The Culture Industry Re-Revisited
Examining the relationship between the culture industry, the right, and actual critique of art under capitalism
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their work studying the effects of capitalism on art and art production coined the term “culture industry” to denote industrial art production focused on creating profit for big studios (while reinforcing ideologies [Althusser] and hegemonies [Gramsci]). Adorno and Horkheimer (we’ll refer to them as A&H from here on out) describe the culture industry as “infecting everything with sameness,” so much so that “each branch of culture is unanimous within itself and all are unanimous together” (Dialectic of Enlightenment, 94). While they were writing this in the first half of the twentieth century, their assertions ring true, now more than ever. One cannot deny their assertion that “film, radio [in our case, podcasts?], and magazines form a system.” Under late capitalism, all art is subsumed and very little art is counter-hegemonic.
Their critique is meant to be used in order to seek enlightenment—hence the name of their book. Enlightenment for them is freedom, creativity, and true happiness, something completely impossible in our current media/production landscape. Radical visions are not even heard, while drivel like the Amanda Gorman inauguration poem {the norms and notions/of what just is/ isn't always just-ice (sic)} or Rupi Kaur’s barebones ‘poetry’ {when your fingers/ were dipped inside me} are vaunted as the highest form of cultural production—alongside an onslaught of cookie-cutter Marvel and Star Wars pseudo-epics. This disparaging of contemporary art is not meant to paint me as a reactionary—even though my favorite poetry is from a much earlier stage of capitalist development; the works of Whitman and Pope are among my inspirations. I acknowledge the fact that people find joy in and resonate with these works, with some even proclaiming that the Avengers series of movies is the peak of fiction in modern times. Perhaps it is, and perhaps that is A&H’s point. We have been conditioned to expect so little from art that anything that pulls at the heartstrings or nostalgia even to the slightest degree is vaunted as the pinnacle of cultural achievement.
Very few of those operating within the contemporary culture industry are truly auteurs, with basically none of them articulating meaningful political visions. Falling into the former category are big-name directors such as Eastwood and Synder. Eastwood’s political project is essentially a traditional right-wing conservative worldview that paints the deep state (Richard Jewell) or foreigners (American Sniper) as opposed to the American ideals of freedom. While he may have a point in Richard Jewell, American Sniper is unredeemable for its treatment of Iraqis; as film critic Will Menaker points out, “there is not a single good Iraqi in the movie.” Synder on the other hand exemplifies a more libertarian/fascist fusion (overlooking his blatant homoeroticism) that posits something similar to the redditors whining about the ‘decline of western culture.’ The epic 300 showcases whitewashed, jacked Spartans defending their way of life, culture, and women from the incoming brown hordes, with the main betrayer portrayed as a disabled person. His portrayal of Rorschach in Watchmen seeks to elevate the fascist reactionary as one of the last bastions of defense against the changing cultural norms; Moore clearly defines Rohrschach as a loser stuck in the past, on top of being a reactionary fascist, hell-bent on cleansing the streets of poor people and minorities. However, say what you want about them—Eastwood is a shithead conservative; Snyder is a dumb guy that unknowingly creates movies for the alt-right—at least there is an artistic vision.
Encapsulating the inverse lack of substance is the Disney Entertainment Complex. So large that it could be considered a culture industry in and of itself, no company is more responsible for this watered-down production that now spreads itself across every genre and film studio in our contemporary media landscape. Disney’s near-monopolization can be felt in the general vibe of the Marvel and Star Wars properties; this “smoothness,” as Menaker describes it, is the attempt of corporations to limit backlash from any and all sides. Background scenes featuring LGBT characters sharing a brief kiss feign representation and are ultimately cut out in the China release, while tons of other examples showcase how little Disney actually cares about these underrepresented communities (whose problems won’t be solved by representation in movies anyway).
This does not stop the backlash. We talked about how the culture industry critique originally comes from a left-wing anticapitalist perspective, but the current “culture industry critique” seemingly only emanates from the ‘wokeness’ backlash on the contemporary right-wing. During the Trump era, not satisfied with their complete control of the levers of power, the right-wing rhetoric machine focused itself on the miasma of liberal cultural production created specifically in response to the election of a ruder neoliberal. Now, in the era of Biden, right-wingers decry the total control of liberalism—yet those are not the terms they use. Somehow, the concept of liberalism is now synonymous with “Marxist,” “woke,” “PC,” and correlates heavily with “Critical Race Theory,” when even a slightly informed or critical thinking perspective on this issue would know that contemporary liberalism is obviously pro-capitalist, and Marxism… well… you know. The new line of critique that the largest media corporations in the history of the world are somehow Marxist is fairly intriguing, especially given the fact that these are still some of the most rapaciously capitalist corporations: Alphabet, parent company of Google? Disney? Comcast??? I don’t expect intellectual rigor from the right (or for most of the left either, to be fair), but this is simply silly.
A leftist response to this phenomenon would consist of the replacement of these facile and shallow critiques of the culture industry with academically rigorous Marxist/Frankfurt School critiques outlining the failures of art under industrial production (much like my previous post about Shrek 2 and the degradation of art under late capitalism). Examining labor and business practices, interrogating allegorical meaning within the art itself, and analysis of the type and meaning of the art produced by the culture industry from a left-wing anticapitalist standpoint is the only true remedy to the discourse regarding the culture industry. Beyond that, maybe actually taxing these companies and preventing them from creating massive monopolies would help solve some of this industrial monoculture? If the right actually wants to combat the “woke orthodoxy” and fight back against “woke racist Marxist Disney,” they would demand higher taxes for the corporation, CEO, and support antitrust laws against the massive accumulation of Disney and the other media companies. But we know they’re just mad there’s a Black Disney princess and two seconds of same-sex kissing in a movie that earned almost $300 million. It’s the same as it always was, isn’t it?
The Frankfurt School wrote their "messages in a bottle" for a different time than ours. We are not yet desperate enough to actualize the potential they saw. Yet somehow yesterday's postmodernist is now today's Frankfurt Schooler, which is supremely ironic given the original postmodernists' actual living connection to the Frankfurt School. If A&H were around today, they would undoubtedly recognize in the Disney Industrial Complex the fulfillment of Marxism, and that would be precisely their point. Until the left is as revolutionary as Disney is, it will never rise again. 'A&H,' a moniker that evidences the new reification and thus total ignorance of the Frankfurt School's Marxism (but, perhaps for that very reason, a genius neologism!), would want better from today's 'Marxists' (myself included!).