Lecture + seminar
This seminar gave me a different approach on the terms we were initially reading about. Beginning with the Enlightnment. Adorno & Horkeimer live in the Enlightment movement. They pushed the reflection to the study of the enlightment itself. The one that in order to find out more about the world, we had to destroy the myths communly known. Through calculation and theories, we can redefine our vision of the world. We learn about which we didn't know so we can know. For a more concrete example, this enlightnment offered the world a certain domination over the others species. We had a need to find our limits, ours boundaries, the example of climbing moutains or working on solving technical problem (boat on water - Titanic) has been made.
I used the Allegory of the cave, that we revisited in the seminar to explain my vision of things about the dialectic. This process of thinking, logical thinking. But this is only on a episotmology level. Marx took it to the next level by using this dialectic on a Ontology level. What is ... So we have to be able to do both in order to relate on it accordingly.
We pushed a bit further in the allegory of the cave, things that I did not mention enough in my first blog, the nominalism that is metaphored in this allegory. The reflected chair that appears as a shadow for the prisonners is a chair but is it really what it is ? This nominalism is a form of pure domination over others. This conceptualisation allowed people to opress by making it generalised. Such as the Nazi ... But that can also be used in a better form such as the Human Rights.
Every myth is an imaginary truth that fills a void in our knowledge so that we can survive our need for an explanation for everything until we can actually start the correct science and find out about what this is really about. We used to fill this gap with a lots of myths (Religion, Sci-fi Stories, the world was open to imagination). But know what drives the humankind is this need to understand and prove the real truth about it. ( As far as real means). This makes me think about a sentence of Stephen Hawkings "We need a theory of everything".
--
I will start by mentionning my previous blog " The essay of Walter Benjamin begins by pointing out two different term
to describe how society interacts in itself. A particularity that
shouldn't be forgotten or avoided when trying to interact with the
history of the society. Superstructure and substructure. The base of a
Superstructure are the substructures. Those substructures allow the
superstructure to exist. Each substructures bring with them a part of
the current society. "
The substructures for his era was the machinery, production, etc. Today, we can see them in the media technology department as the mobile phone, computers, access to knowledge, sharing information with the world through Google.
And the superstructure englobes all that and makes the world where we live in, the world where we live in. Very different from before. Even though it changes very slowly. Today, we can see the evolution in the superstructure of the religion. The number of Atheist increases (Around 12% to 20% of the world) those lasts hundreds years. We used to have a number of atheist close to the 0%. This is in a grand part due to this access of information we have (The substructures mentionned above).
Finally, what made Benjamin's essay famous for, his conception of the aura, this uniqueness around a certain object, what makes it what it really is. Benjamin morn the copying process of an object art but at the same time he likes the idea that it allows everyone to access a very "rich" domain, Art. After my first reading I was confused on how Benjamin deal with this process of destroying the aura of art object but the seminar openned a new perspective about using this as a Superstructure changer. Allowing a private sector to become open to everyone, will, in a way, destroy the bourgoisie they were subjected to.
Revolution was on it's way.
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI liked the example with the percentage of atheists in the society - have never thought about it from the perspective of developed substructure. IMHO, to question the religious prescriptions and traditions seemed quite logical for any young educated person but if looking at it as the result of the access to the information, it makes sense. Although this is quite a complex issue that can be as a result of the encouraging the critical thinking in schools and considering people rather as individuals than the elements of certain social groups.
Hi, this was a quite good summary of the theme and you seem to have understood the concepts well. You make an interesting reflection about superstructure and religion. I do agree that this is one of the main cultural changes that we are going through right now, however, I think it would be interesting to also read more of your thoughts on how the superstructure is changing in relation to media and art.
ReplyDeleteLike you mentioned, I believe sacrificing the aura of art for the benefit of democracy is a proof of how the superstructure is changing. Today our value and morals have shifted from maintaining a hierarchal structure to promote democracy, which I believe is why active participation (sharing information and knowledge) in social media has become such a profound part of our daily lives.
Hi, I think your idea of taking religion as superstructure is really thought-provoking. This is indeed a great example of this concept in today's world. Moreover, here and during the seminar your idea to put Plato's cave for explaining a concept of nominalism was very useful as it painted vivid picture of how it works, especially that it can be used as a "weapon", it can oppress people in a way of creating concepts and confirming society. Same like you, before the seminar I was a little bit lost with Benjamin's aura concept,seeing it only in a critical way. However, during the seminar I realized what Bejamin actually meant by his concept of aura in reproduction era, as you say it was "superstructure changer". I think at that time it really made a difference in a society. Even if it was only in a terms of art, but people could feel more equal, destroying concept of bourgeois.Thanks for a great explanation of concepts!
ReplyDeleteHi!
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, you share some interesting facts to explain the different concepts. Especially the one you use to explain the Enlightenment concept explains the process in a good way. It gives us a clear view on how our own perception can deceive us and can make us believe or see things different then that they actually are. The link that you make between superstructure and religion is a good way to link the concept to the presence, as religion has become an important issue nowadays as we see how changes is influencing our society.
I think it is interesting when religion is brought into the discussion. You say we used to have a number of atheist close to the 0%. Or can it be that people said they were religious to avoid reprimands from the higher institutions such as the church. But of course we have access to information in another way today. And we are more free today (or we think we are free). We were slaves of religion back then and now slaves to our smart phone apps. Coming from conspiracy theory thinking, there are always a back side to everything. "Religion is the opium of the people" K.Marx.
ReplyDeleteYou summarize the discussions well and it is pretty clear that you gained new perspectives during the seminar.
The allegory of the cave was a good contribution in class, but what I really liked about your text was how you demonstrated your understanding of the topic by applying it to religion. You mention Atheism as a result of changed superstructres. I saw once in a Swedish museum that there was a link to financial status and belief in God. So that when people were poorer, they had a need to "outsource worries" more than in society today where people have more money overall. Your view adds another intersting dimension to this.
ReplyDeleteTo add something to improve. I had the feeling some typos could be avoided with a spell check, such as the sentence " We had a need to find our limits, ours boundaries, the example of climbing moutains or working on solving technical problem (boat on water - Titanic) has been made." where it should be "our boundaries" and "mountains" for example. Overall, however, content shows that you grasped the topic and have applied your knowledge to some really interesting examples. Thanks for the read!
Reading your text, I have a hard time understanding what you mean by writing that the enlightenment offered the world a certain domination over the other species. What species are you referring to? Man being more dominant than an animal? I think that has been the case since way before the enlightenment. Regarding myths you write that we can start ”the correct science”, what do you perceive to be correct in this case? Is there incorrect science? You also write that what drives humankind is the need to understand the world and prove the real truth about it. Even though I wish this was true, I don’t necessarily think it is the case. I think that a lot of people just want to confirm the things they already know, rather than understanding were the real ”truth” lies. You are connecting the thoughts on the sub- and superstructure to religion, a concept I find interesting. If looking at Sweden, one of the worlds most secularized countries, only one in five express that they don’t believe in anything at all, which I think is a small amount of people. A majority in Sweden says they believe in something, which I think could be a way of showing that faith is something I as an individual has chosen, rather than something that has been imposed upon me by the superstructure.
ReplyDeleteJust like you, I had struggles in the beginning as well to understand why aura is so important for Benjamin, but then he just accepts the destroying of it. Through the seminar and the discussions we had there I began realizing what kind of benefits the destroying of the aura can have. There is a way greater meaning behind it as it seems in the first moment. You mentioned right, that it is a strong argument against the bourgeoisie. But what does that mean on a bigger scale? It is the force against oppression of the working people, of the ones that do the work, but didn’t have a lot of influence back then. In my opinion Benjamin was a great and revolutionaty thinker back then.
ReplyDeleteYour reflection was interesting and enriching in terms of the examples you have provided us with for supporting your statements.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to the aura, after reading Benjamin’s essay i was left with the impression that he was indeed inspired and filled with hope of how everyone receives access to something which up until that moment has been characterised and defined of a cult value. The art was not everyone’s cup of tea as it was only the educated that were able to understand and enjoy it. Suddenly mechanisation and its rapidly growing rates raises the curtains to people with all sorts of backgrounds.
I am not sure, however, whether to agree with your statement that - "Allowing a private sector to become open to everyone, will, in a way, destroy the bourgoisie they were subjected to.” If by this you make a reference to Benjamin’s understandings, I get it. But if you are discussing it as a matter of principle, my emotions then become mixed. I think that the nowadays situation is indicative enough of how subordinated we are to an unnamed bourgeois which controls us using the present-day methods.