The inexorable rise of insignificance

Individual autonomy is crucial for a new social 'imaginary'

The age of insignificance has crossed the threshold of democracies. Cornelius Castoriadis, a Constantinople born (1922), Athens raised economist, brought insignificance to the world’s attention in El Avance de la Insignificancia in 1996. Today, two decades after El Avance, the rise of insignificance, or an absence of sense, is an unanticipated surprise to those who are fortunate enough to recognise it. Many may not even recognise that reality as yet.

Castoriadis was a Communist since the age of 13 with the encouragement of his Communist father. His arrival in Paris for doctoral work in December 1945 after his Athenian Master’s degree, enabled him to consort with various versions of leftism and in running the journal Socialisme ou Barbarie (1949-66). He eventually rejected it all, in particular the Marxist theory of economics and history, viewing it as “bureaucratic capitalism” mixed with despotism and exploitation. Remarkably he spent a significant part of his professional life (1948-70) at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), known as a conservative rich-country club during which period his political writings were under pseudonyms. As a philosopher, he studied individual motivations and their impact on society and vice versa. To firm up his theories, he trained as a psychoanalyst. A basic tenet of his hypothesis was the incontrovertible emergence of insignificance from the spectrum — Left to Right — of organised societies thus far formed and experienced. 

In the prevailing spectrum of country environments, Castoriadis’ anticipation of insignificance seems terribly relevant. In a 1993 interview with Olivier Morel, he elaborates, “...(it) does not emerge from a dictator or from a handful of capitalists, or from a group of opinion makers: it is an immense historical-social current that moves in the direction that transforms everything to insignificance.... Humans have not degenerated biologically; they continue to be capable of paying attention to a long, argued discourse; but the system and means of communication ‘educate’ — deform systematically — people in a manner that finally disables them from remaining interested in anything that surpasses a few seconds or, more precisely, a few minutes.”

Castoriadis is not partial to any particular form of societal organisation, for this degeneration may be associated with the ....“gradual crumbling of left ideologies that accelerates with the triumph of the consumer society, with the crisis of significance in modern society —all this manifests a crisis of ‘meaning’, of ‘ sense’, thus robbing the ‘social imaginary’.” Castoriadis defines and assigns an important role to “social imaginary” in his early (1975) work, L’Institution imaginaire de la société, Editions de Seuil, Paris. Marcela Tovar-Restrepo, writing at the New School University, New York, elaborates in her Castoriadis, Foucault and Autonomy, Continuum Press, London, 2012,  that the ‘social imaginary’ characteristic emanates from Castoriadis’ concept of individual ‘autonomy’ or ‘agency’, or the power to think, as opposed to insignificance, or ‘heteronomy’.

Thus Castoriadis offers hope by exhorting the individual in his Culture in a Democratic Society (1994), “(Art)...is a window on Chaos; it abolishes our tranquil and stupid assurance about our daily life; it reminds us that we forever live at the edge of the Abyss—which is the main thing an autonomous being knows.”  And he verily laments the steep descent of society, pointing out that the degeneration of even ancient Greece accelerated when its intellectuals began meandering from questioning, to rationalising, the established order. He criticises compatriots including Paul Sartre, the novelist, of such typical rationalisation through seeking solace in supporting Fidel Castro and Mao Zedong as the failure of European communism became evident. 

In his interview, Castoriadis is critical of the intellectuals who “continue glorifying.... regimes as ‘democratic’, perhaps not ideal (I do not know what its meaning is) but the best humanly achievable...(for it)...allows the setting aside of today’s burning questions: the decomposition of... society, the apathy, the cynicism and political corruption, the destruction of the environment, the challenges of (the) poor ....better put, an escape to the ivory tower to carefully nurture one’s precious personal outputs”.  This seemed a direct accusation to academicians.

He continues that, in contrast, even if one may not recognise it, we all reflect on emerging challenges though only “platonically”. “The writer, the thinker, with his particular means that represent his capacities and his culture, exercises an influence on society that comprises his role as a citizen: he says what he thinks... None can abandon this responsibility, even those who do not speak out and leave it to others to speak, thus leaving a historical-social space to be occupied by monstrous ideas.” 

Illustration by Ajay Mohanty

Let me ask whether prevailing democratic societies, let alone non-democratic ones, are producing the type of individual Castoriadis exhorts. Is it possible when societies reward and are led by “managers”, the new Pied Piper, who correlate time, money and people in a 3-variate financial model in slash-and-burn money generation that smirks at deep reflection? This is an era of financialisation of commodities, worshipping the generation of monetary returns and financial wealth through successful bets on market futures, without any increase necessarily in the production or supply of real goods and services. These agents of global destabilisation have become the new philanthropists. Thus Castoriadis asks, “....where the only value is money, can such a society continue to function and produce on this basis alone?”

Castoriadis died in 1997 but the relevance of his work, with its horns, has emerged tellingly for the world to lend its ears. Faint rays of hope shine from France and Germany. France continues to lead the debate, to think, to reflect, not to abandon responsibility, not to recoil, but to speak out. Rabindranath Tagore said, “Break every obstacle,” and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi took up Tagore’s,”...if no one responds to your call, then move forward alone.” And the mountain moved. Where has polyphony flown from filling the air with music and song? But there is a murmur. Subhash Chandra Bose’s clarion call, Azad Hind – free India – beckons. Such expressions and actions of individual autonomy must remain the cornerstone for an Indian “social imaginary”.  Otherwise, this phase in human history “defies the quest for deeper significance.”