Cultural Discourse looks at a broad range of cultural issues.
28th June 2013

On Sloterdijk’s You Must Change Your Life

posted in Uncategorized |

You Must Change Your Life

by Peter Sloterdijk

Reviewed by John David Ebert

The main thesis of Peter Sloterdijk’s newly translated 2009 work You Must Change Your Life is that there is no such thing as religion and never has been. (The word “religion” is a recent, post-Christian development, for one thing). Instead, Sloterdijk insists, there is only what he calls the “practicing human.”  And there is nothing specifically or inherently religious about the practicing human, since humans have always been engaged in self-disciplinary techniques of improvement and transformation, whether under the guidance of a master or one’s own ascetic impositions. Writers, farmers, yogis, philosophers, artists, educators, monks: all share in common the fact that they are “acrobats” walking tightropes and performing feats of near impossible difficulty that astonish the rest of us and further the transformation of the human being into something greater than himself.

It was in the latter third of the nineteenth century, moreover, that Western civilization initiated a new, hitherto unheard of development: the somatization of the spiritual or the secularization of the ascetic, which signaled the shift out of the seven or so century long development of the culture of “work” back into the retrieval of the pre-Medieval cultural world of the practicing human for whom, not work, but following a self-imposed discipline was the paradigm. The “somatization of the spiritual” that came in at the end of the nineteenth century tended to crystallize around the cult of the athlete and the completion of the Renaissance in the form of the reinstitution of the Olympic Games in Athens and in Paris right around the year 1900. The cult of the Olympian athlete, Sloterdijk argues, has all the structures of ascetic discipline but without the character of a true “religion,” and so points up the slipperiness of the very designation of just what constitutes a religion and what doesn’t in the twentieth century.

In a little gem of a chapter on Scientology, furthermore, Sloterdijk examines just how easy it is for a self-designated “prophet” like L. Ron Hubbard to create a parody of psychotherapy and simply call it a “religion” for tax shelter purposes. What is the status of “religion” in an age when frauds like Hubbard can simply manufacture one out of whole cloth? Sloterdijk asks, and I have to admit here, that he does have a point.

However: the main problem with the book — and it is a serious one — is that the concept of the “practicing human” is so broad and general that almost anything can be plugged into it. Who isn’t a “practicing human”? And indeed, as a result of this vagueness of the concept, Sloterdijk spends five hundred pages discussing anything and everything, lumping together the most disparate and heterogeneous phenomena into one vast soup of ideas that ends up with little in the way of a unifying paradigm. At one point, the reader will find him discoursing upon five different types of teacher; and then, in another chapter, he will find himself in the midst of a discussion on the advent of anesthesia in the middle of the nineteenth century; or a discourse on witch hunts in the sixteenth century; or a discussion of the “New Human Being” invented by the Soviet Russians. And so forth. This book, I’m afraid, is a mess.

Sloterdijk, furthermore, fails ever to give a definition of what he means by “religion.” If you’re going to deconstruct the term and argue it out of existence, well and good, but you must at least give the reader examples of what you are talking about. But then if you do that, you are tacitly admitting the existence of something which you say has never existed in the first place! Hence, the lack of a definition or any examples.

The problem is that, saying that “religion has never existed, only the practicing human, secular, sacred or otherwise,” is a little like saying that “schools don’t exist, only students exist.” In other words, Sloterdijk has simply performed a figure / ground reversal, in which he has isolated the practicing human from out of the contextual grounds of his environment within the enclosed macrosphere of his religion. Religions are holistic systems that build and structure civilizations, and they do so by providing rituals, liturgies, myths and works of art — as well as ascetic disciplines — which surround, capture and embed the individual subject within them like cocoons in a spider’s web. There is no question that religions exist: they have always existed, since they are the fabric which has woven the various civilizations together like a series of exotic Turkish rugs all laid out for sale in a bazaar.

It remains unclear to me just how the existence of practicing humans invalidates the existence of religion. He might just as well say that there is no science, either, just practicing “scientists.”  Sloterdijk seems to be saying (like Magritte’s painting of a pipe that says “This is not a pipe”), “Here are all the great religions, but they are not religions.” But the truth is, they are not religions simply because Sloterdijk says they’re not. Hence, the return of fundamentalisms which comprises one of the cliches of modernity turns out not to be the return of fundamentalisms because fundamentalisms don’t exist. Only an increase in the spectacle of the practicing human, more and more of them every day, all the time.

In short, Sloterdijk’s book is an unconvincing attempt to argue out of existence something which is obvious to anyone who looks carefully around at what is going on: religions are cultural immune systems that confer an identity upon a people, and these provincial identities are everywhere being threatened by the antigenic force of globalization which has no immune system because it has no religion. It is only a system of technics wed to economics and democracy that does not take ethnic identities as co-immunintary structures into account. Sloterdijk, to his credit, does acknowledge this in the book’s final pages, insisting that we need a General Theory of Immunology to replace metaphysics, but it remains difficult to see whether, and how, such a theory  would solve the problem of expanding provincial cultural immune systems to encompass the solidarity of humanity as a single co-immunitary system.

In short, Sloterdijk’s book is a monumental flop, a sort of philosophical equivalent to Ishtar or Heaven’s Gate. It suffers badly from an out of focus thesis and a murky theme that acts as a catch-all for every subject Sloterdijk feels like discussing. Sloterdijk’s books are normally very good, creative and intelligent examinations of the plight of the contemporary human in an age of mass media and digitization, but this one must be tossed aside into the junk bins of well-meaning, but failed, works of philosophy that attempt to deconstruct traditional ideas.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 28th, 2013 at 11:53 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

There are currently 2 responses to “On Sloterdijk’s You Must Change Your Life”

Why not let us know what you think by adding your own comment! Your opinion is as valid as anyone elses, so come on... let us know what you think.

  1. 1 On November 19th, 2013, Niels Koschoreck said:

    Interesting – what you characterize as an ultimately meaningless phrase of the “practicing human” I tend to see one of the most meaningful and applicable concepts Sloterdijk has come up with in all of his works. By redefining religion (and I agree, not only religion, but science as well) as a result of practice, he provides a core understanding of what humans are at heart: practicing beings. No matter if they practice a religion, science, sports, eating – what it always boils down to is a practice, a set of practices, the effects and results of such practices.

    The central sentence of the whole book, to me, is the variation of a good old Watzlawick phrase about communication “You can not not practice”. With Sartre one could say: “We are sentenced to practice.” Whatever we do, and even what we “are”, can be viewed as a practice.

    In a way, I see Sloterdijks book as one vast reflection on a thougth that is often attributed to Aristotle: “We are what we repeatedly do.” And doing, in this case, extends to thinking, feeling, communicating and doing in the more narrow sense of taking action(s). And we could even define culture and society as a result of such practices and see the core activity of an immune system (in the wide metaphorical sense) as a set of practices.

    So what you see as the weakness of the book, a “theme that acts as a catch-all for every subject Sloterdijk feels like discussing”, I actually experience as the book’s strength: That is comes up with this deceptively simple idea if the practicing human as a central focus on anything that is humanly possible to discuss, at least when it comes to the topic that the books title implies: Change.

  2. 2 On November 21st, 2013, John David Ebert said:

    But of course, Niels, what Sloterdijk leaves out, even if we accept his rather limited definition of post-religious spirituality as “the practicing human” — which can be ANYTHING — is the other, more Dionysian aspect of human spirituality, which this book entirely fails to address: namely, the yearning for Transcendence at any price. Sloterdijk covers the Apollonian side of religion: that which has to do with Form, practice, discipline; in the ancient world this would have corresponded to the Hellenistic philosophical schools of Stoicism and the discipline of imposing upon oneself rigor and restraint. But this leaves the other Hellenistic — and actually, universal — tendency out of account: Dionysian abandonment. This would’ve corresponded in Hellenistic times to the cults of the bacchantes and even perhaps to the Ecstacy of Violence of the gladiatorial arenas. Sloterdijk pretends that this side of spirituality simply doesn’t exist. But in today’s society, Dionysian abandon — not self-imposed practice and restraint — is characteristic of all sorts of ecstatic phenomena such as violence, pornography or even rock and roll concerts. This is the side of spiritual Transcendence that Sloterdijk fails to deal with and that I am currently working on responding to with my book “Failed Systems of Transcendence,” which will function as a reply to Sloterdijk. Ecstacy does NOT always come with practice or discipline.

Leave a Reply

  • YouTube Videos

  • click for videoHeidegger’s Being and Time

     

    click for videoJean Gebser’s Ever-Present Origin

     

    click for videoKant’s Critique of Pure Reason

     

    click for videoFichte’s Science of Knowledge

     

    click for videoSchelling’s First Outline of a System of the Philosophy of Nature

     

    click for videoKarl Jaspers’ Origin and Goal of History

     

    click for videoSpengler’s Decline of the West

     

    click for videoWalter Benjamin’s Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility

     

    click for videoDerrida’s Of Grammatology

     

    click for videoHorkheimer and Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment

     

    click for videoDeleuze & Guattari’s A Thousand Plateaus

     

    click for videoDeleuze’s Logic of Sense

     

    click for videoDeleuze’s Difference and Repetition

     

    click for videoVattimo’s A Farewell to Truth

     

    click for videoAlain Badiou’s Ethics

     

    click for videoThe Works of Paul Virilio

     

    click for videoPeter Sloterdijk’s Spheres

     

    click for videoJohn David Ebert on The Age of Catastrophe

     

    click for videoJohn David Ebert on The New Media Invasion

     

    click for videoJohn David Ebert on Elvis Presley

     

    click for videoOn Carroll Quigley and Historical Cycles

     

    click for videoHeiner Muhlmann’s Maximal Stress Cooperation Theory of Culture

     

    click for videoOn Borkenau’s Cycle of the Dead

     

    click for videoJohn David Ebert interviewed on Kubrick, Gilgamesh and the Dangers of Technology

     

    click for videoJohn David Ebert Interviewed by the Artist Jacques de Beaufort