Marxs Alienated Labor - Research Paper Example

MARX’S ALIENATED LABOR 0 INTRODUCTION The hands of humanity have created and shaped the world of men. The stamp of his hands is perceptible in almost all facets of this world. However, as human beings try to look deeper into the world of men, one sees that of the many features of the human life, the one that eludes humanity the most is himself. So much so, that even in relation with others or even with himself, man seems to be alienated from the world that he himself has shaped and created. And man indeed is alienated. “Man is thus divided within himself and from his fellows, never truly "at home," never truly whole in his social life (Easton, 1961; 193). This phenomenon is called alienation – alienation from himself and from the world- has long been discussed. And one of the greatest human persons that ever walked the face of the earth has elucidated and discussed the phenomenon – Karl Marx. Karl Marx’s works have touched the lives of millions of people around the globe. It has transformed their very existence as it continuously changes their world view. In line with this, the paper will attempt to delve into one of the many concepts that Marx has expounded – alienation of labor. In trying to understand this concept, the basic question what is alienation of labor for Marx? will be addressed in this paper. An exposition and analysis of the concept will be undertaken with the intention to present that alienation of labor is a valid understanding of man’s relation with the world. Recognizing the numerous scholarly expositions which have been done on this concept for the past couple hundred of years, it is the hope of the paper that it may, in the small way it can, add a little more to the discussion. 1.1 KARL MARX’S ALIENATION OF LABOR The term ‘man’s alienation’ was first coined within the framework of theology (Kanungo, 1979). It describes man‘s separation for God, from his neighbor and from himself. This manner of looking at alienation basically develops from the paradigm of dichotomy between man as material and man as spiritual. In sense, what the theologians are saying is that human life has become meaningless and purposely primarily because it has become detached or separated from God and the moral principles (Kanungo, 1979). Coming from this conceptual definition of alienation, Marx’s concept of alienation of labor is proven to be an ingenious deconstruction of the concept of alienation. How? Why? Marx’s concept of alienation or estrangement as it is sometimes being used, is already free from the dichotomy between material and spirit as competing natures in the human being. By embracing materialism and rejecting the immaterial nature of human beings, he claims that “the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind and translated into forms of thoughts… the unity of the world does not consists in its being…the real unity consists in its materiality, and this is proved by a long and wearisome development of philosophy and natural science” (Lenin, 1976; 14), thus, Marx has sided with materialism and removes the dichotomy between material and spirit within the understanding of the human nature. In this line of understanding, Marx has already created a new understanding of the human condition. By removing the inherent divide in human nature – between sprit and material- and claiming that man’s nature is such that he is material and that human nature should be understood within the context of man’s materiality, Marx has placed the human person at the center of history again. And with man and his condition as the focal point of inquiry, Marx has raised the question that has plagued humanity since the modern period – where is the person in the midst of development? What is the person in the midst of all these fast phase developments? What has he become? Marx’s discussion of alienation of labor is not an abstraction of man and labor. Rather, by looking at the historical conditions and history which man himself has written Marx’s analysis of the alienation of labor stems from the political economic condition that is being experienced during his time. As such, when he talks of alienation of labor, he discusses it within the framework of political economy, within his discourse of capitalism. Capitalism is an economic condition wherein there is an accumulation of wealth at the hands of certain individuals(capitalist) under the condition of “high level development of commodity production in general” (Lenin, 1976; 26). And on the other hand, there is the existence of workers “who are free in a double sense: free of all constraint or restriction on the sale of his labour power, and freed from the land and all means of production in general, a free and unattached labourer, a ‘proletarian’, who cannot subsist except by selling his labour power” (Lenin, 1976; 26). And it is in this political economic relation between the capitalist and the workers that concept of alienation of labor has been elucidated. Marx’s (1958) discussion of alienation of labor is divided into three parts. He first discussed alienation of labor in the context of worker and the object which is the fruit of his work. The second part is the alienation labor within the condition of the worker and his position in the means of production. And the third part of his discussion of alienation deals with the worker as alienated from himself and from others. And it is in this categorization or division that the discussion on the alienation of labor will be discussed. The worker is external to the world (Marx, 1958). From the reality of the worker’s externality from nature, it can be assumed that nature becomes the material or the object of the worker’s creativity. This is maintained from the fact that nature becomes the object which shaped, molded and created by the hands of human beings as they try to create something. As such, this power of creativity of man, of creating something from a material object external to himself is considered by Marx as a definitive sign of man’s humanity. However, the creation of man of an object out from nature has been transformed into something - from a sign of man’s humanity to a sign of man’s alienation, estrangement from his work. And this happened because man’s work is now within the purview of capitalism. What has happened? The worker is still external to nature. Nature is still the object of the worker’s creativity. It “is the material in which his labor realizes itself, in which it is active and from which, and by means of which, it produces.” (Marx, 1958; 2) However, the product which is the embodiment of the work performed by the worker, it is the objectification of his labor (Marx 1958), is no longer his. It now belongs to another human being, it belongs to the capitalist. This condition creates two realities for the worker. First is that the labor of his hands, the product of his work no longer belong to him. This is significant because it is an assumed fact that whatever a person does on material object it belongs. In a word, the person is the owner of the work of his hands. However, within the capitalist relation labor is transformed in such a way that the labor of the workers’ hands do not belong to them. It belongs to some else. Thus, what the worker has just received is “an object of labor i.e he receives work” (Marx, 1958; 3). The second reality is that the work with which workers transforms objects into something has become the means of his subsistence instead of becoming the manifestation of his creativity, of his humanity. This is because work has become “the means of life in the narrower sense, namely the means of physical subsistence of the worker (Marx, 1958;3) As such, “The more the worker appropriates the external world, sensuous nature, through his labor, the more he deprives himself of the means of life in two respects: firstly, the sensuous external world becomes less and less an object belonging to his labor, a means of life of his labor; and, secondly, it becomes less and less a means of life in the immediate sense, a means for the physical subsistence of the worker” (Marx, 1958;3). And the irony of the alienation of labor in the context of worker and product is that “it is only as a worker that he can maintain himself as a physical subject and only as a physical subject that he is a worker” (Marx, 1958;3). If there is alienation of labor in the product, then there is also alienation of labor in the means of production. (Marx,1958) How is this possible? Production is basically the activity undertaken in order to produce an object of labor. Alienation of labor happens in the production because in the context of the worker production is no longer an activity but it has been turned into a condition of passivity. Creativity and activity is no longer needed in the production. Not only because machines have already taken charge of the means of production but primarily because of the division of labor. In the division of labor, the worker is expected to perform only a particular task. For example in a factory of shirt, the worker who is sewing the collar will only be sewing the collar part for 12 hours. The worker will not be touching any part of the shirt in her entire work. Why? because her work is only to sew the collar part of the shirt. And this is how they do it in the production or assembly line. Thus the worker, “does not confirm himself in his work, but denies himself, feels miserable and not happy, does not develop free mental and physical energy, but mortifies his flesh and ruins his mind. Hence, the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is working, he does not feel himself” (Marx, 1958; 3). Moreover, labor becoming no longer essential or definitive of a person’s humanity, it becomes alien to him (Marx, 1958). A force labor principally because production is no longer intended to satisfy a particular need but that it has become the “means to satisfy needs outside itself” (Marx, 1958; 3). And this situation is compounded by the fact that in the end everything that the worker does in connection with the production does not belong to him but belongs to another person and that “in it he belongs not to himself but to another” (Marx,1958;4). As such is the situation, Marx (1958) claims that workers instead feel alive when they eat, and drink and procreate. These human functions, in fact, are also animal functions and it is even recognized by Thomas Hobbes. Thus, though not denying that eating, drinking and procreation are to be appreciated also as part of the human functions; but “when abstracted from other aspects of human activity, and turned into final and exclusive ends, they are animal” (Marx, 1958; 4). And final discourse on alienation of labor is the alienation of labor vis-à-vis alienation of man to himself and alienation of man from other men. In this part of the alienation of labor, Marx derived his discussion from three interwoven criteria. The first criterion is the estrangement of man from nature which is the object of his labor or the product. The second is the estrangement of men from the production which has turned his activity of life to mere passivity of life. And the third criterion which he injected in the discussion is the nature of man which is a species of being. Man as a species of being, “he looks upon himself as the present, living species, because he looks upon himself as a universal and therefore free being” (Marx, 1958; 4). What does this mean? When Marx is talking of specie –life, he is referring to humanity’s being connected to nature. Explicitly claiming the idea 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” (Marx, 1958; 4). It recognizes the fact of humanity’s being into nature. This idea connotes the fact that Marx acknowledges the integral role of nature not just because it is the object of his labor but because man is in nature. It is the very condition that sets his humanity. How? From man’s perspective, nature is the inorganic body of man. It is nature that provides the material or the object that man can utilize in his activity. And in the process of creation in order to satisfy a need man resorts to a creative activity that defines life, defines humanity. In this sense, Marx is raising the idea that man as he looks into himself and find needs that are satisfied via the use of materials in nature, man moves beyond the satisfaction of needs and create freely, actively. Why? because man is a conscious being. The object of man’s consciousness his life, “his own life is an object for him, only because he is a species-being” (Marx, 1958; 5). And as man looks into his life, he sees his connection to the world because he is in nature. He sees nature as an inorganic part of his body, he then turns it, fashions it, creates a world out of it. Thus, “It is, therefore, in his fashioning of the objective that man really proves himself to be a species-being. Such production is his active species-life. Through it, nature appears as his work and his reality. The object of labor is, therefore, the objectification of the species-life of man: for man produces himself not only intellectually, in his consciousness, but actively and actually, and he can therefore contemplate himself in a world he himself has created” (Marx, 1958; 5). However, because man is already estranged from his labor, from nature and estranged from the means production, man himself is alienated from himself. Being such, “estranged labor, therefore, turns man’s species-being – both nature and his intellectual species power – 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, his human existence.” (Marx,1958; 5) What is left of man? Man as specie-being is manifested in owning the object of his labor and actively engaging in the production of object of labor. However, as shown alienation of labor is alienation of workers from the object of their labor and the means of production. As such, man becomes estranged with himself. But it is not only that, as man becomes alienated with himself, he too becomes alienated with other men. That is the universal reality that confronts man’s existence, “An immediate consequence of man’s estrangement from the product of his labor, his life activity, his species-being, is the estrangement of man from man. When man confronts himself, he also confronts other men. What is true of man’s relationship to his labor, to the product of his labor, and to himself, is also true of his relationship to other men, and to the labor and the object of the labor of other men.” (Marx,1958;5). In this discussion of alienation of labor, what Marx has shown is that alienation of labor happens when man is hindered from actualizing free conscious labor and consequently is deprived from enjoying the fruits of his own labor. 1.2 AN EVALUATION OF MARX’S ALIENATION OF LABOR Marx’s discussion of alienation of labor is an intricate study of the complex relation that exists between man and his contemporary society. He has shown in his analysis man has been stripped of his humanity since he has been denied that which is essential in his nature –free conscious labor. As such is man’s condition, man is not just alienated from himself but that he is also alienated from other men. Thus, it can be impugned that as alienation of labor touches the intricate connection between man and his contemporary society, it highlights human nature and presents the condition of man’s relation with other men. In this context, the following are observed from Marx’s discussion of alienation of labor. First, Marx’s discussion of the alienation of labor shows that for him what is important in the analysis of the human condition is not the abstraction of human life. Rather, what is significant is the actual experience of life itself. In fact, it can be claimed that Marx roots his theory on man’s actual experiences of life. Being such, alienation of labor affirms the materiality of man’s existence and that is what Marx has clearly presented. Likewise, by laying down a clear conceptual analysis of man, labor and society, he succinctly presented the reason why the flourishing of human nature eludes the contemporary man; it is because he has been stripped of his very nature by the capitalist society. Second, by his discussion of the alienation of labor, Marx has returned man into the center of the discussion. Where is man in the contemporary period? Man is lost because of alienated labor. Marx is clear when he stipulates that human beings work on the world. It is negative because it separates us from the world but it is also positive because it reconnects us with the world. The division between human beings and nature is dissolved. (Sayers, 2003). And this becomes intelligible and reasonable not because there are several abstracted concepts that support it, but because it is man and his experiences that gives credence to this claim. Third, according to Seeman (1983) in the alienation of labor Marx points that the human condition as characterized by “powerlessness, meaninglessness, social isolation and self estrangement” (173 -179). This characterization until now is the very categories that define human life, human existence. Although different terminologies may be used still, the essence is the same – man is alienated from his labor. This is raised because there is a critique which claims that alienation of labor is already dead (see Lee 1972” An obituary for alienation) Fourth, Marx’s alienation of labor goes even beyond the actual alienation that workers experience in the assembly line. Roberts and Stephenson (1968) have claimed that Marx intended not just to show that the very concept human relations and the actuality of human relation under capitalism are erroneous. But that he set out to show that there is a solution to the problem of alienation. By changing the structure of society itself, one can remove the alienation of labor. And according to Roberts and Stephenson (1968) this is the very reason why Marx’s concept of alienation is profound and unique, “The unique character of Marxian alienation permits a unique solution. Organi-zation of autonomous producers in a system of exchange relationships (by the market) is replaced by uniting the whole of society into a single factory” (471). The alienation of humanity in the modern and contemporary period is pervasive because society itself has become the arena wherein human persons commodify themselves. That is why it can be claimed that the rubric of alienation is really about human relations(Seeman,1983). Being such, it does not deny the authenticity and validity of the problem of alienation of labor (juts like what Lee did) but rather it recognizes it for what it really is – alienated labor. And from this acceptance come the desire for change and the willingness to stand up and fight for that change. Since, the envisioned change seeks to destroy the very foundation of the commodification of man – his self, his social relations as commodity exchanges. Fifth, in the alienation of labor, Marx has shown the interconnectedness of man, other human beings and nature. The intricate relation among the three creates a dynamic that continues to define and redefine man’s appropriation of himself. This basically presents the idea that man is a creative force in himself. And to deny this, is to deny the very world which the toils of men have created. Unfortunately, this is what is happening, “It is true that labor produces marvels for the rich, but it produces privation for the worker. It produces palaces, but hovels for the worker. It produces beauty, but deformity for the worker. It replaces labor by machines, but it casts some of the workers back into barbarous forms of labor and turns others into machines. It produces intelligence, but it produces idiocy and cretinism for the worker” (Marx,1957; 3). Sixth, as the goal becomes development for everything for nothing(Dubord, 1967; ¶ 25), it has become clear that the success of the current economic system is lodged on the “proletarianization of the world” (Dubord, 1967;¶ 25). And this is attest by the widening divide between the developed countries and the underdeveloped countries. Again, the history of humanity which man himself has written is the witness to the veracity of this claim. Seventh, globalization encourages division of labor. It is, in fact, perceived as the predominant philosophy in the global market, global economy. Since it is held that “specialization of function is the most desirable form of work arrangement” (Shepard, 1973; 62), thus, society and organizations continue to deceived the people regarding the real story behind division of labor – maximization of the labor power of the worker for increased profit of the capitalist. The danger of specialization is just around the corner. The man that operates the machine, in the end, becomes just like the machine. 1.3. CONCLUSION Karl Marx’s alienation of labor is the understanding of alienation within the context man, in his materiality. In the process of Marx’s discussion, he claims that the alienation of labor is threefold; alienation from nature, alienation from the mode or means of production and alienation from the self and an isolation of man, the “lonely crowd”. The reality of Marx’s analysis regarding the nature of man and the rubric of alienation as the tool for the analysis of man’s relation with society has unveiled the exploitation that is prevalent in the world today. To reduce the struggles of millions of workers to mere language game is a sign of a stunted mind since it refuses to see the evidence before it – the life story and struggles of the workers. In the end, alienation of labor is as true today as it was during the time of Marx. Look at the great divide, and you’ll see that it is true. REFERENCES: Debord, G.E. (1967). The Society of the Spectacles, Michigan: Black & Red. Easton, L.D. (1961). Alienation and history in the early Marx, Philosophy and Phenomenological Review, Vol. 22, No 2, pp 193 – 205. Kanungo, R.N. (1979). The concepts of alienation and involvement revisited, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 86, No 1, pp 119 – 138. Lenin, V.I. (1976). Marx, Engels, Marxism. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Marx, K. (1958). Economic and Philosophic Manuscript of 1844.Retrieved at http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/footnote.htm#fn20. Accessed on 2 Nov 2009. Roberts, P.C., & Stephenson, M. A. (1968). Alienation and central planning in Marx, Slavic Review, Vol. 27, No 3, pp 470 -474. Sayers, S. (2003). Creative activity and alienation in Marx and Hegel, Historical Materialism,Vol. 1, No 11, pp 107 – 128. Seeman, M. (1983). Alienation motifs in contemporary theorizing: The hidden continuity of the classic themes, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 46, No 3, pp 171 – 184. Shepard, J.M. (1973). Technology, division of labor and alienation, The Pacific Sociological Review, Vol. 16, No 1, pp 61 – 88. Read More