Adorno and Horkheimer's Approaches to Culture Industries - Essay Example

Running Head: ADORNO AND HORKHEIMER CULTURE INDUSTRIES Adorno and Horkheimer's Approaches to Culture Industries [The Name] [The Name of the Institution] Adorno and Horkheimer's Approaches to Culture Industries Introduction The political economy perspective has made a prevalent contribution to our understanding of cultural production. From a political economist perspective, cultural practices in society are the product of economic relations, as emphasised by Marx, "The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life" (Murdock and Golding in J. Curran et al 1977: 17). They stress that society is characterised by domination and subordination in its relation to the means of production. Those who own the means of material production also have the power to control the production of culture through cultural industries to preserve their own interests, and, while the political economists do not propose that economics is the only factor shaping cultural production, they do stress that it is clearly the most significant. The work of Adorno and Horkheimer on "culture industries" (K. Negus in Du Gay 1997 70) analyses the impact of cultural industries in determining the media output and the impact that has on the production and consumption of cultural practices. The cultural industry of the institutions of music explores how the economic dynamics shape the production of music. In general political economy emphasises a dominant mode of production which regulates consumption and the distribution of ideas. Its great emphasis lies with power, control and ownership of the means of production. In true Marxists terms, "those who have the means of material production at its disposal does have control at the same time of the means of mental production" (Golding & Murdock, in Barrett et all 1979: 199). It is through the nature of production within the mass media that the ruling ideas of those who own the means of material production are disseminated and aims to weaken the opposition to the established order, namely the working class. The relationship between ownership and control of media content is not just a Marxist view but is a common-sense axiom "the contents of the media always reflect the interests of those who finance them" (McQuail 1994: 162). Therefore, what is presented in the media is not a reflection of the social and cultural reality, but simply a reflection of the perspective of those who own and control the media. Media as an Enlightenment Tool The mass media is a pivotal institution in the production of culture. The political economy view considers the control and ownership of media by a few powerful individuals or organisations determine the content produced in the media. It is these individuals or the organisations known as the conglomerates of communication that control the media output. Therefore, Peter Golding and Graham Murdock emphasise that this economic structure should be at the forefront of sociological analysis and explore "the way its organisation and underlying dynamics shape the range and forms of media production" (Golding & Murdock, in Barrett et all 1979: 199). The mass media is an instrument of the capitalist class and its content aims to maintain and preserve the capitalist interest and ideologies. The essence of media power lies with the control they hold over their consumers. Corporate ownership within the media enables particular personnel to dictate what goes on in the media. Through concentration and conglomeration of various mediums, tycoons such as Rupert Murdoch and Silvio Berlusconi are able to control and mediate the content of media output. It is through this exercise of power and control that cultural production and cultural life is conditioned by economic relations. Golding and Murdock draw on the work of Raymond Williams who recognises that this growing concentration of media ownership and control in the hands of large conglomerates is the pivotal factor in determining the production of culture. From this we can understand the political economy view of cultural life is economically determined. The concept of the mass media may be looked at from a variety of different angels with respect to the different sociological theories that exist. The mass media is a powerful tool and a vital element among the social institutions; as it holds substantiate power and control in manipulating and conforming ideologies among the viewers of information. This can be said to be a Marxist view of mass media. In the Marxist-based model of the media, there exist two main kinds of class, those of the 'Bourgeoisie,' and those of the 'Proletariat.' The Bourgeoisie are the capitalists who own the means of social production and are the employers of wage labour. The Proletariat are the wage-labourers, who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to make a living. The role of the media is a complex one that reflects the complexity of class relationships and interests. In this respect, the media tend to be considered in terms of the way in which they help to maintain the broad status quo in society, whilst at the same time reflecting a diversity of opinion (Chandler, 2000, para. 6). Marxism looks at the conflict that arises between the owners of the means of production and the labourers, the conflict theory, and considers change rather then order as the essential element of social life. It considers the media in the production of the status quo rather then just a result of affairs. Cultural Production Activity The ownership of the means of production has become increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations as emphasized. These corporations dominate cultural production and activity in two ways. Firstly, there is an increasing proportion of cultural production that is directly accounted for by major conglomerates with interests in a range of sectors, from films, television, and music to computer games. Secondly, there are corporations that have no direct involvement as producers of culture, but they can still exercise great control over the direction of cultural activity through their roles as cultural intermediaries such as advertisers and sponsors. This monopoly in the ownership and control of cultural production within the media by a few large conglomerates illustrates the increasing importance of culture in the business world. Global conglomerates such as Sony, Time-Warner, Disney, News Corporation and Microsoft are now amongst the most richest and powerful economic actors in the world, (Du Gay 1997: 5). The business of these global conglomerates is to produce and distribute cultural impressions and practices through music, films, newspapers, computer games and many other mediums. Moreover, consumers of cultural production are required to "purchase the appropriate machine as a condition of access" (Gelding and Murdock in Tumber 1999: 157). Other global conglomerates such as Nike, Reebok, Gap and Levi jeans have infused the standardisation of clothing product. This is referred to as the aestheticization of cultural goods which are "deliberately inscribed with particular meanings and associations as they are produced and circulated in a conscious attempt to generate desires for them amongst end users", (Du Gay 1997: 5). The consumption of products is not therefore, dictated by the consumers, but by those who have the means of production. Consumers are having to buy what is out there in the market. It is a misconception to assume that when it comes to thinking about the kind of cultural products and goods that is most relevant to the audience, it is the owners of the means of production that exercise their own judgements rather than going out and seeking information about the composition, wants or tastes of those who are being addressed. The greater emphasis is put on the business needs of these conglomerates rather than the audience or the consumers. Therefore, culture is produced as a product that is sold to consumers at a price. This illustrates the economic dynamics of cultural production. The notion of cultural production is industrialised. It is the product of the manipulative nature of the media and those who own them. Conglomerates seek economic profit, and their production of cultural practices and equipment are geared towards making money. This illustrates that those that have the means of production control the production and the dissemination of culture. Those in subordination have little power to influence any change or resist the dissemination of the dominant ideology of the elite in society. There is a belief that subordinates within society have a greater choice in media consumption, hence the popularity of the 'Uses and Gratification Theory' (McQuail et al 1994). This theory believes that the consumers are active rather than passive recipients. The uses and gratification theory emphasises that the consumer of media material makes an active and conscious choice from what is available and dismisses the claim of indoctrination and influence. However, if we look at the everyday experience of the way people dress, what they consume and how they react to particular news, films and music, the assumption of media influence is no misconception Everything in society seems to stem from the media as our minds are full of media derived information and impressions. What the political economists argue is this that they believe that these media images and impressions derive from the owners of the means of production, thus they control what people consume and what kind of ideas and meanings are adhered to across society. There are a many prevalent mechanism the media uses to preserve its own interest and disseminate its own ideals to their consumers. One of these mechanisms is mediation, which refers to the transformation of original material when it is processed before being presented in the media. This is particularly evident in news production. News production goes through different stages and procedures before it is ready to be presented in the media. This often involves journalists capturing news that is worthy, which is then comprehensively assessed by editors, sub-editors and opinion leaders, whose role in the process of gate keeping is hugely influential. Gate Keeping or the Control of Information the Media Opinion Leaders are believed to be important intervening variables between media and consumer. Through gate keeping or the control of information the media construct the social or political reality for the audience who incorporate their own opinions from whatever is depicted in the media. Thus through mediation of media content the dominant ideology of those who own and control the means of production is preserved. This desire to preserve ones ideology is the need to exercise economic power over other competitors in the market. Both Gramsci and Althusser present the sphere of culture and ideology as increasingly central to the maintenance of modern capitalism's relations of production. Althusser considered the media as 'ideological apparatuses' and Golding and Murdock draw on his work to argue how productions within the media become cultural goods for public consumption. Raw media materials that carry the ideologies are "translated into cultural forms - soap opera, news items, documentary programmes - each of which is governed by particular process of signification employing a range of codes and sub-codes", (Golding & Murdock, in Barrett et all 1979: 205). Therefore, dominant ideology and cultural practices are dispersed and disseminate through media content and subsequently taken up by society's members. However, philosophers from the Frankfurt School use the concept of dominant ideology to criticise the emergence of a mass culture which controls individual consciousness and promotes submission. Adorno and Horkheimer believe the entertainment produced by the culture industry is aimed at passive and uncritical individuals. They believe that the cultural industry converts individuals into consumers. Social Life as Determinant Of Intellectual Thoughts and Ideas Adorno and Horkheimer's idea about the dialectic of enlightenment draws on the contradictory characteristic of enlightenment. They stress the nature of cultural industries emphasise how enlightenment is simply an element of mass deception in the sense that cultural production oppresses and inhibits individuals thoughts and consciousness. It is the avaricious and materialistic conditions of social life that determines intellectual thoughts and ideas. Adorno and Horkheimer's critique of the 'culture industry' appeared in the Dialectic of Enlightenment. They argue that artists and consumers belong to the culture industries, "the talented performer and the attitude of the public are not independent, but part of the economic mechanism of selection", (K. Negus in Du Gay 1997: 73). They stress the dynamics and the structure of economic ownership and control of the means of cultural production shape the activities of the creative artists and the consumers. Thus it supports the political economy view that the power of cultural production lies ultimately with those in control of the means of production. Adorno and Horkheimer also stress the homogeneity of cultural production. They argued that the culture industry operates in the same way as other manufacturing industries. They view the production of culture as a routine, standardised repetitive operation. (Adorno and Horkheimer quoted by K. Negus in Du Gay 1997: 74) Adorno and Horkheimer's biggest argument is that there is no spontaneity about the process of cultural production. For Adorno, the production of hit songs had become a manipulative operation motivated by purely economic and commercial gain. A recent example is the unprecedented success of the British teenage pop group Hear'Say. The groups members are hardly the epitome of artistic perfectionists, far from it in fact, but the key issues was that they were marketed and manufactured to perfection, hence their phenomenal rise as national stars in Britain. The credibility and the quality of the music is irrelevant, as long as it guarantees and economic and commercial success through sales and advertising. Political economy provides a useful account of the production of culture. However, political economy puts too much emphasis on the economics as the deciding factor in all cultural production. Yes, they do stress that economics is not the only factor that shapes cultural production, but its greatest emphasis is that the production of culture is the product of economic relations. Pluralists criticise political economists and reject the over-riding perception that those who possess the means of production dictate the consumption of culture. They stress that political, cultural and individual factors are just as imperative. The idea of the passive and susceptible consumer of media and other cultural goods is disputed and rejected by the Uses and Gratification theory. The 'Uses and Gratification Theory' (McQuail et al 1972) stresses that the consumers play an active part in media consumption, and is also conscious of its own needs, which it gratifies using the media. It would be iconoclastic to assume that the consumers today are just passive receivers. The theory claims that the audience makes a conscious and motivated choice among media channels and content on offer. This dismisses the political economy view of consumption being determined by those who possess the means of production and who control the distribution of cultural goods through the media and other cultural industries. Therefore, to oppose the political economy view of cultural production, it can be said that the individuals determine their own cultural experience, and not simply accept the ideas and beliefs that is imposed. The strength of political economy is situating power in large organisational forms. Within individual organisations, the economic imperatives play a significant role in the production of goods. However, this new form of ownership within conglomerates and large media firms puts a question mark on the nature of control. Neo-Marxists such as Ralph Dharendorf question that Marxists' analysis of control and ownership of the means of production may be outdated as the ownership of companies now lies with thousands of shareholders. This question of ownership and control is further discussed by Golding and Murdock in "capitalism, communications and class relations" as they emphasise that a "managerial revolution has separated ownership in such industries as the media", (Murdock and Golding in J. Curran et al 1977: 20). They argue that the managerial revolution thesis illustrates an alternative source of power that has lessened the importance of the possession of the means of production. However, despite this question mark, we must not be deceived into thinking that control over production and distribution has deteriorated. The fact remains that, shareholding is in the hands of dominant financial institutions and large corporations, and thus the relationship between the ownership of the means of production and the control over production is still in tact. Conclusion Political economy provides a very comprehensive and useful insight into the production of culture. Its emphasis on issues of power, ownership and control of the means of production provides a tremendously prevalent contribution to the way the capitalist world is organised. The strength and merits of political economy is the assumption that those who own the means of production also control the distribution and consumption of cultural practices. While this has been criticised, because consumption practices are clearly not completely manipulated by strategies of the cultural industries, the fact remains that the economic dynamics of the capitalist system is also not completely independent from the consumption of cultural practices and patterns. The biggest flaw in the political economy perspective, however, is that it does not give enough consideration to the power of the individual to make a conscious choice over his/her own cultural experience. Pseudo-individualization occurs when popular music allows the listeners to believe that they have free choice. This is based on the notion of standardization. When Adorno defines standardization as the music being "listened to for you", what he means is that the consumers are given the impression that they have a choice in what they can listen to. In reality, the industry chooses the music for the consumers. All the choices are pre-digested, i.e. one has the choice between Nickleback, Avril Lavigne and 50 Cent, among others, making it seem like one has an option in the music they listen to whereas in reality, each of these artists is pre-digested and standardized. This in turn keeps people in line by deciding what people listen to. The music industry keeps them listening to music that is pre-digested, paving the way for the future, so to speak. Labels are attached to music to flatter fans into thinking they're a part of a club or subculture, similar to Adorno's example of improvisation in jazz, fooling listeners into believing they are listening to the inside story. During the nineteen fifties and sixties, the Frankfurt School coined the phrase, 'culture industry'; to help identify the process of industrialisation of mass produced culture, developing a more critical approach to cultural studies. Horkheimer and Adorno explained culture industries as factories, churning out standardised products to keep the masses content and in tame passivity. Horkheimer and Adorno viewed this growing culture as dangerous to the more intellectual aspects of life, such as the arts and literature. Critics of the Frankfurt School, however, have declared these 'culture industries', as nothing more than a way to integrate working class people into a largely capitalist society. Critics also explored the possibility that culture industries, along with consumer societies, were solidifying modern capitalism, and so they sought new strategies for change, which required, in the long term, a re-examination of the Marxist theory. Mass media is definitely part of our current social system. Mass media produces symbolic patterns that create invisible tissues on the cultural system. A lot of our leisure time is spent watching television as well as exposure to other types of media such as radios, newspapers etc. A great worry for parents is whether their children are more likely to show aggression when exposed to violence in the media, such as movies and games. In fact studies show that continuous exposure to violence allows children to become 'resistant' or accustomed to aggressive behaviour. This is termed as desensitization. This is a method of learning which relies on the fact that continuo's exposure to a particular situation such as violence in movies or sexually explicit material, may result in the first response being shocking, but through continues exposure, we tend to become resistant to it and do not regard it to be as dreadful as before. Another concern regarding this issue was that if children as well as adults become accustomed to violence and are no longer bothered or do not get emotionally upset when viewing violence, then are they likely to show and develop signs of aggression This method of desensitization is used to cure people suffering from phobias by constantly exposing them to either the object or situation through which anxiety is heightened. This helps people overcome certain fears in the society. However, the question arises is that unlike the favourable effect of desensitization, continuous exposure to violence will mean people becoming less afraid and less reactive to violence whether they be in movies or real life situations. In a study conducted, two groups of children were taken one group were kids who were less frequent viewers of television and another group which were heavy viewers. Both groups were shown some normal films which did not contain scenes of any violence and then a movie which did. The less frequent viewers of television had a higher level of anxiety compared to the other group. This suggests that it is much easier to engage in an activity which does not give birth to the feeling of anxiety rather to one that does, thus suggesting that it could be this reduced anxiety in respect to aggression that may foster aggressive behaviour. The media ties us to a collective order and for critical theorists; it ties us to an order controlled by the bourgeoisie owners of the means of production. Media can be said to be a socializing agent. In doing that it is really turning the independent people into a creature of the system. Television can be criticized, it enhances language ability and concept formation and it provides for some pro-social development. However, it is also noted that extensive viewing of TV. Lowers grade scores, children read fewer books and tend to exercise less comparatively. Children and adolescents are being indoctrinated into the consumer system. As they watch cartoons, commercials and advertisements come up showing items and objects by making them look appealing and thus pull them into the producer - consumer process. Television is not an independent source of knowledge, it is a capitalist tool utilized by the powerful. The goal of the advertiser is for profit maximization. The advertiser targets markets and seeks to produce a buying mood and therefore any media is really a constructor of ideology. It really generates a co modification of culture. Bibliography Adorno, Theodor W. Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, New York: Institute of Social Research, 1941, IX, 17-48 Adorno, Theodor W. The Culture Industry; Selected Essays on Mass Culture (2001, Routledge) Branston, Gill, and Stafford, Roy The Media Student's Book, Fourth Edition (1996, Routledge) Chandler, Daniel (2000) Marxist Media Theory. Oxford Press. Golding, Peter & Murdock, Graham (1979). Ideology and the mass media: the question of determination. In M. Barrett, et al. (Eds.), Ideology and cultural production. London Golding, Peter & Murdock, Graham (1991). Culture, communications, and political economy. In J. Curran and M. Gurevitch (Eds.). Mass media and society. London: Edward Arnold. Gramsci, Antonio (1971): Selections from the Prison Notebooks. London: Lawrence & Wishart Gurevitch, Michael, Tony Bennett, James Curran & Janet Woollacott (Ed.) (1982): Culture, Society and the Media. London: Methuen (Part 1, 'Class, Ideology and the Media') Hall, Stuart (1980): 'Encoding/decoding'. In Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Ed.): Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson Hall, Stuart, C. Critcher, T. Jefferson, J. Clarke & B. Roberts (1978): Policing the Crisis. London: Macmillan Kellner, Douglas Media Culture (1995, Routledge) Lapsley, Robert & Michael Westlake (1988): Film Theory: An Introduction. Manchester: Manchester University Press Chapter 1, 'Politics': pages 1-17 Marcuse, Herbert (1972): One-Dimensional Man. London: Abacus McQuail, Denis (1994): Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage (Chapter 3, 'Theory of Media and Theory of Society'; Chapter 4, 'Media Theory Applied: Power, Integration and Change') Murdock, G.P., Golding, P. (1977) Capitalism, communications, and class relations. u: Curran J., Gurevitch, M., Woollacott, J. Mass Communication and Society, London: Arnold Press Murdock, Graham (1978). Blindspots about western Marxism: a reply to Dallas Smythe. Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 2(2), 109-19. Murdock, Graham (1995). Across the great divide: Cultural analysis and the condition of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11 (1) 89-95 Murdock, Graham (1995).Across the great divide: Cultural analysis and the condition of democracy. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 11(1), 89-95 Murdock, Graham and Peter Golding (1977): 'Capitalism, communication and class relations'. In James Curran, Michael Gurevitch & Janet Woollacott (Eds.): Mass Communication and Society. London: Arnold Negus, K. (1997), 'The Production of Culture,' in Du Gay, P (ed.), Production of Culture/Cultures of Production. London: Sage. Sparks, Glenn G. Media Effects Research, a Basic Overview (2006, Thomas Wadsworth Press) Stevenson, Nick (1995): Understanding Media Cultures: Social Theory and Mass Communication. London: Sage (Chapter 1: 'Marxism and Mass Communication Research') Strinati, Dominic (1995): An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London: Routledge (Chapter 4: 'Marxism, Political Economy and Ideology', pp. 127-76) Read More