[FRA:] Marcuse question

[Kenneth MacKendrick]

FrdW,

Ralph's comment here is correct. DofE is "nowhere in particular." It was
written that way, "a message in a bottle," a self-contradictory appeal. It
does not present us with an argument nor does it present us with much in the
way of historical analysis. Is Odysseus really a prototypical figure of a
one-sided enlightenment? Yeah, right. Ask a classicist what it is about...
It is a creative interpretation, at best... and it has to distort a great
deal to be palatable. For all of Adorno's emphasis on the particular and the
preponderance of the object much of his analysis of culture proceeds on
little more than an intuitive basis that stems from theoretical assumptions
about the nature of reality that he had worked out for himself by a
relatively early age. Read his writings on music and psychoanalysis. Most
people are impressed by the consistency of his position from "The Actuality
of Philosophy" to Negative Dialectics. This usually makes me sad. No
significant theoretical insights in 30 years? Really?! Adorno's work seems
to suffer from a kind of theoretical autism. It is genius, that I do not
deny, but there seems to be a disconnect between his cutting form of
analysis and reality. He is dreadfully blind on numerous issues
(homosexuality and fascism, jazz and anal fixations?). Adorno thought that
one had to use the concept against itself... so there is a method at work
here... but what seems to have disappeared is the historical concreteness
that Ralph is concerned about. The excursus is metaphysical - Adorno and
Horkheimer don't really deny that - and it is metaphorical "that cannot
survive being taken literally."

Check the essay on the culture industry in DofE. While insightful in many
ways it will not meet up with critical scrutiny. "Amusement and all the
other elements of the culture industry existed long before the industry
itself" (p. 107). Really? So the difference between medieval Europe and 20th
century Europe is basically... what... a telephoto lens? "The culture
industry endlessly cheats its consumers out of what it endlessly promises."
(p. 111). What does Benny Goodman promise? Who exactly is deceived? Was Oca
Tatham fooled? Does anyone really expect that when they purchase a Coke they
will get "it." Adorno and Horkheimer cast the culture industry as a
monolithic enterprise, it is not. Nor are consumers dupes. "Fun is a
medicinal bath which the entertainment industry never ceases to prescribe"
(p. 112). How is this to be understood alongside the unprecedented growth of
charismatic religious movements in the 20th century? How successful is the
culture industry, with its grandiose promises, that 400 million people opted
to speak in tongues rather than go to the movies? If anything the culture
industry is a massive failure rather than success... and with that kind of
conclusion one has to wonder whether the thesis was on track or not... it is
complicated. And issues of recognition and identity and social formation are
involved... theoretical concepts not yet well developed in 1944.

I once heard that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat
it... but I think Stephen Colbert was probably right when he said that those
who learn from history will be... surprised.

Can you have a close reading without spending time in an archive? If one
wants to understand DofE it has to be read with *all* the biographical
information available. A close reading entails reading the text and context.
How postmodern is that? Good research = valid knowledge.

ken

-----Original Message-----
From: theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org
[mailto:theory-frankfurt-school-bounces at srcf.ucam.org] On Behalf Of
FREDWELFARE at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 3:57 PM
To: theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
Subject: Re: [FRA:] Marcuse question

 
In a message dated 2/23/2006 3:29:11 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
rdumain at igc.org writes:

DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMENT is hardly a counterexample to my  
thesis.  Politically, it's nowhere in particular, and as an argument,  lacks

historical concreteness.  It is rather a dubious metaphysical  excursus, or 
more generously, a metaphorical meditation that cannot  survive being taken 
literally.



Postmodernism is nothing but the skeptical response to modernity  because 
modernity posits individual rights, e.g. human rights, reproductive  rights,

etc., and these rights are all too often ignored or rejected; the
postmodern perspective is valuable.  The threefold equality, freedom, and
rights from the enlightenment as what we now call liberalism or modernity
should  not be confused with conservatism or republicanism in any way!  As
for the  above statement by Ralph Dumain who has apparently not even read
the Dialectic  of Enlightment, shame shame shame and WHAT UTTER TOTAL
NONSENSE.  You need  to get off your high horse, that is, DISMOUNT, and read
the f**king book.   This book is the most important statement of the
Frankfurt School and REQUIRES  close reading.  
FrdW
_______________________________________________
theory-frankfurt-school mailing list
theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school