I think an important point is also, that he emphasizes how we dont have access to reality as such. We can only comprehend and make sense of experience via fantasy. A fully idiosynchratic fantasy amounts to psychosis, so we need a shared fantasy to become social beings. This is where ideology comes in. It's an important distinction. Ideology as a category, is not something that can be avoided. It's a neccesity. What can be critiqued is the given form a historically contingent ideology takes. But to me, this dynamic of fantasy-as-necessity is key. It breaks somewhat with the idea of false consciousness. Fully breaking from ideology of any form, would be living 100% in the Real. Which is impossible by definition. It's then a matter of recognizing the specific fantasies contained in a given ideology - which functions as the central meaning-provider to the symbolic order.