The aim of this thesis is to elaborate the analysis of economic class within Burman’s  ontological framework. To alleviate some shortcomings of Burman’s framework, I will make  use of concepts presented by Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci. Further, I will draw on Sally  Haslanger’s notion of structural explanation to distinguish micro from macro-level  explanations and situate the second kind of explanation within class analysis. I will,  following some analytical Marxists, argue that there is a possible distinction to be made  between metaphysical reduction and explanatory reduction, and that class analysis requires  macro-level explanations. I will provide an outline account of how Burman’s framework can  be modified to accommodate macro-level explanations.

Why do we defend the social conditions responsible for our injustice and exploitation? We are confused when disadvantaged women of color cite personal shortcomings rather than the social system as the source of their precarity. Yet, when social philosophers take up these questions by appealing to the concept of ideology, they turn to structural accounts and dismiss theories of false consciousness outright. Accounts of false consciousness, often understood as an epistemic failing to recognize some features of our inadequate social world, meet with a host of objections. Some argue that ascriptions of false consciousness involve authoritarianism, while others criticize the concept for commitments to an implausible correspondence picture of truth. Meanwhile, dismissal of false consciousness accounts of ideology have led to the neglect of an important feature of how ideology works: in and through our own agency. Without an account of false consciousness, critics fail to account for the fact that social structures are the result of our collective consent. They also fail to address how social structures are not analyzable without turning to the self-understandings of the participants in these very institutions. This dissertation addresses issues in ideology critique that account for our agency. By preserving what is still alive in a theory of false consciousness while addressing the long-standing concerns about authoritarianism and correspondence, this project reconstructs the notion of false consciousness. It closely engages with figures in critical social theory such as Marx, Lukacs, Habermas, Haslanger, Honneth, and Jaeggi, while widening the terms of the debate to consider the relevance, for instance, of object relations psychoanalysis for social philosophers. Beyond this, this dissertation shows that false consciousness is a damaged way of relating to ourselves, to each other, and to the social world. It is characterized, I propose, by affective investment. This move helps us clarify both the phenomenology of false consciousness and what a viable form of critique could look like. Psychoanalysis offers us a new way of understanding ideology critique by directing us beyond the model of critique as judgment as part of overcoming false consciousness.