Professor Adorno criticizes the homogeneity of society in the reading. In many ways I agree with him. The architecture in the city with all the horrific, uniform skyscrapers, developments on the city outskirts with Levitownesque shoddy structures, the housing projects which further denigrate the poor to his economic superiors. There is no doubt that we have been manipulated by the ruling powers- they have directed consumers’ needs to fit their own gain. Consider the economic meltdown. Over the past 20 years we have been encouraged through fear tactics to prepare for retirement by purchasing investments. Now those investments have lost value; consumers have been manipulated by the banks Capitalism is not democratic. It is feeling feudal today in the U.S. But then there is the auto industry- consumers have rejected American cars in favor of imports. And now we have a chance to purchase renewable resources which supposedly will not have much capitalist involvement. So I have a mixed reaction in the market approach.
So maybe I’m a Marxist, or sort of regarding consumers’ choices. But I have great difficulty reconciling Adorno’s comments on the “culture industry”. He is such a harsh mister! He criticizes just about every form of media bemoaning the adaptations of films to novels, the changing of music from its original form. “The culture industry has molded men as a type unfailingly reproduced in every product”. Were the confines of his culture more monolithic than today’s? Or am I not able to make an objective evaluation because I am immersed in my own culture? I see novels, plays, dances,music, newscasts and the Internet all offering a wide spectrum of diversity. It sounds strange to view them as “products”. Adorno also implies that we can never be passive with our culture. I don’t understand what he means by this. Any reaction to a work of art is an active act. I think he is examining the public too closely. Many of our preferences are tied up in rituals, past experiences and sharing what it is to be human.
How about that Althusser!! Life is but a dream. Just when I thought I was understanding him he turned and corner and lost me again. He may be one of the theorists that had Dr. Forsyth wondering if Lit Crit was all worthwhile. I don’t think this guy is ever going to click with me.
Eagleton was a relief for me- more readable and concrete. However I am not sure I have aclear picture of the GMP, LMP. I never considered the mode of production as impacting the audience. He believes all culture is “strew with the relics of imperialistic, nationalistic regionalistic and class combat”. It may well be but the question for me is how the reader interprets it.
Looking forward to reading the novel,
NancyPlaisted
English 575 -- Seminar in Literary Criticism @ kutztown.edu 
Your comments regarding the use of fear tactics are right on the money. The news is based entirely on fear. Fear sells. Look at all the insurance an individual carries – health insurance, car insurance, homeowners insurance. Everyone wants to be covered in case something awful happens. We are willing to pay to keep our fears away. Maria Vonau
By: mariavonau on January 18, 2009
at 2:21 pm
Adorno was a genius, but geniuses make mistakes: an old saying being, “even Homer nods” (and not just Homer Simpson, nodding off). Einstein never reconciled relativity and quantum theory: Goethe was wrong about his color theory: Michelangelo’s sculptures of women are inferior to his sculpture of men.
Adorno was wrong about jazz, because he confused jazz with Pop.
There are things about “Internet culture” that fulfill Adorno’s worst expectations. Online cultural information produced for profit and on the wikipedia model is often just wrong because it’s so easy to be sloppy. Paintings and music are reproduced with no way of ensuring that colors and sounds will reproduce properly on unpredictable user monitors and sound cards.
Crazes, fads, and simple mistakes reproduce at warp speed. For example, “theories” (Creationism, Holocaust denial, and the denial that Shakespeare wrote the plays) turn out to be based on apparently thorough citation and research, but when one actually follows the citations one finds that they are circular: the Creationist, Holocaust denier, or Shakespeare denier cites “site” A…which cites B…which cites D…which cites A.
The personalities projected by often anonymous online users, who are Adorno’s (and C. Wright Mills’) lower middle class white collar fulfill the worst predictions of Adorno’s work on “the authoritarian personality”. Surprisingly they usually project the worst kinds of judgementalism and a kneejerk willingness to harass women (or posters with female names, or posters who “seem” female) and to overidentify with power.
In a dialectic, the “freedom” turns into slavery, and Adorno’s worst expectations come to be.
By: spinoza1111 on June 18, 2009
at 9:58 pm