Ok, so after working on the theory carnival assignment for God know how long, my brain is a bit fried. Please bare with me through this blog post! So, I thought that Horkeimer and Adorno’s piece was interesting. I thought that they made a lot of good points, although, I didn’t fully understand it.
On page 1226 they say that “the whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry. The old experience of the movie-goer, who sees the world outside as an extension of the film he has just left (because the latter is intent upon reproducing the world of everyday perceptions), is now the producer’s guidelines.” I thought this was very interesting, but true. If you think about it, we do see everything through a filter. Everything we do or even say is censored and we are basically taught to deal with it. I took a Media Ethics class and it explained all of this. We are basically told what to see, we don’t really have a choice. The “higher ups” decide this according to our culture, as well as what they think the people can “handle.” It’s all about guidelines today and what they think is right or wrong to show. I do feel that it is kind of taking away our personal freedoms, but, in the end, we can’t control it.
On page 1236 it says “in the culture industry the individual is an illusion not merely because of the standardized of the means of production. He is tolerated only so long as his complete identification with the generality is unquestioned.” I had a problem with this sentence. This didn’t really make sense to me. What I think this means is that an individual really doesn’t exist in the means of production and that “his” complete identity is based on what everyone else’s is within the company. So, if this is true, then does it mean that no one has his or her own identity if they work for a company? This whole thing make me think of Jameson’s Death of a subject section where the individual does not exist. If I remember clearly, Jameson talked about an individual as a myth and that it never can exist becasue there is always someone else that has done whatever you are trying to do before you. I might just be streching this, but I think that he would agree with this sentence, at least in the sense of the individual not exisiting.
To me, it seemed like Horkeimer and Adorno just did not like the movies. I couldn’t really even imagine someone hating the movies since it is such a huge part of our culture today. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who said they hate going to the movies, since it is suppose to be relaxing and time off from the real world. I just feel that they are a source of entertainment and nothing more. Yes, some do serve as symbols or even have subliminal messages, but I think that everyone has their own mind and will think what they want to think. I think that books serve as the same type of thing. It’s all basically for either educational or entertainment purposes, so why bash it? It’s basically just one more thing that we do have to keep us sane in this world!
April 11, 2007 at 6:13 pm
hey Cara, wooo our carnival is done. Trust me, I know how you feel about the major work load-my brian seems to be fried too haha. The first thing I caught interesting about your blog was the first section where you focused on the idea of a filter. I think this filter can relate back to Foucault and Butler. I think this filter is basically the exact idea of censorship on society and explains the set of guidelines that you talked about which is a great connection. With the second part of your blog that comes from p. 1236, I wish I could help you out more. There were sections in the reading that I had hightlighted with question marks next to them, and of course that was one of the ones I had, shucks
April 15, 2007 at 9:46 pm
Hey Cara,
I really agree with a lot of what you had to say here. I definitely agree, Horkeimer and Adorno definitely didn’t like movies. I think they felt as though it just brainwashes people. I know for me, I watch a movie as a source of entertainment, a way to unwind. I don’t watch a movie and take it so seriously where it deeply impacts my life. I also really agree where you said “It’s all basically for either educational or entertainment purposes, so why bash it?” That is definitely true- movies are here to keep us entertained, not to mess with our minds.
April 21, 2007 at 1:29 pm
Hi Cara,
I agree with you I don’t think these men enjoyed movies very much, or any form of media for that matter. Unfortunately, I find myself also agreeing with SOME of the things they say. As for the loss of self or identity when working for a company, what I think they are saying is that because our society forces us to work in order to survive everyone becomes an employee. Thus, everyone faces of a loss of who they really are and need to conform to the role of an employee and work their way up to look good in society. So going back to the quote, this makes people working for a company just another person “an illusion” as they would say, basically making the job an act of just going through the motions and being what a company needs and wants one to be. Money is everything to people now a days so maybe what their trying to say is that working to move up in society is what becomes most important and what causes people to lose who they really are and gain this new persona?? Just a thought!