May 30, 2018:

"Structure-in-Dominance" has been seen in operation several times above. Althusser conceptualized totalities as hierarchical unities united by and determined by the element dominating the hierarchy. It's unclear to me whether Althusser viewed this as part of the ontological structure of reality, or as somehow built in to the structures of conceptual thinking, or as merely a handy conceptual tool. Doesn't matter. This logic is operative throughout his work.

Note that "dominance" is frequently tendential. As with all tendencies, the dominant tendency within structure-in-dominance has counter-tendencies working against it. These relationships can change: welcome to the revolution.

This logic is especially useful because it enables analysis of the conjuncture in a rigorous way. Here's an interesting example. In The Meaning of the Second World War, Ernest Mandel analyses the war as "a combination of five different conflicts" overlapping in time and space, evolving semi-independently, creating an unstable and contradictory unity which reacts on each of the constituents while giving the war as a whole its dynamic. Here's his list:

  1. An inter-imperialist war for world hegemony won by the United States.
  2. A war of self-defense won by the Soviet Union against the imperialist attempt to destroy it.
  3. A war of national liberation by the Chinese people against imperialism which changed its character as it developed, turning into an anti-capitalist revolution as it matured.
  4. A war of national liberation by other Asian peoples, one of which — the Vietnamese — changed character similarly to the Chinese experience during the course of its evolution.
  5. A war of national liberation by the occupied countries of Europe, which grew into anti-capitalist revolutions in Yugoslavia and Albania; civil war in Greece and northern Italy; while remaining under bourgeois control in France, Norway, etc.

In Mandel's analysis, the dominant conflict within this unity changed from one time period to the next. Obviously, #3 began first and lasted longest. From 1939-45, #1 dominated; in 1945-6, #5; 1947-9, #3; etc. A conjunctural analysis at any of those moments would show a different constellation of dominance among the elements as a whole. This analytical framework demonstrates more concretely than conventional histories the social dynamics as well as the temporal rhythms which were in part the outcome of those dynamics.

Large movement coalitions are structures-in-dominance. I'm thinking right now of the big antiwar coalitions which organized monster demonstrations in San Francisco in 1991. The leaderships were dominated by the traditional far-left sectarian groups who provided the staff and resources; but their successes were determined by the crucial leaven of seasoned nonaffiliated activists who oversaw the millions of day to day things that had to be done. Domination/determination: ask me and I'll explain how the group I belonged to at the time doubled its branch by orienting to this structure in an intelligent way.

For Althusser, "Intersectional Feminism" is an impossibility. An Althusserian critique would say, the "intersectional" attempt to think complexity — multiple determinations — is fruitful and correct. But, it's false to assert as Intersectional Feminism does that these determinants are co-equal in weight and consequence. Althusserians insist that one of these dominates the others, so that for Socialist Feminists class is ultimately more important than race or gender.

Althusser contrasts structure-in-dominance, which he identifies as the Marxist materialist conception of totality, with the Hegelian idealist "expressive totality", each part of which reflects the simple binary contradiction informing the whole.