Dvoumnost napredka / The Ambivalence of Progress

Napredek je zapleten pojem. Po eni strani je videti očitno, da so sodobne družbe v marsikaterem pogledu v boljšem položaju kot družbe v preteklosti: sodobna gospodarska rast je izredno visoka, pričakovana življenjska doba je daljša kot kdaj koli, nove tehnologije so odprle možnosti, o katerih so prejšnje generacije lahko le sanjale, vojne med velesilami so manj pogoste, kot so bile v preteklosti itd. Zdi se, da vse to vzbuja optimizem glede značaja zgodovinskega razvoja. Kot nedavnega zagovornika tega pogleda lahko omenimo Stevena Pinkerja.

Vendar pa je takemu opisu mogoče podati številne ugovore. Gospodarska rast je povzročila veliko uničenje okolja, kar bo imelo v 21. stoletju gotovo ogromne družbene posledice. Stopnja neenakosti tako znotraj držav kot med državami je še vedno zelo visoka in se je v neoliberalnem obdobju še povečala, kar nakazuje, da številne socialne skupine in številne države niso bile deležne sadov napredka. Nove tehnologije so morda odprle vrsto novih možnosti, vendar so sprožile tudi nove težave, vključno z novimi vrstami nasilja in vojn. Poleg tega sta v kapitalizmu prisotna tudi neizogibna neenakost moči in izkoriščevalski značaj razrednih odnosov, kar močno vpliva na vsakdanjik večine prebivalstva. Napredek ima veliko slabih plati.

Problematika ni nova. Čeprav je bil pojem napredka večji del zgodovine v ozadju, je v obdobju razsvetljenstva stopil v ospredje in igral pomembno vlogo v vladajočih ideologijah 19. stoletja. Vendar pa je bila v prvi polovici 20. stoletja vera v napredek močno omajana zaradi dveh svetovnih vojn in vzpona totalitarnih režimov. Po ponovnem zagonu v povojnem obdobju lahko zasledimo enega od vrhuncev ideje napredka v obdobju devetdesetih let 20. stoletja, ko so nekateri celo trdili, da je prišlo do konca zgodovine. Ta optimizem je bil prav tako kratkotrajen, saj so dogodki in procesi, kot so 11. september, finančna kriza leta 2008 in vzpon novih populizmov zapletli vsakršno preprosto pripoved o napredovanju. Zdi se, da ima sam pojem napredka ciklično (in ne progresivno) zgodovino.

Ta vprašanja dobijo poseben pomen tudi v slovenskem kontekstu. Medtem ko je starejše zgodovinopisje, ki je slovensko zgodovino pojmovalo kot dolgotrajni pohod k narodni neodvisnosti, v veliki meri preseženo, bi se večina sodobnih zgodovinarjev verjetno strinjala, da razpad Jugoslavije in prehod v liberalno demokracijo predstavljata dobrodošli spremembi. Po drugi strani pa levičarsko usmerjeni kritiki opozarjajo na ceno, ki jo je bilo treba plačati za ta napredek: strm porast prekarnega dela, neenakomerna porazdelitev bogastva, razkroj socialne varnosti itd. Prehod v kapitalizem in liberalno demokracijo je povzročil številne družbene probleme, ki jih je treba upoštevati pri razumevanju zgodovine Slovenije po osamosvojitvi.

Vse to nakazuje, da je napredek dvoumen in večplasten pojem, ki ga je treba obravnavati z veliko mero previdnosti. Kako naj torej razmišljamo o velikih spremembah, ki so se zgodile z nastopom modernosti? Kako so napredek pojmovali v različnih zgodovinskih obdobjih? V kolikšni meri se je razumevanje napredka razlikovalo med različnimi območji in različnimi socialnimi skupinami in kaj se lahko iz takšnih primerjav naučimo? Kako naj razumemo tranzicije med različnimi političnimi režimi, posebej v 20. stoletju?

To so nekatera vprašanja, o katerih bomo razpravljali na doktorski in postdoktorski delavnici z naslovom »Dvoumnost napredka«.

Progress is an intricate notion. On the one hand, contemporary societies seem to be better off than societies of the past by many indications: modern economic growth is unprecedented, life expectancy is higher than it’s ever been, new technologies have enabled possibilities that previous generations could only dream of, wars between great powers have been on the decline, etc. All this would seem to naturally inspire optimism about the nature of historical development. One can mention Steven Pinker as the recent outstanding promoter of this view.

There are, however, many objections that can be raised. Economic expansion resulted in an unprecedented destruction of the environment, which is certain to entail major political and social consequences in the 21^st century. The level of inequality both between and within countries is still very high and has been growing in the neoliberal period, which points to the fact that many countries and social groups have been excluded from the fruits of progress. Technological advancements may have opened up new possibilities, but they also unleashed new problems, including new kinds of violence and warfare. There is furthermore the inherent power disparity and exploitative nature of class relations in capitalism, which profoundly affects most people’s everyday life. Progress has many flip sides.

The dilemma is not new. While it was lurking in the background for most of human history, the notion of progress came to the fore in the age of enlightenment and was one of the defining ideas of the 19^th century, informing the ruling ideologies. However, this faith in progress came to a halt in the face of the two world wars and the rise of totalitarian regimes in the first half of the 20^th century. After its resumption in the post-war period, another climax of the belief in progress was the period of the 1990s, when history itself was famously proclaimed to be at an end. This optimism was once again short-lived, since the events of 9/11, the 2008 financial crisis and the rise of new populisms complicated any simple historical narrative. Hence it seems that the idea of progress itself tends to have a cyclical – rather than a progressive – history.

These predicaments also take on a specific flavour in the local Slovenian context. While the older historiography, which understood Slovenian history as a grand march toward national independence, has been largely superseded, most contemporary historians would probably agree that the falling apart of Yugoslavia and the transition to liberal democracy was a welcome development. Leftwing critics, on the other hand, point to the price that was paid for this advance: the steep rise of precarious work, the unequal distribution of wealth, the corrosion of social welfare, etc. The transition to capitalism and liberal democracy resulted in a number of negative developments, which one has to take into account in understanding the history of Slovenia since its independence.

All this suggests that progress is an ambivalent and multi-faceted notion that should be used with a great deal of caution and reflection. How, then, should we think about the major changes that happened with the onset of modernity? How was progress conceptualized in different historical epochs? To what extent did notions of progress differ between different regions and different social groups, and what can we learn from such comparisons? How should we understand the transitions between different political regimes, particularly in the 20^th century?

These are some of the topics that are going to be discussed at the PhD and Postdoc Workshop ‘The Ambivalence of Progress’.