What do you think?
Rate this book
The Burnout Society
Our competitive, service-oriented societies are taking a toll on the late-modern individual. Rather than improving life, multitasking, "user-friendly" technology, and the culture of convenience are producing disorders that range from depression to attention deficit disorder to borderline personality disorder. Byung-Chul Han interprets the spreading malaise as an inability to manage negative experiences in an age characterized by excessive positivity and the universal availability of people and goods. Stress and exhaustion are not just personal experiences, but social and historical phenomena as well. Denouncing a world in which every against-the-grain response can lead to further disempowerment, he draws on literature, philosophy, and the social and natural sciences to explore the stakes of sacrificing intermittent intellectual reflection for constant neural connection.
60 pages, Paperback
First published October 4, 2010
About the author
Byung-Chul Han
50 books3,516 followersByung-Chul Han, also spelled Pyŏng-ch'ŏl Han (born 1959 in Seoul), is a German author, cultural theorist, and Professor at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK) in Berlin, Germany.
Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.
In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.
Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.
Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.
Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.
Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.
Byung-Chul Han studied metallurgy in Korea before he moved to Germany in the 1980s to study Philosophy, German Literature and Catholic theology in Freiburg im Breisgau and Munich. He received his doctoral degree at Freiburg with a dissertation on Martin Heidegger in 1994.
In 2000, he joined the Department of Philosophy at the University of Basel, where he completed his Habilitation. In 2010 he became a faculty member at the HfG Karlsruhe, where his areas of interest were philosophy of the 18th, 19th and 20th century, ethics, social philosophy, phenomenology, cultural theory, aesthetics, religion, media theory, and intercultural philosophy. Since 2012 he teaches philosophy and cultural studies at the Universität der Künste Berlin (UdK), where he directs the newly established Studium Generale general-studies program.
Han is the author of sixteen books, of which the most recent are treatises on what he terms a "society of tiredness" (Müdigkeitsgesellschaft), a "society of transparency" (Transparenzgesellschaft), and on his neologist concept of shanzai, which seeks to identify modes of deconstruction in contemporary practices of Chinese capitalism.
Han's current work focuses on transparency as a cultural norm created by neoliberal market forces, which he understands as the insatiable drive toward voluntary disclosure bordering on the pornographic. According to Han, the dictates of transparency enforce a totalitarian system of openness at the expense of other social values such as shame, secrecy, and trust.
Until recently, he refused to give radio and television interviews and rarely divulges any biographical or personal details, including his date of birth, in public.
Han has written on topics such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, borderline, burnout, depression, exhaustion, internet, love, pop culture, power, rationality, religion, social media, subjectivity, tiredness, transparency and violence.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,149 reviews
February 16, 2018
This is a seriously interesting book, but I'm not sure I completely agree with him. His argument is that we now live in a world where we are so self-monitoring that we have moved beyond the notion of a discipline society. That is, we no longer require external modes of discipline, but rather our desire to be high-achievers fulfils this function much more effectively than external compulsion ever could.
I'm going to tell you why I think this might be overstating the case and then I'm going to ignore my own criticism. I think for most people in society external observation and punishments based on those observations has become all-consuming. To say we have moved beyond the panoptic society seems to fly in the face of the everyday experience of most people who have to live with employer set KPIs, Apple watches that tell them if they have reached their move goals or how poorly they are maintaining their sleep ones, and they are filmed by surveillance cameras even while strolling down a street. That is, I struggle to see how we can say we have moved beyond the surveillance society.
However, there is no doubt that we have become much more self-monitoring and that we are even prepared to forgo privacy to gain the pleasure that comes from confirming we are optimising our life projects - whether those be losing weight, reading more books (book challenge, anyone?), reaching our KPIs, exceeding our PBs, or whatever the latest sports derived metaphor might be. 'Calm, fitter, healthier and more productive. A pig in a cage on antibiotics'.
At one point he says something that felt like being hit across the face with a cold towel. That we shouldn't be quite so pleased with ourselves just because we can 'multi-task'. In fact, mulita-tasking is really a return to an animal state, rather than reaching the peak of human achievement. Animals must multi-task - there's always another animal trying to have sex with their partner, eat them, eat one of their children, take the food out of their mouth, shift them down the pecking order. In fact, the one thing an animal cannot be is 'in the present' or 'lost in the moment'. That is, they are condemned to multi-task.
What is human, then, is the ability to be profoundly bored - to be still and to contemplate and to think one's way to a kind of conclusion. He makes a beautiful point here that God made the Sabbath as a day of rest - that we are closest to God when we are resting, rather than when we are busy going about the mundane inanities of everyday life.
The problem is that the modern world is conspiring to make us less than human and more animal like. We are being forced to multi-task and our post-post-Fordist world also means we generally never have anything to point to so as to be able to say, "see that there, I finished that, that is the product of my labour, that is the best that I'm capable of creating". We are busy, so busy we are exhausted, but that busyness never amounts to an externalised manifestation of our efforts and so we collapse into ourselves in unhealthy ways - ways that don't produce self-love, but rather narcissism.
And this brings us to where he begins - if much of the 20th century was obsessed with infection (antibiotics, vaccines and so on) today our globalised world means we can't reject the other in quite the same way - that is, kill or be killed no longer is an optimum strategy - instead we have to find ways to hybridise with the other and to welcome in what had otherwise been kept out. I struggle with this idea too - you just look at how Australia treats asylum seekers to see what I mean - but if one limits their view to the wealthy few to whom borders no longer exist, rather than the poor many that Bauman maintains are held in place, then this interpretation has some merit.
Today the illness we confront is not something that can be cured by antibodies or by vaccines. Today's illnesses are self-inflicted and they are inflicted not by negativity (overcoming the other to assert your own primacy) but rather mental illnesses related to stress, and ultimately the stress that comes from over-achievement. This is insanely interesting. Here we are being killed not by negativity - things actively seeking to kill us, but by positivity - by our desire to be good, and then better, and then the best. I like this, because I've long had a distrust of the 'positive psychology' movement, 'no, I will not bloody well whistle while I work'.
Although this book owes more to Nietzsche than it does to Marx, I kept thinking of a book I reviewed recently called 'Labour and Monopoly Capitalism' - and the idea that we are human due to human labour, but not any sort of labour, rather only that kind that allows us to see the completed product of our labour. This book fits more within Nietzsche's ideas of the importance of the work of art in producing the truly human - or even Kant's purposiveness without a purpose, the idea of art as a kind of contemplation on the world that then allows for a depth of perception otherwise unavailable to those of us who are busy multi-tasking. He quotes Cezanne as saying he could visualise the fragrance of things merely from contemplating them. This level of focus, of contemplation, of losing one's self in an object other than one's self is increasingly being denied us, even in our similarly busy leisure. And this is reflected in the kind of tiredness we are confronted with - we are tired to the depths of our souls, rather than tired in the way that is one of life's most pleasurable feelings, tired from having done.
So, with caveats - this is a seriously interesting book.
I'm going to tell you why I think this might be overstating the case and then I'm going to ignore my own criticism. I think for most people in society external observation and punishments based on those observations has become all-consuming. To say we have moved beyond the panoptic society seems to fly in the face of the everyday experience of most people who have to live with employer set KPIs, Apple watches that tell them if they have reached their move goals or how poorly they are maintaining their sleep ones, and they are filmed by surveillance cameras even while strolling down a street. That is, I struggle to see how we can say we have moved beyond the surveillance society.
However, there is no doubt that we have become much more self-monitoring and that we are even prepared to forgo privacy to gain the pleasure that comes from confirming we are optimising our life projects - whether those be losing weight, reading more books (book challenge, anyone?), reaching our KPIs, exceeding our PBs, or whatever the latest sports derived metaphor might be. 'Calm, fitter, healthier and more productive. A pig in a cage on antibiotics'.
At one point he says something that felt like being hit across the face with a cold towel. That we shouldn't be quite so pleased with ourselves just because we can 'multi-task'. In fact, mulita-tasking is really a return to an animal state, rather than reaching the peak of human achievement. Animals must multi-task - there's always another animal trying to have sex with their partner, eat them, eat one of their children, take the food out of their mouth, shift them down the pecking order. In fact, the one thing an animal cannot be is 'in the present' or 'lost in the moment'. That is, they are condemned to multi-task.
What is human, then, is the ability to be profoundly bored - to be still and to contemplate and to think one's way to a kind of conclusion. He makes a beautiful point here that God made the Sabbath as a day of rest - that we are closest to God when we are resting, rather than when we are busy going about the mundane inanities of everyday life.
The problem is that the modern world is conspiring to make us less than human and more animal like. We are being forced to multi-task and our post-post-Fordist world also means we generally never have anything to point to so as to be able to say, "see that there, I finished that, that is the product of my labour, that is the best that I'm capable of creating". We are busy, so busy we are exhausted, but that busyness never amounts to an externalised manifestation of our efforts and so we collapse into ourselves in unhealthy ways - ways that don't produce self-love, but rather narcissism.
And this brings us to where he begins - if much of the 20th century was obsessed with infection (antibiotics, vaccines and so on) today our globalised world means we can't reject the other in quite the same way - that is, kill or be killed no longer is an optimum strategy - instead we have to find ways to hybridise with the other and to welcome in what had otherwise been kept out. I struggle with this idea too - you just look at how Australia treats asylum seekers to see what I mean - but if one limits their view to the wealthy few to whom borders no longer exist, rather than the poor many that Bauman maintains are held in place, then this interpretation has some merit.
Today the illness we confront is not something that can be cured by antibodies or by vaccines. Today's illnesses are self-inflicted and they are inflicted not by negativity (overcoming the other to assert your own primacy) but rather mental illnesses related to stress, and ultimately the stress that comes from over-achievement. This is insanely interesting. Here we are being killed not by negativity - things actively seeking to kill us, but by positivity - by our desire to be good, and then better, and then the best. I like this, because I've long had a distrust of the 'positive psychology' movement, 'no, I will not bloody well whistle while I work'.
Although this book owes more to Nietzsche than it does to Marx, I kept thinking of a book I reviewed recently called 'Labour and Monopoly Capitalism' - and the idea that we are human due to human labour, but not any sort of labour, rather only that kind that allows us to see the completed product of our labour. This book fits more within Nietzsche's ideas of the importance of the work of art in producing the truly human - or even Kant's purposiveness without a purpose, the idea of art as a kind of contemplation on the world that then allows for a depth of perception otherwise unavailable to those of us who are busy multi-tasking. He quotes Cezanne as saying he could visualise the fragrance of things merely from contemplating them. This level of focus, of contemplation, of losing one's self in an object other than one's self is increasingly being denied us, even in our similarly busy leisure. And this is reflected in the kind of tiredness we are confronted with - we are tired to the depths of our souls, rather than tired in the way that is one of life's most pleasurable feelings, tired from having done.
So, with caveats - this is a seriously interesting book.
December 25, 2017
This book is torture! Thank God it’s small. It’s either a very bad translation from German or a rotten porridge from someone trying to impress people with fancy words—and failing.
June 2, 2020
Vivemos em plena azáfama. O sistema nervoso, regrado para agir em questões de "luta ou fuga", teve de se adaptar aos desafios dos tempos modernos. Nessa monotonia hipnotizante, o Homem estabeleceu objectivos que teria de atingir para se sentir preenchido. Mas, numa sociedade de valores perdidos, vocacionou a sua atenção para a vertente laboral, esquecendo as paixões que o poderiam acalentar - ao invés de pleno, esvai-se num ar nefasto e lúgubre.
Inebriados pelas maleitas advindas da caixa de Pandora aberta, o ser humano tem conseguido caminhar pelas pingos da chuva da sobrevivência, com artimanha e parcimónia. Enquanto o inimigo se encontrava do lado de fora, a situação parecia controlada. No entanto, o adversário mudou de posição e, com o xeque-mate já feito, incorporou o próprio, sem possibilidade de delinear uma defesa eficaz. Este problema imanente tem sido controlado com uma violência neuronal agressiva, mascarada de positividade extrema, a qual leva a uma impotência que sobrepassa a passividade e nos condena ao estatuto de "Homo laborans" - não -animal de rotinas.
Explanando as suas ideias, num ensaio que exige leitura de fôlego, o autor desvitua-se de várias correntes filosóficas para atentar numa maqueta tão desprezível, quanto real. Cegos, pelos estímulos excessivos e por uma atenção que nos tolda a mente, continuamos neste jogo, sem eira nem beira. Aceitamos, pois, a condição de robot, ser mecanizado que cumpre ordens e não vive mas "subvive", sem apreciar a vida. Perante tal assunção, um ato de rebelião surge - espreguiçar e deliciar-se com esse amplo abrir de braços-asas!
"O novo tipo humano, que indefesamente se encontra entregue ao excesso de positividade, não comporta qualquer marca de soberania. O homem depressivo é um 'animal laborans' que se explora a si mesmo, de forma voluntária, sem necessitar de pressão ou coacção alheias. Ele é agente e vítima ao mesmo tempo."
Inebriados pelas maleitas advindas da caixa de Pandora aberta, o ser humano tem conseguido caminhar pelas pingos da chuva da sobrevivência, com artimanha e parcimónia. Enquanto o inimigo se encontrava do lado de fora, a situação parecia controlada. No entanto, o adversário mudou de posição e, com o xeque-mate já feito, incorporou o próprio, sem possibilidade de delinear uma defesa eficaz. Este problema imanente tem sido controlado com uma violência neuronal agressiva, mascarada de positividade extrema, a qual leva a uma impotência que sobrepassa a passividade e nos condena ao estatuto de "Homo laborans" - não -animal de rotinas.
Explanando as suas ideias, num ensaio que exige leitura de fôlego, o autor desvitua-se de várias correntes filosóficas para atentar numa maqueta tão desprezível, quanto real. Cegos, pelos estímulos excessivos e por uma atenção que nos tolda a mente, continuamos neste jogo, sem eira nem beira. Aceitamos, pois, a condição de robot, ser mecanizado que cumpre ordens e não vive mas "subvive", sem apreciar a vida. Perante tal assunção, um ato de rebelião surge - espreguiçar e deliciar-se com esse amplo abrir de braços-asas!
"O novo tipo humano, que indefesamente se encontra entregue ao excesso de positividade, não comporta qualquer marca de soberania. O homem depressivo é um 'animal laborans' que se explora a si mesmo, de forma voluntária, sem necessitar de pressão ou coacção alheias. Ele é agente e vítima ao mesmo tempo."
December 17, 2021
I finished this book... but at what cost. And now I have to review this book but it exhausted me so much to get through it that I just feel like taking a nap and forgetting that I ever read these challenging 60 pages lmao.
First, let's start with the obvious: the beginning of this book aged rather poorly. Granted, the author couldn't have known in 2015 that there'd be a global pandemic which would upend his assumption concerning the "immunology" discursive paradigm that he claims has been left in the past. But even then, I disagree with his premise. I don't feel like really getting into it because unraveling his thoughts would require a lot more energy than I'm willing to expand but I'll just summarise the bulk of my thoughts by saying that the defensive discourse around the "Other" cannot be dismissed so easily, and that the rise of fascism worldwide testifies to the fact global socio-political discourses still heavily rely on the us (the Self) versus them (the Other) dichotomy to foster fear and hatred. The author says that refugees aren't seen negatively because they're perceived as a threat but rather as a burden. I fundamentally disagree with his statement and see in it a cop-out to make his assumption obscure reality to continue his argument.
Now I don't disagree with the larger argument that he's making... It's just that I don't think I care about his highly abstract angle. I was expecting musings grounded in empirical observations concerning the burnout society, but what I got was an avalanche of abstractions with a lack (to my non-expert philosopher mind) of logical sequencing of the information. I didn't fully hate the book and I can see its brilliance in some way, but I also don't think this is a book that actually dissects what the burnout society is like. It's more of a series of long-winded philosophical musings about the place of the ego in relation to the "surplus of positivity" (à la Yes we can!) i.e. in a world where one cannot say no anymore.
Parsing through the very opaque academic-speak, I could discern some interesting points, but they were completely obscured by the unintelligibility of the text. "No-longer-being-able-to-ableable" is not a proper term yet the author will gladly use such weird-ass convoluted mashup of words completely unprompted, rather than properly unraveling whatever thought he's trying to convey. Now I don't know if this book was simultaneously too vague and too niche to make any kind of impactful point but I can definitely tell you that the semantics are harder to decipher than the actual overall arguments of the book, and it's a shame.
I try not to make value judgments on academic texts that are somewhat harder to read and interpret because I think their somewhat difficult language can actually help you expand your vocabulary and broaden your understanding of specific/difficult concepts. Having to re-read a paragraph to decipher its meaning isn't necessarily bad. But the author toed a dangerous line here between making valid (although too abstract for my pragmatic mind) points and talking in circles for the sake of it. Maybe it's a philosophy thing. But if you're looking for a more instructive text, do not pick this book up. It is too abstract and convoluted for anyone who wants an empirical diagnosis of the so-called burnout society, and all the arguments are made a contrario, basing themselves on opposing something that someone said rather than making actual first-hand observations. But if you don't mind feeling like you're talking to a sphinx who piggybacks off of other cherry-picked philosophical text with which he fundamentally disagrees, go ahead!
First, let's start with the obvious: the beginning of this book aged rather poorly. Granted, the author couldn't have known in 2015 that there'd be a global pandemic which would upend his assumption concerning the "immunology" discursive paradigm that he claims has been left in the past. But even then, I disagree with his premise. I don't feel like really getting into it because unraveling his thoughts would require a lot more energy than I'm willing to expand but I'll just summarise the bulk of my thoughts by saying that the defensive discourse around the "Other" cannot be dismissed so easily, and that the rise of fascism worldwide testifies to the fact global socio-political discourses still heavily rely on the us (the Self) versus them (the Other) dichotomy to foster fear and hatred. The author says that refugees aren't seen negatively because they're perceived as a threat but rather as a burden. I fundamentally disagree with his statement and see in it a cop-out to make his assumption obscure reality to continue his argument.
Now I don't disagree with the larger argument that he's making... It's just that I don't think I care about his highly abstract angle. I was expecting musings grounded in empirical observations concerning the burnout society, but what I got was an avalanche of abstractions with a lack (to my non-expert philosopher mind) of logical sequencing of the information. I didn't fully hate the book and I can see its brilliance in some way, but I also don't think this is a book that actually dissects what the burnout society is like. It's more of a series of long-winded philosophical musings about the place of the ego in relation to the "surplus of positivity" (à la Yes we can!) i.e. in a world where one cannot say no anymore.
Parsing through the very opaque academic-speak, I could discern some interesting points, but they were completely obscured by the unintelligibility of the text. "No-longer-being-able-to-ableable" is not a proper term yet the author will gladly use such weird-ass convoluted mashup of words completely unprompted, rather than properly unraveling whatever thought he's trying to convey. Now I don't know if this book was simultaneously too vague and too niche to make any kind of impactful point but I can definitely tell you that the semantics are harder to decipher than the actual overall arguments of the book, and it's a shame.
I try not to make value judgments on academic texts that are somewhat harder to read and interpret because I think their somewhat difficult language can actually help you expand your vocabulary and broaden your understanding of specific/difficult concepts. Having to re-read a paragraph to decipher its meaning isn't necessarily bad. But the author toed a dangerous line here between making valid (although too abstract for my pragmatic mind) points and talking in circles for the sake of it. Maybe it's a philosophy thing. But if you're looking for a more instructive text, do not pick this book up. It is too abstract and convoluted for anyone who wants an empirical diagnosis of the so-called burnout society, and all the arguments are made a contrario, basing themselves on opposing something that someone said rather than making actual first-hand observations. But if you don't mind feeling like you're talking to a sphinx who piggybacks off of other cherry-picked philosophical text with which he fundamentally disagrees, go ahead!
March 7, 2023
لماذا يحرق المجتمع المعاصر نفسه في العمل؟
.
يقول فوكو بأنّ المجتمعات
كانت تتأدّب بسلخ المخالفين
ثمّ صارت تتأدب بالمراقبة والمعاقبة
يردّ الكتاب بأنّ مجتمع اليوم ليس مجتمعًا تأديبيًا
بل مجتمعًا إنجازيًّا، حلّ الجِيمّ والمول والمكتب
محلّ السجن والمصحّة العقليّة والملجأ والمصنع
واستولت دوافع مضاعفة الإنجاز على اللاشعور المجتمعي
وصارت: يمكنك تحقيقها. أعنف وأقوى من: عليك تحقيقها
"الذات المنجزة" أسرع وأكثر إنتاجًا من "الذات المطيعة"
وبهذا -ونحوه- سقط تفسير فوكو
تقول حنّة بأنّ المجتمع المعاصر يكدح كالحيوانات
يردّ الكتاب بأنّ الناس لا يتخلّون عن ذواتهم وأنواتهم للاندماج
بل، يعزّز مجتمع العمل المعاصر الفرديّة وتضخّم الأنا
وهذا ما يجعلهم يفقدون على الأقلّ تلك السكينة
ويصيبهم بفرط النشاط الحركي والعصبي
وبهذا -ونحوه- سقط تفسير حنّة أرنت
بقي تفسير: تماهي الإنسان مع العمل
واختزال ذاته في إدمان الإنجاز والتحسين
واستبدال العنف الخارجيّ بالعنف الداخليّ الأشدّ فتكًا
و(ترك التأمل) المسبّب للهستيريا والاضطرابات العصبيّة
لماذا يغرق الإنسان في العمل؟ لأنه يرغب في نسيان نفسه
ولكن لماذا يرغب الإنسان في نسيان نفسه؟ لا يجيب الكتاب
وهنا يجيب القرآن: ولا تكونوا كالذين نسوا الله، فأنساهم أنفسهم
"حين أغفل الإنسان ربّه، بحثًا عن نفسه ولذّتها، أفقده الله نفسه"
ويلمح هذا الكتاب لهذه الإجابة السماويّة .. بعبارة واحدة مكثّفة
"الذات الخاضع��، للواجب، تجد في الإله نموذج الإشباع والرضى"
.
كتيّب صغير يُظنّ بأن يأخذ ساعة
لكنّه قد يأخذ 3 ساعات من التركيز
والاضطرار لإعادة ثلثه مُحاولًا الفهم
سيسعد بقراءته خبير الفلسفة وعلم النفس
وقد لا يعجب المهتمّين من غير المتخصّصين
-أعجبني حسن تحريره، وجدّيّة محاولة ترجمته-
.
يقول فوكو بأنّ المجتمعات
كانت تتأدّب بسلخ المخالفين
ثمّ صارت تتأدب بالمراقبة والمعاقبة
يردّ الكتاب بأنّ مجتمع اليوم ليس مجتمعًا تأديبيًا
بل مجتمعًا إنجازيًّا، حلّ الجِيمّ والمول والمكتب
محلّ السجن والمصحّة العقليّة والملجأ والمصنع
واستولت دوافع مضاعفة الإنجاز على اللاشعور المجتمعي
وصارت: يمكنك تحقيقها. أعنف وأقوى من: عليك تحقيقها
"الذات المنجزة" أسرع وأكثر إنتاجًا من "الذات المطيعة"
وبهذا -ونحوه- سقط تفسير فوكو
تقول حنّة بأنّ المجتمع المعاصر يكدح كالحيوانات
يردّ الكتاب بأنّ الناس لا يتخلّون عن ذواتهم وأنواتهم للاندماج
بل، يعزّز مجتمع العمل المعاصر الفرديّة وتضخّم الأنا
وهذا ما يجعلهم يفقدون على الأقلّ تلك السكينة
ويصيبهم بفرط النشاط الحركي والعصبي
وبهذا -ونحوه- سقط تفسير حنّة أرنت
بقي تفسير: تماهي الإنسان مع العمل
واختزال ذاته في إدمان الإنجاز والتحسين
واستبدال العنف الخارجيّ بالعنف الداخليّ الأشدّ فتكًا
و(ترك التأمل) المسبّب للهستيريا والاضطرابات العصبيّة
لماذا يغرق الإنسان في العمل؟ لأنه يرغب في نسيان نفسه
ولكن لماذا يرغب الإنسان في نسيان نفسه؟ لا يجيب الكتاب
وهنا يجيب القرآن: ولا تكونوا كالذين نسوا الله، فأنساهم أنفسهم
"حين أغفل الإنسان ربّه، بحثًا عن نفسه ولذّتها، أفقده الله نفسه"
ويلمح هذا الكتاب لهذه الإجابة السماويّة .. بعبارة واحدة مكثّفة
"الذات الخاضع��، للواجب، تجد في الإله نموذج الإشباع والرضى"
.
كتيّب صغير يُظنّ بأن يأخذ ساعة
لكنّه قد يأخذ 3 ساعات من التركيز
والاضطرار لإعادة ثلثه مُحاولًا الفهم
سيسعد بقراءته خبير الفلسفة وعلم النفس
وقد لا يعجب المهتمّين من غير المتخصّصين
-أعجبني حسن تحريره، وجدّيّة محاولة ترجمته-
January 18, 2024
"وإذا كان النوم يمثل منطقة الاسترخاء الجسدية، فإن التأني العميق هو ذروة الاسترخاء العقلي. إن الاندفاع المحموم المحض لا ينتج شيئًا جديدًا. يستنسخ ويسرع مما هو متاح بالفعل".
إذًا؛ يرغب منا شول هان في هذا البحث أو المقالة الطويلة، أن نقوم ب��لتمهل والتأني في حياتنا السريعة المحمومة، في مجتمع يلهث وراء كل شئ من عمل ومال وصحة من أجل الأوهام المخترعة من قبل الإنسان، وهدف بلوغ القمة والتفوق على الجميع في سباق محموم ليس له نهاية ولا قرار، والعيش من أجل الإنجازات. كما يقول أن تعدد المهام ليس مؤشرًا على التقدم بل هو نوع من الانحدار وهو شائع بين حيوانات البرية للبقاء على قيد الحياة.
"وتحدث متلازمة الاحتراق في الوقت الذي ترتفع فيه درجة حرارة الأنا، والتي تنتج عن التضخم الداخلي للذات. وعلى نحو مشابه، لا يمثل فرط النشاط الزائد فئة مناعية، بل هو شكل من أشكال تضخم الإيجابية".
يحلل أيضًا الفيلسوف هان لبعض الأمراض النفسية للمجتمع؛ من الاكتئاب وظاهرة الأنا والنرجسية. ونظريته القائلة بأن الإفراط في الإيجابية تؤدي إلى الاكتئاب، والسلبية تؤدي إلى بعض التفاؤل.
"إن الاكتئاب هو مرض مجتمع يعاني من الإيجابية المفرطة. إنه يعكس حرب الإنسانية على نفسها".
كما يفرد فصل من فصول الكتاب الثمانية لتحليل شخصية بارتلبي النساخ في رواية ملڤيل، وكونه ضحية لمجتمع الإنجازات والرأسمالية المقيتة.
"كل الجهود المبذولة للعيش تفضي إلى الموت".
كتاب مهم قليل الصفحات، ولكن يحتاج لتركيز وتأني خلال القراءة وفهمه مبكرًا في حياة الإنسان تغنيه عن اللهاث المرضي المحموم.
وكما قال نيتشه: "جميعكم؛ أولئك الذين يعشقون العمل المحموم وكل ما هو سريع وجديد وغريب، تجدون صعوبة في تحمل أنفسكم. وما الجهد الذي تقومون به إلا رغبة منكم في الهروب من أنفسكم ونسيانها. إذا كنتم تؤمنون أكثر بالحياة، فستقذفون بأنفسكم في هذه اللحظة. لكن ليس لديكم ما يكفي من سكينة في أنفسكم تمكنكم من الانتظار أو الراحة".
إذًا؛ يرغب منا شول هان في هذا البحث أو المقالة الطويلة، أن نقوم ب��لتمهل والتأني في حياتنا السريعة المحمومة، في مجتمع يلهث وراء كل شئ من عمل ومال وصحة من أجل الأوهام المخترعة من قبل الإنسان، وهدف بلوغ القمة والتفوق على الجميع في سباق محموم ليس له نهاية ولا قرار، والعيش من أجل الإنجازات. كما يقول أن تعدد المهام ليس مؤشرًا على التقدم بل هو نوع من الانحدار وهو شائع بين حيوانات البرية للبقاء على قيد الحياة.
"وتحدث متلازمة الاحتراق في الوقت الذي ترتفع فيه درجة حرارة الأنا، والتي تنتج عن التضخم الداخلي للذات. وعلى نحو مشابه، لا يمثل فرط النشاط الزائد فئة مناعية، بل هو شكل من أشكال تضخم الإيجابية".
يحلل أيضًا الفيلسوف هان لبعض الأمراض النفسية للمجتمع؛ من الاكتئاب وظاهرة الأنا والنرجسية. ونظريته القائلة بأن الإفراط في الإيجابية تؤدي إلى الاكتئاب، والسلبية تؤدي إلى بعض التفاؤل.
"إن الاكتئاب هو مرض مجتمع يعاني من الإيجابية المفرطة. إنه يعكس حرب الإنسانية على نفسها".
كما يفرد فصل من فصول الكتاب الثمانية لتحليل شخصية بارتلبي النساخ في رواية ملڤيل، وكونه ضحية لمجتمع الإنجازات والرأسمالية المقيتة.
"كل الجهود المبذولة للعيش تفضي إلى الموت".
كتاب مهم قليل الصفحات، ولكن يحتاج لتركيز وتأني خلال القراءة وفهمه مبكرًا في حياة الإنسان تغنيه عن اللهاث المرضي المحموم.
وكما قال نيتشه: "جميعكم؛ أولئك الذين يعشقون العمل المحموم وكل ما هو سريع وجديد وغريب، تجدون صعوبة في تحمل أنفسكم. وما الجهد الذي تقومون به إلا رغبة منكم في الهروب من أنفسكم ونسيانها. إذا كنتم تؤمنون أكثر بالحياة، فستقذفون بأنفسكم في هذه اللحظة. لكن ليس لديكم ما يكفي من سكينة في أنفسكم تمكنكم من الانتظار أو الراحة".
June 2, 2020
Há que temer um autor cuja tese de doutoramento versa sobre Heidegger. Contudo, a escrita de Byung- Chul Han [ pelo menos nesta obra ] é bastante clarividente. Pese embora o tema seja complexo, as considerações do autor sobre o tema não são encriptadas nem difíceis de acompanhar. Não significa com isto que o autor caia em redundâncias ou discursos superficiais, mas não se espere um tratado sobre a sociedade do cansaço.
O autor faz uma breve exposição sobre as enfermidades de cada época e define o nosso século como o século das enfermidades neurológicas. Na raiz das doenças neuronais estará um excesso de positividade.
Concretizando: Byung-Chul Han pega no modelo paradigmático da sociedade disciplinar de Michel Foucault, que era constituída por prisões, asilos, quartéis, etc., e refere que esta sociedade perdeu terreno para uma outra onde imperam os ginásios, os shoppings, os bancos, etc. A nossa sociedade actual é marcada pelo desempenho e pela produção, tendo deixado para trás a disciplina. A sociedade disciplinar era marcada pela negatividade [proibições], a nossa sociedade actual não gera loucos e delinquentes como a sociedade disciplinar, mas gera agora depressivos e fracassados. O homem pós-moderno está cansado de lutar para ser ele próprio.
Entre considerações relacionadas com estas mudanças de paradigma, o autor ainda disserta sobre a actual hiperatenção [ Paul Cézanne podia ver o perfume das rosas, tal era o estado contemplativo alcançado] que não nos deixa ver verdadeiramente o mundo.
Termina com referências a Hannah Arendt, à vida contemplativa e ao animal laborans em que se tornou o homem.
O livro encaixa na dialética hegeliana do senhor e do escravo. Senhores que se tornam escravos, carregando consigo o seu próprio campo de trabalho e a dúvida se algum dia o escravo se emancipou nesta sociedade do cansaço.
Gostei da leitura até pelas referências bibliográficas que faz, mas acredito que o autor tinha potencial para ter desenvolvido mais o tema. Mas, talvez não fosse essa a sua intenção.
O autor faz uma breve exposição sobre as enfermidades de cada época e define o nosso século como o século das enfermidades neurológicas. Na raiz das doenças neuronais estará um excesso de positividade.
Concretizando: Byung-Chul Han pega no modelo paradigmático da sociedade disciplinar de Michel Foucault, que era constituída por prisões, asilos, quartéis, etc., e refere que esta sociedade perdeu terreno para uma outra onde imperam os ginásios, os shoppings, os bancos, etc. A nossa sociedade actual é marcada pelo desempenho e pela produção, tendo deixado para trás a disciplina. A sociedade disciplinar era marcada pela negatividade [proibições], a nossa sociedade actual não gera loucos e delinquentes como a sociedade disciplinar, mas gera agora depressivos e fracassados. O homem pós-moderno está cansado de lutar para ser ele próprio.
Entre considerações relacionadas com estas mudanças de paradigma, o autor ainda disserta sobre a actual hiperatenção [ Paul Cézanne podia ver o perfume das rosas, tal era o estado contemplativo alcançado] que não nos deixa ver verdadeiramente o mundo.
Termina com referências a Hannah Arendt, à vida contemplativa e ao animal laborans em que se tornou o homem.
O livro encaixa na dialética hegeliana do senhor e do escravo. Senhores que se tornam escravos, carregando consigo o seu próprio campo de trabalho e a dúvida se algum dia o escravo se emancipou nesta sociedade do cansaço.
Gostei da leitura até pelas referências bibliográficas que faz, mas acredito que o autor tinha potencial para ter desenvolvido mais o tema. Mas, talvez não fosse essa a sua intenção.
February 24, 2024
Once again, Chris Via (from the YouTube channel Leaf by Leaf) tosses an important work into my lap. I didn’t even click on the video (I will do so after I read a bunch of these), but I merely saw the thumbnail and it was enough for me to pick this up and read it. I then went ahead and highlighted 60 or so pages so much that the act of highlighting lost its purpose. It reminded me of the farcical map drawn up by the folks in Borges’ On Exactitude in Science, where a map of a one-to-one scale of the locality was drawn up, completely rendering a “map” irrelevant.
This will take 2, 3, 4 readings. It will also continue pushing me toward ultimate sittings with Hegel and Heidegger, but not now. For now, more and more and more Byung-Chul Han. I have an obsessive and completionist temperament with my reading this year, so why not lean into it.
Here are a few things I highlighted, and I have had to cut that down to make this manageable as well:
– “The violence of positivity does not presume or require hostility. It unfolds specifically in a permissive and pacified society. Consequently, it proves more invisible than viral violence. It inhabits the negativity-free space of the Same, where no polarization between inside and outside, or proper and foreign, takes place.”
– “Twenty-first-century society is no longer a disciplinary society, but rather an achievement society [Leistungsgesellschaft].”
– “To heighten productivity, the paradigm of disciplination is replaced by the paradigm of achievement, or, in other words, by the positive scheme of Can; after a certain level of productivity obtains, the negativity of prohibition impedes further expansion. The positivity of Can is much more efficient than the negativity of Should. Therefore, the social unconscious switches from Should to Can.”
– “It is not the imperative only to belong to oneself, but the pressure to achieve that causes exhaustive depression. Seen in this light, burnout syndrome does not express the exhausted self so much as the exhausted, burnt-out soul.”
I’ll spare you and myself from typing out all the rest. That would be a borderline copyright violation, because of how much there is. We move.
This will take 2, 3, 4 readings. It will also continue pushing me toward ultimate sittings with Hegel and Heidegger, but not now. For now, more and more and more Byung-Chul Han. I have an obsessive and completionist temperament with my reading this year, so why not lean into it.
Here are a few things I highlighted, and I have had to cut that down to make this manageable as well:
– “The violence of positivity does not presume or require hostility. It unfolds specifically in a permissive and pacified society. Consequently, it proves more invisible than viral violence. It inhabits the negativity-free space of the Same, where no polarization between inside and outside, or proper and foreign, takes place.”
– “Twenty-first-century society is no longer a disciplinary society, but rather an achievement society [Leistungsgesellschaft].”
– “To heighten productivity, the paradigm of disciplination is replaced by the paradigm of achievement, or, in other words, by the positive scheme of Can; after a certain level of productivity obtains, the negativity of prohibition impedes further expansion. The positivity of Can is much more efficient than the negativity of Should. Therefore, the social unconscious switches from Should to Can.”
– “It is not the imperative only to belong to oneself, but the pressure to achieve that causes exhaustive depression. Seen in this light, burnout syndrome does not express the exhausted self so much as the exhausted, burnt-out soul.”
I’ll spare you and myself from typing out all the rest. That would be a borderline copyright violation, because of how much there is. We move.
April 13, 2015
A tieredness society.
This is the story of a young man korean who came to study metallurgy in Germany and became philosoph (it's quite normal to be philosoph in Germany)
Interisting man.
Many of my patient are tired. So tired. His vision is particular because he had two culture. In Korea, children are complained to work a lot, competition, ...(with many problems : suicide, dispressed) But in occidental country, it is the same.
For him, our society of performance is in fact the suprem stade of the self-exploitation society.
It makes me feel in another way, to Etienne de la Boetie, the Montaigne's friend and his famous "Discours de la servitude volontaire".
I will try to read some of his other books.
This is the story of a young man korean who came to study metallurgy in Germany and became philosoph (it's quite normal to be philosoph in Germany)
Interisting man.
Many of my patient are tired. So tired. His vision is particular because he had two culture. In Korea, children are complained to work a lot, competition, ...(with many problems : suicide, dispressed) But in occidental country, it is the same.
For him, our society of performance is in fact the suprem stade of the self-exploitation society.
It makes me feel in another way, to Etienne de la Boetie, the Montaigne's friend and his famous "Discours de la servitude volontaire".
I will try to read some of his other books.
Read
February 25, 2019"Burnout syndrome does not express the exhausted self so much as the exhausted, burnt-out soul."
Recently, one of the podcasts I listen to has started running adverts for an audiobook and e-reader app. The advert goes something like this: Are you too busy to read full books? But do you still want to get ahead? With our app, you can discover the key ideas of the world's best non-fiction books in only 15 minutes. We have summarised and re-written thousands of books so that you can digest them in just a quarter of an hour!
Han Byung-Chul's short book The Burnout Society (2015) helps us make sense of apps like this, as it argues powerfully that twenty-first century advanced capitalism has transformed its workforce into a society of hyper-active, multi-tasking, and excessively exhausted human beings. Always pressed for time, always switched on, never truly resting or encountering boredom, and increasingly becoming self-employed and self-disciplining, today's accelerated world has bludgeoned its burnt-out workers into depressive and suicidal tendencies.
To arrive at this argument, Han wrestles with some of the philosophical big dogs: Nietzsche, Freud, Arendt, and Agamben. He revisits Kafka's 'The Hunger Artist' and Melville's 'Bartleby, the Scrivener'. And he also makes two important points about our current moment. Both of these arguments can and should be challenged, particularly so from the vantage point of far-right ascendency in 2019. But even so, here they are:
1) In the wake of the Cold War, Han writes, we have softened our pervasive hatred of the Other. In the twenty-first century, he says, hatred of the Other has become somewhat residual, and in its place we have ushered in a hatred of the Same. Thus if the Cold War was an immunological society, a society in which the West vigilantly protected itself from the negativity of exogenous shocks, then the post-Cold War moment has turned us into an excessively positive society. We are no longer infected by diseases, but develop mental health conditions.
2) Foucault argued that modernity was a disciplinary society (the court, the madhouse, the prison). Deleuze argued that late modernity was a control society (the subject self-monitors their own discipline). Han argues that these disciplinary measures have been exacerbated by what he calls the "achievement society" of today: our bosses are ironic now. They breathe down our necks at the very same moment they tell us to "be ourselves" and practice self care.
And so Han comes to think of contemporary life as utterly burnt-out: If bosses tell us to "be ourselves", then the depressed individual is someone who is tired of having to become themselves. Moreover, "the achievement-subject exploits itself until it burns out." As neoliberalism tells us all to be homo economicus, we work ourselves to exhaustion.
Against the exhaustion and hyper-activity of the neoliberal workplace, Han calls our attention to the significance of "tiredness" and "boredom". To be human, Han suggests, is to experience (Erfahrung, not Erlebnis) profound tiredness and profound boredom. We won't find this boredom in our jobs at the call centre or in the Amazon factory, nor will we be tired from it when we scroll the timeline before we go to sleep. Only meaningful work is boring, and only meaningful rest shows how tired we are. Only these can give us pause and cultivate a more authentic relationship with the world. If this sounds Heideggerian, then that's because Han is a close reader of Heideggers.
At around 60 pages, this is a captivating and striking book that deepens our understanding of contemporary life, even if I am suspicious of its foundational claims.
Recently, one of the podcasts I listen to has started running adverts for an audiobook and e-reader app. The advert goes something like this: Are you too busy to read full books? But do you still want to get ahead? With our app, you can discover the key ideas of the world's best non-fiction books in only 15 minutes. We have summarised and re-written thousands of books so that you can digest them in just a quarter of an hour!
Han Byung-Chul's short book The Burnout Society (2015) helps us make sense of apps like this, as it argues powerfully that twenty-first century advanced capitalism has transformed its workforce into a society of hyper-active, multi-tasking, and excessively exhausted human beings. Always pressed for time, always switched on, never truly resting or encountering boredom, and increasingly becoming self-employed and self-disciplining, today's accelerated world has bludgeoned its burnt-out workers into depressive and suicidal tendencies.
To arrive at this argument, Han wrestles with some of the philosophical big dogs: Nietzsche, Freud, Arendt, and Agamben. He revisits Kafka's 'The Hunger Artist' and Melville's 'Bartleby, the Scrivener'. And he also makes two important points about our current moment. Both of these arguments can and should be challenged, particularly so from the vantage point of far-right ascendency in 2019. But even so, here they are:
1) In the wake of the Cold War, Han writes, we have softened our pervasive hatred of the Other. In the twenty-first century, he says, hatred of the Other has become somewhat residual, and in its place we have ushered in a hatred of the Same. Thus if the Cold War was an immunological society, a society in which the West vigilantly protected itself from the negativity of exogenous shocks, then the post-Cold War moment has turned us into an excessively positive society. We are no longer infected by diseases, but develop mental health conditions.
2) Foucault argued that modernity was a disciplinary society (the court, the madhouse, the prison). Deleuze argued that late modernity was a control society (the subject self-monitors their own discipline). Han argues that these disciplinary measures have been exacerbated by what he calls the "achievement society" of today: our bosses are ironic now. They breathe down our necks at the very same moment they tell us to "be ourselves" and practice self care.
And so Han comes to think of contemporary life as utterly burnt-out: If bosses tell us to "be ourselves", then the depressed individual is someone who is tired of having to become themselves. Moreover, "the achievement-subject exploits itself until it burns out." As neoliberalism tells us all to be homo economicus, we work ourselves to exhaustion.
Against the exhaustion and hyper-activity of the neoliberal workplace, Han calls our attention to the significance of "tiredness" and "boredom". To be human, Han suggests, is to experience (Erfahrung, not Erlebnis) profound tiredness and profound boredom. We won't find this boredom in our jobs at the call centre or in the Amazon factory, nor will we be tired from it when we scroll the timeline before we go to sleep. Only meaningful work is boring, and only meaningful rest shows how tired we are. Only these can give us pause and cultivate a more authentic relationship with the world. If this sounds Heideggerian, then that's because Han is a close reader of Heideggers.
At around 60 pages, this is a captivating and striking book that deepens our understanding of contemporary life, even if I am suspicious of its foundational claims.
Read
November 30, 2019Professzor Sigmund Freud annak idején még egy fegyelmező társadalomban élt. A kulcsfogalom akkoriban a „nem szabad” volt, következésképpen a kor mentális betegsége a hisztéria, az ellenség pedig az idegen, aki kilóg a társadalom mintázatából. Ma már nem ez a helyzet – a ma társadalma ugyanis már teljesítményelvű, lételeme tehát a versengés. A kulcsszó a „szabadság”, ám ez nem várt problémákhoz vezetett: a „szabadság” ugyanis egyben kényszer, mert az adott kontextusban kényszeríti az egyént, hogy a versengő társadalomban maximális teljesítményt nyújtson. Ebben a világban az ellenség nem az idegen, hanem a rendszerbe kódolt maximalizmus, szerencsétlen individuum pedig kénytelen saját rabszolgahajcsára és egyben saját rabszolgája lenni. Amikor pedig kudarcot vall (mert szükségszerűen kudarcot vall), a kor mentális betegségének, a depressziónak a karmai közé kerül. Hogy ez rosszabb-e, vagy jobb, mint aminek Freud ki volt téve, arról őt kéne megkérdezni.
Nem merem csillagozni ezt a könyvet. Szép, helyenként sziporkázó eszmefuttatás, de igazán nem tudom, adott-e valamit azon kívül, hogy megtudtam, a kiégett német társadalomban az egyetemek oktatói még korántsem annyira kiégettek, hogy ne tudjanak írni a kiégett nyugati társadalomról. Amit javasol (a teljesítmény „visszaprofanizálása”, magyarán a versengés mérséklése és az „ünnep és az istenek”, ergo: az érték visszacsempészése a munkába) számomra nem kifejezetten egzakt, meg aztán ha végignézek itt a könyvesboltban az életmód polcokon, akkor nagyjából minden második könyv valami hasonló konklúzióra jut, csak nem tudja ilyen katedraízűen kifejteni. Másfelől nem tudom, hogy kis hazánkban van-e jelentése egy olyan mondatnak, miszerint a „hiperkapitalizmus üzleti kapcsolattá alakítja az emberi kapcsolatokat”. Amit én problémának érzékelek ebben a hibrid demokráciában, a mi kis fatornyos perifériánkon, semmiképpen sem ezzel írható le. Nyilván mert nálunk nem a neoliberális hegemónia az, ami dübörög – a neoliberális hegemónia inkább a mumus, amivel a kádári nosztalgiát mint csatos üveges Bambit szürcsölgető állampolgárt ijesztgetik. Elhiszem, ha muszáj, hogy ahol Byung-Chul Han él, ott az fáj leginkább, hogy „Látszólag mindenünk megvan. De egyvalami lényeges hiányzik, mégpedig a világ.” De bevallom, én nem érzem, hogy ez így volna. Én, ha sz��tnézek a Blahán, nagyon is úgy hiszem, a világot látom. Sőt, érzem a szagát is. Szóval nem vagyok benne biztos, hogy ennek a kötetnek abszolút relevanciája van e tájon. Óvatosan mondom: bár lenne.
Nem merem csillagozni ezt a könyvet. Szép, helyenként sziporkázó eszmefuttatás, de igazán nem tudom, adott-e valamit azon kívül, hogy megtudtam, a kiégett német társadalomban az egyetemek oktatói még korántsem annyira kiégettek, hogy ne tudjanak írni a kiégett nyugati társadalomról. Amit javasol (a teljesítmény „visszaprofanizálása”, magyarán a versengés mérséklése és az „ünnep és az istenek”, ergo: az érték visszacsempészése a munkába) számomra nem kifejezetten egzakt, meg aztán ha végignézek itt a könyvesboltban az életmód polcokon, akkor nagyjából minden második könyv valami hasonló konklúzióra jut, csak nem tudja ilyen katedraízűen kifejteni. Másfelől nem tudom, hogy kis hazánkban van-e jelentése egy olyan mondatnak, miszerint a „hiperkapitalizmus üzleti kapcsolattá alakítja az emberi kapcsolatokat”. Amit én problémának érzékelek ebben a hibrid demokráciában, a mi kis fatornyos perifériánkon, semmiképpen sem ezzel írható le. Nyilván mert nálunk nem a neoliberális hegemónia az, ami dübörög – a neoliberális hegemónia inkább a mumus, amivel a kádári nosztalgiát mint csatos üveges Bambit szürcsölgető állampolgárt ijesztgetik. Elhiszem, ha muszáj, hogy ahol Byung-Chul Han él, ott az fáj leginkább, hogy „Látszólag mindenünk megvan. De egyvalami lényeges hiányzik, mégpedig a világ.” De bevallom, én nem érzem, hogy ez így volna. Én, ha sz��tnézek a Blahán, nagyon is úgy hiszem, a világot látom. Sőt, érzem a szagát is. Szóval nem vagyok benne biztos, hogy ennek a kötetnek abszolút relevanciája van e tájon. Óvatosan mondom: bár lenne.
February 26, 2018
"Nunca se es más activo que cuando no se hace nada; nunca se está menos solo que cuando nadie le acompaña a uno." Catón de Útica
La obra es un ensayo filosófico, así que no seré yo tan pretencioso como para decir que la he entendido en profundidad. El autor diserta, y comenta trabajos de otros autores, sobre la evolución de la humanidad actual hacia una sociedad donde el todo es posible, el 'si se puede', la ausencia total de negatividad, el positivismo absoluto, el no saber decir que 'no', la hiperactividad, la intolerancia al aburrimiento, son causa de fracaso, depresión, enfermedades mentales y cansancio.
La obra es un ensayo filosófico, así que no seré yo tan pretencioso como para decir que la he entendido en profundidad. El autor diserta, y comenta trabajos de otros autores, sobre la evolución de la humanidad actual hacia una sociedad donde el todo es posible, el 'si se puede', la ausencia total de negatividad, el positivismo absoluto, el no saber decir que 'no', la hiperactividad, la intolerancia al aburrimiento, son causa de fracaso, depresión, enfermedades mentales y cansancio.
November 3, 2019
This is the best explanation I've ever found on the current mental health crisis in our society. A wonderful work of Philosophy that is both brilliant and accessible, tiny and comprehensive. I'll need to read everything Han has ever written.
October 11, 2019
Jeffrey Kluger, en Simplejidad, cita a John Millar, un economista del Santa Fe Institute (“un laboratorio de ideas y centro de investigación dedicado el estudio de la complejidad”) al hablar de los obstáculos “necesarios” para comprender los movimientos de las masas o grupos complejos de personas, que crear “pequeñas turbulencias” puede ser bueno, pues: “Al introducir un pequeño ruido en el sistema se produce una coherencia en el fluido”.
Después de varios libros de Han, creo acercarme mejor a comprender de qué está hablando. Me gusta su lectura de lo positivo --de positividad-- de la era actual, y de lo que llama negativo que aún persiste, pero que además, trata de ser erradicado.
Lo positivo, en realidad, es “malo” para nuestra sociedad, es todo aquello cubierto con teflón y que evita las fricciones y los roces y todo lo que frene o detenga el flujo de las cosas.
No quiero ahondar mucho en el comentario, pero, ya van varios autores (Gray, Zizek, Taleb, Hitchens, y ahora, Han) en quienes veo esa misma lectura de las cosas: cada vez más nos adentramos en una sociedad que evita las luchas, las batallas, las discusiones; y esto permea a casi todas las esferas; se rehuye la confrontación, etcétera.
En este caso, Han, concluye que gran parte de ese evitar la discusión, el freno, responde, además de a intereses económicos capitalistas neoliberales, a un cansancio, a un hartazgo al respecto de la pelea.
Y, a modo de respuesta, podríamos considerar la contemplación que proponga un Concheiro o el mismo Han, ya que la contemplación no le saca la vuelta a la crítica, a la interpretación, y por el otro lado, el cansancio del cansancio sí, pues, “incapacita para hacer algo”, la contemplación por el contrario, exige: ver, observar, cuestionar, así sea internamente, pero, hay una acción, y no necesariamente que tuviera que haberla, pero sí “sucede” algo en el ser humano que la practica. Se “es” contemplativo.
Han es muy claro en diferenciar a la sociedad del rendimiento --un rendimiento en más de un nivel: de rendir cuentas, de caer rendido, de dejar de resistirse-- de una sociedad distinta a ella, no la focaliza en algo en particular, pero sí insiste en que el cansancio de esa sociedad de rendimiento es un cansancio aparente, ilusorio, y que por dicha razón es que en nuestra época, los males sean más bien neuronales, psicológicos, antes que inmunológicos; responden a otro estrés --en un sentido amplio-- propiciado solo por el autorendimiento por el autorendimiento.
La verdad es que a la luz de las ideas de Han, uno puede comprender mejor ese permanente auge por los libros de superación personal, que por muy criticados que sean han mutado en publicaciones en distintas revistas electrónicas y por ende en publicaciones en redes sociales que hablan de “life hacks”, un simple googleo arroja: “Cerca de 57,500,000 resultados en apenas 0.74 segundos”: los 3 trucos más eficientes, los 20 trucos para la más, las 100 mejores maneras de… y así, hasta la náusea.
Que todo fluya. Que nada detenga el río de mierda con el que llenamos el vacío de nuestras vidas. Que todos los números de nuestros reportes, de nuestras ventas, de nuestro lo que sea que hagamos aumente, suba, crezca; que bajen los errores, que ganemos más seguidores, que perdamos menos audiencia, que ganemos más dinero, que perdamos menos amigos, más likes, menos reacciones enojadas en Facebook, más follows, menos unfollows, que nuestras métricas vayan en ascenso, que tengamos un mejor nivel de aceptación de lo que sea que puta hagamos; más kilómetros en nuestra app de correr nadar andar en patineta, "and so on, and so on".
Papá me dijo de niño algo que no he olvidado, y que sigo creyendo a pie de juntillas: “solo los tontos se aburren”. Bueno, he eliminado el “tontos”, y solo lo he dejado como: “hay quiénes se aburren, yo no”. No me aburro porque, coincido con varias de las ideas de Han, ver, observar, contemplar, no es necesariamente aburrirse, o sí, pero no en el sentido que le dan actualmente; uno necesita aburrirse profundamente para poder tener ideas; para poder ser creativo. Nos quieren hacer creer que se puede vivir con “multitasking”, con “quality time”, y la verdad es que no lo creo. Prefiero aburrirme con Emilia caminando sin rumbo; o sentados en una banca Rebeca y yo (y en lo próximo, quizá, también Juan, el labrador negro que es posible que adoptemos) viendo a nuestro alrededor sin decir nada. O mejor dicho, diciéndonos otras cosas sin palabras.
De lo que llevo leído de Han, este y el de la sociedad de la transparencia son los que más me han gustado. Es posible que conforme más lo lea, mejor lo entienda, y encuentre más puntos en común con las ideas que expone, con sus lecturas de otros autores, y su lectura del mundo que nos rodea.
Mi comentario del inicio va en función de la diversidad de autores que veo que señalan lo mismo como una crítica al tiempo actual y su “políticamente correcto”, con ser tolerantes ante todo e inclusivos y cómo eso termina por ser un espejismo.
Después de varios libros de Han, creo acercarme mejor a comprender de qué está hablando. Me gusta su lectura de lo positivo --de positividad-- de la era actual, y de lo que llama negativo que aún persiste, pero que además, trata de ser erradicado.
Lo positivo, en realidad, es “malo” para nuestra sociedad, es todo aquello cubierto con teflón y que evita las fricciones y los roces y todo lo que frene o detenga el flujo de las cosas.
No quiero ahondar mucho en el comentario, pero, ya van varios autores (Gray, Zizek, Taleb, Hitchens, y ahora, Han) en quienes veo esa misma lectura de las cosas: cada vez más nos adentramos en una sociedad que evita las luchas, las batallas, las discusiones; y esto permea a casi todas las esferas; se rehuye la confrontación, etcétera.
En este caso, Han, concluye que gran parte de ese evitar la discusión, el freno, responde, además de a intereses económicos capitalistas neoliberales, a un cansancio, a un hartazgo al respecto de la pelea.
Y, a modo de respuesta, podríamos considerar la contemplación que proponga un Concheiro o el mismo Han, ya que la contemplación no le saca la vuelta a la crítica, a la interpretación, y por el otro lado, el cansancio del cansancio sí, pues, “incapacita para hacer algo”, la contemplación por el contrario, exige: ver, observar, cuestionar, así sea internamente, pero, hay una acción, y no necesariamente que tuviera que haberla, pero sí “sucede” algo en el ser humano que la practica. Se “es” contemplativo.
Han es muy claro en diferenciar a la sociedad del rendimiento --un rendimiento en más de un nivel: de rendir cuentas, de caer rendido, de dejar de resistirse-- de una sociedad distinta a ella, no la focaliza en algo en particular, pero sí insiste en que el cansancio de esa sociedad de rendimiento es un cansancio aparente, ilusorio, y que por dicha razón es que en nuestra época, los males sean más bien neuronales, psicológicos, antes que inmunológicos; responden a otro estrés --en un sentido amplio-- propiciado solo por el autorendimiento por el autorendimiento.
La verdad es que a la luz de las ideas de Han, uno puede comprender mejor ese permanente auge por los libros de superación personal, que por muy criticados que sean han mutado en publicaciones en distintas revistas electrónicas y por ende en publicaciones en redes sociales que hablan de “life hacks”, un simple googleo arroja: “Cerca de 57,500,000 resultados en apenas 0.74 segundos”: los 3 trucos más eficientes, los 20 trucos para la más, las 100 mejores maneras de… y así, hasta la náusea.
Que todo fluya. Que nada detenga el río de mierda con el que llenamos el vacío de nuestras vidas. Que todos los números de nuestros reportes, de nuestras ventas, de nuestro lo que sea que hagamos aumente, suba, crezca; que bajen los errores, que ganemos más seguidores, que perdamos menos audiencia, que ganemos más dinero, que perdamos menos amigos, más likes, menos reacciones enojadas en Facebook, más follows, menos unfollows, que nuestras métricas vayan en ascenso, que tengamos un mejor nivel de aceptación de lo que sea que puta hagamos; más kilómetros en nuestra app de correr nadar andar en patineta, "and so on, and so on".
Papá me dijo de niño algo que no he olvidado, y que sigo creyendo a pie de juntillas: “solo los tontos se aburren”. Bueno, he eliminado el “tontos”, y solo lo he dejado como: “hay quiénes se aburren, yo no”. No me aburro porque, coincido con varias de las ideas de Han, ver, observar, contemplar, no es necesariamente aburrirse, o sí, pero no en el sentido que le dan actualmente; uno necesita aburrirse profundamente para poder tener ideas; para poder ser creativo. Nos quieren hacer creer que se puede vivir con “multitasking”, con “quality time”, y la verdad es que no lo creo. Prefiero aburrirme con Emilia caminando sin rumbo; o sentados en una banca Rebeca y yo (y en lo próximo, quizá, también Juan, el labrador negro que es posible que adoptemos) viendo a nuestro alrededor sin decir nada. O mejor dicho, diciéndonos otras cosas sin palabras.
De lo que llevo leído de Han, este y el de la sociedad de la transparencia son los que más me han gustado. Es posible que conforme más lo lea, mejor lo entienda, y encuentre más puntos en común con las ideas que expone, con sus lecturas de otros autores, y su lectura del mundo que nos rodea.
Mi comentario del inicio va en función de la diversidad de autores que veo que señalan lo mismo como una crítica al tiempo actual y su “políticamente correcto”, con ser tolerantes ante todo e inclusivos y cómo eso termina por ser un espejismo.
January 22, 2023
Mi segunda lectura de 2023 coincide con un momento vital en el que diariamente experimento en mis carnes y veo a mi alrededor cómo la lógica tardomoderna de producir sin descanso en la rueda diabólica de autoexplotación acaba destruyendo el alma de las personas.
Tenía muchas ganas de hincarle el diente a las letras de Byung-Chul Han. Y el surcoreano no me ha decepcionado.
En el mundo actual se ha perdido todo lo divino y festivo. Se ha convertido nada más que en unos grandes almacenes. [...] Parece que lo tengamos todo, pero nos falta lo esencial: el mundo.
El mundo ha perdido la voz y el habla; es más, ha perdido el sonido. El ruido de la comunicación ha sofocado el silencio. La proliferación y la masificación de las cosas ha desplazado el vacío. Cielo y tierra están repletos de cosas. Este mundo de mercancías no es apropiado para ser 'habitado'. Ha perdido toda referencia a lo divino, a lo santo, al misterio, a lo infinito, a lo superior, a lo sublime. También hemos perdido toda capacidad de asombrarnos.
Tenía muchas ganas de hincarle el diente a las letras de Byung-Chul Han. Y el surcoreano no me ha decepcionado.
En el mundo actual se ha perdido todo lo divino y festivo. Se ha convertido nada más que en unos grandes almacenes. [...] Parece que lo tengamos todo, pero nos falta lo esencial: el mundo.
El mundo ha perdido la voz y el habla; es más, ha perdido el sonido. El ruido de la comunicación ha sofocado el silencio. La proliferación y la masificación de las cosas ha desplazado el vacío. Cielo y tierra están repletos de cosas. Este mundo de mercancías no es apropiado para ser 'habitado'. Ha perdido toda referencia a lo divino, a lo santo, al misterio, a lo infinito, a lo superior, a lo sublime. También hemos perdido toda capacidad de asombrarnos.
January 23, 2019
Existe una serie de elementos que nos acercan a describir la lógica de la sociedad de hoy. Inmediatez, corto plazo, estrés, neurosis, soledad y cansancio.
La necesidad de explicarlo todo siempre ha estado presente, esa es la labor de la filosofía. Pese a toda la carga y el afán de una sociedad exageradamente capitalista y voraz, hay quienes tienen la capacidad de abstraerse de todo, para mirar como desde un panóptico (¿Debería decir desde un Drone?) en lo que nos hemos convertido y por qué. Y allí, en ese resquicio, en ese oasis del tiempo aparece Byung Chul Han, quien es, al decir de los expertos, una de las voces más refrescantes de la filosofía actual.
La mirada de Han es pausada pero tajante y permítanme hablar desde mi avanzada edad: preocupante. Después de una introducción un tanto compleja en la que emplea analogías con la Biología, el autor nos habla de la sociedad que nos trajo aquí: la sociedad disciplinaria, aquella en que el trabajo era algo impuesto, tal vez moral, pero siempre, irremediable. Esta sociedad disciplinaria, donde la oposición derivaba en locos y criminales, dio paso a la sociedad del rendimiento, donde el trabajo no es una imposición, si no una elección, que inevitable y tal vez inconscientemente, produce depresivos y fracasados. Esa es la sociedad del cansancio.
Usted se vende a sí mismo la idea de que puede ser libre y expresa esa libertad en el poder trabajar para conseguir lo que quiere; trabajar para viajar, para comprar, para mostrar, pero tanto el hombre de la sociedad disciplinaria, como el de la sociedad del rendimiento, se hallan tan encadenados como Prometeo.
Usted es dueño de su tiempo, pero termina trabajando hasta la extenuación. El capitalismo además de la falsa idea de lograr lo que sea, nos vendió la idea de una falsa libertad. De ahí que uno de los rasgos definitorios de esta contemporaneidad sean las enfermedades neuronales. Han es lapidario aquí: “lo que enferma no es el exceso de responsabilidad, sino el imperativo del rendimiento como nuevo mandato de la sociedad de trabajo tardomoderna”. La paradoja que emerge es enorme como una catedral, la imposición de rendimiento no viene de afuera, sino de nosotros mismos. De nuevo, lanza otro contundente jab: “el hombre depresivo es aquel animal laborans que se explota a sí mismo, voluntariamente, sin coacción externa”. Y se explota a sí mismo, porque está convencido de poder lograrlo todo, de poder conseguir todo. Está enfermo de positividad: refleja aquella humanidad que dirige la guerra contra sí misma. Y se enferma porque ya no puede escuchar, el multitasking, esa engañosa habilidad de hacer de todo al mismo tiempo y su consecuente hiperactividad, nublan la oportunidad de mirar la vida con profunda y contemplativa atención.
El animal laborans de hoy, pues, está enfermo de autoexplotación, positividad e individualidad. Y es allí donde aparecen las drogas; Han parece insinuar que es imposible mantener el ritmo de hoy sin acudir a ellas: un médico -dice- podría operar mejor y más concentrado usando drogas, pero no solo para mejorar en el trabajo, si no sencillamente para vivir en esta gran rueda de Hámster donde el futuro no existe, es solo un presente prolongado infinitamente.
Han no condena, solo describe, aunque el texto, a pesar de lo corto, no sea fácil de digerir. ¿Mencioné que no condena? Perdón, tal vez sí lo hace cuando afirma que “el exceso del aumento del rendimiento provoca el infarto del alma”. El autor no da respuestas, no presenta alternativas, no es función de la filosofía esto. El camino que nos presenta siempre está hacia adentro.
La necesidad de explicarlo todo siempre ha estado presente, esa es la labor de la filosofía. Pese a toda la carga y el afán de una sociedad exageradamente capitalista y voraz, hay quienes tienen la capacidad de abstraerse de todo, para mirar como desde un panóptico (¿Debería decir desde un Drone?) en lo que nos hemos convertido y por qué. Y allí, en ese resquicio, en ese oasis del tiempo aparece Byung Chul Han, quien es, al decir de los expertos, una de las voces más refrescantes de la filosofía actual.
La mirada de Han es pausada pero tajante y permítanme hablar desde mi avanzada edad: preocupante. Después de una introducción un tanto compleja en la que emplea analogías con la Biología, el autor nos habla de la sociedad que nos trajo aquí: la sociedad disciplinaria, aquella en que el trabajo era algo impuesto, tal vez moral, pero siempre, irremediable. Esta sociedad disciplinaria, donde la oposición derivaba en locos y criminales, dio paso a la sociedad del rendimiento, donde el trabajo no es una imposición, si no una elección, que inevitable y tal vez inconscientemente, produce depresivos y fracasados. Esa es la sociedad del cansancio.
Usted se vende a sí mismo la idea de que puede ser libre y expresa esa libertad en el poder trabajar para conseguir lo que quiere; trabajar para viajar, para comprar, para mostrar, pero tanto el hombre de la sociedad disciplinaria, como el de la sociedad del rendimiento, se hallan tan encadenados como Prometeo.
Usted es dueño de su tiempo, pero termina trabajando hasta la extenuación. El capitalismo además de la falsa idea de lograr lo que sea, nos vendió la idea de una falsa libertad. De ahí que uno de los rasgos definitorios de esta contemporaneidad sean las enfermedades neuronales. Han es lapidario aquí: “lo que enferma no es el exceso de responsabilidad, sino el imperativo del rendimiento como nuevo mandato de la sociedad de trabajo tardomoderna”. La paradoja que emerge es enorme como una catedral, la imposición de rendimiento no viene de afuera, sino de nosotros mismos. De nuevo, lanza otro contundente jab: “el hombre depresivo es aquel animal laborans que se explota a sí mismo, voluntariamente, sin coacción externa”. Y se explota a sí mismo, porque está convencido de poder lograrlo todo, de poder conseguir todo. Está enfermo de positividad: refleja aquella humanidad que dirige la guerra contra sí misma. Y se enferma porque ya no puede escuchar, el multitasking, esa engañosa habilidad de hacer de todo al mismo tiempo y su consecuente hiperactividad, nublan la oportunidad de mirar la vida con profunda y contemplativa atención.
El animal laborans de hoy, pues, está enfermo de autoexplotación, positividad e individualidad. Y es allí donde aparecen las drogas; Han parece insinuar que es imposible mantener el ritmo de hoy sin acudir a ellas: un médico -dice- podría operar mejor y más concentrado usando drogas, pero no solo para mejorar en el trabajo, si no sencillamente para vivir en esta gran rueda de Hámster donde el futuro no existe, es solo un presente prolongado infinitamente.
Han no condena, solo describe, aunque el texto, a pesar de lo corto, no sea fácil de digerir. ¿Mencioné que no condena? Perdón, tal vez sí lo hace cuando afirma que “el exceso del aumento del rendimiento provoca el infarto del alma”. El autor no da respuestas, no presenta alternativas, no es función de la filosofía esto. El camino que nos presenta siempre está hacia adentro.
March 11, 2024
Mes esame pasiekimų visuomenė, jau ne disciplinos. Pertekę pozityvumo, talpinantys savyje ir smurtautoją, ir tą, kuris patiria paties savo smurtą.
Mus dar galėtų išgelbėti gilus nuobodulys.
Ir tyla, padedanti užčiaupti tą beribį ”aš galiu”.
Ber kur pavojus, ten auga
Ir tai, kas išgelbsti.
(F. Hölderlin)
Ne pats lengviausias filosofinis pjūvis per šiandienos buvimą. Bet labai įdomu pasilyginti su asmenine realybe.
Mus dar galėtų išgelbėti gilus nuobodulys.
Ir tyla, padedanti užčiaupti tą beribį ”aš galiu”.
Ber kur pavojus, ten auga
Ir tai, kas išgelbsti.
(F. Hölderlin)
Ne pats lengviausias filosofinis pjūvis per šiandienos buvimą. Bet labai įdomu pasilyginti su asmenine realybe.
February 22, 2019
A stimulating and yet not wholly satisfying read. Byuon-Chul Hal presents a short tract suggesting that society has moved on from one in which our behavior is disciplined by those around us to one in which we are freer, self-monitoring individuals who are controlled by the pressure to achieve, to be special. It seems to be this pressure to achieve leads to increases in depressions, attention deficit disorders, and a whole bunch of negatives. Right or wrong, the book is buoyed along by interesting discussions such as one involving Arendt’s vita active and vita contemplative.
I think that the translation may be at fault, but It doesn’t read easily, and the author has a fairly annoying habit of stating what someone famous believes, following that statement with a lengthy quote from that person, following up by something as simple as saying 'but he’s wrong', and then continuing with the point of view the author is presenting. Read it, but expect nothing.
I think that the translation may be at fault, but It doesn’t read easily, and the author has a fairly annoying habit of stating what someone famous believes, following that statement with a lengthy quote from that person, following up by something as simple as saying 'but he’s wrong', and then continuing with the point of view the author is presenting. Read it, but expect nothing.
Read
April 18, 2020Λίγα βιβλία με έχουν ενθουσιάσει τόσο πολύ απ' τις πρώτες κιόλας σελίδες. Και μιλάμε για ένα βιβλίο μια σταλίτσα. Δεν ξέρω τι να πρωτοπώ, το ξαναξεκινάω.
February 24, 2017
Mucho Larala y poco Lerele.
El uso de un lenguaje del siglo XX para describir la sociedad del XXI acaba siendo un indicativo de sus limitaciones.
Interesantes conceptos, clara exposición. Pobre desarrollo.
Visión inorgánica, invertebrada. Aséptica. Irreal.
Constantes malabarismos académico-lingüísticos y referencias mil bailando a buen ritmo para decir lo ya dicho. No profundiza. Remastica hasta poder llamarse ensayo.
Se puede leer, pero no trasciende.
El uso de un lenguaje del siglo XX para describir la sociedad del XXI acaba siendo un indicativo de sus limitaciones.
Interesantes conceptos, clara exposición. Pobre desarrollo.
Visión inorgánica, invertebrada. Aséptica. Irreal.
Constantes malabarismos académico-lingüísticos y referencias mil bailando a buen ritmo para decir lo ya dicho. No profundiza. Remastica hasta poder llamarse ensayo.
Se puede leer, pero no trasciende.
July 6, 2019
The author seems to have collected a series of passages from multiple sources (Nietzche and Arendt being his favorites), and tried to shoehorn their ideas into a nonsensical theory of “positivity vs negativity” that bears no semblance to society. He also comes up with the weirdest defining for burnout and depression, classifying them as caused by “excess of positivity”. Pure nonsense.
February 14, 2017
"21.yüzyıl toplumu artık bir disiplin toplumu değil,performans toplumudur.Sakinleri de 'itaatkar özne' değil 'performans öznesidir.
Hastalık veçhesinden bakılacak olursa,başlamakta olan 21.yüzyıl ne bakteriyel ne de viral;bilakis sinirsel olarak hemahenktir."
Byung Chul Han gerek gösterdiği referanslar gerekse yaklaşımının kompleks yapısıyla zevkli bir okuma ve düşünme fırsatı sunuyor okuyucuya.Özellikle Bartleby Vakası bölümü (Katip Bartleby ve Açlık Sanatçısı eserleri üzerinden sunduğu o akılcı uyumu)!
Hastalık veçhesinden bakılacak olursa,başlamakta olan 21.yüzyıl ne bakteriyel ne de viral;bilakis sinirsel olarak hemahenktir."
Byung Chul Han gerek gösterdiği referanslar gerekse yaklaşımının kompleks yapısıyla zevkli bir okuma ve düşünme fırsatı sunuyor okuyucuya.Özellikle Bartleby Vakası bölümü (Katip Bartleby ve Açlık Sanatçısı eserleri üzerinden sunduğu o akılcı uyumu)!
January 16, 2022
The opening sentences, read in January 2022, really make me laugh:
Well, maybe both pathologies and neurons then. Or neurons leading to other pathologies, as people trick themselves into quack cures.
Han characterizes society has having an "excess of positivity" - and the violence of society comes not from infections, diseases, or "The Other". The human body is subject to consume or experience too many things, and yet must be maintained in perfect order - becoming a "performance-machine" (Leistungsmaschine). As human beings cannot do this, breakdown, fatigue, burnout, etc., are the manifest results.
As human beings yield to an overabundance of stimulus and desire and comparison with others, Han suggests that this leads to a kind of neurotic hyperactivity, like exhausted animals that work only to survive. A subject in the achievement society cannot really be creative or free. Han makes extensive comparisons to Bartleby the Scrivener, from Herman Melville's short story.
Han suggests there is a shortage of being able to do nothing, or to experience nothing, and ignoring this leads to an exile from society, or even the simulation of society as seen in the virtual world - and the discussion of Hannah Arendt's distinction between the active life and the contemplative life is stimulating.
Really, a collection of so many thematic essays that make me nod and say 'that's clever', and bolstered by choice references and block quotes. But reminds me of memes shared on Facebook about Narcissus looking at his cell phone. The metaphors can be crude. Comparisons to autism are uncomfortable. But even with all those strong negatives I've listed, he's not entirely wrong, is he?
Every age has its signature afflictions. Thus, a bacterial age existed; at the latest, it ended with the discovery of antibiotics. Despite widespread fear of an influenza epidemic, we are not living in a viral age. Thanks to immunological technology, we have already left it behind. From a pathological standpoint, the incipient twenty-first century is determined neither by bacteria nor by viruses, but by neurons.
Well, maybe both pathologies and neurons then. Or neurons leading to other pathologies, as people trick themselves into quack cures.
Han characterizes society has having an "excess of positivity" - and the violence of society comes not from infections, diseases, or "The Other". The human body is subject to consume or experience too many things, and yet must be maintained in perfect order - becoming a "performance-machine" (Leistungsmaschine). As human beings cannot do this, breakdown, fatigue, burnout, etc., are the manifest results.
Today’s society is no longer Foucault’s disciplinary world of hospitals, madhouses, prisons, barracks, and factories. It has long been replaced by another regime, namely a society of fitness studios, office towers, banks, airports, shopping malls, and genetic laboratories. Twenty-first-century society is no longer a disciplinary society, but rather an achievement society [Leistungsgesellschaft].
As human beings yield to an overabundance of stimulus and desire and comparison with others, Han suggests that this leads to a kind of neurotic hyperactivity, like exhausted animals that work only to survive. A subject in the achievement society cannot really be creative or free. Han makes extensive comparisons to Bartleby the Scrivener, from Herman Melville's short story.
Han suggests there is a shortage of being able to do nothing, or to experience nothing, and ignoring this leads to an exile from society, or even the simulation of society as seen in the virtual world - and the discussion of Hannah Arendt's distinction between the active life and the contemplative life is stimulating.
The homines sacri of achievement society also differ from those of the society of sovereignty on another score. They cannot be killed at all. Their life equals that of the undead. They are too alive to die, and too dead to live.
Really, a collection of so many thematic essays that make me nod and say 'that's clever', and bolstered by choice references and block quotes. But reminds me of memes shared on Facebook about Narcissus looking at his cell phone. The metaphors can be crude. Comparisons to autism are uncomfortable. But even with all those strong negatives I've listed, he's not entirely wrong, is he?
May 24, 2022
Quante volte vi capita di dire: "Sono stanca/o"?
A me un'infinità di volte, soprattutto da quando ho cambiato lavoro (beh, in realtà anche prima).
Sono figlia del mio tempo: mi lascio fagocitare dai mille mila impegni.
Il saggio di Byung-Chul Han si concentra sull'eccesso di positività che affligge la nostra società imperniata sull'efficienza: “Il mito di Prometeo si presta a essere interpretato anche come una rappresentazione dell’apparato psichico dell’odierno soggetto di prestazione, il quale usa violenza a se stesso, fa guerra a se stesso. Il soggetto di prestazione, che s’immagina libero, in realtà è incatenato come Prometeo. L’aquila, la quale si ciba del suo fegato che ogni volta ricresce, è il suo alter ego con cui egli è in guerra. Così inteso, il rapporto tra Prometeo e l’aquila è una relazione con il sé, un rapporto di auto-sfruttamento. Il dolore al fegato, di suo incapace di dolore, è la stanchezza. Prometeo viene colto così, come soggetto di auto-sfruttamento, da una stanchezza senza fine. Egli è l’archetipo della società della stanchezza.”
La nostra società è malata di assenza di alterità: “La scomparsa dell’alterità implica il vivere in un tempo povero di negatività. Le malattie neuronali del XXI secolo, a loro volta, seguono si una dialettica ma non la dialettica della negatività, bensì quella della positività. Si tratta di stati patologici da ricondurre a un eccesso di positività. La violenza non nasce solo dalla negatività, ma anche dalla positività, non solo dall’Altro o dall’Estraneo ma anche dall'Eguale.”
Con questo saggio il filosono Byung-Chul Han invita ciascuno di noi a rivedere il nostro fare e il nostro non-fare, passando dalla potenza passiva alla potenza attiva, per non essere più schiavi della prestazione, ma liberi di essere, liberi di non perdere il nostro centro, per non smarrire il senso dell'Altro: “La negatività del non-fare (nicht-zu) è anche un tratto essenziale della contemplazione. Nella meditazione zen, per esempio, si tenta di raggiungere la pura negatività del non-fare, ossia il vuoto, liberandosi da qualcosa che incombe e che s’impone. Si tratta di una pratica estremamente attiva, tutt’altro che passiva. È un esercizio volto a raggiungere una posizione di sovranità dentro il sé, a collocarsi al centro di sé. Se disponessimo solo della potenza positiva, invece, saremmo consegnati del tutto passivamente all’oggetto. L’iperattività è, paradossalmente, una forma estremamente passiva del fare, che non ammette più alcun agire libero. Si fonda su un’assolutizzazione unilaterale della potenza positiva.”
A me un'infinità di volte, soprattutto da quando ho cambiato lavoro (beh, in realtà anche prima).
Sono figlia del mio tempo: mi lascio fagocitare dai mille mila impegni.
Il saggio di Byung-Chul Han si concentra sull'eccesso di positività che affligge la nostra società imperniata sull'efficienza: “Il mito di Prometeo si presta a essere interpretato anche come una rappresentazione dell’apparato psichico dell’odierno soggetto di prestazione, il quale usa violenza a se stesso, fa guerra a se stesso. Il soggetto di prestazione, che s’immagina libero, in realtà è incatenato come Prometeo. L’aquila, la quale si ciba del suo fegato che ogni volta ricresce, è il suo alter ego con cui egli è in guerra. Così inteso, il rapporto tra Prometeo e l’aquila è una relazione con il sé, un rapporto di auto-sfruttamento. Il dolore al fegato, di suo incapace di dolore, è la stanchezza. Prometeo viene colto così, come soggetto di auto-sfruttamento, da una stanchezza senza fine. Egli è l’archetipo della società della stanchezza.”
La nostra società è malata di assenza di alterità: “La scomparsa dell’alterità implica il vivere in un tempo povero di negatività. Le malattie neuronali del XXI secolo, a loro volta, seguono si una dialettica ma non la dialettica della negatività, bensì quella della positività. Si tratta di stati patologici da ricondurre a un eccesso di positività. La violenza non nasce solo dalla negatività, ma anche dalla positività, non solo dall’Altro o dall’Estraneo ma anche dall'Eguale.”
Con questo saggio il filosono Byung-Chul Han invita ciascuno di noi a rivedere il nostro fare e il nostro non-fare, passando dalla potenza passiva alla potenza attiva, per non essere più schiavi della prestazione, ma liberi di essere, liberi di non perdere il nostro centro, per non smarrire il senso dell'Altro: “La negatività del non-fare (nicht-zu) è anche un tratto essenziale della contemplazione. Nella meditazione zen, per esempio, si tenta di raggiungere la pura negatività del non-fare, ossia il vuoto, liberandosi da qualcosa che incombe e che s’impone. Si tratta di una pratica estremamente attiva, tutt’altro che passiva. È un esercizio volto a raggiungere una posizione di sovranità dentro il sé, a collocarsi al centro di sé. Se disponessimo solo della potenza positiva, invece, saremmo consegnati del tutto passivamente all’oggetto. L’iperattività è, paradossalmente, una forma estremamente passiva del fare, che non ammette più alcun agire libero. Si fonda su un’assolutizzazione unilaterale della potenza positiva.”
August 1, 2022
Un libro que tuve el privilegio de conocer gracias a que es bibliografía obligatoria de mi Universidad.
Me resultó muy interesante la perspectiva del autor, y sin dudas es un texto que genera reflexión y hace trabajar a las neuronas, por decirlo de alguna manera.
Tiene conceptos muy curiosos, sin dudas puede dar origen a debates interesantísimos. Una perspectiva nueva para nuestra contemporaneidad. Lo recomiendo.
Me resultó muy interesante la perspectiva del autor, y sin dudas es un texto que genera reflexión y hace trabajar a las neuronas, por decirlo de alguna manera.
Tiene conceptos muy curiosos, sin dudas puede dar origen a debates interesantísimos. Una perspectiva nueva para nuestra contemporaneidad. Lo recomiendo.
March 12, 2023
Han's argument is that we have transitioned from a disciplinary society in which we are pressured to conform by external forces, into an achievement society in which we are pressured to conform by the introjected requirement to "live your best life", and so exploit ourselves in the impossible task of seeking ever-receding, pointless and illusory life goals, set by Capital. Consumerism requires that we are never satisfied, and so we can only fail to achieve, expending our energy in a fruitless aspirational quest for a sense of worth and self-fulfillment deliberately withheld from us, resulting in burnout, and the descent into depression. That "being happy" has become a requirement makes unhappiness a personal failing, rather than an appropriate response to adverse circumstance, further eroding self-worth. My takeaway message: Give yourself a break, you are good enough as you are.
Read
December 24, 2022Un breve saggio che descrive il passaggio dalla società della sorveglianza descritta da Foucault alla società dell’autovigilanza in cui gli individui competono tra loro ma soprattutto con se stessi allo scopo di perfezionare la propria persona, un obiettivo logorante e soprattutto impossibile da raggiungere.
Byung-Chul Han analizza perfettamente il disagio dell’individuo tardo-moderno immerso nella società della performance, ossessionata dal produrre - anche se quest’iperattività è soltanto agitazione, ansia e nevrosi – inadatta a gestire qualsiasi tipo di negatività e di dolore, portata a reprimere ciò che non funziona e a ottimizzare qualsiasi attività. La stanchezza diventa quindi una condizione standard che, anziché essere combattuta, va forse abbracciata e usata come strumento di consapevolezza perché potrebbe essere l’innesco per un atto di ribellione prezioso contro un modello sociale dominante dannoso.
Byung-Chul Han analizza perfettamente il disagio dell’individuo tardo-moderno immerso nella società della performance, ossessionata dal produrre - anche se quest’iperattività è soltanto agitazione, ansia e nevrosi – inadatta a gestire qualsiasi tipo di negatività e di dolore, portata a reprimere ciò che non funziona e a ottimizzare qualsiasi attività. La stanchezza diventa quindi una condizione standard che, anziché essere combattuta, va forse abbracciata e usata come strumento di consapevolezza perché potrebbe essere l’innesco per un atto di ribellione prezioso contro un modello sociale dominante dannoso.
November 11, 2023
I can’t stand books written in such an incomprehensible manner. Vain intellectual expressions, little meaning. If you can’t explain your ideas in readable way, do you even know what you’re talking about?
I am disappointed. The author tackles a topic I am deeply curious about, yet his writing is disorganised, torturous to read, and too burdensome to understand. Shame.
I am disappointed. The author tackles a topic I am deeply curious about, yet his writing is disorganised, torturous to read, and too burdensome to understand. Shame.
October 6, 2020
Өөрийгөө сэтгэл зүйн хувьд тогтворгүй, анхаарал төвлөрөх чадваргүй нэгэн болчихлоо гэж зовниод, жаргал нь зовлон болсон золиг гэж буруутгаад байсан чинь ганцхан миний асуудал биш бололтой. Хүмүүсийн яриаг чагнасан ч, сүүлийн үед ихээр гарч буй ном зохиол, нийтлэл судалгааг анзаарсан ч бидний олонх л ийм асуудлуудтай байх шиг. Эдгээрийг хөндөж бичсэн нэг ном бол Хан Бён Чоль гэж Солонгос, Германы философичийн бичсэн “Тамирдсан нийгэм” юм. Англи нэр нь “Burnout Society”.
“Сэтгэл гутрал, анхаарал дутмагшил, сэтгэл хөдлөлийн тогтворгүй байдлын эмгэг, ажлаас халшрах эмгэг зэрэг нейрологийн өвчлөлүүд хорин нэгдүгээр зууны эхэн үеийн эмгэг судлалын шинжлэх ухааны дүр зургийг тодорхойлж байна” гэж энэхүү ном эхэлнэ.
Өмнөх зууны нийгэм дэг журмыг дагаж мөрдөх шинж чанартай байсан бол энэ зууны нийгэм бүхнийг чадах хандлагаас бүрдсэн гэнэ. Хязгааргүй их “Чадах”-аас бүрдсэн өнөөгийн нийгмийг зохиолч амжилтын нийгэм гэж тодорхойлон “Боломжгүй зүйл үгүй гэж үздэг нийгэмд л боломжтой зүйл үгүй гэх сэтгэл гутралд өртсөн хувь хүнтэй таарах боломжтой” гэжээ. Угтаа бол чадна, бүтээнэ, хөгжинө, хөгжүүлнэ гэсэн энэ их урам зоригийн хандлагаар дүүрсэн өнөөгийн нийгэм сэтгэл гутралтнуудыг, бүтэлгүйчүүдийг бүтээж байгаа аж.
Би анхаарал төвлөрөх чадвар минь яагаад муудсаныг, сэтгэлээр унахад юу нөлөөлөөд байгаа тухай өмнө нь бодож, гадарлаж байсан ч энэ номыг уншсаны дараагаар л илүү цэгцтэй, тодорхой байдлаар учир шалтгааныг тунгааж эхлэв.
Төвлөрөх чадвар минь унасан гол шалтгаан нь олон зүйл амжуулах гэсэн бүтэлгүй оролдлогуудаас улбаатай. Зөвхөн кинондоо л анхаарлаа хандуулаад бүтнээр нь үзээд дуусгачих ч чадваргүй болчихсон байсан нэг мэдэхэд. Энийг “Олон үүрэг даалгавар нэгэн зэрэг биелүүлэх чадвар бол дэвшил биш ухралт. Олон үүрэг нэгэн зэрэг биелүүлэх чадвар амьтанд л илүү хөгжсөн байдаг. Учир нь энэ бол зэрлэг байгальд амьд үлдэхэд зайлшгүй шаардлагатай анхаарал төвлөрлийн техник юм” гэж гоё хэлжээ. Олон зүйлрүү харайж орох, олон юм амжуулах гэж чичрэх үнэхээр л хортой санагдаад байгаа. Нэг тийм сэглэгдсэн мэдрэмж.
Харин сэтгэлээр унах шалтгаанаа хоорондоо холбоотой дараах зүйлсээр төлөөлүүлж байна. Эхнийх нь юу ч чадахгүй, юу ч мэдэхгүй байгаагаа улам бүр ойлгон гутрах мэдрэмж. Эргэн тойрны хүмүүс бүгд л ямар нэгэн зүйлийг үнэхээр сайн мэддэг, үнэхээр сайн хийдэг байхад надад тэгж сайн мэддэг, чаддаг зүйлс түй ч байдаггүй шүү. Ийм бод��л төрөөд, гүнзгийрээд байхаар чинь түмний нэг байх гэж хичээдэг миний итгэл нураад л өгч байгаа юм.
Дараагийнх нь өмнө дүрсэлсэн чадаад, мэдээд байгаа хүмүүсийн ихэнх нь үнэхээр чаддаг, мэддэг биш зүгээр л дүр эсгэсэн гарууд болохыг таниад энэ нийгэм шал худлаа юм байна гэсэн бодол төрөх. Энэ нь цаашлаад амьдралын утга учир бла бла гэсэн өргөн хүрээний санаа зовних асуудал болж сэтгэл тамлах, тэгээд гутрах. Нээрэн бүр хаашаа л харна амжилттай, тэмүүлэлтэй, эрч хүчтэй, ихийг амжуулдаг, бүхнийг чаддаг мэт харагдах гэж хичээсэн хүмүүс. Энд тэндхийн хурал, цуглаан дээр аливаа асуудлыг үнэхээр сонирхсон доо биш зүгээр л өөрийгөө харуулах гэсэн дээ үг хэлж явдаг ухаантнууд бол тэдгээр хүмүүсийн төлөөлөл. За тэгээд идсэн хоол, авсан хувцас, турсан нууц, сурсан сургууль гээд гайхуулж болох бүх юмаа хий хоосон байдлаар гайхуулж явдаг хүмүүс дараагийн жишээ нь. Хэдэд эрэмбэлэгддэг сургуулийг төгссөнөө л энд тэнд ярьж явахаас сурсан сургуулиасаа юу ойлгож үлдсэнээ ярьдаг нь цөөхөн. Энэ жишээнд намайг оролцуулаад бидний ихэнх багтана. Угаасаа л өрсөлдөөний, амжилтын нийгэм юм.
Үүнийг номын дараах өгүүлбэрээр төлөөлүүлж болно. “Өөрийн гэсэн зан чанар болон тодорхойлолтоор дутмаг нэн-орчин үеийн эгог нүүр номд олон найз нөхөдтэй хүмүүсээс харж болно. Өөдрөгөөр харвал өөрийн гэсэн зан чанаргүй ийм хүн ямар ч дүрд тоглож, ямар ч үүргийг гүйцэтгэж, ямар ч хэлбэрийг хүлээн авах чадвартай уян хатан байдаг. Ийм хэлбэр дүрсгүй уян хатан байдал нь эдийн засгийн хувьд өндөр үр ашигтай байдаг”.
Өөрөө дээр дурдсан жишээнд багтах болсноо хүлээн зөвшөөрч, даруухан биш нэгэн болж байгаадаа тавгүйтэх нь сэтгэлээр унах бас нэг шалтгаан болчхож байгаа юм. Гайтай тээ хаха. Уг нь би өөртөө хэт итгэлтэй хүмүүсээс айдаг хүн. Өөрийгөө битгий гол, чи бүхнийг чадна, гэх мэт бараг л энэ ертөнц чамайг л тойрч эргэн, энэ нар чиний л төлөө мандаж байгаа гэсэн утгатай зөвлөгөө надад таатай санагддаггүй. Өөрийгөө лаг чадамжтай, потенциалтай гээд итгэчихсэн, сайн сайхан гэдгээ баталж харуулах гэж тэмцэж явсаар байгаад сүүлдээ түүндээ үнэмшээд өөрийгөө үнэхээр лут хүнээр төсөөлж, дуулсан дуундаа уярч явдаг шалихгүй савтай хүмүүсээс ч жийрхдэг. Тэгсэн сүүлийн үед надад ч бас ийм шинж тэмдгүүд илэрч эхэлсэн. Бусдыгаа дуурайгаад бүх л сэдвээр бурмаар санагдах болсон. Чи наад асуудлаа сайн мэдэхгүй ш дээ муу суга гэж бодож л арай хийн амаа жимийж байна.
Ном дээр дүрслэгдсэнээр миний сэтгэл гутрал, анхаарал дутмагшлын шалтгаанууд, зан чанарын өөрчлөлт нь өнөөгийн амжилтын нийгмээс улбаатай аж. Хэрэв зээ үнэн бол энэ асуудлууд ганцхан намайг шаналгаагүй, би�� нийгмээрээ л нэг тийм сэтгэл зүй, оюун санааны асуудалтай байгаа юм шиг. Бас бид өөрсдөө энэ асуудлуудаа олж таниад, философичид, эрдэмтэд нь бичиж, судлаад эхэлсэн байна. Тэгэхээр тун удахгүй залхуу байх, тэнэг байх, бүтэлгүй байх огт буруу, муухай зүйл биш гээд бүгд яриад яг л бүтээмжтэй, амжилттай амьдралын хэмнэлийн уриалга шиг тархаад эхэлчхэж ч магадгүй юм.
Тэгвэл надад лав сайхан байхаар байна. Тэнэгийн дотор уужуухан гэдэг дээ!!! Ер нь уужуухан л байвал тэнэг байсан ч яахав дээ тээ хаха.
Жич: Философи, сэтгэл судлалын талаар сайн мэдлэггүй болоод тэр үү номоо бүхэлд нь яг таг ойлгосон эсэхдээ эргэлзэж байна. Бас зарим хэсгийн орчуулгууд нь үнэхээр хэцүү санагдлаа. Мэргэжлийн ойлголтууд их гарч байсан болохоор илүү энгийн байдлаар хувиргаж орчуулах боломж байсан эсэхийг нь сайн мэдэхгүй юм. Тэгэхээр ойлгоогүй үлдсэнд минь орчуулга нь биш миний нимгэн мэдлэг ч буруутай юм уу. Заа ер нь төр засаг л буруутай байх дөө хаха :P
“Сэтгэл гутрал, анхаарал дутмагшил, сэтгэл хөдлөлийн тогтворгүй байдлын эмгэг, ажлаас халшрах эмгэг зэрэг нейрологийн өвчлөлүүд хорин нэгдүгээр зууны эхэн үеийн эмгэг судлалын шинжлэх ухааны дүр зургийг тодорхойлж байна” гэж энэхүү ном эхэлнэ.
Өмнөх зууны нийгэм дэг журмыг дагаж мөрдөх шинж чанартай байсан бол энэ зууны нийгэм бүхнийг чадах хандлагаас бүрдсэн гэнэ. Хязгааргүй их “Чадах”-аас бүрдсэн өнөөгийн нийгмийг зохиолч амжилтын нийгэм гэж тодорхойлон “Боломжгүй зүйл үгүй гэж үздэг нийгэмд л боломжтой зүйл үгүй гэх сэтгэл гутралд өртсөн хувь хүнтэй таарах боломжтой” гэжээ. Угтаа бол чадна, бүтээнэ, хөгжинө, хөгжүүлнэ гэсэн энэ их урам зоригийн хандлагаар дүүрсэн өнөөгийн нийгэм сэтгэл гутралтнуудыг, бүтэлгүйчүүдийг бүтээж байгаа аж.
Би анхаарал төвлөрөх чадвар минь яагаад муудсаныг, сэтгэлээр унахад юу нөлөөлөөд байгаа тухай өмнө нь бодож, гадарлаж байсан ч энэ номыг уншсаны дараагаар л илүү цэгцтэй, тодорхой байдлаар учир шалтгааныг тунгааж эхлэв.
Төвлөрөх чадвар минь унасан гол шалтгаан нь олон зүйл амжуулах гэсэн бүтэлгүй оролдлогуудаас улбаатай. Зөвхөн кинондоо л анхаарлаа хандуулаад бүтнээр нь үзээд дуусгачих ч чадваргүй болчихсон байсан нэг мэдэхэд. Энийг “Олон үүрэг даалгавар нэгэн зэрэг биелүүлэх чадвар бол дэвшил биш ухралт. Олон үүрэг нэгэн зэрэг биелүүлэх чадвар амьтанд л илүү хөгжсөн байдаг. Учир нь энэ бол зэрлэг байгальд амьд үлдэхэд зайлшгүй шаардлагатай анхаарал төвлөрлийн техник юм” гэж гоё хэлжээ. Олон зүйлрүү харайж орох, олон юм амжуулах гэж чичрэх үнэхээр л хортой санагдаад байгаа. Нэг тийм сэглэгдсэн мэдрэмж.
Харин сэтгэлээр унах шалтгаанаа хоорондоо холбоотой дараах зүйлсээр төлөөлүүлж байна. Эхнийх нь юу ч чадахгүй, юу ч мэдэхгүй байгаагаа улам бүр ойлгон гутрах мэдрэмж. Эргэн тойрны хүмүүс бүгд л ямар нэгэн зүйлийг үнэхээр сайн мэддэг, үнэхээр сайн хийдэг байхад надад тэгж сайн мэддэг, чаддаг зүйлс түй ч байдаггүй шүү. Ийм бод��л төрөөд, гүнзгийрээд байхаар чинь түмний нэг байх гэж хичээдэг миний итгэл нураад л өгч байгаа юм.
Дараагийнх нь өмнө дүрсэлсэн чадаад, мэдээд байгаа хүмүүсийн ихэнх нь үнэхээр чаддаг, мэддэг биш зүгээр л дүр эсгэсэн гарууд болохыг таниад энэ нийгэм шал худлаа юм байна гэсэн бодол төрөх. Энэ нь цаашлаад амьдралын утга учир бла бла гэсэн өргөн хүрээний санаа зовних асуудал болж сэтгэл тамлах, тэгээд гутрах. Нээрэн бүр хаашаа л харна амжилттай, тэмүүлэлтэй, эрч хүчтэй, ихийг амжуулдаг, бүхнийг чаддаг мэт харагдах гэж хичээсэн хүмүүс. Энд тэндхийн хурал, цуглаан дээр аливаа асуудлыг үнэхээр сонирхсон доо биш зүгээр л өөрийгөө харуулах гэсэн дээ үг хэлж явдаг ухаантнууд бол тэдгээр хүмүүсийн төлөөлөл. За тэгээд идсэн хоол, авсан хувцас, турсан нууц, сурсан сургууль гээд гайхуулж болох бүх юмаа хий хоосон байдлаар гайхуулж явдаг хүмүүс дараагийн жишээ нь. Хэдэд эрэмбэлэгддэг сургуулийг төгссөнөө л энд тэнд ярьж явахаас сурсан сургуулиасаа юу ойлгож үлдсэнээ ярьдаг нь цөөхөн. Энэ жишээнд намайг оролцуулаад бидний ихэнх багтана. Угаасаа л өрсөлдөөний, амжилтын нийгэм юм.
Үүнийг номын дараах өгүүлбэрээр төлөөлүүлж болно. “Өөрийн гэсэн зан чанар болон тодорхойлолтоор дутмаг нэн-орчин үеийн эгог нүүр номд олон найз нөхөдтэй хүмүүсээс харж болно. Өөдрөгөөр харвал өөрийн гэсэн зан чанаргүй ийм хүн ямар ч дүрд тоглож, ямар ч үүргийг гүйцэтгэж, ямар ч хэлбэрийг хүлээн авах чадвартай уян хатан байдаг. Ийм хэлбэр дүрсгүй уян хатан байдал нь эдийн засгийн хувьд өндөр үр ашигтай байдаг”.
Өөрөө дээр дурдсан жишээнд багтах болсноо хүлээн зөвшөөрч, даруухан биш нэгэн болж байгаадаа тавгүйтэх нь сэтгэлээр унах бас нэг шалтгаан болчхож байгаа юм. Гайтай тээ хаха. Уг нь би өөртөө хэт итгэлтэй хүмүүсээс айдаг хүн. Өөрийгөө битгий гол, чи бүхнийг чадна, гэх мэт бараг л энэ ертөнц чамайг л тойрч эргэн, энэ нар чиний л төлөө мандаж байгаа гэсэн утгатай зөвлөгөө надад таатай санагддаггүй. Өөрийгөө лаг чадамжтай, потенциалтай гээд итгэчихсэн, сайн сайхан гэдгээ баталж харуулах гэж тэмцэж явсаар байгаад сүүлдээ түүндээ үнэмшээд өөрийгөө үнэхээр лут хүнээр төсөөлж, дуулсан дуундаа уярч явдаг шалихгүй савтай хүмүүсээс ч жийрхдэг. Тэгсэн сүүлийн үед надад ч бас ийм шинж тэмдгүүд илэрч эхэлсэн. Бусдыгаа дуурайгаад бүх л сэдвээр бурмаар санагдах болсон. Чи наад асуудлаа сайн мэдэхгүй ш дээ муу суга гэж бодож л арай хийн амаа жимийж байна.
Ном дээр дүрслэгдсэнээр миний сэтгэл гутрал, анхаарал дутмагшлын шалтгаанууд, зан чанарын өөрчлөлт нь өнөөгийн амжилтын нийгмээс улбаатай аж. Хэрэв зээ үнэн бол энэ асуудлууд ганцхан намайг шаналгаагүй, би�� нийгмээрээ л нэг тийм сэтгэл зүй, оюун санааны асуудалтай байгаа юм шиг. Бас бид өөрсдөө энэ асуудлуудаа олж таниад, философичид, эрдэмтэд нь бичиж, судлаад эхэлсэн байна. Тэгэхээр тун удахгүй залхуу байх, тэнэг байх, бүтэлгүй байх огт буруу, муухай зүйл биш гээд бүгд яриад яг л бүтээмжтэй, амжилттай амьдралын хэмнэлийн уриалга шиг тархаад эхэлчхэж ч магадгүй юм.
Тэгвэл надад лав сайхан байхаар байна. Тэнэгийн дотор уужуухан гэдэг дээ!!! Ер нь уужуухан л байвал тэнэг байсан ч яахав дээ тээ хаха.
Жич: Философи, сэтгэл судлалын талаар сайн мэдлэггүй болоод тэр үү номоо бүхэлд нь яг таг ойлгосон эсэхдээ эргэлзэж байна. Бас зарим хэсгийн орчуулгууд нь үнэхээр хэцүү санагдлаа. Мэргэжлийн ойлголтууд их гарч байсан болохоор илүү энгийн байдлаар хувиргаж орчуулах боломж байсан эсэхийг нь сайн мэдэхгүй юм. Тэгэхээр ойлгоогүй үлдсэнд минь орчуулга нь биш миний нимгэн мэдлэг ч буруутай юм уу. Заа ер нь төр засаг л буруутай байх дөө хаха :P
October 12, 2020
2020 Reading #10 | Fall Readings
(I have mixed feelings about this book. But let me explain.)
Choosing this book to be the first one I completed after a very long time without reading was probably not my wisest decision. It was a hell of a ride: who would say such a "small" book would take such a long time to read? I have a pretty simple answer for that, but a very complex (and confused) overlook on it.
For context : I have suffered/been diagnosed with burnouts. Yes, plural, more than once. However, I had never understood the reason behind it. In my head, I was not "doing enough" to justify having a burnout. I was so entrusted in society's idea of success and what was enough (which is never) that I went as far as thinking that my burnout was just a depression. But this book, this heavy book, changed my mind. Its idea, which relies on the fact that modern-day individuals are constantly competing with themselves, hit me hard. I can relate more to that than I could ever explain. We have changed from a disciplinary society to one of performance. The self-policing and oversharing of our own actions, the tiredness from trying to be ourselves, and the illusion of freedom and positivity (an external pressure to be the best, happier, most accomplished version of ourselves)... None of these come to us as threats (like viruses, something external), not allowing us to create the necessary "antibodies" to fight the negative feelings so much positivity brings us. Thus, the more we show to others, the more we get into the performance trap.
The fact that we stopped being controlled by others (and by society itself) makes us much more prone to lose ourselves while trying to find who we are/how we fit in this performance society. As if we were/are never doing enough. We lost faith, both in reality and higher entities (gods and/or bosses), reaching a whole new level of detachment. And, even though we are no longer prisoners of social criticism, such criticism has become innate — thus, we are not so different from previous generations, we are their successors. And we can even go as far as saying we are no longer so different from animals, as multitasking is something used in wildlife for protection. In the wildlife, animals never rest, they need to be aware of the dangers around them — but what "dangers" do we have now, especially when we are working (besides coronavirus, of course)? There is no safe space to stop and wind down, to contemplate, reflect and enjoy life. Instead of going forward, Humans are going back, turning into their most animalistic, primary forms. We are always alert, hyperactive and hyper-neurotic. And we do it because we want to be better than everyone else around (and beyond!) us.
On another note, I read this book in Brazilian-Portuguese. Something must have gotten lost in translation or even in the expressions that might have gone right past by me. There were some parts where I did not click, connect or even made much sense of what I was reading until I re-read it once or twice. I do not know if this made any difference, but the book sure felt a little "off" in some parts, as if something was missing.Or maybe was my brain trying to tell me to take a step back to digest what I had just read.
However, on overall, it is a great book. In my humble opinion, even though it was not the most brilliant piece of literature I have ever read (and it was way too academic for my taste), it was very good and effective in deconstructing the idea of what the burnout syndrome is and how it comes from external positive stimuli, which always catch us off-guard. But I also found it a bit reductive at times because, for Byung-Chul Han, depression can only come from work-related matters — and I personally disagree with that, as there are several forms of depression and ways to get there. When I finished reading this book, a friend of mine asked me: don't you think it is a bit ironic that it took you so long to read a book called "Tiredness Society" (which is the literal translation of the book's Portuguese title)? And yes, yes, I do.
Note: I feel like I also need to highlight that this was the first eBook I actually finished! I have tried before (I am still reading Bell Hooks' Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics!) but never quite managed to go all the way through. I personally feel like it is easier to lose track of a book when it is not a physical one (especially since it is even difficult for me to finish those lately). That is why I am trying different formats and reading techniques — such as reading multiple books at the same time, which has been really helpful in my 2020 quest for reading more.
(I have mixed feelings about this book. But let me explain.)
Choosing this book to be the first one I completed after a very long time without reading was probably not my wisest decision. It was a hell of a ride: who would say such a "small" book would take such a long time to read? I have a pretty simple answer for that, but a very complex (
For context : I have suffered/been diagnosed with burnouts. Yes, plural, more than once. However, I had never understood the reason behind it. In my head, I was not "doing enough" to justify having a burnout. I was so entrusted in society's idea of success and what was enough (
The fact that we stopped being controlled by others (and by society itself) makes us much more prone to lose ourselves while trying to find who we are/how we fit in this performance society. As if we were/are never doing enough. We lost faith, both in reality and higher entities (gods and/or bosses), reaching a whole new level of detachment. And, even though we are no longer prisoners of social criticism, such criticism has become innate — thus, we are not so different from previous generations, we are their successors. And we can even go as far as saying we are no longer so different from animals, as multitasking is something used in wildlife for protection. In the wildlife, animals never rest, they need to be aware of the dangers around them — but what "dangers" do we have now, especially when we are working (
On another note, I read this book in Brazilian-Portuguese. Something must have gotten lost in translation or even in the expressions that might have gone right past by me. There were some parts where I did not click, connect or even made much sense of what I was reading until I re-read it once or twice. I do not know if this made any difference, but the book sure felt a little "off" in some parts, as if something was missing.
However, on overall, it is a great book. In my humble opinion, even though it was not the most brilliant piece of literature I have ever read (and it was way too academic for my taste), it was very good and effective in deconstructing the idea of what the burnout syndrome is and how it comes from external positive stimuli, which always catch us off-guard. But I also found it a bit reductive at times because, for Byung-Chul Han, depression can only come from work-related matters — and I personally disagree with that, as there are several forms of depression and ways to get there. When I finished reading this book, a friend of mine asked me: don't you think it is a bit ironic that it took you so long to read a book called "Tiredness Society" (
Note: I feel like I also need to highlight that this was the first eBook I actually finished! I have tried before (I am still reading Bell Hooks' Feminism Is for Everybody: Passionate Politics!) but never quite managed to go all the way through. I personally feel like it is easier to lose track of a book when it is not a physical one (
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,149 reviews