Treść książki
Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
itproducesmutualsuspicionandcompetition.Averycommonside-effectofthe
workingsofthisfactoryisthedevaluationofhumansolidarity:arefusalorevendenial
ofitsutilityinthepursuanceofpersonaldesiresandachievingpersonalgoals.The
devaluationofsolidarityhasitsrootsinthewitheringofcareforthecommongoodand
qualityofthesocietyinwhichthelifeoftheindividualtakesplace.AsUlrichBeck,one
ofthemostperceptiveresearchersofcontemporaryculturaltransformations,putsit,
itistheseparatehumanindividual,inhisorherdistinctnatureandlonelystrugglefor
self-determination,ratherthanaconsensualcommunityatanylevel,thatistoday
burdenedwithsearchingforandfinding,inanindividualwayandwithinthelimits
definedbythesizeofitsindividualresources,“individual”solutionsfor“sociallyproduced”problems(initsefficiencyandabsurditythis
taskisakintothebuildingofafamilybomb-shelterinordertoavoidtheconsequencesofnuclearwar).
Incontrasttosocietieswherethedominantattitudewasthatofa“gamekeeper”(protectionofthecommonheritageofdivine
creationentrustedtohumancare)ora“gardener”(assumingresponsibilityfortheshapeofsocialorderanditspreservation),the
attitudeofa“hunter”istodayrelentlesslyandinsistentlyrecommended;thisattitudeismainlyorperhapsevenexclusivelyaboutthe
numberandsizeofhuntingtrophiesandthecapacityofthehuntingbag.Caringfortheabundanceofanimalsinthehuntingarea,that
isthesuccessoffuturehunts,remainsoutsidetheremitofthehuntsman.Inasocietyofconsumerstreatingtheworldasarepository
ofpotentialobjectsofconsumption,therecommendedlifestrategyistocarveoutarelativelycomfortableandsafenichefor
exclusivelyprivateusewithinthepublicspace,whichishopelessly,forincurably,inhospitabletopeople,indifferenttohumantroubles
andmisery,riddledwithambushesandbooby-traps.Inthisworld,solidarityisoflittleuse.
Timeaftertime,
stealthilybutstubbornly,
thespiritofsolidarity
returnsfromexile.
Newtruths
Itisdifficulttoascertainwhatthecauseisandwhattheresultishere–butgoingoninparalleltothewitheringoftheinterestinthe
qualityofthecommongood(societyitselfbeingthemostimportantamongthem)andthetendencytoexhibitsolidaritywiththe
problemsandstrivingsofone’sneighbours,isthedemiseanddismantlingoftraditional“factoriesofsolidarity”:institutionsencouraging
attitudesofsolidarity.The“deregulationofthelabourmarket”andtheresultantfluidityofworkplacecommunitiescharacterised
byadecreasing–lessandlessprotectedbylaw–stabilitystronglydisfavoursformingtighterbondswith“colleaguesfromwork”.The
philosophyofmanagementinitscurrentformtransferstheresponsibilityforfinancialresultsofagivencompanyfromthesuperiors
tothesubordinates,thusputtingeveryemployeeinasituationofcompetingwitheveryoneelse.
Thisphilosophyimposesmeasuringtheutilityofeveryemployeebyhisorher
personalcontributiontotheprofitabilityofthecompanyandforcinghimorher
tocompetewiththerestoftheworkingteam.Inessence,forcingtheworkerstofight
fortheirchancetosurviveanotherroundofdismissals,amoveoftendisguisedbysuch
“politicallycorrect”cryptonymsas“contractingout”or“outsourcing”.Inaclearlyzero-
sumgame,joiningandclosingrankswillbeoflittleuseandwillnothelpmuch
insurviving–onthecontrary,itisbecomingdangerouslyclosetoasuicidalurge.And
evenmoreominously,theformerlymutualdependenceofthemanagementandthe
workforce,withtheresultantmutualityofdutiesandresponsibilities,hasbeen
unilaterallyrevoked.
Ifthepotentialemployeesfinditdifficulttomoveon,theirpotentialemployersmaytransferthemselves(ortheircapital)fromplace
toplacewithoutmuchtrouble;sointhemarriageofthebosseswiththeirsubordinates,adivorceinitiatedbytheformeranddictated
bytheirinterestsispossibleateveryturn.Wecanhardlyspeakhereaboutasolidarityoffatewhileasolidarityofactionscannot
beexpected;thebondsaretoolooseforthat,theresponsibilitiestoofragileandtooeasytorevoke.Jobsmaydisappear,alongsidewith
theirbossesandowners,atanymoment,leavingeventhemostloyal,usefulandmeritedemployeeswithoutworkandmeans.Efforts
atinventingamutuallyattractiveandlong-term
moduscovivendi
donotmakemuchsenseintheseconditions;andmutualsolidarity
doesnotstandmuchchance.
Thesenewtruthsarevividlydemonstratedandinculcatedbythepopularrealitytelevisionshows.Andthesetruthspromotedbythe
mediaannouncethatparticipantsintheseshowsareenemies;thatmakinggoodandsurvivingthebattlemustbeatthecostofyour
neighbour.Everyone’sprimarygoalistosurviveandgettheotherskickedoutfirst;andsothisshouldbeyouraimtoo.Coalitions(if
builtatall)areadhocandtemporary,theydonotoutlasttheirusefulnessinpromotingone’sowninterestandunderminingtheinterest
ofothers;nobodyvowsfidelityhereandnobodytakesuptheburdenoflong-term(letaloneeternal)responsibilities.Banishment,
pronouncedeveryweekinthecaseofmostoftheseshows,isanabsolutelaw.Theonlyunknownbeingwhowilloutsmartwhoand
designatehimorherforexpulsion.Thereisnoroomherefora“commoncause”ortheresponsibilityforothers–itiseveryonefor
themselves.AsiftheauthorsandproducersofrealityTVconspiredtoprovideadditionalargumentsforthesadconclusionofSigmund
Freudthattheinjunctionto“loveyourneighbourasyourself”isthemostdifficulttofulfilandthemostriskyinitsconsequencesamong
God’scommandmentscontained.
Everystrangerintoday’s
worldissuspectedofevil
intentions.
Evilintentions
Thethreathauntingcontemporaryurbanlifeandthetendencyofspatialseparationandisolationisalsonotconducivetosolidarity.
Armedbodyguardswatchentrancestoofficesand“gatedcommunities”,wherethosewhocanaffordit–amongthempeoplesettingthe
toneofurbanlife–lookfor(hugelyexpensive)shelterfromthedangerssupposedlyswarmingthecitystreets.Inthecitiesweseemore
andmorearchitecturalsolutionswhichhamperaccessorpassageinsteadoffacilitatingit.Closedcircuittelevisioncamerasstare
atuswithglassyeyesfrombehindeverycornerandfromeveryentrance.Insimilarveintotheoverseersoncesittinginthe
watchtowersofPanopticon(inventedbyJeremyBenthamandconsideredbyMichelFoucaultasthearchetypeofmoderntechnology
ofpower,anarchitecturalsolutiontotheproblemofcontrollingthesubordinatesbythesuperiors),theyspyonusinordertostop
usfrom“entering”ratherthan“escaping”.TheyareinstrumentsnotsomuchofPanopticonbutof
Ban
opticon–keepingundesirable
peopleata(theoretically)safedistancefromyourownbackyardandfrommischiefwhichis(bydefinition)expectedofthem.
Everystranger(andinacity,especiallyabigone,wearestrangerstoeachotherwithveryfewexceptions)issuspectedofevil
intentions.Andalltheabove-namedwaysofpreventingrealorillusionarythreatstothebodyandpossessionsdonotassuagethesense
ofdangeranddonotsuppressthefearofstrangers;onthecontrary,theyarethemostvisibleproofoftherealityofthethreatandthe
justifiednatureofthefeargeneratedbytheviewofthe“stranger”.Themoreelaboratethelocks,padlocksandchainsweinstallbyday,
themoreterrifyingarethenightmareswithbreak-insandlootingshauntingusbynight.Itbecomesevenmoredifficultfor
ustocommunicatewiththosebehindthedoorandtoopenthisdoor.Thedeepeningofourmutualphysicalandmentalisolation,the
lossofcommonlanguageandtheabilitytocommunicatewithandunderstandeachother–theseprocessesnolongerneedtoreceive
externalstimuli;asiftheywereguidedbythe“doityourselfprinciple”inanexemplary,modelway,theyfeedonthemselves,spur
themselvesonandhavetheirownmomentum.Itistemptingtoseeinthemthefirst
perpetuummobile
thathumankindeversucceeded
inconstructing.
Soyes,itistruethatquitealotofevidence(muchmorethanImanagedtolisthere)hasaccumulated,illustratingtousthatthe
worldinwhichwehappentoliveinandwhichwerecreatedaily–wittinglyornot–throughouractionsisnotparticularlyimpressive
asfarashospitalitytosolidarityisconcerned.Butthereisalsonolackofevidenceshowingusthatthespiritofandhungerforsolidarity
intheworldfrustratedwiththisinhospitalitywillnotgiveup.
Timeaftertime,stealthilybutstubbornly,thisspiritmayreturnfromexile.Successiveepisodesof“explosivesolidarity”andever
morefrequent“carnivalsofsolidarity”(forcarnivalscelebratewhatwemostglaringlyandpainfullymissinourdailydrudgery)testify
tothat.Localinitiativessuchasadhoccooperativeundertakingsaremushrooming–eveniftheyareusuallymodestandoften
ephemeral.Inmultiplewaystheword“solidarity”ispatientlylookingforfleshwhichitcouldbecome.Anditwon’tstopseekingeagerly
