Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
M y s t i F i e d c o n s c i o U s n e s s<br />
interpretation of Hegel, stressing the social and structural origins<br />
of “unhappy consciousness,” calling for solutions rooted in praxis<br />
not faith. This trajectory was immeasurably aided by another big<br />
formative event for <strong>Lefebvre</strong>: the rediscovery of the Hegelian origins<br />
of Marxism, as evinced with the debut appearance in the early<br />
1930s of Marx’s Paris Manuscripts of 1844. Almost immediately<br />
he and Norbert Guterman began translating and popularizing<br />
Marx’s early writings, extracting them alongside snippets from<br />
Hegel. 10 The duo would drag Hegel closer and closer to Marx and<br />
Marx closer and closer to Hegel. In the process, they’d stake out a<br />
rich, heterodox Hegelian–Marxism in between. “The importance<br />
of Hegel’s Phenomenology,” wrote the young Marx, in a text many<br />
times studied by <strong>Lefebvre</strong>, “and its final result—the dialectic of<br />
negativity as the moving and producing principle—lies in the fact<br />
that Hegel conceives the self-creation of man as a process, [and]<br />
objectification as loss of object, as alienation.” 11<br />
Yet the Hegelian fix to alienation, to unhappy consciousness,<br />
had recourse to the thinking alone, to abstract dialectical logic.<br />
All the drama is in the head; everything is form without any real<br />
content, any real materiality and concrete objectivity. People populate<br />
Hegel’s universe, but, as Marx said, they course around as<br />
mere “forms of consciousness,” as minds without men. Hegel, for<br />
Marx, “turns man into the man of consciousness, instead of turning<br />
consciousness into the consciousness of real men.” As such,<br />
Hegel posited a philosophical history not a philosophy of history.<br />
“This movement of history,” Marx claimed, “is not yet the real<br />
history of man as a given subject.” 12<br />
<strong>Lefebvre</strong>’s originality lies in how he unites Hegel’s unhappy<br />
consciousness with young Marx’s humanist critique. In the mix,<br />
he warned neither individual nor collective forms of consciousness<br />
necessarily represent a criterion of truth: modern consciousness<br />
is a consciousness manipulated by ideology, ideology propagandized<br />
by state power. Different kinds of authority enter into<br />
149