The idea of Progress has a rich philosophical history, but few in recent decades have addressed it as focally as English philosopher John Gray. Careful to clarify that he grants scientific and technological progress, Gray emphasizes that it's political and ethical progress that are not assured. Gains in these domains occur cyclically, existing under the threat of reversal at any time. As he puts it,
Postmodern thinkers may question scientific progress, but it is undoubtedly real. The illusion is the belief that it can affect any fundamental alteration to the human condition...History is not an ascending spiral of human advance, or even and inch by inch crawl to a better world. It is an unending cycle in which changing knowledge interacts with unchanging human need. Heresies, Introduction p.3
Since the 1980s Gray's political thought has been somehow both pointed and volatile, and seems to have finally settled him in a sort of no man's land from which he aims criticism at the progressive projects of both free market capitalism and the Marxist Left alike. Through his work he's inveighed against both apocalyptic religion and evangelical atheism, asserting connections between the two that have irritated each. Book reviews from his columns have been notorious for instigating spats with other prominent authors (as in the case of reviews of recent works by Slavoj Zizek and Noam Chomsky, who reply here and here).
The source of Gray's political perspective lies in his very particular view of the human condition, best explicated in his book “Straw Dogs”. Gray believes that humans are animals in every crucial respect, and that this is the primary lesson of evolution. Humanity's insistence in mistakenly regarding itself as somehow distinct from nature, as privileged with free will and control over it's own historical trajectory has lead to an anthropocentric worldview hazardous both to humans and the Earth's other inhabitants. He maintains that Darwinism does not imply progress, only adaptation. According to Gray, secular humanism, non-theistic as it is, nonetheless imports Christianity's progressive vision as it's model, turning to science rather than providence for salvation. Yet science, says Gray, can only increase human power, amplifying human flaws but never resolving them. Thus, we must expect that the grievous ethical pitfalls of the past will return, and we should deal with them as concrete situations rather than as historical generalities to be solved once and for all.
Can such an unwavering view of human nature still hold in consideration of technologies such as germline genetic engineering, human cloning or medical nanotechnology, which seem poised to alter many fundamental human limitations? I'm not sure myself, but Gray believes so and reminds that science doesn't occur within a vacuum but within the messy human sphere of politics, culture and the myriad other competing influences which have historically distributed its help and harm so unevenly. In a characteristically comforting passage from his book "Heresies", he writes
If the advance of reproductive cloning produces a new breed of post-humans, it will come about from the interplay of all too human forces and motives – war, profit and the vanity of leaders. The post-human future will not be the moment when humanity takes charge of its future, but one more blind turn in human history. Heresies, p.31
Gray's next book, “The Silence of Animals”, arrives June 4th and is being billed as a follow up to “Straw Dogs".
dmf says
February 23, 2013 at 3:20 pmhe’s an interesting figure in the current market of ideas, here he is with the ever entertaining (except perhaps in his novels) Will Self in an interesting companion piece to the earlier discussion hereabouts on Critchely and death:
Daniel David says
February 23, 2013 at 11:09 pmPerfect description of Will Self.
Randall Miron says
February 24, 2013 at 2:26 pmI’m on grammar alert today, I guess. The following sentence (probably not wrong in the original) should have contained the verb “effect” not the verb “affect”: “The illusion is the belief that it can affect any fundamental alteration to the human condition…” Each of these words has both a noun and a verb use. Maybe we need a grammar-savvy editor/proofreader. (These errors don’t really matter though. My criterion is whether an error creates confusion, as in the case of the error involving a missing comma, pointed out in another post by Philosophy Bro, which made it seem as if Oxford were an American university.)
Here are two more apostrophe errors with “it’s”: “…with free will and control over it’s own historical trajectory…”, and “…Christianity’s progressive vision as it’s model…”
Got this one right though: “…historically distributed its help and harm…”
Daniel David says
February 24, 2013 at 4:53 pmThanks, Randall; you’re correct, and the original was also correct. I can only chalk it up to the unfortunate fact that my eyes and my hands have still found no other way to communicate but through my brain, which tends to produce these kinds of results. I agree that this kind of thing can confuse already confusing ideas when writing about philosophy, so I’ll try to keep an eye out for this as well as my apparently liberal use of apostrophes.
dominic says
February 24, 2013 at 11:15 pmI’m not sure Mr. Gray has a very sophisticated stance on history or its interpretation. His piece on Zizek is such a gross mischaracterization i’m unsure whether it deserves any more attention than being labeled as such and waved away. I just re-read it, which makes it the third time, and I ended up coming to the same conclusion: it is a hit-piece, published in a mainstream liberal publication in order to acknowledge, yet dismiss in academic and insightful terminology, a popular radical voice. It is Noam Chomsky’s “Manufacturing Consent” 101. I take issue with many of the things Zizek says, and even consider him a huge bore half the time, but this is such a flagrant smear piece I have to defend him. Gray’s failing comes as a result of the same narrow-mindedness when dealing with both Zizek and Chomsky (actually, that is just where Grays failing begins).
I will say no more on Zizek for now, because his piece on Chomsky is even more egregious. Even if one were not a Chomsky disciple, as I admit I am, there are so many things wrong with that piece lets forget, momentarily, that Chomsky was even mentioned. Gray says things like “our infrastructure is crumbling,” “the lesson of history is that bankrupt states do not remain imperial powers for long,” and “America resembles Latin America some decades ago.” All of these statements require a massive amount of supportive evidence, of which he provides none. The last two statements are markedly false, and the first is irrelevant. He uses a technique of argument that must have a title, in that he makes a declaration that is supposed to heap evidence upon his claim, thereby validating it, and moves on. Yet all he’s done is make a declaration.
First of all, lets take Latin America “some decades ago.” Well…Columbia had, as is it still does, at least five heavily armed factions fighting for control of the country, all of which then controlled different swaths of territory into which the other forces could not travel (FARC, the military, drug-cartels, paramilitary forces, and another revolutionary anachronism that escapes me right now). Peru had a Maoist revolutionary army taking over the countryside, kidnapping peasants and Indians alike, murdering their families, and forcing their children into becoming soldiers. Fast forward 10 years, that army had advanced on Lima, the capital, spreading so much mayhem that the elected president became a dictator that literally sent hooded soldiers into high schools, took students away at gun-point, and then tried them in a closed military tribunal, all whilst still wearing their hoods. Southern Mexico was a massive patch-work of “haciendas,” private plantations owned by massively rich families equipped with their own, internal economies, which included private armies and slaves. And this all without even expounding upon Nicaragua and El Salvator.
How about “Bankrupt states do not remain imperial powers for long.” Sorry, France was bankrupt multiple, multiple times before, during, and after the French Revolution, the American Revolution, and the wars of Napolean. How much of Africa speaks French today? And when did it get that way? Gray has a strong point in a very twisted way. Many empires of the past went bankrupt and collapsed, Spain and England being the most shining examples. However, one must not overlook two extremely key factors here: we are NOT actually bankrupt, and we are NOT actually an empire. So how his supposed insight applies needs much more clarification on his part. Furthermore, one could write an entire book on how Empires, at risk of bankruptcy, stave it off: fleecing the wealthy, and fleecing their neighbors. And lastly, if anyone is even still reading me, one of the most contentious issues amongst historians has always been what exactly causes the crash of empires? There is NO consensus that it is bankruptcy.
Heres another quote of Grays “”the US is the last remaining hyper-power.”” Why did he put that in quotes. Who is he quoting? The only person Im aware of who uses the prefix “hyper” is Thomas Friedman. Quoting him should be instant grounds for dismissal from serious political or philosophical discourse.
Lastly, our “crumbling infrastructure” is an Obama administration catch-phrase for the need to raise taxes. Why is he using this term? Crumbling infrastructure is indicative of only one thing: the governments unwillingness to raise or re-allocate taxes. It has no affect whatever on our global military hegemony. Our bridges may be falling down, but our tomahawks, black hawks, and stealth bombers aren’t falling out of the sky (our Ospreys are, but that is NOT because of a lack of tax funding!)
And this only barely scratched the surface of Grays failings (Zizeks rebuttal comes across as the tantrum of a child, and Chomsky replies to all his critics in the same haughty tone, so i couldn’t leave it at just that, though I comment the blog authors inclusion of said rebuttals).
Daniel David says
February 25, 2013 at 12:20 amGray definitely makes the most of provocation. His op-eds, and to a lesser extent his books are never shy with hyperbole (which is something he has in common with Chomsky and especially Zizek), and I often think that he opts for scathing characterizations over accurate ones. He could almost give Anne Coulter a run for her money when it comes to sinister, overwrought book titles like “Heresies” or “Black Mass”. Those two reviews are actually small potatoes considering that, with the exceptions of Berlin, Santayana and Schopenhauer “Straw Dogs” dismissed nearly the entire history of western philosophy, almost without argument.
Still, I find him interesting, maybe even for the same reasons he’s irritating. One passage will have me ready to throw the book out the window, and with the next I’m cheering in the stands. His books are refreshingly devoid of the jargon and obfuscation that bloat the work of so many other philosophers. I frequently wish he’d back his assertions up with more argument, not least at the times when I really think he’s onto something. On the other hand the way he leaves his ideas clear and concise saves me from reading pages on end of boring bet-hedging.
His political philosophy seems unacceptably fatalistic to me. I can’t see how it’s capable of activism in any sincere way. I find his views on human nature much more interesting and substantial.
dominic says
February 25, 2013 at 8:21 amOk, fair enough. I can accept that but I wonder where he redeems himself? Actually, i tend to agree with a lot of your characterizations of his ideas, that we are too anthropocentric as a race, and that humans are not in fact marching towards an ideal or utopia. Even what you said about evolution and science, his supposed views, are totally true. At least I totally accept them. But your criticisms of him seem equally as pointed (Ann Coulter! That was good)
Daniel David says
March 1, 2013 at 10:54 pmThanks. I definitely have a lot of issues with Gray’s thought, and I thought the points you raised were valid. I also think that he owes a lot more to some philosophers he’s rather dismissive of than he lets on (particularly to Nietzsche’s antagonism and his aphoristic style).
Wayne Schroeder says
February 25, 2013 at 10:59 amThanks Dom for calling Gray out. Seems like he has a healthy skepticism of idealism however.
dmf says
March 1, 2013 at 6:55 pmIn this lecture, John Gray will explore the conundrum of our existence – an existence which we decorate with countless myths and ideas, where we twist and turn to avoid acknowledging that we too are animals, separated from the others perhaps only by our self-conceit. In the Babel we have created for ourselves, it is the silence of animals that both reproaches and bewitches us.
http://www2.lse.ac.uk/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=1784
Daniel David says
March 1, 2013 at 10:41 pmNice. I’d been waiting to hear a little more on what the new book aims at. Sounds like it will be a follow up to “Straw Dogs” after all. One of the criticisms that’s been raised is that humans are the only animal the are aware that they will die, or at least that death is inevitable. I’m wondering how he’ll deal with that in this book. Thanks for posting.