
		blacksacademy.net

The Frankfurt School

The Frankfurt school originated with the establishment in 1923 of the Frankfurt school for social research. Its members were left wing German Jewish intellectuals. Their ideas are sometimes known as “Critical Theory”. The leading members are Adorno (1903-1970), Hawkheimer (1895-1973) and Marcuse (1898-1978). The members of the Frankfurt school were forced to flee to Western Europe and North America following the rise to power in Germany during the 1930's of the Nazi party. Some returned to Germany during the late 1940's.

A characteristic feature of the school is its attack on modern culture in virtually every aspect. One part of this attack is their critique of the enlightenment. The enlightenment is the name given to the period of intellectual and cultural history of Europe taking place mainly during the eighteenth century. During this period, European intellectuals developed a cult of scientific and rational progress, which they believed would free human beings from superstition. They believed that science and rationality would enable society to be organised in a way that would bring prosperity to everyone.

The Frankfurt school criticised this idea and argued that scientific progress has worked in the opposite direction enabling the destruction of human freedom rather that its development. Adorno claims that it is progressive technical domination that leads to mass deception and the fettering of consciousness.

The Frankfurt school is a development of Marxism extending Marxist critique of capitalism to a critique of modern culture. However, this form of Neo-Marxism disagrees with classic Marxism in that they do not believe that a revolution is likely to occur in the near future, because Capitalism has been successful in fettering consciousness.

The Frankfurt school also accepts Marx's theory of commodity fetishism. This theory argues that people in a capitalist society do not desire a product for its intrinsic qualities but desire the product as a symbol of some social value that is attached to it. Marxists distinguish between two kinds of value that can be attached to commodities. These are use value and exchange value. The use value of a commodity is its real value to satisfy a real need. Its exchange value is the value determined by the market through the interaction of supply and demand. In capitalist societies, exchange value dominates use value. Capitalist enterprises create demand for useless products through marketing.

According to the Frankfurt school, a revolution leading to the overthrow of the Bourgeoisie is now unlikely. This is because modern capitalism has acquired much greater stability through the creation of higher levels of economic well being in which the working classes have shared. Society is also controlled by the mass media and pop culture. Capitalism creates “false needs” through marketing. The gratification of these false needs unconsciously makes the people believe that they are happy and consequently reconciles them to the basic injustice of society of which they are only dimly conscious. The injustice of society is more deliberately focused upon marginal groups such as ethnic minorities, the old, and third world countries. Being marginal, these groups lack the power to change the system or bring about a revolution.

The function of the culture industries is to exert ideological control over the working classes who are pacified into accepting capitalism.

Central to this critique of modern culture is the concept of false needs. This is particularly important to the work of Marcuse. Marcuse believes that peoples real needs are to be created independent and in control of their own lives, thinking for themselves. Capitalism creates false needs which are fulfilled through consumerism, whilst true needs remain unsatisfied. Freedom in Capitalist societies is an illusion. The Bourgeoisie create this illusion by giving the people the false freedom of choice between different brands of the same good.

The culture industry

The Frankfurt school criticises the modern culture industry as a tool of state monopoly capitalism. Modern culture serves to reinforce the domination of exchange value over the real use value of commodities. One effect of this is to remove the distinction that has existed for thousands of years between high and low art. Traditionally, High art is the art made for the aristocracy and elite, whereas low art is the spontaneous artistic production of the working and lower classes. Modern culture is produced for a mass market and is neither the product of the working classes nor a product produced for an elite.

The Frankfurt school claims that modern culture production results in standardised products. For marketing purposes each standard product is given a little sense of individuality, but the culture industry produces vacuity banality and conformity. It is corrupting and manipulative and destructive of individual consciousness. The culture industry exploits the “ego weakness” of the “powerless members of contemporary society”. The audience becomes dependant passive and servile.

The cultural industry and popular music.

Adorno criticizes modern pop music, which he regards as being produced by monopoly organisations. He regards pop music as being standardised. Songs have a characteristic core structure with interchangeable parts. To hide this uniformity, songs are given pseudo-individualisation. The uniformity is concealed by little “frills”. Adorno contrasts the banality of pop music with the quality of classical of avant-garde music, in which every detail belongs to a coherent totality. The public is persuaded to purchase repeatedly similar products because of the pseudo-individualisation that they are given. Once again the modern audience is criticised for being infantile or childlike in their tastes. Adorno argues that pop music acts as “social cement” brainwashing the people into accepting limited impoverished and unhappy lives. In fact, people are aware of the unhappiness of their lives, but sentimental music gives them a temporary release from this awareness, and consequently prevents people from reaching a revolutionary consciousness in which they would strive to overthrow capitalism and work for individualism, freedom and happiness.

Adorno's Theory of Pop music: Cadillacs and Duwop.

Gendron's article Theodore Adorno meets the Cadillac's is a critique of Adorno's theory of pop music. He discusses the implications of Adornos theory by reference to Cadillacs, the car, and the Cadillacs, an example of a “Doowop” group. Adorno's criticism of pop culture is that it is standardised. Cars are also standardised.

Doowop music was popular between 55-59 and evolves background vocals replacing musical instruments. Gendron argues that uniformity in the car market is nothing like uniformity in music. In particular, technological advances in car manufacture tend to promote increased standardisation since they make it easier to exchange one part of a car with another. Technological advances in the music industry tend to promote individuality of music styles. Music is not just another commercial product. Additionally commodities will be purchased when exactly alike time and time again, but people do not buy the same record twice.

Also, Gendron criticises Adorno for failing to understand what a genre is in pop culture. Doowop is an example of a genre. Genres help people in the organisation of pleasure. People know what to expect. Gendron also argues that musical genres do in fact change over time.

A critical assessment of the Frankfurt school.

Dominic Strinati [Dominic Strinati, An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, Chapter on The Frankfurt School Routledge, 1995] makes the following criticisms of the Frankfurt school.



1		Adono's claims are not supported by any empirical evidence. Adorno could reply that empirical knowledge is affected by capitalism and therefore empirical evidence is not required.

2		The views of the Frankfurt school are communicated in obscure and inaccessible language. The ideas of the Frankfurt school are called “critical theory”, and the Frankfurt school defend their style by arguing that it is one way in which they fight capitalism.
3		Adorno can be criticized for elitism — the view that art can only be properly appreciated by a privileged elite.
4		Adorno underestimates the power of the market. The culture industry is not capable of determining what will be the next hit record.
5		Adorno's criticism of genres fails to understand their functions. Genres help audiences decide what they want to see.
6		Adorno fails to define his distinction between false and true needs adequately. “People may need intellectual self fulfilment but they also need clean clothes” In other words, people do need washing machines. The Frankfurt school arrogantly believe they know what people should be doing and what they should really want.
7		Like most Marxists of the 20th Century, The Frankfurt School have failed to notice that the non-appearance of the revolution is a very good reason for not being a Marxist.

Benjamin's critique of the Frankfurt school

Benjamin's essay “The work of art in the age of mechanical reproduction” (1936) offers another critical approach to the Frankfurt School in which the positive benefits of contemporary pop culture are emphasised. Ben argues that in the past, art was fettered by its association with religion and authority and modern developments in culture have completed the emancipation of art, which began with the Renaissance and the struggle for artistic freedom. Modern culture has liberated the masses by allowing them to participate in art.