mass media_john brenkman

8/12/2019 Mass Media_john Brenkman

1/17

Mass Media: From Collective Experience to the Culture of PrivatizationAuthor(s): John BrenkmanSource: Social Text, No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 94-109Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/466407.

Accessed: 24/05/2014 23:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Text.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 179.176.35.2 on Sat, 24 May 2014 23:18:22 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466407?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/466407?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke


2/17

Mass Media: From Collective ExperienceTo The Culture Of PrivatizationJOHNBRENKMAN

IThe projectofdeveloping theory fmassculture ndpoliticallyffectiventerpreta-tionsofthesymbolic orms hat rganize ocial ifehasemerged rom hetransformationswithin apitalist ocietytself.Massculture onfrontss as aprimarylement f his ociety.

By the same token,mass culture annot tself e understood r analyzed xcept in thecontextof its role in producing nd reproducinghesocial relations fcapitalism.t isessentialnotto fall rey othefalse ichotomyf abor ndsymbolicnteraction,r tothatbetween a libidinalpoliticsand a politicsorientedtowardeconomic transformations.Capitalismdoes indeedexploitthebody-the desiring ody,butalso the aboring ody.Thevery ossibilityndeffectivenessfmass ulture,will rgue,ie ntheway torganizessymbolicmediations ndsymbolicnteractionsnrelation o thebodyandsubjectivitysthey re affectedythecapitalist ivision f abor.Just s it sfalse oseek thedistinctiveealityf dvanced apitalismnthe utonomyfthe psychologicalor the symbolicfrom heeconomic, t is also inadequate, believe,to frame he distinction etween19th nd 20thcentury apitalismnly rpredominantlyinterms f hechanging elation f ociety ndthe tate.Abroader nddeepermutation asoccurred. The capitalistmode ofproduction asevolvedby transforming,ntwophases,therelationbetween theeconomic and the ymbolicdimensions f social life. n itsfirstphase, tsevered the economic from he ymbolic, issolvingarlier ocialformationsndproducingthe social conditions hatMarxanalyzed.Butthisprocess,whichwas alwaysincomplete nd contradictory,ad consequenceswhich have ed to thesecondphaseofcapitalism.Now theeconomy,moving or tself,ttemptsosubsume hesymbolic.Industrial roduction orciblyemoved aborfrom llsymbolicndaffectiveontextsby turning he activity f producing ntoa quantitywhose value could be abstractlydesignated by money.Wage labor reconstitutesabor as an expenditure f energyproductive fexchangevalue. tseparates rom his ctivityllother xpendituresfthebody'senergy, hich,having eendesignated nproductive, anifesthemselvesnformsoferotic, esthetic, ndreligious xperience.These then tand na completelyccentricrelation o thedominant tructuringorce f ociety, amely,heeconomy.Thisdivision assesinto he ubject nd bifurcatesheproducer's elation o thebody.In itscapacitytomateriallyransformature, hebodybecomesa pure nstrument.hefreedom fwage labor, s opposedtothe aborof erf rslave,makes hebodyone'sownonlybyturningt intoone's ownproperty. ust s capitaldeprived heproducers fthe

JOHN RENKMANsanassistant rofessorfComparative iteraturettheUniversityfWisconsin-Madison.94

This content downloaded from 179.176.35.2 on Sat, 24 May 2014 23:18:22 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/17

MassMedia 95meansofproductiontreduced their odiestotoolswhoseproductive apacity ouldbeboughtand sold inthemarketplace.etagainst his nstrumentalizedody s thesubject'srelation o the rotogenic odywith ts omplexnetwork f ies o the ymbolic ormationsand affectivexperiencesthat omprisethewhole ofsocial experience.Latecapitalismovercomesthe heer eparationf he ymbolic rom he conomic, utdoes sobybringingthesymbolic nder hedominance f he conomic.Theprocesses f his ubsumptionreprecisely designedto block theovercoming f thesubjectivedivisionsnaugurated ycapital.The Frankfurtchool, especiallythe work of Horkheimer, dorno, nd Marcuse,undertook nanalysis fhow the nstrumentalizationfhuman ctivityffectedourgeoisculture tself,tsforms fsymbolic xpression nd tsforms fthought.twas theuniquehistorical xperienceof heFrankfurtchool theoristsowitness heemergence f he wopathsthat atecapitalism as taken orefurbishndresecure tself: uropeanfascism ndAmericanmass culture and the consumersociety.Marcuse's invaluableessay TheAffirmativeharacter fCulture 1936) exemplifieshedialectical eflection o whichthis experience gave rise. Aesthetic xperiencehas alwaysbeen,Marcuseargues, nexperience apart,wheremeaning nd affectivityould unite,harmonize,nd yieldanobject ofcontemplation hich s independentf theworldofmaterial roduction.nthemidst f socialreality herethemarketplacendcommodificationemovemeaning romproductive ctivity,rt ndaesthetic xperience ome to stand sthereservoirnwhich llthat hisreality enies or represses inds ublimatedxpression. Affirmativeulturewasthe historicalform n which were preserved hose humanwants whichsurpassed hematerial eproductionfexistence. 1

Since thehigh ulture fruling lasses--startingith ocratic hilosophy'separationof the soul and the body,the ideal and the material-alwaysconstituted realmofexpression thattended to separate tself rommaterial roduction, eduplicatingndlegitimatingherulers' eparation romabor,bourgeois ulture ouldenter his raditionanddeclare tsuniversality,hich tbeganto do with heRenaissance umanists,reciselybecause capitalismuniversalized he divisionbetween meaningand productionbyextending t to the producingclasses themselves.Marcusecould thus show that thebourgeois ultural xperiencewas atoncethe uthenticxpression f hedesires, antasies,andhopes that apitalismouldnotfulfillraccommodate nd thehegemonicmpositionoftheverydistortionsywhich cultural xperience llowedanythingobe expressed olongas nothingould be changed.Marcusefirstevelopedthis ucid nd two-sided iewofbourgeoisculture s hewitnessed tsdisintegration,disintegrationhatwas nottheresultofa social revolution utpartofcapitalism's esperate truggleo survive. hispainfulsense ofyetanotherunconscioushistorical ransformation,notherhistorical pheavalgoing behind the backs of humanity,nflected ll Frankfurtchool reflections ncontemporaryulture, n thedialectic f nlightenment,nd on thefuture fmass ociety.The centralhistoricalproblemcan be generalizedfromMarcuse'sdiscussionof thephilosophical nd aesthetic ormsf ffirmativeulture.Western apitalism,n the bsenceof revolution,has had to destroybourgeois society'sown optimalculturalforms nd

1HerbertMarcuse, TheAffirmativeharacter fCulture, nNegations, rans. eremy .ShapiroBoston:Beacon Press,1968), p. 110.



4/17

96 Brenkmanpolitical nstitutions--fromhe estheticsf ffirmativeulture o therestrictedamily,romthe autonomous individual o representativeemocracy.The entireprocessof socialintegration,romheproduction f deology nd culture o theformsfdailyife, avebeenaltereddifferentlyhantheywould have been by a revolutionn theconditionsMarxanalyzed.Faced with the historical egressions hathavepresidedoverthetransformationfsocietyand culture, he Marxist radition as seen a renewal, ometimes esperate ndconfused, nd a proliferationftheories ttemptingo demarcate he continuitiesnddiscontinuitiesfthepasttwocenturies. ne set of trategiesanproperly e calledpost-Marxist,nthat hey eclare thatMarx's heorys nowdead, napplicable ocontemporarycapitalism, owever ompletelytdealtwith iberal apitalism. erhaps hemost ystematicandcompelling ttempto found post-Marxismoday s theresearch ndtheoryf iirgenHabermas.HabermashasrejectedMarx's istinction etween base and superstructure,as it applies to the interrelationfsociety nd thestate,n an attempto show that hefundamentalategories f Marxism re irrelevant or nunderstandingfcontemporarycapitalism,ts crisis endencies,nd thepaths o itstransformation.hileHabermas akesus deep intotheproblems acedbyradical heoryndpractice,nasmuch s herecognizesthatthecritiqueofpolitical conomyno longer nswers o theobjective ndsubjectiveconditions fcapitalism, isargumentlso exemplifiesheconsequencesofreadingMarxinpurely heoretical erms. hefollowing epresentsheheart fHabermas's asic thesis:[Marx]arriedut he ritiquef ourgeoisdeologyn he ormfpoliticalconomy.is abortheoryfvalue estroyedhe emblancef reedom,ymeans fwhich he egalnstitutionfthefree abor ontract admade nrecognizablehe elationshipf ocial orcehat nderlay

thewage-laborelationship....ince he ast uarterf henineteenthenturywodevelop-mentalendenciesave ecome oticeablen hemost dvancedapitalistountries:n ncreasein tate nterventionnorder o ecurehe ystem'stability,nd growingnterdependencefresearchnd echnology,hich as urnedhe ciencesntoheeadingroductiveorce... Ifsocietyno longer autonomously erpetuatestselfhroughelf-regulations a sphereprecedingnd yingt he asis f he tate--andhe bilityodosowas he eallyovel eatureof he apitalistode fproduction--thenocietynd he tate reno ongern he elationshipthatMarxianheoryaddefineds that fbase nd uperstructure.hen, owever,criticaltheoryf ocietyan no onger econstructednthe xclusive ormf critiquefpoliticaleconomy. ... If... the deology f ust xchange isintegrates,hen hepower tructurean nolonger e criticizedmmediatelyt the evel f he elationsfproduction.2Thevery ermsnwhichHabermas ffirmshe riginal alidityfMarx's heory eglectsthepolitical genesis of the theory tself.Marxdid notdiscover,whether s an act ofphilosophical or scientific eflection,he illusionof just exchange.Rather,he gavetheoretical xpression o a collective xperience hatwas already eingexpressed ntheideologyofthemilitantections ftheworkinglass.Marx's heoretical iscourse prangfrom heconflict etween he cientificiscourse f hebourgeois olitical conomists ndthe deologicaldiscourse nwhichworkerswerearticulatingheir wnsocialexperience.The textsofpolitical conomywere theobjectofMarx's ritique, ut the ubtexts fthiscritique lay in an actual and vitalproletariandeology.JacquesRanciere, n a criticalreassessment f hisown contributiono theAlthusserianirele Capital, hasmade the2Jiirgen abermas, owarda Rational Society, rans. eremy .ShapiroBoston:BeaconPress,1970),pp.100-101.



5/17

Mass Media 97argument hatMarx'swritings egisteredhe echo ofproletarianxperience s it wasvoiced in the catchwordsand battlecries f the 1830s and 40s. Marx's fundamentalconcepts, he alienation f abor nd the apitalisticxtortion f urplus alue,wereforgedas he heardin thediscoursesofworkerswhatwas missingn the discourseofpoliticaleconomy.Ranciere itesthecallto nsurrectionftheweaverJean-Claude oman tLyon:To arms, atriots ndyou,braveworkers, hoproducewith he weatofyourbrow thisgleaming lothwhose luster rings ut moreglaringlyheconstrastetween urrags ndtheinsolent ineryf the rich. And thewords of a participantn theJune nsurrectionf1848: It is timewe saw theproducts four abor. 3Once Habermashasneutralizedhepolitical rigins f Marx's heory,hisdynamic fproletariandeology ndsocialtheory,e is free odevelop theoreticalmodelof dvancedcapitalismwhich expels the question of political organization romthe outset andeventuallyocatespoliticalresistance nd opposition n theabstract thicalprinciple fundominated ommunication. hisprinciple, e argues, hould,butdoes not,govern hecommunicationsbetween science and politics in state-regulatedapitalism, hat is,between technicallyexploitable knowledgeand its implementationn society.Theprinciple's ealizations retarded ytheeffectivenessf he ystemfrewards ndsecuritywhichHabermas ees as thereplacementfclassicalbourgeois deology: the deology fjustexchangeis replacedbya substituterogram, hich combines heelement fthebourgeois ideologyof achievementwhich,however, isplacestheassignmentf statusaccording othe tandard f ndividual chievement rom hemarket o the choolsystem)with guaranteedevelofwelfare, hichoffersecureemploymentnd a stable ncome. 4As nthedescriptionfMarx's heory, abermas ereobscures hefact hat hefreemarketproducedtwoopposing ife ituations,hat f hewage aborer nd that f he ntrepreneur,and thus generatedthe opposing ideologies of capitalists nd workers.Certainly hepractical possibility ffree nterprise,ndwith t the model of the ndividual ntrepre-neur'sexistence,have collapsedincontemporaryociety. hepromise f ocialsecurityand rewardforperformance est describes the lifeconditions f the middle trata, orwhomthe transmutationfbourgeois deology, s it stransmittedhroughheeducationsystem nd ts rganizationf he earning rocess, olds way reciselynsofars tdressesup laboring or wage intheguiseofnonproletarianmages ndvalues. incethe ppositionbetween thistransmutedorm fbougeois ideology nd theprinciple f undominatedcommunication acks the real force of a contradiction, abermas annotpointto theconditionsfor ocial transformationxceptinan externally roducedcrisis,which tselfcan take but one form: The amount f socialwealthproducedbyindustriallydvancedcapitalismand the technicaland organizationalonditionsunder whichthiswealthisproduced make it ever moredifficulto link tatus ssignmentn an even subjectivelyconvincingmanner o themechanism or heevaluation f ndividualchievement. 5ogetbeyondthis ision f politics onstructednthe tatic pposition f n deology ndaprinciplewhich awaits a crisis oflegitimation,t is necessary o understandhe actualdynamics f atecapitalism'schievementdeology. hereward hat hemiddle trataeek

3Cf., acquesRanciere,Moded'emploipourunere6ditione Lire e Capital,' LesTempsModernes o.328(Nov. 1973), pp. 788-807.4Habermas, p. cit.,p. 102.5Ibid.,p. 122.



6/17

98 Brenkmanintegratesnew ymbolicimensionnto hewage ystem.hewage called salary)sconnected othe ymboliclementsf tatusndhierarchicalower,othe xtenthatheindividual'sise oapositionf upervisionrmanagementasbut neunique eature:hefreedomo administerower-which s not evenone'sown--over thers. hisnewconfigurations, hen,fundamentalxamplef apital'subsumptionf he ymbolic.t sessentialorecognizehat his rocessspossible ecause he rulyovel eaturef hecapitalistmodeofproduction,hefreedomrautonomyf apital, as urvivedhe reemarket.Marx idnot eflectxplicitlyntheory'sink oproletarianxperiencend deology,butheclearly idformulatehe elevanterms.apital,eargued,ad wo olar ffectsnthenew lass fproducers:t lienatedhem romhe roductsf heirabor,nd tbroughtthem ntoassociation ith ne another. orMarx,t was fromhis ssociationhatcommunistonsciousnessoulddevelop, ecause ssociationies heworker'sndividualfate o a collective ondition.talso, herefore,rovidedhe onditionsor noppositionaldiscourse,counterideology,xpressingsocial xperiencend he esire otransformt.If riticalheorystoreconceptualizehedynamicsf ontemporaryociety,thas orediscoverts elationothe ounterideologieshat an nlyrise romhe abricf ocietyitself. ere,however, e encounter heuniquepowerof atecapitalism.hroughtsdominantultural ormsndpractices,ate apitalismtrivesosever ocial xperiencefrom heformationf ounterideologies,obreakollectivexperiencento hemonadicisolationf he rivatexperiencef ndividuals,nd opre-empthe ffectsf ssociationby subsuminghediscoursesnd mages hat egulateocial ife.Our workntheory,teaching,ndpropaganda ust ecognizehat hese ery rocesses evelop rom hatMarx howed o be thefundamentalategoryf he apitalist ode fproduction:agelabor, nd ts otal etof ffects.

Thepolarityf lienation/associationould hape roletarianxperiencendproletar-ian ideologyn the 19thcentury ecausethispolarity as thedirect esult f thecontradictionhat ives apitalistocietytsobjective orm-that etweenwage abor(collective roduction)ndcapital privateppropriation).oweverhis ontradictiontakes n a subjective,rcultural,orms well s anobjective,r ocial, orm.or tnot nlydetermineshe conomictruggleetweenabor nd apitalut t he ame ime ormsndrends hepracticalctivitynd xperiencef heproducinglass tself.Wagelabor s a contradictoryntity.t setsparticipationncollectiveroduction(labor) againsthe rivate ppropriationfvalue thewage)and orecapitulates,nthevery ubjectivityftheproducers,hedivisionhatfflictshe bjectiveocial elations.The commodificationf abor mbodies n ethical unction:torganizesnteractionsndregulates iolence ygivingnslavementforcedabor) he ppearancef neconomictransaction etween onsentingarties, orker ndcapitalist, hoaredesignateds egallyequal subjects.The proletarian-incontrast o slave, erf, r artisan-acts as a separatedindividualwho enters nto purely ual transactiony aboringor hewagetobereceivedfrom hecapitalist. hefreemarketdeology,nwhich apitalist xploitationsencodedasthe free nteraction ffree ndequal individuals,ests ponthe racticeof his ransaction



7/17

Mass Media 99between ust twosubjects.The practiceofwage laborrestructuresocial experience ssuch. nanyhuman ociety roducing,xchanging,onsumingre ntruth ocialactivities,collective and multiform;he wage transformsollectiveexchangingnto a seriesofdiscretedualexchanges f quivalents s the aborer onverts hewage nto ood, lothing,shelter, nd theobjectsofeverydayife.Exchangevaluetherebyeroutes xchanging y breakingtupandmakingtpassbackthrough he separated, ndividualizedubject.My participationn production s trans-formed,rtranscoded,nto nexpendituref nergy ormyselfotfor thers. hetruth fsocial activity,tsmultiformeciprocality,s hiddenbehind hehistoricallyroduced andencoded) experienceofseparation, rivate ppropriation,nddualexchange.In otherwords, venas the conditions fcapitalistroductionbroughtheproducersinto association, he commodificationflabor isolates these sameproducersfrom neanother n themoments fexchangeandconsumption. heproducers' eparation romeach other ntheobjectconsumed sthus he ther ideof heir lienation romhemselvesin theobject produced.In Marx'stime, hisotheraspectofwage laborhadpolitical ffectsnly nsofars itsilentlympededtherevolutionarympulse osteredy ssociation.nadvanced apitalism,however,theseparationnconsumption as become the core of ocial integration.romthisperspectivet snecessary oreject nddrasticallyecast he ermsnwhichHabermasdescribes thehistorical ate fMarx's ritique fbourgeois ociety:Thepermanentegulationf he conomic rocess ymeans f tate nterventionrose s adefensemechanismgainsthedysfunctionalendencies,hich hreatenhesystem,hatcapitalismenerateshen eft o tself.apitalism'sctual evelopmentanifestlyontradicted

thecapitalistdeaof bourgeoisociety,mancipatedromomination,nwhich owersneutralized.herootdeologyf ust xchange,hichMarx nmaskedntheory,ollapsednpractice.6To the contrary,he ideologyof ust exchange,bywhichthebourgeoisiemaskedthedominationnherentn thefreemarket,avewayprecisely ecause t ouldnot erve stheeffective ore ofsocial integrationor heproletariat.he transformationsf thestate'srelation o theeconomydidnot arise implyo counter he dysfunctionalendencies fthe economy;they onstitute reaction gainst hepolitical hallenge ftheproducers.Marxcouldunmaskust xchange ntheory nlybecause itwasalready eingunmaskednthe practice of the workers'movement-a practice generatedout of association.Capitalism, nherently nable to reverse its tendencyto bringthe producersintoassociation,had to takeup the new task ofrestructuringhe forms fassociation ndexercisingcontrol over the discourses which supportand develop association.Thebourgeoisie,withunforeseenonsequences, aunched tscultural ounterrevolution.We are heirs to the culture that the assaultof association pawned.Mass culture,advertising, asseducation, orms fpolitical epresentationrom ureaucratic orkers'organizations o media politics--thesefieldsof symbolic ctivity im at replacing hediscourses throughwhich the producers develop their association with formsofcommunication hatdisperse hem.Mass communicationddresses heseparated ubjectas constituted ytheexchangeandconsumptionfcommodities.tproducesa relationbetweenthe ubject nd thecollective kin owhat artre alls eriality-the eriesbeing6Ibid., p. 101.



8/17

100 Brenkmangroupingnwhich hemembersreconnected ith ne anothernlynsofarstheyreisolated romne another. elevisionsbutthemost ivid xample,nthatmillions fpeoplewatch he ame rogramlone.Guy ebord as alled ate apitalismhe ocietyf hepectaclen rder opointo henewrole f he ommodityndeterminingulture.nthe ffluent,r bundant,ocietyhecommoditys no longer implynobject hat omes nto he phere fexperiencessomethingnsweringdesire rneed.Thecommodity,eparatedromhe ctivityywhich t sproduced, ecomes heworld fexperiencetself. srepresentation,mage,spectacle,hecommodityspregnantith ignificance,ot significanceocatedn tsintrinsicualitiess anobjectnor nthe onnectionsetween he bject nd heneed rdesire tanswers,ut significanceonstructedutof he ommodity'separationromhumanctivity:Theworker oesnotproduce imselfsic);heproducesn ndependentower. he uc-cess f his roduction,ts bundance,eturnsver he roducers n bundancef ispossession.All he imend pace fhisworldecomestrangeohim ith he ccumulationf is lienatedproducts.he pectaclesthemap f his ewworld,mapwhich oversreciselyts erritory.Thevery owerswhich scapeusshow hemselvesous n ll theirorce.The spectaclewithin ociety orrespondso a concretemanufacturef alienation.Economicxpansionsmainlyhe xpansionf ust his ndustrialroduction.hatwhichgrowswith he conomy ovingor tselfanonly e the lienationhich aspreciselyt tsorigin.Theman eparatedromis roduct imselfroducesll he etailsfhisworld ithverincreasingower,nd hus inds imselfvermore eparatedrom is ife.The pectaclescapital accumulatedo uch degree]hattbecomesn mage.7To putthis astthesis ntheterms amusinghere, apitalhas thepowerto restructureheforms f discourseand the situations n whichcommunicationakesplace. Whereas toriginally ulled materialproduction wayfrom hosespheres nwhichmeanings reproduced, thas returned o reorganize hevery roduction fmeanings ccording o itsown logic,that s,according o the ogicof thecommodity.Asassociation sbrokennto eriality,hediscourseswhich merge rom he xperienceofalienation re reworked nto discourse hat onfirmseparation. newpolarityomesto inflect ocial experience: separation/seriality.his does not mean thatthepolarityalienation/associationisappears.Nor does theeconomy ease to set the terms f socialintegration. he preconditions f mass-mediatedxperiencewere established rom hemoment that labor became a commodity,n that commodification ransformshereciprocality f exchanging nto the seriality f the exchangeof equivalents. n latecapitalism hecommodity,s itappears nexchange ndconsumption,useswith ormsfcommunicationomake eparationhebasisof he ocial bond.As the erializingiscoursedisconnects heproducers ncommunication,heir eparationhanges rom merebrakeon the power of association to the power thatbreaksassociation. n mass-mediatedexperience, hepolaritylienation/associationsfolded ehind hepolarityeparation/ser-iality. eparation ompletes lienation,ndserialityeeks odestroyssociation. his s thedouble tendency f atecapitalismnd tsculture-to make he ubject's eparationnthe

7GuyDebord,Society fthe pectacle Detroit:Black& Red,1970),paragraphs1-34.



9/17

MassMedia 101object consumed the core of social experience,and to destroy he space in whichproletarian ounterideologiesanform.

Habermas cknowledges he econd of hese endencies n his ccount f hebourgeoispublicsphere Oeffentlichkeit);owever, e does not, wanttosuggest,arry hroughthe theoretical nd politicalconsequencesofhishistorical ccount because he fails osustain an analysisof the role thatcommodificationlays in the constitution f thebourgeoispublicsphere nd ts ransformation.heconceptofOeffentlichkeitefines heposition and function f the discourseby which the bourgeoisiecould give publicexpressiontoprivate nterest nd so affectublic policy. Thepublic sphere s a spherewhich mediates between societyand state, n which thepublic organizes tself s thebearerofpublic opinion, ccordswith heprinciple f hepublic phere-thatprinciple fpublic information hich once had to be fought oragainstthe arcane policies ofmonarchies nd which sincethat imehas madepossiblethe democratic ontrol f stateactivities. 8As the bourgeoisiewaged its struggle gainstthe surviving ristocracyand the formsof state that still encumberedfreeeconomic development,t carvedout thissphereofpublicdiscussion nd debatewhichwas independentf the state ndwhichallowedfor hepublicarticulationfopinionbased onprivatenterests-thats, heindividual conomic nterestsf herisingntrepreneurs.owever, his ublic phere,ikeall the institutionsnd ideologiesof the bourgeoisie n the 19thcentury, nderwentextreme contortions s soon as its repressivefunctions howed through ts initialtransformingffects. he ethical-political rincipleof the public sphere-freedomofdiscussion, hesovereigntyf thepublicwill, tc.-proved tobe a mask or ts conomic-politicalreality, amely,hat heprivatenterestfthecapitalistlass determinell socialand nstitutionaluthority.or his ery easonHabermas andatethe ransformationf hebourgeoispublicsphere, eadingdownto our owntime, rom 848,when theEuropeanbourgeoisie, tillfightingo secure tstriumphveraristocracyndmonarchy,uddenlyfaced thecounterrevolutionaryask f uppressingheworkers ndpreventinghem romopenlyarticulatingheirnterests:Thevery ormsnwhich he ublicpheremanifestedtself,owhichupportersf he iberalmodel ould ppeal orvidence,egan ochange ithheChartistovementnEnglandndtheFebruaryevolutionnFrance. ecause f he iffusionf ressnd ropaganda,he ublicbody egan oexpand eyondhe oundsf he ourgeoisie.he ocial odyostnot nlytssocial xclusivity;t ostn dditionhe oherencereatedy ourgeoisocialnstitutionsndrelativelyigh tandardf ducation. onflictsithertoestrictedo theprivatephere owintrudento hepublic phere. roupneedswhich anexpectno satisfactionrom self-regulatingarket ow end owardsregulationy he tate. hepublic phere, hichmustnow mediate hese emands,ecomes field or he ompetitionf nterests,ompetitionswhich ssumehe orm fviolent onflict.awswhich bviouslyave ome bout nderhepressuref he treet an carcelytill e understoodsarisingromhe onsensusf rivateindividualsngagednpublic iscussion.9

The theoretical ndpolitical onclusion hatHabermas rawsfromhishistorys that heprincipleof thebourgeoispublic spherehas a validityver and above therealities f ts8Habermas, The PublicSphere, NewGermanCritiqueno.3 (Fall 1974),p. 50.9Ibid.,p. 54.



10/17

102 Brenkmanliberalform nd can still erveto organizepoliticallyffectiveocial change.10 uchanassertion assesover several roblems. irst f ll, f heclassical ourgeoisOeffentlicbkeitconstitutedtself as the phereofprivatendividualsssembled nto publicbody, twasfoundedon theassumptionhat heparticipants'eeds and interests,s they re formedprivately,eparately,ndividually,erethe egitimateasisfor ubliclyrticulatedpinion.Now, thisconditionholds onlyso long as private nterests determined s individualeconomic interest,hat s,thefreedomoaccumulate ndutilize apital. hecoherence fthispublic spheredependedupon itscapacity o admit o articulation utone form finterest:ninterest efined ycapital, he nterestsf apital. his s the ruth f hepublicsphere nthebourgeois raandis indissociable rom hispublic sphere's rinciple.The workers'participationn theFebruary evolution nd their truggle ithin heProvisional Government p to theJune nsurrection mounted o a challengeto thebourgeois determination f the private and of interest. While the bourgeoisieunderstood he privatephere o meannotonly heeconomy sopposedto the tate utalso the rights f the individualcapital) as against hecollective labor), the workers'demands, n making conomic interest collectiveor social interest,iolated heveryprinciplethatestablished hepublic sphereas a form fopen discussion ounded ponlegitimated rivatenterests. heworkers' emand oparticipatenthepublic pherewasintrinsically challengeto its coherence, ts logic,and its principle.The struggle fbourgeoisieandproletariatver thepublic sphere ntheFebruaryeriodwas a struggleover themeaning f public and private ndthemediations etween hem.The outcomeofthese truggles,s Habermas hows,was themonopolisticoncentra-tionofthe mass media and the variousprocesseswhereby political uthoritiesssumecertain unctionsnthe phere f ommodityxchange nd social abor,while conversely]social powersnow assumepoliticalfunctions. 11owever, o understand hesedevelop-ments,t snecessary oreturno two theses: irst,hat hecounterrevolutionaryhrustfthepublic sphere'stransformationttemptedo restructure.theorms f ssociation hatspontaneously roseamong heproducers nd thus hwarthe formationfcounterideo-logies, and secondly,thatthistendencyn turn annot be fully omprehended nlesslinkedto theeffects,ubjective ndobjective, fthecommodificationf aborpower.The terms ormaking his ink resuggestedntheseminalworkofJeanBaudrillard,especiallyPour une critiquede I'economiepolitique du signeandle Systeme esobjets,whichalsohavethe dvantage freframinghese ssues ntermsf ulturengeneral atherthan hepublicsphere nthe trict ense.Moreover, audrillardpensaperspective hichwillallow us toconnect hedynamicsf onsumerociety othehistorical ilemmas f he19thcentury ourgeoisie.He argues hat necessarytem nthebourgeoisie's gendawasthe controlover theprocessesofsignification ot usttheownership fthemeans ofproduction:

O1Cp.PeterHohendahl's xplanatory ote to thepassage quotedabove: Theprinciple f thepublic pherecould still e distinguishedromn nstitutionhich s demonstrablen ocialhistory.abermashuswouldmeana model ofnorms nd modes of behaviorbymeansof which theveryfunctioningfpublicopinioncan beguaranteed or hefirstime. hesenorms ndmodesof ehaviornclude: ) general ccessibility,) eliminationfall privileges ndc) discovery fgeneralnorms ndrationalegitimations.11Ibid., . 54.



11/17

MassMedia 103Whatsessentialn he conomic rdersthemasteryf ccumulation,f he ppropriationfsurplusalue.nthe rder f ignsculture), hatsdecisivesthemasteryf xpenditure,hatis,the ransubstantiationf conomicxchangealue nto ign-exchangealue,tartingiththemonopolyf he ode.Dominantlasses ave lwaysitherssuredheirominationromthe eginningymeans f ign-values,s n rchaicnd raditionalocieties,r,n he ase f hebourgeoisapitalistrder,ried ogobeyondheirconomicrivilegeyconfirmingt saprivilegef igns,ince his ast tage epresentshe ompletedtage fdomination.2

Consumption,nBaudrillard'shrase,s theother lopeofpolitical conomy. onsump-tioncannolonger e understood implys the onversionf xchange alue ntouse valueonce ithas become theprocesswhereby pending onverts xchangevalue nto he ign-valuesthatdesignate ocial standing. he actofconsumings nowconnectedwith odeswhich,elaboratedthroughhemonopoly fthe culture ndustry,nchor he ndividual'ssocial identityndregulatentersubjectivityngeneral.Baudrillard's ormulation,owever, ends ocollapsethehistoricalontradictionshatprompted hesecondstageofcapitalist omination nd thosewhich thasbroughtbout.He treats he movement rom hesimple masteryf accumulation economicdomina-tion) to the masteryf xpenditure cultural omination) s a unified,nilinearrocess,an implacablemovement oward otaldomination. uch a viewdisregards,irst,hat hisprocesswas setinmotion s a reactive esponse o the threat f theworkers'movement,and,secondly, hat tundermined he conditions fthe cultural xperience ndemictoclassical bourgeois societyand thepolitical experiencepromisedbythe liberalpublicsphere. Faced with the political oppositionof the producers,capitalismcould noteffectivelyecuretheproduction ndreproductionf ts ocial relations ymeansof the

cultural and politicalnormsofbourgeoissociety.Mass culture nd themass-mediatedpublic spherehave evolved,reactively,o takeup this task.Moreover, heseforms fsymbolicexpression nd communication erivetheirpossibilitynd their ffectivenessfrom hecommodificationf abor.Latecapitalism as restructuredherelation etweenthecommodityndculture.Whereas he classicalbourgeois esthetics fGoetheorKant(and indeed ofMarcusehimselfnhis recentTheAesthetic imension) couldunderstandculture s the realm fmeanings eldapart rom above ) material roduction,oday heproduction fmeaningsthoroughlyoundupwith ommodity onsumption.his s notto say thatwhat was separatedhas been rejoinedor united.The production fsociallybindingmeanings an reside nconsumptionnly ecause the ommodityas thepower, swe haveseen,toseparate onsumptionrom he ctivityfproductionndso separate heproducers fromone another. n consumersociety, pendingand consumption-thetransubstantiationfeconomicexchangevalue nto ign-exchangealue --complete heseparationof theproducersbymaking his eparation heveryfoundationfthe socialbond,ofculture.In thisway,both Baudrillard'snalysis fconsumptionndculture nd thehistoricalanalysisnitiated yHabermashavetobe regroundednthecommodificationf abor. t snow possible to clarifyheconnections, istorical nd logical,between thecommoditycultureof consumersocietyand the twistedpolitical strategies hatthe 19thcenturybourgeoisie undertookas it tried to negotiate ts double mission of revolution nd12Jean audrillard,our unecritique e l'conomiepolitique dusigne Paris:Gallimard,972),pp. 132-133.



12/17

104 Brenkmancounterrevolution. arx's oliticalwritingsnFrance, specially he ighteenthrumaireofLouis Bonaparte,unravel heprocessbywhich hebourgeoisie egan, nthemiddle fthe last century, o sacrifice ts own institutionsnd practices n orderto secure thesupremacy fcapital. tgaveup theapparent reedomt the heart f tspublic sphere norder toguarantee he trueprinciple fthat ublic phere, amely,hat olitical iscourseand public discussionfallunder theaegisoftheright o accumulate nd utilizecapital.Capitaldictated hetransformationust s much stheconstitutionf hebourgeois ublicsphere.Having esorted othebald,repressivexclusion f heproletariatromhepublicsphere and frompolitical participation,he bourgeoisiefoundthis untenable as apermanent trategy. owever, ince t acked nymeans f egitimizingtsrule hroughheeffective laboration f ocially ntegrativeodes,thebourgeoisie esponded othecrisesof 1848-51 by yieldingpoliticalpower to Louis Bonaparte n order to safeguardtseconomicpower.

The bourgeoisie,Marxwrote, proved hat he truggleo maintaints ublic interests,itsclass interests,ts olitical power,only roubled ndupset t, s itwas a disturbance fprivatebusiness :While heparliamentaryarty fOrder,y tsclamour or ranquillity,s I have hown,committedtselfoquiescence, hile tdeclared hepoliticalule f hebourgeoisieo beincompatibleith he afetynd xistencef he ourgeoisie,y estroyingithts wnhandsinthe trugglegainstheother lasses f ocietyll the onditionsor tsownregime,heparliamentaryegime,heextra-parliamentaryassofthebourgeoisie,n theotherhand, yits ervilityowardshe resident,y ts ilificationf arliament,y ts rutal altreatmentfits wnpress,nvitedonaparteo uppressnd nnihilatets peakingndwritingection,tspoliticiansnd ts iterati,ts latformnd ts ress,norder hattmighthen e able opursueits rivateffairsith ullonfidencen he rotectionf strongnd nrestrictedovernment.Itdeclarednequivocallyhatt ongedoget id f ts wn oliticalulen rder oget id f hetroublesnddangersf uling.13Thebourgeoisie husdiscredited,n1851, ts wnpublic phere,whether sprinciple r asan actuality.The contradiction hatMarx here delineatesbetween the bourgeoisie'seconomicpowerand tspolitical oweralso etsusglimpse hefuture ourseofbourgeoisculture. The freedom f capital, ust as it had commanded hebourgeoisie o violentrevolutionndcounterrevolution,ow dictated restraintnbourgeois reedomtself.hebourgeoisie, efore t couldset aboutdismantlingheforms fproletarianssociation, adto exclude itself rom hepublicsphere ndfromolitical articipation.his elf-exclusion

surelyset in motion the slower developmentby which controlof theprocessesofsignification equired hebourgeoisie o etgoof tsownculture s a realm fexpressionseparatedfrommaterial roduction. he universal ulture hat he riumphantourgeoisieoriginallynnouncedbecame, nstead,nongoing rocessof ulturalhomogenization-aprocessso extensive hat tforciblynters hedomains f ntimateifewhosevery rivacyonce fostered ndsecuredbourgeoisvalues as such, ndat the ame time o fragilehat tmustrenew itself aily n every ocial groupand every ornerofexistence.With atecapitalism ven theeconomicfreedom fthe ndividualtheentrepreneur)asgivenwaytothe heerfreedom f he conomy.Afterhe iberal ourgeoisie ontinuallyacrificedts13Marx,TheEighteenth rumaireofLouisBonaparte New York: nternationalublishers,963),pp. 104-105,andp. 106.



13/17

Mass Media 105optimal deologies, nstitutions,nd expressive orms or hesakeofcapital, apitalhasfinallyacrificed hebourgeoisie s a culturallyoherent ocial class.

IIIMass cultureand the mass-mediatedublic spherederivetheirfunction rom hedouble condition hatatecapitalism aces: tmust ontinuallyhwartounterideologies--whichcan only risefromhediscourses hat roups rticulateutoftheir oncrete ocialexperience-, and tcannolonger ependoneventhe llusory holeness f hebourgeoisindividual'sife ogenerate r anchor dominantdeology.Asa result,he ultural ormsflate capitalismmustseize upon discoursesthat re connectedto social experience nd

rework hem nto discourse hat isperses he ubjects taddressesust s ithomogenizesthediverse ollective rticulationshat hose ubjectproduce.Forms fmasscommunica-tion,whichemergedhistoricallys thereactivemechanismsywhich apitalismought oretard r mmobilize pposition,rethus eactiven theirnnerworkingss well.Themass-mediateddiscourserespeaks ndso silences tssocially ooted ubtexts;t robsus ofthespeechwithoutwhich tcouldnot ive n order omakeus hear omething ewouldnotspeak.Thiscircuit, r loop,whereby xpropriatedpeechcomesbackto itsproducers sthealienatedrepresentationf their xistence ndtheir esires, ollows he ogicofthespectacularcommodity.The spectacle s capital [accumulated o sucha degree]that tbecomes an image. Capitalcannot peak,but t can accumulate ndconcentratetselfncommunicationsmedia, vents, ndobjectswhich re mbuedwith his owerto turn hediscoursesofcollective xperience nto discourse hat econstitutesntersubjectivitysseriality.Theserializing iscourse onnectsneedstoobjects, ubjects ooneanother,ndgroupsto society. toperates ccording o itsownlogicofmediation. hisdiscourse, owever,sneitherone-dimensional or totally dministered, ecause it does not generateorperpetuate itself. t is formedonly as it continually ppropriates, ismantles, ndreassembles the signifyingractices of social groups.Nor is it a purelyone-waycommunication. asscommunicationsmultidirectionalutnonreciprocal.hesubjectstaddresses reatomized sthey eceivebackamessage hat as been constructedromheirown signifyingctivities s groups.The mass communicationffacests owngenesis, ydisplacing hesubjectfrom isorherposition s a participantna collective xpression otheserialposition f an isolatedreceiver f pre-packagedmessage.On theonehand, hemasscommunications effectivenly nsofarswe hear nitsomeecho of ouractualorvirtual ollectivespeaking-which swhyeventhe mostmanipulativexamplesofmassculturecontaina residualutopianor criticaldimension.On the otherhand,themass-mediatedpublicsphereestablishes schismbetweenwhat hearandwhat speak, uchthat receiveamessage wouldnot peak nd amforced o read n tthefigurefmyneeds,mydesires, ndmy dentity-whichswhyeffectiveesistance oes notemerge romhereception ituationtself.Language s an essential imension fsocial life s such, n that subject'srelation oothersor to anyobjectmustpass throughanguage. ndividuals onfrontanguage s, nMarx'sphrase, the Dasein ofthecommunity tself. anguage s notan abstract ntity



14/17

106 Brenkman(system, angue,paradigm,ode) independentflanguagepractices-each of which sconcretely ituatedwithin he otalityf ocial relations. uststhegeneral onstellationfgroupneeds and interestssmateriallyeterminedythehistoricalevelof thesociety'sdevelopment, o thesubject'sneedsanddesires retheeffect fthehistoryfhis orherinteractions iththecommunitynd tsdiscourses. ythe ametoken, he satisfactionfanyneedor desire equires hat request r demand earticulated.desiredoesnotfind nobject independent fthesubject'srelation o others. here s inhuman ifeno pre-ornonsocial moment in which the individualorganismfulfillsts needs withoutthemediations fthecommunity.t sprecisely heorganizationnd ogicof hesemediationswhichareat stake nthe trugglesverculture,hepractices feverydayife,nd theformsofpoliticalexperience ndexpression.The symbolic ormswhichstructurentersubjectivityre themselves etermined ythemodeofproduction sitestablishes specificnterplayfneedsandobjects.Capitalismhas accomplishedthisin two phases. Classicalbourgeoissocietyoriginally oughttosupporttherelation fthe public and the private yrelegatinghediscourses hatmediateneeds andobjectstothe ntimatephere, hats, ssentiallyothe eparated paceof the household and the family.n late capitalism,hemass-mediatedublic sphere-especially ntheform f dvertisingnd the ncodedobjectsof onsumptionhemselves--hasincreasinglyaken ver thepowertoarticulateequests nd nterests. critique f hisexpropriation ill falterf tmerelyounds hetheme f he rosion fprivateife.Norcanthe tendencies fcontemporaryapitalisme resisted ytryingorestore heprivate ightof ndividuals r theprotective nclaveoffamilyife. irst fall,the private pherehasalwaysbeen sociallydetermined,ustas childrearings a socialactivityncodedinsuchaway that t is experiencedas a private ctivity, sheltered omainofprivate ight ndresponsibility. econdly, s I have already rgued, heverycoherenceofprivate ight,private interest, nd privateexperience is inseparablefrom the bourgeoisrighttoaccumulatecapital.And,most mportantly,ate capitalism as restructuredherelationbetweentheprivate ndthepublicnot norder odestroy heprivate pherebut topre-emptthedevelopment f collective xperiences--in verydayife,nculture,npolitics.The transfomationf the private phere, ike thatof thepublic sphere,has served tocompletethecapitalistmodeofproductionndextend he ssault n association.ndeed,the verypossiblity f a mass-mediated ublic spherewith thepower to providethesymbolicmediations etweenneeds andobjects ies inthetechnological rganizationfcapitalist roductiontself. audrillard as broachedthequestion s follows:At he tage f rtisanalroduction,bjects eflecteedsntheirontingencynd ingularity.These wo ystems,bjectsndneeds,re daptedoone nother,ut hewhole emainsnlyslightlyoherent,avingut he elativeoherencefneeds. eeds removingnd ontingent:theresnoobjectiveechnicalrogress. ith he ndustrialge,manufacturedbjects tartacquiring coherence hich omes othem romhe echnicalrder ndfromconomicstructures.he ystemsfneeds ow ecomesess oherenthanheystemf bjects... If heartisanalbject s at the evel f peech parole],ndustrialechnologynstituteslanguagesystemlangue]. ut languageystemsnotanguagelangage]:he oncretetructuref heautomobilesnot poken,ut atherhe orm,he olor,heines,he ccessories,he standingof theobject. t's the tower f Babel: veryonepeaks heir wn diom. ven o, serial

production,hroughts alculatedifferencesnd ombinatoryariants,uts p ignifications,establishes catalogue,ndcreates lexicon fformsndcolorswhere omerecurrent



15/17


16/17

108 Brenkmantoday onlyas it dailydeconstructsnd reassembles veryemergent orm fcollectivepolitical ndcultural ctivity.Thebourgeoisie ametopower, Debordwrites,because tis theclassofthedeveloping conomy. heproletariatan bepoweronly ybecoming heclass ofconsciousness. We live nthe ocietywhosemain ourceof tabilityndpower sitscapacity o continuallybstruct his onsciousness.No automatic rocess, east of all economiccrisis,willreverse his endency owardobstruction. hesheerhistorical act ffascism ndholocaustn the20th entury asmadeitbrutallylear that apitalism as meansofmaintainingtselfnthefaceofoverwhelmingeconomic crisis.On theotherhand, ffectivepposition ndsocial transformationannotdepend on, in the Habermasian hesis, he positiveethicalprincipleofundominatedsymbolic nteraction erivedfrom he uridical ndpoliticalnorms f classicalbourgeoissociety.Thisprinciples indissociable romts ctual ndpractical unctionf ecuringheprivate ccumulation fcapital.

The alternative ies in the proletarian ublic sphere,by which Negt and Klugemean neither reflex lass consciousnessnoran ideal principle, ut rather concretevirtualitywhich capitalismproduces and must thwart. t is the counterorganizationof social experience and culturalpractices, heyargue,which has to orientpoliticalopposition in late capitalism.The realityof thisprocess theylocate in the actualneeds and interestswhich commodityproduction brings nto being but does notsatisfy.hese immediate eeds and nterests avetoenter process nwhich hey re thebasis ofpoliticalorganizationt thesame timethat hey rethemselves oliticized. histwo-sidedprocessresponds o thevery mbivalence f mmediate eeds:If workers'eeds nd nterests]redirectlyuppressed,hats, f hey re notutilizednsociety's rofit-maximizingrocess, heymaintainhemselvess livingabor ower,s rawmaterial.nthis ualitys extra-economicnterests,heyxistn he orbiddenone f antasy,beneath aboos, s prototypesftherudimentaryrganizationf thebasic conditionsfproletarianife. s uch heyannot e furtheruppressed.hey lso annot eassimilated.nthis especthey ossess wo haracteristics.n their efensivetance ver gainstociety,ntheironservatism,nd ntheirubculturalharacter,heyremere bjects. ut t the ametime heyompriseblock f eal ifewhich pposes he rofit-maximizingnterest.16This ambivalence an be putinanotherway:thecapitalistrder's ragility,he structuralweaknessof tsmodes of ocial ntegration,reexperienced sthe ndividual'sragility,sapsychological nstability,o longas individuals o not discover nd disclose their nmetneeds within the context of a communitywhich pre-formsnd points toward theexperienceof ocialism. or thevery eason hat ital nd ibidinal eedspushthe ubjectinto a symbolicallymediated relation o others, ntospeech,theissue here cannot bereduced to therawrelation fneeds andsatisfactions,or an tbe cast sa question f rueversusfalseneeds.Theconstructingf proletarian ublic phere hus equires persistentstrugglegainst he ymbolic orms ywhich hemass-mediatedublic phere onstitutessubjectivityndputsit underthe dominance fthecommodity.uch a strugglendeedpassesthroughhe ubject; t sthevery ynamicf heopposingways nwhich he ubject

160skar Negt and AlexanderKluge, Oeffentlichkeitnd Erfabrung: ur OrganisationsanalysevonbiirgerlicherndproletarischereffentlichkeitFrankfurtm Main: uhrkamp,973),p. 107.Asquoted nEberhardKnidler-Bunte,The Proletarian ublicSphere nd PoliticalOrganization: nAnalysisfNegt ndKluge'sThePublic Sphere nd Experience,New GermanCritiqueno. 4 (Winter1975),p. 67.



17/17

MassMedia 109is situated nrelation ohisor herdesires, o others, o objects, ndtodiscourse. n thissense,theoppositionalpublicsphere s nota separate nd coherent pace or an alreadyestablished ondition fconsciousness. t s theopen,contradictoryrocessofdevelopingan alternativeogicofmediation,n alternative orizon f ocialexperience. woopposinglogicsofmediation,hecollective nd the erial, ontendwithin very uman eing noursociety.The reality fthis trugglemakes he need todevelopa Marxist ultural ermenuticsurgent.tsproject s twofold.nterpretationshichreadcultural exts nrelation otheirhistorical ituations nd effectsmustconserveor subvertmeanings ccording o theirvaliditynot for an alreadyconstituted radition ut for communityn process.And,secondly, nterpretationust e connected o theproject freclaiminganguage racticesthatunfold he horizonofthis ommunity.uch a hermeneutics ecomes validonly s itservesto construct ppositional ultural xperiences,noppositional ublic phere. t hasa politicaltask. he dominantendency four cultural nsitutionsndpractices--fromheorganization fthe earning rocess nthe chools andtheacademicmodesofknowledgewhich supportthemto the mass-mediated orms f communicationwhichpre-emptspeaking tself-is to undermine heverypossibility orhumanbeingsto interprethediscoursesthat ound heirdentities,hapetheirnteractions,ndregulate heir ctivities.Onlya processof nterpretationhich ounters his endency,ctivelyndpractically,anpreservethepossibilities fa historical onsciousness ounded n collective xperience.

mass media_john brenkman

Documents