Dans l'impasse dans laquelle nous nous trouvons, il me semble que noue n'échapperons pas à une sorte de retour à ce genre de question. Si vous n'êtes pas familier avec tous ça, accrochez vous, c'est un peu costaud. Lisez les descriptions de l'auteur des essais avant de vous lancer. Bonne vision malgré tout.
PART I
"In this video, I look at the first part of Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments. I takes an introductory look a the first three parts: The Concept of Enlightenment; Excursus I: Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment; and Excursus II: Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality.
The first part, through some general reflections on Enlightenment, reason, mythology, and totalitarianism, poses that all four are already intertwined. For Adorno and Horkheimer, ‘Myth is already enlightenment; and enlightenment reverts to mythology.’
In the two ‘excursus’ they interpret the Odyssey, Marquis de Sade, and Nietzsche, as backing up this claim. What makes mythology and enlightenment the same? Odysseus is the proto-bourgeois individual using his logic to manipulate nature through instrumental reason so he get home. De Sade uses his logic to get what his passions desire. And Nietzsche is famous for his ‘will to power.’ In all of this, we can see the philosophical roots on totalitarianism.
Both enlightenment and mythology attempt to naturalise the universal rule – attempt to dominate the individual based on an eternal rule of instrumental reason. Even magic was an exchange – a deal with nature, with the gods, to preserve man. All are based on the same logic.
Whether its the codified myth of Scylla and Charybdis. The rationality of working out your desire and convincing others to follow it – if objects are valueless – to be used for the purposes of self-preservation – why would this not apply to people too?"
Then & Now
PART II
"In this video I look at the second part of Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment on the Culture Industry.
They write, ‘culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines forms a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together. Even the aesthetic manifestations of political opposites proclaim the same inflexible rhythm. The decorative administrative and exhibition buildings of industry differ little between authoritarian and other countries.’
For all of the Critical Theorists of the Frankfurt School, the individual lives in a world dominated by highly concentrated capital. The critique has more flexibility that orthodox Marxism, but the emphasis is the same: the drugs that save our lives, the manufacturing plants that build our products, the routine of the worker and the consumer, are dominated by the profit motive and the power of capital.
The culture industry is no exception:
‘All mass culture under monopoly is identical.’
They say that the defenders of the culture industry argue that they are driven by the demand of their customers: They demand cheap, reproducible products that can be accessed easily and everywhere.
The effect though is mass standardization: ‘Something is provided tor everyone so that no one can escape; differences are hammered home and propagated.’
They argue that the culture industry supports the tiring workday. Rather than think about their positions at the end of day, its much easier to switch off. To consume the same libidinal routines of enjoyment without considering the possibility of difficult change.
To be creative, to read something new, to follow a new plot, to take the time to enjoy completely new music is laborious.
The culture industry organizes free time in the same way capital organises work time. Everything is defined you without room for individual creativity and difference."
Then & Now
