Flüchtige Zeiten

Leben in der Ungewissheit

Prof. Dr. Zygmunt Bauman (Polen/Großbritannien) Professor em. für Soziologie, University of Leeds. Eröffnungsvortrag pdf page

well Professor Roberts Votto rightly mentioned that we are given too brief time to discuss two huge questions I have just one representative of this uh disprivileged minority which we will be speaking here uh under these conditions uh so I will try to be brief uh in spite of the fact that the topic which I was uh invited to address is really huge uh and would require a uh a full course of lectures to be presented in full as it as deserves uh

I will start from telling you that uh about 15 years ago uh I was desperately struggling to find a name for our type of Life uh to replace the term postmodernity or postmodernism I wonder whether you Sly remember it because our culture is mostly culture of forgetting not of learning uh but there was such a dominant notion we are living in a postmodern time and it was wanting on two account first account was that it suggested that we are already on the other side of modernity which of course is not true we are more modern that ever Humanity was in human memory uh when I was a student and that was more than half a century ago I was told by very very wise teachers I was lucky to have that uh modernity is the end point of History to which we will arrive eventually providing we modernize ourselves so there is a modernization period leading to the state of modernity when we will be living happily ever after just you know uh treating ourselves to the fruits of the attainments of our uh for Bears uh it's not true now we know for sure that modernization is not a road leading to modernity modernization is the way of modernity being modernity means modernizing compulsively obsessively and addictively they were stopping to change things to improve them however ever believing that we are post something that something needs to be left behind and that new improvements should be introduced when you stop modernizing you stop being modern in the same way as the wind stops being wind once it stops blowing and River stops being River where it stops flowing so we are actually condemned uh to spend our life changing things creating interim periods transitory settlements and avoiding uh reaching the point of uh destination of arrival the point which L Batista Alberti in times of Renaissance would describe as the state of perfection Perfection is the state ladies and gentlemen in which every first F change could be only a change to the worse and therefore it is undesirable and should be avoided by all cost when I was looking desperately for replacement uh for uh the term of postmodernity that was one of the reasons the second reason was that postmodernity didn't tell us anything about what is the nature of the society in which we are in it only told us what we are already not what we stopped being uh falsely suggested that we stopped being modern we haven't stopped being modern we are not postmodern we are in modern but uh at the same time uh it doesn't S it didn't suggest anything in particular uh to justify uh the uh wish to find a new term the new name the new distinction for the society we live in

Metaphor of Liquidity

and then I uh try to uh uh settle for the metaphor of liquidity as the positive not negative but positive description of the kind of the world in which we live at the moment why liquidity well because liquid is uh notorious for for not being able to keep its shape unless it is forced artificially for a time being to be in a container like now in this glass for example it will spill over leak sip it will change all the time it shape and that's exactly what our world around is like it is liquid we can't rely that when we go out for a for for a trip and come back the things will be as they were before they will be certainly changed one way or the other that's why I selected the pro the metaphor of liquidity to describe the distinction the distinctive feature of the society in which we live but then the uh most uh haunting question for me was what does it mean to be in the state of liquidity is it a temporary irrit is it a transitory period uh things are not yet finally settled but they are going to settled they are going to settle they are going to acquire a new shape new system one system is finished but here is the prediction of another system emerging these are uh preliminary uh insights into the world to to come that was one possibility the other possibility was simply that we are in a state of disorder and here uh from here any in in this condition everything can happen and doesn't can be really done now when I'm looking 50 years later on the on what I remember from uh debates and discussions and doubt 15 years old I come to conclusion and which I would like to suggest to you ladies and gentlemen that we live in a period of inter regum inter regum

Interregnum

7:42 – Interregnum is a very old notion invented by Tito Olivio uh the author of ab urita the first story of Rome and uh his partly leg legendary story uh there was the um biography of robulus who was the first king of Rome robulus was king of Rome 36 years 36 years and 36 years mind you ladies and gentlemen that was the average length of Life of average citizen of Rome which means that when uh robulus died there were very few people in Rome who remember times without robus and uh there was a panic in Rome there was a panic in Rome called interum why because the only of source of authority of binding laws of binding rules which was robus disappeared and there was nothing inside to replace

uh it was clear that once Authority disappeared vanished allegedly according to the religion uh Rob didn't die he went directly to heaven so he just evaporated once that evaporated there is no one uh to trust no one to look for uh it lasted until uh until robus was replaced by Duba the second king of Rome in 20th century already the idea of interum was uh updated to the present condition and I am following partly uh Antonio grami reformulation of the meaning of interum separating it from succession of Kings or dynasties and putting it in the Contemporary context and what he said was that interum is a state in which the old way way of doing things don't work any longer but the new ways of doing things have not been invented yet and we are precisely in condition of interum we know that the when we fall back on our memories and our routines on things which were tested before and seem to be working we are expecting a uh uh defeat we are taking enormous risks we are just playing a a a hazardous game we are in a sense groping in the dark

uh ladies and gentlemen again I'm terribly sorry for uh following the habit of old people that reing about my young years but when I was young the basic question of about which we quarreled was the question what is to be done uh the only question uh once we have decided what is to be done what is the image the model of some good society which ought to create a system Society a self equilibrating society as the dominant um sociologist of the time Talcott Parsons used to say once we have this model the there's no problem no doubt who will put it in place of course the nation state of course the state like Italy Germany France you know Britain they have all the means needed to put things in place

I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen that the main question today is not any longer uh what is to be done I think that what is to be done is the easy part of the problem we can come together debate discuss and come to some sort of agreement uh the real question is Who is going to do it? Who is going to do it? Where is the agency powerful enough to put it in place?

I'm terribly sorry for this uh allegory so to speak but remember about the hot days when uh leaders of the most powerful economies in the world like uh Germany and France Madame merceli came together on Friday uh to decide what to do to quiet down the rampant financial markets to save Euro to save Spain to save Italy to save Greece to save Ireland to save uh Iceland um they made some decisions on Friday and I I suspect that they spent Sleepless Saturday and uh Sunday waiting for Monday opening of stock exchanges uh to decide whether what they have done have made any sense or not that is the problem which I unpack as uh uh divorce for the time being separation but uh leading towards the wars between power and politics

Macht

Power the closest uh to my being of power is the German uh concept of Macht and politics again the closest uh to uh my meeting is the German concept of hairshaft uh there's divorce between the two M does not mean necessar haft M power in uh when you when when you go to the bottom of the issue means ability to have things done I am powerful if I am able to have things done politics hair shft means ability to decide which things ought to be done and there's divorce between them today once upon a time not so long ago certainly in my life memory they were married they lived together in one household the household uh uh was called uh Na Stat or nation state and uh uh people believed I remember that uh the marriage between power and politics was made in heaven and no human power can separate them longer well it did happen it did happen uh Power is beyond control of politics to put it in natur beyond control of politics political uh haft areas are limited are local as they used to be before uh while power the ability to have things done has moved beyond their reach beyond their control beyond their control and that is the source that the Kel the heart the foundation of problems of the collection of problems which we called which we call globalization a globalization of power while politics did not follow suit and we don't have an agency today able really to control the floating Powers floating Powers uh the great Spanish sociologist Manuel castels uses the concept of the space of Flows at the space of places we are divided we are torn between these two spaces they interact with each other but we do not coordinate power resides in the space of fls uh the politics the hairshaft the attempt to control things to dominate them attempt at hair shaft are remaining as they were 100 years ago at the level of the nation state and uh that is is that is the I suggest to you the ultimate source of conditions in which we are in the liquidity of our of our situation there are simply two different kind of forces discoordinated acting each own subject to their own rules and laws um the but uh not uh in any way agreeing their moves well uh I think my uh direct speaker will be speaking about multiple modernities yes there are many form forms of modernity today but there is something which unites them and we justifies speaking about them as modernities all of them what unites them is fragility temporariness vulnerability and inclination to con an change I suggest to you that because of this coordin discoordination a separation divorce between between M and hair between uh Power and politics what we have today is a situation in which the only permanence is change change is the only permanence and the only certainty is uncertainty we can be pretty certain that we that we uh will go on living other condition of uncertainty uh well uh liquid modernity liquid modernity liquid modernity means suggest that we are melting the solids we are melting the solids nothing new about it it is a permanent modern Pastime melting the solids already two uh hot-headed youngsters from Ryland one was called Carl marks the other was called Fred Angel rejoiced uh in the ability of early 19th century capitalism to M everything solid and to and to secularize so to speak profane everything which was sacred because they believed that this buting is a temp irritant temporary irritant once we M the wrong kind of solids we will build new kind of solids which are much more reliable much more trustworthy and much more hospitable to Human Condition that was the idea which was common to the left and right it was idea as they say today Beyond left and right in throughout 19 and 20 Century however different were the political ideologies they all agreed on the point that we need a change in order to finish the change we are need uh to melt the existing solid solids in order to create a solid solid a solid kind of solid which we will actually enjoy uh

Now ladies and gentlemen flexibility is the slogan of the day it replaced solidity as the ideal conditions of of things and Affairs to be pursued if the solid modernity if the solid modernity wish to fix and control the future liquid modernity is after avoiding mortgaging the future which means living leaving all possible uh options open uh not to fix anything forever and everything should be made until further notice uh it it is the uh spirit of our times it goes from the top of the political hierarchy down to the daily life of everyone among our youngsters who are using for example uh internet dating instead of the offline dating and flirting uh precisely because it is so easy to connect and so easy to disconnect it is so little obliging so little fixing in dating in in internet dating by comparison with the real very Troublesome very difficult art of love so that is roughly the change which we are now in we are fearing things fixed too firmly to to permit their dismantling

allegedly American Architects do not accept permission for construction of a building unless a permission to dismantle it after 20 years is attached because they don't believe that whatever they build will be profitable and uh you know fit for utilizing 20 years from now that is largely the uh perspective that time perspective in which we think uh I don't think that there are any people who are suggesting today to build a gotic cathedral meant to last for Millennia uh we have shortened our vision where our life is fragment fragmentized episoded cut into episodes It's episode has beginning and the end but the major care uh which we feel uh which we apply is how to prevent the episode from having lasting consequences which will constrain our freedom uh to uh improvise uh after a while after a while when conditions will change as inevitably they will uh well uh I have been shown Yellow Card uh whoever is lover fan of uh uh football knows what it means next will be the red uh so I have to stop uh terribly terribly terribly sorry but

I mentioned already I will just Su up I mentioned already Talcott Parsons who damed about self equilibrating system and presented such a model uh selfic system is a system which successfully defends itself against every change every change is transformed into momentary disturbance and then removed so the system returns to its state as it was before the great uh our contemporary sociologist Richard sedet notes completely different uh condition where he says that perfect ly viable companies organization firms are now gutted not for any purpose simply to prove their ongoing viability you need to show that you are able to destroy you yourself on a momentary notice in order to prove that you are still viable that you should still you can still persist and you are worthy worthy of trust

If you remember another German Edward benstein one of the leaders of the German social democracy at the beginning of 20th century he was once uh condemned and and kicked out from Social Democratic movement because he said that movement is all and goal is nothing but that has become the principle of our life today what we are doing we are reacting to crisis we are making improvised decisions just to you know close the gaps and and and wipe out out the blood and stop the stop the uh momentary difficulties but without any idea to which it will actually lead

And the last remark uh Max wber great one of the greatest sociologists in human memory defined modernity as a instrumental instrumental uh rationalism instrumental rationalism that means here is a given objective given goal given end and rationality consists in selecting the most efficient the most effective means to implement this given end I would suggest to you uh with all the honor given to Max wber but still I would suggest to you that there's a time to change his indictment and to say that our type of modernity all modernities independent of their variety of their distinctive feature uh is uh is U rationality of possibilism of possibilism we are not starting from the destiny we are not starting from the goals we are not starting from the vision of the destination of the Finishing Line we are starting from the amount of means at our disposal what we have what resources what means of action we have and what can be done with them and we are improvising the answers improvising the answer we are selecting one thing or another like in interum I can do that so I will will do that that looks very attractive at the moment when you have um 6 billion people doing just that and uh according to the UN statistics more than 200 independent Sovereign Nation State doing just that then you see that the result will be only uncertainty uncertainty is combination of three things one thing is ignorance inability to say what's going to happen the other importence impotence means even if I knew what's going to happen I would I I am not able to do anything to stop it or to change it and when you have ignorance and impotence together the result is the feeling of uh self deing humiliation I am simply inadequate to the task well we are inadequate to the task TK which is created which is posited in front of us by society which we have created while being created by it thank you