the CAPITALIST
“The routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond their rigor and scope of any true style – the concept with which culture lovers idealize the precapitalist past as an organic era” (46).
I agree with what Horkheimer and Adorno are pointing out in this quote, and I think they use some strong examples to support there claim. It really is incredible how commodified everything is in today’s world. Things that used to be made to order are now mass produced. The “precapitalist past” is an “organic era” because it represents the time where companies were driven more by their input in society than the capitalistic nature of today’s business owners. Today’s business owner is ruthless: he or she has created this “schema of mechanical reproducibility” by commodifying items. This is the process of making a product more cost efficient. This involves outsourcing, lowering wages, cutting corners in tax payments, and lowering the quality of the item produced. It shatters the organic era’s spirit in one’s ability to achieve, for example, the American Dream. What’s interesting about this point is the first part: that everything, even those ideas that haven’t been imagined (ideas that may help fulfill one’s definition of the American Dream), will fit into the category of being a commodity. When one thinks about moving forward, or “big ideas” about the future, one thinks in terms of commodification. Is this true? Are people more interested in how much money they can make as opposed to how solid of a product they can produce? An example of capitalism, and the long lost sense of an organic era in today’s world is seen in the real estate market through urbane urbanism. Horkheimer and Adorno address this feature of society to show “mass culture under monopoly (urbane urbanism) is identical. Are these housing projects well built, or are they just cheap housing that creates enormous profits for the business owner?
I’m not an expert on this issue, but from my experiences, these mass produced communities are not built well. This is a relevant problem in the greater New Orleans area, as families and businesses are still in the rebuilding process. Should major real estate firms go into New Orleans and build a Baldwin Park, or are those homes not strong enough to withstand hurricanes? Will the buildings last like the housing projects did? It’s ironic that some of the cheapest housing in New Orleans, the housing projects, didn’t get destroyed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They were built in the “organic era” and, despite the poor urban planning – a major, major downfall to these projects – were built very well. It’s too early to tell if the capitalist way of building homes is going to work, but what we do know is how effective the “schema of mechanical reproducibility” is.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Dmariel, Horkheimer and Adorno
When reading about the culture industry today, I felt like I was awakening from a naive dream. Horkheimer and Adorno definitely put the American culture industry into a critical perspective. As I was reading, I was immediately reminded of Althusser’s concept of ideology when I read that “something is provided for everyone so that no one can escape; differences are hammered home and propagated..everyone is supposed to behave spontaneously according to a ‘level’ determined by indices and to select the category of mass product manufactured for their type”. Althusser generalizes this idea through ideology when he states “those who are in ideology believe themselves by definition outside ideology”. Through the act of counter-hegemony, one may believe that existing in a social group makes you different than all the others, when in reality you are just like everyone else. In relation to Horkheimer and Adorno, they claim that no one can escape! Everyone follows a certain ideology that is mass produced for their type. Therefore, “for the consumer there is nothing left to classify, since the classification has already been pre-empted by the schematism of production”. We are the producers and consumers of ideologies, all existing together under a higher power: the culture industry.
Horkheimer and Adorna state that “the routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond the rigor and scope of any true style-the concept with which culture lovers idealize the pre-capitalist past as an organic era”. Benjamin believed that in our culture today we are producing things that we don’t even know that we want. We are taking away from ‘true style’ and unique existence through mass reproduction. We are no longer driven by tradition in the postmodern world, we are driven by production. Subsequently, there is a “withering of imagination and spontaneity” in todays culture. The term ‘new’ has lost it’s meaning, we rely on improving what is already made and act within our obedience to the social hierarchy.
Horkheimer and Adorna state that “the routine translation of everything, even of what has not yet been thought, into the schema of mechanical reproducibility goes beyond the rigor and scope of any true style-the concept with which culture lovers idealize the pre-capitalist past as an organic era”. Benjamin believed that in our culture today we are producing things that we don’t even know that we want. We are taking away from ‘true style’ and unique existence through mass reproduction. We are no longer driven by tradition in the postmodern world, we are driven by production. Subsequently, there is a “withering of imagination and spontaneity” in todays culture. The term ‘new’ has lost it’s meaning, we rely on improving what is already made and act within our obedience to the social hierarchy.
Spaghetti, Horkheimer and Adorno
As we continue the readings for CMC300, I have been recognizing apparent trends in the works we study and the opinions held and expressed by the authors of those pieces. So many of the theorists we have studied are disappointed with the progression of art as an expression and they fear for its future. When Horkheimer and Adorno state that "culture today is infecting everything with sameness," they convey an image of sickness, of disease (41). They discuss their opinions of the progression of culture, and more specifically art, as an amalgamation of all things once uniquely and individually celebrated. No doubt Lyotard would comment on this piece reinforcing his idea that artists and writers need to be the healers of a community, a statement which coincidently perpetuates the image of developing culture as an illness.
The two authors discuss the notion of supply and demand and reproduction, which reflects on Benjamin's ideas. When they state that "traditional rationality today is the rationality of domination," they allude to Hebdige's article we read last week which references hegemony. In their analysis of elements of culture which are destructive in nature and yet commonly cited as forms of pleasureable entertainment, Horkheimer and Adorno could easily be connected back to ideas expressed in the writings of Zizek.
One connection that I found most interesting was the theme of avant-garde vs, traditionalism buried in this piece. When they discuss media as an integrated whole, they touch on the idea that so many theorists we have studied (Benjamin and Habermas to name a couple) seem to be preoccupied with: authenticity and the truely "new." Horkheimer and Adorno discuss music, film, radi---everything is fair game for critique; and they point out that nothing is really ever "new." This got me thinking more specifically about different texts i have encountered which are recreations of a former text. For some reason, I remembered the Woody Allen film, "Matchpoint." Only half way through it did I realize that the general plot line was almost an exact replica of that in Dostoevsky's famed novel, "Crime and Punishment." As soon as I realized this, I whispered it to my friend, who had not read the book. Although this is an idea proposed by another theorist (Benjamin), This particular reading sparked this though process for me. Does the original really need to be known in order to fully understand and recognize a reproduction? ....Drawing on the notion that everything is a replica of something else, perhaps my friend could have said in response to my comment, "No, it's not, it's based on the movie 'crime and Punishment in Suburbia' ,"(a movie also based on the novel). Even though she did not know the original novel, she knew an earlier replication of it. Which is the original? If everything is interconnected in media especially, and if everything influences everything else, then what is really original?
The two authors discuss the notion of supply and demand and reproduction, which reflects on Benjamin's ideas. When they state that "traditional rationality today is the rationality of domination," they allude to Hebdige's article we read last week which references hegemony. In their analysis of elements of culture which are destructive in nature and yet commonly cited as forms of pleasureable entertainment, Horkheimer and Adorno could easily be connected back to ideas expressed in the writings of Zizek.
One connection that I found most interesting was the theme of avant-garde vs, traditionalism buried in this piece. When they discuss media as an integrated whole, they touch on the idea that so many theorists we have studied (Benjamin and Habermas to name a couple) seem to be preoccupied with: authenticity and the truely "new." Horkheimer and Adorno discuss music, film, radi---everything is fair game for critique; and they point out that nothing is really ever "new." This got me thinking more specifically about different texts i have encountered which are recreations of a former text. For some reason, I remembered the Woody Allen film, "Matchpoint." Only half way through it did I realize that the general plot line was almost an exact replica of that in Dostoevsky's famed novel, "Crime and Punishment." As soon as I realized this, I whispered it to my friend, who had not read the book. Although this is an idea proposed by another theorist (Benjamin), This particular reading sparked this though process for me. Does the original really need to be known in order to fully understand and recognize a reproduction? ....Drawing on the notion that everything is a replica of something else, perhaps my friend could have said in response to my comment, "No, it's not, it's based on the movie 'crime and Punishment in Suburbia' ,"(a movie also based on the novel). Even though she did not know the original novel, she knew an earlier replication of it. Which is the original? If everything is interconnected in media especially, and if everything influences everything else, then what is really original?
post-it note, Horkheimer & Adorno
“Those in charge no longer take much trouble to conceal the structure, the power of which increases the more bluntly its existence is admitted” (42).
As the ideology of commodifed culture become realized, the power that culture has over the population increases. This increase is due to the understanding that the creators of culture have motives, but the population continues to consume the culture amidst these understandings. And so, just as Hebdige discussed the “conversion of subcultural signs into mass-produced media,” the new waves of understanding the media’s purpose in our lives should give more people a reason not to consume this type of media, although a demand for media remains. This is Horkheimer and Adorno’s concept of the passive consumer. Even with knowledge of the dangerous things around us available, we continue to live the way we want to, not in the way that is best for us.
Benjamin said “mankind’s alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” - this is what is occurring when we find pleasure in the media (34). This is what Lyotard meant when he said ‘pleasure derives from pain” (43). The destruction of a character’s reputation on a show creates culture that relieves the pain of daily life. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call this the “compulsory intellectualization of culture” (56). When culture is supposed to be mimicked by media, it is framed in such a way that the real is better than real. As this progression continued, similar to the progression of subcultures into mainstream culture and the bad in media propel the masses interests in the media. Entertainment used to add splendor and interest to educational material, but Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the original purpose of the media has been forgotten by the passive consumer.
As the ideology of commodifed culture become realized, the power that culture has over the population increases. This increase is due to the understanding that the creators of culture have motives, but the population continues to consume the culture amidst these understandings. And so, just as Hebdige discussed the “conversion of subcultural signs into mass-produced media,” the new waves of understanding the media’s purpose in our lives should give more people a reason not to consume this type of media, although a demand for media remains. This is Horkheimer and Adorno’s concept of the passive consumer. Even with knowledge of the dangerous things around us available, we continue to live the way we want to, not in the way that is best for us.
Benjamin said “mankind’s alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order” - this is what is occurring when we find pleasure in the media (34). This is what Lyotard meant when he said ‘pleasure derives from pain” (43). The destruction of a character’s reputation on a show creates culture that relieves the pain of daily life. This is what Horkheimer and Adorno call this the “compulsory intellectualization of culture” (56). When culture is supposed to be mimicked by media, it is framed in such a way that the real is better than real. As this progression continued, similar to the progression of subcultures into mainstream culture and the bad in media propel the masses interests in the media. Entertainment used to add splendor and interest to educational material, but Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the original purpose of the media has been forgotten by the passive consumer.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Trapnest, 3/22
Something that stuck with me after this week’s class was the quote:
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” – Althusser
One of the reasons this stuck with me so closely is it reminds me of Rene Descartes in many ways. Descartes’ philosophical theory was based on the fact that the world as we know it, that which we interact with is something that we cannot “trust.” Trust meaning we cannot put stock into it because we use our senses to assess it. It is this interaction which can lead us astray. Therefore it is our thought processes that allow us to understand and know of our own existence. The famous phrase, “I think therefore I am” applies here.
The reason why I connected these two together is that in Althusser’s quote I also see a separation between the physical world and the world in which we exist in within our minds. Our senses may tell us that the car we have is fast, it has leather seats by our touch receptors, and it’s new by its “new car smell.” But all of these are just random facts and assessments on the situation. It is the ideologies and thoughts that tell us what this situation means. That the car being fast is a goo thing, the leather interior is a sign of wealth, and the fact that it’s new is also a desirable trait.
I feel that, as Descartes would argue it is the mental perspective that is more important. It is our ideologies, our collective thoughts, that tell us gold and diamonds are desirable. All the same those ideologies could tell us that clay and stones are desirable. The physical object is irrelevant and unimportant in the face of the ideological state of mind.
“Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence.” – Althusser
One of the reasons this stuck with me so closely is it reminds me of Rene Descartes in many ways. Descartes’ philosophical theory was based on the fact that the world as we know it, that which we interact with is something that we cannot “trust.” Trust meaning we cannot put stock into it because we use our senses to assess it. It is this interaction which can lead us astray. Therefore it is our thought processes that allow us to understand and know of our own existence. The famous phrase, “I think therefore I am” applies here.
The reason why I connected these two together is that in Althusser’s quote I also see a separation between the physical world and the world in which we exist in within our minds. Our senses may tell us that the car we have is fast, it has leather seats by our touch receptors, and it’s new by its “new car smell.” But all of these are just random facts and assessments on the situation. It is the ideologies and thoughts that tell us what this situation means. That the car being fast is a goo thing, the leather interior is a sign of wealth, and the fact that it’s new is also a desirable trait.
I feel that, as Descartes would argue it is the mental perspective that is more important. It is our ideologies, our collective thoughts, that tell us gold and diamonds are desirable. All the same those ideologies could tell us that clay and stones are desirable. The physical object is irrelevant and unimportant in the face of the ideological state of mind.
MerryChristmas!, 2-22
“It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” (37)
This was the very first quote on the Marx powerpoint and the main one that jumped out at me. I thought more in depth about this quote meant and I realized that in the quote itself, the "social being" has determined Marx's own consciousness without realizing it. In this quote, Marx is reinforcing the truth about male-run societies. He uses the word "men" to refer to all beings. This disregards women entirely. I am no feminist by any means, but social constructs are being made. In Marx's society, men are obviously the dominant figure. I found this quote to be a little ironic in its wording.
Althusser states that, “The author and the reader . . . both live . . . ‘naturally’ in ideology.” (46). Who can determine what is natural? Marx's natural use of language is to refer to all of civilization as "men", but is that natural? The concept of natural is a difficult one to reflect on, because nothing is inherently natural besides Maslow's lowest hierarchy of needs which is basic needs for survival. Those are perhaps the only "natural" needs in this world. Ideologies simply mask one's biases into becoming natural. For instance, it is not natural for one to assume that men have power over women, but it is a social construct that has been placed on them from their society
This was the very first quote on the Marx powerpoint and the main one that jumped out at me. I thought more in depth about this quote meant and I realized that in the quote itself, the "social being" has determined Marx's own consciousness without realizing it. In this quote, Marx is reinforcing the truth about male-run societies. He uses the word "men" to refer to all beings. This disregards women entirely. I am no feminist by any means, but social constructs are being made. In Marx's society, men are obviously the dominant figure. I found this quote to be a little ironic in its wording.
Althusser states that, “The author and the reader . . . both live . . . ‘naturally’ in ideology.” (46). Who can determine what is natural? Marx's natural use of language is to refer to all of civilization as "men", but is that natural? The concept of natural is a difficult one to reflect on, because nothing is inherently natural besides Maslow's lowest hierarchy of needs which is basic needs for survival. Those are perhaps the only "natural" needs in this world. Ideologies simply mask one's biases into becoming natural. For instance, it is not natural for one to assume that men have power over women, but it is a social construct that has been placed on them from their society
aro0823, 2-22
I connected our Marx and Althusser discussion of the binary oppositions in the American ruling class to de Saussure’s notions about the necessity of the interdependence of individual terms for language as a system to function. The prevalence of diverging messages lead to everything in society to become thoroughly coded and contextualized. As we discussed in class, fast cars are good, but fast food is bad. New clothing is expensive, but vintage, preworn designer couture is often equally or more pricey. Though one should always strive to stand out in the crowd, one should simultaneously aim to fit in and purchase only the fashionably appropriate trends. After recognizing the illogicality of these oppositions, one must now question where they come from.
Is ideology formed by the ruling class, or is it really created by the subject and for the subject? There are many contradictory notions floating around in our discussion of the originator of such totalizing conclusions. Although we criticize the idea of hegemony for pushing repressive ideas onto the masses, we all are responsible for the maintenance of such ideas. By internalizing ideas without first critically analyzing them, it is easy for the absentminded audience to create a “common sense.” For example, though everyone is publically critical about the prevalence of gossip, people continue to speak slanderously about their neighbors and the cycle thus continues. If every person is consciously choosing to engage in such as action, can some outside hegemonic power really be blamed?
Naturally, one must then question if ideology is always repressive. Culture is part of the ideological state apparatus, and can therefore be used as a way to explain certain behaviors. Some critics praise globalization for enabling the creation of one world culture, whereas others condemn it because it ruins the unique natures of civilizations. Even though it falls within the dreaded category of “ISA,” culture enables individuals to express themselves in a way that is different from other people in other cultures, and therefore liberates and emphasizes individually.
Unfortunately, because postmodernism functions on chaos and illogicality, these binary oppositions will not soon disappear, and will continue to produce mixed and contradictory messages for the world’s people to internalize.
Is ideology formed by the ruling class, or is it really created by the subject and for the subject? There are many contradictory notions floating around in our discussion of the originator of such totalizing conclusions. Although we criticize the idea of hegemony for pushing repressive ideas onto the masses, we all are responsible for the maintenance of such ideas. By internalizing ideas without first critically analyzing them, it is easy for the absentminded audience to create a “common sense.” For example, though everyone is publically critical about the prevalence of gossip, people continue to speak slanderously about their neighbors and the cycle thus continues. If every person is consciously choosing to engage in such as action, can some outside hegemonic power really be blamed?
Naturally, one must then question if ideology is always repressive. Culture is part of the ideological state apparatus, and can therefore be used as a way to explain certain behaviors. Some critics praise globalization for enabling the creation of one world culture, whereas others condemn it because it ruins the unique natures of civilizations. Even though it falls within the dreaded category of “ISA,” culture enables individuals to express themselves in a way that is different from other people in other cultures, and therefore liberates and emphasizes individually.
Unfortunately, because postmodernism functions on chaos and illogicality, these binary oppositions will not soon disappear, and will continue to produce mixed and contradictory messages for the world’s people to internalize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)