More languages
More actions
420dengist (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary Tag: Visual edit |
420dengist (talk | contribs) m (nuance) Tag: Visual edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
The '''social formation''' is a term invented by the French [[Marxist-Leninist]] philosopher [[Louis Althusser]] in reference to the complex structure of society, which may be comprised of multiple [[Mode of production|modes of production]] and [[Ideological state apparatus|state apparatuses]] at any given stage in the [[class struggle]]. Specifically, during an ongoing [[revolution]] or [[Socialism|socialist transition]], there may be multiple conflicting modes of production, each with their respective ideological and represstive apparatuses, competing for dominance over the social formation. | The '''social formation''' is a term invented by the French [[Marxist-Leninist]] philosopher [[Louis Althusser]] in reference to the complex structure of society, which may be comprised of multiple [[Mode of production|modes of production]] and [[Ideological state apparatus|state apparatuses]] at any given stage in the [[class struggle]]. Specifically, during an ongoing [[revolution]] or [[Socialism|socialist transition]], there may be multiple conflicting modes of production, each with their respective ideological and represstive apparatuses, competing for dominance over the social formation. | ||
The term originates from Althusser's essay "Contradiction and Overdetermination" in the 1962<ref>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm</ref>, as a means of capturing the full complexity of social relations within a given society. It is a core part of Althusser's reinterpretation of the [[dialectics]] of [[political economy]], in which he aimed to move past a reductive [[Base and superstructure|base-superstructure model]], instead viewing society as a complex, dialectical totality.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm Althusser, "For Marx"; chapter 3, "Contradiction and Overdetermination"]</ref> | The term itself was used prior to Althusser, though this more detailed understanding originates from Althusser's essay "Contradiction and Overdetermination" in the 1962<ref>https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm</ref>, as a means of capturing the full complexity of social relations within a given society. It is a core part of Althusser's reinterpretation of the [[dialectics]] of [[political economy]], in which he aimed to move past a reductive [[Base and superstructure|base-superstructure model]], instead viewing society as a complex, dialectical totality.<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm Althusser, "For Marx"; chapter 3, "Contradiction and Overdetermination"]</ref> | ||
The social formation includes [[Ideological state apparatus|ideological state apparatuses]], [[Repressive state apparatus|repressive state apparatuses]], and different [[Mode of production|modes]] and [[relations of production]]. The social formation is a specific combination of all of those things, existing within a particular society at a particula point in time. Rather than viewing these components in an absolute unidirectional relationship – with the economic base always determining the superstructure – Althusser posits that these components exist in a complex interaction of 'relative autonomy', wherein each can influence the other (albeit with the base remaining "dominant in the final instance"<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1963/unevenness.htm Part Six. On the Materialist Dialectic, On the Unevenness of Origins]</ref>). | The social formation includes [[Ideological state apparatus|ideological state apparatuses]], [[Repressive state apparatus|repressive state apparatuses]], and different [[Mode of production|modes]] and [[relations of production]]. The social formation is a specific combination of all of those things, existing within a particular society at a particula point in time. Rather than viewing these components in an absolute unidirectional relationship – with the economic base always determining the superstructure – Althusser posits that these components exist in a complex interaction of 'relative autonomy', wherein each can influence the other (albeit with the base remaining "dominant in the final instance"<ref>[https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1963/unevenness.htm Part Six. On the Materialist Dialectic, On the Unevenness of Origins]</ref>). | ||
Revision as of 16:00, 4 October 2023
The social formation is a term invented by the French Marxist-Leninist philosopher Louis Althusser in reference to the complex structure of society, which may be comprised of multiple modes of production and state apparatuses at any given stage in the class struggle. Specifically, during an ongoing revolution or socialist transition, there may be multiple conflicting modes of production, each with their respective ideological and represstive apparatuses, competing for dominance over the social formation.
The term itself was used prior to Althusser, though this more detailed understanding originates from Althusser's essay "Contradiction and Overdetermination" in the 1962[1], as a means of capturing the full complexity of social relations within a given society. It is a core part of Althusser's reinterpretation of the dialectics of political economy, in which he aimed to move past a reductive base-superstructure model, instead viewing society as a complex, dialectical totality.[2]
The social formation includes ideological state apparatuses, repressive state apparatuses, and different modes and relations of production. The social formation is a specific combination of all of those things, existing within a particular society at a particula point in time. Rather than viewing these components in an absolute unidirectional relationship – with the economic base always determining the superstructure – Althusser posits that these components exist in a complex interaction of 'relative autonomy', wherein each can influence the other (albeit with the base remaining "dominant in the final instance"[3]).