The Interpretive Perspectives of Marx and Engels’s Concept of Ideology

In the tradition of Marxist ideological theory, there exist three ways of characterizing the concept of “ideology”: the negative mode, the descriptive mode, and the affirmative mode. Among these, with regard to the relevant texts of Marx and Engels on the issue of ideology, neither the “affirmative” nor the “descriptive” (neutral) mode of characterization is present, because both modes lack corresponding textual evidence and would create difficulties for us in theoretical interpretation. Consequently, Marx and Engels’s understanding and interpretive stance toward “ideology” is, in the final analysis, “negative.” This negative concept of ideology was put forward out of an emphasis on the critical factors inherent in “ideology”; as a force for criticizing ideology, it can provide a standard for resolving the problem of the rationalization of thought.

在马克思主义的意识形态理论传统中存在着三种对“意识形态”概念进行定性的方式：否定性的方式、描述性的方式和肯定性的方式。其中，就马克思恩格斯关于意识形态问题的相关文本而言，“肯定性”与“描述性”（中性）这两种定性方式是不在场的，因为无论两者之中的哪一种定性方式都缺乏相应的文本依据，并且会给我们造成理论阐释上的困难。因而，马克思恩格斯对“意识形态”在理解方式与阐释姿态上归根结底是“否定性”的。这种“否定性”意识形态概念的提出是出于对“意识形态”中蕴含的批判性因素的强调，它作为一种批判意识形态的力量可以为思想合理化问题的解决提供标准。

The Logical Difficulties of the “Affirmative” Concept of Ideology

“肯定性”意识形态概念的逻辑困难

In Marx and Engels’s view of ideology, the very notion of an “affirmative” concept of ideology is itself impossible, because this formulation undoubtedly cancels and ignores the tension between “ideology” and “science.” In the eyes of Marx and Engels, historical science (Wissenschaft) is a general expression of the real relations in existing class struggles and historical movements, while natural science (natural science) is not only a systematic and theoretical expression of the objective laws of nature’s operation and material exchange but can also be transformed into actual productive forces, driving historical change. That is to say, these two interrelated aspects of “science” are, for both Marx and Engels and for the historical development of humanity, an “affirmative,” positive force. Because scientific theory not only takes the pursuit of truth as its field of cultivation and ultimate goal but can also be transformed into a real material force, advancing history. Thus, for Marx and Engels, ideology, as a distorted, illusory form of consciousness that “misrepresents human history” and “completely sets aside human history,” is in fact outside the realm of “science”; consequently, in the context of Marx and Engels’s texts, “ideology” cannot be reduced to something “affirmative.”

在马克思恩格斯的意识形态观中，“肯定性”意识形态概念这一说法本身不具备可能性，因为这一提法无疑是对“意识形态”与“科学”之间张力的取消与忽视。在马克思恩格斯眼中，历史科学（Wissenschaft）是对现存的阶级斗争以及历史运动中的真实关系的一般表述，而自然科学（natural science）不但是对自然界运行与物质交换的客观规律的系统化、理论化表达，还能转化为现实的生产力，推动历史的变革。也就是说，“科学”的这两个相互联系的方面不仅对于马克思恩格斯，而且对于人类的历史发展来说，都是一种“肯定性”的、积极的力量。因为，科学的理论不仅将追求真理作为自己的耕作领域和最终目标，还能转化为现实的物质力量，推动历史前进。这样，在马克思恩格斯那里，意识形态作为“曲解人类史”与“完全撇开人类史”的、颠倒的、虚幻的观念形式其实是在“科学”领域之外的；进而，在马克思恩格斯文本的语境中，“意识形态”也不可能被归结为一种“肯定性”的东西。

To make “ideology” into an “affirmative” system of ideas similar to “science” requires the creation of historical conditions, but people seem not to understand this conditionality—the clarification or unveiling of social contradictions. Marx and Engels believed that the basic contradiction between productive forces and relations of production is the fundamental driving force of historical development, and that ideology in all past class societies was a concealment and distortion of this fundamental social contradiction, thereby also constituting a distortion of real historical relations. So how can the inherent illusoriness, obscuring nature, and distorting mechanism of ideology in all past class societies be overcome? In this regard, although Marx and Engels did not state it explicitly, they showed us a theoretical direction for overcoming “illusory consciousness”—the scientific definition of the “proletariat.” In their view, the proletariat is a class that cannot emancipate itself from oppression and exploitation without abolishing all oppression and exploitation in society; it is the last class before the disappearance of all class rule. This means that the class interests of the proletariat are the most fundamental and universal interests of the broadest masses of the people in modern society. Therefore, in its practical revolutionary struggle, the proletariat does not need to use illusory principles and theories to conceal social contradictions and fabricate the legitimacy of itself and its actions. Moreover, Marx and Engels pointed out that in the communist society, the true form of community toward which the proletarian movement ultimately tends, because the contradiction between particular interests and common interests that once existed in the illusory community is eliminated, ideology itself will spontaneously disappear.

要使“意识形态”成为一种类似于“科学”的“肯定性”的观念体系，需要靠历史条件的创造，但人们似乎并不理解这种条件性——对社会矛盾的澄清或去蔽。马克思恩格斯认为，生产力与生产关系的基本矛盾运动是历史发展的根本动力，而过去一切阶级社会中的意识形态就是对这种社会根本矛盾的掩盖与曲解，因而同时也构成对真实历史关系的曲解。那么，如何才能克服意识形态在过去一切阶级社会中固有的虚幻性、遮蔽性和歪曲机制呢？对此，马克思恩格斯虽然没有明说，但他们为我们展示了一种克服“虚幻意识”的理论指向——对“无产阶级”的科学界定。在他们看来，无产阶级是一个如果不能消灭社会上所有压迫和剥削，就不能使自己从被压迫与被剥削中解放出来的阶级，它是一切阶级统治消逝前的最后一个阶级。这意味着，无产阶级的阶级利益就是现代社会中最广大人民群众的最根本、最普遍的利益。因此，无产阶级在现实的革命实践中就不需要用虚幻的原则与理论去掩盖社会矛盾和塑造关于他们自身及其行动的合法性。并且，马克思恩格斯还指出，在无产阶级运动最终朝向的共产主义社会这一真正的共同体形式中，由于曾经存在于虚幻的共同体中的特殊利益与共同利益的矛盾的消灭，意识形态本身也会自行消失。

This shows that ideology and scientific theory are not diametrically opposed. Or rather, an “affirmative” interpretation of “ideology” is not impossible. After Marx and Engels, Lenin, on the basis of inheriting Marx and Engels’s view of ideology, scientifically constructed the theory of proletarian ideology during the revolutionary period, presenting us with the initial reality of the transformation of “illusory ideology” into “scientific ideology.” In summary, although Marx and Engels foreshadowed a theoretical possibility for overcoming the illusoriness of ideology, in the final analysis, the “affirmative” concept of ideology is absent from Marx and Engels’s texts.

这说明，意识形态与科学的理论之间并不是截然对立的。或者说，对“意识形态”的“肯定性”阐释并非是不可能的。在马克思恩格斯之后，列宁在继承马克思恩格斯意识形态观的基础上对革命时期的无产阶级意识形态理论进行了科学建构，为我们展现了“虚幻的意识形态”转为“科学的意识形态”的最初现实性。总的来说，尽管马克思恩格斯向我们预示了一种克服意识形态虚幻性的理论可能，但归根结底，“肯定性”意识形态概念在马克思恩格斯的文本中是不在场的。

The Lack of Textual Basis for the “Descriptive” Concept of Ideology

“描述性”意识形态概念在文本依据上的缺乏

Researchers often believe that Marx’s “neutral” concept of ideology or “descriptive” concept of ideology originates from Marx’s famous “economic base—superstructure” metaphor: “The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.” In this passage, “forms of social consciousness” is expressed as the “intellectual superstructure” or the entire process of the spiritual life of human society. According to other scholars’ research, the Chinese term “社会意识形式” (forms of social consciousness) corresponds to a different German word used by Marx than the word corresponding to “ideology.” Thus, it can be seen that in the German context of the above text, Marx consciously distinguished between the two concepts of “forms of consciousness” and “ideology.”

研究者们往往认为马克思的“中性”的意识形态或“描述性”意识形态概念来源于马克思著名的“经济基础—上层建筑”比喻：“这些生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构，即有法律的和政治的上层建筑竖立其上并有一定的社会意识形式与之相适应的现实基础。物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程。”在这段话中，“社会意识形式”被表述为“思想的上层建筑”或人类社会精神生活的全过程。而据其他学者考证，中文文本中的“社会意识形式”对应的马克思所用的德文词与“意识形态”所对应的德文词是不一样的。由此可见，在上述文本的德文语境中，马克思是有意识地对“意识形式”与“意识形态”两个概念进行区分。

In fact, in this general discussion of social existence, only the concept of “forms of social consciousness” is interpreted by Marx in a “descriptive” manner, that is, treating “forms of social consciousness” as a general definition of the sum total of various forms of human consciousness in history, thus without any “evaluative” coloring; conversely, the concept of “ideology” is presented in a “negative” way in the subsequent text: “In considering such transformations a distinction should always be made between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic—in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out.” Here, Marx points out that the various forms of “ideology” are the consciousness or reflection of the changes and conflicts occurring in the sphere of social production; of course, this reflection is not a true expression of reality, but a “distorted” one, because ideology strives to overcome these real contradictions (using illusory principles and concepts to shape, divert, or dilute contradictions). Therefore, “Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness.” That is to say, the realm of ideology is not without contradictions and struggles, but is full of them; the reason people cannot know the reality behind the veil of ideology is that ideology uses inverted, illusory discourse to conceal its own self-inconsistent obscuring mechanism—a truth that Marx and Engels had already taught us in *The German Ideology*.

其实，在这段对社会存在的总体性论述中，只有“社会意识形式”这个概念是被马克思“描述性”地阐释了的，即把“社会意识形式”视为对历史上人类各种意识形式之总和的一般界定，因而不具有任何“评价性”色彩；反之，“意识形态”概念则是在后文处以“否定性”的方式被呈现：“在考察这些变革时，必须时刻把下面两者区别开来：一种是生产的经济条件方面所发生的物质的、可以用自然科学的精确性指明的变革，一种是人们借以意识到这个冲突并力求把它克服的那些法律的、政治的、宗教的、艺术的或哲学的，简言之，意识形态的形式。”在这里，马克思指出“意识形态”的各种形式是对社会生产领域中发生的变革与冲突的意识或反映，当然这种反映并不是对现实的真实表达，而是“歪曲”的，因为意识形态力求把这些真实的矛盾克服（用虚幻的原则与观念去塑造、转移或稀释矛盾）。所以，“我们判断一个人不能以他对自己的看法为根据，同样，我们判断这样一个变革时代也不能以它的意识为根据”。也就是说，意识形态的领域并非不存在矛盾与斗争，而是充满了矛盾与斗争，人们之所以无法知晓意识形态之幕背后的现实，是源于意识形态用颠倒、虚幻的话语掩饰自身的不自洽的遮蔽机制，而这正是马克思恩格斯早在《德意志意识形态》中就已经向我们讲授过的道理。

Thus, it can be seen that those views holding that Marx and Engels held a “neutral” view of ideology mostly stem from a misreading of the texts. But this does not mean that it is impossible to speak of a “descriptive” concept of “ideology” outside the context of Marx and Engels’s texts; rather, it means that doing so may lead to a danger: when we unthinkingly incorporate the definition of “descriptive ideology” into our existing understanding of the concept of ideology, we easily fall into the rut of a generalized interpretation of Marx’s view of ideology, that is, understanding “ideology” too broadly as the totality of culture and social consciousness, and this generalized interpretation in turn implies the dissolution of the critical connotation of the concept of ideology.

由此可见，那些认为马克思恩格斯持有的是一种“中性”的意识形态观的观点多半源于文本上的误读。但这并非意味着在马克思恩格斯的文本语境之外谈及“描述性”的“意识形态”概念是不可能的，而是说这样可能会导致一种危险：当我们不假思索地就把“描述性意识形态”这一界定纳入自身对意识形态概念的既有认知时，我们很容易落入对马克思的意识形态观泛化解读的窠臼，即把“意识形态”过于宽泛地理解为文化、社会意识的总体，而这种泛化的解读又意味着意识形态概念批判性意涵的消解。

The Rationality of the “Negative” Interpretive Mode of the Concept of Ideology

意识形态概念的“否定性”阐释方式的合理性

Looking at the history of the evolution of Marxist ideology theory, researchers’ interpretations of the concept of ideology mainly derive from two dimensions of meaning, namely the epistemological dimension of meaning and the sociological dimension of meaning. Among them, the epistemological dimension of meaning refers to the angle of interpreting the concept of ideology based on the criterion of truth or falsehood in cognition, which can also be called the philosophical, ontological dimension of meaning; this dimension of meaning more often involves the theoretical issues of ideology. The sociological dimension of meaning, on the other hand, interprets the concept of ideology from the perspective of the roles, functions, and actual impacts that ideology assumes in society; this dimension more often involves the practical issues of ideology. These two different interpretive angles are typified by Lenin’s and the early Althusser’s views on ideology, respectively. Each deepens and expands one characteristic of Marx and Engels’ concept of “ideology,” thereby interpreting their own unique views on ideology. Among them, Lenin placed more emphasis on the class nature of ideology, regarding ideology as a conceptual domain and theoretical weapon of class struggle; while the early Althusser placed more emphasis on the illusory nature of ideology, viewing ideology as a pre-scientific or non-scientific “system of representations.” As schools of Marxist ideology theory after Marx and Engels, Lenin’s and the early Althusser’s views on ideology respectively embody the epistemological meaning and the sociological meaning of Marx and Engels’ concept of ideology. And we believe that it is precisely these two intertwined meanings that constitute the complete, genuine “negative” implication of Marx and Engels’ concept of ideology—dialectical negation. This is the principle inherently contained within Marx and Engels’ “negative” view of ideology, which manifests as the “immanent critique” in the process of ideology’s evolution and renewal. As a result of Marx and Engels’ study of “ideology” within the framework of historical dialectics, it is also an embodiment of the dialectical “sublation” spirit contained in Marx and Engels’ view of ideology. Specifically, this “dialectical negativity” in the view of ideology is constituted by the following two aspects.

纵观马克思主义意识形态理论演变史，研究者们对意识形态概念的阐释主要来源于两种意义维度，即认识论的意义维度和社会学的意义维度。其中，认识论的意义维度是指以认识上的真假问题为标准去阐释意识形态概念的角度，也可称为哲学的、本体论式的意义维度，这种意义维度更多的是涉及意识形态的理论问题；而社会学的意义维度则是从意识形态在社会中承担的角色、功能以及产生的实际影响去阐释意识形态概念的角度，这个维度更多的是涉及意识形态的实践问题。这两种不同的阐释角度分别以列宁和早期的阿尔都塞的意识形态观为典型代表，他们各执马克思恩格斯的“意识形态”概念的其中一个特性加以深化和拓展，进而阐释出自己独特的意识形态观。其中，列宁更加偏重于意识形态的阶级性，把意识形态视为一个阶级斗争的观念领域和理论武器；而早期的阿尔都塞更看重意识形态的虚幻性，将意识形态视为前科学或非科学的“再现体系”。作为马克思恩格斯之后的马克思主义意识形态理论流派，列宁与早期的阿尔都塞的意识形态观分别体现了马克思恩格斯的意识形态概念的认识论意义与社会学意义。而我们认为，正是由于这两种相互交织的意义才构成了马克思恩格斯意识形态概念的完整的、真正意义上的“否定性”意蕴——辩证的否定。这是马克思恩格斯的“否定性”意识形态观中内在包含的原则，它表现为意识形态在演变与更新过程中的“内在批判性”。作为马克思恩格斯在历史辩证法的框架下研究“意识形态”得出的结果，也是马克思恩格斯的意识形态观蕴含的辩证“扬弃”精神的体现。具体来说，这种意识形态观上的“辩证否定性”由以下两个方面构成。

First, immanent critique in the epistemological sense. In *The German Ideology*, Marx pointed out the illusory nature of ideology in its inverted reflection of reality and concealment of history, which fundamentally belongs to an epistemological definition of the “negative” concept of ideology. However, Marx did not only see the illusory, fantastical, and distorted nature of ideology within the specific content of bourgeois ideology; at the same time, he also saw in the liberal enlightenment ideals proposed by bourgeois politicians and thinkers the possible direction of future human society—communism. Therefore, in Marx’s view, ideology is not only illusory consciousness in the epistemological sense—that is, a system of ideas that conceals and distorts real social relations and economic facts, distinguished from scientific cognition—but also a transcendent conceptual force. This transcendent force pointing toward the future can inspire insightful and ambitious individuals (the working class) to change reality and realize ideals. That is to say, to achieve ideological liberation and thereby guide scientific revolution and practice, it is necessary to expose and criticize ideology as illusory consciousness that conceals and distorts social contradictions, while also seeing the transcendent force contained within ideology, so as to oppose and negate ideology’s conservatism and the false legitimacy created by its concealment mechanism. This is the true intention of the “immanent critique” posture in Marx’s “negative” concept of ideology. Of course, Marx also recognized that immanent critique in the ideological domain can only be a transcendence of ideas; the actual transformation still requires relying on overthrowing decayed and backward relations of production to achieve the practice of “sublating” contradictions.

第一，认识论意义上的内在批判。马克思在《德意志意识形态》中指出了意识形态颠倒地反映现实、掩盖历史的虚幻特质，这在根本上属于一种认识论意义上的“否定性”意识形态概念界定，但马克思在资产阶级意识形态的具体内容中并不只是看到了意识形态的虚幻的、异想天开的、歪曲的性质，同时他还在资产阶级政治家与思想家提出的自由主义启蒙理想中看到了未来人类社会的可能性方向——共产主义。因此，在马克思看来，意识形态并不只是认识论意义上的虚幻意识，即与科学的认识相区别的掩盖、歪曲真实社会关系和经济事实的观念体系，还是一种超越性的观念力量；这种指向未来的超越性力量可以激发有识有志之士（工人阶级）去改变现实从而实现理想。也就是说，要实现思想上的解放进而指导科学的革命与实践，必须揭露与批判意识形态作为虚幻的意识对社会矛盾的掩盖与歪曲，同时还要看到意识形态内部蕴含的超越性力量，以此去对抗、否定意识形态的保守性和用掩盖机制营造的虚假的合法性。这就是马克思“否定性”意识形态概念的“内在批判”姿态的真正意图。当然，马克思也同样认识到：意识形态领域的内在批判只能是思想观念的超越，现实的改造还需要依靠推翻腐朽落后的生产关系去达成“扬弃”矛盾的实践。

Second, the principle of sublation in the sociological sense. The sublation of ideology in the sociological sense can be seen not only as a process of unveiling within ideology in the epistemological sense, but also as the sublation of bourgeois ideology by the proletariat’s ideological system and the self-transcendence of the proletariat’s ideological system. First, the establishment of Marxist philosophy was based on the critical inheritance and sublating transcendence of classical German philosophy. Specifically, this is manifested as: the sublation of the critical spirit of Kant’s dualistic philosophy, the sublation of the rational form of dialectics in Hegel’s philosophy of self-consciousness, and the sublation of Feuerbach’s theory of alienation and abstract intuitive method. Second, socialism, as the ideological system of the proletariat, also underwent a process of sublation from utopia to science. Before Marx founded scientific socialism, utopian socialism had initially achieved four accomplishments: first, it regarded capitalist society as a stage in the historical development of human society that would inevitably be surpassed, refuting the eternity of capitalism; second, it attempted to explain the political system of society through economic production, and the material foundation of social existence and development initially entered its field of vision; third, it touched upon the essence of class struggle in the complex and diverse struggles of human history; fourth, to a certain extent, it made reasonable depictions of the state of human existence in a future society. Although utopian socialism made relatively reasonable conjectures about the essence, driving forces, and development trends of human history, it ultimately did not recognize the true reasons why human history developed as it did, and in many aspects it remained utopian. The work of making socialism a scientific theory was completed by Marx. The historical materialism and the theory of surplus value he founded, on the basis of inheriting the reasonable legacy of utopian socialism, sublated its utopian character and truly unveiled the mysterious veil of historical essence. Third, the process by which Marxist philosophy, as the scientific worldview of the proletariat, matured and perfected itself during its dissemination also exhibited a posture of self-sublation and self-transcendence. In his later years, facing the tendency of the “Youth Faction” [1]1 The “Youth Faction” (Jugendliche) refers to a group of young, radical intellectuals within the German Social Democratic Party in the late 19th century who advocated a simplistic and dogmatic interpretation of Marxism, which Engels criticized for its lack of dialectical and historical nuance. within the German Social Democratic Party to simplify, mechanize, and vulgarize Marxism, Engels achieved a shift in the interpretive focus of historical materialism: he emphatically discussed the relative independence of the ideological superstructure, primarily ideology, and its active reaction on the economic base. In his later years, Engels’ self-criticism and self-transcendence in the face of challenges to historical materialism undoubtedly defended and developed historical materialism, thereby promoting the further perfection of Marxist theory and its deeper dissemination within the international workers’ movement.

第二，社会学意义上的扬弃原则。意识形态在社会学意义上的扬弃不仅可视为意识形态内部在认识论意义上的去蔽过程，还表现为无产阶级的思想体系对资产阶级意识形态的扬弃、无产阶级思想体系的自我超越。首先，马克思主义哲学的创立建立在对德国古典哲学批判性继承和扬弃性超越的基础之上。具体表现为：对康德二元论哲学的批判精神的扬弃，对黑格尔自我意识哲学的辩证法合理形态的扬弃，对费尔巴哈异化思想和抽象直观方法的扬弃。其次，社会主义作为无产阶级的思想体系，也有一个从空想到科学的扬弃过程。在马克思创立科学社会主义之前，空想社会主义初步取得了四项成就：其一，将资本主义社会看作人类社会历史发展过程中必然会被跨越的一个阶段，驳斥资本主义的永恒性；其二，试图用经济生产来说明社会的政治制度，社会存在和发展的物质基础问题初步进入了他们的视域；其三，触及了人类社会历史上纷繁复杂斗争的阶级斗争实质；其四，在一定程度上对未来社会中人的存在状况进行了合理描绘。尽管空想社会主义对人类历史的本质、动力以及发展趋势作出了较为合理的构想，但毕竟没有认识到人类历史之所以如此这般发展的真正原因，在很多方面都具有空想性。而使社会主义成为一种科学理论的工作是由马克思来完成的，他创立的唯物史观和剩余价值理论在继承空想社会主义合理遗产的基础上扬弃了其空想性，真正揭开了历史本质的神秘面纱。再次，作为无产阶级科学世界观的马克思主义哲学在传播过程中走向成熟与完善的历程同样也表现出一种自我扬弃、自我超越的姿态。晚年恩格斯面对德国社会民主党内部“青年派”对待马克思主义的简单化、机械化、庸俗化倾向，实现了历史唯物主义的阐释重心的转移：着重论述了以意识形态为主的思想上层建筑的相对独立性及其对经济基础的能动反作用。晚年恩格斯面对历史唯物主义遭遇的挑战进行的自我批判与自我超越无疑捍卫、发展了历史唯物主义，从而促进了马克思主义理论的进一步完善，及其在国际工人运动中的深入传播。

Although the three interpretive modes of the concept of ideology—“affirmative,” “descriptive,” and “negative”—objectively exist within the traditions of Marxist or non-Marxist ideology theory, possessing varying degrees of rationality depending on the specific textual context, we believe that, based on the true implication of the “immanent critique” of the concept of ideology, only the “negative” interpretive mode is the most reasonable way to understand Marx and Engels’ view of ideology.

尽管“肯定性”“描述性”与“否定性”这三种意识形态概念的阐释方式客观地存在于马克思主义或非马克思主义的意识形态理论传统之中，随着具体文本语境的差异而具备不同程度的合理性，但我们认为，根据意识形态概念“内在批判性”的真正意蕴，只有“否定性”这一阐释方式才是马克思恩格斯意识形态观最合理的解读方式。

Online Editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗