Culture and Administration through the Lens of the Capitalist Discourse [1]

ABSTRACT

?

This article reexamines Theodor W. Adorno’s essay Culture and Administration to analyze how digital capitalism reshapes the relationship between culture and administration. By bringing Adorno’s critique into dialogue with Jacques Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse, this study interrogates how algorithmic control, data commodification, and platform governance erode cultural autonomy while reconfiguring subjectivity. By examining the profound transformations brought about by the digital age, this study analyzes how Adorno’s reflections on the relationship between culture and administration illuminate the socio-cultural and economic tensions of our time. Particular attention is given to the erosion of autonomous cultural production in the face of algorithmic control, commodification, and the managerial logic pervasive in the digital era. Through a critical dialogue between these two influential 20th-century thinkers, the article examines how contemporary forms of cultural administration reflect and perpetuate the dynamics of the capitalist discourse. By critically engaging with these thinkers, this study illuminates how digitalization intensifies the tensions between cultural autonomy, commodification, and algorithmic administration, reshaping creative expression in late capitalism.

Keywords: Cultural Administration, Capitalist Discourse, Digital Capitalism, Commodification, Autonomy.

Introduction

In a context where the much-discussed culture war (Rufo, 2023; Piketty, 2020; Sandel, 2020; Brown, 2019) encompasses an increasingly diverse array of elements within the societal fabric - including evolving forms of social ties (Lacan, 1972) - it is particularly timely to revisit Theodor W. Adorno’s essay Culture and Administration. Originally published in 1953, this work was later translated into English and included in collections such as The Culture Industry: Selected Essays on Mass Culture (2001).

In this seminal essay, Adorno (2001) raises critical questions about how contemporary dilemmas - now shaped by the digital age and the dominance of the capitalist discourse - affect the intricate relationship between culture and administration. More specifically, as the digital era ushers in profound socio-cultural transformations, Adorno’s insights provide a crucial lens for understanding these changes. However, when juxtaposed with Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse, these transformations reveal not only the economic and ideological mechanisms that shape digital culture but also the psychic dynamics that sustain this structure, reconfiguring desire and subjectivity in the algorithmic age.

Building on this premise, Adorno (2001) offers a powerful framework for analyzing how culture becomes a tool for social control under capitalist systems, a critique that he articulated more broadly in his examination of the culture industry (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). This perspective is particularly relevant today, as algorithmic governance and the commodification of personal data have fundamentally transformed the ways in which culture is produced, distributed, and consumed (Zuboff, 2019; Srnicek, 2017). At the heart of this investigation, then, lies the question: How can Adorno’s critique illuminate the dynamics of the digital age, especially when juxtaposed with Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse?

Introduced in the early 1970s, Lacan’s notion of the capitalist discourse sheds light on how capitalist systems amplify the commodification of desire, bypassing traditional symbolic mediations and embedding subjects in a continuous cycle of consumption and alienation (Lacan, 1972). In this sense, this conceptual framework resonates deeply with Adorno’s critique, as both thinkers scrutinize how capitalist structures pacify individuals while concealing the contradictions inherent to modern society. However, whereas Adorno analyzed cultural administration in terms of bureaucratic institutions and mass media, the digital era introduces a new mode of administration: algorithmic governance. These systems not only curate and personalize content but also anticipate desires and behaviors, reinforcing cycles of consumption and expanding the logic of the capitalist discourse described by Lacan (Zuboff, 2019; Gillespie, 2018). Recent scholarship further reinforces this connection, as analyses of Lacan’s capitalist discourse (e.g., Verhaeghe, 2014; Dean, 2009) highlight its relevance to digital capitalism, where algorithms and platforms commodify culture and subjectivity while promising endless satisfaction.

From this perspective, this article aims to reinterpret Adorno’s essay in the context of the digital age, examining how the logic of administration - central to Adorno’s critique - has been reconfigured by the rise of algorithmic governance, data commodification, and the pervasive managerial ethos of digital capitalism (Gillespie, 2014; Cheney-Lippold, 2017). In particular, algorithms now serve as cultural administrators, curating and personalizing content in ways that reinforce consumption habits while optimizing engagement for profit. These mechanisms, in turn, align with Lacan’s insights into how capitalist systems exploit desire, transforming the subject into a consumer trapped within a feedback loop of demand, commodification, and the erasure of subjectivity. By bringing these theoretical perspectives into dialogue, this article illuminates the socio-cultural and economic tensions of our time, particularly the erosion of cultural autonomy amidst increasing digitization and commodification.

In this light, revisiting Adorno’s work in the present is not merely relevant but essential for understanding the complexities of contemporary cultural and administrative dynamics. Indeed, the digital era has introduced novel modes of cultural production and consumption that operate under the guise of innovation and connectivity, even as they deepen the commodification of creativity. For instance, practices such as personalized recommendations, content moderation, and data-driven design exemplify how the logic of administration has infiltrated the most intimate realms of cultural life (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Moreover, these dynamics reflect what Zuboff (2019) identifies as “surveillance capitalism”, where behavioral data extraction drives economic models, reshaping cultural content to prioritize market profits. As a consequence, Adorno’s critique of administered culture continues to serve as a vital analytical tool for interrogating these dynamics, particularly when supplemented by Lacan’s focus on the libidinal economy of capitalism, which highlights how contemporary digital systems intensify cycles of desire and alienation (Dean, 2009).

Taken together, by combining Adorno’s materialist critique of the culture industry with Lacan’s psychoanalytic insights into the capitalist discourse, this article provides a nuanced framework for understanding the socio-cultural transformations of the digital era. Notably, it underscores the continued relevance of these critical theories in contemporary debates about culture and administration, while also highlighting their potential to inspire new approaches to cultural autonomy and resistance in the face of pervasive commodification and control.

Expanding on this foundation, this initial exploration underscores the enduring relevance of Adorno’s critique of culture and administration in the context of the digital age. As the discussion advances, the integration of Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse enriches this analysis, offering a complementary lens through which to examine the profound transformations in cultural production and consumption under contemporary capitalism. In doing so, these perspectives set the stage for a deeper investigation into the mechanisms of cultural commodification and the erosion of autonomy in the digital era.

?

Culture and Administration

Delving deeper into the complex relationship between culture and the mechanisms of administration, Adorno (2001) offers a profound critique of how bureaucratic and managerial structures influence cultural production and consumption. At the core of his argument is the tension between autonomous culture - art and intellectual production that exist independently of external economic or political pressures - and administered culture, which is shaped, regulated, and ultimately subordinated to the demands of institutional systems and the logic of capitalism (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002).

From this perspective, Adorno (2001) views autonomous culture as holding the potential to challenge societal norms, question power structures, and provoke critical thinking. Indeed, it is through this autonomy that culture can act as a force of resistance, fostering individual and collective innovation. However, under the conditions of later capitalist societies, culture increasingly becomes subjected to administrative forces. These forces - manifested through economic institutions, state bureaucracy, and market dynamics - transform culture into a product to be managed, commodified, and consumed. As a result, the critical and subversive potential of culture is neutralized, as its production and dissemination are molded to fit the imperatives of profitability (Jay, 1984).

In this regard, a key feature of Adorno’s critique lies in his analysis of rationalization and standardization, which he identifies as defining characteristics of administered culture. Drawing on Weber’s concept of rationalization, Adorno (2001) critiques how cultural production becomes driven by instrumental reason - focused solely on calculability, utility, and control - rather than creativity, authenticity, or critical thought (Weber, 1992; Rabinbach, 2014). Consequently, this instrumental approach leads to the standardization of cultural goods, where originality and depth are replaced by products designed to cater to the target audience. For instance, within the cultural industries, films, music, education, and literature are often reduced to commodities optimized for market success rather than vehicles of genuine artistic expression or critical inquiry (Hesmondhalgh, 2013).

Beyond influencing production, Adorno (2001) argues that administered culture also dictates patterns of consumption. Specifically, audiences are rendered passive not only through the standardization of cultural forms but also through the gamification of attention and engagement. Unlike the classical model of ideological domination described by Adorno, digital capitalism employs a more subtle model of control, in which the user actively participates in their own alienation by producing data, engaging with platforms, and internalizing algorithmic validation metrics (Zuboff, 2019; Cheney-Lippold, 2017). As a consequence, culture loses its capacity to confront and critique the very systems that exploit it.

While Adorno (2001) critiques the standardization and commodification of culture as mechanisms of ideological control, Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse reveals how these mechanisms operate on a psychic level. The passive consumption he describes is not merely an external imposition but a structure that actively shapes the subject’s relation to desire. As culture becomes commodified, it also restructures the subject’s expectations of fulfillment, producing a cycle in which consumption perpetually promises but never delivers satisfaction. This alignment between Adorno’s structural critique and Lacan’s analysis of desire underscores how the ideological apparatus of capitalism is internalized at both the collective and individual levels.

Furthermore, Adorno (2001) underscores the paradoxical nature of the relationship between culture and administration. On the one hand, administration is necessary to organize and distribute cultural products on a large scale. On the other hand, it simultaneously undermines the essence of culture by stripping it of its autonomy. This paradox, therefore, reflects the broader contradictions of capitalist societies, where the processes that sustain cultural production also diminish its emancipatory potential (Held, 1980).

Ultimately, Adorno’s essay serves as a warning against conflating culture with administration. He thus calls for heightened awareness of how these forces interact and a renewed effort to preserve culture’s autonomy, even within the constraints of contemporary society. By doing so, he advocates for a conception of culture that retains its potential to inspire critical reflection and social transformation (Rabinbach, 2014; Eagleton, 1990).

Building on this critique, Adorno’s concept of administered culture proves even more relevant when examined in light of the rationalization and automation of culture in the digital age. Adorno’s analysis of cultural administration focused on centralized bureaucratic control, yet in the digital era, administration has become more decentralized and automated. However, rather than liberating cultural production, this shift has deepened control mechanisms. Algorithmic governance replaces explicit bureaucratic mandates with invisible, data-driven forms of administration that optimize engagement, predict preferences, and manipulate consumption patterns. While this may appear as increased autonomy for users, it ultimately reinforces Adorno’s concerns - cultural production is no longer merely administered by bureaucratic institutions but by an algorithmic logic that perpetuates commodification at an even more granular level.

?In particular, the shift from traditional bureaucratic institutions to algorithmic cultural administration intensifies the challenges to creative autonomy while disguising its logic under the promise of personalization and accessibility. Given these transformations, a critical reassessment of cultural administration today is necessary, particularly in relation to the psychological implications of Lacan’s capitalist discourse. To further develop this discussion, the following section deepens this analysis by exploring Adorno’s critique of cultural commodification and its resonance in digital capitalism.

?

Adorno’s critique of the relationship between culture and administration

Adorno’s critique of the relationship between culture and administration revolves around several key concepts that expose the mechanisms through which culture becomes subordinated to the logic of capitalism. Specifically, these include the mercantilization of culture, instrumental rationality, and his critique of administrative dominance. Together, these concepts form the foundation of his argument against the reduction of culture to a commodity and its transformation into a tool of social control (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Adorno, 2001; Rabinbach, 2014).

One of Adorno’s central concerns is the process of mercantilization, wherein cultural products are stripped of their intrinsic value and transformed into gadgets designed to generate profit. Within the culture industry, this means that art, music, literature, education, and other forms of cultural expression are increasingly produced with the primary intention of being sold, rather than for their aesthetic or critical value. As a consequence, cultural goods are tailored to maximize their marketability (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Zuboff, 2019).

For Adorno (2001), the consequences of mercantilization are profound: it erodes both the autonomy and critical potential of culture. Rather than challenging dominant ideologies or fostering reflective thought, cultural products are reshaped into tools that reinforce the status quo. They function primarily to entertain and distract, rather than to provoke or enlighten, aligning with the broader capitalist goal of maintaining social stability through passive consumption. In this way, culture not only loses its depth and originality but also becomes complicit in perpetuating systems of economic and ideological domination (Jay, 1984; Eagleton, 1990).

Closely linked to this concern is Adorno’s critique of instrumental rationality, a concept he borrows and expands upon from Weber (1992). At its core, instrumental rationality prioritizes calculability and control over subjective or qualitative considerations. In the cultural sphere, this implies that artistic and intellectual production is evaluated based on its ability to fulfill external goals - such as profitability, appeal to market niches, or administrative convenience - rather than its intrinsic worth or capacity to evoke critical thought (Held, 1980).

Expanding on this critique, Adorno (2001) argues that instrumental rationality dominates both the production and organization of culture. By applying the same logic of cost-benefit analysis and mass production to cultural goods, this rationalized approach not only stifles creative expression but also homogenizes cultural experiences. Indeed, the drive for efficiency leads to repetitive and formulaic content, ensuring that cultural products align with pre-established market demands rather than fostering originality (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Rabinbach, 2014).

Beyond these immediate effects, the prevalence of instrumental rationality in culture reflects a broader societal trend in which technical and economic considerations overshadow humanistic or ethical concerns. For him, this trend exemplifies the “colonization” of culture by the capitalist mode of production, which prioritizes functional utility over the pursuit of truth, beauty, or autonomy. Once again, culture becomes a mechanism for maintaining the social order, rather than a force capable of challenging or transforming it (Habermas, 1987; Eagleton, 1990).

In addition to mercantilization and instrumental rationality, Adorno’s critique extends to the dominance of administrative logic in cultural production and consumption. In particular, bureaucratic systems and managerial practices infiltrate cultural life, shaping not only what is created but also how it is distributed and consumed. While the administration of culture is necessary to manage large-scale production and dissemination, he argues that it frequently overreaches, exerting control over the content and purpose of culture itself (Adorno, 2001; Jay, 1984; Rabinbach, 2014).

Under these conditions, culture becomes increasingly subject to external regulation and oversight, aligning it with institutional goals and market imperatives. This process ensures that cultural production remains predictable, safe, and in harmony with existing power structures, further diminishing its potential for critique or subversion. For him, this phenomenon mirrors the broader bureaucratization of modern life, where creativity and spontaneity are stifled by rigid systems of control (Adorno, 2001; Habermas, 1987; Held, 1980).

Moreover, he critiques how administrative logic shapes cultural consumption. Within the culture industry, audiences are treated as passive consumers whose preferences are anticipated and manipulated through market research, advertising, and data collection. This approach effectively reduces individuals to mere targets for consumption, reinforcing the commodification of culture and limiting opportunities for active engagement or resistance (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Zuboff, 2019).

Taken together, the mercantilization of culture, instrumental rationality, and administrative dominance are deeply interconnected in Adorno’s analysis. Collectively, they reveal how capitalist logic infiltrates cultural life, transforming it into an extension of the economic and bureaucratic systems that govern modern societies. Instead of serving as a space for autonomy or critique, culture becomes a mechanism of social control and ideological reproduction. According to him, resisting these forces requires a commitment to preserving the autonomy of culture, fostering forms of art and expression that transcend the constraints of commodification and administration (Jay, 1984; Eagleton, 1990).

This intersection between Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) is particularly evident in the way cultural standardization influences the structure of desire. If, as Adorno (2001) argues, culture under capitalism loses its autonomy and becomes a tool of ideological reproduction, Lacan’s framework clarifies how this process shapes individual subjectivity. The culture industry not only dictates aesthetic and ideological norms but also dictates what is perceived as desirable. In Lacanian terms, cultural commodities operate as objets petit a - objects that sustain desire by perpetually deferring fulfillment. This dynamic reinforces the capitalist cycle of consumption and alienation, illustrating how Adorno’s materialist critique and Lacan’s psychoanalytic framework complement one another in explaining the deep entanglement between culture and capitalist ideology.

Furthermore, Adorno’s analysis highlights how cultural administration not only regulates distribution but also shapes the very substance of culture, subordinating it to market imperatives. However, this process does not unfold solely at a structural level; it also manifests in how individuals interact with and identify with cultural products. At this point, Lacan’s theory contributes by demonstrating how the capitalist discourse reshapes subjective experience, making consumption a means of sustaining alienation. By exploring this intersection between administered culture and subjectivity under digital capitalism, the next section introduces Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse as a key framework for understanding contemporary cultural transformations.

?

The Lacanian concept of the capitalist discourse

Introduced as a theoretical addition to the four discourses Lacan had previously formulated - the discourse of the master, the discourse of the analysand, the discourse of the analyst, and the discourse of the university - his concept of the capitalist discourse emerges in response to the social and economic transformations characteristic of contemporary capitalism (Lacan, 1972). More specifically, it offers a critical framework for understanding how both social and subjective relations are shaped by the logic of capitalist structures (Verhaeghe, 2014; Dean, 2009).

Unlike the other discourses, however, which emphasize the dynamic and often destabilizing interplay between subjects and the symbolic order - particularly in the modes of configuring social ties - Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse functions to bypass or circumvent the inherent impasses present in these dynamics. Instead, it privileges profitability and accumulation while promoting an ideology of limitless consumption and the illusion of endless satisfaction (Harari, 2004).

A defining characteristic of this discourse is that it obscures the structural lack inherent in human desire, a lack that Lacan (1972) identifies as foundational to subjectivity and the pursuit of meaning (Fink, 1995). By sustaining a fantasy of completeness and unending enjoyment (jouissance), the capitalist discourse avoids engaging with the constitutive gap that defines desire, presenting an illusory promise of fulfillment.

Structurally speaking, the capitalist discourse can be seen as a perversion of the discourse of the master. Whereas the master’s discourse emphasizes authority, order, and the imposition of law, the capitalist discourse subverts these elements by centering the subject of consumption - the consumer - within its logic. In this framework, the figure of the master is replaced by the gadget itself, which becomes the driving force of social and economic relations.

Rather than being explicitly governed by the authority of the master, the subject is seduced and governed by the incessant promise of jouissance, mediated through gadgets, advertising, and the ideological frameworks of the market (Zizek, 1999). This transition signals a shift in power dynamics: the capitalist discourse establishes control not through overt domination but through the internalization of consumerist ideologies, making it an insidious and highly effective form of social organization (Verhaeghe, 2014).

At its core, a critical distinction of the capitalist discourse lies in its emphasis on immediate gratification and its avoidance of the symbolic detours that traditionally characterize desire. Lacanian theory demonstrates that desire is structured around prohibition and lack, which compel subjects to navigate symbolic barriers and confront their own limitations. By contrast, the capitalist discourse offers an apparent escape from these processes, presenting a fantasy of completeness and instant fulfillment through the perpetual circulation of gadgets and services (Dean, 2009).

Under platform capitalism, subjects experience alienation not just as passive consumers but as producers required to self-commodify. Social media influencers, gig workers, and digital creators participate in a cycle where their visibility, engagement, and even self-worth are determined by algorithmic metrics. If, for Adorno, administered culture neutralizes critical thought by transforming cultural experience into a repetitive cycle of passive consumption, Lacan reveals that this dynamic also manifests at the subjective level. The subject of digital capitalism engages in a continuous production of the self (personal branding, algorithmic validation), yet always in a state of fading - a disappearance that occurs precisely in the attempt to fix oneself in the gaze of the algorithmic Other. This mirrors Adorno’s concern that under late capitalism, cultural production ceases to be an autonomous expression and instead functions as a mechanism for self-regulated alienation, where individuals internalize capitalist imperatives under the guise of personal choice.

However, this attempt to bypass lack is ultimately futile. The promise of fulfillment remains perpetually out of reach, leaving the subject trapped in an endless cycle of desire and disappointment. In turn, this alienation becomes central to critiques of the capitalist discourse, as it results in the fragmentation of the subject and a disconnection from deeper dimensions of meaning (Fink, 1995; Harari, 2004).

In this regard, the capitalist discourse mirrors the structural logic of contemporary financial capitalism: a self-reinforcing cycle of production, loans, debt, consumption, and accumulation. As a result, subjects are ensnared by the illusion of satisfaction offered through gadgets, becoming increasingly disconnected from the symbolic and communal dimensions of life. Unlike the overt domination characteristic of the master’s discourse, the capitalist discourse operates through seduction, embedding its ideological framework within the subject’s own desires. By capitalizing on the promise of jouissance, this discourse establishes a uniquely pervasive and resilient form of control, cementing its position as a defining feature of contemporary social organization (Verhaeghe, 2014; Zizek, 1999).

When examined alongside Adorno’s structural critique, it becomes clear that the mechanisms of alienation and control operate on multiple levels. Thus, the following section bridges these perspectives, examining their intersections and mutual contributions to a critical theory of culture in the digital age.

?

Bridging Lacan’s Concept of the Capitalist Discourse and Adorno’s Critique of Culture

Despite their distinct theoretical approaches, both Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) converge on the idea that capitalism exerts a deeply pervasive influence on culture, transforming it into a mechanism for perpetuating social control and reproducing the logic of the market. Whereas Lacan (1972) focuses on the psychic and subjective dimensions of capitalism, Adorno (2001) emphasizes its structural and material effects on cultural life. Taken together, their perspectives provide a compelling framework for understanding the complex interplay between capitalism and culture (Dean, 2009; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Verhaeghe, 2014).

A crucial point of convergence between Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) lies in the way they conceptualize alienation. Adorno (2001) sees the culture industry as a means of standardizing experience, eliminating autonomy and critical thought, whereas Lacan (1972) identifies how capitalism restructures the subject’s relationship with desire itself. The culture industry not only standardizes cultural production but also plays a role in shaping what subjects perceive as desirable. Through a Lacanian lens, the homogenization of culture reinforces a false sense of completeness, whereby consumers seek jouissance through cultural commodities that promise fulfillment yet ultimately sustain a deeper sense of lack. Thus, the administered culture Adorno (2001) critiques is not only a mechanism of social control but also a psychological apparatus that structures how individuals navigate their own desires under capitalism.

As previously discussed, capitalism, in Lacan’s view, transforms desire into demand, channeling human longing into a relentless cycle of production and consumption. Consequently, the subject is alienated but simultaneously compelled by the ideology of limitless accumulation, seduced by the notion that the next purchase, experience, or product will provide ultimate satisfaction - a satisfaction that, by definition, always remains unattainable (Fink, 1995; Harari, 2004).

In this sense, Adorno’s critique of the culture industry resonates deeply with Lacan’s analysis, as both explore how capitalism appropriates culture to serve its own ends. For Adorno (2001), this means that culture, once a realm of potential resistance and critical reflection, becomes a gadget under capitalism, thereby losing its autonomy and critical power. As he describes, the culture industry produces goods not as genuine expressions of creativity or human experience but as commodities engineered for consumption. These products, in turn, are designed to entertain, distract, and reinforce conformity, ultimately perpetuating the status quo (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Jay, 1984). Accordingly, cultural production aligns with the capitalist discourse, offering a form of enjoyment that pacifies the subject while concealing the deeper lack that drives desire.

Moreover, the parallels between Lacan (1972) and Adorno (2001) become particularly evident in their shared emphasis on alienation. For both thinkers, culture becomes a tool for sustaining the ideological and economic structures of capitalism, ensuring that subjects remain complicit in the very systems that exploit them (Dean, 2009; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Eagleton, 1990).

The effects of the capitalist discourse on cultural consumption further underscore these parallels. In Lacan’s framework, the capitalist discourse fosters a consumer trapped in a repetitive cycle of desire and fleeting satisfaction, conditioned to seek enjoyment in ways that perpetuate the market’s logic. Similarly, from Adorno’s sociological perspective, cultural products are designed to create predictable, passive consumers who accept the norms and values embedded in cultural forms. Both theories thus suggest that, under capitalism, cultural consumption ceases to be an active or emancipatory process; instead, it serves to reinforce alienation and conformity (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Verhaeghe, 2014).

Beyond cultural consumption, Lacan’s and Adorno’s critiques also intersect in their analysis of cultural production. As Lacan (1972) describes it, the capitalist discourse prioritizes profitability and the reproduction of demand over genuine innovation. This logic directly aligns with Adorno’s critique of the rationalization of cultural production, where art and creative exploration are subordinated to the imperatives of consumer appeal and economic viability. Whether discussing an artist or a content creator in the digital age, both frameworks highlight how the cultural producer becomes ensnared in a system that prioritizes market demands over authentic self-expression (Zuboff, 2019; Fuchs, 2014).

Taken together, these perspectives illuminate how capitalism transforms culture into an extension of its own logic. Rather than functioning as a space for resistance or critical reflection, culture is instead reduced to a site of accumulation, where subjects are simultaneously alienated and faded. While Lacan’s capitalist discourse unveils how cultural production and consumption are molded to sustain the market’s relentless cycle, Adorno’s critique elucidates the structural mechanisms enabling this process. Concurrently, these perspectives provide a nuanced understanding of how the subjective and structural dimensions of capitalism intersect to shape culture in ways that reinforce its dominance (Dean, 2009; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Zizek, 1999).

Building on these insights, the following section explores how these theoretical perspectives can be applied to the evolving challenges of cultural administration in the digital era.

Insights into the Digital Era

In the digital era, Adorno’s and Lacan’s insights remain foundational for understanding the relationships between administration and culture. However, their critique requires reinterpretation to address the novel dynamics of contemporary capitalism - such as the cannibalistic tendencies of financial capitalism (Fraser, 2024). While both analyses are deeply rooted in the socio-historical conditions of mid-20th century capitalism, particularly the rise of mass production, the creation of consumer middle classes, and the bureaucratic control of cultural industries (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002), the digital age has introduced new complexities that challenge the applicability of their ideas in their original form. In particular, the transformation of cultural administration under neoliberal capitalism has introduced mechanisms such as algorithmic governance, participatory platforms, and data commodification, which extend and complicate Adorno’s core arguments. These limitations, therefore, provide fertile ground for expanding their critique to encompass the intricacies of 21st-century cultural production.

For instance, Adorno’s focus on the industrialization of culture and the dominance of bureaucratic administration remains highly relevant, but the digital transformation has shifted the locus of cultural control. Whereas in the past bureaucratic institutions centralized cultural administration, today, new models of business and management - more horizontal, decentralized, and focused on innovation - play a central role in curating, distributing, and consuming cultural content.

Moreover, algorithms used by platforms rely on user data to personalize experiences, predict preferences, and optimize engagement. This form of governance not only introduces new dynamics of control - including data surveillance, predictive analytics, and filter bubbles - but also creates challenges that were not addressed in Adorno’s original framework (Zuboff, 2019; Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Thus, reinterpreting Adorno requires expanding his critique to examine how algorithms shape cultural consumption in ways that reinforce accumulation and passivity, echoing his concerns about the culture industry but in a more technologically mediated form.

Adorno’s depiction of audiences as passive consumers of standardized cultural products reflects the mass media landscape of his time. However, the advent of participatory platforms and “prosumer” culture complicates this framework. Unlike in the past, individuals in the digital era are both consumers and producers of cultural content, enabled by digital platforms. At first glance, this participatory model seems to challenge Adorno’s view of passivity by empowering users to create and share their own content. Yet, upon closer examination, this participation is often co-opted by platforms, transforming users into unpaid laborers whose creativity is commodified to generate profit for corporations (Fuchs, 2014; Hesmondhalgh, 2013).

As a result, this blurring of production and consumption signifies a deepening of administrative control, where even participation becomes an extension of the capitalist logic of commodification. In this context, Adorno’s framework can be expanded to examine how this phenomenon perpetuates new forms of cultural exploitation and control, further embedding individuals within systems of market-driven cultural production. Thus, the participatory dynamic - often celebrated as democratizing - is revealed to function as yet another mechanism for reinforcing capitalist integration.

Furthermore, Adorno’s original analysis, rooted in the context of Western, industrialized societies, does not fully address the global dimensions of cultural administration in the digital era. Today, multinational corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Netflix wield unprecedented influence over cultural production and distribution on a global scale, reshaping cultural ecosystems across borders. This globalization, however, introduces new tensions between homogenization and localization, as global platforms frequently erase or marginalize non-Western cultural forms, perpetuating a form of cultural imperialism (Tomlinson, 1999; Pieterse, 2015).

Expanding Adorno’s critique to incorporate these dynamics is therefore essential for understanding how digital platforms both negotiate global hegemonies and commodify cultural differences - often under the guise of diversity. By addressing these overlooked dimensions, Adorno’s critical framework can be revitalized to analyze the complexities of cultural production and administration in an interconnected, digitized world.

Another key development in the digital era is the fragmentation of cultural consumption into niche markets and micro-communities. On the surface, streaming platforms, personalized algorithms, and targeted advertising create a hyper-individualized cultural landscape, challenging Adorno’s assumption of a relatively unified mass audience. While this fragmentation appears to foster diversity and choice, it often masks deeper standardization, as algorithms curate content that reinforces existing tastes and preferences rather than encouraging exploration or critical engagement (Cheney-Lippold, 2017; Gillespie, 2014). Thus, reinterpreting Adorno’s critique involves addressing how fragmentation operates as a new mode of cultural administration, maintaining ideological and economic control while disguising it as diversity.

In addition, Adorno’s emphasis on external systems of control - such as bureaucratic administration and the cultural industry - must also be reexamined in light of contemporary neoliberal ideologies of self-management. In today’s digital economy, individuals are increasingly encouraged to internalize the principles of administration, treating themselves as both entrepreneurs and commodities (Harvey, 2005). This phenomenon is particularly evident in the gig economy and personal branding culture, where creators and cultural workers are incentivized to align their output with market demands and digital metrics such as likes, views, and followers (Dean, 2009; Fuchs, 2014). In this regard, Adorno’s critique can be expanded to explore how neoliberal self-management functions as a form of internalized administration, blurring the boundaries between cultural autonomy and market conformity.

Moreover, while Adorno’s critique of cultural administration focuses on domination, it leaves little room for envisioning resistance or alternative forms of cultural production. Yet, in the digital era, both obstacles and opportunities for resistance emerge. For instance, decentralized platforms, open-source movements, and grassroots cultural initiatives demonstrate the potential for carving out spaces of relative autonomy within the broader system of digital capitalism. At the same time, these spaces often remain vulnerable to co-optation by capitalist logics (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Srnicek, 2017). Thus, reinterpreting Adorno (2011) may require a more optimistic yet critical engagement with these possibilities, exploring how digital tools can be leveraged to foster cultural autonomy and resist commodification.

Likewise, considering Lacan’s inputs, administration in the digital era extends beyond bureaucratic and managerial practices to function as an extension of the capitalist discourse. By doing so, it perpetuates the endless cycle of production, consumption, and commodification (exploitation), while simultaneously concealing the structural lack that defines human desire (exploration) (Zuboff, 2019; Verhaeghe, 2014).

Traditional administration, within this framework, operates as the mechanism that sustains this cycle by rationalizing, standardizing, and optimizing processes to ensure efficiency and profitability (Lacan, 1972; Fink, 1995). However, in the digital context, administrative practices expand far beyond traditional bureaucratic structures. Now, they are embedded in entrepreneurial ecosystems, platform governance, and data-driven decision-making, all of which function to maximize engagement, innovation, consumption, and revenue generation (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Cheney-Lippold, 2017).

Yet, as suggested by the capitalist discourse, it creates the illusion of choice, differentiation, and satisfaction, while covertly reinforcing the underlying structures of commodification, alienation, and fading. As a result, cultural production and consumption are subsumed into a system that appears to prioritize user autonomy but, in reality, deepens the entrenchment of capitalist logics within the fabric of everyday life.

Additionally, digital administration reshapes cultural production by subjecting creators to the demands of flux and platform economies. Increasingly, artists, writers, musicians, and content creators are required to conform to the metrics and algorithms that determine visibility, monetization, and efficacy on digital platforms. As a result, this administrative logic reduces creativity to a function of marketability, where cultural products are optimized for clicks, likes, and shares rather than for their intrinsic artistic or critical value (Fuchs, 2014; Hesmondhalgh, 2013). In this sense, digital administration acts as a device of capital, structuring cultural production to align with the demands of the capitalist system.

At the same time, under the neoliberal framework, the notions of “personal branding” and the gig economy have risen to prominence, positioning individuals as managers of their own labor, creativity, and identities in ways that maximize their value within digital marketplaces (Harvey, 2005). Although this model appears to empower individuals, platforms impose administrative constraints that push creators to align their output with the expectations of audiences and algorithms. Thus, this self-administration serves as an extension of the capitalist discourse, as individuals internalize the logic of efficiency, productivity, and commodification in their own lives (Dean, 2009; Verhaeghe, 2014).

To illustrate these dynamics more concretely, Table 1 synthesizes the parallels and distinctions between Adorno’s critiques of cultural administration and Lacanian frameworks of the master discourse and the capitalist discourse. In doing so, it highlights how mechanisms of control, consumer roles, and resistance evolve across industrial and digital epochs of capitalism.

?

As indicated in Table 1, the mechanisms of digital administration manifest a pervasive and invisible control structure, aptly characterized by Deleuze’s concept of “societies of control” (Deleuze, 1992). Unlike traditional bureaucratic administration, which operates through explicit rules and hierarchical structures, digital administration functions seamlessly through algorithms, interfaces, and data flows. Consequently, this mode of governance aligns with Lacan’s capitalist discourse, as it obscures its mechanisms of power while ensuring the continued reproduction of the capitalist system. By promising convenience, personalization, and enjoyment, digital administration masks the ways in which it disciplines both producers and consumers, reinforcing their roles within the capitalist economy (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Zuboff, 2019).

In this context, new dilemmas emerge, associated with the tensions between exploration and exploitation, scale and differentiation, vertical and horizontal organizational design, and monocratic versus distributed leadership styles. These challenges highlight the evolving complexity of cultural administration in the digital age, emphasizing the need for a nuanced understanding of how digital systems mediate and transform cultural production and governance (Denning, 2018; Foss & Saebi, 2017; Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

More broadly, the digital era, by introducing novel forms of control, commodification, and resistance, demands a reevaluation of how digital technologies both constrain and enable cultural production. This duality, in turn, invites an exploration of the potential for cultural autonomy and resistance within these shifting structures. By reinterpreting Adorno and Lacan’s critiques in light of the digital era, this analysis uncovers how contemporary technologies have transformed cultural administration. For example, the pervasive influence of algorithms, data-driven governance, and platform economies reflects new modes of control and commodification, yet simultaneously creates openings for grassroots movements, decentralized platforms, and innovative artistic practices (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013).

Yet, these transformations also present opportunities for resistance and the reimagining of cultural governance. The following sections, therefore, explore these possibilities, focusing on the tensions between innovation and commodification, as well as potential pathways for reclaiming cultural autonomy. These discussions are particularly relevant in the context of increasing calls for ethical digital governance, algorithmic transparency, and equitable cultural practices that counterbalance the exploitative tendencies of digital capitalism (Zuboff, 2019; Cheney-Lippold, 2017).

?

Exploration vs. exploitation

The tension between exploration and exploitation is particularly salient in the realm of cultural production in the digital age. Broadly speaking, exploration refers to the pursuit of innovation, originality, and artistic experimentation, while exploitation emphasizes refining and replicating existing successful formulas to maximize profit and efficiency (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; March, 1991).

In this regard, Adorno’s critique of the culture industry resonates strongly with the dynamics of exploitation, as he identifies standardization and repetition as defining features of administered culture. For Adorno (2001), this means that the emphasis on exploitation suppresses the critical and emancipatory potential of culture, reducing it to mere commodities designed for entertainment (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002).

However, in the digital era, this tension has become even more pronounced. More specifically, algorithmic systems and data-driven decision-making actively incentivize exploitation. For instance, platforms such as Netflix, Spotify, and YouTube rely heavily on predictive analytics to replicate proven successes, exploiting user data to reinforce established consumption patterns (Gillespie, 2018; Cheney-Lippold, 2017). As a result, this approach favors popular genres, themes, and formats while marginalizing exploratory or experimental cultural forms. Furthermore, the logic of exploitation is intensified by the relentless demand for continuous content creation to sustain user engagement, resulting in an oversaturation of formulaic cultural products (Baym, 2018; Hesmondhalgh, 2013).

Yet, despite these constraints, the digital age also presents mechanisms that can foster exploration. On the one hand, decentralized platforms, crowdfunding models, and independent creative networks provide opportunities for experimental and exploratory cultural projects to reach audiences that would have been inaccessible in the era of traditional mass media. By doing so, these spaces challenge the dominance of standardized cultural forms by enabling creators to innovate and connect directly with niche or underserved audiences (Watson & McIntosh, 2021; Jenkins, Ford, & Green, 2013).

In other words, while digital administration imposes constraints that reinforce commodification and standardization, it simultaneously opens new spaces of possibility for innovation and experimentation. Thus, understanding and navigating this duality - a phenomenon conceptualized as organizational ambidexterity (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Tushman & O'Reilly, 1996; March, 1991) - emerges as essential to recognizing both the limitations and the opportunities of cultural production in the digital age.

Building on this perspective, the dialectic between exploration and exploitation reveals how digital platforms navigate the dual imperatives of innovation and profit. Importantly, this tension mirrors broader trends in cultural commodification, which extend into questions of differentiation and scalability. This tension also manifests in cultural differentiation, where the drive for innovation coexists with market-driven standardization, as explored in the next section.

?

Commoditization vs. differentiation

Similarly, while Adorno’s analysis of the culture industry focuses on the homogenizing effects of large-scale cultural production - in which efficiency and profitability necessitate standardization and uniformity - the contemporary digital landscape introduces the need for differentiation to sustain cultural diversity and the authenticity of localized or niche cultural expressions (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Ryan, 1992).

Paradoxically, to enhance shareholder and investor wealth, this approach requires the generation of innovative products and services that, by incorporating added value, allow for differentiated pricing strategies. On the surface, this model appears to demand creative and unique cultural outputs; however, it ultimately aligns cultural production with broader economic goals, while simultaneously presenting complex challenges for maintaining cultural integrity and diversity (Chesbrough, 2006; Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004).

As a result, cultural differentiation, in this context, is often co-opted into superficial forms of diversity, where niche or local cultures are packaged and commodified to fit the demands of global markets. For instance, the rise of algorithmically curated “world music” playlists or the global popularity of K-pop illustrates how differentiation can be assimilated into large-scale systems of commodification (Morris, 2020; Jin, 2016; O’Flynn, 2007).

However, despite these pressures, differentiation can also serve as a form of resistance to the dominance of large-scale cultural production. In particular, digital tools have enabled smaller cultural producers to maintain distinct identities while reaching audiences beyond their immediate geographical or social contexts. For example, niche communities and subcultures flourish on platforms like Patreon or Bandcamp, challenging the dominance of corporate-controlled cultural production (Watson & McIntosh, 2021; Baym, 2018).

Thus, while commoditization appears to dominate cultural production, the potential for innovation and differentiation persists, albeit under significant constraints. These evolving dynamics, in turn, are further shaped by the shifting organizational structures of cultural administration. With this in mind, the following section examines the transition from vertical to horizontal governance models and their implications for cultural autonomy and control (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

?

Vertical vs. horizontal organizational design

In addition, while Adorno’s critique of administrative dominance presupposes a hierarchical or vertical structure in which cultural production is controlled by a centralized authority, the digital era has witnessed the emergence of flatter structures, where decision-making is distributed more evenly across networks. Notably, platforms such as Wikipedia, open-source software communities, and decentralized creative collectives exemplify these horizontal, agile, and adhocratic structures, challenging the top-down models that Adorno critiqued (Denning, 2018; Benkler, 2006; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Mintzberg, 1979).

By fostering collaborative and participatory cultural production, these horizontal systems effectively break down traditional barriers between creators and consumers. In doing so, they enable a more democratized approach to cultural creation and distribution, disrupting conventional hierarchies and offering opportunities for more diverse and inclusive forms of cultural expression (Shirky, 2008; Chesbrough, 2006). Nevertheless, despite their potential, these systems often reveal hidden hierarchies or dependencies on larger infrastructural forces, raising questions about the sustainability and true democratization of such models (Srnicek, 2017; Tkacz, 2015).

For example, platforms like YouTube and TikTok appear to empower individual creators, yet the platform itself retains significant control over visibility and monetization through opaque algorithmic systems (Zuboff, 2019; Gillespie, 2018). Thus, Adorno’s critique of administrative dominance remains relevant here, as even seemingly horizontal structures can reinforce new forms of centralized control under the guise of decentralization.

Consequently, while the rise of horizontal structures challenges traditional models of cultural administration, it also introduces new complexities. With this shift in mind, the increasing prominence of distributed leadership raises important questions concerning accountability and resistance within these frameworks (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; O’Reilly & Tushman, 2013). Building on these concerns, the next section explores the interplay between leadership approaches and the broader logic of digital administration.

?

Entity-oriented vs. distributed leadership

Concomitantly, Adorno’s framework implicitly critiques monocratic leadership in cultural administration - leadership concentrated in a single individual or small group - where decisions about cultural production are made unilaterally, often in alignment with the demands of capital or ideology. In this model, monocratic leadership - e.g., entity-centric leadership (Uhl-Bien, 2006) - reinforces the standardization and commodification of culture, as decision-makers prioritize profitability over artistic integrity or social critique. Thus, this top-down approach aligns with Adorno’s broader critique of how centralized control stifles creativity and critical engagement, reducing culture to a commodity optimized for market success (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002).

However, in the digital era, there has been a notable shift toward distributed leadership, where decision-making is shared across networks, teams, or even algorithms. This transformation is particularly evident in adhocratic structures, collaborative creative projects, open innovation platforms (Chesbrough, 2006), and the increasing reliance on algorithmic systems to guide cultural production (Gillespie, 2014).

On the surface, distributed leadership appears to democratize cultural administration by decentralizing authority and enabling broader participation. Nevertheless, it also raises significant concerns. For instance, algorithms often act as de facto leaders, shaping cultural production and consumption in ways that are both opaque and unaccountable (Beer, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).

A concrete example of this phenomenon can be observed in YouTube’s algorithmic moderation system, which functions as an invisible leader in cultural administration. Unlike traditional editorial oversight, where human moderators make context-aware decisions, YouTube’s moderation is driven by machine learning models that assess, flag, and even remove content based on predetermined guidelines. However, these automated decisions often lack transparency and accountability, disproportionately affecting independent creators and marginalized voices. The platform’s reliance on opaque moderation mechanisms exemplifies how algorithmic governance, despite appearing neutral and decentralized, can reinforce cultural control and commodification while evading scrutiny (Gillespie, 2018; Zuboff, 2019).

Moreover, this shift from human to algorithmic moderation eliminates an essential element of negotiation and interpretative flexibility present in traditional editorial models. While human moderators can engage in discussions, apply discretion, and consider cultural nuances and evolving social contexts, algorithmic systems rely on predefined parameters that cannot account for ambiguity. As a result, content moderation decisions risk being overly rigid or biased, leading to the suppression of critical discourse, satire, and alternative perspectives that challenge dominant ideologies (Pasquale, 2015; Noble, 2018).

The fragmented nature of distributed leadership further complicates this landscape, as it diffuses responsibility, making it difficult to hold any individual or entity accountable for the cultural and ethical consequences of administrative decisions (Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Content creators whose work is demonetized or removed by YouTube’s automated moderation often struggle to challenge these decisions or obtain meaningful explanations, reflecting how algorithmic governance disempowers cultural producers while reinforcing platform dominance (Gillespie, 2018).

Given these complexities, reinterpreting Adorno’s critique in this context requires addressing the ambivalence inherent in distributed leadership. While, on the one hand, it may seem to challenge the monocratic structures critiqued by Adorno, on the other, it can simultaneously introduce new forms of domination that are subtler but equally pervasive (Fuchs, 2014). In particular, algorithms and platforms, under the guise of neutrality, often reinforce the logic of commodification and standardization, further entrenching the capitalist ethos (Cheney-Lippold, 2017). Thus, the critical question becomes how distributed leadership can genuinely foster cultural autonomy and resist the pressures of commodification and homogenization (Srnicek, 2017).

Ultimately, administration in the digital context represents a powerful extension of Lacan’s capitalist discourse. Not only does it organize and rationalize cultural production and consumption, but it also embeds the logic of capital into the very fabric of social and cultural life. Through mechanisms such as algorithms, data-driven decision-making, and platform governance, digital administration perpetuates an endless cycle of commodification, creating an illusion of choice and satisfaction while deepening alienation, eroding subjectivity, and reinforcing capitalist domination (Dean, 2009; Zuboff, 2019; Verhaeghe, 2014; Sennett, 1998).

In essence, the evolution from entity-oriented to distributed leadership reflects broader transformations in cultural administration under capitalism. However, these shifts also underline the pervasive influence of digital systems as mechanisms of control (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017). The next section further explore how these insights contribute to a critical understanding of cultural administration and suggest pathways for resistance and renewal.

?

Re-Signifying Culture and Administration: Yet Another Domination Stratagem of Capital?

The capitalist model of cultural administration, as critiqued by Adorno (2001) and described by Lacan (1974), is fundamentally rooted in efficiency, profit maximization, and the perpetuation of standardized cultural forms. Within this framework, administration is understood as inherently oppressive, reducing culture to a commodity and stifling its emancipatory potential (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Verhaeghe, 2014). However, would it be possible to envision an alternative model of cultural administration - one that moves beyond the logic of capital to support authentic creativity, diversity, critical engagement, and enabling leadership?

To begin with, such a reimagined administration, if possible, should prioritize the intrinsic value of culture over its market value. This shift would require moving from hierarchical, profit-driven systems to decentralized, community-oriented structures that empower both creators and audiences. In this regard, cooperative models of cultural governance could offer a promising framework for more inclusive and equitable administration. Unlike traditional top-down approaches, these models distribute decision-making among artists, cultural workers, and communities, rejecting the binary of centralized control versus market-driven individualism. Instead, they foster collaborative spaces where cultural production is guided by collective values rather than profit motives (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Fuchs, 2014).

Moreover, cultural administration could embrace the principles of slow culture, challenging the hyper-productivity and rapid consumption that dominate the digital landscape. By emphasizing depth, reflection, and experimentation, slow cultural practices offer a counterpoint to the accelerated pace imposed by algorithmic governance. Practically speaking, this could include funding long-term artistic projects, supporting experimental and avant-garde expressions, or encouraging localized and grassroots cultural initiatives. Through these efforts, culture resists homogenization while nurturing spaces where creative exploration can thrive (Srnicek, 2017; Zuboff, 2019).

In addition to rethinking the underlying principles of cultural administration, it is crucial to consider strategies for resisting the entrenched systems of commodification and control. One significant approach involves the development of decentralized and open-source cultural platforms. Unlike traditional corporate platforms, which operate through proprietary algorithms and data commodification, decentralized systems prioritize privacy, inclusivity, and democratic governance. For example, platforms such as Mastodon and PeerTube exemplify this alternative, enabling creators and audiences to interact without the mediation of market-driven mechanisms (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Fuchs, 2014).

Another promising avenue lies in cultural cooperatives, where creators collectively own and manage cultural institutions or platforms. By redistributing power, these cooperatives challenge the profit-driven logic of digital capitalism and foster a sense of solidarity and shared purpose. For instance, cooperative publishing houses, record labels, and streaming services provide practical examples of how shared values can shape cultural production, emphasizing the collective over the individual and resisting the alienating tendencies of the capitalist discourse (Dean, 2009; Hesmondhalgh, 2013).

Similarly, localized and grassroots cultural movements represent another essential form of resistance to administered culture. By prioritizing the specific needs and values of local communities, these initiatives create cultural spaces responsive to their contexts rather than subordinated to global market forces. Examples of such initiatives include community arts programs, independent film festivals, and small-scale cultural collectives, all of which foster creativity and connection while offering alternatives to the homogenized products of corporate platforms (Tomlinson, 1999; Pieterse, 2015).

Meanwhile, resistance can also emerge by subverting the very tools and platforms that perpetuate capitalism. Practices such as culture jamming, algorithmic sabotage, digital détournement, and even quiet quitting or quiet leadership quitting reveal ways to expose and critique the structures of power embedded in digital systems (Klotz, 2021; Schor, 2020; Zuboff, 2019; Wark, 2013; Klein, 2000; Lasn, 1999). By actively disrupting the commodifying tendencies of these platforms, such practices create opportunities for critical reflection and alternative forms of engagement. Ultimately, these subversive strategies demonstrate how digital tools can be repurposed to challenge the dominance of commodification, fostering spaces for resistance and innovation (Zuboff, 2019; Fuchs, 2014).

Reflecting on these discussions, the theoretical intersection of Adorno’s and Lacan’s ideas provides a compelling lens through which to conceptualize resistance to administered culture. On the one hand, Adorno (2011) critiques the commodification and standardization of culture, emphasizing the importance of preserving cultural autonomy. For him, authentic art disrupts the logic of the culture industry by confronting audiences with discomfort, ambiguity, and critical reflection. Thus, resistance demands fostering cultural forms that challenge dominant ideologies and supporting art free from market pressures (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Eagleton, 1990).

In a similar vein, Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse complements Adorno’s materialist critique by revealing how capitalism manipulates desire, perpetuating alienation through the illusion of endless enjoyment. For Lacan (1972), resistance involves unmasking this illusion and reconnecting with the symbolic dimension of culture, where desire transcends market demands. Consequently, cultural practices that emphasize depth, meaning, and collective experience disrupt the cycles of alienation and consumption perpetuated by digital platforms (Dean, 2009; Harari, 2004).

From this perspective, bringing Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) into dialogue enables a more comprehensive framework for addressing both the structural and subjective dimensions of resistance. Adorno’s emphasis on cultural autonomy aligns with Lacan’s focus on reconfiguring the subject’s relationship to desire, highlighting the need for cultural practices that are critically reflective and emotionally resonant. Together, their perspectives underscore the importance of creating cultural forms that engage audiences on both intellectual and affective levels, providing a robust approach to resisting commodification.

Table 2 synthesizes the critique of capitalist cultural administration and its proposed alternatives, emphasizing the need for structural and subjective shifts to genuinely prioritize creativity, diversity, and critical engagement. Such a transformation, however, would undoubtedly require a complete revision of the mental models and ethics underpinning contemporary modes of production and administration (Fuchs, 2014; Zuboff, 2019; Srnicek, 2017; Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004).

?

?

If cultural administration has historically served as an instrument of capitalist domination, can it instead be transformed into a mechanism for fostering autonomy and resistance? Moving beyond the profit-driven logic of cultural commodification requires envisioning alternative models of administration that prioritize artistic integrity, community participation, and collective meaning-making. In this regard, cooperative and decentralized governance structures, alongside movements advocating for slow culture, offer potential pathways for resisting the acceleration and instrumentalization of creative production. By challenging the assumption that administration must necessarily serve market interests, these alternatives propose frameworks that support genuine cultural flourishing. With these insights in mind, the next section synthesizes these theoretical discussions, examining their broader implications for understanding culture and administration in the digital age.

?

Theoretical Contributions

As previously discussed, conversations between Adorno’s critical theory and Lacan’s psychoanalytic framework provide a nuanced and multifaceted lens through which to examine the intricate relationship between culture, capitalism, and subjectivity. By synthesizing Adorno’s materialist critique of the culture industry with Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse, this approach offers robust theoretical tools for analyzing the structural mechanisms and psychic dimensions that shape cultural production, administration, and consumption. More specifically, these conversations deepen our understanding of how capitalism disciplines not only cultural systems but also individual desires, while simultaneously opening possibilities for resistance and alternative cultural practices (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Lacan, 1972; Dean, 2009).

One of the most significant contributions of this dialogue lies in its ability to address both the structural and subjective dimensions of alienation under capitalism. On the one hand, Adorno’s critique of the culture industry highlights the commodification, standardization, and subordination of cultural production to market imperatives. According to him, this process strips culture of its autonomy, transforming it into a tool for entertainment and ideological reinforcement that pacifies audiences and perpetuates the status quo (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Eagleton, 1990). On the other hand, Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse exposes how capitalism operates on a psychological level by manipulating desire through the promise of jouissance (enjoyment). In other words, while Adorno (2001) critiques the external forces of commodification and administrative control, Lacan (1972) reveals how these forces are internalized, trapping individuals in an endless cycle of consumption and dissatisfaction (Fink, 1995; Verhaeghe, 2014). Together, their perspectives offer a comprehensive framework for understanding the dual processes of structural domination and psychic alienation.

Furthermore, this dual lens also illuminates how commodification operates as both an ideological and psychological mechanism. For Adorno (2001), commodification functions ideologically by shaping culture into a system of products that reinforce capitalist hegemony. In this scenario, standardized cultural forms suppress critical thought, encouraging conformity and passivity. At the same time, Lacan (1972) extends this critique by uncovering the psychological impact of commodification, where satisfaction is promised through consumption but remains perpetually elusive, deepening the individual’s sense of lack. As a result, cultural commodities, imbued with the fantasy of completeness, entice individuals into an endless cycle of consumption that reinforces their alienation (Dean, 2009; Zizek, 1999). By integrating these insights, one can better understand how commodification disciplines both collective consciousness and individual subjectivity, consolidating capitalism’s dominance on multiple levels.

Another significant theoretical contribution of the Adorno-Lacan framework is its examination of culture as both a site of repression and a potential space for resistance. From Adorno’s perspective, the critical and emancipatory potential of autonomous art lies in its ability to resist commodification by defying market demands and audience expectations. In his view, authentic art challenges dominant ideologies and provokes critical reflection, disrupting the smooth functioning of the culture industry (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Rabinbach, 2014). Similarly, Lacan (1972) offers a psychoanalytic perspective on resistance, proposing that escaping the capitalist discourse requires confronting the illusions of jouissance and reconfiguring the relationship between desire and symbolic meaning (Fink, 1995; Harari, 2004). Taken together, they argue that resistance involves both systemic and subjective dimensions: creating cultural forms that challenge commodification and cultivating critical awareness that disrupts the cycle of alienation.

This intersection of theory also provides valuable insights into the role of administration as a mechanism of cultural control. Adorno (2001) argues that administration serves as a tool for rationalization and standardization, subordinating culture to the imperatives of efficiency and profitability. In today’s digital age, this critique becomes increasingly relevant as algorithms and data-driven platforms assume the role of cultural administrators. These systems, in turn, curate and mediate cultural production and consumption, creating a hyper-efficient cultural economy that further entrenches commodification (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Zuboff, 2019). Meanwhile, Lacan’s capitalist discourse enhances this analysis by illustrating how such systems operate on the level of desire, shaping user preferences and behaviors through personalized recommendations and predictive analytics. By combining these perspectives, one gains a deeper understanding of how cultural administration functions both as an external system of governance and an internalized logic of consumption (Fuchs, 2014; Cheney-Lippold, 2017).

While Adorno critiques the standardization and commodification of culture as mechanisms of ideological control, Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse reveals how these mechanisms operate on a psychic level. The passive consumption Adorno describes is not merely an external imposition but a structure that actively shapes the subject’s relation to desire. As culture becomes commodified, it also restructures the subject’s expectations of fulfillment, producing a cycle in which consumption perpetually promises but never delivers satisfaction. This alignment between Adorno’s structural critique and Lacan’s analysis of desire underscores how the ideological apparatus of capitalism is internalized at both the collective and individual levels.

Perhaps most importantly, the dialogue between Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) provides a framework for imagining resistance to administered culture, especially in the context of the digital age. Adorno’s emphasis on cultural autonomy underscores the need to support art that defies commodification, whether through formal experimentation, ambiguity, or critical engagement. In parallel, Lacan (1972) highlights the necessity of disrupting the fantasies perpetuated by capitalism and reconfiguring the subject’s relationship to desire. Jointly, they suggest that resistance requires both the creation of alternative cultural forms and the cultivation of new modes of engagement that challenge the psychic and structural foundations of commodified culture (Dean, 2009; Eagleton, 1990).

For example, decentralized platforms and cooperative models of cultural production resonate with Adorno’s call for autonomy by rejecting the top-down control of corporate platforms. Likewise, subversive artistic practices that expose the biases and limitations of digital systems align with Lacan’s emphasis on confronting the illusions of jouissance. By integrating these approaches, resistance strategies can address both the systemic mechanisms of cultural administration and the subjective processes of alienation (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Zuboff, 2019).

By weaving together Adorno’s structural critique and Lacan’s psychoanalytic insights, this articulation provides a comprehensive perspective on the challenges and possibilities of cultural resistance. It highlights how the dynamics of commodification and alienation operate on multiple levels, offering a pathway for reclaiming culture as a space for creativity, critical reflection, and autonomy in the face of increasingly pervasive capitalist forces.

In summary, the theoretical interplay of Adorno (2011) and Lacan (1972) enriches our understanding of the multifaceted ways capitalism infiltrates cultural production, administration, and subjectivity. By addressing both structural and psychological dimensions, this framework not only critiques the mechanisms of commodification but also opens avenues for resistance and effective transformations. Building on these theoretical insights, the next section explores their practical implications, offering strategies for reclaiming cultural autonomy and fostering alternative practices in the digital age.

?

Practical Implications

This interdisciplinary conversation between Adorno’s critical theory and Lacan’s psychoanalytic framework not only deepens theoretical understanding but also provides a practical roadmap for reimagining cultural practices and administrative systems that resist the pervasive logic of capitalism. By addressing both the structural mechanisms and the subjective dimensions of cultural control, this framework offers actionable strategies to reclaim culture as a space for autonomy, creativity, and resistance (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Lacan, 1972; Dean, 2009).

A critical starting point for this reimagining lies in confronting algorithmic administration. In the digital era, algorithms serve as invisible cultural administrators, curating content, predicting preferences, and shaping both production and consumption. From Adorno’s perspective, such governance perpetuates standardization, optimizing cultural products for profitability and engagement rather than artistic depth or integrity. Meanwhile, Lacan’s analysis reveals that algorithms not only structure consumption but also manipulate desire, creating feedback loops that reinforce existing tastes while perpetually promising satisfaction that remains unattainable (Fink, 1995; Zuboff, 2019).

To counteract these dynamics, practical interventions could advocate for algorithmic transparency, resist the dominance of personalized content recommendations, and promote cultural policies that prioritize diversity and experimentation over marketability (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Cheney-Lippold, 2017). For instance, regulatory bodies could mandate disclosure of how algorithms rank and recommend content, while cultural institutions could champion alternative algorithms designed to amplify underrepresented voices and marginalized perspectives. These measures, in turn, would challenge the market-driven priorities that currently shape cultural visibility and access.

Equally pressing is the issue of commodified personal data and creative labor. Platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, and Instagram extract value from users’ data and creators’ often uncompensated contributions, aligning cultural production with capitalist imperatives. On the one hand, Adorno critiques these practices for subordinating creativity to market demands. On the other hand, Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse reveals how they trap individuals in cycles of consumption and self-commodification (Dean, 2009; Verhaeghe, 2014).

To address these concerns, practical remedies could include fair compensation models for creators, challenges to exploitative platform policies, and fostering alternative economic systems that value creativity over metrics. In this regard, cooperative and decentralized platforms emerge as alternatives, shifting power away from corporations and empowering communities to govern cultural ecosystems collectively (Fuchs, 2014; Hesmondhalgh, 2013). For example, creators could benefit from fair revenue-sharing practices or collectively managed platforms that ensure equitable remuneration for cultural labor.

Additionally, education plays a pivotal role in fostering resistance. Both Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) emphasize the cultural shaping of subjectivity, with Adorno critiquing the ideological effects of standardized culture and Lacan unveiling the manipulation of desire. Therefore, educational initiatives focused on media literacy can help individuals recognize and resist commodifying tendencies in digital platforms (Eagleton, 1990; Harari, 2004). To this end, programs offered by public libraries, schools, and universities could teach users how to understand algorithmic manipulation, critically analyze advertising, and seek alternative cultural expressions, ultimately creating informed citizens who challenge capitalist modes of domination.

From a systemic perspective, rethinking governance models is crucial to ensuring that cultural administration prioritizes creativity, diversity, and collaboration over profit and efficiency. Cultural collectives, nonprofit organizations, and community-led initiatives offer viable alternatives to market-driven systems (Tomlinson, 1999; Pieterse, 2015). For example, public arts funding, grant programs, and crowdfunding initiatives for non-commercial projects could sustain experimental and independent cultural production, thereby ensuring long-term support for artists and workers outside the pressures of profitability.

Furthermore, fostering spaces for experimental and autonomous cultural practices remains essential. As Adorno argues, authentic art serves as a disruptive force against commodification, while Lacan’s insights into symbolic engagement underscore culture’s potential to resist capitalist logic. Thus, supporting experimental art spaces, funding avant-garde projects, and nurturing grassroots cultural movements can effectively counter the homogenization of the digital era (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Zizek, 1999). Independent film festivals, community art initiatives, and open-source creative platforms, for instance, provide avenues for innovation and critical engagement that are free from market constraints.

Moreover, the Adorno-Lacan framework suggests strategies to resist the internalization of capitalist logic. Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse demonstrates how individuals are drawn into cycles of self-commodification, treating themselves as both producers and products within digital marketplaces. To counter this trend, creators could form unions or collectives advocating for transparent compensation practices while also resisting opaque algorithms that prioritize profitability over fairness (Dean, 2009; Verhaeghe, 2014). Similarly, ethical guidelines for platform governance could prioritize creators’ rights and authentic expression over metrics-driven visibility.

By addressing both the structural mechanisms of cultural administration and the subjective processes of alienation, this synthesis provides a comprehensive framework for reclaiming culture. Through a combination of decentralized platforms, cooperative models, media literacy initiatives, and spaces for experimental practices, these strategies offer tangible steps toward challenging the commodification of cultural production and consumption. In doing so, they foster the emergence of organizational spaces effectively oriented toward mobilizing human potential (Uhl-Bien & Arena, 2017; Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1997; Winnicott, 1971). By integrating these approaches, a cultural landscape can emerge that values diversity, critical engagement, collective meaning-making, and mental health, thereby countering the alienation and commodification pervasive in the digital era (Edmondson, 2019).

In essence, the practical measures outlined here emphasize the necessity of resisting the systemic and subjective forces that sustain the commodification of culture. From advocating for transparency in algorithmic systems to supporting decentralized platforms and fostering grassroots initiatives, these strategies seek to reclaim cultural spaces from the grips of capitalist logic. As a next step, the concluding section synthesizes these discussions, reflecting on the broader implications of this analysis for understanding and transforming cultural administration in the digital age.

Conclusion

This article has sought to explore the evolving dynamics of culture and administration in the digital age, revisiting Adorno’s Culture and Administration through the lens of Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse. By synthesizing Adorno’s critique of the commodification and standardization of culture with Lacan’s insights into the manipulation of desire under capitalism, the analysis has illuminated how cultural production and administration are shaped by both structural and psychic mechanisms of control. Throughout this discussion, it has examined key transformations brought about by digitalization - such as algorithmic governance, the commodification of creativity and personal data, and the tension between cultural autonomy and administration - and has proposed strategies for resistance and alternative practices (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Lacan, 1972; Zuboff, 2019).

A central argument advanced in this article is that the digital era represents an intensification of the processes critiqued by Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972). In this context, algorithms, now functioning as invisible cultural administrators, optimize production and consumption to serve the imperatives of capital while simultaneously shaping desire and reinforcing cycles of alienation. As a result, cultural production is increasingly governed by metrics, personalization, and predictive analytics, creating a feedback loop that standardizes creativity and pacifies critical engagement (Fuchs, 2014; Couldry & Mejias, 2019). Through this examination, the article has demonstrated the enduring relevance of Adorno and Lacan’s perspectives for understanding how the logic of capitalism permeates the digital cultural landscape, perpetuating market dominance and shaping subjectivity in profound ways (Dean, 2009; Verhaeghe, 2014).

Beyond this theoretical contribution, the article also engages with contemporary debates on culture and administration by elucidating how social ties and cultural practices are anchored in the capitalist discourse and the supremacy of market relations. In particular, it underscores the dual role of digital platforms in reproducing and amplifying capitalist logic, specifically by commodifying cultural production, creativity, and even individual identities. By engaging with the intersection of critical theory and psychoanalysis, this analysis not only deepens theoretical discussions but also points to actionable strategies for reclaiming cultural autonomy, fostering resistance, and envisioning new forms of cultural governance that transcend commodification and capitalist exploitation (Hesmondhalgh, 2013; Zizek, 1999).

Looking ahead, this article opens several avenues for future research. One pressing area of inquiry concerns the role of emerging technologies - such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and the metaverse - in reshaping cultural production and administration. These technologies have the potential to either exacerbate the commodification of culture or enable alternative systems of governance and distribution, depending on how they are implemented. Thus, examining their implications through the frameworks provided by Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972) could yield valuable insights into their capacity to disrupt or reinforce the capitalist discourse (Srnicek, 2017; Cheney-Lippold, 2017).

Additionally, ethical questions surrounding digital cultural administration warrant further exploration. As algorithms increasingly determine visibility, access, and success in cultural production, interrogating their biases, transparency, and accountability becomes essential. Future research might investigate how ethical frameworks could be developed to ensure that digital platforms prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusivity over market profitability. For instance, studies could explore how algorithmic transparency might empower creators and audiences to resist commodification and reclaim cultural spaces for equitable practices (Couldry & Mejias, 2019; Zuboff, 2019).

Finally, the ongoing tension between cultural autonomy and algorithmic governance raises critical questions about how creators can navigate platform economies without becoming entirely subsumed by their logic. Exploring grassroots and cooperative models of cultural production, as well as strategies for fostering digital literacy and critical engagement among audiences, could offer practical solutions to these challenges (Dean, 2009; Fuchs, 2014). For example, future studies might examine how decentralized platforms create opportunities for creators and communities to reclaim cultural agency while resisting commercialization pressures.

In revisiting Adorno’s Culture and Administration through the lens of Lacan’s concept of the capitalist discourse, this article has offered a critical perspective on the intersection of culture, administration, and capitalism in the digital age. More specifically, the analysis underscores the urgent need to resist the commodification of creativity and to reclaim culture as a space for autonomy, diversity, and critical engagement (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002; Verhaeghe, 2014). Simultaneously, it emphasizes the importance of addressing both the structural and subjective dimensions of cultural administration, thus providing theoretical and practical tools for navigating the complexities of cultural production in an increasingly digitized and commodified world.

As technologies continue to evolve, the challenges and possibilities for cultural resistance and renewal will remain vital areas of inquiry, shaping the future of how culture is created, administered, and experienced. By integrating the multidisciplinary insights of authors such as Adorno (2001) and Lacan (1972), one can develop a nuanced understanding of the mechanisms through which capitalism disciplines culture and desire. However, beyond critique, this analysis also highlights pathways for resistance. Strategies such as decentralized cultural platforms, algorithmic transparency policies, and slow culture movements offer glimpses de uma possível revers?o das tendências de homogeneiza??o e explora??o da criatividade na era digital.

?

References

?

Adorno, T. W. (2001). Culture and administration. In T. W. Adorno & J. M. Bernstein (Eds.), The culture industry: Selected essays on mass culture (pp. 93-111). Routledge.

Baym, N. K. (2018). Playing to the crowd: Musicians, audiences, and the intimate work of connection. NYU Press.

Beer, D. (2017). The data gaze: Capitalism, power, and perception. SAGE Publications.

Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press.

Brown, W. (2019). In the ruins of neoliberalism: The rise of antidemocratic politics in the west. Columbia University Press.

Cheney-Lippold, J. (2017). We are data: Algorithms and the making of our digital selves. New York University Press.

Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Harvard Business Press.

Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism. Stanford University Press.

De Filippi, P. (2018). Blockchain and the law: The rule of code. Harvard University Press.

Dean, J. (2009). Democracy and other neoliberal fantasies: Communicative capitalism and left politics. Duke University Press.

Denning, S. (2018). The age of agile: How Smart companies are transforming the way work gets done. Amacom.

Eagleton, T. (1990). The ideology of the aesthetic. Blackwell.

Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton University Press.

Foss, N. J., & Saebi, T. (2017). Fifteen years of research on business model innovation: How far have we come, and where should we go? Journal of Management, 43(1), 200-227.

Fuchs, C. (2014). Digital labour and Karl Marx. Routledge.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209-226.

Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167-193). MIT Press.

Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Volume 2. Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Beacon Press.

Harari, R. (2004). Lacan’s seminar on anxiety: An introduction. Other Press.

Held, D. (1980). Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press.

Hesmondhalgh, D. (2013). The cultural industries. Sage Publications.

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

Jay, M. (1984). Adorno. Harvard University Press.

Jenkins, H., Ford, S., & Green, J. (2013). Spreadable Media: Creating Value and Meaning in a Networked Culture. NYU Press.

Jin, D. Y. (2016). New Korean wave: Transnational cultural power in the age of social media. University of Illinois Press.

Klein, N. (2000). No logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies. Picador.

Klotz, A. (2021). The great resignation. Harvard Business Review.

Lacan, J. (1972). Le séminaire, livre XVII: L’envers de la psychanalyse. éditions du Seuil.

Lasn, K. (1999). Culture jam: How to reverse America’s suicidal consumer binge - and why we must. HarperCollins.

Livingstone, S. (2019). Audiences in an age of datafication: Critical questions for media research. Television & New Media, 20(2), 170-183.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71-87.

Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring of organizations: A synthesis of the research. Prentice Hall.

Morris, J. (2020). Curating the world: How Algorithmic playlists construct new musical identities. In Digital Music Cultures (pp. 129-148). Routledge.

Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1997). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. Oxford University Press.

O’Flynn, J. (2007). National identity and music in transition: Issues of authenticity in a global setting. Critical Studies in Improvisation, 3(2), 1-18.

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and ideology. Harvard University Press.

Pieterse, J. N. (2015). Globalization and culture: Global mélange. Rowman & Littlefield.

Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The future of competition: Co-creating unique value with customers. Harvard Business School Press.

Rabinbach, A. (2014). The eclipse of the utopian energies of the enlightenment: A critique of Adorno’s diagnosis of late capitalism. Harvard University Press.

Rufo, C. F. (2023). America’s cultural revolution: How the radical left conquered everything. Broadside Books.

Ryan, B. (1992). Making capital from culture: The corporate form of capitalist cultural production. Walter de Gruyter.

Sandel, M. J. (2020). The tyranny of merit: What’s become of the common good? Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Schor, J. (2020). After the gig: How the sharing economy got hijacked and how to win it back. University of California Press.

Shirky, C. (2008). Here comes everybody: The power of organizing without organizations. Penguin Press.

Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.

Tkacz, N. (2015). Wikipedia and the politics of openness. University of Chicago Press.

Tomlinson, J. (1999). Globalization and culture. University of Chicago Press.

Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1996). Ambidextrous organizations: Managing evolutionary and revolutionary change. California Management Review, 38(4), 8-30.

Uhl-Bien, M. (2006). Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6), 654-676.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2017). Complexity Leadership: Enabling People and Organizations for Adaptability. Organizational Dynamics, 46(1), 9-20.

Uhl-Bien, M., & Arena, M. (2019). Leadership for organizational adaptability: A theoretical synthesis and integrative framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 29(1), 89-104.

Verhaeghe, P. (2014). What about me? The struggle for identity in a market-based society. Scribe Publications.

Wark, M. (2013). The spectacle of disintegration: Situationist passages out of the twentieth century. Verso.

Watson, A., & McIntosh, A. (2021). Platforms and the production of culture: Knowledge, community, and creativity in digital media. Routledge.

Weber, M. (1992). The Protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism. Routledge.

Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. Routledge.

Zizek, S. (1999). The ticklish subject: The absent centre of political ontology. Verso.

Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.

[1] Professor at FGV-EAESP. Researcher at NEOP FGV-EAESP. MED-AoM Ambassador. Postdoctoral Researcher in Psychoanalytic Theory. Postdoctoral Fellow in the Psychiatry Graduate Program at USP. Doctor in Business Administration and Doctor in Architecture and Urbanism. https://pesquisa-eaesp.fgv.br/professor/anderson-de-souza-santanna.

This paper was developed within the framework of the Leadership Observatory NEOP FGV-EAESP. This research is supported by the S?o Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP).

Sant'Anna, A. S. (2024). Culture and Administration through the Lens of the Capitalist Discourse. Manuscript Discussion Series, 2(30):1-22. NEOP FGV-EAESP. (Work in progress)

?