The Revolt of the Masses

"The Revolt of the Masses" has been, I think, continuously in print since 1930 for the simple reason that it's a very important book. Its main observation is hardly possible to deny: the vast increase in wealth caused by the Industrial Revolution empowered whole massive segments of society which had formerly been nearly invisible. And they all wanted to go to the beach and stay in hotels and eat in restaurants. So, way back in 1930, Ortega y Gasset was already noticing that it was becoming increasingly difficult to find a place on the beach, or a room in a hotel, or a table in a restaurant. "Mass man" had arrived. This book also contains a lot of commentary on the nature of mass man. For example: "the commonplace mind, knowing itself to be commonplace, has the assurance to proclaim the rights of the commonplace and to impose them wherever it will." In the 21st century, where "The Simpsons" are vastly popular, and it is suddenly fashionable to deny the very idea that a man should want to be a gentleman, the words ring true. What is more interesting, perhaps, is to speculate on how the newly-arrived "mass man" went about the pursuit of political power. But that would be another book entirely. This book, along with other fundamental books like "Human Action," should be a part of every thinking person's education. Of course, right now it's NOT, but I think we all have a pretty good idea why not. Highest possible recommendation!

The first thing I should say is that this is not light reading. With that said, read it anyway. Gasset wrote something as contemporary today as it was in the 1920s and 30s. Operating on the premise that we have seen since Thucydides, that the mass of citizens, when unchecked does damage, does not consider the consequences of its actions, its demands, its lifestyle without understanding or thinking about the system of civilisation which makes their relatively free and prosperous lives possible."It is false to say that history cannot be foretold," says Ortega. Obviously, since this book is equally prescient about the Fascist rallies of the 1930s and the youth rebellion of the 1960s. Perhaps in light of the 20th Century, we should look back at this philosopher from its dawn and see that Gasset saw the fundamental problem of the next century (incorporating the majority into the political and cultural realms when they had been absent throughout history) and we failed to listen to his warning.

A superbly written book, "The Revolt of the Masses" can be considered of limited value if one views it from a strictly historical perspective. True, Ortega y Gasset, writing in 1932, offered a clear and devastating critique of the tenets of fascism in particular and totalitarianism in general. He is particularly effective when he takes apart fascism's mystical elevation of race, blood and soil, arguing that the popular appeal to these factors was shallow, explained nothing about the process of nation-building, and was used only as a political expedient for the emerging dictatorships of Europe.But one could argue that however effective his argument, Ortega y Gasset, a Spaniard, was in perfect position to critique fascism and its foibles, being able to observe it from a closer perspective than others. After all, the war for men's hearts and minds was fought out in no small part on Spanish soil in the '30s. Ortega y Gasset was also not alone in critiquing the rise of mass man, which is the book's major point. Joseph Wood Krutch, for example, in "The Modern Temper" (an excellent companion to this book) had pointed out that the emergence of mass society and the development of technology had stripped away Man's sustaining illusions, at great cost. "The Revolt of the Masses" decries the leveling of society that the author observes, and the reader is at first made uncomfortable by the argument. I found myself mentally attacking Ortega y Gasset's elitism. I nearly concluded that the book was simply an apologia for an anti-democratic bias and for those who would protect political power from seizure by the common man.On further reflection, though, I concluded that Ortega y Gasset's argument is more complex and that the sustaining power of the book lies in its deeper layers of meaning. While he is certainly elitist, he glorifies the elites who invest in society and contribute to it, not those who simply hold onto power for its own sake and justify their hold by clinging to the past. In fact, he upholds republicanism as the most effective form of government -- and the one most difficult to sustain.His strongest point -- and the one most important for the modern reader -- comes when he says that the mass of men have no appreciation for the labor required to build nations and societies and the commitment required to sustain them. He writes pessimistically that the mass man of his day had little or no appreciation for this effort and considered his place in the world to be justified, rather than earned.This is an old-fashioned message, but in my opinion it was one that we do well to heed today. How many of us today consider our goods and services and access to intellectual and monetary capital -- much less our political rights -- as things that we must constantly struggle to preserve? How many of us take the time to consider the societies in which we live as dynamic, organic entities that must be studied and understood if we are to appreciate their worth? How of

Ortega y Gasset had an uncanny understanding of the origins and dangers of modern mass movements. As some other reviewers have noted, this book was written in the early 30's in response to the fascist movements in Europe at the time. What is truly chilling is that, beyond predicting the unfortunate results of those fascist movements, the picture Ortega y Gasset paints of the "mass man" and how he is manipulated is still applicable to modern American marketing of both politicians and products. Like I said, one of the best books I've ever read.

This book was originally published, I believe, in the 1930's. It is a work of extraordinary prescience, the full import of which will continue to be measured well into future ages. Against the backdrop of the overthrow of Old World civilization, the author, a Spanish philosopher, describes the Revolt of the Masses. "Mass man," the principal representative of the modern superstate, is an inert, unthinking being hostile to the finer creations of aristocratic culture and easy prey for demagogues of every political persuasion. He is characterized by passivity, an appetite for entertainment and spectacles, and a hostility toward the sensitivity, discipline and training that are necessary prerequisites to aristocratic culture. We are all "mass men." This book is a compelling starting point in any inquiry into the cultural decline of modern democratic civilization