The Revolt of the Masses Apr 14 '03    Write an essay on this topic. Tweet Popular Products in Sport and Outdoor Ride Revolt Snowboard Binding Red, L From $200 Ride Revolt Snowboard Binding Red, M From $200 The Bottom Line A look at the revolt of the masses in early 19th century Europe. In his work The Revolt of the Masses, Jose Ortega y Gassett writes a powerful piece on the role in which the masses can play upon not merely the institution of politics but the course of history, as well. Ortega y Gassett examines the rising of the masses right after the turn of the century and look at how the idea and actual being of the masses can have such a profound influence upon his notion of stability and order. “There is one fact which, whether for good or ill, is of utmost importance in the public life of Europe at the present moment. This fact is the accession of the masses to complete social power.” (Ortega y Gassett 11) The problem of the accession of the masses to complete social power is interestingly a problem that Ortega y Gassett feels is not limited to only some states or nations, but rather to all of Europe. It is also interesting to note that Ortega y Gassett feels as though the issue of the accession of the masses is of utmost importance, signifying that it is an issue that cannot be avoided. Naturally, in order for Ortega y Gassett’s assertions about the masses to be taken seriously, he needs to show evidence as to how the mass’ uprising is seen as being fundamentally wrong. “The fact that we must submit to examination may be formulated under two headings: first, the masses are today exercising functions in social life which coincide with those hitherto seemed reserved to minorities; and secondly, these masses have at the same time shown themselves indocile to the minorities- they do not obey them, follow them, or respect them; on the contrary, they push them aside and supplant them.” (Ortega y Gassett 22) These two points are basically the ammunition that Ortega y Gassett plans to use in his attack on the masses. Through his characterizations of the masses, as will soon be shown, Ortega y Gassett seems to minimize the personalities of the masses to achieve the generalizations about the masses that he tries to make. It is essential to first realize that Ortega y Gassett is not a proponent of the masses and their consequent uprising and revolution. In order to support his stance on the role of the masses within society, Ortega y Gassett must first take some time in defining exactly what he means when he writes about the masses. Ortega y Gassett gives many definitions for the masses and does not limit their personal characteristics to merely one well-defined statement. “The mass is the assemblage of persons not specially qualified. By masses, then, it is not to be understood solely or mainly, ‘the working masses.’ The mass is the average man.” (Ortega y Gassett 13) This statement is one of the most important statements that Ortega y Gassett makes in defining what the masses are. Some historians would suggest that the masses are merely the unruly working classes who are trying to push their own social changes, however, Ortega y Gassett feels that while surely the workers are part of the mass, the average man is also part of the mass. Clearly, Ortega y Gassett’s negative opinion of the masses is not hidden from his readers’ eyes. He is very quick to criticize the masses and writes, “The mass crushes beneath it everything that is different, everything that is excellent, individual, qualified, and select.” (Ortega y Gassett 18) This statement seems to imply that the change in which the masses are capable of producing is merely change that is not excellent, not qualified, not select, and surely not good. The work of the masses, in Ortega y Gassett’s opinion reeks more havoc and causes problems, whereas, the work up until the ascension of the masses promoted quality and good. The thought that the mass man is an unintelligent being is also central to the scholarly opinion of Ortega y Gassett. “The mass man is he whose life lacks any purpose, and simply goes drifting along.” (Ortega y Gassett 49) Again, Ortega y Gassett’s critique of the mass man is that the mob mentality he associates with the mass man is an unintelligent and ineffective means to rule society by. Ortega y Gassett somewhat contradicts his argument about the mob mentality and the man who simply goes drifting along when he states, “Strictly speaking, the mass, as a psychological fact, can be defined without waiting for individuals to appear in mass formation.” (Ortega y Gassett 14) While it may be true that the mass man can embody some of the traits of the mass as an individual, clearly, the thing that frightens Ortega y Gassett the most is the ability for the mass man to join with fellow mass men and create the revolution of the masses that he fears and has concerns about throughout the rest of his book. So how did the rise of the masses take place? Surely it cannot simply be coincidence that the masses rose up at the time they did by mere coincidence. Rather, Ortega y Gassett writes, “The triumph of the masses and the consequent magnificent uprising of the vital level have come about in Europe for internal reasons, after two centuries of education of the multitude towards progress, and a parallel economic improvement in society.” (Ortega y Gassett 25) Therefore, perhaps Ortega y Gassett would suggest that perhaps the modern successes that so many saw as being important to the success of the 19th century were in his eyes radical achievements that merely handed the world more problems through the rising of the masses and the change in the political spectrum of all of Europe. The connection to politics and the mass man is another avenue that Ortega y Gassett feels as though is muddied by the lacking characteristics of the mass man. “I believe that the political innovations of recent times signify nothing less than the political domination of the masses.” (Ortega y Gassett 17) The political innovations that Ortega y Gassett seems to find the most problems with would be political ideologies such as socialism and democracy in which the heavy weight of ruling is placed upon the shoulders of the masses. Therefore, because of the previously described personal characteristics of the masses, Ortega y Gassett cannot put much faith into the political ideologies that the masses would employ. “Today we are witnessing the triumphs of a hyperdemocracy in which the mass acts directly, outside the law, imposing its aspirations and its desires by means of material pressure.” (Ortega y Gassett 17) Once again, Ortega y Gassett attacks the institution of democracy by saying that the masses force the democracy in such a way that a “hyperdemocracy” has been created with no regard or attention paid to the law. The aspirations of the mass man far outweigh the better good in the hyperdemocracy that Ortega y Gassett speaks about. Looking at other models of democracy is important for Ortega y Gassett to utilize so that he might further his own thoughts more. “If we observe the public life of the countries where the triumph of the masses has made most advance- these are the Mediterranean countries- we are surprised to find that politically they are living from day to day. The phenomenon is an extraordinarily strange one. Public authority is in the hands of a representative of the masses.” (Ortega y Gassett 49) The ideas and implementation that the masses within the Mediterranean have enacted on their own frightens Ortega y Gassett as he feels that the masses, or even a representative, of the masses should have any right in maintaining public authority. A political model that lacked any influence of the masses would more than likely sit well for Ortega y Gassett. Ortega y Gassett’s concern about the masses interestingly has to deal mostly with political factors, and is free from major concerns dealing with economics. “The division of society into masses and select minorities is, then, not a division into social classes, but into classes of men, and cannot coincide with the hierarchic separation of ‘upper’ and ‘lower’ classes.” (Ortega y Gassett 15) The classes of men that Ortega y Gassett writes about does not deal with the separation of economic classes, but rather, seems to instead point to a system that separates the masses from those who wish not to be part of the masses. Jose Ortega y Gassett sees the masses as an essentially dangerous force. Both the personal characteristics that the masses embody coupled with the political motives that they as a group held were the issues that frightened Ortega y Gassett the most. The thriving nature of the masses led to rises in democracy and group unity, an issue that once again scared Ortega y Gassett into despising the rise of the masses. While many of the hypotheses that Ortega y Gassett raises are rather farfetched, at least he maintains his argument throughout the book. The masses at the turn of the 20th century arose out of issues of the 19th century and hence would cause concern amongst one who was used to a certain way of 19th century living. Most would see the rise of the masses as being a rise in progress, Ortega y Gassett simply saw differently.

Write the first comment on this review!

Write an essay on this topic.