Chapter 6 of The Crisis of Modernity, by Augusto Del Noce, is titled “Toward a New Totalitarianism.” It is the “technological society,” a.k.a. “consumerist society” or “the affluent society” in which this totalizing logic is effected.
“I certainly do not need to repeat again that I do not confuse at all the critique of this society with some absurd denial of the progress of science and technology, and of the benefits they bring. Indeed, the transition from ‘technical progress’ to the ‘technological society’ is not at all immediate. It is mediated by another factor, which is the ‘totalitarian’ conception of science, in which science is regarded as the ‘only’ true form of knowledge. According to this view, every other type of knowledge — metaphysical or religious — expresses only ‘subjective reactions,’ which we are able, or will be able, to explain by extending science to the human sphere through psychological and sociological research.
“A scientistic thinker (and a society inspired by his thought) cannot help being totalitarian inasmuch as ‘he cannot possibly prove’ his claim that science rules out all other forms of knowledge, and thus certain dimensions of reality, which are declared to be either unknowable or nonexistent (‘nonsensical questions’ according to the most barbaric form of thought that ever appeared, so-called analytical philosophy). Indeed, scientism neither ‘sublates’ other forms of thought nor tries to elevate them to a higher level, but simply ‘negates them.’ At the same time, just like the supporters of every other form of totalitarianism, an advocate of scientism ‘must’ think that the society he proposes will be legitimized by some future ‘unverifiable’ outcome. His reasoning is strictly analogous to that of a Communist. Just as a Communist thinks that after the revolution, after the dictatorship of the proletariat, etc., mankind will enter an age of super-human happiness, so does a believer in scientism. The only difference from a Communist is that he contradicts himself and, what is worse, he does so hypocritically, inasmuch as he thinks that, because his philosophy asserts that only what can be verified by everybody is real, he is the true ideal champion of democracy. Thus, by accepting the guidance of science we will march toward a full reconciliation of nature and civilization through a peaceful evolution.
“As a matter of fact, many people do not realize that scientism and the technological society are totalitarian in nature. They say: let science organize the social sphere. There is still the other sphere, interior life, in which science has no jurisdiction. This would be true if there was a ‘moral’ consensus between the proponents of scientism and other people. In fact, however, scientism includes as essential a form of morality (what is often called the ‘pleasure principle’ or, as I wrote elsewhere, the pure increase of vitality) which is ‘absolutely contradictory’ to traditional ethics.
“I have already said that scientism is more opposed to tradition than Communism because in Communism we can still find messianic and biblical archetypes (e.g., in the idea of the proletariat as the universal mediator) which give it the appearance of what was often described as a ‘secular religion.’ Nikolai Berdyaev, now forgotten, wrote that the Marxist revolution carries within itself ‘the reflected light of the apocalypse’ and that it was able to succeed because of the strong inclination toward an apocalyptic mindset found in the Russian soul and in the large majority of Russian intellectuals at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries. This was the reason why Marxism could appear, from this Russian perspective, as ‘a doctrine of deliverance, of the messianic vocation of the proletariat, of the future perfect society in which man will not be dependent on economics.’ Now, this messianic aspect, which allowed Marxism to put down roots in the Russian tradition, is precisely what is being rejected by scientism and by the technological society.
“But, in light of this, we understand why scientistic anti-traditionalism can express itself only by dissolving the ‘fatherlands’ where it was born. Because of the very nature of science, which provides means but does not determine any ends, scientism lends itself to be used as a tool by some group. Which group? The answer is completely obvious: once the fatherlands are gone, all that is left are the great economic organisms, which look more and more like fiefdoms. States become their executive instruments, confirming the old Marxist-Leninist thesis, but through a different route from that predicted by Marxism-Leninism.”
— from Augusto Del Noce, The Crisis of Modernity (McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014)
Related reading and listening
- On Eugenics in America — Christine Rosen explores early eugenics support in the early 1900s and current “participatory evolution” practices. (50 minutes)
- Laity as the “muscle” behind world-building — Andrew Willard Jones calls for the renewal of a robust understanding of the role of the laity in actively shaping the world. (39 minutes)
- When language is weaponized — FROM VOL. 52 Jeffrey Meyers explains George Orwell‘s understanding of how language can be used as a weapon in totalitarian movements and regimes. (10 minutes)
- Recovering the primacy of contemplation — Augusto Del Noce finds in St. Augustine resources to diagnose the fatal flaw in progressivism
- The roots of American disorder — In this reading of an article from 2021 by Michael Hanby, the critique of Marxism in Augusto del Noce’s work is compared with texts from the American Founders. (79 minutes)
- Augusto Del Noce’s critique of modernity — FROM VOL. 128 Physicist and mathematician Carlo Lancellotti discusses the life and work of twentieth-century Italian philosopher, Augusto Del Noce. (25 minutes)
- When is civil disobedience necessary? — Douglas Farrow examines the relation between “the kings of the earth” and the law of Christ, particularly when governmental law is exercised without reference to natural or divine law. (49 minutes)
- Power and paranoia — From our cassette tape archives, Daniel Chirot talks about political tyranny, and Daniel Pipes explains how conspiracy theories flourish. (31 minutes)
- Fixed certainties, fixed mysteries — FROM VOL. 42Science journalist John Horgan, author of The Undiscovered Mind: How the Human Brain Defies Replication, Medication, and Explanation, discusses the limits of neuroscience. (13 minutes)
- The negation of transcendence — Michael Hanby argues that our current civilizational crisis can be understood as a “new totalitarianism” that negates or disallows every form of transcendence. (32 minutes)
- Art as aestheticism, love as eroticism, politics as totalitarianism — Augusto Del Noce on the “technological mindset” and the loss of the sense of transcendence
- The meaning of the modern eclipse of authority — Augusto Del Noce on the greatest modern reversal
- Explaining the totalitarianism of disintegration — Michael Hanby complements the analysis of modernity offered by Augusto Del Noce
- Aspects of our un-Christening — In this Friday Feature — presented courtesy of Biola University — Carlo Lancellotti talks with Aaron Kheriaty about the central ideas in Augusto Del Noce’s writings. (43 minutes)
- Detached consumers of interesting facts — Richard Stivers on how statistical norms replaced moral norms
- Totalitarianism in a new mode — John Milbank on how liberalism has a marked tendency to become illiberal
- Liberalism’s totalitarian logic — Antonio López on the logic of liberalism’s totalitarian tendencies
- Carelessly invoking “science” in the pandemic — Historian of science Steven Shapin talks about about how the authority of “science” has been invoked by many political authorities during the pandemic, yet how scientific pursuits are deeply human endeavors. (18 minutes)
- When “follow the science” doesn’t work — Peter Leithart reflects on the all-too-human nature of science and the effects of quarantine on the Church’s embodied mission. (32 minutes)
- The reality that science cannot see — Philosopher Paul Tyson illustrates features of daily life that science cannot “see,” such as love, friendship, justice, and hope, and argues that such things are nonetheless real. (20 minutes)
- Why “Creation” is more than “origins” — In this archive interview from Volume 121 of the Journal, Michael Hanby talks about why we shouldn’t assume that science can ever be philosophically and theologically neutral. (32 minutes)
- Skepticism and totalitarian drift — John Paul II on how a loss of confidence in the reality of truth accentuates the will to power
- From Descartes to Nietzsche — Leszek Kolakowski on Cartesian rationality and modernity’s loss of meaning
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 128 — FEATURED GUESTS:
Matthew Crawford, Carlo Lancellotti, James Turner, Rod Dreher, Mark Evan Bonds, and Jeremy Beer
- The Christian Humanism of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn — Edward E. Ericson, Jr., David Aikman, and James Pontuso discuss the life and work of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918–2008). (73 minutes)
- Mars Hill Audio Journal, Volume 83 — FEATURED GUESTS: Barrett Fisher, Dick Keyes, Richard Lints, Paul McHugh, Paul Weston, and Paul Walker
- Roger Kimball: “Leszek Kolakowski and the Anatomy of Totalitarianism” — Roger Kimball summarizes the diagnosis of modernity’s ailments offered by philosopher Leszek Kolakowski. (35 minutes)
- Art and the loss of transcendence — Suzi Gablik looks at how modern and postmodern artists have struggled with living in modern and postmodern societies in which there is no public vocabulary for the sacred.
