This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
SPORT AND LABOUR Historically, play is the privilege of the ruling classes. It is not a respite from labour nor is it a preparation for labour; it is a means for ensuring their domineering social position and for proving their «superiority» over the working layers. Play includes activities which contribute to the strengthening of their oppressive power (war games, hunting...) as well as the activities which prove their elitist status. Finally, play is part of the privileged life-style of the ruling class. Hence opting for play is not the matter of one's individual choice, it is a class duty. Unlike the previous ruling classes, the bourgeois seeks to integrate the oppressed working «masses» into its spiritual orbit and thus prevent their libertarian struggle. This acquired a special political significance when workers managed to obtain the eight-hour working time which enabled them to become class-conscious and politically engaged: play became one of the most important means for colonization of the workers' leisure time and for their depolitization. The ruling forms of play have always been the embodiment of the ruling relations and values in a condensed ideological form. Even when, temporarily, they were a form of the political struggle against the ruling order, they remained a way of spiritual integration of the oppressed into the ruling order. Sport is a typical example. That is why Coubertin, in his Olympic philosophy, insists on the principle to «rule in the heads» as the supreme «supraclass» pedagogical (political) principle. He was aware that real social changes were impossible if the workers remained within the spiritual horizon of the capitalist order. Here it should be noted that the following discussion is to supplement what was said in the book «Sport, Capitalism, Destruction», regarding the criticism of Plessner's, Habermas's, Rigauer's and Lasch's views on the relation between sport and work.(1)
Play as the «Respite from Work» Aristotle¶s view that play is the «respite from labour» is the most widely accepted starting point in determining the relation between labour and play. In ancient Greece, it was not physical labour, which was the «privilege» of slaves and as such unworthy of a free man (Hellene), it was the execution of civil duties which were the precondition for the survival of polis. In his work «Culture and Society», Marcuse claims that play as a whole is necessarily connected with
something else, from which it derives and at which it aims ± and this something else has also been previously mentioned as labour in the characteristics of composure, tension, worry etc. (2) Marcuse concludes that in one single ³throw out´ of a ball by a man who plays lies an endlessly larger triumph of the freedom of man's being over objectivization than in the highest achievement of the technical world. (3) According to Marcuse, in this disregard of objectiveness man comes precisely to himself in the dimension of the freedom he is deprived of in work. (4) A need for play as «amusement» is possible only in the relation to labour as a coercive one-sided activity: without labour there is no play. A lack of freedom in labour becomes the basis for the «freedom in play», whose main characteristics are «voluntariness» and a «lack of effort», which becomes a synonym for «pleasure». Man is not a unified creative being; he is reduced to the «worker» and «player», depending on the sphere he is in. In this context, man's playing being is not the authentic source of his humanity and the basis of his totalizing (liberatingcreative) practice, the starting point is rather play as a specific phenomenon which is a compensation for the unrealized (suppressed) humanity. Play is not the realization of man's liberating-creative nature; it is a psycho-physical response to a work reduced to repression. Marcuse points this out indirectly when he insists not on passing the ball but on ³throwing out´ the ball, which is not the expression of freedom but serves to give vent to a suppressed being and its discontent. The nature of work determines the nature of the respite from labour, which means the nature of play. Alienated labour cannot result in a free play, but only in a play as a form of letting off the steam of non-freedom: play as the respite from alienated labour is not de-alienation; it is an alienated form of de-alienation. At the same time, the nature of play is determined by man's physical and playing abilities. Alienated labour produces a mutilated man who can realize his mutilated playing being in a mutilated way. Man who is de-eroticized through labour and who is deformed by a one-sided and excessive physical exertion cannot manifest his erotic nature in play, which becomes a respite but, at the same time, a preparation for work. As far as the ball is concerned, it is a historical product and so is the skill of ³throwing out´ the ball and the playing body. The ball is ³objectivized´ and man must have appropriate physical abilities and playing sensibility, which involves the playing skill, in order to play with the ball. At the same time, ³throwing out´ the ball does not only express man's relation to work, it symbolically expresses man's relation towards another man, which means to the value-related model embodied in play. The purpose of ³throwing out´ the ball is not to liberate man from the chains of the capitalist civilization and to develop human powers; it is the sterilization of his critical conscious and change-aspiring will («pacification»), as well as the renewal of his working powers. «Readiness to work» represents, according to Adorno, «one of the hidden tasks of sport». (5) Sport has been formed as an institution at the time of the most intensive industrial development and therefore industrial labour represents the form of labour with the most profound influence on sport. Unlike slave-owning society
and feudalism, where physical culture was a privilege of the ruling class and where work and the working body represent the negative basis of physical culture relative to which the «beautiful» is determined (slave work and slave body in antiquity, peasant work and body in the Middle Ages), in capitalism, the industrial way of production conditions the nature of the sports movement and body, as well as of the bourgeois «physical culture» (bodily drill). At the same time, there is an aggressive muscularity which is a physical manifestation of the ruthless combative spirit in a society marked with the bellum omnium contra omnes. It is about the conflict between the original spirit of liberal capitalism, which insists on an atomized society based on the Social Darwinist principle (which obtains legitimacy of being «humane» through the slogans such as ³Equal chances!´, «Personal initiative!» and the like) and the ruling spirit of the monopolistic capitalism ruled by the principle «Big fish devours small fish!» and the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance expressed in the Olympic maxim citius, altius, fortius.
Charles Fourier: Labour as Play Fourier is one of the fathers of the theory according to which labour can become play and as such a pleasure. In «German Ideology» Marx claims that Fourier wanted to «put, instead of today's travail repugnant (repulsive labour), travail attrayant (attractive labour)». (6) Engels speaks similarly of Fourier's view on labour in his work «Advance of the Movement for a Social Reform on the Continent»: «Fourier is trying to prove that everyone was born with a disposition to some kind of labour, that absolute inactivity is nonsense, something that has never existed and cannot exist: that the essence of the human spirit is to be active itself and move the body towards action and, therefore, there is no need to force people to be active, as it is the case in the current state of society, but only to properly direct their natural activity. He then goes on to argue that labour and pleasure are identical and shows the absurdity of the present social system, which separates them, turning labour into torture and placing pleasure out of the reach of most of the workers; he then shows that in a rationally constituted society, labour can be what it is supposed to be, that is to say, pleasure, and everyone should follow their own personal inclinations ...» (7) In his work «The Basis of the Critique of Political Economy» Marx criticizes Fourier for trying to reduce labour to play: «Work cannot become play, as Fourier wants it, who is greatly credited for declaring as the ultimate end the overcoming not only of distribution but of the way of production into a higher form.» (8) For Marx, «travail attractif», which appears as the «self-realization of an individual», is by no means a «sheer joke, sheer amusement, as Fourier, somewhat naively, like a grisette, would have it. A
really free labour, for example, composing, is at the same time a highly serious matter, the most intensive kind of work». (9) Fourier takes labour seriously, though not as a torture, but as a pleasure. Instead of trying to view play in the light of labour, Fourier tries to view labour in the light of play as a festive form, not as a frolic. While Marx insists on changing the nature of labour and thus on changing man's relation to labour, Fourier insists on changing man's relation to work by changing the form in which work is executed and by changing the meaning it is given. Fourier does not try to abolish work as a physical exertion, but to obtain for it a respect by creating such working conditions and atmosphere which will give it a «festive» character. Fourier: «And thus the customs and the policy of Harmony seek to bestow on the productive work all the illustriousness, all the support of luxury that is now applied only to non-productive jobs; while agricultural labour and workshops remain in the worst of misery». (10) He continues: «Workshops and agricultural labour should attract the worker by elegance and cleanness»... (11) The festive atmosphere, «illustriousness», «luxury», «elegance and cleanness» indicate that it is not only about the change of the worker's relation to work, but also about the change in the ruling value-related model which is to enable work to be valued in the same way as non-working activities, and this should change the social position of workers. Fourier claims that «attractive work does not lead to exhaustion or spiritual pain. It is an amusement to a manual worker, free exercise of his abilities». (12) He sees in work a free activity of a free «Harmonian» who is aware of the necessity of work, but is employed by nobody and nobody forces him to work: work is voluntary. Fourier does not say that explicitly, but it follows from his conception that man himself determines the length and intensity of work, which means that he works as long as it gives him pleasure. Instead of degrading him, work affirms his freedom and is a way of gaining respect. According to Fourier, man's nature is not determined by the nature of labour; it is man's (erotic) nature that determines the nature of the relation to labour and thus the nature of labour. In antiquity, eroticized physical exercises in gymnasiums and fights at the Olympic playing grounds were a way of «winning over the favour of» the gods and a form of the Hellenes' spiritual integration. With aristocratic manners and war (oppression), Nietzsche tries to turn the ³new nobility´ into an organic (physical) community. Huizinga sees in the war tournaments of noblemen and their bloody fierceness a supreme erotic stimulus and a means for the class integration of the aristocracy. For Fourier, labour is the most important means of social integration: society is the community of working people, while the working movement, which realizes man's erotic nature, is the basic movement of one man towards another. By arguing for «work becoming sport», whereas the meaning of the term «sport» is closer to the aristocratic desportare (entertainment through competition) than to the modern conception of sport (record-mania), Fourier proposes the establishment of an (agricultural) «working tournament where each athlete will show his strength and agility, show
off before the beauties who, at the end of the shift, will bring him lunch or snack». (13) Fourier does not speak of changing the nature of labour, but tries to make labour attractive and give it a playing form. Thus, man's playing being expresses its superiority over labour as a limiting activity, and labour turns into «festivity» and «pleasure». A need for labour expresses man's need to realize his erotic being. Labour is a way in which men can express their masculinity and impress the girls: the working community becomes the erotic community. The real result of labour has nothing to do with the purpose and aim of labour (to ensure existence as an existential necessity); it has to do with a reward acquired by labour, which is to win the favour of girls and affirm one's masculinity. Essentially, the role of the «vestals» is to draw man's attention away from work as an arduous activity. In Fourier, women are instrumentalized in the working process similarly to the way «noble ladies» were instrumentalized in chivalrous tournaments. The very presence of women gives an erotic charge to labour which is the essence of its «festive character». The need for a woman (erotic desire) is manifested as a working activity: work becomes a peculiar (fore) play where the erotic charge turns into a working enthusiasm. The festive atmosphere that should accompany the work is an eroticized ritual, while work releases the suppressed sexual energy. This is the main reason why man does not experience it as a physical and spiritual suffering, but as a pleasure. Fourier's conception of sport is not marked by the principle of «natural selection» and the absolutized principle of performance, nor by the principle of idleness which is characteristic of the aristocratic desportare, but competition through a cultivated productivistic activity where everyone can freely express their human powers and where there are no winners or losers. Instead of garlands and fanfares, a shy but motivating smile of girls represents the biggest «award». Chivalrous tournaments are festivities dedicated to the oppressive power of the aristocracy; Fourier's working tournaments are festivities dedicated to man's life-creating powers. In «Harmony», nature is not experienced as the object of exploitation and destruction, but as a living space. Work is a form of man's immediate relation to nature. It is dominated by life-creation: the transformation of nature becomes its cultivation (fertilization) and this becomes a symbolic projection of a (desired) relation to the woman. In Fourier's agricultural labour there is no machine which represents the «technical civilization» as a mediator between man and nature; the mastered powers of nature do not appear as a means for man's submission, for mutilation of his erotic nature and exploitation (destruction) of nature; there is no working technique which alienates man's working skill from him, nor is there a productivistic movement based on the absolutized principle of quantitatively measurable performance. In the industrial labour man is part of the machine and his working rhythm follows the rhythm of the industrial process of production, which destroys the biological rhythm of organism. Man is depersonalized in work above all by being denaturalized: his body loses biological properties and becomes a machine. In Fourier, the rhythm of bodily exertion is conditioned by man's
biological capacities and, in that context, by his working skill. Work is not dominated by a technical mimesis, but by a natural movement cultivated through work. This work does not mutilate man's erotic being turning him into a mechanicized freak, as is the case with the capitalist form of industrial production. There is no technique (alienated from man) as a mediator between man and his own body and girls, and the dominant skill is working skill with the erotic nature. Work is a cultivated natural activity; the body is a cultivated natural body, while the relation between men and women is a cultivated natural relation. Fourier does not speak of one-sided physical work as if it were a conflict with man's erotic (playing) being, as Marx does when he speaks of the industrial work, but of the manual work as a demonstration of masculinity and provocation for a sexual fantasy. Instead of work being impersonalized by machines, which reduces man to the working tool and force, Fourier insists on such a manual work which will express man's libertarian and erotic nature through physical motion. Eroticized relation between men and women is the basis of working dynamics and its dramatic. Work does not destroy individuality and does not reduce workers to impersonalized working force; it is rather that man realizes his personality through work as a specific physical being ± by way of a specific working activity through which he expresses his peculiar human qualities in a specific way. Unlike the festivities of the aristocracy, where the esthetics had a decorative character and served to glorify its parasitic (looting) exclusive class character as against the working «masses», Fourier's esthetics is grounded on the erotic nature of man as a being who ensures his social existence through work and has a festive character. Work, body, nature, Eros, interpersonal relations, esthetics ± all that is given in unity. Agricultural labour is not dominated by a playing motion, and therefore the playing body is not produced. It is deformed by work, sense-based mobility which enables the development of soft movements and the creative body is mutilated... Fourier tries to establish such a relation to work which will give it a human dimension and thus a playing character. By insisting on the «festive» character of work, Fourier suggests that bodily (working) movement itself should be suited to the nature of work, which means that it should be marked by a cultivated bodily posture and a motion expressing «masculinity». This conditions the dramatic character of the bodily expression and its rhythm. Work does not change its nature; what is changed is man's relation to work which enables him to express (experience) through work his human being. One of the most important characteristics of Fourier's theory is that it offers a possibility of a change-oriented relation to work based on a need to realize man's playing being ± without which there is not any true humanization of work. Instead of appearing at the existential, work appears at the essential level: it is not only the «primary life necessity» (Marx), it is the primary human necessity. Work produces sociability in an immediate form: work is not only the production of material goods; it is the production of interpersonal relations, which means of society as the community of happy people. The «Harmonians» work with a smile on their faces.
Erich Fromm recognizes play in the crafts from the XIII and XIV centuries: «There is no dichotomy of work and play, of work and culture.» (14) When he speaks of play, Fromm thinks of art ± which makes craftsmanship closer to the ancient techne as the art of shaping guided by virtue. Craftsmanship is play in the technical sense, but not in the essential sense. Fromm overlooks the position of the craftsman (worker) in the working process and in society, the evaluation of work and his experience of his own working activity. The work of a craftsman is not voluntary, especially not spontaneous; he is not guided by the artistic passion, but by existential needs; a craftsman does not work as a free man, his work is commissioned in a society in which people's work is not valued according to its creativeness but according to their wealth; where «cultural» status is not acquired by the development and realization of one's cultural being, but by the acquisition of works of art: a work created by a craftsman is alienated from him and is the private property of the members of parasitic classes and as such is a means for proving their elitist status and degradation of workers (craftsmen). As far as skill is concerned, it is not only a «technical» part of play; it involves the development of man's physical and spiritual (creative) powers. Unlike the crafting skill which is limited to the manual work that proceeds in a limited (closed) space and does not enable a harmonious development of physical (playing) capacities, the acquisition of the playing skill involves a complete development of the body, senses, emotions, spirit, in a natural environment, the only place where man can attain his natural being. There is no play if man does not express spontaneously and freely his playing being and thus experience himself as a playing (free) being. Play is dominated by the esthetical, which means man's endeavour to express his authentic creative personality. At the same time, play has a social character: it is dominated by a spontaneous interpersonal relation based on the movement of one man towards another. The immediate product of play is not an object, but the development of man's playing being and of interpersonal relations.
Labour, Praxis, Poetical, Play For Milan Kangrga, play is the «result» - «either of labour or creativity, but only the fought for, actively mediated, produced, established «medium», where, as already formed human beings, we can then play and entertain ourselves in a human way in our ± meaningful idleness, which is then the established spiritual horizon of self-realization based on creative imagination.» (15) Play is a potential result of labour or creativity, but the nature of labour (creativity) conditions the nature of play. It is one thing to create the possibilities of play by creating a non-working time which is only potentially workers' free time, and quite another to create play as the realization of man's playing being. Work can produce a non-working time, but play is only formally possible if man is not capable of
playing. Labour which mutilates man's playing being directly conditions physical abilities, playing skill and imagination ± which means the possibility of playing and thus the creation of play. Man whose body is reduced to a machine and who has lost physical qualities that enable the development of the playing, meaning a creative body, does not have a need to play, but to engage in such a physical activity which is conditioned by the properties of a mechanicized body. It not only reduces man's playing abilities, it reduces the possibility of man experiencing himself as a playing being, and thus the possibility of his playing selfconsciousness. A physically crippled man can feel «free» only in those plays in which his mutilated being can be realized. At the same time, he aspires to those plays in which he can find compensation for the constraints in the working process ± where he is reduced to an impersonalized working force: playing becomes a psychological response to labour. Most importantly, play is not only a respite, it is a preparation for work, which means that man can develop in play those qualities which enable him both to «keep fit» and keep his job. Alienated labour, where man is reduced to the «working force» and instrumentalized as an impersonalized part of working processes, does not distort only man, but also interpersonal relations ± which has a direct influence on the playing imagination. Sport is a typical example: a «sports team» is a capitalistically degenerated form of grouping people ± degenerated sociability. When the playing skill is developed on the basis of a suppressed and distorted humanness, it becomes a compensatory mechanism for a frustrated humanness, a means to escape from reality, for a conflict with other people ± as is the case in sport. There is no «formed human being» unless man has developed a need for and ability to play. «Meaningful idleness», «spiritual horizon of self-realization» and «creative imagination» are all conditioned by the development of man's playing being, his physical powers and acquired playing skills, the conception of man and relation to people. The imagination of a slave is one thing, the imagination of a free man is quite another; a «reasonable» opting for play of a man with a mutilated body and playing being, for whom play is compensation for the alienation in work, is one thing, while «reasonable» opting for play of a man who has a playing (creative) body and playing being and who develops in work his physical and spiritual powers is quite another. At the same time, man should see freedom in play not only in relation to work, but above all in relation to the world in which he lives, which means in relation to the ruling order. The idea that man can realize his playing being in relation to work within the repressive (destructive) capitalist order is illusory. Work is not the only form in which man is alienated from himself as an erotic (playing) being, the whole life is such a form, based on the «technical civilization» which represents the form in which capitalism destroys nature and man as a natural and human being. It is not about the freedom of man reduced to the «worker», it is about the freedom of man in the totality of his social existence. The possibility of play (playing) does not lie in the relation work ±play, but in the relation man ± ruling order. Libertarian play is not only the result of work or
creativity, but above all of the fight for freedom which involves the fight for the creation of a new world. The relation of man to the world, himself, other people, the full humanity he acquires in the fight for survival and freedom ± this is the necessary «mediator» which enables the cultivation and development of man's playing being, his playing skill and human community as a playing community. The theses of a «meaningful idleness» can be productive since it enables the creation of such forms of play through which man will be able to develop his libertarian, creative and social being, which means to stand against the existing world trying to create a new world. Kangrga's definition of play is close to the idea of libertarian play, but «creative imagination» should have a visionary character and its realization should be part of a political movement which seeks to create a new (humane) world. Marcuse cites Marx's view on how free time affects man: ÄFree time transforms its possessor into a different Subject, and as a different Subject he enters the process of immediate production³. (16) Here it should be added: as a potentially changed subject ± provided that it is really about free time, and not about apparent «free time» where the ruling relations and values are reproduced, as is the case with the ruling forms of play. Leisure time does not have an abstract, but a concrete historical nature: non-working time is «free» from work, but not from capitalism nor from the consequences of work for man (mutilation of his erotic being, physical and mental deformation of man and interpersonal relations ...). In the «consumer society» both working and non-working time have become constituent parts of the capitalist time: time of production and time of consumption. At the same time, the content of non-working time is conditioned by class relations, which means by the struggle for the instrumentalization of nonworking time for the purpose of protecting the ruling order. The bourgeoisie tries to prevent by all means the non-working time from becoming the free time of the oppressed. Stadiums, designed according to the Roman Colosseum, were built at the end of the XIX century, when workers managed to obtain the eight-hour working time, in order to keep the «working masses» under control during nonworking hours. The ruling forms of play, which were to become the cheapest and chief spiritual food for workers, occupied most of the non-working time and as such were «free time» imposed on workers by the bourgeoisie: non-working time became the means for the integration of workers into the spiritual orbit of capitalism. Marx himself unintentionally encourages that when he recommends that young workers, in their free time, do gymnastic exercises, which were done by the bourgeois youth and which had a mechanical form and militaristic nature, meaning that they were reduced to a physical drill mutilating man's erotic, and thus, his playing nature. (17) The establishment of the relation between work and praxis enables us to attain the notion of true play. Mihailo Markovi says on that: «In principle, work is different from praxis. Work is instrumental, praxis is the end in itself. Praxis is a free, spontaneous, creative activity where each individual realizes his unique,
specifically human powers.» (18) For Kangrga, praxis is a «free self-realization of man as the universal generic being. This involves the process of man's historical self-becoming in the totality of his manifestation as the only purpose or the unique purpose (meaning) of his life.» (19) Praxis, as the «total way of the appropriation of the world (and oneself in it)» (20) by man is the «natural» basis of play. In this context, particularly important is the connection between praxis and poiesis: ³Historical novum in terms of the epochal change in the essence of praxis proceeds not only through a practical determination of the theory which is heading for its realization, but even more: through the identification of praxis and poiesis, whereas in the very definition of the modern concept of practice poiesis obtains not only a constitutive but also a prevailing character». (21) The alienated labour is possible because man is «more» that that he is reduced to as the labour tool and hired worker. It involves a distance to labour from the point of view of man as a libertarian and universally creative (playing) being. By working, man has put chains on himself and became alienated from his authentic playing being, but at the same time he developed his creative powers which enable him to acquire a libertarian and creative self-conscious. The dialectic of praxis is based on the conflict between the acquired creative powers and the (im) possibility of realizing them in a way which would affirm him as a human being, which means of creating a humane world. This is one of the most important reasons why the capitalist propaganda machinery and entertainment industry increasingly try to destroy man's libertarian self-conscious. Non-working time must not become the time for development of workers' self-conscious, but the means for their integration into the spiritual orbit of the bourgeoisie and reproduction of capital, which means a consumer time. It is particularly important today when, due to the imposed dynamics of innovation as the basic requirement for survival on the market, man, instead of factories and machines, has become the most important «investment». The creative mind has become the driving force of contemporary capitalism, which indicates that there are objective possibilities for a libertarian totalization of the world by a (liberated) man. Writing in the «Capital» on the freedom in work Marx concludes: «Freedom in this area can only exist in the associated man's, associated producers' rational organization of their exchange of matter with nature, in bringing it under their joined control, instead of its dominating them as a blind force; in executing it with the least possible expenditure of energy and under the conditions which are the most worthy of and adequate to their human nature. But this always remains the realm of necessity. Beyond it begins the development of the human power, which is the purpose for itself, the real realm of freedom, but which can thrive only in that realm of necessity as its foundation. The reduction of the working time is the primary condition.» (22) Analyzing the process of the automatisation of work Marcuse says: ÄIn the technique of pacification, aesthetic categories would enter to the degree to which the productive machinery is constructed with a view of the free play of faculties. But against all µtechnological Eros¶ and similar
misconceptions, µlabor cannot become play...¶ Marx¶s statement precludes rigidly all romantic interpretation of the µabolition of labor¶. The idea of such a millennium is as ideological in advanced industrial civilization as it was in the Middle Ages, and perhaps even more so. For man¶s struggle with Nature is increasingly a struggle with his society, whose powers over the individual become more µrational¶ and therefore more necessary than ever before. However, while the realm of necessity continues, its organization with a view of qualitatively different ends would change not only the mode, but also the extent of socially necessary production. And this change in turn would affect the human agents of production and their needs..³ (23) By becoming a total and global order of destruction, capitalism has posed, in a new and far more dramatic way, the question of necessity and freedom, and thus the question of the relation between work and play. No longer is work as such man's most important existential duty, but the fight for preserving the life on earth (and the appropriate work). The struggle for survival has become the modern «realm of necessity» and man will develop on its foundation as a totalizing life-creating being. Modern capitalism «has united» the existential and essential spheres: the struggle for freedom becomes an existential necessity, and the struggle for survival is the basic libertarian challenge. It means that the starting point of libertarian practice are no longer the spheres of work, art and play ± it is man as a totalizing life-creating being which sees his whole life at the existential-essential level, and this means in the context of the fight against capitalism which has turned social institutions, the laws of nature and man into the means for annihilation of life. In this context, work, which realizes man's (life) creative powers and creates a genuine human world, becomes the basic essential activity. Just as today the production of goods (commodities) is at the same time the destruction of life, so in a future society the production of goods will at the same time be the production of healthy living conditions and the creation of a healthy man. The thesis that play is possible only relative to work means that the point of departure is play as an area, and not man as the playing being and thus the subject of totalization (humanization) of social life and nature, which includes work as an interpersonal relation and man's self-creating activity. Instead of work and play as areas alienated from man, the starting point is man as a universal creative being, who treats work in the totality of its totalizing libertarian-creative (life-creative) practice. Then it will be impossible to apply the mechanistic scheme on the «feedback that play has on work», man being only a mediator between the social spheres alienated from him. It is about the domination of man and humanizing interpersonal relations over all social processes; about the humanization of the world through an ever fuller realization of man's playing being; about the totalization of the world through man's (life) creative practice, whereas work, art and «sheer» play («production» of the human in an immediate form) are but forms in which true human powers are realized. From the «adaptive» and instrumentalized working force we have come to man as the totalizing subject
of the entire social life. The abolishment of the dualism of work and play abolishes the dualism of man as homo faber and homo ludens and man becomes the emancipated homo libertas. Fourier has attained the notion of work as play departing from man's erotic nature and emphasizing interpersonal relations, and in that context man's relation to work. Marx criticizes the work which is imposed on man from outside, and where man is a hired worker, and argues for the work of free people, which has become man's «primary life need». Engels, in «Anti-Dühring», speaks of the «productive work» which «instead of being the means for suppression, becomes the means for people's liberation, giving a chance to each individual to perfect his abilities, both physical and spiritual and apply them in all areas, and where work thus turns into pleasure instead of being a burden». (24) Following Marx, Jean Divigno insists on the abolishment of the gap between mental and physical work, and thus the question of the relation between work and play is posed in an essentially different way: «When this difference is abolished, we will get a new picture, new conception of work, and thus of play, and this is something we cannot even imagine now, but we can fight for it. For I believe that things can move in that direction. When man (...), who developed his esthetical, imaginative, and thus productive powers, no longer distinguishes between mental and physical world, imaginativeness will become a common property, while everyday life will be enriched by unimaginable powers that for the time being are the privilege of a small number of people.» (25) Creative work represents the overcoming of the classical division of work and a partial man reduced to a «specialized working force». Instead of being reduced to an operationalized intellect, which means to the technical means for producing «innovations» and reproducing the capital, the creative mind becomes the basis of creative work and the basis of social integration. It is not only the production of useful goods, but also of the visionary: the creation of humanum becomes the creation of the novum and vice versa. Creative work involves realizing the human in a humane way and ensuring the existence by transforming nature in a way which is not destructive and which cultivates man's natural being... A need for work becomes a need for developing creative powers and interpersonal relations and for dealing with the consequences of destroying nature and man as a biological being. It overcomes the partial man and enables the integration of mankind on the basis of the creative mind. Ultimately, work becomes not only a way of ensuring existence, but also of enriching interpersonal relations and of returning man to his human essence. Creative work is a direct form of the production of society as the community of emancipated individuals, which means creative and totalizing sociability. The results of creative work, just as in artistic work, cannot be measured. They cannot be private property, but only the «property» of mankind. Creative work is by its nature limitless both in terms of the development of man's creative powers and in terms of its time and spatial effect. It is the basic form of the totalizing practice which produces an endless (human) world. Creative work is opposed to the
capitalist work which is based on destructive irrationalism. It involves not only the creation of useful goods and the creation of man as a universal creative being, but also the creation of life. Creation is the common denominator of man's universal life-creative activism, while creative effort makes the essence of work and play. The genuine play is the result of man's creative development and at the same time the highest and most direct form in which man produces the human. In that sense, play overcomes art. A creative effort is man's true condition, just as the constant life creative activity of vital organs is the true condition of the organism and the basic condition of life. A playing effort is the most authentic form of the realization of man's life ± his creating force, his will to be human... On it a flight towards new worlds is based. The true result of the creative effort is the development of man's playing being and interpersonal relations, which means the liberation of the playing and the development of a need and ability to play. A constant creation of the human ± this is the way in which man's life-creating pulse should beat. The development of automatization creates the possibility of perceiving the relation between work and play in a completely different way. Marcuse: ÄComplete automation in the realm of necessity would open the dimension of free time as the one in which man¶s private and societal existence would constitute itself. This would be the historical transcendence toward a new civilization.³ (26) He also argues: ³Progress is not a neutral term; it moves toward specific ends, and these ends are defined by the possibilities of ameliorating the human condition. Advanced industrial society is approaching the stage where continued progress would demand the radical subversion of the prevailing direction and organization of progress. This stage would be reached when material production (including the necessary services) becomes automated to the extent that all vital needs can be satisfied while necessary labor time is reduced to marginal time. From this point on, technical progress would transcend the realm of necessity, where it served as the instrument of domination and exploitation which thereby limited its rationality; technique would become subject to the free play of faculties in the struggle for the pacification of nature and of society. (...) Such a state is envisioned in Marx¶s notion of the µabolition of labor¶.³ (27) The shift of industrial labour towards automatization is the greatest contribution of capitalism to the future. However, automatization in itself does not abolish repression but makes it, in the current state of capitalist reproduction, more impersonal and efficient. Limitless possibilities of scientific and technological advances are not founded on limitless possibilities of the development of capitalism, but on the limitless possibilities of the development of man's creative capabilities. Capitalism has set those capabilities into motion and has directed the effects of their development to the destruction of life. The «power of technique» has become from men alienated and capitalistically instrumentalized creative power. The real value of the technological development is not in the creation of «material wealth» but in the
development of man's creative powers that enable the preservation and humanization of life. In this context, the genuine play becomes possible. Man's playing being can be fully developed only when work becomes a form of the free expression of man's universal creative powers. Then play will not be opposed to work and thus a compensatory activity for a lack of humanity, but a creative activity complementary to work, which means the highest form of man's spontaneous realization as a creative being. The more man is capable to freely express in work his creative personality, the more freely and completely will his playing being express itself in play ± and this will be a new incentive to a humanistic innovation of working processes. The fact that work is a purposeful and rational activity does not mean that the way of achieving the given effects cannot contribute to man's humanization, which means that work should acquire increasingly artistic character. Even work which involves the possibility of man's creative expression can be play, but it will not be as complete and spontaneous as a play in which man fully affirms his playing being ± as in the love play which is the creation of the human in a pure sense. What is relative is the «degree» of spontaneity in the expression of man's playing being. Plays are graded according to the possibilities they offer for the expression and development of man's playing being. Love play is the highest form of realization of the playing being, but in it spontaneity and intensity of experiencing the human are not always the same. Work, as a creative human activity which enables the survival of society, is not a negative but a positive foundation of the genuine physical culture based on Rousseau's principle homo homini homo. The industrial as well as the scientific (post-industrial) work have a collectivistic character and are based on cooperation and solidarity. With work becoming not only an existential but also an essential activity ± not only the creation of conditions for freedom but also the affirmation of man as a libertarian being ± the dualism of work and play is abolished, which means that man becomes a unique libertarian-creative being, and work and play are only specific forms of realizing his indivisible human nature. It is not about discarding the principle of performance, it is about its being «placed» into the framework of creativity, that is, of satisfying genuine human needs (instead of producing for the sake of profit). The real result of creativity is not the production of objectiveness, but of men playing being and society as a playing community in an immediate form. The poetical does not only denote the nature of creativity, but also the nature of the one who creates and of that which is created. To reach the level of one's true human powers means to be a free man. The question of genuine play as a concrete social (historical) phenomenon can be posed only departing from the ruling destructive tendency of the development of the world, in the context of the life-creating praxis which is to win a new world. It is about the libertarian play expressing the emancipatory heritage of modern society and the vision of a future world ± through the development of the playing being and man's need of another man. This is what capitalism (by way of sport also) destroys: man's need of another man. Life-creativeness is the essence
of a genuine praxis, while the creation of a human world and ever greater certainty of its survival are its direct and most important result.
Herbert Marcuse: «Liberating Transformation of Nature» Speaking of Hegel's concept of freedom Marcuse says: ÄHegel¶s concept of freedom presupposes consciousness throughout (in Hegel¶s terminology: selfconscious). Consequently, the µrealization¶ of Nature is not, and never can be Nature¶s own work. But inasmuch as Nature is in itself negative (i.e., wanting in its own existence), the historical transformation of Nature by Man is, as the overcoming of this negativity, the liberation of Nature. Or, in Hegel¶s words, Nature is in its essence non-natural ± µGeist¶.³ (28) He continues: ÄHistory is the negation of Nature. What is only natural is overcome and recreated by the power of Reason. The metaphysical notion that Nature comes to itself in history points to the unconquered limits of Reason. It claims them as historical limits ± as a task yet to be accomplished, or rather yet to be undertaken. If Nature is in itself a rational, legitimate object of science, then it is the legitimate object not only of Reason as power but also of Reason as freedom; not only of domination but also of liberation. With the emergence of man as the animal rationale ± capable of transforming Nature in accordance with the faculties of the mind and the capacities of matter ± the merely natural, as the sub-rational, assumes negative status. It becomes a realm to be comprehended and organized by Reason.³ (29) In capitalism the spirit by way of which nature acquires self-conscious is abolished by technique, which does not only have an anti-spiritual (anti-rational) but also an anti-existential character. It is a form in which the powers of nature are instrumentalized in a capitalistic way and have become an anti-natural power. The idea of a «liberating transformation of nature» (30) acquires a concrete historical dimension only in the relation to the process of the destructive capitalist «transformation» of nature. The basic shortcoming of pure nature is not that it is non-rational, but that it cannot prevent the destruction of life on the earth. The «liberating transformation of nature» does not only have a libertarian but, above all, an existential character. The basic condition of human freedom and human survival is not man's liberation from nature, but man's liberation from capitalism. To stop the natural forces from being instrumentalized for the sake of the destruction of life (atomic bomb and other numerous means produced in the capitalist laboratories of death; the development of technique which is based on the «destructive productivity» /Marcuse/ and which is reduced to the destruction of nature and man ...), and preservation of life on the earth by preserving nature as a life-creating environment through its humanisation ± this is the primary task of mankind.
Writing on the domination of «technological rationality» in the «developed industrial society» Marcuse concludes: ÄTheir truth value depended to a large degree on an uncomprehended and unconquered dimension of man and nature, on the narrow limits placed on organization and manipulation, on the µinsoluble core¶ which resisted integration. In the fully developed industrial society, this insoluble core is progressively whittled down by technological rationality. Obviously, when cities and highways and National Parks replace the villages, valleys, and forests; when motorboats race over the lakes and planes cut through the skies ± then these areas lose their character as a qualitatively different reality, as areas of contradiction.³ (31) Marcuse's term «technological rationality», based on the «physical transformation of the world», is but another name for the destructive capitalist irrationality. The destruction of nature includes the destruction of the cultural heritage of mankind created over thousands of years, and based on the organic link between man and nature. Hence the preservation of the cultural heritage based on man's life-creating unity with nature is of primary importance for the development of man's life-creating conscious. Marcuse: ÄAll joy and all happiness derive from the ability to transcend Nature ± a transcendence in which the mastery of Nature is itself subordinated to liberation and pacification of existence. All tranquillity, all delight is the result of conscious mediation, of autonomy and contradiction. Glorification of the natural is part of the ideology which protects an unnatural society in its struggle against liberation. (...) Civilization produces the means for freeing Nature from its own brutality, its own insufficiency, its own blindness, by virtue of the cognitive and transforming power of Reason. And Reason can fulfil this function only as post-technological rationality, in which technic is itself the instrumentality of pacification, organon of the µart of life¶. The function of Reason then converges with the function of Art.³ (32) Marcuse overlooks that nature is by itself cultivating. Rousseau speaks of the «skill of living» which a child will learn in nature that «calls him to a human life». (33) The «brutality of nature» has an existential and life-creating character, unlike capitalism which is destructive ± and to which the anthropological picture of man corresponds: instead of being a «beast», man becomes a «(self) destructive³ being. In sport, which mirrors the true face of capitalism, nature is not free from its shortcomings and brutality, but becomes the object of exploitation and destruction. In it, the body, which is man's immediate nature, becomes an opponent which should be beaten and used for the sake of inhuman ends. Sport does not liberate man from his dependence on the body; it «liberates» him from life. In nature, the struggle for survival is the basis for the survival of the living world: it is life-creating. In capitalism, the struggle for survival is «overcome» by being turned into the destruction of life. It is not based on the struggle for survival between people, but between capitalist concerns, which means that it is not guided by the existential needs of living beings, as is the case in nature, but by inhuman and antiexistential interests of capital. It is not driven by poverty, but by the development of the «consumer society» where the production and acquisition of
goods becomes the way of destroying man as a cultural and biological being, as well as of destroying nature. In capitalism, «nature ceases to be the sheer nature» by being deprived of naturalness and reduced to a sheer object of exploitation and destruction. Since capitalism destroys the natural brutality by destroying nature, it is necessary to fight for its naturalization, which means for its liberation from the capitalist destruction. Natural forces should be turned into the means for preserving and humanizing nature. The liberating possibilities of nature lie in its life-creativeness ± in the creation of living forms. Man is by his nature a lifecreating being and can be cultivated only by respecting his life-creativeness ± as the integral part of nature. Only in nature can man experience the fullness of his human being. The humanization becomes the development (overcoming) of the original naturalness, and not its submission to a rational model, the model of the «noble» and the like. Instead of man appearing as a form in which nature acquires the possibility of being overcome by the «spirit», meaning of attaining the notion of itself and of relating to itself, man should overcome his original natural lifecreativeness (procreation) through the development of his playing being, which means that it should become the basis for the totalization of the world. It is about the transformation of the procreative into the life-creating principle, and about the transformation of the life-creating into the universal creative principle. In capitalism, the instrumental and exploitive relation to nature is the basis of the relation to the human body. It is not a harmonious part of the living nature which, as such, should be respected; it is reduced to the object of processing and the means for achieving inhuman ends. Instead of the working, sporting, technical, consumer and destructive body, libertarian play should develop a creative (poetical) body and a variety of movements (skill as a humanized movement) which will enable man to realize his creative personality. It is not only about the fight for preserving the cultural heritage of mankind and man as a cultural being; it is about the fight for the survival of man as a natural and playing being. Libertarian play should enable the preservation and development of the emancipatory achievements of physical culture which are being destroyed by the «technical civilization». Instead of the naturalization of the body, which is reduced to a machine, we should strive for the humanisation of man's natural being through the development of his playing being, which means through a creative skill by which man is developed as a whole (physical, intellectual, erotic, social) being. It is not about the humanization of technique by way of art; it is about the humanization of man, which means about the development of his universal creative being, which abolishes technique as man's relation to nature alienated from him, and abolishes art as a separate social sphere. Instead of the relation between social spheres alienated from man, which are the basic way of functioning of the «social life», we should insist on the development of immediate relations between people as emancipated playing beings. The world as an artistic creation ± this is the purpose of the fight for the future. By fighting for a new world, the whirl of the human will be created, which will «suck» all that is
alienated from man. Instead of Nietzsche's cosmic energy, life which is alienated from man will start to flow in him again; instead of art being a means for turning the cosmic energy into life, man's creative energy will become the basis for the creation of a new ± human cosmos. Here, together with Marcuse, we could pose the following question: ÄIn view of what this standard has made of Man and Nature, the question must again be asked whether it is worth the sacrifices and the victims made in its defence.³ (34) x x x
Footnotes (1) Ljubodrag Simonovi , Sport, kapitalizam, destrukcija,8-43.p."Lorka",Bgd, 1995. (2) Herbert Markuze, Kultura i dru tvo, 127, 128.p. BIGZ, 1977. (3) Ibid, 126.p. (4) Ibid, 126,127.p. Cursive H. . (5) Theodor Adorno W, Freizeit, Stichworte, 65.p. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a.M, 1969. (6) In : . rx-F. ngels, Dela, 6. , 400.p. , 1974. (7) Friedrich Engels, " ", . x . , , 4. ,13,14.p. , , 1968. Cursive . . (8) . , , . .- . , ,20. .79. p. (9) . , , I , In : . x- . , , 19. . 420.p. , , 1977. (10) Charles Fourier, Civilizacija i novi socijetarni svijet, 244.p. .K, Zagreb, 1980. (11) Ibid, 161.p. (12) Ibid, 85.p. (13) Ibid, 161.p. Cursive .F. (14) , , 180. p. Rad, Beograd, 1963. (15) Milan ngrga, Praksa, vrijeme, svijet, 423.p. Cursive . . (16) Herbert rcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 241.p. Beacon Press, Boston, 1964. (17) Compare: ," ", In : . x- . , , 27. .157,158.p. , , 1979. (18) , , x , , " h ri ", 3, 1983, 119.p.Curs. . . (19) Milan angrga, Praksa, vrijeme, svijet, 64.p. (20) Ibid, 65.p. (21) Ibid, 55.p. Cursive . . (22) Karl rx, apital, III , 682.p. K.M.-F.E, Dela, Prosveta, Bgd, 1977. (23) Herbert rcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 240, 241.p. (24) F. ngels, nti-Dühring, . rx-F. ngels, Dela, 31. , 224.p. (25) In: , , 14, 15.p.
(26) Herbert arcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 37.p. (27) Ibid, 16.p. (28) Ibid, Fus. 236.p. (29) Ibid, 236, 237.p. (30) Herbert Marcuse, ovek jedne dimenzije, 222.p. (31) Ibid, 66.p. (32) Ibid, 238.p. Cursive H. . (33) Compare : an- ak Ruso, mil, 17.p. (34) Herbert Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, 242.p. x x x
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.