Notes

Adorno: media power
Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) was a member of the Frankfurt School for Social Research
(established in 1923), a group of largely German, Jewish intellectuals, who fled from
Frankfurt to New York and Los Angeles when the Nazis rose to power in the 1930s. Many of
them returned to Germany at the end of the 1940s. Their antipathy towards the mass media
will likely have been increased by the observation that Hitler had apparently been able to use
the media organisations as a tool for widespread propaganda, and also by their sudden
encounter with American popular culture, which was clearly not to their 'high art'-centred,
bourgeois tastes. Even more crucially, the revolution predicted by Karl Marx in the middle of
the nineteenth century – in which the workers were meant to recognise their exploitation, and
overthrow the rulers and factory owners – had not come to pass. Instead, the workers of the
world seemed to be reasonably happy; the work itself may not have been rewarding, but they
had some decent films to watch, and the radio played nice songs to cheer them up.
And so Adorno and his colleague Max Horkheimer (1895–1973) wrote the book Dialectic of
Enlightenment (1979), first published in 1947, which contains the essay 'The Culture
Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception', encapsulating their views on the mass media
20
and its impact upon society. The essay alternates between sharp, lucid points about media
power, and rather more rambling prose about the nature of mass culture – as if Adorno and
Horkheimer were fighting for control of the typewriter, and one of them was drunk. It's well
worth reading. Adorno also helpfully revisited these ideas in a shorter essay, 'Culture Industry
Reconsidered', published in English after his death.
The mass media was referred to as the 'culture industry' by Adorno and Horkheimer to
indicate its nature: a well-oiled machine producing entertainment products in order to make
profit. Whilst this comes as no surprise to us today – we are happy to recognise the 'music
industry' or the 'movie business' as such – the German intellectuals were clearly devastated by
the reduction of culture to a set of manufactured products. They explain that they deliberately
avoided referring to this business as 'mass culture', because they wanted to make it clear that
this is not a culture produced by the people. Instead, the culture consumed by the masses is
imposed from above – churned out by the culture industry. Because of this commercial
context, media products (whether films, music, TV dramas or whatever) can never be 'art'
which just happens to be a commodity: instead 'they are commodities through and through'
(Adorno, 1991:86).
All products of the culture industry are 'exactly the same' (Horkheimer and Adorno,
1979:122) – not literally, of course, but in the sense that they all reflect the values of the
established system. 'Each product affects an individual air', explains Adorno, but this is an
'illusion' (1991:87). Unusual talents who emerge are quickly 'absorbed' into the system
(1979:122): think of the 'challenging' rock acts who almost always end up signing big-money
deals with the major record labels – themselves part of even bigger media and business
conglomerates – and generating fat profits for their masters. Marilyn Manson and Eminem
may be scary to middle America, but in Wall Street terms they are embodiments of the
American capitalist dream. The teen 'rebels' who are fans of such acts, Adorno would
suggest, are just consumers: buying a CD is not rebellion, it's buying a CD. The tough guy
who has just bought the latest angry rap CD, takes it home and plays it loud, may be thinking,
'Yeah! Fuck you, consumer society!', but as far as Adorno is concerned, he might as well say,
'Thank you, consumer society, for giving me a new product to buy. This is a good product. I
would like to make further purchases of similar products in the near future'.
We might think that the media offer a range of different forms of entertainment, giving
different groups what they want, but Horkheimer and Adorno fit this into their account too:
'Something is provided for all so that none may escape' (1979:123). They remind us that the
person seeking entertainment 'has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him' (ibid.:
124), so choice is an illusion too. We can choose what we like, certainly, but from a
limited range presented by the culture industry. And our consumption merely fosters 'the
circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever
stronger' (ibid.: 121). Because we've never really had anything different, we want more and
more of the same. 'The customer is not king, as the culture industry would have us believe,
not its subject but its object,' states Adorno (1991:85).
Horkheimer and Adorno's points can seem worryingly relevant in relation to the Hollywood
blockbusters of today. Even back in the 1940s, they observed that new films were usually a
set of 'interchangeable' elements borrowed from previous successes, with slight modifications
or upgrades in terms of expense, style or technology (1979:123–125). The authors say: 'As
soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be rewarded, punished,
21
or forgotten' (ibid.: 125). The fact that John Travolta has a speech saying exactly this at the
start of the 2001 blockbuster Swordfish does not show that movie-makers are stepping
outside of the formula; after a brilliantly explosive (but 'blockbusterey')
beginning, Swordfish is more-or-less as formulaic as every other – just one of the many
movies that we rush along to see during the summer, in the hope that this particular one will
be surprisingly good, only to emerge from the cinema feeling slightly empty, more often than
not, a couple of hours later.
So far we've considered Horkheimer and Adorno's criticisms of the quality of popular culture
– they think it's all very similar, formulaic and manufactured. Now we'll turn to their view of
itsimpact on society. Their concern is, in part, unrelated to the content of any particular TV
show, film, or magazine, but is more generally focused on the fact that this 'rubbish'
(1979:121) takes up so much time in people's everyday consciousness – 'occupying [their]
senses from the time they leave the factory in the evening to the time they clock in again the
next morning' (ibid.: 131), leaving no opportunity for resistance to develop. If your response
to this is, 'But I enjoy watching TV – I choose to watch it and I enjoy it!', then you are merely
confirming Horkheimer and Adorno's view: they do not deny that people have a 'misplaced
love' for popular culture (ibid.: 134). The programmes are well-made and provide enjoyment,
and we may well watch an educational or political documentary occasionally, but these things
make no difference to the main argument: we are still just people consuming TV. We may
feel emotions, or have a conversation about an interesting show with friends, but Adorno
would say that we are still drones, manipulated by the system to want the pleasures which it
offers, and satisfied (in a rather passive, brainless way) with the daily diet of entertainment
which it pours forth.
So it is the passivity which media consumption brings to people's lives that is Adorno's main
concern. In addition, there is a belief that the media's content encourages conformity:
The concepts of order which [the culture industry] hammers into human beings are always those of the status
quo … It proclaims: you shall conform, with no instruction as to what; conform to that which exists anyway,
and to that which everyone thinks anyway as a result of its power and omnipresence. The power of the culture
industry's ideology is such that conformity has replaced consciousness
(1991:90)
He further argues that the culture industry 'impedes the development of autonomous,
independent individuals who judge and decide consciously for themselves'. (ibid.: 92).
Critical thinking is closed off by mass-produced popular culture. All of this explains, of
course, why Marx's revolution didn't happen: pacified by pleasant, shallow entertainments
offered by the culture industry, people didn't really feel the need. With communities
fragmented into a world of individuals staying in their homes watching TV or listening to pop
music, or isolated in the darkness before a cinema screen, resistance was unlikely to find a
space to develop, and was further discouraged by the broadly 'conformist' media. Even if you
disagree with Horkheimer and Adorno's snobbish attitude to popular culture and its
consumers, their argument about its role in society still seems to stand up. This is partly
because it's a 'false consciousness' argument – you might be certain that the mass media
hasn't damaged you, but the argument says that you wouldn't notice this anyway, and so your
protestations are in vain; only Horkheimer and Adorno know better. Even if you think that
they are fantastically arrogant and elitist for taking that position, you still haven't proven them
wrong. You need a better argument than that. So let's consider the case for the opposition.