Enlightenment is a set of ideas meant to emancipate the mind, the human consciousness and to distinguish reason from myth, and to liberate man from authority and mysticism. The roots of the Enlightenment can be traced centuries back, but a striking and pioneer example is Martin Luther’s protest where his ninety-five theses which were posted on the Castle Church of Wittenberg initially were a protest against clerical mysticism and devout absolution became the starting point for the entire Protestant reformation.
Adorno and Horkheimer use in their book "Dialectic of Enlightenment" the word ‘Enlightenment’ in a wider sense than merely referring to the cultural movement beginning in late the 17th/early 18th century. According to german philosopher Immanuel Kant, enlightenment liberates men by claiming human reason is capable of providing answers to questions which answers previously were reserved by authorities. Enlightenment paves way for reason, and holds it in high esteem. Reason is democratical - all men and women are capable of reaching knowledge through reason, and once the path of reason has been laid out, it can be followed by anyone. “Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity. Enlightenment’s programs was the disenchantment of the world. It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge”
Adorno and Horkheimer of the Frankfurt school of philosophy do not hold Enlightenment in as high regard as Kant did. One of their main theses is that enlightenment has not separated us from myth. “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.” ... “Myth turns into enlightenment, and nature into mere objectivity”. (But I won't elaborate on this, since I didn't fully understand their thought process leading to this conclusion).
Furthermore, Enlightenment is, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, a total state of being - it is binary by nature. Enlightenment has bred technology and progress, and that our current state of the world (mid-1940s state of the world, that is) is to be seen as a symptom of enlightenment and modernity. They go on, claiming that “the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity. Enlightenment’s programs was the disenchantment of the world. It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge”. Continuing, they ask if we really see the world in the light of our own reason, hold reason itself as an authority, and propose that we’ve been decieved by the promises of enlightenment.
OLD AND NEW MEDIA, CULTURE INDUSTRY, AND MASS MEDIA/MASS DECEPTION
Being aware of the cultural change with the growing film and media industry with the golden ages of Hollywood as well as an increase in private radio stations, Adorno and Horkheimer took on a highly sceptical and negative point of view of what they called the culture industry - a term they themselves coined. They claim in the chapter “Enlightenment as mass deception” that the culture industry and new media denies us imagination and renders us ultrapassive. A+H go on, claiming the culture industry totalizes the audience, and that it is an instrument of mass deception - standardizing art in a manner that would make Henry Ford himself proud.
Adorno and Horkheimer describe old and new media by making a distinction between mass personal media and mass media. Old media such as the telephone is closer to art, enabling individualism, spontaneity and creativity, whilst new media, such as radio and television, is developed by the culture industry by capitalist interests, almost enslaving the consumers.
PLEASE IDENTIFY ONE OR TWO CONCEPTS/TERMS THAT YOU FIND PARTICULARLY INTERESTING. MOTIVATE YOUR CHOICE.
To be frank, I wasn’t passionately interested by this weeks text. For starters, I had a hard time reading the book - mostly due to the fact that the poor scanning quality which we were presented to didn’t really enable a good reading experience. Also, I find there’s a clear risk when reading up on modern history, especially regarding topics which evolve so quickly such as media and technology, that the path between the 1940s and today isn't as clear as you might want it to be. I've understood that "Dialectics..." is a classical work within the topic, and I did find some of the history interesting - but for a topic such as "Critical media studies", I just think something is missing - and that there might be a lot to win by supplementing this text with present-day research or articles about media criticism.
Frankfurt School All-stars. Horkheimer and Adorno kicking it in the foreground, Jürgen Habermas suavely fixing his hair in the background.
I totally agree with you about the poor scanning quality of the book. I don't understand why some parts was overlined and it made it hard to read. I'm not all with you on the critique against the choice of literature though. I thought that it was interesting to read about the enlightenment since it is about oppossing established beliefs in order to think for yourself and rely on your own intellectual capacities in determining what is true. I also enjoyed the fourth chapter since i think much of what is brought up there can be considered as valid today and that i believe we have came across in other courses. I can agree with you though that it would have been nice to complement "Dialectics..." with some more recent literature about the topic critical media studies.
SvaraRadera