3 ms·
>The step from telephone to radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former liberally permitted the participant to play the role of the subject. The latte
by jolux 10y ago
>The step from telephone to radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former liberally permitted the participant to play the role of the subject. The latter democratically makes everyone equally into listeners, in order to expose them in authoritarian fashion to the same programs put out by different stations. No mechanism of reply has been developed, and private transmissions are condemned to unfreedom.
(from "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" in Dialectic of Enlightenment by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno)
I think this passage is brilliantly relevant to these discussions. For me the internet provides an illusion of interactivity when really most if not all of it is one-way. The internet is a place where opinions are broadcast, but it is nowhere near as radically communicative as the telephone except in actual communication media built off of it (email, IRC, slack, or whatever else etc) and even then I would argue that is mostly not subjects communicating due to the delay not present in vocal or signed communication. That we can broadcast our opinions back does not mean that the speaker and listener are on equal footing as in telephony, because the communication is indirect.
- kabes 10y agoBut in contrast with radio, everyone can easily become a global speaker.
- jolux 10y agoIndeed, but this just "democratically" turns everyone into a speaker. The point of this passage is not that we need more speakers and less listeners, the point is that media which encourage the speaker-listener dichotomy are inherently authoritarian.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]