A summary of the “Rebellion of the Masses” Ortega y Gasset will appeal to everyone who is fond of modern philosophy. This is a famous socio-philosophical treatise written by a Spanish thinker in 1930. He dedicated it to the cultural crisis in Europe, linking it to a change in the role of the masses in the surrounding society. In this article we will focus on the main points of this work, talk about its creation and relevance in our time.
History of creation
A summary of the “Rebellion of the Masses” by Ortega y Gasset gives a fairly complete and comprehensive picture of this work. The book was first published in Spain in 1930. In fact, the author compiled it from several of his own newspaper articles, which were united by a common theme. Because of this, in the treatise one can find diversity and inevitable repetitions. At the same time, individual elements of the "Rebellion of the Masses" possess amazing convincingness.
In Russia, this work was first translated only in 1989. It appeared on the pages of the journal Questions of Philosophy.
The concept
The key concept of this treatise that the philosopher uses is mass. In the work, the author gives several definitions.
The masses are everyone and everyone who, neither in good nor in evil, measures himself by a special measure, but feels the same as everyone else, and not only not dejected, but satisfied with his own indistinguishability.
The masses are those who are adrift and devoid of landmarks. Therefore, the mass man does not create, even if the possibilities and strength are enormous.
In Ortega-i-Gasset’s view, the mass man is like a spoiled child who, from birth, is ungrateful to everything that can at least somehow ease his life.
At the same time, he contrasts the masses with the so-called elected minority. In his opinion, those who live a busy life, constantly demanding as much as possible from themselves, become elected.
Noting the changing role of the masses in society, he notes that in his time they reached a standard of living that was previously considered attainable only by a few.
Summary
Ortega y Gasset begins his treatise The Rise of the Masses with the argument that the whole story seems to him to be a huge laboratory in which all kinds of experiments are made. The goal is to find a recipe for social life that would be the best for human development.
A summary of the “Rebellion of the Masses” by Ortega y Gasset helps us find out what this work is about. The author admits that over the past century, human resources have been tripled due to two main factors - technological progress and liberal democracy. As a result, it is in liberal democracy that he sees the highest form of social life. Recognizing that there are flaws in it, he notes that in the future, improved forms will still be created on its basis. The main thing is not to return to the forms that existed before, as this will be detrimental to society.
Fascism and Bolshevism
A brief summary of the “Rebellion of the Masses” by Ortega y Gasset will help to quickly refresh the main points of this work, if an exam or a test is ahead. Focusing on the main points of this work, it should be noted that the Spanish thinker is closely considering two new political trends for the world and Europe, which at that time were just emerging. This is fascism and Bolshevism.
Studying the contents of Ortega y Gasset’s “Uprising of the Masses”, one must remember that the treatise was written in 1930, when there were still almost ten years before the outbreak of World War II, and Bolshevism, which overthrew the autocracy in Russia, had not yet entered the regime of totalitarian repressions . From this point of view it is even more interesting how philosophers treated these political directions at the very beginning of their path.
Thanks to the brief content of The Rebellion of the Masses, we will refresh in memory the main ideas expressed by the Spanish philosopher. So, already at that time he claimed that both Bolshevism and fascism are a movement backward. Moreover, not in the sense of these teachings themselves, but in the way the leaders antihistorically and antediluviously used the share of truth that is available in them.
For example, he considered it incomprehensible that the Communist in 1917 was going to revolution, which only repeats all the previous riots, does not correct a single flaw or mistake. He considers the revolution that has occurred historically inexpressive, since it did not mark the beginning of a new life. On the contrary, it was only a rehash of the common places of any revolution ever taking place in the world.
José Ortega y Gasset in The Uprising of the Masses notes that anyone who wants to create a new political and social society must, first of all, get rid of the stereotypes of historical experience.
In a similar vein, he criticized fascism, which he also considered an anachronism.
The triumph of the human mass
In describing the summary of the chapters of the "Rebellion of the Masses", special attention should be paid to the triumph of the man of the mass, about whom the thinker writes. He sees the model of society as the unity of the masses and minorities.
At the same time, the minority José Ortega y Gasset in “Rebellion of the Masses” refers to a group of people or individuals with special social dignity, and the mass means gray mediocrity. He argues that it does not even require a large gathering of people to experience the mass as a psychological reality. It is easy to recognize a person of mass, since he does not feel in himself any gift or difference from those around him, but he feels just like the rest. He explained the changed behavior of these masses by the fact that they began to believe that they had the right to turn their conversations into pubic laws into state laws. For him, this is the first era when the masses felt such power and influence. The philosopher saw the peculiarity of modern time in that ordinary individuals begin to impose their mediocrity on everyone.
Feature of modern society
In citing Gasset’s “Rebellion of the Masses,” it is worth noting that he does not at all think that the masses are stupid. On the contrary, much smarter than they ever were. But a specific representative of this social group is not able to benefit from this. He once and for all learned a set of certain places, scraps of thoughts, prejudices, empty promises, which are piled up in his memory in a completely random way.
The philosopher sees the specifics of contemporary time as mediocrity and dullness begin to consider themselves extraordinary, while they proclaim their right to vulgarity. An ordinary person as a result has quite definite ideas about everything that happens in this world, as well as an opinion on how everything should develop in the future. As a result, he ceases to listen to others, as he believes that he already knows everything.
In The Uprising of the Masses, the author writes that living in his mind means being forever condemned to freedom, constantly deciding what exactly you will become in this world in the near future. Surrendering to the will of chance, a person, nevertheless, makes a decision - nothing to decide. However, Ortega y Gasset does not agree that everything in life is done by chance. In his opinion, in fact, everything is decided by circumstances, and every life turns into a struggle for the right to become oneself. If a person stumbles upon any obstacles, they awaken his active abilities. For example, if the human body weighed nothing, none of us would be able to walk, and if the atmospheric pillar did not press on us, we would feel our body as something spongy, empty and ghostly.
Civilization
Ortega-i-Gasset's "Rise of the Masses" paid close attention to the features of the modern author of civilization. He does not consider that she is a given and keeps herself. In his opinion, civilization is artificial, for its existence a master and an artist are needed. A man can easily end up without civilization if he is satisfied with its benefits, but he does not want to take care of it. Everything can disappear due to the slightest oversight.
As an example, he cites a task that must be solved in the near future by a Western person. The Australian authorities are struggling with a similar problem: they need to prevent wild cacti from dumping people into the sea. A few decades ago, an emigrant yearning for his native home in Spain brought a small sprout to Australia. As a result, this turned out to be a serious problem for the Australian budget, since a harmless nostalgic souvenir flooded the entire continent, stepping on new lands at a speed of about one kilometer per year. The belief that civilization is similar to the elements puts man on a par with the savage, writes Jose Ortega y Gasset in The Uprising of the Masses. The foundations without which the civilized world can simply collapse simply do not exist for such a massive person.
However, in reality, the situation is even more dangerous than you might imagine. Retelling briefly, “The Rise of the Masses,” it is necessary to dwell on the moment in which the philosopher argues that years are rapidly passing, a person can get used to the reduced tone of life that has been established at this moment. First of all, he will forget how to control himself. As in most such situations, individuals are trying to correct the situation, trying to artificially revive the principles that could lead to a crisis. Such an explanation of nationalism, which has become popular, is found in the "Rebellion of the Masses" by Ortega y Gasset. But this is a dead end, since nationalism is inherently the opposite of forces that are able to form a true state. This is only mania, a kind of pretext, which allows you to evade duty, creative impulse, a truly great cause. Those primitive methods that he manipulates, as well as people whom he is able to inspire, clearly demonstrates that he is directly opposed to genuine historical creation.
Modern state
In the contents of the "Rebellion of the Masses" you can find a detailed description of what the modern state appears to us. Ortega y Gasset writes that this is the most obvious product that civilization can offer us today. In this regard, it is interesting to track how a mass person relates to the state.
He is amazed at him, knowing that it protects his life, but at the same time does not realize that it was created by extraordinary people, rests on universal values. Moreover, he sees a faceless power in the state. When certain difficulties, conflicts or problems arise in the public life of a country, the mass person begins to demand that the state immediately intervene and decide everything through "direct action", putting unlimited resources on it.
In this, according to the philosopher, lies the main danger to civilization. This is the subordination of the whole life of society exclusively to the state, the absorption of social initiative by the apparatus, the expansion of power. Here we are talking about the creative principles on which all human destinies hold and feed. In the event of certain difficulties for the masses, it is no longer able to succumb to the temptation to launch the monstrous mechanism without risk and doubt by pressing only one button. In this case, the state is identical to the mass exactly as much as the X is identical to the Game.
The mass man and the modern state are related to each other only by their namelessness and facelessness. The state seeks to stifle any social initiative, forcing society to live solely in the interests of the state machine. Due to the fact that this is only a machine, the state and functioning of which depends solely on manpower, a bloodless state dies.
Under the rule, the philosopher does not understand physical violence and material strength, but strong and normal relations between people who under normal conditions never rest on force. This is a normal manifestation of power based on public opinion. This was the case at all times, regardless of what level of development civilization was at. Any power in the world always rests on public opinion. If in Newtonian physics the force of gravity becomes the cause of the movement, then the law of universal gravitation in the field of political history is public opinion. Without it, history would immediately cease to be science. If public opinion does not exist, society is divided into opposing groups whose opinions can be completely opposite. But since nature does not tolerate emptiness, brute force comes to the place of public opinion, which rapes society, and does not rule it.
In the modern world, as the thinker noted, every European should be sure that he should be only a liberal. Moreover, it does not matter which form of liberalism is implied. At the same time, the fascists and Bolsheviks know deep down that the inner rightness of liberalism is unshakable, although they criticize it fairly. After all, the fact is that this is not true scientific, not theoretical and not rational. This is the truth of a fundamentally different nature, which belongs to the decisive word in the world around us. This is the truth of life. The fate of our life is not subject to public discussion. It must accept entirely and peremptorily or completely rejected.
The prosperity and strength of democracy in this sense depends on such an insignificant detail as the procedure for democratic elections. Everything else goes by the wayside. If this procedure is organized correctly, its results will be correct and will begin to reflect the real demands and aspirations of society. Otherwise, the country runs the risk of dying, things would not have worked out so well in other areas.
Another example from the Spanish philosopher dates back to the beginning of the 1st century AD, when Rome was rich and omnipotent, he simply did not have any significant enemies. However, the empire was already on the verge of destruction, as it adhered to a deceitful and absurd electoral system. Recall that only the inhabitants of Rome had the right to vote. The opinions of those in the provinces were not taken into account. Due to the fact that general elections were impossible, they had to be rigged. For example, candidates themselves hired bandits who opened ballot boxes. Circus athletes and army veterans who remained out of work went on such a thing.
Nation structure
You can penetrate into the structure of any nation, given that the project of living together is only in the common cause, and the response of society to this project must be taken into account. Universal consensus creates an internal strength that distinguishes the "state-nation" from other ancient forms of state. In this case, it was possible to achieve and maintain unity only due to external pressure on certain layers and groups. In a nation, the strength of the state stems from the internal solidarity of all the "subjects" that make up this state. This miracle is the novelty of the nation. It should not and is not able to perceive the state as something alien.
The reality called the state is not a kind of spontaneously formed community of like-minded people. It occurs at a time when groups of very different origins begin to get along together. Contributes to this desire for a common goal, and not the fact of any violence. According to Ortega y Gasset, the state is a cooperation program that calls for diverse groups to work together. It is something inert, material and given, and does not mean only a common territory, language and consanguinity. This is a dynamic that calls for common and collaborative action. As a result of state ideas, physical boundaries can seriously interfere. Moreover, any state, in its essence, is only an appeal with which one group of people addresses another in order to do something together. This case comes down to creating a fundamentally new form of social life.
Different forms of the state do not arise from those forms in which the initiative group cooperates with others. The fact is that the state itself carries out a call for universal activity, everyone who decides to join the common cause feels itself a particle.
, , , . , , , , , . .
, , . , . .
Relevance
" " -- 90 , , . , . .
The summary of the “Rebellion of the Masses” by Ortega y Gasset allows you to get acquainted with the basic ideas expressed by the philosopher. For example, already in 1930, he foresaw the path to European integration, which actually resulted in the formation of the European Union, whose role is constantly growing.