Sociology, Leisure, Recreation, and SportsPlease answer 3 of the following essay choices in complete sentences. Create a
strong narrative answer and be sure to explain why the shift or inequality present
is important and relevant today. Each essay should be around 250-300 words
each.
1) Adorno and Horkheimer’s Culture Industry theory looked at the
rationalization of art, time and the imagination and the constraint of choice
through genres and manufactured demand. How are products, films, and
styles made to define us through our tastes? How is politics and/or
sexuality defined and rationalized by the mediation of the Culture
Industry?
2) In sports, Masculinity challenges occur when men feel that violence and
manly expression are being blocked by culture or rules? Using the articles
we read, talk about how the questioning of the level of violence in certain
sports is being applied differentially, including racial disparities, relative
attention in different sports, and in kids’ sports as well.
3) In terms of Gender and sports, women face a different set of compulsions
than men. Explain the different gender expectations for men and women,
contrasting them with the stigma on certain body types on sports teams, in
the article by Blinde and Taub.
Homophobia and Women’s Sport: The Disempowerment of Athletes
Author(s): ELAINE M. BLINDE and DIANE E. TAUB
Source: Sociological Focus, Vol. 25, No. 2 (May 1992), pp. 151-166
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20831616 .
Accessed: 01/12/2014 09:18
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Sociological
Focus.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Homophobia
The
Sport:
and Women’s
Disempowerment
of Athletes*
ELAINE M. BLINDE
DIANE E. TAUB
Southern
Illinois University
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
VoL 26 No. 2
1992
May
at Carbondale
One means to discredit women who engage in nontraditional gender role behavior, and thus
challenge theprevailing patriarchal and heterosexist normative system, is to label them lesbian. This
strategy is particularly effective given the homophobic attitudes so prevalent in society. Women
athletes, inparticular, are susceptible targets of lesbian labeling because of the historical linkage of
masculinity with athleticism. The present study explores the dynamics of how this labeling of women
athletes as lesbians and the accompanying
fostering this label impact female
homophobia
intercollegiate athletes. Based on in-depth telephone interviews with 24 athletes, two major themes
emerged: (1) a silence surrounding the issue of lesbianism in women’s sport, and (2) athletes1
internalization of societal stereotypes concerning lesbians and women athletes. These two processes
disempower women athletes as they detract from the self-actualizing potential of sport participation.
Paralleling other socially marginalized
blame the victim strategies.
groups, women athletes internalize their oppression and adopt
INTRODUCTION
v/entral to the preservation of a patriarchal and heterosexist society is a well-established
gender order with clearly defined norms and sanctions governing the behavior ofmen
and women. This normative gender system is relayed to and instilled inmembers of
society through a pervasive socialization network that is evident inboth everday social
interaction and social institutions (Schur 1984). Conformity to established grader norms
contributes to the reproduction ofmale dominance and heterosexual privilege (Lenskyj
1991; Stockard and Johnson 1980).
Despite gender role socialization, not all individuals engage in behavior consistent
with gender expectations. Recognizing the potential threat of such aberrations, various
mechanisms
exist that encourage compliance with the normative gender order.
in
such processes are the stigmatization and devaluation of those whose
Significant
behavior deviates from the norm (Schur 1984).
Women’s violation of traditional gender role norms represents a particularly serious
threat to the patriarchal and heterosexist society because this deviant behavior resists
subordinate status (Schur 1984). When women engage in behavior that
women’s
Direct
correspondence to: Elaine M. Blinde, 113 Davies,
at Carbondale, Carbondale,
Illinois 62901.
Department
of Physical Education,
University
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Southern
Illinois
151
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
152
challenges the established gender order, and thus opposes male domination, attempts
are oftenmade by those most threatened to devalue these women and ultimately control
their actions. One means of discrediting women who violate gender norms and thereby
is to label them lesbian (Griffin 1987).
questioning their “womanhood”
The accusation of lesbianism is a powerful controlling mechanism given the
homophobia that exists within American society. Homophobia, representing a fear of
or negative reaction to homosexuality (Pharr 1988), results in stigmatization directed
at those assumed to violate sexuality norms. Lesbianism, in particular, is viewed as
threatening to the established patriarchal order and heterosexual family structure since
lesbians reject their “natural” gender role, as well as resist economic, emotional, and
sexual dependence on men (Gartrell 1984; Lenskyj 1991).
is evident at the cultural (external) and individual (internal) levels
Homophobia
(Deyton and Zeiger 1978; Guthrie 1982; Morin and Garfinkle 1978). Externally,
homophobia ismanifested by cultural belief systems that promote and support negative
images of homosexuality. Internal homophobia, on the other hand, reflects an individual’s
acceptance and internalization of the negative attitudes and assumptions surrounding
homosexuality (Sophie 1987).
As a means forboth discouraging homosexuality and mamtaining a patriarchal and
heterosexist gender order (Pharr 1988), homophobia controls behavior through contempt
forpurported norm violators (Koedt, Levine, and Rapone 1973). One method of control
is the frequent application of the lesbian label towomen who move into traditional male
dominated fields such as politics, business, or themilitary (Lenskyj 1991). This “lesbian
baiting” (Pharr 1988:19) suggests that women’s advancement into these arenas is
inappropriate. Such messages are particularly potent since they are lodged in a society
that condemns, devalues, oppresses, and victimizes individuals labeled as homosexuals
(Lenskyj 1990).
Another male arena inwhich women have made significant strides, and thus risk
damaging accusation and innuendo, is that of sport (Blinde and Taub inpress; Lenskyj
1990). Sport is a particularly susceptible arena for lesbian labeling due to the historical
linkage ofmasculinity with athleticism (Birrell 1988). When women enter the domain
of sport they are viewed as violating the docile female gender role and thereforeextending
culturally constructed boundaries of femininity (Cobhan 1982; Lenskyj 1986; Watson
1987). The attribution ofmasculine qualities to women who participate in sport leads
to a questioning of their sexuality and subsequently makes athletes targets of
homophobic accusations (Lenskyj 1986).
The issues of homophobia and lesbianism in women’s sport have generally been
avoided by academicians as well as practitioners in thewomen’s sport community (Griffin
1987; Lenskyj 1990; 1991). Given the limited research, little is known about how the
lives and sport experiences ofwomen athletes are affected by accusations and innuendos
of lesbianism. The neglect of the lesbian topic inwomen’s sport has helped to perpetuate
an intense form of homophobia (Griffin 1987).
Therefore, the present study explores the stereotyping ofwomen athletes as lesbians
and the accompanying homophobia fostering this label. General themes and processes
which informus of how these individuals handle the lesbian issue are identified. These
dynamics are grounded in the contextual experiences of women athletes and relayed
through their voices.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA
AND WOMEN’S
SPORT
153
METHODS
SAMPLE
Athletic directors at seven large Division I universities were contacted by telephone
and asked to participate in a study examining various aspects of the sport experience
of female college athletes. These administrators were requested to provide a list of the
names and addresses of all varsity women athletes for the purpose of contacting them
for telephone interviews. Seven institutions were purposively selected to represent a
wide range of athletic conference affiliations and geographic regions. Due to anticipated
time demands forcompiling the requested lists and institutional limitations on the utiliza
tion of athletes as research subjects, more universities than needed were contacted.
Three universities (twomidwestern and one southern) agreed to provide rosters of
all athletes participating in the school’s sport program during the 1990-91 school year
and who had completed at least one year of athletic eligibility. There were no apparent
differences between the cooperating and non-cooperating schools in terms of character
istics such as size, organizational structure of athletic program, and competitive level.
A final sample size between 20 and 30 was desired given itsmanageability for the
projected telephone interview, yet to be sufficiently diverse to depict a range of athletic
experiences. Recognizing that time demands on college athletes are often considerable,
itwas anticipated that not all athletes contacted would agree to participate in a telephone
interview. Thus, to obtain the preferred sample size, 48 athletes (proportionately chosen
from the three universities) were randomly selected from the furnished lists.
Each of these athletes was mailed a letter explaining the general purpose and
importance of the study. Since the interview schedule included topics other than the
lesbian label and because the lesbian issue was lodged in the broader context of
stereotypes, no specificmention of lesbianism was made in the cover letter. The lesbian
topic was intentionally not identified to prevent this issue from affecting athletes’
decision to participate, thus leading to a biased sample. Interested athletes were
encouraged to return an informed consent form indicating theirwillingness to participate
in a tape-recorded telephone interview.Based on this initial contact, a total of 16 athletes
agreed to be in the study.
In order to increase the sample size to the desired 20 to 30 respondents, the names
of 30 additional athletes were randomly and proportionately selected from the three
lists. Eight of these athletes agreed to be interviewed, resulting in a final sample size
of 24. Athletes in the sample were currently participating in a variety ofwomen’s inter
? basketball
=
=
=
(n
5), track and field (n
4), volleyball (n
collegiate varsity sports
=
=
=
=
3), swimming (n
3), softball (n
3), tennis (n
2), diving (n
2), and gymnastics
=
an
With
of
20.2
and
Caucasian
(n
2).
(92%), the
average age
years
overwhelmingly
2
A
contained
9
5
8
and
seniors.
freshmen, sophomores,
sample
juniors,
majority of the
=
athletes (n
22) were recipients of an athletic scholarship.
PROCEDURES
An interview schedule was developed that permitted examination of several aspects
of the college sport experience ofwomen athletes, including a detailed section on societal
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
154
perceptions of women’s sport and female athletes. Questions focused on both positive
and negative connotations associated with women’s sport and female athletes, as well
as specific stereotypes directed at women athletes. In the section of the interview con
cerning the lesbian stereotype, athletes were asked questions about why the stereotype
exists, who engages in the use of the stereotype, how the lesbian label makes them feel,
extent to which the lesbian issue is discussed among female athletes, and impact of the
lesbian label on the behavior of athletes and coaches/athletic directors.
Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted by two trained female inter
viewers. All interviews were tape-recorded and lasted from 50 to 90 minutes. Questions
were open-ended innature so that athletes would not feel constrained in discussing those
issues most relevant to their experiences. Follow-up questions were utilized to probe
how societal perceptions of women athletes impact their behavior and experiences.
DATA ANALYSIS
After completion of the 24 telephone interviews, verbatim transcriptions were
prepared. The confidentiality of respondents was protected by assigning code names
and numbers to each transcription. Upon perusal of the interview data, coding categories
were created to represent the various concepts, themes, and patterns that emerged
(Bogdan and Biklen 1982). Summary sheets were developed and all relevant comments
from the interviews for each category were noted. For example, summary sheets were
formulated for such themes as rationale for existence of lesbian stereotype, reaction
to lesbian stereotype, internalization of lesbian stereotype, impact of lesbian stereotype
on athlete, etc. Relative to this paper, the summary sheets were examined to determine
overall themes that depicted the impact of the lesbian stereotype on women athletes.
In analyzing and reporting the responses of athletes, the intentwas not to construct
a single profile characterizing themajority of athletes. Rather, realizing that athletes’
experiences are different and that all responses are important, an attempt was made
to capture both similarities and variations in athletes’ responses. Moreover, since the
study was designed to allow for the identification of emerging concepts, themes, and
patterns, no preconceived conceptual or theoretical framework dictated either the
development of the interview protocol or the data analysis.
RESULTS
Examination of the responses of athletes revealed two prevailing themes related
to the presence of the lesbian stereotype inwomen’s sport ? (a) a silence surrounding
the issue of lesbianism in women’s sport, and (b) athletes’ internalization of societal
stereotypes concerning lesbians and women athletes. It is suggested that these two
processes disempower women athletes and thus are counterproductive to the self
actualizing
capability of sport participation
SILENCE SURROUNDING LESBIANISM
(Theberge 1987).
INWOMEN’S SPORT
One of themost pervasive themes throughout the interviews related to the general
silence associated with the lesbian stereotype inwomen’s sport. Although a topic of
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA AND WOMEN’S SPORT
155
which athletes are cognizant, reluctance to discuss and address lesbianism inwomen’s
sport was evident. Based on the responses of athletes, this silence was manifested in
several ways: (a) athletes’ difficulty in discussing lesbian topic, (b) viewing lesbianism
as a personal and irrelevant issue, (c)disguising athletic identity to avoid lesbian label,
(d) team difficulty in addressing
addressing lesbian issue.
ATHLETES9 DIFFICULTY
lesbian issue, and
IN DISCUSSING
(e) administrative
difficulty in
LESBIAN TOPIC
Initial indication of silencing was illustrated by the difficulty and uneasiness many
athletes experienced indiscussing the lesbian stereotype. Some respondents were initially
reluctant to mention the topic of lesbianism; discussion of the issue was frequently
preceded by awkward or long pauses suggesting feelings of uneasiness or discomfort.
Athletes were most
likely to introduce this topic when questions were asked about
societal perceptions of women’s sport and female athletes, as well as inquiries about
the existence of stereotypes associated with women athletes. Moreover, the lesbian issue
was sometimes discussed without specifically using the term lesbian. For example, some
athletes evaded the issue by making indirect references to lesbianism (e.g., using the
word “it” rather than a more descriptive term).
Of the 24 athletes interviewed, 17 directly initiated discussion of the lesbian issue
in response to various open-ended questions. The remaining 7 respondents approached
the topic indirectly by suggesting that women athletes were stereotyped as being
masculine, mannish, or jocks. If an athlete did not specifically mention the lesbian label,
interviewers asked the respondent if she was aware of such a stereotype. In response
to this questioning, all but one athlete indicated a high degree of familiarity with the
application of the lesbian label to women athletes.
Although athletes were familiar with the lesbian stereotype, they struggled with
discussing this topic. However, once the issue became a clearly identified subject of the
interview, athletes were more willing to relay their insights and experiences. This
openness may have been due inpart to effortsof the interviewers to provide a supportive
and safe environment inwhich the athlete could discuss lesbianism inwomen’s sport
(e.g., assuring athlete the purpose of the interview was not to ascertain sexual orienta
tion of individual athletes, or informing respondent that other interviewees had also
mentioned
the lesbian topic).
Respondents’ approach to the topic of lesbianism indicates the degree to which
women athletes have been socialized into a cycle of silence. Such silence highlights the
suppressing effects of homophobia. Moreover, athletes’ reluctance to discuss topics
openly related to lesbianism may be to avoid what Goffman (1963) has termed “courtesy
stigma,” a stigma conferred despite the absence of usual qualifying behavior.
VIEWING LESBIANISM AS A PERSONAL AND IRRELEVANT ISSUE
A second indicator of the silence surrounding the lesbian stereotype was reflected
in athletes’ general comments about lesbianism. Many respondents indicated that sexual
orientation was a very personal issue and thus represented a private and extraneous
aspect of an individual’s
life.These athletes felt itwas
inappropriate for others to be
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
156
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
concerned about the sexual orientation ofwomen athletes. As stated by one respondent:
I think it is silly that it [sexual orientation] should even be mentioned. I think it’s very private and
I don’t care. … As far as I’m concerned, it shouldn’t even be brought up. It shouldn’t even be
mentioned.
It doesn’t matter.
Since sexual orientation is recognized as part of the private sphere of one’s existence,
discussion of the lesbian stereotype is thus avoided.
Although such a manifestation of silence might reflect the path of least resistance
by relieving athletes of the need to discuss or disclose their sexual orientation (Lenskyj
1991), itdoes not eliminate the stigma and stress experienced by women athletes. Also,
making lesbianism a private issue does not confront or challenge the underlying
homophobia that allows the label to carry such significance. The strategy of making
sexual orientation a personal issue depoliticizes lesbianism and ignores broader societal
issues.
DISGUISING
ATHLETIC IDENTITY TO AVOID LESBIAN LABEL
A third form of silence surrounding the lesbian stereotype was the tendency for
athletes to hide their athletic identities. Nearly all respondents indicated that despite
feeling pride in being an athlete, therewere situations where they preferred that others
not know their athletic identity. Although not all athletes indicated that this conceal
ment was to prevent being labeled a lesbian, itwas obvious that there was a perceived
stigma associated with athletics that many women wanted to avoid (e.g., masculine
women, women trying to be men, jock image). Inmost cases, respondents indicated that
disguising their athletic identity was either directly or indirectly related to the lesbian
stereotype.
When asked why they would prefer that students and faculty not know they were
athletes, respondents mentioned that others label women athletes as lesbians. As one
athlete stated:
Well
you always have people who talk about women’s sports, you know, ail them lesbians and all
that kind of stuff. That’s about the only thing that I don’t like . . . call you butch and all that cuz
you’re an athlete.
The actions of athletes were often silenced in order to minimize or eliminate the
application of the lesbian label. In an attempt to avoid being labeled a lesbian, athletes
? a line reflective of more traditional
frequently “step back into line”
gender role
behavior. A common behavioral response related to respondents’ “presentation of self.”
Athletes were interested in adopting an acceptable public appearance consistent with
societal expectations ofwomen. For example, several respondents made a conscious effort
not to wear athletic attire, especially in situations where theywould be interacting with
faculty and students. Others indicated that they used accounterments such as earrings
and makeup “to appear feminine.”
Athletes also stated that they (or other athletes they knew) accentuated certain
behaviors in order to reduce the possibility of being labeled a lesbian. Being seen with
men, having a boyfriend, or even being sexually promiscuous with men were commonly
identified strategies to reaffirman athlete’s heterosexuality. As one athlete commented,
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA AND WOMEN’S SPORT
157
“If you are a female athlete and do not have a boyfriend, you are labeled [lesbian].”
As reflected in the responses of athletes, the role of sport participant was often
intentially de-emphasized in order to reduce the risk of being labeled lesbian. Modifica
tion of athletes’ behavior, even to the point of denying critical aspects of self,was deemed
necessary forprotection from the negativism attached to the lesbian label This disguising
of athletic identity exemplifies what Kitzinger (1987:92) termed “role inversion.” In such
a situation individuals attempt to demonstrate that their group stereotype is inaccurate
by accentuating traits that are in opposition to those commonly associated with the
group (in the case of women athletes, stressing femininity and heterosexuality).
TEAM DIFFICULTY
IN ADDRESSING
LESBIAN ISSUE
Not only did the silence surrounding lesbianism impact certain aspects of the lives
of individual athletes, but it also affected interpersonal relationships among team
members. This silence was often counterproductive to the development of positive group
dynamics (e.g., team cohesion, open lines of communication).
As was often true at the individual level, women’s sport teams were unable collec
tively to discuss, confront, or challenge the labeling ofwomen athletes as lesbians. One
factor complicating the ability ofwomen athletes to confront the lesbian stereotype was
the divisive nature of the label itself (Gentile 1982); the lesbian issue sometimes split
teams into factions or served as the basis for clique formation.
and lesbian athletes often had limited interaction with each other
Heterosexual
outside the sport arena. Moreover, athletes established distance between themselves
and those athletes most likely to be labeled lesbian (i.e., those possessing “masculine”
physical or personality characteristics).
The lesbian issue was a sensitive topic for athletes to address openly as a team;
thus, discussion of the issue was often confined to “safe” circles to avoid team disrup
tion. Lesbianism was commonly discussed among groups of nonlesbian athletes. Within
these groups, the “suspicious eye” was directed toward other athletes or teammates;
however, rarely was the topic mentioned in a “mixed” group or with known lesbian
athletes. According to respondents, conversations of nonlesbian athletes were frequently
filledwith jokes and gossip about lesbianism; one athlete indicated the discussions were
often “very critical and mean to lesbians” and that the lesbian topic was “talked about
in an
immature
fashion.”
From the interviews, therewas little evidence that lesbian and nonlesbian athletes
collectively pooled their efforts to confront or challenge the lesbian stereotype so
prevalent inwomen’s sport. The silence surrounding lesbianism creates divisions among
women athletes; this dissension has the effect of preventing female bonding and
camaraderie (Lenskyj 1986). Rather than recognizing their shared interests, women
athletes focus on their differences and thus deny the formation of “alliance” (Pheterson
1986:149). This difficulty in attaining team cohesion is unfortunate since women’s sport
is an activity where women as a group can strive for common goals (Lenskyj 1990). The
lesbian stereotype not only limits female solidarity, but also minimizes women’s ability
to challenge collectively the patriarchal and heterosexist system inwhich they reside
(Bennett et al. 1987).
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
158
ADMINISTRATIVE
DIFFICULTY
IN ADDRESSING LESBIAN
ISSUE
of silence relayed in the responses of athletes was the
apparent unwillingness of coaches and athletic directors to confront openly the lesbian
stereotype. As was foundwith individual athletes and teams, those in leadership positions
inwomen’s sport refused to address or challenge this stereotype. Reluctance to confront
the lesbian issue at the administrative level undoubtedly influenced themanner inwhich
Another manifestation
athletes handled the stereotype.
Athletes were asked if their coaches or athletic directors ever mentioned the topic
of lesbianism. With only a couple exceptions, respondents indicated that the issue had
never been addressed by their coaches or athletic directors. Although not overtly linked
to the fear of athletes being labeled lesbian, some respondents stated that their coaches
did stress “dressing up” and “acting like ladies.” Such comments are similar to other
findings that indicate coaches and administrators often attempt to protect the
image ofwomen’s sport programs by promoting a “heterosexual personae” (Thorngren
1990:60).
One exception to administrative refusal to confront the lesbian issue occurred on
a particular team when one team member called another “dyke.” Due to the controversy
this situation created, a psychologist was asked to talk to the team about homosexuality
and bisexuality. Such action attests to the perceived or potential disruption the lesbian
issue
can
generate
on
a
team.
The refusal of leaders inwomen’s sport to address the lesbian issue may be partially
due towomen coaches and athletic directors themselves being victimized by the lesbian
stereotype (Rotella and Murray 1991; Thorngren 1990; 1991). Thorngren (1990; 1991)
reported that the lesbian label was a significant source of stress forwomen coaches and
impacted on several domains of their lives (e.g., social life, recruitment of athletes,
searching for and maintaining coaching positions).
Another reason for the avoidance of the lesbian issue by administrators and coaches
may arise from the nature of the work environment in women’s sport. Because the
women’s intercollegiate sport system is homophobic and predominately male-controlled
(i.e.,over half of coaches and four-fifthsof administrators aremen) (Acosta and Carpenter
1992), it is assumed that survival in women’s sport requires collusion in a collective
and
strategy of silence about and denial of lesbianism (Griffin 1987). Coaches
administrators fear that openly addressing the lesbian issuemay result inwomen’s sport
losing the recent gains made in such areas as fan support, budgets, sponsorship, and
credibility (Griffin 1987). Therefore, leaders yield to this fear as they strive to achieve
acceptability forwomen’s sport. Such accommodation to the patriarchal, heterosexist
sport structure not only contributes to isolation as coaches and administrators are afraid
to discuss lesbianism, but also limits their identificationwith feminist and women’s issues
1990; Pharr 1988; Zipter 1988).
(Duquin 1981; Hargreaves
SUMMARY
Based on athletes’ responses, itwas evident that the silence surrounding the lesbian
issue inwomen’s sport was deeply ingrained at all levels of the women’s intercollegiate
sport structure. Such widespread silencing reflects the negativism and fear associated
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
AND WOMEN’S
HOMOPHOBIA
SPORT
159
with lesbianism that are so prevalent in a homophobic society. This strategy of silence
or avoidance, however, is counterproductive to efforts to dispel orminimize the impact
of the lesbian stereotype. Not only does silence disallow a direct confrontation with those
who label athletes lesbian, but it also perpetuates the power of the label by leaving
unchallenged rumors and insinuations. Moreover, the fear, ignorance, and negative
images that are frequently associated with women athletes are reinforced by this silence
(Zipter 1988).
Numerous
aspects of women’s experience in sport are ignored due to the silence
the
surrounding
subject of lesbianism. For example, refusing to address this issue has
limited understanding of the dimensionality and complexity ofwomen’s sport participa
tion.Moreover, since the stigma associated with the lesbian label inhibits athletes from
discussing this topic with each other, these women frequently do not realize that they
possess shared experiences that would provide the foundation for female bonding.
Without an “alliance” among athletes, little progress ismade in improving their plight
(Pheterson 1986). Finally, as a result of this preoccupation with silence, women athletes
often engage
ATHLETES’
in self-denial as they hide their athletic identity.
INTERNALIZATION OF SOCIETAL STEREOTYPES
A second major theme reflected in the responses of athletes was a general inter
nalization of stereotypic representations of lesbians and women athletes. As argued by
Kitzinger (1987) and Pheterson (1986),members of oppressed and socially marginalized
groups often find themselves accepting the stereotypes and prejudices held by the
dominant society. Representing “internalized oppression” (Pheterson 1986:148), the
responses of athletes revealed an identification with the aggressor, self-concealment,
and dependence on others for self-definition (Kitzinger 1987; Pheterson 1986). Accep
tance of these societal representations by a disadvantaged group (in this case women
athletes) grants legitimacy to the position of those who oppress and contributes to the
continued subordination of the oppressed (Wolf 1986). Based on our interviews, athletes’
internalization of stereotypes and prejudices were reflected by three categories of
responses: (1) acceptance of lesbian stereotypes, (2) acceptance of women’s sport team
stereotypes, and (3) acceptance of negative images of lesbianism.
ACCEPTANCE OF LESBIAN STEREOTYPES
In response to various open-ended questions, itwas apparent that athletes were
able to identify a variety of factors that they felt led others to label women athletes
as lesbians (e.g., physical appearance, dress, personality characteristics, nature of sport
activity). Given that the attribution of homosexuality ismost likely to be associated
with traits and behaviors judged to be more appropriate formembers of the opposite
sex (Dunbar, Brown and Amoroso 1973; Dunkle and Francis 1990), itwas not surprising
that athletes’ rationale for the lesbian label included such attributes as muscularity,
short hair, masculine clothing, etc.
Not only were respondents aware of societal images of lesbians, but their comments
frequently suggested that they had indeed internalized these stereotypes. For example,
one athlete, after discussing the verbal harassment her team often endured on the prac
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
160
tice/playing field (e.g., being called “dykes on spikes” by passers by), began to discuss
the stereotypes underlying such labeling. Yet, as evident in her comments, this athlete
was unaware of the stereotypes inherent in her own belief system.
Well, ifyou come and you look at our team, I mean if you’ve seen Jane Doe or anyone like that,
she’s very pretty. If she walks down the street everybody screams you know, screams other things
at her. But because she’s on the field, it’s dykes on spikes. If that isn’t a stereotype, then who knows
what
is.
Another athlete, in attempting to demonstrate that others inappropriately apply
the lesbian stereotype to all women athletes, mentioned that a beauty pageant winner
played on her team. The assumption here is that the beauty queen certainly would not
be a lesbian. In a similar fashion, one team sport athlete suggested that, because her
teammates were pretty, lesbianism was not a problem. She goes on to imply, however,
that lesbianism might have been more prevalent on other teams sincemost of the athletes
on these teams “looked like guys.”
Some athletes who were usually not recipients of the lesbian label provided rationales
forwhy they were excluded from this stereotype. For example, one athlete indicated
that because of her body build and long, blonde hair, she had not been personally labeled.
Others indicated that they simply “did not lode like an athlete.” One athlete commented,
“I’ve never seen somebody that looks like a girl called a lesbian or dyke. I think it is
theway you present yourself.” A similar themewas present in the response of the follow
ing individual who said she was proud to be an athlete despite the lesbian stereotype:
This is terrible to say but I don’t fit into that stereotype. I mean the stereotype is based around
women that are very masculine and strong and very athletic. I wouldn’t say I’m pretty in pink, but
I am feminine and I appear very feminine and I act that way.
When athletes were asked about the validity of the lesbian label inwomen’s sport,
affirmative replies were frequently based on conjecture. For example, to provide support
forwhy they felt therewas a basis for labeling women athletes as lesbians, respondents
made such comments as “there aremasculine girls on some teams,” “it is really obvious,”
or “you can just tell that some athletes are lesbians.”
These explanations tend to reflect an acceptance of societal definitions of lesbianism
? beliefs that are
largely male-centered and supportive of a patriarchal, heterosexist
system (e.g., “girls who look likeguys”). Indeed, previous research has shown that peo
ple associate physical appearance with homosexuality (Levitt and Klassen 1974; McAr
thur 1982; Unger, Hilderbrand, andMadar 1982). For example, attractiveness is equated
with heterosexuality and a larger,muscular body build is identified with lesbianism.
Moreover, the remarks of athletes demonstrate that the very group that is oppressed
case women athletes) accepts societal stereotypes about lesbians and has incor
this
(in
porated these images into theirmanaging of the situation. As suggested by Gartrell
(1984) and certainly evident in this sample of women athletes, cultural myths about
lesbianism perpetuated in a homophobic society are often firmly ingrained in the thinking
of affected individuals.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA
AND WOMEN’S
SPORT
161
ACCEPTANCE OF WOMEN’S SPORT TEAM STEREOTYPES
to providing a rationale forwhy the lesbian label was more likely to be
associated with athletes in certain sports, respondents again demonstrated an under
standing and internalization of societal stereotypes. The sports most commonly iden
tifiedwith the lesbian label were softball, field hockey, and basketball. In attempting
to explain why these team sports were singled out, athletes mentioned such factors as
Relative
the nature of bodily contact or amount of aggression in the sport, as well as the body
build, muscularity, or athleticism needed to play the sport.
Respondents often relied on the “masculine” and “feminine” stereotypes to differen
tiate sports inwhich participating women were more or less likely to be subjected to
the lesbian label. Although participants in team sports were more likely than individual
sports (e.g.,gymnastics, swimming, tennis, golf) to be associated with the lesbian label,
itwas interesting to note that volleyball was often exempt from the connotations of
lesbianism. As one athlete explained:
Volleyball doesn’t have as much problem with the label because of the tight bun-hugging uniforms
they wear . . . and volleyball is a female sport . . . and players are fairly attractive.
A similar rationale was provided forwhy a sport such as gymnastics was not targeted
with the lesbian label. As relayed by one athlete:
Gymnastics is not labeled since gymnastics is a girly thing. The leotards they are in… look at female
basketball players and they wear their shorts to their knees, huge and baggy. [They] wear shirts
untucked. And the gymnasts have their hair fixed perfect and their make-up on, and, it’s not as
physical.
Such statements equating feminine appearance with heterosexuality and masculine
characteristics with lesbianism parallel earlier research that found the social acceptability
of various women’s sports to be based on notions ofmasculinity and femininity (Metheny
1965; Snyder and Spreitzer 1983). In the present study, an antiquated notion of the
ideal woman and an internalization of societal definitions ofwomen athletes often underlie
athletes’ conceptualizations of lesbians (Lenskyj 1990).
The higher incidence of lesbian labeling found in team sports (as opposed to individual
sports) may also be related to the potential that team sports provide for interpersonal
interactions. As previously mentioned, emphasizing teamwork and togetherness, team
sports allow women rare opportunities to bond collectively in pursuit of a group goal
(Lenskyj 1990). Recognition of this power of female bonding is often reflected by male
opposition to women-only activities (Lenskyj 1990).
ACCEPTANCE OF NEGATIVE IMAGES OF LESBIANISM
During the course of the interviews, a large majority of athletes made comments
about lesbians which reflected an internalization of the negativism associated with
lesbianism. Respondents also demonstrated a similar acceptance when they relayed con
versations they had had with both teammates and outsiders.
One form of negativism was reflected by statements that specifically “put down”
lesbians. Athletes’
negative comments about lesbians were included in conversations
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
162
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
with outsiders so others would not associate the lesbian label with them. Representing
a form of projection (Gross 1978), some athletes attempted to disassociate from traits
that they saw in themselves (e.g., strength, muscularity, aggressiveness).
Other responses demonstrated the athletes’ acceptance of the social undesirability
of lesbianism. For example, one athlete, in relaying her disgust about being called “dykes”
by guys driving by her practice/playing field, said she and her teammates were relieved
to be called “whores” one day by a carload ofmales. Such a view attests to the intense
homophobia surrounding women in sport and the hierarchical placement of lesbianism
in deviant
sexuality. Another respondent indicated contempt and surprise when
the sexual orientation of a fellow athlete: “Oh God, did you know that she
discussing
was a lesbian?” Athletes’ negative comments about lesbians parallel the identification
with the aggressor phenomenon, a response common for socially marginalized groups
(Kitzinger 1987).
Also apparent in the interview responses were degrading comments and joking
remarks about lesbians. For example, one athlete stated that some teammates mockingly
discourage behavior stereotypically identified with lesbians by using the statement,
“Don’t act like a dyke.” Another respondent indicated that her teammates “in very
loud voices” expressed their opposition to lesbianism in the presence of lesbian athletes.
In a third example, a respondent relayed how team members talked about a lesbian
athlete: “they will talk about her and rip her up and call her names.” This behavior
by athletes reflects the degree to which they have internalized patriarchal definitions
that devalue and condemn lesbianism.
It is ironic that athletes rarely directed their anger or condemnations at the
homophobic society that restricts the actions ofwomen athletes, including the nonlesbian
athlete. Rather, by focusing on athletes as lesbians, a blame the victim approach diverts
attention from the cause of the oppression (Pharr 1988). As is often true of oppressed
groups, a blame the victim philosophy results in an acceptance of the belief system of
the oppressor (in this case a patriarchal, heterosexist society) (Pharr 1988). Like other
marginalized groups, women athletes accept the normative definitions of their deviance
(Kitzinger 1987); in effect, such responses represent a form of collusion with the
oppressive forces (Pheterson 1986). Interestingly, no mention was made by respondents
about attempts to engage the assistance or support of units on campus sympathetic
to gay and lesbian issues (e.g., feminist groups, gay and lesbian organizations, affir
mative action offices).
SUMMARY
From the interview responses, itwas evident that athletes had internalized societal
stereotypes related to lesbians and women athletes, as well as the negativism directed
toward lesbianism. This acceptance was so ingrained in these athletes that they were
generally unaware of the political ramifications of both lesbianism and the accompany
ing lesbian stereotype as applied to women athletes. Despite their gender norm viola
tion as athletes, these women often had a superficial understanding of gender issues.
Such a lack of awareness may be due in part to the absence of a feminist consciousness
in athletes (Boutilier and SanGiovanni 1983; Kaplan 1979) and their open disavowal
of being a “feminist,” “activist,” or “preacher ofwomen’s liberation.” Accepting societal
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA AND WOMEN’S SPORT
163
definitions of their deviance, as well as the inability to see their personal experiences
as political in nature, attests to this limited consciousness (Boutilier and SanGiovanni
1983). Athletes’ responses are indicative of the degree to which they exhibit internal
homophobia so common inAmerican society.
Only a few athletes possessed deeper insight into factors that may underlie the
labeling ofwomen athletes as lesbians. For example, one respondent feltwomen athletes
were a “threat tomen since they can stand on their own feet.” Or, in another situation,
an athlete viewed lesbian labeling as a means to devalue women athletes or successful
women ingeneral. Still another respondent suggested the label stemmed from jealousy
and thus was used as a means
to “get back” at women athletes. These rare remarks
by respondents transcend the blame the victim view held by themajority of athletes.
Such commitments indicate a deeper understanding of how homophobia and a patriarchal
ideology limit or control women’s
activities and their bodies.
DISEMPOWERMENT
Given the silence surrounding the lesbian issue and the degree to which athletes
have internalized societal images of lesbians and women athletes, the presence of the
lesbian stereotype has negative ramifications forwomen athletes. Although sport par
ticipation possesses the potential forcreativity and physical excellence (Theberge 1987),
women modify their behavior so theywill not be viewed as “stepping out of line.”Women
athletes become disempowered (Pharr 1988) through processes that detract from or
reduce the self-actualizing potential of the sport experience.
Attaching the label of lesbian towomen who engage in sport diminishes the sporting
accomplishments of athletes. Women athletes are seen as something less than “real
women” because they do not exemplify traditional female qualities (e.g., dependency,
weakness, passivity); thus their accomplishments are not viewed as threatening tomen
(Birrell 1988). Interestingly, the athletes interviewed believed that the specific group
most likely to engage in lesbian labeling was male athletes.
Discrediting women with the label of lesbian works further to control the number
of females in sport, particularly in a homophobic society where prejudice against lesbians
is intense (Birrell 1988; Zipter 1988). Keeping women out of sport, in turn, prevents
females from discovering the power and joy of their own physicality (Birrell 1988) and
experiencing the potential of their body. Moreover, discouraging women from
participating in sport disempowers them by removing an arena where women can bond
together (Birrell 1988; Cobhan 1982).
By attempting to avoid being labeled lesbian, women athletes “step into line” by
adopting socially acceptable behavior. Such action, however, may result indefensiveness,
alienation, isolation, and low self-esteem. Athletes are made to feel that certain qualities
such as aggressiveness, strength, power, and muscularity are undesirable forwomen.
Some athletes, for example, reported that fear of “getting big” inhibited their efforts
when liftingweights, thereby limiting their attainment of strength and power. Conse
quently, athletes frequently find themselves denying or hiding qualities that could be
self-actualizing or empowering in nature. Through acceptance of others’ definitions of
themselves (Kitzinger 1987), athletes limit their choices and potential.
The lesbian label generated several emotional reactions in athletes that possessed
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
164
the capability of producing stress or other negative psychological states. Athletes
responded with feelings of anger, fear, and discomfort when theywere labeled as lesbians.
Such emotions negate the empowering capability of sport.
Anger resulted when the label was blindly applied to all women athletes and when
outsiders did not make an attempt to get to know the athletes first.As one respondent
stated:
I just hate it. Because people don’t even give you a chance and take the time to learn how you are.
They are just assuming that because you play in a college sport that you are [a lesbian].
In some instances, especially with the younger athletes, the anger actually led to feelings
of fear. One sophomore athlete recalled:
Last year when I was a freshman that was my biggest fear when I came to the university. I didn’t
to be labeled that [a lesbian]. I wanted people to learn who I was before they labeled me.
want
Similarly, athletes indicated the labelmade them feelunattractive or uncomfortable.
One respondent stated that she felt self-conscious when individuals looked at her as
an athlete; others questioned whether the lesbian stereotype decreased their attrac
tiveness forheterosexual dating. For example, one athlete reported that the label made
her feelunattractive and wondered if itwas the reason she was having problems meeting
men at school. Some athletes were careful not to be constantly seen inpublic with groups
of women; others were cautious about the nature of physical contact they openly
displayed with other women. One athlete indicated she was self-conscious about how
she publicly interacted with other women, especially in terms of hugs or touching.
Another formof disempowerment occurs for those athletes who are lesbians. Intense
homophobia often forces lesbians to deny their very essence, thus making the lesbian
athlete invisible. Concealment, although protecting the lesbian athletes’ identity, imposes
strain and can undermine positive self-conceptions (Schur 1984).
psychological
Misrepresenting their sexuality, lesbian athletes are not in a position to confront the
homophobia so prevalent inwomen’s sport. Consequently, this ideology not only remains
intact, but also is strengthened (Ettore 1980).
As suggested by Dewar (1990), one way of challenging heterosexism is to recognize
and admit the lesbian experience in sport. Usage of the term “lesbian” and openly con
fronting the lesbian issue inwomen’s sport can lessen the stigmatizing power of the
lesbian stereotype (Zipter 1988). This strategy not only represents a declaration of sexual
orientation, but more importantly, constitutes an effectivemeans of empowering lesbian
athletes by reducing the stigma associated with the lesbian stereotype (Dewar 1990).
Although a more open and aggressive strategy for addressing the lesbian issue in
women’s sport may be self-actualizing forwomen athletes, such an approach could con
currently hamper the respectability of female athletes and the advancement ofwomen’s
sport (Griffin 1987).
Therefore, acceptance of the lesbian stereotype has a limiting effect on both lesbian
and nonlesbian athletes. Women athletes are denied the opportunity “to be themselves”
and may fall victim to feelings of alienation as they attempt to disassociate from their
athletic identities, bodies, and emotions (Hicks 1979). Such estrangement may result
in women avoiding sport or selecting only “safe” or socially acceptable sports,
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
HOMOPHOBIA AND WOMEN’S SPORT
165
participants leaving sport, or athletes not reaching their potential. Furthermore, this
disassociation from selfmay limitpersonal growth, restrict opportunities, and deny one’s
athleticism. By making themselves less threatening, athletes add even greater power
to the lesbian label and in effect, perpetuate their own oppression.
CONCLUSION
Reflecting one aspect of the belief system of a patriarchal and heterosexist society,
homophobia serves to control individuals who deviate from traditional gender norms.
Fearing the lesbian label in a society that condemns and oppresses homosexuals inhibits
the options and behavior of “nontraditional” women. Like other socially marginalized
groups, women athletes accept societal stereotypes about their group and adopt blame
the victim strategies. Moreover, the silence surrounding lesbianism only adds potency
to the repressive nature of homophobia.
Both the silence surrounding the issue of lesbianism and athletes’ internalization
of societal stereotypes concerning lesbians and women athletes are based on the assump
tion that the problem resides with the presence of lesbians inwomen’s sport. Such an
approach makes lesbianism a personal and private matter and negates its political
ramifications. Reducing the lesbian topic to discussion of sexual orientation eclipses
the underlying homophobia that promotes and maintains the control of women and
disempowerment of athletes.
Lacking a developed political or feminist consciousness, most athletes are only able
to understand the lesbian issue at a personal and superficial level.While being acutely
cognizant of the existence of the lesbian stereotype, few athletes are aware of the cultural
or ideological factors contributing to the perpetuation of this label. Until the issues
surrounding lesbianism in women’s sport are redefined as a problem that rests with
the homophobic and patriarchal society inwhich women’s
will continue to disempower women athletes.
sport resides, the “L-word”
REFERENCES
Acosta, R. Vivian and Linda Jean Carpenter. 1992.
“Women in Intercollegiate Sport: A Longitudinal
Fifteen Year Update
1977-1992.” Un
Study
published manuscript, Brooklyn College, Depart
ment of Physical Education, Brooklyn.
Nina Jo
Bennett, Roberta S., K. Gail Whitaker,
1987. “Chang
Woolley Smith, and Anne Sablove.
ingThe Rules of The Game: Reflections Toward A
Feminist Analysis of Sport.” Women’s Studies
International
Forum 10:369-386.
1988. “Discourses on The Gender/Sport
in Sport to Gender
From Women
Relationship:
Bin-ell, Susan.
Pp. 459-502 in Exercise And Sport
Science Reviews, vol. 16, edited by K. B. Pandolf.
New York: MacMillan.
Relations.”
In press.
Blinde, Elaine M. and Diane E. Taub.
“Women Athletes as Falsely Accused Deviants:
the Lesbian Stigma.” The Sociological
Managing
Quarterly.
1982.
Bogdan, Robert C. and Sari Knopp Biklen.
Qualitative Research forEducation. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
1983.
Boutilier, Mary A. and Lucinda SanGiovanni.
The Sporting Woman
IL: Human
Champaign,
Kinetics.
in Physical Educa
Cobhan, Linn Ni. 1982. “Lesbians
tion And Sport.” Pp. 179-186 inLesbian Studies:
Present And Future, edited by M. Cruikshank. New
York: Feminist Press.
Dewar, Alison M. 1990. “Working Against Oppression
in Sport: Towards An Inclusive Critical Sport
at the annual
Sociology.”
Paper
presented
meetings of the North American Society for the
Sociology of Sport, Denver, Colorado.
B. and R. Zeiger.
1978. “Mental And
Deyton,
Emotional Wellness.
Part 1: Some Problems.”
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
166
Blade 5(1):14.
M.
Brown
and Donald
Dunbar,
John, Marvin
Amoroso.
1973. “Some Correlates of Attitudes
Journal
Toward
of Social
Homosexuality.”
89:271-279.
Psychology
Dunkle, John H. and Patricia L. Francis. 1990. “The
in The
Role of Facial MascuJinity/Femininity
of Homosexuality.”
Sex Roles
Attribution
23:157-167.
Duquin, Mary E. 1981. “Feminism And Patriarchy in
at the
Physical Education.”
Paper presented
annual meetings of the North American Society for
the Sociology of Sport, Fort Worth, TX.
Ettore, E. M. 1980. Lesbians, Women And Society.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul
in
Gartrell, Nanette. 1984. “Combating Homophobia
The Psychotherapy
of Lesbians.”
Women And
Therapy 3:13-29.
Gentile, S. 1982. “Out of The Kitchen.” City Sports
Monthly 8:27.
Goffman, Erving. 1963. Stigma: Notes on The Manage
ment of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
SOCIOLOGICAL FOCUS
by Albert H. Hastorf and Alice M. Isen. New York:
Elsevier/Nor th-Holland.
1965. Connotations ofMovement
Metheny, Eleanor.
in Sport And Dance. Dubuque,
IA: W. C. Brown.
Morin, Stephen F. and Ellen M. Garfinkle. 1978. “Male
Journal of Social Issues 34:29-47.
Homophobia.”
1988. Homophobia:
A Weapon
Pharr, Suzanne.
of
Sexism. Inverness, CA: Chardon.
Pheterson, GaiL 1986. “Alliances between Women:
Internalized Oppression And Inter
Overcoming
nalized Domination.”
Signs: Journal ofWomen in
Culture And Society 12:146-160.
Ponse, Barbara. 1978. Identities inThe Lesbian World
The Social Construction of Self. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
J. and Mi Mi Murray.
1991.
Robert
Rotella,
The World of Sport, And Sport
“Homophobia,
Psychology Consulting.” The Sport Psychologist
5:355-364.
Schur, Edwin M. 1984. Labeling Women Deviant
Gender, Stigma, And Social Control New York:
McGraw-Hill.
1983.
Eldon E. and Elmer A. Spreitzer.
“Change And Variation inThe Social Acceptance
of Female Participation
in Sports.” Journal of
Sport Behavior 6:3-8.
And
Sophie, Joan. 1987. “Internalized Homophobia
Snyder,
Griffin, Patricia S. 1987. “Homophobia, Lesbians, And
Women’s Sports: An Exploratory Analysis.” Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the American
Psychological Association, New York.
Gross, Martin L. 1978. The Psychological Society. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Its Impact on
Guthrie, Sharon R. 1982. “Homophobia:
Women
in Sport And Physical
Education.”
Master’s
thesis. Department
of Physical Educa
tion, California State University, Long Beach.
Hargreaves, Jennifer A. 1990. “Gender on The Sports
International Review for Sociology of
Agenda.”
Sport 25:287-308.
Hicks, B. 1979. “Lesbian Athletes.” Christopher Street
45:24-50.
Lesbian
Identity.”
14:53-65.
Journal
of Homosexuality
Stockard, Jean and Miriam M. Johnson. 1980. Sex
Roles: Sex Inequality And Sex Role Development.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Em
Theberge, Nancy. 1987. “Sport And Women’s
Women’s
Studies
International
powerment.”
Forum 10:387-393.
?
Thorngren, Connie M. 1990. “A Time to Reach Out
Keeping The Female Coach inCoaching.” Journal
61:
of Physical Education, Recreation A Dance
57-60.
Janice. 1979. Women And Sports. New York:
And Women Coaches:
_1991.
“Homophobia
Viking.
Controls And Constraints.” Paper presented at the
Kitzinger, Celia. 1987. The Social Construction of
annual meetings
of the American Alliance
for
Lesbianism
London: Sage.
1973.
Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance,
Koedt, Anne, Ellen Levine and Anita Rapone.
San Francisco.
Radical Feminism. New York: Quadrangle.
and Theresa
Unger, Rhoda K., Marcia Hilderbrand
Lenskyj, Helen. 1986. Out of Bounds: Women, Sport
1982. “Physical
Attractiveness
Madar.
And
And Sexuality. Toronto: Women’s
Press.
Kaplan,
_
1990. “Power And Play: Gender And Sex
in Sport and Physical Activity.”
Review
for Sociology
of Sport
25:235-245.
uality Issues
International
_1991.
Physical
8:61-69.
in Sport And
“Combating Homophobia
Education.”
Sociology of Sport Journal
Levitt, Eugene E. and Albert D. Klassen, Jr. 1974.
“Public Attitudes toward Homosexuality:
Part of
the 1970 National Survey by The Institute forSex
Research.” Journal ofHomosexuality
1:29-43.
McArthur, Leslie Z. 1982. “Judging A Book by Its
Cover: A Cognitive Analysis of The Relationship
between Physical Appearance And Stereotyping.”
Pp. 149-211 inCognitive Social Psychology, edited
Assumptions about Social Deviance:
Sex Comparisons.”
Personality
Psychology Bulletin 8:293-301.
Some Sex-By
And
Social
Watson, Tracey. 1987. “Women Athletes And Athletic
of
Women: The Dilemmas
And Contradictions
Incongruent Identities.” Sociological
Managing
Inquiry 57:431-446.
Wolf, Charlotte. 1986. “Legitimation of Oppression:
Response And Reflexivity.” Symbolic Interaction
9:217-234.
Zipter, Yvonne. 1988. Diamonds Are A Dyke’s Best
Friend- Reflections, Reminiscences, And Reports
from The Field on The Lesbian National Pastime.
Ithaca, NY:
Firebrand
Books.
This content downloaded from 146.96.128.36 on Mon, 1 Dec 2014 09:18:00 AM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The Culture Industry:
Enlightenment as Mass Deception
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer1
The sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of
the last remnants of precapitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialization,
have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.
Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the
aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron
system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries
are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward
signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial
system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities)
was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centers look like slums,
and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise
of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.
Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in
a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary—the absolute power of
capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search
of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallize into well-organized complexes. The striking unity of
microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general
and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework
begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its
violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The
truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately
produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt
about the social utility of the finished products is removed.
Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions
participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in
innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production
centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organization
and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on
consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of
manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is
made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those
whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination
itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the
whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered.
It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardization and
mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the
social system. This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in
today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control
of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the
roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is
1
from Dialectic of Enlightenment, New York: Continuum,1993). (Originally published as Dialektik der Aufklarung, 1944)
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
1
The Culture Industry
democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs
which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters
are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal 2 field of the “amateur,” and also have to
accept organization from above. But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is
controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected
by professionals. Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they
would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favors the system
of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the
same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap
operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends
of the scale of musical experience—real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven
symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a
film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than
hot air. We are closer to the facts if we explain these phenomena as inherent in the technical and personnel
apparatus which, down to its last cog, itself forms part of the economic mechanism of selection. In
addition there is the agreement—or at least the determination—of all executive authorities not to produce
or sanction anything that in any way differs from their own rules,their own ideas about consumers, or
above all themselves.
In our age the objective social tendency is incarnate in the hidden subjective purposes of company directors, the foremost among whom are in the most powerful sectors of industry—steel, petroleum, electricity,
and chemicals. Culture monopolies are weak and dependent in comparison. They cannot afford to neglect
their appeasement of the real holders of power if their sphere of activity in mass society (a sphere producing a specific type of commodity which anyhow is still too closely bound up with easygoing liberalism
and Jewish intellectuals) is not to undergo a series of purges. The dependence of the most powerful broadcasting company on the electrical industry, or of the motion picture industry on the banks, is characteristic
of the whole sphere, whose individual branches are themselves economically interwoven. All are in such
close contact that the extreme concentration of mental forces allows demarcation lines between different
firms and technical branches to be ignored. The ruthless unity in the culture industry is evidence of what
will happen in politics. Marked differentiations such as those of A and B films, or of stories in magazines
in different price ranges, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organizing, and labeling consumers. Something is provided for all so that none may escape; the distinctions are emphasized
and extended. The public is catered for with a hierarchical range of mass-produced products of varying
quality, thus advancing the rule of complete quantification. Everybody must behave (as if spontaneously)
in accordance with his previously determined and indexed level, and choose the category of mass product
turned out for his type. Consumers appear as statistics on research organization charts, and are divided by
income groups into red, green, and blue areas; the technique is that used for any type of propaganda.
How formalized the procedure is can be seen when the mechanically differentiated products prove to
be all alike in the end. That the difference between the Chrysler range and General Motors products
is basically illusory strikes every child with a keen interest in varieties. What connoisseurs discuss as
good or bad points serve only to perpetuate the semblance of competition and range of choice. The same
applies to the Warner Brothers and Metro Goldwyn Mayer productions. But even the differences between
the more expensive and cheaper models put out by the same firm steadily diminish: for automobiles,
there are such differences as the number of cylinders, cubic capacity, details of patented gadgets; and
for films there are the number of stars, the extravagant use of technology, labor, and equipment, and
the introduction of the latest psychological formulas. The universal criterion of merit is the amount of
2
Apocryphal: of doubtful authenticity: spurious
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
2
The Culture Industry
“conspicuous production,” of blatant cash investment. The varying budgets in the culture industry do not
bear the slightest relation to factual values, to the meaning of the products themselves. Even the technical
media are relentlessly forced into uniformity. Television aims at a synthesis of radio and film, and is
held up only because the interested parties have not yet reached agreement, but its consequences will
be quite enormous and promise to intensify the impoverishment of aesthetic matter so drastically, that
by tomorrow the thinly veiled identity of all industrial culture products can come triumphantly out into
the open, derisively fulfilling the Wagnerian dream of the Gesamtkunstwerk—the fusion of all the arts
in one work. The alliance of word, image, and music is all the more perfect than in Tristan because the
sensuous elements which all approvingly reflect the surface of social reality are in principle embodied in
the same technical process, the unity of which becomes its distinctive content. This process integrates
all the elements of the production, from the novel (shaped with an eye to the film) to the last sound
effect. It is the triumph of invested capital, whose title as absolute master is etched deep into the hearts
of the dispossessed in the employment line; it is the meaningful content of every film, whatever plot the
production team may have selected.
The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him. Kant’s formalism still
expected a contribution from the individual, who was thought to relate the varied experiences of the senses
to fundamental concepts; but industry robs the individual of his function. Its prime service to the customer
is to do his schematizing for him. Kant said that there was a secret mechanism in the soul which prepared
direct intuitions in such a way that they could be fitted into the system of pure reason. But today that secret
has been deciphered. While the mechanism is to all appearances planned by those who serve up the data
of experience, that is, by the culture industry, it is in fact forced upon the latter by the power of society,
which remains irrational, however we may try to rationalize it; and this inescapable force is processed by
commercial agencies so that they give an artificial impression of being in command. There is nothing left
for the consumer to classify. Producers have done it for him. Art for the masses has destroyed the dream
but still conforms to the tenets of that dreaming idealism which critical idealism balked at. Everything
derives from consciousness: for Malebranche and Berkeley, from the consciousness of God; in mass art,
from the consciousness of the production team. Not only are the hit songs, stars, and soap operas cyclically
recurrent and rigidly invariable types, but the specific content of the entertainment itself is derived from
them and only appears to change. The details are interchangeable. The short interval sequence which was
effective in a hit song, the hero’s momentary fall from grace (which he accepts as good sport), the rough
treatment which the beloved gets from the male star, the latter’s rugged defiance of the spoilt heiress,
are, like all the other details, ready-made clichés to be slotted in anywhere; they never do anything more
than fulfill the purpose allotted them in the overall plan. Their whole raison d’être is to confirm it by
being its constituent parts. As soon as the film begins, it is quite clear how it will end, and who will be
rewarded, punished, or forgotten. In light music, once the trained ear has heard the first notes of the hit
song, it can guess what is coming and feel flattered when it does come. The average length of the short
story has to be rigidly adhered to. Even gags, effects, and jokes are calculated like the setting in which
they are placed. They are the responsibility of special experts and their narrow range makes it easy for
them to be apportioned in the office. The development of the culture industry has led to the predominance
of the effect, the obvious touch, and the technical detail over the work itself—which once expressed an
idea, but was liquidated together with the idea. When the detail won its freedom, it became rebellious
and, in the period from Romanticism to Expressionism, asserted itself as free expression, as a vehicle of
protest against the organization. In music the single harmonic effect obliterated the awareness of form
as a whole; in painting the individual color was stressed at the expense of pictorial composition; and in
the novel psychology became more important than structure. The totality of the culture industry has put
an end to this. Though concerned exclusively with effects, it crushes their insubordination and makes
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
3
The Culture Industry
them subserve the formula, which replaces the work. The same fate is inflicted on whole and parts alike.
The whole inevitably bears no relation to the details—just like the career of a successful man into which
everything is made to fit as an illustration or a proof, whereas it is nothing more than the sum of all those
idiotic events. The so-called dominant idea is like a file which ensures order but not coherence. The
whole and the parts are alike; there is no antithesis and no connection. Their prearranged harmony is a
mockery of what had to be striven after in the great bourgeois works of art. In Germany the graveyard
stillness of the dictatorship already hung over the gayest films of the democratic era. The whole world is
made to pass through the filter of the culture industry. The old experience of the movie-goer, who sees
the world outside as an extension of the film he has just left (because the latter is intent upon reproducing
the world of everyday perceptions), is now the producer’s guideline. The more intensely and flawlessly
his techniques duplicate empirical objects, the easier it is today for the illusion to prevail that the outside
world is the straightforward continuation of that presented on the screen. This purpose has been furthered
by mechanical reproduction since the lightning takeover by the sound film.
Real life is becoming indistinguishable from the movies. The sound film, far surpassing the theater of
illusion, leaves no room for imagination or reflection on the part of the audience, who is unable to respond within the structure of the film, yet deviate from its precise detail without losing the thread of the
story; hence the film forces its victims to equate it directly with reality. The stunting of the mass-media
consumer’s powers of imagination and spontaneity does not have to be traced back to any psychological
mechanisms; he must ascribe the loss of those attributes to the objective nature of the products themselves,
especially to the most characteristic of them, the sound film. They are so designed that quickness, powers
of observation, and experience are undeniably needed to apprehend them at all; yet sustained thought is
out of the question if the spectator is not to miss the relentless rush of facts. Even though the effort required for his response is semi-automatic, no scope is left for the imagination. Those who are so absorbed
by the world of the movie—by its images, gestures, and words—that they are unable to supply what really
makes it a world, do not have to dwell on particular points of its mechanics during a screening. All the
other films and products of the entertainment industry which they have seen have taught them what to
expect; they react automatically. The might of industrial society is lodged in men’s minds. The entertainment manufacturers know that their products will be consumed with alertness even when the customer is
distraught, for each of them is a model of the huge economic machinery which has always sustained the
masses, whether at work or at leisure—which is akin to work. From every sound film and every broadcast
program the social effect can be inferred which is exclusive to none but is shared by all alike. The culture
industry as a whole has molded men as a type unfailingly reproduced in every product. All the agents of
this process, from the producer to the women’s clubs, take good care that the simple reproduction of this
mental state is not nuanced or extended in any way.
The art historians and guardians of culture who complain of the extinction in the West of a basic styledetermining power are wrong. The stereotyped appropriation of everything, even the inchoate 3 , for the
purposes of mechanical reproduction surpasses the rigor and general currency of any “real style,” in the
sense in which cultural cognoscenti4 celebrate the organic precapitalist past. No Palestrina could be more
of a purist in eliminating every unprepared and unresolved discord than the jazz arranger in suppressing
any development which does not conform to the jargon. When jazzing up Mozart he changes him not
only when he is too serious or too difficult but when he harmonizes the melody in a different way, perhaps
more simply, than is customary now. No medieval builder can have scrutinized the subjects for church
windows and sculptures more suspiciously than the studio hierarchy scrutinizes a work by Balzac or Hugo
before finally approving it. No medieval theologian could have determined the degree of the torment
3
4
Inchoate: being only partly in existence or operation; imperfectly formed or formulated
Cognoscenti: People especially knowledgeable in a subject: connoisseurs.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
4
The Culture Industry
to be suffered by the damned in accordance with the ordo of divine love more meticulously than the
producers of shoddy epics calculate the torture to be undergone by the hero or the exact point to which
the leading lady’s hemline shall be raised. The explicit and implicit, exoteric 5 and esoteric6 catalog of
the forbidden and tolerated is so extensive that it not only defines the area of freedom but is all-powerful
inside it. Everything down to the last detail is shaped accordingly. Like its counterpart, avant-garde art,
the entertainment industry determines its own language, down to its very syntax and vocabulary, by the
use of anathema7 . The constant pressure to produce new effects (which must conform to the old pattern)
serves merely as another rule to increase the power of the conventions when any single effect threatens
to slip through the net. Every detail is so firmly stamped with sameness that nothing can appear which
is not marked at birth, or does not meet with approval at first sight. And the star performers, whether
they produce or reproduce, use this jargon as freely and fluently and with as much gusto as if it were the
very language which it silenced long ago. Such is the ideal of what is natural in this field of activity, and
its influence becomes all the more powerful, the more technique is perfected and diminishes the tension
between the finished product and everyday life. The paradox of this routine, which is essentially travesty,
can be detected and is often predominant in everything that the culture industry turns out. A jazz musician
who is playing a piece of serious music, one of Beethoven’s simplest minuets, syncopates it involuntarily
and will smile superciliously when asked to follow the normal divisions of the beat. This is the “nature”
which, complicated by the ever-present and extravagant demands of the specific medium, constitutes the
new style and is a “system of non-culture, to which one might even concede a certain ’unity of style’ if it
really made any sense to speak of stylized barbarity.”8
The universal imposition of this stylized mode can even go beyond what is quasi-officially sanctioned or
forbidden; today a hit song is more readily forgiven for not observing the 32 beats or the compass of the
ninth than for containing even the most clandestine melodic or harmonic detail which does not conform
to the idiom. Whenever Orson Welles offends against the tricks of the trade, he is forgiven because his
departures from the norm are regarded as calculated mutations which serve all the more strongly to confirm
the validity of the system. The constraint of the technically-conditioned idiom which stars and directors
have to produce as “nature” so that the people can appropriate it, extends to such fine nuances that they
almost attain the subtlety of the devices of an avant-garde work as against those of truth. The rare capacity
minutely to fulfill the obligations of the natural idiom in all branches of the culture industry becomes
the criterion of efficiency. What and how they say it must be measurable by everyday language, as in
logical positivism. The producers are experts. The idiom demands an astounding productive power, which
it absorbs and squanders. In a diabolical way it has overreached the culturally conservative distinction
between genuine and artificial style. A style might be called artificial which is imposed from without on
the refractory impulses of a form. But in the culture industry every element of the subject matter has its
origin in the same apparatus as that jargon whose stamp it bears. The quarrels in which the artistic experts
become involved with sponsor and censor about a lie going beyond the bounds of credibility are evidence
not so much of an inner aesthetic tension as of a divergence of interests. The reputation of the specialist,
in which a last remnant of objective independence sometimes finds refuge, conflicts with the business
politics of the Church, or the concern which is manufacturing the cultural commodity. But the thing itself
has been essentially objectified and made viable before the established authorities began to argue about
it. Even before Zanuck acquired her, Saint Bernadette was regarded by her latter-day hagiographer 9 as
brilliant propaganda for all interested parties. That is what became of the emotions of the character. Hence
5
Exoteric: belonging to the outer or less initiate circle
Esoteric: designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone.
7
Anathema: someone or something intensely disliked or loathed
8
Nietzsche, Unzeirgemfisse Betrachtungen, Werke, Vol. I (Leipzig, 1917), p. 187.
9
Hagiographer: a writer of an idealizing or idolizing biography.
6
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
5
The Culture Industry
the style of the culture industry, which no longer has to test itself against any refractory material, is also
the negation of style. The reconciliation of the general and particular, of the rule and the specific demands
of the subject matter, the achievement of which alone gives essential, meaningful content to style, is futile
because there has ceased to be the slightest tension between opposite poles: these concordant extremes are
dismally identical; the general can replace the particular, and vice versa.
Nevertheless, this caricature of style does not amount to something beyond the genuine style of the past.
In the culture industry the notion of genuine style is seen to be the aesthetic equivalent of domination.
Style considered as mere aesthetic regularity is a romantic dream of the past. The unity of style not only
of the Christian Middle Ages but of the Renaissance expresses in each case the different structure of social
power, and not the obscure experience of the oppressed in which the general was enclosed. The great
artists were never those who embodied a wholly flawless and perfect style, but those who used style as
a way of hardening themselves against the chaotic expression of suffering, as a negative truth. The style
of their works gave what was expressed that force without which life flows away unheard. Those very
art forms which are known as classical, such as Mozart’s music, contain objective trends which represent
something different to the style which they incarnate. As late as Schönberg and Picasso, the great artists
have retained a mistrust of style, and at crucial points have subordinated it to the logic of the matter.
What Dadaists and Expressionists called the untruth of style as such triumphs today in the sung jargon
of a crooner, in the carefully contrived elegance of a film star, and even in the admirable expertise of a
photograph of a peasant’s squalid hut. Style represents a promise in every work of art. That which is
expressed is subsumed through style into the dominant forms of generality, into the language of music,
painting, or words, in the hope that it will be reconciled thus with the idea of true generality. This promise
held out by the work of art that it will create truth by lending new shape to the conventional social forms
is as necessary as it is hypocritical. It unconditionally posits the real forms of life as it is by suggesting
that fulfillment lies in their aesthetic derivatives. To this extent the claim of art is always ideology too.
However, only in this confrontation with tradition of which style is the record can art express suffering.
That factor in a work of art which enables it to transcend reality certainly cannot be detached from style;
but it does not consist of the harmony actually realized, of any doubtful unity of form and content, within
and without, of individual and society; it is to be found in those features in which discrepancy appears:
in the necessary failure of the passionate striving for identity. Instead of exposing itself to this failure in
which the style of the great work of art has always achieved self-negation, the inferior work has always
relied on its similarity with others—on a surrogate identity.
In the culture industry this imitation finally becomes absolute. Having ceased to be anything but style, it
reveals the latter’s secret: obedience to the social hierarchy. Today aesthetic barbarity completes what has
threatened the creations of the spirit since they were gathered together as culture and neutralized. To speak
of culture was always contrary to culture. Culture as a common denominator already contains in embryo
that schematization and process of cataloging and classification which bring culture within the sphere
of administration. And it is precisely the industrialized, the consequent, subsumption 10 which entirely
accords with this notion of culture. By subordinating in the same way and to the same end all areas of
intellectual creation, by occupying men’s senses from the time they leave the factory in the evening to
the time they clock in again the next morning with matter that bears the impress of the labor process
they themselves have to sustain throughout the day, this subsumption mockingly satisfies the concept of a
unified culture which the philosophers of personality contrasted with mass culture.
10
Subsumption: the act or process of including or placing within something larger or more comprehensive.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
6
The Culture Industry
And so the culture industry, the most rigid of all styles, proves to be the goal of liberalism, which is reproached for its lack of style. Not only do its categories and contents derive from liberalism—domesticated
naturalism as well as operetta and revue—but the modern culture monopolies form the economic area in
which, together with the corresponding entrepreneurial types, for the time being some part of its sphere of
operation survives, despite the process of disintegration elsewhere. It is still possible to make one’s way
in entertainment, if one is not too obstinate about one’s own concerns, and proves appropriately pliable.
Anyone who resists can only survive by fitting in. Once his particular brand of deviation from the norm
has been noted by the industry, he belongs to it as does the land-reformer to capitalism. Realistic dissidence11 is the trademark of anyone who has a new idea in business. In the public voice of modern society
accusations are seldom audible; if they are, the perceptive can already detect signs that the dissident will
soon be reconciled. The more immeasurable the gap between chorus and leaders, the more certainly there
is room at the top for everybody who demonstrates his superiority by well-planned originality. Hence,
in the culture industry, too, the liberal tendency to give full scope to its able men survives. To do this
for the efficient today is still the function of the market, which is otherwise proficiently controlled; as
for the market’s freedom, in the high period of art as elsewhere, it was freedom for the stupid to starve.
Significantly, the system of the culture industry comes from the more liberal industrial nations, and all its
characteristic media, such as movies, radio, jazz, and magazines, flourish there. Its progress, to be sure,
had its origin in the general laws of capital. Gaumont and Pathe, Ullstein and Hugenberg followed the
international trend with some success; Europe’s economic dependence on the United States after war and
inflation was a contributory factor. The belief that the barbarity of the culture industry is a result of “cultural lag,” of the fact that the American consciousness did not keep up with the growth of technology, is
quite wrong. It was pre-Fascist Europe which did not keep up with the trend toward the culture monopoly.
But it was this very lag which left intellect and creativity some degree of independence and enabled its
last representatives to exist—however dismally. In Germany the failure of democratic control to permeate life had led to a paradoxical situation. Many things were exempt from the market mechanism which
had invaded the Western countries. The German educational system, universities, theaters with artistic
standards, great orchestras, and museums enjoyed protection. The political powers, state and municipalities, which had inherited such institutions from absolutism, had left them with a measure of the freedom
from the forces of power which dominates the market, just as princes and feudal lords had done up to
the nineteenth century. This strengthened art in this late phase against the verdict of supply and demand,
and increased its resistance far beyond the actual degree of protection. In the market itself the tribute of
a quality for which no use had been found was turned into purchasing power; in this way, respectable
literary and music publishers could help authors who yielded little more in the way of profit than the respect of the connoisseur. But what completely fettered the artist was the pressure (and the accompanying
drastic threats), always to fit into business life as an aesthetic expert. Formerly, like Kant and Hume, they
signed their letters “Your most humble and obedient servant,” and undermined the foundations of throne
and altar. Today they address heads of government by their first names, yet in every artistic activity they
are subject to their illiterate masters. The analysis Tocqueville offered a century ago has in the meantime
proved wholly accurate. Under the private culture monopoly it is a fact that “tyranny leaves the body free
and directs its attack at the soul. The ruler no longer says: You must think as I do or die. He says: You are
free not to think as I do; your life, your property, everything shall remain yours, but from this day on you
are a stranger among us.”12 Not to conform means to be rendered powerless, economically and therefore
spiritually—to be “self-employed.” When the outsider is excluded from the concern, he can only too easily
be accused of incompetence. Whereas today in material production the mechanism of supply and demand
is disintegrating, in the superstructure it still operates as a check in the rulers’ favor. The consumers are
11
12
Dissidence: dissent
Alexis de Tocqueville, De la Democracie en Amerique, Vol. II (Paris, 1864), p. 151.
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
7
The Culture Industry
the workers and employees, the farmers and lower middle class. Capitalist production so confines them,
body and soul, that they fall helpless victims to what is offered them. As naturally as the ruled always
took the morality imposed upon them more seriously than did the rulers themselves, the deceived masses
are today captivated by the myth of success even more than the successful are. Immovably, they insist on
the very ideology which enslaves them. The misplaced love of the common people for the wrong which is
done them is a greater force than the cunning of the authorities. It is stronger even than the rigorism of the
Hays Office, just as in certain great times in history it has inflamed greater forces that were turned against
it, namely, the terror of the tribunals. It calls for Mickey Rooney in preference to the tragic Garbo, for
Donald Duck instead of Betty Boop. The industry submits to the vote which it has itself inspired. What
is a loss for the firm which cannot fully exploit a contract with a declining star is a legitimate expense
for the system as a whole. By craftily sanctioning the demand for rubbish it inaugurates total harmony.
The connoisseur and the expert are despised for their pretentious claim to know better than the others,
even though culture is democratic and distributes its privileges to all. In view of the ideological truce, the
conformism of the buyers and the effrontery of the producers who supply them prevail. The result is a
constant reproduction of the same thing.
A constant sameness governs the relationship to the past as well. What is new about the phase of mass
culture compared with the late liberal stage is the exclusion of the new. The machine rotates on the same
spot. While determining consumption it excludes the untried as a risk. The movie-makers distrust any
manuscript which is not reassuringly backed by a bestseller. Yet for this very reason there is never-ending
talk of ideas, novelty, and surprise, of what is taken for granted but has never existed. Tempo and dynamics
serve this trend. Nothing remains as of old; everything has to run incessantly, to keep moving. For only
the universal triumph of the rhythm of mechanical production and reproduction promises that nothing
changes, and nothing unsuitable will appear. Any additions to the well-proven culture inventory are too
much of a speculation. The ossified forms—such as the sketch, short story, problem film, or hit song—are
the standardized average of late liberal taste, dictated with threats from above. The people at the top in the
culture agencies, who work in harmony as only one manager can with another, whether he comes from
the rag trade or from college, have long since reorganized and rationalized the objective spirit. One might
think that an omnipresent authority had sifted the material and drawn up an official catalog of cultural
commodities to provide a smooth supply of available mass-produced lines. The ideas are written in the
cultural firmament where they had already been numbered by Plato—and were indeed numbers, incapable
of increase and immutable.
Amusement and all the elements of the culture industry existed long before the latter came into existence.
Now they are taken over from above and brought up to date. The culture industry can pride itself on
having energetically executed the previously clumsy transposition of art into the sphere of consumption,
on making this a principle, on divesting amusement of its obtrusive naivetes and improving the type of
commodities. The more absolute it became, the more ruthless it was in forcing every outsider either into
bankruptcy or into a syndicate, and became more refined and elevated—until it ended up as a synthesis
of Beethoven and the Casino de Paris. It enjoys a double victory: the truth it extinguishes without it can
reproduce at will as a lie within. “Light” art as such, distraction, is not a decadent form. Anyone who
complains that it is a betrayal of the ideal of pure expression is under an illusion about society. The purity
of bourgeois art, which hypostatized13 itself as a world of freedom in contrast to what was happening in
the material world, was from the beginning bought with the exclusion of the lower classes—with whose
cause, the real universality, art keeps faith precisely by its freedom from the ends of the false universality.
Serious art has been withheld from those for whom the hardship and oppression of life make a mockery
of seriousness, and who must be glad if they can use time not spent at the production line just to keep
13
Hypostatized: attributed a real identity to (a concept)
Theodor Adorno and Max Horkneimer
8
The Culture Industry
going. Light art has been the shadow of autonomous art. It is the social bad conscience of serious art. The
truth which the latter necessarily lacked because of its social premises gives the other the semblance of
legitimacy. The division itself is the truth: it does at least express the negativity of the culture which the
different spheres constitute. Least of all can the antithesis be reconciled by absorbing light into serious
art, or vice versa. But that is what the culture industry attempts. The eccentricity of the circus, peepshow,
and brothel is as embarrassing to it as that of Schönberg and Karl Kraus. And so the jazz musician Benny
Goodman appears with the Budapest string quartet, more pedantic rhythmically than any philharmonic
clarinettist, while the style of the Budapest players is as uniform and sugary as that of Guy Lombardo.
But what is significant is not vulgarity, stupidity, and lack of polish. The culture industry did away with
yesterday’s rubbish by its own perfection, and by forbidding and domesticating the amateurish, although
it constantly allows gross blunders without which the standard of the exalted style cannot be perceived.
But what is new is that the irreconcilable elements of culture, art and distraction, are subordinated to one
end and subsumed under one false formula: the totality of the culture industry. It consists of repetition.
That its characteristic innovations are never anything more than improvements of mass reproduction is not
external to the system. It is with good reason that the interest of innumerable consumers is directed to the
technique, and not to the contents—which are stubbornly repeated, outworn, and by now half-discredited.
The social power which the spectators worship shows itself more effectively in the omnipresence of the
stereotype imposed by technical skill than in the stale ideologies for which the ephemeral contents stand
in.
Nevertheless the culture industry remains the entertainment business. Its influence over the consumers is
established by entertainment; that will ultimately be broken not by an outright decree, but by the hostility
inherent in the principle of entertainment to what is greater than itself. Since all the trends of the culture
industry are profoundly embedded in the public by the whole social process, they are encouraged by the
survival of the market in this area. Demand has not yet been replaced by simple obedience. As is well
known, the major reorganization of the film industry shortly before Worl…