In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

205 C H A P T E R E I G H T E E N I v a n I l l i c h ’s B r e a k w i t h t h e P a s t Pieter Tijmes T he idea of breaks in history plays a major role in Ivan Illich’s thinking. Referring to modernity, Illich even speaks about a catastrophic break. In this chapter I want to elaborate on this break because, in my view, the concept must be qualified in order to avoid idealizing the past, and mistaking model for reality . I will outline how I understand modernity as a regime of scarcity, which fits with Illich’s notion of a definitive historical break. But I shall also indicate a not irrelevant difference, indebted to René Girard’s theory of mimetic desire.1 Girard sharpens one’s eye for the ambivalence of all human manifestations, not only those of today but also those of the past. I will then explain my use of ideal types, following Max Weber. My point is that the construction of an ideal type for modernity may be legitimate , but there is nevertheless an empirical question of how far the ideal type or model really covers reality. There is always the danger that one becomes a victim of one’s own historical methodology if one takes the ideal type for reality itself. Finally, I will discuss some ideas of Illich in the famous essay “Health as One’s Own Responsibility : No, Thank You!”2 —a stance that represents the conclusion of a long journey in thinking and writing. Illich has never sought the applause of his audience; on the contrary, he knows the art of treading on people’s toes. At the same time, one can find in this essay his religious heart. If I contradict him, I hope to do so in a respectful way. THE IDEA OF MODERNITY Recent authors have poked fun at the concept of modernity. With a face both serious and solemn, Bruno Latour declares that we have never been modern.3 I shall not contradict him, if he sticks to his idiosyncratic and limited concept of modernity. One could just as well argue that we have been postmodern since the foundation of the world. Many things are possible, but not always useful. In any case I do not care for frivolities, because what is definitely a new pattern of human conduct in the West since the Middle Ages, as deviation from a prior traditional way of life, would thus be interpreted fraudulently. Modernity is a distinct and different way of dealing with a basic form of human behavior, the problem of mimetic desire. By mimetic desire I mean that people do not act on authentic desires, but take their desires from others; they imitate others in their desiring. In other words, people are not born with fixed ideas, wishes, and desires , but learn them from the social and cultural environment on which they depend . In this sense it is the other who tells them what is desirable. This theory of mimetic desire is, basically, a conflict theory, because conflicts arise from the situation when one desires what the other also desires, with the result that two desires clash with each other over the same object. How to deal with mimetic desire is also a cultural problem. In order to avoid mimetic conflicts, people have developed cultural strategies as answers to the question : How do we live in relative peace within a community, despite of the fact that the human condition of mediated desires necessarily leads to complicated entanglements ? To make a long story short: In traditional society religion plays a dominant role in containing conflicts; for example, through religiously sanctioned prohibitions . These prohibitions act to prevent cultural disintegration, and ban what can be a cause of conflict: Do not commit murder, do not steal, do not give false evidence, do not covet, and so on. In a modern society, the dominant role of religion, with its prohibitions , myths, and rites, has evaporated, and scarcity has become the organizing principle. How should we understand this? At school we learned that economic science begins with the assumption that human beings have boundless needs they want to satisfy. The means for satisfying these needs are called goods, and all goods are scarce. That is, the means to satisfy innumerable needs are always limited. Ironically, only modern and aff luent societies are convinced...

Share