Problématique ¡¢Lecture Symptomale & Ideology
A Textological Reading of Althusser

Problematic, Symptom Reading and Ideology: A Textological Reading of Althusser (Central Edition and Translation Press, 2003)

Zhangyibing

Abstract
This book is the first academic monograph in the country which conducts an investigation into the philosophical thoughts of Louis Althusser, a famous western Marxist philosopher in the method of textual interpretation. The investigation is focused on Althusser’s three classical texts, namely For Marx, Read The Capital and Ideology and Ideology and National Apparatus of Ideology. The writer manages to disclose the latent methodological Gestalt which has been concealed for long in the study of Althusser. That is mainly the Problématique and Lecture Symptomale which function as the deep theoretical Gestalt in the context of the investigation of the epistemological history. Here the writer introduces a kind of composition method of theoretical “Counter-strike”, interweaving the text with the deconstruction and post-modern dissolution in the way of appenda. It is therefore the study of Althusser’s epistemology which has been concealed for long, the ideological theory which has the greatest impact in the critical theory on contemporary western culture, especially the idea of the national apparatus of ideology that is completely revealed for the first time. Meanwhile this book makes a renewed analysis of Althusser’s historical interpretation on Marx. The important concepts such as “rupture” in the process of Marxian philosophy, “theoretical rejection of humanism” and “history is a process without subject” are all interpreted and analyzed in a deep way. 

In the years of fifties of 20th century, when the theoretical impacts of humanist Marxism were at the summit in Europe, a kind of thinking trend of scientism, which is totally opposite to the humanist tendency, appeared strikingly within the western Marxism. The kernel of this trend lies in re-interpretation of the classical documentation of Marxist philosophy in the way of a positive science and therefore resulting into a new thinking way, which is heterogeneous to the dominant logic of western Marxism at that time, namely the humanization of Marxist philosophy. This shows that the internal logic paradox in western Marxist philosophy becomes strikingly apparent. It is also another kind of unilateral tendency in theoretical logic, which is necessarily complementary to the unilateral tendency of the humanism of western Marxist philosophy. Under the banner of western Marxist scientism are mainly Louis Althusser in France, Della—Volpe and Luclo Co11etti in Italy, the Marxists of functional analysis coming up later in the U.S. and the U.K. and so on, among whom Althusser is the first to put forward a call to arms with a clear idea to fight “For Marx” in a scientific position. This is a significant and epoch-making event in the history of western Marxism. Althusser is a “scientific” philosopher of western Marxism, who emerged as the times require. Compared with the restless and excited humanist school of western Marxism at that time, he seemed to be calm and rational. From his books he has not put forward any brand-new ideas in the sense of content and not formed a unique and systematic frame of theory. If we sum up his theory in a word, he has done nothing other than borrowed the discourse of structuralism and post-structuralism from Bachelar, Lacan, Foucault etc. to tell people how to understand Marxism scientifically. The philosophical logic of Althusser has great pertinence. He put forward in public to defend Marx and objected to the philosophical tendency of humanization of Marxism conducted by Lukacs and Erich Fromm, Henri Lefebvre. The appearance of Althusser’s philosophy is an important and historic theoretical counteraction within western Marxist philosophy. Meanwhile we must find out the specific historical context, in which this trend can appear strikingly, that is, the turning into low ebb again of western European labor movement after the end of World War II and especially the anti-communist and anti-socialist thinking trend under the banner of “anti-Stalinism” coming up after “the 20th Convention” of Soviet Communist Party. Scientific Marxists think that humanist philosophy of western Marxism is a deep thinking basis for this trend. It is this kind of intenerating of Marxist philosophy into such non-scientific definitions as abstract humanity, totality and alienation that make Marxism itself lose its powerful militancy. For this reason they conclude that Marxist philosophy is confronted with severe crisis and they must unite “for Marx” and defend the scientific essence of Marxist philosophy. In this respect, Althusser is the first advocator and has an indelible contribution. For Althusser, his main theoretical purpose is to re-shape the scientific Gestalt of Marxist philosophy. But the premise of this kind of philosophical theoretical construction is also a respect of history as such. Concretely speaking, it is through a detailed and meticulous re-reading and research of the documentation in history of thoughts that the genetic historical process of Marxist philosophy can be made clear in a real sense.
This dissertation is the first academic monograph in the country, which conducts an investigation into the philosophical thoughts of Louis Althusser, a famous western Marxist philosopher in the method of textual interpretation. The writer manages to disclose the latent methodological Gestalt, which has been concealed for long in the study of Althusser. That is mainly Problématique and Lecture Symptomale, which function as the deep theoretical Gestalt in the context of the investigation of the epistemological history. Here the writer introduces a kind of composition method of theoretical “Counter-strike”, interweaving the text with the deconstruction and post-modern dissolution in the way of appendix. Althusser’s epistemological investigations, the ideological theory, which has the greatest impact on the critical theory of contemporary western culture, especially the idea of the national apparatus of ideology have all acquired a deep study. Meanwhile this book makes a renewed analysis of Althusser’s historical interpretation of Marx. The important concepts such as “rupture” in the process of Marxian philosophy, “theoretical rejection of humanism” and “history is a process without subject” are all interpreted and analyzed in a deep way.
The whole book is divided into two parts besides the introduction: Part I makes a discussion of Althusser’s methodological Gestalt, which the domestic academic circle has missed the opportunity to recognize for long. The reason lies in the severe defects, which exist in the structure of Althusser’s texts, that is, the unexplained operation of his own Problématique and a great deal of borrowed theoretical components. His problem is that he supposed all readers in different time fields and different contexts had a previous insight on the theoretical paradigm of French academic circle in 1960’s. This is probably also the main reason for the interpretation of Althusser’s texts to go astray. The book is divided into six chapters in all: Chapter 1, Problématique: Althusser’s Theoretical Paradigm; Appendix: Derrida’s Deconstruction: The Deep Symptom of Problématique; Chapter 2, Althusser’s Lecture Symptomale; Appendix: Roland Barthes on Reading: A Theoretical “Counter-strike” to Althusser. These two chapters mainly discusses the Problématique and Lecture Symptomale in the transformation of deep theoretical paradigm in Althusser’s methodological Gestalt. Problématique is a central paradigm in all of the philosophical theoretical methods of Althusser’s. But the deep content and basic context of this key word is severely concealed in the previous relevant studies home and abroad. In fact, Problématique is the only access to enter the logical building of Althusser’s theory. Althusser thinks that it is absolutely invalid for the general method of investigation and reading to dig out the Problématique from the depth of a thinker’s thoughts and his texts because it is a kind of latent theoretical Gestalt and the sole way is the method of Lecture Symptomale. Therefore, this so-called Lecture Symptomale is also Althusser’s textual hermeneutics. In his total theoretical thoughts this theoretical idea is only inferior to the theory of Problématique in the degree of the importance. Chapter 3: Marxian Philosophical Revolution and the Critique of the Epistemological Concept of Empiricism; Chapter 4; Epistemological Rupture: Ideology/Science. These two chapters mainly deal with Althusser’s specialized discussion about epistemology, which is hardly known to us, especially with the localization of his “epistemological rupture” in history of thoughts. Chapter 5: Ideology: Eternal Imaginative Field; Chapter 6: Ideological Theory and Lacanian Psychoanalysis. The main content of Part II is a renewed diagnosis of the history of Marxist philosophical thoughts. It is divided into four chapters in all: Chapter 7: Neo-hermeneutic: The Methodological Recognition of the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought. This chapter is a specific historical context discussed in the next chapter, that is, the theoretical fluctuations in western Europe produced by non-Stalinist movement after “the 20th convention” of Soviet Communist Party, which are mainly various thinking trends humanizing Marxism, esp. the humanist school in western Marxism. It is as the measure-for-measure opposition to this kind of theoretical tendency that Althusser stands out “for Marx” in the figure of a revolutionary fighter. Chapter 8: A Revised Textual Research on the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought. This chapter makes a review of Althusser’s commentary ideas of the methodology of the study on traditional Marxist history of philosophy. This “Neo-hermeneutics” is also the important content that we did not pay much attention to in the past. Chapter 9: The Most Important Basic Principles of Marxism; Chapter 10: The Science of History of Marxism. The last two chapters deal with Althusser’s discussions about the division of thought history of Marxist philosophy and its renewed interpretation. In this respect, this dissertation has also brought about some kind of breakthrough of traditional investigational results. Appendix: Althusser’s Story Told by Himself.
The main innovative points of this dissertation lie in the following:
A. This dissertation is the first academic monograph in the country, which conducts an investigation into the philosophical thoughts of Louis Althusser in the method of textual interpretation. The object of investigation is focused on Althusser’s three classical texts, namely For Marx, Read the Capital and Ideology and National Apparatus of Ideology. The main innovative point is the transformation of the reading and research of the classical documentation. And the method of writing has also an important demarcation.
B. The writer endeavors to disclose the latent Gestalt of methodology, which has been concealed in Althusser studies for long. This Gestalt is mainly the Problématique as the deep theoretical frame in the research context of epistemological history, which is exactly the Problématique—the method of thought (theory) production forming and uniting the problematic fields, and the method of Lecture Symptomale, that is, reading focused on Problématique, or we can say, productive reading, which is in fact a striking appearance of silent theoretical paradox within texts in a new Problématique.
C. Althusser’s epistemological investigations, the ideological theory, which has the greatest impact on the critical theory of contemporary western culture, especially the idea of the national apparatus of ideology have all acquired a full presentation for the first time. The research of epistemology is based on the platform of western thought history, while the most important subsidiary background of ideology is the explanation of Lacan’s context.

Contents

Preface

Introduction L. Althusser as a Revolutionary Fighter
Why Althusser decides to Step out “For Marx”?
“Humanist Marxism” in a Specific Historical Context
After the Death of Dogmatism: Ideological Mania or Re-figuration of Scientific Theory?
Pre-placement of Methodology: The Sole Approach Confronting Authentic Marx
Abstract: Althusser’s For Marx is one of the most important classics in western Marxist texts in the later half of last century. This writing focuses on the specific historical context constituting this book, that is, the severe thought confusions in non-Stalinist movement coming forth after Soviet Communist “Convention XX”, especially the humanist trend of western Marxism which is projected in this historical period and focused by Althusser’s critique, and this writing also focused on the his scientific methodological recognition for “For Marx”. 

Part I The Methodological Gestalt of Althusser’s Philosophy
Chapter 1 Problématique: Althusser’s Theoretical Paradigm
The Fundamental Context of Problématique
How to Inquire: The Problématique as the Productive Basic-model of Thinking
Apperceive the Latent Functional Structure of the Problématique and its Object Quality
Appendix Deconstruction: Jacques Derrida’s Historical Dissolving of the Structuralist Deep Signification Gestalt
Abstract: The kernel paradigm of Althusser’s philosophical theory is the Problematic as theoretical production mode. Problematic denies the intellectual philosophy that gives priority to the existing conclusion and locates the thinking of reason at the open questioning. The essence of Problematic is functional logical gestalt, which rests upon the constitutive theory production and creates a kind of quasi-structualist epistemological discourse from its own structural apperception and latent operative mechanism.

Chapter 2 Althusser’s Lecture Symptomale
The Original Sin of Reading
View and Production: The Epistemological Labyrinth of Double Reading
Lecture Symptomale and Problématique
Lecture Symptomale and Understanding Marx
Appendix Roland Barthes on Reading: A Theoretical “Counter-strike” to Althusser
Abstract: The most outstanding idea in Althusser’s philosophy is the Lecture Symptomale generated from Lacan. He explicitly objects to the “innocent” immediate-reading idea in the old theory of reflection and puts forward the deep-seated non-intuitive reading model, i.e., Lecture Symptomale  on the basis of the eradication of the creed of god-eye. Althusser requires the penetration of the visible words in the reading to read out the margins and the loss of words and therefore to grasp the deep-seated theoretical problematic of the text written by an author in an authentic way. It is this argumentation that Althusser applies to the interpretation of Das Kapital by Marx. 

Chapter 3 Marxian Philosophical Revolution and the Critique of the Epistemological Concept of Empiricism
Pseudo-dualistic Cognitive Gestalt: “View Essence Through Phenomenon”
Cognition=Reality?
The Heterogeneity between Cognitive Object and Realistic Object
Chapter 4 Epistemological Rupture: Ideology/Science
Vicious Circle in the Ideological Cognitive Theory
Making for Theory: Practice and Ideology
“Epistemological Rupture” and the History of Cognitive Theory
Chapter 5 Ideology: Eternal Imaginative Field
The Subsidiary Background of Althusser’s Ideological Doctrine
Unconscious Representation System: A General Definition of Ideology
Ideology and National Apparatus of Ideology
Ideology: No History but Lasting Forever
Abstract: Althusser’s ideological theory is a doctrine which has a huge impact upon the aftertime. On the basis of Marx and Mannheim he explicitly points out and confirms the existential mode of ideology in social existence, i.e., the imaginative system of social unconsciousness. Althusser thinks that ideology itself is without history but it will be eternal as am important dependent phenomenon of social relationship. In modern capitalist society ideology, as a special national apparatus, becomes an important instrument of justifying the gerentocratic domination.

Chapter 6 Ideological Theory and Lacanian Psychoanalysis
Althusser and Lacan’s Philosophy
Ideology Interpellates Individual as Subject
Imago Replication and Auto-submission
Abstract: It is Althusser’s ideological theory that is the most important part of his philosophical impacts on post-modern culture. The reason that his ideological theory is so fascinating for the aftertime lies mainly in his appropriation of Lacan, whose invalidation of personal subject turns out to be the starting footstone of Althusser’s ideological logic and whose theory of alienation subject is extended to be Imago replication of Das Man in ideological culture constitution and the auto-submission to the domination as such. The social relations are reproduced and therefore domination is reproduced.

Part II Re-diagnose the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought
Chapter 7  Neo-hermeneutic: The Methodological Recognition of the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought
The “Political Dispute” of Youth Marx
The Future Perfect Tense of Teleology: The Methodological Defects of the Research of Marxist Philosophical History
Marx is not an Inborn Marxist
“Surpassing”, “Perversion” or “Returning Anew”?

Abstract: In western Marxist philosophy Althusser marks his own philosophical characteristic with scientific methodology. When his hermeneutical model of quasi-structuralism enters the research field of Marxist philosophy history, it really gives a violent strike on former Soviet-Eastern European theory of thought history. The most brand-new idea is his critique on teleology and genesis theory of thought history. Althusser also has undergone a reverse reflection on the famous “Perversion Idea” in the traditional research of Marxist philosophy history.

Chapter 8 A Revised Textual Research on the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought
A Renewed Stage-division of the History of Marxian Philosophical Thought
The Ideological Stage before the Epistemological Rupture
The Totally Opposite Evaluation of Oekonomisch-philosophische Manuskripte aus dem Jahre 1844
1845£º The Rupture of New-old Problématique
Abstract: Althusser’ theory on the historical stage-division of Marxian philosophy is demarcated essentially according to the epistemological rupture between ideology and science. During sixties last century he openly points out the bourgeois ideological Problematic existing in Youth Marx’s texts and adjudicates the grave guilt of humanizing Marxism. Under the flag of “For Marx” Althusser dogmatically interprets Marxian philosophical texts in different stages with the logical gestalt of quasi-structuralism and therefore for the first time breaks the illusion of Marxian identity produced by the former Soviet-Eastern European theoretical circle.
Chapter 9 The Most Important Basic Principle of Marxism
Marxism is “An Anti-Humanism in Theory”
Pseudo-subject: History is a Process without Subject
Pseudo-historical Time and Anti-historicism
Abstract: The scientific Marxism promoted by Althusser’s philosophy regards the rejection of humanist logical gestalt as the important precondition for the understanding of Marx. With the subsidiary background of quasi-structuralism plus Lacan’s philosophy the subjectivity philosophy is recognized as the reason mark of bourgeois ideology. Due to that Marxian thought becomes a process philosophy without subject, and the individuals within the historical time deviate as a functional carrier of social relations.

Chapter 10 The Science of History of Marxism
Philosophy is Non-science
New Continent of the Science of History
Production Mode: The Basic Component of Marist Scientific Problématique
The Causalité Structurale and Surdétermination of Social and Historical Development
Abstract: Althusser points out that Marxism is a kind of historical science but philosophy is not science. The new continent of historical science is pioneered by Marx and its most important theoretical foundation stone is the theory of production mode. Althusser puts forward Causalité Structurale and Surdétermination so as to scientifically facing history while against linearity idea of causation and mechanic determinism.

Bibliography
Index
Appendix The Story Told by Althusser Himself
Postscript

Preface

Althusser, to Chinese academia, is not new.  His “Structural Marxism” can be found in research on Marxism-Leninism philosophy, literature criticism, movie theories or aesthetic theories. The present European academia, which is in the post-modernist and post-Marxist context, appreciates Althusser’s theories increasingly. We Chinese researchers are perplexed by this phenomenon and all our doubts boil down to one question: Have we misread Althusser? And my answer is: Perhaps. There might be two reasons: an important historical change and the cloak of a turbulence theory.
The important historical change is: around 1990s, with a stack of posthumous books, Althusser regain the topic of the day. Yet what is interesting is: behind the well-known Marxist philosopher Althusser stood two others, the young morbid Catholic one and the old gloomy Pre-Modernity classical materialist one. Put it precisely, these existential figures are factual images Althusser concealed intentionally in the past, which leads to the interpretative dramatization and inexplicable mystery. A formerly glary yet fictive sage Althusser and multi-faceted yet intentionally-concealed one present themselves in the research realm.  The stereotyped idol disappeared, leaving a dissipating mist of myth. As Lacan put, with the shedding of its patches, the original vacancy revealed itself further. This is another victory of “the Other”.
To unveil this myth, Althusser’s complicated painful life and ambivalent thoughts need elaborating. Althusser was a Roman Catholic and remained to be a believer till 1950; yet the influences of his religious belief are inextirpable, and his later theories may find roots here. According to Christianity, the mundane existence of man is void and needs letting out while divinity is high above in the sky. Man can only communicate with omnipotent God by means of some medium. Living on the earth, a temporal abyss of misery, and going through tribulation, man may not be back to heaven only if all crimes are atoned for and insight of “everything is false” is obtained. In the Enlightenment discourses, God is the category (relationship) that man are deprived of and idolized, i.e., the Platonic theoretic other, the great Other. Protestants advocate man should relate with God, keeping God in heart, so as to dissolve the mediumizaed myth. Young Althusser took part in some post- Second World War church movement, the Roman Catholic youth movement. In the world faced with Fascism and death, this movement called for social liberation. This practical theology relates divine benefaction with communism and human liberation socialism pursues is achieved. Void of self and emergence of absent God are the origin of structure of Althusser’s revolutionary divinity theories.
Another theoretic source of young Althusser is Hegelian Dialects. Different from young Marx, Hegel opposed feudalistic autocracy; democratic complex is embodies in his theory with the concept of self-consciousness. It was not a random choice that young Althusser examined Hegel Dialects. Hegel, in the old age, propagandized the universal Absolute idea, disregarding individuals (and their emotions) in the way Catholic did. The core of On Content in the thought of G. W. F. Hegel (Althusser’s master’s thesis) is the concept of vide/void. On one hand, it correlates with Hegel’s dialectic logic (The Phenomenology of Mind): materialization, in reality, is void in respect of essence and concept. On the other hand, it explicitly confirms the absence of God (the Subject) of the hypothetical self in the Enlightenment context. Althusser seemed to unveil Kant’s theoretic hole Hegel had covered, i.e., the nihility of the free self, and this thought is just the call of truth. Moreover, according to Hegelian logic, abstract concepts evolve to historical concrete (abstract) mind; it is nothing but evolvement from nothingness of emptiness to void of actuality. When ideas are materialized and history (submerged in concepts of nature, society and self-consciousness) progresses, the logical structure of Absolute idea is nonexistence. Hegelian logic denies self; thus it is natural to develop to constructivism, which is based on non- individual-subjectivity. In the then prevalent constructivist context of France, Althusser opposed all humanism, including Marx’s early viewpoint of alienation, which he denied long before. Lacan’s theory of self identity of structural psychoanalysis is the momentum of transformation of Althusser’s theories.
 In 1950s, Althusser converted to Marxism.  After ten years of silence, Althusser was recognized for his reinterpreting doctrines of Karl Marx. Theoretical support of Bachelard’s science epistemology and Lacan’s structural psychoanalysis made his argumentation predominant. However, Althusser intentionally ignored these contributions and ascribed his theories totally to himself.  Althusser, for long time, is touted as a scientific Marxism philosopher who opposed the humanism. 
 However, with more publications, the lie was exposed and Althusser was exposed to be multi-identitied and an utter fraud. This subverted the former exposition and argumentation on Althusser’s doctrines. It’s hard to integrate identities of Althusser: Catholic, Hegelian logic believer, and Structural Marxism philosopher into one unity. In his late years, in reviewing Spinoza and Machiavelli, Althusser speculated about a “Subterranean Current of the Materialism of the Encounter” (Aleatory Materialism, 1982). Althusser’s Marxist status was challenged and he was classified as “anti-Marxist”. Thus Althusser’s theories were disintegrated and brought about the co-existence of four identities of Althusser, leaving an unveiled myth in present Althussur research. A number of researchers, when studying Althusser, just enumerate four different identities of Althusser yet find no means to integrate them into one unity.     
 I maintain these four Althussers, disconnected and distinct from each other, are in continuum regarding the subject-absent construction mechanism and anti-teleology concepts of pseudo-subject. To Christian Althusser I, God, the Other is worshiped and man (subject) is ignored. Althusser II follows Hegelian logic, which is abstract and repels emotional subjects. The absence of subject results in divinity and rational truth. In the discourses of Marxist Althusser III, a problematics latent, non-vision empty spots in symptomatic reading and social unconsciousness in ideology all denote the denial of subjects. His opinion toward the nature of human is not Marx’s “the summation of all human relations”; but converts to Lacanian conceptualized ego which is identified with an outside image or entity induced through, and its nonexistence in social mode of production. Althusser, different from Lacan, affirms the mirrored image and the symbol / the Other are social relationship components. Yet this does not suggest the denial of the nature of void. Thus Althusser IV (Althusser in his late years) defines historical materialism (aleatory materialism in his words) a process “without subject”. However, Althusser IV is the tragic reflection of declining Althusser III: not concerned about Epicurean humanism as young Marx did, Althusser is more interested in Democritus’ beliefs that the world consists of the “nothing” (i.e. the void) and the atoms whose moving leads to the formation of all the matter. Mode of production is historical stray coincidence of productivity and production relationship, which is the generalization of Dasein’s desertion in Heidegger’s existentialism. Here, the home-going humanities could be refused poetically while value criticism is still rewritten as an authentic historical reality. When Althusser killed his wife (the Other), he had seen through the vanity of life and obtained the truth of meaning of being.
 This book intends to research on Althusser’s Marxist philosophy texts, yet understanding of young Althusser and his thoughts in later years are also needed. I include some latest documents and historical data in this book, hoping to further our understanding of the idolized Althusser.
 The cloak of a turbulence theory is: Althusser we discuss in this book (in the 1960s-1970s) is idolized and considered a Marxist “scientific” philosopher emerging as the time needs. Compared with other Marxist humanists, Althusser appears calm and rational. In his writings, there are no brand-new concepts or unique and systematic structure. He borrows structuralist and post-structuralist discourses from Bachelard, Lacan and Foucault to illustrate how to interpret Marxist doctrines scientifically.   Althusser explicitly proposes to differ Marx’s early Hegelian and Feuerbachian writings and his later properly Marxist texts, and condemns the humanism trend in Marxist theory (as Georg Lukács, Erich Fromm and Henri Lefebvre represent). Althusser’s re-reading indicates a historic theoretic backwash within Marxism.
Althusser’s theories, I insist, cannot be defined “Structural Marxism” and thus denounced. Althusser insists on his being a Marxist: although there are various theoretical appropriations in his arguments and arbitrary concoctions in his re-interpretations, his academic standpoint is Marxist in nature without doubt.  However, we maintain that Althusser didn’t break through the shackles of alternative logics of Western Marxism; he carried too far when he correctly emphasized certain features of Marxist and went to scientism, another extreme opposite humanism; in some sense he managed to misinterpret Marxism. 
Achilles’ heel of Althusser is not his so-called ‘structural’ metaphorical theories, but the ivory-towered nature of his theories: Althusser was only engaged in theoretical research and fights, which led to theories’ deviation from social development, especially that of labour movement. And it thus shared a fundamental emblem with humanism of Western Marxism. Concerning this, “New Left” thinker Perry Anderson remarked quite pertinently: Theory became, for a whole historical period, an esoteric discipline whose highly technical idiom measured its distance from politics. p.53    And this is the theoretical tendency of western Marxism under pressure of capitalism. To some degree, Althusser is not as practical as Young Lukacs and Gramsci. However, when humanism was prevalent in Western Marxism, Althusser’s beliefs were like fresh air, especially when many a western communist and left-winger felt disillusioned because of some setbacks in international communism movement and anti-war feelings. And thus the philosophy of Althusser is very important in the history of western Marxism.  
Nevertheless, among the introductions of Althusser in China (in my opinion, people showed much interest in Althusser’s theories yet what has been done wasn’t in-depth research), the focus is on the theoretical results Althusser obtained under the control of certain logic frame. This might be due to his reinterpretation of the history of Marxism and the subsequent ideas of epistemological rupture, Theoretically Antihumanistic, History is a Process without Subject, etc. Yet in such reviews, means of construction itself, the root cause, was ignored, and thus led to a terrible blind spot in interpretation: the real Althusser was cloaked. In Althusser’s words, by the faint light of “reading method I”, we see something in the fence which is still the traditional philosophical hermeneutic frame. Althusser’s philosophy is typically “methodological Sovereignty”, as Arnold put it as ontology platform in posse; to Althusser, the method is noumenon logic and the result is only concretionary finished products. In studying his philosophy, if we only observe the result without knowledge of theoretical mode of production, we haven misread Althusser and missed the core of his theories.
Therefore, we should re-examine the methodological frame of Althusser. Although I claim this book “text interpretation”, analysis toward texts, compared with my other two books , is not developed strictly in the chronological order, but in seminar approach. The core texts for interpretation in this book are Pour Marx, Lire Le Capital and Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.   Pour Marx (1965) includes seven articles written by Althusser between February 1960 and March 1965.   Lire Le Capital (1965), besides papers by Balibar and others, includes 2 essays of Althusser, “Foreword” and “The Object of Capital”. These papers were delivered in the course of a seminar on Capital held at the École Normale Supérieure early in 1965.  And these two represent collectivity of his ten papers in 1965 and they are Althusser’s greatest academic achievements. I think this is the only theoretical summit Althusser realized in his lifetime. Hitoshi Imamura extols: the year of 1965 is that of thought earthquake.    Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses was written between January and April of 1969. It is Althusser’s another “new idea” when he was stimulated by Lacan’s theories. It is supposed to be his swansong.
In this book, foreword intends to offer an important reading guideline. In Part I, the focus of discussion is on Althusser’s methodological frame which is much neglected among Chinese researchers. Here I intend to display the limitations of Althusser’s text structure, i. e., his not explaining components of Problematic and various borrowed theories. He assumed that readers in different time domains and different contexts have a prevision of theoretical paradigm of 1960s French ideology. And this is the important reason of his text interpretation going astray. Arthur Hirsch exclaims that Althusser’s edifice has been founded on egoism. Problematic and Symptomatic are discussed respectively in Chapter 1 and 2. They are what I claim to be best in the book. In Chapter 3 and 4, I “retrieve” the long-ignored Althusser’s views concerning epistemology and specifically discuss the historical position of “Epistemological Rupture” in history of ideology. Then in Chapter 5 and 6, attention shifts to Althusser’s most influential theory of ideology in the present age. Then in Part II, I examined and analyzed Althusser’s interpretation on Marx. Chapter 7 focuses on the discussion of the theoretical fluctuation in western academia in specific historic context, i. e., the “de-Stalinization” after Twentieth Party Congress of USSR Communist Party. This means the recovery of the humanistic roots of Marx’s thought. Althusser, however, opposed this trend and fought for Marx. Althusser is literally like a deflagrating torch in the Western left-wing circle. Chapter 8 comments on Althusser’s views on traditional Marxism philosophy methodology, and such “new hermeneutics” are important contents yet neglected by us. The last three chapters examine and re-annotate Althusser’s role in Marxism philosophy history; and here I made some breakthrough in research in this aspect.        
 Here I shall point out: Mr. Sun Bokui and I, because of our comprehension model toward ideological history of Marxist philosophy, are sometimes mistaken to bear analogy to Althusser. Hereby this book also intends to help us make a clear theoretical distinction from Althusser.
Two volumes of his autobiographical writings, L'Avenir diure Longtemps and Les Faits were issued in 1992 posthumously. In them, Althusser revealed his psychological course. Wu Jing (my student), on the basis of this book and other materials, compiled a brief biography of Althusser: “Althusser: Self Narration” and is an addendum to the book.