Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant, Flawed, Quoatable & Required
Review: "Imagination is the liberating power possessed by man." (p. 155)[In the book Ortega y Gasset uses the terms "men of excellence" and "mass man." I will use his terms in this review, rather than trying to be politically correct and be more gender inclusive. If you need more gender inclusive language, be a person of excellence, read the book, and write a better review ' ;-)] Jose Ortega y Gasset, once a "Liberal" legislator in the doomed Spanish Republic, wrote Revolt of the Masses 70 years too soon. This elitist book, although seriously flawed, makes numerous excellent points, demands to be read in these opening years of the 21st Century, and should be quoted, frequently, publicly, and with great fervor. His elitism echoes through the writings of authors such as Robert Heinlein. This is exemplified in Starship Troopers, where men of excellence are chosen via military service; as does The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, where men of excellence outwait the yammering groups of "Mass Man" and then create a constitution, perceived as being democratically created. Ortega y Gasset postulates that "mass man" has come to demand privilege without responsibility. With no idea of the workings of modern life, mass man expects it served up to him on a silver platter. Mass man pays no homage to the "men of excellence" who create, who move society forward, who shoulder responsibility. Ortega y Gasset's fatal flaw is his inability to separate the passivism and immaturity in "mass man," which is a response to the infantilizing power of a hierarchical paradigm of domination, from the inherent state of mankind, which is excellence. While only a small vanguard may rise out of that passivity while dominated and enslaved, numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate the fallacy of Ortega y Gasset's argument. Two brief counter-examples: the Spanish anarchists (see The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936, by Murray Bookchin; Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, and the movie Land and Freedom) and the open source community. In the areas of Spain where anarchists took control, people worked together efficiently to oppose the Fascist insurgency. Franco's forces were held back by anarchists militias, working democratically, with little hierarchical structure. Anarchists organized the labor forces and ran factories by worker control, producing weapons and supplies. Bookchin tells us that these anarchists were a disciplined lot: The more dedicated men, once having decided to embrace the "Idea [anarchism]," abjured smoking and drinking, avoided brothels, and purged their talk of "foul" language. They believed these traits to be "vices"--demeaning to free people and fostered deliberately by ruling classes to corrupt and enslave the workers spiritually." (p. 48) "Anarchist-influenced unions gave higher priority to leisure and free time for self-development than to high wages and economic gains." (p. 50) This is not the behavior which Ortega y Gasset attributes to mass man. This is the behavior of his "men of excellence." Examining this evidence we find that when people are free, they are also free to be excellent. In the "open source" community (those who brought us Linux, Gnu, etc.), we also find "men of excellence." We find people, free from corporate domination, who, without remuneration, have created one of the most sophisticated and reliable software systems for the mass market today. (Linux has been described as far more stable, efficient, and powerful than any Microsoft Windows product.) Again, freedom breeds excellence. The paradigm of domination and power-over does not exist in the open source community the way it does in a commercial environment. Nevertheless, Ortega y Gasset has served up an apt description of the "typical" American, who watches 35 hours of TV each week and feels the ideas he absorbs from Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Matt Drudge, and the late news equal the work of serious scholars and intellectuals. Most of us Americans have long since abdicated our power and responsibility to "somebody else." We don't really trust our government, but we expect somebody else to fix it. We are the "mass man" who demands more government services, fewer taxes, and a higher quality of living, while refusing to volunteer our time in our communities. I conducted an informal poll in the weeks following the 9/11/01 tragedies. The more American flags a person displayed, the less likely he was to have voted in the 2000 presidential elections! While tens of millions of Americans fought terrorism by putting cheap flag stickers on their windows and automobile antennas, only a small minority of the citizenry took action: from donating blood to working for peace. Ortega y Gasset's contempt for mass man echoes the fear of the Spanish Liberals. They feared both fascism and proletarian liberation movements. They wished to hang on to their middle class privilege without being dominated from above, or being equalized from below. A social and political hierarchy helped them to maintain their privilege. Contrasting this stance with more equalitarian writings is an interesting experience. I recommend that Reane Eisler's Chalice and the Blade also be read, to lend insight on how societies of people of excellence were compelled to become mass man. Daniel Quinn, in his Ishmael books, also deconstructs how societies produce mass man to maintain power hierarchies. One of the most prophetic parts of the book was Ortega y Gasset's exposition on the union of Europe. He saw that the creation of a single European state was an inevitable part of the historical process. Watching the European nations struggle to come together as an economic unit it is easy to see his "prophecy" being fulfilled. He also made a profound statement about the democratic process; one that every flag-waving American ought to consider deeply: "The health of democracies, of whatever type and range, depends on a wretched technical detail'electoral procedure. All the rest is secondary. If the regime of the elections is successful, if it is in accordance with reality, all goes well; if not, though the rest progresses beautifully, all goes wrong." (p. 158) Regardless of how many flags get waved, regardless of how many red-white-and-blue ribons get pinned on clothes, the 2000 election went terribly wrong. The Supreme Court prevented a full and accurate count from being conducted. The man in the White House was not put there by the vote of the American people, but by the vote of the United States Supreme Court. "All [has] gone wrong." The book is full of concise, brilliant, quotables. Here are a few of my favorite: "All of life is the struggle, the effort to be itself. The difficulties which I meet with in order to realise my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilise my activities, my capacities." (p. 99) "Human life has arisen and progressed only when the resources it could count on were balanced by the problems it met with." (p. 101) "If that life of mine, which only concerns myself, is not directed by me towards something, it will be disjointed, lacking in tension and in form. In these years we are witnessing the gigantic spectacle of innumerable human lives wandering about lost in their own labyrinths, through not having anything to which to give themselves." (p. 141) "There is truth only in an existence which feels its acts as irrevocably necessary." (p. 182) Who should read The Revolt of the Masses? Everybody. This book throws down a gauntlet challenging us all to become people of excellence, to participate in shaping our own destinies, rather than handing that over to a few rich men in suits in corporate boardrooms and congressional offices. Ortega y Gasset writes well, better than the average philosopher. The translation from Spanish sacrifices no readability. Although I disagree with him on a major premise, I still must find this book to be a solid, five-star read. (If you'd like to dialogue about this book or review, please click on the "About Me" link above & drop me an email. My website also contains a large number of quotations from the book. Thanks!)
Rating:
Summary: Brilliant, Flawed, Quoatable & Required
Review: "Imagination is the liberating power possessed by man." (p. 155) [In the book Ortega y Gasset uses the terms "men of excellence" and "mass man." I will use his terms in this review, rather than trying to be politically correct and be more gender inclusive. If you need more gender inclusive language, be a person of excellence, read the book, and write a better review ' ;-)] Jose Ortega y Gasset, once a "Liberal" legislator in the doomed Spanish Republic, wrote Revolt of the Masses 70 years too soon. This elitist book, although seriously flawed, makes numerous excellent points, demands to be read in these opening years of the 21st Century, and should be quoted, frequently, publicly, and with great fervor. His elitism echoes through the writings of authors such as Robert Heinlein. This is exemplified in Starship Troopers, where men of excellence are chosen via military service; as does The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, where men of excellence outwait the yammering groups of "Mass Man" and then create a constitution, perceived as being democratically created. Ortega y Gasset postulates that "mass man" has come to demand privilege without responsibility. With no idea of the workings of modern life, mass man expects it served up to him on a silver platter. Mass man pays no homage to the "men of excellence" who create, who move society forward, who shoulder responsibility. Ortega y Gasset's fatal flaw is his inability to separate the passivism and immaturity in "mass man," which is a response to the infantilizing power of a hierarchical paradigm of domination, from the inherent state of mankind, which is excellence. While only a small vanguard may rise out of that passivity while dominated and enslaved, numerous historical examples clearly demonstrate the fallacy of Ortega y Gasset's argument. Two brief counter-examples: the Spanish anarchists (see The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936, by Murray Bookchin; Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell, and the movie Land and Freedom) and the open source community. In the areas of Spain where anarchists took control, people worked together efficiently to oppose the Fascist insurgency. Franco's forces were held back by anarchists militias, working democratically, with little hierarchical structure. Anarchists organized the labor forces and ran factories by worker control, producing weapons and supplies. Bookchin tells us that these anarchists were a disciplined lot: The more dedicated men, once having decided to embrace the "Idea [anarchism]," abjured smoking and drinking, avoided brothels, and purged their talk of "foul" language. They believed these traits to be "vices"--demeaning to free people and fostered deliberately by ruling classes to corrupt and enslave the workers spiritually." (p. 48) "Anarchist-influenced unions gave higher priority to leisure and free time for self-development than to high wages and economic gains." (p. 50) This is not the behavior which Ortega y Gasset attributes to mass man. This is the behavior of his "men of excellence." Examining this evidence we find that when people are free, they are also free to be excellent. In the "open source" community (those who brought us Linux, Gnu, etc.), we also find "men of excellence." We find people, free from corporate domination, who, without remuneration, have created one of the most sophisticated and reliable software systems for the mass market today. (Linux has been described as far more stable, efficient, and powerful than any Microsoft Windows product.) Again, freedom breeds excellence. The paradigm of domination and power-over does not exist in the open source community the way it does in a commercial environment. Nevertheless, Ortega y Gasset has served up an apt description of the "typical" American, who watches 35 hours of TV each week and feels the ideas he absorbs from Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Matt Drudge, and the late news equal the work of serious scholars and intellectuals. Most of us Americans have long since abdicated our power and responsibility to "somebody else." We don't really trust our government, but we expect somebody else to fix it. We are the "mass man" who demands more government services, fewer taxes, and a higher quality of living, while refusing to volunteer our time in our communities. I conducted an informal poll in the weeks following the 9/11/01 tragedies. The more American flags a person displayed, the less likely he was to have voted in the 2000 presidential elections! While tens of millions of Americans fought terrorism by putting cheap flag stickers on their windows and automobile antennas, only a small minority of the citizenry took action: from donating blood to working for peace. Ortega y Gasset's contempt for mass man echoes the fear of the Spanish Liberals. They feared both fascism and proletarian liberation movements. They wished to hang on to their middle class privilege without being dominated from above, or being equalized from below. A social and political hierarchy helped them to maintain their privilege. Contrasting this stance with more equalitarian writings is an interesting experience. I recommend that Reane Eisler's Chalice and the Blade also be read, to lend insight on how societies of people of excellence were compelled to become mass man. Daniel Quinn, in his Ishmael books, also deconstructs how societies produce mass man to maintain power hierarchies. One of the most prophetic parts of the book was Ortega y Gasset's exposition on the union of Europe. He saw that the creation of a single European state was an inevitable part of the historical process. Watching the European nations struggle to come together as an economic unit it is easy to see his "prophecy" being fulfilled. He also made a profound statement about the democratic process; one that every flag-waving American ought to consider deeply: "The health of democracies, of whatever type and range, depends on a wretched technical detail'electoral procedure. All the rest is secondary. If the regime of the elections is successful, if it is in accordance with reality, all goes well; if not, though the rest progresses beautifully, all goes wrong." (p. 158) Regardless of how many flags get waved, regardless of how many red-white-and-blue ribons get pinned on clothes, the 2000 election went terribly wrong. The Supreme Court prevented a full and accurate count from being conducted. The man in the White House was not put there by the vote of the American people, but by the vote of the United States Supreme Court. "All [has] gone wrong." The book is full of concise, brilliant, quotables. Here are a few of my favorite: "All of life is the struggle, the effort to be itself. The difficulties which I meet with in order to realise my existence are precisely what awaken and mobilise my activities, my capacities." (p. 99) "Human life has arisen and progressed only when the resources it could count on were balanced by the problems it met with." (p. 101) "If that life of mine, which only concerns myself, is not directed by me towards something, it will be disjointed, lacking in tension and in form. In these years we are witnessing the gigantic spectacle of innumerable human lives wandering about lost in their own labyrinths, through not having anything to which to give themselves." (p. 141) "There is truth only in an existence which feels its acts as irrevocably necessary." (p. 182) Who should read The Revolt of the Masses? Everybody. This book throws down a gauntlet challenging us all to become people of excellence, to participate in shaping our own destinies, rather than handing that over to a few rich men in suits in corporate boardrooms and congressional offices. Ortega y Gasset writes well, better than the average philosopher. The translation from Spanish sacrifices no readability. Although I disagree with him on a major premise, I still must find this book to be a solid, five-star read. (If you'd like to dialogue about this book or review, please click on the "About Me" link above & drop me an email. My website also contains a large number of quotations from the book. Thanks!)
Rating:
Summary: Penetrating insights
Review: A superbly written book, "The Revolt of the Masses" can be considered of limited value if one views it from a strictly historical perspective. True, Ortega y Gasset, writing in 1932, offered a clear and devastating critique of the tenets of fascism in particular and totalitarianism in general. He is particularly effective when he takes apart fascism's mystical elevation of race, blood and soil, arguing that the popular appeal to these factors was shallow, explained nothing about the process of nation-building, and was used only as a political expedient for the emerging dictatorships of Europe. But one could argue that however effective his argument, Ortega y Gasset, a Spaniard, was in perfect position to critique fascism and its foibles, being able to observe it from a closer perspective than others. After all, the war for men's hearts and minds was fought out in no small part on Spanish soil in the '30s. Ortega y Gasset was also not alone in critiquing the rise of mass man, which is the book's major point. Joseph Wood Krutch, for example, in "The Modern Temper" (an excellent companion to this book) had pointed out that the emergence of mass society and the development of technology had stripped away Man's sustaining illusions, at great cost. "The Revolt of the Masses" decries the leveling of society that the author observes, and the reader is at first made uncomfortable by the argument. I found myself mentally attacking Ortega y Gasset's elitism. I nearly concluded that the book was simply an apologia for an anti-democratic bias and for those who would protect political power from seizure by the common man. On further reflection, though, I concluded that Ortega y Gasset's argument is more complex and that the sustaining power of the book lies in its deeper layers of meaning. While he is certainly elitist, he glorifies the elites who invest in society and contribute to it, not those who simply hold onto power for its own sake and justify their hold by clinging to the past. In fact, he upholds republicanism as the most effective form of government -- and the one most difficult to sustain. His strongest point -- and the one most important for the modern reader -- comes when he says that the mass of men have no appreciation for the labor required to build nations and societies and the commitment required to sustain them. He writes pessimistically that the mass man of his day had little or no appreciation for this effort and considered his place in the world to be justified, rather than earned. This is an old-fashioned message, but in my opinion it was one that we do well to heed today. How many of us today consider our goods and services and access to intellectual and monetary capital -- much less our political rights -- as things that we must constantly struggle to preserve? How many of us take the time to consider the societies in which we live as dynamic, organic entities that must be studied and understood if we are to appreciate their worth? How often do we undertake even a cursory analysis of the routes we have taken to get to where we are today with an eye toward seriously reforming that which needs changed and preserving that which makes society strong? Some might find the author's insistence that mass society must defer to a group of elites repugnant and of course if the idea is embraced simplistically it is just that. But if one is prodded by Ortega y Gasset's demand for a radical commitment to building society, he will quite possibly begin looking at his surroundings and the time in which he lives with a new appreciation and sense of urgency.
Rating:
Summary: Words of wisdom for a new millennium
Review: After reading "The Revolt of the Masses" it would be easy to criticize Ortege y Gasset's elitism and Euro-centrism. However, the importance of this book lies not so much in Ortega y Gasset's exposing the ignorance and ineptitude of mass man, but rather in his expressing a concern with how he will be able to come to terms with the modern world and its new level of social complexity. Ortega y Gasset, recognizing the social, economic, and political trends of a de-historicized and de-humanized Europe can do nothing less than place mass man at the center of an uncertain destiny--a destiny that becomes his inheritance as a result of blind force and numbers. Throughout the book, there is a constant tension between the historical present and the possible future, a tension that can be seen in much of Ortega y Gasset's other writings. As we experience the psychological force of the coming millennium, Ortega y Gasset's ideas provide us with a general blueprint for both the new possibilities and the inevitable complications that we must face. If Ortega y Gasset were here, he would perhaps wonder: Are we about to enter an age that will be able to unify the energies of mass man toward a common and transcendent purpose, or are we to enter an age that will, like on the eve of fascist Europe, lead mass man, not forward, but into the murk and mire of an apathetic commonality. At the heart of this book is the fact that whatever happens, and for better or worse, mass man is here to stay and his potential must not be ignored.
Rating:
Summary: Words of wisdom for a new millennium
Review: After reading "The Revolt of the Masses" it would be easy to criticize Ortege y Gasset's elitism and Euro-centrism. However, the importance of this book lies not so much in Ortega y Gasset's exposing the ignorance and ineptitude of mass man, but rather in his expressing a concern with how he will be able to come to terms with the modern world and its new level of social complexity. Ortega y Gasset, recognizing the social, economic, and political trends of a de-historicized and de-humanized Europe can do nothing less than place mass man at the center of an uncertain destiny--a destiny that becomes his inheritance as a result of blind force and numbers. Throughout the book, there is a constant tension between the historical present and the possible future, a tension that can be seen in much of Ortega y Gasset's other writings. As we experience the psychological force of the coming millennium, Ortega y Gasset's ideas provide us with a general blueprint for both the new possibilities and the inevitable complications that we must face. If Ortega y Gasset were here, he would perhaps wonder: Are we about to enter an age that will be able to unify the energies of mass man toward a common and transcendent purpose, or are we to enter an age that will, like on the eve of fascist Europe, lead mass man, not forward, but into the murk and mire of an apathetic commonality. At the heart of this book is the fact that whatever happens, and for better or worse, mass man is here to stay and his potential must not be ignored.
Rating: 
Summary: important and readable
Review: Although I have a lot of sympathy for the author's clearly written critique of the modern mass's self-authorization to have its hands in everything, I needed more clarification about whether (in the author's view) individual mass men are capable of overcoming their inertia and bettering themselves. If Ortega y Gasset defines as "mass man" the person who though capable of enhanced self-reflection chooses instead to watch TV and absorb opinions from without while calling them his own, then I'm in his corner. In either case, very much worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Vital reading for the twentieth century
Review: Clearly a work destined to resound through many generations, it is altogether too easy for us in our hindsight to nod and say "Yep, he sure had it pegged" regarding Gasset's analysis of fascist and nationalist movements. Yet we should really marvel at the audicity and strength of intellect it takes to make such bold arguments at a time of colossal upheaval in Europe. He writes in a seductive style fusing metaphysics and social commentary that is a joy to read. Still, it is dangerous to suspend our critical faculties in the presence of any writer, though he be (or maybe just because he is) a master of language. Gasset's values are clearly those of the educated elite of his time, and in my humble opinion many of these are self-contradictory, if not hypocritical: While decrying the "mass-man" born into the priviledges and luxuries wrought by the pioneers of liberal democracy in the 18th and 19th century, he waxes nostalgic in an almost romantic way for the soveignity of a long-gone nobility similar to Plato's concept of the Philosopher King. He also takes as a given the cultural superiority of Europe in general, making a strong argument for it as the apex of civilization. Albiet he does take great pains to dispel the modern notion of the nation-state based on language, history or natural boundaries. While I don't intend to open up that Pandora's box here, readers should keep in mind how such ideas and statements regarding Europes' (and her particular peoples) golden age have been (past and present) misused and distorted into racial theories with dire consequences. Gasset frequently makes reference to Spengler, a historical theorist who's vast scope and poetic breadth is not quite matched by his grasp of historical detail. Not that I claim to be able to do better than DECLINE OF THE WEST, but the resources available to the writer of historiography today is much more accessible, accurate and updated than it was in the days of Toynbee, Spengler, and yes Gassett. I guess it takes the boldest thinkers to make grand sweeping statements about the direction of historical currents, the decline of civilizations, and so on. But I find them more gratifying in the general than in the specific.
Rating:
Summary: If you only read one book.....
Review: I know the word "philosophy" gives many people nausea. But this isn't an ordinary philosophy book; it is the best. Though smartly written, the reader isn't alienated by outsized vocab words or references to too much trivia. Yes, he is very proud of the fact he is Spanish. But this book is very readable by anyone with a decent HS or higher education...no PhD needed! It gives a unique perspective on society. Especially interesting considering many of the trends he discovered in the 1930s are extremely timely and valid today. He is also one of the philosophers most assiciated with Objectivism. (The other being Ayn Rand.) However, anyone interested in Rand (or not turned on to her style) would gain a lot from reading this book. I cannot reccommend this book high enough. Having read 300 plus philosophy books and used to devouring many, many books, this one makes my top 10 list.
Rating: 
Summary: The First Half is Great, But...
Review: I loved the first half of this book. Ortega really provides an eye-opener about mass man (what he is and where he comes from). The only down-side to this part of the book is that during the first chapter or two, I kept seeing Niles and Frasier Crane discussing the same situations. Also, Ortega's (self admitted) aristocratic leanings get in the way of my "listening" to him. But, again, overall, the first half of the book is great. However, the second half ("Who Rules in the World?") was a waste of time. Call me a moron (well, don't, really [g]), but it seems like an unrelated promotion of the European Union. Since the book was written in 1930, that's a pretty amazing feat. But, as a probable mass-man American, I just found it uninteresting. I highly recommend people read at least the first half of this book (Honestly, I really mean it. It gives an excellent reason for why the world is the way it is). I'd consider the last half optional.
Rating:
Summary: The First Half is Great, But...
Review: I loved the first half of this book. Ortega really provides an eye-opener about mass man (what he is and where he comes from). The only down-side to this part of the book is that during the first chapter or two, I kept seeing Niles and Frasier Crane discussing the same situations. Also, Ortega's (self admitted) aristocratic leanings get in the way of my "listening" to him. But, again, overall, the first half of the book is great. However, the second half ("Who Rules in the World?") was a waste of time. Call me a moron (well, don't, really [g]), but it seems like an unrelated promotion of the European Union. Since the book was written in 1930, that's a pretty amazing feat. But, as a probable mass-man American, I just found it uninteresting. I highly recommend people read at least the first half of this book (Honestly, I really mean it. It gives an excellent reason for why the world is the way it is). I'd consider the last half optional.
|
