analysis of public sphere and experience

8/10/2019 Analysis of Public Sphere and Experience

1/26


2/26

The

Proletarian

ublic

Sphere

nd

Political

Organization:

An

Analysis

f

Oskar

Negt

and

Alexander

Kluge'sThe Public

Sphere

nd

Experience

by

Eberhard

Kn6dler-Bunte

1.

The

Proletarian ublic

Sphere

Oskar

Negt

and

Alexander

Kluge's

The

Public

Sphere

and

Experience

attempts

o

provide

conceptual

framework or the central

political

and

theoretical roblems onfrontinghe contemporaryituation.The trans-

formation

f the

capitalist

roduction

rocess,

with

ts

far-reachingmpli-

cationsthat

penetrate

o the mostbasic levelsof human

experience,

annot

be

adequately

understood nd acted

upon

witha

conceptual

and

political

frameworknherited rom n earlier

stage

of

historical

development,

r

from circumstances

undamentally

ifferent rom those

of

advanced

capitalist

society.

The

inability

f the

categories

derived

from

previous

political

formulationsnd debates to

grasp

the

contemporary

ituation s

part

of

the

continuing

risis f Marxism hat has

persisted

ince the

1920s

and 1930s.With their ookNegtand Klugeattempt o laythegroundwork

for

an

analysis

hat will break

this

mpasse.

Negt

and

Kluge's

contribution as

been

to

develop

a middle evel

theory

whichconfrontshe

qualitative

ransformationf

capitalist

ocial

relation-

ships

from oth the

standpoint

f new forms f

production

s well

as from

the

tandpoint

f

changes

n

everydayxperience

n

society.

n

this

way

they

provide

framework

hat

historicizesnd

defines

reviously

ndeterminate

notions uch as consciousness nd

subjective

actor,

while

at

the same

time

nalyzing

he transformationf the

capitalist roductive

rocess

nd its

impact

on concretehuman

experience

nd

psychic

tructure.

he central

category

f

Negt

and

Kluge's

work s the

public

sphere

which

organizes

human

experience,

mediating

between the

changing

formsof

capitalist

production

on

the

one hand and

the

cultural

organization

of

human

experience

on the other.

Differentiating

etween the

bourgeois public

sphere,

increasingly art

of the

capitalist productionprocess,

and the

concept

f a

proletarian

ublic

sphere,

Negt

and

Kluge

argue

that the atter

could

potentially ppose

the

organized

nterests f

the

bourgeois

public

sphere

through

ts

organization

of

human needs and

interests.

The

increasing

ultural ocialization

f

human

needs and

qualities

n

an

indus-

trializedpublic

sphere--for

xample the consciousness

industry--sets

n

motion

potential

pposition

which

under

xisting

onditions

an

only

esist

This content downloaded from 128.135.100.113 on Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:20:07 PMAll use subject toJSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/26

52

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

the

conditions

f

alienated

production

y

remaining

n the realm

of

fantasy

and imagination.As such,thisopposition an still become the object of

production.

ut the

development

f

these

new

needs,

which

because of

their

specifically

uman

quality

oppose

the

discipline

nd abstract

haracter

f

the

capitalist

production

process,

provides

the basis

for the

potential

emergence

f a

proletarian

ublic

sphere

which

organizes

eal needs into

politically

elevant orms f

consciousness

nd

activity.

At the

same

time,

Negt

and

Kluge investigate

he new forms f the

public

sphere,

bove

all

television nd other

mass media.

Their

analysis

f

these

new

developments

and

possibilities

or

potential

hallenge

o the

content f

existing

media is

a

significantspect

of their

work.

Negt

and

Kluge's

examination

of

these

issues

and

this

complex

of

problems

cuts across

both

scholarly

and

political approaches.

The

sociological

formulation f

specific uestions

bout

public

opinion,

mass

communications

nd

the traditional

rameworkf

political

cience s

linked

to

questions

bout

political

practice.

On

the other hand

these

political

questions--the

Marxist

oncepts

f class

consciousness,

lass

movements

nd

social

organization--are

ied to

theoretical

evelopments

n

the

academic

world.

Negt

and

Kluge's

book thus ttacks he fatal

division f

labor

which

separatesnarrowlypecialized

cademic

investigation

rom

revolutionary

political

theory

irected owards

raxis.

Moreover,

Negt

and

Kluge's

book

opposes

the internal

fragmentation

f

concepts

n

both

academic and

revolutionary

heory.

A

critique

of The

Public

Sphere

and

Experience

must

therefore

egin

with

he deas and

intentionsf the

authors efore t can

move

to

individual

points.

This

essay

s

primarily

oncernedwith the

former

ask.

Instead of

attempting

n

extensive

ritique

f

the ndividual

ategories

mployed,

r

of

the

interpretations

f social

developments

nd

processes,

his

discussion

focuses n

the framework

hich

hey

evelop.

t

should,

s a

reader's

uide

help clarify he political and praxis-orientedspects of the problems

discussed. hus

this rticle s

imited o

clarifyingoints

aised

by

Negt

and

Kluge.1

1.

Parts

of

this

ssay

were

presented

t a

discussion

f

Negt

and

Kluge's

book

sponsored y

the

Institut

firKunst

und

Aesthetik,

t which

Oskar

Negt

spoke.

This

discussion,

which

primarily

oncerned

uestions

bout

the

block

of

real

life,

questions

f

organization,

nd

problems

f

political

ducation,

ppeared

in

the

ournal

Aesthetik

nd

Kommunikation,

2.

The

author

wishes

o thank

Silvia

Bevenschen,

eter

Gorsen

nd Heiner

Boehnckefor their

important

uggestions.

age

numbers

itedwithin

he

text efer o

Oskar

Negt

and

Alexander

Kluge, Oeffentlichkeitnd Erfahrung:Zur Organisationsanalyseon bfirgerlichernd

proletarischer

effentlichkeit

Frankfurt

m

Main,

1973).



4/26

THE

PROLETARIAN

PUBLIC

SPHERE

AND

POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION

53

2. The Public

Sphere

and

Experience

s

Categories

f

Social

Theory

and

Political

Organization

The

very uxtaposition

f the

concepts public sphere

nd

experience

suggests

hat an

important

ocial

relationship

s

considered

here in

a

way

that

goes

far

beyond

the limitations

of

studies

dealing

only

with

constitutional

aw,

political

cienceor

social

history.

t

the same

time the

authors'

method

annotbe reducedto the

evel

of

discussions f

the

public

sphere

nd

public

opinion

carried

on

in

mass

communication

heory

nd

public

opinion sampling

ince

the

early

1930s

These

specialized

areas

of

research re

mostly

oncernedwith

the

investigation

f

full-blown

nsti-

tutionalized

ormsof

the

bourgeois public sphere

and

with theoretical

questionsbout thefunctionfpublic opinion na democracy.nsteadNegt

and

Kluge

attempt

o define he

public sphere

s

a

category

elating

o the

totality

f

society.

hey emphasize

hat

he

public sphere

an

be

understood

as

organizing

uman

experience,

nd not

merely

s thisor that

historically

institutionalized

anifestation.

hey

conceive of the

public sphere

as a

historically

eveloping

form

of

the mediation

between the

cultural

organization

f human

qualities

nd

senses n

the

one hand

and

developing

capitalist

production

n

the other.

Negt

and

Kluge

write n

explicit pposition

o

Jtirgen

abermas,

whose

StructuralTransformationf the Public Spherewas widelyread at the

beginning

f

the

protest

movement

n

Germany.

heir

specific

differences

with

Habermas

can be

seen on

three

evels. From the

outset

Habermas

restricts

imself

o

the

analysis

f

the

bourgeois ublic sphere,

opposed

to

which

proletarian

ublic sphere

ppears

merely

s

a

repressed

ariant f

a

plebeian

public sphere.

Negt

and

Kluge's political

nterest

s

directed

toward

the

interconnections

f

the

bourgeois-capitalist

nd

proletarian

public

spheres.

New

structural haracteristics

f the

public

sphere

thus

become

visible

ermitting

oth a historical

nd a

systematic

nvestigation

f

non-bourgeois, re-capitalist, roletarian,subculturaland even fascist

public

spheres.

At the

same

time,

Negt

and

Kluge's

approach

also

serves o

prevent

confusion

etween

he deal

of

the

bourgeois

ublic

sphere-the

basis

for

ts

historical

claim

to

legitimacy--and

he

actual

process by

which the

bourgeois public sphere

became

established

as

an

instrument

f

class

domination.

Habermas,

of

course,

lso

recognizes

he

contradictory ays

n

which

his

iberal

model of

the

public sphere

has

in

fact

manifestedtself n

history.

ut

the imitations

f his

approach

prevent

im from

rriving

t a

2.

Jikrgen

abermas,

Strukturwandel

er

Oeffentlichkeit

Neuwied

and Berlin,

1962),

p.

8



5/26

54

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

conceptual

differentiation

etween he ideal and

the real

history

f

the

bourgeois

ublic

sphere.

Nor

s

Habermas ble

to

tracethis

distinction

ack

tothestructural eaknessesf thesociety.BecauseHabermasoverestimates

the

normative

trength

f the

bourgeois

public sphere,

he

is

led,

in

his

political

onclusions,

o

apply

the

principles

f the

earlier

bourgeois

ublic

sphere,

f

n

altered

form,

o

late

capitalist

onditions.

n the one

hand his

work

reconstructs

he

disintegration

f

the

bourgeois

public sphere

which

had

allowed

it

to

become both

an

object

of

manipulation

by

privileged

groups

and

an

object

of the

profit-maximizing

rocess.

Since the

public

sphere

an

no

longer

maintainthat t

is

linked to

a

politically ignificant

process

of

opinion

formation,

abermas,

referring

o this

disintegration,

speaksof a refeudalizationfthepublicsphere. Yet on the otherhand,

Habermas'

concept

f the social

welfare tate

mass

democracy

llowshim

to discover new

basis

for

the

bourgeois

public sphere,

lbeit

an altered

one. The

bourgeois

ublic phere

s thus

a

rational

eorganization

f

social

and

political

power

under the

mutual control of

rival

organizations

committed

o

the

public sphere

n

their

nternal tructure

s

well

as

in

their

relationswith the

state and each other. 3

This

pluralistic

model of

the

welfare

tate

regulating

tself

hrough

he

public sphere

can

only

be

maintained

at

the

cost

of

concealing

the

fundamentalontradictionsfcapitalist roductionnd transforminghem

into

crisesof

legitimacy.

hese

crisesmanifest

hemselves

n

state

activity

and

in

problems

of

securing

the

loyalty

f the

masses. In

contrast

o

Habermas'

conception,

Negt

and

Kluge

place

the

function

f

the

public

sphere,

which s

altered

n

the

interests

f

the

maximization

f

profit,

nto

the

context f

a

Marxist

nalysis

f

society.

Negt

and

Kluge's

tarting oint,

therefore,

s

the

relationship

etween

he

various

orms

f

the

public

sphere

and human

experience

nd

interests

oncretely

ied to the

social

praxis

of

everyday

ife.

These

experiences

re

stylized

y

Habermas as

mere

opinions

(cultural assumptions,normative attitudes, collective prejudices and

values),

as

a

kind f

sediment

f

history,

hich

he

believes

an be

neatly

separated

from

he

bourgeois

ublic

sphere.By

expanding

heir

onception

of

the

public

phere

o

includethe class

basis

n

which

xperience

s

molded

and

appropriated,Negt

and

Kluge

refuse

o

permit

he

reduction f

their

investigation

o mere

institutional

r

intellectual

history.

hey

therefore

argue

for

he

restorationf

an

interrupted

radition f

Marxist

nvestigation,

a

tradition

est

exemplified

y

Rosa

Luxemburg,

Wilhelm

Reich

and

Karl

3.

See

JUirgen

abermas,

The

Public

Sphere:

An

Encyclopedia

Article

1964),

New

German

Critique,1:3 (Fall, 1974), 55.4.

Ibid.,

p.

50.



6/26

THE

PROLETARIAN

PUBLIC

SPHERE

AND

POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION

55

Korsch,

as well as

by

the Marxist

lements

f

critical

theory.5

In

this

sense,

the term

public sphere

refers

not

only

to the

publicinstitutionshichhave

prevailed

n

history

ut to the

general

horizon f

ocial

experience

whichenables individuals

o

formulate

nterpretations

f

social

reality.

xpanding

he

concept

public

phere

eyond

he

meaning

scribed

to

it

by

individual

disciplines

r

by

its

bourgeois

ontent,

Negt

and

Kluge

define

he

public

sphere

s the central lement

n the

organization f

human

experience.6

et underconditions

f

bourgeois

lass domination he

public

sphere

develops

n restrictivend

contradictory ays:

as a result

of the

excluding

mechanisms

f

the

bourgeoispublic sphere,

r

through

ew and

illusory

orms

f

organization

f

the

public sphere.

These forms f

organi-

zationarisefrom he

expansion

of the

capitalistprofit-maximizing

nterest

into

the area

of

human

needs and consciousness.

The

proletarian

public

sphere

stands in

polar

opposition

both to

the

bourgeoispublic sphere

and

to its transformation

nto

new forms

the

public

spheres

f

production ).

t

represents

he historical

ounter-concept

to

the

bourgeoispublic sphere

and

a

fundamentally

ew structuren

the

public

organization

f

experience.

Untilnow forms f the

proletarian

ublic

sphere

have

emerged

only

in

rudimentary

orm,

and

only

in

isolated

instances

ave

they

prevailed

s

an alternative

gainst

bourgeois-capitalist

domination.

Among

the examplesNegt and Kluge cite are the attempts

made

by

the

English working

lass in the

early

19th

century

o

form

independent

ommunication

media

(pp.

313-333);

Lenin's

concept

of

the

self-expression

f the masses as

opposed

to

party

propaganda;

and

the

5.

For

urther

iscussionf his

raditionn

Marxist

heory

eethe

ollowing

orks

y

Oskar

Negt:

Oskar

Negt,

Theorie,

mpirie

nd

Klassenkampf:

ur

Konstitutionsproblematik

ei

Karl

Korsch,

eberKarl

Korsch,

d.

Claudio

Pozzoli

Frankfurt

m

Main,

1973);

Oskar

Negt,

Massenmedien:

errschaftsmittel

der

Instrumente

er

Befreiung?

spekte

er

Kommunikationsanalyse

er

Frankfurter

chule,

Kritische

ommunikationsforschung:Aufsatzeus derZeitschriftir Sozialforschung,d. DieterProkopMunich, 973); Oskar

Negt,

Rosa

Luxemburg:

ur

materialistischen

ialektikon

Spontaneitat

nd

Organisation,

Rosa

Luxemburg

der

Die

Bestimmung

es

Sozialismus,

d.

Claudio

Pozzoli

Frankfurt

m

Main,

1974).

6.

Borrowing

he

notion f

the

rganization

f

human

xperience

rom

he

arly

oviet

cultural

heoreticians

See

Peter

Gorsen

nd

Eberhard

nbdler-Bunte,

roletkult,

Vols.

(Stuttgart,

974)

,

while

pposing

he

eified

oncept

f

rganization,

egt

nd

Kluge

ttempt

todetermine

he

rganizing

unctionf

ultural

bjectifications

nd

formsf

communications.

This

expansion

f

the

concept

f

organization,

hich

traditionally

ndicated

nly

the

combination f

human

eings

groups,

ssociations,

arties,

nions)

makes t

possible

o

investigate

he

ctive nd

mediating

unctionf

cultural

elationships

n

ndividual

xperience

and

perception.

n

strict

pposition

o

a

technocratic

oncept

f

organization,

he

oncept

f

an organizationied to theproletarianublicspherendicates concrete ialectic f

spontaneity

nd

organization,

f

mmediate

xperience

nd

insight

nto

he

ocial

otality.



7/26

56

VEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

tentative

teps

aken n France n

May

1968.

Eds.]

Nevertheless,he

specific

achievement

f

the

proletarian

ublic sphere

s

to

provide

he

foundation

for he

potential

ormationf classconsciousnesss a

partisan

onsciousness

of

totality

nriched

by

substantive

ital

nterests.

In

this

ontext

he

proletarian

ublic

sphere

an

bestbe

understood s

a

necessary

orm

f

mediation,

s

the

center f

a

production

rocess

n

the

course

of

which

the

varied and

fragmented

experiences

of

social

contradictions

nd

social

interests

an be

combined

nto

a

theoretically

mediated

consciousness

nd

life

style

directed

towards

a

transforming

praxis

Thus,

the

concept

f the

proletarian

ublic

sphere

designates

he

contradictory

nd

non-linear

process

of

development

towards

class

consciousness: processwhich t presents eitherhiddenbehinda

merely

programmatic

nity

f

the

political

and

economic

concept

of

class and

its

subjective

orrelate

onsciousness,

ombirredo form

lass

consciousness,

r

is

simply

elivered o

the

proletarian

arty

n

its

synthesizing

apacity.

The

classical

bourgeois

public

sphere

was

an unstable

complex

of

institutions,

organizations

nd

activities

within

which the

social

process

of

opinion

formation

as to be

constituted,

ut

from

which he

most

mportant

spects

of

life--material

roduction

nd the

realm of

familial

socialization--were

excluded. In

contrast,

hree

very

ifferent

actors

must

converge

o

create

theproletarian ublicsphere: the nterest ftheproducing lassmustbe

the

driving

orce;

a form

f

interaction

mustbe

created

which

can

relate

specific

nterests

n

the

realms of

production

o

the

entire

society;

and

finally

the

inhibiting

nd

destructive

nfluences

emanating

from

the

declining

bourgeois

public

sphere

must

not

overpower

the

emerging

proletarian

ublic

sphere.

n

all

these

points,

he

proletarian

ublic

sphere

is

nothing

other

than the

form n

which

the

proletarian

nterest

tself

develops

p.

163).

At

this

point

he

mplications

f this

omprehensive

oncept

or

he

theory

ofrevolutionnd the theory f organization ecomeclear. Insofar s the

proletarian

ublic

sphere

represents

form

f

interaction

hich

expresses

the

vital

nterests

f the

working

lass n

a

specific

orm

while

relating

hem

to

the

entire

ociety,

t

assumesthe active function f

mediating

between

social

being

and

consciousness. n

short,

t

fulfills

he

task of

mediating

between

society

and

that

which

the

tradition of

Marxist

theory

has

designated--highly

nadequately--as

he

subjective

actor.'

This

point

will

be

returned

o

later.

Provisionally

ormulated,

he

public

sphere

should

be

understood

s

a

central ategoryfsocialtheory, hichdeterminesheconnection etween

material

production

nd

cultural

norms nd

institutions

uring

he

process



8/26

THEPROLETARIAN UBLIC

SPHEREAND POLITICALORGANIZATION

57

of the

constitution

f

social

experience.

At the

same

time

Negt

and

Kluge

attemptosituate heconcept fthe public sphere historicallyn order o

allow

the reformulation

f

a

central

problem

of

the Marxist

theory

of

revolution o

emerge

from

he dialectic of

the

bourgeois

nd

proletarian

public sphere.

Thus,

it is

necessary

for them to

introduce

new

epistemological

ategories

nd

relationships,

onstructing,

or

example,

the

levels

of

contradiction

within the

basic

conditions of

bourgeois

and

proletarian

ife

the

block of

real life which

opposes

the nterests

f

profit

maximization).

uch

categories ermit

he

expansion

f

an

analysis

f

late

capitalist

onditions

o

the

point

where

ertain

olitical onsequences

or he

organizational uestioncan be drawn.

The

concept

of

the

public sphere

is

essentially

ynthetic

n

its

achievement: its

application

makes

it

possible

to

move

beyond

the

theoretical

nd

historical-empirical

onstraints

n

the discussion

f

class

consciousness

nd

political

organization,

nd to reintroduce

nalytical

content nto that discussion.

The

authors

maintain that the

levels of

mediation

within which

the

organization

of social

consciousness

nd

experience

akes

place

can

be

empirically

scertained

yexamining

oth the

total

development

f

society

nd

occasional

ruptions

uch

as

strikes,

actory

occupations nd massprotest, s

well as

politicalorganization

n

factories,

schools

and

local

communities.

This framework

s

as

relevant

or he

development

f Marxist

heory

s

it

is

provocative

or

current

olitical

discussions.

Negt

and

Kluge

justify

he

claims

of so broad a

concept

f the

public sphere,

not

onlyby

appealing

to

the

necessity

or a Marxist

nvestigation

f the

unfolding elationships

f

cultural

ocialization

Vergesellschaftung).

hey

also

argue

for

the

political

urgency

f such a

conception.

With

this

book

it

is our

political

nterest o

establish

framework

or discussion

hich

xpands

he

analytical oncepts

of

political conomy

ownward,

o thereal

experience

f human

beings p.

16).

By

directly

onfronting

he

critique

f

political

conomy

with he

concept

of real

experience,

Negt

and

Kluge

address

complex

f

problems

which

the

labor

movement as

been

incapable

of

solving

ither

theoretically

r

practically.

or Marx

and

Engels

t was

not,

for wo

reasons,

pressing

ask

to

develop

a detailed

discussion

of class

consciousness

nd

political

organization.

On

the

one

hand,

their

theoretical

considerations

were

directed

at a

working

class

that

was

rapidly

organizing,

and

whose

organizational

olidity

nd

political

efficacy

was

less a

question

of the

subjective

onditionsf

organization

hanof themoreprimary roblem fa

scientific

nalysis

f the aws

of

capitalist

evelopment.

econdly,

Marx

and



9/26

58

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

Engels

could

assume

that the

working

lass

emerged

from

bourgeoisie

whichhad carriedthroughts nterestsgainstthe feudalsystemnd had

maintained

a

revolutionary

ovement

which

still,

t

appeared,

could

be

transformed

nto

a

proletarian

movement.

The

experience

of

the

Paris

Commune

made

it

clear,

however,

that the

relevant

elements of

the

bourgeois

lass had

reorganized

round the

nterestsf

profit

maximization

and

had

joined

in

an

alliance

with

he feudal

system.

imultaneously

ther

broad

strata

f the

bourgeoisie

were

already

proletarianized

r

had sunk

to

the status of

small

commodity

roducers.

What

had

remained

oncealed

by

the

revisionist

ractice

of

the

Second

International, atisfiedwithits successas a mass movement, ecame a

matter

of

immediate

concern

only

with

the

revolutionary

ole

of

the

bolshevist

adre

party

n

the

Russian

Revolution:

the

problem

of

the

conscious

organization

of

proletarian

class

interests n

a

disciplined

vanguard

party.

The

wide

adoption

of

the

bolshevist

xperience

n

the

European

abor

movement

fter he

uccessful

ctober

revolution

ed

less to

the

integration

f

these

experiences

nto theirown

traditions-

eveloped

under

the

completely

ifferent

onditions

f

a

highly

eveloped

ndustrial

society--than

o

the

politically

consequential

universalization

f

the

Leninist

Cadre

Party

derived

rom

he

Russian

revolutionary ovement.The

direct

application

of

Russian

experiences

o the

developed

social

conditions f

Western

Europe,

which

was intendedas a

break

with

the

objectivist

nd

economist

conceptions

f

the

Second

International,

ed

politically

o

the

dissolution f

the

relationship

etween

he

organizational

forms

ased

on

the

workers'

ouncils nd

the

Communist

arty,

esulting

n

the one-sided

rimacy

f

the

centralized

rganization.

heoretically

t led

to

a division f

the

subjective

actor

nd of

class

consciousness

nto

political

and

economic

elements:

the

class

analysis

f

the

proletariat

was

collapsed

into

theoretical

ssues f

party

nd

organization

hich

entered

round

the

struggle orpolitical

power.

Only

with he

protest

movement

hich

ppeared

at

the end

of

the

1960s

did

those

ssues,

which

Marxism

ad

either

enigrated

r

dismissed

s

heresy

and

relegated

o the

periphery,

eemerge

s

central

problems

n

the

face

of

a

system

hat seemed

immune

to

internal

nd

external

opposition.

The

renewed

iscussion

f

the works

f

Reich,

Luxemburg,

ukics,

Korsch

nd

others,

s

well

as

the

numerous

debates on

Marxism

nd

psychoanalysis,

class

consciousness,

he

latent

fascist

endencies n

late

capitalism,

media

theory

nd

aesthetics

oincided

with

experimental

ormsof

action

and

demonstration.tthesametimethesedevelopmentsxpressed sharpened

consciousness f

new

complexes

of

contradictions

hich

the

traditional



10/26


11/26

60

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

(ProduktionsOffentlichkeiten)

hich

to

an

increasing

xtent urn the

basic

conditionsfhuman ife tselfnto heobjectofproductionButat thesame

time

a

potential

opposition

s

released

which,

in

pnnciple

could

be

channeled

nto new

forms

f the

proletarian ublic

sphere.

2)

According

to

the

authors these

contradictory

endencies

f

cultural

socialization an

be

understood

y

postulating

block

of

real

life,

which

indicates crisis

n

human

psychic rganization.

his crisis s

intensified

y

3)

the

expanded

forms f

secondary

xploitation

hich

re made

possible

by

the

development

f

commodity

roduction

nd modern

mass media.

The

accompanying

ndustrial ransformationf

human enses

nd

characteristics

4) alters the veryformswithinwhichthe fragmentedlementsof social

experience

are

capable

of

being

organized

for socialism.

Hence

a

reformulation

f the

question

of

organization

ecomes

necessary.

n

their

politicalpraxis

ocialist

rganizations

an

no

longer

ustain he fiction

hat

the

individual

proletarian

s

organizable

as

a

whole,

over

and

above

particular

nterests.

nstead,

he

pre-revolutionarytrategy

must

be to

seize

potentialopposition

n

whatever

rea

of

human life it

may

appear:

in

factories,

n and

through

he mass

media,

in educational

nstitutions,

n

the

family

nd in the so-called realm of

leisure.

3.

The

Basic Conditions f Life

as

Objects

of

Production

Negt

and

Kluge place

the

dialectic

of

the

bourgeois

and

proletarian

public

spheres

n

the

context

of an

all-encompassing rocess

of human

socialization

which ecame universal

ith he

capitalist

mode of

production.

Only

withthe transition

o

capitalism

oes

the

production

rocess

become

the

dominant

social

relationshippervading

all

areas

of

human

life.

Pre-capitalist

orms f

production,

hichMarx

could

still ubsume

nder

he

general

oncept

f

human

ppropriation

f

nature,

were haracterized

y

the

continual

retreat

f

natural

restrictions

n the

one

hand and

by

the

anchoring

f the abor

process

n

regionally

ifferentiated

ultural,

amilial

and

political

elationships

n the other.

But the abor

process

ua

capitalist

production

rocess

arns

ts

new

quality

because

of the

separation

etween

economic

rofit-maximizing

nterests.

he

public

spheres

f

production

re

distinguished

rom

the

bourgeois

ublic

sphere

hrough

heir ndustrialmode

of

production

nd the

expansion

f

their

cope

to the

basic conditions f human

ife.The centralmoment f these

ublic pheres

f

production

s

previously

rivate

sensuality.

n the

public

sphere

this

sensuality

has

been

combined

with

profit-maximizing

nterests. here

are,

according

o

Negt

and

Kluge

broadl-

speaking,

hreedimensions o the

public

spheres

f

production:

1)

the

sensual-demonstrative

public spheres f factories, anks,urban centers nd industrial ones; 2) the

consciousness

industry,

ncluding

consumption

nd

advertising

nd

3)

public

relations carried on

by

corporations,

ssociations,

tates nd

parties



12/26

THE PROLETARIAN

PUBLIC SPHERE

AND POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION

61

these

norganic

onditions f human existence nd this active

existence,

separationwhich scompletelyosited nly ntherelation fwage abor and

capital. 9

Capitalist

ocial relations

plit

sunder he naturalbonds of

humanity,

as

Marx

explains

t one

point,by

their

endency

o

subsume

ll

historically

developed

cultural

forms

of human

life

under

their

mmanent

ogic

in

accordance

with the

process

of

profit

maximization.

On the

part

of

the

subject,

hisdenial

of

the

social characteristics

f

humanity orresponds

o

the

reduction

f

the laborer to

an

existence

primarily

s a

producer

of

exchange

value.

The

separation

f

workers rom

he means of

production,

whichMarxhistoricallyursues s theprocessof primitiveccumulation,

also severs

heir bstract

abor

power

from he concrete

onditions

f their

existence:

everything

which does

not contribute

to the

immediate

reproduction

of

the

commodity

labor-power

becomes

something

superfluous,

omething

eemingly

rivate,

omething

egatively

etermined

by

the

relationship

which

capital

demands.

For

Negt

and

Kluge

this

transformation

s the

capitalist

cultural

revolution,

which

is

strictly

distinguished

rom he

proletarian

ultural

revolution-the

production

f

communist

orms

of

interaction.

The

development

f

capitalism

also

revolutionizedabits,culturalpatterns, ersonalitytructure,

he

senses,

human

characteristics

nd

consciousness.

he

entire

process

of economic

production

over

the

last

two

or

three

hundred

years

has

produced

increasingly

ocialized

human

beings.

Socialization

tself

has

become

a

fundamental

human

need,

almost

an

anthropological

ategory,

because

people

become

sick

when

they

re forced

o live in

isolation.

On the other

hand,

under

alienated

conditions

his

ocialization

s

always

ombined

with

a

simultaneous

eed to

freeoneself

rom t and

retreat

o

private

forms

f

existence

p.

271).

But now

the

relationship

f the

profit-maximizing

nterest

o

the

basic

conditions

f humanlife tself ecomes

subject

to historicalmodification.

Risingproduction

osts

of the

commodity

abor-power

nd

changes

n

the

organic

omposition

f

capital

turnhuman

needs

and forms

f

consciousness

themselves

nto

objects

of

capitalist

production:

the basic conditions

f

human

life

emerge

from heir

purely

negative

relationship

o

capital.

This

key

development

s the

starting oint

for

Negt

and

Kluge's

analysis.

Their

description

f

the

transformation

f

the

bourgeois

public

spheres

f

production

n the one

hand

and the

occasional

emergence

f

a

proletarian

9.

Karl

Marx,

Grundrisse:

Foundations

of

the

Critique

of

Political

Economy Rough

Draft),

trans.

Martin Nicolaus

(Middlesex,

1973),

p.

489.



13/26

62

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

public sphere

on

the

other can

be understood

as

a

depiction

of

the

subjective cultural side of the reproduction f capital on an ever

increasing

cale.

The

bourgeois

ublic

sphere,

oth n its deal form

nd

in

its

material

ontent,

efers o

the

early

phase

of

capitalist

evelopment.

n

this

phase

the

newly

forming

apitalist

nterests

ere

primarily

oncerned

with

the

appropriation

f the

material

conditions

f

production,

hough

they

lso

waged

a

political

and cultural

truggle gainst

the feudal

system.

The

bourgeoisie

sed

the

public sphere

both as

a

revolutionary

logan

and

as

a medium within

which the

political struggle

for

the

expanded

appropriation

f social wealth ook

place.

This

convergence

f

substantially

divergentnterests, hich hebourgeois ublic spherehomogenizes,ndows

the

bourgeois ublic sphere

with

ts characteristic

nstability,

arking

t as

an

expression

f the transition

o

a new

world-historicalevel of

production.

The unstable

bourgeois

ublic sphere

can

only

ustain tself

n

society

o

the

extent hat t

succeeds

n

either

diverting

ttention

way

from

entral

interests

ied to the realm of

production

nd familial

ocialization

r in

giving

olitical

r cultural

xpression

o

those

nterests.

ut

the

political

nd

cultural

victory

f the

bourgeoisie

nd the

anchoring

f the

principles

f

capitalist roduction

n

broad

areas

of

the

society

made

a

continued

etour

through

nstitutionalizedorms f

the

public sphereunnecessary.

he

dull

compulsion

f

economic

elations

0

sustains

ourgeois

apitalist

omination

more

effectively

han

a

necessarily

nstable

public

consensus

r

political

forcecould ever do.

But this

process

lso

produces

hanges

n

the

tructure

nd

function f

the

public

sphere.

Once

the

capitalist

profit-maximizing

nterest ecomes

the

primary

rinciple

fsocial

organization,

t

produces

new

forms f the

public

sphere,

which

formally

ppear

to

continue he

bourgeois ublic

sphere

but

whose

haracteristics

re

actually

etermined

y

a

very

ifferent

omplex

f

interests.

The traditional

ublic

sphere,

whose

characteristic

eakness ies

in themechanism f

separating

ublic

from

rivate,

s

today

uperseded

y

public spheres

of

industrial

production

which

increasingly

raw in

the

private

ealms,

particularly

he

production

rocess

nd

the

basic conditions

of

life

(p.

35).

The

authors

consider a number

of

tendenciesto be

responsible

or the

emergence

f

these

new

public

spheres

f

production,

which,

taken

together,

haracterize

new level

of

socialization.

Negt

and

Kluge

do

not, however,

iscuss hese

endencies

ystematically;

nstead

hey

limit

themselves

o a

description

f their

ffects.

10.

Karl

Marx,

Capital

1

(New

York,

1906),

p.

809.



14/26


15/26

64 NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

capital

means that the

institution

tands

only

in

an

external,

loose

relationshipt.9 he apitalist roductionrocess,which n turn nlyndirectly

affects

he institution'snternal

workings.

The

term real

subsumption

becomes

applicable

to the

public sphere

only

when those realmshitherto

relatively

utonomous re

integrated

irectly

nto the

profit-maximizing

process

and

the

use

values,

informationnd

ideologyproduced

by

these

realms

re

employed pecifically

s a means of

stabilizing

he

ruling ystem

(p.

297).

This

general

description

f

the nature

of real

subsumption

equires

ome

qualification.

he

emergence

f mixedforms f

state

nd

private

conomic

activity

o

deal

with ases

n

whichthe ndividual

apitalist

ncurs

osts

for

taskswhich transcend he immediate nterestsf

profit

maximization s

a

fundamental haracteristic f late

capitalist

social

systems.

uch mixed

forms an neither

e

entirely

scribed o

the

ndividual

apitalist's

nterests,

nor

can

they

exist

entirely

outside of the

profit-maximizing

rocess.

Paradigmatic

for such

mixed forms are the

majority

of

educational

institutions

s

well as

government-regulated

adio

and television tations.

Yet the

empirically

emonstrable

mportance

f

thosemixedformsmakes t

questionable

whether

hey

can

be

adequately

explained

by

means

of a

heuristic evice

describing

he

transition

rom

ormal

o real

subsumption.The

analysis

f themixedforms hould itselfbe the central

object

of a

Marxist

heory

f the

tate

whichwould

explain

the

contradictory

endencies

produced

by

structuralharacteristicsf those

nstitutionso

longerdirectly

responsive

o

capitalist

nterests.t is a weakness f

Negt

and

Kluge's

book

that

the authors

onsider

he relevantworks f

Claus

Offe,

Joachim

Hirsch

and others

only

thematically

nd not

systematically.

The

organized

ransformation

f

commodities

nto

fantasy

alues

and the

institutionally

mediated

absorption

of

realms,

not

previously

directly

embraced

by

the

profit-maximizing

nterests,

re

characteristicf the

system

ofsecondaryxploitation. his system erivests new

quality

from hefact

that

it

is

no

longer

merely

an

extension of

traditional

realms

like

consumption

nd the

so-called

public

sector:

precisely

ecause

secondary

exploitationays

hold

of human

consciousness,

f human

wishes,

opes

and

conceptions,

close bond

reestablishes

tself

etween

rimary

nd

secondary

forms f

exploitation. econdary

xploitation

lso

existedwith

a

specific

functionn

the

classical

phase

of

capitalism.

But n

late

capitalism

econdary

exploitation

ssumes new

quality

based

on

the

fact that

a

certain

kind of

social

wealth

must be

produced

within

the

framework f

primary

exploitation, typeof social wealthwhich tself hreatens o oppose the

immediate

nterests f

capital

as

an

independent

orce.

This

new

level

of



16/26


17/26

66

NEW

GERMAN

CRITIQUE

cannot

be diverted rom heir

goal.

Rather,

these human needs

preserve

within hemselves

realistic

nd unified

endency

owards heir

atisfaction.

It is

unlikely

hat in the

long

run

they

will be contentwithsubstitute

satisfactions

nd allow themselves

o

be

distracted rom heir wn realism

by

any

kind of

reality

rinciple

n their earch for

atisfying

elationships p.

304).

Of

course,

this

realism

characteristic f human needs

is itself

historically

roduced.

The historical

development

f this realistic

basis

coincides

with he

objective

ossibility

f their

ealization.At the same

time

it is the result f both an

expansion

nd

intensification

f

exploitation

nd

the

relaxation nd

undermining

f

disciplinary

ork

norms.

The twelve

our

day,

child

abor and the mmediate

emandsof

material

existence revent heveryformationf needswhich transcend he

simple

reproduction

of

the

commodity

abor-power.

The

development

of

individualneeds

presupposes high

degree

of social wealth

which relieves

individuals

from the immediate

pressures

of

existence

and allows the

emergence

f a formof

leisurewhich s more than a mere

reflex

of the

working

ay.

A

certain evelof

social

development

mustbe

presupposed

or

needs

to

emerge

which

point

beyond

the

existing

ramework f

material

production;

these needs

can,

obviously,

hemselves

ecome

objects

of

the

maximization f

capitalist rofit.

Expanded

commodity

roduction

nd the

public spheresof production epresent ew historic ormsof production

which absorb and

restructurehese needs

according

to

the

interests

f

capital.

These

apparatus

of

production

re

effective

is-d-vis

he

masses

precisely

ecause

they

do not

abstract

from

real

experiences

nd

wishes.

They

intervene

n the

level of concrete

nterests. n

the other

hand,

they

cannot

grasp

these

needs

in

their

pecific

determinate

ualities,

n their

uniqueness,

without

djusting

hem

o their wn

nterests

n

the

production

process.

This assimilation f

vital human

interests

nto the

content

f the

public sphere

of

production

auses

it,

because

of

its

content,

o

assume a

positioncontradictoryo the generaltendency f capital. This general

tendency,

n

the nterest f

an

expansion

f

profit

ealization,

moves n the

direction f

increasing

bstraction rom

oncrete

onditions.

At the

same

time

capital

must,

in

order

o

progress

long

this

path,

concern

tself

with

living

onditions,

iving

abor

and

human

raw

materials o

an

ever

ncreasing

degree.

Capitalism

must

dirty

ts

hands'

by

dealing

with

human

beings.

This

is the

reason

for

ts

extreme

nstability

p.

309).

Thus

capitalism

tself

ets in

motion a

countermovementf

concrete

interests.

y

developing articular

uman

qualities

n

isolation,

y

solating

themfrom ach other r evenbysuppressinghemaltogether,heinterests

of

capital

constitute

egatively

complex

of

qualities

and

interests

hich



18/26

THE

PROLETARIAN

PUBLIC

SPHERE

AND

POLITICAL ORGANIZATION

67

find

themselves n continual

retreat

from

profit-maximizing

endencies

which hreaten o absorb them. These qualities xistbeneaththethreshold

of

bourgeois

rule,

in

the form of

escapism

and

fantasy

ctivity,

which

capitalism

cannot

completely integrate

into

the

process

of

profit

maximization.

The

character

f this

fantasy ctivity

s

multi-dimensional.

It

emerges

s

a

necessary

ompensation

orthe

experience

f the alienated

labor

process,

as an

equilibrium

f drives

n

opposition

to

intolerable

conditions

f alienation

p.

67).

If

[the

workers'

eeds

and

interests]

re

directly

suppressed,

that

is,

if

they

are

not

utilized

in

society's

profit-maximizing

rocess,

hey

maintain

hemselves

s

living

abor

power,

as

raw

material.

n

this

quality

s extra-economic

nterests,hey

xist

n

the

forbidden zones of

fantasy,

beneath

taboos,

as

stereotypes

f the

rudimentary

rganization

f thebasic

conditions

f

proletarian

ife.

As such

they

annotbe

further

uppressed.

hey

also

cannot

be

assimilated.

n

this

respect

hey

possess

wo

characteristics:n

their

defensive tance over

and

against

society,

n

their

conservatism

nd

in their

ubcultural

haracter,

they

re mere

objects.

But at the same

time

they

omprise

he block of real

life

which

opposes

the

profit-maximizing

nterest

p.

107).

This

negative,

dialectical

relationship

f the block of real

life

to

the

profit-maximizing

process

will

continue s

long

as

capital

cannot

do

without

iving

abor

as

a

sourceof value. Where

attempts

re made to

integrate

his block into

capitalist

nterests,

or

xample,

by

subordinating

he

basic conditions

f

ife

to

the

capitalist

rogramming

nd consciousness

ndustry

r

the

new

public

spheres

f

production,

he

process

f

suppression

nd exclusion

produces

new,

more

differentiatedlock

accordingly

p.

107).

Television nd media concentration evertheless

epresent

new

stage

of

social

production

which

threatens

o

draw

in

the

very

raw

material

comprising

he

block

of

real

life.

The

degree

that this

s

successful

mustbe

determined

by

a

consideration f the

structure

f

production

of the

developedmedia.

5.

Television nd

Media

Concentration

The

investigation

f the

functional onnections

f

developed

mass media

assumes

n

important osition

n

Negt

and

Kluge's

discussion.

An

analysis

f

these

media must determine

whether ne

can

accurately

peak

of

a

new

quality

f

cultural ocialization. Such an

analysis

must

develop

criteria

y

means

of

which new

media

can be

differentiated

rom

those of the

traditional

ourgeois ublic sphere.

And at

the

same time

t

would have to

formulate plausible explanationof changes n the media's structure f

production

whichhave

allowed

the

media

to

take

on

these

new

functions.



19/26

68

NEW GERMAN

CRITIQUE

a)

Government-regulated

elevision

Negt and Kluge describe government-regulatedelevision as an

institutionharacteristic

f a transitional

hase...,

in

whichthe essential

needs of communication

re no

longer

ntrusted

o an

exclusively

apitalist

mechanism,

ut

in

whicheffective

ew forms f

public

controldo not

yet

exist

(p.

217).

Television

is

situated

in

a

contradictory

ntermediate

position

etween he

bourgeois ublic

sphere

nd the

new

public spheres

f

production.

urthermore,

elevision

s

separated

from

he

bourgeois ublic

sphere

nd itsmedia

by

thetotal ndustrialization

f ts

production

tructure

and

by

ts

complete

ntegration

f the basic conditions

f

life,

as evidenced

bythetotalityf tsprogram fferings.elevision s distinguishedrom he

new

public

spheres

f

production,

or

xample

media

concentration,

y

the

institutionalization

f its

governmental

egulation.

Government

egulation

prevents

elevision's

omplete

omination

y

ndividual

apitalist

nterests

2

and

applies

norms

n

the form f

programmatic

bligations,

equiring

hat

programming

e

in

the

public

interest

-thus

preventing

he direct

satisfaction f the concrete needs

of

various social

groups.

Formally,

television tands

n

the tradition f the

bourgeois

public

sphere.Its

public

regulation

s

designed

o

prevent

he domination

f

the

medium

by

special

social interests. et the control

of

television

y

relevant

ocial

groups,which

guarantee

hat

programs

re balanced and that

they

erve

he public

well-being,

eallyonly

createsan

unstable

equilibrium

f

social

interests

incapable

of

achieving

onsensus,

ermitting

nly

an

abstract rade-off

f

the

values of the

bourgeois

public sphere.

The

increasing

pressure

for

legitimation

hichthis ituation

roduces

eads

to

half-solutions,

epeated

on

every

evel

of the

production ierarchy.

n

the

bourgeois

public sphere

the

opinio

communis

was

a

bond whose

content

n

principle

ould

still

be

determined. ut the

establishmentf

television

rogramming

n

the

basis

of

a

fictitious

ublic

well-being,

which even

specific

ndividual

programsshouldaddress, s theresult f a harmonization f interestsmade

possible

only

by

obfuscating

heir

concrete

contents.

This

relationship

between

increased

pressure

for

legitimation

nd abstract

trade-off f

interests

12.

The

fact

hat elevision

s

more

than

merely

mediumfor ndividual

apitalist

nterests

has

long

since

ceased

to mean

that

these

nterests ave no effect n actual calculations

nd

production.

he

increasing ispersion

f

production

n

enterprises

hich re either

private

r

contain

privately

inanced elevision ectormakes

any

real

public

regulation

nd control

f

these

productions

mpossible.

Moreover,

ising

osts n an

increasingly

iminishing

market

make

television

ncreasingly ependent

on

advertising

nd

the resale and distribution

f

programs

n a nationaland internationalelevisionmarketwhichhas begunto expandwith

the

cassette

ndustry).



20/26

THE

PROLETARIAN

PUBLIC

SPHERE AND

POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION

69

restricts

elevisiono the

broadcasting

f

generalized

rograms p.

176)

which orrespondsn thepartof viewerso an abstracteceptivity.

The

programming

bligations

nd

guidelines

n

which--in

nalogy

o

com-

modity

roduction--the

ong-term

nterests

f

capital

re

expressed

merge

on

the

evel

f

program

lanning

s

contradictory

o the hort-term

nterests

of

ndividual

rograms

hich

tilize arious

d hoc

legitimations:

ating

scores,

opicality,

conomy

f

production,

echnical

uality,

esthetic

nno-

vation,

ntertainment

alue,

riginality,

tc. These

contradictory

elation-

ships

etween

orms

f

egitimation

rise

rom structure

f

production

n

which

arious

evels f

production

onverge:

t the evel f the

ndividual

televisionrogramsndfilms oncreteabor ncountershighlyomplex,

relatively

ontent-free

echnology,

nd

both

n turn re ncluded

n

abstract

planning

ctivities

nvolving

high

egree

fdivision

f abor.

On

the

part

f

the

product,

his contradiction

xpresses

tself

n the

divergence

f

a

program's

ndividual

lements:

he entertainment

alueof

the

program

assumes

n

ndependence

is-d-vis

ts

ducational

alue

ndthe

ducational

value

n

turn

ontradicts

he

program's

alue

as news.

This

contradiction

between

ong-term

nd short-term

nterestseveals

tself

n

every

rogram,

regardless

f

whether

t

deals

with

news,

critical

documentary

r

entertainment.he contradictions intensifiedytheambivalence hich

exists

etween

most

tations'

riticaltance

owards

heculture

nd

their

actual

function

s

producers

f

entertainment

p.

187).

On the

ubjective

ide,

his

ontradiction

xpresses

tself

n

the clashof

various

rientations

owards ork.

Conflictsccurmost

readily

n those

areas

where he oncrete

ctivity

f

the

program

roducers

uns

p

against

abstract

uidelines

nd

rigid

ime-cost

uotas

which ecide

he

program's

struggle

or ts

very

urvival.

he

often-interrupted

truggle

f the

past

years

or codified

ditorial

olicy

ame

from

recisely

hose

roups

who

couldconnectheir emands or odetermination,ordemocratizationf

the

decision

making

tructure,

o

the content ftheirwork. n

part

till

organized

rofessionally,

ut

already ssuming

heform f a trade

union,

this

movement f

editors nd contributors

oon

took

up

demands

transcending

heir wn conomic

nterests,

iming

nstead t a

self-criticism

of

radio and

television tations.

Negt

and

Kluge

incorrectly

ssess

he

direction f this

movement,

which

goes

far

beyond

he nstitutional

ramework

f the

television tations. ince

they

understand

he

struggle

or a codified

editorial

policy

only

as

an

organization

f economic

nterests

hich

eeks o extend ts

role

n

planning,

they

nderestimatehe extent fthe conflicts hich risefrom he demand

for

he

right

o determine

he content

f

one's work.The

authors

orrectly



21/26

70

NEW GERMAN

CRITIQUE

perceive

hat

qualitative

ssuescannot be taken

up

productively

rom

the

position f the ndividual lanner.Yet bymaintaininghat the totalityf

viewer

needs

(p.

218),

the

fundamental

nterest

n

communication

s

such

(p.

180),

must be absorbed

in

the

institution f

television,

hat

reciprocal

ommunicative

elationships

must be

created

on

a

horizontal

level,

he authors

atally

pproach

the

neoromantic

uilding-block

heory

f

Hans

Magnus Enzensberger,

ho

formulated

echnical

utopias

above

the

actual

organization

f the

working

lass and

ignored

he

necessity

o

change

institutions

ithin

apitalist

elations

f

production.

When

Negt

and

Kluge

conclude:

Thus

the task of

subjecting

overnment-regulated

elevision

o

comprehensive ubliccriticismemains matterfor critics romwithout

(p.

219),

they

re

abandoning

the

political

terrain

without

onstructing

plausible

alternative. Because of its

increased

need

for

legitimation,

television

must

develop

a

strong

elf-interest

n

making

use

of

collective

social

experience

f the ort

which

s

created

n

political truggles.

hus it is

important

o

organize

those who

produce

television

rograms

n

order to

change

at least

partially

he

institutional

onditions

f

its

reception

nd

integration y

viewers.

For if

it

is

correct

o

maintainthat

the

cultural

critique,

which either

criticizes heconsciousnessndustrys a whole orsimply nalyzesdeological

tendencies f

individual

programs,

omes

up

short

gainst

television s

an

apparatus

of

industrial

production,

erving

nly

the

rearrangement

f

legitimation

ithin

he

apparatus

p.

219),

then

t

is

necessary

o discuss

concretely

he

kind

of

organizational,

echnological

nd

material

onditions

which

would

make

possible

he

development

f

counter-productions.

edia

critique obviously

annot startfrom

he

situation

f the

viewer

itting

n

front of the

set. But

neither can

it

ignore

the

medium's

internally

contradictory

nstitutional

ies,

or

its

structure f

reception

without

t the

same

time

investigating racticable

counter-models.

As

long

as the

politically

nd

materially

ecure nstitutionftelevision

s

not

fundamentally

changed

by

a

political

praxis

which

creates new

institutions,

practical

critique

s

limited o the

precise nvestigation

nd

evaluation

f

the

potential

for

opposition

hat can be

crystallized

n

the

medium.

The

interchange

between he television

tation nd its

viewers,

which

would make

possible

a

variety

f

television

hannels,

written nd

telephone

ommunicationsnd

assemblies f

viewers

p.

223),

could be

developed

more

fruitfully--but

only

under

ocialist

onditions.

n

the

present

ituation

t

is

still

necessary

o

seize

contradictory

endencies

n

themass

media

and

to

support

he

struggle

forcodeterminations an elementof revolutionarytrategy.



22/26

THE

PROLETARIAN

UBLIC

SPHEREAND

POLITICAL

ORGANIZATION 71

In

contrast,

the

struggle

for the

creation and

acceptance

of

counter-productionsursuing utonomous oals continues n anotherevel.

Those

who are

engaged

in

the

struggle

or

codetermination

re

aiming

primarily

t

securing

egal, wage-related

nd

content

emands

within

heir

private

or

public

institutions.

ut the

organizers

f

counter-productions

have a different

oal

in

mind--expressed

n the

growing cooperation

between

socialist

publishing

houses,

newspapers

nd

magazines,

between

socialist

ilmmakers nd

filmdistribution

ooperatives.

While the

struggles

for

odetermination

im

at

an

improvement

n

the conditions f

production,

these

wider

struggles ttempt

o

acknowledge

nd

deal

adequately

with

needsarisingn response o the conditions f socialistpraxis.Clearly,the

organization

f

counter-productions

y

cooperating

eftist

roups

in

the

media can

only

result rom

he

unification

f socialist

raxis.

Under

present

conditions

t would

be

illusory

or

eft

roups

n the

media to

imagine

that a

mass

left

press

would have

a

chance

in the

struggle gainst

the

capitalist

cultural

ndustry

s

Willi

Mtinzenberg's

roductions

ad in the

Weimar

Republic.

Although

utonomous

o a

degree,

Mtinzenberg's

nterprises

ere

both

in

organization

and

content

dependent

on

a

relatively trong

Communist

Party

and

on a broad

revolutionary

movement

within

the

workinglass.The developmentf sucha broadmovement,onsistingoth

of

producers

and of

an

audience,

mediated

through

organization

and

experience

n

political

struggles,

s the

necessary

precondition

for

the

development

f socialist

ounter-productions

n

the media.

Even f

one believes

hat

present

ocialist

raxis

has reached

point

where

it can

pose

the

question

of the construction

f

counter-productions

n

the

media,

the

problem

till remains

whether,

s

Negt

and

Kluge suggest,

media

tradeunion

within

G Druck

und

Papier Printing

nd

Paper

Union)

really

would be

in a

position

to create a

politically

ffective

lliance

of

journalists,writersnd artists oncernedwithcodetermination ithin he

left

media. The

authors'

radical

critique

of media

workers'

ttempts

t

organization

whichdo

not

ncludedemands

for

he

control f the

means

of

productio

analysis of public sphere and experience

Documents