In this sense we can say: the culture industrialisation of society is at the same time a depoliticization of society \u2013 but paradoxically, because with this culture industrialisation differentiated (or at least so they seem) fields, areas, sectors and so on are established as culture, a culture which, as it were, stages new forms of the political, generates new forms of political attention, which represents society overall as a political spectacle. \u201cCulture\u201d becomes a kind of thin layer, a coating, with which the administered world amalgamates.
\nArt or rather the arts assume a decisive function as a segment of the culture industry, in the sense that they produce decidedly \u201ccritical\u201d, \u201creflected\u201d, \u201ceducated\u201d forms of the political. But in fact these are only images and as such are no different from the trivial culture, the tabloid press, the rumour-mongering, the whole trash of private television: the common denominator of all these culture industrialised forms of the political is namely that they are incompatible with a radical critique of relations of production, of the logic of exploitation and capital \u2013 or at least they are as long as they remain operating within the system. The dilemma is, however, that getting transfixed like this is immanent to the system itself, i.e. it has to be understood as part of the hermetic systematisation itself. This hermetic systematisation is what the concept of administered world \u2013 it was presumably coined by Horkheimer and not Adorno, although Adorno made it famous \u2013 describes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"