Proletarianization of Knowledge

= the concept the proletariat has been modified by Bernard Stiegler; an explanation by Simon Licelles in his Delirium project.

Discussion

On the Proletarianization of Knowledge(after Bernard Stiegler)

Simon Licelles:

"In everyday language, a proletarian refers to a poor person, someone belonging to the lower social classes.

In Marxist theory, the proletarian is defined more precisely as an individual who possesses nothing but their labor power, which they must sell to the bourgeois, the one who owns the means of production.

Bernard Stiegler reinterpreted and expanded this concept by suggesting that proletarianization is the process by which an individual loses knowledge through the relationship they maintain with a technique or technology.

That is to say, certain techniques or technologies can become so complex that they incorporate knowledge to such a degree that their users no longer need to hold that knowledge themselves — and, as a result, become dispossessed of it. The techniques or machines end up “knowing more” than humans. It is no longer the living individual who possesses the ability to articulate know-how (savoir-faire), ways of living (savoir-vivre), or theoretical understanding (savoir-théorique), but the machines.

Of course, machines do not actually “know” anything in themselves; knowledge is always exteriorized. Yet once this knowledge is integrated into technical systems, we can, in turn, become dispossessed of it.

The term proletarian comes from prolès — “to reproduce.” A proletarian, therefore, is someone who can only reproduce things as they are received, without introducing modifications, personalization, or innovation — which would be the marks of true mastery of a technique or technology, and thus of genuine knowledge.

Examples:

A doctor can become proletarianized, for instance, if they misuse a diagnostic tool and the machine ends up “knowing more” than they do — or if they rely exclusively on the prescription of chemical molecules. A doctor can thus be proletarianized by antibiotics and Big Pharma.

Similarly, one may become proletarianized by relying on GPS, forgetting how to read a map, or by losing spelling ability through the habitual use of automatic correction.

Hence, one can lose knowledge — become proletarianized — through the use of a technology, without necessarily belonging to the lower social classes.

The Three Forms of Knowledge and Their Proletarianization

In principle, proletarianization can affect all three kinds of knowledge.

1. The Proletarianization of Know-how (Savoir-faire)

This occurred massively during the Industrial Revolution.

With the introduction of steam power and, later, electricity, engineers automated machines, and workers — formerly the operators of their tools — became the servants of the machines. This process deepened under industrial organization of labor, such as Taylorism and Fordism.

These transformations greatly increased productivity, but at the same time reduced the amount of knowledge required to work in the factories — which in turn made it possible to lower wages.

If poverty is often associated with proletarianization, it may be because the lower classes were deprived of their know-how by modern production techniques.

2. The Proletarianization of Ways of Living (Savoir-vivre)

This appeared in Europe, for example, in the second half of the 20th century, with the rise of centralized cultural industries (television, radio) and the development of marketing.

As auxiliaries to the productivist industries, the cultural industries transformed people’s habits to absorb surplus commodities.

Edward Bernays, Freud’s nephew, drew on his uncle’s theories of unconscious desire to develop commercial propaganda. The industrialization of culture in the 20th century standardized behaviors to open markets.

These industries could have been vehicles for the diffusion of knowledge — but instead they largely disseminated advertising messages, replacing or renewing lifestyles in order to sell more. This prevented overproduction crises, but by altering habits and lifestyles, cultural industrialization destroyed traditional forms of savoir-vivre — disrupting family relations, for instance — to stimulate consumption, and damaging mental structures more broadly.

This was perfectly summarized by former TF1 director Patrick Le Lay, who once said that his job was to “sell available brain time to Coca-Cola.”

Unlike the proletarianization of know-how, which mainly affected workers, the loss of savoir-vivre affects everyone, especially children, who are all caught within the hyper-industrial system, where culture and lifestyle are systematically exploited for commercial ends.

3. The Proletarianization of Theoretical Knowledge (Savoir-théorique)

This is perhaps more difficult to describe, as it can take two main forms.

First, it concerns automated tools of scientific assistance — data collection and measurement instruments that become “black boxes.” They allow researchers to produce results quickly and efficiently, but deprive them of the ability to fully control their production.

Some automated microscopes, for instance, are effective and easy to use, but no longer allow precise control over image quality. At one point, with the enthusiasm around Big Data, some even predicted the “end of theory” — that is, a world where models and theoretical reasoning would be replaced entirely by statistical computation on massive datasets.

By automating measurement, calculation, and even decision-making, researchers risk becoming so assisted that they lose the meaning of their own work.

A second, subtler form of theoretical proletarianization arises from automatism in thought itself — when we fail to question the concepts we mobilize, believing ourselves knowledgeable while actually being limited by the very frameworks that enable our thinking. Concepts make knowledge possible, but they also filter and obscure other possibilities. The ideas that concepts make thinkable are also screens that hide others.

When we think one thing, we forget the rest.

(Concepts, after all, are human constructions — all too human, and probably anthropocentric by nature. We shall return to this point.)

Toward a Synthesis

We can draw several conclusions about proletarianization:

The more powerful a technology is — the more knowledge it integrates and the more it can assist us — the greater its proletarianizing potential, since it can diminish the user’s capacities.

Knowledge brings pleasure, richness, and meaning to life by increasing one’s power to act. Proletarianization, conversely, produces sad and depressing affects.

In an earlier video on knowledge, it was said that knowledge is the capacity to associate elements of the world. Proletarianization — the exteriorization of knowledge — deprives individuals of this capacity to make connections between things and between people. It thus weakens social bonds and the transmission of experience.

In another video on drive-based economies, it was argued that knowledge enables individuals to delay the satisfaction of their drives by linking them to the world. A proletarianized individual, having lost that capacity, will seek immediate gratification, tending toward aggression, especially sexual aggression.

Finally, according to the bio-techno-sociological theory of individuation, knowledge is vital for human beings, as it links biology, technology, and the social.

Proletarianization breaks these links, leading to dehumanization — or, more precisely, disindividuation — which, in extreme cases, can lead indirectly to death.

Yet, in a sense, every new technology that replaces an old one makes previous forms of knowledge disappear, while allowing new ones to emerge.

Proletarianization, then, may also be a part of life itself: every period of loss of knowledge calls forth a new period of knowledge creation."

( [1] )