by Eugene Halton
Published by The University of Chicago Press, 1995, paper, 1997.
Chapter 2: Of Life and Social Thought
"The old idea of the vitality of the universe
was evolved long before history begins, and elaborated into a vast
religion before we get a glimpse of it. When history does begin,
in China or India, Egypt, Babylonia, even in the Pacific and in aboriginal
America, we see evidence of one underlying religious idea: the conception
of the vitality of the cosmos, the myriad vitalities in wild confusion,
which still is held in some sort of array: and man, amid
all the glowing welter, adventuring, struggling, striving for
one thing, life, vitality, more vitality: to get into himself
more and more of the gleaming vitality of the cosmos. That is the
treasure."
-D.H. Lawrence
"Do not be afraid of life!" -Alyosha,
in The Brothers Karamazov
On the Problem of Going Beyond Life
Among the curious facts of intellectual life today is how peripheral the
concept of life has become to most social theorists and philosophers. Despite
a revival of Nietzsche, philosophical pragmatism, and the sociological
"classics," contemporary social thought has tended to ignore the significance
which the concept of life held for the late nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries,
producing a major blind-spot in our understanding of the spirit of that
age and of its import for ours. Considering how generalized the project
of a philosophy of life had become at the turn-of-the-century, inextricably
connected to the parallel project for a philosophy of meaning, the history
of twentieth-century thought is notable for the ways it veered away from
life in the name of meaning. One might argue that the term "life" is one
of those intrinsically ungraspable phantoms, capable of meaning just about
anything its beholder wishes it to mean. But so too are the concepts of
"meaning" and "culture" which continue to be central concerns of social
thinkers, and so something more than the imprecision of the term "life"
is required to explain why conceiving life as a central feature of social
theory no longer animates contemporary thought.
The
attempts to formulate a conception of life were key symbols of the emerging
twentieth-century mind, and provide a standard by which to evaluate contemporary
thought. In its tendency to deny the relevance of organic life for questions
of meaning, much of contemporary intellectual life may be viewed as part
of a larger metaphysic which involves the escape from organic life through
rationalization. Conversely, the tendency to deny the irreducible significance
of mind and its capacities to generalize and actualize reason, a denial
manifest in various forms of biological reductionism, bespeaks a larger
metaphysic of automatism. Together these two outlooks--roughly rationalism
or idealism on the one hand and automatism or materialism on the other--express
the modern ideology of the ghost in the machine.
Despite
widely varying meanings of the term "life," the concept of life emerged
as a central topic for the leading thinkers of the late nineteenth- and
early twentieth-century, although that fact has also been ignored and virtually
consigned to oblivion. A possible exception to this forgetting might be
the traditions of Lebensphilosophie and Philosophical Anthropology, terms
which are today usually associated with the German thought. The terms may
be German, but it is important to remember that the ideas comprising these
schools of thought were pervasive throughout Europe and America in the
early part of the century. The publication of Darwin's The Origin of Species
had an immediate impact on social theorists, as one sees in Marx's admiration
for Darwin's observations, despite his critique that Darwin projected the
ideology of his English class-structured society onto nature....
When
we remember thinkers as diverse as Kropotkin of Russia, Bergson of France,
Spencer and the Darwinians of Britain, and Samuel Butler and later Patrick
Geddes, Samuel Alexander, C.Lloyd Morgan, L. T. Hobhouse and others, the
American pragmatists Peirce, James, Dewey and Mead, as well as Charles
Horton Cooley, Alfred North Whitehead, Nietzsche, Dilthey, Rudolph Eucken,
and Sigmund Freud, we are reminded of how pervasive the questions of life,
nature, and evolution were. These thinkers and others all considered it
important to include a conception of life in their general philosophy or
framework. When we broaden further to remember writers such as William
Morris and George Bernard Shaw, Strindberg, Butler's fictional works, the
whole art nouveau movement, architects such as Louis Sullivan, Frank Lloyd
Wright and Antonio Gaudi, we are reminded that "life," whatever it meant,
was the virtual pivot of the age. The turn to the concept of life by intellectuals
was parallel to the artistic movement variously called art nouveau, Jugendstil,
or arts and crafts, which sprang forth near the end of the nineteenth century
with a program that placed the representation of life and organic form
at its center....
....In
his 1918 essay, "The Conflict in Modern Culture," Georg Simmel pointed
out the significance of the concept of life for twentieth-century culture.
He saw in the rise of artistic expressionism and in the prevalence of Lebensphilosophie
itself, especially philosophical pragmatism, a new cultural paradox. In
Simmel's view, as we will see, human cultures are marked by an ever-present
dialectical tension between form and life. Yet this dialectic between form
and fluid vitality had reached a peculiar turning point by the turn-of-the-century:
the form of the twentieth-century was revealing itself as life itself.
Simmel drew attention to the paradox that life, inherently formless, was
becoming the form of the age--a formless form. His examples included expressionism
in art and pragmatism in philosophy. In Kandinsky's works of the period
in which Simmel was writing, color is liberated from form to become expressive
in its own right. Jamesian pragmatism, with its elevation of vital existence
over immovable truth, struck Simmel as a key indicator of the paradoxical
transposition of life to form. One might add that Simmel himself, though
still a formalist, drew from the same spirit of the time in turning to
Lebensphilosophie. Unfortunately he did not see the other half of the paradox,
the formalization of life itself, resulting in lifeless life. Instead of
a dialectical tension between life and form, a strange inversion was occurring,
producing lifeless life and formless form, each, in effect, cancelling
the other out instead of transforming it.
The
physicists say that should a piece of matter encounter a piece of antimatter,
a tremendous explosion would result. With hindsight we can see the cultural
equivalent in the explosive artistic, intellectual, social, and political
forces released in the twentieth-century, illustrating the problematic
relationship which life and form had assumed. Life was central to the emerging
social theories and philosophies of the early twentieth century, yet one
can scarcely appreciate its importance in contemporary sanitized reconstructions
of the thought of that time. The other, missing half of Simmel's equation,
formalization, has frozen the life out of the current canon of social theorists
and philosophers. Yet the concept of life, so indeterminate in its variegated
meanings, nevertheless provides the hidden key to the critical understanding
of our age, and perhaps the means to open the door to the next one....