Theme 2:2

Looking back at my blog post and comparing it to the discussions we had during today’s seminar it is clear that there are a few concepts that I have misunderstood, but also one that I have failed to grasp entirely.

To begin with, I understand Adorno & Horkheimer’s criticism of the enlightenment better. Initially I only focused on how they described the progress of enlightenment, how it encourages industrial development, rationalistic thinking and transforming the world’s resources into utility. When we discussed the enlightenment in the group I brought up the idea of how the goal of controlling the nature also encourages the control of people, which leads to hierarchal structures. It was later explained that enlightenment was accused by Adorno & Horkheimer, of using the system to maintain social structures – which confirmed my idea. The way of standardization and generalisation ultimately oppresses people instead of making them free individuals. I believe that enlightenment can be describes as an ideology with good intentions, but the greed and power of knowledge and development has created unequal conditions in the society.

Further on, we also discussed how nominalism and it’s rejection of universal truths affects the society within the enlightenment. Someone proposed that nominalism’s idea of a world without categorization can be compared with Kant’s idea of faculties of knowledge. I wouldn’t necessarily agree on it as Kant’s faculties categorises the different ways of how we understand the world, while nominalism deals with other sort of categorization, rejecting the idea of conceptual generalization (like nationality and similar).

It was explained to us that the texts by Adorno & Horkheimer and Benjamin were written almost a decade apart, therefore their ideas of the possibilities of media differs widely. Considering the time and circumstances when Adorno & Horkheimer wrote their text, it comes more naturally to accuse media of being oppressive, than seeing it’s democratic potential.  During the seminar we discussed how media was supposed to provide escapism for the lower social classes who could not afford a superfluous lifestyle, however by showing content that was similar to their daily life, the social structures were confirmed and maintained. This way, being convinced the structures were a natural part of society, people did not think of questioning the inequality caused by he enlightenment.

Personally, I believe in the democratic potential of media, especially considering how the 21th century’s IT-development have made information available on a larger scale than ever before. In addition to that, most people have a way of contributing to the content (through comment sections, Youtube-channels, blog etc.).

I believe there has been a profound change during the last years, not only in the substructure and production of media – but also in the attitude and morals we impose on it (superstructure). The notion of producer/distributor and reader/audience has been blurred out. There used to be a division on who was competent enough to produce information, and who was not, which made only an elitist group be able to spread their ideas in the media channels. Today, we do not impose that role on one specific group of people as everyone can in some way distribute their ideas.

Further on, I also questioned Benjamin’s idea of the “aura” in unique art. As understood it, Benjamin referred to other objects than just paintings (more historical artefacts), which might be why I do not se his opinion to be as relevant considering today’s art production. Of course, the value of a piece of art decreases as it is reproduced, but the original will still keep some cult value (e.g. Mona Lisa). The aura of an art piece does not necessarily leave the original; it simply does not rub off on the reproduced copies.

Overall, I believe enlightenment and the concepts following it might be a bit dated, but in many ways it is still relevant today. The philosophy behind it is quite interesting and could be discussed far more and in far greater detail.

Comments on theme 1

https://dm2572-16.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-11.html?showComment=1473783199659

https://omg-dm2572.blogspot.se/2016/09/after-theme-1.html?showComment=1473783974939

http://u1eqtjc8.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-of-theme-1.html#comment-form

https://u1c051gg.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-theory-of-knowledge-and.html?showComment=1474020887366

https://u11873yx.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-theory-of-knowledge-and-theory.html?showComment=1473787044965

https://u1bauz11.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-reflection.html?showComment=1473932952719

https://u11zdo9t.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-post-2.html?showComment=1473954796907

https://u1h02pv3.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1-theory-of.html?showComment=1473959397236

https://u1kq1ay0.blogspot.se/2016/09/second-blog-post-theme-1-theory-of.html?showComment=1474018356353

https://u1cq6h0z.blogspot.se/2016/09/reflection-on-theme-1theory-of.html?showComment=1474019866155

https://u1dn0y6t.blogspot.se/2016/09/post-reflection-theme-1.html?showComment=1474021733398

https://u10o7oqf.blogspot.se/2016/09/theme-1-pt-2.html?showComment=1474022240225

Theme 3:1

Although widely known of as a concept, and always required within scientific studies, theory has always been a struggle to define, especially as various scientific institutions chose different perspectives to understand and explain their idea of theory. However, in this week’s post I aim to explain a general understanding of theory and put it in a relatable context, applicable for people of different backgrounds and faculties.

In her essay The Nature of Theory in Information Systems, Shirley Gregor breaks down the concept of theory stating that a common, central understanding of theory is the goal of being able to explain and predict a phenomenon. In order to be able to explain a phenomenon, a connection between the cause and an event (causation) has to be presented. Further on, to predict a phenomenon it is necessary to apply some level of generalization, nonetheless there are different opinions on how comprehensive this generalization should be. To Gregor, generalization and causation is the core of theory, however, according to philosophers it should also be added that these explanations and predictions are supposed to be testable (able to verify of falsify). Essentially, theory is institutionalized ideas of understanding, used as supporting logic in scientific studies.

It is easier to get a better understanding of theory by simply determining what it is not. Robert I. Sutton and Barry M. Staw lists five common occurrences that frequently substitute and present itself as theory in scientific essays and articles.

These occurrences consist of references (previous presented arguments), data (empirical evidence), list of variables or constructs (concepts), diagrams (categories for data) and hypothesis or predictions (assumptions without logical explanations about empirical relationships).

In order to put theory, and the use of it, in a context, I have read the article “Influential IT management trends: an international study” by Jerry Luftman et al. (2015). This is an empirical study, based on a survey of senior executives that has been conducted since 1980.  The aim of the study is to detect, present and predict the main management concerns and most influential technologies of the time. For the most part in the essay, we are shown diagrams and variables with the writers describing what the numbers represent. It shows the growth and/or decrease of phenomena over the past few years, but while it is possible to conclude some generalized flows, the variables do not explain the reason, why and/or how the flows occur.

In addition to explaining theory, Gregor also determined five types of theories in Infomastions Systems (IS). These types consist of (1.) theory for analysing, (2.) theory for explaining, (3.) theory for predicting, (4.) theory for explaining & predicting and (5.) theory for design & action.

Luftman et al. presents the study of IT management trends as a theory for predicting in their introduction and add predictive remarks in the data analysis e.g.:

“we expect that [business productivity] will continue to remain among the top 10 for the foreseeable future” (p.296)

However, in the conclusion these statements are not specifically discussed apart from a few vague comments about the future, and as these never reach a conclusion about the future the predictive aspect of the analysis lose its value.

Although somewhat using predictive generalizations, I would define this essay mainly as a theory for analysing. It describes the currently occurring IT phenomena, summarizing the changes and flows without explicitly referring to any causality. The data is recorded and classified according to a framework based on geography and year, which gives a broad idea of the conditions over time. Gregor mentions that this kind of schematic approach is useful in cases where little is known about a phenomenon, making it meaningful by putting it into categorical terms. It is important that the phenomenon’s logic and characteristics defining each category are clear in order to mediate the facts/knowledge correctly. In addition, it is also vital for the classifications system to be extensive enough to present all features of the phenomenon. In failing to use the right classifications and categories, valuable information can be excluded from the analysis, which would in turn invalidate the study’s results. 

Luftman et al. have had multiple, extensive choices in the survey, but have chosen to only present the most prominent results in order to present credible results. I do believe they have organized the schema in the best possible way, but on the other side, there is a lack of theory throughout the essay. As substitute they use a few references to Luftman’s earlier studies and rely on the repeatability of the data in the study.

Although their only ambition is to show the current state, with Sutton and Staw’s article in mind, I would say Luftman et al. could improve their study by providing the reader with the perspective of a theory - considering that without a clear theoretic background an essay lose its value.

Luftman Jerry, Derksen Barry, Dwivedi Rajeev, et al. ”Influential IT Management Trends: an international Study”, Journal of Information Technology (2015) 30

http://link.springer.com.focus.lib.kth.se/article/10.1057%2Fjit.2015.18 accessed 14.09.2016

Theme 1, post 2

After having finished this weeks theme, I can in hindsight tell I initiated my discussion with the aim of finding specific elements of defining knowledge. After having analysed and discussed the concept further during the lecture and seminar it becomes obvious of how fluctuating the idea of “knowledge” is, depending on the time and circumstances while it’s being discussed. It has become clear how analyses and science in general demands a definition of what sort of result and/or answers they are looking after, as the perception of an object can be interpreted in various ways. This might intervene with the objectivity of the study, but being a reasoning human in a set period of time and space will still affect the perception of the object, whether it is conducted within a defined method or not.

I have presented in the seminar my conception of how objects loose their meaning without human interaction and their perceptions, and I believe it’s in our human nature to seek an explanation to knowledge as a phenomenon very much in the same way as we can produce mathematical answers with reason. However, even mathematics in itself, however objective they may be perceived, is a cultural depiction of us producing knowledge.

To reach this understanding of the nature of knowledge, perceptions and science it has been vital for me to partake in the discussions in order to broaden my mind. Although reading the text provided for this theme, it has been necessary to reflect upon the concepts in order to reach a fuller understanding of them. Simply reviewing others understanding of them haven’t been enough, especially as the text are written in contexts in many ways different from ours.

Personally, it has been interesting for me to get an understanding of primary- and secondary qualities and the how perception and conception is cooperating in order to create knowledge according to our faculties of knowledge. I think this has been the closest we’ve gotten to actually being able to speak of knowledge as a reasonable concept. From this springs the discussion of what is actually perception or illusion, insanity or above all: sanity. How are we to understand sanity knowing our minds percept things differently from each other – and that they are even capable of deceiving ourselves?

Obviously this is a topic that can be discussed further and in many other directions. What I have done during this week has helped me to form an understanding of what elements are considered important in the scientific studies and search of knowledge. I assume that the utility of this understanding will be more evident in further analyses on different topics.

Theme 2: Critical media studies

Enlightenment was a revolutionary, scientific ideology promoting the advancement of thought together with rationality, industry and technological development on behalf of the animistic naturalism.

At the core of the concept “enlightenment” lays knowledge as a contrast to sensibility and myth. This change meant that what was earlier described with concepts and cause was now replaced by formula, rules and probability. The aim is to understand the world by calculating it and transform it into utility – what doesn’t conform to this standard must be viewed with suspicion.

Knowledge is described as a democratic power in a sense that everyone has access to it but Adorno & Horkheimer criticises it for its totalitarian features, as in how the modern society uses it to manipulate people into a standardized mass and it’s ambition to dominate nature. They state that enlightenment didn’t generate freedom, but only remodelled the hierarchy and social structure. Instead of kings the bourgeoisie now uses the society in developing their economy.

Although enlightenment is assumed to abolish myth, Adorno & Horheimer states it isn’t necessarily so. From a mythical standing point the world is supposed to be explained in terms of origins and names, giving nature and it’s function reason in order to be understood by man. Enlightenment has taken this concept a step further encouraged by the idea of objectivity, to record, calculate and explain. This means that myth not only inspired, but even caused the initiation of enlightenment

From here springs the dialectic of enlightenment, as it’s ambivalence have proved to keep the concept entangled with myth, contradicting their assumed contrasts. Enlightenment’s idea of objectivity and regularity is accused of only being disguised by it’s constant repetition, which in itself becomes a myth. This is discussed further in relation to how culture and art is directed at the people. What comes to question is whether enlightenment actually empowers the people or deceives them from their own ability to contemplate and reflect. Although it may seem as a democratic movement in distributing culture to all social classes, this sort of mass industry of presumed “art” is accused of only being an instrument in creating a collective, standardized mass. Modern culture doesn’t respond to demand as much as it manipulates the crowd into predetermined wills. Although people can recognize and relate to what is presented to them, the standardized content only creates an illusion of individuality, a so-called pseudoindividuality.

Walter Benjamin discusses the authenticity and power of art as well, although, in contrast to Adorno & Horkheimer, he shows more optimism in the opportunities and potential of the more accessible nature and distribution of modern culture. In his essay he presents superstructure, which is represented by the ideology of culture and art. Superstructures’ changes are in general slow, whereas substructure, in this context the production of art, is evolving at a much higher speed. This causes the idea of “true” art to constantly lag behind the modern strategies and technology of culture production. The cause of such a development is people’s perception of art, historically determined by the current time-period, social circumstances and discourses that distinguish it. There have been artistic revolutions throughout the centuries, but these have only emerged as a reaction to social fluctuations. In addition, there also are naturally determined perceptions based on space. Simply put, it’s the impression of distance and uniqueness in the encounter with natural objects. In terms of distance, there can be a conception of “closeness” to reproduced art, as the industrialization of art makes it accessible and approachable to people. However, the uniqueness of an item is not reproducible which causes the art piece to loose it’s authenticity – and with it, the aura. Aura can be described as the difference between a simple drawing and a piece of art: it’s the aura that ascribes the art it’s qualitative attributes (apart from the purely technical ones) and mythical value. As the modern mechanical reproduction causes the decay of the uniqueness of art, the aura withers with it. It may seem as a rather pessimistic view of the development of art, but there are opportunistic aspects of the modern culture industry and in particular the public’s participation in it. For instance are the boundaries between producer/audience, author/reader blurred out. The industrialization of art is giving the media more freedom to express criticism of social conditions and people to participate in the debate. Dadaism is such an example where reproduction has taken on a new art form, which caused moral chock and outrage – and with that critical discussion. This is the most distinct difference between Adorno & Horkheimer contra Benjamin, as Benjamin, although questioning the uniqueness in modern art, at least acknowledges it’s revolutionary potential, whereas Adorno & Horkheimer condemns it for being a manipulative conspiracy led by the bourgeoisie.