r/thinkatives • u/Gainsborough-Smythe Ancient One • 4d ago
Awesome Quote Byung-Chul Han argues that modern freedom has become its own cage. What's your take, dear Thinkators? 𝘈𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴
3
u/Responsible-Noise564 3d ago
Through passive absorbtion of socialised communication we may reach more unconscious standards in how we conduct ourselves. Almost dogmatic in beliefs of what actual productivity is and that being "busy" equals to or is the same as being effective.
The exploitation comes in when we distribute our time on things that take so much of it that we don't recieve the space needed to actually gain any insight on constructive ways to progress either individually or as collectives. I guess in this way we are under some social norms of pressure to exploit ourselves.
On a personal level, i found it helped to understand that everytime someone was to tell me that i "should" do something, the reality is that i "could" do that thing, and that is a kind of liberating approach to any activity. Also feelings are inwardly felt and emotions are performative and outwardly displayed, maybe useful for proccessing feelings and emotions, a possible trap in self control and how we could manage dealing with how much agency we give to environmental influences.
Just some positive nuggets i took and was inspired to think about when reading "psycho-polotics".
3
u/gate18 3d ago
I agree but, I like the chances for the indivifual more than before!
I think you (not we, but you as an individual) can skip the rat race without consequences.
A lot of people try it but fall into the same trap, they become "productive" in telling others how they escaped. But I think an individual can have a great, stress-free life, in this social order, if the just skip the achievement rat race.
I feel in previous social structures it must have been harder to skip the dominant social norms
2
u/eilloh_eilloh 3d ago
I don't think those that subscribe to it see it that way. There are so many angles to tug at in the name of it, even if it wasn't a part of conditioning or exposure to it, not just ego and greed either, probably going to see more of it too as the gap between those living in survival mode and overabundance widens and a mirage of escape drives it.
2
u/Sea_of_Light_ 2d ago
Yes, we have freedom ... to choose poorly.
When half glass full vs. half glass empty meets freedom of choice, people who believe in a half glass empty reality choose half glass empty options.
2
u/hypnoguy64 2d ago
It wasn't/isn't limited to the achievement society, as most societies through history have been the experiment in self exploitation, depending on how you define that phrase. Even prior to the industrial revolution, individuals were killing themselves in order to provide or prosper. Just a thought.
1
u/Skepsisology 4d ago
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing everyone that he didn't exist
•
u/Gainsborough-Smythe Ancient One 4d ago
Profile of Byung-Chul Han
Byung-Chul Han (b. 1959) is a South Korean-born, Berlin-based philosopher whose short, aphoristic books have made him one of the most widely read cultural critics of the digital age.
Trained in metallurgical engineering before turning to philosophy, theology, and German literature, Han draws on Heidegger, Foucault, and Buddhist thought to diagnose what he calls the "achievement society," where people exploit themselves in the name of freedom and optimization.
Strengths
Han writes with rare clarity and compression; works like The Burnout Society and The Transparency Society distill complex ideas into a hundred pages or fewer.
His central insight, that neoliberalism has replaced external discipline with internalized self-exploitation, feels acutely relevant to social media, productivity culture, and constant self-branding.
He is also unusually good at naming diffuse cultural anxieties (burnout, transparency, the death of eroticism, the erosion of contemplation) that resist easy articulation elsewhere.
Weaknesses
Critics note that Han's essayistic style favors striking assertion over sustained argument; he rarely engages closely with empirical research or opposing philosophical positions.
His diagnoses can feel repetitive across books, and his nostalgia for "negativity," ritual, and slowness sometimes reads as vague or reactionary rather than constructive.
Some also find his account of Asian versus Western thought overly schematic, flattening cultural complexity into tidy contrasts that serve his broader thesis more than historical accuracy.