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?

Stiglitz on 1%

This is, I believe, where the slogan comes from. It seems to me to point to the fundamentally ahistorical nature of the 99%/1% division (as a protest against inequality), as opposed to Marx's historically-minded proletariat vs. bourgeoisie.

The most important divisions in the society depend on what one thinks the society's most salient problems and potentials are. For Marx, the inequality of capitalism was a symptom of a broader set of dynamics laden with political possibility. Now, it is merely a horror in a world where it seems totally unnecessary.

http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105

INEQUALITY

Of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%

Americans have been watching protests against oppressive regimes that concentrate massive wealth in the hands of an elite few. Yet in our own democracy, 1 percent of the people take nearly a quarter of the nation’s income—an inequality even the wealthy will come to regret.

By Joseph E. StiglitzIllustration by Stephen Doyle

THE FAT AND THE FURIOUS The top 1 percent may have the best houses, educations, and lifestyles, says the author, but “their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live.”

It’s no use pretending that what has obviously happened has not in fact happened. The upper 1 percent of Americans are now taking in nearly a quarter of the nation’s income every year. In terms of wealth rather than income, the top 1 percent control 40 percent. Their lot in life has improved considerably. Twenty-five years ago, the corresponding figures were 12 percent and 33 percent. One response might be to celebrate the ingenuity and drive that brought good fortune to these people, and to contend that a rising tide lifts all boats. That response would be misguided. While the top 1 percent have seen their incomes rise 18 percent over the past decade, those in the middle have actually seen their incomes fall. For men with only high-school degrees, the decline has been precipitous—12 percent in the last quarter-century alone. All the growth in recent decades—and more—has gone to those at the top. In terms of income equality, America lags behind any country in the old, ossified Europe that President George W. Bush used to deride. Among our closest counterparts are Russia with its oligarchs and Iran. While many of the old centers of inequality in Latin America, such as Brazil, have been striving in recent years, rather successfully, to improve the plight of the poor and reduce gaps in income, America has allowed inequality to grow.

Economists long ago tried to justify the vast inequalities that seemed so troubling in the mid-19th century—inequalities that are but a pale shadow of what we are seeing in America today. The justification they came up with was called “marginal-productivity theory.” In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin. The corporate executives who helped bring on the recession of the past three years—whose contribution to our society, and to their own companies, has been massively negative—went on to receive large bonuses. In some cases, companies were so embarrassed about calling such rewards “performance bonuses” that they felt compelled to change the name to “retention bonuses” (even if the only thing being retained was bad performance). Those who have contributed great positive innovations to our society, from the pioneers of genetic understanding to the pioneers of the Information Age, have received a pittance compared with those responsible for the financial innovations that brought our global economy to the brink of ruin.

Some people look at income inequality and shrug their shoulders. So what if this person gains and that person loses? What matters, they argue, is not how the pie is divided but the size of the pie. That argument is fundamentally wrong. An economy in which mostcitizens are doing worse year after year—an economy like America’s—is not likely to do well over the long haul. There are several reasons for this.

First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity. Whenever we diminish equality of opportunity, it means that we are not using some of our most valuable assets—our people—in the most productive way possible. Second, many of the distortions that lead to inequality—such as those associated with monopoly power and preferential tax treatment for special interests—undermine the efficiency of the economy. This new inequality goes on to create new distortions, undermining efficiency even further. To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards, have gone into finance rather than into fields that would lead to a more productive and healthy economy.

Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology. The United States and the world have benefited greatly from government-sponsored research that led to the Internet, to advances in public health, and so on. But America has long suffered from an under-investment in infrastructure (look at the condition of our highways and bridges, our railroads and airports), in basic research, and in education at all levels. Further cutbacks in these areas lie ahead.

None of this should come as a surprise—it is simply what happens when a society’s wealth distribution becomes lopsided. The more divided a society becomes in terms of wealth, the more reluctant the wealthy become to spend money on common needs. The rich don’t need to rely on government for parks or education or medical care or personal security—they can buy all these things for themselves. In the process, they become more distant from ordinary people, losing whatever empathy they may once have had. They also worry about strong government—one that could use its powers to adjust the balance, take some of their wealth, and invest it for the common good. The top 1 percent may complain about the kind of government we have in America, but in truth they like it just fine: too gridlocked to re-distribute, too divided to do anything but lower taxes.

Economists are not sure how to fully explain the growing inequality in America. The ordinary dynamics of supply and demand have certainly played a role: laborsaving technologies have reduced the demand for many “good” middle-class, blue-collar jobs. Globalization has created a worldwide marketplace, pitting expensive unskilled workers in America against cheap unskilled workers overseas. Social changes have also played a role—for instance, the decline of unions, which once represented a third of American workers and now represent about 12 percent.

But one big part of the reason we have so much inequality is that the top 1 percent want it that way. The most obvious example involves tax policy. Lowering tax rates on capital gains, which is how the rich receive a large portion of their income, has given the wealthiest Americans close to a free ride. Monopolies and near monopolies have always been a source of economic power—from John D. Rockefeller at the beginning of the last century to Bill Gates at the end. Lax enforcement of anti-trust laws, especially during Republican administrations, has been a godsend to the top 1 percent. Much of today’s inequality is due to manipulation of the financial system, enabled by changes in the rules that have been bought and paid for by the financial industry itself—one of its best investments ever. The government lent money to financial institutions at close to 0 percent interest and provided generous bailouts on favorable terms when all else failed. Regulators turned a blind eye to a lack of transparency and to conflicts of interest.

When you look at the sheer volume of wealth controlled by the top 1 percent in this country, it’s tempting to see our growing inequality as a quintessentially American achievement—we started way behind the pack, but now we’re doing inequality on a world-class level. And it looks as if we’ll be building on this achievement for years to come, because what made it possible is self-reinforcing. Wealth begets power, which begets more wealth. During the savings-and-loan scandal of the 1980s—a scandal whose dimensions, by today’s standards, seem almost quaint—the banker Charles Keating was asked by a congressional committee whether the $1.5 million he had spread among a few key elected officials could actually buy influence. “I certainly hope so,” he replied. The Supreme Court, in its recent Citizens United case, has enshrined the right of corporations to buy government, by removing limitations on campaign spending. The personal and the political are today in perfect alignment. Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office. By and large, the key executive-branch policymakers on trade and economic policy also come from the top 1 percent. When pharmaceutical companies receive a trillion-dollar gift—through legislation prohibiting the government, the largest buyer of drugs, from bargaining over price—it should not come as cause for wonder. It should not make jaws drop that a tax bill cannot emerge from Congress unless big tax cuts are put in place for the wealthy. Given the power of the top 1 percent, this is the way you would expect the system to work.

America’s inequality distorts our society in every conceivable way. There is, for one thing, a well-documented lifestyle effect—people outside the top 1 percent increasingly live beyond their means. Trickle-down economics may be a chimera, but trickle-down behaviorism is very real. Inequality massively distorts our foreign policy. The top 1 percent rarely serve in the military—the reality is that the “all-volunteer” army does not pay enough to attract their sons and daughters, and patriotism goes only so far. Plus, the wealthiest class feels no pinch from higher taxes when the nation goes to war: borrowed money will pay for all that. Foreign policy, by definition, is about the balancing of national interests and national resources. With the top 1 percent in charge, and paying no price, the notion of balance and restraint goes out the window. There is no limit to the adventures we can undertake; corporations and contractors stand only to gain. The rules of economic globalization are likewise designed to benefit the rich: they encourage competition among countries for business, which drives down taxes on corporations, weakens health and environmental protections, and undermines what used to be viewed as the “core” labor rights, which include the right to collective bargaining. Imagine what the world might look like if the rules were designed instead to encourage competition among countries for workers.Governments would compete in providing economic security, low taxes on ordinary wage earners, good education, and a clean environment—things workers care about. But the top 1 percent don’t need to care.

Or, more accurately, they think they don’t. Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. America has long prided itself on being a fair society, where everyone has an equal chance of getting ahead, but the statistics suggest otherwise: the chances of a poor citizen, or even a middle-class citizen, making it to the top in America are smaller than in many countries of Europe. The cards are stacked against them. It is this sense of an unjust system without opportunity that has given rise to the conflagrations in the Middle East: rising food prices and growing and persistent youth unemployment simply served as kindling. With youth unemployment in America at around 20 percent (and in some locations, and among some socio-demographic groups, at twice that); with one out of six Americans desiring a full-time job not able to get one; with one out of seven Americans on food stamps (and about the same number suffering from “food insecurity”)—given all this, there is ample evidence that something has blocked the vaunted “trickling down” from the top 1 percent to everyone else. All of this is having the predictable effect of creating alienation—voter turnout among those in their 20s in the last election stood at 21 percent, comparable to the unemployment rate.

In recent weeks we have watched people taking to the streets by the millions to protest political, economic, and social conditions in the oppressive societies they inhabit. Governments have been toppled in Egypt and Tunisia. Protests have erupted in Libya, Yemen, and Bahrain. The ruling families elsewhere in the region look on nervously from their air-conditioned penthouses—will they be next? They are right to worry. These are societies where a minuscule fraction of the population—less than 1 percent—controls the lion’s share of the wealth; where wealth is a main determinant of power; where entrenched corruption of one sort or another is a way of life; and where the wealthiest often stand actively in the way of policies that would improve life for people in general.

As we gaze out at the popular fervor in the streets, one question to ask ourselves is this: When will it come to America? In important ways, our own country has become like one of these distant, troubled places.

Alexis de Tocqueville once described what he saw as a chief part of the peculiar genius of American society—something he called “self-interest properly understood.” The last two words were the key. Everyone possesses self-interest in a narrow sense: I want what’s good for me right now! Self-interest “properly understood” is different. It means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest—in other words, the common welfare—is in fact a precondition for one’s own ultimate well-being. Tocqueville was not suggesting that there was anything noble or idealistic about this outlook—in fact, he was suggesting the opposite. It was a mark of American pragmatism. Those canny Americans understood a basic fact: looking out for the other guy isn’t just good for the soul—it’s good for business.

The top 1 percent have the best houses, the best educations, the best doctors, and the best lifestyles, but there is one thing that money doesn’t seem to have bought: an understanding that their fate is bound up with how the other 99 percent live. Throughout history, this is something that the top 1 percent eventually do learn. Too late.

Sorry for the inconvenience. Hope this displays ok! 

Special thanks to Aly for letting me photograph her notes, just in case.

Tantalus myth, Robert Graves

Tantalus

Tantalus was the intimate friend of Zeus, who admitted him to Olympian banquets of nectar and ambrosia until, good fortune turning his head, he betrayed Zeus’s secrets and stole the divine food to share among his mortal friends. Before this crime could be discovered, he committed a worse. Having called the Olympians to a banquet on Mount Sipylus, or it may have been at Corinth, Tantalus found that the food in his larder was insufficient for due company and, either to test Zeus’s omniscience, or merely to demonstrate his good will, cut up his son Pelops, and added the pieces to the stew prepared for them, as the sons of Lycaon had done with their brother Nyctimus when they entertained Zeus in Arcadia. None of the gods failed to notice what was on their trenchers, or to recoil in horror, except Demeter who, being dazed by her loss of Persephone, ate the flesh from the left shoulder. For these two crimes Tantalus was punished with the ruin of his kingdom and, after his death by Zeus’s own hand, with eternal torment in the company of Ixion, Sisyphus, Tityus, the Danaids, and others. Now he hangs, perennially consumed by thirst and hunger, from the bough of a fruit-tree which leans over a marshy lake. Its waves lap against his waist, and sometimes reach his chin, yet whenever he bends down to drink, they slip away, and nothing remains but the black mud at his feet; or, if he ever succeeds in scooping up a handful of water, it slips through his fingers before he can do more than wet his cracked lips, leaving him thirstier than ever. The tree is laden with pears, shining apples, sweet figs, ripe olives and pomegranates, which dangle against his shoulders; but whenever he reaches for the luscious fruit, a gust of wind whirls them out of his reach.

Session 15: Adorno and Horkheimer

In the eyes of Adorno and Horkheimer, the culture industry is simply a large machine bent on creating a sort of social norm by subtly assigning values to "art" that surrounds us. My confusion remains simple. Why do they do this? They mention that the "culture" is influenced in accordance to the governing body at the present time but what if the heads of the culture industry disapprove of the political heads? What do the cultural puppet-masters have to gain by this sort of mass hypnosis taking place? They gain a level of subconscious control over the individual yet that control is purely subconscious, holding no control over peoples ability to rationalize. Not to mention, what of those that fall out of the "system" established here?

Personally I feel as though the power of an individual mind is consistently underestimated by most sociologists. There always seems to be the general assumption that we are under a level of control at all times by a corporation or governing body. The idea always seems to be that we as people are simply products to be swayed in one direction or another but how can any industry attempting mass control predict how people will react to a certain stimuli?

Each mind is unique unto itself. Each reaction is unique unto the person. Though theoretically it seems feasible to control a large number of people on the assumption that they all think alike, yet the practical applications are extremely limited. No company no matter how great can predict the reaction of each individual to an individual stimuli. Of course this is personal speculation but the idea that mass influence is so simple does not seem plausible.

Session 14: What is Orthodox Marxism?

“That is to say, [Engels] contrasts the ways in which concepts are formed in dialectics as opposed to ‘metaphysics’; he stresses the fact that in dialectics the definite contours of concepts (and the objects the represent) are dissolved. Dialectics, he argues, is a continuous process of transition from one definition to the other. In consequence, a one sided and rigid causality must be replaced by interaction. But he does not even mention the most vital interaction, namely the dialectical relation between subject and object in the historical process, let alone give it the prominence it deserves…For the dialectical method the central problem is to change reality”(3)

Lukac’s main point is that Marxism is defined by totality rather than economic determinism. Reification, of the solidification of relationships between things and people as a thing itself, leads to alienation in the form of a restrictive sort of contemplation that analyzes established orders within their own context – this contemplation, arising exclusively from reality, it powerless to change it. Lukacs proposes dialectics as a solution to this alienation; as a metaphysical construct, the subject and object of contemplation remain separate. Hence dialectics is able to concern itself with changing realities rather than analyzing a given reality from the instantaneous perspective that this reality generates. Consequently, dialectics is not a ‘science’ in the conventional sense: it does not seek to eliminate contradiction, but contain to contradictions within a certain thought process to understand the role of things in a larger context. Totality is based on interaction, or the ability to understand not the definition of a thing, but the thing itself through interactions that lead to “a continuous process of transition from one definition to the other.”

Lukacs emphasizes that “attempts to deepen the dialectical method with the aid of ‘criticism’ inevitably lead to a more superficial view. “ He justifies the necessity of totality in Orthodox  Marxism, quoting (from A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy ) “ In the study of economic categories, as in the case of every historical and social science, it must be born in  mind that categories are therefore but forms of being, conditions of existence…” If the dialectical method is obscured by making it subject to criticism in the same way scientific analysis is subject to criticism, dialectics begins to look like a “superfluous additive.”

Questions:

(1) How is it possible that any thought process should be immune from criticism? Is Lukac actually suggesting this, or is he claiming criticism should take a different form? How would one undertake an examination of the validity of a dialectical method?

(2) “But we maintain that in the case of social reality, these contradictions are not a sign of the imperfect understanding of society; On the contrary, they belong to the nature of reality itself and to the nature of capitalism. When totality is known they will not be transcended and cease to be contradictions. Quite the reverse, they will be seen as necessary contradictions arising out of the antagonisms of this system of production.” (11) Lucaks claims that contradictions between theories show that these theories have reached their limits, and must be transformed and subsumed under larger theories under which these contradictions are no longer present. Does it follow that reality in the form of concrete totality is composed exclusively of these contradictions? Is it even possible to analyze this sort of reality without it falling apart at its contradictions? Does this make materialist dialectic incompatible with other forms of analysis?

Lukacs (First Half of Reading)

Lukacs wants to base his theory on Marx's economic points and use them to talk about fetishism related to commodities in subjective and objective forms. He thinks this is the only way we can see the issues within capitalism. Lukacs disagrees with Marx about the effect commodities have on a society in that he thinks that they are not the basis for the structure of society. Instead he believes that commodities have a negative effect on the structure, but do not control everything about it. Lukacs believes commodities are only a concern when their effects reach a universal scale. He thinks that once commodities effects become concrete within the development of society, then they become something that needs to be focused on. Lukacs said "it [(rationalism in perdicting results of broken down complexes and laws of protection)] must declare war on the traditional amalgam of empirical experiences of work: rationalisation is unthinkable without specialisation" (88). He explains that there can only be beliefs through reason if there is expertise in those areas.

Lukacs later defines time as space when referring to society for he feels the laborer is a machine and when thinking about him in performance, he merely takes up space. This statement lacks sense, does Lukacs feel that the reified version of time is space and therefore the reification of society converts time into space? He also sees alienation in mechanical societies and believes that the worker becomes separated.

Lukacs views the capitalism as the producer of its own harmony throughout the state and its laws, but how can it bring harmony to the state if the state is supported by its society that is alienated because of its work?Lukacs agrees that there are indeed faults to the system of laws; "can be flexible and irrational in character" (97). He knows to some extent that the older judicial system was faulty in reason but was also versatile, whereas the current and more modern system is more fixed.

Lukacs believes that competition could be eliminated from globalism about trade. The way he sees this happening is through a better reasoned calculation that functions beginning with the commodity owner. He makes clear, "if a rational calculation is to be possible the commodity owner must be in possession of the laws regulating every detail of his production" (102). This is basically suggesting a system in which the vendor of the people's resources controls the laws, but what would this mean to the laborers?

Science is a distant concept to Lukacs in relation to individuals ability. He sees that it is not problem of the individuals that they cannot understand every aspect but that it is solely the essence of science. He says, "It must be identified that this inability to penetrate to the real material substratum of science is not the fault of individuals. It is rather something that becomes all the more apparent the more science has advanced and the more consistently it functions--from the point of view of its own premises" (107). He finds progress as the only responsibility of the individual in science. This relates to what we discussed on Monday, the constructiveness of science is a never-ending objective and within the science of human societies Lukacs seems to also believe that society is constantly changing.