Welcome dear participants to the third module
of the sixth week.
In the previous module we had discussed about
Adorno and Horkheimer views on contemporary
culture particularly on the culture industry.
In this current module we would continue with
this discussion and would also extend on these
critical approaches.
Adorno and Horkheimer have been critical of
the sameness of the products of culture industry
which is against their idea of authentic art,
they say that culture industry allows only
the freedom to choose what is always the same,
it is interesting to refer to one of the statements
by Adorno when he says and I quote, “every
visit to the cinema leaves me against all
my vigilance stupider and worse”.
So, we find that Adorno's criticism of film
as a product of the culture industry is not
only limited to the production of the sound
systems in a film but it goes beyond that.
The film as such had been a product of the
contemporary technological innovation but
at the same time, there had been certain non-graphic
elements which have also been used and built
on in the movies and these nongraphic elements
of films have had societal histories as well
as clearly discernible and explainable social
roles outside the films, for example, music.
And Adorno's views on these nongraphic elements
of the films helps us to understand the ideological
operations of culture which ultimately result
in the cultivation of a particular type of
an individuality.
These views can be seen in a book with the
title of Composing for the Films which has
been co-authored by Hanns Eisler and Theodor
Adorno and it was published in 1947.
As we have already seen, Adorno has been critical
of the sameness and the formulaic presentation
and production of products of the culture
industry.
He has said that though the films are capable
to present certain closeness to the reality
but they also blur the divide between the
reality and the artifice and they use different
resources for that.
The technological resources are there but
at the same time, the aura of the film stars,
this starts system is also used to blind the
people towards the reality of life.
He also says that the element of music is
also used to produce this type of sameness
in the ultimate production of the movies.
He refers to the jazz and the popular music
which do possess predictable notes and chords.
The predictability of music and its soothing
and calming effect on man and effect which
dulls the mind and therefore soothes the mind
can also be seen in the portrayal of George
Orwell’s, famous book 1984 in which he has
depicted the dumping effect of the songs which
are being continually played by the big brother
over there.
So, consumer is lulled into a sense of security
through the predictability of these notes,
the predictability of these sounds and it
is exactly the same aspect which has been
delineated very sensitively by George Orwell
in his novel 1984.
So Adorno says that everything in the movies
is expected and the tastes are predefined,
so there is no appeal to the criticality of
the audience as far as the products of the
culture industry are concerned.
They consumed uncritically and therefore they
suppress the cognition, the thought patterns
of the viewers also.
The cultural industries are capable of turning
rationality against itself.
The rhetoric of the culture industry is very
clear because they say that there is nothing
which is at stake because these industries
are ultimately ‘only entertainment’.
But Adorno is able to show how these entertainments
are not simply entertainments at the superficial
levels and how deeper meanings are taste to
them.
According to him, the culture industry and
the entertainment which is provided by them,
frustrates the actual needs and desires of
the people and promises them false hopes without
actually delivering these promises to them
at any moment.
It impairs any effort at critical distance
from immediate gratification.
So, Adorno was one of the very first critics
to point out the harm which immediate gratification
of the desire through the medium of art is
there.
And according to his; this immediate gratification
of the desire in the context of the products
of culture industry stunts the inquisitive
faculty of the people.
It questions whatever is less saleable and
therefore, the more demanding logic that lies
behind authentic art is automatically frustrated.
The culture industry produces only what can
be consumed at a bigger level, at the level
of the masses and therefore instead of the
individual differences, it banks on a stereotyping
things, a stereotyping products and therefore
a stereotyping the desires for the mass production
and the cultivation of false desires among
the audience.
So, all popular culture according to Adorno
simplifies and caricatures and therefore into
a death of originality not only in the artistic
products but also in the creative minds of
the audience.
It is because of these reasons that he has
talked about culture as a way of deceiving
the people, his idea of culture industry as
a force of mass deception has had a significant
impact on the Left wing understanding of political
theories.
According to him the culture industry totalises
its audience and it exposes the audience to
a permanently repetitive yet unfulfilled promise
and I quote, “the culture industry perpetually
cheats its consumers or what it perpetually
promises”.
So, it establishes a cycle of creating a desire
in an artificial manner and also repeatedly
frustrating this desire is at the core of
the culture industry and therefore this industry
is a tool of mass deception.
So, culture industry is designed to deny or
even prevent imagination is spontaneity and
critical thinking among the people and thereby
it protects the interest of the capitalist.
Adorno has also written about the passive
form of consumption and production and he
says that the culture industry methodically
processes its audience, consumers of the audience
are not individual human beings to this industry
but rather they are only numbers in a game
of statistics, so they represent the consumers
on the research organisation charts divided
by various details according to their income
groups into different areas.
So, this is a technique which is used for
any other type of propaganda.
So by using this technique in a methodical
manner, culture industry is able to process
the audience and therefore it denies the benefit
of any individuality to the audience.
It results into a social subordination which
is the only imaginable mode of subjectivation
even on the side of production and this is
organised from above.
So, since the capitalist forces are also organising
the culture industry into a force of mass
deception, Adorno feels that there is perhaps
no freedom for the individual.
Unlike the theories which have been presented
in the same realm by Benjamin or Brecht, we
find that in the model of Adorno, there is
no freedom, rather this is a very striated
model which has been presented by Adorno and
Horkheimer.
They have wanted the culture industry as an
apparatus of seduction.
According to them, it not only produces art
products but it also creates moods and emotions
among the audience by focusing on certain
type of presentations through the art forms
and also by creating artificial desires.
And it is not only the consumers, not only
the audience who are the slaves of this totality
or ideology but the producers themselves are
like the cogs in a bigger apparatus, the producers
also have been shaped by an abstract system,
so the human subject or employees are beholden
to institutions and they do not have any independence
or freedom in any way.
Adorno has also talked about the advertising
and has also said that the logic which he
has presented for the culture industry is
also applicable to the advertising field.
And he particularly says that the assembly
line character of the culture industry is
also very most suited to advertising because
of the synthetic and planned method of turning
out a product.
For example, it is a factory like production
not only in the studio but also in the compilation
of different types of pseudo-documentary novels,
hit songs, the cheap biographies, the cheap
serials, and the musicals etc., which are
being designed by the culture industry at
the level of mass production.
The important individual points are made detachable,
interchangeable and even technically alienated
from any connected meaning which they perhaps
had originally.
So they have been de-contextualised and therefore
they are also being used particularly for
the purpose of advertisement.
So the method of culture industry, the method
which they had adopted from the assembly line
production of the contemporary industry is
also very clearly discernible in the field
of advertisement.
He also says that advertisements create desires
among the people in order to sell their products,
in order to maximise their profit.
So advertisements are also tool of manipulation,
they do not advertise the merits but they
somehow focus on the creation of artificial
desire among the people and therefore it is
an information which is being disseminated
for a specific end but this specific end is
always the profit.
And profit is the ulterior motive which lies
behind different facets of the culture industry,
it may be the musicals, it may be the advertisements
and it may be the production of movie or the
writing of a novel etc.
But we find that it is about the placement
of a particular product in a particular context
to maximise the profits.
So somehow the desires are created among the
audience which suggest to them that the ownership
of a product is a way to achieve success and
happiness.
And that if one owns a particular product,
it would enhance the success, the happiness
or a sense of achievement.
So the desire is created among those consumers
who are already passive and therefore, the
advertisements create a demand where none
should have existed originally.
So the artificiality in the creation of desire
for the purpose of a capitalist motive of
earning profit is deplorable in the ideas
of Adorno as well as Horkheimer.
So, in a way we can say that the self-perpetuating
logic of commodity fetishism is behind these
particular designs of the culture industry
which have been critiqued by Adorno.
Adorno has also talked about homogenisation
and pseudo-individuality of the products,
he says that basically the products are duplicatable.
There is always something for everyone and
therefore there cannot be any genuine creativity
because things are being produced at a very
big level, they are being automated and therefore
we find that there is a basic homogeneity
in the products of the culture industry.
The changes which are visible to us are only
minor changes, cosmetic changes and the illusion
of choice is being given through the dissemination
of a standardised and homogenised product
with slight variations and differences and
therefore, this also is a part of the culture
industry and mass deception.
There is no real diversity and the monopoly
market ensures that only the big and the powerful
corporations survive.
An each product is advertised as being unique
by them, however, we find that this is only
a pseudo-individuality, something that would
appeal to an individual consumer in the mass
production means that a product is unique
but it would also simultaneously appeal to
millions.
So, culture industry according to Adorno cultivates
different types of mass deceptions and these
contemporary pictorial presentation also conform
a popular version of Adorno's statements.
So, Adorno in brief has discussed the concept
of the culture industry and its applications
in media also.
Media according to him is also not independent
anymore but then media content according to
Adorno is adapted to mass consumption.
Content is made to appeal to the widest section
of the people and to achieve this, mass media
has combined different forms of cultures.
It is combined high and low culture and it
is blurred the boundaries between the two.
So, masses are perceived as objects of calculation.
The culture industry deludes the consumer
into thinking that the media is adapted according
to his needs and produces this illusion to
strengthen its influence and control over
the masses.
In actuality, masses simply receive the content
that furthers the ruling ideology, so culture
industry also banks on the pliability of media
as Adorno has commented.
Culture industry is interested only in sustaining
its affinity to capitalism because the profit
margins are the source of its living.
So the impact and power of media has also
been utilised by the culture industry and
therefore the lack of neutrality in the media
and the nexus with the capitalist monopoly
should not be taken lightly.
It functions on the illusion of being informed
and involved but we find that people are dependent
on the opinion of the media and therefore,
the illusion of the freedom of the press or
the freedom of the media does not allow the
people normally to be critical of the people.
On the other hand we find that the culture
industry uses the media to disseminate a particular
type of product either as a source of pleasure
or as a source of amusement or it passes on
a particular type of information to boost
the sales.
In a way we find that culture industry propagates
false values with the help of the media and
preserves its control by selling the illusion
of the good life as reality.
These perceptions demote the value of authentic
culture, happiness and the dreams of happiness
which the culture industry sales through media
are ultimately imaginary.
The American Dream which has been popularised
in Adorno's time with the help of the media
ultimately is void, it does not have any real
foundation.
Because it talks about happiness, equality
and prosperity but this focus on American
Dream hides the actual relations of production
in American society and the disparity between
the rich and the poor.
This cartoon also suggests that the culture
industry basically sells a particular dream.
It prompts the people to work harder to earn
money but to earn money in order to buy something
the desire for which has been only artificially
created and it pushes the people into a do
loop in which the consumerism is directly
linked with amusement, consumer is directly
linked with one's definition of success also.
So, it is this type of a culture; the industrialisation
of culture, the commodification of culture
which has been critiqued by Adorno and Horkheimer.
The works of Adorno and Horkheimer have also
come into a lot of criticism.
People say that it is an elitist view because
they have defended modernism against mass
culture.
Critics also feel that Adorno and Horkheimer
have exhibited an ignorance of actual popular
culture, they hated Jazz and they refused
to recognise the political elements of pop
culture which was also being commented on
in the contemporary critical world.
And they have also refused to recognise the
existence of various subcultures simultaneously
in any given society.
They have overlooked the fact that the culture
cannot be exactly homogeneous.
So they have ignored this particular aspect
as well as they have ignored the reception
and think that the audience is only adjunct
to the machinery.
So they have simplified the production of
culture and wholly rely on the argument of
the monopolisation, the conveyor belt production
system image, which does not represent the
full picture.
So there has been an over determination in
their argument and to say that the culture
shapes our mind set and attitudes to that
extent which has been presented by Adorno
and Horkheimer, sometimes seems far-fetched.
So the criticism of Adorno and Horkheimer
also suggest the limitations as well as the
overemphasis which is present in their ideas.
And other critic whose work is important for
us in this context is Walter Benjamin.
Walter Benjamin was also a contemporary of
Adorno and he was also associated by the Frankfurt
School.
All these critics who were associated by Frankfurt
School condemned the contemporary world view
as we have already seen.
But at the same time, their worldview was
also structured by the contemporary affairs.
So, we cannot dissociate the feelings and
the thoughts and the critical arguments of
either Adorno or Walter Benjamin from the
contemporary worldview.
So Benjamin thought that the totalitarian
and genocidal state was not merely a problem
in Germany.
He saw it has a western problem and felt that
it was rooted in the enlightenment urged to
dominate nature.
Benjamin was also associated with the Frankfurt
School and he had also tried to escape Germany
and unable to escape these forces Benjamin
had committed suicide.
So we find that there is a strange mixture
of ideas and arguments in Walter Benjamin
which puts him sometimes very close to Adorno
but at the same time, sometimes very dissimilar
to his thinking.
He feels that with its slave of propaganda
and controlled entertainment, Nazi Germany
could be seen as ‘an archetypically modern
society’.
Because he feels that the Anti-Semitism which
is being practised by the Nazi Germany was
not merely a manifestation of hatred towards
a particular set of people but rather it had
to be viewed as a means to an end.
As a means to obtain a particular type of
a decisive and driving force for societal
control.
And therefore, he felt that totalitarianism
is not only a particular issue with the Nazi
Germany but it is a western problem which
is rooted in the enlightenment urge to dominate
nature and have a control over it.
And therefore he felt that the outcome of
the Second World War which resulted in the
defeat of the Nazi Germany was never fully
satisfactory.
He according to him, it fell short of a final
defeat of a Fascism and the totalitarian mind
prowled everywhere and the American culture
was also not able to escape it absolutely.
Walter Benjamin’s particularly known for
his essay with the title, The Work of Art
in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction which
was published in 1936.
Benjamin discusses a shift in perception with
the rise in development of film and photography,
he has talked about mechanical reproduction
as having brought a major change in the contemporary
culture and he also says that the way people
look and receive works of art has completely
changed with the intervention of the technological
development in the areas of film and photography.
He also feels that the human perception is
tied to the historical changes and it changes
over the passage of time, it cannot remain
static.
And therefore he has made some very interesting
comments about the modern age and about the
way, the popular art forms have to be perceived.
He has drawn our attention to the effects
of modernity on the work of art in particular.
We have already discussed how Adorno looks
at two types of art products.
He looks at what he calls the culture industry
and he contrasted with the genuine or authentic
art forms of the easter years.
According to Benjamin, we find that the development
of film and photography are not necessarily
evil forms but then they have resulted into
a loss of an aura through the mechanical reproduction.
He says that an authentic and original work
of art but this is a certain aura and original
painting has an aura and original sculpture
has an aura but a photograph of the same painting
does not have it because it is only a mechanical
reproduction.
And since it is a mechanical reproduction
without the aura which was possessed by the
original painting for example, it also has
become closer to the common man.
Benjamin states that the traditional function
of art was rooted in ritual and therefore
it was associated with the cult value and
promulgated the notion of aura that derived
from the authenticity of the work of art.
But the effects of modernity have taken away
this aura, the films the medium of films and
the photographic representation of the art
form have taken away this aura.
But this taking away of the aura is not necessarily
a poor influence on the contemporary people.
According to Benjamin the privileged notion
of authenticity was also responsible for preventing
the masses from a closer scrutiny of the art
form or the criticism of a particular art.
The aura is stopped them from approaching
a particular art form in a very close manner.
However, the mechanical reproduction in the
film or in the medium of a photograph enables
them to scrutinise an art form in a clear
manner.
So, he argues that the mechanical reproduction
of art destroys this notion of authenticity
and the related aura and thus frees up art
from its traditional function as a cult object
only.
In freeing art from the domain of tradition.
We find that Benjamin thinks that mechanical
reproduction allows art to be based on the
practice of politics rather than ritual.
So we find that this accessibility of an art
form with the help of modern day technology
is a particular way of looking at the art
product which is very different from the viewpoint
of Adorno and Horkheimer.
According to Benjamin, we find that the democratisation
of art forms as they become easily available
to the greater number of people lies at the
heart of the revolutionary potential of an
art form, particularly, an art form like film
which can also be viewed easily by the people.
So it promotes the revolutionary criticism
of traditional concepts of art and mass mobilisation
as well as the democratisation of an art form
also has certain therapeutic roles.
It also has the capability to pass on a particular
masses to the people in a revolutionary fashion.
And he refers to the early Mickey Mouse cartoons
or Walt Disney, he has also raised political
questions in regard to the reproducible image
which can be used in one way or other.
He is also referred to some early Charlie
Chaplin movies for their content and the capability
of generating a particular sentiment among
the people.
So, in this new age of mechanical reproduction,
nature of film and contemplation of the screen
is very different and he says that it is not
the individual who contemplates the film per
se; rather the film contemplates the individual.
Film brings a change in the structure and
in the mode of perception and the camera both
replicates and departs from the function of
human eye.
So through this medium, sudden scene changes
can be presented, close ups can be presented
with the help of different camera movements,
slow motions etc.
A particular type of perception of a scenario
of an emotion of an art form etc., can be
presented before the people.
And therefore, it is very different from the
function of the human eye.
So the film according to him produces an experience
of shock.
It is a bombardment of visual stimuli and
filmic devices can therefore also contain
this initial moment of shock.
They also effect a mode of viewing that instils
a sense of heightened attention and which
can be used in different ways.
So, we find that his assessment of the effects
of mechanical reproduction of the art form
is relatively optimistic.
It is very different from the assessment of
the culture industry as presented by Adorno.
Benjamin has attempted to reconcile materialist
and theological concerns.
As I had said earlier; these critics associated
with the Frankfurt School were not absolutely
dissociated from their own worldview.
So, in Benjamin’s work we find that there
is a strange mingling of the Marxist tradition
of social critique and the Jewish mystic tradition
that he was drawn to under the influence of
his friend Gershom Scholem who was a Jewish
historian.
And it is this mingling which has given a
sense of hope in his criticism of the contemporary
culture, a sense of hope which is very foreign
to either Adorno or Horkheimer, however despite
his sense of optimism, we find that his inclination
is very close to that of Adorno.
And his comment recalling the sumptuousness
of his family which has been recorded by Eiland
and Jennings is in the recent biography of
Adorno and Benjamin several volumes proves.
Benjamin belong to a well to do family and
this early recollection of his life suggests
how closely he was looking at different issues.
So we find that Benjamin used to critically
look at these concepts of ideology and identity
formation as closely as Adorno did.
Benjamin's reflections on film, technological
reproduction as an emancipatory force alongside
the proletariat collective nature of such
transformation are different from the views
of Adorno.
Unlike Benjamin we find that Adorno insists
on the negotiation of collective experience
by the individual whereas Benjamin had focused
on the collective nature of such transformation.
However that we find that in our age of global
and digital proliferation of images and sounds,
the issue of organisation and politics of
sensory perception is still important.
And therefore, the issues which have been
put forward by these critics associated with
the Frankfurt School related with ideology,
the processing and formation of individuality
and identity are still very valid, as a homogenisation
of culture progresses in our day and the control
of technology maps out our movements continuously
incessantly, such voices confirm that identity
is formed by what surrounds us.
In short our identity is formed by our culture,
and it is this discussion which we would continue
further in the rest of the modules of this
week and we would look at certain literary
productions to go deeper into this idea, thank
you.
