Max Horkheimer (1895–1973)

Writing in the immediate wake of Nazi rule, Horkheimer and Adorno ask how Enlightened Western civilizations turn to fascism. Their answer that the Enlightenment mindset itself has totalitarian elements and that strict rationality's uncompromising nature creates a trap that forces us to participate in our own oppression.

Horkheimer & Adorno's pessimism can easily be excused, as can their missed calls on jazz music and Hollywood film. But in the end, their overarching narrative reaches too show more far, sees no hope, and turns absurd as even Donald Duck is seen as an instrument of totalitarianism. show less

Three things I love here, above all else: a) the collaboration, and the refusal to disentangle themselves from it when others demanded that Horkorno coalesce into two identities: of course reminds me of Deleuze and Guattari, but, for a medievalist, also Marty Shichtman and Laurie Finke; b) the refusal to update the text to reflect the current moment: in this insistence on preserving the text as an intervention into a particular historical moment, Adorneimer refuse to pretend to speak from a show more position of atemporality ("We do not stand by everything we said in the book in its original form. That would be incompatible with a theory which attributes a temporal core to truth")--this helps account for the problems with their famous Culture Industry chapter, which, even before the 'New Media,' could have grappled with, for example, samizdat; c) the antisemitism essay, and here, I'm totally annoyed with Zizek, 'Republics of Gilead,' and so on, for not doing our thinkers the honor of acknowledging that in many ways, they got there first. But I suppose in honoring the Frankfurt school, SZ would accidentally honor Habermas...or he's just plain sloppy.

A favorite passage:

"What many individual things have in common, or what constantly recurs in one individual thing, needs not be more stable, eternal, or deep than the particular. The scale of categories is not the same as that of significance....The world is unique. The mere repetition in speech of moments which occur again and again in the same form bears more resemblance to a futile, compulsive litany than to the redeeming world. Classification is a condition of knowledge, not knowledge itself, and knowledge in turn dissolves classification" (182).

Overall, given my current interests--for readers of the blog, see my stuff on Shakespeare 'The Phoenix and Turtle'--this critique of Reason is perfect. show less

Who's one of my greatest forms of literary/critical theoretical solace? Theodor Adorno (and let's not forget Max Horkheimer). Minima Moralia is still my favorite of his, but this fine volume is chock full of fantastic discussions. Just a few talking points and/or clever observations:

* On Odysseus' reaction to Penelope's test to see whether the guy she thinks is her husband really is so: "... her husband answers her with a detailed account of his longlasting piece of woodwork. He is the show more prototypical bourgeois-- the with-it hobbyist." ("Odyssues or Myth and Enlightenment")

* "...compassion is always inadequate...compassion renounces the transformation of the whole." (Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality)

* On the culture industry (and I'll include cell phones, Facebook, etc., therein): "What is decisive today is... the necessity inherent in the system not to leave the customer alone, not for a moment to allow him any suspicion that resistance is possible... Not only does it make him believe that the deception it practices is satisfaction, but it goes further and implies that, whatever the state of affairs, he must put up with what is offered." ("The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception") show less

This book, published in 1947, seems dated. It loudly laments the loss of a universally accepted "objective reason" that has been replaced by rationalization (aka, "subjective reason"). To Horkheimer, a world of firmly-held standards has yielded to one of relative moral chaos.

The author's warning cry seems exaggerated. There probably never was an objective reason. The task has always been to judge the sincerity and integrity behind anyone's views. There have always been liars and show more bullshitters to look out for. On the other hand, the rise of corporate power and its attendant sleezy culture over the past century has doubtless occasioned an overall decline in integrity and a concomitant increase in rationalization, or worse. The Trump phenomenon of the past six years hasn't helped.

The good news: we can probably expect that the battle to establish standards of reason that rise above self-interest will continue, and hope that, if we join the fight, truth may ultimately prevail. show less