Date: Mon, 3 Nov 1997 02:30:28 EET+200
Subject: Re: Ideology


Greetings 

This is a delayed post to David's replies to some of my earlier 
remarks. 

David wrote: 

" I respond: not always or necessarily.  Obviously, the term 
"ideology" has been used to mean just about anything, and there's no 
point in arguing over the correct definition of the word. "

OK, I was too hasty, had read only the introduction. Now I've read 
one third of the book. Enlightening! See, I'm just a dumb 
sociologist, and though I do know Goethe I'm wholly unaware of 
Coleridge and other American and English aestheticians and poets of 
those days. And I do think that's the way to write an introductory 
text, broad strokes and long historical developments. 

Yet, I disagree that it's pointless to argue over what concept of 
ideology to choose one's point of departure. (Stumbled to such 
problems few years ago through methodological questions..) But that 
can be left for a moment when the question gets more actual. 


" What I argue is that it is possible, today, to identify a 
particular  mode of consciousness as "false", according to the basic 
tenets of the Western philosophical tradition.  We could call that 
consciousness "ideological", but it might be more specific to refer 
to it as "fetishized", or "reified", or "objectified", or 
"commodified".  These terms refer to the specific form taken by false 
consciousness under an exchange-based economy such as our own. "

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. 

Why should ideology be considered to be something related with 
consciousness only? (asked I, and you answered:) 

" Because it refers to mistaken ideas.  Of course those mistaken 
ideas have material consequences, but these consequences cannot be 
identified with the ideas themselves. "

On the other hand, it 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. 

Does it really make sense to claim that the whole consciousness of 
individuals is somehow caused to be false? (was my question) 

" 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. 

Then I told: So far I haven't found a single, tight demonstration 
that and how the birth of false consciousness would happen... 

" What about the first chapter of _Capital_? "

"Never read.." But seriously, I think it describes the societal 
conditions of its birth. I'm more and more inclined to see what's 
going on with subjects in such structural environment. I've read some 
fresh social psychological studies recently, and they're close to 
what I've been looking for. Hierarchies of the companies, daily 
practices under different circumstances result in different 
conceptions concerning work, life, and such. Problem is that it's 
'eight times out of ten' results. More than accidental - there are 
clear tendencies - but something is lacking. Just don't know what.


" I think that, as you say, it is no longer possible to divide 
society into groups of people labelled "bourgeoisie" and 
"proletariat".  Despite this, however, the contradiction between 
Capital and Labor remains absolute: Capital is objectified Labor.  In 
my book, I argue that the contradiction has become internalized 
within the mind of each individual. " 

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. In early eighties such problems 
became clear (and earlier in USA, I guess). In sociology some people 
lost their "faith" in Marx because of such changes. 

I'm waiting to see what you've written about Slavoj Zizek - I 
wondered why you classify him into postmodernism - who's work I've 
seen as refreshing effort to update theory of ideology, and therefore 
tried to understand it despite of SZ's free-floating prose. But 
before that, I'll read the book. 

Yours, Jukka L