What Was the “Enlightenment?”
Generally speaking, we might think of the Enlightenment time period as an elite 18th-century cultural movement that sought to mobilize the power of reason in order to reform society and advance knowledge. Some people like to think of the Enlightenment as the beginning of modern philosophy. It was important because the ideas that came from this movement influenced future democratic governments.
The Enlightenment period in the history of western thought and culture stretches roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century; it was characterized by dramatic social revolutions in science, philosophy, and politics. These revolutions helped to sweep away the dark medieval world-view and ushered in the light that is thought to typify the modern western world.
Enlightenment thought culminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason. Theory is one thing, however, as the notion of “all” is, in practice, a matter infused with controversy and debate.
The Enlightenment begins with the scientific revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The rise of the new science progressively undermined not only the ancient geocentric conception of the cosmos, but, with it, the entire set of presuppositions that served to constrain as well as guide philosophical inquiry. The dramatic success of the new science in explaining the natural world, even as it aimed to account for a wide variety of phenomena through appeal to a relatively small number of mathematical formulae, promoted philosophy (broadly understood to include the natural sciences) over the handmaiden of theology. The basic idea here was to overcome archaic ways of thinking, which were constrained in purpose as well as methods, with an independent force of power and authority; one sufficiently powerful to challenge the old and construct the new in the realms of both theory and practice on the basis of its own principles.
D’Alembert, a leading figure of the French Enlightenment, characterizes his eighteenth century, in the midst of it, as “the century of philosophy par excellence,” because of the extraordinary intellectual progress that typified the age, the advances achieved by the sciences, and the enthusiasm for social progress, and because of the characteristic expectation of the age that philosophy could dramatically improve human life.
Who Are the Great Thinkers of the Enlightenment?
France
The Enlightenment is associated with the French thinkers of the mid-decades of the eighteenth century, the so-called “philosophes”- Voltaire, Diderot, D’Alembert, Montesquieu, and others. They constituted an informal society of men of letters who collaborated on a loosely defined project of Enlightenment centered around the project of the Encyclopedia. But the Enlightenment was even more ambitious than this suggests.
Scotland and Germany
In addition to the English and French movements represented here, there was a significant Scottish Enlightenment. Key figures were Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Thomas Reid as well as a similarly influential German Enlightenment (die Aufklärung) including Christian Wolff, Moses Mendelssohn, G.E. Lessing and Immanuel Kant.
All of these different Enlightenments spurred by different thought leaders might be thought of as nodes of thought within a disparate and varied course of intellectual development. Enlightenment philosophy is in this manner perhaps better understood in terms of general tendencies of thinking; not in terms of specific doctrines or theories.
The David Hume statue on its pedestal outside of St. Giles Cathedral on the Royal Mile, Edinburgh, Scotland (photo credit: sandra trappen)
Immanuel Kant
At the foundation of Kant’s system is the doctrine of “transcendental idealism,” which emphasizes a distinction between what we can experience (the natural, observable world) and what we cannot (“supersensible” objects such as God and the soul). Kant argued that we can only have knowledge of things we can experience.
Only late in the development of the German Enlightenment, when the Enlightenment was near its end, does the movement become self-reflective; the question of “What is Enlightenment?” is debated in pamphlets and journals. In his famous definition of “enlightenment” in his essay “An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” (1784), which is his contribution to this debate, Immanuel Kant expresses many of the tendencies shared among Enlightenment philosophies of divergent doctrines.
Kant’s Three Questions:
Kant can be said to have tried to answer three fundamental questions: What can I know?; What ought I to do?; and What may I hope? (Critique of Pure Reason, 1787)
Accordingly, in answer to the question, “What can I know?” Kant replies that we can know the natural, observable world, but we cannot, however, have answers to many of the deepest questions of metaphysics. Humans are, in other words, limited by our senses, scientific instruments, and the sum of all the recorded knowledge of the human race limited by the time and discretion a mortal being has to assimilate and remember such knowledge. Setting oneself on a path to know such things, however, must be accomplished with considerable abridgment, and what you can know is not known best by limiting yourself to a knowledge of symbolic works, oral or written (i.e. religious texts). These are tools of finite minds incapable of knowing the entire truth about anything.
The answer to the second is – Hang in there and do what you are good at!
The answer to the third is to try and live a long and prosperous life; one that is diverse and rich in both experience and sensation, and to also use your talents and abilities in a manner that affords enjoyment to others trying to do the same with their own lives. All around good advice, yes?
On Enlightenment
For Kant, Enlightenment liberates us from authority. Those who hold authority—have mystery. The priest has special access to the mystery of religion; it is through him where God comes towards us. The Enlightenment says that human reason is capable of answering all the questions that the previous authorities claimed they had answers to. When you have a rational claim, you’ve laid a path that someone else can easily follow to the same conclusion. The light of the Enlightenment is that it leads to knowledge. For Kant, Enlightenment holds out the promise that it can free us from authoritarianism; for we now have a way to understand the light of the world that is derived from our own human rational capacities.
Kant likewise defines “Enlightenment” as humankind’s release from its self-incurred immaturity; “immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” Enlightenment is the process of undertaking to think for oneself, to employ and rely on one’s own intellectual capacities in determining what to believe and how to act. Enlightenment philosophers from across the geographical and temporal spectrum tend to have a great deal of confidence in humanity’s intellectual powers, both to achieve systematic knowledge of nature and to serve as an authoritative guide in practical life. This confidence is generally paired with suspicion or hostility toward other forms or carriers of authority (such as tradition, superstition, prejudice, myth and miracles), insofar as these are seen to compete with the authority of reason.
Enlightenment philosophy tends to stand in tension with established religion; that is, it holds out the promise to release people from the self-incurred immaturity of the age as dictated by religion. Daring to think for oneself, awakening one’s intellectual powers, inevitably requires opposing the role of established religion in thought and action. The faith of the Enlightenment – if one may call it that – is that the process of enlightenment (of becoming progressively self-directed in thought and action) through the awakening of one’s intellectual powers, leads us all to a better and more fulfilled human existence.
These views describe the main tendencies of Enlightenment, which might be broken down as follows: 1) The True: Science, Epistemology, and Metaphysics in the Enlightenment; 2) The Good: Political Theory, Ethical Theory and Religion in the Enlightenment; and 3) The Beautiful: Aesthetics in the Enlightenment.
Horkheimer & Adorno’s Dialectic of Enlightenment
In their classic text, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno contest Kant and the positivity of Enlightenment.
They argue the concept of reason was transformed into its opposite – an irrational force – by the Enlightenment. As a consequence, reason came to dominate not only nature, but also humankind itself.
As major representatives of the Frankfurt School, Horkheimer and Adorno were the major architects of Critical Theory, who engaged in a project to interpret Marxist philosophy. More pointedly, they aimed to reinterpret Marx’s important economic and political ideas: commodification, reification, and fetishization, which they incorporated into their critique of mass culture.
Critical theory draws from a combination of: Kantian rationalism, Marxist Hegelianism, dialectical materialism, and historical materialism to critically engage the following ideas:
- the notion that humans are rational beings; the world of the real comes not from our senses; that from our rational capacities a rational society is possible.
- the idea that social systems are constantly challenged by their contradictions; contradictions produce new syntheses, and out of this change (progress) occurs [this is the essence of dialectical thinking].
- progress does not occur as a result of straight means-end logic (formal rationality); means-end logic is what underlies repression and domination in society; it leads to totalitarianism.
- the materialist conception of history, which is to say, the theory of history that connects the material conditions of a society’s primary mode of production (its way of producing and reproducing) to the means of human existence—these are Marxist terms which are used to describe the union of productive capacity with the social relations of production, as they are understood to fundamentally determine social organization and development.
- theoretical frameworks are use to explain social events as not discrete and isolated; rather, they are understood to be part of a social process that implies constant challenge, contradiction, and change.
The Problem of Enlightenment
Critical theorists (Horkheimer and Adorno in particular) were concerned with the problem of “Enlightenment” within modernity and post-modernity. So for example, the central premise of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment was that “something went wrong with the Enlightenment.” Enlightenment, in their view, became totalitarian; now it’s all about controlling nature and humans.
Enlightenment, furthermore, created a culture that violates individuality by compelling conformity. The potential of the individual is not being destroyed by fascism alone; rather, it’s the positivist turn of modern science and the Enlightenment that influences individuals and the world they live in, disposing them to become fascist.
The only way to get out of this modern version of hell is to engage in a critical theory of society – this is the only way to achieve transformation and social progress.
Faced with the unfolding events of the Holocaust, Dialectic of Enlightenment begins with the words:
“Enlightenment, as understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity.”
Again, the book here alleges that something went wrong with Enlightenment; the authors aim to discover the motives behind humanity’s seeming retrogression, which undercuts progressive claims of civilization.
Another focal point of the book is its critique of instrumental reason (a concept H&A borrowed from Max Weber). Their formulation of the concept distinguishes how reason was employed for the purpose of mastering and dominating nature.
A related concept that they explore – “reification” – is drawn from Georg Lukacs; it refers to the process of the “objectification” of nature through this use of instrumental reason.
H&A’s critique of positivism and capitalism follows straightforwardly from here, as the Dialectic reveals their philosophical position: totalitarian states and state capitalism are one and the same; they institutionalize reason in a such a way as to realize the goal of transforming nature (including humans) into objects for the “commodity fetish”.
Their critique, furthermore, constitutes the basis of a grand narrative, which takes the point of view of the totality. Grand theorizing, which is itself often criticized – was intentionally undertaken as a means to overcome more traditional academic disciplinary boundaries (and to this very day, many in academe don’t like that) by combining the study of history and philosophy with the study of society.
Clearly, H&A were not optimistic about the Enlightenment; the major project of the book was to demonstrate how the entire project of rationality with Enlightenment thinking was self-destructive right down to the core. Ultimately, what they leave us with is a sense of the underlying change dynamics that drive how the social order reproduces itself.
Book Organization
Section 1 deals with the concept of Enlightenment
Section 2 reveals Enlightenment to be a myth.
Section 3 addresses the submission of the subject, who makes the object its master.
Section 4 focuses on the “Culture Industry” as the mediator of all social action and knowledge.
Section 5 traces the descent of humanity from Enlightenment into barbarism.
Historical & Theoretical Context of Their Work
In order to understand the emphasis that Horkheimer and Adorno placed upon the imperative need to undertake analysis of the nature of mass culture in contemporary society, it is necessary first of all to situate their “cultural theory” within the wider context of their theory as a whole, which is given its fullest expression in Dialectic of Enlightenment.
At the heart of their work lies a deep discomfort with the nature of modern capitalist society. They drew heavily upon a Marxist framework of analysis, seeing capitalism as fundamentally exploitative, and believing that it must be overthrown for humanity to achieve its full potential.
However, upon witnessing the rise of fascism, failure of socialism and dominance of monopoly capitalism, they argued that critical theory must move beyond a traditional Marxist emphasis on the mode of production (MOP) alone, which they felt was unable to satisfactorily account for these developments.
Marx’s emphasis on the economic base, they argued, led to the conclusion that capitalism was doomed to be replaced by socialism. However, H&A believed Capitalism’s more logical endpoint to be the creation of a ‘verwaltete velt’, in which mankind subjected itself to irrational rule in an entirely rational manner. H&A argued that as mankind had increased his technical mastery over nature humanity itself had become caught up in this process of domination. In such a society, the genuine aim of enlightened reason – to critically negate what is given – had been eradicated, allowing for the use of entirely rational methods to carry out the most irrational of goals, such as genocide or war.
Their belief in the importance of the need to understand the process of rationalization led H&A to expand the project of critical theory beyond a focus on political economy alone. In their view, it was necessary to uncover the processes which were leading to the creation of an entirely rationalized social totality, dominated by the logic of the market.
In other words, their critique focused on the social totality – where previously distinct spheres of culture, politics and the market were increasingly merging – revealed how this came to play a central role in the maintenance of the whole. Culture in such a society, they claimed, could not be seen as a mere epiphenomenon determined by the base; for it played a role in the creation of the base itself.
Political economy (Marx’s focus) declined in relative significance and the need for a critical analysis of culture became more pressing.
The Culture Industry
In this famous chapter, Horkheimer and Adorno set out to show how Enlightenment became a force of mass deception. Moving from this central thesis, they proceed to an explanation whereby they explore the dialectical relationship between culture and technics as part of a critique of the commodification of culture in modernity.
They use the term “culture industry” to describe the commodification of cultural forms that had resulted from the growth of monopoly capitalism. Popular culture, as they explain it, was constituted as a single culture industry whose purpose is to ensure the continued obedience of the masses to market interests.
Culture might thus be thought of as a “factory” churning out standardized cultural goods — television, film, newspapers, magazines and other forms of entertainment. Their purpose is to manipulate mass society into passivity. Human critical thinking capcity (reason) is eliminated.
Culture, according to the authors, has evolved to the point that it is the central mediator of what we know and how social change takes place.
The Culture Industry cultivates false needs: these are needs created by and satisfied by capitalism. True needs, by way of contrast, are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness [Marcuse was the first among the Critical theorists to demarcate true needs from false needs in Eros and Civilization].
Adorno, furthermore, believed the culture industry was a system; that society was controlled though the top-down creation of standardized mass culture that intensified the commodification of artistic expression. These cultural processes, constituted as such, have the power to penetrate the very roots of our psychic and social formation as individuated subjects. The easy pleasures available through the consumption of popular culture make people docile and content, no matter how difficult their life/economic circumstances.
The Subsumption of Art Under Capital
H & A present an argument, where they contrast the emancipatory potential of what they term ‘genuine’ or ‘autonomous’ art, and the products of the culture industry, which play the opposite role. By uncovering the social conditions that gave rise to both forms of art, they claim to reveal the impact that commodification has had upon art itself, and hence on society as a whole and our very consciousness.
Enlightenment, they argued, brought about the social conditions that now represent the subsumption of the previously relatively autonomous realm of culture into a market governed by instrumental logic.
Having been subjected to the intersection of the commodity form, instrumental rationality, and a social processes of reification, individuals increasingly experience themselves as exchangeable “things” within a social arena dominated by principles of market exchange.
Art suffers as a result, because it becomes a consumer good like any other consumer good. Ultimately, there is a loss of autonomous art through the process of commodification, where there is an increasing convergence of art, advertising, and marketing.
This results in a condition of universal spectacle and narcissistic consumerism (i.e. Kanye and the Kardashians) which precipitates regressive forms of failure to achieve, as well as a subject ego that increasingly defines itself based on the objects it acquires. In other words, autonomous subjectivity is dissolved and replaced by commodified forms of “pseudo-individuality.”
Adorno’s analysis allowed for a critique of popular mass culture from the left as well as the right. From both perspectives — left and right — he believed the nature of cultural production was the root of social and moral problems, which was a result of the consumption of culture.
A central tenet of Adorno’s argument is the idea that under certain social conditions, art can provide an alternate vision of reality. He argues that autonomous art has the capacity to highlight the inequalities and irrationality of the status quo, by presenting an ideal vision of what mankind can aspire towards. As such, it has an emancipatory character.
While the conservative critique from the right emphasized moral degeneracy ascribed to sexual and racial influences within popular culture, H&A located the problem not with the content of culture, but with the objective realities of the production of mass culture and its effects [recall how the conservative critique of the 1960’s “counter-culture” located degeneracy in the culture itself and social groups, rather than in the forces of production].
The differences among cultural goods make them appear different, but they are in fact just variations on the same theme. Adorno conceptualized this phenomenon as “pseudo-individualization” and the “always-the-same.”
Under conditions of generalized commodity exchange, Adorno and Horkheimer claim that all aspects of cultural practice, technique, and meaning-making – whether high or low, elite or popular – become subsumed within the industrial system of production, exchange, and consumption. This commodification of culture results in the general homogenization of cultural artefacts and the instrumentalisation of autonomous art.
Religion, Belief, and the Death of Reason
During the time that this book was written, religiosity was on the decline in Germany. Horkheimer and Adorno wrote: “the sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre-capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialization, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.”
The drive to “disenchant” the world (Max Weber’s term) reflected the ongoing tendency to wrest rational control from what previously could only be seen as blind fate — was always closely associated with the Enlightenment’s attack on the institutional privileges and intellectual status accorded to religion.
The story is well known. Kant saved faith from Hume and philosophy from dogmatism by curtailing the speculative pretensions of the one and the reach of the other. At the same time, he submitted religion to the court of reason and thus left space for autonomy.
The Left Hegelians (particularly Feuerbach and Marx) took the humanization of the world a step further by reducing metaphysics to anthropology and religion to need. The history of religion became the history of man’s alienated but authentic hope, a hope that needed to be reclaimed not in relgious terms, but in the name of freedom.
Nietzsche — the apostate son of a Lutheran pastor — launched his own, anti-Hegelian critique of metaphysics. He sought to psychologize the urge for atemporal, necessary, and universal Truth; that is, he sought to cure the nostalgia for a sovereign God and a sovereign Subject by revealing them both to be fictions of grammar and bad faith.
To this day, we find the emancipatory interest in overcoming metaphysics pursued literally by Left Hegelians and rhetorically by Nietzscheans, Marxists, Heideggerians, as well as by Leftists and Deconstructionists.
But also in the current day, we see a resurgence in belief-based metaphysical thought, which is often coupled with a critique of science that reduces it to speculation and theory.
Now, it goes without saying that metaphysics — the study of extra-sensory reality — is not always the same as religion. But, from his first book on Kierkegaard to his final completed work, the Negative Dialectics, in which he launches a critical recovery of metaphysics itself, Adorno returns again and again to themes derived from metaphysics and theology.
In a short essay on music, which was written 10 years after DoE and 10 years before Negative Dialectics, Adorno differentiates music from what he calls intentional language that is, the instrumental language of everyday communication:
“The language of music is quite different from the language of intentionality. It contains a theological dimension. What it has to say is simultaneously revealed and concealed. Its Idea is the divine Name which has been given shape. It is demythologized prayer, rid of efficacious magic. It is the human attempt, doomed as ever, to name the Name, not to communicate meanings… Music points to true language in the sense that content is apparent in it, but it does so at the cost of unambiguous meaning, which has migrated to the languages of intentionality.”
True language is thus not the language of meaning, of information, of communication between people. It is the revelation of the absolute (the dream of a language beyond intention derives directly from Walter Benjamin).
Criticism of Horkheimer & Adorno
As I already addressed in a post on the Frankfurt School, H&A were not without their detractors. Many found their theories to be needlessly abstract and overwhelmingly negative, to the extent they offered no focused substantive answers that would suggest how we might “escape” the social forces they describe.
Even today, scholars of critical theory regard the philosophical exercises of the founding authors to be more or less marginal works― lapses of judgment for thinkers who are otherwise celebrated for their mastery of dialectics. The following passage comes from a jacket description of a book by Peter E. Gordon, Adorno and Existence, where the following passage alludes to this struggle:
“In the case of Adorno, his persistent fascination with the philosophical canons of existentialism and phenomenology suggests a connection far more productive than merely indicating antipathy. From his first published book on Kierkegaard’s aesthetic to his mature studies in negative dialectics, Adorno was forever returning to the philosophies of bourgeois interiority, seeking the paradoxical relation between their manifest failure and their hidden promise. Ultimately, Adorno saw in them an instructive if unsuccessful attempt to realize his own ambition: to escape the enchanted circle of idealism so as to grasp “the primacy of the object.” Exercises in “immanent critique,” Adorno’s writings on Kierkegaard, Husserl, and Heidegger present us with a photographic negative―a philosophical portrait of the author himself.
What Can We Take Away From This Complex Work?
Enlightenment is not what it objectively seems to be. It failed on its promise to free humans from myth, for it creates its own myth – that we must achieve freedom from nature.
Sociology, as a discipline, has traditionally made the mistake of assuming that humans and nature constitute binaries, rather than seeing humans and nature as one [remember, it was Marx that told us the first level of “alienation” is the alienation of humans to nature].
Knowledge-seeking does not occur through a neutral acquisition of information [sorry, Weber & Durkheim]; it’s connected to power: power over nature, and power over each other.
The critique of subjectivity (the ability of a subject to be reflective and act self-consciously) is particularly important. H&A show us how the transcendental subject/self was effectively broken as society became more complex : in modern society the mind/ego/self are divorced from the body. This creates a false separation of the body from nature and matter. The result is that man fears annihilation and compensates with a desire to dominate and survive, though such a process of living is ultimately a self-alienating activity.
Modern society elevates knowledge, particularly scientific knowledge, as achievement that is synonymous with unequivocal progress. We take the mythology that was once used to describe nature and do the same to science.
Science and reason are in danger of being subsumed under capitalism; they are no longer pursued for enlightenment purposes, but to dominate nature and to ultimately serve capital.
Sources
Blog post & Summary of Dialectic of Enlightenment. Last accessed March 2016.
Sandra L. Trappen – notes from lectures with Stanley Aronowitz
Discussion Questions
Do you think there is such a think as a “culture industry” or does the concept fail to fully articulate and/or describe the social dynamics of culture in our modern time?
How do we escape; that is, get outside culture?
How might you use Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the culture industry to critique developments in our contemporary culture (think about the Kardashians, or about professional sports, reality television, or anything really).
Do you think that being willing to critique or to examine the social, political and cultural structures within the society in which we all live (as done in the social sciences) is a radical “leftist” project? Does challenging authority make you uncomfortable?
The rise of fascism’s rise in Germany prior to World Wars I &II provides us with an example of passive revolution; important social institutions and structures were manipulated to such a degree that they fostered a false consciousness that ultimately prevented a leftist socialist revolution. In Italy, Mussolini made himself out to be socialist leaning populist, but upon assuming power he established a new capitalist hegemony. Hitler’s party was a nominal “Workers’ Party,” though by 1941 Germany was as right-wing (economically) as Italy. Social movements in both countries revolved around how Hitler and Mussolini reacted to the tragedy of WWI and its destruction of the techno-utopian and optimistic thinking of the period. The two leaders successfully converted populist anger into populist action against the enemies of the nation. The “collectivity” both nations represented constituted an effective subversion of the “collectivity” leftists at that time said would propel the proletarian revolution. With that, do you see any parallels in our current time period? If so, what role does culture potentially play in manufacturing passivity/consent and populist anger among members of the U.S. population?
Ironically, conservatives in the United States tend to sneer and even mock science, even as they eagerly deploy it in the service of things that they value: war, torture, invasion, police intimidation and brutality, and the mass surveillance of American citizens. Universities are moving in the direction where they value positivism to the extreme – research methods and theories not deployed in the service of revealing probabalistic outcomes are considered inferior and not worthy of study and funding. The “arts” of the Liberal Arts are being expunged by administrators who pay lip service to “critical thinking” pedagogy. How can we call upon critical theory to show how “Enlightenment” is under attack again? How has reason itself become subverted yet again?
There is no escaping the “culture industry”. Horkheimer and Adorno explain how the Enlightenment created mass deception. Basically disproved myths with science to create an even bigger myth. If you try to move away from the “culture industry”, it will just move to the direction of the separation from culture and assimilate. It’s a temporary false belief that you can move away from the culture. Monopoly capitalism has survived on the fact of justifying the production because of human demand. Why would there be a demand of reality tv? Why would we demand the presence of a celebrity at a night club for 1 hour? In which they earn more than I make in at least a year? But, there is a demand, right? We have been fooled into going with the pack that is basically manipulated by capitalism which defines the culture of today. Attempts to move away fail because they are recognized by the culture. And after that, it’s brought into the industry. A choice to be vegan, or to follow no religion are examples of modern day options that give the impression of leaving the culture. Yet it’s created very rich shopping market chains a food production industries.
In the society that we live in today, the culture industry most definitely presents its existence. In fact, it’s taken most, if not all, of society by storm. Adorno and Horkheimer had begun to see this already when they wrote the Dialectic of Enlightenment in the 1940s which says a lot. They believed that the culture industry is eliminating individuals’ abilities to think for themselves. They expressed strong opinions on how the culture industry is making society more susceptible to total control. Again, being that this was being said in the 1940s is significant considering how today’s society has exhibited consumerism at its possible worst. One of the first things that comes to mind when thinking of how the culture industry keeps society wrapped around their fingers is music. Research has shown that the most popular songs follow a certain pattern where most of them are no longer than four minutes and consist of pretty much the same structure that follows something along the lines of an introduction, a verse, a chorus, another verse, a chorus, a bridge, and then the chorus once again. This same structure is fed to consumers over and over again and these songs continue to become top hits. Adorno and Horkheimer mention that if the product being put out to the masses strays away from the routine structure, individuals are less willing to accept it. Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of how capitalism has led to consumerism is mostly seen with technological advancements, which seem to take place every year now it seems. Whether it’s a phone, video game console, computer or some other type of technology, there is always something newer and better. Society has become so used to having technology all around them and they’ve increasingly become accustomed to possessing the most updated forms of everything, so much that their possessions become old fast and they begin looking out for the next best thing set to come out. The culture industry knows that individuals behave and think this way so they continue to consistently produce and release newer forms of their product. Society is never going to be satisfied with their possessions and because of this they’re always going to want more.
I think the culture industry can be seen in society in many different ways. It articulates the way different cultures all over the world can capitalize on key points or movements in society and make it into a commodity. Often when people look at these culture industries the publics praises them for their marketing tactics or say how great of a business idea it is. There is definitely a consumer side to the culture industry with everyone needing to buy the latest trends and have the newest iPhone when their phone is still working perfectly fine, but I think society puts itself into a culture industry on its own. An example I can think of to expand on this point is with street art. It once was a free form of art and often a form used to express an artist’s ideas and thoughts to the public. It was looked down upon by the mass majority and was seen as unwanted in neighborhoods. Keith Haring is a very well knows street artist from the 80’s and while all of his art is widely recognized, people often also know he was a big social activist with the messages in his work. Street art became a cultural staple in New York and it often and still can provide a message to society, but there is also a strong culture industry now surrounding it. People pay thousand upon thousand of dollars for street artists to paint their newly renovated homes in the east village, and tourists and residents will come from all over to take a picture in front of the “awesome” graffiti and murals in Bushwick, but they often do not see the work for what messages this form of art can truly hold. They take pictures and want it in the neighborhood because we have all accepted it in our society as a cool thing to have and we are now capitalizing on it. Weather it is paying some well-known artist to do paintings or if it is going to the middle of Brooklyn to take a picture and post on Facebook and Instagram for friends to envy, people often are not mentioning what the art form means.
This once was a form that was public and could be seen as a rebellious act with powerful messages. Now accepted and sought after, the art form seems to have lost its powerful communication tactic and has turned into a culture industry that people want to consume at face value with no need to think about a message or meaning behind the work. It is cool so society capitalized upon it. No one forced this culture industry in New York but one still formed. Society does it to themselves and it took away the enlightening element in the art form.
If we were to consider the “culture industry” as a theory to fully articulate the social dynamics of modern culture, then most people might falsely assume modern humans are extremely materialistic. However it is not so much the case. Modern humans could be classified as wasteful materialists as they are first easily swayed to buy products, yet they throw their material away in order to obtain another product advertised as new and progressive but actually shares a general similarity to the tossed product.
The needs which Horkheimer & Adorno pointed out which society easily succumbs to are labeled as false needs. According to Marx, there is no distinction between a want and a need, therefore most objects we perceive as a necessity may very well be a false need. Needs change overtime because man has no essence, man is not stable and so as man changes overtime, so do needs. These needs, again are wasteful because they are advertised as of use-value, when in reality all products under a capitalist system is only of exchange-value. And hence, the culture industry is not only harmful towards consumers but even towards the laborers behind the product formation as they are forced to be detached from their own creation. The whole cycle becomes very apathetic and void of any genuine feelings. It does succeed, however, in making the public docile and content with their purchases, despite their current situation or economic standing. In turn, individuals rely on their commodities to represent their “individuality” when in reality, since commodities are not produced from one person to next, everyone more or less suffers a degree of “sameness”. Even artists, specifically low-income/unpopular artists are affected by the culture industry. Although some artworks can be used for income, their original use were not for economic purposes though. Most artists have no choice but to become alienated from their creative skills so that it can be of exchange-value in a capitalist society.
Horkheimer & Adorno do not present a “solution” for an Enlightenment-influenced modern society, and therefore based on their dialectic thinking and theory of “culture industry”, a solution may not exist. In order to completely escape culture, or get outside culture there is however one extreme measure: to become a monk. Known for their ideals placed on self-found peace, pleasure-less nirvana, and solidarity from the mass world, monks would be an ideal escape. However, of course some individuals cannot risk just walking away from the culture they have adapted to for years and therefore they must find a way back to equilibrium. Cutting less on material spending may be one method, or actually just to be content with one’s objects as of now. The real necessity that society needs is happiness. However happiness varies from one individual to the next; one’s moral and physical development determine what their limit of happiness is. If a person is more morally developed, then he/she is more sensitive towards happiness, meaning they will have a broader capacity for happiness.
The current consumer culture in Korea is a perfect example of Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the culture industry. Due to emphasis on looks and appearance (which according to Korean culture conveys how disciplined and well-put an individual is), many people are susceptible to buying the latest trends as soon as they are released for the purpose of appearing as the “ideal” person. For example, society uses fashion to bring out individuality, however when a trend becomes popular, individuality eventually just becomes conformity.
A post of Naver (Korean website for forums) titled “The power of fashion; Korea’s reality” shows multiple examples of people wearing the exact same outfit http://www.allkpop.com/upload/2015/04/af_org/buzz_1427996952_af_org.jpg , http://www.allkpop.com/upload/2015/04/content/buzz_1427996012_20150402_fashion_3.jpg , http://www.allkpop.com/upload/2015/04/content/buzz_1427996015_20150402_fashion_9.jpg ) to which many commented with: “Proof that we’re slave to trends, when something is the trend, we all rush to buy it. When it’s no longer a trend, we throw it away. Basically, we care a lot about how other people view our fashion,” “People should seek to express their individuality [through fashion,] but here, everyone just follows the trend,” and, “It even applies for chips. We freaking cry over honey butter chips.” (Source: allkpop)
Having the will to challenge or question any sort of authority is a responsibility, in fact it may even be innate. Critiquing or to examining the social, political and cultural structures is not a personality trait, or an opinion, it is an impulse created to protect our own well-being. The only way it diminishes or strengthens depends on the amount of practice society uses or urges.
This would be a great topic for your social media project.
The idea of a “culture industry” only exists when people contribute to it. The latest trend of clothing or the “newest/must try/innovative” ice cream shop, the more we buy into it the bigger it gets. The way out is to resist the urge to be a participant in the culture society. Although that was how the enlightenment sort of started. It was a way to free a person by removing the obstacles that puts a stop on their ability to think. The Enlightenment was suppose to free people from authoritarianism but it itself because an authoritarian. I believe that some people that wants to keep challenging their mind is good, however I don’t think that those who choose to remain under the authority of culture is less than those who choose to be free from culture.
I don’t think that the different types of structures within society should be above critique. These structures are made up of a group of people who are prone to mistakes. Therefore I think people should actively critique these structures in order for these structures to further better themselves within the society.
As Marcuse did in One Dimensional Man, Adorno and Horkheimer again talks about the culture industry and false needs. When reading the post you wrote “The Culture Industry cultivates false need; these needs created by and satisfied by capitalism. True needs, by way of contrast, are freedom, creativity, and genuine happiness.” It’s sort of the same thing Marcuse was saying in his book. You mentioned the Kardashians, yes they have made major profit from launching anything from clothes to makeup to games to emojis. People actually take time to not only watch their show but give in to buying the things they don’t need because of a television show telling them that this fashion is in. But what people don’t realize it, so they buy all these things from pop-stars paying top dollar when you can go to your local clothing store and buy the same look for a much lesser price. Commercials is another good one. This is where media really gets you. When you are just watching your favorite T.V. show and all these different commercials show up about shoes, clothing , cars etc. Now you start to think maybe I should buy this or that. Now you are on the internet purchasing things you really don’t need because you just saw it and it looked nice. What people have to realize as well is just because something looks good on someone else doesn’t mean it’s going to look good on them. People need to learn to have a mind of their own and understand its okay to not have exactly what they see on T.V.
Reading this text reminds me of the concept of “freedom.” The fact that most of those who live in this country are so proud of the “freedom” that it offers, but if you were to question them on that freedom, they wouldn’t know how to define it. Personally I don’t think I am free in this country. Yes I have many things to be thankful for that I did not have back home (home being another country) but I wouldn’t say I am free. Everything that we do has a purpose and that purpose is in order for others to benefit from it. From us going to the store to buy what we need to us going to our jobs and doing what we are told. It also plays a role in politics because we feel as though that because we can vote for who our next president will be, that we are free. When in deed we are not.
So Kant defines “Enlightenment” as humankind’s release from its self-incurred immaturity; “immaturity is the inability to use one’s own understanding without the guidance of another.” Enlightenment is the process of undertaking to think for oneself, to employ and rely on one’s own intellectual capacities in determining what to believe and how to act. He also believed that Enlightenment liberates us from authority. However Horkheimer and Adorno were conceded with the problem of the enlightenment due to modernity and post-modernity. They believe that enlightenment became totalitarian where now it is all about controlling nature and humans. It created a culture that violates individuality by compelling conformity. I do believe that people in society are being controlled by the culture industry. Everyone is falling into this concept of “false needs”. Buying things that are constantly being advertised just to look or feel a certain way about themselves. They feel like if they buy all these things they are conforming to society in a way. Everyone wants the latest phones, or all these name brand clothes, when they have cheaper versions that are actually the same exact thing. It is just the logo that people want to show off. We are all manipulated into falling for all these advertisements. So at the end of the day we are those who are losing.
There is a thing as a culture industry and in this era it is being advertised more than ever. Like Ardono and Horkheimer put it, Enlightenment is totalitarian and so is the culture industry. In essence we can look at the culture industry as yet another tool used by capitalist to control the population. Take for instance in many reported cases we see black and brown men and women alike turned down for job opportunities because of their styled hair (in this case dreadlocks). But in the same case would think it is cool for pop star Justin Beiber to have the same dreadlock hairstyle. This is a form of cultural appropriation; something that capitalist would not want to address but would gladly take the privileges that it can bring.
To say that there is no culture industry is to say that everyone is the same when in fact that is not the case. We can examine hip-hop culture to the lens of how Adorno and Horkheimer critiqued the culture industry. “Popular culture was constituted as a single culture industry whose purpose is to ensure the continued obedience of the masses to the market interests”. There is no denying that capitalist have not exploited the hip-hop culture and used it as a tool to control the masses. It is quiet evident that most mainstream hip-hop artiste are funneling the kind of message that capitalist wants the masses to get and for all humans, music is one of the easiest ways to get individuals to conform.
Below is a link of how we can look at cultural appropriation and gather an understanding of how the culture industry works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1KJRRSB_XA – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1KJRRSB_XA
According to Horkheimer and Adorno something went wrong with enlightenment. Enlightenment became totalitarian ; now it’s all about controlling nature and humans. The easy pleasure available through the consumption of popular culture makes people docile and content, no matter how difficult their life or economic circumstances may be. I couldn’t agree more with this statement, my generation is growing up in a society where many of us feel the need to look or feel a certain way. The Kardashians for example, have so much “power” over many people. They have millions of people who follow them on social media where they desire to look like them. We have an idea of what we have to look like to feel accepted. How is it that in minutes Kylie Jenner sold a crazy amount of lipsticks for $40 + (for a lipstick!!) but there are millions of people who don’t have any food. The culture industry cultivates false needs; these are needs created by and satisfied by capitalism. Capitalism is dominating nature and humankind and we are letting them and no one is doing anything to stop them.
Horkheimer and Adorno proposed that the formation of culture industry is due to the rise of monopoly capitalism. They are much critiqued about how culture industry functions literally like a factory, where the cultural goods such as films, radio programs et cetera, are being standardized and rationalized as an ideological medium of domination. As the manipulative power of culture industry grows day by day, the mass society falls into passivity. Such impact can weaken and strip away the critical thinking capacity of the individuals subconsciously.
We probably think we are living in a good and rational society. However, we all are the same as they state that culture industry offered the “freedom to choose what is always the same”. We hold their account of the culture industry intact with the developments of contemporary culture. For example, the Walt Disney is one of the corporate giants that shape youth identity in the Information Age. Historically, Disney stands out as an icon of American popular culture and middle class family values. Their focus on popular culture continually expands its products and services to reach every available media platform to maximize their profits. Their website ‘the Disney.com’ would even attract conscientious parents and transform every child into a lifetime consumer of Disney products and ideas. For instance, the Disney celebrity factory has long been emphasizing Hannah Montana (played by Miley Cyrus) as its lifetime Disney’s star making power. In fact, Disney aggressively markets Cyrus as a standardized pop icon by producing her music CDS, posters. Within this context of consumerism, Cyrus is seen a good role model for setting identities, values and aspirations among children especially young girls. Though Hannah Montana may be a superhero or a superstar for some of the audiences, her main responsibility in life is to entertain her fans and makes money. Many critics would also feel that the plot of the show is totally unrealistic and it would set an atrocious example for the young children who see the show. Regardless, the Disney Company is trying to gain public attention with their new shows via the use of extensive media for commercial aspect or profit making.
Hence in the realm of Adorno and Horkheimer, the contemporary culture industry such as the Walt Disney cannot grant genuine happiness to the masses as their contents are temporarily providing meaningless pleasure, in the sense to forget the rebellious mindset over the capitalism. This is so much akin to what Marcuse had argued earlier on the ‘One Dimensional Man’ that the danger of the culture industry is the cultivation of false needs that can only met and satisfied by the products of capitalism.
Today’s society is influenced by what they see on televisions, magazines, by what a celebrity is carrying or wearing. Capitalist target these points because they’re the ones that society will be mostly subjected to. Instead of looking at things that are actually needed society looks at things they want or that call their attention just because it is in that magazine that was recently purchased and of course it’s the May edition and it’s just April so you need to purchase things before anyone else, just to seem better than the rest. While in the midst of it they don’t stop to think there will be an item like the one that was just purchased available next month just a “updated” version and it just creates a snowball effect of false needs.
Like Adorno pointed out “pseudo-individualization”, the fact that items appear to be different, they have different brands names does not make them different. But because of the brand name or logo it carries, consumers buy. It doesn’t matter where you live in the world, that’s what it has turned into. Those purchases you make suddenly take away from the problems even if they are economically or at least that’s what people buy into. Going back to the image on your post by Rod Serling, society can spend hours selecting cars, because they have to try one or the other, does it have a front camera and back camera spend as much time selecting a cereal and maybe never even touching it the cereal for weeks to come and the same goes for so many other items. But the things they really need to sit down and think about, make critical decisions on are left up in the air. It’s because these are the things that you need to make a reach for, make an effort and that seems like too much work and its not being done for you.
Our culture is manipulated by media as well as other platforms. If you notice some programs only come on at certain times, “when the masses are home in front the television”. By putting on certain shows during these time slots if someone wanted to get a message across that would be the best place and time to do it. This is why certain commercials come on at certain times during a popular show. A new product could be promoted influencing people to go out and buy it.
There was a video on Facebook where an artist discussed that you have to sing what you are told. If you don’t you end up being shunned in the industry. Basically the music industry controls what people listen to, an artist whose lyrics go against the norms that are set for them are overshadowed by other artists who abide by the norms. Its hard to get outside of culture because its everywhere, as you step out of one aspect of it you may end up in another.
– Our contemporary culture has normalized the consumption of goods. Take for example the Kardashian family, they make a living out of promoting their market goods. In reality it’s much more than that, they have successfully introduced a fantasy that allows the average low socio-economic individual to tune into what they are doing, whether it be on social media or television, to escape their own life circumstances. Just recently Kylie Jenner, a member of the Kardashian clan, introduced her lip makeup line that completely sold out in minutes and does so every time she restocks it. Along with the lipstick line she promoted a music video that has lured the public to fall into this fantasy where her product is portrayed unique and cool within this existent popular culture. Jenner fans have become so eager in attaining her product since they feel that they need to have it in order to become a representation of the popular culture. Therefore these Jenner lipsticks are branded so differently so that the public can perceive them as a good that is miraculously different from any other brand. Adorno would argue here that this lipstick is made to appear different, but in reality it is no different than any other lipstick that can be found at a local store (pseudo-individualization). It’s the same object serving the same purpose the only thing that remains different is the “cool” packaging and famous signature. Becoming loyal consumers in no way challenges our mental capacity but rather keeps us busy so that we can remain forgetful of our own socio-economic status (false consciousness). Without any knowledge whatsoever we are puppets to these market companies. We are manipulated by advertisements that convince us that happiness is attained through material possessions. We are physically “free” to choose what goods we want, but we are mentally enslaved by the market world that tells us the goods we should attain.
Horkeheimer and Adorno’s critique of culture industry supports that reality TV is one of the many culprits of conformity within the masses. These shows allow the audience to project their lives onto those on the television because the cast is made up of ordinary people. Therefore, reality TV audiences are most likely on the spectrum of obsession with social status as the shows allow them to fantasize about gaining status through fame. For this reason, reality T.V. fosters a powerful distraction and provides itself as a standardizing point. For example, the show Jersey Shore gave rise to a culture of stereotypical “guidos” during its program. It is seen to attract the masses as their lingo became a norm at the time, like or “DTF” (Down to F***), “Gym, Tan, Laundry”, and popularly used in my high school, “grenade” (term used for unpleasant looking females).
More recently, Kylie Jenner has finally admitted to having lip injections to produce her full lips. According to the 2014 Plastic Surgery Statistic Report from the American Society of Plastic Surgeon, soft tissue fillers such as lip injections have increase 253% in 2014 from 2000. As a celebrity, and always a topic in the media, Kylie Jenner may have been the reason for many people seeking the same augmentation. Cultural industry and its conformity is seen here, as a celebrity figure becomes the standardizing point for facial construction.
Source: Hudson, Don A. “2014 Cosmetic Plastic Surgery Statistics.” Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 133.2 (2014): 459-61. 2014 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLASTIC SURGEON, 2014. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.
I always go to the gym, I wonder how many people go to the gym is because regular exercise is good for our health, but I know most of the people go to the gym is for an “ideal” body shape. The popular culture gives us the standard of ideal body shape, it gives women the message that skinny women are considered to be beautiful or attractive, it give men the message that men need to have muscle bulk to be attractive. But the mass media give people an unrealistic “ideal” body shape to people. Therefore, in order to achieve the ideal body shape, many people consume supplements to improve weight and shape. Recently, the protein powder getting very popular as a nutritional supplement, which made into a shake or different kinds of product contain the proteins. Capitalists use the idea of everyone wants a “perfect” body shape that attracts consumers to buy their products. In which, I can see the cultural industry create the false needs for people, and those false needs only can be satisfied by the products of capitalism. In this case, I can see how mass society manipulate us into passivity, we just follow what the popular culture tell us to, but we don’t think the reason we go to the gym for. The culture industry gives the false need to follow, but make us forget our true need.
Do you think that being willing to critique or to examine the social, political and cultural structures within the society in which we all live (as done in the social sciences) is a radical “leftist” project? Does challenging authority make you uncomfortable?
To the people in power, critiquing or examining the social, cultural and political structures within society is considered to be rebellious. That’s the label that could be attached to person’s challenging authority and the current structure of society. We can agree that people are timid to challenge authority for multiple reasons that result in negative consequences depending how it’s being done. Also, a many people are afraid to challenge authority is because they lack sufficient knowledge of these dynamics to even examine the structures of society. There are many people in the country who believe there is nothing wrong with society and that things are good the way they are. Some people don’t want change. So in their minds, why fix something that isn’t broke? But for the people who are gaining the knowledgeable, there are ways to go about challenging authority without suffering consequences. The most important action to take is to educate yourself, educate the people and critique, examine, challenge as a collective. The more people who are knowledgeable of these structures, the better off society will be.
It is obvious that capitalist has specifically targeted the culture industry to exploit and control the masses of society with an immeasurable amount of cultural good reproduction that we consume massively to satisfy desire rather than need. People are so locked into their ego’s that were developed under the influence of passivity and conformity that they fail to realize that they are being manipulated into this behavior. For example everyone wants what everyone else have, even if those things aren’t needed. What makes people desire them so much? where does the idea of possession come from? The idea is that massive production of desirable objects have led to a strong desire and acquaintances of the object once obtained. These kinds of objects are not like the ones which we had real use for around the time of questioning reality the “enlightenment”. For instance the telescope was able to tell us whether or not there was anotherbexplanation for the atmospheric behavior opposed to the held belief that it was caused by gods something that needed to be clarified. In today’s world items are reproduced for pleasure purposes people have the need to heavily consume things that are irrelevant and advertised through social media, or the web in general. Think about the people who consume large amounts of clothing. Is it necessary to have so much clothes that you won’t even get a chance to wear some of it until a year or 2 later and at the sametime still consume? Or 25 pairs of shoes and only wear 4?. Some people aren’t “critically aware” of this behaviour. These are things that are presented to the public to be acceptable and society is too blind to see that they aren’t the one’s really benefiting from the money they’ve earned. I hope that this is obvious that this is not the same as wanting to be “fly” and “look cute” but rather an excessive habit.
Another example is that every year a new version of the same phone is released and customers are offered a chance to upgrade to the next gen. Let’s say the price of the phone is $900 but you don’t have the money, but really want the new model. Company’s take advantage of that desire and conjure up alternatives. What these companies do is offer payment plans which allows you to get what you “want” at a portion of the expense and monthly charges and what does that mean? It means that you are now liable. Some people don’t even know what that is but as long as they get what they want they are willing to conform. This is not to say that a phones can not be an asset and for those that agree the question is, is it necessary that you replace what’s supposedly valuable to you for better picture quality? Why not just buy a camera instead?. And I say that because picture quality and resistance seem to be the only true features to upgrades and even so that purpose is of itself still conforming. Metaphorically you end up just working for another object other than ”money”.
Kanye West speaks about this very same matter in his song called “New Slaves,”. Which happens to be an elaborated discussion based on American consumer culture and other aspects of society. But he himself takes control of the desire of fashion. Society also forces people to conform to this behavior as well, because if you don’t have something everyone else has you may be viewed as an outsider. Having a car gives prestige in society a symbol of wealth, not because that is purpose, but because that is how people view it that way and capitalist love to manipulate views.
The Capitalist framework lets us think we have choices when we don’t. We just keep getting sucked into these false needs and it will never end. Critical thinking and personal choices and thoughts are becoming extinct.The easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture made people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances.” “The Culture Industry cultivates false needs: these are needs created by and satisfied by capitalism.” These two sentences from this post stood out to me because our society today will spend too much money and too much time falling into the money grabbing traps that our contemporary culture sets. It’s amazing to me how Kylie Jenner can come out with a lipstick that sells out within seconds of restocking. People love Kylie Jenner and so they will buy an expensive lipstick because it has her name on it. They have the same things for cheaper but it’s not as marketable because it doesn’t have the Kylie Jenner name attached to it. Our society just feeds into the manipulation from people like the Kardashians and willingly give them way too much money that they don’t even need. It’s amazing and quite alarming, the influence certain people have over our society. It’s not just a few people who get caught in it, it’s mass amounts of people from all over the world. Our culture industry makes us think we have a choice of whether or not to buy certain things but we don’t. The other part of this is not having enough money to buy into these commodities, yet do it anyway. Believe it or not people will waste their rent money on stuff like bags, makeup, etc. Instead of being happy you have a roof over your head, you need the latest Michael Kors bag to make you happy. This is all cultivated by our capitalist society and false needs brought about by the culture industry.
The Enlightenment liberates us from authority. Adorno and Horkheimer believe the Enlightenment to be totally totalitarian because it about controlling nature and humans. It created a culture that violates individuality by compelling conformity. Horkheimer and Adorno critiques the cultural industry where popular culture is similar to producing cultural goods such as film, radio, magazines and many more. These thing are used to manipulate the masses in society to that they can be passive docile and content even if they are facing difficult economic circumstances. They are cultivated into the false psychological needs that can on be met and satisfied by the product of capitalism. In our contemporary culture we see many advertisements for people to get healthier or lose weight. On television, radio, social media and etc. there are advertisement for fat burning pills, waist trainers for women and men, more gym member ship commercials and many more other things that can give a person a better body . They usually say you have to purchase more than one item in order for it to work or theirs another catch to it. Many times when advertising these things companies usually put an image of a celebrity next to the product or the ask them to be the face of the product do it can sell. You can see these celebrities advertising products themselves through their social media page. They sell the product making people believe that it will work because the want to look like that celebrity.
When critiquing or examining social, political and cultural structures within society in which we all live is not a radical leftist project, we need to be critical in order to understand the world around us. Challenging authority can be uncomfortable depending on the situation. Being taught at a young age that you must always listen and do as you are told will always be a part of me or anyone else that was taught the same thing.
Society’s takeover by modern culture is a prime example of Horkeheimer and Adorno’s critique of culture industry. One area of this industry in particular which has become increasingly popular within recent years is the rush by many to become YouTube/Vine/Instagram famous. The social media culture has steadily taken over the minds of everyone within today’s society as no other materialistic trend has done. It affects the young and the old alike. It has consumed the minds of many and has even become the ultimate life goals of many people trying to “make it” into the “popular” elitist society which exists in today’s social media culture. Whether it be funny videos, hair and makeup tutorials, motivational speech or how-to shows, thousands of people’s lives have been consumed by trying to create a channel that has the potential to go viral and capture people’s attention, ultimately gaining them some kind of D- class fame.
As Adorno and Horkeheimer pointed out, the cultural processes involved in the development of these social media channels has penetrated the very fabric of our society and almost erased our individuality. While everyone is fighting to become the next “it” person on social media, they change themselves unconsciously to fit into the framework of what the masses want to see on social media. Their humor and personality is no longer authentic but a cookie cutter product of years of conditioning by watching other popular social media personalities and a relinquishing of true individuality.
Although it is not my personal experience, my sister has had the opportunity of knowing an individual who become “Youtube” famous, and her experience confirms the critique which Horkeheimer and Adorno proposed. This individual became famous for her openness about her difficult past in addition to popular hair tutorials for black natural hair. Her initial rise to popularity on YouTube seemed to be because of a genuine display of individuality. However, as her popularity grew, her videos became more and more staged and clearly became more of an appeal to gain popularity even faster. When my sister was introduced to this YouTube personality face to face and began to work with her on a regular basis, her only critique was that she seemed empty and “airheaded.” Her conversation was apparently full of nonsense and superficial, and a person who once seemed genuine behind a camera, was proven to be narcissistic and focused on boosting her own ego. The art of individuality through social media postings has become a race to who can gain the likes of the mass population faster, even if it means losing oneself in the process.
Being willing to critique or examine any aspect of life or thought is possibly the farthest thing from being radical or leftist as you can get. Examining the world from you own perspective along with registering your thoughts along the lines or in contrast to others is a purely human and real compulsion. Challenging authority should not engage fear in anyone but be applauded, although in our current society could have deadly consequences.
Horkheimer and Adorno explain that the enlightenment objectified nature and man in order to cut it off from the world.They explain culture is mass produced through a commodification process that give us a constant feeding tube of false need satisfaction. Pop culture continues to display the same simple themes that man engages with and gives meaning to. Arun Appadurai in his book “The Social Life of Things” fundamentally supports that nature, culture, and man are objects and commodities that hold their own meanings to people. The same way a simple ring gains value through its passage of time through a family’s generations, culture gains meaning and commodifies itself by being passed from person to person over time and distances. A commodity is only an object that gains value through exchange, whether it be a physical exchange, emotional exchange, or verbal exchange.
Here we see the commodification take on it’s own light, enlightenment as a modern concept and commodified object exists to only to gain more power and exchange value when the authorities that control it permit it to be used by those who can’t obtain it. An example of this would be the church pre-enlightenment holding all the knowledge and when science and reading became more relevant for the lower classes it gave its knowledge to the people. Not always in the most willing ways but rather than hiding and slipping into the shadows with it’s science it gave its mysteries to the people with the bible. Not every secret was dispelled but as an authority the church gave wind to the idea of the enlightenment, which gave more power to the thinkers attempting to break away from its ideas while also spreading it’s “good word” by printed means even faster and farther.
Capitalism creates control over culture. Everything becomes “standardized” to conform to the “mass culture”. Meaning their is no spontaneity in the commodities we produce. Popular music. Is a good example because it has conformed to satisfy the mass culture. It is no longer traditional art or spontaneous it is now standardized. As Adorno states, “they are expected to want that to which they have become accustomed and to become enraged whenever their expectations are disappointed and fulfillment”. So popular music is a great example, it stays within the framework of what a general population would want, instead of breaking out from this structure, because artists want their music to conform to what Adorno would describe as the “ mass culture”. Commodities like music, films… are monopolized in capitalism.
This is not a radical “ leftist” project, it simply provides us with a social framework in which we operate. Critical analysis of dimensions in society is important in order to understand the general context in which we live in. Challenging authority makes me uncomfortable because authority has been so indebted within my brain. From a young age we are always taught to follow rules. Everywhere I go i’m being controlled. It could either be in my house by my parents, School with teachers or outside with state police. Our behavior are constantly being reinforced in every environment were in from a young age. Even though challenging authority can make some feel uncomfortable. I think it’s crucial in order to bring progressive change and inform people about the systematic framework they live in.
Our own selfish selective beliefs in culture can cause people ( populist) angry and culture can also cause passivity, because not alot of people are willingly able to stand up and challenge authoritarian systems because as Marcuse suggested people have no critical thinking away from the oppressive structures. Technology creates both passivity and populist anger. People do not challenge this apparatus because as statistics show our will to rebel has gone down compared to history, so we are most likely to stay within the general frameworks of the exploitative technological systems than challenge them . As Marcuse suggest, technological rationalization creates our thoughts to “ one dimensional” and we are not able to think outside of that given framework. Technology doesn’t just create passivity it also creates populist anger because some people realize the exploitative nature of technology, like Marx. This effort represents the “ collectivity” of the leftists , willing to throw down this system.
Developments in our contemporary culture has digressed. During the progressive era there were set goals to accomplish in order to acquire a sense of unity and development, like banning child labor, setting minimum wage, etc. During the Enlightenment the goal was to scientifically explain life and developments. Today our goal is to achieve the Kardashians look. Everyone is concerned about the latest product that is being worn that they cant live without. The media is setting unrealistic goals for viewers to aspire to. Boys look up to professional athletes and females look up to the latest it girl. We are trying to buy our way into acceptance. Horkheimer would say that these representations are to encourage the continued obedience to the mass of marketing interests. They cultivate false needs. If women want to be considered beautiful they have to acquire that Kardashian glow. The only way an average person can maintain with the ever changing media’s interpretation of beauty is to fall into this continuous cycle of shopping to get that perfect look. We believe that we can buy our happiness if we just purchase what these celebrities have. Which continues our poverty cycle and will keep us as working class.
Challenging authority would make anyone uncomfortable. I think the only way someone would feel comfortable with challenging authority is if they themselves hold some type of power. Most of the time the average Joe doesn’t realize they are conforming to an authoritarian, i believe most trump supporters wouldn’t admit to the need to feel dominated. They’ll just say he’s a strong leader or he has some good plans. As much as i try to speak up when my views are different, sometimes you just confirm to or privately oppose the authoritarian
Horkheimer and Adorno argued that art or culture in a capitalist society has become a commodity, one which makes the mass population docile and easily controlled. This concept is easily seen when looking at the Kardashians, or any reality television show. By making art and culture another form of existing reality, there is no means to think critically of it, and it is easily consumed and understood. Watching the Kardashians is more about telling the masses what they should wear, what they should look like- what they should consume. What is interesting about the Kardashians is that it not only gives an idea of what people should consume, but it produces the commodities as well; the Kardashians have a store where they sell clothes they think are in fashion, they have their own clothing line, and makeup line. By doing so, people don’t have to do any thinking, and can keep doing what they are expected to do in a capitalist society- consume, consume, consume. Horkheimer and Adorno held that cultural goods would appear different when in fact they are just different versions of the same thing. I see this when comparing the Kardasian’s clothing/makeup/perfume line, to Mary-Kate and Ashely Olsen’s fashion/makeup/perfume line. While Mary-Kate and Ashely Olsnen’s products are considered “high fashion,” it still performs the same way the Karshian’s does; It tells people of various social classes what they should be wearing, what they should look like and ultimately what they should be consuming. By keeping the masses focused on such surface false needs, they rarely think about or deeply consider important social conditions, making it easier for individuals in positions of power to dominate the masses.
I think we can definitely see a retrogression in our current culture. this retrogression is in many places not just in figures like the kardashians but also in policies. We had presidential candidates saying that they are running for president because “god told them to” and no one is questioning their reasoning or questioning them on any of their polices. we also see this lack of questioning when we go on instagram and other social media. we see every girl looking the same with overly contoured noses and nude lipstick on. its like everyone had this same generic look because that’s the look that is currently popular. no one thought to contour their noses before 2015 but now your makeup look isn’t complete without it. this lack of thinking for oneself makes us all followers but the weird thing about current culture is we know all the things we see from social media, reality television, to politics is all manufactured but we all still look and believe in these things. i think critical thinking about current culture is so important. because even though we know all of the things i listed above are fake we would begin to question why we follow them and help ourselves break free from having to think in those boxes they create.
When I first entered college it was because my parents made me. It wasn’t something I decided but as the years started to pass, I learned to appreciate my education more each day. Being in college also made me open my eyes to the world around me. I learned different aspects of politics that I would’ve never learned on my own. College helped me find myself and it also helped figure out what career I want to pursue. I’m not in college to get a credential and have something to put on my resume. I am in college because I want to take my knowledge and put it towards my future career as an Education Policy Analyst. If it wasn’t for being enrolled in college, I wouldn’t have been motivated to start my journey as an Education Policy Analyst. The process of being in college is difficult and may discourage many students in the long run. There are some aspects of college that I don’t agree with. In one of my classes, my professor told us that she had a student who really wanted to enroll in her class but he didn’t have the money to enroll. Although she let him stay in class, he didn’t receive any credit for her class. There are many students who can’t afford to enroll in college and these students miss out on appreciating education and finding a new career path. The fact that I get financial aid makes me realize I have an opportunity to attend college for free. I don’t think I would afford college if it wasn’t for financial aid. This is more of a reason why I don’t take my education for granted. I also hope that in the future, college will be made more affordable for students to attend.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Now tell me how concepts from Dialectic of Enlightenment explain this experience.
Thank you. Please tell me how concepts from Dialectic of Enlightenment explain your experience.
Horkheimer’s and Adorno’s critiques of the culture industry really affirm the negative aspect of the developments in our contemporary culture when looking at the 21st century’s marketing techniques. We live in a culture in which we idolize superstars and forget about many other people who make up society, we forget the majority of the world because they are not the ones to constantly have the spotlight. It is because of this that ideals have reached a level of impossibility that is unlike anything ever seen before. I recently watched the documentary Miss Representation for a Gender Sociology class and the increased statistics for eating disorders in teenage girls is really shocking. Although there has always been an issue with the media portraying ideals that are almost impossible to attain, the fact is that social media has definitely caused an increase because of the extent at which young women are exposed to this.
“The easy pleasures available through consumption of popular culture made people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances.”
Is a quote that really caught my attention within this reading and it may help explain why I think marketing is of such importance. When looked at through the point of marketing this quote makes me think of the common phrase, “retail therapy”. While many years ago this may not have existed it is a very common way in which people now try to relax and forget about their problems. However, as much fun as shopping may be it truly does not help in the big scheme of things, it is simply a manner of attaining something which has been targeted to us, and which we think will help make us happy (until perhaps you see your next credit card bill, and then that becomes your newest problem). But, the problem is that the feeling of excitement will only last for as long as the next item being marketed reaches the person’s eyes and becomes their new “need”. This kind of daily struggle with marketing, retail, and body image is one that consumes the majority of people in the 21st century, making it impossible to ever truly focus on much more.
Adorno and Horkheimer’s key argument is that the culture industry became a force of mass deception after the enlightenment. They argue that the industry became standardized and controlled by large corporations. Adorno and Horkheimer are critical of the culture industry because it doesn’t encourage a society of freedom and individuality; rather it promotes mass culture and industrialization. They argue that this is done through manipulation and making people think they have a choice, when in reality they don’t. Adorno and Horkheimer saw this mass-produced culture as a danger to the more difficult high arts in our society. They claim that the media and culture industry was made into commodities
An example of the media and our culture being made into a commodity is the Kardashian- Jenner clan. This family has their own TV show, App, makeup line, clothing store, video game and many more items to add to their franchise. However they did nothing to deserve their fame to start with. To start The Kardashians reality empire has become simply mass-produced, all of the Kardashian television shows are altered to look a certain way and are edited so that one will never know what exactly happened. Adorno and Horkheimer warn us that mass produced culture is a danger. They have created numerous seasons of their lives and have aired two weddings and one birth within the family. The Kardashian family has become extremely wealthy over the obsession our culture has with them. Our society is obsessed with the Kardashian family and can be entertained by anything that they do. The Kardashian’s are icons and everything they create and endorse does so well. However not because it is a great product but because they have created a commodity in today’s society that people are willing to do anything to become more like them.
What I see as the end game to my education is a path to a better life with more opportunities for me to succeed. Yes I am conforming to society’s view as a way to get ahead but what other choice is there? Not everyone can be a Mark Zuckerberg or a Bill Gates. They are one of the lucky few that ended up dropping out of college and succeeding far beyond their expectations. As for me, I’m in college for one simple reason: Post 9/11 G.I. Bill. When I enlisted back in 2010 I didn’t even know about the potential benefits I was going to receive after getting honorably discharged. Honestly, this came to me as a surprise and because of that surprise I ended up attending school two days after I returned home from Germany. I’ve never looked back since. If it wasn’t for the Post 9/11 G.I. Bill I don’t know where I would be today. This comes back to taking advantage of any opportunity that comes your way.
“Knowledge-seeking does not occur through a neutral acquisition of information; it’s connected to power: power over nature, and power over each other.”
I agree with what you wrote here whole-heartedly because I can relate this to my experience in college. Obtaining a degree equals to more job opportunities which then leads to money which then, potentially, leads to power.
Thank you. As it was the case with the two comments above your comment, please tell me how concepts from Dialectic of Enlightenment explain your experience.