---
schema_version: "library-reader-v1"
source_type: "original_book"
title: "Critical Theory of Communication New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet"
author: null
edition: null
publisher: null
year: null
isbn: "9781911534044"
library_document_id: "dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611"
source_sha256: "2e02cbad6452f06df1ac7244516cd6cd361926b48645325215ff151a01db1008"
pdf_physical_page_count: 236
pdf_physical_page_index_base: 0
range_start: 130
range_count: 10
html_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611?start=130&limit=10"
markdown_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611.md?start=130&limit=10"
previous_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611.md?start=120&limit=10"
next_url: "https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611.md?start=140&limit=10"
---

# Critical Theory of Communication New Readings of Lukács, Adorno, Marcuse, Honneth and Habermas in the Age of the Internet

> 页码规则：PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX 是从 0 开始的权威文件物理页索引；PRINTED_PAGE 是页面中识别出的印刷页码，可能为空，二者不得混用。

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=130 | PRINTED_PAGE=126

Marcuse (1955b) connected Freud’s theory of drives to Marx’s theory of capitalism. He argued that alienated labour, domination, and capital accumulation have turned the reality principle into a repressive reality principle – the performance principle: Alienated labour constitutes a surplus-repression of Eros. The repression of the pleasure principle takes on a quantity that exceeds the culturally necessary suppression. Marcuse connects Marx’s notions of necessary labour and surplus labour/value to the Freudian drive structure of humans. He argues that necessary labour on the level of drives corresponds to necessary suppression and surplus labour to surplus-repression. This means that in order to exist, a society needs a certain amount of necessary labour (measured in hours of work) and hence a certain corresponding amount of suppression of the pleasure principle (also measured in hours). The exploitation of surplusvalue (labour that is performed for free and generates profit) means that not only are workers forced to work for free for capital to a certain extent, but also that the pleasure principle must be additionally suppressed beyond what is necessary for human existence.

“Behind the reality principle lies the fundamental fact of Ananke or scarcity (Lebensnot), which means that the struggle for existence takes place in a world too poor for the satisfaction of human needs without constant restraint, renunciation, delay. In other words, whatever satisfaction is possible necessitates work, more or less painful arrangements and undertakings for the procurement of the means for satisfying needs. For the duration of work, which occupies practically the entire existence of the mature individual, pleasure is ‘suspended’ and pain prevails” (Marcuse 1955b, 35).

In societies that are based on the principle of domination, the reality principle takes on the form of the performance principle. Domination ‘is exercised by a particular group or individual in order to sustain and enhance itself in a privileged situation’ (Marcuse 1955b, 36). The performance principle is connected to surplus-repression, a term that describes ‘the restrictions necessitated by social domination’ (Marcuse 1955b, 35). Domination introduces ‘additional controls over and above those indispensable for civilized human association (Marcuse 1955b, 37).

126

Critical Theory of Communication

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=131 | PRINTED_PAGE=127

Marcuse (1955b) argues that the performance principle means that Thanatos governs humans and society and that alienation unleashes aggressive drives within humans (repressive desublimation) that result in an overall violent and aggressive society. Due to the high productivity reached in late-modern society, a historical alternative would be possible: the elimination of the repressive reality principle, the reduction of necessary working time to a minimum and the maximisation of free time, an eroticisation of society and the body, the shaping of society and humans by Eros, the emergence of libidinous social relations. Such a development would be a historical possibility – but one incompatible with capitalism and patriarchy.

4.4.4. Boltanski and Chiapello: The New Spirit of Capitalism

Luc Boltanski and Éve Chiapello (2007) argue that the rise of participatory management means the emergence of a new spirit of capitalism that subsumes the anti-authoritarian values of the political revolt of 1968 and the subsequently emerging New Left such as autonomy, spontaneity, mobility, creativity, networking, visions, openness, plurality, informality, authenticity, emancipation, etc. The topics of the movement would now be put into the service of those forces that it wanted to destroy. The outcome would have been ‘the construction of the new, so-called “network” capitalism’ (Boltanski and Chiapello 2007, 429) so that artistic critique that calls for authenticity, creativity, freedom and autonomy in contrast to social critique that calls for equality and overcoming class (37–38) today ‘indirectly serves capitalism and is one of the instruments of its ability to endure’ (490). Play labour is a new ideology of capitalism: objectively alienated labour is presented as creativity, freedom and autonomy that is fun for workers. The idea that workers should have fun and love their objective alienation has become a new ideological strategy of capital and management theory. ‘Facebook labour’ is an expression of play labour ideology as element of the new spirit of capitalism.

4.4.5. The Society of Self-Control

Gilles Deleuze (1995) has pointed out that in contemporary capitalism, disciplines are transformed in such a way that humans increasingly discipline themselves without direct external violence. He terms this situation the ‘society of (self-)control’. It can for example be observed in the strategies of participatory management. This method promotes the use of incentives and the integration of play into labour. It argues that work should be fun, workers should permanently develop new ideas, realise their creativity, enjoy free time within the factory, etc. The boundaries between work time and spare time, labour and play, become fuzzy. Work tends to acquire qualities of play, and entertainment in spare time tends to become labour-like. Working time and spare time become inseparable.

Herbert Marcuse and Social Media

127

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=132 | PRINTED_PAGE=128

The factory extends its boundaries into society and becomes what Mario Tronti (1966) has termed a social factory:

The more capitalist development proceeds, i.e. the more the production of relative surplus value asserts and extends itself, the more the cycle production – distribution – exchange – consumption closes itself inevitably, the societal relation between capitalist production and bourgeois society, between factory and society, between society and the state become more and more organic. At the highest level of capitalist development the societal relation becomes a moment of the relations of production, and the whole of society becomes cause and expression of production, i.e. the whole society lives as a function of the factory and the factory extends its exclusive domination to the whole of society. […] When the factory raises itself to the master of the whole of society – the entire societal production becomes industrial production – then the specific characteristics of the factory get lost inside of the general characteristics of society (Tronti 1966, 30–31, translation from German).

At the same time as work time and spare time get blurred in the social factory, work-related stress intensifies and property relations remain unchanged.

Facebook’s exploitation of Internet users is an aspect of this transformation. It signifies that private Internet usage, which is motivated by play, entertainment, fun, and joy – aspects of Eros – has become subsumed under capital and has become a sphere of the exploitation of labour. It produces surplus-value for capital and is exploited by the latter so that Internet corporations accumulate profit. Play and labour are today to a specific degree indistinguishable. Eros has become largely subsumed under the repressive reality principle. Play is largely commodified, free time and spaces not exploited by capital become diminished. Play is today productive, surplus-value generating labour that is exploited by capital. All human activities, and therefore also all play, tend under the contemporary conditions to become subsumed under and exploited by capital. Play as an expression of Eros is thereby destroyed, human freedom and human capacities are crippled. On Facebook, play and labour converge into play labour that is exploited for capital accumulation. Facebook therefore stands for the total commodification and exploitation of time – all human time tends to become surplus-value generating time that is exploited by capital.

Table 4.1 summarises the application of Marcuse’s theory of play, labour and pleasure to Facebook and social media.

128

Critical Theory of Communication

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=133 | PRINTED_PAGE=129

4.4.6. Facebook and Play Labour

Work stands in a dialectical relation with play: in play, humans have the freedom to do with the objects of play whatever one wants to do: ‘In a single toss of a ball, the player achieves an infinitely greater triumph of human freedom over the objective world than in the most massive accomplishment of technical labor’ (Marcuse 1933, 128). Play has ‘no duration or permanence. It happens essentially in “intervals”, “between” the times of other doings that continually dominate human Dasein’ (Marcuse 1933, 128). In societies, where work is toil, play would be dialectically related to work in such a way that it is an escape from it:

Herbert Marcuse and Social Media

129

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=134 | PRINTED_PAGE=130

Play is self-distraction, self-relaxation, self-recuperation for the purpose of a new concentration, tension, etc. Thus play is in its totality necessarily related to an other from which it comes and at which it is aimed, and this other is already preconceived as labor through the characteristics of regimentation, tension, toil, etc. (Marcuse 1933, 128).

Work is a durable and permanent process that produces objects in the world that satisfy human needs. Play in contrast takes place unregularly and does not involve the necessity to create use-values that satisfy human needs. Play has the freedom to do with objects whatever one likes to. This can involve creating new objects, but also destroying existing objects or engaging in unproductive activity that is purely joyful and does not create anything new. This means that in playing with a ball one can develop a new form of game, destroy the ball or just toss it around for fun.

In play labour (playbour), the relationship between play and labour has changed: whereas labour is permanent and play irregular, Facebook playbour does not take place at specific times either during ‘free time’ or ‘work time’, it rather can take place any time during wage labour time, at home or on the move (via mobile devices). Play labour is irregular in the sense that it takes place at irregular times and intervals, but it is permanent because users tend to return and update their profiles and repeat their activities. Whereas labour creates new objects that have a permanency in the world and satisfy human needs and play has the freedom to do with object whatever one pleases to, the Facebook user has the freedom to design his/her profile however s/he wants to. But Facebook sets strict limits such as the available input fields, what kind of images, videos and comments are allowed to be uploaded, etc. Every browsing behaviour and activity on Facebook is made permanent in the form of data that are stored, processed, analysed and commodified for the purpose of targeted advertising. Whereas play is relaxation and distraction from the unfreedom and hardships of labour and at the same time recreation of labour power, playbour explodes the relative temporal and spatial separateness of play and labour: Facebook usage is relaxation, joy and fun and at the same time, like labour creates economic value that results or can result in monetary profits. It is recreation that generates value, consumption that is productive, play that is labour.

Play is a free activity without duration and permanence, whereas labour is unfree activity with duration and permanence. Play labour has the semblance of freedom, but is unfree in that it creates wealth and profits that are controlled not by the creators, but by others. It is regular in its irregularity, creating permanence of data storage and usage in its impermanence of usage (irregular times, no need to create something new or useful, etc.). It is fun and joy that is not like play mainly an end-in-itself or like labouring an end-for-others. It is rather as fun an end-in-itself, as social activity an end-for-others and as value-creating activity an end-for-capital, i.e. a particularistic end-for-others that monetarily benefits private property owners at the expense of play workers.

130

Critical Theory of Communication

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=135 | PRINTED_PAGE=131

4.4.7. Liquefaction

Paid labour in the culture industry is also becoming more like play today. The playground-like Google ofices that at a first glance hide the inhumane reality of working long hours are the best example. Among others, Gill (2002) as well as Hesmondhalgh and Baker (2011) show the ambivalence of much creative industry work that is precarious, but cherished, because of the fun, contacts, reputation, creativity, self-fulfilment, and self-determination that it tends to involve. The dificulty is that labour feels like play and that exploitation and fun thereby become inseparable. Play and labour are today in certain cases indistinguishable.

The liquefaction of boundaries between labour/play, working time/leisure time, production/consumption, the ofice and the factory/the home, the public/the private is one of the tendencies of contemporary capitalism. It is however not the only or main feature of modernity as claimed by Bauman (2000/2012) who speaks of liquid modernity. Liquefaction is rather combined with other developments of modernity such as neoliberalism, individualisation, globalisation, financialisation, the commodification of everything, informatisation etc. that are constitutive for the continuity of capitalism through creating discontinuities.

4.5. Herbert Marcuse, Ideology and Social Media

4.5.1. Technological Rationality

Herbert Marcuse used the term ‘technological rationality’ for describing the phenomenon of instrumental reason. He wanted to express that ideology and manipulation try to make human consciousness and human behaviour function like an automatic machine that has only a limited set of available response behaviours. Technological rationality contains ‘elements of thought which adjust the rules of thought to the rules of control and domination’ (Marcuse 1964b, 138). Technological rationality denies that reality could be other than it is today. It neglects alternative potentials for development. It aims at ‘liquidating the oppositional and transcending elements’ (Marcuse 1964b, 56). Technological rationality causes a one-dimensional thinking, in which ‘ideas, aspirations, and objectives that, by their content, transcend the established universe of discourse and action are either repelled or reduced to terms of this universe (Marcuse 1964b, 12).

Herbert Marcuse and Social Media

131

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=136 | PRINTED_PAGE=132

Technological/instrumental rationality in capitalism has a dual character. For Marx, the commodity and capital accumulation are based on the exploitation of labour power, it is the production and appropriation of surplus-value. Classbased society turns humans into instruments that in capital serve the dominant class’ need of capital accumulation. At the same time, the commodity has a specific aesthetic and subjective appearance: the labour involved in its production disappears behind the commodity and money form. One can only see a thing devoid of social relations. The social is hidden behind the commodity form that appears natural and endless. Ideology operates the same way: it naturalises domination and exploitation by presenting them as best option, essential, natural, and without alternatives.

4.5.2. Capitalist Media and Technological Rationality

Capitalist media are modes of reification and therefore expressions of instrumental/technological rationality in a dual sense. First, they reduce humans to the status of consumers of advertisements and commodities. Second, culture is in capitalism to a large degree connected to the commodity form: there are cultural commodities produced by cultural wage-workers that are bought by consumers and audience commodities that the media consumers become themselves by being sold as an audience to capitalist media’s advertising clients. Third, in order to reproduce its existence, capitalism has to present itself as the best possible (or only possible) system and makes use of the media in order to try to keep this message (in all its diferentiated forms) hegemonic. The first and the second dimension constitute the economic dimension of instrumental reason, the third dimension the ideological form of instrumental reason. Capitalist media are necessary means of advertising and commodification and spaces of ideology. Advertisement and cultural commodification make humans an instrument for economic profit accumulation. Ideology aims at instilling the belief in the system of capital and commodities into human subjectivity. The goal is that human thoughts and actions do not go beyond capitalism, do not question and revolt against this system and thereby play the role of instruments for the perpetuation of capitalism. It is of course an important question to what extent ideology is successful and to what degree it is questioned and resisted, but the crucial aspect about ideology is that it encompasses strategies and attempts to make human subjects instrumental in the reproduction of domination and exploitation.

132

Critical Theory of Communication

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=137 | PRINTED_PAGE=133

4.5.3. One-Dimensional and Dialectical Thought

One-dimensional thought and reductionism are characteristic for dominative societies that want to legitimatise the domination of one group or class over another and employ simplifications of reality for doing so. Critical theory opposes ideology, fetishism, reification, false consciousness, instrumental reason, technological rationality, and one-dimensional consciousness by the concept of dialectical thinking. Dialectical thinking sees reality as complex, a developing process, full of potentials for change, and as contradictory. It assumes that for each pole of reality there is a second pole that opposes (negates) the first pole and points towards a diferent reality. Dialectical thought is therefore ‘two-dimensional’ (Marcuse 1964b, 85). It operates with ‘transcendent, critical notions’ (Marcuse 1964b, 85): ‘The dialectical concepts transcend the given social reality in the direction of another historical structure which is present as a tendency in the given reality’ (Marcuse 1937a, 86).

4.5.4. The Engaging/Connecting/Sharing-Ideology

At the level of ideology, social media-capitalists, -gurus and -demagogues try to destroy and forestall the complexity, multi-dimensionality and dialecticity of communication and society by presenting only potential advantages and being silent about social media’s aspects of domination, exploitation, control, surveillance, repression, manipulation and neoliberal individualism. Social media ideologies present capitalist online platforms as something purely advantageous. They advance the engaging/connecting/sharing-ideology. Here are some examples (Fuchs 2015, chapter 7):

• Facebook says it provides ‘the power to share and to make the world more open and connected’.1

• Google argues its goal is the organisation of ‘the world’s information’ in order to ‘make it universally accessible and useful’ and ‘make money without doing evil’.2

• YouTube conceives the essence of freedom as possibility ‘to connect, inform and inspire others across the globe and acts as a distribution platform for original content creators and advertisers large and small’.3

• For Twitter, the freedom of social media is ‘to connect with people, express yourself and discover what’s happening’ and ‘give everyone the power to create and share ideas and information instantly’.4

• Instagram says it is a ‘fast, beautiful and fun way to share your life with friends and family’.5

• Pinterest describes itself as enabling ‘collecting and organising things you love’.6

Herbert Marcuse and Social Media

133

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=138 | PRINTED_PAGE=134

• LinkedIn claims it helps to ‘connect the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful’.7

• tumblr says it enables you to ‘share the things you love’.8

• VK sees itself as ‘a web resource that helps you stay in touch with your old and new friends’.9

• Baidu’s says it mission is ‘providing the best way for people to find what they’re looking for online’, ‘We provide our users with many channels to find and share information’.10

• Sina Weibo says it is designed to ‘allow users to connect and share information anywhere, anytime and with anyone on our platform’ and provides ‘an array of online media and social networking services to our user to create a rich canvas for businesses and brand advertisers to connect and engage with their targeted audiences’.11

• Renren’s self-understanding is that it ‘enables users to connect and communicate with each other, share information, create user generated content, play online games, watch videos and enjoy a wide range of other features and services. We believe real name relationships create a stronger and more enduring social graph that is essential in the mobile internet world and dificult to replicate. […] Our vision is to re-define the social networking experience and revolutionize the way people in China connect, communicate, entertain and shop. To achieve this, we are focused on providing a highly engaging and interactive platform through technology that promotes connectivity, communication and sharing. The mobile internet is making the world more connected, and Renren stands at the forefront of this evolution’.12

• Tencent’s (QQ, WeChat) mission is ‘to enhance the quality of human life through Internet services’.13 WeChat is a ‘value-added Internet, mobile and telecom services and online advertising under the strategic goal of providing users with “one-stop online lifestyle services”’ that provides users the possibility to ‘connect with friends across platforms’.14

4.5.5. Inverted Commodity Fetishism

Social media ideology inverts commodity fetishism. In inverted commodity fetishism (Fuchs 2014a), the users do not immediately experience the commodity form because they do not pay money for accessing a commodity. Rather they get access without payment to social media platforms that are not commodities. The commodity form takes place without an exchange that users are involved in: the platforms sell usage data to advertising clients, who in return for paying money get targeted access to users’ profiles that become advert spaces. It is rather dificult for users to think of corporate social media use as labour or exploitation because inverted commodity fetishism creates a social experience and social use-value for them and tries to ideologically hide the role of the commodity.

134

Critical Theory of Communication

## PDF_PHYSICAL_PAGE_INDEX=139 | PRINTED_PAGE=135

Social media corporations, advertising and management gurus and uncritical social media scholars that celebrate capitalist platforms associate with social media that it enables everyone to get and share information, to communicate, engage, produce and distribute content, connect with others. A further claim is that producing, connecting, sharing, communicating, engaging via social media enhances humans’ quality of life and society’s quality and transparency. In the analysed statements, there is an underlying assumption that social media makes society necessarily more open, transparent, and connected, whereas aspects of closure and power are not considered. If they are considered, they are only framed in such a way that social media empowers users. Social media ideology reflects Henry Jenkins’ concept of participatory culture that assumes that social media enables a culture ‘in which fans and other consumers are invited to actively participate in the creation and circulation of new content’ (Jenkins 2008, 331) and in which there is ‘strong support for creating and sharing creations with others’ (Jenkins et al. 2009, 5).

The problem of this approach is the simplistic understanding of participation as content-creation and sharing that ignores the political connotation of participation as participatory democracy, a system, in which all people own and control and together manage the systems that afect their lives (Fuchs 2014c, chapter 3). The engaging/connecting/sharing-ideology is an ideology because it only views social media positively and is inherently technological-deterministic. It assumes that social media technologies as such have positive efects and disregards the power structures and asymmetries into which it is embedded.

This engaging/connecting/sharing-ideology is however not just typical for Western corporate social media such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Pinterest, Tumblr or Instagram, but is also shared and communicated by Chinese corporate social media companies such as Baidu, Sina Weibo, Renren and Tencent. This circumstance indicates that both Chinese and Western Internet capitalism use quite comparable neoliberal ideologies for legitimatising themselves. Social media ideology is a form of one-dimensional thought both in the East and the West: It is silent about exploitation and disadvantages that users may have from capitalism’s and the capitalist state’s control of the Internet. Eastern and Western social media capitalists not just share the engaging/connecting/ sharing-ideology, but also the same capital accumulation model that is based on targeted advertising and the exploitation of users’ digital labour (Fuchs 2015, chapter 7).

4.5.6. Repressive Tolerance in the Social Media Age

Marcuse argued that tolerance is repressive and administered pseudo-tolerance and intolerance when there are ‘indoctrinated individuals who parrot’ (Marcuse 1969, 90) so that alternative voices are not present and when monopolies and ideologies dominate the media and the public sphere. ‘But with the concentration of economic and political power and the integration of opposites in a society which uses technology as an instrument of domination, efective dissent is blocked where it could freely emerge: in the formation of opinion, in information and communication, in speech and assembly’ (Marcuse 1969, 95). The consequence of all of this is that ‘tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society’ (Marcuse 1969, 111).

Herbert Marcuse and Social Media

135

下一段：[继续读取](https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/dadb939e-7360-4727-a1fb-be08c2f7a611.md?start=140&limit=10)