You are on page 1of 29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

Juliane Rebentisch

Aestheticization and Democratic Culture

Newsreel cameras, teleprompters, and other equipment set up in the Oval Office for President Truman's address to the nation on international arms reduction,1951.
Photo:Abbie Rowe/National Archives and Records Administration.

The 1990s were dominated by debates about postmodernism, one strand of which was concerned with the so
called aestheticization of the life world. Wolfgang Welsch, for example, wrote in Grenzgnge der sthetik,
The facades get prettier, the shops more animated, the noses more perfect. But such aestheticization reaches
deeper, it affects fundamental structures of reality as such.1 For aestheticization means basically that the
non-aesthetic is made aesthetic or is grasped as being aesthetic.2 However what counts as aestheticization
and which concept of the aesthetic is presupposed can vary, as he goes on to explain:
In the context of an urban environment, aestheticization is referring to the expansion of the beautiful, the pretty, and the
stylish; in advertisement as well as in self understandings it means the growing importance of performance and life style;
in view of the technological determination of the objective world and the social effects of the media, aesthetic
primarily designates virtualization. Finally, aestheticization of consciousness means: We no longer see first or last
foundations, instead reality takes on a condition we formerly only knew with respect to arta condition of being
produced, changeable, non-committal, levitating etc.3

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

1/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

Whereas Welsch, from the perspective of a somewhat generalized constructivism, affirmed these
developments as a move towards the freedom of designing ever more spheres of life,4 others were more
skeptical. Not only did they doubt that postmodern urban space should indeed be characterized by an
expansion of the beautiful and the pretty, they also saw in the postmodern emphasis of the surface a
symptom of an ugly social truth: that of a profound alienation. In their view, the postmodern cult of the
surface was a symptom of a novel domination of simulacra that erodes the substance both of our ethical self
understandings and our political culture. Reality, Rdiger Bubner wrote, gives up its ontological dignity in
favor of an applauded semblance.5 Both sides of the debate, however, assumed that aestheticization is not
just a question of design, but that this question itself should be seen in a broader social context.
Aestheticization of the life-world is thus a formulation with which both sides tried to find a tangible
concept for the state of contemporary Western societies.
However, the agitated argument over the status of a supposedly obvious societal development that dominated
the 1990s was soon to be deflated by sociology, for the philosophical debate remained unfounded as long as it
was possible to question the actual scope of this development.6 As a result, attempts to empirically
substantiate the thesis of the aestheticization of the life-world quickly came in for criticism, such as Gerhard
Schulzes thesis of an experience society brought about by affluence,7 who was in turn accused of falsely
generalizing a phenomenon located in the more privileged part of society.8 Today, the parameters of this
debate seem to have shifted: A much more prominent role is played by studies which show that aesthetic
motifs such as creativity, spontaneity and originality are no longer signs of a sphere of freedom lying beyond
the necessities of social reproduction, but have themselves become an important productive force in the
capitalist economic system. According to this research, these motifs have turned into crucial social demands,
representing an increase of constraints rather than freedom.9 In any case, sociology seems to have become
the central location for serious debate on how to appropriately describe, explain and evaluate the crucial
position of aesthetically connoted criteria both for individuals and for the organization of society in Western
democracies.

Three examples of parliament floorplans arranged by typology: opposing benches, semicircle,and classroom. Photo: XML /www.parliamentbook.com

But as relevant as these debates are, I believe that philosophy has been wrong to retreat from them. After all,
the diagnosis of aestheticization implies an assumption about the undistorted essence of both ethics and
politics, which is not merely an empirical, but systematic question. The specific approach of philosophy in the
context of contemporary diagnoses, however, can only become fully visible once we turn away from the
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

2/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

business of diagnosing the present and turn to the history of philosophy. Contrary to the impression raised by
recent debates, aestheticization in no way represents simply a contemporary problem; and traditionally, the
concept is much more philosophical than is suggested by the largely sociological character of the current
discourse. In fact, philosophical discussion of the challenges posed by certain aesthetic motifs for
understanding ethics and politics even goes back to antiquity. The history of practical philosophy can even be
seen as a history of crisis-diagnoses that have sought to combat the invasion of the aesthetic and its
disintegrating effects into the spheres of ethics and politics. Without a reflection on the long history of this
discourse the claim that the aestheticization of the life-world represents a new phenomenon and a new
epoch will remain questionable. Without a detailed discussion of the problems that practical philosophy has
historically ascribed to the aesthetic, our judgment of current developments will be in danger of either
merely carrying over old prejudices into the present, e.g. by criticizing a supposedly novel domination of
simulacra, or we will end up becoming a part of an old problem rather than a part of the solution, e.g. by
becoming proponents of a supposedly new, constructivist relation to ourselves and the world. In order to
clarify the philosophical assumptions that at least indirectly influence these debates, we require a historical
and systematic discussion of the history of the philosophical critique of aestheticization.
As I have already indicated, this history begins in antiquity, or more precisely, with Platos critique of
democratic culture in The Republic. Plato mistrusts the colorful plurality of life-forms in a democracy, as
well as the dazzling democrats that have learned from (theatre) poets that it is possible to adopt several
roles in life. He even sees a major problem in the pretty appearance of democratic culture and its privileged
life-form. For according to Platos diagnosis, the logic of appearances constitutes the essence of democracy
itself: The ethical commitment to the good gets replaced by an aesthetic stylization of existence, while good
government (i.e. government that is committed to the good) gets replaced by an uncontrolled spectacle that
seduces the people. For Plato, this logic is a small, dangerously subtle step on the path from democracy to
tyranny. What is astounding about this diagnosis from antiquity is how familiar its central motifs are even
today. Indeed, these motifs were picked up again in the philosophical discourse at the beginning of modernity
(around 1800) and have continued to play an important role into the twentieth century and beyond. But why
does Plato, of all thinkers, prove to be such a decisive source when it comes to naming the problems of
modern democracy, or rather the problems associated with its aestheticized culture? After all, the model of
democracy in antiquity cannot be applied to modern democracies; just as little can the arts of antiquity, which
Plato criticized for their subversive influence on morals, be equated with modern art-forms. Nevertheless, it
is no accident that modern philosophical thought on the matter draws on the work of Plato.
Plato invented a type of critique that has become so crucial for modernity that, despite the obvious
differences between antiquity and modernity, a good deal of conceptual effort has been undertaken to revive
it. Plato connects his analysis of various forms of government with his investigation ofto put it in modern
termsforms of subjectivization. The connection between government and self-government takes on greater
significance in modernity, despite the fact that the organization of the state is no longer regarded as mirroring
that of the soul, as is suggested at several points in The Republic. However, if we take a closer look at Platos
account of this connection, we find the more complex argument that government and self-government are
not merely similar to each other, but rather that they form an analogous unity via their respective relation to a
value that is central to both, which in the case of democratic culture, is freedom. This thesis on the
relationship between ethics and politics is what has remained crucial to the modern critique of
aestheticization, and the key to the modern debate on aestheticization is likewise the problem of freedom. If
the diagnosis of aestheticization sometimes more, sometimes less explicitly refers to democratic culture, then
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

3/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

the freedom that defines this culture is the systematic problem with which it is both ethically and politically
concerned.
More precisely, what is at stake is a concept of freedom associated with aesthetic motifs, namely a form of
freedom that contradicts social practices, their normative orders and the corresponding identities or roles. It
does so by giving private motives (moods, pleasure, taste) such a clear priority over conformity to a given
social order that they come to dominate the way that individuals determine their own lives. Critics of
aestheticization fear that such a private model of freedom, if successful in establishing itself in society, will
have a disintegrating effect on the political community. At best, social bonds will be replaced by aesthetic
relations; and where there are no longer any social bonds, the staging of community becomes a politically
decisive force. Yet the staging of community, as critics of aestheticization go on to argue, does not create
community. On the contrary, not only does it barely conceal the fact that it is only necessary because the
collective has been undermined from within by the aesthetic self-understandings of its (non-)members, but it
is only capable of producing a community to the degree that it simultaneously establishes a divide between
those that produce the community and those whoagain in the form of moods, pleasure and tastereceive
it. The political community thus disintegrates into a spectacle and an audience.
Because of its disintegrating effects, the aesthetic form of freedom has been denounced as a degenerate
freedom by Plato or as caprice or arbitrariness (Willkrfreiheit) by Hegel. In the history of the
philosophical critique of aestheticization very different conceptual presuppositions have been employed in
order to deliver proof, and it is here that the gap between modernity and antiquity becomes particularly
visible. However, since Hegels objection to the romantic ironist, this critique has taken the shape of a
reference to the constitutive role of social practices for the unfolding of individual freedom. Without
question, this reference is still justified today. It captures extreme constructivist positions that reduce the
possibility for shaping ones own life to a question of individual ethics,10 as well as all those who argue that
Foucaults demand not to be governed like that refers to the entirety of lifejust as if a life beyond all
social determination were desirable or even possible.11 Not only is everybody always involved in social
practices, but any understanding of the self requires social recognition in order to be realized.12
But by exclusively associating aesthetic freedom with freedom from the social in toto, the critique of
aestheticization conceals another, more productive interpretation: Distance from the social does not
necessarily entail a distance from all social determinacya distance that would be as abstract as indeed
imaginary. We could also grasp this distance in a different way: not as a model for the life of the subject, but as
a productive element of it. Referring to aesthetic existence, to dazzling life-forms, does not mean
demonstrating and defending abstract freedom from the social, but rather the mutability of the social itself.
The aestheticization of freedom would then no longer stand for the misunderstanding of a kind of freedom
from the social, in a kind of non-dialectic opposition, to freedom in the social. Rather, it would express the
tension at the heart of the life of every individual. Changes of the self are not brought about by a pseudosuperior subject standing above all social identity. Instead, such changes are rooted in experiences of selfdifference, which compel the subject to reconceive of itself, its self-understanding, and the meaning of its
subjectivity from a distance. I do not distance myself from an overly disciplined self-understanding, for
example, by placing myself over this understandingas if I were the sovereign of my own sovereigntybut,
to the contrary, by experiencing desires that counter them in such a way that I (by laughing about myself)
become free for new, probably more appropriate self-images. Whoever lives within the misunderstanding of
solipsistic self-production is thus just as unfree as those who have never had the experience of distance from
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

4/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

themselves, their social roles and its corresponding expectations. It is only possible to mediate between both
sides of this tense relationship if we grasp them as elements in a process in which we can change both
ourselves and the social practices of which we are a part.13 Indeed we would misunderstand the changes in
ourselves if we took them to be merely private changes. Through these changes we change the practices of
which we too are a part. Occasionally this can occur without our noticing, while in other cases it can lead to
collisions between ourselves and existing practices, a collision that can only be removed by making explicit
changes to either ourselves or the world. That I now choose to understand myself differently can also mean
that in order to be able to live out my new self-understanding I must enter into a struggle for recognition.
To defend the possibility of such change, however, means to defend the possibility of changing given
determinations of the good as a good in itself. The form of government that has integrated the possibility of
questioning given determinations of the good into the concept of the good itself isas Plato already clearly
recognizeddemocracy. It is the only form of government in which it is allowed to publicly criticize
everything, to publicly call everything into questionincluding the shape of democracy itself. Because it
remains open, despite all the risk involved, to re-determinations of the good, and thus to the possibility of a
more just order, democracy remainsto cite the now famous formulation employed by Jacques Derridato
come.14 Yet this is not meant, as Derrida is often misunderstood, as an eternal suspension until the arrival of
a coming messiah of democracy. On the contrary, our determinations of the good are all that we have for
realizing our freedom in the here and now. Democratic openness to future events neither means openness for
the sake of openness, nor is this a fundamental criticism of normative determinations in general. Rather, it
emphasizes the possibility of historical revision. For precisely this reason, democracy, to cite Claude Lefort, is
the historical society par excellence.15 Yet due to its insight into the historicity of the good, democracy indeed
has an internal connection to what has been criticized as the aestheticization of the political. We can make
plausible that participants in social practices are always potential non-participants, and thus also that
members of society are potential non-members, such that the meaning of social practices can be called into
question at any time. If this is the case, then the immediate result will be a critique of pre-political
conceptions of the order and unity of the political collective. Neither the order nor the unity of the
community can simply be presupposed; rather its character is revealed to be a political determination.
Furthermore, this means that the unity of the community, along with the order within which it is grasped,
must be politically created, produced, staged. Because democracy knows neither order nor unity beyond
political representation, it not only stands in clear opposition to Platos anti-democratic conception of the
natural political order, but also concerns the idea of collective self-government, an idea that is central to the
modern understanding of democracy. This latter point has far-reaching consequences, for if it is true that the
self of collective self-government cannot be assumed to be a unified will and that it must first be brought
forth by political representation, then this means that the demos of democracy can never exist beyond the
separation thereby established between representatives and the represented, producers and receivers, the
rulers and the ruled, performers and the audience. The demos can therefore never exist outside of relations of
power and domination; it never exists as such. In fact, sovereign power and authority are presumed the
moment someone steps forward and claims to speak for everyone, yet the people being spoken for are
helpless against this presumption of power only to the extent that they are blinded by measures designed to
conceal the elements of sovereignty and rhetoric entailed by this act. The democratic answer to the problem
of sovereign power does not consist in concealing the latter, but in exhibiting it and thus exposing it to an
examination of its legitimacy. For it is precisely through this democratically understood aestheticization of
the political that democracy preserves its openness to the future. On the democratic political stage, the
representatives of the demos must justify themselves before those whose will they represent; they must face a
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

5/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

heterogeneous audience whose members always potentially have or develop alternative conceptions of the
democratic general will, which can ultimately be asserted publicly as a (counter) power in opposition to the
currently prevailing conception.16

A view of Le Corbusier'sPalace of Assembly (1963),a legislative assembly designed by the noted architectand part of his The Capitol
Complex,Chandigarh, India.Photo: XML

Such a defense of an aesthetic, even theatrical dimension of democracy, of the necessity of representation
(and the sovereignty that comes with it) does not mark the end of a critique of representation but its
beginning. Contrary to the generalized critique of all forms of political stagings or the media, we now need a
critique in the original sense of the term, i.e. as differentiation. First of all, we must distinguish the aesthetic
of totalitarian stagings of unity and of post-democratic disintegration from the political stagings in which
democratic power justifies itself before the demos that it claims to represent. Within the framework of
totalitarian mass spectacles, for example, everything serves the ideological expression of unity. However, the
realization of such a totality, which excludes any kind of division, can only be had at an extraordinarily high
price. To the degree that power succumbs to the madness, as Claude Lefort and Marcel Gauchet write, of
embodying the position of universality and articulating the true general will, power necessarily passes over
into the particular: Instead of the universality to which it lays claim, we only perceive the arbitrariness of
rules and decisions, the narrow bias of judgment and the constant resort to brute force.17 The contradiction
of totalitarianism consists of the fact that the sought-for elimination of all divisions within society requires a
power that separates itself from this society and thereby divides itself between the claim of its transcendence
and its factual social immanence.18 The fact that totalitarian rule is doomed in spite of all the compulsory
measures at its disposal does not eliminate the possibility that the totalitarian vision can succeed in reality
even if only for a certain time, which history has shown to be necessarily too long.19

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

6/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

Italian police officers covered inpink paintbystudents protesting a school reform plan in Milan, Italy, March 12, 2015.

In its own way, post-democracy, too, is determined, like totalitarianism, by the ideological conception of a
complete accordance of power and society.20 Only this time the idea of accordance is accompanied by a visual
culture that is not shaped by an aesthetic of unity, but by an aesthetic of disintegration; it is precisely the
endless openness of this culture which proves to be especially inclusive. Post-democratic power denies itself
up to a point at which it negates its own sovereignty to define the common good and instead merely claims to
manage economic necessities and constraints.21 To the degree that power legitimates its actions by invoking
its own powerlessness, the responsibility for the state of society and the situation of each individual is pushed
onto the governed (and no longer onto the government), thereby equating itself with the image of a
(neoliberal) classless society that embraces even the poorest of the poor by according them the potential for
creative self-realization. Each individual should see himself as his own militant, 22 as a bundle of energy that
can be molded to fit into continuously new contexts with new contracts, all the while viewing themselves as
being in pursuit of their own pleasures. You just have to want it. In terms of a politics of representation this
corresponds to a regime of the all-visible which eliminates the distinction between image and reality; all
citizens are granted the opportunity to present themselves and their individual particularity, but they are no
longer met with the expectation of a demand for political representation. By granting each person the
possibility of individual visibility, post-democracy claims that it has given each person his or her just due. In
both aesthetic and political terms, this recalls the nightmare of a society that has taken on the form of an
afternoon talk show.
Both extremes demonstrate the urgency to not only defend a democratic setting in which power appears and
must legitimize itself as such, but also the many stages on which arguments about the appropriate
representation of the demos, about the respective version of the general will, can be carried out. These are the
different, partially interlocking dimensions of democratic life on which the self-difference of the demos can
occur: it not only appears in the relation between the government and the non-parliamentary opposition, but
also in the relation between the government and the parliamentary opposition; between politics and the
media; between the media and the citizens; and finally, between citizen and man, the limit of democratic
community. Those cases in which one or more of these differences are absorbed or ignored should appear to
be a problem, such as whenever human rights are equated with the civil rights granted by nation-states, or
when the relationship between the government and the opposition is eliminated in favor of a one-party state;
when free speech and the right to protest are restricted, or when the influence of economic and/or political
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

7/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

power blurs the line between politics and the media. Within this perspective, discussions about different
formats and strategies of political communications, or the role of new technologies and media for the
formation of publics and counter-publics, gain critical relevance.
Defending the levels of democratic life that bear witness to a conflict over various views of what is publicly
relevant, of what constitutes the common will, means abandoning the conception of democracy as the final,
good form of rule in which the problem of sovereignty has been overcome, just because the people itself
takes up the position of the sovereign, for this conception presupposes the problematic fiction of an identity
of the demos with itself. Given the unforeseeable heterogeneity of its (non-)members, this notion of
democracy is a structurally totalitarian one. The insight that the demos never exists outside its representation
implies, as we have seen, the recognition of an element of sovereignty at the very foundation of democratic
societies. However, this is not the unfortunate death, but the beginning of democratic politics. For this is the
kind of politics whose dynamic derives from the experience of the self-difference of the demos, in which
democracy is realized only by means of a constant struggle over the nature of its very concept.
Superhumanity, a project by e-flux Architecture at the 3rd Istanbul Design Biennial, is produced in cooperation with the Istanbul Design
Biennial, the National Museum of Modern and Contemporary Art, Korea, the Govett-Brewster Art Gallery, New Zealand, and the Ernst
Schering Foundation.
The text documents a lecture in which the author summarized some of the theses from her book The Art of Freedom. On the Dialectics of
Democratic Existence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2016) for discussion.
Juliane Rebentisch is Professor of Philosophy and Aesthetics at the University of Arts and Design in Offenbach/Main, Germany.

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

8/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

9/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

10/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

11/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

12/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

13/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

14/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

15/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

16/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

17/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

Notes - Aestheticization a

Related

Wolfgang Welsch, sthetisierungsprozesse


Phnomene, Unterscheidungen,
Perspektiven, in: ders., Grenzgnge der
sthetik, 1996: 20.
Go to Text

Ibid, 20f.
Go to Text

Ibid, 21.
Go to Text

Ibid, 55.
Go to Text

For this position see Rdiger Bubner,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
sthetische Erfahrung (Frankfurt/Main:
Suhrkamp, 1989), 150.
Go to Text

This is Axel Honneths justified objection to


this past discussion: See Axel Honneth,
sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, in
Desintegration: Bruchstcke einer soziologischen
Zeitdiagnose (Frankfurt/Main: Fischer, 1994),
29f.
Go to Text

See Gerhard Schulze, The Experience Society


(London: Sage, 1995).
Go to Text

For a critique on Schulze, see Honneth,


sthetisierung der Lebenswelt, 37f.
Go to Text

For the more recent tendency, see Luc


Boltanski & ve Chiapello, The New Spirit of
Capitalism (London: Verso, 2007).
Go to Text

More

10 On the justified critique of a reduction of life


to the disposable material of an individual
http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

18/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux
to the disposable material of an individual
who is proud of his autonomy, see the
discussion in Kritik der Lebenskunst, eds.
Wolfgang Kersting and Claus Langbehn
(Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp, 2007), 8.
Go to Text

11 See Michel Foucault, What is Critique, in


The Politics of Truth, ed. Sylvere Lotringer
(Los Angeles: Semiotext(e), 2007), 44.
Go to Text

12 See Axel Honneth, Diagnose der


Postmoderne, in Desintegration, 18f.
Go to Text

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

19/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

20/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

21/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

22/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

23/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

24/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

25/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

26/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

27/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

28/29

14/01/2017

AestheticizationandDemocraticCultureSuperhumanitySuperhumanityeflux

http://www.eflux.com/architecture/superhumanity/68662/aestheticizationanddemocraticculture/

29/29