One of the topics that intrigues me a lot in the field of politics is the possibility of love being in a harmonious relationship with the field of politics. In our discussion about spacing desire, we have talked about how our desire for someone special becomes a present feeling within the space in between you and that special someone. As discussed, it is through that space that allows the existence of desire, but this becomes a problem in contemporary political theory as it is through transcendence that space is abolished, and it should not be the case in terms of love?
Why space should not be abolished in love anyway? The reason is plainly simple: in true love, a couple shows sincere love for each other if they understand and stage their differences towards each other. Even if they may have conflicting personalities, the fact that they understand each other is a good way of defining how space is well-addressed with desire for the other.
But unlike love, contemporary politics destroys that space by making everyone conform to a certain standard, and this is well-evident with communism.
Although communism addresses equality with the state, communism abolishes, however, the space as it gives no room for addressing differences towards each other, meaning there is no understanding between the elite and the commoner and the middle man; it is just a single class all alone within the state. The problem becomes worse as discussed by Foucault, as through making power relations subjective we are changing our discourses for discipline. The more we change our discourses, the more difficult for us to propose a solid, reliable, and usable alternative to improve society.
Having said that, the downfall of contemporary political theory as compared to classical political theory is the fact that the differences between the classes of people within the state are eliminated such that the ultimate objective of contemporary political theory is creating a classless society, where everything is universal and uniform. Such thinking eliminates the hierarchy of the state, which plays an essential role as discussed in Plato’s The Republic, as people have their respective roles, and that they cannot be do-it-all people, one-man bands, or a Mr. Handyman.
In my personal opinion, love and politics can be related to each other in harmony if we talk about it in terms of classical political theory, where classes and hierarchies exists. In classical political theory, differences are well-addressed through the presence of political masks as Machiavelli discussed in The Prince, and the existence of a mysterious creature called the Leviathan in Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. During these era of political theory, differences were addressed well in a hierarchal fashion, wherein the public sphere gains control of the law, as these classes conform to rules made by the public and the presence of an unknown entity that people fear the most, thus presenting stability in the state through these laws made by the public for the individual to follow. As the individuals have laws to follow, love can therefore be related to the classical form of politics as the differences between the various classes in the sate, from the elite all the way to the common masses, are addressed through the formation of laws for everyone to comply.
Now going to the modern context, of the likes of Marx and Foucault, the notion of love and politics being able to live together in harmony is destroyed as it treats the human soul as if it were just a part of a never-ending cycle of history that goes on and on. The progression seemed to be not as much as the progression seen through classical times. As evident with Foucault, the use of power relations as means of forming the individuals hence destroys the harmonious relationship of love and politics because instead of an understanding nature where people would be focus on addressing the differences between them, the situation being presented in the contemporary context shows an image of a person who is on top saying “follow my orders or I have you killed” kind of thinking. There leaves no room for any form of change or proposed alternative in improving society. In addition, it has to come always from the laws made from the private sphere and not from the public sphere, as represented through classical political theorists.
Hence, going back to the debate on whether love and politics can go together in a harmonious relationship or not, I believe the answer is a big no given the context of contemporary political theory as it destroys the most important part of desire, which is the space within that desire. Without space, there is no room for change nor room for correction. Through eliminating change we are left with creating various discourses without proposing a concrete alternative to change society. Imposing classless societies and the panopticon as a basis for discipline shows to us our refusal to address our differences towards each other and hence, becoming selfish, which is never the point of true love.
Showing posts with label Marx. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marx. Show all posts
Monday, February 23, 2009
Thursday, January 22, 2009
A remedy, but not a permanent solution
Among one of the current conflicts within the principle of capitalism is the fact that given the ideal of the capitalist’s mind of thinking of higher profits with lower investments with their business, there will come a point wherein with all the efforts of the capitalist to increase the maximum profit of his business, from increasing work hours to replacing his men with machines, which are supposedly “more reliable and more efficient”, he will end up decreasing his total profit due to the abuse of the capitalist, as Karl Marx has pointed out with Marxism.
In the modern context of discussing Marx with its transition into imperialism, it is said and discussed in class that although Marx’s predictions were proven to be wrong by modern critics, his contribution to the world of modern political theory is nonetheless relevant in terms of criticizing capitalism and its problems towards human society. What makes Marx’s criticism of capitalism with Marxism relevant is that through pointing out the flaws of capitalism, much is remedied with regards to capitalism, thus preventing the flaws of capitalism to occur again. With this in mind, Marx actually made an effort in improving the state of capitalism though pointing out the flaws of it.
In addition, although the idea behind Marxism and Imperialism, which will be discussed later in this paper, leaves a radical impression of which is not totally new to the human being. That being said, the origin of being radical started even before Marxism has ever existed; in fact the radical approach can be rooted upon the early capitalism era, wherein the abuse of humanity prevails the most. As the radical approach is rooted upon capitalism, it is through this root, or primary cause, that the radical approach is used as a means of instigating a revolution, which is clearly seen with the birth of the French revolution. Likewise the instigation of a revolution has brought upon a progression through history, as mankind learns overtime from the good and bad points capitalism has caused. A good example of this is the existence of class struggle, as stated by Karl Marx, wherein because of a capitalist society, two clashing classes existed, which are the bourgeoise and the proletariats. Because of the oppression the bourgeoise does to the proletariats, the proletariats, through class struggle, work their way towards eliminating the bourgeoise class, which is among the key points in Marxism. Hence, the bourgeoise class, the capitalists, are the supposed “bearers of universal evil”, of which the proletariat class, the working class, has to work upon through propaganda to eliminate the evils of the bourgeoise lass, and eventually replacing capitalism. This occurred in the French revolution as the proletariat class manage to crush the bourgeoise class, which then leads us to the birth of imperialism.
Vladimir Lenin, a primary figure of imperialism said that through the abolition of the capitalist state and the creation of a new state, a state dominated by proletariats is therefore created after the elimination of the bourgeoise class and the capitalist. Through this, the state starts from scratch, and therefore reorganizes itself; as capitalism is replaced, it therefore replaces the modes, the means, and the cycle of production through a proletariat perspective. Although the idea of a state dominated by proletariats may seem good as there is no capitalists or anyone form the bourgeoise class controlling them, the idea of having a purely proletariat state can still become problematic. Despite that the proletariat is defined to be universal and progressive with our discussions in class, the problem that lies within the proletariat state is the problem of representation.
In the proletariat class, we should be aware that there are various divisions within the class and because of that it is hard to determine how to create representation, and in order to remedy this, the vanguard party is therefore formed. The vanguard party, of which represents a particular group of people from the proletariat class, exists so that the proletariat state can become stabilized and not end up in chaos, which could possibly result from the abuse of the newly-discovered freedom of the proletariat class. In the end, creating a proletariat state would not be entirely proletariat since the existence of a vanguard party being in the forefront of the proletariat state would mean that hierarchies would still exist and therefore abuses of power would still remain.
Although the conversion from a capitalist state into a proletariat state would be a great idea as it puts an end to abusive capitalists, it is not indeed a permanent solution to the proper distribution of power among the people, the proletariat class in particular, since it is realistically impossible to create absolute equality and absolute communal sharing in a proletariat community. The fall of communism in the early 1990s attest to this, as since a leader is still needed in a communist society, there are still possibilities of abuse, of which exists even with a capitalist society.
In the modern context of discussing Marx with its transition into imperialism, it is said and discussed in class that although Marx’s predictions were proven to be wrong by modern critics, his contribution to the world of modern political theory is nonetheless relevant in terms of criticizing capitalism and its problems towards human society. What makes Marx’s criticism of capitalism with Marxism relevant is that through pointing out the flaws of capitalism, much is remedied with regards to capitalism, thus preventing the flaws of capitalism to occur again. With this in mind, Marx actually made an effort in improving the state of capitalism though pointing out the flaws of it.
In addition, although the idea behind Marxism and Imperialism, which will be discussed later in this paper, leaves a radical impression of which is not totally new to the human being. That being said, the origin of being radical started even before Marxism has ever existed; in fact the radical approach can be rooted upon the early capitalism era, wherein the abuse of humanity prevails the most. As the radical approach is rooted upon capitalism, it is through this root, or primary cause, that the radical approach is used as a means of instigating a revolution, which is clearly seen with the birth of the French revolution. Likewise the instigation of a revolution has brought upon a progression through history, as mankind learns overtime from the good and bad points capitalism has caused. A good example of this is the existence of class struggle, as stated by Karl Marx, wherein because of a capitalist society, two clashing classes existed, which are the bourgeoise and the proletariats. Because of the oppression the bourgeoise does to the proletariats, the proletariats, through class struggle, work their way towards eliminating the bourgeoise class, which is among the key points in Marxism. Hence, the bourgeoise class, the capitalists, are the supposed “bearers of universal evil”, of which the proletariat class, the working class, has to work upon through propaganda to eliminate the evils of the bourgeoise lass, and eventually replacing capitalism. This occurred in the French revolution as the proletariat class manage to crush the bourgeoise class, which then leads us to the birth of imperialism.
Vladimir Lenin, a primary figure of imperialism said that through the abolition of the capitalist state and the creation of a new state, a state dominated by proletariats is therefore created after the elimination of the bourgeoise class and the capitalist. Through this, the state starts from scratch, and therefore reorganizes itself; as capitalism is replaced, it therefore replaces the modes, the means, and the cycle of production through a proletariat perspective. Although the idea of a state dominated by proletariats may seem good as there is no capitalists or anyone form the bourgeoise class controlling them, the idea of having a purely proletariat state can still become problematic. Despite that the proletariat is defined to be universal and progressive with our discussions in class, the problem that lies within the proletariat state is the problem of representation.
In the proletariat class, we should be aware that there are various divisions within the class and because of that it is hard to determine how to create representation, and in order to remedy this, the vanguard party is therefore formed. The vanguard party, of which represents a particular group of people from the proletariat class, exists so that the proletariat state can become stabilized and not end up in chaos, which could possibly result from the abuse of the newly-discovered freedom of the proletariat class. In the end, creating a proletariat state would not be entirely proletariat since the existence of a vanguard party being in the forefront of the proletariat state would mean that hierarchies would still exist and therefore abuses of power would still remain.
Although the conversion from a capitalist state into a proletariat state would be a great idea as it puts an end to abusive capitalists, it is not indeed a permanent solution to the proper distribution of power among the people, the proletariat class in particular, since it is realistically impossible to create absolute equality and absolute communal sharing in a proletariat community. The fall of communism in the early 1990s attest to this, as since a leader is still needed in a communist society, there are still possibilities of abuse, of which exists even with a capitalist society.
Let’s kill the Capitalist
Among the main topics discussed for this week’s session on Marx is about his principle of alienation through labor. Though the activity of labor itself, man has eventually become alienated through acting instead of a human into a mere robot at work. How come? In the capitalist society, everything is governed by these pieces of paper and metal objects called money. Through this, the relationship of the slave and master, basing it from the Hegelian philosophy, eventually becomes a relation between the slave, who is the worker, and the master, who is the capitalist, wherein money is the one that bridges between the two in a Marxian context.
Among the key points with regards to the Marxian philosophy is that 1) Alienation is the result of the labor of activity itself, and not the product of labor, 2) That in order to stop alienation we should do it through production and not consumption, and 3) The solution to the full freedom or emancipation of man is to abolish private property.
In the first two key points, the main reason why we should be targeting the production instead of the consumption is that alienation itself affects the worker more than the buyer or the consumer. Why?
Let’s analyze the work in a capitalist state; in a capitalist state, a worker is given a minimum wage for his daily labor of work by his boss, the capitalist itself. For this, I will use a hypothetical principle of manufacturing tables as an example. Provided that a worker works for a fixed rate of 50 pesos per hour, and works for 10 hours, he is able to make 5 tables in that span of that time period. So this should mean then that the worker can make a table in a span of two hours, and theoretically speaking, the table’s manufacturing cost is at 100 pesos. Given that he is able to make five tables, and works for ten hours, he then earns 1000 pesos on a daily basis. Now what does the capitalist do? In order to gain income, he sells the tables at double the price at 200 pesos per table, and while the capitalist can sell the 5 tables the worker has made during the day at a total of 2000 pesos, the capitalist ends up paying the worker only the minimum wage, which is 1000 pesos, for that particular labor. Where did the other 1000 pesos go? It went eventually to the pockets of the capitalist, and the other 1000 pesos that the capitalist kept is his profit from selling the tables, hence creating a surplus value with the tables the worker has made.
What makes this unfair then? It is the mere fact that the capitalist makes use of the worker as a commodity to his expanding business, such that by thinking of money, profit, and income, he dehumanizes the laborer by making him into a mere robot that does an automated task of manufacturing tables for the benefit of the capitalist and for the use of the consumers. Marx makes sense when he says that it is the laborer who gets alienated rather than the consumer. Although in one way or another the consumer becomes alienated since he is dictated by the capitalist to buy his products for various reasons (take in the marketing strategy of Apple’s iPods for example), it is still the laborer at the end who is deeply alienated at this modern, capitalist society since he becomes dependent with the work and the (unfair) pay he gets from his master the capitalist. Having said that, this causes the worker in the end to be powerless against the capitalist, his master, as he becomes a dependent entity of the master.
And we all know that in the capitalist society, capitalist always desire for a higher profit while at the same time, investing less. So how does the capitalist compensate for this given that he has given the maximum number of hours to work for the laborer and thew maximum number of laborers he can have in his company? The answer to that is the use of machinery to do the work. Since theoretically speaking the machine can do much more work than the laboring human in a fraction of a time, this then will give the most profit to the capitalist, of which he deeply desires.
In both cases, whether the laboring man is replaced by the machine or the laboring man is abused by the capitalist, you cannot remove the sense of exploitation in the capitalist society. If you use machines, you don’t address the means and needs for survival of the laboring human by not having him work. On the other hand, abusing the laboring man instead of being replaced by machines would jeopardize his health and condition, no matter how much benefits or insurance can the capitalist give to his workers.
And at the same time, machines are like humans; they sure may be much more efficient than humans but we should know that they have to be constantly maintained; wear and tear with its use overtime can make it inefficient, reaching to the point that the capitalist would merit a negative profit because of neglect and abuse to the machine, just like what the capitalist does to the human laboring worker.
And given these problems with Capitalism, and given the Marxian principles of alienation, what should be done to resolve the conflict? Simple. Kill Capitalism, the capitalists and the bourgeoisie class..
Among the key points with regards to the Marxian philosophy is that 1) Alienation is the result of the labor of activity itself, and not the product of labor, 2) That in order to stop alienation we should do it through production and not consumption, and 3) The solution to the full freedom or emancipation of man is to abolish private property.
In the first two key points, the main reason why we should be targeting the production instead of the consumption is that alienation itself affects the worker more than the buyer or the consumer. Why?
Let’s analyze the work in a capitalist state; in a capitalist state, a worker is given a minimum wage for his daily labor of work by his boss, the capitalist itself. For this, I will use a hypothetical principle of manufacturing tables as an example. Provided that a worker works for a fixed rate of 50 pesos per hour, and works for 10 hours, he is able to make 5 tables in that span of that time period. So this should mean then that the worker can make a table in a span of two hours, and theoretically speaking, the table’s manufacturing cost is at 100 pesos. Given that he is able to make five tables, and works for ten hours, he then earns 1000 pesos on a daily basis. Now what does the capitalist do? In order to gain income, he sells the tables at double the price at 200 pesos per table, and while the capitalist can sell the 5 tables the worker has made during the day at a total of 2000 pesos, the capitalist ends up paying the worker only the minimum wage, which is 1000 pesos, for that particular labor. Where did the other 1000 pesos go? It went eventually to the pockets of the capitalist, and the other 1000 pesos that the capitalist kept is his profit from selling the tables, hence creating a surplus value with the tables the worker has made.
What makes this unfair then? It is the mere fact that the capitalist makes use of the worker as a commodity to his expanding business, such that by thinking of money, profit, and income, he dehumanizes the laborer by making him into a mere robot that does an automated task of manufacturing tables for the benefit of the capitalist and for the use of the consumers. Marx makes sense when he says that it is the laborer who gets alienated rather than the consumer. Although in one way or another the consumer becomes alienated since he is dictated by the capitalist to buy his products for various reasons (take in the marketing strategy of Apple’s iPods for example), it is still the laborer at the end who is deeply alienated at this modern, capitalist society since he becomes dependent with the work and the (unfair) pay he gets from his master the capitalist. Having said that, this causes the worker in the end to be powerless against the capitalist, his master, as he becomes a dependent entity of the master.
And we all know that in the capitalist society, capitalist always desire for a higher profit while at the same time, investing less. So how does the capitalist compensate for this given that he has given the maximum number of hours to work for the laborer and thew maximum number of laborers he can have in his company? The answer to that is the use of machinery to do the work. Since theoretically speaking the machine can do much more work than the laboring human in a fraction of a time, this then will give the most profit to the capitalist, of which he deeply desires.
In both cases, whether the laboring man is replaced by the machine or the laboring man is abused by the capitalist, you cannot remove the sense of exploitation in the capitalist society. If you use machines, you don’t address the means and needs for survival of the laboring human by not having him work. On the other hand, abusing the laboring man instead of being replaced by machines would jeopardize his health and condition, no matter how much benefits or insurance can the capitalist give to his workers.
And at the same time, machines are like humans; they sure may be much more efficient than humans but we should know that they have to be constantly maintained; wear and tear with its use overtime can make it inefficient, reaching to the point that the capitalist would merit a negative profit because of neglect and abuse to the machine, just like what the capitalist does to the human laboring worker.
And given these problems with Capitalism, and given the Marxian principles of alienation, what should be done to resolve the conflict? Simple. Kill Capitalism, the capitalists and the bourgeoisie class..
Why not have a unified stand anyway?
When one of Marx’s teachings meant that we are the one who actually makes the world, I would say no more but to simply agree with that teaching.
Why? Because there has never been a time in history ever that views the rise of a nation as a result of ideas helping in the development of the nation. In fact, Marx’s materialist perspective does make things more sensible through viewing the development of the world through the actions of man. Of course, it is no one but man that makes the changes in the world a possible task. After all, we are told by God (and I’m speaking here in behalf of theology) that we humans are stewards of his creation and that we should be responsible for these creations.
Hence, I agree with what Karl Marx said that theory is practiced, and put into action. A good case study for this is the emergence of corruption in the Philippines. We keep on complaining about our government officials, the President and the senators to be specific, to be corrupt. We blame the tycoons for being inconsiderate to the poor in their ambitions to increase their wealth. We blame the thieves who steal our things, or even kill people just to have something on their tables. They did not happen because it just happened or it was a result of a discriminative society, but it all bends down to the actions of every human being who is part of that society that aggravates to the problem.
Try to take the analysis to a micro perspective, say in schooling for example. Have you ever wondered how do government officials have this certain tendency of becoming corrupt, doing illegal activities yet at the same time they are perceived to be good by the public? Believe it or not, these large scale illegal acts starts in as early as during schooling, even to the grade-school days. How? Through small scale acts such as copying, stealing, teasing, and the like. From these small acts, they develop overtime, enhancing the skills of a corrupt adult-in-the-making, until they have become seemingly impossible to solve problems, into a large scale, macro perspective, into these corrupt government officials. In addition, these seemingly small but illegal acts committed by children and teenagers gets aggravated through peers and other factors like economical factors, making the idea of corruption and injustice a bigger problem to deal with.
Another example that we can put in consideration on theories being put into action are the existence of the People Power revolution in both the times of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. Since all three classes then believe at the fact that these presidents are not doing their duties well anymore, then the acted as one for a revolution to make these two tyrannical presidents step down.
Having said that, given the fact that all of us are essentially a part of this problem with corruption, Marx further elaborates his argument, stating that there is no such distinction between theory and practice, wherein we should maintain our biases and hence, recognize our one-sidedness towards the problem. Since we are a part of this problem, the solution to it is essentially not to be for or against solving the problem, but instead abolish those who are against solving the problem, and instead make everyone be on the side on being in favor of solving the problem, in this case, the problem of corruption.
What interests me with Marx “one-sidedness” is the fact that it contributes to a conflict-less society, wherein everyone would simply agree with each other, and together as one community help each other in battling corruption. Yet such an idea is idealistic in nature, and is a challenge for it to apply in terms of the present situation of the Philippines. Why? Because of the conflict between three conflicting classes: the rich elite, the emerging middle class, and the struggling poor. In such case, it becomes more complex since we are not dealing with two sides but with three sides instead. When applying the one sided principle in the context of the Philippines, it is hard to determine which of the two classes should be abolished and which class should remain. Ideally speaking, in my own perspective, the rich elite and the struggling poor should be abolished because once these two distant classes are abolished, then therefore there may be no more conflict within the state, and hence people will be equal in treatment, both sociologically and economically since every one would end up belonging to the middle class, wherein everyone is not too rich, and not too poor.
Again, that is the ideal situation we are talking with that, because with what is happening now in our Philippine political situation, it is perceivable that the rich elite, with all of their wealth and power, will make most of what they have in efforts of eliminating the struggling poor and the emerging middle class in the process. Despite that the Marxist principle of one-sidedness would seem to be impossible to apply in the context of the Philippines, it would be a very effective approach in combatting corruption when it is applied properly and fairly.
Why? Because there has never been a time in history ever that views the rise of a nation as a result of ideas helping in the development of the nation. In fact, Marx’s materialist perspective does make things more sensible through viewing the development of the world through the actions of man. Of course, it is no one but man that makes the changes in the world a possible task. After all, we are told by God (and I’m speaking here in behalf of theology) that we humans are stewards of his creation and that we should be responsible for these creations.
Hence, I agree with what Karl Marx said that theory is practiced, and put into action. A good case study for this is the emergence of corruption in the Philippines. We keep on complaining about our government officials, the President and the senators to be specific, to be corrupt. We blame the tycoons for being inconsiderate to the poor in their ambitions to increase their wealth. We blame the thieves who steal our things, or even kill people just to have something on their tables. They did not happen because it just happened or it was a result of a discriminative society, but it all bends down to the actions of every human being who is part of that society that aggravates to the problem.
Try to take the analysis to a micro perspective, say in schooling for example. Have you ever wondered how do government officials have this certain tendency of becoming corrupt, doing illegal activities yet at the same time they are perceived to be good by the public? Believe it or not, these large scale illegal acts starts in as early as during schooling, even to the grade-school days. How? Through small scale acts such as copying, stealing, teasing, and the like. From these small acts, they develop overtime, enhancing the skills of a corrupt adult-in-the-making, until they have become seemingly impossible to solve problems, into a large scale, macro perspective, into these corrupt government officials. In addition, these seemingly small but illegal acts committed by children and teenagers gets aggravated through peers and other factors like economical factors, making the idea of corruption and injustice a bigger problem to deal with.
Another example that we can put in consideration on theories being put into action are the existence of the People Power revolution in both the times of Ferdinand Marcos and Joseph Estrada. Since all three classes then believe at the fact that these presidents are not doing their duties well anymore, then the acted as one for a revolution to make these two tyrannical presidents step down.
Having said that, given the fact that all of us are essentially a part of this problem with corruption, Marx further elaborates his argument, stating that there is no such distinction between theory and practice, wherein we should maintain our biases and hence, recognize our one-sidedness towards the problem. Since we are a part of this problem, the solution to it is essentially not to be for or against solving the problem, but instead abolish those who are against solving the problem, and instead make everyone be on the side on being in favor of solving the problem, in this case, the problem of corruption.
What interests me with Marx “one-sidedness” is the fact that it contributes to a conflict-less society, wherein everyone would simply agree with each other, and together as one community help each other in battling corruption. Yet such an idea is idealistic in nature, and is a challenge for it to apply in terms of the present situation of the Philippines. Why? Because of the conflict between three conflicting classes: the rich elite, the emerging middle class, and the struggling poor. In such case, it becomes more complex since we are not dealing with two sides but with three sides instead. When applying the one sided principle in the context of the Philippines, it is hard to determine which of the two classes should be abolished and which class should remain. Ideally speaking, in my own perspective, the rich elite and the struggling poor should be abolished because once these two distant classes are abolished, then therefore there may be no more conflict within the state, and hence people will be equal in treatment, both sociologically and economically since every one would end up belonging to the middle class, wherein everyone is not too rich, and not too poor.
Again, that is the ideal situation we are talking with that, because with what is happening now in our Philippine political situation, it is perceivable that the rich elite, with all of their wealth and power, will make most of what they have in efforts of eliminating the struggling poor and the emerging middle class in the process. Despite that the Marxist principle of one-sidedness would seem to be impossible to apply in the context of the Philippines, it would be a very effective approach in combatting corruption when it is applied properly and fairly.
An herculean principle of being
The rise of modern political thinking is not entirely political in the first place but more of a social thinking. The involvement of the social and the political has to be the biggest flaw modern political theory has made. Instead of creating a progression with the thoughts and theories of the likes of Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes and other classical political theorists, modern political theory, as Hannah Arendt said, became the downfall of the political.
How has modernism devolved the human race in terms of political thinking? First is the individualistic tendencies of the human, through the reversal of roles between the public and the private. As we all know, in the classical political thought, the public is governed by law, while the private remains to be free. In the reversal of the public and the private, as evident with modern political thought, the public now becomes a free space for reasoning while the private is now governed by law, and thus promoting self-legitimization in modern political thought.
In fact, in Michel Foucault’s “What is Enlightenment?”, he conforms to the fact that the idea behind enlightenment was never meant to be evolutionary. Instead, Foucault stated that what Kant was proposing with the enlightenment was simply a mere illusion to the human soul, since human being the ultimate arbiter of knowledge can never be placed into context, no matter what manipulation you can make to present the enlightenment as a means of a humanistic and political evolution.
The evidence to such principle? Classical political theory. In St. Augustine’s “City of God,” we have been said and emphasized that man by nature can never be perfect unless he is God. I would use this text in emphasizing the fact that by all means, you can never ever place man as the ultimate person, the perfect being, the creator of perfect laws, and the perfect follower of these crafted laws. That is why social classes exist in the human society, in the “city of humans”!!!
By saying that man is an ultimate arbiter of knowledge, then it is as if you are saying that all of us have the same characteristics, the same abilities, the same knowledge, and the same social classes, which realistically and historically speaking was never the case. Because man is a historical being as Foucualt said , we are formed and we develop through the course of history, and hence, we are crafted by our being overtime, as we gain additional knowledge through innovations and inventions. Through what the Enlightenment is saying, we are all final and can never step up. This has to be one of the major flaws of the Enlightenment, equating society with the political.
Although I am not entirely saying that the Enlightenment has totally wrecked out the evolution of being --- in fact, I am in favor of Kant’s proposal of having the courage to use your own reason ---but for me the Enlightenment has not been crafted very well to fit in the political. The association of the social, as Arendt said, has degraded the being of the human.
In addition to devolution of the being, Foucault also states the fact that with the proposal of the Enlightenment, the “courage of reasoning out on your own” in the public should be placed in a proper context such that there is a boundary on “daring to reason on your own” in the public. In this aspect, Kant conforms to Foucault’s proposition as he states that this “dare to reason” has a limit, as evident in the context of Frederick. Although it may be of something positive to reason out publicly and become quiet in the private, the limit on reasoning out freely in the public can be explained as the sake of preventing any abuse of freedom of reason in the public. Hence, Foucault would explain the courage to reason as a risky move as the Enlightenment challenges in fact the sovereign, the ordered power relations of the state.
The rationale behind this is the distinct difference of living out freedom and having absolute freedom, as discussed by Karl Marx in the Jewish question. Living out freedom means that you are not being repressed by the absolute sovereign of your concerns regarding the stability of the state. Absolute freedom, on the other hand, entails to having no sovereign preventing the public mass on exercising their freedom, whether it is necessary or not. The former is preferred than the latter as it promotes further stability to the state and that the former is what the Enlightenment is pointing out as an emphasis: having the freedom to reason on your own understanding for the good of the state through a better craft of the laws. Foucalt agrees to this as there is a need for critiquing since we are historical beings, and hence, we try to make things better through time. The latter is considered to be dangerous as having no control on the freedom of the being can lead to unnecessary exercise of freedom “based on one’s own understanding”, causing chaos into the state, which for Marx has been the flaw of the Jews as they desire for not having a state at all.
How has modernism devolved the human race in terms of political thinking? First is the individualistic tendencies of the human, through the reversal of roles between the public and the private. As we all know, in the classical political thought, the public is governed by law, while the private remains to be free. In the reversal of the public and the private, as evident with modern political thought, the public now becomes a free space for reasoning while the private is now governed by law, and thus promoting self-legitimization in modern political thought.
In fact, in Michel Foucault’s “What is Enlightenment?”, he conforms to the fact that the idea behind enlightenment was never meant to be evolutionary. Instead, Foucault stated that what Kant was proposing with the enlightenment was simply a mere illusion to the human soul, since human being the ultimate arbiter of knowledge can never be placed into context, no matter what manipulation you can make to present the enlightenment as a means of a humanistic and political evolution.
The evidence to such principle? Classical political theory. In St. Augustine’s “City of God,” we have been said and emphasized that man by nature can never be perfect unless he is God. I would use this text in emphasizing the fact that by all means, you can never ever place man as the ultimate person, the perfect being, the creator of perfect laws, and the perfect follower of these crafted laws. That is why social classes exist in the human society, in the “city of humans”!!!
By saying that man is an ultimate arbiter of knowledge, then it is as if you are saying that all of us have the same characteristics, the same abilities, the same knowledge, and the same social classes, which realistically and historically speaking was never the case. Because man is a historical being as Foucualt said , we are formed and we develop through the course of history, and hence, we are crafted by our being overtime, as we gain additional knowledge through innovations and inventions. Through what the Enlightenment is saying, we are all final and can never step up. This has to be one of the major flaws of the Enlightenment, equating society with the political.
Although I am not entirely saying that the Enlightenment has totally wrecked out the evolution of being --- in fact, I am in favor of Kant’s proposal of having the courage to use your own reason ---but for me the Enlightenment has not been crafted very well to fit in the political. The association of the social, as Arendt said, has degraded the being of the human.
In addition to devolution of the being, Foucault also states the fact that with the proposal of the Enlightenment, the “courage of reasoning out on your own” in the public should be placed in a proper context such that there is a boundary on “daring to reason on your own” in the public. In this aspect, Kant conforms to Foucault’s proposition as he states that this “dare to reason” has a limit, as evident in the context of Frederick. Although it may be of something positive to reason out publicly and become quiet in the private, the limit on reasoning out freely in the public can be explained as the sake of preventing any abuse of freedom of reason in the public. Hence, Foucault would explain the courage to reason as a risky move as the Enlightenment challenges in fact the sovereign, the ordered power relations of the state.
The rationale behind this is the distinct difference of living out freedom and having absolute freedom, as discussed by Karl Marx in the Jewish question. Living out freedom means that you are not being repressed by the absolute sovereign of your concerns regarding the stability of the state. Absolute freedom, on the other hand, entails to having no sovereign preventing the public mass on exercising their freedom, whether it is necessary or not. The former is preferred than the latter as it promotes further stability to the state and that the former is what the Enlightenment is pointing out as an emphasis: having the freedom to reason on your own understanding for the good of the state through a better craft of the laws. Foucalt agrees to this as there is a need for critiquing since we are historical beings, and hence, we try to make things better through time. The latter is considered to be dangerous as having no control on the freedom of the being can lead to unnecessary exercise of freedom “based on one’s own understanding”, causing chaos into the state, which for Marx has been the flaw of the Jews as they desire for not having a state at all.
Beat the Status Quo? or Not?
"Have the courage to use your own understanding."
This is found among the opening lines of Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightentment,” of which is the motto of the Enlightenment as Kant said. Through my understanding of Kant’s principles regarding the enlightenment, he encourages the people during his time to actually step up and speak for their own reasons in the public, while conforming to the law in the private. Such principle is a complete opposite of what is being taught in classic political theory, wherein it is being taught that we should obey and conform to laws in the public, evident with the application of masks as stated through Machiavelli’s political thoughts.
I like the idea of Kant here on having the courage to reason out in the public as it gives the people an opportunity to step up and do greater, hence not being withheld within the sovereign. In his proposal, his justification of the private conforming to the law and the public being not withheld with the law is the fact that through such principle, we can legitimize ourselves internally in the private through speaking out our own reasons with courage so that we then develop what we call self legitimization. Self legitimization, in one aspect, is good as it prevents the abuse of power of the sovereign, of which usually results to tyranny and hence the repression of the public, as in Kant’s proposition, he encourages fair competition and equality within the public, such that it is through the public, the people’s voice and reason that the sovereign is then developed, hence creating an equal society in the process.
Yet, Kant’s proposal of having the courage to reason out to your own understanding does not mean having total freedom but merely just living out freedom. Hence, what Kant is pointing out as an emphasis to his proposal is the fact that having total freedom and living out freedom are distinctly different. In this aspect, I conform to Kant as having total freedom, unlike living out freedom, is of a negative connotation to the human soul such that total freedom will just make the human being end up being consumed by that freedom as he is not governed by any law nor sovereign, hence causing chaos eventually to the human race. As with living out freedom, which gives a more positive connotation as compared to having total freedom, it means that you get to voice out your own understanding and reason to the sovereign without fear of being attacked or repressed by the sovereign. In addition, living out freedom also points out that there should be a conformity within the limits within the sovereign. Hence, Kant here simply elaborates the principle of democracy, wherein there is freedom of reasoning out within the limits of the sovereign.
In agreement with Kant, Karl Marx also proposes a similar idea in “On the Jewish question” wherein he stated that the problem with the Jew’s desire to have a state of their own being free from the hands of the germans is that fact that they are being too particularistic with their demands. In fact, what they were actually demanding to the Germans is to be liberated out of the hands of the Germans, which just as Marx emphasized, became problematic with the Jews because of the Jews desiring for total freedom, not living out freedom.
As both theorists propose equality in society and hence eliminating competition, it eventually becomes a contradiction of the desire to step out of the status quo and uphold equality among the society because in such manner not that it puts an end to the political and a beginning to the social, it also ends up people going back to the status quo principle and not working hard to be the best. In Ateneo terms, the people, following what Kant and Marx proposes, will eventually not desire for magis and instead be tempted by dementors who encourage students to be just contented with a C instead of encouraging a student to aim for an A.
This is found among the opening lines of Immanuel Kant’s “What is Enlightentment,” of which is the motto of the Enlightenment as Kant said. Through my understanding of Kant’s principles regarding the enlightenment, he encourages the people during his time to actually step up and speak for their own reasons in the public, while conforming to the law in the private. Such principle is a complete opposite of what is being taught in classic political theory, wherein it is being taught that we should obey and conform to laws in the public, evident with the application of masks as stated through Machiavelli’s political thoughts.
I like the idea of Kant here on having the courage to reason out in the public as it gives the people an opportunity to step up and do greater, hence not being withheld within the sovereign. In his proposal, his justification of the private conforming to the law and the public being not withheld with the law is the fact that through such principle, we can legitimize ourselves internally in the private through speaking out our own reasons with courage so that we then develop what we call self legitimization. Self legitimization, in one aspect, is good as it prevents the abuse of power of the sovereign, of which usually results to tyranny and hence the repression of the public, as in Kant’s proposition, he encourages fair competition and equality within the public, such that it is through the public, the people’s voice and reason that the sovereign is then developed, hence creating an equal society in the process.
Yet, Kant’s proposal of having the courage to reason out to your own understanding does not mean having total freedom but merely just living out freedom. Hence, what Kant is pointing out as an emphasis to his proposal is the fact that having total freedom and living out freedom are distinctly different. In this aspect, I conform to Kant as having total freedom, unlike living out freedom, is of a negative connotation to the human soul such that total freedom will just make the human being end up being consumed by that freedom as he is not governed by any law nor sovereign, hence causing chaos eventually to the human race. As with living out freedom, which gives a more positive connotation as compared to having total freedom, it means that you get to voice out your own understanding and reason to the sovereign without fear of being attacked or repressed by the sovereign. In addition, living out freedom also points out that there should be a conformity within the limits within the sovereign. Hence, Kant here simply elaborates the principle of democracy, wherein there is freedom of reasoning out within the limits of the sovereign.
In agreement with Kant, Karl Marx also proposes a similar idea in “On the Jewish question” wherein he stated that the problem with the Jew’s desire to have a state of their own being free from the hands of the germans is that fact that they are being too particularistic with their demands. In fact, what they were actually demanding to the Germans is to be liberated out of the hands of the Germans, which just as Marx emphasized, became problematic with the Jews because of the Jews desiring for total freedom, not living out freedom.
As both theorists propose equality in society and hence eliminating competition, it eventually becomes a contradiction of the desire to step out of the status quo and uphold equality among the society because in such manner not that it puts an end to the political and a beginning to the social, it also ends up people going back to the status quo principle and not working hard to be the best. In Ateneo terms, the people, following what Kant and Marx proposes, will eventually not desire for magis and instead be tempted by dementors who encourage students to be just contented with a C instead of encouraging a student to aim for an A.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
