Theodor W. Adorno - Essays on Music Selected, with Introduction, Commentary, and Notes by Richard Leppert. Translations by Susan H. illespie and others Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments Translator's Note Note Abbreviations Introduction by Richard Leppert ! L"#ATIN$ %&I#( "#I)T*+ %",)RNIT*+ AN, T-) N). #ommentary by Richard Leppert %usic+ Language+ and #omposition /0123 .hy Is the New Art o -ard to &nderstand4 /053 "n the #ontemporary Relationship of Philosophy and %usic /0153 "n the Problem of %usical Analysis The Aging of the the New %usic %usic /0113 The ,ialectical ,ialectical #omposer /0563 /0563 7! #<&R)+ T)#-N"L"$*+ T)#-N"L"$*+ AN, LIT)NIN$ #ommentary by Richard Leppert The Radio ymphony ymphony /063 The #urves of the Neddle /07890213 The :orm of the Phonograph Record Record "pera and the Long;Playing Record /0203 "n the :etish;#haracter in %usic and the Regression of Listening /05<3 Little -eresy /0213 5! %&I# AN, %A #<&R) #ommentary by Richard Leppert .hat National ocialism ocialism -as ,one to the Arts /0613 "n the ocial ituation of %usic /0573 "n Popular %usic =.ith the assistance assistance of $eorge impson> /063 "n ?a@@ /0523 :arewell to ?a@@ /0553 itsch /c! 0573 %usic in the Background /c! 0563
6! #"%P"ITI"N+ #"%P")R+ AN, ."R #ommentary by Richard Leppert Late tyle in Beethoven /0583 Alienated %asterpiece( %asterpiece( The Missa Solemnis /0103 .agner's Relevance Relevance for Today /0253 %ahler Today /05C3 %arginalia %arginalia on %ahler /0523 The "pera Wozzeck /0703 /0703 Toward an &nderstanding &nderstanding of choenberg choenberg /01190283 /01190283 ,ifficulties /026+ 0223 Bibliography
Introduction Richard Leppert
Life and Works Adorno was a genius; I say that without reservation. . . . [He] had a presence of ind! a spontaneity of thought! a power of foru"ation that I have never n ever seen #efore or since. $ne was una#"e to grasp the eerging process of Adorno%s thoughts; they eerged! as it were! finished. That was his virtuosity. . . . When you were with Adorno you were in the oveent of his thought. Adorno was not trivia"; it was denied hi! h i! in a c"ear"y painfu" way! ever to #e trivia". &ut at the sae tie! he "acked the pretensions and the affectations of the sti"ted and 'auratic' avant(garde that one saw in )eorge%s discip"es. . . . &y a"" nota#"e standards! Adorno reained anti( e"itist. Incidenta""y! he was a genius a"so in that he h e preserved certain chi"d( "ike traits! #oth the character of a prodigy and the dependence of one 'not( yet(grownup.' He was characteristica""y he"p"ess #efore institutions or "ega" procedures. *+rgen Ha#eras! 'A )eneration Apart fro Adorno' Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno was #orn in ,rankfurt a -ain on /epte#er 012. ! He died fro a heart attack 3ust short of his si4ty(si4th #irthday on 5 August 050 whi"e on vacation in /wit6er"and. Adorno%s father! $skar Wiesengrund 7891(0:5! was a wine erchant and an assii"ated *ew who converted to
a"ve""i(Adorno de""a atho"ic! and it was her fai"y nae that Adorno e4changed for Wiesengrund in 028.# A"so "iving in the househo"d throughout Adorno%s chi"dhood was his other%s unarried sister! Agathe >a"ve""i(Adorno 7858(02?. Adorno referred to #oth as -other. -aria had #een a very successfu" professiona" singer! her career ending with her arriage; Agathe had #een a successfu" professiona" pianist; she had accopanied singer Ade"ina
Adorno%s inte""ectua" training was rigorous and cae ear"y. &y age fifteen! he #egan a "ong period of study occupying /aturday afternoonsof Bant%s Critique of Pure Reason entored #y fai"y friend /iegfried Bracauer 7880(055! who at the tie was editor of the Frankfurter Zeitung. &y Adorno%s own account! the Bant study sessions went on 'for years.' &y 0@2 Bracauer and Adorno were studying )oethe%s Elective Affinities and! thereafter! the first draft of Wa"ter &en3ain%s essay on this work.$ Hauke &runkhorst states the ipact of the Bant studies as 'the key work in Adorno%s inte""ectua" deve"opent. The idea of a negative dia"ectic! which is Adorno%s ost uni=ue phi"osophica" contri#ution! owes uch to it.'% Adorno hise"f acknow"edged as uchC 'I a not e4aggerating in the s"ightest when I say that I owe ore to this reading [of Bant] than to y acadeic teachers.'& Leo Lowentha" 7011(002! "ater the distinguished socio"ogist of "iterature! who Adorno et in 0@! a"so studied with Bracauer. In a "etter to Lowentha" of : Dece#er 0@! Bracauer used a#out their utua" friendC '/oething incopara#"e puts hi in a position over #oth of us! an adira#"e ateria" e4istence [referring to Adorno%s fai"y%s wea"th] and a wonderfu""y se"f(confident character. He is tru"y a #eautifu" specien of a huan #eing; even if I a not without soe skepticis concerning his future! I a sure"y de"ighted #y hi in the present.' Lowentha"! "ate in "ife! descri#ed Adorno at eighteen in ore persona" ters as 'a de"icate! s"ender young an. Indeed! he was the c"assica" iage of a poet! with a de"icate way of oving and ta"king that one scarce"y finds nowadays. We wou"d eet either at a coffee houseost"y at the faous >afE Westend at the opera! where inte""ectua" enfants terribles etor at one or at the other of our parents% p"aces. Fatura""y! I knew Adorno%s parents we""! a"so his aunt Agathe. It was an e4istence you 3ust had to "ove if you were not dying of 3ea"ousy of this protected #eautifu" "ifeand in it Adorno had gained the confidence that never "eft hi his entire "ife.'' With Bracauer%s guidance Adorno notes that he e4perienced Bant 'fro the #eginning not as ere episteo"ogy! not as an ana"ysis of the conditions of scientifica""y va"id 3udgents! #ut as a kind of coded te4t fro which the historica" situation of spirit cou"d #e read! with the vague e4pectation that in doing so one cou"d ac=uire soething of truth itse"f.' Fo "ess iportant! Adorno noted that 'What pressed for phi"osophica" e4pression in [Bracauer] was an a"ost #ound"ess capacity for sufferingC sufferingC e4pression and suffering are intiate"y re"ated. Bracauer%s re"ationship to truth was that suffering entered into the idea which usua""y dissipates itin undistorted! unitigated for; suffering cou"d #e rediscovered in ideas fro the past as we"".'( The =uestion of suffering! and the responsi#i"ity of #oth phi"osophy and art to address it! reained with Adorno his entire career. In 0@! at age seventeen! Adorno entered ,rankfurt%s *ohann Wo"fgang )oethe Gniversity where he studied phi"osophy! socio"ogy! psycho"ogy! and usic. He cop"eted a doctorate in phi"osophy 3ust three years "ater at age twenty(one. During these years he et and fored friendships with t wo en of particu"ar iportance to his "ater professiona" and inte"" ectua" "ife! respective"yC in 0@@ -a4 Horkheier 780?(092! eight years Adorno%s senior; and in 0@2 Wa"ter &en3ain 780@(0:1! e"even years o"der. &y the "ate 0@1s Adorno was a"so ac=uainted with a nu#er of other heterodo4 -ar4ists! inc"uding rnst &"och! &erto"t &recht! Her#ert -arcuse! and Burt Wei"". As an ado"escent! Adorno%s usica" training inc"uded piano "essons fro &ernhard /ek"es! a"so the teacher of Hindeith. As a young an he serious"y entertained the possi#i"ity of a career as a coposer and concert pianist. He acted on this a#ition in *anuary 0@? with a ove to ienna! after having #een deep"y affected #y e4cerpts fro &erg%s Wozzeck, prior to the opera%s wor"d preiere! p"ayed at a concert in ,rankfurt! where he a"so et &erg. &erg accepted hi as a coposition student and gave hi "essons twice week"y.) Adorno a"so took additiona" piano training fro duard /teuerann! a chapion of twentieth(century piano works! who "ike &erg was part of the /choen#erg circ"e. Adorno did not find ienna to his "iking. -oreover! the /choen#erg 'circ"e!' which he hoped to 3oin! turned out to #e not uch of one. /choen#erg hise"f was reote persona""y and inaccessi#"e physica""y! having oved outside the city to -Jd"ing fo""owing his second arriage; and in 0@5 /choen#erg oved to &er"in. Fot "east! /choen#erg and Adorno did not hit it off! despite Adorno%s adiration for the coposer%s usic. Adorno returned to ,rankfurt in the suer of 0@?! though he trave"ed #ack to ienna on and off unti" 0@9! Taktstock and aintaining his contacts and pu#"ishing usic criticis! nota#"y in the usic 3ourna"s Pult und Taktstock and Anbruc! for the "atter he ac=uired an editoria" position with &erg%s he"p in 0@0 which he retained unti" 02@.!* &oth 3ourna"s chapioned new usic. Adorno%s career in usic 3ourna"is in fact predated his ienna e4perienceand vast"y e4ceeded his pu#"ication in phi"osophy! the first phi"osophica" essay appearing on"y in 022. &etween 0@! whi"e sti"" a teenager! and 02 he pu#"ished do6ens of opera and concert reviews! reviews of pu#"ished new usic! as we"" as essays on aesthetics! and heavi"y favoring new usic.!! Thus in 0@@! at nineteen! he praised in print /choen#erg%s Pierrot lunaire lunaire 70@ in the "eue #l$tter #l$tter
f%r &unst und 'iteratur. 'iteratur. During the "ate 0@1s and ear"y 021s he and rnst Brenek carried on i n(print de#ates a#out free tona"ity and seria"is! and pro#"es of usica" for and genre; he a"so co""a#orated with vio"inist Rudo"f Bo"isch on deve"oping a theory of usica" perforance.!" Returning to ,rankfurt at twenty(four! Adorno #egan his association with the Institut e of /ocia" Research! founded in 0@2! with which Horkheier was a"ready connectedon"y after the /econd Wor"d War was the Institute%s work referred to as the ',rankfurt /choo".' Adorno%s first pu#"ication for the Institute cae in 02@! with the essay '$n the /ocia" /ituation in -usic!' inc"uded in this vo"ue; it appeared in the first issue of the Institute%s 3ourna"! Zeitscrift f%r (ozialforscung. (ozialforscung. Adorno fora""y 3oined the Institute on"y in 028! during its Aerican e4i"e. The right to teach in )eran universities depends on the )abilitationsscrift, )abilitationsscrift, a kind of second dissertation. Adorno%s first attept 7'The >oncept of the Gnconscious in the Transcendenta" Theory of -ind' in 0@9 was re3ected #y his advisor! phi"osopher Hans >orne"ius. His second effort! successfu"! concerned Bierkegaard 7'BierkegaardC >onstruction of the Aesthetic' and constituted one of the ear"y criti=ues of 4istentia"is. orne"ius had "eft the university! eigrating to ,in"and. Adorno%s Bierkegaard study was pu#"ished in 022! on the very day that Hit"er assued office. The -ar4ist orientation of the Institute of /ocia" Research was we"" known and in no sense disguised; oreover! its e#ers were a"ost e4c"usive"y *ewish. $n 21 *anuary 022! the day of Hit"er%s ascendancy! the house shared #y Horkheier and ,riedrich ouni st property!' charging that the Institute 'has encouraged activities hosti"e to the state.'!$ -ost of its si4ty(thousand(vo"ue "i#rary was confiscated. 7The Institute%s su#stantia" private endowent had #een transferred to Ho""and two years ear"ier and was "ater oved again to the Gnited /tates! there#y protecting it fro sei6ure. In /epte#er! on his thirtieth #irthday! Adorno%s right to teach! the venia legendi, was revoked #y the Fa6i governent! and he oved! #rief"y! to &er"in.!% 7To that point in his career Adorno had principa""y supported hise"f! however poor"y! #y 3ourna"istic usic criticis! rather t han teaching.!& Horkheier! who had assued the directorship in 02! and his co""eagues initia""y oved the Institute to )eneva! where a #ranch office had #een esta#"ished the sae year as Horkheier #ecae directorunti" the start of the war there were a"so #ranch offices in o"u#ia Gniversity. /oon thereafter! Horkheier was 3oined #y Leo Lowentha"! Her#ert -arcuse! and ,riedrich o""ege. 7His entry to -erton was supported #y references fro phi"osopher rnst >assirer and usico"ogist dward Dent; Adorno had written to A"#an &erg for the favor of intervening with Dent! who Adorno had et through the Internationa" /ociety for Few -usic.!' Thereafter! Adorno ade nuerous trips #ack to )erany! soe =uite e4tended! in particu"ar to see )rete" Barp"us 701@(002 in &er"in! who he arried in 029. It was possi#"e for Adorno to return to )erany ore or "ess free"y for two reasons. ,irst! he was not po"itica""y active! nor was he a e#er of the Institute; second! he was! as Ro"f Wiggershaus puts it! '%on"y% a %ha"f(*ew%';!( the Fure#erg Laws of 02? treated *isclinge "ike Adorno ore "enient"y than 'fu""' *ews.!) Leo Lowentha" accounts for Adorno%s re"uctance t o "eave )erany as typica" of the assii"ated )eran(*ewish idd"e c"ass! the upper idd"e c"ass especia""y. 'Adorno had such an incredi#"y hard tie fina""y "eaving )erany 7we had to drag hi a"ost physica""y; he 3ust cou"dn%t #e"ieve that to hi! son of $skar Wiesengrund! nephew of aunt Agathe! and son of -aria! anything ight ever happen [i.e.! so secure and happy was his chi"dhood]! for it was a#so"ute"y c"ear that the #ourgeoisie wou"d soon #ecoe fed up with Hit"er. This kind of nave unfai"iarity with the rea" wor"dparticu"ar"y that of )erany and the at(first cop"icated and then not(so(cop"icated re"ations of >hristians and *ewsust #e #orne in ind if one is to fu""y understand Adorno%s persona" history.' "* In *une 029 Adorno #rief"y visited the Gnited /tates for the first tie! at the urging of Horkheier. Adorno and )rete" eigrated in ,e#ruary 028! thanks to a part(tie position esta#"ished for hi #y Horkheier in the usic division of the a"ifornia e4i"e was inte""ectua""y high"y productive. Indeed! in a 0?9 "etter to Lowentha" he confided that 'I #e"ieve 01 percent of a"" that I%ve pu#"ished in )erany was written in Aerica.'"#
-a3or works written during this period inc"ude +ialectic of Enligtenent 70:: written with Horkheier at the #eginning of his stay! and! at the end! Te Autoritarian Personalit- 70?1! a u"ti(person co""a#oration with Adorno the senior author."$ Te Autoritarian Personalit-, #y far the "argest onograph Adorno wrote in ng"ish! was part of a series of pro3ects that fe"" under the heading (tudies in Preudice, sponsored #y the Aerican *ewish >oittee! which had hired Horkheier to direct its Departent of /cientific Research. &etween these two a3or co""a#orative pro3ects cae *inia *oralia/ Reflections fro +aaged 'ife cop"eted #y 0:5 #ut pu#"ished on"y in 0?. Dedicated to Horkheier! it is Adorno%s ost persona" #ook! an often deep"y oving ana"ysis of "ate odernity viewed through the condition of e4i"e. At a#out the sae tie! he co""a#orated with Hanns is"er on Co0osing for te Fils 70:9! the first onograph on fi" usic. Piloso0- of *odern *usic 7Adorno%s )eran tit"e is ore accurate"y rendered 'Few -usic'! a high"y inf"uentia"and controversia"account of usic #y /choen#erg and /travinsky! appeared in 0:0! though part of it was written severa" years ear"ier. 1n (earc of Wagner, parts of which he had pu#"ished in essay for in 020! appeared in 0?@. During the war years! Adorno cae into c"ose contact with fe""ow EigrE Thoas -ann! then writing his great nove" +octor Faustus/ Te 'ife of te 2eran Co0oser Adrian 'everk%n as Told b- a Friend ! a sustained criti=ue of Fa6is using the fictiona" coposer%s #iography and work as a etaphor for )erany%s cu"tura" dec"ine. In 0:2 -ann read #oth Adorno%s Wagner anuscript! and the /choen#erg essay that constitutes the first part of Piloso0- of *odern *usic. -ann! uch ipressed! infora""y secured Adorno%s services as de facto principa" usica" advisor to the nove"! which aong other things! invo"ved Adorno%s coaching -ann on /choen#erg%s twe"ve(tone techni=ue! "% for which he received -ann%s pu#"ic e4pression of gratitude in his onograph account of the writing of the nove"! Te (tor- of a "ovel/ Te 2enesis of +octor Faustus."& -ann%s reaction to reading Adorno%s /choen#erg essayC 'Here indeed was soething iportant. The anuscript dea"t with odern usic #oth on an artistic and on a socio"ogica" p"ane. The spirit of it was rearka#"y forward("ooking! su#t"e and deep! and the who"e thing had the strangest affinity to the idea of y #ook! to the %coposition% in which I "ived and oved and had y #eing. The decision was ade of itse"fC t his was y an. . . . His know"edge of tradition! his astery of the who"e historica" #ody of usic! is enorous. An Aerican singer who works with hi said to eC %It is incredi#"e. [Adorno] knows every note in the wor"d.%'"' During the "ate 0:1s Horkheier!
They saw these"ves as *ews! as "eft(wing inte""ectua"s and as critica" socio"ogists in an environent which had #een ore or "ess cop"ete"y purged of peop"e "ike these"ves! and in which a"" the signs had "ong since #een pointing c"ear"y to the restoration of the o"d order. The uni=ue sy#iosis represented #y )eran(*ewish cu"ture [whose "i#era" traditions had #een a arked feature of ,rankfurt Gniversity prior to Fa6is] had #een irreversi#"y destroyed. Apart fro Horkheier and Adorno! none of the distinguished "ecturers or professors fro the heyday of ,rankfurt Gniversitythe "ast years of the Weiar Repu#"icreturned. Horkheier! Adorno and hair of opensation >hair! ' the very nae of which in )eran
7Wiedergutacungslerstul is rendered a#surd #y the e4traordinary "ength of t he coinage.") Indeed! Adorno was never granted a regu"ar appointent! despite his =ua"ificationsor! for that atter! fae. He was fina""y granted a fu"" professorship in 0?9. #* &etween $cto#er 0?@ and August 0?2! Adorno was 7unhappi"y #ack in Los Ange"esafter which he never again returned to the Gnited /tates! a"though at the tie of his death he was preparing to de"iver a series of "ectures at o""ected dition 7twenty vo"ues! printed in twenty(three coprises ore than ten thousand pages! of which ore than four thousand concern usic; put different"y! if pedantica""y! soething over three i""ion words in a""! of which a i""ion concern usic. And uch ore reains to #e pu#"ished. The "aclass, s"ow"y appearing! is estiated to e=ua" the "ength of the 2esaelte (criften when cop"ete.#& &esides 1n (earc of Wagner and Piloso0- of *odern *usic, which concerns /choen#erg and /travinsky! Adorno wrote onographs on &erg 70?5 and -ah"er 7051. He "eft unfinished a virtua""y career("ong pro3ect on &eethovenfirst pu#"ished ore than twenty years after his death and on"y recent"y trans"ated into ng"ish #eetoven/ Te Piloso0- of *usic. He supervised pu#"ication of si4 essay co""ections devoted so"e"y to usicC +issonanzen 70?5! (ound Figures [0?0! &langfiguren] , +er getreue &orre0etitor 7052! 3uasi una fantasia 7052! *oents usicau4 705:! and 10ro0tus 7058. The co""ection Priss appeared in 0??! containing severa" i portant usic essays in addition to others on a variety of su#3ects. He a"so pu#"ished a "oose"y structured onograph on usica" socio"ogy! 1ntroduction to te (ociolog- of *usic 705@. The range of these co""ections is noteworthyC coposers fro &ach to &ou"e6! #ut focusing on the nineteenth century! &eethoven especia""y! and on the twentieth century up to the 051s; specific usica" works; the institution of ear"y usic 7"eading the way into the 'authenticity de#ates' of the 081s; copositiona" procedure; usica" for; radio usic; 3a66; and
kitsch; cha#er usic; opera; new usic; popu"ar and "ight usic; conductors and conducting; usica" nationa"is; the ro"e of the critic; recording techno"ogy; types of usica" conduct; a theory of "istening and "isteners; and usic pedagogy to touch on on"y soe of the ost iportant to0oi.#' &esides perforance reviews and reviews of pu#"ished usic! he a"so pu#"ished #ook reviews #etween 021 and 058.#( Adorno a"so coposed usic uch of his adu"t "ife! #eginning #efore he went to ienna in 0@? to study coposition with A"#an &erg and continuing through the 021s and 0:1s! during his e4i"e in #oth ng"and and the Gnited /tates. In 0@5 &erg confided to /choen#erg in a "etter that he found 'Wiesengrund%s work ver- good and I #e"ieve it wou"d a"so eet with your approva"! shou"d you ever hear it. In any event! in its seriousness! its #revity! and a#ove a"" in the a#so"ute purity of its entire sty"e it is worthy of #eing grouped with the /chJn#erg schoo" 7and nowhere e"seO.' #) Thoas -ann noted that Adorno was coposing usic during their association in /outhern >a"ifornia during the 0:1s.$* Adorno%s position as an advocate of avant(garde usic w as at once ref"ected and secured #y his fre=uent participation! whether as a coposition course director or discussant! in the Darstadt Internationa" [/uer] acation >ourses on Few -usic which he attended over nine suers #etween 0?1 and 055.$! Piloso0- of *odern *usic, pu#"ished in )erany in 0:0! had a significant ipact on the postwar generation of avant(garde coposers active at Darstadtone ref"ection of which w as that Adorno%s own copositions were perfored with soe regu"arity during this period! though in fact ost were written #efore 0:?. And this despite the fact that Adorno was high"y critica" of the canonic status that seria" copositiona" procedures attained in the afterath of /choen#erg and We#ern! a criti=ue which was! in fact! e4p"icit"y voiced in Piloso0- of *odern *usic and "ater in 'The Aging of the Few -usic!' inc"uded in this vo"ue. Indeed! Adorno we"coed a"eatoric coposition! e4ep"ified in 0?9 #y Bar"hein6 /tockhausen 7 &lavierst%ck 51 $" and
>ritica" Theory Whoever doesn%t entertain any id"e thoughts doesn%t throw any wrenches into the achinery. Theodor Adorno! '-eaning of Working through the ritica" Theorythe designation coes fro Adorno%s friend and entor -a4 Horkheier in an essay pu#"ished in 029$' is constituted as a "oose aa"gaation of phi"osophica" princip"es rather than as either a neat"y packaged syste or a ethodo"ogica" recipe.$( In what fo""ows I "ay out the defining issues and the socia" and cu"tura" stakes to which these princip"es respond. To #e sure! ,rankfurt /choo" >ritica" Theory evo"ved over tie and was never regarded as a sea"ess entity. Fonethe"ess! soe #asic paraeters are c"ear and we"" esta#"ished. Horkheier%s "engthy essay! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory' 7029! is a good p"ace to start. He opens the te4t with a =uestionC 'What is %theory%N' and iediate"y proceeds to provide the 'traditiona"' answer! articu"ated as an outgrowth of scientific ethod ep"oyed in the natura" sciences #ut a"so adopted #y the socia" sciencesfor which! as he wi"" argue! traditiona" theory is sore"y i nade=uate. 'Theory for ost researchers is the su(tota" of propositions a#out a su#3ect! the propositions #eing so "inked with each other that a few are #asic and the rest derive fro these. The sa""er the nu#er of priary princip"es in coparison with the derivations! the ore perfect the theory. The rea" va"idity of the theory depends on the derived propositions #eing consonant with the actua" facts.'$) The inade=uacy of traditiona" theory! Horkheier argues! "ies in its 'assiduous co""ecting of facts'not in the facts these"ves #ut the invisi#i"ity and even irre"evance of the historicity of facts! and of the fact(perceiving huan su#3ectC 'The facts which our senses present to us are socia""y prefored in two waysC through the historica" character of the o#3ect perceived and through the historica" character of the perceiving organ. &oth are not sip"y natura"; they are shaped #y huan activity! and yet the individua" perceives hise"f as receptive and passive in the act of perception.'%* Horkheier%s intention is not to attack scientific ethod #ut to de"ineate its inade=uacy in theori6ing the socia"! cu"tura"! and po"itica" rea"s of huan e4perience. /tated sip"y! traditiona" theory cannot address the fact and pro#"e of the socia" tota"ity precise"y #ecause the socia" tota"ity deve"ops "ess fro the re"ation of fact to fact and ore fro the re"ation of fact to va"ue. ,urther! fact and va"ue are invaria#"y history("aden! and the 'facts' of history #ecoe facts not as the resu"t of soe natura" order #ut #ecause they are ade so! indeed even wi""ed so! #y the socia" orders that prevai" in a given tie and p"ace! which is to suggest that a socia" or cu"tura" 'fact' is not necessari"y either peranent"y or universa""y so regarded. -oreover! the thinking su#3ectwho wi"" produce or define socia" 'facts'is never e4terna" to the processes for which e4p"anation is sought. The scho"ar(su#3ect is not autonoous; to assue autonoy is #"ind"y to accept as 'natura"' fact the ideo"ogy of the >artesian ego itse"f 7the ind 'is not cut "oose fro the "ife of society; it does not hang suspended over it'. %! In short! as >hristoph -enke accounts for this issue! 'The "iits that Horkheier sees iposed on traditiona" theory derive fro the fact that it cannot grasp itse"fits own functioningas theoryC it is not ref"e4ive.'%" Horkheier provides an e4ap"e in the odern inte""ectua" division of "a#orC 'In society as it is! the power of thought has never contro""ed itse"f #ut has a"ways functioned as a nonindependent oent in the work process! and the "atter has its own orientation and tendency.'%# Thought in odernity is fundaenta""y instruenta". And further! thought is arked #y socia" privi"ege; it #ears the ark of society%s "ack of e=ua"ity. That soe individua"s are inte""ectua"s occurs in re"ation to the denia" of the inte""ectua" practice to others! and this socia" fact affects thought itse"f. 4pressed in ore g"o#a" "anguage! the happiness of soe coes a#out via the denia" of happiness to others; it is this crucia" ediation of happiness that is erased un"ess the 'fact' of happiness is e4ained in re"ation to va"ue and history. The -ar4ian insight that drives Horkheier%s concern i s the deand for e=ua" 3ustice. &ut un"ike -ar4 he does not see a rising up of the pro"etariat 7neither did Adorno. That the poor and oppressed deserve! or for that atter ight even deand! 3ustice does not constitute its guarantee. Indeed! Horkheier notes that the situation of socia" degradation and doination is 'no guarantee of correct know"edge.' According"y! he insists on the responsi#i"ity of the inte""ectua" to '#e a critica"! prootive factor in the deve"opent of the asses.'%$
The critica" theoretician%s ro"e is to he"p change society #y e4p"aining it#ut a"" the whi"e ree#ering that his or her own position of re"ative inte""ectua" privi"ege ironica""y e4ep"ifies the very pro#"e for which redress is sought. Horkheier acknow"edges the utopian character of >ritica" Theory; its goa" is not the perpetuation of present society #ut society%s transforation. %% $r! as he e4pressed it e"sewhere! 'The rea" socia" function of phi"osophy "ies in its criticis of what is preva"ent.'%& Fonethe"ess the e4tree difficu"ty of effecting progressive change was recogni6ed #y Horkheier! not "east in "ight of /ta"inis and Fationa" /ocia"is. /a"vaging the possi#i"ity of thought itse"f appeared to #e an enorous cha""engeC anti(reason seeed to drive odernity toward dystopian fu"fi""ent. As he pointed out! 'the first conse=uence of the theory which urges a transforation of society as a who"e is on"y an intensification of the strugg"e with which the theory is connected.'%' Adorno! in "egative +ialectics! voiced what he saw as an increasing prohi#ition on thought itse"fC 'When en are for#idden to think! their thinking sanctions what sip"y e4ists. The genuine"y critica" need of thought to awaken fro the cu"tura" phantasagoria is trapped! channe"ed! steered into the wrong consciousness. The cu"ture of its environent has #roken thought of the ha#it to ask what a"" this ay #e! and to what end; it has enfee#"ed the =uestion [of] what it a"" eansa =uestion growing in urgency as fewer peop"e find soe such sense se"f(evident! as it yie"ds ore and ore to cu"tura" #ust"e.'%( >ritica" Theory! responding to the specific historica" circustances of Western odernity! constitutes a -ar4ian(inde#ted criti=ue of e4change econoy and its ipact on the su#3ect and societythough Adorno%s critica"(theoretica" practice! #y contrast with ost of his ,rankfurt /choo" copatriots! invo"ved socio(cu"tura" rather than socio(econoic criti=ue. Here is Horkheier%s suary stateentC 'The critica" theory of society is! in its tota"ity! the unfo"ding of a sing"e e4istentia" 3udgent. To put it in #road ters! the theory says that the #asic for of the historica""y given coodity econoy on which odern history rests contains in itse"f the interna" and e4terna" tensions of the odern era; it generates these tensions over and over again in an increasing"y heightened for; and after a period of progress! deve"opent of huan powers! and eancipation for the individua" after an enorous e4tension of huan contro" over nature! it fina""y hinders further deve"opent and drives huanity into a new #ar#aris.'%) The 'point' of >ritica" Theory deve"ops fro the presupposition of freedo! even to the e4tent that genera" freedo does not yet e4ist.&* As Horkheier states near the end of his essay! >ritica" Theory 'has no specific i nf"uence on its side! e4cept concern for the a#o"ition of socia" in3ustice.'&! >ritica" Theory stands in opposition to c"osed phi"osophica" systesHege"%s is a prie e4ap"eprecise"y #ecause of the idea"is that governs such systes% operation. That is! >ritica" Theory opposes phi"osophica" systes designed to achieve a '"ogica"' c"osure or a#so"ute truth without necessary reference to the rea"ity that stands outside thought itse"f. Thus the 'tota"ity' achieved in Hege"%s dia"ectica" overcoing of contradiction is at heart fa"se to the e4tent that its phi"osophica" "ogic fai"s to address actua" socia" contradiction. >ritica" Theory #y contrast draws attention to socia" contradictionateria" e4istence e4pressed as antagonis and suffering! not on"y #y what it attends to and 'says' #ut a"so #y how its speaksC in fragents! aphoriss! short fors! in a word! anti(systeatica""y! and #y foru"ating a negative dia"ectics! in opposition to the 7positive dia"ectics of the Hege"ian ode"! a topic I%"" pursue "ater. >ritica" Theory seeks to con3oin phi"osophy with socia" ana"ysis! the practice governed #y a ateria"ist! as opposed to idea"ist! dia"ectics! the u"tiate concern #eing huan happiness.&" Fow to Adorno. The paraeters that define his thought are severa"! and their principa" features have #een apped #y -artin *ayC &# -ar4is of a distinct"y heterodo4 variety; aesthetic odernis; what *ay naes 'andarin cu"tura" conservatis!' in particu"ar reference to Adorno%s writing on ass cu"ture 7*ay%s position here is! in y 3udgent! too #a"d"y stated! as I sha"" discuss "ater; a '*ewish ipu"se!' particu"ar"y nota#"e after the onset of the war and the horrors of the Ho"ocaustthe first sustained discussion #y Adorno of anti( /eitis appears in +ialectic of Enligtenent! and! fina""y! what *ay naes 'Deconstructionis!' as uch as anything! I think! ref"ecting the oent *ay%s Adorno onograph was written.&$ ,ina""y! Adorno%s thought ref"ects his reading of ,reud! &% and the p"ace he defined for psycho"ogy in his socia" theory! nota#"y pertinent in "ight of what *ay has tered 'the une4pected rise of an irrationa"ist ass po"itics in fascis! which was unforeseen #y orthodo4 -ar4ists.'&& In point of fact! Adorno%s principa" interest in psychoana"ysis was its de facto de"ineation of socia" traua. To ark socia" traua constituted a step toward the hea"ing of the individua" within society! to the e4tent that diagnosis precedes cure. &ut this is not to suggest that Adorno%s interest was w ith psychoana"ytic therapy! which addressed the individua" psyche and whose hea"ing reained distinct fro the socia" who"e. The diagnosis Adorno sought was socia" not individua"! though the specific detai" of individua" psychosis cou"d in turn infor socia" diagnostics. As he put it in the Dedication of *inia *oralia, 'society is essentia""y the su#stance of the individua".'&' 7Adorno%s
socia" psycho"ogy is in fact uch governed #y a study of the fai"y! as a kind of idd"e ground #etween the individua" and the "arger society.&( -ore iportant for Adorno! ,reudian psychoana"ysis! ahistorica" and #ased on a #io"ogica" preise! nonethe"ess 'e4pressed! at "east etaphorica""y! one aspect of the nonidentity of an in an unreconci"ed tota"ity.'&) During the ear"y 0:1s! whi"e "iving in /outhern >a"ifornia! Adorno and Horkheier 3oint"y authored a te4t they first naed Piloso0ical Fragents in a 0:: ieographed edition! and "ater +ialectic of Enligtenent when the te4t was fora""y pu#"ished in a revised version in Asterda in 0:9; the #ook first appeared in ng"ish on"y in 09@.'* Doug"as Be""ner coents that +ialectic of Enligtenent 'provides the first critica" =uestioning of odernity! -ar4is and the n"ightenent fro within the tradition of critica" socia" theory!' there#y anticipating #y severa" decades postodernis%s criti=ue of odernity.'! The #ook is unconventiona""y structured and in a way that ref"ects the function of writing as Adorno understood it! though it ight "ikewise #e argued that the te4t is soething of a hy#rid! perhaps the resu"t of an aa"gaation of two =uite different narrative sty"esC Horkheier%s distinct"y the ore conventiona"! organi6ed i n standard essay or chapter forat; Adorno%s the opposite! arked"y ore conste""ationa"! fragented! and aphoristic. "eents of #oth are rep"ete throughout the te4t. The #ook opens conventiona""y! with an introduction! fo""owed #y a chapter on 'The >oncept of n"ightenent.' Thereafter! chapter organi6ation is interrupted #y two paired sections ca""ed '4cursus!' each of chapter "ength and on topics seeing"y far reoved fro an investigation of 7odern en"ightenentC Te 9d-sse- and the -ar=uis de /ade. What fo""ows ne4t is sti"" ore 3arring in "ight of the iediate"y preceding e4cursuses! nae"y! the uch cited chapter on 'The >u"ture IndustryC n"ightenent as -ass Deception!' fo""owed in turn #y a chapter on anti(/eitis. At the end the te4t fragents radica""y in a "engthy section sip"y naed 'Fotes and Drafts!' organi6ed as a series of tw enty(four aphoriss! sii"ar to those in *inia *oralia, which Adorno was #eginning to write at the tie. The #ook%s organi6ation! phi"osophica""y and socia""y grounded! is anti(phi"osophica" to the e4tent it a#andons any ode" of c"osed systeatic investigation in its attept to understand odernity. Fonethe"ess! it is fundaenta""y phi"osophica" within the conte4t of >ritica" Theory%s criti=ue of traditiona" phi"osophica" practice. As regards #oth its narrative structure and its stance on history! the #ook is of singu"ar iportance for understanding Adorno. The -ar4ian foundation of >ritica" Theory i s shifted away fro c"ass conf"ict to what Adorno and Horkheier regard as soething ore fundaenta"! nae"y! the su#3ect%s historica" re"ation to nature as one of conf"ict which turns the su#3ect against others and! u"tiate"y! against the se"f. 'What en want to "earn fro nature is how to use it in order who""y to doinate it and other en.'" That is its on"y ai. Ruth"ess"y! in despite of itse"f! the n"ightenent has e4tinguished any trace of its own se"f(consciousness.' And "aterC 'n"ightenent is tota"itarian.''# This! in essence u"tiate! conf"ict! in other words! "ong predates capita"is. As Adorno and Horkheier 7infaous"y argue! the fundaenta" fors of doination that organi6e odernity have their roots in the priordia" efforts of huan #eings to survive in a naturepriordia" tota"ityof which they are at once a part yet deep"y a"ienated fro and fearfu". And yet huan su#3ects "aent the very separation fro nature upon which their su#3ectivity is u"tiate"y grounded. Thus #y the princip"e Adorno and Horkheier articu"ate! the designation of nationa" parks which first occurred during the heyday of the Industria" Revo"utionitse"f signa"ing a kind of fina" triuph over naturedirect"y responded to the fractured re"ation of the su#3ect to nature; the setting aside of sa"" and as yet 'untaed' geographies signified "ess a nosta"gi c return to nature than a ateria" acknow"edgent of the peranence of the fracture! in the sae way that sa"vage anthropo"ogy in essence picks aong the graves and ruins to ree#er what 'advanced an' has destroyed to #ecoe advanced. In this sense! of course! charity copassionate conservatisfa""s in "ine as a su#stitute for 3ustice! not to a"ter the foundation of doination'$ #ut to ake in3ustice ore to"era#"e to soe peop"e%s stoachs and other peop"e%s conscience. The driving thee of +ialectic of Enligtenent is the ironic regression of en"ightenent! reason%s a""eged goa"! into yth! whose dead"y conse=uences at the "eve" of the su#3ect and society were so draatica""y enacted in the Aryan yths of the Third Reich. The #ook%s 'purpose' was to produce a criti=ue that ade visi#"e en"ightenent%s interna" contradictions! the recognition of which wou"d necessari"y constitute the first step in rescuing en"ightenent fro i tse"ffro its unrecogni6ed de#ased for. In this regard! for a"" its often cited pessiis! +ialectic of Enligtenent is at heart utopian. The fundaenta" rhetorica" device of +ialectic of Enligtenent is e4aggeration! e#odied in the vast historica" sweep fro Hoer to the ovies! in an ip"icit"y un#roken historica" thread! as e4ep"ars of doination to the point of se"f(doinationa gesture narrato"ogica""y as effective as it was grist for su#se=uent criticis.'% As /usan &uck(-orss points outC 'The po"eica"! iconoc"astic intent of the study is the reason why it focused on two sacred cows of #ourgeois rationa" thought! the haronious age of ancient
)reece and the eighteenth(century n"ightenent. These oents of an idea"i6ed past were 3u4taposed to the ost #ar#aric! ost irrationa" phenoena of the present in order to deytho"ogi6e t he present and the past%s ho"d over it.''& Fot the "east of the #ook%s intent is the effort to disant"e the se"f(satisfied ideo"ogy that structures the heart of historicis! the yth of history as progress! which itse"f underwrites the ideo"ogica" ground of odernity as the supposed rea"i6ation of the n"ightenent. Though #oth Adorno and Horkheier were odernists to the core! they attack the degree to which odern en"ightenent is defined in ters of techno"ogica" achieveent. Feither was nosta"gic for a supposed "ost )o"den Age! whether that of Hoeric yth or the progressive oent of the #ourgeois revo"ution in the ear"y decades of the nineteenth century 7'The task to #e accop"ished is not the conservation of the past! #ut the redeption of the hopes of the past'.'' Techno"ogica" achieveent as such is a neutra" e"eent in their criti=ue. Rather! it is the fetishi6ation of techno"ogica" achieveent! and how techno"ogy coes to ade a fetish! that "ocates their concern. The rea" issue is instruenta" reason and its function in doinationC 'Reason itse"f has #ecoe the ere instruent of the a""(inc"usive econoic apparatus. It serves as a genera" too"! usefu" for the anufacture of a"" other too"s! fir"y directed towards its ends! as fatefu" as the precise"y ca"cu"ated oveent of ateria" production! whose resu"t for ankind is #eyond a"" ca"cu"ation. At "ast its o"d a#ition! to #e a pure organ of ends! has #een rea"i6ed.''( That is! reason instruenta"i6ed is reason not concerned with socia" truth and its ip"ications for socia" 3ustice! #ut reason of the #otto "ine! whether in econoics or cu"tura" po"iticsreason degraded to wit! sarts! and especia""y cunning!') which functions as a too" on #eha"f of the se"f! not the other. Instruenta" reason serves as agent in the su#3ect%s war on nature! #road"y understood. Reason%s 'cunning [ 'ist ] consists in turning en into ania"s with ore and ore far( reaching powers! and not in esta#"ishing the identity #etween su#3ect and o#3ect.'(* Adorno and Horkheier argue that the di"ea of instruenta" reason functions as a defining princip"e in Western history as far #ack as written records survive. Instruenta" reason! the deterinate agent in doinationso they scanda"ous"y arguedeterines the priordia" hero of Western history! $dysseus hise"f! in essence the ,irst -odern -an! the hero as re"ent"ess >an(Do specia"ist of the ancient wor"d. His cunning defeats
which the su#3ect effective"y others itse"f in the ost fearsoe anner that the huan ind can envision fu""y codified! a systeatic "aw of outrage. Reason reverts! reasona#"y! under the circustances! to its own otherC >artesian dua"ity is enacted without ercy! the ind and #ody(' in an e#race defined #y hatred via the a""egory of rape. The e4change princip"e is here worked out in an econoy of hungry and degraded f"esh! and the wor"d is organi6ed into #inary princip"esC strong and weak! agents and their victis. 'n"ightenent has re"in=uished its own rea"i6ation.'(( And yet the antidote to instruenta"i6ed reason is reasonthe parado4 and contradiction at the heart of the dia"ectic of en"ightenent. As Adorno pointed out in "egative +ialectics, 'Today as in Bant%s tie! phi"osophy deands a rationa" criti=ue of reason! not its #anishent or a#o"ition.'() To suari6eC en"ightenent and doination are co(dependent. And in the end! the surviva" that accrues #y othering nature produces at the sae oent an othering of the se"fC 'As soon as an discards his awareness that he hise"f is nature! a"" the ais for which he keeps hise"f a"ivesocia" progress! the intensification of a"" his ateria" and spiritua" powers! even consciousness itse"fare nu""ified! and the enthroneent of the eans as an end! which under "ate capita"is is tantaount to open insanity! is a"ready percepti#"e in the prehistory of su#3ectivity. -an%s doination over hise"f! which grounds his se"fhood! is a"ost a"ways the destruction of the su#3ect in whose service it is undertaken.')* Adorno%s position on natura" #eauty! which deep"y infors #oth his socia" and aesthetic theory! is anchored in these concerns. 'Fothing in the wor"d is worthy of attention e4cept that for which the autonoous su#3ect has hise"f to thank.')! In this regard! nature is "acking. Ket huan su#3ects! #y nature of nature! there#y are constituted #y a "ack of their own aking. Adorno argues that authentic artworks si"ent"y hai" natura" #eauty! which! "ike nature! is not direct"y avai"a#"e to us to the e4tent that 'nature' is #oth pre(deterined and pre( structured #y history 73ust as "anguage itse"f is historica". 7$ur "onging for naturefor e4ap"e! eco"ogica" regard! wi"derness preservation! #ut a"so art! in Adorno%s arguentis a pro3ection of a " ack that deve"ops a"ongside our separation fro and doination of nature. Adorno suggests that the "ack of interest in natura" #eauty in nineteenth(century aesthetics is part and parce" of the "arger historica" separation he criti=ues.)" 'The concept of natura" #eauty ru#s on a wound.')# Art is ca""ed upon to answer for natura" #eauty! in effect to su#stitute for it; artwho""y artifactua"! that is! "itera""y unnatura"#y this eans enacts or perpetuates the attack on nature. And yet art does ore! for it acknow"edges the natura" #eauty that the su#3ect has otherwise degraded yet nonethe"ess desires in its none4istent 'perfect' state! and it ref"ects on t his fact. Art! as Adorno put it! 'want[s] to keep nature%s proise. . . . What nature strives for in vain! artworks fu"fi"".')$ Fatura" #eauty! he insists! is 'the trace of the nonidentica" in things under the spe"" of universa" identity.')%
Dia"ectics The true nihi"ists are the ones who oppose nihi"is with their ore and ore faded positivities! the ones who are thus conspiring with a"" e4 tant a"ice! and eventua""y with the destructive princip"e itse"f. Thought honors itse"f #y defending what is daned as nihi"is. Adorno! "egative +ialectics Adorno%s criti=ue of phi"osophy was isoorphic with his criti=ue of society. The truth of odern society! for Adorno! was its fa"seness through and through. -odernity was structured around the coodity fetish and a coodified su#3ectivity which together functioned in a dead"y! utua""y se"f(sustaining e#race. onscience!' Adorno wrote in "egative +ialectics, 'is the ark of shae of an unfree society.')& &ut phi"osophy%s a#i"ity in so doing was dou#"y coproised; first! #y its own history! which in the West was fundaenta""y idea"ist with its idea"is in turn systeatica""y tota"i6ing and se"f(referentia"; second! phi"osophy! an act of "anguage! fai"ed to revea" the truth that it c"aied! a principa" cause of which was phi"osophy%s conventiona"i6ed practice of treating "anguagehence thought itse"fas a transparent echanis! in essence autonoous fro its own historica" contingency. Gnder present conditions in particu"ar! Adorno argued! thoughtnota#"y inc"uding his ownwas deep"y coproised #y the forces driving odernity! as he acknow"edged at the very #eginning of "egative +ialectics! his greatest
phi"osophica" work / 'Fo theory today escapes the arketp"ace. ach one is offered as a possi#i"ity aong copeting opinions; a"" are put up for choice; a"" are swa""owed. There are no #"inders for thought to don against this! and the se"f(righteous conviction that y own theory is spared that fate wi"" sure"y deteriorate into se"f(advertising.')' Today the awfu" phrase 'arketp"ace of i deas' rare"y provokes criti=ue! so second( nature is the reduction of huan activity to the etaphor of consueris. The truth or fa"sity of ideas is co""apsed under the yth that free su#3ects ay sip"y pay their oney and ake a choice! presua#"y #ecause our se"f(engendered consuer(a"ert function wi"" guide us to choose wise"y. Adorno%s point is that the socia" rea"ity deterining the arketp"ace etaphor! and yriad others "ike it! "ocates itse"f in the very sou" of "anguage! and #y this eans corrupts the a#i"ity to think #eyond the paraeters there#y esta#"ished. In "egative +ialectics Adorno acknow"edged the ipact on thought of a society governed #y the fetish of the #otto "ineC 'We "ike to present a"ternatives to choose fro! to #e arked True or ,a"se. The decisions of a #ureaucracy are fre=uent"y reduced to Kes or Fo answers to drafts su#itted to it; the #ureaucratic way of thinking has #ecoe the secret ode" for a thought a""eged"y sti"" free. &ut the responsi#i"ity of phi"osophica" thought in its essentia" situations is not to p"ay this gae.')( Truth is the resu"t of an iense strugg"e against u"tip"e "eve"s of se"f(deceitC in particu"ar! the se"f( defeating notion of a non(contradictory for of su#3ecthood! founded on the ideo"ogy of persona" autonoy! together with the se"f(deceitfu" #e"ief that one can unpro#"eatica""y think outside the ediating ipact of genera" fa"sehood! though the urgent socia" need to do so was phi"osophy%s 3ustification.)) Indeed! for Adorno! the practice of phi"osophy represented an e4p"icit"y persona" strugg"e against instruenta" reason.
a oent of se"f(consciousness! to which it does not a00en that its truth and rea"ity vanish without its knowing how! #ut which! in the certainty of its freedo! akes this other which c"ais to #e rea"! vanish. What /kepticis causes to vanish is not on"y o#3ective rea"ity as such! #ut its own re"ationship to it! in which the 'other' is he"d to #e o#3ective and is esta#"ished as such! and hence! too! its 0erceiving, a"ong with fir"y securing what it is in danger of "osing! vi6. so0istr-, and the truth it has itse"f deterined and esta#"ished. Through this se"f(conscious negation it procures for its own se"f the certainty of its freedo! generates the e4perience of that freedo! and there#y raises it to truth.!*' Hege" advances a third stage! s-ntesis, wherein the dia"ectic turns positive once ore! though reconfigured in "ight of the skeptica" second stage. G"tiate"y! negation is phi"osophica""y overcoe and a reso"ution achieved. It is at the "eve" of this third stage where Adorno parts copany with Hege"! precise"y due to the fundaenta" idea"is of the e4ercise! where a 0iloso0ical truth has no necessary connection to the truth of ateria" rea"ity. According"y! whereas Hege" cou"d c"ai that 'The True is the who"e!'!*( Adorno countered in *inia *oralia that 'The who"e is the fa"se.'!*) That is! the truth a#out tota"ity was its actua" fa"seness! reso"ution to which cou"d not #e achieved in idea"ist pronounceent as an act of "anguage! or! in &uck( -orss%s words! 'reason and rea"ity did not coincide. . . . &ecause the contradictions of society cou"d not #e #anished #y eans of thought! contradiction cou"d not #e #anished fro thought either.'!!* Fot coincidenta""y! in Adorno%s aesthetic theory contradiction "ies at the heart of any art which has any c"ai to truth. 'A successfu" work!' he pointed out! 'is not one which reso"ves o#3ective contradictions in a spurious harony! #ut one which e4presses the idea of harony negative"y #y e#odying the contradictions! pure and uncoproised! in its innerost structure.' !!! In 051 Her#ert -arcuse pu#"ished 'A Fote on Dia"ectic' as a new preface to the second edition of Reason and Revolution 70:. He opens the te4t #y e4pressing the hope that his #ook wi"" contri#ute to the reviva" of a enta" facu"ty 'in danger of #eing o#"iteratedC the power of negative thinking!'!!" a"ost certain"y a wry reference to the then(popu"ar /unday affirations of the radio preacher Reverend Dr. Foran incent
hi. The penu"tiate aphoris in *inia *oralia, in effect! "ooking #ack over the ? preceding fragents! reviews the anti(phi"osophica" phi"osophica" practice t he #ook engages and issues a 'Warning/ not to be isused.' Dia"ectica" thought has served historica""y as 'a refuge for a"" the thoughts of the oppressed! even those unthought #y the!' he insists! #ut dia"ectica" thought a"so has the capacity to poison itse"f. 'As a eans of proving onese"f right [dia"ectica" thought] was a"so fro the first an instruent of doination! a fora" techni=ue of apo"ogetics unconcerned with content! servicea#"e to those who cou"d payC the princip"e of constant"y and successfu""y turning the ta#"es. Its truth or untruth! therefore! is not inherent in the ethod itse"f! #ut in its intention in the historica" process.'!!) Adorno is haunted #y the potentia" for untruth in the pursuit of untruth%s truth! tinged not "east with the fact that thinking itse"f is a"ways a"ready in odernity arked #y cu"tura" and econoic privi"ege. ar"ier in *inia *oralia, in an aphoris tit"ed '&e=uest!' he tepers his enthusias for dia"ectic%s socia""y progressive potentia"C 'Dia"ectica" thought is an attept to #reak through the coercion of "ogic #y its own eans. &ut since it ust use these eans! it is at every oent in danger of itse"f ac=uiring a coercive characterC the ruse of reason wou"d "ike to ho"d sway over the dia"ectic too.'!"* Adorno fre=uent"y voiced this concern in "ater years! whenever the pro3ect of phi"osophy cae under his scrutiny. Thus in the essay 'Why /ti""
A phi"osophy that wou"d sti"" set itse"f up as tota"! as a syste! wou"d #ecoe a de"usiona" syste. Ket if phi"osophy renounces the c"ai to tota"ity and no "onger c"ais to deve"op out of itse"f the who"e that shou"d #e the truth! then it coes into conf"ict with its entire tradition. This is the price it ust pay for the fact that! once cured of its own de"usiona" syste! it denounces the de"usiona" syste of rea"ity. . . . After everything! the on"y responsi#"e phi"osophy is one that no "onger iagines it had the A#so"ute at its coand; indeed phi"osophy ust for#id the thought of it in order not to #etray that thought! and at the sae tie it ust not #argain away anything of the ephatic concept of truth. This contradiction is phi"osophy%s e"eent. It defines phi"osophy as negative.!"! The "ast aphoris of *inia *oralia, no. ?2! is naed 'Pu nde.'!"" I want to risk =uoting the entire aphoris! since it decisive"y arks Adorno%s coitent a"ike to negative dia"ectics and to the socia" stakes that deterine the necessity of this phi"osophica" choice. The aphoris apt"y! and gracefu""y! deonstrates Adornian dia"ectics at work.!"# -oving"y! the aphoris is saturated with &en3ain%s utopian pro3ection of socia" redeption! persona""y ironic to Adorno! without =uestion! as regards his friend%s then(sti""(recent po"itica""y otivated suicide. 'Pu nde' recapitu"ates the critica" thees of *inia *oralia/ the history of daaged "ife! #ut not a "ife re"in=uished; "ife c"inging to hope in the face of catastrophe via the "ife"ine of critica" thoughtC the insistence on thinking critica""ynegative"yto think soething #etter. Adorno reiterates the iage of en"ightenent! and its coro""ary! phi"osophica" intentiona"ity. And in the process of defining one "ast tie the necessity of negativity! he retains! at the end of 'Pu nde!' negativity itse"f. There is! in the end! no u"tiate escape in thought fro the conditions that destroy thought. /uch is the condition for thought%s possi#i"ity. The on"y phi"osophy which can #e responsi#"y practised in face of despair is the attept to contep"ate a"" things as they wou"d present these"ves fro the standpoint of redeption. Bnow"edge has no "ight #ut that shed on the wor"d #y redeptionC a"" e"se is reconstruction! ere techni=ue.
coprehend for the sake of the possi#"e. &ut #eside the deand thus p"aced on thought! the =uestion of the rea"ity or unrea"ity of redeption itse"f hard"y atters.
HistoryC Wa"ter &en3ain The need to "end a voice to suffering is a condition of a"" truth. Adorno! "egative +ialectics >oro""ary to Adorno%s dia"ectics is his concern to connect phi"osophy to hi story#ut history of a particu"ar kind! one which chooses to ree#er what is conventiona""y forgottenC in essence! history%s victis. Adorno%s sense of the writing of history registers the inf"uence of Wa"ter &en3ain! whose views are encapsu"ated in his 'Theses on the u"tura" treasures!' he suggests! are viewed #y the historica" ateria"ist 'with cautious detachent'; their origin cannot #e contep"ated 'without horror. They owe their e4istence not on"y to the efforts of the great inds and ta"ents who have created the! #ut a"so to the anonyous toi" of their conteporaries. There is no docuent of civi"i6ation which is not at the sae tie a docuent of #ar#aris.'!"' A#ove a""! 'it is the sufferings of en that shou"d #e shared!' Adorno wrote in *inia *oralia, a responsi#i"ity that constituted a principa" function of art.!"( He "ater ade this sae point #y way of a rhetorica" =ueryC '&ut then what wou"d art #e! as the writing of history! if it shook off the eory of accuu"ated suffering.'!") This is the ending of Adorno%s "ast! and unfinished! a3or work! Aestetic Teor-. Reason can conceptua"i6e suffering #ut! Adorno noted! it cannot e4press its e4perience.!#* That responsi#i"ity fa""s to art! which can 'anticipate eancipation! #ut on"y on the #asis of a so"idarity with the current state of huan e4istence.'!#! In the "ate essay 'Why /ti""
The >u"ture Industry -ass cu"ture is a kind of training for "ife when things have gone wrong. Adorno! 'The /chea of -ass >u"ture' Adorno distrusted any concept of cu"ture that forgot its tainted origins in socia" ine=ua"ity! and he further he"d that to ce"e#rate cu"ture on"y for its transcendence of! and autonoy fro! ateria" concerns undercut cu"ture%s critica" and progressive potentia". He insisted that >u"ture and cu"ture a"ike #ore the scars of odernity! though the socia" ipact on su#3ects of 'high' cu"ture and '"ow' were often significant"y different. He further argued that within the guise of odern techno"ogica" society a"" cu"ture! high and "ow! was profound"y arked #y ass cu"ture. These genera" concerns focused Adorno%s attention throughout his career!
#ut his first sustained discussion of the topic was the essay! inc"uded in this vo"ue! 'The /ocia" /ituation in -usic' 702@! fo""owed "ater #y the faous chapter fro +ialectic of Enligtenent, 'The >u"ture IndustryC n"ightenent as -ass Deception!' !## written with -a4 Horkheier whi"e "iving ne4t to Ho""ywood in the ear"y 0:1s! and ref"ecting their ear"ier e4perience in Weiar )erany as we"" as their current situation in >a"ifornia.!#$ The princip"es that organi6e the '>u"ture Industry' 7>I arguent fundaenta""y shape virtua""y a"" of Adorno%s su#se=uent thought! especia""y his "ater essays on ass and popu"ar cu"ture! a"though near the end of his "ife he odified his origina" position to soe degree! as I wi"" discuss "ater. )iven the centra"ity of this essay to Adorno%s "ife"ong study of cu"ture genera""y! especia""y the tension #etween hi gh cu"ture and popu"arQass cu"ture! and the essay%s centra"ity to popu"ar cu"ture studies to this day 7whether praised or condened! it is not ignored! I want to take soe care in de"ineating the essay%s ost iportant c"ais. ,irst the nae. Adorno and Horkheier conscious"y su#stituted 'cu"ture industry' for ass 7or popu"ar cu"ture! ters a"ready then current! on the grounds that 'ass' and 'popu"ar' were strict"y ideo"ogica" 7that is! fa"se consciousness! that these ters disguised the true nature that "ay #ehind theC a cu"ture that was adinistered fro a#ove! rather than one eerging fro #e"ow. -ass cu"ture! as they saw it! was fundaenta""y iposed! not chosen 7'Whoever speaks of cu"ture speaks of adi nistration as we""'.!#% Adorno and Horkheier ince no words a#out their theory of tota" adinistration; in the opening paragraph they refer to its possessing a stee"("ike rhyth [ str$lernen R-tus]! as though functioning in stiff and perpetua" otion. The essay itse"f! however! as ,rederic *aeson has pointed out! is 'not a theory of cu"ture #ut the theory of an industr-, of a #ranch of the inter"ocking onopo"ies of "ate capita"is that akes oney out of what used to #e ca""ed cu"ture. The topic here is the coercia"i6ation of "ife!'!#& in effect the integration of the individua" into the e4change princip"e.!#' The essay%s "engthy opening paragraph! se"do rearked upon in any critica" "iterature! does not concern ass cu"ture in the ways we have coe to e4pect. Instead! it%s structured as a kind of ur#an a""egory using architecture and ur#an deve"opent! housing especia""y! as t he defining trope. That is! whereas 'cu"ture' is conventiona""y understood at once as superstructura" and spiritua"Qiateria" to the e4tent that its appea" is to the ind and spirit! Adorno and Horkheier converse"yperverse"yta"k a#out the undane and nota#"y ateria"C where peop"e "ive. They cite the power of internationa" capita" to define cities and the peop"e in theC onuenta" g"eaing #usiness towers 3u4taposed to s"us! and on the outskirts f"isi"y #ui"t #unga"ows 7with which Adorno was persona""y fai"iar in the new deve"opent where he "ived in &rentwood! which they "iken to the stage(set #ui"dings of wor"d 7trade fairs functioning to praise technica" progress! and thereafter to #e discarded '"ike epty food cans.' Fot "east! they cite p"anned housing pro3ects! said to proote the idea" of the autonoous 7private individua"! yet defined #y ass(production! onotony! cookie(cutter dwe""ings! with the strictest econoy of perissi#"e "iving space! and convenient to the centers of production 7work and consuption 7"eisure! p"easure! #oth deterined #y the "a#or of the pro3ects% inha#itants. -acrocos and icrocos irror one another in a ode" of cu"ture that advertises the su#3ect 7individua"ity! whose particu"ar identity nonethe"ess is intended to erge perfect"y with the genera"! there#y prooting identity so"e"y as a irage. These striking -ar4ian iages ephasi6e a hoo"ogy #etween the ateria" and the cu"tura"C 'Gnder onopo"y a"" ass cu"ture is identica".'!#( The >I essay is organi6ed around a centra" parado4C 'To speak of cu"ture was a"ways contrary t o cu"ture.'!#) In odernity! cu"ture rendered se"f(ref"e4ive is cu"ture for sa"e; cu"ture 'spoken of' has regressed to its own advertising! functioning spatia""y as a terrain for a4ii6ing econoic deve"opent and t he socia" structures to achieve it. $nce naed! in other words! cu"ture is transfored fro a process to a product. >u"t ure #ecoes #usiness!!$* and as such it re=uires adinistration at once to render it 'safe' for consuption! and so that it wi"" in fact #e consued.!$! The account of the >I is principa""y a criti=ue of ass entertainentovies! usic! radio! aga6ines! etc. to whose ipact! Adorno and Horkheier argue! no one reains iune. ,i" ore than any other for of ass entertainent constitutes the ateria" for their ensuing criti=ue. Adorno and Horkheier disiss the c"ai that the entertainent industries sip"y give peop"e what they want! that they are 7deocratica""y sensitive to genera" needs. They argue that the >I instead acts as a 'circ"e of anipu"ation and retroactive need.'!$" In *inia *oralia Adorno reiterated the pointC 'The cu"ture industry not so uch adapts to the reactions of its custoers as it counterfeits the. It dri""s the in their attitudes #y #ehaving as if it were itse"f a custoer.'!$# The resu"t! they argue! is the shaping of huan identity #y cu"tura" 'products' that are fu""y standardi6ed! ever the sae. Identity itse"f! fored in the iage of the >I%s products! tends toward the identica". The industry 'ro#s the individua" of his function. Its prie service to the custoer is to do his scheati6ing for hi.'!$$ The products of the >I! inc"uding #y ip"ication the huan su#3ects shaped #y the
>I! "ose a"" re"ation to spontaneity; as uch as possi#"e! even the reactions to ass art are as pre(p"anned! however iperfect"y! as the cityscape descri#ed in t he essay%s opening paragraph. And p"anned first for profitC #usiness 7the word the industry uses to descri#e itse"f! 3ust as it descri#es its production as productto this day #oth fi"s and recordings are thus conventiona""y referred to. However! they did not ean to suggest that every 'product' is "itera""y the sae. $n the contrary! they argued that difference is structured into and e4p"icit "y anifested #y the products #ut often on"y as a arketing techni=ue end"ess"y proising c"ais for the new! coon"y without providing it. Adorno and Horkheier point to the >I%s differentia" catering to the various socia"(c"ass sectorswhat they nae 'o#edience to the socia" hierarchy.' !$% Thus! in ters of our own tie! a >hevy is not a &uick; a ta#"oid is not "e:s:eek. &ut nor are they as utter"y different as their respective advertising c"ais ight suggest. )iven ode"s of the >hevy and &uick share the sae chassis; and the sensationa" ce"e#rity features of "ational Enquirer are coon"y atched! if s"ight"y dressed up! in the 'respecta#"e' week"y news aga6ine%s stories. Fone of this is this "eft to chance nor can it #e! given the deands of the #otto "ine. >onsuer 'choice' and arket research are con3oined in a perpetua" e#race. '>onsuers appear as statisti cs on research organi6ation charts! and are divided #y incoe groups; . . . the techni=ue is that used for any type of propaganda.'!$& 7-arcuse once sarcastica""y noted that 'choice' eant the freedo to choose #etween #rands of toi"et paper.!$' The true 'va"ue' of the consuer is to consue what%s offered. Adorno and Horkheier attack the saeness and standardi6ation in the products of the >I and the identification #y su#3ects with what is offered! invaria#"y in the nae of free choiceC the invitation to conceptua"i6e one%s su#3ecthood as the rep"ication of the identica" which! to #e sure! c"ais to #e different. The >I 'consists of repetition.'!$( >ritics of this position have conventiona""y argued on two cop"eentary frontsC first! that the c"ai is inappropriate"y tota"i6ing; second! in a"ost inevita#"e "inkage! that Adorno 7principa""y Adorno direct"y or indirect"y asserts an offensive"y e"itist apo"ogia for high cu"turea charge often "inked to hi s #iography as an upper #ourgeois )erana particu"ar"y reductive charge #ased on the accident of #irth. >"ear"y! the "iitations of Adorno and Horkheier%s sweeping criti=ue of ass cu"ture are rea". &ut that rea"ity is woefu""y inade=uate as grounds for the disissa" of t he criti=ue%s su#stantive principa" c"ais. Too often ignored is the centra"ity of the ass(cu"ture criti=ue of high art itse"f ounted #y Adorno throughout his career; as ,redric *aeson has pointed outC 'The force of the Adorno(Horkheier ana"ysis of the cu"ture industry . . . "ies in its deonstration of the une4pected and ipercepti#"e int roduction of coodity structure into the very for and content of the work of art itse"f.'!$) The distinction Adorno aintained #etween art and ass cu"ture is that whereas artworks are also coodities! the products of the >I are coodities through and through.!%* -uch of the essay addresses p"easure as a coponent for of happiness. Its authors argue that the p"easure proffered #y the >I is entertainent 7not en"ightenent! and specifica""y auseent! which under prevai"ing conditions in the industria"i6ed wor"d they regard as 'the pro"ongation of work!' that is! at once an escape device fro the echani6ed work process 7the factory asse#"y "ine is their prevai"ing etaphor and a oentary #ut adinistered eans of getting onese"f ready to go #ack for ore. &ut worse! and this is their principa" point! >I auseents rep"icate in overdeterined fashion the seiotic codes upon which the work "ife itse"f depends! a"#eit in aesthetici6ed for. 'What happens at work! in the factory! or in the office can on"y #e escaped fro #y appro4iation to it in one%s "eisure tie.'!%! <"easure! as they put it! 'hardens into #oredo #ecause! if it is to reain p"easure! it ust not deand any effort and therefore oves rigorous"y in the worn grooves of association. Fo independent thinking ust #e e4pected fro the audienceC the product prescri#es every reactionC not #y its natura" structure 7which co""apses under ref"ection! #ut #y signa"s. Any "ogica" connection ca""ing for enta" effort is painstaking"y avoided.'!%" In the end! 'The cu"ture industry perpetua""y cheats its consuers of what it perpetua""y proises.' The proise of p"easure reains 3ust that! an i""usory spectac"e. 'A"" it actua""y confirs is that the rea" point wi"" never #e reached! that the diner ust #e satisfied with the enu.'!%# Adorno rearked in *inia *oralia that 'very visit to the cinea "eaves e! against a"" y vigi"ance! stupider and worse.'!%$ What does he intend #y this nota#"y provocative stateentN The >I essay condens the disconnect #etween the #ought p"easure of the ovie pa"ace and the "ife "ed upon e4it fro the theater. 'The unep"oyed in the great cities find coo"ness in suer and warth in winter in these teperature( contro""ed "ocations.' )ood. &ut not enough. '$therwise! despite its si6e! this #"oated p"easure apparatus [i.e.! the entertainent achine] adds no dignity to en%s "ives.'!%% Adorno often coented that odernity possesses the technica" eans to reduce! if not eradicate! huan suffering! yet odernity%s techno"ogica" accop"ishents were used ore coon"y to proote regressive ends! for profit a#ove a"" e"se. His point is that the 'p"easure' of the entertainent is coterinous with the physica" cofort purchased #y the price of the ticket. The physica" #enefit is teporary; the enta"Qspiritua" #enefit is none4istent. The entertainent
aesthetica""y rep"icates "ife! or as "ife wou"d #e if "ife%s ysteries had deeed different"y. 7Adorno had of course watched the c"assic escapist Depression(era Ho""ywood ovies! often coedies! that sty"ish"y ce"e#rated wea"th in the idst of genera" isery. With rare e4ceptions actua" e4terna" socia" conditions are at #est "aented through their fi" siu"acra rather than criti=ued. 7ven in fi"s "ike *ohn ,ord%s socia" epic Te 2ra0es of Wrat [0:1]! the #"ind force of weather is as uch the cu"prit as the "aw enforceent acting on #eha"f of "andowners and #anks; indeed! econoic forces! whi"e direct"y referenced! are nonethe"ess striking"y ystified #y e4p"anations that suggest that rea"ity is driven #y #"ind fate! with no one to #e #"aed.!%& In short! "aent is passive"y interna"i6ed! as in the coonp"ace #uper sticker that reads '/hit Happens'never to #e found on new vehic"es #ut on what are known to the trade as 'transportation thrifties'as opposed to the non(stoica" and ip"icit"y "ess preconditioned '/hit is >aused!'!%' which #uper sticker to y know"edge does not e4ist. The forer irrors perfect"y the si" ey face! the autoatic(response and seiotica""y epty 'Have a nice day!' and the tunefu" proc"aation 'Don%t Worry! &e Happy'what Adorno ca""ed the '%keep si"ing% attitude.'!%( $r the ironic reverse! governent sponsored! in the for of the advertising s"ogan for the /tate LotteryC 'It cou"d happen!' a proise coon"y #ought with a su#stantia" portion of their iniu(wage earnings #y the desperate poor trying to iprove the 8?!111!111(to( odds of winning. '<"easure prootes the resignation which it ought to he"p to forget.'!%) Adorno and Horkheier! fo""owing -ar4! argue that consuption is organi6ed #y e4change va"ue 7not use va"ue! especia""y through advertising coodities t hat gain fetishistic ho"d over su#3ect(consuers!!&* creating a psycho"ogica" dependency on fa"se needs! in regard to which Adorno and Horkheier #orrowed Leo Lowentha"%s now(faous e4pression that the >I functioned as 'psychoana"ysis in reverse!' that is 7as Lowentha" put it! as a device 'to keep peop"e in peranent psychic #ondage.'!&! Advertising%s surface("eve" seiotics are driven #y the end"ess effort to proote individua"ity! proising the opportunity for the consuer to stand separate fro everyone e"se! hence repeating in radica" for the c"ais to individua" uni=ueness that define the idea"i6ed odern su#3ect. Ket the uni=ueness proised #y advertising wi"" u"tiate"y succeed on"y if that individua"ity is ac=uired! via purchase! #y asses of other 'individua"s'7if the product doesn%t se"" in sufficient nu#ers! it is withdrawn! hence cannot #e ac=uired. According"y! the very notion of odern identity! structured #y consuerisidentities #oughtis #ui"t on a spurious foundation. The appea"! #y definition necessari"y renewed end"ess"y! is to what we are not #ut want with increasing desperation to #eC tru"y individua". &ut if we consue in the anner intended we #ecoe "ess "ike what is proisedwe tend toward those around us! whose very "ikeness we are attepting to #e different froC the crowd 7anti(su#3ects! as it were. Fot surprising"y! the stakes perpetua""y get raised! evident! for e4ap"e! in recent trends in #ody art! where u"tip"e tattooing and u"tip"e piercing! a process of radica" addition! #ecoes the perfect preise of the ideo"ogy that itse"f drives the u"tip"e econoies of odernityC ore. -ore of tis wi"" ake e ore of -e and "ess of The. And so on.!&" >har"ie >hap"inwhose work Adorno adired !&# in *odern Ties 7025 coica""y represented the ind( nu#ing repetition of odern "ife via the we""(worn etaphor of the asse#"y "ine! where the Litt"e Trap in the c"iactic shop(f"oor scene pretty uch "itera""y is ade a cog in industry%s whee". The work day e4tends "iit"ess"y in the fi". The "unch #reak constitutes an opportunity for an e4perient with an autoatic 7worker feeding achine! which of course goes cop"ete"y haywire. >hap"in%s character hise"f goes haywire "ate in a day entire"y spent tightening "arge nuts with two huge wrenches that are virtua""y appendages of his own hands; even when he "eaves the asse#"y "ine he continues attepting to tighten anything that "ooks reote"y "ike a nutas though he were an e4tension of a perpetua" otion achine in spite of hise"f. $utside the factory! seeing a #u4o woan coing toward hi whose dress has strategica""y p"aced 7#oso #uttons! he akes a ove! as if unconscious! to tighten the! coica""y uch to her horror. *odern Ties i""ustrates the functiona"ity of twin concepts in Adorno%s thinking a#out the re"ation #etween the coodity and the su#3ectC productive forces and re"ations of production! #oth descri#ed in his essay 'Is -ar4 $#so"eteN' 7058. He points out that odern 7ip"icit"y ,irst Wor"d societies% productive forces are industria" through and through! and tend 'towards a tota"ity' e4tending we"" #eyond the rea" of "a#or into 'what is ca""ed cu"ture.' >oportent genera""y iitates an industria" ode" in its re"ations of production; ietica""y! su#3ects are 'appendages of achinery . . . cope""ed as they are to ad3ust these"ves and their innerost fee"ings to the achinery of society! in which they ust p"ay their r"es and to which they ust shape these"ves with no reservation.' !&$ Identification with the coodity for! fundaenta" to the theory driving the >I essay! anifests itse"f in our own rather ore advanced state of techno"ogica" post odernity in the recent spate of gae shows! whether on the a3or networks or ca#"e. What passes for know"edge are facts and on"y factsan o#vious given#ut
what factsC ost"y a#out the products of the >I itse"f. A perfect circ"e. ,acts e4terna" to entertainent are introduced usua""y on"y at the higher "eve"s! where soe rea" cash ight #e given away. There is of course an a"ternate for! the higher(c"ass variety such as '*eopardy' or! sti"" c"assier! the origina"! though rigged! 'Twenty($ne.' &ut the on"y fundaenta" difference is the 'higher(c"ass' of facts these"ves=uestions a#out "iterature and the other arts! science! po"itics! etc. The point is that know"edge #y defau"t is defined as a storehouse of raw data! otherwise unre"ated! and for the ost part concerning ass entertainent. If this is what you know! it ay we"" #e worth soething! worth ca"cu"ated as cash(on(the(spot payents "itera""y waved in front of contestants on shows "ike A&>%s 'Who Wants to &e a -i""ionaire' and ,o4 Te"evision%s ')reed.' The issue in =uestion is not whether high(c"ass facts are #etter t han their "ow(c"ass cousins. Adorno and Horkheier argue that #oth fors of cu"ture so hai"ed are degraded in the process. I.!&( To #e sure! not a"" su#3ects are the sae! nor are a"" products of the >I. Adorno and Horkheier recogni6e this fact! despite the rhetorica" po"eic they se"f(ref"e4ive"y engage for strategic reasons. &ut their principa" point under"ying the hyper#o"ic c"ai is not easi"y disissedC nae"y! that odern society is characteri6ed #y a genera" if hard"y universa" stunting of critica" interest and inte""igent engageent on the part of the su#3ect! on the one hand! and #y the prou"gation of socia" "ies on the part of the >I! on the other. u"tura" /tudies ade a responsi#"e and necessary contri#ution when it insisted on huan agency in the face of its appropriation #y ass cu"ture.!&) &ut we soeties "ose track of the fact that such resistance is siu"taneous"y severe"y coproised! not on"y #y the socioeconoic and po"itica" forces against which resistance acts! #ut a"so #y the degree to which su#3ects who resist are nonethe"ess a"ways a"ready defined #y that against which they strugg"e. /u#3ects defined #y the princip"es of arkets and consuption are not free agents. As -artin *ay apt"y notesC 'The cu"ture industry ay we"" not #e as tota"itarian as Horkheier and Adorno assued in their #"eaker oents. &ut whether it a""ows ore than pockets of what one coentator has ca""ed %artificia" negativity% reains very uch to #e seen.'!'* Whatever autonoy su#3ects possess is arked"y circuscri#ed in precise"y the sae way that Adorno understood aesthetic autonoy. &oth #ear the wound. 'A"" o#3ectification is a forgetting' [A""e erding"ichung ist ein ergessen]; so they rearked in the aphoris ' 'e 0ri4 du 0rogr;s' in the 'Fotes and Drafts' section of +ialectic of Enligtenent. !'! &orrowing LukScs%s notion of reification!!'" Adorno and Horkheier acknow"edge a dou#"e o#3ectification in the >I e4posE! one of history and the other of the su#3ect in history. &oth #ecoe thing("ikeC factsva"ori6ed principa""y for their 'universa" inforationa" character.'!'# As a coro""ary! the asses these"ves are treated as an 'o#3ect of ca"cu"ation; an appendage of the achinery' !'$ the socia" stakes of which Adorno drives hoe in the conc"usion to his "ate essay '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered' 7052C 'If the asses have #een un3ust"y revi"ed fro a#ove as asses! the cu"ture industry is not aong the "east responsi#"e for aking the into asses and then despising the! whi"e o#structing the eancipation for which huan #eings are as ripe as the productive forces of the epoch perit.'!'% In his 051 essay '>u"ture and Adinistration!' first de"ivered as a radio "ecture! Adorno returned to the =uestion of huan agency set against the forces of the >I. Whi"e insisting on the reified nature of cu"ture! rendered thing("ike! itse"f a coodity! and on the reification of the huan su#3ects under the adinistration of ass cu"ture! Adorno pointed out that cu"ture and adinistration a"ike u"tiate"y refer #ack to "iving su#3ects. He insisted on the o#3ective fact that huan consciousness was not who""y in the grips of adinistered cu"ture. >onsciousness retained a degree of spontaneityC ',or t he present! within "i#era"( deocratic order! the individua" sti"" has sufficient freedo within the institution and with its he"p to ake a odest contri#ution to its correction.'!'& Adorno e"sewhere suggested! a"ong soewhat sii"ar "ines! that
su#3ects constitute what he tered 'the u"tiate "iit of reification!' and that on that account ass cu"ture cou"d never afford to re"a4 its grip. 'The #ad infinity invo"ved in this hope"ess effort of repetition is the on"y trace of hope that this repetition ight #e in vain! that en cannot who""y #e grasped after a"".'!'' Adorno%s onograph("ength ana"ysis of the 'os Angeles Ties astro"ogy co"un! 'The /tars Down to arth!' one of the two studies he produced for the Hacker ,oundation during his fina" visit to the Gnited /tates in 0?@(?2! provides detai"ed access to his criti=ue of the >I! characteri6ing what he regards as the >I%s ipact on su#3ectivity and the socia" stakes that accrue.!'( He #ased his ana"ysis on a co""ection of rough"y three onths of the dai"y co"uns 7Fove#er 0?@(,e#ruary 0?2! written #y >arro"" Righter! 'A stro"ogica" ,orecasts.'!') ,irst the genera" thee. Adorno recapitu"ates an arguent advanced in +ialectic of Enligtenent, "ikening astro"ogy to yth as a not(entire"y(irrationa" effort to put the chaos of rea"ity into order. Adorno naes astro"ogy a 'secondary superstition'C peop"e 'know' #etter #ut consu"t it anyway. Astro"ogy is 'pseudo( rationa"!' providing what he ters 'ca"cu"ative though spurious adaptation to rea"istic needs.'!(* Adorno suggests that #e"ief in the stars as deterinants of huan happiness posits "i fe as inscruta#"e and #eyond our contro"! e4cept for the avenue of cop"iance to its dictateswhich happen to rep"icate the way things are anyway. Adorno there#y signa"s an une4pected dia"ectica" reversa"C the astro"ogy co"un 7unwitting"y descri#es a truth a#out the prevai"ing irrationa"ity of society and the concoitant de(rationa"i6ation of society%s su#3ects. Astro"ogy fictiona"i6esor! "et us say! aesthetici6essocia" re"ations! #ut its ce"estia" narrative! a face"ess cosic ventri"o=uis! uncanni"y rep"icates what its receiver a"ready knows and e4periences as socia" rea"ity. The aesthetics in other words are a"ways a"ready sha##y. What astro"ogy proises with one hand! it takes #ack with the other. Its truth is its "i e! which its advice atchesC '%To #e rationa"% eans not =uestioning irrationa" conditions! #ut to ake the #est of the fro the viewpoint of one%s private interests.'!(! A"" advice is proffered to an iagined so"itary individua"; it is never socia". To the e4tent that socia" interaction is authori6ed! it occurs so"e"y as an opportunity to advance onese"f. ',riends' are reified as a eans to achieve one%s own ends. /ocia#i"ity! in other words! is reduced to instruenta" and private practica"ity. Life is #est "ed #y cutting a dea" with the stars; i p"icit"y! "ife is getting ahead #y using others for this purpose. A"" of which is ordained #y the cososC the universe! as it were! decrees the "ogic of capita"is! the achieveent of profit! the surviva" of the econoic fittest.!(" The co"un%s presentation of o#3ective difficu"ties "ays their cause at the doorstep of the individua" whose task it is to overcoe that for which he hise"f #ears responsi#i"ity.!(# The advice proffered! geared to the individua"! 'ip"ies that a"" pro#"es due to o#3ective circustances such as! a#ove a""! econoic difficu"ties! can #e so"ved in ters of private individua" #ehavior or #y psycho"ogica" insight! particu"ar"y into onese"f! #ut a"so into others.'!($ The stars! put different"y! have #irthed Da"e >arnegieC )o: to Win Friends and 1nfluence Peo0le!(% had #een a #est(se""ing tract since its first pu#"ication in 029 and! #y the 0?1s! was a a3or stap"e in se"f(arketing and getting ahead. The #ook treats intersu#3ective re"ationships as a eans to an end and "itt"e ore! an ear"y e4ap"e in the "ong history of such #ooks! which continue to find their way onto #est( se""er "ists. Adorno repeated"y criti=ues the "ack of huan spontaneity presuedand! indeed! prescri#ed#y astro"ogy( co"un advice. He centers the discussion on the interface #etween private "ife and pu#"ic! organi6ed around the #i(phasica""y divided dayC the day designated for work and the night for fai"y and "eisure! as deterined #y the stars. As Adorno wry"y notes! the #i(phasic approach to "ife prootes the perfect circu"arity of the econoic systeC a an%s "ife 'fa""s into two sections! one where he functions as a producer and one where he functions as a consuer.' !(& And in the end! p"easure has no 3ustification for it%s own sake; if proper"y had! it wi"" "ead to 'practica" advantages.' Accopanying this out"ine for future achieveent is what Adorno naes 'the onotonous"y fre=uent advice to %#e happy.%'!(' Addressed to en 7though! as Adorno presued! ore "ike"y read #y woen! t he co"un counse"s on re"ationships! especia""y arriage! and is designed to keep happy the at(hoe wife! the #etter to further the hus#and%s econoic goa"s. -arriage is a ca"cu"ation. /pousa" c"oseness is transfored into an econoic ritua"! an interpersona" investentC a"entine%s Day! -other%s Day! #irthday. 'Togetherness is rationa"istica""y prooted 3ust as a further eans of soothing out things and keeping the partners together whi"e the actua" #asis for their coon oie de vivre sees to have gone. . . . The idea that one has to send f"owers to one%s wife not #ecause one fee"s an urge to do so! #ut #ecause one is afraid of the scene she akes if one forgets the f"owers is irrored #y the epty and eaning"ess nature of the fai"y activities which the co"unist sets in otion.'!(( The co"un%s rhetorica" address p"ays off the yt ho"ogy of the su#3ect! with su#3ecthood treated as spectac"eC 'Disp"ay that keen ind of yours'in essence! #y repeated"y aking a gesture of assentC 'Kes! I wi"".' The
appea" to an4ietythe co"un%s first princip"eis the socia" truth that things are not what they shou"d #e. Like advertising! astro"ogy re3ects the past! finds inade=uacy in the present! and points to a future. As such! it references the utopian #y taking advantage of utopia%s own ythic va"ue. ,urther! the dissatisfaction that astro"ogy invokes is rea". If one fo"" ows astro"ogy%s dictates! a"" futures"ike a"" fortune cookiesproise #enefits. Astro"ogy ianent"y certifies that '/hit happens!' and it ascri#es a causeC the fai"ure of the iso"ated se"f. Astro"ogy cannot address the socia"! on"y the persona". And the charge to the person isC adapt yourse"f! anipu"ate others; #e in tune; #e cunning. And not "east! su#it to the starswhose otions guarantee the prevai"ing terrestria" 7socia" order. &e dependa#"e#y #eing dependent.!() In his "ate essay ',ree Tie' 7050! uch of it addressing the issue of 'ho##ies!' Adorno turns his ga6e to the #ody! specifica""y the #ody on the #each! and the cu"tura" po"itics of peop"e preparing these"ves to #e "ooked at. He connects such #odies to the advertising for the cosetics and "eisure industries! and to the incu"cation of a for of se"f(desire and drive. The e4ap"e is tanning. 'An e4ep"ary instance is the #ehavior of those who "et these"ves roast #rown in the sun ere"y for the sake of a tan! even though do6ing in the #"a6ing sun is #y no eans en3oya#"e! even possi#"y physica""y unp"easant! and certain"y akes peop"e inte""ectua""y inactive. With the #rown hue of the skin! which of course in other respects can #e =uite pretty! the fetish character of coodities sei6es peop"e these"ves; they #ecoe fetishes to these"ves. . . . The state of do6ing in the sun represents the cu"ination of a decisive e"eent of free tie under the present conditionsC #oredo.'!)* &oredo! he c"arifies! is a socia" phenoenon; it is 'o#3ective desperation'an o#3ective condition of Western su#3ectivity.!)!
Writing ,or a an who no "onger has a hoe"and! writing #ecoes a p"ace to "ive. Adorno! *inia *oralia Adorno was a supree"y carefu" writer. Ro"f Tiedeann! Adorno%s assistant during the ear"y 051s! reported that Adorno invaria#"y carried a sa"" note#ook in which he 3otted down ideas! and which he "ater used as a source for dictation. The dictated pages were typed dou#"e(spaced and with wide argins. /entences were often incop"ete. 'He then revised the typed pages! soeties unti" none of the typed ateria" was "eft and everything had #een rep"aced with handwriting. This process was repeated soeties up to four ties.'!)" Though faous"y difficu"t! a great dea" of Adorno%s writing is in short for;!)# any e4ap"es! pointed"y aphoristic! are not ore than a few pages "ong. The ?2 aphoriss constituting *inia *oralia, for e4ap"e! vary in "ength fro a sing"e #rief paragraph to as any as si4 pages 7ost are one or two pages; and uch the sae is true for the "ast section 7'Fotes and Drafts' of +ialectic of Enligtenent. Adorno%s free(standing essays se"do e4ceed thirty pages and are often shorter. At the opposite end of the spectru are the two "ate onographs! Adorno%s "ongest! "egative +ialectics and Aestetic Teor-. The forer is organi6ed! conventiona""y! into three "arge parts! two of which are further su#divided int o chapter("ike sections. The near"y four hundred pages of Aestetic Teor-, ore e4tree! appear entire"y without chapter division.!)$ Adorno%s writing intentiona""y thwarts effort"ess reception #y passive readerswhich not coincidenta""y para""e"s his understanding of the resistant =ua"ity of socia""y 'true' usic.!)% In particu"ar! it resists the '"ogic' of systeati6ed arguent! defined #y the e4pectation that point A "eads direct"y and inevita#"y to point &. In the words of &en AggerC '>riti=ue ust wrest"e with the ystifications of ordinary and discip"inary "anguage in order to wrest "anguage fro its strait3acket in the straightforward.'!)& Fowhere is this ore evident than in Adorno%s use of paratactica" devices as a principa" eans #y which to organi6e arguent at the "eve" of paragraphs! soe of which ay consist of on" y a few sentences! though "engthy paragraphs! often severa" pages "ong! are ore characteristic. !)' $f whatever "ength! #oth Adorno%s individua" sentences and paragraphs are coon"y organi6ed #y parata4is! that i s! an interna" arrangeent that avoids the use of either coordinating or su#ordinating e"eents. The resu"t! as /usan H. )i""espie apt"y e4p"ains! 'is a graatica" trope that! "ike the %#roken(off para#"es% [in Bafka]! creates a kind of dis3unction and nonspecificity that underine "ogica" c"arity and causa"ity! "eaving roo for a certain vagueness! and for interpretation.'!)( The anti(systeatic ipu"se evident in Adorno%s use of parata4is ref"ects his criti=ue of Western phi"osophica" discursive traditions! to #e sure! #ut at a ore fundaenta" "eve" it constitutes a reaction to the genera"
instruenta"i6ation of "anguage in odernity. Defiance of society!' he once rearked! 'inc"udes defiance of its "anguage.'!)) Adorno ep"oyed two c"ose"y re"ated organi6ationa" princip"es in his writing to accoodate this goa"C force(fie"d 7 &raftfeld and conste""ation. &y the forer he eant! in the words of -artin *ay! 'a re"ationa" interp"ay of attractions and aversions that constituted the dynaic! transutationa" structure of a cop"e4 phenoenon.' &y the "atter! an astronoica" ter that he #orrowed fro Wa"ter &en3ain! he eant 'a 3u4taposed rather than integrated c"uster of e"eents that resist reduction to a coon denoinator! essentia" core! or generative first princip"e.' "** The astronoica" conste""ation posits a re"ation on the #asis of o#serva#"e pro4iity. &ut at the sae tie! the re"ation has a certain etonyic or even ar#itrary =ua"ity 7why "ink tese stars and not thoseN. Fonethe"ess! once t he re"ation is deonstrated soething heretofore invisi#"e #ecoes apparent! and an insight is produced."*! 7Terry ag"etonC 'very sentence of [Adorno%s] te4ts is thus forced to work overtie; each phrase ust #ecoe a "itt"e asterpiece or irac"e of dia"ectics! fi4ing a thought in the second #efore it disappears into its own contradictions.'"*" 4aggeration! centra" to Adorno%s writing! #rought dia"ectica" tensions into #o"d re"ief as coponent parts of a force(fie"d or conste""ation! rather than soothing the overthe use of which har#ors what -a4
character depend. The foreign word oentari"y de(natura"i6es "anguage. Adorno%s writi ng e4p"icit"y! and carefu""y! attepts to akes us se"f(ref"e4ive a#out what Fiet6sche referred to as the prison(house of "anguage"!& the degree to which "anguage! with its historica" ianence! speaks us. The greater the se"f( ref"e4ivity as to the fundaenta""y interested nature of "anguage! the greater chance the su#3ect has to use "anguage against its natura"i6ed perpetuation of fa"sehood and the prou"gation of doination. That "anguage is increasing"y defined #y the functions and purpose of the >I! as Adorno saw it! ade his own radica" usage ore urgent."!' Her#ert -arcuse once confessed in an interview that there were any things in Adorno%s writing that he didn%t understand. &ut in the sae #reath -arcuse defended his friend%s writingC '$rdinary "anguage! ordinary prose . . . e4presses so uch the contro" and anipu"ation of the individua" #y the power structure! that in order to counteract this process you have to indicate a"ready in the "anguage you use the necessary rupture with confority. Hence [Adorno%s] attept to convey this rupture in the synta4! the graar! the voca#u"ary! even the punctuation. Fow whether this is accepta#"e or not I don%t know. The on"y thing I wou"d say is that there "ies an e=ua""y great danger in any preature popu"ari6ation of the terri#"y cop"e4 pro#"es we face today.'"!(
ritica" Theory on grounds of its purported a#sence of a socia" agenda. The ,rankfurt inte""ectua"s! so the story goes! recogni6ed suffering! and Adorno! their ost faous postwar 'spokesan!' responded with aesthetics. LukScs adds a nasty twistC Adorno and his crowd en3oyed the good "ife whi"e phi"osophica""y savoring the pessiis triggered #y the isery they recogni6ed. LukScs in other words virtua""y akes the accusation of (cadenfreude.""* >ritica" Theory%s "ack of a socia" progra for change was attacked fro within as we""! nota#"y of course #y Adorno%s ost faous student! *+rgen Ha#eras. And since Adorno%s death this issue in particu"ar has #een end"ess"y invoked. Hans(*+rgen Brah" sus up the usua" arguentC 'Adorno%s ina#i"ity to confront the pro#"e of organi6ation points to an o#3ective inade=uacy in his theory! which neverthe"ess assues socia" pra4is as a centra" category in episteo"ogy and socia" theory.'""! /tudent oveent protests! the draatic socia" f"ash point as regards widespread pu#"ic criti=ue of >ritica" Theory and Adorno! #egan in )erany in 055! focused on federa" schoo" and socia" refor! #ut reached crisis proportions in *une 059 when a student! &enno $hnesorg! was ki""ed #y a p"ainc"othes po"icean during a protest in &er"in over a visit of the /hah of Iran. /hort"y after $hnesorg was shot! Adorno pu#"ic"y deanded a thorough in=uiryas Ro"f Wiggershaus descri#es it! 'This was virtua""y the on"y %intervention% of this sort that he engaged in during his who"e career as a professor.'""" Adorno%s refusa" thereafter to #ecoe direct"y invo"ved was seen #y soe as an ivory tower response! or worse! a #etraya" of the idea"s under"ying >ritica" Theory! which had provided students with their inte""ectua" training in socia" 3ustice and cu"tura" criti=ue. >ritica" Theory seeed to fai" in practice.""# The 'pro#"e' was not ere"y soe sort of psychic incapacity or other persona" fai"ing on Adorno%s part to 'get invo"ved'; his position irrors the history! and historica" oent! of >ritica" Theory genera""y. &y the 021s it was =uite apparent to e#ers of the Institute that progressive po"itica" change was out of the =uestion. urope was under the sway of two e=ua""y a#horrent ode"sC one fascist! the other /ta"inist! #oth urderous. In Aerica! as they wou"d soon discover! with the grips of the Depression sti"" evident #ut "oosening! "i#era" deocracy arked #y the ipact of the >I hard"y suggested to the a hopefu" a"ternative. And they had "ong since given up on -ar4%s notion of a c"ass(#ased pro"etarian revo"ution. In short! >ritica" Theory #ecae an address to an uncertain futurewhat Adorno ca""ed ' Flascen0osten,' or 'essages in
#ott"es!' tossed out to sea in hopes of their "ater #eing found.""$ >ritica" Theory oved away fro a criti=ue of po"itica" econoy in favor of a criti=ue of instruenta" reason! in an effort to protect at a"" costs the idea"s as opposed to the actua"ityof the n"ightenent and so as to refuse the u"tiate de#aseent! rationa"ity! which guaranteed catac"ys. As Irving Woh"farth rearks! 'The ip"aca#"e "ogic of wor"d(historica" disaster is a"ways counterpointed in Adorno%s thinking #y the conviction that it cou"d #e otherwise.'""% It was art that for Adorno posited an 'otherwise' to the present. He e4pressed it! very uch focused on the =uestion at hand! in the essay '>oitent' 705@C 'As pure artifacts! products! works of art . . . are instructions for the pra4is they refrain froC the production of "ife "ived as it ought to #e.'""& A tru"y 'coitted' art is not! for Adorno! agitprop. Indeed! his own stance against po"itica" art is po"itica""y grounded! as /ion *arvis has pointed outC 'The danger for po"itica""y coitted art is that it wi"" end up as #ad art without #ecoing good po"itics either.'""' Adorno insisted that art%s function is practica" on"y to the e4tent that is constitutes a resistance indirect"y through its aesthetic coportent;""( in Aestetic Teor-, with &recht c"ear"y in ind! he suggested that artworks which strive to intervene po"itica""y have the effect ofas he put it in ng"ish'preaching to the saved!' then adding! 'Artworks e4ercise a practica" effect! if they do so at a""! not #y haranguing #ut #y the scarce"y apprehensi#"e transforation of consciousness; in any case agitative effects dissipate rapid"y.'"") In 090 Leo Lowentha" coented on LukScs%s witty ')rand Hote" A#yss' 3a# at the coforta#"e e4istence of Adorno and copanyC 'I have never heard t hat isera#"e "iving conditions and su#standard nutrition are necessary prere=uisites for innovative thought. If -ar4 and Fiet6sche at ties suffered insu"ts of ateria" deprivation! their theoretica" creativity survived! not #ecause of #ut despite such painfu" conditions. I ight a"so add that )eorg LukScs found his own ways of coforta#"e surviva" in a po"itica" environent where any other heretic -ar4ists! who were not privy to LukScs%s strategy of adaptive #ehavior! had heir heads chopped off.'"#* In this eoir Lowentha" staunch"y defends Adorno%s position! in the short run! in opposition to the deands that he 3oin the student protest and! in the "ong run! as regards the function of >ritica" Theory. He sus up his position on #oth counts with a coent a#out -ar4C 'Iagine for a oent -ar4 dying on the #arricades in 8:0 or 89C there wou"d #e no -ar4is! no advanced psycho"ogica" ode"s! and certain"y no >ritica" Theory. The ca"" to ars the u"traradica" discip"es directed at their teachers"egitiate as their intentions ay have #eenhas ere"y produced e4cesses! the conse=uences of which have #ecoe on"y too o#vious in the trou#"ed state the Few Left finds itse"f in today.'"#! In "egative +ialectics Adorno severa" ties addressed the theory(pra4is re"ation! stressing the priacy of thought! and acknow"edging the need for pra4is! #ut refusing to "ink one to the other! especia""y in "ight of the coonp"ace deand that theory serve practiceC 'The ca"" for unity of theory and practice has irresisti#"y degraded theory to a servant%s ro"e! reoving the very traits it shou"d have #rought to that unity. The visa stap of practice which we deand of a"" theory #ecae a censor%s p"acet. Ket whereas theory succu#ed in the vaunted i4ture! practice #ecae nonconceptua"! a piece of po"itics it was supposed to "ead out of; it #ecae the prey of power. . . . The recovery of theory%s independence "ies in the interest of practice itse"f.'"#" In the face of the student attacks on what they regarded as his =uietis! Adorno wrote a #rief essay at the end of his "ife! 'Resignation' 7050! in which he staked out one "ast tie the arguent for a position that he had in essence aintained his entire career. He suari6ed the charges against hiC '$ne shou"d 3oin in. Whoever on"y thinks! reoves hise"f! is considered weak! coward"y! virtua""y a traitor.'"## In the course of the essay he reiterates the arguents I have out"ined a#ove! drawing fro ear"ier writings. He conc"udes with the fo""owing! returning to a concern that "ies at the heart of >ritica" Theory! huan happinessC 'The happiness that dawns in the eye of the thinking person is the happiness of huanity. The universa" t endency of oppression is opposed to thought as such. Thought is happiness! even where it defines unhappinessC #y enunciating it. &y this a"one happiness reaches into the universa" unhappiness. Whoever does not "et it atrophy has not resigned.' "#$ A socia" theory that so distinct"y foregrounds and va"ori6es the aesthetic is hard"y one #ound to p"ease su#3ects shaped #y the thorough"y saturated Real0olitik of the >o"d War and its afterath and a century%s worth of ore or "ess g"o#a" ass cu"ture iperious"y "inked to the odes and va"ues of advertising. Aesthetics! e4cept for aesthetici6ed po"itics i n its yriad fors! is hard"y regarded as a -idas horde #y either the po"itica" right or "eft. The radica" =ua"ity of Adorno%s aesthetic theory is that it redefines the enterprise of aesthetics #y insisting on its "ink not to #eauty as such #ut to the '#eauty' of huan eancipation."#%
Tradition Art today is scarce"y conceiva#"e e4cept as a for of reaction that anticipates the apoca"ypse. Adorno! Aestetic TeorWhat in the end has Adorno handed downN What is the 'state' of his work todayN There is no sip"e response to these =uestions. In the decade fo""owing his death in 050 it%s fair to say that Adorno%s "ife%s work in phi"osophy! socio"ogy! usic! and aesthetics was ec"ipsed in )erany in "arge part #y the work of *+rgen Ha#eras! his forer student! and a"so #y historica" rea"ities in the ,edera" Repu#"ic. Whereas students in the "ate 051s had attacked Adorno for what they perceived as his po"itica" =uietis 7fro their point of view! in essence! his conservatis! within a very few years! posthuous"y! he was discredited #y the po"itica" right as an inte""ectua" father to the radica"! and vio"ent! "eft that eerged in )erany during the 091s."#& Adorno%s 'po"itics!' #y which his oeuvre as a who"e was ip"icit"y 3udged seeed either out of date or dangerous! or #oth. Though a very a3or figure in new usic circ"es e4tending out fro the Darstadt /uer >ourses! Adorno%s position in )eran usico"ogy was soething e"se again. In a discip"ine soewhat noted for aesthetic and episteo"ogica" conservatis! Adorno%s socio"ogy of usic was distastefu" to the degree that he cast his unre"enting critica" ga6e especia""y at the )eran usica" canonfor which in other circ"es he has since #een critici6ed for his seeing #" indness to the non()eranand did so #y eans a"ien to the esta#"ished traditions of )eran usico"ogy. His work was anti(positivistic! dia"ectica"! and re"ent"ess"y hereneutica"in a word! phi"osophica"; it was fundaenta""y =ua"itative! hence set against a reso"ute"y esta#"ished =uantitative discip"inary practice. Adorno%s socio"ogy worked fro #oth the outside and the inside of usica" works. '$utside' usica" te4ts! he "ooked at socia" practices! #ut here he upset usico"ogica" convention #y his re"ative "ack of interest in epirica" research! though Adorno knew we"" the '#asic facts' of usic history! to #e sure. &ut he insisted on the inade=uacy of usica" facts as such to the understanding of usicprecise"y the arguent in usico"ogy that eerged in fu""(#"own for on"y in the id 081s! #ut was nonethe"ess foreshadowed during the "ast decade of Adorno%s "ife in his criti=ue of positivis! especia""y as represented #y &ritish phi"osopher Bar"
the #ody of work as a who"e as 'too historica""y specific! too "oca"! too incidenta"! to #e accessi#"e other than as an o#3ect of historica" attention!' to which he iediate"y adds that it wasn%t even 'intrinsica""y good enough for the effort [of studying it as a historica" phenoenon] to #e worthwhi"e.' &ut then -acRae =ua"ifies hise"f as he "aunches into the review proper. What he rea""y eans #y ',rankfurters' is Adorno! whose #ook he characteri6es as 'preposterous.' 'To #e a di scip"e of ,rankfurt in 09:! in south London or Fewcast"e! is as si""y as trying to #e a iking or an iperia" >hinese #ureaucrat.' "egative +ialectics is direct"y assessed in two #rief paragraphs. specia""y nota#"e is the reviewer%s veno toward Adorno persona""y and his "ack of hesitation to engage in an ad hoine appraisa" in a #ook review. -acRae et Adorno once and found hi 'the ost arrogant! se"f(indu"gent 7inte""ectua""y and cu"t ura""y an I had ever et. /oe @1 years "ater! I can think of additiona" c"aiants for that position! #ut I dou#t if they are serious riva"s.' In the end! -acRae grudging"y attri#utes to "egative +ialectics 'soe erits!' #ut 'ain"y!' he c"oses! 'there is inte""ectua" narcissis and se"f(indu"gence! itigated #y a not unattractive stateent of Adorno%s own posture!' presua#"y an acknow"edgent of Adorno%s se"f(ref"e4ivity as a phi"osopher. /uggesting that Aestetic Teor- is 'not worth the effort!' he endsC 'this #ook conveys a dreadfu"! negative truth a#out the vanities of the "earned ind in our century.' &y -acRae%s account! the sa"" e4tent to which Adorno seeed interesting was so"e"y as an historica" figure whose tie had passed. >ritica" Theory#y the "ate 051s coterinous with Adornoseeed to have one foot fir"y p"anted at the door of irre"evance and the other at the door of po"itica" regression #y defau"t. Adorno%s coedown! which cae a#out "ess #y dea"ing with hi than deciding! in the words of -acRae! that he 3ust wasn%t any "onger 'worth the effort!' was e4acer#ated in the ng"ish(speaking wor"d #y few trans"ations! poor trans"ations! and! not "east! Adorno%s dependence on the )eran inte""ectua" and phi"osophica" tradition! which was "itt"e known and "ess appreciated in the GB and! especia""y! Forth Aerica. At "east as pro#"eatic was his dia"ectica"! conste""ationa"! and intentiona""y hyper#o"ic writing! and! of course! his unreitting enity 7or so it appeared toward popu"ar cu"ture! as that position #egan to #e known via the first a3or work trans"ated into ng"ish 709@! +ialectic of Enligtenent, and its since end"ess"y antho"ogi6ed chapter on the >u"ture Industry. Adorno%s >I criti=ues #ecae wide"y avai"a#"e in ng"ish at precise"y the oent that popu"ar cu"ture studies cae into their own in the &ritish and Aerican acadey. Adorno was greeted as the devi". Adorno%s vast corpus of usica" writings hard"y had an ipact outside )erany! apart fro the nota#"e e4ception of his fre=uent appearances at Darstadt! where his work on new usic was wide"y received #y an internationa" #ody of coposers. The near"y tota" a#sence of ng"ish trans"ations of Adorno%s work at the tie of his death #egan to #e rectified! s"ow"y! in the course of the 091s! principa""y in the 3ourna" Telos, and s"ight"y "ater! in "e: 2eran Critique! #oth 3ourna"s inc"uded key usic essays aong those they pu#"ished. The a3or phi"osophica" works were trans"ated first in a trick"e! a #it faster in the 081s! and =uite draatica""y in the 001sto the point where the ear"iest trans"ations! often "aenta#"y f"awed! of a3or onographs are now #eing retrans"ated. The trans"ation of Adorno%s usic writing has fo""owed a sii"ar tra3ectory! especia""y in the past decade. The deand for Adorno in ng"ish is c"ear"y re"ated to the =ua"itative 7as opposed to the "ong(esta#"ished =uantitative t endency in usico"ogy that eerged in the 081s! together with a new(found respect for usic criticis 7in regard to #oth! usico"ogy fo""owed the "iterary discip"ines #y near"y a generation; indeed! "iterary theory p"ayed a significant ro"e in producing the changes that have occurred in usico"ogy. Adorno%s insistence on aesthetics genera""y! and usic especia""y! as socia" discoursesas socia" agentsprovided usic scho"ars with a eans to rethink the very purpose of their practicea eans #y which to address a discip"ine that seeed increasing"y to #e of "itt"e interest to anyone #esides these"ves 7for reasons! to #e sure! #y no eans so"e"y the fau"t of usico"ogy%s then(doinant inte""ectua" paradigs! as wou"d #e c"ear fro any reading of Adorno on the nature of odernity and the genera" doinance of the coodity for on a"" "ife! inc"uding the "ife of the ind. /ip"y stated! Adorno%s usica" thought constituted an engaged pra4is that precise"y attepted to understand how usic itse"f functions as pra4is. He defined his "ife%s work! in other words! around pertinent =uestions a#out odern Western usica" "ife! seeing"y in perpetua" crisis! the varying accounts of which are a"ost "iit"essC the death of c"assica" usic! the sti""(#irth of new usic! the co"oni6ation of a"" usic #y its coodification as 'cu"tura" product!' the "oss of audience! the dec"ine of usica" education in the schoo"s! etc. Indeed! even Adorno%s severe attacks on popu"ar usics spurred iportant de#ate; he perceived ear"ier than virtua""y any other a3or scho"ar the socia" and cu"tura" ipact of popu"ar art! and he deve"oped a theoretica" "anguage for de"ineating the atter. Gn"ike usico"ogy! in other words! Adorno did not ignore the popu"ar #ut wrote e4tensive"y a#out it a fu"" fifty years #efore popu"ar usic ade its way into the acadey as a "egitiate o#3ect of study.
In usic studies! Adorno%s 'star' has risen higher now than at any tie during his "ife! his Darstadt inf"uence notwithstanding! in "ight of which I return to the first =uestion I posed at the #eginning of this sectionC What! in the end! has Adorno handed downN -y response deve"ops fro a reading of Adorno%s short essay! '$n Tradition' 7055. "$* Adorno opens with etyo"ogyC tradere, to hand down! an ip"icit reference to generationa" continuity! physica" pro4iity! and iediacyvirtua""y a fai"ia" re"ation. His purpose! as va )eu"en notes! is to in=uire into the tradition of tradition;"$! he iediate"y renders the ter parado4ica"C 'Tradition is opposed to rationa"ity! even though the one took shape in the other. Its ediu is not consciousness #ut the pregiven! unref"ected and #inding e4istence of socia" forsthe actua"ity of the past; unintentiona""y this notion of #inding e4istence was transitted to the inte""ectua"Qspiritua" sphere.'"$" In this sense! tradition has a kind of socia"(aesthetic diension to the e4tent that it #inds person to person; it acts as a force of reconci"iation. &ut in odernity tradition is out of its e"eent; it is 'incopati#"e with #ourgeois society!' where the e4change princip"e has rendered tradition itse"f "itt"e ore than an instruenta""y rationa"i6ed advertising p"oy. Adorno points to the "oss of tepora" continuity in coon e4perience! wherein history is reduced to the Fow of seasona" fashion. Tradition is invoked as a for of reassurance that nothing rea""y has changed in the face of the yriad and fundaenta" socia" disruptions that define "ate odernity! or! converse"y and perverse"y! tradition%s "oss is invoked #ut ironica""y #"aed on socia" and po"itica" resistance to odernity%s disruptive and regressive changethe ,ai"y a"ues s"ogans of the 081s were a perfect anifestation. The very fact that tradition! in certain nosta"gic and ythic fors! is the antra of the po"itica" right arks the se"f(consciousness with which tradition ust now #e ree#ered! as opposed to #eing e4perienced or "ived. "$# Gnder the socia"! cu"tura"! and historica" ipact of the coodity for! tradition in its 'c"assic' definition can on"y #e advertised and! in a sense! "itera""y purchased. Tradition%s sou" inha#its productsC &rady(&unch reakes! 'That 91s /how'; retro designs for here and now! inc"uding ode"(year @111 autoo#i"es ade to "ook "ike 021s sedans 7>hrys"er%s ruiser! otherwise known on"y fro o"d #"ack(and(white ovies; reakes of the %51s W &eat"e! with the gentee" addition of a tastefu" #ud vase #racketed to the dash#oard in hoage to the ,"ower
And yetC the arket(driven appea" to tradition recogni6es! and of course appea"s to! an acute sense of "oss that is rea". The doinant here(and(now of a society increasing"y divided econoica""y and cu"tura""y is! after a""! the constituent resu"t of its own set of traditionsC tru"y traditiona" to the e4tent that they are so deep"y entrenched! natura"i6ed! and non(ref"e4ive. &ut they are not traditiona" insofar as the traditiona" ethica" iport of the word 'tradition' conventiona""y presupposes; hence! the appea" to a fa"se t radition rendered ideo"ogica" through and through. 'Thus tradition today poses an inso"u#"e contradiction. There is no tradition today and none can #e con3ured! yet when every tradition has #een e4tinguished the arch t oward #ar#aris wi"" #egin.'"$( The dia"ectica" parado4 of tradition rep"icates the dia"ectics that organi6e odernity genera""y. Adorno descri#es a condition of odern aporia t hat can neither #e wished away nor passive"y accepted. Tradition ust #e confronted 'with the ost advanced stage of consciousness.' He insists that there is no peranent canon [keinen e:igen 7orrat ]C '&ut there is a re"ation to the past which! though not conservative! faci"itates the surviva" of any works #y refusing to coproise.'"$) What does this eanN Adorno rearks that what he ca""ed the 'critica" approach to tradition' does not turn its #ack on the past as no "onger interesting! there#y reducing the past t o the ere fore#ear of the here and now! the #y(product of historicis! yesterday%s news. What principa""y interests hi a#out the past is that which has #een '"eft a"ong the way!' that which has #een forgotten or disissed as outdatedwhat he e"sewhere naes as 'scars.'"%* Few art does not ignore the past! as though 'starting fro scratch' #ut engages it via a 'deterinate negation' 7which constitutes the #asis of his position on &eethoven! -ah"er! /choen#erg and &erg; there#y new art transfors tradition! working to co""apse tradition%s affirative character! and reakes the eaning of past and present a"ike."%! &ut the artist%s re"ation to tradition necessari"y reains fundaenta""y dia"ectica"C 'Tradition goes against the grain of every artist irritated #y its ornaenta" character and its fa#rication of eaning where there is none. ach reains true to this eaning #y refusing to #e deceived #y it.'"%" Adorno reiterates this thee in the essay%s "ast sentenceC '$n"y that which ine4ora#"y denies tradition ay once again retrieve it.'"%# In *inia *oralia he states the atter sti"" ore succinct"y! and with specific regard for its ip"ications for the huan su#3ectC '$ne ust have tradition in onese"f! to hate it proper"y.'"%$ Fei" La6arus coents that this aphoris%s conceit 'represents a uni=ue"y i""uinating and ena#"ing ru#ric under which to think in a po"itica""y engaged fashion a#out inte""ectua" and cu"tura" practice today.'"%% He continues! in what I take to #e as sound an arguent as I can iagine for the continued re"evance! indeed urgency! of Adorno%s workC
The point for Adorno . . . is that whi"e the tradition of uropean #ourgeois huanis has a"ways insisted upon its civi"ity! has a"ways gestured toward even ade a proise ofa universa"istica""y conceived socia" freedo! it has never de"ivered on this proise! e4cept! argua#"y! to the privi"eged few! and even then on"y on the #asis of the doination of a"" the others. To hate tradition proper"y is in these ters very different fro chapioning this e4c"usive 7and e4c"uding . . . tradition; on the contrary! it is to keep faith with true universa"ity! with the idea of a radica""y transfored socia" order! and to oppose onese"f ip"aca#"y to the fa"se universa"ity of odern 7#ourgeois socia"ity. It is to use one%s re"ative c"ass privi"ege to co#at a"" privi"ege! to shou"der the responsi#i"ity of inte""ectua"is #y 'ak[ing] the ora" and! as it were! representative effort to say what ost of those for who [one] say[s] it cannot see.'"%&
End Notes !. ,or additiona" inforation concerning Adorno%s #iography! see -artin *ay! The Dia"ectica" IaginationC A History of the ,rankfurt /choo" and the Institute of /ocia" Research! 0@2(0?1 7&ostonC Litt"e! &rown! 092; -artin *ay! Adorno 7>a#ridgeC Harvard Gniversity o""o=uiu! 081; Hartut /chei#"e! Theodor W. AdornoC -it /e"#st6eugnissen und &i"ddokuenten 7Rein#ek #ei Ha#urgC Rowo"t! 080; Ro"f Wiggershaus! The ,rankfurt /choo"C Its History! Theories! and a#ridgeC -IT
Ro"f Wiggershaus! Theodor W. Adorno 7-unichC >. thsUH. &eck! 089. This "ast study is principa""y an introduction to Adorno%s thought! though soe #iographica" inforation is a"so provided. I have drawn! in part! on a"" of these te4ts for any of the #iographica" detai"s reported in what fo""ows. ". *ay! Adorno! p. @?. #. >oncerning a degree of controversy a#out the nae change! see *ay! Adorno! p. 2:. Hannah Arendt 3udged the decision! in *ay%s words! as 'evidence of an a"ost co""a#orationist enta"ity.' &ut Adorno%s friend ,riedrich a"ifornia o"u#ia Gniversity urious Rea"istC $n /iegfried Bracauer!' FL! vo". @! pp. ?8(9?. *ay reports! 'Adorno and Bracauer!' p. @2?! that Bracauer attached the fo""owing note to his copy of the Adorno te4tC 'this eotiona""y "aden! s"anderous artic"e of TWA who does not shrink fro te""ing fa"sehoods.' Bracauer%s reaction is overwrought! though he correct"y recogni6ed Adorno%s #etween(the("ines criti=ue of his one(tie entor. %. Hauke &runkhorst! 'Theodor W. AdornoC Aesthetic >onstructivis and a Fegative thic of the Fon( ,orfeited Life!' trans. *aes /winda"! in The Hand#ook of >ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! pp. 219(18. &. Adorno! '>urious Rea"ist!' p. ?8. '. Lowentha"! 'Reco""ections of Theodor W. Adorno!' p. @12. (. Adorno! '>urious Rea"ist!' pp. ?8(?0. ). ,or an hi"arious account of an ear"y encounter #etween &erg and Adorno at the coposer%s hoe in ienna in 0@?the young and awe(struck Adorno vast"y overstaying his we"coe! even to the point of fo""owing &erg and his wife to a concert and 3oining the! uninvited! in their #o4! a"" the whi"e ta"king incessant"y at the patient #ut e4hausted &ergsee >hristopher Hai"ey! 'Defining HoeC &erg%s Life on the a#ridge >opanion to &erg! ed. Anthony a#ridgeC >a#ridge Gniversity a#ridgeC >a#ridge Gniversity oncerning his iportant "etter e4changes with Brenek! especia""y during the 0@1s and 021s! over twe"ve(tone usic and the concept of usica" ateria"! see pp. 8(09; Adorno and rnst Brenek! &riefwechse" 7,rankfurt a -ainC /uhrkap! 09:; and Adorno and rnst Brenek! 'Ar#eitspro#"ee des BoponistenC )esprVch +#er -usik und so6ia"e /ituation' 7021! )/! vo". 0! pp. :22(20. !!. /ee )/! vo". 0. !". -a4 u"t ureC ssays on >ritica" Theory and -usic 7LondonC Bahn and Averi""! 005! p. 2. ,or the u"tura" >riticisC The ,rankfurt /choo"! 4istentia"is! o"u#ia Gniversity ited in Wiggershaus! ,rankfurt /choo"! p. @8. !%. )i""ian Rose! The -e"ancho"y /cienceC An Introduction to the Thought of Theodor W. Adorno 7Few KorkC >o"u#ia Gniversity
!). /ee further Wi"cock! 'Adorno%s Gnc"e!' p. 228; and ve"yn Wi"cock! 'A"#an &erg%s Appea" to dward Dent on &eha"f of Theodor Adorno! 8 Fove#er 022!' )eran Life and Lett ers ?1 no. 2 7*u"y 009! pp. 25?(58. "*. Lowentha"! 'Reco""ections of Theodor W. Adorno!' p. @1:. "!. Adorno "ater succeeded in getting his parents out of )erany! #ut not #efore #oth had #een arrested. His father%s offices were destroyed and his property sei6ed. /ee >>! p. @08! "etter fro Adorno to &en3ain! written fro Few Kork! ,e#ruary 020! descri#ing his parents% incarceration and su#se=uent re"ease. His parents eigrated to >u#a short"y thereafter! and to the Gnited /tates ear"y in 0:1. "". Adorno%s distinct"y odest house! which he rented! is at 25 /. Bentor Avenue! in &rentwood. Horkheier "ived near#y in a #unga"ow! no "onger standing! at 2?@: D%ste Drive. ,or a ap to the hoes of the EigrEs! see the e4hi#ition cata"ogue #y /tephanie &arron! with /a#ine ckann! 4i"es igrEsC The ,"ight of uropean Artists fro Hit"er! Los Ange"es >ounty -useu of Art 7Few KorkC Harry F. A#ras! 009! pp. 2?8(5. In the iediate area 7&rentwood! /anta -onica! and a"ifornia years; Arno"d /choen#erg! whose house is 3ust down the #"ock fro the site where forer"y stood the house #e"onging to $.thsU *. /ipson; and &erto"t &recht! who occupied two different houses a#out a #"ock apart in /anta -onica. /travinsky! in West Ho""ywood! was a #it farther away! and in any event not part of the )eran *ewish counity. Rachaninoff and Artur Ru#enstein "ived in &ever"y Hi""s! as did &runo Wa"ter. ,or an account of Adorno%s /outhern >a"ifornia e4perience as read through --! see Fico Israe"! 'Daage >ontro"C Adorno! Los Ange"es! and the Dis"ocation of >u"ture!' Ka"e *ourna" of >riticis 1 no. 7/pring 009! 8?(2. "#. Muoted in -artin *ay! 'The ,rankfurt /choo" in 4i"e!' in o"u#ia Gniversity riti=ue of Doination!' >urrent o poser Adrian Leverk+hn as To"d #y a ,riend! trans. H. thsUT. Lowe(hapter XXII [pp. 8?(0:]! known as the twe"ve(tone or row syste! is in truth the inte""ectua" property of a conteporary coposer and theoretician! Arno"d /chJn#erg. I have transferred this techni=ue in a certain ideationa" conte4t to the fictitious figure of a usician! the tragic hero of y nove". In fact! the passages of this #ook that dea" with usica" theory are inde#ted in nuerous detai"s to /chJn#erg%s Haronie"ehre.' "&. Thoas -ann! The /tory of a Fove"C The )enesis of Doctor ,austus! trans. Richard Winston and >"ara Winston 7Few KorkC A"fred A. Bnopf! 05. /ee especia""y the references to Adorno on pp. :1(:8! 52! 0:( 0?! 1@(12! ?1(?5! @@(@2. "'. I#id.! pp. :2! :?. -ann not on"y read Adorno%s work on Wagner and /choen#erg #ut a"so fro his &eethoven aphoriss! part of a #ook never cop"eted and pu#"ished posthuous"y as a "engthy fragent. -ann acknow"edges the incorporation of Adorno%s &eethoven coentary 7pp. :5(:8. Adorno a"so p"ayed for -ann the entire /onata op. 'in a high"y instructive fashion!' fo""owing which! over a period of three days! -ann revised his discussion of the sonata in the nove" 7chapter 8! pp. :0(50. 'Into the poetic "itt"e i""ustrative phrases I wrote for the arietta thee I s"ipped Adorno%s patronyic! Wiesengrund 7-eadow"and! #y way of showing y gratitude' 7p. :8. "(. Wiggershaus! ,rankfurt /choo"! p. :2. "). I#id.! p. :55! Wiggershaus points out that 'restitution and copensation to the victis of the Fa6i regie had #een forced on the ,edera" Repu#"ic #y the Western A""ies.' Regarding anti(/eitic responses to returning *ews! see p. :59. #*. I#id.! p. :59C Adorno 'had never had an offer of a chair fro any other university! which wou"d have strengthened his position at ,rankfurt. For did he ever receive such an offer "ater on. $nce again! Adorno suffered the o"d *ewish e4perience of #eing siu"taneous"y privi" eged and neverthe"ess stigati6ed and vu"nera#"e.' #!. I#id.! p. :?5.
#". Adorno! '$n the MuestionC %What Is )eranN%thsU' >-! pp. @10(1. Adorno is! of course! p"aying off the tit"e of Wagner%s essay 'What Is )eranN' i n Richard Wagner%s riti=ue 25 7,a"" 08?! pp. (0; and Russe"" A. &eran! -odern >u"ture and >ritica" TheoryC Art! hristoph Wo"ff! eds.! Driven into a"ifornia riti=ue 2 7Winter 08:! pp. ?9(8@! provides an e4ce""ent overview of Adorno%s a"ienation fro Aerican cu"ture during his years in the Gnited /tates! #ut a"so a c"ear indication of the powerfu" inte""ectua" ipact of this e4perience su#se=uent to his return to )erany! p. 5?C 'In suary! a"though it ight #e said that whi"e in Aerica! Adorno tended to interpret his new surroundings through the "ens of his ear"ier e4perience! once #ack hoe! he saw )erany with the eyes of soeone who had #een deep"y affected #y his years in e4i"e. Fegative"y! this eant an increased watchfu"ness for the signs of an Aerican(sty"e cu"ture industry in urope. ases of %Inner% and %$ther% Direction!' in Reinho"d &rinkann and >hristoph Wo"ff! eds.! Driven into a"ifornia "u# of Los Ange"es on @9 -ay 0:? entit"ed ',ragen an die inte""ektue""e igration.' In a "etter to &en3ain! 2 -arch 02:! >>! p. 2@! Adorno coentsC 'I a spending a great dea" of tie "earning ng"ish. Learning a foreign "anguage when you are an adu"t ust count aongst the strangest of e4periences'; see a"so p. ?:! a "etter to &en3ain! 5 Fove#er 02:! in which Adorno! proffering advice to his friend! stresses the i portance of writing in one%s native "anguage. #&. ,or detai"s! see 'ditorisches Fachwort!' )/! vo". @1.@! pp. 8@5(@8. #'. Adorno%s concerns were a"ost e4c"usive"y Western uropean! and he rare"y investigated usic prior to &ach. His urocentris has often #een not ed. /ee! for e4ap"e! dward W. /aid! -usica" "a#orations 7Few KorkC >o"u#ia Gniversity orrespondenceC /e"ected Letters! ed. *u"iane &rand! >hristopher Hai"ey! and Dona"d Harris! trans. *u"iane &rand and >hristopher Hai"ey 7Few KorkC Forton! 089! p. 2??.
$*. -ann! /tory of a Fove"! p. 20. $n Adorno! the coposer! see RenE Lei#owit6! 'Der Boponist Theodor W. Adorno!' in PeugnisseC Theodor W. Adorno 6u sech6igsten )e#urtstag 7,rankfurt a -ainC uropVische er"agsansta"t! 052! pp. 2??(?0; /igfried /chi#"i! Der Boponist Theodor W. Adorno 7,rankfurt a -ainC ,rankfurter &und f+r o"ks#i"dung! 088; Di eter /chne#e"! 'inf+hrung in Adornos -usik!' in Adorno und die -usik! ed. $tto Bo""eritsch 7)ra6C Gniversa" dition! 090! pp. ?(0; and! especia""y! Hein6(B"aus -et6ger and Rainer Riehn! eds.! Theodor W. AdornoC Der Boponist -usik( Bon6epte 52(5: 7-unichC Te4t Briti k! 080. This "ast vo"ue coprises twe"ve essays concerning Adorno%s copositions! inc"uding songs; pieces for fea"e chorus; his Binder3ahr! an arrangeent for sa"" orchestra of si4 pieces fro /chuann%s A"#u f+r die *ugend op. 58! for so"o piano 78:8; Pwei /t+cke f+r /treich=uartett; and /echs kur6e $rchesterst+cke. A cop"ete cata"ogue of Adorno%s copositions is provided 7pp. ::(:5! inc"uding unpu#"ished work. The ear"iest dated coposition is fro 08! when Adorno was on"y fifteen! and the "atest fro 0:5. -ost of his copositions date fro the 0@1s and 021s. Adorno "eft unfinished an opera #ased on The Adventures of To /awyer ca""ed Der /chat6 des Indianer(*oeC /ingspie" nach -ark Twain! edited with an afterword #y Ro"f Tiedeann 7,rankfurt a -ainC /uhrkap! 090! a facsii"e of the fragents! #ased on his own "i#retto written over a ten(onth period #eginning in Fove#er 02@. Adorno%s on"y cop"eted usic for the piece was 'Two /ongs for oice and $rchestra!' pu#"ished in the two(vo"ue edition of Adorno%s usic 7which contains twe"ve works in a""! ost of which are u"ti(part co""ections of short pieces"ieder! especia""y! #ut a"so chora" works! pieces for st ring =uartet! and a few pieces for orchestra! inc"uding arrangeentsC Adorno! Bo positionen! ed. Hein6(B"aus -et6ger and Rainer Riehn 7-unichC dition Te4t Britik! 081! vo". @! pp. 52(9@. &en3ain! nota#"y critica" of the "i#retto! e4changed severa" "etters with Adorno on the atter. /ee >>! pp. @2(@8; the "etters date fro "ate *anuary to id -arch 02:. In a "etter to &en3ain! 2 -arch 02:! >>! p. 2! Adorno coented on his "ack of success in getting his usic pu#"ished. Adorno copositions ep"oyed #oth free tona"ity and seria" techni=ues. /evera" copositions have recent"y #een re"eased on >DC 7 Bopositionen! Wergo WR 592(@! current"y out of print; 7@ Works for /tring Muartet! Deutsch"andRadio ><$ 000 2:(@! inc"udes /i4 /tudies for /tring Muartet 70@1! the /tring Muartet 70@! and Two D(1??! inc"udes the Binder3ahr arrangeent. $!. /ee )ianario &orio! 'Die oposition ought to reserve at every oent surprises and ways of its own regard"ess of a"" the rationa"ity that ust #e iposed in other respects in order to attain an un=uestiona#"e so"idity.' He derides 'pure' chance as uch as he does integra" seria"ist fu""(contro" efforts! regarding #oth as fetishistic. H is criti=ue of integra" seria"is para""e"s Adorno%s! p. :2C '/cheati6ation! =uite sip"y! takes the p"ace of invention. . . . [The resu"t is] a fetishis of nu#ers! "eading to pure and sip"e fai"ure. We p"unge into statistica" "ists that have no ore va"ue than other "ists.' &ou"e6 taught annua""y at Darstadt fro 0?? to 059. /ee his #a"anced and often appreciative coentary on Adorno! 'L%inforu"E!' Revue d%estheti=ue 8 708?! pp. @?(@0! whi ch conc"udesC 'Adorno! =ue "%on a souvent accusE d%Ytre e4agErEent a#scons! 3e "e trouve! oi! un professeur de rEa"itE! cette rEa"itE =ui annihi"e "e di"ettantise! a#so"uent'; and a"so his eoria" verse fo""owing Adorno%s death! 'T. thsUW. Adorno!' in o""ected Writings #y ooper 7>a#ridgeC Harvard Gniversity
ora"(history interviews of Darstadt participants! and ha"f to docuents! inc"uding "etters and postcards! newspaper artic"es! concert reviews! and new(usic concert progras 70:5(58; an e4tensive #i#"i ography is provided. There are nuerous references throughout the #ook to Adorno%s invo"veent. $$. Henry W. -! p. i4. /ee further )erd Bade"#ach! '-! pp. @0?(215. Adorno%s 'pu#"ic' writing appeared in the fo""owing nota#"y diverse venuesC Ak6enten! DarstVdter cho! ,AP! Deutsche a"ifornia ritica" Theory!' trans. -atthew *. $%>onne""! in >ritica" TheoryC /e"ected ssays 7Few KorkC >ontinuu! 085! pp. 88(@:2. $(. /usan &uck(-orss! The $rigin of Fegative Dia"ecticsC Theodor W. Adorno! Wa"ter &en3ain! and the ,rankfurt Institute 7Few KorkC ,ree ritica" Theory was never a fu""y articu"ated phi"osophy which e#ers of the Institute app"ied in an identica" fashion. It was far ore a set of assuptions which they shared! and which distinguished their approach fro #ourgeois! or %traditiona"!% theory.' $). Horkheier! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory!' p. 88. %*. I#id.! pp. 00(@11. %!. I#id.! p. @@2. %". >hristoph -enke! '>ritica" Theory and Tragic Bnow"edge!' trans. *aes /winda"! in Hand#ook of >ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! p. ?0. ,rederic *aeson! 'Introduction to T. thsUW. Adorno!' in The Legacy of the )eran Refugee Inte""ectua"s! ed. Ro#ert &oyers 7Few KorkC /chocken &ooks! 09@! p. :! akes a sii"ar point! noting that what Adorno regarded as dia"ectica" thinking invo"ved the 'attept to think se"f(conscious"y a#out our own thought whi"e we are in the act of thinking a#out soe o#3ect! to #e #oth conscious and se"f(conscious at the sae tie.' %#. Horkheier! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory!' p. @@. %$. I#id.! pp. @2(:. %%. I#id.! p. @8. David -. Rasussen! '>ritica" Theory and ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! p. @C 'The ancient assuption that the purpose of ref"ection was for know"edge itse"f! a""ied with the further assuption that pure contep"ation was the proper end of the huan su#3ect! was rep"aced #y another end of ref"ection a"so t o #e derived fro c"assica" thought! #ut with its own pecu"iar"y odern twist; theory when a""ied wi th pra4is has a proper po"itica" end! nae"y! socia" transforation.' Rasussen%s essay traces the history of >ritica" Theory fro its origins in c"assic )eran phi"osophy through *+rgen Ha#eras. %&. -a4 Horkheier! 'The /ocia" ,unction of ritica" TheoryC /e"ected ssays! trans. -atthew *. $%>onne"" 7Few KorkC >ontinuu! 085! p. @5:. %'. Horkheier! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory!' p. @0. %(. FD! pp. 8?(85. %). Horkheier! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory!' p. @@9. &*. >f. Adorno! 'Why /ti"" -! p. 1C 'If phi"osophy is sti"" necessary! it is so on"y in the way it has #een fro tie ieoria"C as criti=ue! as resistance to the e4panding heteronoy! even if on"y as thought%s power"ess attept to reain its own aster and to convict of untruth! #y their own criteria! #oth a
fa#ricated ytho"ogy and a conniving! resigned ac=uiesce on the other of untruth. It is incu#ent upon phi"osophy . . . to provide a refuge for freedo.' &!. Horkheier! 'Traditiona" and >ritica" Theory!' p. @:@. &". /ee further *ay! Dia"ectica" Iagination! pp. :(8?. ,or a good account of Adorno%s criti=ue of phi"osophy! see a#ridgeC -IT ritica" Theory of onte4t of a#ridgeC -IT riti=ue ?8 7Winter 002! pp. :?(5:; and >hristopher Rocco! '&etween -odernity and ritica" Theory%s "inking of -ar4ian thought to ,reudian psychoana"ysis was nothing short of inte""ectua""y audacious in the "ate 0@1s and ear"y 021s! when! in )erany! ,reud%s work was anything #ut coon"y accepted. /ee *oe" White#ook! ',antasy and >riti=ueC /oe Thoughts on ,reud and the ,rankfurt /choo"!' in The Hand#ook of >ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! pp. @89( 88. &&. *ay! Adorno! p. 8?. &'. --! p. 9. &(. /ee *ay! Dia"ectica" Iagination! pp. 95(@. &). *ay! uing%s trans"ation! see pp. @9(@0. Hu""ot(Bentor has retrans"ated the first e4cursus of D! '$dysseus or -yth and n"ightenent!' Few )eran >riti=ue ?5 7/pringQ/uer 00@! pp. 10(:! the section '!. Doug"as Be""ner! '>ritica" Theory TodayC Revisiting the >"assics!' Theory! >u"ture and /ociety 1 no. @ 7-ay 002! p. ?1. '". Adorno on"y occasiona""y wrote direct"y on gender issues! as in --! pp. 01(05! 50(9:! and in D! pp. 1(@! @:9(?1. &ut critics have pointed out that his conception of su#3ectivity is reso"ute"y a a"e #ourgeois ode". /ee /a#ine Wi"ke and Heidi /ch"ipphacke! '>onstruction of a )endered /u#3ectC A ,einist Reading of Adorno%s Aesthetic Theory!' in The /e#"ance of /u#3ectivityC ssays in Adorno%s Aesthetic Theory! ed. To Huhn and La#ert Puidervaart 7>a#ridgeC -IT u"ture and ,einis 7LondonC /age! 000. '#. D! pp. :! 5. '$. >opetition is doination%s twin. The necessity of the strugg"e for surviva"! and for risk(taking in the nae of persona" advanceent! #ecoe 'the postu"ate of a ora" e4cuse for profit' 7D! p. 5@. '%. ,or a particu"ar"y we""(known e4ap"e! see *+rgen Ha#eras! 'The ntwineent of -yth and n"ightenentC Re(Reading Dia"ectic of n"ightenent!' trans. Thoas K. Levin! Few )eran >riti=ue @5
7/pringQ/uer 08@! pp. 2(21. ,or a response! in turn! to Ha#eras! see Barin &auer! Adorno%s Fiet6schean FarrativesC >riti=ues of Ideo"ogy! Readings of Wagner 7A"#anyC /tate Gniversity of Few Kork ritics of Dia"ectic of n"ightenent! Ha#eras nota#"e aong the! have not gone unanswered! however. /ee! for e4ap"e! riti=ue of the ,rankfurt /choo"!' in Reappraisa"sC /hifting A"ignents in ritica" Theory 7IthacaC >orne"" Gniversity ritica" Theory Today!' pp. :2(51. ,or an overview of Dia"ectic of n"ightenent! see /ion *arvis! AdornoC An Introduction 7Few KorkC Rout"edge! 008! pp. @1(:2. '&. &uck(-orss! $rigin of Fegative Dia"ectics! p. 5. >f. Ro#ert Hu""ot(Bentor! 'Fotes on Dia"ectic of n"ightenentC Trans"ating the $dysseus ssay!' Few )eran >riti=ue ?5 7/pringQ/uer 00@! pp. 15( 19! who suggests that the decision #y Adorno and Horkheier to ep"oy the $dysseus story is rooted in the fact that since the eighteenth century! )eran inte""ectua"s considered #oth these"ves and )erany 'as #earers of the He""enic torch.' ''. D! p. 4v. /ee -ichae" LJwy and "eni arikas! 'thsU%The Wor"d /pirit on the ,ins of a Rocket%C Adorno%s >riti=ue of f. Adorno! 'Fotes on -! p. 2@C '/tupidity is nothing privative! not sip"y the a#sence of enta" a#i"ity! #ur rather the scar of its uti"ation.' (*. D! p. @@2! fro the aphoris '$n the >riti=ue of the f. p. ?9C 'He 3ust pu""s through; strugg"e is his surviva"; and a"" the fae that he and the others win in the process serves ere"y to confir that the tit"e of hero is on"y gained at the price of the a#aseent and ortification of the instinct for cop"ete! universa"! and undivided happiness.' ($. Hu""ot(Bentor! 'Fotes on Dia"ectic of n"ightenent!' p. 1@. 'What Dia"ectic of n"ightenent discerns as the reason for thought%s capitu"ation deserves #"unt stateent #ecause even if it is a discovery that everyone has ade at soe point it puts its finger on the origins of conforist thinking with rare candorC thought confors out of fear. And it is not 3ust that thought #a"ks at distur#ing insights #ut that thought itse"f deve"ops as an organi6ation of fear that progressive"y confors to what it wou"d aster.' >f. D! p. 4ivC 'The dutifu" chi"d of odern civi"i6ation is possessed #y a fear of departing fro the facts which! in the very act of perception! the doinant conventions of science! coerce! and po"iticsc"ichE("ikehave a"ready o"ded; his an4iety is none other than the fear of socia" deviation.' (%. D! p. 5. (&. I#id.! p. 88C '/ade rea"i6ed [the affinity #etween know"edge and p"anning] epirica""y ore than a century #efore sport was conceived. The teas of odern sport! whose interaction is so precise"y regu"ated that no e#er has any dou#t a#out his ro"e! and which provide a reserve for every p"ayer! have their e4act counterpart in the se4ua" teas of *u"iette! which ep"oy every oent usefu""y! neg"ect no huan orifice! and carry out every function.' ('. Regarding the "ove(hate re"ationship with the #ody! see the aphoris 'The Iportance of the &ody!' D! pp. @2(25. ((. D! p. :. (). FD! p. 8?. )*. D! p. ?:. )!. AT! p. 5@. )". Adorno is thus #"unt"y positioning hise"f against Hege"! whose disregard for nature is we"" known. $n this point! see AT! pp. 52! 9?(99; and Richard Wo"in! 'Gtopia! -iesis! and Reconci"iationC A Redeptive >riti=ue of Adorno%s Aesthetic Theory!' Representations 2@ 7,a"" 001! p. :@. )#. AT! pp. 5(5@. /ee a"so Hein6 a#ridgeC -IT
)$. AT! pp. 5@! 5?(55. 'Gnder its optic! art is not the iitation of nature! #ut the iitation of natura" #eauty' 7p. 9. )%. I#id.! p. 92. )&. I#id.! p. @9?. )'. I#id.! p. :. )(. I#id.! p. 2@. )). I#id.! p. 8C 'The freedo of phi"osophy is nothing #ut the capacity to "end a voice to its unfreedo.' !**. I#id.! p. ?. !*!. I#id.C 'Dia"ectics is the consistent sense of nonidentity.' !*". I#id.! p. 5. !*#. I#id.! p. 2@1. !*$. -iche" ,oucau"t! The $rder of ThingsC An Archaeo"ogy of the Huan /enses 7Few KorkC intage! 091. !*%. FD! p. 82. !*&. &uck(-orss! $rigin of Fegative Dia"ectics! p. 99C '>rucia" to %negative dia"ectics% was not on"y the o#3ect%s nonidentity with itse"f! #ut its nonidentity with the knowing su#3ect! the ind and its "ogica" processes. . . . this "eve" of [the o#3ect%s] nonidentity found e4pression in [Adorno%s] ter %unintentiona" truth.%thsU' !*'. ). thsUW. thsU,. Hege"! u"tura" >riticis and /ociety!' ontinuu! 08@! pp. :::(?. !!#. f. FD! pp. ::(:?C 'To proceed dia"ectica""y eans to think in contradictions! for the sake of the contradiction once e4perienced in the thing! and against that contradiction. A contradiction in rea"ity! it is a contradiction against rea"ity.' !!%. -arcuse! 'A Fote on Dia"ectic!' p. ::5. !!&. >f. --! p. 85. The ne4t sentence readsC 'The prudence that restrains us fro venturing too far ahead in a sentence! is usua""y on"y an agent of socia" contro"! and so of stupefaction.' !!'. -arcuse! 'A Fote on Dia"ectic!' p. ::9. !!(. I#id.! p. :?. !!). --! p. @::. !"*. I#id.! p. ?1. !"!. Adorno! 'Why /ti""
and for the rest to conduct onese"f in private as odest"y! uno#trusive"y and unpretentious"y as is re=uired! no "onger #y good up#ringing! #ut #y the shae of sti"" having air to #reathe! in he"".' !"". --! p. @:9. dund *ephcott has trans"ated this as ',ina"e!' which carries rather too uch a va"ence of fina"ity and neat conc"usion! c"ear"y not intended #y Adorno. At the sae tie! however! *ephcott%s choice of word appropriate"y acknow"edges the nota#"e iportance of usi ca" referents scattered throughout -- and! at "east as iportant! the =uasi(usica" structure of any aphoriss! where narrative design reca""s! various"y! thee and variations and the kind of sonata structure found in &eethoveneven second deve"opents. !"#. Terry ag"eton! 'Art After Auschwit6C Theodor Adorno!' in The Ideo"ogy of the Aesthetic 7$4fordC &asi" &"ackwe""! 001! p. 2:@C 'A"" -ar4ist phi"osophers are supposed to #e dia"ectica" thinkers; #ut with Adorno one can fee" the sweat and strain of this ode a"ive in every phrase! in a "anguage raed up against si"ence where the reader has no sooner registered the one(sidedness of soe proposition than the opposite is iediate"y proposed.' !"$. Wa"ter &en3ain! 'Theses on the f. Adorno! 'Why /ti"" oncept of History!%thsU' in The ,rankfurt /choo"C >ritica" Assessents! ed. *ay &ernstein 7London and Few KorkC Rout"edge! 00:! vo". @! pp. (20. !"'. &en3ain! 'Theses on the riti=ueC &asic >oncepts of >ritica" Theory!' in Hand#ook of >ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! p. ?. !#!. Rasussen! '>ritica" Theory and f. the opening of FD! p. 2C 'u"ture!' /tudies in u"ture Industry essay is very "arge; aong the ost usefu" studies are David He"d! Introduction to >ritica" TheoryC Horkheier to Ha#eras 7&erke"ey and Los Ange"esC Gniversity of >a"ifornia ook! The >u"ture Industry RevisitedC Theodor W. Adorno on -ass >u"ture 7Lanha! -DC Rowan and Litt"efie"d! 005. Adorno%s work su#se=uent to the >u"t ure Industry essay often repeats its principa" arguents. A vo"ue of Adorno essays! edited #y *. thsU-. &ernstein! The >u"ture IndustryC /e"ected ssays on -ass >u"ture 7LondonC Rout"edge! 00! co""ects severa" of the ost iportantC 'The /chea of -ass >u"ture!' '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' '>u"ture and Adinistration!' 'How to Look at Te"evision' 7a soewhat unusua" essay to the e4tent that Adorno direct"y states a pedagogica" intent for the ediu%s iproveent; as he puts is at the start! 'our approach is practica"'! 'Transparencies on ,i"!' and ',ree Tie!' #esides severa" others. $ther re"ated essays inc"ude '-; and 'Theory of u"ture!' trans. De#orah >ook! Te"os 0? 7/pring 002! pp. ?(28. !#$. -artin *ay! '-ass >u"ture and Aesthetic RedeptionC The De#ate #etween -a4 Horkheier and /iegfried Bracauer!' in $n -a4 Horkheier! ed. /e"a &enha#i#! Wo"fgang &onss! and *ohn -c>o"e 7>a#ridgeC -IT
iediate"y after Wor"d War I! if not #efore. /ee a"so on this point *ohn Wi""ett! The Few /o#riety! 09( 022C Art and u"ture and Adinistration!' p. 02. Adorno accounted for the decision to use the phrase 'cu"ture industry' in D in the essay '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' p. 8?C 'In our drafts we spoke of %ass cu"ture.% We rep"aced that e4pression with %cu"ture industry% in order to e4c"ude fro the outset the interpretation agreea#"e to its advocatesC that it is a atter of soething "ike a cu"ture that arises spontaneous"y fro the asses these"ves! the conteporary for of popu"ar art. ,ro the "atter the cu"ture industry ust #e distinguished in the e4tree.' !#&. *aeson! Late -ar4is! p. ::! origina" ephasis. Adorno! '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' pp. 89(88! coented that the phrase 'cu"ture industry' shou"d not #e 'taken too "itera""y!' that it referred to two interre"ated factors! the standardi6ation of the >I products and the rationa"i6ation of the >I%s distri#ution techni=ues 7advertising is the c"assic driving force #ut not to the production process proper"y speaking! where! despite the o#vious ipact of industria"i6ed production! the continued e4istence of individua" fors of production reained evident. !#'. In the 091s! /enate Watergate Hearing chairan! Forth >aro"ina%s /enator /a rvin! "ioni6ed #y the edia for his down(hoe! p"ainspoken fairness and integrity! ade fungi#"e each of these assets. Fot "ong after the conc"usion of the hearings! he was aong the first! in what wou"d #ecoe a "ong "ine of ce"e#rities! to se"" hise"f to the 'Don%t "eave hoe without it' Aerican 4press >ard advertising capaign. A"ong sii"ar "ines! the ity! proc"aied as an opportunity to criti=ue the widening gap #etween rich nations and poor! was underwritten #y ity and at the hronic"e! @@ *anuary 000! p. 8; and -ichae" -c>aughan! 'hance for ,inancia" )ain!' The Irish Ties! @ *anuary 000! p. 2. !#(. D! p. @. !#). I#id.! p. 2. !$*. Leo Lowentha"! 'The Left in )erany Has ,ai"ed' [interview with a"ifornia u"ture as a coon denoinator a"ready contains in e#ryo that scheati6ation and process of cata"oging and c"assification which #ring cu"ture within the sphere of adinistration. And it is precise"y the industria"i6ed! the conse=uent! su#suption which entire"y accords with this notion of cu"ture.' !$". I#id.! p. @! ephasis added. !$#. --! pp. @11(1! aphoris @0! '/ervice to the >ustoer' ['Dienst a Bunden']. !$$. D! p. @:. >f. p. @9C 'The ight of industria" society is "odged in en%s inds. . . . The cu"ture industry as a who"e has o"ded en as a type unfai"ing"y reproduced in every product.' !$%. I#id.! p. 2. !$&. I#id.! p. @2. !$'. >ook! >u"ture Industry Revisited! p. @2. !$(. D! p. 25. A year @111 nationa" print(edia and te"evision advertiseent for Dodge cars and trucks is staged around a sing"e wordC 'Different.' >f. Adorno! 'u"ture!' /ocia" Te4t 7090! p. 2@. Pipes! 'Adorno -ay /ti"" &e Right!' p. ?8! with reference to the charge that Adorno was an e"itist #ecause he soehow denounced not on"y ass cu"ture #ut the asses as we""! points out that Adorno in fact wrote on the asses% #eha"f! 'for he wanted to ake everyone aware of what the asses have #ecoe and to propt his readers not
to succu# to the cu"ture industry. In short! Adorno spoke out in #eha"f of individua"ity! origina"ity! uni=ueness! and particu"aris. . . . As far as he was concerned! anyone cou"d #e"ong to the asses! and practica""y everyone did! whi"e thinking they were actua""y distinct and origina".' This essay addresses the ro"e p"ayed #y the >I in the socia"i6ation of chi"dren for "ives of consuption and cu"tura" o#eisance. !%*. Adorno! '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' p. 85. !%!. D! p. 29. !%". I#id. !%#. I#id.! p. 20. !%$. --! p. @?. !%%. D! p. 20! trans"ation odified. !%&. The fi" opens with the fo""owing te4t that fraes the su#se=uent narrativeC 'In the centra" part of the Gnited /tates of Aerica "ies a "iited area ca""ed %The Dust &ow"!% #ecause of its "ack of rain. Here drought and poverty co#ined to deprive any farers of their "and. This is the story of one farer%s fai"y! driven fro their fie"ds #y natura" disasters and econoic changes #eyond their contro" [in reference to "arge(sca"e echani6ed faring that supp"ants sharecropping] and their great 3ourney in search of peace! security! and another hoe.' Adorno and Horkheier acknow"edge that fi"s conventiona""y! and very direct"y! treat the su#3ect of huan deprivation and the p"ight of the poor; they argue that this trope provides the opportunity to present society%s a""eged under"ying 'heart of go"d.' /ee D! pp. :0(?@. !%'. Adorno! '/chea of -ass >u"ture!' p. 82C 'The neon signs which hang over our cities and outshine the natura" "ight of the night with their own are coets presaging the natura" disaster of society! its fro6en death. Ket they do not coe fro the sky. They are contro""ed fro earth. It depends upon huan #eings these"ves whether they wi"" e4tinguish these "ights and awake fro a nightare which on"y threatens to #ecoe actua" as "ong as en #e"ieve in it.' !%(. I#id.! p. 8@. !%). D! p. :@. !&*. /ut *ha""y! 'Advertising as Re"igionC The Dia"ectic of Techno"ogy and -agic!' in >u"tura" onteporary Aerica! ed. Ian Angus and /ut *ha""y 7Few KorkC Rout"edge! 080! pp. @@(@@C 'The fetishis of coodities consists in the first p"ace of eptying the of eaning! of hiding the rea" socia" re"ations o#3ectified in the through huan "a#or! to ake it possi#"e for the iaginaryQsy#o"ic socia" re"ations to #e in3ected into the construction of eaning at a secondary "eve". u"ture itse"f is a coodity; fu""y su#3ect to the "aw of e4change! it 'aa"gaates with advertising.' And 'advertising #ecoes art and nothing e"se' 7D! pp. 5! 52. In advance of the phenoenon! Adorno and Horkheier accounted for the #i6arre "ogic that stirs i""ions of te"evision viewers to devote particu"ar attention to the high(end ads produced annua""y for the /uper &ow"which not coincidenta""y are treated as nationa" news stories. Indeed! the degree t o which advertising has #ecoe natura"i6ed in our consciousness as an hoo"ogy to other fors of ass entertainent is evident in the >"io Award(winning ads shown in retrospectives #y conteporary art useus. Rose Rosengard /u#otnik shared the fo""owing anecdote in a private counicationC 'I date a turning point in the cu"ture #ack to the suer of 05?! when I was a counse"or for prepu#escent kidssay 1(@! at >ap harades. In fact the change was very suddenC they didn%t 3ust inc"ude coercia"s as one of any edius 7such as #ook tit"es! ovie tit"es! etc.coercia"s were the $FLK ediu they used; it seeed sudden"y to #e the on"y ediu they had in coon. The e4. that sticks in y ind was soe product that cae hurt"ing through "ike a White Tornadoor conceiva#"y "ike a White Bnight! since the hero was supposed to #e on horse#ack waving a sword. The kids "aughed uproarious"y at that one; they "oved it. I was #aff"ed! as in those daysI was in graduate schoo"I didn%t watch te"evision.' !&#. /ee Adorno! '>hap"in Ties Two!' trans. *ohn -acay! Ka"e *ourna" of >riticis 0 no. 7/pring 005! pp. ?9(5. !&$. Adorno! 'Is -ar4 $#so"eteN' trans. Fico"as /"ater! Diogenes 5: 7Winter 058! p. 9. /ee a"so the discussion in Rose! -e"ancho"y /cience! pp. 8(@1; and
!&%. In regard to which the high(cu"ture data "ists pu#"ished in recent years #y . thsUD. Hirsch! aong others! soething of a sa"" industry! #ear no fundaenta" difference; see . thsUD. Hirsch! *r.! What very Aerican Feeds to Bnow 7&ostonC Houghton -iff"in! 089; and! with *oseph ,. Bett and *aes Trefi"! The Dictionary of >u"tura" Literacy! @d ed. rev. 7&ostonC Houghton -iff"in! 002. Regarding Adorno%s view of this phenoenon as a for of psycho"ogica" re(infanta"i6ation! see his 'Ana"ytica" /tudy of the F&> -usic Appreciation Hour!' -usica" Muarter"y 98 no. @ 7/uer 00:! pp. 29:(9? n. 8. /ee a"so -iria Hansen! '-ass >u"ture as Hierog"yphic WritingC Adorno! Derrida! Bracauer!' Few )eran >riti=ue ?5 7/pringQ/uer 00@! p. ?C 'Horkheier and Adorno ascri#e the effectivity of ass(cu"tura" scripts of identity not sip"y to the viewers% anipu"ation as passive consuers! #ut rather to their very so"icitation as e4perts! as active readers. The identification with the stereotype is advanced #y the appea" to a particu"ar type of know"edge or ski"" predicated on repetiti on' 7origina" ephasis. !&&. Adorno! '/chea of -ass >u"ture!' p. 92. Adorno continues! p. 9:C 'The curiosity which transfors the wor"d into o#3ects is not o#3ectiveC it is not concerned with what is known #ut with the fact of knowing it! with having! with know"edge as a possession. . . . Wrenched fro a"" conte4t! [facts are] detached fro thought! they are ade instant"y accessi#"e to an infanti"e grasp.' And as if in anticipation of "ater te"evision =ui6 showsC 'The ore participation in ass cu"ture e4hausts itse"f in the infored access to cu"tura" facts! the ore the cu"ture #usiness coes to rese#"e contests! those aptitude tests which check suita#i"ity and perforance! and fina""y sports.' !&'. D! p. 59. /ee >ook! >u"ture Industry Revisited! pp. ?(?2. In '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' p. 80! Adorno e4pands on this phenoenonC 'It ay a"so #e supposed that the consciousness of the consuers these"ves is sp"it #etween the prescri#ed fun which is supp"ied to the #y the cu"ture industry and a not particu"ar"y we""(hidden dou#t a#out its #"essings.' !&(. A"an To"inson! 'IntroductionC >onsuer >u"ture and the Aura of the >oodity!' in >onsuption! Identity! and /ty"eC -arketing! -eanings! and the ard advertising capaign! 'There are soe things in "ife that oney can%t #uy; for everything e"se there%s -aster>ard.' The stuff that can%t #e charged is precise"y! and on"y! those 'things' that are "itera""y iateria"nonethe"ess sti"" referenced in the ads as coodities. !&). /ee! for e4ap"e! /tuart Ha""! and Tony *efferson eds.! Resistance through Ritua"sC Kouth /u#cu"tures in u"ture 7&ostonC Gnwin Hyan! 080; Reading the u"tura" I essay! see *i >o""ins! Gncoon >u"turesC u"ture and I chapter as a nosta"gic apo"ogia for a "ost high(cu"tura" '#est that has #een thought and said' 7see pp. :( :@. ,or a rather ore nuanced assessent! which incorporates a criti=ue of >o""ins! see Hohendah"! onsuing IagesC The onteporary >u"ture 7Few KorkC &asic &ooks! 088; and /tuart wen and "i6a#eth wen! >hanne"s of DesireC -ass Iages and the /haping of Aerican >onsciousness 7Few KorkC -c)raw(Hi""! 08@. Andreas Huyssen! 'Adorno in ReverseC ,ro Ho"" ywood to Richard Wagner!' Few )eran >riti =ue @0 7/pringQ/uer 082! pp. 8(28! provides a thoughtfu" discussion of shortcoings of the >I essay! arguing that the '#"ack(ho"e theory of capita"ist cu"ture' Adorno and Horkheier advance is '#oth too -ar4ist and not -ar4ist enough. It is too -ar4ist in that it rigorous"y app"ies a narrow reading of -ar4%s theory of coodity fetishis 7the fetish as a ere phantasagoria to the products of cu"ture. It is not -ar4ist enough in that it ignores pra4is! #ypassing the strugg"es for eaning! sy#o"s! and iages which constitute cu"tura" and socia" "ife even when ass(edia try to contain the' 7p. ?. Huyssen further suggests that Adorno%s theory wipes out the specificity of cu"tura" products 3ust as it iagines the consuer in a state of passive regression. 7$n #a"ance! Adorno and Horkheier argue against the consuer%s passivity. He further notes that if cu"tura" products were on"y coodities and nothing ore! and
if their so"e va"ue were e4change va"ue! 'they wou"d no "onger even #e a#"e to fu"fi"" their function in the processes of ideo"ogica" reproduction' 7reinding of the happiness that we don%t have; #y the "ie ianent to their very for! in other words! they revea" the truth that they function to keep us fro knowingas Adorno hise"f rearked fro tie to tie. Huyssen argues that the >I does fu"fi"" pu#"ic functionsC 'it satisfies and "egitii6es cu"tura" needs which are not a"" per se fa"se or on"y retroactive; it articu"ates socia" contradictions in order to hoogeni6e the. u"ture and Aesthetic Redeption!' pp. 281(8. The source for the phrase 'artificia" negativity' is risis of $ne(Diensiona"ity!' Te"os 2? 7/pring 098! p. :?. >f. &en Agger! '$n Happiness and the Daaged Life!' in $n >ritica" Theory! ed. *ohn $%Fei"" 7Few KorkC /ea#ury! 095! p. @2C '$ne(diensiona" society contains no sensi#"e criterion of unfu"fi""ed actua"it y #ecause rea"ity contains every i""usion and proise ade #y the ideo"ogy of "iit"ess "i#eration. Adorno%s particu"ar genius was to have recogni6ed the phenoeno"ogy of one(diensiona"ity in its ost insidious and a#stracted socio( cu"tura" fors.' /ee a"so -ike Wayne! 'Te"evision! Audiences! I! see /tephen >rook! 'IntroductionC Adorno and Authoritarian Irrationa"is!' /D! pp. @:(@?. Re"ative to his discussion of the Los Ange"es Ties astro"ogy co"un! Adorno recogni6ed that its readers wou"d de"ineate a gap #etween their own "ives and the sooth "ife proised and! further! that readers ay not actua""y even #e"ieve in astro"ogy. &ut as >rook puts it! p. 5C 'The fact that peop"e do not %#e"i eve in% astro"ogy no ore prevents the fro attending to [the astro"ogy] co"un than the fact that they do not %#e"ieve in% advertising prevents the fro functioning as consuers.' >rook further points out! p. @?! that 'the %sense% peop"e ake is rare"y within their entire"y conscious contro"C sense(aking puts into p"ay a cop"e4 of #ackground assuptions and otivations. Adorno%s case is that the essages of propaganda and coodified cu"ture work #y resonating with those #ackground factors so that the %sense% which is ade wi"" typica""y tend towards dependency and conforis. To put it another way! for Adorno it wou"d #e a stupendous ana"ytica" naivety to take anyone%s %tastes and p"easures% at face va"ue as a sip"e datu.' ,ina""y! /chidt! 'Language! -ytho"ogy! and n"ightenent!' pp. 8:(9! descri#es a car trip taken #y Horkheier across the West in 0:1 during which! whi"e trave"ing #etween Bansas and >o"orado! he heard a Hit"er speech on his car radio. As /chidt re"ates! the e4perience crysta""i6ed for Horkheier the uni=ue re"ationship #etween "anguage and ass counications systes at the heart of fascis. 'Radio had an inherent tendency to reduce its audience t o a passive and anonyous ass' 7p. 8?. Radio ade Hit"er%s voice into that of a god. The propositiona" e"eents of his speeches were irre"evant; what attered was his speeches% ritua" character. !'!. D! p. @21. Rose! -e"ancho"y /cience! p. :8C 'To say that consciousness is %cop"ete"y reified% is to say that it is capa#"e on"y of knowing the appearance of society! of descri#ing institutions and #ehaviour as if their current ode of functioning were an i nherent and invariant characteristic or property! as if they! as o#3ects! %fu"fi" their concepts.% Therefore! to say that consciousness of society is cop"ete"y reified ip"ies that no critica" consciousness or theory is possi#"e.' !'". )eorg LukScs! History and >"ass >onsciousnessC /tudies in -ar4ist Dia"ectics! trans. R odney Livingstone 7>a#ridgeC -IT riticis 0 no. 7/pring 08@! pp. ?:( ??. LukScsian reification designated! aong other things! the virtua" spiritua"i6ation of o#3ects through a process of coodity fetishis! as we"" as the disintegration of huan re"ations in favor of what *aeson! Late -ar4is! p. 81! ca""s 'thing("ike ones 7oney! the %cash(ne4us%.' In AT Adorno! contrari"y! prootes a positive for of reification. /peaking on #eha"f of the o#3ect(nature of artworks 7as the specific resu"ts of huan "a#or! which to #e sure coincides with their actua" invo"veent in the coodity for under prevai"ing socia" conditions! art%s ateria"ity ust #e used against the spiritua"i6ation! hence ystification! that "ies at the heart of coodification. *aeson! pp. 81(8C 'What resu"ts! therefore! is a rest"ess series of transfers where#y reificationfor Adorno a#so"ute"y essentia" to the work of artchanges its va"ences as it passes fro the socia" to the aesthetic 7and vice versa.' !'#. Adorno! '/chea of -ass >u"ture!' p. 91. !'$. Adorno! '>u"ture Industry Reconsidered!' p. 8?.
!'%. I#id.! p. 0@. !'&. Adorno! '>u"ture and Adinistration!' p. 2. !''. Adorno! '/chea of -ass >u"ture!' p. 81. !'(. /D! pp. 2:(@9; the second study is 'Te"evision as Ideo"ogy!' in which Adorno has re"ative"y "itt"e to say a#out the visua" ediu itse"f; the study is a script and p"ot ana"ysis of thirty(four te"evision shows which Adorno descri#es as 'of various genres and =ua"ity' 7p. ?0. Though he does not e4p"icit"y nae any of the progras! one is o#vious! '$ur -iss &rooks!' concerning which see pp. 5(5@. /ee a"so Adorno! '/cientific 4periences of a uropean /cho"ar in Aerica!' trans. Dona"d ,"eing! in The Inte""ectua" -igrationC urope and Aerica! 021(051! ed. Dona"d ,"eing and &ernard &ai"yn 7>a#ridgeC &e"knap rook! 'Introduction!' suggests that t he '/tars' essay suffers fro two ethodo"ogica" f"awsC 'the rhetorica" ateria"s are treated as windows on the psycho"ogy of their audience! and t he psycho"ogy of the audience is %read off% fro rhetorica" ateria"s. In addition! there is "itt"e evidence of any systeatic sap"ing techni=ueC . . . e4tracts fro the co"un have #een se"ected to i""ustrate thees whose representative character is not esta#"ished.' >rook acknow"edges that these f"aws are not due to Adorno%s navetE #ut instead ref"ect his suspicion of Aerican epirica" audience(research ethods. 'He cae to #e"ieve that such research iso"ated a sing"e oent of su#3ective response fro the o#3ective tota"ity whi"e privi"eging the conscious over the unconscious reaction' 7p. 0. However! Adorno hise"f points out that 'our resu"ts ust #y necessity #e regarded as tentative. They provide us with foru"ations! the va"idity of which can and shou"d on"y #e esta#"ished #y reader research. . . . We ust therefore #e cautious not to treat our ateria" dogatica""y as a irrored ref"ection of t he reader%s ind' 7p. :1! soething we"" #eyond the scope of the pro3ect as funded #y the Hacker ,oundation! whatever Adorno%s position on Aerican epirica" research ethods. !(*. /D! p. 29. !(!. I#id.! p. :2; see a"so pp. ::! 09(08! 5(9. !(". I#id.! pp. :0! 1@(18. !(#. I#id.! p. ?8C 'The constant appea" of the co"un to find fau"t with onese"f rather than with given conditions . . . is on"y one aspect of the idea" of socia" confority! prooted throughout the co"un and e4pressed #y the ip"icit! #ut u#i=uitous ru"e that one has to ad3ust onese"f continuous"y to coands of the stars at a given tie'; and pp. ?0(51C 'The adage %#e yourse"f% assues an ironica" eaning. The socia""y anipu"ated stiu"i constant"y ai at reproducing that frae of ind which is spontaneous"y engendered #y the status =uo itse"f' 7origina" ephasis. !($. I#id.! p. ?9. !(%. Da"e >arnegie! How to Win ,riends and Inf"uence D. Adorno c"ear"y knew the #ook to which he akes passing! sarcastic reference in >,! p. ?2C 'It is as though the process of rationa"i6ation of art and the conscious coand of its resources were diverted #y socia" forces fro the rea" purpose of art! and directed ere"y toward %aking friends and inf"uencing peop"e.%thsU' !(&. /D! p. 9. !('. I#id.! p. 9?. !((. I#id.! pp. 51(5! 11(1. The =uotation is fro p. 11. >f. D! p. ??. !(). I! as we"" as the psychic networks proper. ,ounded in 001 #y -ichae" Lasky! 'ritica" -ode"sC Interventions and >atchwords 7052; 050 e4ist in three to seven typescript versions! and notes that Adorno often reworked an essay as any as a do6en ties. !)#. -any of Adorno%s radio "ectures! revised for " ater pu#"ication! are nota#"y 'straightforward' and present few reading cha""enges. Adorno%s nae has #een invoked in recent de#ates focused on acadeic writing! and
#y proponents on opposing sides; a defining issue centers on scho"ars% responsi#i"ities to the "arger pu#"ic. The #asic positions are we"" out"ined #y *aes -i""er! 'Is &ad Writing FecessaryN )eorge Rowe"! Theodor Adorno! and the ritica" Theory of a#ridgeC -IT orrespondence! 80(01?!' onste""ations "et concepts interre"ate in such a way that #oth the sociohistorica" essence of phenoena and their uni=ue i dentities can eerge.' >f. &uck( -orss! $rigin of Fegative Dia"ectics! p. 05C Adorno%s 'centra" effort was to discover the truth of the socia" tota"ity 7which cou"d never #e e4perienced in itse"f as it =uite "itera""y appeared within the o#3ect in a particu"ar configuration' 7origina" ephasis. ,or a detai"ed discussion of Adorno%s conste""ationa" writing! see pp. 05(1; and *arvis! Adorno! pp. 9?(0@. "*". ag"eton! 'Art after Auschwit6!' p. 2:@. ,or Adorno%s own coents on the uses of e4aggeration! see '-eaning of Working through the u"ture! p. 8:. "*$. --! p. ?1! aphoris @0! 'Dwarf ,ruit.' "*%. David -artin! 'Dr. Adorno%s &ag of Tricks!' ncounter :9 no. : 7$cto#er 095! p. 91! points out that Adorno%s work is neither phi"osophy nor socio"ogy #ut #e"ongs rather 'to a c"ass of phi"osophica" ref"ection on society and on socia" fact that re3ects #oth ref"ection and fact conceived in these"ves. -ere"y to ref"ect on the given is sip"y to ref"ect the given; ere"y to ref"ect 7i.e.! irror the given is to "eave everything as it is and c"ais to #e. a#ridgeC -IT
parado4ica""y "ayered. Kou can on"y #reak through to truth #y e4posing the parado4es and as=uerades at each "ayer and setting the against other as=uerades and parado4es.' "*). Adorno! '$n the Gse of ,oreign Words!' FL! vo". @! pp. @85(0; and 'Words fro A#road!' FL! vo". ! pp. 8?(00. /ee a"so Ficho"sen! 4act Iagination! pp. 8:(80. "!*. Adorno! '$n the Gse of ,oreign Words!' p. @85. "!!. --! p. 1. "!". Adorno! '$n the Gse of ,oreign Words!' p. @80. "!#. Ficho"sen! 4act Iagination! p. 59C '>ounication serves as a for of socia" contro" in which huan #eings are treated as potentia" custoers.' "!$. Adorno! 'Words fro A#road!' p. 89. He continuesC 'Fationa" groups who want one(dish ea"s even in "anguage find this response hatefu". It is fro this stratu that the affective tension that gives foreign words their fecund and dangerous =ua"ity arises! the =ua"ity that their friends are seduced #y and their eneies sense ore readi"y than do peop"e who are indifferent to the.' "!%. I#id.! p. 80. "!&. ,riedrich Fiet6sche! Werke! ed. Bar" /ch"ecta 7-unichC >. Hanser! 0?:(5?! vo". 2! p. 85@! fro the Fach"ass of the 881s. -y thanks to *ochen /chu"te(/asse for "ocating this phrase for e. Adorno! 'Words fro A#road!' p. 80! paraphrasing Fiet6sche! coents that the foreign word reinds us that "anguage 'iprisons those who speak it.' "!'. Adorno was sensitive to the potentia" for a kind of e"itist one(upanship incorporated into the use of foreign words. He ade c"ear that foreign words are on"y 3ustified when a native word cannot su#stitute. $n #oth points! see 'Words fro A#road!' p. 0@. "!(. Her#ert -arcuse! '-arcuse and the ,rankfurt /choo"C Dia"ogue w ith Her#ert -arcuse' [interview with &ryan -agee]! in -en of Ideas #y &ryan -agee 7Few KorkC iking hristopher /wift for drawing y attention to this coent. Lowentha"! 'Reco""ections of Theodor W. Adorno!' pp. @15(19! with war huor! repeats a story fro Bracauer! who! during Adorno%s youth! iagined that if Adorno ever dec"ared his "ove to a young woan! she wou"d have "itt"e chance of understanding hi un"ess she had read a"" of Bierkegaard.' "!). )eorg LukScs! Theory of the Fove"C A Historico(a#ridgeC -IT "ass >onsciousness and unre"enting"y attacked the writings fro the ear"y 0@1s and thereafter! 'when LukScs% o#3ectivis yie"ded! not without initia" conf"icts! to officia" counist doctrine' 7p. @5. Adorno%s disdain centers on LukScs%s attack on odernist art! and his stance toward socia"ist(rea"ist art! which Adorno regarded as agitprop kitsch. /ee the discussion in ugene Lunn! -ar4is and -odernisC An Historica" /tudy of LukScs! &recht! &en3ain and Adorno 7&erke"ey and Los Ange"esC Gniversity of >a"ifornia ontradictions in Adorno%s >ritica" Theory!' Te"os @ 7,a"" 09:! p. 5?. Russe"" &eran! 'Adorno! -ar4is and Art! Te"os 2: 7Winter 099(98! p. ?8C Adorno%s 'aesthetic theory ust #e understood as a caouf"aged socia" theory in se"f(iposed e4i"e.' &eran%s reading is high"y critica"C 'The truth is not the who"e! Adorno knew! yet for hi the artwork%s truth was who""y negative. Fothing cou"d #ind art ore fundaenta""y to the forces of doination. . . . Hudd"ed in it s onadicity! Adorno%s artwork #ecoes an e#e""ishent of corporate "i#era"is #ecause it refuses to risk containation. Ket precise"y that wager is the prere=uisite of eancipation' 7p. 55.
""". Wiggershaus! ,rankfurt /choo"! p. 5@1. , or a detai"ed account of these events! see pp. 510(25. ""#. The "iterature on the theory(pra4is re"ation in regard to >ritica" Theory is su#stantia". ,or a suary of the various positions! see Puidervaart! Adorno%s Aesthetic Theory! pp. @1(@@! 2:(:! and :5(:0. -ichae" /u""ivan and *ohn T. Lysaker! '&etween Ipotence and I""usionC Adorno%s Art of Theory and riti=ue ?9 7,a"" 00@! pp. 89(@@! provide a particu"ar"y effective defense of Adorno and his 'turn' toward aesthetics! on the ground that his aesthetic theory defines how artworks preserve the tension #etween su#3ect and o#3ect! and #y that eans cha""enge the doinating tendencies of the dia"ectic of en"ightenent. &uck(-orss! $rigin of Fegative Dia"ectics! pp. @:(:@! 8@(8?! provides a nuanced account of Adorno%s position. /ee Agger! >ritica" Theory of ritica" Theory in "ight of the postodern condition! especia""y as regards po"itica" and socia" pra4is. ""$. --! p. @10. The source for the aphoris sees to #e the fo""owing anecdote to"d #y Hanns is"er. At the #eginning of the war soe of the EigrE Institute e#ers were on the #each in /outhern >a"i fornia when sudden"y Adorno! overcoe with e"ancho"y! saidC 'We shou"d throw out a essage in a #ott"e.' To which is"er respondedwith sardonic huorthat the essage shou"d readC 'I fee" so "ousy.' ,ro Leo Lowentha"! 'The Gtopian -otif in /uspensionC A >onversation with Leo Lowentha"!' interview #y W. -artin L+dke! trans. Ted R. Weeks! in An Gnastered a"ifornia u"tura" >riticis! p. @8C 'The wager on >ritica" Theory%s future as a potentia" revo"utionary avant(garde sees #oth se"f(serving and grandiose. &ut it is this conception of >ritica" Theory as a refuge of truth in an era in which the o#3ective socia" situation had repu"sed the %true% #y fai"ing to %rea"i6e phi"osophy% that increasing"y defined its se"f(understanding.' ""%. Woh"farth! 'Hi#ernation!' p. 05. ""&. Adorno! '>oitent!' FL! vo". @! p. 02. ""'. *arvis! Adorno! p. @; see further pp. 88(0@. ""(. Adorno! '>oitent!' pp. 90(81. ""). AT! pp. @:@(:2. "#*. Lowentha"! 'Theodor W. Adorno!' p. 0. "#!. I#id.! p. 02. "#". FD! p. :2; see a"so p. :18. As Rose Rosengard /u#otnik has conveyed to e! 'one cou"d perhaps say that Adorno%s pra4is "ay in the very disinterestedness that kept a"ive the notion! and there#y the possi#i"ity! of freedo in the aesthetic 7as defined initia""y #y Bant' [private counication]. >f. Adorno! 'Why /ti"" -! pp. @99(98! noted that the wide circu"ation of his #ooks such as The Authoritarian -! p. @01. "#$. I#id.! p. @02. "#%. Richard Wo"in! '&en3ain! Adorno! /urrea"is!' in The /e#"ance of /u#3ectivityC ssays in Adorno%s Aesthetic Theory! ed. To Huhn and La#ert Puidervaart 7>a#ridgeC -IT
"#&. /ee Hohendah"! Reappraisa"s! pp. 9?(81. "#'. Agger! >ritica" Theory of ritica" ssays on Adorno and the onteporary >riti=ue of Historica" -ateria"is 7&erke"ey and Los Ange"esC Gniversity of >a"ifornia f. Her#ert -arcuse! 'Rearks on a Redefinition of >u"ture!' in /cience and >u"tureC A /tudy of >ohesive and Dis3unctive ,orces! ed. )era"d Ho"ton 7&ostonC Houghton -iff"in! 05?! p. @@?C '>u"ture is redefined #y the e4isting state of affairsC the words! tones! co"ors! shapes of the perennia" works reain the sae! #ut that which they e4pressed is "osing its truth! its va"idity; the works which previous"y stood shocking"y apart fro and against t he esta#"ished rea"ity have #een neutra"i6ed as c"assics; t hus they no "onger preserve their a"ienation fro the a"i enated society' 7ephasis added. "$'. Adorno! '$n Tradition!' p. 99. "$(. I#id.! p. 98. "$). I#id.! pp. 98(90. "%*. AT! p. 2?C 'The traces to #e found in the ateria" and the technica" procedures! fro which every =ua"itative"y new work takes its "ead! are scarsC They are the "oci at which the preceding works isfired. &y "a#oring on the! the new work turns against those that "eft these traces #ehind.' &y this "ast reark Adorno eans that the truth content of the artwork eerges fro its dia"ectica" re"ation to other artworks; as he puts it! 'each artwork is the orta" eney of the other.' "%!. I#id.! p. @@C 'Aesthetic ref"ection! however! is not indifferent to the entwineent of the o"d and new. The o"d has refuge on"y at the vanguard of the new; in the gaps! not in continuity. /choen#erg%s sip"e ottoIf you do not seek! you wi"" not findis a watchword of the new.' "%". Adorno! '$n Tradition!' pp. 81(8. "%#. I#id.! p. 8@. >f. AT! pp. @1(@C 'The attitude of conteporary art toward tradition! usua""y revi"ed as a "oss of tradition! is predicated on the inner transforation of the category of tradition itse"f.' ,or the ip"ications of this arguent for phi"osophy! as Adorno understood it! see *arvis! Adorno! pp. ?1(?2. "%$. --! p. ?@. "%%. Fei" La6arus! 'Hating Tradition ritica" Theory and ritica" Theory!' in The Hand#ook of >ritica" Theory! ed. David -. Rasussen 7$4fordC &"ackwe""! 005! pp. 2@9(2.
((((((
