Continuing his barrage on the Hegelian “speculative impulse” which Marx stated becomes rubbish, once the history of human activity is taken into account. Marx adds, it is “[w]here speculation ends-in real life- there real, positive science begins: the representation of the practical activity, of the practical process of development of men” (p.48).
Initially man, in his initial state in history was conscious, but mentally, not far more equipped than the animal that reacts immediately off instinct. As time went on nevertheless, man, became more conditioned by the circumstances brought upon him by history. These conditions or circumstances prompted his activity, in order to fulfill means, such as to hunt in order to eat. Through human activity, the consciousness of man evolved, along with the circumstances of which man himself had influence on.
For example, it would have been very difficult for a primitive man, to take down a giant mammoth all by himself. Through the development and employment of language to communicate strategies, along with the co-operation of other men e.g. “productive force,” it made the hunting of the mammoth more feasible. Thus, the hunting of a mammoth, would have achieved the mean of feeding the community. As man evolved, the population grew, and small game could not feed the population. Therefore, new methods had to be applied to new circumstances, both evolving with human activity. In this example, the hunt for bigger game could have been prompted by population growth, caused by human activity (sexual intercourse).
In sum through human activity, new modes of production developed in order to achieve new means, brought upon by new circumstances that man influenced. For example, language which is as “old as consciousness, and is practical consciousness,” (p.51) along with other developments of “moments” or stages in time, and human activity. Was man able to rise out of simple consciousness, aware only to its “immediate sensuous environment” (p. 51)
Hey Ed, I think you made a quite thorough summary of the development of primitive man's consciousness here. A few details I might add would be the (respective) importance of nature and the familial division of labor to the development of consciousness. Nature’s immediate importance to primitive man’s consciousness lies in the fact that it serves as a “natural religion” (pg 51), reflecting the limitations of primitive man’s consciousness of himself to nature and the other humans around him (due to its alien, overwhelming character). The familial division of labor is the essential starting point of consciousness being able to "flatter” itself with concepts other than “existing practices” as it is the root of the division of mental and physical labor i.e. my favorite Marxist assault on Hegel; consciousness conceives idealisms such as “Specters” “bonds” “the higher being” (pg 52).
ReplyDeleteWhile I take it to be true that a person is born with a “blank slate”, I think it might be worth speculating whether or not the slate has always been of an equal capacity. While it may be true that a person has no essence when they are born, it is certain that they are born with the potential for learning at least. Early civilizations surely did not learn advanced languages because they were not exposed to any, but perhaps it is more than that; perhaps their brains were also of a different sort. It is possible that humans thousands of years ago were not biologically capable of developing advanced languages; really they did not need to.. Perhaps human brains have evolved over the millenia and centuries in order to cope with the advancements of civilization. Of course, all this is merely speculation, and even if it were true, there would not be much to do with this knowledge, but it might undermine the theory that persons are complete social constructions.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEd, I really like your blog. As Billy had said that our mind is like a “blank slate", I do agree with that statement. Individual's growth and development depends on the circumstance they been exposed to their circumstances. It just reminds me of Eddie Murphy's movie, Trading Places. It is true that if individual is given equal opportunity and circumstances they can become a better person or worst. It is just like mentioning about nature vs. nurture.
ReplyDeleteWe can see in our history how man develops from primitive stage to civilized ones. As revolution of civilization begins people become more and more consciousness. Their development helps them to develop new means of production. Due to their unsatisfying and overwhelming character they do not stay with one goal. And develop more and more, and we can see how technology is now. I think it is all due to human activity and consciousness.
(This post is a bit outdated now, but the topic of my final essay is on Marx’s theory of history so this discussion is rather fascinating and helpful!)
ReplyDeleteThere is a dialectical relationship that seems to be missing from this discussion. As Jeanne stated, the external material conditions shape our social relations as well as our consciousness. Yet, we should acknowledge that we shape our external environment as well. This section on “Fundamental Conditions” reminds me of the earlier sections on the production, consumption, distribution, and exchange activities where Marx states, “Production is simultaneously consumption as well […] The act of production itself is thus in all its phases also an act of consumption” (130). The antagonism between the social relations of production and the forces production lead to a transformation in the mode of production. This transformation is typically illustrated from the transformation from feudalism to capitalism. So I agree, Marx would say consciousness originates in the mode of production but he equally implies we have the agency to change the mode of production.