“… the (realistic) discourse adheres mythically to an expressive function: it pretends to believe in the prior existence of a referent (a reality) that it must register, copy, communicate …”
This short phrase from S/Z contains everything that History ought to be worried about but willfully ingnores.
The ‘exclusion activity’ of discourse was made clear by Debord.
“The spectacle is the ruling order’s nonstop discourse about itself, its never-ending monologue of self-praise, its self-portrait at the stage of totalitarian domination of all aspects of life. The fetishistic appearance of pure objectivity in spectacular relations conceals their true character as relations between people and between classes: a second Nature, with its own inescapable laws, seems to dominate our environment. But the spectacle is not the inevitable consequence of some supposedly natural technological development. On the contrary, the society of the spectacle is a form that chooses its
own technological content. If the spectacle, considered in the limited sense of the “mass media” that are its most glaring superficial manifestation, seems to be invading society in the form of a mere technical apparatus, it should be understood that this apparatus is in no way neutral and that it has been developed in accordance with the spectacle’s internal dynamics. If the social needs of the age in which such technologies are developed can be met only through their mediation, if the administration of this society and all contact between people has become totally dependent on these means of instantaneous communication, it is because this “communication” is essentially unilateral. The concentration of these media thus amounts to concentrating in the hands of the administrators of the existing system the means that enable them to carry on this particular form of administration. The social separation reflected in the spectacle is inseparable from the modern state — the product of the social division of labor that is both the chief instrument of class rule and the concentrated expression of all social divisions.”
Guy Debord, The Society of the Spectacle, 24
We must realise that the academic is a part of this ‘discourse about itself’ of the ‘ruling order’.
“Hypertext theoreticians have celebrated how through its de-central, multilinearity ‘hypertext does not permit a tyrannical, univocal voice’. And the democratic potentials of the Internet as a ‘narrow-casting’, ‘many-to-many’ medium instead of the mass media’s broadcasting ‘one-to-many’ mode has also been emphasised. The multiplicity of media based on the computer and the Internet bear some resemblance to the multiplicity of strange spectral devices in the nineteenth century. Internet has opened up a wealth of opportunities and a space for entrepreneurs, and many competing new technologies and media have emerged. Whereas the new media of the nineteenth century were given names with combinations of -orama or -scope, the media of the last two decades has been named with combinations of cyber- or virtual. But the history of cinema, … , shows us that the democratic structures of the medium must struggle with more hierarchical structures of social and economical power. And recent developments on the Internet suggest that American companies … continue to find ways to dominate the realm of the computer and the Internet to an unprecedented extent. … The major corporations are constantly developing ways to capitalise and standardise the rhizomatic space of the World Wide Web. One example could be Microsoft’s (and other companies’) plans to merge digital television and the WWW (Web-TV) so that the multilinear medium of the WWW will become grafted with television – the unidirectional mass medium par excellence.
The celebrated keyword interactivity has more or less come to mean customisation ; that is, a medium which may be adapted to the single customer but not commanded or controlled by the user in any real, significant way. Instead of giving the Internet surfer the possibility of exploring truly different websites, one increasingly sees standardised, commercialised websites that through dynamic HTML are able to deliver a version customised for the individual user, … potentially able to statistically map out the movements of millions of websurfers using their browser. Even multilinearity is getting trademarked … . A tough battle for domination is taking place, and it has become obvious that a seemingly revolutionary technology can be appropriated by the commercial powers, that are furthermore succesfully aiming to disguise its liberating potential for empowering the user in order to empower the corporations instead.”
Pold, Soren(1999) ‘An Aesthetic Criticism of the Media: The Configurations of Art, Media and Politics in Walter Benjamin’s Materialistic Aesthetics’, Parallax, 5: 3, 22 — 35
There is a problem in all writing; the pressure towards
conventionality that the social interactions of production push the
writer towards. This is clear in all genres but is especially
problematic in academic writing (i.e. in writing that seeks to analyse
life in society or stimulate such analysis) where such production
pressures are the iron rule of life.
“To exist fully, works of art require audiences as well as authors.
Work that resembles what is already available finds an audience
easily, for it requires nothing of audiences that they do not know how
to do. Work that differs from what is current will have predictable
From H.S. Becker; New Art, Old Art, http://home.earthlink.net/~hsbecker/articles/lisbon.html
The work of thought must not, therefore, ever be allowed to fully
exist. For when it does it will have been made into art and will no
longer operate in the realm of thought. Rather it will be a mere
object to be considered. [The Fragmentary]
“In order to function, this capitalism must invest in the bare life of
people who cannot provide any guarantee, who offer nothing apart from
themselves. It is a capitalism that turns bare life into a direct
source of profit.”
Marazzi, The Violence of Financial Capital, p39
Marazzi shows the ‘feudal’ nature of modern consumption society. The
serfdom of consumption must be recognised.
The more we study the capitalism of the post-Great War, post-Russian
Revolutions world the more obviously it resembles the world of
Antiquity and the Medieval.