Date: Fri, 16 Feb 1996 22:08:34 +0200 (EET)
From: J Laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: subjectivity, social totality, multiplicity


Lisa, 

it made sense. Lucidly put. I try to clarify my point: 


> I think I take, and appreciate Jukka's anti-economistic point,
> perhaps you are talking about the 'social totality.'

Or 'social whole'. Seems to be more popular expression nowadays. Georg 
Lukacs 'introduced' concept of totality in a sense of historically 
developing totality, but according to critics there were teleological 
dimension to that. So now, it seems, there's a preference to a more 
logical-dialectical interpretation of Marx instead of that older 
historical one. In a way index of that is terminological change to 
whole. But the idea in our context is about the same.


> At the same time, I'd rather not speak of 'another side' or 'ideal'
> to be included, because I am wary of dualism and polarity. 

I had in mind that there are plethora of different 'cultural codes' 
which are hard to be considered materialistic as such; moral codes, 
habitual patterns, schemes of socio-cultural perception, 'values', 
politico-ideological and other belief systems, laws and juridical stuff 
etc. all happily connected to others. And what about language? In 
speaking and writing there is certain kind of materiality, yes, but in 
what way grammatical rules are material? In what way we could say that 
meanings are material? I think all that is nicely summed as 'ideal' or 
'ideality'. And there's no fear of idealism as long as we remember that 
'in a last instance' it's the 'economic law of society' which 
traditionally (in marxism) has been seen as that which explains other, 
'minor' phenomena.


> Everything is combined in a much more subtle, complex, multiple,
> inseparable way, which is nonetheless amenable to understanding

Agreed.


> The things that people think, imagine and desire are shaped by these
> processes, so there is no way to separate 'socio-economic causes' and
> 'ideal'/ mental causes of new 'subjectivities.'

I didn't meant that ideal should be thought as cause of subjectivity. 
Sorry if it looked that way. Rather something like that: ideal factors 
are also 'contributing' to subjectivity. In a name of analytical clarity 
or whatever it isn't bad thing to make a distinction between material and 
ideal. 

Point is that ideal is not mental - at least if we think mental in usual 
sense as psychic process. Ideality doesn't fall into subjectivity, rather 
it is objective just like social structures and the like. Despite of me 
and my consciousness. Ideal is not mental like this or that idea 'in my 
head'. 

Yours, Jukka L


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------