fredag 15 november 2013

Theme 2: Critical media studies

1. What is Enlightenment?

Enlightenment can be described as a way of trying to free thought from a reliance on mysterious rumors and powers. Cognitive techniques increased with purpose to understand and thus master nature as a result. It led to computation and the pursuit of utility, which became extended and universalized to produce a universal science and outlook. Enlightenment turned the characterization of god to the characterization of men, what once belonged to myth now features a theme of science.

2. What is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?

Myth is a form of deception that absorbs factuality, takes empirical repetitions and lends some symbolic significance to them. And pretend that the regular repetitions are pre-determined.

3. What are the “old” and “new” media that are discussed in the Dialectic of Enlightenment?

The “old” and “new” media is described with the transition to new mediums of media, through TV and radio. Which had a big impact on society, a cultural change where the new media reached a bigger audience. While the old media had smaller audience, theatre and art for example.

4. What is meant by “culture industry”?

The culture industry is intended to refer to the commercial marketing of culture, which by Horkheimer and Adorno perception cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises. Horkheimer and Adorno deliberately chose the term "Culture Industry", instead of "mass culture" or "mass media”.

5. What is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to Adorno and Horkheimer?
Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.

Adorno and Horkheimer proposed that popular culture could be compared to a factory producing standardized cultural goods as films, TV-programs, magazines etc. Which is used to manipulate mass society into passivity. Consumption through mass media of easy pleasures of popular culture renders people docile and content. This might create a cultivation of false psychological needs (“mass deception”) that can only be satisfied by products of capitalism, which can be seen as a danger with culture industry. They perceived that mass-produced culture is a threat to high culture and creativity. For example, the people who run the culture industry, people in strategic locations as producers of films or TV programs play a key role. They decide what counts as culture and absorb creativity in their process of creating standardized products.

6. Please identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting. Motivate your choice.

The chapter “Enlightenment of mass deception” caught my attention. The past week I have interpreted mass deception in mass media everywhere, maybe a little too much. I generally don’t watch TV, but when I try to do, there are always shows some what related to stupidity, lyxfällan, ullared, montazami, the list can be made long. I then try to change to American shows but then it’s the same thing. It had me thinking, are these actual public needs? and what can be done to prevent mass deception in culture industry?





8 kommentarer:

  1. Hey mr Boström!

    I share the feelings regarding question number 6. I also believe that we are being thrown into a media consumption with productions that seems to be very stupid. But that also tells us that there a heavily big difference between people's individual taste and needs. And with that big difference it is hard to reduce the very sad but yet so big swedish TV Shows like Montazami etc.

    But as I mention in my post I am feeling that there is a great change coming with the opportunity to choose on the web or even on the television what productions that entertains you. I hope that in the future we'll try make in impact by working with technologies that will satisfy you but also the peeps who love Montazami.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I wonder in what way this will change. Do you suggest that the way the change is coming, is in the form of adapted media for each individual by choice, and no solid TV tabloids for example? What do you think will become of the TV-tabloids?

      Radera
  2. I believe that the "new" media you speak of came to be around the same time as the culture industry did. The "new" media is the media that is used to mass deceit and it leaves no room for the "old" media you speak of. This means that creativity and individualism often take damage.

    I agree with your thoughts on mass media and mass deception. I believe that as long as the TV-show producers (for examples) can profit from such (often) brain-dead shows they will continue to spew them out. Maybe it is time for us as consumers to choose our content more carefully?

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I agree with your statement that we should choose our content more carefully, but as long as there is solid tabloids and people follow them and watch shows at set times, or just watch TV at all this will not change. What is your view of this one generation from here, what will have changed?

      Radera
  3. When writing about the culture industry, you are stating that; "... the commercial marketing of culture... cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises." I directly started thinking of all commercials I've seen the last years and the stupid promises it makes (TV-shop is a great example). Do you think this way of deceiving the consumer (i.e. you'll get this beautiful girl, this awesome car and much more if you drink Coca Cola Zero) is strictly connected to commercials or are we seeing the same cheating of consumers in other media?

    I also liked you're last answer about the low level of intelligence needed to watch most tv-shows today. I guess they are made for the passive way of entertainment and not so much as a public need. There are so much to chose from in todays media and for some reason I think it's good with some shows that you could just relax to, while at other times watching something a little more stimulating for the brain.

    SvaraRadera
    Svar
    1. I believe this exist in all types of media, but deception are more dangerous and successful in "one to many" media forms (obviously to the number of people it reaches "mass"). But more importantly because there is harder to response for ordinary people in the same media and critisize in retrospect and reach the same viewers, I believe it don't result in the same impact. It's not that easy to spot either, and its easier as a consumer to just chose to not consume a specific program of media if you reach this realisation, than actually respond to it.

      Radera
  4. Hey!
    I agree with your comment about the mass deception in TV shows today that often contain stupidity. I believe one reason for the success and popularity of such shows is that you usually watch those shows during weekends, holidays, evenings, etc, that is, at times when you just want to relax your brain from work or school. You've usually already been stimulating your brain all day so these shows are entertaining but at the same time they don't require much activity from your brain.
    Due to the mass media, we are surrounded by a lot of information so I think just like "stefanetoh" commented, that it's great sometimes and other times you are free to choose the more stimulating media. There are many educating and interesting documentaries available for example.

    SvaraRadera
  5. I agree with that you often get a lot of "brain stimulation" during the day and come home tired and want to relax. And if you enjoy these TV-shows there is no discussions about whether you should watch them or not. Are your opinon that the people who watch TV enjoy the shows or more that they are to tired to find something that probably would suit them even better? From my own perspective, I don't find anything watchable on TV these days, I think its easier to find a program to enjoy on the internet.

    SvaraRadera