The Culture Industry at Work

The culture industry is undeniably one that we are all part of and, therefore, influences us time and time again. Persuaded by the famous work of Marx and Weber, critical theorists Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer coined the culture industry in 1944 (During). This name was agreed upon after much debate, as they considered naming their work “mass culture” but decided it incorrectly assumed culture arises spontaneously from the people (de Peuter). The pair worked out of The Frankfurt School of Critical Theory where they studied the effects of culture in capitalist societies, summing up their concerns into an effective piece of literature entitled “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” (de Peuter). Although seen in a negative light by Adorno and Horkheimer, it is crucial to consider its positive aspects as well. The rise of the culture industry is seen as a positive event for media theorists such as Walter Benjamin because it provides the ability to reproduce art on a mass scale (Laughey 38). This paper will outline Adorno and Horkheimer’s pessimistic view of the culture industry, along with the theory’s limitations and its relevance in today’s society. More specifically, it will discuss three defining characteristics of the culture industry: the ability to mass-produce, the monopolistic market and technological advancements.
Adorno and Horkheimer believe the culture industry is comparable to the entertainment industry with respect to its mass production of commodities such as film and music (Laughey 123). Cultural events, including art, are being transformed into commodities, otherwise known as a physical object that can be bought and sold. An example of this pertains to live theatre and film. At one time the audience paid to see a particular play or film and once it was over, it could not be seen again without repeating the process of going back to see it live. Nowadays, with the continuous improvement in technology and recording devices, plays are often turned into movies which are sold and watched over and over again. Effectively, everyone has access to culture at all times.
Within the culture industry there is a strategy which Adorno terms “rubbish,” where consumers are forced to accept all information provided to them (Laughey 123). This passive audience does not doubt the material provided to them and routinely agrees without thought. The only actual audience engagement is in consuming the product. Owned and controlled by capitalist classes, this industry has the power to spread ideas and values. Included are the classes with the most power such as steel, petroleum, electricity and chemical industries (Laughey 123).
Referring to both products and consumers, the outlining argument of the culture industry, according to Adorno, is that of standardization. Standardization accounts for the production, as well as the demand for such production (Laughey 124). The culture industry is labelling society in a way that “like commodities, there is nothing left for the consumer to classify. Producers have done it for him [sic]” (Laughey 124). Ultimately, the substance of the message does not matter, but that something is provided for all audiences, leaving no one out and forcing everyone to be involved. If the culture industries manipulative control were escaped, people would likely see the way they consciously perform on a daily basis and challenge the capitalist elite (Laughey 125). This, however, is not the case for Adorno as he sees this as “dumbing down” our society. Individuals believe the advertisements put out by firms and are convinced engaging in the product is in their best interest when, in fact, “it is made by a few highly-trained, profit-seeking producers and packaged for mass consumption” (Laughey 125). This influence in which the masses trust they have made the choice on their own is what Adorno coins “pseudo-individualization.”
Popular music producers, such as Justin Beiber, One Direction, Conor Maynard and those similar, effectively illustrate the culture industry thesis. These artists are very popular today and catch the attention of most teenagers because they produce successful music that “fans” love and continue to listen to album after album. Here, the word “fans” appears in quotation marks because, according to Adorno, artists such as these are marketed to the individual consumers, in this case teenyboppers, who are inevitably “fans” (Laughey 125). The directors recognize this popularity which encourages the rise of new boy bands that will essentially produce the same music and attract a similar audience. This cycle repeats itself, continuously bringing rise to new popular music fads. This is equally true for females in the music industry, such as Miley Cirus, Selena Gomez and Britney Spears. These are all top 40 artists who are constantly being replicated because it is what people know and like and, ultimately, guarantees success. According to Kelsey Porter, these artists are “human beings treated as manufactured goods that can be purchased or replicated, just like a Barbie doll or an iPod.” This example proves that this industry is no longer about the talent of these music stars but about how much money they can produce; essentially, this industry is a business.
This, of course, raises the question of why consumers continue to fall for the culture industry’s products if everything sounds the same. This is reasoned through the fact that because people are so used to listening to similar sounds repeatedly, and do so for leisure, it becomes effortless and does not require thought (Laughey, 124). This also exemplifies the culture industry as a monopoly, where one firm controls the market. “Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows” (Adorno & Horkheimer). This explains the industry as representing a monopoly where a select few have power and, ultimately, run the market.
Along with the production of popular music, the culture industry can also be applied to films and magazines. Comparing the films, “No Strings Attached” to “Friends with Benefits” is an example that illustrates standardization quite nicely. Opening only a few months apart, these romantic comedies are strangely alike. They both have plot lines that start with two friends who attempt to have a sexual relationship with no feelings attached and end up falling in love. After viewing the success of one movie, arguably the same movie was produced, staring different characters. The films are so much the same that they demonstrate the same concept, same storyline, same point of view and even the same camera angles (Blind Film Critic). Although “Friends with Benefits” was seen as lacking originality it was produced because it attracts a similar audience and, therefore, will generate predictable box office results. This is one of the many examples of the culture industry becoming apparent in film, as many of the same story lines are produced over and over again without individual’s consciousness recognizing this.
With the technology that is accessible today, the culture industry is as strong as ever before. Because of the constant growth in knowledge, consumers are always looking for the most up to date technology, whether we are aware of it or not. It may not be realized that each time the most innovative piece of technology is purchased, whether it be the latest Apple product or most fully equipped vehicle, we are commodifying ourselves. Genuine experiences are no longer felt because producers victimize consumers by creating and marketing products they know will sell (Porter). In more recent years, marketing and the media have a tremendous impact on our lives. Subconsciously, consumers are buying into this market to get the latest product day after day. As demonstrated by the examples above, the culture industry is present and continues to excel, leaving no choice but to accept the fact that it is relevant in today’s society.
Adorno and Horkhemier’s culture industry, as with any theory, raise many possible limitations that are open for much debate. In most ways the culture industry is all encompassing and fails to account for those who do not conform to standard trends. Of course, it is inevitable that outliers exist who do not follow the same patterns as the “typical” consumer. “If individuals like Rosa Parks and homosexuals go against the norm, these individuals are effectively weakening the power of the ruling class and creating a genuine experience, in this case a fight for equality” (Porter). The culture industry does not take these people into account and, therefore, it does not fairly represent the entire population. Additionally, the culture industry can be criticized for not considering that all mass-produced goods are arguably the same. Horkheimer and Adorno acknowledge, “what connoisseurs discuss as good or bad points serve only to perpetuate the semblance of competition and range of choice” (Adorno & Horkheimer). One of the many possible examples to illustrate this lies in the car industry. Some cars are fully loaded with GPS systems and Bluetooth and others are basic compact cars with CD players. Regardless whether it is a Lexus, a Honda or a Kia these vehicles are all identical commodities in different shapes and colours with the sole purpose of getting the driver from one place to another. The culture industry fails to consider the sameness between commodities. A third possible limitation, challenged in more recent years by a “cultural industries approach,” notice the lack of singularity, is Adorno’s conception of a monolithic culture industry (Laughey 126). This approach emphasizes various cultural texts that are formed and rejects the top-down model which is evident in the theory of standardization. Because of the strong emphasis on issues of ownership and consumption, symbol creators, including writers, directors, producers and performers have been ignored in the writing of the culture industry (Laughey 126). Arguably, owners are not in complete control of what gets produced, rather they are merely given a voice in the decisions. Within the cultural industries approach “attention is redirected from how capitalism impacts upon creative work to how capitalism manages, organizes and provides the conditions within which creativity can be realized” (Negus & Pickering 50). Creative workers are not entirely restrained but are no doubt influenced by capitalist economies. Ultimately, Adorno and Horkheimer overstate the monolithic nature of the culture industry.
Through the shortcomings and whether seen as having a positive impact or a negative impact on society, the culture industry continues to develop and thrive. When considering this theory it is important to consider that it was written in the 1940s, during the end of WWII when Adorno and Horkheimer were refugees. This was also a time when Hollywood was still vertically integrated, television was not fully developed and demographic sectors were not clear (During). Evidently the culture industry has caused a shift from an artisanal stage to an industrial stage in which the freedom and individuality of millions is lost (During). After studying the work of these famous scholars it has become apparent that a vast majority of the population are guilty of falling into the trend of being manipulated by producers without being aware of it. Adorno and Horkheimer make the reader feel caught for buying into this trend, which proves the theory to be both convincing and applicable. The culture industry makes it impossible to deny, “meaning has come to an end” (Porter).

Work Cited

Adorno, Theodor, and Max Horkheimer. "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception." Dialectic of Enlightenment. Continuum International Publishing Group, 1967.

Blind Film Critic. Friends with Benefits vs. No Strings Attached- Trailer Mashup . YouTube, 2011. Web. 27 Nov 2013. .

de Peuter, Greig. "The Culture Industry." P1025/1027, Waterloo. 25 Oct 2013. Lecture.

During, Simon, ed. of Theodor Adorno & Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception: Editor’s Introduction.” The Cultural Studies Reader, Second Edition. New York: Routledge, 1999.

Laughey, Dan. "Adorno: culture industry or cultural industries?" Key Themes in Media Theory. 2007. Reprint. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010. 123-127. Print.

Laughey, Dan. "Benjamin: art and mechanical reproduction." Key Themes in Media Theory. 2007. Reprint. New York: McGraw Hill, 2010. 38. Print.

Negus, Keith, and Michael Pickering. Creativity, Communication and Cultural Value. London: Sage, 2004. 50. Print.

Porter, Kelsey. "Horkheimer and Adorno's Culture Industry: Loss of Genuine Dialogue and Variation Due to Media and Mass Marketing ." University of Colorado. Web. 25 Nov 2013. .