Weiner expresses both positive and negative views of the future in regards to utilizing machinery as a means of communication. He begins his work by acknowledging that machines are progressing to the point that they are either simulating or, indeed replacing, human behavior. I found it somewhat complicating that, as machines begin to resemble humans more and more, then they must eventually fit the unique definition of humans that Weiner has assigned, in that they have an "impulse to communicate" (2). If human beings constantly build and upgrade machinery to use in place of humans for communication, I do not know that machines will achieve the 'desire' to communicate...but if they replace humans, will human beings have this desire as well? Weiner writes that animals are able to communicate, but describe humans as having a "desire for communication...is the guiding motive of their whole life" (3).
I'm afraid I had some difficulty understanding Weiner's remarks on how the world is made up of patterns. What I eventually gleaned from this argument was that he was making a point about the difficulty of translation and how, perhaps, patterns are not quite able to match up. However, the complexities in translation do not affect ideas of control, as long as messages are still able to influence the person who receives it. In respect to this idea, Weiner writes, "Control, in other words, is nothing but the sending of messages which effectively change the behavior of the recipient" (8). Using this idea, machines are capable of controlling people, other machines, and vice-versa. I think that Weiner encourages the use of machines in place of people for some tasks and he doesn't seem to express any fear about the replacement of humanity by machines, etc. His ideas are quite practical in that if a machine can accomplish the same job as a human being (and probably more efficiently), then this avenue should certainly be done. Indeed, he seems to perceive it as a matter of human dignity and respect, "...any use of a human being in which less is demanded of him and less is attributed to him than his full status is a degradation and a waste" (16).
Later on, in chapter 11, Weiner discussed the future of communication machines. He uses the example of the chess-playing machines to exhibit the limitations and also the potentials of machinery in adapting to various circumstances (whether through experience or rigidly defined rules depends on the machine). Weiner states that the invention of such machines is not merely for "ostentatious narcissism," but could also be useful in the military realm. However, machines do not appear to be at this level yet because they have not mastered probabilistic thinking. Weiner, writes, "He will not leap in where angels fear to tread, unless he is prepared to accept the punishment of fallen angels" (211). Weiner concludes this chapter by saying that machines will never be able to answer our questions, unless we ask the right ones? But I wonder, what are the right questions? Must they account for the limitations of machinery or of human kind or of both? Perhaps we will address these questions in class this week.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Enzenberger & Habermas
Enzenberger seems optimistic about the emancipatory potential of modern culture because he recognizes the limitations of modern communication devices (such as the tv or the radio), but also identifies the necessary changes that would allow these devices to be more reciprocal. Although technology had not advanced to the point where the masses could participate in the production and proliferation of modern communication, he identifies potential in current technology. For example, although he writes that "...in its present form, equipment like television or film does not serve communication but prevents it" he later states that this is not technically a problem (97). The transistor radio can be used for reciprocal purposes, but is currently prevented for political reasons. He does have some more pessimistic views of communication, notably when he explains the role of manipulation in communication.
Enzenberger suggests that in order to perhaps equailize the amount of manipulation in the media, "a revolutionary plan should not require the manipulators to disappear; on the contrary, it must make everyone a manipulator" (104). Social control, as Enzenberger writes, will pacify these ubiquitous manipulations...his ideas are optimistic, especially in the modern day, because communication through technology has now become available to almost anyone with access to a computer. Enzenberger also writes that the 'class character' of the modes of production have been removed, since microphones and cameras have replaced printed text (124). As a Marxist, this idea might appeal to Enzenberger because the education that might have only been available to the upper class would allow these social elites to produce writing, also understandable to other educated members of society. By allowing people to speak their thoughts and not write them, a greater number of people can become 'manipulators' of media.
I found Habermas to be more optimistic than our previous readings in that he could foresee a time when the public and private spheres would come together as the culture of one became integrated into the society of the other. He writes, "however exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely..." (37). He later identifies the newspaper as a communication device that becomes a method of the public 'transmitting and amplifying' their culture and ideas (183). Although at this time the newspaper does not allow the cultures to be consumed by those outside a particular sphere or class, he does seem to recognize the potential for it to be more of a tool of both the private and public sectors, as their cultures become more closely linked. In this way, Habermas echoes Enzenberger as he seems to support and predict a time when a majority of a population is able to become contributors to a society's modern culture.
Enzenberger suggests that in order to perhaps equailize the amount of manipulation in the media, "a revolutionary plan should not require the manipulators to disappear; on the contrary, it must make everyone a manipulator" (104). Social control, as Enzenberger writes, will pacify these ubiquitous manipulations...his ideas are optimistic, especially in the modern day, because communication through technology has now become available to almost anyone with access to a computer. Enzenberger also writes that the 'class character' of the modes of production have been removed, since microphones and cameras have replaced printed text (124). As a Marxist, this idea might appeal to Enzenberger because the education that might have only been available to the upper class would allow these social elites to produce writing, also understandable to other educated members of society. By allowing people to speak their thoughts and not write them, a greater number of people can become 'manipulators' of media.
I found Habermas to be more optimistic than our previous readings in that he could foresee a time when the public and private spheres would come together as the culture of one became integrated into the society of the other. He writes, "however exclusive the public might be in any given instance, it could never close itself off entirely..." (37). He later identifies the newspaper as a communication device that becomes a method of the public 'transmitting and amplifying' their culture and ideas (183). Although at this time the newspaper does not allow the cultures to be consumed by those outside a particular sphere or class, he does seem to recognize the potential for it to be more of a tool of both the private and public sectors, as their cultures become more closely linked. In this way, Habermas echoes Enzenberger as he seems to support and predict a time when a majority of a population is able to become contributors to a society's modern culture.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Arendt & Benjamin
According to Hannah Arendt, an intellectual can fulfill a damaging role in the maintenance of mass culture. Mass culture has a somewhat complex definition, as it comes with negative connotations because it is the product of the masses, rather than the wealthy and educated stratus of society. There is more than one kind of intellectual, and it is the intellectual responsible for manufacturing mass culture, who can also be blamed for its gradual decay. The entertainment industry is perhaps a necessary component of society as it fills the ever-growing spaces between work and labor, Arendt writes, "The products needed for entertainment serve the life processes of society...they serve...to while away time...Vacant time which entertainment is supposed to fill is a hiatus in the biologically conditioned cycle of labour..." (Arendt 281-282). She believes that entertainment is not dangerous to culture until it starts to modify cultural objects or works in a way that degrades, or even changes them from their original intent (that is, to last through interminable changes in mass culture).
I must say that I felt that some of Arendt's thoughts were quite pretentious; she seemed to be appalled at the idea of others lifting themselves into higher social circles of society through "cheap" learning. Though I agree that learning about culturally significant works of literature or art merely for the sake of gaining social prestige is not admirable, I also do not find it to be a particularly heinous crime. In fact, it seems that learning about these items (no matter the motivation) is better than not learning it at all.
I am also unsure whether or not Arendt believes intellectuals are capable of reestablishing a form of mass culture that do not corrupt past works. She does state that intellectuals now are either 1) responsible for the gradual decay through the manufacturing of mass culture or 2) suffering from a 'malaise in mass culture' because he is surrounded by these manufacturers and has since become indistinguishable from them (283-284). Maybe the intellectual is the one who can understand that changing or abridging works for their popular consumption is harmful, but how is that an important role in society if they still do nothing?
Benjamin identifies intellectuals as a social group, not a particular branch of individuals who may be superior in education or ability, etc. He believes their import is based on their position in production, not particularly how they contribute to contemporary cultural values (88). While Arendt mentioned class in order to separate past contributors to culture to today's much larger population that influences 'mass culture,' Benjamin focused much more on the proletariat versus the bourgeois. While the bourgeois can provide education and means of production to intellectuals and writers, "important writers provide the most factual foundation for solidarity with the proletariat (91). Arendt seems to believe strongly in the preservation of original cultural works, while Benjamin states that those that matter in a society are able to adapt and produce with improved mechanisms, more capable of meeting their contemporary society's demands.
Generally, I interpret Arendt's views on the intellectual in society and mass culture as idealistic. Entertainment is not harmful as long as it does not encroach on past cultural events, which I think is quite difficult. Of course, 'dumbing down' culturally historic works of literature or music or art is not preferable, but it is a realistic means of spreading it to a much wider audience. Benjamin's views were harder for me to understand, though I believe he found value in the intellectual aligning themselves with the proletariat. Arendt does not argue against this, but her ideas seem to support the values of the bourgeois and the higher education necessary to understand beauty and culture.
I must say that I felt that some of Arendt's thoughts were quite pretentious; she seemed to be appalled at the idea of others lifting themselves into higher social circles of society through "cheap" learning. Though I agree that learning about culturally significant works of literature or art merely for the sake of gaining social prestige is not admirable, I also do not find it to be a particularly heinous crime. In fact, it seems that learning about these items (no matter the motivation) is better than not learning it at all.
I am also unsure whether or not Arendt believes intellectuals are capable of reestablishing a form of mass culture that do not corrupt past works. She does state that intellectuals now are either 1) responsible for the gradual decay through the manufacturing of mass culture or 2) suffering from a 'malaise in mass culture' because he is surrounded by these manufacturers and has since become indistinguishable from them (283-284). Maybe the intellectual is the one who can understand that changing or abridging works for their popular consumption is harmful, but how is that an important role in society if they still do nothing?
Benjamin identifies intellectuals as a social group, not a particular branch of individuals who may be superior in education or ability, etc. He believes their import is based on their position in production, not particularly how they contribute to contemporary cultural values (88). While Arendt mentioned class in order to separate past contributors to culture to today's much larger population that influences 'mass culture,' Benjamin focused much more on the proletariat versus the bourgeois. While the bourgeois can provide education and means of production to intellectuals and writers, "important writers provide the most factual foundation for solidarity with the proletariat (91). Arendt seems to believe strongly in the preservation of original cultural works, while Benjamin states that those that matter in a society are able to adapt and produce with improved mechanisms, more capable of meeting their contemporary society's demands.
Generally, I interpret Arendt's views on the intellectual in society and mass culture as idealistic. Entertainment is not harmful as long as it does not encroach on past cultural events, which I think is quite difficult. Of course, 'dumbing down' culturally historic works of literature or music or art is not preferable, but it is a realistic means of spreading it to a much wider audience. Benjamin's views were harder for me to understand, though I believe he found value in the intellectual aligning themselves with the proletariat. Arendt does not argue against this, but her ideas seem to support the values of the bourgeois and the higher education necessary to understand beauty and culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)