Date: Thu, 06 Nov 1997 12:43:14 EST
Subject: (fwd) Re: Ideology






Hi Jukka, sorry to be so long replying.  You write:

>Yet, I disagree that it's pointless to argue over what concept of
>ideology to choose one's point of departure.

Well, what I try to do is start from the assumption that ideology means false
consciousness.  Then I argue that the our society is characterized by a
particular form of false consciousness.  I describe it, I say why I think its
false, and then I say that this is the form taken by ideology in the
postmodern world.

>Understood. The question is slightly different in sociology. First of
>all, my impression is that 'consciousness' is (if at all) used quite
>differently: neither as referring specifically to real consciousness
>nor in a philosophical sense, but more generally and less definite
>way. More like 'Zeitgeist'. Among marxist sociologists it has of
>course been quite contrary. For example, 'fetishized' and other
>concepts you mentioned, along 'alienated', have been objects of
>strict scrutiny, and not all of them have been meant to refer to
>something false. Point has been to differentiate structural features
>concerning individual societal positions.

Surely anything that is alienated or fetishized or reified or even, in Hegel,
objectified, is "false" in the sense that it has been perverted away from its
ontological essence?

>On the other hand,[ideology] has also used to conceptualise some structural
>'level' (or somesuch) of social process, sometimes even with in
>reference to unconscious effects of them. In that case it's been
>different to conscious ideas.

I think that its a mistake, and a very serious one, to see society as divided
into "levels" in the base/superstructure mode.  I think that society can only
be truly conceived as a totality.

>>>Does it really make sense to claim that the whole consciousness of
>>>individuals is somehow caused to be false?

>>Sure.  Why not?

>Because it could lead in some cases into absurdities: a person might
>be unable to distinguish education from 'brainwashing' but has no
>problems in carrying his or her daily life (well, not very good
>example but should do this time). It's the falsity that I'd like to
>give much more definite and restricted meaning and role, if it has
>to be used at all.

No, I disagree.  I think that our society inculcates a radically, demonstrably
false view of the relation between subject and object, and I think that the
resulting false consciousness determines all of most people's lives.  So yes,
I think people can have a completely false consciousness.  Most people do.

>>What about the first chapter of _Capital_? "

>"Never read.." But seriously, I think it describes the societal
>conditions of its birth.

It doesn't.  It describes the philosophical errors which are necessary to
conceive of an object as a commodity.

>Agreed. Dichotomy of bourgeoisie versus proletariat can be done, but
>it would be extremely abstract and somehow forced, at least when
>using traditional marxist categories.

For Marx the important opposition is between Capital and Labor, not Bourgeois
and Proletariat.  The latter dichotomy has passed, the former is stronger than
ever.

Thanks, Jukka, for reading my book and commenting on it.  I'll be interested
to hear your opinions on the Zizek section.

Best regards,

David Hawkes