Dear Colleagues,

Over the past few weeks, threads on issues have been overlapping and
converging in different ways. These threads involve false
consciousness, contradictions, and self-deception. They have all been
woven into the longer continuum of posts on design learning. List
members addressed philosophically challenging issues. I have been
reading and rereading the notes on these themes to unpack and analyze
the questions in a concentrated way.

The first appearance of these three issues began with a query from
Terry Love on the problem of false consciousness in doctoral writing.

Challenging philosophical and psychological issues often require
carefully delineated inquiry. This inquiry requires careful reading
and development. So far, I have identified twenty-two questions
involved in the theme. Some are already well developed in the thread.
Some are still unclear.

These questions cluster in four categories: the problem of false
consciousness, the question of how we may properly address false
consciousness, the issue of contradiction, and the question of
self-deception.

Before raising the questions proper, I want to state my view on one
of the most important of these in ethical terms. This is the second
question.

"How may we properly address the problem of false consciousness?"

This second question has central importance in a thread on design
learning and it is important to learning in general.

I agree with Klaus Krippendorff that it is wrong to accuse others of
false consciousness. No human being has the right to evaluate the
consciousness of another human being.

This does not mean that the problem of false consciousness is itself
wrong. The problem is significant in many ways. Terry and Keith
Russell both gave good examples of the problem.

The reason we cannot assert that another human being suffers the
condition of false consciousness is that we cannot know another human
being's internal state.

Before dealing with this issue, it is useful to address the general
problem of false conscious. My questions begin here.

Today, I want to consider five questions under the general rubric of
false consciousness.

My goal in sorting this out is to clarify the issues. I'll welcome
different views and answers.

1.0 False consciousness

1.1 What is false consciousness?

In my view, the designation or label false consciousness addresses a
range of serious problems or issues. The nature or quality of the
issue is open to debate.

Keith Russell nicely noted examples that can be labeled a genuine
philosophical or psychological problem.

Keith drew examples from Sartre and Heidegger. I mentioned
Kierkegaard and Freud in an earlier note.

To assert that there is a condition or state known as "false
coconsciousness," we must describe what we mean by the term. Such a
definition is equally important to a claiming that there is no such
state.

My post of September 2 addressed this. Keith and Terry have offered
useful examples and definitions since.

Question 1: What do we mean by the term false consciousness?

1.2. Is there such a condition as false consciousness?

Only when we define what we mean by the term or offer examples can we
ask whether this describes a process, condition, or phenomenon that
may be said to exist in any meaningful sense.

The literature of philosophy and parallel inquiries in psychology,
theology, and other fields suggest that there is reason to consider
such a condition, at least in terms of inquiry into consciousness,
existential authenticity, psychological health, and psychological
problems.

Here, it is neither good enough to deny that false consciousness is
possible or to assert that there is such a condition.

Question 2: If there is such a condition as false consciousness, what
are its qualities and characteristics?

1.3 Of what value is an inquiry into the topic of false consciousness?

Some purpose or value must be served by examining the condition and
its meaning.

Again, Keith and Terry point in this direction with examples and
issues. Kierkegaard's writings also contain useful cases. Abraham
Maslow's work on self-actualization approaches these questions by
examining some of the reverse conditions of false consciousness. So
do the writings of many psychologists, particularly the work of
existential or humanistic psychologists such as Viktor Frankl,
Virginia Satir, Sidney Jourard, or Fritz Perls.

Question 3: How may we use the theme or topic of false consciousness
to illuminate important aspects of human existence?

Question 4: Can the problem of false consciousness shed light on the
qualities and characteristics of healthy consciousness and
psychological wellbeing?

1.4 Is false consciousness an inappropriate label or term?

One possible problem in this thread is linked to but distinct from
the definition of false consciousness. There is a possibility that
there are better labels for the problems or conditions being
described under the label.

Here, I raise the possibility of remedial language work.

Question 5: Is it possible to address the problems or issues being
labeled as false consciousness more fruitfully by using different
terms?

We often raise deep questions on this list. Many questions require
serious and thoughtful inquiry. Some require careful analysis even to
ask the right questions. This is such a case.

This range of issues requires deep consideration, careful analysis,
and serious reflection. Many of the statements and ideas put forward
in this thread unpack into the kinds of questions that yield lengthy
conversation in advanced research seminars. The questions taken one
by one are simpler than the issues before they are unpacked, but
these are not simple issues. While the thread elicited interesting
responses, it seems to me there is more to be said. One of the
specific reasons this interests me is implicit in Terry Love's
original question, and in the questions that Norm Sheehan later
raised.

This is the issue of the nature and challenges of doctoral inquiry
into self, as well as the issues of self-reflection and
methodological reflection in general research - whether or not this
research studies the self.

I hope to have the next series of questions unpacked and stated well
in a few days.

Thoughts, answers, and response are welcome.

Best regards,

Ken

--

Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
Department of Leadership and Organization
Norwegian School of Management

Visiting Professor
Advanced Research Institute
School of Art and Design
Staffordshire University