Treating experience as the ground of truth blocks a usable theory of ideology.

Evidence

The third strength which structuralism exhibits lies in its decentering of “experience” and its seminal work in elaborating the neglected category of “ideology.” It is difficult to conceive of a Cultural Studies thought within a Marxist paradigm which is innocent of the category of “ideology.” Of course, culturalism constantly makes reference to this concept: but it does not in fact lie at the center of its conceptual universe. The authenticating power and reference of “experience” imposes a barrier between culturalism and a proper conception of “ideology.” Yet, without it, the effectivity of “culture” for the reproduction of a particular mode of production cannot be grasped. … 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). — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 201

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the Frankfurt School analyses of ideology critique as a systematic discipline, where Horkheimer’s group pioneered ideology critique as an academic field. — connects to: Disruption ideology assumes breakdown produces improvement without evidence — Vincent Bevins, If We Burn: The Mass Protest Decade and…, 298
• DEFINE: Clarifies the structuralism/culturalism split over ideology versus experience as the theoretical center of Cultural Studies.