5 âA torrent of events is pouring down on mankindâ: madness and regression
The impression that humanity has fallen under the domination of unreason or madness [dĂ©raison] overwhelms our spirit, confronted as we are with systemic collapses, major technological accidents, medical or pharmaceutical scandals, shocking revelations, the unleashing of the drives, and acts of madness of every kind and in every social milieu â not to mention the extreme misery and poverty that now afflict citizens and neighbours both near and far.
The notion that the rationalization characteristic of industrial societies leads to a regression into unreason is far from new. In 1944, in Dialektik der AufklĂ€rung, translated into French by Ăliane Kaufholz under the title La Dialectique de la Raison, Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer characterized this inversion of reason as a regression (RĂŒckschritt) âwhich is taking place everywhere todayâ.2 And they warned their contemporaries that âif enlightenment does not undertake work that reflects on this regressive moment, it seals its own fateâ.3
If we then read the analyses of Karl Polanyi, also published in 1944, on the effects of the âself-regulating marketâ and the âde-socialization of the economyâ4 (which begins in the epoch of the AufklĂ€rung), we are bound to wonder, almost seventy years later, about the degree to which âreason-formed-in-the-epoch-of-the-Enlightenmentâ (I am attempting here to translate what Adorno and Horkheimer called the AufklĂ€rung) has or has not undertaken this work of reflection:
6 Still and always acting out: madness, irresponsibility, baseness
The AufklĂ€rung, which the French translator of Dialektik der AufÂklĂ€rung chose to translate as âla Raisonâ, dressed up with a magisterial capital letter, this AufklĂ€rung that will fail to undertake this work of reflection (and that will largely ignore the analyses of Polanyi) is not an impersonal power: it is a noetic possibility within each of us, and as such it constitutes, as a potential shared by everyone but one that must be actualized, a responsibility that is always both individual and collective. We are all reason-able in potential â if not in actuality.
The question is that of the passage to the act â reasonable or unreasonable [dĂ©raisonnable].
The passage to the noetic act, that is, to the reasonable act, is what the AufklĂ€rung embodied by Kant conceived as an historical conquest: there is a history of reason here firstly in this sense (as passage to the historical act of reason â or of unreason). And this history is a social history â translating AufklĂ€rung as Reason unfortunately effaces this historical and social dimension. It was on the basis of this Enlightenment legacy â of which Kant is the tutelary figure enjoining the reader to take their responsibility by daring to know (sapere aude!) and by passing from minority to majority â that Adorno and Horkheimer authored their Dialektik der AufklĂ€rung.
To pass into the act of reason, which Aristotle called noÄsis, is precisely and above all to struggle against that unreason [dĂ©raison] that manifests itself in many forms â between stupidity [bĂȘtise] and madness [folie] and prospering on the terrain of ignorance, fantasy and, nowadays, the industrial exploitation of the drives,6 that is, as the planetary-wide extension and universalization of what Gilles Deleuze described as baseness.7
If reason forms itself (in passing through a Bildung), this is also and above all because it de-forms itself. It is a state that, both mental and social, is essentially precarious â and it is perhaps this that we, the latecomers of the twenty-first century, are the ones to have discovered: this âconquestâ we make remains always radically to be re-made and defended. What Adorno and Horkheimer added to the Kantian definition of the AufklĂ€rung as conquest is that it must always be defended against itself, since it constantly tends, in becoming rationalization (that is, reification),8 to turn against itself as knowledge becomes stupidity â this dialecticization of the AufklĂ€rung occurring after Weber's discovery that rationalization is characteristic of capitalist becoming.
Presenting itself in this way in the garb of rationalization, reason cannot avoid engendering the temptation of irrationality.
What perhaps we today have also discovered, and what we experience so painfully and anxiously, is that reason presupposes retentional conditions9 for its Bildung (I have described these elsewhere,10 and I will return to them in detail in the following). These conditions form and support individual and collective memory, which depend on hypomnesic techniques (on hypomnÄmata) that have today been industrialized, and which, with the development of rationalization, are no longer in the control of any public or noetic powers: they have passed into the hands of what Polanyi called the âself-regulating marketâ.11
Hence what is occurring, on a scale and in conditions that were hitherto inconceivable, is the effect of what Gramsci described as a cultural hegemony that de-forms reason12 â reason understood in Enlightenment terms as that historical and social conquest that now seems to decompose so rapidly into rationalization. Hence the reign of stupidity, baseness (vulgarity) and madness that, disturbing us greatly but preventing us from transforming this inquietude into thinking, instead gives rise to fear, which is a bad counsellor.13
We have perhaps failed to reflect on Adorno and Horkheimer's thinking in relation to what they referred to as the AufklÀrung, conceived in the eighteenth century as the conquest of maturity and the struggle against minority. Perhaps this failure has consisted in continuing to ignore the need for an analysis of the hypomnesic conditions of this conquest that is the formation of reason, ...