1. Enlightenment, when used in Dialectics… is a very broad concept. It takes its name from the historical period that spanned over the 18th century and was characterized by a newfound faith in the natural sciences, independent thinking, the scientific method and the dispelling of myths. Kant famously described Enlightenment as man emergence from his self-incurred immaturity. Meaning that by shedding our dogmatic belief in authority and instead turning to autonomy and rational thought, we are free to start gathering real knowledge.
Adorno and Horkheimer takes these ideals of Enlightenment out of their historical context and, it seems to me, almost tries to equate it with a part of human nature: our yearning to make sense of and explain nature. Enlightment, they say, this concept that they distill, has a trajectory towards mans total domination of nature, and the objectification of all, ultimately even the subject.
2. The concept of Myth in Dialectics… is the thing to which Enlightenment is related. Therein lies the dialectic. Myth is false clarity, the subjectification of the unexplained. Adorno and Horkheimer discuss at length naturalistic religious practises and narratives and puts forth animism and antropomorphism as primary characteristics of myth. They say that myth stems from a fear of the unknown and through that the will to explain it, contain the unknown in something knowable – the myth. All myths could ultimately be reduced to a subject. The kicker is that Adorno and Horkheimer posits Myth and Enlightment as essentially the same, but also as the two constituents of a dichotomy, atleast when viewed from the Enlightened perspective and how it strives to demystify and rid the world of Myth.
3. Although they aren't referred to as old and new, different types of media are put in relation to eachother in the book, primarily in how they are used by the culture industry. The radio is compared to the telephone, with it's qualities of mass-mediation held up to the light. With the telephone, the subject still had a part to play; the radio reduces the subject to a consumer, the material being consumed served up by the industry rather than a subject. Television is prophesized to be the next disastrious step in mass-mediation and the subjugation of individual expression. My understanding is that new media according to Adorno is media in service of the culture industry.
4. The culture industry is the commodification of art, art deprived of it's aesthetic value. The subject matter of culture is irrelevant in every respect other than that is fits the demand of the consumers, a demand that the industry foresees, dictates and perpetuates at the same time. Culture in it's industrialized form is reduced to ideology and the indoctrination of the masses. Any one individual is free to not swallow what is spoonfed to him or her, but the price is ostracization. The thesis is that culture served up by the industry is devoid of any spiritual value, because it's raison d'etre can always be traced back to the capitalist system.
5. Mass media and mass deception are inseparable according to the authors. That which is being mediated en masse never carries the meaning that motivates it. It is the most powerful economical forces that ultimately stand behind what is being produced in the culture industry (and mass-mediated) and their motivation is per default deception, because of the system that they represent.
6. I found the chapter of the concept of enlightenment very interesting, mostly because I understood so little of it and couldn't help but focus on the structure of the argumentation and the totalitarian style of writing. The criticism is so wholly encompassing that nothing escapes is. This seems to me to be a reason why the authors cannot put forth any way out of the problem; any solution that they could formulate would fall under their own criticism. That, however does not mean it's not a, at times, very interesting text, on many levels. At times it feels like flawed argumentation hidden in it's own density, it's constant use of symbolism and metaphors and heavvy dependency on references to classical works. The reader who is to argue with the text has to be very well equipped indeed.
The chapter on the culture industry was much easier reading and made the ideas of the authors much more accessible. The part that I found most interesting was how they argued for the systems total control over consumers; talented artists belong to the industry even before it puts them on stage, simply because their talent shows their eagerness to be a part of the system. In their vision, this brainwashing has already gone full circle and none of us could claim to be independent of this culture, rubbish as they would have it.
I think it's interesting what you write in the last chapter about the music industry, where artists belong to the industry even before it puts them on stage. I began thinking of what Adorno and Horkhemier would have thought of it today. With all the social media we have and the trend of sharing everything with others, for example music that you have created yourself, without the need of the industry, can be shared via Youtube and you can be very successful by going another way than the "traditional" one. Would that indicate that the culture industry today are losing power? Would it mean that mass culture is going away to some extent and that a new type of culture, which maybe reminds of the one before the culture industry came, is on the rise?
ReplyDeleteYour end thoughts on independence from the culture were somewhat similar to mine: There is no such thing as independence or individualism - which is in line with Adorno and Horkheimer's main point in the text, from what I understood. My question that I propose would be that if it were possible and the concept of independence and individuality did exist, would you want to be independent from the mass/ culture industry? I don't think I would personally.
ReplyDeleteLike previous commentators wrote, I also agree with you stating how the system has total control over the consumers. Also how you said that the talent of artists show their eagerness to be part of the system, which I find to be true in most cases. It goes to show for example on TV shows such as "Idol" or "Talang", etc.
ReplyDeleteI believe the author of the book also mentioned something like how we are "enslaved" to the system or the mass media/culture industry. We take in everything this system gives us and we follow it like slaves and want more, without much consideration over the actual value or importance.