Dialectic of Enlightenment
From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia
| Revision as of 21:13, 25 November 2007 Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) ← Previous diff |
Current revision Jahsonic (Talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | {{Template}}'''''Dialectic of Enlightenment''''' (1944), is the pivotal, fundamental textbook of [[Freudo-Marxism|Freudo-Marxist]] [[Critical theory (Frankfurt School)|Critical Theory]] explaining the socio-psychological ''status quo'' that had been responsible for, what the [[Frankfurt School]] considered, the [[failure]] of the [[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]], a defeat represented most dramatically by the events of the [[Holocaust]]. | + | {| class="toccolours" style="float: left; margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 2em; font-size: 85%; background:#c6dbf7; color:black; width:30em; max-width: 40%;" cellspacing="5" |
| + | | style="text-align: left;" | | ||
| + | "The misplaced love of the [[common people]] [...] calls for [[Mickey Rooney]] in preference to the tragic [[Garbo]], for [[Donald Duck]] instead of [[Betty Boop]]." --''[[Dialectic of Enlightenment]]'' (1944) by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
| + | "<nowiki>[</nowiki>[[Juliette (novel) |Juliette]]<nowiki>]</nowiki> demonizes Catholicism as the most-up-to-date mythology, and with it civilization as a whole […] her procedures are enlightened and efficient as she goes about her work of sacrilege […] She favours system and consequence."--Sholem Stein | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
| + | "One of the essays in Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's ''[[Dialectic of Enlightenment]]'' (1947) is titled "Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality" and interprets the ruthless and calculating behavior of ''[[Juliette]]'' as the embodiment of the philosophy of [[enlightenment]]."--Sholem Stein | ||
| + | <hr> | ||
| + | "The term [[culture industry]] (German: ''Kulturindustrie'') was coined by [[Theodor Adorno]] (1903–1969) and [[Max Horkheimer]] (1895–1973), and was presented in the chapter “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, of the book ''[[Dialectic of Enlightenment]]'' (1944), wherein they proposed that [[popular culture]] is akin to a [[factory]] producing [[standardized]] [[cultural good]]s — [[film]]s, [[radio programme]]s, [[magazine]]s, etc. — that are used to [[psychological manipulation|manipulate]] [[mass society]] into [[couch potato|passivity]]."--Sholem stein | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | {{Template}} | ||
| - | Written by Frankfurt School philosophers [[Max Horkheimer]] and [[Theodor W. Adorno]], the book made its first appearance in 1944 under the title ''Philosophische Fragmente'' by Social Studies Association, Inc., New York. A revised version was published in 1947 by [[Querido]] Verlag in Amsterdam with the title ''Dialektik der Aufklärung.'' It was reissued in 1969 by S Fischer Verlag GmbH. There have been two English translations: the first by John Cumming (New York: Herder and Herder, 1972) and a more recent translation, based on the definitive text from Horkheimer's collected works, by Edmund Jephcott (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2002). It has had a major effect on 20th century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the 1960s [[counter-culture]]. | + | '''''Dialectic of Enlightenment''''' (1944, '''Dialektik der Aufklärung''') is a book by [[Max Horkheimer]] and [[Theodor W. Adorno]]. |
| - | In essence, Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the Enlightenment turned "magical" culture, which looked for associations, analogies, and relationships, into a scientific culture, which sought to reduce everything to the irreducible, to base units of measurement, to the smallest particles, and as often as possible to numbers. This resulted in an inability to address problems of relationships, and often of anything to do with the irrational (e.g., sexuality, emotion, etc.), as well as larger cultural concerns that could not be reduced to the individual. The ideological structure had the tendency, common to most political ideologies, of arguing for its own accuracy. This kind of enlightenment thinking, they argue, always implicitly claims that anything that is not reducible or quantifiable is simply not worth paying attention to. It is immaterial in the metaphorical sense: it might as well not exist. Thus, concepts as divergent as subjectivity (which cannot be measured or objectified) and collective action (which is always understood as merely the action of many individuals) cannot be understood because precisely what needs to be understood is relational and/or subjective. This "magical" versus "scientific" thinking is easily recognizable in the two solitudes of contemporary Humanities and Sciences research in universities. | + | One of the core texts of [[Critical theory]], it explains the socio-psychological ''status quo'' that had been responsible for what the [[Frankfurt School]] considered the failure of the [[Age of Enlightenment]]. Together with ''[[The Authoritarian Personality]]'' (1950; also co-authored by Adorno) and Frankfurt School member [[Herbert Marcuse]]'s ''[[One-Dimensional Man]]'' (1964), it has had a major effect on 20th century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the [[New Left]] of the 1960s and 1970s. |
| + | == Historical context == | ||
| + | |||
| + | One of the distinguishing characteristics of the new [[Critical Theory]], as Adorno and Horkheimer tried to elaborate it in ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', is a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, an ambivalence which gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new Critical Theory over the possibility of human emancipation and [[Political freedom|freedom]]. This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of [[National Socialism]], [[state capitalism]], and [[mass culture]] as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Critical Theory. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For Adorno and Horkheimer (relying on the economist [[Friedrich Pollock]]’s thesis on National Socialism), [[state intervention]] in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "[[relations of production]]" and "material [[productive forces]] of society," a tension which, according to traditional Critical Theory, constituted the primary [[contradiction]] within capitalism. The market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and [[private property]] had been replaced by [[centralized planning]] and socialized ownership of the [[means of production]]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Yet, contrary to [[Marx]]’s famous prediction in the ''Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', this shift did not lead to "an era of [[social revolution]]," but rather to [[fascism]] and [[totalitarianism]]. As such, traditional Critical Theory was left, in [[Jürgen Habermas]]’ words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal; and when the forces of production enter into a baneful symbiosis with the relations of production that they were supposed to blow wide open, there is no longer any dynamism upon which critique could base its hope." For Adorno and Horkheimer, this posed the problem of how to account for the apparent persistence of domination in the absence of the very contradiction that, according to traditional Critical Theory, was the source of domination itself. | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Content summary == | ||
| The work contains: | The work contains: | ||
| * "The Concept of Enlightenment"; | * "The Concept of Enlightenment"; | ||
| * "Excursus I: Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment" | * "Excursus I: Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment" | ||
| - | * "Excursus II: [[L'Histoire de Juliette|Juliette]] or Enlightenment and Morality" | + | * "Excursus II: [[Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality]]" |
| - | * "The [[culture industry|Culture Industry]]: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" (in which they prefigure [[Marshall McLuhan]]'s thesis that "the medium is the message") | + | * "The [[culture industry|Culture Industry]]: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" (in which they prefigure [[Marshall McLuhan]]'s thesis that "[[the medium is the message]]") |
| * "Elements of Anti-Semitism: Limits of Enlightenment" | * "Elements of Anti-Semitism: Limits of Enlightenment" | ||
| * "Notes and Drafts" | * "Notes and Drafts" | ||
| - | == See also == | + | == Themes == |
| + | |||
| + | The problems, posed by the rise of fascism with the demise of the [[Liberalism|liberal]] state and the market (together with the failure of a social revolution to materialize in its wake), constitute the theoretical and historical perspective that frames the overall argument of the book – the two theses that “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.” The history of human societies, as well as that of the formation of individual ego or self, is re-evaluated from the standpoint of what Horkheimer and Adorno perceived at the time as the ultimate outcome of this history: the collapse or “regression” of reason, with the rise of National Socialism, into something resembling the very forms of superstition and myth out of which reason had supposedly emerged as a result of historical progress or development. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To characterize this history, Horkheimer and Adorno draw on a wide variety of material, including the [[philosophical anthropology]] contained in Marx’s early writings, centered on the notion of “[[Labour (economics)|labor]],” [[Nietzsche]]’s [[genealogy of morals]] (and the emergence of [[conscience]] through the renunciation of the [[will to power]]), [[Freud]]’s account in ''[[Totem and Taboo]]'' of the emergence of civilization and law in murder of the primordial father, ethnological research on magic and ritual in primitive societies, as well [[myth criticism]], [[philology]] and literary analysis. | ||
| - | *[[Age of Enlightenment]] | + | ==See also== |
| - | *[[Critical theory (Frankfurt School)|Critical Theory]] | + | * [[Counter-Enlightenment]] |
| - | *[[Frankfurt School]] | + | * [[Critical theory]] |
| - | *[[Freudo-Marxism]] | + | * ''[[Das Kapital]]'' |
| - | *[[Counter-Enlightenment]] | + | * ''[[Juliette (novel)]]'' |
| {{GFDL}} | {{GFDL}} | ||
Current revision
|
"The misplaced love of the common people [...] calls for Mickey Rooney in preference to the tragic Garbo, for Donald Duck instead of Betty Boop." --Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944) by Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno "[Juliette] demonizes Catholicism as the most-up-to-date mythology, and with it civilization as a whole […] her procedures are enlightened and efficient as she goes about her work of sacrilege […] She favours system and consequence."--Sholem Stein "One of the essays in Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) is titled "Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality" and interprets the ruthless and calculating behavior of Juliette as the embodiment of the philosophy of enlightenment."--Sholem Stein "The term culture industry (German: Kulturindustrie) was coined by Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) and Max Horkheimer (1895–1973), and was presented in the chapter “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, of the book Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), wherein they proposed that popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods — films, radio programmes, magazines, etc. — that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity."--Sholem stein |
|
Related e |
|
Featured: |
Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944, Dialektik der Aufklärung) is a book by Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno.
One of the core texts of Critical theory, it explains the socio-psychological status quo that had been responsible for what the Frankfurt School considered the failure of the Age of Enlightenment. Together with The Authoritarian Personality (1950; also co-authored by Adorno) and Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man (1964), it has had a major effect on 20th century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s.
Contents |
Historical context
One of the distinguishing characteristics of the new Critical Theory, as Adorno and Horkheimer tried to elaborate it in Dialectic of Enlightenment, is a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, an ambivalence which gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new Critical Theory over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom. This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of National Socialism, state capitalism, and mass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Critical Theory.
For Adorno and Horkheimer (relying on the economist Friedrich Pollock’s thesis on National Socialism), state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "relations of production" and "material productive forces of society," a tension which, according to traditional Critical Theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and private property had been replaced by centralized planning and socialized ownership of the means of production.
Yet, contrary to Marx’s famous prediction in the Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, this shift did not lead to "an era of social revolution," but rather to fascism and totalitarianism. As such, traditional Critical Theory was left, in Jürgen Habermas’ words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal; and when the forces of production enter into a baneful symbiosis with the relations of production that they were supposed to blow wide open, there is no longer any dynamism upon which critique could base its hope." For Adorno and Horkheimer, this posed the problem of how to account for the apparent persistence of domination in the absence of the very contradiction that, according to traditional Critical Theory, was the source of domination itself.
Content summary
The work contains:
- "The Concept of Enlightenment";
- "Excursus I: Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment"
- "Excursus II: Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality"
- "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" (in which they prefigure Marshall McLuhan's thesis that "the medium is the message")
- "Elements of Anti-Semitism: Limits of Enlightenment"
- "Notes and Drafts"
Themes
The problems, posed by the rise of fascism with the demise of the liberal state and the market (together with the failure of a social revolution to materialize in its wake), constitute the theoretical and historical perspective that frames the overall argument of the book – the two theses that “Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology.” The history of human societies, as well as that of the formation of individual ego or self, is re-evaluated from the standpoint of what Horkheimer and Adorno perceived at the time as the ultimate outcome of this history: the collapse or “regression” of reason, with the rise of National Socialism, into something resembling the very forms of superstition and myth out of which reason had supposedly emerged as a result of historical progress or development.
To characterize this history, Horkheimer and Adorno draw on a wide variety of material, including the philosophical anthropology contained in Marx’s early writings, centered on the notion of “labor,” Nietzsche’s genealogy of morals (and the emergence of conscience through the renunciation of the will to power), Freud’s account in Totem and Taboo of the emergence of civilization and law in murder of the primordial father, ethnological research on magic and ritual in primitive societies, as well myth criticism, philology and literary analysis.
See also
