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.
