The Social Use of Philosophy and Ideologies

[Raúl Duke]

In the philosophy forum...people usually talk, discuss, debate, and argue the philosophies themselves.

I want to bring up (maybe I'm not the first, hope I'm not the last) the question: How has philosophy and ideology been used in a sociological/social sense?

Main Question:
Has it ever been used similarly as religion has in many cases (i.e.: a tool for societal control, to justify a specific society and/or ruling class) and what are these examples across history (and in the present)?

One reason I'm bringing this question up is due to something that Marx mentioned: "the ruling ideas of an era have always been the ideas of the [era's] ruling class."

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The answer is a qualified yes. If you can, get hold of a copy of Citizens To Lords. A Social History Of Western Political Thought From Antiquity To The Middle Ages (Verso Press, 2008) by Ellen Meiksins Wood, which documents the impact of philosophy on social and political thought.

Here is a review from this month's Socialist Review:


Citizens to Lords

Book Review by Neil Faulkner, September 2008

Ellen Meiksins Wood, Verso, £16.99

Greek democracy was traumatic for the ancient ruling class. Ellen Wood is right to root her analysis of western political thought in the context of this extraordinary historical experiment. For around 200 years, in the 5th and 4th centuries BC, Athens and many other Greek city-states were ruled by ordinary citizens. Major decisions - like whether to go to war - were made at mass meetings of thousands. The poorest hill farmer had the same rights as the richest landowner. While it lasted, it was impossible for rulers to screw their own people. Instead the rich faced wealth taxes and corruption trials.

The Greek ruling class never forgot or forgave. They later combined with Macedonian kings and Roman viceroys to smash democracy. This ancient class war between landowners and peasants is the starting point for western political thought. Other civilisations - based on brutally enforced obedience - had no need for political theory: there was a king, he was backed by god, his authority was beyond question, and that was that. But the city-state was a community of free citizens, all doing military service, all having political rights. Anything could happen - like cancellation of debts and redistribution of land (the two great demands of the ancient left) - and right wing intellectuals spent much time concocting theories to justify inequality. This is the origin of Greek philosophy.

How successful were they? Wood's central theme is that all the major figures of the western tradition - Plato, Aristotle, St Augustine, St Thomas Aquinas and others - were embedded in the ideological class struggles of their own times. Far too often they are discussed as "great thinkers" - often in tones of hushed awe - without reference to any social context.

But how do you explain a convoluted concept like Aristotle's notion that the ideal city-state should comprise "conditions" (people who work) and "parts" (people with power)? What is this if not an attempt to justify an oligarchy of property owners instead of democracy? Or take St Augustine's discovery that it was not what one did that mattered in securing entry to heaven, but only what one thought. How convenient for his super-rich patrons in late Roman Carthage.

The message is that western political thought was poisoned from start to finish by property and power. However brilliant some of its practitioners, it has been hideously distorted by class interest. This is a useful addition to the Marxist literature on pre-capitalist societies.

http://www.socialistreview.org.uk/article.php?articlenumber=10516

Bold added.

[The highlighted parts in fact form part of one of the central theses of my work. So, it was pleasant to see the UK-SWP catching up.]

But, you are right, and so was Marx:


One reason I'm bringing this question up is due to something that Marx mentioned: "the ruling ideas of an era have always been the ideas of the [era's] ruling class."

[Raúl Duke]

This book sounds AMAZING. (although I wonder if there are other books like it and/or about different time-periods) I'm putting it down in my list (if I can find that file somewhere in my PC) of books to get.


The highlighted parts in fact form part of one of the central theses of my work.You mean the work in your web-site (because I did noticed mentions, although don't remember which essay/page # it was, on how ancient philosophy was used by the ruling class and I think you imply or mention how dialectics can/has/etc been used for the same reason or is similar to these ancient philosophy) or some kind of university-level research work?


Far too often they are discussed as "great thinkers" - often in tones of hushed awe - without reference to any social context.

Ha! I remember meeting people who would talk of Nietzsche, Plato, de Sade, Freud, Jung, etc in such tones (they're usually very unlikable people and not very deep in thought since it seems they can't even criticize their "great thinker.").

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I am not sure there are. She references other books she and her partner have written on similar topics. I'll let you know when my copies of these other books arrive.

Another book of hers I have read is excellent too:

Peasant, Citizen And Slave. The Foundation Of Athenian Democracy (Verso, 1988).

My ideas on this are outlined here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Why%20I%20Oppose%20DM.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

[shorelinetrance]

Plato endorsed "philosopher kings" as rightful rulers, if that doesn't fit the criteria of "societal control" i don't know what is. :D:D:D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Shoreline, that is indeed one of the themes of the above book.

[Hyacinth]

I just went to the university library and got my hands on the recommended readings, I look forward going through them, they look fascinating.

Anything else that I should add to the list?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The book I have just received,:

Class Ideology and Ancient Political Theory: Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Social Context

co-authored by Ellen and Neal Wood (Blackwell, 1978) looks good too.

Christopher Caudwell's essays are excellent too, even of he was a dialectician.

Some of his work is published here:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/caudwell/index.htm

One of his best is: 'The Crisis in Physics'.

However, the history of ideas (and it's ideological backgound) is not well-covered in Marxist writing. I hope to rectify that a little when I finish the rest of Essays Twelve and Fourteen, summarised here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Rest_of_Summary_of_Twelve.htm

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/Summary_of_Essay_Fourteen_Part_One.htm

Other good books are:

Freudenthal, G. (1986), Atom And Individual In The Age Of Newton. On The Genesis Of The Mechanistic World View (Reidel).

Hadden, R. (1994), On The Shoulders Of Merchants (State University of New York Press).

Zilsel, E. (2000), The Social Origins Of Modern Science (Kluwer Academic Press).

But these deal with science.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I've read two of Ellen Meiksins Wood's books - The Origins of Capitalism and Empire of Capital, and both are excellent. So yeh, follow Rosa's advice and get Citizens To Lords, as I think I probably will in the next few months

---------------------------

As far as ideology is concerned, I'd be inclined to stress its role in making society work, that is, as a primary factor in the reproduction of social forms and means of production. Beyond this, we might see ideology as something which serves as a universal reference point, through which people in society can interact with and "understand" each other. Yes, Marxists sometimes wish to see ideology as "false consciousness", but this conception can be misleading, since it is precisely ideology that helps us construct what is "real".

I'm struggling to find an analogy, but perhaps this will do: imagine we are all going to play football. We will find out the place we have been assigned in the social structure by consulting the rules of the game (the rules being the ideology of football). The fight for communism would be like trying to get us all to ditch football in favour of baseball, and would not be about trying to convince people that the football we are playing is not "real" football or that the rules of football that we are playing are "wrong"

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

The problem with this it see everything linguistic as ideological, and thus the term loses all meaning.

But, in point of fact we use ordinary language quite uncontroversially to communicate with one another, so we do not need to appeal to 'ideology' to account for that.

[Lord Hargreaves]

The problem with this it see everything linguistic as ideological, and thus the term loses all meaning.

Yes, we would have to try and separate ideological language from other kinds of language in order to prevent the category "ideology" from disappearing into tautology. I doubt any analytic distinction could really be sustained in any study, but it seems fairly obvious that in-themselves such a distinction must exist


But, in point of fact we use ordinary language quite uncontroversially to communicate with one another, so we do not need to appeal to 'ideology' to account for that.

I disagree that we use ordinary language (what on earth is "ordinary" language?) uncontroversially. Sure, language used in an instrumental sense is fairly transferable across cultures, but the real substantive language we use in identity-formation is fairly distinct imho

Even when we are at home in a particular national socio-lingustic community - say, England - the change when we visit a different country is highly noticable. The change from social formations - capitalism to communism - would probably be far more profound than the change from country to country

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

LH:


I disagree that we use ordinary language (what on earth is "ordinary" language?) uncontroversially. Sure, language used in an instrumental sense is fairly transferable across cultures, but the real substantive language we use in identity-formation is fairly distinct imho

Ordinary language is the language of ordinary human beings; the sort of language you use to make yourself understood to friends, acquaintances, relatives, strangers, children, shop-assistants, waiters and waitresses, peers, plumbers, bus drivers, etc., etc. And vice versa. And much of this is uncontroversially successful, otherwise you (i.e., anyone) would not be able to cope in any meaningful sense.

It is indeed why aphasia and other speech disorders are such serious handicaps, and why those so afflicted require long-term social support.

What do you mean 'identity formation'?

[counterblast]

In the philosophy forum...people usually talk, discuss, debate, and argue the philosophies themselves.

I want to bring up (maybe I'm not the first, hope I'm not the last) the question: How has philosophy and ideology been used in a sociological/social sense?

Main Question:
Has it ever been used similarly as religion has in many cases (i.e.: a tool for societal control, to justify a specific society and/or ruling class) and what are these examples across history (and in the present)?


Philosophy has most definately become a replacement for "religion" in the broader leftist community. I can't tell you how often I've come across people quoting Sartre or Nietzche or Marx as if their works were religious gospel. Sometimes I find it hard to even hold rational debates with otherwise radical individuals, because they're constantly interjecting with -- "But Das Kapital says this..." as religious fundamentalists do with their holy books.

My personal opinion is that we've become too transfixed on philosophers, and not transfixed enough on philosophy. When theory becomes attached to its author, it becomes as dead and dated and absolute as the individual who penned it. Reader/idea power dynamics become pupil/teacher dynamics, leaving no room for critique or expansion or evolution.




One reason I'm bringing this question up is due to something that Marx mentioned: "the ruling ideas of an era have always been the ideas of the [era's] ruling class."

On a side note-- this statement could almost be interpreted as a prelude to postmodernism. Marx criticizes the "ruling class" of philosophy and seals his fate among them, almost in the same breath.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Quite right, Counterblast. This comment of yours in fact forms one of the cornerstones of my own work. As Marx noted:


The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life. [Marx and Engels, The German Ideology, p.118.]

But, take this or leave it; I do not advocate we treat this as gospel!

[Raúl Duke]

Wow...I didn't know this thread lasted a little longer.


postmodernismI wonder if post-modernism has any societal usefulness and for whom?


My personal opinion is that we've become too transfixed on philosophers, and not transfixed enough on philosophy.
(The rest here are anecdotal stuff...if you're into going straight to business disregard the below and only consider the above question about post-modernism.)
That reminds me of the people who are "interested in philosophy" that I've meet in high school and such.

They're always like "philosophy is so cool. Nietzsche, Plato, and/or Sade; et. al are so cool!" and then when I say "philosophy blows yo" (exaggerated, but to that effect) and then proceed to talk about philosophical terms like a priori and post priori knowledge (epistemology) and sometimes using a few examples (that I picked off from Rosa, like the Lenin saying that "motion without matter is unthinkable") on how philosophy sometimes make wierd/wrong statements (i.e., if motion without matter is unthinkable...the how is Lenin able to express this into words?) they become dumbstrucked (and confused on how someone who isn't "down with philosophy like me" knows more about it. Note: I'm not claiming I know alot...I'm a novice in this board's standard!).

Also, when I criticize a priori philosophy and compare it to religion they're unable to reply...!

Well, what I noticed about these people is how they quickly turn into followers of great thinkers in a non-critical way and even in an unknowledgeable way. There was these people who were into Plato and when I stated something like "Plato is the precursor of fascism/totalitarianism" and make a reasoned argument why based on the republic and the allegory of the cave they seem to know nothing of this.

They're kind of like the people who buy academic books yet don't read them but use them as home decoration so to impress their buddies on how "intellectual" they are.

[Dystisis]

Plato endorsed "philosopher kings" as rightful rulers, if that doesn't fit the criteria of "societal control" i don't know what is. :D:D:D
Sure beats the hell out of bloodline kings.

[counterblast]

I wonder if post-modernism has any societal usefulness and for whom?


I think postmodern theory can be as simultaneously absurd and logical when it is applied radically to everyday life, as it has been on paper.

Obviously, many things which the left has relied upon, especially identity becomes obscured. The notion of the collectively oppressed individual, becomes replaced by the individually oppressed collective. This can have adverse effects on the way we currently address oppression, and I'm honestly unsure if these would be good or bad effects.

For example, racial identity becomes less important than it has been historically, because the focus is no longer on the sweeping generalization that People of Color are oppressed as a whole or that racism is the root of our problems. Instead, race is just one small factor, that is no more or less important than factors of interpretation or circumstance or privilege. In other words, oppression becomes directly linked to individual experience, and not to a universal externalized predestiny.

Postmodernism, in some ways, sees the contemporary leftist view of oppression as a presupposing false dichotomy of oppressed and nonoppressed. It suggests that the Left merely simulates the Right, and that the rightwing concept "everyone suffers oppression equally" has merely been liberalized by the left with "everyone from group A suffers oppression equally and everyone from group B suffers oppression equally".

For this reason, many Marxist scholars call Postmodernism nonsensical, anti-worker, and even capitalistic, because this deeply conflicts with traditional views of class heirarchy. But I'm personally unconvinced.