Enlightenment can be described as a whole concept, a higher quality of life. It has been an idea that been discussed throughout history, first being mentioned in the Odyssey. According to Adorno and Horkheimer can enlightenment be described in the widest sense as advanced thoughts, and how enlightenment can, if used correctly free mankind from fear and install them as masters of their own minds. To break down what Adorno and Horkheimer are writing about enlightenment can it be comparable to a lifestyle of intellectuals, always using reason trying to challenge daily inefficient thinking through science. Adorno and Horkheimer tries to simplify enlightenment by drawing parallels in this quote: "Enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things as the dictator to human beings. He knows them to the extent that he can manipulate them. The man of science knows things to the extent that he can make them. Their "in-self" becomes "for him," In their transformation the essence of things is revealed as always the same, a substrate of domination."
Myth
The concept of mythology, as well as enlightenment was first introduced in the Odyssey, and has after been used frequently throughout history. According to Adorno and Horkheimer is a myth much like enlightenment, something to describe what's happening and how we should experience the world. Compared to enlightenment, that uses scientific methods to perceive whats happening around us, does a myth use the imagination of humans through fiction and fantasy. Further do Adorno and Horkheimer explain how enlightenment and mythology often can coexist in a time span of a person, where the knowledge starts with a myth and develops into enlightenment after research and analysis.
Old and New Media
Since the text Dialect of Enlightenment was written 1944 is it a bit strange to analyze the concepts new and old media, especially since we students are media technology students. The arguments presented from the authors are despite that applicable today. In my interpretation, Adorno and Horkheimer are referring to mass productions of radio, magazines, television and film when talking about the new media. Whilst traditional quality art that could trigger the audience to think and imagine was what they meant by old media. As appears from my descriptions was the authors much more positive when describing the old media, especially since they for instance argued that new media got the people enslaved by consumption.
Culture Industry
Adorno and Horkheimer described the culture industry as the balance between old and new media and how culture went from being a highbrow culture to a whole industry. The authors tried to explain how people of their time consumed media, and expressed fears and concerns for the future if people continued to use new media to the extent they did. They believed that new media made its consumers stupid, since all imagination, fantasy, spontaneity and creativity that the old media unleashed during consumption was taken away. According to them could the new culture industry only produce high volume of generalized media that wasn't meaningful nor unique.
Mass Media and Mass Deception
As mentioned in the two previous paragraphs did Adorno and Horkheimer describe their concerns of the changing culture industry and the negative effects mass produced new media has on the society. The most relevant fear, that's most applicable today, is how easy it is to deceive people with mass media. If mass media breaks a new story will 99 of 100 people accept what's being stated directly, without the slightest source criticism or information evaluation. Hence the power mass media possess is huge, and it comes with great responsibility to choose what culture to spread widely to the population.
An Interesting Concept
What I found most interesting when reading the text is how applicable much of the reasoning made by Adorno and Horkheimer is today. Obviously are there many arguments I don't agree with, especially the ones concerning how bad new media is for the mankind. But the concept of mass deception is a thrilling subject, which many of the world leaders has used in their countries throughout history to get their habitants to believe in a certain cause. The people from North Korea for example, got the impression from mass media that their former president Kim Yong-il invented the hamburger, played a round of golf on a all time low results of 38 strokes and that a double rainbow appeared on the sky the day he was born. Non of those fact were obviously true, but if mass media claims it to be true, will the mass deception be highly effective.
Interesting thoughts about the power of mass media. As you say, most people will probably accept the stories presented in them with more or less no source critisism. Do you think the source critisism of people has become better or worse these days compared with the time of which the text was written?
SvaraRaderaI think that the overall source criticism has become much better since that time, mainly because it's easier to get a broader spectrum of news sources. It's not only your morning paper that will tell their side of every news event, but millions of pages available online. One example is the witch hunts, which happened because people read about witches in a book and believed every word of it, do you believe that a similar scenario could happen today?
RaderaHehe, interesting example with the witch hunts. I do however believe that such events occured in a time that was very different to the 20th or 21st centrury. Back then I guess you relied on rumor spreading and hearsay rather than unbiased media. But of course, media nowdays aren't always unbiased. As you wrote in your blog post, they can even be deceptive. So I guess that a similar witch hunt scenario is not impossible in today's modern world. Especially if you're able to control the media in such a centralized way that per example North Korea does. If we were to accept that such a scenario is possible today, do you have any cool example of where so may have happened or may happen?
RaderaInteresting points, going back to your first question do I believe that we are "smarter" and more critical to sources today than back in the old days. Hence, people can believe lots of non-logic statements, but maybe not witchcraft in 2013. But with that said, I do agree with you, a which hunt scenario can happen today. When the USA entered Iraq for example, didn't they use a "witch hunt technique" when going after Hussein? Would they ever had started a war if Iraq didn't have a huge amount of oil?
RaderaI would definitely say that the hunt for Hussein, or Bin Ladin not to say the least, was a contemporary example of a witch hunt. I guess it is quite deeply rooted in human psychology that we need a single "black sheep" to blame and channel all our frustrations on. It is much easier to hate and blame Bin Ladin rather than the whole al-Qaida. That is just too complex. Therefore I believe that modern witch hunts will stay for years to come as it is an effective and easy way of letting people know who to blame.
RaderaYo mention that you don´t agree whit the point concerning how bad new media is for the mankind.
SvaraRaderaI think that his text is very critical to all kinds of media, and I agree a little bit whit you. But if you look at a mor wider perspective, isn't there any part of new that can be bad for society?