Kritinė teorija ir kultūros politika

LTKritinė teorija analizuoja gyvastingą vilties kultūrą, jos veiklumą, kūrybingumą bei diplomatiją, nors viltį ir temdo propaganda. Vilties principas yra prieštaringas: tai, kas vienam yra viltis, utopija ir vizija, kitam gali būti prakeikimas, karas ir nelaimė. Neįmanoma uždrausti svajoti ir sunaikinti vilčių: jomis grįstas žmogaus gebėjimas mąstyti apie ateitį. Knygoje žvelgiama dialektiškai. Remiamasi ne tik regimybių kritika, nihilizmu, bet ir vilties principu, kuris yra bet kokios utopijos, siejamos su didžiaisiais tikslais, svarbiausiomis misijomis ir vizijomis, šaltinis. [Leidėjo anotacija]

ENCritical Theory from 1923 to the present day is mostly associated with the Frankfurt School and activities of the Institute for Social Research (German: Institut fur Sozialforschung). Thinkers such as W. Benjamin, E. Bloch, and G. Scholem belong to the environment of the Institute. The Institute is usually associated with three generations of thinkers: the representatives of the first generation would be M. Horkheimer, T. Adorno, H. Marcuse; the representative of the second generation would be J. Habermas; the representative of the third generation would be A. Honneth. The classical premises of Critical Theory come from the works of Western Marxism - G. Lukacs, then from the works of sociology - M. Weber, and from psychoanalysis - S. Freud. Their followers and interpreters also belong here as well as A. Schonberg’s atonal music ("atonal dialectic") and G. Scholem’s mystical and at the same time apophatic anarchism. In this book the author emphasizes apophatic cultural philosophy and criticism, which is related to T. Adorno’s negative dialectic and S. Žižek’s Lacanian critique of thinking. Other thinkers, such as H. Arendt, J. Derrida, G. Agamben, J. Butler, R. Braidotti, S. Buck-Morss did not belong to the afore mentioned Institute, however, they do belong to Critical Theory. In Lithuania, Critical Theory is developed in one way or another by a whole set of philosophers: V. Rubavičius, Z. Norkus, A. Žukauskaitė, K. Kirtiklis. K. Pocius, T Kavaliauskas and others. One of the main themes of Critical Theory is the analysis and critique of symbolical thinking and culture industries in the context of continental philosophy. However, the author of the book limits Critical Theory to examine cultural politics, while emphasizing the propositions of political philosophy, philosophy of culture and critique of cultural industries.In this book the author emphasizes apophatic cultural philosophy and criticism, which is related to T. Adorno’s negative dialectic and S. ŽiŽek’s Lacanian critique of thinking. Other thinkers, such as H. Arendt, J. Derrida, G. Agamben, J. Butler, R. Braidotti, S. Buck-Morss did not belong to the afore mentioned Institute, however, they do belong to Critical Theory. In Lithuania, Critical Theory is developed in one way or another by a whole set of philosophers: V. Rubavičius, Z. Norkus, A. Žukauskaitė, K. Kirtiklis. K. Pocius, T Kavaliauskas and others. One of the main themes of Critical Theory is the analysis and critique of symbolical thinking and culture industries in the context of continental philosophy. However, the author of the book limits Critical Theory to examine cultural politics, while emphasizing the propositions of political philosophy, philosophy of culture and critique of cultural industries. In the book, the analysis and criticism of cultural politics begins in the 20th century, when the atomized social mass began to form and de-classified individuals started to be torn away from traditional communities before the new communitari- anization was associated with the activities of NGOs as well as with various associations. An atomized consumer has turned into an alienated individual working in the field of industries and their corporations. In such a situation, the new art can and must perform its cultural revolution, liberating ordinary individuals from corporate dependence, even if the corporation that controls the individual is the corporation of cultural or creative industries. There is a lot of talk about the military-industrial complex and its political influences (USA, Russia), less attention is paid to the prison industrial complex (A. Davis writes a lot about it in the USA), but the book analyses mostly the cultural industrial complex.However, the state’s cultural policy seeks to provide continuity to the activities of the state cultural complex, to make it ideologically one-dimensional, but not commercially. When state industrial one-dimensionality is being created, for example, an imaginary national canon, alternatives in literature, in art or cinema are avoided. Small and medium-sized cultural companies and organizations work differently: they try to support the community audience, preventing society from turning into a unified ideological mass, or from disintegrating into individual consumer atoms. However, persons provoking cultural conflicts are often condemned, cancelled, or limited by non-violent soft power. The purpose of Critical Theory is to observe and criticize this soft power, to open up the conflicts it hides or to enable them, supporting not only alternatives, but also facts and power to truth. Critical Theory is meant to criticize the aggressive propaganda of states. The book contrasts politics with management and administration or with a policy. Management and administration are classified as oikos (farm, household) activities. This is not to belittle the complexity, internal dynamics or influence of the oikos, it is simply a different sphere of relations, which is invaded by politics, just as the inhabitants of the oikos want to transform their nation into one family, one farm. Oikos abolishes politics per se. When examining politics, the goal is to dialectically combine several currents: to connect Adorno s apophatic dialectic with the critique of communicative reason and with the theory of democratic deliberation of J. Habermas, but also to underline competitive struggles, to emphasize agonism of the enemies in their radical racing what we find in C. Schmitt’s and Sh. Mouffe’s theory. The book argues that all these contradictory descriptions of politics define the contradictory […]. [From the publication]