Are Cultural Products Purely Entertaining Commodities, Essay Example

Communication channels like the film and Radio are known as media cultures. They provide materials that many of us use to forge our very identities. These include aspects such as the notion of what it means to be a female or a male, a senseof selfhood, the human sense of class, of race and ethnicity and sexuality among many others. The truth is that at most, media stories tend to provide the myths, symbols and resources that enables the human being to constitute a commonculture. A common culture ensures a channel of which human beings can insert themselves into the cultures. However,the main question that this essay tackles is whether cultural products are purely entertainment or have the power to giveout a more engaging turn around to our attitudes.

According to experts, they argue that magazines, radio, and films make up a system that is uniform in every part or a whole phenomenon of culture. Many articles explain the impact of cultural products on human beings. Some of thearticles explain that most of the cultural products today portray more an environment that is entertainment oriented andothers portray a sense of education and not entertainment (Khan 63). It follows that, this essay has had a chance to mention several articles that portray a certain view when it comes to cultural products. In the list, the most touching articleis an article by Theodor W, titled “cultural industry reconsidered,” and also the Stephen Johnson’s “from everything bad is good for you…..”Although written by different authors, the certainty is that they portray related message. Briefly, theyacknowledge the fact that cultural products do not only provide entertaining messages, but they also give out a good andeducative message that can add value to the current humanity although the articles were written sometimes back.

Anchoring on Theodor’s argument, it is worth noting that he takes a critical evaluation of the mass culture. First, he poses his arguments by affirming that instead of using the term mass culture, he preferably uses the team cultural industry(Khan 93). This is because; the term explains the calculated plan by which products undergo complete production, andthen be distributed after which the process of consumerism begins, to the targeted masses in connection to specific ideasthat portray a certain cultural mind.

The author explains critically a general view of the term cultural industry. Here, he sees this term as mechanism that manyuses to get or achieve consumer’s product conformity. In his analysis, the author illustrates that the morals and ideas putforth by the cultural industry are absurd, yet very effective in luring people to fall into believing. The culture industry has the power to gain a sense of acceptance and conformity of the masses through the idea ‘public sphere’ as illustrated by Jurgen. Here, Jurgen asserts that ever person can get access to the public spheres. Due to this, it should be understood thatstrong and powerful force is injected into the system, and then public opinions of people can easily be shaped. These are the morals and the ideas that are and have been continuously propagated by the culture industry.

After several expressions and arguments, Adorno summarizes by saying the overall effect of the industry related to culture is anti-enlightenment. In addition, it has so far got into the way of individual and independent development andthought in the society, thus making the rest of the public be forced to act, think and behave in the same manner without primarily realizing why they are doing so.

According to many experts, Theodor included political underpinning to what controls the phenomenon of mass culture. In this way, they illustrate that all the common cultures were gathered into a culture industry that is unified. The unifiedculture industry had the task of ascertaining the uninterrupted opinion of the mass when it comes to the essence of marketing their interests.

A bit of history illustrates that the western culture used to bear a national division. This was before culture came to thehierarchical system. It is of no offense to note that the idea of culture currently bears a market place that runs on a singleplatform. Wherein, the most popular or the best mouthpieces bear the power to overwhelm the masses. Globalization has so far noted this issue “the one market policy” where else the exchange of the market products is facilitated by thegovernment. Therefore, to some extent the above statement affirms that, for a culture product to be the effect in influencing the masses, there are a certain degree of persuasion that the government usually participate. Since thegovernment has outstanding power in tackling their natives, then the government easily influences the residents to go in a certain direction (Theodor 25).

This further attests that, the media networks unification bears power consolidation in the ownership of only a numberedcooperation that operates on a multinational ground. Most of this cooperation usually operates on a distribution andproduction channel, all of which adds value to the efforts of mass culture manipulation. This theory ascertains that theculture does not only reflect the society but also take for granting a significant role it has in the molding of the society. This is done via the process of modification and standardization, which further generates objects and not subjects.

From a personal ground, it is of no offence to illustrate that relationship between the society and the cultural industry are running in parallel motion. The lines run on partners of a manipulative person, or the manipulative persons themselves and inferiority. In the same way, a culture industry can cleverly use ideas and tactics to influence the masses into not onlyfalling but also believing in a groupthink mentality, a partner as well as bearing superiority that is potential in controllingtheir partner and their inferior, as well. They are compelled to think in a specific way and thus they are made to becomedependent on them. In this same way, culture industry is thought to act in the same way an overbearing boss can, minimally on a much larger scale. To crown this, it should be noted that cultural industry uses the power of influence andthen manipulation to make the masses submit (Theodor 36). However, the content does not matter, it might either be barely entertaining or not without a good message. The truth is that regardless of the message, the culture industry will manipulate people by the use of influencing power.

It is important to understand that Adorno’s problematic on what he called cultural description within the culture industry. According to the author, culture is expected to fall under characteristics of durability. Here, the author further illustratesthat if culture industry can be at the point of co-modifying cultural expression in such a manner that portrays objects, thenthe culture should be questionable. According to the other sources, nowadays cultural products have been made in common merchandized books, painting, films just to mention but a few with a lone purpose of non-commercial artisticshould be appreciated (Theodor 89). If, in reality, the above-mentioned cultural objects are consumed, then their quality in this scenario is not reduced but rather it is eliminated.

In conclusion, it is evident that the cultural industry primarily preserves its mandate by presenting good life as a thing that portrays reality although through conflicts that trade person’s real ideas. According to Adorno, it is evidently noted that hespreads wanting values after which he establishes the individuals’ willingness to coordinate his interest as part of thesociety, as portrayed by the culture industry. If that is not enough, it should also be noted that the culture industry takesthe lead of the classes that are weaker. This is done by making content wide and shallow as well as appealing (Melocha 102). Thus demoting the cultures’ value, and if that is not enough, he further concludes by the assertion that portrays a happiness for the masses being a cultural industry imaginary. This issue induces individuals to pursue unachievable dreams and further represses all those that come against it.

Works Cited

Khan, Faiza. From Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today’s Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter. London: Free, 2005.

Melocha, Robert. ‘The Analysis of Culture’ in Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: London: Pearson Longman .A Reader, 4^th Edition (2009), pp. 32-40.

Theodor, Adorno. Culture Industry Reconsidered. New York: Smithsonian Books, 2010.