Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> Invoke common sense against ideology, or common sense as a kind of ideology?
As a kind of ideology. The concept of ideology *could* be a powerful one,
but it seems that among any three people there are seven different conceptions
of it. But a reasonably large proportion of the cases in which we wish to
speak of ideology we can capture some of its major aspects by calling the
offending consciousness "common sense." Racism then, for example, can
be seen as a common sense explanation of the observed phenomena of
the oppression of black people. ["It's common sense that where there's
smoke there's fire."] Spontaneously, in a common sense way, the explanation
for so many black people being in jail is (a) there exists a "real" thing
called the "black race" and (b) members of that "race" are apt to be
criminals.
I think for shared attempts at understanding theoretically complex
phenomena, it is best (if possible) to use a shared jargon with reasonably
fixed connotations. When it isn't possible probably it's best to use
deliberately vague common terms and define them in context. "Ideology"
*ought* to be a more precise term than "common sense" -- but in
most contexts it isn't. Everyone will recognize however that "common
sense" is a blank check and fill it in as appropriate to the context.
In the context, Justin is arguing that "Marx argues that, e,g., ideology
promotes ruling class rule." I think that's an empty statement in that
there is no way that persons with radically contradictory standpoints
can argue it one way or the other. I would dream of either saying
that it is or it isn't true about Marx. Hence my suggestion that we
try to discuss it without invoking the concept of ideology.
I think it can be argued, for example, that (1) common sense as it
operates usually does at least not conflict with and usually supports
"things as they are," (2) that that kind of thinking tends to be supportive
of ruling class interests, and (3) that Marx thought or that it is consistent
with the whole body of his thought.
Common sense tells you that cheating is bad. Period. So (as a student
of mine once argued), even if cheating by welfare recipients really
helps rather than hurts the rest of us, still we ought to stop that
cheating. I could put that into a complex argument involving "ideology,"
but I don't need to -- and if in the context "ideology" is going to create
fog, then why use it.
If the context allows it I would usually prefer to invoke the concept
of ideology. It just isn't *necessary*.
Carrol
