I found Sartre’s Search for a Method somewhat difficult to follow. I recognized his ideas regarding transcendence and facticity, but I could not clearly see how he connected them with society and history. Furthermore, it appears that he rejects the part of Marxism that reduces humanity to “mechanistic materialism” in favor of the freedom and power of the individual. This seems correct to me, but I’m not sure how he connects individual freedom to the rest of Marxism.
Sartre’s Elections: A Trap for Fools was more clear to me. I can certainly understand his point about how universal suffrage is “a collective which atomizes or serializes individual men.” It alienates people from each other and from themselves and takes away their power. However, does Sartre offer a solution to this. It’s difficult for me to tell from the reading if he had one or if he was simply being critical.
1. I was confused when he said "men were given the right to vote but not the men but their real estate. " 2. Then "the voters voted individually and in secret." Maybe I am taking this too literally, but voting is secretive to an extent but it is made obvious when an individual is voting as you must do it in person. And of course it is done individually as it is a personal choice.
I am kind of confused about the concept of serialization. If a man that buys a paper, rides a bus, drives a car, etc. just becomes another serial number by participating in capitalist society, what would a society look like in which the use of a car does not reduce you to just a serial number? I can also understand how Sartre supposes that the electoral scheme demands that you relinquish true power for legal power and also uses institutions to break up important group ties, but I found his emphasis on the importance of group relations somewhat contradictory to the importance he places on the individual in prior readings.
I like how Sartre ties Marxist theory in with existentialist theory in a sense and makes it clear that people both are defined by and define history as it goes while being mindful of the ability of the possibilities of the future to define one's current social standing (the poor person is defined by all the careers he cannot pursue). I am confused about the difference between dialectical materialism and mechanistic materialism however.
Part of Sartre's social ontology is referencing how much we carry from our up bringing. He mentions that part of him and his thinking comes from all of the Other he interacted with, yet part of what his is trying deject from himself is the Other.
Sartre also references universal suffrage, however the purpose of his reference is to talk about how generalizations affect populations. He mentions the ideas of begin French, or being under twenty-one, and how these heuristics may place rules on you despite having no interface to your characteristics.
The idea of conforming to society via process of serialisation fascinates me. I'm reminded of a conformity experiment involving picking identical line pairings out on a board. The results showed people picked obviously incorrect answers in order to "follow the crowd". Sartre's development of this suggests that this doesnt just happen, but (worryingly) we might even strive for it.
I'm not too sure where I stand with him on the voting front. I can understand the idea of spoiling your ballot paper as a protest against the system and candidates, but it seems a little aloof to think the ultimate form of protest is not participating in order to preserve individuality.
Should we do as Sartre suggests and stop participating in liberal democracy in favor of industrial democracy we are in inherently violent situation. The forces of the nation state and the capitalist corporation will instantly use the systems of control they use on the 3rd world onto the metro-pole to protect their establishment. As Mao said, and I believe its recycled from Lenin himself "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun", in this context what does it mean to fully return the gaze?
A possible interpretation could be that it involves armed revolution. Which is not inevitable as the orthodox Marxists like to believe, but rather is a choice, and a choice that is going to have to be made over and over again in the course of the revolution. However I do disagree with Sartre in that I think that new weapons enable new configurations of society to be made possible, like how the bow and arrow enabled the development of agriculture etc..
I found Sartre’s Search for a Method somewhat difficult to follow. I recognized his ideas regarding transcendence and facticity, but I could not clearly see how he connected them with society and history. Furthermore, it appears that he rejects the part of Marxism that reduces humanity to “mechanistic materialism” in favor of the freedom and power of the individual. This seems correct to me, but I’m not sure how he connects individual freedom to the rest of Marxism.
ReplyDeleteSartre’s Elections: A Trap for Fools was more clear to me. I can certainly understand his point about how universal suffrage is “a collective which atomizes or serializes individual men.” It alienates people from each other and from themselves and takes away their power. However, does Sartre offer a solution to this. It’s difficult for me to tell from the reading if he had one or if he was simply being critical.
1. I was confused when he said "men were given the right to vote but not the men but their real estate. "
ReplyDelete2. Then "the voters voted individually and in secret." Maybe I am taking this too literally, but voting is secretive to an extent but it is made obvious when an individual is voting as you must do it in person. And of course it is done individually as it is a personal choice.
I am kind of confused about the concept of serialization. If a man that buys a paper, rides a bus, drives a car, etc. just becomes another serial number by participating in capitalist society, what would a society look like in which the use of a car does not reduce you to just a serial number? I can also understand how Sartre supposes that the electoral scheme demands that you relinquish true power for legal power and also uses institutions to break up important group ties, but I found his emphasis on the importance of group relations somewhat contradictory to the importance he places on the individual in prior readings.
ReplyDeleteI like how Sartre ties Marxist theory in with existentialist theory in a sense and makes it clear that people both are defined by and define history as it goes while being mindful of the ability of the possibilities of the future to define one's current social standing (the poor person is defined by all the careers he cannot pursue). I am confused about the difference between dialectical materialism and mechanistic materialism however.
Part of Sartre's social ontology is referencing how much we carry from our up bringing. He mentions that part of him and his thinking comes from all of the Other he interacted with, yet part of what his is trying deject from himself is the Other.
ReplyDeleteSartre also references universal suffrage, however the purpose of his reference is to talk about how generalizations affect populations. He mentions the ideas of begin French, or being under twenty-one, and how these heuristics may place rules on you despite having no interface to your characteristics.
The idea of conforming to society via process of serialisation fascinates me. I'm reminded of a conformity experiment involving picking identical line pairings out on a board. The results showed people picked obviously incorrect answers in order to "follow the crowd". Sartre's development of this suggests that this doesnt just happen, but (worryingly) we might even strive for it.
ReplyDeleteI'm not too sure where I stand with him on the voting front. I can understand the idea of spoiling your ballot paper as a protest against the system and candidates, but it seems a little aloof to think the ultimate form of protest is not participating in order to preserve individuality.
Should we do as Sartre suggests and stop participating in liberal democracy in favor of industrial democracy we are in inherently violent situation. The forces of the nation state and the capitalist corporation will instantly use the systems of control they use on the 3rd world onto the metro-pole to protect their establishment. As Mao said, and I believe its recycled from Lenin himself "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun", in this context what does it mean to fully return the gaze?
ReplyDeleteA possible interpretation could be that it involves armed revolution. Which is not inevitable as the orthodox Marxists like to believe, but rather is a choice, and a choice that is going to have to be made over and over again in the course of the revolution. However I do disagree with Sartre in that I think that new weapons enable new configurations of society to be made possible, like how the bow and arrow enabled the development of agriculture etc..