From Michael Sugrue's excellent lecture on Hegel's philosophy of history:
The big concern of the nineteenth century is history. Utopian socialists, people like Comte and Fourier, are people who are essentially interested in ending history. They said that previous centuries, previous societies, previous governments, the way they have treated human beings, have all be a scandal, a disgrace. We have now gotten to an enlightened state of consciousness where we can create a new society, where we can abolish that earlier society and have true human relations and a truly human world. Marx's philosophy is shot through with the idea that the industrial revolution makes possible a new epoch in human history, which is fundamentally different from all the other phases of human history.
Hegel saw himself as representing a key moment in human history, when the whole evolutionary process became aware of itself. His philosophy represented, therefore, a radical break, prehaps the very culmination of history, one might say the end of history. And people have been announcing the end of history ever since. Sugrue lists a bunch, including post-modernists and deconstructionists and so on who believed they had understood something about western thought that everyone had missed before, that texts actually have no meanings or communication is actually impossible or what have you:
Modern intellectual trends and practices are, with varying degrees of comprehension, the heirs of Hegel's end of history argument, that something fundamentally new and important is happening to us right now that makes us fundamentally different from all the other generations who have been stuck and enchained in earlier traditions. But this is nothing new; we have been doing this since Hegel. All of these crypto end of history arguments are homage to Hegel, homage to the idea that even if human history can no longer be seen as a necessary progression toward the final state of human existence, there is something fundamentally different about us that allows us to recognize that fact. The idea that we have fundamentally turned a corner sounds like it is new and exciting and it thrills undergraduates when you tell them stuff like that, but my point is that it is at least 150 years old.
My question is this: is the modernist belief in radical change dead? Have we stopped imagining that we have the power to enter an entirely different mode of human existence, when everything will be better? Are there any thinkers who see their ideas as marking a radical break with everything that came before?
The only contemporary school I can think of that fits this pattern is the AI guys with their "singularity." But nobody can agree on whether that will be good for us or terrible, so that seems a bit different. Thoughts?
4 comments:
Hubris. Humans, as societies and individuals are hamper by their nature. Change comes slowly. The pendulum of change rocks forward/backward, and gradually, through fits and starts, it progresses. Toward, hopefully, a more equalitarian life for all life on this planet. Our short lives can only see a part, but looking back we see the trail toward what should be the world’s goal.
Are there any thinkers who see their ideas as marking a radical break with everything that came before?
I'm sure there are some, but I don't think it's possible for any new ideas to truly be "a radical break with everything that came before", so I'm not sure it matters who claims what about their own beliefs in that regard.
Have we stopped imagining that we have the power to enter an entirely different mode of human existence, when everything will be better?
It depends on what you mean when you say "entirely different".
I don't think very many people actually believe in developing some wholly novel way of structuring human society that has never been remotely conceived of in the past. But I know that massive numbers of people want to move away from the status quo, and might describe such changes as entering "an entirely different mode of human existence", even if that's arguably an exaggeration to varying degrees.
That said, history clearly shows that we HAVE at times made transitions of such magnitude that they would pretty well qualify as "entirely different", even if that's not strictly true in a literal sense.
We used to live in a world where chattel slavery was the global norm - and then over a relatively short period of time, we decided to abolish slavery.
We used to live in a world in which depriving women of legal rights and personal autonomy was the global norm - and then over a similarly short period of time, we decided to embrace equal rights and suffrage.
We used to live in a world in which kings and nobles controlled society - and then in fairly short order, we chose to embrace democracy and republicanism. We used to live in a world in which we hunted and gathered everything we ate - and then in fairly short order, we chose to embrace agriculture and animal husbandry. We used to live in a world in which fire was a rare and wild force beyond human control - and then in "relatively" short order, we chose to master it and transform our entire species forever.
All those things were "revolutionary" changes, that drastically reshaped our world and ourselves. But at the same time, they were also effectively agglomerations of many small changes over time - no one woke up one morning with a wholly novel idea for something; they built that idea up off of everything that had ever come before, and all of the collective wisdom and experience available to them. That's just how we humans progress.
@G- One of the things that interests me these days is that despite all the revolutionary changes you list there is still vast dissatisfaction with life, and it makes me wonder if humans are just always going to be dissatisfied.
@John
Revolutions in technology, governance, etc, are all well and good - particularly when they produce material benefits for larger swathes of the global population.
But beyond our material needs, most of our satisfaction or dissatisfaction is ultimately rooted in the human mind, and in that regard, the biggest barriers to global happiness are toxic patterns of thinking.
People living in poverty are generally miserable, because their lives are hard, they're always tired and unhealthy, they have little to no agency, and their future prospects are bleak. But it turns out plenty of wealthy people are also miserable, because they don't know how to appreciate life and are plagued by destructive thoughts and feelings.
Society does a great job of teaching people what it demands from them in material terms, but it does a terrible job teaching them how to be happy, healthy, well adjusted human beings.
In the modern world, you're taught to pursue profit over all else, and that the point of the world is for you to labor, labor, labor so that capital and investments can grow, grow, grow! Nevermind your feelings! You've got to put money away for retirement, and pay down the interest on your loans, and refinance your house, and diversify your stock portfolio! The point of your existence is to make money! Otherwise you're a failure! Oh, you've done all that and are still miserable? Then what are you complaining about! You're the picture of success!
In the medieval world, you were taught to labor for the sake of God and the king. Nevermind your feelings! You've got prayers to recite, and the tithe to pay, and taxes to render to the king, and wars to fight on behalf of the crown! The point of your existence is to humbly serve your betters! Otherwise you're a failure! Oh, you've done all that and you're still miserable? Tsk! Some people are never satisfied!
Et cetera. The problem with humanity is that we keep coming up with new and better ways to harvest or produce ever more physical resources (which then mostly get consumed by the elite few), but we seldom come up with better ways to produce ever more human happiness.
And the reason is simple - we value resources over human happiness, and that has always been the case. The rich and powerful think nothing of destroying the lives of the poor in the pursuit of more resources for themselves. The rich don't go to war - they coerce the poor into fighting and dying on their behalf by threatening deprivation if they don't.
And so the rich profit even more. And yet, the same lack of humanity that leads them to make other people miserable, also often makes them miserable. Their wealth is frequently never enough to satisfy them. Like a drug addict building up a tolerance and needing ever larger doses to feel a fraction of what they used to, the rich become bored with what they already have and need ever more.
And it never fills that hole inside them where the human elements are supposed to go. Because to be a successful rich person requires being an awful human being, and people are almost never truly happy when they're awful human beings.
Post a Comment