Judy, "False consciousness" has never been a word in my vocabulary, I
suppose because I find it kind of offensive. To the postmodern mind of
course it is offensive because it contains the implication, as you suggest,
that there is a "true" consciousness.
However, I think that very natural presumption misses the point of the
basic idea behind "false consciousness". As I understand it, it is normal
that every person or group of people has a viewpoint which flows from their
own position in society, their special interests and so on. This idea leads
to the basic idea that there is no "true" consciousness, only different
perspectives on the same totality, and broader or narrower visions. "False"
consciousness however, is where a person or group adopts the viewpoint of
another group not their own; so it is the employee who adopts the viewpoint
of the boss, mainly.
From the old standpoint of "being determines consciousness" it is obvious
why people hold opinions expressing their own self-interest. What Marx had
to explain was why/how people adopted views which expressed the interests
of those groups who oppress and exploit them.
Andy
At 06:38 PM 25/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>Eugene, I agree with you (Ilenkov, apparently) that all consciousness (& all
>semiosis) has its virtual basis, so virtuality cannot be the basis of false
>consciousness. I don't understand your use of Latour, however; you seem to
>be equating irrationality w/ false consciousness, which just seems to
>rephrase the claim about virtuality (except that your/Latour's emphasis is
>on cultural practices...) Where there is incomprehensibility between
>subjects, there is the evidence that the culture is irrational -- can you
>please explain your notion of a rational (& thus coherent???) culture?
>
>I would like a definition of false consciousness that I could use to refer
>to a regrettable condition, but every definition I've heard refers to a
>condition that could be just the opposite -- a saving grace (like denial in
>general) for the subject under certain conditions. Like faith. But I do see
>the working class Latino's support for someone like Bush to be regrettable,
>in terms of that persons's interests. I suppose what I'm really struggling
>with is the notion that there is a consciousness of some kind that ISN'T
>false. But maybe that's because I "grew up" with Bateson, not Ilenkov.
>
>Judy
>
>Eugene wrote: (snip)
>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?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST