BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


"Progress!"

 
  

Page: (1)2

 
 
SMS
03:21 / 03.02.08
But who is "the man ahead of his time," anyway? Is it a healthy thing to equate the wave of the future with the Good? Everyone wants to say today what will be common wisdom in the future. No one wishes to say now what will be roundly condemned in the future. But what right do the non-beings of the future have to pass judgment on us, anyway? When we look to the past, we in the present seem to be divided. Either we say, "Yes, well, he was wrong on those points, unfortunately, but he was a man of his times," or else we say, "but it's still not an excuse."

But who would want to say, "perhaps they were right, back then, and the common wisdom of today is wrong." I wouldn't, that's for sure. I don't want to be vilified unless I’m absolutely certain that I’ve got it right. I don’t plan on going against the common wisdom of my time unless I haven’t got much of a choice, or unless I can do so relatively innocuously.

I have heard it suggested (and I think there’s something to it) that the idea of progress is essentially a mixture of a heretical Christianity with a perverse scientism. The Christian End Times are taken away from God and put into the hands of men (males at first), while the legitimate advances of science are taken as both signs of endless human development in every area, and as the tool by which this development may be carried out. Moral progress was to include the end of war (I believe they tried to make it illegal) and the expectation that society would learn to eliminate its vices one by one. Sociologists began describing the development of society, from most primitive to more advanced. These descriptions gave a good hierarchy of cultures on earth, and could also be used as prescriptions for all these cultures. "Let's see. You are a pre-industrial society. The next stage for you is … And we are a fully industrialized society with a complex corporate capitalism. The next stage for us is …"

Well, that’s the story I learned, anyway. But what do you think? Is there something to this whole progress thing? Are its critics just hopelessly reactionary anti-modern Neanderthals? Or is it the case that progress is just an old-fashioned idea, whose time has come?

And if anyone would like to explain to me what Hegel has to do with all of this, I’d appreciate it.
 
 
elene
13:18 / 03.02.08
Is it a healthy thing to equate the wave of the future with the Good?

It’s inevitable. Have you ever started a large new project, involving the efforts and the futures of many people, with the idea that what you have decided to do is not good, SMS? Can you imagine doing that? Now, of course, when a project collapses we no longer regard it as having been a good idea and we no longer believe it was progress, but we – that is, all who have ever undertaken an enterprise of uncertain fortune - always regard it as a good idea at its outset and we stick with that notion until the bitter end.

I have heard it suggested (and I think there’s something to it) that the idea of progress is essentially a mixture of a heretical Christianity with a perverse scientism.

The “idea of progress,” “the eschaton?“ Presumably you don’t mean that enterprise, and scientific and technological development, at the least, are purely Christian phenomena. Isn’t this “idea of progress” something usually associate with sociocultural evolutionism, August Comte and Herbert Spencer, among others? I’ve no idea, and you don’t make it in the least clear, what the end times might have to do with this.

Concerning Hegel and the inevitability of progress, this paragraph is the one usually referenced.

But this new world is perfectly realised just as little as the new-born child; and it is essential to bear this in mind. It comes on the stage to begin with in its immediacy, in its bare generality. A building is not finished when its foundation is laid; and just as little, is the attainment of a general notion of a whole the whole itself. When we want to see an oak with all its vigour of trunk, its spreading branches, and mass of foliage, we are not satisfied to be shown an acorn instead. In the same way science, the crowning glory of a spiritual world, is not found complete in its initial stages.
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
16:43 / 03.02.08
I have heard it suggested (and I think there’s something to it) that the idea of progress is essentially a mixture of a heretical Christianity with a perverse scientism.

I'd like to know where you've heard this, since I've always been struck by the lack of teleology in the narrative of Western Democracy, and a similar lack of a teleological 'the ends justify the means' justification for what we do and how. With Marxism and Anarchism (perhaps even in Fascism?) there's an end-of-history goal to aim for, in Capitalism there's... what exactly? Amongst some there's a desire for a technological singularity that would make everything before it null and void, others are content to busy themselves until God turns up to fix everything. Nobody has any idea, without resorting to Sci-fi and Fantasy, of where a 'fully industrialized society with a complex corporate capitalism' is supposed to go next.
Jean-Francois Lyotard attempts to tell us why:

Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives. This incredulity is undoubtedly a product of progress in the sciences: but that progress in turn presupposes it. To the obsolescence of the metanarrative apparatus of legitimation corresponds, most notably, the crisis of metaphysical philosophy and of the university institution which in the past relied on it. The narrative function is losing its functors, its great hero, its great dangers, its great voyages, its great goal. It is being dispersed in clouds of narrative language elements--narrative, but also denotative, prescriptive, descriptive, and so on [...] Where, after the metanarratives, can legitimacy reside?

His answer is 'micro-narratives'- small, local narratives in competition with each other. Think of this as monopolies being replaced with small businesses. As in business, the ideal situation is that competition drives innovation and development, so each micro-narrative develops and- whoopsie doodle, we're back onto Progress, but an open-ended progress lacking a teleological component. We know we're moving, we just don't know where to, and perhaps that's how it should be.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
17:50 / 03.02.08
Oswald Spengler's description of the Morphology of history argues that civilisations are born, develop, and die, like everything else, and that a linear model of history is inaccurate.

"The Decline of the West" is worth a read.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
10:06 / 04.02.08
I'd like to know where you've heard this, since I've always been struck by the lack of teleology in the narrative of Western Democracy, and a similar lack of a teleological 'the ends justify the means' justification for what we do and how.

Eh? Isn't the Iraq war being 'justified' by exactly this? Isn't 'we are bringing progress' the favourite mantra of imperialism? Aren't we supposed to appreciate the 'progress' that apparently blessed the post-Communist countries after the fall of the Berlin wall? This ideology seems to pop up in every press release, on television shows, in video-games, even in the Guardian ...

There absolutely is a grand narrative going on right now, which is why I don't trust Lyotard one bit, if he's saying that we've moved on from them. Even if he's just saying we should move on from the grand narrative on to smaller ones, that's still nicely snug with the status quo. This makes me think of the 'kind-hearted entrepeneurs going to Africa' schmaltzy TV show all over again, or localised advertising on facebook being touted as somehow 'revolutionary'.
 
 
elene
16:38 / 04.02.08
Isn't the Iraq war being 'justified' by exactly this? Isn't 'we are bringing progress'

No, we’re either “bringing freedom” or “bringing democracy.” That we aren’t really capable of bringing either is beside the point. It’s not a grand narrative because almost no one believes it (at least outside the USA). You could just as well describe the Islamist drive to restore the Caliphate a grand narrative. Just because the USA is big enough to bully most other states into acquiescence, that doesn’t mean everyone believes its myths.

On the other hand, if you’d ever been to East Germany or Tcheckoslovakia before the wall fell, you’d know that joining with the west has brought progress. They were a mess: massively polluted, authoritarian but incompetently lead, uncared for, and unable to support themselves. That’s no longer the case, or at least not nearly to the same degree. That’s progress, in my opinion.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
16:48 / 04.02.08
It’s not a grand narrative because almost no one believes it (at least outside the USA).

Without mind-reading, I'm not sure anyone can prove that anyone ever did or did not beleive in the Grand Narrative in the way that Lyotard's suggesting, though. This is my problem with Lyotard - he seems to be equating the adoption of systems and philosophies with unswerving, 'religious' beleif in their precepts.

On the other hand, if you’d ever been to East Germany or Tcheckoslovakia before the wall fell, you’d know that joining with the west has brought progress. They were a mess: massively polluted, authoritarian but incompetently lead, uncared for, and unable to support themselves. That’s no longer the case, or at least not nearly to the same degree. That’s progress, in my opinion.

So now you're saying that there is such a thing as progress? Or is it just unthinkable that the fall of Communism wasn't the mythic liberation it's made out to be, and you need to make a moral point? Have you ever been to these places?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
16:58 / 04.02.08
Yes, elene. Have you ever even been to East Germany? You don't sound like you've ever been to East Germany even for a moment, or spoken to an East German. Maybe you flew over it on a business trip one time. A business trip to Israel to meet Kenneth Lay.

Oh, God. I'm sorry. I can't keep it up.
 
 
elene
17:10 / 04.02.08
Yes, I have, Haus.
 
 
elene
17:19 / 04.02.08
Of course there’s such a thing as progress, All Acting Regiment. If we can reduce our carbon emissions to safe levels, that’s progress. If one can get an education when one’s parents couldn’t, that’s progress. If you live in a filthy mess of dead heavy industry that can’t support itself and collapses and you find a way to clean up that mess and get on with the future, that’s progress. Or do you think otherwise?
 
 
elene
17:45 / 04.02.08
What do you mean with your last post, Haus?
 
 
Phex: Dorset Doom
18:47 / 04.02.08
I'm guessing there was a little irony there Elene.

Reg'- belief in progress (or, more generally, one thing being preferable to another) isn't the same as teleology, which was what I objected to in SMS's original post- the idea that the idea of progress in contemporary Western nations "is essentially a mixture of a heretical Christianity with a perverse scientism", since both have an End, in a cool silicon future or fiery apocalypse. I don't see an End, or even the possibility of a metamorphosis to a radically different state hard-coded into State Capitalism (the way Socialism should lead to Communism or Caterpillars lead to Butterflies). The Ends have to be pasted over from other metanarratives- religious, scientific, Marxist etc.
That doesn't mean that those running the show don't prefer one state (or State) to another and don't see there as being a hierarchy of nations, with the U.S on top and a whole lot underneath them. The progress they offer Iraq isn't the chance to get aboard for a one-stop trip to humanity's shiny utopian future, but a chance to share in the same bullshit as the rest of us.

(As a side-note, it seems odd, if we follow AAR's line of argument about the Neo-Con-Israel-Lobby-Reptoids and somesuch, that the U.S Imperialist War Machine would progressify a relatively first-world country like Iraq when there are so many countries further down their hierarchy.)
 
 
elene
19:34 / 04.02.08
Oh, that’s what it is, Phex. I was wondering, what can Israel have to do with any of this? Or Kenneth Lay, for that matter? Are we supposed to compare East Germany with Israel rather than, say, West Germany? Are we suppose to compare Kenneth Lay with Erich Honecker, or Mossad with the Stasi? Who knows?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
20:32 / 04.02.08
Forgive me, Elene. I was somewhat tickled, believing from our previous discussions that you had spent some considerable time living in Leipzeig (if I recall correctly) and being more generally of German origin (I say with reasonable confidence), that AAR was questioning whether you could possibly have been to East Germany, rather than that you were unquestioningly accepting the capitalist line that the fall of the GDR had led to improvements in the lot of the people of the former East Germany.

It was a moment of levity inappropriate to the discussion, and the references to Kenneth Lay and Israel had no connection other than their status as villains of the Left.
 
 
elene
21:05 / 04.02.08
Ah, I misunderstood, Haus. Actually, though I did live in Dresden for some time after the wall fell, my visits to the DDR and Tcheckoslovakia before the collapse of communism were brief. I certainty couldn’t talk about it with the authority of a native, but I know that the system really did fail, and that, though the change was not good for everyone, it was necessary. It ended, in the DDR at least, when it could go no further.

By the way, I did live for many years in Germany, but I’m not German.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:09 / 04.02.08
Dresden! That was it. I stand corrected on all fronts, and will come back to this thread when a bit more focussed. Have just done a load of admissions and brain a bit fried.

Sorry, everyone. Carry on.
 
 
All Acting Regiment
13:03 / 05.02.08
I was out of order. I was responding to this statement:

On the other hand, if you’d ever been to East Germany or Tcheckoslovakia before the wall fell, you’d know that joining with the west has brought progress.

with undue bitchiness, because rather a lot of debates get shut down by people throwing around an ahistorical, mythical idea of 'progress' - essentially, 'the ends justify the means, so shut up' - which tends to shout down any of the actual and serious problems (reported by citizens and academics from the region, see Zizek) that either remain in the former USSR or have been exacerbated there since the USSR's fall.

The question of whether or not someone has 'been there' is often used in a dishonest way, too - that someone has been to X does not make their views on X magically more correct than someone who has not. The economic analyst who says there are problems for the poor on a Carribean island is not silenced by the layman who went on holiday there and happens to think everything is fine. Of course first hand experience is going to mean something, it's just not the instant win it's often presented as, and seeing as we're on the internet it's pretty impossible to prove that a given poster has been anywhere IRL.

Not that Elene was attempting to do anything of the sort, and I apologise for responding as if they were. On the other hand:

As a side-note, it seems odd, if we follow AAR's line of argument about the Neo-Con-Israel-Lobby-Reptoids and somesuch

... I did not mention Israel, the Israel Lobby, or Reptoids. That would be a silly thing to do, because clearly the Israel Lobby is a made-up monster like the Reptoids, lol.
 
 
HCE
13:26 / 05.02.08
the Israel Lobby is a made-up monster

Somebody tell AIPAC, lol.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
00:06 / 14.02.08
i think the illusion of progress is a result of the combination of our perception of the irreversibility of time (seems to flow in one direction, no?) with our unique development over the course of a lifetime.

unfortunately, it often gets hung up in a "now we know whereas before we were simply ignorant" attitude, rather than "now we know something differently."
 
 
elene
17:33 / 14.02.08
squib, what do you mean by progress? You obviously can’t mean technological or scientific progress as those are certainly not illusions. So, what do you mean?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:15 / 14.02.08
technological & scientific progress are absolutely illusions.

we think that with a proliferation of tools we have somehow progressed, maybe because we choose to ignore much of our technological lifestyles.

we've been able to live as humans without all these technilogical gewgaws for a loooooong time. thinking that somehow because of all our toys we have improved our lot is illusory, false and all-too-common.

humanity's most stable & successful life-style was hunter-gatherer.

so, in looking at technology, how do you define progress, when for every innovation there's an equivalent calamity?
 
 
*
19:39 / 14.02.08
squib, what I hear you saying is that the correlation of technological or scientific progress to social progress (i.e. the idea that more complex technology or more complete understanding of natural laws is necessarily a social good) is an illusion, not that technological or scientific progress itself is an illusion. Is that what you mean, or do you have other reasons to assert that scientific and technological progress themselves are illusions? Because you'd have to argue that we haven't created any more complex technology or developed any more complete understanding of natural laws, I think.
 
 
elene
19:48 / 14.02.08
You take technology for granted, squib, because you’ve never lived without it.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:53 / 14.02.08
is that what I do???
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
19:54 / 14.02.08
who of us has lived without technology?
 
 
elene
20:01 / 14.02.08
In my youth I ploughed with a horse. Not much, I was to weak. My father had to take over very soon, and I saw what work it was for him. He was a very strong and determined man. Now, I probably still know enough of metallurgy to construct that plough, if I had the metal. I’ve also hunted with a bow, and I could maybe make a half-serviceable bow as well.

I assure you, these would not be my technologies of choice. I know just enough to know how hard life would be with even these relatively sophisticated tools.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
20:23 / 14.02.08
they're still technology.

the difference you're illustrating is that of your relationship with the tools in question, not the nature of the progression from horse & plow to industrial tractors. There is more to the technology of the bow & arrow than your personal experience with them (which is still important).

We develop ourselves to work with our tools. A tool is useless without us to know how to operate it.

"Labour saving devices" exchange our personal labour for industrial labour. Why does a factory churning out gas-powered leaf-blowers considered "Progress" when compared to people making rakes for themselves?

"time saving devices" simply add more technology to our already cluttered lives. Besides, you can't save time, where would you keep it?

is using a leaf blower a sign of progress from having used a rake? what if some people still use rakes, have we progressed at all?

[hope no one's taking this as personal or anything - I'm seriously curious about what y'all mean by "technological progress." It's not just about change]
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
20:39 / 14.02.08
zippy wrote some of this:

"Because you'd have to argue that we haven't created any more complex technology or developed any more complete understanding of natural laws, I think"

interesting point, however, I don't believe that we have a more complete understanding of natural law, just a different understanding of it.

Progress refers to the nature of that difference over longer periods of time. We have progressed from hunter-gatherers to agrarians to republicans to empires to industrialised nations, but that doesn't mean that we understand anything more fully, more deeply or more intimately than anyone who's lived before us.
 
 
elene
20:45 / 14.02.08
I don’t follow you at all, squib.

I’m saying that, to a degree, I own a certain technology. That’s the best I could do for quite some time if left to my own devices. I know that I would exchange that technology – the horse and bow - for a modern one – tractor and gun – in an instant. I know that from personal experience, and that lets me determine which is the better technology.

Now, that’s a decision that’s been made again and again throughout history. My father loved horses, but he eventually bought a tractor. You don’t get to decide what’s progress, anymore than you get to decide who’s President. You just get a vote, and the people have voted, again and again and again.

Sorry, but I’m off to bed.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
20:59 / 14.02.08
elene's off to bed - but not before commenting

good night elene - sleep well - sweet dreams and a response in the morning

"I know that from personal experience, and that lets me determine which is the better technology."

here's my argument - what do you define as making it a "better" technology. A whole industrial infrastructure is necessary for a tractor to exist. Not necessary for horse & plow. My personal experience has brought me to very different conclusions than yours. So, now what?

"Now, that’s a decision that’s been made again and again throughout history."

again, I argue what "better" means, and so I dispute that we have decided for the "better" technology throughout our history. I don't think replacing a bow & arrow with a gun is necessarily progress, nor do I think a gun is "better" than a bow and arrow. Just different. Both require something different of us as individuals as well as the societies in which they develop.

"You don’t get to decide what’s progress, anymore than you get to decide who’s President. You just get a vote, and the people have voted, again and again and again."

Again, I argue your presumptions. I absolutely get to decide what's progress. that's why we're debating it on this thread. we're deciding what is progress and what is not.

I absolutely get to decide who's president (even though my country doesn't have one). I don't have to acknowledge anyone's authority just based on the trappings. Someone tells me some voting machines registered that one person is now a President, yet, I feel no compulsion to reckognize their office or their authority.

Every few months, we come up with a new toothbrush. It's new. It has bi-level bristles. It changes colour, and has an ergonomic grip. Is this better? Is this progress?

we didn't used to eat refined sugar, and we'd pick our teeth with licorice root. Seemed to work just fine. Why's fluoridation an improvement? Is fluoridation an improvement?

I don't believe that it is.

So, here we are debating what we think is "better" and what we think is "progress." Any thoughts?
 
 
elene
16:40 / 15.02.08
Someone tells me some voting machines registered that one person is now a President, yet, I feel no compulsion to reckognize their office or their authority.

Oh, grown up!
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
17:10 / 15.02.08
you'll have to elaborate, elene.
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
17:15 / 15.02.08
also elene, you haven't defined either "progress" nor "better" so I have to ask, "what you talkin' 'bout?"
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
16:24 / 16.02.08
ok elene, I've grown up now.

care to make a point?
 
 
nyarlathotep's shoe horn
18:23 / 16.02.08
here's the gist,

if your father, elene, trades a horse for a tractor, it may lessen the physical labour he has to do to get his farm plowed, seeded, weeded, harvested and all that.

you feel that this lessening of one man's physical burden is a good thing, and therefore the change from horse to tractor is seen as progress.

however, you're completely ignoring all the bad things that go with that tractor. Before you even start it up to get it going, it has polluted land, river and air, through the extraction, refinement, manufacture, marketing, transportation and assembly of all its parts. There are lots of people involved in this whole network, and for many of them, their physical labour has increased with a move to industrialised cities.

but you neglect to consider these factors when looking at the "good" of the tractor. I don't call the industrialised mercantile system good, or progress towards something better.

In fact, I think it's a step in the wrong direction, and is increasingly harmful to a growing number of people.

I think that the technologies that could truly be considered progressive would be anything that's more elegant than what we currently use, as opposed to more intricate.

If you add a clock to a stereo, that's more intricate, but it isn't any more elegant.

we think that by developing technologies that put more power (in terms of mechanistic strength and computation speed) into the hands of anyone who can afford them, that we progress along steps of improvement. The result hasn't been a better society with kinder, gentler relations between friends, neighbours and so on. Quite the opposite.

People increasingly rely on cellular telephones (which I presume is one of those decisions I don't get to make), yet they are also tied to increasing rates of cancer in salivary glands among their users. How would you define progress in this example?

People drive automobiles, the most dangerous form of locomotion we've yet devised, because they believe that they're safer. How would you define progress here?

We've made weapons out of plutonium, much better than the incindiary ones. How is this progress?

Is being able to buy a pineapple in Canada in February really a sign of progress?

Are seedless fruit a sign of progress?

I think that in each case, no. These technological developments are presented to us as improvements, when they are anything but.

don't believe the hype.

elene, you baffle me with your dismissive posts.

but that's OK, I don't mind bafflement.
 
  

Page: (1)2

 
  
Add Your Reply