Page 83 - Cultural Theory and Popular Culture an Introduction

CULT_C04.qxd 10/25/08 16:31 Page 67

The Frankfurt School 67

engages in what Adorno calls ‘pseudo-individualization’: ‘Standardisation of song hits
keeps the customers in line by doing their listening for them, as it were. Pseudo-
individualization, for its part, keeps them in line by making them forget that what they
listen to is already listened to for them, or “pre-digested”’ (69).
Adorno’s second claim is that popular music promotes passive listening. As already
noted, work under capitalism is dull and therefore promotes the search for escape,
but, because it is also dulling, it leaves little energy for real escape – the demands of
‘authentic’ culture. Instead refuge is sought in forms such as popular music – the con-
sumption of which is always passive, and endlessly repetitive, confirming the world as
it is. Whereas ‘serious’ music (Beethoven, for example) plays to the pleasure of the
imagination, offering an engagement with the world as it could be, popular music is the
‘non-productive correlate’ (70) to life in the office or on the factory floor. The ‘strain
and boredom’ of work lead men and women to the ‘avoidance of effort’ in their leisure
time (ibid.). Adorno makes it all sound like the hopeless ritual of a heroin addict (as
taken from the detective genre he detested so much). Denied ‘novelty’ in their work
time, and too exhausted for it in their leisure time, ‘they crave a stimulant’ – popular
music satisfies the craving.

Its stimulations are met with the inability to vest effort in the ever-identical. This
means boredom again. It is a circle which makes escape impossible. The impos-
sibility of escape causes the widespread attitude of inattention toward popular
music. The moment of recognition is that of effortless sensation. The sudden atten-
tion attached to this moment burns itself out instanter and relegates the listener to
a realm of inattention and distraction (71).

Popular music operates in a kind of blurred dialectic: to consume it demands inatten-
tion and distraction, whilst its consumption produces in the consumer inattention and
distraction.
Adorno’s third point is the claim that popular music operates as ‘social cement’ (72).
Its ‘socio-psychological function’ is to achieve in the consumers of popular music ‘psy-
chical adjustment’ to the needs of the prevailing structure of power (ibid.). This ‘adjust-
ment’ manifests itself in ‘two major socio-psychological types of mass behaviour . . .
the “rhythmically” obedient type and the “emotional” type’ (ibid.). The first type dances
in distraction to the rhythm of his or her own exploitation and oppression. The second
type wallows in sentimental misery, oblivious to the real conditions of existence.
There are a number of points to be made about Adorno’s analysis. First, we must
acknowledge that he is writing in 1941. Popular music has changed a great deal since
then. However, having said that, Adorno never thought to change his analysis fol-
lowing the changes that occurred in popular music up until his death in 1969. Is
popular music as monolithic as he would have us believe? For example, does pseudo-
individualization really explain the advent of rock’n’roll in 1956, the emergence of the
Beatles in 1962, the music of the counterculture in 1965? Does it explain punk rock
and Rock Against Racism in the 1970s, acid house and indie pop in the 1980s, rave and
hip hop in the 1990s? Moreover, is the consumption of popular music as passive as