If we are to take Habermas's undertaking and analysis and project it onto the future, I think the internet would be key to the subject. The internet, like a 3rd party domain, allows for the unrestricted development of new public spheres. These spheres that reside outside of the reach of publicists and institutions who are vested in the the dissemination of ideas, are already finding it hard to combat dissenting opinions that create ulterior communities. They are then creating their own systems (institutional quasi opinion all the way down to non-opinion). Though we all enjoy the internet, I believe it is deconstructing the public sphere that has guided us successfully thus-far.

"According to Marcuse, reason cannot leads us to a freedom, because reason operates as a mechanism of repression in reality, even if it negates the reality principle in its idea. Therefore, he seems to conclude that a new civilization cannot be obtained from reason." -KHY

This statement in particular grabs my attention in respect to the Fight Club example that he used in leading the class discussion. Whether or not the following parallels his intent for the clip, I believe it supports Marcuse's view through a loud example. Marcuse, feeding off of Freud's conceptualizations as agreed that there is a potential for a new project out of the critique. Yet, as said above, reason cannot be the means. Reason like a trench, leads only to more dark trenches. The light however, shines when you find the ladder and expose yourself to violence. The inherent reason, surplus regression, like a streetlight, can only shape thee if you are to abide by it. It provides safe guidance, structure, and reasonable stability. Go on red. Without suppression you expose yourself to violence, but only then can you channel it, and begin to suppress yourself, taking "civilization" into your own hands.

In Fight Club, the main character removes the streetlight, and chooses to channel the violence in a single parking lot rather than the open network of reason. The group suppresses the remainder (violence nature) in order or to live freely elsewhere. Edward Norton breaks the mental apparatuses as well. Pleasure and nirvana can be removed from the equation to see through the darkness, to places that systemic rationale have denied us. Marcuse has a sense of the same project, only in so much as he believes in it. Praxis however, has not been bridged for him. I am not sure if Marcuse can box, but maybe he should have given in it a try.

As you posted, "The individual comes to the traumatic realization that full and painless gratification of his needs is impossible." (13) I believe there is some juice left in the Fight Club fruit. Painless here is key. Civilization has never been made anew, reformed, revolutionized, or rather revitalized without pain. Violence is necessary if we are to adhere to pursuing such overarching systemic changes. Pleasure and pain are synonymous, one cannot exist without the other. Marcuse recognizes that the effort is made nonetheless, and I think that it would be interesting to see what Marcuse would have to say about the international arena we are faced with today. The violence is rampant, but it has not yet found its parking lot.

Garrison I find your post interesting and would agree with your stance on blogging (I look forward to the post), although...would this post/ blog (tongue in cheek) be where you can turn to save your own speech. I find that to be a thought provoking statement. Perhaps the very role of Horkheimer and Adorno producing in writing this book is just that, the deliberate disregard for systematic speech/ enlightenment/ etc.

Similar to your disregard for television, and your awareness of it, you can make the choice. We can allow ourselves to be susceptible to this fascism, or we can find a means of escape. Your retreat to literature is interesting. I suppose that the dis juncture between you now, and Hemingway then, serves as a good retreat from that fascist Peter Griffin.

While I recognize that this is not a widely held view, I still find myself reluctant to posit that we are dominated. Slaves and masters, manipulation, media, born in as is, etc.; I can understand where the idea is coming from and what Adorno and Horkheimer have to say about it, but we are still given choice. We cannot be subjugated unless we allow ourselves to be. I will not buy an Armani suit unless I want to exploit myself in such a way. I will not watch television unless I want to indulge in vulnerability of the media. Yet I am still aware of its intentions. Clearly it was processed, screened, and portrayed for a reason. The notion of good and bad here is just as problematic. Who is to say that a woman who buys a 2,000 dollar dress that she saw in a movie is the subject of bad exploitation, slave to media masters. She makes the choice, and it is a good one for her. I feel as though there has been a heavy sway for the above as being shed in a negative light. But why?

I have a problem with the direction that Horkheimer and Adorno have taken in this passage. I understand the cynical nature of critical theory, and its attempt to make their own structure nonchalant so as to rise above systematic interpretation and discussion, yet i feel this is too negative. Media as a means of public repetition, exerting systemic processes through pre-screened film, is too obvious for its own good. I am left feeling a sense of guilt, as if I were duped by the film-makers, producers, and the "system" as a whole. The notion of manipulation and control sets in here. Adorno and Horkheimer run with it and yet there is no discussion of the willingness of the viewer. For what other purpose would one go to the theater than to allow oneself, for the duration of the film, to be vulnerable to the will of the system. Why else would one be annoyed or laugh at stereotypical high school characters for example. It is an a priori arrangement of the viewer, not of the producer, not of the system. It is mere common sense to posit their view. However, agreeing to the experience for the sake of the pleasure of vulnerability is the mechanism. We beat the system.