3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis

Marx (especially in his youth) develops an original analysis of individualism, rooted in the structure of modern society. He criticizes on the one hand Hegel and many representatives of the ‘Hegelian left’, on the other hand ‘vulgar materialism’ and Feuerbach. Nevertheless, it remains true that in...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Vitantonio Gioia
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Università degli Studi di Torino 2019-12-01
Series:Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas
Online Access:https://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/jihi/article/view/3507
id doaj-1e9475e4cfa64de1ae17fd089c83646d
record_format Article
spelling doaj-1e9475e4cfa64de1ae17fd089c83646d2021-09-13T18:29:08ZengUniversità degli Studi di TorinoJournal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas2280-85742019-12-0181610.13135/2280-8574/35073. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysisVitantonio Gioia0Dept. History, Society and Human Studies Università del Salento Marx (especially in his youth) develops an original analysis of individualism, rooted in the structure of modern society. He criticizes on the one hand Hegel and many representatives of the ‘Hegelian left’, on the other hand ‘vulgar materialism’ and Feuerbach. Nevertheless, it remains true that in Marxism (especially in Second-International Marxism) ‘individualism’ was seen negatively and, consequently, the individual and their activities were always pushed towards the background, in order to emphasize the relevance of collective factors (classes, state, political parties, etc) for explainig social change. The question is whether this outcome has its roots in Marxian analyses or it is the result of a theoretical distortion by early Marxist orthodoxy, due to the lack of knowledge of young Marx’s significant works: the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right was published in 1927, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the German Ideology were published in full version in 1932 and the Grundrisse were published in 1939-41. However, to reclaim young Marx’s rich analysis of modern individualism seems important in order to build a historically oriented analysis of individuals and of their relations to society. This approach would let us move away from the prevailing axiomatic approach of both mainstream economics—cente<red on \emph{homo œconomicus} and their selfish motives—and many representatives of contemporary sociology, who aim at building universal explanations based on the hypothesis of rational agents acting in a social environment inhabited by ‘isolated individuals’, at the expense of the historical features of individual activities.   https://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/jihi/article/view/3507
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Vitantonio Gioia
spellingShingle Vitantonio Gioia
3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas
author_facet Vitantonio Gioia
author_sort Vitantonio Gioia
title 3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
title_short 3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
title_full 3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
title_fullStr 3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
title_full_unstemmed 3. Individualism and social change. An unexpected theoretical dilemma in Marxian analysis
title_sort 3. individualism and social change. an unexpected theoretical dilemma in marxian analysis
publisher Università degli Studi di Torino
series Journal of Interdisciplinary History of Ideas
issn 2280-8574
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Marx (especially in his youth) develops an original analysis of individualism, rooted in the structure of modern society. He criticizes on the one hand Hegel and many representatives of the ‘Hegelian left’, on the other hand ‘vulgar materialism’ and Feuerbach. Nevertheless, it remains true that in Marxism (especially in Second-International Marxism) ‘individualism’ was seen negatively and, consequently, the individual and their activities were always pushed towards the background, in order to emphasize the relevance of collective factors (classes, state, political parties, etc) for explainig social change. The question is whether this outcome has its roots in Marxian analyses or it is the result of a theoretical distortion by early Marxist orthodoxy, due to the lack of knowledge of young Marx’s significant works: the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right was published in 1927, the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 and the German Ideology were published in full version in 1932 and the Grundrisse were published in 1939-41. However, to reclaim young Marx’s rich analysis of modern individualism seems important in order to build a historically oriented analysis of individuals and of their relations to society. This approach would let us move away from the prevailing axiomatic approach of both mainstream economics—cente<red on \emph{homo œconomicus} and their selfish motives—and many representatives of contemporary sociology, who aim at building universal explanations based on the hypothesis of rational agents acting in a social environment inhabited by ‘isolated individuals’, at the expense of the historical features of individual activities.  
url https://www.ojs.unito.it/index.php/jihi/article/view/3507
work_keys_str_mv AT vitantoniogioia 3individualismandsocialchangeanunexpectedtheoreticaldilemmainmarxiananalysis
_version_ 1717380519309606912