Unpacking "The Burn Out Society": Prof. Blaschko on Byung Chul Han and Profound Boredom

Join us in this thought-provoking video as Professor Paul Blaschko from the University of Notre Dame delves into the core ideas presented in philosopher Byung-Chul Han's influential book "The Burnout Society."
Professor Blaschko explores the concept of burnout from a philosophical standpoint, critically examining Han's claim of modern society's increased susceptibility to it. In his analysis, he highlights Han's characterization of our era as an "achievement society," reflecting on how our relentless pursuit of productivity and accomplishment often leads to psychological exhaustion and disengagement.
Taking it a step further, Blaschko draws connections between Han's arguments and the ancient philosophical debate about the superior way of life: one driven by action or one anchored in contemplation. This exploration helps us understand the role of contemplation in counteracting burnout, shedding light on Han's notion of "profound boredom" as a requisite for genuine contemplation.
#Philosophy #Burnout #AchievementSociety #ByungChulHan #PaulBlaschko #NotreDame

[@andrewsstuffy]

One of the subtle aspects of Han’s theory, often overlooked, is that achievement society has not replaced disciplinary society, but rather, the external structures of discipline have transformed and become internalised, or are directed at the psyche, (as if forming its very soul, rather than conditioning it) so that the achievement subject is now internally disciplined as the master and slave of itself. This is a “continuation”, or evolution, of the disciplinary society in which the world Foucault described is now turned inward in the form of the absolute slave-the slave who wants to become master and the master who has become enslaved. This internal discipline is driven by the modern rise of hyper-individualism that he defines as valuing freedom of achievement, performance, efficiency, and self-optimisation as a means of affirming its own agency (and the power structures that create it). But this is nothing but a manifestation of smart power in which subjects act according to the will of an external power (neoliberal capitalism) but interpret their actions as if they were coming from their freedom-false consciousness. The achievement subject then exploits itself because it has been disciplined according to a system that uses freedom is a form of control. Han says there is no break between disciplinary and achievement society, continuity prevails. Han often uses stark contrasts is his aphoristic writing but a closer reading reveals a more complicated relationship between disciplinary society and achievement society. This has led to some criticisms of Han, as Foucault scholars look around and point to instances where disciplinary society still exists, or places in Foucault's writing where he anticipates something like the neoliberal subject who is self-entrepreneurial. But these kinds of criticisms miss completely what Han is doing as well as often misunderstanding his theory, mainly because they do not read all his works (from what my research has found). On the subject of what he is doing? I think he is creating a new style of philosophy for the twenty first century that starts with a rejection of the usual academic mode of inquiry. He writes in a very aphoristic style, unlike modern academic work, more like Nietzsche, but his work draws on scholarship so it is not like popular philosophy either. His interpretations of modern life hit the mark because they are well researched and don’t get bogged down in conceptual analysis or endless debate but rather they present a holistic view of our condition for the reader to interpret and do some of the work figuring out what the hell he is talking about. In this sense Han’s work invites the reader to become an active participant in the thinking and interpretation forms a part of this engagement. Oh yeah, I loved your video. Thanks.. Yes, there is a general misunderstanding that living an "active" life can be very passive.

[@GavinskisTutorials]

You seem to have a deep grasp of Han's work, I really enjoyed this comment, thank you. I wonder if you could recommend any good academic analyses of his work to date?

[@andrewsstuffy]

​@@GavinskisTutorials Thank you for the comment, much appreciated. As for a deep understanding, perhaps this is too early to tell as I am currently doing a PhD on Han. I wouldn't claim that title just yet. There is no single academic analysis on his work in English to date, however, Steven Knepper, Ethan Stoneman and Robert Wyllie have a book called Byung-Chul Han: a Critical Introduction that is being published by Polity in June 2024. So that is something to look out for. Other than that, in the past 3 years or so Han has begun to be referenced very regularly. There seems to be no end to papers that either mention him or have chapters engaging with him. But the best way is, read and re-read Han.. 20 of his books are now in English. 2 more out very soon. Han's writing is both very accessible and not so accessible. What do I mean by this? On face value, and on a first reading, Han's works are easy to get the general picture of his critique. But Han writes in a style that resembles aphoristic writers like Nietzsche. Andrew Hui has a theory that says, aphoristic philosophers come in after a period and condense ideas down to their simplest forms and provide a critique of social reality, which then invites the reader to read, engage with, and interpret the text. So re-reading is very important. These philosophers can be thought of as working before, after, and against the current mode of thinking in the creation of some new way of looking at the world that incorporates what has come before. The other dimension of this is that because the reader must do some work re-reading and interpreting, they become an active participant in the interpretation. The reader is not spoon-fed and is therefore treated with respect and given the freedom to incorporate their own knowledge into the interpretation of the text they are reading. This contrasts with texts that go to great lengths to explain everything in detail, and thus rendering the reader a passive participant. Philosophy of this latter kind can be up to 1000 pages long, or papers that do lengthy conceptual analysis on one idea. But Han’s works are always 60-100 pages that condenses everything down to its most essential. So, the best way to understand Han is just to keep reading, re-reading and thinking about what he says.

[@animalstylefry]

@@andrewsstuffy Thank you for the thoughtful comments! If I can ask a different question: I've only read this book of his, and was wondering if in any other book he touches on the subject of shaming and/or "cancel culture"?

[@andrewsstuffy]

@@animalstylefryHey. I cannot think of anything specifically addressing cancel culture, but you might want to look at his "Expolsion of the Other" which is a about a naissistic drive to assimilate everything into the Same. "Hyperculture" might be of interest also. And in "In The Swarm" he talks about the disapearence of respect. I would read Han as of the view that phenonomon like cancel culture are a consequence of increaed naracisism which produces an inferno of the same (echo chambers etc.), the lack of repect for different ways of life and opinions, the amonymity on the internet which channels these and appears to amplify naracisism, post-truth etc..

[@animalstylefry]

@@andrewsstuffy Thank you, batman!

[@zenconfidential25]

Beautiful.

[@richardouvrier3078]

The Burn Out Society caused by the pressure of status anxiety to achieve.

[@alexandrehoney5295]

the way this video is shot is incredibly ironic

[@brokenrecord3523]

Re The Great Resignation - The venom spewed by those that have given (wasted) their whole life to the system on these people that finally said "This is bullshit. You can't have my life for a few bucks." ---I just retired a couple of weeks ago. Call me a quitter. 😁