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!
Hola,
ReplyDeleteIt seems like you have a completely different opinion about every point. You say that they drive to erase the unknown from the society. But is it just a goal ? To me it appears very difficult since once we removed the unknown that we know, it left us with the unknown that we dont know about.
You originally thought that imitation nature was more of a transcendent explanation. It makes me wonder what makes you change your mind ? I agree that the text tend for the other definition but if you had this idea, it means that some point were true for you or your point of view. Therefore, this new vision of things erase completely your last statement ? I would have loved to read more about this transition in your mind which seems interesting.
I do agree however with the last point you made about the definition of myth. My mind was also coloured by my previous connotation of religion. therefore Religious was fully incorporated in my definition of myth, I know see that I should have opened my eyes more to a wider vision of it, thanks.
Really well written post and you made a lot of things very clear, you seem to have a really good understanding of this weeks them. I found the way you described nominalism very good and understandable, like you said, generalities can't exist unless someone creates them, and it results in people losing their identities, and hands of fascists oppression.
ReplyDeleteI think they way you wrote about myth was quite interesting and I agree with you, at first I connected it with religion as well, but after working with the theme got a different understanding. It wasn't as much about gods and spirits, as a way of imitating nature to control nature, and I think your description was well done!
Hi,
ReplyDeleteSeems like you've understood this weeks theme very well!
I like how you break down the concept of enlightenment: as it is a broad ideology, it doesn't only affect our industrial progress in society, but also our values and beliefs. I believe that enlightenment had good intentions, but resulted in a negative circumstances (both social and environmental conditions).
Your description of nominalism as a tool of oppression in fascism made me curious about the second world war and how so many people readily accepted fascism. Was nominalism such an inherent part of society that it justified oppression so easily? I wonder if the fascist ideals were so appealing that the hive mind rationalized a lack of human rights or if the enlightenment had so much of a negative effect on cultural values that they did not even consider it.
ReplyDeleteAs nominalism has its place in the world, I wonder if we will ever truly find a balance. Can we accept the abstract ideas that better our quality of life while also preventing abstract ideas from negatively influencing the progression of science and technology?