The crisis of humanism

Let's make a reservation right away – this expression - "the crisis of humanism" - is the product of my own inventions, and what I mean by it. And according to my understanding, culture has experienced such "crises" in the last third-first quarter of the XX-XXI centuries (and this, just think, is the average life span of one person) exactly two. And that's about it - below. What do I mean by that?

Let's start right away: in my current essay, I'm not going to conduct a deep and comprehensive analysis of the literature and cultural heritage of the entire twentieth century – let's limit ourselves to what we ourselves managed to catch and taste, well, maybe a little earlier. That is, the last quarter of the twentieth and the first of the twenty–first century. That is, we will still touch on the culture of modernity and postmodernity. Metamodern, perhaps, still leave out the brackets, just so as not to spread the thought along the tree. We live in it, after all, and I will also say this, but briefly.

So, what kind of an intriguing crisis has the author now put in the title?

Yes, everything is simple. Don't we all remember the picture here about conflicts in literature?

By the way, here it is

Let's take it more broadly – not only in literature, but in art in general. Where a person and his confrontation with someone and something is the main theme of the work.Yes, that's right. The human in general is always the center of creativity. And what the hero opposes - God, society, another hero... is the absence of God, another question.

The fact, however, is that over time – with the increase in the information tension of life, let's be honest – something was wrong with the hero himself, who had to resist something there, too. From a classic hero who overcomes unbridled forces, enemies or blind fate, the hero turned into a person lost in the midst of everyday life and external well-being. He seems to have nothing to conflict with: nature does not try to kill, because you are not a pioneer, not alone with the elements, not a warrior in the field. Another person – oh, the time for fair fights is gone. Your opponent is not nature or another person, but... people? Life? The meaning of life, or rather, its absence?

We are not having a lecture on social studies, but rather a discussion about culture and literature - therefore, very briefly: the new time has brought people material well-being and a well-established order of life ... well, relatively, but still brought. And the person (as a species) was at a loss. Because the standard of living has increased. And the level of self-awareness? Everything turned out to be quite difficult with him. It was not enough to achieve a certain social contract on the culture of behavior, as it turned out. People showed up of two sorts, suddenly. Those who were tormented by an inner, let's call it so, passionarity (behind this word the author puts this: passion for the new, the desire to move forward, just to create, to always be a little somewhere outside the ordinary), and those who were satisfied with everything that already exists. Well, as it turned out - just the rhythms of life accelerated, the information tension increased, and it became simply more obvious that these two varieties have always been. The differences worsened – and the first ones were left somewhat out of business. And even in places, under the censorious discontent of the second - well, what's wrong with you? Still there is!

And these two varieties began to actively conflict.

The number of material goods was growing in the world, but people understood each other worse and worse. I will say more – many people stopped understanding themselves. People found themselves in their calm, well-fed future cut off from extreme experiences that are simply necessary for the work of the psyche. No, it's not that a person of the XX century has no dangers at hand, not at all! It's just that people voluntarily shut themselves off from being aware of them. They dragged soft blankets and delicious food into their burrow, and decided, following the example of ancient people, that they could stop thinking about the future. Technology has grown, self-awareness has not, here's an illustration for you.

At the same time, the author does not despise the benefits of modernity at all – it's just that shutting off his consciousness from extreme experiences is a dead-end solution for human consciousness.

And let me explain what it is, in a nutshell, this is the most extreme experience.

These are emotions directly related to vital values. With questions of life and death. With the feeling that your life is the only one and you will not have another. With the feeling that your every decision, thought, feeling is important. And - with empathy.

This is the very "beat of life" that Vava Tatarsky wanted to feel in "Generation P".

And do you know what else this very beating of life is connected with? With the ability to empathize with someone. Completely, with all dedication.

And it's painful. It is very painful, and therefore humanity is like a child spitting out something not quite tasty, but useful (the level of self-awareness has not grown!) preferred to chew the sweet porridge of safety and satiety. And extreme experiences - they began to be missed. It was about them that people of the passionate type yearned.

To grow, you need to give food to this inner passionate flame, and society has chosen to be lazy. Well, of course, except for certain groups of people. But massively, massively, the craving for satiety, security... the desire for homeostasis prevailed. Because it has finally become possible. No, people have always been and remain people, it was just technically difficult to do it before. And then-oh, for God's sake. And all the scientific and technological progress only fueled the human dream of a warm den and a minimum of effort: how can I not remember the notorious fallout "robot assistant for $ 33.90". The only important thing is that the dream of idle satiety has finally become a reality. And many people... simply rebelled. Rebelled against a dream come true. Why?

Because it was then that such a topic as consumption appeared as a substitute for any emotions and any good. Let's replace the extreme with a simple and understandable one. Safe. People wanted salt on their lips and the smell of ozone, wind in their hair and a long road, and they were offered an "air freshener"trip to the coast", just like a real one, and without any problems and dangers of the way!".

Modern literature is all built on this. Modern culture is permeated with motives of protest against the consumer society, protest against the society of the spectacle, against the idea of a prosperous mask. Against, if you want, the idea of lying, if you speak as briefly as possible and as loudly as possible.

"Cat's Cradle", "Slaughterhouse-five" - hello, writer Vonnegut, for example.

Hello, "Brave new world" Huxley, of course.

Hello philosopher Baudrillard with theories of simulacra in everyday life.

The sixties, followed by the seventies, the heyday of all kinds of subcultures in such a lush color that they probably forever changed the cultural context of civilization.

And here it is, here it is, watch your hands, the first crisis of humanism.

A person's conflict with society, with himself, with God's abandonment. And protest. A protest against a fulfilled dream - against a well-fed, calm homeostasis.

A protest against what he was striving for?

Yes, and do you know why? Because the person realized that there was no place left for himself in this realized dream. For everything that makes him a man - restless, strong, burning from the inside with some important idea. Just feeling, after all!

A person has lost a person - both outside and inside. Humanity began to lose not God, but the image of itself, and that's why... and that's why all that crazy, beautiful and sometimes creepy in culture in general and literature in particular began.

Books and songs about the true and the apparent, the rejection of consumption as the meaning of everything, the search for oneself – that's it, that's it. Homeostasis swung like Humpty Dumpty and exploded from the inside. The essence of human nature does not tolerate stopping, the essence is in dynamic equilibrium, that is, eternal movement. And what do we see at the peak of the human search crisis?

Yes, it was more than once, we all know how the cynic Diogenes was looking for a man with fire during the day... however, he was looking for a "good man". People at the peak of overconsumption, people in the first crisis of modern and modern humanism did not need a good or bad person – they needed a real person.

And everything is real, not apparent. Born from the pain and blood of the human soul, and not assembled at the factory according to a beautiful standard. A clan, not a formal family. Karass, not granfallon. True, not a simulacrum. It wasn't the evil fairies who stole the inner essence from things, words and concepts, but the people themselves - and many realized it. And that's why - that's why the cultural war for the human principle began. Which, by the way, we caught in a magnificent way. Both the first and the second.

The heyday of the theme, perhaps, should mark the turn of the century – from modernity, postmodern culture joyfully adopted the banner of the war for the human essence, putting it in other, slightly more pretentious forms. The Millennium has brought so many magnificent creations to the topic of consumer criticism! "The Matrix"! "Johnny mnemonic"! "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" "Blade Runner"! Cameron's Avatar! And even, you will be surprised, but "Terminator". And suddenly, almost all of King's books. Okay, okay, all of King's really good books.

It was the heyday and peak of the crisis of humanism that pushed us - by saying "us", I mean people in general - to look for people both around and in ourselves.

And so the first crisis of humanism smoothly and easily, unobtrusively rolled into the second. Now we are not looking for a real person, but a person in general. At least some. Even if he's... a cyborg? Here, in fact, is the metamodern: where is the difference between who is a person and who is not, if the boundaries are ghostly, shaky, unclear? And are there any?

The search for a person - a real person - real people - leads us to what is also called the search for roots. At first we were looking for one-of-many, a real person next to us.

Karass.

Cathet.

Clan, family.

Along with this, we were looking for ourselves.

The person inside himself.

People have stopped understanding who they are, and in order to stop confusing the true and imaginary, you need to understand yourself.

And new technologies – the world did not stand still! - I brought new questions. Questions of transhumanism. Is man a mechanical man? A man created in a test tube? What is, after all, this very thing – a person?

And am I a man myself?

The search for family and roots, his karass, ka-tet, clan - he did not go anywhere. This very second crisis of humanism simultaneously tears us apart in two directions of the flow of the time line, pulls us into the past, and inexorably drags us into the future.

The second crisis of humanism absorbed, absorbed all the questions of the first, and went to the very depths. Into your own roots. Who is this person? - this crisis asks us.

And no one who writes about people now stays away from the question of this very second crisis of humanism – what is a person. Where can I find it, even in myself?

Where does Eirik Godvirdson himself stand in this riot?

And you know, we will answer.

We have a rather gloomy and harsh position on this issue, and at the same time - it is very simple. It is expressed in one phrase: people are always people. It doesn't matter what color their eyes and skin are, whether it's white, red, green or blue, and what shape their ears and feet are. It doesn't matter if you were born from a mother and father, or grew out of a set of cells in the instruments and hands of an engineer.

If you are able to say - I am a man, if you are able to be afraid and overcome fear, to love and for the sake of what you love, to overcome yourself, if you are able to empathize and feel someone else's and your own pain ... and most importantly, you still want to say "I am a man" - you are a man. And you have overcome your personal crisis of humanism.

People are always people - they were, are, and will be, even if they forget about it. If they forget– they need to be reminded. Even through pain, primarily mental.

Well, literature and art just play the role of a mirror in this. And a mouthpiece, in general

We are people – and we are looking for a person. In yourself and in others. And we don't let you forget that you–I–all of us are people.