Category: Life

Why do we need school uniforms? Research papers will clarify that. The debate about positive and negative aspects of uniformity in the clothes of schoolchildren in our country is just beginning, whereas in Europe and America they have been going on for decades. On this subject, written thousands of articles and conducted hundreds of scientific research. Summarized, the main of them, so you can form your own opinion.

School uniform. Essay introduction

In 1998, a scientific study was conducted which showed that students from schools that have established form, learn a little better than those whose schools are allowed to go to anything. Experts believe: the fact that children are not distracted by the discussion of clothing, the form gets them in more serious behavior in school and reduces the amount of time the child spends to decide what to do today for class. And of course, the experts think, spend this saved time to do homework.

Should students have to wear uniforms? Essay is trying to figure it out

Other experts laugh at these arguments and believe that the data about the so-called the performance improvement is so small that it is comparable with the statistical error. Besides, it is impossible to compare grades in two state schools only on the grounds that one typed form, and not in another. Academic performance is influenced by hundreds of factors (first and foremost the quality of teachers), so to understand how it helps the students form, is impossible. And the time saved in not needing to choose what to wear, the child will rather spend on computer games, not lessons, not to mention the fact that the choice of the toilet takes no more than 10-15 minutes a day. In our persuasive essay on school uniform we frequently raise this topic.

Opponents of the first note of the fact that even the authors of that study admit that the national average (USA) improve behavior among students dressed in identical is quite low, and wealthy parents bought for their offspring tailoring the form of more expensive fabrics. Even the children find other ways to show their exclusivity (expensive backpacks, expensive stationery, etc.) that completely devalues the argument that school uniforms equalizes.

In addition, the form limits so necessary for the adolescent children the opportunity to stand out from the crowd.

But most importantly, teachers in schools with mandatory form of spending huge amounts of time to monitor the wearing of this form. All of this translates into minutes and hours of constant comments, quibbles and debates about the length of socks, the right shoes and the degree of shirts that could be spent on something to learn something useful from algebra.

So it turns out that with the increase of time on maintaining discipline reduces the time of direct study. Not to mention the fact that endless debates with teachers about the form (if a child is wearing does not love her) become one more field upon which he tries to resist the system, struggling with it, which ultimately degrades the overall discipline rather than improve it.

As for the sense of community with other students, it is a positive factor turns negative as soon as the child comes out of school: street children from other schools may determine what school he went to, and begin to bully.

Arguments against school uniforms

Do not agree with many experts who also give reasonable arguments. First, the set of school uniform does not cover all the needs of your child. You will still be buying him regular clothes, and therefore, the school uniform becomes a source of additional cost, i.e. does not reduce the problems of poor families, but rather increases them.

Second, zealous statists, who advocate for school uniforms, forget one small fact: children actually grow.

If form in September, baby in size, and not hanging on this bag, by the middle of the year he will grow out of it and he will need to buy a new set. Not to mention the fact that even children in school uniform, is running around, tearing his pants and put blots on the shirt and it still needs to be changed, and not for anything, but only to the same prescribed form and value.

Finally, if the school is not elite, installed in her form, as a rule, very poor quality and wears out much faster than regular clothes, which means that it again need to change and spend the extra money.

Which is the best thesis statement for an essay on school uniforms?

But the parents of the girls, as, indeed, themselves schoolgirl, much more likely to protest against that argument. First, we live in the XXI century, and the modern active and not wanting anything to keep up with the boys the girl is simply very inconvenient for every day to wear a skirt (most schools do not allow girls to wear pants).

Secondly, the climate most of the year will not allow any parent, who, in his mind, to send the girl to school in a skirt, when the thermometer minus. And why she must change into school?

The third, and strongest, argument that parents of girls school uniforms has become a part of erotic culture. Girls in the form have become objects of sexual desire. Walk the streets like this at times unsafe. And the last form, no matter how well it was cut (and cut, she is often very bad, let’s be realistic), sits perfectly on the children with one type of shape and horrible on the kids with the other.

It turns out that girls who have been unlucky “fit” for the chosen school type skirts, look ugly and needs to suffer. And in the end, school uniforms, tailored from the best materials, mostly just uncomfortable. Why your beloved child should be 11 years old to walk in uncomfortable clothes?

This next instalment in our “Commonly Confused Words” series aims to demystify “affect” and “effect”. Often used interchangeably, “affect” and “effect” are widely misunderstood and misused.

As always, we will provide definitions and helpful examples to clarify these terms. For our definitions, we use the Macquarie Dictionary — the authority on Australian English spelling.

“Affect”

“Affect” is a verb. It means “to act on” or to “produce an effect or a change in”. Here are some examples:

• Long periods of starvation affected the children’s development.
• Pollen in the spring affects my breathing.
• The humidity affected Joy’s hair.

“Affect” can also mean “to impress” or “move in mind or feelings”. For example, “His rendition of ‘We Are the World’ profoundly affected me”.

Remember, “affect” is a verb — it’s an action. Grammar Girl recommends this trick for remembering: verbs are actions, and the word “actions” starts with “a” — like “affect”.

In addition, if you are using “affect” correctly as a verb, another verb such as “hurt”, could be substituted.

“Effect”

“Effect” is a noun. It means “that it is produced by some agency or cause”. More simply, it is “a result” or “consequence”. You should be able to substitute these synonyms (“result” and “consequence”) to check that you have used “effect” correctly. Here are some examples:

• The effect of her late arrival at work was a late departure.
• A metaphor’s effect can be powerful.
• The movie’s sound effects were spectacular.
• His rendition of “We Are the World” had no effect on me.

Nouns can take an article before them. Articles are words like “a”, “an” or “the”. Mark Treddinick explains that some other determiners can act like articles (e.g., “each”, “all”, “several”, “many”, “no”, and “any”). You can check that you have used “effect” correctly by seeing if an article would fit before “effect”. I have underlined the articles in my previous examples:

• The effect of her late arrival at work was a late departure.
• A metaphor’s effect can be powerful.
• The movie’s sound effects were spectacular.
• His rendition of “We Are the World” had no effect on me.

This will work most of the time, but may be less clear when “effect” is used as part of a phrase. For example, “The law came into effect in September”. This check will not work when you use “affect”, because “affect” is a verb.

The Exceptions

However, there are some exceptions.

Sometimes “effect” can be used as a verb that means “to bring about” or “to make happen”. You might have seen it in the phrase “to effect change”, as in “Selina hoped to effect change”.

Sometimes “affect” can be used as a noun in the field of psychology as a synonym for mood or feeling. For example, “The subject demonstrated a jubilant affect”.

We hope this article has been helpful. Please feel free to suggest any words you get confused in the comments below and we will add them to our series.

Today in the United States murders with a firearm are the second cause of death among young people under the age of 19 years and the first cause among black youth. Every day from firearms killed 13 children. Therefore, the reduction in the number of crimes committed with the use of this weapon, is one of the urgent problems of the United States. So, should more gun control laws be enacted?

Stricter gun laws pros and cons

The more people have guns, the higher the crime rate. Gun ownership increases the risk of being killed. Removing firearms from the hands of criminals prevents serious crimes.

Removing weapons from the hands of criminals – a tempting target and attractive propaganda slogan. But no one knows how even to approach this goal. For example, the latest initiative of law enforcement bodies of some States who have decided to pay money for each unit surrendered to the police illegal weapons, failed miserably. First, it was delivered ridiculously small arms and, second, the delivered weapons were not usable.

Severe restrictions or even a ban on the possession of arms is not reflected on the possibility of illegal access. By the way, in this case, the checks of those who gets not required.

Pro gun control speech

The results show that States that have stricter restrictions on the acquisition of weapons and their carry concealed, the crime rate is higher. It was also found that prohibitions on the possession of assault rifles is virtually no impact on crime rates.

The results of the research Brand of Gaius are consistent with a similar study by John Lott and David Mustard from the University of Chicago (1977).

Washington, DC, is famous for its very stringent rules on acquisition of weapons. The city leads in the number of refusals for applications to purchase pistols and rifles. Supporters of strict measures for the purchase of weapons give Washington as an example of the correctness of their policies. But they are silent on how these brutal rule affected the change in the level of crime.

In the annual for 2014 report of the organization Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence provides examples of how anyone in new Jersey can purchase for a few minutes the guns on the black market. This man doesn’t need to fill out a mountain of paperwork and wait several months for their checks. Many of buying guns on the black market, don’t even know about the existence of the limitations existing in the state.

How gun control kills

How they work, or rather don’t work stricter rules for obtaining a license for possession of arms, clearly visible in such “illustrious” crime centers like new York and Chicago.

In new York, was about 70 thousand units of firearms. According to the police in the hands of people with no less than 750 thousand pistols and rifles. Thus, more than 90% of the weapons purchased illegally. So why do we need strict rules?

In Chicago, a law was passed for compulsory registration of firearms. Checked only those who had it legally. The same picture is observed in new Jersey.

Mandatory gun registration is a completely meaningless act. After all, when buying weapons does the registration of the buyer and acquired weapons. What to expect the authors of these laws? That after its adoption the people illegally owning weapons, run to the nearest police station to register it. In my opinion, the authors of such laws are in captivity blatant naivety or stupidity is boundless.

Among liberals, one of the most popular ways of dealing with crime is the announcement of territories of schools and public places (restaurants, cinemas, etc.) zones, free from weapons. In such areas no one has the right to bear arms, and especially apply it. And since there are no weapons, there will be no crimes.

This naive idea liberals facilitates attempts to commit crimes. Declaring certain areas free zones, liberals openly inform offenders about where they can feel safe. In the free zones unarmed people will not be able to resist the armed criminals.

To fight off the slightest desire of the perpetrator to attack the school, in front of the entrance on its territory is often ads appear, such as before school Argyle ISD in Texas: “Please keep in mind that the school staff is armed and may use all necessary means to protect our students.”

In conclusion, this essay about gun control do not cover all topic. An effective measure to reduce the level of crime is a permit to carry concealed weapons outside the home to those who are entitled to its possession.

We recently started a series, ‘Commonly Confused Words’. This series aims to explain the difference between a few of the most misused or misunderstood words in academic writing.

In addition to providing definitions and examples, we will share tricks for remembering the difference between these words. You can follow this link to find our previous article, ‘Commonly Confused Words: “Practice” and “Practice”’.

For my definitions, I use the Macquarie Dictionary: the authority on Australian English spelling.

Their

The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘their’ as an adjective that indicates possession. It is a plural possessive pronoun, but is also often used in the singular instead of ‘his’ or ‘her’ to avoid these gender-specific pronouns when writing generally. For example, ‘Someone left their coat in the auditorium’.

To check that you have used ‘their’ correctly, you should be able to substitute ‘their’ for another possessive term such as ‘his’, ‘her’ or ‘our’.

They’re

‘They’re’ is a contraction of ‘they are’. You can check that you have used ‘they’re’ correctly by substituting it for ‘they are’. In the example, ‘They’re waiting for the train’, you could substitute ‘they’re’ for ‘they are’ and the sentence retains its meaning.

In the following example, ‘they’re’ is used incorrectly. We know this because when ‘they’re’ is substituted with ‘they are’ the sentence does not make sense: ‘We are waiting over they’re’.

There

Finally, ‘there’ is an adverb, adjective, pronoun or interjection, depending on its context.

When it has used as an adverb, ‘there’ means ‘in or at that place’ and directs our attention to a location or a particular matter. For example, ‘Let’s go over there’ or ‘If you look there you will find the answer’.

Similarly, ‘there’ could also be used as a pronoun for ‘that place’. For example, ‘You’re going to Port Douglas tomorrow. We will meet you there’.

We do not often use ‘there’ as an adjective because it is too colloquial in written contexts. The Macquarie Dictionary gives the example of ‘that there man’. This is an example of syntax (word order) that is not common in usage these days. Instead, we would reverse the word order and state ‘that man there’.

‘There’ can also be used as a colloquial interjection: ‘There! You see, I was right all along’. The Macquarie Dictionary also gives the example, ‘There, there, don’t cry’, as another example of ‘there’ used as an interjection.

To ensure you have used it correctly, ask yourself if you are trying to direct your reader’s attention to a place or a particular matter (this is the most common use of ‘there’). Additionally, if the sentence does not work with the possessive ‘their’ or the contraction ‘they’re’, it is likely you mean ‘there’.

There! We hope you feel more confident about your usage of ‘their’, ‘they’re’ and ‘there’. They are easy to get the hang of once you understand their purpose in a sentence.

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 1

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 2

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 3

 

Reception

Utopia was begun while More was an envoy in Flanders in May 1515. More started by writing the introduction and the description of the society which would become the second half of the work and on his return to England he wrote the “dialogue of counsel”, completing the work in 1516. In the same year, it was printed in Leuven under Erasmus’s editorship and after revisions by More it was printed in Basle in November 1518. It was not until 1551, sixteen years after More’s execution, that it was first published in England as an English translation by Ralph Robinson. Gilbert Burnet’s translation of 1684 is probably the most commonly cited version.

The work seems to have been popular, if misunderstood: the introduction of More’s Epigrams of 1518 mentions a man who did not regard More as a good writer.

The word Utopia overtook More’s short work and has been used ever since to describe this kind of imaginary society with many unusual ideas being contemplated. Although he may not have founded the genre of Utopian and dystopian fiction, More certainly popularized it and some of the early works which owe something to Utopia include The City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella, Description of the Republic of Christianopolis by Johannes Valentinus Andreae, New Atlantis by Francis Bacon and Candide by Voltaire.

The politics of Utopia have been seen as influential to the ideas of Anabaptism and Communism. While utopian socialism was used to describe the first concepts of socialism later Marxist theorists tended to see the ideas as too simplistic and not grounded on realistic principles. The religious message in the work and its uncertain, possibly satiric, tone has also alienated some theorists from the work.

An applied example of More’s utopia can be seen in Vasco de Quiroga’s implemented society in Michoacán, Mexico, which was directly taken and adapted from More’s work.

Conclusion

Turning to the analysis of the ethical dimension of “Utopia”:

• Important in utopic ethics – this is the problem of happiness. Utopians believed that happiness lies in the honest and noble pleasure and enjoyment.
• In the basis is Greek philosophy, in particular writings of Plato and Aristotle.
• The concept of “fun” ethic Utopians defines as “any movement and the state of body and soul, dwelling in which, under the guidance of nature, a person enjoys.”
• Utopians believed his ethics the most reasonable, primarily because it is useful to society as a whole and for each member of society in isolation, since the principles of ethics, in their view, best meets the very essence of human nature, which manifests itself in the pursuit of happiness a person.
• Common to religions Utopians was that they necessarily requires all citizens of the adherence to sound and useful for society moral standards, as well as the established political order, i.e. instead of that, morally, humanist, it was of universal value: philanthropy, a combination of personal interests with the public good, as well as avoiding religious strife.
• More originality as a thinker of the Renaissance – that he is looking for the perfect way to ethics in a radical reconstruction of society on the principles of social justice, equality and fraternity.
• All that is contrary to good majority, declared immoral.
• Only state where private property is destroyed, we should recognize not only the best, but «only what can rightfully claim to be called the State»
• The basic economic unit of Utopia is the family. On closer examination the same, however, is that the family of Utopians unusual and it is formed not only on the basis of kinship. The major symptom utopic family lies in its professional affiliation to a certain type of craft.
• Family relationships are strictly patriarchal, headed farm is the oldest.
• Utopia common ancestor worship.

In my opinion: Thus, according to Moore, Utopia is a classless society consisting of free from exploitation of the majority. However, designing a fair society, Moore was not consistent enough, assuming the existence of slaves in Utopia. Slaves on the island – disenfranchised populations, burdened with heavy labor service. They are “chained” in the chain and “always ” busy. The presence of slaves in Utopia to a large extent, apparently, was caused by low levels of modern production techniques Mor. Slaves Need Utopians to save citizens from most of the heavy and dirty work. This, of course, manifested a weakness utopian concept of Mor.

The Declaration of independence was read to every American schoolboy; many of us were forced to learn her part by heart and recite in class. Any political party, wherever it was on the political spectrum, refers to the Declaration of independence as a “founding document” of America. Any American politician at some stage of their career (and often does annually July 4, the day of the signing of the Declaration) necessarily delivers a speech that, in his opinion, means the Declaration of independence for himself and for America today.

Was the declaration of independence intended to be a formal declaration of war? Why or why not?

But despite this and maybe that’s due to the fact that all are confident in your understanding of the reasons for the declaration of independence, about it there are a lot of myths. Most people really do not understand its historical context in terms of the declaration of independence was written to. Writing the declaration of independence is considered the “founding document” of America, but neither one of those people who wrote and signed, was not at that time an American citizen. They were all subjects of the British Empire. The standard approach is that the Declaration of independence was intended to dismantle the Empire. But I believe that it is not.

In July, 1776, commander-in-chief of the American army, George Washington receives a copy of the Declaration of independence. He camped in the Northern part of Manhattan, which later will be named in his honor Washington heights; his troops mostly dressed in blue uniform, but with height it can be seen thousands of British “redcoats”, the disembarking in new York Harbor on Staten island.

And here he sees these British troops, he picks up the Declaration of independence and read it to the American soldiers, and they take her with a storm of approval, shouting, shooting into the sky and so on. And then Washington, who would later become the first President of the United States, travels to his troops, prances in front of them on a horse and said, “I want to explain to you the meaning of this document. The point of this paper is that we fight to defend the British Constitution.”

How the constitution addressed the complaints in the declaration of independence

Why Washington believed that the Americans, not the British, defending the British Constitution? I think this is one of the important keys to understanding the Declaration of independence. But in this case, we need to understand what we mean under the British Constitution and how it developed during the XVIII century. I think one of the ways to tell this story and to think about that era is to stay a bit longer with George Washington and his family and see their house in mount Vernon, Northern Virginia.

More than a million Americans and foreign tourists come to mount Vernon each year. It seems to me that all of them would ask one question as far as I know according to their own polls, few people asked it, why this place is called mount Vernon? It is called so because, as George Washington wrote in one of his extant papers, his older half-brother Lawrence named the estate in honor of British Admiral Edward Vernon, under whom he fought at Cartagena in 1741.

How long did it take to write the declaration of independence

And this campaign became one of the most devastating disasters for the British Navy in the eighteenth century. It is easy to imagine how a place named after great military victories, such as Waterloo station in London, or in honor of the General the winner. But after shameful defeat, when 75-80 % of staff died from yellow fever, to name the place in honor of the commander a little weird. I think this is due to the fact that Lawrence Washington was more interested in political views of Edward Vernon than his military prowess. What they were and why could be so attractive to the family of Washington?

Edward Vernon was the second son of the hero of the revolution of 1688, James Vernon, who took up arms to overthrow c the throne of James II, and became Secretary of state under the new king. Edward inherited the revolutionary reputation of his father. In 1720 he was elected a member of the house of Commons and also served as an officer in the Navy. During the Anglo-Spanish war of 1727-1729 years Vernon is quite critical of the regime of then Prime Minister Robert Walpole, who sent a fleet to the Caribbean for the siege of Porto Bello, the Spanish city in Panama.

Porto-Bello in the eighteenth century was of great strategic importance, because through it was the silver from Mexico and Peru, on which was based the wealth of the Spanish Empire. The silver was “grease” all over the then world trade: when Europeans in the XVIII century, buying China or cotton from India, they pay for it by South American silver.

So there is nothing surprising in the fact that the British sent their fleet to Porto Bello. However, the Prime Minister Walpole, hoping to restore peace with Spain, never gave the order to attack. In the XVIII century it was a disaster: mosquitoes in the Caribbean were abundant, yellow fever was very common, and significant part of the personnel of the British Navy died. Edward Vernon was furious.

At the meeting of the house of Commons he stood up and said, “Any sailor worth his salary could capture Porto Bello; he was such an easy target that he could take with just six ships.” Present at the meeting, Prime Minister Robert Walpole was a man of powerful physique, taller than 190 centimeters and weighing 160 pounds, he would be considered large in our time and in the XVIII century he was a giant in all respects. Instead of answering, Vernon, Walpole leaned back in his chair and began to laugh. And his supporters he had a majority in Parliament, laughed with him. Young opposition politician Edward Vernon stormed out of the house of Commons, burning with shame.

A decade later, in 1739, Britain again goes to war with Spain. Robert Walpole still holds the post of Prime Minister, but now he is forced to appoint Admiral Vernon. He demands to send him to the Caribbean in November 1739 attack on Porto Bello with six ships and seizes him less than 12 hours. Vernon immediately becomes a hero: in honor of the capture of Porto-Bello produced coins and compose ballads, the great English novelist Henry Fielding even started writing an epic poem called “Veronica” she, however, was so.

The important thing is that this victory was perceived as a victory for the Patriotic party, with which he connected himself Vernon. This party was in opposition of Walpole’s party, and it existed throughout the British Empire. She was more than a parliamentary party, having supporters not only in England but also in Scotland, Ireland, North America, the West Indies, Bombay, Madras and Calcutta (British great “presidencies” of India). Lawrence Washington and North American volunteers went to Cartagena under the command of Edward Vernon, supported this Patriotic movement. What ideals have served Patriotic party?

In order to understand this, you need to deal with the key problems which faced the British Empire at this time. One of the main was huge government debt. We used to think that public debt and debt crises is the problem of the twentieth century, States began to face this problem in the end of XVII and in the XVIII century. I certainly don’t want to say that until that time, kings, kings and emperors did not take the money in debt, but it usually happened like this: the king say, Philip II of Spain decides to borrow money to subdue the rebellious subjects in the Netherlands. He turns to his Italian bankers and asks them about the loan.

In 10-15 years the Italian banker said to the king: “You took us a lot of money, it’s time to return”. Philip II says: “I Want to show you what I have a great prison cell”. That is, the debts are often not returned. But in the eighteenth century the state began to repay debts: in part because they have to borrow more money than before, and also because there was a competitive international loan market. Now the bankers gave loans not only to their king but also to those States that are most likely to return the favor and agree to the highest interest rate.

In 1720-30 years, Britain was almost certainly the largest debt in Europe, because by that time she had already participated in two large-scale wars with France and its allies in the 1690s and early eighteenth century as well as in two small wars with Spain. In this case the British Empire in the eighteenth century differed greatly from their Imperial competitors. European States spend a huge amount of money for the war.

For example, Russia under Catherine the great, the Holy Roman Empire, the Prussian state (especially after the reign of Frederick the Great) they spent the vast majority of their income from taxes and duties for the military. France and the Republic of the Netherlands was spending on the war about 80 %. The British Empire is about 65 %. This left a huge stock in order to somehow improve the welfare of the people, to contribute to his happiness.

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 1

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 2

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 3

 

Thomas More (1478 – 1535)

Sir Thomas More, also known by Catholics as Saint Thomas More, was an English lawyer, social philosopher, author, statesman and noted Renaissance humanist. He was an important counsellor to Henry VIII of England and for three years toward the end of his life, he was Lord Chancellor. He is recognized as a saint within the Catholic Church and is commemorated by the Church of England as a ‘Reformation martyr’. He was an opponent of the Protestant Reformation and in particular of Martin Luther, William Tyndale, Thomas Cranmer and Thomas Cromwell.

More coined the word “utopia” – a name he gave to the ideal, imaginary sland nation whose political system he described in Utopia, published in 1516. He opposed the king’s separation from the papal church and denied that the king was the Supreme Head of the Church of England, a status the king had been given by a compliant parliament through the Act of Supremacy of 1534. He was imprisoned in the Tower of London in 1534 for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act, because the act disparaged the power of the Pope and Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In 1535 he was tried for treason and beheaded. More was beatified by the Catholic Church in 1886 and canonized, with John Fisher, in 1935. In 1980, he was added to the Church of England’s list of ‘saints and heroes of the Christian Church’.

Published during More’s life:

• A Merry Jest
• Utopia
• Latin Poems
• Letter to Brixius
• Responsio ad Lutherum
• A Dialogue Concerning Heresies
• Supplication of Souls
• Letter Against Frith
• The Confutation of Tyndale’s Answer
• Apology
• Debellation of Salem and Bizance
• The Answer to a Poisoned Book

Utopia is placed in the New World and More links Raphael’s travels in with Amerigo Vespucci’s real life voyages of discovery. He suggests that Raphael is one of the 24 men Vespucci, in his Four Voyages of 1507, says he left for six months at Cabo Frio, Brazil. Raphael then travels further and finds the island of Utopia, where he spends five years observing the customs of the natives.

According to More, the island of Utopia is “…two hundred miles across in the middle part, where it is widest, and nowhere much narrower than this except towards the two ends, where it gradually tapers. These ends, curved round as if completing a circle five hundred miles in circumference, make the island crescent-shaped, like a new moon.

The island was originally a peninsula but a 15-mile wide channel was dug by the community’s founder King Utopos to separate it from the mainland. The island contains 54 towns, each with about 6000 households. The capital city, Amaurot, is located directly in the middle of the crescent island. Thirty households are grouped together and controlled by a Syphograntus (“Styward”), and a Traniborus (“Bencheater”) oversees 10 Stywards. Each town has a mayor elected from among the ranks of the Bencheaters. Every household has between 10 and 16 adults and people are re-distributed around the households and towns to keep numbers even. If the island suffers from overpopulation, colonies are set up on the mainland. Alternatively, the natives of the mainland are invited to be part of these Utopian colonies, but if they dislike it and no longer wish to stay, they may return. In the case of underpopulation the colonists are re-called.

There is no private ownership on Utopia, with goods being stored in warehouses and people requesting what they need. There are also no locks on the doors of the houses, which are rotated between the citizens every ten years. Agriculture is the most important job on the island. Every person is taught it and must live in the countryside, farming, for two years at a time, with women doing the same work as men. Parallel to this, every citizen must learn at least one of the other essential trades: weaving (mainly done by the women), carpentry, metalsmithing and masonry. There is deliberate simplicity about these trades; for instance, all people wear the same types of simple clothes and there are no dressmakers making fine apparel. All able-bodied citizens must work; thus unemployment is eradicated, and the length of the working day can be minimized: the people only have to work six hours a day (although many willingly work for longer). More does allow scholars in his society to become the ruling officials or priests, people picked during their primary education for their ability to learn. All other citizens are however encouraged to apply themselves to learning in their leisure time.

Slavery is a feature of Utopian life and it is reported that every household has two slaves. The slaves are either from other countries or are the Utopian criminals. These criminals are weighed down with chains made out of gold. The gold is part of the community wealth of the country, and fettering criminals with it or using it for shameful things like chamber pots gives the citizens a healthy dislike of it. It also makes it difficult to steal as it is in plain view. The wealth, though, is of little importance and is only good for buying commodities from foreign nations or bribing these nations to fight each other. Slaves are periodically released for good behavior.

Other significant innovations of Utopia include: a welfare state with free hospitals, euthanasia permissible by the state, priests being allowed to marry, divorce permitted, premarital sex punished by a lifetime of enforced celibacy and adultery being punished by enslavement. Meals are taken in community dining halls and the job of feeding the population is given to a different household in turn. Although all are fed the same, Raphael explains that the old and the administrators are given the best of the food. Travel on the island is only permitted with an internal passport and anyone found without a passport they are, on a first occasion, returned in disgrace, but after a second offence, they are placed into slavery. In addition, there are no lawyers and the law is made deliberately simple, as all should understand it and not leave people in any doubt of what is right and wrong.

There are several religions on the island: moon-worshipers, sun-worshipers, planet-worshipers, ancestor-worshipers and monotheists, but each is tolerant of the others. Only atheists are despised (but allowed) in Utopia, as they are seen as representing a danger to the state: since they do not believe in any punishment or reward after this life, they have no reason to share the communistic life of Utopia, and will break the laws for their own gain. They are not banished but encouraged to talk out their erroneous beliefs with the priests until they are convinced of their wrong. Raphael says that through his teachings Christianity was beginning to take hold in Utopia. The toleration of all other religious ideas is enshrined in a universal prayer all the Utopians recite. “…but, if they are mistaken, and if there is either a better government, or a religion more acceptable to God, they implore His goodness to let them know it.”

Wives are subject to their husbands and husbands are subject to their wives although women are restricted to conducting household tasks for the most part. Only few widowed women become priests. While all are trained in military arts, women confess their sins to their husbands once a month. Gambling, hunting, makeup and astrology are all discouraged in Utopia. The role allocated to women in Utopia might, however, have been seen as being more liberal from a contemporary point of view.

In my opinion: one of the most troublesome questions about Utopia is Thomas More’s reason for writing it. Some of the ideas in it, such as the ease of divorce, euthanasia and both married priests and female priests, seem to be polar opposites of his beliefs and those expected of the devout Catholic that he was. The concept of religious toleration seems to jar particularly with the information we have about him as Lord Chancellor: that he was a keen opponent of Protestants who would later kill him. Similarly, the criticism of lawyers comes from a writer who, as Lord Chancellor, was arguably the most influential lawyer in England.

In addition, the communistic life style of a Utopian shows the value that More placed on a simpler communal life, reflecting his longing for monastic duties. This in obvious juxtaposition to his city life in London. However, some see it as reflecting his pride in public service and working for a common cause.

Utopia is often seen as a satire and there are many jokes and satirical asides such as how honest people are in Europe, but these are usually contrasted with the simple, uncomplicated society of the Utopians.

The second option is that More agreed with the ideas he was propounding. The method of making a story about an imaginary place told by an imaginary man has the effect of distancing More from his radical political thoughts. Apart from Utopia meaning “Noplace” several other lands are mentioned: Achora meaning “Nolandia”, Polyleritae meaning “Muchnonsense”, Macarenses meaning “Happiland” and the river Anydrus meaning “Nowater”. These names are designed to emphasize the illusory nature of the work and Raphael’s last name, Hythlodaeus meaning “dispenser of nonsense” helps to discredit his words among those who get the joke.

The name Raphael, though, may have been chosen by More to remind his readers of the archangel Raphael who is mentioned in the Book of Tobit. In that book the angel guides Tobias and later cures his father of his blindness. While Hythloday may suggest his words are not to be trusted, Raphael meaning “God has healed”, suggests that Raphael may be opening the eyes of the reader to what is true. The suggestion that More may have agreed with the views of Raphael is given weight by the way he dressed; with “his cloak was hanging carelessly about him”; a style which Roger Ascham reports that More himself was wont to adopt. Furthermore, more recent criticism has questioned the reliability of both Gile’s annotations and the character of “More” in the text itself. Claims that the book only subverts Utopia and Hythloday are possibly oversimplistic.

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 1

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 2

Social Utopias of Reformation Epoch – Part 3

 

Introduction

I turned to the topic, because the theme of social utopias and hopes for a better life, a fair and honest government, social equality and the lack of class system since ancient times occupied the greatest thinkers of many different civilizations. On the very places that are not and can not be spoken in ancient China, this theme developed by Plato, but creating the very model of a perfect (in the author’s view) the state, albeit without specifying the pathways of this place in the real world certainly is a tribute to Thomas More and Tommaso Campanella, who wrote “Utopia” and “Sun City”, which made the names of their authors immortal.

Whatever you say, in the Middle Ages, life was bad and boring, if not more. Any benefits of civilization, destruction, filth, deceit, ignorance, lack of decent medicine – thousands of people dying from epidemics. In addition to all had no equity and no freedom. Supreme Ruler disposed of other people’s lives, both wanted to punish anyone. It was then and appears in the literature of this genre, as a utopian novel. Simply speaking, educated people (who managed to deal with pen and paper, if such there were few) have written stories about imaginary countries where there were no all the horrors that surrounded them. They describe a society without flaws and injustice, where all were equal and identical.

Despite the impossibility of creating such societies, books, Mora and Campanella, there are a number of ideas that were quite advanced for their time and who (though not all) are implemented in the modern world.

Figures of the Renaissance formulate new perspectives on social life. Biblical stories about the paradise of Adam and Eve, the life of Jews in the Promised Land, the teachings of St. Augustine (Aurelius) on the church as the kingdom of God on earth is untenable. Figures of the Renaissance attempted to portray the right person to the society without mentioning the Bible or the teachings of the holy fathers. For them, the figures of the Renaissance, the society – is necessary environment of human life. It is not in heaven, not a gift from God, but on the ground and the result of human effort. In their view, society, firstly, should take into account human nature, and secondly – for all people, and thirdly – a society of the distant future. The greatest influence on the history of philosophical thought and the historical fate of European nations had the teachings of Renaissance figures on the state system. That is their doctrine of the monarchy and the communist system. The first of these was the ideological basis of the established later absolutism, and the second – helped to create various communist theories, including Marxist communism.

Tommaso Campanella (1568 – 1639). Biography

Born in Stignano (in the county of Stilo) in the province of Reggio di Calabria in southern Italy, Campanella was a child prodigy. Son of a poor and illiterate cobbler, he entered the Dominican Order before the age of fifteen, taking the name of fra’ Tommaso in honour of Thomas Aquinas. He studied theology and philosophy with several masters.

Early on, he became disenchanted with the Aristotelian orthodoxy and attracted by the empiricism of Bernardino Telesio (1509–1588), who taught that knowledge is sensation and that all things in nature possess sensation. Campanella wrote his first work, Philosophia sensibus demonstrata (“Philosophy demonstrated by the senses”), published in 1592, in defense of Telesio.

In Naples, he was also initiated in astrology; astrological speculations would become a constant feature in his writings.

Campanella’s heterodox views, especially his opposition to the authority of Aristotle, brought him into conflict with the ecclesiastical authorities. Denounced to the Inquisition and cited before the Holy Office in Rome, he was confined in a convent until 1597.

After his liberation, Campanella returned to Calabria, where he was accused of leading a conspiracy against the Spanish rule in his hometown of Stilo. Campanella’s aim was to establish a society based on the community of goods and wives, for on the basis of the prophecies of Joachim of Fiore and his own astrological observations, he foresaw the advent of the Age of the Spirit in the year 1600. Betrayed by two of his fellow conspirators, he was captured and incarcerated in Naples, where he was tortured on the rack. He made a full confession and would have been put to death if he had not feigned madness and set his cell on fire. He was tortured further (a total of seven times) and then, crippled and ill, was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Campanella spent twenty-seven years imprisoned in Naples, often in the worst conditions. During his detention, he wrote his most important works: The Monarchy of Spain (1600), Political Aphorisms (1601), Atheismus triumphatus (Atheism Conquered, 1605–1607), Quod reminiscetur (1606), Metaphysica (1609–1623), Theologia (1613–1624), and his most famous work, The City of the Sun (originally written in Italian in 1602; published in Latin in Frankfurt (1623) and later in Paris (1638)). He even intervened in the first trial against Galileo Galilei with his courageous The Defense of Galileo (written in 1616, published in 1622). Ironically, Galileo himself probably would not have wanted Campanella’s assistance because of Campanella’s sometimes outlandish ideas and prior conviction of heresy.

Campanella was finally released from his prison in 1626, through Pope Urban VIII, who personally interceded on his behalf with Philip IV of Spain. Taken to Rome and held for a time by the Holy Office, Campanella was restored to full liberty in 1629. He lived for five years in Rome, where he was Urban’s advisor in astrological matters.

In 1634, however, a new conspiracy in Calabria, led by one of his followers, threatened fresh troubles. With the aid of Cardinal Barberini and the French Ambassador de Noailles, he fled to France, where he was received at the court of Louis XIII with marked favour. Protected by Cardinal Richelieu and granted a liberal pension by the king, he spent the rest of his days in the convent of Saint-Honoré in Paris. His last work was a poem celebrating the birth of the future Louis XIV (Ecloga in portentosam Delphini nativitatem).

Besides some minor philosophical works he wrote immortalized his work “Sun City” (Civitas Solis). The title of his work, he hid the criticism hyped Ages writings of St. Augustine “The City of God” (De Civitate Dei). In the city of the sun, the inhabitants of which Campanella called tanning beds, abolished private property, labor – total service and the most important human need, it “has no place scoundrels and parasites.” All sunroom “take part in military affairs, agriculture and ranching … And someone who knows more and more arts and crafts, and enjoyed great honors, to engage in the same order, or otherwise determined by the skill of those who turns to him most capable. The most serious crafts … are they and most commendable, and no one deviates from taking them … less severe crafts by women. ” “At home, bedrooms, beds and everything you need – they share.” Monk Campanella wrote that the sunroom on childbearing is regarded as a religious matter, sent for the good of the state, not individuals. “Couples the same for the reproduction of the population chooses the state itself. All power in the City of the Sun is in the hands of spiritual aristocracy, headed by the wisest philosopher, a kind of high priest,” which in our language we would call the Metaphysics…

In my opinion, ‘City of the Sun’ is not ideal, since it is not possible to get people engaged in farming and herding and military affairs, work more efficiently when there is its separation. The best results society is achieved when each person finds his place in society may be useful to him and does what he do best. As the marriage without love, but in the name of the state will not make a happy citizen, I think on this can deprive the rulers.

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 1

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 2

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 3

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 4

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 5

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 6

 

Misrecognition and Concealment in Ideology

While the above discussions indicate a progressive abandonment of functionalist tendencies and class reductionism, the discussion of misrecognition and concealment defines ideology in ways that bring it closer to pre-Althusserian positions.

The importance of concealment in ideology becomes increasingly salient once reproduction is no longer considered to function automatically.

According to Althusser, misrecognition of real relations is guaranteed not because the dominant class conceals them but because real relations cannot be recognized within ideology. Ideology adequately represents lived experience and adequately inserts subjects into their practical activities. It is false not in its portrayal of surface appearances but in that it only portrays surface appearances and not the underlying structural relations which inform them. In other words, ideology is false in that it is not science. This is Althusser’s theoretical development of Lenin’s famous diction “that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness;” socialist consciousness “would have to be brought to them from without” (Lenin, 1970:143).

If one allows that ideological subjection qualifies a subject to creatively act and produce counter-hegemonic ideologies, then not all ideological subjection “conceals” in the sense of causing misrecognition of relations of domination/subjugation. The question becomes whether ideological subjection-qualification, which does not reproduce the existing relations of domination (or is simply irrelevant to it) should be considered ideology at all. Urry (1982) defines ideology by its effects of concealment and labels other signifying practices that do not have these effects as merely practices in civil society. Laclau (1982:98) refers to practices that do not entail misrecognition as discursive practices. It is not clear what meaning he gives to misrecognition, but it appears to imply a more restricted definition of ideology.

Poulantzas’ (1973) distinction between ideology in general and specific class ideologies may help disentangle the notions of concealment and misrecognition. He considers ideology in general to be equivalent to culture (minus the term’s humanistic or functionalist connotations). Ideology as a general concept necessarily contains both real and false-known edge as a consequence of its limited horizon. In accord with Althusser, this limitation necessarily involves simultaneous recognition/misrecognition, and, thus, ideology is inherently “false” in contrast to science. Concealment in the traditional sense of obscuring relations of domination/subjugation (as emphasized by Urry, 1982) consists of the exorbitant effects of bourgeois ideology on the dominant ideology. As a result, subordinate class members are unable to clearly perceive their situation from their own vantage point and, thus, are unable to formulate their own class-specific ideology. Therborn also points out that the dominant class has a greater ability to organize experience and to structure the material matrix of affirmations and sanctions, which help maintain biases within the dominant ideology. An adequate conceptualization of ideology must allow the possibility of counter-hegemonic ideologies, which perform the function of unmasking relations of domination/subjugation. This is not to claim that counter-hegemonic ideologies necessarily provide scientific knowledge of the underlying structures that support these relations. However, counter-hegemonic ideologies, which are informed by scientific knowledge, should achieve a greater long-term measure of success.

The debate regarding misrecognition and concealment has important implications for the definition of ideology. Althusser and Poulantzas define ideology as (1) lived experience and (2) necessarily involving misrecognition. Their definition avoids the usage of ideology as only relatively coherent systems of meaning and, instead, includes all social practices and beliefs as ideological elements. It includes both the practices referred to by Laclau as “discursive,” as well as the practices Urry claims belong in civil society.

Ideology is too broadly defined by Althusser and Poulantzas and too narrowly defined by Urry. The former theorists see ideology as ubiquitous reproduction practices, which do not necessarily involve concealment, while the latter restricts ideology to practices which conceal the interests of particular social groups. The extent to which ideology conceals or reveals underlying relations of domination-subordination is a question for historical investigation and not part of the definition of ideology. We accept Laclau’s concept of the nonrandom articulation of beliefs and practices as the proper domain of ideology. This view leaves open the extent to which various ideologies actually conceal real social relations and also allows for the incorporation of Therborn’s concept of the material matrix of affirmations and sanctions that shapes (and is shaped by) ideological conflict in civil society.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our discussion of the new direction in Marxist theories of ideology suggests several amendments to the elaborated Althusserian theory we outlined earlier. We find that analysis of ideology would benefit from incorporation of at least six key concepts. We will briefly define each of these and provide an example of what issues we feel they illustrate. The concepts are:

1. The Subjection-Qualification Dialectic ( Therborn, 1980). Ideology subjects agents to the relations of exploitation, but in the process it qualifies people for creative action within their positions in society (including agents of social change and revolution). For example, while trade unions subject workers to the limits of an economistic perspective, in the process unions also qualify workers to act as a class.
2. Organic and Traditional Subjection-Qualification of Intellectuals (Gramsci, 1971). The role of intellectuals in struggles over hegemony is to elaborate on the horizon of knowledge and organize the corresponding affirmations and sanctions. There are two distinguishable types of intellectuals, organic and traditional; however, this distinction does not necessarily correspond to their position in ideological struggle. A current example of both organic and traditional intellectuals attempting to sustain a counter-hegemonic ideology is Lech Walensa and the KOR group in Poland. Many issues need to be addressed, e.g., what qualitative factors differentiate the constitution of organic and traditional intellectuals, and what distinguishes their relation to ideological struggle?
3. The Modes of Ideological Interpellation (Therborn, 1980). Ideologies have successive levels of interpellation which conform to the three views of what exists, what is good, and what is possible (and their negation — what does not exist, what is evil, what is impossible). For example, bourgeois concepts of human nature posit that only selfish people exist, that the pursuit of self-interest is good, and that a communal system is not possible.
4. The Dual Character of Ideology (Therborn, 1980). Each ideological expression has its supporting inverse. Thus, an ideology contains simultaneously ego and alter representations. Racism for example contains both an ego ideology of “white supremacy” and an alter ideology of black inferiority.
5. The People and Popular-Democratic Struggles (Laclau, 1977a). The expression of the interests of the power-bloc in the state organizes the interests of those outside the power-bloc into a non-class configuration of “the people.” “The people” struggle against the power-bloc for representation of their interests in the state. Therefore, these struggles are “popular” (of the people) and “democratic” (extend representation to the masses). Since “the people” includes all groups outside the power bloc, “popular-democratic” struggles may include ideological expressions that are anti-working class. For example, fascism can be a “popular-democratic” ideology of the petty-bourgeoisie outside of an alliance with the power-bloc.
6. Civil Society (Urry, 1982). Civil society is the space in which agents are constituted as subjects and subjects function to reproduce the material conditions of their lives. Capitalist production specifies that surplus value is realized and labor-power is reproduced in spheres outside of production. This does not function automatically; surplus value distribution and the reproduction of labor-power are issues of struggle. For example, the primary unit of reproduction is the family whose structure is neither a function of capitalist production nor the state. A central conflict within the family is over the distribution of labor in production of the use-values necessary for reproduction.

The foregoing list of useful concepts represents the beginning of the development of Marxist theories of ideology. Although a great deal of progress has been made since the orthodox relegation of ideology to the epiphenomenal superstructure and Althusser’s early functionalism, there are still many important issues unresolved and many important questions yet to be addressed. We hope that in summarizing and constructively criticizing recent Marxist theoretical work on ideology, we have helped to lay the foundation for the future theoretical elaboration and historical application of these important concepts.

Notes

The original version of this article appeared in The Insurgent Sociologist 13:4 (Summer, 1986), pp. 5–22.

1. Althusser’s reference to the ideological, economic, and political instances in his method for recognizing Marxism as a unique synthesis of German philosophy, English economics, and French politics. Marx constructed this synthesis as the continuation and simultaneous surpassing of the previous worldviews. It is a unique synthesis such that regardless of which instance one is examining at the time, all three are present in a formative or preparatory sense (see Gramsci, 1971:399– 401; Lenin, 1943:3– 9).
2. A full consideration of the issues raised by Althusser’s notion of Ideological State Apparatuses would involve an examination of the interface between the ideological instance and the state, which is beyond the scope of thin paper. Furthermore, Therborn (1980), Urry (1982), and even Althusser himself (1976) have pointed to the limitations and distortions in this concept. For these reasons, we will not provide any extensive discussion of Ideological State Apparatuses in this essay.
3. The reference to the unconscious is more than just an analogy. As Althusser points out (1969) “ideology has very little to do with ‘consciousness’. It is profoundly unconscious.” One of Althusser’s important contributions has been to integrate psychoanalysis into a Marxist problematic. It is important to realize that for Althusser a complete Marxist theory of ideology requires this structuralism social psychology.
4. As Burawoy (1979) has shown, the function of reproduction also takes place within the economic base, but this is not Althusser’s concern.
5. Althusser does not provide examples of the Subject-subject relation in these other regions even though he argues that the education-family couplet has replaced the religion-family couplet as the dominant ISAs in capitalist societies. It is unclear to us exactly how subjection operates in these regions, as there are two possible interpretations. For example, in the region of education the student exists in a relation of dominance-subjection with the teacher, Teacher-student, but also each student in subjected to the concept of student, Student-student.
6. See also Anderson’s (1977) discussion of the influence of one of Gramsci’s conceptions of the exercise of hegemony by the state apparatus on Althusser’s concept of Ideological State Apparatuses.
7. Poulantzas states that only the two major classes of a given social formation have relatively coherent ideologies. Secondary classes are characterized by ideological subensembles which eclectically spin together ideological elements from the major class ideologies.
8. Scientific discourse does allow for contradictions, which exist in social relations. It is in this sense that ideology in false, not in the sense of false consciousness.
9. Poulantzas (1973:211) claims that “technocratism” has become the articulating region under monopoly capitalism. However, he does not develop this point. It is interesting to note that Bahro (1978) claims that in “actually existing socialist countries” the political bureaucracy is the dominant instance of the mode of production and technocracy is the articulating region of the dominant ideology. Technocracy in so employed as to justify and legitimate the bureaucratic hierarchy.
10. This calls into question the notion that the working class must be the “vanguard” in any transition to socialism.
11. See Poulantzas (1973) on the concept of the “power bloc.”
12. Basically, a reductionist theory does not allow for the relative autonomy of the political and the ideological from the economic level. Each political or ideological practice of significance is conceived of as having a direct economic cause or reflecting the economic interests of a class. Instrumentalism in political theory and economics in general tend to be reductionist theories (see Gramsci, 1971:158– 168 for a discussion of economics). An autonomous theory in conceptually the opposite of a reductionist theory. Politics and ideologies are affected by the economy (and vice versa), but there is no determination in the last instance of the economic. Autonomous theories generally stem from Weberian influences. Since civil society is tied to the advent of capitalism, it is a historically specific concept. Althusser’s theory of mode of production having three instances is an abstract conception without a “history.”
13. According to Therborn (1980:85, 133, note 36) in a personal communication, Althusser stated he is no longer defending ISAs as such, only the intrinsic link between ideological apparatuses and the state. This latter conception seems consistent with Urry’s theory of the role of the law, although he rejects the centrality Althusser (1971) and Poulantzas (1973) give to the juridical-political ideology.
14. The absence of an analysis of how class struggle affects the ideological constitution of subjects and thus the reproduction of society is a striking deficiency in Althusser’s work noted by Hirst (1976) and even Althusser himself (1976).
15. We should note that Poulantzas’ (1973. 210–216) discussion of the various regions within the ideological instance is not class reductionist. He argues that the various regions are structured by class domination but cannot be reduced to class interests. However, this one example does not refute the argument that many components of his theory suffer from class reductionism.

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 1

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 2

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 3

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 4

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 5

Recent Developments in Marxist Theories of Ideology – Part 6

 

Ideological Struggle and the Unity of Ideology

Since civil society is separate from production, it may contain modes of subjection which do not necessarily reproduce production and may even be contrary to its reproduction, at least in the short run (1982:119– 123). Reproduction is therefore not predetermined but instead a matter of struggle. Moreover, civil society contains various institutions—family, market, church, schools, etc. Thus, struggles over reproduction cannot be reduced to class struggles.

Urry claims that Althusser’s theory of ideology suffers from an inertfunctionalism since it implies that reproduction is “automatic” and “so structured that it is the most functionally appropriate for social relations of capitalist production” (1982:52). Like Therborn and Laclau, he notes that struggles over reproduction of labor-power (class struggle) and struggle over reproduction of the power-bloc (popular-democratic struggle) is absent from Althusser’s theory. According to Urry, the notion of the ideological instance does not include a well-defined arena for struggle over reproduction. The concept of civil society provides this arena. Given ideology does not automatically reproduce capitalist relations but instead consists of disparate practices which may or may not reproduce production (or may simply be irrelevant to it), then there is also no basis for assuming a unified ideological instance. Urry contends that the material practices, which interpolate subjects, should be conceived as practices in civil society and nothing more. There is no dominant ideology since “class practices may or may not overlap with that of other classes. There may or may not be relations of domination between different class practices” (1982:47). Urry even goes on to argue that class practices (such as “interest, ritual, know-how, symbols and illusions, modes of thought, and views of life”) have no inherent unity and therefore should not be considered class ideologies at all (1982:47). As a result, he claims there is no ideological instance, only ideological effects. A social practice has an ideological effect only when there is “a concealment of causes, nature and consequences of that practice and this concealment is in the interests of one or more of the dominant social forces” (1982:45). Urry has thus restricted the concept of ideology to a distinct and more orthodox meaning.

It is our position that his assertion that class practices “may or may not overlap” and “may or may not be relations of domination” does not invalidate the existence of a unified pattern of ideological hegemony. As Gramsci (1971:161) states, “the fact of hegemony presupposes that account be taken of the interests and tendencies of the groups over which hegemony is to be exercised.” Therefore, we would expect the dominant ideology to include overlapping practices and relations of compromise. Urry’s conception of civil society represents an advance over Althusser’s ideological instance in that conflict and struggle are made more central, but Urry’s theory is not without difficulties. His position regarding the separation of production from struggles over reproduction in civil society is a decisive step in avoiding reductionism (see Giddens, 1982 for a different argument with similar conclusions). However, struggle in production does not have a clear conceptual location in Urry’s theory. Since class struggle in production is not examined, the determinant effects of production on circulation and reproduction are underspecified. Urry claims that ideology is everywhere (1982:31); we claim the same is true of struggle.

 

Discussion

Recent Marxist theories of ideology have moved in three major directions since the theoretical conjuncture opened up by Althusser. These three directions are (1) a movement away from functionalist theories of reproduction and towards an analysis of qualified actors, (2) a critique of class reductionism and emphasis on non-class struggles, and (3) a reconceptualization of the meaning of misrecognition and the importance of concealment in defining ideology and a move toward a more restrictive definition of ideology.

Functionalism

All of the recent theories incorporate Althusser’s fundamental premise that the constitution of subjects always takes place within ideology and that there is no inherent essence to class subjects outside of, or prior to ideology. However, they all break to relative degrees within his position that ideology necessarily functions to reproduce the relations of production. The problems with this position are most evident in Althusser’s concept of “subjection-guarantee.” If ideology reproduces the relations of production through subjecting all subjects and guaranteeing to them that everything is as it seems, then there is no place for ideological struggle. To be sure, Althusser makes no such assertion, but he leaves no mechanism in his analysis for non-reproduction. Therborn’s (1980) concept of subjection qualification provides such a mechanism. It retains the premise of ideological subjection but indicates that subjection qualifies one to act and thus subjection and reproduction may not necessarily correspond.

To a larger extent, the functionalist tendencies in Althusser are the result of the limits imposed by his object of study. By choosing “ideology in general” as his object of study, Althusser was not able to address conflicts between particular ideologies. In examining particular ideologies, each of the subsequent authors found it necessary to move in the direction of including class struggle and historical contingency in their analysis. Poulantzas (1973) argues that the dominant ideology is a result of ideological class struggle, and Laclau (1977a) emphasizes the importance of subjection to counter-hegemonic ideologies. Urry (1982) speaks to the notion of the unity of ideology. Since Althusser’s (1971) assertion of unity is based on the function of ideology as reproduction, to acknowledge that ideology contains non-reproductive practices then destroys the basis of that unity. Instead, unity must come from other sources, such as the nation-state, as Poulantzas (1973) suggests.

Each of these theorists argue that ideological subjection results from ideological struggle and does not automatically reproduce existing social relations. Ideological dominance is contingent on successful elaboration and organization of the dominant ideology as well as cooptation or containment of opposing ideologies. This makes the role of intellectuals central to understanding ideology and ideological conflict. A significant lacuna in all of the theories (with the partial exception of Poulantzas, 1973 and 1980) is an adequate analysis of the specific role of intellectuals. One can find the beginnings of a theory of intellectuals in Gramsci’s (1971:5–23) brilliant discussion of the role of traditional and organic intellectuals. He realized that intellectuals have a significant and relatively autonomous position in the social structure and that their relation to class forces is a significant determinant of the outcome of ideological conflict. The theory of ideology needs to more fully address the role of intellectuals in the production of ideology and the processes by which it becomes transformed.

Reductionism

The second direction taken by recent Marxist theories is the progressive abandonment of both economic reductionism and class reductionism. Stalinist Marxism is reductionist in both senses, viewing the superstructure as a reflection of the economic base and ideologies as reflections of the economic interests of particular social classes. Althusser (1971) and Poulantzas (1973) break with economic reductionism by positing the relative autonomy of the ideological and political levels of social formations. Yet both retain class reductionist definitions of ideology. For Althusser ideology reproduces class domination while for Poulantzas all ideological elements have a specific class character (1974). Therborn (1980) and Laclau (1977a) deny that all ideologies can be reduced to class interests but argue that all ideologies are overdetermined by class ideologies. This is only a partial break with class reductionism.

Urry (1982) and Laclau, in a later discussion (1982), deny the necessary primacy of class ideologies over non-class ideologies in conflicts over hegemony. According to Urry (1982), there are many different ideological struggles within civil society, and it is a contingent question as to whether class or non-class ideological conflicts will be more important in any particular social formation. Laclau (1982:100) argues along similar lines that either class or non-class articulating principles may form the basis of hegemony.

In part, these positions are missing one another. The differences between these theorists partially reflect differences in their units of analysis. Althusser (1971) is exclusively concerned with the reproduction of the relations of production, whereas Laclau (1982) and Urry (1982) are concerned with the reproduction of the social formation. Political hegemony cannot be reduced to class hegemony. Attempts to do so obscure the specific nature of race, sex, national, religious, and other non-class struggles. This does not mean that the mode of production does not structure social relations in a social formation but only that not all social relations can be reduced to relations of production.