Social Objectivity (Re: Race)

["Jay Moore" <research@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

This is very well put.  The best extensive discussion of these distinctions
that I know of in the Marxist corpus are in Lukacs' late work, "The Ontology
of Social Being", which unfortunately hardly anyone pays any attention to
nowadays (and never much did).  As much as I find Lukacs' earlier works,
such as "History and Class Consciousness" and "The Young Hegel" insightful
(and as much as I may feel uncomfortable about his accomodations with
Stalinism), I think this is his best philosophical work -- which begins with
nature and the relationship of labor to nature and then works its way up
into other more complex forms of social being (which are quite objective but
not in the same way nature is).   it was his answer not only to his youthful
epistemological approach but also to Sartre's contemporary "Critique of
Dialectical Reason" (which also works its way up, so-to-speak, but begins
with a solitary consciousness instead of with social labor).  Three sections
of "The Ontology of Social Being" were translated back in the early 1970s
into English --  "Labor", "Hegel", "Marx" -- which I have and might try
scanning sometime if anyone out there is interested (although not in the
near future with all the other projects I've got).  Unfortunately, for me
anyway, the rest of the long tome (which is in German) was never translated.
However, a critical synopsis of the work appeared a few years ago in
"Science & Society", although I can't remember the issue.  That might be
more worth scanning in the short run.

best,
jay
www.neravt.com/left/





----- Original Message -----
From: "Julio Huato" <juliohuato@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2001 6:24 PM
Subject: RE: Race


> Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, a philosopher, uses the term 'objectification' to
> refer to social realities that are independent from an individual's
> subjectivity (Art and Society in Marx).  There are many shades of
> objectivity.  I find his approach useful and consistent with Marx's
> approach.  These examples would illustrate his views (to the extent I
> remember them correctly).
>
> Imagine a star or, better yet, wild wheat -- untouched by humans.  It is
> 'objective' in the sense that its existence is independent of everyone's
> subjectivity.  It's a pure product of nature. [I realize, strictly
speaking,
> nature cannot be completely de-humanized in our thoughts.   Even the
> furthest star, to the extent that it's an object of human contemplation
> fails the test.  But the physical sciences as such would not exist without
> mentally detaching ourselves from nature.]
>
> Now, consider bread.  Its use value is an attribute that depends on the
> physical properties of bread (its flavor, nutritional properties, etc.).
So
> it is 'objective'.  But it also depends on the existence of a specific
human
> need, which would be fulfilled with bread.  So, it's not as 'objective' as
> wild wheat, which doesn't need humans to exist.  Use values depend on the
> needs, appetites, or subjective whims of individuals.
>
> Then, consider the price of bread.  That's the expression of bread's
> commercial value, which is independent of the subjectivity of individuals
> who are immersed in a commodity society.  This is consistent with Marx's
> view of the 'objectivity' of value as "purely social" -- i.e., an
> 'objectivity' that hinges on the specific economic structure in question.
>
> Also, categories like class, state, etc. are 'objective' in this 'social'
> sense. It seems to me that Andrew may have something like this in mind
when
> he talks about race.  Genetics is not the only way race can be relatively
> hardwired in human societies.
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
>