The ‘standardisation’[3] of these products becomes necessary for mass consumption but they also begin to set norms for female fashion and clothing. This has a larger politico-socio-cultural impact on women, specifically women’s bodies. Their choices are dictated by the larger capitalised and homogenised culture propagated through social media and mass media. These practices historically proved to be detrimental to women’s bodies but are now being appropriated by a large section of the female population. The practices of ‘high culture’ of the Victorian era, are now largely a part of ‘mass culture’ in the 21st century. This article aims to explore Bridgerton, an American period drama of the Regency era, a time of coming-out parties, high teas, lavish balls, high society and, strict social etiquette for women through the lens of Adorno’s ‘culture industry’[4].
Bridgerton is a unique amalgamation of the portrayal of both high and low culture wherein practices of high culture are romanticised and glorified. It is ironic that the juxtaposition of a period drama (in normal circumstances highly patriarchal) with well-rounded female characters is what makes it popular among the female demographic but at the same time makes them prey to the ‘culture industry’. Even though the drama did not aim to capitalise on women’s clothing, the impact and affinity of viewers to the show have led the fashion industry to commodify and standardise certain products for mass consumption that primarily targets the female population.
Bridgerton is a unique amalgamation of the portrayal of both high and low culture wherein practices of high culture are romanticised and glorified. It is ironic that the juxtaposition of a period drama (in normal circumstances highly patriarchal) with well-rounded female characters is what makes it popular among the female demographic but at the same time makes them prey to the ‘culture industry’. Even though the drama did not aim to capitalise on women’s clothing, the impact and affinity of viewers to the show have led the fashion industry to commodify and standardise certain products for mass consumption that primarily targets the female population.
Ever walk into a supermarket for necessities like groceries and come out buying every ‘self-care’ product or any commodity other than groceries that the mart had to offer? It happens because capitalist consumerism has reached its epitome in the 21st century wherein every choice one makes is dictated by the ‘culture industry’. The capitalist consumerist culture provides bizarre instances like events being organised on educating people about Marxism end with the organisers selling posters and badges of Karl Marx and his quotes. One is aware that Marx particularly would not be thrilled with such practices. Such anomalies arise because of the ‘culture industry’ constantly dictating consumers’ choices and practices through mass media and social media. With the advent of mediums like social media, the entrenchment of homogenised mass cultures has become rampant because social media has a far greater reach than traditional mass media. The over-the-top (OTT) platforms allow the masses to indulge in watching TV shows and films from the comfort of their homes which has enhanced access to such mediums facilitating awareness about pop culture and practices among the masses. Bridgerton is one such soap available on Netflix, an OTT platform that caters to the masses.
Adorno’s distinction between high culture and low culture is rooted in his critical theory and his analysis of the ‘culture industry’. According to Adorno, high culture refers to the artistic and intellectual expressions that are created and consumed by the elite or upper classes. It is art for art’s sake. It is characterised by complexity, depth, and critical engagement, often challenging established norms and pushing the boundaries of artistic expression. On the other hand, low culture, or popular culture, refers to the mass-produced cultural products that cater to the tastes and preferences of the masses, typically associated with entertainment and escapism.
Before analysing the appropriation of corsets and high teas of the Victorian era (almost specifically in 1838)[5] in the 21st century because of shows like Bridgerton created by Chris Van Dusen for Netflix, one must delve into the nuances of the term ‘culture industry’ proposed by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in the chapter “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception” in Dialectic of Enlightenment. Iris Murdoch claimed Adorno’s philosophy may be called the ‘new philosophy of consciousness’[6] as it brought to light the absolute power of capitalism wherein “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.”[7] Postmodernists who aimed to democratise art were not too keen on Adorno’s elitist defending of ‘esoteric artistic modernism against culture available to all’[8] but this would be a reductionist reading of Adorno’s work on the culture industry. Adorno’s distinction between high culture and low culture is rooted in his critical theory and his analysis of the ‘culture industry’. According to Adorno, high culture refers to the artistic and intellectual expressions that are created and consumed by the elite or upper classes. It is art for art’s sake. It is characterised by complexity, depth, and critical engagement, often challenging established norms and pushing the boundaries of artistic expression. On the other hand, low culture, or popular culture, refers to the mass-produced cultural products that cater to the tastes and preferences of the masses, typically associated with entertainment and escapism. Cultural products[9], are the constituents of popular culture or mass culture in Adorno’s conception including film, horoscope, jazz, radio, soap operas, and television serials among others. Under the aegis of capitalism, the reception of cultural commodities was to be done through ‘exchange value’ and not ‘use value’[10]. Through the process of fetishisation, these cultural ‘commodities’ were no longer assessed through their use value. Standardisation of these ‘commodities’ makes them interchangeable; the specificity of culture no longer matters. Mass culture therefore contrary to its name is not centred around the masses but is a top-down imposition of culture produced for ‘mass consumption’[11].
“The culture industry exists in the service of third persons, maintaining its affinity to the declining circulation process of capital, to the commerce from which it came into being. Its ideology above all makes use of the star system, borrowed from individualistic art and its commercial exploitation.”[12] For instance, one enters an art museum to marvel at the creations of great artists and ponders upon the emotions that one feels when one sees the art. To borrow from Gadamer, what takes place is a ‘fusion of horizons’[13] wherein the viewer’s temporal, and spatial realities meet the artists’. This would be a practice of high culture. Taking another instance which extends the aforementioned instance is when the same viewer who has formed an intimate connection with the artists at the museum walks out to enter a gift shop to buy a coffee mug that has one of the paintings of an artist this individual admired at the museum. This individual (the viewer) buys many such souvenirs that have these works of art slathered across them through technological innovations and have been mass-produced with an ensured never-ending supply. This would be considered a practice of low culture or mass culture as such a practice entails the commodification of art, a mere instrument in the machinery of the ‘culture industry’. The consumer is no longer interested in the product (here the original painting) but in the packaging (the souvenir). This is facilitated by the monopolist capitalist industry wherein this piece of art loses its authentic cultural context and becomes a standardised marketable commodity.
Many of Adorno’s critics find his theory elitist and reductionist but his explanation of ‘culture industry’ in Culture Industry Reconsidered can make one ‘reconsider’ their apprehension about the conception. Adorno and Rabinbach state, “Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and the unconscious state of millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation, an appendage of the machinery. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would like us to believe, not its subject but its object.” Hence masses are treated as a means to an end “even though culture industry itself could scarcely exist without adapting to the masses.”[15] The culture industry aims not to democratise art but to commodify and capitalise on it.
Standardisation is necessary for mass consumption. Many of Adorno’s critics find his theory elitist and reductionist but his explanation of ‘culture industry’ in Culture Industry Reconsidered can make one ‘reconsider’ their apprehension about the conception. Adorno and Rabinbach state, “Although the culture industry undeniably speculates on the conscious and the unconscious state of millions towards which it is directed, the masses are not primary, but secondary, they are an object of calculation, an appendage of the machinery. The customer is not king, as the culture industry would like us to believe, not its subject but its object.”[14] Hence masses are treated as a means to an end “even though culture industry itself could scarcely exist without adapting to the masses.”[15] The culture industry aims not to democratise art but to commodify and capitalise on it. Therefore, the postmodernist critique of Adorno’s conception of ‘culture industry’ loses ground. “The autonomy of works of art, which of course rarely ever predominated in an entirely pure form, and was always permeated by a constellation of effects, is tendentially eliminated by the culture industry, with or without the conscious will of those in control. The latter include both those who carry out directives as well as those in control” [16] The culture industry therefore ‘articulates’[17] the interests and ideas of the masses creating a ‘false consciousness’[18] that guides their choices. The capacity to make choices as Nussbaum would state is the essence of a human being and the culture industry dictates these very choices making the masses a mere instrument for profit making. What Adorno perhaps fails to consider is the fluidity of culture that is eliminated when a sharp distinction is made between high and low culture. It is often seen as a reductionist account because of its rigid hierarchisation and binary divisions. When applying this framework to the television series Bridgerton, one witnesses elements of both high and mass culture at play. Bridgerton is a period drama based in the Victorian Era with all the flair of the Regency. It is based on the book series by Julia Quinn. Considering the lack of agency and portrayal of women as docile ‘monosyllabic and similes of one another’[19] in period dramas, Bridgerton is a breath of fresh air. The characters of women in the drama are well-rounded and layered. The experiences of women are diverse in this very setting portrayed through different characters reflecting strength but also vulnerability. Neither of the female characters is either good or evil but human which resonated with the audience, especially the female audience. Much of the drama revolves around the women of the ton. In May 2023, Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story was released which is a spinoff series almost like a prequel to Bridgerton. The series has an inclusive cast and being a fiction it handwaves the reality of racism. Aspects of racism are explored in Queen Charlotte, but Bridgerton is based on a utopian high society in London. What makes Bridgerton an interesting drama to study is that it has more to offer than ‘overheated escapism’[20]. It may be produced for the masses but is a portrayal of high culture and the realities of the same. Since it is fiction, history is moulded to fit the narrative of the script but nevertheless, it appears appealing to many as it presents the audience with a utopia with a heady mix of real-time practices.
What makes Bridgerton an interesting drama to study is that it has more to offer than ‘overheated escapism’. It may be produced for the masses but is a portrayal of high culture and the realities of the same. Since it is fiction, history is moulded to fit the narrative of the script but nevertheless, it appears appealing to many as it presents the audience with a utopia with a heady mix of real-time practices.
It deals with sexuality (with a special emphasis on female sexuality), high culture and low culture in a stratified society, and women’s agency making it a fascinating case study in the interplay between art, entertainment, and social commentary. In terms of low culture, Bridgerton incorporates many elements that are characteristic of popular culture. It is a period drama with a strong focus on romance and relationships, and it employs a formulaic structure that is familiar to many viewers. Characters like Madame Delacroix (played by Kathryn Drysdale), Marina Thompson (played by Ruby Barker), and Sienna Rosso (played by Sabrina Barlett) among others are adequate examples of how women belonging to lower strata of society can reclaim agency through wit, entrepreneurship wherein they are not dependent on a man for exploring their freedom. The series also features lavish costumes, intricate set designs, and visually stunning cinematography, which contribute to its entertainment value. Additionally, Bridgerton embraces elements of melodrama, heightened emotions, and exaggerated plotlines, all of which are often associated with popular culture and mass culture.
When it comes to background score, something that is intriguing about the series is that it takes ‘pop hits’ (originally songs of Taylor Swift, Beyonce, Ariana Grande, Ed Sheeran, Billie Eilish, and Cold Play among other pop artists) which would perhaps be considered mass culture through Adorno’s lens as it is produced for mass consumption and turns these into instrumental classical music which would perhaps be considered a part of high culture. This amalgamation of high and low culture is what makes Bridgerton an intriguing case study. This fluidity is a missing link in Adorno’s bifocal distinction between the two types of cultures.
There is a clear distinction made through the costumes and the colour themes in the show. The Bridgerton family, well revered coming from old money are seen wearing hues of a pastel blue, lavender embroidery, and pearly ruffles that are markers of noble lineage. The Featheringtons (neighbours of the Bridgerton Family) are seen in a brighter more flamboyant colour palette as they are described in the book to be resembling ‘fruit baskets’. They are seen wearing canary yellow, loud prints, Pomona green representing a family with new money who must constantly reassert themselves as respected members of the ton.
However, Bridgerton also inevitably glorifies elements of high culture. Despite being a historical romance, the series incorporates contemporary themes and social issues, such as race, class, and gender, which are explored through its diverse cast and reimagined historical setting. It also addresses the power dynamics and societal constraints of the period, offering a critical commentary on the rigid social hierarchy and the limitations placed on women. Furthermore, Bridgerton incorporates classical music, literature references, and witty dialogues, adding a layer of intellectual engagement that resonates with high culture. Women are often seen wearing. There is a clear distinction made through the costumes and the colour themes in the show. The Bridgerton family, well revered coming from old money are seen wearing hues of a pastel blue, lavender embroidery, and pearly ruffles[21] that are markers of noble lineage. The Featheringtons (neighbours of the Bridgerton Family) are seen in a brighter more flamboyant colour palette as they are described in the book to be resembling ‘fruit baskets’. They are seen wearing canary yellow, loud prints, Pomona green[22] representing a family with new money who must constantly reassert themselves as respected members of the ton. There is a clear divide in clothing when it comes to the maids in the household wherein the colours remain mostly in hues of browns and greys. This stratification is depicted scenically in the show. What is common in all the costumes of women of all classes in the show are corsets or corset-like tops.
The visual appeal and aesthetic of the corsets worn by the characters, particularly the female protagonists, have captured the attention of viewers and fashion enthusiasts alike. Thus, emulating such styles was inevitable. This piece of clothing has long been a patriarchal instrument that resulted in deforming women’s bodies. There were used to compress the natural waist and were hazardous, to say the least. Wearing corsets at the time (16th to 19th century) was a norm among women but women’s liberation came by discarding such pieces of shapewear. The popularity of corset tops can be seen as an example of how popular culture, such as television and film, can influence fashion trends and consumer preferences.
Corsets are an accessory of the Victorian era that is meant to synch the waist making it more uncomfortable for women to breathe let alone carry around doing daily chores. According to British Vogue, “searches for corsets have increased by more than 100 per cent since Netflix’s Bridgerton aired on Christmas Day. New data from eBay shows that 39 per cent more of us are in the market for a vintage piece inspired by the Regency-era romp, too. With a reported 63 million household views already, the series has spawned its own niche fashion trend – ‘Regencycore’, which encompasses all manner of ruffles, empire lines, elbow-length gloves and pearl-encrusted headbands. Binding it all together? Corsetry.”[23] The visual appeal and aesthetic of the corsets worn by the characters, particularly the female protagonists, have captured the attention of viewers and fashion enthusiasts alike. Thus, emulating such styles was inevitable. This piece of clothing has long been a patriarchal instrument that resulted in deforming women’s bodies. There were used to compress the natural waist and were hazardous, to say the least. Wearing corsets at the time (16th to 19th century) was a norm among women but women’s liberation came by discarding such pieces of shapewear. The popularity of corset tops can be seen as an example of how popular culture, such as television and film, can influence fashion trends and consumer preferences. This is the materiality of the culture industry. It functions on an inner logic which sees consumer preferences as a means for capital production and such preferences are moulded through television shows, movies, social media, and mass media which are instruments of the culture industry. However, it is essential to note that corset tops of the contemporary era are catered to women’s preferences and that it is a matter of choice and not a societal compulsion. The revival of corset tops can be seen as an example of how fashion draws inspiration from various sources, including historical periods and popular media. It is an intersection between contemporary fashion trends and the nostalgic appeal of historical aesthetics, fuelled by the visibility and influence of Bridgerton as a cultural phenomenon. From Adorno’s lens, Bridgerton becomes a classic example of mass culture appropriating high culture to facilitate the ‘culture industry’ that produces products for mass consumption while articulating the preferences of the masses resulting in the commodification of culture. As Marx claimed that capitalism has the ability to colour everything in its hues, it appropriates culture and commodifies them. The ‘culture industry’ therefore becomes a tool for capital production and standardisation of commodities.
From Adorno’s lens, Bridgerton becomes a classic example of mass culture appropriating high culture to facilitate the ‘culture industry’ that produces products for mass consumption while articulating the preferences of the masses resulting in the commodification of culture. As Marx claimed that capitalism has the ability to colour everything in its hues, it appropriates culture and commodifies them. The ‘culture industry’ therefore becomes a tool for capital production and standardisation of commodities.
Moving on to the practice of ‘high teas’ which have experienced a certain level of appropriation in mass culture. Originally, high tea was a traditional British practice that emerged among the working class during the 18th and 19th centuries. It was a substantial meal taken in the late afternoon or early evening, typically consisting of tea, accompanied by an array of savoury and sweet snacks. The misappropriation of the term ‘high tea’ to refer to afternoon tea, which is traditionally a practice of the high culture, a refined affair that involves scones, finger sandwiches, pastries and tea. Such practices have been revived because of Regency-era dramas and movies. The café culture and the ‘Instagramable’ photos of such delicacies facilitate the ‘culture industry’. Quaint cafes have sprung up everywhere to cater to ‘high teas’ for mass consumption. The appropriation (read misappropriation) of this cultural practice in mass culture can be seen as a manifestation of the culture industry. When high tea is transformed into a trendy and commercialised experience, it often loses its authentic cultural context and becomes a standardised and marketable commodity.
The culture industry’s influence on high tea can be observed in various ways. The experience of high tea is often packaged and sold as a luxury or indulgent activity, with high-end hotels, tea rooms, and restaurants offering themes of high tea events. This commercialisation aims to cater to consumer desires for sophistication, elegance, and status, often at a premium price. The appropriation of high tea in mass culture reflects the workings of the culture industry, where cultural practices are transformed into standardisation commodities for mass consumption. It highlights the tension between the authentic cultural origins of high tea and the commercialised and standardised representation of the practice in contemporary consumer culture.
The focus shifts from the original working-class tradition to the creation of stylised and consumer-oriented commodities. The culture industry’s influence on high tea can be observed in various ways. The experience of high tea is often packaged and sold as a luxury or indulgent activity, with high-end hotels, tea rooms, and restaurants offering themes of high tea events. This commercialisation aims to cater to consumer desires for sophistication, elegance, and status, often at a premium price. The appropriation of high tea in mass culture reflects the workings of the culture industry, where cultural practices are transformed into standardisation commodities for mass consumption. It highlights the tension between the authentic cultural origins of high tea and the commercialised and standardised representation of the practice in contemporary consumer culture. This is also facilitated by the advent of social media as a contemporary all-pervasive tool in the hands of the capitalists that standardises and homogenises cultural products. Social media platforms, with their algorithms, recommendation systems, and user-generated content, contribute to the proliferation of standardised and easily consumable cultural content. The platforms often prioritise popular and mainstream content, reinforcing the dominance of commercialised and mass-produced cultural products. It suppresses critical engagement with art and the artist and promotes self-curation proving to be an indispensable tool in the hands of capitalism.
In conclusion, Adorno’s culture industry proves to be a relevant tool to analyse how the choices and tastes of the consumers are moulded through ‘cultural products’[24]. His distinction between high culture and low culture could seem bifocal when analysing a series like Bridgerton, but nonetheless, it proves to be useful for analytical and heuristic purposes. Adorno’s argument about the culture industry very compelling as every phenomenon of the 21st century is a product of the ‘culture industry’[25].
Endnotes
[1] Gordon, Welty. “Theodor Adorno and the Culture Industry,” presented to the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association, Toronto, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 USA, March 30, 1984.
[2] Adorno, Theodor. Horkheimer, Max. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Dialectic of Enlightenment, transcribed by Andy Blunden, 1998.
[3] Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 12–19. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/487650. Accessed 27 May 2023.
[4] Adorno, Theodor. Horkheimer, Max. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Dialectic of Enlightenment, transcribed by Andy Blunden, 1998.
[5] Corset Story, https://corset-story.co.uk/blogs/news/the-history-of-corsets#:~:text=The%20term%20is%20short%20for,they%20became%20a%20fashion%20staple.
[6] Adorno, Theodor. The Culture Industry, Edited by J M Bernstein, Routledge, London and New York, 1991
[7] Adorno, Theodor. Horkheimer, Max. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Dialectic of Enlightenment, transcribed by Andy Blunden, 1998. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm
[8] Adorno, Theodor. The Culture Industry, Edited by J M Bernstein, Routledge, London and New York, 1991
[9] Gordon, Welty. “Theodor Adorno and the Culture Industry,” presented to the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association, Toronto, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 USA, March 30, 1984.
[10] Marx, Karl, 1818-1883. Das Kapital, a Critique of Political Economy. Chicago:H. Regnery, 1959.
[11] Gordon, Welty. “Theodor Adorno and the Culture Industry,” presented to the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association, Toronto, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 USA, March 30, 1984.
[12] Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 12–19. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/487650. Accessed 27 May 2023.
[13] Gadamer, Hans-Georg). Truth and Method. Translated by Weinsheimer, Joel; Marshall, Donald G. (revised 2nd ed.). London and New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013.
[14] Adorno, Theodor W., and Anson G. Rabinbach. “Culture Industry Reconsidered.” New German Critique, no. 6, 1975, pp. 12–19. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/487650. Accessed 27 May 2023.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Brewster, Ben. Althusser Glossary, Althusser’s conception of consciousness wherein ideology is profoundly unconscious-it is a structure imposed involuntarily on the majority, 1969, https://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/althusser/index.htm
[18] Ibid.
[19] Nicola Coughlan (who plays Penelope in the series), in an interview with Shondaland US, World of Bridgerton: The Women of Bridgerton, https://www.shondaland.com/inspire/shondaland-bridgerton-behind-the-scenes/a39655275/world-of-bridgerton-video-women-of-bridgerton/
[20] Romano, Aja. The debate over Bridgerton and race, Vox, January 7, 2021
[21] The meaning of Bridgerton’s Colour Palettes, story told by Shonda Rhimes, https://www.nssgclub.com/en/fashion/29582/meaning-bridgerton-colors-palettes
[22] Ibid.
[23] Krueger, Bass Maude. Timms, Elle. The Corset’s Recurring Comeback Goes Further Than ‘Bridgerton’, British Vogue, January 12, 2021
[24] Gordon, Welty. “Theodor Adorno and the Culture Industry,” presented to the Annual Meeting of the Popular Culture Association, Toronto, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435 USA, March 30, 1984
[25] Adorno, Theodor. Horkheimer, Max. The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception, Dialectic of Enlightenment, transcribed by Andy Blunden, 1998.
Sneha Roy is a Final Year Master’s Student at the Center for Political Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University
