Ortega y gasset, Jose. Culture X

Jose Ortega y Gasset(Spanish Jos Ortega y Gasset, May 9, 1883, Madrid - October 18, 1955) - Spanish philosopher and sociologist, son of the writer José Ortega Munilla.

Biography

He studied at the College of the Jesuit Fathers “Miraflores del Palo” (Malaga). In 1904 he graduated from the Complutense University of Madrid, defending his doctoral theses “El Milenario” (“The Millennial”). Then he spent seven years at universities in Germany, with a preference for Marburg, where Hermann Cohen shone at that time. Upon returning to Spain, he was appointed to the Complutense University of Madrid, where he taught until 1936, when the civil war began.

In 1923, Ortega founded the "Revista de Occidente" ("Western Journal"), which served the cause of the "comparison of the Pyrenees" - the Europeanization of Spain, then isolated from the modern (at that time) cultural process. A staunch republican, Ortega was the leader of the intellectual opposition during the dictatorship of General Primo de Rivera (1923-1930), supported the overthrow of King Alfonso XIII and the establishment of the Second Republic, was one of the founders of the “Republican Union of Intelligentsia” (1931), was elected civil governor of Madrid, and then deputy for the province of Leon. However, very soon Ortega began to become disillusioned with the direction that the political development of the republic had taken. During the debate on the draft Constitution of the Second Republic, which took place from August 27 to September 9, 1931, in his speech, noting the merits of the draft, at the same time he pointed out that it contained “time bombs,” in particular, regarding regional and religious issues. Staying in the parliamentary chair for another year, he continued to criticize the Republic, the central point of which was his famous speech “Rectificacin de la Repblica” (“Correction of the Republic”), delivered by him in December 1931.

The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936 found Ortega ill. Three days after the start of the confrontation, a detachment of armed communists came to his house and demanded that he sign a manifesto in support of the Popular Front government and condemning the “coup d’etat.” Ortega refused to accept them, and during a tough conversation between them and his daughter, she managed to convince those who came that it was necessary to compose a shorter and less politicized text, which, as a result, Ortega signed along with other intellectuals (Ortega later described this episode in his article “ En cuanto al pacifismo"). That same month, Ortega left Spain and went into exile - first to Paris, then to the Netherlands, Argentina and Portugal.

In the civil war taking place in Spain, Ortega y Gasset actually did not support any of the sides, seeing both in the communists, socialists and anarchists, who gained predominance among the Republicans, and in the Falangists, who supported Franco, representatives of mass society, against which he and spoke. While in exile, he harshly criticized those Western intellectuals who came out in support of the Popular Front, believing that they did not understand either the history or the contemporary realities of Spain.

Upon his return to Madrid in 1948, together with Julián Marias, he created the Humanitarian Institute, where he taught. Until the end of his life he remained an open critic of Francoism (as well as communism).

Creativity and fame

In 1914, Ortega published his first book, “Reflections on Don Quixote” (Meditaciones del Quijote), and gave the famous lecture “Old and New Politics” (Vieja y nueva poltica), in which he outlined the position of young intellectuals of the time regarding political and moral problems in Spain. Some historians[who?] consider this address to be an essential milestone in the chain of events that led to the fall of the monarchy.

Ortega's writings, such as Reflections on Don Quixote and Spineless Spain (Espaa invertebrada, 1921), reflect the author's mentality as a Spaniard and a European. His intellectual ability and artistic talent are evident in works such as The Theme of Our Time (El tema de nuestro tiempo, 1923) and The Dehumanization of Art (La deshumanizacin del arte, 1925). In the prologue to “Reflections on Don Quixote” you can find the main ideas of Ortega’s philosophy. Here he gives the definition of a person: “I am “I” and my circumstances” (“Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia”), that is, a person cannot be considered in isolation from the circumstances of history surrounding him.

» Ortega y Gasset: a man of the masses.

© G. Yu. Chernov

The essence of the culture-centric (Ortegian) approach to mass phenomena

The Spanish philosopher X. Ortega y Gasset was, if not the creator, then the brightest exponent of a theoretical approach to social phenomena different from that of G. Tarde, G. Le Bon and their followers, which can be designated as ethical-aesthetic or cultural-centric . This approach has played the role of an activator approach since the 30s of the 20th century, and its formation was associated both with a certain reaction to the deployment of processes of comprehensive massification in a developed industrial society, and with the further development of a number of ideas of Confucius, Plato, F. Nietzsche and other thinkers.

The essence of the culture-centric approach is to consider certain social and anthropological phenomena from the standpoint of the full functioning of the cultural phenomenon. This approach is based on the following provisions: 1) recognition of the decisive role of culture in the process of social reproduction; 2) stratification of the main human types in the cultural-creative section, that is, from the point of view of their role in the processes of production, preservation and transmission of culture.

According to Ortega y Gasset, when the “dynamic balance” between the masses and the elite is disrupted, when the mass overthrows the elite and begins to dictate its “conditions of the game,” there is a threat of degradation of all “superstructural” spheres: politics, science, art, etc. Such “ the vertical invasion of barbarism” (W. Rathenau and X. Ortega y Gasset) threatens civilization, if not with death, then with degeneration. A danger of this kind arises, according to the Spanish philosopher, at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries with the entry into the arena of history of a relatively new type of person. It was him, the “man of the masses,” that X. Ortega y Gasset made the main “character” of the brilliantly formulated philosophical essay “The Revolt of the Masses” (1930). The introduction of this concept opens up space for understanding the problems of “element of mass”, “latent (potential) mass”, and also largely creates the basis for the formation of a new, non-traditional approach to the study of social and mass phenomena.

With Ortega we are talking about a certain type of person, and not about a social class. He makes a special reservation that the division of society into the masses and the selected minority is a division not into social classes, but into types of people; this is not at all a hierarchical distinction between “higher” and “lower”: in each class one can find both “the masses” and a true “chosen minority.” The mass type, the “rabble”, pseudo-intellectuals now predominate even in traditionally elite groups, and vice versa, among the workers who were previously considered the typical “mass”, characters of exceptional qualities are often found (127, No. 3, pp. 121-122).

Belonging to the mass- the sign is purely psychological; it is not at all necessary that the subject physically belong to it. The mass is a multitude of people without special merits; its element is the average, ordinary person. But it is not only the lack of talent that makes a person a “man of the masses”: a modest person, aware of his mediocrity, will never feel like a member of the masses and should not be classified as one of them. A man of the masses is one “who does not feel any special gift in himself..., feels that he is “exactly like everyone else” and, moreover, is not at all upset by this, on the contrary, he is happy to feel like everyone else "(127, pp. 120-121). His necessary features are self-sufficiency, complacency: unlike a person of the elite, who places strict demands on himself, he is always satisfied with himself, “moreover, admired,” knows no doubts, and with enviable calm “abides in stupidity” (ibid., p. 143). The one who spiritually belongs to the masses is the one who, in every question, is content with a ready-made thought already sitting in his head. He is not given the ability to design and plan, he has limited creative capabilities, there is no true culture, in resolving disputes he ignores the basic principles of reason, and does not strive to adhere to the truth. The complexity, versatility, drama of existence are either inaccessible or frighten him; the ideas that he accepts have the goal of once and for all separating himself from the complexities of the surrounding world with ready-made explanations and fantasies that give the illusion of clarity and logic. The mass man is little concerned that ideas may be incorrect, because these are just trenches where he escapes life, or scarecrows to drive it away (ibid., No. 3, pp. 139-140). People of the elite are people of the “great path”, who came into this world to create, to create, those who are demanding of themselves, take on “labor and duty”, and the man of the masses is the one who lives “without effort, without trying to correct himself.” and improve those who go with the flow” (“small path”) (ibid., No. 3, p. 121).

So, the leading signs of a “man of the elite” are competence, high professional and cultural potential, self-improvement, creativity, “service” as a conscious choice, and the “man of the masses” is theoretical “hardiness”, the illusion of self-sufficiency, lack of incentive for self-development, complacent “stay " in stupidity, "lust." The first professes the values ​​of creativity and knowledge as serving national, universal human tasks, while the second is committed to the values ​​of consumption and, in general, does not go beyond the prospect of its own one-dimensional existence. Civilization interests him not in itself, but only as a means of satisfying his growing desires.

In the 20th century, this kind of mass sharply intensified; Without previously pretending to be a theorist, a social leader, the “mass man” is now carrying out a genuine expansion in the spheres of politics and culture that require special qualities: “... there is no issue of social life in which he would not interfere, imposing his opinions, - he, blind and deaf,” “... it is characteristic of our days that vulgar, philistine souls, conscious of their mediocrity, boldly declare their right to vulgarity” (ibid., No. 3, pp. 139-140). F. Nietzsche also noted something similar, pointing out that the “mass man” has forgotten how to be modest and inflates his needs to the size of cosmic and metaphysical values, and thus all life is vulgarized (120, p. 46). The mass crushes everything that is different, personal, and chosen. Both the state machine and the cultural-ideological sphere find themselves in its power: the mass man triumphs everywhere, and only trends imbued with his spirit and sustained in his primitive style can have visible success (127, No. 3, p. 121).

The modern personification, the apotheosis of the “man of the masses” is the so-called “specialist”, a person who perfectly knows any one science, his own tiny corner of the Universe, but is absolutely limited in everything that goes beyond its limits. In politics, in art, in social life, in other sciences, he adheres to primitive views, but sets out and defends them with the authority and self-confidence of an expert, without accepting the objections of competent people - “ half-educated ambition"(ibid., no. 3, pp. 121-122).

Ortega y Gasset believes that the main reasons for the abrupt changes in the behavior of the masses are the destruction of traditional forms of pre-industrial life, the “growth of vitality” of modern society, manifested through the interaction of three factors: experimental science, industrialization (he unites them under the name “technology”) and liberal democracy . The achievements of “technology” have led to an increase in the capabilities of both society and the individual, unprecedented for previous eras - the expansion of his ideas about the world, an abrupt rise in the standard of living of all segments of the population, and a leveling of conditions. Economic security is accompanied by “physical benefits”, comfort, and public order.

All this is accompanied by a sharp increase in the population of Europe (from 180 to 460 million people between 1800 and 1914); a whole human stream fell, in the words of the Spanish philosopher, onto the field of history, “flooding it.” The important thing here is that society did not have enough time or energy to sufficiently introduce this “stream” to traditional culture: schools only managed to teach external forms, the technology of modern life, taught how to use modern apparatus and tools, but did not give the concept of great historical tasks and responsibilities, inherited complex, traditional problems, about the spirit (ibid., No. 4, pp. 135-136).

Ortega y Gasset writes: “We live in an era of general leveling: there is an equalization of wealth, rights, cultures, classes, genders” (ibid., p. 136). Since the end of the 18th century, the process of equalizing rights and eliminating hereditary, class and class privileges has been underway. Gradually, the sovereignty of any individual, “man as such,” emerged from the stage of an abstract ideal and took root in the consciousness of ordinary people. And here a metamorphosis occurred: the magical shine of the ideal, which became reality, dimmed. Formal equality of rights and opportunities, not supported by the growth of actual equality (that is, moral, cultural), self-improvement, and a correct understanding of the relationship between social rights and responsibilities, did not lead to real growth, but only to an increase in ambition, the claims of the “mass person.” This ambition is strengthened by growing half-education, the illusion of knowledge, and the “barbarism of specialization.” So, external restrictions in almost all areas of life for the “majority” were lifted. But, as P.P. correctly notes. Gaidenko, “...the removal of external restrictions turns into complete arbitrariness of individual desires, if a person does not know the internal limitations, does not know how and does not want to “shorten himself” (25, p. 165). This is precisely the “man of the masses” of the new model, whom the new opportunities have not improved, but have turned into the likeness of a spoiled child, full of lusts and inattentive, ungrateful to the source of their satisfaction.

The mass man asserts his equality (more precisely, the right granted to him) not by ascending to the heights of culture and self-improvement, but by reducing the society around him to himself. He receives all these new benefits and opportunities as a finished result, a gift, without having any idea about the process or the price. There are many new temptations around. Confidence in his right to receive, the ambition of half-education, the “self-sufficiency complex” give rise to the illusion of fantastic omnipotence in him, desires awaken him to action: to demand his share of public goods, the gifts of civilization, due by virtue of a specifically understood “equality”.

Finding “like-minded people” and realizing oneself as part of a powerful social new formation strengthens the ambitions of the “man of the masses”, and he longs to rebuild the world according to his own scenario. The main feature of this scenario: civilization is not built on, but should serve as a means, an instrument for satisfying current temptations and desires; The elite is needed only insofar as it serves this kind of functioning of civilization in the interests of the masses - according to the principle of “bread and circuses”.

Considering the socio-cultural structure of society, Ortega y Gasset actually distinguishes not two, but three of its layers: the masses, the elite and the intermediate type, conventionally “humble workers”. What distinguishes them from the masses is precisely modesty, self-criticism, great caution in reasoning and actions, unambitiousness, and non-aggression (“wise passivity”). That is, in terms of ethical and psychological makeup, this type approaches the spiritual elite. But in cultural, professional, intellectual, and aesthetic terms there is still a serious boundary between them. The consciousness of people of this type, like the “man of the masses,” functions almost exclusively on an ordinary, and not on a theoretical level, and is just as prone to simplification and illusoryness, although it includes a critical, rationally conservative element. In “quiet” eras for society, the “modest worker” is its stabilizing element. He has something to lose: at his social level he is sufficiently qualified, has a certain professional pride, a stable life-sustaining income, he is not gnawed by momentary lusts and envy.

However, in critical periods of crisis, the “modest worker” is easily drawn into the general flow by the radicalism of the masses and can temporarily mix with them. The differences between a man of mass and the “average element” will also help us understand the subtle observation of N.A. Berdyaev: “...the plebeian spirit is the spirit of envy of the aristocracy and hatred of it. The simplest man of the people may not be a plebeian in this sense. And then in a man there may be traits of real aristocracy, who never envy, there may be hierarchical traits of his own breed, ordained by God” (18, p. 136).

In all eras, there is, in fact, a kind of struggle between the masses and the elite for predominant influence over this “middle element.” Now, in an era of global stress, the lag of “human qualities” from rapid changes, new demands of the time (A. Peccei), the question of social leadership, which seemed to have already been resolved by the experience of centuries in favor of the elite, has been raised again. The guidelines for the development of civilization can be deformed during such a “rearrangement”, acquiring instead a creative-progressive, instrumental-consumer character, and in the future - a philistine-stagnant one, which leads, among other things, to resource-ecological collapse.

However, according to V.F. Shapovalov, we would fall into the illusion of social titanism, demanding from the masses, from the majority of the population (including “humble workers”) to constantly be in a state of responsibility for humanity, for the country, for the universal future. An ordinary person prefers to “just live”, to realize himself in various fields of activity and leisure (173, p. 38). There is no tragedy in this as long as the measure of “mine” and “common” is observed and as long as there is a genuine spiritual elite.

The problem of the elite or aristocracy in a literal, rather than historical, class sense, is one of the most ancient. Do we feel even an iota of falsehood when reading Plato’s lines about the ideal state: “...the insignificant desires of the majority are subordinated there to the reasonable desires of the minority, that is, decent people” (129, p. 203)? N.A.’s thought is also clear and precise. Berdyaev: “Aristocracy, as the management and domination of the best, as a requirement for quality selection, remains forever and ever the highest principle of social life, the only utopia worthy of man” (18, p. 124).

The optimal development of society probably requires adherence to the following principles: 1) selection, promotion and government of the best socio-spiritual elements, the real elite; 2) the evolution (flow) of the middle and lower strata of society in the elite direction through the rise of their spiritual level. “At the same time,” according to N.A. Berdyaev, - in historical terms, it should be remembered that the masses emerge from darkness and become involved in culture through the emergence of the aristocracy and its fulfillment of its mission” (ibid., pp. 131-132).

Both Ortega y Gasset and Berdyaev call not to confuse the spiritual elite with the class, hereditary aristocracy - representatives of the historical aristocracy can stand very low in spiritual terms, be real “people of the masses”, but the best representatives of the spiritual aristocracy often do not come from the aristocratic strata. A select part of the historical aristocracy, however, for a long time played the role of the spiritual elite; for example, knighthood, the best part of the Russian nobility - these spiritual types have been formed over centuries, endowed with the traits of nobility, generosity, sacrifice, and honor. But hereditary aristocracy tends to degenerate, to caste isolation, and isolation from reality. Disgusting are aristocratic arrogance, a disdainful attitude towards the common people, betrayal of the purpose of giving from one's excess, and the struggle to maintain undeserved privileges.

The spiritual elite should not be confused with the political elite, although the latter may contain spiritually significant elements. In the history of social thought, the idea of ​​the coincidence of the spiritual, moral and ruling elite originates not only in the European region in the era of antiquity, but also in the East. It is enough to recall the ideal of the “perfect man” - the ruler of the “Junzi” Confucius, later exchanged “for small coin” by the epigones of official Confucianism (23, pp. 261-262). However, in historical practice such a coincidence has so far been the exception rather than the rule.

Moreover, one’s financial status does not determine one’s belonging to the masses or the elite, since the richest and most influential person can remain a cultural nonentity, and the bearer of an original high culture can live on the brink of poverty (173, p. 35). The spiritual aristocracy, the spiritual elite comes from any environment, is born (formed) in the order of “individual grace” (18, p. 136).

The importance of this fragile “ozone” layer can hardly be overestimated: the fate of the people and humanity depends on the presence of the spiritual elite and its qualities. Through it, spirituality and citizenship penetrate into other layers. V.F. Shapovalov points out a number of features of this layer, in addition to those already named and highlighted by X. Ortega y Gasset:

The spiritual elite is a bearer of high culture, which does not connect its existence with claims to high material rewards;

Its existence is based, first of all, on the awareness of the intrinsic value of culture, which is a “reward in itself”;

There is not and should not be idolatry in it - neither before the authorities, nor before the people. Only such an elite can count on an appropriate public assessment, free from suspicions of greed and, thanks to this, is able to really have an impact, including a moral one, on the life of society (173, pp. 35-38).

An important feature of spiritual aristocracy is that it acts as a carrier and conductor of not only national, but also universal social and historical experience. Knowledge of the past, a sense of oneself in historical time give it stability, serve as a source of its spiritual strength in the most difficult times, in crises and turning points, unbalancing the “middle element” (“modest workers”) and provoking the growth of extremism of the “man of the masses.”

The spiritual elite should take the place of a social leader or social arbiter, giving an expert assessment of the decisions of the authorities and the phenomena of public life. At the same time, if Plato’s dream of direct control of the state by “philosophers” does not become a reality, distancing and autonomy of the spiritual elite from power is necessary.

Unfortunately, our century has turned out to be cruel to the spiritual aristocracy. This was manifested in frenzied suicidal extermination and in the displacement of the elite by the revolutionary “autocratic people”, despot dictators, and in attempts to create an alternative “servant elite”. The spiritual elite turns out to be a superfluous element in mass society, the mass culture of the West; Intellectuals can physically preserve themselves only by “embedding” into a certain purely pragmatic “Procrustean bed”, acting as an appendage of the “consumer society.”

So, in accordance with what was said earlier, from the position of representatives of the cultural-centric approach, the masses can be considered as a qualitatively lower layer of society, whose life potentials and needs practically do not go beyond the framework of “pure being”, simple and expanded consumption. And if we theoretically assume and model the dominance of this element in the regulatory (politics, public relations) and spiritual spheres, in the sphere of mass communications, then it is reasonable to assume the resulting reduction and emasculation of the content of the activities of these spheres and public relations.

Alas, practice seems to be developing in the direction described above. The measure of evaluation of cultural works is increasingly their popularity and commercial success; there is a hypertrophy of the entertainment function of art in relation to the developmental one.

In politics, the problem of hyper-democracy is becoming more and more apparent. The question arises: is it possible to solve the problems of the future of the country, of humanity, by an arithmetic majority of individuals (protecting fundamental material interests is one thing, choosing a strategy for the development of society is another)? X. Ortega y Gasset writes about the displacement of representatives of qualified minorities from the sphere of politics, the promotion of a mass of similar politicians, which is very characteristic of modern political life in Russia. This kind of power, as a rule, lives by the needs of today, but not by plans for the future: its activity boils down to “somehow dodging moment-to-moment complications and conflicts: problems are not resolved, but are only postponed from day to day... even with the risk that they will accumulate and cause a formidable conflict” (127, No. 3, p. 135). Both the “man of the masses” and his power actually live according to the same principle: “After us, even a flood!”, Both are temporary workers, preparing a bleak future for new generations.

The masses often easily part with elements of freedom for the sake of benefits, real or promised in the future, in favor of the state, which serves as the basis for the establishment of statism and totalitarianism. The latter is also facilitated by the egalitarian spirit of the masses, which does not tolerate and does not understand multi-quality, diversity. The domination of the masses, personifying the functional-consumer side of the life of society - necessary, but not sufficient from the standpoint of the full value of man and humanity - can be exercised in different forms. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, outwardly democratic and totalitarian regimes can have identical essential content.

The elite or aristocratic principle (that is, the selection of highly moral, competent and talented people for management, the priority of the truly best sanctioned by society) is a necessary condition for the sustainable development of any society. But how does the democratic principle relate to it? ON THE. Berdyaev considers these two principles to be opposite, metaphysically hostile and mutually exclusive, for the spirit of democracy carries the greatest danger for the aristocratic-elite principle: “Metaphysics, morality and aesthetics of quantity would like to crush and destroy every quality, everything that rises personally and collectively” (18, p. 140), his kingdom is the kingdom of the worst, not the best, and, therefore, there is a danger to progress, “the qualitative improvement of human nature” (ibid., p. 140).

Another danger of the “democratic” spirit, democracy as a form of power, is that the people’s own will is actually proclaimed as the supreme principle of the people’s life, regardless of what it is aimed at or what its content is. “The people’s will,” notes N. Berdyaev, “may want the most terrible evil, and the democratic principle cannot object to this.” There is no guarantee in this principle that its implementation “will not lower the quality of human life and destroy the greatest values” (ibid., p. 160).

The reasons for the triumph of “democratic metaphysics” in the 20th century lie, according to Berdyaev, in the loss of the sources of spiritual life, the spiritual decline of humanity (the growth of democracy goes parallel to the “weathering of the soul”), the growth of skepticism and skeptical social epistemology: if there is no truth and truth, then we will to recognize for them what the majority recognizes, if they exist, but I don’t know them, again it remains to rely on the majority. “... It’s monstrous,” exclaims Berdyaev, “how people could reach such a state of consciousness that they saw in the opinion and will of the majority the source and criterion of truth and truth” (ibid., p. 169).

The theoretical foundations of “democracy” are also sociological nominalism, which considers the people and the people’s will as a kind of mechanical sum. However, from the arithmetic summation of the will of all, the general will does not emerge. The people, according to Berdyaev, are a hierarchical organism, in which each person is a different being, unique in its quality, it is not a human quantity, a human mass. Therefore, universal suffrage is an unsuitable way of expressing qualities in the life of the people. A minority or even one person can better, more precisely, according to the philosopher, express the will and spirit of the people, and the significance of great people in history is based on this (ibid., pp. 161-163).

A self-sufficient democratic principle without a combination with an elite principle in a situation of socio-cultural activation of the community of “mass people”, delegating parvenu-bureaucratic, populist elements to democratic institutions, can turn out to be deforming and destructive from the point of view of the prospects for the development of civilization.

X. Ortega y Gasset shows modern mass man as a socio-historical phenomenon, which, however, did not arise suddenly, like Athena from the head of Zeus. Changes in society - the processes of the final formation of industrial society, urbanization, democratization, secularization of consciousness and others - did not give rise to, but rather awakened, a low-prestige socio-cultural type that already existed in earlier times, but hitherto unclaimed, frighteningly active within the framework of its limited, one-dimensional life project.

The general democratization of life gives various results: on the one hand, the widespread introduction of the lower classes to the basics of culture and the growth of their education, and on the other, the “shallowing” of culture and its transformation into a standard “popular” version of it. The last of the “growing pains” of society, a temporary trend, can become the dominant development. What is happening, in fact, is the formation of a new cultural environment in which there is less and less genuine culture.

The old barriers, mechanisms for protecting elite culture (not so much class, but - in its best examples - national, universal), its impact on the lower classes were inevitably destroyed. This concerns, first of all, the closed class nature of the elite, its unlimited dominance, and the religious way of regulating the social standards of the lower classes. Nowadays, the spiritual elite has found itself defenseless against the onslaught of mass culture, that is, in the spirit of Ortega’s ideas, a culture formed on the basis of the values ​​of the “mass man.”

In those modern societies where, due to traditions and the evolutionary nature of transition processes, it was possible to find forms of combination of democratic and elitist principles, where state institutions actually patronize “high culture,” we see a kind of symbiosis of two cultures, but still almost always with a predominance of “mass” culture. . With a revolutionary-destructive, fleeting form of transition associated with a radical breakdown of traditions and the liquidation of the old elite, the breeding ground for the formation of a mass ersatz culture is much wider.

It should be remembered that the radical division of society into the masses and the elite is quite arbitrary. Even in a relatively pure form, these social types are extremely few in number, if not isolated. Just as in the psyche of most people we see the dichotomy of good and evil, the struggle between Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, so competing value systems leave their imprints on it. It is not always the case that a person has sufficient internal maturity to make his own unambiguous choice, especially a nonconformist one. In such a situation, many “humble workers” obviously feel confused and find the criterion of truth in the opinions of the majority. The fetishization of the life success of the “man of the masses”, this new mythological hero (in Russia in the 90s he is known as the “new Russian”), the inculcation of vulgarity that is still ashamed of itself as the norm of life, can meet with silent disapproval, hidden irony from the “modest worker,” but little by little there is a shift in values, if not in the first generation, then among the descendants. The community of “people of the masses”, instilling its system of values ​​in the converts, is expanding due to the former “humble workers” and their offspring, who are formed in a new socio-cultural environment, on new “ideals”. Thus, the masses from a second-class fragment of society rise to the majority, and then seize the “commanding heights” in society through the institutions of democracy.

Taking a break from the global scale, let's take a moment to look at the face of the Russian government of the 90s. It seems that the rare politician or government official of the “new formation” is not an open and obvious “man of the masses” or “hesitating for a short time”, rushing to realize the happy opportunity to satisfy his material desires and vanity; Immoralism and corruption became in this era, as it were, unspoken standards of activity for the managerial caste, and words about serving the Fatherland were nothing more than ritual phrases. Such a situation could be characterized as the apotheosis of the “mass man” - his ideology lives and wins at all levels of society, power is not only not opposed to mass culture, the “man of the masses”, it is the very flesh of his flesh.

Returning to the ideas of X. Ortega y Gasset, we note the most valuable from the point of view of analyzing the sociocultural changes that had emerged in Western society by the 30s of the 20th century, as well as from the point of view of formalizing the main provisions of the Ortega version of the culture-centric approach.

Ortega pointed out the danger threatening society from the dispersed moral and intellectual community of “people of the masses” that had become active at the beginning of the 20th century, and gave criteria for diagnosing this social type, which allows us to look at the problem of social and mass phenomena from a new angle.

From the standpoint of politically-oriented and socio-psychological approaches, mass consciousness is a phenomenon, a product of mass interaction: contact or indirect, spontaneous, accidental or consciously formed, especially through information policy. A social psychologist is inclined to interpret the masses as collective empathy, the politician as a total idealized opponent of power (absolute homogeneity of the masses from the point of view of management problems would be an ideal) (178, p. 13). In both the first and second cases, the researcher’s thought moves along the axis from society to the individual, the emphasis is on the impact of institutions and collective interactions on individual consciousness. Mass consciousness thought, first of all, as a product of society, loses its direct connection with the individual. A distinctive feature of the culture-centric (Ortegian) approach is the appeal to the problem of the mass in the opposite system of coordinates - the consideration of characteristic types of individual consciousness, similar in content and principles of functioning, allowing us to identify mass, elite, intermediate types of consciousness as the main ones.

In this regard, taking into account a number of ideas of X. Ortega y Gasset, as well as the realities of the social structure and social life of modern societies, in which the imperative of culture makes itself felt to an increasing extent, we consider it necessary to make analysis a mandatory element of the study of social structure sociocultural stratification, understood as an analysis of the relationship between the main types of individual culture. As the main typological units of this variant of dividing society in order to study the most important characteristics of its condition, we propose to use the cultural and anthropological types previously described in this work: a representative of the spiritual elite, a “modest worker,” a “man of the masses.”

The main criteria of sociocultural differentiation are ethical (value) and cognitive (presuming an orientation towards a true or illusory, “plausible” comprehension of the world, one or another version of the organization and qualities of thinking). Moreover, in each of the above types, Ortega identifies and emphasizes precisely the ethical core, a system of values ​​that serve as a life guide. The “man of the masses” is not a puppet, not a random hostage of the crowd, of mass action, not only the approach of propaganda and advertising. Without denying the role of socio-historical factors in bringing this type to the forefront, Ortega y Gasset assigns these factors the role of a favorable background, rather than its emergence, but rather its deployment; he depicts the “mass man” in his active, expansionist impact on society, as a subject of the formation of a “mass subculture” - old as the world, and new only in the scale of its aggression, spreading in society. Ortega points to the emergence of a dangerous tendency towards the transformation of this essentially vulgar subculture into a standard, normative one.

The integration of different approaches opens up certain prospects. Based on the ideas presented here, synthesizing them with a number of provisions of G. Tarde, L. von Wiese and others, we can make the assumption that “mass man” (“people of the masses”) is a modern form of potential, latent mass and serves as the core, enzyme mass actual, active. We believe that the substantive characteristics of a given individual - a subject of mass consciousness and behavior - will remain relatively stable (with certain amendments when forms of interaction change), and the immediate task is to create an ideal model of a “man of the masses”, including typical behavior options, mechanisms of cognitive and practical activity ( The value-worldview side has already been quite fully described by X. Ortega y Gasset).

Let’s start defining the most general concepts of “social mass” and “mass consciousness” from the standpoint of a culture-centric approach by highlighting the main features and characteristics of the mass.

Talking about social mass in general, two inherent features should be pointed out: 1) the inclusion of many individuals in its composition; 2) the relative homogeneity of the characteristics of the latter. Both signs are equally important and inseparable. The most general definition of mass may sound like this: “Mass is a system consisting of many homogeneous elements” (individuals with homogeneous characteristics of consciousness and behavior). Of course, this homogeneity cannot be absolute, but it must necessarily be associated with that facet of the object that is the subject of our research. Further refinement of this definition depends on the chosen research approach. In the context of the socio-psychological approach, a mass is a set of interacting individuals with weakened personal qualities and a dominant collective empathy, that is, the unity of experiences caused by the “mutual contamination” of members of the contact mass, the temporary unification of mental and activity qualities. This is where the relative homogeneity of such a mass is manifested, although it is of an unstable, temporary nature.

The Ortegian approach leads to the following understanding of the mass: it is a dispersed, spatially dispersed community of individuals with coinciding characteristics of consciousness (homogeneous value systems, types of thinking) - “people of the mass.” Under certain historical conditions (the dominance of the market, industrialism, urbanization, massification of education and spiritual life in general, combined with formal democracy), the mass becomes the dominant force that determines the direction and nature of processes in all spheres of society.

As for the definition of “mass consciousness,” we have already talked about the impossibility, in our opinion, of creating any constructive variants of it within the framework of other approaches - from the point of view of the language of science and etymology, the concept of “mass consciousness” retains its usefulness as a socio-philosophical the term is precisely within the framework of the culture-centric approach. This is precisely where we are talking about adequate forms and levels of conscious processes, including thinking and self-awareness of a certain kind of individual. In other cases, while recognizing the actually established tradition of the broad use of the term, one cannot help but see a certain convention, a misleading stretch for the researcher. So, for example, with a socio-psychological approach we are dealing not only (often and not so much) with conscious processes and actions, but also with the influence of the “mass unconscious”. As is known, G. Tarde and G. Le Bon avoided using the term “consciousness”, using a less specific one - “soul of the crowd”. With this approach, it seems more adequate to use the concepts of “mass psychology” and “social psyche”.

The type of values ​​and cognitive attitudes of the “mass person” that has become widespread in society is only one of the options for defining mass consciousness on the basis of the Ortegian approach. Another can be formulated as follows: “Mass consciousness is a consciousness whose ideological, ethical core is drawn into the field of a mass stereotype, the values ​​of the “man of the masses.” The emphasis in these definitions is on the content of consciousness of the type of person who has become mass-like in society, and this content becomes permeable to research and analysis, which is problematic when using models of “mass consciousness” formed within the framework of other approaches.

The Ortegian version of the culture-centric approach in the conditions of the current development of society can become, in our opinion, one of the most promising directions for further study of social and mass phenomena, opening the way to relatively new and heuristically useful theoretical guidelines when conducting sociological research and formulating socio-philosophical generalizations, and also to the formation of really “working” scientific concepts.

However, having a large number of advantages and the qualities of an activator approach, especially when studying modern social and mass phenomena, the culture-centric (Ortegian) approach is not self-sufficient. Its effective use is conceivable only in interaction with other approaches.

Page:

Ortega y Gasset, Jose (1883-1955), Spanish writer and philosopher, one of the outstanding intellectuals of the 20th century. Ortega and his contemporary Miguel Unamuno are known as the "agora philosophers", men who popularized their ideas through newspaper articles, magazines created for the purpose, books and public lectures.

Ortega was born in Madrid on May 9, 1883. He was educated in Malaga and Madrid, and became a Doctor of Philosophy in 1904. Already in 1902 he wrote articles for the newspaper El Imparcial. He trained at the University of Marburg with Hermann Cohen, who had a significant influence on him. In 1910 he became professor of metaphysics at the University of Madrid.

A minority is a collection of persons distinguished by special qualities; mass - not distinguished by anything.

Ortega y Gasset Jose

In 1914, Ortega published his first book, Meditationes del Quijote, and gave his famous lecture Vieja y nueva politica, in which he outlined the position of young intellectuals of the time regarding the political and moral problems of Spain. Some historians consider this address to be an essential milestone in the chain of events that led to the fall of the monarchy.

In 1915, in collaboration with Azorin, Baroja and Perez, de Ayela founded the magazine España, and in 1917 - El Sol. Ortega soon became famous in Latin America; in 1916 he gave a series of lectures in Argentina. In 1923 he founded the journal Revista de Occidente, which offered the latest achievements in philosophy, science and literature to the Spanish-speaking world. When General Primo de Rivera declared himself dictator of Spain in December 1923, Ortega, like many other professors, refused his position at the university. In February 1931, two months before the change of regime, he formed a small political union, “The Group in the Service of the Republic” (“La agrupacion al servicio de la republica”), and was then elected to the new constitutional assembly. In 1933, Ortega left politics, and when the civil war began, he left Spain. In 1936-1945 he lived in Europe, Argentina and Portugal. In 1948 he founded the Institute of Humanities in Madrid. Ortega died in Madrid on October 18, 1955.

Ortega's writings, such as Reflections on Don Quixote and Spineless Spain (España invertebrada, 1921), reflect the author's mentality as a Spaniard and a European. His intellectual ability and artistic talent are evident in works such as The Theme of Our Time (El tema de nuestro tiempo, 1923) and The Dehumanization of Art (La deshumanizacion del arte, 1925). However, it is precisely in the prologue to Reflections on Don Quixote that one can find the main ideas of Ortega’s philosophy.

Here he gives the definition of a person: “I am Me and my environment” (“Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia”), i.e. a person cannot be considered in isolation from the historical circumstances surrounding him. Ortega sought a compromise between idealism (exaggerating the importance of the mind) and realism (exaggerating the importance of things) and proposed a philosophy of life, the union of the Self and things. Each life is one point of view on the Universe; truth is plural, no one can claim that his point of view is the only true one. Life is a drama, a choice in the existentialist sense. Acquaintance with the German philosopher Wilhelm Dilthey influenced Ortega's philosophical and historical views, which were expressed in his work History as a system (Historia como sistema, 1941), offering a new approach to the study of the fundamental problems of human existence.

Ortega's work The Revolt of the Masses (La Rebelión de las masas, 1930) brought Ortega worldwide fame. In a sense, the title does not correspond to the content, because by the masses we do not mean the proletariat. According to Ortega, humanity is not divided into social classes, but into two types of people: the elite (spiritual aristocracy) and the masses. The latter lacks the ability to self-esteem and, as a result, is undemanding to herself. The man of the “mass” is mediocre, boring and wants to remain as he is, to be “like everyone else.” The mass, therefore, is a collection of individuals oriented towards life in the mass. The presence of a huge number of such people is characteristic of the 20th century. Thanks to liberal democracy and technological progress, a high standard of living became possible, which flattered the pride of those who enjoyed its benefits and did not think about the limitations of their existence or the vast world around them. Ortega's work ends with a demand that power be transferred to a minority - the spiritual elite. He also proposes that Western Europe should unite and once again begin to influence the course of world events.

In the twentieth century, the processes of urbanization and the severing of social ties and population migration acquired an unprecedented scale. The past century has just provided enormous material for understanding the essence and role of the masses, whose volcanic eruption into the arena of history occurred with such speed that they did not have the opportunity to join the values ​​of traditional culture. These processes are described and explained by various theories of mass society, among which the first holistic version was its “aristocratic” version, which received its most complete expression in the work of J. Ortega y Gasset “The Revolt of the Masses” (1930).

The origins of the theories of mass society are in the conservative-romantic criticism of capitalism on the part of classes that lost their class privileges and mourned the patriarchal way of life (Burke, de Maistre, conservative romantics of Germany and France of the 19th century). The immediate predecessors of these theories were F. Nietzsche, who argued that from now on the main role is played by the mass, which worships everything ordinary, as well as G. Le Bon and G. Tarde, who developed the concept of mass psychology. Le Bon (“Psychology of the Masses” (1885)) directly linked the new role of the masses with the destruction of social, political, religious beliefs that formed the foundation of all past history, and with the emergence of new conditions of existence generated by the discoveries of science and technology. (Cm.: Hevesi M.A. Politics and psychology of the masses // Questions of philosophy. 1999. No. 12. P.32-33). He also wrote that the growth of cities, the development of industry and mass communications would lead to the fact that public life would increasingly depend on the masses. Identifying the masses with the crowd, Le Bon prophesied the advent of the “era of the masses” and the subsequent decline of civilization.

According to Ortega, contemporary European life is determined by the following phenomenon: the complete seizure of public power by the masses. The Spanish philosopher believes that in this case we should talk about the most serious crisis of European peoples and cultures, since the masses should not and are not capable of governing themselves. The researcher calls such a crisis, which has occurred more than once in history, an uprising of the masses (or rebellion). The phrase “revolt of the masses” was first used by Nietzsche, primarily in relation to art, but it was Ortega who explored this phenomenon in a social context. Society, as defined by the Spanish philosopher, is a dynamic unity of the chosen minority and the masses. Society is aristocratic by its very essence, society, Ortega emphasizes, but not the state. Ortega refers to a minority as a group of individuals endowed with special qualities that the mass does not possess; the mass is the average person. The division of society into a minority and a mass is declared to be typological, not coinciding with either the division into social classes or their social hierarchy. This point of view, expressed by Ortega in his work “The Revolt of the Masses,” is shared by J. Huizinga. It is necessary to separate, writes the Dutch historian, the concepts of “mass” and “elite” from their social basis and consider them only as spiritual positions. Ortega believes that within any class there are its own masses and minorities. To create a minority, it is necessary, first of all, for everyone who belongs to the minority for special, more or less personal reasons to fall away from the crowd. The only connection between the participants of a given association is a certain common goal, idea or ideal, which in itself excludes multiplicity. The researcher considers the most radical division of humanity into two classes: those who demand a lot from themselves and voluntarily take on burdens and obligations, and those who do not demand anything for whom living means going with the flow. The true nobility of the soul - noblesse oblige, says the Spanish philosopher - does not consist in a person’s awareness of his rights, but in limitless demands on himself. For a person generously endowed with vitality and feeling the need to be the best, to live means to make a demand on oneself, which Ortega calls the true chivalric imperative. The Spanish philosopher considers service to be the destiny of the chosen few. A noble life, according to Ortega, is life as a test, nobility is determined by the demands and duty that were initially won, and not by the rights that were granted. Huizinga, in turn, expressed regret over the eradication of the concept of service from the people's consciousness. According to the Dutch historian, the concept of service is in close connection with the concept of class. He also believes that nobility is initially based on virtue. The noble class was once distinguished by valor and defended its honor, and thereby corresponded to the ideal of virtue. According to Huizinga, a man of noble rank proves his virtue by an effective test of strength, dexterity, courage, as well as wit, wisdom, skill, wealth and generosity. Ortega expresses frustration that such an “inspiring” concept as nobility has degenerated lamentably in everyday speech. Since it applied only to “hereditary aristocrats,” it became something like a universal right, an inert, lifeless property acquired and transmitted mechanically. But the true meaning of etyma - “nobility,” the Spanish researcher emphasizes, is entirely dynamic. Noble means “famous”, known to the whole world, one who, thanks to fame and glory, stood out from the nameless mass, one who has more strength and does not spare it. According to Ortega, nobility is synonymous with “an inspired life, called to outgrow itself and eternally striving, from what it becomes, to what it should become.” ( Ortega y Gasset H. Selected works. M., 1997. P. 77.) This assessment of nobility reveals the influence of the concept of “open society” by A. Bergson, with its inherent “dynamic” morality, which is embodied in selected individuals capable of endless improvement. In turn, Ortega’s interpretation of the “chosen ones” as “meritocracy” (from the Latin meritus - worthy and the Greek kratos - power) influenced the theory of the English sociologist M. Young, who introduced this term into use in contrast to the concepts of “aristocracy” and democracy. Thus, the elite, according to Ortega, are people who have moral and intellectual superiority over the masses, endowed with the highest sense of responsibility.

The Spanish philosopher contrasts a noble life with a base life, that is, inert, bottled up, condemned to self-restraint, since nothing encourages it to open its limits. People leading such an inert life are called the mass, and they are called the mass solely because of their inertia, and not because of their numbers. Ortega refers to the mass as anyone who does not want to apply a special measure to himself, and feels himself the same “like everyone else,” and someone who is not only not depressed by his own indistinguishability, but, on the contrary, is pleased with it. Ortega finds Heidegger's remark about human life very subtle: to live is to care, caring is sorge - what the Romans called cure. The Spanish philosopher himself believes that “life is anxiety, and not only in difficult moments, but always and, in essence, life is only anxiety.” ( Ortega y Gasset H. What is philosophy? M., 1991. P. 189.) But for someone who allows his life, like a buoy, to float with the flow, driven by social flows, to live means to entrust oneself to something uniform, to allow a habit, a prejudice, a skill that has developed within, make him live. This is how the so-called average man and average woman, that is, the majority of human beings, are formed. The researcher calls them weak souls because, having felt at the same time the joyful and sad heaviness of their own life and, being frightened by this, they are worried precisely about freeing themselves from the heaviness that they themselves are and shifting it onto the collective, that is they worry about non-worry. The apparent indifference of non-worry always hides a secret fear that a person himself needs to determine the initial actions, activities, emotions. The modest desire to be like everyone else, to refuse responsibility to one’s own destiny, to dissolve it in the mass, is, according to Ortega, the eternal ideal of the weak. Thus, the mass consists of those who float with the flow and are devoid of guidelines, and therefore the mass person does not create even when his strength and capabilities are enormous.

Characterizing the mass man, Ortega identifies the following features: an innate and latent feeling of the abundance and ease of life, a sense of one’s own superiority and omnipotence, as well as a desire to interfere in everything, imposing one’s wretchedness unceremoniously, recklessly, unconditionally, that is, in the spirit of “direct action.” The researcher compares an individual possessing the above qualities to a spoiled child and an enraged savage, that is, a barbarian. According to Ortega, the word civilization focuses on the following: boundaries, norms, etiquette, laws, written and unwritten, law and justice. All these means of civilization presuppose a deep and conscious desire of each to reckon with others. The root of the concept of civilization, the researcher emphasized, is civis, citizen, that is, city dweller, indicating the origin of the meaning, which is to make a city, a community, and coexistence possible. Therefore, civilization is, first of all, the will to coexist. As people cease to reckon with each other, they become wild, that is, wildness is a process of disunity, and periods of barbarism are a time of disintegration, a time of tiny warring and disunited groups. For Huizinga, as well as for Ortega, the main thing in the concept of civilization is the formation of a person as a citizen, subordination to a single legal order, the individual’s increased awareness of his own dignity, and the exclusion of barbarism. The Dutch historian sees the most accurate, closest to ideal embodiment of the content of the concept of culture in the Latin “civilitas”. Huizinga, like Ortega, considers the fall into barbarism to be the main trend of modern culture.

According to Ortega, a creature that shows its barbaric essence everywhere is the darling of human history, a “complacent undergrowth.” The philosopher calls a darling an heir who behaves exclusively as an heir. In this case, the inheritance is civilization with its amenities, guarantees and other benefits. Ortega believes that it is a mistaken belief that a life of abundance is more complete, higher and more authentic than a life of persistent struggle with want. The abundance that the heir is forced to possess deprives him of his own purpose, deadens his life, since it is precisely those difficulties that interfere with the individual that awaken and strain his strength and abilities. For human life to flourish, for both spiritual and physical existence alike, it is necessary that the growing opportunities be balanced by the difficulties that it experiences. It was in the 19th century that civilization provided the opportunity for the average person to establish himself in a surplus world, which he perceived as an abundance of goods, but not worries. Such an imbalance cripples the individual and, cutting off the roots of life, does not allow him to feel the very essence of life, always dark and thoroughly dangerous. Huizinga also writes about the spoiled state of modern man. As the Dutch historian notes, until the beginning of the second half of the 19th century, even the wealthy sections of the population of Western countries were much more often and directly confronted with the wretchedness of existence than the modern European, who accepts all the comforts of life as something deserved. The moral muscles of man, Huizinga emphasizes, were not strong enough to withstand the burden of this abundance; life has become too easy.

The newly-minted barbarian with boorish habits, Ortega states with a heavy heart, is the fruit of modern civilization, and especially those of its forms that arose in the 19th century. This type of person does not think about the artificial, almost implausible nature of civilization, and his admiration for technology does not belong to the foundations to which he owes this technology. Characterizing the contemporary situation, Ortega cites the words of V. Rathenau about the “vertical invasion of barbarians”, and defines them as a precise formulation born of painstaking analysis. The Spanish researcher concludes that a massive, and in reality primitive, man crept from behind the scenes onto the ancient stage of civilization.

Analyzing the phenomenon of the “revolt of the masses,” Ortega points to the front side of the dominance of the masses, which marks a general rise in the historical level, and this, in turn, means that everyday life today has reached a higher level. He defines his contemporary era as an era of equalization: wealth, the stronger and weaker sexes are equalized, continents are also equalized, therefore, the European who was previously at a lower level in life only benefited from this leveling. From this point of view, the invasion of the masses looks like an unprecedented surge of vitality and opportunity, and this phenomenon contradicts the well-known statement of O. Spengler about the decline of Europe. The Spanish philosopher considers this expression itself to be dark and clumsy, and if it can still be useful, he believes, then only in relation to statehood and culture, but not in relation to the vital tone of an ordinary European. Decline, according to Ortega, is a comparative concept. Comparisons can be made from any point of view, but the researcher considers the point of view “from the inside” to be the only justified and natural point of view. And for this it is necessary to plunge into life, and, seeing it “from the inside,” make a judgment whether it feels decadent, in other words, weak, insipid and meager. The attitude of modern man and his vitality are determined by “the awareness of unprecedented possibilities and the seeming infantilism of bygone eras.” Thus, since there is no feeling of loss of vitality, and there can be no talk of a comprehensive decline, we can only talk about a partial decline that concerns the secondary products of history - culture and nations.

Ortega considers it completely vain to hope that the real average person, with such a high standard of living, will be able to control the course of civilization. Even simply maintaining the level of modern civilization causes enormous difficulty and requires endless tricks, it turns out to be beyond the capabilities of those who have learned to use some of the instruments of civilization, “but have neither ear nor spirit knowledge of its foundations.”

As Ortega notes, thanks to the schools of which the 19th century was so proud, the masses acquired modern technical skills and acquired the means to live more fully, but this did not help them become more educated, did not help them acquire a historical sense and a sense of historical responsibility. “The masses were inspired with the strength and arrogance of modern progress, but they forgot about the spirit.” ( Ortega y Gasset H. Selected works. M., 1997. P.68.). Naturally, she is not going to think about the spirit, and new generations, wanting to rule, perceive the world as a pristine paradise, where there are neither old traces nor old problems. Huizinga also writes that the masses are presented with various kinds of knowledge and information on an unprecedented scale and in the most varied forms, but with the use of this amount of knowledge in life, things are clearly not going well.

The tyranny of intellectual vulgarity in public life is, according to Ortega, the most distinctive feature of modernity, the least comparable with the past. It had never happened before in European history that the mob was mistaken about its own “ideas” regarding anything. She inherited beliefs, customs, worldly experience, mental habits, proverbs and sayings, but she did not assign to herself speculative judgments - for example, about politics or art - and did not determine what they are and what they should become. The actions of the mob came down to approval or condemnation of what the politician intended, to a sympathetic response or, on the contrary, to the creative will of another. But it never even occurred to her not only to oppose her politicians’ “ideas,” but even to judge them, guided by a certain set of “ideas” called upon by her own. All this related to art and other areas of public life. Awareness of his limitations and unpreparedness for theorizing did not allow the plebeian to decide to even remotely participate in almost any social life. Huizinga, in turn, notes that in the old days, the peasant, skipper or artisan, was aware of their own incompetence and did not undertake to judge what was beyond their horizons. Where their judgment was deficient, they respected authority and, because of their limitations, were wise. (In this regard, it is appropriate to recall Ortega’s statement from “Reflections on Don Quixote” that vision can only be clear and accurate within a limited life horizon). The modern organization of knowledge dissemination, Huizinga argues, leads to the loss of the beneficial effects of such restrictions. He also points out the danger of degeneration of aesthetic sense and taste in the modern average individual, who is very susceptible to the pressure of a cheap mass product. The “amorphous semi-cultured” masses, Huizinga concludes, increasingly lack the saving brakes of respect for tradition, form and cult.

The world, according to Ortega, was usually a heterogeneous unity of the masses and independent minorities. If a society is well organized, the masses do not act on their own. Its existence is conditioned by the fact that it is led, instructed and represented for it until it ceases to be a mass, or, at least, begins to strive for it. The masses need to follow something higher, coming from the elite. There can be endless debate about who these chosen ones should be, but the fact that without them, whoever they are, humanity will lose the basis of its existence is beyond doubt. But Europe, the researcher complains, has been hiding its head under its wing for a century now, like an ostrich, hoping not to see the obvious. The only thing that can save Europe in these circumstances is the reign of genuine philosophy again. In order for philosophy to rule, one thing is enough - its existence, in other words, that philosophers be philosophers. At the same time, or rather for almost a century now, they are devoted to politics, journalism, education, science and anything else other than their business. On the day when true philosophy reigns again, Ortega believes, it will again be revealed that man, whether he wishes it or not, “is destined by his very nature to seek a higher principle.” It is precisely such a person who himself finds the highest principle that the Spanish philosopher calls the chosen one; the one who does not seek it, but receives it from someone else’s hands, becomes a mass.

Of particular concern to Ortega is the fact that even in traditional elite circles, plebeianism and oppression by the masses are becoming commonplace. Intellectual life, seemingly demanding of thought, turns into a triumphal road for pseudo-intellectuals who do not think, are unthinkable and in no way acceptable.

Ortega believes that one of the immediate causes of European decline is the so-called “barbarism of specialization.” According to the Spanish philosopher, the “man of science,” representing the highest stratum of the modern aristocracy in its highest purity, turns out to be the prototype of the mass man. And this happens not due to some purely personal defect, but because science itself - the spring of civilization - naturally turns the scientist into a mass man, that is, into a barbarian, into a modern savage. With each new generation, an ever-increasing narrowing of the field of activity leads to scientists losing connections with the rest of science, with a holistic interpretation of the world - “the only thing that is worthy of being called science, culture, European civilization.” The inability to “listen” and respect authority, which distinguishes the mass person, reaches its apogee among narrow professionals. An alarming signal for everyone who understands the nature of modern civilization (and the latter can be reduced to two basic values ​​- liberal democracy and technology rooted in science) is, according to Ortega, the modern decline of the scientific vocation.

Characterizing his contemporary era, Ortega points out the following circumstance: the masses do not submit to any minority, do not follow it, and not only do not take it into account, but also displace it and replace it themselves. Since by rebellion Ortega understands a rebellion against oneself, a rejection of fate, the essence of the phenomenon of the masses is as follows: the mass, acting arbitrarily, rebels against its own destiny.

Thus, both scientists considered those with a heightened sense of responsibility to be among the chosen ones, people leading a noble life, and saw the destruction of the natural hierarchy of society as a danger to European civilization.

Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset (1883–1955) is a representative of the “philosophy of life” and philosophical anthropology, the author of the concepts of “mass society” and “mass culture”, “elite theory”, theorist of aesthetic modernism. Main works: “The Revolt of the Masses” (1930), “Dehumanization of Art” (1925).

The philosopher puts the following into the concept of “culture”: “Every culture is an interpretation (clarification, commentary, interpretation) of life. Life is an eternal text. Culture is a way of life in which life, reflected from itself, acquires clarity and harmony.” Ortega y Gasset assessed the state of European civilization and offered his explanation of the causes of the ever-deepening crisis. He was responsible for the discovery of the phenomenon of “mass man” and clarification of the essence of mass culture, which he considered as a natural product of the “Faustian” civilization. His book “The Revolt of the Masses” had no less effect than Spengler’s Decline of Europe. Ortega created his own teaching – rationalism, considering it as a tool that allows one to come close to solving the “eternal problem” of the opposition of life and culture.

Recognizing the existence of culture as a result of man's creative exploration of the natural and social world, Ortega points out that in reality there are many cultures that differ from each other due to the specificity of the subjects who create them. Like Spengler and Danilevsky, Ortega uses a biological approach, believing that each culture exists for approximately 1000 years, then fades away, and in its place a new cycle begins at a higher level. He also considers European culture of the 20th century to be fading, primarily due to the collapse of the value system that gave meaning to people’s existence. The cause of the crisis is uprising of the masses, their expansion, imposing their will and value system on the creative minority.

The author believes that there are two varieties of the human race - the “people”, or the mass, which is "inert matter of the historical process", and the elite is a particularly gifted minority, the creators of genuine culture. The purpose of the “best” is to be in the minority and fight the majority. The author connects all the ills of modern Europe with the desire of the crowd for supremacy in society. The lives of outstanding people, according to Ortega, are concentrated in the field of gaming activities. The game is opposed to everyday life, utilitarianism and the vulgarity of human existence. The game provides a setting for a high level of emotions - from tragic to jubilantly festive.

Mass is "average person" Ortega notes: “The peculiarity of our time is that ordinary souls, without being deceived about their own mediocrity, fearlessly assert their right to it and impose it on everyone and everywhere... The mass crushes everything that is different, everything that is remarkable, personal and best. Who is not like everyone else, "Whoever thinks differently from everyone else risks becoming an outcast. And it is clear that "everyone" is not yet "everyone". The world used to be a heterogeneous unity of the masses and independent minorities. Today the world is becoming a mass. This is the cruel reality of our days."

The mass is distinguished by the fact that it is devoid of genuine culture. She does not strive to understand the fundamental principles, does not seek answers to the cardinal questions of existence. The main argument for the masses is not a moral norm, but brute force. "Where there are no norms, there is no culture. There is no culture where there is no civil legality and where there is no one to appeal to... where the principles of reason are ignored in resolving disputes. There is no culture if there is no respect for any, even extreme views, on which can be counted on in polemics... He who does not seek the truth in a dispute and does not strive to be truthful is an intellectual barbarian. In essence, this is how things are with a mass person when he leads a discussion."

Ortega y Gasset explains the current situation this way: there are three reasons that led to total massification. The first is a change in the material conditions of existence of European civilization, achieving a high level of comfort thanks to scientific and technological progress. Never before So the needs of people were not met; never before had that which was considered luck in life and given rise to humble gratitude to fate been perceived as a right that was not blessed, but demanded. The second reason is that social barriers have become more transparent. “The average person has grasped it as a truth that all men are legally equal.” Ortega notes that the availability of material and social benefits provokes aggressiveness, the desire for limitless accumulation, and imposes philistinism. “The world that surrounds a new person from the cradle not only does not encourage him to self-restraint, not only does not put any prohibitions before him, but, on the contrary, constantly stimulates his appetites, which can grow endlessly... Seeing the world so magnificently arranged and harmonious, an ordinary person believes that it is the work of nature itself and is not able to realize that this work requires the efforts of extraordinary people. It is even more difficult for him to understand that all these easily achievable benefits rest on certain and not easily achievable human qualities, the slightest deficiency of which will immediately scatter the magnificent structure into dust ".

Ortega believes that the third reason for the massification of Western society is rapid population growth. “The masses were inspired by the strength and arrogance of modern progress, but they forgot about the spirit. Naturally, that’s why they don’t even think about the spirit, and new generations, wanting to rule the world, look at it as a pristine paradise, where there are neither old traces nor old problems ".

An integral part of Ortega y Gasset's theory of culture is the concept of the nature and essence of modern art, which is outlined in his book “The Dehumanization of Art” (1925). Late XIX – early XX centuries - the time of the emergence and flourishing of the avant-garde in art. If in the art of previous eras the artist’s focus was on man, then for the avant-garde workers everything that existed in this world was subject to splitting into its original elements. Logic and analysis became the methods of aesthetic exploration of reality, rather than intuition and sensory perception. The philosopher notes that the art of antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance evoked a direct response, the works of poets and sculptors became events of social significance. “New” art is unpopular because it is dehumanized, anti-people in its essence, it does not unite and separates people. The means of this art are intended to satisfy the needs of a narrow group of initiates, the elite. "New art is purely artistic art" detached from living reality.

The philosopher identifies five characteristics of “new art”: 1) the desire for a work of art to be only a work of art and nothing else; 2) the desire to understand art as a game, and not a documentary (realistic) reflection of reality; 3) a tendency toward deep irony not only about what it depicts, but also about oneself; 4) careful performance skills; 5) the desire to avoid any transcendence. If earlier art raised and solved “eternal problems,” now the prospect of being a prophet frightens the artist. “Pan’s magic flute once again becomes a symbol of art, which makes the little goats dance on the edge of the forest.” Ortega believes that the future belongs to new art, despite the fact that dehumanization will increase. He sees the justification for such art in what it says "the language of pure Euclidean forms." Believing that the aesthetic merits of a work of art are higher than its content, the philosopher believes: “art, freed from human pathos, has lost any kind of transcendence; it remains only art, without claims to more.” Artists, in his opinion, impose a taboo on any attempts to instill the “human” in art, since preoccupation with the purely human is incompatible with aesthetic pleasure. Ortega welcomes this kind of displacement of “too human” from the sphere of culture, considering it a call of the times.

The philosopher places the connection between man and technology at the basis of historical and cultural periodization. Based on this, he identifies the following three periods of technological evolution: “technology of the case”, “technology of the craftsman”, “technology of technology”. The first period is the primitive technology of prehistoric and protohistoric “wild” man. Ortega calls this time “the technology of chance,” since the “engineer” here is chance, as a result of which inventions occur. Man himself has not yet realized the existence of technology as such and, accordingly, the ability to transform nature at his request. Man's technical actions were fused with his natural actions. All members of the community were at approximately the same level, only male and female responsibilities differed (but their natural actions were also different!). Constant and chaotic manipulation of natural objects by pure chance led to a useful invention; this caused a magical awe of a miracle; man did not perceive himself as a Homo Faber, and therefore did not feel responsible for creating new devices.

The second period is the technology of Ancient Greece, pre-imperial Rome and the Middle Ages. The range of technical actions has increased significantly, but the ratio between the technical and the natural was not yet in favor of the former - man was still too “natural,” at least that’s how he felt. People did not suspect the existence of the concept of “technology”; they only had ideas about certain unnatural actions of specific artisans. Once Socrates argued with his contemporaries, assuring them of the existence of an abstract technology that exists independently of the specific people who own it. During this period of “artisan technology,” society looked at shoemaking as a specific gift inherent in a specific person. Craftsmen were not creators, but only continuers of traditions and norms. Tools were regarded as a complement to man with his natural actions.

A different picture appears before the researcher of the third period - "technology of technology". The machine comes to the fore; the person only serves it. There comes an awareness of the fact that technology exists independently of human nature. What a person with the gift of invention is capable of does, in principle, has no limits.

Not all of the ideas of the outstanding Spanish philosopher were perceived as indisputable. One can blame Ortega for being too dramatic, lacking scientific impartiality, and being journalistic in his statements. Nevertheless, Ortega y Gasset's creative legacy has lasting value.