英语口头禅-毕业设计英文
Culture
industry
reconsidered
字体：
[
大
中
小
]
2006-09-27
文章来源：
文章作者：阿多诺（
）
The
term
culture
industry
was
perhaps
used
for
the
first
time
in
the
book
Dialectic
of
Enlightenment,
which
Horkheimer
and
I
published
in
Amsterdam
in
1947.
In
our
draft
s
we
spoke
of
'mass
culture'.
We
replaced
that
expression
with
'culture
industry'
in
ord
er
to
exclude
from
the
outset
the
interpretation
agreeable
to
its
advocates:
that
it
is
a
matter
of
something
like
a
culture
that
arises
spontaneously
from
the
masses
themselve
s,
the
contemporary
form
of
popular
art.
From
the
latter
the
culture
industry
must
be
di
stinguished
in
the
extreme.
The
culture
industry
fuses
the
old
and
familiar
into
a
new
q
uality.
In
all
its
branches,
products
which
are
tailored
for
consumption
by
masses,
and
which
to
a
great
extent
determine
the
nature
of
that
consumption,
are
manufactured
mo
re
or
less
according
to
plan.
The
individual
branches
are
similar
in
structure
or
at
least
fit
into
each
other,
ordering
themselves
into
a
system
almost
without
a
gap.
This
is
m
ade
possible
by
contemporary
technical
capabilities
as
well
as
by
economic
and
admini
strative
concentration.
The
culture
industry
intentionally
integrates
its
consumers
from
ab
ove.
To
the
detriment
of
both
it
forces
together
the
spheres
of
high
and
low
art,
separ
ated
for
thousands
of
years.
The
seriousness
of
high
art
is
destroyed
in
speculation
ab
out
its
efficacy;
the
seriousness
of
the
lower
perishes
with
the
civilizational
constraints
i
mposed
on
the
rebellious
resistance
inherent
within
it
as
long
as
social
control
was
not
yet
total.
Thus,
although
the
culture
industry
undeniably
speculates
on
the
conscious
a
nd
unconscious
state
of
the
millions
towards
which
it
is
directed,
the
masses
are
not
p
rimary,
but
secondary,
they
are
an
object
of
calculation;
an
appendage
of
the
machiner
y.
The
customer
is
not
king,
as
the
culture
industry
would
have
us
believe,
not
its
subj
ect
but
its
very
word
mass-media,
specially
honed
for
the
culture
industry,
al
ready
shifts
the
accent
onto
harmless
terrain.
Neither
is
it
a
question
of
primary
concer
n
for
the
masses,
nor
of
the
techniques
of
communication
as
such,
but
of
the
spirit
wh
ich
sufllates
them,
their
master's
voice.
The
culture
industry
misuses
its
concern
for
the
masses
in
order
to
duplicate,
reinforce
and
strengthen
their
mentality,
which
it
presum
es
is
given
and
unchangeable.
How
this
mentality
might
be
changed
is
excluded
throug
hout.
The
masses
are
not
the
measure
but
the
ideology
of
the
culture
industry,
even
th
ough
the
culture
industry
itself
could
scarcely
exist
without
adapting
to
the
masses.
The
cultural
commodities
of
the
industry
are
governed,
as
Brecht
and
Suhrkamp
ex
pressed
it
thirty
years
ago,
by
the
principle
of
their
realization
as
value,
and
not
by
the
ir
own
specific
content
and
harmonious
formation.
The
entire
practice
of
the
culture
ind
ustry
transfers
the
profit
motive
naked
onto
cultural
forms.
Ever
since
these
cultural
for
ms
first
began
to
earn
a
living
for
their
creators
as
commodities
in
the
market-place
th
ey
had
already
possessed
something
of
this
quality.
But
then
they
sought
after
profit
o
nly
indirectly,
over
and
above
their
autonomous
essence.
New
on
the
part
of
the
cultur
e
industry
is
the
direct
and
undisguised
primacy
of
a
precisely
and
thoroughly
calculate
d
efficacy
in
its
most
typical
products.
The
autonomy
of
works
of
art,
which
of
course
r
arely
ever
predominated
in
an
entirely
pure
form,
and
was
always
permeated
by
a
con
stellation
of
effects,
is
tendentially
eliminated
by
the
culture
industry,
with
or
without
the
conscious
will
of
those
in
control.
The
latter
include
both
those
who
carry
out
directive
s
as
well
as
those
who
hold
the
power.
In
economic
terms
they
are
or
were
in
search
of
new
opportunities
for
the
realization
of
capital
in
the
most
economically
developed
c
ountries.
The
old
opportunities
became
increasingly
more
precarious
as
a
result
of
the
same
concentration
process
which
alone
makes
the
culture
industry
possible
as
an
om
nipresent
phenomenon.
Culture,
in
the
true
sense,
did
not
simply
accommodate
itself
to
human
beings;
but
it
always
simultaneously
raised
a
protest
against
the
petrified
relati
ons
under
which
they
lived,
thereby
honoring
them.
In
so
far
as
culture
becomes
wholl
y
assimilated
to
and
integrated
in
those
petrified
relations,
human
beings
are
once
mor
e
debased.
Cultural
entities
typical
of
the
culture
industry
are
no
longer
also
commoditi
es,
they
are
commodities
through
and
through.
This
quantitative
shift
is
so
great
that
it
calls
forth
entirely
new
phenomena.
Ultimately,
the
culture
industry
no
longer
even
nee
ds
to
directly
pursue
everywhere
the
profit
interests
from
which
it
originated.
These
inte
rests
have
become
objectified
in
its
ideology
and
have
even
made
themselves
indepen
dent
of
the
compulsion
to
sell
the
cultural
commodities
which
must
be
swallowed
anyw
ay.
The
culture
industry
turns
into
public
relations,
the
manufacturing
of
'goodwill'
per
s
e,
without
regard
for
particular
firms
or
saleable
objects.
Brought
to
bear
is
a
general
u
ncritical
consensus,
advertisements
produced
for
the
world,
so
that
each
product
of
the
culture
industry
becomes
its
own
advertisement.
Nevertheless,
those
characteristics
which
originally
stamped
the
transformation
of
lit
erature
into
a
commodity
are
maintained
in
this
process.
More
than
anything
in
the
wor
ld,
the
culture
industry
has
its
ontology,
a
scaffolding
of
rigidly
conservative
basic
categ
ories
which
can
be
gleaned,
for
example,
from
the
commercial
English
novels
of
the
lat
e
seventeenth
and
early
eighteenth
centuries.
What
parades
as
progress
in
the
culture
industry,
as
the
incessantly
new
which
it
offers
up,
remains
the
disguise
for
an
eternal
sameness;
everywhere
the
changes
mask
a
skeleton
which
has
changed
just
as
little
a
s
the
profit
motive
itself
since
the
time
it
first
gained
its
predominance
over
culture.
Thus,
the
expression
'industry'
is
not
to
be
taken
too
literally.
It
refers
to
the
stand
ardization
of
the
thing
itself
-
such
as
that
of
the
Western,
familiar
to
every
movie-goer
-
and
to
the
rationalization
of
distribution
techniques,
but
not
strictly
to
the
production
process.
Although
in
film,
the
central
sector
of
the
culture
industry,
the
production
proce
ss
resembles
technical
modes
of
operation
in
the
extensive
division
of
labor,
the
emplo
yment
of
machines
and
the
separation
of
the
laborers
from
the
means
of
production
-e
xpressed
in
the
perennial
conflict
between
artists
active
in
the
culture
industry
and
thos
e
who
control
it
-
individual
forms
of
production
are
nevertheless
maintained.
Each
prod
uct
affects
an
individual
air;
individuality
itself
serves
to
reinforce
ideology,
in
so
far
as
the
illusion
is
conjured
up
that
the
completely
reified
and
mediated
is
a
sanctuary
from
immediacy
and
life.
Now,
as
ever,
the
culture
industry
exists
in
the
'service'
of
third
p
ersons,
maintaining
its
affinity
to
the
declining
circulation
process
of
capital,
to
the
com
merce
from
which
it
came
into
being.
Its
ideology
above
all
makes
use
of
the
star
syst
em,
borrowed
from
individualistic
art
and
its
commercial
exploitation.
The
more
dehuma
nized
its
methods
of
operation
and
content,
the
more
diligently
and
successfully
the
cult
ure
industry
propagates
supposedly
great
personalities
and
operates
with
heart-throbs.
It
is
industrial
more
in
a
sociological
sense,
in
the
incorporation
of
industrial
forms
of
org
anization
even
when
nothing
is
manufactured
–
as
in
the
rationalization
of
office
work
-
rather
than
in
the
sense
of
anything
really
and
actually
produced
by
technological
ratio
nality.
Accordingly,
the
misinvestments
of
the
culture
industry
are
considerable,
throwing
those
branches
rendered
obsolete
by
new
techniques
into
crises,
which
seldom
lead
t
o
changes
for
the
better.
The
concept
of
technique
in
the
culture
industry
is
only
in
name
identical
with
tech
nique
in
works
of
art.
In
the
latter,
technique
is
concerned
with
the
internal
organization
of
the
object
itself,
with
its
inner
logic.
In
contrast,
the
technique
of
the
culture
industr
y
is,
from
the
beginning,
one
of
distribution
and
mechanical
reproduction,
and
therefore
always
remains
external
to
its
object.
The
culture
industry
finds
ideological
support
pre
cisely
in
so
far
as
it
carefully
shields
it-self
from
the
full
potential
of
the
techniques
con
tained
in
its
pro-ducts.
It
lives
parasitically
from
the
extra-
artistic
technique
of
the
materi
al
production
of
goods,
without
regard
for
the
obligation
to
the
internal
artistic
whole
im
plied
by
its
functionality
(Sachlichkeit),
but
also
without
concern
for
the
laws
of
form
de
manded
by
aesthetic
autonomy.
The
result
for
the
physiognomy
of
the
culture
industry
i
s
essentially
a
mixture
of
streamlining,
photographic
hardness
and
precision
on
the
one
hand,
and
individualistic
residues,
sentimentality
and
an
already
rationally
disposed
and
adapted
romanticism
on
the
other.
Adopting
Benjamin's
designation
of
the
traditional
w
ork
of
art
by
the
concept
of
aura,
the
presence
of
that
which
is
not
present,
the
cultur
e
industry
is
defined
by
the
fact
that
it
does
not
strictly
counterpose
another
principle
t
o
that
of
aura,
but
rather
by
the
fact
that
it
conserves
the
decaying
aura
as
a
foggy
m
ist.
By
this
means
the
culture
industry
betrays
its
own
ideological
abuses.
It
has
recently
become
customary
among
cultural
officials
as
well
as
sociologists
to
warn
against
underestimating
the
culture
industry
while
pointing
to
its
great
importance
for
the
development
of
the
consciousness
of
its
consumers.
It
is
to
be
taken
seriously,
without
cultured
snobbism.
In
actuality
the
culture
industry
is
important
as
a
moment
o
f
the
spirit
which
dominates
today.
Whoever
ignores
its
influence
out
of
skepticism
for
what
it
stuffs
into
people
would
be
na?ve.
Yet
there
is
a
deceptive
glitter
about
the
ad
monition
to
take
it
seriously.
Because
of
its
social
role,
disturbing
questions
about
its
q
uality,
about
truth
or
untruth,
and
about
the
aesthetic
niveau
of
the
culture
industry's
e
missions
are
repressed,
or
at
least
excluded
from
the
so-
called
sociology
of
communica
tions.
The
critic
is
accused
of
taking
refuge
in
arrogant
esoterica.
It
would
be
advisable
first
to
indicate
the
double
meaning
of
importance
that
slowly
worms
its
way
in
unnotic