{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","id":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","uuid":"50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title":"Digital Capitalism","normalized_title":"digitalcapitalism","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"2021022153","isbns":["2021022153","9781032119182","9781032119205","9781003222149","2405518376"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":343,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/Digital%20Capitalism","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/50b7f922-b940-4a05-8eb0-c4dc0d8ec9ed/search"},"page":{"printed_page":106,"pdf_page":120,"physical_index":120,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"8d0d956c94469662ee62555bf620932f9102dfa761cb488b5b566466c27d5b6e"},"chapter":"DIGITAL CAPITALISM","content":"Here are some examples from cultural studies. David Morley (2019) claims that the Frankfurt School “guys were past their sell by date when Jeremy Corbyn was a nipper”. John Fiske (1989, 183) argues that the “Frankfurt School have no room in their scenario for resistant or evasive practices” and represent “a left-wing elitism”. Henry Jenkins (2006) writes that Adorno “doesn't know anything about popular culture, he's never consumed any popular culture – in fact, it seems like he’s never even spoken to anybody who's ever consumed any popular culture!”. Du Gay et al. (1997, 87) argue that Horkheimer and Adorno’s culture industry hypothesis, “citizens are turned into a passive mass of consumers” and “all is false and inauthentic”. Storey (2006, 55) claims that the “Frankfurt School perspective on popular culture is essentially a discourse from above on the culture of other people”. Hesmondhalgh (2019, 30) writes that “there is a constant sense in Adorno and Horkheimer that the battle has already been lost, that culture has been already subsumed”.\n\nSuch prejudices keep students, scholars, and citizens from engaging with Adorno. They are false in at least three respects. First, Adorno did not despise popular culture as such, but its commodity form. He pointed out the critical role of the clown in popular culture (Adorno 1996) and was a “fan” of the clown of all clowns – Charlie Chaplin. In the Culture Industry-chapter of the Dialectic of the Enlightenment, positive elements of popular culture are visible. For example, Adorno writes that “traces of something better persist in those features of the culture industry by which it resembles the circus” (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002, 114). Adorno’s fondness of Chaplin, the figure of the clown, and the circus shows that he was not opposed to entertainment as such. He rather despised capitalism and therefore the commodity form.\n\nSecond, Adorno wasn’t a determinist and fatalist. He stressed the antagonistic character of culture and saw active potentials of resistance and liberation. For example, he wrote about the culture industry’s antagonisms:\n\nIn its attempts to manipulate the masses the ideology of the culture industry itself becomes as internally antagonistic as the very society which it aims to control. The ideology of the culture industry contains the antidote to its own lie. No other plea could be made for its defence. (Adorno 1991, 181)\n\n106\n\nTheorists","previous_page":null,"next_page":107}