Adorno and the Culture Industry

Sunday, September 6, 2020
First Aired: 
Sunday, March 25, 2018

What Is It

What's your favorite movie? Did you watch that season finale last night? No spoilers! Popular cultures pervades modern life. But what if pop culture was actually more pernicious than we ordinarily think? Could it be systematically deceiving us—eroding our ability to think for ourselves and fight for change? That's what the 20th century German philosopher Theodor Adorno thought. The Philosophers get cultured on Adorno's life and thought with Adrian Daub from Stanford University, co-author of The James Bond Songs: Pop Anthems of Late Capitalism.

Listening Notes

Josh and Ken start off debating whether culture can really be described as an industry. Does capitalism’s cultural products ineluctably end up reinforcing the status quo? Josh isn’t convinced. Aren’t there some movies and some art that resist capitalism and injustice? Ken pushes back — he argues that we cannot produce art that is genuinely free.

Professor Adrian Daub from Stanford University joins the show, prefacing that he is an avid consumer of popular culture. Adrian talks about how the commodification of capitalism debases the artistic quality of pop culture. Is there a difference between high culture and pop culture? Can any art escape this commodification? Josh remains unpersuaded; he thinks that passion projects and other artistic pursuits can resist capitalism and be quality art. Adrian draws a distinction between the model for avant grande and the model for capitalist commodification.

A listener pushes back on how capitalism intrinsically commodifies. Ken tries to meet Adrian and Josh in the middle—while not all capitalist products are the same, they are made constrained by the same capitalist logic. Adrian caveats that Adorno thought that art has always been constrained by power relations; capitalism just has a unique set of power relations. Ken and Adrian discuss how technology changes capitalism but not in a deep way. The show ends on some excellent tips for how you can resist the culture industry yourself!

  • Roving Philosophical Report (seek to 7:03): Liza Veale files a report that explores the historical context in which Adorno lived and wrote. The background of Nazi Germany figures prominently. Eventually, Veale moves on to discuss our current American context.
  • Sixty Second Philosopher (seek to 45:38): Ian Shoales uses Toys “R” Us as an example of how art and cultural products are disseminated via capitalism. For comparison, Shoales discusses V for Vendetta and other “radical” products forged under capitalism.



Comments (2)

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Monday, March 12, 2018 -- 11:01 AM

I have thought, for some time

I have thought, for some time now, that POPular Culture IS pernicious. I have even written some accounts of just how and why I hold this belief. None of those have been published yet---there would be, I am certain, push-back from several domains, especially those whose livelihood rests upon the popularity of pop culture (think: social media; dating web-sites and those communications(?) formats which permit everyone to have his/her voice). Let's face it: there is a lot of money involved in these enterprises and lots more for those whose real job is to scam any unsuspecting schlep who can be easily taken in. That said, I hope to see some other comments here after March 25.

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Sunday, May 2, 2021 -- 7:39 AM

Recently, I had made

Recently, I had made suggestions to PT, regarding treatment of mass/popular culture, and was advised to review some posts/shows including this one. After so doing,I retracted my comments, bowing to the approach and format of the blog, as designed. When revisiting this post, I noticed only one comment, mine, in 2018. Repeating a concern expressed in my last response to PT's general comments mail address, I 'll recap here. I mentioned awareness of one's surroundings. That faculty has suffered, IMHO, with the popularization of smart phones. Users of these wonderful devices are distracted. Selfies, for one example: people have fallen to their death because of absorption with picture-taking. Tragic and unnecessary. Traffic is also hazardous to the self-absorbed. The engrossed phone user may suddenly appear in the street already occupied by oncoming vehicles. If they did not see that coming, the outcome will not be favorable to the pedestrian. The same is true for other hazards such as obstructions and holes. So, my worry about these 'accidents' seems well-placed.

Along with my concerns about other dangerous distractions which diminish survivability. Or maybe I am exagerating?