This thesis is an interpretive exercise aimed at clarifying the structure of Marx's theory of ideology. It is also a critical exploration of issues stemming from Marx's ideas about ideology. The central argument of the thesis is that Marx's theory of ideology is constituted by two concepts of ideology, the early concept, sketched in the German Ideology, according to which ideologies are the ruling ideas of a society corresponding to the economic interests of the ruling class, and the later concept, present in the Capital, according to which ideologies conform to the appearances of the mode of production. The early concept is applicable to all class societies, but the later concept holds true of societies based on commodity production for exchange-value. The early concept identifies ideologies in terms of three modes of representation of social phenomena: inversion, mystification, and universalisation. The later concept adds two more modes of representation: reflection and fetishism. We argue that, although the early and the later concepts are individually consistent, there are important incompatibilities between them, and that this renders Marx's theory inconsistent. Chapter One points out the importance of Marx's critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right in the development of Marx's early concept of ideology. Chapter Two is a critical interpretation of Marx's early concept of ideology as sketched in his German Ideology. Chapter Three is devoted to an analysis of Marx's later concept and of the question of the truth of ideology in terms of the two concepts. We conclude with some unsystematic reflections on the relation between the two concepts. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA)

Die vorliegende Arbeit skizziert eine materialistische Antwort auf die Frage, welche gesellschaftliche Bedeutung Sprache hat, in welchem Sinne sie Bedingung für und inwiefern sie in Abhängigkeit von gesellschaftlichen Strukturen ist. Den Rahmen bildet die materialistische Geschichtsauffassung und Gesellschaftstheorie. Sie wird zunächst in ihrer Ausarbeitung durch Marx und Engels ohne Verbindung mit einer entwickelten materialistischen Sprachtheorie eingeführt. Es folgt ein Gang durch sprachtheoretische Fragestellungen, die unterhalb der gesellschaftstheoretischen Ebene angesiedelt sind: Wittgensteins Auffassung der Sprache als Regelfolgepraxis wird als Idealismuskritik des Abbildungsparadigmas in der Sprachphilosophie gedeutet, anhand der Kulturhistorischen Schule der russischen Psychologie wird Sprache als Orientierungsmittel und materielle Basis komplexerer Zwecksetzungen bestimmt und schließlich an Brandoms pragmatistischer Rekonstruktion der logischen Gliederung der Sprache die Stellung innersprachlicher Regelstrukturen diskutiert. Die gesellschaftliche Ebene wird im letzten Kapitel anhand von materialistischen Gesellschaftstheorien der Sprache (Gramsci), der Ideologie (Projekt Ideologietheorie) und des Diskurses (Fairclough) wieder aufgenommen und mit den Resultaten der vorangegangenen Kapitel vermittelt. Dabei wird die zuvor entwickelte Bestimmung der Sprache als Mittel der Orientierung und Zwecksetzung im Verhältnis zu nichtsprachlichen gesellschaftlichen Strukturen und ihrer historischen Besonderung entfaltet. / The text provides an outline of a materialist answer to what significance language has in relation to society, in which sense it is a condition for and in how far it is dependent on social structures. The materialist notion of history and materialist social theory serve as theoretical framework. They are first introduced as developed by Marx and Engels without any relation to a full-fledged materialist language theory. In a second step problems of language theory below the level of social theory are tackled: Wittgenstein‘s concept of language as a praxis of rule-following is interpreted as a critique of the idealism that informs the representation paradigm in language philosophy; following the cultural-historical psychology language is defined as means of orientation and material basis for complex goal setting; Brandom‘s pragmatist reconstruction of the logical structure of language serves as background for discussing the status of immanent rule structures of language. The social level is then taken up again and mediated with the results of the discussion of sub-social language theories by drawing on materialist social theories of language (Gramsci), of ideology (Projekt Ideologietheorie), and of discourse (Fairclough). The definition of language as a means of orientiation and goal setting is developed in its relation to non-language social structures and their historical specificity.