Visual Literacy Series - A Background to Mass Culture
Foreword
Visual Literacy Series articles serve as one of the academic courses in this precise field. The main aim of this research is to focus attention on the analysis of the topic of “mass culture”, its visual representations and the ways it takes action through imagery and its components. The theoretical framework will be covered from a “counter hegemonic” stance and, essentially, the project involves the attempt to create a diagonal discourse that promotes visual literacy through the idea of art as a pedagogical and revolutionary act, since it moves collective subjectivities.
Visual Literacy Series will be mainly divided into the following chapters of content:
Where the necessity begins: examples and contextualisation of control.
A background to mass culture.
A background to mass culture
Since the creation of the Frankfurt School of thought, a critical and interdisciplinary approach to social theory, the study of the contents and effects of the so-called mass media has focused its analysis on the evolution of advanced technological societies. The symbolic and chewed repetition of contents by the media has given rise to modes of culturalization, ways of dissemination, and consumption of culture by society. These modes either legitimise —or delegitimise— power structures that acquire a deeper extent than they refer to in their representation. This leads, not least, to a decay of the creative renewal of the transformative avant-garde. While the avant-garde movement is based on challenging predominant narratives by going beyond the boundaries of artistic expression, it results in being undermined by the limitations imposed by the modern modes of culturalization, dominating society, in response, that leads to a decline of the movement's relevance and influence in the cultural realm.
Reflecting on these consequences, emerging theories seek to conceptualise or respond to this new phenomenon considered as the "mass culture" —a form produced and spread through the mass media and modern entertainment, customarily taken place through a visual format of an image, film, or else.
Mass culture is not only a platform for disseminating content but also a concept that constitutes the reality in which we are inevitably immersed on a continuous basis. Throughout the history of thought, it has been characterised by different names (mass society, society of control, disciplinary, etc.) and, in turn, described through different terminologies (capitalism, consumer economy, technological advances, individualism, etc.), most of them connotative in their formulation and, those that are not, highlighting the obvious under the shield of denotation. While the terminology of the terms is continuously evolving, mass culture has become a defining aspect of modern societies, shaping people's realities in various profound ways. Due to the significant effect of this concept, its analysis and critique should be approached from different angles to account for its diverse dimensions and effects on people.
It is around this concept, for instance, that the French philosopher Michel Foucault articulates his "disciplinary society," which he defined as one that "is constructed through a ramified network of devices or apparatuses that produce and record customs, habits and productive practices" (Kancler, 2013: 89). In other words, this disciplinary society would be defined by places of reclusion where mass culture is established as a discipline. Simply put, according to his idea, mass culture becomes a tool for maintaining and reproducing society because it continuously reinforces dominant ideas and values projected by the hegemonic powers. Thus, it serves as an instrument for regulating individual behaviour on a large scale of things. Foucault's idea will later mutate, leading to an establishment of "societies of control" (Deleuze, 2006), according to Gilles Deleuze, a French philosopher, who explored that concept in the same period as Foucault. These societies would come to be those in which individuals are subdued to the power of the systemic ins and outs, which will end up integrating them into society in exchange for their redirection and manipulation, without the need for localised disciplinary indoctrination, being able to shape the individual's behaviour on a broader scale. It shows that such an approach diminishes the need for individualised forms of discipline. In other words, integration and cohesion are not achieved by utilising force as in places of confinement but through the internalisation of constant practices that are assimilated and end up shaping these individuals.
Figure 1 – Michel Foucault lecturing at the French newspaper Libération, 1973
The idea of a "disciplinary society," as proposed by Michel Foucault, offers a provocative analysis of how power shapes people within a society and operates, creating a web of norms and valuable practices. There are places of confinement where popular culture serves as a disciplinary tool. Concerning this idea, mass culture significantly contributes to upholding and perpetuating the current social order. It acts as a means of promoting prevailing beliefs and ideals spread by hegemonic powers. Mass culture broadly controls human behaviour by persistently projecting and reinforcing these ideas, influencing societal norms and practices. In order to control and discipline people through cultural mechanisms, power is a critical component of Foucault's concept of the disciplinary society. As mentioned, Gilles Deleuze builds on Foucault's theories and introduces the idea of "societies of control. Societies of control work on a larger scale than localised disciplinary indoctrination did in the past, integrating people into the social fabric through manipulation and redirection.
Individualised forms of discipline are less necessary in societies influenced by the media. Instead of overt force and confinement, power is exercised by internalising reliable routines. People consequently adopt these practices, affecting their behaviour and aiding their social integration. Power dynamics are more pervasive in societies of control, affecting many aspects of peoples' lives and the very foundation of the social system. The Deleuze school of thought strongly emphasises how power works and evolves over time, changing the structures of social control and punishment. Focus shifts from physical confinement and punishment to subtle internalisation of traditions and pervasive systemic control. In these societies, cohesion and integration are attained not by overt coercion but rather by subtly modifying individual behaviour and integrating them into the larger social structure. Finally, societies of control and the disciplinary society from Foucault and Deleuze offer crucial insights into the interactions between authority and discipline. These perspectives illuminate how mass culture serves as a disciplinary tool for upholding social norms and values. Societies of control work by integrating and manipulating people on a systemic level, whereas disciplinary societies rely on localised confinement mechanisms. Understanding these concepts helps us to gain a deeper understanding of how power works in society and affects people's behaviour and identities.
Among these intricacies mentioned above, whether governmental or economic, we find the leading producers of visual material destined to be consumed by the masses as a cultural product: the mass media (Domínguez Goya, 2012). From now on will be called Cultural Mass Media (CMM), among which we must highlight the social networks that operate through the Internet nowadays; those in charge of producing, broadcasting, and sharing the entire social flow of information. According to María Bretones, production manager and journalist at Cadena SER, before analysing the effect that CMMs have on viewers, we must distinguish between the various functions that are attributed to them and stick to one of them, as covering them all is both complicated and contradictory (Bretones, 1997). However, first, it makes sense to describe the functions which Bretones analyses in her work when talking about the effect of CMMs.
Figure 2 – Erró, Pop's History
The author argues that there are several lines of interpretation of the functions of CMMs and that each represents a type of society in which the media operate. Therefore, choosing one option will inevitably also involve a sociological reading of the system that contains us. The first of them defines the CMMs as instruments of power at the service of a manipulative function of society. The second corresponds, on the other hand, to a mobilising function. At the same time, the third, for its part, exercises a function of social control, and the fourth, finally, is that which is in charge of socialisation and cultural reproduction (Bretones, 1997). While each of these functions is distinct, they are not mutually exclusive and tend to coexist within the same system, thus suggesting why it makes sense to pick the most predominant function for the analysis. Moreover, the analysis of any function dramatically depends on the context, the audience, and the prevailing political and cultural conditions of the assessed society.
Within the complexities of societal dynamics, both governmental and economic, the mass media emerges as a significant producer of visual material intended for mass consumption as a cultural product. As Maria Bretones suggests, it is crucial to distinguish and focus on specific functions attributed to CMMs when analysing their impact on viewers. Attempting to encompass all functions simultaneously proves both complicated and contradictory. Her work highlights the diverse interpretations of CMM functions, showing that selecting a specific function inherently entails a sociological reading of the overall system in which we exist. While these functions are distinct, they are not mutually exclusive and often coexist within the same media system. This coexistence suggests that the choice of the most predominant function for analysis is logical and relevant. Furthermore, the analysis of any given function is greatly influenced by the context, the audience, and the prevailing political and cultural conditions of the society under examination.
While at first glance complex, this division can be simplified by taking into account the approaches presented by Umberto Eco, Italian writer, philosopher, and cultural critic. Eco distinguishes only two categories in his works, in which he encompasses both the function of the media and the social idiosyncrasy and which are the following:
The apocalyptics, those who believe that the system is governed by manipulative entities that operate through the CMMs and that the population is subjugated to the organs of government.
The integrated, who defend the validity of the CMMs and the freedom and critical capacity of the population, although Eco points out here that the latter position "almost always suffers from a certain cultural liberalism" (Eco, 1995: 42).
Figure 3 – Commercial image of the brand Coca-Cola
The integrated refers to the part of the society which exists in support of the CMMs while at the same time emphasising their critical thinking abilities. Such a position can be associated with cultural liberalism, which can negatively affect the ability to fully acknowledge the potential opposing sides of CMMs on people and society as a whole. On the other hand, apocalyptics describe people who mainly hold a negative view of the effect of CMMs on society. Their viewpoint revolves around the idea that mass media is used by the hegemonic powers to manipulate society and ensure control of the population. In a way, the position of the apocalyptics can be understood with the example of the mass propaganda of the Coca-Cola brand, which has been influencing collective minds since its foundation in 1892.
Of the options presented, the one to be developed is the one that corresponds to Bretones manipulative and social control function, which, in turn, would be embodied by Eco's apocalyptics. This specification is made insofar as the subject matter to be elaborated in this Visual Literacy 101 series tries to account for the needs of literacy and the promotion of critical thinking. Therefore, it is necessary to start from the theoretical path that supports and funds these demands that are taken concerning the educational sphere. By examining the corresponding functions explored by Bretones and Eco, this series attempts to provide a deeper understanding of the potential negative consequences of mass media consumption, encouraging individuals to develop their critical thinking regarding the consumption and interpretation of media.
This manipulative function with which the apocalyptics enter into dispute is the one analysed by the Critical Theory of Modernity, which emerged at the beginning of the 20th century among the thinkers of the Frankfurt School (Adorno, Benjamin, Horkheimer, etc.). According to Adorno and Horkheimer, prominent leaders of the Frankfurt School, German intellectuals, friends, and professional colleagues, the problem of culture and the consequence of its massification occurs due to the fact that culture itself has always been an alternative to reality (Kancler, 2013). Hence, it has been adopted and internalised systematically in order to exercise control from the governmental elites and thus avoid possible subversive behaviour. This is where "the culture industry" is born, which makes social content a "mere reproduction of the economic base" (Kancler, 2013). When the mass media industry turns culture into a commodity, it reduces its potential for critical reflection and transformation. In turn, these effects add to the enforcement of dominant ideologies in society, thus reinforcing and perpetuating social inequality and oppression. Adorno and Horkheimer point out:
The atrophy of the imaginative capacity and spontaneity of the media consumer is not to be attributed to any psychological mechanism: the loss of these faculties is to be blamed on the objective character of the products [...] [everything that consumers] have seen before, has taught them what they can presuppose: they, therefore, react mechanically. The public is imbued with the power of industrial society. (Adorno and Horkheimer, 1981: 398-9)
Figure 4 – Cultural Industry
Here Adorno and Horkheimer suggest that CMM does have a numbing effect on the imagination of the consumer. Due to the repetitive nature of CMMs, individuals develop a sense of familiarity and predictability when encountering media, resulting in a lack of critical reflection and automatic response to such stimuli. Such a response, once again, reinforces the power of dominant political ideologies enforced on individuals. Bretones adds to the quotation, quite rightly we believe, the following clarification: "The mechanism that makes this type of society possible [Foucault's disciplinary society, with Eco's apocalyptics] consists —concerning the particular individual— in the implantation of a fixed pattern of behaviour. This is outlined in the forms of personal satisfaction that are achieved by means of the entertainment provided by the CMMs" (Bretones, 1997: 15). Here, Bretones dives deeper, suggesting that the mechanism which enables that control of society is the implantation of fixed patterns on individuals through the repetitive nature of CMMs. Through the entertainment and creation of personal satisfaction, mass media reinforces specific fixed patterns of behaviour, showing the critical role that CMMs play in society.
Adorno and Horkheimer argue in their analysis that people lose spontaneity and their capacity for imaginative thought because of the subjective nature of the media products they encounter. People cannot critically analyse Cultural Mass Media (CMM) because it is repetitive. After all, they become accustomed to it and react automatically. This automated response strengthens the prevailing political ideologies that have been subjected to the hold of people. Bretones expands on this idea by contending that by ingraining fixed behavioural patterns, the repetition present in CMMs acts as a mechanism for social control. As reinforcement for specific fixed patterns of behaviour, CMMs offer pleasure and satisfaction. This emphasises how vital CMMs play in shaping and influencing societal dynamics. By ingraining these established patterns, mass media turns into an effective tool for controlling and directing people's behaviour within society.
This "culture industry" of which Adorno and Horkheimer speak is nothing more than the exercise of popular culture imposed from above. Thus, the term 'industry' is not applied as such literally, but it is introduced as a reference to the mass (re)production and massification of culture. According to their hypothesis, it "has been unified or integrated, stamping the same mark on everything, constituting cinema, radio, and magazines into a system harmonised in itself and all among themselves" (Kancler, 2013: 106). In the same line of thought, Esther Leslie, Professor of Political Aesthetics at Birkbeck, University of London, points out that culture is quantifiable in that it is only given value if it contributes to the economy (Leslie, 2007). She highlights the commodification of culture and the diminishing of its overall value, reemphasising the idea of cultural products being valuable only if they can be consumed within dominant social frameworks. This statement was already made by Nicolas Bourriaud, historian and contemporary art critic from France, in his book Relational Aesthetics (2015), when he states that everything that cannot be commercialised is destined for extinction. Bourriaud highlights the negative influence that CMMs have on the production of cultural products, commodifying them. In relation to such exhibitions, Gerald Raunig, a German-born philosopher and art theorist, states that the German theorists mentioned above "directly negatively assessed the culture industry as a totalising spiral of increasing systematic manipulation with the demand on the masses to adapt more and more to this system" (Raunig, 2007). He argues that critical assessment of mass media can challenge the idea of art being purely an aesthetic or decorative product, instead showing its potential to disrupt the hegemonic systems of power and their effect on people. Overall, the concept of CMMs and how it commodifies culture is explored by various scholars, showing the negative influence it has on cultural production. Nonetheless, these critical assessments provide an opportunity to reassess the role of culture in modern society and how it can offer new modes of thinking.
Bibliographic references
Adorno, Theodor W. and Horkheimer, Max (1981). La industria de la cultura: ilustración como engaño de masas. Mexico: FCE.
Bourriaud, Nicolás (2015). Estética relacional. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Adriana Hidalgo Editors. [1st edition: 2004]
Bretones, María Trinidad (1997). Funciones y efectos de los medios de comunicación de masas: los modelos de análisis. Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona.
Deleuze, G. (2006). Conversaciones. Valencia, Spain: Anagrama.
Domínguez Goya, Elia (2012). Medios de comunicación masiva. Tlalnepantla, Mexico: Red Tercer Milenio.
Eco, Umberto (1995). Apocalípticos e integrados. Barcelona, Spain: Tusquets editors. [1st edition: 1964]
Kancler, Tjasa; López, María (directoress) and Ameller, Carles (tutor) (2013). Arte, política y resistencia en la era posmoderna (doctoral thesis). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona. Leslie, Esther (2007). Añadir valor a los contenidos: la valorización de la cultura hoy. Available on: http://eipcp.net/transversal/0207/leslie/es
Raunig, Gerald (2007). La industria creativa como engaño de masas. Available on: https://eipcp.net/transversal/0207/raunig/es.html
Visual Sources
Cover Image: Campbell's Soup Cans, Andy Warhol (1962). Available on: https://www.moma.org/collection/works/79809
Figure 1: Michel Foucault lecturing at the French newspaper Libération, 1973. Available on: https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/sites/default/files/inline-images/Foucault%20at%20Liberation%2001.jpg
Figure 2: Erró. Pop's History. 1967. Available on: https://www.artnet.com/artists/erró/pops-history-To2tUNuoJtYt_nMdlSZvMg2 Figure 3: Commercial image of the brand Coca-cola. Available on: https://www.marketingdirecto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/711.jpg
Figure 4: Cultural Industry. Available on: https://cefres.cz/en/10240
Comments