be an ideology and why we call it ideology because these are abstract and non-objective concepts. For this reason, certain discrepancies and differences stand out between the way various ideologies are presented and their implementation. Despite this, various definitions of ideology have been put forward, and definitions of ideology actually differ according to various ideological perspectives.
It is no coincidence that the definition of the concept of ideology coincided with the period of the French Revolution. In a period when scientific knowledge came to the fore and dogmatic thought systems were challenged, it was natural for ideas to be shaped systematically and for a science of ideas to emerge. Marx was the first to use the concept of ideology on the cover of his book. According to him, the power holding the material means of production largely determines the prevailing ideology of society. There are three prominent facts in Marx’s view of ideology. The first of these is false consciousness, a concept later elaborated by Engels. According to this view, every ideology that emerges under the hegemony of the ruling class serves this power and carries traces of that power. In other words, ideologies are directly related to class systems and reflect power balances. In this respect, the Marxist concept differs from mainstream concepts. According to the Marxist perspective, all classes have ideologies, and ideologies cannot be thought of independently of class systems. Gramsci also defined this situation as ideological hegemony, meaning the intellectual domination of the class that owns the material means of production over other classes.
Althusser also emphasized that it is impossible to escape from ideology. However, he approached Marx’s concept of false consciousness from a different perspective, arguing that ideologies were not only economically grounded but also socially and philosophically grounded (Althusser, 1995, as cited in Sucu, 2012.). While Marx based ideologies largely on economic grounds, Althusser highlighted their broader implications. He pointed out the shortcomings of Marx’s concept of false consciousness, arguing that since reality in a world perceived only through language is just a matter of perceptions, ideologies are also a product of these reflections. That is, individuals do not see an objective reality but rather a representation shaped by perception.
“Ideology is the relationship between people and their world. Or it is a projected form of unconscious relationship. For example, it is a philosophy. It differs from science not by its falsity—as it may be fused and illogical—but by the dominance of the social over it” (Althusser, 1995, as cited in Sucu, 2012). At this point, Althusser suggests that truth is determined by ideologies. Therefore, each ideology reflects a different version of the truth, leading to multiple perceptions of reality. Unlike Marx’s class-based view and Gramsci’s concept of cultural hegemony, Althusser argued that ideology is not merely the ideology of the dominant class but a structure that has always existed within society as a whole. “Individuals cannot survive without ideology. Ideology permeates all human activities as pervasive practices” (Althusser, 2004, as cited in Sucu, 2012). He also argued that ideologies exist materially and pervade human life in every way. For example, even before a child is born, they are already a “subject” with a defined identity, immersed in the ideology of the society they are born into. The material elements of ideology are intertwined with rituals and cultural traditions, finding expression in the social sphere.
Althusser’s understanding of the state also aligns with Marxist thought. According to him, the state uses two apparatuses to serve the ruling class and legitimize its power. The first is the Repressive State Apparatus (RSA), which includes institutions like the military and the police, using coercion to enforce compliance. The second is the Ideological State Apparatus (ISA), which operates through values and beliefs, encompassing institutions such as the family, schools, and religious organizations (Althusser, 1971). Althusser argued that education reproduces class inequalities and legitimizes them, as ideologies integrate individuals into the dominant system through social tools. Even today, certain institutions and organizations, including schools, are often aligned with particular ideologies. In earlier educational institutions, curriculum contents changed according to the worldview of the ruling power. Schools are often where individuals first experience class differences and become aware of social inequalities.
Saussure’s influence on Althusser’s views is undeniable. Saussure identified a two-way structure in language: the “signifier” refers to how a word is pronounced, while the “signified” is the meaning associated with it (Saussure, 1916). There is no inherent relationship between the shape of words and the meanings they evoke. When a word is used, it comes to life differently in each individual’s imagination. This suggests that there is a language barrier between people and reality. Since we must express realities in words, the “real” truth manifests differently for everyone. What appears false to one person in a newspaper article may seem true to another. Additionally, sociological, political, and cultural structures, along with personal experiences, shape the way individuals interpret words and ideas. If there were a single universal meaning for all concepts, all of humanity would agree on a single ideology. For example, liberals define freedom as the ability to act without state intervention, while conservatives see freedom as fulfilling responsibilities within a collective framework.
Ultimately, “an ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify, or overthrow the existing system of power” (Heywood, 2021, p. 6). The impact of ideologies on human life is inevitable. People’s behaviors, thought processes, and perceptions of truth are shaped by ideologies. The way individuals perceive ideologies also varies. Even if an ideology is not explicitly defined or systematically structured, it influences the formation of personal character, often without conscious awareness. Different symbols and signs evoke different meanings for different communities, demonstrating that words alone do not carry absolute meaning. The gap between language and perception is filled with reflections of experiences and ideologies. People justify their behaviors with reasons that ultimately have ideological underpinnings.
“One person would say, ‘I did time, too’; another, ‘I fought in the war’; a third, ‘I built my city up from the ruins, hauling bricks day and night.’ Freedom had materialized out of thin air: everyone was intoxicated by it, but no one had really been prepared. Where was this freedom?” (Alexievich, 2016, p. 58).
References
Alexievich, S. (2016). Second-Hand Time: The Last of the Soviets. New York: Random House.
Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: Monthly Review Press.
Heywood, A. (2021). Political Ideologies: An Introduction. London: Red Globe Press.
Saussure, F. de (1916). Course in General Linguistics. Chicago: Open Court.
Sucu, İ. (2012). Althusser’in Gözünden İdeoloji Ve İdeolojinin Bir Taşıyıcısı Olarak Yeni Medya. Selçuk İletişim Dergisi, 7, 3, p. 30-41.
