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.