Page 135 - Šolsko polje, XXVIII, 2017, no. 3-4: Education and the American Dream, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 135
i. bijuklič ■ manufacturing and selling a way of life
words, which form of organised coexistence and consequently way of life
they assumed as principal that should embrace all others.
Only as the processes that prevail in the primary group become general-
ised to the social processes of the national whole could a nation be truly
humane and democratic. The notion of communication is one part of
the extension of the private realm to the public realm that is a hallmark
of modern society and politics, and is a key part of an intellectual pro-
gram to redesign public life on the model and rules of intimacy (Peters,
1986: p. 87)
His term »cooperative whole« (Cooley, 2004: p. 23) is describing
this new form of organised coexistence, basically referring to a multitude
of people primarily organised as an (industrial) work force, that can act
simultaneously as a coordinated physical strength and »behave as they
were one« (Arendt, 1996: p. 124). Arendt’s (1996) concept of society2 as a
specific and historical form of human organisation, helps to explain the
complete neglect and incapacity to recognize the private and the public
as two opposing spheres of human existence. The historical loss of this
distinction lies in the foundation of the social realm in modernity, pre-
cisely when the activities, organisational forms and relations typical for
the oikos began to gain public character and established themselves in the
public realm. The fundamental principles of social organisation are thus
derived from activities subjected to necessities posed by the biological as-
pect of life itself, principally that of production and consumption. The
despotical reign by which necessity rules in the form of socio-econom-
ic interest now levels every member of society without exception in a new
egalitarian condition, for »society always demands that its members act
as though they were members of one enormous family which has only one
opinion and one interest. Before the modern disintegration of the fami-
ly, this common interest and single opinion was represented by the house-
hold head who ruled in accordance with it and prevented possible disu-
nity among the family members« (ibid.: p. 42). If we consider once again
the Progressive reformist tenet from the point discussed above, strictly
speaking, they were not discussing an already existing society, but rath-
er creating one on a numerically large scale using sophisticated technical
means of communication intended to enlarge exactly those organisation-
2 Arendt formulated the concept mostly by reviving Aristotle’s practical philosophy, which
stands out specifically from the rest of the western tradition of political thought exactly
because he treats in the most elaborate and explicit manner possible the difference be-
tween polis and oikos and at the same time, criticizing Plato’s Statesman, warns against the
old tendency and temptation, to equate these two strictly different kind of communities.
133
words, which form of organised coexistence and consequently way of life
they assumed as principal that should embrace all others.
Only as the processes that prevail in the primary group become general-
ised to the social processes of the national whole could a nation be truly
humane and democratic. The notion of communication is one part of
the extension of the private realm to the public realm that is a hallmark
of modern society and politics, and is a key part of an intellectual pro-
gram to redesign public life on the model and rules of intimacy (Peters,
1986: p. 87)
His term »cooperative whole« (Cooley, 2004: p. 23) is describing
this new form of organised coexistence, basically referring to a multitude
of people primarily organised as an (industrial) work force, that can act
simultaneously as a coordinated physical strength and »behave as they
were one« (Arendt, 1996: p. 124). Arendt’s (1996) concept of society2 as a
specific and historical form of human organisation, helps to explain the
complete neglect and incapacity to recognize the private and the public
as two opposing spheres of human existence. The historical loss of this
distinction lies in the foundation of the social realm in modernity, pre-
cisely when the activities, organisational forms and relations typical for
the oikos began to gain public character and established themselves in the
public realm. The fundamental principles of social organisation are thus
derived from activities subjected to necessities posed by the biological as-
pect of life itself, principally that of production and consumption. The
despotical reign by which necessity rules in the form of socio-econom-
ic interest now levels every member of society without exception in a new
egalitarian condition, for »society always demands that its members act
as though they were members of one enormous family which has only one
opinion and one interest. Before the modern disintegration of the fami-
ly, this common interest and single opinion was represented by the house-
hold head who ruled in accordance with it and prevented possible disu-
nity among the family members« (ibid.: p. 42). If we consider once again
the Progressive reformist tenet from the point discussed above, strictly
speaking, they were not discussing an already existing society, but rath-
er creating one on a numerically large scale using sophisticated technical
means of communication intended to enlarge exactly those organisation-
2 Arendt formulated the concept mostly by reviving Aristotle’s practical philosophy, which
stands out specifically from the rest of the western tradition of political thought exactly
because he treats in the most elaborate and explicit manner possible the difference be-
tween polis and oikos and at the same time, criticizing Plato’s Statesman, warns against the
old tendency and temptation, to equate these two strictly different kind of communities.
133
