This Is Not a Diary

by Zygmunt Bauman

This is not a diary: while these observations were recorded in autumn 2010 and spring 2011 in the form of dated entries, they are not a personal reflection but an attempt to capture signs of our times in their movement - possibly at birth, at a stage when they are still barely perceptible, and in any case before they have matured into common, all too familiar forms, escaping our attention due to their banality. Some will perhaps settle in our daily life for a long time to come, others will fade and vanish before they would otherwise have a chance to be noted, recorded and explored in depth: in our fast-moving, protean and kaleidoscopic world, it is hardly possible to predict their future course and to decide in advance which of them will grow in volume and significance and which will prove to have been still-born. Whatever their fate, the author tried to take a leaf from William Blake's precept of seeing the universe in a grain of sand - and, having done so, alert us to what is or may be happening to our individual lives, forms of togetherness, shared prospects; to the ways we perceive and relate to each other, the forces that shape our life chances and itineraries; and to the ways we try to control, or at least influence, and sometimes even reform for the better, some or all those dimensions of our existence. These timely meditations by one of the most perceptive social thinkers of our time will appeal to a wide range of readers.

Genres: Sociology, Philosophy, Nonfiction

200 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 2012

About the author

Zygmunt Bauman was a world-renowned Polish sociologist and philosopher, and Emeritus Professor of Sociology at the University of Leeds. He was one of the world's most eminent social theorists, writing on issues as diverse as modernity and the Holocaust, postmodern consumerism and liquid modernity and one of the creators of the concept of “postmodernism”.

Reviews

[عبدالرحمن عقاب · Rating 4 out of 5]

يكتب (باومان) يومياته الفكرية هذه في الفترة ما بين سبتمبر 2010 إلى مارس 2011. يدوّن أفكاره؛ يستطرد حينا ويوجز أحيانا. يعلّق على خبر هنا أو حدثٍ هناك.
ولا يخيّب باومان ظن قارئه. فهو يذهب في تفكره عميقاً وبعيداً، ويعرض لقارئه رأي ناقد لاذع وناظر بصير بعيوب المنظومة السياسية والاقتصادية والفكرية للمجتمع المعاصر.
كنت كلما قرأت كتاباً لباومان أنزعج من أسلوبه، وأشعر أنه نص مفكك غير مترابط. أقول في نفسي لعله حديث مفرغ، أو محاضرات مجموعة. وهذا الكتاب بعنوانه العريض يجعل من أسلوب باومان أكثر ترتيباً! ومقالاته (يومياته) أوضح اكتمالاً.
كتاب أنصح به. وفيه من الأفكار ما يستحقّ الطرح والنقاش.

[Kaplumbağa Felsefecisi · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitap gerçekten de bir günlük değil. Günlük olmasını düşündürecek tek şey 2010-2011 yılları arasında yazıldığına dair ay-tarih ibarelerinin olması. Bunun dışında anlatım ve değiniler deneme tadında. Zygmunt Bauman'ın Saramago'ya sıklıkla yaptığı atıflarla ilerliyor. Benim açımdan zamana yayarak okuduğum; kimi zaman politik atmosferde ilerleyen, kimi zaman alıntılarla akan, bazen de hoş bir felsefi tartışmaya dönüşen farklı farklı kafalar yaşayan bir adamla konuşmalar yapmak gibiydi.

[kübra terzi · Rating 4 out of 5]

Genel "günlük" algısını kıran ve pek çok başlık üzerine söyleşi niteliğinde bir günlük. Bir çırpıda okumayı gerektirmediği gibi bazı bölümleri tekrar tekrar okuma hevesi uyandırıyor. Yazarın 85 yaşında kaleme alması ise en cezbedici yanı.

[Trevor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I like Bauman – I’ve learned a lot from him over the years. This book is more a collection of thoughts, many of which end up in other books he has written, but a nice and quick read all the same. As the title says, this is not a diary, as such. Even though all of the entries are dated, This doesn’t have the confessional nature of a diary – something he discusses, at least in the sense that we now live in a confessional age, made worse by social media – and often the various entries are his response to something he has read or noticed on that particular date.

I’m going to quote at length two parts of this that I sent to a friend after having finished it today. The first is on the problems with peer review. My friend and I have recently become editors on two academic journals in educational sociology. And we have both experienced the same thing – that it is insanely hard to get reviewers to review articles. You learn relatively quickly not to bother sending these to professors, as they almost always reject the offer. They are not the only ones to reject the offer to review. There are some articles I’ve had for months and sent to a dozen or so potential reviewers to end up still not having a single review back. My friend and I have been thinking of writing – ironically enough – an academic paper on this – and so that is why I sent her this quote from the book. The first initials are from someone interviewing Bauman.

“SD: One final question: TCS is committed to the process of peer review, and many of our contributors (both rejected and accepted) are grateful for the feedback given by our editors and anonymous reviewers, and for the subsequent strengthening of their articles, but you are critical of peer review and no longer act as a referee for us. Could you tell us why?
ZB: There are, at the most conservative estimate, two grave and deeply regrettable collateral victims of the gruesome stratagem of peer review: one is daring of thought (wishy-washed to the lowest common denominator), and the other is the individuality, as well as the responsibility, of editors (those seeking shelter behind the anonymity of ‘peers’, but in fact dissolved in it, in many cases without a trace). Much other harm is also done, of course: like the deceptive safety suggested by the ‘committee resolution’, thereby dampening the reader’s critical impulse, or suppressing the temperance and sometimes also the honesty of ‘peers’ provoked by assurances of anonymity into actions they would otherwise desist from. The overall result is a reinstating of the state of affairs bluntly described by Hannah Arendt as one of ‘floating responsibility’ or the ‘responsibility of nobody’.
Last but not least, I would single out yet another instance of collateral damage: the multitude of the trails blazed and the heterogeneity of what inspires them. I suspect that the peer review system carries a good part of blame for the fact that something like 60 per cent or more of journal articles are never quoted (which means they leave no trace on our joint scholarly pursuits), and (in my perception at any rate) that ‘learned journals’ (with a few miraculous exceptions that entail, prominently, TCS) brandish stultifying repetitiousness and ooze monumental boredom. To find just one new enlightening and inspiring idea (as distinct from finding a recipe for getting safely through the peer-built barricade), browsing through thousands of journal pages is all too often called for. With my tongue in one cheek only, I’d suggest that were our stone-age ancestors to discover the peer-review dredger, we would still be sitting in caves … So perhaps the stratagem under discussion is in addition guilty of a massive waste of time and intellectual power. In short, not the sort of game in which I’d be inclined willingly to take part …”

My friend is also thinking of doing research on students from non-English speaking backgrounds and how to encourage their teachers to better understand the challenges that they face. We have spoken a lot about the nature of intercultural understanding and the best ways to encourage communication between cultures – particularly in the sense of finding ways for cultures to actively work together on issues that help demonstrate shared concerns, rather than cultural differences. Bauman is interesting on this too.

“Amin Maalouf, the Lebanese author writing in French and settled in France, considers the reaction of ‘ethnic minorities’, that is to say immigrants, to the conflicting cultural pressures they are subjected to in the country to which they have come. Maalouf’s conclusion is that the more immigrants feel that the traditions of their original culture are respected in their adopted country, and the less they are disliked, hated, rejected, frightened, discriminated against and kept at arm’s length on account of their different identity, the more appealing the cultural options of the new country appear to them, and the less tightly do they hold on to their separateness. Maalouf’s observations are, he supposes, of key importance to the future of intercultural dialogue. They confirm our previous suspicions and conjectures: that there exists a strict correlation between a lack of threat perceived from one side, and the ‘disarming’ of the issue of cultural differences from the other – this as a result of overcoming impulses towards cultural separation, and a concomitant readiness to participate in the search for a common humanity.
All too often, it is the sense of being unwelcome and guilty without any crime being committed, and a feeling of threat and uncertainty (on both sides of the supposed frontline, among the immigrants and among the indigenous population alike) that are the principal and most potent stimulants of mutual suspiciousness, followed by separation and a break in communication, with the theory of multiculturalism degenerating into the reality of ‘multicommunitarianism’.
Cultural differences, whether significant or trivial, glaring or barely perceptible, acquire in this way the status of building materials for the construction of ramparts and rocket launchers. ‘Culture’ becomes a synonym for a fortress under siege, and the inhabitants of fortresses under siege are expected to manifest their loyalty daily, and give up, or at least radically curtail, any contacts with the outside world. ‘Defence of the community’ is given priority over any other duty. Sharing a table with ‘strangers’, frequenting places known as the abode and domain of outsiders, to say nothing of romances and marriages with partners from beyond the boundaries of the community, become marks of betrayal and the foundations for ostracism and exile. Communities functioning on this basis become the means, first and foremost, of a greater reproduction of divisions and a deepening of separation, isolation and alienation.
A feeling of safety and the resulting self-confidence, on the other hand, are the enemies of ghetto-minded communities erecting protective barriers. A sense of security turns the terrifying might of the ocean separating ‘us’ from ‘them’ into an alluring and inviting swimming pool. The frightening precipice dividing a community from its neighbours gives way to a gentle plain inviting frequent walks and carefree strolls. No wonder the first signs of a dispersal of the fear afflicting a community so often cause consternation among the advocates of communal isolation; consciously or not, they have a vested interest in the enemy missiles staying where they are, aimed at the walls protecting the community. The greater the sense of threat and the more pronounced the feeling of uncertainty it causes, the more tightly the defenders close ranks and keep to their positions, at least for the foreseeable future.
A feeling of safety on both sides of the barricade is an essential condition of a dialogue between cultures. Without it, the chance that communities will open up towards one another and start an interchange which will enrich them by strengthening the human dimension of their bonds is, to say the least, slim. With it, on the other hand, the prospects for humanity are rosy.
What’s at stake here is security in a much wider sense than the majority of spokesmen for ‘multiculturalism’ – who remain in a tacit (or maybe unintended, even involuntary) agreement with the advocates of the communal separation – are prepared to admit. The narrowing of the question of general uncertainty to the real or imagined perils of a two-sided cultural separateness is a dangerous mistake, drawing attention away from the roots of mutual distrust and disagreement.
First of all, people long for a sense of community today in the (mistaken) hope that it will give them shelter from the rising tide of global turmoil. That tide, however, which cannot be held at bay by even the highest community breakwater, is coming from very distant places, and no local powers are able to oversee, let alone control them. Secondly, in our intensively ‘individualizing’ and ‘individualized’ society, human uncertainty is rooted in a deep chasm between the condition of ‘individuality de jure’ and the pressure to achieve ‘individuality de facto’.
Surrounding communities with walls will not help to bridge this gulf, and it will certainly render it harder for the many community members to cross to the other side: to the status of an individual de facto capable of self-determination, and not just on paper. Instead of concentrating on the roots and causes of the uncertainty afflicting people today, ‘multiculturalism’ draws attention and energy away from them. Neither side in the ongoing wars between ‘them and us’ can seriously expect its long-lost and much longed-for security to return following a victory; instead, the more jointly engrossed all of them are in the planning of future battles on the multicultural battlefield, the easier and more profitable a target they become for global powers – the only powers capable of profiting from the failure of the laborious task of building human community and of joint human control of its own condition and the circumstances shaping it.
All too often it is two miseries that confront each other on the battlefield of tribal skirmishes, that poor man’s pitiable, high street replica of the haute couture wars of emancipation. One can understand those who are miserable, even while pitying their lot to be drawn into yet deeper misery by their confusion about causes and remedies. With a measure of good will, empathy and commiseration, that understanding can be recast into forgiveness. This hardly applies, however, to those who capitalize on the confusion of the miserable. As Richard Rorty put it, writing of the American case, somewhat but not totally different from the European variety:
The aim will be to keep the minds of the proles elsewhere – to keep the bottom 75 percent of Americans and the bottom 95 percent of the world’s population busy with ethnic and religious hostilities, and with debates about sexual mores. If the proles can be distracted from their own despair by media-created pseudo-events, including the occasional brief and bloody war, the super-rich will have little to fear.
As recent experience shows, leaving little room for doubt, the super-rich would do anything, or almost anything, for the sake of having little to fear from the proles …”

This book covers so many of Bauman’s fascinations – the part of this on the world being full and so there being no where for nations to dump their ‘waste humans’ is something that deserves to be thought much more about. As he says, free markets make lots and lots of waste – it is a fundamental condition of a free market society and something that makes it quite different from most previous forms of social organisation. Peasants couldn’t afford to have waste – everything needed to be recycled and reused. Consumers are only consumers when they are consuming – and so waste is built into the system. That this also produces waste humans that otherwise can’t be made use of or gotten rid of is a telling feature of late capitalist society.

If you have never read Bauman before perhaps this is a good place to start – at least since he skips over so many of the major themes in his longer books here. Although, I guess I would probably suggest starting with Wasted Lives or Consuming Life or particularly Work, Consumerism and the New Poor. Anyway, this is certainly well worth a look.

[Ernesto Pérez-castro · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ciertamente no es un diario; por momentos parece quizá un (indeseable) testamento. Y es que a sus casi 90 años de edad, Bauman conserva una lucidez que el mundo echará en falta el día que irremediablemente le alcance la muerte. Publicado hace un par de años, este libro es el registro de reflexiones cotidianas a partir de lo que Bauman lee en los diarios y observa en nuestro entorno entre septiembre de 2010 y marzo de 2011. En cierto modo esas reflexiones sirven como una suerte de síntesis de las ideas que ha estructurado y compartido por décadas. Bauman cumple su labor de sacudir nuestra consciencia del letargo en que solemos mantenerla.

[Tomasz Boguszewicz · Rating 1 out of 5]

Niestety. Rozlazła, pisana bez skupienia, pełna dygresji, które wloką się w nieskończoność. Mam problem z Baumanem, bo rzadkie momenty kiedy błyszczy przeplatają się z nudnymi i napisanymi po prostu źle. Mam wrażenie że Bauman nawet zapytany o godzinę, popadłby w dygresję, zacytował kogoś, przytoczył jakąś publikację, etc.

Ok, część moich zastrzeżeń odnosi się do formy książki - dziennik to luźne zapiski, ścinki i miejsce jak najbardziej właściwe na nieustrukturyzowane dygresje. Spodziewałem się tego. Jednak ta książka jest po prostu ciężka w odbiorze. Dodatkowo, nie dowiadujemy się z niej niczego o samym Baumanie, ale tę nadzieję rozwiał już sam jej tytuł..

[Ghala Anas · Rating 5 out of 5]

"حين أفكر في الأمر أجد أنني لطالما رافقني شعور الاغتراب، شعور بأنني لستُ منتمياً للمكان والزمان؛ وشعور بالمسافة التي تفصلني عن "الرجال ذوي الحثيثة"، وهي مسافة جسدية بقدر ما هي روحية. وهي مسافة من اختيارهم بقدر ما هي من اختياري"

"وما أقصده هنا هو شعوري الخاص بالاغتراب عن روح العصر .. فقد ظهر في مقاومتي لروح العصر البلهاء الخاصة بالعالم الشجاع الجديد المتصف بالاكتفاء الذاتي والبرود وانعدام الشعور، فهو عالم لا يؤمن بأي بديل لذاته ولا يجد ضرراً في العيش في الوقت الضائع .. حاولتُ رغم كل الصعاب والمزاعم إنقاذ قدرتنا على النقد الذاتي لتقويض اغترارنا بذواتنا أو تخفيفه .. فقد حاولتُ الكشف عن الصخور الصلبة وموجات المد والجزر القاتمة الكامنة خلف المنارات المبهرجة المتسمة بالعشوائية وسرعة الزوال"

ليست يوميات – زيجمونت باومان

يُقربنا هذا الكتاب أكثر من صاحب الفكر الإنساني، ويجعلنا نقف على ملامح الشخصية البديعة التي استطاعت تصوير روح العصر السائلة بطريقة مفصلة ودقيقة، وتوجه إنساني واضح يعترف بوجود الإنسان وأهميته قبل أي انتماءٍ أو قومية يتخذها لنفسه.

قُدم الكتاب على شكل مقالات مختلفة كتبها باومان بدايات عام 2010، يقف فيها على أحداث عصره في مختلف الدول، كأمريكا وفرنسا ومصر، والظواهر المستجدة فيه، كالفيسبوك والسيولة والتسليع والشرور كناتج حتمي، ويناقش قضايا إنسانية هامة كاللاجئين والتعداد السكاني والطبقات العاملة والتلاعب السياسي بالشعوب، وقضايا فكرية كمسؤولية الفرد أمام شرور المجتمع وأوهام المعجزات التي تؤرقه ونقد الثقافوية التي ترسخ العنصرية والتمييز الاجتماعي، وفي كل مقال سيتعرف القارئ على توجهات باومان السياسية والاجتماعية والأخلاقية، وسيُعجب بنظرته الفاحصة والذكية لما حوله، ويتعلم منه الطريقة الدقيقة للتفكير.

أما المقال الذي أثار اهتمامي وجعلني أعجب بهذه الشخصية، فالمعنون بـ"عن الاحترام والازدراء"، والذي أورد فيه توجهه الأخلاقي الذي لا يعترف باحترام الإنسان لأخيه من منطلق فرق القوة أو الخوف، ولا من منطلق التبادل المشروط بالتحقق، أي أن يحترم المرء أخيه منتظراً أن يحترمه الآخر بدوره، ولا من منطلق عقلاني منطقي يقضي بأن من مصلحتنا جميعاً أن نحترم بعضنا للحفاظ على مصالحنا المشتركة، رغم أنها حجة قوية، بل أكد على دعمه الاحترام كفكرة أخلاقية لا تستند إلا إلى مسؤولية الفرد أمام نفسه في تقديم الاحترام اللامشروط للآخر، من منطلق الإنسانية التي نحملها جميعاً، والتي تجعلنا نعترف بوجود بعضنا وأهمية شخوصنا واستحقاقنا للاحترام، وقد مضى بعيداً في هذه الفكرة متخيلاً الاحترام كقيمة عالمية تجمع المجتمعات الإنسانية وتثبت فيها.

زيجمونت باومان شخصية مثيرة للاهتمام، وهذا الكتاب يشرح الملامح العامة لأفكاره وتوجهاته، لذلك وجدته ماتعاً ونافعاً.

[Captain Absurd · Rating 4 out of 5]

Bauman nie pokazuje się prywatnie, unika sylwetki mężczyzny starzejącego się i cierpiącego po stracie żony. Na początek raczy nas akapitami o pisarskim "nałogu" i lekko zarysowuje okoliczności, ale właściwe już od pierwszych stron stawia na ogromnie żywotny ładunek intelektualny całości.

Miło byłoby trafić na odrobinę zwyczajności, dnia codziennego lub jakiś filozoficzny backstage odróżniający tom od tych czysto naukowych, jednak w żadnym wypadku nie ma na co narzekać. Dostarczony bodziec do zastanowienia wynagradza wszystko a rzeczywistość jest tu badana z tak wielu stron, że nawet najwięksi malkontenci znajdą coś dla siebie. "Niedziennik" to aktualny na przekór upływowi lat zbiór refleksji nad światem z charakterystycznymi dla autora twórczymi poszukiwaniami esencji socjologicznych przemian. Bohaterami stają się chociażby Saramago, Houellebecq i Benjamin - czy można wyobrazić sobie lepsze towarzystwo na niedzielę?

[Chus Blázquez Sánchez · Rating 4 out of 5]

A pesar de su título, si que es un diario. No tanto de lo que le pasa a Bauman, si no de los pensamientos y reflexiones que le provocan los titulares de la prensa o algunos acontecimientos en un periodo de tiempo determinado, en los años 2010 y 2011.
Un Bauman que a pesar de su edad mantiene una lucidez deslumbrante.

[Filip Antosik · Rating 2 out of 5]

kilka dobrych tekstów utopionych w morzu byleczego

[Argos · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tarihten güncel olaylara, politikadan ekonomiye felsefi ve sosyolojik değerlendirmeleri deneme şeklinde aktarıyor ama günlük yazılar şeklinde. Bazı cümleleri birkaç kez okumak zorunda kaldığım, içerik olarak biraz ağır sayılabilecek bu nedenle de okuması zor ve ağır giden bir kitap. Yine de vakit sorununuz yoksa ( benim gibi) biraz da kafa yormak istiyorsanız dünyanın haline, bu kitabı okuyun derim.

[Derek Fenner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked this up from a quote in a Jacques Rancière book.