Abstract
The starting point is the assumption of the civilizational crisis of our times. Here I consider its main causes and the results that are already visible, as well as expected. Against this background, I briefly characterize the concept of culture and mass culture in order to show the historical and cultural significance of the contemporary culture of exclusion. In particular, I am concerned here with the sociological and psychological dimensions of this phenomenon, which – as I claim – is the result of several basic so-called long-lasting processes, but produces very specific mental and social results. They foster a culture of exclusion and hinder the progress of an inclusive culture.
Key concepts: civilization, civilizational crisis, culture, mass culture, culture of exclusion, culture of inclusiveness
The civilizational and cultural context of modern times
I have italicized the title concept of the “culture of exclusion”, as well as the “culture of inclusion” mentioned later, because I do not believe that we need another linguistic cancer. Such a term suggests that there are some entities that are separate in the sense of social ontology and that can be defined in this way. I am rather of the opinion that we can talk about certain cultural dimensions of the contemporary civilization crisis, which has its extremely important causes and sometimes causes even dramatically important effects in the sphere of both culture and the mentality of individual people. This is the context of human, collective and individual indifference to ourselves, nature, the world of values, etc. This indifference sometimes takes the form of callousness and even hostility. In such a world, as Zygmunt Bauman wrote, we are all strangers and excluded. People who are disabled in any sense or are considered different, alien or inferior for any other reason, are excluded even more. I also believe that in our times each of us is disabled, inferior and alien in many ways. In times of the modern civilizational crisis of post-industrialism, the fate of people in a worse situation than average is much, much more difficult.
On the other hand, it should be noted that in the past, the fate of people with disabilities was not enviable either. It seems that it was often much worse than today. It seems that in addition to the spreading social insensitivity, or to some extent against it, especially among the younger generation, in wealthier societies, we are observing a significant increase in sensitivity, not only ecologically, but also towards other people, their harm, shortcomings, including disabilities and alienation. Many countries, especially the more prosperous ones, enjoy the dynamic development of volunteering, i.e. interest in social issues (including the problems of disabled and excluded people, etc.). So what is it like in reality?
But let’s start from the beginning. I attach so much importance to the concept of civilization because I believe that, without it, we will not understand the full depth, complexity and chaos of our times. Especially since all this is the result of processes covering almost the entire globe and lasting for at least several decades. We have fallen into this fascinating and difficult fate of witnesses of the breakthrough of civilization.
Trying to define the concept of civilization is as pleasant as a toothache. Fernand Braudel wrote:
“It would be nice to define the word ‘civilization’ clearly and simply, if possible, just as we define a straight line, a triangle, a chemical body...
Unfortunately, the dictionary of the humanities does not allow for any clear definitions. With everything uncertain or in the works, most of the dates that have not yet been settled once and for all vary from author to author and continue to evolve before our eyes” [Braudel, p. 41].
In order to move more quickly to the main topic of this speech, I will skip the long and difficult suffering associated with defining this concept and assume that it is a certain social form, common to many countries (macro communities), over a long period of time. These macro-societies, today organized primarily in the institutional forms of states, last as long as they retain at least the basics of integration, which I would describe as social order. For me, social order is: a constantly created, recreated, and therefore variable result of an internally heterogeneous, as well as complex and dynamic structuring process. It is a process of crystallization, reproduction, disintegration and transformation of relatively permanent and relatively continuous foundations for organizing the social practice of life within a relatively separate large community (today, still most often a nation or a union of nations and ethnic groups) and organized (at least in our times) in the institutional form of the state. The social order understood in this way determines a more or less permanent framework for the common practice of life.
Civilization, therefore, is a certain state of culture, the result of long-lasting historical processes [Braudel, 1958:725-753], produced by societies, exceeding the lifespan of several generations. Civilization creates a framework in which, to a considerable extent under its influence, people construct social order, create social groups and institutions, culture and their identities. Civilization therefore structures the life of many societies over a long period of time, but it is also a product of these societies and the individuals who constitute them. Margaret S. Archer would write here about the generative mechanisms of morphogenesis and morphostasis [Archer, 1989].
Civilization – when analysed from a different perspective – is the totality of social products that arise in response to the civilization crisis. By civilization crisis I mean situations in which civilization challenges make it impossible for society to exist without significant changes. The factors of such a crisis may be great historical events (wars, revolutions, etc.), natural phenomena (floods, earthquakes, etc.), or breakthrough scientific and technical discoveries, or new religions, ideas or great rationalizations, imaginations, myths. Such factors often pose a challenge not only to some isolated community, but also have a more universal significance. Tradition, therefore, associates the concept of civilization with a wider space. Civilizations take a long time to emerge and develop slowly. It is usually a process that takes place over many generations.
Today, I would argue, we are dealing with a rather dramatic process of civilizational structuring. The advanced decomposition of industrial civilization is progressing. Some people believe that some other, new, informational – as some say, post-modern, post-industrial – civilization emerges; the multitude of names seems to indicate great confusion. The civilization crisis is often associated with achievements in the field of scientific and technical discoveries, which have resulted in such revolutionary technical changes that not only are there changes in production technologies unprecedented in history, but all dimensions of human life and societies are in a state of profound transformation. Hence, we commonly talk about all kinds of crises: values, climate, economic, culture, mental health, church, etc. In fact, it seems to me, we are dealing with one great crisis of the breakthrough of civilization, which manifests itself in all dimensions of human life.
The effects of these changes have been known for over a hundred years. That is, since the times of the previous industrial civilization crisis. Today, only the degree of their advancement is incomparably greater. Even in Alexis de Tocqueville we read about various types of freedom and individualism, including a serious threat to democracy, which is the concept of equality leading to the spread of egocentric individualism. And from the work on the French Revolution we learn about despotism that:
“When men are no longer bound together by caste, class, corporate or family ties, they are only too prone to give their whole thoughts to their private interest, and wrap themselves up in a narrow individuality in which public virtue is stifled. Despotism does not combat this tendency; on the contrary, it renders it irresistible, for it deprives citizens of all common passions, mutual necessities, need of a common understanding, opportunity for combined action: it ripens them, so to speak, in private life. They had a tendency to hold themselves aloof from each other: it isolates them. They looked coldly on each other: it freezes their souls” [Tocqueville, 1856:IX].
And already in the twentieth century, Jürgen Habermas wrote about the same thing, i.e. civic privatism and family-professional privatism, which is another side of civic privatism. It is intended to focus on consumption and career, and divert attention from claims to emancipation [Habermas 1962:136-144].
Émile Durkheim wrote about the same thing almost a century earlier:
“nations [...] have the single or chief purpose of achieving industrial prosperity [...], industry, instead of being still regarded as a means to an end transcending itself, has become the supreme end of individuals and societies alike. Thereupon the appetites thus excited have become freed of any limiting authority. By sanctifying them, so to speak, this apotheosis of well-being has placed them above all human law. Their restraint seems like a sort of sacrilege” [Durkheim 2002 :216].
And this leads to further consequences, uncontrolled development of desires. The clientelism associated with economic and market development and the corresponding mental facts make people even more reluctant to restrain their expectations. Therefore, the real world will necessarily always offer less than people would demand, that’s why it seems that:
“the state of crisis and anomy is constant and, so to speak, normal. From top to bottom of the ladder, greed is aroused without knowing where to find ultimate foothold. Nothing can calm it, since its goal is far beyond all it can attain. Reality seems valueless by comparison with the dreams of fevered imaginations; reality is therefore abandoned, but so too is possibility abandoned when it in turn becomes reality. A thirst arises for novelties, unfamiliar pleasures, nameless sensations, all losing their savor once known. Henceforth one has no strength to endure the least reverse. The whole fever subsides and the sterility of all the tumult is apparent, and it is seen that all these new sensations in their infinite quantity cannot form a solid foundation of happiness to support one during days of trial” [Durkheim 2002 :216-217].
Therefore, a hundred years ago, as today, what Durkheim wrote is true:
“The doctrine of the most ruthless and swift progress has become an article of faith. But other theories appear parallel with those praising the advantages of instability, which, generalizing the situation that gives them birth, declare life evil, claim that it is richer in grief than in pleasure and that it attracts men only by false claims. Since this disorder is greatest in the economic world, it has most victims there” [Durkheim 2002 :218].
Durkheim painted a picture of an anomie-stricken, rather narcissistic industrial society. But in our times of post-industrial crisis, the French sociologist’s diagnosis not only remains relevant, but also seems particularly accurate. Contemporary narcissistic culture would manifest itself in the domination of entertainment over other forms of communication and in the disappearance of real cultural content in private and local relationships in favor of mass communication. The media dictates the most important values, goals and lifestyles. In such a culture, the most important would be idols, celebrities whose significant contributions are unclear or non-existent. In such a culture, they are rewarded with fame, prestige, money and power, while those on whom important human affairs depend (e.g. doctors, teachers, volunteers, artists, social activists, scientists) are not appreciated. Narcissism is largely a manifestation of what de Tocqueville called egoism. It also seems to be the result of individualism, especially in its egocentric form. Individualism associated with democracy, and especially equality, means – according to de Tocqueville – that a person has no authority beyond himself and is not interested in anyone but himself. In this way, social bonds loosen. Society is replaced by a quasi-society, something like a social mass. All the more so because modern civilization processes weaken social divisions, loosen the social structure and free the individual (for better or worse) from dependence on others. If there is anything else that arouses the interest of narcissistic individuals beyond themselves, it is their immediate family circle. We remember that family, apart from the desire for a career, became the subject of Habermas’s sharp criticism. For some reason known to him, he treats families as closed circles of obstructive self-centeredness. Although such things happen, it is not their defining feature. The clinical case is a post-industrial society in which mass culture creates every individual (no longer an abstract individual) regardless of their education, merits or advantages, as the center of the axiological order of modern times. If others were such prestige stars for us, it would be great. But it’s the opposite. Mass culture convinces each of us individually that he is the idol of the world, unlike everyone else. This is where the concept of the ‘other’, the ‘stranger’ comes into play, to which, for example, Zygmunt Bauman paid so much attention. In the name of everyone’s uniqueness, which is to be particularly protected (we know the slogan: ‘be yourself’) and become a unique object of expression (‘express yourself’). At the same time, mass culture appeals to the client, the public, the electorate, and as a result, it equalizes and makes all individuals similar to each other, making each of them, in the end, an insignificant object, an easily replaceable element of mass society.
This weakens the motivation of individuals to self-development, improvement, change themselves and the world, and imitate those who are better educated, more cultured, and more moral. It also deprives us, to some extent, of the sense of meaning in our own lives and the meaningfulness of the world. Forcing a narcissistic and hedonistic understanding of happiness, which allows, among others, being uncritically dazzled by mass culture, fixates on the current level of mental development, on felt needs and drives, makes one incapable of altruism, and also – in the pursuit of unattainable happiness resulting from the complete satisfaction of drives and the ecstasy of pleasure – makes one incapable of development and also feeling real happiness and contentment, such as is available to a person who is able to take up the challenge of humanity and fate.
The social mass is not only the negation of society, but also one of the most degenerate forms of the implementation of collectivism, just as a narcissistic, self-centered individual, accepting himself unconditionally and deprived of a sense of responsibility for himself and others, is one of the most degenerate forms of the implementation of extreme individualism. But it is indeed impossible not to notice this very common concern of modern man to be authentic, that is, to be himself, as if there was a possibility of being someone else. We are authentic and ourselves even in the face of the greatest doubts on this matter. We are then someone who has these kinds of problems, and we will be completely inauthentic if we want to be someone who does not have such problems. It’s fashionable to be assertive today. It probably strengthens people who allow themselves to be exploited. But the slogan of assertiveness promoted by mass culture often hides regular rudeness, extreme egoism, callousness and lack of empathy. The idea of assertiveness is, to a large extent, part of the ideology of egoism and narcissism, so eagerly propagated by mass culture. Meanwhile, if someone is particularly sensitive to the good of others, it is a beautiful quality, and above all, it is authentic for that person. Of course, we understand that in the case of people who are very unsure of themselves, who are excessively submissive to others, to the point of crossing real human, social and cultural boundaries, some level of assertiveness is needed. But this only applies to some people.
Over a hundred years ago, Durkheim wrote that this process has been going on “for a hundred years” (i.e., as you can easily guess, since the beginnings of industrial civilization). According to him, the reason was progress, especially related to the industrial economy. But the next hundred years did not liberate us from this poverty. On the contrary, as Charles Taylor, a philosopher of our times, says:
“ … the culture of self-fulfilment has led many people to lose sight of concerns that transcend them. And it seems obvious that it has taken trivialized and self-indulgent forms. This can even result in a sort of absurdity, as new modes of conformity arise among people who are striving to be themselves, and beyond this, new forms of dependence, as people insecure in their identities turn to all sorts of self-appointed experts and guides, shrouded with the prestige of science or some exotic spirituality” [Taylor 2003:15].
Strangers and the problem of a society of inclusion and exclusion
I mentioned the category of the stranger, which, understandably in the context presented earlier, is becoming one of the most central in contemporary sociology and social philosophy. Globalization has become a result of the progress mentioned several times in this text. I don’t want to go into details here. This issue has been the subject of considerable and well-known literature [Bauman 2000]. Let us pay attention to the mobility of modern man. The development of means of communication, especially electronic means, means that people who lived within their own cultures several decades ago now move around looking for work, a place for investment, better living conditions, a safe territory, entertainment or relaxation. This clearly violates the hermetic nature of the cultures of their birth. Whether we like it or not, most of us encounter strangers every day and we are constantly, often or sometimes, strangers to many people. The global economy requires the abolition of borders. But while it is easier to abolish administrative boundaries, the ones that people set for themselves individually and collectively, in the form of cultural boundaries and distances that we protect from strangers we recognize, are no longer so fluid and flexible. It can be said that the problem of the stranger and inclusion or exclusion is becoming one of the most difficult, painful and dramatic problems of our times. By excluding, we defend not only our material goods, work, living space, but also culture. And, with it, our identities, about which Bauman wrote how impossible it has become to protect them today.
In ambiguous modernity and modern ambiguity, all reality becomes fluid, including identity. Bauman says we have to come to terms with it. In fact, we should be happy about the freedom we have gained in this way. It is no longer the hard circumstances of our social situation and the iron directives of our culture that determine who we are – said the Polish philosopher and sociologist – but ourselves, our aspirations, dreams and will [Bauman 1993]. Bauman understood that it was difficult, but – as he believed – freedom was worth taking responsibility for one’s identity. If this scholar was more of a psychologist than a sociologist, he would have known that perhaps he demands from his contemporaries what is beyond the capabilities of man – at least most of them. The process of identity formation, as we know from outstanding psychologists such as Karen Horney, Erik Erikson or Abraham Maslow, is extremely difficult, subtle, and dependent on many factors. It is the result of parallel psychological, social and cultural processes, lasts a long time and often involves many problems. This was the case when the world was not as fluid as it is today. We also know from psychological literature that identity disorders or, simply put, immaturity have serious consequences for personality, mental health, psychological maturity and a happy life.
In times of globalization, this is becoming a permanent state of affairs for the absolute majority of people. The culture of inclusiveness seems to be a sine qua non condition for the continued existence of the world and the human species. However, it encounters significant barriers. And it’s not just about legal, economic and organizational boundaries and obstacles. Who knows, maybe the more serious obstacles are people’s mentality. But, contrary to what we like to think about it, it is not subject to instruction, persuasion, training, propaganda or orders. This type of obstacle is not just a result of misunderstanding. Then, it would be enough for the good of inclusiveness to become the subject of education and appeals. It is not just that the old are exclusive and the young are open. We are observing the growth of opposing social movements of young people with completely different attitudes towards others. They can clash so sharply that we see that both sides are probably inclusive to their own and completely exclusive to others, who indisputably become strangers to them.
If I wrote so much about the civilizational changes of our times and the situation of individual people, their groups, nations and cultures, my intention was to show that the mentioned civilizational crisis is largely the result of globalization. As a result, it confronts us with the need to build a culture of inclusiveness, but at the same time it makes the processes of building individual and collective identity so difficult that it deprives many, many people of the opportunity for this inclusiveness.
Conclusions
Perhaps a noteworthy conclusion will be that no one can stop globalization, and therefore human mobility in the form of migration between continents, countries, communities and their cultures, which, as a result, become more exclusionary than inclusive. Solving the process of the lack of a culture of inclusiveness requires many patient steps, a long time, but also understanding all determinants and barriers, including cultural and mental ones. We also need to understand how difficult it is for millions of people around the world to crystallize their identity in the face of all these civilization processes, that is, to obtain the basis for mental health, which is a condition for the development of humanity in a person, including openness to others. Therefore, in-depth research on this topic and discussion on policies that take into account even the most profound and seemingly invisible problems and barriers are necessary. As Alain Touraine wrote:
“for we must guard against over-reliance on progress, rationalization and efficiency, creating a ‘secular’ quasi-religion that leads to the erasure of the past. We recognize the need to find the unity of the subject in all its imaginations, each of which was and remains hidden in the instruments of social domination” [Touraine 2011:177].
References
M.S. Archer, Culture and Agency, Cambridge, Cambridge, New York … 1989.
Z. Bauman, Modernity and Ambivalence, Polity Press, London 1993.
F. Braudel, Grammaire des civilisations, Flammarion, Paris 1993.
F. Braudel, La longue durée, in Annales, 1958, p. 725-753.
É. Durkheim, Suicide. A study in sociology, J.A. Spaulding, G. Simpson – translated, Routledge, London – New York 2002.
A. Touraine, Myśleć inaczej, tłum. M. Byliniak, Warszawa 2011.
J. Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, T. Burger – translated, Cambridge: Polity Press, Cambridge 1962.
Ch. Taylor, The Ethics of Authenticity, Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass., London, 2003.
A. de Tocqueville, Old Regime and The Revolution, J. Bonner – translated, Harper&Brothers, New York 1956.