AD603 Critical Theory

I hate to admit it (and I’m almost ashamed to share this with you), but Kuwait is considered to be a Third World nation.  But how can one of the richest countries in the world fall under this category?

Minh-Ha has failed to provide the “interpreter” with objective representations and instead has categorized the two classifications (“first” and “third”) based on the outdated ideologies of the geopolitical model of the Cold War.  The indices that classify Third World Countries include and are not limited to political and civil rights, human development and freedom of press/speech.  Given that Kuwaiti women were recently granted the political right to vote, I’d have to say we are still developing our nations political and civil rights, regardless of the fact that every household has an oil well in their backyard. 

Now that I’ve cleared that up, I can comfortably compare Kuwait (as a Third World country) to the Western world.  Minh-Ha’s comments on films made by or about members of the Third World struck me as very intriguing and surprisingly true.  She states that there is an “excessive tendency to focus on economic matters in ‘underdeveloped’ or ‘developing’ contexts,” thereby restricting these societies from experiencing their own evolution and progression.  These ideas being portrayed in film (whether they are made by or even about members of the Third World) are belittling, maybe even ridiculing the quantified progress taking place.  This made me think of a famous Kuwaiti play, called “Bye Bye London,” produced and performed shortly after the discovery of oil.  The play is in Arabic, but the one scene that I’ve attached to this post is in English (with a very heavy Kuwaiti accent – so it might be difficult to understand):  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVvkNC9397E

The scene portrays a nouveau riche business man who is trying to flirt with a British girl at a pub in London, England.  He barely speaks English, but attempts to impress the young lady by regurgitating all the words he learnt in school: car, apple, water, father, mother, donkey, monkey, rabbit, crocodile, etc.  When he realizes that she does not understand him,  he pulls out a “cheat sheet” in hopes that he could impress her with a phrase or two, “Me rich man me money, me home in Kuwait has petrol, me baby don’t drink milk he drink petrol.”

I thought this was a good example of a foreigner defining himself in terms of the economic development (or lack there of) of a nation in comparison to the “First World.” First, he portrays the condition of the educational system in a country whose main economic activity had been pearl diving and fishing, prior to the discovery of oil.  Second, he misuses the abundance of money in a way that highly compels the Western viewer, taking the situation out of the context in which it should be understood.  Third, he over-amplifies his inebriation in response to the illegality of alcohol in Kuwait.

I am Muslim.

Now, let’s deal with this social fact, and the fact of my stating it, together.

I never quite understood the xenophobic and unjust system of the Western world until the unfortunate and tragic events of September 11.  For the first time in my life I encountered discrimination and prejudice in a nation other than my own.  The experience opened my eyes to the minority groups of America, awakening me from my moral and ethical somnolence.  Having experienced it first hand, I felt deeply changed.  But how can this experience be translated to a master signifier of power?  Perhaps through Adrian Piper’s sarcastic approach in her video installation entitled “Cornered”?  Or Martinez’s whiteness/power equation?    

I think that Charles Wright says it best: “The Biennial exhibition should not be understood as a call for mediation and celebration of difference, but rather as an exposition in comparative oppression studies.” Cultural identity is too complex of a subject to be understood in an exhibit like setting – especially without the identification of the “other” to better explain the racial ideologies that were created in the first place.  These issues, such as race, need to be looked at as an entity, separate from the oppression surrounding it, but also as a bias ideology.

Art in African American culture has developed over the past couple of decades.  By developed, I mean matured into a pretentious and outspoken truth.  The outcry no longer needs to hide between the lines of Maya Angelou’s poetry or in the fluidity and grace of Ernie Barnes paintings.  Cultural identities begin to emerge in all forms of art through many different identities.

The Boondocks, a thought provoking animated comedy about a black family who moves to the white suburbs is a great paradigm that illustrates the art work of an African American and his interpretation of life in a “white” world.  Here’s a short clip from one of The Boondocks episode: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dzLZrqMvCA 

Portrayals of one’s own culture is something that has been done for decades - but a bystander’s interpretation, a highly provocative one at that, is fairly new in the realm of minority groups.  I recently came across Yazmany Arboleda’s performance art.  Someone sent me a link to the exhibit entitled “The Assassination of Barack Obama,” a day or so after the presidential election.  To say I was outraged is an understatement – art or not art, the approach to racial identity was disrespectful.  I did a little bit of research and discovered that the link that had been sent to me was taken out of context.  The same exhibit space actually portrayed two different identities meant to be understood in lieu of one another: “The Assassination of Barack Obama” and “The Assassination of Hillary Clinton,” an exaggerated and offensive portrayal of two minority groups by the general public. A character assassination of the media and not that of the artist’s own chauvinism.

Was this a genuine approach to the integration of difference?  Does the animated cartoon or the exhibit prove extraneous to the social fabric? How then do we define American Art?  An African American’s representation of cultural identity through his artwork is American Art.  Portraying two minority groups, by a third minority to demonstrate philosophical and metaphorical cultural diversity is American art.  A well rounded exposure to various points of view – “white” or not white – is American Art.

This past week, my lesson plan for A&D 230 involved teaching the students about “concept” and its relevance to the design development of any given interior space.  To effectively illustrate the meaning of concept, I had to explain to the class what it was not.  I told the students to take a minute and visualize a desert oasis.  While they were envisioning the idea that I set forth, I picked up the marker and drew a table on the whiteboard – the word THEME in one column and the word CONCEPT in the other.  I then asked…

“If you were to decorate your house to look like a desert oasis, what are some of the elements that you would incorporate into the design of the space?”  They came up with the following words:

Sand

Water

Sun

Camels

Palm Trees

Nomads

My next question was “If you were to design your house using a desert oasis as your inspiration for the development of your furniture, finishes and ones movement through the space, what are some of the elements that you would incorporate into the design of the space?” The answers were far more profound and multi-faceted:

Open space

Centralized courtyard

Clustered furniture to represent vegetation

Water fountain

Snake-like path of travel to represent the flow of a body of water

Use of both rough and smooth surfaces

The students were beginning to tell a story, rather than imitating the existence of an entity.  The desert oasis became a metaphor.  A pastiche, if you will.  It may be argued that a desert oasis is not a “peculiar or unique style,” but does it not capture the essence of space and time, respectively? Being in a space that conceptually represents a place that we are more familiar with, still instills that latent feeling that “there exists something normal” in comparison to what is being emulated.

I am having a hard time accepting the fact that our work as interior designers is merely mimicry.  Well, for those so called designers who have decorated places like the Rain Forest Café and the Venetian Hotel, YOU ARE DEFINITELY GUILTY!  

Rainforest Cafe - Tempe, Arizona

The Venetian Hotel - Las Vegas, Nevada

Jameson blatantly declares that our era is void of stylistic innovation; lacking individualism and succeeding in the imitation of dead styles. He further claims that the glory of our work is in its imprisonment in the past. Personally, I see no such thing in the aesthetics of my designs.  Every interior space I’ve designed has been developed through a concept – a story that provides me with a model and the user with an experiential beginning, middle and end.  The concept, which is being used as inspiration, is from a completely different realm – I am not using a previously designed space as an inspiration, but rather, a place or experience that assists me in telling a story that will ultimately be experienced in spatial and architectural sense.

Michel Foucault would say that Le Corbusier represents the most successful and effective application of libertarian architecture.  I beg to differ.  Not because I don’t believe in his contemporary vision of urbanism, but because the modern essence of architecture and design revolves around practical rationality and effective space planning.  At least that’s what I’ve been taught.

What exactly is an effective application of “liberty” in architecture?  Is it the freedom the creator practices in the development of a space? Or is it the creation of an institutionalized structure of power?  How do you produce a piece of work that harmoniously juxtaposes the “liberating intentions of the architect” with “the real practice of people in the exercise of their freedom”?  You create choices.  Choices that provide individuals with a sense freedom.  

As I read through Of Other Spaces, I reflected back on a project that I had worked on during my time at Nelsen Henrich Interiors in Scottsdale, Arizona.  The development and construction of Saguaro Ranch, a desert retreat in the southwestern landscape of Tucson, Arizona, fit into most of the types of spaces discussed by Foucault.

Foucault divides the spatial values of architecture into two main categories: utopias and heterotopias. Utopias are “sites with no real place.”  In relationship to an architectural project like Saguaro Ranch, the utopian site would consist of the designer’s preliminary vision.  It was vital to tap into the owner’s vision in order to create a transitory utopia.  Stephen Phinny, the owner and developer of the project, shared with us recollections of his childhood, in which summers were spent in the prestigious, artistic and untouched foliage of a retreat in Palm Springs, California.  He wanted to recreate those nostalgic memories.  The result of our client’s needs was a visual and schematic proposal for a space that had no real place (not yet, at least):   

Preliminary Sketches

Saguaro Ranch Tunnel View

Heterotopias are real places.  Foucault’s six principles of heterotopology, systematically describe the different places surrounding us that were formed by the foundation of our society.  I will not be discussing all six principles, but I will briefly go over a few that I felt related strongly to the development of Saguaro Ranch.

The first principle assures that “no culture in the world fails to constitute heterotopias.”  This principle can take many different forms, but certainly exists in the development of any given space.  I would categorize Saguaro Ranch as a “crisis heterotopias,” in which a sacred place was created as a result of the owner’s nostalgic vision.  The site may not be sacred to all users, but the utopian vision grew out of the owner’s personal desires.

The second principle is that a society “can make an existing heterotopias function in a very different fashion.”  Although the intent of this project was to preserve the environment of the Arizonian desert to appear as if untouched, the functionality of a once wild and barren space has altered to serve new inhabitants.  The once preserved desert landscape must now take on a new and different function – a place that synergizes the natural environment with modern day construction technologies.

The third principle is “capable of juxtaposing in a single real place several spaces that are in themselves incompatible.”  The Arizonian retreat consists of several functioning spaces – Casitas (small southwestern homes), spa, restaurant, ranch house, stable, post office and general store.  Although these spaces may seem “incompatible,” due to the fact that their functions differ greatly, they are capable of exiting within the same place in a harmonious manner.   

Liberty in architecture and design is providing choices for the user. Most spaces are designed with this intent in mind - Le Corbusier is not the only one who implemented it.

Lacan’s comparative example of the migratory locust in relation to the mirror stage, whether hemeomorphic (identifying oneself with the same body) or heteromorphic (identifying oneself with a different body), really helped clarify his confusing theoretical concepts of the ultimate formation of “I”. The migratory locust, a solitary insect, alters its habits and visual appearance when the density of the population surrounding it increases, transforming itself into a gregarious insect.  

This got me thinking about the number of mirror image influences that have occurred in my lifetime. Although it may be true that the “Ideal-I” first established itself at a young age – when I was not yet as intelligent as an adult chimpanzee – there have been numerous “mirror stage” influences in my adult life that have also contributed to the present day “I”.  The interpretation of these images might have changed due to the development of my “chimpanzee” mind, however the impact it has had on the formation of my psychic is just as influential as it was at the age of eighteen months.        

My decision to return to graduate school and pursue a terminal degree in order to become a professor is the result of a psychic response to external “mirror stage” influences that have occurred in my professional adult life. These influences have been of social heteromorphic origins – professors and mentors in the field of Interior Design. 

Creative and entrepreneurial childhood stimuli, demonstrated by my mother and father, had determined my artistic aspirations at a very young age.  When I became interested in Interior Design specifically, my goal was to obtain a degree and then run my very own architectural and interior design firm. Once I was in college, separated from my primary influences that had shaped the invisible “I” that I was aiming to achieve, I was exposed to a set of new and unfamiliar “mirror” images that allowed me to view design in a different light.  I was fortunate enough to be educated by the most influential and talented professors in the field of Architecture and Interior Design.  The impact that they had on the success of my professional career was astounding.  As well as I had performed in the practical field, I lacked satisfaction in my achievements, alternatively attesting my success to the people who educated me in the first place.  This realization made me recognize the power that education had on definitive success, shifting my entrepreneurial interests into an academic one.

The “Mirror Stage” is not just a reflection of oneself in the mirror, but also a reflection of a similar body (friend, family, colleague, teacher, etc.). According to Lacan, the most significant influences that establish the “Ideal-I” that we all aim to achieve, occur at a very young age.  I believe that other significant influences throughout our lifetime also have a major impact on the maturity and sometimes even formation of our character.

Here’s something else to think about:

Is the Ideal-City effected by it’s mirror image?  This would have been a far more interesting post, had the thought occurred to me earlier.

I found myself relating to Sigmund Freud’s theories on a very personal level; analyzing my own dreams, desires and impulses through the cathexis of my unconscious mind.  I thoroughly enjoyed the thought-provoking ideas encouraged by this week’s reading, until it was time to find a persuasive link between psychoanalysis and my field of expertise: Interior Design.

I spent the entire weekend in the studio, working on the development of a space that respects the preservation of the buildings history and revitalizes the urban community.  It was during the conceptual phase of the project that it occurred to me just how much time was being invested in the analysis of human interaction and behavior in order to determine an appropriate use for the selected tenant space.  I’ve divided the properties of a design process into three distinct facets: the Interior Designer, the space that is created and the user of that space.

There is a direct correlation between the facets mentioned above and Freud’s dynamic model of the mind, which consists of the ID, EGO and SUPER-EGO.  It can be argued that as a designer, I am past the psyche of a newborn child, but in the grand scheme of a design process, the product I plan to develop will not be in contact with the external world until it has been fully cultivated.  This part of the process is by no means uncoordinated (like a new born child), but simply exists as unconscious desires that can be modified by the ego, or rather the space that is created.  The constructed space is no longer a design process, but a reality that developed from the ID.  The EGO or the constructed space acts as an object that will eventually allow behavior to occur, when the time is right. The time is right when the space is constructed and ready to be used and observed by someone other than the Interior designer. The SUPER-EGO, which represents the user and/or observer of the interior space, is the moral part of the equation, in which the individual uses personal and social influences to determine the value and impact that the space has on them. The SUPER-EGO is directly linked to our conscious as it helps us decide (based on our past experience and external influences) whether something is good or bad, pretty or ugly.

Below is a visual example from the project that I have been working on all weekend.  The boards represent the first two properties of a design process: the first of the ID – the analysis and research set forth for the development of a desired space and the second of the EGO – the manifestation of the space in the form of reality, derived from the primitive psyche of the ID.

The Marketplace - Board 1 & 2

Seeing as this project is a competition, I’m hoping that in the future I can share with you images of the SUPER-EGO, the space being used by people who consciously decide on its value and success.  I should also mention that this was a group project - I don’t want to take credit for all the work.

Prior to indulging in this week’s readings, spectacle meant nothing more than a pair of lenses set in a thick black frame.  I am pleasantly surprised at the enlightenment that Guy Debord has shed upon me regarding the power the economy has on our pseudo-needs of survival.

I struggle to find a concrete relationship between Interior Design and the economic domination of the world.  My sole priority as a proletarian from the image driven era of industrialization is to develop usable spaces that enhance the quality of life.  The cultivation of a space is derived from the cultural properties inherit in them.  Oh wait a minute, doesn’t this mean that I am responding to living conditions that alter with time?  I am no longer merely a worker that produces, but a worker that takes part in the means for production and inevitably, its use.  My existence as a designer is an illusion, for I am equally as dependent on society as society is on my commodity.  I suppose we are all part of the spectacle society, whether we like to admit it or not.

Imagery - in the form of plans, elevations and perspective renderings - is used in Interior Design to represent a tangible interpretation of the designer’s imagination.  In my lifetime alone, there has been an implicit shift in the skill and technique required to construct visual illustrations.  Here are two distinct examples of interior renderings, one representing my educational lifetime and the other of my students:

Hand Rendering

3DMAX Rendering

The images above illustrate an obvious shift from free-hand skills to computer generated skills.  I started my educational endeavors at a period of time in which Interior Design was being recognized as an innovative and technical field.  Three years of my curriculum were dedicated to hand generated skills, producing quality work that impresses the world with its aesthetic expression.  The fast paced development of design over the past couple of years has caused a transformation in the market at a universal level.  Time has become money and a client would rather pay for work completed in the shortest amount of time, hence the emergence of our interdependence on technology.  Educational systems must conform to this shift in order to preserve labor as a commodity, because labor is the creator of commodities.  The ultimate aim for production is client satisfaction, which subconsciously becomes an essential need; a need that is equated with human survival.  Production has reallocated itself from eminent quality to abundant quantity, in order to provide all of society with consumable commodities of survival.

This shift in technique has had a lasting impact on society, shaping the design style of our era.  Programs like AutoCAD, Revit and SketchUp were designed to imitate (key word being imitate) hand-drawn skills. Details, like those found in La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain or Cathédrale Notre Dame in Paris, France can not be replicated through modern computer technology.  I can’t deny that the advancement in technology is the best solution for our day and age, but it has certainly established a new form of design due to its limitations: contemporary design.

La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain

Oslo Opera in Oslo, Norway

As designers, we are living a materialized illusion in which we can’t distinguish between privation and other pseudo-needs.  Our designs are merely a response to the advancement in society and technology.

I would strongly have to disagree with Walter Benjamin and say that film has in fact realized its true purpose and potential as a form of art, regardless of its emergence during the technological era of reproducibility. The evolution of art’s form from “unique” to “mass production” is simply a result of the evolution of our modes of perception.  It’s the distinctive purpose of the form of art, as addressed by the artist, which independently categorizes itself into a group that determines its right (or lack there of) to be mass produced.

Film’s intention is to be mass produced.

It is argued that film is not exclusive art due to the fact that it is edited and reconstructed to establish a desired message.  A painter approaches his canvas in the same manner, by concealing the initial process of the end product.  Why then is a painting considered to be a unique form of art, while a film is merely mass produced art?  The problem stems from our misunderstanding of the artist’s intention and is further developed with society’s exploitation of the main objective.

Kuwait does a fine job of exploiting the arts, particularly the art of film.

The entertainment sector in Kuwait is administered by conservative, reactionary and sometimes even illiterate government censors.  A government run conglomerate filters and edits the entertainment broadcasted throughout Kuwait in an attempt to protect the country from “provocative” western influence. It must be noted that most of these men who have been appointed to censor DO NOT SPEAK ENGLISH and edit based on imagery.  I’ll try to paint a picture of the extent of censorship enforced upon our society…

I remember watching The Sixth Sense and not knowing that Bruce Willis was a ghost because the scene with the naked shooter was completely cut out.  In ANTZ the last kiss between the two animated characters was removed because it exhibited public display of affection.  Memoirs of Geisha was never even released because the censorship board decided the Geisha profession was a form of prostitution.  You get the point.  This kind of regulatory action is very frustrating for a fast developing and western influenced nation, hence the emergence of the black market of bootlegs, which quickly grew to accommodate the nation’s hunger for entertainment (in its purest form).

With bootlegs came another form of film manipulation.  Copies were being made in other languages, altering the meaning and intent of the film.  The authenticity of the artwork in its original form, as prescribed by the artist, was being jeopardized - not through interpretation but rather manipulation.

This same type of manipulation is practiced in other forms of art as well. Reproductions whose setting, size and function are altered for a personal purpose can have a large impact on the audience’s interpretation of the form of art.  The solution is pretty easy: it is up to the artist to decide how, when and where their art should be displayed, whether mass produced or not.

And just for fun, a picture of “reproduction” at its best:

At the Louvre in Paris, France

Thank you, Theodor Adorno, for clarifying the concept of “critical theory” and its relationship to the arts.  

As I read through Aesthetic Theory and Culture Industry Reconsidered, I kept envisioning A Bar at the Folies-Bergère - a post impressionist painting by Edouard Manet - in hopes that Adorno’s philosophy would help me measure the aesthetics of this renowned work of art.  I was first exposed to Manet’s painting in an Art History course, during my sophomore year in college and have been fascinated with it ever since. This summer, I was fortunate enough to see it in person at the Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery in London, England.  To say I was fascinated would be an understatement.  I was sucked into the Parisian nightclub scene of the 19th century.  I can’t seem to put my finger on why this particular work of art has appealed to me more than any other.  Am I drawn to the inconsistency of perspectives developed within the painting? Or do I find myself relating to Suzon’s detached look?  My good friend Adorno will attempt to critique this painting through the ideologies of the culture industry.  

“Measuring the aesthetics of A Bar at the Folies-Bergère is incomplete without the perceived inspiration; the artist and the political, economic and cultural standing of society during the epoch of the painting’s production in 1882.  It is equally incomplete, without the understanding of the audience’s take on the “imagined object.” Although Manet’s interpretation of a Parisian night scene was internally developed, it was initially derived from the external world that surrounded him.  A lack of communication was established between the painting and the viewer because Manet chose to seclude himself and his work from society in an attempt to glorify himself as an autonomous entity.  Although he ignored the general public, he subconsciously grasped the “viewers” stance, reflecting their point of view.

There is an inconsistency between the objects and their reflections in the mirror behind Suzon (the barmaid portrayed in the painting, also a good “friend” of Manet’s).  Suzon looks at the crowd, as well as the audience (you) with a sense of disillusionment.  There is an obvious detachment between the dynamic circus acts and Suzon’s disengagement with her surroundings.  Could this be a subconscious portrayal of the dialectic of art brought about by the dialectic of society?  Art, in my opinion, is two very distinct things: a “social fact” and an “autonomous entity.”  Perhaps Manet intended to capture the glamour and cruelty of modern life (social fact) and answer society’s distrust in his own, self-governing and morally independent way (autonomous entity).

Art “is” and “is not.”  Without diversity, it is impossible to achieve autonomy.  Manet’s autonomous relationship to society is mirrored in this painting.  Suzon represents Manet’s indifference with what appears to be socially accepted culture.  I call this appendage of society on society the “cultural industry.”  You represent the culture industry.  Your values in observing this painting is based on other observations and not by its individualistic content and harmony.  Just because you find that you can relate to the barmaid in the painting, doesn’t guarantee the quality of the artwork.  Having used the spiritual ideologies of society (mostly likely the ordering factor of your chaotic world), you have developed an opinion on Manet’s deception of Paris in the 19th century.  The order you follow is never questioned or rethought because it falls under the conformity of the societal status quo.  Any deviation from how the painting is already perceived is not tolerated by the cultural industry.

The inconsistency of perspectives in the painting might just be Manet’s preservation of the “process of integration.”  Regardless, the process can not be judged by its “empirical” subject nor its “transcendental” subject, but rather, a combination of both modes of behavior.”  

I’m not sure that Adorno answered my questions, but he took me on a ride on his train of thought (pun intended).  In my humble and slightly puzzled opinion, Adorno’s meandering thoughts can be summed up in the opening line of Aesthetic Theory, “The greatness of works of art lies solely in their power to let those things be heard which ideology conceals.”  How very Marxist of him!

Like most historical scholars, Karl Marx’s theories were ignored during his lifetime and expeditiously accepted after his death.  His revolutionary ideas on society, economics and politics inspired many communist regimes to form during the twentieth century.  The concept of Communism (also referred to as “Marxism” or even “Proletarian Socialism”), however, raises a very familiar and complex question: is it an effective philosophy in the management of a modern day government system?

First we must understand the ideologies behind Karl Marx’s “fair” system of Socialism.  Thanks to Ruis’s comical and easy-to-read guide, Marx for Beginners gives us a concise summary of Marx’s biography, history of philosophy, and values of the communist context.  It’s important to recognize the economic standing of Germany that brought about the socialistic philosophy of wanting to resolve an unjust system. In one of Marx’s letter to Engels, he expresses the crisis that has encompassed his nation as well as his home; illness and financial deficiency.  Poverty brings about the realization of an unfair hierarchical system that consists of generally two rankings: the Proletariat (the worker who offers his labor-power in exchange for an equivalent wage) and the Bourgeoisie (the upper or merchant class whose power and status comes from the exploitation of the Proletariat).  Marx’s revolutionary philosophies of wiping out the hierarchical system and replacing it with upmost equality for the common (hence the word communism), are expressed in The Communist Manifesto.  Authored together with Friedrich Engels, a system of equality was produced through the abolition of private property, rights and religion, and the conquest of a government owned society.

Let’s take a look at a modern day Communist regime like The People’s Republic of China.  The country is ruled by the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, which constitutes of an Incumbent by the name of Hu Jintao, who was elected by the people to hold numerous titles such as, Paramount Leader, General Secretary and President of the Communist Party of China.  The foundation of China’s ideologies are derived from the ideas of the people and in return, converted into state law.  The CPC doesn’t take the place of the government, but rather represents equal power to the people of the country and merely takes the role of transferring the decisions to legal, governmental representatives.  This may sound a like a fair procedure, but many incontrollable issues have come about due to the countries rapid economic growth - pollution, high prices, land disputes and a revision of the guiding ideology – causing riots, protests and petitioners across the country.  A monopoly of ownership and rights begin to emerge. How then do you unify a country and centralize the government, in the purest form, Marx’s form that is, of Communism in a modern era?

According to Horkheimer, liberating human beings from enslavement should be the underlying purpose of any Socialistic regime.  Whether it is through Communism, Capitalism or Libertarianism, critical theory studies these very aspects that make up the varied dimensions of Socialism.  What exactly is critical theory then and how does is promote the ideas of equality and freedom, especially in our day and age? Part one of David Held’s Introduction to Critical Theory, provides a fine illustration of the emergence of critical theory.  The Frankfurt School, a nickname designated to fine philosophers such as Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, used Marxist’s theories as a foundation for their individualistic interpretations of modern social philosophy and social psychology.  Critical theorists were beginning to look at areas that had not been studied before - due to the unexpected progression of society - and cultivating a more befitting alternative to the development of Social government.  

Critical theory encourages the exploration of history and modern day economics.  Studying these factors provides us with a broad set of models for Socialism’s past achievements and failures, enabling us to produce a more effective system for our future generations.  The question still stands: Is Communism an effective philosophy in the management of a modern day government system?

In milieu of the American presidential candidacy, I leave you with this amusing clip that claims that the Obama campaign is “riddled with socialism.”

Video: Riddled with Socialism