THEME 2: REFLECTION

THEME 2: REFLECTION

Nowadays culture is sameness providing imaginary comfort for the masses while controlling their perceptions.

With the development of the film and photography a business model has been settled, which makes a cult of one certain ideology – consumerism. Culture becomes a tool for collating one’s experience and for distraction from significant values and events.

The lecture followed the order of historical events that affected both Benjamin’s and Adorno and Horkheimer’s points of view about culture. Culture’s use of propaganda is strictly constructed and reflected by those historical events and the political life of its time.

In the case of Walter Benjamin, he did see, indeed, revolutionary potentials in culture (film and photography), being a witness of how its use can quickly reach to the big audience and distribute ideologies, providing them with knowledge.

However, in contrast with my statements in the first post on this topic, both the seminar and the lecture helped me understand how different the position of Adorno and Horkheimer is. Their vision on the future of culture is more skeptical being witnesses of how all-political structures aim to blend the masses into one consumer society.

When analyzing “revolutionary potentials” I was focused in its meaning of change and this focus restricted me of seeing the obvious. However, after the discussion in the seminar I was able to concentrate on the true meaning of revolutionary and find its true essence within the context.

Change is a generelization of revolution but what those potentials really consist of are change in the structure of the political, economical and social life. For both Adorno and Horkheimer such change was causa perduta because during their time of analysis, what they witnessed was the moral decay of society and the loss of identity. The change they sensed is of a destructive nature that inevitably would lead to regression.

When discussing the theme we have raised different questions. One for example is the question about nominalism and what it is. I was left with the illusion that Adorno and Horkheimer are defining it as an opposition to the Kant’t concept about the objective knowledge. I thought that it rejects everything that exists a priori such as empiricism does. However, one of my co-students shared that it is more of a tendency that simplifies things. So the essence to which we reached is how it is a tendency that rejects individuality and differences.

We discussed how within the context of Dialectic of Enlightment at first it has been indicated as good in terms of allowing people to feel equal. On the other hand, we analyzed how it actually submits people to certain social oppression. Even though it rejects categorization and generalization it gives birth to another category – one being only an observer and putting up with the reality as it is. In short, the nominalism prevents one to reach antithesis as suggested by one of my co-students, which I find as a short and clear description of nominalism.

If we imagine a society where everyone is just an observer, one would put up with his role feeling unable to fight for change – revolt against the oppressive system. He would accept that he is weaker than the political authority and this is exactly what the authors are mainly concerned about.

Speaking about mythology, I have been defending the idea that despite all its minuses, it being a tradition has kept people together. The core in my believes is hiding in the historical retrospection of my home country, where during wars and occupation it was the church and the tradition that has kept the people united, taught them morals and helped them not to lose their identity.

However, now I am starting to look on it way more critically without relying on my emotions.  

An example for myth that I have favored is the so-called Bulgarian tradition – kukeri. People dress up in costumes conducting a ritual to scare the evil spirits away. It is still a tradition, which gathers a lot of people in one place, but examined critically now it is used more as a tourist attraction, washing away the true value of the event.