Vs: Goldmann vs Adorno

[Ralph Dumain]

I see these same weaknesses in this book (of lectures) of Goldmann.  He may 
be on to something in criticizing Adorno, but I also have doubts about 
Goldmann's premises.  Do you have any further thoughts on this subject?

At 09:53 AM 5/20/2003 +0300, Rauno Huttunen wrote:
>Goldmann's book is very interesting. Interesting connection between Lukacs 
>and Heidegger but in very general level. We need more profound work on 
>that subject. She knows very well Lukacs, but her knowledge on Hegel, 
>Marx, Heidegger and Adorno are very limited. To speak Marx "dialectical 
>thought (which always demands that one know who is speaking and from 
>where" without references does mean nothing. I very much argreed 
>Goldmann's Adrono critique, but not on those premises.
>
>Rauno Huttunen
>
>
> >>> rdumain@igc.org 05/20 3:25  >>>
>
>Following our recent discussion I decided to re-read Lucien Goldmann's
>LUKACS AND HEIDEGGER: TOWARDS A NEW PHILOSOPHY (London: Routledge & Kegan
>Paul, 1979).  I may have more to say about the book as a whole later, but
>now I am concerned with a section towards the end where Goldmann criticizes
>Adorno (pp. 91-97).
>
>Finally:
>
>quote:
>
>If one does not accept Adorno's 'critical consciousness', which judges and
>scans reality from on high, or the individual relation to global history as
>Lukacs currently conceives it, if one wishes to maintain, no longer the
>idea of the revolutionary proletariat, but the requirements of Marx's
>dialectical thought (which always demands that one know who is speaking and
>from where), of the subject-object totality, then the basic question arises
>of knowing who is, now, the subject of speech and action. It is necessary
>to know in the name of what and from where we are speaking today, if we
>believe that there are only valid works and actions to the extent that they
>are placed within a universe created by men and are attached to specific
>groups.
>
>There are situations in which one cannot give an answer because the group,
>from which speech and action comes, is not yet manifest. In these
>situations, on the basis of a modified tradition, individuals speak by
>formulating perspectives and positions for which the group, the true
>subject, if it is not yet there, is in gestation or waiting to be
>elaborated. And very probably, these positions will be modified when the
>group becomes manifest.
>
>end quote
>
>I find this inadequate.  This cannot be as banal as it looks, can it?