The concept of ‘pseudo-culture’ was discussed by the German philosopher Theodor Adorno in his 1959 essay, Theory of Pseudo-Culture. He argued that the then existing “crisis in culture” cannot be resolved by more education alone. Instead, he suggested that the decline of culture is a product of culture itself. He questioned the current state of culture, which had become an externalized, alienated force—what he referred to as a kind of negative objective spirit.
Adorno was part of the Frankfurt School (1920s-1960s). The Frankfurt School was a group of German philosophers, sociologists, and critical theorists known for developing Critical Theory which critiqued the then modern capitalist society, mass culture, and the ways in which culture, media, and ideology reinforce systems of domination and conformity. Adorno and other thinkers like Max Horkheimer and Herbert Marcuse also criticized the culture industry. In their view, mass-produced entertainment and media (Hollywood, pop music, advertising) created a false culture that pacified people and reinforced capitalist, consumerist systems. Post the Frankfurt School, Guy Debord and in his book, The Society of the Spectacle talked about how modern society reduces culture to mere images and entertainment, distracting people from real human experiences.
In 1982, in his short piece Exploitation and Pseudo-Culture, P R Sarkar mentioned the term pseudo-culture as something being detached from “subtler and sweeter aspects of life” and that if local cultural expressions are destroyed it “paralys[es] those people psychologically”. Sarkar also emphasized the importance of cultural heritage and the psychological damage of cultural exploitation, such as where a dominating group of people over-ride or supplant the locally developed cultural heritage. Cultural exploitation can lead to erasure, stereotyping and economic harm for the affected communities, and marginalizes those communities. It negatively affects the sentimental legacy of a community.
Essentially, local expressions of culture are associated with the sentimental legacy of the local people. This does not suggest a confined idea of what is local. It could be small communities, or it could be regional, national or even supranational cultural expressions. For example, Polynesian culture could be a particular form expressed by Māori tribes in New Zealand, but at the same time a broader supranational expression across many Polynesian nations. Cultural exploitation could be occurring specifically against the Māori in New Zealand or more generally against various Polynesian communities across the Pacific Ocean. Similarly, Bavarian cultural expression (clothing, music, dance, etc.) may be specific to southeastern parts of Germany, but those same people can identify with a German cultural expression, and even a whole of Europe identity that is developing its common cultural expression.
Though not every practice can be regarded as culture in an elevating sense. Indeed, the very notion of pseudo-culture suggests that real culture cannot be oppressive or suppressive of people in their communities. Such practices are counter to cardinal human values. Cardinal human values are basically universal and embody high level concepts such as ‘one human family’ and ‘love for all’. This recognizes the inherent worth of every individual, and such high values, espoused throughout human history, are surely meant to prevent the degeneration of humanity to animality.
Sentimental Legacy
These internal human values arise from deep in the human psyche or from spiritual inclinations rather than being externally imposed through rules. They also border on moral inclinations. Values can then be shaped into principles, and this is regard P R Sarkar has stated that “human cardinal principles are the silver lining between the psycho-spiritual and spiritual strata of human existence”.(1)
Similarly, sentimental legacy is internal, while rooted in shared human experiences across a community or larger body of people, such as a nation. While cultural expressions based on that sentimental legacy are external, the actual sentiment behind them is internal. Cultures with elements of strong sentimental legacy, e.g. feelings of belonging or emotions that tap into inspiring collective memories, do not tend to be object-oriented or matter-oriented cultures, or more realistically that aspect of the culture (as no culture is yet perfect). The sentimental legacy of the culture stems from deep positive propensities (like compassion, sharing and humility), or spiritual foundations, or has a moral bearing, passed down through generations. A strong sentimental legacy may also foster inner reflection and a sense of interconnectedness beyond the material world. The sentimental legacy lingers and shapes values, identity and social bonds.
In contrast, a culture that is primarily materialist does not have this kind of sentimental legacy as is outward looking. Culture becomes an alienated and commodified construct, transforming into socialized pseudo-culture. Various forms of exploitation take place, both psychic and psycho-economic, and when rampant the culture become stagnant. Thus, “exploitation in the cultural sphere is accomplished by the propagation of pseudo-culture”(1) which breaks the cultural backbone of the local people. In general terms, pseudo-culture has a tendency to degrade, rather than uplift.
Characteristics of Pseudo-Culture
Some key norms of pseudo-culture include:
- The belief that pleasure is always good, while hardship is inherently negative and without value.
- A lack of philosophical or spiritual depth – it may reject any notions of a universal consciousness.
- A rigid worldview that fears uncertainty and demands conformity, punishing those who think outside conventional boundaries.
The result? Individuals raised in pseudo-culture often lack the ability for deep self-reflection. Having never been encouraged to turn inward, they remain misshapen in their intellectual and emotional development. As R.M. Katz observed in Communal Training of the Solitary Individual: A Nietzschean Puzzle Concerning Liberal Education (p. 395), such individuals struggle to engage in meaningful learning and introspection. Without a strong sentimental legacy to sustain it, a culture loses its roots—especially its deepest spiritual sentiments—and becomes a mere shadow of itself.
Role of Capitalism in Pseudo-Culture
Pseudo-culture is a specific subset within psycho-economic exploitation, which is a broad term that refers to all forms of exploitation where people’s psychological needs, desires, fears, and mental frameworks are manipulated for economic gain. Psycho-economic exploitation encompasses:
- Advertising-driven consumerism that exploits insecurities.
- Addictive technologies (like social media algorithms) monetizing attention spans.
- Emotional manipulation in labor markets (fear-based management, hustle culture).
- Cultural or political messaging that economically benefits elites by distorting public consciousness.
Pseudo-culture would cover the creation, propagation, and commodification of artificial, inauthentic, or shallow cultural content designed primarily to:
- Distract, pacify, or control public consciousness.
- Encourage consumption without true cultural enrichment.
- Neutralize critical thinking or structured revolutionary initiates.
Examples:
- Mass-produced pop culture with no deeper aesthetic or intellectual value.
- Hyper-commercialized cultural symbols.
- Algorithm-driven “culture” that optimizes engagement, not meaning.
It’s similar to what critical theorists like Herbert Marcuse or Adorno called the “Culture Industry” — entertainment and cultural products functioning as tools of pacification and control under capitalism.
Capitalism plays a major role in the proliferation of pseudo-culture, instantly converting authentic cultural expressions into commercialized, mass-produced slogans and imagery. Consider the advertising slogan, “Open a Coke, open happiness.” In many remote villages, where access to food and clean water is a daily struggle, Coca-Cola remains a ubiquitous presence. Even in such hardship, people recognize and internalize the latest corporate slogans, highlighting how capitalism exploits and redefines cultural identity.
Adorno stated, “Any culture … which posits itself autonomously and absolutizes itself, has thereby become pseudo-culture.” (Theory of Pseudo-Culture, p. 17). This raises an important question: What is happening in the human mind that allows for the spread of pseudo-culture? Perhaps the root of the problem lies there.
P.R. Sarkar noted that “people at times run after the external features of things, instead of taking into account their intrinsic worth. Generally, it is noticed that people run more after charming and glittering objects: such attraction is not sentimental but superficial—they are running after extrinsic splendor. These sentimental and superficial affections are both preya (for mundane pleasures), not shreya (for supreme benevolence).” (Supreme Benevolence and Mundane Pleasure (Shreya and Preya), 1956).
This perspective suggests that a culture driven by material desires lacks depth and cohesiveness, leading to fragmented notions of happiness. In contrast, a culture rooted in sentimental legacy seeks a more profound and lasting peace—both individually and collectively.
The deepest and most enduring form of cultural expression is one centered around spiritual sentiment, particularly the concept of Divine Love (Prema). Throughout history, artistic and cultural expressions based on this integral outlook have withstood the test of time, while purely materialistic cultures have faded. Sarkar argues that the movement of the mind toward acquiring physical things (kama) is inherently outward-facing and fleeting. In contrast, the movement of spiritual love (prema) is directed inward, fostering a universal human sentiment and striving toward the highest form of peace. This inclination has been a defining aspect of human civilization since its inception.
Pseudo-Culture and Social Impact
Pseudo-culture pervades modern society, reducing knowledge to easily digestible slogans. This prevents individuals from developing a deep understanding of the world and from cultivating the sense of interconnectedness necessary for a fulfilling and meaningful life. A truly vibrant culture embraces the suffering of others and fosters a sense of unity with all beings.
However, mass media and advertising actively work to undermine authentic cultures, replacing them with a fabricated pseudo-culture designed to shape consumer identities. This pseudo-culture creates “consumer citizens”—individuals whose thoughts and actions are directed by market forces that uphold contemporary trends and “profitable truths” dictated by corporations.
Pseudo-cultural communications are widespread today, particularly in postmodern contexts where individuals adopt signs and identities from different cultures to construct fictional or “pseudo-cultural” narratives. This raises questions about whether such interactions represent genuine cultural development or mere appropriation of traditions. As K.G. Roberts noted in Emotivism and Pseudo-Cultural Identities (Howard Journal of Communications, Volume 14, Issue 4, 2003), there is a significant difference between sharing cultural legacy and expropriating culture for external purposes.
