Abstract
A discussion of Lukács’ understanding and use of the concept of ideology cannot be properly attempted without situating it in the wider context of the evolution of this concept within Marxist theory. For although it may seem strange to those who believe that Marxism is a monolithic theory, the concept of ideology changed from the critical account Marx had conceived to the neutral version propounded by Lenin. Still, the most common error of many Marxist analyses of the concept of ideology is the failure to recognize this historical change — often coupled with a rather dogmatic attempt to prove that there is only one correct interpretation of ideology within Marxism — which leads either to dismissing one of the two versions as mistaken or to trying to reconcile and fuse them into one.1 The main reason for the recurrence of this error is the tendency of Marxist official orthodoxy to avoid any important cleavage between Marx and Lenin. There is little doubt, though, that these two conceptions of ideology are historically successive and theoretically incompatible.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
An example of the former is J. McCarney, The Real World of Ideology, Brighton, Harvester Press, 1980
an example of the latter is L. Althusser, ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses’, in Lenin and Philosophy and other essays, London, New Left Books, 1971
L. Althusser, ‘Práctica téorica y lucha ideológica’ in La Filosofía como Arma de la Revolution, Córdova, Cuadernos de Pasado y Presente, 1970.
For a historical analysis of the evolution of the concept of ideology within Marxism, see J. Larrain, Marxism and Ideology, London, Macmillan, 1983.
K. Marx and F. Engels, The Holy Family, Moscow, Progress, 1975, p. 43.
K. Marx, ‘The Paris Réforme on the Situation in France’, in Articles from the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, Moscow, Progress, 1972, p. 142.
See F. Engels’ letters to C. Schmidt of 27 October 1890, to F. Mehring of 14 July 1893, to J. Bloch of 21–22 September 1890 and to Borgius of 25 January of 1894, in K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Correspondence, Moscow, Progress, 1975.
Although E. Bernstein published Part 3 of The German Ideology in 1903–1904, the most crucial section for a critical conception of ideology, Part 1, was first published separately in Russian in 1924, and in German and English in 1926. The whole book was first published in German in 1932. See K. Marx and F. Engels, The German Ideology, Collected Works, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1976, note 7, p. 587.
G. Plekhanov, The Development of the Monist View of History, in Selected Philosophical Works, London, Lawrence & Wishart, 1977, Vol. I, p. 625.
E. Bernstein, ‘Das realistische und das ideologische Moment im Sozialismus’, in Zur Geschichte und Theorie des Sozialismus, Berlin, 1901, p. 282.
V.I. Lenin, What is to be done?, Peking, Foreign Languages Press, 1975, p. 48.
G. Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, London, Merlin Press, 1971, pp. 199–200.
G. Lukács, Writer and Critic, London, Merlin Press, 1978, p. 73.
V.I. Lenin, op.cit. p. 49.
Ibid. pp. 98 and 37.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 51.
It is possible to argue that some of Lukács’ reinter-pretations of earlier writings were tactical ploys in order to appear more orthodox than he really was, especially during the Stalinist years. Even if this is true, I think that the Leninist filiation of History and Class Consciousness cannot be seriously doubted. L. Kolakowski has made the more general point that Lukács professed fidelity to Leninism throughout his Marxist career. (See Main Currents of Marxism, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1978, Vol. III, pp. 253–4). Although this is probably the case, my argument here is restricted to showing a close relationship vis-à-vis the concept of ideology, an area of study in which Lenin and Lukács are frequently considered to be wide apart.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 69.
G. Stedman Jones, ‘The Marxism of the Early Lukács, an Evaluation’, New Left Review, No. 70, 1971, pp. 53–4.
A. Schaff, “Conscience d’une classe et conscience de classe”, L’homme et la Société, No. 26, Oct-Dec, 1972.
See on this A. Arato and P. Breines, The Young Lukács and the Origins of Western Marxism, London, Pluto Press, 1979, especially chapter 9.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 70.
Ibid. pp. 258–9.
Ibid. p. 228.
Ibid. p. 225.
Ibid. p. 227.
Ibid. p. 80.
Ibid. p. 228.
Ibid. pp. 266–7.
G. Lukács, Writer and Critic, op.cit. p. 63.
Ibid. p. 74.
G. Lukács, ‘The Ontological Bases of Human Thought and Action’, The Philosophical Forum, Vol. 7, 1975, p. 29.
Ibid. p. 36.
A notable exception can be found in J. McCarney, op.cit.
L. Goldmann, Lukács et Heidegger, Paris, Denoël/Gonthier, 1973, p. 125.
Ibid. p. 126.
N. Poulantzas, Political Power and Social Classes, London, New Left Books, 1976, p. 196.
Ibid. p. 207.
D. Adlam et al., ‘Psychology, Ideology and the Human Subject’, Ideology and Consciousness, No 1, May, 1977, p. 15
R. McDonough, ‘Ideology as False Consciousness: Lukács’, in On Ideology, Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies, London, Hutchinson, 1978, p. 40.
M. Seliger, The Marxist Conception of Ideology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1977, p. 67.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 262.
Ibid. p. 224.
Ibid. p. 50.
F. Engels, Letter to F. Mehring, 14 July 1893, in Selected Correspondence, op.cit. p. 434.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. pp. 257–8.
Ibid. p. 54.
Ibid. p. 50.
Ibid. p. 224.
G. Stedman Jones, op.cit. p. 40.
N. Poulantzas, op.cit. p. 205.
G. Stedman Jones, op.cit. p. 49.
A. Schaff, op.cit. p. 7.
N. Poulantzas, op.cit. p. 205.
A. Arato & P. Breines, op.cit. p. 6.
J. McCarney, op.cit. p. 46.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. pp. 229 & 232–3.
Ibid. pp. 275–6.
Ibid. pp. 304 & 262.
J. McCarney, op.cit. p. 49.
See V.I. Lenin, op.cit. p. 50.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 93.
See M. Godelier, ‘Fétichisme, Religion et Théorie Générale de l’Idéologie chez Marx’, Annali, Roma, Feltrinelli, 1970 and J. Mepham, ‘The Theory of Ideology in Capital’, Radical Philosophy, No 2, Summer, 1972. Both articles draw heavily on Capital in order to reconstruct a Marxist theory of ideology.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. xviii
The charge of reducing praxis to instrumental action has been levelled against Marx himself by J. Habermas, (Knowledge and Human Interests, London, Heinemann, 1972)
A. Wellmer, (Critical Theory of Society, New York, Herder & Herder, 1971), but it seems to me that the charge is convincing only against Stalinist orthodoxy.
Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, op.cit. p. 205.
Ibid. p. 262.
Ibid. p. 169.
Ibid. p. 259.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1988 D. Reidel Publishing Company
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Larrain, J. (1988). Lukács’ Concept of Ideology. In: Rockmore, T. (eds) Lukács Today. Sovietica, vol 51. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2897-8_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2897-8_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-010-7805-4
Online ISBN: 978-94-009-2897-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive