Symbolic Orientation and New Social Critique
Can there still be any goals for the 21st century society? Despite – or perhaps because of – the global social crisis, there is no longer any talk of a new dawn at the turn of the century. The prayer wheel of endless modernization continues to turn, but very few people still want to believe in it. In order to start something new, there would have to be a passionate debate about social projects to be pursued. But the social, political and cultural passions seem to have died out, and the discourses in the media are dragging on laboriously. No new challenges are being formulated either in social relations or in our relations with nature. The idea of a great “task for humanity” not only sounds antiquated, but naive and downright pointless.
What is touted today as new and forward-looking is no longer any specific content or a goal, but mere form or mere medium, an apparatus that has become mindless. The Internet is the best example of this. The faster the technology of communication develops, the less content there is that is still worth communicating. When the technological means must replace the content, “instrumental reason” leads itself ad absurdum. In the final stage of this development, people equipped with perfect means of communication have nothing more to say to each other.
This unmistakable lack of content and aimlessness points to the intellectual and cultural exhaustion of the prevailing social system. Just as people can only be individuals in society, they can only develop social content and goals as individuals. The self-referential individual, on the other hand, is inevitably empty, unable to create his own content; his projects are lost in vain triviality. At the end of the 20th century, modernity sank into deadly boredom. In this respect, extremist microeconomics, social atomization and lack of solidarity have already taken their revenge on capitalism in cultural terms as well. Because the social monads are drifting apart, they can no longer set social goals for themselves; and because they no longer have any meaningful connection to each other, they drift apart even more. However, a society that cannot set a common goal for itself is doomed to die out.
In order to be able to formulate a social goal and thus substantive projects, a cultural “direction” is required, a spatio-temporal orientation of society. This orientation relates not only to technology or the economy, but also to the social psyche, to the social imagination, to the relationship between the genders and the “attitude towards life,” and not least to our relationship with history. Of course, modern capitalism also had such a cultural-symbolic orientation. But having reached its destination as a world system, it can no longer see a destination and therefore loses all orientation in space-time. The task of adapting to the blind processes of the world market, which is constantly propagated in all media, does not represent a substantive goal of active reorganization, a positive “humanity project,” but is merely the mechanical reproduction of a structure that has long since become independent, which a priori relegates any content and thus any goal or project to the status of indifference: no matter what it is, it can never have an autonomous meaning, but can only provide material for the same old valorization process of capital.
The fact that so-called postmodernism does not overcome modernity in this decisive respect and does not produce anything new is already evident in the insubstantiality of its own concept, which only refers to an empty “after.” Postmodernism does not provide a new social orientation, but instead elevates disorientation to a virtue. The commodity-producing system, frozen in aimless acceleration, is supposed to survive its state of cultural exhaustion in order to continue spinning idle for all eternity. Postmodern theory is to a certain extent the caricature of a signpost, in that it points in all directions at once and therefore remains meaningless.
It is easy to see that a new cultural-symbolic orientation and thus new social goals can only be gained through radical critique of the exhausted social order; and radical critique is precisely what postmodernism rejects as no longer conceivable. Now, indeed, the previous socialist critique of society has exhausted itself along with its object, because it was itself imbued with the spirit of capitalism. Just as Eastern state capitalism was only a historical derivative of Western private capitalism, it also shared the latter’s cultural imaginations and symbolic codes. The critiques of society in the 19th and 20th centuries stopped at the boundaries of the modern commodity-producing system; they were themselves descendants of “instrumental reason,” by which they were ultimately overtaken and swallowed up.
So if a new cultural orientation can only be gained through a radical critique of society, the reverse is also true: such a critique of the prevailing order in the 21st century can only be formulated together with a fundamentally different symbolic coding of spatio-temporal perception. Anyone who wants to break the “terror of the economy” must also consciously crack the imaginative codes of capitalism; the critique of the political economy can only be completed if it is accompanied by a critique of the symbolic order and cultural orientation inherent in this system, i.e. if it directs attention and hopes in a different direction and overturns the “image of the world” in general.
So far, this problem has not been addressed as thoroughly and comprehensively as the critique of economic categories; and that is why the left is still in retreat, even though the exhaustion of the capitalist world is becoming ever more apparent. What does the now obsolete cultural orientation of capitalism actually consist of? On the time axis, it is undoubtedly a one-sided dynamic directed towards the future. Modernization is synonymous with a permanent devaluation of the past and thus of history. Regardless of their quality, “the new,” fashion, incessant economic development and constant movement are regarded as values in themselves. The modern concept of history, as created by the philosophy of the Enlightenment, is entirely determined by this code, in which humanity appears, as it were, like a launched rocket, following its trajectory in a mechanical historical upward movement. In this restlessness, the past is seen only as the burnt-out waste of the present and the present only as the waste of the future.
The reactionary supposed counter-image, namely an imaginative idealization of the past, is only the other side of the same coin. It neither grasps the intrinsic value of past cultures nor overcomes the destructive momentum of capitalist dynamics, but only ever mystifies the impersonal capitalist relation of domination in an elitist way and projects it back into history. It is its own past that capitalism idealizes in conservative and reactionary modern ideologies in order to repressively banish the catastrophic consequences of its blind dynamics and its internal social contradictions. In reality, this idealization is just another mode of devaluing history. Reactionary cultural pessimism and liberal ideology of progress represent the two cultural poles of the same capitalist de-historicization, which can also turn into each other; fascist thinking contains both moments equally.
In postmodernism, this immanent capitalist polarity of “progress” and “reaction” has collapsed. This is often celebrated as the overcoming of the opposition of “left” and “right,” but in fact points to the cultural as well as the political and ideological exhaustion of capitalism. Bourgeois “progress” has turned into a meaningless circular movement and has therefore become identical with “reaction.” The devaluation of the past now takes place in only one identical way, namely that history, past cultures, ideas, and conditions are also transformed into commodities that can supposedly be consumed at will. This hallucinated simultaneity, which bathes the entire space of human history in the cold light of the market and erases all differentiation the more we talk about “difference,” gives postmodern commercial culture a desperate resemblance to the hustle and bustle of monkeys playing in a library and screeching as they throw the books around.
A new orientation of culture linked to a radical critique of capitalism can only consist of ending the permanent devaluation of history – but neither in the sense of idealizing any past nor as its consumption, but as a critical search for the traces that capitalism has systematically obliterated. It is about uncovering the history of modern discipline and human indoctrination, the historical transformation of life into the material of economic imperatives, in order to call into question the apparent self-evidence of this way of life. Today, every manager, politician or soccer star answers questions about their past mistakes and the cause of these mistakes with a stereotypical phrase: “We are looking to the future.” Reversing this perspective would to a certain extent be a “critique of capitalism in reverse,” a symbolic orientation towards critical retrospection, a refusal of the capitalist law of motion, a “shot at the clock” (Walter Benjamin).
Paradoxically, in order to win a different future, the buried past is more important than the emptied present. Emancipatory progress can only be saved if critical thinking emancipates itself from the symbolic code of bourgeois Enlightenment philosophy and thus from a concept of history that implies a permanent “automatic” orientation towards the future determined by the “invisible hand” of the economy. Today, it is progressive to stop and turn around to look back at the ruins of modernization. It is therefore about a different understanding of history, an overthrow of the historical world view. Society can only come to its senses if it develops a passion for a radically critical archaeology of exhausted modernity.
Such a reversal of perspective would also have consequences for our psychological orientation. For the critical-emancipatory turn backwards in order to reassure oneself of history also means a change in the cultural-symbolic relationship between “inside” and “outside.” Capitalist man is “guided externally” by criteria of prestige and beautiful appearances, as suggested by advertising, packaging and “self-presentation.” Here too, however, the reversal of the cultural direction would not be a mystifying “inwardness” or an esoteric “contemplation of essence” as a reactionary flip side of the same coin in order to flee from social contradictions into an imaginary inner self. On the contrary, the emancipatory “path inwards” would consist of discovering the repressed history and the false objectification of capitalist constraints in the psyche and language too – as an “inner archaeology” of modernization on both a personal and socio-psychological level, so to speak, in order to make the process of the psychological “internalization” of these constraints visible. Psychoanalysis, which has been prematurely declared dead, and the feminist critique of language contain unexploited possibilities for such a recoding.
Finally, orientation in space cannot remain unaffected by this radical cultural-symbolic paradigm shift. Just as the capitalist dynamic is directed blindly into the future in terms of time, it is oriented “upwards” in terms of space. The futurist poet Marinetti already wished at the turn of the last century that the automobile would take off like a rocket; and a few decades later a man actually landed on the moon. The fact that this “take-off” imagination of capitalism is male-dominated is evident to the point of ridicule in the form of the rocket as a symbol of the phallus; the orientation toward air and space, which is by no means coincidentally military in nature, contains the image of a “detached” male sexuality that, in a sense, flies away.
But even this symbolic code has long since been exhausted. Space travel has become as boring as the empty future of the market. Only chemical-physical deserts can be found on the accessible planets. And even their use as resources for capitalist exploitation remains illusory, because the costs of transportation would swallow up millions of times the possible yield. The technology of fossil fuels, on which the capitalist mode of production is based, is far too primitive for a “departure into space.” Cape Canaveral and Baikonur are already ruins of the male-oriented commodity-producing civilization, they just don’t know it yet.
A radical symbolic recoding in relation to space will direct our gaze “downwards”: not only in the archaeological sense that history lies beneath our feet, but also with regard to technological challenges and the requirements of social reproduction. In addition to the interior of the earth, most of the earth’s surface remains unexplored, namely the lower layers and the bottom of the oceans. The fact that the expenditure of resources and skills for this objective has remained minimal in comparison to aeronautics and space travel shows the deep dependence of scientific and technological development on the symbolic codes of capitalism, which have become obsolete. If man is a cultural being, then he will have to seek a new cultural orientation in space, time and psyche; and perhaps this turn in the 21st century will revolutionize society just as much as the social and economic crisis.
Originally published in Folha de São Paulo on 11/28/1999





