I think that's right, David. I do think that it's a vague notion though,
and have never found much use for it. As one of our correspondents pointed
out, the centralising of the idea of pursuing one's own class interests is
suspect anyway, and what is "false" in the consciousness of a worker is
"true" in the consciousness of a capitalist. Altogether a confused
notion. But it is nice to know that I was not wasting my time when I
transcribed "The Knight of Noble Consciousness", though I think Victor may
be the first person to have read that article since it was published in MECW!
I don't quite know what to make of Jim Gee's three identities. Altogether
the observation that play develops so rapidly historically, and how these
video games seem so tailored to adulthood in postmodernity is boggling!
Andy
At 02:18 PM 28/12/2003 -0600, you wrote:
>Andy,
>Whereas, the Marxian notion of false consciousness as rooted in a view of
>multiple class perspectives may pass postmodernist muster, it doesn't work
>for poststructuralists. Essentializing a "class perspective" at the level
>of the individual actor ignores the contradictory and shifting relations of
>our constituent subjectivities.
>David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy
> Blunden
>
> <ablunden@mira.ne To:
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> t> cc: (bcc: David H
> Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
> Subject: RE: false
> consciousness: real and virtual worlds
> 12/25/2003
> 05:47
> PM
>
> Please respond
> to
> xmca
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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