Post theme 2 reflection

This week was a bit harder for me to prepare compared to last week. The texts were harder to follow, especially Adorno & Horkheimer. Benjamin's text was a little easier to grasp and I found it more interesting. I also tried to look up some of the concepts used by the authors, for example nominalism and Marxism, to be able to understand the texts better.

When reading the texts I tried to find the differences and similarities between them. They had a lot in common, but also some differences. But since I had a hard time to understand Adorno & Horkheimer it was difficult to tell exactly.

Under the seminar I learned a lot of things I didn't understand from reading by my own. For example Adorno and Horkheimer's view of the enlightenment. It was hard to follow their text because they change opinion under the course of their book.

Theme 3: Research and Theory

Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication (JCMC)

The JCMC is a web-based journal focusing on, as they put it, “social science research on communicating with computer-based media technologies”. The works published ranges from communication, business, education, political science, psychology, media studies, etc.

Social Networking Sites: Their Users and Social Implications – A Longitudinal Study

This paper was publishes in the JCMC in 2012 and aims to examine the effects the usage of Social Networking Sites (SNS) has on its users.  An important aspect in this study is that it compares SNS users with non users. The findings suggest that SNS users on average score higher in the social capital dimensions: face-to-face interaction, number of acquaintances and bridging capital. The research also reports higher loneliness in SNS users. In additions to this the study also identifies 5 types of SNS users: Sporadics, Lurkers, Socializers, Debaters and Advanced users.

The study argues that there is no gradient relationship between the user types, because each type has different characteristics. I find it hard to believe that there would be no gray-scale in between the groups even though general patterns can be found. The distinct user types found is based on Brandtzaeg’s (2010) theories and it’s not impossible to think that the results may be influenced by the theory used.

Theory

In short, theory is constructed knowledge explaining the world and relations between different objects and phenomenon. Theory is not raw knowledge or data. There are different types of theories, depending on how they are constructed and what they aim to explain or do.  This makes it difficult to define what theory is exactly, and is the reason there are different views on what really should be considered a theory.

The theories in the study mostly consist of EP (explanation and prediction) theory. As already mentioned, the different user types derived from the results was based on the theories by Brandtzaeg (explaining what the user groups are, and predicting the outcome based on their attributes).

There are both good and bad aspects with such a theory. Without having any it would be hard to make sense of the results and interpret it, making it hard to come up with any conclusions. But the use of a theory that explains and also predicts the outcome makes the results biased, and different conclusions can be made depending on what theory you use. In a way, theory is both beneficial and limiting at the same time. Without it, it would be impossible to make sense of the world and establish any logical connections. But what if the theory you use is false? Depending on what kind of research you are doing, your theory can be either proves wrong – or your results will be tainted by your preconceptions, without you realizing it.

Post Seminar 1 Reflection

The theme for the first seminar was very interesting even though the texts, especially Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was very hard to read. I had no problem to get through Plato's text, and I actually read all of it without skipping any pages. But Kant's text was very hard to understand, I kept reading the same sentence over and over again. In the end I gave up and watched a couple of youtube-videos explaining his theories and after that I finally understood something.

Before the seminar I felt I had a pretty good understanding of the theories (very limited but still). I had prepared a couple of questions which got answered at the seminar and I tried to participate as much as I could. I think almost everyone at the seminar said at least one thing. The discussion got pretty interesting and we talked about a lot of other things not directly related to this weeks assignment, which I think was good. I know a lot of people think the theories are very hard to understand (I'm one of them), so I had to stay very focused and listen carefully to be able to follow the discussion.

Even though I knew the (very) basics of Kant's theories I gained some new insights at the seminar, for example, did Kant really say that we cannot know anything about the 'real' world? In my first blog post I thought the answer was 'yes', but it turned out the answer was more complicated than that. Since we know, if we believe Kant, that we structure our perceptions in the 12 categories, we actually know something about the real world. Basically.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

This is my reflection of the texts Dialectic of Enlightenment by Adorno & Horkheimer (1944) and The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction by Walter Benjamin (1936). Now with pictures.

Enlightenment vs myth

Adorn & Horkheimer, from now on A&H, talks about enlightenment in opposition to myth (later we will see that this opposition is actually false, in a way), where enlightenment on one side stands for the known, the measurable and objectivity, and myth is, on the other hand, the immeasurable and the unknown. While both myth and enlightenment are attempts to understand the world, myth tries to imitate and relate to nature, and accepts that there are unknowable qualities to it. Enlightenment tries to rule nature and determine the outcomes, giving us objective knowledge of the world, but at the same time putting us above and further away from nature. A&H argues that the reasoning of enlightenment creates a single system for the world, and to do that all objects must be made similar and abstract, which clashes with the nominalist view that no such abstract things exist. With enlightenment subjectivity is lost, things are reduced to the same abstract concept. This thought kind of goes hand in hand with Benjamin's text where he talks about an object's aura and which is lost in reproduction, but more on that later.

In the end, and I’m not sure I’m following A&H’s logic here, myth is already enlightenment and enlightenment is myth as well. They argue that myth tries to understand and explain nature in order to control it, hence it is enlightenment (enlightenment also tries to control nature, remember?). This argument is kind of easy to follow. But why is enlightenment reverting to myth? One argument could be that the more object-focused we become (through the enlightenment), we ourselves are reduced to objects. Thus, enlightenment has imitating qualities just like myth has. As a result, myth and enlightenment is really standing in a false opposition.

Aura and nominalism vs reproduction

In Benjamin’s essay he writes that technical advancements has made reproduction of art easier, changing our perception of art and art itself. This process makes art lose its aura (that he defines as the unique distance to and object). Using a Marxist dialectic approach, Benjamin talks about superstructure and substructure (base). The substructure consists of the ‘material things’, i.e technique and economy, everything related to production. These are the same thing that makes up the base of the Marx’s dialectic as well, which is a kind of materialist view. The superstructure the other fluff, art for example.

As I see it, the aura is what makes the object unique, it stands for subjectivity and quality. With the reproduction of objects (art in this case), the object is reduced to an abstract thing, giving us quantity and sameness. According to nominalism, abstract objects do not exist, there can only be particular and individual things. As I see it, when reproducing art and reducing it to an abstract thing, it goes against the nominalist view of the world. Taking an individual and subjective piece and turning it into something objective and abstract is working against that idea. I hope it makes sense.

A&H vs Benjamin

Since all three are from the Frankfurt School there’s a lot of resemblance between them, with the influence from Marx’s ideas. Despite all the similarities, I got the feeling that Benjamin had an overall more positive view of the change in culture and art, seeing both the good and the bad sides with mass production. A&H seems more pessimistic and think we are all being brainwashed. I’m positive you could give a more nuanced view of their ideas, but that’s the main difference that I see. 

I wish I had more time to really understand and analyze the texts but this was the best I could do. Thanks for reading!

Theme 1: Theory of knowledge and theory of science

So, the question is basically, are we shaped by experience – or is our perceptions of the world shaped by us.

If you listen to Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Pure Reason, the answer is the latter. Prior to reading his work I would easily agreed with the empiricist camp. Personally, I like the idea of every person being born as a blank slate, shaped and molded by our experience from the world around us. But the more I read about Kant’s opinion – I’m inclined to agree with him. It makes sense that we are born with innate ideas if you think about it. How would you otherwise explain, for example, our concept of infinity – where did that idea come from? It would be hard to argue that any empirical study could give us that idea. Kant’s theory about a priori cognition also explains why we cannot think about objects without space or time (try to do it, it’s kind of hard), which I’ll also admit makes a lot of sense. If we agree with Kant’s theories about how we ourselves mold all objects with our innate filter, how can we really know what the world looks like? The answer is that we can’t, and suddenly another question arises; does it really matter if we can’t experience the true, unknown world?

While the theory might not change our everyday lives, it’s still thought-provoking and interesting for the person who’s into metaphysics and philosophy.

In Plato’s the Theaetetus, in between the chapters of men having babies, a similar rationalist view is presented when Socrates and Theaetetus is discussing whether perception is knowledge. In short, man is the judge of his perceptions – if the wine is bitter or sweet depending on the state of the man drinking it, how can we be certain about the true nature of the wine itself? Similarly to Kant’s view, this is also a critique against the empiricist opinion. Although a moderately entertaining read the most impressing part of the Theaetetus is the foreshadowing it does for theories like Kant’s. Some say Kant was ahead of his time, then consider when the Theatetus was written! 

Of course, both the empiricism and rationalism can be equally criticized and discussed, and in my opinion the questioning and dispute between the theories are more interesting than presenting a definite answer.

Thank you for reading!