You are on page 1of 10

PRINT

SOCY-151: FOUNDATIONS OF MODERN SOCIAL THEORY
Lecture 11 - Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism (cont.) [October 8, 2009]
Chapter 1. Dialectics [00:00:00]

Professor Iván Szelényi: So today we will be talking about The German Ideology, and Marx becoming a historical materialist. I just wanted to make a couple of more comments about "The Theses on Feuerbach," where Marx is on the edge, moving away from naturalism to historical materialism. But the emphasis in "The Theses on Feuerbach" is not so much on materialism, but it is much more on praxis, action, change, the lack of determination. Marx, as a materialist, is usually seen as a determinist. And if you took other courses where much was--Marx was touched upon, you were probably told Marx is a determinist, economic determinist. And there's a lot of truth to it, but half-truths, and he is struggling in "The Theses on Feuerbach"--as I said, he's on his way from naturalism to materialism, and the central idea is, as I said, praxis, human practices. And that's why I put down on the slides that it is a kind of dialectical, what Marx represents in "The Theses on Feuerbach". Now Marx himself very rarely used the term 'dialectical'. He had a clear enough mind to be suspicious about the word 'dialectics'. Once, at an old age, he wrote a letter to Engels and he said, "You know Friedrich what? When I don't know what something, then I say it is dialectical." Right? And so dialectical means when you couldn't really find out what the relationship between two phenomena is, when you say, "Well this is dialectical." Well it's a bit too simplistic. The term 'dialectical', as I am sure you all know, go back to Greek philosophy. But even in Greek philosophy, the idea of dialectics was emphasizing change and the process. A famous Greek philosopher once said--and that tries to capture the essence of dialectics--"You cannot step in the same river twice. Because if you step in the river, five minutes later it is not quite the same river because the water is gone; this is a different water." Right? So that dialectics means that the world is in flux, is in change. That's, I think, one important idea of dialectics. And in "The Theses on Feuerbach", Marx emphasizes--right?--that we are changing the world, rather just taking it. Right? In this sense he's dialectical, and this is why he still resists materialism and determinism. There is another, more contemporary adaptation of the word dialectics, which comes from Georg Hegel. And Marx again was shying away to use it very often. But his friend Friedrich Engels used it. He even said there is a dialectical materialism. Engels made a distinction between historical and dialectical materialism. Now what was dialectics in Hegel? Hegel was trying to capturing the process of change. Right? Already in Greek philosophy the dialecticians emphasized that if you are looking at the world, this is not a picture, it is a movie--right?--and every minute you see something different. Now Hegel tried to come to terms with what is the essence of this change? In this essence of this change, he was looking at contradictions.

Right? So what we try to do is to have the most perfect mirror in our mind. they thought that there are things outside there. and then to describe it. from dialectical. though I mean Hobbes was pretty much a materialist as well. to Charles Darwin. Chapter 2. what Montesquieu did. which is the negation of the negation. Right? He said. materialist. "preserving it by abolishing it. and probably a theory of truth what many of you in this room share. Right? He did not become a social Darwinist. identifying the dependent variable and independent variable. or the objective world outside. the second Marx we will start talking about--that he actually for awhile considered to dedicate the book. did to the evolution of the species. you know. And the problem with Feuerbach. and the independent variable will cause variation in the dependent variable. which are outside of the subject. Kapital. he said. Right? And this is the idea. These were the two people we discussed so far who were clearly. Right? In some ways the original condition is reconstituted. "What is good about what Feuerbach did. object--and the knowledge is nothing else but a reflection in human mind of the object outside there. that Feuerbach. He wanted to do an evolution of human societies. antithesis and synthesis. and capture the objective reality as precisely and as much in detail as possible. what dialectics captures normally in social life. and other people who were materialists before him. That is very much the mature Marx. This is a very typical theory of truth. Well Marx says this is simply. So the change. it starts with a thesis. So Hegel made a big distinction between thesis. positivistic social science in which you have a very clearer idea what is the key cause and the consequences. today we will call it normal science." because they are very important. He was becoming so much of a scientist that at one point he began to doubt there is much sense to make a distinction between social sciences and sciences. what is good what"--for instance. you know. He was so much attracted with scientific reasoning--the late Marx. He himself began to see himself as the Darwin of social sciences. And because Marx was moving into. I just want to go back very briefly to two "Theses on Feuerbach. because he saw himself as doing for human history what Marx [correction: he meant Darwin. But he was tempted. Right? When is your knowledge accurate? You think about your mind as a mirror. as Hegel put it. Right? Doing very much what positivist social science is doing today. which is the negation of the situation. reflection. to come up with a hypothesis how the dependent variable will cause variation. objective things. and we should go beyond that. believing that this is sort of biological conditions which drive us and .Contradictions drive the change. Right? Very widely shared today. And Marx. from the philosophy of praxis where praxis is crucial. but in a different way. Now luckily for Marx he did not do that. then you got it. eventually moves towards a more clearly deterministic. he becomes a real scientist. which creates a knowledge about these objects--he called that Gegenstand. is accurately reflected in the mirror of your mind. Right? He resisted the temptation. so this is dialectical." Right? That's the Hegelian insight what actually was--this kind of logic was attractive to Marx and the Marxists. Revisiting Two Key Theses on Feuerbach [00:08:12] Okay. and actual conditions. Right? He is now criticizing--right?--Feuerbach. Anyway. and then it leads to a synthesis. an antithesis. If the image of the object.

because the sensuous activity he identified with the economy. Georg Lukács. the mature Marx became reductionist. And now let me start to this. but what I am suggesting in my new approach is sensuous--all right?--but a sensuous human activity--an activity. through the senses. So they all started from sensuousness. you know. "Well yes." And he said. So what is truth? And to be very simplistic--right?--you have two competing theories of truth. That's sensuous activity. is the kind of reflection theory of truth--that our mind is a mirror." I'll throw in another word coined by a major Marxist philosopher of the twentieth century. "Well. I think reification is a very good translation. He wanted to be more precise. Many people try to do that. I mean. And he said. in "The Theses on Feuerbach". Right? That's the difference--right?--between materialist and idealist. to the economy and economic interest. "I am a materialist because I also believe that the ultimate reality has to come through sensuous experiences. as such. Right? It's actually more sensuous than doing a job--right?-. It's too vague. we doubt whether it exists. You know. because I think that's very important the theory of truth. Right? That the reality is something what we can get at through our senses. says. Okay? This is actually one of the reasons why he does not publish it. "Not so. and spent all of his time in the British Library reading these economists. And Marx. what I think most of you have in your mind. Marx in "The Theses on Feuerbach" is right" at one point. your sexual drives--your sexual interaction with others--is very much sensuous. Right? So he creates peace between Sigmund Freud and Karl Marx." he says. the knowledge what we have in our mind is. Ideas you don't get through your senses. He said. "In "The Theses on Feuerbach" he got it right. being in McDonald's and serving hamburgers. Right? That this is not an opposition. But many thinks that Jürgen Habermas was the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century. opens this possibility up. arguably the greatest philosopher of the twentieth century--well he's still alive but he may--you know? The twenty-first century has a long way to go to decide who will be the greatest philosopher. with production.makes us what we are. The object is outside of the subject and you get a grasp of it through your senses. we smell it. moved away from materialism. and in German he used the term Verdinglichung. Only those of us who speak English but do not speak Latin don't necessarily quite get it." When we interact with each other. and he wanted to bring it back down to earth. Habermas had his 'culture' turn." "So therefore. Reified--you know. But all right. He called it this is reified consciousness. That's Habermas's point. we see it. More accurately it reflects the objective reality out there more true. in the last lecture--let me just make--come back to this point again. This is what Jürgen Habermas. that it is either production or your sexual drives. One theory of truth. And Marx. we touch it. sexual interaction is very much sensuous. we see it. I think this is very interesting." Right? But he said. this is also a sensuous activity. But he said this is--this materialism is sensuous only in the sense of contemplation. "let's not simply limit our analysis to production. with economic activities. "Marx later on. Right? You get it through your mind. The truth is a practical question. and then he wanted to go--he was reading Adam Smith and Ricardo. It's a very open argument. Lukács was writing in German.than. Right? We smell it. Ding means a thing. The problem with the reflection theory of truth is that it is positivist and it is alienated. but let's look at human interaction. Right? Rei in Latin . and unless we touch it." I mentioned very briefly that this. All sensuous activity are material. you know. But in most of his life he said. in "The Theses on Feuerbach". And I want you to think about it.

By the way. into an objective thing.was said. in German. But we were born under certain conditions. We do not see ourselves as the masters of the world. in The German Ideology. the point is to change it. we can just get into our car and get out of it. Again. Now I'll finish this and get onto The German Ideology. Reification is the process in which we turn stuff. what actually we created--the world is our creation and this objective world will rule us. as if it had the force of nature. and we can only change the conditions we were born into. humans change the conditions. I mentioned." Right? This is almost like a force of nature. too-I think too insightful and important to leave it out. It's a kind of--right?--Lukácsian reinterpretation of Marx's notion of alienation. And that's what Lukács called we create the social world as if it were second nature. Right? You can't do virtually nothing about an earthquake. because if you do not maximize profit. and the purpose of social investigation is to establish most objectively and most concretely what those objective social facts are. Right? And this is reified consciousness. the economic laws look like lightening. to become the master of your fate. Right? That's the idea. if you feel homeless in this world. for reification was Entfremdung. Right? That we're beginning to think about social life as if it were natural. "Well you have to maximize profit. when we're beginning to see the objective reality. then you will be wiped out of business. it's not all that different from Hobbes--right?--and voluntary action. I don't think anybody really improved on it. Right? You say. Right? And the essence is the philosophy of praxis of the young Marx." Right? So it's an interesting interaction between yes. You are an economist. I mean we can't do anything--right?--because we were born into conditions. ending--right?--with "The Theses on Feuerbach". we cannot do anything about it. this force-. Right? So alienation is a good translation. Right? What I've suggested. Right? But even we cannot really predict earthquakes. in fact. You know? Like. you know. . but we see ourselves as ruled by the world. We should rule it. That's one of the problems. where the hurricane will come. not only for Marx but for the whole critical theory. the point is to change the world.like earthquakes. to overcome alienation. I would say it's almost the last word what in this debate he said-. but within some limits we can change those conditions. And we will--you know. What can we do? You get in the car and get out of there. Marx's term. it is so extremely important. fremd means alien. Now I think but Lukács has an interesting idea--right?--that the essence of alienation is when we're beginning to see the world. There is a similarity here. Right? You are alienated if you feel alien. if I can recall Georg Lukács. Right? Positivists are those social scientists who think there are objective facts out there. and. If we can't predict what we can't predict. So let me come back to this subject and object issue. the theory of voluntary action. He said. "Well. he coined this wonderful term second nature.means the thing. you describe the objective facts. He said this is all wrong because this is the world what we created. the point is that positivism does posits social phenomena as if they had the force of nature. Marx puts it very powerfully. what is not a thing. Right? To be able--right?--to change the objective conditions. as if it would have the power of nature. you know. So in contemporary discourse we usually call this positivism. for anti-positivism of all sorts in the twentieth and twenty-first century. Right? Well now we can predict when a hurricane is coming. Now. But there is one thing what I cannot leave out.

But he is writing together with Friedrich Engels. but it is between the tension of subject and object. And well he formulated this so powerfully. He was a conservative philosopher. "No. Right? Now the philosophy of praxis says that truth is not simply a reflection. But I want you guys to think about what is truth? Right? When can you say an idea is true? In fact. which is very strongly anti-positivist--right?--and rejects social science as normal science. This is the whole test of having verification of hypotheses. And he said. Right? "Nobody will believe me that the revolution will come because . Right? So the truth is not being but becoming. Adorno at one point said about Nazism. then it is verified. But I think that's where Marx is in writing "The Theses on Feuerbach". And there is this wonderful philosopher-. Right? We should have been able to do something about Auschwitz. He said. and then we can move away the theory of truth. He was very much not a Marxist. And that's the philosophy of praxis. when you see something horrible and you can say. So what we have is subject. I got truth. and what you can do about it. "The reality. when you know how to make the world better. that is truth. Right? It is in the force-field of subject and object. Right? Wonderfully put. it's an interaction between subject and object.not a very easy read. And that's what Adorno said." Right? This is exactly Adorno's point. cultural theory. creating knowledge. and they could not do anything about it.for instance."The Theses on Feuerbach" because it is too voluntaristic. that's where truth is. You really know what the truth is when you know what it can be. Adorno belonged to the Frankfurt School and was active mainly in the 1940s and '60s--'30s and '60s. "The truth is not being. "What is truth?" He said." You see the point? You also say that occasionally. You see what it is getting at? A very final point about this theory of truth. "The truth is the force-field between subject and object. And now you see he has to abandon--he cannot publish the book-. that cannot be true. The real purpose of cognition is not simply to describe the world but to change it--right?--to make it a better world. and that's what he is moving away from when he's beginning to write The German Ideology. Nazi reality. And then there are objects about which we create knowledge. and if it is matches." Right? "Not simply a reflection of the object. Right? I develop a hypothesis. His name is Adorno. he was Jewish and many of his family were killed-right?--by the Nazis. So let me also add one more point. is so miserable that it does not deserve to be called true. And the idea is that they are so miserable that you are completely powerlessness about these nature-like forces though it is unacceptable--right? You should be able to do something about it. The truth is becoming. Right? The truth is not simply that you describe how things are. This can be so miserable that you say it cannot be true. You know? He said--experiencing." Bingo. Then I go there and test it on the social reality. His major work was done in England. but still I think a wonderful mind. Right? He abandonedThe Paris Manuscript because it was fluffy. it cannot be truth. And that is you--right?--the person who has a consciousness and is a cognitive subject--is involved in cognitive activity. and this is through another guy. Reflection theory of truth said that this is a mirror and if the objects are accurately described in the mirror of our mind. That's when you have real truth. Mannheim once said." Right? I think this is beautifully done. Karl Mannheim. This is very much along this line. This reality was such that it should not be called true.

in the British library.until nine p.with a theory which will prove to people that the revolution will come. He replaces Adam Smith's categorization of societies as hunting. That's what makes him--he has to become--he has to accept materialism. but some of those sentences are really great sentences. If he would have believed ideas do not matter. what he's beginning to call now historical materialism--stays away from the word 'dialectical'. well after the deaths of Marx and Engels. And now he has to prove that thesis. Right? If ideas do not matter. Capitalism has to fall. And the reason is that now he wants to prove that capitalism--yes. this is too voluntaristic. and gets out of this voluntaristic element. gathering. nine-. But in the nature of the work he's moving towards economic determinism. eight in the morning. and he runs into some very big problems. Right? So he was never completely a deterministic. and writing books. he would not have spent. that until the very end he does not know the term of relations of production. why do you write down ideas? Because he believed that ideas will change the world. Then he writes about the origins of idealist conception of history. Chapter 3. He's writing about the development of productive forces." Right? "I have to come up with a theory which will prove that capitalism will have to fall. "Well. not all eleven sentences are great. I will point this out. you know. The first chapter is a critique on Feuerbach. where it is coming from. after all this guy is a theorist of the revolution. And this is one of his problems. You know. So that puts him on a deterministic trajectory. And then he develops--right?--a materialist conception of history and historical development. So that's what he--they are beginning to develop in The German Ideology." And then when he finished--I think this--I mean. all of his time. He thought that revolutionary ideas should be put into people's head. Capitalism will not last forever.the proletariat is alienated. This idea did not think that ideas do not matter. The German Ideology: Major Themes [00:31:32] And this is the structure of the book. that it must come to an end.m. in The German Ideology he stays pretty close to Adam Smith. and eventually this covers the notion of relations of production. He has some introductory remarks about critique of idealism and the premises of the new materialism he is proposing now. During the time of capitalism society developed more than ever before capitalism. He wrote it down and he never published it because he said. that material conditions determine human action and consciousness. because I think that's one of the reasons that The German Ideology fails. it was first published--and not the complete text--only in 1903. He actually becomes never really deterministic." Right? "I have to come up with a more. Not--in fact. But nevertheless it will have to come an end. it had great achievement." Right? That's what puts him into the deterministic mode. grazing. It's a very simplistic reading of Marx. This new typology will be the typology of the modes of production. Right? As I indicated. takes on from "The Theses on Feuerbach" but tightens the argument and becomes strictly materialist. This is one of the reasons why The German Ideology was also left unfinished and unpublished. agricultural or commercial with a new typology. I will make a big deal out of this. . It is not only a question whether we decide to change it or we don't have to change it.

So what we start are real individuals. and this is a problem. And now here you can see Marx the positivist social scientist speaking. And then he moves a little further." And if you are a positivist. that we change the environment in a purposeful manner. how we engage each other. "German philosophers descended from the heaven to earth. Because this will change in history. he said. socially how you can understand conscience. You see. And then he develops what I would call--he's the first who creates a sociology of knowledge--how to study sociologically. human consciousness. from which abstractions can only be made in the imagination. and then material intercourse. The Materialist View of History [00:35:06] Okay. both what they find already existing and those what they produce by their activities. actual activities of these individuals." Chapter 5. this is real serious science--right?--looking at facts. "And what actually matters is not simply what we produce--and this is a very important idea--"but the mode of production. Now we are ascending from earth to heaven. you will love it. this is completely new in Marx. So it is really our material existence which has a history. "The premises from which we begin with are not arbitrary ones." Well this is a revolutionary idea." So you start from the objective conditions and then you speculate from this. And what he describes here will be subscribed and accepted most of the positivist types in your political science or sociology or economics or psychology departments. Their conditions of life. And then he describes-. This is really basically irrelevant. man can distinguish from animals in different ways.tries to describe the forces of production and division of labor--modes of production and describes a subsection and modes of production and give a very about human history. But most important is that we produce. what are the major themes in The German Ideology? First. These are Young Hegelians. . we do induction. Then he's beginning to develop forces of production and initially division of labor. He's still very strongly under Adam Smith and understands the evolution of society as the evolution of division of labor. not dogmas but real premises. Right? So. And Marx is the first of positivist social scientists--rigorous positivist scientist. altered their thinking. how we produce. "Well. no development.not simply what we produce. Right? He said. He said. and ideas reflect those material conditions. Right? That we have an image how to change the physical environment for us. Then he offers a theory of modes of production. Theory of Modes of Production [00:37:18] And then he's beginning to develop the theory of modes of production. Again. Man developing the material conditions. he offers a materialist view of history. People usually don't read these chapters. Okay. Chapter 4. not very interesting." Right? "We do not deduction. This is very much Adam Smith. And Volume II. "Well ideas have no history. And then he said. I mean you must be a Marx expert to read this. This is the inductive method what we use. and the activities of these individual.And then he writes on Bruno Bauer and Max Stirner. so the materialist view of history.

Men go hunting and women go collecting woods in the forest. you know. So you invent serfdom. and there will be philosophers who sit in Athens and Rome and have great ideas." Now you have development of forces of production. or great women. A very Smithsian idea. and I'll let you to spend the rest of the week producing for yourself. "Well the second form is. now we have the evolution of feudalism. Forces/Relations of Production and Division of Labor [00:39:08] Well he said. Now you go into a history. and these are the instruments by which they produced the stuff what they cooked in their kitchen. So the division of labor evolves. You say. and in fact you have a separation of ownership and greater division of labor. So you did want to give them complex technologies.Before Marx. this is the way how they cooked. "You know. how people lived in Roman times. Right? That history evolves a greater division of labor--we will see in Emile Durkheim also this central idea--you can see the evolution of society by increasing division of labor. where now people can produce more than necessary for their survival. "ancient communal or state property." he said. Well slaves were great. Chapter 6. History is not the history of great ideas and great men. we can distinguish therefore differences between nature. "Well." And by this he refers to division of labor. And if you behave yourself. and this is the way how they ate. In tribal society where the technology is very simple and there is very little division of labor"--he is sexist enough to say--"there is a natural division of labor between men and women. History is the idea of the actual way how people lived and produced and reproduced their ideas. Now he said. Human History: Subsequent Modes of Production [00:39:49] And then he tries to come up with subsequent modes of production. what they can eat and they can enjoy. of course. And then the third. antiquity. Chapter 7. but the problems with slaves were that they did not have much incentive to use very complicated technology. Adam Smith's idea. how the productive forces"-he means by technology--"is developing and how"--he uses initially the term the inter--"the intercourse. and now you can see this is a living room. a sexist proposition. Right? These were kings and queens and generals and popes whose pictures were presented there. you went into a museum and the museum was about great people." And that he calls natural. You had to supervise them very closely because they really hated your guts and if they could they did break--right?--the instruments if t. Therefore there will be slaves who will be working day and night. and this comes--this is really a revolution from Marx. and this was the way how history was described. producing cheap. moving from elementary forms. internal intercourse is changing. Right? Because the slaves produce the stuff. he was writing it in 1845--was not the only man who was sexist. Right? This is how a modern historical museum looks like." But the big problem is that . "Now I actually can describe the history as different types of mode of production. This is. But. why don't you become a serf rather than a slave? You can have your house and I'll give you a piece of land. two days you work on my estate and you produce stuff for me. The most elementary form is tribal society.

that what is in your mind true. and that's why you have your--these false ideas in your mind." Reductionist. Right? It is existence which determines consciousness. how much money you have in your pocket and I will tell you what your ideas are. you know." Right? "You were in love with your mother--right?--if you were a man--"and you suppressed all your desire for your mother. it's an analogous argument. it's not necessarily true. <<laughs>>. the fall of Rome and Greece and. he leaves after this the page blank. you usually do not vote. "Tell me the history of your sex life and I'll tell you what is on your mind." And he starts all over again and tries to come up with something better. a very important contribution. what he's saying. Chapter 8. you know. there is a strong class component. which I think is desperately wrong. So tell me what your class position is and I will tell you how you will vote in the next elections. The production of ideas is at first directly interwoven with material activity and the material intercourse of man. it doesn't work. Right? "Definite individuals. rise of Charlemagne and. you know. But it does work in Sweden. "Well life determines consciousness" rather than the other way around. Right? If you are--to some extent it even works in the United States. Well there are some very rich people who are Democrats. Sociology of Knowledge [00:43:07] Well sociology of knowledge. "Well. And he makes this very important suggestion. And the other argument. But if you look at Europe or you look at Australia--the Australian Labor Party was getting a solid. but the methodology is extremely important. in the U. you know. "I'm in trouble.S. Again we will read Sigmund Freud. the Democratic Party is kind of scrambling to get a little working class vote. Right? That's the big traditional trouble of the Democratic Party. As I said. Right? Both of them said. and informed people who were studying cognition and knowledge ever since. you know. you know." Right? You know.with the evolution of feudalism." Now life determines consciousness. to put it very simplistically. It did work in England for a long time. don't they tend to be Republican? Right? I think they probably do. Marx is in deep trouble. Right? Tell me which class you belong to and I will be able to tell you what your ideas are. enter into definite social and political relationships. what your materialist interests are and then I'll tell you what is on your mind. It. Right? So. This is unfortunately completely wrong. without scaring the middle class away for voting them. Right? And therefore. He said. not so much in the United States. So the methodology breaks down." Tell me. the Dark Middle Ages. I mean. And this is kind of the essence--right?--of materialism. you can read the text. "Well true. because in the United States if you are poor." But this is not only economic interest. And as you can see. in voting behavior. the division of labor did not develop. there is--this is what Marxists are getting at. He said. more than that. But I know where it is coming from. you know. by and large. for instance. But typically those guys who are very rich. working class vote." Right? "Or you were a--you . There was less division of labor in the eleventh and twelfth century than it was in the first and second century. who are productively active in a definite way. Right? Well indeed. Right? "Tell me. worked in Australia. but very insightful: "Ruling class always determines the ruling ideas of each people." Right? "I have to start this all over again.

for instance. Few people dare to speak up against affirmative action. Please consult the Open Yale Courses Terms of Use for limitations and further explanations on the application of the Creative Commons license. you know. Right? Put in a simplistic way. That's why you are neurotic. Sort of. Right? Well of course we are in a liberal university. I see in the discussion sections. Unless explicitly set forth in the applicable Credits section of a lecture. that makes a difference. Well not quite true. Right? Your interests form your ideas. by the way. Right? Well speaking about it. That's the idea. I know what your ideas will be. third-party content is not covered under the Creative Commons license. Okay? So I know who you are. race-wise. Suppress your desire and you have all these strange ideas there. And that comes to the idea that the ruling class is really producing the ruling ideas.0 license. You could not fulfill this love. Okay. you know. Thank you. but there is an element of truth to it. I think this is a very important idea. Very often--right?--if we have a real hot topic--you know. Woman and minorities are more likely to defend it. do you want to have universal healthcare. gender has an impact.are a girl and you were loving father. class-wise. . you know--this is also reductionist. But. well there is usually a gender division in the class. Right? And I can tell you. I get into affirmative action. will argue it. Right? Sort of. that's about it for today. among white males well there is usually less articulation--right?--to defend the idea of affirmative action. gender-wise. [end of transcript] Top © Yale University 2013. But there is a common interesting idea: who we are biologically. Right? There is an ideological hegemony in the world. Most of the lectures and course material within Open Yale Courses are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3." Right? That's the way how Marx [correction: he meant Freud.