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.
I think you make some excellent points in relating Enzensberger to Habermas. Enzensberger’s hope that forms of media will eventually be utilized as transmitters and receivers seems very relevant to Habermas’ discussion about print media. In class we discussed that the print media fed off of the coffeehouse discussions while those in the coffeehouses discussed the newspapers – a sort of symbiotic relationship was formed. In a way, both manipulated the other whether consciously or not. This seems ideal for Enzensberger since he believes everyone should be a manipulator. By the media feeding off of the masses and the masses feeding off of the media a system that promotes equalization seems inevitable. Both media and society are able to act as mediators with the potential for social control. I wonder at which times the media has the upper hand or vice-versa. Are we controlling what is being fed to us (in the sense of the media) by consuming certain commodities or are we consuming certain commodities because we are told to? Adorno and Horkheimer certainly make it sound like society is controlled by the media, but what if it is the populace – the coffee house – that controls the media?
ReplyDeleteI like how you summed up Enzensberger's optimism by the fact that he saw "potential" in the current technology even though he disliked how the current technology was being used. Even if the radio was currently used only for distribution, it had the "potential" to be used for communication on a wide scale. Many of the previous authors we have read merely dismissed these new forms of media as bad.
ReplyDeleteLikewise, your analysis of Habermas seeing "potential" in the public/private sphere struck me as quite interesting. I actually hadn't picked up on this during my reading. I guess that I was likely just focused on the fact that he saw the newspaper and its writings as manipulation. Even though Habermas sees some problems with the current state of the newspaper, it still has the potential to perform an important role for society.
Thanks for enlightening me to this fact that I somehow must have overlooked in my reading of Habermas!
--Sarah Hagan
I agree that Enszenberger is more optimistic because he recognizes the potential for media to become a more egalitarian system. I like how he is rational about his approach to electronic media, and doesn't just write it off as a toold of the man. But I'm not sure that he's really "pessimistic" about the idea of manipulation. That word has sucha negative context in English (and, I guess, in German too, if it was part of Marxist rhetoric), but I think he tries to strip it of that negative conotation, and he recognizes that whenever anybody, be they bourgeois or proletariat, writes something, they are manipulating--manipulating language or images to articulate and persuade the reader of a specific point. The problem arises when it is only one class that can manipulate, whether that be because the others don't have the resources or the edication to reciprocally manipulate. I think, as you pointed out in your blog, that Enszenberger wants everyone, not just the bourgeouisie, to be able to be manipulators. As you also pointed out, media like radio, where the uneducated masses can use speech to communicate (or, manipulate) may be more universally accessible to those without the ability to get an education.
ReplyDelete