Forty Years from the Publishing of the “Civilization
at the Crossroad” and the Crossroad of the Recent Civilization
Jindřich Filipec
In the year 2006 it is forty
years that the first issue of the publication R. Richta
and al. “Civilization at the Crossroad” appeared (Publishing House
Svoboda, Prague, 1966). With its topic and inter-disciplinary approach to the
timely and even today actual problems of societal and human linkages of
scientific-technological revolution, its contradictory consequences, as well as
pointing out the possible solutions, evoked extraordinary reverberations not
only domestically, but also abroad.
Soon it has been published in
several countries of Europe,
We do not intend to focus the
contemplated colloquium on historical reminiscences, but to the urgent message of this
publication to the present and the future. As almost half a century ago, in
spite of some historical transformations, the humanity stands again at the
crossroad. An exit from the present contradictory situation is sought. Among
others, even in this newly re-discovered former context, the idea of R. Richta´s team is reconfirmed, that capitalism and its shift
to the global control of the world, is not leading to the humanistic solution
of the contradictions human society is facing, but to the contrary, some of
them are being sharpened. Development after 1989 also in our geopolitical space
indicated, that it is a matter of illusions which are slowly merging into
deception. When even today Walesa repeats, that the path has led and is leading
from “Solidarnosc to Freedom”, it is more and more
obvious that this and similar “trajectories” have been leading predominantly to
capitalism, the same way as the Mr. Dubček´s
third way of “socialism with the human face” was objectively only a transition
stage to restoration of capitalism with all its, now more obvious, problems.
For the present it is symptomatic,
that even R. Dahrendorf (1966) against the
Even when the skepticism of
the dominant social system representatives, after the end of bipolar world is,
in its own way, paradoxically growing, one cannot ignore the fact that a
superficial denunciation of capitalism as the only factor causing all the
anti-humanistic consequences of scientific and technological progress,
does not get hold of all complexities and multi-factorial character of societal
processes and the essentially contradictory pattern of human behavior at all.
Also an attempt to explain all contradictory consequences of science and
technology applications, only by this one-sided denunciation would be similarly
one-sided reaction to the fundamentalist apology of the neo-conservative
concept of capitalism “without adjective” or to the self-salvation activity of
the “invisible hand of market”. However absolutist capitalism as the only cause
of all evil, or to the contrary as the only salvation of the humanity is not an
explanation of all contradictions and problems of contemporary civilization. Is
not an explanation, among others, because the capitalism itself in its present
form has to be explained. We have pointed out ourself some time ago, the limits of some formulations
contained in the “Civilization at the Crossroad” and the necessity
to search further this phenomenon (Jindřich
Filipec-Radovan Richta: “Scientific-Technological
Revolution and Socialism” 1972). We indicated that among others, in some
historical situations or countries on the other hand, the insufficient degree
of development of capitalism became a barrier to realization of humanistic
version of applying scientific-technological revolution (V.I. Lenin: Comments
on the Book of N. Bukharin, 1932). Lenin´s concept of
“New Economic Policy” (NEP) has even now, after the collapse of Soviet Union, its importance in such
countries as
“Civilization at the
Crossroad” was also a contribution to the attempt to overcome an indiscriminate
critique of the scientific and technological progress, so fashionable then and
even now, as an alleged main cause of de-humanization of man. It stressed just
the opposite, the further development of science as a precondition for gradual cultivation
of the human factor, that in connection with some changes in societal system
could become a decisive power leading to qualitative changes of human life at work and leisure time and so to
humanization of man and human relations. Concept of a “doable history” and
transformation of the world with the aid of human reason is, among others, a
resumption of the enlightenment tradition, developed by Hegel and Marx that is
especially topical today when irrational calls in various forms are denouncing
the history-making activities of a man, as an expression of a pernicious pride
and lack of humility before “superhuman” forces. Ecological and other
catastrophes are presented as a consequence of “hereditary sin” and the
salvation is sought in “return to the values of the past”, sometimes even to
the middle ages (A.Minc “le nouveau moyen age“). As one
of the main culprit before 1989 and after, was singled out „sciencetech“ or
„techno-science“ presented as the cause of “destruction, dehumanization” or also
“vilifying our original natural world....” (Miloslav Král:„ Kam směřuje civilizace?“
1998). Mr Král terms these approaches
as “intolerant” toward “objectively valid scientific interpretation of reality”
and as the bearer of it in our country
he cites V. Havel and J. Patočka.
In this connection he cites the thesis of Mr. Havel, that modern science
supposedly cancels “the most internal bases of our natural world; kills God and
takes its place on its emptied throne” and in connection with rationalism
systematically forgets this “natural world”, dispute, degrade, vilifies and colonizes it (ibid. p.
96).
Apparently
opposite trend is represented by post-modernism with its more or less absolute relativization and subjectivization
of all values, what leads to similar consequences as religious-irrational critique
of scientific-technological progress – to disorientation and undermines the
human activities. Its gives rather an air of avant-garde intellectual tunning than a unified theory, a sharpening of sensibility
against rationality and after all – as Eagleton
states – a substitution of societal critique by cultural critique, motivated by
superficially eclectic and playful spirit of art (in E.Hahn, Zur Kritik der Postmoderne 1999). This
tuning reproduces a “phantom world” where the real world is being contested as
a phantom. Here the borders between fiction and reality are wiped off so that the
science of nature and society is being questioned and replaced by individual
interpretation – as it indicates R. Rorty -
“narration” - what expressed somewhat sharply – means disputing the science and
absolute relativization of all statements on reality.
J. F. Lyotard in this spirit symptomatically
denounces even the Enlightenment as an “original source of totalitarian and
ecological nightmares that are troubling the XX. Century” (Lyotard, La condition postmoderne
1979). Reality, causality, difference between an active and
passive, but also the difference between the Right and Left is lost in the fog,
in which the “truth cannot be decoded” (J. Baudrillard , Agonie
des Realen, 1978). To this comes the
manipulations of wide masses by mass media, what is symptomatically labeled as
“totalitarianism of mass media” (Fougeyrollas
1994), that by pretending and suggestion
of “virtual reality” deforms and paralyzes human activity that under certain
circumstances could lead to the transformation of “real” reality. One of the
important preconditions for the success of human reason in putting through
humanism that corresponds to human substance and specificity of human kin, is to positively surmount all forms of false
consciousness and its position in the world. The practical realization of human
values and ideals, that in spite of different cultures have common universal
denominator, must go hand in hand with it. Such realization concept has yet to
be work-out with regard to the conditions of 21 century as well as with respect to general and
specific features of individual cultural circles. Therefore our prepared
colloquium can only attempt to present a partial contribution to this long-term
task. That means to concentrate on some main points.
1/
As far as the methodological base is concerned, it should rely on the
application and development of dialectics, that is not only a subjective case
or a method of human thinking, but objective form or method of reality itself,
i.e. the “method” of development and creation of nature, society and human
thinking, that the recognition of this objective process asymptotically
approaches, without the possibility to apprehend it absolutely and once for
all, among others, exactly because of its constant transformation.
In this motion, with its all
mutual and dialectic couplings, it is the being that pre-determines the
consciousness, that is valid in a specific form also for societal motion, where in “final instance” it is the
economic factor that decides, but not in a sense of some economic determinism
(Marx had nothing and did not want to have anything common with it), but in the
spirit of dialectic and therefore also historical materialism, that tries to
encompass and stimulate the rational activity of a societal subject. Adequacy
of this theory and method is not given once for all, but must be systematically
developed in connection with the changes in real world – and therefore also
with the changes of the history of social reality itself. People as a societal subject
and the main productive force, as is known, are authors and actors of historical drama. A man co-produces the
historical conditions, that are acting back and
forming him. As a productive force is also a product at the same time and
therefore a result of the applied energy of former generations. From the times
of Renaissance a man has more and more comprehended himself as subject of its
own development as well as understanding of himself. Some dialectical
perceptions of a world design and self-creation of a man were formulated by Vico and before him by J. A. Commenius
in his thesis “fabricando fabricamur”.
Marx further developed this
tradition by stressing the “active side” of the dialectical relation of the
subject and object. This of course places the issue of history research as a
dialectical unity of concrete partial events with general overall historical connexions on daily agenda, as well as the question of the
sense of historical processes, in other words, the question:“How
and why Homo sapiens of the Stone age has developed into Atomic age?” (Hobsbawm 1998). How the constantly
reproducing tension of relation between the human subjectivity and objectivity
manifests itself today, that is mediated through social organization
predominantly in sequence of generations, in overlapping of the past, present
and future into a pattern of contradictory real historic impact
? (Eichhorn 2000). What can the contemporary
philosophy contribute to this? What brings the dialectic and
historic-materialistic approach to the adequate solutions of such problems as
the contradictory unity of alienation and adoption (acquisition) and this
before all, as far as human being and consumption is concerned (against the
useful generalization of E. Fromm about the contemporary man as an “eternal
suckling”, so called “Homo consumens), or a one sided
characteristic of institutions as “apotheosis of materialization” (viz H.Marcuse)? What brings in more general, but quite fundamental plane for the solution of
consequential and historically ticklish problem of the so called heterogeneity
of goals, that is the problem of contradictions between the intentions and
consequences of societal (but also individual) human activities? In this
connections it will be necessary to handle, today and tomorrow, among others,
the surmounting of one sided generalizations, overstating single side of the
reality and so leading chronically to the general denouncement of consumption,
institutions and technology and actually all instruments of human activities in
general, as a cause of all ills. In Czech environment these fashionable
concepts were eclectically acquired and presented as creative discoveries (J.Patočka, K.Kosík
and others). Instead of differentiating analysis of contradictions of listed
phenomena, an “effective”, “non-conformist”, but in reality well adapted
denunciation was presented mostly as a “fight of culture against civilization”(Kulturkampf ). Critical
thinking was advertised(taken-over from “Frankfurt
School”) a “negative dialectics” in spite of the fact that the essence of
dialectics is in comprehension of unity of contradictions and positive
surmounting of negation in the form of negation of negation, that is in the
form of synthesis representing not only a “large summary”, but reaching a
higher level of understanding of contradictions and their active, i.e. practical solution.
It is symptomatic, that pseudo-radical critics of ideologies,
that do not go to the root of problems, are ultimately entangled in the
snares of a false consciousness. So for example K. Kosík
concentrated its “anti-dialectics of the concrete” in the thesis that the fire
that Prometheus brought to people from
2/
Study of the history of science and technology is very important for the
understanding of these
contradictions as well as their solutions. Mere use of tools – as is well known
– had essentially “kin-creating” importance. Their improvement developed the men himself and
contributed to the fulfilling and cultivation of his needs, but on the other
hand harbors various threats and dangers. Typical case in point is the the relation of the productive activity of man to his
living environment. Here we often run
into extreme positions: according to some, this human activity is a guarantee
of cultivation and salvation of nature while the others see there deadly
dangers. These extreme positions are, as was already pointed out, very common
and attractive, because they correspond to the simple reasoning in the spirit of principle yes, yes
– no, no. A complicated reality do not relate to the eclectic principle this and
also this (both) either. A man cannot interact and not interact at the same
time and for justified findings of some negative ecological consequences of its
activities one cannot require the “pacification of human existence”, nor expect
that a man will end the further development of its activities. When recently a
theses is forwarded that a “men must not do all he is able to do” then it has a
rational sense only as a call for development of such activities that will
increasingly contribute to the cultivation of both men and nature, but we must
be prepared that this again will reproduce and on a higher lever, new
contradictions. That assume not “pacification of scientific and technological
activities ”, but exactly the opposite, development of new scientific
disciplines, such as the science on science and scientific analysis of human
activities in new conditions, when on history-creating processes key influences
are made by progress in informatics, microelectronics, biotechnology, genetic
engineering, ecology, aesthetics, studies on cultures, education systems,
sociology of leisure time and way of life – in other words the results of
co-operation of all disciplines of natural and social sciences, including their
applications in the process of human factor cultivation. Authors of the
“Civilization at the Crossroad ” made some instigating
suggestions one could then and even now follow-up. In order to overcome more
efficiently some of the negative impacts of science, there is a necessity of
not less, but more science, not so much quantitatively as qualitatively and
better orientation. Above all, it is urgent to analyze, in connection with the
changes in societal subject, the influence of scientific technological
revolution on the changes in social structure and transformation of its
components, including the creation of new hierarchical relations among them
(Stimulating summary of the views on this issue has been offered by Jan Keller
in his book “Rise and fall of middle stratum of citizens” 2000).
Important changes of traditional classes and groups take place, new professions
are emerging, for example in the group of managers, analysts, multi-discipline
employees working on the frontier of basic and applied research on national and
global scale.
Impact
of these processes justifies both hopes and worries. While freeing the man from
immediate material production on the one hand opens the possibility of life
style changes, it opens on the other hand, growing army of unemployed on global
scale and increased differences between the rich and poor, both inside a
country and among individual countries. More and more scientists in most
developed, as well as developing countries are coming to a conclusion, that
humanistic alternative cannot be guarantied only by scientific and
technological revolution, but that simultaneously a qualitative change of
economic and political system
of contemporary society must take place. What was the contribution
of “Civilization at the Crossroad” to this multi-disciplinary research and how
to expand it and adapt to new conditions? Where to find
institutional and financial prerequisite for such research.
3/
As far as the economic changes are concerned, they will not be able to avoid some intervention
into a private property, mainly in the domain of large corporations, banks and
multinationals. It is a question whether the European social-democratic concept
of a “Welfare state” or similar programs of Democratic party
in
4/
Any program today - following purely by proclamations
or factually – an alternative exit from the present state of crises in society
- must include more or less substantial change of the present political system.
This is of course coupled with the exigency of changing the economic system in
developed countries of Europe and America, as well as “post-communist
countries” of Central and Eastern Europe, where soon after the year 1989 a
growing disillusion took place, expressed
symptomatically by Mr. Havel thesis of “stupid mood” and somewhat more
concretely by former Hungarian president
A. Goencz so:”Our people
did not want capitalism. What they wanted is called democracy!”. Positively this means to realize democracy, that is the
government of the people, that does not limit the governance to the day of
elections and to select between the government of political parties, that in
any case secure the continuation of the given social system. The desired
alternative is often connected with the program of self-government and civil society on the level
of communities, enterprises, states and wider communities of nations. But this is overall more of a desire
then reality. Next to the, no doubt useful civil associations, there exist such
that under the veil of “non-partisanship” they cover-up certain political,
economic or other interests, so that the label “non-profit” sometimes covers up
very concrete interests in various kind of profit. It is urgent, more then
ever, to discuss the real character of this organizations and the practical realizability of the self-management as the general and
highest concept of democracy. This also may contribute to the restoration of
the competence of increasing proportion of the population, degraded by
manipulative effects of mass media and market, as well as new demands on
decisions and management. By this, the democratic principle of majority is
becoming constantly more and more antagonistic phenomenon and is comprehended by many
as one of the “democratic crises” factor.
5/
All the above problems are acting and could be therefore solved in the context
of unstoppable and
irreversible process of globalization. In follow-up of Marx
observation, already the „Civilization
at the Crossroad” pointed-out the objective, as well as the conflicting
character of this process. Since that time, the process of globalization of
scientific and technological revolution evolved into new patterns,
that have to be analyzed. On the one hand it makes possible to combat
misery, but on the other it opens the “scissors” and the suppression of one
with the others. With the collapse of Soviet union and with the end of
bipolarity, the biggest problems seems to be the American unilateralism, that
entitled the US into the position of global policeman (Brzezinski), that seems
to be empowered to enforce to the world its concept of the democracy and
American way of life. The top of this concept has been reached when G. W. Bush,
after the 11. September 2001 declared that after the end of bipolarity, the
world has been divided into the world of evil and the world of good that US has
to put through “sword and fire” in global scale. The Bush militant
unilateralism faces more and more resistance in
6/
The search for and discovery of a path to the
humanistic alternative and a feasible exit from the indisputable crises of
contemporary world has a key importance. This should be preferably the topic of
the discussion in the prepared colloquium.
This contains the suggestions for working-out a theoretical
concept of such alternative, as well as
the simultaneous identification of the main societal subject, both in general
conditions and in specific conditions of individual countries. Today, it is
much easier to state which projects did not succeed, or are not functioning
properly than to formulate a positive trajectory to the realization of such
alternative. It is even safe to state that the difficulty in formulating the
corresponding theoretical concept stems from the fact that the carrying
societal subject did not crystallize properly for the realization and vice
versa. One is reminded of the situation, long time ago with the utopia
socialism, which was described that to the not yet ripe situation corresponded
not yet ripe theories. Some carrying piers of the former alternative theories
have been even broken by the development. This, as a matter of fact paradoxically,
is valid for the so called avant-guard liberating
mission of the working class. Paradoxically because the validity of the
materialistic concept
of history has been confirmed by the fact that the modern
technological development of production and rationalization of work brought
about a quantitative and qualitative transformation of classical proletariat
(some say that it was de-rationalized, “wegrationalisiert“),
what has caused, that the thesis of its leading historical role has
been overcome. In this connection a thesis of “new historical bloc” emerged (Gramsci), of „managerial revolution”,
miscellaneous techno- or scientocratic concepts and
others, that on the one hand are
signaling a request of some alternative, but on the other show that are not yet
mature and therefore do not lead to any alternative. A scientific discussion on
a main societal subject of the desirable alternative is utmost important,
because it is not possible to wait till such subject will be born and then will
the adequate project emerge, as history
confirms, that there is a mutual relation between the creation of a porter of
unavoidable societal changes and development of theories on their roles, during
these changes.
7/ Last but not least, while
discussing the „Civilization at the Crossroad” and
the crossroad of today´s civilization it is necessary
to pay attention to the historical experience stemming for the present and the
future from the time of “real socialism”. Such historical analysis is an
absolute necessity and can be useful for the future only if it will strictly and exactly
differentiate, i.e. if it will concretely encompass all positive contributions and also all negative
sides of this experiment in realization of humanistic ideas in principle. This
analysis should contribute, of course, to overcoming of presently dominant cliché of
“totality” and “criminal communism”. It is necessary to support by evidence,
that the indiscriminant denouncement of the development in USSR after 1917 and
other countries after 1945, had as a goal not only the identification of Nazism
with socialism in the spirit of the identity Stalin=Hitler, but was directed
and resulted in theses that Hitler was a smaller criminal than Stalin, because
he wanted to save Germans and Europe from Bolshevism. The task for the
scientific discussion is not only the clarification of theoretical sources of
this lie, (H.Arendt, K.Jaspers and others), but also,
what is more important and more difficult, to contribute to overcoming the mass
media “over-kill” in anchoring this
cliché and similar prejudice a priory in the conciseness, behavior and daily
communication relatively in wide layers of population, strengthening the
totalitarian components of contemporary societal systems in some – not least
also in the so called post-socialist – countries. It is necessary to support by
evidence in a balanced way, that in spite of the all deformations evoked by
subjective and objective factors – as was the bureaucratism
of party and state apparatus, voluntarism, out-lawed
security practices, etc., - October Socialist Revolution in Russia and
follow-up development in several countries of Europe, Asia and Latin America
represents an prolongation of the historical arc of emancipatory
movement reaching from ancient world, through French Revolution up to present.
An organic component and spiritual stimuli of this arc is Bacon-Descartes tradition
of European rationalism, oriented to all-humanity goal of a kind of “Instauratio magna“ that is
directed to realization
and extension of the space of freedom and reason (J.Filipec, Contradictions in the European Spiritual Heritage and
Controversies over its Implementations
in the World Today, in Buhr – Moggach, Reason, Universality and History :
Standpoints on the European Intellectual Tradition. New York, Ottawa,Toronto,
2004).
Even when majority of experiments in expanding the space of freedom for all
ended in their couter-revolutionary suppression, it
is possible to support by facts on the deepened global crises of the
contemporary society, that humanity sooner or later will continue to proceed in
the direction of this emancipatory arc merging into it
humanistic traditions of cultures outside Europe.