Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Multidimensional Dilemma

'Progress' is not a neutral term; it moves towards specific ends, and these ends are defined by the possibilities of ameliorating the human condition. (Marcuse, page 16)

I found the Marcuse reading extremely challenging in a variety of ways, most notably as I tried to decipher it in relation to the Carr interview while still reeling from last week's readings on television as a conduit for the hegemonic status quo. I certainly agree with Marcuse on a macro level and I find his statements powerful, especially when he writes: 

The distinguishing feature of advanced industrial society is its effective suffocation of those needs which demand liberation - liberation also from that which is tolerable and rewarding and comfortable - while it sustains and absolves the destructive power and repressive function of the affluent society. Here, the social controls exact the overwhelming need for the production and consumption of waste; the need for stupefying work where it is no longer a real necessity; the need for modes of relaxation which soothe and prolong the stupefication; the need for maintaining such deceptive liberties as free competition at administered prices, a free press which censors itself, free choice between brands and gadgets. (page 7)

Marcuse lays it all out: we live in a society where more and more we are fed to believe that we have a multiplicity of false needs that we rarely question; these 'needs' ultimately help to maintain the running hamster wheel of production and profit for the select few. 

Where I get tangled up is when I think about the role of the internet and new media in joining this ongoing charade that we are generally blind to. Carr's position on Marcuse, I imagine, is to agree that these new technologies are detrimental for us in that they weaken our reflective modes of thought, making us even more susceptible to this one-dimensionality of living. 

I don't know if I agree with him on this. Yes, these new technologies pose a threat to our current thought processing systems -- but I fear that Carr is too afraid of change. Couldn't the unforeseen outcomes be better for us? Couldn't they ultimately help to liberate us from this one-dimensionality?? Honestly, I think it's too early to tell. 

No comments:

Post a Comment