Ideology must be conceived as a terrain of struggle, not just functional cement

Evidence

It is true that there is a marked tendency in the more recent structuralist conceptualizations of “ideology” to give it a functionalist reading—as the necessary cement of the social formation. From this position, it is indeed impossible—as culturalism would correctly argue—to conceive either of ideologies which are not, by definition, “dominant” or of the concept of struggle (the latter’s appearance in Althusser’s famous “Ideological State Apparatus” article being largely gestural). Nevertheless, work is already being done which suggests ways in which the field of ideology may be adequately conceptualized as a terrain of struggle (through the work of Gramsci and, more recently, of Ernesto Laclau), and these have structuralist rather than culturalist bearings. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 201

Categorization

• XREF: The functionalist-vs-struggle distinction in ideology connects to Gramsci’s hegemony and to the reader’s interest in how ideas drive politics. — connects to: An aggregation of texts requires binding ideology to become a counter-canon. — Aijaz Ahmad, In Theory: Classes, Nations, Literatures, 360; Liberatory struggle requires claiming theory as practice, not merely critiquing misuse