I recently came across a CBC Radio Ideas program where Robert Harrison (a professor of Italian Literature at Standford University) is himself the topic of the program. That interview can be accessed here. Among other things, it's a great opportunity to hear Harrison talk about his own work, a three book trilogy- one on forests, one on gardens, and one on burial and death. Near the end of the interview Harrison speaks about the dark side of modernity through a meditation on Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness. Chris in his latest article about the movie Tron also speaks about the dark side of modernity, so I transcribed the Harrison passage as a compliment to Chris' piece. Here's that passage:"What did the intervening century [since Joseph Conrad’s book Heart of Darkness was written] do to change the situation [of Western nihilism outlined in that book]? If one is honest, precious little. On the contrary, the twentieth century just enacted the most virulent forms of Western nihilism through two catastrophic world wars, and the endless genocides associated with communism and cold war politics and so forth. So it’s very difficult I think to soberly look back on the twentieth century and to say that the vision of nihilism that Conrad puts forward in 'Heart of Darkness' was not well founded. I think it was well founded, raising the question of whether we are to be stuck in that dark hole that he so vividly portrays for us, or whether the twenty-first century might find a way out of it…One of the visions that Conrad has of Western nihilism in 'Heart of Darkness' is of the sheer carelessness of the Western rapacious attitude toward Africa and the continent of Africa, as raiding its resources, and taking from the Earth as much as one can take without giving anything back in return. And this is the formula for nihilism. Conrad’s 'Heart of Darkness' sees Western modernity as a kind of ferocious drive to extract as much out of the Earth as possible without giving anything back to it…So the question for the twenty-first century will be whether a turn is possible in our relations with the Earth, whether we can return to the primary human vocation of being caretakers rather than destroyers in our relation to the Earth”.
Robert Harrison on the Dark Side of ModernityWritten by Trevor Malkinson
Latest from Trevor Malkinson
- Of Everything That Stands, The End- Beams and Struts 2009-2013
- Rhizomatic for the People- Notes on Networks and Decentralization
- Darrin Drda Part IV- Global Addiction and the Road to Recovery
- Darrin Drda Part II- Planetary Initiation and Participatory Reality
- The Roots of Inauthenticity Within the Society of the Spectacle
|Join the Discussion|
Commenting PolicyBeams and Struts employs commenting guidelines that we expect all readers to bear in mind when commenting at the site. Please take a moment to read them before posting - Beams and Struts Commenting Policy
Friday, 07 January 2011 03:38
Cool Trev, the more I learn about modernity's impact on the world the more I'm totally blown away.
A recent book I read, The Global Cold War, by Odd Westad, explains very convincingly that the Cold War was actually a battle for which version of Modernity would reign supreme, the capitalist version or the socialist one. It's a surprising perspective that really fills out the bigger picture of what was happening in the 20th century. I think I'll write a post on it sometime soon, and maybe link back here.
Also, your point about not being a "devotee" of Ken Wilber is well taken. We're all influenced by a host of characters young and old, alive and dead. Wilber's a big influence, but there are others too.
I think it's true that the word Integral gets conflated with someone who's a strict adherent to anything and everything Wilber (that's a credit to the spread of Wilber's work, and also the fact that there's presently no word other than Integral to replace the lame term 'post-postmodern'). Knowing you as I do, and through our many conversations together, it's clear that we both don't agree with everything the man says. That said, I'm very grateful for the work he's done and I respect his courage. He's put himself out there very publicly and done as much as anyone to build a solid, 21st century argument for (re)including Spirit into our discussion of life and reality. He's helped to open up a whole new territory that we all now get to explore and, dare I say, colonize, for ourselves. For that I'm grateful.
Friday, 07 January 2011 17:01
Berg, your reflections on my Wilber comment cut to the point of what I was trying to get at. First of all, the word devotee is a very strong one. One definition of devotee is a "fanatical adherent". As a philosopher, I find being called a devotee of any one thinker repugnant and absurd. I'm also a passionate reader of Plato, Nietzsche and Deleuze (for instance), but this doesn't necessarily make me a Platonist or a devotee (meaning full adherence to the letter of that thinker's law) of any of those (great) thinkers.
For a long time now I've seen non Wilber readers direct such comments at those who do. I don't know deep down what it's all about, and to be honest I find it frustrating. I'm personally interested in ideas and insights and what we can do with them. If a thinker has insights into the true nature of the world and the human experience, and those insights can help us grow and evolve, then I'll run with those insights/views/concepts until they are shown to be inadequate or partial, and then roll from there.
Wilber (in my opinion) has loads of insights, brilliant distinctions, and creatively emergent concepts. I'm still mining that jewel chest heap like those two bungling pirate thieves in Pirates of the Caribbean. Many philosophers make whole careers off of one or two great insights. Wilber has had several. This doesn't mean I buy his whole system by any stretch. Again, I'm interested in the knowledge quest and how we can improve the human lot, and I personally feel that Wilber has lots to offer in that pursuit.
There's a lot of psychical energy that gets cathected around Wilber (cathexis being a fancy psychoanalytic term for the investment of emotional energy) and I don't pretend to know what it's all about. It does at times make me sad though, when we have to spend all this time sifting through all the shadows and projections and lord knows what else, before we can get on with the show and figure out if this stuff is true to our lives and the world. It's hard to get to the promised land when we can't even get the car started.
(I should say that I'm not necessarily putting any of this on Carol, who made the original comment on her site. I just felt the word devotee should be responded to).
Tuesday, 11 January 2011 22:10
Hi Trevor and Bergen - Wow, didn't mean to push any buttons - "devotee" was really more of a rhetorical flourish than an intentionally loaded comment - although I have to admit that the reason that I chose that word without much thought is that I do have some vaguely cultish impressions of the Wilbur scene, based on both viewing some of his stuff online and studying a bit with one teacher very strongly influenced by him. So there is that.
But I also have read some of his work and respect it as incredibly smart and a truly valuable contribution - which when a more serious consideration arises, is definitely where I'd put my emphasis.
So while it's true that "devotee" didn't come out of nowhere, I didn't mean much by it either, and apologize if anyone took offense.
Carol (author of post in question)
Wednesday, 12 January 2011 18:49
Hi Carol, no offense taken at all, your use of the word devotee provided me with a useful opportunity to reflect upon, clarify and communicate my own relation to Wilber and his work. The fact is, there have been periods when folks have indeed been a little over-hyped around Wilber's work and its world shaking capabilities. I surely took a hit off this laughing gas at some point in my life too. This devotional quality can start to take the flavor of what I've heard the Reverend Bruce Sanguin call a 'theology of glory'- everything is about our potentials, the future, the leading edge, and the rest of it.
When you mix this kind of fervor (by some) with the "don't follow leaders" flavor of the postmodern era, where authority and gurus are being questioned in general, then it's understandable that some people have been reticent about folks who are a little too riled up about Wilber and his philosophy. While this excessive over-hype and self praise has relaxed and quieted down in the last few years in the integral community that I've been around, with something more mature and humble setting in, it's still out there at times (some of the lengthy and lavish introduction of guests on some of the teleseries being one notable example), and I wanted to differentiate myself and this site from those kinds of tendencies.
I now prefer to view Integral theory as one expression of a broader emerging worldview/evolutionary movement. As you say, it's a valuable contribution, and it offers many tools for the toolbox. But so do many other thinkers/teachers/schools/philosophies etc. out there today, and I'm excited to also explore all of those here too.
Really enjoyed your post in response to Vanessa's piece, and Vanessa tells me you're doing great things over at your site, so I look forward to reading more real soon. Thanks for the generous and clarifying comment. :)
Thursday, 13 January 2011 01:54
Hi Carol, heh, the word you chose was apparently a good one. Intentional or otherwise, it helped start a good conversation here.
Confessing one's mentors is a funny thing. If we say we love Marx, are we Marxist? What does that even mean? It certainly means different things depending on where you live and the time you're living.
I think that many of us on this site are grappling with what it means to want to embody an Integral/Evolutionary life. Because Wilber is such a prolific figure in this realm, does that make me a Wilberite? I'm not sure, and not sure it really matters in the end. As Trevor mentioned, we all have so many mentors in today's world of infinite information that we're all generalists to some degree.
What I do find interesting about the Integral/Evolutionary/post-postmodern (dang we need to settle on a term for this) worldview is that, being such a small and new emergence, it's basically an epistemic community - or knowledge club. That's a bit of a concern to me and something we're trying to change with this site.
Thanks again for stopping in (I too enjoyed your piece in response to Vanessa's) and I look forward to reading more.
Monday, 06 February 2012 00:04
I was flipping through the footnotes of Integral Ecology the other day and I came across the following footnote-passage, and thought I'd add it to this post (I'll then add this post in the comments of my 'What is Modernity?' essay).
For chapter 1, footnote 12, Zimmerman and Hargens write the following, which I think is a nice compliment/addition to Harrison's passage above:
"According to Habermas, drawing on Frankfurt School thinkers such as Adorno and Horkheimer, scientific rationality had as its aim the laudable goal of emancipation and production of plenty for all, but because such rationality disguised its own power drive, Enlightenment rationality became what Wilber calls "a great monological system net" that "descended on citizens for their own 'benefit and welfare' (Wilber, SES, 464). The dark side of Enlightenment modernity is constituted not by the mere study of the objective features of human beings, but instead the reduction of human beings to those features. Rationality itself became captured by objectifying monological, positivistic modes of reasoning, thereby excluding dialogical and intersubjective modes. The hyperrational ego alienated itself from others, from its own emotions, and from the natural environment, ending up in a dangerous kind of dissociation that lent itself to attempts to "control" nature on such a gigantic scale that they appear from hindsight to be almost literally mad. Habermas summarizes Horkheimer and Adorno's assessment: "The permanent sign of enlightenment is domination over an objectified external nature and a repressed internal nature. Reason itself destroys the humanity it first made possible" (Habermas, 'The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity', 110).
- Hello, I just want to say how much I have enjoyed Beams and Struts. It is quite erudite, what Al… Written by Linda Littrell The Last Beams and Struts Saturday Night Jukebox
- Thanks Ishita. These songs are stretching it, for sure. That might have been the point. If one of these artists… Written by TJ Dawe SNJ: What Do Women Think of These Seemingly Anti-Woman Songs (by Women)?
- A very well written article. And as for, "Are issues like sexual subjugation and domestic violence too touchy to be… Written by Ishita SNJ: What Do Women Think of These Seemingly Anti-Woman Songs (by Women)?
- Leslie - thanks so much for being there. Very glad the show reached you the way it did. Written by TJ Dawe Gabor Mate Answers Questions About Ayahuasca
- T. Collins - exactly. A near death experience isn't necessary for these realizations, but it'll probably accelerate it. But meditation,… Written by TJ Dawe The 10 Changes in People Who've Had Near Death Experiences
- Colette - thanks for these comments. Your observations about animals picking up our emotional energies is very consistent with some… Written by TJ Dawe Scientific Research into Telepathy
- Thanks you TJ for such an amazing life changing event, I've been paying it forward ever since :) Written by Leslie Hodson Gabor Mate Answers Questions About Ayahuasca
- Telepathy between humans is real and more prevalent than people recognize. I practice it professionally to help people, especially those… Written by Colette St.Clair Scientific Research into Telepathy