coolbeans, 3/29

This week in class there was a quote that particularly stuck out for me. "To be entertained means to be in agreement” (57). This was particularly interesting to me because I was trying to think of ways in which this statement could be false. The statement is true in every scenario that I could think of. The quote seems strange because we never think of entertainment as agreement. If someone were to ask me if I knew a synonym for entertainment the first word to come to my mind would certainly not be agreement. Usually, entertainment is associated with fun, leisure, amusement, or hobbies. I found it interesting that Horkheimer and Adorno had equated entertainment with agreement because it is a highly critical way of viewing entertainment. Entertainment which is seen as something fun, interesting, exciting, is shown as something to be conformed to. It is as if those who agree to buy into this “entertainment” are being suckered into believing something. It just goes to show that everything does require ideology in order to be something. If nobody bought into entertainment then it would be nothing. It is a little bit similar to the idea that for something to have value people must place a value on it. A product will not be considered valuable if nobody cares about it. Similarly, entertainment cannot exist if people do not agree to the terms required of them to be entertained. For example, a person who goes to see a hypnotist show will not be entertained if they go into the experience having already decided that hypnotism is not real. Whereas a person who allows himself to be open to the experience will be entertained when he sees the people undergoing hypnosis. It is strange to view such an ordinary everyday concept such as entertainment in a critical way, as something that needs to be bought into.