Barthes and Foucalt

I really regret not putting Hayek in my essay, because I think Hayek and Barney (both of whom did not make it into my essay) would have been perfect references for a review of Player Piano.

In Player Piano, Vonnegut paints a world in which the forces of production have been consolidated to very large private firms, and the decisions of production have been consolidated to the government who, with the aid of computing machines, decides exactly how much to produce of what, and at what price. Hayek would have found this a nightmare. Although the Rule of Law is maintained in Ilium, the citizens know exactly how the government will react, the rules have becomes so many and plentiful that the citizens are left with little. The most limiting rule is very simple: if a machine does your labor better than you do yourself, you will no longer exist as an economic producer. This severely limits the freedom of the people.  However, no random coercive force is used: People are able to predict the actions of the state. However, the citizens of Ilium are clearly being manipulated. They “shape and guide our daily lives,” especially in our “position as producers” (94). Since the big corporations and government are working conjointly to make all producing decisions in the economy, they have left the citizens of Ilium out of any task in the economy other than consumption. And since production is controlled, so is consumption. It greatly worried Hayek that the planners control what is consumed because it prevent us from exercising rationality and forces us to conform to the standards of a “social welfare” (96) Similarly, Ilium the citizens of Ilium have lost their ability to do and their ability to decide all in the name of the greater good. They have gained a higher standard of living and lost the reason to live.

Foucalt was also an interesting character who focused on how institutions control and discipline citizens. He focuses on the Panopticon which removes the outliers of society, those who do not fit in and are labeled a danger, into a situation where they have no control. I thought this concept interestingly applicable to Ilium. although [the Panopticon] does arranges power, it does not do so for power itself nor for the immediate salvation of a threatened society: its aim is to strengthen the social forces - to increase production, to develop the economy, spread education, raise the level of morality; to increase and multiply" (208). In Ilium, the government has been more or less replaced by a select few individuals and their use of machines. These machines to not operate under a desire for power, they always and consistently make their decision for the good of society. The framework under which they have been implemented is one of a perfect society wide Panopticon, The visibility of all men is apparent in the use of card. Every member of the society has a card which reflects every action he has ever committed that is recordable: his police record, IQ, flu shots, resume... Every member of the society has become visible to all other members of the Penpticon, and are held to the standard of the machine. The member of this society are perfectly controlled. They barley realize the injustice that has been done to them, certainly not on a socity wide scale. Those who disagree with the system are easily identified, singled out, and removed. As a matter of fact, they are so easily identified, the machines can usually predict who the outcasts will be before they identify themselves. "it was no longer the offense, the attack on the common interest, it was the departure from the norm, the anomaly" (298). Focault indicated a system very similar to the society of Ilium. We, as citizens, agreed to a contract of punishment in order to protect ourselves, and this contract has been extended and exploited. 

Negative week (and the last one!!)

After a brief moment of optimism, we return with this week’s readings to a darker vision of the future of modern life. Clearly, Barney and Andrejevic disagree with writers like Kelly, Trippi, Gilder, and Lurie about the effects of digital media on our lives. But what is the central reason for this disagreement: what, in other words, do the optimists “just not get” about digital media, according to Barney and Andrejevic? Do you think that the latter two writers might consider the work of the optimists to be a twenty-first century version of what the Marxists called “ideology”?

Also, a brief note: for those of you puzzled about what Andrejevic is talking about when he references the notion of “enclosure,” Wikipedia has a fairly solid and brief overview of the term.Barney, might possibly be the most annoying theorist we have read this semester. 10 pages in, I was already sick of listening to him bitch about everything and anything. The writers of last week might have been unrealistic idealists, but it was a nice change. To be followed by Prometheus Wired is just torture. To Barney, capitalism is the perfection both productivity and alienation. When we transfer these qualities into the digital age, we not only continue to further productivity, we also displace human labor. He adamantly argues that the world is suffering from a loss of jobs and that the jobs that are created are horrible. First, I just want to say that I have read research that service jobs actually suffer less volatility than traditional jobs in the manufacturing sector, just because people are less likely to change the behavior of service purchases than goods, like say in recession time. This also trumps his accusation of work that is turned into bits being invaluable and replaceable. I also don’t trust all the wonderful statistics he quotes. They are way to specific; it’s like he finds years or sectors that promote his views rather than looking at empirical studies. It annoys me. I also find it hard to call him a media critic. He’s more like a media complainer. True, there is a problem with new job mismatch and transition, but I think the idea is that these are the windfall losers in a social change that is supposed to be utilitarian at least in the fact that overall social welfare is increased. Also, I think the chance for low income individuals to work from home is not an overall bad thing. He makes a big point about the degradation of women, but overall, I think it only empowers women. Yes, they will work even more, but it gives them a very real sense of contribution that they would not be able to have if they could only work away from home. Am I saying that there are not problems associated with working from home? No, not at all. But Mr. Barney wasn’t even willing to consider that there might be positive sides, when I know that there are; to me, this discredits much of what he say. To me, this made it hard to identify how much of what he said was worth listening to (and I am sure some of it is) and what was not.

Okay, I am done complaining and ready to give a real response on Mark Andrejevic. I feel he is over pessimistic, but that is a reasonable response to the idyllic writers of last week. And yes, I think he would consider them to be consumed with optimistic ideology. A world that is self-policed through the golden rule is just never practical. Reading Mark A. as a response to last week’s writers is just much more telling than if I had read him as is. The caution he preaches is in stark contrast to the optimism. Last week, we celebrated the complete customization and individualization of computers as progress and success. Here, it is a threat, a manipulation of consumers in which they are asked to participated. I thought he has an amazing definition of the ever expanding enclosure. Overall, I thought he presented actual occurrences in ways that I doubt many people had thought of them before. For examples, how enclosure is both a transaction and  a division of social classes. That being said, although I was intrigued by what he said, I do not agree. I think that consumers have made a choice to be in a transaction where convenience and entertainment are traded for information. My generation is aware of the vast amounts of information collected on us with every click of our mouse. Honestly, I don’t even mind. As long as its only used to target me with advertisements, I almost appreciate it. I like the efficiency of only watching commercials that might be relevant to me J  

Optimism that I like-ish Trippi

It really is amazing to me how Trippi paints Howard Dean’s campaign as a new democracy in which the internet equalizes and brings truth. And in many ways, I think he is correct. With the internet, we get to discuss, we get to find our own information, we get to make our own decisions. The days of polar issues are no longer quite as necessary. Americans can sometimes have more than two opinions on issues, which was rare in the past. Do I think he is overly optimistic thought. Maybe, but he at least acknowledges that problems will come with greater use of the internet. “The world ahead won’t be perfect. There will be new problems” (227) But what I do not like is that he seems to feel that these problems will not be as inherent as the current systems “But I  am not worried. The internet is a the best solution to the problems we can create. It is a problem-solving medium that runs on the combined power of a billion computers,  on the remarkably innovative power of people” (227). And I am just not sure how true that is. Yes, the internet gives us access to more opinions and information. But at the same time, television has begun to be a much more inclusive media. The internet might have more capabilities, but it still has the potential op putting power in the hands of the select few. The original information must come from somewhere, regardless of who that is. At least when we know that all of our information is coming in from three news stations we know who to monitor, who to hold accountable for correct information and who to call out if it’s wrong. On the internet, possibilities are endless and responsibility is diminished. In a way, I am not even allowed to assume the information I obtain form these medium is accurate unless the source also has an offline sector (Like the New York Times online).

All of this is not to say that I don’t agree with Trippi, in the long term. “These are not just markets anymore. They’re communities . And we’re not just consumers, we’re citizens. We’re looking for companies, politicians, and institutions that will build the best communities” (209. The internet is making us demand a lot more of companies that want to stick around, that want to be in our good graces. However, the internet, the making of the instant and anonymous also gives people a sense of impermeability while being able to permeate everyone else. If I want to make a scam company, easier on the internet. False information, easier on the internet.

However, (last switching of sides) my favorite quote Is “Americans must participate fully in democracy for it to work. And I believe the Internet is the best tool we’ve ever created to help achieve that” (226). Near the middle of the reading, Trippi comment on how so much of what the populace wants, the most democratic populace in the world, doesn’t seem to happen. Yes, the internet isn’t perfect, it might even be more flawed than Trippi lets on, but I agree, it is probably the most democratic technology we have invented. Those possibilities also make it a scare technology, because they could work the other way, but the old systems are only digging us further into bribery, debt, and consumerism. At least with the internet we have hope positive change. 

Let's get Optimistic! Again!

One of the common themes that runs through this week's readings is the inherent emancipatory power of modern digital media. What do you make of this? Can media as such be liberating?

Negroponte is undeniably optimistic about the future the digital age promises. Hence the referral of this as the “An Age of Optimism.” His optimism mostly lies in the distinction he draws between information in bits and information in atoms. Atoms are bound by the physical and therefore by laws and political agendas. Bits on the other hand are “borderless, stored and manipulated with absolutely no respect for geological boundaries,” as Negroponte points out, they cannot be held up at customs. Most importantly though is “the access, the mobility, and the ability to affect change that will make the future so different from the present.” Although this may seem vague, he also provides many solid examples. To me, the most intriguing was his illustration of the way the digital age may view work. Going back to the readings we did on Stewart Brand, it struck me how Turner emphasized how Brand and those of his generation were as afraid for their loss of freedom and individuality by communism as by the mundane middle class work industrial life offered them. Hence, Brand and many others who wanted to emancipate themselves from the dredges of daily life turned to technology and what was to become a digital world. To Negroponte, this has resulted in “the crisp line between love and duty will blur by virtue of a common denominator – being digital” I think this definitely has a case and point, the nerds of the past are being replaced by socially capable nerds who want to mix their work with fun and play.

Barlow explores similar but different avenues of emancipation to be rendered by modern digital media. He echoes Turkle in the conviction that cyberspace is different from the real world. It is democratic and self governs where in the real world we need to come together to consent to be regulated. In cyberspace this has not happened, because there has been no need for consented regulation. In a way, I agree with Barlow, but in some ways I don’t. I understand that he may have a point about the inadequacies of government regulation. I also trust that trying to impose old standards on something so inherently different will only prove problematic. However, cyberspace and the real world are not as separate as he makes them out to be. They are not two separate worlds. And since there is some serious overlap, you cannot regulate one without regulating the others especially with so many business going on the web. Regardless, his made for the most interesting reading.

Gilder takes me back to McLuahn and the argument of cold and hot media. I think his emphasis on the computer as a much more democratic process of viewing, editing, and making your own images has been proven over 100 times correct, and it definitely has affected the way the populace view media. My favorite quote “the telecomputer will enrich and strengthen democracy and capitalism all around the world” ha ha. Love the fear of the Japanese. I enjoyed and understood the reading, but I felt the beginning did not add much to the media theory we already read, and end was just him giving drastic end of America’s supremacy warnings?

Overall, I think that these authors are correct, just as many of the others were. New technology always seems to move us towards a more democratic system. It always comes with its problems, but the great levilizing power of media changes cannot be denied.

Women Week

Concerning the potential of females to make an impact using either mass media or the newer media, Ann Tyler would presumable give the same answer. Women have historically been important socially and in media regardless of what the linear historical record might suggest. This capacity to alter and change history is not limited to the past technologies, but will continue in the present and the future. I am sure that Tyler would extend this influence and capacity of women to political potential.

It seems that the mass media of the decades preceding World War II, were usually a reflection of an elite society. The change in media had not been the number of people who actually had control and influence over the content of media, but rather a shift in how many people thought that the media was a reflection of themselves: whether it really is a reflection, is debatable. Turkle explores how the virtual world offered by the MUDs might have a similar problem: “if the politics of virtuality means democracy online and apathy offline, there is reason for concern” (244). The new medium is not free of any of the fears that centered on other media.  The idea that virtual life, just as older forms of media, may only work to alienate the masses and keep them from participation is a worry for Turkle. She also paints the scenario of how new media could become a modern day social Panopticon; hardly a pleasant thought. However, new media also has the hope that came with the older media. “Today many are looking to computers and virtual reality to counter social fragmentation and atomization; to extend democracy; to break down division of gender, race and class; and to lead to a renaissance of learning” (245).  Turkle relays how the ability to be anyone in a MUD, say someone from a different gender, can give some insight into their perspectives; that it might be a way to simulate walking in someone else’s shoes. The problem then, is knowing how much of it is simulation and how much is real life. A man can understand some of the outward social problems a woman might experience in the virtual world, but he can never understand all of the physical and emotional aspects encountered in the real world. It is wonderful that we can gain some knowledge from simulation, but only if we understand that this knowledge is extremely limited. Turkle emphasizes that the fact that the virtual is not real is what makes it all the wonderful things that it is: an escape, a demonstration against the real world, a learning experience. However, the lack of embodiment and real world implications also means the virtual world is lacking something, and I think that something is meaning, although Turkle never says so. But in the end, I think that is why all of her examples of the virtual world doing good involve “a permeable border between the real and the virtual” (246). The things she likes about virtual worlds is the psychological compensation and political criticism which according to Turkle, “give precedence to the events in the real world” (249). The virtual world is a great escape because it can be made perfect through programming. However, using it as a permanent escape isn’t practical. We still have to live in the real world. So I think the implication is that we have to use the virtual world and then understand if and how it is applicable to the real world, just doing the first is not necessarily harmful, but it also is not helpful.

(mostly) Turner and (less so) Hayles

Both Hayles and Turner emphasize the clash of old thought and new ideas in the rise of new media culture. The progressive leaders they discuss never so much seemed to propose some radically new idea, so much as they just kept extending and progressing thoughts and theories that already existed. I think Turner (my favorite of the two) especially shows how the individuals and groups that were creating this new world were always creating it as a response.

On the whole, the new media world was a response to both Turner and Hayles. For Hayles, it was a intellectual response to the war and the implications of information theory. For Tuner, it was a response to cold war thinking and the wish to escape the organizational structure of the looming Russian soldier and industrial man. The generation that was to produce the men that would take media culture onto a new level was looking for a different way to approach the world. Many new scientific discoveries supported a more communal and less hierarchal way of thinking, and the generation in turn responded by following this avenue presented to them. Turner has many statements implying that the “new” trends were in one aspect an attack on the cold war world and its philosophies and in another aspect “a celebration a migration towards the de-centralized, systems oriented forms of thought then occurring at the center of the scientific establishment” (47). I think Turner does an amazing job of showing how these response to the scientific discoveries varied across different areas: science, arts, politics, life style, media theory etc. and how these responses then became an overreaching new world that encompassed all of these areas. For Turner, what it always comes back to is the inclusion of all of these areas into media. While this was not new, it was different, but only as a sort of warping form cold war thinking. Turner repeatedly goes emphasizes how these thinkers, artists, etc. who wished to produce something new, always got their original ideas form cold war thinking. They were a product of that kind of thought, and although they disliked it, they had to use it to change it. An example would be one groups wish to move away from politics as a way to change the system since it was the system. However, it seemed that the direction the other group took to follow that philosophy was to try to change business. Today, we see big business as a similar entity to government. So, were they really getting away from the mechanisms of society to change society, or did they just recognize early that the mechanisms were changing?

So, I think the answer for both Hayles and Turner, although my emphasis is on Turner, is that these thinkers provide evidence that although the leading intellectuals after WWII created a rather new world, this world is made of the spare parts of the preceding world. Their ideas and actions may have been radical, but they were not utterly new since they were so grounded in a reaction to previous thought, regardless of if this is media theory, as for Hayles, or a more social theory, as with Turner.

Debord and Baudrillard

Both Debord and Baudrillard would seem to agree with McLuhan insofar as all three men believe that our modern electronic media environment has introduced a kind of radical break with the recent past. Baudrillard even cites McLuhan’s famous phrase, “the medium is the message” in his essay (although he means something quite different than what McLuhan meant by it). The big difference between the Frenchmen and McLuhan is that the former appear to be quite critical of these changes, whereas McLuhan was considerably more sanguine. What is it about the modern electronic media that so disturbs Debord and Baudrillard?

Debord was interesting because he would go from quoting to disagreeing with McLuhan and Enzensberger in the same breath. Like the previous two authors, Debord feels that previous forms of media have been less than helpful in doing anything to ease or revolutionize the class struggle. However, unlike McLuhan, Debord wants this revolution to take place and sees it is a progression towards humanity. Debord and Enzensberger share their decision to pin their hopes for true communication on the new media of their ages. The exception is that For Debord the new technological advances are of little use because they enter into the system of social and political norms. “It is a strategic illusion to have any faith in the critical reversal of the media. A comparable speech can emerge only from the destruction of media such as they are – through their deconstruction as systems of non-communication” (284). Mass media simply integrates everyone into the problematic system rather than fixing it. Therefore, we need to break the system, not add people to it. Debord hopes to see this destruction begin with graffiti. Not that writing, TV, or other form of media will disappear just because Debord’s champion graffiti has finally broke the system that regulated revolutions within just by existing. Rather, the system itself will be reformed allowing people to be “neither transmitters nor receivers, but only people responding to each other” (286).

What I am starting to find curious about all of these is their need for a revolution. This revolution is to be caused by a media that will the system, the status quo, or whatever authors to call it. Now, I really appreciate McLuhan because while he does see media and its effects on society as revolutionary and important, he doesn’t think that humanity is moving towards some revolution that needs to be won. I agree with him that we tend to think of these as linear. This makes us very cause and effect minded and we like to think that everything is progressing to a grand revolution. Maybe there are no revolution. Maybe the reversals is all there is not just disguises of a self regulated system like Debord claims.

Badrillard might see more of a continuum in our  history rather than a progression. However, he hardly sees this as an optimistic things since he believes that the entire history of human kind is a series of spectacles that are “a social relationship between people that is mediated by images” (12). These images aren’t a true representation of what is there, it is a façade of unification that is fabricated (not necessarily intentionally) out an isolated group in the society. In the modern age, the spectacle, ruled by images has been promoted itself to ever greater development “The spectacles… covers the entire globe, basking in the perpetual glow of its own glory. Because we are going moving to ever increasing consumption and ever increasing of the consumption of the appearance of things, like TV shows or fake reality TV, I could definitely see how we are now overcome by the spectacle of things. How much of our consumption is based on the appearance of something rather than any physical thing?

Both Badrlliard and  Debord who equated this with the idea that the consumer, viewer, voter etc no longer thought about the means of production but was simply idle and satisfied with the spectacle, taking no part in anything but the extremely limited choice of whether to accept or reject what was placed before them. Deobord’s system and Badrillard’s spectacle are both self sustaining, and new media has made them particularly numbing. The two share concern over the ability of the masses to respond or even recognize that they are working, living, and consuming for ‘the man.’

McLuhan

So... this post it waaaaaay late. despite the fact that I was the one who lead the discussion on it. whoops!

Writing used to unite people with their ancestors, now it unites them with their current world. Cold media (such as telephone, television, hieroglyphics, electricity) have high participation give littler information and therefore giving the choice to listener. It unifies and includes across the ages. Hot media (such as radio, alphabet, railway) have low participation, a lot of information, extends the senses to high definition, it is for the specialized and therefore, alienating, excluding. Because the two are so different, almost opposites, one period following another can be very destructive.

Literature dominates our life it has changed our philosophy to a linear one of reason. Yet, this reason to us simply means the uniform, the continuous, and the two dimensional sequential. In the electric age where linearity became outdated, our reason seems outdated.  The breaking point of the electric age was making things instant and therefore imploding a world that had been exploding. Our literal minds are unprepared for the extension of ourselves (technology and mediums) that are no longer lineal, so we keep it as an extension it is not suited for topics that are “hot”. Reading isolated us and will not let us see the ‘big’ picture. Now that the big picture is here we sling to frame or go into shock because it has the capacity to change our life. Similarly, we stick to the intelligent man who is simply the uniform and they are too embedded in uniform culture to notice its problems. It is not a far jump to say that we have put a limit on the intelligence of man by limiting him to a certain uniformity.

Beyond limiting us, our inability to think in the new terms causes us to go into a kind of shock. “…TV axe has turned the hot American culture into a cool one that is quite unacquainted with itself” (27). We are used to thinking of ourselves only and how we matter to the world (an exploding mind set). Our new media is cool and therefore exploding. However, we have not adjusted to this yet. Therefore, McLuhan suggests we have to go back to the thinking of our old ways in order to react to this new world. In order to get over the shock of this new technology and accept it as a true extension of ourselves, we have to get rid of our specialized thinking and habits; we have to regain our traditional inclusive culture because it is compatible with the imploding world still to come.

I thought it was really interesting that McLuhan divided all of culture into these categories of hot and cold and how he related all of them to each other. However, he makes almost no commentary on one being better than the other. Despite careful reading, he seemed to say neither. Coolness or heat are not bad in themselves, it is simply the shock of being stuck in a culture that is unlike what one is accustomed to that leaves a society in a bad space. I think this is easily seen in our popular culture. Everything calls for communication and connection. However, almost all people feel like they are missing someone, they feel inexplicably lonely amidst all of the communication and connection devices.

First post, Wiener and Shannon/Weaver

The title of Wiener’s book, already says a great deal about his view on implementing technology: Human Use of Human Beings – Cybernetics and Society. Although the book is about cybernetics – effectively using messages to control – and how a society functions with and without machines to control. Unlike what society might expect from the author of such a book, Wiener seems to take a rather uncapitalistic and un faschist (which is hard to do at the same time) stance on the use of machines. “I wish to devote this book to a protest against inhuman use of human beings… those who suffer from a power complex find the mechanization of man a simple way to realize their ambitions” (16). Wiener implies that humans were special in their capacity for complex actions in which the used sensory organs as well as memory to decide and perform actions where they relied on feedback from performed actions. However, machines begin to have more and more the capacity to do mimic and parallel human behavior. Yet, Wiener does not see this as substantial grounds to replace one with the other despite increased efficiency (wham to the capitalists) nor the need for men of ambition to have “all orders come form above and not reurn” (15) (wham to the fascist). It was extremely interesting to hear a scholarly argument, and moreover such a technical argument, against using machines or using humans like machines since most of arguments of the kind are usually made on moral or sympathetical justification.

A concern for both Wiener and Shannon/Weaver seemed to be the loss of the intended message. Both spend a considerable amount of time on the selection of a message, its transmitter, signal, receiver (coding, patterns, transmittance) and the encoding and interpretation at the end again. Because information (messages) are used to control other humans and machines, misinterpretation can be a huge deal, especially as the message becomes more complex(less regular pattern)

Gotta run! More later!

Ezensberger

Although Enzensberger has severe criticisms toward the new media and the beneficial role it plays as a tool for the bourgeois class and capitalists, he also sees the past potential of literature as a revolutionary tool and the present potential of new media.  This potential for mobilization and revolution l is a threat to both capitalistic and Soviet ways and can therefore bring about the Great Marxist Revolution (I think).

First, electronic media has permeated society in every way, and will continue to do this in an even more noticeable way as proven by current times where media such a facebook, twitter, blogs etc are relevant. New media enables everyone to become part of the world’s communication and its debates. Technologically, new media bring us up to par. A lack of communication between producer and consumer  that makes the consumer passive and isolates him “cannot be justified technically” any longer (97). Further, there are such extensive systems now that they cannot possibly all be monitored; it is impossible. Although according to Enzensberger, both capitalists and communists have tried to thwart this communication of the masses, or at least its implications, this is only short lived “it cannot be maintained in the long run” unless one is willing to deal with “deliberate industrial regression” (99).

Enzensberger has some complaints with the use of media as a manipulation device that only brings tolerance “a vehicle for resignation” (101) and its inability and to satisfy the need for a utopia which is easily exploited by capital (112 & 113). However, he sees new media as having at least the ability to transcend these powers if used correctly. “The electronic media do away with cleanliness; they are by nature ‘dirty.’ That is part of their provocative power. In terms of structure, they are antisectartian” which provides for “rational discussion” (102). Because media is manipulative in nature, it will take new media and the inclusion of “everyone as a manipulator” to get a completely democratic Marxist revolution (104). Ezenberger has hope for this new media because like books as a new revolutionary media form centuries ago, new media can produce revolutionary effects. They just have the added bonus of “do[ing] away with all educational privileges and thereby with the cultural monopoly of the bourgeois intelligentsia” (105) because they enable anyone to become a producer of communication, manipulation, imagination, and ideas. Ezensberger, who believes that organization is key to the needed revolution, sees new media as bringing the kind of organization that “Abolishes class character of the mode of media production” (124). The grand Marxist Revolutions J

Arendt and Benjamin

Ardent claims that culture has always been under a kind of attack that she defines as functionalization. Before mass culture, refined society regarded certain works as “culture” and then treated them as possessions much like currency to be traded for increased social status. Mass Culture on the other hand has taken culture when what it wants is entertainment and therefore treats it as such. Great works that are supposed to be able to revolutionize society are consumed and then changed to follow the entertainment process. The problem is not their mass distribution but rather their alteration in order so that may be re-distributed. Mass culture is the act of individuals trying to entertain the masses with what was once an authentic object of culture and calling it education. This is not only not education, it destroys the work where as in previous society works were only worn out by the functionalization. There are few intellectuals who are concerned with the separation of culture and entertainment, who wish to preserve culture because other intellectuals are taking these authentic cultural objects and trying to feed them to the masses as entertainment. I would assume that the role of the intellectual is then to ensure a divide between entertainment and culture, and maybe even culture and social standing. Works should be observed for their greatness alone, not for their perception by society nor their possible entertainment value. And never, should great works be changed in order to make them more entertaining. If you want entertainment, get entertainment. If you want education, get educated. No overlap needed. But I am not sure about that.  Aren’t some of the great works really good because they in a way entertain you. To think is a form of entertainment, and should I not read Plato because his conversations inspire musings that I enjoy?

Benjamin makes similar claims to the roles of intellectuals but also seems to say the exact opposite. He claims that the use or beauty or quality of a work of literature is not in its beauty, and should therefore not be appreciated for beauty alone as Ardent claims, but he makes the same accusations that some intellectuals use literature (Ardendt’s culture?) as entertainment even when it seems to have a serious (Ardendt’s educational?) purpose. However, while Arendt makes pleads with intellectuals to protect culture by taking all functionality out of it, Benjamin claims that only literature with functionality has quality. However I am not sure that they are necessarily disagreeing as Ardent is speaking of how society uses cultural objects while Benjamin speaks to the content of the work itself.