Perhaps what is really important is the self reflection required to identify
"false consciousness" in one's self. There maybe serious ethical problems with
determining what is "false consciousness" in another person, the only purpose
of which I can think of off the top of my head is to attempt to change or
modify that thinking, something which unless consent is given freely smacks of
brainwashing, manipulation or "mind control". Can a person choose? Even in
places where people have been under repressive systems they still seem to
manage on occasion to critique their systems and identify something more
aligned with a cohesive view of reality for themselves. That we don't have
agreement world wide on what truth/fiction is, may be more reflective of
diversity than 'false consciousness'.

Also, Dr. Ramachandran, the cognitive neurologist, suggests that there are
falsehoods produced by the mind, such as ghost limbs in the case of amputees.
The absent limbs may be obvious to everyone but the person themselves. What
does that mean? No amount of convincing will change that person's perception.
That person can have a new perception but it has to come from within. Also that
is a dramatic condition having to do with how the mind physically works.

On the other hand there are some pretty scary issues to do with "right
thinking" which has supported the human devastation perpetrated by the
"Inquisition", the "Holocaust", religious terrorists, the McCarthy era
blacklisting, etc.
Jan
Jan Coker
C3-10 Underdale Campus
University of South Australia
+61 8 8302 6919
"There is no way to peace, peace is the way"
Gandhi


-----Original Message-----
From: Charles Burnette [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, 1 October 2003 3:40 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: False Consciousness, Contradictions, and Self-deception. --
Further Inquiry (2).

Ken, Terry and all,

Why so much investment in the abstract notion of false
consciousness?

Understanding what is going on in the mind of another
must depend on having a "theory" of how their mind is
working. This requires imputing their intention, level
of awareness, knowledge and values as well as probable
ideas and actions.  Writers such as Daniel Dennett and
Steven Pinker have noted how such an "intuitive
psychology" is essential to the capacity to understand
and empathize with others - without it we could not
interpret their utterances or behavior. (Children
learn to interpret others by forming a "theory" of
what the other is thinking, often mimicking thought
and behavior to learn what is involved.)

It seems to me that detecting false thinking and
helping to correct it is what Terry is really talking
about. I think the task of the mentor is to carefully
uncover the student's intentions, the information they
are basing their thoughts on, their concepts and
approach regarding it, and their application of
values, and knowledge. Then the task becomes one of
advising them by referencing similar content in your
own mind.

Self deception can be identified by analyzing whether
an intention is consistent with the other dimensions
discerned while contradictions appear when content is
inconsistent. In other words, we should look at
consciousness in terms of the thinking it supports.

Best regards,

Chuck


Dr. Charles Burnette
234 South Third Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel: +215 629 1387
e-mail: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: PhD-Design - This list is for discussion of PhDs
in Design
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ken
Friedman
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2003 11:52 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: False Consciousness, Contradictions, and
Self-deception. --
Further Inquiry (2).


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