Friday, September 30, 2016

Reflections on theme 4: Quantitative research

* Since the seminar is not yet held, my reflections on this week's theme is based on the lecture by Ilias Bergström and my own experiences of quantitative research.

"It's not the numbers that answer the hypotheses, the researcher does."   
Ilias Bergström, 26/9-16

Just like discussed during theme 3 (Research and Theory), the role of the researcher is central. In quantitative research, numbers mean nothing until put together and logically argumented for by researchers. By comparing severable measured variables, researchers may study the interactions between them. Quantitative research investigates notions that are numerically measurable, and the analyses brought out within it is hence based on numerical data.

In 2015, I wrote my bachelor thesis on organizational transparency, with the Swedish nutrition- and lifestyle company Oatly as a case study. Our research questions were 1) How is Oatly’s level of transparency perceived by the company’s audience? 2) Which are the key factors forming this perception?

Me and my research partner chose to conduct both qualitative and quantitative research in order to answer our posed questions. We did so in order to be able to draw general conclusions which found support in a bigger participant selection than which had been possible if only qualitative methods had been used. 

Oatly describes itself as transparent, but with a number of hypotheses we wanted examine whether their audience agreed. Our study also investigated which key factors contributed to the audience’s perception of the company’s communication. We based our study, both theoretically and empirically, on a model created by Rawlins (2009). The model offered four main variables which should determine an organisation’s transparency; Participation, Substantial Information, Accountability and Secrecy. 

Our empirics consisted of an internet survey with 346 respondents and 4 in-depth-interviews, all with participant matching our definition of Oatly's target group/audience. The empirics offered evidence which manifested trends among the audience. Oatly’s clear and accessible communication, trustworthiness and humor turned out to be key factors contributing to the audience perceiving Oatly as very transparent.

Would we have been able to identify these trends without the use of quantitative methods? Most probably not. Would we have been able to simple present the data for the conclusions to be drawn? No. But as the sophisticated researchers we were, we were able to logically argue for different interactions between our investigates variables. 

My previous experiences from quantitative research has, as manifested in this post, been focused on the generalizability offered by quantitative research. However, during the lecture and readings of this theme, my perception has widened. I now also understand how quantitative methods can be an effective way to understand the behavior of small participant selections, too. 

Theme 5: Design research

What is the 'empirical data' in these two papers?

In the two papers assigned for this theme, and for all other research too, empirical data can be defined as knowledge and information gathered by experimentation, experience or observation. The concept is about finding new knowledge, which may contribute to new insights about the world.

Fernaeus and Tholander acquired their qualitative, empirical data with the help of a prototype. The two researchers documented their observations of how children interacted with their prototype, and from the gathered data they could draw conclusions.

In Lundström’s paper, a prototype was used as well. Empirical data is also collected by the of performing interviews and tests on electric cars available on the market.

Can practical design work in itself be considered a 'knowledge contribution'?

That a research process which is focused on design is, at least according to Lundström, a knowledge contribution in itself. Because after all, the process of first developing, and later testing and analyzing the proof-of-concept, most often leads to the discovery (and realization of) various before unknown factors.

Practical design work can help researchers (and peers) to understand both the problem and eventual solutions of a research matter. I believe that this is a great knowledge contribution; by going deeper into the process of attaining the knowledge, the understanding of it must increase. This visualizing of the problem can help put light on new perspectives, which possibly will generate even more new information and knowledge than less design-oriented research.

Are there any differences in design intentions within a research project, compared to design in general?

There are several differences between general design and research oriented design intentions. When speaking of design intentions within a research project, the design is a tool for attaining knowledge and insights within a chosen issue/problem. By visualizing it, researchers may acquire knowledge about issues and processes with the help of well-considered design. The design requires pre-work and testing in order to be considered suitable.

Design in general, on the other hand, is less process-oriented and more focused on aesthetics, functionality or optimization. Here, the design is about the development of a specific product, rather than about understanding an already existing phenomena.

Is research in tech domains such as these ever replicable? How may we account for aspects such as time/historical setting, skills of the designers, available tools, etc?

Since technology is an ever-evolving field, it is of most importance to discuss the processes within it with the fast development in mind. Time and historical setting is hence important factors to consider when speaking of potential replicability. When, where and by who was the research conducted? In order to replicate a given research process, one must consider how far the development in the field has come since it was original conducted. If this is not considered, the variations in the outcome will be complicated to understand.

With every new insight about efficient solutions for research conduction, new conditions come along with it. It is consequently important to note and reflect on the conditions under which a specific research was compiled.

Are there any important differences with design driven research compared to other research practices?

The most important difference between design driven research and other research practices is found in its intention. Design driven research strives to understand and improve processes rather than just deepening the knowledge of specific issues, as in many other research practices. Additionally, design driven research normally works with qualitative data in its empirics. In less design driven research processes, quantitative methods are also common in the data collection.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

Reflections on theme 3: Research and theory

This week's theme has mainly entailed discussions about the abstract entities that are theories. We have learned what constitutes them, how we construct them, and perhaps most importantly, what they are good for.

Conceptualizing what knowledge is is important - by giving us the tools we need to intervene and take action, it is what helps our world evolve. With new theories, we gain new knowledge, perspectives and tools to approach issues around us.

By using logical reasoning, researchers may connect phenomenas with explanations of why, how, and in relation to what, they occur. Depending on what field of research a particular person is in, his or her view of what theory is will differ greatly (as explained in my initial blog post on this theme). More, there is a difference between the definition of scientific theories and philosophical theories, which I feel that my first blogpost did not fully cover.

  • Scientific theories wants to explain the causal logic between cause and effect, and they are often viewed more as models than theories. By looking at ideas as logical frameworks, we get "maps" to understand the world around us.
  • Philosophical theories find their subject matter elsewhere than in empirical data. In the sweep where philosophical theories are contrasted to scientific theories, meaning that a great function of these philosophical concepts lie in their inability to be tested or proven by empirical methods.

Disproving theories

No matter if the theory is scientific or philosophical, one has to be able to trace the researcher's logic. During the seminar, and by again looking through the articles "The Nature of Theory in Information Systems" and "What Theory is Not", I wanted to know more about future of disproving theories. 
“Every theory that comes out is considered right until a new one comes out and disproves it"
The quote by Illias Bergström during our seminar on September 21 made me wonder what theories are accepted today, and which will continue to be so in the future. Just like our dear lecturer said, we disprove theories and facts all the time, and hence "knowledge advances one funeral at the time". So who's funeral will we attend next?

Today, theories do not only arise through the minds of established scholars and academic institutions. On the contrary, commercial research institutes like Google Research Labs or R&D divisions at biotech companies such as Pfizer, are on the rise. Academic peer reviewing as a tool for establishing legitimacy is hence no longer the sole praxis, and it makes me wonder if our approach to research and theory is about to change. Will the new increased amount of knowledge lead to more frequent disproving of theories?

* An important note is that while many seem to tackle the definition of theories by looking at what is contemporary accepted knowledge, disproven theories does not stop being theories. For example, Pythagoras' theory of the earth being flat might be proven wrong, but it is still a theory.

Hypotheses VS theories

My last note on the theme concerns hypotheses. This week, and especially my engagement in the discussions during the seminar, has made me realize that I have sometimes confused the notion of hypotheses with theories. The common expression of "having a theory of something" has confused my terminology. For example, my theory of there being a bug in the Blogger system is not a theory, it is a hypothesis.



My contributions

My chosen article seemed to spike some interest in my small discussion group. I contributed to the discussion by explaining the complex theories that supported it (e.g. objectification theory and perception theory). My contributions were greater in the small group discussion than in the classroom discussion, but for this specific seminar I felt like if the bigger discussions was more about summarizing and presenting your group's thoughts (which my teammate did very well!).

Friday, September 23, 2016

Theme 4: Quantitative research

Marino et al. (2016) - "Modeling the contribution of personality, social identity and social norms to problematic Facebook use in adolescents"

Marino et al.'s paper in Addictive Behaviors (2016, Volume 63investigates the role of personality and social influence processes in Italian adolescents' Facebook use and the possible problems connected to it. The journal has an impact factor of 2.795.

1. The paper uses the quantitative analysis method of Stuctural Equation Modeling (SEM). The method is suitable for the study since it allows the researchers to impute relationships between unobserved constructs from observable variables; i.e, Marino et al. was enabled to identify patterns and links between unobserved constructs (e.g., emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness and norms) and observable variables (e.g. perceived Facebook use).  

The researchers specified the patterns through the theoretical model below. The model was designed to assess the contribution of personality, social identity and social norms to perceived frequency of Facebook use, and it was later examined through SEM. 


By using scales, the researchers were able to turn abstract notions like emotions into measurable constructs. E.g., by asking the respondents to scale their own cognitive preoccupation or preferences regarding Facebook-use, they were able to identify behavioural relationships later on in the research process. This is the foremost benefit of using the quantitive, SEM method; the statistical data and analysis presented in the study allowed for general conclusions to be drawn.

2. The main aim of Marino et al.'s study was to examine the contribution of various personality traits and social influence processes in the adolescents' Facebook use. Through reading their paper I learned how doing so by quantitative methods can help identify behavioural patterns. In my own research, I have had a tendency to turn to qualitative methods when looking at human behaviour. Through this particular study, I learned that perhaps using statistical tools may offer greater proof and generalizability. 

3. The use of quantitative methods can be complicated for unexperienced readers to understand. Statistical equations and advanced patterns require years of studies to fully understand, and hence the amount of readers that will fully understand the methodology of the paper is limited. Readers may understand the results, but the way in which the authors reached them are just as important for research reliability. 

A methodological implication of the study is the insurance of whether the data obtained by the adolescents is valid. Sensitive topics are difficult to obtain through structured data collection instruments like the above mentioned scales. 

Self-reporting of information always risk to be inaccurate or incomplete, and perhaps especially when the participants of the study are young. One way of solving or complementing this issue could have been qualitative observations made by e.g. teachers or parents.




Ilias Bergström et al. (2012): Drumming in Immersive Virtual Reality: The Body Shapes the Way We Play

Bergström et al.'s paper studies how our physical behavioural patterns are affected by our perceived body shape. By letting subjects enter a Immersive Virtual Reality (IVR), the researchers looked at how their movements were changed as the subjects played a West-African Djembe hand drum while "wearing" IVR-bodies which differed from their bodies In Real Life (IRL). The psychological, behavioural and attitudinal consequences of these body transformations is the key study theme of the essay. The participants were thirty six Caucasian people, and the method for examination was based on the eventual body ownership they would experiences while drumming with a new body in IVR. 

The biggest problematics of the essay, in my opinion, is the way dark skin and light skin is stereotypically portrayed. I believe that the way the authors moulded the two groups (dark skinned bodies were given causal clothing, light skin bodies were given formal wear) can possibly contribute to enhanced prejudges and stereotypes. An example can be found in how the authors refer to perceived "appropriateness for the drumming task" without any comments on the societal issues regarding profiling and stereotyping by skin colour.

However problematic, the results showed that participants experienced strong body ownership illusions towards their virtual body, and that the movement patterns among participants with dark skinned IVR-bodies showed significantly increased. The conclusions are drawn on a modest sample, but they are still interesting as further researchers explore the notion.

Perhaps the researchers could have given notes for further research on if this result (i.e. that our body patterns depend on what we perceive our body to be supposed or expected to do) would be the same among other sample groups - either among other demographics of adults, or among children. 

1. The quantitative method used for examination allowed for a path analysis to show that the observed changes in body behaviour depended on how strong the illusion of the body ownership in IVR was. Without quantitative measures of how the participants acted, it would have been hard to track their behaviour further.

This is the core benefit of quantitative methods; they allow for bigger relationships to be identified and for generalizations to be made, all by looking with an overhead perspective. A major limitation of the methods are their inability to closely examine nuances and underlying cognition. Lack of information on contextual factors can often lead to inadequate interpretations and/or explanations of results. 

2. As the authors themselves write, their findings may be important for applications like learning, education, training, psychotherapy and rehabilitation using IVR. But in order for such to be successful and societally helpful, I believe that further qualitative methods must be used in the examination. 

The substantial benefit of qualitative research is its ability to go deeper; to understand the core of a studied object. However limited by their inability to generalize and create patterns, qualitative measures are beneficial while researching the uniqueness of each studied object. 

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Comments on Theme 1


Links to all of my comments on other students' posts on theme 1 are posted below. It was interesting to read some other students' take on the premiere topic! 

  1. http://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-pt-2.html#comment-form 
  2. http://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-1-theory-of.html#comment-form
  3. https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1theory-of.html?showComment=1474137427125#c7182583674010103222
  4. http://scarsickbg.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-blog-post-2-reading-plato-and.html#comment-form
  5. http://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-reflection-theme-1.html#comment-form
  6. http://u17fpbu5.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html#comment-form
  7. https://u1gixy4z.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html?showComment=1474137120287#c1133996065045851270 
  8. https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1474136992960#c7074957497985566473
  9. http://u1818rgq.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-2-theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and.html#comment-form
  10. http://u1wdx0i7.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-theme-1.html#comment-form 

I expected to be confused by even more individual interpretations of these complex ideas, but a lot of the class participants managed to make things clearer for me. 

Yet again I managed to leave the post as a draft. As shown in the comments on each blog, they were made during the weekend. I am starting to suspect an error in the Blogger-system – stay tuned for further investigation of the issue!

Tuesday, September 20, 2016

Reflections on theme 2: Critical media studies

After the lecture and seminar on Critical media studies, I realized that some of my interpretations of the concepts presented by both Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin were not entirely correct. I will with this posting try to re-define and better my initial work on some of these concepts!

Enlightenment

I have now understood that the critique that Adorno & Horkheimer posed against the 1700's enlightenment was not directed towards the concept of knowledge in itself, but against what it does to human behavior. It becomes a matter of hierarchy, where mankind strives to dominate both nature and each other. Written in a fascist context, The Dialectics of Enlightenment clearly worries about the totalitarian aspects of erasing the unknown. 

Nominalism

The way I defined nominalism in my initial blogpost was insufficient. I would rather wish to elaborate on the notion and discuss the consequences that Adorno & Horkheimer discussed in relation to nominalism. 

Adorno & Horkheimer wrote their text during a fascist time, and they rejected the notion of people simply observing their surroundings in order to find rights and wrongs. Rather, they insisted on the need for visions; for abstract ideas that help people question their present beliefs. 

When society looks for natural of definite descriptions of the world, abstract concepts like dignity or respect are forgotten. Just like Henrik Åhman said in his lecture, "science is value blind". It doesn't say who is right or wrong, and once its definition of something (e.g. the nazi-racism of the 1930's and 40's) is accepted it becomes oppressing. Nominalism had consequently come to a status quo: it maintained the way society was, and it functioned as an oppressing tool in the hands of fascists. 

Generalities, which nominalism denies, cannot exist unless somebody created them. Generalities make people loose their identity; it oppresses people. We reject differences by giving them general names. By using names like “a swede” we reject the fact that there are a lot of different ways of being a swede.

Myths

My understanding of what Adorno & Horkheimer considered myths to be was incorrect. Rather than, as I initially understood it, being about looking to gods and spirits for advice, I know understood that the concepts refers to manmade strategies to erase the unknown. This mechanism of control, this aim to understand the world around us, is the same as the momentum for enlightenment. 

By imitating nature (rather than looking for transcendent explanations, as I initially thought), humans try to define nature by turning it into what we want it to be. Myth can thus be defined as moving life into nature, and by performing rituals we may mirror "the observable regularities of the laws of nature".

Historically determined perceptions: 

I had completely misunderstood the concept of historically determined perceptions. Instead of referring to the idea of time adding authenticity to an object, the concept is about how people come from different perspectives when perceiving the surrounding world. Different nationalities or socio-economical groups perceive things differently, and Benjamin stressed this fact in relation to art lieng in the eyes of the beholder. He wanted to crush the fascist opinion of there being rights and wrongs (i.e. naturally determined perceptions, e.g. Hitler's racist categorisation of german vs. jewish art)  in art, and just like Adorno & Horkheimer, his arguments found great motivation in the turbulent times in which he worked. 

It is lifting to think about the power of media technologies in the questioning of "natural perceptions". Henrik Åhman mentioned Wikileaks, but I also think that simpler initiatives like the increased reach of e.g. art critique can have create impact on the way people think about established truths. 



I learned a lot during this week, and I feel like my re-evaluation of the concepts connects well to the idea of historically determined perceptions brought up by Benjamin. E.g. my definition of myth was coloured by my previous connotation of religion as myth, and hence I perhaps closed my eyes to alternative definitions.

During the seminar I was more active in my small group than in the classroom discussion, perhaps because I was trying to take in the new ideas presented and explained to me by Åhman. 

Thank you for an interesting week, and excuse my late upload. The post was unintentionally left as a draft over the weekend!

Friday, September 16, 2016

Theme 3: Research and theory

Psychology & Marketing

The journal Psychology & Marketing (P&M) publishes research- and review articles in the field of psychology and marketing. It is an interdisciplinary journal which gives its readers a wide array of research that helps them understand the many aspects of marketing. P&M publishes both conceptual and empirical papers, and both quantitative and qualitative methods are featured - all with the goal of widening the understanding of the cognitive processes behind marketing. The journal has an impact factor of 1,367, and it is relevant for media technology as it proves the societal power of what various media channels distribute.

Hanna Berg (2015) - "Headless: The Role of Gender and Self-Referencing in Consumer Response to Cropped Pictures of Decorative Models"

Berg's paper in Psychology & Marketing (2015, volume 32, issue 10) explores attitudes towards "headless" decorative models in marketing, i.e. models who's heads have been cropped out of marketing pictures. With three different studies, Berg measured the perceived attractiveness of cropped- vs. un-cropped pictures (i.e. where the heads of the models were shown) through stimulus images shown in three different studies with sample sizes which offer legitimacy to the later achieved results:

  • Study 1: 99 mixed gender students at Stockholm School of Economics, mean age 22,14 (20-29).
  • Study 2: 850 YouGov-provided mixed gender sample, mean age 41,01 (15-64). 
  • Study 3: 415 YouGov-provided female sample, mean age 40.43 (16- 64).

The results challenged some of the research that Berg presented in the beginning of her paper. Rather than (as previous studies had shown) facial attractiveness being central to overall perceived attractiveness, Berg's studies showed that women found images where female models' heads were cropped out to be more attractive than pictures where the heads were still in the picture. Men, however, still preferred images of women where heads were not cropped out of the picture. Both men and women preferred it when the heads of male models were kept in the picture.

I.e, cropping the head of a female model out of a marketing image will receive lower perceived attractiveness by men, but women will be more likely to buy what it's selling. Gender consequently matters, both regarding model and consumer. The result hold great validity and the research is reliable with a thorough statistical presentation and repeatability. The result is significant in our modern society, where gender (in)equality and media representations are deeply connected. 

Describe the major theory or theories that are used in your selected paper. Which theory type can the theory or theories be characterized as?
Which are the benefits and limitations of using the selected theory or theories?

Explanation and prediction (EP) theories offer a solid framework for further studies and answer many of the questions that are fundamental for research. What, how, why, when and where - how should we understand the world around us? EP theories are beneficial with their systematic approach to new knowledge, and they offer both insight and outlook. 


Berg builds her research mainly on two theories; objectification theory and perception theoryBoth of the theories are EP-theories; they tackle big and complex question, which is the greatest benefit of using them. When combined, the theories demonstrate and analyse how and why women are portrayed in relation to men, and also how they are perceived.

The main theory - objectification theory - is based on the socialization of genders as a causal explanation for observed gender differences. It assumes that objectification will have different effects for members of different societal subgroups (e.g. ethnicity or sexual orientation), and it hence offers a great theoretical outset for Berg's research. 



... but what is theory?

Understanding what theory is and isn't can be complex. Even though data, empirical patterns or diagrams might explain the world around us in some sense, it is the logical argumentation that combines them and "describes, explains and enhances the understanding of the world" that constitutes the theory. Theory answers to questions of why rather than how. By identifying causal relationships, theory may explain the surrounding world and help predict the future.

To simply give reference to other existing theories is not theory, but connecting them in a logical way to your own studies may well be. I.e., conceptual findings need logical arguments in order to be called theory. A common mistake made by scholars is to cite a number of publications without fully understanding their implications, and hence they (instead of providing a theoretical framework for their own studies) end up with a sprawling list of references rather than a solid theoretical base.

Explaining causalities require logical combinations of prior findings; empirical data can become part of a theory only once they are causally reasoned about. A human touch is hence needed to understand the systematic relationship, and just like Mintzberg (1979) stated:
"The data do not generate theory - only researchers do that."
Gregor highlights the role of the researcher, explaining that theory is perceived differently depending on what field ones research is done. He emphasizes the abstract nature of theory and the different profiles of researchers; logical positivists, interpretivists and hermeneutics. 

Sunday, September 11, 2016

Reflections on theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

Epistemology, the theory of knowledge, was brought under Kant's magnifying glass in the late 1700's with his critique to the scientific revolution of the 17th century. He had a revolutionary approach to questions of knowledge, and his heritage cannot be neglected.

But what questions and conclusions did Kant (and before him, Plato) bring me?

1. As an (at least semi) cultivated person, I have realized that my perception of the world is not an established truth to anyone but myself. My way of approaching others and objects around me is coloured by my perceptions and subjective sense-making of the world. 

2. By studying Kant I have come to the conclusion that perhaps a life will be easier to lead if one does not constantly question his or her own sensory-, empirical- and metaphysical perceptions.

3. Yet, by studying and reflecting on Kant I have also come to the conclusion that mankind has to question its perceptions of truth in order to evolve. If I were to loose myself to the world as I (and those around me) have accepted and organized it, I might close my mind to divergent thoughts or new perspectives. 

4. But yet again, how can I ever happily live my own life if I, by criticizing or reflecting on it too much, contribute to the breakdown of the organization it constitutes of?

-

In the seminar, I brought the above questions into the discussion of both my small group and to the classroom presentation of it. I connected my thoughts on happiness/sanity vs mental instability to what other groups brought up from their discussions (e.g. media images) and widened my own understanding of the phenomena. 



In the lecture, I further understood the functions of our faculties of knowledge and how we cannot understand anything beyond them. Kant's saying that "perception without conception is blind, conception without perception is empty" awoke a thought in my mind concerning societal norms, self-perception and the increased influence of media. 

If my senses of sight and hearing experience something as normative, my mind may accept it as a truth. Hence, my self-perception is coloured by a conception that was not created by my own independent mind, but brought to me by society ( and media in particular) pushing it on me. Examples of this could be "truths" about what a perfect body looks like. 



By reading Kant and Plato, I developed an interest in epistemology and investigated my own understanding of truth. Slightly impractical, I have (just like Kant) come to the conclusion that everything in the world most likely is perception, and thus that nothing will ever be able to be considered a true fact or a definite, universally correct answer. Because, how can anything be objectively established when we are all subjective beings? Even with evolved methods and rules of conduct to attain objectivity, exceeding our human limitations seems hard. 

I am looking forward to future study themes and acknowledge the fact that I may need to revise the above mentioned conclusion to reach academic success. It is easier to pass exams if you accept that there are correct answers! 

Thursday, September 8, 2016

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. In Adorno and Horkheimer’s “Dialectic of Enlightenment”, the concept of enlightenment stretches beyond the European 1700’s movement. Enlightenment, in their sense, refers to demythologizing of the world and making sense of the unknown; it is the advancement of thought. 

Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of their successors and their positivist approach to scientific enlightenment. They believe that the rationality which was originally sought by the notion has gone lost in the enlightened capitalist world. Why? Because meaning has been eliminated. By fighting myth and unscientific methods of making sense of the world, the positivists tried to use only rationality to determine the truths of the world and generate generic standardizations and unifications.

2. Dialectics – the attaining of truth by discussing logical yet different arguments - is a process found in philosophy since the beginning of time. Still, a quotidian bargaining conversation could also be considered dialectic. 

3. Nominalism rejects the grouping of objects and denies abstract things. But according to Adorno and Horkheimer (and Marx, for that matter) collective actions are needed in order for societies to become genuinely (and collectively) enlightened.

4. Myth, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, helps humankind to deal with fears and problems of the unknown (e.g. through believing in Gods and spirits). With an original function of explaining issues of the unknown, myth has an inherent element of enlightenment in its seeking of additional knowledge.

In “The Concept of Enlightenment”, the motifs of enlightenment are defined as demythologizing the natural world by using scientific knowledge and control, and later to dominate this demythologized nature by acting with instrumental reason. The human fear of the unknown begs us to question where to find- and how to attain our security. This relationship between fear (myth) and mastery (enlightenment) is the dialectic Adorno and Horkheimer deal with. Enlightenment demyths society, and thus disenchants the world and establishes that there are reasons and explanations to everything. Without myth, there would be no enlightenment;

“Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.”

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity

1. In Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, the concept of substructure refers to the production in a society. Further, all the aspects of society that is not per definition linked to production (i.e. politics, laws, social institutions etc.) form the superstructure – the rule – of a society. The link between the super- and substructure of a society is complementary; if one changes, the other is affected. Substructural changes are likely to not affect the superstructure neither as much (nor as quickly) as the superstructure’s changes may affect the substructure. To simplify the difference of affect, one might compare the societal influence of a military attack vs. the emergence of blogs!

According to Marx, the ruling class controls the workers (i.e. the producers in the substructures), and hence they control both the sub- and superstructure. Substructures must adapt to markets and be innovative to stay competitive. To analyze cultural production from a Marxist perspective means to identify the fact that capitalism changed the superstructures of the world and hence its substructures, and it opens up for questions regarding whether we can ever speak of free art or free people. 

2. Benjamin argued that culture and art has revolutionary, democratic potential. He argued that e.g. photography and the printing press were revolutionary means of (re)production since it would allow masses to enjoy art and express themselves. Adorno and Horkheimer, on the other hand, regarded the new culture industry as limiting individuals and their ability to revolt.

3.  Benjamin argues that history determines our perception. He gives an example in how we perceive materials like bronze authentic only once we determine they have a history (i.e. patina). A mechanical reproduction, then, lacks historic proof since the common person cannot experience the original with his/her senses. 

"Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. “

4. According to Benjamin, an “aura” is an inherent part of each original piece of art. The aura represents its uniqueness, its authenticity and specialness. The aura embodies legitimacy; it is a proof of the objects historical existence - its role in space and time - and hence its authenticity. With the mechanical reproduction of art, Benjamin argues that its aura is lost. Pushing the thesis to its limit, one might argue that a painting has to be exhibited in its original context (i.e. in the studio at the moment it was made) in order to fully keep its aura.