Ana,
It seems to me that you missed the heart of the issue. That is: just how important is their ballot for the well-being of their families, their friends and, of course, their selves. Most or many citizens regard voting as fairly irrelevant to the things that really concern them. First, because in representative democracies you vote for a candidate and then he goes off and makes his compromises with the influential, which most voters are not. Second, there are much more direct means for getting your way; neighborhood organization, labor actions and pressuring local politicians and bureaucrats - like the neighborhood social worker. Decisions to vote for National and gubernatorial candidates are for most people either based on traditional party membership or personal taste. This is not an example of false consciousness, it's a pretty realistic evaluation of the importance of these processes for most people!
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: Ana Marjanovic-Shane
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Friday, December 26, 2003 1:48 AM
Subject: Re: false consciousness: real and virtual worlds
Dear Eugene and all,
In case of Schwartzenegger, I think that the reason people voted for him is in the association of the perception of his physical image (appearance, voice) with the various heroic characters he played as an actor. In this case the sensory experience which received its meaning and significance elsewhere, overrode the "virtual" or "ideational" aspect of the person's political reality.
It is like in the following true story I heard from my sister-in-law:
A woman in her office said that she was going to vote for Reagan (in his second term election). My sister-in-law asked her a series of questions regarding Reagan's policies: "Do you agree with his economic measures? Environmental measures? His stand on family? His plan for taxes? etc." The woman answered NO to each one of these questions. My sister-in-law asked her then: "So, why do you want to vote for Reagan? You don't agree with anything he stands for or he does?"
The answer:
"He is so charming!"
I think that in this case, it is not the consciousness, either "true" or "false" that determines the behavior of the California (or any other) voter, but instead, it is a direct subconscious experience of emotional appeal. This experience is a result of previously experienced "realities" and/or "fantasies" -- which are not relevant in the context at hand, but, the emotional connections were made. They (emotional connections) are irrational and inexplicable from the point of view of the immediate plane of "reality" -- or within the conceptual system that should be used, or even IS used to understand the actual political facts and predict their consequences. That is exactly the way every good advertisement works: it invokes irrational, inexplicable feelings of appeal which are stronger determinants of behavior than consciousness.
So, I think that to answer the question of the "falsity" of consciousness is not always in its virtual/ideational aspect, but in its direct, sensual, emotional quality. The irony is that this directness is a matter of a construction itself, but this construction follows different rules and takes place in different times and different virtual "realities".
What do you think?
Ana
Eugene Matusov wrote:
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
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
267-334-2905 (cell)
215-843-2909 (home)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST