Dear Colleagues,
The second range of issue involved in the problem of false
consciousness involves considering how we may properly address the
question of false consciousness.
This also involves considering the circumstances under which it is
necessary - or even obligatory - to do so.
Finally, it is important to ask who may address this problem.
To avoid misunderstanding, I will repeat my view that it is wrong to
accuse others of false consciousness. No human being has the right to
evaluate the consciousness of another human being. 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. I will discuss this further below.
The physical impossibility of knowing another's internal state and
the ethical wrong of accusing another person of false consciousness
does not invalidate the possibility of false consciousness.
Here, I propose nine questions that inquire into the challenge of
addressing the problem of false consciousness.
2.0 Addressing the problem of false consciousness.
2.1 The problem of asserting that a specific individual suffers from
false consciousness.
Early in the thread, Klaus Krippendorff stated that it is wrong to
claim that a specific person suffers from false consciousness. This
claim is often linked to specific incidents of ethically questionable
behavior.
Woody Allen gives a humorous example of the problem in a monologue
where he claimed that he was expelled from New York University for
cheating in metaphysics.
"I looked into the soul of the boy next to me," he said.
This joke neatly illustrates the impossibility of asserting in any
valid sense that someone else suffers from false consciousness. To
know whether such a claim is true, one would have to look into or
somehow experience their consciousness. This is impossible.
This problem has occurred in some debates on this list in another
form: one list member claimed that another adopted a specific
position for political, economic, or personal motives.
It is one thing to state that adopting a position has political,
economic, or personal consequences. This claim is a truth claim or an
interpretive claim concerning issues external to the person who
adopts a position.
It is another matter to claim that someone adopts a position for
specific political, economic, or personal MOTIVES. To make this claim
is to say, "I know your internal state and I know the reasons you
have for adopting this position." This is much like the claim "I know
your internal state and I know that you suffer from false
consciousness."
We cannot know the internal state of another human being.
Question 6: What are the limits and conditions - if any - that permit
us to claim that another human being suffers from a state of false
consciousness?
Question 7: Is the declaration that another human being suffers from
a state of false consciousness even possible in any meaningful sense?
2.2.1 Valid engagement with the problem of false consciousness in
other human beings in a situated context
In some cases, individuals who seek to understand and clarify their
own existential situation seek to examine self and consciousness with
the help of another human being.
These relationships are found in psychology, psychiatry,
psychotherapy, and pastoral counseling.
These relationships are bounded by ethical considerations. They
entail a privileged relationship that requires clear bonds and clear
boundaries between the conscious subject and his or her chosen
counselor.
There is a second range of relationships in which the problem of
false consciousness becomes significant. These are not the strictly
bounded relationships of the therapeutic and counseling professions.
Rather, they are the more loosely bounded relationships of teaching
and inquiry.
This range of relationships moves from the therapeutic at one extreme
to the analytical at the other. On one side of a continuum, we find
people who function as therapists or mentors of some kind. On the
other side, we find philosophers and we find scholars in the
scientific study of therapeutic arts that work with individuals as
teachers and mentors.
It is here that Terry Love asked his original question. In essence,
Terry's question asks how a doctoral supervisor or advisor can work
effectively to help a research student address the problem of false
consciousness.
The attempt to answer this question is how I was introduced to Kierkegaard.
My background included study in psychology and education. One of my
thesis supervisors thought that Kierkegaard's work would be helpful
to me in the issues I was then examining.
Question 8: What are the psychological, therapeutic, or spiritual
dimensions of inquiry into false consciousness?
Question 9: How can a therapist, mentor, or counselor work
effectively with the concept of false consciousness in a way that is
constructively helpful for the conscious subject who seeks the
support of a professional advisor?
Question 10: Are there psychological, therapeutic, or spiritual
circumstances in which a therapist, mentor, or counselor is required
to address the problem of false consciousness under the obligations
of declared responsibility (f.ex., Hippocratic Oath, priestly vows,
etc.)
Question 11: How can a doctoral supervisor or research advisor work
effectively to help a research student address the problem of false
consciousness?
Question 12: What specific ethical and professional challenges must a
doctoral supervisor or research advisor address to work effectively
with a research student who hopes to address the problem of false
consciousness?
2.2.2 Valid engagement with the problem of false consciousness in
other human beings in abstract terms
A third range of professions examines the problem of false
consciousness in a form abstracted from the immediate context of an
individual life. Here, we also find philosophers, scholars, and
scientists who study these issues.
Any of the questions I articulate in this series of notes may be
raised in the context of this kind of work as a subject of inquiry.
2.3 What if false consciousness an inappropriate label or term?
False consciousness may well be an inappropriate label or term.
Nevertheless, the problem represented by the term may be genuine. If
so, we need a better and more appropriate language to address the
problems or challenges involved in various instances of what may now
be labeled false consciousness.
Question 13: Question 1 asks, "What do we mean by the term false
consciousness?" Here, I ask what issues, problems, or situations may
be worth exploring whether or not the term itself is appropriate.
Question 14: If the term false consciousness is inappropriate for
some or all of the conditions now designated by the term, would other
terms be useful to describe or delimit some of these problems or all
of them? If so, what are they?
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
|