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.
I agree with what you have to say about the optimism in this week's reading. It's very frustrating to read authors like Adorno and Horkheimer who criticize and bash without offering hope or a solution for the problems they cite. Although it's true that solutions offered this week aren't flawless, they are appreciated. Maybe I sound a little bit like an elementary school guidance counselor (If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything at all!), but we can all agree that we had more to discuss from a reading where a solution was offered. Although the solutions aren't perfect, it is easier to discuss when a solution is given for us to build on and alter. The optimism was a refreshing break from weeks of the past!
ReplyDeleteWhat I love about the 'everyone becomes a producer' scenario in this week's readings is that Enzensberger and Habermas did not feel the need to compel all the new producers to work for the proletariat's cause. Benjamin recognized the manipulative properties of new media, but instead of condemning it as a whole he only condemns the manipulation when it is used by bourgeois capitalists. It seems that, for Enzensberger and Habermas, the inherently egalitarian nature of media is socialist enough. I agree with you when you doubt Enzensbergers plan. I don't think I believe that individuals can value the common good over their own self interest. Even if people begin to see their common interests through egalitarian media structure, I don't know if this can expand to all areas of life.
ReplyDelete