Of the many forms of refreshing optimism in this week's readings, Habermas' take on the reason for the proletariat's oppression after the bourgeoisie overthrew the old society was to me the most engaging. His argument not only granted humanity a little more credit than other Marxists (Benjamin, for example), but also gave reasons that a purportedly egalitarian society which respected universal human reason as a solution to public problems might have excluded a large portion of the population from the public sphere. It was not malice or premeditated evil. The bourgeoisie simply had to work within an existing system to gain power, using the leverage they already had (control over the economy).
Habermas writes that since common people could not become a “ruling estate,” they were forced to separate from the public sphere and establish their influence in the private sphere, through control over capital. The bourgeoisie did not overthrow the dominant class by invading ruling bodies and dividing up political power based on the idealistic principle of equal reason and the right to use it publicly. They had to “undercut the principle on which existing rule was based” (28). By gaining political power through those private affairs which affect society as a whole, the bourgeoisie changed the criteria for becoming a member of the ruling class. They were not granted distinction. Power became quantifiable.
For me, this argument offers a welcome alternative to the mass conspiracy which other Marxists to me seem to assume: that some secret bourgeois counsel met at some time in the late 18th century with a sinister plan to dominate society by oppressing the working class and hoodwinking them with flashy popular media. I realize Marxists don’t actually believe this, but I have been wondering who our previous authors (excluding Arendt, I guess) believed to have set down the bourgeois mission and commissioned armies of writers and artists to carry it out. I appreciate that Habermas addressed this part of the bourgeoisie’s history of domination, ascribing it to preexisting political conditions instead of an evil plot to oppress.
I agree with your "conspiracy theory" comment about the previous Marxists, and I think that Enzensburger also adresses this when he criticizes the "Orwellian Fantasy": complete control and manipulation of media would require much greater organization between different capitalist forces than exists, and would also necessitate depriving the public of new technology. This would require that the ruling class also deprive itself of the same technology, which would be suicide for most modern corporations. I think the amount of competition between capitalists would prevent any such measures being taken, even if they were possible, which I don't think they would be.
ReplyDeleteInteresting post! I think you really described succinctly some of the problems I, and I'm sure others, have had with our neo-Marxist writers thus far: the notion that "the man" is plotting against the people. As you rightly note, the people--or at least some of them (so mostly the upper and middle classes in the 17th and 18th century coffee houses)--eventually gain the upper hand, and some may become the "man." Habermas fully recognizes how power shifts continually over time. I've said this in class, but I emphasize it because I think it's what makes Habermas' view so much more reasonable (which he is all for): his analysis is truly dialectical. (Proletariat to bourgeois and vice versa.) He recognizes the back-and-forth in politics and history and does not try to assert himself as above or beyond it. There's a disinterestedness, an objectivity (to some degree), in his writing that differentiates him from some of our other authors who seem to imply that they are above such class struggles, or at least privy to special information that sets them apart. For a thinker who views the Enlightenment with more positivity than our other authors, he sure seems to make fewer implicit claims to being "enlightened."
ReplyDelete(Although, I have to emphasize "implicit," because I don't know if the other writers consciously tried to demonstrate their enlightened thinking, or any kind of superiority. It's just kind of how they come across.)
Thank you for your thoughts here! You put into words some of my own thoughts on these brilliant, confusing dudes.
-Kerry