Theme 2: Critical media studies

Dialectic of Enlightenment

What is "Enlightenment"?
Enlightenment, according Adorno and Horkheimer is described as true knowledge, or the extreme truth. However, this only applies objectively and using knowledge of nature and the world – meaning things that are quantifiable, measured and objectively examined to find the truth.


What is "Dialectic"?
Dialectic is a form of an argument for resolving disagreements. It is a way of using rationality and logic. I would argue that it is not a form of a debate, since the objective of dialectic is to find the truth, not to convince the opposing part that you are correct. The classic form of a debate uses rhetoric’s such as logos, pathos and ethos – where dialectic uses ration and logic.


What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is a theory which rejects universals and abstract objects. It is a crucial part of the text, since talking about the Dialectic of enlightenment is a metaphysical issue. It’s about dangers which lie in using predated abstractions and universals.


What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myth, in Adorno and Horkheimer’s perspective is knowledge that is not based on empirical and quantitative measurements, but rather subjective opinions of individuals – which from an enlightenment perspective should be seen as false knowledge.

I see the authors using myths as a argument that enlightenment is crucial in order to get rid of these false truths, which may or may not cause fear to individuals.

The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity

In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
The way I interpret it, the substructure is the underlying architecture for the productions, which is different depending on the type of production – for example different roles, working conditions etc. However, the superstructure is the result and extension of the substructure, and involves aspects such as culture, religion and politics. The superstructure moves much more slowly than the substructure. In the sense of cultural production, it is quite evident that the superstructure (the culture per se) is slower than the different aspects which has helped produce it (the substructure).

An example of the above is what Benjamin discusses with the mechanical era, and how different machines slowly changed the superstructure. The substructure went through a shift when machines were invented, which manifested in the superstructure by replicas of art.


Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
There is definitely a correlation of how culture can make huge impact. If you define “revolutionary potentials” as something that changes the society in any way – than it is evident how culture has a way to do so. Take for example photography, which has changed how we view huge aspects of the world, how the cultural shift away from paintings to photography helped us with a sense of understanding.

Take also for example how movies, art, music and other forms of culture has the possibility to spread political views. I would argue that propaganda manifests itself through culture in many forms.


Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
I think last week’s literature has a very strong correlation to this exact question – how we perceive the world is entirely based on the experiences we have gone through, and what we (think) we know about different aspects.

Take for example the Mona Lisa – two different people will have completely different perceptions of the same object depending on how much you know about it. When someone who has read about Da Vinci, and the history of the painting – he will perceive this rather than just a painting.

Another example which is portrayed by our history is music. Look at how music has changed and altered throughout the history – it is in a sense the result of both a substructure and superstructure of that specific time. And if substructures and superstructures change, other people will have a hard time perceiving the same thing, since their views of the world, of the art, are different.

What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

The way I interpret Benjamin to use the word ”aura” is the authenticity and uniqueness of an object. I would say that the aura is in a sense the history of an object, and what our brains perceive when looking at an object. It cannot be replicated and exists through the existence of an object. A replicated piece of art has lost all of its aura.


The aura of a natural object is defined as “We define the aura of the latter as the unique phenomenon of a distance, however close it may” by Benjamin. I interpret this as a more physical aura, of how the natural object presents itself to you, through shadows, touch, warmth and so on.