[Tarynaholenspacetime] Habermas

 

The Public Sphere, Public Opinion, and Citizen Kane           

            Habermas’ analysis was simple, yet still highly relevant to our time. He walks the reader through the dawn of influential public media, aka newspapers. “Newspapers changed from mere institutions for the publication of bees into bearers and leaders of public opinion - weapons of party politics,” (Durham et al., 2012). 

 

           While going through this reading, I couldn’t help but be reminded of my film class. In FIL 150, we recently watched and reviewed the movie, Citizen Kane. Just like the readings had explained, Charles Kane held extreme influence over the masses through his newspaper The Inquirer. He used his power over public opinion to help him run for office. Kane was extremely close to winning. However, he lost the vote due to a scandal. Later in the film, we see Kane lose his influence. He struggles to come to terms with this. 

 

           Despite being made over half a century ago, the message remains relevant today. In recent years, newspapers have been declining in readers. We are in an era filled with anti-establishment sentiment. More and more American citizens now consume their news through media such as Facebook. I am left to ponder where this anti-establishment sentiment lies in relation to modernism. 

References

Durham, M. G., Kellner, D., & Habermas, J. (2012). The Public Sphere: An Encyclopedia Article. In Media and cultural studies: Keyworks (2nd ed., pp. 75–79). essay, Wiley-Blackwell.

annaiswriting, Benjamin

    In the “Introduction to Part I” of the book Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks edited by Meenakshi Durham and Douglas M. Kellner, the rise of public media is described. This chapter introduces the book The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere by Jürgen Habermas, in which Habermas describes how ordinary citizens had the ability to form public opinions that went against the interests of the bourgeois. Although public media allows ordinary people to express their opinions, it also serves as a way to allow those in power to easily persuade media consumers. This chapter states, “in this analysis, the information between a sphere of public debate and individual participation has thus been fractured and transmuted in into that of a realm of political manipulation and spectacle, in which citizen-consumers passively ingest and absorb entertainment and information” (Durham, Kellner, 2012, p. 29). Even though public media platforms, such as newspapers and radio shows, allows for ordinary citizens to make their voices heard, it also is less filtered which means that people can easily take advantage of these platforms and spread misinformation. This idea is especially relevant today with social media. Social media gives us access to more information than ever before. It gives people of all backgrounds the opportunity to share their opinions. However, social media platforms allow misinformation to circulate.

     In my CMC 100 course, I watched a documentary called The Social Dilemma, which emphasizes the dangers of social media. Specifically, the documentary demonstrated the political polarization that Facebook is responsible for. It showed how Facebook analyzed the political views of users based on the types of content they had "liked". Rather than showing users neutral content, they show users content that affirms their views. Due to this political polarization on social media, people consequently struggle to understand those who disagree with them, as social media primarily exposes them to viewpoints to affirm, rather than challenge their positions on political issues. Consumers passively absorb the information as they scroll through social media with minimal effort. Although public media is important as it allows for ordinary people to express their opinions, it is highly necessary for these average citizens to be educated on the ways in which those in power can manipulate the media. Educating oneself on media manipulation is an imperative step for it to be a tool for social change, rather than a tool for those in power to continue to control the lives of average citizens.

References

Kellner, D. M., Durham, M. G., (2012). Media and Cultural Studies Keyworks. Wiley-Blackwell.

Orlowski, J. (2020). The social dilemma. Netflix.

Nihao, 9/14

 The biggest takeaway I had for this week’s class and reading is that nothing in architecture is unintentional. As a kid, I was intrigued by buildings that looked like they have human faces on them. When I pointed them out to other people, they were as surprised as I was and we all think they are interesting coincidences. However, after reading about and seeing pictures of the concepts of anthropomorphism, I realize that the faces I saw in buildings are not coincidence but a special style that was intentionally created. 

Another example is the concept of “disharmonious harmony”. Some of the buildings shown in class give me very unsettle feelings and it is hard for us to imagine what are the functions of these buildings because they look familiar yet strange. They look like they are different elements from different kinds of “regular” buildings that were put together. Most buildings we see in daily basis have a harmony to our eyes: they are rectangular or in other regular shapes; they have windows of the same sizes; they are symmetrical; they have single material for the entire building…… But the buildings we see in class challenge the conventional ideas of the regular buildings, making us stop and stare. However, the unsettling feelings are exactly what would draw audiences’ attention, because of its unexpectedness. 

After this class, I started to pay attention to buildings around me that look different and unconventional. Rather than feeling uncomfortable with the disharmony in it, I remind myself it is all intentional and try to see the playfulness in the design of it. It also challenges myself to reflect on where I learned what kind of buildings are “normal” and different functions that assumed for different buildings. I realize that like anything I learned, they are from seeing certain buildings were repeatedly assigned certain functions and we learned to associate the buildings with the functions.

annaiswriting, 9/19

    During class on Tuesday, we discussed different elements of postmodernist architecture using terms that Charles Jencks defined for us in The Emergent Rules. I had never heard of any of these terms prior to the reading and class discussion so when we were looking at the different images I found it difficult at first to attribute these features to the images. However, it eventually made sense to me as I looked at more examples. For example, seeing the image of the Louvre helped me to understand the concept of radical eclectism as I saw an old European building and a modern glass pyramid. This allowed me to understand that radical eclectism is two completely different buildings near each other, as the Louvre perfectly represents that. Then, after Dr. Cummings showed us the images, we started discussing the architecture at Rollins, Winter Park, and downtown Orlando. She encouraged us to make observations about the architecture in these places.


    Sometimes I walk around Park Avenue with a plan in mind such as needing to get lunch, buy some coffee, or get a manicure. However, there are many times where I have nothing to do, so I walk around and look at some of the shops. I enjoy walking around Park Avenue in my free time because there are so many different shops and restaurants. I can experience all of these places in walking distance! This demonstrates that Urbane urbanism is reflected in the architecture of Park Avenue, as urbane urbanism is reflected in small cities in which people have many essential places within walking distance of them. Urban buildings are also uniform, as many of the buildings along Park avenue are. Prior to this class discussion, I did not consciously think about the architecture in the places that I have been to. However, I find it interesting to see how architectural styles impact lifestyles and connect the past and present styles.

mrt, Benjamin 9/16

 “Habermas also notes a transition from the liberal public sphere which originated in the Enlightenment and the American and French Revolution to a media-dominated public sphere in the current era of what he calls ‘welfare state capitalism and mass democracy’ [...] In this transformation, ‘public opinion’ shifts from rational consensus emerging from debate, discussion, and reflection to the manufactured opinion of polls or media experts” (Durham & Kellner, 2012, p. 29).

I'm not exactly sure when Habermas initially made this observation, but I found it intriguing that something said by someone born almost a century ago still rings not only true but particularly relevant. Even though the media he discusses is drastically different from the media we take part in today. I'm currently taking an economics class that focuses specifically on the current political economy. In the class, we're reading a book that discusses this notion in detail. The most recent chapter we read was actually eerily similar to this concept. Expanding on Habermas' idea, the author of the book-- journalist Matt Taibbi, actually theorized that the opinions of the polls and media experts (in his case reporters) have become one and the same. He even goes as far as to say "'Polls say' is often just 'we say' in disguise-- in the same way a man-on-the-street quote is often just the first person found who agreed with the point the reporter wanted to make" (2021, p. 105). I think we see this a lot on social media. People become stuck in echo chambers regurgitating the same talking points circulated from their media conglomerate of choice. And these points always seem to reflect the views of the party they subscribe to and never those of the one they don't. This is a direct result of the media training us to view everything (at least in the mainstream media) as Republican vs. Democrat rather than promoting actually taking a step back and reflecting on the point to come up with our own solution or opinion on the issue. Regardless of what our political party has to say about it. One doesn't have to actually debate or discuss current events in their own words because they can just watch politicians do it and retweet the highlights. Another great example of this that we discussed in the class was the use of political think tanks in the 90s. They were designed to create quotable talking points of manufactured opinions from pro-corporate media experts that were in reality much more conservative than views of the general American public but nevertheless they were quoted often. The most popular think tank was quoted over 2,000 times in 1995 alone.

This is sort of unrelated, but I wanted to include it because I feel it goes along with the idea that text (in this case referring to art), even from over a century ago, is still as relevant as the quote I pulled from the reading. I couldn't find the artist's name, but this piece is attributed to a female artist from 1910-- 111 years ago! This piece recently started circulating on Twitter with almost 30,000 retweets and over 175,000 likes. Why it's all of a sudden going viral? People are finding it surprisingly relatable. When you think about how many facets of our lifestyle have changed in the last century, I think it's remarkable we can still find solace in the emotions and experiences of those from the past. I've included a link to the tweet below:

Media link- Twitter

References:

Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. M. (2012). Media and Cultural Studies (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Taibbi, M. (2021). Hate Inc.: Why today's media makes us despise one another. OR BOOKS LLC.

mrt, Jenks 9/14

     Our discussion today really got me thinking about anamnesis and how far we can take the notion of nostalgia in regards to it. In the example made about the Spanish tiles, it does make sense to me that since most of us probably have no personal connection to Spanish architecture historically, even though we can attribute this feature to a specific style or even time period of architecture, we have no real experience to liken it with. However, I wonder if other styles of architecture can transcend stylistic choice into nostalgia and/or anamnesis. In class we looked at an image of the Theatre Royal De La Monnaie and while as the title states it is a theatre, upon viewing I immediately assumed it was a government building because of the Greco-Roman aspects of its build (for example the columns and the fresco). Most of the government buildings I’ve personally seen also incorporate facets of this design, giving me at least some lived experience to relate the image with-- we briefly talked about how the government buildings downtown exhibited a similar design furthering this idea. I feel like Anna’s use of the word “likening” when describing anamnesis really helped me get a better grasp of the concept and I wonder if since we immediately liken government buildings with some of these stylistic choices, they are more than just a genre of architecture that we can recognize and put a name to, but rather part of a suggested recollection (which happens to be how I defined anamnesis in my notes from the Jenks reading). 

    Greco-Roman architecture has been used in the design of government buildings since their conception as many aspects of Western government are derived from practices used in these original edifices. We may associate columns or frescoes with government buildings, but does nostalgia have anything to do with this or is it just something we’ve learned to correlate? This then got me considering the notion of nostalgia in itself, can we truly be nostalgic for something we’ve never experienced? Can we have a collective recollection of these buildings when no one living was present to see those that inspired this trend? I want to say yes, but I don't know. I don’t even know that there is necessarily an answer-- or maybe there is, but it differs case by case. I’d be interested in looking into other examples of this and seeing how they play out. I guess to determine if this specific case is an example of anamnesis we would first have to decide if nostalgia is a prerequisite for anamnesis or rather simply a commonly occurring trait.

Nihao, 9/9

 After this week’s readings and class, I understand why one of the learning objectives in our course syllabus is “not to fear theory”. When I was reading the textbook, even for the passage I think I understand, it still feels very abstract and it is hard to make any connection with real life scenarios. Compared to my psychology classes’ readings which talk about interpersonal relationships that I can connect to on a personal level, these “theory” readings were a bit intimidating to read because I do not have any tangible example.
However, after the class discussion on Thursday, I understand the text much better, especially with the gas station example and the concept of intertextuality. I wonder if the examples themselves are “signifier” as well that signifying the theory we were reading. I do feel it is easier and more memorable to understand theory from concrete examples, so today at the cafeteria I was reading through the powerpoint while trying to make connections with signs/texts I was seeing. 
I watched people in cafeteria and the ways they act and talk. I eat at the cafeteria everyday but as soon as I start reading the room like “text”, it looks very different. As I’m reading this sentence - “In order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said”, the word “culture” popped up to me. I realized that what is unsaid in a conversation is the “culture” that shared by people who are making the conversation. The unsaid makes more meaning than what they said. I saw some of my friends and greeted them, realizing how different I am in ways and content when I talked to different groups. Because each group of people have their own “unsaid” things, and these unsaid things make what this particular group say to each other meaningful. 
I also understand better that “language is arbitrary” because language does not “feel” arbitrary. When I was watching groups of people greeting and interacting with each other, I realized that names are a great example of how language is arbitrary but does not feel arbitrary. When we call our friends by their name or seeing their names somewhere, feelings and memories of the friends were evoked in us and made us think the names are the friends themselves. But in fact, a name cannot represent a person. But without a name, a person is like the “uncharted nebula” that we cannot grasp on.

annaiswriting, 9/9

 In class on Thursday, we discussed Ferdinand de Saussure and his emphasis on signification. While reading his work, I had a difficult time understanding what signifier and signified meant. However, the class example of the red rose and the yellow rose helped me to understand this concept. Our society attributes receiving a red rose to a romantic gesture, and receiving a yellow rose to a platonic gesture. The signified is the meaning, which is the platonic or friendly gesture. The rose was the signifier because it was the object that had a meaning placed onto it. The object itself does not have this meaning but culture assigns those objects a meaning. I had never learned about this concept prior to this class session, but this weekend I noticed this relationship between the signifier and signified in my personal life. My good friend’s birthday was yesterday and I wanted to buy her a necklace. I knew that she would enjoy this gift because she loves necklaces. I went shopping the day before her birthday and found her a necklace that was dark blue, which is her favorite color. When I gave her the necklace on her birthday, she had a big smile on her face and told me she loved her gift! The necklace itself does not have a meaning. To someone who does not enjoy wearing necklaces, does not particularly like the color blue, and did not receive it from a close friend, this may not be a special gift and appear as just an object. However, when I bought that necklace I gave it a meaning of friendship. I have also been a receiver of jewelry that resembles a close relationship. When my boyfriend visited me this summer, he gave me a bracelet with a shell and two stars that I have not taken off since. I love wearing beach jewelry, so him giving me a shell bracelet was thoughtful and meaningful. Although I would have liked the bracelet if I bought it myself, him buying it for me signifies our relationship. In both examples, the jewelry is the signifier, but the platonic and romantic love are the signified, which makes the jewelry so special.

Artemis, Barthes

 In Barthes' passage, The Pleasure of the Text, they write about the pleasure of reading a text and how that experience changes depending on how we read it. They describe the process as follows, "Tmesis, source or figure of pleasure, here confronts two prosaic edges with one another; it sets what is useful to a knowledge of the secret against what is useless to such knowledge; ... the author cannot predict tmesis; he cannot choose to write what will not be read. And yet it is the rhythm of what is read and what is not read that creates the pleasure of the great narratives..." (pg. 108-109) I found this part of the reading striking because it gave voice to my experience as a reader. I recall re-reading passages from long research reports begging my brain to focus and pick up on what I was reading, I struggled so much I'd eventually move past the text and on to the next paragraph or subheading to try and freshen up my experience. 

I always felt guilty about these actions, guilt towards the author for not honoring their work in its complete form, and to my professor who assigned the reading deeming the knowledge important and useful. Barthes' explanation of tmesis, without meaning to, made me realize how commonplace that practice of reading is and how it impacts the way we interact and experience that text. I've taken note that while a text can have difficult, challenging, or even boring parts that we sometimes skip when we call more attention to the parts that bring us pleasure we are drawing more from the topics and understanding the text in a new light with every re-read. Taking research reports again, for example, I always read them over at least twice and always come away understanding the text better not only because I am familiarizing myself with the content but because I allowed myself to experience it two different ways and used both/all collective interactions form my full understanding. 

mrt, Macherey

    One of my favorite homework strategies is to break up my time by reading a chapter of whatever book I’m currently reading after finishing one assignment before moving on to the next. I find it not only increases my productivity, but sometimes I’m able to apply what I’m learning to the characters or systems in place, giving me tangible examples of the concepts at hand. Currently, I’m re-reading one of my childhood favorites, Suzanne Collins’s The Hunger Games. You might be thinking, in what world does this have anything to do with critical theory, but I actually felt like there were some interesting ties between the happenings of the book and Macherey’s ideas about the relationship present between the explicit and the implicit. Macherey claims that one cannot exist without the other, “for in order to say anything, there are things which must not be said” (Macherey, P., 1978, p. 17). The central idea that furthers the plot of the trilogy is rebellion, and in the totalitarian government in which the book takes place, most of this rebellion occurs within the silence, within the plausible deniability between the explicit and implicit meanings of one’s actions. There are tons of examples of this throughout the series, but I am going to focus on one that is a recurring theme and is already present within the first thirty pages of the book.

   I am sure most of us have at least some knowledge of the plot of these books/movies. But, I don't want to assume so I will provide some brief background information for context. The government in which this book takes place includes an aristocratic class that demands each of the other twelve districts send two children into a glorified deathmatch once a year as punishment for a previous rebellion. Our main character happens to be one of these two and when she is brought on stage, instead of clapping, the other members of her district engage in a three-finger salute. Katniss describes this as “an old and rarely used gesture of our district, occasionally seen at funerals. It means thanks, it means admiration, it means goodbye to someone you love” (Collins, S., 2008, p. 24). She is very clearly outlining the explicit meaning of this gesture and why her peers chose to use it. When looked at solely through an explicit lens, it is simply an act of respect for Katniss. We don’t see how this is actually quite a daring act of rebellion. She later goes on to illustrate its implicit meaning as well, by explaining how by choosing to use the three-finger salute instead of clapping, “they take part in the boldest form of dissent they can manage. Silence. Which says we do not agree. We do not condone. All of this is wrong” (Collins, S., 2008, p. 24). Maybe I am biased because I was consuming the two pieces of media side by side, but I feel like this is a near-perfect example of what Macherey was referring to when he said “we investigate the silence, for it is the silence that is doing the speaking” (1978, p.17). I would also argue it's a good example of how the explicit and the implicit are inherently codependent and how true meaning lies in the relationship between the two. As I mentioned before, if we look solely at the explicit meaning of this gesture, it's hard to see how it becomes such an important symbol of the rebellion. But, if only considering the implications of dissent in a society where failure to comply is quite literally punishable by death, it becomes a suicide wish rather than an adequate vehicle for mainstreaming rebellion. The three-fingered salute only works when its meaning exists within the space between the two, “not on one or the other side of that fence” (Marcherey, P., 1978, 18)

link to media examined

Collins, S. (2008). Chapter 2. In The Hunger Games (pp. 21–33). essay, Scholastic Press. 

Macherey, P. (1978). Theory of literary production. 

annaiswriting, Macherey

 The excerpt from Pierre Macherey’s A Theory of Literary Production in A Critical and Cultural Theory Reader by Antony Easthope and Kate McGowan defines the importance of the relationship between the explicit and the implicit. This relationship between explicit and implicit relates to the binaries exhibited during class discussions, such as purpose and play, and presence and absence. For one concept to exist, its opposite must also exist. Macherey illustrates this concept of understanding opposites with, “either all around or in its wake the explicit requires the implicit: for in order to say anything, there are other things which must not be said” (Easthope, McGowan, 17).  The explicit is what is directly stated, while the implicit is to be implied. The explicit is the noise while the implicit is the silence. Every time someone makes a statement they are leaving certain elements out. These left-out elements can be left out intentionally or unintentionally. 

In our media today, the relationship between the explicit and implicit can be seen in feminist spaces. Some feminists speak on issues that predominantly impact straight, cisgender, and white women, while avoiding speaking on issues of race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. They explicitly support gender equality when it comes to women with similar privileges to them. However, when they are silent on other social issues, it implies that they are less supportive of more marginalized women. When it comes to issues of reproductive justice, some feminists make explicit comments that implicitly exclude transgender individuals from the conversation. For example, pro-choice advocates tend to say that woman should make the choice for herself, not the government. This implicitly states that women are the only ones who may need to get abortions, which excludes transgender men or non-binary men, who are also at risk of losing their right to choose. These statements also exclude transgender women by essentializing the female experience to their gender assigned at birth. Some of these feminists do not mean to leave transgender individuals out of the conversation, while others do. It is important to understand this relationship between implicit and explicit when advocating for equality in order to be mindful of who is included and who is excluded. 

https://images.saymedia-content.com/.image/t_share/MTc0MTczODA2ODc1NjQ5OTE2/roe-v-wade-looking-at-case-after-death-of-jane-doe.jpg