Paste your essay in here…‘Can we live well in society? Answer this question by critically assessing the views of at least 2 of the authors discussed in this course’.
‘What the philosophers once knew as life has become the sphere of private existence and now of merge consumption… without autonomy or substance of its own’. This statement at the beginning of Adorno’s Minima in which Adorno appears to be addressing his view of civilisation sets out the question of whether we can live well in society as a rather bleak one. Adorno holds the view that the lives we think we are living are really just facades- the misery inherent in human life is concealed by consumption of popular culture and other distractions contributing to the false reality that we thrive in society. Adorno’s stark perception of society, thus makes him a crucial philosopher to consider if we hope to answer the question of whether we can live well in society. Freud equally offers a profound insight into society. By implementing psychoanalysis, Freud philosophically addresses the constitution of the self. By looking at both the structure of society and analysing the workings of society, he is led to conclude that we cannot live happily and truly flourish in society due to its restrictive nature.
In order to answer if we can live happily in society I shall start by considering the views of Freud; his perception of society, his view on the structure of the psyche and why he concludes by addressing these two factors that society is inherently malignant.
Freud attributes a significant cause of our suffering to a social source. He recognises that it is often a cause of suffering that we fail to perceive as it is mostly self-inflicted leading to a sense of denial that ‘institutions we ourselves have created’ ultimately fail to protect or benefit us. Freud, rather controversially contends that the since much of our misery can be accounted for by contemporary society, we would be better off to ‘abandon it and revert to primitive conditions’. Freud observes that humans are wrong to think that advances in natural science are triumphs and that ‘power over nature is not the sole condition of human happiness’. He appreciates that some may oppose the claim that technical progress does not equate to increased happiness on the grounds that it allows one to communicate with family members living thousands of miles away and that findings in the field of medicine have significant reduced infant mortality rates. In response Freud, rather harshly, states that reducing infant mortality rates is no good as it only forces us to continue practicing extreme restraint in the procreation of children. He is likely referring to his claim that ever satisfaction involves a renunciation- procreation entails commitment to one partner and thus involving a renunciation of any other sexual partners. He further states in response to the potential criticism that reduced mortality is no good to us since life is ‘hard, joyless and so full of suffering that we can only welcome death as a deliverer’. Freud also observes that, historically, the human concept of God has been that which embodies omnipotence and omniscience- fundamentally everything beyond the reach of man. However, now, man appears very close to reaching the cultural ideals associated with God and thus man ‘has almost become a god himself’. Despite this power, Freud states that the modern man is still dissatisfied with life. Thus, achievements in society have not led to the happiness that humans typically expect them to. Humans are also inclined to associate civilised society with beauty, despite it not having any function of utility. As a result of this Freud states that ‘civilisation is synonymous with a trend toward perfection’ which can never genuinely be achieved. In studying the development of society Freud is forced to conclude that since the foundation of society and civilisation is built upon renunciation ‘it presupposes the non-satisfaction of powerful drives-by suppression, repression or some other means’. In reflection of his commentary on the nature of his society, it becomes apparent that Freud would conclude that we cannot live well in society.
Freud also approaches the issue of society through implementing psychoanalysis. Freud believed the structure of the human psyche to be tripartite, comprised of three fundamental constituents- the id, ego and super-ego. The id is comprised of our fundamental, infantile and instinctual drives. The Ego is more complex, it can be understood as the ‘I’ we understand in a commonsensical way. This is because, according to Freud, it is comprised of our conscious, reflective self. Whereas, the Id just wants things, the ego feels desire for things, however has the ability to reflect and recognise obstacles that could get in the way. The Super-Ego is the part of our psyche that is subject to internalised social norms and chastises the Ego aspect of our selves for failing to live up to these norms. Freud views the Id and Super-Ego as equally irrational as they are both never satisfied and are always striving for more. Where the Id strives for more trivial, selfish things, the Super-Ego strives for excessive conformity with the external world and society. Freud believed humans should endeavour to strike a balance between the two irrational aspects, thus, avoiding pathological behaviour and conforming to society while also being happy with drive satisfied. This tripartite understanding of the human psyche comes into play when considering our function in society.
According to Freud the Id always acts in accordance with the pleasure principle- a breed of utilitarian demand to satisfy instinctual drives in the instinctive seeking of pleasure and avoidance of pain. Hence, the Id doesn’t delay gratification in any way. However, in society we are taught to delay gratification as the pleasure principle is mediated and altered by the reality principle. The reality principle, governed by the ego, controls the greedy mentality of the Id, and is justified by the fact that in waiting for things we acquire more long-lasting satisfaction, as opposed to the immediate and fleeting satisfaction that the Id offers. In Civilisation and its Discontents Freud compares the ‘oceanic’ oneness with the world felt via religious experiences, to the Id aspect of our psyche. Freud himself comprehends the ‘oceanic’ feeling of a religious experience (which should be intangible to him as an atheist) as similar to the omnipotence an infant, dominated by Id, inevitably feels. Freud justifies this omnipotence they feel on the grounds that the immediate gratification they strive for is immediately received. As Sherratt puts it ‘It is driven towards the pleasure of satisfaction derived from the breast and alarmed… at any impediment to the pleasure that this satisfaction affords. The infant learns that the mother’s breast will only reappear if he cries and thus when it receives this gratification on demand it feels a sense of omnipotence. This is something Freud referred to as ‘primary narcissism’. This narcissism and illusion of omnipotence only lasts, however, until we are socialised and as we mature we are taught to conform to the reality principle. Pleasure is replaced with reality as immediate gratification is replaced by long-term gratification in accordance with the rules of society and the rules of the world. Upon this realisation, Freud observes that our first experiences of the world and society beyond infancy is a feeling of restriction.
This transition from the pleasure to the reality principle represented to Freud the way in which society restricts our ability to satisfy our most immediate instincts. Freud seems to believe that while humans are accustomed to the reality principle and no longer being governed by your drives, we still long for a return to our infantile relationship with the world. Freud sees this as evident in religion as he believes there is a parallel in the way we use prayer to ask for something from a deity, we would cry to get what we wanted as infants. As well as being restrictive, Freud believes there’s something unsatisfactory in the way we satisfy our instincts, this is because he believed every satisfaction we seek involves an element of self-sacrifice and renunciation. Those who aren’t satisfied with this aspect of society resort to destructive instincts fundamentally in conflict with society, associated with what Freud called the death drive. While not everyone strives to give into their destructive instincts, Freud sees it as a standing possibility that we want to, however are chastised by a highly active super-ego and those individuals who do give into destruction have a less active super-ego. Clearly, Freud is concerned about the restrictive state of society that can potentially lead to aggression and thus, his view that we can’t live well in society is illustrated.
One could however, oppose Freud’s pessimistic view of society on the grounds that conforming to the reality principle is not such a devastating thing. On the contrary, one can gain from being socialised and the realisation that comes along with it. Whilst we have to abandon id dominated immediate satisfaction, we are gain longer lasting satisfaction. The kinds of pleasures that we have to wait for and require patience are often of the ‘higher’ sort. While conforming to the reality principle involves a degree of self-sacrifice it also involves freedom from one’s own instincts and a greater sense of self-control as one is no longer governed by drives. This perspective suggests that in spite of Freud’s observations about society’s restrictive nature, there is still a possibility to be able to live well in society.
Adorno was a German philosopher and critical theorist associated with the Frankfurt School, a school of social theory that promoted socialist views and an intellectual environment allowing figures to flourish. Critical theory is complicit that we are oppressed by politics and economics and it seeks to serve an emancipatory purpose in dismantling structures of oppression associated with capitalism. Hence, critical theory is holistic in undermining social norms and critiquing society as a whole. The theory does diverge from Marxism as by the time the theory developed, Marx’s predictions for society were perceived as having failed- the proletariat masses had not overthrown capitalism and the state had not collapsed. As this failed to come to pass it called into question why the masses seemed to desire their own oppression, as the position of the proletariat became increasingly comfortable. Adorno starts his influential book Minima Moralia by clarifying his societal views- that ‘our perspective of life has passed into an ideology which conceals the fact that there is life no longer’. By this he means that individuals are under the impression that they are living an Aristotelian good life, however this is an illusion fuelled by enjoyment of popular culture that individuals consume ultimately concealing the fact that they don’t actually live well in society. What we call life has become an appendage of the progress of production as we are consumed by rules and the domination of capitalism. Rather than living for our own selves we seem to be living to produce something for someone else and as a result the worker lives in Marx’s concept of ‘alienated labour’. Thus, Adorno seems to be expressing that since society restricts our ability to live well and makes life, as such, impossible. For Adorno, the concept of life as we know it is an illusion, there is no life because it has been oppressed by capitalist domination. Evidently, it appears that Adorno would conclude we cannot live well in society, since we can, in a sense, not even live.
Adorno, however, rather arrogantly, believes that not everyone must succumb to capitalist domination and that he is free from it. Adorno sees himself as not caught up in society due to his intellectual superiority and as a result believes he can offer a superior perspective. A prime example of the expression of his insights is seen in aphorism 5 of Minima Moralia entitled ‘How nice of you, Doctor’. Adorno seems to be expressing that even in aspects of life in which we find beauty, like the ‘blossoming tree’, there is still an element of horror. ‘There is no longer beauty’, it has been compromised as it conceals domination. Adorno seems to be of the view that life is actively malignant. He states ‘there is nothing innocuous left’ – there is nothing in society that is harmless. Even the ‘blossoming tree’ harms us as it fuels the false reality that we live well in society. As a result, our only hope of even remotely overcoming the suffering inherent in society is to recognise it for what it is. Rather than ‘social mixing and participation’ men should share their sufferings and detach themselves from society as Adorno claims to have done.
USE HOBBES AS CONTRAST