On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote:
> There are two different levels here. First, raghu is referring to the
> consciousness of individual workers in the real (empirical) world. On
> the other hand, when Carrol writes of [...] the objective and collective
> goals of the working class
> as a whole.
This is an interesting discussion. Thanks to Jim, Carrol, Ken and
others for the intelligent and thoughtful commentary.
> The actually-existing working class has a set of interests at any point in
> time that differs from the collective
> (class) interest of the working class implied by its position in society.
Not only that. We cannot assume that the actual desires and
preferences of individuals can be consistently explained in terms of a
set of interests. In other words, individuals do not behave
"rationally" in any objective sense. It is the norm rather than the
exception for people to behave, vote and act in ways contrary to
"self-interest", leave alone "class interest".
There simply does not exist any utility function that people can be
thought of as maximizing.
> I agree that we should reject the term "false consciousness." Among
> other things, it encourages paternalism toward workers ("we know
> better about what's good for you"). Also, it doesn't fit with Marx's
> mature theory of ideology, as represented by the fetishism of
> commodities: it's not the people are "fooled" and believe in
> "falsities" as much as that they see the world in a partial,
> incomplete way, seeing the trees but not the forest.
My own theory of consciousness is different from this. I believe that
individuals have multiple consciousnesses. It is not so much that
working people do not have "class consciousness. I believe that they
do. It is just that all people also have a variety of other
consciousnesses that may often conflict with "class interests".
For instance, workers people may self-identify as part of a working
class, while also simultaneously identifying as part of a religious
(e.g. Muslim), ethnic (e.g. Russian), racial (e.g. black),
professional (e.g. athlete) or even economic groups (e.g. upper middle
class). Some of these are indeed insidious and false identities (e.g.
racial categories), but others I'd argue are entirely legitimate.
I think it is wrong and also futile to try to abolish or suppress all
other conflicting identities in an effort to create "class
solidarity".
-raghu.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
