CAPITALISM AND ALIENATION: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

The beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the 18th century led to the rise of capitalism in society. According to the linguist, political activist, and social critic, Noam Chomsky, capitalism is an economic system in which there is more emphasis on profit maximization and the concentration of wealth in private organizations, as compared to societal welfare, democracy, and public accountability.

Capitalism prioritizes corporate interests resulting in social inequality that fosters mental health problems, including alienation. Alienation is a state of estrangement from oneself, from others, from society, or from nature. It is an isolation of individuals with respect to their sense of self, their status within their socio-cultural community, and their sense of control within the world of which they are a part of. The sociologist Melvin Seeman described alienation in five dimensions - powerlessness, meaninglessness, normlessness, isolation, and self-estrangement. According to the clinical psychologist George Albee, capitalism emphasizes individualism and consumerism, which give rise to feelings of disconnection, isolation, and alienation.

Over the years, theorists have suggested how capitalism leads to a sense of alienation in society. The earliest and perhaps the most prominent figures among them is the philosopher, sociologist, political theorist, and economist Karl Marx. Marx, in the mid-19th century, specifically in his work Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, extensively wrote about how the capitalistic system results in a sense of disconnectedness and alienation. He suggested that capitalism is exploitative and that it is rationalized and legitimized as freedom, agency, democracy, and fulfillment.

Karl Marx

According to Marx, because the workers do not own the products that they create, they are not able to get the full benefits of it. Due to this, they are unable to realize the true value of their work. Workers also have no or little say in what they are doing. They are more like machines, viewing their work as a means to an end. This leads to a lack of creativity and personal connection to their work, giving them a feeling of monotony and unfulfillment. The repetitive tasks make individuals disconnected from their own true potential and sense of self. For them, work becomes a means to survive and not something that should be enjoyed, leading to dissatisfaction.

Marx also suggested that capitalism creates a sense of competitiveness among individuals, which prevents cooperation, mutual support, and a sense of community, making individuals feel isolated and disconnected. 

On the whole, according to Marx, capitalism makes the majority of people disconnected and alienated. Individuals feel disconnected from their work, their potential and sense of self, and from each other, giving rise to a sense of alienation in society.

In the 1890s, the sociologist Emil Durkheim also theorized about alienation. Durkheim linked alienation to the concept of anomie that he introduced in 1893 in his work The Division of Labor in Society. According to Durkheim, anomie is a state of instability and disorderliness in society that occurs due to unclear norms. Such a state occurs when there is rapid change in society because of industrialization and capitalism.

Emil Durkheim

Durkheim suggested that in modern, capitalistic societies, social life becomes complex leading to the weakening of social bonds, which makes individuals feel disconnected. It becomes difficult for people to find meaning in a fragmented society. Further, the lack of social integration and social isolation develop a sense of alienation among people in society. Durkheim believed that in modern, capitalistic societies, the lack of shared norms and social bonding leads to the feeling of alienation.

In the early 1900s, the sociologist and political economist, Max Weber suggested how capitalism results in alienation, specifically in his work of 1903, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber suggested that capitalism promotes a bureaucratic and impersonal society that leads to a sense of disenchantment. According to Weber, the rise of rationality due to capitalism has led to society becoming efficiency-driven, replacing it with emotion-driven actions.

Max Weber

Weber used the term iron cage to describe how individuals in a capitalistic society feel trapped in a bureaucratic system, which makes them lose their personal freedom leading them to become disconnected from their purpose. The bureaucratic system, according to Weber, makes individuals feel like machines, giving rise to a sense of disconnectedness and alienation.

In a similar vein, the Marxist philosopher, literary historian, and literary critic Gyorgy Lukacs, in the early 1900s, suggested that capitalism develops a sense of alienation among people. In 1923, in his work History and Class Consciousness, Lukacs developed the concept of reification. Reification is the process by which social relationships and human activities become like commodities, under capitalism. This, further, makes individuals view their relationships as mere things, instead of dynamic social interactions.

Gyorgy Lukacs

According to Lukacs, reification causes individuals to be disconnected from their social reality and they lead their life in a passive manner, resulting them to experience a sense of alienation. Thus, Lukacs argues that alienation is directly associated with capitalism. Capitalistic societies commodify human relationships, making people feel alienated within society.

The psychoanalyst and social psychologist Erich Fromm, in his book The Sane Society, published in 1955, argues that alienation is a form of mental illness when individuals lose their sense of purpose and identity in a society that starts valuing material possessions. Fromm argued that alienation stems from giving emphasis to material success, which makes individuals feel isolated, resulting in a sense of dissatisfaction.

Erich Fromm

Fromm was highly influenced by Karl Marx and is often referred to as a Marxist psychologist. Like Marx, Fromm suggested that alienation can be viewed in relation to capitalism, and has written about it from the 1950s onwards. According to Fromm, the rise of capitalism has resulted in feelings of anxiety, isolation, and powerlessness. In capitalistic societies, individuals feel disconnected from their work, each other, and even themselves.

Fromm suggested that every individual has inherent existential needs. These needs are - relatedness (the drive for union with others or the need to form meaningful connections with others), transcendence (the urge to rise above a passive existence), rootedness (the need to develop a sense of belongingness), sense of identity (the need to develop oneself as a separate entity), and frame of orientation (the need to have coherence and meaning in life). Capitalism, according to Fromm, inhibits the fulfillment of the inherent existential needs of individuals. 

Due to capitalism, people give emphasis to consumption, material success, and conformity, which leads to a disconnection from the true self, others, and nature - all of which inhibit the fulfillment of the existential needs, and giving rise to alienation.

Erich Fromm’s theory can be seen as the culmination of the perspectives of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, and Lukacs. Fromm took instances from their sociological and philosophical perspectives and integrated them to develop his psychological perspective, resulting in a comprehensive understanding of how capitalism leads to experiencing a sense of alienation.

The theoretical perspectives of Marx, Durkheim, Weber, Lukacs, and Fromm indicate how socio-economic and political structures can lead to disconnectedness among people, resulting in a sense of meaninglessness, self-estrangement, and powerlessness - aspects of alienation as described by Melvin Seeman. These perspectives have implications in contemporary times, where it has been found that loneliness is highly prevalent to the extent of being called an epidemic.

This article can also be found on the blog - Life and Psychology

THE ORIGINS OF THE POLITICAL IDEOLOGY OF COMMUNALISM

Communalism is the belief in the primacy of one's own religion over others, often leading to conflict and even violence among religious groups. The political ideology of communalism emphasizes the superiority of one religious group over the other.

The renowned historian Romila Thapar, in her book The Past as Present: Forging Contemporary Identities Through History, published in 2014, suggests that the ideology of communalism defines groups in terms of religion and that the identity that is formed becomes more significant than any other identity. Thapar further states that communalism is the political exploitation of religion - religion is used as a mechanism to control society. It takes the form of deliberately opposing secularism and rationality, wherein political parties draw on religious identities, using religion as a basis to spread hate and violence.

In their book, India’s Struggle for Independence, published in 2016, historians Bipin Chandra, Mridula Mukherjee, Aditya Mukherjee, Sucheta Mahajan, and K. N. Panikkar describe three basic elements of the ideology of communalism. First, people who follow the same religion have common political, economic, social, and cultural interests. 

Second, in a multi-religious society, the political, economic, social, and cultural interests of people from one religion are different from that of another religion. Third, the interests of people from different religions are  mutually incompatible, antagonistic, and hostile. This is where communalism takes the form of fascism, as it is based on fear and hatred, and has the possibility of leading to violence.

Romila Thapar suggests that the ideology of communalism is a relatively recent phenomenon, specifically arising in 19th century India. Bipin Chandra also emphasizes that communalism is a political trend of modern times. Its roots lie within the social, economic, and political objectives that existed in modern Indian history. In the book India’s Struggle for Independence, Bipin Chandra and his co-authors suggest that communalism emerged as a result of colonialism, and it was a major shift in politics after the revolt of 1857, famously known as the first war of Indian independence.

Historians argue that the Britishers' divide-and-rule policy is responsible for the emergence of the political ideology of communalism. Communalism, propagated by the Britishers, was accepted by many Indian leaders as well as commoners, leading it to develop into a political ideology.

The Britishers propagated communalism strategically by associating it with the history of India, indicating that it has always been a part of the past. The beginning of this can be traced back to the book History of British India, published in 1817. The book was written by the philosopher, historian, economist, and political theorist, James Mill. He made significant contributions to empiricism and utilitarianism. Mill’s book laid the foundation for what Romila Thapar calls the communal interpretation of Indian history and provided a justification for the two-nation theory.

James Mill

Romila Thapar describes the impact that James Mill’s book had on Indian politics and society, in her paper Communalism and the Writing of Ancient Indian History, which was published in 1969 as a chapter in the book, Communalism and the Writing of Indian History, which has two other chapters - one by the historian Harbans Mukhia and the other by the historian Bipan Chandra.

In her paper, Thapar writes that James Mill gave a factually incorrect and very arbitrary periodization of Indian history. He was the first person to divide the history of India into three periods - Hindu civilization, Muslim civilization, and British civilization. This was the first recognized work on the History of India, and it had such a huge impact that later historians used similar divisions of Indian history. The periodization, which is now commonly used as ancient history, medieval history, and modern history - indicating that ancient history is about the Hindu civilization, medieval history is about the Muslim civilization, and modern history is about the coming of Britishers to India.

The periodization of Indian history by Mill has been found to be factually incorrect. The Hindu civilization is usually suggested to be from 1000 BCE to 1200 CE, because the ruling dynasties were from the Hindu religion. This ignores the fact that during this period there were other kingdoms like the Indo-Greeks, Shakas, Kushanas, and Mauryans, which did not follow the Hindu religion. 

More importantly, Thapar suggests that the pre-Islamic sources related to India have no mention of the term Hindu. It was first used by the Arabs and used more in a geographical sense rather than religion. In the period referred to as the Hindu civilization, the concept of Hindu did not even exist. There was no unified idea of the Hindu religion in those times. The unified idea of Hinduism, which is known today, came up much later in the post-Gupta period, post fifth century CE.

Further, the Muslim civilization as described by Mill, because it was dominated by Muslim rulers, is also found to be factually incorrect. The rulers from this period were never bracketed as Muslims. They were referred to as Arabs, Turks, or Persians, depending on the place of their origin. The single term Muslim was never used for them. In addition to that, these rulers arrived in India at different times and ruled in different periods and regions. Their kingdoms were largely in the northern parts of India. They ruled in the southern parts much later.

It is also incorrect to mention that this period was dominated by Muslim rulers. During this time, there were also strong Hindu kingdoms like the Vijayanagar Empire and many Rajput kingdoms. The date of the arrival of Muslim rulers has also been considered to be very arbitrary, with some referring it to be as 1000 CE and some referring it to be as 1200 CE.

The periodization of James Mill, therefore, has communal intentions. It is factually incorrect and was only meant to create a divide in terms of religion among Indians. Unfortunately, Mill’s periodization was carried forward by communal historians and was used by communal politicians for their agenda to spread hatred. It was challenged by historians much later.

Along with the inaccurate periodization, James Mill also heavily criticized the Hindu civilization, which is now referred to as a part of ancient history. He referred to the Hindu civilization as backward and irrational, among many other unjustifiable derogatory remarks. This led many politicians to an over-glorification of the Hindu civilization, a glorious civilization that somehow had declined over the years.

The decline was very conveniently blamed on the arrival of the Muslim rulers. The Muslim rulers being responsible for the decline of the glorious ancient culture became a justification for the two-nation theory. This idea has been continuously spread by communal politicians and historians and has become a common narrative among propagandists wanting to create division and hate.

The political ideology of communalism emerged as a result of the divide-and-rule policy of the Britishers. The origins of this ideology can be traced back to the publication of James Mill's book History of British India, which is a communal interpretation of Indian history, and became a justification for the two-nation theory. The after-effects of this communal interpretation of Indian history, leading to the emergence of the political ideology of communalism can be found even in the current scenario. The political ideology of communalism is being used rampantly in today's time.