Alienation Theory and Ideology in Dialogue

Abstract

Marx’s formulation of alienation theory creates a clear rupture from the work of German idealistic philosophers, unveiling the possibility of new theoretical investigations—the critique of political economy. This essay discusses the potential relationship between alienation and ideology in order to reveal their possibly tight and deep bonds. It reveals that alienation and ideology can either feed each other or work in opposite directions. In other words, ideology reinforces alienation in certain moments but in others it can counter the effects of alienation. Therefore, alienation and ideology are two different yet related concepts. The differences between the two concepts are exposed by questioning some interpretations of Marx’s work. As a result, this essay argues that there is no epistemological rupture in Marx’s texts and that considering the importance of humanism is one correct approach to understanding his work.

Key Words:

• Alienation
• Epistemology
• Humanism
• Ideology
• Karl Marx

Acknowledgments

I am grateful for previous evaluation of this essay by the editors and reviewers of Rethinking Marxism, who helped me improve the arguments presented here. I am also grateful to Felipe Viégas and Emili Åström, who helped me revise this translation of my original essay written in Portuguese.

Notes

1 I mean a systematic critique of political economy, since Marx (1975) had already presented some introductory elements regarding an economic analysis in On the Jewish Question.

2 I have used some Portuguese texts in this article and have translated the quotes myself.

3 On the interpretation of Marx's theory by István Mészáros, the Manuscripts proposal should be understood in the sense “of all complexity that involves the concept of Aufhebung [which], in the German language, can mean ‘transcendence, removal, preservation, overcoming (or replacement) to a higher level.’ According to Mészáros, the term is key to understanding alienation theory, and ‘not its inverse,’ as it is erroneously supposed” (Pinassi 2009, 104). It is important to clarify that the German Aufhebung is used here as “sublation.”

4 Ranieri (2001, 46) explains that once Feuerbach denied that practice plays an important role, he drew close to Hegel even though his aim was to criticize Hegel's ideas on the Absolute Spirit. Moreover, “Naturalization of the human essence category prevents the understanding of historical process's genesis as labor process.”

5 Finding labor at the core of society illuminates Marx's proposals previously made in the Manuscripts. Although his references to materialism in 1843–4 were made differently from those stated later, this does not ensure that Marx strictly followed the steps of German idealism and Feuerbachian materialism in his first writings. In fact, the turning point in Marx's work must be located not in 1845 but between 1843 and 1844—without excluding any of his texts, which have together contributed to making of him an intellectual.