Do you remember the scene in Alien where that guy’s chest explodes, blood splatters everywhere, and then a little creature raises its head out of his chest, looks around, and then scampers away to plot its attack on the entire crew of the spaceship?
For Marx, alienation is what happens when a force that is intrinsic to humanity, or a power that resides within our species, transforms into something monstrous which threatens to destroy our lives. If you haven’t Alien, or if you have seen Alien but the thought of that scene makes you so sick that you might not be able to continue reading this chapter, then maybe you could think of Goethe’s Faust or Shelley’s Frankenstein—two literary works closer to Marx’s time, and to which he sometimes alludes—to grasp the horrors of a world that was created by human beings yet has taken on an objective power that seems unstoppable and even uncontrollable in its quest to destroy humanity.
Marx’s notion of alienation was developed in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, which engaged Hegel’s philosophy to conceptualize how human powers and social creations appear to take an objective form that enchains and seems to rule over the people who have collectively produced them. Marx advanced long lines of philosophical and theological inquiry and applied them to the burgeoning capitalism of his time, and he concluded that alienation severed the individual from society, unjustly appropriated the products of human labor, and put people at the mercy of social forces they could not change, control, or even understand.
Marx argued that under capitalism people are alienated in four relationships that he deemed fundamental to human existence: in relation to the products of their labor and social activity; in relation to productive activity itself; in relation to their essential humanity or “species being”; and in their social relations with other people. Marx contended that in each of these four relations, people living under capitalism are stripped of their essential human needs and capacities for creative work and social connection. All labor involves objectification, but in a capitalist society,
[T]he object which labor produces – labor’s product – confronts it as something alien, as a power independent of the producer. The product of labor is labor which has been embodied in an object, which has become material: it is the objectification of labor. Labor’s realization is its objectification. Under these economic conditions this realization of labor appears as loss of realization for the workers; objectification as loss of the object and bondage to it; appropriation as estrangement, as alienation.
Labor necessarily entails objectification, as it involves people transforming nature into useful things, but in an alienated state, workers do not own, and cannot make use of, the objects they produce. On the larger scale of society as a whole, alienation pervades in the sense that humanity appears to be dominated by a system of things that have been socially created but maintain an objective sense of immutability. Thus, the worker becomes “a slave of the object” (e.g., the “invisible hand” of the market) and is made dependent on a seemingly objective system that “enables him to exist, first as a worker; and second, as a physical subject.”
As the products of labor are expropriated and assume an alien objectivity that confronts and enslaves humanity, people also become alienated from their creative power for productive activity, which Marx believed was essential to human nature. In the form of wage labor, work becomes merely a means of survival:
First, the fact that labor is external to the worker, i.e., it does not belong to his intrinsic nature; that in his work, therefore, he does not affirm himself but denies himself, does not feel content but unhappy, does not develop freely his physical and mental energy but mortifies his body and ruins his mind. The worker therefore only feels himself outside his work, and in his work feels outside himself. He feels at home when he is not working, and when he is working he does not feel at home. His labor is therefore not voluntary, but coerced; it is forced labor. It is therefore not the satisfaction of a need; it is merely a means to satisfy needs external to it. Its alien character emerges clearly in the fact that as soon as no physical or other compulsion exists, labor is shunned like the plague.
For Marx, the appropriation and transformation of nature through labor is essential, and our capacity to thoughtfully design and produce is not simply necessary for survival but also a vital means for developing and expressing the creative powers of our species. People lose touch with the abilities that distinguish humanity from the other animals, and are thus alienated from what Marx called “species being.”
For labor, life activity, productive life itself, appears to man in the first place merely as a means of satisfying a need – the need to maintain physical existence. Yet the productive life is the life of the species. It is life-engendering life. The whole character of a species, its species-character, is contained in the character of its life activity; and free, conscious activity is man’s species-character. Life itself appears only as a means to life.
In arguing that people are alienated from their species-being, Marx is saying that people lose touch with their humanity and the abilities that differentiate us from animals; people are therefore alienated from nature in general. Finally, people become alienated from one another in the relationships that comprise the social world, as the relations between humanity, nature, and labor are replicated in the competitive rather than cooperative relations between people in society. It is necessary to recall that for Marx these are all thoroughly social relationships, and so in some sense the fourth vector of alienation, alienation from society, is a cumulative effect of alienation from the products of humanlabor, productive activity, and the humanity of our species-being:
An immediate consequence of the fact that man is estranged from the product of his labor, from his life activity, from his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confronts himself, he confronts the other man. What applies to a man’s relation to his work, to the product of his labor and to himself, also holds of a man’s relation to the other man, and to the other man’s labor and object of labor.
Alienated not only from their own labor but the labor of everyone else in society, people living under capitalism are awash in things that have been socially created but appear to possess a mysterious and supernatural aura that Marx likens to religious delusion. As he put it,
Just as in religion the spontaneous activity of the human imagination, of the human brain and the human heart, operates on the individual independently of him – that is, operates as an alien, divine or diabolical activity – so is the worker’s activity not his spontaneous activity. It belongs to another; it is the loss of his self.
The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts, where Marx developed the concept of alienation, were not published until 1932. Shortly before then, however, Georg Lukács was able to excavate the centrality of alienation in Marx’s thought by reading Capital through the prism of Hegelian philosophy. Lukács’ reinterpretation of Marx and the publication of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts allowed subsequent Marxist theorists to further utilize the concept of alienation in their critiques of capitalist societies during the twentieth century.
For many years the orthodox Marxists of the Communist Party denied the significance of alienation in Marx’s thought, and they were supported by scholars of structuralist, analytic, and positivist persuasions who noted that Marx dropped alienation from most of his writings after 1844. But as Lukacs and many others noted, the conceptual traces of alienation are evident throughout Marx’s later works, particularly in the discussion of commodity fetishism in volume one of Capital. Alienation was an especially important concept for the “Western Marxists” so called because of their concentration in Western Europe and North America, and because of their opposition to the “orthodox” Marxism of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party, who undertook many efforts to censor and diminish the role of alienation in Marxist thought.
Alienation, and its related concepts of reification and commodity fetishism, was vital to the critical theory that developed from the Frankfurt School in the decades before and after World War II. Thus, Horkheimer’s critical theory and philosophy developed as a critique of intellectual fragmentation and objectification, Adorno’s condemnation of popular music and the culture industry exposed the extension of alienation from work to leisure time, and Marcuse lambasted a one-dimensional society where alienation is evident in everything from the creation of false needs to the instrumental reason of technocratic thinking.
The Marxist theorists Erich Fromm and Henri Lefebvre further developed the concept of alienation by applying it to the consumer culture as it evolved over the course of the twentieth century. Fromm was a practicing psychoanalyst who was associated with the Institute for Social Research, relocating with them from Frankfurt to New York after the Nazi takeover, until the Institute parted ways with Fromm in late 1939. Fromm mixed Marx’s concept of alienation with Freudian psychoanalysis and even Zen Buddhism in developing a trenchant critique of the “social character” shaped by post-war capitalism and the consumer culture. Unfortunately, Fromm’s work has since been forgotten and is rarely included in contemporary discussions of the Frankfurt School. Henri Lefebvre was a Marxist sociologist and philosopher who is best known for his theorizing of geography and urban space, but his three-volume Critique of Everyday Life also dissects capitalism’s colonization of leisure time and private life from the perspective of alienation. Lefebvre used the concept of alienation in a thoroughly dialectical manner that presupposed a struggle for dis-alienation, thus establishing a theoretical foundation for the study of productive activity and resistance among consumers.
For Fromm, alienation is evident in consumer culture through forms of living that are based on having rather than being. Fromm conceptualized being and having as opposing “modes of existence,” so that the more one has the less one is, and vice versa. The most basic form of the having mode is to define the self through the commodities that one does or does not possess, and this range of commodities includes not only physical objects but also services, experiences, ideas, and people. Of course Fromm recognized that people must have things to survive, but the simple fact of possession is not what defines “the having mode of existence,” where “what matters is not the various objects of having, but our whole human attitude. Everything and anything can become an object of craving: things we use in daily life, property, rituals, good deeds, knowledge, and thoughts.” For instance, the ascetic who repudiates the pleasures of consumption and leisure is still behaving within the having mode of existence, for Fromm notes that “in the very attempt to suppress having and consuming, the person may be equally preoccupied with having and consuming.” Those who live in the having mode are preoccupied with the possession of things, or the possession of experiences and relationships that become objectified into commodities. Fromm cited a number of non-materialist examples of the having mode, like how people enslave themselves to religious or ideological dogma, or how tourists attempt to “capture” a moment by taking a picture or video recording of it. His bestselling book, The Art of Loving, argued that love is debased when it becomes a commodity, an object exchanged through the personality market that concludes when two people take possession of each other, instead of being understood as a verb that involves an active, continuous process of loving that is most intense between two people but also extends beyond to further social and natural relationships.
Fromm conceptualized the being mode, on the other hand, in terms of experience, activity, development, and relatedness. Fromm’s notion of being is closely linked to the capacity for productive activity that Marx associates with species-being. Such forms of productive activity realize human faculties and talents in the process of growing and renewing oneself and giving up one’s egocentricity and selfishness. “Nonalienated activity,” Fromm wrote, “is a process of giving birth to something, of producing something and remaining related to what I produce.” Fromm went to great lengths to distinguish this kind of productive activity from what he called mere “busyness,” where a person appears active but is actually being acted upon by external or internalized forces and is therefore in a condition of alienation. Conversely, a person can be active while appearing to do nothing (e.g., daydreaming, reading, meditating) as long as they are the subject of their action. The extent of alienation in consumption can therefore be measured by the amount of passivity among consumers. Generally speaking, Fromm concluded,"We consume, as we produce, without any concrete relatedness to the objects with which we deal; we live in a world of things, and our only connection with them is that we know how to manipulate and consume them."
Concomitant with the triumph of consumer capitalism after World War II, Fromm developed Freud’s notion of character—the forces which underlie and motivate a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior—into a sociological concept of “social character.” Among these forms of social character, Fromm distinguished between productive and non-productive orientations that correspond to modes of being and having. The productive orientation allows individuals to overcome alienation to the extent that they are loving and creative in everyday life, developing their intellectual, physical, emotional, and sensory powers in ways that relate them with society and nature while preserving their unique individuality.
Fromm clearly believed that a socialist society would enable more people to develop a productive orientation of being, but also that individuals living in the being mode could be found in the capitalist society of his time, although he did not attempt to explain how this form of social character could survive under capitalism. He did, however, analyze the various forms of social character with a non-productive orientation that are facilitated by capitalism, including a shift in social character that accompanied the transition from older forms of industrial capitalism to the consumer culture of his time. The capitalism of the nineteenth century, Fromm observed, favored a “hoarding orientation” that stressed saving rather than spending and an “exploitative orientation” driven to acquire or steal without giving or sharing. Freud, as Fromm noted, originally identified these traits in the “anal character” of bourgeois society. The consumerism of capitalist societies in the twentieth century, on the other hand, gave rise to a “receptive orientation” and an accompanying “marketing orientation.” In the receptive orientation, “the aim is to receive, to ‘drink in,’ to have something new all the time, to live with a continuously open mouth, as it were.” In the marketing orientation, people become “a thing to be employed successfully on the market,” such that “qualities like friendliness, courtesy, kindness, are transformed into commodities, into assets of ‘the personality package,’ conducive to a higher price on the personality market.” The hoarding, exploitative, receptive, and marketing orientations are all variations on modes of having rather than being. The shift from hoarding and exploitative to receptive and marketing orientations also parallel the transition described by David Riesman, Fromm’s friend and colleague, from an “inner-directed” to “other-directed” social character. For Fromm, the “craving for acceptance” that defines the other-directed person “is indeed a very characteristic feeling in the alienated person…due to the fact that they cannot accept themselves—because they are not themselves.”
As a therapist who practiced psychoanalysis for more than 50 years, Fromm was especially concerned with the consequences of alienation and consumerism for mental health. “The average man today may have a good deal of fun and pleasure,” he observed in the middle of the 1950s, “but in spite of this, he is fundamentally depressed.” For Fromm, depression was synonymous with the boredom resulting from an inability to develop one’s creative potential, and therefore with a general state of alienation. The alienated individual then turns to entertainment and consumption to compensate for this inner sense of emptiness and powerlessness, but Fromm notes that “covering up a symptom does not do away with the conditions which produce it.” In the most extreme cases, the quest to quell the anxiety and fill this inner void leads to pathological forms of consumption like eating disorders, alcoholism, and drug addiction. As with social character, Fromm recognized that multiple forms of mental illness could arise from an underlying condition of alienation. He observed that many individuals experienced “a pervasive sense of guilt,” which he found surprising given the generally secular thrust of the culture, because people found themselves caught between the demands of the social system and their own humanity, “for being a person and for being a thing.” In other cases, he diagnosed the growing sense of narcissism among people whose capacity for love could only be only turned inward, so as to disconnect them from relationships with other people, society at large, and nature.
For the most part, Fromm drew pessimistic conclusions that were similar to those of other German émigrés associated with Frankfurt School. But even in the 1950s, he did note that “there are signs that people are increasingly dissatisfied and disappointed with their way of life and trying to regain some of their lost selfhood and productivity.” He then began to write about the millions of people he observed who “indulge in any number of ‘do-it-yourself’ activities” and here Fromm included a range of practices that mix production and consumption to varying degrees—painting, gardening, adult education, listening to good music, building houses or boats. But Fromm then concluded by insisting that although these trends might be promising, they should not delude people into accepting the mythologies of post-war America that “we have already passed the peak of alienation and are now on our way to a better world.” Likewise, Fromm saw only limited signs of hope in the aftermath of the social movements and cultural revolts of the late 1960s. Writing during the 1970s in his final book, To Have or To Be?, Fromm observed that the counterculture had reoriented the consumptive practices of many young people to a mode of being:"Among these young people we find patterns of consumption that are not hidden forms of acquisition and having, but expressions of genuine joy in doing what one likes to do without expecting anything ‘lasting’ in return."
Alienation also figured prominently in Henri Lefebvre’s three volumes of The Critique of Everyday Life, published between 1947 and 1981. However, while Fromm and other German intellectuals linked to the Frankfurt School expressed a deep pessimism about post-war society and the consumer culture, Lefebvre used alienation in dialectical movement with “disalienation,” which presented new possibilities for revolution in everyday life. Over the course of the twentieth century, Lefebvre was at the center of many pivotal cultural, political, and intellectual movements, including the avant-garde of Dada and Surrealism, the uprisings of May 1968, and the development of postmodernism. As Lefebvre wrote in the second volume, “absolute alienation and absolute disalienation are equally inconceivable. Real alienation can be thought of and determined only in terms of a possible disalienation.”
Lefebvre’s intellectual roots were formed between the two world wars as he mixed Marxism with the insights of Dada and Surrealism. The interwar avant-gardes explored how art, performance, and spontaneous action could disorient the dominant ideology in which social conventions appear as natural and inevitable. They also allowed Lefebvre to imagine a new type of society where life itself would be a work of art, constituted by desire and creativity. Along with Andre Breton and many of the other Surrealists, Lefebvre joined the French Communist Party (PCF) in 1928. But while the Surrealists’ relationship to the Party was volatile and short-lived, Lefebvre stayed on and served as one of its most prominent intellectual spokesman throughout the next three decades, despite the fact that his ideas often conflicted with their interpretations of Marxism that favored “scientific” notions of objective determination. Like Georg Lukács, Lefebvre argued for a more philosophical and humanist reading of Marx that extracted the Hegelian residue in the concepts of alienation, reification, and class consciousness.
Beginning with the first volume of The Critique of Everyday Life, written in 1947, Lefebvre suggested that capitalism was commoditizing not only labor but leisure, family, sexuality, the body, and the imagination. He emphasized that, “there can be alienation in leisure just as in work. . . So we work to earn our leisure, and leisure has only one meaning: to get away from work.” Like the Frankfurt School, Lefebvre observed that Western societies were becoming increasingly oriented around consumption and commercial entertainment, but while these apparatuses of the culture industry promised relief from the workplace, in reality they represented an extension of alienation in everyday life. Lefebvre sought to theorize the junction of instrumental rationality and mass culture through the term “the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption.”
His dialectical method also allowed him to theorize the struggle and resistance that occurs within the processes of consumption, as consumers may seek to overcome alienation by turning consumption into creative activity and/or a basis for social relationships. But Lefebvre recognized that the consumer’s quest for disalienation could also create “an even greater alienation”: “Leisure activities ‘disalienate’ from the effects of fragmented labour; however, when they are entertainments and distractions, they contain their own alienations.” Theorizing in this dialectical and “relativized” fashion, Lefebvre comprehends alienation and disalienation as contradictions that “characterize concrete situations, taken in movement and not considered in a motionless way along fixed structural lines.”
Nonetheless, Lefebvre refused to succumb to the pessimism and despair which engulfed so other Marxists in the decades after World War II. From Lefebvre’s perspective, the consumer culture did not represent the triumph of “false needs” because leisure, pleasure, and self-expression are all essential human faculties. What are false are not the needs which capital promises to fulfill, but the commodities and signs which are supposed to realize them. Lefebvre wrote, “They can thus hold a real content, correspond to a real need, yet still retain an illusory form and a deceptive appearance.” Although their diagnoses of post-war society were otherwise quite similar, Lefebvre thus felt compelled to differentiate himself from Herbert Marcuse: “Can terrorist pressures and repression reinforce individual self-repression to the point of closing all issues? Against Marcuse we continue to assert that they cannot.” As early as 1962, Lefebvre had identified young people as a potentially revolutionary agent of social change: “Everywhere we see them showing signs of dissatisfaction and rebellion…It is they who continue the uninterrupted dialogue between ideal and experiment.” In May 1968, the speculations of Lefebvre and the like-minded Situationist International momentarily came to fruition as young people seized the streets of Paris while general strikes and mass demonstrations involving millions nearly toppled the French government.
After 1968, Lefebvre pursued his study of social space and cities, including his most renowned work, The Production of Space. Otherwise, however, Lefebvre’s influence was negligible once post-structuralism and postmodernism came to dominate the French intellectual scene. He did maintain an indirect presence through his student Jean Baudrillard, whose earliest works on the semiotics of consumer culture bear traces of Lefebvre’s thought. But unlike Baudrillard and so many other post-1968 French intellectuals, Lefebvre never renounced Marxism or his utopian hopes for revolution once postmodern ideas became fashionable.
The concept of alienation depends on a certain view of human nature and, as Lefebvre reminds us, the prospect that humanity can become “disalienated.” After a wave of intellectual interest in the humanism of the young Marx that accompanied the New Left movements of the 1960s and 70s, the concept of alienation has largely been abandoned in cultural theory. But as an array of psychological disorders continue to increase as the consumer culture becomes more entrenched and pervasive, it is conceivable that the critique of alienation may prove useful once again.
For many years the orthodox Marxists of the Communist Party denied the significance of alienation in Marx’s thought, and they were supported by scholars of structuralist, analytic, and positivist persuasions who noted that Marx dropped alienation from most of his writings after 1844. But as Lukacs and many others noted, the conceptual traces of alienation are evident throughout Marx’s later works, particularly in the discussion of commodity fetishism in volume one of Capital. Alienation was an especially important concept for the “Western Marxists” so called because of their concentration in Western Europe and North America, and because of their opposition to the “orthodox” Marxism of the Soviet Union and the Communist Party, who undertook many efforts to censor and diminish the role of alienation in Marxist thought.
Alienation, and its related concepts of reification and commodity fetishism, was vital to the critical theory that developed from the Frankfurt School in the decades before and after World War II. Thus, Horkheimer’s critical theory and philosophy developed as a critique of intellectual fragmentation and objectification, Adorno’s condemnation of popular music and the culture industry exposed the extension of alienation from work to leisure time, and Marcuse lambasted a one-dimensional society where alienation is evident in everything from the creation of false needs to the instrumental reason of technocratic thinking.
The Marxist theorists Erich Fromm and Henri Lefebvre further developed the concept of alienation by applying it to the consumer culture as it evolved over the course of the twentieth century. Fromm was a practicing psychoanalyst who was associated with the Institute for Social Research, relocating with them from Frankfurt to New York after the Nazi takeover, until the Institute parted ways with Fromm in late 1939. Fromm mixed Marx’s concept of alienation with Freudian psychoanalysis and even Zen Buddhism in developing a trenchant critique of the “social character” shaped by post-war capitalism and the consumer culture. Unfortunately, Fromm’s work has since been forgotten and is rarely included in contemporary discussions of the Frankfurt School. Henri Lefebvre was a Marxist sociologist and philosopher who is best known for his theorizing of geography and urban space, but his three-volume Critique of Everyday Life also dissects capitalism’s colonization of leisure time and private life from the perspective of alienation. Lefebvre used the concept of alienation in a thoroughly dialectical manner that presupposed a struggle for dis-alienation, thus establishing a theoretical foundation for the study of productive activity and resistance among consumers.
For Fromm, alienation is evident in consumer culture through forms of living that are based on having rather than being. Fromm conceptualized being and having as opposing “modes of existence,” so that the more one has the less one is, and vice versa. The most basic form of the having mode is to define the self through the commodities that one does or does not possess, and this range of commodities includes not only physical objects but also services, experiences, ideas, and people. Of course Fromm recognized that people must have things to survive, but the simple fact of possession is not what defines “the having mode of existence,” where “what matters is not the various objects of having, but our whole human attitude. Everything and anything can become an object of craving: things we use in daily life, property, rituals, good deeds, knowledge, and thoughts.” For instance, the ascetic who repudiates the pleasures of consumption and leisure is still behaving within the having mode of existence, for Fromm notes that “in the very attempt to suppress having and consuming, the person may be equally preoccupied with having and consuming.” Those who live in the having mode are preoccupied with the possession of things, or the possession of experiences and relationships that become objectified into commodities. Fromm cited a number of non-materialist examples of the having mode, like how people enslave themselves to religious or ideological dogma, or how tourists attempt to “capture” a moment by taking a picture or video recording of it. His bestselling book, The Art of Loving, argued that love is debased when it becomes a commodity, an object exchanged through the personality market that concludes when two people take possession of each other, instead of being understood as a verb that involves an active, continuous process of loving that is most intense between two people but also extends beyond to further social and natural relationships.
Fromm conceptualized the being mode, on the other hand, in terms of experience, activity, development, and relatedness. Fromm’s notion of being is closely linked to the capacity for productive activity that Marx associates with species-being. Such forms of productive activity realize human faculties and talents in the process of growing and renewing oneself and giving up one’s egocentricity and selfishness. “Nonalienated activity,” Fromm wrote, “is a process of giving birth to something, of producing something and remaining related to what I produce.” Fromm went to great lengths to distinguish this kind of productive activity from what he called mere “busyness,” where a person appears active but is actually being acted upon by external or internalized forces and is therefore in a condition of alienation. Conversely, a person can be active while appearing to do nothing (e.g., daydreaming, reading, meditating) as long as they are the subject of their action. The extent of alienation in consumption can therefore be measured by the amount of passivity among consumers. Generally speaking, Fromm concluded,"We consume, as we produce, without any concrete relatedness to the objects with which we deal; we live in a world of things, and our only connection with them is that we know how to manipulate and consume them."
Concomitant with the triumph of consumer capitalism after World War II, Fromm developed Freud’s notion of character—the forces which underlie and motivate a person’s thoughts, feelings, and behavior—into a sociological concept of “social character.” Among these forms of social character, Fromm distinguished between productive and non-productive orientations that correspond to modes of being and having. The productive orientation allows individuals to overcome alienation to the extent that they are loving and creative in everyday life, developing their intellectual, physical, emotional, and sensory powers in ways that relate them with society and nature while preserving their unique individuality.
Fromm clearly believed that a socialist society would enable more people to develop a productive orientation of being, but also that individuals living in the being mode could be found in the capitalist society of his time, although he did not attempt to explain how this form of social character could survive under capitalism. He did, however, analyze the various forms of social character with a non-productive orientation that are facilitated by capitalism, including a shift in social character that accompanied the transition from older forms of industrial capitalism to the consumer culture of his time. The capitalism of the nineteenth century, Fromm observed, favored a “hoarding orientation” that stressed saving rather than spending and an “exploitative orientation” driven to acquire or steal without giving or sharing. Freud, as Fromm noted, originally identified these traits in the “anal character” of bourgeois society. The consumerism of capitalist societies in the twentieth century, on the other hand, gave rise to a “receptive orientation” and an accompanying “marketing orientation.” In the receptive orientation, “the aim is to receive, to ‘drink in,’ to have something new all the time, to live with a continuously open mouth, as it were.” In the marketing orientation, people become “a thing to be employed successfully on the market,” such that “qualities like friendliness, courtesy, kindness, are transformed into commodities, into assets of ‘the personality package,’ conducive to a higher price on the personality market.” The hoarding, exploitative, receptive, and marketing orientations are all variations on modes of having rather than being. The shift from hoarding and exploitative to receptive and marketing orientations also parallel the transition described by David Riesman, Fromm’s friend and colleague, from an “inner-directed” to “other-directed” social character. For Fromm, the “craving for acceptance” that defines the other-directed person “is indeed a very characteristic feeling in the alienated person…due to the fact that they cannot accept themselves—because they are not themselves.”
As a therapist who practiced psychoanalysis for more than 50 years, Fromm was especially concerned with the consequences of alienation and consumerism for mental health. “The average man today may have a good deal of fun and pleasure,” he observed in the middle of the 1950s, “but in spite of this, he is fundamentally depressed.” For Fromm, depression was synonymous with the boredom resulting from an inability to develop one’s creative potential, and therefore with a general state of alienation. The alienated individual then turns to entertainment and consumption to compensate for this inner sense of emptiness and powerlessness, but Fromm notes that “covering up a symptom does not do away with the conditions which produce it.” In the most extreme cases, the quest to quell the anxiety and fill this inner void leads to pathological forms of consumption like eating disorders, alcoholism, and drug addiction. As with social character, Fromm recognized that multiple forms of mental illness could arise from an underlying condition of alienation. He observed that many individuals experienced “a pervasive sense of guilt,” which he found surprising given the generally secular thrust of the culture, because people found themselves caught between the demands of the social system and their own humanity, “for being a person and for being a thing.” In other cases, he diagnosed the growing sense of narcissism among people whose capacity for love could only be only turned inward, so as to disconnect them from relationships with other people, society at large, and nature.
For the most part, Fromm drew pessimistic conclusions that were similar to those of other German émigrés associated with Frankfurt School. But even in the 1950s, he did note that “there are signs that people are increasingly dissatisfied and disappointed with their way of life and trying to regain some of their lost selfhood and productivity.” He then began to write about the millions of people he observed who “indulge in any number of ‘do-it-yourself’ activities” and here Fromm included a range of practices that mix production and consumption to varying degrees—painting, gardening, adult education, listening to good music, building houses or boats. But Fromm then concluded by insisting that although these trends might be promising, they should not delude people into accepting the mythologies of post-war America that “we have already passed the peak of alienation and are now on our way to a better world.” Likewise, Fromm saw only limited signs of hope in the aftermath of the social movements and cultural revolts of the late 1960s. Writing during the 1970s in his final book, To Have or To Be?, Fromm observed that the counterculture had reoriented the consumptive practices of many young people to a mode of being:"Among these young people we find patterns of consumption that are not hidden forms of acquisition and having, but expressions of genuine joy in doing what one likes to do without expecting anything ‘lasting’ in return."
Alienation also figured prominently in Henri Lefebvre’s three volumes of The Critique of Everyday Life, published between 1947 and 1981. However, while Fromm and other German intellectuals linked to the Frankfurt School expressed a deep pessimism about post-war society and the consumer culture, Lefebvre used alienation in dialectical movement with “disalienation,” which presented new possibilities for revolution in everyday life. Over the course of the twentieth century, Lefebvre was at the center of many pivotal cultural, political, and intellectual movements, including the avant-garde of Dada and Surrealism, the uprisings of May 1968, and the development of postmodernism. As Lefebvre wrote in the second volume, “absolute alienation and absolute disalienation are equally inconceivable. Real alienation can be thought of and determined only in terms of a possible disalienation.”
Lefebvre’s intellectual roots were formed between the two world wars as he mixed Marxism with the insights of Dada and Surrealism. The interwar avant-gardes explored how art, performance, and spontaneous action could disorient the dominant ideology in which social conventions appear as natural and inevitable. They also allowed Lefebvre to imagine a new type of society where life itself would be a work of art, constituted by desire and creativity. Along with Andre Breton and many of the other Surrealists, Lefebvre joined the French Communist Party (PCF) in 1928. But while the Surrealists’ relationship to the Party was volatile and short-lived, Lefebvre stayed on and served as one of its most prominent intellectual spokesman throughout the next three decades, despite the fact that his ideas often conflicted with their interpretations of Marxism that favored “scientific” notions of objective determination. Like Georg Lukács, Lefebvre argued for a more philosophical and humanist reading of Marx that extracted the Hegelian residue in the concepts of alienation, reification, and class consciousness.
Beginning with the first volume of The Critique of Everyday Life, written in 1947, Lefebvre suggested that capitalism was commoditizing not only labor but leisure, family, sexuality, the body, and the imagination. He emphasized that, “there can be alienation in leisure just as in work. . . So we work to earn our leisure, and leisure has only one meaning: to get away from work.” Like the Frankfurt School, Lefebvre observed that Western societies were becoming increasingly oriented around consumption and commercial entertainment, but while these apparatuses of the culture industry promised relief from the workplace, in reality they represented an extension of alienation in everyday life. Lefebvre sought to theorize the junction of instrumental rationality and mass culture through the term “the bureaucratic society of controlled consumption.”
His dialectical method also allowed him to theorize the struggle and resistance that occurs within the processes of consumption, as consumers may seek to overcome alienation by turning consumption into creative activity and/or a basis for social relationships. But Lefebvre recognized that the consumer’s quest for disalienation could also create “an even greater alienation”: “Leisure activities ‘disalienate’ from the effects of fragmented labour; however, when they are entertainments and distractions, they contain their own alienations.” Theorizing in this dialectical and “relativized” fashion, Lefebvre comprehends alienation and disalienation as contradictions that “characterize concrete situations, taken in movement and not considered in a motionless way along fixed structural lines.”
Nonetheless, Lefebvre refused to succumb to the pessimism and despair which engulfed so other Marxists in the decades after World War II. From Lefebvre’s perspective, the consumer culture did not represent the triumph of “false needs” because leisure, pleasure, and self-expression are all essential human faculties. What are false are not the needs which capital promises to fulfill, but the commodities and signs which are supposed to realize them. Lefebvre wrote, “They can thus hold a real content, correspond to a real need, yet still retain an illusory form and a deceptive appearance.” Although their diagnoses of post-war society were otherwise quite similar, Lefebvre thus felt compelled to differentiate himself from Herbert Marcuse: “Can terrorist pressures and repression reinforce individual self-repression to the point of closing all issues? Against Marcuse we continue to assert that they cannot.” As early as 1962, Lefebvre had identified young people as a potentially revolutionary agent of social change: “Everywhere we see them showing signs of dissatisfaction and rebellion…It is they who continue the uninterrupted dialogue between ideal and experiment.” In May 1968, the speculations of Lefebvre and the like-minded Situationist International momentarily came to fruition as young people seized the streets of Paris while general strikes and mass demonstrations involving millions nearly toppled the French government.
After 1968, Lefebvre pursued his study of social space and cities, including his most renowned work, The Production of Space. Otherwise, however, Lefebvre’s influence was negligible once post-structuralism and postmodernism came to dominate the French intellectual scene. He did maintain an indirect presence through his student Jean Baudrillard, whose earliest works on the semiotics of consumer culture bear traces of Lefebvre’s thought. But unlike Baudrillard and so many other post-1968 French intellectuals, Lefebvre never renounced Marxism or his utopian hopes for revolution once postmodern ideas became fashionable.
The concept of alienation depends on a certain view of human nature and, as Lefebvre reminds us, the prospect that humanity can become “disalienated.” After a wave of intellectual interest in the humanism of the young Marx that accompanied the New Left movements of the 1960s and 70s, the concept of alienation has largely been abandoned in cultural theory. But as an array of psychological disorders continue to increase as the consumer culture becomes more entrenched and pervasive, it is conceivable that the critique of alienation may prove useful once again.
1 comment:
Nothing important here. Just thanks. I was glad to find exposition of the topic of Marx's alienation and especially Fromm, which I wasn't looking for. Thanks.
Post a Comment