Theme 2 - Post Seminar

For the second theme's seminar I have read two texts: Benjamin’s "The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity" (1936) and Adorno och Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) (chapters "The Concept of Enlightenment" and "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception"). I have also participated on a lecture.

During the seminar the concept and view of nominalism came up for discussion. Before the seminar my view of nominalism was quite limited and restricted to the pure definition. The definition being that a nominalist rejects universal objects and sees objects in the world as individual and claims that two objects can't have anything in common besides the name we happen to give them.

The discussion was about nominalism versus platonic realism. While nominalists believe that there is no such thing as universal objects, a platonic realist believes that every object is a copy of the true object. One example being that a particular apple is a copy of the form of applehood and the apple's redness is an instance of the form of redness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platonic_realism).

Nominalism also relates to the enlightenment. We discussed that it is a matter of perception. The enlightenment basically says to mankind: observe the world and what is happening in it, don't get stuck in rational arguments. It emphasizes physical matter. The nominalistic perception is about seeing objects as individuals and it is important for the enlightenment in the sense that we need to view objects as individuals in order to study them.

We also discussed how an extreme nominalist point of view can relate to fascism. Fascism believes in a feudal society and hierarchy and doesn't question this. This is similar to extreme nominalism which only acknowledges what is observable and also does not question this. According to Adorno and Horkheimer it is dangerous not to question things.

According the Adorno and Horkheimer mass media reflects the world as it is and that we conform to the image of society that is presented to us. They argue that picturing life in movies will mirror actual life and therefore show that life should be in a certain way. The mass media mirrors the everyday life and doesn’t show alternatives, therefore it does not have any revolutionary potential. Benjamin has a more positive point of view. For example, he liked the idea of presenting the working class on the white screen. This would give the working class a sense of belonging and purpose. Therefor Benjamin’s view is that culture does have revolutionary potential.

We also discussed substructure and superstructure. Substructure is what we produce in society, the tools and the actual production, while superstructures are big structures that consists of multiple substructures. We can often see rather quick changes in how we produce, but for changes to happen in the superstructure takes a lot of time. If the changes in the substructures last we will see changes in the superstructure. The example of gay marriage came up during the seminar. There have been a lot changes in different substructures regarding gay rights but to change the actual law has taken its time and effort and can be viewed as a superstructure.