"Reflection on Marcel's 'On the Ontological Mystery'"by John Barich
ATOMIC AGE AND MASS DEATH...twin scourges of the 20th century.
"Thus, the challenge of Marcel's philosophy -- the challenge of living by a set of values at odds with the world of the problematical -- will be difficult. It involves the commitment of one's entire life and of one's being, and might bring pain and rejection... For those of us who are heirs to the legacy of the atomic age and of mass death -- the twin scourges of the century -- the call to repent, to change how we think and act, has never been louder."
Analysis of the Essays Themes
To understand what Marcel means by the expression "ontological mystery" it is necessary to understand his view of reality. Marcel sees reality as existing on two levels which he calls the world of the problematical and the world of the ontological mystery. For Marcel, the world of the problematical is the domain of science, of rational inquiry, of technical control. The real is defined by what the mind can formulate into a problem, solve, and contain in a formula. Reality is merely the sum-total of its parts. In the world of the problematical, human beings are viewed as objects, as statistics, as cases. They are defined in terms of their vital functions, (i.e., biological) and their social functions; the individual is considered merely a biological machine performing various social functions. There is nothing unique about me. There is nothing more to my identity than the biological processes which keep me alive, the type of job I hold, and the number of possessions I acquire. I am my functions. Marcel further notes that the ontological need, the need for imbue one's life in transcendental meaning, is stifled and suppressed, ignored and denied.
Contrasted against the world of the problematical is the world of the ontological mystery. What makes this aspect of Marcel's essay difficult to understand is that he never defines what he means by ontology. The world ontology usually refers to discussions about the nature of existence or being. An ontological question or discussion seeks to elucidate the underlying structures of reality. A philosopher of ontology might ask: "What is the nature of being?" "What is the essence of reality?" Why is there something and not nothing" What is reality? For Marcel, being is an element of reality which exists in and of itself, which defies reductionist analysis, which can not be circumscribed by the formulas of the natural sciences. Being goes beyond the framework of the rational mind, mysterious sustaining reality.
Related to being is Marcel's notion of mystery. He defines mystery as "a problem which encroaches upon its own data, invading them, as it were, and thereby transcending itself as a simple problem." I think what Marcel is saying is that mystery is a phenomenon that appears as if it can be understand through rational analysis, but, the more one knows about the phenomenon, the more elusive and enigmatic it becomes. Marcel then goes on to assert that words and ideas lack the capacity to grasp fully the phenomenon of the mystery. The realty of the mystery can be partially seen or understood. It can be vaguely described by never totally revealed. Words allude to it; symbols express it; relationships raise our consciousness of it. But the mystery can never be wholly contained by language or meticulously categorized -- like a botanist compiling a list of plants.
Thus, the ontological mystery under girds yet surpasses and envelopes the world of the problematical: being sustains the whole of reality yet is shrouded in mystery.
To access the ontological mystery and gain a sense of its reality requires that one detach oneself from the world of the problematical. Detachment occurs in recollection, a process in which one gathers oneself together, turns inwards, and unifies the fragmented and shattered pieces of problematical living. Within recollection one encounters what Marcel calls presence, which he describes as an influx, as an encounter with that which is permanent and enduring, as an encounter with being. "Presence is mystery," Marcel writes, "in the exact measure in which it is presence." Marcel stresses that presence is a gift, a gift we can neither possess nor acquire. We can, however, prepare ourselves to encounter it through the process of recollection and by establishing authentic relationships with other people. Creative fidelity, and intriguing notion of Marcel, is also part of this preparation. Fidelity refers to the active augmentation of presence through creative acts of love; it refers to the reaching our to others in love and to acts of creativity and construction.
Encountering the ontological mystery brings about a gradual transformation within the perceptions, relationships, and life experiences of the individual. The individual broadens his visions of the world and begins to see aspects of reality not admitted in purely rational mindset. His perceptions deepened, and he becomes more attentive to the needs of others and relates to people as people and not as cases or as statistics on a balance sheet. As an individual, I come to realize that my being -- the core of my reality -- transcends the self which can be ripped apart and analyzed under a microscope. My personhood, the fact that I exist, transcends, the historical, sociological, and natural forces which brought my existence into being and contributed to my existence. There is more to my reality than my life; there is more to me than the totality of my experiences.
I am not my life; I am more than my life. In the domain of the ontological mystery, I encounter more than myself.
Ruminations
What can those of us living at the end of the twentieth century learn from the writings of Gabriel Marcel? First of all, we need to be open to the possibility that Marcel does in fact have something to say to us. His type of thinking is considered obsolete and irrelevant by the vast majority of educated people, especially at the universities and seminaries where his writings might be read and ripped apart by intellectual piranhas. Marcel himself, interestingly, never trusted academicians, and perhaps an intellectual and creative adept like Marcel needs to be appreciated, read, and contemplated outside of the castle walls of academia.
Although his philosophy does not bear the imprimatur and sacrosanct blessing of the intellectual community, Marcel provides us with a comprehensive framework for interpreting our world at the end of the twentieth century. Take Marcel's notion of the problematical world. Recall that thinking in this type of world reduces people to their vital and social functions. The value of a person is determined by his function. People are nothing more than statistics dominated the technology they have created to control their world.
This world that Marcel describes is our world. Our lives are dominated by a relentless technology supposedly desgined to make our lives easier, but which seems to make our lives more complicated and stressful. We are enslaved to our gadgets, to our machines, to our technology. Our society might collapse if we were to experience a breakdown of, for instance, our telecommunications network or the power grid. How could we live without the telephone or electricity? We have, in Marcel's vision, lost control of our control: we have lost control of our technology.
This loss of control is further evidenced by an economic ethos which seeks to maximize profits at the expense of people and the environment. Our way of life depends on an expanding economy, event though we are literally destroying the planet in the process of generating wealth. We are compelled to consume rapaciously the earth's resources, to feed the economic machine, so we can purchase products we don't need and acquire possession that are not lasting. Any serious disruption in the functioning of the economy would be devastating. It would disrupt the lives of millions of people.
We have created a monster we can no longer control, to whom we must offer our lives and talents.
Marcel was also perceptive when he described the lives of individuals in the world of the problematical. The functionalized definition of the human person has won out over older, traditional religious and philosophical definitions of humanity. We have lost the notion that people are created in the image of God, that they possess an inherent dignity and sanctity because they are human beings. Rather, humans are viewed as an amalgamation of processes, as a jumble of DNA and hormones conditioned to respond in pre-determined patterns of behavior. The discipline of psychology, whose name comes from the Greek word for soul, seeks to understand human beings solely in terms of biological, cognitive, and social processes contextualized in a Darwinian framework. Being human is nothing more than existing as an sophisticated animal in a technological world.
Moreover, people -- at lest in the West -- receive their identity according to the economic function they perform. As an individual, I am required to perform a function in the economic life of society. I am my career. When my function becomes obsolete, I am terminated, and then I am forced to find a new function or role to play. I can spend twenty years of my life serving a corporation but when I no longer help the company make profits, I am rendered unworthy of employment by the powers that be and am sent on my merry way to the unemployment line. If I am certain age, then it is unlikely I will ever find steady work again.
The functionalized definition of human beings has been characteristic of the history of the twentieth century. One can site numerous examples of this type of characterization. Think of Mas-tse Tung's "Great Leap Forward;" Pol-Pot's "Killing Fields;" and Stalin's forced collectivization and Five Year Plans.
But perhaps the most graphic example of the ideology of functionalism is seen in Poland during the Second World. I.G. Farben, the massive German conglomerate, used slave labor to produce rubber for the German war machine. The thinking of I.G. Farben officials was simple: the best way to maximize profits and reduce labor costs was to use slave labor, which saved the company millions while putting marks in the pockets of Farben stockholders.
Slave labor is a fantastic way to keep down labor costs. You don't have to pay a slave a regular wage; you don't have to feed him or her -- at least very much food; you don't have to pay them a Christmas bonus (documentation exists from I.G. Farben stating this); and best of all, you can work them to death without any moral or social repercussions.
And once you gas them, you can use their hair to make wigs, their body fat to make soap, their gold fillings to make jewelry.
Such is the dignity of the human person in the world of the problematical.
Is there any way out of this morass, this quagmire, this prison? Marcel does provide a vague way out. He emphasizes the need for humility, for love, for a letting go of the hubris which compels men to dominate nature and one another. His thought calls for a rebellion against established norms and patterns of thought which perpetuate ad nauseam the world of the problematical. By consciously sensitizing ourselves to the ontological mystery, we open ourselves to the mystery of presence and emerge from the darkness of our selfish egotisim. We begin to see the whole of life differently. We experience meaning where there was once emptiness; hope where there was once despair; presence where there was once the void. Relationships take on a new found significance. We gain the courage to smash the idols we worship, the idols of self, of money, of power; idols which compel us to use people and nature to satisfy our insatiable appetites.
Marcel is calling for a radical revaluation of values, for a fundamental change in how we understand reality and relate to other persons. One wonders if such a change is possible. Societal institutions are designed to reinforce and legitimize the world of the problematical. To place oneself in opposition to these institutions comes at a considerable cost. For a scientist to admit to the possibility of mystery is tantamount to committing academic suicide; for a business executive to refrain from cutting jobs to spare those who would lose their jobs from the hardship this entails would lead to his or her own firing. Institutions are not designed to reward humanistic behavior. They are designed to punish non-conformity: institutional guardians are paid to defend the ethos and insure the continuation of the institution. Institutions are set over against individuals, obliterating those who chose to live otherwise.
In short, institutions come before people; profits before huamnity; object before subject; abstraction before reality.
Thus, the challenge of Marcel's philosophy -- the challenge of living by a set of values at odds with the world of the problematical -- will be difficult. It involves the commitment of one's entire life and of one's being, and might bring pain and rejection. But, the way of the pilgrim has always been fraught with danger, isolation and sadness. Despite the inherent difficulty in such a life-choice, isn't the sacrifice worth it? Isn't the sacrifice worth the possibility of creating a new world? of relating to existence in an entirely new way? For those of us who are heirs to the legacy of the atomic age and of mass death -- the twin scourges of the century -- the call to repent, to change how we think and act, has never been louder.
How we respond to it....our response will be our legacy.
Back to John Barich Webpage
