Certainly insofar as we can deem Marx to have been the originator of the
idea of "false consciousness" then very much it was with the idea that
"false consciousness" was functional, in terms of what I call "real
illusions", e.g., that money has value. The believe otherwise, a person has
to "step out of their own times" so to speak.
I agree very much with most of Jaye's comments. Only I think it is very
much the day-to-day person-to-person experiences in a society which are the
basis of people's "theories of society". Of course people learn
"scientific" or abstract theories from sources remote from their personal
experience. But then the issue is to fill out these abstractions from
personal experience. Today, those day-to-day experiences are buying and
selling everything from personal security to dinner to sex. This
buying-and-selling relation is a particular kind of relation, and one which
underlays the abstract theories of history taught in Universities or via
the TV.
Andy
At 10:12 PM 25/12/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>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