This study has been conceived as what I choose to call an empirical ideology critique of the GVC upgrading paradigm. I have developed and pursued a research agenda that traces the contradictions within the (implicit) assumption that upgrading can engender general socioeconomic development within capitalism, provided the right institutional or business environment. My research design comprises both a theoretical critique of mainstream GVC analysis in reference to previous scholarly discussions (Chapters 3 and 4) and, specifically, in-depth, empirical research into the contradictions of upgrading (strategies and practices) in agro-industrial value chains in Argentina (Chapters 7–10).

To substantiate my endeavor, this chapter offers introductory reflections on my understanding of ideology and its immanent critique. Taking inspiration from historical materialist approaches, including from critical theory in the Frankfurt School tradition (hereafter referred to as Critical Theory) as well as from the work of the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, it is intended as a first part of the theoretical-methodological basis of this book. I build on this to ask: To what extent does the GVC approach adopt a critical position on the social conditions under which uneven development—which it intends to remedy by upgrading—is reproduced in global capitalism? The presentation of the empirical methods I have used and the fieldwork I have conducted in the course of this study follows in Chapter 5, which directly precedes the empirical sections.

In general, the remarks made in this chapter are of twofold relevance to this book. Alongside their epistemological and methodological significance for my critique of the GVC approach itself, this concerns the role of ideology more broadly, inasmuch the latter works to justify or conceal social relations of exploitation and domination and contributes to perpetuating them (Hawel 2008). I will address this in different sections of my empirical chapters where I examine (a) how corporate actors act on the ideological terrain to promote approval of particular upgrading strategies in agro-industrial global value chains and (b) patterns of ideological rationalizations and consensus building in a sample case of upgrading (Chapters 8–10).

Because of this double relevance, I elaborate on some characteristics of ideology in greater detail than a depiction of the ideology-critical method alone would require. In addition, defining ideology entails further mid-range thinking tools which form a part of my understanding of a Marxist social theory and which inform this study more broadly. That being said, this chapter does not in itself provide a sufficient theoretical framework, since the methodological reference to ideology critique does not mean that ideology is the main subject of my study. Further theoretical considerations will be elaborated in the respective sections where I need them to make sense of my findings.

As an initial remark, ideology is a contested concept among various Marxist, post-structuralist, and other scholars and it may be interpreted in distinct ways. It is not my aim here to retrace this debate in detail; I will instead outline my own reading of the issue to the extent of its relevance to my work.

When you look up the term ideology in a lexicon, you find a range of synonyms, including doctrine, Weltanschauung, or credo. In everyday parlance, it is mainly used in a broad and abstract manner, describing any form of viewing the world and reflecting upon it. In this instance, I am employing the concept of ideology in a more complex, and at the same time more concrete way. From a historical materialist perspective, defining ideology as an intellectual framework that includes language, notions, imageries, theories, and representation systems “in order to make sense of, define, figure out and render intelligible the way society works” is a starting point (Hall 1983, 59). This definition, however, is not in itself sufficiently concrete; hence, the following discussion of elements that I consider crucial for making sense of ideology, its role, and the consequential necessity of its immanent critique.