What’s Critical About Althusser’s Critical Theory?
Louis Althusser, in Reading Capital, is critical of reading. In other words, he finds that the majority of “readings” lead to the stagnation of knowledge. Althusser presents a method of reading that promotes the production of knowledge that will transcend the visible and promote paradigm shifts worthy of generating new knowledge. In this paper I will argue that the investigation of reading makes Althusser’s critical theory critical. In this paper I will argue that the investigation of reading makes Althusser’s critical theory critical. First, I will present the reasons why Althusser is critical of at sight readings. Next, I will explain Althusser’s suggestion to this problem, which is a theory that promotes the production knowledge.
Althusser’s problem throughout this section of Reading Capital is with the present stagnation of knowledge. He begins this section by telling the reader that he or she has been reading Capital even if he or she has never opened the text, which is to say that, the writers who have read Capital and incorporated it into their works are re-cycling, i.e., re-reading the work itself. Althusser says, “Since we ‘came into the world’, we have read Capital constantly in the writings and speeches of those who have read it for us, well or ill, both the dead and the living . . .” (CPR 257). In other words, our horizon has been shaped by other’s re-reading of Capital. Past and current authors, having read the text, have been influenced by the work and have incorporated it into their work. Thus, our reading of Capital is indirect and passive to an extent. In this recycling of ideas, knowledge runs the risk of becoming stale, over used, which, Althusser will argue, is not conducive to producing new knowledge.
Althusser is not necessarily concerned about the final product of production, but the process of knowledge. In other words, the method, the process of production is what adds value the work itself. Through a productive process, and not one that simply recycles old ideas, new knowledge is produced.
Methods of reading that promote the stagnation of knowledge are problematic for Althusser and are what Althusser is critical of in his critical theory. To believe in absolute knowledge is to believe that the world is completely visible, and to believe that we have a firm and absolute finite grasp of knowledge. In other words, people who believe whole heartedly that the words of the bible reveal God’s absolute existence and absolute knowledge of the God’s plan for humanity believe they have absolute knowledge, or unquestioning, unwavering knowledge of the world. He calls readings of this sort, readings at sight. So, they have taken the literal words on paper, the words at sight, as truth. Examples of this type of reading are of the bible or of Galileo’s ‘Great Book of the World’ (Althusser’s examples), where the literal word is taken as absolute truth, and where “world” is completely visible, i.e., that the truth is obvious if you look clearly enough. The potential to gain any “new knowledge” is null; thus, knowledge remains stagnant. Althusser’s problem with the stagnation of knowledge seems to be that the initial reading of the bible or of Galileo is not the only way of reading, and that by limiting our vision of the world to one type of reading is limiting our knowledge of the world. Althusser says,
". . . between the Great Book that was, in its very being, the World, and the discourse of the knowledge of the world; between the essence of things and its reading; . . . need I add that, once we have broken these ties, a new conception of discourse at last becomes possible" (CPR 261).Here Althusser is suggesting that moving away from reading at sight will encourage discourse and begin a production of knowledge. So, Althusser is critical of at sight reading and wants to promote different methods of reading that will encourage the production of knowledge.
The production of knowledge is a continual process that generates new horizons. The world according to the bible, or the world according to Galileo’s work were horizons of the world. In other words, these texts gave us a horizon of ideas, or a background in which to see the world and do not preclude the world as an absolute. Althusser is critical of the stagnation involved in maintaining the same horizons, or reflecting, re-writing, and re-reading the same world, the same horizon, as this, again, limits our knowledge of world. The production of knowledge, on the other hand, occurs with a paradigm shift, when the present horizon generates a new horizon. In other words, when a text is no longer read at sight, but is read with new questions in mind, a new horizon begins to develop and new knowledge unfolds. Althusser says, “. . . what has happened involves a transformation of the entire terrain and its entire horizon, which are the background against which the new problem is produced” (CPR 268). So, not only is a new horizon being created, but also a new problem. Thus, this is a production of knowledge, since new problems are revealed with each paradigm shift.
To continue with Althusser’s response, and to use Althusser’s language, the world becomes visible in a different way (from the old horizon) when a text stops being read at sight, yet at the same time, various elements of the text remain invisible. A new horizon is created when certain questions become visible and new answers provided. IN other words, what was previously invisible to the past author, or to the at sight reader, now becomes visible. Althusser wouldn’t say that the author, or the at sight, reader was overlooking anything within the text, but that these new questions did not exist for these readers. In other words, their sight was focused on a particular horizon, or one might say, the original horizon; thus, they could not see beyond their horizon. The new reader, on the other hand, is viewing the text from a new horizon; thus, certain things are visible to the new reader, which would be invisible to the old reader (at sight reader or author). However, in the very same way, the new reader is faced with aspects of reading that are invisible to him or her. Thus, in order for knowledge to be continually produced, another reader must envision a new horizon from this “new text,” and ask new questions that the previous reader did not see. So, even the “new reader” is limited to his or her horizon leaving elements of his or her reading invisible. Althusser says,"They are invisible because they are rejected in principle, repressed from the field of the visible: and that is why their fleeting presence in the field when it does occur (in very peculiar and symptomatic circumstances) goes unperceived, and becomes literally an undivulgeable. . ." (CPR 269). So, knowledge is produced by asking new question and forming a new horizon, yet at the same time that horizon limits the reader’s perspective, leaving a whole other realm invisible.
Althusser would also suggest that the visible is not a lone work of genus; rather, the visible is directly related to the invisible in that the visible’s existence is dependent on the invisible. Althusser says, “The invisible is defined by the visible as its invisible, its forbidden vision: the invisible is not therefore simply what is outside the visible . . ., the outer darkness of exclusion – but the inner darkness of exclusion, inside the visible itself because defined by its structure” (CPR 268-67). Here Althusser is suggesting that the invisible defines the visible, in that the visible limits our knowledge. In other words, I can see the computer screen, but I cannot see my back. This does not mean that my back does not exist. Rather, my back is what’s orienting my body so that I can see the computer screen. In this way, the invisible (or my back)is what defines, or positions, me so that I can see the screen (the visible). So, the visible and invisible are depend on each other, with the invisible defining the visible.
So, Althusser is critical of a common practice of reading: reading at sight, as it assumes that the world is absolute and unchanging. He proposes that knowledge can change and does not have to remain stagnant if new questions are asked and new horizon developed. Yet at the same time he emphasizes that the reader can never know the world all at once; rather, one horizon leads to other horizons through the production of knowledge.
Althusser’s problem throughout this section of Reading Capital is with the present stagnation of knowledge. He begins this section by telling the reader that he or she has been reading Capital even if he or she has never opened the text, which is to say that, the writers who have read Capital and incorporated it into their works are re-cycling, i.e., re-reading the work itself. Althusser says, “Since we ‘came into the world’, we have read Capital constantly in the writings and speeches of those who have read it for us, well or ill, both the dead and the living . . .” (CPR 257). In other words, our horizon has been shaped by other’s re-reading of Capital. Past and current authors, having read the text, have been influenced by the work and have incorporated it into their work. Thus, our reading of Capital is indirect and passive to an extent. In this recycling of ideas, knowledge runs the risk of becoming stale, over used, which, Althusser will argue, is not conducive to producing new knowledge.
Althusser is not necessarily concerned about the final product of production, but the process of knowledge. In other words, the method, the process of production is what adds value the work itself. Through a productive process, and not one that simply recycles old ideas, new knowledge is produced.
Methods of reading that promote the stagnation of knowledge are problematic for Althusser and are what Althusser is critical of in his critical theory. To believe in absolute knowledge is to believe that the world is completely visible, and to believe that we have a firm and absolute finite grasp of knowledge. In other words, people who believe whole heartedly that the words of the bible reveal God’s absolute existence and absolute knowledge of the God’s plan for humanity believe they have absolute knowledge, or unquestioning, unwavering knowledge of the world. He calls readings of this sort, readings at sight. So, they have taken the literal words on paper, the words at sight, as truth. Examples of this type of reading are of the bible or of Galileo’s ‘Great Book of the World’ (Althusser’s examples), where the literal word is taken as absolute truth, and where “world” is completely visible, i.e., that the truth is obvious if you look clearly enough. The potential to gain any “new knowledge” is null; thus, knowledge remains stagnant. Althusser’s problem with the stagnation of knowledge seems to be that the initial reading of the bible or of Galileo is not the only way of reading, and that by limiting our vision of the world to one type of reading is limiting our knowledge of the world. Althusser says,
". . . between the Great Book that was, in its very being, the World, and the discourse of the knowledge of the world; between the essence of things and its reading; . . . need I add that, once we have broken these ties, a new conception of discourse at last becomes possible" (CPR 261).Here Althusser is suggesting that moving away from reading at sight will encourage discourse and begin a production of knowledge. So, Althusser is critical of at sight reading and wants to promote different methods of reading that will encourage the production of knowledge.
The production of knowledge is a continual process that generates new horizons. The world according to the bible, or the world according to Galileo’s work were horizons of the world. In other words, these texts gave us a horizon of ideas, or a background in which to see the world and do not preclude the world as an absolute. Althusser is critical of the stagnation involved in maintaining the same horizons, or reflecting, re-writing, and re-reading the same world, the same horizon, as this, again, limits our knowledge of world. The production of knowledge, on the other hand, occurs with a paradigm shift, when the present horizon generates a new horizon. In other words, when a text is no longer read at sight, but is read with new questions in mind, a new horizon begins to develop and new knowledge unfolds. Althusser says, “. . . what has happened involves a transformation of the entire terrain and its entire horizon, which are the background against which the new problem is produced” (CPR 268). So, not only is a new horizon being created, but also a new problem. Thus, this is a production of knowledge, since new problems are revealed with each paradigm shift.
To continue with Althusser’s response, and to use Althusser’s language, the world becomes visible in a different way (from the old horizon) when a text stops being read at sight, yet at the same time, various elements of the text remain invisible. A new horizon is created when certain questions become visible and new answers provided. IN other words, what was previously invisible to the past author, or to the at sight reader, now becomes visible. Althusser wouldn’t say that the author, or the at sight, reader was overlooking anything within the text, but that these new questions did not exist for these readers. In other words, their sight was focused on a particular horizon, or one might say, the original horizon; thus, they could not see beyond their horizon. The new reader, on the other hand, is viewing the text from a new horizon; thus, certain things are visible to the new reader, which would be invisible to the old reader (at sight reader or author). However, in the very same way, the new reader is faced with aspects of reading that are invisible to him or her. Thus, in order for knowledge to be continually produced, another reader must envision a new horizon from this “new text,” and ask new questions that the previous reader did not see. So, even the “new reader” is limited to his or her horizon leaving elements of his or her reading invisible. Althusser says,"They are invisible because they are rejected in principle, repressed from the field of the visible: and that is why their fleeting presence in the field when it does occur (in very peculiar and symptomatic circumstances) goes unperceived, and becomes literally an undivulgeable. . ." (CPR 269). So, knowledge is produced by asking new question and forming a new horizon, yet at the same time that horizon limits the reader’s perspective, leaving a whole other realm invisible.
Althusser would also suggest that the visible is not a lone work of genus; rather, the visible is directly related to the invisible in that the visible’s existence is dependent on the invisible. Althusser says, “The invisible is defined by the visible as its invisible, its forbidden vision: the invisible is not therefore simply what is outside the visible . . ., the outer darkness of exclusion – but the inner darkness of exclusion, inside the visible itself because defined by its structure” (CPR 268-67). Here Althusser is suggesting that the invisible defines the visible, in that the visible limits our knowledge. In other words, I can see the computer screen, but I cannot see my back. This does not mean that my back does not exist. Rather, my back is what’s orienting my body so that I can see the computer screen. In this way, the invisible (or my back)is what defines, or positions, me so that I can see the screen (the visible). So, the visible and invisible are depend on each other, with the invisible defining the visible.
So, Althusser is critical of a common practice of reading: reading at sight, as it assumes that the world is absolute and unchanging. He proposes that knowledge can change and does not have to remain stagnant if new questions are asked and new horizon developed. Yet at the same time he emphasizes that the reader can never know the world all at once; rather, one horizon leads to other horizons through the production of knowledge.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
11:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home