On "The Culture Industry Reconsidered"

On "The Culture Industry Reconsidered"

1) One gripe I had with Horkheimer and Adorno is in the first page of the text where they say "The culture industry intentionally integrates its consumers from above."  This may be a redundant argument at this point, but its still confusing to me- how can something that does not exist in actuality (that being the culture industry, in that it isn't a company building on 5th avenue) have intentions? Do they merely mean that the ideology that the industry perpetuates has become so entrenched in the consumer as to have some sort of sway over him/her? Am I missing the point completely?

2) Id like here to move away from what has become the traditional blog post for this class. 

I often listen to music while I read, and a song came on this weekend that for some reason struck a chord with me in relation to this question of the universality of the culture industry.  The song is "9-5ers Anthem" by Aesop Rock. You can look it up if you like, as the whole song tends towards a common theme and has more thought provoking lyrics than this (i suggest looking up just the lyrics),  but here are the parts that stood out to me in relation to the reading:

"We the American working population

hate the fact that eight hours a day

is wasted on chasing the dream of someone that isn't us

and we may not hate our jobs

but we hate jobs in general that don't have to do with fighting our own causes

We the American working population

hate the nine-to-five day-in day-out

when we'd rather be supporting ourselves

by being paid to perfect the pastimes

that we have harbored based solely on the fact

that it makes us smile if it sounds dope

Fumble outta bed and stumble to the kitchen

pour myself a cup of ambition and 

yawn and stretch and my life is a mess and

if i never make it home today, God bless"

The questions this raised for me are as follows:

 A) Based on the writings of Adorno and Horkheimer (in the prior readings, and particularly up to page 102 in the current one), do you think that this song represents a product of the culture industry, or do you think it is a separate work of art that defies the standard? 

i) If its a product of "the industry" than does this song serve, as we have discussed and  as was stated in past readings, simply to provide temporary alleviation and quell  discontent so that the worker can feel refreshed enough to be sent  back to work the  next day? Does it actually promote the system in an indirect way?

ii) If its art, then is it possible for art such as this to combat the industry at all? Or is it  part of a receding social commentary that is being stifled by the omnipotence of "mass  culture"? 

B) Does the culture industry 'intentionally' harbor outliers like Aesop in order to "...conserve the decaying aura [of true art] as a foggy mist..." (pg 102) ?  This brings me back to the question of the industry having "intentions," and makes me think about what Chelsea was saying about the individuality of different art forms. Does the continued (although arguably diminished) existence of this type of social commentary in music stand opposed to Adorno and Horkheimer's principle argument? Why? Why Not?