If human beings can alter the conditions that have made them what they are, then social transformation need no longer appear simply as something that happens to a society.
It can become something a society deliberately attempts.
This possibility had existed in practice long before it became a philosophical problem. Peoples had rebelled, dynasties had fallen, states had been conquered and institutions had been overturned. But revolution had usually appeared as catastrophe, rebellion or restoration.
Modern historical consciousness changes its meaning.
If the present is historically produced, then it can be historically transformed. And if its transformation can be understood, it might also be deliberately pursued.
The question becomes:
Can human beings make a different history?
The French Revolution gave this question extraordinary force. It was not merely a change of government. It presented the possibility that a society could consciously remake its political principles and institutions.
Rights, citizenship, sovereignty and equality could be treated not simply as inherited arrangements but as things to be reconstructed.
History therefore ceased to be only something that explained the present.
It became something that human beings could claim to make.
But the Revolution also exposed a paradox.
Those who attempt to remake society cannot step outside history in order to redesign it from nowhere. They inherit institutions, economic relations, habits, languages and expectations. Their revolutionary ideas are themselves products of the world they seek to transform.
Revolution therefore cannot be pure beginning.
It is an attempt to create something new using materials inherited from the past.
This tension became central to nineteenth-century thought. Hegel saw revolutionary transformation within a larger historical development in which existing social forms generated contradictions that could not simply remain unresolved. Marx would make the contradiction more material: societies contain conflicts within their own relations of production, and these conflicts can become forces for transforming those relations.
The significance of such arguments is not that they provide a correct theory of revolution.
It is that they make something philosophically visible that had previously been much harder to see:
society can become an object of historical action by the people who constitute it.
This creates a new conception of political agency.
The individual is no longer simply someone who acts within an established political order. Nor is society merely an environment within which individuals happen to live.
Society becomes something between the two: a structure produced by human relations that in turn structures those relations.
Change therefore becomes reflexive.
Human beings change society, while society changes the human beings capable of changing it.
The possibility is exhilarating.
It is also dangerous.
If society can be deliberately remade, then political action acquires unprecedented ambitions. But the belief that one can consciously reconstruct the whole of social life may also encourage the attempt to eliminate the complexity, contingency and unintended consequences through which societies actually develop.
The philosophy of history thus encounters a new problem.
How much of history can human beings make deliberately?
And behind it lies an even deeper question.
If the makers of history are themselves historical beings, can they ever fully understand the conditions within which they act?
Revolution makes the problem unavoidable.
For the first time, philosophy can confront the possibility that human beings might not merely understand history, inherit it or be shaped by it.
They might try to take responsibility for its direction.
No comments:
Post a Comment