Theme 2: Critical Media Studies #2

1. What is "Enlightenment"?

Before, I thought of enlightenment mainly as an era of skepticism towards, what at that time was perceived as knowledge. Things that couldn’t be explained by science started being questioned. The church and religion as a whole were obviously targets of this critique. The enlightenment might have started like this but it wasn’t limited to just a finite period of time. Enlightenment is rather a movement which is ongoing but maybe not as clearly as before. Today science has almost achieved a status compared to what the church used to possess. One big exception is that science is actually open to criticism. That is actually nurturing for science and it heightens its level of credibility.

2. What is "Dialectic"?

The definition of Dialectic goes something like: two or more parties exchange arguments with the ultimate purpose of finding objective truth. This is obviously not the same as having a debate, where the purpose would be to just have the best arguments not necessarily more truthful. You rarely see a political debate with compromises. Rhetorical skills are the ultimate weapons. Dialectic should be the premise on which law and politics should be based.

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

I’ve gained more insight into what Nominalism is. The main take away for me was that we’re all particulars, there’s no universal grouping saying that we’re Swedish or something else. In ways this can be quite a healthy position to take, looking at how governments have alluded to people’s feelings of patriotism in the past. I would at the same time say that it’s quite boring to reject abstract objects and universals because it can remove the feeling of belonging. The church, by the “creation of abstract objects” was able to establish rules and norms because people felt they had purpose. Sure, they’ve used other methods to but that’s really my point. Nominalism can be both positive and negative, a lot depending on the context.

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

One often thinks of myth as being in contrast to science. That science shines light on the unknown.  What I found interesting is that science can possibly turn into something like myth. If science only repeats what nature is already telling us, is it that different from what earlier non-scientific theories tried to do? There’s maybe no straightforward answer to this but a key difference I would argue for is science’s usefulness.

1. 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 analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

The substructure shapes the superstructure but it’s really a circular relationship. The superstructure has a lot of power to maintain the substructure. With this in mind and thinking about the superstructure, people who could control or shape the superstructure would be extremely powerful. A large group of people that together might have the power to shape it would then pose a large threat to people in power.

2. 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?

We talked about how the mass production and proliferation of art stripped the Bourgeoisie of its power. This goes to show how important information is. When information is harder to control and you have multiple sources, people can cross compare and they may end up with a more objective view. This is also the role which journalists are supposed to play in our society.

3. 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).

In some sense historical perception is more subjective than naturally determined perception. It’s produced using historical facts but those would also be subject to interpretation, more so than with naturally determined perception.

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

Aura is powerful. It can convey time and place and that’s actually quite a lot, because that in turn starts thought processes inside peoples’ minds. As we discussed, fascism politicized aesthetics. Using old art in a new setting can let people make connections that aren’t explicitly but implicitly stated by the aura.