Dear Judy and everybody-
I do not equate irrationality with "false consciousness" but rather other
way around namely, for me, "false consciousness" is manifestation of
irrationality. However, I'd agree (following Latour) that irrationality is a
characterization of incomprehensible others. In other words, "false
consciousness" (like irrationality in general) is a relational rather than
an essential notion. In this, I may be different from Marx who seemed to
coin the notion of "false consciousness" (but may be not!).
I think that the phenomenon of "false consciousness" is born out of (at
least) two consciousnesses whose practices (and ways of being) do not
overlap in some serious ways. When I just came to US as a refugee from the
Soviet Union, a guy tried to convince me to join Am-Way
(http://www.amway.com). It took me a while to realize how this consumer
pyramid works and that it is based on robbing (although lawful robbing)
those who are at the bottom of the pyramid. The guy had somewhat cynical
attitude and quickly agreed with me. However, he was shocked with my
conclusion of rejection to participate in Am-Way. In his view, I probably
had "false consciousness" (he did not know this term) because I betrayed my
economic interests and my family (he called me "a communist"). I was
definitely irrational to him. Indeed, why would a person be more loyal to
unknown others rather than to his own family? I knew that from being that
this guy came from my reasoning was false, irrational, and stupid. I
remember that he said with frustration "You came from a communist country to
a capitalist country that is based on people like in Am-Way!" He was
right...
I wonder what would take this guy to understand me? Would understanding me
jeopardize his well-being? Would my understanding of this guy jeopardize my
well-being aiming at that time at a social science academician (where I'm
now)?
In other words, I argue that "false consciousness" is always functional and
always relational.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Judy [mailto:jdiamondstone@clarku.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, December 25, 2003 6:39 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: false consciousness: real and virtual worlds
>
>
>
> 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