Stephen Elliott
IDC Blog Post 1
What Marx said of Modernism, as “showing signs of decay far surpassing the horrors of the latter times of the Roman Empire”, is the common yet woefully frayed thread between Beck and Berman. In both pieces there is an inherent assumption that the modern world is a “maelstrom” which can neither be controlled nor contained.
Both apprehension and curious wonder guides their critiques, as they grapple with the dualities of our changing world. Berman’s critique of the contradictions of modernity and modernism, that is the disparity between values and processes, tries desperately to assert a Marxist perspective over the realities of the world. He, like Beck, believes that money and technology are the means by which the world changes; yet the unyielding nature of the human spirit remains static despite the flux.
They implicitly define human nature as concrete and unchanging, which to them is the source of modernism’s contradiction. Though they refrain from making claims about the universality of wants and desires among man, they all but assert the universality of human nature. Critical theorists enjoy tracing and deconstructing language as a means of discovery, but in the case of Beck and Berman, they nave neglected to trace the origins of their own lexicon.
There is in fact no universality of spirit, no common thread among men and women, no common desire beyond instinct. The contradictions of man are not borne of their relations with the world, but their relations within themselves. All humans have instincts and reflexes, and in the world of survival there are certainly common goals. Modernism and modernity have granted us there wherewithal to change and expand the spaces in which we think, speak, and exist. These spaces are not filled with instinct and reflex, but the individual expression of humanity, which is entirely unique to each conscious being.
It is reductionist to assume that money and technology are the primary engines of change in society, as it ignores the complex interaction between complex individuals. The trends, as noted by the Economist article, are palpable. The rich get richer the poor get poorer, the privileged few do not exist in the same space as the unprivileged many. But this is not the result of the contradictory nature of capitalism nor is it the outgrowth of unabated, uncontrollable modernism. Much like the fall of Rome, the “uncontainable nature” of modernism cannot be fully understood from the perspective of human interaction, by arguments delivered from a human perspective. And it was obviously inevitable, life does not exist without change.
But by romanticizing how powerful money and technology are with verbose explanations of grandiose theories, they do nothing more than reinforce the paradigm they critique. Humanity is not an equation to be understood by—and manipulated by—variables alone. Its nature is constantly changing, as is the world around it. The moment in which we live now is entirely unique and cannot be theorized generally, nor can it be controlled by an economic system or a political structure. Power among society is dynamic and abstruse, yet the outcomes remain the same. Though we no longer live under Emperors and behind walls, what is the difference between a Caesar and a CEO? He who owns the wealth and means of survival dominates. He who controls the degree to which we survive creates: culture, society, power.
The modern world is not a maelstrom, it is an open door through which we must enter. Human nature is adapting to the outrageous pace with which the world has changed, but it will soon evolve. Though it has yet to overcome the complications—wealth disparity, underdevelopment—it will. It always does. And then it changes. Forth from the ashes of yesterday rises the dreams of tomorrow, all of which cannot be theorized.
