Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tyson E. Lewis
To cite this article: Tyson E. Lewis (2017) A Marxist Education of the Encounter:
Althusser, Interpellation, and the Seminar, Rethinking Marxism, 29:2, 303-317, DOI:
10.1080/08935696.2017.1358498
Article views: 55
Download by: [Texas A&M University-Commerce] Date: 16 October 2017, At: 08:28
RETHINKING MARXISM, 2017
Vol. 29, No. 2, 303317, https://doi.org/10.1080/08935696.2017.1358498
Tyson E. Lewis
This essay traces out a new organization of Louis Althussers work that rests on his
fundamental educational problematic: interpellation. There are three moments where
Althusser discusses education in his writings: in the famous essay on schools as
Ideological State Apparatuses, in his infamous essay on the university and the
pedagogical function, and in a much more obscure reference to trade unions. In all
three, Althusser is dealing with the problem of interpellation, yet none of these essays
enable us to actually theorize what Althussers own practice of the seminar offers as
educational logica practice that resulted in the student-teacher collaboration Reading
Capital. In short, whereas the Institutional State Apparatus interpellates individuals
and the trade union offers a counterinterpellation, the seminar is a form of
disinterpellation that must be thought of as the educational unconscious of Althussers
late writings on the encounter.
very well be the case that Althussers failures are telling or revealing of something
about education that is worthwhile for Marxists. In this sense, while Rancires
critique of Althussers educational despotism could be read as a nal denunciation,
I read it differently: as a project to unpack Althussers fundamental educational
gesture and to read it symptomatically for its internal contradictions and
possibilities. Yet this project has failed, as of today, to interpellate many contempo-
rary subjects despite the current resurgence of interest in Althusser as seen in the
recent launch of the journals Dcalages and Demarcaciones.
In this short essay, I will pick up on this educational project in order to trace out
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
The rst place education emerges in Althussers work is perhaps the most famous
and concerns his analysis of schools as Ideological State Apparatuses. As an ISA,
the school for Althusser produces a subject as an effect of ideological interpella-
tion. Quoting Althusser (2001, 89), In other words, the school (but also other
State institutions like the Church, or other apparatuses like the Army) teaches
know-how, but in forms which ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the
mastery of its practice. All the agents of production, exploitation and repression,
not to speak of the professional of ideology (Marx) must in one way or another be
steeped in this ideology in order to perform their tasks consciously. Production
demands a support function to be occupied by subjects who recognize themselves
as the performers of that function. It is ideological interpellation that subjectivizes
subjects into this support function by granting a reason-to-be-a-subject
(Althusser 2003, 51). The school, in this view, turns students toward a particular
form of life by repeatedly hailing them to the point where they only recognize
themselves in and through such hailing.
In the school, students are interpellated as subjects of capitalist ideology, which
can be summarized in terms of four themes that we will later juxtapose to commu-
nist themes: nationalism, liberalism (the theme of private ownership), economism
(the theme of interest, both individual and national), and humanism (the theme of
individual autonomy, consent, agency, free enterprise, and self-constitution; see
Althusser 2014, 138). Although Althusser was writing within a French context,
such themes are clearly operative in schools in the United States today. Such
themes abound in U.S. history textbooks, in national standards, and in various con-
troversies now raging over the banning of certain un-American literature.
306 Lewis
But such interpellation goes much further than turning students toward these
themes as if such themes were merely mental representations. This would separate
ideas from bodies, discourses, and apparatuses producing a dichotomy between
mind and body, self and world. We cannot abstract themes from their concrete
manifestations in practices of the scholastic apparatus. Here is where I would
like to add something to Althussers initial description: interpellation as an educa-
tional problematic has its own form, not simply its own content (the four themes). In
this sense, we need to dwell on the practices that dene the educational form of the
scholastic apparatus. This form is learning. In this sense, I agree with many of the
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
emerging critics of the discourses and practices of learning, which in all cases is
seen as a particular educational logic of neoliberal governmentality (Masschelein
et al. 2007; Biesta 2006). Instead of dwelling on the ideology of content, we can
choose instead to pay attention to the ideological form of educationlearning
as content. On this reading, learning interpellates individuals as lifelong learners
through the embodiment of our four themesnationalism, liberalism, econo-
mism, and humanism. The laborer must be a learner for life in order to keep
pace with a exible economy fueled by planned obsolescence. The subject position
of the learner is therefore not bound to the schoolhouse but is a subjectivity nec-
essary for the reproduction of the social and economic relations underlying biopo-
litical knowledge production. The learner is a laborer, and the laborer is a learner,
thus actualizing Althussers fundamental thesis that the school is now the most
dominant ISA in society but with a twist: society as such is the new schoolhouse.
As stated in the introduction, schooling as an ideological practice (carried out by
ISAs) is characterized by working over a particular raw material (forms of ideolog-
ical representation, including literature, virtues of hard work, scientic humanism,
and nationalism) to create a subject of the state (a productive, lifelong learner)
through the labor of learning (as an interpellative turn). Yet there are problems
here that are well documented in the critical reception of Althussers work. In par-
ticular, there is always already violence in any given interpellation.1 Interpellation
is multiple, unnished, and continuous. It inevitably fails to hit its mark, and there
are always subjects who revolt, refuse, quarrel. As such, the school is shot through
with potential for transformation (not simply reproduction). In this sense, the prac-
tice of education and the labor of learning can never produce the lifelong learner as
anything other than an incomplete subject position. Although these are important
observations that poke holes in any reductive reading of the ISAs, at the same time
we are reminded of Pcheuxs observation that such moments of revolt all too
easily fall back into the trajectory of interpellation-identication-subjection. In
this sense, we might nd an opening toward a Marxist theory of the politics of ed-
ucational practice within the ISA essay, but only in an underdeveloped and highly
marginalized form.
1. Interpellation is, from the beginning, violent (see Lewis and Kahn 2010) and it is never com-
plete, always missing the mark (see Lecercle 1991; Dolar 1993; Martel 2017).
Althusser: Between Past and Future 307
While one might lump the university into Althussers theory of the ISA as another
institution within an overarching scholastic apparatus, Althussers most sustained
commentary on the university seems to give it an unprecedented autonomy. Stated
differently, whereas interpellative reproduction dominates in the school (granted
there are always gaps and ssures that make this process incomplete), the univer-
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
In this sense, the question of teaching in the IRA is reduced to simple transmis-
sion of content from the expert subject to the ignorant subject. I would suggest that
there are two major problems here. First, education remains attached to the bour-
geois concept of subjects and subject positions like student and teacher. These
are not problematized nor are they situated in the history of capitalist economic
relations. Second, because ideological knowledge has to be transmitted from
subject A, who is supposed to know, to subject B, who is supposed to be lacking,
it involves a fundamental inequality. Here we might recall the criticisms of Althuss-
ers student Rancire (1991), who argued that liberatory education produces the
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
While it is certainly true that Althusser locates the trade union within the form of
an ISA, an important citation from Lenin in Althussers book On the Reproduction of
Capitalism indicates that the educational practice of the trade union is not reducible
to the practice of the school or the university. Agreeing with Lenin, Althusser
310 Lewis
argues that the trade unions major function in class struggle is not political or eco-
nomic as much as educational. He afrmatively cites Lenin (quoted in Althusser
2014, 105) as writing, it [the trade union] is not a state organization; nor is it one de-
signed for coercion, but for education. It is an organization designed to draw in and to
train; it is, in fact, a school: a school of administration, a school of economic man-
agement, a school of communism. It is a very unusual type of school, because there
are not teachers or pupils; this is an extremely unusual combination of what has
necessarily come down to us from capitalism, and what comes from the ranks of
the advanced revolutionary detachments, which you might call the revolutionary
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
and reality. Like the university as IRA, the trade union produces an ideological
turn; however, this time it is not through correct theoretical conceptualization
but rather through action, through praxis. The themes are thus lived through
struggle and emerge out of struggle rather than being predetermined by intellec-
tual labor in advance and then applied.
Althusser (2014, 230) is clear: The working class can win its autonomy only on
condition that it free itself from the dominant ideology, that it demarcate itself
from it, in order to endow itself with forms of organization and action that
realize its own ideology, proletarian ideology. This means that proletarian or com-
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
Although Althusser never wrote about his educational notion of the seminar, the
format was the genesis of his book Reading Capital, which was coauthored with
several of his students (Althusser and Balibar 1979). My question in this section
of the essay is largely speculative: what if our starting point for a Marxist educa-
tional philosophy did not come from what Althusser wrote about educational
logic and instead focused on what he might have done with the formal structure
of the seminar? To answer this question, we have to betray Althusser somewhat
and read into his late work the missing problematic of educational philosophy.
A symptomatic reading of his theory of the encounter will provide a way for us
to tease out the concept of the pedagogic encounter rather than the pedagogic
function and of the aleatory teacher rather than the teacher as expert. This
move will take the gap that was a marginal concern in Althussers work on the
ISA and IRA and that was seemingly negated in his analysis of the educational
function of the trade union and turn it into the key to unlocking a materialist foun-
dation for a Marxist philosophy of education.
We can nd new resources for this in Althussers (2006, 167) later philosophy of
the encounter. The essay begins with a simple observation: It is raining. Rain
falling unpredictably from the heavens is in constant motion, moving at different
speeds, subject to different forces; its trajectories are largely unexpected. Rain as it
falls becomes the principle example of what Althusser calls a materialism of the en-
counter, and therefore of the aleatory and of contingency (167). Here Althusser
turns to Epicuruss metaphysics. At the origin of the world, there existed only
atoms falling parallel to one another inside of a void. Then, unexpectedly a clina-
men intervenes, producing an innitesimal swerve (169) that ruptures the orderly
parallel distribution of atoms. A series of encounters akin to a chain reaction occur
because of this swerve effect, leading to the birth of the world. What is important to
note in this reading of Epicurus is that the swerve is not created by reason or by the
agency of a subjectit cannot be predicted in advance by any knowledge system,
and the product is not a subject but rather a world, which is the precondition for
Althusser: Between Past and Future 313
new subjectivities. There is no intentionality behind the swerve, nor any line of
inquiry that can trace back to its ultimate cause. And the appearance of the
swerve cannot be predicted by any agencyany trajectory leading from x to y is
inherently unstable and given over to chance. No explanation can be given for
any arrival, no formula can be devised for an increasingly complex set of overde-
termined effects, nor can any formula be generated to predict when and where an
appearance might occur.
What is the role of philosophy in this materialism of the encounter? Simply put,
it is to verify the existence of contingency, of aleatory encounters as such. Here
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
kind of subject I am!) but rather with the possibility of disinterpellation that
makes the subject unfamiliar to itself and thus open to its own dissolution
through the encounter with an outside. Since the swerve of the encounter is
never predictable and never reducible to the logic of learning a specic lesson
or the reason of the teacher, it is something that emerges from the clash of atoms
students, teachers, curricula, various historical contingencies, and so on. It is
the contradictory and uncertain elements of education that Althusser either min-
imizes or marginalizes in all three of the models proposed above, yet it is my argu-
ment that these are absolutely essential for understanding a materialist encounter
as educational. It is an unpredictable eruption wherein a fundamental equality is
enacted in the sense that no one controls it, no one has particular rights over in-
terpreting it, and no one can predict its outcomes.
For this reason, learning cannot be easily reduced to a specic trajectory, and the
teacher cannot orient the student toward proper knowledge. The swerve and en-
counter cannot be predicted or planned. They are not brought about by learning
theory or the expertise of the teacher, but they rather happen when a certain con-
guration of institutional and extrainstitutional forces come into play. In other
words, the role of the aleatory teacher is to open a space for an encounter by
setting up the possibilities for a clash and then to bear witness to the marks of
subjective dissolution. Instead of repressing such moments of disorientation, an
aleatory teacher holds onto them. It is only through this gesture that a new kind
of educational world opens as a precondition for a new kind of educational
subjectone that can only be properly hailed after the fact of the swerve. Such
a teacher does not have knowledge in advance or technical expertise that will
help eliminate the contingencies of self-directed learning as Althusser desired.
Rather, such a teacher merely has luck to be in the right place at the right time
with the right elements in order to witness a collision, and subsequently to help
students to be attentive to this collision by pointing and saying, Hey, did you
see that? In this sense, whatever knowledge the teacher has is a result of the
conjuncture of atoms. The teacher is neither the schoolmaster nor the university
professor nor the activist; he or she is simply the teacher, ignorant yet attentive
to the conjuncture, its possibilities, and the educational moment of encountering
it in whatever form it might take.
Althusser: Between Past and Future 315
Whereas most Marxist educators are theorists of the school or the university
or the trade union and thus are concerned with the production of subjects to
support a particular ideological imaginary, I am arguing for a different kind of
Marxist educational practice that is aleatory, that is open to the unpredictable
and destabilizing contingencies of the historical conjuncture of atoms, and that
thus concerns forces rather than subjects and equality rather than inequality;
it is decisively antihumanist, open-ended, and materialist through and
through.
But how is this Marxist? It is important at this point to end with a reminder
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
the relationship between actors and the world is not xed or determined in
advance. Instead, the very conditions for a different world open up, as in Althuss-
ers reading of Machiavelli wherein an unknown man in an unknown place
creates the preconditions for Italy to appear as a place in the world. Ideology
can only provide a subject position in a world as a support function for that
world if the world exists as a kind of common sense. Yet a materialist encounter
produces the potentiality of a world as such and therefore is a kind of swerve in
the ideology/world support structure. In my reading, education as materialist
practice exposes the student to the clash of atoms, which destabilizes and sus-
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University-Commerce] at 08:28 16 October 2017
pends any and every interpellative process in order to open the subject to that
which is beyond subjectivity: a revolutionary being-in-common that is a precon-
dition for a different kind of world.
It is my contention that the seminar is a form of encountering. I propose that
an interruption of the scholastic apparatuses of the school and the university are
possible if and only if we conceptualize the seminar as providing a moment of
disinterpellation through which students, materials (books, essays, lms, and so
forth), and the teacher enter into a constellation of forces that destabilize and
thus open up a space and a time wherein a new kind of educational life
beyond the subject temporarily forms. The seminar is a collective form of educa-
tional life that produces a thought that works on and over the raw materials of
subjectivity in order to produce a moment that opens a void in subjects so as
to expose them to a collective form of educational life that does not have a
proper name or destination. Paradoxically, in the seminar nothing is learned and
nothing is taught. Perhaps we might call the seminar the space and time of
what Derek Ford (2016) refers to as communist study, which for him is a
unique educational logic beyond learning and teaching as we have outlined
them above. Hence, the centrality of producing new interventions over and
against dogmatic interpretations of texts during the seminar: something
happens; some comments, gestures, discussions cause a swerve effect that
cannot be predicted but that nevertheless alters the direction of the seminar.
Such happenings are not controlled by anyone, nor are they perfectly planned,
but they erupt and destabilize what is, in the name of a common exposure.
In short, aleatory teachers are those who are exposed to an opening for a
swerve and thus have luck on their side, bearing witness and maintaining the
clash of atoms when the swerve occurs (Go with that!). The aleatory student
is the one who suffers the effects of the swerve on subjectivity (I dont know
where this is going; I dont know if this is the right answer. Or, This might
sound crazy, but ). It is in this way that the Marxist educational subject is a
subject without a subject, a no one, an anonymous and unknown person
without a name, a force that is open to a new kind of world, a communist
world. And for this reason, Althussers fundamental educational gesture is still
relevant, urgent, and in need of theoretical elaboration and practical
development.
Althusser: Between Past and Future 317
References