The title of this post comes from the title of an article that appeared in the last edition of The Economist in 2006. It was published under the heading "Shopping and Philosophy". The subtitle of the article was "How the shape of modern retailing was both predicted and influenced by some unlikely seers".
Jean-François Lyotard is the philosopher The Economist identifies as most responsible for predicting the rise of postmodernism. He disliked the mega-narrative and generalities that modernism offered and saw the emergence of a more culturally eclectic world attitude. He equated postmodernism with a kind of 'eclecticism' and said that "eclecticism is the degree zero of contemporary general culture; one listens to reggae, watches a Western, eats McDonald's food for lunch and local cuisine for dinner, wears Paris perfume in Tokyo and retro clothes in Hong Kong; knowledge is a matter for TV games". I think he was also speaking to the paradoxical, schizophrenic nature of globalization and it eclecticism, where the world is simultaneously becoming united and interdependent on one level while independent and fractured on another.
I never thought much about post-modernism until I read that article. I was trying to figure out what was meant by "postmodernism is the new black". I figured it out. Black is supposed to be 'cool'. So postmodern is the new cool, the new 'with it'.
The Economist article talked about postmodernism in retailing. It's about retailing catering to niche markets within a mass market. It's about retailing being constantly innovative and supper agile. Whereas 'modern' retailing catered to a homogenous market, postmodern caters to a fractured, splintered market within the larger market place. It is more exotic. In other words, the postmodern consumer market is far more diverse and multitasking and thus more sophisticated. The article points to the Selfridges, a London department store, where this model of retailing began. Because this retailing proved so successful for Selfridges - it revived Selfridges and saved from bankruptcy - it has been adopted by department stores elsewhere.
Retailing is not the only aspect of postmodernism. It also applies to architecture. Modern architecture, also know as the international style, is generally a sleek glass box building. Much of today's new architecture has been labeled postmodern, buildings designed by the likes of Foster, Libeskind, and Gehry. There is a deconstructionism about the buildings these architects built, as though a modern building has been disassembled and put back together differently, rejecting the modern design. It is a reinvention of the modern and assembled differently to reflect the changing times of more diversity and input in society.
I would thing the difference between the two architectures is the same in philosophy. Postmodern thinkers are those who grew disenchanted with modernism, which seemed to say everything had to be uniform and the same. Postmodern thinkers are deconstructionists who, unlike the moderns, are not accepting carte blanche that the world has one basic narrative but multiple narratives, exactly what Lyotard thought.
To me postmodern means that there are parallel worlds coexisting, held together by an overarching, not completely absolute world but one constantly consummating itself. I get the sense that the modern world was more absolute, whereas the postmodern world isn't. The postmodern world is more flexible and diverse. The modern world thought narrowly whereas the postmodern world things broadly and outside the box. The postmodern world is not afraid to be different and 'push buttons'.
The modern world was more socially conservative. The postmodern world is more socially liberal. The world became postmodern in the sixties, during the social upheavals that occurred then, which demanded social change. Ironically, the modern world didn’t like change whereas the postmodern world embraces and relishes it.
Many believe that the postmodern world and all its variables will not last because it has no center, the argument being that if the center doesn’t hold things fall apart. Today’s world, though, has evolved into many power centers, the reason being that in the past a concentration of power often lead to tyranny and authoritarianism. As The Economist article suggested, postmodernism’s mission is to “emancipate the individual from the control of the state or other authority, through thought and through economic power”.
In some circles postmodernism is viewed as distructive and chaotic, disrupting the order. Ironically, though, its chaos creates and preserves order and the whole, as shown by the example of Selfridges. Globalization is a postmodern phenomenon that also creates a chaos but at the same time it preserves order by embracing it instead of shunning it. Postmodernism, like globalization, is an agent of blending.
Postmodernism is a social revolutionary done insinuatingly, stealth like, not done through the dramatic and distructive social upheavals of the past. It is a social revolution that occurs constantly, not in fits and starts like others before. The Frankfurt School of philosophy, in the 30s, had its postmodern seers. When one member asked, “who in the future will replace the proletariat as the agents of revolution” another answered in very postmodern manner: “a coalition of students, blacks, feminist women, homosexuals, and other socially marginal elements”. The Economist might have added that consumers with their demands, needs and aspirations, will also be part of this ongoing revolution.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
What have we learned from philosophy?
At the last World Philosophical Congress, held in Boston in 1998, the theme was "What have we learned from philosophy in the 20th century?" I have been pondering that question ever since.
The most prominent philosopher at the Congress was Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard. He died at the age of 92 in December 2000. His philosophy was naturalism, which believes that philosophy is part of science. One of the most poignant remarks he ever made was "philosophy of science is philosophy enough", meaning that the most important philosophical questions arise from scientific activity and scientific knowledge should be able to answer them. Perhaps, then, the question at the conference should have been "What have we learned from science in the 20th century" because Quine evaded the original question, as did all the other participants, as though it was impertinent or irrelevant.
One reason given for why that question was not answered was the ambiguity of the word "we". One participant, Mr. Strawson, an Oxford metaphysician and philosophy of logic asked rhetorically, "is the question about what we have learned collectively or what each of us has learned individually". He answered, "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter there is no shortage of replies." Except, none were offered. One philosopher who was also reluctant or incapable of answering the question asked what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Does it include Eastern philosophy?
I would think that the question was intended to be in the context of the whole world, not east or west. It was asked in the collective sense because philosophy is basically a collective subject, chiefly to benefit the collective. Nevertheless, philosophies that are tailored to the individual, like individualism, free will and self-interest, are also extremely important. After all, the individual should also be philosophically cultivated because he/she is a prime element of the collective, its chief source of inspiration and innovation. However, the first among equals should be collective philosophy because it cultivates the cohesive unit in which we individuals live and coexist. So perhaps one thing we learned from philosophy in the last century is that a delicate balance exists between the individual and the collective and both should be cultivated because neither can exist without the other. They are mutually dependent on each other. I think that in the past century we really began to understand the philosophical axiom "all for one and one for all" because during the 20th century the world grew closer together, more politically united and economically interdependent.
Philosophy is basically about discussing situations and trying to figure them out. One big philosophical question during the 20th century was about human relations and how we ought to treat each other. The most obvious such discussion, especially in the West, has been about the relationship between the sexes. In the 20th century women demanded to be treated equal. That demand brought on the philosophical debate about sexual harassment in the work place, that it should no longer be tolerated as it once was. Through philosophical debate the 20th century also tackled the issues of racism in society and discrimination in the work place. From these philosophical debates we learned that having diversity of people in society and in the work place is a big plus and has an advantage. We learned that diversity makes life richer and more fluid. In the 20th century we learned that suppressing diversity and minorities could lead to social upheaval, like that which occurred in the 1960s when minorities and women became serious about demanding their rights.
If that question was asked about philosophy in the 20th century, we might as well ask whether we have ever learned from philosophy? Sure we have. Philosophy gave birth to the natural and social sciences, from which we have derived the tools to enable and facilitate civilization. From those sciences we have learned what is mutually good for humankind and what isn't. Philosophy was the first to discover the natural forces of the world and then science, its offspring, transformed them so as to benefit us. From political science we have learned that democracy is the best means to achieve and preserve peace in the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democratic nations don't go to war with each other. That philosophy grained momentum during the 20th century, hence its popularity today. In the 20th century we learned that democracy is the best form of governance to meet the needs and aspirations of individuals, and contain the collective.
Some philosophers think philosophy should remain mysterious and complex, so as not to be easily understood. I think that is one reason why the question at the World Philosophical Congress in Boston was not answered, so philosophy might preserve its mystery, and philosophers keep their jobs.
The most prominent philosopher at the Congress was Willard Van Orman Quine of Harvard. He died at the age of 92 in December 2000. His philosophy was naturalism, which believes that philosophy is part of science. One of the most poignant remarks he ever made was "philosophy of science is philosophy enough", meaning that the most important philosophical questions arise from scientific activity and scientific knowledge should be able to answer them. Perhaps, then, the question at the conference should have been "What have we learned from science in the 20th century" because Quine evaded the original question, as did all the other participants, as though it was impertinent or irrelevant.
One reason given for why that question was not answered was the ambiguity of the word "we". One participant, Mr. Strawson, an Oxford metaphysician and philosophy of logic asked rhetorically, "is the question about what we have learned collectively or what each of us has learned individually". He answered, "If it's the former, the possibility of any reply seems remote. And if it's the latter there is no shortage of replies." Except, none were offered. One philosopher who was also reluctant or incapable of answering the question asked what kind of philosophy are we talking about? Does it include Eastern philosophy?
I would think that the question was intended to be in the context of the whole world, not east or west. It was asked in the collective sense because philosophy is basically a collective subject, chiefly to benefit the collective. Nevertheless, philosophies that are tailored to the individual, like individualism, free will and self-interest, are also extremely important. After all, the individual should also be philosophically cultivated because he/she is a prime element of the collective, its chief source of inspiration and innovation. However, the first among equals should be collective philosophy because it cultivates the cohesive unit in which we individuals live and coexist. So perhaps one thing we learned from philosophy in the last century is that a delicate balance exists between the individual and the collective and both should be cultivated because neither can exist without the other. They are mutually dependent on each other. I think that in the past century we really began to understand the philosophical axiom "all for one and one for all" because during the 20th century the world grew closer together, more politically united and economically interdependent.
Philosophy is basically about discussing situations and trying to figure them out. One big philosophical question during the 20th century was about human relations and how we ought to treat each other. The most obvious such discussion, especially in the West, has been about the relationship between the sexes. In the 20th century women demanded to be treated equal. That demand brought on the philosophical debate about sexual harassment in the work place, that it should no longer be tolerated as it once was. Through philosophical debate the 20th century also tackled the issues of racism in society and discrimination in the work place. From these philosophical debates we learned that having diversity of people in society and in the work place is a big plus and has an advantage. We learned that diversity makes life richer and more fluid. In the 20th century we learned that suppressing diversity and minorities could lead to social upheaval, like that which occurred in the 1960s when minorities and women became serious about demanding their rights.
If that question was asked about philosophy in the 20th century, we might as well ask whether we have ever learned from philosophy? Sure we have. Philosophy gave birth to the natural and social sciences, from which we have derived the tools to enable and facilitate civilization. From those sciences we have learned what is mutually good for humankind and what isn't. Philosophy was the first to discover the natural forces of the world and then science, its offspring, transformed them so as to benefit us. From political science we have learned that democracy is the best means to achieve and preserve peace in the world. As Kant rightly speculated more than 200 years ago, democratic nations don't go to war with each other. That philosophy grained momentum during the 20th century, hence its popularity today. In the 20th century we learned that democracy is the best form of governance to meet the needs and aspirations of individuals, and contain the collective.
Some philosophers think philosophy should remain mysterious and complex, so as not to be easily understood. I think that is one reason why the question at the World Philosophical Congress in Boston was not answered, so philosophy might preserve its mystery, and philosophers keep their jobs.
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Litigation creates Civilization
"Litigation creates Civilization."
I don't know whether I invented that thought or I read it somewhere. I might have read it in a review regarding a law book. Nevertheless, it is one of my favorite thoughts. But like most complex ideas, it's not easy to explain.
Generally we associate litigation with the law and the judicial system. However, I am also thinking about it in a broader context. I am thinking of the litigation that goes on in everyday life between people, through deliberation, when people come together, engage each another and work out their differences or decide on a mutual course of action. In other words, my litigation occurs not only in the legal arena but also in the arena of the ordinary hubbub and friction of every day life. It is this kind of litigation that has really defined the consensus and common practices that exist between us. This litigation is an act that demands a clarity and honesty from people when they engage each other.
However, the idea is easier to understand if you think about it in legal terms rather than in the broader social/political context I've described. For instance, our laws, which have had an enormous civilizing effect on us, have been forged through judicial, litigious means. One might point out, though, that the core of our laws have come from The Ten Commandments, laws that never came to us via litigation but providentially, without litigation. True, but I think it is through the litigation of those laws when they have been broken that we've really learned and internalized them. Without litigation, without that kind of confrontation, those laws would have remained meaningless. Litigation has animated those primal laws and made them effective, making them operational and entrenching them in our psychic. In other words, litigation has given us the understanding, the sense and feeling of those laws. Litigation put us through the paces, cultivating the understanding of those laws. It is through such litigation that we have transcended our tribalism and become a cohesive society.
A lawyer would agree that litigation fosters civility between opponents. In the past adversaries were more apt to do battle to resolve their differences than litigate or negotiate. But in this world that kind of conflictive behavior is no longer an option or acceptable. Civilized people don't go to war anymore, they litigate. Politics is a form of litigation. Throughout the world political activity has expanded and become the way of resolving difference, not through wars as it once was.
America has the most lawyers per capita, making it the most litigious society in the world. There is something to that. I think this has something to do with the fact that America was born of an astonishing array of diversity and an abundance of competing interests. Something had to keep those parties separate, from fighting with each other. Lawyers are what separates them, helping to work out their differences. It is said that a true democracy has many master who place a multiple of demands on it. This makes democracy a very complex situation and thus a potentially very confrontational and litigious affair, hence the need for many lawyers and their litigious skills. And as such America has been at the forefront in creating social policy and more prepared than any other culture to litigate the contentious issues of our time.
This is what the dictionary says about the origins of the word litigate: Latin lītigāre, lītigāt- : līs, līt-, lawsuit + agere, to drive. The term 'agere', part of the origin of litigate, is associated with the word act, like a thing done or set in motion, driven urged, chased or stirred up. So to my way of thinking, litigation is an act occurring all the time between people, like acting things out.
Litigation is a process of working things out. It’s a process of discovery, discovering how to proceed with contentious issues. Often society is confronted with new and puzzling circumstances, which need figuring out, on how to handle and proceed with them. New circumstances usually arise without prior knowledge or forethought on how they should be dealt with. Such circumstances are often void of a known value and require the establishing of rules and regulations on had to go about them. One example is abortion. When this issue first manifested itself into a serious social issue it had all sorts of implications that required a social and legal framework. There have also been scientific discoveries, like life prolonging procedures that have also required litigation to determine their social value and how to deal with them. In these matters the litigation done by courts on society's behalf has done much to civilize and sophisticate us.
The area in which litigation has had the most success and impact is in human rights. There would be no human rights without litigation, without people having their day in court and demanding their rights. African-Americans eventually got their equal status in America by going to court. It was through litigation at the height of the civil rights movement that they achieved integration, equal education and justice under the law, something the American Constitution had vowed to do but society hadn’t yet accomplished. It was through the litigious proceedings during the Nuremberg trials in Germany after WWII that the world got to learn about some of the worst violations perpetrated against humans and humankind. From those trials a universal court for human justice was established, under the auspices of the United Nations. Without such a portal civilization could not have proceed.
I don't know whether I invented that thought or I read it somewhere. I might have read it in a review regarding a law book. Nevertheless, it is one of my favorite thoughts. But like most complex ideas, it's not easy to explain.
Generally we associate litigation with the law and the judicial system. However, I am also thinking about it in a broader context. I am thinking of the litigation that goes on in everyday life between people, through deliberation, when people come together, engage each another and work out their differences or decide on a mutual course of action. In other words, my litigation occurs not only in the legal arena but also in the arena of the ordinary hubbub and friction of every day life. It is this kind of litigation that has really defined the consensus and common practices that exist between us. This litigation is an act that demands a clarity and honesty from people when they engage each other.
However, the idea is easier to understand if you think about it in legal terms rather than in the broader social/political context I've described. For instance, our laws, which have had an enormous civilizing effect on us, have been forged through judicial, litigious means. One might point out, though, that the core of our laws have come from The Ten Commandments, laws that never came to us via litigation but providentially, without litigation. True, but I think it is through the litigation of those laws when they have been broken that we've really learned and internalized them. Without litigation, without that kind of confrontation, those laws would have remained meaningless. Litigation has animated those primal laws and made them effective, making them operational and entrenching them in our psychic. In other words, litigation has given us the understanding, the sense and feeling of those laws. Litigation put us through the paces, cultivating the understanding of those laws. It is through such litigation that we have transcended our tribalism and become a cohesive society.
A lawyer would agree that litigation fosters civility between opponents. In the past adversaries were more apt to do battle to resolve their differences than litigate or negotiate. But in this world that kind of conflictive behavior is no longer an option or acceptable. Civilized people don't go to war anymore, they litigate. Politics is a form of litigation. Throughout the world political activity has expanded and become the way of resolving difference, not through wars as it once was.
America has the most lawyers per capita, making it the most litigious society in the world. There is something to that. I think this has something to do with the fact that America was born of an astonishing array of diversity and an abundance of competing interests. Something had to keep those parties separate, from fighting with each other. Lawyers are what separates them, helping to work out their differences. It is said that a true democracy has many master who place a multiple of demands on it. This makes democracy a very complex situation and thus a potentially very confrontational and litigious affair, hence the need for many lawyers and their litigious skills. And as such America has been at the forefront in creating social policy and more prepared than any other culture to litigate the contentious issues of our time.
This is what the dictionary says about the origins of the word litigate: Latin lītigāre, lītigāt- : līs, līt-, lawsuit + agere, to drive. The term 'agere', part of the origin of litigate, is associated with the word act, like a thing done or set in motion, driven urged, chased or stirred up. So to my way of thinking, litigation is an act occurring all the time between people, like acting things out.
Litigation is a process of working things out. It’s a process of discovery, discovering how to proceed with contentious issues. Often society is confronted with new and puzzling circumstances, which need figuring out, on how to handle and proceed with them. New circumstances usually arise without prior knowledge or forethought on how they should be dealt with. Such circumstances are often void of a known value and require the establishing of rules and regulations on had to go about them. One example is abortion. When this issue first manifested itself into a serious social issue it had all sorts of implications that required a social and legal framework. There have also been scientific discoveries, like life prolonging procedures that have also required litigation to determine their social value and how to deal with them. In these matters the litigation done by courts on society's behalf has done much to civilize and sophisticate us.
The area in which litigation has had the most success and impact is in human rights. There would be no human rights without litigation, without people having their day in court and demanding their rights. African-Americans eventually got their equal status in America by going to court. It was through litigation at the height of the civil rights movement that they achieved integration, equal education and justice under the law, something the American Constitution had vowed to do but society hadn’t yet accomplished. It was through the litigious proceedings during the Nuremberg trials in Germany after WWII that the world got to learn about some of the worst violations perpetrated against humans and humankind. From those trials a universal court for human justice was established, under the auspices of the United Nations. Without such a portal civilization could not have proceed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)