Still no sleep and yet more and more theory. I begin to wonder if there is an inverse correlation at play here. In the meantime I continue to question (half-delirious, or more than half) as to the possibility of an ideology of no-subject (global market). This would not be what classical Marxist State theory dubs an Ideological State Apparatus (ISA), since the hallmark of the no-subject would be its cleavage from the (political) state. But before I get there, I must traverse the method(ology) of (my) madness. I’m struck by how much any discussion of ideology tacitly relies on Laclau’s work from the 1970s. Reading it now, this fact is glaringly apparent. And reading it now, I’m struck by how much of Laclau’s theory of the State is directly lifted from Althusser. I suppose this is obvious to most, but reading Politics and Ideology along side Althusser’s “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses,” the connection is unavoidable. Laclau’s not merely influenced by Althusser, but represents a modest (though hugely significant) advancement of the latter’s theories. As such I am about to revisit Jon Beasley-Murray’s critique of Laclau in Post-Hegemony. Perhaps it is too late to continue thinking more in terms of ideology and ISA, just as hegemony seems to have fallen by the wayside. It’s certainly too early to fall asleep, and with so much more to read I may have no sleep til Brooklyn, Brooklyn?, oh MCA I still miss you.