Mass Media: From Collective Experience to Culture of Privatization

8/11/2019 Mass Media: From Collective Experience to Culture of Privatization

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: 15/09/2014 22:14

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 121.58.232.35 on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:14:53 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

Experience

To

The

Culture Of

Privatization

JOHNBRENKMAN

I

The

project

of

developing

theory

fmassculture nd

politically

ffective

nterpreta-

tions

of

the

symbolic

orms hat

rganize

ocial ifehas

emerged

rom he

transformations

within

apitalist ociety

tself.Massculture onfronts

s as a

primary

lement f his

ociety.

By the same token,mass culture annot tself e understood r analyzed xcept in the

context

of

its role

in

producing

nd

reproducing

he

social relations f

capitalism.

t

is

essential

not

to fall

rey

o

thefalse

ichotomy

f abor nd

symbolic

nteraction,

r to

that

between a

libidinal

politics

and a

politics

orientedtoward

economic

transformations.

Capitalism

does indeed

exploit

the

body-the

desiring

ody,

but

also the

aboring

ody.

The

very

ossibility

nd

effectiveness

f

mass

ulture,

will

rgue,

ie

n

the

way

t

organizes

symbolic

mediations nd

symbolic

nteractions

n

relation o the

body

and

subjectivity

s

they

re

affected

y

the

capitalist

ivision

f abor.

Just

s

it

s

false

o

seek thedistinctive

eality

f

dvanced

apitalism

n

the

utonomy

f

the

psychological

or the

symbolic

from

he

economic,

t

is also

inadequate,

believe,

to frame he distinction etween19th nd 20thcentury apitalismnly rpredominantly

in

terms

f

he

changing

elation f

ociety

ndthe

tate.

A

broader nd

deeper

mutation as

occurred. The

capitalist

mode of

production

as

evolved

by transforming,

n

two

phases,

the

relationbetween the

economic and the

ymbolic

dimensions f social life.

n

its

first

phase,

t

severed the economic from he

ymbolic,

issolving

arlier ocial

formationsnd

producing

the social conditions

hat

Marx

analyzed.

But

this

process,

whichwas

always

incomplete

nd

contradictory,

ad

consequences

which have

ed to the

second

phase

of

capitalism.

Now

the

economy,

moving

or

tself,

ttempts

o

subsume

he

symbolic.

Industrial

roduction

orcibly

emoved

aborfrom ll

symbolic

nd

affectiveontexts

by turning

he

activity

f

producing

nto

a

quantity

whose

value

could be

abstractly

designated by money.Wage

labor

reconstitutes

abor as an

expenditure

f

energy

productive

f

exchange

value. t

separates

rom his

ctivity

ll

other

xpenditures

fthe

body's

energy,

hich,

having

een

designated nproductive,

anifest

hemselves

n

forms

of

erotic,

esthetic,

nd

religious

xperience.

These then

tand

n

a

completely

ccentric

relation o

the

dominant

tructuring

orce

f

ociety, amely,

he

economy.

This

division

asses

into he

ubject

nd bifurcateshe

producer's

elation

o the

body.

In

its

capacity

to

materially

ransform

ature,

he

body

becomes

a

pure

nstrument.

he

freedom f

wage

labor,

s

opposed

to

the

aborof erf r

slave,

makes he

body

one's

own

only

by

turning

t

into

one's

own

property.

ust

s

capitaldeprived

he

producers

f

the

JOHN

RENKMAN

s

an

assistant

rofessor

f

Comparative

iteraturet

the

UniversityfWisconsin-Madison.

94

This content downloaded from 121.58.232.35 on Mon, 15 Sep 2014 22:14:53 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


4/17

96

Brenkman

political

nstitutions--from

he estheticsf ffirmativeulture o the

restricted

amily,

rom

the

autonomous individual

o

representative

emocracy.

The

entire

process

of

social

integration,

rom

he

production

f

deology

nd culture o theforms

f

daily

ife,

ave

been

altered

differently

han

they

would have been

by

a revolutionn theconditionsMarx

analyzed.

Faced with the historical

egressions

hat

have

presided

over

the

transformationf

society

and

culture,

he Marxist

radition as

seen a

renewal,

ometimes

esperate

nd

confused,

nd a

proliferation

f

theories

ttempting

o

demarcate he continuities

nd

discontinuities

f

the

past

two

centuries.

ne set of

trategies

an

properly

e called

post-

Marxist,

n

that

hey

eclare thatMarx's

heory

s now

dead,

napplicable

o

contemporary

capitalism,

owever

ompletely

t

dealt

with

iberal

apitalism. erhaps

hemost

ystematic

and

compelling

ttempt

o found

post-Marxismoday

s theresearch nd

theory

f

iirgen

Habermas.

Habermashas

rejected

Marx's

istinction etween base and

superstructure,

as it applies to the interrelationfsociety nd thestate,n an attempto show that he

fundamental

ategories

f Marxism re irrelevant or n

understanding

f

contemporary

capitalism,

ts crisis

endencies,

nd the

paths

o itstransformation.

hileHabermas

akes

us

deep

intothe

problems

aced

by

radical

heory

nd

practice,

nasmuch s he

recognizes

thatthe

critique

of

political

conomy

no

longer

nswers o

the

objective

nd

subjective

conditions f

capitalism,

is

argument

lso

exemplifies

he

consequences

of

reading

Marx

in

purely

heoretical

erms. he

following epresents

he

heart f

Habermas's asic thesis:

[Marx]

arriedut he

ritique

f

ourgeoisdeology

n

he

orm

fpolitical

conomy.

is

abor

theory

f

value

estroyed

he emblancef

reedom,

y

means fwhich he

egal

nstitutionf

thefree abor

ontract ad

made

nrecognizable

he

elationship

f ocial

orce

hat

nderlay

thewage-laborelationship....ince he ast uarterf henineteenthenturywodevelop-

mental

endencies

ave ecome

oticeablen hemost dvanced

apitalist

ountries:n

ncrease

in

tate ntervention

n

order o

ecure

he

ystem'stability,

nd

growing

nterdependence

f

research

nd

echnology,

hich

as

urnedhe ciences

nto

he

eading

roductive

orce.

..

If

society

no

longer

autonomously erpetuates

tself

hroughelf-regulation

s

a

sphere

preceding

nd

ying

t he

asis f

he

tate--and

he

bility

odo

so

was he

eally

ovel eature

of he

apitalist

ode

fproduction--then

ociety

nd he tate re

no

onger

n

he

elationship

that

Marxian

heory

ad

defined

s that

fbase nd

uperstructure.

hen,

owever,

critical

theory

f

ociety

an no

onger

e

constructed

n

the

xclusive ormf

critique

f

political

economy.

...

If...

the

deology

f

ust

xchange isintegrates,

hen he

power

tructurean no

longer

e criticized

mmediately

t the evel

f he

elations

f

production.2

Thevery ermsnwhichHabermas ffirmshe riginal alidityfMarx's heory eglects

the

political genesis

of

the

theory

tself.

Marx

did not

discover,

whether

s an

act

of

philosophical

or

scientific

eflection,

he

illusion

of

just

exchange.

Rather,

he

gave

theoretical

xpression

o a

collective

xperience

hatwas

already

eingexpressed

n

the

ideology

of

the

militantections f

the

working

lass.

Marx's

heoretical

iscourse

prang

from he

conflict

etween he

cientific

iscourse f

he

bourgeois

olitical

conomists nd

the

deological

discourse

n

which

workerswere

articulating

heir wn

social

experience.

The

textsof

political

conomy

were the

object

ofMarx's

ritique,

ut the

ubtexts

fthis

critique lay

in

an actual and

vital

proletarian

deology.Jacques

Ranciere,

n

a critical

reassessment f his

own contributiono

the

Althusserian

ire

le

Capital,

has

made the

2Jiirgen abermas, owarda Rational Society, rans. eremy .ShapiroBoston:BeaconPress,1970),pp.

100-101.



5/17

Mass Media

97

argument

hat

Marx's

writings

egistered

he

echo

of

proletarian

xperience

s it was

voiced

in

the catchwords

and battlecries f the

1830s

and 40s.

Marx's fundamental

concepts,

he alienation f abor nd the

apitalistic

xtortion f

urplus

alue,

were

forged

as he heardin thediscoursesofworkerswhatwas

missing

n the discourseof

political

economy.

Ranciere

ites

the

call

to

nsurrectionftheweaver

Jean-Claude

oman

t

Lyon:

To

arms,

atriots

nd

you,

brave

workers,

ho

produce

with

he weatof

your

brow this

gleaming

loth

whose luster

rings

ut more

glaringly

heconstrast

etween ur

rags

nd

the

insolent

inery

f the rich.

And thewords of a

participant

n the

June

nsurrection

f

1848:

It

is time

we saw the

products

f

our

abor. 3

Once

Habermas

has

neutralized

he

political

rigins

f Marx's

heory,

his

dynamic

f

proletarian

deology

nd

social

theory,

e is free

o

develop

theoreticalmodelof dvanced

capitalism

which

expels

the

question

of

political organization

rom

the

outset and

eventually

ocates

political

resistance nd

opposition

n

the

abstract thical

principle

f

undominated ommunication. hisprinciple, e argues, hould,butdoes not,govern he

communicationsbetween science and

politics

in

state-regulated

apitalism,

hat

is,

between

technically

exploitable knowledge

and its

implementation

n

society.

The

principle's

ealization

s retarded

y

the

effectivenessf

he

ystem

frewards nd

security

which

Habermas

ees

as

the

replacement

fclassical

bourgeois deology:

the

deology

f

just

exchange

is

replaced

by

a substitute

rogram,

hich combines he

element f

the

bourgeois

ideology

of achievement

which,

however,

isplaces

the

assignment

f status

according

o

the tandard

f ndividual chievement rom he

market o the chool

system)

with

guaranteed

evel

of

welfare,

hich

offersecure

employment

nd a

stable ncome. 4

As

n

the

description

f

Marx's

heory,

abermas ereobscures hefact

hat

he

freemarket

producedtwoopposing ife ituations,hat f hewage aborer nd that f he ntrepreneur,

and thus

generated

the

opposing ideologies

of

capitalists

nd workers.

Certainly

he

practical possibility

f

free

nterprise,

nd

with

t the model of the ndividual

ntrepre-

neur's

existence,

have

collapsed

in

contemporary

ociety.

he

promise

f

ocial

security

and

reward

for

performance

est describes the life

conditions

f the middle

trata,

or

whom

the transmutation

f

bourgeois deology,

s

it

s

transmitted

hrough

he

education

system

nd

ts

rganization

f he

earning rocess,

olds

way

recisely

nsofars t

dresses

up laboring

or

wage

in

the

guise

of

nonproletarian

mages

ndvalues. incethe

pposition

between this

transmuted

orm f

bougeois

ideology

nd the

principle

f undominated

communication

acks

the real force of

a

contradiction,

abermas annot

point

to the

conditionsfor ocial transformationxceptinan externally roducedcrisis,which tself

can take but one

form: The

amount f social

wealth

produced

by

industrially

dvanced

capitalism

and the

technical

and

organizational

onditionsunder which

thiswealth

is

produced

make

it

ever more

difficulto

link

tatus

ssignment

n

an even

subjectively

convincing

manner

o

the

mechanism

or he

evaluation f

ndividual

chievement. 5

o

get

beyond

this ision f

politics

onstructed

n

the tatic

pposition

f n

deology

nd

a

principle

which

awaits a crisis of

legitimation,

t

is

necessary

o

understand

he

actual

dynamics

f ate

capitalism's

chievement

deology.

he

reward hat

he

middle trataeek

3Cf., acques

Ranciere,

Mode

d'emploi

pour

une

re6dition

e

Lire e

Capital,' Les

Temps

Modernes

o.

328

(Nov.

1973),

pp.

788-807.

4Habermas, p. cit.,p. 102.

5

Ibid.,

p.

122.



6/17

98

Brenkman

integrates

new

ymbolic

imensionnto he

wage

ystem.

he

wage

called

salary)

s

connected o

the

ymbolic

lementsf tatusndhierarchical

ower,

othe xtenthat

he

individual'sise oa

position

f

upervision

r

management

as

but

ne

unique

eature:he

freedomo administerower-which s not evenone'sown--over thers. hisnew

configuration

s,

hen,

fundamental

xample

f

apital'subsumption

f he

ymbolic.

t

s

essential

o

recognize

hat his

rocess

s

possible

ecause he

ruly

ovel

eaturef he

capitalist

modeof

production,

he

freedom

r

autonomy

f

apital,

as urvivedhe ree

market.

Marx id

not

eflect

xplicitly

n

theory's

ink

o

proletarian

xperience

nd

deology,

buthe

clearly

id

formulatehe elevanterms.

apital,

e

argued,

ad

wo

olar

ffectsn

the

new lass

fproducers:

t lienatedhem rom

he

roducts

f heir

abor,

nd t

brought

them

nto

association ith ne another. or

Marx,

t was from

his

ssociation

hat

communist

onsciousnessould

develop,

ecause

ssociationies heworker's

ndividual

fate o a collective ondition.talso, herefore,rovidedhe onditionsor noppositional

discourse,

counterideology,

xpressing

social

xperience

nd

he esire otransform

t.

If

ritical

heory

s

to

reconceptualize

he

dynamics

f

ontemporary

ociety,

t

has

o

rediscoverts

elationo

the

ounterideologies

hat an

nly

rise romhe abricf

ociety

itself.

ere,

however,

e encounter he

uniquepower

of ate

capitalism.

hrough

ts

dominant

ultural

ormsnd

practices,

ate

apitalism

triveso

sever ocial

xperience

from he

formation

f

ounterideologies,

obreak

ollective

xperience

nto hemonadic

isolation

f

he

rivate

xperience

f

ndividuals,

nd o

pre-empt

he ffectsf

ssociation

by subsuming

he

discourses

nd

mages

hat

egulate

ocial ife.Our work

n

theory,

teaching,

nd

propaganda

ust

ecognize

hat hese

ery

rocesses

evelop

rom hat

Marx howed o be thefundamental

ategoryf he apitalist ode fproduction:age

labor,

nd ts otal etof ffects.

The

polarity

f

lienation/association

ould

hape roletarian

xperience

nd

proletar-

ian

ideology

n

the

19th

century

ecause

this

polarity

as

the

direct

esult

f the

contradictionhat

ives

apitalistociety

ts

objective

orm-that etween

wage

abor

(collective

roduction)

nd

capital private

ppropriation).

owever

his

ontradiction

takes

n a

subjective,

r

cultural,

orms well s an

objective,

r

ocial,

orm.or t

not

nlydetermineshe conomic

truggle

etweenabor nd

apital

ut t he ame ime ormsnd

rends he

practical

ctivity

nd

xperience

f he

producing

lass

tself.

Wage

labor

s

a

contradictoryntity.

t

sets

participation

n

collective

roduction

(labor)

against

he

rivate ppropriation

f

value

the

wage)

and

o

recapitulates,

n

the

very

ubjectivity

fthe

producers,

hedivisionhat

fflictshe

bjective

ocial elations.

The commodificationf

abor mbodies n ethical

unction:t

organizes

nteractionsnd

regulates

iolence

y

giving

nslavement

forced

abor)

he

ppearance

f

n

economic

transaction etween

onsenting

arties,

orker nd

capitalist,

hoare

designated

s

egally

equal

subjects.

The

proletarian-in

contrast

o

slave, erf,

r artisan-acts as a

separated

individualwho enters nto

purely

ual transaction

y aboring

or he

wage

tobereceived

from hecapitalist. hefreemarketdeology,nwhich apitalist xploitationsencodedas

the free

nteraction f

free

nd

equal

individuals,

ests

pon

the

ractice

of his

ransaction



7/17

Mass Media

99

between

ust

two

subjects.

The

practice

of

wage

labor

restructuresocial

experience

s

such.

n

any

human

ociety

roducing,

xchanging,

onsuming

re

n

truth ocial

activities,

collective

and

multiform;

he

wage

transforms

ollective

exchanging

nto a

series

of

discretedualexchanges f quivalents s the aborer onverts hewage nto ood, lothing,

shelter,

nd the

objects

of

everyday

ife.

Exchange

value

thereby

eroutes

xchanging y breaking

t

up

and

making

t

pass

back

through

he

separated,

ndividualized

ubject.

My participation

n

production

s

trans-

formed,

r

transcoded,

nto n

expenditure

f

nergy

or

myself

ot

for thers. he

truth f

social

activity,

ts

multiform

eciprocality,

s hidden

behind

he

historically

roduced

and

encoded)

experience

of

separation,

rivate

ppropriation,

nd

dual

exchange.

In

other

words,

ven

as the conditions f

capitalist

roduction

brought

he

producers

into

association,

he

commodificationf

labor isolates these same

producers

from ne

another

n

the

moments f

exchange

and

consumption.

he

producers'

eparation

rom

each other ntheobjectconsumed sthus he ther ideof heir lienation romhemselves

in

the

object produced.

In

Marx's

time,

hisother

aspect

of

wage

labor

had

political

ffects

nly

nsofar

s it

silently

mpeded

the

revolutionarympulse

ostered

y

ssociation.

n

advanced

apitalism,

however,

the

separation

n

consumption

as become

the core of ocial

integration.

rom

this

perspective

t

s

necessary

o

reject

nd

drastically

ecast

he erms

n

which

Habermas

describes the

historical ate f

Marx's

ritique

f

bourgeois ociety:

The

permanent

egulation

f

he conomic

rocess y

means

f

tate ntervention

rose

s a

defensemechanism

gainst

he

dysfunctional

endencies,

hich

hreatenhe

system,

hat

capitalism

enerates

hen eft o tself.

apitalism's

ctual

evelopment

anifestly

ontradicted

thecapitalistdeaof bourgeoisociety,mancipatedromomination,nwhich owers

neutralized.he

root

deology

f

ust

xchange,

hichMarx

nmasked

n

theory,

ollapsed

n

practice.6

To the

contrary,

he

ideology

of

ust

exchange,by

which

the

bourgeoisie

masked

the

domination

nherentn thefree

market,

aveway

precisely

ecause t

ould

not

erve

s

the

effective ore

of

social

integration

or he

proletariat.

he

transformations

f the

state's

relation

o

the

economy

did

not arise

imply

o counter he

dysfunctional

endencies f

the

economy;

they

onstitute

reaction

gainst

he

political

hallenge

f

the

producers.

Marx

could

unmask

ust

xchange

n

theory nly

because itwas

already

eing

unmasked

n

the

practice

of the

workers'

movement-a

practice

generated

out

of

association.

Capitalism, nherently nable to reverse its tendencyto bringthe producersinto

association,

had to take

up

the

new task of

restructuring

he forms f

association nd

exercising

control over the

discourses which

support

and

develop

association.

The

bourgeoisie,

with

unforeseen

onsequences,

aunched tscultural

ounterrevolution.

We

are

heirs to the

culture that the

assault

of

association

pawned.

Mass

culture,

advertising,

ass

education,

orms f

political

epresentation

rom

ureaucratic

orkers'

organizations

o

media

politics--these

fieldsof

symbolic

ctivity

im at

replacing

he

discourses

through

which the

producers

develop

their

association with

formsof

communication hat

disperse

hem.Mass communication

ddresses he

separated ubject

as constituted

y

the

exchange

and

consumption

f

commodities.t

produces

a relation

between

the

ubject nd thecollective kin owhat artre alls eriality-the eriesbeing

6Ibid.,

p.

101.



8/17

100

Brenkman

grouping

n

which

he

membersreconnected

ith

ne another

nly

nsofars

they

re

isolated

rom

ne

another. elevision

s

butthemost ivid

xample,

n

thatmillions f

people

watch he ame

rogram

lone.

Guy ebord as alled ate apitalismhe ocietyf hepectaclen rder opointo he

newrole f he

ommodity

n

determining

ulture.nthe

ffluent,

r

bundant,

ociety

he

commodity

s

no

longer

imply

n

object

hat omes nto

he

phere

f

experience

s

somethingnswering

desire

r

need.The

commodity,eparated

rom

he

ctivityy

which t

s

produced,

ecomes

he

world

f

experience

tself. s

representation,

mage,

spectacle,

he

commodity

s

pregnant

ith

ignificance,

ot

significance

ocated

n

ts

intrinsic

ualities

s an

object

nor

n

the

onnections

etween he

bject

nd

he

need

r

desire

t

answers,

ut

significance

onstructed

ut

of he

ommodity'separation

rom

human

ctivity:

The

worker oesnot

produce

imself

sic);

he

produces

n

ndependentower.

he

uc-

cess f his roduction,ts bundance,eturnsver he roducers n bundancef ispossession.

All

he

ime

nd

pace

fhisworld

ecomes

trange

o

him ith he

ccumulationf

is

lienated

products.

he

pectacle

sthe

map

f his ew

world,

map

which overs

recisely

ts

erritory.

The

very owers

which

scape

us

show hemselves

o

us

n

ll their

orce.

The

spectacle

within

ociety

orresponds

o

a

concretemanufacturef alienation.

Economic

xpansion

s

mainly

he

xpansion

f

ust

his ndustrial

roduction.

hat

which

grows

with he

conomy

oving

or tselfan

only

e the

lienationhich as

precisely

t

ts

origin.

Theman

eparated

rom

is

roduct

imself

roduces

ll he etails

fhis

world

ith

ver

increasing

ower,

nd hus inds imself

vermore

eparated

rom is ife.

The

pectacle

s

capital

accumulated

o

uch

degree]

hat

t

becomes

n

mage.7

To

put

this astthesis ntheterms am

using

here,

apital

has the

power

to restructurehe

forms

f discourse

and

the situations n which

communication

akes

place.

Whereas t

originally

ulled

material

production way

from

hose

spheres

n

which

meanings

re

produced,

t

has returned o

reorganize

he

very

roduction

f

meanings ccording

o

its

own

logic,

that

s,

according

o the

ogic

of the

commodity.

As

association

s

broken

nto

eriality,

hediscourseswhich

merge

rom he

xperience

of

alienation re reworked nto discourse hat onfirms

eparation.

new

polarity

omes

to inflect

ocial

experience: separation/seriality.

his

does not mean thatthe

polarity

alienation/association

isappears.

Nor does

the

economy

ease to set the terms f social

integration.

he

preconditions

f mass-mediated

xperience

were

established rom he

moment that labor became a commodity,n that commodification ransformshe

reciprocality

f

exchanging

nto the

seriality

f the

exchange

of

equivalents.

n

late

capitalism

he

commodity,

s

it

appears

n

exchange

nd

consumption,

useswith

orms

f

communication

o

make

eparation

hebasis

of

he

ocial bond.As the

erializing

iscourse

disconnects he

producers

n

communication,

heir

eparation

hanges

rom

merebrake

on

the

power

of association to the

power

that

breaks

association.

n

mass-mediated

experience,

he

polarity

lienation/association

s

folded

ehind he

polarityeparation/ser-

iality.

eparation

ompletes

lienation,

nd

seriality

eeks o

destroy

ssociation.

his s the

double

tendency

f ate

capitalism

nd tsculture-to make he

ubject's eparation

n

the

7Guy

Debord,

Society f

the

pectacle

Detroit:

Black&

Red,

1970),

paragraphs

1-34.



9/17

Mass

Media

101

object

consumed the core

of

social

experience,

and to

destroy

he

space

in

which

proletarian

ounterideologies

an

form.

Habermas cknowledges he econd of hese endencies n his ccount f hebourgeois

public

sphere

Oeffentlichkeit);

owever,

e

does

not,

wantto

suggest,

arry

hrough

the theoretical nd

political

consequences

of

his

historical

ccount because he

fails

o

sustain

an

analysis

of

the role thatcommodification

lays

in the constitution f the

bourgeois

public

sphere

nd ts ransformation.he

concept

of

Oeffentlichkeit

efines

he

position

and

function

f the discourse

by

which the

bourgeoisie

could

give

public

expression

to

private

nterest nd so affect

ublic policy.

The

public sphere

s a

sphere

which

mediates between

society

and

state,

n which the

public

organizes

tself s the

bearer

of

public opinion,

ccordswith he

principle

f he

public

phere-that

principle

f

public

information

hich once

had to be

fought

or

against

the arcane

policies

of

monarchies nd which since

that ime

has made

possible

the democratic ontrol f state

activities. 8

As the

bourgeoisie

waged

its

struggle gainst

the

surviving ristocracy

and

the

forms

of state

that still encumbered

free

economic

development,

t carved

out

this

sphere

of

public

discussion nd debate

whichwas

independent

f the state nd

which

allowed

for he

public

articulationf

opinion

based on

private

nterests-that

s,

he

individual conomic nterests

f he

rising

ntrepreneurs.

owever,

his

ublic

phere,

ike

all the institutions

nd

ideologies

of the

bourgeoisie

n

the

19th

century,

nderwent

extreme

contortions s soon as its

repressive

functions howed

through

ts initial

transforming

ffects.

he

ethical-political rinciple

of

the

public sphere-freedom

of

discussion,

he

sovereignty

f the

public

will,

tc.-proved

to

be

a

mask

or ts conomic-

political

reality,

amely,

hat

he

private

nterest

fthe

capitalist

lass determine

ll social

and nstitutionaluthority.or his ery easonHabermas andatethe ransformationf he

bourgeois

public

sphere,

eading

down

to

our own

time,

rom

848,

when the

European

bourgeoisie,

till

fighting

o

secure

ts

triumph

ver

aristocracy

nd

monarchy,uddenly

faced the

counterrevolutionary

ask f

uppressing

heworkers nd

preventing

hem rom

openly

articulating

heir

nterests:

The

very

orms

n

which

he

ublic

phere

manifested

tself,

owhich

upporters

f he iberal

model

ould

ppeal

or

vidence,

egan

o

change

ith

he

Chartist

ovement

n

England

nd

the

February

evolution

n

France. ecause f he

iffusionf

ress

nd

ropaganda,

he

ublic

body

egan

o

expand eyond

he ounds

f

he

ourgeoisie.

he

ocial

ody

ost

not

nly

ts

social

xclusivity;

t

ost

n

dditionhe

oherencereated

y

ourgeois

ocial

nstitutions

nd

relativelyigh tandardf ducation. onflictsithertoestrictedo theprivatephere ow

intrude

nto he

public

phere.

roup

needswhich an

expect

no satisfaction

rom self-

regulating

arket ow end

owards

regulationy

he tate. he

public phere,

hich

must

now mediate hese

emands,

ecomes field or

he

ompetition

f

nterests,

ompetitions

which

ssume

he

orm fviolent onflict.aws

which

bviously

ave ome bout nder

he

pressure

f

he

treet

an

carcely

till

e understood

s

arising

rom

he onsensus

f

rivate

individuals

ngaged

n

public

iscussion.9

The theoretical nd

political

onclusion

hat

Habermas rawsfrom

his

history

s

that

he

principle

of the

bourgeois

public sphere

has a

validity

ver and above

the

realities f ts

8Habermas,

The Public

Sphere,

New

German

Critique

no.

3

(Fall 1974),

p.

50.

9Ibid.,p. 54.



10/17

102 Brenkman

liberal

form

nd

can

still

erve

to

organize

politically

ffectiveocial

change.10

uch

an

assertion

asses

over several

roblems.

irst

f

ll,

f he

classical

ourgeois

Oeffentlicbkeit

constituted

tself as

the

phere

of

private

ndividualsssembled nto

publicbody,

twas

foundedon the

assumption

hat he

participants'

eeds and

interests,

s

they

re formed

privately,eparately,

ndividually,

ere

the

egitimate

asis

for

ublicly

rticulated

pinion.

Now,

this

condition

holds

only

so

long

as

private

nterests determined s

individual

economic

interest,

hat

s,

the

freedom

o

accumulate

nd

utilize

apital.

he

coherence f

this

public sphere

depended

upon

its

capacity

o admit o articulation ut

one form

f

interest:

n

interest

efined

y

capital,

he nterestsf

apital.

his

s the

ruth f he

public

sphere

n

the

bourgeois

ra

and

is

indissociable

rom his

public sphere's

rinciple.

The

workers'

participation

n

the

February

evolution

nd

their

truggle

ithin

he

Provisional Government

p

to

the

June

nsurrection mounted

o

a

challenge

to the

bourgeois

determination

f the

private

and of

interest. While the

bourgeoisie

understood he privatephere o meannotonly heeconomy sopposedto the tate ut

also

the

rights

f the individual

capital)

as

against

he

collective

labor),

the workers'

demands,

n

making

conomic

interest

collective

or

social

interest,

iolated he

very

principle

thatestablished he

public sphere

as a form f

open

discussion ounded

pon

legitimated

rivate

nterests. he

workers' emand

o

participate

n

the

public phere

was

intrinsically challenge

to its

coherence,

ts

logic,

and its

principle.

The

struggle

f

bourgeoisie

and

proletariat

ver the

public sphere

n

the

February

eriod

was a

struggle

over the

meaning

f

public

and

private

nd

the

mediations etween hem.

The

outcome

of

these

truggles,

s

Habermas

hows,

was the

monopolistic

oncentra-

tion

of

the mass media and the various

processes

whereby

political

uthorities

ssume

certain unctionsnthe phere f ommodityxchange nd social abor,while conversely]

social

powers

now assume

political

functions. 11

owever,

o understand hese

develop-

ments,

t s

necessary

o

return

o two theses:

irst,

hat

he

counterrevolutionary

hrust

f

the

public

sphere's

transformation

ttempted

o

restructure.the

orms f

ssociation

hat

spontaneously

rose

among

he

producers

nd thus

hwart

he formation

f

counterideo-

logies,

and

secondly,

that

this

tendency

n

turn

annot be

fully

omprehended

nless

linked

to

the

effects,

ubjective

nd

objective,

f

the

commodification

f

abor

power.

The

terms

or

making

his

ink

re

suggested

n

the

seminalworkof

Jean

Baudrillard,

especially

Pour une

critique

de

I'economie

politique

du

signe

and

le

Systeme

es

objets,

which

also

have

the

dvantage

f

reframing

hese

ssues

n

terms

f

ulture

n

general

ather

than hepublicsphere nthe trict ense.Moreover, audrillardpensaperspective hich

will

allow us to

connect he

dynamics

f

onsumer

ociety

o

thehistorical

ilemmas f

he

19th

century ourgeoisie.

He

argues

hat

necessary

tem

n

the

bourgeoisie's genda

was

the

control

over

the

processes

of

signification

ot

ust

the

ownership

f

the

means of

production:

O1Cp.

Peter

Hohendahl's

xplanatory

ote to

the

passage quoted

above:

The

principle

f the

public

phere

could

still e

distinguished

rom

n nstitution

hich s demonstrablen

ocial

history.

abermas

hus

would

mean

a

model

of

norms nd

modes of behavior

by

means

of which the

veryfunctioning

f

public

opinion

can be

guaranteed

or

he

first

ime. hese

norms ndmodes

of ehavior

nclude:

)

general ccessibility,

)

elimination

f

all

privileges

nd

c)

discovery

f

general

norms

nd

rational

egitimations.

11Ibid., . 54.



11/17

Mass

Media

103

What

sessential

n

he conomic rder

s

the

mastery

f

ccumulation,

f he

ppropriation

f

surplus

alue.

n

the rder f

igns

culture),

hat

sdecisives

the

mastery

f

xpenditure,

hat

is,

the ransubstantiationf

conomic

xchange

alue nto

ign-exchange

alue,

tarting

ith

themonopolyf he ode.Dominantlasses ave lwaysitherssuredheirominationrom

the

eginning

y

means f

ign-values,

s

n

rchaic

nd

raditional

ocieties,

r,

n

he

ase f he

bourgeois

apitalist

rder,

ried o

go

beyond

heir

conomic

rivilege

y

confirming

t

s

a

privilege

f

igns,

ince

his ast

tage

epresents

he

ompleted

tage

f

domination.

2

Consumption,

n

Baudrillard's

hrase,

s theother

lope

of

political

conomy.

onsump-

tion

can

no

longer

e understood

imply

s the

onversion

f

xchange

alue

nto

use value

once

it

has become the

process

whereby

pending

onverts

xchange

value nto he

ign-

values

that

designate

ocial

standing.

he act

of

consuming

s now

connectedwith odes

which,

elaborated

through

he

monopoly

f

the culture

ndustry,

nchor he

ndividual's

social

identity

nd

regulate

ntersubjectivity

n

general.

Baudrillard's ormulation,owever, ends ocollapsethehistoricalontradictionshat

prompted

he

second

stage

of

capitalist

omination nd thosewhich

t

has

brought

bout.

He treats he movement rom he

simple

mastery

f accumulation

economic

domina-

tion)

to the

mastery

f

xpenditure

cultural

omination)

s

a

unified,

nilinear

rocess,

an

implacable

movement oward otaldomination. uch a view

disregards,

irst,

hat his

process

was set

in

motion

s

a reactive

esponse

o

the threat

f the

workers'

movement,

and,

secondly,

hat t

undermined he conditions

f

the cultural

xperience

ndemic

to

classical

bourgeois society

and the

political experiencepromisedby

the liberal

public

sphere.

Faced

with

the

political

opposition

of

the

producers,capitalism

could not

effectively

ecure

the

production

nd

reproduction

f ts

ocial relations

y

meansof the

cultural and politicalnormsofbourgeoissociety.Mass culture nd themass-mediated

public

sphere

have

evolved,

reactively,

o take

up

this task.

Moreover,

hese

forms f

symbolic

expression

nd

communication erive

their

possibility

nd their

ffectiveness

from

he

commodification

f

abor.Late

capitalism

as restructuredhe

relation

etween

the

commodity

nd

culture.Whereas

he classical

bourgeois

esthetics f

Goethe

or

Kant

(and

indeed ofMarcusehimself

n

his recent

TheAesthetic

imension)

could

understand

culture s the realm f

meanings

eld

apart

rom

above )

material

roduction,

oday

he

production

f

meaning

s

thoroughly

ound

up

with

ommodity onsumption.

his

s not

to

say

thatwhat was

separated

has been

rejoined

or united.The

production

f

socially

bindingmeanings

an reside

n

consumption

nly

ecause the

ommodity

as the

power,

s

we have

seen,

to

separate onsumption

rom he

ctivity

f

production

nd

so separate he

producers

from

one another.

n

consumer

society, pending

and

consumption-the

transubstantiationfeconomic

exchange

value

nto

ign-exchange

alue --complete

he

separation

of the

producers

by

making

his

eparation

he

very

foundation

f

the social

bond,

of

culture.

In

this

way,

both Baudrillard's

nalysis

f

consumption

nd

culture nd the

historical

analysis

nitiated

y

Habermashave

to

be

regrounded

n

the

commodificationf

abor.

t

s

now

possible

to

clarify

he

connections,

istorical

nd

logical,

between the

commodity

culture

of consumer

society

and

the

twisted

political strategies

hat

the

19th

century

bourgeoisie

undertook

as it

tried to

negotiate

ts

double mission of revolution nd

12Jean audrillard,

our une

critique

e

l'conomiepolitique

du

signe

Paris:

Gallimard,

972),

pp.

132-133.



12/17

104

Brenkman

counterrevolution. arx's

olitical

writings

n

France,

specially

he

ighteenth

rumaire

ofLouis Bonaparte,

unravel

he

process

by

which he

bourgeoisie egan,

n

the

middle

f

the last

century,

o sacrifice

ts own institutionsnd

practices

n

order

to

secure the

supremacy fcapital. tgaveup theapparent reedomt the heart f tspublic sphere n

order to

guarantee

he true

principle

f

that

ublic phere, amely,

hat

olitical

iscourse

and

public

discussion

fallunder the

aegis

of

the

right

o

accumulate nd utilize

capital.

Capital

dictated hetransformation

ust

s much s

theconstitution

f

he

bourgeois

ublic

sphere.

Having

esorted

o

the

bald,

repressive

xclusion

f

he

proletariat

rom

he

public

sphere

and from

political

participation,

he

bourgeoisie

found

this untenable as

a

permanent trategy.

owever,

ince

t

acked

ny

means f

egitimizing

tsrule

hrough

he

effective laboration

f

ocially

ntegrative

odes,

the

bourgeoisie esponded

o

thecrises

of

1848-51

by yieldingpolitical

power

to

Louis

Bonaparte

n

order to

safeguard

ts

economic

power.

The bourgeoisie,Marxwrote, proved hat he truggleo maintaints ublic interests,

its

class

interests,

ts

olitical power,

only

roubled

nd

upset

t,

s it

was a

disturbance f

private

business :

While

he

parliamentaryarty f

Order,

y

ts

clamour or

ranquillity,

s

I

have

hown,

committedtself

o

quiescence,

hile

t

declared he

political

ule f

he

bourgeoisie

o be

incompatible

ith he

afety

nd xistence

f

he

ourgeoisie,

y

estroying

ith

ts wn

hands

in

the

truggle

gainst

he

other

lasses

f

ociety

ll the onditionsor tsown

regime,

he

parliamentaryegime,

he

extra-parliamentary

ass

of

the

bourgeoisie,

n theother

hand,

y

its

ervility

owardshe

resident,

y

ts ilificationf

arliament,

y

ts rutal altreatment

f

its wn

press,

nvited

onaparte

o

uppress

nd nnihilatets

peaking

nd

writing

ection,

ts

politicians

nd

ts

iterati,

ts

latform

nd ts

ress,

n

order hatt

might

hen e able o

pursue

its rivateffairsith ullonfidencen he rotectionf strongnd nrestrictedovernment.

It

declared

nequivocally

hat

t

onged

o

get

id f ts wn

olitical

ule

n

rder o

get

id f he

troublesnd

dangers

f

uling.13

The

bourgeoisie

hus

discredited,

n

1851,

ts

wn

public

phere,

whether s

principle

r as

an

actuality.

The contradiction

hat

Marx here delineates

between the

bourgeoisie's

economic

power

and

ts

political

ower

also

etsus

glimpse

hefuture ourse

of

bourgeois

culture. The freedom f

capital,

ust

as it

had commanded

he

bourgeoisie

o violent

revolution

nd

counterrevolution,

ow dictated

restraintn

bourgeois

reedom

tself.

he

bourgeoisie,

efore

t could

set about

dismantling

heforms f

proletarian

ssociation,

ad

to exclude

itself

rom he

public

sphere

ndfrom

olitical articipation.

his

elf-exclusion

surelyset in motion the slower developmentby which controlof theprocessesof

signification

equired

he

bourgeoisie

o et

go

of

ts

own

culture

s

a realm

f

expression

separated

frommaterial

roduction.

he universal

ulture hat he

riumphant

ourgeoisie

originally

nnounced

became, nstead,

n

ongoing

rocess

of

ultural

homogenization-a

process

so extensive

hat t

forcibly

nters hedomains

f

ntimateifewhose

very

rivacy

once fostered nd

secured

bourgeois

values as

such,

nd

at the ame time

o

fragile

hat t

must

renew

itself

aily

n

every

ocial

group

and

every

orner

of

existence.

With

ate

capitalism

ven the

economic

freedom fthe

ndividual

the

entrepreneur)

as

givenway

to

the

heer

freedom f he

conomy.

Afterhe

iberal

ourgeoisie ontinuallyacrificed

ts

13Marx,TheEighteenth rumaireofLouisBonaparte New York: nternationalublishers,963),pp. 104-

105,

and

p.

106.



13/17

Mass Media

105

optimal

deologies,

nstitutions,

nd

expressive

orms

or

he

sake

of

capital, apital

has

finally

acrificed he

bourgeoisie

s

a

culturally

oherent ocial class.

III

Mass

culture

and

the

mass-mediated

ublic

sphere

derive

their

function

rom

he

double

condition

hat

ate

capitalism

aces:

t

must

ontinually

hwart

ounterideologies--

which

can

only

rise

from

he

discourses

hat

roups

rticulate

ut

oftheir oncrete

ocial

experience-,

and

tcan

no

longer

epend

oneven

the

llusory

holeness

f he

bourgeois

individual's

ife o

generate

r anchor

dominant

deology.

Asa

result,

he ultural

orms

f

late

capitalism

must

seize

upon

discourses

that

re connected

to social

experience

nd

rework hem nto discourse hat isperses he ubjects taddressesust s ithomogenizes

the

diverse

ollective

rticulations

hat hose

ubject

produce.

Forms

fmass

communica-

tion,

which

emerged

historically

s the

reactive

mechanisms

y

which

apitalism

ought

o

retard

r

mmobilize

pposition,

re

thus

eactive

n their

nner

workings

s well.

The

mass-

mediated

discourse

respeaks

nd

so

silences

ts

socially

ooted

ubtexts;

t robs

us of

the

speech

without

which

t

could

not

ive

n order

o

make

us hear

omething

e

would

not

speak.

This

circuit,

r

loop,

whereby xpropriated

peech

comes

back

to its

producers

s

the

alienated

representation

f their

xistence

nd

their

esires,

ollows

he

ogic

of

the

spectacular

commodity.

The

spectacle

s

capital

[accumulated

o such

a

degree]

that

t

becomes

an

image.

Capital

cannot

peak,

but

t can

accumulate

nd

concentrate

tself

n

communicationsmedia, vents, ndobjects

which

re mbued

with his

ower

to turn

he

discourses

of

collective

xperience

nto

discourse

hat econstitutes

ntersubjectivity

s

seriality.

The

serializing

iscourse

onnects

needs

to

objects,

ubjects

oone

another,

nd

groups

to

society.

t

operates

ccording

o

itsown

logic

of

mediation.

his

discourse,

owever,

s

neither

one-dimensional

or

totally

dministered,

ecause

it

does

not

generate

or

perpetuate

itself.

t

is

formed

only

as it

continually

ppropriates,

ismantles,

nd

reassembles

the

signifying

ractices

of

social

groups.

Nor

is it

a

purely

one-way

communication.

ass

communication

s

multidirectional

ut

nonreciprocal.

he

subjects

t

addresses

re

atomized

s

they

eceiveback

a

message

hat

as been constructed

rom

heir

own

signifying

ctivities

s

groups.

The

mass communication

ffaces

ts own

genesis,

y

displacing

he

subject

from isorher

position

s a participantna collective xpression o

the

serial

position

f an

isolated

receiver

f

pre-packaged

message.

On the

one

hand,

he

mass

communication

s

effective

nly

nsofar

s

we

hear

n

it

some

echo

of our

actual

or

virtual

ollective

speaking-which

s

why

even

the most

manipulative

xamples

of

mass

culture

contain

a

residual

utopian

or critical

dimension.

On

the other

hand,

the

mass-

mediated

public

sphere

establishes

schism

between

what

hear

andwhat

speak,

uch

that

receive

a

message

would

not

peak

nd am

forced

o read

n

tthe

figure

f

my

needs,

my

desires,

nd

my

dentity-which

s

why

effective

esistance

oes

not

emerge

rom

he

reception

ituation

tself.

Language

s an

essential

imension

f

social

life s

such,

n that

subject's

relation

o

othersor to anyobjectmustpass throughanguage. ndividuals onfrontanguage s, n

Marx's

phrase,

the Dasein

of

the

community

tself.

anguage

s not

an abstract

ntity



14/17

106 Brenkman

(system, angue,

paradigm,

ode)

independent

f

language

practices-each

of which

s

concretely

ituatedwithin he

otality

f

ocial relations.

ust

s

the

general

onstellationf

group

needs

and

interests

s

materially

etermined

y

the

historical

evel

of the

society's

development, o thesubject'sneedsanddesires retheeffect fthehistoryfhis orher

interactions ith

the

community

nd

ts

discourses.

y

the

ame

token,

he satisfactionf

any

need

or desire

equires

hat

request

r demand

e

articulated.

desire

does

not

find n

object independent

f

the

subject's

relation o others.

here

s

in

human

ife

no

pre-

or

nonsocial moment

in which the

individual

organism

fulfillsts needs

without

the

mediations

f

the

community.

t s

precisely

he

organization

nd

ogic

of

hese

mediations

which

are

at stake

n

the

truggles

ver

culture,

he

practices

f

everyday

ife,

nd the

forms

of

political

experience

nd

expression.

The

symbolic

orms

which

structure

ntersubjectivity

re

themselves etermined

y

themode

of

production

s

it

establishes

specific

nterplay

f

needs

and

objects.Capitalism

has accomplishedthisin two phases. Classicalbourgeoissocietyoriginally oughtto

support

the

relation f

the

public

and

the

private y

relegating

he

discourses hat

mediateneeds and

objects

to

the ntimate

phere,

hat

s,

ssentially

o

the

eparated pace

of the household and the

family.

n

late

capitalism,

he

mass-mediated

ublic sphere-

especially

n

the

form f

dvertising

nd the ncoded

objects

of

onsumption

hemselves--

has

increasingly

aken ver the

power

to

articulate

equests

nd nterests.

critique

f his

expropriation

ill falter

f

t

merely

ounds hetheme

f

he

rosion

f

private

ife.

Nor

can

the tendencies f

contemporaryapitalism

e resisted

y

trying

o

restore

he

private

ight

of ndividuals

r

the

protective

nclave

of

family

ife.

irst f

all,

the

private

phere

has

always

been

socially

determined,

ust

as

childrearing

s a social

activity

ncoded

in

such

a

way that t is experiencedas a private ctivity, sheltered omainofprivate ight nd

responsibility. econdly,

s

I

have

already

rgued,

he

very

coherence

of

private

ight,

private

interest,

nd

private

experience

is

inseparable

from the

bourgeois

right

to

accumulate

capital.

And,

most

mportantly,

ate

capitalism

as restructured

he

relation

between

the

private

nd

the

public

not

n

order o

destroy

he

private phere

but to

pre-

empt

the

development

f collective

xperiences--in

veryday

ife,

n

culture,

n

politics.

The transfomationf the

private phere,

ike

that

of

the

public sphere,

has

served to

complete

the

capitalist

mode

of

production

nd

extend

he

ssault n association.

ndeed,

the

very

possiblity

f

a

mass-mediated

ublic

sphere

with the

power

to

provide

the

symbolic

mediations

etween

needs and

objects

ies

in

the

technological rganization

f

capitalist roductiontself.

audrillard

as broached

the

question

s

follows:

At he

tage

f rtisanal

roduction,bjects

eflecteeds

n

their

ontingency

nd

ingularity.

These wo

ystems,bjects

nd

needs,

re

dapted

oone

nother,

ut

hewhole

emains

nly

slightly

oherent,

aving

ut he

elativeoherencef

needs. eeds re

moving

nd

ontingent:

there

s

no

objective

echnical

rogress.

ith

he

ndustrial

ge,

manufactured

bjects

tart

acquiring

coherence

hich omes o

them rom

he

echnicalrder

nd

from

conomic

structures.

he

ystems

fneeds

ow

ecomesess

oherent

han

he

ystem

f

bjects

...

If

he

artisanal

bject

s at the evel f

peech

parole],

ndustrial

echnology

nstitutes

language

system

langue].

ut

language

ystem

snot

anguage

langage]:

he oncrete

tructuref

he

automobile

s

not

poken,

ut

atherhe

orm,

he

olor,

he

ines,

he

ccessories,

he

standing

of the

object.

t's the tower

f Babel:

veryonepeaks

heir wn diom. ven

o,

serial

production,hroughts alculatedifferencesnd ombinatoryariants,uts p ignifications,

establishes

catalogue,

nd

creates lexicon fforms

nd

colors

where ome

recurrent



15/17

Mass

Media

107

modalitiesf

speaking

anbe inscribed.

ut

oes llthis

onstitute

anguage?

his

mmense

paradigm

s

acking

true

yntax.

thasneither

he

igorousyntax

f he

echnological

evel or

the

ery

oose

oneof

needs.

t

floatsromhe ne othe

ther...

nd

ends o

be used

up

n

n

immenseombinatoryrid f ypesndmodels here eeds,n heirncoherence,ome o ir

themselves

ithouthere

eing

ny

eciprocaltructuring.14

The

system

f

encoded commodities

perates

ccording

o

the

polarity eparation/serial-

ity.

t

suspends

he ndividual's

ocial

experience

etween he

purely

diomatic iscourse f

private

onsumption

nd

a

public

sphere

governed y

the

bstract

aradigm

f

echnologi-

cally

differentiated

bjects.

The

technically

roduced

grid

f

ypes

ndmodels

becomes a

language

system langue)

which reduces

speaking

parole)

to the

concatenation f

variants,

n act whose social

validity

s

limited

o

the

ubject's

dentification

ith

he

ign-

exchange

values thathe or

she

supposes

to

be

the

nsignia

f

personal

worth

nthe

yes

of

others.

Sinceproductsnow havethegreater oherence,needshave to flowback across hem

and

must,

y breaking

hemselves

p,

nsert

hemselves,

ith

difficulty

nd

arbitrarily,

nto

the

grid

of

objects.

This

interplay

f

needs

and

objects

is

mediated

by

publicity

nd

advertising,

iscourseswhich

eclipse

the

ubject's equest

nd

replace

twith n

alienated

request

articulated

ccording

to

the

system

f

objects

itself. he

mass-mediated

ublic

sphere

deconstructs

anguage.

t

prevents

ndividuals rom

xperiencing,

n

the

social

actuality

f

their

wn

language

ractices,

he

dynamic

ontradiction

etween

heir

needs

and desires and their

ocially

produced

object

world.

Baudrillard:

If

anguage,

ecause

t

annot s

such e

consumed

r

possessed y

hosewho

peak

t,

lways

preserves

he

possibility

f the

essential nd of a

syntax

f

exchange

a

structuring

f

communication),he ublicity/objectsystem,hichs nundatedithhenessential,ith

destructured

orld

f

needs,

ontentstself

ith

atisfying

hese

eeds

n

detail--without

ver

instituting

ew tructures

f ollective

xchange.

5

In our

society,

uman

beings

annot onfront

he

ocial

totalityxcept

as

they

xperience

the

struggle

to

reclaim the articulation f their

own demands and

requests.

Such

experiences,

which

provide

he

only

viable

core for he

processes

f

political

rganization,

are

intrinsically ppositional.They

turn

the

subject

toward

another

horizon

of

social

existence,

where

people's

vital nd

ibidinal

eeds,

ollectively

ecognized

nd

collectively

expressed,

ould

confront

nd be confronted

y

the

world

these

very eople

produce.

This

experience

of the

community

s

today

evolving

rom

he diverse

oppositional

movements,mongwomen,minorities,ays,ndworkers roups, hich ome nto onflict

with the

very

ultural orms hat

ecure the

economic

relations f advanced

capitalism.

These

movements ake

art

n

the

process

of

building

he

everal,

till

ragmented

spects

f

what Oskar

Negt

and Alexander

Kluge

call the

proletarian

ublic

sphere,

term

which

signals

he

deep

continuity

etween

contemporaryolitical

pposition

nd

the

aims

of

a

workers'

movementwhose demands

ar xceeded the

narrow onfines f

conomism. he

experience

of

community-which

became

objectively ossible

from

he

moment hat

capitalism

ngendered

he

association f the

producers,

heir

ounterideologies,

nd their

forms f

organization--is

t

once

utopian

and

real.

Utopian,

n

that

t

canbe

objectively

realized

only

n

the transformationf

capitalist roduction.

eal,

n

that

apital

tself xists

14Baudrillard,e systeme es objects: a consommationdessignes Paris:Gallimard,968),pp. 222-223.

15Ibid.,

.

223.



16/17


17/17

Documents

Mass Media: From Collective Experience to Culture of Privatization