Culture » March 9, 2005

Adorno as Antidote

By Jamie Daniel

The work of Theodor Adorno, the German-Jewish social and cultural theorist who died in 1969, isn’t likely ever to become “popular.” From the essays on modernist music written in the early days of the Third Reich before he was forced to seek exile in New York in 1938 to the series of densely complex studies of Kant and Hegel written after his postwar repatriation, he produced an intimidating body of work that has consistently provoked antipathy among anti-intellectuals on both the right and the left.

Born in Frankfurt in 1903 into a well-off secular Jewish family, Adorno grew up in a kind of hyper-acculturated environment that it is now difficult to imagine. Weekend afternoons were spent playing double-concertos on the family’s two grand pianos; when he was in his teens, the family hired cultural theorist Siegfried Kracauer to tutor the young Teddy in his study of Kant. There is no record anywhere of his ever having had to work for wages. He was a talented musician and for a time was a protégé of Vienna School composer Alban Berg. He decided instead to take a doctorate in philosophy, writing a dissertation on Kierkegaard.

On the eve of a promising career at his hometown university, he was stunned to find himself barred from teaching there because he was a Jew. Like so many other German Jews from privileged backgrounds, he seriously underestimated the threat posed by the Third Reich. Only considerable efforts by his friends convinced him to finally leave Germany in 1934.

But unlike other exiles such as Herbert Marcuse, who became a Californian, if not an American, Adorno never took to the United States. And it didn’t take to him. Regularly criticized by fellow researchers in New York for acting “so foreign,” he would be caricatured again posthumously by American cultural studies advocates of the ’80s, who condemned him as the para-digmatic European elitist because of his aversion to what he derided as the “culture industry.” Adorno famously loathed both American jazz and Hollywood movies, once declaring provocatively that he liked everything about the experience of going to the movies except what was on the screen.

Lisa Yun Lee’s new scholarly study, Dialectics of the Body: Corporeality in the Philosophy of T. W. Adorno, signals a welcome shift in the U.S. reception of this challenging theorist. Grounding her study not in the culture wars, but in the questions raised by feminism and other so-called identity-based scholarship, Lee gets beyond the usual reduction of Adorno’s work to a face-off between mass-produced entertainment and the high modernist aesthetics he championed. Instead, she opens up a conversation on the much more important central focus of his work—its persistent analysis of the extraordinarily pernicious impact of capitalism, not just on popular culture but on our perception, our bodily experience and, ultimately, our capacity for humanity.

No one was better than Adorno at dissecting the psychic and emotional brutality of capitalism’s regimes of commodification and the increasing pressure it exerts on individuals to define themselves through consumption. This, he argued, led to the compulsion to shut off one’s capacity for empathy, whether with working people whose labor produces commodities (how could we shop at Wal-Mart otherwise?) or those whose homes, lives and futures are being sacrificed in the name of a market-friendly abstraction called “Iraqi freedom.”

Adorno referred to this “shut off” compulsion in refreshingly severe terms, calling it “the mechanism of psychic mutilation upon which present conditions depend for their survival.” As Lee suggests, he surely would have had much to say about our contemporary equivalent of proto-Nazi “body culture,” in which such perverse phenomena as full-body cosmetic “extreme makeovers” have moved from creepy evidence of psychopathology to prime-time entertainment.

Thus, those who assume that Adorno was politically conservative because he didn’t like American mass culture don’t look closely enough at why he didn’t like it—they miss the deep ideological interconnectedness he traced between subjectivity, consumption, production, the conditions of possibility for empathy and, with this, political agency. Because he saw these questions as interconnected, his work can be very hard to read. Yes, it is stylistically complex to an extent that can repel even those who agree with his analysis—“Critique of Capitalism for Dummies” this is not. But I would argue that the complexity is necessary to accommodate his consistent constellations of concerns.

As was the case for the late Edward Said, Adorno did not consider his responsibilities or values as a cultural critic in any way separable from those that obliged him to intervene in public debates over politics and social questions, especially after his repatriation in post-war Germany. He intentionally blurred the distinctions we’ve come to expect between, say, essays on culture and works of sociology, philosophy or political commentary.

Adorno examined the phenomenon of highly commodified mass culture not to get people to read Beckett rather than go to the movies (although he clearly wished we would). Rather, it was a site he could use to expose the seepage of what SUNY professor Rosemary Hennessy has termed “capitalonormativity” into every aspect of modern life.

In one of the autobiographical essays he wrote before his death, Said wrote, “Those of us who are American intellectuals owe it to our country to fight the coarse anti-intellectualism, bullying, injustice and provincialism that disfigure its career as the last superpower.” As a German intellectual who survived his own country’s catastrophic attempt at empire, Adorno provides us with a valuable counter-model to the dumbing down of public discourse upon which the Bush administration relied to win the last presidential election, and upon which its “bullying and provincial” foreign policy depends.

Lee’s book, which engages this work with a generous combination of critical intelligence and compassion, provides us with ample reasons to accept that challenge.

• Help In These Times publish more articles like this. Donate today!
• Subscribe today and save 46% off the newsstand price!

• subscribe to print magazine

• stay in touch with our email newsletter

  Subscribe to our regular weekly e-mail newsletter. It's packed with updates on recent and upcoming stories, events, campaigns and things every progressive should be informed about.

   

• email this article to a friend

  Your Name Your Email Recipient Email

  Personal message Thought you might be interested in this article from In These Times.

   

  Please help us prevent spam by verifying the word you see in the image above

  Send to multiple recipients. Just separate each email address with a comma.

• Reader Comments

  it’s important to introduce these people to “mainstream.” Adorno is an important figure of the past century, though himself, never read by anyone outside the esoteric, he is written about by many people whom are read, including Zizkek, who contributes to this magazine.

  but in all honesty, nothing is better than deriding bush.

  if i was me. i’d create stickers and place them up at all the public spaces in the downtown. to create a better and more interactice ascetic. adorno would probably hate that, but he never got along with the american filth.

  Posted by j on Mar 9, 2005 at 4:18 PM

  I’m really growing to love reading IN These Times. The existence of this publication was first brought to my attention when I did a web search on Mr. Vonnegut.

  Now, whether its an essay on Adorno—with Heideggarian thought shining through even in the commentary; Zizek—everyone ought to read the first chapter of “On Belief;” Bernie Sanders—the infidel us rep. from the state of my alma mater; or Vonnegut’s still sharp (at 81 years) commentary on the plite of the human race (”...power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”)—brilliant, I’m convinced anyone who wants an authentic, realistic take on where we’re at as a people, as a nation or as a world being hoodwinked by the free markets, will find it in their best interest to read this perodical.

  Posted by George on Mar 10, 2005 at 2:27 AM

  Adorno was an odd and brilliant fish, and the fact that he was more or less silenced in the 1980s (his writings, of cours, he was dead by then) make him all the more credible. Great to find such gems on ITT, Vonnegut, Curtis White (a kind of successor to Adorno, I would say).

  I agree with you, j, about the deriding Bush bit, but that remains on the surface. But sometimes, a deeper dig into what is behind the scenes, really helps solidify the derision. I read (very slowly, stopping every now and then to try and fibure out what in earth the writer was saying) Dialectics of Enlightenment in the early 80s and finally found what in my personal experience was a seminal work on our pop culture. It’s worthy successor, I find, is Curtis White’s The Middle Mind.

  These are people who examine the fantastic dumbing down that is going on in the USA and unfortunately spreading to other countries, essentially as a means of controlling society. I thionk if Adorno had lived longer, he would have seen the hippie movement for what it was, a Blut und Boden philosophy, and that everything that looked so radical and leftwing in the 60smovement was in fact a prelude to a new fascism. He would also have pointed out the way all sub-cultures get coopted by the industry and stuff like that.

  The stunning conformism of our times.

  Posted by Talleyrand on Mar 10, 2005 at 7:06 AM

  Adorno , unlike most philosphers of the Enlightment and early modern era, was concerned with aesthetics as a signifier of the deeper ethics of a culture. He derided America because our country was a cultural and is a cultural wasteland, where the “business of America is business.”

  If one understands how to appreciate beauty, one understands how to appreciate his fellow human beings, beyond the sentimental and sensational claptrap (Footprints anyone) that is foisted upon us by the mass-market. I’m glad people are realizing that the critique of capitalism has to be taken to the roots of its reality producing machinery of ideas.

  As someone whose family and friends are consistently victimized (not the best word, since there is an element of complicity in their ‘victimization’) by the machinations of consumerist culture, I have always found Adorno to be an astute and enlightening critic on the drive toward mediocrity within the culture I reside.

  I also wholeheartedly support bashing Bush, but with facts versus opinions (though on good day you can hear my contempt for the man as an individual as well). We’re living in a time of ‘rollbacks’ (to borrow a commercial phrase from Wal-Mart) that parallels the poor decisions of former incarnations of the US government. And when a man like Warren Buffet suggests that the current media/political climate is creating a ‘sharecropper society’ it becomes necessary for those of us of a progressive/leftist bent to vocalize the true dimensions of the scandal occurring in Washington. Will anybody care unless that message is wrapped up in hedonism? I don’t know.

  Posted by AJCarter on Mar 10, 2005 at 6:11 PM

  I like cheese steak! Yay!

  Posted by Sylvester Bootnick on Mar 11, 2005 at 7:29 PM

• extended discussion >>>Continued...

  Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 11 posts.

Also featured Negroponte’s Dark Past
Plowing for Profits
Trafficking in Politics

Full contents
Previous issues
Subscribe and save!

Also by Jamie Daniel

• Injuries to All
  A human rights report details the gruesome cost of the Bush administration's hostility to workplace safetyPosted on June 8, 2005