During the height of critical theory in the 1960s, political aesthetics garnered significant attention. A key concept was earlier articulated in Ernst Bloch’s exploration of utopia, namely that the arts serve as a space for examining objective possibilities, thereby inspiring political action in the real world. Even earlier, these ideas were also expanded upon in Friedrich Schiller’s “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man” (which were referred to by Habermas, Marcuse and others). Schiller argued that aesthetics is the domain where we can reconcile the tension between nature and reason, paving the way for a transition to an ethical life grounded in freedom. Central to this concept is the human drive to play, as expressed in Schiller’s famous dictum: “Only where man plays is man truly human.” (“Denn, um es endlich einmal herauszusagen, der Mensch spielt nur, wo er in voller Bedeutung des Worts Mensch ist, und er ist nur da ganz Mensch, wo er spielt.“) Schiller differentiates between two forms of appearance (“Schein”) in play: one that is illusory and deceitful; and another that is creative and genuinely aesthetic, incorporating an ethical dimension. To prevent misunderstandings, I believe that a clear explanatory translation of the term “play” is “aesthetic performance,” which conveys the sincerity of play. In this context, I would include modern sports as an example, such as basketball, where aesthetics also plays a central role in achieving performative success. Additionally, sports involve significant ethical considerations related to “fair play.”
Schiller’s theory emerged from his disillusionment with the French Revolution. However, like Bloch later on, he recognized the revolutionary potential of the arts and envisioned them as a means of creating ethical communities. These communities were exemplified in the elite noble circles of his time. Schiller understood that individuals might lack the material opportunities for aesthetic education when living under oppressive conditions in their everyday struggle to make ends meet.
In the previous post, I developed the argument that aesthetics may be the critical ingredient in the ecosocial transformation of our time, potentially taking the place of the widely promoted demand for an ethical transformation in our relationship of care with nature. How can Schiller inform us in this context? At first glance, Schiller, along with Bloch and critical theorists, seems to focus only on humans. But what if we recognize the aesthetic agency of non-human species? Can we envision aesthetics as a medium for the emergence of multi-species communities in which principles of multi-species justice prevail?
To respond to this question, it is important to overcome the institutional separation between the arts and other social spheres, a distinction that emerged during the Enlightenment and has since been a hallmark of Western modernity, as outlined by Bourdieu in his writings on social fields. For the German classical thinkers, particularly Hegel and later authors such as Hannah Arendt, Greek antiquity represented a model of synthesis between aesthetics and ethics. John Dewey offers a different perspective. In his book “Art and Experience,” Dewey rejects the institutional separation of the arts from everyday life—what he calls the “museum conception of the arts”—and advocates for the aestheticization of life. Rather than referring to antiquity as a reference point, he views community rituals as primordial forms of aesthetic action. Against this background, his empirical paradigms are informed by Indigenous communities, a theme emphasized by later followers of his thought. This notion of ritual matches with the previous interpretation of Schiller’s “play” as a sincere aesthetic performance.
Schiller posits that play is performative in the sense that it creates the freedom to live in alternative worlds. I see a direct connection to Graeber and Wengrow’s monumental work on human history before the advent of Western capitalist modernity. Although Graeber and Wengrow do not frame their arguments in terms of aesthetics, they discuss performative freedoms that include the aesthetics of rituals, body ornaments, and various aesthetic actions through which communities establish their unique identities. This aesthetic playfulness reflects the political freedom of individuals in choosing their ways of life, often in deliberate opposition to other communities. I consider this perspective to align with Schiller’s reasoning.
Indigenous ways of life are often celebrated as models of sustainability. This opens up the possibility of reimagining Schiller’s aesthetics in a more-than-human context. If we acknowledge the aesthetic agency of other beings, we can envision playing together with them. What does this mean? As previously mentioned, play involves creating possible worlds and acting within them. We can consider human communities engaging in the creation of ethical ways of life that include more-than-human entities as a form of cohabitation. The scientific counterpart to this idea is the concept of affordances, which highlights the creation of abundant possibilities for various species to discover their own opportunities for flourishing. Play can be defined as kaleidoscopic exuberance of affordances of action.
In fact, we are doing this already in the context of many ecologically informed measures of landscape and urban design, and we have the relevant design theories at hand, such as James Corner’s thinking and landscape architectural practice. Take, for example, so-called weeds in the cracks of the pavement. Functional expedience and established aesthetic norms of orderly appearance demand for eradicating weeds, which resulted in the Round-up tragedy. We can play with the plants, watching them grow, caring for them, while also tending them aesthetically, thereby creating unknown affordances for many insects, birds and other beings. We can collect weeds for artistic actions, imagining uses of what was counted as useless annoyance by nature.
Schiller envisioned the utopia of the “aesthetic state.” Today, we can work on fostering a diversity of more-than-human aesthetic communities. Let us rethink modern urban planning and design as engaging with multi-species affordances to create a more-than-human utopia. Without utopia, ecosocial transformation remains out of reach.
The technosphere, our agency, our planet 