Reflections on Theme 2: Critical media studies

This week's theme involved reading Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), a book which I found to be really interesting because it is still contemporary. Despite the fact that it was written in the 1940’s, what is written in the book is true today.

Firstly, I would like to briefly mention the importance of the time and place that this book was written. The text is determined by the fact that two Germans, who were part of the cultural elite, lived in exile, in LA, during the Second World War. The authors’ critical discussion on how mass media were used by both the liberal democracies as well by the totalitarian regimes in order to manipulate people was shaped by this context (the time and place where they lived).

For me, the most interesting part was the fourth chapter “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” and the discussion on cultural industry, where emphasis is placed on mass production of culture. Culture is seen and treated as a product, not as art. This implies that culture is disposable. And these cultural products are characterized by sameness. This sameness is not restricted in cultural products; it is also seen in humans. As it was discussed during the lecture, according to Adorno and Horkheimer (Ibid), mass media are used instrumentally to produce uniformity in a society by isolating humans. At that time, radio, films and magazines were the modern communication media. Considering the examples presented in their book, radio is a medium designed in this way that does not allow active participation, interaction, critical thinking by the humans. The same thing applies to films, which could only be seen in movie theatres at that time. In both media, communication is characterized by isolation. So, for Adorno and Horkheimer, culture industry and mass media are used as instruments in order to indoctrinate humans and manipulate masses. 

In my point of view, contemporary communication is also characterized by isolation. Of course internet and social media nowadays allow for interaction and active participation, but I still find some kind of isolation in this type of communication. I feel that we are still alone, even though we might consider to be together since, for example, we are chatting online. In this sense I agree with Turkle (2011) and the notion that technology and social media bring us closer, but at the same time we go further apart.

The definition of art, and especially high art, was the starting point of an intriguing discussion during the seminar. We could not really agree upon what art is. I found that the authors, coming from the cultural elite, expressed a strong point of view on what could be considered as art. Someone distinguished between pop art and art. In the end, the teacher informed us that according to the most accepted definition “art is what you find in art galleries”. But this definition also troubles me since not all galleries define and present art in the same way. Art galleries might be run by people and institutions in such way so that they can promote their agendas. This, however does not mean that it is art. 

To conclude, what I got from this book and the discussions during the lectures and seminars is the importance of critical thinking. When discussing the use of media as a tool of mass deception, the authors noted the importance of critical thinking. By extending this, in our search of knowledge, science might not enough; we also need to critically think and discuss. 

REFERENCES:

Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (2002): The Dialectic of Enlightenment, Philosophical Fragments. Standford: Standford University Press.

Turkle, S. (2011). Alone together: why we expect more from technology and less from each other. [e-book] New York Basic Books. Available through: Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Library website: <http://proquest.safaribooksonline.com.focus.lib.kth.se/9780465022342?uicode=kungtek>  [Accessed 14 November 2011].