Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning Henri Lefebvre: A Critical Introduction - autonomous learning

selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com
from selforganizedseminar.files.wordpress.com More from this publisher
02.07.2013 Views

e v e r y d a y L i F e of mechanical devices, crippling true subjectivity, and ushering in the “real subsumption” of everyday life under the domain of capital. The workweek continues to grow longer and longer in the technologically most advanced nation in the world, the United States, despite—or because of—time-saving ingenuity. Who’d be surprised, given that cellular phones, e-mail, laptops, and various handheld electronic devices permit many people to work while they’re traveling to work and to work at home, at their leisure. For the lucky ones who can labor at home or on the beach, in hotels or at airports—as the unlucky ones toil at multiple jobs to keep daily life afloat—it’s hard to know whether these changes represent absolute worker empowerment or total enslavement. Is this high-tech, liberated labor force a new industrial aristocracy, or has capitalism, as Marx pointed out in the Manifesto, “stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honored and looked up to with reverent awe? It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid-laborers.” 27 Either way, the gadget has permeated new millennium daily life, filled in the unproductive pores of the working day, created human personalities permanently online, addictively tuned in, programmed to perform, and terrified to log off. A tiny Nokia object, stuck in somebody’s ear, now represents a curious alien power, a heady narcotic that underwrites the rhythms and texturing of people’s everyday life. Every civic space, every street or café, assumes the quality of a surrogate living room—or an open-planned office, a postmodern relay system. * * * For Lefebvre, the contradictions of everyday life inevitably find their solutions in everyday life. How could they otherwise? Grappling for answers, he journeys a little closer to home, looks over his shoulder, and remembers his roots. Since childhood he’d 13

H e n r i L e F e b v r e known a tradition that is the veritable nemesis of insurgent forms of modern alienation: the rural festival. The drama usually ended in rowdy scuffles and raving orgies; festival days were rough and tumble and full of vitality, and Lefebvre loved them and romanticized them in adulthood. (Pieter Brueghel’s painting Battle of Carnival and Lent magnificently portrays this raucous medieval lifeworld.) Festivals seeped into Lefebvre’s Marxist conscience, activated involuntary memory, and aroused primordial visions of infant paradise, tasting a little like a Proustian madeleine dipped in tea; the sensation recreated the past, only to unlock the Pandora’s box of the future. Lefebvre’s philosophical homesickness locates itself in the future, and the past becomes a platform for pushing forward, partying onward, toward a higher plane of critical thinking and practice. He saw in festivals paradigms of an authentic everyday life, a realm where the shackles of enslavement had been loosened. Indeed, festivals “tightened social links,” he says, “and at the same time gave rein to all the desires which had been pent up by collective discipline and the necessities of everyday work. In celebrating, each member of the community went beyond themselves, so to speak, and in one fell swoop drew all that was energetic, pleasurable and possible from nature, food, social life and their own body and mind.” 28 Lefebvre invokes the festival during the 1940s and 1950s as a jarring antithesis of bureaucratic domination and systematized ordering. Like Faust, he fraternizes with the demonic and gives himself over to Dionysius, to excess and unproductivity, to Eros rather than Logos, to desire rather than depression. Festivals were like everyday life, only more intense, more graphic, more raw. During festivals, people dropped their veils and stopped performing, ignored authority and let rip. They broke out of everyday life by affirming what was already dormant in everyday life—and dormant in themselves. Festivals “differed from everyday life,” sometimes “contrasted violently with 14

H e n r i L e F e b v r e<br />

known a tradition that is the veritable nemesis of insurgent forms<br />

of modern alienation: the rural festival. The drama usually ended<br />

in rowdy scuffles and raving orgies; festival days were rough and<br />

tumble and full of vitality, and <strong>Lefebvre</strong> loved them and romanticized<br />

them in adulthood. (Pieter Brueghel’s painting Battle of<br />

Carnival and Lent magnificently portrays this raucous medieval<br />

lifeworld.) Festivals seeped into <strong>Lefebvre</strong>’s Marxist conscience,<br />

activated involuntary memory, and aroused primordial visions of<br />

infant paradise, tasting a little like a Proustian madeleine dipped in<br />

tea; the sensation recreated the past, only to unlock the Pandora’s<br />

box of the future. <strong>Lefebvre</strong>’s philosophical homesickness locates<br />

itself in the future, and the past becomes a platform for pushing<br />

forward, partying onward, toward a higher plane of critical thinking<br />

and practice. He saw in festivals paradigms of an authentic<br />

everyday life, a realm where the shackles of enslavement had been<br />

loosened.<br />

Indeed, festivals “tightened social links,” he says, “and at the<br />

same time gave rein to all the desires which had been pent up<br />

by collective discipline and the necessities of everyday work. In<br />

celebrating, each member of the community went beyond themselves,<br />

so to speak, and in one fell swoop drew all that was energetic,<br />

pleasurable and possible from nature, food, social life and<br />

their own body and mind.” 28 <strong>Lefebvre</strong> invokes the festival during<br />

the 1940s and 1950s as a jarring antithesis of bureaucratic domination<br />

and systematized ordering. Like Faust, he fraternizes with<br />

the demonic and gives himself over to Dionysius, to excess and<br />

unproductivity, to Eros rather than Logos, to desire rather than<br />

depression. Festivals were like everyday life, only more intense,<br />

more graphic, more raw. During festivals, people dropped their<br />

veils and stopped performing, ignored authority and let rip. They<br />

broke out of everyday life by affirming what was already dormant<br />

in everyday life—and dormant in themselves. Festivals “differed<br />

from everyday life,” sometimes “contrasted violently with<br />

14

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!