Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Unverified Commit 1c4a0465 authored by rhatto's avatar rhatto
Browse files

Books: One-dimensional man: chapter nine

parent 96545ce0
No related branches found
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -1637,3 +1637,170 @@
greater productivity without destruction. In other words, the higher historical
truth would pertain to the system which offers the greater chance of
pacification.
### Negative Thinking
To the degree to which the established society is irrational, the analysis in
terms of historical rationality introduces into the concept the negative
element—critique, contradiction, and transcendence.
This element cannot be assimilated with the positive. It changes the concept in
its entirety, in its intent and validity. Thus, in the analysis of an economy,
capitalist or not, which operates as an “independent” power over and above the
individuals, the negative features (overproduction, unemployment, insecurity,
waste, repression) are not comprehended as long as they appear merely as more
or less inevitable by-products, as “the other side” of the story of growth and
progress.
True, a totalitarian administration may promote the efficient exploitation of
resources; the nuclear-military establishment may provide millions of jobs
through enormous purchasing power; toil and ulcers may be the by-product of the
acquisition of wealth and responsibility; deadly blunders and crimes on the
part of the leaders may be merely the way of life. One is willing to admit
economic and political madness—and one buys it. But this sort of knowledge of
“the other side” is part and parcel of the solidification of the state of
affairs, of the grand unification of opposites which counteracts qualitative
change, because it pertains to a thoroughly hopeless or thoroughly
preconditioned existence that has made its home in a world where even the
irrational is Reason.
The tolerance of positive thinking is enforced tolerance—enforced not by any
terroristic agency but by the overwhelming, anonymous power and efficiency of
the technological society. As such it permeates the general consciousness—and
the consciousness of the critic. The absorption of the negative by the positive
is validated in the daily experience, which obfuscates the distinction between
rational appearance and irrational reality.
[examples follow]
These examples may illustrate the happy marriage of the positive and the
negative—the objective ambiguity which adheres to the data of experience. It is
objective ambiguity because the shift in my sensations and reflections responds
to the manner in which the experienced facts are actually interrelated. But
this interrelation, if comprehended, shatters the harmonizing consciousness and
its false realism. Critical thought strives to define the irrational character
of the established rationality (which becomes increasingly obvious) and to
define the tendencies which cause this rationality to generate its own
transformation. “Its own” because, as historical totality, it has developed
forces and capabilities which themselves become projects beyond the established
totality. They are possibilities of the advancing technological rationality
and, as such, they involve the whole of society. The technological
transformation is at the same time political transformation, but the political
change would turn into qualitative social change only to the degree to which it
would alter the direction of technical progress—that is, develop a new
technology. For the established technology has become an instrument of
destructive politics.
Such qualitative change would be transition to a higher stage of civilization
if technics were designed and utilized for the pacification of the struggle for
existence. In order to indicate the disturbing implications of this statement,
I submit that such a new direction of technical progress would be the
catastrophe of the established direction, not merely the quantitative evolution
of the prevailing (scientific and technological) rationality but rather its
catastrophic transformation, the emergence of a new idea of Reason, theoretical
and practical.
The new idea of Reason is expressed in Whitehead’s proposition: “The function
of Reason is to promote the art of life.”1 In view of this end, Reason is the
“direction of the attack on the environment” which derives from the “threefold
urge: (1) to live, (2) to live well, (3) to live better.”2
Then read the rest of the whole chapter 9. It's interesting enough that deserves
to be quoted on its entirety. It talks about the completion of the
Technological Project. Like this:
Civilization produces the means for freeing Nature from its own brutality, its
own insufficiency, its own blindness, by virtue of the cognitive and
transforming power of Reason. And Reason can fulfill this function only as
post-technological rationality, in which technics is itself the instrumentality
of pacification, organon of the “art of life.” The function of Reason then
converges with the function of Art.
The Greek notion of the affinity between art and technics may serve as a
preliminary illustration. The artist possesses the ideas which, as final
causes, guide the construction of certain things—just as the engineer possesses
the ideas which guide, as final causes, the construction of a machine. For
example, the idea of an abode for human beings determines the architect’s
construction of a house; the idea of wholesale nuclear explosion determines the
construction of the apparatus which is to serve this purpose. Emphasis on the
essential relation between art and technics points up the specific rationality
of art.
[...]
In the contemporary era, the conquest of scarcity is still confined to small
areas of advanced industrial society. Their prosperity covers up the Inferno
inside and outside their borders; it also spreads a repressive productivity and
“false needs.” It is repressive precisely to the degree to which it promotes
the satisfaction of needs which require continuing the rat race of catching up
with one’s peers and with planned obsolescence, enjoying freedom from using the
brain, working with and for the means of destruction. The obvious comforts
generated by this sort of productivity, and even more, the support which it
gives to a system of profitable domination, facilitate its importation in less
advanced areas of the world where the introduction of such a system still means
tremendous progress in technical and human terms.
However, the close interrelation between technical and political-manipulative
know-how, between profitable productivity and domination, lends to the conquest
of scarcity the weapons for containing liberation. To a great extent, it is the
sheer quantity of goods, services, work, and recreation in the overdeveloped
countries which effectuates this containment. Consequently, qualitative change
seems to presuppose a quantitative change in the advanced standard of living,
namely, reduction of overdevelopment.
The standard of living attained in the most advanced industrial areas is not a
suitable model of development if the aim is pacification. In view of what this
standard has made of Man and Nature, the question must again be asked whether
it is worth the sacrifices and the victims made in its defense. The question
has ceased to be irresponsible since the “affluent society” has become a
society of permanent mobilization against the risk of annihilation, and since
the sale of its goods has been accompanied by moronization, the perpetuation of
toil, and the promotion of frustration.
Under these circumstances, liberation from the affluent society does not mean
return to healthy and robust poverty, moral cleanliness, and simplicity. On the
contrary, the elimination of profitable waste would increase the social wealth
available for distribution, and the end of permanent mobilization would reduce
the social need for the denial of satisfactions that are the individual’s
own—denials which now find their compensation in the cult of fitness, strength,
and regularity.
[...]
The crime is that of a society in which the growing population aggravates the
struggle for existence in the face of its possible alleviation. The drive for
more “living space” operates not only in international aggressiveness but also
within the nation. Here, expansion has, in all forms of teamwork, community
life, and fun, invaded the inner space of privacy and practically eliminated
the possibility of that isolation in which the individual, thrown back on
himself alone, can think and question and find. This sort of privacy—the sole
condition that, on the basis of satisfied vital needs, can give meaning to
freedom and independence of thought—has long since become the most expensive
commodity, available only to the very rich (who don’t use it). In this respect,
too, “culture” reveals its feudal origins and limitations. It can become
democratic only through the abolition of mass democracy, i.e., if society has
succeeded in restoring the prerogatives of privacy by granting them to all and
protecting them for each.
[...]
To take an (unfortunately fantastic) example: the mere absence of all
advertising and of all indoctrinating media of information and entertainment
would plunge the individual into a traumatic void where he would have the
chance to wonder and to think, to know himself (or rather the negative of
himself) and his society. Deprived of his false fathers, leaders, friends, and
representatives, he would have to learn his ABC’s again. But the words and
sentences which he would form might come out very differently, and so might his
aspirations and fears.
To be sure, such a situation would be an unbearable nightmare. While the people
can support the continuous creation of nuclear weapons, radioactive fallout,
and questionable foodstuffs, they cannot (for this very reason!) tolerate being
deprived of the entertainment and education which make them capable of
reproducing the arrangements for their defense and/or destruction. The
non-functioning of television and the allied media might thus begin to achieve
what the inherent contradictions of capitalism did not achieve—the
disintegration of the system. The creation of repressive needs has long since
become part of socially necessary labor—necessary in the sense that without it,
the established mode of production could not be sustained. Neither problems of
psychology nor of aesthetics are at stake, but the material base of domination.
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment