The Public Sphere

When trying to understand the role of media in society, it is helpful to use the concept of “public sphere.” The public sphere is an area where one can discuss the problems of society. Habermas once stated that newspapers, magazines, television and radio are the media of the public sphere. In our time, we can also say the internet. I believe media play a critical role because where would society get their information from if it wasn’t for the media. If it wasn’t for the media, the message wouldn’t be delivered. Media also has an influence on the way people view others. Habermas and Adorno view the public sphere as a domain, which is controlled by the consumption.

 

The hyped culture. What does it mean?

Okay guys, I know this might be a bit of topic this week. But the last week there’s been a true sneaker craze about a few Nike shoes; especially the Galaxy Foams has been hyped. Some people choose to campout a whole week before the releasing date and a few hours before they actually were released, they were on eBay for 97.000$ (eBay since removed them). It has since been reported that actual riots occurred; because of a shoe, because of consumerism. This has been allover the media and the Internet.

In the context of our readings the last couple of weeks, what would the different theorists say about this culture? How do you think McLuhan and the others would respond?

Here’s a few links, if you would like to know more:

Nike Campout

Nike Release and Riot

Nike Riot

Benjamin and the Actual Reproducibility of Film

Benjamin is pointing the measure of his concept of authenticity and its erosion at the increase in reproducibility; that the destruction of the aura of the “here and now” of art has had wide-ranging cognitive effects on people as a whole.  Film and sound, he argues, is the flashpoint of this erosion, the time “hidden in the still photograph” where an art so culturally imperial and created with disproportionate emphasis on exhibition as the product only of its reproduction (there is, says Benjamin “no authentic photo plate”) emerged to hasten what had already been rippling through human artistic thought since the woodcut.

What seemed lost there, however, was an allowance for how the masses would absorb and be aware of the realities of that incredibly influential form of media.  Benjamin writes about film that “the work of art is only produced by means of montage,” as part of his observation on what parts of the film process are “art.”  He contrasts it to photographing a painting, which reproduces art, but the production of which can’t be much more than “an artistic performance.”  What I’m always struck by when reading a piece like Benjamin’s or Adorno’s last week is how fragile their concepts become the closer they come to plainly stating how they define “art,” an allowance of an umbrella of their making that always strikes as more arbitrary the longer it goes on.  Describing the act of filming and all it’s specialized component parts as irrelevant to the film’s moment of conception as art because, among other reasons, it does not, like sculpture “come all of one piece” suggests that the stage that does so qualify–the assemblage of the prepared “materials” into montage–so qualifies because of it’s identification with the “here and now” aura of art.  Clearly this form of media will fail a test created to art in other epochs and social environments.  It also suggests that the “improvability” of the photographic leg of the film process, which Benjamin states in and of itself rejects eternal value–is somehow not bound by the practicalities of time, money and space.  The eternal value could easily be, of course, that face at that instant in time in that space performing something among many fellow temporally dislodged acts of creation.

When Benjamin writes, of course, film held a different cultural place than it does now.  In the late 1950s when the French began to reexamine old Hollywood films from, say, the Walter Benjamin era and dissected them as something working outside their original frame of existence, an awareness of film creation followed that I think formed a level of awareness and distance (in the observational sense) in all moviegoers in the years since.  Things like special effects and terror and gore are appreciated less and less for their representational, visceral value–something tangible–and more for their execution and craft, for their ability to reproduce forms created by filmmaking itself.  The film’s existence as imminently available doesn’t have to attack it’s eternal value–what we see as the identity of the “film” exists as a physical reproduction of itself, but Benjamin never seems to corner and address the idea that moments caught in time in participation with people caught in that time actually cannot be reproduced.  They can be re-crafted (and sadly often are), but I think we culturally are aware that reproducing precisely what happened in Psycho is impossible, even if we did everything exactly the way they may have.  Maybe that’s what Gus van Sant meant.

Follow up: Further notes on Adorno/Horkheimer + Habermas

All, As promised here are some brief follow-up notes on the Habermas  material since we did not have a chance to discuss it at any length during our last class. I’ve also included some brief background/reference on Adorno/Horkheimer.

MAX HORKHEIMER + THEODOR W. ADORNO, “THE CULTURE INDUSTRY” (1944)

• [Background/Context] Frankfurt School: a school of philosophy associated with the German Institute for Social Research in the 1930s / key figures included Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and Benjamin / New School became haven for many Frankfurt School scholars in exile /experienced first hand mass culture as tool for manipulation under fascism / while in exile in US, “came to believe that American media culture was also highly ideological and worked to promote the interests of US capitalism” (Keyworks, eds. Durham and Kellner 4) / critiquing the era of  state monopoly capitalism – post WWII corporate capitalism  / “inaugurated critical studies of mass communication and culture, showing how the media were controlled by groups who employed them to further their own interests and domination” (Keyworks, xvii) / reappraisal of Marxism – rejecting possibility of working class revolution / regarded critical theory as potential site of resistance to cure ills of modern society, chief of which was unbridled technology
• We covered much in class; if there are further questions, please post them here. For general background and reference only, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be a useful resource

JURGEN HABERMAS, “THE PUBLIC SPHERE: AN ENCYCLOPEDIC ARTICLE” (1964)

• [Background/Context] Frankfurt School (2^nd generation): responding to German fascism, motivated by desire to prevent recurrence / studied with Adorno + Horkheimer in 1950’s
• Key points in argument for our purposes:
• Once upon a time, there was a public sphere. Public sphere for Habermas is space in society where private citizens assemble to discuss common public affairs (e.g. pubs, coffee houses, meeting halls) (originates w/enlightenment and French revolutions) – for H this space is only made possible by the emergence of modern forms of media – radio, newspapers, journals, pamphlets, books– why? Because these media connect strangers – “Citizens behave as a pubic body when they confer in an unrestricted fashion about matters of general interest” – modern publics are by definition groups of strangers, and the only way that public discussions can be had among them is by way of media (50, see also 53)
• But then… public sphere disintegrates in industrially advanced mass democracies.  What causes the disintegration? “Because of diffusion of press and propaganda, the public body expanded beyond the bounds of the bourgeoisie… lost not only its exclusivity [but] the coherence created by bourgeois social institutions and a relatively high standard of education. Conflicts hitherto restricted to the private sphere now intrude into the public sphere” (54). He refers to this as refeudalization of public sphere (54).
• Here, Habermas illustrated a shift from media as critical instrument of bourgeoisie –> to mass media itself as a commodity – major corporations come to control newspapers, radios etc which then serve corporate and advertisers interests  – news becomes entertainment
• Shift from rational public –> to publicity/public relations, from public opinion of rational debate –> to manufactured public opinion of polls and media experts
• Public sphere shifts from locus of information –> to site of manipulation. Previously informed citizens become unwitting spectators. This state of manipulation described by Habermas at the end of his article is the Culture Industry described by Adorno (in other words, Habermas leaves off where Adorno begins.)
• NOW: What is the state of the public sphere today with new social networking technologies, texting, facebook, twitter, blogging, cellphones, cameras, videocameras, and ‘on demand? Habermas assumes that electronic media prohibit the development of rational public opinions… Do contemporary online communities exemplify what Habermas calls the ‘refeudalization of the public sphere”. Can you envision how this debate would take shape on both sides?
• CRITIQUE OF HABERMAS –> See Fraser

NANCY FRASER, “RETHINKING THE PUBLIC SPHERE” (1991)

• Context: currently Prof of Political and Social Science at the New School 
• Habermas treats liberal bourgeois public sphere as the public sphere – but it’s just one model, and certainly not accessible to all
• Multiple public spheres coexist at any one point in history and they COMPETE (see 523) – what counts as matter of common concern will be decided precisely through discursive contestation
• Focuses on conditions of access (526)– media as “material support for the circulation of views”
• Subaltern counterpublics: “parallel discursive arenas where members of subordinated groups invent and circulate counter discourses” (527)
• Resistance requires public dissemination of views (528) via alternative media platforms (i.e. internet cultures may enable other publics to make their issues a matter of common concern)

Public Sphere: Communication is the only way out!

Since for Habermas public sphere is the realm of public opinion-shaping to which all the citizens have equal access individually in order to transcend their private views into a public issue/ will, he assumes there must be several means to make such assembly and conversation possible. In other words, it is only through mass media (such as radio, television and newspapers) that the public can share their views, critiques and contrasts on political and social issues in order to come to a mutual understanding.

For Habermas, the concept of “public” goes back to the monarchies of the middle ages, while “public opinion” and “public sphere” only came into existence after the required ground for public discussion was built through reasonable arguments around the issues of public good in the bourgeois society in the 18th century. So in the pre-bourgeois social structure public could be translated as the embodiment / representation of the power of sovereign. It was only after the differentiation of the sources of power (church, state, military, market) and birth of nation-states that public could negatively define itself as a realm for opposition, as an assembly of ‘private individuals’ coming together as a source of authority confronting the monopoly of power of state and above all as a ‘representation’ of itself.

However, as Habermas believes, the public sphere has not stayed the same as its initial model which was the bourgeois/ liberal model. Public sphere in its initial form was a realm between the state and individuals in which private bourgeois individual came together and discussed their general interests (mainly political and around the issue of freedom) through media such as new-born newspapers and journals. He suggests that “the ideological elements” always available in this model were “fundamentally transformed later”. Habermas, who sounds to be thoroughly influenced by Arendt in his argument, believes after 1830’s the issues of private (which Arendt calls it “household”) were transcended to the public sphere. So in the era of welfare states, the main concern in the public sphere is the private interests confronting in order  to get to a public consensus over ‘general welfare’. The main characteristic of this new model for Habermas is that it has lost its critical function to a great extent. In other words, the public sphere like all other realms of the modern society has been emptied from its emancipatory potential that could have been suggested by the Enlightenment and is limited to a narrow form of rationality. As a result, even parties and newspapers (and other media) have changed their function.

Both Habermas and Adorno & Horkheimer  see the public sphere as a realm controlled and manipulated by the logic of consumption. This means that the public sphere is not able to create / criticise the existing conditions independently and is taken by culture industry (from above) instead. So as Adorno and Horkheimer suggest we are not the “subjects” of the society anymore, rather its “objects” which are undoubtedly controlled by the duplicated products of Culture Industry. However, while for Adorno and Horkheimer there seems to be no way out since both the technologies of communication (media) and its content has been exploited by Culture Industry, for Habermas there is still hope available. He believes that through public discussion the public sphere might find its lost function back. As he says: ” It could only be realised today, on an altered basis, as a rational reorganisation of social and political power under mutual control of rival organisations committed to the public sphere in their internal structure as well as in their relations with the state and each other.” Maybe that is why Habermas calls Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s ‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’ a message in a bottle, which cannot be understood until the Messianic power of history appears and the mystery is decoded.

Connections & Observations of the “Culture Industry” Readings & “The Public Sphere”

It was evident that the authors were united in their disenchantment with what they deemed as the “culture industry”.  In the “Culture Industry Reconsidered” pg. 15 Adorno descibes the culture industry as monopolistic in character. In the opening paragraph of “The Culture Industry:Enlightenment As Mass Deception the author states that “culture today is infecting everything with sameness“. Habermas states  “..Though mere opinions seem to persist unchaged in their natural form as a kind of sediment of history, public opinion can by definition only come into existence when a reasoning public is presupposed“. All of these quotes point to the mass deception and the seeming willingness of the masses to be deceived. It’s interesting that the authors go to great lengths to convince readers of how numb or unaware they are in this dominant culture. This method definitely could have been implemented for shock value–in hopes of pushing them out of this perceived lulled state.  All of the readings referred to the idea of conformity being forced upon the masses and the lack of free thinking  as a result of the structure of the culture industry or public authority before the claiming of the newspaper medium. In “…Enlightenment As Deception” Adorno&Horkheimer states that “Only what has been industrialized, rigourously subsumed, is fully adequate to this concept of culture.” This quote speaks to what the culture industry is. Their conclusion is that it is a conformist, demeaning, and stifling system that opresses the artistic and intellectual awakeness of society.The Culture Industry readings pigeon holed the mainstream mediums as vicious in their intentions.   “The Public Sphere” had a more hopeful tone. It spoke to ability of the democratic process to shift the power of the masses’ ability to contribute to the public sphere. This could be realized through the liberal Model of the public sphere via the medium of public opinion, or the use of newspaper to combat the public authority of their time. This reading gave instances of the tides turning in relation to people being able to have their voices heard in the dominant culture. This is a more persuasive method in my opinion because it infuses the spirit of hope. It’s easy to only argue the adverse points, but there has to be some representations of  viable ways to reform the culture industry. The assertion in the articles was that masses were sleep and being beaten into perceptive submission by the culture indsutry. I do admire the authors’ willingness to oppose the status quo and dominating culture in hopes of waking up the masses& inciting change in them. There are many conversations surrounding the idea that the dominant culture in today’s society perpetuates extreme dependance on media, to the detriment of individuality. The authors of these readings might make the same assumptions about the culture industry in our world. They might be distraught about the fact that there is still a need in this world for people to conform to the culture industry of our day to their personal detriment. Habermas would be intrigued by the ways in which the reach of the idea of the public sphere has expanded, and  has continued to branch out as a result of the media discipline.

Adorno and Horkheimer “The World Wants To Be Deceived”

After reading both articles from Adorno and Horkheimer, just glancing at the titles you had a sense of what you were about to enter into. When I was finished I felt a bit of anger and resentment as if Adorno had just in fact offended me for being a part of the culture industry. From the way he described it, the culture industry more or less will make your brain turn into mush and become a prisoner of the culture industry. Granted you need to pull yourself out of the current and into Adorno’s time and take note of the changes going on in society. The growth of media as a tool to reach the masses was starting to hit its apex and Adorno clearly felt that this culture industry will clearly make society lose their individuality.

Adorno claims that the culture industry’s ideology is “such that conformity has replaced consciousness” . Apparently we are all incapable of making rationalized and unique arguments since we all adhere to what the culture industry wants. “It impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves” Adorno claims, unfortunately I read this quote and think about society and picture a scene from “The Walking Dead” where a cluster of zombies roam aimlessly following one another without the slightest bit of personality or individuality. This is what I feel Adorno believed where society was heading towards in regards the culture industry and our perceived dependence on it. Sure, the culture industry hasn’t been the hierarchy of academia and enlightenment, but it has left a positive and influential impact on society. From political to sociological to even economical, the culture industry has had a significant hand in evolving these industries to where they are today. From research to technology, any advancements likely would not have taken place without the culture industry. Therefore, even if Adorno and Horkheimer feel that the culture industry will rid the world of “adults who have come of age in order to sustain itself and develop” I think its safe to say that my fellow classmates and I will beg to differ their sentiments.

The Entertainment Buisness as a Conveyor Belt

When I read the title, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” I knew this article would speak to me personally because I had similar discussions with others before reading this article. I wanted to read some of the blog posts before writing my own just to see the general perception and I may be the only person who agrees with some of the arguments made in the article. It’s possible that I am old-fashioned, boring, or I was just born in the wrong decade. I do not respond to our present culture with the same excitement and enthusiasm as the rest of my generation.

I can understand the “machine” that Adorno and Horkheimer referred to many times in the article. Adorno and Horkheimer states, “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness…Film, radio, and magazines form a system,” which is a bold statement but may ring truth to film content today. It appears as though film has become more monotonous today than ever before. Producers, writers, directors, and casting agents seem to follow a template of what each genre of film should contain: same storylines, jokes, music, sex scenes, and more. For example, there is very little difference between the various romantic comedies in past last 10 years. Action films are so predicable that they are laughable. One could predict what the climax and ending of films are by looking at the trailers. Filmmakers use sexual images to gain attention for their films which can leads to controversy, dominate box office numbers, and millions of dollars, but it appears as though this attention grabbing technique has been used and abused. Audiences are possibly desensitized to most sexual content in films because our films are capable of reflecting our culture – a hypersexual culture.

On page 97, Adorno and Horkheimer stated that the difference between the film products of different film production companies is very little. For example the type of film star, the costumes, technology, cinematography, and psychological formulae are similar in the expensive and cheap films of Warner Brothers and Metro Goldwyn Mayer. I am assuming they are referring to the films prior to 1944 when this article was published. If I compare this to music and the pop explosion of the late 1990s, female popular artists from different recording companies appeared the same – blonde, cute, and wore the same style of clothing. Their pop music was nearly indistinguishable. Their publicity agents booked the singers for the same magazines in which they posed the same way. They all had similar controversies: attempting to sexually mature as they aged but were still perceived as sweet bubble gum pop. Many music critics of the time spoke about the “machine” and that it seemed like there was a conveyor belt producing the same robotic celebrities.

I had difficulty with their definition of “style” and classical art as “real” artistic expression. It seems like Adorno and Horkheimer have difficulty understanding both sides of the argument and are entirely one-sided. I do not agree that art is confined to ballet or classical music. According to the Oxford Dictionary, art is, “the expression…of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.” Film, music, dance, painting, sculpture, and even architecture are forms of art. Even some sports are considered artistic such as figure skating and rhythmic gymnastics whose athletes are judged based on their athletic abilities (to execute elements) and artistic expression to the music.

Culture Industry and Public Sphere

In contemporary, art, masses and culture are different from each other but, they are being tied with the relationship. By industrialization. The human being tries to make a profit from the products anyhow,and the range of the product for profit could be anything in this era. Adorno uses the term “Culture Industry” to critic popularization of culture, namely industrialization regarding this society. Personally, the definition of culture or art is too inclusive to dispute about commercialization of art and culture. However, he states that Culture Industry decreases the values of culture and art, rather regress them and arouse alienation to human being. In contrast, the view of capitalism and free market economic system expects to affect positively with realization of ideal democracy in society and opportunities of acquisition of information and knowledge to public from this phenomena.

I can say that these statements and Public Sphere is intertwined because it represents ideal appearance of democracy by individually participating, controlling and arbitrating in any decision making process. These Public Sphere’s function could support to overcome the drawback of mass culture which is industrialization of culture pointed out by Adordo. On the other hand, we should remind that it is not simply for artistic and cultural issue as past, now it would rather be political process. In addition, it involves reign of civil society and contradiction of class society, we should finally recognize that we could not escape from the fence of power and manipulation.

Apparently, we’re artless

I have to admit that I was curious to see what my fellow classmates thought of this week’s readings before delving too deeply into them myself, just in case my own reaction was a bit too passionate.  Thankfully, I’m not alone – the title “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” is already enough to raise an eyebrow – what are we being deceived with?  Why the beef with culture and entertainment?  But the second sentence: “Culture today is infecting everything with sameness” is just crazy bold, and Adorno and Horkheimer’s rant returns to this accusation multiple times.

I know this will evoke some replies, but for about a half second, I was almost inclined to partially agree with some of their statements, such as “the truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash they intentionally produce.”  In my own opinion, certain types of programming today, be it reality television or satirical, brainless films like Epic Movie or Vampires Suck can certainly serve as proof that studios and networks are not attempting to create legitimate and stimulating forms of entertainment, but are only after their bottom line – to make as much money as possible using as little thought as possible.  However, stating that “films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art” is going too far.  Using an example from today again, regardless of whether or not a film is seen as a cinematic masterpiece of the decade and worthy of ten Academy Awards, or whether it was an utter and complete waste of $100,000 worth of production dollars spent, it is all still art, regardless of the motives of the businesses.

On pages 98 and 99, they continue to accuse media forms of conforming to specific formulae, thus lacking any originality, and deduce that everything is too predictable because of these categories that everything can fall under, and because media attempts to “reproduce the world of everyday perception.”  Perhaps I cannot fault the authors too much, considering this was published in 1944 when perhaps it was plausible that entertainment from various media was becoming stale and uninventive, or at a temporary standstill as a result of the technology that existed at the time.  Still, they’re being a bit too closed-minded for their time, and considering their recognition of the degree in which the culture industry depends on the physical industries (electrical industry is mentioned), you would think they would at least mention the possibility that their extremely bold opinions could be subject to irrelevance pending any further technological advances.  Not that I expected them to predict 3-D cinematic experiences or highly participatory (‘cool media’, if you will) television and internet programming, but to give up hope and make such strong accusations against media as art in such an infant stage is just foolish.

I’m also having trouble with their definition of style, what constitutes as ‘real art’ (as Caroline did) and where the evolution to the current culture industry connects.   They claim that everything in the present day of this article was too predictable and easily categorized, and yet if it didn’t exactly follow the formulae of the classics (musical composition, painting or otherwise) then it isn’t art?  In other words, because media changes and evolves to the ever-changing tastes of the current culture and society (and technology available), it will never be as credible as the original forms that existed unless it directly emulates them?  Or, there is a line drawn in the sand at year X, and any media created after year X is crap?  Who are they to make this distinction, and why do they seem to have such a disdain for “entertainment”?

I could probably go on for another day about how much I disagree with their evaluation of the lack of imagination afforded to the film viewer, their apparent hatred of the ‘barbaric’ jazz musicians, or their definition of their precious style and classics, but I’d like to hear if anyone else was offended and baffled by the grumpy old men, or more surprisingly if anyone took anything positive away from these readings.  Besides, what do I know anyways?  I’m just a weak-minded woman…