Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects
Unverified Commit 475e25ea authored by rhatto's avatar rhatto
Browse files

Books: One-dimensional man: conclusion

parent 8c307b17
Branches
No related tags found
No related merge requests found
......@@ -1804,3 +1804,154 @@ Technological Project. Like this:
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.
### Imagination
In reducing and even canceling the romantic space of imagination, society has
forced the imagination to prove itself on new grounds, on which the images are
translated into historical capabilities and projects. The translation will be
as bad and distorted as the society which undertakes it. Separated from the
realm of material production and material needs, imagination was mere play,
invalid in the realm of necessity, and committed only to a fantastic logic and
a fantastic truth. When technical progress cancels this separation, it invests
the images with its own logic and its own truth; it reduces the free faculty of
the mind. But it also reduces the gap between imagination and Reason. The two
antagonistic faculties become interdependent on common ground. In the light of
the capabilities of advanced industrial civilization, is not all play of the
imagination playing with technical possibilities, which can be tested as to
their chances of realization? The romantic idea of a “science of the
Imagination” seems to assume an ever-more-empirical aspect.
[...]
Imagination has not remained immune to the process of reification. We are
possessed by our images, suffer our own images. Psychoanalysis knew it well,
and knew the consequences. However, “to give to the imagination all the means
of expression” would be regression. The mutilated individuals (mutilated also
in their faculty of imagination) would organize and destroy even more than they
are now permitted to do. Such release would be the unmitigated horror—not the
catastrophe of culture, but the free sweep of its most repressive tendencies.
Rational is the imagination which can become the a priori of the reconstruction
and redirection of the productive apparatus toward a pacified existence, a life
without fear. And this can never be the imagination of those who are possessed
by the images of domination and death.
To liberate the imagination so that it can be given all its means of expression
presupposes the repression of much that is now free and that perpetuates a
repressive society. And such reversal is not a matter of psychology or ethics
but of politics, in the sense in which this term has here been used throughout:
the practice in which the basic societal institutions are developed, defined,
sustained, and changed. It is the practice of individuals, no matter how
organized they may be. Thus the question once again must be faced: how can the
administered individuals—who have made their mutilation into their own
liberties and satisfactions, and thus reproduce it on an enlarged
scale—liberate themselves from themselves as well as from their masters? How is
it even thinkable that the vicious circle be broken?
### Qualitative Change
Qualitative change is conditional upon planning for the whole against these
interests, and a free and rational society can emerge only on this basis.
The institutions within which pacification can be envisaged thus defy the
traditional classification into authoritarian and democratic, centralized and
liberal administration. Today, the opposition to central planning in the name
of a liberal democracy which is denied in reality serves as an ideological prop
for repressive interests. The goal of authentic self-determination by the
individuals depends on effective social control over the production and
distribution of the necessities (in terms of the achieved level of culture,
material and intellectual).
Here, technological rationality, stripped of its exploitative features, is the
sole standard and guide in planning and developing the available resources for
all. Self-determination in the production and distribution of vital goods and
services would be wasteful. The job is a technical one, and as a truly
technical job, it makes for the reduction of physical and mental toil. In this
realm, centralized control is rational if it establishes the preconditions for
meaningful self-determination. The latter can then become effective in its own
realm—in the decisions which involve the production and distribution of the
economic surplus, and in the individual existence.
In any case, the combination of centralized authority and direct democracy is
subject to infinite variations, according to the degree of development.
Self-determination will be real to the extent to which the masses have been
dissolved into individuals liberated from all propaganda, indoctrination, and
manipulation, capable of knowing and comprehending the facts and of evaluating
the alternatives. In other words, society would be rational and free to the
extent to which it is organized, sustained, and reproduced by an essentially
new historical Subject.
At the present stage of development of the advanced industrial societies, the
material as well as the cultural system denies this exigency. The power and
efficiency of this system, the thorough assimilation of mind with fact, of
thought with required behavior, of aspirations with reality, militate against
the emergence of a new Subject. They also militate against the notion that the
replacement of the prevailing control over the productive process by “control
from below” would mean the advent of qualitative change. This notion was valid,
and still is valid, where the laborers were, and still are, the living denial
and indictment of the established society. However, where these classes have
become a prop of the established way of life, their ascent to control would
prolong this way in a different setting. And yet, the facts are all there
which validate the critical theory of this society and of its fatal
development: the increasing irrationality of the whole; waste and restriction
of productivity; the need for aggressive expansion; the constant threat of war;
intensified exploitation; dehumanization. And they all point to the historical
alternative: the planned utilization of resources for the satisfaction of vital
needs with a minimum of toil, the transformation of leisure into free time, the
pacification of the struggle for existence.
### What brings chance: practice
Dialectical theory is not refuted, but it cannot offer the remedy. It cannot be
positive. To be sure, the dialectical concept, in comprehending the given
facts, transcends the given facts. This is the very token of its truth. It
defines the historical possibilities, even necessities; but their realization
can only be in the practice which responds to the theory, and, at present, the
practice gives no such response.
On theoretical as well as empirical grounds, the dialectical concept pronounces
its own hopelessness. The human reality is its history and, in it,
contradictions do not explode by themselves. The conflict between streamlined,
rewarding domination on the one hand, and its achievements that make for
self-determination and pacification on the other, may become blatant beyond any
possible denial, but it may well continue to be a manageable and even
productive conflict, for with the growth in the technological conquest of
nature grows the conquest of man by man. And this conquest reduces the freedom
which is a necessary a priori of liberation. This is freedom of thought in the
only sense in which thought can be free in the administered world—as the
consciousness of its repressive productivity, and as the absolute need for
breaking out of this whole. But precisely this absolute need does not prevail
where it could become the driving force of a historical practice, the effective
cause of qualitative change. Without this material force, even the most acute
consciousness remains powerless.
No matter how obvious the irrational character of the whole may manifest itself
and, with it, the necessity of change, insight into necessity has never
sufficed for seizing the possible alternatives. Confronted with the omnipresent
efficiency of the given system of life, its alternatives have always appeared
utopian. And insight into necessity, the consciousness of the evil state, will
not suffice even at the stage where the accomplishments of science and the
level of productivity have eliminated the utopian features of the
alternatives—where the established reality rather than its opposite is utopian.
[...]
The enchained possibilities of advanced industrial societies are: development
of the productive forces on an enlarged scale, extension of the conquest of
nature, growing satisfaction of needs for a growing number of people, creation
of new needs and faculties. But these possibilities are gradually being
realized through means and institutions which cancel their liberating
potential, and this process affects not only the means but also the ends. The
instruments of productivity and progress, organized into a totalitarian system,
determine not only the actual but also the possible utilizations.
[...]
But the struggle for the solution has outgrown the traditional forms. The
totalitarian tendencies of the one-dimensional society render the traditional
ways and means of protest ineffective—perhaps even dangerous because they
preserve the illusion of popular sovereignty. This illusion contains some
truth: “the people,” previously the ferment of social change, have “moved up”
to become the ferment of social cohesion. Here rather than in the
redistribution of wealth and equalization of classes is the new stratification
characteristic of advanced industrial society.
0% Loading or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Please register or to comment