Oldal 81 [81]
OCR
CHAPTER Two: WHAT Is A DRAMA EVENT Louis Althusser claims that ideology is “not the system of the real relations which govern the existence of individuals, but the imaginary relation of those individuals to the real relations in which they live”? This imaginary relation is determined by the Ideological State Apparatuses’ (ISAs) operating in the field of religion, education, family, law, politics, culture, etc. that are the material realization of ideology.** Eagleton explains that “what is misrecognized in ideology is not primarily the world, since ideology for Althusser is not a matter of knowing or failing to know reality at all. The misrecognition in question is essentially a self-misrecognition, which is an effect of the ‘imaginary’ dimension of human existence. ‘Imaginary’ here means not ‘unreal’ but ‘pertaining to an image”.”** Hawkes clarifies Althusser’s theory stating “ideology has ‘always already’ determined a specific set of roles, a particular subjectivity, into which the individual will be slotted”.”* The ISAs offer the materialised structure of ideology and play an important role in how an individual is systematically forced “into this pre-allocated ‘subject-position”.?** Althusser calls the process of the individual occupying the subject position as ‘hailing’ or ‘interpellation’, offering examples from common everyday practices. He also argues that what “seems to take place outside ideology (to be precise, in the street), in reality takes place in ideology. What really takes place in ideology seems therefore to take place outside it".257 It is useful to put this statement beside Bond’s claim that “in drama, putting fiction into reality can isolate and dialecticise the fiction already in it. It is a practical way to steal ideology’s clothes”.*** According to him drama is a possible way of showing ideology in places that seem to be outside of it. Though Althusser approaches the relation of social reality and the individual from different direction than Adorno he too describes a social reality that has an overall grip on the individual. Eagleton articulates a critique that appears elsewhere too when he writes that “Althusser’s model is a good deal too monistic, passing over the discrepant, contradictory ways in which subjects may be ideologically accosted — partially, wholly, or hardly at all — by discourses which themselves form no obvious cohesive unity”.’® The monistic nature of Bond’s concept of ideology can be questioned as well, if we understand ‘society’s story’ literally as an explanation that is simply 28: S Louis Althusser: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation), in Lenin and philosophy and other essay, London, Monthly Review Press, 1971, 165. Ibid., 143. Eagelton: Ideology, 142. David Hawkes: Ideology, 2°‘ edn., London, Routledge, 2003, 119. 286 Ibid. 287 Althusser: Ideology, 175. 288 Bond: The Cap, xii. 289 Eagleton: Ideology, 145. 28: a 28 ső 28 a S © * 80°
