Pre Theme 2

Critical media studies

1. Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is "Enlightenment"?

As deducted from the Dialectic of Enlightenment of Horkheimer and Adorno, enlightenment pursues the goal to take away the fear of the unknown and with that make humanity more powerful; because the more knowledge it has about the world, the more powerful it is. By disbanding myths and revising longstanding imaginations, we are bound to ground our ideas with experiments instead of just coming across new inventions blindly.

In their work the two philosophers are trying to prove two theories, so to speak, the myth is enlightenment in itself and enlightenment retaliates back to mythology, this caused by "the fear of truth which petrifies enlightenment itself" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvi). Enlightenment and truth conceived by them are also important for the presence as they are bound "not merely to intellectual history but also current reality" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvi).

What is "Dialectic"?

In the Preface to the New Edition (1969) they define the term as developing "its vital energy from the tension between the two intellectual temperaments which came together in writing it" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xi). Dialectic can therefore be interpreted as a method of thinking in opposed corners without searching to prove their theories by practical experience.

What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Researching Horkheimer within his connection to the Frankfurt School, nominalism is critical of universal concepts – so to speak universals – due to their tendencies to be human constructions or formal terminology and not based in reality. Hence, nominalism rejects myth and fantasy due to their abstractness and inability to initiate progress in reality or bring forward truthful enlightenment.

Adorno saw this conflict also in context of historical events and inseparable to the philosophy of law, that when abstract forms are predominant over nature, injustice can happen. He bases this theory on the actual reality of the horrific actions taken place in the times of National Socialism.

What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myths fall victim to enlightenment, but since myths at all times had intended to illuminate roots and with that constitute a certain truth, myth became the human's reality, or in Adorno and Horkheimer's words "False clarity" (Horkheimer et al., 2002: xvii) for a period of time. Because of that myth became the enlightenment's own product and with that its own function of elucidation.

2. "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

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 analysing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

Superstructure and substructure stand in relative causality to each other, the substructure as the real economic base of society determined by materialistic conditions defines the superstructure, the intellectual structure on top (or social conscientiousness of the dominating classes at the time). Although the superstructure (within e.g. the political, educational, judicial system) is developing through technical developments, the substructure in itself is the final force of necessity and defines therefore the social superstructure.

According to Benjamin the superstructure needs by far longer to transform and has taken over 50 years to arrive at all areas of cultural production and its conditions. He tries to give us "theses about the developmental tendencies of art under present conditions of production" (Benjamin and Arendt, 1986: 217-218). From a Marxist point of view, these technical developments taking place in production also change the capitalistic conception of economy, for example in regard to the workforce of the proletariat.

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?

For Benjamin, the revolution in culture and with that its "criticism of traditional concepts of art" (Benjamin and Arendt, 1986: 2131) already took place with the first real reproductive means - the photography and subsequently film. These developments enable mass reproduction of art and with that a fake depiction of reality and a changed collective perspective.

Adorno and Horkheimer seem more taken aback by the technical education since it also has a risk of influencing people, so to say bringing them under a spell, and destroying art with its overproduction. This again would diminish enlightenment by calculation and medial control.

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).

It means that human perception is mainly determined by the nature and historical point in time. Benjamin states this with an example of the scholars Riegl and Wickhoff who tried to push away all the 'handovers' of the previous historians and to actually relive the time the realizations had originated in. However hard it is to actually show the changes of perception at that time, it is possible at last to recognise changes of our sense perception in the presence.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

Through the transformation of art and the means we perceive art, the art itself looses its aura and changes the social function of the medium. Through reproduction society can now experience art collectively, however then has to fear to be misguided by sinister influencers.

Benjamin doesn't per se make a difference between natural objects and art objects, in his explanation though, he refers to the aura of natural objects to explain the aura of the art objects distinguishing between real and reproduced art. Here the aura of nature is a one time appearance in the distance, staying unapproachable. The perception of the artistic aura is however bound to space and time, the here and now proving the authenticity of the art object, the latter with its unique ability of influencing culture, tradition, and history at least for the period of its existence.

Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. and Schmid Noerr, G., 2002. Dialectic of enlightenment. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.

Benjamin, W. and Arendt, H., 1986. Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books.