While reading Walter Benjamin, as well as Adorno & Horkheimer's texts, I had gotten the feeling that I understood them pretty well. However, the lecture and the seminar opened up totally new perspectives for me.
In the lecture, it was especially interesting to put both texts into their historical context - the three different post-Enlightenment developments in different parts of the world (consumerism / national socialism / communism) and the different years the two texts were written in. For example, the fact that Benjamin wrote his text in Germany before World War II adds another meaning to his arguments against fascism and the introduction of aesthetics into politics. Adorno & Horkheimer, on the other hand, published their text towards the end of the war in the context of American consumerism. Already while reading The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, this reminded me a lot of Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death (1985) which also criticises how society loses itself in its addiction to dull entertainment in the media. I had read the book in my bachelor's degree and analysed the topic a lot, also already a bit in connection to Horkheimer & Adorno. Neil Postman's publication also draws back to Aldous Huxley's Brave New World (1932), which I had read in high school and which portrays the dystopian scenario of a society being addicted to entertainment. Both Huxley and Adorno & Horkheimer portray what society can turn into, or already has turned into, because of the endless thrive for entertainment - in Adorno & Horkheimer's publication with mass media as a hallucinogenic drug and in Huxley's with the drug soma.
As in the week before, the discussion in the seminar helped me to get to another level of understanding the two texts and the intention of the authors. Already in the small groups, it was very interesting to see how fellow classmates had answered the questions and to discuss different ways of understanding and our points of view. There, we for example made the connection between nominalism and enlightenment and that they both work into the same direction of focusing on the individual, which can then also be seen in mass media focusing on ordinary people. The bigger discussion with the entire seminar group then helped me to get my head around the concepts of nominalism as opposed to realism - also with a repetition of Plato's cave allegory. Of course, this also linked back again to Plato and Kant in the first theme and their use of concepts. It is very interesting to see how these theories are all somewhat intertwined and I feel that I am actually understanding what the different authors want to express because I automatically start to draw lines between them - that is a very rewarding feeling this course leaves me with.
Hi Malina! Thank you for detailed reflection and interesting example of Neil Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death and Huxley's Brave New World. I've also read Brave New World, but never think about it in this context. I agree that there is an analogue with "soma" and mass media. Unfortunately, in most cases mass media just support degradation of society instead of initial enlightenment goals.
SvaraRaderaHi Malina~
SvaraRaderaYour reflection is really interesting and different from others. Thank you for sharing a lot of extension beyond Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer. I agree with your connection between nominalism and enlightenment. Nice job!
Very in-depth and interesting posts throughout here. You seem to have understood the main concepts of the texts, and not only that, but you've also gone further taking other sources to aid you in your writing which is very good!
SvaraRaderaI'm not sure if I just missed you writing this, but I don't seem to have found a distinction between the to texts regarding the question about whether or not culture has revolutionary potential. It looked like you only talked from Benjamins perspective so it would've been nice to see if you got any clarity on how Adorno & Horkheimer felt about that. They saw more limitations than revolutionary potential in Americas consumerism so.
Nontheless keep it up!
I don't agree on this comment regarding not commenting on Adorno & Horkheimer. You have clearly understood their ideas of how mass culture affects society and also written about in in your reflection. Adorno & Horkheimer did not see mass culture as a revolutionary potential.
RaderaI think that it is clear that you've understood the concepts because you continue with other references. I enjoy reading the text because of your engagement and interest in the subject. I have also come across Adorno & Horkheimer in a similar context. It was Dwight Macdonald's A Theory of Mass Culture. Macdonald does not say that it is a drug, but that it standardises peoples way of thinking.
Thank you for your text!
* Or at least not as a good revolutionary potential (Adorno & Horkheimers view on mass culture)
RaderaAs you wrote in your reflection it is so important to put the texts in context with the authors historical situation and to keep in mind under which circumstances they grew up and lived. I like how you relate your knowledge about the theme to "Brave New World" and how you point out the similar perspectives and main points. It is interesting that both Adorno & Horkheimer and Huxley were talking about a "drug" when it comes to entertainment and amusement. For me it is very impressive that they had a quite similar understanding about mass media like we do nowadays, especially when it comes to risks and danger caused by the use of mass media.
SvaraRaderaHi Malina!
SvaraRaderaThank you for a well-conducted analyse for theme 2. I agree with you that it was after the lecture and the seminar you really understood the meaning of the various concepts. You perform a ambitious blog post by adding other forms of literature to build up your argument. Nice work!
/Paul