(2) Nina Power, 'Marx and Non-Philosophy'
Marx, Feuerbach and Non-Philosophy
Nina Power
[DRAFT VERSION: THE PAPER WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER!]
Uncovering the conceptual assumptions behind debates about humanism after the mid 19th century requires returning to the post-Hegelian philosophies and non-philosophies of the 1840s as it is here, in the wake of the success of philosophemes clustered around Hegel’s ‘absolute spirit’ in encoding a particular historical narrative into the logic of philosophy itself, that the status of ‘man’ seemed to be either in jeopardy (as secondary to the progress of Geist), or falsely elevated. In the latter instance, Hegel’s theological critics would have it that ‘man’ assumed an importance commensurate with that of the Christian God itself. This paper seeks to understand the reasons why Hegel’s philosophy in relation to his conception of man became problematic for those who followed in his wake, and why the question of humanity became a central philosophical and political concern. It argues that Feuerbach and the early Marx are radically misunderstood if their projects are taken as mere formal critical reversals of religious postulates. The eminently political impulses of the Young and Left Hegelians is stressed as part of a way into to thinking a trajectory of radical political humanism that concerns itself with forms of the collective, humanity and a form of rationalism that immediately deals with questions of the species as well as a critique of philosophy. The paper begins with a discussion of Hegel’s conceptions of universalism and how it sets up the problem of its concretization for those that followed in his wake.
Making the ‘Universal’ Universal
Hegel’s claim, from the ‘Doctrine of the Notion’ in his Encyclopaedia Logic that ‘only in Christendom is man respected as man, in his infinitude and universality’ incorporates several key moments: the idea that Christianity is the most universal of religions, encapsulating and surpassing the truth of all others; that Christendom is the physical embodiment of this universality; and that the universal is intricately associated with ‘the principle of personality’. Hegel does not however mean by this that personality is immediately apparent to the ‘person’ him or herself (elsewhere in the Encyclopaedia he criticises Jacobi for speaking of personality in terms of a form of idealist intuition).[1] The slave’s self-recognition, in particular, would not be enough to reveal to him his own universality according to Hegel.[2] Indeed, without external recognition, the slave is not a person at all, he does not partake, as Hegel elsewhere puts it, in ‘the principle of the Western world, the principle of individuality’.[3] Hegel does not therefore understand this ‘principle of personality’ in terms of a personal relation to God of which any man or woman could be the subject, as a typical ‘personalist’ might – indeed, this is what his Christian theological detractors, such as Stahl, found so problematic. In Hegel’s later and last major text, the Philosophy of Right from 1821, ‘persons’ occupy the realm, between the private sphere and the state, of bourgeois (or civil) society [bürgerliche Gesellschaft]. What persons have in common, however, is not their reason, nor feeling (as in the family) but ownership: private property and the collective ties that expand and regulate these relations: ‘When we say that a human being must be somebody [etwas], we mean that he must belong to a particular estate … A human being with no estate is merely a private person and does not possess actual universality.’[4]
‘Universality’ is thus understood as the systematic interweaving of individual and family ownership and institutions. The implication of Hegel’s so-called universalism, therefore, is that one can be human in a biological sense, and yet have no actual relation to personhood or to the ‘actual’ universal. Women, in particular, according to Hegel, cannot contemplate ‘universal’ activities such as philosophy, or governance, precisely because ‘their actions are not based on the demands of universality but on contingent inclination and opinion’.[5] If we come to Hegel expecting a certain kind of universality to arise in the shared, if differential, capacities of the species (what we might name humanity or Mankind, comprising both men and women), we will be disappointed, finding the breadth of this term restricted, in the Philosophy of Right to the permutations of marriage and reproduction, ‘Life’, or ‘the actuality of the species’.[6] Not the life of men and women as it is lived in society, but the mere fact of the propagation of the species, which is, in turn, subsumed by civil society as marriage, thus relying on differentiation at a lower level in order to defend a rather circumscribed ‘universalism’ at a higher. There is a tension between Hegel the philosopher and Hegel the thinker of the articulation of the state and civil society, a battle in which the universality of the human is ultimately subordinated to concrete social hierarchisation.
Despite Hegel’s insistence (following Spinoza’s Axiom in the Ethics that “Man thinks”) that ‘Nature has given every one a faculty of thought’, this ‘generic thought’ does not reach the level of the universal until it ‘feels its own universality’.[7] So whilst self-reflecting thought is that which constitutes the distinction between humanity and animals, in the realm of thought, the philosopher and the bourgeois property-owner share the distinction of being in exclusive possession of the ability to attain the universal: ‘the philosophic mode gets to be different from the more general thought which acts in all that is human, in all that gives humanity its distinctive character.’[8] A mode of thought that, as noted, women and slaves are by definition unable to practice, according to Hegel, because of their ‘inability’ to attain the level of the universal either via the legal recognition of their full right to property (or limited forms thereof), or because of their ‘natural’ restriction to the level of the contingent and the individual. Even in marriage and childrearing, the woman can only attain the level of the generic [Gattung] by uniting with her husband, via ‘their consent to constitute a single person.’[9] Above them, too, stands civil society as the ‘universal family’, in the face of the relative arbitrariness and contingency of the married couple as parents.[10]
In his earlier, generally less discussed work on Hegel, the ‘Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State’, Marx will make explicit the narrowness of Hegel’s conception of the universal and attack the idea that the ‘universal interest’ should be commensurate with the task of upholding legality.[11] The Universal is repeatedly qualified by Hegel in The Philosophy of Right: ‘the process of legislation should not be represented merely by that one of its moments whereby something is declared to be valid for everyone; more important that this is the inner and essential moment, namely cognition of the content in its determinate universality’.[12] Everywhere in Hegel the universal is given, but circumscribed: everyone thinks, in principle, but only philosophy, and/or, the law-abiding property-owner thinks universally. This is why a critique of philosophy, such as undertaken in Feuerbach’s attempt to inaugurate a ‘non-philosophy’ is also a critique of the bourgeois, ‘cognising’ subject that underpins it. Everyone has an abstract relation to Right, yet one must have cognizance [die Kenntnis] of the content of the law in order to partake of it. As Marx puts it: ‘the universal appears everywhere as a determinate particular, while the individual never achieves its true universality.’[13]
Löwith notes that, for Hegel, ‘man is far from being conceived as a member of a general class; rather the life of this class itself, society, is conceived as a framework external to the individuals, a restriction upon their original independence. The only bond holding them together is … need and private interest.’[14] Those thinkers that followed Hegel, not only Marx, but those who Marx read, respected and argued with in the early years, most especially Ludwig Feuerbach, oriented their projects towards a series of complex tasks: how to rescue the universal from its Hegelian limitations and thus render it truly universal; how to redeem Man (understood as men and women) without simply redeeming the bourgeois man of property and security; how to learn the lessons of the dialectic, and to criticise it, without retreating to a pre-Hegelian problematic that could easily be criticised and subsumed by the subtleties of the all-consuming Hegelian system. As Feuerbach succinctly put it in 1843, ‘The culmination of modern philosophy is the Hegelian philosophy. The historical necessity and justification of the new philosophy must therefore be derived mainly from a critique of Hegel’s.’[15]
There are a number of factors to bear in mind here. By the early 1840s, not only did the original unifying force of the ‘rationalist’ Hegelian system appear to have been dissolved in its apparent opposition to the reality of the political state (namely, the ascension of Pietist King Frederick Wilhelm IV and the political and academic hostility towards Hegelianism), but the Hegelian school’s own unity was shattered by the splintering off of myriad Hegelian factions.[16] Practically, this meant that criticisms of theology were inextricably intermingled with those of politics (theoretical or existing). It is Feuerbach who best summarises the theoretical landscape post-Hegel, when discussing his proposal for a future philosophy: ‘The new philosophy is the negation of rationalism as much as mysticism; of pantheism as much as personalism; of atheism as much as theism; it is the unity of all these antithetical truths as an absolutely independent and pure truth.’[17] Although Breckman argues against ascribing too much influence to the political circumstances of the 1840s as being responsible for radicalising the left Hegelians, pointing to the fact that the unity of religious and socio-political concerns in Feuerbach’s criticisms of personalism of the 1830s already exhibits characteristically radical themes, it is clear that there was a heightened alarm at the increasingly repressive political state of affairs in Germany in the 1840s.[18]
But how could the Young and left Hegelians reconcile the concept of ‘genus’ with ‘individuals’ who, far from exhibiting a shared rationality, couldn’t seem more at war with one another? Although the attack upon and transformation of the religious elements of Hegel (or, the question of how to be an atheistic Hegelian, as Feuerbach would have it) is initially crucial to this matter of the ‘properly universal’ in the attempt to redeem man,[19] the issue of religion, though it formed a major part of the conservative attack on Hegel, did not centrally pre-occupy the left-wing Hegelians. That honour goes instead to the question of ‘political humanism’, as I will refer to the thematic of Feuerbach and the early Marx, understood as the attempt to restore to men and women certain forms of their own power in the face of allegedly natural forms of hierarchy (sovereignty, monarchy, lordship and the newer, and more complex, form of domination, capitalism). This project of dealienation goes far beyond a simple reversal of the tyranny of religious oppression. It is thus disingenuous to state, as Hyppolite does, that ‘one may see in Christianity, as it is interpreted in Hegelian philosophy, the source of everything in Marxian humanism.’[20] Similarly, Ameriks’s claim that ‘the notion of the human species itself is Feuerbach’s epistemological, ontological, and ethical substitute for the absolute role that was previously played by the notion of God as traditionally understood,’[21] again underestimates the political elements in Feuerbach’s work, which is not simply an analysis of theology, but also, and at the same time, of philosophy and certain theo-political conceptions of civil society. What will be shown is that Feuerbach and Marx’s early humanism represents more than a simple transmutation of the veneration of the transcendent (God, idealism) to a veneration of the immanent (man, materialism). ‘Political humanism’ is not solely the replacement of theology with anthropology. If it were, we would expect it to retain the precise structure of theological arguments, rendering it vulnerable to criticisms along the line of Proudhon’s: ‘the deification of our species, which is at bottom among the new atheists, is, only a last echo of religious terrors’.[22] The so-called ‘deification’ of the species that Proudhon attacks in humanist atheism does not, and cannot, be a presupposition in either Feuerbach or Marx, for it is precisely awareness of how stuck humanity has gotten in the face of its oppressions that guide their criticisms of Hegel and theology.
This question of the formal reversal of philosophical-theological writing is, in any case, pre-empted by Feuerbach in 1843: ‘The contradiction of the modern philosophy, especially of pantheism, consists of the fact that it is the negation of theology from the standpoint of theology or the negation of theology which itself is again theology: this contradiction especially characterizes the Hegelian philosophy.’[23] Neither a theological negation of theology, nor the negation of the content of theology without a simultaneous destruction of its form. Admittedly, Feuerbach does give some weapons to his critics when, especially in the later works, he occasionally make claims like ‘My aim in reducing theology to anthropology is rather to raise anthropology to theology in just the same way as Christianity, by reducing God to man, elevates man into God, even if into a transcendent, fantastic God far removed from man.’[24] But his more comprehensive attacks on the formal ties between theology, philosophy and the ‘nature’ of civil society are more salient to the question of humanism per se, and it is to those that we shall turn.
Some initial caveats, however: As willing as Feuerbach was to connect his critique of religion to socialism, it is clear that Marx’s subsequent identification of socialism with the proletariat’s struggle actually militates against the core of Feuerbach’s own emancipatory project. Feuerbach never identified the proletariat as the universal class whose emancipation would liberate all mankind. Instead he remained committed to the task of the universal emancipation of humanity as such, and this must include proletariat and capitalist alike. In this sense, Feuerbach is attempting to make good the promise of the universal that Hegel never carried out. However, we know too that the universal plays a large role in Marx’s 1843-44 work on Hegel. The formation of a class with ‘radical chains’, the proletariat, is precisely a negatively universal class: its suffering is universal, its total ‘loss of humanity’ is a universal loss. It is as if Marx, with this notion of the proletariat, is taking his cue from Feuerbach’s claim that ‘only he who has the courage to be absolutely negative has also the power to create something new.’[25] If it is only one part of humanity that emancipates itself, nevertheless this ‘one particular class undertakes from its particular situation the universal emancipation of society’.[26] Marx has here taken up Feuerbach’s ‘completed Hegelianism’ and added the beginnings of a more material political critique, without yet dropping the language of the universal. The relationship between the reformulation of the universal between Feuerbach and Marx is critical: it is here, rather than on the question of humanism per se, that they will ultimately diverge, as Marx becomes less and less convinced by strictly ‘philosophical’ conceptions of politics and humanity. However, as will be discussed further on, the question of how and in which ways this humanity individuates itself is also at stake: whilst Feuerbach will remain in the realm of that which binds at the level of the generic (thought, love), Marx will, particularly in the wake of Stirner’s attack on Feuerbach, give much more prominence to the role of the complex ‘individual’ (not to be understood as a substantive ‘person’ in Hegel’s sense). As Kouvelakis puts it, ‘when it is a question of determining, in positive fashion, the ultimate human essence, Marx becomes highly elliptical, precisely where Feuerbach … is prolix.’[27] There is thus a shift in the conception of ‘political humanism’ from Feuerbach’s 1839 claim that ‘The species is indifferent to the individual. The reflecting individual carries the consciousness of the species within himself’[28] to Marx’s 1845 claim in The German Ideology of communism as the ‘power of…united individuals’.[29] Marx’s criticism of Feuerbach’s conception of generic humanity retains Feuerbach’s concern for that shared humanity; what he does eliminate, however, is the idea of an ahistorical opposition between the individual and the species, such that species-being would be revealed only ideally (in self-consciousness, for example, as Feuerbach argues in the preface to The Essence of Christianity). Already we can see hints of Marx’s disagreement with Feuerbach on this point in 1844: ‘The real, active relation of man to himself as a species-being, or the realisation of himself as a real species-being, i.e. as a human being, is only possible if he really employs all his species-powers - which… is only possible through the cooperation of mankind and as a result of history.’[30] Man, for Marx, is identified neither with the isolated individual, nor the species as the revelation of shared capacity, but with the practice of real individuals in their shared, if differentiated, conditions and their historical specificity.
Marx makes the addition to his early form of humanism of a particular idea of democracy that makes more explicit the immediately political nature of human emancipation, thus further distinguishing himself from Feuerbach and avoiding some of the problems inherent in the notion of species. As Kouvelakis remarks:
The reference to the species is haunted by a constitutive instability; that it is a
provisional notion subject to progressive destabilisation; and that it operates like the spectral trace of a different social logic, one which comes from the future and is yet lodged at the heart of bourgeois social relations. For its part, “true democracy”, defined as the self-presence of the human essence, would be more an appeal … for a democratic political practice that does not yet exist or, more precisely, has not yet been recognised – and cannot yet be ‘named’ – rather than a stable concept awaiting its systematic presentation.[31]
We can of course ultimately question, as Marx did, whether Feuerbach really achieves a truly novel conception of explicitly political humanism as he imagines he did (we can see just how preoccupied Feuerbach was with questions of futurity and temporality, and the immediate need for a new kind of thinking from perusing the titles of his works: ‘Principles of the Philosophy of the Future’, ‘The Necessity of a Reform of Philosophy’, ‘Preliminary Theses on the Reform of Philosophy’). When Feuerbach states that ‘Philosophy steps into the place that religion had occupied. This means, however, that a totally different philosophy replaces all previous philosophy,’[32] the question is to what extent this new philosophy (or rather, this ‘non-philosophy’) can serve as an adequate account of the really existing state of affairs.
I expand here upon a relatively recent argument by Warren Breckman regarding the ‘unity of theological and political critique in Feuerbach’s work during the 1830s and 1840s’.[33] Marx’s comment in a letter to Ruge that Feuerbach’s work referred ‘too much to nature and too little to politics’, not to mention the criticisms of the much more famous ‘Theses on Feuerbach’ have, he argues, led to the misleading impression that Feuerbach’s criticisms of Hegel and religion were still entirely enmeshed in the logic they sought to escape, and that his specific understanding of humanism took the form of a replacement of religion by an equally-venerated ‘man’. Rather, what is at stake for Feuerbach here, is an understanding of the political context of the 1830s and 1840s and the left wing theological-political critique of ‘personalism’, both that of the personal God and that of the equally god-like ‘personal’ philosopher.
Against Personalism, and the origins of Gattungswesen
Hegel was attacked from both sides in 1830s and 1840s. Friedrich Stahl, a conservative theologian, argued, for example, that Hegel’s ‘Spirit’ reduced the Christian personal God to a universal principle of necessary development (and thus expounded a notion of God as ‘bounded’, rather than a ‘freely revealing supreme being’). If Absolute consciousness depended for its recognition on human consciousness, then the centrality given to human capacity strips God of his importance. Stahl argues that Hegel destroys both the divine and human personality. On the other hand, Feuerbach argued that personality remained all too prominent in Hegel’s work. His early work, Thoughts on Death and Immortality, published anonymously in 1830, was a critique of the idea of personal immortality, and a historical attack (which he would later expand greatly in The Essence of Christianity) on the personal God of Christianity as ‘the religion of the pure self, the person as the single spirit’.[34] In his 1828 dissertation ‘On the infinitude, unity, and commonality of Reason’ [De ratione, una, universali, infinita] Feuerbach made the following criticism of the contemporary state of philosophy: ‘Too many philosophers of our time want to make the single and contingent individual (that is, themselves) into the principle and content of their philosophising’.[35] Whilst Feuerbach’s claim might be seen as, in part, an ad hominem attack on his immediate philosophical predecessors (amongst whom Hegel, Fichte, Jacobi, Novalis)[36] and the very idea of a ‘philosopher’, it is also a criticism of the role of personality in Christian theology and hierarchical political forms. Feuerbach saw a homology between the personal God and personal monarchy and private property in those conservative attacks on Hegel, for example, Göschel’s ‘political Christology’ which derived the principle of monarchical authority from the divine personality of Christ. Feuerbach argued that an egoistical belief in personal immortality resulted in the decline of ancient political life, as well as bolstering the centrality of the isolated self-seeking bourgeois of civil society (here we already glimpse the beginnings of his work on alienation). ‘Virtueless, egotistic religiosity,’ he writes, ‘is poison to man’s political energy.’[37]
Against this perceived ‘individualism’ of thought, Feuerbach construes ‘thinking’, following Hegel, to be the process by which we not only attain a universal object, but become universal in ourselves. In opposition to the apparent ‘personalism’ of his immediate predecessors, Feuerbach, argues in the Preface to the ‘Principles of the Philosophy of the Future’ that ‘At present, the task is not to invent a theory of man, but to pull man out of the mire in which he is bogged down … to establish a critique of human philosophy through a critique of divine philosophy.’[38]
We can pose Feuerbach’s early, post-Hegelian problematic in the following form: does man entertain a relationship to his species that extends beyond (mere) finite self-relation? Hegel, Feuerbach and Marx all, in some sense or another, have an affirmative answer to this enquiry.[39] It is Schelling’s reversal of the move from ‘thought to being’ to the one from ‘immediate being to thought’, however, that partly influences the Young Hegelians in the early stages, who find in his work one way of escaping the perceived negativity of Hegelian dialectics. Also involved in the attacks on Hegel, and writing at the same time as Marx was actively creating himself as a Feuerbachian, Max Stirner[40] flatly denies the possibility of species (or genera)-relation: ‘But the species is nothing, and, if the individual lifts himself above the limits of his individuality, this is rather his very self as an individual; he exists only in raising himself.’[41] ‘Man’ is thus nothing other than a ‘solemn cliché’, not an object of thought, not a goal to be attained, nor a category to be rescued from its alienation in transcendence, as Feuerbach would see it. Yet, even though Marx will distance himself from Feuerbach on this point, as Soper quite rightly puts it, ‘we might note, however, that though there is a decisive shift away from Feuerbachian humanism in The German Ideology, there is no break with humanist argument as such.’[42] The question is rather how the individual (the ego, or the self, for Stirner) lives in a social realm in which economic and political elements distance men and women from their own capacities.
Marx and Engels will savage Stirner in The German Ideology, in order to stake out a position that remains strictly ‘communist’ in the sense that some form of collective identification is possible, indeed, necessary. They declare that such a thinker ‘by proclaiming his own thought as the end of philosophy and its triumphant entrance into corporeal life’ presents an utterly impoverished (not to mention bourgeois) acquisitive individualism that upholds the current order, even as it denies that this order has nothing to do with the individual’s supposedly ‘anarchic’ anti-foundationalism.[43] It is clear, however, that Stirner’s anarchistic undermining of Feuerbach shakes Marx and Engels quite severely: the German Ideology is, after all, a text in which three hundred and eighty pages are devoted to Stirner (compared to a mere seventy to Feuerbach, and twenty to Bruno Bauer).[44] At this stage in their thought, however, it is questionable how much Marx and Engels interested themselves in the strictly philosophical Feuerbach-Stirner debate, that takes as its poles the terms the ‘generic’ and ‘the ego’ (Einzige).[45] Nevertheless, the lineage of this debate, and of the origins of the concept of ‘Gattung’, are crucial for an understanding of how it was possible for Marx and Engels, in the first place, to formulate their critiques and programmes in the wake of Hegel. We should here remember Engels’ later claim that, upon the publication of The Essence of Christianity in 1841, ‘at once we all became Feuerbachians’.[46]
From Hegel to Feuerbach: Relationality and Love
Whilst Gattungswesen is ultimately a minor category in Hegel’s system, retaining its biological aspect above a theoretical or practical one, it informs one aspect of Feuerbach’s later formulation.[47] As Althusser argues in one of his discussions of Feuerbach:
In reality, the other, a finite individual, functions as the representative of the infinity of the species in the intersubjective relationship of sexuality and, more profoundly, of love. Thus it is this relationship, if we want to be rigorous in Feuerbach’s stead, which itself functions as the infinite existence of the human essence. It is this relationship which is the existence in actu of the human species.[48]
Whilst Althusser believe he uncovers a reliance on love in Feuerbach’s analysis that underpins his theoretical claims, we perhaps do not need to go so far.[49] It is not only or paradigmatically in ‘love’ that Feuerbach indicates Gattungswesen – it is found also in his discussions of language, for example in ‘Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy’ (1839) where he argues: ‘Language is nothing other than the realization of the species; i.e., the “I” is mediated with the “You” in order, by eliminating their individual separateness, to manifest the unity of the species.’[50] Althusser argues that Feuerbach owes to Hegel ‘the intersubjectivity of the ‘we’. But it is clear that Feuerbach retains this element of relationality that Hegel first identified in order to demonstrate man’s capacity for transcending himself as an individual.[51] What Feuerbach ultimately seems to do is conflate the stages that Hegel kept deliberately separate: he merges (a.) the generic affinity of the sexes as manifested either in physicality or marriage with (b.) the infinite thought that Hegel describes in the quote below, to create, (c.) a sensuous-intellectual whole (‘real non-alienated man’):
The phrase infinite thought may excite surprise, if we adhere to the modern conception that thought is always limited. But it is, speaking rightly, the very essence of thought to be infinite. The nominal explanation of calling a thing finite is that it has an end, that it exists up to a certain point only, where it comes into contact with, and is limited by, its other. The finite therefore subsists in reference to its other, which is its negation and presents itself as its limit. Now thought is always in its own sphere, its relations are with itself, and it is its own object. In having a thought for object, I am at home with myself. The thinking power, the 'I', is therefore infinite, because, when it thinks, it is in relation to an object which is itself.[52]
We can see here how Feuerbach is also very much influenced by Hegel’s understanding of ‘infinite thought’. What Feuerbach adds, however, apart from conflating the sensuous with the rational in immediacy, is the anthropic principle that determines that infinite thought is always man’s (qua men and women) capacity to think the infinite.
Thus relationality is doubled for Feuerbach in a way that it is not for Hegel. We can see that there is also a sense in which this relationality is rational (there is a self-relation in thought that paradoxically indicates one’s relation to universality and the species). Feuerbach does not, in the end, overcome this tension between the more domestic I-thou distinction and the rationality of thought in its relation to the species. Instead he draws a direct continuum from sexual contact, the elemental expression of the transcendence of the self, ‘to the love of humanity as the object of self-sacrifice and devotion.’[53] Unlike Hegel, for Feuerbach, love (rather than society-sanctioned marriage) is a partnership of equality (and not simply the fusion of heterosexual partners). Pulling ‘man’ out of the mire also entails rescuing woman. Feuerbach’s feminism is therefore quite consistent with his ‘properly’ universal humanism: ‘Whereas with the ancient philosophers love was an illegitimate child begotten with the concubine of nature, with modern philosophers it is the legitimate daughter of their philosophy. Woman has been accepted into the community of the spirit; she is the living compendium of philosophy.’[54]
Marx did appropriate the language of Feuerbach throughout his 1843-45 works, perhaps most explicitly in the 1844 Manuscripts: ‘Estranged labour … turns man’s species-being – both nature and his intellectual species-powers – into a being alien to him and a means of his individual existence. It estranges man from his own body, from nature as it exists outside him, from his spiritual essence [Wesen], his human essence.’[55] And as Althusser argues ‘Naturally, Marx’s themes go beyond Feuerbach’s immediate preoccupations, but the theoretical schemata and problematic are the same. To use his own expression, Marx did not really ‘settle accounts’ with this problematic until 1845.’[56] However, my claim is that there is also a sense in which Feuerbach’s preoccupations also went ‘beyond’ Marx’s in the first place, and that the latter’s take-up of Feuerbachian rhetoric, in the face of both his positive and negative use thereof, never fully accepted the fundamental premises of the schema. Marx’s Feuerbachian rhetoric never committed him to Feuerbach’s philosophical anthropology.
Whilst we are indebted to Althusser’s analysis of the relationship between Marx and Feuerbach, we cannot agree with his claim that ‘all the expressions of Marx’s idealist ‘humanism’ are Feuerbachian.’[57] Nor that ‘Marx was merely applying the theory of alienation, that is Feuerbach’s theory of ‘human nature’, to politics and the concrete activity of man, before extending it (in large part) to political economy in the Manuscripts.’[58] What Althusser misses in the latter claim is the uneven split in the heart of Feuerbach’s work itself, which determines the way a theory of ‘human nature’ (understood as philosophical anthropology) can be extracted from his theory of alienation. For Feuerbach, the two are not the same, which makes it the case that Marx, using Feuerbachian language to talk about man’s alienation, ends up meaning something quite different to Feuerbach). Althusser, for his part, needs to represent the early Marx as being almost entirely in thrall to the Feuerbachian problematic in order to highlight the decisiveness of Marx’s ‘break’ with Feuerbach. Following this strategy, Althusser privileges the discussion of Feuerbach and Marx’s relation to one of competing forms of humanism (and anti-humanism) over incompatibility of consciousness/naturalism. Furthermore, by treating humanism and anthropology as synonymous terms, he obscures any possible differentiating characteristics between them: ‘Feuerbach replaces Hegel’s absolute objective idealism with an absolute anthropologism or humanism … he replaces the absolute idealism of the Idea with an absolute materialism of man.’[59] This is arguably what Marx deliberately does also when he turns to criticise Feuerbach – by willfully mistaking the beginnings of the critical project for an unfinished practical set of conclusions: ‘[Feuerbach] does not grasp the significance of ‘revolutionary’, of ‘practical-critical activity’ (Thesis I). As Marx is aware, he cannot do this precisely because the political aspects of his project do not in anyway bear upon the practical activity of man. Here a further distinction between Marx and Feuerbach hinges upon the role played by activity, or, in other words, where man’s ‘essence’ truly manifests itself – in thought, or in praxis?
How deeply did the uneven Feuerbachian formulation of the abstract-sensuous conception of ‘Man’ as the only post-Hegelian starting point for a philosophy of the future (which is at the same time a non-philosophy) permeate the writings of Marx in the 1840s? More precisely, did a form of radical non-Feuerbachian humanism (and not an anthropologism) underpin the three major works of the Marx of 1844-46 (one of which was of course co-written with Engels), namely, the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, The German Ideology, Theses on Feuerbach? Just as Marx argues that ‘you cannot transcend [aufheben] philosophy without realising [verwirklichen] it’ in his 1843-44 Critique of Hegel, we can perhaps further argue that he could not transcend Feuerbach’s ‘non-philosophy’ without also realising it, which explicitly involved going beyond the pure conception of man as defined by his capacity to think the infinite (while reversing Hegel’s idealist claims, Feuerbach nevertheless remains Hegelian in this central aspect).[60] However, in order to liquidate the Feuerbachian residue in his thinking, Marx, in The German Ideology and the Theses on Feuerbach, chose to characterise Feuerbach as an abstract dogmatist about that which constitutes the generic aspect of Man’s being, which, as we saw above, is only partially true.
By the time of The German Ideology, Marx no longer countenances the idea that there is something non-social about thought, either in its origins, or in its development. This directly contradicts the major premise of Feuerbach’s most striking claim, where to be conscious in the ‘strictest sense’ is to be universal, by virtue of the very fact that man can ‘perform the functions of thought and speech, which strictly imply such a relation, apart from another individual.’ Thus man’s very essence, his Gattungswesen, depends on his capacity for universal activity, even (especially) in his isolation (his inner life). In Marx, it is crucial therefore that language (as fundamental generic capacity) no longer plays this role: ‘language is practical consciousness, as it exists for other men, and for that reason is really beginning to exist for me personally as well; for language, like consciousness, only arises from the need, the necessity, of intercourse with other men.’[61] There is no universality without need, and no need without other men and women. Exactly the opposite direction to Feuerbach’s unlimited thought ‘thinking itself’ in isolation.
Feuerbach argues that conscious (though not self-conscious, as this is precisely the alienated form of consciousness that takes itself as individual in community, as opposed to ‘communal in isolation’) self-relation demonstrates the fundamental aspect of man’s universal nature: ‘In so far as I think I am no longer an individual’.[62] For Marx, on the contrary, in the terms of the 1845-46 text, it no longer even makes sense to ask whether this overcoming of the I’s individuality in thought has any immediate relevance whatsoever, as what is instead at stake is the ‘practical overthrow of the actual social relations which gave rise to this idealistic humbug’.[63] Here Marx has shifted so that ideology lies not with the generalised alienation of consciousness, but is a product of the German philosophers and German philosophy itself: hence ‘the German ideology’ is that of the Young Hegelians, not of Germany as a whole, though German society is, at the same time, absolutely constituted by its theoretically ideological identity.
Did Marx ever really take on board the aspect of Feuerbach that concerns the capacity of thought to ‘think the infinite’? Even when he is seemingly most under his spell, in the 1844 Manuscripts, he delineates his understanding of Gattungswesen in terms completely different from those of Feuerbach.[64] Here what distinguishes man from ‘animals’ as a Gattungswesen is not a difference in kind, as it has to be for Feuerbach, but a difference of degree: ‘Species-life, both for man and for animals, consists physically in the fact that man, like animals, lives from inorganic nature; and because man is more universal than animals, so too is the area of inorganic nature from which he lives more universal … To say that man’s physical and mental life is linked to nature simply means that nature is linked to itself, for man is a part of nature’.[65] We see how Marx collapses Feuerbach’s sharp distinction between man’s inner and outer life in favour of a gradualist, more integrated relationship to nature.[66] But Feuerbach’s understanding of man’s essence does not depend upon a relation to anything outside of itself. In this sense it is a profoundly anti-naturalist stance, even a base-line kind of rationalism, depending as it does on the assertion that the essence of man is his capacity to take his own essence ‘as man’ as an object (and at the same time man is universal because it takes the universe for its own object in the same way). This ‘inner relation’ is synonymous with consciousness – precisely that which the Marx of The German Ideology will declare to be impossible to conceive without firstly (and solely) understanding the “social connections” and “existing conditions of life” that can only be adequately responded to by ‘a transformation both of industry and of the social structure’.[67] This defining difference in attitudes shows that, despite his use of Feuerbachian rhetoric from the early critiques of Hegel to The German Ideology and the Theses, Marx was never actually Feuerbachian in the first place. His conception of alienation was always question of man’s alienation from his productive powers, and not his rational ones.[68] Without Feuerbach’s baseline rationalism, Marx evacuates the substance of Man’s universality, even though this is precisely necessary for the invention, or discovery, in The German Ideology, of the ‘real history’ of ‘real men’.
It is therefore incumbent upon Marx to cease using ‘Man’ at all in this text, which he duly does, preferring instead ‘real, active, men’ as ‘individuals’ wrested away from their creative, productive capacities, which, in any case, are always more specific than Feuerbach’s generic universalism: ‘Man must be viewed in his real historical activity and existence’.[69] If this sounds like historical empiricism, then Marx is quick to assure us that he is not concerned with the ‘dead facts’ of previous empiricists (that, furthermore remain abstract).[70] How then does Marx distinguish his new set of concerns?
But one of the most vital principles of communism, which distinguishes it from all reactionary socialism, is its empiric view, based on a knowledge of men, that difference of brain, of intellectual capacity, do not imply any difference whatsoever in the nature of the stomach and of physical needs; therefore the false tenet, based upon existing circumstances, “to each according to his capacity,” must be changed, in so far as it relates to enjoyment in its narrower sense, into the tenet, “to each according to his need”[71]
Feuerbach’s aim, before Marx, was to supersede philosophy. Marx, adopting that aim as his own, introduces another term into Feuerbach’s problematic: history. ‘History is the true natural history of man’.[72] It is clear that the crucial shift that takes place here precisely centres around the relationship between man and nature for Feuerbach, and man, nature and history, for Marx. The further question then poses itself: how can Marx consistently maintain a universalist conception of man and historicize man’s social conditions? Furthermore, how will the emerging language of the division of labour (arguably already present in the earlier critiques of Hegel in the form of the separation of a suffering ‘universal’ class and the bourgeoisie) trouble the contradiction-less, though alienated, nature of man as conceived under the Feuerbachian schema.
-----------------------
[1] Encyclopaedia Logic, p. 97.
[2] It is interesting to compare Hegel on this point to later socialist writers. Lasalle, writing in 1864, will say: ‘Under free competition the relation of an employer to the employed is the same as to any other merchandise … This is the leading feature of the present age. In former times the relations were those of man to man: after all, the relations of the slaveowner to the slave, and of the feudal lord to the serf were human.’ Ferdinand Lassalle, ‘What is Capital?’ (1864), German Essays on Socialism in the Nineteenth Century, eds. Frank Mecklenburg and Manfred Stassen (New York: Continuum, 1990), pp. 51-58.
[3] Encyclopaedia Logic., p. 214.
[4] Hegel, Philosophy of Right, ed. Allen W. Wood, trans. H. B. Nisbet (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 239.
[5] Ibid., p. 207.
[6] Ibid., p. 200.
[7] Encyclopaedia Logic, p. 38.
[8] Encyclopaedia Logic, p. 4.
[9] Philosophy of Right, p. 201. A claim not helped by the obvious play on words Gattung (genus) with Gatte/Gattin (spouse).
[10] Ibid., p. 264.
[11] Ibid., p. 329.
[12] Ibid., p. p. 310.
[13] Karl Marx, ‘Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State’, Early Writings, trans. Livingstone and Benton (London: Penguin, 1992) p. 99.
[14] Karl Löwith, From Hegel to Nietzsche, trans. David E. Green (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 242.
[15] ‘Principles of the Philosophy of the Future’, The Fiery Book: Selected Writings of Ludwig Feuerbach, trans. Zawar Hanfi (New York: Anchor Books, 1972), p. 203.
[16] Left, Right, Young, and the movement between various positions, as in Bauer’s turn from a relatively orthodox Hegelian to a kind of utopian socialist, as well as non-Hegelian right-wing and theological critiques of Hegel. The ‘Young Hegelians’ were known as Hegelinge (Hegelists) as opposed to Hegelitern (Hegelians). From Hegel to Nietzsche: The Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Karl Löwith, trans. David E. Green (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991 [orig. 1964]), p. 66.
[17] ‘Preliminary Theses on the Reform of Philosophy’ (1842), The Fiery Brook, p. 170.
[18] Cf. Warren Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (Cambridge: CUP, 1999).
[19] ‘A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction’, Early Writings, p. 243. As Marx said, ‘the criticism of religion is the prerequisite of all critique’.
[20] Jean Hyppolite, ‘Marx and Philosophy’, Studies on Marx and Hegel, trans. John O’Neill (London: Heinemann, 1969 [orig. 1955]), p. 99.
[21] ‘The Legacy of Idealism in the philosophy of Feuerbach, Marx, and Kierkegaard’ from The Cambridge Companion to German Idealism, ed. by Karl Ameriks (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 262.
[22] From System of Economic Contradictions: Or, Philosophy of Poverty (1846).
[23] ‘Principles of the Philosophy of the Future’, The Fiery Brook, p. 204.
[24] Preface to the second edition of the Essence of Christianity (1843), The Fiery Brook, p. 257.
[25] ‘The Necessity of a Reform of Philosophy’, The Fiery Brook, p. 146.
[26] Karl Marx, ‘Critique of Hegel’s Doctrine of the State’, Early Writings, p. 99.
[27] Stathis Kouvelakis, Philosophy and Revolution: From Kant to Marx, trans. G. M. Goshgarian (London: Verso, 2003), p. 213.
[28] Cf. also: ‘The unity of being and nothingness has its positive meaning only as the indifference of the species or of the consciousness of the species towards the particular individual.’ Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy (1839), The Fiery Brook, pp. 92-93.
[29] The German Ideology, ed. C.J. Arthur (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1970), p. 86.
[30] Marx, ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’ (1844), Early Writings, p. 386.
[31] Kouvelakis, Philosophy and Revolution, p. 314.
[32] ‘The Necessity of a Reform of Philosophy’, The Fiery Brook, p. 148.
[33] ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the Political Theology of Restoration’, History of Political Thought, Vol XIII, No 3, Autumn 1992, pp. 437 – 462.
[34] Quoted in Warren Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians and the Origins of Radical Social Theory: Dethroning the Self (Cambridge: CUP, 1999), p. 443.
[35] Quoted in Breckman p. 96.
[36] Cf. Feuerbach’s similarly ironic, later criticism of Hegel’s systematic teleology: ‘Is it at all possible that a species realizes itself in one individual, art as such in one artist, and philosophy as such in one philosopher?’, ‘Towards a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy’ (1839), The Fiery Brook, p. 56. Feuerbach further argues that: ‘Whatever enters into time and space must also subordinate itself to the laws of time and space. The god of limitation stands guard at the entrance to the world. Self-limitation is the condition of entry. Whatever becomes real, becomes so only as something determined. The incarnation of the species with all its plenitude into one individuality would be an absolute miracle, a violent suspension of all the laws and principles of reality; it would, indeed, be the end of the world.’, p. 57.
[37] ‘The Necessity of a Reform of Philosophy’ (1842), The Fiery Brook, p. 151.
[38] The Fiery Brook, p. 176.
[39] But many, not just personalist thinkers, have argued against this possibility. Schelling in his Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature rails against the anti-intuitionism (and Hegelian dialectical rationalism) of contemporary philosophy: ‘The product of intuition is necessarily a finite one … it is clear why intuition is not – as many pretended philosophers have imagined – the lowest level of knowledge, but the primary one, the highest in the human mind, that which truly constitutes its mental nature.’ Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling, Ideas for a Philosophy of Nature, trans. by Errol E. Harris and Peter Heath (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988 [orig. 1797, revised 1803], pp. 177-178.
[40] Real name Johann Caspar Schmidt (1806-1856).
[41] Max Stirner: The Ego and His Own (1845) (selected and introduced by John Carroll, from the Roots of the Right Series (general editor George Steiner) (London: Jonathan Cape, 1971), p. 55.
[42] Kate Soper, Humanism and Anti-Humanism (LaSalle, Illinois: Open Court, 1986), p. 38.
[43] Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, vol 5, p. 243. Quoted in Karl Löwith, From Hegel to Nietzsche, p. 105.
[44] From John Carroll’s Introduction to Max Stirner: The Ego and His Own, p. 14.
[45] Or, as Stirner put it ‘Man’ and ‘I’ (the two divisions of The Ego and His Own).
[46] Frederick Engels, ‘Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of Classical German Philosophy’ (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1976 (orig. 1888)), p. 14.
[47] ‘Species-being had been a minor category in Hegel’s Encyclopaedia, used by him to refer to the “natural” component of human life’ (Cf. the Idea para. 221, ‘The Process of the Genus’).
[48] On Feuerbach, The Humanist Controversy, p. 147.
[49] Though it should be noted that others also agree with Althusser’s analysis. Cf., for example, Karl Löwith’s From Hegel to Nietzsche: ‘In contrast [to Hegel], Feuerbach’s “love” remains a sentimental cliché without any definite attributes, although it is the unified dual principle of his philosophy, of “sensuousness” and the “Thou.”’, p. 81.
[50] The Fiery Brook, p. 63.
[51] Cf. Breckman: ‘Feuerbach relied explicitly on Hegel’s concept of relation in order to articulate this transcendence of individuality, even citing the discussion of the relational formulation of concrete personality in Hegel’s Encyclopaedia’, p. 96.
[52] Encyclopaedia Logic, §28n.
[53] Breckman, Marx, the Young Hegelians and the Origins of Radical Social Theory, p. 96.
[54] ‘Fragments Concerning the Characteristics of My Philosophical Development’, The Fiery Brook, p. 277.
[55] Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, EW, p. 329.
[56] ‘Feuerbach’s “Philosophical Manifestoes”’, p. 45.
[57] Ibid., p. 45.
[58] Ibid., p. 46.
[59] Ibid., p. 50.
[60] As Althusser puts it: ‘An inner life is a life that brings the species into relation with itself – into relation with itself as its own essential object. This is the case with man.’ And not at all with animals, ‘On Feuerbach’, The Humanist Controversy, p. 98.
[61] The German Ideology, p. 19.
[62] From Feuerbach’s Dissertation, quoted in Wartofsky’s Feuerbach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), p. 29.
[63] The German Ideology, p. 29.
[64] And here we concur absolutely with C.J. Arthur’s claim that: ‘One should not be disturbed by Marx’s borrowing the term ‘species being’ (Gattungswesen) from Feuerbach. The content is different.’ Dialectics of Labour: Marx and his Relation to Hegel (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986), p. 9, fn. 14.
[65] ‘Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts’, Early Writings, pp. 327-328, my emphasis.
[66] Man at one point in his history has a consciousness that is only ‘sheep-like’, according to Marx.
[67] The German Ideology, p. 37.
[68] As Kolokowski puts it: ‘The contention of Marx and Engels was that the distinguishing mark of humanity, that which primarily characterises men as opposed to beasts, is not that they think but that they make tools’, Main Currents of Marxism, 1. The Founders, trans. by P. S. Falla (Oxford: OUP, 1981), p. 156.
[69] The German Ideology, p. 155.
[70] Ibid., p. 15.
[71] The German Ideology, pp. 189-190.
[72] Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, p. 391.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- living things and non living things
- living and non living things
- marx and weber social class
- marx and weber differences
- marx and weber capitalism
- karl marx and history
- karl marx and family
- karl marx and religion
- marx and religion
- 1 2 2 cell membrane structure and function
- marx and weber class
- karl marx and max weber