Malcolm Read

While for Louis Althusser ideology was very much an affair of the unconscious, it fell to his Spanish student, Juan Carlos Rodríguez, to fully articulate the concept of the ‘ideological unconscious’ per se, the latter understood as secreted by the relations of production operative respectively within the various modes of production. Rodrí-guez elucidates the workings of this unconscious through the associated notion of an ideological matrix, with particular reference to the transition from ‘substantialism’, the dominant ideology of feudalism, to ‘animism’, the earliest form of bourgeois ideology. Bourgeois ideology is understood as turning crucially upon the opposition between ‘society’ and the free‘individual’, free to exploit and be exploited. The present paper assesses the challenge the Spaniard’s work poses to those intellectual traditions, which include critical realism and some versions of Marxism, that take ‘society’ and the ‘individual’ to be ontological realities.

Malcolm Read offers an overview and critical assessment of the work of Spanish Marxist Juan Carlos Rodríguez read through his most recent book, De qué hablamos cuando hablamos de marxismo. Ranging over the work of Poulantzas, Roy Bhaskar, Marx, Althusser, and Brecht, Read seeks to substantiate the claim that any Marxist analysis worthy of its name should start from the notion of exploitation; to depart from the characteristically bourgeois opposition between subject/object, agent/structure, and so on is, in effect, to “sink Marxism.”

The present article takes as its point of departure the recent tributes to Bhaskar published on the occasion of the latter's death. Laudable and understandable though it was to prioritize the career trajectories of younger scholars, one of the unforeseen consequences was to marginalize those of their more mature colleagues. The latter perforce arrive upon the scene of critical realism already burdened with their own overdetermined legacies, which demand rather more in the way of complex renegotiation. Taking as exemplary his own career path, from a traditional ‘lit crit’ of empiricist and Hegelian extraction, through psychoanalysis, to structural marxism, the author of the present article focuses upon his own ‘Bhaskarian moment’, upon the benefits accrued therefrom, but finally upon the difficulty in reconciling structural marxism with critical realism, insofar as the former prioritizes the notion of a social formation, structured on the basis of a mode of production, the latter the individual/structure dichotomy. Bhaskar's subsequent spiritual turn, it is argued, further aggravated the paradigmatic incommensurabilities, with damaging consequences for those younger scholars attempting to steer a course between both traditions.