Barney and Andrejevic

              This weeks readings highlight the negative effects of network technologies. What a downer. Barney argues, “the networked computerization of production makes it flexible customizable, and responsive because when process information is reduced to standardized, universal form of bits that can be exchanged almost instantaneously and with considerable reliability across vast distances in great volumes, the need for friction-ridden human labor is greatly reduced” (Barney, 136).  I personally don’t view this as negative as Barney paints it to be. True, at the moment this is creating a large unemployment rate and jobs that are temporary and/or unreliable. This is the changing environment and we, as a society, need to adapt to it. “Flexible, customizable, and responsive” technologies are a good thing! This stimulates the economy. Unfortunately there the labor force is too large. As a result, we need some serious population control. We need to fight that biological urge to reproduce and have 5+ children. Lets keep it to three or less okay? Preferably two. I would say one, but I think that having a sibling is an important part of social development, lol. But honestly, there must be an algorithm that could indicate the appropriate population needed for optimal economic functioning, in addition to the health of the earth in relation to depleting resources.

            Another concern was the degradation and surveillance of unskilled workers. This is a legitimate concern. If workers increasingly do not have anything to distinguish themselves from others, then job opportunities are limited, which means that the monomaniac capitalist boss gets to dictate the turf rules as a result of the unskilled worker being forced to choose between unemployment vs. the conditions of the boss. Barney points out that “computerized surveillance is more extensive because it can be applied to a growing number of occupational categories and to a broader range of activities within those categories” (Barney, 156). This oddly is not of much concern to me. I have faith that some sort of legislation to monitor personal information would limit corporations from this unethical behavior. As far as monitoring worker performance, go right ahead if you think it will improve productivity, of course it might lower moral and thus lower productivity, but who knows? I’m not an industrial psychologist or an economist.

            Of course I wrote this before I actually read Andrejevic’s work. Evidently there are database companies that “keep lists of people who take Prozac for depression, believe in the bible, gamble online, an buy sex toys” (Andrejevic, 7) That’s mildly horrifying, but I assume it is for marketing reasons, not some creepy Big Brotha’ conspiracy. In fact, I think that’s great. Maybe Veronica will find a top of the line sex toy as a result of this sophisticated monitoring system. The problem comes in our desire for privacy. No one wants his or her name to be publicly linked to a sex toy…usually, *shifts eyes.* Moreover, why not keep track of people who are looking up how to blow up a plane? I would also like to comment on Andrejevic’s section on “watching each other.” I mean, this was really kind of funny. At work, “keystroke monitoring programs serve as a means to both monitor and discipline employees” (Andrejevic, 227). Moreover, spouses were using software to track their adulterous partners. For me, this is a human problem. If you have a cheating spouse and you are neurotic enough to buy software to check, go right ahead. If you are a parole officer monitoring a pedophile, go right ahead. I feel like I should be more concerned about privacy, but I view these advances as practical. 

Trippi, Kelly, & Lurie

            I think that the potential for a more egalitarian, freer, more productive, happier society with the advent of the Internet and the gradual withering away of old ways of communicating is definitely possible. I’ve spoken about the Egyptian Facebook revolution in my other blog. I think that this example beautifully outlines that it is possible for the Internet to act as a medium for encouraging egalitarian nations. However, in this blog I would like to focus on internal issues within American society, as the readings this week did.

            The Internet definitely opens doors to many things. We have access to a plethora of information. “The idea of a universal information port was considered uneconomical, and too futuristic to be real in our lifetimes. Yet at any hour of today, most readers of this paper have access to the full text of the Encyclopedia Britannica (or as I prefer, wikepedia), precise map directions to anywhere in the country, stock quotes in real time, local weather forecasts with radar pictures…etc.” (Kelly). This vast net of information can lead the citizen to participate more rationally in society and in a form that encourages democracy because she is more prepared to make educated decisions.

            This idea seems too optimistic. It seems that there is an atmosphere of apathy within the population. We can see this with the lack of voting. This really irks me. Neither my boyfriend (22 yrs old), my best friend (22), nor my younger brother (20) are registered to vote. The fact that I can’t even convince them to vote reflects the apathy, which sucks because all the crazy old bible humpers get to dictate the laws. Moreover, as a result of apathy, we enable capitalism to create monomaniacs. The idea that “billionaires and multimillionaires can bundle together obscene sums of money and use it to buy our government and perpetuate their own wealth and power while our nation’s problems are ignored,” is especially unsettling (Trippi, 235). Therefore I am forced to say that the authors are potentially overly optimistic. It honestly relies on the public. Do we not support the ideology of having billionaires because it could potentially be us one day?

            The problem is that I don’t like that corporation can basically buy laws that enable them to take advantage of our nations resources. I don’t want to enable a drug user, nor do I want to enable the monomaniac. Social media and new technologies deplore “traditional belief systems even as it creates a belief in a kind of heavenly paradise, a kind of Technopia” (Lurie). Within this Technopia we have access to knowledge that we can use as our weapons against the very hypocrisy that is demonstrated by the monomaniacs preaching for democracy, while they endorse the stupidest things. As Benjamin Franklin (supposedly) said to some woman who asked, “what type of government have you bequeathed us?” – “A republic, if you can keep it.” And I choose to keep it, to continue to educate myself, and to continue to vote, even if others don’t.

Gilder, Negroponte, & Barlow

Modern media definitely has an aspect of emancipatory power. It provides an outlet for the individual to quickly introduce an idea to a larger population. If those who were exposed to it share the idea, then they can collectively communicate and decide to take action. We see this through the example of the 2011 Facebook revolution in Egypt. As Barlow, in his essay on A Cyberspace Independence Declaration puts it, “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Egypt was able to literally make their own cyber declaration of independence. “We Are All Khaled Saeed” is a facebook group that formed in the aftermath of Saeed's beating and death by police. The group attracted hundreds of thousands of members worldwide and played a prominent role in spreading and bringing attention to the growing discontent. Facebook was used to schedule the protests, Twitter to coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world. Asmaa Mahfouz, a female activist who posted a video in which she challenged people to publicly protest, made another potent viral online contribution. I realize this isn’t directly drawn from the readings, however, the use of the social media as a tool for emancipation is so prominent here. Moreover, the fact that it gives a voice to women parallels the importance of the role the social media has in changing gender roles, even in a very patriarchical society like Egypt.

            The role of mass communication is an interesting one because it draws on the ideologies of other cultures. In the information age, mass media got bigger and smaller at the same time. We are communicating to a broader base, however, the demographic of varying beliefs narrows. Negroponte points out that, “new forms of broadcast like CNN and USA Today reach larger audiences and make broadcast broader.” On the same train of thought, Gilder says, “television heavily determined which books and magazines we read…and which politicians prospered and collapsed” (8). The use of the social media was used as a tool, but there is also an aspect of a global consciousness. The people of Egypt were able to look at other ideologies and political systems and evaluate the effectiveness of their own. 

Haraway, Plant, & Turkle

            The readings this week were by far the most interesting. I enjoyed the aspect of questioning one’s identity in the age of the Internet. I just want to briefly address the prompt. Of course the world be significantly different had feminist writers had been the prominent theorizers in shaping the new media. I Imagine Haraway’s world might be significantly less segregated. She states that identities are “contradictory, partial, and strategic” (Haraway, 155). Essentially, the bodies identified as white-men created a social hierarchy in which males dominate females, low melatonin levels in skin dominate higher concentrations, and so on. I suppose if the feminist dominated world had become a reality and if Freud had still been living, he might need to alter his idea that woman’s one significant contribution to society was weaving and only to “unconsciously…conceal their genitals” because they wanted to pretend to have a penis (Plant, 256). God…Freud must have been obsessed with his prince charming.

            I loved that Haraway referred to herself, and others like her, as “bodies” sharing various characteristics, such as geographical location and gender. This whole talk of cyborgs and identity reminded me of the film Ghost In the Shell. The plot centers on a cyborg named Kusanagi questioning her role in society and purpose for existence; similar to the Haraway’s own questions. The title is a metaphor for the human. The shell is the body, while the ghost is the “soul” or consciousness (which essentially represents memories). In the film is argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information (provided by the world wide web/Internet). And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind. The advent of computers, and the subsequent accumulation of incalculable data have given rise to a new system of memory within the Internet. It makes me wonder if one-day computers, or whatever they might evolve into, might attain consciousness one day. After all, there is more than one element that has 4 bonding potentials. Perhaps a new non-carbon based life form will emerge from our endeavors to create machines that imitate out own behavior?

            This brings me to Turkle, who incidentally was my favorite author. In her chapter on virtuality and its discontents the discussion of identity in this highly virtual world continued. Rather than the external representation of cyborgs, Turkle uses an internal approach. She references the use of creating avatars in multi-user dungeons (MUD). For the purpose of the blog though I will refer to massively multiplayer online role-playing games (MMORPG) because the rapid rate of virtual evolution. MUD’s consist of describing a virtual reality, while MMORPG’s consist of actually seeing your avatar in a virtual reality. Is this avatar part of the individual? Turkle argues that “it is hard not to play an aspect of oneself, and virtual encounters often lead to physical ones” (Turkle, 249). If consciousness is a network or memories and emotions, then why is the virtual memory of making love to your virtual life less significant? Turkle misses this point and suggests that the only reason this behavior is not seen as maladaptive is because avatars are not paid. We have to put this into the context of our environment. We are organisms in the physical world. The virtual act of sex resulted in no offspring…in the real world…who knows maybe this hypothetical couple got pregnant. I suppose it comes down to the things you put value on.

Hayles (the Queen Honey Bees Knees) & Turner

               I think that Hayles is a genius. She is the BEES KNEES! Everything she wrote I loved. I love the metaphor of the anorexic individual who is of the mind as so disconnected from the body that he simply sees the body as an object in need of controlling. The self then, only resides in the brain. This brings me to another point she brought up in relation to the posthuman (an undistinguishable self-will from other-will). This let Hayles to state that she sometimes refers to “sleep agent” wanting to rest, while her food agent says it should go to the store (Hayles, 6). This caught my attention because of a number of fights that have occurred between my boyfriend and I. I suppose Hayles might say that it is the result of a human and posthuman intermingling (although from my perspective it is the result of someone who operates more easily from consciousness, while the other is governed by emotions). Essentially, I often try and regulate my emotions and consciously say out loud something like, “I’m being governed by my anger systems right now” or “calm down, you’re making my brain release cortisol.” For some reason, this only leads to anger. I imagine another posthuman might appreciate it, haha.

            In reference to Hayles third stage virtuality, I thoroughly enjoyed the example of “virtual ping-pong” (Hayles, 14). This immediately made me think of playing wii. Essentially, the games take place partially in the real world because we move our bodies in the same fashion; however, it also visually takes place in the virtual world. In my neuropsychology class we have read articles in relation to the fact that the same brain regions are activated when a human watches another human perform a behavior (i.e. literally watching someone perform a yoga pose in hopes of repeating it), as when they actually perform the behavior. This makes me wonder if individuals who are better at this, make better video game players.

            In this virtual world that the posthuman has created, Turner suggests that the virtual network has no epicenter like an atom does, rather it is a random network of information (Turner, 202). This entropy is evident to me, considering the fits of ADHD I’ve experienced while writing this blog. I was beginning to read Ch. 7 because it is about Wired magazine, which I love, but then I was like wait, I need to write this blog. Obviously my next step was to get back on Wired.com, on to the gamer section, where I found a game, then off to the site, then off to Amazon.com to see if they have it for mac, the to facebook, then to pictures of myself, pretend to be interested in someone else, then back to me me me. Haha…I’m tempted to fade away into oblivion now… We all get the point right? Virtual networks are ever expanding; they are born from what births them, and then become that which birthed it (Hayles, 8). I’m my own grandpa?

Hayek

               The prevailing message in The Road to Serfdom is that centralized planning is inherently undemocratic because it requires that “the will of a small minority be imposed upon the people (Hayek, 77). This can be a dangerous form of government because it limits individualism and creativity. The government essentially has the power to take money and property from individuals in pursuit of centralized goals, or the good of the community (Hayek, 82). This sounds all fine and dandy, however, is limited to the perception of the authority, which at times can be ill informed. After all, we are all humans and run the risk of human error. For example, the current leader of Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, has proclaimed (and assuredly believes) that he is doing what is best for his people. Unfortunately, as we see with the current revolution, not all agree with his political views.

            I like to think of this phenomenon in evolutionary terms. The environment naturally selects various traits that are most adaptable for the environment, as a result of random mutations. Without the variance, the organism runs the risk of going extinct. For example, the finch beak variation allows for big beaked finches to crack big seeds in times of drought, while all the other finches die out. The point is that there is variation amongst the random mutations. In a free market, the entire population is involved and allows for random insights of genius. Centralized planning hinders this process.

             Hayek also stresses the importance of the flow of information in The Use of Knowledge in Society. He asserts that a centrally planned market could never match the efficiency of the open market because any individual knows only a small fraction of all, which is known collectively (Hayek, 30). This is an interestingly true. Here I prefer the image of society as many tiny neurons, consistently communicating with one another to guide the body (or the economy). The problem here is that we are all specialized, which means that we need to communicate. The neurons in the amygdala (essentially, emotions) cant control the entire organism. Nor can the cerebral cortex (essentially, consciousness). Effective communication between both is needed for optimal functioning.

            I suppose then that I completely agree with Hayek. From my perspective, centralized planning is too risky, oppressive, and limits creativity. 

Debord and Baudrillard

- Knock, knock.

- Whose there?

- Modern Electronic Media.

- *Gasp* Go away!

            Honestly, the main concept of these authors is summed up in the first paragraph in Debord’s The Society of the Spectacle, when he says, “all that once was directly lived has become mere representation” (1). The idea that there was once a time when society experienced life to its fullest, and that what we currently experience is but a façade is indeed disturbing. Although I would argue that we are made of the same genetic makeup that we have been for at least the past 100,000 years and thus are subject to the same hormones and chemicals, which essentially reflects a continuous life experience. Nonetheless, biology only provides the groundwork, the environment still significantly shapes the life experience.

            Debord argues on page 16 that there as been a “decline from being, into having, and having into merely appearing.” This is a critique on capitalism. At first I didn’t agree, but lets consider the example of children and video games. Playing is a very essential part in mammalian neurological development. All mammals play, whether you are an adorably ferocious lion cub or a human. Playing connects vital neural pathways that create standards for social interaction, interpersonal intelligence, etc. However, with the invention of video games, children aren’t directly interacting with each other as often as they should during this highly plastic period in their brain, which results in mild to severe antisocial behavior. As Baudrillard points out, “the reader is thereby plunged into a kind of idleness…instead of functioning himself…he is left with no more than the poor freedom either to accept or reject the text” (281). The children (or more likely their parents) must go out of their way to be exposed to social interactions because the technology isn’t going anywhere.

            My point is that we lose a degree of simply living in the natural world and experiencing the life that we have been designed to live via evolution. This spectacle that Debord has been alluding to is the inverted image of society in which relations between commodities have replaced relations between people. As a result of being influenced by these images from the capitalist media, we strive to try and convince others that we are normal be appearing to have what the media tells us that we need. For example, having haircuts designated for gender roles. This can be completely unconscious (and potentially simply due to exposure), for example craving Wendy’s over McDonalds because you recently saw a commercial for it. Moreover, we consume products we are exposed to and familiar with more often than off brands (or at least I do). This I think is partially due to human nature. From an evolutionary perspective, it is safer to eat the berry we are familiar with to avoid an accidental poisoning. 

Barthes & Foucault

            The delicious consumption of modern media messages, what a delicacy! You are what you eat. This statement describes the attitudes of Barthes and Foucault (more emphasis on the latter) towards the effects of modern media on our desires, fears, and fundamental beliefs. And I have to agree with them to a certain extent, however, not fully. After all, we are what we eat, but our bodies do have the ability to specifically choose which polypeptides, carbohydrates, vitamins, fats, etc. to utilize while replenishing the body. I draw a parallel to media here. I too have the option to consume NPR, America’s Next Top Model, The Origin of Species, Hamlet, etc. Nonetheless, if an individual consumes too many glorious glazed doughnuts, then she will have no control over the over-reservation of fats, and thus turn into a plump toad. The parallel with media continues. If that same individual consumes too much America’s Next Top Model her (or his) perception of physical beauty is skewed, which results in an artificial desire to be skinny…too bad she ate all those doughnuts.

            I should probably incorporate the readings. Barthes states on page 98 that there is a dialectical synthesis between a signifier and a signified subject, which creates a sign. For example and in honor of my magnificent birthday that just passed, the signifier might be my birthday cookie cake, the signified love and appreciation of my existence. They exist without me, but the cake is a sign of this joy that they have me in their life. Haha, I sound like a narcissist.

            Foucault paints a similar image with the author in “What Is An Author?” (451). Here he talks about “the link between a proper name and the individual being named and the link between an author’s name and that which it names are not isomorphic.” For example, Oprah is not just Oprah; she is a sign of all things good. All you need to do is slap her name on a book and suddenly it is a credible and commendable piece of genius.

            The topic of merely being a sign amongst signs was mentioned. Sure, why not? We specialize in various skills and knowledge area. The clinical psychologist is a sign of healer, the professor a sign of knowledge, the governor a sign of leadership…or corruption. ;) Moreover, I don’t know that this is a relatively new idea. For instance, tribal cultures have shaman, or signs of lore and medical remedies. Foucault goes on to describe his “Panopticism,” which is essentially this systematic ordering and controlling of human populations through subtle and often unseen forces via a circular building with an observation tower in the center in an open space surrounded by an outer wall made up of cells to contain individuals. This metaphor for society doesn’t work for me. I think that maybe this was more plausible with TV because it was more passive (i.e. the individual just sits and consumes the information and cant respond). However, with the invention of the Internet, she can play a more active role and choose what to consume and interact with the information source. 

McLuhan

              SooOooOooO, I found all the chapters that we read to be interesting, however I found the chapter on Narcissism to be especially compelling.  My major is Psychology and I work in a research lab that focuses on trauma and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). McLuhan essentially describes the symptoms of PTSD in relation to amplifications of new technologies on the complex networks of society, which he refers to as the nervous system. McLuhan actually refers to this as “battle shock” or shell shock (p. 44), which was the term used for PTSD (hysteria in the case of female rape victims) before the DSM-III in the 1980’s termed the coin PTSD. In PTSD an individual is exposed to a sudden, unexpected trauma in which s/he experiences extreme sense of horror, helplessness, and/or violation to their physical integrity (e.g. rape, natural disaster, car wreck, etc.) In McLuhan’s example, the trauma is a new technology that amplifies the extent to which humans are capable of doing various tasks more easily (e.g. the wheel, telegraphy, etc.). However, with this new amplification of human capabilities, new unexpected complexities are added to human tasks brought on by our own narcissism. This hyperarousal is also characteristic in PTSD, in which the individual experiences physiological arousal in response to cues that remind him or her of the trauma, and experience repeated unwanted thoughts and imagery of the event. The body responds to this by dissociating from reality through a numbing process as a counter to the stress involved with the hyperarousal.

            Similarly, McLuhan points out that “as a counter-irritant, the image produces a generalized numbness or shock that declines recognition” (p. 43). He then goes on to refer to the origin of communication from speech to computer. This of course had vast effects on society and the human network. Suddenly, communication is hyperaroused; America’s Chatty Kathy can suddenly contact India’s Knowledgeable Kaishwarya, which OF COURSE results in a workout revolution, called “YOGA,” in America for middle-class married women, gay men, and (oddly enough) attorneys. As time goes on, it no longer seems strange or revolutionary, Americans become numb to the concept. It transcends Indian culture, and becomes this new entity in America (e.g. Rock n’ Roll Yoga, Power Yoga, etc.).

            This also brings up the point of the phenomenon called globalization. This is highlighted nicely in Ch. 9, and by that I mean Ch. 3 (Ch. 9 was something about language and the loss of community, but I don’t want to focus on that, nor do I want to focus on all that TV stuff in Ch. 31). On page 36, McLuhen mentions the melting away of national sovereignties due to the “conditions of electric speed.” He also says that electricity “decentralizes.” I have to agree with this seeing as how suddenly there is an emergence of transnational organizations in the world. Whether they are humanistic or terrorist. I mean dear Oprah! (and I mean that in the sense of Jesus! Or M-word! Or Buddha! Because lets face it, Oprah’s a deity). Organizations such as the Taliban can communicate via electronic technologies AND have a MEGA-Militaristic nation invade one of their hot spots and survive because they are transnational. They transcend borders. Afghanistan is not a Taliban state anymore, but who cares? There are enough Taliban in Germany and the USA trying to blow up CHRISTmas treesin Oregon.  

Shannon and Weaver, Wiener

              I surprisingly enjoyed the readings more than had been expected. I personally have never been fond of math and when I realized the theme behind the readings was mathematical I became somewhat apprehensive. Nonetheless, I found the logic and theoretical orientation behind the readings to be stimulating and thought provoking. I hope Shannon and Weaver might be pleased that their choice of written symbols was (at least somewhat) accurately transmitted into my mind and thus decoded into my subjective understanding of their message. Alas, the product of my interpretation is yet to be seen. I suppose it is affecting my behavior in a desired way, after all, I am thinking about the material in a critical way and reorganizing the information that seems rational for me.  

            I want to address one topic in this blog, feel free to comment and to criticize. Shannon and Weaver state, “if the signal being transmitted is continuous (as in oral speech or music) rather than being formed of discreet symbols (as in written speech, telegraphy, etc.), how does this affect the problem” (99)? They go on to address topics such as entropy and the probability of word combinations within an individual’s potential word choices. Furthermore, that the English language is essentially 50% redundant, which statistically influences the probability and choice on has in communicating. As far as continuous vs. discreet communication goes, would the does the influence of the Internet and blogging introduce a new medium? As with oral communication, one can continue a conversation, but it lacks the immediate response that oral communication does. This surely will affect the algorithm because it gives the transmitter longer to weigh out what she or he wants to say. Moreover, because the communication is anonymous, there seems to be a freedom to abandon rationality and to embrace emotional thought in response to others.

            I want to comment on entropy because both Shannon and Weaver & Wiener bring up the second law of thermodynamics. Weiner states, “a message can lose order spontaneously in the act of transmission, but can not gain it” (Wiener, 7). Various psychopathologies come to mind. One characterized by a seemingly all-encompassing entropy, one in which there seems to be no order and the probability of the next word endless, is schizophrenia. In this disorder the disorganization of speech and thought is extreme. I know that this wasn’t a major theme for the Wiener reading, but he does mention intellectual property and secrecy on page 17. It reminded me of the great extent at which musical artists go to keep their music a secret until the release date. For example Lady Gaga’s new single wont be released until February 13^th. Ironically as I am writing this, one of her songs just came on from my playlist… which reminds me of algorithms that predict the probability that something will be communicated. I just checked and my playlist has the potential for transmitting 1,756 different signals, 22 of which are Lady Gaga, meaning there was a 1.2% chance that my playlist would choose to encode a Lady Gaga song into my brain. Typically it would be decoded into some sort of excited emotion that might result in dancing, however, this time the result was different because it resulted in a synthesis of a written transmission from Shannon and Weaver, Weiner, and a musical transmission from my playlist/Lady Gaga. As in Shannon and Weaver’s Problem C (the problem in effectively getting the desired action out of communication), I do not know if my action was the desired response from any of the transmissions, however, I should suspect it was effective since I am further exposing their work to the public in my written transmission. 

Clouds of Habermas and Enzensberger

             I found Habermas to be a useful historical tool. Having been raised in a time when mass media and communication is such an innate part of life, I found it interesting that “literature had to legitimate itself in coffee houses” (Habermas, 33). Although this has changed, there is still an aspect of this culture today. Coffee houses often exhibit art and provide a space for individuals to study and talk (albeit mostly gossip) about various topics – ranging from politics to cinema. Nonetheless, they surely do not represent the once exclusive, yet public for the male bourgeoisie, stomping grounds of intellectuals and art critics, or as Habermas puts it, the “Kunstrichter” (41). Moreover, the coffee houses provided a space for these men to gather and discuss periodical essays covering various artistic, philosophical, and political issues. Parallels exist between theses periodical articles and social networks today. I think of them as private blogs. Blogs of course that lack the speed and accessibility that bloggers today enjoy. 

            It is this very speed and accessibility, provided by new technologies (e.g. the radio, television, telephone), during the twentieth century that increased the position in the stratification system for lower socioeconomic status (SES) populations. Suddenly even low SES people were to form an opinion. However, this also initiated the need for mass entertainment and advertising. I supposed in a sense it seems the proletariats have improved their position within society. Nonetheless, the elite still control the advertisements and entertainment industries. They control the standard of culture, what it is to be normal. They control the advertisements and shape them to benefit themselves. After all, some ridiculously small statistic of the human population controls some ridiculously large number of our cumulative wealth. The trick is to hinder the masses from perceiving this as a self-presentation of private interest.

            Enzensberger was more applicable to current issues in social media. Furthermore, he used lots of examples, which really aided in my digestion of the work (yum)! I love that he created an analogy of critical inventions in “verbal traffic” on page 125. He basically predicted the Internet in my opinion; he just didn’t have the tools in the 1960’s to outline the specifics of the invention. As he put it, humans utilized “articulate language, writing, the printing press,” and then some unknown revolutionary tool that would use integrate our biological design for oral and visual communication. The Internet provides a synthesis of visual images, and depending on the usage writing and auditory stimuli. It is speedy not only in the sense that we can transport information from point a to point b in a second, but also that we can cognitively process the information more efficiently than pure writing (at least as a whole – that is the inclusion of low SES individuals). Suddenly you don’t have to have a twelfth grade reading level to participate within the culture. Instead of having a firm understanding of syntax, grammar, vocabulary, etc., you can utilize your innate ability to perceive emotion, body language, and auditory comprehension. Suddenly we are all critics; we are all producers within society. It’s just that the intelligentsia are organizing, editing, dubbing, the information we receive. In this respect they shape some degree of our consciousness, some degree of how we perceive the world to be. What the hell, as long as we are happy?

The role of the intellectual in the modern, media-saturated world: Ardent & Benjamin

             The role of the intellectual in the modern (twentieth century), media saturated world certainly seems to have changed from the nineteenth century. The proletariats, as Ardent and Benjamin refer to them as (although I see this as somewhat pompous and outdated), suddenly have access to mass media. There is an increase in leisure time because the vast majority of individuals no longer have to partake in hard labor in this period, which opens up time for entertainment. This sudden, and shocking revelation in the 1930’s must have been somewhat upsetting for the educated intellectuals of the time, especially those unfamiliar to the American culture.

            Both Ardent and Benjamin talk about the destruction of a high form culture and art in mass society. There is a dialectic principle here. The principle that a certain bourgeois quality of art must merge with mass production of lower quality entertainment (the antithesis), to eventually synthesize into something new. Ardent states that the role of the intellectual loses a certain aspect of quality in place of a very rapid speed of production. That is, the consumer is no longer interested in a message or lesson within art, rather they are interested in pure entertainment, which may be completely cliché at times. I find it amusing that Ardent uses “My Fair Lady,” a film now considered a great American classic, as a lower form of art to contrast against Shakespeare’s “Hamlet.” This argument outlines certain flaws in capitalism because of the high demand of newness, which lowers quality in place of speed. This inspires the intellectuals, as producers, to spit "trash" out quickly to make a profit. The role of the intellectual (although well educated) is to organize, disseminate, and change cultural objects in order” to make them suitable for low cognitive functioning human beings (Ardent, 284).

            Benjamin expands this idea of a synthesis with the proletariat. The author (intellectual) as producer will discover her “solidarity with the proletariat, but also with her solidarity with other producers who earlier seemed scarcely to concern her” (Benjamin, 87). He uses music as a metaphor; this is a perfect example for today as well. Benjamin argues that the need for experts diminishes as a result of jukeboxes for mass entertainment. Today we don’t even need singers to sing, in place of a voice, we have synthesizers to put their voices into tune.  Furthermore, we don’t even need new music, rather the intellectual now identifies popular and successful music from a few decades ago and re-organizes them into, perhaps, a pop-rap song with an Annie Lennox tune in the background. Essentially, mass production has significantly hurt the quality of our culture and left the intellectual in mass-media as a re-organizer, rather than a creative mind. 

Una prueba

Vale vale vale