The Proletarian Public Sphere and Political Organization: An Analysis of Oskar Negt and

Alexander Kluge's The Public Sphere and Experience

Author(s): Eberhard Kndler-Bunte, Sara Lennox and Frank Lennox
Source: New German Critique, No. 4 (Winter, 1975), pp. 51-75
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/487817
Accessed: 06-06-2015 23:41 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press and New German Critique are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to New
German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The ProletarianPublic Sphereand
PoliticalOrganization:An Analysisof
OskarNegtand AlexanderKluge's
The PublicSphereand Experience

byEberhardKn6dler-Bunte
1. The ProletarianPublic Sphere
Oskar Negt and AlexanderKluge's The Public Sphere and Experience
attemptsto providea conceptualframework for the centralpolitical and
theoreticalproblemsconfronting the contemporarysituation.The trans-
formationof the capitalistproductionprocess,withits far-reaching impli-
cationsthatpenetrateto themostbasic levelsof humanexperience,cannot
be adequatelyunderstoodand acted upon witha conceptual and political
frameworkinheritedfroman earlier stage of historicaldevelopment,or
from circumstancesfundamentallydifferentfrom those of advanced
capitalistsociety.The inabilityof the categoriesderived from previous
political formulationsand debates to grasp the contemporarysituationis
part of the continuingcrisisof Marxismthat has persistedsince the 1920s
and 1930s.With theirbook Negt and Kluge attemptto lay the groundwork
for an analysisthat will break this impasse.
Negt and Kluge'scontribution has been to develop a middle level theory
whichconfrontsthe qualitativetransformation of capitalistsocial relation-
shipsfromboth the standpointof new formsof productionas well as from
thestandpointofchangesin everyday experiencein society.In thiswaythey
provide a framework that historicizesand definespreviouslyindeterminate
notionssuch as "consciousness"and "subjectivefactor,"while at the same
timeanalyzingthetransformation of thecapitalistproductiveprocessand its
impact on concretehuman experienceand psychicstructure.The central
of
category Negt and Kluge's workis the "public sphere"which organizes
human experience,mediatingbetween the changing formsof capitalist
productionon the one hand and the cultural organizationof human
experience on the other. Differentiating between the bourgeois public
sphere, increasinglypart of the capitalist productionprocess, and the
concept of a proletarianpublicsphere,Negt and Kluge arguethat the latter
could potentiallyoppose the organized interestsof the bourgeoispublic
sphere through its organizationof human needs and interests.The
increasingculturalsocializationof human needs and qualitiesin an indus-
trializedpublic sphere--forexample the consciousnessindustry--sets in
motiona potentialoppositionwhichunderexistingconditionscan onlyresist

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
52 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

theconditionsof alienatedproductionby remainingin therealmof fantasy

and imagination.As such, thisoppositioncan still become the object of
production.But thedevelopment of thesenewneeds,whichbecause of their
specificallyhuman qualityoppose the disciplineand abstractcharacterof
the capitalist productionprocess, provides the basis for the potential
emergenceof a proletarianpublic spherewhichorganizesreal needs into
politicallyrelevantformsof consciousnessand activity.At the same time,
Negt and Kluge investigatethe new formsof the public sphere,above all
televisionand othermass media. Their analysisof thesenew developments
and possibilitiesfora potentialchallengeto the contentof existingmedia is
a significantaspect of theirwork.
Negt and Kluge's examinationof these issues and this complex of
problems cuts across both scholarly and political approaches. The
sociologicalformulationof specificquestionsabout public opinion, mass
communications and the traditionalframework of politicalscienceis linked
to questionsabout political practice. On the other hand these political
questions--theMarxistconceptsofclass consciousness, class movements and
social organization--aretied to theoreticaldevelopmentsin the academic
world.Negt and Kluge'sbook thusattacksthe fataldivisionof labor which
separatesnarrowlyspecializedacademic investigation froma revolutionary
politicaltheory directedtowards praxis. Moreover,Negt and Kluge's book
opposes the internal of in
fragmentation concepts both academic and
revolutionary theory.
A critiqueof The Public Sphere and Experiencemust thereforebegin
withtheideas and intentions of theauthorsbeforeit can moveto individual
points.This essayis primarilyconcernedwiththe formertask. Instead of
attempting an extensivecritiqueof theindividualcategoriesemployed,or of
the interpretations of social developmentsand processes,this discussion
focuseson the framework whichtheydevelop. It should,as a reader'sguide
help clarifythe political and praxis-orientedaspects of the problems
discussed.Thus thisarticleis limitedto clarifying
pointsraisedby Negt and
Kluge.1

1. Partsof thisessaywerepresentedat a discussionof Negt and Kluge'sbook sponsoredby

the InstitutffirKunst und Aesthetik,at which Oskar Negt spoke. This discussion,which
primarilyconcernedquestionsabout the "block of real life," questionsof organization,and
problemsof politicaleducation,appeared in the journal Aesthetikund Kommunikation,12.
The authorwishesto thankSilvia Bevenschen,Peter Gorsenand Heiner Boehnckefor their
importantsuggestions.Page numberscitedwithinthe textreferto Oskar Negt and Alexander
Kluge, Oeffentlichkeit und Erfahrung: Zur Organisationsanalyse von bfirgerlicherund
(Frankfurtam Main, 1973).
proletarischerOeffentlichkeit

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 53

2. The Public Sphere and Experienceas Categoriesof Social Theory and

Political Organization
The veryjuxtapositionof the concepts"public sphere"and "experience"
suggeststhat an importantsocial relationshipis consideredhere in a way
that goes far beyond the limitationsof studies dealing only with
constitutional law, politicalscienceor social history.At the same time the
authors'methodcannotbe reducedto the level of discussionsof the public
sphereand public opinion carriedon in mass communicationtheoryand
public opinion samplingsince the early 1930s These specialized areas of
researchare mostlyconcernedwith the investigationof full-blowninsti-
tutionalizedformsof the bourgeois public sphere and with theoretical
questionsabout thefunctionof publicopinionin a democracy.InsteadNegt
and Kluge attemptto definethe public sphereas a categoryrelatingto the
totalityofsociety.Theyemphasizethatthepublic spherecan be understood
as organizinghuman experience,and not merelyas thisor that historically
institutionalizedmanifestation.They conceive of the public sphere as a
historicallydeveloping form of the mediation between the cultural
organizationof humanqualitiesand senseson the one hand and developing
capitalistproductionon the other.
Negt and Kluge writein explicitoppositionto JtirgenHabermas, whose
StructuralTransformation of the Public Sphere was widelyread at the
beginning of the protest movement in Germany.Their specificdifferences
with Habermas can be seen on threelevels. From the outset Habermas
restrictshimselfto the analysisof the bourgeoispublic sphere,opposed to
whicha proletarianpublic sphereappearsmerelyas a "repressedvariantof
a plebeian public sphere."2 Negt and Kluge's politicalinterestis directed
toward the interconnections of the bourgeois-capitalist and proletarian
public spheres. New structuralcharacteristics of the public sphere thus
becomevisiblepermitting both a historicaland a systematic of
investigation
non-bourgeois,pre-capitalist,proletarian, subcultural and even fascist
public spheres.
At the same time, Negt and Kluge's approach also servesto preventa
confusionbetweentheideal of the bourgeoispublic sphere-the basis forits
historical claim to legitimacy--andthe actual process by which the
bourgeois public sphere became established as an instrumentof class
domination.Habermas,of course,also recognizesthe contradictory waysin
whichthisliberalmodel of the public spherehas in factmanifesteditselfin
history.But the limitationsof his approachpreventhim fromarrivingat a

Habermas,Strukturwandel
2. Jikrgen (Neuwiedand Berlin,1962), p. 8
der Oeffentlichkeit

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
54 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

conceptualdifferentiation betweenthe "ideal" and the "real" historyof the

bourgeoispublicsphere.Nor is Habermasable to tracethisdistinction back
to the structuralweaknessesof thesociety.Because Habermasoverestimates
the normativestrengthof the bourgeoispublic sphere,he is led, in his
politicalconclusions,to applythe principlesof the earlierbourgeoispublic
sphere,ifin alteredform,to late capitalistconditions.On the one hand his
workreconstructs the disintegrationof the bourgeoispublic spherewhich
had allowed it to become both an object of manipulationby privileged
groupsand an object of the profit-maximizing process.Since the public
spherecan no longermaintainthat it is linked to a politicallysignificant
processof opinion formation,Habermas, referring to this disintegration,
speaks of a "refeudalization of the public sphere."Yet on the otherhand,
Habermas'conceptof the "social welfarestatemass democracy"allowshim
to discovera new basis for the bourgeoispublic sphere,albeit an altered
one. The bourgeoispublicsphereis thus"a rationalreorganization of social
and political power under the mutual control of rival organizations
committedto thepublic spherein theirinternalstructure as well as in their
relationswiththe state and each other."3
This pluralisticmodel of the welfarestate regulatingitselfthroughthe
public sphere can only be maintained at the cost of concealing the
fundamentalcontradictions of capitalistproductionand transforming them
into crisesof legitimacy.These crisesmanifestthemselvesin state activity
and in problemsof securingthe loyaltyof the masses. In contrastto
Habermas' conception,Negt and Kluge place the functionof the public
sphere,whichis alteredin the interests of the maximizationof profit,into
thecontextof a Marxistanalysisof society.Negt and Kluge'sstartingpoint,
therefore, is the relationshipbetweenthe variousformsof the public sphere
and human experienceand interests concretelytied to the social praxisof
everyday life.These experiencesare stylizedby Habermasas "mereopinions
(cultural assumptions,normative attitudes, collective prejudices and
values),"4 as a "kindofsedimentofhistory," whichhe believescan be neatly
separatedfromthe bourgeoispublic sphere.By expandingtheirconception
ofthepublicsphereto includethe class basis in whichexperienceis molded
and appropriated,Negt and Kluge refuseto permitthe reductionof their
investigation to mere institutional or intellectualhistory.They therefore
argue forthe restorationof an interrupted traditionof Marxistinvestigation,
a traditionbestexemplifiedby Rosa Luxemburg,WilhelmReich and Karl
3. See JUirgen Habermas, "The Public Sphere: An EncyclopediaArticle (1964)," New
German Critique,1:3 (Fall, 1974), 55.
4. Ibid., p. 50.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 55

Korsch, as well as by the Marxistelementsof criticaltheory.5

In this sense, the term public sphere refersnot only to the public
whichhaveprevailedin history
institutions butto thegeneralhorizonofsocial
experiencewhichenables individualsto formulateinterpretations of social
the the
reality.Expanding concept"publicsphere"beyond meaningascribed
to it by individualdisciplinesor by its bourgeoiscontent,Negt and Kluge
definethepublicsphereas the centralelementin theorganizationof human
experience.6Yet underconditionsof bourgeoisclass dominationthe public
sphere develops in restrictive and contradictory ways: as a resultof the
excluding mechanisms of the bourgeoispublic sphere,or throughnew and
illusoryforms of organizationof the public sphere.These formsof organi-
zation arise fromthe expansionof the capitalistprofit-maximizing interest
into the area of human needs and consciousness.
The proletarianpublic sphere stands in polar oppositionboth to the
bourgeoispublic sphere and to its transformation into new forms("the
of It
public spheres production"). represents the historical
counter-concept
to the bourgeoispublic sphereand a fundamentally new structurein the
publicorganizationof experience.Untilnowformsof the proletarianpublic
sphere have emerged only in rudimentaryform, and only in isolated
instanceshave theyprevailedas an alternativeagainstbourgeois-capitalist
domination.[Among the examplesNegt and Kluge cite are the attempts
made by the English workingclass in the early 19th centuryto form
independentcommunicationmedia (pp. 313-333); Lenin's concept of the
"self-expressionof the masses" as opposed to partypropaganda; and the

5. Forfurther discussionofthistraditioninMarxist theory seethefollowing

works byOskar
Negt: OskarNegt,"Theorie,Empirieund Klassenkampf: ZurKonstitutionsproblematikbei
KarlKorsch,"UeberKarl Korsch,ed. ClaudioPozzoli(Frankfurt am Main, 1973); Oskar
Negt, "Massenmedien: Herrschaftsmitteloder Instrumente der Befreiung?Aspekteder
Kommunikationsanalyse der Frankfurter Schule," KritischeKommunikationsforschung:
Aufsatzeaus derZeitschriftfir Sozialforschung, ed. DieterProkop(Munich,1973); Oskar
Negt,"RosaLuxemburg: Zurmaterialistischen DialektikvonSpontaneitat undOrganisation,"
Rosa Luxemburg oderDie Bestimmung des Sozialismus,ed. ClaudioPozzoli(Frankfurtam
Main,1974).
6. Borrowing thenotionof"theorganization ofhumanexperience" fromtheearlySoviet
culturaltheoreticians
[See PeterGorsenand EberhardKnbdler-Bunte, 2 Vols.
Proletkult,
1974)], whileopposing
(Stuttgart, thereifiedconceptoforganization, Negtand Klugeattempt
todeterminetheorganizing function ofcultural andforms
objectifications ofcommunications.
This expansionof the conceptof organization, whichtraditionally indicatedonly the
"combination"of humanbeings(groups,associations, parties,unions)makesit possibleto
theactiveandmediating
investigate function ofcultural on individual
relationships experience
andperception.In strict
opposition to a technocraticconceptoforganization, theconceptof
an organizationtied to the proletarian public sphereindicatesa concretedialecticof
and organization,
spontaneity of immediate experience and insightintothesocialtotality.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
56 VEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

tentativestepstakenin France in May 1968. Eds.] Nevertheless, the specific

achievementof the proletarianpublic sphereis to providethe foundation
forthepotentialformation of class consciousness
as a partisanconsciousness
of totalityenrichedby substantivevital interests.
In thiscontexttheproletarianpublic spherecan bestbe understoodas a
necessaryformof mediation,as the centerof a productionprocessin the
course of which the varied and fragmentedexperiences of social
contradictionsand social interestscan be combined into a theoretically
mediated consciousnessand life style directed towards a transforming
praxis Thus, the conceptof the "proletarianpublic sphere"designatesthe
contradictoryand non-linear process of development towards class
consciousness:a processwhichat presentis eitherhiddenbehind a merely
programmaticunityof the politicaland economicconceptof class and its
subjectivecorrelateconsciousness, combirred to formclass consciousness, or
is simplydeliveredto the proletarianpartyin itssynthesizing capacity.The
classical bourgeoispublic spherewas an unstablecomplexof institutions,
organizationsand activitieswithinwhich the social process of opinion
formation was to be constituted,
but fromwhichthemostimportantaspects
of life--materialproductionand the realm of familial
socialization--were
excluded. In contrast,threeverydifferent factorsmustconvergeto create
theproletarianpublic sphere: "the interestof the producingclass mustbe
the drivingforce; a formof interactionmustbe createdwhichcan relate
specificinterestsin the realms of productionto the entiresociety; and
finally the inhibitingand destructiveinfluencesemanating from the
declining bourgeois public sphere must not overpower the emerging
proletarianpublic sphere.In all thesepoints,the proletarianpublic sphere
is nothingother than the form in which the proletarianinterestitself
develops"(p. 163).
At thispointtheimplications of thiscomprehensive conceptforthetheory
of revolutionand the theoryof organizationbecome clear. Insofaras the
proletarianpublic sphererepresents a formof interactionwhichexpresses
thevitalinterestsof theworkingclass in a specificformwhilerelatingthem
to the entiresociety,it assumesthe active functionof mediatingbetween
social being and consciousness.In short,it fulfillsthe task of mediating
between society and that which the tradition of Marxist theoryhas
designated--highly inadequately--asthe "subjectivefactor.' This pointwill
be returnedto later.
Provisionallyformulated,the public sphere should be understoodas a
centralcategoryof social theory,whichdeterminesthe connectionbetween
materialproductionand culturalnormsand institutions duringthe process

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIANPUBLIC SPHEREAND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 57

of the constitution of social experience.At the same timeNegt and Kluge

attemptto situatethe conceptof the "public sphere"historically in orderto
allow the reformulation of a central problem of the Marxist theoryof
revolutionto emergefromthe dialectic of the bourgeoisand proletarian
public sphere. Thus, it is necessary for them to introduce new
epistemological categoriesand relationships, constructing, forexample, the
levels of contradictionwithin the basic conditions of bourgeois and
proletarianlife("the block of real life"whichopposesthe interests of profit
maximization). Such categoriespermit the expansion of an analysisof late
capitalistconditions to the point where certain politicalconsequencesforthe
organizationalquestion can be drawn.
The concept of the public sphere is essentiallysyntheticin its
achievement: its application makes it possible to move beyond the
theoreticaland historical-empirical constraintsin the discussionof class
consciousnessand political organization,and to reintroduceanalytical
content into that discussion. The authors maintain that the levels of
mediation within which the organizationof social consciousnessand
experiencetakesplace can be empirically ascertainedbyexaminingboththe
totaldevelopmentofsocietyand occasionaleruptionssuch as strikes,factory
occupationsand mass protest,as well as politicalorganizationin factories,
schoolsand local communities.
This framework is as relevantforthe developmentof Marxisttheoryas it
is provocativeforcurrentpolitical discussions.Negt and Kluge justifythe
claimsof so broad a conceptof the public sphere,not onlyby appealing to
the necessityfor a Marxistinvestigation of the unfoldingrelationshipsof
culturalsocialization(Vergesellschaftung). They also argue forthe political
urgency of such a conception. "With this book it is our politicalinterestto
establisha framework fora discussionwhichexpandstheanalyticalconcepts
ofpoliticaleconomydownward,to thereal experienceof human beings"(p.
16).
By directlyconfronting thecritiqueof politicaleconomywiththe concept
of "real experience,"Negt and Kluge addressa complexof problemswhich
the labor movementhas been incapable of solvingeithertheoretically or
practically. For Marx and Engels it was not, for two reasons, a pressingtask
to develop a detailed discussion of class consciousnessand political
organization.On the one hand, their theoreticalconsiderationswere
directed at a workingclass that was rapidly organizing, and whose
organizationalsolidityand political efficacywas less a question of the
subjectiveconditionsoforganizationthanof themoreprimaryproblemof a
scientificanalysisof thelaws of capitalistdevelopment.Secondly,Marx and

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
58 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

Engels could assume that the workingclass emergedfroma bourgeoisie

whichhad carriedthroughits interestsagainst the feudal systemand had
maintained a revolutionary movementwhich still, it appeared, could be
transformedinto a proletarianmovement.The experienceof the Paris
Commune made it clear, however,that the relevantelementsof the
bourgeoisclass had reorganizedaroundthe interests of profitmaximization
and had joined in an alliancewiththe feudal system.Simultaneously other
broad strataof the bourgeoisiewerealreadyproletarianized or had sunk to
the statusof small commodityproducers.
What had remainedconcealed by the revisionist practiceof the Second
International,satisfiedwith its success as a mass movement,became a
matter of immediate concern only with the revolutionaryrole of the
bolshevistcadre party in the Russian Revolution: the problem of the
conscious organization of proletarian class interestsin a disciplined
vanguard party. The wide adoption of the bolshevistexperiencein the
Europeanlabor movementafterthesuccessfulOctoberrevolutionled less to
the integrationof these experiencesinto theirown traditions-developed
under the completelydifferent conditionsof a highlydevelopedindustrial
society--thanto the politicallyconsequential "universalization"of the
"LeninistCadre Party"derivedfromthe Russianrevolutionary movement.
The direct application of Russian experiencesto the developed social
conditionsof WesternEurope, which was intendedas a break with the
objectivistand economistconceptionsof the Second International,led
politicallyto the dissolutionof the relationshipbetweenthe organizational
formsbased on theworkers'councilsand the CommunistParty,resultingin
theone-sidedprimacyof thecentralizedorganization.Theoretically it led to
a divisionof the "subjectivefactor"and of class consciousnessinto political
and economicelements:the class analysisof the proletariatwas collapsed
intotheoreticalissuesof partyand organizationwhichcenteredaround the
strugglefor politicalpower.
Onlywiththe protestmovementwhichappeared at the end of the 1960s
did thoseissues,whichMarxismhad eitherdenigratedor dismissedas heresy
and relegatedto the periphery, reemergeas centralproblemsin the face of
a systemthat seemed immuneto internaland externalopposition.The
reneweddiscussionof theworksof Reich, Luxemburg,Lukics, Korschand
others,as well as the numerousdebates on Marxismand psychoanalysis,
class consciousness,the latentfascisttendenciesin late capitalism,media
theoryand aestheticscoincided with experimentalformsof action and
demonstration. At thesame timethesedevelopments expresseda sharpened
consciousnessof new complexes of contradictionswhich the traditional

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 59

schema of base and superstructure, "subjectivefactor" and avant-garde

organizationno longerdefinedin a politicallyrelevantway.
Against the background of these developmentsNegt and Kluge's
argument assumes a compelling theoretical and political importance.
Preciselybecause the internalfactionalizationof the student movement
has again abandoned theseproblemsas peripheralto the basic questionsof
Marxisttheoryand organizationtheirreconsideration takes on a political
character.
In his essay "Don't Go by Numbers,Organize Accordingto Interestsl,"
Negtclarifiedthepoliticalcontextof his argument:"When I statethatit is
essentialto linkup to our ownhistory ofpoliticalsocializationin the present
organization debate, I am not suggestingthatthe old formsof organization
be recovered; these were symptomaticof a mass movementrestrictedto
intellectualsand youthwhichhad onlyan indirecteffectupon the working
class. Rather, the issue is to take up those emancipatoryforces and
perspectives whichthemovementsetintomotionand to carrythemforward
under changed objectiveconditionsand experiences."7
According to Negt and Kluge these emancipatoryand theoretical
perspectives can be best addressedby a methodology whichneithertotally
conformsto scholarly"rules"nor, on the otherhand,acceptsthe standards
of the current factionalized political discussion. Instead, their book
deliberatelyassumesa unique middle positionpermitting the combination
of disparate theoretical approaches, global social interpretationsand
currentpolitical considerationsin such a way as to produce practical
evidence for the analytical connectionbetween the public sphere and
experience.Nonetheles,thismethodologyinvolvescertaindisadvantagesas
well, forinstancean inconsistency in the categoricalframework as well as a
tentativequality in its empirical evidence and political judgments. Its
strength, however, lies in itsabilityto releasethe disparateelementsofsocial
experience from the individual disciplineswhich hithertoclaimed themand
to demonstratetheirextensiveinterrelationship. This interrelationship can
be observedin fourcentralsteps in the argument:
1) Negt and Kluge beginwiththe processthroughwhichthe classicalbour-
geois public sphereis transformed into new public spheresof production8

7. Oskar Negt, "Don't Go by Numbers, Organize According to Interestsl: Current

Questionsof Organization,"New German Critique 1:1 (Winter,1974), 46.
8. The concept of public spheres of productionindicates a varietyof heterogeneous
individualpublicsphereswhichhave emergedfromthe declineof the bourgeoispublic sphere.
Althoughthese public spheres of productionseem to renew the external illusion of the
bourgeoispublic sphere,theirstructureand contentis determinedby specificpolitical and

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
60 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

(ProduktionsOffentlichkeiten) whichto an increasingextentturnthe basic

conditionsofhumanlifeitselfintotheobjectofproductionBut at the same
time a potential opposition is released which, in pnnciple could be
channeledinto new formsof the proletarianpublic sphere.
2) According to the authors these contradictory tendenciesof cultural
socializationcan be understoodby postulatinga "blockof real life,"which
indicatesa crisisin humanpsychicorganization.This crisisis intensifiedby
3) theexpandedformsofsecondaryexploitationwhichare made possibleby
the developmentof commodityproductionand modernmass media. The
accompanying industrialtransformationofhumansensesand characteristics
4) alters the very forms within which the fragmentedelementsof social
experience are capable of being organized for socialism. Hence a
reformulation of the questionof organizationbecomes necessary.In their
politicalpraxissocialistorganizationscan no longersustainthe fictionthat
the individual proletarianis organizable as a whole, over and above
particularinterests.Instead,thepre-revolutionarystrategymustbe to seize
potentialopposition in whatever area of human life it may appear: in
factories,in and throughthemass media, in educationalinstitutions,in the
familyand in the so-calledrealm of leisure.

3. The Basic Conditionsof Life as Objects of Production

Negt and Kluge place the dialectic of the bourgeoisand proletarian
public spheresin the contextof an all-encompassingprocess of human
socializationwhichbecame universalwiththecapitalistmode of production.
Only withthe transitionto capitalismdoes the productionprocessbecome
the dominant social relationshippervading all areas of human life.
Pre-capitalistformsofproduction,whichMarx could stillsubsumeunderthe
generalconceptofhumanappropriation ofnature,werecharacterized bythe
continual "retreatof natural restrictions"on the one hand and by the
anchoringof the labor processin regionallydifferentiated
cultural,familial
on the other.But the labor processqua capitalist
and politicalrelationships
productionprocessearnsitsnew qualitybecause of "theseparationbetween

economicprofit-maximizing interests. from

The public spheresof productionare distinguished
thebourgeoispublic spherethroughtheirindustrialmode of productionand the expansionof
theirscope to thebasic conditionsofhumanlife.The centralmomentof thesepublicspheresof
productionis previouslyprivatesensuality.In the public sphere this sensualityhas been
combinedwithprofit-maximizing interests.There are, accordingto Negt and Kluge broadl-
speaking,threedimensionsto the public spheresof production:1) the sensual-demonstrative
public spheresof factories,banks, urban centersand industrialzones; 2) the consciousness
industry,including consumptionand advertisingand 3) public relationscarried on by
corporations,associations,statesand parties

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 61

theseinorganicconditionsof human existenceand this active existence,a

separationwhichis completely positedonlyin therelationofwage labor and
capital."9
Capitalistsocial relationssplitasunderthe "naturalbonds of humanity,"
as Marx explainsat one point,by theirtendencyto subsumeall historically
developed cultural formsof human life under their immanentlogic in
accordance with the processof profitmaximization.On the part of the
subject,thisdenial of the social characteristicsof humanitycorrespondsto
the reductionof the laborer to an existenceprimarilyas a producer of
exchangevalue. The separationof workersfromthe means of production,
whichMarx historically pursuesas the processof primitiveaccumulation,
also severstheirabstractlabor powerfromthe concreteconditionsof their
existence: everythingwhich does not contribute to the immediate
reproduction of the commodity labor-power becomes something
superfluous, somethingseemingly private,somethingnegativelydetermined
by the relationship which capital demands. For Negt and Kluge this
transformation is the "capitalist cultural revolution,"which is strictly
distinguished fromthe proletarianculturalrevolution-theproductionof
communistformsof interaction."The developmentof capitalism also
revolutionizedhabits, culturalpatterns,personalitystructure,the senses,
human characteristics and consciousness.The entireprocessof economic
production over the last two or three hundred years has produced
increasinglysocialized human beings. Socialization itselfhas become a
fundamentalhuman need, almost an anthropologicalcategory,because
people become sickwhen theyare forcedto live in isolation.On the other
hand, underalienatedconditionsthissocializationis alwayscombinedwith
a simultaneousneed to freeoneselffromit and retreatto privateformsof
existence"(p. 271).
But now the relationshipof the profit-maximizing interestto the basic
conditions of human life itselfbecomes subject to modification.
historical
Risingproduction costs of the commoditylabor-power and changes in the
of
organiccomposition capital turn human needs and forms of consciousness
themselvesinto objects of capitalistproduction: the basic conditionsof
human life emergefromtheirpurelynegativerelationshipto capital.
This keydevelopmentis the startingpointforNegt and Kluge's analysis.
Their descriptionof the transformation of the bourgeoispublic spheresof
production on the one hand and the occasional emergenceof a proletarian

9. Karl Marx, Grundrisse:Foundationsof the Critique of Political Economy (Rough

Draft), trans.MartinNicolaus (Middlesex, 1973), p. 489.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
62 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

public sphere on the other can be understood as a depiction of the

"subjective"cultural side of the reproductionof capital "on an ever
increasingscale." The bourgeoispublicsphere,bothin itsideal formand in
itsmaterialcontent,refersto the earlyphase of capitalistdevelopment.In
thisphase the newlyformingcapitalistinterestswere primarilyconcerned
with the appropriationof the materialconditionsof production,though
theyalso waged a politicaland culturalstruggleagainstthe feudal system.
The bourgeoisieused the public sphereboth as a revolutionary slogan and
as a medium within which the political struggle for the expanded
appropriationof social wealthtookplace. This convergenceof substantially
divergentinterests,whichthe bourgeoispublic spherehomogenizes,endows
thebourgeoispublic spherewithits characteristic markingit as
instability,
an expressionof thetransition to a new world-historicallevelof production.
The unstablebourgeoispublic spherecan onlysustainitselfin societyto
the extentthat it succeedsin eitherdivertingattentionaway fromcentral
intereststied to the realm of productionand familialsocializationor in
givingpoliticalor culturalexpressionto thoseinterests. But thepoliticaland
culturalvictoryof the bourgeoisieand the anchoringof the principlesof
capitalistproductionin broad areas of thesocietymade a continueddetour
throughinstitutionalized formsof the public sphereunnecessary.The "dull
compulsionofeconomicrelations"10sustainsbourgeoiscapitalistdomination
more effectively than a necessarilyunstable public consensusor political
forcecould ever do.
But thisprocessalso produceschangesin thestructure and functionof the
public sphere. Once the capitalistprofit-maximizing interestbecomes the
primaryprinciple of social it
organization, produces new formsof the public
sphere, which formallyappear to continue the bourgeoispublic spherebut
whosecharacteristics are actuallydeterminedby a verydifferent complexof
interests."The traditionalpublic sphere,whosecharacteristic weaknesslies
in the mechanismof separatingpublic fromprivate,is todaysupersededby
public spheresof industrialproductionwhich increasinglydraw in the
privaterealms,particularly the productionprocessand the basic conditions
of life" (p. 35). The authors consider a number of tendenciesto be
responsiblefor the emergenceof thesenew public spheresof production,
which,taken together,characterizea new level of socialization.Negt and
Kluge do not, however,discussthesetendenciessystematically; insteadthey
limitthemselvesto a descriptionof theireffects.

10. Karl Marx, Capital 1 (New York, 1906), p. 809.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 63

Referring to WolfgangHaug's workon commodity " Negt and

aesthetics,
Kluge begin with the premise that with the expansion of commodity
productionto all social realmsthe "appearance side" of use value assumes
an increasingimportance.The appearance of a commoditythus tends to
separate itselffromthe concreteproductand the use value which it was
originallysupposed to demonstrate. Rather, the appearance of the
commodity enrichesitselfby incorporating generalsocial experience.When
thecommodity becomesa "sensual-supersensual thing,"it becomesa means
to transform objects of use into fantasyproducts.With this development
commoditiesthemselvesbegin to participatein the public sphere. They
become the object of an imaginaryconsumptionwhichappropriatesworld
viewsalong withcommodities.But thisorganizedproductionof commodity
appearance can be fullyeffective onlywhen imperialistexpansionabroad,
aimed at the acquisitionof raw materials,exportmarketsand labor power,
coincides with an intensification of imperialismat home which is now
directedat the exploitationof the verysocial natureof human beings. To
wage thisstrugglefordomesticmarkets,capitalismemploysthe industrial
productionof fantasyvalues and cultural images which both divertand
enrichthe human capacityfor imagination.
This expandedlevelof commodityproductionis connectedto a developed
systemof institutionswhichsupersedesthe formerly private,partiallypublic
and fully public areas of life and production. Increased productivity
demandsexpanded educationand trainingformass labor power; stateand
semi-publicinstitutions rapidlyexpand to take on the familialfunctionsof
subsistencewelfareand thestructuring oflifeand leisure.Thus a numberof
self-contained public spheresemerge,each organizinga specificaspect of
humanlifeforitself.Negt and Kluge attemptto describethe new qualityof
these public spheres by applying Marx's categoriesof real and formal
subsumptionunder capital to institutions.Formal subsumptionunder
11. In his work on commodityaesthetics,Wolfgang Fritz Haug uses the concept of
"commodityappearance" to characterizehighlydevelopedcommodityproduction.Though in
the simplephase of commodityproductionthe use value of a commodityat firsthad to be
visible to the buyer,in the highlydeveloped stage of capitalistcommodityproductionthe
appearanceofuse value is detachedfromthe individualcommodityand becomesthe bearerof
generalsocial needsand desires."Insofaras exchangevalue has establisheditselfas the driving
forceof commodityproduction,a double processtakesplace. Not onlyis use value produced,
but, along with it, the appearance of use value, the aestheticizedpromise of use value.
Moreoverthisappearance is producedwithits own techniquesand considerations. The aim of
thistypeofproductionis to endowthecommodity withallureand the promiseof utilityso that
not onlywill it be sold but also preferredand purchasedin preferenceto othercommodities."
See WolfgangFritzHaug, "Die Rolle des Aesthetischen bei der Scheinl6sungvon Grundwider-
sprtichender kapitalistischen Gesellschaft,"Das Argument,64 (June,1971), 196.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 64 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

capital means that the institutionstands only in an external, loose

the whichin turnonlyindirectly
relationshipt.9 capitalistproductionprocess,
affectsthe institution'sinternal workings.The term real subsumption
becomes applicable to the public sphereonlywhen those "realmshitherto
relativelyautonomousare integrateddirectlyinto the profit-maximizing
processand the use values, informationand ideologyproduced by these
realmsare employedspecifically as a meansof stabilizingthe rulingsystem"
(p. 297).
This generaldescriptionof the natureof real subsumptionrequiressome
qualification.The emergenceof mixedformsof stateand privateeconomic
activityto deal withcases in whichthe individualcapitalistincurscostsfor
taskswhich transcendthe immediateinterestsof profitmaximizationis a
fundamentalcharacteristicof late capitalist social systems.Such mixed
formscan neitherbe entirelyascribedto the individualcapitalist'sinterests,
nor can they exist entirelyoutside of the profit-maximizing process.
Paradigmatic for such mixed forms are the majorityof educational
institutionsas well as government-regulated radio and televisionstations.
Yet theempirically demonstrable of
importance thosemixedformsmakesit
questionable whether they can be adequately explained by means of a
heuristicdevicedescribingthe transitionfromformalto real subsumption.
The analysisof the mixed formsshould itselfbe the centralobject of a
Marxisttheoryof thestatewhichwouldexplainthecontradictory tendencies
producedby structuralcharacteristicsof those institutions
no longerdirectly
responsiveto capitalistinterests.It is a weaknessof Negt and Kluge's book
thatthe authorsconsiderthe relevantworksof Claus Offe,JoachimHirsch
and othersonly thematicallyand not systematically.
The organizedtransformation of commoditiesintofantasyvalues and the
institutionally mediated absorption of realms, not previouslydirectly
embracedbytheprofit-maximizing interests, are characteristic
ofthe system
of secondaryexploitation.This systemderivesits new qualityfromthe fact
that it is no longer merely an extension of traditional realms like
consumptionand the so-calledpublic sector: "preciselybecause secondary
exploitationlayshold of human consciousness, of humanwishes,hopes and
conceptions,a closebond reestablishes itselfbetweenprimaryand secondary
formsof exploitation.Secondaryexploitationalso existedwith a specific
functionin theclassicalphase of capitalism.But in late capitalismsecondary
exploitationassumesa new qualitybased on the fact that a certainkind of
social wealth must be produced within the frameworkof primary
exploitation,a typeof social wealth which itselfthreatensto oppose the
immediateinterestsof capital as an independentforce. This new level of

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 65

developmentis characterizedby an attemptto reintegratethe centrifugal

tendenciesof thissocial wealthinto the productiverelationships of primary
exploitation.Such a reintegration permitscapitaliststo make exactly as
much or even more profithere than under earlier conditionsof primary
exploitation"(p. 300).
This attemptat the reintegration of such disparate tendenciesas work
disciplineand theexpansionofhumanneedsand potentialcan onlysucceed
if the disparitybetweendisciplinedproductionand the illusorysatisfaction
of vital interestscontinuesto develop at an ever increasingrate. Only the
constantrenewalof this contradictioncan preventthe disassociationand
isolationof human characteristics into opposing forces. "The traditional
capitalistproductionprocess is sustained bytheprofitsit receivesfromlabor
power, whose household affairs onlyoccasionallyalignedthemselves withthe
interestsof capital. The commoditylabor-powerthus regardedcapital as
somethingforeign,as something in opposition;the tiesbindinglabor power
and capital were external,allowingthe workera varietyof possibilitiesfor
escape fromitsgrasp. But now, in the new situation,a contradictionarises.
On the one hand the relationshipto capital, with all its accompanying
demands and norms,is transporteddirectly,and fromwithout,into the
worker'sintellectualorganization,embracingit totally.At thesame timethe
oppressive character of the labor process and earlier forms of the
relationshipof labor to capital continueto persist"(p. 306). Through the
postulationof a "block of real life" the contradictory effectsof secondary
exploitation on human psychicorganization can be in termsof
investigated
theircentralpolitical implications.

4. The Block of Real Life

The centraltheoreticalnucleus of Negt and Kluge's argumentis the
construction of a "block of real life which opposes the profit-maximizing
interest"(p. 107). This block consistsof a complex of contradictory
tendenciesin the internalorganizationof human psychicexperiencewhich
reconstitutesitselfon everylevel of the systemof primaryand secondary
exploitation.The block does not respresentan anthropologically invariable
structureof human nature.Insteadit is determinedmaterialistically as the
residualpotentialforexperienceand actionwhichcannotbe integratedinto
the system of profit maximization, but which neverthelessdevelops
necessarily in conjunction with the expansion of capitalist profit
maximizationand the changingcompositionof capital. This construction
assumes that those human needs anchored in the psychicstructureand
characterizedby qualitativerelationshipswithinthe socializationprocess

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
66 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

cannot be divertedfromtheirgoal. Rather, these human needs preserve

withinthemselves a realisticand unifiedtendencytowardstheirsatisfaction.
"It is unlikelythat in the long run theywill be contentwith substitute
satisfactions and allow themselves to be distractedfromtheirown realismby
any kind of realityprinciple in their searchforsatisfying relationships"(p.
304). Of course, this realism characteristic of human needs is itself
historicallyproduced. The historicaldevelopmentof this realistic basis
coincideswiththeobjectivepossibility of theirrealization.At the same time
it is the resultof both an expansionand intensification of exploitationand
the relaxationand underminingof disciplinaryworknorms.
The twelvehourday, childlabor and the immediatedemandsof material
existencepreventthe veryformationof needs whichtranscendthe simple
reproductionof the commoditylabor-power. The development of
individualneeds presupposesa high degreeof social wealthwhichrelieves
individuals from the immediate pressuresof existence and allows the
emergenceof a formof leisurewhich is more than a mere reflexof the
workingday. A certainlevelofsocial developmentmustbe presupposedfor
needs to emergewhich point beyond the existingframeworkof material
production; these needs can, obviously,themselvesbecome objects of the
maximizationof capitalistprofit.Expandedcommodity productionand the
public spheresof productionrepresentnew historicformsof production
which absorb and restructurethese needs according to the interestsof
capital. These apparatus of productionare effectivevis-d-visthe masses
preciselybecause theydo not abstractfromreal experiencesand wishes.
They interveneon the level of concreteinterests.On the otherhand, they
cannot grasp these needs in theirspecificdeterminatequalities, in their
uniqueness,withoutadjustingthemto theirown interests in the production
process. This assimilation of vital human interestsinto the contentof the
of
public sphere production causes it, because of its content, to assume a
positioncontradictory to the of
general tendency capital. This general
tendency,in the interestof an expansionof profitrealization,movesin the
directionof increasingabstractionfromconcreteconditions. At the same
timecapital must,"in orderto progressalong thispath, concernitselfwith
livingconditions,livinglabor and humanrawmaterialsto an everincreasing
degree.Capitalismmust'dirtyitshands'by dealingwithhumanbeings.This
is the reason for its extremeinstability"(p. 309).
Thus capitalism itselfsets in motion a countermovement of concrete
interests.By developingparticularhumanqualitiesin isolation,by isolating
themfromeach otheror evenby suppressingthemaltogether,the interests
of capital constitutenegativelya complex of qualities and interestswhich

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 67

find themselvesin continual retreat from profit-maximizing tendencies

whichthreatento absorbthem. These qualitiesexistbeneaththe threshold
of bourgeoisrule, in the formof escapism and fantasyactivity,which
capitalism cannot completely integrate into the process of profit
maximization."The characterof thisfantasyactivityis multi-dimensional.
It emergesas a necessarycompensationforthe experienceof the alienated
labor process," as an "equilibriumof drivesin oppositionto intolerable
conditionsof alienation"(p. 67). "If [the workers'needs and interests]are
directly suppressed, that is, if they are not utilized in society's
profit-maximizing process,theymaintainthemselvesas livinglabor power,
as rawmaterial.In thisqualityas extra-economic interests, theyexistin the
forbidden zones of fantasy, beneath taboos, as stereotypesof the
rudimentary organizationof thebasic conditionsof proletarianlife.As such
theycannotbe further suppressed.They also cannotbe assimilated.In this
respecttheypossesstwo characteristics:in theirdefensivestance over and
against society,in theirconservatismand in theirsubculturalcharacter,
theyare mereobjects.But at the same timetheycomprisethe block of real
lifewhichopposes the profit-maximizing interest"(p. 107). This negative,
dialectical relationshipof the block of real life to the profit-maximizing
processwill continueas long as capital cannot do withoutlivinglabor as a
source of value. "Where attemptsare made to integratethis block into
forexample,bysubordinating
capitalistinterests, thebasic conditionsof life
to the capitalistprogramming and consciousness industry or the new public
of the
spheres production, process of suppressionand exclusion producesa
new, more differentiated block accordingly"(p. 107).
Televisionand "media concentration" nevertheless representa new stage
of social productionwhich threatensto draw in the very raw material
comprising theblock of real life. The degreethatthisis successfulmustbe
determinedby a considerationof the structureof production of the
developedmedia.

5. Televisionand Media Concentration

of the functionalconnectionsof developedmass media
The investigation
assumesan importantpositionin Negt and Kluge'sdiscussion.An analysisof
thesemedia must determinewhetherone can accuratelyspeak of a new
qualityof culturalsocialization. Such an analysismustdevelop criteriaby
means of which new media can be differentiated from those of the
traditionalbourgeoispublicsphere. And at the same timeit would have to
formulatea plausible explanationof changes in the media's structureof
productionwhichhave allowed the media to take on thesenew functions.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
68 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

a) Government-regulated television
Negt and Kluge describe government-regulated television as an
"institution characteristicof a transitionalphase..., in whichthe essential
needs of communicationare no longerentrustedto an exclusively capitalist
mechanism,but in whicheffective new formsof public controldo not yet
exist" (p. 217). Television is situated in a contradictoryintermediate
positionbetweenthe bourgeoispublic sphereand the new public spheresof
production.Furthermore, televisionis separatedfromthe bourgeoispublic
sphere and itsmedia by the totalindustrializationof itsproductionstructure
and by its completeintegration of the basic conditionsof life,as evidenced
by the totalityof itsprogramofferings. Televisionis distinguishedfromthe
newpublic spheresof production,forexamplemedia concentration, by the
institutionalizationof its governmental regulation.Governmentregulation
preventstelevision'scompletedominationby individualcapitalistinterests 12
and applies normsin the formof programmaticobligations,requiringthat
programmingbe "in the public interest" --thus preventingthe direct
satisfactionof the concrete needs of various social groups. Formally,
televisionstandsin the traditionof the bourgeoispublic sphere.Itspublic
regulationis designedto preventthe dominationof the mediumby special
social interests.Yet the controlof televisionby "relevant"social groups,
whichguaranteethatprogramsare balanced and thattheyservethe"public
well-being,"reallyonly createsan unstableequilibriumof social interests
incapable of achievingconsensus,permittingonly an abstracttrade-offof
the values of the bourgeoispublic sphere. The increasingpressurefor
legitimationwhichthissituationproducesleads to half-solutions, repeated
on everylevel of the productionhierarchy.In the bourgeoispublic sphere
the opinio communiswas a bond whosecontentin principlecould still be
determined.But theestablishment of televisionprogramming on thebasisof
a fictitiouspublic well-being,which even specific individual programs
should address,is the resultof a harmonizationof interestsmade possible
only by obfuscatingtheir concrete contents.This relationshipbetween
increased pressurefor legitimationand abstract trade-offof interests

12. The factthattelevision is morethanmerelya mediumforindividualcapitalistinterests

has long since ceased to mean that these interestshave no effecton actual calculationsand
production.The increasingdispersionof productionin enterprises whichare eitherprivateor
containa privatelyfinancedtelevisionsectormakesany real public regulationand controlof
these productionsimpossible.Moreover,risingcosts in an increasinglydiminishingmarket
make televisionincreasinglydependenton advertisingand the resale and distributionof
to with
programsin a national and internationaltelevisionmarket(whichhas begun expand
the cassetteindustry).

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 69

television
restricts to the"broadcasting of generalized programs" (p. 176)
whichcorresponds on thepartof viewers to an "abstractreceptivity."
Theprogramming obligationsandguidelines inwhich--in analogy tocom-
modity production--the long-term interests of capital are expressed emerge
onthelevelofprogram planning as contradictory to theshort-term interests
of individualprograms whichutilizevariousad hoc legitimations: rating
scores,topicality,
economy ofproduction, technical quality,aesthetic inno-
vation,entertainment value,originality, etc. Thesecontradictory relation-
shipsbetween forms oflegitimation arisefroma structure ofproduction in
whichvariouslevelsofproduction converge: at the level of the individual
television
programs and filmsconcrete laborencounters a highly complex,
content-free
relatively technology, and both in turn are included in abstract
planning activities
involving a highdegreeofdivision oflabor.On thepartof
the product,thiscontradiction expresses itself in the divergence of a
program's individual elements: the entertainment value of the program
assumesan independence itseducational
vis-d-vis valueand theeducational
valuein turncontradicts theprogram's valueas news."Thiscontradiction
between long-term and short-term interests revealsitselfin everyprogram,
regardless of whether it deals with news, critical documentary or
entertainment. The contradiction is intensified by the ambivalence which
existsbetweenmoststations'criticalstancetowardsthecultureand their
actualfunction as producers of entertainment" (p. 187).
On thesubjective side,thiscontradiction expresses itselfin theclashof
variousorientations towardswork.Conflicts occurmostreadilyin those
areaswheretheconcrete activityoftheprogram producers runsup against
abstractguidelinesand rigid time-cost quotas which decide the "program's
struggleforits verysurvival." The often-interrupted struggle of the past
yearsfora codifiededitorialpolicycamefromprecisely thosegroupswho
couldconnecttheirdemandsforcodetermination, fordemocratization of
thedecisionmakingstructure, to thecontentof theirwork.In partstill
organized professionally,but alreadyassuming theformof a tradeunion,
this movementof editorsand contributors soon took up demands
transcendingtheirowneconomic interests, aiminginsteadat a self-criticism
of radio and televisionstations.
Negt and Kluge incorrectly assessthe directionof thismovement,which
goes far beyond the framework
institutional of the televisionstations.Since
they understand the struggle for a codified editorial policy only as an
organizationof economic which
interests seeksto extenditsrolein planning,
they underestimate the extentof the which
conflicts arisefromthe demand
forthe rightto determinethe contentof one's work.The authorscorrectly

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
70 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

perceivethat qualitativeissuescannot be taken up productively fromthe

positionof the individualplanner.Yet by maintainingthat the "totalityof
viewerneeds" (p. 218), the "fundamentalinterestin communicationas
such" (p. 180), must be absorbed in the institutionof television,that
"reciprocalcommunicativerelationships" must be created on a horizontal
level,theauthorsfatallyapproachtheneoromanticbuilding-block theoryof
Hans Magnus Enzensberger,who formulatedtechnicalutopias above the
actual organizationof theworkingclass and ignoredthe necessity to change
institutions withincapitalistrelationsof production.When Negt and Kluge
conclude: "Thus the taskof subjectinggovernment-regulated televisionto
comprehensive public criticismremains a matter for criticsfrom without"
(p. 219), they are abandoning the political terrainwithout constructing a
plausible alternative. Because of its increased need for legitimation,
televisionmust develop a strongself-interest in making use of collective
social experienceof thesortwhichis createdin politicalstruggles.Thus it is
importantto organizethosewho produce televisionprogramsin order to
change at least partiallythe institutionalconditionsof its receptionand
integrationby viewers.
For if it is correctto maintainthat the culturalcritique,which either
criticizestheconsciousness industry as a wholeor simplyanalyzesideological
tendenciesof individualprograms,comes up shortagainsttelevisionas an
apparatus of industrialproduction,servingonly the "rearrangementof
legitimationwithinthe apparatus"(p. 219), then it is necessaryto discuss
concretely thekind of organizational,technologicaland materialconditions
whichwould make possiblethe developmentof counter-productions. Media
critiqueobviouslycannot startfromthe situationof the viewersittingin
front of the set. But neither can it ignore the medium's internally
contradictory institutionalties,or its structureof receptionwithoutat the
same time investigatingpracticable counter-models.As long as the
politicallyand materiallysecureinstitution of televisionis notfundamentally
a
changed by political praxis which creates new institutions, a practical
critique is limited to the preciseinvestigation and evaluation of the potential
foroppositionthat can be crystallizedin the medium. The "interchange
betweenthe televisionstationand itsviewers,whichwould make possiblea
varietyof televisionchannels,writtenand telephonecommunicationsand
assembliesof viewers"(p. 223), could be developed more fruitfully--but
onlyundersocialistconditions.In the presentsituationit is stillnecessaryto
seizecontradictory tendenciesin themassmedia and to supportthe struggle
forcodetermination as an elementof revolutionary strategy.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIANPUBLIC SPHEREAND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 71

In contrast, the struggle for the creation and acceptance of

counter-productions pursuingautonomousgoals continueson anotherlevel.
Those who are engaged in the strugglefor codeterminationare aiming
primarilyat securinglegal, wage-relatedand contentdemandswithintheir
privateor public institutions.But the organizersof counter-productions
have a differentgoal in mind--expressedin the growingcooperation
betweensocialistpublishinghouses, newspapersand magazines, between
socialistfilmmakersand filmdistribution cooperatives.While the struggles
forcodetermination aim at an improvement in theconditionsofproduction,
these wider strugglesattemptto acknowledgeand deal adequately with
needs arisingin responseto the conditionsof socialistpraxis. Clearly,the
organizationof counter-productions by cooperatingleftistgroups in the
media can onlyresultfromthe unificationof socialistpraxis.Underpresent
conditionsit wouldbe illusoryforleftgroupsin themedia to imaginethata
mass leftpresswould have a chance in the struggleagainst the capitalist
cultural industryas Willi Mtinzenberg'sproductionshad in the Weimar
Republic. Althoughautonomousto a degree,Mtinzenberg's were
enterprises
both in organization and content dependent on a relativelystrong
CommunistParty and on a broad revolutionarymovementwithin the
workingclass. The developmentof such a broad movement,consistingboth
of producers and of an audience, mediated throughorganizationand
experience in political struggles,is the necessarypreconditionfor the
developmentof socialistcounter-productions in the media.
Even ifone believesthatpresentsocialistpraxishas reacheda pointwhere
it can pose the questionof the constructionof counter-productions in the
media, the problem still remainswhether, as Negt and Kluge suggest,a
media tradeunionwithinIG Druckund Papier (Printingand Paper Union)
reallywould be in a positionto create a politicallyeffectivealliance of
journalists,writersand artistsconcernedwith codetermination withinthe
leftmedia. The authors'radical critique of media workers'attemptsat
organizationwhichdo not includedemandsforthe controlof the means of
productionin fact becomes political indifferencein cases where it is
necessaryto politicallyanalyze the presentorganizationalpossibilitiesfor
counter-productions. The mere "inclusion of small and middle sized
enterprisesengaging in emancipatorypublishing,newspaper or media
praxis"(p. 433) in a media trade union is a long way fromchangingthe
formofproduction.Rather,theformofproductionis directlydependenton
thepossibilityforpoliticalactionwithinthe tradeunions.The demand that
IG Druck und Papier include the leftistmedia would make politicalsense

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
72 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

onlyif tendencieswithinthe tradeunions--particularly thoseinsistingon a

fundamentally neworientation ofunionpolicytowardsthemedia- could be
evaluated.
b) The totalcommodity:media concentration (Medienverbund)
In contrastto government-regulated television,as well as to traditional
media such as the press, publishing,film, etc., media concentration
representsa stage correspondingto conditionsof advanced capitalist
production on an internationallevel. Its combination of individual
commoditiessuch as education,entertainment and information make it a
total commoditywhich confrontsthe individual purchaseras a closed
system.This characteristicplaces media concentrationon a level with
expanded commodityproduction.
Preconditionsforthe emergenceof media concentration includeboththe
concentrationof variousenterprises plus a seriesof new developmentsin
technologyand organizationinvolvingnew ways to transmitinformation
and to set up distribution and planningsystemson a large industrialscale.
Only when both of these preconditionsare met do systemsof media
concentration emergewhichembracethe basic conditionsof human lifein
theirentirety,thus in real termssubsuminghuman beingsunder capital.
This newqualityofmedia concentration arisesless fromthe developmentof
individualmedia whichmedia concentration thencombinesthan fromthe
cohesionof the media themselvesinto a "total system."
Althoughat this point completelydevelopedsystemsof media concen-
trationdo not yetexist,Negt and Kluge believethattheycan predictthe
newqualitiesofmedia concentration froma varietyof tendencies.The most
important characteristic of media concentration is its abilityto adjust its
offeringsso that it satisfies
generalinterests as well as the specificneeds of
individualgroups."Its programsdo not presentmerelyan abstractgeneral
offering('to whom it may concern') but ratherare able to meet indivi-
dualized needs,the needs of varioustargetgroups,and therefore the basic
conditionsof human life become the object of a packaged systemof
exploitation"(p. 240).
With its greater specificityof programming,media concentrationis
respondingto the viewer'schangedstructureof perception,whichchanges
in the sphere of production have brought about. Following Walter
Benjamin,Negt and Kluge recognizethat the developmentof the media is
accompaniedbyfar-reaching changesin thestructure of humanperception.
While the traditionalmedia develop individualhuman senses in relative
isolationfromeach other--ina manneranalogousto thespecializationand

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 73

divisionof labor necessitatedby Taylorism-media concentrationrestson

a formof perceptionthat is shaped by the interactionbetweenspeciali-
zation and synthesis.This new formof perceptioncorrespondsto similar
changeson the side of production.Here, technicalchangesdemand a new
typeof cooperationfromindividuals(p. 241 f.). Such changes have their
material basis in a situation in which workersmust performprecise
individualtechnicaltasksat thesame timethattheysuperviseand monitor
an entireapparatus.
Thesealterations inthestructure ofperception in turnencounterchanges
inthepsychic structure: thelegitimations oftheperformance principleand
workdiscipline begin to lose theirtraditional and
psychicanchoring are
replacedby the principle of a new immediacy. A permanent evocationof
sensualneedsbreaksdownthebarriers ofdenialor postponement ofdrives,
settingin motion a of
dynamic developing needs whichis directed
towards
theirharmonicsatisfaction. "Whenbasic humanneeds (hunger,thirst,
shelter)aremet,theempirical needsattempt torestore theirbasicunityand
aredirected at theobjective world.Theystrive towards theharmony of the
sensesandrespond tothosecommodities whichrepresent notmerely isolated
or individual
satisfaction use valuesbut ratherentirecyclesof fulfillment
whichembodythe basic conditions of life. In thesecircumstances the
objectiveside of media concentration becomesapparent.It weldsthese
tendencies together and organizesthemfromwithout.In a proletarian
publicspheretheinterconnection oftheneedsand sensesmustbe organized
throughthe praxis of human beings themselves"(p. 244).

6. Questionsof Organization
If Mao Tse-Tung is correctthat consistentmaterialistshave nothingto
fear,thenan investigation of new socializationtendenciescharacterizedby
the developmentof the programmingand consciousnessindustrieswill be
able to reveal the directionin which the contradictions inherentin these
tendenciesare moving.Througha varietyof complexargumentsNegt and
Kluge have demonstrated theexistenceof thesecontradictions,
firstof all in
the decliningbourgeoispublic sphere and in the new public spheresof
productionsuch as media concentration.The formulationof a "block of
real life"allowsthemto determinethoselimitswhicheven the mosthighly
developedprofit-maximizing interests
confront whentheyattemptto absorb
proletarianqualitiesand interests.
This approachis superiorto Adornoand
Horkheimer's critiqueof cultureinsofaras it confirms
thesystemiccharacter
of the cultureindustrydeveloped in Dialectic of Enlightenment--differ-
entiating,however,betweenshortand long terminterestsin the contextof

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
74 NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE

commodityproduction--while at the same timerefutingthat aspect of the

cultureindustrythesisthat ignoresthosenew levelsof contradiction which
permeatethe social productionof human experience.
The fundamentalcontradictionsof wage labor and capital, of social
production and private appropriation,have not yet been unilaterally
resolvedto the advantageof a capitalistsuper-system immunizedagainstall
contradictions.Capitalism has only, although perhaps qualitatively,
changedtheformsofitsconcretesocial appearance. It is necessarytherefore
to ask whetherthe changeswhichNegt and Kluge perceivein the social
experiencesand interestsof the masses compel a reformulationof the
organizationalquestion.
They respond to this question in two ways. On the one hand, their
analysisof these new contradictory tendencieslays the groundworkfor a
fundamentalcritiqueof traditionalworkingclass organizationalforms.On
the otherhand, theystartfromthe premisethat the alteredstructureof
experienceof the massesmakes it necessaryto formulatea frameworkof
organizationaltheorywhichpointstowardsa socialiststrategy in a pre-revo-
lutionary situation.Their critique of the traditional
organizationalformsof
the workingclass is based on the thesisthat the oft-repeatedhistorical
attemptsof the workingclass movementto constituteits interestsin
autonomouspoliticalpartiesor proletarianculturewithinbourgeoissociety
have failed because they began with a false conception of the "total
proletarian.""The history of theworkers'movementin all the industrialized
countriesprovesthatit has been catastrophicforthe proletarianparties,the
Social Democrats as well as the Communists,constantlyto categorize
individualmembers(not to mentionthose voterswho frequentlyswitch
parties) as totalities,as Social Democrats,Communistsor class-conscious
proletarians.Whereastheirspecificneeds, such as livingconditions,child
care, sexuality,work,leisuretime have eitherremainedundevelopedand
stagnantor have been organizedfromabove in such a waythatthe interests
and needs, as by-productsof capitalism, could not gain any free
expression."'3
It is characteristic
of theseorganizationalformsthattheyhave produceda
"fortress mentality"(p. 384 ff.),leading to the adoptionof the ideals and
organizationalstructureof bourgeois associations. The effectsof this
adherenceto bourgeoisformsare particularly evidentin the greatdefeatsof
theworkingclass movement;forexample Maximalismin Italy on the one
hand, and Austromarxism on the other.The contradictory natureof these

13. Negt, "Don't Go by the Numbers,"48.

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 THE PROLETARIAN PUBLIC SPHERE AND POLITICAL ORGANIZATION 75

traditionalorganizationalstructures, forNegt and Kluge, is foundedin the

ambivalenceof the "block of real life": "Capitalism cannot destroythis
block, and the proletariatcannot attacksocietyfromwithinit" (p. 108).
The industrialdevelopmentof human sensesand qualitiesleads Negt and
Kluge to the positionthatonlythepurposefulpoliticizationof fundamental
vital interestscan create a stable context for praxis, within which a
long-term socialiststrategycould develop.As Negt indicated,"If, as I have
alreadynoted, the establishedorganizationspresupposea 'whole' human
being who is allied withthemby commitmentand membership,then the
firstpoliticalact of a revolutionaryorganizationmustlay bare thisillusory
totality.The 'whole' person, whose capabilities,interestsand
characteristics,
needs are fragmented by capitalistproduction and consumptionstands at
the end of the revolutionaryprocess, not at the beginning."'14 The
proletarianpublic sphere is the constitutive
element of a highlycomplex
process of organizationthat has as its goal "the release and redirection
(Aufhebung) of the experience that remains locked within the basic
conditionsof proletarianlife" (p. 60).
By analyzingthe new historicalformsof the socializationprocesssphere,
Negt and Kluge have developed a political positionwhich can serve an
importantfunctionfor futureorganizationaldebates insofaras it subjects
the traditionalshort-sightedness of Marxisttheoryof organizationand class
consciousnessto a radical critique. Their conceptionis valuable as an
alternativeonlyif thisline of epistemologicalargumentation is carriedover
intoa politicalanalysisofpresentday classstruggles.As long as the question
of organizationcannot be discussedin the contextof a theoryof late
capitalism-because such a theorydoes notyetexist--attempts such as Negt
and Kluge'sremainofvital importance,preciselybecause of theirtentative
character.In thisway problemshithertoignoredcan again be raised and
discussed.

TranslatedbySara Lennoxand FrankLennox

14. Ibid., p. 49

This content downloaded from 128.210.126.199 on Sat, 06 Jun 2015 23:41:10 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions