SPONTANEITY AND FREEDOM
Nildo Viana
In the
current phase of capitalism, led by the integral regime of accumulation emerges
the evaluative supremacy of hedonism accompanied by a new individualism that
end up confusing spontaneity freely. In this context, becomes important to
distinguish these two terms in a revolutionary humanist perspective, if only
because such conceptions end up invading the left-leaning, as they are largely
a product of time.
The key
point is to understand the difference between spontaneity and freedom.
Understanding this is easier from the individual analysis. A spontaneous
individual is not necessarily a free individual. The most extreme examples make
this clearer: a psychopath is extremely spontaneous to commit murder, as well
as a religious fanatic to preach the gospel in the city's downtown streets. But
any critical analyst realizes that such practices are carried out
spontaneously, but not freely because they are stuck in his unbalanced mental
universe.
Spontaneity
is an action whose initiative is undertaken by the individual (or group). A
child born in religious family and is taught to pray daily and embarrassed to
do so, to a certain age will do it on their own. Freud (1974) and
psychoanalysis already explained this phenomenon and named it: introjection[1].
The socialization and rehabilitation of individuals, as well as concrete
manifestations in the process (trauma, violence, etc.) and the set of social
relationships (including Culture) generate habits, foibles, vices, desires
(sexual, emotional, consumption , etc.), actions that apparently spring from
the individual in its authenticity, but in the background is social and
psychological product.
This
spontaneity that is introjection of demonstration or psychic imbalance, has
nothing to do with freedom. Confuse spontaneity with freedom is extremely
useful to those in power, it can give more space for the realization of
spontaneity at the expense of freedom.
What is
freedom? According to Hegel (1995), it is the awareness of the need[2].
This is a still restricted design, but brings two fundamental concepts to
understand freedom: awareness and need. Freedom presupposes consciousness,
reason, reflection. Obviously this does not mean defending the idea that the
human being is defined to be a "rational animal", as this would be
one-sided. He is a praxis, that is, that puts a conscious purpose, a project in
their activities. However, it does not do this individually but socially. So it
is also a social being.
In this
context, you can see that the human being is still an "animal",
however you want to get away from nature, for he has a body and this has needs[3].
Organic needs underlying the establishment of the specifically human needs:
sociality and praxis (VIANA, 2007; MARX and ENGELS, 1991), complementary and
inseparable elements.
Thus, we
could say that freedom is the realization of human needs, which are the basic
needs (organic), sociality and praxis. Its emergency means a process of
humanization and this transforms the organic needs which are also summarized.
Freedom is autotelic, ie praxis is founded on the association aimed at its
realization and organic needs.
We do not
need to recall here that this is a trend historical process that was relatively
interrupted by the emergence of class society and alienation as Marx (1983)
demonstrated, which caused the degradation of labor and sociality and therefore
of life in its entirety, including the basic needs (some reaching certain
individuals, for their class belonging, such as hunger, the other all in the
form of dehumanized satisfaction).
Let us
return, however, to focus our analysis. Freedom is the manifestation of human
nature, its realization, that is, expression of sociality and praxis, or to use
a neologism, the "praxity". So freedom is not "aware of the
need" as in Hegel, but its implementation in the sense of materialization
(satisfaction) of human needs, the praxity, expressing freedom (praxis)
collective (sociality)[4] of
humanity. This presupposes the satisfaction of organic needs, now under humane
and truly free form.
Spontaneity
is the thoughtless manifestation of desires and needs (authentic or not)[5] of
individuals. Spontaneity, despite being thoughtless, can subsequently be
justified and legitimized by everyday representations, doctrines, ideologies,
etc. If an individual spontaneously practicing zoophilia, manifests
spontaneity. Motivation can be psychic imbalance or inability to satisfaction
of authentic needs in a humane way. However, if later he writes a treatise on
zoophilia performing his naturalization, he expresses intellectual production
of justification and legitimation of its spontaneity, which means that it will
become "reflected," but it will be illusory. This process occurs
every day, but in some way reflected, and psychoanalysis named this phenomenon
as rationalization. In this case there is the production of a thingified
spontaneity[6].
Therefore, the praise of spontaneity in capitalism reinforces the
objectification process instead of humanization.
This also
manifests itself in the political sphere of the struggle of classes and social
groups. The spontaneity of the working classes is expressed through actions and
immediate demands and reflected little and are fundamental to the empowerment
and passage for later revolutionary struggles. However, it must be recognized
that such spontaneity is a reaction to a situation that does not mean praxis, and
therefore to be overcome. The collective spontaneity is different from the
individual, as in the first case we have collective action generated by a
particular social situation and in the second case individual acts generated by
the life story of the individuals (and their crystallization in the psychic
universe thereof).
If the
individual is the passage from spontaneity to autonomy, it also occurs at the
level of classes and groups. Autonomy is a step forward in relation to the
spontaneity (authentic)[7],
it means not only "own initiative"[8],
but also to refuse submission to other instances (in the individual case:
cultural violence, etc .; in the case of class: parties refusal and trade
unions, etc.). The spontaneous is something that arises from the own individual
or group (which can be, and is usually generated by external elements) and the
autonomous is something that arises from the own individual or group with the
advantage of refuse bureaucratic institutions and social pressures (here and
only the internalized elements psychic imbalance may remain). Spontaneity is
often its own initiative in a particular context marked by a history of life
and psychological makeup of individuals and / or certain social status (class
belonging, living conditions, political, etc.).
The
autonomy is therefore an advance and opens the way to practice, which means
that spontaneity must be overcome is to generate autonomy or directly praxis.
Autonomy is therefore between spontaneity and praxis, freedom. But not even be
praxis, is another moment that must be overcome. The achievement of
self-determination, of praxis, it is overcoming the spontaneity and autonomy.
Certain
spontaneous demonstrations are merely ways to express reproduction or
consequences of existing society[9].
In the individual case it is almost absolute. This also occurs with certain
groups and classes. Where spontaneity is not reified refusal, then it is
limited, but the starting point for the transition to autonomy or practice. The
freedom, on the other hand, if marginally expressed as an individual practice,
and should be generalized to finish making up the collective and individual
freedom, the first condition of the latter.
Thus,
spontaneity is far from freedom. Even in the narrower sense of freedom, as
pointed out by Bloch and Fromm, the "free", which means "freedom
from something" it is something broader than spontaneity. Another element
that can not be overlooked is that individual freedom can not be fully achieved
without the collective freedom. In a class society, founded on exploitation and
domination, an individual, however rich, intelligent, powerful that is can not
be fully free. In class societies sociality is degraded, and the work that is
alienated. In capitalism, sociality is permeated by conflicts (of classes),
competition (and everything that derives it: envy, jealousy, possessiveness,
selfishness, utilitarianism, individualism, etc.) and work and set of human
activities are rather than realization of human potential (creativity,
development of physical and mental energies) become controlled by other actions
aimed at ensuring the exploitation and domination, and denial of them,
mortification and dehumanization.
The social
transformation in which sociality overcome conflicts and competition, replaced
by solidarity and the overcoming of alienated labor and widespread alienation
and its replacement by praxis, means the collective freedom, which allows
individual freedom, the individual freely associated with other individuals and
generalizing the practice. This is the utopia that needs to be accomplished, it
is a human need, and can only exist in a self-managed society. Anything that
opposes this process of human liberation, even though speaking in its name, is
an obstacle to be overcome. All ideologies and hedonistic and current new individualists
conceptions are challenging the cult of spontaneity and reified so this service
needs to be overcome, it is one of the obstacles to human emancipation.
[1] Some
ideologues like Jean Piaget, seek to find there, by the time a child spends
playing by itself against what it has built into society, such as
"autonomy" (VIANA, 2000; Piaget, 1990). It is, of course, an ideology
that inverts reality and entering in visible contradiction with the
psychoanalytic discoveries.
[2] The
Hegelian conception of freedom is complex and points to the relationship
between consciousness and freedom, but goes beyond liberalism and puts its implementation
in the state as ethical and universal. "Hegel was the first I heard of
exposing an exact way the relationship between freedom and a need. For him,
freedom is nothing other than the conviction of need "(Engels, 1990, p.
95). Marx overcomes Hegel showing that only "freely associated
individuals" with the abolition of the state, is that one can attain
freedom.
[3] Christianity
is the religious form that expresses this more clearly to think "life
after death", which is a complete break with the animal world, the
"pure spirit," who does not eat, has no sex, etc.
[4] Here we do not use sociability why this concept gets
a more restricted meaning to express another social phenomenon (VIANA, 2008)
and "association", because this is wider. The term
"sociality", used by Simmel (1983) with another meaning and the
Portuguese translation (which could have used another term and translators put
this explicitly), it seems more appropriate to express the meaning we want to
pass on the social character human being, and it exists only inside social
relations and needs them both for survival when a psychic reasons and only then
is a human being and becomes human. The human being is a social being, ie
integrated into society, sharing it as a necessity and reality, whether in the
humanized or dehumanized form. The sociality is the bond between human beings
and the other, which in the absence generates madness, suicide or unhappiness.
Why is this is a psychic need (some would say "existential") of the
human being.
[5] We must remember that in addition to the primary
needs (organic) and secondary (specifically human, sociality and praxis),
historically produces new needs, which we call tertiary, which may be
consistent with the radical needs (primary and secondary) or not . In the first
case, they are authentic and express a continuing process of humanization and
in the second case are inauthentic and express a denial of human and humane
essence.
[6] Reified mean transformed into "thing",
something autonomous, with its own life and not being social and historical
product. In this case, reified spontaneity means the transformation of
spontaneity into something that has its own life and without social and
historical roots, creating a fantastic isolation winning autonomy and takes
place on its own. No doubt this empowerment only occurs in the realm of ideology
and not on concrete reality.
[7] In the case of an inauthentic spontaneity, ie, that
does not express the radical human needs, but generated by its denial
(alienation, repression, restraining, etc.), then it is an autonomy that
deepens this process of inauthenticity and dehumanization.
[8] Own initiative in the sense defined above, that is,
on its own, but that is determined externally.
[9] The capitalist society, for example, generates
selfish, competitive, jealous, people, etc., according to the modern
sociability and its reproduction process (competition, bureaucratization and
commodification), playback elements of society (VIANA, 2008). Prostitution, for
example, is a consequence of that society and its existence can generate
inauthentic spontaneity manifested in the alleged desire to submit to the body
commodification process. This obviously manifest sexual oppression in a society
which commercializes all. Many prostitutes deny prostitution and recognize
their alienated character, an activity that is kind to other needs, while
others claim that this is something we really want spontaneously. This
manifests thingified spontaneity (imbalance or psychological in certain cases).
So when the liberal ideology is to defend the thesis that everyone does what
you want with your body (it's their "private property," his
"merchandise") only legitimate in this case oppression and body
commodification of these women .
