Rivers, lakes, swampy lands and inanimate objects of nature have become accepted in law as “environmental personalities” for new opportunities for environmental protection in recent years in New Zealand, India and Europe. The rights of nature itself were recognized by a Pennsylvania settlement earlier, in 2006, the same appeared soon in Ecuador’s constitution, and then Bolivia declared that nature had the right to both respect and regeneration. Their autonomous existence and right to protection became recognized so.
In parallel with this change in jurisprudence, however, new ecological perspectives have emerged, according to which cooperation is dominant in the relationship between human beings and non-human beings, rejecting not only the central role of man, but also views that consider man to be autonomous and independent. David Abram thought of a “more-than-human” world in this way and then the rejection of human superiority and the idea of the autonomy of the planet, and even the objects of the universe, appeared in the theories of object-oriented-ontology.
The possibilities of autonomy (i.e. self-determination, one’s own laws, freedom, among others) are, as can be seen from all this, constantly changing. But not only in planetary dimensions: the most sensitive social and individual conflicts of the present become apparent and understandable by articulating this and expressing their absence. With the help of this concept, which may seem difficult to grasp in philosophical texts, both one of our most basic psychic needs, our dynamics arising from our social connections and our points of connection with the state – perhaps invisible – can be visualized, as well as great political horizons are drawn.
The latter becomes especially important at a time when state autonomy, which is considered one of it’ most influencing forms of autonomy, is being threatened by external forces near us. All this also raises the question of what may mean the autonomy of an individual who is forced to flee because of the disintegrating or collepsing state-system. But at least as much danger is meant to him by the state exercising exclusive power. And it is questionable too, how the momentum of democratic processes can work out new autonomy under these circumstances and how narratives, which emerging from the social media or by shapes that use traditional art forms as new mediums, affect all of this.
In the course of everyday life, the consequences of the functioning of the institutional system can determine the fate of the individual, creating heteronymous situations, i.e. situations shaped by external laws or on the contrary, helping autonomy. In connection with this, the works appearing in the exhibition touch on questions such as whether the institutionalization of radical social utopias guarantees the dignity of the individual (receiving hospitalization, losing his/her job or even aging), or how a community can respond to the undermining of the university’s autonomy in the circiumstances of an authoritarian state. In addition, how to protest against institutional violence, how a voter can express his desire for a fallible, empathetic and active leader or what are the chances of individual autonomy in capitalism in general.
But the latter is equally influenced by everyday moral norms and ideals that reflect different role expectations, often imposed habits, both in terms of our appearance and our behaviour. Here it is worth recalling – acknowledged our vulnerability – for the sake of our desire for freedom and independence, the ideas of the two philosophers who have defined the concept of autonomy most in the history of philosophy: the “dare to think!” axiom from Kant and the possibility of “non-participation” raised by Adorno.
Exhibiting artists: Rufina Bazlova, Attila Bagi, Alice Hualice, Zoe Leonard/Zsuzsanna Szegedi-Varga, Zsuzsanna Simon, Todoroff Lázár, Gabriella Tuboly-Vincze