Before posting the promised essay on Hadid’s Galaxy Soho, here in Beijing, China (see earlier entry on this blog) I realized I needed to explore a few theoretical points that have been creating very tangible and very practical effects over the centuries. ‘Modernity’ and ‘enlightenment‘ felt, amongst others, to be a few of those points. I am taking a course on the matter and the following tiny essay is the result of one of its assignments. Besides the architectural context I aim to explore in the mentioned work on Galaxy Soho I sense enlightenment is also of acute interest within a globalized world and I share two reasons here for that.
The first is a to-me-yet-unanswered question whether with globalization the concept and the practical applications of modernity and enlightenment have been exported to “there” entirely; if these (modernity and enlightenment) existed or if these could be pinpointed in communities of origin to begin with. Another is whether one can speak of modernity and its associated enlightenment (with all its implied social, psychological, political and other consequences) within a Chinese or more specifically within a Beijing setting; my hometown for more than a decade and possibly more to come. The following writing is a baby step in exploring these within the framework of my course work for “The Modern and the Postmodern” lectured by Michael S. Roth from the Wesleyan University.
This short essay shall explore a main question and an extension thereof: “How did Kant define ‘Enlightenment?'” and extended onto this “is Marx an ‘enlightened figure’ when framed by the definition as provided by Kant?”
source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Immanuel_Kant_%28portrait%29.jpg
source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/KantWasIstAufkl%C3%A4rung.png
In Kant‘s essay entitled “An Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’” one could superficially extract a definition from the opening line: enlightenment is “man’s emergence from his self-incurred immaturity.” Though, inevitably a second question is incubated asking what “self-incurred immaturity” refers to before the symptoms of “enlightenment” hatch. Kant sets forth to unveil the meaning of ‘immaturity.’ An understanding of its rather truistic opposite ‘maturity,’ and thus of being (or not being) ‘enlightened’—or of (not) being an “enlightened figure”—follows. From the text it can be deduced that someone who is ‘mature’ is an individual who possesses the intrinsic ability towards “understanding” without directions coming from an extrinsic actor or operator. Although an astute reader might make accurate guesses, such definition remains at a surface-level since that what can be ‘understood’ is, as such, not yet pointed out.
It is possibly not too far-fetched to state that ‘being enlightened’ and the associated necessity to ‘understand,’ can here be grasped as: ‘to be guided by intrinsic motions’ and thus to ‘understand intrinsic motions.’ ‘Motions’ denotes here “application for a rule or order…” (Oxford English Dictionary; OED) as an external judging body such as a ruler or a court would apply and impose. ‘Motions’ also implies ‘action’ or the “process of moving or being moved” (OED). Thus the “understanding” is exhibited when the enlightened citizen is intrinsically motivated to ‘act’ as opposed to manifest—as Kant judges in the opening of his second paragraph—”Laziness and cowardice…” This is opposed to being moved by external actors. Both judgements (laziness and cowardice) inevitably refer to degrees of passiveness, of submission, of non-acting, and perhaps—as Kant shares that men “gladly remain immature for life”— even of apathy; though this is an extrapolation from this author alone and perhaps somewhat beyond what Kant explicitly offers as opposing the definition of “enlightenment.”
The previous statement in regards to “motions” is in-tune with Kant’s development of his view on what ‘enlightenment’ gives birth to within a participatory citizen, as he states further in the essay’s seventh paragraph “…we need only ask whether a people could… impose… a law upon itself.” The emancipation from an externally imposing body (what Kant refers to as “alien guidance”) and following the birth of the capacity to evaluate and thus judge or simply “understand” to which extent a law (and motions) is a natural extension of the citizen from the point of view and from the experience of that same citizen. Contrary to such capacity is the submission to a law that potentially acts as a tool towards alienation. This is the case since a law that is unnatural to be self-imposed, is a law that estranges the citizen from the environment within which this alien law is active. The former as opposed to the latter makes a citizen an enlightened figure.
To enable the completion of this essay’s task it is essential to point here to a question Kant hints of: “if it is now asked whether we at present live in an enlightened age, the answer is: No, but we do live in an age of enlightenment.” This implies Kant forecasts his socio-political environment constitutes an age where enlightenment could be a “real reality” (Roth‘s lecture “From Enlightenment to Revolution” when referring to Marx). One can thus infer that the necessity of an actual tipping point is implied in the definition of “enlightenment” as a proper amount of ‘enlightened figures’ where parties sustain common motives, goals, laws and motions (i.e. as opposed to the divergent ones as exhibited within the “Ugly Revolution” of June 1848 in France) would be needed to constitute an enlightened community or as Kant refers to an enlightened “common wealth” or a “cosmopolitan society,” hence constituting the definition of “enlightenment” as a larger social dynamic.
Therein lies the answer implied towards the second question whether or not Marx can—in a Kantian framework—be defined as an “enlightened figure.” Although certain revolutions preceded (i.e. a revolt in the late seventeen hundreds in France, another in the early 19th century that constituted Belgium, etc) the writings Marx and Engels’ authored, nevertheless they did anticipate revolutions. Though contrary to this “well-informed outlook”—which is synonymous to having an “understanding” and, as demarcated above, is a feature of being enlightened—the revolutions did not have the outcome as was hoped. This lead to disillusionment (= a maturing process) within Marx. It is clear from “Das Kapital,” that Marx shifted his attention towards laws, specifically those with economic alienating effects towards the citizen. Within this mere action one can unveil the citizen Marx in search of those (economic) laws that oppose “a people [whom] could… impose… a law upon itself;” a people who could ‘understand’ only as an ‘enlightened people;’ a quest Marx could only have made as an “enlightened figure” (in becoming) within his larger (yet-not-enlightened) social dynamics.
