8. Ascendancy dominates
‘I know the untameable spirit of man; bent it cannot be - but it can be broken.’
Seneca the Younger — Thyestes
Society’s state is essentially a state of denial. Society aspires to some form of progress — evolution, ongoing economic growth, eventual conquest of all of nature — in order to maintain our species forever with ever-receding horizons of achievement. Both science and religion unwittingly conspire in promoting these kinds of aspiration, which is essentially pure spirit – the ‘economy of ascendancy’. Both have equally lost sight of our origins in the Earth and the celebration of our physical existence. Both lack soul — the ‘economy of descendancy’. A consistent pattern of the economy of ascendancy is the setting up of an image or an ideal that we then strive to achieve. The problem is that these images or ideals are often impossible to realise. A good and happy life is always just out of reach — might not in fact ever be realised until we die. We will see a little of how this is played out in this chapter and visit this theme again later in the work.
On a personal level, we face a similar dilemma to that faced by society at large. The outward, expansionist view of life (health, career, material affluence, body image) denies that ultimately these things will fail. Too much investment in them therefore is to live in denial (and perhaps also in fear). It is better to acknowledge our limits, to find what we really want to do within the context of these limits and to invest in this, rather than invest in abstract, unrealisable goals. There is also much that we need to let go of. The economy of descendancy is better placed to come to these realisations, as we will explore in future chapters.
Western philosophy has traditionally been largely dominated by metaphysics and epistemology — theories about existence and knowledge over and above theories about relationship. This is a further pattern of the economy of ascendancy and again we will return to it later in the work.
Science, by its own lights, regards itself as having a purely ‘rational’ view of the world. It would therefore deny any underlying desire that motivates what is researched for instance and the way the results of research are presented and crucially, how the information gained is applied in technology. We can note that science is predominantly ‘monist’ in that it reduces everything to one substance — matter. The fact that some matter forms itself into living beings is still a largely mysterious process. But the ‘solution’ at the moment seems to be to reduce biology to chemistry and chemistry to physics. Consciousness is described as an epi-phenomenon — a side effect of a purely physical process. We might suggest that the underlying desire in all this is for power over nature.
Science adopted the concept of evolution wholesale and whilst the ‘survival of the fittest’ version has become increasingly discredited, there is still an underlying assumption that evolution inevitably implies progress. There are still works that suggest the further evolution of humans to some kind of superhuman creature. Of course now that process is ‘helped’ by technology rather than as a result of natural environments. We are on dangerous ground.
Science also has an inherent belief that everything is solvable and ultimately understandable by the accumulation of knowledge and by reasoning. Hence the search for the elusive ‘theory of everything’ in physics. If it were ever found it would not really be a theory of everything — it would simply be a way of describing the actions of sub-atomic particles that would perhaps relate to physics and chemistry in the macro world. It would be a theory of everything only in as much as you believe reality to be made up of lumps of dead matter.
Culture uses representation in politics — an ideology serves as an image of a perfect state. More recent politics has become somewhat more subtle — has a covert rather than an overt ideology — but nonetheless uses image to fuel aspiration. The main aspiration in Western consumer capitalism is economic growth. Somehow this is seen as being an ultimate ‘solution’ to all ills. If only a society can grow in economic terms, it is argued, then all else will follow. Western politics deals a lot with desire, but they are substitute desires. Politics either knowingly or unwittingly plays into the fact that individuals are largely unconscious of their underlying desire and will therefore seek substitutes via materialism, career and so on. At best, governments might hope to achieve human well-being and flourishing — the fulfilment of genuine desire — as some kind of after-effect of having material needs met. There is also still a denial of death, but this plays out tellingly in the ‘rights’ afforded to individuals. ‘Freedom’ is paramount in liberal democracy, and with that comes the protection of private property, protection from the threat of violence inflicted by other citizens or violence and war occurring from outside the particular nation. These may seem like worthy aims, but they are all premised on the idea that there are restraints, threats and danger at every turn. The kind of freedom on offer is a freedom external to the self and bought with the threat of violence. Such a system is in the end life-denying rather than life-affirming.
The image of the body is likewise prevalent in Western culture. The body is ‘objectified’ — given extrinsic value. The image of the perfect body then becomes an abstract ideal towards which men and women strive. We strive perhaps towards an ideal for our own bodies. Perhaps we also strive to find a relationship and sexual fulfilment via an image of the body in others. Of course, the owners of bodies are also persons! Hence, when confronted by the personhood of others then the response may be ambiguous. Perhaps we will see beyond the image and find a more satisfying whole person, but perhaps we will feel disillusioned. Real desire is tied up intimately with the body and the idea of body image comes close to recognising this, but still ends up as a substitute desire. We are first and foremost embodied persons. Fulfilment of desire is more to do with relating to other embodied persons rather than some kind of endless aspiration toward good looks. The body image aspiration treats bodies essentially as commodities — as another material possession. So, whilst obsessed with the body in one sense, our culture is also at the same time in denial of the body.
The problem is neatly summarised in this quote from Thomas Moore:
‘We seem to be always reaching for an elusive goal, rather than loving the world in front of our eyes, just as we put anxious effort into becoming a new person, instead of loving and living the life we’ve always had and always will have.’
Thomas Moore — The Re-enchantment of Everyday Life
In a similar vein, Carl Jung said that there are two ways to lose your soul and one is to worship a god outside of you.
All of this is not to say that image and representation are necessarily bad things. Imagination, creativity, dreams, hopes — all of these rely on image almost by definition. Matthew Fox — rather than speak of image — speaks of ‘signs’ and ‘symbols’. A sign, for him, is a very specific and thereby controlling image. A symbol on the other hand, is much more free, giving us guidance and inspiration, such as in imagination, dreams and fantasies. The problem lies in trying to translate an image or symbol into a living reality. How is salvation to become a lived reality? How is spirituality made manifest in the particulars of real life? How can science be applied with compassion? How can political ideals manifest as genuine social justice? How can body image enhance personhood rather than be at odds with it? These questions are key to our argument as it is developed in later chapters.
Before moving on to explore the economy of descendancy, some last words from Thomas Moore:
‘If we continue to transform all nations of the world into homogenised, high-tech….. all-function cultures of disenchantment, we will have few unique spirits left to nourish our souls. We will be a people without ghosts and without things to house those ghosts, a people so bereft of spirituality in everyday things that we will turn, as many already have, to outrageous otherworldly venues for our spiritual experiences. This truly will be a dangerous time, because human community and civility are not, as some would say, humanistic achievements; they are the work of the ghosts of memory and the spirit of place, of the genius in things and the soul of culture.
Thomas Moore — The Re-enchantment of Everyday Life
Abstract ‘representational’ aims are accepted without question. The possibility of alternatives is not even considered. An abstract goal has no possibility of fulfilment. It is only because heaven or Nirvana, the theory of everything, the perfect political state and the perfect body are unrealisable that we often fail to see the pointlessness of the endless striving involved.
No boundaries are acknowledged by the ascendant culture. But all of the various elements discussed above should have their respective boundaries. For science we might recognise a self-imposed boundary. We might describe it as the ‘boundary of ecology’. Wherever science crosses the boundary of what damages rather than serves the ecosystem it should be restrained. There should likewise be a boundary in politics – sustainability and the well-being and flourishing of people. The human economy would in turn be bounded by the ecological boundary mentioned above. Along with science, no other human activity should inflict damage on the ecosystem of which we are a part. Finally there is a boundary set by our embodiment. Spirituality itself (the limitless aspirations to Eros) needs to be bounded by the reality of our embodiment. The dignity of our personhood should never be compromised by seeing either ourselves or others as mere ‘objects’. Genuine desire is satisfied rather than frustrated by this boundary, as will be explored in a later chapter.
