of this blog, please read full article
on the following link :http://academyofinnerlight.blogspot.gr/2016/03/planning-as-art-of-collective.html
This includes especially the effects of the ‘academic marketplace’
among the scientists themselves, etc., etc.
who has spent time in an academic setting will probably admit
between a Shakespearean comedy and a Greek tragedy.
came under severe criticism during the 1960s,
on a world-wide scale, irrespective of the political-economic system
and later by Wallerstein (2001).
on the liberating potential of science. And so forth.
and moral connotation, something
from his headquarters
Meanwhile, during the profound economic crisis of the 1930s
gripping the western world today.
something which would threaten
had had unpleasant interactions in the past.
below in the late 1960s
on social change,
before it could see the light of day.
of the scientist-engineers
the prehistoric past,
to see how our beliefs about reality actually
participate in causing reality to be what it is.
have created (Gutenschwager, 2015).
the placebos of the current social theater.
In this sense, science is also socially constructed
this context that the science of anticipation
as a symbol of power and sexuality.
of their rebellious intent by the fashion industry.
in his appearance and behavior,
a sociodramatic move that has been very successful
in attracting renewed support for the Catholic Church.
He has adopted a much more simple
and unpretentious life style, with less mystifying behavior and dress.
has challenged the dress code that had helped
mystify the social hierarchy up to the time
of their election victory.
They sought to redefine that social hierarchy
with greater importance given to the human side
of the political economy, something missing in the economistic cognitive
framework that has governed western thought
since before the time of Adam Smith and his followers.
The proximate purpose of the new Greek government
was to lessen the predatory influence of an economic system
dominated by casino capitalism that has prevailed
over the past 30-40 years and to reinstate some of the elements
of Keynesian theory in order better
to manage the current economic crisis -
or at least so it was meant to appear before they were re-elected to office!
They wished to communicate
and persuade the people
of Europe that theirs was a better approach to the crisis,
and their dress code was an artistic or sociodramatic supplement
to the cognitive rhetoric chosen to implement this process of communication.
Whether their symbolism and their true intent
were and are the same is something that only time will tell.
over the past several hundred years,
as it has sought to communicate something about the prevailing social order.
In contrast to those who believe in ‘Ars gratia artis’, that the arts
and their history refer only to themselves and have little
or no relation to the social reality in which they are found,
I would suggest that relationships can be found
and that art does indeed communicate something about social reality.
This is not to say that art simply reflects social reality;
rather it is in a dialectic relationship with that reality:
sometimes it supports it, sometimes it opposes it,
and sometimes it is merely ambivalent. Painting
and architecture in the West during and before the Renaissance,
for example, was almost exclusively related to religion.
Then they turned to portraits of the newly rising bourgeoisie.
This cannot be unrelated to the rise of industrial capitalism
and the wealth that was accumulated in this rising class
of merchants and industrialists. Subsequently,
Impressionism withdrew, both stylistically and in the choice of subject matter,
from contact with the unpleasant reality that this new social order
presented to the world.
Many scenes were either painful reminders
of the grey living conditions suffered by the new urban dwellers
or were bucolic park and pastoral scenes from a recently lost past.
on modern economic reality, especially during the depression years
of the 1930s, that measures were taken to restrict its exposure
(Shapiro and Shapiro 1977).
Support was directed to abstract impressionism, whose critical social messages,
if any, could not be discerned in the blur of abstract colors
that were portrayed on the canvas.
The alternative was, of course, the nonsensical portrayal
of mundane objects in pop art à la Andy Warhol.
Art was to be exiled from the real world and artists who took
this non-critical stance were richly rewarded for their ‘troubles’.
different relationship to social reality.
From its close relationship to religion it entered a brief neoclassical period,
as it sought to bring a rebirth to the ancient Greek and Roman style.
From there it evolved into the modernist style, which sought to reinforce
the values of the new industrial world, devoid
of any embellishment or ornamentation.
The need for this stylistic change
has been explained by Jacques Ellul (1964)
in his book on ‘the technological society’.
Modern architecture is austere, its form follows its mechanistic function.
The engineering apparatus is exposed, its concrete bare.
It follows the demands of industrial production, something
which can only be profitable when it is stripped of all embellishment
and ornamentation, when it is devoid of all art, except for symmetry,
of course, necessary even to engineering,
until postmodernism began to question even that.
to ridicule this iconography, the first in a comic and the second
in a tragic style (Gutenschwager 1996).
They are part of a more general expression of discontent
and disenchantment with modernism,
insofar as it has been related to an obsession
with unlimited economic growth,
along with the mechanistic mentality that has characterized the late 20th
and early 21st centuries.
They seek to help us anticipate a new paradigm
and a new social world free from the contradictions
with which we have been living over the past 200 years or more.
one that communicates a different purpose.
It is to unify a social group by allowing it to participate
in a cathartic experience where a victim or victims
are publically sacrificed so that others in the group
can be both intimidated as well as cleansed of any rebellious
thoughts that they might have had, thus hopefully re-solidifying the group.
There is also the fortunate and purposeful effect
that every individual is then relieved of the guilt
that they might
have had as a result of their own possible anticipated thoughts
and actions in opposition to the structure, especially
the hierarchical structure of the group.
There are obvious and celebrated examples
of victimage, though it need not take such extreme forms,
of course, since any form of public
rebuff or defamation, from the wearing of a dunce cap,
to a damning word from a parent, a teacher,
a priest or mentor, etc., may all serve the same purpose.
and somewhat depressing.
They have all been sacrificed for their unconventional ideas,
many of which became standard understanding
sooner or later after they were victimized.
We might begin with Prometheus, who stole fire
from the gods, followed by Socrates
with his ‘demonic’ ideas corrupting the youth;
Jesus Christ with his belief in love,
something inspiring to many, though certainly
not all Christians over the years;
Julius Caesar in a power struggle
with his senate; Hypatia,
who believed that philosophy should inspire our lives;
the poor souls caught in the Spanish Inquisition; or Hester Prynne, forced
to wear a scarlet letter round her neck to broadcast
her shame, and even Adam and Eve
who dared taste the forbidden fruit, perhaps
emblematic of all victims who dared to taste
the fruit of unacceptable knowledge.
The list continues on up to more modern times
and includes several American presidents,
including Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield
and John F. Kennedy, movement leaders such as Martin Luther King
and even entertainers such as John Lennon.
often resulting from a tragic act or criticism against the current social reality.
However, because of the high cost of victimage,
to say nothing of its ultimate ineffectiveness in avoiding
the long term changes supported by the victims,
Burke does not support tragedy as a form of symbolic criticism.
It places too much emphasis on sin and eternal damnation.
He rather supports the idea of the ‘comic corrective’
in the belief that, rather than sins, what is involved are mistakes,
something we are all prone to.
Perhaps this is what Christ meant on the cross when he said,
“Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do”.
Maybe this also might suggest a slogan
for the current world of uncertainty,
something we should all profess prior to any thoughts or actions:
“Forgive us, Father, for we may not know what we do”.
could be offered to illustrate the manner in which art
has played an important role in symbolizing support
for or criticism of the existing social order.
Working within the entangled or intersubjective consciousness,
it has often had the freedom to cast light
on the moral implications of that order,
and to offer an alternative order if that seemed appropriate.
As a result, ruling classes have always sought
to control art to the degree possible,
so as to insure their own position in the social hierarchy.
This could also extend
to allowing an escape valve for the uncertain
or critical members of the society, something which the court jester
symbolized in the days of kings and queens,
and something which is carried on today with comedians
in the mass media. Dissatisfied citizens can, thus,
be given a sense of anticipation that something
is or would likely be changing.
As with all anticipations, however,
they might at any time turn into a consciousness of reality
that could no longer be laughed off.
These are the moments when widespread movements
for change arise and when there is likely
to be an increasing use of force to control behavior,
as well as consciousness.
Not that theatrical performances are missing during these times,
usually appealing on a predominantly emotional level
to issues of race, culture, nationality, etc.
The efforts of religion to dogmatize morality and of science
to ‘sweep it under the rug’, have both proven inadequate
to confront the philosophical problems facing every society at every point in history.
It is time that we open our hearts and our minds
to the sort of inquiry that philosophy alone can encompass.