aboutvalues evolvedoutof an out-
lookthatis closelytiedto the riseof
capitalism.Andin tellingthisstory,I
don’tthinkwecanmakea clean
breakbetweenmodernismandpost-
modernism,as is sometimessugges-
tedin Jameson.Modernism andits
commitmentsareentirelycontinu-
ouswithandindeedI would say de-
rivationally responsible for the
relativismregardingvaluesandcul-
turethathas cometo be embracedby
whatwe callpostmodernism.
Myownviewis thatit is thesci-
entismthatemergedin themodern
periodthatis theunderlyingsource
of relativismin postmodernphilo-
sophicalpositionsregarding value
andculture.(Byscientism, I meana
distortingsortof centralitythatis
given to science in the modern
period.) As a resultof thisdistorting
centrality,theveryideaof nature
(theveryideaof the worldaroundus)
beganto beequatedwithwhatthe
natural sciences study.It is thissci-
entismthatdeclaredthatthereis no
moreto nature, thatthereareno
propertiesin natureotherthanwhat
thenatural sciencesstudy.I believe
thisis a superstition of modernity.As
a resultof thissuperstition,nature
got evacuatedof allvalueproperties
sincenatural science doesnotstudy
values.Valuesthusgotrelegated to
oursubjectivementality, ourdesires
(later,via doctrines likeutilitarian-
ism,to oursubjectiveutilities)and
theirmorepurelycultural construc-
tions.Thisis thelargegroundfor
relativismabout values.
SCIENTISM& CAPITAL
Whatdoyouseeas theconnection
betweenscientismandtheriseof
capital?
Theriseof modernsciencein the
EarlyModernperiodin Europewas
muchmorethantheriseof newly
formulated, highly explanatorily
powerful,lawsof nature(themost
systematic presentation of which
were, of course,to be found in
[Isaac]Newton’sPrincipia). There
emergedan outlookor ideology that,
wholly and without remainder,
equated theveryconcept of nature
withwhat the naturalsciences study.
Thisequation wasfacilitatedby very
specific modern institutions,which
grewaround modernscienceandthe
furtherworldlyalliancesthatthese
institutionsaroundscienceforged.
All thisdidnotreallyhappenuntil
thesecondhalfof the17thcentury,
the Royal Societyformedin 1660in
England beinga majorplayerin it
initially. Thoughpeoplelike[Fran-
cis]Bacon, Galileo[Galilei] and
[Rene]Descartes hadall earliercon-
vergedon suchan ideology,it didn’t
havesocial effectstillinstitutions
aroundscience developed to advance
it in thesealliancesformedwithboth
religiousorthodoxy andwithcom-
mercialinterests.Thatdidnothap-
pen until Newton’s heyday in
England. TheRoyalSociety,which
consisted notjustof scientistsbut
mandarinsin thesurround of sci-
ence,linedup withtheAnglican
Church(highratherthanpopular re-
ligion;popular religionin factop-
posed this turn) and with
commercial intereststo promotethis
viewof nature. What theywereop-
posingwasthe ideathatnaturewas
sacralised, an idea everywhere
presentin popularreligion.Thisidea
alarmed these orthodoxiesof the
RoyalSocietyandAnglicanismand
earlycapitalistinterests,whichfor
sometimenowwereby bruteforce
privatising thecommonsto turn
agrarian livingintowhatwe would
nowcallagribusiness.Theseortho-
doxalliancesdismissed thesacral-
isedviewof nature as a dangerous
“enthusiasm” that was partly re-
sponsiblefor theturmoilof there-
markable English revolutionary
periodof the pre-Restorationperiod.
An earlypuritanradical leadersuch
as [Gerrard] Winstanley, for in-
stance(there weremanyothers too),
explicitly soughtin popularreligious
viewsof a sacralisednaturea great
“levellingpurpose”, to use his phrase:
God’spresencein nature andmatter
madehimavailableto thevisionary
temperamentsof all thosewhoin-
habitHisearth,notjustto theuni-
versity-traineddivinespossessedof
learned scripturalknowledge and
judgement. By contrast, for the
RoyalSociety’s mandarins, nature
wasbrute,materialandinert(it was“stupid”to use Newton’sterminOp-
ticks). Forthem,Godmustbe givena
place externalto nature, a more
purelyprovidentialstatus,a clock-
winderresponsiblefor setting an in-
ert universe in motion from a
positionoutsideof natureandmat-
ter,nota divinesourceof innerdy-
namismresponsiblefor motionfrom
within (sacralised) matter and
nature.
Now,since,in general,valuewas
widely thought to have a divine
source,the desacralisationof nature
by theseworldlyalliances that releg-
atedGodto a cosmic exile hadthe
effectof evacuating natureof value
properties as well.Themotivations
fordeliberatelyensuringthiswere
closelytiedto the riseof the interests
of capital.It matteredfor commer-
cialintereststhatthereshould be no
obstaclesto taking fromnature. This
was essential to the conceptual
foundationsof capitalism. Human
beingshadtakenfromnature for
millennia, of course,butin all social
worldspriorto themodernperiod,
therewererituals to showattitudes