Robert McDonell wrote:
> My understanding--and I am no expert on reification or related
> concepts--has been that reification's origin is specifiably Lukacsian that
> is implicit (or all but explicit) in Marx. Someone (forget whom) has said
> that Heidegger's _Being and Time_ is in part and whole a response to
> Lukacs' development of this term, so you might want to look at B&T's intro
> for the reference and see how it plays out.
Important French Marxist Lucien Goldmann's doctoral dissertation argued that
Heidegger's BEING AND TIME "cannot be understood without the realization that
it constitutes largely, although perhaps implicitly, a debate with [Emil]
Lask, and above all with Lukacs' work, HISTORY AND CLASS CONSCIOUSNESS."
(See Goldmann, IMMANUEL KANT, trans. Robert Black (London, 1971), p. 25.
Goldmann also delivered lectures on the topic in the late 1960's, published
pothumously as LUKACS AND HEIDEGGER: TOWARDS A NEW PHILOSOPHY (trans W.Q.
Boelhower, 1977).
Heidegger uses the term reification at least once in B&T, in last page or two,
where he puts the word in quotation marks. I can't remember the exact
context, though. I seem to recall that he distances himself from it somewhat.
On Marx's relation to the concept of reification, refer to the good articles
on "reification" and "fetishism" in the DICTIONARY OF MARXIST THOUGHT, ed.
Bottomore.
Steve D.