Althusser v habermas?

We (thankfully) postponed Habermas for a week, and I’m trying to prep for Mass Comm this afternoon – have finished Gramsci and now onto Althusser, which I did read before (last year, Li gave it to me thinking it might relate to the mentoring project, hmmmm. ­čÖé
There’s a section here that has me thinking back on the private-public debate between me and Stephen (last entry February 21).
Althusser writes: “The distinction between the public and the private is a distinction internal to bourgeois law, and valid in the (subordinate) domains in which bourgeois law exercises its ‘authority'” (1971, 137).


Continuing, Althusser explains how there can be no “public” or “private” without the existence of “the State, which is the State of the ruling class” because the State is “the precondition for any distinction between public and private” (emphasis mine, 137-138).
I will definitely be thinking about this as I read for next week. In particular, the function of education as an ISA (applied to us, smile), and the way it “function[s] massively and predominately by ideology, [and] secondarily by repression, even if ultimately, but only ultimately, this is very attenuated and concealed, even symbolic” (italics in original, 138).
Althusser’s claim reverberates for me: “the Ideological State Apparatuses may be not only the stake, but also the site of class struggle, and often of bitter forms of class struggle” (italics in original, 140).
Note to self: Be sure to follow up on this link to A Critique:
Competing Interpellations and the Third Text
.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *