Repression in Marx, Weber and Freud: Under Development Class-Consciousness in Mills Dahrendorf Leggett Montogomery and Mann

By Dewan S Arefin

Sigmund Freud is widely known for his extra-ordinary contribution to the world of psychology, especially to the domain of psychoanalysis. But he is less known as a social theorist. His contribution in this area is quite extensive, important, and relevant for understanding of many social facts, including the delicate process of social change. His utterings are worthwhile, reasonable, and scientific to a great extent. Freud is not valuable only for his theoretical activities, but he is also inevitable for locating a better profile of human behavior, society, culture, and civilization.

By exhibiting the fact that neither the unconscious was absolute, eternal, or unalterable nor the conscious, he emphasized the idea that the reality and psyche were interdependent. Social circumstances and psyche shaped and conditioned each other; neither could grow in isolation. Freud pointed out that there was a conflict within each individual and that was the fundamental feature of 'socialization' into every societyan unavoidable 'Repression', characterizing human life. Repression occupies a major area in Freudian literature, so does the idea of social distance. Social distance, according to Freud, is not only a biological entity, but also is a functional entity. Social distance, as is adhered to by the Marxian dialectical materialists as being the creation of private property and its disproportionate ownership, identified as a symbol of superiority in any such spheres as power, prestige, privilege, etc, is considered to be an inevitable phenomenon in human existence and its movement forward.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Xlibris US
• Release date: Jun 16, 2016
• ISBN: 9781514488621

Dewan S Arefin

Dewan Shamsul Arefin was a sociology teacher by profession. He was working as a part-time lecturer in the department of Sociology and Anthropology at Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey for about a decade in the immediate past. After receiving his Masters degree and completing the most part of requirements for Ph.D. at Rutgers in early eighties, he had also worked as a visiting faculty for the same department of the same university. Before he joined Rutgers University in 1980 for higher studies, he was a lecturer in the department of sociology at Rajshahi University, Bangladesh where he had taught for five years. He already had a Masters and a Bachelor’s degree with honors in 1968 and 1967 respectively from Dhaka University, Bangladesh. Arefin had a strong penchant for writing, and he did write quite a lot, both when he was in Bangladesh and now in USA. His writings are, in fact, considered and valued by most of his readers as unaffected, objective, sociological in nature and deeply of public interest. Among various involvements that he had in this field in Bangladesh and now in newly adopted homeland America, here are the few: Executive Editor of the ‘Janomot’ (Public Opinion), it was a Bangladesh version of a weekly Bengali newspaper in London by the same name, Member, Board of Editors, ‘Charampatra’ (the ultimate words), Editor-in-Chief, ‘Shwapakhme’ (a politico-literary journal), Associate Editor, ‘The Mission’ (a Dhaka University affiliated publication on ideas and thoughts), Editor / Publisher, ‘Kak’ (Crow) and ‘Kownik’ (Angular): an anthology of poems, Chief Editor, ‘The Forum’ (a quarterly progressive journal on national and international economic and socio-political issues published from New Jersey / New York), Feature writer / Freelancer, for ‘The Targum’ and ‘Livingston Medium’ (Rutgers University New Brunswick and Livingston campus daily publications). He is also the translator of the historical documentary book, ‘Twenty Years after the Genocide in Bangladesh’, published by Alpine Printing and Publishing Group, NY, May 1994. Arefin is also the author of the following books, all of which are in Bengali. Translated English title beside each one of them gives a sense of undercurrent theme upon which it is based: Obama ?: 2011 Nelson Mandela: Shontrash O Shanti: 2011 (Nelson Mandela: Terrorism and Peace) Daner Shotru Shattya - Bamer Shotru Shattya: Shottyer Mitra Ke ? 2008: (Enemy of the Right is Truth - Enemy of the Left is Truth: Who is the Ally / Friend of Shottya?): Received the first ‘Best Bangla Book Award’ in 2008 given by the Weekly Thikana, the most circulated NY-based Bengali newspaper overseas. Munafar Shontrash: 2005 (Terrorism of Profit) Life and Debt - No Freedom Yet: 2003 Fortress America, Blue Skirt, Deconstructioner Globalization Abong Annannya Proshongo: 2000 (Fortress America, Blue Skirt, Globalization of Deconstruction & other Issues) Tritiya Bishwey Pati Burjua O Annannya Proshongo: 1998 (Petty-Bourgeoisie in the Third World & Other Issues) Arefin was the president of Bangladesh Society of New Jersey in 1989 - 90, 1990 - 1991, 1993 - 1994 and 2002 - 2003. He happens to be one of the founding members of this organization. At present, he is the president of Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani Bhashani Foundation, New York, USA.

Book preview

Copyright © 2016 by Dewan S Arefin.

Author image, courtesy: Ishmam Huq

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

Rev. date: 06/15/2016

Xlibris

1-888-795-4274

www.Xlibris.com

719891

CONTENTS

PART I Repression In Marx, Weber And Freud (With special emphasis on Freud)

PART II Understanding Underdevelopment A Class Analysis (with reference to Bangladesh Class Formation)

PART III Class and Class-Consciousness in the Works of (Michael Mann John C Leggett David Montogomery Ralf Dahrendorf and C. W. Mills)

PART IV American Working Class Radicalism

Bibliography

About the Author

This humble work is

dedicated to

Moulana Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani

Martin Luther King, Jr.

Frantz Fanon

who dedicated their life for humanity, equality and justice

Whose love and sacrifice made it possible

my wife Nurjahan Begum Baby

son Dewan Naushad Arefin

daughter Dewan Sharmin Arefin

son-in-law Marcel Q Belfield

grandson Zain D Belfield

grand daugher Sadia N Belfield

PART I

Repression In Marx, Weber And Freud (With special emphasis on Freud)

Introduction

Sigmund Freud is widely known for his extra-ordinary contribution to the world of psychology, especially to the domain of psychoanalysis. But he is less known as a social theorist. His contribution in this area is quite extensive, important and relevant for understanding of many social facts - including the delicate process of social change. His utterings are worthwhile, reasonable and scientific to a great extent. Freud is valuable not only for his theoretical contributions, but also for his locating a better profile of human behavior, society, culture and civilization.

Laurie Taylor, a professor of sociology, University of York, in one of his articles titled ‘Freud’ published in the New Society (December, 1977; Vol: 792 / London), observed that Freud’s initial concerns were wholly medicinal and therapeutic, but with the publication of the ‘Interpretation of Dream’ (1900), he justifiably came to establish himself as a social theorist. Talcott Parsons echoed many other writers in describing the work as ‘one of the great landmarks in the intellectual development of 20th century’. A great social historian commented: ‘With Copernicus the earth moved from its position of centrality in the universe, with Darwin man moved from his position of centrality in the eye of the creator, with Marx the individual human subject moved from its position of centrality in history, and with Freud consciousness moved from its position of centrality in the structure of the psyche’. Freud, therefore, specified the point of association and dissociation between mind and matter around.

By exhibiting the fact that neither the unconscious was absolute, eternal or unalterable nor the conscious, he emphasized the idea that the reality and psyche were interdependent. Social circumstances and psyche shaped and conditioned each other; neither could grow in isolation. Freud pointed out that there was a conflict within each individual and that was the fundamental feature of ‘socialization’ into every society - an unavoidable ‘Repression’, characterizing human life. Repression occupies a major area in Freudian literature, so does the idea of social distance. Social distance, according to Freud, is not only a biological entity, but also is a functional entity. Social distance, as is adhered to by the Marxian dialectical materialists as being the creation of private property and its disproportionate ownership, identified as a symbol of superiority in any such spheres as power, prestige, privilege, etc, is considered to be an inevitable phenomenon in human existence and its movement forward. Max Weber was the man who seemed to be engaged in synthesizing the class ideas of Marx and Freud.

Hence, in this short section, an attempt is made to highlight the concept of ‘Repression’ and ‘Social Distance’ and their social role in the light of Freudian theorization. And this is done keeping in view the widely held theories of Marx and Weber.

REPRESSION: ITS SOCIAL ROLE

‘In the social production which men carry on after they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of production correspond to a definite stage of development of their material powers of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of the society, the real foundation, on which the legal and political superstructures arise and to which definite forms of social consciousness correspond……With the change of the economic foundation, the entire immense superstructures is more or less rapidly transformed¹. Property, thus, occupied the key position in the social analysis of Karl Marx. Against this theorization of one of the most prominent scientists of modern era, Sigmund Freud’s contribution is no less important and not less worth academic perusal.

‘The history of man is the history of his repression ²’, this hypothesis makes the fundamental leverage to the Freudian theory of social fact and change. Norman O’Brown, in one of his widely read books summarized in one sentence Freud’s entire contribution as that there could be one word, and that formed the key to Freud’s thought;- the word being ‘Repression’³. According to Freud, society is the extension of the expression of repressions of the hopes and aspirations of the individuals. The essence of repression owes its strength and vigor simply in the human function of rejection and keeping something out of consciousness. To be candid and crude, this repression is synonymous with the activities related to non-recognition of the realities of human nature. Man is born with ‘pleasure principle’, but the world around is beset with ‘unpleasure principle’, otherwise known as ‘unreality principles’⁴. Man is constantly sandwitched between aforesaid two diametrically opposite forces. Social reality put a hundred ‘no’s in the gratification of the wills and wishes of the ‘pleasure principle’. Naturally, there ensues a system of socially approved repression which indirectly through mutual suppression of desires and aspirations ensures better gratification and desirable social cohesion.

Herbert Marcuse in his ‘Eros and Civilization’ identified the difference between the two processes as the distinction between ‘Unconscious and Conscious processes’ of the mental sphere. He says, the difference between these two dimensions is a genetic-historical as well as structural one: the unconscious, ruled by the pleasure principle, comprises the older, primary processes, the residues of a phase of development in which they were the only kind of mental processes’⁵. They just go for it and after gaining pleasure and retreat from such situations that are likely to create sources of unpleasure: pain and desperation. Unrestrained pleasure is in perpetual conflict with the natural and human environment. The individual comes to the traumatic appreciation of the fact that full and painless gratification of his needs is impossible. Over this realization and experience of disappointment, a novel principle of mental functioning - the reality principle - gain ascendancy. The reality principle supersedes pleasure principle: man adapts himself to giving up of momentary, uncertain and coercive pleasure for delayed, restrained, but ‘assured’ pleasure.

Not supported by sufficient empirical or comparative data, Freud made cautious remark about the impact of repression in the history of civilization. Civilization, he claimed, developed on the endeavor to repress the ‘instincts’⁶. The budding flourishment of a civilization is directly linked with the amount of repression of ‘libido and aggressive tendencies’⁷. Left free to pursue their natural objectives, the libidinal tendencies or the basic instincts of man would be incompatible with all lasting association and preservation: they would demolish even at the point of merger and total integration. The instincts are, therefore, to be deflected from their goal, inhibited in their purpose. Civilization begins when the primary objective - namely, integral satisfaction of needs - is effectively renounced’⁸. This takes over to another important Freudian concept, ‘Sublimation’⁹.

Sublimation, it is said, is considered as the cornerstone of the Freudian theory of social change. Sublimation changes both the aim and object of the instinct giving it a socially acceptable texture. ‘…..what was originally a sexual instinct, due to sublimation, finds some achievement which is no longer sexual but a higher social and ethical valuation¹⁰. Freud presents sublimation as a ‘way out’ ; a way out by which the claims of the ego can be met without repression’¹¹.

It is the women’s desire for safeguarding themselves from ‘unpleasures’ created because of unrestrained copulation even at the period of menstruation and child-birth, for better, continuation gratification of sexual self on the one hand and man’s desire for unbridled pleasure and love for the off-springs on the other made for what later came to be known as ‘family’. In the institution of family, the female partner discovered an ‘Authority’ (husband) which would guard her against all sorts of ‘unpleasure’ - psychological, physical and mental. Civilization, according to him, is the unabated proliferation of this primary institution, namely ‘Authority’. Men discovered various authorities and submitted to them. The basic function of this authority remained the same, that is: to (a) secure peace, security and happiness to the respective human groups and simultaneously, (b) guard against the sources of pain, insecurity, unhappiness - in one word, ‘unpleasures’. Further that, this authority is set on an ever unattainable venture of making this world a perpetual source of pleasure.

But this is not to be so. This is engaged in a perpetual hide and seek game. And in this game, repression plays a dominant role. The repressive mechanism is idealized in the form of the aforesaid concept of authority. The ideal of ‘group’, ‘community’, ‘village’, ‘city’, ‘nation’, ‘religion’, ‘capitalism’, ‘communism’, etc are but some authorities born and designated for the same purpose as was ‘family’. These ensure gratification at the cost of some suppression of the past of the members constituting the body. This suppression is desirable and socially valuable¹². At one time in the life of the genus, man, life was organized by domination. And the men who succeeded in dominating the others were the fathers - that is to say, the man who possessed the desired woman and who had, with them, produced and kept alive the sons and daughters. The father monopolized for himself the woman (the supreme pleasure) and subjugated the other members of the horde to his power’ ¹³.

This was very much in line with the thinking of Sigmund Freud. But the latter’s findings were more interesting to note. Continuing with the arguments, he said, the sons who were driven out of the tribe, because of paternal jealousy; organized and overcame the father. After killing the father, the sons ate him in order to produce identification with the father by incorporating a part of him.

Following this patricide, the sons began to quarrel with one another ffor power. When they found that fraternal aggression was dangerous, they felt the need to form the first ‘social contract’. This proclaimed for the first time the renunciation of unrestricted instinctual gratification. To ensure group solidarity they established the taboo against incest and law of exogamy. This first organization along with renunciation, made way for recognition of mutual obligation, institutions sacred with morality and law’.

Civilization, thus, is understood to begin only in the brother clan, when the taboos, now self-imposed by the ruling brothers, implement repression in the common interest of preserving the group as a whole. Here the role of ‘guilt feeling’ is discernible. Guilt feeling, as for Freud, is the decisive psychological event in separating the brother clan from the primal horde. Marcuse says, in this connection, that ‘progress beyond the primal horde…i.e., civilization - presupposes guilt feeling: it introjects this feeling into the individuals and thus sustains,