[FRA:] Marcuse question

[Ralph Dumain]

The question of the culture industry warrants a treatment distinct from the 
debate over the dialectic of Enlightenment.

I don't know what to say about Adorno's "intellectual autism", esp. as I 
don't have a copy of "The Actuality of Philosophy."  I'm more interested 
anyway in the break that DoE is said to represent for Horkheimer and the 
Institute's research programme, as well as the differences between Adorno 
and Horkheimer.  I don't think this break was a good thing at all.

About DofE: most of the responses I received since my last post are 
silly.  I read DofE in the Cummings translation.  Did I miss a lot by not 
reading the newer, presumably, better, translation?  Perhaps when I've 
gotten some sleep, I'll say more about all the objectionable features of 
DofE--its lack of philosophical and historical specificity, the flawed 
assumptions and bad logic of its argument, the obfuscation of both the 
historical and ideological motives and basis of what it protests . . . .

At 05:51 PM 2/23/2006 -0600, Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

>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
>___