The Simple yet Elusive: The Intertwinement of Ideology and Law in the Trajectory of Philosophical Thought (From Habermas to Foucault and Rancière)

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Roshdiyeh Higher Education Institute, Tabriz, Iran

2 Postdoctoral Researcher and Visiting Lecturer, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran

Abstract

The aim of this research is to analyze the multilayered relationship between ideology and law in the evolution of contemporary philosophical thought; a relationship that has often been explained in a one-dimensional or reductionist manner in the literature on the philosophy of law, and its complexities have been neglected. Focusing on three central approaches—Habermas, Foucault, and Rancière—and considering their formative theoretical backgrounds in Althusser, Arendt, and Lefebvre, this article seeks to show why the fusion of ideology with law is both self-evident and elusive; something that is referred to as the “impossible simpleton.” Methodologically, the present research is based on a critical-conceptual analysis and genealogy of legal discourses, and uses the main texts of the three thinkers to extract normative, power-oriented, and conflictual patterns in understanding law. The research findings show that law is linked to ideology at three levels; The legitimizing discursive level in Habermas, the disciplinary-power level in Foucault, and the discursive-liberatory level in Rancière. These three levels are neither fused into a single theory nor reducible to each other; rather, they collectively provide a multilayered picture of the ideological functioning of law. The final conclusion of the article is that law is not simply an instrument of legitimacy, nor simply a mechanism of power, nor simply a field of emancipation, but a multilevel arena in which ideology is both produced and reproduced, and is also capable of interruption, critique, and resistance. This summary paves the way for more complex analyses in legal theory, particularly in the areas of legitimacy, human rights, and penal policies.

Graphical Abstract

The Simple yet Elusive: The Intertwinement of Ideology and Law in the Trajectory of Philosophical Thought (From Habermas to Foucault and Rancière)

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Baxter, H. (A) (2002). Habermas’s discourse theory of law and democracy. Buffalo Law Review, 50(1), 205–340. https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol50/iss1/6
Baxter, H. (B) (2002). System and lifeworld in Habermas’s theory of law. Cardozo Law Review, 23, 473–482. https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship/549
Braeckman, A. (2018). The hermeneutics of society: On the state in Lefort’s political theory. Constellations, 25(2), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12318
Buonamano, R. (2014). The legal subject in Althusser’s political theory. Law and Critique, 25(3), 231–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-014-9139-3
Etxabe, J. (2017). Jacques Rancière and the dramaturgy of law. In M. López Lerma & J. Etxabe (Eds.), Rancière and law (pp. 17–42). Routledge.
Fossen, T. (2015). Judgment and imagination in Habermas’s theory of law. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 41(2), 129–151. https://psc.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0191453714566485
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Vintage.
Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy (W. Rehg, Trans.). MIT Press.
Halpin, A. (2006). Ideology and law. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11(2), 153–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687932
Hunt, A. (1985). The ideology of law: Advances and problems in recent applications of the concept of ideology to the analysis of law. Law & Society Review, 19(1), 11–37. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053393
Jouet, M. (2022). Foucault, prison, and human rights: A dialectic of theory and criminal justice reform. Theoretical Criminology, 26(2), 202–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211015968
Leiter, B. (2015). Marx, law, ideology, legal positivism. Virginia Law Review, 101(4), 1179–1196. https://virginialawreview.org/articles/marx-law-ideology-legal-positivism/
Margulies, J. D. (2018). The Conservation Ideological State Apparatus. Conservation and Society, 16(2), 181–192. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26393328
O’Neill, S. (2000). Democracy, deliberation and the participation gap. Political Studies, 48(5), 737–758. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00272
Rancière, J. (1999). Disagreement: Politics and philosophy (J. Rose, Trans.). University of Minnesota Press.
Rancière, J. (2004). The politics of aesthetics: The distribution of the sensible (G. Rockhill, Trans.). Continuum.
Rosenfeld, M. (1995). Can rights, democracy, and justice be reconciled through discourse theory? Reflections on Habermas’s proceduralist paradigm of law. Cardozo Law Review, 17(4–5), 791–838. https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/clr/vol17/iss4/5
Ross, K. (1991). Rancière and the practice of equality. Social Text, (29), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.2307/466299
Tadros, V. (1998). Between governance and discipline: The law and Michel Foucault. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 18(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/18.1.75
Van Asseldonk, M. (2025). Claude Lefort in the age of the total constitution. Global Constitutionalism, 14(3), 569–595. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045381725000061
Waal, T. (2012). Personal Responsibility Under Totalitarian Regimes: An Analysis of Hannah Arendt’s Philosophy on The Prevention of Evildoing and Criminal Liability for International Crimes, Amsterdam Law Forum, 4(1), 131-142.
Walby, K. (2007). Contributions to a post-sovereigntist understanding of law: Foucault, law as governance, and legal pluralism. Social & Legal Studies, 16(4), 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/0964663907082735
Wydra, H. (2009). The liminal origins of democracy. International Political Anthropology, 2(1), 91–109.
Yang, F. (2022). Between normativity and social facts: A sociological interpretation of Habermas’s discourse theory of law and democracy. In Habermas’s discourse theory of law and democracy (pp. 51–72). Springer.
Zuberi, F., & Susewind, R. (2024). Totalitarian law and communal ghettoisation: An Arendtian perspective. Social & Legal Studies, 33(5), 748–766. https://doi.org/10.1177/09646639241266756
Send comment about this article
CAPTCHA Image
Journal of Philosophical Investigations
Volume 20, Issue 55 - Serial Number 55
Articles
Issue 55, Summer 2026
July 2026
Pages 687-704

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics