In a modern society defined by the screen, digital content and global consumption where culture becomes a commodity, a product to be bought, sold, and consumed, creates a system of sameness instead of offering creativity. To describe this system, Adorno and Horkheimer (2002) coined their legendary notion of ‘Culture Industry, in The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), to explain how media as a central agent of culture production, turns art into standardized, profit-driven commodities that suppress critical thought and reinforcing capitalist domination. Media including film, radio and magazines operate as a unified cultural system under monopoly capitalism (Adorno & Horkheimer, 2002, p. 94-95). They argue that instead of liberating people, using reason as a tool, enlightenment creates new ways of domination and call this “mess deception” because people are led to believe they are making free choices while consuming products designed to control them. In this way, rationality does not free people rather it rationalizes domination.

In the context of South Asia, Banaji (2010) argues that popular media not only reflects dominant ideologies but actively shapes audience perceptions and behaviour and turns into passive consumers who follow the system without questioning it.  In Habermas’s view (1989), the rise of mass culture involves the commodification and public circulation of cultural goods, making culture more accessible and contributing to forming the public sphere. While this shift made culture appear more democratic, Habermas (1989) also argued that there is unequal accessibility embedded in it. So, this development of mass culture, production, distribution, and consumption helped to shape the culture industry later. The difference is, for Habermas, there is still potential for enlightenment through culture while Adorno and Horkheimer are more critical about that.

Media and Regional Resistance: Daisy Hasan (2010) critically examines Bollywood’s hegemonic role in shaping national identity by erasing and misrepresenting Northeast Indian cultures, showing them as backwards, violent and tribal. This reinforces that Bollywood’s national imagination does not accommodate indigenous people’s stories. Similarly, Jyotika Virdi (1993) argues that Hindi cinema constructs a nationalist ideology that centralizes dominant cultural narratives reinforcing existing hegemonies and social hierarchies. Banaji (2007) adds that Bollywood stabilizes social norms by promoting idealizing gender roles, particularly glamorizing female obedience. Mehta (2012) reveals how these ideological constructions are embedded within the production culture, where the privilege of the elite class and gender norms, shape who gets visibility and validation. However, Hasan, (2010) highlights resistance from the community that has begun “talking back” to Bollywood by creating counter-cultural space and circulating its digital film (Hasan, 2010, p. 33). This is important because in this way the media can also be used to create a space for resistance and change.   

Trajectory of Sugar, Class and Consumption: The chapter Consumption by Sidney Mintz shows how sugar shifted from elite luxury to working-class necessity, reflecting how consumption patterns express class identity and economic inequality.  Mintz emphasizes that sugar consumption patterns are influenced by social class as what people eat expresses who and what they are, but it also expresses who and what they are not. For the British working class, sugar was a cheap source of calories and profit for capitalists. So, the spread of sugar, like the spread of commercial media today, created standardized consumption habits, embedding itself in daily routine hiding the exploitative system that made it cheap. Even our leisure is structured through platforms like Netflix or Spotify to sustain productivity, refreshing workers for more labour, not liberated from it. So, whether it is sweetened tea in the 19th century or Netflix-watching a series today, consumption is created not for freedom or pleasure but reinforces the capitalist production system. In both cases consumption becomes a system of control, one is the body, and another one is the mind. 

Culture, power and making of subjects: Foucault’s analysis of the subject and power gives a lens to understanding how the culture industry works not only for economic gain but as a mechanism of shaping subjectivity. In Bangladesh, there is a reality show named Lux Channel I Superstar which presents beauty, talent competition and corporate sponsorship that can be a good example of ideological production. Contestants are trained not just in modelling or acting, but in how to perform femininity in ways that align with corporate branding and aesthetics of beauty, glamour and obedience. This reflects the subject formation because these women become visible, desirable and valuable only by conforming to industry norms. Winners are rewarded not for who they are but for how well they fit in with the marketable face of Lux. This shows how entertainment becomes apparatuses of power-contracting consumer subjects who internalize ideals of beauty, success and gender roles created by media and corporate interests. In this sense, this kind of competition represents a cultural machine that produces docile, consumable identities, where fame becomes a reward for conformity.

The rising popularity of K-pop group BTS among Bangladeshi youth reflects how the global culture industry penetrates local context and shapes identity, desire and belonging. BTS music, the scenes of content, is circulated through all social media platforms which offer immediate access to their fans. BTS fans also buy merchandise, follow skincare routines, and learn the Korean language or fashion. This consumption, driven by the global capitalist medium that packages emotion, style and identity into consumable forms, has become a part of everyday practices. Many Bangladeshi fans, especially teenagers, find in BTS an aspirational identity, reshaping their behaviour, appearance and ambitions.

Overall, it is important to discuss the culture industry that rapidly shapes social identity, consumption, power and norms through mass media and cultural production. By linking this concept to other readings, it shows how cultural products, particularly Bollywood films, consumption patterns and subjective formation reflect and reinforce existing societal structures. Finally, this reveals a deeper understanding of how media, culture and power interact in the rapidly changing globalized world.

References:

Banaji, S. (2007). Reading “Bollywood”: The young audience and Hindi films. Choice Reviews Online, 44(08), 44–4353.

Banaji, S. (Ed.). (2010). South Asian media cultures: Audiences, representations, contexts. Anthem Press.

Foucault, M., & Sheridan, A. (1978). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Eighteenth-Century Studies, 11(4), 509.

Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (T. Burger & F. Lawrence, Trans.). MIT Press.

Hasan, D. (2010). Talking back to ‘Bollywood’: Hindi commercial cinema in North-East India. In S. Banaji (Ed.), South Asian media cultures: Audiences, representations, contexts (pp. 29–50). Anthem Press.

Horkheimer, M., Adorno, T. W., Noerr, G. S., & Jephcott, E. (2002). Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press.

Mehta, R. (2012). Review of the book Producing Bollywood: Inside the contemporary Hindi film industry, by T. Ganti. International Journal of Communication, 6, 2701–2706.

Mintz, S. W. (1986). Sweetness and power: The place of sugar in modern history. The American Historical Review, 91(2), 362.

Virdi, J. (2000). Review of the book Ideology of the Hindi film: A historical construction, by M. Prasad. Film Quarterly, 53(4), 58–60.

***

Jobeda Akter Rini, an international student from Bangladesh, is pursuing a master’s in Sociology in the Department of Sociology at South Asian University (SAU), New Delhi.