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?