Baudrillard and the Culture Industry: Returning to the First Generation of the Frankfurt School

116 Pages·2017·1.55 MB·English

by  Amirhosein Khandizaji (auth.)

Amirhosein Khandizaji
Baudrillard and
the Culture Industry
Returning to the First Generation of the
Frankfurt School
Baudrillard and the Culture Industry
Amirhosein Khandizaji
Baudrillard and the Culture
Industry
Returning to the First Generation
of the Frankfurt School
123
Amirhosein Khandizaji
Department ofSociology
FreeUniversity ofBerlin
Berlin
Germany
ISBN978-3-319-69873-1 ISBN978-3-319-69874-8 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69874-8
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2017955650
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
orinformationstorageandretrieval,electronicadaptation,computersoftware,orbysimilarordissimilar
methodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publicationdoesnotimply,evenintheabsenceofaspecificstatement,thatsuchnamesareexemptfrom
therelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authorsortheeditorsgiveawarranty,expressorimplied,withrespecttothematerialcontainedhereinor
for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictionalclaimsinpublishedmapsandinstitutionalaffiliations.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerInternationalPublishingAG
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:Gewerbestrasse11,6330Cham,Switzerland
To Corinna
Contents
1 The Frankfurt School: Introduction and Historical
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2 What Happened to the Frankfurt School? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3 Theories of the Frankfurt School, Veblen, and Baudrillard:
A Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.1 Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.2 Herbert Marcuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.3 Erich Fromm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.4 Thorstein Veblen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.5 Jean Baudrillard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4 Theoretical Discussions and Arguments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.1 Baudrillard and the Semiotic Aspects of the Culture Industry . . . . 72
4.1.1 Consumption as a Tool for Communication and
Differentiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.1.2 An Answer to Our Main Question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.2 The Culture Industry in Everyday Life. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.1 Shopping Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.2.2 McDonaldization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.2.3 The Image of Profusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.2.4 The Package . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2.5 Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3 Baudrillard and the New Aspects of the Culture Industry
in the Media. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.1 The Consumed Vertigo of Catastrophe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.2 Masking the Absence of a Profound Reality . . . . . . . . . . . 91
vii
viii Contents
4.3.3 The Culture Industry in the Age of Simulation . . . . . . . . . 93
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Index .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 107
Chapter 1
The Frankfurt School: Introduction
and Historical Background
The history of sociological theory is the story of the rise and fall of different
schools, each of which presents its explanation and interpretation of our social
world. Some of these schools can survive for a long time by developing and
renewingthemselves,butthere areotherswhichhave losttheirpower andvalidity
relativetotoday’ssociologicaltheory.Butevenafailedandforgottenschoolmight
regain its power by renewing its theories. In any case, this renewal should not
deflect a school from its major goals and fundamental theories.
One of the main and most influential schools in sociological theory is the
Frankfurt School. Although the Frankfurt School lost its strength after 1970, there
havealwaysbeeneffortstoreviveitstheories.TheintellectualrootsoftheFrankfurt
School,likethoseofotherschoolsinsociologicaltheory,mustbesoughtamongthe
ideasoftheclassicalsociologistssuchasKarlMarxandMaxWeber.Butthereisno
doubt that the Frankfurt School has a deeper and stronger attachment to Western
Marxism. After Marx, two different interpretations of his thought led to the emer-
gence of two groups of Marxist theorists. The first group, which is known as
orthodoxormechanicalMarxists,emphasizestheobjective,material,andeconomic
aspects of Marx’s thought. Orthodox Marxists believe that economic forces and
contradictions,whicharecausedbytheproductionsystemincapitalistsociety,will
eventually and inevitably lead to proletarian revolution and annihilation of the
capitalist system. They completely accept and follow Marx’s theory about the
process of social changes in capitalist society. Therefore, they believe that class
struggles and contradictions in the capitalist system itself will finally lead to class
consciousness and proletarian revolution. Furthermore, according to orthodox
Marxists,sincethecapitalistsystemisunabletochangeitselfordealwitheconomic
crisesitwilldefinitelyfallapart.Thus,theybelieveinaformofdeterminismknown
ashistoricallaws.Marx“comparedhistheoryofcapitalistdevelopmenttothelaws
governingplanetarymotion,implyingthatsocietyisgovernedbyeconomic‘laws’
which,likethoseofthenaturalworld,arebothuniversalandessentiallyindependent
of human consciousness and will” (Gottlieb 1989, p. 5). Consequently, now that
©SpringerInternationalPublishingAG2017 1
A.Khandizaji,BaudrillardandtheCultureIndustry,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69874-8_1
2 1 TheFrankfurtSchool:IntroductionandHistoricalBackground
theselawsaredeemeduniversallikenaturallaws,wecananticipatetheannihilation
of the capitalist system just as we anticipate events in the natural world. Hence,
orthodox Marxism rejects any idealist interpretation of Marx’s thought. According
to orthodox Marxism, the main reason for any social change has to be found in
the economicinfrastructure,whichdeterminestheculturalsuperstructureofsociety.
Thus, since thoughts are dependent on economic infrastructure, and they have
nothingtodowithsocialchanges,thereisnoneedtoconsidertheminourstudies.
In any case, in the 1920s after the Russian revolution and the growth of
the working class in Europe, it seemed that conditions were ready for the prole-
tarianrevolutionpredictedbyMarx.Butthefailureofrevolutionarymovementsin
Europe weakened the hypothesis of orthodox Marxists. As a result, some Marxist
theoristsbegantocriticizeorthodoxMarxism.Theyaskedwhysocialistrevolutions
failedinEuropewhiletheobjectiveconditionsofrevolution,accordingtoorthodox
Marxism, had been prepared. To explain this problem, some Marxist theorists
shifted their attention to the subjective and cultural aspects of capitalist society.
They argued that the problem was not material conditions, but rather subjective
conditions. In other words, although material prerequisites of the revolution were
prepared,subjectiveprerequisiteswerenot.ThiskindofMarxism,whichisknown
as Hegelian or Western Marxism, is largely inspired by Hegel and Weber; it
emphasizes subjective factors and their roles in social changes. Hegelian Marxism
was mainly “a theoretical-political attempt to explain the reasons for the failure of
the two European Internationals as these were related to mistakes made by past
Marxists” (Agger 1979, p. 119).
WesternMarxistsrejecttheideathatmaterialcontradictionsandeconomiccrisis
willinevitablyleadtoclassconsciousnessandproletarianrevolution.Theybelieve
that the revolutionary movementsin Europe failed because workers couldn’treach
class consciousness so as to understand their condition, their situation, and their
taskinthecapitalistsystem.Besides,incontrasttoorthodoxMarxists whobelieve
in economic determinism, according to which economic crisis alongside other
factors will inevitably lead to class consciousness for workers, Western Marxists
believe that capitalism can deprive workers of class consciousness or even distort
their understanding of their condition. In this way, the capitalist system can turn
workers into passive objects that follow and support this system. Therefore,
Western Marxists reject the idea that the inner contradictions of the capitalist
system will inevitably lead to its destruction. “Marx’s rudimentary social psy-
chology was rendered suspect by the failure of revolutionary movements and the
riseoffascism,ratherthansocialism,asaresultoftheeconomiccrisisofthe1930s”
(Gottlieb 1989,p. 6).As canbe seen, WesternMarxism makes twomaincritiques
of orthodox Marxism. First, orthodox Marxists consider ideas as part of the
superstructure which is determined by the economic infrastructure, whereas,
according to Western Marxists, ideas play a significant role in the socialist revo-
lution. According to Western Marxists, any explanation of a social change which
neglects the role of ideas cannot be valid. Second, orthodox Marxists believe in
economicdeterminismwhichmeansthatsocialchangesarecontrolledbyhistorical
laws and actors have nothing to do with them; whereas, according to Western
1 TheFrankfurtSchool:IntroductionandHistoricalBackground 3
Marxism such a view leads to conservatism through reification of the social world
and the capitalist system.
One of the most influential theorists of Western Marxism, who also influenced
the Frankfurt School, is Georg Lukács. Lukács, like other Western Marxists,
believes that material conditions cannot lead to revolutionary movements by
themselves. As was mentioned before, the failure of revolutionary movements in
Europe from 1900 to 1920 even though material conditions for a revolution had
been prepared, led to the conclusion that subjective conditions in revolutionary
movements are also important. According to Lukács, the capitalist system even
during its economic crisis can turn the proletariat into a class which supports its
values instead of opposing them. Lukács’s main emphasis is on class conscious-
ness,whichaccordingtohimplaysasignificantroleinthe revolutionarymovement
and its success. Thus, it was the lack of class consciousness in revolutionary
movements in Europe that caused them to fail. Class consciousness refers to a
collectionofbeliefsandunderstandingsofpeoplewhooccupythesamepositionin
the economic system. Class consciousness is “neither the sum nor the average of
whatisthoughtorfeltbythesingleindividualswhomakeuptheclass.Andyetthe
historically significant actions of the class as a whole are determined in the last
resort by this consciousness and not by the thought of the individual—and these
actions can be understood only by reference to this consciousness” (Lukács 1971,
p. 51).Therefore,accordingtoLukács,themainagentofrevolutionisclassandnot
separateindividuals.Beforeachievingclassconsciousness,workersinthecapitalist
system have only a false consciousness. In other words, they don’t have a true
perceptionandunderstandingoftheirlives,theirpositionintheproductionsystem,
their capability, their common interest, and the mechanism of the capitalist system
(Ritzer 1983, pp. 118, 119).
AccordingtoLukács,inordertoreachclassconsciousness,theproletariathasto
understand society as a whole. This means that the proletariat has to know the
structure of capitalist society and its different parts such as the production system,
means of production, distribution system, education system, art, science, subject,
and object. But a social class that cannot understand the whole society and the
relationsandlinksbetweenitsdifferentparts“isdoomedtoplayonlyasubordinate
role. It can never influence the course of history in either a conservative or pro-
gressivedirection.Suchclassesarenormallycondemnedtopassivity,toanunstable
oscillation between the ruling and the revolutionary classes, and if perchance they
do erupt then such explosions are purely elemental and aimless. They may win a
fewbattlesbuttheyaredoomedtoultimatedefeat”(Lukács1971,p.52).Therefore,
understandingsocietyasawholeisapreconditionfortheproletariattoreach class
consciousness and to be a revolutionary force. But the problem, according to
Lukács, is that the capitalist system prevents such a holistic understanding of
society. The capitalist system represents the world as a collection of separate
fragments which have no relation or link with each other. Even the individuals in
this world are separate fragments without any relation with each other. The capi-
talistsystemthroughadivisionoflaborandspecializationoftasksindifferentfields
causestheseparationofworkersfromeachother,fromtheproductionsystem,and