Critical Analysis of the “Culture Industry”

Alanah Hardy

This work was produced by Alanah Hardy for the subject ‘Media and the Society’. It evaluates the currency of Adorno and Horkheimer’s theory of the “culture industry” as an academic media studies approach through the case study of the contemporary commodification of Mickey Mouse.

As media’s role in contemporary society becomes highly interdependent, intertwined and yet, invisible, it is critical to re-evaluate the currency of academic approaches to Media Studies. By assessing Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept of the “culture industry”, I argue that the industrialisation of media, with focus on Mickey Mouse as the epitome of culture commercialisation, is exceedingly prevalent in consumer capitalist behaviours today.

The culture industry, as a Marxist critique of media, is best interpreted through two lenses. The first highlights capitalism as underpinning everything that is produced within media (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1947). This suggests that media’s commodities are no longer form of self-expression, but rather, are produced from society’s needs in order to acquire economic value. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that this capitalistic shift means that products, like applications on a phone, are based off similar frameworks, so in the end, are “identical” (1947, pp. 32). This not only makes it easier to market, sell and profit as the product is a known commodity, but also, the differentiation between products becomes the amount of “blatant cash investment” that is funded (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1947, pp. 34). This is a key point as it demonstrates how the quality of technology and media is measured on the capital invested, influencing individuals to focus on the economic value over the content or intention. Thus, the culture theory addresses the way in which media and cultural artefacts have become monetised through capitalist domination of society. The second lens of the theory underlines a collective ideology which has masked the true nature of society’s media consumption. In this view, Adorno and Horkheimer claim that individual consciousness is rendered useless as its need has already been suppressed by “central control” (1947, pp. 33). Indicating that the consumer does not see the necessity of fighting against the industry as they are naïve to its deception. However, ideology requires continual consumption by the mass in order to work. Adorno and Horkheimer suggest that this is achieved through the illusion of the outside world being an extension of what is presented on screen (1947, pp. 35). Creating consumers who are absorbed into the ease of not having to use their imagination; transitioning from the individual mind to the mind of the mass. Another way mass consumption is maintained is through the “cheating of what [the culture industry] perpetually promises” (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1947, pp. 38). Dissatisfaction, which is heavily played on through the act of offering but depriving, locks the consumer into a power contract where they continue to come back for more as they are not yet satisfied. Consequently, this reinforcement has normalised the media’s control and influence over society, becoming an entity which is never disputed against as it is recognised as an essential part of everyday life. Hence, Adorno and Horkheimer expose ideology as the reason for the lack of consumer enlightenment regarding media’s mass deception.

The cultural commodification of Mickey Mouse presents a dire picture of how embedded the culture industry is within contemporary society.

Beginning as the byproduct of a character rights argument between Walt Disney and Universal Pictures, Mickey Mouse’s debut in Steamboat Willie, 1928, launched his name into the limelight (Suddath, 2008). Utilising this new-found recognition within the public sphere, Disney brought out all types of Mickey merchandise targeted at the most manipulable consumer group; children. By applying the filter of the culture industry, the creation of Mickey Mouse, and subsequent marketing strategies, can be seen as Disney’s gamble at economic wealth and capital supremacy, instead the product of his artistic selfexpression. As well, within two years of the film’s release, a fan club for children was established called the “Mickey Mouse Club” (Suddath, 2008), further evidence for the naturalisation of capitalistic consumer habits from an early age. However, is not just one generation that associate their childhood with Mickey. Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the renewal of past commodities using contemporary platforms are a prime example of how the industry generates the most profit out of a product and maintains mass control (1947, pp. 38). This can be seen with the Mickey Mouse comic strip, the Mickey Mouse Clubhouse (2006 – 2016) an interactive animated children’s television series and Epic Mickey (2010) a video game which reinvented Mickey’s image to increase the consumer demographic. Furthermore, Mickey is dominating social media trends with the necessity of uploading a selfie with Mickey ears on when visiting one of the many Disney theme parks around the world. Thus, Mickey Mouse’s industrialisation throughout the 20th century to present day is symbolic of how the culture industry remains well-embedded within society.

Despite strong arguments for the relevancy of the culture industry, in light of the exponential advancements in technology and media consumption experienced today, there are two central criticisms that challenge this theory. The first being the context from which Adorno and Horkheimer were writing this theory. Both authors, after escaping the control of Nazi Germany and fleeing to America, saw media and culture as way in which individuals could gain a significant amount of power over consumers, especially through national propaganda as a influential method of manipulating the masses. This enlightenment of the exploitative nature of media create bias within their argument as they were not able to comprehend a less pessimistic view of media consumption.

The second limitation is the types of media available when Adorno and Horkheimer devised the theory. Drawing on radio and television which relied on certain time slots, they suggest media standardises everything so that consumers are subjected and regulated by these particular times. However, with the advent of the internet, and until only recently, subscription-based screening services like Netflix, the industry appears to be moving towards a model that encourages individual media experiences. Therefore, it should be noted that while the theory has strengths, it also has weaknesses which need to be understood when discussing its overall relevancy.

Adorno and Horkheimer may have written their theory over 70 years ago but the commentary is still reflective of society today. This is particularly apparent when applying the culture industry to the cultural commercialisation of Mickey Mouse, as monopoly media companies like Disney naturalised and standardise capitalist consumer habits through these heavily merchandised mascots. On contrary, the culture industry does present drawbacks when concerning the pessimistic context and the limited type of media that was around in the late 1940s. Yet, as Adorno and Horkheimer continue to be at the forefront of Media Studies discourse, I reaffirm that the culture industry continues to be a pragmatic approach to the role of media in society.