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.