A dictionary defines “ethos” as: “Shared fundamental traits — the fundamental and distinctive character of a group, social context, or period of time, typically expressed in attitudes, habits and beliefs.” The original ancient Greek meaning of the word is “custom” — hence the definition, above, appears to be consonant with this. Neither should one be surprised about the etymological link between “ethos” and “ethical” or “ethics”, where the latter two concepts belong, as many people would know, in the sphere of philosophy, or a sub-discipline of philosophy, dealing with questions of ethical or moral choice and behaviour. The link with “ethos” in the sense of “custom” would then consist in behaviour being judged as “ethically acceptable” if it does not violate the collective customs of a people, society or community.
But what if the attitudes, habits and beliefs of a people, society or (on a smaller scale) community, are such, at a given time in history, that one may justifiably describe it as a “perverted ethos”? (Which would, ethically speaking, not be an ethos at all, because the connection with moral justifiability would be lost) Such an “ethos” or “pseudo-ethos” would be a contradiction in terms.
Have there been instances of such a pseudo-ethos? Of course, Nazi Germany, at the nadir of its moral self-righteousness was driven by such a perverted “ethos” as was the apartheid state in South Africa and one could analyse, historically, how the Roman Empire, through a number of centuries, degenerated from a level of ethos-driven civilisation (the expansion through conquest notwithstanding; remember the Pax Romana) to an increasingly dissolute, discord-torn state, which could hardly be said to have an ethos in the sense of a set of beliefs and customs that holds a community together.
From this analysis it is apparent that “ethos” has a normative character and when it no longer functions in salutary normative manner, something has gone seriously wrong and the rot has set in, as it were. At the same time it has to be admitted that an ethos is not synonymous with an ideology. It is more diffuse than the latter and less easily recognisable, the way that apartheid, liberalism or communism, could readily be identified as ideologies. For instance South Africa has had an ethos of hospitality (which was not restricted to the members of one race or culture) for many decades, even during the time of apartheid.
But what does it mean to say that an ethos has a “normative” character? Is this just cheap rhetoric, to the effect that one would like to inculcate some sense of communal togetherness? No, rather, it suggests that if an ethos has lost its normative, standard-setting character, all that remains is a pseudo-ethos which may, factually, be characteristic of a community or a society at a certain time but that this could in no way be held up as normative, that is, as being worthy of valorisation or commendation.
At such times one may find oneself in a situation where, in the absence of a guiding communal or societal ethos, the individual may have to formulate an ethos for him and herself, contradictory as it may seem (because “custom” belongs, per definition, to a group and not to an individual). And yet I believe that there are times in history where such an ostensibly paradoxical state of affairs must be assumed to exist, lest the prevailing pseudo-ethos should lead to a collapse of civilization similar to that which happened in the case of the Romans.
That is to say, a set of habits that is not conducive to the promotion of a higher state of civilization in terms of learning, culture, education, and so on, but instead leads incrementally to its deterioration, could potentially torpedo whatever is good about human society, unless a vibrant new ethos were cultivated in the lives of specific individuals, who would presumably be able to disseminate it to others until it pervades a community and eventually a society.
What an individual “ethos” would imply, in such circumstances, is that, although perhaps not initially shared by a group of people, it is in principle, if not in fact, open to such sharing and could conceivably grow into an ethos proper if it is sufficiently persuasive or attractive to some people. Mohandas Gandhi represents a historical instance of an individual whose ethos of “satyagraha”, or non-violent resistance to oppressive rule, has served to bring together a number of like-minded people whose actions are informed by this ethos.
Another way in which this could happen may be by means of, for example, a school of architecture (or a school of language, of social science, or of natural sciences and so on) at a university. It would require an influential individual or group of individuals to begin with, whose knowledge and authority (through their work) in a discipline or cluster of disciplines are such that they come to occupy a leadership position. Students who study in such an academic environment would find their orientation in the discipline of architectural design through the work of the individuals concerned — by and large, their teachers — and would contribute to the expansion of the school’s architectural ethos by refining and further extending the principles underlying its direction of development.
The Bauhaus, founded in 1919 under the leadership of Walter Gropius, was such a school of architecture and design whose influence, or architectural ethos, extended far beyond its time of existence. It was famous for attempting to synthesize craftsmanship, design, art and technology and for giving a strong impetus to the development of functionalist architecture. In effect what Gropius and his followers tried to do for the modern era was to re-conceive of architecture as “total artwork” or “Gesamtkunstwerk”, the way that it had existed in the time of the Gothic cathedrals of European culture in which all the arts were brought together.
This time, however, it would be done in a manner that was consonant with the demands of a secular modernity. In the process, the Bauhaus project was no less than an effort, to articulate an ethos for the modern era (something that Louis Kahn, to my mind, achieved magnificently in some of his works), something still eminently worthwhile pursuing on the part of schools of architecture, or even by creative individuals who, in the process, draw students and colleagues together, in this way cultivating a culturally life-giving ethos. There are many instances of this, too many to elaborate on here.
In any event, the point that I am trying to make here — perhaps too laboriously — is that every human being requires a sense of something that is valuable and worth pursuing to be able to live a meaningful life. An ethos is what functions as a kind of spiritual compass in this respect. From what I said earlier about a pseudo-ethos, it follows, of course, that there are many things in the world around us that present themselves as sources of such value, but I would argue that only those which are in a sense rooted in the demands of the present, can have a purchase on human needs and requirements in this era.
What I mean can be briefly explained by means of Nietzsche’s distinction between three kinds of nihilism: radical nihilism, passive nihilism and active nihilism. The first, “radical” nihilism, is what dawns on one when you realize the groundlessness of everything — the fact that nothing that exists is “necessary”; it could have been otherwise — value-systems are the result of contingent historical decisions and hence are mere constructions that could be replaced with other such constructions. Once one has seen this abyss of non-value, two responses are possible, and this is where the other two kinds of nihilism come in.
“Passive” nihilism occurs when someone sees the abyss yawning but instead of facing it courageously he or she gets such a fright that they turn around and resort to mere conventional behaviour or — as Nietzsche puts it — they promptly “run back into the arms of the priests” as if nothing has changed. This is self-delusion of course. “Active” nihilism by contrast follows when an individual discovers the abyss but instead of staggering back in horror, she or he faces it resolutely and — in Nietzsche’s idiom — “dances” on it.
What does this mean? That instead of falling back on mere unexamined convention, which most people follow uncritically and rather “sheepishly”, such “active” nihilists are willing, and often able, to create something of value themselves to the point of actually “creating values”. The kind of individuals, like Gropius, referred to earlier, or Mother Teresa, Gandhi, Mandela, or perhaps — if he lives up to the promise of his presidency, Barack Obama, who can bring something new into the world to enable people to grapple with the problems and demands of the present, are active nihilists — people who create values, instead of merely, passively, imitatively, repeating conventional values. The test of their success at creating what I have referred to as an ethos, depends on whether others can find in their creative endeavours — whether it is in science, the arts, the political realm or any other cultural domain — something worth following.
The question I would like to leave you with is this: are there any signs of active nihilists today who are worthy of being followed, or rather, joined in their attempts to bring something of value into the world? And I mean “something of value” that would surpass the tired old clichés which are routinely trotted out by the vast majority of politicians and other so-called “leaders” in various fields. Every era demands its own, unique, ways of tackling problems and challenges that confront the human race. To be able to come up with this would be to formulate an “ethos” for the present. I can think of some people who would qualify in this respect but that will have to wait for another time. (Yes, I know I should return to the questions of science but I have sort of lost enthusiasm for those … )
Die problematiek in verband met n Ethos in n gemeenskap of generasie word bepaal deur die norme, waardes en standaarde wat in so gemeeenskap bestaan.
Soos omstandighede verander en tegnologiese ontwikkeling verbeter het dit noodwendig n invloed op die ethos van n gemeenskap.Mense se lewenstandarde en gemeenskappe se samestelling word deur die aspek verander.Dit het tot gevolg dat n ethos dinamiese karakter het. As gevolg van die feit wat bestaan van die gevaar dat n ethos n pseudo aard kan aanneem. Die normatiewe karakter van n gemeenskap moet egter sterk genoeg wees om sulke distruktiewe onderstrome te beheer.
Alhoewel n ethos eie is aan n groep of n gemeenskap is dit ook belangrik dat individue hulle metertyd sal uitspreek om tradisies en normatiwe waardes in gemeenskappe te beskerm en versterk! Belanrike prestasies wat in hierdie gemeenskappe daargestel word, moet geweeg word ten opsigte van die kulturele of sosiale norme van die groep. Indien dit nie indruis teen hierdie aspekte nie en die prestasie tot voordeel is van n gemeenskap sal dit beskou word as n voordeel om dit te ondersteun en te volg!!Lamont Gouws std no: 205004156
I would like to propose that all of us reading this essay possess some or other form of active nihilism, be it in varying degrees. The fact that we are opening up ourselves to the idea of the “groundlessness of everything” and taking in your opinion, with the willingness to respond, should reason in our favour. I hope sincerely that no one reading this has “run back into the arms of the priests”, but I suppose that fact that we keep coming back for more justifies otherwise.
I read an article published in the Johannesburg Star on 13 May 2009 that argued, with the proper scientific research and backing, that those individuals in history that we consider “genius” in their talents and successes, all had in fact, a measure of mental illness or schizophrenia that allowed them to think out the box. Those of us with no tendencies towards psychotic behaviour (like mathematitians and scientists, who through their compulsive natures require complete ordinance and dedication to the quest for perfection, and hence answers) or delusional occurrences (how else would brilliant minds in psychology, philosophy etc have the ability to realise that there might be alternative thoughts?) remain the “sheep” of society and follow unquestionably. The reality that these mental disorders have survived the evolutionary battlefield must lead us to one answer: that they are useful (or perhaps necessary?) to human development
(continued from above)
Those of us with no psychological disorders or even the slightest mention of them would then I suppose be termed as “passive nihilists”.
Would it then be fair to state that active nihilism cannot be learnt or created, but is in truth a genetic (dis)advantage? That perhaps we have been “barking up the wrong tree”?
NO!
I don’t believe there are such active nihilists today who are worth being followed. I am saying this because nowadays the present day active nihilist tends to compromise a lot on what they are fighting for. Unlike the active nihilist like Nelson Mandela were worth being followed because they carried their words. But our present day active nihilists will not fight anymore if given a higher authority in what they are fighting for even if things still stay the same.
What happened to Morgan Tsvangirai after promising to fight for a better future in Zimbabwe? They convinced him to settle for a power-sharing agreement with President Robert Mogabe which he thinks it is in danger of failing. So what is happening to a typical Tsvangirai supporter who Tsvangirai was telling him that Mugabe is a killer, a bad man who doesn’t deserve to be a leader? Surely one will be disappointed after following such an active nihilist. This is what our present day active nihilist does to use as followers.
I feel after the Bauhaus there might have been another school of architecture somewhere that made an attempt to develop an architectural ethos but could not succeed because of the rapidly growing technology and being part of universities which are more business oriented. The leaders can instruct the school of architecture to increase their intake and this might make it difficult for the leaders of the school to lead the school towards a direction that is culturally
It takes more than a mere individual to bring about a total and revelatory change in the ethos of a community (Global or otherwise). Such active nihilsts serve to inspire and instigate change through that very inspiration ( Ghandi, Mandela). While most individuals are happy to jump on a particular bandwagon and ‘follow the leader’, few are willing to put in a concerted effort equal to that of said leader.
One could dismiss that statement as idealistic, but think before you do. The current global ethos permeating the western world has made us so complacent with living second-rate, consumer lives, that while we recognise the rot that has begun to set into our societies, we simply sit back and wait for somebody to come and change it all.
As individuals, we have to establish our own ethos, and instead of simply stating it, we must live it. I don’t believe that we should wait for somebody else to come along and wave a magic wand to change the world.
Capitalism and the anonymous capitalst have turned our world int o dog-eat-dog theatre of war, and only when one realises that for themselves, will they be able to birth an ethos derived from their own being.
Become an Active Nihilist, don’t go searching for one.
I agree strongly with Nikhil, if you and I want to call ourselves active nihilists (as we would like to), then it means that one has to formulate an ethos that is true to yourself. Mandela, Ghandi, Mother Teresa, take from their ethos and form the ‘methos’..
I don’t know if there are any active nihilists out there today that are worth following, not because i am ignorant, but because i have my own ethos to follow and to build on. It is more important however to look at those examples of the pseudo-ethos and to make sure that we steer far clear from them.
Is it not the fact that there are different cultures and ideas that make us want to travel and experience and see the world? But perhaps there is a lot of room for certain cultures and ideologies to open their minds to what we know now as an educated world. Religions preach salvation to the ones who follow them and condemn those who don’t; this breeds war and stops the progression towards an accepting society. At the same time capital and greed destroys our planet and keeps us occupied as ‘happy’ consumers.
Surely by now it is widely recognised that there is a need to live a more sustainable lifestyle, surely everyone now knows that the earth is round and it revolves around the sun.. Science has proven itself time and again and yet ideologies and fundamentalists choose to ignore it until the point where it cannot be put off anymore.
Ethos, at this point in time should be governed by those with the knowledge and understanding of the present and the future, to live a sustainable healthy life in harmony with nature and each other. If we start with science the art and the beauty will follow and then develop into an architecture that satisfies human and natural needs as well as aesthetic beauty.
If we cannot achieve this we will carry on living in the ‘Bush’.
The governments of today (ours being a perfect example) have the general ethos of making everyone the same. This is opposite to the ideology of communism: “From each according to his skill, for each according to his need.” In our politically correct and ethnically sensitive society, governments are trying to force out our individuality. Everybody is given equal opportunities regardless of natural talent or care of that specific thing or career. They pride themselves on making it possible that a street sweeper can now become a scientist because of their “previously disadvantaged” state. Furthermore, a person skilled only in the drawing up of an architect’s plans can now by law design buildings. How can the oppression of the individual talent and uniqueness of a person possibly benefit our society? In truth, we are unknowingly working towards the destruction of the world, because noticing the difference between us is, by law, punishable.
There are no people today that are “worthy of being followed.” Or should I rather say that no person who has shown him-/herself to the world should be given the right of creating an ethos for the world. A person who feels that he is the one who has the answer, no matter how visionary, and can lead the world needs to be arrogant and stubborn to reach his goal. These are not the attributes of a person who has the answer, because life is ever-changing and evolving, so problems and therefore solution must be so too.
Ethos as explained are “shared fundamental traits” which are a result of influences by an “individual or group of individuals” If these influences that contribute to the expansion of ethos and further extending the principles underlying it’s directions of development.
Relating “ethos” to a school of architecture (or any other school) could very easily be shown, not only in the Bauhaus, but also in our own school (in our school obviously to a lesser manner). As stated in the text, the Bauhaus was an effort to articulate an Ethos for the modern are, whereas our own school articulates the fundamentals of a very contextual and urban driven Ethos that largely focuses on the “how to’s” of not just making pretty cardboard sculptures and dropping them at any given location, but rather how to design something specific for a specific site.
Reading through the text especially the part about the three kinds of nihilism I could not help but wonder. Is it not possible to fall into all three categories (radical, passive and active) at the same time? As, our favorite example – Gropius, being described as an “active nihilist”. Could he not to a certain extent be placed in all three categories? Radical- realizing how groundless all the “added decoration” up until the start of the Bauhaus was and how one does not need that brookylace surrounding your bay window. This then leads to Passive- where he gets such a fright when realizing how much time and money has been
wasted – unnecessarily- on decorating our buildings (and art) up until then and turns back to the fundamentals of what makes a building – more importantly, what makes shelter. PLANES. A series of horizontal and vertical planes that encloses and creates space. Finally, after overcoming the shock, we can place him in the Active group. Where he take those basic fundamentals and creates his thesis of how to make a coherent poetic ensemble of these horizontals and verticals all theoretically put together to create a whole.
My concluding question would be: Would the world not be in chaos if every single one of us were to be an “active nihilist”? There would be no leaders, there would be no right and wrong (in theory, atleast). Thus, there is a place for all three groups and in the correct ratio there will be something for every taste .
Within an ethos, there are generally two kinds of people: there are those with a strong desire to be involved in a particular issue and then there are those needing to belong to or feel a part of something. The first group chooses to live by that set of principles (actively participating) and truly believes in them, whereas the second group agrees to live within that set of principles (blindly following), in order to be accepted.
Therein lies my frustration with the concept of an ethos.
There always seems to be a need to ‘repair’ things; situations, occurrences deemed undesirable by a certain individual (or group) and so an identity is created to attempt to rectify the ‘problem’. A collective to fight against, or to solve, said problem.
Once an ethos has been created, its fate lies within the perspective of the times influential minds. If what was accepted (original belief set) is now deemed unfit, we endeavor to correct it. Is this correction truly an improvement, or a changing idea set being realized??
cont…
Are we never satisfied with what we have?
Should we look at an ethos as a ‘limited time only’ ideal?
I am not saying an ethos must be created and not challenged. For what is an ethos without opposition? Opinion cannot stand alone (referring to earlier comments on meaninglessness), for one opinion without a counter is meaningless, it will no longer be opinion, but instead becomes fact.
Throughout our history, and in fact all things, a pattern can be detected: creation, performance, deterioration (perversion), re-creation…
Which phase are we in now, I wonder (in terms of architecture)??
For example: early modernism, strict and unemotional, was praised in its day, but has since been rejected & modified. Where does this fit in?
What is performance, what is perversion? Who decides it?
Each of us has the potential to become an active nihilist and I believe it’s up to us to decide whether we have the desire or passion to live up to that potential.
I don’t believe that an ethos is possible. In the above article, it’s said that an ethos is less easily identifiable than an ideology. No south african who has at some point in his life decided to become hospitable to everyone they meet (though it is widely believed that south africans are a very hospitable nation), but I do believe that it is a trait passed down through their cultural upbringing.
What further supports my belief are the examples used. The nation of Rome, Nazi Germany, the Bauhaus, Mahandas Gandhi, all of these are examples of people that took a decision at some point to either make a change their in their own lives (Ghandi), or to change the situation around them (Bauhaus, Nazi Germany). Whether or not their actions were right or wrong is not my train of thought.
I believe that the act of formulating an ethos, be it for one’s self or for a group of individuals, is simply a way of establishing a foothold in an ever changing world, similarly to Christianity and cultural ways and customs.
Similarly in Architecture, the formulation of an ethos relevant to it, would simply be the establishment of what in the future would be referred to as a style of our time.
An active nihilist would be one who is able to change with and adapt to the changes of this world and its ever evolving demands…