Difference between revisions of "Theodor Adorno"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
=Intrumental Reason= | =Intrumental Reason= | ||
<blockquote> | <blockquote> | ||
| − | "What we need today is not the passage from the 'critique of political economy' to the transcendental-ontological 'critique of instrumental reason', but a return to the 'critique of political economy' that would reveal how the standard Communit project was ''utopian'' precisely in so far as it was not ''radical enough'' - in so far as, in it, the fundamental capitalist thrust of unleashed productivity survived, deprived of its concrete contradictory conditions of existence. The insufficiency of [[Heidegger]], [[Adorno]] and [[Horkheimer]], and so on, lies in thier abandonment of the concrete social analysis of capitalism: in their very critique or overcoming of MArx, they in a way ''repeat'' Marx's mistake - like Marx, they perceive unbridled producitvity as something that is ultimately ''independent'' of he concrete capitalist social formation. Capitalism and Communism are not two different historical realizations, two species, of 'instrumental reason' - instrumental reason ''as such'' is capitalist, grounded in capitalistrelations; and 'actually existing Socialism' failed because it was ultimately a subspecies of capitalism, an ideological attempt to 'have one's cake and eat it', to break out of capitalism while retaining its key ingredient. | + | "What we need today is not the passage from the 'critique of political economy' to the transcendental-ontological 'critique of instrumental reason', but a return to the 'critique of political economy' that would reveal how the standard Communit project was ''utopian'' precisely in so far as it was not ''radical enough'' - in so far as, in it, the fundamental capitalist thrust of unleashed productivity survived, deprived of its concrete contradictory conditions of existence. The insufficiency of [[Heidegger]], [[Adorno]] and [[Horkheimer]], and so on, lies in thier abandonment of the concrete social analysis of capitalism: in their very critique or overcoming of MArx, they in a way ''repeat'' Marx's mistake - like Marx, they perceive unbridled producitvity as something that is ultimately ''independent'' of he concrete capitalist social formation. Capitalism and Communism are not two different historical realizations, two species, of 'instrumental reason' - instrumental reason ''as such'' is capitalist, grounded in capitalistrelations; and 'actually existing Socialism' failed because it was ultimately a subspecies of capitalism, an ideological attempt to 'have one's cake and eat it', to break out of capitalism while retaining its key ingredient.<ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 18</ref></blockquote> |
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Late Capitalism== | ==Late Capitalism== | ||
| − | <ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 61-2</ref> | + | <blockquote> |
| + | Back in the 1940s, Theodor Adorno pointed out how, in the [[late capitalism|late capitalist]] '[[administered world]]', the classical [[Freud]]ian notion of the [[ego]] as the mediating agency between the two extremes, the inner [[drive]]s of the [[id]] and the external social constraints of the superego]], is no longer operative: what we encounter in today's so-called [[narcissistic]] [[personality]] is a direct pact between superego and id at the expense of the ego. The basic lesson of the so-called '[[totalitarianism]]s' is that the social powers represented in superego pressure directly manipulate the [[subject]]'s [[obscene]] drives, bypassing the [[autonomous]] rational [[agency]] of the ego.<ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p.61-2</ref></blockquote> | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <ref>Žižek, S. (2000) [[The Fragile Absolute]], or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 105</ref> | ||
==See Also== | ==See Also== | ||
Revision as of 14:24, 14 May 2006
Theodor Ludwig Wiesengrund Adorno (September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969) was a German sociologist, philosopher, musicologist and composer. He was a member of the Frankfurt School along with Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Jürgen Habermas and others.
Already as a young music critic and amateur sociologist, Theodor W. Adorno was primarily a philosophical thinker. The label 'social philosopher' emphasizes the socially critical aspect of his philosophical thinking, which from [945 onwards took an intellectually prominent position in the critical theory of the Frankfurt School.
Intrumental Reason
"What we need today is not the passage from the 'critique of political economy' to the transcendental-ontological 'critique of instrumental reason', but a return to the 'critique of political economy' that would reveal how the standard Communit project was utopian precisely in so far as it was not radical enough - in so far as, in it, the fundamental capitalist thrust of unleashed productivity survived, deprived of its concrete contradictory conditions of existence. The insufficiency of Heidegger, Adorno and Horkheimer, and so on, lies in thier abandonment of the concrete social analysis of capitalism: in their very critique or overcoming of MArx, they in a way repeat Marx's mistake - like Marx, they perceive unbridled producitvity as something that is ultimately independent of he concrete capitalist social formation. Capitalism and Communism are not two different historical realizations, two species, of 'instrumental reason' - instrumental reason as such is capitalist, grounded in capitalistrelations; and 'actually existing Socialism' failed because it was ultimately a subspecies of capitalism, an ideological attempt to 'have one's cake and eat it', to break out of capitalism while retaining its key ingredient.[1]
Late Capitalism
Back in the 1940s, Theodor Adorno pointed out how, in the late capitalist 'administered world', the classical Freudian notion of the ego as the mediating agency between the two extremes, the inner drives of the id and the external social constraints of the superego]], is no longer operative: what we encounter in today's so-called narcissistic personality is a direct pact between superego and id at the expense of the ego. The basic lesson of the so-called 'totalitarianisms' is that the social powers represented in superego pressure directly manipulate the subject's obscene drives, bypassing the autonomous rational agency of the ego.[2]
References
- ↑ Žižek, S. (2000) The Fragile Absolute, or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 18
- ↑ Žižek, S. (2000) The Fragile Absolute, or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p.61-2
See Also
External Links
- ↑ Žižek, S. (2000) The Fragile Absolute, or Why the Christian Legacy is Worth Fighting For, London and New York: Verso. p. 105
