The Radical Liberation Market: Analysing the Culture Industry and the Pacification of Revolution through Popular Culture
Introduction
This essay will examine the idea of the culture industry, arguing that Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory explains the limitations on the emancipatory potential of 21st-century society, but is restricted by its dismissal of popular culture as a product which is predominantly produced and sold; rather than one which is also actively consumed, and its meanings processed.
This topic is particularly important given the rise of high-profile social justice movements such as the END SARS campaign, Extinction Rebellion and Black Lives Matter Movement during 2020; a period where due to the Coronavirus, the World’s largest — predominantly capitalist — economies were placed into an unexpected flux, politically, socially, and economically.
This essay will start by first outlining the Frankfurt School’s theory of the culture industry and its relation to Neo-Marxist and Enlightenment thought, before then moving to critically examine this theory in the context of Black Lives Matter, and social justice activism. I will argue that the culture industry has marketized radical liberation, reducing the capacity for spontaneous action, by commodifying the narratives surrounding socio-political inequalities and repackaging liberation as the consumption of products.
It will then challenge this assertion on the basis that culture is not passive, and that interpretations of and reactions to the media/popular culture can in themselves be emancipatory.
It will conclude with my interpretations, that whilst Adorno and Horkheimer’s conception of the culture industry does explain the commodification of radical thought and revolutionary spontaneity within popular culture and media narratives, the theory presented doesn’t consider the emancipatory possibility of mass culture and downplays the value of interpretations and reactions to the culture industry.
Reviewing the culture industry
The term culture industry was originated by Adorno and Horkheimer (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002) to describe the commodification of art (or cultural goods) into standardised popular cultural products, which could be produced, manufactured, and distributed to the masses in easy to consume formats; rendering them less resistant and more amenable to the capitalist status quo. This concept of the culture industry stemmed from Neo-Marxist and Enlightenment thought within the Frankfurt school.
Classical Marxism leaned heavily towards economic determinism; seeing the social relationships between the proletariat and bourgeoisie across history as shaped by the available modes of production in each state. From the class systems in Ancient Civilisations which separated slaves from citizens, to the economic systems of capitalism separating those who owned the means of production from the workers; classical Marxist theory viewed the world as a cycle of crisis, conflict, revolution and then societal rebirth, a cycle which was trending away from capitalism and towards the growth of the proletariat and the rise of free producers or “communism”.
Marx’s theory recognised levels in history; observing how societies rise and fall, and the differences between each social mode of production; however, Marx affirmed that each social mode of production was self-sustaining and self-replicating in that the economic Base — the means of productions and the relationships of this production — influenced and produced the Superstructure — the ideological institutions, culture, and structures — which in turn fed back into the base. (McLellan and Chambre 2020)
However, within the Frankfurt School, many Neo-Marxists were dissatisfied with this tendency towards economic determinism, viewing culture as not just a passive or cyclical phenomenon stemming from the base but as an active component within the formation of the economic and non-economic aspects of social life.
Adorno and Horkheimer (1947) argued that the Enlightenment had led to a social totality dominated by capitalist ideology — where politics, economy and culture were increasingly intertwined — leading to the domination of the superstructure by the culture industry.
Adorno and Horkheimer asserted that within late-stage capitalism especially, culture was increasingly becoming a tool of control, with ideological state apparatus such as the media, increasingly acting as extensions of the capitalist state/system to propagate its values, norms, and ideologies. Furthermore, with the advent of late-stage industrialisation and the improvements to technology, consciousness, and knowledge — which an age of enlightenment was presumed to bring about — this process was becoming increasingly insidious.
Adorno and Horkheimer adopted a modified interpretation of Kant’s thesis of enlightenment (Adorno 2002) believing in an end of intellectual immaturity and accepting that the Enlightenment had brought the advent of an age of reason, but argued that this reason was a double-edged sword. As humankind used its reason to adapt its environment for its own needs it had the paradoxical impact of rationality and rational ways of thinking giving way to irrational acts. Better technology, for instance, meant that nations could produce better weapons of war such as the atom bomb, which led to far greater destruction and harm from conflict as a result.
It’s important to note here, the influence the rise of Naziism and the impact the first/second World War would have had on members of the Frankfurt school; many of whom were forced to relocate to the US as a result. Whilst Marx’s emphasis on the economic base implied a trend of modes of production — and therefore society — towards communism or socialism; Adorno and Horkheimer saw capitalist society as trending towards a “verwaltete welt” (Adorno 1972); a collective action problem where humankind rationally sublimated itself to the irrational and exploitative ideologies of monopoly capitalism.
This perspective of instrumental rationality leading to irrational modes of living — particularly surrounding the rational irrationality of technology — largely influences the concept of the culture industry and commodification of culture.
The Culture industry and Contemporary capitalism
A core feature of Adorno’s argument focuses on the emancipatory nature of artwork, and how under certain conditions, ‘autonomous’ art can hold a mirror up to society, critiquing it. In his book Aesthetic Theory, Adorno states that “Art respects the masses, by confronting them as that which they could be, rather than conforming to them in their degraded state” (Adorno 1997). To use the example of a visual art form such as cinema, an autonomous, authentic, film would be functionless, one created not for profit or subject to any interest/demands. Such a film would be able to present its viewers with an “alternative vision of reality” from the capitalist status quo by focusing on its own particular features to subvert expectations from the standardised, universal mould. Rather than feeding its audience as a product to be consumed, Adorno asserts that autonomous, authentic art — and by extension, authentic culture — stimulates imagination and critical thinking by leaving space for interpretation and independent thought. (Adorno 2002)
In contrast, with the growth of capitalism and technology, filmmakers were given a much broader stage for the sharing of their creations — able to spread them to audiences worldwide — but access to this broader stage was dependent on profitability. Only art that would ‘sell’ would be produced and there was increasingly less space for diverse or unique art as it would be viewed as less profitable; and so, would not receive the same platform compared to more popular art. To sell, films would have to shift away from individualised artisanship and more towards marketable/ popular formats, losing their autonomy as cultural products and becoming consumer goods influenced by the interests of capital.
Under Nazi Germany and for a Nazi audience; films became Nazi propaganda and an extension for the Nazi state, so too under capitalist states, Horkheimer and Adorno observed the culture industry as ‘mass deception’; providing easy to consume standardised entertainment which distracted the populace from the inequalities within society and erased critical thinking and unique artisanship. Looking at Hollywood and the film industry today; of the 50 highest-grossing films of all time, only one — Titanic — is not part of a franchise (Box Mojo 2019).
“Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies.” (Adorno and Horkheimer 2007)
Through a capitalist lens, the culture industry turns workers into consumers, stimulating and arousing a need for pleasure and satisfaction, before masochistically deferring it; tying the populace further into consumerism to falsely try and fill those needs. For example, an office worker experiencing alienation from their labour and feeling that they can only be themselves in their own spare time are sold products to make the consumption of leisure/cultural goods easier.
A pre-requisite for the ease of consumption of this product is its conformity. These products may possess slight or subtle aesthetic differences but are all produced within the same standardised industrial framework and are recognisable to consumers as slight variations on the same product meaning little cognitive energy is spent when consuming the product. Whilst Black Panther might be marketed differently to consumers compared to the Avengers, of the list of the highest-grossing movies of all time (Box Mojo 2019), ¼ of the top 20 highest-grossing films are Disney superhero movies, and 15/20 are Disney properties.
Consequently, an unpaid, 2-hour commute to and from work no longer becomes a burden, but instead an opportunity to consume from the latest streaming services. This worker rather than challenging the owners of the means of production, is now content with the status quo through their dependency on the culture industry and popular culture; believing that relief can be achieved — if only temporarily — with the release of the next product, the next film, the next series to occupy that time.
Moreover, the nature of these products exists to suppress these desires, rather than sublimate them. Stemming from Freudian theory (Hartmann 1955), sublimation refers to the process in which socially unacceptable impulses are channelled into socially acceptable outputs, such as anger — rather than leading to violence — becoming motivation during physical activity. But within the culture industry, there is no such outlet for these desires. Instead, these desires are co-opted and sold back to the consumer within products. The use of targeted ads on social media sites such as Instagram, and their aptly named “influencers” serves as a clear example of this. On such sites, viewers are presented with images which feed off their suppressed anxieties and desires; the smiling fitness influencer in better shape than you, the tanned model wearing expensive designer clothes, or the social justice activist promoting eco-friendly brands; these objects of desire influence the individual into believing that they can falsely fill their own needs through participating in consumerism and consumption, further entrenching them within capitalism.
The Culture Industry and the Radical Liberation Market
This essay argues that this commodification of different cultural forms by the culture industry has, in turn, led to the commodification of radical liberation, weakening the ability of the proletariat to extricate themselves from capitalism through spontaneous action and reducing them to their economic value as workers and consumers.
Spontaneous action or “revolutionary spontaneity” (Lenin 1901) is a theory which asserts that genuine, radical social revolution must stem from the bottom up by the proletariat themselves and cannot be driven by external groups, political parties, or vested interests.
Globally, over the last year, we have seen a rise in support for several grassroots social justice/ liberation movements; from Black Lives Matter, to #SAYHERNAME to ENDSARS. These social justice movements have all expressed a dissatisfaction with the current ethnocentric, imperialistic, capitalist status quo, whether that dissatisfaction is stemming from environmental degradation to the inequality facing Black people across the world, to police brutality across America and the African continent.
However, I would argue that whilst these protests highlight a growing dissatisfaction, and a slipping of the veil of neo-liberal capitalism, they are still deeply entrenched within the machinations of the culture industry and capitalism.
To quote Adorno and Horkheimer:
“Culture today is infecting everything with sameness. Film, radio, and magazines form a system. Each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together. Even the aesthetic manifestations of political opposites proclaim the same inflexible rhythm”
“those in charge no longer take much trouble to conceal the structure, the power of which increases the more bluntly its existence is admitted. Films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize the crash they intentionally produce.” (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002)
From these quotes, I make two main points.
Firstly, that with the exposure of societal inequality, we can observe a standardising effect from the culture industry and from the media, in which coercive control is exercised through the shaping and portrayal of narratives via “sameness”. Secondly, that following this standardising effect, the culture industry openly co-opts messages of liberation for profit, creating feelings of catharsis and pacifying its audience.
Looking at the first point, of coercive control and a standardising effect I will use the example of media discourse in the UK surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement.
Within the culture industry and the 24-hour news cycle, stories must be eye-catching, emotively stimulating, but easy to explain. Audiences within this context do not have the time, nor desire for complex deep dives on social issues and so stories are simplified into plain narratives of good and bad, designed to illicit simplified emotional reactions and drive viewership.
In the UK, both purportedly left and right-wing media sites initially focused on the murder of George Floyd as bad and the calls for justice in America which followed as good. This was further highlighted and reflected in “aesthetic manifestations” from both the leaders of the Conservative and Labour party. Labour leader, Sir Keir Starmer was photographed taking the knee as George Floyd’s funeral was held in Houston, (Culbertson 2020) and Prime Minister Boris Johnson addressed that there is still “so much more to do in eradicating prejudice and creating opportunity”.
However, following the growth of protests in the UK, the US and globally, this message slowly changed, with an increasing focus on “violent protest”, rioting, looting and the destruction of private property, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson later stating, “I think what people need to do is focus less on the symbols of discrimination or whatever” (Devlin 2020).
Here, I would assert that we can see the standardising effect in action, with the initial good and bad narrative framed within popular culture slowly shifting to one of neutrality, in the interests of profit, the political interest of votership and the media’s interest of viewership.
Williams (1989) acknowledged the problems surrounding print journalism running at a loss but supplementing their income through advertising, with this reliance on advertisements meaning news organisations need as many people reading or viewing their stories as possible. To maximise profit, these media organisations need to produce stories emotive enough to create reactions, but also able to appeal to the broadest number of viewers, including those advocating for change and those against it. Resultantly, within simplified black and white narratives of good and bad, a standardising effect occurs in which stories are presented as two sides and are balanced out as grey.
In the context of UK media discourse surrounding Black Lives Matter, calls for racial equality were now positioned as a debate within the free marketplace of ideas; with anti-racists on one side and anti-anti-racists, statue defenders and defenders of private property positioned on the other.
Through the simplification of Black Lives Matter as a singular organisation rather than a complex, global movement, and the positioning of calls for racial equality and liberating, structural change as a conversation in need of debate; a standardising effect occurs, in which both liberators and oppressors are pacified as two sides of the same coin. Destruction of private property and the violence/murder enacted upon peaceful protesters are both averaged and presented as having caused equal harm to the other “side”. Critical thinking and the need for complex, radical solutions are pushed aside in favour of the easier to consume, standardised answer of “everyone coming together”; and a suppression of rebellion occurs through the presentation of continuous acts of revolutionary spontaneity, as hindering this unity and peace.
This leads me onto my second point; that following this standardising effect, the culture industry co-opts messages of liberation for profit. Unity is profitable; because from an industrialised perspective unison, translates to conformity. Subsequently, even unity surrounding an acknowledgement of social disparities is also profitable.
Here having acknowledged a societal shift — however minor — the culture industry replicates its products with minor aesthetic changes to account for this, but still appeal to the broadest palate of tastes. In this way “Something is provided for everyone so that no one can escape” (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002). For example, rather than producing revolutionary or critical content, film studios produce superhero movies with an all-black cast (Black Panther) or a female main character (Captain Marvel) and consequently, they can present the same familiar narratives, concepts, and themes; of western exceptionalism, white saviours and male power fantasies, as ground-breaking and revolutionary. These “differences are hammered home and propagated” (Adorno and Horkheimer 2002), with the optics of radical liberation marketized such that the consumption of the culture industry’s newest produce, by extension, is presented as ground-breaking and revolutionary whilst still meeting its criteria of profitability. Both Black Panther and Captain Marvel are amongst the top 30 highest-grossing films of all time, at 12th and 26th respectively.
Finally, bringing together my two points, of a standardising effect and the co-option of liberation for profit; I would argue that the culture industry has created a market for radical liberation; continuing to pacify spontaneous action through popular culture where the oppressed are no longer the producers of their own liberation, but the consumers of it.
Critically challenging the Radical Liberation Market and Culture Industry
Conversely, Horkheimer and Adorno’s theory of the culture industry — and by extension, my argument surrounding the radical liberation market — assumes that the masses are passive in their engagement with capitalism, culture, and art, and ignores how the reactions to/interpretations of the culture industry can be emancipatory in themselves.
Horkheimer and Adorno’s theory assumes that due to the ease of consumption, the masses are passive and uncritical in what they consume within popular culture. The choice of defining their theory as “culture industry” over “mass culture” adequately highlights the victimhood they transfer onto the masses by ignoring/downplaying the importance of choice in consuming from the culture industry, how individuals consume and the creation of alternatives and countercultures.
Culture is not a passive product. Individuals are continuously seeking new platforms and avenues for self-expression, whether that be through music e.g., punk culture, on social media platforms such as Facebook or through distrust with the establishment exercised via the re-purposing of popular culture terms such as fake news. This pursuit of the alternate leads to the emergence of countercultures, cultures which in themselves possess an awareness of their position as the other and of the slow commercialisation and commodification of these alternative forms of culture by popular culture and the mainstream. (Whiteley and Sklower 2016)
Artists, genres, and platforms perceived to have become “mainstream”, losing their unique artisanship, and becoming motivated by the interests of capital are often rejected, in favour of newer sounds or less commodified avenues. In this way, reactions to the culture industry can in themselves be emancipatory, creating an ideological tug of war in which the awareness of and infiltration by, capitalist interests can spark the migration or formation of newer forms of art and culture.
Furthermore, these newer forms of art typically exist within the margins of society, and the eventual commercialisation and commodification of them — even for profit — can still draw light to societal inequalities or the differences in lived experiences between different segments of the population. For example, the rise of “Gangsta rap” in 1980’s-90’s America, shed light on a whole range of issues facing the African American community, from the crack cocaine epidemic to police brutality, with songs such as NWA’s “Fuck tha Police” or Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” becoming entrenched within popular culture. Whilst it’s arguable that many of these messages and artists were later co-opted by the culture industry, it would be both elitist and disempowering to assert that the artists producing this music, or the audience consuming it would be unaware of the influence of the culture industry and their position in opposition to it; as highlighted in lyrics from the rapper Ice Cube’s track, No Vaseline, “White man just rulin’. The Niggas With Attitudes, who ya foolin’?”
My second challenge rests on the assertion that in some ways, the produce of the culture industry can in fact be emancipatory, through the audiences interpretation and engagement with them. Using Hollywood as an example, a film such as Black Panther can be seen as revolutionary through its inclusion of a majority Black cast. Whilst only an aesthetic change on the commodified “Marvel Formula”, this is an inclusion which a major box office film hasn’t done before, and for many Black people watching the film, it’s a level of representation they have not seen before. The sole consumption of the movie itself is not a revolutionary act. It is still a product of the culture industry and is produced to be standardised and conformist; however, that does not mean this film could not contain revolutionary potential.
Highlighting the profitability of equal representation creates spaces and demand for further content in line with this, providing many aspiring Black film writers, directors, actors etc a chance to work and be represented within Hollywood, a chance which might not have been afforded otherwise. Furthermore, the co-option of messages of equality and liberation do still possess the potential of transforming economic profit, into social gain. Alignment with these values has become increasingly profitable, and brands are able to thrive within popular culture through proving that “they care” about the issues close to their consumer’s heart. This, in turn, has led to increasing emphasis on corporate social responsibility, equality within hiring processes or care for the environment, leading to positive externalities not just for the individuals and groups directly benefitting from this emphasis, but also society at large.
Conclusion
Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of the culture industry highlights a commodification of art through the social totality and technical rationality of capitalism, which limits the ability of society to think critically, and uniquely. This essay argued, that this commodification, in turn, extends to thought and limits the emancipatory potential of society through turning radical liberation into a market. Within this market, the oppressed are not the producers of their own liberation, but the consumers of it and are thus pacified and further tied to the pre-existing status quo. However, Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory — and thus my extrapolations from it — are limited by a dismissal of the emancipatory potential of popular culture and the assumption of passivity within the masses. The masses are not passive consumers within culture, and the continuous emergence of countercultures and the self-awareness/rejection of commodification and mainstreaming highlights both an ideological tug of war between the margins and the centre of culture, as well as a continuing desire for the individual and particular rather than the universal.
Furthermore, it’s important to consider the societal benefits which can emerge from the co-option and commodification of liberation. Having calls for environmental, social, or racial justice commodified — in the interests of capital — can still produce moral and social goods which may not be revolutionary, but still underpin the Marxist trend of crisis, conflict, revolution, and rebirth towards a more egalitarian society.
To conclude, Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of the culture industry does much to advance Neo-Marxist thought, and my extrapolations from it to a 21st-century context can provide explanations as to why the revolutionary spontaneity of society is stifled. However, within this analysis, there must be an understanding that the masses are not simply the passive consumers of culture but are also the active curators of it.
Word count= 3943
Bibliography
1. Horkheimer, Max; Adorno, Theodor W.; Ed. by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr. Transl. by Edmund Jephcott (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment philosophical fragments (PDF) ([Nachdr.] ed.). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press. p. 107. ISBN 978–0804736336. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2017–06–14. Retrieved 2016–08–04.
2. McLellan D.T and Chambre H (March 24, 2020) Marxism, Encyclopædia Britannica, Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Marxism (Accessed: January 09, 2021).
3. M. Horkheimer and T. W. Adorno, ed. G. S. Noerr, trans. E. Jephcott (1947) Dialectic of Enlightenment: Philosophical Fragments, Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002. (GS 3).
4. Adorno, T ed. Rolf Tiedemann, trans. Rodney Livingstone (2002) Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason,”, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
5. Adorno, T.W., 1972. Dissonanzen: Musik in d. verwalteten Welt. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
6. Adorno, T.W., 1997. Aesthetic theory. A&C Black. pp. 239–240
7. Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M (2002/1966) ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception‘ in Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, pp 107–108.
8. “All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses”. Box Office Mojo. Retrieved November 3, 2019. Wikipedia (2021) List of the highest grossing films, Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#cite_note-13 (Accessed: 1/2021).
9. Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M., 2007. The culture industry: Enlightenment as mass deception. Stardom and celebrity: A reader, Chapter 3 pp. 34.
10. Hartmann, H., 1955. Notes on the theory of sublimation. The psychoanalytic study of the child, 10(1), pp.9–29.
11. Lenin, Vladimir (1901). What Is to Be Done?. Chapter 2 “The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social Democrats”. Marxists Internet Archive. Retrieved 30 April 2019. Accessed 1/2021
12. Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M (2002/1966) ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception‘ in Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, pp. 94–95
13. Culbertson A (2020) George Floyd death: Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer takes a knee in support of Black Lives Matter movement, Available at: https://news.sky.com/story/george-floyd-death-labour-leader-sir-keir-starmer-takes-a-knee-in-support-of-black-lives-matter-movement-12003611 (Accessed: 1/2021).
14. Devlin K (2020) Black Lives Matter: Boris Johnson says people should ‘focus less on symbols’, Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-black-lives-matter-racism-protests-statues-swing-low-sweet-chariot-a9575416.html (Accessed: 1/2021).
15. Williams, R. (1989) ‘Culture is ordinary’, in Resources of Hope: Culture, Democracy, Socialism. London: Verso. pp. 16–17.
16. Adorno, T. & Horkheimer, M (2002/1966) ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception‘ in Dialectic of Enlightenment, Stanford University Press, pp. 97
17. Whiteley, S. and Sklower, J., 2016. Countercultures and popular music. Routledge. Pp 17
