On Social Structures and the Reproduction of Capitalism

    Before I begin, I think it is necessary to critique the theory of atomized individualism. The philosophy of atomized individualism believes that “...society is made up of a collection of self-interested and largely self-sufficient individuals, operating as separate atoms." That last part, the underlying belief that all individuals are acting as completely separate atoms, and just form a collective of individuals called “society” is a belief that doesn’t hold up if we truly dive in and critique it. Before I bring forward a thought experiment, let's first break down “individuality.” At its core, individuality supposes some human difference, a uniqueness. Alright, now let’s dive in with a thought experiment. Think about a human being inside of a vacuum for me. Inside of this hypothetical vacuum, would a human be able to conceptualize their individuality? Would they be able to conceptualize a concept of uniqueness? How about the very concepts that make up our understanding of individuality… could this human conceptualize personality? No. A human would have no ability to conceptualize what it means to be an "individual" because the conceptualization of individuality and uniqueness only a rises after interpersonal relationships and the perceiving of some group. In a vacuum, there is no group to perceive as a reference point of what you are being different from, thus making it impossible to conceptualize our “individuality” or “uniqueness”. This leads us to understand that we can only be "individuals" after analyzing ourselves vs. some group. A collective, or a group, really any reference point is necessary to conceptualize these things that the political and social philosophy of individualism holds to be important! It is an underlying contradiction inside of the radical individualist philosophy, and one that breaks down any theory of atomized individualism. With this, we can understand that any notion or dichotomy that separates the individual from the collective and vice versa, believing that all individuals are a “blank slate” and are atomized is silly. 

    Only once we are able to fully understand that 1, our own sense of self is dependent upon our interpersonal social relations with others, and that 2, these interdependent relations constitute specific structures that can be organized either according to mutual benefit or for a particular repressive end goal is when we will be able to seek a truly liberating social movement, and a truly liberating self and society. Erich Fromm evinces a distinctive way of thinking about the nature of social relations and the ways that these relations possess causal powers over the development of the self as well as the social world more generally. Moreso, Fromm’s conception of critical theory is rooted in a theory of freedom and judgement that takes into account the ontological shape of social relations that have constitutive power over the self and the society as a whole which goes in line with the Hegelian-Marxist model. With this, we can understand that Marx’s conception of human beings contains a crucial dimension lacking in Freudian theory. Where Freud saw the individual as self-contained, Marx understood that the nature of human psychology is dynamic, and specifically functional related to the relations in which the individual is embedded and born into. Marx’s theory of needs and drives is dependent on this sociality: we need our relations to others, to the world, and to nature to constitute a sense of self and individuality. This in turn provides the basis for our drives, which are an expression of a fundamental and specifically human need, the need to be related to man and nature, and of confirming himself in this relatedness and difference to surrounding. The essence of any social structure and the relations that uphold it are constituted by practices, by conscious activity, but are also organized by the patterns of relations shaped by forms of social power (norms, values, and functional roles that these patterns of social power exhibit). For example, the relations of parent and child, teacher and student, husband and wife, owner and worker, and so on are not simply social scripts that are actualized by some abstract structure we can view fully consciously and then fulfill, but rather actualized by human practices. With this we can see that total social relations possess an ontological character, showing that they are objective in nature yet not material, but have the capacity to shape the subject via socialization, giving social-structures a causal power. Social relations are therefore real in a distinctively social sense, that are not the property of the subject’s subjectivity alone, but rather of the shared structures that we inhabit, reproduce, reinforce, and which also shape us.

    Understanding so far that the subject fundamentally cannot realize themselves as an individual on an island/in a vacuum, and that social structures and set social relations that subjects fulfil, reproduce, and reinforce are 1, necessary to conceive of “self” and our own individuality, and shape our conceptualization of self we can now evaluate these social structures based on the kinds of ends they promote. In the modern capitalist society, social structures and interpersonal relations have been manufactured based on the economic mode of production. The constant aggression that arises from joining a competitive labor market, the forms of abnormal worker-worker competition that necessitates a motive to dominate your peer to get a raise, get a promotion, etc, infiltrate the very cultural institutions and interpersonal social-relations that are necessary to conceptualize our sense of self. Think about common discursive patterns that shape our social position: “My house is bigger than x”, “I am better than you at x”, “I have more x than you”, etc. We can further analyze the very types of sports we like: Football, where the goal is to take over the opposition’s territory, boxing, where you win by knocking out your opponent and completely controlling them, etc. We can even dive into the very motives for consumption in the modern consumerist society. Where consuming x type of brand gives you a higher social position, or consuming x to look better to your peers, and further move up a social food chain. Domination, aggression, and control of others that the capitalist mode of production is founded upon have infiltrated our very subjective actions outside of work further reinforcing this mode of production and disastrous status quo. This is a status quo that results in “The psychological results of alienation…. man regresses to a receptive and marketing orientation and ceases to be productive; that he loses his sense of self becomes dependent on approval tends to conform and yet to feel insecure he is dissatisfied,bored, and anxious spends most of his energy in the attempt to compensate for or just to cover up this anxiety. His intelligence is excellent, his reason deteriorates and in view of his technical powers he is seriously endangering the existence of civilization, and even of the human race. […] Reason deteriorates while their intelligence rises, thus creating the dangerous situation of equipping man with the greatest material power without the wisdom to use it. This alienation and automatization leads to an ever-increasing insanity. Life has no meaning, there is no joy, no faith, no reality.” (Fromm) 

    The members of the New Left of the 60s, the hippies, student revolutionaries, teenage activists, etc recognized these very social functions and behaviors and refused to reinforce them. They strived to abolish these manufactured subjectivities that they have been molded into to reinforce this inhumane capitalist status quo. The student protests of the 1960s were a form of Marcuse’s prescriptive Great Refusal (a way of saying “NO” to the forms of repression and domination) demanding a new and liberated society. They recognized that this new society would require a new sensibility in the Marcuseian sense, which asserts the life instincts over the manufactured aggressive instincts. This idea of a new sensibility would move beyond the classic Marxism in the way that it requires much more than simply new power relations. It would require “The cultivation of a new sensibility (that) would transform the relationship between human beings and nature as well as the relationships between human beings. The new sensibility is the medium of social change that mediates between the political practice of changing the world and one’s own drive for personal liberation.” says Marcuse. The agents who seek to refuse what capital has placed onto them would seek to rid society of its systems of domination causing a ridding of the forms of subjectivities formed by those systems, and allowing those agents to replace them with new forms of subjectivity. The feminist movement is a contemporary example of this abolition of manufactured structures with the goal of liberated indvividuals and communities. Feminists, even in Marcuse’s time, went through the process of rethinking femininity and masculinity, which could be the beginning of redefining what it means to be ‘man” and male subjectivity so that it develops in a way that males become less aggressive. 

    Comprehending these social relations is central for any leftist who strives for true liberation of the self in the sense that 1, they predate the self and thereby are active in the shaping and construction of the psychological structures and drives of the self and 2, that it is only through the overcoming of pathological social structures that a more exact, total reality of freedom be achieved.