In society we seem to value authenticity over inauthenticity, whether it be in lifestyle, philosophical treatises or even artefacts which have to be certified of authenticity in order to attribute...Show moreIn society we seem to value authenticity over inauthenticity, whether it be in lifestyle, philosophical treatises or even artefacts which have to be certified of authenticity in order to attribute a certain validity to an object. Somehow it is significant to own a claim on the authorship or origin of something in the world, as a patent, to make our life just that bit more meaningful or outstanding. However, there is no such thing as the ‘content’ of authenticity, no fixed formula at least, as it is a concept that adapts to its context continuously; parallel to cultural changes and needs. This is why authenticity is often perceived as a quest, whether it is attained through commendable endeavours or returned to through thorough introspection; whether it is regarded as a state you arrive at or a moment that shines up. This paper will try to offer a philosophical reflection on this employment of a language of authenticity by focusing on and connecting two movements of philosophical thought, namely the thought of Martin Heidegger (1889 – 1976), specifically in Being and Time (1927) and the critical theory of the Frankfurt School by Max Horkheimer (1895 – 1973) and Theodor W. Adorno (1903 – 1969), specifically in Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947). Heidegger explicitly speaks of a notion of authenticity (eigentlichkeit) in his theory on Being. I will argue that, even though the word ‘authenticity’ is not particularly mentioned, a sense of that term is implicitly present in the work of Horkheimer and Adorno. To put it more precisely, I will try to investigate whether a sense of authenticity like that of Heidegger’s is to be found in their work. This means that Heidegger will serve as a point of departure. For such a comparison I believe Horkheimer and Adorno’s insights on ‘Culture Industry’ are most relevant to the issue.Show less
Bachelor thesis | Film- en literatuurwetenschap (BA)
closed access
In this text, I conduct a historical exploration of the theoretical evolution of both the reader in literary studies and viewer in film studies. Spanning from Antiquities right up to contemporary...Show moreIn this text, I conduct a historical exploration of the theoretical evolution of both the reader in literary studies and viewer in film studies. Spanning from Antiquities right up to contemporary criticism, I illuminate their parallel, yet differing, transformations. In both disciplines, the theoretical reader or viewer are initially hypothetical, static, passive entities in object-centric, meaning film or text focused, modes of study. The theory of both film and literary studies eventually evolves to reverse that initial perspective of, and approach to, the relationship of the film or text to its viewer or reader, respectively. Both disciplines follow alternative paths which results in varying nuances and repercussions for their unique conceptions of the reading or viewing subject, the textual or filmic object, and their relation to each other. This work not only explores the evolutions of these disciplines regarding their subject, object, and the relationship thereof, but also examines said variations, nuances, and repercussions encountered to highlight that their greatest divergences stem from their political anchorages. In the end, we achieve a means by which we may draw comparisons between both these two disciplines regarding various conceptions of the reader, viewer, film, and text; enriching the field of Reader(ship), Viewer(ship), and Audience studies by approaching them from a combined perspective.Show less
This thesis explores the theory of recognition by Axel Honneth and whether or not a struggle in his theory is necessarily a power struggle. I distinguished three different forms of struggles in...Show moreThis thesis explores the theory of recognition by Axel Honneth and whether or not a struggle in his theory is necessarily a power struggle. I distinguished three different forms of struggles in Honneth's work: a conflict of interests, a conflict for recognition, and a collision. Only the last two are within the scope of the theory of recognition. A struggle for recognition is a situation in one is not recognized as an equal - this is a power struggle. In a collision there is mutual recognition, but a difference in how this should be expressed - this is not a power struggle. This means that a struggle in the theory of recognition is not necessarily a power struggle. In the last chapter I point out the importance of trust in order to cultivate relationships based on mutual recognition.Show less
This thesis seeks to analyze why austerity as an instrument and as an idea is still predominant within the European Union. It does so by combining economic and political perspectives of the...Show moreThis thesis seeks to analyze why austerity as an instrument and as an idea is still predominant within the European Union. It does so by combining economic and political perspectives of the Eurozone-crisis. The structural imbalances view of the Eurozone-crisis in particular plays an important role in this analysis. It can convincingly be argued that the Eurozone-crisis has, more or less successfully, been socially constructed as a sovereign debt-crisis of the European demand-led periphery. Instead, the view held in this thesis is that there is a triple complicity in the Eurozone-crisis: the demand-led periphery,the export-led core and the surrounding macroeconomic environment of the Eurozone.Show less
