Hey carefree wandering, just thought I'd let you know I'm sourcing you in my master's dissertation; i argue modern Australian universities are failing to address student's crises of confidence - need a good lit review of media theory before I start on profilicity, so grateful you've outlined this canon for us students
Hey there (Aside: Summer here soon. Looking forward to pocket sand). Genuinely interested in what you mean by "crises in confidence"? In our institution's "philosophy of teaching" reading group we're discussing a rapid onset of a quite severe lack of vulnerable public engagement (questions and discussions) from our students (concurrent to an increase in reactive posturing). Currently thinking around this phenomenon as a possible manifestation of Fear to Assert without the possibility of manage-editing RLT (no confidence to engage when embodied) and perceived potential social repercussions (real or imagined) ie. the profilitic-self has taken dominance over other forms of self and enacting extreme levels of selves-surveillance. Anything vaguely in this line?
I wonder if using Luhman's very un-individualistic theses causes any unarticulated backlash from people? This is what I am most interested in: why do people reject theses that deny individual agency? I call it (snarkily) "dangerous knowledge"
@@joshparrott8841 Brian: "You've got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals." Crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!" Brian: "You are all different" Crowd: "Yes! We are all different!" Guy: "I'm not"
Excellent introduction to Luhmann and his important contributions to social and media theory. One part that I can’t quite agree with Luhmann is the simple “code” that organizes the functioning of each subsystem in society. It’s almost like he wants to assert 2 things at once: there is a semiotic key to each subsystem (information for media, legality for law, etc…) that organizes all its communications AND this same simple code gives the sociologist answers to how the entire system works. For a thinker who starts by criticizing sociology for its inability to grasp the complexities of the social system (and I agree with him here) he seems too quick to turn around and present such a “just so” story for an answer. Still, I want to continue to build on his ideas, and yours, in my future thinking…..
“Cancel culture results from the media’s thirst for norm violations” Your insights on this topic are excellent. People all across the political spectrum need to understand how discussion is made toxic by fake news and highly polarised messaging
Yeah I just hope people all across the political spectrum actually can take in this. Ngl I've always known this because we learn media literacy and critical analysis of news in ground school here in my country. But it's very recently I learned that it's this bad, or however you say. And it's not easy to absorb for me as a leftist. Though even Chomsky say that liberals/neo liberals aren't the real left. Which is correct and that I've always known because the liberal party in my country is on the right wing block and had always been (which to me is obvious but yeah). Still, it's hard to absorb and I had to look into it quite a bit before I could take it all in. But I hope the right can too, because what Chomsky, for example, is talking about 100% also applies to right wing media and the right wing elite too. He even mentions Fox as one of them. And Alex Jones is not free media either, he's a billionaire with huge money incentives (or profit incentive, I don't know how to say it) and he edits his videos to a insane extent. Just watch the full length video, 3h and 20min, where he talk about the war in February. He says that the war will be with China in some way and never ever mentions Russia or Ukraine. Which we here knew already would happen if you go back and read our newspapers from that time. And even with that he was wrong but most people actually believe he was right. He's making constant guesses for 3h and 20min with just a few of them being 50% correct and the rest is just complete jibberish. But who of his viewers is brave enough to look into Alex Jones and what he really is? Not many I think because it would shatter their world view. But let me tell you - What I've learned about media that I've honestly though very good of shattered mine too. But we are strong enough to handle that and we could go together and force them to stop. But they have us exactly where they want - The right being angry as always and the liberal "left" being complaint. Both is just a part of that game and the sooner you realize it the sooner we at least have a change to be free.
This Luhmann's series has been absolutely fantastic. I've enjoyed Postman, Baudrillard, Postman, Chomsky, and McLuhan -- but I had never ever heard of Luhmann before and I find his model as fascinating as it is even-handed. Moeller, what do you think of this suggestion: 'Generally speaking, media exists to authenticate (ie authorize) and/or certain forms of thought and behavior. This is unfolds from the very acting of reading: 'think this for just a moment'; to the more immersive approaches of indoctrinating dogma and propaganda: 'believe this indefinitely.'' I'd love to hear your take on this--it's a summation I've been kicking around for sometime from my own media theory research. Similarly, and apologies if this is too reductive, but I'd love your take on this: I had a knee-jerk reaction of seeing Luhmann as a kind of synthesis between Baudrillard and Chomsky: where one accepts the media environment largely as such (Baudrillard) and the media environment as a realm of influence (Chomsky). Thank you kindly for your time, and thanks again for these wonderful videos. Best! Eliott
I agree with Luhmann's theory in all but one minor area and that being the idea that it was "unlikely" for people to expect there to be continuous supply of information that was "newsworthy." After all, news is just an advanced form of gossip, and at all times there would be gossip regardless of how "gossip worthy" that gossip is. Sure, gossip that is more sensational would take precedent at any given time, but in times where not much is going on people will simply gossip about old events OR gossip about anything regardless of how "normal" or "common" that thing is. Gossip can range from the sensational: extra marital affairs, illegal activity, to the very normal; what so-and-so wore that day, who saw who shopping at what store, ect. I'm surprised Luhmann didnt pick up on this, or maybe he just didnt think that those entering the news business, in the beginning, would notice this. I guess that remains ambiguous because of the 2nd and higher order operations one has to preform here. Also, MORE LUHMANN content please!!!!! he is quickly becoming one of my favorite theorists.
Just found out your channel, thank you so much for the radical luhmann book. I did my masters here at guanajuato, mexico, and it helped me a lot to give a good description of the kind of job luhmann was doing with sociology and social sciences in general with his theory of society. Escribo en español, disculpa; la mayoría de los académicos aquí lo conocen por su debate con Habermas y justamente tu libro abordaba esto con tu figura del caballo de troya, jaja. Now im doing my phd and preparing a paper about parody and sociology. En fin, excelente, realmente amazing job.
Conclusion 2 at 22:45 seems quite profound and suggestive. I would like to hear further exploration of this. Thanks for another thought provoking video.
I think the simple take is moral rules are established when something is overindulge. Gluttony isn't established as a sin when people are constantly in hunger, or that they share food with each other. Only when humans begin to face overweight issue or stealing other's food, making people realize this is crossing the line or threatening their collective survival that it is established.
Last video in the series? NOOOOOOOOO!!!!! The conclusions here were great, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts about these in depth. For instance, having more of this awareness now, how do you recommend we change our own thinking and actions in response? Are we now forever caught in this multiverse of fake realities? Is there any point trying to escape or is that even possible or desirable? How much is it worth even thinking about truth if we can't ever get to it or agree on what's factual? Do we just accept that all information we try to share with each other is in some way propagandistic? Can we use that to our advantage (as a society) to shape something less toxic and manipulative? I have considered these things for years, but still find myself struggling to come up with good answers... I just do my best to separate from it, but I have a hard time knowing that it causes so much unneeded suffering and want to somehow change that, if even possible! Thank you for keeping us intellectually honest, at least to the extent we can be. Fascinating material as usual
I really liked all three Luhmann videos but this one is a real hit. I consider myself quite an educated person but have never heard of Luhmann before stumbling upon these videos - and I've read quite a bit about social theorists like Weber or Parsons. Thanks a lot for these videos, Luhmann's approach is really thought-provoking.
Such an amazing analysis and presentation of this prescient work! I'm really loving this series! I do wonder, however, how many of these people who are captivated by the belief that media is truth can ever wake up. When I have tried to share such facts with them in the past, they ask where I'm getting my information and mock me for ever suggesting TH-cam or the internet. To them, the news is real, and the internet is the disinformation cesspool. I'd love to hear your thoughts about mass formation, as described recently by Mattais Desmett. It seems that people's illogical beliefs go beyond just the media, but then take over many other parts of one's thinking and develop all kinds of other psychosis
Recently, there seems to have been a trend in corporate mass media of juxtaposing the conspiracy lit genre against the news genre, in order to enhance the perceived credibility of news. Did Luhmann, or alternatively, would you have anything to say regarding that?
This functioning of the mass media as formulated by Luhmann has an interesting correlation to the function of phantasy in the psychiatry of Freud and Lacaan, as a supplement without which the individual couldn't function.
Awesome talk, it takes a lot (imo) to get the points of luhmann's media theory across. A couple of years back I've attempted to read one of his books, but was defeated eventually - after your video, I've catched a glimpse of what his theory is about
Thank you so much for introducing me to this theorist and writer. My favorite definition of news is by Gregory Bateson, "News is a difference that makes a difference." 👁️
At 14:48: advertising has another, almost religious feature. According to Luhmann, it resembles ancient divination practices: It only shows you the surface of things, but mystically promises depth... I suspect that Luhmann did not try hard to be understood, despite his prolific (albeit self-referential) writings. Was he using this very principle, giving us a little surface and getting us to buy the next book? Perhaps our host does it much better than Luhmann! He is not reductionist, he is not pretentiously and mystically claiming infallibility ... but he has for sure kept me coming for more (meanwhile, paying attention to even little subtle details like his "wall" sign in Chinese characters :-)
I'm just curious if you might be able to discuss a few things related to the way politicized media is treating the brazen attacks going on in Israel currently, how they behaved and how things were presented when discussing Ukraine, how people are being censored and are afraid, how references to the activities of Germany during WWII are being brought up and used while the more obvious comparisons are being silenced, and how identity politics are playing a role and how certain factions or groups are finding their comfortable stations and usual positions exposed or divisions appearing with people. Many have decried what is openly appearing over the media as a "litmus test" and an apocalypse in revealing hypocrisy and double standards and the work of dehumanizing an ethnic population. There is a lot currently happening which generally seems to bring up a lot of points of your work and writing. I don't know if you're currently in a position to openly and freely discuss these matters through your videos on this channel, but if you do, much thanks in advance and it would be greatly appreciated, and would likely help a lot of people and students. One of the downsides to making any content focused on the subject is that it would attract the attention of political and governmental propagandists who are currently scouring the internet in a campaign of harassment and brainwashing to curb public opinions about things that are disturbing the majority of normal people, and there is also a campaign to try to put people in a state of denial and calling the reports of atrocities "fake" while they continue to be perpetrated, indefinitely, with no real end in sight as to how much of a free pass a government may get through having a powerful lobby and media control. There are a lot of decent, moral, ethical, conscientious, and sensitive people who appreciate what you discuss and are benefited by having their minds stimulated by difficult or often unspoken truths brought under a keen light, so I hope you'll more directly confront this topic while it is timely and currently underway, just as you faced other very aggressive and militant online campaigners with great observations and ideas stated frankly and demonstrated with examples. You may be lightly interested in a video by CJ Werleman on the topic of CNN benefitting from coverage on wars, and also a video by The Rational National which shows the difference in a how an American spokesperson presented themselves regarding Ukraine and the comparison to how they dealt with the situation happening currently with another population. What leads people to one stance or another, including choosing silence, sometimes from fear, other times due to apathy, would also make for an interesting area for discussion. I'd also like to know more about any historical examples that may be similar as to how things that were horrific were spun to make them less disturbing when presented, or otherwise covered up entirely.
I'd like to see this too. I commented on a previous Luhmann video that Chomsky's ideas on manufacturing consent don't seem incompatible with Luhmann's, but I still don't have a firm grasp on Luhmann. It certainly appears as if consent is attempting to be manufactured, and I don't think it can be explained simply in terms of each silo'd pillar of society doing it's own thing, but through power being exerted.
Great channel! Learned lots. 1st request: profile analysis of Adam Curtis's recent body of work. (Hypernormalisation - Bitter Lake - Can't get u out of my head) 2nd request: Update on Communication Strategies regarding Ukraine Tragedy. Would be interesting. Thx for the good work! Greetings from Ireland
Hi Prof. Moeller, thank you for your series on Luhmann. Just started Luhmann Explained and I am getting quite a lot from it. I'm interested on Luhmann's sociology of science, are there any good English or Spanish primers on that part of his work?
I have a question but have no idea how to reach prof. Moeller. My question is about the proposed ontological basis of the media theory according to Luhmann. Second order observation is due to a human watching another human's observation. He stated that, in this century of mass media, we learn second order observation as children. I suppose similarly to the way a child learned to see the world right-side up even though at the very beginning they saw it upside down due to the laws of Optics. Therefore, when I watch a journalist telling me their story, my central nervous system transforms this event so I can observe the journalist's observation in my head even though I have not witnessed the event; I am using my imagination, I guess. From the perspective of the neurons buzzing in my head, how is that any different from a prehistoric human listening to a story teller singing it?
With so much false information being peddled by independent individuals, governments, and media corporations because of the conflict in Palestine, this series is really timely.
Yeah, the right wing party and the Liberals (in particular the evangelicals) has A LOT to gain from keep painting Israel as the good guys and not to let any negative facts about Israel slip through into the American news. Settlers are a insanely rich group of people and big for that matter. Not easy to replace that kind of mega church money! One small fact that they leave out is that already in may Palestine had the most Child amputees per capita in the world. Imagine, in may. That's just one out of hundreds of horrific facts. I would know because I have a lot of close friends from there.
I couldn't help but see myself noticing the flowers next to you shake every time you gestured. Every time it happened I had to try and reorientate my focus to seeing myself listening to you and understanding what you were saying... needless to say the flowers were a bit of genius stage play with this video to further illustrate your point.
I'm a communication and media theory professor from the Philippines. I've been watching your videos about media theories for months now. By any chance, are also going to feature other marxist media theorist like Dallas Smythe and H. Holzer? Also, I would also like to know if you're interested about Maoist thoughts about culture and media? Thank you, sir.
Thanks for watching. I am interested in Maoist thoughts about culture and media, but only refer to them briefly in the episode on "Media Liberation Theory."
@@MattAngiono yeah Alan Watts was a real philosopher there are not many these days, I find that philosophers nowadays do not incorporate nature in their philosophy but they talk more about talking in the Rabbit Hole of language. Manly p hall is also great and dares to go into things people wouldn't do, only like this we can go further 🙏💪🏿.
@@MattAngiono manly p hall wrote an incredible book: teachings of all ages, it's also in audio on youtube its a must watch, he has done vast historical research about all kinds of cultures and mythologies, esoteric knowledge, religions, science, psychology, the history of mankind. He was regarded as the highest person in freemason, and also in library of Alexandria he even has a statue haha, his talk on: Atlantis and the gods of antiquity is also really interesting it's on youtube, his talk on the holy grail, and alchemy, he has to many lectures i would say just watch some, many are great he has a few lectures that are not that great, but what do you want he has done over 8000 lectures and wrote multiple books, this guy was a titan. He will give you perspective and multiple view points and he quite understands the game of power.
No wonder despite there being so much media I continually find myself bored. Takes time to make things that are actually interesting and not some soundbite.
Hi! That is a great question. I wrote a comment which you may be interested in reading where I request some content on those issues as well. It may be that there are reasons that some people we would expect to have a lot to say on these matters might not be able to at this time, but I hope that they will speak in detail on these matters soon, as soon as they are able to, or at least someday.
just thinking out loud but; Wouldn't the political bias be inherent due to the fact that we are observing the news as a 2nd order observations. The person/host/organization MUST interpret whatever they are presenting to us prior to the presentation, and in that act of interpretation they MUST apply their own biases to that information. I suppose you could ask the question "why does bias seem more prevalent?" but i think that can simply be answered by stating that the more biased the news is the better the ratings would be, as bias adds to the sensationalism, and we prefer our news sensationalized.
But they don't just apply their own biases, they apply biases of their sociopolitical milieu - from owners, advertisers, sources, flak (lobbyists - or grassroots), and state censorship. Luhman's model doesn't address the concrete ways in which that structure crafts the narrative the media promotes. It is a nice framework but it doesn't capture these specific dynamics.@@stanleyhumphrey7404
So "news" is "new" information 🤔 so old information should be called "olds"😂. So gossip and fomo make sense as a search for novelity. No wonder the media is so addictive 😢
Hey carefree wandering, just thought I'd let you know I'm sourcing you in my master's dissertation; i argue modern Australian universities are failing to address student's crises of confidence - need a good lit review of media theory before I start on profilicity, so grateful you've outlined this canon for us students
Hey there (Aside: Summer here soon. Looking forward to pocket sand). Genuinely interested in what you mean by "crises in confidence"? In our institution's "philosophy of teaching" reading group we're discussing a rapid onset of a quite severe lack of vulnerable public engagement (questions and discussions) from our students (concurrent to an increase in reactive posturing). Currently thinking around this phenomenon as a possible manifestation of Fear to Assert without the possibility of manage-editing RLT (no confidence to engage when embodied) and perceived potential social repercussions (real or imagined) ie. the profilitic-self has taken dominance over other forms of self and enacting extreme levels of selves-surveillance. Anything vaguely in this line?
*cite
I wonder if using Luhman's very un-individualistic theses causes any unarticulated backlash from people? This is what I am most interested in: why do people reject theses that deny individual agency? I call it (snarkily) "dangerous knowledge"
@@joshparrott8841 Brian: "You've got to think for yourselves. You are all individuals." Crowd: "Yes! We are all individuals!" Brian: "You are all different" Crowd: "Yes! We are all different!" Guy: "I'm not"
Excellent introduction to Luhmann and his important contributions to social and media theory. One part that I can’t quite agree with Luhmann is the simple “code” that organizes the functioning of each subsystem in society. It’s almost like he wants to assert 2 things at once: there is a semiotic key to each subsystem (information for media, legality for law, etc…) that organizes all its communications AND this same simple code gives the sociologist answers to how the entire system works. For a thinker who starts by criticizing sociology for its inability to grasp the complexities of the social system (and I agree with him here) he seems too quick to turn around and present such a “just so” story for an answer. Still, I want to continue to build on his ideas, and yours, in my future thinking…..
The Luhmann videos have been terrific. Thank you.
“Cancel culture results from the media’s thirst for norm violations”
Your insights on this topic are excellent. People all across the political spectrum need to understand how discussion is made toxic by fake news and highly polarised messaging
Yeah I just hope people all across the political spectrum actually can take in this.
Ngl I've always known this because we learn media literacy and critical analysis of news in ground school here in my country. But it's very recently I learned that it's this bad, or however you say.
And it's not easy to absorb for me as a leftist.
Though even Chomsky say that liberals/neo liberals aren't the real left. Which is correct and that I've always known because the liberal party in my country is on the right wing block and had always been (which to me is obvious but yeah).
Still, it's hard to absorb and I had to look into it quite a bit before I could take it all in.
But I hope the right can too, because what Chomsky, for example, is talking about 100% also applies to right wing media and the right wing elite too.
He even mentions Fox as one of them.
And Alex Jones is not free media either, he's a billionaire with huge money incentives (or profit incentive, I don't know how to say it) and he edits his videos to a insane extent.
Just watch the full length video, 3h and 20min, where he talk about the war in February.
He says that the war will be with China in some way and never ever mentions Russia or Ukraine.
Which we here knew already would happen if you go back and read our newspapers from that time.
And even with that he was wrong but most people actually believe he was right.
He's making constant guesses for 3h and 20min with just a few of them being 50% correct and the rest is just complete jibberish.
But who of his viewers is brave enough to look into Alex Jones and what he really is?
Not many I think because it would shatter their world view.
But let me tell you - What I've learned about media that I've honestly though very good of shattered mine too.
But we are strong enough to handle that and we could go together and force them to stop. But they have us exactly where they want - The right being angry as always and the liberal "left" being complaint.
Both is just a part of that game and the sooner you realize it the sooner we at least have a change to be free.
This Luhmann's series has been absolutely fantastic. I've enjoyed Postman, Baudrillard, Postman, Chomsky, and McLuhan -- but I had never ever heard of Luhmann before and I find his model as fascinating as it is even-handed.
Moeller, what do you think of this suggestion: 'Generally speaking, media exists to authenticate (ie authorize) and/or certain forms of thought and behavior. This is unfolds from the very acting of reading: 'think this for just a moment'; to the more immersive approaches of indoctrinating dogma and propaganda: 'believe this indefinitely.''
I'd love to hear your take on this--it's a summation I've been kicking around for sometime from my own media theory research.
Similarly, and apologies if this is too reductive, but I'd love your take on this: I had a knee-jerk reaction of seeing Luhmann as a kind of synthesis between Baudrillard and Chomsky: where one accepts the media environment largely as such (Baudrillard) and the media environment as a realm of influence (Chomsky).
Thank you kindly for your time, and thanks again for these wonderful videos.
Best!
Eliott
Same here! I had never heard of Luhmann and I really enjoyed learning about his work.
Surprisingly controversial in a way I have not previously detected in this channel. Fascinating. Can’t wait for more on this. Thanks.
I agree with Luhmann's theory in all but one minor area and that being the idea that it was "unlikely" for people to expect there to be continuous supply of information that was "newsworthy." After all, news is just an advanced form of gossip, and at all times there would be gossip regardless of how "gossip worthy" that gossip is. Sure, gossip that is more sensational would take precedent at any given time, but in times where not much is going on people will simply gossip about old events OR gossip about anything regardless of how "normal" or "common" that thing is. Gossip can range from the sensational: extra marital affairs, illegal activity, to the very normal; what so-and-so wore that day, who saw who shopping at what store, ect. I'm surprised Luhmann didnt pick up on this, or maybe he just didnt think that those entering the news business, in the beginning, would notice this. I guess that remains ambiguous because of the 2nd and higher order operations one has to preform here.
Also, MORE LUHMANN content please!!!!! he is quickly becoming one of my favorite theorists.
thank you for keeping me sane
“Les non-dupes errent" → “non-idiots wander" ?
Just found out your channel, thank you so much for the radical luhmann book. I did my masters here at guanajuato, mexico, and it helped me a lot to give a good description of the kind of job luhmann was doing with sociology and social sciences in general with his theory of society. Escribo en español, disculpa; la mayoría de los académicos aquí lo conocen por su debate con Habermas y justamente tu libro abordaba esto con tu figura del caballo de troya, jaja. Now im doing my phd and preparing a paper about parody and sociology. En fin, excelente, realmente amazing job.
Conclusion 2 at 22:45 seems quite profound and suggestive. I would like to hear further exploration of this. Thanks for another thought provoking video.
I think the simple take is moral rules are established when something is overindulge.
Gluttony isn't established as a sin when people are constantly in hunger, or that they share food with each other. Only when humans begin to face overweight issue or stealing other's food, making people realize this is crossing the line or threatening their collective survival that it is established.
Last video in the series?
NOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
The conclusions here were great, but I would love to hear more of your thoughts about these in depth.
For instance, having more of this awareness now, how do you recommend we change our own thinking and actions in response?
Are we now forever caught in this multiverse of fake realities?
Is there any point trying to escape or is that even possible or desirable?
How much is it worth even thinking about truth if we can't ever get to it or agree on what's factual?
Do we just accept that all information we try to share with each other is in some way propagandistic?
Can we use that to our advantage (as a society) to shape something less toxic and manipulative?
I have considered these things for years, but still find myself struggling to come up with good answers...
I just do my best to separate from it, but I have a hard time knowing that it causes so much unneeded suffering and want to somehow change that, if even possible!
Thank you for keeping us intellectually honest, at least to the extent we can be.
Fascinating material as usual
I really liked all three Luhmann videos but this one is a real hit. I consider myself quite an educated person but have never heard of Luhmann before stumbling upon these videos - and I've read quite a bit about social theorists like Weber or Parsons. Thanks a lot for these videos, Luhmann's approach is really thought-provoking.
Such an amazing analysis and presentation of this prescient work!
I'm really loving this series!
I do wonder, however, how many of these people who are captivated by the belief that media is truth can ever wake up.
When I have tried to share such facts with them in the past, they ask where I'm getting my information and mock me for ever suggesting TH-cam or the internet.
To them, the news is real, and the internet is the disinformation cesspool.
I'd love to hear your thoughts about mass formation, as described recently by Mattais Desmett.
It seems that people's illogical beliefs go beyond just the media, but then take over many other parts of one's thinking and develop all kinds of other psychosis
Recently, there seems to have been a trend in corporate mass media of juxtaposing the conspiracy lit genre against the news genre, in order to enhance the perceived credibility of news. Did Luhmann, or alternatively, would you have anything to say regarding that?
This functioning of the mass media as formulated by Luhmann has an interesting correlation to the function of phantasy in the psychiatry of Freud and Lacaan, as a supplement without which the individual couldn't function.
Awesome talk, it takes a lot (imo) to get the points of luhmann's media theory across. A couple of years back I've attempted to read one of his books, but was defeated eventually - after your video, I've catched a glimpse of what his theory is about
Thank you so much for introducing me to this theorist and writer. My favorite definition of news is by Gregory Bateson, "News is a difference that makes a difference." 👁️
The whole point of this video is rather its opposite
I am your biggest fan. All Information and entertainment are merely a means to an end: Infotainment, made by this channel.
At 14:48: advertising has another, almost religious feature. According to Luhmann, it resembles ancient divination practices: It only shows you the surface of things, but mystically promises depth...
I suspect that Luhmann did not try hard to be understood, despite his prolific (albeit self-referential) writings. Was he using this very principle, giving us a little surface and getting us to buy the next book? Perhaps our host does it much better than Luhmann! He is not reductionist, he is not pretentiously and mystically claiming infallibility ... but he has for sure kept me coming for more (meanwhile, paying attention to even little subtle details like his "wall" sign in Chinese characters :-)
I'm just curious if you might be able to discuss a few things related to the way politicized media is treating the brazen attacks going on in Israel currently, how they behaved and how things were presented when discussing Ukraine, how people are being censored and are afraid, how references to the activities of Germany during WWII are being brought up and used while the more obvious comparisons are being silenced, and how identity politics are playing a role and how certain factions or groups are finding their comfortable stations and usual positions exposed or divisions appearing with people. Many have decried what is openly appearing over the media as a "litmus test" and an apocalypse in revealing hypocrisy and double standards and the work of dehumanizing an ethnic population. There is a lot currently happening which generally seems to bring up a lot of points of your work and writing. I don't know if you're currently in a position to openly and freely discuss these matters through your videos on this channel, but if you do, much thanks in advance and it would be greatly appreciated, and would likely help a lot of people and students. One of the downsides to making any content focused on the subject is that it would attract the attention of political and governmental propagandists who are currently scouring the internet in a campaign of harassment and brainwashing to curb public opinions about things that are disturbing the majority of normal people, and there is also a campaign to try to put people in a state of denial and calling the reports of atrocities "fake" while they continue to be perpetrated, indefinitely, with no real end in sight as to how much of a free pass a government may get through having a powerful lobby and media control. There are a lot of decent, moral, ethical, conscientious, and sensitive people who appreciate what you discuss and are benefited by having their minds stimulated by difficult or often unspoken truths brought under a keen light, so I hope you'll more directly confront this topic while it is timely and currently underway, just as you faced other very aggressive and militant online campaigners with great observations and ideas stated frankly and demonstrated with examples. You may be lightly interested in a video by CJ Werleman on the topic of CNN benefitting from coverage on wars, and also a video by The Rational National which shows the difference in a how an American spokesperson presented themselves regarding Ukraine and the comparison to how they dealt with the situation happening currently with another population. What leads people to one stance or another, including choosing silence, sometimes from fear, other times due to apathy, would also make for an interesting area for discussion. I'd also like to know more about any historical examples that may be similar as to how things that were horrific were spun to make them less disturbing when presented, or otherwise covered up entirely.
I'd like to see this too. I commented on a previous Luhmann video that Chomsky's ideas on manufacturing consent don't seem incompatible with Luhmann's, but I still don't have a firm grasp on Luhmann. It certainly appears as if consent is attempting to be manufactured, and I don't think it can be explained simply in terms of each silo'd pillar of society doing it's own thing, but through power being exerted.
Excellent. Thank you.
"In the beginning was the word. And, the word was a lie." -- Sri Baba Ganoush
Thank you for this video series
Great channel! Learned lots. 1st request: profile analysis of Adam Curtis's recent body of work. (Hypernormalisation - Bitter Lake - Can't get u out of my head) 2nd request: Update on Communication Strategies regarding Ukraine Tragedy. Would be interesting. Thx for the good work! Greetings from Ireland
absolutely wonderfull and newsworthy !
fascinating and motivating, thank you (also, great sense of humor)
Hi Prof. Moeller, thank you for your series on Luhmann. Just started Luhmann Explained and I am getting quite a lot from it. I'm interested on Luhmann's sociology of science, are there any good English or Spanish primers on that part of his work?
Thanks--unfortunately, I am not aware of such primers. You'd have to search ...
I have a question but have no idea how to reach prof. Moeller. My question is about the proposed ontological basis of the media theory according to Luhmann. Second order observation is due to a human watching another human's observation. He stated that, in this century of mass media, we learn second order observation as children. I suppose similarly to the way a child learned to see the world right-side up even though at the very beginning they saw it upside down due to the laws of Optics. Therefore, when I watch a journalist telling me their story, my central nervous system transforms this event so I can observe the journalist's observation in my head even though I have not witnessed the event; I am using my imagination, I guess. From the perspective of the neurons buzzing in my head, how is that any different from a prehistoric human listening to a story teller singing it?
I have just read your book on Daoism and hope you give a series on Daoist philosophy.
From which Luhmann's book(s) is this presentation derived? I'd appreciate a reading recommendation.
The Reality of the Mass Media (Stanford UP)
With so much false information being peddled by independent individuals, governments, and media corporations because of the conflict in Palestine, this series is really timely.
It's all about money, the only true god of societies.
Yeah, the right wing party and the Liberals (in particular the evangelicals) has A LOT to gain from keep painting Israel as the good guys and not to let any negative facts about Israel slip through into the American news.
Settlers are a insanely rich group of people and big for that matter. Not easy to replace that kind of mega church money!
One small fact that they leave out is that already in may Palestine had the most Child amputees per capita in the world. Imagine, in may.
That's just one out of hundreds of horrific facts.
I would know because I have a lot of close friends from there.
5:00 Excellent!!!!
Truly excellent content, thank you.
I couldn't help but see myself noticing the flowers next to you shake every time you gestured. Every time it happened I had to try and reorientate my focus to seeing myself listening to you and understanding what you were saying... needless to say the flowers were a bit of genius stage play with this video to further illustrate your point.
Legendary channel. Wtf why did I just find this
I'm a communication and media theory professor from the Philippines. I've been watching your videos about media theories for months now. By any chance, are also going to feature other marxist media theorist like Dallas Smythe and H. Holzer? Also, I would also like to know if you're interested about Maoist thoughts about culture and media? Thank you, sir.
Thanks for watching. I am interested in Maoist thoughts about culture and media, but only refer to them briefly in the episode on "Media Liberation Theory."
Do you know where I can publish my nearly-finished opus, "Chick Tracts as a Social System?"
Social Text probably
Hey hans, can you maybe make a video about manly p hall or alan watts?
Alan would be awesome!
My favorite person I never knew!
@@MattAngiono yeah Alan Watts was a real philosopher there are not many these days, I find that philosophers nowadays do not incorporate nature in their philosophy but they talk more about talking in the Rabbit Hole of language. Manly p hall is also great and dares to go into things people wouldn't do, only like this we can go further 🙏💪🏿.
@@beingnonbeingincludesexistence cheers to that!
I look into manly as well!
Haven't heard of him...
Any particular video or work you'd suggest?
@@MattAngiono manly p hall wrote an incredible book: teachings of all ages, it's also in audio on youtube its a must watch, he has done vast historical research about all kinds of cultures and mythologies, esoteric knowledge, religions, science, psychology, the history of mankind. He was regarded as the highest person in freemason, and also in library of Alexandria he even has a statue haha, his talk on: Atlantis and the gods of antiquity is also really interesting it's on youtube, his talk on the holy grail, and alchemy, he has to many lectures i would say just watch some, many are great he has a few lectures that are not that great, but what do you want he has done over 8000 lectures and wrote multiple books, this guy was a titan. He will give you perspective and multiple view points and he quite understands the game of power.
@@MattAngiono his lectures on: ecology and epidemical disease, and how to cope with depression, consciousness and shamanism, are also great😃👍🏾.
The more I watch carefree wandering the more I want to watch. By the way which band is playing during the closing score?
Carsick Cars - You Can Listen You Can Talk:
• Carsick Cars - You Can Listen You Can...
It would be helpful to contrast media theory with religion. I'm unsure that media is novel, given religion.
how bout a video on neil postman?
great video!
Brilliant.
No wonder despite there being so much media I continually find myself bored. Takes time to make things that are actually interesting and not some soundbite.
No upcoming (sequel episode) on Gaza war, wokism, mainstream media, social media coverage?
Hi! That is a great question. I wrote a comment which you may be interested in reading where I request some content on those issues as well. It may be that there are reasons that some people we would expect to have a lot to say on these matters might not be able to at this time, but I hope that they will speak in detail on these matters soon, as soon as they are able to, or at least someday.
I hope Prof H. G. Moeller can unpack these issues in his particular way.
watch his older videos
очень интересно!
Media is interesting but vielleicht could you tell us something about “Kunst der Gesellschaft”?
1984, ministry of peace, ministry of love and everything else
this is great
Good vid 👍
aber jah the mosaic nature of modernity has its equivalent in Luhmann (cf. McLuhan)
MOOOAARRRRR
23:30
Reflexivity!
2:16 me watching carefree wandering for entertainment purposes 👁️👄👁️
Media is a moral fool😊 23:18
I guess I like Luhmann's theory of media but it doesn't explain a lot of the political bias that the Manufacturing Consent model does...
just thinking out loud but; Wouldn't the political bias be inherent due to the fact that we are observing the news as a 2nd order observations. The person/host/organization MUST interpret whatever they are presenting to us prior to the presentation, and in that act of interpretation they MUST apply their own biases to that information. I suppose you could ask the question "why does bias seem more prevalent?" but i think that can simply be answered by stating that the more biased the news is the better the ratings would be, as bias adds to the sensationalism, and we prefer our news sensationalized.
But they don't just apply their own biases, they apply biases of their sociopolitical milieu - from owners, advertisers, sources, flak (lobbyists - or grassroots), and state censorship. Luhman's model doesn't address the concrete ways in which that structure crafts the narrative the media promotes. It is a nice framework but it doesn't capture these specific dynamics.@@stanleyhumphrey7404
Luhmann wrote an article on public opinion as a political construct of observation.
Nice plant
media is the media (is the media)
been sayin this to ma mom since I was 4
Stop watching news and social media. You’ll see the world differently. And have a lot more feee time.
Boolean media obfuscation system
So "news" is "new" information 🤔 so old information should be called "olds"😂. So gossip and fomo make sense as a search for novelity. No wonder the media is so addictive 😢
Meh, this is conspiratorial. We need some examples showing clear intent otherwise this is just conjecture.