On page 4 of The Human Condition, Arendt makes a statement that is both well-said and has turned out to be largely true.
She says that an event that threatens the political life of man "is the advent of automation, which in a few decades probably will empty the factories and liberate mankind from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of laboring and the bondage to necessity."
This is a good sentence in that it is elegant while still being remarkably simple for a political theorist. She also overstates the positive aspect of this shift as a 'liberation,' specifically as a rhetorical device to make her claim on the next page that "nothing could be worse" more dramatic. The truly striking thing about her thought here is the prediction. In 1958 she summarized one of the most important trends of the past 40 years, skill-biased technological change and the shift from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, which is a driving force behind such contemporary issues as income inequality and illegal immigration.
Also...this is from last week's reading, but it really bothered me. One of Wendy Brown's main points in On The Edge is that the rise in professionalism among political theorists can have a tendency to shut non-professionals out of the discussion. She then proves this point by asking:
"What epistemological, stylistic, and ontological conceits denote its significant others, its scenes of alterity?"
If I had not taken upper level philosophy classes I would not have any idea what this sentence means, and I am still not sure.
I think you highlighted a great point from Arendt above. This point was very relevant to our discussion on Tuesday as well as to questions of our human existence today. Although your point is well made I think it could be argued that Arendt's prediction was not quite so true. The idea that automation would empty factories is certainly true, our economy has shifted toward a service based economy. However, I don't think this has liberated mankind "from its oldest and most natural burden, the burden of laboring and the bondage to necessity." It seems to me that laboring and bondage toward meeting our necessities still governs a large portion of our lives, albeit in a different form than before. Less and less people till the land or work in factories that make goods needed for survival but the reason we work has not changed, we still work so that we can provide for our necessities. Still I think there is a lot of room for argument on both sides of that issue.
ReplyDeleteI want to try to delve into the meaning of the sentence you quoted from Wendy Brown as well. Epistemology is concerned with questions of knowledge. Ontology is what we usually refer to as metaphysics (if you are familiar with philosophy) or questions of being, reality, and physical states (to put it very briefly). Alterity basically means oddness, so scenes of alterity most likely is meaning the unique parts of the field or discipline. So we have a question of the knowledge ideas, style, and metaphysical conceits (metaphors or complex ideas). What conceptions of each of these exist in the field that denote "its significant others," and/or (assuming the comma means and/or) its "scenes of alterity," or scenes of oddness. The part that really confuses me is "significant others," it is hard to tell what she means here. I think it may mean those who are important in the field. If that is the case then the sentence is asking what types of knowledge ideas/questions/views, style, and metaphysical ideas/questions/views denote who is important in the field/discipline and what is unique to the field/discipline.