-
@ Edison
2025-01-25 16:55:59
\
Volkesbewusstsein, as interpreted from Carl von Savigny’s legal philosophy, and utilized by Carl Schmitt in his own, refers to the common consciousness of the people.
For Savigny, this meant that the laws and boundaries of the state evolve organically out of the collective consciousness of the people in a given historical period. A blooming out of the shared cultural fabric of a society.
Schmitt’s interpretation is slightly more assertive, seen more as an imposition of the collective will in defining the sovereign and the state.
But what makes up the common consciousness of society in our time? How does that influence the formation of our state and its laws? My sense is that the thing most shared or collective about our current consciousness is the schizophrenic quality of it. Our cultural fabric is that of an insane asylum,. We swim deep inside the algorithmic passivity of our historical moment, and this has fragmented our consciousness.
The concept of the public sphere as conceptualized by Jürgen Habermas projects an idealized image of a bygone era of communal communication and a genuine shared experience of reality. The public sphere was an arena for dialogue, disagreement, and maybe even reconciliation. This ideal held that communication occurred outside the bounds of state and market manipulation and held to rational discourse as a means of discovering Volkesbewusstsein.
Habermas was aware and critical of the modern erosion of the public sphere due to mass media and its influences. And here we are now in our cultural moment. It’s become trite to remind ourselves of the algorithmic sway that we encounter on a daily basis through social media news feeds. But this is one of those realities we need to continually encounter to take seriously, because it backgrounds itself so well. We become passive automatons swayed for engagement. AI agents capturing our attention and manipulating the lizard brain.
We are all aware of this.
However, to what extent are we understanding the schizophrenic agency of the algorithmic hyper-agent? There’s undoubtedly intentional manipulation of information for explicit ends, not explicit to us necessarily, but to someone or some bureaucracy.
What happens though when we have a myriad of explicit algorithmic hyper-agents taking over the public sphere? I’m no clinician, but my diagnosis is schizophrenia at the level of our distributed cognition. We’re in a collective asylum and the guards are insane too.
What kind of heroes emerge out of that cultural fabric? Well, insane ones. And they will look perfectly sane in their response to a system of state sovereignty and laws that have emerged out of that asylum. And we’ll cheer it on as it feels like entropy towards collapse is the only thing that might save us. Not that we are always conscious of our entropic aims. But the walls are crumbling down, and everyone has a sledgehammer, so we decide to pick one up as well. We’d prefer to feel that we’re at least exercising SOME sort of agency, after all.
I find myself entirely addicted to my comforting insanity. Precisely because it gives me the illusion of agency, rather than the passivity that Habermas feared would be the destruction of the public sphere. I’m grateful that every now and then, I’m able to stand back and examine the frames I’m applying, or that have been applied for me, and recognize my passivity.
Perennially, it becomes apparent that we need to step outside of the passive sway of our screens and to engage in an algorithmic free salon. The idealized picture of humans in a communal space, with minimally distorted flows of information, in true dialogue. A mutual respect for each other and our different value judgements, with a shared commitment to orienting towards truth.
The most basic way we can do this is to continually step back from the asylum, and find a quiet corner to discuss with other well intentioned patients how we might organically blossom out a new common consciousness. It’s hegemonic character, that which dominates it, need not be the assertion of one difference over the other, but the assertion that differences in value systems share some orientation.
All this must be, for now, done from the place of acceptance of our diagnosis. Our conversations in the public sphere will need to continually encounter and correct for our schizophrenia. But if enough of us pick up a hammer and start smashing it against the wall of the asylum, a new organic shared consciousness has a shot at arising.