Adorno and Horkheimer revised their culture-industry claim to avoid equating use-value with actual use

Evidence

Yet this does not permit the conclusion that use-value ‘is beingreplacedinthereceptionof culturalassetsbyexchangevalue’,that’enjoyment is giving way to being there and being in the know, connoisseurship by enhanced prestige’, as is claimed in the first edition of Dialectic of Enlightenment. Likely suspecting the inadmissibility of equating use-value with the way in which a commodity is used, Adorno and Horkheimer modify the first part of this sentence in the 1947 version, incorporating a more cautious phrasing: ‘What might be called use value in the reception of cultural assets is being replaced by exchange value; enjoyment is giving way to being there and being in the know, connoisseurship by enhanced prestige’. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 882

Categorization

  • QUESTION: The revised phrasing shifts from ‘is being replaced’ to ‘might be called’ — worth checking whether other 1947 revisions similarly hedge economic categories.
  • XREF: connects to: Adorno’s ‘use-value-in-itself’ assumption departs from and contradicts Marxian theory — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 230; Adorno’s use-value destruction thesis contradicts Marx’s commodity definition — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 440; Adorno modeled the non-identical on use-value, not derived use-value from it. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 1295 (+1 more)

Broader Connections