Brynne post 8

Brynne Piotrowski

Step 1
In concluding his 1975 article “Culture Industry Reconsidered” Theodor Adorno summarizes his view of the culture industry by saying, “The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness”(4). This statement is the crux of what Adorno sees as dangerous and stifling about the homogenization and commodification of culture.

Adorno sees a particular problem in the tendency of the culture industry to operate on a superficial level and to cause its participants (anyone who “partakes” of modern culture) to become inclined to live on this same shallow plane. He is incensed by not only the superficiality of the culture industry, but also by its concurrent false premises; “The culture industry perpetually cheats its consumers of what it perpetually promises,” states Adorno (The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception 10). Later in the same essay, Adorno claims that even when the culture industry does deliver, the consumer does not often realize the “impotence and untruth of the messages it [the culture industry] conveys.”

A final danger Adorno sees in the homogenization and commodification of culture is the loss of the individual. To Adorno, this is both a cause and effect of the stifling of creativity and the creation of an actual culture “industry.” Adorno says the term industry “refers to the standardization of the thing itself...” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 2) and it is this industry that “impedes the development of autonomous, independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 5). Using the logic that such individuals are “the precondition for a democratic society,” Adorno thereby argues that the homogenization of culture constitutes a threat to democracy. Commodification poses a potent risk because (as Dr. Musgrave’s PowerPoint presentation discusses) within the “instrumental rationality” of the culture industry, the human being is transformed from an individual into an instrument. Conformity becomes the only acceptable option and creativity is stifled, as Adorno states in How to Look at Television with his observation that “The ideals of conformity and conventionalism…have been translated into rather clear-cut prescriptions of what to do and what not to do” (220).

Adorno sees significant dangers in the homogenization and commodification of culture because it operates on a superficial level that reduces the individual to an instrument. He carries his fears a step further to claim that these effects of the culture industry can even pose a risk to a democratic society. To Adorno, these cultural phenomena run counter to the values of individuality and creativity that he reveres.


Step 2
The culture industry appears to be self-promoting and self-propagating. The evidence to support the claim that is has continued and expanded exponentially since the time of Adorno’s writings (approximately 60 years ago for his first publication) is virtually innumerable. Prime support for this claim is the expansion of television news networks. No longer do ABC, NBC, and CBS dominate the field. These so-called “big three” now face competition from other networks such as FOX and CNN and their countermove is to themselves expand (CNBC, MSNBC, ABC Family Channel, etc.).

In How to Look at Television, Adorno notes how “popular culture is no longer confined to certain forms such as novels or dance music, but has seized all media or artistic expression….Their output has increased to such an extent that it is almost impossible for anyone to dodge them” (215). Adorno has a very potent argument—satellites provide viewers with thousands of television channels, hundreds of radio stations are available through this technology as well. Megaplex movie theaters frequently have 16 or more screens and still are not able to show all the films produced for a given viewing period. Printed periodicals infuse the public with not just news but also with culture; indeed, there are entire publications devoted to modern culture, style, trends, etc. Furthermore, these cultural mediums are complemented (or perhaps trumped) by that one unique technological phenomenon—you knew it was coming—the internet.

One last piece of evidence of the continuation and expansion of the culture industry is the integration of various forms of media. The aforementioned mediums of relaying culture (television, radio, movies, etc.) often carry their impact over to the internet to increase the number of people they reach. A specific example would be the much-hyped “YouTube” debates hosted by CNN for the upcoming 2008 presidential election. These involved professional television, an internet site, and amateur videos—all of which not only contributed their unique cultural elements, but also combined to host a debate (an important part of the culture industry in and of itself). Adorno appears to take a hostile tone when observing how, “The more inarticulate and diffuse the audience of modern mass media seems to be, the more mass media tend to achieve their ‘integration’” (How to Look at Television, 220). Regardless of his wariness, there is irrefutable evidence that the culture industry (and therefore mass media) have continued and expanded exponentially, thereby broadening its audience. It is doubtful that this pattern will reverse in the near future; rather, current trends seem likely to continue and further the propagation of the culture industry.


Step 3
I think two ideal examples of a formulaic culture industry product built to target a specific audience are movies on the Lifetime Network and sitcoms geared toward women, such as Golden Girls or Designing Women. “Lifetime” movies must fit a specific time allotment and tend to incorporate certain elements such as suspense, love, lust, secrets, and relationship issues, among other factors. Likewise, sitcoms geared toward women have their own requirements. They must be relatively concise, often have women in the leading role(s), deal with relationship or “guy” problems, and provide comic relief in the interactions between the girl(s) and their friends. On the other side of the spectrum are freely and imaginatively created art works. Abstract Expressionist pieces—such as those by Pollock, Rothko, or de Kooning—illustrate the idea (at least in the sense of principles) of works created without a prefabricated framework. As a specific instance, Pollock’s paintings demonstrate this freedom and imagination in both the large size of many of his canvases and his innovative drip-painting technique.

Adorno saw personal creativity as the difference between formulaic culture industry products built according to specs of some target audience and freely and imaginatively created art works. It is the presence of an artist’s or individual’s intentions or self-expression that delineates between these two areas. In How to Look at Television Adorno explained the creation of formulated cultural products: “the total setup here [mass media production, in this particular instance] tends to limit the chances of the artists’ projections utterly. Those who produce the material follow, often grumblingly, innumerable requirements, rules of thumb, set patterns, and mechanisms of controls which by necessity reduce to a minimum the range of any kind of artistic self-expression” (226). As such, the difference between the cultural products created specifically for consumption by a certain audience and those produced freely and imaginatively is evident not only in the end result, but in the very act of production.

Adorno was concerned about this difference because it contributes to the homogenization of culture. As I previously noted, Adorno stated that “The power of the culture industry’s ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness” (Culture Industry Reconsidered 4). He is concerned that conformity in culture (i.e. products built according to a specific framework for a particular audience) will lead to conformity in individual participants in culture. The resultant conformity of the population will only serve to heighten the call for “acceptably conformed” cultural products and the cycle will continue round and round with the homogenization of both the culture and the individuals ever increasing.