Adorno’s culture industry critique is structurally grounded in political economy, not mythical ruling elites

Evidence

On this point, Burkhardt Lindner has criticised Adorno for mostly referring ‘to “the dominant” (den Herrschenden) in a mythical manner, as if to an unknown royal house or race of gods’. As a result, ‘the partially used categories of the critique of political economy lose their analytical power’, while ‘the culture industryasmassdeceptionisdenouncedinapostureof late-bourgeoisenlightenment’. However, Adorno’s consideration of the culture industry is not as simple as Lindner implies. Adorno views the manipulation by the culture industry not as driven by the interest of individuals, but rather as unfolding structurally ‘for the depersonalised and anonymous apparatus of power in an administrated society. After all, it is directed precisely against the interests of its recipients, whom it turns into victims’. Hence, the culture industry is a function of capitalism. ‘The result of the culture industry is ultimately the destruction of the individual. Domination is no longer externally imposed on the individual; rather, in Horkheimer’s words, it has already been “internalised” by human beings’. Humans dominate themselves, and the culture industry supports them in doing so. However, it would be wrong to say that the culture industry violates humans: ‘In reality, a cycle of manipulation and retroactive needisunifyingthesystemevermoretightly’. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 831

Categorization

• XREF: Directly engages the historiographical debate about whether Adorno’s critique of political economy retains analytical force — connects to the stated reading purpose of countering the ‘pessimistic cul-de-sac’ reading. — connects to: Influential readings wrongly claim Adorno ignored political economy — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 35; Adorno made instrumental reason a transhistoric urge rather than a capitalist product — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 380; The culture industry is production from above, not culture arising from the masses — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry: Selected Essays…, 134 (+2 more)
• QUESTION: Worth chasing: does the ‘cycle of manipulation and retroactive need’ formulation anticipate Foucault’s later accounts of power as productive rather than repressive?
• ADDENDUM: The ‘internalised domination’ claim parallels the self-policing dynamic described in ‘On Sacrifice’ where internalization makes external enforcement unnecessary.

Broader Connections

• Influential readings wrongly claim Adorno ignored political economy #corroborates (0.92) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 35
• The culture industry is production from above, not culture arising from the masses #expands (0.85) — Theodor W. Adorno, The Culture Industry, 134
• Adorno made instrumental reason a transhistoric urge rather than a capitalist product #contradicts (0.75) — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism, 380