Lei's questions

1. In "An appropriating Aesthetic: Reproducing Power in the Discourse of Critical Scholarship”, the author argued that "the aesthetic conventions of scholarship, as imposed upon the unique, ideologically overt character of critical scholarship, constrain and even undermine the critical project." I found this argument very powerful especially in the field of critical culture study. Because critical cultural study is supposed to stand opposed to "very structures of authority", yet the aesthetic convention just ironically makes the study conform to what it purports to be opposed.

This paper makes me to think about the purpose of the critical cultural study. One of the purposes is, for sure, to contribute to academic literature. But of those studies dealing with marginalized communities, how can those aesthetic convention, such as method, text, and jargon, do any change of the current situation? For this concern, my question is: Is it possible that researches in the field of critical cultural study could serve as one form of alternative press? Is it more appropriate that scholars in this field identify themselves more with activists rather than scholars?

2. In “Critical Theory Today: Revisiting the Classics”, the author concluded that “ we need the sort of systematic historical analysis characteristic of classical critical theory to grasp the changes now occurring, yet a more intense focus on political economy that is found in the classical theory is probably needed.” I have the impression that after examining difference approaches, interdisciplinary social theory approach and philosophical and cultural criticism approach, the author regarded political economy is necessary part in media culture studies. Is political economy approach the current trend of cultural studies? Is this the best way to understand media culture?

3\4.Horkheimer & Adorno: “the culture industry produced cultural consumers who would consume its products and conform to the dictates and the behaviors of the existing society. Walter Benjamin: “the culture industry also produces rational and critical consumers able to dissect and discriminate among cultural texts and performances.”

The difference between the two sides (Horkheimer & Adorno vs. Walter Benjamin) is like the debate of active audience vs. passive audience when they read the media text. However, it seems that Horkeimer & Adorno denied any possibility that consumers could be critical to media product in the society dominated by capitalism. When talking about art, they even claimed that “as long as it was expensive, art kept the citizen within some bounds. That is now over. (67)” Does the "price" determines consumers’ subjectivity? It seems that they themselves neglected people’s subjectivity. Can we say they have elitism, or determinism, that ordinary citizens are supposed to submit to capitalism? How can we understand audience/consumer in cultural studies?

In addition, in their argument, value of exchange and the nature of art are mutually exclusive. Is that possible for us to look at the two things as two separate parts of a media text? For example, is a Hollywood movie which is in the culture industry necessarily without any artistic or social value?


5. One of the focuses of the Frankfurt school is technology. They regard technology as “major force of production and formative mode of social organization and control’. Nowadays, many argued that internet technology could be seen as a force of emancipation in the way that people could select media text as they wish. But it is without doubt that capitalism is gradually eroding the field of internet by its unique techonology (i.e. gmail will keep the record of what you have typed in the email, and it will offer you similar content in the website). Then, to what extent people can achieve subjectivity in the field of internet? And, to what extent those progressive independent media (video, blog, music, etc.) can survive on internet escaping the domination of culture industry? If internet, again, proves that techonology fails to escape corporate control, can we say that techonology is necessarily related with captalism?