Henry: Marx and the Species-Being
Marx, in "On the Jewish Question," draws a stark distinction between the egoistic man of civil society and the species-being of the political community. This distinction serves as the basis for his critique of civil society and his prescription for man to return to his state as a species-being.
A footnote from Robert C. Tucker explains why this distinction is so essential to Marx's argument: he writes that Marx "insists more strongly than Feuerbach that since... 'species-consciousness' defines the nature of man, man is only living and acting authentically (i.e. in accordance with his nature) when he lives and acts deliberately as a 'species-being,' that is, as a social being" (Tucker 34). Marx seems to imply that man's natural state is a social one. After all, he derides egoistic man for being "an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice" (Marx 42). Marx embraces the species-being because it represents man in his natural state—or, as he puts it, "a restoration of the human world and of human relationships to man himself" (46). Do people agree with Marx's assessment that the egoistic man in civil society represents a perversion of "true and authentic man" (43) and that the social species-being is represents the real authentic man?
Marx explains that rights, far from being natural, unnaturally perpetuate the existence of egoistic man. Unlike Locke, Marx asserts that rights are not "a gift of nature" but "the results of culture" (40). He argues that rights are merely "the rights of a member of civil society, that is, of egoistic man, of man separated from other men and from the community" (42). Liberty is the freedom of "man regarded as an isolated monad" (42). Property is "the right of self-interest" (42). Equality is the equal right to be "regarded as a self-sufficient monad" (42). Security is the "assurance of... egoism" (43). For Marx, all of these rights serve to perpetuate an atomized civil society in which man is isolated from his fellow men.
Marx asserts that egoistic man was the foundation of feudalism (45). He explains that even though political emancipation from feudalism shattered the connection between civil society and political life (45), it still perpetuated the existence of egositic man: "thus man was not liberated from religion; he received religious liberty. He was not liberated from property; he received the liberty to own property. He was not liberated from the egoism of business; he received the liberty to engage in business" (45).
Marx seems to say that human nature changes amidst the upheaval of certain institutions. Marx quotes Rousseau as saying that "whoever dares undertake to establish a people's institutions must feel himself capable of changing, as it were, human nature itself" (Marx 46). This seems to introduce a problem for Marx. If, as Rousseau says, human nature is malleable, by what standard can Marx say that a particular iteration of human nature represents "authentic man" (46)?
I also was super intrigued by the concept of “species-being,” in particular when compared to Rousseau’s view of egotism.
ReplyDeleteAs you write in your post, Marx argues that we should return to a state of “species-being” because human nature is naturally social and that the egotistic man is one who chooses to isolate themselves from society. As Marx views socialization as a cure for egotism (as it’s caused by isolation), Rosseau seems to argue that egotism is, in fact, caused by socialization as it increases our perception of our social/public value.
Marx defines the egoistic man as a “man separated from other men and from the community.” (Marx 42). Additionally, he writes, as you pointed out, that the egotistic man is “an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice.” (Marx 43) Hence, the more an individual separates themselves, the more they become self-worried, in other words, increasing their egotism.
On the other hand, Rousseau argues that harmful egotism, which is informed by a worry for one’s self-value, stems from socialization. As Rousseau writes, “people grew accustomed to gathering in front of their huts…” aka participating more in the community, and thus, “each one began to look at the others and to want to be looked at himself, and public esteem had a value.” (Rosseau 64) In other words, it was socialization that tied one’s self-value to one’s public value, increasing one’s self-consciousness or ego. In my view, Rousseau argues that the more interactive a person is in their community, the more separation occurs due to jealousies caused by differences.
Rousseau and Marx seem to argue two different foundations for egotism. It can be said that one’s self-value is their ego. For Marx, separation from one’s community caused one’s ego to increase. For Rousseau, interaction within one’s community seems to be the cause. It seems that because their causes of egotism stem from entirely opposing ideological/theoretical viewpoints, the question remains, what informs our ego? Is it isolation or interaction? I wonder if anyone else can hypothesize another cause of egotism for class discussion.
Thanks to both of you for focusing on the core issues surrounding species being and egotism. I don't agree with your reading, Henry, on which "egoistic man was the foundation of feudalism." It seems hard to square with Marx's insistence that it was the move to capitalism and constitutional liberalism is fully unleashed the "egoistic spirit."
ReplyDeleteThe discussion of the Tucker is fascinating, but isn't what Marx is presenting here an account of the natural development of human interaction? If so, how can species being be a return to man's "natural" state? Aren't we IN a state dictated by natural forces? Isn't THAT a natural state? This is crucial to the tutorial prompt for Tuesday.
Tutu, cool formulation, but isn't the "Separation from community" that you appeal to in Marx a manifestation of the evolution of community into its present form? After all, it is the development of a general interest as citizens, yielding political emancipation of the state from property and religion, that unleashes the egoistic spirit -- but aren't these developments THROUGH community evolution and interaction? It becomes harder to see a contrast here with Rousseau.
Thank you both for your comments.
ReplyDeleteHurley, Marx writes that "feudal society was dissolved into its basic element, man; but into egoistic man who was its real foundation" (Marx 45). While I agree that "the move to capitalism and constitutional liberalism is fully unleashed the 'egoistic spirit,'" it seems that Marx believes that egoistic man was underlying feudalism all the while like a slumbering dragon.
Additionally, the tension between the "natural state" of man and the "natural development" of human interaction is something that I highlight in my final paragraph. How can Marx appeal to man's natural state if human nature is malleable?
Tutu, I find your comparison between Marx and Rousseau to be insightful. While both Marx and Rousseau track the growth of the egoistic spirit amidst community evolution, they conceptualize the problem differently. Rousseau attributes the decline of freedom and the growth of amour propre (as Hurley calls it) to the increase of dependence, which he sees as a bad thing. Marx, meanwhile, attributes the lack of emancipation and the growth of the egoistic spirit to the increase of alienation, which he sees as a bad thing. Alienation and dependence seem to be at odds, thus suggesting a tension between Rousseau and Marx.
Here's one possible direction towards reconciling this tension: Rousseau writes that as man became more dependent, it became "necessary for him to seek incessantly to interest [others] in his fate and to make them find their own profit, in fact or in appearance, when working for his" (Rousseau 68). Likewise, Marx writes that in civil society, "the only bond between men is natural necessity, need and private interest, the preservation of their property and their egoistic persons" (43). Thus, even though men are dependent like Rousseau says, this dependence actually fosters alienation because it is rooted in egoism.