Karl Marx is one of the most
(in)famous philosophers of the 19th century. While I would love to
look at that thesis from the perspectives of Barthes and Foucault, I would
instead like to look into the ideas Marx presents in relation to ideology. On
page 177, Marx states (in jest), “So far no chemist has ever discovered
exchange-value either in a pearl or diamond.”
Our labor relations are purely
commodity driven, while our products are purely social. Who or what decided
that gold is what we shall use to measure how valuable our goods are? It is
interesting to talk about ideology in terms of money, for nowadays, we are
critical of our consumer society, that we are too focused on money and wealth.
However, it is so interesting that we have even created this system in the
first place. Marx states that this economy is purely a social creation.
This reminds me of cultural mores.
These traditions and protocol that is followed are completely social creations,
yet we do not challenge them nor question their origin. A small one can be seen
in the staircases in the Quad. The left staircase is labeled with a down arrow,
the right staircase labeled with an up arrow. Yet the majority of traffic
heading to class travels up the left staircase, and back down it again when
they finish class. How did this start and why is it we do it? Bottom line, we
do not challenge it nor seek its origin, it is a part of campus culture and
that is enough.
Why did we start evaluating things
in terms of nature? We measure our labor and products in terms of what they are
worth in metal. This relationship is so arbitrary but is so ingrained in our
daily lives that we cannot even comprehend a system otherwise.
In the book “Guns, Germs, and
Steel” the author discusses the progress of human societies and
“civilizations”. I personally believe that all progress stems back for our need
for security and the essence of technology (constantly seeking to push forward,
to challenge forth what is), but the author wonders what the world would be
like if the original inhabitants of what is currently the United States had
built ships and dominated Japan, or if the original inhabitants of South
America had conquered Europeans. What if the Saxons had won? The questions go
on and on, but truly, it is so interesting to think how different our world
could be, yet what we choose to follow and idealize.
I have to agree with you. Its really interesting what we consider to be normal and even more perplexing to think about the 'what if's'. What made us think that we should move in this particular direction and idealize these particular things/ideas? Why don't we question it? And in my opinion, I think it's just that we let society decide what the answers to those questions should be without having to give reason. So, its highly unjustifiable.
ReplyDeleteI think what's interesting, though, is that we don't seem to have a much of a choice in moving with the tradition/society/culture/institution that we're embedded in. It might even be impossible to truely think outside of our societal conditioning.
DeleteMy question is: is it really such a bad thing?
Our society is often silly and unjustifiable. It idealizes stick-thin women and Justin Bieber. But it also lets us know that it's not ok to commit murder.