In the first text for this theme I perceived the concept of enlightenment mostly as rationalizing and seeking for knowledge slowly taking over the mythological and mystifying way of perceiving the world. During the seminar and group discussion we aimed at understanding how the concept is also an ultimate outcome of historical movement, which has its roots on church as an institution which held the position of leading voice for such a long time in the history of human kind. Enlightenment is also not just about knowledge, but it's actually a hierarchy of dominance in the modern society – a system that is created to maintain the structures. Enlightenment is not only dominating nature but ourselves as well, as we are more or less voluntarily settling into those structures.
In the first post, the concept of dialectic was defined as a method of examining and discussing opposing ideas aiming at finding the truth. In addition to this, dialectic is also finding a consensus from two different standing points. Benjamin writes about opposition, two sides of different values both contributing to the subject in order to find something new.
Nominalism evoked most discussion during the seminar since at least I was facing some difficulties understanding how it rejects universals and categorization but – at the most extreme – also leads to a new kind of system of categories. As described, nominalism is rejection of the generalizations. It also prevents an antithesis and tends to maintain structures. According nominalists we should only observe and use no judgement at all, which means not applying anything to the things we observe: you can't find human rights or feminism in the nature (those things are human invented concepts).
Outside the texts this is an important question even today: What should govern our societies and communities? Should we come up with new kind of visions or concepts and what could it change?
My perception of Horkheimer's and Adorno's conception of myth expanded as we discussed the mythological bridges. When we argue that there's no other thing than universal regularities, the enlightenment and myth are actually similar in a way that they both show that we are just chained in a system of hierarchies. This is also the functioning logic of the media industry, since it gives us the feeling of freedom yet at the same time we are controlled what and when to do. We can look for anything on the internet, but when it comes down to facts (google shots, Facebook sensuring), that kind of freedom is very debated whether it's actually freedom or not.
According to Marx & Benjamin, the substructure changes first and affects the superstructure, so one should try to get hold on the production dimension and try to change that rather than people's opinions. That's why Marx suggests that the government should own all the production, so that it would be easier to change the substructures.
Aura is uniqueness but also cult value. You have one piece of unique art, which only rich people had the access to before. Then media production came an destroyed the uniqueness of the aura because now we can copy or mass produce it. Anyone can "see" Mona Lisa by downloading it on the internet. Reproducing stuff makes it available to everyone.
All in all, thanks to the cultural revolution, as the receiving party has become producing party (anyone can produce the content), people are allowed to have a voice. Yet at the same time the ruling class creates the level of freedom of expression, which on the other hand gives the negative nuance to all this. However, during this theme we came a little closer today's media industry by arguing the dimensions of mass culture and production.
Hola,
VastaaPoistaYou're making a good point on saying that enlightenment is more than just knowledge. This is to conquer ourselves. But Knowledge is the most powerful weapon to conquer, therefore the hierarchy of dominance is what comes after knowing. Not something in itself, id say...
Human right are new rules we apply to govern people, but those are the good sides of nominalism, since we can use it to govern people in a more oppressive manner as the famous german example.
But you make a very good point, we do have listened about our history and what they applied to govern the society. But the question today remains intact, what should we do to govern now. never thought to that. Even though green vision is the next step in humanity.
And I agree as well on the modification of substructures and superstructure. We shall first modify what comes first before trying to change ideas. you can't change an opinion without changing what impacts this opinion.
Hi, thanks for such a great summary, I really enjoyed reading what your group discussed in your seminar. It's really interesting how you connected myth and enlightenment to today's social media channels. Made me think that indeed we see social media as a tool of freely showing our thoughts and opinions about various topics, but at the same time it is a part of controlled mechanism. Same like myths it just created an imitation of freedom. However, I would argue if media really destroyed uniqueness of aura. Yes it really changed concept of aura, but I do not see it in a negative way. I think aura changes when it's reproduced but the change does not necessarily have to be bad. Re-productivity also has its own aura.
VastaaPoistaThank you for interesting reflections!
VastaaPoistaJust like you, I slightly changed my perception of the definition of enlightenment made by Horkheimer and Adorno. The fact that the notion is about more than "only" knowledge, about more than rising beyond the mythological, is my own key take away from this week, too. The fact that we are all part of knowledge hierarchies, just like you write, made me wonder though. Where in this hierarchy can we as students be placed? Does our active search for knowledge put us high on the scale, or rather low since the notion requires us to not know things yet (i.e. before examina). Food for thought!
Great reflections and easy to follow your thoughts, I think you made some really interesting points. I though what you wrote about nominalism was interesting, and something I spoke a lot about during my seminar as well. Like you said, it's important to question our society and how we want it, what we want to change, and what should govern it.
VastaaPoistaI found it interesting what you wrote about myth and media, and it was similar to something we discussed as well. We have all this freedom of speech, and with social media it's easy for anyone to state their opinions, we can find close to any and all information online, and a lot of news sites take in chronicles etc. Giving the appearance of freedom. However, Facebook deletes what it finds inappropriate, Algorithms decide what should appear first on Google, advertisements can pay to be seen in your feeds, and a lot of newspapers are owned by the same company. So how free is it really? And how much is actually decided, but we just don't think about it.
Thanks for a well structured reflections in your blog post.
VastaaPoistaYou wrote “Enlightenment is not only dominating nature but ourselves as well, as we are more or less voluntarily settling into those structures”. Adorno and Horkheimers theory about enlightenment us very interesting, how they reflect of enlightenment is a mythical fear radicalizations, and the idea of enlightenment as blind domination that contributed to the cultural industry's inherent totalitarian tendencies. Enlightenment leads to a dominant structure, strong vs weak, men vs. woman etc. Enlightenment was not only about knowledge it’s a hierarchy of domination. It’s noteworthy how Adorno & Horkheimer connect all their theories to the cultural industry; even so with enlightenment and domination.
In the last paragraph you connect the concepts of sub- and superstructure to modern society, in a very comprehensible manner. This is an interesting dilemma, we think we are free to express ourselves freely, when in fact, we are not. So if looking at this problem from a critical theory perspective, how can we be liberated from the circumstances that enslave us? The answer according to Adorno and Horkheimer was to create a vision, that aims at making society better. One alternate way is to change the substructure, but does it have to account for society as a whole or just media technology as a integral? One last questions that emerged from reading the text was the role of media and public service today, and how the term ”tyranny of the majority”, a concept popularized by the liberal democracy-advocate John Stuart Mills, can be a backlash if media would be socialized.
VastaaPoistaHi,
VastaaPoistaYou seem to have gotten a pretty good understanding of the concepts. You’re idea of the supposed freedom of today’s media is quite interesting. I understand how e.g. Google and Facebook control what kind of information we receive, but at the same time, I wouldn’t agree with Benjamin that the solution is to let the government control the media outlets/substrucutres. After all, it’s the capitalistic society that funded and made technological development possible to the extant it is today. With a government in charge I think the possibility of information sharing/participation and tech innovation would decrease. It would be interesting to read your thoughts on what you think regarding this.
When you write about Enlightenment being an outcome of historical events, your phrasing makes it seem like it was the church (as a good guy) that started it. After reading it several times I understand, that you mean that the church's oppression caused people to question the church's reign and therefore starting the movement.
VastaaPoistaHowever later you write that Enlightenment is "a system that is created to maintain the structures". I don't think this is true. The idea of Enlightenment is quite the opposite of it. It is, as you wrote yourself, to not tolerate oppression (by church or anyone) anymore. Only now, after most people are 'enlightened' and in fact are not oppressed by the catholic church anymore, they have failed to apply that concept to any other kind of oppression and are therefore "settling into those structures" as you wrote.
Furthermore I don't agree with your view on Nominalism. Nominalists are not rejecting generalization, they are actively disconnecting themselves from the real world to conceptualize any idea. Only it becomes quite dangerous to generalize as the generalized concept might be put in the wrong context and become oppressive again. But it also can have a good outcome as for example in Human rights.
I disagree somewhat with your conclusion that enlightenment is “a hierarchy of dominance”. While hierarchies did develop from the enlightenment, I believe it was an unintentional consequence. In this case, enlightenment led to changes in substructure and then hierarchy would be the resulting change in superstructure. To try and briefly summarize this change: capitalism stemmed from technological advancements that were developed by the ideals of enlightenment. The oppression of the proletariat was then a result of capitalism. Nominalism and enlightened ideals prevented this from being questioned, but in and of itself, enlightenment is not hierarchy.
VastaaPoistaIt was interesting to see how you compared enlightenment and myth in that they both perpetuate hierarchies. I had not considered myth as perpetuating hierarchies as well.