Explain how the four thinkers discussed in term one understand the notion of identity
Hegel understands identity through the notion of self-consciousness, which he argues “exists in and for itself when, and by the fact that, it so exists for another; that is, it exists only in being acknowledged” (Hegel:p111). So Hegel believed in order to know who we are we need the recognition of another, we therefore need to be acknowledged to have an identity. He then goes on to talk about the struggle for recognition, which takes place when the self and the other come together, in doing so making self-consciousness possible (OnlineSparknotes:2011). Hegel explains the realisation of self-conscious as a struggle for recognition between two individuals, who are bound together in an unequal relationship of dependence. So in order for an individual to know they exist they must enter into a life and death struggle with a second conscious this struggle has to be to the death because in risking its life the self is demonstrating it rational status, “that it has power over the realm of mere biological life and its animal desires” (Beiser:2005,p187) however in doing this the self-conscious has to realise that by eliminating its other they will in effect be eliminating them self also, because without them both there would be no one to be recognised by. Therefore the only solution is for one to dominate over the other by reducing it to a ‘thing like’ status. Hegel explains this process using the Lord and the Bondsman, the bondsman becomes an object to the lord whose purpose is to serve all his wants and needs, his purpose therefore is to be a labourer his ‘labour is his being’ (Marcuse:1969,p.116). At the same time the lord, by reducing the bondsman to a thing rather than treating him as his equal the lord is effectively denying himself the recognition his own self-conscious requires. The bondsman on the other hand through his labour creates a self conscious existence “Through work...the bondsman becomes conscious of what he truly is” (Hegel:p.118). Here Hegel is saying that the bondsman is able to free himself though his labour, as he is able to recognise himself through his work “he becomes for himself, someone existing on his own account” (Hegel:p.118). The lord however does not work and so he denies himself the same self-consciousness that the bondsman gained through his labour, effectively the lord has become dependent on the bondsman as that is where he attains his satisfaction and therefore he is not “being for-himself”.
Marx argues that identity in a capitalist society is alienated through the process of labour, which he claims is essential to a person’s identity and sense of place in the world. He believed therefore that in a capitalist society, where products are constantly being produced workers lose their identity because “the worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he produces” (Marx:p3). Marx believed like Hegel that the worker relates to the product he produces, and becomes alienated because he doesn’t get to keep that product once it’s completed “Therefore, the greater this product, the less is he himself” (Marx:p4). Marx claimed that estrangement and alienation extends further than just the estrangement of the worker from the product of his work, stating the worker can also feel a sense of estrangement from the activity of production itself. The work that the worker performs does not belong to him, but instead is a means of survival “it is, forced labour” designed to be of profit to someone else. As such the working activity does not come about in a spontaneous way as a result of creativity, but rather that exists outside of the worker and so signifies a loss of himself (OnlineSparknotes:2011). The third type of alienation Marx refers to in his work is the alienation from the “species-being” (Marx:p5) by this he means human identity. Work for Marx amounts to life purpose for human beings because “the fashioning of inorganic nature, is proof that a man is a conscious species-being”. In a capitalist system however the worker does not get to keep the object of his production, therefore the worker becomes estranged from the essential source of his identity and life purpose. This Marx argues reduces man to little more than animals. The last form of alienation for Marx is the estrangement of man from man because in a capitalist society we are raised to look at each other as commodities instead of human beings “each man therefore regards the other in accordance with the standard and the situation in which he as a worker finds himself” (Marx:p7). So because the object of the workers production is owned by someone else “alien, hostile, powerful, and independent of him” (Marx:p8) this according to Marx will lead to the worker feeling alienated from and therefore resentful of the system of private property whereby the capitalist appropriates the objects of his production for himself at the expense of the worker, in doing so taking away the workers sense of identity and wholeness as a human being (OnlineSparknotes:2011). For Marx the problem lies with private property to which the system is based on and it’s this that alienates us from each other the solution therefore is “the emancipation of society from private property” (Marx:p9). Alienation therefore, Marx claims can be overcome through the creation of communist society; for this to happen there has to be a revolution which renders “the great mass of humanity propertyless” (Marx:p10)
Freud understands the notion of identity through a series of unconscious mental processes, which he explains using his psychoanalytical theory. He stated that “The division of the physical into what is conscious and what is unconscious is the fundamental premiss of psycho-analysis” (Freud:p29) essentially what he means is that the premise of psycho-analysis is a division between what is conscious and what is unconscious. In his work Freud places great emphasis on the study of dreams and hypnosis, and stated that those who refuted the idea of the unconscious is because they had not studied these concepts. According to Freud the mind can be divided into two main parts: the conscious which includes everything we are aware of, meaning only our current thinking process and objects of attention, where as the unconscious mind is where feelings, thoughts, urges and memories exist and are outside of our conscious awareness. Freud believed that we repress our unconscious due to the unpleasantness of what resides there. According to Freud there are two types of unconscious; one which is “latent” (Freud:p29) and capable of becoming conscious and one which is unconscious and not capable of becoming conscious. The unconscious that is capable of becoming conscious is referred to as the preconscious. The preconscious is basically a memory which can easily be recalled, it also includes things that we are aware of, but not necessarily paying attention to. Freud went further claiming that even the distinctions between the conscious, preconscious and unconscious was not sufficient enough, Freud claimed that “ in each individual there is a coherent organization of mental processes” (Freud:p30) he divides this mental process into three terms: the ego, id, and super ego. The ego is attached the consciousness and “controls the approaches to motility that is, to the discharge of excitations into the external world” (Freud:p30) the ego therefore controls the mental process such as reason, and stops the individual acting on their basic instincts. This is where the id comes in, the id is “The inherited instinctive impulses of the individual, forming part of the unconscious and interacting in the psyche with the ego and super ego”(OED:1917) the id therefore according to Freud controls all our impulses, and its purpose is to seek pleasure and avoid pain, this according to Freud takes place in our subconscious. The super ego therefore, acts a sort of moral compass as it is the “aspect of the psyche which has internalized parental and social prohibitions or ideals early in life and imposes them as a censor on the wishes of the ego: the agent of self-criticism or self-observation” (OED:1924)
Taylor criticised other philosophers that over looked morality in relation to identity, he however placed a greater emphasis on it as he claimed that the concept of the self is based upon morality “in addition to our notions and reactions on such issues as justice and the respect of other people life, well-being and dignity, I want to also look at our sense of what underlines our own dignity, or questions about what makes our life meaningful” (Taylor:p4) here Taylor is stating that when referring to morality he doesn’t just mean what the individual should, or shouldn’t do in order to be moral, but rather what the individual should or shouldn’t be. Therefore as we see ourselves depends on what we consider to be good, and how we relate to that good. Our identities therefore are partly based on what we value. He believed that morality is related to the self by what he refers to as a framework “which provides the backgrounds, explicit or implicit to our moral judgements”(Taylor:p26). According to Taylor therefore our identity resides within this framework. Identity can be a moral or spiritual commitment or even by being part of a nation or tradition which in turn impacts on their values, in that sense Taylor believed that we don’t arrive in the world complete and in our life time we become aware of our own self-realization through our experiences and raw instincts. He believed that because there are several frameworks that contribute to the thought process that if we lose a framework we have an “identity crisis” (Taylor:p27). Overall, Taylor emphasises the importance of morality in relation to self-hood, in that within the confines of a framework
To summarise this essay has sought to identify how each of the above political thinkers understand the notion of identity. Hegel argued that in order gain our identity we need to be acknowledged by another, however when then self and the other meet a struggle for recognition takes place. This struggle produces the unequal relationship of the lord and the bondsman, where the lord denies himself recognition by treating the bondsman as an object rather than an equal the bondsman on the other hand through his work becomes free, due to fear though he doesn’t realise that the lord has in fact become dependent on him. This is where Marx and Hegel overlap in that they both believed that the worker should rise up and revolt against the bondsman or in Marx case the capitalist in order to be free. Marx adopts Hegel’s concept of alienation in that we can become alienated from the world, he however interprets this differently arguing that alienation occurs from the way in which the individual regards their own labour. Marx believed that it wasn’t through mutual recognition that identity can be achieved, but rather that is it is through the process of production; turning raw materials into something that can be of use. In a capitalist society however the worker does not get to keep the object of his production, it gets taken away from him and in doing so the worker loses part of himself as like Hegel he believed that workers relate to the object they created, and in losing it they feel alienated from it. Freud moves away from the notion that identity can be found within an object created by an individual, instead believing that it can be found in a series of mental processes. By this I mean that he divided the mental process into two parts; the conscious and the unconscious of which there are two types, one which is incapable of becoming conscious as it is repressed, and another which is capable of being recalled he refers to this as the preconscious which is like a memory. From this Freud developed the idea of the ego, id, and super-ego. This is where Freud’s ideas can be seen in Taylor’s works, as he believed that individuals come into the world incomplete, which can be seen to reflect Freud’s idea of the super-ego which is based upon the idea that our reactions are based on earlier experiences in life. Taylor however compared the previous three thinkers, placed a greater emphasis on moral ontology believing it is essential to the individuals overall identity. He claimed that over time the individual appropriates certain values; be it from religion, national background or simply just a group to which the individual belongs, he refers to this as a framework. This framework gives the individual a sense of what the overall meaning of life is, therefore without the existence of a framework the individual experiences and identity crisis.
Bibliography
Charles Taylor, Sources of the self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1989
Frederick Beiser, Hegel, Routledge,1st (ed) 2005
Georg Wilhelm Fredrich Hegel, Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford University Press 1977
Herbet Marcuse, Reason and Revolution : Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory, Beacon Press 1969
Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844) in Karl Marx: selected Writings, (ed) D McLellan, Oxford University Press 2000
Karl Marx, Grundise (1857-58), Harmondsworth, Penguin 1973
Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845-6),Volume 5 of collected Works, London, Lawrence & Wishart 1976,
Sigmund Freud, Conscious and What is Unconscious
SparkNotes Editors. (2005). SparkNote on Karl Marx (1818–1883). Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/marx/)
SparkNotes Editors. (2005). SparkNote on Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–1831). Retrieved January 10, 2011, from http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hegel/
Oxford English Dictionary Online Edition at WWW.oed.com (lecture notes)