2 added 3 characters in body
source | link

In the "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Adorno and Horkheimer state that:

Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism.

And later

Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen.

Reading these passages and looking at authors like Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek, Alain De Botton (and to some extent Dan Dennett), as well as the supposedly philosophical ambitions of some mainstream hollywood productions. And, worse seeing the profusion of books like "The Sipmspons and Philosophy" and "Batman and Philosophy", one can't help but ask, has the culture industry gotten to the point that it has absorbed even philosophy?

My questions:

  1. I'mAm I interpreting the two passages by Adorno and Horkheimer correctly: That any artartistic or literary form (including philosophy) can get hijacked by the culture industry? Or do they mean something else by those passages?
  2. Has any one from the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, or philosophy in general discussed the hijacking of philosophy by pop-culture? That even philosophy can looselose its value and be commodified?

In the "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Adorno and Horkheimer state that:

Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism.

And later

Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen.

Reading these passages and looking at authors like Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek, Alain De Botton (and to some extent Dan Dennett), as well as the supposedly philosophical ambitions of some mainstream hollywood productions. And, worse seeing the profusion of books like "The Sipmspons and Philosophy" and "Batman and Philosophy", one can't help but ask, has the culture industry gotten to the point that it has absorbed even philosophy?

My questions:

  1. I'm I interpreting the two passages by Adorno and Horkheimer correctly: That any art or literary form (including philosophy) can get hijacked by the culture industry? Or do they mean something else by those passages?
  2. Has any one from the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, or philosophy in general discussed the hijacking of philosophy by pop-culture? That even philosophy can loose its value and be commodified?

In the "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Adorno and Horkheimer state that:

Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism.

And later

Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen.

Reading these passages and looking at authors like Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek, Alain De Botton (and to some extent Dan Dennett), as well as the supposedly philosophical ambitions of some mainstream hollywood productions. And, worse seeing the profusion of books like "The Sipmspons and Philosophy" and "Batman and Philosophy", one can't help but ask, has the culture industry gotten to the point that it has absorbed even philosophy?

My questions:

  1. Am I interpreting the two passages by Adorno and Horkheimer correctly: That any artistic or literary form (including philosophy) can get hijacked by the culture industry? Or do they mean something else by those passages?
  2. Has any one from the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, or philosophy in general discussed the hijacking of philosophy by pop-culture? That even philosophy can lose its value and be commodified?
1
source | link

From a critical theory point of view, can philosophy itself be absorbed into the culture industry?

In the "Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception", Adorno and Horkheimer state that:

Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism.

And later

Even today the culture industry dresses works of art like political slogans and forces them upon a resistant public at reduced prices; they are as accessible for public enjoyment as a park. But the disappearance of their genuine commodity character does not mean that they have been abolished in the life of a free society, but that the last defence against their reduction to culture goods has fallen.

Reading these passages and looking at authors like Ayn Rand, Sam Harris, Slavoj Zizek, Alain De Botton (and to some extent Dan Dennett), as well as the supposedly philosophical ambitions of some mainstream hollywood productions. And, worse seeing the profusion of books like "The Sipmspons and Philosophy" and "Batman and Philosophy", one can't help but ask, has the culture industry gotten to the point that it has absorbed even philosophy?

My questions:

  1. I'm I interpreting the two passages by Adorno and Horkheimer correctly: That any art or literary form (including philosophy) can get hijacked by the culture industry? Or do they mean something else by those passages?
  2. Has any one from the Frankfurt School, Critical Theory, or philosophy in general discussed the hijacking of philosophy by pop-culture? That even philosophy can loose its value and be commodified?