Culture Industry and Schools

¶ … roots in critical theory, which stemmed from the approaches of the Frankfurt school of philosophers in the mid-20th century. The Frankfurt School was led by Theodore Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Erich fromm and other German intellectuals who had emigrated from Germany during the time of the Third Reich. They held what an essentially neo-Marxist point-of-view -- that is, they based their critical analysis of society on the fact that the proletariat had failed to seize power from the elites.

Adorno and Horkheimer especially focused on the "culture industry" which they claimed was responsible for the failure of the proletariat in the West to climb out of its class oppression. The "culture industry" promoted the concept that the elites wanted the proletariat to adopt -- namely, that they were comfortable and happy with the way things were. Through technological innovations like television and propaganda-producing systems like Hollywood, the working class was easily manipulated into doing exactly what elites wanted them to do -- nothing.

In Dialectic of Enlightenment (1948) and The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception (1944) Adorno and Horkheimer put forward the notion that one should adopt a critical theoretical lens when analyzing society and the way it was: the way things were should be deconstructed and broken apart because when one does this one sees how and why the thing was put together in the first place.

It is, in other words, no different from when an automobile manufacturer purchases a competitor's model in order to take it apart and see how the competition is building their autos. Hoggart (1957) built on the ideas of the Frankfurt School by asserting that the working class had not exactly been duped by the "culture industry" into giving up the struggle for power. Instead, the working class had simply lost interest in that struggle -- it no longer cared; it was content with the status quo.

Hoggart (1957) wrote that "most mass-entertaiments are in the end what DH Lawrence described as 'anti-life'. They are full of corrupt brightness, of improper appeals and moral evasions. To recall instances: they tend towards a view of the world in which progress is conceived as a seeking of material possessions, equality as a moral leveling, and freedom as the ground for endless irresponsible pleasure" (p. 306). It was his contention that the working class wanted "irresponsible pleasure" instead of the kind of responsibility that comes with power and authority.

Hoggart essentially argued that the working class had adopted a cheap, materialistic, sentimental view towards life -- thinking that it could be happy so long as it had the money required to consume the products offered it by the elites. In other words, it had traded over the idea of sovereignty for trinkets and amusements. In Freire's (2000) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the idea that the working class must rediscover its potential and rekindle its desire for authority is the main point of the work.

From the perspective of critical theory and critical inquiry, Freire (2000) examines the role of the educator and the student in the modern classroom. His conclusion is that the oppression of the working class is essentially a mental state that can be overthrown once the student realizes that there really are no chains binding him to his social or class position in life. The chains are illusory -- the comforts and trinkets despised by Hoggart, Adorno and Horkheimer nothing more than empty promises. They can easily be left behind.

If today's students and working class reject what the elites offer them, the power of the elites becomes nil. Traditional Approach As Short (1991) observes, underlying Critical Inquiry is the basic Golden Rule -- the one should do unto others as he would have them do unto him (p. 245). How this translates into practice is in the basis of trust: a school is a complex system that cannot be examined without an appropriate level of trust.

After all, Critical Inquiry is not interested in what passes as truth on the surface; it is interested in dismantling the whole to see how and why the complex system is the way it is. To do this, there must be a degree of trust and honesty that exists between the subject and the inquirer. To this end, Critical Inquiry has grown out of critical theory, as Short (1991) shows. Short (1991) notes that "to be critical, an inquiry must challenge directly underlying human interests and ideologies" (p.

245) -- and this is essentially what the early critical theorists were doing by examining society and unpacking the assumptions and behaviors that were commonplace. This unpacking process or approach is conducted in the following manner: First, the discourse must be initiated between the researcher and the subject. Second, the "comprehensibility, sincerity, fidelity, and/or justifiability of the utterances by others" must be refuted or called into question. Third, an expression of "values, beliefs, attitudes, sentiments, intentions, interests, etc." should be made. And, fourth, the discourse should be regulated (Short, 1991, p. 249).

The traditional approach includes adopting a kind of "dilemma language" in which the tensions of a school are exposed -- such as the allocation of resources (equal vs. differential) and the importance of social issues and the vying for control or power within the establishment (Short, 1991, p. 249). In this manner, Critical Inquiry can enter into the dynamic and begin uncovering the reality of the situation. Critical Inquiry in Research: Advantages and Disadvantages There are advantages and disadvantages to using Critical Inquiry in research.

These are evident in the available literature relevant to the subject. Caldwell's study on public education funding, for instance, focuses on the socio-economic conditions that are responsible for preventing low-income are schools from producing quality academic results. While this finding certainly sheds light on one variable responsible for the prevailing condition, it cannot be said that it represents the totality of the phenomenon. For example, Caldwell (2012) indicates that the primary source of funding for public schools in the U.S. is local property taxes.

The study takes a the approach of Marxist Criticism (a form of Critical Inquiry) to the issue of why the composition of social classes is perpetuated every generation. The finding of Caldwell (2012) is that "when public schools rely on local property taxes, their students are married to the social class from which they originated" (p. 54).

What this means in terms of the larger problem is that no matter how much funding is supplied by the state to the struggling schools, the essential character and social composition of the schools is not going to change because of the community in which the school is situated. These regional areas are essentially "fixed" in the sense that the composition is not likely to change short of a mandated move of persons in or out of the community.

The effect that this would have would be evident in the make-up of the school, which would reflect the new social composition of the community as well as whatever social ills or positives are an extension of that community. From the critical theory standpoint, Caldwell's study of the relationship between class oppression and public school failings indicates that public school failures (in whatever form) are simply representative of the community's failure to rise above its "fixed" class system/level.

However, such a view can lead to a simplistic interpretation -- namely that the fix is simply a socio-economic one. Yet, one when one considers the arguments of Adorno and Hoggart, the conclusion that should be drawn is that the socio-economic conditions are really an extension of an underlying reality, which is that the class of individuals in that region are inherently comfortable with the arrangement, accept the lack of academic achievement in the school, and are not interested in changing it.

Were their socio-economic condition improved, the end result would still be the same: the money would be spent on "trinkets" and "amusements" (even if given an educational or substantive gloss) -- yet nothing in the way of academic improvement would be shown as an outcome because the social inputs within the community are not actively geared towards that.

As Freire would say, the students and class are not engaged in overthrowing their oppressors -- instead, as Hoggart would argue, they accept their oppression; as Adorno would say, they are duped into accepting their position and giving up the struggle for improvement. Thus, the strength of Critical Inquiry is that it opens the door to seeing below the surface; the weakness of Critical Inquiry is that it is easy to content oneself with simplistic findings such as the Marxist interpretation given above.

Yet, if one is engaged with the actual historical and traditional development of critical theory and Critical Inquiry, one sees that simplistic answers are not the key to providing real solutions but must be guarded against. The real solutions are those that promote activity and engagement on the part of the subject and provide a new orientation for stakeholders so that a more positive goal can be achieved. In other words, the subject must be turned from a passive participant into an active participant on every level.

This is both the strength of Critical Inquiry and the weakness -- for achieving this objective can be a monumental task, but one that is also well worth it in the end because it is a wholly transformative and essential task in its own right.

Relevance to the Dissertation Inquiry In terms of what Critical Inquiry can do for this dissertation inquiry, the critical form of inquiry helps to illuminate the "class" factor that is embedded in the problem of how to allocate funds, why teacher turnover is high, and what kind of leadership is needed to improve the schools. It also helps to illuminate the social perspective of stakeholders and their acceptance of failure as part and parcel of the status quo.

It is expected that in spite of how funds are allocated, a passive role in which stakeholders are not motivated to engage in the struggle to achieve better outcomes is the main driver in the schools' problems. Yet, by ignoring the issue of class and social condition, especially considering the communities in which the 5 struggling schools are located, the researcher would be oversimplifying the problem and not addressing a significant variable -- namely, the role that community/class consciousness plays in how well schools succeed.

The culture of the community and of the class of people who are stakeholders in the 5 schools will naturally have an impact on the schools themselves -- especially as teachers attempt to establish relationships with parents of school children. For the schools to better succeed and more successfully implement the funds allocated to them, they should consider how "class" is impacting their schools, their teachers' attitudes and approaches to education, their students' needs, and the policies that they implement in order to stimulate growth, progress and positive learning environments.

Critical Inquiry also raises questions about why, if these struggling schools are receiving more money, they have been unable to improve academic achievement outcomes or reduce teacher attrition. The issue may be less economical than it is cultural and the factor of leadership and accountability could be a place to begin looking in an attempt to solve the problem, using the critical form of inquiry.

As Caldwell (2012) points out, it is not simply a matter of equalizing public education funding, but also an issue of addressing several other factors as well -- namely, that "instruction quality...higher education be made accessible to all, and curricula standardized" (p. 57). These would be alternative areas of focus for this type of inquiry were it to be utilized for addressing the problem of this study.

From my own experience, Critical Inquiry is a good way to examine the issues related to Grovetown Elementary School and the other poorly-performing schools in the district. From studying the works of Adorno, Horkheimer, Hoggart, Freire and others, I have developed a knack for seeing into the inner workings of things, of peeling back the layers, of refuting the easy answers and the surface-level objections.

By identifying the self-interests and motivations of individuals and groups, and by disregarding "easy" labels that do little to advance real knowledge or real solutions, the critical theorist can provide the perspective, imagination, innovation and inspiration that groups and individuals need to rally around a cause, make it their own and transform their lives and surroundings in the process.

Critical Inquiry is not only a good way to examine the issues but also a good way to inject a method of activism for stakeholders, who, ultimately, are responsible for transforming the nature of their schools.

That is the main reason that I value Critical Inquiry for this dissertation: it allows the research to uncover reasons for how and why the failing schools are unable to take advantage of the grants afforded them and then can create solutions to empower the communities and the schools' stakeholders and provide them a framework for overcoming the cognitive and environmental obstacles that stand in their way.

This approach to the problems of the school district directly addresses the issue of leadership by supplying a new vision for leadership -- a vision that places power into the hands of the stakeholders, as Freire (2000) posits an educator should do. The goal of this type of approach is not just to identify the causes of the problems but also to provide solutions -- to enable stakeholders to become active agents in their own regeneration.

As Ritchie and Wilson (2000) point out, this manner of inquiry is aimed at making students, teachers and all stakeholders into active participants in their own environments, in their own futures, in their own lives: it is about moving the power paradigm, restructuring it and placing actual power into the hands of those who should hold it, according to the original ethos of the critical theorist.

It is about overcoming the ennui that emanates from the "culture industry," rejecting the comfortableness of the status quo, and maneuvering towards a more level-playing field. Connelly et al. (2007) note that "Freire's critical praxis and use of generative themes, derived from dialogue with students and their communities, provide problem-posing curricula based on lived concerns. This militates against banking curriculum delivery systems of capitalist societies" (p. 404).

In other words, a constructive dialogue with stakeholders is part of the process of Critical Inquiry: it provides the framework for allowing stakeholders in the school and the community to identify why it is that they are failing, throw off the shackles of the "culture industry" that is keeping them from improving, and taking back their own future, their own aims, and their own energy and using to make real progress.

In some sense, the surprising victory of Trump and his supporters at the polls this past November is indicative of the kind of energy that the communities in the struggling school districts need to harness. The Trump campaign gave voters a vision behind which they could rally -- a positive vision that empowered them and moved them to turn out in sufficient numbers. This kind of empowerment is essential in any type of solution that can be offered.

It is what Freire suggests is needed and it is what motivates the critical theorist to examine any social issue at all. With the problems of curriculum, leadership, allocation of funds, and academic failures plaguing the schools in the district identified for this dissertation, a vision of equal power is needed in order for those impacted by these problems to be motivated to address them and overcome them together.

Ropers-Huilman (1999) points out that "recognizing our engagement in active and partial meaning-making, recognizing that our research actions will change others, and understanding that we too must be open to change" is what the Critical Inquiry approach is all about (p. 21). Likewise, the researcher who uses this approach is faced with "the necessity of positioning ourselves in our work, when we act as witnesses, by telling others about our experiences and perspectives, while also listening to the interpretations of other participants" (p. 21).

In other works, the researcher assumes an active role in the solution-providing.