Toward a critique of systematically distorting communication technology: Habermas, Baudrillard, and mass media
Graduate studies at Western
|Abstract||Since seminal essays like Adorno’s ‘The Culture Industry’ and Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction,’ the mass media has been of central concern for Critical Theory. Yet Critical Theorists have produced relatively little in the way of systematic analysis of the concrete institutions of mass communication. Early on, Habermas seemed to be headed in this direction, especially with the publication of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. However, in Habermas’s later years, this concern is eclipsed, on the one hand by an ideal theory of communication which says relatively little about non-ideal institutions that “systematically distort” communication, and on the other hand by an increasing focus on properly “political” institutions and the formal structure of law, exemplified by his later work Between Facts and Norms. In this essay, I will show how the colonization of public space by private interests, via technological media, remains sorely under-theorized in Habermas’s work, and that this is not just a peripheral oversight but a central problem that Habermas fails to resolve. I will then give some preliminary suggestions as to how one might expand and develop the critique of systematically distorted communication in more fruitful directions by developing the idea of a politics of meaning. My argument is located within the extensive discussion generated by the relatively recent translation of The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere into English, which has produced many useful and important criticisms|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kees Brants, Joke Hermes & Liesbet van Zoonen (eds.) (1998). The Media in Question: Popular Cultures and Public Interests. Sage Publications.
Asaf Bar-Tura (2010). Arendt, Habermas and Facebook: Participation and Discourse in Cyber Public Spheres. Humanities and Technology Review 29:1-25.
Agnes S. Ku (2000). Revisiting the Notion of "Public" in Habermas's Theory-Toward a Theory of Politics of Public Credibility. Sociological Theory 18 (2):216-240.
Andrew Feenberg (1996). Marcuse or Habermas: Two Critiques of Technology. Inquiry 39 (1):45 – 70.
Pauline Johnson (2001). Distorted Communications: Feminism's Dispute with Habermas. Philosophy and Social Criticism 27 (1):39-62.
Weidong Cao (2006). The Historical Effect of Habermas in the Chinese Context: A Case Study of the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (1):41-50.
D. Beybin Kejanlioğlu (2007). The 'Public Sphere' and the Problem of 'Information'. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:43-50.
Mark Whipple (2005). The Dewey-Lippmann Debate Today: Communication Distortions, Reflective Agency, and Participatory Democracy. Sociological Theory 23 (2):156-178.
Hsin-I. Liu (2006). The Impossibility of the Public. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 2:119-124.
Drew Pierce (2006). Toward a Critique of Systematically Distorting Communication Technology. Social Philosophy Today 22:89-102.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?