
Louis Althusser's theory of ideology, articulated most prominently in his essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses," offers a framework for understanding how individuals become "subjects" through a process he terms *interpellation*. Denise Rileys commentary on Althussers theory highlights the sheer perversity of its simultaneity, questioning its implications for the very conception it seeks to illuminate. This essay will analyze how Althussers notion of interpellation and its critiquesespecially the tension surrounding the timing of the subjects formationaffect the understanding of subjectivity in literary criticism. Furthermore, it will explore the contributions of poststructuralist and psychoanalytic theories, specifically those of Jacques Lacan and Judith Butler, to the practice of literary criticism, focusing on identity and subjectivity.

Althusser argues that ideology operates through material practices embedded in ideological state apparatuses (ISAs) such as education, religion, and media. These institutions "hail" or interpellate individuals into subjects, embedding them within a pre-existing ideological framework. For Althusser, interpellation is not a process that unfolds over time but a simultaneous actindividuals become subjects the moment they are interpellated. Riley, in her critique, draws attention to this simultaneity, suggesting that it undermines the conception it aims to clarify. The act of becoming a subject seems paradoxically predetermined; the moment of choice or agency is wiped out, as individuals are always already within ideology.

In literary criticism, this concept raises questions about the agency of characters and readers alike. If subjectivity is constituted through ideology and the subjects position is already fixed, how do characters in literature or readers interpreting texts exercise agency? For example, in a Victorian novel like *Jane Eyre*, the protagonists quest for self-definition might be reinterpreted as a negotiation within ideological structures, such as gender norms and class expectations. However, if subjectivity is always already constituted by ideology, one might ask whether Janes narrative of self-empowerment is an illusion of agency produced by her ideological positioning. Althussers framework thus invites literary critics to interrogate the ideological underpinnings of identity formation in texts.

Jacques Lacans psychoanalytic theory complements Althussers ideas but complicates the understanding of subjectivity by introducing the concept of misrecognition (*mconnaissance*). In Lacans *mirror stage*, a child perceives their image in the mirror and identifies with it as a coherent, unified self. However, this identification is fundamentally a misrecognition; the image is an external construct, not an internal essence. For Lacan, the subject is always divided, never fully coinciding with itself.

When applied to literary criticism, Lacans theory suggests that characters identities in literature are constructed through a similar process of misrecognition. In *Hamlet*, for example, the protagonists existential crisis can be seen as a Lacanian struggle with the gap between his perceived self and the reality of his fragmented subjectivity. The plays engagement with questions of identityTo be, or not to beechoes Lacans insight that subjectivity is inherently unstable, shaped by a continual negotiation between the symbolic order (language and societal norms) and the subjects desires.

Moreover, Lacans idea of the symbolic order aligns with Althussers notion of ideology as an external structure that shapes subjectivity. In both frameworks, the subject is interpellated into a pre-existing system that defines their identity. However, where Althusser emphasizes the seamless simultaneity of this process, Lacan foregrounds its inherent instability and the subjects alienation. This distinction offers literary critics a way to analyze texts that reveal cracks in the ideological or symbolic order. Postmodern literature, such as the works of Samuel Beckett or Don DeLillo, often highlights these cracks, depicting fragmented characters who resist or fail to align with ideological norms.

Judith Butlers theory of performativity further complicates the relationship between subjectivity and ideology by emphasizing the iterative nature of identity formation. Drawing on both Althusser and Lacan, Butler argues in *Gender Trouble* that identity is not a fixed essence but an ongoing performance, constituted through repeated acts that align with societal norms. For Butler, the subject emerges through the performance of gender, which is simultaneously constrained by and subversive of ideological structures.

Butlers notion of performativity builds on Althussers interpellation but rejects its totalizing implications. While Althusser suggests that individuals are always already subjects, Butler emphasizes the potential for resistance within the act of performance. Each repetition of normative behavior carries the possibility of deviation, allowing for the reconfiguration of identity. This perspective is particularly fruitful for literary criticism, as it opens up new ways to analyze characters and narratives that challenge or disrupt ideological norms.

For instance, in Toni Morrisons *Beloved*, the character of Sethe can be interpreted as performing motherhood in ways that both conform to and subvert ideological expectations. Sethes act of infanticide, motivated by a desire to protect her child from slavery, defies conventional notions of maternal identity. Butlers framework allows critics to see this act not as a rejection of motherhood but as a rearticulation of its meaning within a specific historical and ideological context. Through performativity, Sethes subjectivity emerges as both constrained by and resistant to the ideological forces of slavery and patriarchy.

Rileys critique of Althussers simultaneitythe idea that interpellation erases the timing of the turnraises important questions for literary criticism. If subjectivity is constituted instantaneously, how can literature, which often depicts identity as evolving over time, represent the process of becoming a subject? Rileys concern suggests that literary narratives inherently resist the notion of simultaneity, instead emphasizing temporal development and transformation.

This tension is evident in Bildungsroman novels, such as James Joyces *A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man*. The protagonist, Stephen Dedalus, undergoes a gradual process of self-discovery and ideological negotiation. His rejection of religion and embrace of artistic freedom reflect an evolving subjectivity that seems at odds with Althussers instantaneous interpellation. However, from a poststructuralist perspective, one might argue that Stephens journey is itself shaped by ideological forces, even as it appears to resist them. Literary criticism, therefore, must navigate the paradox of depicting subjectivity as both determined by and resistant to ideology.

Poststructuralist theories, including those of Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault, further challenge Althussers model by decentering the subject altogether. Barthes declaration of the death of the author in his essay of the same name suggests that meaning in literature is not determined by the authors intent but by the interplay of textual elements and the readers interpretation. This perspective shifts the focus from the author as a coherent subject to the text as a site of multiple, shifting meanings.

Foucaults concept of discourse extends this decentering by arguing that subjectivity is produced through networks of power and knowledge rather than originating from an autonomous individual. In his book *The Archaeology of Knowledge*, Foucault emphasizes that subjects are not the creators of discourse but its effects. For literary criticism, this means analyzing texts not as expressions of a unified authorial subject but as products of broader discursive formations. For instance, Mary Shelleys *Frankenstein* can be read not only as a reflection of Shelleys personal concerns but also as a commentary on Enlightenment discourses of science, creation, and human agency.

Althussers theory of interpellation provides a foundational framework for understanding how ideology shapes subjectivity, but its limitations, particularly the simultaneity of subject formation, invite further interrogation. The insights of Lacan, Butler, and poststructuralist theorists expand and complicate this framework, offering more nuanced approaches to the analysis of identity and subjectivity in literature. Lacans concept of misrecognition highlights the instability of subjectivity, while Butlers theory of performativity emphasizes the potential for resistance within ideological structures. Poststructuralist approaches decenter the subject, focusing instead on the interplay of textual and discursive elements.

In light of these theories, literary criticism becomes a practice of uncovering the ideological, psychological, and performative dimensions of subjectivity in texts. Whether analyzing the ideological positioning of characters in Victorian novels, the fragmented identities of postmodern literature, or the discursive formations of Gothic fiction, critics must grapple with the complex interplay between determination and agency, simultaneity and temporality. Rileys critique of Althusser reminds us that the process of subject formation is not only a theoretical question but also a deeply literary one, intricately bound to the temporal and narrative structures of storytelling.

