Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Culture Industry
The Frankfurt School; a predominant left wing group of intellectuals gathered from the middle and upper classes of German society in the early twentieth century are popularly associated within the ‘development of critical theory and research’. (Strinati:2004). The most significant critique concerned highlighting the apparent ‘social contradictions underlying the emergent capitalist societies of the time, and their typical ideologies’ (ibid). The Frankfurt School – within a metaphysical paradigm – described such contradictions, ‘the very nature or essence of the social phenomena’, as present within the reality of The Culture Industry (Cohen et al:2007).
The Frankfurt School adopted several Marxist theoretical principles implying that ‘the Culture Industry reflects the consolidation of commodity fetishism, the domination of exchange value and the ascendancy of state monopoly capitalism’ (Strinati:2004). Indeed, the classical Marxist conflict model provides the basis for the Culture Industry paradigm. This conflict model – Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat – derived from observations that ‘capitalists appropriated a disproportionate share of society’s total income solely by their virtue of being owners of the means of production’ is the essential analytical tool in terms of understanding that the ‘dominant ideas in any society are those which are drawn up, distributed and imposed by the ruling class to secure and perpetuate its rule’ (Cypher & Dietz:2004), (Strinati:2004). The Culture Industry, therefore, is a cultural phenomenon initiated by the ruling class to maintain social order.
The Frankfurt School adopted several Marxist theoretical principles implying that ‘the Culture Industry reflects the consolidation of commodity fetishism, the domination of exchange value and the ascendancy of state monopoly capitalism’ (Strinati:2004). Indeed, the classical Marxist conflict model provides the basis for the Culture Industry paradigm. This conflict model – Bourgeoisie versus Proletariat – derived from observations that ‘capitalists appropriated a disproportionate share of society’s total income solely by their virtue of being owners of the means of production’ is the essential analytical tool in terms of understanding that the ‘dominant ideas in any society are those which are drawn up, distributed and imposed by the ruling class to secure and perpetuate its rule’ (Cypher & Dietz:2004), (Strinati:2004). The Culture Industry, therefore, is a cultural phenomenon initiated by the ruling class to maintain social order.
A mockingbird will never strike back
According to Bourdieu, (in Jenks:2004) Cultural Capital is ‘diffused within a social space…. transmitted by inheritance and invested in order to be cultivated’. Furthermore within his theory of Cultural Reproduction, Bourdieu believed that; ‘differentiated and stratified, socialisation practices, in combination with the system of education, function to discriminate positively in favour of these members of society who, by virtue of their location with the class system are the natural inheritors of cultural capital’ (Jenks:2004). Therefore, this statement suggests, within a Marxist discourse, that Cultural Capital – the demonstration of social and economic status and power - is a privilege, exclusive to the higher tiers of the social stratification paradigm, which is perpetual and must be tolerated by the masses.
Furthermore, cultural capital is only one facet within a trinity of ‘major types of capital’; the others being economic – ‘high levels of income and property’ - and social – ‘stems not so much from what you know but who you know’ capital (Thornton:1995) (ibid1) (ibid2). In addition, within contemporary society there exists a manifold of consonant and dissonant relationships pertaining to such a trinity. Of course, within the elite of society – the royal family provides the best example – there will be a harmonious consonance of the trinity paradigm. However, there are increasing instances of dissonant relationships within contemporary society such as; ‘those rich in economic capital but less affluent in cultural capital’ (ibid3). Indeed, the opportunist markets of economic opportunity – professional sport, media and reality shows – will perpetuate such dissonant relationships and, indeed, the rejection of new money celebrities by the hereditary social elite.
Furthermore, cultural capital is only one facet within a trinity of ‘major types of capital’; the others being economic – ‘high levels of income and property’ - and social – ‘stems not so much from what you know but who you know’ capital (Thornton:1995) (ibid1) (ibid2). In addition, within contemporary society there exists a manifold of consonant and dissonant relationships pertaining to such a trinity. Of course, within the elite of society – the royal family provides the best example – there will be a harmonious consonance of the trinity paradigm. However, there are increasing instances of dissonant relationships within contemporary society such as; ‘those rich in economic capital but less affluent in cultural capital’ (ibid3). Indeed, the opportunist markets of economic opportunity – professional sport, media and reality shows – will perpetuate such dissonant relationships and, indeed, the rejection of new money celebrities by the hereditary social elite.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
