Since we were talking about the development of law last
week, I thought it might be interesting to briefly explore how Marx views the
establishment of law. I also found it interesting how closely Marx’s account of
this development and the role of the State follows our discussion from last
week as it stemmed from Cheryl Harris’s article. According to Marx, the State
is “the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common
interests, and in which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomized”
(187). The state is thus the way in which common institutions and social
expectations are given a political form. Marx suggests that it is extremely
important to note who is in power, for those who are in power are those who
apply their modes of rationalization in order to construct laws that are to
their benefit. Marx first asserts that civil law, or custom, comes before the
establishment of actual law, for “civil law develops simultaneously with
private property out of the disintegration of the natural community” (187). He
then argues that these civil laws are “declared to be the result of the general
will” which suggests that these civil laws are created by consent (188).
However, Marx then notes that this “will” “is not a thing at all,” but rather
“an illusion” (188). Individuals, especially those who are part of lower
classes, do not know that they have an alternative to civil law and thus their
conformity to the “general will” cannot be considered consent. It is out of
this illusory consent, “the will divorced form its real basis—on free will”—
that laws are justified (187). Thus, Marx concludes that the very laws that
seem to provide and maintain justice in society are only a further
manifestation of the rationalization of injustice by those in power.
Hi Bria,
ReplyDeleteReading Marx’s comments on civil law, I also thought of our previous classes, and specifically how Marx’s conception of will and the law echoed Cheryl Harris’ points that the law has reified whiteness as property. I particularly found Marx’s discussion of “free will” interesting (Marx 187). Whereas free will is often discussed in the context of each man making his own decisions, Marx’s free will seems to refer to a freedom from practical limitations. This separation from real-world application is particularly clear in the quote used in your comment, “the will divorced form its real basis—on free will” (Marx 187). Those who create the laws are free to do so while being separated from labor, thus suggesting that free will is something reserved for the bourgeoisie.
Marx seems to extend his argument about the injustice created by laws when he discusses the division of labor. He notes the distinction between the “thinkers of the class,” who are the elite, and the “active members” of the class who “have less time to make up illusions and ideas about themselves (Marx 173). He further demonstrates this separation when he notes that “for the mass of men, i.e., the proletariat, these theoretical notions do not exist….if this mass ever had any theoretical notions, e.g., religion, etc., these have no long been dissolved by circumstances” (Marx 166). Like the creation of laws, the ability to think philosophically without grounding in real-world actions is a privilege reserved for the elite who are separated from their labor. Marx would argue that societies only continue to promote the oppression created by the ruling class when they continually glorify these ideas.
For me, Marx’s criticism of ideas made me think a lot about CMC’s mission of “learning for the sake of doing.” Surely, Marx would call us the bourgeoisie, but I wonder how Marx would address our emphasis on real world application, since he finds material interactions the true basis of history. I think that Marx would call it illusory.