The larger argument of The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), according to Peters (2003), explains the transition from enlightenment as a way of rationalizing and predicting the world to enlightenment as a way of restricting and controlling certain groups of people. "The Culture Industry" is a chapter in this work that explains media’s role in "soft domination," or convincing the mass audience to subscribe to docility and passivity.
1. "Escapist entertainment escapes from the task of genuine escape" (p. 68-69).
Importantly, as Peters (2003) points out, Horkheimer and Adorno (1944) do not simply argue that the audience is duped; instead, they see consumers as "active agents in their own duping" (p. 64). For Peters (2003), Horkheimer and Adorno (1944) conceptualize the audience as active in two ways: they actively assert energy in escaping into texts and they are active enough to represent a threat to the powerful in the first place.
2. "The Culture Industry" offers a subtler and more nuanced critique of mass media than other Frankfurt School contributions. Specifically, Peters (2003) sees “The Culture Industry” as a simultaneous indictment of media domination and an optimistic hope for mass cultural freedom.
3. Horkheimer and Adorno (1944) are often misunderstood for two primary reasons.
a. First, "The Culture Industry" is oddly structured and seemingly incomplete, with argumentative fragments scattered throughout the essay but never authoritatively unified into a consistent thought.
b. Second, Horkheimer and Adorno (1944) write from a particular cultural location as Europeans relocated in 1940s Los Angeles. As such, Peters (2003) argues, they often include shorthand commentary about American culture which not only seem to presume a European audience, but which also feel scattered and abbreviated.
No comments:
Post a Comment