💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-civilization-and-the-creative-urge.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:36:04. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Civilization and the Creative Urge Author: Wolfi Landstreicher Language: en Topics: anti-civ, Killing King Abacus, technology Source: Retrieved on April 6th, 2009 from http://www.geocities.com/kk_abacus/civiz.html
I do not accept the concept of an essential “human nature” — of any
essential feature that unifies all humans and separates “us” from other
creatures. However, I do think that for humans, the full enjoyment of
life depends upon creative activity and experimentation by which we
transform our environment. We lack speed innate weapons like claws,
fangs and horns, etc., but we have a brain capable of imagining amazing
things. Clearly the greatest enjoyment in life for the human individual
can be found in the least restricted, most open experimentation with
one’s creative urges.
Unfortunately, much of the anti-technology, anti-civilization tendency
has gotten itself entangled in an environmentalist/radical ecologist
ideology that condemns the free expression of our creative and
experimental urges. In light of the disastrous effects of the
technological system, this is an understandable reaction, but that’s all
it is — a reaction — not an intelligent response. This wedding of
anti-civilization theory to radical environmentalist ideology has nearly
drowned the possibility of making this theory intelligently in a
quagmire of moralism and self-sacrifice. Our creative and experimental
urges are to be suppressed and subjected to “Nature” — that metaphysical
and very civilized conception we have of that which exists outside of
civilization. According to this morality, “natural” is good and
“artificial” is evil, and the artificiality of this dichotomy is
completely missed. But is our urge to create and experiment to blame for
this mess we call civilization? Or is it a victim of constraints that
have chained us to a system of authority that suppresses all creativity
that it cannot channel into social reproduction?
When self-created interactions between individuals are displaced by
social relationships based upon roles which designate functions within a
society, it seems inevitable that certain roles would take on increasing
responsibility for, and so greater control over, social reproduction. In
other words, authority develops. It may well be that authority develops
precisely because unconstrained expressions of the urge to create and
experiment threaten social stability. In any case, creative energy,
though continuing to reside in the individual, no longer belongs to the
individual, but rather belongs to society — which, in practise, means
the authorities who control that society, who direct this energy, this
urge, toward social reproduction.
Technology is a huge system, an entire social landscape, which
constrains the creative urge of individuals keeping it in rein. The urge
to experiment moves individuals to create tools and methods that allow
them to get what they want with the greatest ease or pleasure, but such
tools and methods do not make a technological system, because they are
in the service of the individual. Within a social context, tools and
methods will develop that have nothing to do with fulfilling the wants
of individuals as such, but rather serve to reproduce the social
context. In order to serve this purpose, they coalesce into a system of
interactive and mutually dependent tools and methods. It is this system
and its products that can rightly be called technology. Although this
system does not exist in order to fulfill the needs of individuals, it
does create a dependence within individuals upon it for survival,
because this is necessary to keep individuals in thrall to social
reproduction. And this survival becomes separated from and ultimately
opposed to intense and enjoyable living. (Agriculture doubled the time
which had to be dedicated to production of basic needs and put these
activities on a strict seasonal time schedule, making them
unquestionably work. The industrial revolution drastically increased
work time and intensified the rigidity of its schedule.) The tedium
produced by this system, which begins by constraining creative energy,
finally suppresses it, transforming it into mere productivity.
Technology and civilization do not have their origin in the urge to
create and experiment, but rather in the need of the authorities to
constrain this urge in order to maintain social reproduction and
control.
But the civilized social order with its technological material basis
cannot completely suppress this experimental, creative urge both because
it needs domesticated, channeled creativity in order to reproduce and
expand itself, and because some individuals simply do not let their
creative urges be completely suppressed. As civilization has expanded
into a globally dominant totality, it has become necessary to find a
place for these individuals. Art was originally a technology — an
integrated system of tools and methods used in the process of social
reproduction. It was mostly used in ritual and political propaganda. In
the early modern era (the 16^(th) and 17 th centuries), the function of
art began to change. Though artists continue, even now, to create works
to order for churches and political institutions, as well as for those
with the wealth to buy their skill and creativity, art is now generally
viewed as area for individual creative expression. Artists imagine that
their creative urge has been liberated from its subjection to social
reproduction. But this “ liberated activity” is only permitted within to
exist in a separated, specialized realm, a realm apart from daily life.
In their daily lives, artists continue using money, paying rent, usually
holding down “straight jobs” — living as assimilated members of society.
And what of this separated realm, art? Artists (including poets and
musicians) generally view themselves as a creative elite, exhibiting a
sense of self-importance that can make them unbearable. This is not just
a personality quirk. It goes with the social role of “artist”, for
although its function has changed, art remains an activity of social
reproduction. It maintains creative activity as a realm of specialists —
other people may dabble in it as a hobby, but only the “truly creative”
few can actually be artists. Thus art produces a tendency in most people
to suppress their own creativity as inadequate or to channel it into the
production of irrelevant artifacts for passive consumption by the
“talentless”.
The alienation of individuals from their creative urges that is
necessary for the rise and maintenance of civilization has another
manifestation. The creative energy that is suppressed comes to be
attributed to a “higher realm”. Within the context of society as we know
it, this energy only seems to express it self very occasionally and in
very directed ways. The myriads of tiny, daily expressions of creativity
by which we all take back as many moments of our lives as we can are not
recognized as creative because they are not separated from life. So it
is very easy to attribute creative energy to inspiration, to supposed
revelation from a spiritual realm. It is this realm, under the title
“god” that is credited as creator — the source of all creation. Our
creative, experimental urges are not our own, but allegedly a gift from
god to be used in accordance with his/her/its will. Experimentation
outside the divinely determined parameters is hubris, arrogance, sin or
diabolical crime. Religion (including “spirituality,” religion’s hipper,
mellower face) developed as a means for enforcing the constraints
necessary for social reproduction. Within any given social context, what
“god” allows will be what is deemed necessary for or helpful to the
reproduction of that social context. So, for example, many christians
see nuclear weapons as a gift from god, but consider creative methods of
theft or unusual sexual practices to be sinful and arrogant. Many
radical environmentalists are also religious, embracing neo-pagan or
animistic belief systems. In their belief systems, “god” becomes
“nature”. Hubris consists of creating “against nature”. For the
followers of these nature religions, much is forbidden that is not
forbidden in mainstream religions and vice versa, but both agree that
creative energy does not belong to the individual to use as she chooses,
but is to be exercised only in service to the deity.
In order to claim that it is possible to use the creative urge “against
nature”, the radical environmentalist must turn “nature” into a
metaphysical entity that we can defy. But “nature” is just a convenient
shorthand for the sum of the beings, actions and interactions that make
up this world. Therefore, civilization and its technology are not
“unnatural”. The problem with civilization and the technological system
is that they exist only by suppressing the individual urge to create and
experiment, forcing it into the narrow conduit of social reproduction.
The civilized social system has always been a detriment to the full
development of individuals as creators of their own lives and
interactions — it has in fact always suppressed this development through
a combination of vicious attacks and subtle but thorough manipulation.
But now it has reached the point where civilization threatens our health
and our very existence and is robbing us quickly of an amazing wealth of
diverse interactions by turning the world into a homogenous machine — a
machine that may soon have no need for actual creativity at all, but may
be able to let it be subsumed completely into productivity and commodity
consumption.
The urge to create, explore and experiment most certainly exists in all
humans and in many other mammals. It may exist in every living being on
some level. Yet many human societies never developed into civilizations
with complex technological systems. No other mammal has ever developed
such a monstrosity. This shows that the creative urge can be exercised
in ways that do not produce such systems. In fact, those of us who want
to be able to fully create our lives and interactions as our own, who do
not want to spend our lives as cogs in a social machine, and who,
therefore, want to destroy this machine in its totality, turning
civilization and its technology into ruins, must grasp this urge, this
energy, as our own, possibly our most essential weapon in the war
against society. Unconstrained creative activity and experimentation in
the hands of individuals, used for their own pleasure, does not need to
be feared. Such activity did not create the present civilization and
will not create any future civilizations. And the destruction of
civilization, this system of social control that is smothering the
planet, and the creation of our lives and interactions as so completely
our own that they cannot be socialized, systematized or otherwise
alienated from us will require explorations and experimentations with
the possible that go far beyond anything we have yet tried.