Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2
3
4
NormFriesen
Keywords Siegfried Giedion Walter Benjamin McLuhan Explorations in communication Media studies Media theorization in Canada
28
This chapter has benefitted greatly from input provided by Michael Darroch and Reto Geiser.
[AU1]
N. Friesen (*)
Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA
e-mail: normfriesen@boisestate.edu
Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016
N. Friesen (ed.), Media Transatlantic: Developments in Media
and Communication Studies between North American and German-speaking
Europe, DOI10.1007/978-3-319-28489-7_4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
29
N. Friesen
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
[AU2]
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
Throughout his prolific career, Hans Blumenberg has undertaken extended analyses
of the tropes, images or metaphors through which the physical and cultural world
have been understood. Among these are the book of nature, which casts the world
or cosmos as an open, readily-decipherable text, or the universe as a gigantic clockwork, a rational heliocentric machine, to be understood purely in terms of its
mechanical operations. Referring to the historical analysis of such absolute metaphors as metaphorology, Blumenberg characterizes the truth sought in their
study as follows:
we ask about the relevance of absolute metaphors, their historical truth. This truth is
pragmatic in a very broad sense. By providing a point of orientation, the content of absolute
metaphors determines a particular attitude or conduct [Verhalten]; they give structure to a
world, representing the nonexperienceable, nonapprehensible totality of the real. To the
historically trained eye, they therefore indicate the fundamental certainties, conjectures,
and judgments in relation to which the attitudes and expectations, actions and inactions,
longings and disappointments, interests and indifferences, of an epoch are regulated. What
genuine guidance does it give? This form of the truth question, formulated by pragmatism, is pertinent here (2010: 14)
[AU3]
75
76
77
78
79
80
The idea belongs to a fundamentally different world from that which it apprehends. For
phenomena are not incorporated in ideas. They are not contained in them If ideas do not
incorporate phenomena then the question of how they are related to phenomena arises.
The answer to this is: in the representation of phenomena The set of concepts which
assist in the representation of an idea lend it actuality as such a configuration. (2009: 34)
87
88
89
90
91
To paraphrase: Benjamin is here concerned with the need to protect the historical
object or phenomenon, in its singular specificity, from dominating or incorporating
power of the apprehending idea. According to the structure of Benjamins metaphor, the alienation of the phenomenon from the idea is mediated and given actuality in terms of a conceptual, spatial configuration. In this way, the historical
phenomenon is made relevant or meaningful for the present without falling under
the generalizing sway of the idea. The significance of the idea, Benjamin continues, can be illustrated with an analogy:
92
Ideas are to objects as constellations are to stars. The significance of phenomena for ideas
is confined to their conceptual elements. the idea, the objective interpretation of phenomena-or rather their elements-determines their relationship to each other. minute historical
phenomena are said to have the potential to be redeemed. (2009: 34)
100
101
102
103
104
81
82
83
84
85
86
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
N. Friesen
128
Burckhardtian undertaking of Kulturgeschichte. Simply put, this consists of bringing obscure minutiae, particularized cultural and historical phenomena whether
of baroque drama (Benjamin), of industrial aesthetics (Giedion) or of manuscript/
print culture (McLuhan) into fruitful connection with concerns that are much less
ephemeral.
In the fragments of Benjamins later Arcades Project (19271940), the epistemo-
critical metaphor from his study of baroque drama takes on a distinct historical-
materialist and dialectical inflexion, with the temporal and historical tensions at its
core being both heightened and extended. Benjamin describes the mediating function of constellation or configuration in terms of discontinuous but dialectical mediation. Associated in his understanding with both dreaming and awakening,
Benjamin emphasizes the abrupt, irruptive appearance of the constellation as a dialectical image that is blasted out of the continuum of historical process (1974:
137):
129
130
131
Its not that what is past casts its light on what is present, or what is present its light on what
is past; rather, image is that wherein what has been comes together in a flash with the now
to form a constellation. In other words, image is dialectics at a standstill. (1999: 462)
132
143
The relationship of the elements of the past to the present is one that is actualized
irruptively. This occurs through a dialectic that is neither centrifugal nor centripetal, neither positive nor negative. It is instead discontinuous and brittle, a dialectic whose interrelations and tensions are manifest all at once, in a single moment,
as if through the suspension of historical time, rather than through its unfolding. The
historians task, as a result, is sharply differentiated from the work of antiquarian
immersion or reconstruction, and portrayed as the collection and juxtaposition of
heterogeneous historical elements with one another and with the now of the author,
the text and the reader. Benjamin makes it clear that method holds out the possibility
of redeeming the myriad historical details and fragments that he was collecting and
annotating while he was at the Bibliotheque nationale in Paris: This standstill is
utopia, and the dialectical image, therefore dream image.
144
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
aligned with bourgeois subjectivity: it is the dream, awakening and other psychological phenomena that Adorno sees as being uncomfortably close to that which is
dialectical in general and to Benjamins dialectical image in particular:
155
158
159
160
161
The problem for Adorno is not at all the notion of the constellation as such. It is
instead the lack of mediation between the disparate elements that the constellation
simultaneously brings together and holds apart. Oversimplifying, Adorno is objecting to the apparent lack of distance and mediation he deemed necessary to separate
individual subjectivity and psychology from phylogenetic phenomena whether of
society, popular culture or capitalist production.
Adorno offers a positive and sustained explication of Benjamins constellation
some 30years after this exchange, in the context of his 1966 Negative Dialectics.
Adorno emphasizes that the value of the constellation lies with Benjamins original
intent: Its ability to punctually illuminate the historical object in its uniqueness
without at the same time reducing it to abstraction or homogeneity:
162
The unifying moment survives without delivering itself to abstraction as a supreme principle. It survives because there is no step-by-step progression from the concepts to a more
general cover concept. Instead, the concepts enter into a constellation. The constellation
illuminates the specific side of the object, the side which to a classifying procedure is either
a matter of indifference or a burden. (1981: 162)
173
174
175
176
177
Adorno sees in the image of the constellation the possibility of avoiding the
negation of negation that he consistently sought to avoid. It could preserve rather
than repress the heterogeneity and negativity that would otherwise be equalized in
the synthetic moment of the Hegelian dialectic, or in (other) classifying procedures.
For Adorno, the object, particularly as it relates to its dialectical opposite, the subject, remains in irreconcilable and dynamic tension, never to be reduced to or by a
third, a unity, or a supreme principle. Scrupulous in his anti-systematicity, Adorno
clarifies the value of Benjamins metaphor for his own negative dialectics. However,
in so doing, it is notable that Adorno, unlike Giedion and McLuhan, stays well
within the scope of the metaphor as it was originally conceived.
Speaking of Giedion, while Benjamin was working on his Arcades Project in the
1930s, he came to know this young Jewish historian who had recently published a
book on modern French architecture: Building in France Building in Iron
Building in Ferroconcrete. This was a text which Benjamin greatly admired, and
which greatly influenced his own investigations, being referenced and quoted multiple times in the fragments of the Arcades Project. In his only extant letter to
Giedion, Benjamin described the books electrifying effect: I am studying in
your book You possess radical knowledge and therefore you are able to illuminate, or rather to uncover, the tradition by observing the present (Benjamin, as
cited in Giorgias, 1998: 53).
178
156
157
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
N. Friesen
205
There are 16-odd passages from Building in France that are quoted and sometimes also interpreted in Benjamins Arcades Project. One describes construction
as playing the role of the subconscious in the nineteenth century, displaying both
individualistic and collectivist tendencies (1999: 390). Another details, in its own
obscure way, Gideons notion of anonymity in history and the arts. Speaking of
glass and metal in nineteenth-century architecture as enabling the intoxicated
interpenetration of street and residence, Benjamin uses Giedions characterization
to underscore the anonymity of these novel forms:
206
207
208
the new architecture lets this interpenetration become sober reality. Giedion on occasion
draws attention to this: A detail of anonymous engineering, a grade crossing, becomes an
element in the architecture. (1990: 423)
209
221
222
223
224
225
The book project with the working title The Emergence of modern Man was to be about
the effects of industrialization on the spirit [Seelenleben] of modern man. In the centre, as
was the case with Benjamins Arcades Project, stood the nineteenth century as the origin of
modernity. (2009: 143; my translation)
226
227
228
229
230
to be writing the anonymous history of the twentieth century bears close comparison to
Benjamins focus on the anonymous, collective dissemination of the arcade as a nineteenth-
century architectural space. (2006: 240)
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
One exception to this is the appearance of Giedions name on a list of recipients drawn up by
Benjamin to receive his 1936 anthology titled Deutsche Menschen and possibly also his The
Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproducibility (Dauss and Rehberg 2009: 143). On a
related note, in a quasi-autobiographical text titled On the Ruling Taste, Giedion himself characterizes his eventual abandonment of his 1930s study of modern man for Mechanization takes
Command as follows: The material for this [unfinished study] was gathered during the summer of
1936in the Bibliotheque national in Paris. Then it was put aside, unused. In connection with an
appointment in America it seemed to me more urgent to make some studies of the effect of mechanization upon our daily lives, which, through the power of the same ruling taste, was misused in a
way somewhat similar to art. This I tried to do in Mechanization takes Command. (1956: 14).
1
Indeed, overt references to anonymous cultural undertakings in art, engineering or history are a clear point of explicit commonality between Benjamin and
Giedion, and as I shall later show, also McLuhan.
231
232
233
234
In an introductory section of Mechanization takes Command that is itself specifically titled Anonymous History, Giedion writes:
235
The meaning of history arises in the uncovering of relationships. That is why the writing of
history has less to do with facts as such than with their relations. These relations will vary
with the shifting point of view, for, like constellations of stars, they are ceaselessly in
change. Every true historical image is based on relationship, appearing in the historians
choice from among the fullness of events, a choice that varies with the century and often
with the decade, just as paintings differ in subject, technique, and psychic content. (1949:
23; italics in the original)
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
The task of the historian for Giedion, like Benjamin, is to establish constellations through a kind of a-temporal lucidity. Central to understanding this work is
the image of the constellation particularly as it is ever tied to the fragment, with
the known factsscattered like stars across the firmament, as Giedion further
explains (1948: 23).
Despite the brevity of these references (the only ones made to the constellation
in Mechanization takes Command), the basic combination and interrelation of elements from Benjamin remain: historical objects, or Giedions facts or fragments scattered like stars across the firmament; they acquire meaning through
their relations, which are recognized through the painstaking work of the historian.
Facts are significant only insofar as they are represent[ed] as fragments as Giedion
puts it, and these representations are mediated in this sense by their relationships,
forming a historical image that as Giedion says, becomes apparent only when
these representations are seen together.
At the same time, Giedions references to the constellation register a number of
figurative changes in the metaphor changes that are largely retained in McLuhans
use of the trope. There is no reference in Giedion to a sudden, irruptive flash or cessation of motion, or to a possible moment of redemption. Instead, he speaks of the
relations between historical elements as varying with the shifting point of view
of the observer. This strange and perhaps strained adaptation of the metaphor of the
constellation suggests that constant and gradual alterations in these relationships is
also expressive of historical change itself: These relations, Giedion is also in
effect saying, are ceaselessly in change, shifting with the historians very choice
of facts, which may vary with the century and often with the decade. The
observers changing point of view and positional changes in the objects being
viewed become difficult to disentangle in this description. A similar difficulty,
together with Giedions anti-Burkhardtian affirmation of historical change as
244
236
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
N. Friesen
272
p rogressive and gradual, is clearly evident in McLuhans description of the constellation a description to which this chapter now turns.
273
271
277
McLuhan and Giedion first met while McLuhan was working in St. Louis Missouri.
As biographer Philip Marchand explains, they remained in regular contact thereafter, with Mechanization Takes Command long serving as a central reference point
for McLuhan:
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
Giedions Mechanization Takes Command, published after McLuhan had left St. Louis,
remained a resource for McLuhan throughout his career. In that book, Giedion examined a
wide range of human objects nineteenth-century bathroom fixtures, Marcel Duchamps
painting Nude Descending a Staircase, and a Chicago meat-packing plant and demonstrated how they all reflected a single process, the increasing mechanization of human life.
The book showed McLuhan how fundamental changes in technology affected all aspects of
human existence and how any artifact, no matter how humble, could reveal clues to new
patterns of life. (1998: 78)
286
290
291
292
293
294
295
[Giedion] makes very heavy demands of his readers since he presents ideas not as things to
be known or argued about, but as tools with which the reader must work for many years.
And Giedion offers to him a new set of tools for working not only with the materials of
writing and the plastic arts, but with the entire range of daily object and actions. (1949: 599,
601)
296
274
275
276
287
288
289
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
[AU4]
work, the 1962 Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Here is how
McLuhan introduces the methodology he uses in this text.
312
The Gutenberg Galaxy develops a mosaic or field approach to its problems. Such a mosaic
image of numerous data and quotations in evidence offers the only practical means of
revealing causal operations in history. The alternative procedure would be to offer a series
of views of fixed relationships in pictorial space. Thus the galaxy or constellation of events
upon which the present study concentrates is itself a mosaic of perpetually interacting
forms that have undergone kaleidoscopic transformation particularly in our own time.
(1962: n.p.)
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
Like Giedion, McLuhan emphasizes not so much the recognizable and actualized configuration presented by a constellation, but its changes, or its kaleidoscopic transformation, occurring over historical time. However, like both Benjamin
and Giedion, McLuhan utilizes the metaphoricity of the night sky to characterize
the vast multiplicity of historical datum relevant to his study. Also, the discernment
of this configuration (in this case, whether stable or perpetually interacting) is for
all three constitutive of the task of the historian. This astrophysical imagery is developed further in McLuhans conclusion to the Gutenberg Galaxy, when he asks:
321
What will be the new configurations of mechanisms and of literacy as these older forms of
perception and judgment are interpenetrated by the new electric age? The new electric
galaxy of events has already moved deeply into the Gutenberg galaxy. Even without collision, such coexistence of technologies and awareness brings trauma and tension to every
living person. (1962: 278279)
329
330
331
332
333
334
313
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
N. Friesen
362
and in this sense, both clearly diverge from Giedions explanations of the historians
role, his or her choice of objects or events. The flash Benjamin describes in which
past come[s] together with the now to form a constellation occurs neither simply
in the historians perception nor exclusively in historical phenomena. Were it not for
its explicit visuality and luminosity, the flash described by Benjamin would perhaps
not be out of place in the space of immersive simultaneity so privileged by McLuhan.
363
4.5 Conclusion
357
358
359
360
361
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
My point here of course, is not simply to play some academic version of six degrees
of separation. To return to Blumenbergs metaphorology, my point is instead to
adumbrate common certainties, conjectures, and judgments in relation to which the
attitudes and expectations, actions and inactions, longings and disappointments of
Benjamin, Giedion and McLuhan appear to be expressed. In so doing, I suggest that
the pragmatic guidance given by the metaphor of the constellation is one that is
all but indispensable to the twentieth-century dialectician or cultural historian. It is
indispensable to those struggling with the weight of the positive, dialectical tradition, seeking to understand history while refusing triumphalist narratives organized
around spirit, reason, production, or any other master signifier. Indeed, despite all of
the evidence indicating otherwise, it may be that such a shared awareness or sensibility, rather than an empirically traceable process of transmission, is actually what
motivates the appearance of this metaphor in Benjamin, Giedion and McLuhan.
If this is the case, then it is clear that the shared attitude or sensibility, expectations and disappointments in question are particularly modernist. Juxtaposition and
ironic counterposition across time and genre are obviously high modern tropes: For
both Benjamin and McLuhan, as for Elliot or Joyce, epochal and quotidian phenomena whether it is J.Alfred Prufrocks peach or Stephen Daedalus ashplant gain
significance through their implied or explicit connection or configuration with historical or even mythical referents. The realization of such unexpected collocations
requires the intersection of otherwise disparate spaces and times. For Benjamin, of
course, the juxtaposition and subsequent redemption of phenomena is discontinuous and irruptive. The eschatology of Benjamin is one in which history does not
move towards the realization of a particular meaning but is constantly shot through
with it. For Giedion and McLuhan, on the other hand, the movement of history
towards particular meanings is of paramount importance even though both do not
see such movement or intensification as strictly progressive. Significantly, in the
case of McLuhan, such movement is also cyclical: Disparate phenomena and times
are brought together not through abrupt compression into a dialectical image, or
through shifts in a historians perspective, but via the grand ricorso, Vicos notion
of epochal, historical repetition. Of course, nothing could be more antithetical to the
aims of Benjamin, and after him, Adorno. Regardless, it is reference to the constellation that can be said to provide all of these thinkers and historians with genuine
guidance, a pragmatic means of understanding the fraught relationship of specificity
[AU5]
398
399
References
400
Bal, M. (2012). Travelling concepts in the humanities: A rough guide. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Benjamin, W. (1950). Illuminations: Essays and reflections. NewYork: Schocken.
Benjamin, W. (1974). On the concept of history. Gesammelten Schriften I:2. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp Verlag.
Benjamin, W. (2009). The origin of German tragic drama. London: Verso.
Dauss, M., & Rehberg, K.-S. (2009). Gebaute Raumsymbolik: Die Architektur der Gesellschaft
aus Sicht der Institutionenanalyse. In J. Fischer & H. Delitz (Eds.), Die Architektur der
Gesellschaft: Theorien fr die Architektursoziologie (pp.109143). Bielefeld: Transkript.
Geiser, R. (2010). Giedion in between: A study of cultural transfer and transatlantic exchange.
Unpublished dissertation, Eidgenssische Technische Hochschule, Zrich.
Giedion, S. (1928/1996). Building in France, building in iron, building in ferroconcrete. NewYork:
Oxford University Press.
Giedion, S. (1948). Mechanization takes command: A contribution to anonymous history.
NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Giedion, S. (1956). Architecture you and me: The diary of a development. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Giorgiadas, S. (1996). Introduction. In Building in France, building in iron, building in ferroconcrete (pp.157). NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Jay, M. (1984). Adorno. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Marchand, P. (1998). Marshall McLuhan The medium and the messenger: A biography.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
McLuhan, M. (1949). Encyclopedic unities. The Hudson Review, 1(4), 599602.
McLuhan, M. (1962). The Gutenberg galaxy: The making of typographic man. Toronto: University
of Toronto Press.
McLuhan, M. (1968). Environment as programmed happening. In W.J. Ong (Ed.), Knowledge and
the future of man: An international symposium (pp.113124). NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
McLuhan, M. (1969). Playboy interview: Marshall McLuhan A candid conversation with the
high priest of popcult and metaphysician of media. Playboy (March). Reprinted in E.McLuhan,
F.Zingrone (Eds.), (1995) Essential McLuhan (pp.233269). NewYork: Basic Books.
McLuhan, M., & Powers, B.R. (1989). The global village: Transformations in world, life and
media in the 21st century. NewYork: Oxford University Press.
Miller, T. (2006). Glass before its time; premature iron: Architecture, temporality and dream in
Benjamins arcades project. In B. Hanssen (Ed.), Walter Benjamin and the arcades project
(pp.240258). NewYork: Continuum.
Mumford, E.P. (2000). The CIAM discourse on urbanism 19281930. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Osbourne, P., Charles, M. (2012). Walter Benjamin. In E.N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy winter 2012 edition. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/benjamin/. Accessed 4 Feb 2012.
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440