Thursday, June 11, 2015

Mark Evans — Rethinking False Consciousness

Question: If capitalist economics is based on class exploitation and oppression, then why hasn’t the working class organized itself into a liberating revolutionary movement?
Answer: False consciousness!
The notion of false consciousness has been developed out of Marxist theory. The basic idea can be broken down into the following components. First, the dominant ideas in society are those of the ruling class or classes. Second, the interests of the dominant class or classes are not the same as those of the subordinate class or classes. Third, under such circumstances, the subordinate class(es) tend to adopt the interests of the dominant class and in-so-doing unknowingly takes on an ideological position that does not promote their interests.
Perhaps the most obvious and extreme example of false consciousness, to play-out in the real world, would be that of war. Here the use of nationalism, for example, as a means of getting the people of one country to fight against the people of another country, is employed by elites. Put simply, this results in working class people killing each other to protect and promote the existing power and privilege of the capitalist class.
Understanding that we can be socialized into adopting an ideological position that is detrimental to our own interests is an important step towards the development of revolutionary consciousness. The facilitation of such development also represents perhaps the greatest challenge to revolutionaries. Unfortunately however, the ways in which Marxists have tried to address false consciousness have led to a number of very problematic and undesirable outcomes. Here I would like to highlight two specific, and perhaps related, examples of this problem and present possible alternative solutions...
Interesting Marxian analysis that takes issue with Marxism.
    
teleSur
Rethinking False Consciousness
Mark Evans

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness.” (1) [noted in the article as a quote from Marx]

For me, Marx had this upside down. Consciousness is everywhere. It is in the atoms of Western science, in the molecules and cells, in the organs and in the instinctive mind, that organises them all into a 'city' that is the animal and human (individualised) vehicle. I think one day the mental and emotional bodies will be recognised as distinct from the physical body and its etheric scaffold (we die 'three' deaths); and consciousness will be seen as a lower bridging manifestation (our word soul or heart) of an universal energy that manipulates matter in the three lower worlds to create the forms. I think of conciousness as 'light' (because in the end it is what we label energy) that shines on the screen of the human mind. The only difference between an atom and man is the evolution of that little drop of consciousness, attached to the divine spark that bought it into being.

Consciousness, falling on the wall of the mind creates the 'I' and it is 'I's who create relations (from your best friend to a 'Nation') external to the real relations of the drops. From the simple 'I' of a four year old we build it up into an ID-entity and around it swirl the great tragedies and dramas; longing, belonging, acquisition and finally selflessness, and kindness . All our own creation.

False consciousness in this sense then, is just one 'I' imposing its world view on another ('I' offer the above as another pov). Another definition would be thinking the 'I' is the Self, and knowing nothing of the inner life. That is why even the most 'successful' of the 'I's look up at the stars wheeling overhead and wonder; because the heart wants to know …..

Tom Hickey said...

I agree with your comment on consciousness, but Marx was not using "consciousness" in that sense. Marx himself did not use the phrase "false consciousness." It is from Engels, who used it in the sense of ideology. Marx himself used the term "ideology." Marx was certainly correct in thinking that ideology is largely a social and historical construct. People identify their ideologies with reality, which is why reality is said to be a social construct. This is perfectly compatible with perennial wisdom as a partial description of spiritual ignorance. Of course, Marx would have rejected this.

See Wikipedia on False consciousness.

For more detailed exposition of Marx's theory of human nature, see Erich Fromm, Marx's Concept of Man (1961), especially ch 3, to which Mark Evans also refers.

Evans points out that Marx himself seems to have been either ambivalent or inconsistent on consciousness as a reality. On the one hand, he takes the materialist position that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of matter that is determined relatively by historical and social conditions. On the other hand, Evans argues, Marx seems to assume a foundationalism based on natural rights in the Continental tradition. This is an issue in all forms of liberalism that has not yet been successfully addressed to the satisfaction of critics. It's simple to account for rights as legal but they they are socially and historically determined rather than natural as features of human nature. But if it is held that rights are natural, then this has to be explain, which no one has yet done in a compelling way. .

Anonymous said...

”But if it is held that rights are natural, then this has to be explain, which no one has yet done in a compelling way”. [Tom]

I think of it more in terms of privilege Tom – It is a privilege to be alive! 'I' am in awe ….

That universal energy brings whole universes into being, then wipes them out. Sometimes whole galaxies are smashed to smithereens – unbelievable, incomprehensible violence! On earth tectonic plates shift and grind. The skin of the atmosphere whipped into wind storms. My 'rights' don't seem to matter, despite the best laid plans of mice and 'I's. Too soon too, I will be no more.

Why should a candle light a dark room – there is no explanation other than it is its nature. Why should I feel joy in my life – there is no explanation other than it is already within me. Once I feel it I cannot help it; I would be foolish to deny it – that is its nature. No rights involved; but certainly an unparalleled privilege.

Why should I be kind – because it is an expression of what I feel. It is a response (not a discipline) to a presence (not an absence). Like everyone, I want to learn and to grow. This energy is at the root of all growth. Mind is one thing; the heart is another. There is the root of all dichotomies in my understanding – the bridge is consciousness.

In analogy, like the energy that pushes the lotus up out of the mud, causes the seed to draw nutrients to itself (earth) and head up through the water (emotional life) to the clean air above (mental life) to open its petals (heart) to the life-giving Sun above. Am sure Meher taught you and many others – something for the mind to think about, but above all stimulating an energy in the heart that made it real. Am sure he didn't mention rights? I bet he mentioned privilege? The heart bestows appreciation, gratitude, clarity, kindness, intelligence, our humanity upon us, because that is its nature. Without it, mind is a very dark place, lit only by concepts.

The mind wants rights; the heart knows it has already been given everything it needs. People know ....

Anonymous said...

Another of the difficulties in considering any of these esoteric sciences that deal with what has been called the “conscious unfoldment of the divine recognitions” (which is true awareness) is the ancient habit of humanity to materialise all knowledge. Everything man learns is applied – as the centuries pass – to the world of natural phenomena and of natural process,and not the recognition of the Self, the Knower, the Beholder, the Observer .... When he can do this, he is transmuting knowledge into wisdom. [The Rays and the Initiations – A.A.B.]

Every morning, most people wake up and jump into a river of mind. The mind is the synthesising sense, dealing with input from the physical senses, the emotional body and the pictures and concepts we create within it. Coordinating this process is the lower self, the personal self or 'I'. The ancient symbol for this personal self is the spider – spinning out of itself connections to its environment, and a web, in order to fulfil desire. Some 'spiders' rule whole countries, some a family home; some are so small, they are simply a point of consciousness. The world from this point of view, is an interaction of 'I's .

Waves of desire rule most and the sensitivity of the emotional body is eclipsed by tumult. Intellect is made subservient to desire, energised by the 'I' that wants something. Others, rise above this surging ocean to the clearer calmer air above, and employ their mind in purer thought, the 'I' seeking an expression of, and delighting in a truth. But in all of this, no Self, Knower, Beholder or Observer is found: The worldly mind is born in darkness, lives in darkness, dies in darkness [Upanishads]. When the thinker declares divinity absent, they speak of their experience.

And it is most difficult for the thinker to understand. The emotional body is the mirror of the first contact with the higher Self; not the mind. It is through the 'heart' that the presence is first felt. The method of the teacher has always been to awaken in the heart of the student an awareness of this presence, through a powerful expression emanating from within the teacher's heart. One powerful vibration sets the other going, and the student becomes 'aware'. One lit candle lights another. The heart begins to teach the student through experience whilst the mind following up, is left to try to understand. True teaching is always through revelation.

This presence in the heart we label by its most noticeable character: it is peace, dignity, prosperity; it is love, the 'angel of the presence' - the higher Self. Eventually it is recognised by the inner senses as the true Self, and the 'I' is demoted to a wave in the mindstuff. An additional layer is added over and above the river of mind of the personal self: we might call this 'higher mind' and consciousness begins to bridge the gap, extend to include the world of the Self. The soul has far more to teach humanity than all of the educational institutions put together, in my humble opinion.

(cont).

Anonymous said...

(cont).

The soul works in two directions, connecting itself to the personality below and to its spiritual essence, far above. Once that is achieved, the overriding consideration and reality is Being. Time is a limitation of the physical brain. Space is unlimited because it is Being. One day the world will awaken to a universe (s) the root of which is Being. That ray of the soul that lifted the human animal out of the animal hierarchy into the human, will lift the human into the consciousness of the Self; and I do not think the story ends there. Already, there are a 'million' people here on the face of this earth that know that presence in their heart – and I am probably missing many more. This awareness turns to devotion and devotion becomes the higher knowledge. There is more going on in this world than you will read on the blogs! I just want to say, amongst all of the angst in this world and confusion of the 'I's, there exists a Way.

What you are looking for when you dive into that river every day, is already inside of you …..!