Page 72 - Darko Štrajn, From Walter Benjamin to the End of Cinema: Identities, Illusion and Signification. Ljubljana: Educational Research Institute, 2017. Digital Library, Dissertationes, 29.
P. 72
from walter benjamin to the end of cinema
from bits and pieces of tradition. On the one hand, an investment in knowl-
edge from the field of social sciences into political projects is indeed as risky
as ever before in history. It seems that the same risks were at work in the
collapse of the socialist revolution. On the other hand, it looks as though
these post-industrial societies (or their power structures) are, according to
Giddens, unable to function without the participation of experts – becom-
ing less and less independent – in the just mentioned fields of knowledge.
At the same time, this participation brings about a demystification of for-
merly highly privileged knowledge, including social sciences, which enter
through politics into a dialogue and exchange of experiences with other ac-
tivities. They take part in the reproduction of a society, which they suppos-
edly explain.
Among many theoreticians and in a wider public such “scientifica-
tion” of administration, governance and inevitably domination provokes
criticism and even protests. In a society, which functions in such a way they
see a loss of perspective, alternatives and vision. Advocates of such views,
for example, complain about “consumerism”, which suppresses so-called
spiritual dimension. They accuse mass culture of “primitivism and a de-
cline” since it brought about a flattening of the sense of traditional aes-
thetics. Therefore, they ignore many facts proving that mass culture in the
Benjaminian understanding brought about a genuine democratization of
culture as well. In such views, an absence of transcendent and eschatologi-
cal goals is a cause of alienation, cynicism and anti-social behaviour among
youth, which is a pretext for a conservative appropriation of education. As
much as there is no doubt about the need for critical perception within the
reflexive social reality – which is also now increasingly apparent in some
forms that are mediated through manifold uses of the digital technology –
the above mentioned criticism represents an echo of nostalgic sentiments
in a register of illusions of the feasibility of a “better society”. A lot of exten-
sive data, which are illustrated by facts, clearly describe a demise of some
traditions, in spite of all “new age” ideologies and reified spirituality. The
processes of secularisation are not stopped, the “crisis of family”, which is
in fact a transformation and adaptation, and “crisis” of most other institu-
tions is evident as well. In view of some world outlooks, covering a range of
discourses from the religious ones to both politically “traditional” left and
right ones, we are approaching not only the end of history, but the end of
the world too. Of course, it does not make sense to deny all big problems
concerning the socialisation of youth resulting from the break-up of social
70
from bits and pieces of tradition. On the one hand, an investment in knowl-
edge from the field of social sciences into political projects is indeed as risky
as ever before in history. It seems that the same risks were at work in the
collapse of the socialist revolution. On the other hand, it looks as though
these post-industrial societies (or their power structures) are, according to
Giddens, unable to function without the participation of experts – becom-
ing less and less independent – in the just mentioned fields of knowledge.
At the same time, this participation brings about a demystification of for-
merly highly privileged knowledge, including social sciences, which enter
through politics into a dialogue and exchange of experiences with other ac-
tivities. They take part in the reproduction of a society, which they suppos-
edly explain.
Among many theoreticians and in a wider public such “scientifica-
tion” of administration, governance and inevitably domination provokes
criticism and even protests. In a society, which functions in such a way they
see a loss of perspective, alternatives and vision. Advocates of such views,
for example, complain about “consumerism”, which suppresses so-called
spiritual dimension. They accuse mass culture of “primitivism and a de-
cline” since it brought about a flattening of the sense of traditional aes-
thetics. Therefore, they ignore many facts proving that mass culture in the
Benjaminian understanding brought about a genuine democratization of
culture as well. In such views, an absence of transcendent and eschatologi-
cal goals is a cause of alienation, cynicism and anti-social behaviour among
youth, which is a pretext for a conservative appropriation of education. As
much as there is no doubt about the need for critical perception within the
reflexive social reality – which is also now increasingly apparent in some
forms that are mediated through manifold uses of the digital technology –
the above mentioned criticism represents an echo of nostalgic sentiments
in a register of illusions of the feasibility of a “better society”. A lot of exten-
sive data, which are illustrated by facts, clearly describe a demise of some
traditions, in spite of all “new age” ideologies and reified spirituality. The
processes of secularisation are not stopped, the “crisis of family”, which is
in fact a transformation and adaptation, and “crisis” of most other institu-
tions is evident as well. In view of some world outlooks, covering a range of
discourses from the religious ones to both politically “traditional” left and
right ones, we are approaching not only the end of history, but the end of
the world too. Of course, it does not make sense to deny all big problems
concerning the socialisation of youth resulting from the break-up of social
70
