The role of social critic in publishing and popular media

[Lark]

How do you think it has changed? Is there as much concern with it as there once was and how has the ways in which it is channelled changed? Is it merely a result of the technology or means involved? Or do you think those things have shaped it at all?

I am currently reading a fantastic book called The Alienation of Modern Man, although this book was written in I think 1958, republished in 1968 by monthly review press, which was a marxist publishing group I think but they also published Daniel Guerin's Anarchism, of which I was one time a fan, although Guerin is now an elected European politician I believe so his views must have changed or he must believe institutions have changed or prospects within existing institutions.

It is a sort of marxist critique of alienation but to be honest it could be a pop-anti-commericalism or anti-consumerism critique because it shares much of the criticism of emerging forms within capitalism which exist in just about all political ideologies which are not pro-capitalist, including conservative, romantic, parochial or pastoral rejections of industrialism and in particular tendencies to commodify everything and treat everything like it can be bought and sold.

Anyway, this account takes the existentialists and other accounts of alienation very seriously and talks about the mood of the times, I'm not sure if its possible for anyone to speak that way anymore or whether or not it was then. There are certain universal predicaments and I think in the past it was perhaps easier to talk that way, whether or not it was completely true, but a fragmentation has taken place since then and speaking about cross sectoral alienation isnt as easy, at least I dont think so.

I think this is in part due to changes in the role of the social critic or public intellectual too, if modern day movements such as existentialism were to emerge they wouldnt have the same profile, I dont think, nor would they endure as much, there are different vogues and fasions in points of view more quickly these days. Like if you consider the rapidity with which the gamer gate thing arose and then disappeared again. I also think its easier to analyse those things in terms of sociology, psychology etc. than it once was too, there's more singular insights than competiting schools of thought on it too. What do you think?

 

[sprinkles]

Media is a flood nowdays.

Things were a bit more interesting during the times where if you wanted to disseminate ideas, you had to publish, which most likely meant you had to get access to a printing press which is what made publishing a business. This led to an era where shared thoughts mainly came from books, and as a book is semi permanent and possibly widely read, it sort of becomes a persistent meme - all one has to do is name drop a book (exemplified by your post) and not only does it evoke a lot of ideas connected to the book, it may prompt someone to go actually read the book.

Now With the advent of the internet though, ideas are disseminated quite easily - everyone is a critic now, we don't need a publisher anymore. This means that memes arise and evolve very fast now and often times disappear just as quickly because they are only recorded in blog posts or forums. They're no longer attached to books which can be name dropped, we read things on a timeline, just like how this forum works. Topics are front page for a while but the topic isn't really encapsulated such that it is semi-permanent like a book. Nobody really remembers the URL for a post for very long, especially not for generations as with books, so eventually old topics fall to the bottom of the stack and perhaps eventually into oblivion.

So in summary, everyone is a critic now, ideas are easy to publish and are highly impermanent so we're now in an era of constant motion where ideas are born and reborn quickly and are much less often codified. Like with speaking face to face - once a topic passes, it's gone. It isn't recorded in history, it's for the moment. You might talk about it again later but as a concept it is merely a passing moment.

 

[La Sagna]

Funny you bring this topic up, I just wrote a sociology essay on the alienation and fragmentation of 'modern man'.

There is a passage in William Barrett's Irrational Man which speaks in a very prescient way (it was written in the 50s) about what I would consider the main cause of alienation today:

The sheer economic power of modem society is attended by the same human ambiguities. The rational ordering of production makes possible a material level of prosperity beyond anything known by the past. Not only can the material wants of the masses be satisfied to a degree greater than ever before, but technology is fertile enough to generate new wants that it can also satisfy. Automobiles, radio, and now television become actual needs for great numbers of people. All of this makes for an extraordinary externalization of life in our time. The tempo of living is heightened, but a greed for novelties sets in. The machinery of communication makes possible the almost instantaneous conveying of news from one point on the globe to another. People read three or four editions of a daily paper, hear the news on the radio, or see tomorrow morning’s news on their television screen at night. Journalism has become a great god of the period, and gods have a way of ruthlessly and demonically taking over their servitors. In thus becoming a state of mind—as Kierkegaard prophesied it would do, writing with amazing clairvoyance more than a century ago—journalism enables people to deal with life more and more at second hand. Information usually consists of half-truths, and “knowledgeability” becomes a substitute for real knowledge. Moreover, popular journalism has by now extended its operations into what were previously considered the strongholds of culture—religion, art, philosophy. Everyman walks around with a pocket digest of culture in his head. The more competent and streamlined journalism becomes, the greater its threat to the public mind—particularly in a country like the United States. It becomes more and more difficult to distinguish the second-hand from the real thing, until most people end by forgetting there is such a distinction. The very success of technique engenders a whole style of life for the period, which subsists purely on externals. What lies behind those externals—the human person, in its uniqueness and its totality—dwindles to a shadow and a ghost.

Media and social media in particular create what I would consider another dimension to life that overshadows 'real life'. I don't believe that most people today even know what is real anymore as they are all living an illusion. I would clarify that people that aren't struggling for the bare necessities of life are living an illusion, those that are barely surviving and just trying to keep a roof over their head and their kids fed probably have a grasp on the realities of life.

Because of the prevalence of media in our lives most people live a very shallow life and have no time for introspection or understanding themselves or much of anything in depth as they have to 'keep up' with all the newest information and 'thoughts fads'. It seems that today those that are held in higher regard as to how much they know are those that know many many things in a very shallow way as opposed to those that know a smaller number of things in a deep and meaningful way. The scary thing is that people create opinions and ideologies from snippets as opposed to in depth research and so base very strong opinions either on very little information or on 'confirmation bias' by only considering sources that back up their preconceived ideas and dismissing anything that might make them analyse their position to make sure that it is has some validity. It seems to me that the more people 'know' these days the less they actually 'understand'. The idea that every opinion is equal seems prevalent but it is ridiculous because unless you have a well-thought out and appropriately researched opinion then it is nothing but useless babble.

Philosophical ideas such as Existentialism that would gain some momentum in the past can't get a any kind of hold on people's psyche these days because there is no room for anything that is based on any type of in depth analysis in brains filled with so much 'stuff', but it still doesn't stop most people from having strong opinions and needing to share them.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

I would argue that "the masses" have always been a bit ignorant and this is nothing new. I don't think the average person in the 50s for example was any more likely to be critical than people are now - maybe in some ways they were LESS likely. I mean it was the 50s after all.

What has changed is that people now have a vast reach with their ideas when they didn't before, and they're perhaps just smart enough to be dangerous.

Moreover, I'd argue that some people read thinkers whereas a few other people are thinkers. We some times end up with a problem that some people don't listen to things just because it's not in a book, and at the same time these people rarely have an original thought.

The kind of people who can form opinions without quoting a book are at times also the people who end up writing the books which other people quote.

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

I would argue that "the masses" have always been a bit ignorant and this is nothing new. I don't think the average person in the 50s for example was any more likely to be critical than people are now - maybe in some ways they were LESS likely. I mean it was the 50s after all.

What has changed is that people now have a vast reach with their ideas when they didn't before, and they're perhaps just smart enough to be dangerous.

Moreover, I'd argue that some people read thinkers whereas a few other people are thinkers. We some times end up with a problem that some people don't listen to things just because it's not in a book, and at the same time these people rarely have an original thought.

The kind of people who can form opinions without quoting a book are at times also the people who end up writing the books which other people quote.

I agree that the masses have always been what you could call 'ignorant', the difference is that most didn't claim otherwise and their 'ideas' and 'opinions' didn't have the same reach so were less likely to be harmful. Plus if they were in touch with real everyday life and the people directly around them in a real meaningful way they could be quite knowledgeable about life and human nature, as opposed to those who form their opinions through those of others in the media. In depth knowledge and well-thought out ideas don't have to come from books, but I would argue that it is not likely to come from the media 'snippets' and the media content aimed at short attention spans that surround us on a constant basis. It's not about books at all, it's about human reality vs the fantasy created by media and those that consume it. You can be very knowledgeable without reading a book, more so today than ever, but you have to be a critical thinker more than ever to achieve that.

I think you are missing the main point of what I was saying, it's not about reading or quoting 'thinkers' at all. It's about people being alienated from their true human nature because they live their lives mainly through social media. It's about human knowledge, communion with nature and what it really means to be human, in the same vein as Marx's ideas on alienation and existentialist thought. It's not about book knowledge but human knowledge or knowledge of the self, and the illusion that is created and lived by people who live mainly through social media. People don't just swallow the illusion they now create it as well.

 

[sprinkles]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

Yes and I'd say that this is merely revealing a new side of human nature. I don't think humans have actually changed at all - humans didn't used to be more in touch with reality due to some merit of humans, but rather they used to be more in touch with reality due to less corrupting factors.

This is another chapter in what it means to be human which was not previously revealed because the context was not present. We didn't get where we are now in spite of humans being human, we got here because of humans being human.

 

[La Sagna]

[MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION]

Yes and I'd say that this is merely revealing a new side of human nature. I don't think humans have actually changed at all - humans didn't used to be more in touch with reality due to some merit of humans, but rather they used to be more in touch with reality due to less corrupting factors.

This is another chapter in what it means to be human which was not previously revealed because the context was not present. We didn't get where we are now in spite of humans being human, we got here because of humans being human.

I'm 100% in agreement with you on this.

 

[sprinkles]

I'm 100% in agreement with you on this.

I'm in agreement with me too.

Kidding aside, I posit that we're on the cusp of a new stage of evolution. Or more accurately, we've nearly come full circle to a point where I believe that knowledge and communication as we know it will begin to parallel how they likely were in pre-history i.e. we ultimately will go back to nature in a sense.

In a meta sense I believe this cycle has happened many times already, I'm sure we had to adapt to learning how to speak and how that changed things. Imagine how things would have changed when you suddenly became aware that you can tell stories, and perhaps even lie. Like with any new tool there will be an adjustment period, but this new paradigm that is coming will probably be so drastic as to effectively restart the entire learning process of humanity, even if not literally.

 

[La Sagna]

I'm in agreement with me too.

Kidding aside, I posit that we're on the cusp of a new stage of evolution. Or more accurately, we've nearly come full circle to a point where I believe that knowledge and communication as we know it will begin to parallel how they likely were in pre-history i.e. we ultimately will go back to nature in a sense.

In a meta sense I believe this cycle has happened many times already, I'm sure we had to adapt to learning how to speak and how that changed things. Imagine how things would have changed when you suddenly became aware that you can tell stories, and perhaps even lie. Like with any new tool there will be an adjustment period, but this new paradigm that is coming will probably be so drastic as to effectively restart the entire learning process of humanity, even if not literally.

Wow, that's quite a prediction. Very interesting, I'm not sure I see how that will happen or agree that it will but I am certainly concerned with the way things are headed. I believe that if we keep heading in the direction we're going there will be more and more mental health issues. I don't believe that this is a healthy environment for people but I don't think people see it.

 

[Gaze]

Instead of a formal committee of editors and gatekeepers being dictators in determining what gets printed, the public or popular culture speaks. This means everyone's opinion is valid, regardless of how un"critical" or intellectual they may be. We are also in a "rights' society where the most important and defended right is the right to be speak, be heard, and have one's ideas validated, regardless of the truthfulness or substance of what is said. Any management of someone's responses is perceived as censorship, and a threat to democracy. So, with that said, people tend to want to give their opinion more freely, not necessarily thinking about the logic or reasoning of what is said, but as long as it gets attention, that seems to matter most. So, yeah, the role of social critic also seems to be based on supporting whatever popular discourse or agenda that dominates news or discussion. Problem is agendas. A truly beneficial outcome of criticism is the ability to consider and discussion various angles, and not be limited by a particular bias towards one perspective. Tough to do when everything said is in service of promoting a particular point of view.

 

[sprinkles]

Wow, that's quite a prediction. Very interesting, I'm not sure I see how that will happen or agree that it will but I am certainly concerned with the way things are headed. I believe that if we keep heading in the direction we're going there will be more and more mental health issues. I don't believe that this is a healthy environment for people but I don't think people see it.

Well keep in mind that I'm not saying we will lose all knowledge. But rather I'm saying that in a meta sense we will parallel how it was in prehistory in the sense of ourselves vs. the available potential.

Or think of the relationship between a 1 inch stick compared to a 10 inch stick, and a 1 foot stick compared to a 10 foot stick. The two comparisons have similar ratios and given the right context they can appear to be the same situation.