In the Seminar we concluded that while Adorno and Horkheimer (A&H) were also referring to the Age of Enlightenment, they mainly referred to it as a conceptual idea (how we think). In the discussion it became clear, that the uncertainty I wrote about is a myth in itself. So in simpler terms: a myth is being enlightened and becomes myth again through ideologization. It also leads to domination. Not only through ideologization, but in means of finding new boundaries. As examples we mentioned the scaling of Mt. Everest, the Titanic or the Hindenburg Zeppelin.
A&H see Dialectic not only as a methodology for arguing (as I stated) but as a whole concept. In particular the Marxist Dialectic where we need to change the Materials in order to change society opposed to Kants Idealism where the ideas change the society. For example praising a new invention (e.g. the Internet - unlimited knowledge; bringing the world closer together etc.) and later arguing against it and its different outcome (too much trolling, bullying, racism, porn, lack of privacy etc.).
My definition of Nominalism was too brief, because I did not see the connection between it and the text. Only after we discussed Platos allegory of the cave it made sense to me. In Nominalism the Philosophers need to disconnect themselves from the real world objets and conceptualize instead. However, conceptualization and generalization become dangerous because they can be used to oppress people (See Nazi Fascist, German Communism etc.). However, A&H argue that it can also be used for good (e.g. human rights, equality, feminism etc.).
My earlier statement about myth was partially incorrect as A&H say that myth does not have to be god-like but can also refer to any idea or concept that has not been proven (enlightened) yet. A myth needs to be articulated first before it can be 'enlightened' and turned either into truth (knowledge) or be disproven.
My definition of Nominalism was too brief, because I did not see the connection between it and the text. Only after we discussed Platos allegory of the cave it made sense to me. In Nominalism the Philosophers need to disconnect themselves from the real world objets and conceptualize instead. However, conceptualization and generalization become dangerous because they can be used to oppress people (See Nazi Fascist, German Communism etc.). However, A&H argue that it can also be used for good (e.g. human rights, equality, feminism etc.).
My earlier statement about myth was partially incorrect as A&H say that myth does not have to be god-like but can also refer to any idea or concept that has not been proven (enlightened) yet. A myth needs to be articulated first before it can be 'enlightened' and turned either into truth (knowledge) or be disproven.
Since I wrote my answer about super- and substructure I read an article on how the behaviour of a "phone call" changed over time. More and more people are not actually holding the phone to the side of their heads anymore, but in front of their mouths. This has to do with the technology of actually leaving short audio messages instead of having a real-time conversation. It changes the behaviour of how we "make a phone call" but also how we have a conversation. It can spread over longer time - much more like a correspondence than like a conversation.
While the substructure (the smartphone) slowly forms the superstructure (our social behaviour) the superstructure can also limit and influence the substructure: Despite most people using their phone not as a phone, they are still designed to be phones - even though "phone" is "just another app we choose to use".
When I answered the second question I did not quite see how A&H view on the revolutionary potential differed from Benjamins. Benjamin was very clear about it's potential. He used Photography and Film as examples enabling you to see things in a new way (See Muybridge's The Horse in Motion, 1878). Having witnessed the second world war and after fleeing to America A&H expected this revolutionary lifestyle but realized, that american capitalism was as oppressing and deceiving as nazi fascism.
It seems I confused Benjamins views on historically determined perception: I wrote as an example that an object (Iceberg) is seen very differently depending on your prior historical and cultural knowledge (pre Titanic to post Titanic) whereas Benjamin seemed to mean how the same object is portrayed over time. Examples mentioned in the Seminar where paintings of Jesus during the romantic age, that showed him wearing swedish folklore cloth.
While the substructure (the smartphone) slowly forms the superstructure (our social behaviour) the superstructure can also limit and influence the substructure: Despite most people using their phone not as a phone, they are still designed to be phones - even though "phone" is "just another app we choose to use".
When I answered the second question I did not quite see how A&H view on the revolutionary potential differed from Benjamins. Benjamin was very clear about it's potential. He used Photography and Film as examples enabling you to see things in a new way (See Muybridge's The Horse in Motion, 1878). Having witnessed the second world war and after fleeing to America A&H expected this revolutionary lifestyle but realized, that american capitalism was as oppressing and deceiving as nazi fascism.
It seems I confused Benjamins views on historically determined perception: I wrote as an example that an object (Iceberg) is seen very differently depending on your prior historical and cultural knowledge (pre Titanic to post Titanic) whereas Benjamin seemed to mean how the same object is portrayed over time. Examples mentioned in the Seminar where paintings of Jesus during the romantic age, that showed him wearing swedish folklore cloth.
His arguments aimed at the german fascist view on art. He argues there cannot be objectively good art. It always depends on ones taste.
Benjamin is fairly disambiguous about aura. On the one hand he states any copy of art will not have the same aura as the original, on the other hand he argues that by multiplying art one minimizes the privileges of art owners (rich, bohemian people) and that it therefore can be a liberating and revolutionary thing.
Benjamin is fairly disambiguous about aura. On the one hand he states any copy of art will not have the same aura as the original, on the other hand he argues that by multiplying art one minimizes the privileges of art owners (rich, bohemian people) and that it therefore can be a liberating and revolutionary thing.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI was also thinking about the Enlightenment as the historical era in the 17-18th centuries but later realized from the texts as the meaning was broader and referred to the concept or even, I would say, ideology. Yes, the example with the Jesus portrayed in Swedish national clothes was also something new to me as well :)
Hi!
ReplyDeleteI found your examples interesting and I enjoyed reading your blog. Your example on substructure and superstructure is a good way to describe the concept by involving the present into it. We expect much more from a phone, we don't only want to be able to call and text with it, it also needs to be able to take sharp pictures and have a big memory for all our app's and everything else we want to save.
It seems like you grasp the contexts very well. It was interesting to read your blog post. Nominalism becomes much more clear for me as well after understanding Platos, allegory of the cave. Nominalism miss out that it is a differences and denies existents of abstract universals. According to nominalism; what we perceive is the truth, the world is the way it should be, it’s not such a thing as judgment, we should just observe. Adorno and Horkheimer are critical towards this passivity. We need to start question the current structure and system. We can't just maintain the way society is.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote that you did not really answer how Adorno & Horkheimer view on the revolutionary potential differed from Benjamin’s. Adorno & Horkheimer refer the cultural industry as standardization of products, art become commercialized, capitalism just make money of something that used to be culture. Benjamin on the other hand claimed mechanical reproduction of art also democratizes culture; it makes it available for everyone.
I particularly enjoyed reading your application of the substructure and superstructure theory into current technology. WhatsApp and other voice recording chat services indeed have had some influence on the behavior. Google forecasts that voice search will increase in popularity as well.
ReplyDeleteI think the way you incorporate a modern concept (the phone) into you text and applying the theories to it shows that you have grasped the concept of sub- and superstructure. One theory that came to mind when reading your text was ”The media is the message” by McLuhan. This is a theory were one looks at the societal impact a new technology has. So you mention how our behaviour change by using this device, but looking at it from a holistic, long-term standpoint, it can also change the structure of our brain and our cognition resulting in societal impact in areas that we might not think of directly. I also liked how you wrote about historically determined perception, and the example with Jesus wearing Swedish folklore was very suggestive.
ReplyDeleteI think you adapted the concept of superstructure and substructure quite well to our everyday life. I agree with you that especially the changes through the new media are already and might be having in future even more a huge influence on behavior and culture. Your mentioning of the article you wrote is really interesting. I didn’t before about the use of the cell phone as “phone” just as one other app under several others. The concept phone has changed a lot and really fast in the last some years. We can only guess in which way these “hints” of the substructure might lead in the superstructure of the future.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed reading your post and I found your example of the phone (base) and consumer behaviour (superstructure) very interesting :) Perhaps we could look at another example of the superstructure in relation to the same base example (the phone) - phone and app adverts that encourage us to use our devices in particular ways, thus also changing our behaviour.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the example you use about the development of the mobile phone and how it has changed our behavior over time. Another change in superstructure might be how mobile phones have affected photography as an art form. Many people are able to share their photos now with the use of their phones and social media as a medium. I think Benjamin might see it as a means of giving a voice to many.
ReplyDeleteAdorno and Horkheimer might focus on the more negative aspects of social media, as they disliked the film culture and how it promoted consumerism in America. Social media does the same as many people have made careers of using sponsorships in social media and promoting content. It gives the audience a false sense of an ideal life that they may try to attain. Instead of focusing on gaining knowledge, it promotes the more superficial aspects of society.