It is not an accident that the rise of democratic and republican forms of government in the modern period coincided with the rise of the public sphere of rational-critical debate.1 This is particularly clear in the case of America, where the founding itself was the product of a rich and robust public discussion and debate. Although many members of the Constitutional Convention were not college-educated, they nonetheless were very well-read and informed.2 At the time, it was even reported that some British booksellers were selling more law books in the colonies than in England.3 But although the genesis of government “of, by, and for the people” has its roots in a public sphere of rational-critical debate, such a foundation is equally necessary for the endurance and continued existence of such governments and societies. Yet today in America the public sphere of rational-critical debate has all but disappeared, in many ways existing only as a simulacrum of what it once was. For the most part, it has transformed into the mass media of opinions ready-made to consume and independent structures of sociological propaganda.4 This general weakening of the public sphere is connected to at least three socioeconomic factors, each of which in its own way undermines our ability as a society to participate in democratic behavior.
Continue reading “Some Thoughts on the Limits of American Democracy”Category: Theodor W. Adorno
The Isolated Self and the Limits of Communication, Part II
The phenomenon of the isolated self is best understood within the more general phenomena of communication struggles, breakdowns, and failures that characterize much contemporary debate.1 While in many ways the isolated self can be described on the basis of theoretical frameworks alone, there is also more to the story. Failures in communication fuel the psychological need for reinforcement and self-affirmation (especially by like-minded others), which in turn lead to a kind of factionalism2 that understands one’s group as pure and righteous, and those whose views differ as at best mistaken, or at worst, evil. The pseudo-confidence accompanying this phenomenon ensures that isolated selves live within their own reality, cut off from those holding different perspectives. It appears that this overall condition has, in part, stemmed from the basic human desire for certainty that seems proportionate to the relative uncertainty of the modern world.3 But this is not all. The transformation of the public sphere of rational-critical debate into a commodity–to be consumed like any other–has led to its own problems and complexities, not the least of which is the role it has played in the emergence of the isolated self. To this, I now turn.
Continue reading “The Isolated Self and the Limits of Communication, Part II”