From underdeveloped life
One of the intentions of the following considerations is to give a meaning to the catchword "underdevelopment", and thus indirectly also to the ritual word "development". The function of the catchwords (the so-called "diktems") in the fabric of thought is the simulation of thoughts. For example, the diktem "underdevelopment" simulates a concept, and sentences with this diktem simulate thoughts. Such sentences obscure the facts they have in mind, rendering them unthinkable and thus, in a sense, harmless. One of the tasks of philosophy is to tear apart these cobwebs of pseudo-thoughts (this "talk") in order to uncover the facts and make them accessible to thought. It does this best when it tries to define dictums, that is, to transform them from buzzwords into words.
"Underdevelopment" be defined as follows: A situation is underdeveloped if the person in it acts largely for economic reasons. It is overdeveloped when he acts largely for theoretical reasons. And "development" is the progressive replacement of economic motives by theoretical ones. In making these definitions, I made use of some of Hannah Arendt's terms. However, I made them my own. According to this, action (the "politics") is a way of life motivated either by economics or by theory. Economy means that way of life in which man does not act (do) but works, theory, on the other hand, means that way of life in which man considers instead of acting. Politics (the active life) is an intermediate stage between economy and theory, between work and leisure. A situation would therefore be underdeveloped if in it I moved from work to action in order to free myself from work. And it would be overdeveloped if I moved from leisure to action in order to engage myself. In the field of politics, therefore, an underdeveloped situation could be well distinguished from an overdeveloped one: In the underdeveloped situation, politics is an attempt to free oneself from the slavery of economy, and in the overdeveloped situation, it is an attempt to free oneself from the boredom of leisure. These reflections are written in Brazil (i.e. in a situation generally described as "underdeveloped"). Seen from Europe, they illuminate the other side of the coin "politics".
Vilém Flusser will venture two assertions:
(1) From the point of view of man in an underdeveloped condition, active life is a struggle and every deed is a battle within that struggle.
2) From the standpoint of man in an overdeveloped state, active life is a game and every deed is a move within that game.
To make sense of these claims, I distinguish between the structures of struggle and play. I borrow two models from linguistic analysis and call the struggle structure "polemic" and the game structure "dialogic." Instead of "underdeveloped life" I will say "polemic life" and instead of "overdeveloped life" I will say "dialogic life".
The structure of the dialog should be considered first. It consists of two (or more) systems coupled by a channel. Information flows through the channel in both directions. This structure is excluded under the following conditions:
(a) If the coupled systems are the same or almost the same. In this case, all communication between the systems is redundant and not informative, since everything contained in one system is also contained in the other. This is the case, for example, with spouses who can no longer dialogue. They no longer have anything to say to each other. >> contain
(b) If the coupled systems are completely or almost completely different. Then any communication between them is mere noise and not informative, since nothing that is contained in one system is also contained in the other. This is the case, for example, with an Eskimo and a Baluba, who cannot dialogue. When one says something, the other cannot understand him. >> contain
(c) When one of the coupled systems contains the other. Then information goes only from the broader to the narrower system, and any communication is redundant in the opposite direction. This is the case, for example, in the relationship between teacher and student, and also in the often invoked "incommunicability" between generations. However, it is not actually a matter of Incommunicability, but of the impossibility of a dialogue. >> contain incommunicability
(d) When the channel is interrupted by a wall. Such a wall is inserted when a dialogue breaks the identity of one or both of the systems as a result of information overkill. This is the case, for example, when Catholics and Communists are closed to each other.
Accordingly, a dialogue is only possible when two similarly rich and similarly wide systems are open to each other through a channel. It is a rare and fleeting and therefore valuable form of communication. If it succeeds, it is a kind of game in which all partners win, because they enrich one another by exchanging information. But even if it succeeds, it ends in the stalemate of mutual exchange.
The structure of polemics is that of two (or more) crossed discourses. Discourse is a mode of communication in which one system is coupled to another by a channel through which information flows in one direction only. The purpose of discourse is to match the passive system to the active one through information (example teacher-student). The purposefulness of discourse distinguishes it from the purposelessness of dialogue. Discourse consists of a series of propositions, the first proposition being an intention and all the rest its consequences. As a design, the entire discourse is already contained in the resolution. The discourse is an explanation of the intention, with the aim that it is received as information by the receiver. The intention is the norm, the "value" of the discourse. The discourse is evaluative, imperative, even if its individual sentences seem like statements. like statements. Something volitional, exciamatory and declamatory lies in the structure of every discourse. This gives it its character, which is not only evaluative but also progressive. Examples of discourses are religions and ideologies; the best example is the natural sciences, where the normative character is not immediately obvious. But philosophy can also show that they start from intentions, raise these intentions to norms and then explain them. In short, discourse differs from dialogue not only by its monovalency, but also by the fact that it has deliberately set values for itself in order to communicate them to others. >> contain
Polemics are crossed discourses. The coupled systems are only actively open to each other. They want to change, but do not want to be changed. The two channels of communication run in parallel, so that polemics can be seen as a polemics can be seen as both a frustrated dialogue and two frustrated discourses. The theory of informa tion and dialectics provide models for this violent com m unication. Those who polemicize are truly active, and the will to realize values is even clearer in them than in genuine discourse. The ancients said of polemics that it was the father of all things.
The overdeveloped situation leads to the dialogical life - makes it possible in the first place, because in it the polemic becomes superfluous by the fact that the intentional values have been exhausted. In such a situation, characterized by exhaustion, man condescends to play an active life, although he is theoretically convinced of the indifference of any action. This is the tolerant, open, unprejudiced mood of the real dialogue. It has arisen only rarely in the course of our history and has asserted itself only briefly. Examples of such moments are Plato's Athens, late 18th century England and America, and the developed world today. In Athens, the dialogue took place between philosophers (the utopian kings), in America between gentlemen (the utopian democrats), and currently between computers (the utopian governing machines). Plato's philosophy and Jefferson's theory of the state currently correspond to the theory of games. But in the underdeveloped world the polemic continues. It should be clear that "underdeveloped world" is not a geographic but an existential concept. There are also overdeveloped, playful people in Brazil and underdeveloped, militant people in Europe. There are still people who actively strive to realize values and fight for them, who therefore lead an underdeveloped life. At present, however, it seems that the polemical battles that take place on the fringes of the developed world are not being are being transformed by computers dialoguing with each other into indifferent moves in the great game of world politics. And indeed, this aspect influences the polemicists who experience it as marginalization and deprivation of decision. Nevertheless, even if it is successful, the dialogue can be exhausted. Perhaps it is the polemic on the margins, the underdeveloped life, that decides the future?
(ca. 1970)
~
FLUSSER, Vilém, 1996. Der Flusser-Reader zu Kommunikation, Medien und Design. 2. Aufl. Mannheim: Bollmann. Kommunikation & Neue Medien. ISBN 978-3-927901-67-4.