A Review and Critique of the Culture Industry in Frankfurt School (With an Emphasis on Theories of Horkheimer and Adorno)

Document Type : Review Paper

Author

PhD of Sociology

Abstract

The critical theory of the Frankfurt school is the product of those German neo-Marxists who criticize the economic determinism of Marxist theory and its one-dimensional emphasis on economic factors. Instead of economic factors, their discussions were mainly focused on the cultural level.
And its theorists to believe that in the modern world, the origin of the domination has moved from the economy into the realm of culture.
The term of ‘Culture industry’ has been named by Adorno and Horkheimer. In which a standard culture of top-down production and through the media, such as consumer goods, to be given to the masses and with the unification of the masses and generate false needs, serves the dominant hegemony.
Adorno's solution is turning to pure art that causes failure to follow similar patterns and thus boost the creative mind and true individuality and rationality.
The research methodology adopted in the present study is analytical-descriptive method. The paper attempts to review the issue of cultural industry in the Frankfurt School with an emphasis on theories of Horkheimer and Adorno. Finally, this theory will be criticized from various aspects.

Keywords

References

حسن‌زاده، م. (1391). ترویج علم از نظر تا عمل. تهران: مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
قاسمی، و. (1389). مدل­یابی معادله ساختاری با کاربرد نرم افزار ایمس. تهران: جامعه شناسان.
قانعی‌راد، م. ا. (1388). طراحی مدل پیمایش محیط اجتماعی و فرهنگی نظام علمی کشور و اجرای نسخه راهنمای آن در ایران، طرح پژوهشی انجام شده در مرکز تحقیقات سیاست علمی کشور.
قانعی‌راد، م. ا. و مرشدی. ا. (1390). پیمایش فهم عمومی از علم و فناوری، مطالعه موردی شهروندان تهرانی. فصلنامه سیاست علم و فناوری سال سوم، شماره 3، صص 93-110.
Bauer, M; W., Allum, N; Miller, S (2006). What can we learn from 25-years of PUS research? Liberating and widening the agenda. Public understanding of science, special issue.
Berendsen, M. L. (2003). “Conceptual Astronomy Knowledge among Amateur Astronomers: Implications for Outreach Training”: Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Western Sydney, Australia.
Berendsen, M. L. (2005). “Conceptual Astronomy Knowledge among Amateur Astronomers.” The Astronomy Education Review 1(4): 1–18.
Brown, B. A., Reveles, J.M. and Kelly, G.J. (2005). “Scientific Literacy and Discursive Identity: A Theoretical Framework for Understanding Science Learning.” Science Education 89: 779–802.
Geertz, C. )1999(. A life of learning. Charles Homer Haskins lecture for 1999, American Council of Learned Societies. Occasional Paper No. 45.
Kleinman, D. L., & Powell, M. (2007). Science literacy and civic engagement: Learning from a consensus conference. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Science communication for all Vol. 151, pp. 398-409. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
Kretzmann, J.P. and McKnight, J.L. (1993). Building Communities from the Inside Out. Evanston, IL: The Asset-Based Community Development Institute, Northwestern University.
Levis, F. R. )1962(. Two cultures? The significance of C. P. Snow. London: Chatto and Windus.
Michael, M. (1996) .ignoring science:discourses of ignorance in the public understanding of science. IN Alan Irwin and Brian wynne (Eds), misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge university press.
Michael, M. (1998).between citizenship and consumer :multiplying the meanings of the public understanding of science. Public understanding of science, 7: 313-27.
Michael, M. (2002).comprehension, apprehension, prehension :heterogeneity and the public undrestanding of science. science, technology and human values 27(3)357-378.
Miller, J. D. (1987). “Scientific Literacy in the United States.” in D. Evered and M. O’Connor (Eds) Communicating Science to the Public, pp. 19–40. London: Wiley.
Miller, J. D. (1998) “The Measurement of Civic Scientific Literacy.” Public Understanding of Science 7: 1–21.
Miller, J. D. (2001). “The Acquisition and Retention of Scientific Information by American Adults.” in J.H. Falk (ed.) Free-choice Science Education: How We Learn Science Outside of School, pp. 93–114, New York: Teachers College Press.
Miller, J. D. and Pifer, L. (1996). “Science and Technology: The Public’s Attitudes and the Public’s Understanding.”in National Science Board, Science and Engineering Indicators: 1996, pp. 7.1–7.21. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (1998) Science and Engineering Indicators: 1998. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (2000). Science and Engineering Indicators: 2000. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
National Science Board (2002). Science and Engineering Indicators: 2002. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Falk et al.: Importance of free-choice learning 467.
National Science Board (2004). Science and Engineering Indicators: 2004. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Nelkin, D. (1995). Selling science: How the press covers science and technology.New York: Freeman.
Raza, G., B. Dutt, S. Singh, and A. Wahid. )1991(. Prototype of the forms of scientific cognition: A survey of cultural attitude to natural phenomena. Reports I and II. New Delhi: National Institute of Science Technology and Development Studies.
Raza, G. S. Singh, and B. Dutt. )1995(. Peoples’ attitude to scientific knowledge: The context of culture. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 54:108-21. Raza, G., S. Singh, B.
Raza, G. S .Singh, B. Dutt, and J. Chander.) 1996(. Confluence of science and people’s knowledge at the Sangam. New Delhi: Ishtihaar.
Raza, G., S. Singh, and B. Dutt. )2002(. Public, Science, and Cultural Distance. Science Communication, Vol. 23 No. 3: 293-309.
Sardar, Z. and B. V. Loon. )1997(. Introducing cultural studies. New York: Totem Books. Snow, C. P. [1959] 1993. The two cultures. Reprint, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Shamos, M. (1995). "The Myth of Scientific Literacy", New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Snow, C. P. [1959] 1993. The two cultures. Reprint, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Stamm, K. R., F. Clark, and P. R. Eblacas. )2000(. Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science 9:219-37.
Tylor, B. [1871] 1924. Primitive culture. 7th ed. Reprint, New York: Brentano’s. Wynne, B. 1995. Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 361-88. London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (1995). Public understanding of science. In Handbook of science and technology studies, edited by S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. C. Petersen, and T. Pinch, 361-88. London: Sage.
Wynne, B. (1991).Knowledge in context. Science, technology and human values 16: 111-21.
Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: social identities and identities and public uptake of science.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics