Editing Louis Althusser (section)

===Contradiction and overdetermination===
An analysis understood in terms of interdependent practices helps people to conceive of how society is organized, but also permits them to comprehend social change and thus provides a theory of history. Althusser explains the reproduction of the relations of production by reference to aspects of ideological and political practice; conversely, the emergence of new production relations can be explained by the failure of these mechanisms. Marx's theory seems to posit a system in which an imbalance in two parts could lead to compensatory adjustments at other levels, or sometimes to a major reorganization of the whole. To develop this idea, Althusser relies on the concepts of contradiction and non-contradiction, which he claims are illuminated by their relation to a complex structured whole. Practices are contradictory when they "grate" on one another and non-contradictory when they support one another. Althusser elaborates on these concepts by reference to [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]]'s analysis of the [[Russian Revolution of 1917]].<ref>Althusser, L. (1969). "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 94–100, in ''For Marx'', pp. 87–128.</ref>

Lenin posited that despite widespread discontent throughout Europe in the early 20th century, Russia was the country in which revolution occurred because it contained all the contradictions possible within a single state at the time.<ref>Althusser, L., "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 95.</ref> In his words, it was the "weakest link in a chain of imperialist states".<ref>Althusser, L. (1969). "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 97.</ref> He explained the revolution in relation to two groups of circumstances: firstly, the existence within Russia of large-scale exploitation in cities, mining districts, etc., a disparity between urban industrialization and medieval conditions in the countryside, and a lack of unity amongst the ruling class; secondly, a foreign policy which played into the hands of revolutionaries, such as the elites who had been exiled by the [[Tsar]] and had become sophisticated [[socialists]].<ref>Althusser, L. (1969). "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 96–97.</ref>

For Althusser, this example reinforces his claim that Marx's explanation of social change is more complex than the result of a single contradiction between the forces and the relations of production.<ref>Althusser, L., "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 99.</ref> The differences between events in Russia and [[Western Europe]] highlight that a contradiction between forces and relations of production may be necessary, but not sufficient, to bring about revolution.<ref>Althusser, L. (1969). "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 99.</ref> The circumstances that produced revolution in Russia were heterogeneous, and cannot be seen to be aspects of one large contradiction.<ref name="ReferenceA">Althusser, L., "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 100</ref> Each was a contradiction within a particular social totality. From this, Althusser concludes that Marx's concept of contradiction is inseparable from the concept of a complex structured social whole. To emphasize that changes in social structures relate to numerous contradictions, Althusser describes these changes as "[[Overdetermination|overdetermined]]", using a term taken from Sigmund Freud.<ref>Althusser, L., "Contradiction and Overdetermination", 101</ref> This interpretation allows people to account for the way in which many different circumstances may play a part in the course of events, and how these circumstances may combine to produce unexpected social changes or "ruptures".<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

However, Althusser does not mean to say that the events that determine social changes all have the same causal status. While a part of a complex whole, economic practice is a "structure in dominance": it plays a major part in determining the relations between other spheres, and has more effect on them than they have on it. The most prominent aspect of society (the religious aspect in feudal formations and the economic aspect in capitalist formations) is called the "dominant instance", and is in turn determined "in the last instance" by the economy.{{sfn|Benton|1984|p=63}} For Althusser, the economic practice of a society determines which other formation of that society dominates the society as a whole.

Althusser's understanding of contradiction in terms of the dialectic attempts to rid Marxism of the influence and vestiges of Hegelian (idealist) dialectics, and is a component part of his general anti-humanist position. In his reading, the Marxist understanding of social totality is not to be confused with the Hegelian. Where Hegel sees the different features of each historical epoch&nbsp;– its art, politics, religion, etc.&nbsp;– as expressions of a single [[essence]], Althusser believes each social formation to be "decentred", i.e., that it cannot be reduced or simplified to a unique central point.{{sfn|Benton|1984|pp=62-63}}