“TOOLS FOR CONVIVIALITY” OF IVAN ILLICH: THE CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT

Abstract

The article is devoted to the basic concepts of the book “Tools for Conviviality” (1973) by Ivan Illich, a philosopher, historian, and a well-known radical critic of modern social institutions. In this book, in the form of a political manifesto, Ivan Illich offers his vision of a future society based on the joint and responsible use of tools. Illich's concept of tools of conviviality is based on a number of central concepts that have many connotations: conviviality, tools, crisis, austerity, eutrapelia. In this regard, the purpose of the article is to reveal the essence of Ivan Illich's philosophical ideas on the tools of conviviality through the explication of the main terms and concepts from his book. It is determined that the central problem raised by Illich in “Tools for Convivality” is the relationship between progress in scientific or technological form and the role of man. Industrial development, according to Ilich, occurred at the expense of a person's ability to communicate with himself and others, which led to the destruction of the community structure. Having crossed the line of a certain intensity, industrial tools and technologies in the modern world are increasingly turning into manipulative ones, i.e., the tools themselves begin to manipulate people. Therefore, the future community needs such convivial tools that will allow people to shape their own environment – by the term “tools” Ilich means both physical devices and mindsets, technologies, scientific developments, social institutions, etc. Conviviality, in turn, is a complex term with many connotations, which can be translated as “benevolence in interaction that is subordinated to a common ethical goal”. It is possible to prevent benevolent tools from turning into manipulative ones by introducing restrictions defined by the terms austerity – responsible use – and eutrapelia – a joyful spirit of cooperation in a community of care, good neighborliness, learning, and communication. Of course, this approach remains relevant and desirable, but it is difficult to say whether it is a critical utopia or a post-crisis window into our future.