Marx correctly observed that humans'' actions and their way to understand the world is to a lesser degree determined by their thinking but vice versa their thinking is determined by the conditions of their existences. His famous quote from K. Marx, Deutsche Ideologie, MEW 3, 27f.:
| " | Being determines consciousness. | " |
is only an abbreviation of the original text [Error: Wrong macro arguments: "3143" for macro 'ref' (maybe wrong macro tag syntax?)]
.
| " | It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. | " |
| " | Nicht das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Leben, sondern das Leben bestimmt das Bewußtsein. | " |
Although this view opens our mind to investigate into causality of our thinking, it does not provide a handy tool to do so successfully. There are mainly two reasons for that:
- Even if we admit that human consciousness is determined by human existence, we have also admit that humans are capable to shape its environment by great deal. That individuals can create ideology and influence other people''s thinking. (Moreover even Marx and his followers strongly believe in the opposite as their tenet declares the obligation of humans to ameliorate their society.)
- Consciousness and existence are sweeping, abstract terms not practicable to exactly explain behavior and thinking in a particular situation. We for instance know that subconsciousness also has an impact on what we use thing and believe.
Fauceir theory can tackle these problems by analyzing substructures and their interaction. Psychological fauceirs to which consciousness belongs are explained elsewhere. Here we are going to dissect social groups behavior and how this is related to the behavior of its members.
Lets considers this model of three social fauceirs that have their usual conflicts as all fauceirs have.
[Error: Wrong macro arguments: "SocialConflict" for macro 'img' (maybe wrong macro tag syntax?)]
The groups of individuals that collect on a turf form a social fauceir. The blue circle on this picture is the most dominating while the brown is the most intimidated. The red plays an intermediate role. All of these social fauceirs strive for dominance, but only the blue group is most successful at that.
In such a setting the following forces can be distinguished.
- Among the three groups, the master fauceirs in this example, only the best will gain dominance. What is best is determined by some master to all these three fauceirs. We call it environment in this example.
- In each group, there are also selection processes among its members. A group takes measures to become more competitive. By that token, the group coerces its members to submit and to concentrate their energy to the external competition.
- Finally there are conflicts in each individual, which is a fauceir themselves, and strives for its own well being. This brings an individual into conflict with its own groups interests of enslavement. The individual may eventually decide to leave this group and to join an other, if allowed.
Based on fauceir analysis social conflicts are conflicts among social fauceir, that is among social groups.
[Error: Macro 'references' doesn't exist]
