Yes I am researching alienation and ICT

Marxism comes into much of my work and the social consequences of market based economies.

Ah right! So do you use Marx;s theory of alienation in any of your work?

I'm using the concept of alienation in relation to the community food projects I'm researching, I see these as one way of addressing the alienation (as Marx describes it) that is prevalent but not total in capitalist society.

Interesting. What do you mean by prevalent but not total? Have you published anything?

@ Mike, yes, I use alienation as it has been variously conceived by authors including Marx. Marx provides a very thorough perspective on the alienation nature of capitalist economies.

@David, this sounds much like what I do in my teaching. Can you clarify your last sentence?

@Mike, nothing published yet as I'm a PhD student but have something in the pipeline which I can send you if you're interested. Re prevalent not total what I meant is that whilst Marx conceived all relations structured by a capitalism as alienating (this is inescapable) capitalism does not totally structure society, apologies if this was not clear. So there are a good many aspects of life that are not structured by capitalism, this why I'm interested in community food projects as an example of space/relationships structured by an alternative ideology. It should also be noted that behind Marx's concept of alienation is a vision of human nature, although capitalism is alienating it does not necessarily degrade all aspects of human nature but it does have important detrimental consequences on human nature, this is why I'm also working with the concept of well-being in my research.

Ok. Interesting. Have you read anything by John Holloway and autonomist Marxism?

@ David, I find your clarification for Mike very interesting. Thank you for this. What areas of society do you think of as not being structured by capitalism and which societies are you thinking of?

@ David, I sent the above question too soon. Sorry. I meant to continue to ask you if you feel that a community project operating within a capitalist society is able to not be structured buy capitalism? Also, which aspects of human nature, are in your opinion, not degraded by capitalism?

@Paul thank you for your questions. I would see all societies as being constituted of elements which could be described as non-capitalistic, for instance within a family and between friends there are relationships of care and exchange which are not structured by the need to labour to create surplus value (i.e. profit and therefore wages) though arguably we can see how some of those non-capitalistic relations are being penetrated by capital accumulation. So childcare and care for family members was once an area of life which capital did not really touch upon but increasingly this kind of labour is now paid labour. i would suggest there are very few examples of societies that are completely devoid of capitalism but perhaps you can make the case for some isolated indigenous populations or even intentional communities that seek to remove themselves from the capitalist economy.

In relation to your other question about the possibility of community projects being able to operate within a capitalist society whilst not being structured by capitalism, I would say yes this is possible but difficult. However whilst a food project might to some extent be reliant on flows of capital for example for buying basic tools and other inputs it might also exhibit other practices and a co-operative structure which are not capitalistic in nature. My view is that it is very difficult to draw a clear line around something and say that is capitalist or not but one can seek to emphasize elements that are not capitalist and build towards an alternative vision if this is your aim.

@Mike I have now just picked up crack capitalism by Holloway as you mentioned him I'm aware of autonomist accounts but not overly familiar, something I'm exploring at the moment.

On your comments about some aspects of life not being touched by capitalism: Marx in Capital makes a number remarks about this. One is that the worker consumes in two ways. The first is her consumption of her own labour power at work. The second relates to acts of consumption away from work. Marx argues that this is in effect consuming in order to prepare for work. So activity within the family etc is activity outside work that enable work to happen. Which makes sense. I am fed up at work, go home to my family or meet up with mates. Have fun (or not depending on the circumstances) which distances me from the pain of work and prepares me to rest so I can get up the next day when the alarm clock rings. For Marx therefore there can be no separation from the two spheres of activity. Each is dependent upon the other with the primary purpose being to provide labour power for capital. We are here of course talking about family life in the advanced economies. In the emergent economies family is very different.

There are of course areas where the argument needs to be explored in some depth and requires finessing such as pensioners and their relationship to capital. However even here, the drive towards neoliberal policies including attacks on pensions and retirement ages indicates capitals desire to encompass the labour of anyone at any age. We only have to think about child labour.

Just some thoughts.

In a sense Mike I agree with you and would qualify what I said with similar comments. I certainly agree that labour that is apparently outside of capital often does relate to the workers ability to continue to labour within capital. However I would say that whilst labour or activity outiside of capital might enable workers to maintain labour in order to produce capital it is not necessarily undertaken with this express purpose, so I wouldn't agree there is no distinction even if the two are connected. So there is an open question about whether non-capitalistic forms of labour constitute respite from capitalism (and therefore assist in enabling it to continue) or actual resistance.

I certainly would agree with you that capital has the tendency to encompass all labour hence it's increasing penetration into different aspects of our lives, but that doesn't mean this isn't contested.

How are you using Marx and alienation in your own research?

Yes I have just submitted my PhD thesis on alienation and ICT. While I am waiting fro my viva which will be in September, I am quite happy to send a copy.

Alienation is defined and understood differently in across cultural contexts. You can refer my conference paper on this subject.

i

I have had a quick look at the references for your paper and I note that you have not included any by Marx . Any reason for this? Just wondering.

I wrote a literature review on work alienation as part of my doctoral studies a couple of years ago. There is of course a debate about non-alienating work. Blauner (1964: 4) argues that he expected to find work alienation present in some work situations and absent in others. However, both Kidder (2006) and Wallace (2006) in exploring the possibility of non-alienating labour did not support Blauner's conclusion. Kidder's (2006: 50) view is that where work is involved the "...alienation of production must be addressed.”; while Wallace (2006: 230-231) cites the problems of discipline of labour and the potential for false consciousness in relation to the incidence of work alienation.

The issue of control – or lack of control – over one’s labour power is a critical factor in relation to work alienation (Ceylan, 2010; Erikson, 1986; Hodson, 1996; Nair, 2010; Sulu, 2010). Crowley (2006) found that: “…top-down control techniques tend to impair worker well-being, prompting a sense of alienation and withdrawal of consent, and increasing the likelihood of worker resistance.”. A central theme in relation to work alienation is the problem of “power and powerlessness” that is equated with “low control over one’s outcomes;” (Seeman, 1988: 185). Indeed, there is a strong correlation between workers lack of, or low, control at work and perceptions of powerlessness (Ceylan, 2010; Erikson, 1986; Nair, 2010; Sulu, 2010).

I am also interested in the relationship between work alienation and work-related stress, with particular reference to the “powerlessness” component of work alienation. Karasek’s (1979 and 1990) job demand control model predicts the incidence of work-related stress resulting from a combination of high work demands and low job control (Dolan, 2007: 98). Moreover, lack of job control resulting from procedural injustice in the workplace has been associated with the incidence of job stress and work alienation in the form of powerlessness (Ceylan, 2010).

I am currently researching the impacts of management strategies that include direct control and responsible autonomy (Friedman, 1977) on telecommunication workers.

Hi

Interesting comments. I too have looked at Seeman but I think there is a problem with his approach.In moulding his typology, Seeman was seeking to make alienation more accessible both as a concept describing various forms of behaviour and as a tool for investigating those behaviours. The strength of his approach is that it can help focus attention on specific types of behaviour, thereby facilitating research in these areas. However, as Seeman acknowledges, his scheme does have a number of problems and he refers in particular to difficulties associated with the notions of meaninglessness and self-estrangement. There are however more fundamental criticisms of his approach.

The view here is that in effect, Seeman has produced a list of categories describing the various conditions of alienation. The problem in constructing such a list is that there is a real need to consider the relationship between the component parts of that list including the impact they may have on each other. As Rayce et al note, in Seeman's scheme “there is no theoretical structure between the six dimensions and presence of all six dimensions is not required” (Rayce et al 2009: 81).

While Seeman acknowledges that there may be inner connections between the versions of alienation, he considers three aspects, powerlessness, meaninglessness, and normlessness, to be operating independently of each other. In doing so he slices the notion of alienation vertically, thus severing the connectedness between the different strands. Yet he also confirms that the alternative versions could “be profitably applied in conjunction with one another in the analysis of a given state of affairs” (Seeman 1959: 789). This view could be taken a step further and it could be argued that analysis using a conjunction of the versions would help strengthen any attempt to comprehend and reveal the extent of alienation in a given situation. Research, such as that undertaken by Brooks et al (2008), provides supporting evidence for this criticism.

The second criticism that can be levelled at the Seeman approach is that he slices the notion of alienation horizontally by treating “alienation from the personal standpoint of the actor – that is, alienation is here taken from the social-psychological point of view” (Seeman 1959:784). Doing so it encourages a perspective that sees the individual person or group as having a unique experience thus re-enforcing the notion that each instance of alienation can be considered as unique arising from quite specific circumstances. Thus the emphasis is on immediacy and, consequently, looking towards solutions that apply only to that specific circumstance.

As Shepard (1971), Seeman (1983), Rovai and Wighting (2005) and Case (2007) note, the approach adopted by Seeman is neither without its complexities nor without its critics and for a period, alienation as a valued concept of analysis was out of favour. However, the themes it encompasses have been persistently present, even if somewhat differently labelled, in research and the six dimensions of alienation he outlined have had an enduring legacy and continue to influence study in a wide area of subject areas (Ross and Mirowsky 2013, Tummers 2013 and Buttram et al 2013)

I think the weakness inherent in the Seeman approach therefore hamper its explanatory power. Marx has a more effective view of alienation. Did you look at his perspective? You mention Blauner so you may have come across the Marxist view?

Yes, most authors, if not all, that I have read on work alienation start from Hegel and Marx. The problem in research is making the operational link between Marx's concept of alienation and the resultant behaviours displayed by workers - Seeman's schema is widely cited in this regard. I will look at some of the sources you have mentioned - do you have any others?

Hi Gary. Sorry it has taken a few days to respond to your last comment. Your comments prompted me to begin working on a paper that seeks to explain how I used Marx's theory of alienation to undertake my research. In essence this meant doing three things. Using his theory to construct the themes I wanted to explore. This was done done using the section on estrangement from the 1844 manuscripts. This text informed both the spirit and questions to to be asked. Secondly seeking out a research methodology with which to undertake the research and here I sought to utilise critical realism linked to critical discourse theory. Finally to use an approach that wanted to connect with the participants. To do this I used what could be called critical participatory action research. I found that it is possible to apply Marx's theory of alienation in practical research. I also found it helpful to draw upon notions of totality, mediation and immediacy to explain the commonalities and differences between the three groups I researched. I hope this is helpful but anyway, as I said your question has motivated me to write a paper on operationalising Marx's theory of alienation..so thanks.

Hi Paul. Sorry I have not replied to your comment on community projects. I was prompted to reply today because last night I was reading Marx's critique of the Gotha programme where, inter alia, he refer to the types of activity you mention. On cooperatives he comments that these as and end of themselves are problematic since they have to engage in a wider set of economic and social relations. However, as part of a process that seeks to undermine capitalism as whole, they can be a positive development. There is a further point. Projects of the type you mention will exist whether or not Marxist theory is critical of them because they arise from the nature capitalism. I am thinking here of workers occupations which develop into a coop such as the Fakenham Women's occupation in the UK some decades ago,. Or the development of support networks that emerge during times of major industrial unrest. In short they come into being because of capitalism but there is a need to move beyond them to challenge the system as a whole. This debate in very much alive within the left now with contributions such as those from John Holloway and Alex Callinicos providing examples. Incidentally you can watch a debate between these on youtube from Marxism 2010

Hi

An update on my answer. I have just reread an exchange between Tyler Veak and Andrew Feenberg. I am sure you are aware of these academics but I thought I would send you this note just in case. How is the research going?

Your work on alienation at work sounds interesting Gary, although I also think alienation is a useful concept beyond the sphere of waged labour. The issue of control is also highly relevant to understanding consumption and the 'fictitious commodity' and the 'commodity veil' can both be traced back to alienation which for me is the foundation of Marx's critique, even if it is not expressly evident in later work. However one of the more striking aspects of community organisations I've been researching has been the experience of production rather than consumption. Perhaps this is because consumption maintains more of a sense of freedom than production which for many people is much more clearly out of their control than consumption is.

@Mike, i'd be interested to receive a copy of your thesis, if you want to send it.

No problem but I have yet to have a viva; that's scheduled for late September. and it does have a few typos which I will change on final submission. I am working on the basis that it may require a re-write but hopefully not of a significant nature,

Devorah Kalekin and I have written extensively on the topic, history, uses, migration from labor to consumption, everyday life, etc. Google our names, especially the recent paper in Sociopedia, the online collection from Int. Soc. Ass. Se our book, Alienation, Trauma Millennium, see my recent book, Alienation and Carnivalization of Society and Good luck

Lauren Langman

Dear all,

Alienation, presented in Marx "Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts" is the best example of alienation study in capitalism. Only some post-modernists later indirectly reflect and analyze that also well. But I want to remind You philosopher neo-marxist Erich Fromm with his "To Have or to Be" and the "Art of Loving", who have made great impact for that topic. Nowadays it is Zygmunt Bauman who touches this topic extensively and very deep. Personally I have not written on these authors, but I have them always in mind as they made great influence to my understanding of social problems in contemporary society. Sometimes You need only to put facts and examples as the basement  in order to prove or to add to the left-orientated theory of alienation under capitalism.

I have been writing on alienation for decades,  Devorah Kalekin have a number of publications, on its various manifestations,and its changes from Marx's time to a more general quality of capitalism and that's not modernity per se, but one based on private property, class domination.   My lastest paper is attached-clearly based on the 1844 manuscripts

Devorah Kalekin and I will be updating our Sociopeida article on Alienation, if anyone has any to add to our discussion, or raise questions we might try address, please let me know,   you can reach me directly at [email protected].    Devorah  [email protected],

Thanks

LL

Lauren

Perhaps you may consider how much misuse there is of Marx's theory of alienation particularly when such research is based on the work of Blauner. Here I mean using the theory in a superficial manner and then, contrary to Marx's own perspective, advancing recommendations, to HR departments for example,  for "alleviating" alienation at work. I am thinking that a section entitled something like "measuring job satisfaction is not searching alienation" may be appropriate.

Pardis

Hi. How much have researched social exclusion. It is a well defined concept, even if you don't agree with the definition.

Mike, I agree with your caveats entirely. The superficial use of Marx's theories is always a problem as is the way that many psychological descriptors, such as "feeling depressed" are used in popular language and out of context.

Alienation, according to Marx, involves a structural relationship in the mode of production defined by the alienation of the worked from nature, society, the products of labour and, ultimately, from the self.

Loose use and abuse of the term has allowed it to be "psychologized" and turned into a simple descriptor of anything from issues of personal identity, employee morale, moderate mental disease and disorder, depression, negative attitudes towards one's boss (ya think?) and vaguely related issues from Facebook "addiction" to rampant consumerism.

In short, the term has been captured by "bourgeois" sociology and organizational psychology and made into a symptom of individual "angst" when it is, in reality, an essential part of capitalism ("late" and/or "state").

Returning to the source would be a good first step toward reclaiming a meaningful academic understanding and forming the intellectual basis for something called "praxis."

A good place to start is Erich Fromm's "Marx's Concept of Man" to be followed by Istvan Meszaros' "Marx's Theory of Alienation."

One of the things I find interesting about discussion is that bourgeois academic are forced to find some explanation about why people feel the way they do about work etc.all the more so since 2008.  This is why there is a renewed interest in alienation. The rise in movementisim is also a factor here. This is why going back to the texts of 1844;  the Grundrisse, as well as sections of Capital is essential for developing our, Marxist, view of alienation. We should also try to operationalise them through concrete research which is what I did with my PhD. Whether or not I was successful is of course for other to decide.

I agree with Howard's suggestions re the reading Sean Sayers book on alienation is also excellent particularly if you're interested in understanding Marx's relationship with Hegel in relation to alienation. Mike is also right Marx's early writings are essential reading and less daunting than Capital although I'm currently making my way through volume I and it it far more readable than people would have you believe!

I would add Fromm's "To Have or To Be" to the reading list.

In my writings I have been very clear in the that on the one hand alienation must begin with the Hegelian use especially objectification and is a structural condition is the consequence of wage labor in which the individual cells his or her labor power for wages that is labor becomes a commodity and insofar as people create themselves in their work they actively produce their own commodification. This is perhaps the most important insight of Marx insofar as if people can create their own commodification, objectification and estrangement that they can also act to transcend that condition. But I think the point important here is that structural conditions of every kind alienation, class, perhaps even religion have social psychological consequences but to reduce alienation simply to its consequences. The attempt to psychologize alienation is IMHO itself an expression of alienation and indeed reification, it perfectly fits the American social science paradigm of value neutrality which is complete bullshit meeting uncritical in order to attract grant money. Yes Blount or touches on the structure of work, repetitive versus challenging, work conditions etc. but he dares not critique the nature of capitalism that produces a wide variety of working conditions most of which suck big time. I would also parenthetically note that the notion of alienation can move beyond proletariat factory production and indeed many other jobs can be just as alienating. If anyone has paid attention to the conditions of adjunct professors that may need to teach five or six courses this semester, rely on food stamps and are thankful for ACA (Obama care) that it is easy to see that alienation is no longer limited to the continuous production line but a variety of other realms. Some of the work that I have done in conjunction with Devorah Kalekin is summarized in the alienation chapter of socio-PEDIA the ISA online encyclopedia.

Hi Lauren. Thanks for the comments. I have done some of the research you mention. It comprised at using Marx's theory of alienation to research the experience of scholars researching the ethical and societal aspects of ICT. This was part of a research study that  looked at ICT experts and end user as well as scholars.  I completed this for my Phd which I was awarded last September.

Sounds interesting, if  you know my work,  I do think that alienation is a useful moment of capitalism, but has migrated to other realms.   I also see ICT as having emancipatory  potential, as seen in global justice movements. 

My research leads to have a more pestimistic view of the potential of ICT. It is all about power...but I expect you know this already.

Hi Mike,

Maybe this has come up in previous pages or you already have it in your biblio, but thinking ICT and alienation I believe Rosa H would be a very actual (2005;2010) and strong reference.

Rosa, Hartmut. Alienation and acceleration: Towards a critical theory of late-modern temporality. Vol. 3. Nordisk Sommeruniversitet, 2010.

Regards,

L

Pardis, I don't think the popularity of depression, or any other thing, makes any difference, what is crucial is making valid statements, i.e., using terms correctly to convey what they are intended to convey. It sounds as if I am standing up for authorial authority!! The author is not dead after all.

You and me against the world Pardis :-)

Yes   See my latest in Current Sociology,  Alienation: The concept that won't go away

Ok Just in case you didn't know: Phd awarded a few years ago with minor amendments which were accepted.

I have been off somewhere writing stuff. But back now to more focused work on alienation. So some thoughts. I have been reading an excellent paper on measuring stress( Folkman and Lazarus 1985). Interesting because it sees stress as a process and seeking to investigate stress over three phases. I believe there are implications for investigating alienation.

Secondly, I have been considering the idea of recovering addiction as a way of seeing alienation. Would the idea of alienation resister(s) be of any help ie the notion of a conscious appreciation of the what alienation is, the causes of alienation, and the need to engage in an ongoing struggle of resistance against alienation. I am looking at these ideas as a way to operationalise researching alienation.

Finally, I am now totally convinced that researching alienation must involve resistance to alienation and this requires getting directly involved with participants. Hence critical participatory action research is a must.