Scan barcode
alexanderp's review
challenging
reflective
medium-paced
3.25
Not sure if this was a translation issue or just Ortega's writing, but I found this much denser than it may have warranted. I believe Ortega does a masterful job summarizing the mass movements at the turn of the century and he is even prophetic of what comes next with WWII and the 50s and 60s. I would say that even a lot of what he speaks of concerning "mass man" applies to today, almost 100 years later.
That said, there's a lot of symbols and images that are too obtuse for the points that he is getting to.
That said, there's a lot of symbols and images that are too obtuse for the points that he is getting to.
ekul's review
4.0
This was a book that I appreciated quite a lot. In it, Ortega argues that modernity is defined by the rise of the "mass man," who could be from any class and is only defined by its status as not-a-minority. In Ortega's conception, the "working masses" is an entirely different concept from "mass man," although there is some overlap. Ortega finds that the crisis the West is facing (in the 1930s) is the disappearance of morality under the rapid changes of the nineteenth century. He finds that nationalists are a dying breed, who resurged as a form of conservatism before nations weakened ("The last flare, the longest; the last sigh, the deepest. On the very eve of their disappearance there is an intensification of frontiers--military and economic."). He dislikes Marxists, but he despises Bolshevism (indeed, he does separate the two: "[. . .] Marxian Socialism and Bolshevism mare two historical phenomena which have hardly a single common denominator."). He also despises fascism, which he finds more despicable than any labor movement.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.
Perhaps his most interesting insight (from the perspective of the historian, at least) is that he finds that Bolshevism may become more popular in Europe because Europeans want to do something to better their societies (perhaps this could be a source of morality), and the Bolsheviks seemed to do this quite effectively through Five Year Plans. However, Ortega rejects this and finds that it would be best to "[build] Europe into a great national State" as the only way Bolshevism could be counteracted. I don't think I quite agree with him on this, but it does seem that numerous architects of the European Community (and later, the European Union) would agree. In doing so, Europeans could establish a new form of Europe-wide morality, although he problematically seems to think of Slavs as not-Europeans (pitting a "Slavonic" code against a European code, and a Slavically-coded Bolshevik project against a more universalist European project).
Above all, Ortega seems almost to represent the pinnacle of progressivism. Although he finds it necessary to look to the past to root oneself in history, he rejects the insularity of nationalism, the specter of Communism, and the violence of fascism. Instead, he looks towards a fundamentally progressive, liberal, and universalist vision of the future that builds continuities with the past. I think, generally, his analysis is decent if flawed, but he does have an admirable vision of what the future may hold and I think it is one that we would all do well to remember, especially in these times of nationalist populism.
kxowledge's review
5.0
A book that it's prone to misunderstandings (especially with Americans, which is further proof that the USA is a paradise for the masses), yet incredibly relevant to the current age - a historical period not separate from the one Ortega y Gasset originally talked about, in which the same phenomenon thrives. Worth reading not just for the main thesis, but for all of the philosophical underpinnings.
This is a summary that does not in no way do justice to the depth of the book but nevertheless: The central thesis is clearly posed in the title – the rise of the masses . By 'masses’ he defines multitudes of people who think in the same way. The rise of the masses has brought a crisis – it’s the triumph of pseudo-intellecutals doing activities that were the prerogative of qualified minorities before. The dominion of the masses is especially clear in the recent political innovations (a hyperdemocracy in which the mass acts directly, outside the law, imposing its aspirations and its desires by means of material pressure). Now, ‘Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated’. By rise, he means appropriation and expansion, sprung from a democratic inspiration but turned in arrogant presumptions, which has led to a levelling of the society. The feeling finds correspondence in the increase in the worlds’ possibilities – more precisely, an increase of vital potentiality in a world of comfort; yet ‘we live at a time when man believes himself fabulously capable of creation, but he does not know what to create’. The current society - The Self-Satisfied Age - looks back on the past with a feeling of superiority, and looks ahead expecting always progress. Yet it is disoriented and does not know how to act. And ‘when the mass acts on its own, it does so only in one way, for it has no other: it lynches. It is not altogether by chance that lynch law comes from America, for America is, in a fashion, the paradise of the masses.’
An interesting parallel to be made, I think, is with Vico’s cycles – with us being the declining end before an new one, just like the end of the Roman Empire declined into the middle ages.
This is a summary that does not in no way do justice to the depth of the book but nevertheless: The central thesis is clearly posed in the title – the rise of the masses . By 'masses’ he defines multitudes of people who think in the same way. The rise of the masses has brought a crisis – it’s the triumph of pseudo-intellecutals doing activities that were the prerogative of qualified minorities before. The dominion of the masses is especially clear in the recent political innovations (a hyperdemocracy in which the mass acts directly, outside the law, imposing its aspirations and its desires by means of material pressure). Now, ‘Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated’. By rise, he means appropriation and expansion, sprung from a democratic inspiration but turned in arrogant presumptions, which has led to a levelling of the society. The feeling finds correspondence in the increase in the worlds’ possibilities – more precisely, an increase of vital potentiality in a world of comfort; yet ‘we live at a time when man believes himself fabulously capable of creation, but he does not know what to create’. The current society - The Self-Satisfied Age - looks back on the past with a feeling of superiority, and looks ahead expecting always progress. Yet it is disoriented and does not know how to act. And ‘when the mass acts on its own, it does so only in one way, for it has no other: it lynches. It is not altogether by chance that lynch law comes from America, for America is, in a fashion, the paradise of the masses.’
An interesting parallel to be made, I think, is with Vico’s cycles – with us being the declining end before an new one, just like the end of the Roman Empire declined into the middle ages.
More...