Zygmunt Bauman’s collection of essays, Life in Fragments, is a description of the fragmentary nature of postmodern life. The fragmentation of the postmodern life manifests itself in two different ways of Being, each a encounter with the Other in which Ethics takes precedence over the Other. Both Being Aside and Being With serve to prevent the Self from fully acknowledging in the Other, and fully engaging the Other. In contrast, Morality is only possible with a real engagement with the Other. Being For creates space for moral activity, one in which the care for the Other trumps the desire for Self preservation.
Bauman traces the roots of this fragmentation to an attitude that sees the present as merely a middle point in a journey, a place between the beginning and the end (1995, p. 73). Bauman offers the image of the pilgrim as a picture of a Being who is radically discontent with their present place, and is only motivated by a vision of a superior, final destination, “Wherever the pilgrim may be now, it is not where he ought to be, and not where he dreams of being” (Bauman, 1995, p. 83). Anything less than the fabled promised land is inferior and any encounter which does not contribute to the criteria of progress ultimately threatens it. The result is that we are radically individualistic and live isolated lives. Encounters with the Other, however, are unavoidable, and so have developed strategies to survive our encounters. Ethics are ultimately strategies which validate our disengagement with the Other.
Being Aside is to treat the Other as if it is insignificant, is “inconsequential” (Bauman, 1995, p. 50). The interaction aside the Other is not significant because is it regarded as something which can be discarded. It is only one interaction in a pile of interactions. A pile from which one can ultimately pick and choose and construct a reality. It is an interaction that is isolated from the rest of life. It is as if this encounter with the Other was merely a bad take in the production of a film. The assumption is that there will be many takes and not all will make the final cut. Being Aside is an attitude which causes the Self to behave as if this particular take, the one in which I am with this particular Other, is a take which will obviously be left on the cutting room floor. This view cheapens the Other as well as the encounter. It causes one to treat the Other as if the Other is an extra in the Self’s story. Being aside is radically egotistically. It makes life first and foremost about the Self. Others are in the story, but only as props or at best, devices to keep the story-line moving. It also elevates the Self to the position of “director,” not of just the Self, but of the Other. It makes the Other something to be commanded. It is not treating the Other as an equal. It denies the Other autonomy. If the Other does not act according to the script, then the scene will not be in the final production. To carry this analogy, Being Aside is to live and die by a script, a script that only the Self knows.
If we are to rank types of Being, Being With is less fragmentary than Being Aside, and yet it fails to reach a status of a moral encounter. Being With is seeing the Other, but it is not fully engaging the Other. It is holding back. To carry the filming analogy, the Self acts as if there is an endless supply of film and that every take does not matter, for the scene can be done again and again. What this equates to is not seeing the particular encounter as having any direct relationship to other encounters. Not all the encounters are equally taken into account. It as if one encounter is completely isolated from previous encounters and has no real relationship to future encounters. Rather than seeing life as whole and continuous, life is seen as episodic (Bauman, 1995 p. 51). To continue the movie analogy, it is acting as if this particular take is merely practice, and therefore will inevitably not be used in the final production. This attitude gives the Self license to not fully engage. However, everyone else involved in the production, the stage crews, the lighting, the director, the other actors, must all expend effort and so it does “count.” The practicing of a scene is taxing on film resources. If the actor does not consider a practice worthy of full engagement he or she undermines its very purpose and existence. There might as well not be a practice. Similarly, when the Self is Being With the Other, the Self acts as if the encounter matters little, and is not worthy of full expenditure of effort. Bauman refers to this attitude as full of indifference and lacking commitment (1995, p. 57).
The Moral response, the one which is contrast to fragmentation, is Being For the Other. Being For the Other is to give proper recognition, to fully engage, to respond in accordance to the Other. Moral activity is to see the Other truly face to face. It is to see the Other as the Other truly is. Likewise is it allowing the Other is see the Self as the Self truly is. Moral activity is to be exposed to the Other, and to be exposed is to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is a lack of assurance of safety. It is to be unsafe, to be at to risk. It is to be in a place where there is no safety net of ethics. It is to throw away the playbook and to try something completely new. Doing so is an acknowledgement that the Other, and this encounter with the Other, is unique. It is not like any other previous encounter, nor will it be like any future encounter. The Other is special, and the Self’s encounter with the Other is special. It cannot be duplicated, or replaced. It cannot be traded or swapped. The response to this reality is that the Self earnestly leans into the encounter, giving the Self over to the Other, submitting to the Other. Bauman writes that the “surrender to the Other [is] its aim” (1995, p. 64). What the Other wants and needs, the Other will receive from the Self. In this way the Self demonstrates that it cares for the Other. It cares for the Other because it wants the Other’s lot to be better (Bauman, 1995, p. 65). It’s desire for the Other’s lot to be better ultimately enables the Self to choose the Other over the Self. The Self will be willing to give something up, to sacrifice. There is little to nothing the Other cannot ask of the Self. The Self communicates receptivity to the Other; Ask and it will be given. To be Selfish would be to place barriers between the Self and Other and declare certain things off limits. It would be to communicate that the Other may only ask for the prescribed list of approved items. Anything other than the approved items is off the table. There are non-negotiable. Those requests, their asking for, will not be entertained. I want to be clear: Bauman is not saying the Self should give the Other everything the Other asks. Rather, what he is advocating is that the Self encounter the Other in a space were a predetermined response does not exist. This space is an emotional space and is the essence of a moral encounter (Bauman, 1995, p. 62).
Early I stated that Being Aside is to operate on, to live and die by, a script. Failure to abide by the script invalidates the scene. In contrast, Being For is to hold the script lightly and instead to promote improvisation, to participate in off-the-cuff ad-libbing with the Other. In that sense, the Self and the Other are in an encounter where every line, ever facial expression, is unexpected and fresh. To live in such a place is to give oneself over fully to the moment. Every response is unrehearsed. It is unpremeditated. Emotions are raw and fully exposed. The Actor is no longer acting. He or she is being himself (or herself). There is no fragmentation. There is no journey, no final destination. No strategies for survival. The “take” exists here and now. There is no practice, no do-overs. This is in the final production. This is live and is being broadcasted. To fully respond the Other, we must step beyond a script. It is in this place that the Self as an ethical agent can fall away. In this place the Self has ceased to be dependent on a script for cues as to how to respond; the Self finally has real moral choice.
Bauman, Zygmunt. (1995). Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bauman on the Moral Encounter
Zygmunt Bauman’s collection of essays, Life in Fragments, is a description of the fragmentary nature of postmodern life. The fragmentation of the postmodern life manifests itself in two different ways of Being, each a encounter with the Other in which Ethics takes precedence over the Other. Both Being Aside and Being With serve to prevent the Self from fully acknowledging in the Other, and fully engaging the Other. In contrast, Morality is only possible with a real engagement with the Other. Being For creates space for moral activity, one in which the care for the Other trumps the desire for Self preservation.
Bauman traces the roots of this fragmentation to an attitude that sees the present as merely a middle point in a journey, a place between the beginning and the end (1995, p. 73). Bauman offers the image of the pilgrim as a picture of a Being who is radically discontent with their present place, and is only motivated by a vision of a superior, final destination, “Wherever the pilgrim may be now, it is not where he ought to be, and not where he dreams of being” (Bauman, 1995, p. 83). Anything less than the fabled promised land is inferior and any encounter which does not contribute to the criteria of progress ultimately threatens it. The result is that we are radically individualistic and live isolated lives. Encounters with the Other, however, are unavoidable, and so have developed strategies to survive our encounters. Ethics are ultimately strategies which validate our disengagement with the Other.
Being Aside is to treat the Other as if it is insignificant, is “inconsequential” (Bauman, 1995, p. 50). The interaction aside the Other is not significant because is it regarded as something which can be discarded. It is only one interaction in a pile of interactions. A pile from which one can ultimately pick and choose and construct a reality. It is an interaction that is isolated from the rest of life. It is as if this encounter with the Other was merely a bad take in the production of a film. The assumption is that there will be many takes and not all will make the final cut. Being Aside is an attitude which causes the Self to behave as if this particular take, the one in which I am with this particular Other, is a take which will obviously be left on the cutting room floor. This view cheapens the Other as well as the encounter. It causes one to treat the Other as if the Other is an extra in the Self’s story. Being aside is radically egotistically. It makes life first and foremost about the Self. Others are in the story, but only as props or at best, devices to keep the story-line moving. It also elevates the Self to the position of “director,” not of just the Self, but of the Other. It makes the Other something to be commanded. It is not treating the Other as an equal. It denies the Other autonomy. If the Other does not act according to the script, then the scene will not be in the final production. To carry this analogy, Being Aside is to live and die by a script, a script that only the Self knows.
If we are to rank types of Being, Being With is less fragmentary than Being Aside, and yet it fails to reach a status of a moral encounter. Being With is seeing the Other, but it is not fully engaging the Other. It is holding back. To carry the filming analogy, the Self acts as if there is an endless supply of film and that every take does not matter, for the scene can be done again and again. What this equates to is not seeing the particular encounter as having any direct relationship to other encounters. Not all the encounters are equally taken into account. It as if one encounter is completely isolated from previous encounters and has no real relationship to future encounters. Rather than seeing life as whole and continuous, life is seen as episodic (Bauman, 1995 p. 51). To continue the movie analogy, it is acting as if this particular take is merely practice, and therefore will inevitably not be used in the final production. This attitude gives the Self license to not fully engage. However, everyone else involved in the production, the stage crews, the lighting, the director, the other actors, must all expend effort and so it does “count.” The practicing of a scene is taxing on film resources. If the actor does not consider a practice worthy of full engagement he or she undermines its very purpose and existence. There might as well not be a practice. Similarly, when the Self is Being With the Other, the Self acts as if the encounter matters little, and is not worthy of full expenditure of effort. Bauman refers to this attitude as full of indifference and lacking commitment (1995, p. 57).
The Moral response, the one which is contrast to fragmentation, is Being For the Other. Being For the Other is to give proper recognition, to fully engage, to respond in accordance to the Other. Moral activity is to see the Other truly face to face. It is to see the Other as the Other truly is. Likewise is it allowing the Other is see the Self as the Self truly is. Moral activity is to be exposed to the Other, and to be exposed is to be vulnerable. Vulnerability is a lack of assurance of safety. It is to be unsafe, to be at to risk. It is to be in a place where there is no safety net of ethics. It is to throw away the playbook and to try something completely new. Doing so is an acknowledgement that the Other, and this encounter with the Other, is unique. It is not like any other previous encounter, nor will it be like any future encounter. The Other is special, and the Self’s encounter with the Other is special. It cannot be duplicated, or replaced. It cannot be traded or swapped. The response to this reality is that the Self earnestly leans into the encounter, giving the Self over to the Other, submitting to the Other. Bauman writes that the “surrender to the Other [is] its aim” (1995, p. 64). What the Other wants and needs, the Other will receive from the Self. In this way the Self demonstrates that it cares for the Other. It cares for the Other because it wants the Other’s lot to be better (Bauman, 1995, p. 65). It’s desire for the Other’s lot to be better ultimately enables the Self to choose the Other over the Self. The Self will be willing to give something up, to sacrifice. There is little to nothing the Other cannot ask of the Self. The Self communicates receptivity to the Other; Ask and it will be given. To be Selfish would be to place barriers between the Self and Other and declare certain things off limits. It would be to communicate that the Other may only ask for the prescribed list of approved items. Anything other than the approved items is off the table. There are non-negotiable. Those requests, their asking for, will not be entertained. I want to be clear: Bauman is not saying the Self should give the Other everything the Other asks. Rather, what he is advocating is that the Self encounter the Other in a space were a predetermined response does not exist. This space is an emotional space and is the essence of a moral encounter (Bauman, 1995, p. 62).
Early I stated that Being Aside is to operate on, to live and die by, a script. Failure to abide by the script invalidates the scene. In contrast, Being For is to hold the script lightly and instead to promote improvisation, to participate in off-the-cuff ad-libbing with the Other. In that sense, the Self and the Other are in an encounter where every line, ever facial expression, is unexpected and fresh. To live in such a place is to give oneself over fully to the moment. Every response is unrehearsed. It is unpremeditated. Emotions are raw and fully exposed. The Actor is no longer acting. He or she is being himself (or herself). There is no fragmentation. There is no journey, no final destination. No strategies for survival. The “take” exists here and now. There is no practice, no do-overs. This is in the final production. This is live and is being broadcasted. To fully respond the Other, we must step beyond a script. It is in this place that the Self as an ethical agent can fall away. In this place the Self has ceased to be dependent on a script for cues as to how to respond; the Self finally has real moral choice.
Bauman, Zygmunt. (1995). Life in Fragments: Essays in Postmodern Morality. Oxford: Blackwell.