Mathematics and Cybernetics: Shannon and Weaver, Weiner

In reading the title of Shannon and Weaver's chapter, I could not help but approach it with a wary eye, looking for the first instance of mathematical jargon. Although logarithms and coefficients have not been a part of my curriculum thus far, I am pleased to find that some of Shannon and Weaver's theoretical basis of how messages might be lost as they travel through the transmitter is not too difficult to understand. There is logic to their analysis especially when it comes to the redundancy of the English language and freedom of expression (104). This aspect of their work, although a rather short section, was the most interesting to me because it makes me question the variance in our everyday conversations as fluent English speakers. There are certainly particular phrases that can be linked to an individual (their catch phrase or something of that sort). To have fifty percent of the English language redundant (basically little or no freedom in the choosing of those words), is a difficult notion to wrap my head around. The problem as mentioned above (possible incongruity between the message initially transmitted and the resulting phrase), is similar to Weiner’s.

This group of philosophers found that noise which can blur the message is a major factor behind communication problems (especially via devices such as the telegraph, radio and telephone). I was relieved to find that the bourgeoisie do not appear to be the primary culprits behind this mess. They are the perpetrators in regards to the mechanization of man and the degradation of individual human beings to the role of mindless machine operators (16). This is a reflection of Weiner’s inner Marxist. Human beings as creators of machines and communication devices and as beings that make communication necessary play a central role in Weiner’s thesis (7). I understand the parallels between machines and humans as receptors and transmitters of information; however, I do not think that I am comparable to the laptop on which I am typing. I choose the words and messages I want to convey and the only feedback, would be a red line indicating a spelling error. On a different note, I think that these three philosophers’ fascination with hearing and language and the biological and mathematical components that allow human beings to communicate are indicative of an important theory about the human condition: communication is an essential aspect of our lives humans. Weiner in particular articulates the necessity (and thus detrimental effect of a problem via hearing or language). Without communication and the ability to convey messages (no matter how warped at times), there is little variation between machines and us. I hope that if technology reaches a point where machines are nearly the same as humans (even in regards to feelings) that we do not manipulate or oppress this creation, as we have been our fellow man.

It is okay to like New Media!

 Habermas and Enzensberger both offer a uplifting look at new media in the sense that they are far more optimistic about the role of new media. Habermas provides a more historical interpretation of the rise of new media. His focus on intellectual outlets via the Paris salons, British coffeehouses and eventually the newspapers, epitomize the blending of the public and the private, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the producer and the consumer. He indicates how the Marxist view that emphasizes class struggle and the oppression of the masses by the hands of the bourgeoisie as not completely true. It almost seems as if both the bourgeoisie and the proletariat are victims in a sense of consumer/business led society (184). His description of the new function and responsibilities of an editor as an employee (not merely a producer and consumer of the newspaper) with the advent of publishing and advertising firms speaks directly to this renewed optimism. Also, his discussion of how new media has been so powerful as to force governments to take control of media outlets implies, in part, that masses and the bourgeoisie could benefit from combining their individual self-interest to better the whole of society (i.e. allow for a freer society).  

     His colleague, Enzensberger is more explicit about his criticism of socialist interpretations' of new media. He also appears to be the most optimistic and most critical of his fellow Marxists. His optimism stems not only history but also to fact that the "socialist perspective which does not go beyond attacking existing property relationships is limited," (101). He is confident that he has gone a step further than his predecessors have because he acknowledges the problems with new media (especially how manipulative it is) but the difference is that Enzensberger provides a plan of action to combat the manipulate trends. Although new media has remnants of capitalism, some of its socialist structure can change society and make it one of producers and not merely consumers. I am not sure of the viability of his plan. He believes that once the collective nature of the media takes over and individual self-interest melds into one central interest (to help the proletariat and articulate social concerns), then the media can “destroy the private production methods of bourgeois intellectuals,” (110). He admits this is radical, but I find more problems in his notion that the media can overcome individual self-interest and its capitalist tendencies for the greater good. Despite my trepidations to agree completely with the above philosophers, I still found reading their more positive outlook refreshing. 

Does anyone like to be Entertained?

All of the writers read thus far from Adorno to Benjamin to Arendt speak to this notion of the entertainment or culture industry and how it has been affected by mass society. Although these works were written in the 1930s, I find that a lot of their conclusions especially those of Arendt applicable to much of the criticism towards the modern entertainment industry. Many people will read a timeless classic or bestseller and eagerly await the film adaptation. And many people (myself included) will be the first to claim that the book was better than the film and that the director/producer/screenwriter completely butchered the characters and the themes that enthralled the reader.  But then usually I concede that the film as a film (forgetting the book it was based upon) was pretty good-though of course that is not always the case. Arendt's comments on the adaptation of classics and such and how they are a manifestation of the decay of mass culture are a bit harsh (284). It is analogous in some ways to Benjamin's criticism of the intellectual in socialist dialectic. Benjamin's essays on Paris especially on Baudelaire's poetry and Hausmann's city planning were fascinating. They, to me, prove how much of the decisions both artistic (through poetry and prose) and architectural with the rebuilding of Paris (to thwart future barricades) are based on political thought. I appreciate French history even more as a result and how politicized the arts manage to be. But at the same time if I understand Benjamin correctly, it seems that he is critical of the mere politicization of arts and of political writings (i.e propaganda). It is not enough to write of rights and oppression but the writer must strive in his or her own way to quell the ills. Basically, a Yale graduate of economics has no right to speak of the oppression of the standard capitalist system when he is living a bourgeois life.
        I cannot help but begin to discuss a bit of the prompt since I found the role of the intellectual in both writings similar in the sense that both Benjamin and Arendt think they have an important role to play in the dialogue between mass culture and mass media. At the same time, Benjamin qualifies his statement with the fact that the intellectual's position in the modes of production affect his role (85). I think his basic premise is that the intellectual must be able to relate to his audience. His concluding remarks about how the intellectual must be able to show the incongruence between capitalism and the proletariat and not between capitalism and fascism speaks to Benjamin’s Marxist influence (and thus the proletariat’s vital role in the future of society) (93). Similarly, Arendt warns of the intellectual who caters to the mass media or consumer society. She, unlike Adorno and Benjamin, blatantly counters critics who would surmise that she and her colleagues are against entertainment or may even feel above bourgeois and certainly, proletariat revels (282). That along with other things are why she is my favorite for now!
---Sorry for the length, I promise to shorten it next time!------