Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - English Marxism Marxism Marxist criticism is inherently existentialist. One cannot know anything without having been exposed to it as some sort of life experience. There is no knowledge a priori, as some of the ancient philosophers would have us believe. Rather, knowledge is accumulated a posteriori, through actual experience. Therefore, there is almost nothing that is inherent and absolute in our knowledge. It can never be purely objective, as knowledge is absorbed through the grid of our own perceptions, and that grid is in turn formed through our youthful socialization within our particular culture. For this reason, Marxist analysis does not allow gut-feeling or individual bias to play too great a role in the debate. It is more important to determine how exactly these “common sense” reactions are formed. In this essay, I will attempt to analyze law and crime through the lens of Marxist analysis. “Common sense” tells us that police officers are the “good guys” attempting to preserve society against the chaos and disorder that the criminals represent. Nobody will agree that this general rule is universally true, as the incidents in the Rampart Division of the LAPD illustrate. The Rampart division shot unarmed people point blank and then put guns in their hands. They behaved much like gang members, with their own hazing rituals of “beating people into the gang.” Another telling example is the Louima incident, wherein a Haitian immigrant was anally raped by a NYPD police officer with a plunger. Obviously, all cops are not saints, and some are worse than some criminals. Even though the line between cops and criminals may blur, it is the oversimplified division between “good and bad” that shapes the way we treat cops and criminals. Cops are seen as “ubermensch” whose lives are more valuable than the average citizen—murders of police officers are punished more harshly. What possible reason could there be for this except to instill greater respect for police officers’ lives and fear into their would-be assassins? One may argue that police officers are exposed to more dangerous situations than the average citizen, but no more so than your average criminal. It is because people perceive cops as “good,” as agents that preserve the social order, that their lives are accorded more respect. Of course, preserving the “social order” preserves the status quo of power, keeping those at the top in power and those at the bottom in deprivation. The police are thus representatives of the authorities at the top of the social hierarchy, and this is where they derive their power and respect. On the other hand, criminals are locked up in cages and exposed to an environment purposefully made horrendous. Under the “good and bad” retributive theories, it is better to create a “hell on earth” for these “bad guys” as some sort of payback for the suffering they have caused others. “An eye for an eye” hearkens back to the Laws of Hammurabi, but there does not seem to be a readily available modern explanation for why society propagates suffering with retributive theories of punishment. There are also utilitarian theories of punishment: we are keeping the felons off the street for the greater safety of the non-felons. However, utilitarian theories do not account for the large percentage of the imprisoned who are there on drug-related charges, putting aside reactionary theories that personal use of mind-altering substances poses some sort of threat to society at large. They also do not account for how hellish these prisons are made. There is no improvement of the felons before their eventual release. Basically, the felon is treated to a course in focused criminality: locked in a cage with those who have similar leanings and barked at by insecure, low-paid guards. Such an environment is not one where an individual can become “cleansed” of their aggressive tendencies and dubious machinations. Rather, the opposite tendencies are intensified. Granted, many felons have committed horrible deeds. The initial gut reaction is to imprison, torture, and/or execute those who have hurt our loved ones. However, Marxist criticism requires a little analytical distance. One should not follow one’s gut, animal instincts to strike back at those who have struck. Rather, one should strive to see how such “instincts” are reinforced or limited by society. For example, there are undoubtedly police officers who have caused as great pain to the loved ones of those that they imprison or execute. However, where the families of the criminals’ victims are taught to feed off of their hate and thirst for revenge because the state will eventually gratify their desires, the families of the state’s victims have no such recourse. Thus, the “instinct” of revenge is either reinforced or limited by the state’s role in the murder. The reason for such a distinction lies only in ideology. “Ideology” is a problematic term to define, on the same level as “culture” or “civil society.” Basically, ideology is the code of behavior instilled in the citizens of a particular culture. In its most obvious form, ideology is the propaganda that instills nationalism and ethnocentrism in citizens. In such circumstances, the “bias” formed by the ideology is usually blatant and negative. However, ideology also forms other “biases” that shape everything from our ethics and belief systems to our mannerisms. The manner in which ideology may exert such subtle control over our beings cannot be seen as negative because it defines us and is us. Without the process of socialization into a culture and acceptance of its ideology, we would be “madmen” trapped in an isolated vacuum without any social referents. In this light, ideology is crucial to the formation of consciousness. How exactly is ideology instilled into citizens? The most obvious answer is that we are shaped by our culture in the process of socialization. It is during this period that we learn what to value and how to behave. Many Marxist theorists have developed this basic analysis further. Louis Althusser developed the concept of Ideological State Apparatuses (ISAs). ISAs are those arms of the state that assist in the ideological formation and control of subjects. The most obvious forms are the government itself and its agents, the police and military. These ISAs serve as the brute strength to punish or subdue those who stray too far from the flock’s ideology. However, Althusser also saw other social institutions as ISAs, such as churches and schools. While these ISAs do not exercise brute force to instill ideology, they do so through more subtle methods. The church assists in placing the ideology of ethics and morality into subjects, concepts crucial to the maintenance of social control. Schools are similar, but emphasize the shared history of the culture and its subjects, indoctrinating them into nationalism. Althusser outlined how schools function to educate people only to the level that would be most socially efficacious. It may be feasible for a society to create programs that would educate all, but it would never happen. Such a system would disrupt the balance between the educated elite that makes decisions and the uneducated masses that carry out these programs. Thus, there are limits placed upon each additional step in education, be they based on GPA percentile, finances, or other socioeconomic factors. Althusser thus brings the Marxist division between bourgeoisie and proletariat into the modern age. He critiques the essentially American illusions that anyone can achieve success, no matter how deprived. In the particular example of law and crime, state ideology holds that the state itself possesses the power of finality, the end of retribution. Those that it kills cannot seek revenge against a faceless entity, even though it is the state’s individual agents doing the deed. Furthermore, the concepts of individualism and “free will” are the cornerstones upon which the United States’ capitalist society is built. These ideological concepts hold that the criminal has chosen to violate the mandate of the majority, and therefore must forfeit his or her life. The individual choice of the criminal is emphasized, whereas the action of the state is made faceless, so that it cannot be the choice of the individual state agents. Thus, the state is never made accountable for its murders—the state is only an abstraction, an omnipotent entity that somehow exists above and beyond its agents. There is also the perception that criminals seek to gratify their own desires while cops enforce the desires of society as a whole. This is a dubious distinction, considering that cops and criminals both gain financially by their endeavors. Cops also depend on criminals for the continued existence of their occupation. The prison industry makes money off each incarcerated individual as well. This suggests an alternative reason for the political scare tactics about crime and the harsh laws passed in their wake, including lowering the age at which a juvenile may be tried as an adult and “three strikes” laws. Violent crime is decreasing, but the police and prison industry are nevertheless increasing. A Marxist would claim that the reason for toughening laws is primarily based on the economics of the crime control industries and the scare tactics they propagate. Furthermore, the different values placed on gain for the self or gain for society are only ideological. The dominant ideology always holds that advancement for society as a whole is of the utmost importance because ideology and society are mutually reinforcing entities. Ideology seeks to instill respect for society-at-large in order to establish social control, which is necessary to instill ideology. Too much individual determination would cause a fragmentation of society, so that a dominant ideology could not be instilled in citizen-subjects. Another reason why the dominant ideology always strives to preserve existing power relationships is because the ideology is largely shaped and controlled by those at the top of the power structure. Those at the top have the most to lose if power relationships are overhauled. Many philosophers have questioned how free our will actually is. Modern science would have us be no more than an accumulation of genetic material, and/or a “personality” shaped in response to external stimuli. Both options seem to leave little choice for free will. When one also considers the disparity in socioeconomic factors faced by people in different neighborhoods, and how one is ideologically shaped by one’s surroundings, it seems that complete freedom of will must be an illusion. A major reason why the ideology of free will exerts such a stranglehold on American thought is because it is essential to our system of reward and punishment, which would otherwise seem chaotic and meaningless. Thus, the ideology of “good and bad” and “free will” serve to regulate the beliefs and activities of American citizens, as well as to generalize between certain classes, such as cops and criminals. Such ideological concepts are not based upon some sort of inherent preexisting “truth.” Rather, they are the cultural coordinates by which we plot our lives. They give meaning and purpose to our lives, but they may also be limiting and work to disparage certain peoples. The difficulty is in telling the difference. Bibliography: Word Count: 1840
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests