[FRA:] Marcuse question

Sat Feb 25 06:23:06 GMT 2006

-----Original Message-----
From: theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org
[mailto:theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org] On Behalf Of simon
smith
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2006 12:36 AM
To: Discussion of Frankfurt School critical theory
Subject: Re: [FRA:] Marcuse question

No, the culture industry has _taken away_ the "obtrusive naiveties"  of 
amusement, it has become "all-embracing", and has forced the outsider 
into "either bankruptcy or a syndicate" i.e. into an illicit sphere. " 
"Light" art, as such, entertainment, is not a form of decadence" but its 
integration into the immiseration of life on the production line means 
that it has lost its unruly elements and is there to carry the workers 
on in their (no longer) 'free time'.

** The culture industry has never become all-embracing. The claim is false.
They have LOTS of Weapons of Mass Destruction. They have SOME Weapons of
Mass Destruction. They have NO Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of these
claims is not like the others. Hyperbole is conceptual coherent, even when
it comes to Weapons of Mass Destruction? Do we really need an exaggerated
threat / critique? Wasn't that part of the recent problem?

** Besides, that the "outsider" has been forced into gangersterism is also
false. Taking up a counter-cultural position *is* normative for capitalism.
Transgression is one of the top selling lifestyles - ask the guy with the
vintage shoes that just kicked in the windows of Nike next to the guy with
Nike shoes kicking in the same window. I wish I could have some of those
vintage shoes (insert elitist cultural purchase here) so I wouldn't be a
hypocrite!

** And also, it is a grave injustice to people everywhere to say that their
unruliness is limited to the pub. It is condescending, and false - and if
anything it works for toward the separation of the working class from the
intellectuals. The "German Mandarism" (Martin Jay) of critical theory is
*not* in its favour.

>"The culture
>industry endlessly cheats its consumers out of what it endlessly promises."
>(p. 111). What does Benny Goodman promise?

Satisfying pleasure that isn't endlessly postponed. An appearance of 
cheerfulness that leaves one feeling empty afterwards?

** What kind of satisfaction are we talking about? I'm hungry, I eat, I'm
full. Does the typical Benny Goodman concert goer feel empty afterwards? No,
I doubt it. Neither does the Anglican taking Communion on Sunday. The
Goodman follower recalls having the best night of their life. How is it that
Horkheiemer and Adorno then get to stand up and say, "You fool, you only
think that you are happy! You are deceived! Your feelings are fake!" It is
condescending... and very likely empirically empty. Culture is not wholly
commodified, it never has been and never could be. Capitalism is remarkably
creative and flexible, but its functioning is not unequivocal. Adorno and
Horkheimer make out that every transaction is totalitarian. Hyperbole,
again? The exaggeration isn't an expression of resistance, it is speaks to
an undifferentiated analysis.

> Who exactly is deceived? Was Oca
>Tatham fooled? Does anyone really expect that when they purchase a Coke
they
>will get "it."

They may not have it on their minds, but they will get membership of a 
false community of other consumers of the same drink, the drink that 
defines what it is to be an American. The first drink, like the first 
immersion into the world of popular music, says 'I belong', I'm one of 
us.

** You're joking. Coke drinkers of the world unite? "I'd like to teach the
world to sing, in perfect harmony..." Coke doesn't define America. Half the
population actively hates it and knocks over the machines on a regular
basis. I think Coke pays more to have their machines cleaned and polished
than most banks pay in security. I am by far more concerned that the typical
teenager can't tell the difference between a carrot and a radish than by
whether or not that same teenager listens to Billy Bragg and thinks "All
right, I'm in!" That people drink Coke or Pepsi is not a sign of conformity,
it is a sign that there is a lack of nutritional awareness.

> Adorno and Horkheimer cast the culture industry as a
>monolithic enterprise, it is not. Nor are consumers dupes.

The essay is hyperbolic in that regard, but the element of simple 
coercion is always emphasised: if you don't join in, you will be an 
outsider. This is emphatically true today, in my British experience 
anyway. 

** Well, I can't contradict your personal experience. But the critique of
conformity is pretty much accepted universally. Everyone hates the man in
the grey flannel suit, "up organizational man!" And so everyone lives
without rules. That's why it is possible for someone to tell another person
on email to fuck off, because there are no consequences and etiquette is
fascist. I heard a great line the other day: "I like the niceties. They
protect us from tyranny." (I think it was on the BBC). Has anyone read the
Man in the Grey Flannel Suit? It is about a guy screwed up by the war, is
trying to put his like back together. He loves his family and strives with
others to make his community a better place. He does his job, treats it as a
job, questions authority, works with others to get things accomplished...
and integrates charity and justice into business. And he was dubbed the
enemy. H&A radically misdiagnoses the conformist. There is a difference
between social deviance and political dissent. I learned this from Rebel
Sell. Deviance just makes work for a lot of people who have better things to
do.

> Conversation revolves around certain inescapably popular soap 
operas, 'Big Brother', 'celebrities' who are again inescapable, and the 
tiny details of whose lives are endlessly propagated in mass selling 
newspapers and magazines. If you work, if you 'take part' in society, 
there is no escape - you are implicated. Universities have become just 
another step along the career ladder - undergraduate conversation 
concentrates on trash, consumed with a knowing smile, the latest film, 
the latest hip rock/pop group and the merits thereof. Essay writing is 
accompanied by pop music blaring in the background, functioning to make 
sure the student never gets really involved in their work... one could 
go on for pages, _obviously_.
It's no longer a 'Culture Industry' any more, it it's the air we 
breathe. Take Adorno's account, hyperbolise it some more, and you've got 
culture now, puritan and puritanical.

** You realize that this is the Republic critique of society as well, right?
People are obsessed with Hollywood, Universities are about heartless
corporations not family values, undergraduate programs are filled with
courses on postcolonialism... the kids listen to hip-hop... Why is it that
Pat Roberston would agree with everything you've written here? Only your
saying "get critical" and Robertson is saying "get Christ."

** If anything capitalism celebrates the outsider, not the conformist. 9/10
people surveyed hate: uniforms, the suburbs, plastic, McDonald's (except in
emergencies), monocultures... What do people like? Twin Peaks, Fight Club,
hand carved wood objects, recycled organic juice boxes...  There is an
ambivalence about these cultural forces... efficiency, rebellion, freedom,
satisfaction, critique... it is complicated. Those who imagine the "wholly
other" have to join forces with the religious mystics praying for the second
coming and Heidegger's "only a god can save us now..."

Adorno provided a corrective to the 'dupes' notion in later essays, like 
"The Schema of Mass Culture".

** Fair enough.

> "Fun is a
>medicinal bath which the entertainment industry never ceases to prescribe"
>(p. 112). How is this to be understood alongside the unprecedented growth
of
>charismatic religious movements in the 20th century? How successful is the
>culture industry, with its grandiose promises, that 400 million people
opted
>to speak in tongues rather than go to the movies?

Where is this? If you're talking about the Southern States of the US, do 
you mean this sort of thing?
http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1714

** Umm... that article isn't particularly good. It was written in '81, it is
loaded with theological premises... and it doesn't express much knowledge
about the global popularity of charismatic forms of Christianity...
anyway... I had the Pentecostal movement in mind... you know, the Azusa
Street revival... which managed to collect 400 million followers in 100
years... making it the most significant and influential social movement in
the 20th century... yeah, that little ripple of humanity. See briefly Harvey
Cox, Tongues of Fire; Philip Jenkins, The Coming Christendom... I could name
several sources for figures of the growth of charismatic Christianity in the
20th century. It is the fastest growing social movement in the 20th century
and will likely continue to be over the next few decades. Charismatic
communities are common in the US, sure, but religious participation in the
North and South in the US is pretty much the same. Just as many people
regularly attend church in the southern US as do in the north US. Stark and
Bainbridge, The Future of Religion. To say that the south is more religious
than the north is false. Empirically both are equally religious in terms of
participation. It is just that people that live in the north are more
condescending towards the folks in the south.

> Given the form charismatic religion takes today, which seems deeply 
infected with the spirit of the entertainment industry, is it really a 
deviation? Do members of charismatic religion really stop watching tv?. 
Charismatic religion seems to rely on a single leader who orchestrates 
the whole process, often televised.

** Lol. The success of charismatic religion isn't in the charisma of the
leader, it is in the erotic connection that people experience by being a
member of a larger community - speaking in tongues, singing, dancing,
celebrating together (although only exceptions get the press - Jimmy Jones,
Swaggart, Bakker et al). Pentecostal communities are usually one of the
fastest ways of escaping abject poverty. Yes, they participate in modernity,
selectively. But they save money, work hard, stop drinking and smoking, and
seek to live free in the Spirit. Such communities are doing very well in
South America, Asia, and Africa. Religion is on the decline in Europe...
still doing ok in the US, but it is more fundamentalist in the US than
charismatic. However, in areas of violence Pentecost is close at hand, with
a Christ carrying a flaming sword... and the adherents praising the name of
Jesus in languages us non-believers don't get. Most Pentecostals don't own
TVs. Most of the meetings aren't televised. Christ conquers the world, not
by living in it though.

Adorno was writing about the Western industrialised counties, and I 
don't think charismatic religion has taken hold in anywhere in Europe.

** Religion is on the decline in Europe... but the charismatic communities
are a general exception, with Catholicism also seeming to be on the rise as
of late. Charismatic Christianity is probably the fastest growing Christian
denomination in Europe. Walk over to the local Anglican church... half of
them are speaking in tongues these days... the rest are empty... Haven't you
noticed the Anglicans talking a little bit more about liturgical dance and
healing and anointing with oil? Their taking their cues from their
neo-Protestant neighbours. It's a great business. The sales pitch: "You
can't sell Jesus." It works.

> If anything the culture
>industry is a massive failure rather than success.

Certainly not where I live!

** That's just the weather talking. Do you know anyone that actually trusts
the banks, the government, the military, and the church? Such people are
rare folk these days... always have been. Horkheimer and Adorno provided a
profound misdiagnosis of the culture industry...

>.. and with that kind of
>conclusion one has to wonder whether the thesis was on track or not... it
is
>complicated. And issues of recognition and identity and social formation
are
>involved... theoretical concepts not yet well developed in 1944.

?

** Horkheiemer and Adorno were brilliant theorists. But cultural theory
wasn't well developed. It has moved on since then. Weber, Durkheim, and
Freud didn't have all the answers. The study of religion has moved past The
Elementary Forms of Religious Life and Future of an Illusion. Could it be
that "religious" experiences have therapeutic results? That regression can
be in the service of the ego? That cultural malaise isn't always
totalitarian? That there are elements within culture that express more than
just the abstract and formal will of an instrumental logic? Yes, of course.

ken