A critical review: The Culture Industry
The term culture industry, which created by those in power to maintain the status quo in terms of standardization and commodification was first developed by Ardono and Horkheimer based on the economic structure in the western society. It could be comprehended through the operation of cultural hegemony (i.e. how culture industry operates with the consent from the mass by the “dominant fundamental group”) that introduced by Gramsci. The following three academic articles emphasize on different features of culture industry thesis and further develop the concept originally proposed by Ardono and Horkheimer. This essay will evaluate how effective the theory has been applied in the three articles.
Gunster …show more content…
He (1985, p579) states that to dominate the society, force is the last resort only if the cultural hegemony could not be generated but in order to make working class actively consent to the ruling-class ideology, it must, to some extent, plausible (i.e. share some similarities with the working- class interests). On the basis of that, dominant culture defines the “boundaries of common sense” (p572) with the representation of “celebrities” to make a distraction of the mass from political issues. However, the dominant culture is believed to emerge from the individual “symbolic universes” (p573), when it become dominant, Lears claims that there is a scope for the “counterhegemonic alternatives” to develop. He further discusses the idea by using Gaventa’s study to show that it is almost impossible to challenge the hegemony since the powerless are infused with “a spirit of acquiescence” (p584) and they often, suggested by Gramsci, “lack the language necessary” to propose the strike. It is presented in the article how hegemonic culture “reinforced and undermined” under the relation between dominant groups and subordinate groups and Lears also addresses the argument running through all three articles which is the “human agency”. It is tautological that “everyone is a creature as well as a creator of his culture.” (Foucault,
The term culture industry, which created by those in power to maintain the status quo in terms of standardization and commodification was first developed by Ardono and Horkheimer based on the economic structure in the western society. It could be comprehended through the operation of cultural hegemony (i.e. how culture industry operates with the consent from the mass by the “dominant fundamental group”) that introduced by Gramsci. The following three academic articles emphasize on different features of culture industry thesis and further develop the concept originally proposed by Ardono and Horkheimer. This essay will evaluate how effective the theory has been applied in the three articles.
Gunster …show more content…
He (1985, p579) states that to dominate the society, force is the last resort only if the cultural hegemony could not be generated but in order to make working class actively consent to the ruling-class ideology, it must, to some extent, plausible (i.e. share some similarities with the working- class interests). On the basis of that, dominant culture defines the “boundaries of common sense” (p572) with the representation of “celebrities” to make a distraction of the mass from political issues. However, the dominant culture is believed to emerge from the individual “symbolic universes” (p573), when it become dominant, Lears claims that there is a scope for the “counterhegemonic alternatives” to develop. He further discusses the idea by using Gaventa’s study to show that it is almost impossible to challenge the hegemony since the powerless are infused with “a spirit of acquiescence” (p584) and they often, suggested by Gramsci, “lack the language necessary” to propose the strike. It is presented in the article how hegemonic culture “reinforced and undermined” under the relation between dominant groups and subordinate groups and Lears also addresses the argument running through all three articles which is the “human agency”. It is tautological that “everyone is a creature as well as a creator of his culture.” (Foucault,