Althusser’s theory is more functionalist than he intends compared to Gramsci.

Evidence

Althusser is, here, despite important differences in terminology and in theoretical perspective, moving very close to the terrain of Gramsci’s work (far closer than in the now acknowledgedly “over-theoreticist” formulations of some parts of Reading Capital ): but with at least two significant differences of stress. First, Althusser insists that, since the terrain of ideologies is not simple but complex, and consists not simply of “ruling ideas” but of a field of ideological thematics constituted by the relation “in ideas” between dominant and subordinate classes, what the ISA s reproduce must be the ruling ideology “precisely in its contradictions.” Ideological reproduction thus becomes “not only the stake but also the site of class struggle.” Second, he insists that the form of the “unity” which the ISA s accomplish is closer to that of a “teeth-gritting harmony” than a functional “fit.” But both these aspects of his self-styled “Notes”—the idea of continuing struggle and of a contradictory reproduction in the sphere of ideology—though actively insisted upon, appear, in fact, more marginal to the theoretical heart of his argument, which centers upon the concept of continuing reproduction of the social relations of a system. This has the effect (as compared with Gramsci) of making Althusser’s outline more functionalist than he would clearly like. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 910

Categorization

• XREF: This functionalism critique prefigures later post-Marxist critiques of Althusser and connects to Hall’s own insistence on contingency and struggle in ideology.
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: exactly which passages of Reading Capital are the ‘over-theoreticist’ ones, and what made Althusser revise his position by the ISA essay?