Bilan
3rd November 2010, 08:17
This is just a short explanation of Max Horkheimer's critique of bourgeois liberalism, and the decline of the individual (Taken from the Eclipse of Reason) that I have written.
I found the reading itself interesting, but can't really post it (nowhere to post it from - I have it in text form)
There are two ways in which bourgeois liberalism propagates conformity: through its ideological construction of individuality (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138), and through the loss of the economic base of the individual (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
Horkheimer argues that the bourgeois conception of individuality is markedly different from all previous conceptions of individuality(Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138): he asserts that the bourgeois conception of individuality is that of an individual pursuing their own self-interest in a society that is ‘progressing through the automatic interaction of divergent interests in a free market’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138). Within this sphere of the free market, the individual is a rational economic actor pursuing his or her own self-interest. This means that ‘individuality’, in the liberal bourgeois sense, has only the pursuit of material well being as it’s goal. (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
Through the pursuit of purely economic self-interest the bourgeois individual has become just like everyone else: their individuality pertains only to the accumulation of ‘things’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139). This has a two-fold effect in that not only is individuality tied up exclusively with self-interest and power over ‘things’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 129), but that also negates all other aspects that make up an individual – such as intellect.
Bourgeois liberalism propagates conformity in another way as well according to Horkheimer. This is through the loss of the economic base of the individual (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
The loss of the economic base for the development of individuality is directly related to bourgeois liberalism through its historical development, as outlined by Horkheimer.
Horkheimer argues that bourgeois liberal ideology emerged out of a ‘multitude of entrepreneurs’ who took control of, and managed their own property, protecting it from antagonistic social and political forces (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
The attitude that these early entrepreneurs maintained is equivalent to that of the modern bourgeois individual: that is, they were merely a rational agent: they consciously calculated the management of their own businesses and affaires. This individual was that of a ‘provider’: someone who managed their own affairs, and prepared for future eventualities (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140).
This idea is at the very heart of bourgeois individualist ideology.
However, Horkheimer asserts, that in the modern age, ‘the age of big business’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140) entrepreneurs of this type have disappeared: economic circumstances become more precarious, opportunities proliferate but only last for a short period of time (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140).
Individuals, then, become solely concerned with their power over things due to the increasingly precarious existence, and thereby their mental or intellectual capacities become forgotten (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140-141).
“The individual depends less and less upon his own prudence and more and more upon the international and international struggles among the colossi of power” (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
Forces outside of their control now dominate the economic life of an individual.
Although this relates to the disappearance of the ‘economic basis’ of individuality, rather than bourgeois liberal ideology per se, it must be kept in mind that this is the society espoused by bourgeois liberals. For liberal bourgeois ideologues, one can only achieve the highest degree of harmony through the unrestricted competition of individual interests (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
This kind of society is a ‘spontaneous utopia’ that became true, and which is only hindered by non-liberal obstacles (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
These two aspects, the bourgeois liberal ideological construction of individuality and the disappearance of the economic basis of the individual, have fed off of each other: and it is through these two aspects that Horkheimer asserts that bourgeois liberalism has led to conformity.
Bibliography
Horkheimer, M. (1947). Rise and Decline of the Individual. The Eclipse of Reason. New York, Seabury Press.
I found the reading itself interesting, but can't really post it (nowhere to post it from - I have it in text form)
There are two ways in which bourgeois liberalism propagates conformity: through its ideological construction of individuality (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138), and through the loss of the economic base of the individual (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
Horkheimer argues that the bourgeois conception of individuality is markedly different from all previous conceptions of individuality(Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138): he asserts that the bourgeois conception of individuality is that of an individual pursuing their own self-interest in a society that is ‘progressing through the automatic interaction of divergent interests in a free market’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 138). Within this sphere of the free market, the individual is a rational economic actor pursuing his or her own self-interest. This means that ‘individuality’, in the liberal bourgeois sense, has only the pursuit of material well being as it’s goal. (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
Through the pursuit of purely economic self-interest the bourgeois individual has become just like everyone else: their individuality pertains only to the accumulation of ‘things’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139). This has a two-fold effect in that not only is individuality tied up exclusively with self-interest and power over ‘things’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 129), but that also negates all other aspects that make up an individual – such as intellect.
Bourgeois liberalism propagates conformity in another way as well according to Horkheimer. This is through the loss of the economic base of the individual (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
The loss of the economic base for the development of individuality is directly related to bourgeois liberalism through its historical development, as outlined by Horkheimer.
Horkheimer argues that bourgeois liberal ideology emerged out of a ‘multitude of entrepreneurs’ who took control of, and managed their own property, protecting it from antagonistic social and political forces (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
The attitude that these early entrepreneurs maintained is equivalent to that of the modern bourgeois individual: that is, they were merely a rational agent: they consciously calculated the management of their own businesses and affaires. This individual was that of a ‘provider’: someone who managed their own affairs, and prepared for future eventualities (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140).
This idea is at the very heart of bourgeois individualist ideology.
However, Horkheimer asserts, that in the modern age, ‘the age of big business’ (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140) entrepreneurs of this type have disappeared: economic circumstances become more precarious, opportunities proliferate but only last for a short period of time (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140).
Individuals, then, become solely concerned with their power over things due to the increasingly precarious existence, and thereby their mental or intellectual capacities become forgotten (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 140-141).
“The individual depends less and less upon his own prudence and more and more upon the international and international struggles among the colossi of power” (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 141).
Forces outside of their control now dominate the economic life of an individual.
Although this relates to the disappearance of the ‘economic basis’ of individuality, rather than bourgeois liberal ideology per se, it must be kept in mind that this is the society espoused by bourgeois liberals. For liberal bourgeois ideologues, one can only achieve the highest degree of harmony through the unrestricted competition of individual interests (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
This kind of society is a ‘spontaneous utopia’ that became true, and which is only hindered by non-liberal obstacles (Horkheimer, 1947: pg 139).
These two aspects, the bourgeois liberal ideological construction of individuality and the disappearance of the economic basis of the individual, have fed off of each other: and it is through these two aspects that Horkheimer asserts that bourgeois liberalism has led to conformity.
Bibliography
Horkheimer, M. (1947). Rise and Decline of the Individual. The Eclipse of Reason. New York, Seabury Press.