Eddie Izzard: The Comedy of Ideological Subversion

Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.
—Karl Marx, from The German Ideology

I was raised Catholic. I went to Catholic school, I observed Lent, and was even an altar girl once the politically correct/ equal opportunity movements found their way into the Church. I believed; but according to Luis Althusser, I believed because I acted. I acted not because I was afraid for my afterlife or being controlled by the 'earliest form of government' as I have so often professed, but rather because I recognized the material manifestation of this ideology as a part of my subjective self. Eddie Izzard takes this dominant ideology, as well as those of the Church of England and the Protestants, and shows them to be just that—ideologies. They are physical and material behaviors which create a sense of meaning, but which are not the result of a ‘higher power’ or divine inspiration. Izzard subverts the often taken for granted ideology behind Catholicism by highlighting the arbitrariness of its origins, and he does the same with the birth of the Church of England. By doing so, he aligns himself with the writings of Marx, Althusser, and Gramsci in that he, too, challenges the accepted meaning, significance, and manifestations of dominant ideologies.



Althusser writes that the recognition that occurs between a subject and an ideology is similar to when someone knocks on your door and says "it's me" in response to "who's there?" (698). It becomes obvious who the knocker is. The same applies to one's recognition of the material manifestation of an ideology. For centuries, various religious leaders maintained their dominance based on the assertion that their religion came directly from ‘God’. Izzard asserts, conversely, that religion comes from people, and even worse, that these people create religions for self-serving purposes. In "The German Ideology", Marx writes that “we ascend from earth to heaven” and that “we do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive […] in order to arrive at men in the flesh” (656). Instead, we begin as real men (and women) and create our dominant ideologies; we produce ourselves into existence through our actions. However, this production of ideologies through action is typically limited to those who are in power: “the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas” (Marx 656). Once those in power enact their preferred ideas, these ideas become ideals, and then ideologies, and then universalities.

This is exactly what Izzard mocks in his discussion of the birth of the Church of England. Rather than being divinely inspired, it was merely the result of a selfish and power-hungry king who wanted what he wanted when he wanted it. Izzard also mocks the Catholic Church by commenting that it follows the “teachings of Cathol.” The fact that a comedian can get away with such a commentary is indicative of the progressive decline in power of these previously dominant ideologies, and this in turn is indicative of a shift in what Antonio Gramsci calls “social hegemony” (673). Hegemony, according to Gramsci, entails the “‘spontaneous’ consent given by the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed on social life by the dominant fundamental group” (673), and the Catholic bishops and Pope and King Henry VIII both utilized this means of disseminating ideas and ensuring compliance. Because these leaders are no longer in power, the ideologies have lost their significance. But these leaders would not have been able to dominate their subjects had they not utilized their primary advantage: their ability to control the “material force of society” (Marx 656). Henry VIII, for example, had control over the means of production as well as the labor power of his subjects so he was able to change the dominant ideas of the epoch. By changing the dominant ideology from that of Catholicism to that of the Church of England (both of which are quite similar), he inadvertently highlighted the weakness of both of these ideologies. If something that everyone ‘believed’ in is so malleable that a king can just up and change it, it must not be very strong. And if it is possible to create a new religion in one day, it, too, must not be independent or divinely inspired.

Thus, Izzard’s commentary on the significance of and meaning behind dominant ideologies supports the ideas set forth by some of the strongest and most influential Marxist/ Economic theorists. However, what Izzard neglects to mention is the relationship between the subjects and the leaders in terms of propagating and perpetuating ideologies. Althusser states that the recognition and enactment of ideologies by subjects are ultimately synonymous with “the reproduction of the relations of production and of the relations deriving from them” (701). In other words, the creation of religion to suit a King’s desire for independence from the Pope and for the ability to divorce his wife resulted in the birth of new ideology, and this ideology only became dominant because the King’s power over his subjects in a material sense is reflected in and motivated by the ideology. The ideology itself is nothing without the subjects’ enactment of it (through praying the right way, paying Church taxes, etc.), and the subjects are motivated to act out this ideology as a result of their preexisting production relations. They are already inferior in terms of their class, so it is acceptable for the majority of them to be inferior to the King in terms of ideology.

Although Marx, Gramsci, and Althusser argue differently and to different ends at times, I cannot help but notice the circularity and interconnectedness of their ideas. Nor could I avoid relating these notions to Izzard’s commentary on religion and to my own views on religion. I accept that religion itself is not a negative or destructive thing; however, when it or any ideology is constructed by men as divinely inspired or bigger than mankind, and then is used by said men to manipulate the masses, it is important to note that these ideologies are not about the people's thoughts, but about their actions. And if ideologies are only successful based on the physical practice of prescribed behaviors, then there is the possibility of freedom from them by altering one’s actions. This is why I am no longer Catholic—because I am no longer practicing. It is that simple. Unfortunately for all the victims of religious oppression or persecution due to ideological differences, these ideas were not available previously. Instead, they were convinced that if they did not act in accordance with the dominant ideology (and unknowingly create the dominant ideology through their actions), they would be punished by God, the Law, the King, etc., and they would be considered “inconsistent, […] or cynical, or perverse” (Althusser 696).

Works Cited

Althusser, Luis. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 693-702.

Gramsci, Antonio. “Hegemony.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 673.

Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 653-58.