gunher anders

8/18/2019 Gunher Anders

1/97

The obsolescence of man, vol I , part 2: The

world as phantom and as matrix:

philosophical considerations on radio andtelevision - Günther Anders

Anders.jpg

The first complete English translation of a remarkable 1956 essay about televisionfrom ol. ! of The Obsolescence of Man by "#nther Anders$ %ho&using phenomenological analyses$ e'cerpts from his diaries and reflections on daily life& depicts a capitalist %orld that manufactures a %arped (mass)man* by imposingnonparticipation$ consumption of images$ artificial (needs* +(drug addiction is themodel for today,s needs*-$ separation$ (conditioning*$ an eternal present$commodified leisure and the dissolution of the individual in vapid mass producedroles$ in a te't that in many %ays anticipates the theory of the (spectacle* of "uyebord and the situationists.

Translated in April)/ay 012 from3 "#nther Anders$ La Obsolescencia del Hombre +ol. !-$ tr. 4osep /onter re7$ re)Te'tos$ alencia$ 011$ pp. 15)08.

La Obsolescencia del Hombre +ol. !- %as originally published in "ermany in 1956

under the title3 ie Antiuiertheit des /enschen !.

Chapter 1 - The world delivered to o!r

home

The Obsolescence of Man, "ol!me I, #art Two, $The %orld as #hantom and as

&atrix: #hilosophical Considerations on 'adio and Television( ) Günther

Anders1

But since the king did not like the idea that his son, straying from the main roads, should be wandering all over the land to obtain his own opinions of the world, he presented him with a carriage and horses. !ow you do not need to walk", were hiswords. #hat they meant was$ %ou are no longer allowed to walk." The effectivereality$ %ou can no longer walk."

1

https://libcom.org/files/images/library/Anders.jpghttps://libcom.org/#footnote1_cochby6https://libcom.org/#footnote1_cochby6https://libcom.org/files/images/library/Anders.jpg


2/97

Chapter I

T*+ %'. .+I"+'+. T /0' *&+

ection 1

!o Means &s Only a Means.

The first reaction to the critiue to %hich %e shall subject radio and television %illsound something like this3 such a generali7ation is not permitted: %hat is of interest ise'clusively %hat %e do %ith these instruments$ ho% %e use them$ for %hat purposes%e use them as means3 good or bad$ human or inhuman$ social or antisocial.

;e have all heard this optimistic argument&if %e can be permitted to use such ane'pression&%hich is a legacy of the era of the first industrial revolution: and in all of

its lairs it still lives on %ith the same unreflective superficiality.

The validity of this argument is more than doubtful. The freedom to use thetechnology that it presupposes: its faith in the idea that there are parts of our %orldthat are nothing but (means* %hich can be assessed ad libitum as (noble goals* is pure illusion. The instruments themselves comprise facta that also affect us. And thisreality$ %hich affects us regardless of the goal to %hich %e %ish to harness theseinstruments$ %ill not just disappear by verbally demoting them to the status of (means*. !n fact$ the crude division of our life into (means* and (ends* %hich isentailed by this argument$ has nothing to do %ith reality.


3/97

The 'ourney towards the spring &s 'ust as good as drinking from it.

;e can$ of course$ use television for the purpose of participating in a religious service.?ut %hat (affects* or (transforms* us in this e'perience&%hether %e like it or not&

just like the religious service itself$ is the fact that %e do not participate$ but rather consume only its image. This picture)book effect$ ho%ever$ is not only different fromthe (proclaimed* effect$ but very much the opposite of it. ;hat marks us anddemarcates us$ %hat conforms us and deforms us$ is not just the objects transmitted bythe (media*$ but the media themselves$ the devices themselves$ %hich are not justobjects %ith one possible use$ but %hich determine their use by virtue of their fi'edstructure and function and$ accordingly$ also determine the style of our actions and our lives3 in short$ us.

The readers to %hom the follo%ing pages are addressed are$ in the first place$

consumers$ that is$ those %ho listen to radio and %atch T. =econdly$ professional philosophers and the employees of the radio and television industries. The theme of my reflections %ill seem strange to the philosophers: and to the specialists$ the %ay !address it %ill seem strange.


4/97

should buy the same thing to meet the same need +%hose implantation %as obtained inthe same manner-. !n countless industries this ideal has been completely or almostcompletely achieved. To me it seems debatable %hether the motion picture industrycan attain this goal in an optimal manner because$ as a continuation of the theatricaltradition$ it still serves its commodity as a spectacle for many people at the same time .This undoubtedly represents an archaic residue. !t is not surprising that the radio andtelevision industries$ despite the motion picture industry,s enormous scale of development$ can compete %ith the movies3 both industries have the added good luck that they sell as a commodity$ in addition to the commodities that are meant for consumption$ also the apparatus necessary for that consumption: and$ unlike thecinema$ they can be sold to almost every consumer. or is it surprising that almosteveryone takes advantage of this opportunity$ since this commodity$ unlike the motion picture$ can be delivered to the homes of the consumers by means of the radios andtelevisions. =o it did not take long for the =miths and /illers$ %ho used to spend their evenings in the movie theaters$ to instead stay at home to (receive* radio comedies or ne%s of the %orld. The natural situation of the movies&the consumption of the masscommodity by a mass of people&no longer prevails here$ something that naturallydoes not entail any reduction in the scale of mass production: instead$ mass productionfor mass)men&and the production of mass)men themselves&is increasing every day%ithout interruption. /illions of listeners are served the same food for their ears:every one of them %as treated$ by %ay of this en masse product$ as a mass)man$ as an(indefinite article*: each one %as thus fi'ed in this uality$ that is$ his lack of uality.!t just turned out that$ for the mass production of radios and televisions$ the collectiveconsumer %as rendered superfluous. The =miths and the /illers therefore consume

the mass products en famille or even alone: the more isolated the consumer$ the more productive3 thus %e %itness the rise of the type of mass*hermit : and$ no%$ there aremillions of e'amples of this type&each one separated from the others$ butnonetheless the same as them&%ho are seated in their homes like hermits$ but not torenounce the %orld$ but in order not to miss even a crumb of the %orld in effigie for the love of "od.

Everyone kno%s that the industry has abandoned its postulate of centrali7ation$ %hich%as the indisputable model some thirty years ago$ most often for strategic reasons$ infavor of the principle of (dispersion*. !t is not contradictory that this principle of

dispersion should be valid today for the production of the mass)man. And ! say$ for his production$ despite the fact that %e have so far spoken only of dispersed consumption.?ut this leap from consumption to production is justified here because both coincidein a certain %ay$ since +in a non)materialistic sense- man (is %hat he eats*3 mass)menare produced because they consume mass products: this implies at the same time thatthe consumer of mass)produced commodities$ through his consumption$ becomes acollaborator in the production of the mass)man +that is$ he becomes a collaborator in

4


5/97

the process of transforming himself into a mass)man-. Thus$ consumption and production coincide here. !f consumption (is dispersed*$ so too is the production of the mass)man. And this takes place %herever consumption takes place3 in the presenceof every radio and every television. !n a certain %ay$ each individual is employed andoccupied as adomestic worker . !t is true$ of course$ that he is a domestic %orker of avery unusual type$ because of the nature of his %ork3 his self)transformation into amass)man through his consumption of mass)produced commodities$ that is$ throughhis leisure. ;hereas the classical domestic %orker made products in order to assurehimself of a minimum of consumer goods and leisure$ today,s domestic %orker consumes a ma'imum number of leisure products in order to collaborate in the production of the mass)man. The process is completely parado'ical insofar as thedomestic %orker$ instead of being paid for this collaboration$ must even pay for ithimself: especially for the means of production +the radio or television and$ in manycountries$ even for the broadcasts-$ by the use of %hich he allo%s himself to betransformed into the mass)man. Ce therefore pays to sell himself: even his lack of freedom&%hich lack he has helped to bring about&he must obtain by buying it$since it$ too$ has been transformed into a commodity.

?ut even if you reject this shocking %ay of looking at the consumer of mass)producedcommodities as the collaborator of the production of the mass)man$ it cannot bedenied that in order to create this kind of mass)man$ %hich is today desired$ no longer reuires effective mass participation in the form of consolidated masses. De ?on,sreflections on cro%ds and ho% they transform man are obsolete$ since thedepersonali7ation of individuality and the standardi7ation of rationality are carried outat home. The stage)managing of masses that Citler speciali7ed in has becomesuperfluous3 if one %ants to transform a man into a nobody +and even make him proudto be a nobody-$ it is no longer necessary to dro%n him in a mass$ or to bury him in acement construction mass)produced by masses. o depersonali7ation$ no loss of theability to be a man is more effective than the one that apparently preserves thefreedom of the personality and the rights of the individual. !f the procedureof conditioning takes place in a special %ay in the home of every person&in theindividual home$ in isolation$ in millions of isolated units&the result %ill be perfect.The treatment is absolutely discreet$ since it is presented as fun$ the victim is not toldthat he must make any sacrifices and he is left %ith the illusion of his privacy or$ at

least$ of his private space. !n actuality$ the old e'pression$ (A man,s home is %orth its%eight in gold* is once again true$ if in a completely ne% sense$ since it is %orth its%eight in gold not just to the o%ner of the home$ %ho gulps do%n the soupof conditioning by the ladle)full$ but also for those %ho are the masters of thehomeo%ners3 the caterers and suppliers %ho serve the diners this soup that is their daily fare.

ection

5


6/97

The radio and the television screen become transformed into a negative family table+and the family is transformed into a miniature audience.

!t %ill be understood that this mass consumption is not usually called by its true name.To the contrary3 it is presented as something that favors the rebirth of the family and

privacy$ %hich is understandable$ but an understandable hypocrisy3 the ne% inventionsinvoke nothing but the old ideals$ %hich can fortuitously be presented as factors thatinfluence purchasing. (The Brench family has discovered$* %e read in #iener

resse +ecember 02$ 1952-$ (that television is an e'cellent means to divert young people from costly pastimes$ and to keep children at home and to give a ne%stimulus to family gatherings.* This evaluation ignores the possibility that this kind of consumption actually entails$ to the contrary$ the complete dissolution of the family:and it does so in such a manner that this dissolution preserves or even acuires theappearance of an intimate family life. And it does in fact dissolve it$ since %hatdominates the home$ thanks to television$ is the broadcast of the outside world &realor fictional: and it dominates the home in such an unlimited manner that it invalidatesand renders phantasmagorical the reality of the home$ not only that of the four %allsand the furniture$ but also of the shared family life itself. ;hen that %hich is remote becomes familiar$ the familiar becomes remote or disappears. ;hen the phantom becomes real$ reality becomes a phantom. o%adays$ the real home has been demotedto the status of a container and its function is reduced to containing the video screenfor the outside %orld. As a #iener resse article datelined from Dondon +


7/97

family: to the contrary$ %hat the television set reproduces and embodies is preciselythe decentrali7ation of the family$ its e')centricity$ because it is the negative familytable. !t does not provide a common center point $ but rather a common avenue of escape for the members of the family. ;hereas the table %as a centripetal force for thefamily and it had encouraged those %ho sat around it to set the shuttles of mutualfamily interests in motion$ to share glances and conversations in order to continue%eaving the fabric of family life$ the television screen is centrifugal. !n fact$ thefamily members are not seated in such a %ay as to face one another: the arrangementof chairs in front of the television screen is a chance affair and should the familymembers look at each other it is only by accident$ just as any speech bet%een them +if they should ever %ant or be able to talk- is a result of chance. They are no longer together$ but merely placed one ne't to the other: they are mere spectators. !n thesecircumstances one can no longer speak of %eaving the fabric of family life$ or of a%orld in %hich they participate or %hich they create together. ;hat takes placeinstead is only that the members of the family fly to%ards a realm of unreality at thesame time$ all of them together in the best cases$ but never really share the e'perienceat the point of liftoff: or else they journey to%ards a %orld that they actually share%ith no one +since they do not really participate in it themselves-: or if they do share itin some manner$ they only do so %ith all the millions of (soloists of massconsumption*$ %ho just like them and at the same time as them stare at their televisionscreens. The family has been restructured into a miniature audience, and the living room has been transformed into a miniature movie theater and the movie theater hasbecome the model for the home. !f there is still anything that the members of thefamily e'perience or participate in$ not alone$ or even as isolated individuals alongside

the other members of the family$ but truly as a shared family e'perience$ it is only thee'perience of a%aiting the moment and %orking for the moment$ %hen they %ill havefinally paid off all the installments on their televisions and %ill once and for all put anend to their lives in common. The unconscious goal of their last life in common istherefore its e'tinction.

ection 3

Television and radio speak on our behalf+ they thus transform us into minors and subordinates. F

Television vie%ers$ %e have said$ converse %ith each other only by accident&insofar as they still retain the %ill or the ability to speak.

This is true even of people %ho listen to the radio. They too speak only by mistake.Their %ill and their ability to speak diminish %ith each passing day&this does notmean that they literally fall silent$ but only that their garrulousness has assumed a purely passive form. !f in our fable %e said$ in the %ords of the king$ that (o% you

7

https://libcom.org/#footnote3_irg9xswhttps://libcom.org/#footnote3_irg9xsw


8/97

do not need to %alk* means (o% you cannot %alk*$ in this case the (o% you nolonger need to talk* is transformed into (o% you can no longer talk*. -ince thetelevision and the radio speak on our behalf, they also deprive us of our ability to

speak : they rob us of our capacity to e'press ourselves$ of our opportunities for speech$ and of our pleasure in speaking$ just as the music of the phonograph hasrobbed us of the live music that %e used to perform in our homes.

The pairs of lovers sauntering along the shores of the Cudson$ the Thames or theanube %ith a portable radio do not talk to each other$ but listen to a third person& the public$ almost al%ays anonymous$ voice of the program that they %alk like a dog:or more accurately$ that %alks them like a pair of dogs. =ince they are only a public inminiature that follo%s the voice of the broadcast$ they do not %alk alone$ but in thecompany of a third person. ;e may not speak$ therefore$ of any kind of situation of intimate conversation$ %hich is ruled out in advance: and any intimate contacts thatmight take place bet%een the lovers are introduced and even stimulated not by them$ but by that third party$ the deep or crooning voice of the program that +for is not thisthe very meaning of the %ord$ (program*- tells both lovers %hat to feel and %hat todo depending on %hether it is day or night. And since they do %hat they are told to doin the presence of this third party$ they do it in an acoustically indiscreet situation.Co%ever entertaining their obedience may seem to the t%o lovers$ it is a certainty thatthey do not entertain each other: rather$ both are entertained by that third party %hichalone has a voice: and this voice does not entertain them only in the senseof conversing %ith them$ or even of just amusing them$ but also in the senseof soutenir Gsupporting themH$ since as the third party in the alliance$ this voice givesthem that support and aid that they cannot mutually provide each other$ since they donot kno% %hat to do %ith themselves. The fact that even the actual faire amour itself is almost al%ays conducted to the accompaniment of the radio +and not only playing acreative swooning musical-$ does not need to be shamefully dissimulated for a %orldthat not only kno%s this is true$ but also practices it as something entirely normal. !nfact$ the radio$ %hich is admitted or desired today in every situation$ plays the role of that torch)bearing female guide %hom the ancients called upon to %itness their amorous pleasures: the difference bet%een the t%o is that today,s guide is amechanical public utility$ that its torch must provide not just illumination$ but also%armth$ and must not remain silent under any circumstances$ but to the contrary must

talk its head off and provide a background of noise in the form of songs or %ords inorder to suppress that horror vacui %hich does not loosen its grip on the pair of loverseven in actu. This background noise is so fundamentally important that it has even been adopted by the voicepondences$ introduced in 1952$ those recorded magnetictapes$ %hich people send to each other. ;hen a lover utters this kind of illiterate loveletter$ %hat he is doing is speaking on a pre)recorded musical background$ because for his adored addressee it is likely that (nothing more than his voice* %ould be too bare

8


9/97

a gift. ;hat really has to be heard$ some%hat like a suitor %ho has been transformedinto a thing$ is like%ise the third voice.

?ut the situation of lovemaking is just one e'ample$ the most blatant. !n much thesame %ay$ people keep themselves entertained in any situation$ in every activity: and

%hen$ by some oversight or carelessness$ they speak to each other$ behind themspeaks$ as the principal actor$ as the tenor$ the voice of the radio and transmits to themthe reassuring and comforting feeling that it %ill continue to speak even after theythemselves have had their say&even after they are dead.

And no matter ho% much they no% have a guaranteed right to speak$ they have beencompletely inoculated in their hearing$ and have essentially ceased to be I J KLMNOῶPNOQJ$ just as$ as eaters of bread$ they have ceased to beἔ homines fabri$ since they do

not give form to their verbal nourishment$ nor do they bake their o%n bread. Bor them%ords are no longer something one speaks$ but something one merely hears: speaking

is no longer something that one does$ but something that one receives. !t is clear thatthey therefore (have* the logos in a completely different sense than is conveyed byAristotle,s definition: and it is just as clear that they are thus transformed&in theetymological sense of the term&into infantile beings$ that is$ into minors$ those %hodo not speak. o matter in %hat cultural or political milieu this process to%ards thecondition of ORS KLMNS R OJ Gan e'istence %ithout speechH takes place$ its end resultἄ ἶ is al%ays the same3 a type of man %ho$ because he no longer speaks himself$ nolonger has anything to say: and %ho$ because he only listens&and this is more andmore the case&is a subordinate. The initial effects of this development are manifesteven today3 the languages of all advanced countries have become cruder and poorer:and there is a gro%ing aversion to the use of language.2 ?ut not only this&there hasalso been a corresponding impoverishment and barbari7ation of e'perience$ that is$ of man himself$ because man,s (inner life*$ its richness and its subtlety$ cannot endure%ithout the richness and subtlety of his %ay of speaking and not only becauselanguage is man,s means of e'pression$ but also because man is the product of hisway of speaking+ in short$ because man is articulated as he himself articulates and isdisarticulated to the degree that he does not articulate.5

ection 4

)vents come to us, not we to them.

The consumer goods by means of %hich such a transformation of human nature isachieved are brought into our homes$ just like gas or electricity. The deliveries are notconfined to artistic products$ such as music or radio dramas: they also include actualevents$ at least those events that are selected and processed to represent (reality* or toserve as substitutes for it. A man %ho %ants to be (in the s%im*$ to kno% %hat is

9

https://libcom.org/#footnote4_qtmiyl8https://libcom.org/#footnote5_rxmubo3https://libcom.org/#footnote4_qtmiyl8https://libcom.org/#footnote5_rxmubo3


10/97

going on outside$ must go to his home$ %here the events are %aiting for him$ like%ater ready to flo% from the faucet. Bor if he stayed outside$ in the chaos of reality$ho% could he pick out anything (real* of more than local significance@ ?ecause$ infact$ the outside %orld covers up the outside %orld.


11/97

virtually any number of times$ it acuires the characteristics of an assembly)line product: and %hen %e pay for having it delivered to our homes$ it is a commodity.8. ;hen the actual event is socially important only in its reproduced form$ i.e.$ as aspectacle$ the difference bet%een being and appearance$ bet%een reality and image of reality$ is abolished.9. ;hen the event in its reproduced form is socially more important than the originalevent$ this original must be shaped %ith a vie% to being reproduced: in other %ords$the event becomes merely a master matri'$ or a mold for casting its o%nreproductions.1. ;hen the dominant e'perience of the %orld thrives on such assembly)line products$ the concept (the %orld* is abolished insofar as it denotes that in which %elive. The real %orld is forfeited: the broadcasts$ in other %ords$ further an (idealistic*orientation.

!t is uite obvious that %hat %e have here are philosophical problems. All the pointsset forth above %ill be discussed during the course of our investigation. Wp to the last point3 the surprising utili7ation of the e'pression (idealistic*$ %hich must therefore bee'plained immediately.

Already$ in oint 1$ %e proposed that$ for us$ as consumers of radio and television$ the%orld is no longer present as outside %orld$ in which %e are$ but as our world . !n fact$the %orld has changed placesin a peculiar %ay3 it is certainly not to be found$ as thevulgar formulas of idealism state$ (in our consciousness* or (in our brain*: ho%ever$ because of the fact that it has in effect been moved from the outside to the inside and$instead of being found outside$ it has made its abode in my house as an image thatmust be consumed$ as a mere eidos$ this translocation is similar in the most surprisingmanner to classical idealism. o%$ the %orld has become mine$ it is myrepresentation$ it has been transformed into a (representation for me* +if %eunderstand the term$ (representation* in a dual sense3 not only in the sense of =chopenhauer$ but in that of the theater-. The idealist element consists in this (for me*$ since (idealist*$ in the broadest sense of the %ord$ is any attitude that transformsthe world into something that is mine$ ours$ into something at our disposal$ inshort3 into a possessive3 therefore$ into my (representation* or into my +Bichtean-(product of positing*. !f the term (idealist* is surprising$ this is because the (being

mine* is in general only asserted speculatively$ %hile here it describes a situation in%hich the metamorphosis of the world into something that is at my disposal hastechnically taken place in a real way. !t is evident that already the mere assertion proceeds from a disproportionate pretension to freedom$ since in it the %orld isclaimed as property. Cegel used the e'pression (idealism* in this broader sense%ithout any ualms$ in his hilosophy of ight $ to denominate as (idealist* the predatory animal insofar as it appropriates$ anne'es and imagines the %orld in theform of prey or plunder$ that is$ it makes use of it as (its o%n*. Bichte %as an idealist$

11


12/97

because he considered the %orld to be something (posited* by him$ as the product of the activity of his ego$ and therefore as his own product. ;hat all idealists have incommon in the broadest sense is the assumption that the %orld is here$ ite'ists$ for man$ %hether as a gift$ or as freely created$ so that man himself does not belong to the %orld$ he does not represent a part of the %orld: he is instead the polar opposite of the %orld. The interpretation of this gift$ of this datum as (sensory data* isonly one variety of idealism among many others$ and certainly not one of the mostimportant.8

!f it is true of all the variations of idealism that they transform the %orld into a possessive3 into a domain that is ruled +"enesis-$ into an image of perception+sensualism-$ into a consumer good +Cegel,s predatory animal-$ into a product of (positing* or (production* +Bichte-$ into property +=tirner-$ in our case the e'pressioncan in fact be utili7ed %ith a good conscience$ since here all the possible nuances of the possessive are united.

!f television and radio open %indo%s to the %orld$ at the same time they transform theconsumers of the %orld into (idealists*.

This claim %ill naturally sound strange and contradictory after having spoken of thetriumph of the outside %orld over the inner %orld. !t sounds strange to me$ too. Thefact that both assertions can be held at once seems to indicate an antinomy in the man)%orld relation. At first sight$ this antinomy is insoluble. !f it is at all possible$ our investigation must go further$ since it began by %ay of contradiction and does not presuppose$ in toto$ anything but the attempt to e'plain this contradictory situation.

ection 5

Because the world is brought into our homes, we do not have to e/plore it$ as a result,we do not ac0uire e/perience.9

!n a %orld that comes to man$ man has no need to go to the %orld in order to e'ploreor e'perience it: that %hich %as once called e/perience has become superfluous.

Wp until recently$ e'pressions such as (to go into the %orld* or (to e'perience* have

denoted important anthropological concepts. =ince man is a being relatively littleendo%ed %ith instincts$ he has been compelled to e'perience and kno% the %orld a

posteriori in order to find his place in it: only in this %ay could he reach his goal and become (e'perienced*. Dife used to consist of a voyage of e'ploration: that is %hy thegreat )r1iehungsromane +(educational novels*- dealt %ith the %ays man&althoughal%ays in the %orld&had to travel in order to get to kno% the %orld. Today$ becausethe %orld comes to him&as an image&he need not bother to e'plore it: such

12

https://libcom.org/#footnote8_09upr9zhttps://libcom.org/#footnote9_fjxy80ihttps://libcom.org/#footnote8_09upr9zhttps://libcom.org/#footnote9_fjxy80i


13/97

e'plorations and e'periences are superfluous$ and since all superfluous functions become atrophied$ he can no longer engage in e'plorations and becomee'perienced.1 !t is indeed evident that the type of (e'perienced man* is becomingincreasingly rare$ and that age and e'perience tend to be regarded as less and lessvaluable. Dike pedestrians %ho have taken to flying %e no longer need roads: inconseuence$ our kno%ledge of the %ays of the %orld$ %hich %e formerly used toe'plore$ and %hich made us e'perienced$ is declining. =imultaneously %ith this$ the%orld itself becomes a pathless %ilderness. ;hereas formerly %e (stored up* for uslike a commodity put aside for future use: %e do not have to go to the events$ theevents are paraded before us.

=uch a portrait of our contemporaries may at first sight appear distorted. Bor it has become customary to look upon the automobile and the airplane as symbols of modern man$ homo viator $ a being %hose essence is travel +"abriel /arcel-. ;hat isin uestion is precisely the correctness of this definition. Bor modern man does notattach value to his travelling because of any interest in the regions he visits$ actuallyor vicariously: he does not travel to become e'perienced but to still his hunger for omnipresence and for rapid change as such. /oreover$ the speed of his movementdeprives him of the opportunity for e'perience +to the e'tent that speed itself has no% become the sole and ultimate e'perience-&not to mention the fact that the number of objects %orthy of being e'perienced and capable of adding to his e'perience iscontinually decreased by his successful efforts to make the %orld uniform$ and thateven today he feels at home$ in need of no e'perience$ %herever he may land. Anadvertising poster of a %ell)kno%n airline$ utterly confusing provincialism andglobalism$ appeals to its customers %ith these %ords3 (;hen you use our services$you are every%here at home.* Every%here at home3 there is indeed good reason toassume that today any trip +even though the man %ho takes it may sleep comfortablyin his electrically heated cabin %hile flying over the orth ole- is felt to be anantiuated$ uncomfortable and inadeuate method of achieving omnipresence./odern man still resorts to this method precisely because$ despite all his efforts$ hehas not yet succeeded in having everything delivered to his home&something that hehas come to regard as his inherent right.

The consumer of millions of separate radio and television broadcasts$ lying do%n on

his sofa$ rules the %orld in effigie from his home3 he connects %ith it$ he allo%s it to pass before his eyes$ he disconnects from it: this master of the multitude of images is by no means any less typical for us than the aviator and the motorist: nor is the latter$%hen he is driving through the countryside %ith his radio playing$ since he$ too$ procures the satisfaction and the consolation of kno%ing that not only does he have toleave in search of the %orld$ but the %orld also has to come to him and the %orld+%hich is no% subjected to the penalty of running after him and %ith him-$ really onlyturns for the e'clusive purpose of entertaining him.11

13

https://libcom.org/#footnote10_9nbbqzmhttps://libcom.org/#footnote11_e2s7u37https://libcom.org/#footnote10_9nbbqzmhttps://libcom.org/#footnote11_e2s7u37


14/97

(The %orld turns for him*. (Entertains him.* (4ust like at home.*

These e'pressions point to a mode of e'istence$ a relation to the %orld that is soe'traordinarily perverse that even escartes, mauvais genie trompeur +(maliciousdemon*- %ould be incapable of devising a comparable deception. =uch a mode of

e'istence may be described as (idealistic* in t%o %ays3

1. 2espite the fact that we really live in an alienated world $10 the world is presented to us in such a manner that it seems to e/ist for us $ as though it %ere our o%n and likeourselves.0. #e take" +i.e.$ regard and accept- it as such$ although %e stay at home in our living rooms: that is$ despite the fact that we do not actually take" it +like the predatory animal or the conueror-$ nor do %e actually make it our o%n: in any case$not %e$ the ordinary consumers of radio and television. !nstead$ %e (take* it becauseit is served to us in the form of images. !n this %ay %e transform ourselves into master

of the phantoms of the %orld$ but our mastery takes the form of voyeurism.

;e have already addressed the first point. The ne't chapter %ill be devoted to thesecond point.

ection 6

The world brought into our homes is banali1ed.1F

This is not the place to discuss the origin$ the etiology or the symptomology of

alienation. The literature on this subject is enormous$ and %e must take this phenomenon for granted.12 The deception in uestion here consists$ as %e have said$in the fact that %e$ despite living as %e do in an estranged %orld Gverfremdete #elt H$as consumers of films$ radio and television&but not only as such&seem to be onfriendly terms %ith everything and everybody3 people$ places$ situations$ events$ eventhe most surprising$ or precisely the most surprising$ ones.


15/97

others$ to the contrary$ is unintelligible to us or alien to our lives-: %hile our ne't)door neighbors$ %hom %e pass by every day for years$ usually do not kno% us and thedistance bet%een us and them remains unbridged for years on end$ film stars$ girls%hom %e never meet personally but %hom %e have seen countless times and %hosespiritual and physical characteristics are kno%n to us more completely than those of our co)%orkers$ appear to us in the guise of old friends$ as chums. ;e areautomatically on a footing of intimacy %ith them: %e refer to them by their firstnames$ as >ita or /yrna. ;hat is delivered to us has become immediate and affects usdirectly along %ith it3 the abyss has been eliminated. The importance that is attributedto this elimination of the abyss is sho%n by F motion pictures$ %hose invention andintroduction arose not only from an interest in technical improvements or merely fromthe competitive struggle +against television-$ but from the desire to confer upon theabsence of distance bet%een the transmission and the receiver a ma'imum degree of sensory and spatial credibility. !f it %ere technically possible&and %ho can predict%hat is still in store for us$ considering the current di77ying rate of artistic progress@ &they %ill also make us happy %ith (tele)tactile effects*$ by means of %hich %e %ill be able to palpably feel the blo% of the bo'er,s left)hook in our ja%s.


16/97

%ould speak of >ita or /yrna. And this is not meant as a joke. The fact that laymenand scientists regard it as possible and even probable that the inhabitants of other planets %ho allegedly operate the flying saucers have$ like us and precisely in our time$ nothing better to do than to undertake interplanetary voyages$ proves that %elook upon everything in the universe as (one of our sort*. This is a sign of anthropomorphism compared to %hich the anthropomorphism of the so)called primitive cultures seems timid. Bor the purveyors of the banali1ed universe$ theformula of identity of lotinus and "oethe$ (!f the eye %ere not sun)like*$ is replaced by the commercial slogan$ (!f the sun %ere not eye)like*$ since if it %ere not so thennature could not be sold and$ %ith it$ a virtual commodity %ould be lost. ;e are thussystematically transformed into pals of the globe and the universe$ certainly only into pals$ since it is clear that one cannot say that modern man$ conditioned in this manner$has a feeling of authentic fraternity$ of pantheism$ of love of the most distant peoplesor$ much less$ the (sense of the one*.

;hat %e have said of things and persons distant in space$ also applies to things and persons distant in time$ of the past 3 it$ too$ becomes one of our pals. And ! am nottalking about historical films$ in %hich such treatment is the rule. ?ut even in aserious$ vividly %ritten American academic book$ =ocrates is described as 0uite a guy &in other %ords he is put in a category that brings the distant great man seeminglyclose to the reader: for$ needless to say$ the reader too is 0uite a guy. This label givesthe reader the unconsciously gratifying feeling that =ocrates$ if he had not happened tolive in that remote past$ %ould be essentially like us$ %ould not have anything to saythat is essentially different from %hat %e have to say$ and in no case could claimgreater authority than %e do. More than one person thinks, without any basiswhatsoever, that, should he be transported back to the time of -ocrates &%hich mustnot be taken all that seriously& he would not be one of the lesser lights of ancient 3reece. Bor someone %ho thinks in this %ay$ =ocrates is inferior to us or$ in anyevent$ is no better3 the idea that =ocrates could have been any better than him is ruledout as much by his faith in progress as by his mistrust of privileges of any kind.


17/97

?ut let us return to the case of (=ocrates$ the guy*3 the epithet here is obviously basedon the great political principle formulated in the eclaration of the >ights of /an$(All men are born eual*$ %hich has no% been romantically e'tended into theassertion of the )0uality of all citi1ens of the 4ommonwealth of times past and

present . eedless to say$ such a romantic e'tension of the principle of eualitysuggests not only a false historical pro'imity$ but also a misconception of the commondenominator of all mankind&for$ after all$ the essence of =ocrates consists in the verything that (our sort* is lacking. The method allegedly intended to bring the objectclose to us$ actually serves to veil the object$ to alienate it$ or simply to do a%ay %ithit altogether. !ndeed$ it does a%ay %ith it$ since the past$ by being projected onto thesingle plane of the %orld of pals and chums$ has actually ceased to e'ist 0ua history& and this is perhaps even more plausible than our general thesis$ that %hen all thevarious and variously distant regions of the %orld are brought eually close to us$ the%orld as such vanishes.

ection 7

The -ources of Banali1ation$ The 2emocratic 5niverse. Banali1ation and the4ommodity 4haracter. Banali1ation and -cience.

=o just %hat lies behind this banali1ation@

Dike every historical phenomenon on such a scale banali1ation is also over)determined$ that is$ it o%es its very e'istence to sources of diverse provenance$ %hichhad to converge and unite in order to convert it into a historical reality.

?efore %e go in search of the principal root of this phenomenon$ %e %ould like to briefly mention its three collateral roots. ;e have already addressed one of them inour discussion of =ocrates. ;e call it the democrati1ation of the universe and by thisterm %e mean to refer to3

1. ;hen each and every thing$ regardless of ho% far a%ay or ho% close it is$ isfamiliar to me: %hen each and every thing can demand the same right to make itsvoice heard$ %hich ! accept as something eually familiar: %hen the odium of privilege is attributed to every relative advantage$ one has as a matter of course&in an

unconscious %ay$ it is true&a structurally democratic totum$ a universe$ to %hichcertain principles are applied +%hich are morally and politically accepted-$ the principles of eual rights and tolerance for all. ie%ed historically$ such an e'tensionof moral principles to the cosmic level is not at all e'traordinary. /an has al%aysrecreated the image of the universe in accordance %ith that of his o%n society. ;hat%as e'traordinary %as the division$ %hich has been dominant during the last fe%centuries in Europe$ of the image of the %orld into a practical image and a theoretical

17


18/97

image that is completely alien to it. !t is therefore not at all surprising to find in theWnited =tates$ %ith its po%erful democratic tradition$ a tendency to reali7e these principles it proclaims. There is even an academic philosophy that$ embracing themost e'treme implications of this concept&implies a real negation of the monist or dualist principles of classical philosophy3 the philosophy of ;illiam 4ames.0. !t is evident that banali1ation is a phenomenon of neutrali1ation$ since it putseverything on the same level or the semblance thereof: therefore$ it is also evident that%hoever seeks the roots of this trend has to address the basic neutrali7ing forces of the%orld. emocracy itself +that is$ its absurd e'tension to non)political domains- is aneutrali7ing force.

The basic neutrali7ing force today is certainly not of a political$ but of an economicnature3 it is the commodity character of all phenomena. !s this also a sourceof banali1ation@

The first reaction %e %ill hear %ill be3 impossible. !mpossible$ because$ as everyonekno%s$ the commodity character alienates$ and banali1ation$ %hich makes thingsfamiliar$ is apparently at the very opposite end of the spectrum from alienation.

The uestion is not so easily resolved$ ho%ever. As true as it is that everything that istransformed into a commodity is alienated$ at the same time it is just as true that everycommodity$ insofar as it is meant to be purchased and transformed into part of our life$ also must be banali1ed . /ore precisely3

Every commodity must e'ist in such a %ay that$ in its manual use&adapted to a need$

a style and a standard of living&it is accommodated to the taste and is pleasing to theeye. !ts degree of uality is defined by virtue of the degree of this adaptation:e'pressed negatively3 it depends on the lo% resistance it provokes %hen it is used andthe lo% level of ra% alien residues that its enjoyment leaves behind. Thus$ since the broadcast is a commodity$ it$ too$ must be presented in a %ay that is pleasant to theeyes and the ears$ it must be easily assimilable$ ready to enjoy$ not alien$ %ith no bones or pits: that is$ in such a %ay that it is directed at us as if it %ere our simile$ cutto our measure$ as if it %ere part of our condition.

ie%ed in this %ay$ banali1ation appears to shed its negative ualities and seems to

refer to nothing but the fundamental fact that$ as homines fabri$ (%e make somethingfrom something else*$ adapting the %orld to our measure$ or in other %ords$ it isreduced to (culture* in the broadest sense of the %ord. The fact that everything %e dois a form of (banali1ation* is$ in a certain %ay$ undeniable: but this indiscriminate useof the e'pression$ to %hich a derogatory connotation is added$ is completelyunacceptable$ since in the last analysis %e cannot define the act of making something by referring to its most signal defect3 for e'ample$ %e cannot denounce all carpenters

18


19/97

because one of them supplies us %ith %ood that is not %ood$ %hile others provide us%ith tables made of %ood$ %hich are incomparably more suitable for us. !n fact$ thereis no deception here. #hat is deceptive is the adaptation only because it offers a

product as if it were really made of wood. And this is the case in the banali1ed %orld$since the latter is a product that$ due to its venal commodity character$ is offeredtailored to the buyer and in a %ay that it is convenient for him: that is$ since the %orldis inconvenient$ the commodity simulates precisely those properties that the %orldcompletely lacks: and$ in spite of everything$ this product has the audacity or theinnocence to claim that it is the %orld.

F. As the last root of banali1ation$ for %hich everything is eually close to us$ %e shallfinally refer to the attitude of the scientist $ %hose legitimate pride consists inconverting %hat is most remote into something of the greatest familiarity by %ay of his research and$ in the process$ he alienates %hat is most intimately part of his life3he devotes himself cum studio to that %hich is to him$ as an individual$ of noimportance at all and neutrali7es sine ira %hat is closest to him: in short3 heneutrali7es the distance bet%een %hat is nearby and %hat is remote. The scientist canundoubtedly pursue and persevere in this attitude that neutrali7es everything$ his(objectivity*$ only by %ay of a da77ling moral cunning$ by %ay of an act of violenceagainst himself$ by %ay of an ascetic renunciation of the natural perspective of the%orld. To believe that he can separate this neutrality from that moral root of his o%nand deliver it to anyone$ and therefore also to anyone %ho leads a non)ascetice'istence$ not dedicated to kno%ledge and over%helmingly opposed to this neutrality$is an error not only of science$ but also of the moral tasks of its populari7ation. ?utthis error is the beginning of pra'is: in a sense$ today$ every reader$ radio listener$consumer of television$ spectator of highbro% cinema$ is transformed into avulgar double of the scientist3 he$ too$ e'pects everything to be eually remote andnearby$ %hich usually does not by any means imply that he has to concede to all phenomena the same right to be kno%n$ but rather the same right to be enjoyed.Co%ever$ since today knowing is presented as pleasure andlearning as fun$ the border bet%een the t%o has been erased.

ection 8

Banali1ation is a camouflaged form of alienation itself.16

;ith these observations %e have not yet presented the principal root of banali1ation:nor have %e plausibly sho%n the reason for the particular fact that this process$ thee'istence of %hich can be confirmed in various %ays$ does not even have a name. !t isreally very strange that this phenomenon$ despite the fact that it is no less po%erful$nor less symptomatic of our times$ nor less disastrous$ than alienation$ %hich isevidently its antagonist$ should have remained so concealed$ %hile alienation itself

19

https://libcom.org/#footnote16_3mrztnxhttps://libcom.org/#footnote16_3mrztnx


20/97

+and of course this is accomplished by means of the banali1ation of the term$ that is$ by rendering it innocuous- is not ignored.

?ut is banali1ation really the antagonist of alienation@

ot at all. And thus %e arrive at its principal root$ the root that$ at the same time$ alsoallo%s us to understand %hy it has never had a name until no%. As parado'ical as itmay sound$ the principal root of banali1ation is alienation itself .

Anyone %ho confers credibility upon banali1ation: and %ho vie%s it as theantagonistic force opposed to alienation$ falls victim to a %idely disseminated fraud./ere reflection on the uestion of %hether banali1ation helps or hinders alienation renders the notion that banali1ation is the antagonistof alienation superfluous$ because the response to the uestion is erroneous3 it isuseful to alienation. !n fact$ its main function consists in masking the causes and

symptoms of alienation$ and their utter misery: it deprives man$ %ho has been estranged from his %orld and for %hom his %orld has become alien$ of theability to recogni7e this fact: briefly3 it consists in throwing a cloak 6of invisibility7over alienation, in denying the reality of alienation for the purpose of allowing it freerein for its unconstrained action: %hat it achieves$ by relentlessly filling the %orld%ith images of apparent familiarity$ offering the %orld itself$ including its most distantregions$ geographically and temporally$ as one big home$ as auniverse of comfort . !t isthis function that e'plains the e'istence of banali1ation. ?ehind the latter$ as the boss%ho gives the orders$ is alienation itself. To vie% these t%o forces as if they %ere t%oestranged brothers or hostile enemies %ould be absurd$ and as naXve as it is non)dialectical. !nstead$ both collaborate like a pair of hands that cooperateharmoniously3 in the wound inflicted by alienation with one hand, the other hand rubsthe balm of familiarity. And even if it is not al%ays the same hand$ since$ finally$ onecan vie% the t%o processes as a single process and banali1ation as an action of camouflage on the part of alienation$ %hich proffers itself ingenuously disguised as itsantagonist$ in order to seemingly testify against itself$ in order to assure a balance of forces and to cast aspersions on its o%n rule just as /etternich did$ %hen hefounded a liberal opposition ne%spaper apparently against his o%n policies.

There is a /olussian tale about an evil gnome %ho cures a blind man: not byremoving the scales from his eyes$ ho%ever$ but by blinding him %ith another kind of blindness3 the gnome made him blind also to the fact that he %as blind$ it made himforget ho% to really perceive %hat %as real: it did this by plunging him into anuninterrupted series of dreams. The disguised alienation of banali1ation is like thisgnome3 it$ too$ seeks to give comfort to man$ %ho is dispossessed of his %orld$ by %ayof images conveying the illusion that he even has a %hole universe$ one that isfamiliar$ his o%n universe$ eual to his former %orld in each and every one of its

20


21/97

parts: and this is brought about by making him forget %hat a non)alienated e'istenceand non)alienated %orld is like. The situation in %hich %e find ourselves is actuallyeven more ensorcelled than that of the blind man of the tale$ since in our case thegnome that plunged our blindness into the darkness of forgetting is the same one thatcast the spell that blinded us in the first place.

=o it is not at all surprising that alienation implements this operation of self)deceptionsurreptitiously$ and that this operation is not even once called by its o%n name. ;hatinterest could the po%erful have$ %ho are alienating our %orld$ in directing our attention to%ards their activities@ Even if it %ere only by %ay of the introduction of a%ord$ in calling our attention to the fact that they need to cloak its alienation bysupplying us %ith substitute images and to the fact that they are successful in doingso@ ;hat is really surprising is the fact that they actually succeed in keeping under %raps an everyday phenomenon that is as %idespread and publicas banali1ation merely by not giving it a name. !n any case$ it cannot be denied thatthis is the %ay it is. Bor this purpose they supply their images$ but they do not sayanything about the nature of their supply. And they can do this %ithout %orrying aslong as %e$ %ho are at the receiving end of the delivery$ allo% ourselves to be reallydeceived and$ although deceived$ %e feel just fine. !t is as if$ %ounded by alienation$%e had rendered ourselves incapable of noticing that %e find ourselves under theeffects of the drug of banali1ation: and %e are too dro%sy from the drug to even feelthat %e are %ounded: it is thus as if the t%o circumstances mutually reinforce oneanother.

?ut even assuming that banali1ation does not arise by %ay of the operation of camouflage and deception on the part of alienation$ it is still incontestable that it isitself alien. Yes: it$ too. ?ecause$ usually$ since %hat alienation does is cause what isnear to become remote$ and %hat banali1ation does is transform what is remote into

something familiar $ the effect of neutrali1ation is in both cases the same3 by %ay of this neutrali7ation the world and the position of men within the world is distorted $since it is a part of the structure of the (e'istence)in)the)%orld* distributed inconcentric circles of nearness and remoteness around man$ and man$ for %hom thetotality is eually near and far and everything interests him in the same %ay$ is either an indifferent god or a completely unnatural man. And %e are not talking about =toic

gods here.!n fact$ there is nothing that more disastrously alienates us more from ourselves andthe %orld than the fact that %e pass our e'istence almost uninterruptedly accompanied by these false family members$ these spectral slaves$ that in our bedroom&no% thatthe alternation of sleeping and %aking had given %ay to that of sleeping and listeningto the radio&%e perform a ceremony so somnolent that the first fragment of the%orld serves us as a morning audience$ so that they uestion us$ look at us$ sing to us$

21


22/97

encourage us$ console us$ they instill us %ith vigor or they make us more rela'ed andthus %e begin the day$ %hich is not our day: nor is there anything that makes self)alienation more unuestionable than starting the day under the aegis of these pseudo)friends$ since even if %e could freuent the company of real friends$ %e prefer tocontinue to live in the company of our portable chums$ since %e do not consider themto be replacements for real men$ but as our real friends.

ican came to the house of the %oman from %hom%e rented an apartment$ %hose radio had suddenly fallen silent as if it %ere the end of the %orld3 this young man had come to listen to this radio to hear the beloved voice of one of his phantom friends from Dos Angeles$ %hich he did not %ant at all to miss:%hen %ith a press of a button he heard that voice&he not only kne% the freuency but also %here it %as on the dial&he began to moan softly$ relieved$ and broke out intears$ happy for having once again found the ground under his feet. aturally$ %ithouteven a glance at the landlady or at me. Vompared to this rediscovered$ never)seenaccomplice$ %e %ere unreal.

ection 19

On the 0uestion of whether alienation is still an ongoing process.

!t is possible that there is something amiss %ith the thesis that our need for (insinuating supplied friends* and for the (banali1ed world * also alienates us$ themen of our time. And not because the proposition goes too far$ but because it does notgo far enough$ since a currently unjustified optimism speaks from the basis of theassumption that$ although %e are beings nourished e'clusively on substitutes$ modelsand illusions$ %e are still (egos* %ith a separate selfhood$ and that therefore %e arestill capable of having a real identity %ithout being capable of being (our true selves*or of recovering (our true selves*. Casn,t the time come and gone since (alienation*

22


23/97

%as still possible as action and process$ at least in some countries@ o %e not findourselves no% in a situation in %hich %e are not (our true selves*$ but only the sumtotal of substitutes %ith %hich %e are stuffed to the gills on a daily basis@ Van onedispossess the dispossessed$ pillage the pillaged$ cause the mass)man to be alienatedfrom himself@ &s alienation still an ongoing process8 Or is it rather a fait accompli 8

ot so long ago %e ridiculed the (soulless psychologies*$ %hich scoffed at categoriessuch as the (ego* or (selfhood* as ridiculous metaphysical leftovers$ as falsificationsof man. ?ut %ere %e right to do so@ ;asn,t our disdain pure sentimentalism@ ;as itthose psychologists %ho falsified man@ ;eren,t those psychologists of falsified man$man as robot$ justified in their pursuit of robotology instead of psychology@ And justified as %ell in their falsehoods$ because the man %hom they studied %as preciselyman in his falseness@

• 1. This English translation is based on3 "#nther Anders$ La Obsolescencia del Hombre +ol. !-$ tr. 4osep /onter re7$ re)Te'tos$ alencia$ 011. adio andTelevision*- that %as published under the title$ (The ;orld As hantom and As/atri'* in the journal 2issent in 1956 +tr. orbert "uterman$ issent$ ol. F$ o. 1$ ;inter 1956$ pp. 12)02-. This article may be vie%ed online +in April012- at3http3ZZthiva.egloos.comZ00F9F and a B file of the same article canalso be accessed at3 https3ZZ%%%.yumpu.comZenZdocumentZvie%Z00FU092Zthe)%orld)as)phantom)and)as)matri')ucsb)department)of)history.- GAmericantranslator,s note.H

•

0. This is ho% %e translate the term$ Massenproducktion$ %hich refers not onlyto the mass production of products$ but also to the fact that it is production%hose products are intended for the masses. Gote of the =panish Translator.H

• F. ;e have translated 5nm:ndige as (minors* and H;rige as(subordinates*. 5nm:ndige literally means a person %ho has no voice andtherefore cannot speak for himself. =imilarly$ h;rig is a person %ho listens and

23

https://libcom.org/#footnoteref1_cochby6http://thiva.egloos.com/2023093https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/22307294/the-world-as-phantom-and-as-matrix-ucsb-department-of-history.https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/22307294/the-world-as-phantom-and-as-matrix-ucsb-department-of-history.https://libcom.org/#footnoteref2_hto5e2chttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref3_irg9xswhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref1_cochby6http://thiva.egloos.com/2023093https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/22307294/the-world-as-phantom-and-as-matrix-ucsb-department-of-history.https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/22307294/the-world-as-phantom-and-as-matrix-ucsb-department-of-history.https://libcom.org/#footnoteref2_hto5e2chttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref3_irg9xsw


24/97

acts in obedience to %hat he hears3 he is thus subordinated or$ more broadlyspeaking$ (he belongs to*$ (is a dependant of* +%hich is the other meaning of the "erman root %ord$ h;r -: hence the sense of (obedience*. As %e shall see belo%$ un*m:ndig is the literal translation of the Datin in*fans +composed of inand the verb$ for


25/97

in that false one that it$ for real interest$ desires that %e should consider it as(the real thing*. ;e close ourselves off$ then$ to separate ourselves from it%hile apparently it is displaying itself to us. This distraction$ ho%ever$ isnaturally set in motion %ith a realistic intention of the highest degree3 so that$ by %ay of its false image$ %e should really mark ourselves$ that is$ persuadeourselves that no% our human reality is optimally useful. Those %ho put upresistance are called (introverts* and its docile victims$ (e'troverts*. GAuthor,snote.H

• U. The idea of (the %orld that comes to us* is so familiar to us that %e consider anything that goes beyond our terrestrial e'perience as visitors3 yesterday/artian flying saucers and today supermen from =irius. GAuthor,s note.H

• 8. The classical formulation of the %orld as (gift* is encountered in the story of

Vreation$ %hich introduces the %orld as created for man. !t is not by chancethat modern idealisms should be post)Vopernican: in a certain sense$ all of them represent attempts to salvage this ?iblical (for us*$ %hich %as socompatible %ith the pre)Vopernican image of the %orld: that is$ an attempt to preserve a disguised geo)centrism and its concomitant anthropocentrism in ade)centered universe. GAuthor,s note.H

• 9. The author is indulging in a play on %ords involving the e'pressions thatmean (to go on a journey* +auf =ahrt gehen- and (%ithout e'perience* +un*er*

fahren-3 in a %ay$ it is assumed that e'perience is obtained from the journey +as

he already pointed out %ith regard to the journey of Wlysses-. Gote of the=panish Translator.H

• 1. !t is certainly not by accident that this (getting to kno% the %orld* isdisappearing at the same time and in the very same cultural space %here thetrauma of the physical (getting to kno% the %orld* %as being abolished in thesame %ay %ith technical means. GAuthor,s note.H

• 11. o% they are even installing televisions in cars: as of ecember 1952 youcan by a "eneral /otors Vadillac euipped %ith a television. GAuthor,s note.H

• 10. !n conformance %ith the usual linguistic practice %e translate entfremdete#elt as alienated %orld. !n order to indicate this (alienation*$ ho%ever$ theauthor uses the term >erfremdung $ %hich is taken from ?recht and %hich refersto the (re)location and re)utili7ation* of something +or someone- that$ due tothis relocation$ loses its o%n place and$ in this sense$ is (alienated* +dislocatedor distorted-: in the latter conte't %e translate the term as estrangement $

25

https://libcom.org/#footnoteref7_35ialo0https://libcom.org/#footnoteref8_09upr9zhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref9_fjxy80ihttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref10_9nbbqzmhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref11_e2s7u37https://libcom.org/#footnoteref12_8h78frnhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref7_35ialo0https://libcom.org/#footnoteref8_09upr9zhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref9_fjxy80ihttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref10_9nbbqzmhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref11_e2s7u37https://libcom.org/#footnoteref12_8h78frn


26/97

%henever (to estrange* +also- means (to e'ile to a foreign country*. !n anycase$ Anders himself e'plains subseuently ho% he uses this term$ %hich isnecessarily a novel use of the %ord insofar as it refers to a situation that is itself ne%. Gote of the =panish Translator.H

• 1F. ;e have translated the term >erbiederung as (banali7ation*. The author uses this term to refer to the process of transforming (all that is remote andstrange in order to transform it into something apparently domestic and home)like* +as he says at the end of the ne't footnote-. The root bieder refers to %hatis common$ familiar$ homely$ or %elcoming: Anders emphasi7es the (apparent*or superficial aspect of this process: thus$ in order to emphasi7e its negativeconnotation$ %hich goes beyond (making something popular or familiar*$ %ehave chosen the term (banali7ation*$ %hich upon closer e'amination is nothing but another %ay to say (alienation*$ or it is even a form of (alienation*. Goteof the =panish Translator.H

• 12. ?ooks and maga7ine articles$ %hich have appropriated the use of these%ords that %ere originally so revolutionary$ use them today %ith such ease andsuch skill that they confer the appearance of familiarity upon a phenomenonthat has been thus deprived of its force and its strangeness. ;e no longer vie%it as it %as vie%ed a hundred years ago$ %hen it %as introduced in the conte'tof %ork$ the commodity$ freedom and property$ that is$ in a revolutionaryconte't. The e'pression has become not just presentable in high society but ithas even become the badge of membership in the avant)garde$ and there is no

self)respecting interpreter of modern art %ho does not brandish this badge. !tdoes not matter %hether or not this is intentional: the effect of this common useof the term consists in depriving alienation of its morally scandalous sting$ i.e.$in its alienation +according to the proper linguistic sense of the %ord-. ;hatyou get from your enemies serves to disinherit them. This process of dilutionhas the follo%ing sources3 1. "erman sociology of the late 190s +[arl/annheim-$ %hose contribution consisted in e'tracting from /ar'ism certainterms in order to embed them in a different conte't or in the language of everyday life and thus to deprive them of their bite. !n the early 19Fs thissociology spread to Brance and$ at the end of the 19Fs$ to the Wnited =tates. 0.

=urrealism$ %hich$ during its fleeting alliance %ith communism$ flirted %ithCegelian terminology. Those %ho currently use the e'pression do so in a naXve%ay$ since they follo% in the footsteps of the epigones of the thirties and someof them are uite surprised %hen they find out %ho originally coined theseeveryday %ords that are so dear to them. Even this brief reflection on thecurrent use of the term (alienation* sho%s the process of transformation that proceeds in a totally contrary direction3 pseudo)familiari7ation and

26

https://libcom.org/#footnoteref13_xpc411qhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref14_x1zwd1yhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref13_xpc411qhttps://libcom.org/#footnoteref14_x1zwd1y


27/97

domestication. ?ut this process is not identical$ for e'ample$ %ith the %ell)kno%n process of the configuration of %ords according to stereotypes: %hatthis process involves in making something into a familiar appearance is notlimited to terminology: its plunder is$ rather$ the %orld$ the entire %orld: its pretension is no less universal than that of estrangement 3 just as the latter affects all that is familiar and intimate in order to transform it into theunfamiliar$ cold$ reified and public$ the apparent familiari7ation appropriates allthat is remote and strange in order to transform it into something apparentlydomestic and home)like. GAuthor,s note.H

• 15. ?efore %e provide e'amples$ %e shall prophylactically point out that$although the border bet%een these t%o terms can sometimes be blurred$ %hat%e call banali1ation does not coincide$ for e'ample$ %ith (populari7ation*$since banali1ation treats its object in a consummately disrespectful %ay and profits from the deterioration and damage inflicted on the consumer$ %hile%hat is accurately referred to as merely populari7ation$ like all mereinformation$ is a transmission not only of the object of information$ but also%ith respect to itself. GAuthor,s note.H

• 16. ;e %ill also point out %ith respect to %hat has already been saidabout >erfremdung that$ in another book by "#nther Anders$ Hombre sinmundo +re)Te'tos$ 0U-$ %e translated this term %ith the %ord re*utili1ation$since in that book it refers more to alienation as a method +as ?recht did$ for e'ample$ in (The Vase of "alileo*- insofar as it involves the re*use of

something or someone in a different domain$ one that is not originally its nativeelement$ and is therefore alien to it3 it is e'iled. Gote of the =panishTranslator.H G Hombre sin mundo3 (/an %ithout ;orld*$ originally published in"ermany in 1982 under the title$ Mensch ohne #elt. -chriften 1ur ?unst und

Literatur &ote of the American Translator.H

Chapter 2 - The phantom

Chapter II

T*+ #*AT&

The %orld is brought to us in our homes. Events are served to us in abundance.

?ut how are they served to us@ &n the form of events@


28/97

!n order to be able to ans%er these uestions$ %hich are addressed in the follo%ing paragraphs$ %e shall translate them into another language: and let us ask ourselves3ho% are the events broadcast in the home of the receiver@ Co% is thereceiver in them@ Are they really present@


29/97

not presence\ The fact that the images do not allo% any interference and treat us likeair is something that is obvious and has been a commonplace for a long time under therubric of ]esthetic appearance,.*

Co%ever$ as convincing as this may sound$ the argument is false. Birst&and this is a

fundamentally phenomenological fact&because there are no (acoustic images*3 thegramophone does not present us %ith any kind of image of the symphony$ but %ith thesymphony itself. !f a mass meeting is brought to us over the radio$ %hat %e think %ehear is not any kind of (image* of the shouting cro%d$ but its noise$ despite the factthat the cro%d itself is not physically %ithin our reach. Burthermore$ as listeners&atleast %hen %e are dealing %ith the broadcast of an art form +a drama-$ including itsapparent character&%e find ourselves in an attitude that could not be less esthetic3%hoever listens to a football game does so as an impassioned fan$ he believes that it isreally taking place and has nothing to do %ith the (as if* of art.

o$ these objections are incorrect. ;hat %e perceive are not mere images. ?ut in thesame %ay$ %e are not really present in the real. !n fact$ the uestion3 (Are %e presentor absent@* is %ithout meaning. ?ut not because the ans%er (image* +and along %ithit$ (absent*- is understood by itself$ but because the nature of the situation broughtabout by the broadcast consists in its ontological ambiguity: because the events thatare broadcast are$ at the same time$ present and absent$ real and apparent$there and not there: in short3 because they are phantoms.

ection 12

On television, image and reproduction are synchroni1ed. This simultaneity is the formof the atrophy of the present.

(?ut$* it %ill be objected$ (%hat is true for radio broadcasts is not true for television.You cannot deny that the latter supplies us %ith images.*

This is a more difficult issue. They are not$ ho%ever$ images in the usual sense of the%ord. The essential aspect of images in the history of human representation %as thefact that bet%een the latter and the object reproduced by the latter there %as$ despitethe fact that it %as not e'plicitly e'pressed$ a temporal difference$ a temporal

dis'unction. This disjunction is e'pressed in "erman by the %ords (in conformance%ith*31 either it presents an image in conformance with a model: or it producessomething real that conforms to a model. Therefore$ either the image follo%s its themeas a copy or commemorative monument$ in order to recall its past$ that is$ to retrieve itand preserve its present: or it precedes its object as a magical object of evocation or asan idea$ blueprint $ prototype$ in order to subseuently disappear$ once it has been left behind by the event or object %hich takes place or is created: or finally&and even this

29

https://libcom.org/#footnote1_fc8uxgghttps://libcom.org/#footnote1_fc8uxgg


30/97

mode of neutrali7ation still represents a relation %ith time&it %as a means to transfer us or to make us imagine that %e are transferred to a dimension outside of the present$ beyond time. !t %ould be hard to find any images that do not effectively present any of these temporal relations of man %ith the %orld: and it is doubtful that one can call theforms that lack this disjunction$ (images*. =o it is this type of form that defines theimages that television transmits3

Bor in these images one can no longer speak of a temporal relation with thereproduced $ despite the fact that they take place as if in a movie in time. !n them$ %hat%e have called the (temporal disjunction* has been reduced to nothing: they are presented simultaneously and synchroni1ed %ith the events reproduced by them3 justlike the telescope$ they sho% something that is present . And does this not mean(presence*@ Are not the forms that sho% something that is present$ images@0

This problem has not gone unremarked$ but the denomination it %as given %as

insufficient. >esort %as had to %hat %as close at hand$ to the already e'istinge'pression (instantaneous* and %ith this %ord it %as thought that one could dispatchthe phenomenon. This term$ ho%ever$ only obscures the problem. Bor images in themost legitimate sense are instantaneous$ since they attempt to capture the ephemeralmoment: in accordance %ith their function$ as images they are closer tocommemorative monuments$ even to mummies$ than they are to televised phantoms.!n these phantoms$ ho%ever$ it is no longer just a matter of that preservation of memory$ since not only are they presented$ but they also disappear at the same time asthe events that they reproduce: therefore$ even though they may at times be congealed$their lives are as brief as the lives of the events themselves. !f they are instantaneous$they are at most images of the moment for the moment$ and therefore similar to theimages in a mirror$ since they are simultaneous and synchronous and perishable likethe image reflected in the mirror and$ therefore$ pure present from any point of vie%.

Caving said that$ ho%ever$ are %e not just playing around %ith the %ord$ (present*@Are %e not taking advantage of the fact that the term oscillates bet%een t%o meaningsin order to suggest imaginary problems@ Bor there can be no doubt that %e are using itin t%o senses3 on the one hand$ to describe a concrete present : that is$ the situation in%hich man actually finds himself %ith other men or %ith the %orld andsimultaneously gro%s +^concrescunt - by interacting %ith$ encountering andconfronting them.


31/97

%hat is only simultaneous: the latter is the limiting case: it is %hat is of least interestto me$ and therefore most alien: but$ on the other hand$ since it has not even been%ithdra%n into a non)datum$ it sho%s that it still interests me.F

?ut even if it %ere to be possible to dra% a solid line to separate the t%o meanings$ it

%ould not be %e %ho %ould be playing such a duplicitous game$ but television. Bor this game is precisely the principle of the broadcast$ since its po%er consistsin presenting only or almost only the simultaneous in such a way that it functions asthe real present $ in conferring upon %hat is present only formally the appearance of aconcrete present$ in completely dissolving the borderline$ %hich %as already blurred$ bet%een the t%o (presents* and thus bet%een the relevant and the irrelevant. Every broadcast of images proclaims&and rightly so3 (o% ! am me: and not only me$ the broadcast$ but me$ the transmitted event*. And by means of this (no% ! am me*$ bymeans of this act of making present$ it becomes a phenomenon that goes beyondeverything that is purely image: and since it is like%ise not something that is really present$ it becomes an intermediate thing bet%een being and appearance$ %hich$ %hen%e spoke of the radio broadcast$ %e referred to as a (phantom*.

!n this respect$ not only is there nothing to object to %ith regard to the dissolution of the borders bet%een the t%o presents$ but it must be %elcomed$ if it is undertakencorrectly$ since today there are too many things that %e dismiss unjustly because theyare (only simultaneous*$ that is$ as adiaphoron$ despite the fact that they affect us andcan interest us$ they are nostra res and comprise the most concrete and threatening present. The danger of parochialism is no less pressing than that of false universalism.Techniues for the e'pansion of our moral hori7on of the present are absolutelynecessary$ techniues that %ould allo% us to see beyond the hori7on of our senses.This e'pansion$ ho%ever$ is not provided by television: television instead dissolvesour hori7on to the point %here %e no longer recogni7e the real present: and %e evenfail to devote ourselves to the event that should really interest us$ not even thatapparent interest$ that %e have learned to devote to the apparent presents transmittedright to our homes.

!t is not necessary for us to add that the number of phantoms of the present isunlimited. And since the principle that reduces the consumer and the event to acommon denominator is abstract and precise$ that is$ it consists in the mere commonno%$ it is also universal. There are no events that fall outside of the universal no%:therefore$ there is nothing that cannot be transformed into something that is allegedly present. Co%ever$ the more present it becomes, the less present it was . Among thefans of radio and television that ! have met$ not one of them$ by means of his daily portion of simultaneities$ %as educated to be a friend of the %orld or even just to be contemporaneous with his era. To the contrary: ! have encountered many for %hom

31

https://libcom.org/#footnote3_e3m92i0https://libcom.org/#footnote3_e3m92i0


32/97

this daily bread has deprived them of the %orld$ and left them %ithout any reference points$ dispersed$ that is$ it transformed them into mere contemporaries of the now.2

ection 1

2igression$ interpolation concerning an e/tinguished passion. The disoriented personlives only in the now. Television and radio produce an artificial schi1ophrenia.The individuum is transformed intodivisum.

=everal decades ago$ there %as a series of poets +Apollinaire or the young ;erfel$ for e'ample-$5 %ho$ in a variation on the old formula$ %ere al%ays (in various marriagesat the same time*$ or$ formulated more seriously$ they %ere disoriented and(fugitives* every%here$ in the metaphysical sense of ubi0ue simul .


33/97

began to acuire massive proportions. !t %as just that the poets desperately tried toaccommodate disorientation$ %hile the purpose of the techniues of disorientation andthe machinery of entertainment consisted$ to the contrary$ in producing disorientationor in favoring its development. ;hat (disorientation* +usually understood in too(disoriented* fashion$ that is$ only as a metaphor- attempted to do %as to deprive menof their individuation$ or$ more precisely$ to dispossess them of the consciousness of this loss by depriving them of their principium individuationis$ their spatialorientation: in other %ords$ by moving them to a place in %hich$ ubi0ue simul $ theyal%ays find themselves in another place$ and no longer occupy any particular pointand are never %ith themselves$ never in any particular affair: in short3 nowhere. !t %ill be objected that the victims of this techniue of disorientation are not really victims$since industry$ %ith its supply of disorientation$ has simply adjusted to a demand$something that is not entirely false$ but certainly does not e'plain everything$ sincethe demand has also been produced.

Voncerning men %ho$ by %ay of their daily labor$ are bo'ed in the limited space of avery speciali7ed job that is of little interest to them and$ furthermore$ e'posed to boredom$ one cannot e'pect that at the moment that they abandon that scene of pressure and boredom$ that is$ after %ork$ they should be capable of or should %ant torecover their proportio humana$ that they should reencounter themselves +if their self)identity still e'ists- or even that they should still want to do so. !nstead$ since theconclusion of compression seems to be an e'plosion and those %ho are so suddenlyliberated from their %ork no longer kno% anything but alienation$ insofar as they arenot just e'hausted$ they succumb to a thousand alien things$ it does not matter %hatthey are: conseuently$ after the calm of boredom it is appropriate to return to the flo%of time and imprint another rhythm on the scenes that change so rapidly.

There is nothing that so completely satisfies this understandable hunger for theubiuity and rapidity of change than radio and television broadcasts$ since theycounterbalance an'iety and e'haustion at the same time %ith tension and release$rhythm and inactivity$ tutelage and leisure$ they serve all these purposes at once: theyeven spare us the trouble of succumbing to that disorientation$ since it is thro%n intoour arms: in short3 it is not possible to resist such a diversified temptation. !t istherefore not surprising that the abomination of being in t%o or one hundred

marriages simultaneously$ %hich caused those poets so much suffering$ has no% become the normal situation of a more ingenuous leisure +in appearance-: that is$ inthe situation of all of those %ho$ just sitting there$ go on voyages and have no% become accustomed to being every%here at the same time$ that is$ no%here$ up to the point that they actually no longer inhabit any place at all$ at least no place$ much less ahome$ but at the most their temporary inhabitable place$ %hich changes %ith each passing moment3 the now.

33


34/97

Co%ever$ %e still have not completely described the (disoriented character* of our contemporaries$ since its clima' is found in a situation$ %hich can only becalled artificially produced schi1ophrenia: and this (schi7ophrenia* is not only acollateral effect of the machinery of disorientation$ but is e'pressly intended and$ inaddition$ demanded by its customers$ although not by this name$ of course.

;hat do %e mean here by (schi7ophrenia*@

That situation in %hich the ego is divided into t%o or more partial beings$ at least int%o or more partial functions: in beings or functions$ %hich are not only notcoordinated$ but %hich are not at all capable of being coordinated: and not just this$ but the fact that the ego is not capable$ either$ of attributing any importance to thiscoordination: even more$ the ego emphatically rejects such coordination.

escartes$ in his second meditation$ described as impossible @ concevoir la moitiA

d(aucune me. Today$ the divided soul is an everyday phenomenon. !n fact$ there is nofeature that is more characteristic of our time$ at least of its leisure time dimension$than its inclination to devote itself at the same time to two or more disparate activities.

Bor e'ample$ the man in the tanning salon$ %orking on his tan$ %hile his eyes s%imthrough an illustrated maga7ine$ his ears are attending to a sporting event and his teethare che%ing gum3 this figure of the simultaneously passive player and of the hyperactive character who is doing nothing is an everyday phenomenon all over the %orld.

The fact that this figure is an ordinary sight and is accepted as normal does not makeit any less interesting: to the contrary$ it is its very e'istence that demands a fulle'planation.

!f one %ere to ask the man in the tanning salon %hat it is that (he* is actually doing$that is$ just %hat it is that is entertaining his soul$ of course he could not provide anans%er: he cannot ans%er because the uestion relating to (him* is based on a false premise$ i.e.$ on the assumption that he is the subject of the act and the entertainment.!f in this case one can still speak of (subject* or (subjects*$ they consist only of hisorgans3 his eyes$ %hich are being entertained by their images: his ears$ %hich are

being entertained by their sporting event: his teeth$ %hich are being entertained %iththeir gum: in short3 his identity is so radically disorgani7ed$ that the search for (theman himself* %ould be a search for something that does not e'ist. Ce is disoriented $then$ not only +as before- by a multitude of places in the world, but in a plurality of

particular functions.6

34

https://libcom.org/#footnote6_9namqk4https://libcom.org/#footnote6_9namqk4


35/97

The uestion about %hat it is that drives man to this disorgani7ed fren7y of activityand that makes its particular functions so autonomous +or autonomous in appearance-has actually already been ans%ered. ?ut %e shall repeat3 it is the horror vacui: fear of autonomy and freedom: or$ more e'actly3 the fear of articulating for oneself the spaceof freedom that leisure places at one,s disposal$ the fear of the void to %hich one ise'posed by leisure: the fear of having to fill up one,s free time by one,s o%n efforts.

Cis job has so definitively accustomed him to being kept busy$U that is$ to not beingautonomous$ that at the moment %hen he leaves %ork he cannot face the task of reallyself)directed activity$ since there is no longer any (self* that can assume responsibilityfor this activity. 9ll leisure today has secret family resemblances with unemployment.

;hen at that moment he is abandoned to himself$ he buries himself in his particular functions$ since he does not e'ist as an organi7ing principle. aturally$ ho%ever$ thesefunctions of his are repeatedly e'ercised merely for the purpose of keeping

himself busy: hence the fact that$ at the very moment he is rendered unemployed hesets to %ork %ith both hands at the first good opportunity that arises: and the first oneis good enough$ because it is nothing but a container and represents a support$something to %hich he can fi' a function.8


36/97

This term$ (hunger*$ is the motto$ since each organ believes that it suffers hunger atthe moment %hen$ instead of being occupied$ it is e'posed to the void and$ therefore$it is free. )ach moment of non*consumption is poverty for the organ: the best e'ampleof this is the inveterate smoker. Thus$ horribili dictu$ freedom +^free time^not doinganything^non)consumption- is identical with poverty. This is also the cause of thedemand for means of consumption that can be consumed uninterruptedly andtherefore do not entail the danger of satiation. And ! said (danger*$ because thecondition of being satiated %ould limit the time of enjoyment: therefore$ dialectically$it %ould be transformed into non)consumption: therefore$ into poverty3 this is thee'planation for the role of the constant che%ing of gum and of the radio that playsnon)stop.1


37/97

Wp until today$ the cultural critic had seen the destruction of man e'clusively in thelatter,s standardi1ation$ that is$ in the fact that the individual$ transformed into a mass) produced being$ %as left %ith only a numerical individuality. o% he has even lostthis numerical individuality: this numerical remnant itself has been divided $the individuum has been transformed into a divisum$ it has been decomposed into amultiplicity of functions. Wndoubtedly$ the destruction of man cannot go any farther:man cannot become more inhuman. !n this sense$ the (rebirth of integral perspectives*celebrated by today,s psychology %ith such 7eal and confidence is all the moreabstruse and hypocritical: it is in fact only a maneuver to conceal under the academictoga the theory of the fragments of man.

ection 13

9ll of reality is becoming phantasmagorical, everything that is fictitious is becoming real. 2eluded old women are knitting clothing for phantoms. 9nd they are trained for

idolatry.

After that long$ but not superfluous$ digression on the (divisibility* of disorientedman$ %e shall once again return to our more narro%ly defined topic3 the threat posedto man by radio and television.

As %e have discovered$ %hat is (sent* to man$ right into his home$ is ontologically soambiguous that %e cannot ans%er the uestion as to %hether %e must treat it assomething that is present or absent$ as reality or image. This is %hy %e have given thisambiguity another name$ all its o%n3 phantom.

The theory of ambiguity has been challenged$ ho%ever$ by our hypothetical adversary.According to the latter$ to ask about the meaning of presence or absence is pointless$ because broadcasts comprise anesthetic appearance and thus our attitude is alsoesthetic: and the problem of appearance in esthetics %as formulated in a satisfactory%ay a long time ago.

To argue in this %ay$ ho%ever$ is just putting ne% %ine in old bottles. The oldcategories no longer function. o objective observer$ no matter %hat his attitude may be to%ards his radio or television$ %ould ever entertain the idea of claiming that he

obtains his enjoyment from an (esthetic appearance*. ?ut he does not do so becausehe is incapable of it$ that is$ because the essential characteristic and %hat is mostdisturbing about these broadcasts consists in the fact that they circumvent thealternative of (being or appearance*. &t is indeed true that events are becoming

phantoms by being broadcast+ it is not the case, however, that they thereby ac0uire theas if" character of art. The attitude %ith %hich %e vie% the broadcast from the pointof vie% of a political process is fundamentally different from the attitude %e adopt

37


38/97

%ith regard to the performance of the trial s

gunher anders

Documents