Theme 2, Blog Post 1: Critical Media Theory
What is “Enlightenment”?
From what I understood, the Enlightenment was an
intellectual movement in 17th and 18th century Europe which
praised reason and science as instruments for the improvement of people’s condition
and the achievement of freedom from authority, domination of man over nature,
and knowledge of the world. The Enlightenment was strongly influenced
by the scientific revolution of the 17th century and, in turn, gave
rise to revolutionary developments in the humanities.
What is “Dialectic”?
Dialectic is a method of discussion between people
with different or conflicting viewpoints, whose aim is to reach the truth by
means of logic and reason. Dialectic is different from debate in that in the
latter each participant aims to either persuade the others of his/her viewpoint
or to dissuade them from their own. The dialectic method, I think, is evident
in the dialogue between Socrates and Theaetetus - the wiser and more
experienced Socrates does not aim to refute Theaetetus’s reasoning for the
purpose of “winning”, but rather asks him questions and tells him stories to challenge
and, at the same time, guide his thought, and their discussion as a whole, to
the truth about what knowledge is.
What is “Nominalism”
and why is it an important concept in the text?
From what I understood, nominalism is a stance which opposes
the use of abstract general words for the purpose of putting things that share
similar traits in the same category, as well as the assumption that such categories
exist. I think nominalism is an important concept because Adorno argues
that generalizations strips human beings of their
qualities, individuality and identity, ignores their individual needs and ascribes needs to a whole group (of people) which rarely correspond to those of the individual and are, therefore, in a way false (also see answer to question about revolutionary potentials below). In other words, human beings become faceless
pawns in an easily manipulated herd that is forced into unrepining consumption.
What is the
meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Holkheimer’s argument?
In Adorno and Holkheimer’s words, myth is “false
clarity”. In ancient times men created myths to explain things that they could
not understand and/or were afraid of because their knowledge of the world was
limited. The Enlightenment sort of made the promise that reason and science would
answer all questions about the world we live in. And, like myth, the
Enlightenment was a search for explanation. However, according to Adorno and
Holkheimer, the Enlightenment unconsciously reduced the world to mathematical equations
and the natural sciences and dismissed anything that cannot be known through those
sciences (for instance God) as myth. Therefore, Adorno and Holkheimer argue
that, like myths, the Enlightenment created false clarity and fear of the “unknown”,
instead of leading mankind to the truth and knowledge it had promised. Moreover,
Dominic Strinati writes that the scientific rationality of the Enlightenment
produced a “potential for extensive and effective social control” (2004:50). I
think that is why the two authors say that “myth is already Enlightenment, and Enlightenment
reverts to mythology”.
In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about
the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in
the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts
"superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context
and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist
perspective?
The substructure, also called “base”, consists of the forces and relations of material production, such as raw material, equipment, workers and so on (Storey, 2008) .
The
base is what provides society with material goods for consumption and trade. The
base is the foundation on which the superstructure - the totality of political,
cultural, religious and other institutions and “definite forms of social
consciousness” that these institutions create (Storey, 2008:3) - is built. Changes in the
base influence the superstructure and vice versa. However, changes in the superstructure
take much longer to influence the base.
In
German Ideology, Marx says: “The class which has the means of material production at its
disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production” (quoted in Storey,
2006:68). If we put this base-superstructure model in the context of today’s capitalist
society, the base produces a variety of low-quality goods for consumption that
break down fast, so there would be more rapid circulation of products and,
hence, of profit. Simultaneously, the media, as an element of the
superstructure, encourages consumerism through advertising, which, as John
Berger says in Ways of Seeing, aims to create the illusion that we have the
freedom to choose between one brand/product and another, and to convince us
that we and our lives would be much richer and more complete and fulfilled if
we buy “this” watch or “that” smartphone. In this particular example the
superstructure (the media) is encouraging people to consume more and more in
order to sustain and feed the base.
Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according
to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective
differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
Benjamin believes culture has revolutionary potentials in that it allows people to stop being just spectators/consumers of content and, at any given time, also become creators who share their views and possibly influence others. Adorno and Holkheimer argue the opposite – that film, music and
popular culture in general, distracts people from societal issues and turns
them into obedient slaves of the capitalist consumer culture. As Strinati puts it "the culture industry [...] shapes the tastes and preferences of the masses", creates "false needs" and "works to exclude real or true needs, alternative and radical concepts or theories, and genuinely [threatens] political opposition" (2004:55-56).
Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world
through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and
historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of
historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other
contexts).
I think what he means is human beings are animals and,
as such, our senses are a creation of nature and our perception is naturally
determined. However, it is also historically determined, because our previous
experiences and the cultural environment we have been brought up in, too, have
influence over our sense perception. I will give a current example of what I
understand by that. In the past several years Turkish TV series have become
very popular in Bulgaria (where I come from), which many people are oppose to,
because Bulgaria was under Ottoman slavery for nearly 500 years. Because of
this historical precondition, Turkish TV series are considered by their
opponents as a means of cultural assimilation. I would assume that if a Turkish
series launched on a Swedish television channel, it would not be perceived in
that way.
What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"?
Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Aura is the uniqueness, authenticity and authority of
an original work of art. The earliest art objects, he writes, had a ritualistic function
– they were used in religious practices – which gave them an aura. When a
historical artwork is mechanically reproduced, its aura disappears, because it
ceases to be unique. Moreover, mechanical reproduction makes works of art more
accessible to the masses or, in Benjamin’s words, “brings things ‘closer’ spatially
and humanly”. In that sense, I think he means that the more unattainable something
is, the more powerful its aura. He explains that by referring to natural
objects, such as a mountain range. By looking at a strikingly beautiful mountain
from afar or when standing at its foot, one can sense its aura in a way that he
would not be able to, if he were atop that mountain.
Sources:
Storey, J.(2008) Cultural Theory and Popular Culture (5th edition) London:Routledge
(I used different editions of the same book, because I did not have access to all the pages of the 3rd edition on Google Books. My apologies!)
(I used different editions of the same book, because I did not have access to all the pages of the 3rd edition on Google Books. My apologies!)
No comments:
Post a Comment