Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Hello and welcome back to NPTEL, the National Program on Technology Enhanced Learning. This
program is an initiative by the Indian Institutes of Technology and the Indian Institute of
Science. As you are aware our domain is Cultural Studies and we have already completed 3 modules
in our deliberations on various concepts, theories, and formulations sites of cultural
studies. I welcome you to module 4, which we may entitle
cultural industries and cultural forms, and it is, this module is slightly you know of
a more miscellaneous nature really to be honest, when compared to the other modules. In the
sense that the last 2 lectures of these modules would be devoted to you know, sort of a winding
up you know of all that we have discussed so far.
I would also, you know like to add some sort of a review or you know critical assessment
of what we have done in these virtual classes pointing out to some of you know the points
regarding limitations of cultural studies as a methodology that have been pointed throughout
and we cannot you know afford not to look at these, if even as we try to better our
discipline. Also, part of you know this module will comprise a couple of lectures on virtuality
or virtual culture since, this is one area, we have already beginning to inhabit, even
if you are in, some of us are in the third world countries.
The first you know, few lectures would be devoted to culture industry or cultural forms
like media form like, commodity for instance television, right. So, well let us move ahead
and do a recap of what we have done so far as far as last module and the last lecture
are concerned.
Well, you will remember that module 3 was devoted to sites of cultural studies, in which
we saw that we could call you know aspects of cultural study like, body, space, time,
ethnicity, development, globalization, biology etcetera, we could term these sites in the
sense that these are the concepts all right I agree, but importantly these are also sites
or locations, where where cultural happens, where we see the working out of culture.
We see, how we may describe culture build discourses around this topics right by brewing
concepts that we do, we looked at in the previous module that is the module before the 3 module,
which was entitled key concepts right. So, well let us for instance we found that, when
we consider time as a site of cultural studies, we find that there is a movement away from
the traditional concepts of time as teleological or having an end, designed end or designated
end. We also, saw that time in the traditional framework was considered evolutionary in nature
and there was a linearity time as an arrow, it was considered in a linear sort of fashion
right, it was an, we could say quit an unproblematized way of looking at time.
Then we found particularly through Michel Foucault and his genealogical approach, that
time indeed may also be seen as something that is non teleological which where events
do not move on in a march to a designated or end. We also saw through Foucault, that
history may be considered not in a linear, neat linear narrative, but as entangled events
deviations haphazard, call it a haphazard history, and where there is also room for
errors and reappraisals. So, this is you know these are two points we saw as far as time
as site is concerned.
Then we looked at space, space is also a site for us and we found that space is really not
just a physical given, not just a biography, space is also a social construction in that
space has to do with work, family, leisure, consumption, privacy and all these are matters
of culture or ways of living, right space is therefore cultural, this is what we saw
and space is therefore, according to us a site in which we see the workings of culture
right.
The last lecture was devoted to biology as a site, and even though we did take up the
biological approach in module 1, I think lectures 3, 4 and 5 where we looked at things like
evolutionary psychology the you know, the origins of the modern mind and evolution and
culture etcetera, we are also bringing in biology here in part of course, some of the
things discussed in those lectures plus the bios in your tech aspect of the cultural studies
analysis of biology. We saw that the main debate in biology is that between nature and
nurture or nature and culture.
And we saw that it is better to adopt a Methodological Holism, where studying biology and bringing
in the biological element or aspect to cultural, intercultural studies should be a non reductionist
one, that is everything should not be reduced to biology; and we should look at organisms
as complex systems, where they interact with you know one another. And there is a systematic
contexts, that is the system has a contexts and also make room for things like over determination,
to agree that phenomena or you know events even if they are biological events are also
like physical events over determined; that is, their this theory of over determination
where we hold that things, events have more causes then can be or then are identified
by us by our science and technology.
Then we saw that biosemiotics, biology can also be considered, a system of signs and
codes, where organisms produce and interpret signs.
And we also came across a wonderful word, I think word like Semiosphere, where like
the atmosphere we have a semiosphere or a space if you will which is, which comprises
sounds, smells, colors, waves, electric fields and motion. So, I welcome you once again to
module 4 and I am sure it will be you know very very interesting for you, since we are
dealing with media, with culture industry and forms of culture including virtual forms
right.
So, we are going to look today at cultural industry, and the key source texts in this
lecture are: Chris Barkers, cultural studies, theory and practice; Chris barker, the sage
dictionary of cultural studies and Meenakshi Durham and Douglas Kellner, media and cultural
studies.
Some of you are, I am sure aware of where the term culture industry comes from, right
those of you who are aware of this term, would definitely you know be acquainted with 2 scholars,
Theodor Adorno and Horkheimer, and their famous work dialectic of enlightenment. The term
culture industry comes from even if culture was understood perhaps even before them as
industry, but the term was well in you know established by them in the discourse of culture,
in their essay, the culture industry, enlightenment as mass deception.
So, what we are going to do, we are you know this lecture largely based on Adorno, and
Horkheimer analysis of culture, though towards the end I will point to a critic of such a
way of looking at culture. But, the fact if you remember the lecture on development, if
you remember the lectures on globalization, we saw that culture may be considered an economic
good, we saw how; not simply metaphorically culture, is also a negative economic good
being very much a part of the market, right. So, here culture is seen as an industry and
in this in the work by Adorno and Horkheimer. We shall see what such an industry involving
mass culture, and mass consumption does to the consumer; you recall that in module 3,
we already you know looked at consumption, I think there were 2 lectures devoted to consumption,
and here in industry some of those points may also be recalled by us, as we look at
cultural as industry.
Now, Horkheimer and Adorno have admitted to the fact that, the term culture industry is
analogous to terms like mass culture, popular culture; they said that, we could have could
have use the terms that were in currency, like mass culture and popular culture. But
to highlight you know the fact that culture works like an industry or the culture is a
mass culture particularly than industry, they use a term they use a term or prefer the term
culture industry, so you may also apply the same thing as you discuss mass culture and
popular culture. Now, their work particularly this work, piece of work deals with cultural
economies with mass production, and a very important term here is that of mass deception.
So, throughout this lecture I hope to show you, how consumers of mass culture, of mass
of popular culture, I sought of deceived as a term, I sought of deceived, by the culture
industry.
The first on the main focus on of culture industry and the whole discourse of culture
industries is for us to understand, that culture industries are after all in the service of
capitalism. So, we if you recall that, we talked about Marxism in module 1 I think when
you are talking about theories, I think two lectures were devoted to Marxism, if I remember
and we find that capitalism is an economic and political social arrangement, where the
owners is on capital, where the owners is on private profit, where the owner is on surplus.
We will not go into capitalism in detail here in detail here, but the point we made by Adorno
and Horkheimer, and other you know people who are in this discourse of culture the cultural
industry is that like other industries. The culture industry is also in the service of
capitalism, and it perpetuates the capitalist ethos, and that is it shows in its various
manifestations that you know the capitalist ethos or way of life and way of production
distribution and consumption is the attempt is to show it as a naturalized one.
So, it is not simply in our social arrangements and political arrangements, but also we may
say in our cultural, cultural arrangements that we find that even you know cultural forms,
like cultural various forms of culture industries for instance media, for instance films, these
in a as a Adorno and Horkheimer say films, radio, television all this cultural forms
even art. These try to to you know see to it, that the capitalist system is well and
alive that it is going strong, so it is in the words uses are it is in the service, the
culture industry is in the service of the capitalist ethos or of capitalism.
So, when Adorno wrote the essay, culture industry reconsidered, so he revised some or some of
the points that were made in the dialectic of enlightenment, he puts it beautifully says
that is in a capitalist system, the customer is not king right as the culture industry
would have us believe not its subject, but its object or else look at this again. We
may think that the you know in a process of consuming just like as we saw in the process
of eating out for instance of the cultural practice of eating out.
In the similar way we find that, we may feel that as a customer as a consumer of cultural
goods of media goods, that we have choice we are so to speak as he says the, we are
the kings and queens in this domains and that we have being served by the culture industry;
all the forms in the culture industries, but Adorno makes a very important point and this
is that the, you know it is actually that the consumer has been made the object or you
may also use the term targets here, the consumer is a target and now the king in you know not
somebody who is being served according to his own good or according to his benefit.
The point is that the customer is not a subject in the sense, that the customer is not an
agent here it is the object or it is the target of the cultural industries, so by now you
know what I am sure you have an idea of where the discussion is going to go fine.
We Adorno and Horkheimer belong to what we call the, is what is known as Frankford School
of critical theory, and there was the very important, very powerful impact of Marxist
theory here, and Adorno and Horkheimer are known as Marxists in a sense, which may not
be you know a classical sort of Marxism, which be a revisionist kind of Marxism. But, we
have to understand that these terms like reification, false consciousness, commodity fetishism,
ideology and hegemony these Marxist terms are very well you know, are very well applicable
or are very conducive to an understanding of culture industry as put forward by Adorno
and Horkheimer; more of this in the next lecture, when we devote an entire lecture to the commodity
as a cultural form.
Now, the next important point that has been made by or we can discuss on the culture industry
and what it does to us is this, that there is a certain uniformity, there is instead
of a healthy heterogeneity, there is a certain uniformity at least this is what is sought
to be or this is what is the aim of a cultural industry, of cultural forms; that are in the
service of capitalism that tries to perpetuate capitalism and try that tries to show the
ethos the capitalism as something that is a natural one, that is in other way this all
were natural that its things should be in that order right.
So, culture here the word used here is infects, we will see some the analogy to a disease
right, culture infects everything. Now, let us look at this slide here culture infects
according to Adorno and Horkheimer, culture infects everything with sameness, with standardization,
with regulation and finally with deception. Now, what kind of culture we are talking about,
we are talking here about please remember this, this is important, we are talking here
about mass culture, about popular culture. Cultural forms that are consumed by the masses
which are you know say forms that are popular; of course popular culture can be defined in
more formal terms, but for our purpose here it is important to know that culture industry
is mass culture and popular culture, is something that sort of infects us or injects into you
know into our cultural ambience our environment, a certain degree of sameness of standardization
and of regulation, this may be seen in terms of being deceived by the culture industry.
When you think as a consumer as a customer, that you what you are consuming or what you
are purchasing or you know what you are even intellectual goods, what you are part taking
of even has intellectual goods are concerned, you may think that this is certain uniqueness
to it right, and you think that this is something that will give you or contribute to your identity
formation. You take this things this cultural forms and
you are sort of you take, even take pride in the fact that you have made certain choices,
but they the critics in this school say quite the opposite, they said it you are we are
being deceived why because, underline this is actually whole reality of sameness of standardization
and where our desires and our what should we say, and our responses are already regulated
by a culture industry, which is in the service of a capitalist system or a capitalistic ethos.
Since, I have already said that this is our chief text, we are now going to read a bit
from Adorno and Horkheimer essay, the culture industry enlightenment as mass deception;
let us begin, all mass culture under monopoly is identical this is important, must we have
to we have to, as we consume culture, mass culture that all forms of mass culture are
really identical and the contours of its skeleton the conceptual armature fabricated by monopoly,
are beginning to stand out. So, this is something which Adorno and Horkheimer say are something
that will not be concealed for long. Why, why is it beginning to standout or show itself?
This is because lets read on, those in charges no longer lets underline this, and those in
charge no longer take much trouble to conceal the structure.
Look at this, at least we one would have sought that in this whole process of deceiving at
least we are deceived we are deceived, there are attempts made by the capitalist system
and via monopolistic system; you know there are attempts at least we think that would
be made to conceal the fact that we are being deceived to conceal the fact that you know
there is things have been made so rampantly identical, so enormously hugely identical.
So but, they say that those who are in charge of the culture industries or even now no longer
trying to even hike the fact, even conceal the fact or conceal the structure behind their
enterprises. Then they say the power of which increases the more bluntly its existence is
admitted, so there is certain bluntness about things there is no concealing in this whole
deceiving enterprise and enterprise of deceiving the masses.
In producing mass culture and producing identical you know forms cultural, forms are they are
so identical, so repetitive infused with sameness; all these things are no longer even there
is not even an attempt of the culture industry to hide its structure and there is a blunt,
there is blunt so this you know exhibition of their forms.
Then they lets read down, films and radio, films and radio no longer need to represent
of present themselves as art, the truth that they are nothing but, business; they are nothing
but, business is used as an ideology to legitimize the trash, look at the word powerful word
here really the trash they intentionally produce. So, this is almost you know you can very well
imagine or you can even draw the analogy to commodity actual commodity production, to
assembly line production even right, where mass goods are produced, material goods are
produced for consumption so also here. Cultural goods and forms are produced in what
would be a very direct and blunt, bluntly identical manner where things you know, as
I say here even things like films and radio which are you know which are considered to
be art, which are things that are to be short out, before they are presented to the public
which has we presented in a certain degree of sophistication and complexity that we expect
from good art. He says that, they say that films and radio are also they it is no longer
felt even that you present these cultural forms as art.
Let me give you an example, I am sure a clear example you will agree here, a clear example
here are certain types of bollywood movies, certain types of bollywood romances or well
even probably certain types of crime thrillers that are produced by the film industry in
our country. Look at also the soaps, you know for instance there are some you know so many
soaps which are so identical both in presentation and in theme and content. So, you know we,
I am sure some of us have even wondered, we do not even know which sort of soap we are
in, they are so similar, the situations are similar, the dialogues are similar right and
some of us are or also perhaps have wondered, how these kind or different these soaps that
are so identical that this films, movies that are so identical are being produced continually.
So, there is certain, if I may use the word thoughtlessness behind it why? And the reason
that Adorno and Horkheimer identify is this; the reason is that that, this is business,
and not art, and you do not even have to make an attempt to hide the fact that here, supposedly
art for you know art, forms that are supposed strictly to do with art are being turned into
business. When they are turned into business, for mass consumption there is bound to be
certain homogeneity about these things, they are bound to be you know things that are identical.
So, the truths that they are nothing but, business is used as on ideology is used as
a world view to legitimize, the trash that they are intentionally producing. So, they
do not have, they are not answerable that is it you know we may, we may explain it in
that sense, they are not answerable to the public, to the very public that consumes these
things, then we shall read on again.
The standardized forms, it is claimed, were originally derived from the needs of the consumers.
So, the first, at first it was claimed that the well consumers need these things, consumers
need certain you know things, consumers need for you know certain ways of presenting content.
So, this standardized forms it is claimed were originally derived from the needs of
the consumers; that is why they are accepted with so little resistance. Now, again let
us look at you know what we call the famous Saas Bahu Aur Saazish serials for instance.
So, there is an the initial argument to be made by the cultural industry, by the proponents
of the cultural industry this kind of industry is that, these are needed consumers want this
and that is why we are presenting it, no matter how identical these are; as long as they need
it, we are going to produce these things even if they are identical. So, the standardized
forms are you know the whole argument behind it is that they are derived from the needs
of the consumers that are why they are accepted with so little resistance.
But at Adorno and Horkheimer point out what actually is happening is that, see look at
this in reality a cycle, they call it a cycle of manipulation and retroactive need is unifying
the system. Where they show that you know that actually people want this product, people
want them in a certain format, in a certain language if you will right, they want it over
and over again the reality as has been as has been pointed out by Adorno and Horkheimer,
is that this is really manipulation of the vary audience that it purpose to serve. So,
in reality a cycle of manipulation and retroactive need is unifying the system ever more tightly.
What is not mentioned is that, the basis on which technology is gaining power over society,
is the power of those whose economic position in society is a strongest. So, in a ways like
saying you know in the common balance that we say, that they are the once who are laughing
their way to the bank, so those, whose you know as long as far as this technology is
gaining power; this technology also belongs to the once who have an, whose economic position
in society is strong strongest. Again relate this to you know Marxism relate this to the
classical you know version of from the use of word Marxism, that we had discuss in the
first module.
So, what are the terms that we have after having been through the words of Adorno and
Horkheimer in their essay is that you know ideologies are therefore, predetermined you
may thing that you have a certain ideology, and remember what is an ideology, lets go
back again to our lectures. Ideologies are ways of looking at the world, they are lenses
of looking at the world, you know they you know an ideology is a world view that we hold,
and your actions are also going to be it is we believe, motivated by the ideology that
we hold, and we believe wrongly erroneously. This kind of analysis would tell as we believe
erroneously that are ideologies or world views or ours or uniquely ours or singularly ours,
but that is not the fact. The fact is the culture industry predetermines, the ideologies
that you are going to hold, and therefore, logically it also predetermines the actions
that you are going to perform, the decisions that you are going to make as for as your
life, your living, your cultural practices are concerned.
So, we need to take heed, even as we consume, even as we enjoy, even as we find, these mass
culture goods and forms, even if you find them pleasurable, we have to also go behind
the scenes as it were and understand and grasp; this very important political aspect, that
ideologies are predetermine by you know the culture industry as for as a mass culture
goes. So, we also then, see let us look at this
slide please, we see it in terms of a manipulation, we see it you know as if we have been manipulated
right or ideologies are manipulated or world views are manipulated or esthetics are manipulated
and eventually perhaps our relationships with one another our social relationships, our
personal relationships, our professional relationships, are also being manipulated and decided sort
of predecided by somebody else. This means, that there is of course, social control there
is a great degree of social control by the mass media and its forms.
Finally therefore, the world that is presented before us by the mass media, by the culture
industries, forms of the culture industries, is an illusionary world. The more we partake
of these forms and products, the more we live in a world of illusion; this is really kind
of commodity fetishism right, which we will discuss in the next lecture, when we talk
about the commodity. But, the fact is the mass media is very powerful
in this and the sense it can also create a world of illusion, why, why is a world of
illusion, how is it created by constant repetition by constant repetition, by sameness, by producing
identical things almost in an assembly line fashion, were you know by using these things
repeatedly, in their sameness and in their you know identicalness if I may use the word
we have been deceived, we have been manipulated and we are being illusioned. Such is, you
know the so strong is the argument that is provided by the proponents of the term, the
culture industry particularly as given to us by Adorno and Horkheimer.
So, what happens in this case?, Just a while ago we saw that ideologies are predetermined,
we have been manipulated, and we live you know increasingly in an illusionary world
and there is tremendous social control by cultural industries over us, what is this
ultimately lead to, this leads to the maintenance of social hierarchies, if there is no critic,
if is there is no resistance, remember the point being made by Adorno and Horkheimer;
there is very little resistance. Because, consumers are made to say that this
is what you want and we are we are being sort of loyal and faithful to you god giving you
what you want, cultural forms are things that you want, when there is very little resistance
and when there is you know the consuming of cultural forms be it movies, televisions,
television serials or you know any other cultural form, there is the social hierarchy under
a capitalist system which is an exploitative one is maintain it is perpetuated.
So, remember one of the initial slides that we saw, what was the point made that the culture
industries are largely in the service of capitalism, in the maintenance and perpetuation of a capitalist
hierarchical exploitative ethos right. So, first point we get is the maintenance
of social hierarchy, second is there is a constant to the order right, the more you
consume these goods, this cultural forms, there is a consent and the then which term
are we going to use from Marxism, we are going to use the term hegemony, if you member, there
is a hegemony which we which is translated by many as manufactured consent; this consent
is something that we give with perhaps increasingly very little resistance, in some people a very
little resistance to the goods that are being out to us by the culture industry.
So, there is the consent to the order, which order there is consent to now simply the cultural
order and the cultural forms, there is a consent there is a consent to eventually, it means
that there is consent to the socio political order, which is the capitalist order. So,
without knowing through the consumption through, we would say an unproblematised consumption
of in the forms of culture industries, through these you know, they are the capitalist order
is being maintained and retained. Finally, there is an acceptance from a purely
cultural studies perspectives, how would we articulated, we would say that there is an
acceptance of the signs, the signifying practices, the codes, that are being given to us you
know by the cultural industries. Cultural industries and their forms are also signifying
practices, why because they encode, they encode reality for us in certain ways and particularly
through this is very powerful tool known call sameness, powerful tool of things in identical.
What happens is you know the codes, the fact that signs and codes are there is an encoding
and the we decode them according to the way you know, the system once has to decode them,
we these become sort of naturalized right and we forget that these were in fact social
and cultural constructions in the first place; these are not innocuous constructions, these
are constructions that add to a system according to Adorno and Horkheimer, a system that is
exploit or fundamentally exploitative in nature.
Then we will read further and we look at the term entertainment as has been understood
by Adorno and Horkheimer in their essay, the cultural industry. So, they have, they share
a very different light on the way we understand entertainment, entertainment we go for movies
for instance, we watch television or we have various forms of entertainment.
They very radically forward this point, that entertainment is the prolongation of work
under late capitalism, commonsense tells us, commonsensical views of entertainment tell
us that entertainment is escape from work; after a hard days work you go home or hard
days, day full of classes and lab work, you go to your hostel and you watch a movie in
order to in you know are you engage in you know in forms of entertainment, media I am
talking about mass culture entertainment here. And we would think that well, I this is I
am moving away from work but, Adorno and Horkheimer say that entertainment is a prolongation of
work under late capitalism, let us see how? Entertainment is sought by those, who want
to escape the mechanized labor process, let us read this again; it is sought by those,
who want to escape the mechanized labor process, so that they can cope with it again. So, you
know I want I want to peruse these or I want to, want to use these you know cultural forms,
because all this while I have been engaged in a very mechanized sort of a labor very
repetitive. So, that I can be refreshed, so to speak and I can come back to my so called
mechanized labour, mechanized work, but Adorno and Horkheimer say no, they say that we should
not forget that at the same time however, mechanization has such power over leisure
and its happiness. Determines, so thoroughly the fabrication of entertainment commodities
that the off duty worker can experience nothing but, after images of the work process itself.
Let us read this again, at the same time mechanization in the labour process for instance has, such
power over leisure and the happiness that it produces and mechanization in the mass
culture around the culture industry determines, you know what they call the fabric of entertainment
commodities. Technology, we call technological domination or technological rationality or
with an instrumental rationality you know through technology. Creates fabric, creates
a whole tanner or the whole content theme presentation of they call entertainment commodities
that you know, what they call the off duty worker, that is the worker who is in search
of entertainment as a distraction is actually really part you know continuing the labour
process, the mechanized labour process which they call the after images of the work process
itself. So, we this is very different from as I have
said again, very different from the commonsensical way of understanding entertainment, entertainment
and the mechanized labour process and the capitalism of a technological rationality
are not different. They are you know both are produced by the same logic of technological
of domination, this is something that is immensely important as we read Adorno and Horkheimer.
Then, if they continue this point and I am reading their words, the only escape from
the work process in factory and office is through adaptation to it in leisure time,
so you are only adapting to wait on your leisure time is nothing but, the prolongation or an
extension of your work process. This is the, they call it and use very strong words these,
this is the incurable sickness of all entertainment. Where entertainment should have refreshed
us, where entertainment should have you know given us food for thought, should have you
know distracted us in a you know very healthy sense should have taken us away from mechanized
labour processes; they say that entertainment itself become sort of sick lead and they call
it an incurable sickness, sick lead with the very logic of technological domination.
Amuse lets read on, amusement congeals into boredom, since to be to be amusement it must
cost no effort and therefore, moves strictly along the well-worn grooves of association,
this is again you have to associate this or you have to relate this to terms like sameness
and identity, replicability, everything is following the same logic, the spectator must
need no thoughts of his own. So, there is really you we are entertainers and the entertainment
should have given you food for thought, should have given you healthy destruction, you sought
of become consumers who do not need to do any work, why after all it because, it is
a prolongation of your own work process. So, you sit back and it is again repeated
that mechanized labour and that domination that logical technological domination is,
in his entire in this thorough boredom, where amusement should true, amusement should have
been in a thorough boredom demands no really, no mental work from you in the sense that
it demands no thinking, no at least demands no creative thinking on your part.
So, let us read on the spectator term must need no thoughts of its of its own, their
product prescribes look at this beautiful word here, prescribes each reaction, that
is the reaction that, even the reaction that you are going to have to towards the cultural
form, towards you know this entertainment forms is also, something that is prescribed,
so you will react to it, you will respond to it. According to the way, so even the responses
are being determined beforehand, so the spectator must need no thoughts of his own the product
prescribes each relation sorry each reaction, not through any actual adherence, but through
signals. So, you the product prescribes the reaction through its signs and codes, any
logical connection pre supposing mental capacity is awarded, we would be very of course, very
we note the very strong sarcasm, in the words of you know Adorno and Horkheimer.
Then the example is given here from cartoons, and stunt films, and the lot of work is also
you know currently going on the representation process in cartoons, in even you know in stunt
films for instance and we, there is a very interesting point being made here, is that
is initially if you looked at cartoon films, you know what was the motive; the motive was
that, there the cartoon films, the cartoon films provides you flights of fantasy from
rationalism, there is you know pure rationality is something that we cannot live with definitely
all the time, we cannot live as purely sort of logical being, symbol manipulating beings,
all the time. We are beings that emote, we are our emotional lives our desires you know
our feelings, our sentiments, so cartoon films were initially you know, and we enjoyed them
as flights from fantasy, flights of fantasy from almost a repressive rationality.
But, what is happening today, and let us look at this slides, see initially were there were
flights of fantasy from rationalism. Today, there is a restraining of individual resistance,
so that even these cartoon films, are these stunts films are immensely predictable; they
are no longer they are still within, this is the point they make, they are still within
the structure; they are still within the structure of rationalism of technological rationalism,
so that, you know even when I watch cartoon films increasingly I find them to be boring,
why because, they do not they are simply there the technology is the same, the reputation
is the same, the voice of words are the same; I am not talking about very excellent animation
films, but I would say that even this excellent animation films perhaps run the risk of such
sameness and you know identicalness. So, where they should have been flights, a healthy flight
of fantasy, today we find that, there is no resistance, there is no resistance to the
technological order being given by this cartoon films or these stunt films, they again become
prolongation or extension of the very mechanized labour we are all trying to escape from.
So, therefore, there is a cultural dumbing down, the cultural dumbing down as one critique
has put.
There is a colonization of leisure by the cultural industry right.
However, I have to end with this point before we move on to the discussion. There are, it
is not that there are no critiques of this discourse of culture, of this discourse of
cultural forms, media forms, mass cultural forms and they these you know the this advocates
of the other way of looking at culture industry also say that, well it is not that resistance
does not happen. It is not that everyone capitulates to the capitalist order, it is not that there
is no resistance and there is no that you know attempt made by film makers, by media
people produce media forms, to sensitize people to this very you know rational of technological
domination, they also say that we have to admit instead of putting everything within
this theoritical framework. We also have to admit that there is a great deal of diversity,
you know there is great deal of diversity, diverse themes, diverse techniques that are
which being produced and as we have, as we get the various opportunities to to and have
dialogues with other cultures to look at their cultural forms, there is a diversity which
resist, this process of mechanized labour and the extension of labour. So, we end on
this note, on this positive note of you know, where it is we understand, we begin to say
that it is possible for us, not to be just passive consumers and to have our reactions
and choices prescribed by the culture industry.
So, let us go to the discussion and just one or two questions, what are the chief arguments
of the culture industry discourse?
The chief argument is that one, that culture industries are eventually in the service of
a capitalist ethos and all the forms being produced by the culture industries, you know
only perpetuate a capitalist ethos and try and attempt to show these things as natural.
And they also secondly that culture infects everything with sameness, with standardization,
regulation which eventually deceive the those who consume its products. Remember this is
in the case of mass culture, mass culture produce same the same goods, identical goods
and there is a standardization, even in an assembly line sort of way there is a regulation
of both our choices and our responses through signals, through signs and codes which ultimately
end up to be a deception of the consumer.
So, we therefore, eventually have predetermined ideologies and social control illusion etcetera.
There is a cultural dumbing down and a colonization of the last question, how may leisure and
entertainment be conceptualized within this argument given by Adorno and Horkheimer and
others of this school.
Is that entertainment seen as a prolongation of work, were because of it is a, because
of the logic of technological domination and the off duty worker experiences really nothing
but, after images of the work process itself; and even in you know, suppose that the powerful
medium, media like cartoon films and stunt films which are, which we saw as resistance
to such a domination are no longer flights of fantasy but, and there is no longer any
resistance, they are not channels of resistance.
And to be entertainment means therefore, to be an agreement an entertainment makes it
possible only by insulating itself in the words of Adorno and Horkheimer from the totality
of the social process. And amusement always means putting things out of mind forgetting
suffering even when it is on display. So, I hope we after this, we have some food
for thought really and to to you know see how, within cultural studies, cultural forms
and you know which are called to be products of we are just said to be sorry, products
of the culture industry may be looked at from a critical angle, may be may be even as we
make our choices this have very powerful lessons for us and not only academically. But also,
as we lead our lives and we make our choices in entertainment, perhaps it would it is,
you know perhaps it is desirable that we understand where we are being manipulated, where our
choices and also our responses are being perspired by predetermined ideologies, and we will stop
here, and the next lecture which 2nd lecture in the module 4 will be devoted solely to
the commodity. Because, that is the starting point really, and that is if you those of
you who are acquainted with das capital where Karl Marx is das capital, but also remember
that it is, with this this most elementary unit the commodity, with which marks begins
his critique and description of capitalism, thank you for now.