part 2 – academia and chill: a digital and/or social experiment

Tomorrow, I will be talking to the class I’m TAing for about my “Tinder Experiment.” Below is some of the theory I will be referencing and the screenshots. 

 


 

Jacques Rancière – Dissensus and Politics of Aesthetics

The distribution of the sensible is  what  Rancière defines as “our definite configurations of what is given as our real, as the object of our perceptions and the field of our interventions” (Dissensus 156).  According to Rancière, society “is made up of groups tied to specific modes of doing, to places in which these occupations are exercised, and to modes of being corresponding to these occupations and these places” (Politics of Aesthetics 44).

Dissensus happens when “modes of doing” or “modes of being” break with the expected “places in which these occupations are exercised” (44). Dissensus, therefore, “is not a designation of conflict as such, but is a specific type thereof, a conflict between sense and sense”; it is “a conflict between a sensory regimes and/or bodies”  (Dissensus 147).

 


 

Jurgen Habermas – Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

“The task of passing on a cultural tradition, of social integration and of socialization require adherence to what I call communicative rationality. But the occasions for protest and discontent originate precisely when spheres of communicative action, centered on the reproduction and transmission of values and norms, are penetrated by a form of modernization guided by standards of economic and administrative rationality- in other words, by standards of  rationalization quite different from those of communicative rationality on which those spheres depend” (Habermas 1753).

“Albrecht Wellmer has drawn my attention to one way that an aesthetic experience which is not framed around the experts’ critical judgments of taste can have its significance altered: as soon as such an experience is used to illuminate a life-historical situation and is related to life problems, it enters into a language game which is no longer that of the aesthetic critic. The aesthetic experience then not only renews the interpretation of our needs in whose light we perceive the world. It permeates as well our cognitive significations and our normative expectations and changes the manner in which all these moments refer to one another” (Habermas 1757).