definitions

Charles Brown CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us
Thu Sep 9 09:10:01 PDT 1999


On this issue of science and ideology, I wonder if Jim would comment on my reading of Marx's Second Thesis on Feuerbach:

"The question whether objective truth can be attributed to human thinking is not a question of theory but is a practical question. Man(sic) must prove the truth, i.e. the reality and power, the this-sidedness of his thnking in practice. The dispute over the reality or non-reality of thinking that is isolated from practice is a purely scholastic question."

Doesn't "this-sideness" refer to things-for-us ? Isn't Marx saying the same thing as Engels when he declares that science, materialism, involves turning things-in-themselves into things-for-us ? Is there a dialectical unity, i.e. unity and struggle of the opposites of knowledge of things-in-themselves and knowledge of things-for-us, humanity led by the working class, in the Marxist conception of materialism or science ? Isn't a closer synonymn of "science" "materialism" than "ideological neutrality " ? Marxist objectivity is a unity of theory and practice, for both natural and physical science. Marxist materialism , objectivity and science is not passively contemplative or empiricist , as were all previous materialisms , including Feuerbach's. Marxist materialism is practical-critical activity, as Marx says in the First Thesis on F. By practical-critical activity , Marx does not mean "ideology" and by "science" mean something else. He means science is practical-critical ac! tivity, although there is a moment in this overall process that is empirical activity , i.e. passive contemplation of objective reality. Science is not only that phase or moment. It is the active moments of changing the world as well. Engels defines "practice"as experimentation and industry.

As to economics, isn't a central point of Marxism that "economics" is political economy , that the politcal/power dimension , class struggle, is central to scientific analysis of production and exchange ? So, analysis of political consciousness, or ideology, is integral to the science of poltical economy.

Footnote: I realize that in the Marxist tradition the word "ideology has a distinct meaning of false consciousness, as in _The German Ideology_. I am am using "ideology" in the more modern sense, not tring

to be ambiguous or illogical , but because the modern meaning of the term is not strictly used in the Marxist sense of false consciousness. By "ideology" I am referring to unity of theory and practice. In social science especially, this termed "ideology" in modern parlance.

This is all aside from the fact that even the sciences that claim to be ideologically neutral, are not , as is well demonstrated on this list, in posties' critique of power relations in institutions of knowledge, etc.

Charles Brown


>>> Jim heartfield <jim at heartfield.demon.co.uk> 09/07/99 05:50PM >>>
In message <s7d4dd53.072 at mail.ci.detroit.mi.us>, Charles Brown <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes
>
>
>
>>>> Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> 09/06/99 06:33PM >>>
>No one claimed it was ideologically neutral. No one ever claimed
>science was ideologically neutral either.

I claim science is ideologically neutral. In fact, that's what science means. The view that there is nothing but ideology, really means that there is no such thing as ideology. The concept ideology has no meaning if there is no possibility of going beyond it/escaping from it.

The science/ideology distinction is a venerable one and important to all philosophy. Ideology used to be called natural thinking, or prejudice, and the idea that it was possible to rationally penetrate the illusory appearance of things is the meaning of all science. Like Marx says 'if essence and appearance coincided, then science would be superfluous'.

It seems to me to be a thoroughly pessimistic and cowardly idea that you can never escape ideology. More than that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's like those liberals who say, 'of course, we are all racists, we can't escape that' as if it was part of the human condition. What they really mean is that they themselves are not going to do anything about it.

With economic categories, going beyond the surface appearance is the beginning of scientific understanding. Of course, if one can never escape ideology, then it follows that the superficial appearance of things is really all there is, and one should simply accept that the Stock Exchange continues to generate dividends out of nowhere as a fact of life. -- Jim heartfield



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list