Literary theory (Althusser) Answering discussion questions - Assignment Example

Louis Althusser is one of the most influential Marxist thinkers of the 20th century, whose work is applicable or useful in a variety of fields from philosophy to literary analysis. His reading of Marx can be seen as bordering on the mystical in its teasing out of “latent” philosophical structures and his concept of Marx’s work as representing a complete theoretical and epistemological break from all previous conceptions of the world. Althusser’s work continues to resonate today, despite the intellectual fortunes of Marxism over the past generation or two.

Althusser argues in his work that ideology cannot be considered an instrumental discourse. Indeed, in his work, we see a great deal of analysis of the concept of ideology, which invariably, in his conception, exists separately from discourse. Indeed, in Reading Capital, he points out that the retrospection of the past is not ideology, but serves, in his words, “the legitimate epistemological primacy of the present over the past.” This served as one of the sources of his criticism of the French communist party, as a criticism of ideology on epistemological grounds will always sit uncomfortably with those emotionally invested in a given ideology.

His criticism in the same work of “subjective and arbitrary ideologies” on Marxist grounds suggests that discourse within ideology was not his aim. Similarly, there is the question of “complete” ideology. In Althusserian criticism, no ideology is ever complete, and any attempt by an ideology to fully control or dominate a text will only end up exposing the limitations of that ideology. One classic example is Frank Capra’s classic “message” film It’s A Wonderful Life, in which George Bailey triumphs over the machinations of the evil Mr.

Potter, except insofar as he doesn’t. The film ends with Potter still fully in control of Bedford Falls, having suffered not so much as a moment’s inconvenience while George was wrestling with suicide. One might argue that the recent hypercapitalist dream film Atlas Shrugged provides another example of the limitations of ideology, as it has failed utterly to compete in the free market, first for funding and then for box office receipts. Its own ideological model predicts that it should be a massive success; once again Althusser is right and epistemological experience trumps ideology.

In considering The Dark Knight from anything resembling a Marxist perspective, it is difficult to get around the fact that the Batman monomyth, consistent throughout all interpretations of the character, is about a very rich man who can only deal with his emotional problems by punching poor people. On a certain level, Nolan’s reading of the character embraces this, rendering Bruce Wayne’s sense of obligation to Gotham City as a form of noblesse oblige, but there is a darker reading as well.

The Dark Knight explicitly calls for fascist solutions to the problems of the city, for strong men who will do what is necessary even if it means getting their hands dirty or bending the rules… there’s no space here to recite all the relevant fascist cliches. Even here, though, Althusser’s prediction is correct, and it undermines its own ideological logic. Even if we read Batman as the idealized version of George W. Bush, monitoring everyone in the city strictly for their own good, and ceasing the monitoring program as soon as the threat is handled, the Joker still should have won.

The moral logic of the film insists that, in the climactic scene with the two boats wired to explode, people should be low and greedy and fearful enough to blow each other up. Batman and the Joker’s worldviews both predict this, but Batman must suffer an out-of-character attack of idealism in order to believe the outcome based on human compassion and self-sacrifice. Thus, not only does ideology put Batman and the Joker on the same side (surely a flaw in any Batman story) but they both end up being proven wrong.

One could not ask for a clearer and more definite example of ideology failing to be complete within a text, instead exposing its own intrinsic limitations.