[Written as part of Notebook Blog Month.]
This is a bit of an experiment to see how ‘set a timer for an hour and see what you find’ works for finding out basic information about a topic. Why Marx on alienation specifically? Well, it’s been in the back of my mind as something where I’ve wanted to know more for a while now, but not to the point where I could ever be bothered to, you know, put the work in. At least this way I’ll put some half-arsed work in, and find out something.
Before I set the timer, I’ll give some quick background. I first got curious about this when I was reading The World Beyond Your Head by Matthew Crawford. This book is in large part about the skilful use of physical tools, often in the context of work, and how modern life degrades the ability to form these craftsman-like relationships with your materials. (Ugh, that’s a horribly abstract and clunky sentence. I don’t want to spend ages writing this intro, so I’m not going to spend time making it into a concrete one. But I do include a lot of examples in that linked review.)
This sounds a lot like alienation, to me, but Crawford never mentions Marx. This isn’t surprising, because Marx is very much Not His Tribe and it’s a very tribal sort of book. But it seemed like an omission I should follow up.
(I suppose it’s possible he does talk about him in Shop Class As Soul Craft, his other book on the topic. I haven’t read that one.)
The other reason I’m interested in this is pretty silly. I’m fascinated by this meme:
There’s something quite deep buried in there, I think. The two computers look different – the work one is more of a utilitarian enterprise-edition black box, the home one is a friendlier silver laptop. But I suspect that even if you worked at a trendy startup with a Macbook covered in stickers, you’d still get a lot of the same effect. The two computers are going to be used in very different ways.
Bad Screen is embedded in a work culture with distanced, ‘professional’ norms. You’re expected to turn up at set times, put in a certain number of hours, and do tasks that you quite frankly don’t care about either way, and wouldn’t look at for five minutes if you weren’t being paid. If you’re feeling any strong emotions that day, you’re mostly expected to leave them at home to the extent that they’d interfere with your job.
Good Screen is much more deeply connected to your whole life – you might stare at it at weird hours of the night and morning, rather than ‘office hours’. You use it to further instrinsically motivated projects that you chose yourself, like overanalysing stupid internet memes. If you’re miserable while looking at Good Screen you can just cry about it, or get angry, or whatever. Good Screen reaches tendrils right out into your whole life, while Bad Screen is much more weakly connected to a smaller, professional self. That difference in contexts is going to leak right down to the perceptual level. You’re alienated from Bad Screen in a way that you aren’t from Good Screen.
I suspect Marx’s interest will be structural – the conditions that lead to this alienation – rather than phenomenological – what alienation feels like on the inside. So might not be as directly relevant as I’d like. But still… I’m not going to know either way if I don’t read anything.
OK, that’s enough blathering about background. Timer time. I’ll tidy up and add in links afterwards, but the majority of writing is done during the hour.
OK. Type ‘marx on alienation’ into Google, get pull quote:
Oh dear, two long German words already. Entfremdung (alienation/estrangement) looks fine I think. Gattungswesen (species-essence) is going to take more work to understand.
Fine I’ll read the Wikipedia article. It continues:
The theoretical basis of alienation within the capitalist mode of production is that the worker invariably loses the ability to determine life and destiny when deprived of the right to think (conceive) of themselves as the director of their own actions; to determine the character of said actions; to define relationships with other people; and to own those items of value from goods and services, produced by their own labour. Although the worker is an autonomous, self-realized human being, as an economic entity this worker is directed to goals and diverted to activities that are dictated by the bourgeoisie—who own the means of production—in order to extract from the worker the maximum amount of surplus value in the course of business competition among industrialists.
No massive surprises there. OK lets find out what the source texts are:
In the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (1932), Karl Marx expressed the Entfremdung theory—of estrangement from the self. Philosophically, the theory of Entfremdung relies upon The Essence of Christianity (1841) by Ludwig Feuerbach which states that the idea of a supernatural god has alienated the natural characteristics of the human being. Moreover, Max Stirner extended Feuerbach’s analysis in The Ego and its Own (1845) that even the idea of “humanity” is an alienating concept for individuals to intellectually consider in its full philosophic implication. Marx and Friedrich Engels responded to these philosophic propositions in The German Ideology (1845).
So probably want to read about that first one. Open in new tab. Feuerbach sounds kind of interesting but different rabbit hole.
Next is type of alienation. Here’s Marx himself (from “Comment on James Mill”):
Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have, in two ways, affirmed himself, and the other person. (i) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and, therefore, enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also, when looking at the object, I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses, and, hence, a power beyond all doubt. (ii) In your enjoyment, or use, of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature … Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.
So you affirm yourself in two ways – you manifest your individuality by what you choose to make, and also by directly enjoying seeing your work be useful to another person. Marx identifies four ways that industrial production breaks this:
Alienation of the worker. Design of the product is fixed by the capitalist class, worker is just implementing a fixed model. More detailed stuff I’ll read if I get time.
Alienation of the worker from the act of production. The product itself is made in some repetitive way that gives little psychological satisfaction.
Alienation of the worker from their Gattungswesen (species-essence). Now we get the long German word. Open in new tab. Described below as:
Conceptually, in the term “species-essence” the word “species” describes the intrinsic human mental essence that is characterized by a “plurality of interests” and “psychological dynamism”, whereby every individual has the desire and the tendency to engage in the many activities that promote mutual human survival and psychological well-being, by means of emotional connections with other people, with society. The psychic value of a human consists in being able to conceive (think) of the ends of their actions as purposeful ideas, which are distinct from the actions required to realize a given idea.
I’d need to read more to grasp the subtleties. For now, imagine it something like ‘human potential’ or ‘actualisation’. Mix of individual and societal, individual determination over your work and also connection to others.
This is thwarted by industrial production by turning the worker into a interchangeable, mechanised part.
Alienation of the worker from other workers. Workers are competing in the labour market and turned against each other.
Shit that’s already 25 minutes gone. I’d like to get further than one wiki article. Skim the rest for interesting bits. Ignore Hegel. OK the rest of this is mostly Hegel. Tiny criticism section which is all Althusser.
References: Marx originals, some university lecture notes. Maaybe follow the lecture notes if time.
Go back to that other wiki article on Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. OK maybe Feuerbach is more important than I realised and not separate rabbit hole:
Marx expounds his theory of alienation, which he adapted (not without changes) from Feuerbach’s The Essence of Christianity (1841).
Another version of four types of alienation. Bit about Aristotle:
He refers to Aristotle’s praxis and production, by saying that the exchange of human activity involved in the exchange of human product, is the generic activity of man. Man’s conscious and authentic existence, he states, is social activity and social satisfaction.
Moreover, he sees human nature in true common life, and if that is not existent as such, men create their common human nature by creating their common life. Furthermore, he argues similarly to Aristotle that authentic common life does not originate from thought but from the material base, needs and egoism. However, in Marx’s view, life has to be humanly organized to allow a real form of common life, since under alienation human interaction is subordinated to a relationship between things. Hence consciousness alone is by far not enough.
Labour value of value. Everything reduced to its exchange rate, causing further alienation.
Marx is of the opinion that alienation reaches its peak once labour becomes wage labour.
OK that’s the end of the two wiki articles. Back to Google. Stanford Philosophy is next. See how far I get through this.
Introductory definitional stuff. Alienation as a kind of separation that is sin some way problematic.
Disclaimers. Not going to be much about historical development but mentions some names. More Hegel. Rousseau.
Two adjacent concepts ‘drawn from Hegelian and Marxist traditions’: fetishism and objectification.
‘Fetishism’ refers here to the idea of human creations which have somehow escaped (inappropriately separated out from) human control, achieved the appearance of independence, and come to enslave and oppress their creators… Consider, for instance, the frequency with which ‘market forces’ are understood and represented within modern culture as something outside of human control, as akin to natural forces which decide our fate.
Feuerbach had some similar argument about Christianity:
the Christian God demands real world sacrifices from individuals, typically in the form of a denial or repression of their essential human needs.
Similar to Marx’s alienation, but not all alienation is fetishism. E.g. alienation can come from our ‘our ruthlessly instrumental treatment of nature, rather than in nature’s tyranny over us’.
Next objectification. Not the feminist version.
In the present context, objectification refers rather to the role of productive activity in mediating the evolving relationship between humankind and the natural world.
i.e. humans make stuff and collectively shape the world.
These world transforming productive activities, we might say, embody the progressive self-realisation of humankind.
Marx would say that this doesn’t always take an alienated form. E.g. meaningful work that is freely chosen, that develops your capabilities and is useful to others. So different to say:
what is sometimes called the ‘Christian’ view of work. On this account, work is seen as a necessary evil, an unpleasant activity unfortunately required for our survival. It owes its name to its embrace of the claim that it was only after the Fall that human beings were required to work by the sweat of their brows
OK next we have subjective and objective alienation. Subjective – experiencing life as lacking meaning, feeling estranged from the world. Objective – potential is frustrated by conditions of the world.
Then there is a table of
subjective + objective present
objective present, not subjective
subjective present, not objective
and how different thinkers fit in. E.g. ‘I take it that existentialists think of (something like) objective alienation as a permanent feature of all human societies.’ Potentially interesting but will skip for now.
Haha I’m slow. Just realised this article is alienation in general, not just Marx. That’s why all these other people keep cropping up! D’oh! Ah well at least I’m getting some background. Still 15 minutes to go. Will skim for Marxy bits.
Something about the positive side of alienation, as an expression of individuality and differentiation. Hard to be too alienated in premodern tribe where you have no choice about what you have to do with life. In this view it should be an intermediate stage:
By a dialectical progression is meant only a movement from a stage characterised by a relationship of ‘undifferentiated unity’, through a stage characterised by a relationship of ‘differentiated disunity’, to a stage characterised by a relationship of ‘differentiated unity’.
Future communist societies will get to the wonderful world of ‘differentiated unity’ and then we’ll all be happy.
The suggestion here is that internal to the second stage, the stage of alienation, there is both a problematic separation from community and a positive liberation from engulfment.
Interesting sounding bit on morality as alienation. All those shoulds alienating you from your own taste.
certain conceptions of morality might embody or encourage a problematic division of self, and a problematic separation from much that is valuable in our lives.
Utilitarianism as example. Again this isn’t really Marx but alienation in general.
Unresolved issues. How much alienation in pre-capitalist societies? Religion alienation as another flavour.
Its plausibility is scarcely incontrovertible, given the amount of sheer productive drudgery, and worse, in pre-capitalist societies.
How much can we be free of systematic alienation?
Marx’s view about communism rests crucially on the judgement that it is the social relations of capitalist society, and not its material or technical arrangements, which are the cause of systematic forms of alienation.
OK that’s the end of the article. What can I do with the remaining 6 minutes? Not much. Back to Google. Next listing is from something called marxists.org. Really short but has a big reference list. More Hegel 😦
Some university lecture notes. Nothing is jumping out at me. Try this blog post. A little bit more about the species-being concept:
Because humans are biological beings, and not merely free-floating immaterial minds, we, like all other biological beings, must interact with and transform the natural world in order to survive. But what distinguishes us from all other animals, like bees, spiders, or beavers, which all transform the world based on instinct, is that we transform the world consciously and freely.5 Thus, the essence of a human being – what Marx calls our species-being – is to consciously and freely transform the world in order to meet our needs. Like many other philosophers, Marx believes that excellently doing what makes us distinctively human is the true source of fulfillment.
3 minutes. Next page of results. Now I’m on Issue 79 of International Socialism. Long and not a riveting read. OK here’s an example:
Peter Linebaugh in his history of 18th century London, The London Hanged, explained that workers considered themselves masters of what they produced. It took great repression, a ‘judicial onslaught’, in the late 18th century to convince them that what they produced belonged exclusively to the capitalists who owned the factories. During the 18th century most workers were not paid exclusively in money. ‘This was true of Russian serf labour, American slave labour, Irish agricultural labour and the metropolitan labour in London trades’
Reading some concrete history would be a lot more interesting. Thinking back to Lark Rise and Enclosure.
Time’s up! That was fun, and I learned a few things. A lot of it was just ‘in the water’, so that I vaguely knew it already, but I did learn some new terminology, and I have an idea of where to find the primary sources and go deeper if I want to.
Writing and searching in the same hour was a bit difficult and tended to bias towards spending longer on each link. Maybe an hour of just going down link rabbit holes and writing up afterwards would be worth trying too? Still, I think this format is promising.