Living in a Material World:

Adorno & Horkheimer’s Culture Industry

"Enlightenment as Mass Deception: The Culture Industry," from Dialectic of Enlightenment, by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno

Alex Pompilii

Introduction

In 1944 Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer termed the phrase the culture industry in their revolutionary essay Dialectic of Enlightenment. The chapter, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” concentrates on this term, mostly in relation to the media at the time. They claim that every form of media from Hollywood films to magazines produce the same manipulative message and transform their audience into complicit slaves of capitalism. The culture industry is one that is increasingly monolithic and standardized—all films are the same with the same message. Every film creates a cycle that is endlessly repeated; the repetition ensures that there can be no historical or political change, even if the films themselves present such an ambition. After all, the culture industry’s real main ambition is to promote capitalism and uphold its values. Thus it claims that all ideologies lead to capitalism, and gives no proof that any other systems exist. It discourages critical thinking of capitalism as well due to its repetitive nature. The media that makes up the culture industry is mindless entertainment that provides relief from the real world for a temporary time inside a cinema; only so then the spectator can get escapism and then be able to go back into the real world right after leaving the cinema. For example, one can have a tough day at work, watch a film and feel better, and then be able to go back in the cycle of work the next morning instead of rebelling against their employer or questioning the ethics of their job. The overall lesson this all teaches the subject is that they must adapt to inhumane conditions; they must accept that some things in life are just unfair instead of thinking critically and acquiring change. Adorno and Horkheimer use the clever example of Disney to illustrate this point; the audience laughs at Donald Duck’s misfortunes but through this they are actually laughing at themselves and their misfortunes (110). The audience is manipulated into trivializing their own oppression; as stated in the essay “There is laughter because there is nothing to laugh about. Laughter, whether reconciled or terrible, always accompanies the moment when a fear is ended […] It echoes the inescapability of power” (112). Laughter is an important agent in the culture industry shaping pain with denial (112). The obedience required in cinema-going reinforces conformity and a lack of critical thinking. Adorno and Horkheimer compare the culture industry in Hollywood to Hitler’s Germany; products are fed to a mass in both and the people willingly accept it. There is a one size fits all approach that individuals do not question; rather they are passive and complicit in their acceptance that it is the right system for them. The subjects are blinded and manipulated into becoming consumers due to the media’s nature under the culture industry.

Historical Background

The Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, or the Frankfurt School, was founded in 1923 as a Marxist alternative to the typical education system by Karl Grunberg (Jäger 45). In 1931, Horkheimer claimed that the institute’s main motivation was to understand the link between the role of the group in the economic process, the psychological state of its individual members, and the institutions that affect them in a larger totality “within the whole of society” (Jäger 47). Adorno and Horkheimer attended the Frankfurt School along with colleagues Herbert Marcuse, Walter Benjamin, and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm (Brantlinger 223).

The historical period in which the Dialectic of Entertainment was written is crucial to fully understanding it. It was published in 1944, three years after Adorno and Horkheimer moved to California and one year before the war ended. Adorno had received a telegram from his long-time friend Horkheimer in 1937 suggesting they move to America in order to participate in a radio project, The Princeton Radio Research Project (Jäger 102). Adorno agreed to the move but soon realized that America was worsening his depression. He immediately detested American radio, as he felt it was brainwashing its listeners with meaningless music, as well as the lack of nature in America’s landscape (Jäger 104). In Minima moralia, he wrote that America was “expressionless.” (Jäger 105). Shortly after their move to America, World War II broke out; in 1939 Adorno and Horkheimer wrote a drafted manifesto on their thoughts. They believed that both the German and French governments should be overthrown and that Revolution was the only positive outcome that could come from the war (Jäger 106). A text that inspired Adorno and Horkheimer during the war was Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (Jäger 111). The dystopian novel imagines a world where Fordism and capitalism is the saviour while Stalinist totalitarianism produces a greedy, toxic, and abusive society. Brave New World’s society; with its demand for conformity and romanticization of capitalism, was certainly a key text for Adorno and Horkheimer when writing the Dialectic of Entertainment. They even attended seminars on the novel that fused Huxley’s vision with Nietzsche’s theories (Jäger 111). Along with Nietzsche, Adorno and Horkheimer looked up to similar “dark authors of the bourgeois age” such as Sade, Machiavelli, and Hobbes rather than the “liberal optimists” (Jäger 121). The essay as a whole is doubting the Enlightenment’s achievements. The failure of the 1940s in their contemporary society had caused Europeans to readdress this point in history; what was once marvelled at for being a major accomplishment was now held against a mirror to look for faults and how humans had gone wrong. One of Adorno and Horkheimer’s main arguments was that people are now enslaved due their own social progress; the increase in productivity had now created inequality as the social groups controlling it have an unfair advantage over everyone else (Jäger 120). They grouped Hollywood into this equation; they believed it made the oppressed no longer aware of their accurate standing in life.

In a letter to Horkheimer, Adorno told him that one could get a better understanding of Fascism by studying advertising (Jäger 122). He believed that advertising was part of the “total power of capital” (Jäger 122). The Hays Code was introduced in 1930 as a means of controlling the content of Hollywood films and upholding conservative American morals and values. Gone were the days of risqué pre-code films with protagonists that roamed outside social norms, instead the star system took centre stage and Hollywood propaganda was constantly reinforced. Americans could not get enough of the glamour and unrealistic perfection that they saw portrayed onscreen;

“Hollywoodland, the sign read, announcing another country who’s boundaries extended from Los Angeles to the 20,000 movie theatres in America. It was the fantastic land over the rainbow where bluebirds flew and dreams came true in Schwab’s drugstore. Or else it was the Locust-land of lost content where the dreams turned sour and fan magazines, or even the Hollywood Sign itself, became instruments of Death for the debris of Tinsel Town who failed to find their crock of gold. Beyond the films it made, Hollywood was itself an American fantasy, for sale on every newsstand and cosmetic counter. the main ingredients of its fantasy were beauty and early success.” (Maltby 3).

Adorno and Horkheimer were not disillusioned by Hollywood’s bright lights and instead wanted to caution audiences based on what they had witnessed with World War II. Their fascination with Marx and Nietzsche certainly promoted the final product of their argument, along with their early experiences and the route that Hollywood was taking with the entertainment industry in the 1940s.

Initially the culture industry critique was critically acclaimed in West Germany; however in 1968 it was violently opposed due to student movements against Adorno (Waldman 44). While a professor at Frankfurt himself, Adorno was met with criticism from the new radicals. They found his views on Marx misrepresented and outdated (Jäger 196). In addition, Horkheimer’s now-pro Vietnam War view was met with controversy; he believed that America was in the right to defend the free world from Communism (Jäger 198). Some leftist academic circles however still respected Adorno and Horkheimer, especially in comparison to conservative elitists such as T.S Eliot (Waldman 44).

The Book Chapter

“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” could further be broken down into four categories; sameness, the end of fantasy, conformity and obedience, and the star system.

Sameness

“All mass culture under monopoly is identical” (95)

Adorno and Horkheimer state that all culture sources are exactly the same, only disguised as having any real difference. They point to film, television, magazines, and radio predominantly but even critique buildings; they believe that new structures are flimsy and disposable while older structures now look like slums (94). The duo believes that these new models are reinforcing homogeneity as well as a false promise of unity under total power of capital. Like the business of the housing industry, entertainment industries such as the film industry no longer needs to present itself as art to have an audience. Their only job is to make profitable films, and will churn out whatever content will make the most money. The process of standardizing each film in a specific reproductive way endlessly will ensure that their profit is met in different locations (Adorno & Horkheimer 95). It is achieved through technology, which serves as the main manipulator to the public mass. Technology is bounded to assembly line production to produce the same film essentially over and over in economically stable societies (Adorno and Horkheimer 95). The public does not question this; their individual consciousness is set aside for their role as a member of the mass. Hence the public, Adorno and Horkheimer believe, are part of the system as well. They accept the sameness of what they are being fed because it is familiar to them. Even though some forms of media, such as A films and B films, seem like they are wildly different and appeal to different audiences; they are still made so that there is something for everybody (Adorno & Horkheimer 97). Their “differences” are only in terms of how to define and organize them; they are not actually that different. Orson Welles is used as an example of a filmmaker who goes against the grain and is celebrated; however his diversity only reinforces the culture industry as an institution. False freedom is promised, but every product churned out ends up being the same anyways.

The End of Fantasy

“For the consumer, there is nothing left to classify” (98)

Adorno and Horkheimer believe that the consumer has everything fed to them, which prevents critical thinking or individualism. They state that mass art is a “dreamless art” that fulfills the “dreamy idealism” of the people (98). Art becomes interchangeable although it all originated from consciousness and an individualistic idea. Art has gotten predictable, especially in the realm of film where one can predict precisely how it is going to start and end. The culture industry, not only infecting everything with sameness, has also stunted art from growing. It has become a formula; the film is no longer fantastical or unfamiliar, it produces the real world for the spectator and thus becomes a seamless expansion of the world he already lives in (Adorno & Horkheimer 99). The introduction of sound in films has only strengthened this; it is an exact replica of day-to-day life without any room left for imagination. Even before the introduction of sound in 1929, the culture industry had been appealing to those seeking escapism during World War I (Adorno & Horkheimer 108). Individuals who detest their workplace and the routine of everyday life can only rid themselves of it through their leisure time—however the cinema reproducing reality only feeds it back to them. Amusement is directly connected to boredom as being amused costs no hard labour on the role of the spectator (Adorno & Horkheimer 109). Cartoons once took an ounce of critical thinking in order to fully understand, however now their purpose is only to reinforce social norms as evident in the Donald Duck example where the audience laughs at his pain, as they laugh at their own pain (Adorno & Horkheimer 110). The culture industry cheats the spectator out of what it promises in the first place; escapism. Amusement is the main tactic used by the culture industry to forget one’s own suffering. It does not deliver the promise of “escape from bad reality” but rather prevents the spectator from thinking critically about resisting that reality (Adorno & Horkheimer 116).

Conformity and Obedience

“Tragedy becomes a blessing” (122)

The culture industry demands conformity from the spectators, along with unquestioning obedience. Such a concept allow Adorno and Horkheimer to draw comparisons from the culture industry and Hollywood to Hitler’s Germany. They claim that the totalitarian response to suffering repeats itself in the culture industry. Tragedy is a blessing as it disallows the truth to be glossed over, according to Adorno and Horkheimer (122). It becomes the surrogate for the dissatisfied film spectator to seek social change (122). The culture industry and Hitler’s Germany hide behind a facade of promising their people will not suffer or endure tragedy, instead everyone will be provided for—as long as they follow their rules (Adorno and Horkheimer 120). Tragedy is thus destroyed by capitalism and the culture industry. The culture industry ensures that everyone has the chance to be happy, therefore tragedy and sadness is handed over in favour of the happier emotion (Adorno & Horkheimer 124). Citizens are conditioned to not dwell in unhappiness or recognize their misfortune because of this promise that seems easy enough to achieve under capitalism. American fads, such as fashion or commodities, are akin to Nazi Germany saying a new word on the radio and having the public use the word religiously the next day (Adorno & Horkheimer 134). The culture industry, like Hitler’s Germany, relies on loyal citizens that feed into their ideology and also become consumers of their product.

Star System

“For centuries society has prepared for Victor Mature and Mickey Rooney” (126)

Under the star system, celebrities must be both glamorous and enough of the everyday man in order to appeal to an audience. Stars, such as Victor Mature and Mickey Rooney, fulfill the individuality that the film spectator lacks (Adorno & Horkheimer 126). Individuality itself however is becoming an outdated term, instead the film spectator wishes to imitate the actors that he sees (Adorno & Horkheimer 126). The star personas are heavily fabricated and easily reproduced on magazine covers and through their movies; they are more-so an image to be sold than an actual human being. This is appealing to the film spectator, who sees himself in fragments, just as society is increasingly becoming a fragment. Adorno and Horkheimer point out that films, like other objects sold under capitalism such as chewing gum, are sold cheap despite making a huge profit (126). Therefore star images are also cheap. The selection of a star is also enforcing ideology of sameness and conformity; the star is realistic and yet fantastical. Adorno and Horkheimer use the example of Greta Garbo to illustrate their point. As the heroine Garbo is a stand-in for the average American woman and yet her beauty transcends average and she wears luxurious gowns in her films, even when playing an average everyday character (118). The manipulation behind this tactic is to make Garbo relatable enough that the female spectator can imagine herself as her in the film, and yet leave her with an unattainable image to aspire to. Likewise actors that are not conventionally attractive or stand for the culture industry’s values are not made into stars or even considered. Adorno and Horkheimer allude sameness to chance; a film spectator who obediently follows the ideology presented in the films can look up to the actors in it and hope that someday that could be them as well (117). This promotes the cycle of reproducing the same ideology in films in order to keep up the same citizen leaving the theatre. The cinema either pokes fun at “wistful dreams” or resells them as an ideology (Adorno & Horkheimer 119). The film spectator becomes a consumer because they want to live out their dreams, which can only be done through seeing the pictures and looking up to its stars. Adorno and Horkheimer view stars as robotic, concluding the chapter with “Personality means hardly more than dazzling white teeth and freedom from body odour and emotions” (136).

Applications to “Today”

As Disney is mentioned directly in the culture industry essay, I will be investigating three films that incorporate Disney and how they apply to Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory. I will be looking at two films made during the war; Sullivan’s Travels directed by Patrick Sturges and released by Paramount Pictures in 1941, and Walt Disney’s own Fun and Fancy Free released in 1947. These two films are clear examples of how escapism blatantly in films was already a trend during Adorno and Horkheimer’s prime. They do not at all keep their motives or perspectives secret; instead they openly embrace them and encourage the audience to do so too. Just as the Great Depression and World War I brought along a string of optimistic, fantastical films for the average Joe to not give up hope, World War II saw the revival. Sullivan’s travels opens with the dedication; “To the memory of those who made us laugh; the motley mountebanks, the clowns, the buffoons, in all times and in all nations, whose efforts have lightened our burden a little, this picture is affectionately dedicated.” Set during the Great Depression, the film’s main ambition is to bring optimism and unity through laughter to audiences currently going through World War II. The ending scene shows Sullivan laughing his troubles away with his fellow prisoners and African American church attendees. The Disney short that they watch together brings them to a state of escapism—detached from their physical bodies and actual situations. They laugh at Pluto’s misfortunes onscreen, unconsciously laughing at their own misfortunes. This film is the most glaringly obvious companion to Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory; Sullivan scraps his idea to make a socially conscious production that exposes inequality and instead concludes the film by talking about the importance of laughter. He states, laughter “isn’t much, but it’s better than nothing.” Adorno and Horkheimer would surely detest this ending as it is reinforcing audiences to stay complicit in their oppression and instead turn to capitalism and films as a temporary means of relief, even stating that it is all they have. An extremely unique film for the 1940s, Sullivan’s Travels exposes Hollywood and yet concludes the film without any cynicism for Hollywood, it rather concludes that Sullivan was wrong and Hollywood was right the entire time. This leads to audiences turning away from the film without any real critical thinking; especially for a 1941 audience that was desperate for any relief from the war of any kind.

Fun and Fancy Free is one of the most obvious examples of wartime escapism and a need to appeal to a mass audience. Starring Dinah Shore and Edgar Bergen, popular entertainers of the day, the film blends fantasy seamlessly with reality through storytelling and coping with melancholy. Although Adorno and Horkheimer were left-wing, there were also interestingly enough right-wing critics of mass culture and the culture industry. Conservative intellectual Robert Lynd stated in the 1930s;

“Mickey Mouse and Charlie McCarthy tend to displace Uncle Sam and local symbols as repositories of common sentiment…They offer little identification of our personal rhythms of feeling with the deeper purposes of the culture as a whole and with our common goals as members of it” (Siomopoulos 49).

Both Mickey Mouse and Charlie McCarthy, Bergen’s favourite puppet, appear in Fun and Fancy Free along with Jiminy Cricket and the giant Willie from Mickey and the Beanstalk. Among the human celebrities, they are the unreality but also take on the role of narrator in driving the story. Lynd believed the artificial nature of these figureheads offered audiences a chance to escape from reality, like Adorno and Horkheimer believed that Hollywood led audiences astray to fantasyland. Lynd’s claim that the average American citizen could not fully identify with Mickey Mouse and Charlie McCarthy, both for being artificial and not promoting American culture, is akin to Adorno and Horkheimer’s statement about the culture industry turning consumers into puppets for ideology. The spectator laughs at them, but they are one in the same. The film’s unique blend of reality with fantasy makes the spectator aware of their own reality, however by glamorizing Hollywood in the finale of the film it subverts it and instead reinforces typical Hollywood ideology. Like Sullivan’s Travels, the film holds the potential to make the spectator aware of his misfortunes and take a real stand after leaving the cinema but quickly backs down and feeds the spectator the ideology that was repeated in more typical films; Hollywood is always right and the only way to escape is through consumerism.

A brilliant analysis from J.P Telotte on the film reads:

“Edgar Bergen, Luana Patten, Charlie McCarthy, and Mortimer Snerd discuss the story, obviously missing its subversive implications, decide that it is, after all, just a ‘figment of the imagination,’ and thus reassert a boundary between the real and the imagined. […] But at that point, the roof of the house—now animated—is lifted off by Willie […] With the boundary between animated and live worlds literally lifted away, the film then closes with an extreme long shot of the famous Hollywood sign blinking in the background and Willie continuing his search in this ‘real’ environment, leaving us with a very different perspective on our world; not just the narrative sense of how difficult it is to find freedom or wealth here, but, given this new sense of space and the obvious constructions of Hollywood, a stylistic reminder of how elusive the real is, and how illusive all the movie culture constructs for us is as well” (256).

As with Sullivan’s Travels, Fun and Fancy Free is acknowledging Hollywood’s construction but embracing it. Willie directly invades Bergen’s real world and dismantles his claim that the imaginary is not real. In addition, Willie represents in this scene the post-war viewer who is desperately trying to make sense of his surroundings by turning to Hollywood. Despite Lynd’s claims, Fun and Fancy Free is actually treating Mickey Mouse and Charlie McCarthy as surrogates for the average American; they are just as controlled as he is. Additionally they add some hope and optimism into his life through comedy—again, Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of laughter as a release of fear is repeated in the postwar era.

Works Cited

Adorno, Theodor W. & Max Horkheimer, “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception,” (1944) in Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming. New York: Continuum, 1982. pp. 94-136. Print.

Brantlinger, Patrick. Bread and Circuses: Theories of Mass Culture as Social Decay. Cornell University Press, 1983. Web.

Jäger, Lorenz. Adorno: A Political Biography. Trans. Stewart Spencer. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Print.

Maltby, Richard. Harmless Entertainment: Hollywood and the Ideology of Consensus. London: The Scarecrow Press Inc., 1983. Print.

Siomopoulos, Anna. “Entertaining Ethics: Technology, Mass Culture and American Intellectuals of the 1930s.” Film History vol.11, no.1, 1999, pp. 45-54. Web.

Telotte, J. P. “The Changing Space of Animation: Disney’s Hybrid Films of the 1940s.” Animation: An Interdiscipizanry Journal, vol. 2, no. 3, 2007, pp. 245–258. Web.

Waldman, Diane. “Critical Theory and Film: Adorno and ‘The Culture Industry’ Revisited.” New German Critique vol. 12, 1977, pp. 39-60. Web.