Re: [xmca] ideology: easy access web page

[ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org]

 I am currently interested in Marx's idea on the fetishism of commodities 
and its relation to ideology:

"A commodity is therefore a mysterious thing, simply because in it the 
social character of men’s labour appears to them as an objective character 
stamped upon the product of that labour; because the relation of the 
producers to the sum total of their own labour is presented to them as a 
social relation, existing not between themselves, but between the products 
of their labour. This is the reason why the products of labour become 
commodities, social things whose qualities are at the same time 
perceptible and imperceptible by the senses. In the same way the light 
from an object is perceived by us not as the subjective excitation of our 
optic nerve, but as the objective form of something outside the eye 
itself. But, in the act of seeing, there is at all events, an actual 
passage of light from one thing to another, from the external object to 
the eye. There is a physical relation between physical things. But it is 
different with commodities. There, the existence of the things quâ 
commodities, and the value relation between the products of labour which 
stamps them as commodities, have absolutely no connection with their 
physical properties and with the material relations arising therefrom. 
There it is a definite social relation between men, that assumes, in their 
eyes, the fantastic form of a relation between things. In order, 
therefore, to find an analogy, we must have recourse to the mist-enveloped 
regions of the religious world. In that world the productions of the human 
brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, and entering into 
relation both with one another and the human race. So it is in the world 
of commodities with the products of men’s hands. This I call the Fetishism 
which attaches itself to the products of labour, so soon as they are 
produced as commodities, and which is therefore inseparable from the 
production of commodities. "

So how in this sense that fetishism of a commodity is inseparable from its 
production can we not state that a person's ideology  is inseparable from 
their actions?  Why has CHAT so upended the apple cart as to remove 
individual action and insisted that culture is the do-all be-all?

Ilyenkov writes in the "Concept of the Ideal":

"The very essence of fetishism is that it attributes to the object in its 
immediately perceptible form properties that in fact do not belong to it 
and have nothing in common with its sensuously perceptible external 
appearance."

So if this "ideal" can exist within the material aspect of production and 
labor how so is it separate from everyday actions and behaviors?

Am I wrong to equate ideology with fetishism?  At this point they appear 
to be very similiar if not equal concepts.

what do others think?

eric 


From:   Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date:   09/25/2010 08:38 PM
Subject:        Re: [xmca] ideology: easy access web page
Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu



Interesting. Good ol' Ralph Dumain comes up with the goods again!

There has been a lot of controversy about Engels's use of the term 
"false consciousness" and I take the consensus to be that even though 
Engels used the term a couple of times in personal letters in the last 
years of his life, it is not a concept which stands up to scrutiny, nor 
one used by Marx. It just happened that last night I was reading a 
manuscript by the German Marxist Thomas Metscher which cites the same 
passage we all go back to in the Preface to the Critique ... In 
reference to James Connolly's stance in relation to religion, he says:

    "He clearly shared Marx’s view that religion, along with the arts,
    the legal system, educational ideas, philosophy is an /ideological
    form/ (a form of institutionalised consciousness – not merely ‘false
    consciousness’) containing ‘true’ and ‘false’ components and
    performing different functions in different situations."

It was good to see that a German speaker read this passage the same way 
I have, because there are multiple translations of the passage. But if 
we take the line that ideology is institutionalised consciousness, or 
that institutionalisation is inherently an aspect of consciousness and 
each are inseparable from one another in general, then this problematic 
concept of "false consciousness" disappears. It is simply a matter of 
the practical critique of forms of social practice, of what deserves to 
be defended and what should be brought down.

Andy


mike cole wrote:
> Once Lucas set me off looking at that interesting webpage of Teun van 
Dijk,
> I realized that an inquiry
> into people's uses of the term, ideology, could take us ANYWHERE. So,
> thinking of anywhere, I thought in
> particular of Raymond Williams' KEYWORD which is on my home bookshelf, 
and
> sure enough, the entry there
> on ideology was interesting.
>
> Then I wondered if there was a web version so I could add that to the
> discussion in an easy-to-access way and,
> voila, as they say, I came up with the following;
>
> http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/ideo8.html
>
>
>
> mike
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> 

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca


_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca