Dear Iraj and everybody-
Iraj wrote,
> In Lefebvre and Soja's language, there is a 'gap' between the
> 'perceived' or 'First space' and the produced 'conceived' or 'Second
space.'
> What is 'true' here then? Is it not that , based on the same real
reality
> we can produce many social spaces--virtual realities, identities,
conceived
> or second spaces?
I was "raised" on Il'enkov's tradition. According to Il'enkov, there is not
"real" and "virtual" (or "ideal" in his terminology) consciousness because
by its very nature consciousness is always virtual while any virtual fantasy
is always reality-based. (Modern philosopher Zizek (sp?) recently made a
similar statement about "virtual sex" on the Internet arguing that any sex
has its virtual aspect). Thus, the issue is not "virtuality" versus
"reality". I do not think that the issue of "false consciousness" is about
immediate versus mediated experiences (if I correctly understand 'first
space' vs. 'second space' distinguish "home" vs. "office") because there is
not such thing as "non-mediated" experience and any experience also has its
immediate aspect. I think what makes consciousness "false consciousness" is
not the nature of the consciousness itself (e.g., "virtual" vs. "real"
artifacts) or the nature of underlining experiences but rather the nature of
social relations and practices in which the consciousness is embedded in
(situated) and emerge from.
In this sense, I more incline to Latour's analysis of cultural
"irrationality" in his book "Science in action" who tries to reconstruct
cultural practices to understand apparent "irrationality" (or "false
consciousness"). Latour is definitely right that the issue of irrationality
or "false consciousness" is about relationship of incomprehensibility
between I and another (or in an extreme case between I-in-past and
I-am-now).
What makes sense for a Latino male in California voting for Schwarzenegger
embedded in his history and his relations does not make sense for Mike
embedded in his own history and his relations. Often this
incomprehensibility is based on fragmentation of communities when people do
not have direct contact with each other and can't talk. Mike, do you know
any Latino male in California who voted for Schwarzenegger? If so, did you
ask him a question, why he voted this way and if he was aware about possible
economic consequences for his family?
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: IRAJ IMAM [mailto:iimam@cal-research.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 3:21 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: false consciousness
>
> Eugene:
>
> 'Mike raised an interesting issue about the nature of so-called "false
> consciousness" or why and how people willingly choose what is "obviously"
> bad for them thinking that it is good for them...
>
> 1. People sometimes act guided by projective, virtual reality (back to the
> issue of role-taking play).
>
> 2. Cultural models that are widely available to people through media,
> school, and institutions are essentially middle- and upper-class.
"American
> dream" is very much middle-class ideology. People can't invent their own
> cultural models - thinking tools - each time on individual basis. However,
> publicly available cultural models are colonized by those who are in
> power..."
>
> iraj:
>
> 1. is it not the whole purpose of propaganda(pr/spin/ad) to make people
> believe in something that it is not 'true' in the first place--ie,
deception
> (eg, WMD, imminent threat from iraq, and link to Al-Qaede. Or the add: 'if
> you drink this brand of alcoholic beverage, good looking young people will
> surround you')?
>
> 2. Put differently, the purpose is to produce "false consciousness" as
> social space. Here the virtual or 'imagined space' has to NOT to
correspond
> to the 'real space.' In CHAT's language, the identity is not matching the
> activity. In Lefebvre and Soja's language, there is a 'gap' between the
> 'perceived' or 'First space' and the produced 'conceived' or 'Second
space.'
> What is 'true' here then? Is it not that , based on the same real
reality
> we can produce many social spaces--virtual realities, identities,
conceived
> or second spaces?
>
> 3. If people are trapped into a "projective, virtual reality" or "
> Cultural models" then they act upon them. In CHAT: identities feedback on
> and shape activities (Eugene's example of the "American Dream"). IN
Lefebvre
> and soja's: second space is shaping social space.
>
> 4. If ruling ideas of the time come from the ruling classes, then one
should
> expect all of this! And hence the opportunity for critical or
> transformational perspectives. Or time for production of new (imagined and
> real) space; of identity, of cultural models, of activity, of new and
> different social space (eg, Freire and others). If people are presented
with
> alternative 'cultural model' they may go on to produce their own
individual
> and group new spaces, and hence new activities. On by engaging in new
> activities, they can explore and produce new social spaces (real and
> imagined). May be that is why our w admin and our dominant cultural
> productions needs so much censorship--to prevent production of a different
> space.
>
> Cheers!
>
> iraj
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST