MONEY AND THE STYLE OF MODERN LIFE 239

ive
ich
bld
rt,
ile
1dtly

Jene

adred

in
in
us,
nd
newl-




its
nts
ge,
and
less
the
ha
can
va--an-



WP -

~+ducts

 in special structures which gives them an independence
 and a self-sufficiency which are in contradiction to
their real cultural function. Once objectified, they tend
to develop according to an immanent logic and a dynamics
of their own. They continue to grow independently of the
will of their real producers, and unrestrained by the limited
degree in which further absorption can still take place. In
their objective self-sufficiency they tend to lose their real
cultural meaning.
These cultural contents are produced by subjects and
are meant for subjects. But in their intermediate objective
 status they tend to estrange themselves both from
their origin and from their purpose. Their development
takes place independently of the meaning and significance
which it may have for the subject. There results a tension
between these forms and the continuous historical process
which becomes manifest in a historical dialectic. This historical
 dialectic is but one form of expression of the dialectic
 that is inherent in all life and which results from the
tension between the processes and the forms of life.!
This tension in the cultural subject-object relationship
may or may not lead to a rupture, but it is the fundamental
tragedy of all culture that it bears within itself the element
of self-destruction. If that rupture takes place, the objective
 forms lose their cultural significance and become mere
technique, mere civilization.
The essence of culture is that subjective mental energies
 obtain objective forms which are independent of creative
 life-processes, but which are reabsorbed into the lifeprocesses
 and so bring the bearer to a higher development
of his central ego. This flow from subject through object
to subject in which the metaphysical subject-object relationship
 becomes historical reality can, however, lose its
* See Introduction, pp. 19-20.