Global Modernity: And Other Essays

By Tom Rubens

This group of essays follows a similar eclectic pattern to that found in Tom Rubens' previous essay-collections published by Imprint Academic. The author's aim is, as before, to appeal widely but also succinctly: in a way that will stimulate readers to develop their own thoughts on, and consult more extensive treatments of, the subjects in question. As regards philosophers referred to in the in text, these include: Democritus, Spinoza, Schopenhauer and Sartre. Subjects explored include: modernity as a condition which is intellectually exacting; the police in England; democracy in relation to culture and society as a whole; philosophical determinism; sexual love; and the American 'Western' film.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Imprint Academic
• Release date: Jul 22, 2013
• ISBN: 9781845406691

Tom Rubens

Tom Ruben's growing interest within the philosophical sphere has chiefly been voiced in books. The first of these was published in 1984, and has since been followed by seven more publications, as well as journal articles. These broadly reflect the outlook of people such as Grayling and Dawkins: an outlook, which is based on ideas about the nature of reality. My latest endeavours have been to write a trilogy of novels, based in the 1960s and 70s, about young people's experience of growing up, and their perspective in evaluating their newfound knowledge and how they interpret it. The aim of my work is to enable the reader to compare the differences between the time periods and understand better why young people make judgments and opinions today.

Book preview

Title page

GLOBAL MODERNITY

And Other Essays

TOM RUBENS

SOCIETAS

essays in political

& cultural criticism

imprint-academic.com

Copyright page

Copyright © Tom Rubens, 2013

The moral rights of the author have been asserted.

No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without permission, except for the quotation of brief passages in criticism and discussion.

Originally published in the UK by

Imprint Academic, PO Box 200, Exeter EX5 5YX, UK

Originally distributed in the USA by

Ingram Book Company,

One Ingram Blvd., La Vergne, TN 37086, USA

2013 digital version by Andrews UK Limited

www.andrewsuk.com

Preface

This group of essays follows a similar eclectic pattern to that found in my previous essay collections. There is social, economic and political commentary; cultural observation; ethical discussion; and some epistemological and ontological exploration. My aim has been to cater to a wide range of reader interests, and especially to readers who not only have no problem in moving from one type of subject matter to another but who also derive positive satisfaction from so doing.

Also, a few of the essays, on political issues, reflect the specific point in time in which they were written. However, I have decided to let their arguments stand, as being fully valid at the time they were advanced, even if they are less so, or no longer so, now.

T.R., October 2012

ONE

Global Modernity

In an earlier book, Spinozan Power in a Naturalistic Perspective,a I briefly discussed the place that is and should be occupied throughout world society by an extensive and demanding intellectual culture. Since coverage was global, the discussion referred to both Western society and the Third World. Regarding the latter, the point was made that the issue of a demanding culture was, at present, less pressing than in the West because of the dire economic problems faced by most Third World countries, and because of the consequent need, for the time being, for most people in those countries to prioritise such problems. However, it was added that the issue would, in the long term, have to be faced much more widely in the Third World, on the scale that it is currently being faced in the economically more secure West.[1]

Now, following on from those points: in the modern world, at any rate among people who claim to be engaged with the challenges of modernity, the issue in question is inescapable, wherever one lives. Modernity itself is what makes the issue unavoidable. While the concept of modernity is of course a highly complex one, involving many different issues, it can to a considerable extent be summarised by reference to the positions of two leading 20th-century thinkers: Popper and Malraux. Popper speaks of the strain of civilisation, a strain produced partly by the sheer amount of knowledge accrued in modern times, and by mankind’s consequent obligation to bear the weight of that knowledge as it attempts to tackle the world’s manifold problems. Similarly, Malraux refers to the imaginary museum of (again) accumulated knowledge now in humanity’s possession: a museum which the mind must traverse thoroughly if it is authentically to call itself modern.[2]

Thus, modernity means, among other things, the taking on of cognitive immensity, and on a scale never before possible because knowledge, in all its forms, has never before been so widely available. At the same time, it means even more than this cognitive embracing; it entails all kinds of attitudinal and ethical revaluation and reorientation, related to knowledge-possession. Taken together, these various challenges and pressures clearly constitute an intellectually demanding culture.

Overall, the growth of knowledge derived from systematic methods of research and experimentation - knowledge, for example, of the hard sciences, of history, anthropology and philosophical ideas - has undermined much of the religious mentality, as held, at any rate, by the majority of believers: a mentality which emphasises not knowledge but faith, not empirical investigation but acquiescence in received ideas. Such a mentality contains little that is intellectually demanding, in contrast to the one we have been examining. This is true of majority adherence to all the world’s religions.

However, everywhere in the world, the more Popper’s strain of civilisation is felt, and the more Malraux’s imaginary museum is travelled, the more the modern mind will know the demands under discussion. The more, therefore, will it move away from the popular religious mindset (and perhaps from religious mindsets of all kinds).

Let it not be said that the concept of modernity is a purely Western one, applicable only or largely to Western cultural conditions. World history, and not just Western, shows that the expansion of knowledge, wherever it has occurred, has usually weakened positions based on absence of knowledge; and that growth in investigative activity has usually damaged outlooks grounded in lack of such activity. Now, in modern times, for the first time in history, the knowledge and the investigative methods have a globally shared character: one that can be called empirical-scientific. Hence, involvement with that knowledge and investigation is a globally-shared experience. The same, then, is true of the strain and demand which inevitably attend this intellectual position, and which are therefore endemic to modernity.

Finally, while it is the case that, for economic and educational reasons, this position is much more widespread in the West than in other countries, it could become a large-scale phenomenon in the latter, if (admittedly a big ‘if’) they were to see an extensive improvement in their economic and educational situation. Then, the issue of a demanding intellectual culture would become a major one in the Third World. Its ever-present and ubiquitous potential for achieving this status would be realised.

a   London: Janus Publishing Company, 2010 (1996), pp. 35-6.

1 I am of course mindful of the considerable problems now (2010) faced by Western economies. But these are, as yet at least, not of the magnitude of those faced in the Third World. So, in the present Western situation, uncertain though it is, consideration of the cultural issue remains highly appropriate.

2 Compare, incidentally, Popper’s and Malraux’s phrasing with that of two of their 19th-century intellectual precursors: Matthew Arnold and Hardy. Arnold spoke of the multitudinousness of the modern world, and Hardy of the ache of modernism.

From Each According to His Ability

Most people on the political Left accurately identify the basic problems with the capitalist system, in both its industrial and financial aspects: the dominance of the profit-motive, the inadequacy of regulation and control from outside the system and the corruption. At the same time, all progressively minded people, be they of the political Left or the Centre, wish to see fundamental changes in the economic status quo: most obviously, the ending of corruption, and either the diminution or termination of the profit-motive, plus a growth, varying in degree in accordance with the particular ideology, of political regulation and control. There is a wide spectrum of opinion on how foundational improvements can be effected.

Returning now to the Left, specifically the Marxist Left: Marx famously said of the economic system he advocated, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Given that he recommended an economically classless society, this statement appears to accord with the idea of classlessness: abilities between individuals differ, as do economic needs (as, for example, between a single man and a married one with a family), but these differences need not create class divisions; they can be fully accommodated within the framework of classlessness.

At first glance, Marx’s argument may seem a sound one. But issues arise if we begin to query whether social differentiation can, in fact, fit seamlessly with economic standardisation. A highly complex form of society, such as exists in the West, features the exercise of many different types of ability, and not just types but also levels within those types. This is true not only of the paid professions, especially those connected with science and technology, but also of culture in general, whether pay is involved or not. The extent to which this variegation, as an empirical fact, is the result of differences in environmental opportunity is an important question, for Marxists no less than for others. However, unless the contention is that the advent of total equality of opportunity will produce complete identity of outcomes, with everyone displaying the same types and levels of capacity in all fields, the position must surely be that ability-differentiation will continue in whatever future form society takes, and whatever the economic system.

If the above position is valid, then the issue of capacity-variation remains of key interest. It may be argued by Marxists that, yes, ability differences are a fundamental reality but, in an economically classless society, the people of superior ability will then contribute more to the general well-being than those of inferior ability. This point is fair enough, provided we assume largesse of spirit on the part of the super-capable. But, even so, there are complications. Higher ability, especially in the field of the humanities, is often accompanied by a general frame of mind which is more developed and circumspect than that found among those of lower ability; and this difference, in quality and degree of consciousness, in mental energy and exploration, can create problems to do with how the more circumspect communicate with those less so. Large insight stands apart from small.

Further, among at least some of the less endowed, there may be feelings of resentment (sometimes masked as indifference) toward higher ability. This is an age-old psychological phenomenon, poignantly conveyed in the 19th century by Schopenhauer when he spoke of the pain felt by the less able at the sight of a great mind, compared with the overwhelming feeling of their own nothingness.a Another 19th-century examiner of resentment was Nietzsche, and there have been others since: all, incidentally, echoing ancient Greek philosophers such as Aristotle and Heraclitus. Add to resentment, fear: many of those of smaller mental purview fear having their limitations and incapacities exposed by those of larger. Manifestly, this is a many-sided problem whose solution, if one is ever found, will not emanate simply from a change in economic system.

In brief conclusion: since differentiation in complex societies is far more than economic, it would not, in any easy way, fit in with economic standardisation. In all kinds of occupational, psychological and cultural respects, variegation with its accompanying difficulties would continue in an economically classless society, provided the latter remained an intellectually open one.

a   In The Essential Schopenhauer, London: Unwin Bks., 1962, p. 81.

The ‘Working Class’

This term is used in a variety of ways. For example, Marxists deploy it in two senses. Firstly, in strict accordance with official Marxist doctrine, it denotes everyone in capitalist society who sells his/her labour power in the labour market. So, everyone is working class who is an employee, not an employer. But problems arise from this definition. According to it, self-employed people, even those who perform the most unskilled tasks, are not working class. Also, employers are a leisure class and do no work. If, on the other hand, it is accepted that, contrary to Marxism, employers do work, then they too could be seen as part of the working class, the latter being collectively distinguished only from those who lead a life of complete leisure.

The second Marxist use of the term - the one on which this essay will focus - actually deviates from official doctrine. Nevertheless, it is, in practice though not in theory, the one most widely used. It designates those people who do not have highly skilled occupations, lack advanced qualifications of any kind, and generally do not receive high pay. This categorisation is in a way less problematic than the previous one, because it more precisely identifies a particular group in society. Yet it still involves difficulties. Those Marxists who deploy it go on to contend that this group deserves, in the initial stages of the political revolution which they advocate, to exercise a dictatorship over the rest of society. This, then, would be the dictatorship of a group which those of meritocratic outlook would regard as people of relatively limited attainment. Obviously, the question arises as to what people of high achievement would have to say about this dictatorship.

In addition to Marxists, many other socialists deploy the term ‘working class’ in this latter sense. Hence its use by wide swathes of the Left remains a thorny issue.

To a considerable extent, its continued deployment in all senses derives from the social thought of the 19th century, a period prior to the large-scale growth of the meritocratic outlook which, certainly since 1945, has gained huge momentum in Western society. The meritocratic perspective focuses on individuals rather than groups, and, emphatically, rather than large groups. Its primary object of interest and understanding is the strengths and weaknesses of individuals, whatever their social location. These observations do not imply that meritocratic values are seen as pervasive in society, and that no areas of unfair advantage and privilege exist; as we all know, such unfairness does still exist. But they do imply that the meritocratic attitude, which itself gives meaning to the words ‘fair’ and ‘unfair’, is the one that constitutes the most dynamic moving force in society, its most progressive element.

The more widespread the meritocratic position becomes, the less the individual is viewed in class terms; hence, the weakening of outlooks based on rigid class concepts - and class concepts of all kinds, not just ‘working class’ ones.

However, a retort might be made by Marxists and others on the Left, as follows: the above way of thinking overlooks the fact that Western society is economically dominated by a specific group of people - the top industrialists, manufacturers, bankers and financiers. These