Horkheimer and Adorno address capitalism in a way that has often intrigued me. I remember being astounded when I discovered that a small handful of corporations ran everything I saw through the media… that only a few perspectives were being fed to myself and everyone I knew. Freepress.net describes how “The U.S. media landscape is dominated by massive corporations that, through a history of mergers and acquisitions, have concentrated their control over what we see, hear and read. In many cases, these giant companies are vertically integrated, controlling everything from initial production to final distribution.” These corporations, called the ‘Big Six,’ distribute their ideas through TV, film, radio, publishing, online holdings, and countless other outlets. Horkheimer and Adorno discuss this same idea, saying “No mention is made of the act that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those who economic hold over society is greatest” (1111). This idea is repeated throughout “Dialectic of Enlightenment.” Those with the money control the companies. The companies hire the producers who choose what airs on television and “whose payments keep the radio stations going” (1127). Ultimately, those with money decide what our culture will look like. Another idea that Horkheimer and Adorno discuss is that of disposability. This is something I have contemplated while walking down the streets of Spokane. Everything is made to be replaced. We drink our coffee in disposable cups, eat our chips out of disposable bags, buy disposable cameras and use laptops that were designed to be disposed of in a few years. Horkheimer and Adorno even claim that houses are disposable, saying they have a “built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans” (1111). The idea of all of this is not so much about disposing of things, but about replacing them. The more that is thrown out, the more that will need to be made. If societies can only access disposable items, those manufacturers and corporations are guaranteed life-long patronage.
The next idea in “Dialectic and Enlightenment” that struck me was the role of culture in suppressing individuality. According to Horkheimer and Adorno, this would really be the executive authorities imposing their carefully made and distributed culture upon society. When I read the line “culture now impresses the same stamp on everything,” it made me think of Wollestonecraft’s claim that “it is a farce to call any being virtuous whose virtues do not result form the exercise of its own reason” (Horkheimer and Adorno 1110; 498). Both authors are convinced that society/culture suppresses individualism. Horkheimer and Adorno take this a step further by saying that people desire this universality of being through cultural values. Since “no object has an inherent value; it is valuable only to the extent hat it can be exchanged” it becomes obvious that the true human need is not to lose individuality, but to be able to relate to others (1126). But can people be exceptional at relating to others and still be individual? This question reminded me of Bridger’s presentation of memes, or specifically his reference to Bella in Twilight. She is a blank slate that can be filled by each person as they see fit… so is this remarkable ability to allow others to relate to the character encouraging universality in viewers or is it allowing viewers to express their individuality through the way they embody Bella’s generic character with their own traits and desires? Hmm. Anyhow, this all goes along with how the characters, media and viewers are all viewed as objects by the executive authorities- objects to be figured out and shaped as they see fit. Gosh, all of this makes me super stoked about the idea of globalization.
One question I was left wondering after reading “Dialectic and Enlightenment” was ‘can entertainment ever be a good thing?’ Horkheimer and Adorno say “pleasure always means not to think about anything, to forget suffering even where it is shown. Basically it is helplessness… the liberation which amusement promises is freedom from thought and from negotiation” (1119). So then, can any productive good come from amusement/entertainment/pleasure?
Stephanie,
ReplyDeleteNice move bringing in Wollestonecraft. Yes, the problem comes when we consider what all of this does to the individual. I think that it is true that in most popular movies/TV shows/pop fiction/computer games that the heroes/heroines have to be blank slates that we all want to draw ourselves into. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong w/ entertainment. I think there's something odd about paying money for it.
With the Bella example, I don't think her blankness allows for increased individuality or reader participation, it rather lets any person fill out her identity, passively, so they can engage the "universal" desire to fall in love with and heal the romantic hero. Just because we don't know who Bella is doesn't change it's realism.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I definitely prefer art to entertainment, and I believe that real art is possible but it isn't what we do to just relax. I don't think there is anything wrong with it either. The main thing that could potentially make it good, in my opinion, is that it allows us to make connections with people, like Sarah's comment on one of the other blogs, it was frustrating for her illiterate friend to hear about internet videos because it was a discourse in which he could not participate. It is a bit unfortunate, but in order to engage a certain audience, it is necessary to be involved in the culture to a deep enough extent that we're all speaking the same language. We can't quite escape the necessity for cultural relevance, even if we did want to shun the entertainment industry. I think it is just crucial that we don't let entertainment become our only imput. We need to stimulate other areas of our brains so that we can avoid the total manipulation that Horkheimer and Adorno warn against. I think even those two would admit that one who has no knowledge of entertainment cannot be relevant.