One of the most interesting things we discussed during our
seminar was about dialectic. When trying to discuss dialectic in our initial
blog posts, most of us came to the conclusion that dialectic was proposing a statement,
then contradicting it in order to come to a new synthesis. However, we discussed
in class that Adorno and Horkheimer observed a different type of dialectic; this
dialectic pertaining to societal tensions. Adorno and Horkheimer bring to light
that the initial thesis posed in dialectics is the ongoing system in society, in
this case, capitalism. Then with revolution, the antithesis is posed. The
antithesis being a revolution against capitalism or a class free society. However,
once this has happened, it becomes the current thesis and a new antithesis is
posed. History takes form in this constantly shifting system. To Adorno and
Horkheimer, history is always in a phase of this. In this way, society is always
in a state of tension.
We also delved further into the definition of nominalism. Initially,
I had not been sure how nominalism fit into Adorno and Horkehimer’s text. Nominalism
is the idea that there no categories in the world beyond the human mind and abstract ideas do not exist. We discussed how Adorno and Horkheimer critique nominalism
and generalities. This also fits into their ideas about a capitalist society.
If we only observe what is it nature, then societies are the way they should
be. If the strong suppresses the weak that is the way they should be. If we
were to observe nominalism, then there would be no case for revolution, because
human rights are not something that we can observe in nature and does not exist
I had initially thought that Adorno and Horkheimer were pessimistic
about the idea of revolution, yet it seems with their ideas of nominalism and dialectic,
that they either expected revolution to be inevitable or that they hope the nominalist
views of society will change.
It was also interesting to consider the historical context
of Adorno/Horkheimer and Benjamin’s criticism of society. Benjamin’s text was
written before the second world war, while Adorno and Horkheimer wrote after. This
was not something that I had considered in my initial blog post. Perhaps this
is why Adorno and Horkheimer had seemed more pessimistic, while Benjamin
thought there might be more potential for society to improve. Adorno and Horkheimer
were disappointed in how society had seemed to embrace a capitalist culture
after the world war. Benjamin seemed more positive towards technology as it had
the potential to give power to those who did not have it before.
I wondered how Benjamin, Adorno, and Horkheimer might view
our society today as it is now with the development of digital technology. I
think that while it has allowed many people to have access to revolutionary mediums, at the same time, it has also perpetuated the consumer
culture that Adorno and Horkheimer were critical of. Our access to things like social media give us a platform to present our ideas. As Benjamin said about letters to the editor, anyone can now become a writer and broadcast their opinions. Yet in order to have access to these things, we need access to these technologies. This presents the problem in consumer culture. Once again, societies who do not have access to these technologies or those who have governments that limit their access, become oppressed.
Sources:
Dialectic of
Enlightenment, Theodor W. Adorno and
Max Horkheimer
I really liked your last reflection, that of which opinions Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer would have of our society today with all the developments in the technology. As you said, social media has given us the opportunity to present our ideas and opinions worldwide. Today anyone can be a writer, just as Benjamin described the printing press as a revolutionary way of spreading literature and opinions during the 15th century. It is interesting to see how this will develop, is there a limit of technology? Good job with your reflection!
ReplyDeletehola,
ReplyDeleteGood reflection you make here. i didn't reflect on the historical context at first either. We talked about it in the seminar and it made things into perspective. that helps understand their point of view, and some point wouldn't apply now.
I think however that if they were watching our society now, first they would be proud that we study the; :p, but they would have a very similar discussion since as you say, we do have the technology now, but it still can be used to press the people and it was mostly the idea they tried to give in their time.
But they would love the idea of this sharing information world, where everyone can access to everything.
I rely like you conclusion and reflections. It is interesting how you put it in a context of today.
ReplyDeleteI agree it’s interesting to consider the historical context. Adorno & Horkheimer were highly effected of their time, and the fact that they where living in Hollywood when they wrote Dialect of Enlightenment. According to Adorno & Horkheimer the Cultural Revolution and the commercialization was a threat to human intellectuals and spiritual liberation, its leads to passivity. They believed people hade become blind in the capitalism society. A&H hade no purpose to prevent a solution, they post critic against things that did not work in the capitalism. Benjamin on the other hand wanted to inform the people. For Benjamin the mechanical revolution of art also democratizes culture.
Well done with you blog post.