In retrospect, Theme 2 - The critical part of this study

Within the margin of error

If there is one thing I have learned this week, it is that I was wrong, ohh yes so very wrong in so many ways.

Not only did I answer the questions in the wrong order, I somehow completely missed the point of two questions, namely putting them into context. Thankfully, these are things I have learned during the seminar and the error of my ways are in that way corrected.

First off, I never really gathered, from the text that is, that Adorno and Horkheimer saw some culture (film specifiably) as an instrument of oppression. By showing the "ideal" society, a film could cement the way thing were, the nominalism was the conservative argument against change.

Secondly, and by now maybe even obviously, I missed the main point about the function of the term "myth". Myth is, much as I gathered in my first post, the umbrella term for all "truths" that neither falsifiable or rational, but in the wider context of the text it is also something else. During the seminar, I learned that (according to the authors) the term is referring to the fact that our Enlightenment did not only erase old myths, it also gave birth to new ones within the confines of perceived knowledge.


It is indeed clear, that due to my historically determined perception (and in this instance completely absent mind) I managed to read through a whole text without really understanding the major point. This particular point being, in a somewhat summarized form, that;

Enlightment itself is becoming a Myth, falling into its own mythology, due to the rise of fascism in the wake of the failed liberal states.

The whole argument seems to revolve around the fact that reason is slowly falling into a regressive state, instead being replaced by superstition and docile passivity.


Next up was Benjamin's text, where I also failed to grasp the finer details of his major points. Culture is indeed revolutionary, simply by giving the masses the power to indulge in and practise art. Film, for instance, can show the common man, and photography lets that same common man capture and copy photos.

Another interesting fact that I was made aware of was that he actually refrains from giving distinct answers to any of the posed questions, rather, he seems to be satisfied just having raised the thought.

Ahh well, I'd far rather be happy than right any day!