What is objectivity, and can it be achieved is such an interesting question. That it is asked during the Marxist module, I think makes for good timing (if not a little sus 😆). The whole class has read about Functionalism; functional – a thing or process that operates and completes its given purpose, the antonym dysfunctional is used often to describe systems, families, people, for not operating how we know/theorize/predict them to operate. Ism – from the ancient Greek suffix -ισμός (-ismós), latin ismus, in English -ism, to “take side with” or to imitate a belief system. Therefore, Marxism, to take a side with, imitate the beliefs of, Marx. That doesn’t sound very objective, what’s one dead guy versus a theory that claims “scientific” dominance over the field. Even the attempt to launder Marx through Conflict Theory. Yuck, what a word conflict, can’t we all get along? Isn’t that the goal, getting along, making sure things function? (get along with who? function for who?) Scientific, isn’t that a legitimate word, experiments, peer review, empirical observations, no mention of ideology, or bias! How can we be objective, then, if we believed Marx’s theories, followed his approach, took his/their side ? What would be the outcome? I’m Venezuelan, so I’ve struggled with those questions myself. As a twelve-year-old, I watched the news as an attempted coup occurred in Venezuela of the popular – yet controversial – Hugo Chavez; boarded the plane with my parents, as they uprooted their life after said coup failed. In adulthood, I’ve made a point to try and understand the ideology that had allegedly caused my country’s ruin . I read Capital Vol 1. and some other Marxist-Leninist/Communist theory. Marxism-Leninism, is a system of thought, a framework, like putting on glasses, that focuses on the relationship between the forces of production and its ideological consequences . That relationship is a feedback loop, the more a productive force grows, the stronger its cultural hegemony , and its control over State power, which shapes, legal systems, educational systems, ideology, societal structure, etc. As Nancy Pelosi said in 2017, “ we're capitalist, and that's just the way it is." Therefore, I think it has significant explanatory value as demonstrated by the readings. It also addresses shortcomings of bourgeoise ideology, given that functionalism fails to explain certain dysfunctions within the education system. “But calling a system dysfunctional is itself a value judgment MH”, you might say. And you’d be right! Calling something functional (whether it is or isn’t, is currently irrelevant) is also a value judgment. Therefore, I’d venture, there is no objectivity, and to deal with it, we must become aware of our own subjectivity, the subjective framework through which we interpret the world, and maybe if we agree with Marx, change it. First, let’s look closely at the concept of objectivity. Second, let us take Althusser’s arguments about the philosophical as political, and its implications, seriously. Finally, review some of the readings and how Conflict (Marxist) theory, provides an explanation for certain educational outcomes.
Objectivity is viewed as an aspirational ideal, that attempts to describe reality as it is, and not how we think it is. This non-perspectical “view from nowhere” devoid of human values or goals is seen as valuable, the closer we try to achieve it, the more “accurate” the picture, and therefore less tainted the knowledge would be for the observer, or the user. There is an obvious argument for objectivity: faulty subjective frameworks of interpretation can cause considerable harm, or waste. But, thinking of any one framework, or their consequence as faulty is itself a subjective framework. So, we can take a different approach. A systemic process of falsifiability, the scientific method. We can start from a point of “all scientific theories are false and imperfect” (Standford Philosophy Encyclopedia) but as we eliminate the falsehoods, we start to approach a more truth-like quality. This process of verification requires not just your own observation, but verification and replication from others (peer review). If you study the history of science, you’ll know there are prominent cases of diverging scientific theories that sprout at the same time, clashes of egos, ideological biases, etc. sometimes a falsehood overstays its welcome “like Aristotelian physicist working fifty years after Galileo (Lenin and other Essays) that can slow or speed up adoption of a given theory. However, in this idea of a framework of falsifiability, a bad theory will be slowly but thoroughly disproven. There is an expectation that the truth will win out. But truth can be extremely unpleasant, and Marx’s theoretical framework and conclusions, true or not, are deeply unpleasant depending on your class position. Which brings us to Althusser’s points.
Althusser minces no words in identifying as “a mass” the intellectuals with bourgeoise ideology. It was the cultural hegemony at the time, and it continues be so today. We can identify individual intellectuals that we admire for their talents and skill; their research used for the advancement of a class position; but they can remain incorrigibly bourgeoise. The challenge that Marxist ideology posits to the social sciences is treating all these different disciplines as geographically distinct. “they are still 'dabbling' in political economy, sociology, ethnology, 'anthropology', 'social psychology'”, when the Science of History has been opened up as a “continent” (Lenin and other Essays). Philosophy is the battlefield of ideas, and the arguing over words, whether they are “tranquilizers or poision”. Whether we understand the world clearly or view it through a distortion field. But this choice becomes a political decision, an accounting for the materialist factors that would affect your cultural study, or your psychological study, or your educational study, as to why more education is required from the same type of jobs.
Randall Collins’ paper Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification (1971) is a great example of engaging in falsifiability, yet supportive of conflict theory as borne out by the evidence. He asks the question, why have educational requirements increased significantly for all job positions? He looks at the problem through the proposition made by Functional Theory and through Conflict Theory; Functional theory proposes that the technology advancements require more specialized knowledge and makes for more productive workers (gained through educational programs). Conflict theory proposes that higher education has become a “filter”, a socialization process to obtain pro-capitalist employees. This is despite evidence that the most educated workers are not often the most productive; but they are, compliant.
In conclusion, acknowledging our own subjectivity, and being willing to understand, and then test out the falsifiability of any given theory and acknowledge the conclusions, would allow us to see the world a lot clearer than holding on to a given position based solely on “class instinct” or on the general “class position” of intellectuals.
1 Google has gotten really bad, I tried really hard to find a source other than Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism. See also: http://users.uoa.gr/~nektar/history/language/greek_latin_derivatives.htm
2 Marxist theory comprises more than just Karl Marx and Lenin and philosophical and scientific research continues to use his perspective, in whole, or in part in the fields of sociology, race studies, feminism, ecology, economics, history, etc.
3 “The first UN rapporteur to visit Venezuela for 21 years has told The Independent the US sanctions on the country are illegal and could amount to “crimes against humanity” under international law. Former special rapporteur Alfred de Zayas, who finished his term at the UN in March, has criticized the US for engaging in “economic warfare” against Venezuela which he said is hurting the economy and killing Venezuelans.” https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-us-sanctions-united-nations-oil-pdvsa-a8748201.html
4 Marx studied the advent of Capitalism in England, through the industrial revolution and identified its most significant markers: privatization of common land in the rural areas, the proletarization (mas poverty and centralization) of subsistence farmers to urban areas, the exploitation of said proletariat in the industrial production of goods through mechanized factory floors and division of labor, and the extraction of surplus value (profit) from each of the workers, and other material and ideological consequences such as bourgeoise dominance of the working class, but there being more workers than capitalists at any given time. Seriously the book is very long. Lenin takes that information and proposes how to achieve a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (read Democracy for the workers) in part by conducting an analysis of failures in the Paris Worker Commune of 1871, and advocating for Vanguard tactics in State and Revolution.
5 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/ - Historical materialism places significant emphasis, on the productive forces, e.g., technological forces, financial systems, ownership of natural resources, of the epoch (global timeline), or societal (a given country, or group of aligned countries). Dialectical Materialism, takes Hegel’s dialectical thinking and applies it to the material. There is tension in any society, due to the historical and material forces. There’s also Marx and Engels’ point that nothing is really static and things are ever changing, therefore, we are investigating the process of small changes, that take place until the form, or matter transforms. All these material components affect ideological development and vice versa. Seriously, go look it up, I’m doing a poor job with my footnote.
6 See Gramsci on Cultural Hegemony. Hegemony – leadership or dominance of one social group (read: class) on another.
7 https://socialistworker.org/2017/02/28/straight-from-the-donkeys-mouth /. Most economists prefer the term “mixed economy” since there is significant state intervention through laws, regulations, and public funding of industry; but the U.S (and most of the world for that matter) functions in placing the means of production in private hands – i.e. private property – with regulation, while attempting to prevent communalization. See Executive Committee of the Bourgeoise. “The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.- Julius Nyerere.”
8 The class that owns most wealth and power in a capitalist society through the private property control of means of production.
9 http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-1224%28197112%2936%3A6%3C1002%3AFACTOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
how is this a bad thing?!!!!!!!!
OH MY FUCKING GOD