“The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” A Passage From the Dialectic of Enlightenment

Please enjoy this excerpt from Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" as it delves into the radical politics and critical theories regarding desire, 

consumerism, capitalism and culture-creation

“The culture industry endlessly cheats its consumers out of what it endlessly promises. The promissory notes of pleasure issued by the plot and packaging is indefinitely prolonged: the promise, which actually comprises the entire show, disdainfully intimates that there is nothing more to come, that the diner must be satisfied with reading the menu. The desire inflamed by the glossy names and images is served up finally with a celebration of the daily round it sought to escape. Of course, genuine works of art were not sexual exhibitions either. But by presenting denial as negative, they reversed, as it were, the debasement of the drive and rescued by mediation what had been denied. That is the secret of ascetic sublimation: the present fulfillment in its brokenness. The culture industry does not sublimate: it suppresses. By constantly exhibiting the object of desire, the breasts beneath the sweater, the naked torso of the sporting hero, it merely goads the unsublimated anticipation of pleasure, which through the habit of denial has long since been mutilated as masochism. There is no erotic situation in which innuendo and incitement are not accompanied by the clear notification that things will never go so far. The Hays Office merely confirms the ritual which the culture industry has staged in any case: that of Tantalus. Works or art are ascetic and shameless; the culture industry is pornographic and prudish. It reduces love to romance. And, once reduced, much is permitted, even libertinage as marketable specialty, purveyed by quota with the trade description “daring.” The mass production of sexuality automatically brings about its repression. Because of his ubiquity, the film star with whom everyone is supposed to fall in love is, from the start, a copy of himself. Every tenor now sounds like a Caruso record, and the natural faces of Texas girls already resemble those of the established models by which they would be typecast in Hollywood. The mechanical reproduction of beauty - which, admittedly is made only more inescapable by the reactionary cultural zealots with their methodical idolization of individuality - no longer leaves any room for the unconscious idolatry with which the experience of beauty has always been linked.” 

—Adorno and Horkheimer: “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” (From the Dialectic of Enlightenment)

Notes:

1. image found here

Canadian Couple Raises Child Genderless and The Media Goes Wild!

Yesterday, as I was browsing through the daily current events, I came across an article about a couple raising their child "genderless." The parents of the child, 4 month old Storm, have decided to withhold their child's sex so that the child can grow up and discover life without the constraints of gender, including stereotyping and everything else that comes with it. "We've decided not to share Storm's sex for now -- a tribute to freedom and choice in place of limitation, a stand up to what the world could become in Storm's lifetime" stated Storm's parents in an interview.

(photo of Storm and her parents found here)

Herds of "Child Experts" are continuing to attack the parents, screaming amongst themselves about biological essentialist nonsense that has no hard evidence supporting it. One mother even wrote that she felt it was a "lab experiment" and thus unethical. A news reader wrote "The world around us has been set by thousands of years of social evolution. To try to undo this evolution through your child is very selfish and very inconsiderate to the child." This statement is based on sociobiology, or as it is better known as, evolutionary psychology which purports that human cultures are biologically hard-wired (and thus fixed) and that all humans follow the same rules of nature (based on social Darwinist priniciples) as other species do, even socially and culturally. However, the commentary continues. A Columnist from the Toronto Star announced her condescending "warnings" for the parents, "Without boundaries, I wonder if little 4-month-old Storm will wander aimlessly, like so many of my thirty-something friends"

Indeed, because bringing up your child in the same old and tired format is so damn effective, since you know, our kids are turning out so happy these days - what with suicides, self-harming, eating disorders, bullying, depression and so forth. In any other situation, people would likely not feel so inclined to stick their nose so far into a stranger's parenting techniques, but there you go. Also, in response to the columnist, why do kids need gender boundaries? All that these boundaries accomplish is limiting children's self-expression and cause them to build a self-concept based upon unequal gender expectations. Our kids are more miserable than ever before, so what possible DAMAGE could these radical parents possibly cause? How is allowing your child to grow up free of social bondage a bad thing? They are not choosing the child's gender (the angry mobs fail to realize gender and sex are not mutually exclusive) these parents are allowing the child to grow into whoever they want to be, not who society tells them they they should be. 

(look pretty happy to me! photo found here )

After recieving enormous helpings of hostile and foaming-at-the-mouth responses, Kathy, Storm's mother, wondered "Isn't defensiveness sometimes a first sign of learning or changing behaviour, so even the ‘rabid' responses may have a place in making the world a more thoughtful place." I applaud her ability to be the bigger person in the face of media-driven criticism and realize that anger can often spark real change - sometimes you need to offend people to make them think.

Regardless, the amount of crap these parents are enduring right now really shows that there are people who are willing to work against the status quo and do what they feel is best for their child. Allowing a child to grow up without the burdens of gender is a commendable action. This way, the kid has the free choice (something they are often robbed of) to discover their own identities and goals based on their status as a human being, with full humanity - not some social label that is apparently "hardwired." But, what also boggles my mind, is how these "Child Experts" would view cultural differences in regards to gender and other social constructions. Have they ever took the time to ponder that not everyone in the world follows the West's rigid two-gender assumptions? These experts set the "first world" as the default for everyone else, since you know, we're just so "modern." We're so modern that our kids are killing, cutting and starving themselves.

These parents are leaders in revolutionary parenting and making grassroot radical changes. If more people followed their lead, we would be closer to reaching an egalitarian society based on human worth, not harmful social constructs that lead to extreme oppression and dehumanization. Luckily, a case like this has popped up before in Sweden in 2009. A couple decided to raise their child "Pop" genderless, despite media outpour asking, "What are the effects of growing up genderless" - well, likely less harmful than the current model! 

The gender binary is toxic to everyone and kids end up bearing the heaviest burden as they form their identities and bonds with others. This couple is an inspiration to me, as they have given me a glimpse of hope for our future. 

If you want to check out more of the disturbing commentary, you can do so here

 (last photo of baby Storm found here)

Harmful Social Constructions

photo from here

Note: *womyn is used to replace "fab" women.

To assume that females who have lived the experience of being born with a vagina, womb - being born with 'femaleness' as defined by the dominant power is not fairly comparable with women born as males who grew up with male privilege (regardless of how poorly any individual may be treated, there is still the incredible privilege of maleness that is ever-present under patriarchy and capitalism) being born a female automatically puts womyn* and girls as a class in a poor social situation - based on this "femaleness" declared by the people present for our births. The male privilege is not there for females, even if the female child is not socialized to be "feminine" - she still is considered female - she is still a female with all of the oh-so greatly despised reproductive organs. This isn't suggesting that a middle class, white woman doesn't have more privilege than a black woman or something ridiculous like that. This is suggesting that females, regardless of the social construction of "gender," that they may or may not identify with, do not have any privilege over women who were born as male. The phallus is held to the upmost importance in our society.

The phallus is present, the privilege is present.

Unfortunately, many spaces that promote the idea that gender is a biological imperative, fail to include intersex people who obviously know much about gender not being biological. Biological essentalism puts people into small boxes, gender boxes; one is blue and one is pink. It is silly socially constructed oppression. In a patriarchy-free society "man" and "woman" wouldn't exist in such a restrictive way - people wouldn't be driven by greedy medical institutions to get their bodies altered and harmed by pills and knives to feel free and accepting of whatever or whomever they identify as.

Biological essentialism harms men, too - it limits the expression of human emotions and experiences that are always labeled as "feminine" or "masculine" when they are really just human traits. It harms genderqueer people who don't buy into the idea of a "gender" category. If this system of gender is harming everyone, then why are we allowing capitalists to make billions of dollars from "medicalizing" everyone's bodies; the same thing occurred in the past with race. During early science in the 18th-19th Century, craniology and other racializing "sciences" of categorization were implemented to reinforce ideas that "race" exists and the human race is made of sub-races.

Many people now (excluding present-day racists, or polygenists) know that race is a social construction - race has been used to alienate and discriminate against people based on this idea of "inferior races." All of this non-scientific drivel is painted as "natural" or "normal". This is another example of intense social constructions rooted deeply in the institutions that sustain them - patriarchy, capitalism, religion.

Gender is also a social construct. Females, males and intersex individuals are not sub-species. We are not biologically different in any way that is substantial to suggest a plausible hierarchy between us. Why is this idea, then, upheld so widely worldwide?

It is not transphobic of me, as a female human, and whose opinions are constantly thrown out the window, to pose reasonable inquiries from a feminist framework. Transphobia is reprehensible - the status quo will attack everyone for deviating from the prescribed version of "normalcy." Violence, lack of rights, and discrimination are faced by trans people, and this is also reprehensible.


I wish, however, that the silencing of womyn and the overhauling of womyn-only or of lesbian-only spaces would cease. This war against womyn and girls is damaging to everyone - if the status of womyn can't even be changed then everyone else who is not a white, heterosexual male, will suffer. 

WATCH THIS, seriously.

This video reflects a lot of what has been on my mind lately. My good friend made this, so I don't think she would mind if I shared it here. This video is incredibly important because it touches on single-issue feminism and challenging the institutions that work together to create oppression.

"It Gets Better" But Until Then, Let's Accept Bullying, Sexism & Homophobia As a Normal Part of Adolescence

I have been curious as to why so many people are ready to accept or demand so little in our society. Why are we willing to just wait things out, or see how they turn out, regardless of who gets hurt along the way? This is more than common amongst moderate groups, liberal groups, some crazy capitalist embracing "left" groups like libertarians and various others who may slightly care about what happens in their world. 


This thought came to me through a few different channels. The first was after I attempted to find like-minded individuals in my city by checking out a local meet-up forum where people get together and plan activities, whether leisure or politics. About 90% of the groups that I found were for upper-class outdoor enthusiasts that likely spend disturbing amounts of money to get a ski pass. Of course, there were knitting circles, new-age meditation groups and a few eco-groups, but nothing that is actively being organized and interested in getting their hands dirty in politics. 
I found a few that stated they were interested in political and social change, however, I noticed they had not organized for at least a year. Frustrated with my lack of luck, I dropped one of the only political organizers a tweet, but he has not been online. Clearly, I should just look offline, but there's no where to look in this oil thirsty, incredibly conservative and Christian city that I call home (for now). 


It is apparent, despite the huge environmental damage that my province takes part in, no one cares that much about social justice. This is not the city you will find picketers, protesters or unions marching outside of any place of work or government. On occasion you'll find a group of anti-racist anarchist marches rioting against the local skinheads. Luckily, the skinheads dismantled, for now.


At any rate, this is not a city for anyone who cares about anything that isn't a black, sticky, smelly and expensive substance called oil. 


Once this bachelors degree of mine is complete, perhaps i'll plan my escape, but until then I'd love to meet some like-minded friends. Pathetically, too, my university is politically deactivated for some reason. Texting frantically in class, drinking until one's liver is charred and playing pool with some of the BMW-driving suburban dood-bros are the top priorities of the majority of the student body. Maybe it's the times or perhaps it is this false sense of hope that some character in celebrity-land will save us all from ourselves. This brings me to the second channel: a post about the "It Gets Better Campaign" put together bymy favorite privileged, academic misogynist, Dan Savage. The post was written by Laurie Penny and is about Savage's campaign and Katy Perry's Fireworks video that attempts to deliver the same message.


It got me thinking that this campaign and similar spawns of it ultimately examines this idea that life will get easier and things will get better as long as you finish high school and move out! From first glance, it seems like a great idea; let's give kids a boost to feel confident in themselves in the hope that someday they will be treated like human beings. In some respects, it is a good campaign in that it helps some young people feel better. However, it does not address all young people and it does not address the society that fuels homophobia, sexism and hatred. It merely focuses on those with the privilege to move out on their own when they finish high school, assuming they even were able to get a high school education at all. 


Laurie Penny puts it perfectly in her critique, 

Firework", which Meyers insists is a solemn attempt to "articulate... what it means to be an underdog", was rather hastily dedicated to the It Gets Better project, set up this autumn to console gay teenagers considering suicide with the knowledge that their lives will improve. It Gets Better is a worthy and necessary initiative in a world where LGBT youth invariably face savage bullying at school, at home and in their communities.

The problem with this approach is that it entirely evades responsibility to change the situation, accepting homophobic hostility as something young people just have to suffer through until they're old enough to move somewhere with a passable scene. The notion that personal resilience is the only possible response to injustice is burnt into the retinas after a single viewing of "Firework". There is something distinctly counter-revolutionary about the exploding tits hypothesis of personal transformation.

The serious message that "Firework" seems to be sending is that you can't actually fight the social structures that put obstacles such as homophobia, body fascism or street crime in your way. All you can do is find the strength to battle against the odds, possibly with the help of a go-getting attitude and a pair of fantastic jugs -- you're not supposed to question why the odds are stacked against you in the first place. "Show 'em what you're worth".

Laurie is exactly right in that we as a society should be challenging such social structures instead of passively allowing them to wreak havoc on our lives.


 The campaign, to the rest of the world, sounds a lot like this to me: "It Gets Better" but until then, let's accept bullying, sexism & homophobia as a normal part of adolescence! 


What can come of such an apathetic and dare I say, lazy approach? 


Nothing much! Well, maybe some kids will feel hopeful, given that they are presented with the privileged opportunity of leaving high school and going off on their own. Dan Savage is coming, along with Katy Perry, from a very white-privileged and class-privileged perspective that speaks for some kids. 


But, don't get me wrong, I have no qualms with such campaigns existing. I get what they are trying to do, but as a radical social justice activist, i feel inclined to critique these campaigns. They are a positive step in the right direction, but my problem is with the fact that the campaign does not include all youth. It does not call youth to action, but rather, tells them to wait it out and accept such an intolerant and hateful society in the meantime. 


Have we lost our spirit? Our willingness to defeat, or attempt to defeat such hatred that is deeply ingrained in our society? Dan Savage certainly wouldn't be the one to ask, so i'll leave you all with a quote from Laurie Penny's piece, her final point on Katy Perry's boob-shooting-fireworks video: 


"Clearly, come the revolution, the boobs-on-fire brigade will be the first against the wall."

Links

Here's another dump of links that you should give a click. 



Nine Deuce "Get on the fucking ball, janitors."


Bolshevik Chick on Rape Threats


Bolshevik Chick on Agency


Lishra on #MooreandMe Twitter Campaign targetted at Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann over the Assange case. 


Radical Profeminist on Sex Work and Anarchism


Radical Profeminist "Moving Out from BelowThe Belt: Theory-Q and Julian Real Discuss Radical Activism and Academic Liberalism"



Laurie Penny "How Twitter changed the face of dissent"



Michael Moore Tweets about Violence against Women after Maddow Interview