Theodor Adorno..I don't get it...

No, and I normally wouldn't let it; but it seems symptomatic of Adorno's inability to get outside his own headspace.

Well, I haven't been terribly impressed by what I've read of his critique of "the culture industry" (I think it ignores what's interesting about those phenomena and replaces it with a shallow and weirdly elitist Marxist analysis, one that doesn't get how pop culture functions in people's lives on an individual level -- one that, shall we say, takes away people's humanity rather than insisting upon it, as Marx would).

Like any smart writer, he uses an "ism" to begin his smarter critique.

Eh?

i wouldn't trust anyone's gloss of adorno, let alone jameson's

adorno is incredibly perceptive about how pop products are produced and disseminated. he disapproves of both in the sense that he disapproves of the whole edifice of modern life, but essays like 'the radio symphony' seem to notice things that nobody else even thought to look for. i've read a fair amount of adorno, but nowhere near a pro level, and i encountered nothing that seemed homophobic at all, huh.

in his mind (if i'm getting this at all right) the purpose of art was to express human liberty, and so the best art was that which defined the parameters of its own existence or struggled against the its own form (big up 12 toners & also beethoven). pop, made by craftsman/technicians following the shifting-same of "the hit," has no radical potential.

n.b. i don't think that "having no radical potential" is the same as being "bad" to TWA; i'm sure i remember a few sentences here and there that express admiration of charlie chaplin, maybe even doris day or somebody like that??

Why didn't A. like Nazis? They were vulgar/populist, they were against the sort of culture that A. was really into, they killed off maybe some people who he thought of as his peers (as the elites who really counted, I want to say); they were a personal inconvenience of the highest order. But does it go beyond that?

I think you're being a bit harsh here, Casuistry. Does one need to go beyond the fact that the Nazis killed off his peers no matter how genuine you think Adorno's feelings for those peers were? (And fwiw, I've read enough of his letters to Benjamin to surmise that Adorno had a great deal of affection for him.)

Think about it. You leave your country due to an oppressive regime, your friends/peers are being murdered, and you wind up in a country quite foreign to your own. Yes, Adorno was amazed by the unchanging weather of Los Angeles. But he was even more disoriented by it all. Tons of exiles were, Kracauer especially. How would you react to popular (or really ANY) culture?

Also, as gently as I can put it, you're quoting Jameson and your friend on Adorno rather than the man himself. You should really ferret out some primary evidence. Not to add fuel to the fire but there are very specific examples of Adorno's homophobia in his essay “Freudian Theory and The Pattern of Fascist Propaganda,” particularly p. 136 and note 7 on p. 154 (from Routledge's The Culture Industry edited by J.M. Bernstein).

But it's reductive and just flat-out misinformed to state that "He took part in a critique of fascism that was widespread, in which fascism is basically blamed on homosexuality." If The Frankfurt School blamed fascism in 1930s Germany on any one thing, it was the rise of a petit bourgeois white collar class MUCH more than homosexuality.

And yes, homophobia was "of the times", sure. So might a lot of Adorno's sentiments; they may have "worked" for a particular set of people in a particular context.

As far as this is concerned, with the advent of the internet, I think his ideas are even more relevant. No doubt he would've seen the internet as an extremely logical capitalist development.

Finally, he was never as opposed to popular culture as people make him out to be. He had kind words for Chaplin, for instance. And he did recognize the privileged position from which he flung his pronunciamentos (see "Free Time").

Hell, you want a German exile conflicted about homosexuality, read Thomas Mann.

and i encountered nothing that seemed homophobic at all

See, I remember being startled by the use of sexual and particularly homosexual terminology (active, passive, penetrate, etc., etc., -- it just keeps building) in "On The Fetish-Character of Music...", and it kept startling me, especially with its heavy-handed worries about "passive" audiences, etc., etc. And it keeps cropping up in everything I read by/about him.

I guess I can't take his disapproval of "the whole edifice of modern life" too seriously since he has such a misguided understanding of the edifice of pre-modern life that he so cherishes.

(Also I think the idea that art is to express human liberty is pretty much bogus.)

Kevin, thanks.

I should like to think that Adorno (or anyone) would not like the Nazis for reasons that go deeper than "they killed off my peers", is what I meant.

See, I remember being startled by the use of sexual and particularly homosexual terminology (active, passive, penetrate, etc., etc., -- it just keeps building) in "On The Fetish-Character of Music...", and it kept startling me, especially with its heavy-handed worries about "passive" audiences, etc., etc. And it keeps cropping up in everything I read by/about him.

You're using late 20th century grad school sensors to interpret/be suspicious. That's no good.

No, there I'm using skills I picked up in high school English classes.

Also I did admit that I was quoting Jameson on Adorno, after all!

Reminds me of Nabokov's yarn about the Freudian interpreting Little Red Riding Hood.

Casuistry, I've read a bunch of Adorno and never read anything homophobic. Which doesn't mean he wasn't, but it certainly means he left enough worthwhile stuff that the homophobia (if it exists) isn't necessarily important.

ie: Understanding Endgame, Dialectic of Enlightenment, AT, his essays on Music, etc, none of which are homophobic, are still amazing.

Also check out “Opera and the Long-Playing Record” from Essays on Music edited by Richard Leppert. He was very cranky about recordings early on with “The Curves of the Needle” (guilty of sexism in that one too) and “The Form of the Phonograph Record” (both in the aforementioned anthology). But by the time he wrote “Opera and the Long-Playing Record” (in the 1960s), Adorno had scaled back on some of his negativity towards recordings, a characteristic of much of his later writing in general.

I shouldn't have used "The Frankfurt School" as a blanket term above. They were a varied bunch, to put it lightly.

And certainly Adorno disliked Nazis for reasons much deeper than they killed his peers. I think maybe you should read some more of his writing.

And fwiw, I scream and shout and jump up and down and hurl his words against the wall every time I read him. But I always come back for more. He extracts some very difficult questions out of me.

Kevin, have you ever gotten the feeling, reading Adorno, that he thought that people might earnestly enjoy music which he himself couldn't find any enjoyment in? And that their enjoyment of that music was, basically, ok?

His whole problem is with people enjoying music, Cas. He thinks that music is produced to keep the people satiated - a cynical view of a Capitalism structure that feeds the people what they want to keep them docile. Music isn't supposed to please people, it's supposed to challenge them. (I'm obv stating this more simply than he does.) Their enjoyment of that music is the opposite of okay for that reason.

I like to piss off my football fan buddies with Adorno's remarks on mass spectator sports.

"For the consumer there is nothing left to classify, since the classification has already been preempted by the schematism of production. This dreamless art for the people fulfils the dreamy idealism which went too far for idealism in its critical form... Not only do hit songs, stars, and soap operas conform to types recurring cyclically as rigid invariants, but the specific content of productions, the seemingly variable element, is itself derived from those types. The details become interchangeable..."

Well, that is what I take from him, Mordy, but I was wondering if he ever shook that.

Kevin, have you ever gotten the feeling, reading Adorno, that he thought that people might earnestly enjoy music which he himself couldn't find any enjoyment in? And that their enjoyment of that music was, basically, ok?

I actually think he himself derived some pleasure from jazz and Hollywood movies and whatever else he was picking on. In general, though, he was critiquing much larger structures than just, say, the demon jazz. He was asking: how much of our lives are untainted by capitalist rationalization? And if we can uncover an untainted portion, has that been brought into existence the labors of others operating within capitalist rationalization?

So I think the problem is less the enjoyment of music than enjoying it earnestly. I would imagine he would find earnestness a suspect concept in a capitalist economic system.

Basically, there's no escape. "Only by subordinating all branches of intellectual production equally to the single purpose of imposing on the senses of human beings, from the time they leave the factory in the evening to the time they clock on in the morning, the imprint of the work routine which they must sustain throughout the day, does this culture mockingly fulfill the notion of a unified culture which the philosophers of the individual personality held out against mass culture."

So, like, indie fans who think they are expressing something unique about themselves by listening to Panda Bear aren't escaping this hegemony either. It is total and all-encompassing (and I personally see this as relating to his Understanding Endgame). There's a depressing finale when you realize that this is everything.

has that been brought into existence THROUGH the labors of others operating within capitalist rationalization?
xxpost or something

And yeah, I agree. Maybe he enjoyed some of this stuff, but the hegemony is the problem. It's not doing anything courageous. And I haven't read anything where he moved past that.

Personally, I disagree with Adorno. A part of my thesis is that while Adorno was looking at the production and distribution of pop culture, we need to look at its reception and performance. Look at how people take it and use/reuse it. Not at how it's originally intended. How do people subvert the hegemony with the pop culture it produces.

OK, good answer(s --xpost). In that I'm having a difficult time phrasing where I want to go from there.

I guess I want to start by saying: I find his worry about being "tainted by capitalist rationalization" to be similar to, and about as misguided as, worries over "selling out".

(I used "earnest" because in "Fetish-character" he specifically makes the [ridiculous?] claim that people don't actually *like* the "light music" they're being "forcefed".)

Right. The "no escape" part is crucial. Is NOT listening to Panda Bear an option? And by this, I don't mean, listening to Animal Collective or Britney Spears or whatever instead. IS there a different relationship to music besides listening to records (mp3s or whatnot), going to live shows, posting on ILM, etc.?

some xposts

XP Well, I think he's talking about two different kinds of "like." I'm sure he'd say those people think they like the music their being forcefed, but honestly how could they?

And I don't think "selling out" is similar. Adorno doesn't think anyone is outside the reach of the Capitalist hegemony. Nirvana was just as much a product of the Capitalist structure before they were signed to a major label as after. When Kurt was writing music in his living room, he was writing it in the context of the structure. Selling Out may have anti-Capitalist connotations, but I suspect Adorno would say that the term is misguided in that it only critiques the individual, not the system.

If anything, the term "Selling Out" actually feeds into the hegemony by creating safe rebellions for people. They can rebel from certain personifications of Capitalism (the big bad, evil record label) while safely remaining within the structure. It's a red herring.

Yes, exactly. Selling out would have meant nothing to Adorno.

I find his worry about being "tainted by capitalist rationalization" to be similar to, and about as misguided as, worries over "selling out".

Forget music for a bit and think of your own life. Are there areas of your life untainted by capitalist rationalization? Even something as intimate as the sex you have. Is it really all that intimate and unique?

You don't have to actually answer these, of course.

Actually, your problem without "selling out" might be Adorno's problem. You (I'm assuming) think it's silly because there's no difference before selling out and afterward. And Adorno would say the same.

But I think that if you think there's no difference because Capitalism doesn't do anything to art, so it doesn't matter if you're selling out, that you should relook at Adorno's argument. Because I think it's pretty clear that Capitalism does something to art. The question is what, and whether Adorno is actually correct that it can't be subverted.

Why would sex be unique? And why would that have more to do with "capitalism" rather than, say, "genetics"? And do you [does Adorno] really want to suggest that pre-capitalist sex was more intimate, more unique? Because, uh.

"Something".

I left it intentionally vague. Adorno has his argument for what Capitalism does to art. I'm asking whether you think it has any effect or not. Your equally vague anti"selling out" argument implies that you don't think it has any effect.

I'm not even convinced it's a grammatical question! (In the Wittgensteinian sense.)

To ask plainly, do you, Casuistry, believe that there's a relationship between Capitalism and art. And if there is one, what is it?

Like I said, Adorno gives his answer. You need to decide whether you agree with it.

I think that those are both far too vague ideas to tie together systematically. I think art exists in a wide, wide variety of different contexts, and that capitalism manifests itself in a wide variety of different ways, and that suggesting there is any direct connection between one megaconcept "capitalism" and one megaconcept "art" is -- well, I want to say willfully naive and detached from messiness of individual lives, but, ok, that's much too strongly phrased.

"Vague" isn't the word I wanted there. "Broad".

Why would sex be unique?

"Unique" was probably a poor word choice. But most people tend to think of sex as an intimate, private, um, exchange carrying no suggestions of an "outside," public world or economic system or whatever.

And why would that have more to do with "capitalism" rather than, say, "genetics"?

When do you have sex? Where do you have it? With whom? And do any of your answers bear absolutely no trace of capitalist rationalization?

And do you [does Adorno] really want to suggest that pre-capitalist sex was more intimate, more unique? Because, uh.

Actually, Adorno's views on pre-capitalist life are some of the things that piss me off the most because it sometimes seems he would have preferred, say, serfdom to being a pawn of the culture industry.

Again, there are no right or wrong answers here and I'm certainly not demanding answers from you. They're just thinking points.

And I'm not exempting myself from these questions either. I ask them all the time.

XXP Well, for Adorno, and for many, many, many post-Marxist scholars, a Capitalist society occurs as a sort of hegemony for the people living in it. They live their lives differently because the hegemony is in place. Maybe they devalue humanity and see things in terms of value/worth. Or maybe art becomes devalued as art and becomes only its economic worth. I mean, there are a lot of Marxist and post-Marxist scholars and lots of discussion about this. Saying peoples lives are "messy," doesn't really speak to this hegemony. Maybe you don't believe there's a hegemony. Maybe you think that the economic structure doesn't matter at all. But to just dismiss it suggests that you just aren't familiar with the arguments involved.

I'm sorry if this seems vague. If you're looking for texts to look at, I could recommend some.

I think there are always many hegemonies, of varying scales, and with varying effects, etc. But, always! Capitalism isn't special in that regard.

This is my favorite pic of Adorno:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/3409/527/1600/adorno_c.jpg

Assuming that the headphone wire rests naked in his pocket, attached to nothing, I think this photo perfectly sums up the probably doomed position of Adorno in a capitalist society.

Well, Cas, you're trying to argue against Adorno when you're really arguing against the entire premise. Adorno feels there /is/ something special about Capitalism and that it creates this particular kind of hegemony. And he's not alone.

It's sort of like arguing against Freud because you don't believe there's a subconsciousness. Like, okay? This is the model Adorno is using.

I'm not saying you're not entitled (or whatever). I mean, like I said above, my thesis is directly taking aim at a number of Adorno's premises. But if you want to discuss Adorno, to an extent you need to speak in his language. He's a tool to use (like Deleuze, or Foucault, or whomever).

Well, I agree that he's a tool.

</cheap shot>

Kevin, maybe you can help with this. I was talking to a friend who was telling me that most Adorno scholars today (like Zuidervaart maybe, or Habermas) see Adorno's radical critique - like in MM - as the first step to a restoration of damaged life. That's not actually total dystopia, but that in acknowledging the dystopia, a road will open up. The first question is 'how,' but I'm sorta confused about this works with Adorno's reading of Endgame (which seems hopelessly dystopian to me - with no possibility of redemption).

(I'm off to bed now; thanks for the discussion.)

I haven't read Adorno's reading of Endgame. Where does it appear?

But I can definitely see MM as a series of attempts to restore a damaged life. I'm pulling this out of my ass but:

I haven't read Endgame itself in eons. But IIRC, the duration of the play is pointless in the sense that the characters (and the audience, presumably) already know the outcome. But you have to endure to get to that outcome. So yes, very dystopic. Where Adorno and MM might come in his theorizing a different way to endure, to not play the game the way it's always been played.

And here I'm thinking of 36. "The Health Unto Death" and 38. "Invitation to the dance" from MM. Both critique "healthy" outlooks on life and suggest a kind of anti-socialization as an open road through dystopia. And given the very little I know about Beckett's personality, I'd say he embodied anti-socialization quite effectively.

P.S. "Totalitarianism and homosexuality belong together." Minima Moralia, p. 46.

P.P.S. I was reading Minima Moralia on the bus and a guy asked me about its style (apparently he saw it over my shoulder). Cruising?