"The only constant is change"
This was a phrase used in ancient Greece by the poet Heraclitus and it still stands true to this day, as it will forever. The concept behind Modernity is not a free standing object, but rather something that can be defined by the past and the post modern future. Modernity can be distinct from the past as it is characterized by institutional structures and processes. As Thomas J. Misa writes, "the transition to modernity [...], is characterized by the emergence of the notion of an autonomous subject, the transition from an organic to a mechanic world picture and the embrace of humanistic values and objective scientific inquiry" (2004, p.36). That is to say, modernity can be defined by the individual, the free mind and humanism. As a result, capitalism goes hand in hand with modernity since it is the primary economic model in the Western industrialized world.
When looking at the transition into modernity, it is crucial to examine the past. For a start, we will dive into the development of mass society. Stratification and organizing society into classes became out of touch with the beliefs of the general population. A society with no social classes became a radical new idea. Two famous authors that were at the forefront of a classless society are Karl Marx, and Friedrich Engels. This idea would change the basis on which society is built as the structural alteration was necessary to follow the ideological fluctuation of the population.
Now, the second half of the 18th century is characterized by a switch in communication. Previously, it was top-down communication, meaning the richest dictated to the lower classes what societal values were. However, at this point in time, communication becomes horizontal, meaning the people began to create their own mass culture, not based on the beliefs or influence of the rich (Misa, 2004). This turned society into a functional order of subsystems. Wealth was still inherited but people were no longer bounded by their ancestral past.
Finally, all of this leads us to a society where the media of dissemination is king. The media, as a system, is larger than life and owned and operated by the higher echelons of our society (Misa, 2004). It is almost as if the bourgeois have found a new way to control the population, except now they don’t have to publicly behead people to scare them into following their beliefs. They simply have to project the everyday horrors of our world on television. For example, according to Time magazine, crime is at an all-time low since the 60s. However, if you were to poll the greater population, they would believe crime is on the rise. One can conclude that the media plays a great role in this because they are constantly showing bad news, which then skews the public’s perception of the reality that their society is in fact very safe.
Modernism
Matei Calinescu introduces us to the theory of modernism through his book "The Five Faces of Modernism." There are two ways to look at modernism, those being structural and philosophic. Philosophers such as Kant claimed that the modern age was a fundamental break from the past. The Project of Enlightenment was a huge part of the philosophic view. Philosophers believed that modernism would make people more unified and would broaden their knowledge. It can, in this sense, be considered by some as the "age of reason." This theory steers more away from religion and science to a "more artistic representation and the struggle for a humane society" (Hauptli, 2006). Modernism is broken down into its five faces, these being "modernism, avant-garde, decadence, kitsch, and postmodernism" (Călinescu, 1987). He sees that key elements of the state of modernity include truth (generally taken from scientific fact), beauty (can be differentiated from garbage) and morality (the human code of right from wrong). This was certainly a project with definite aims and goals.
Meanwhile, if we look at the structural approach of modernism, it mainly focuses on each man for himself. Individuals are defined on several different levels, each of which they have no control over, but may be uncovered in time if it is sought after by investigation. These levels are sociological, psychological and linguistic structures. In any circumstance, structure is what shapes and moulds. These changes are both quantities and qualities. Societies form changes internally, thus we see a structural change in the population whether it be political, social or economical.
With that in mind, media plays one of the biggest factors in modernism. It has enhanced modernism significantly with the "ability to process more information to larger audiences at a faster rate" (Baudrillard, 1983). It started with newspapers and radio. In the last century, as opposed to word of mouth, the paper and radio really became the new form of media. With even newer forms of media outlets, internet and interconnectivity, come new demands for more. Not only did the media give news and stories, it also became the main source for entertainment.
Times modernize with the media; they basically go hand in hand. Media outlets have changed with the times and will continue doing so. In our ‘modern’ society we live in, we rely on the media to inform us what we should be driving, what clothes we should be wearing and what’s going on in the world. There will always be a demand for media as the times change. If we take a look at a group of people, for instance, the Amish, we see that people can in fact survive without the media and technology. The society they live in is one we would have seen centuries ago and the world has progressed so much since then.
Even politics are mainly media based and super ‘modern’. Every election, scandal and bit of propaganda is fed to us via the mass media. In some cases it is beneficial that the media has coverage in just about every country on the planet. We are made more aware of world hunger and disasters in foreign countries and we, in turn, give them aid. In other ways though, the media has crippled our society in a way that we rely mainly on it to provide us with everything we think we need. The question comes to mind whether civilization would have gotten this far without mass media and the answer is no. The media is a driving force in the people of our generation. We are hooked. If today, we lost all contact to the media, it would set the population back because we have come to rely on our technologies to broadcast the information we need.
We currently live in a ‘just can’t get enough’ society and whether that be healthy or not, we are basically programmed to be like that. The process of modernization changes over generations, each more needy than the last. We have to give into the inevitable, educate ourselves and move with the times because they are going to move whether we like it or not. The more modern we become, the more we have the "what were we thinking" mentality about older media and technology.
The Negative Side of New Media
The term "Culture Industry" was originated by Frankfurt School members Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. The concept was featured in the chapter "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" in his Dialectic of Enlightenment (Ball, 2005). The foundation of the Culture Industry shows the distinct relationship between the capitalist system and the cultural life. This is seen through the mass production of cultural goods for mass consumption. Furthermore, multinational corporations produce these goods solely for profit. Thus, as Adorno states, "Society has come to be organized around the production of exchange values for the sake of producing exchange values" (Zuidervaart, 2011). As a result of this "exchange society" (through the mass production and consumption), it creates a more integrated and unified society. Due to the integration, "Culture now impresses the same stamp on everything: films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole" (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947). This sameness has a negative impact. Through the consumption of the same cultural products there is a loss of individuality. People are not aware, thus resulting in "pseudo-individuality". What makes the identity illusory is not that it does not occur, but that the moment of particularity itself is illusory (Adorno & Bernstein, 2001). For example, if one gets a customized blackberry or I-Pad they think it expresses a sense of individuality. However, this is not the case. Through the mass production of the cultural products there is a loss of particularity because as Adorno and Horkheimer state "Culture now impresses the same stamp on everything" (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1947).
Moreover, Adorno argues that the Culture Industry dominates society. The individual’s integration within the culture industry has the effect of restricting the development of a critical awareness of the social conditions that confront us all (Fagon, 2005). Since cultural products are being massively produced; there is a sense of docility. Citizens are distracted by the "low art" of these mass produced culture goods. Thus, citizens ignore the real state of their lives. However, I believe that Adorno overvalues the control that the "culture industry" has on society. For example, current protests today (Occupy, Greek debt crisis), show that citizens do not act passively. These examples show that people do not just ignore their real problems. Instead, they are aware of the various social problems that affect them and speak up.
The Positive Side Of New Media
Hans Magnus Enzensberger had an extremely positive view of new media. His theory was called Emancipatory Media and he believed that newer technology has facilitated communication between people and has given them the opportunity to control their media like never before (Garnham, 2000). Of course his theory was created in the 1970s, and we suspect that today he has a lot of positive things to say about the internet. Because the internet gives us unconstrained free speech, Enzensberger would say that new media has democratized a form of communication that was previously unattainable.
Key concepts to his theory depict a very libertarian view of what media and communication are becoming. For instance, he believes that every receiver is a potential transmitter. With the internet that is especially possible because now we, as amateurs, can make our own content. He also believes in a decentralization of power which means that communication becomes more horizontal, rather than hierarchical (Garnham, 2000). This is significant because when looking at the internet, it has taken billions away from big businesses, and has, in a Robin Hood sense, given to the "poor", or the greater population. Another key aspect of his theory states that new media has the potential to mobilize the masses. Whether it means we create our own content or we organize to protest in greater numbers, to Enzensberger, both of these (and everything in between) is democracy being practiced. When looking at modern times, we can see that the Occupy Wall Street movement is an example of mobilization of the masses through social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter. Because of the internet, these people were able to rally and find each other in a way that was never possible (or this easy) in the past. And so, Enzensburger would strongly support the new technologies that lead to the democratization of media as they shape our society from the ground – up, and not the other way around.
Is there too much optimism?
Perhaps new media is slowly creating a more realistic and democratic social and political system by portraying the "real" in societies - with the help of reality tv, and by offering citizens the possibility of giving feedback on current issues, i.e. with comment boxes on the internet. However, is this platform a separate reality than the one we know? Or even a "hyperreality", as Jean Baudrillard names it?
Susan Murray and Laurie Ouellette have made studies on Reality TV, which they define as an "unabashedly commercial genre united less by aesthetic rules or certainties than by the fusion of popular entertainment with a self-conscious claim to the discourse of the real." (Murray and Ouellette, 2009, p.3) They claim that Reality TV does not actually imitate reality, but rather, that viewers are the ones tempted to recreate the reality that is portrayed on the screen. Of Reality TV, what results is "an unstable text that encourages viewers to test out their own notions of the real, the ordinary, and the intimate against the representation before them." (Murray and Ouellette, 2009, p.8) Consequently, this recreation of Reality TV, which is, at its core, a wrongful representation of reality, creates a phenomenon of creating another reality different from our everyday life. For example, Alison O’Riordan, an Irish freelance journalist, explains in her article that ever since MTV’s infamous reality show, My Super Sweet 16, has aired, "Sweet 16 birthday parties for Irish teenagers have taken on a whole new look, influenced, no doubt, by the MTV reality series, […] which has been on our screens daily for the last two years." Thus, Reality TV, with its global reach, has a massive influence on viewers’ everyday life, forming and changing ideologies and even rituals and values.
Jean Baudrillard, a French Sociologist and Philosopher, goes a step further in the study, to see what cultural impact Reality TV has on society. He says that the influence that this kind of entertainment has on us consumers is so strong that it is actually changing reality itself. Media stimulates the real, rather than just representing it. Baudrillard explains that "nothing resembles itself, and holographic reproduction, like all fantasies of the exact synthesis or resurrection of the real […], is already no longer real, is already hyperreal." (Baudrillard, p.47) According to him, an exact reproduction of an element cannot exist. The imitated form of the element, the "simulacrum" is what he would call the "hyperreal".
This cartoon by Chris Madden represents the numerous dimensions that Reality TV can have.
Thus, as consumers, we must be skeptical as to what we watch and what we choose to believe as being real or not. Bill Guttentag, a documentary filmmaker, reminds us that Reality TV is not actually what it claims to be since editors intentionally deforms and rebuilds episodes, to make it more commercially pleasing. He says that editors frequently uses what is called "franken bites", which are "sound bites that are taken out of context from the participants, by stealing a word from here, two words from there and then artificially constructing sentences and putting them over neutral footage." (Guttentag, 2007, 2:34 mins)
Conclusion
To conclude, New Media in our Modern Age raises a lot of new issues that makes us rethink and restructure the social and
political system in which we live. The contemporary consumer must be skeptical and always question the motives of the media producers.
Bibliography
Adorno, T. A., & Bernstein, J. B. (2001). The culture industry selected essays on mass culture. (pp. 1-19). Florence, KY: Routledge Retrieved from http://site.ebrary.com.proxy.bib.uottawa.ca/lib/oculottawa/docDetail.action?docID=2002749
Adorno, A.T., & Horkheimer, H.M.(1947). The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.
Bluden.A, Dialectic of Enlightenment. Retreived Nov.8.2011 from http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
Ball, K. B. (2005). Rethinking the Frankfurt school: Alternative legacies of cultural critique (review). Comparative Literature Studies, 42(2), 306-309.
Baudrillard, Jean (1983). In the Shadow of the Silent Majorities. New York: Semiotext(e).
Baudrillard, Jean. (1994) Simulacra and Simulation, University of Michigan Press, United States of America, 164 pages.
Călinescu, Matei. Five Faces of Moderninity. Duke University Press, 1987
Drehle, David. (Feb 22, 2010). What's Behind America's Falling Crime Rate. Retrieved from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1963761,00.html
Fagon , A. F. (2005). Theodor Adorno (1903-1969). Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/adorno/
Garnham, Nicholas (2000). Emancipation, the media, and modernity: arguments about the media and social theory, Oxford; New York : Oxford University Press.
Guttentag, Bill. (2007) The Real and The Reality of Documentary Film, Commonwealth Club, http://fora.tv/2008/02/13/Bill_Guttentag_Reality_of_Documentary_Film, consulted on October 29, 2011.
Hauptli, Bruce W. The Enlightenment Project, 2006, Web. http://www2.fiu.edu/~hauptli/TheEnlightenmentProjectLectureSupplement.html
Luhmann, N. (1995). Social Systems. Stanford University Press
Misa, Thomas J.(2004) (Editor); Brey, Philip (Editor); Feenberg, Andrew (Editor). Modernity and Technology. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 2004. p 36.
Murray, Susan and Ouellette, Laurie. (2009) Reality TV: remaking television culture, New York University Press, 377 pages. http://books.google.ca/books?id=4_W19oHGzZQC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false, consulted on October 29, 2011.
O’Riordan, Alison. (2007) Sixteen is the new 18 for sweet party girls, Independent Freelance Jounalist, September 2, 2011. http://alisonoriordan.com/sixteen-is-the-new-18-for-sweet-party-girls/, consulted on October 29, 2011.
Zuidervaart, L. Z. (2011). Theodor w. Adorno. In E. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 ed.). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/adorno/
No comments:
Post a Comment