Horkheimer and Adorno

I found Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's account "The Culture Industry" to be one of the more interesting and graspable reads we have dissected this far.  One of the quotes that stuck most with me as I can easily relate it to another class I am currently taking can be found on page 50.

"the defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful"

I believe this statement is clear in basically asserting that those who are successful, do not care nearly about success and achieving it as those who are not successful.  I agree with this statement in a sense.  Although I believe that those who have attained success do on occasion think of their success and how they achieved it, those who have not yet achieved the success they are looking for still have that drive, that passion, that need and concern to be successful.  Since they are the seekers, they are more concerned to see if they can achieve the myth of success.

This relates to another course that I am currently taking, American Dream and Popular Culture.  We speak in depth of the great myth of the american dream and whether or not it is feasible to many.  We have discusses how the upper/super class is least concerned with the dream and if the myth exists to anybody in the United States, because it does not pertain to them, they are successful.  In return, those coming to America or struggling in America are often obsessed with this ideological myth of success and the American Dream because they want to believe that they too can achieve it.

People are always obsessed with what they do not have.  Whether a material possession or an ideological achievement, if you do not have it, then you will want it, or some version of it.  This lead us to question whether even those who, according to lower classes class, have already achieved success and their version of the dream truly believe they have achieved the dream.  They may not think about success as much as those who have not achieved any form of it, but it would not be feasible to believe they do not consider success in any sense.

Post class post Nov. 4th: the influencial style of Stewart and Colbert

First, I would like to say I really enjoyed the class discussion today. I thought this was one of the most productive discussions we have had yet. Consequently, I came up with a number of potential topics to discuss: pseudoidentities, commodification of sub and counter culture- however, the most pertinent point for me personally was the discussion about the following quote from p. 47 from Horkheimer and Adorno:

“The concept of a genuine style becomes transparent in the culture industry as the aesthetic equivalent of power.”

As I stated in class, I think an interpretation of this is when there is an originality in a certain way of doing things (style), the conceptual person has the power of association because other people will copy and thus follow the original. Effectually, the person with the original style holds the power over the followers, and the way other people do those same things, other relational things, or even think of life. I think the example given in class of the Devil Wears Prada was an obvious choice in that it both superficially and intellectually embodies the idea of style as power.

However, I also thought there are more examples that might not be as obvious, but may reach a wider audience of understanding. I thought about the influence of John Stewart’s “Daily Show” and consequently, Steven Colbert’s “Colbert Report”. Although there are other implications with the shows relating to the reading and class discussion (the popularization of subculture, etc.) I mean to emphasize the power the particular style of Stewart and Colbert hold over their viewers and the greater American peoples. Reportedly, more and more people are looking to these “pundits” for their dose of daily political and national news. The way people view and think about domestic affairs is almost articulated by the style of these men and their shows. Not only do people associate a sense of ridicule and laudability with politics more so now, but the shows also help to dictate the popularity of politicians, authors, and other producers of entertain. As Colbert states, his show gives people the “Colbert bump,” or when people go on his show, they instantly become more popular and favored by the mass public.

Many of the positive connotations of Stewart’s and Colbert’s shows have much to do with their comedic style and its sense of originality. Their shows are the basic venue of comedic “entertainment” news. They are considered to be more “real” than other news sources. Also, in addition to people emulating the ideals presented in the show, other shows, movies, and cultural products are attempting to copy the “comedic reality” style of the shows.

The entertainment business

A specific quote from the reading, Cultural Industry caught my attention. On page 51, Horkheimer and Adorno state, “The cultural industry remains the entertainment business.. it’s control of consumers is mediated by entertainment”. The idea of the entertainment business is interesting. Everything in American culture is influenced by entertainment. Entertainment appeals too many people in society and it sells obviously. The entertainment industry makes up our culture because it runs so much in society. From music, to sports, television, film, the entertainment industry is a part of all that. This industry makes up such a large portion of American media that everyone is exposed to on a daily basis and it influences people on many levels. Consumers are controlled by the entertainment business because it advertises and sells new products while capturing attention of many. The business is centered on sex and money, two aspects which spark human interest in every way possible. Therefore, it makes sense that people are fascinated/ intrigued by this industry. America is a country where entertainment is everything. Without the entertainment business, American culture wouldn’t be what it is today. Think all about all the sports fans out there or those who love the arts, music and film. Any aspect of entertainment grabs every individual in some way. In particular, the movie business grabs the attention of people in certain ways. For example, it creates unrealistic expectations for some people since some people strive be like the highly desirable actors that our media portrays in magazines, on television and everywhere. The entertainment industry creates a fantasy world that always strikes the interest of the public because there is such a huge emphasis of being rich and famous in American society. When in reality only a small portion of people are actually living extravagant lifestyles and are highly recognized in the media. Our society focuses on so much on this business and it continues to grow while re-inventing itself in order to titillate the masses.

The Culture Industry

Horkheimer and Adorno discuss how popular culture has created an easy way to attain pleasure through the purchasing of massed produced items. Further, these items have been standardized by what the industry has created to be the "norm" or the latest and greatest. As we learned in CMC 100, our advertisements today intentionally create the sense of "false needs" that is generated by their profits, which generates capitalism. But then it is capitalism that manipulates us worse? In a way, the culture industry manipulates what we spend our money on for pleasure in entertainment. The cultural industry makes us accept the latest trends in fashion, music, or whatever that may be. As we see in Marx's ideologies, there is a class system that breaks down for those who can afford the higher end of things, continuing to the middle and lower class. However, the culture industry views everyone as one marketplace where individual's true taste is ignored because as a whole a massed produced item generates more money. What I find interesting is that no matter what one's economic status is, there will still be that sense of not being fully satisfied. For most, material wealth means that their 'being' has served it's purpose. By the creation of the 'false need' this means then that their being is never satisfied, because as we discussed there will always be a new and better object out there. 

false truths/loner

So, I think I gathered that Adorno and Horkheimer believe the culture industry cultivates false needs. These needs which are reinforces are those paralleling hegemonic ideologies. Therefore, the “sameness” of culture bombards us with hegemonic ways of thinking. The idea that “the more easily it [film] creates the illusion that the world outside is a seamless extension of the one which has been revealed in the cinema” is interesting (45). With films their intent is to mirror life, the aim is recognition, and for the viewer to see himself/herself in the fantastical film world. In Zizek’s article, he talked a lot about how the images on September 11th mirrored those we see in catastrophe movies. We had seen the images of September 11th on screens before the attack. Culture and reality collided. And with Adorno and Horkheimer, they also examine the friction between reality and illusion. Is this a life of illusion?
Within the culture industry, A & H state the ruler will say “you are free not to think as I do; your life, your property- all that you shall keep. But from this day on you will be a stranger among us” (49). This systematic Othering of those not shaping to the hegemonic ideology of society means “anyone who does not conform is condemned to an economic impotence which is prolonged in the intellectual powerlessness of the eccentric loner” (49). Those whose ideas are outside the hegemonic realm are chastised and their ideas frowned upon. Absolutely no merit could stem from this loner’s ideas. Lyotard expressed a similar idea stating, “artists who question the rules ‘are destined to have little credibility…they have no guarantee of an audience” (41). Those who throw conventions out the window have no guarantee of receptivity in the public. And most likely, those stemming beyond hegemonic standards, will receive no audience. Like A & H mentioned the best selling book made into a movie holds the most credibility. Everyone is afraid of this elusive loner-ness they may be labeled with. Rarely do people explore beyond hegemonic confines. And these confines/culture industry is what A & H revolt against for the production of sameness and false truths.

Kelsey. Adorno/horkheimer

hebdige and subcultures

I found Hebdiges anaylsis of subcultures to be very interesting because he incorporates many theorists ideologies first, then goes on to describe how they fit into his definition of what subcultures are. He says that, “the emergence of such groups has signaled in a spectacular fashion the breakdown of consensus in the post-war period,” (151). As generations of pop culture have shown us, subcultures come out of nowhere and are first rejected or accepted. People begin to identify with them, until they eventually turn into a normal commodity and have lost most of their initial shock. Hebdige uses the best example that I can think of to describe this term- the punk culture. He says that subcultures form as a result of someone challenging hegemony. In the punk culture people began to challenge authority and go against the order. He refers to this as “violations of authorized codes” and “power to provoke and disturb” (153). As the punk culture gained popularity, more people began to believe their ideas and identified with them, thus making the culture more and more acceptable. The media begins to latch onto these trends, and thus they become more familiar. In the punk culture, this was when the 80’s when it was “trendy” to be punk and listen to punk music. As they gain so much more acceptable they turn into a commodity, and eventually become “frozen.” Companies capture onto the popularity of these groups and produce products for them, thus making them a commodity. Once there are so many commodities for them and the ideas are less “shocking” they begin to loose their power and become normal. In today’s world we do not see the punk subculture as “shocking” as it once was. The market has been flooded with so many products that we are used to seeing punk clothing and hearing music that was once unconventional to us. I believe that subcultures serve a valuable part to our society. It is through them that we get new ideas and new product. I do find it a bit sad that like in the case of the punk culture, something that was so new and challenged authority, turns into a commodity and becomes very common place instead of “new.”

Consciousness and Social Being

In class on Thursday we spent some discussing the following quote, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness.” There were several thoughts on what this quote meant. Some thought that it was our consciousness that determined our social being because our brain is before we begin to socialize and is developed a certain way that causes us to act and think in certain ways. Others of us thought that it was our social being which determined our consciousness. As soon as we are born we are constantly surrounded by other people whose actions are being absorbed into our brains. Although we do no understand what is going on, our conscience takes into account what is happening around us. As we grow up we are learning from those who we are with and they help to form our views and thoughts on things around us based on what they believe. In this way it makes sense that our consciousness is determined by our social being because without being a social being we would have nothing to base our consciousness on. It is kind of like saying that you are who you hang out with. We are told as we grow up that we should surround ourselves with positive people in order to be more positive ourselves which will help us to lead successful lives. By surrounding ourselves with these types of people our consciousness adapts to their actions and their ideas and causes us to believe in what we are seeing and doing when we are around these people.