This book situates Althusser and his texts within the wider histories and cultures to which they belong, drawing in contributors from a wide range of cultures and countries.
3.5/5. The 8 essays in here contain critiques (not all of them sympathetic) of Althusser(ianism). Pierre Vilar's essay seems the most acidic, criticizing Althusserian temporality ("conjunctures") and structural causality. Most of the criticism aimed at Althusser seem to be his inability to obtain an "objective science" through structuralism without falling into ideology himself. I feel these problems are best elucidated in Paul Ricoeur's essay (the best essay in the book, and he is neither a Marxist nor a Marxist scholar, yet seemingly sympathetic) and Peter Dews's essay that traces Althusser's "structural Marxism" and general disposition towards science as a sort of continuation of Levi-Strauss and Foucault. Dews argues Foucault did what Althusser aimed to do more effectively - I cannot judge this conclusion, honestly. Another critique that came up often was Althusser's historiography - I did not finish the essay as it was pretty dry, but from what I did read Axel Honneth brings up interesting points on this as does Pierre Vilar. The last 3 essays (dealing with Lacan and Althusser, Althusser in Anglo-American Literary Theory, and Althusser's "traumabiography") are probably the most "sympathetic". I think the Lacan/Freud-Althusser connection is interesting and I'll have to read more up on that, as is Spinoza and Althusser - although in a couple essays the faults of Althusser are attributed to his Spinozism.
Some essays are denser than others, but this not an introduction to Althusser at all. You need to have read his main works/essays (mostly For Marx, Lenin and Philosophy, and Reading Capital, the latter of which I haven't read. His essay on Freud and Lacan and RSAs/ISAs are also referenced a lot. Need to read that Freud and Lacan essay...)