SENSITIVITY,
ORIENTATION, CONSCIOUSNESS
Veysel Batmaz
NOTE: The final version of this
article was written in Turkish in May 1975 to be published under the name of
Mehmet Veysel in Yansıma Art and Culture Magazine, founded and edited by poet
and novelist Tekin Sönmez. Due to
the publication of the magazine ceasing in September 1975, it was never
published. Only two footnotes were added for the English translation, with a remark:
(Added in 2025)
In capitalist
societies, humans are reduced to the level of manageable people because their
freedom to be sensitive has been taken away. That means there is a lack of
sensitivity, sensorium, or sentience
in individuals in modern times, imposed on their own territorial or organismic
survival orientations and formation requirements. Those who retain sensory freedom (including
the well-being of cognitively categorized rationalization), despite the oppression
of the bourgeoisie in all spheres of life (free from family, education, media,
religion, and political and economic structures), still have the possibility of
maintaining the title of “liberated—conscious—human being.” No matter how much
rebellion against his/her own misery in any life dimension, an individual
harbors within the sensitivities determined by the bourgeois ideology and
practices. They are not directed towards revolutionary overcoming
breakthroughs. However, people who are inspired by revolutionary sensitivities
strive for healthy development of their body and thoughts and their own future.
Analyzing the
structure of sensitivity (/sensorium-sentience) will be useful in two ways:
Firstly, I will examine the process of consciousness formation and the mental
forms involved in the sensory level so that it is understood that sensitivity
is the basic organic structure of mind and society.
Secondly, I will
attempt to observe the “sensibility/consciousness” distinction in Turkey's
distorted literature and arts terminology from a different perspective so that
immature approaches to anti-capitalist lifestyles are replaced with sound
mind-body relationships.
In addition to and
within these two endeavors, this article will delve into the material
foundations of mental forms (emotion, thought, consciousness, sensitivity,
etc.). But all of this will be for the sake of explaining the structure of
sensibility (sentience), conscious sensitive information for all.
Thus, the purpose
of this article is as follows: Rather than the terminological scope of sensibility—that
is, the superficial meaning used in criticism of many works of art—it will
examine its structure, formation, and effects as a mental form, following the
assumptions of the science of cognition. In other words, my aim is to
conceptualize sensibility, at best, as a mental/environmental dichotomy.
Recently,
“sensibility” has often been used carelessly as a purely Turkish translation of
“the state of being sensitive”—ultimately having “watery eyes”—(most likely
borrowed from “romanticism”) among the Turkish circles of art critiques. What most of the literature scholars (leftist
critics and essayists) mean by sensitivity is an “artist's sensitivity” (not an
artistic sensitivity—melodramatic aura). It remained as a concept used without
any scope, merely to depict the evoking of certain romantic feelings. This
hollow concept was so widely adopted that it became an important but negative
criterion in judging a literary or artistic work in the eyes of leftist art
critics.
To put it
succinctly, according to these leftist literature scholars, being sensitive is “bad,” while being conscious is “good.” Sentences like
these were encountered widely in Turkish literary essays:
"A
literature that places consciousness, not sensitivity, at its
core should be evaluated by its function rather than its intentions."
In other words, it
is meant that an artistic work that places sensitivity at its core cannot be
functional even if it has revolutionary intentions. If consciousness is at its
core, then we have a significant work with artistic value.
To change this
naive and fundamentally inappropriate perspective, it is necessary to reveal
the relationship between sensitivity and consciousness. Indeed, sensitivity—an
important mental form, derived from senses as receivers and processed by
neural-chemical organismic impulses, especially crucial for revolutionary
formation—is rendered meaningless and distorted by emptying the meaning of the
word. This tendency is not only among the Turkish art critiques but also
prevalent among the many members of the scientific community in the world,
especially physicists.
Although my initial
point is to attempt to prevent such terminological errors to some extent, I am
not going to demonstrate how “sensibility,” “sensitivity,” “sentience,” and
“sensory” are used by the bourgeoisie scholars, especially in the Western
natural science academic circles, with the contextual and semantic error of not
tying them with consciousness and orientation.
The main argument I
will try to explore thus is the status of sensibility as a mental form within
humans and the process of its formation to build up consciousness. This
analysis will, in a sense, provide an introduction to why the bourgeoisie must
perceive and promote mental forms separately (as a body/mind dichotomy) and
also by separating them from their common material basis, contrary to what
could be described in praxis. Lukacs writes:
“It is
inherent to the attitude of any bourgeois, especially any idealist epistemology
to push all questions of the genesis of cognition over onto the field of
anthropology on the one hand and only to look into the issues raised by the
most developed and purest form of scientific knowledge on the other. So much so
that even the non-natural sciences, the not ‘exact’ forms of science (for
example, the historical sciences) were subjected to an epistemological analysis
only much later; in most cases, this came about in a way that, owing to its
irrationalistic tendency, did more to confuse their relationships than to
illuminate them. (…) In contrast to bourgeois historicism, which at most
acknowledges a historical development of human intelligence, Marx quite
emphatically highlights the fact that it is precisely the development of our
five senses which is a result of all world history up to now. Needless to say,
this development encompasses – and this can be clearly seen as the basis of
Marxist observations – far more than the unfolding of a receptivity to art. (…)
This is no straight forward progression; Marx’s examples show how, even at
higher levels, the relations of production and the social division of labor can
become obstacles to the correct subjective relationships to objects. (…) The
lesson for us in Marx’s remarks thus far exceeds this simple recognition of the
radical historicity of art, artistic receptivity, etc. While working out this
interdependency between the human senses and their objects, Marx does not
forget to draw our attention to the fact that senses which are qualitatively
different from each other must have qualitatively different relationships to
(and therefore also different interdependencies with) the world of objects. ‘An
object’, Marx says, ‘is different for the eye from what it is for the ear, and
the eye’s object is different from the ear’s’. No one will deny this fact
itself. However, one must draw the necessary conclusions from it. And these are
centered around the problem that the points and sources of art’s origin have
necessarily got to be dissimilar. Here too, all of the relationships are turned
on their head by philosophical idealism in aesthetics. For philosophical
idealism, it thus appears as if the uniform, ‘primordial’ (a priori) aesthetic
principle should conceptually differentiate and thus arrange itself into a
system of arts, whereas in reality different artistic activities,
objectivities, receptivities, etc. spring from qualitatively different
relationships to reality, underlying which are a uniform objective reality on
the one hand and the qualitatively different organs of receptivity and their
socio-historical development on the other. The fact that these then so greatly
converge in history as a result of the uniformity of objective reality and its
social foundations, functions, etc. (the fact that their crucial shared principles
can be recognized as generally aesthetic), changes nothing in this state of
affairs.”
Marx’s explanations
cover this topic in detail, and my aim here, with a brief reference to Turkey,
is to explore the extent to which the bourgeoisie has abused “sensibility” in
practical life, in Marx’s terms. This
exploration necessitates considering the structure of sensibility for both to
eliminate the terminological error I mentioned above to some extent and to
understand what kind of mental form sensibility is.
Lastly, as in the
introductory paragraph I emphasized, I believe that disentangling the various
meanings of sensibility (sensorium/sentience) and consciousness in both the
bourgeois and the non-bourgeois lifestyles and examining the question of what it
is and isn't within the context of how a revolutionary view of life will be
beneficial in many ways. In this article, I will also address this issue by
attempting to analyze the formation of sensibility-sensorium (sentience) in its
effectiveness in human development, and as I mentioned above, the distinctions
between consciousness and the extensionality of sensory (sentience)
orientation.
Products of Sensations
Sensitivity-sentience,
in its distorted form, dominates human consciousness formation and information
(and knowledge) in bourgeois societies. Bourgeois lifestyle (family and
education system, including religion) immediately socializes the sensitivity in
every individual as a romantic and universal trait to all kinds of human
suffering without asking why and the reality behind it. This is distortion of
sensory receptions from the beginning. It is a social orientation towards the
property, hegemonic, and power relationships,
Achieving an
undistorted form of sensitivity can only be done through the total rejection of
the bourgeois ideology, intellectuality, or way of life, which is totally out
of the question for its applicability. Because sensitivity is ultimately a set
of mental habits and orientations formed in the human mind by the human way of
life; however, practical (way of life) rejection of the entire bourgeois
formation is nearly impossible for those living in a society dominated by the
capitalist mode of production. Therefore, it might be feasible to approach
rejection from an intellectual or ideological perspective. This means that when
all the formations in human material life are ideologically and intellectually
eliminated within the organic structure (cognition) of humans, reaching a
unified whole, the state of being “sensitive” emerges. Again, it is also not an
achievable task if one is not a Robinson Crusoe unless a new mode of production
replaces the capitalistic mode, which could be in the near future due to new
innovations in computer sciences.
Marxism's theory of
knowledge, dialectical materialism, claimed and demonstrated that knowledge and
thought are formed by direct sensation from matter and their classification
within the human brain, which human brain is also matter. So far science could
not have proven otherwise. “People ‘habituate’ themselves to adopt the
standpoint of materialism, to regard sensations as the result of the action of
bodies, things, and nature on our sense organs.” Lenin wrote. Marxism argues that sensations and the effects
on our sense organs originate from matter, not from a soul, and that the
primary formation in nature is not from man to matter but rather a set of
reflections reaching from matter to man. Therefore, all mental activities are
imprinted on the external world, and these are only a few of the factors that
play a significant role in the formation of the human brain, which is also
matter, but matter in the form of an "organic substance."
The human mind's
workshop-toolbox is the brain. The brain is a matter that detects, analyzes,
and develops life perceived through the senses. The brain is the starting and
ending point of all the species characteristics that make a human being human.
“Matter creates sensation by affecting our sense organs. Sensation is dependent
on the nerves, retina, etc., in the brain, that is, on matter organized in a
certain way. The existence of matter does not depend on sensation. Matter comes
first. Sensitivity, thought, and consciousness are the highest products of
matter organized in a certain way,” says Lenin. The human brain, developed by the material
lifestyle (production relations, forms, and forces) that surrounds humans,
functions according to the content of this material lifestyle. In the holistic
configuration of a material lifestyle, the most important dimension of external
influences is techno-production activity. At the same time, the dominant factor
in techno-production activity is human mental activity. There is a complex
process here: technology and production create humans and their environment.
Humans, too, recreate techno-production. This is the material life of humans,
with its buildings, clothing, vehicles, means of production, entertainment
venues, streets, roads, and so on. The human brain, taking this environment as
its foundation, turns to new processes and begins to develop and transcend the
environment it inhabits. Thus, this connection established through sensations
reveals human development and formation through the shared foundations of the
brain and production; both become the technology. Through the mental activities
created through sensations, humans first begin to interpret, then to judge, and
then to change their environment after a certain mental accumulation and
formation. This historical totality, in short, is the history of humans’
“reproducing all of nature, including their organs extended towards space and
time.”
We can also speak
of the sense organs as the antennas of mental activity. These organs, which are
merely tools of transmission and re-transmission, develop throughout human life
and humanity, becoming more developed and dependent on the brain but eventually
controlling it, shaping the sensitivity.
During the
perception process of the sense organs, a number of mental formations emerge in
humans as a result of external influences. In a mechanical order, these forms
are perception, sensitivity, thought, comprehension, consciousness, and action.
Action, as a planned endeavor, is initially a mental activity. Later, it
transforms into practice and takes the form of physical techniques and social
work and labor. This superficial view seems to place less emphasis on
sensitivity.
However, all of
these are also consequences of the material environment that shapes and
determines these sensory organs. On the other hand, sensory organs, through
brain activities, extend the abilities and organizational structures (“infrastructure
and superstructure” in the Marxist sense) of the human social gatherings from
the time of hunters and gatherers.
Nevertheless,
because the existence of consciousness requires a holistic, mental
organization—that is, because consciousness is formed as a whole through
transformational and mutual interaction, in partnership with other mental
forms—such a superficial distinction is, in my opinion, excessively
"idealist" and meaningless. The revolutionary importance of
consciousness cannot be denied, only if it is viewed from within a mental
whole.
Let's now examine
the formation of consciousness and what it is.
The understanding
of the decisiveness of consciousness after Marx and its understanding as a
fundamental mental structure have enabled consciousness to be discussed at a
more significant level than other mental forms.
Thought and Consciousness
Consciousness is “the
highest form of reflection of objective reality found only in humans... It is
the sum of the mental processes that actively participate in humans'
understanding of the objective world and their own personal existence. However,
it is within the labor process, within mutual social relations, that people
perceive and manifest the properties of objects, comprehend their relationship
with the environment, individualize themselves... and exert an indirect
influence on nature. Therefore, consciousness is the product of a social development.”
We see three
important characteristics in this definition. One: Consciousness is the sum of
mental processes. Two: It is the result of social relations. Three: It occurs
within the labor process through means of production and technical development:
“Man is the immediate object of natural
science; for immediate, sensuous nature for man is,
immediately, human sensuousness (the expressions are identical) –presented
immediately in the form of the other man sensuously present
for him. Indeed, his own sense-perception first exists as human sensuousness
for himself through the other man. But nature is
the immediate object of the science of man: the first object
of man– man– is nature, sensuousness; and the particular human sensuous
essential powers can only find their self-understanding in the science of the
natural world in general, just as they can find their objective realization
only in natural objects. The element of thought itself–the
element of thought’s living expression–language –is of a sensuous
nature. The social reality of nature, and human natural
science, or the natural science of man, are identical terms.”
If we look at the Rosenthal-Yudin
definition from the perspective of the conditions for consciousness, we come to
the conclusion that a mere "life" (organic being) is not sufficient
for the formation of a human being; a specific "way of life" (mode of
production and consumption) is required. For consciousness to emerge, first
there must be “a substance organized in a certain way,” that is, a human being,
and then there must be a specific way of life in the environment in which this
person lives (survives).
Marx explains that
mere "life," that is, simple production—we could also call it
animal-like production—is insufficient for the formation of consciousness:
“In creating a world of objects by his
personal activity, in his work upon inorganic nature, man proves himself a
conscious species-being, i.e., as a being that treats the species as his own
essential being, or that treats itself as a species-being. Admittedly animals
also produce. They build themselves nests, dwellings, like the bees, beavers,
ants, etc. But an animal only produces what it immediately needs for itself or
its young. It produces one-sidedly, whilst man produces universally. It
produces only under the dominion of immediate physical need, whilst man
produces even when he is free from physical need and only truly produces in
freedom. An animal produces only itself, whilst man reproduces the whole of
nature. An animal’s product belongs immediately to its physical body, whilst
man freely confronts his product. An animal forms only in accordance with the
standard and the need of the species to which it belongs, whilst man knows how
to produce in accordance with the standard of every species, and knows how to
apply everywhere the inherent standard to the object. Man therefore also forms
objects in accordance with the laws of beauty.
“Man is a
species-being, not only because in practice and in theory he adopts the species
(his own as well as those of other things) as his object, but – and this is
only another way of expressing it – also because he treats himself as the
actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal and
therefore a free being.
“The life of the species, both in man and in animals, consists
physically in the fact that man (like the animal) lives on organic nature; and
the more universal man (or the animal) is, the more universal is the sphere of
inorganic nature on which he lives. Just as plants, animals, stones, air,
light, etc., constitute theoretically a part of human consciousness, partly as
objects of natural science, partly as objects of art – his spiritual inorganic
nature, spiritual nourishment which he must first prepare to make palatable and
digestible – so also in the realm of practice they constitute a part of human
life and human activity. Physically man lives only on these products of nature,
whether they appear in the form of food, heating, clothes, a dwelling, etc. The
universality of man appears in practice precisely in the universality which
makes all nature his inorganic body – both
inasmuch as nature is (1) his direct means of life, and (2) the material, the
object, and the instrument of his life activity. Nature is man’s inorganic body
– nature, that is, insofar as it is not itself human body. Man lives on
nature – means that nature is his body, with which he must remain in continuous
interchange if he is not to die. That man’s physical and spiritual life is
linked to nature means simply that nature is linked to itself, for man is a
part of nature.”
Mental activities,
which originate as a result of human social relations and the changes undergone
by human intervention, vary and become specialized from person to person due to
social lifestyles. Lifestyle is a phenomenon that encompasses and influences
all human mental activities, contributing to them, limiting them when
necessary, diversifying them, and intensifying them when needed.
The inadequacy of a
simple life in the human consciousness-raising process also applies to other
mental activities. This inadequacy enables, virtually necessitates, the
involvement of other elements, elevating humans to a higher level than animals.
Religion, morality, law, and culture—all superstructures—become the factors
that determine human lifestyles and therefore their living activities and
mental forms. Therefore, just as there is a metamorphosis from animal to human,
there is also a metamorphosis from human to human, historically. For example,
the lives of eels are the same no matter which sea they inhabit. There is no
distinct lifestyle for this or that eel. A vast difference could be observed
between the lifestyles of the Natives living in Alaska and the exploratory
Americans who went there. All these changes between these lifestyles, although
at first sight they are the results of geographical climate change, are the
result of technological elements. But what factors have led to these
technological elements that have brought people into such a differentiation?
Here, we encounter a phenomenon that resembles instinct in humans: sensitivity.
Behaving according
to habit and convenience and adapting has ceased to be animalistic like
instinct; it has transformed into sensitivity in humans. Lower living creatures also have sensitivity
towards sunlight, water, and natural occurrences. Human sensitivity is always a
thoughtful sensitivity, different from that of the other living beings. This
sensitivity is, first, biologically present. It is a sensitivity to cold,
natural conditions, and production environments; second, it is mental
sensitivity, which is the combination of ideological formations and memory.
The production of
ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with
the material activity and the material intercourse of men; it is the language
of real life. Conceiving, thinking, and the mental intercourse of men appear at
this stage as the direct efflux of their material behavior. The same applies to
mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality,
religion, metaphysics, etc. of a people. Humans are the product of their own
conceptions, ideas, etc.—real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite
development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to
these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than
sensory existence, and the existence of humans is based on actual life
processes. If, in all ideology, men and their circumstances appear upside-down
as in a camera obscura, this
phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life process based on the
mode of production as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their
physical life process.
What distinguishes humans from all other living beings
is their “conscious” production, first the tools and equipment and then the
survival necessities. For this production, as we have seen above, the mere
existence of “life” is insufficient, but human senses (our five senses) to
resist the natural are insufficient as well. These two insufficiencies have
prepared the ground for the involvement of other elements and elevated humans
to a higher level than animals. These "other" elements are all mental
(thought, consciousness, knowledge, sensitivity, etc.), experiential (religion,
morality, law, culture, etc.), and technical (tools, gadgets, devices,
vehicles, means, etc.). All of them are the modes and relations of means of
production that create human lifestyles.
The "labor" factor of human production
(means of production and sources of energy) here enters the process not
spontaneously, like animals, but consciously. In other words, humans have
attained the ability to use "tools" as a result of the rationality of
their labor.
This rational transformation of labor towards the
ability to use "tools" also creates certain effects and orientations
in the human mind. Humans gravitate towards elements that enhance the mode of
production. However, the imbalance of human formation lies not in this general
formation but in the differences in human lifestyles. This difference stems
from the material environments that shape people's minds and the totality of
the habits and orientations these environments create within them. Therefore,
there's no single consciousness. There is a general consciousness according to
lifestyle and an instant consciousness gathered from the immediate environment.
They are both sensory from the beginning.
A person, transformed into a particular structure of personality,
persists in living as s/he did in the past (retained in the memory) due to
her/his consciousness and sensitivities under different living conditions. This
totality constitutes their intellectual distinction from those forced to live
under the same conditions. As long as people are conscious, they perceive their
lifestyle, grasp their relationship with the environment, and indirectly
influence nature by making natural forces serve their needs. Indeed, all these
activities have constituted human consciousness at a revolution.
Thought (personal
thoughts: some in knowledge form, some in information form), on the other hand,
is a mental formation resulting from the abstractions in human information and
knowledge, leading to a reinforcement of consciousness and enabling the
comprehension and understanding of life phenomena, which are incomprehensible
and understandable at the sensory level. Thought is a socialized, analyzed, and
methodological construct derived from sensory receptions.
Through thought,
humans arrive at various mental derivatives by utilizing their mental
activities (imagination, symbolization, semiotics of objects, etc.). Through
sensations, humans perceive the first signs of a phenomenon and analyze them
through thought processes. Then, they prove it, which is finding a law, a
repetition of occurrences. Proving (a continuous reliability) creates
consciousness by demonstrating that what they want to know is permanent and
creates a reliable knowledge. Consciousness and knowledge close the mental gap
between sensory receptions and nature (earth).
Thought, with the
ability to demonstrate through knowledge, grants the human mind the ability to
technicalities (measurement), thus extending the mind to conscious activities.
Consciousness is a form of semantic thought originating from the reality of
matter. If there is no matter, reality, existence, and formation, consciousness
is unnecessary. Animal and plant consciousness, if there is any, must be
investigated further to determine whether it functions for vitality or not.
“True
consciousness” arises from correctly grasping the essence of matter, that is,
from correct (measured) thinking of reliable knowledge, which is observed as
repeated in time and space. The direct connection of thought to the human mind
has made thought a derivative of the human species. Therefore, humans are
“thinking matter.” Consciousness in this thinking matter is a structure that
develops human thought. Consciousness is an extension of the material reality
perceived through the sense organs, and thought is the process of integrating,
universalizing, proving, and abstracting the relationships of this material
reality with consciousness, humans, and matter. A conscious human is capable of
thinking.
The Formation of Sensitivity: Orientation
These complex
mental activities of human formation compel people to take certain actions
under specific material conditions and adapt individuals, themselves, to these
conditions. The principle that the levels of consciousness of a revolutionary
militant and a street bully cannot be homogeneous or equal is always a
consequence of these material lifestyle shifts. Because their material
lifestyles differ, the mental activities of these two people are not the same.
Yet, both carry within themselves a sense of rebellion against this or that
order. This is called orientation. The orientations of these two people are
different because their sensitivities are not the same. Both turn to art to the
extent of their possibilities: the revolutionary militant watches Brechtian
works of art, while the street bully, for example, is content with minibus
songs—“arabesques,”
or martial arts.
All these mental
activities, marked by material lifestyles, create in an individual a tension
and a particular way of responding to certain events. The forms of the human
external world and its mental formations trigger a person to certain events and
render them indifferent to some others. This general formation is present in
all living beings. For example, a sunflower follows the sun throughout the day
because it needs light. This is a vital process that exists within a pattern of
sensitivity, orientation, and consciousness. This biological phenomenon is one
of the most valid elements of human beings, but because human biology is also
integrated with mentally determined human sensitivity, it is partially mental.
Most of the psychosomatic symptoms are from this mental sensitivity, which
causes the orientations of individuals. Sensitivity, which exists only
biologically in a sunflower, also exists mentally in humans; they both have the
orientation power. Mentality is highly a social construct, oriented by
sensitivity and orienting it as well.
Living beings other
than humans are biologically formed by their very limited processes, conforming
to the balance of nature, and can only be chemically different, as their
structure “requires.” A sunflower does not seek (orienting to) the sun in a
sunless place; it dies. It lacks consciousness and ceases to turn to light
through being insensitive. However, the human mind, by directing its
sensitivity, will resort to the utmost effort to survive, including
consciousness, perception, and so on. At this level, the lifestyle (of the
bourgeoisie) enters the scene. All of these mental activities are tools in the
struggle humans wage against nature for survival within the context of
lifestyle. The sensitivity that develops in a sunflower is inherent in its
structure. However, because humans also wage a labor-based struggle for
existence against biological, chemical, and physical structure (inner and outer
nature), the sensitivity inherent in humans is enriched and integrated as a
result of their mental activities. This can be called super-consciousness (it
should not be confused with super-ego). Therefore, all the elements that
constitute mental activities are also elements of sensitivity. Because
sensitivity creates orientation and consciousness.
Sensitivity and Consciousness
In a nutshell, the
statement that "sensitivity is a common characteristic of all living
beings" is initially true. We have seen that the sunflower's sensitive
structure stems from its vegetative (i.e., species-specific) characteristics.
It is a general species-specific structure that allows the sunflower to absorb
nature.
For example, the
sensitivities of animals are also directed towards the resources that enable
them to sustain their production, which is their species-specific
characteristic. The production of all other living beings, except humans, has
developed through natural means, that is, through entirely "unconscious
production" processes. We can repeat what Marx has said: "Animals
produce only themselves. Humans reproduce all of nature ... Animals create only
according to the standards and needs of their own species."
Thus, humans are
the only beings in nature that produce consciously. Therefore, in all
production processes, they will experience the sensory tensions and weaknesses
that production requires. That is why humans need sensitive measurement gadgets
and mathematics. Sensitivity develops in humans through the “labor process
containing measurement and mathematics.” This is because humans choose the
resources they will utilize and the foundations they will turn to in their
struggle with nature through the forms of the conditions of production. The
nature of this choice determines the type of sensitivity in humans. When it
comes to different sensitivities, we can easily say that humans are
distinguished from other living beings by their consciousness, making
sensitivities different. This again is structured within the context of social
conditions. At the roots of this sensitivity lies a material world and social
conditions perceived through sensation, the “highest form” of this material
world formed in the human mind: the perception oriented at thought, which helps
comprehend phenomena insensible to consciousness and sensation. In other words,
human sensitivity, like all other mental and actual activities, is a result of
nature, which exists through technical labor, energy sources, and production
and which, at the basis of all these, encompasses human formation.
Two Types of Sensitivity
In summary, there
are two types of sensitivity existing in humans: with nature and by society.
Sensitivity's only distinction from other mental activities lies in this dual
nature. Since human nature is a part of inner and outer nature, this is not
actually a sharp separation from nature. However, these two distinct forms of
contexts distinguish sensitivity from other mental activities, giving it a
special status. Perhaps this is why sensitivity is often not seen as being the
starting point of all mental activity. Thought and consciousness—as far as we
know—are not present in other living beings. However, as stated repeatedly, the
"state of being sensitive" exists in all living creatures. For
example, as mentioned earlier, this sensitivity can be clearly observed in the
sunflower. The sunflower's observation of sunlight throughout the day is a good
example of biology (photosynthesis), that is, pure sensitivity in nature.
Sensitivity in humans also has a biological basis, but there is another form of
sensitivity that transcends this biological sensitivity and has an even more
important function. To emphasize the above paragraph again, because human biology
is mentally integrated, sensitivity becomes the extensional device to
collaborate socially. In the capitalist society, it is a mere subordination to
artificial needs created by the productive capacity of the society. Marx calls
this alienation or estranged labor.
For all mental
activities derived from senses are extensions and tools in the struggle humans
wage against nature for survival. Sensitivity is one of these tools. It is
biological up to the animal level and mental beyond that. Therefore, the
sensitivity inherent in humans is, to a certain extent, the result of mental
activities. And all the elements that constitute materially determined mental
activities have formed sensitivity in humans. It is a reciprocal determination.
The Work of Sensitivity
The fact that
sensitivity, as in all living beings, is a means of 'orientation' in humans,
practically ensures that it forms before 'more complex consciousness.' Humans
are influenced and oriented as a result of their sensitivity. Because they are
meticulously careful to choose the formations they believe are necessary for
their lives from those that align with the mental activities that shape their
existing sensitivity at the moment of decision. In other words, the subjects,
areas, activities, and events to which humans are sensitive attract their
attention. For example, the “dolmuş” (paid carpool) drivers' appreciation of
Orhan Gencebay's (well-known Arabesk musician in Turkey)
music is not solely due to their basic sensitivity (sensory reception), but
rather to their already developed sensitivities. A “dolmuş” driver listening to
Orhan Gencebay's music has undoubtedly already established a mental
relationship with the music's theme and lyrics. This deep relationship has
determined the type of sensitivity in them and led them to choose Orhan
Gencebay; this is still an orientation. This formation will, and may, lead to
new and complex sensitivities in later stages and, in turn, to more complex
states of consciousness.
We see that
sensitivity, like the sense organs, determines the direction of consciousness,
but with a distinction: sensory organs orient themselves to whatever they
encounter, while sensitivity, on the other hand, makes choices conditioned by
all the mental activities that constitute it and the preceding ones. In other
words, sensitivity exists as a structural form in the formation of
consciousness and in the formation of sensitivity itself, not merely as a tool
like the sense organs, but as an additional integrative factor.
This structural
complexity of sensitivity exists both as a driving force in the rationalization
of labor and as a consequence of this rationalization. These processes follow
one another in a chain of events. This same process also places sensitivity in
a driving and guiding role in the initiation of mental activities. At the same
time, sensitivity is enriched as a result of all these mental forms. It leads
to new orientations and consciousness.
The role of
sensitivity in human development is that it forms all human orientations before
the state of consciousness. But let me reiterate: in this act of orientation,
sensitivity orients itself in accordance with the qualities of all the mental activities
a person possessed prior to their current sensitivity. And as is always the
case with all human activities, as a person's sensitivity develops, their state
of consciousness develops, and this state of consciousness, in turn, tends
toward more human and more accurate sensitivities.
This complex
totality of sensitivity is an operative ingredient in all human activities
because it encompasses the biological and chemical processes of the sense
organs. (As I am not an expert, this aspect is not covered here.) Therefore,
challenging the bourgeois (capitalist-formed, scientific, and social)
perspective that understands sensitivity as a mere collection of emotions and
elevating sensitivity to its human (individual and organic) nature is a
realistic approach. As a result of all this, it will be easier to establish a
solid foundation for revolutionary sensitivity. If the human ability to
consciously orient, that is, to be "sensitive," facilitates the
bourgeoisie's (rulers') ability to exploit the masses, then it is revolutionary
important for art, the stimulating element of revolutionary thought, to
correctly evaluate sensitivity and use it in a form completely opposite to that
employed by the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie distorts sensitivity, tries and
employs methods to conceal its exploitation, and makes it hegemonic
(media-centric). But socialist society, by becoming conscious of sensitivity,
adds new methods and new dimensions to human sensitivity. It grants people the
"freedom of orientation." This is the transformation of sensitivity
into consciousness.
In the mechanical
order I previously presented, sensitivity was prioritized over other mental
forms. Yet, we see that we are dealing with a truly human complexity here.
Complexity stems from intertwinedness. Since we cannot treat humans—at any
stage—as a blank slate (this is different than being tabula rasa at birth), and
must view them with their historical, biological, and social past, there will
always be a never-ending complexity in human nature, whether structural or
observational. This complexity is a driving force in the rationalization of
labor and, at the same time, a consequence of the rationalization of tools. All
actions and deeds that pass through the labor process naturally contain this
complexity. So does sensitivity. This is also closely related to the
development of human history up to this point.
From this
perspective, this chain of development places sensitivity as a driving force, a
guiding force, and a consequence in the initiation of mental and other
activities.
The Process of Becoming Sensitive
The role that
sensitivity plays in influencing a person is the sole factor in the process of
orientation in humans. Through the interest fostered by a state of sensitivity,
an individual may develop a taste for one thing or another and form a genuine
or involuntary relationship with an event they first encounter. For example, a
sunset is an event detected by one's senses. By eyes, the redness of the sun;
by ears, the silence; by nose, the smell of the sea; by skin, the breeze; by
tongue, the taste of the wine. Sensitivity, imposed by social relations,
towards this specific event then classifies this event. A romantic feeling, a
sad remembrance, a dull atmosphere, a lost moment. This classification is
filtered through the interactive processes of mental activities, culminating in
the creation of a "state of sensitivity." An individual's attitude
and emotionality emerge as a result of all these states of sensitivity.
Depending on the individual's human nature, the "setting of the sun"
draws them into a complex of higher emotions as a learned position in life.
Beneath a person's
attitude toward various events, their sympathy for a particular event, or their
desire to remain aloof from it, lies a sensitivity formed by a vast past.
Sensitivity is the primary determinant of a person's attitude. Being alert to
some developments and indifferent to others is the initial state in which a
person first acquires a “state of sensitivity” to this particular development.
For example, a poem
can be described as a "state of sensitivity" to a person. It reaches
the poem through communications channels. The sensitivity in the poem and the
reader's sensitivity influence taste, both positively and negatively. If these
two sensitivities (the poet's and reader's) coincide, the poem fulfills its
subsequent functions. If the sensitivities do not coincide, it will not be read
again or will be totally forgotten. Until a second reason arises. This second
encounter necessitates a new structure of sensibility. If the reader's level of
sensitivity tends to coincide with the poet's, a new bond will be established
between the reader and the poem.
Conclusion
As a result of this
entire analysis, the following “concept” emerges: Sensibility is not a concept
that can be confused with “sentimentality” and used in “art criticism” as a
criterion opposed to consciousness. On the contrary, both thought and
consciousness are, to a certain extent, constituted by sensitivity.
Therefore, the
analysis of human sensitivity is at least as important as consciousness in the
“struggle to create humanity's post-history.” The more successful
“revolutionary art,” which means the re-creation of the “right” (correct, or “left”!)
sensitivity, is in this endeavor, the more effective it will be in spreading
revolutionary consciousness. Revolutionary struggle, which means the
beautification of human material life, will position humanity on a more correct
and healthy line of struggle not by fragmenting it, but by integrating it with
sensitivity and sentience. In other words, by understanding sensitivity, not as
the opposite of consciousness but as a root of consciousness, we will reach a
more materialistic point.
Because
“Materialism, in full agreement with natural science, takes matter as primary
and regards consciousness, thought, and sensation as secondary, because in its
well-defined form sensation is associated only with the higher forms of matter
(organic matter), while “in the foundation of the structure of matter” one can
only surmise the existence of a faculty akin to sensation.”
Veysel Batmaz, May 1975
It means that their
sensitivity is chained with the capitalistic mode of production, in all
dimensions from property relationship to carrier goals; from love to power
implications. Sentience is the ability to feel, which necessitates a
certain level of awareness and mental capacity. In general, it refers to the
ability to feel one or more of the several states that we call feelings,
including happiness, depression, love, hate, joy, rage, excitement, weariness,
hunger, and thirst. Philosophical viewpoints frequently differentiate
sensibility from more general notions of consciousness and awareness by
defining it as the capacity of any entity to have subjective perceptual
experiences. A fundamental type of consciousness that encompasses emotions and
sensory perception is implied by the term "sentience." This
distinction is crucial since sentience is sometimes thought of as a
minimalistic form of awareness (consciousness) and is frequently confused with
nonhuman animals' ability to feel pain and pleasure.
Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of
1844, “Estranged Labour”, XXIV; The term
“species-being” (Gattungswesen)
is derived from Ludwig Feuerbach’s philosophy where it is applied to man and
mankind as a whole.
