False Consciousness and Voting
I mentioned the Republican Party’s “God, Guns & Gays” strategy for instilling what I see as a false consciousness, which in Althusserian terms is the ideology of the Republican “base” (i.e. “values” voters). When middle and lower-income people vote “values,” they are also voting for an economic agenda that favors the wealthy. There are also of course plenty of lower and middle income people who vote Rep. for economic reasons because they believe that lower taxes for the wealthy is good for everyone else (trickle down economics, job creation), and who hold relatively progressive social values. But the point of the strategy is that the Rep. Party found a winning formula: attract the wealthy donor classes’ (the top economic 1%) money for campaigns with promises of tax cuts, and de-regulation of industries, and talk the rhetoric of “family values” to attract a large contingent of the rest to win sizable majorities outside the urban coastal areas. Despite the recent downturn in Republican electoral fortunes, this is still a winning strategy that many GOPers believe is enough to ensure nearly perpetual majorities.
Of course, when I voted for Clinton the first time, I believed I was voting for both a progressive economic and social agenda, and we really got neither. So false consciousness is one of those universal political phenomena.
katie wrote:
It sounds almost as if you view any misleading information as part of false consciousness. If you follow that train of thought, then almost any advertisement would be a form of false consciousness at it promises the impossible or at least highly unlikely. “Drink this, and you will be attractive to women. Drive this car, and you will be successful in your job.” Our society is overrun with these ideas. An entire industry has sprung up in an effort to perpetuate them. The advertisement industry has grown immensely and is highly profitable. Because of this industry, the public is constantly inundated by false consciousness: its grasp expands far beyond the reach of politics to effect the daily lives of nearly every individual. If false consciousness can be considered an indicator of a society in distress, I would be genuinely concerned for our well-being – very little of what we are told can be taken at face value. It is almost as if false consciousness has become so pervasive that is no longer even recognizable or notable.
Posted 07 Nov 2007 at 9:27 pm ¶
pink martini wrote:
I think there is a difference between false consciousness and the “misleading” information carried by advertisements. The concept of false consciousness reminds me of doublethink in Orwell’s 1984. It refers to a complete set of beliefs, an ideology that is maintained and transferred to people for a purpose.
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 3:53 pm ¶
hammad wrote:
The concept of false consciousness is pretty interesting, especially its connection to modern political parties and ideologies. I would extend the notion of false consciousness to the role of the today’s executive branch. Theoretically, the United States government is structured under the principle of separation of powers. Thus, the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches all have different powers that may be checked by each other. However, the current Bush administration has operated with a specific purpose in mind that is often overlooked: strengthening the executive branch. The creation of agencies such as homeland security, and arguments over the executive branch’s ability to punish “enemy combatants†all speak to growing executive power. However, as the administration is Republican, the assumption is that it opposes the expansion of government power and advocates limited government. Operating under this false consciousness, the executive branch has greatly expanded its power and reach into peoples’ lives. Whether that is good or not is pretty much irrelevant in this discussion of false consciousness. The main point is that, under the idea of false consciousness, the administration has operated under a facade and remained in power for two terms.
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 4:20 pm ¶
manayo wrote:
pink martini, I don’t think there’s that much of a difference. If you believe that the consumption of a commodity makes some kind of difference in your life when it really doesn’t, aren’t you walking around with a false sense of reality? Think of gymmers who drink designer “energy water” in an effort to recover lost ions, or actively practise yoga to “sweat toxins out”. Advertisements (and whatever they metaphorically stand for) cater to people’s ego, insecurities, prejudices etc by promising a convincing reality, an almost-true. In the prisoner, number two was happy as long as people kept to some semblance of democracy even though he knew very well it was a front. Anything that promises the consumer fulfillment and also benefits the promiser is the [TRUTH].
Posted 08 Nov 2007 at 9:37 pm ¶