Here is an essay that was written 53 years ago and its message and the concepts presented by it are still relevant to this day.
Condensing what I understand based on what I read in the beginning of the essay, culture industry and mass culture are synonymous but not interchangeable. Mass culture is only a part of the broader culture industry. Culture industry is broader in the sense that it combines both the former and contemporary culture which is the popular culture, as well as it merges the high and low art which are separated for so long.
Adorno explains that the consumers of the culture industry are said to be of secondary importance to the latter, even when the culture industry can barely stand without its consumers, the masses. Hence, we can say that the power behind the culture industry has the final say to the products it creates, not the masses, although this is what it seems to be in the surface.
To this day, this is how Philippine TV and radio stations operate. We all know that TV stations sell their TV programs and shows to sponsors, not to consumers. Therefore, consumers are passive viewers, manipulated by the elite and sponsors.
The author argues that originally, the motive behind the culture industry was the profit. The cultural forms ever since had become commodities in the marketplace due to this economic return; hence, they were governed according to how they can increase profit for the culture industry, not because of their particular content and formation. We can conclude then that quality here was sacrificed for quantity.
Later on, the profit interests are no longer the driving force behind the culture industry. The culture industry has become public relations in itself in which there is no need to sell cultural commodities to the consumers as they will appeal to them regardless. Cultural commodities then are swallowed by the masses regardless of how and for what/whom they are made. This is added by the fact that people buy the idea of conflicts that can barely be solved in real life, but are possible through these products, as those products of the culture industry are representation of real life, which is the ideal life.
Hence, whenever a giant TV station in the Philippines airs a particular TV program that is different from the current programs, the masses embrace it and most of the time, it becomes mainstream. Take the case of a Korean-drama Jewel in the Palace when it was aired by the giant TV station GMA sometime in 2006. On the other hand, even when the same story line is presented to the viewers over and over again, like in the case of Philippine telenovelas, people would rather take it than not.
The essay is spot on when it mentioned that the quality of a cultural product is not measured by how many people it touches. That is why it is important that the masses should not simply swallow it all in, but question it critically instead. People are said to be well-informed because of the information disseminated through a specific cultural commodity, but in actuality they only conform to what the media feed them. Social consciousness therefore is lost as the people are more influenced by the cultural form’s ideology, and the consequence is that this influence can affect their behavior.
Adorno ends his essay by claiming that the culture industry is “anti-enlightenment”,.. “a total mass deception” and “a means for fettering consciousness” (Adorno 108). Applying this to the present, I could not deny the fact that this is the reality not merely in the Philippine mass media, but everywhere especially in Hollywood. Because of these, I began to ponder, how can we overturn this deception? In what ways can individuals decide for themselves without the culture industry’s influence?
Reference:
Adorno, Theodor. “Culture Industry Reconsidered”. Popular Culture: A Reader. Raiford Gaines and Omayra Zaragoza Cruz. London: Sage, 2005. 103-108. PDF.







