In The Schema of Mass Culture Adorno writes a searing critique of how mass culture operates in the modern era. In particular he seeks to think human interaction within mass culture as primarily a matter of power relations and other social status-related factors. For example, he states the following: “The curiosity that transforms the world into objects is not objective. It is not concerned with what is known but with the fact of knowing it, with having, with knowledge as a possession…as facts they are arranged in such a way that they can be grasped as quickly and easily as possible” (Adorno 85). This is an interesting critique to me because it makes the projected identities of social media in fact quite negative. Any account of social media as identity-building for its own sake gets destroyed here, as it is put instead in terms of wanting social power over others. This is certainly the case when we see people bragging about books and movies they ‘like’, as they often do it to say “I’m such a cultured and knowledge individual” and by extension “What do you like that’s as interesting as what I like?”. The same can be said of people who brag about how good their weekend was all the time, as they too want to say “I’m having such a good time!” And by extension “What are you doing that equals this good time?”.
Both of these habits I….hate…a….lot. To say the least.
Anyway, Adorno’s critique also gets at the very heart of the academic mission and its authenticity. When knowledge is pursued in the academic realm, ostensibly it is ‘for its own sake’ in the Aristotelian tradition or for its practical utility in the ‘real world’. Never is it supposed to be so you can say “I’m such a knowledgeable person, bow down before my greatness”. What is an interesting question is “how much is this actually the case?”. I truly cannot say, but I think there are certainly certain professors out there who are rather high-and-mighty about their degrees and research interests, and in turn attempt to bestow this high-and-mightiness upon colleagues and student alike. The question then becomes: Do these people belong in academia at all? That I cannot say, though I think it would certainly be a better place that does more good if they were not around. But I digress once more.
Adorno’s critique, in my view, allows for one perspective on the situation. However, the trick with the Frankfurt School (at least for me) is not to treat it as correct in an absolute sense. This is because it becomes a quicksand. The moment you try to get out of the critique, the further you sink into it. It becomes circular, with no clear way out other than to admit they’re right and say you’ll try to become a better person (which in turn leads them to critique you for your hopelessly naïve platitudes about the possibility of better people in our current society). Therefore my advice to anyone who reads these is to remember that Critical Theory is called Critical Theory for a reason. It has no positive vision in mind. So when I read Adorno’s critique of curiosity, I have to agree and disagree. Because undoubtedly he’s right, but he’s also dead wrong (in two different senses of course). It’s a matter of the specific case, and he doesn’t allow for individual differences (nor does much of the Frankfurt School in its mission to vilify ‘modern society’ as one homogenous organism).