Date: Thu, 7 Mar 96 14:51:28 CST
From: David Merrill <dmerrill-AT-genesis.austinc.edu>
Subject: marx's theory of alienation


this is a paper i wrote recently for my social theory class.  i am
interested in what the people on this l'st have to say concerning this.  the
question i am responding to is thus:
        
        consider marx's analysis of alienation.  what is the basis of alienation
        in modern society?  how does it evolve?  what are its most important 
        manifestations?  what did marx propose as a solution to the problem of
        alienation?  provide examples of alienation (as conceived by marx) in
        contemporary life or make the case (as some do) that alienation is no
        longer a problem of either practical or theoretical interest.

i know that it is very rough and possibly wrong in some places.  please
forgive me.  this is my first attempt at any theoretical writing and it was
somewhat difficult for me.  i thought that the it would be in the interest
of those on the l'st to help me understand and learn about marx, since i
know little.  i am just starting my quest and i am finding that i agree with
much of what he says.  consider me a sponge that wants to soak up as much
knowledge as possible.

text as follows:

	Marx's theory of alienation is part of his critique of political economy.
In his Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Marx responds to the
economists practice of dehumanizing the worker by evaluating the underlying
relationships that are concealed by political economy.  Instead of asserting
a fact that needs to be explained, Marx begins his discussion of alienated
labour from a "contemporary economic fact:" as capitalism advances, the
worker becomes poorer.   In capitalism, the worker is reduced to a mere
commodity; he is treated on the same level as his product. As a commodity,
the worker is seen as less than human, something to be bought and sold.
Thus, humans lose their worth as free, responsible agents and become
interchangeable with other commodities. 
	
        The reduction of man to a commodity inverts the normal worker-object
relationship.  The economic fact Marx starts with claims that the more the
worker works, the less he makes.   In other words, the more he invests his
labour in objects (through the process of objectification), the more those
objects stand opposed to him. 
    
        Objectification is necessary whenever work is done since it involves
a transfer of labour to the object created.  However, in capitalism, the
product of labour is not only external to the worker in an ontological
sense, but in the practical sense that the product of the worker's labour is
no longer his own.  Objectification, instead of a means of to help man
realize himself, causes alienation in a capitalist economy.   The alienation
of the worker is a result of the increasing discrepancy between the
productive power of labour and the amount of control the worker can exercise
on the object he produces.   Man becomes a slave to the object he created.
	
        Marx argues that man becomes poorer in two ways as he produces more
objects.  Man becomes poorer economically because the more goods he
produces, the cheaper a commodity he becomes. Man also becomes poorer
spiritually.  The worker puts his life into the object, investing his
labour, only to have the object stand opposed to him as an alien being.  The
more he invests himself (i.e. his labour), the less he retains when the
object is taken from him.  He literally looses a part of himself in capitalism. 
	
        Alienation takes three distinct forms that Marx identifies.  Some
authors have expanded this list to as many as five while others deal with
only the three.  This paper will follow Marx's form.  The main aspects of
Marx's discussion are as follows:
	
        1. Man is alienated from the object he produces.  Man can create
nothing without nature; it is both a means of existence of labour and man.
However, as man converts more and more of nature into objects, he deprives
himself of the means of existence in two ways.  Fist, nature becomes less an
object belonging to his labour, or a means of existence of his labour.
Second, it becomes less a means of existence for the subsistence of the
worker.  In both cases, the worker becomes a slave to the object.  In the
first case, he is a slave because he receives work and in the second case
because the worker receives a means of subsistence.  In other words, the
object allows him to exist as both a worker and as a physical subject.   All
this results from the fact that the worker does not own what he produces, as
discussed above.  
	
        2. Man is alienated from the activity of labour. It logically
follows that if man is alienated from the object, then he must be alienated
in the process of producing the object.  Marx argues three points that
support this conclusion.  First, the work is external to the worker and so
he does not fulfill himself in the work.  Second, the work is forced; he is
not working of his own free will.  Work is a means of satisfying other
needs, but not an end in and of itself.  Third, the work he does belongs not
to himself, but to another. 
	
        3. Man is alienated from the species-being.  Man is different from
animals because he is conscious of himself as part of the human race.  For
Marx, the species-life and the individual are no different.  All the
achievements of society (culture, technology, etc.) are a result of man's
labour and make up the his species-life.  The individual is shaped by the
cummulation of the society that he has been born into and is, for Marx, the
whole expression of the species-life.  
	
        When man creates, he makes his activity an object of his will,
unlike animals in that animals are their activity.  Man creates according to
the laws of beauty, reproducing himself in what he has created.  Thus
objectification is the objectification of man's species-life.  When the
object of man's labour is taken from him, so is his species-life. 
	
        Man must work in order to survive.  Instead of labour being a free
activity allowing man to fulfill himself, work is a necessary means of
survival.  Thus, alienated labour turns the species-life of man into a means
for his individual survival.  Man's species-life turns into a means for
individual life.  Marx says that alienation from the species-life is no
different from alienation from other men.  "Thus in the relationship of
alienated labour every man regards other men according to the standards and
relationships in which he finds himself placed as a worker." 
	
        Marx goes on to discuss how this happens in reality.  Since the
object stands opposed to man, something else must own that object.  This
alien being that owns the object is another man.  The owner of the products
makes the worker perform labour that is forced and then takes the product of
labour from the worker.  If work is torment for the worker, it must produce
enjoyment for another.  
 	
        It is in this discussion that one can see Marx's distinction between
the proletariat and the capitalist.  It is this distinction that Marx
identifies as the way man can overcome his alienation.  Only by dissolving
capitalist society can man emancipate himself.  By removing private
property, man will no longer be alienated from the objects he creates, the
act of labour, and his specie-being.  Marx realized that the proletariat is
the only one that can emancipate mankind since the proletariat has no ties
to capitalist society.  By creating a classless, propertyless society, man
would be restored.   Since capitalism is at the root of this, there can be
no compromise.
	
        One of the best examples of alienation in contemporary life is the
experience of the construction worker.  In that situation, men go to work
every day to create a building.  They are giving of themselves and feel a
sense of accomplishment upon the completion of that building.  However, many
times the workers are then alienated from their object since they are denied
access to the object they gave birth to.  They are alienated on a much more
practical level since they do not own what they create.  The owner of the
building excludes the workers from the select who can enter and enjoy the
benefits derived from the building the worker created.  
	
        Not only are the workers alienated from the other people who can
enter the building at will, but the workers must see the creation of that
building as a means of survival.  They are not creating the building to aid
the common good, but instead are selling their labour so they can provide
for their family and themselves.  Interestingly, by putting a building in
that place, the worker has reduced both the amount of natural resources
(wood, concrete, etc.) that is available as well as the amount of
geographical space available to build.  Thus the building contributes to
both their economic poverty as well as their spiritual poverty.  
	
        The creation of the building contributes to the species-life of man.
However, by taking that building from the workers, the species-life is taken
as well.  The resources of the community are used to support the worker in
only the most minimal conditions possible.  The species-life is subordinated
to the individual.
	
        I have experienced this in my own life.  While in high school, I
worked as an electrician on a television station.  I spent many nights
contributing to the electrical wiring of that building, taking pride in what
I had achieved.  Upon the completion of the job, I knew there was no way the
owners of the television station would let me into the building to enjoy
what I had created.  Every time I drive by that building, I feel that a part
of me is there.  I am proud of what I achieved, yet it stands in opposition
to me.  Once the job was completed, I was out of work.
	
        The people who argue that Marx's theory is of no importance must be
ignoring the everyday reality of this world.  I thought about Roger and Me
while writing this paper.  The workers in Flint who built the Hyatt are
obviously alienated from that hotel.  They cannot even afford a room in the
building they built. In the 150 years that have elapsed between the writing
of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts and the present day, little
has changed that could reduce the alienation of the worker.  I think that
Marx was right on this point, and we would do well to listen to his voice.


thank you for your consideration

-david

email:dmerrill-AT-genesis.austinc.edu



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

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