Ortega
By Richard Sale
The Revolt of the Masses is the English translation of José Ortega y Gasset's book La rebelión de las masas. The Spanish original was first published as a series of articles in and as a book in 1930.
I read this at college and was a great admirer of the lucid, factual well-reasoned prose of Ortega. I have been reading it again, and am forwarding some of the arguments. I don’t agree many of them, but wanted to have the comments of those on the site who may see this topic more clearly.
The text begins below.
Strictly speaking, the mass, as a psychological fact, can be defined
without waiting for individuals to appear in mass formation. In the
presence of one individual we can decide whether he is “mass” or
not. The mass is all that which sets no value on itself- good or ill based
on specific grounds, but which feels itself “just like
everybody,” and nevertheless is not concerned about it; is, in fact,
quite happy to feel itself as one with everybody else. Imagine a
humble-minded man who, having tried to estimate his own worth
on specific grounds- asking himself if he has any talent for this or
that, if he excels in any direction- realizes that he possesses no
quality of excellence. Such a man will feel that he is mediocre and
commonplace, ill-gifted, but will not feel himself “mass.”
When one speaks of “select minorities” it is usual for the evil-minded to twist the sense of this expression, pretending to be unaware that
the select man is not the petulant person who thinks himself
superior to the rest, but the man who demands more of himself
than the rest, even though he may not fulfill in his person those
higher exigencies. For there is no doubt that the most radical
division that it is possible to make of humanity is that which splits
it into two classes of creatures: those who make great demands on
themselves, piling up difficulties and duties; and those who
demand nothing special of themselves, but for whom to live is to
be every moment what they already are, without imposing on
themselves any effort towards perfection; mere buoys that float on
the waves. This reminds me that orthodox Buddhism is composed
of two distinct religions: one, more rigorous and difficult, the other
easier and more trivial: the Mahayana- “great vehicle” or “great
path”- and the Hinayana- “lesser vehicle” or “lesser path.” The
decisive matter is whether we attach our life to one or the other
vehicle, to a maximum or a minimum of demands upon ourselves.
The division of society into masses and select minorities is, then,
not a division into social classes, but into classes of men, and
cannot coincide with the hierarchic separation of “upper” and
“lower” classes. It is, of course, plain that in these “upper” classes,
when and as long as they really are so, there is much more
likelihood of finding men who adopt the “great vehicle,” whereas
the “lower” classes normally comprise individuals of minus
quality. But, strictly speaking, within both these social classes,
there are to be found mass and genuine minority.
As we shall see, a characteristic of our times is the predominance,
even in groups traditionally selective, of the mass and the vulgar.
Thus, in the intellectual life, which of its essence requires and
presupposes qualification, one can note the progressive triumph of
the pseudo-intellectual, unqualified, unqualifiable, and, by their
very mental texture, disqualified. Similarly, in the surviving
groups of the “nobility”, male and female. On the other hand, it is
not rare to find to-day amongst working men, who before might be
taken as the best example of what we are calling “mass,” nobly
disciplined minds.
There exist, then, in society, operations, activities, and functions of
the most diverse order, which are of their very nature special, and
which consequently cannot be properly carried out without special?
gifts. For example: certain pleasures of an artistic and refined
character, or again the functions of government and of political
judgment in public affairs. Previously these special activities were
exercised by qualified minorities, or at least by those who claimed
such qualification.
The mass asserted no right to intervene in them; they realized that
if they wished to intervene they would necessarily have to acquire
those special qualities and cease being mere mass. They recognized
their place in a healthy dynamic social system. If we now revert to the facts indicated at the start, they will appear clearly as the heralds of a changed attitude in the mass. They all indicate that the mass has decided to advance to the foreground of social life, to occupy the places, to use the instruments and to enjoy the pleasures hitherto reserved to the few. It is evident, for example, that the places were never intended for the multitude, for their dimensions are too limited, and the crowd is continuously overflowing; thus manifesting to our eyes and in the clearest manner the new phenomenon: the mass, without ceasing to be mass, is supplanting the minorities.
No one, I believe, will regret that people are to-day enjoying
themselves in greater measure and numbers than before, since they
have now both the desire and the means of satisfying it. The evil
lies in the fact that this decision taken by the masses to assume the
activities proper to the minorities is not, and cannot be, manifested
solely in the domain of pleasure, but that it is a general feature of
our time. Thus- to anticipate what we shall see later- I believe that
the political innovations of recent times signify nothing less than
the political domination of the masses. The old democracy was
tempered by a generous dose of liberalism and of enthusiasm for
law. By serving these principles the individual bound himself to
maintain a severe discipline over himself. Under the shelter of
liberal principles and the rule of law, minorities could live and act.
Democracy and law- life in common under the law- were
synonymous. Today we are witnessing the triumphs of a
hyperdemocracy in which the mass acts directly, outside the law,
imposing its aspirations and its desires by means of material
pressure. It is a false interpretation of the new situation to say that
the mass has grown tired of politics and handed over the exercise
of it to specialized persons. Quite the contrary. That was what
happened previously; that was democracy. The mass took it for
granted that after all, in spite of their defects and weaknesses, the
minorities understood a little more of public problems than it did
itself. Now, on the other hand, the mass believes that it has the
right to impose and to give force of law to notions born in the cafe.
I doubt whether there have been other periods of history in which
the multitude has come to govern more directly than in our own.
That is why I speak of hyperdemocracy. The same thing is happening in other orders, particularly in the intellectual. I may be mistaken,
The same thing is happening in other orders, particularly in the
intellectual. I may be mistaken, but the present-day writer, when
he takes his pen in hand to treat a subject which he has studied
deeply, has to bear in mind that the average reader, who has never
concerned himself with this subject, if he reads does so with the
view, not of learning something from the writer, but rather, of
pronouncing judgment on him when he is not in agreement with
the commonplaces that the said reader carries in his head. If the
individuals who make up the mass believed themselves specially
qualified, it would be a case merely of personal error, not a
sociological subversion. The characteristic of the hour is that the
commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the
assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose
them wherever it will. The mass crushes beneath it everything
that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified
and select. Anybody who is not like everybody, who does not
think like everybody, runs the risk of being eliminated. And it is
clear, of course, that this “everybody” is not “everybody.”
“Everybody” was normally the complex unity of the mass and the
divergent, specialized minorities. Nowadays, “everybody” is the
mass alone. Here we have the formidable fact of our times,
described without any concealment of the brutality of its features.
The sovereignty of the unqualified individual, of the human being as such, generically, has now passed from being a juridical idea or ideal to be a psychological state inherent in the average man. And note this, that when what was before an ideal becomes a component part of reality, it inevitably ceases to be an ideal. The prestige and the magic that are attributes of the ideal are volatilized. The leveling demands of a generous democratic inspiration have been changed from aspirations and ideals into appetites and unconscious assumptions.
Now, the meaning of this proclamation of the rights of man was
none other than to lift human souls from their interior servitude
and to implant within them a certain consciousness of mastery and
dignity. Was it not this that it was hoped to do, namely, that the
average man should feel himself master, lord, and ruler of himself
and of his life? Well, that is now accomplished…You want the ordinary man to be master. Well, do not be surprised if he acts for himself, if he demands all forms of enjoyment, if he firmly asserts his will, if he refuses all kinds of service, if he ceases to be docile to anyone, if he considers his own person and his own leisure, if he is careful as to dress: these are some of the attributes permanently attached to the consciousness of mastership.
To-day we find them taking up their abode in the ordinary man, in
the mass.
Recent Comments