Noch während des Zweiten Weltkriegs in den Vereinigten Staaten entstanden, 1947 als Buch erschienen, mit der Neuausgabe von 1969 endgültig zum einflussreichsten Werk der ”Frankfurter Schule“ geworden: eine Sonderausgabe zum hundertsten Geburtstag Theodor W. Adornos am 11. September 2003.

Dialectic of Enlightenment is undoubtedly the most influential publication of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Written during the Second World War and circulated privately, it appeared in a printed edition in Amsterdam in 1947. "What we had set out to do," the authors write in the Preface, "was nothing less than to explain why humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism." Yet the work goes far beyond a mere critique of (...) contemporary events. Historically remote developments, indeed, the birth of Western history and of subjectivity itself out of the struggle against natural forces, as represented in myths, are connected in a wide arch to the most threatening experiences of the present. The book consists in five chapters, at first glance unconnected, together with a number of shorter notes. The various analyses concern such phenomena as the detachment of science from practical life, formalized morality, the manipulative nature of entertainment culture, and a paranoid behavioral structure, expressed in aggressive anti-Semitism, that marks the limits of enlightenment. The authors perceive a common element in these phenomena, the tendency toward self-destruction of the guiding criteria inherent in enlightenment thought from the beginning. Using historical analyses to elucidate the present, they show, against the background of a prehistory of subjectivity, why the National Socialist terror was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Adorno and Horkheimer see the self-destruction of Western reason as grounded in a historical and fateful dialectic between the domination of external nature and society. They trace enlightenment, which split these spheres apart, back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth, therefore, are not irreconcilable opposites, but dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book. This new translation, based on the text in the complete edition of the works of Max Horkheimer, contains textual variants, commentary upon them, and an editorial discussion of the position of this work in the development of Critical Theory. (shrink)

No debemos olvidar que existe una relación dialéctica entre libertad y justicia. Cuanto mayor es la justicia, más necesario es limitar la libertad; cuanto mayor es la libertad que se disfruta, más se amenaza la justicia, porque los más fuertes, los más inteligentes, los más hábiles acaban oprimiendo a los demás. Esta antítesis de libertad y justicia debe estar siempre presente en nuestra conciencia, incluso cuando pensamos en la sociedad del futuro.

Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) was a cultural philosopher, sociologist, literary critic, and historian of music who, along with Max Horkheimer, Herbert Marcuse, and Erich Fromm, founded the Frankfurt School. Against Epistemology is one of his most important works.

These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Max Horkheimer is well known as the director of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research and as a sometime collaborator with Theodor Adorno, especially on their classic Dialectic of Enlightenment. These essays reveal another side of Horkheimer, focusing on his remarkable contributions to critical theory in the 1930s. Included are Horkheimer's inaugural address as director of the Institute, in which he outlines (...) the interdisciplinary research program that would dominate the initial phase of the Frankfurt School, his first full monograph, and a number of other pieces published in the 1930s. The essays, most of which have not appeared in English before, are surprisingly relevant to current post-philosophy debates, notably "On the Problem of Truth," with its focus on pragmatism, and "The Rationalism Debate in Current Philosophy," a sustained critique of the post-Cartesian philosophy of consciousness. Horkheimer's 1933 critique of Kantian ethics, "Materialism and Morality," is of particular interest given the current reaction to the neo-Kantian aspect of Habermas's work. There are also essays relevant to the current foundations debate within Continental philosophy, and the rationality/relativism question is sustained throughout the volume. (shrink)

Horkheimer/Adornos im kalifornischen Exil verfasste Dialektik der Aufklärung untersucht das Scheitern menschlicher Befreiung und die Errichtung neuer Herrschaftsformen. Obgleich ein Schlüsseltext der philosophischen Zeitdiagnose, gab es bislang keinen Kommentar zu ihr. Der hier vorgelegte kooperative Kommentar geht der Dialektik der Aufklärung in zwei Durchgängen nach. Ein erster Durchgang kommentiert die einzelnen Abschnitte des Buches; ein zweiter Durchgang verfolgt Koordinaten seines theoretischen Horizonts. Abschließend gelangt die Wirkungsgeschichte des Textes zur Darstellung. Ein Gravitationstext der kritischen Theorie unserer Zeit findet damit erstmals eine (...) kommentierende Auslegung. (shrink)

Für Ernst Schütte zum 65. Geburtstag, von G.-A. Zinn.--Zur Konzeption der Festschrift für Ernst Schütte, von H. Hamm-Brücher.--Autonomie und Autorität des Menschen, ein Gesprach.--Vernunft und Selbsterhaltung, von M. Horkheimer.--Resignation, von T. W. Adorno.--Die Grenzen psychologischer Forschung, von A. Mitscherlich.--Empfehlungen zur techokratischen Hochschulreform, von J. Habermas.--Quantitative überlegungen zum tertiären Bildungsbereich, H. Leussink.--Bemerkungen zur Didaktik ais einer offenen Strukturtheorie des Lehrens und Lernens, von G. Hausmann.--Erziehungswissenschaft, von W. Klafki.--Der pädagogische Fortschritt und die pädagogische Forschung, von W. Schultze.--Ideologisches und Unidelogisches in der (...) Bildungsreformsdiskussion, von C.-H. Evers.--Leistung und Glück, von H. W. Nicklas.--Schulversuche und Bildungsplanung, von G. Preissler.--Das pädagogische Elternrecht im sozialen Rechsstaat, von E. Stein.--Kreatives. (shrink)

The literature on Adorno and anti‐Semitism presents a somewhat curious state of affairs. On the one hand, concern with anti‐Semitism is presented as pivotal to his views and major works, at least post‐1940. On the other hand, the account of anti‐Semitism offered by Adorno – and Horkheimer – faces trenchant criticisms for failing to do justice to the complex phenomena at issue. In this Chapter, I re‐examine and re‐evaluate this account. In particular, I argue that they navigate well (...) two central dilemmas intrinsic to any endeavor of making sense of anti‐Semitism and the events for which the name “Auschwitz” stands. (shrink)

The paper considers what united and divided Benjamin and Horkheimer-Adorno in terms of their respective confrontations with the question of what it is to articulate the past historically. It presents their shared self-consciousness of the difficult task of responding critically to a problem conceived of as the entanglement of the concept of history with domination. For the problem imbues conceptualization itself and therefore threatens the value of the authoritative statements made in their own critical reflection on it. I show (...) that these thinkers necessarily respond to the problem in confrontation with specific historical contexts: fascism, Soviet communism, German social democracy, and liberal democracy. The challenge they face is how to metabolize thinking in the midst of tendencies that disable it. I compare Benjamin’s solution, the dialectical image, with Horkheimer and Adorno’s solution, the recovery of critical reflection through the fragmentary writing of Dialectic of Enlightenment. (shrink)

(2000). ADORNO AND HORKHEIMER'S CONCEPT OF ‘ENLIGHTENMENT’. British Journal for the History of Philosophy: Vol. 8, No. 3, pp. 521-544. doi: 10.1080/096087800442165.

This article demonstrates how Adorno and Horkheimer’s turn to psychoanalytic concepts like sublimation and intra-psychic conflict strengthened critical theory. The piecemeal collective psychology they produced was used to understand fascism and anti-Semitism. But the full significance of these psychoanalytic explanations was concealed by Adorno, who elsewhere denied the possibility of psychology proper after the death of the individual. Adorno and Horkheimer’s underhanded borrowing from psychoanalysis for social analysis had the effect of filtering collective psychology through the lens (...) of regression. To amend this, the article analyzes psychoanalytic explanations from an interpretive perspective, building upon Jessica Benjamin’s psychoanalytic feminism, to contest the tactics of immanent criticism and to revitalize the project of a less dystopic collective psychology. (shrink)

From a contemporary perspective, the work of the Frankfurt School thinkers can be considered the last grand modern attempt to offer transcendence, meaning, and religiosity rather than “emancipation” and “truth.” In the very first stage of their work, Adorno and Horkheimer interlaced the goals of Critical Theory with the Marxian revolutionary project. The development of their thought led them to criticize orthodox Marxism and ended in a complete break with that tradition, as they developed a quest for a unique (...) kind religiosity connected with the Gnostic tradition and emanating, to a certain extent, from Judaism. This religiosity offers a reformulated Negative Theology within the framework of what I call “Diasporic philosophy.” In his later work, Horkheimer explicitly presented Critical Theory as a new Jewish theology. Rearticulating Critical Theory is of vital importance today, both for understanding the current historical moment and for going beyond the oppressive dimensions of Critical Pedagogy. This article does not satisfy itself by offering a new reconstruction of Critical Theory; its goal is to offer a blueprint for a Diasporic counter‐education that transcends Critical Pedagogy and goes beyond the emancipatory dimensions of Judaism itself. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Naharaim Jahrgang: 8 Heft: 2 Seiten: 172-209.

Cette lecture illustrée de l'Odyssée d'Homère nous introduit aux thèses de la Dialectique de la Raison de Theodor W. Adorno et Max Horkheimer, une des oeuvres maîtresses de l'école dite de " Francfort ", écrite entre 1941 et 1944 au moment où la civilisation basculait dans le gouffre. Les deux auteurs y démontraient comme la raison occidentale fondatrice de la société européenne est viciée en son essence : une terreur originelle la motive. Sa relation à la Nature est pensée (...) dans les termes antagonistes du tuer ou mourir. La fameuse raison des Lumières perpétue finalement la violence et les réflexes irrationnels qu'elle prétendait vouloir éliminer, elle contient son contraire, elle est d'essence dialectique. Pour illustrer leur propos, Adorno et Horkheimer sont remontés jusqu'à l'Ulysse d'Homère qu'ils présentent comme le passeur de la pensée mythique - qui pactise encore avec les forces naturelles - à la pensée rationnelle, qui est une stratégie, une ruse en vue de dominer celles-ci. Il incarne à la fois une victime ballottée par les éléments et un bourreau, le porteur d'un espoir - en grande partie déçu - d'émancipation et l'ancêtre du bourgeois qui défend à tout prix ses intérêts contre ceux des autres. Ce livre, illustré en eaux-fortes avec un anachronisme assumé, commente l'Odyssée depuis les jalons posés par les penseurs allemands. Il nous dévoile ainsi la geste sanglante de la naissance de la rationalité européenne. (shrink)

Cette lecture illustrée de l'Odyssée d'Homère nous introduit aux thèses de la Dialectique de la Raison de Theodor W. Adorno et Max Horkheimer, une des oeuvres maîtresses de l'école dite de " Francfort ", écrite entre 1941 et 1944 au moment où la civilisation basculait dans le gouffre. Les deux auteurs y démontraient comme la raison occidentale fondatrice de la société européenne est viciée en son essence : une terreur originelle la motive. Sa relation à la Nature est pensée (...) dans les termes antagonistes du tuer ou mourir. La fameuse raison des Lumières perpétue finalement la violence et les réflexes irrationnels qu'elle prétendait vouloir éliminer, elle contient son contraire, elle est d'essence dialectique. Pour illustrer leur propos, Adorno et Horkheimer sont remontés jusqu'à l'Ulysse d'Homère qu'ils présentent comme le passeur de la pensée mythique - qui pactise encore avec les forces naturelles - à la pensée rationnelle, qui est une stratégie, une ruse en vue de dominer celles-ci. Il incarne à la fois une victime ballottée par les éléments et un bourreau, le porteur d'un espoir - en grande partie déçu - d'émancipation et l'ancêtre du bourgeois qui défend à tout prix ses intérêts contre ceux des autres. Ce livre, illustré en eaux-fortes avec un anachronisme assumé, commente l'Odyssée depuis les jalons posés par les penseurs allemands. Il nous dévoile ainsi la geste sanglante de la naissance de la rationalité européenne. (shrink)

This article shows how Adorno and Horkheimer’s project of enlighten the enlightenment has as goal to overcome the dialectic of enlightenment and achieve an enlightenment without domination. The rationalization and disenchantment that define enlightenment have turned everything into an object that can be manipulated by human beings. In the administered world it has even come to reduce the human being itself to an object by means of his identification and deindividualization. This is the death of the human being. Enlightenment (...) has ended up in domination, in a totalitarian system. Auschwitz has represented the culmination of this understanding of thinking as identification. To save enlightenment is to avoid this dialectic of enlightenment, to demythologize the rationalizing enlightenment. This allows an open and altruistic thinking, which is non-identifying, alien to the domain and respectful of the individual human being. (shrink)

Resenha do livro de: Rodrigo Duarte, Adorno/Horkheimer & A dialetica do esclarecimento. Rio de Janeiro: Jorge Zahar, 2002. Colecao Filosofia Passa-a-passo 4. 70 paginas.

Le cadre du programme interdisciplinaire de recherche défini par Max Horkheimer dans les années 1930 doit beaucoup à Erich Fromm, qui a introduit la psychologie sociale dans la Théorie critique de la société. Or, une décennie plus tard, Fromm est la cible privilégiée des attaques et sa théorie apparaît désormais comme incompatible avec les positions défendues par Horkheimer et Adorno. Partant de ces tensions qui ont marqué l’histoire de l’École de Francfort, le présent article vise à éclaircir le déplacement (...) qu’elles traduisent sur le plan épistémologique. Si Horkheimer et Fromm partagent des prémisses communes, le premier, dans son travail avec Adorno, se rapproche de manière croissante de la doctrine freudienne alors que le second s’en éloigne. Nous voudrions montrer que l’accord entre Fromm et Horkheimer fut surtout négatif puisqu’il portait sur la critique de Freud : les divergences entre les deux penseurs apparaissent clairement, dès lors qu’on pose en profondeur la question de l’usage de la psychanalyse pour analyser l’un des problèmes centraux de la théorie de la société, l’antagonisme entre individu et société. (shrink)

Adorno and Horkheimer’s legacy is incomplete without reference to their infamous political quietism. To thinkers such as Habermas, this was the unfortunate consequence of their alleged evacuation of reason. Attending to the treatment of Nietzsche in Dialectic of Enlightenment illuminates the distinct irony of such charges. Here, in their most popular book, Nietzsche is presented as precisely that which they praised him for warning against elsewhere: an advocate of cruelty animated by a reactionary morality. I contend that this exaggeration (...) is not accidental, but rather illustrative; the authors present a consciously hyperbolized version of Nietzsche in order to articulate how he made possible his own misappropriation, and to distinguish themselves sharply from Nietzsche given their disagreements about the necessity of reason. Ultimately, however, even though Adorno and Horkheimer performatively differentiate themselves from the nihilism they saw in Nietzsche, their alternative would ironically be subject to precisely the same charges of irrationalism and political aporia that they sought so desperately to avoid. (shrink)

The main goal of this article is to present Negative Dialectics as a central theme in the Adorno’s thought. In this work Adorno develops the antinomies that there are in the concept of instrumental reason, in order to assert the necessity for a new notion of rationality: a dialectical, negative and materialistic reason, which holds, at the same time, the non identity between subject-object, thought and reality. In this way Philosophy becomes critique of Idealism because this philosophical system (...) defends the “identity thinking” and the irrational society that supports, making a true freedom impossible. Instead of this conception Adorno defines Metaphysics as “negative dialectics” and antisystem, whose method is the analysis of thinking’s models, as a result of his own critical epistemology. (shrink)

Cet article propose un examen de la conception controversée de l’« antisémitisme politique » que développent Horkheimer et Adorno. En l’essence, ma lecture retrace leur appropriation critique de Freud. Je montre d’abord comment ils puisent dans Totem et tabou pour défendre qu’un interdit de la mimèsis, ou de l’imitation, est au cœur du processus des Lumières. Je montre ensuite comment ils s’appuient sur la conception freudienne de l’identification et de la formation du moi pour défendre que l’imitation est néanmoins (...) ce qui permet la formation du sujet et le processus des Lumières. Selon ma lecture, cette tension crée les conditions nécessaires à l’émergence de l’antisémitisme politique. (shrink)

In recent years, documentary formats have entered prominently into the realm of the culture industry, especially since Hollywood and Netflix started to invest in costly productions addressed to the mainstream. Many of these documentaries claim to show reality in its immediacy (“as it really is”), to reveal that which is obscured, or to critically assess societal evils. They use aesthetic strategies that reinforce the appearance of authenticity, while concealing the mediation of what they represent, and the authoritarian stances they presuppose. (...) This turns them into powerful instruments for diffusing authoritarian and populist ideologies. Their political impact on society, their performative power of opinion-shaping, and their subliminal influence on how we perceive and understand reality call urgently for critical assessment. Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the culture industry, along with their philosophical, sociological, and aesthetic writings, provide a constructive starting point. This essay aims to mobilize their critical theory of society for the problematization of documentary films in terms of their dialectical relation to society. (shrink)

Abstractabstract:Was there a linguistic turn in Frankfurt School Critical Theory before Habermas's communications-theoretic one? Might later Wittgenstein and the early Frankfurt School have adopted similar pictures of language? I propose that both questions should be answered affirmatively, focusing on Horkheimer's Eclipse of Reason. I argue that, thanks to the picture of language that Horkheimer and Adorno share with (later) Wittgenstein, we can reconstruct their theory in a way that renders it more defensible. Insofar as the human life form and (...) language are inseparable, language can be an inextinguishable reservoir of what Horkheimer called "objective reason." Recognizing this allows us to answer Habermas's critique of Horkheimer and Adorno. Moreover, paying attention to this inseparableness can enable us to engage in disclosing social critique (for example, regarding current debates about sustainability). (shrink)

Habermas’ critical theory is partly an attempt to identify the limitations of critique and emancipation as espoused in the first generation critical theory of Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. In their attempt to develop an interdisciplinary, reflexive, emancipatory and dialectical reason that is critical towards accepted realities, Horkheimer and Adorno in their monumental work The Dialectic of Enlightenment pictured a world trapped in instrumental rationality. Taking and revolutionizing traditional critical theory, Habermas argues that reason entails both emancipator as (...) well as instrumental possibilities. Through an exposition of Habermas’ critique of Horkheimer and Adorno in his discourse of modernity, this article argues that although Habermas successfully identifies the equation of the rational with the instrumental and offers an emancipator model in return; still he ends up not paying sufficient attention to aesthetic truth. (shrink)

Die Aufklärung erfuhr ihre wohl radikalste Infragestellung in Max Horkheimers und Theodor W. Adornos Dialektik der Aufklärung. Ihre These, dass die Aufklärung, statt Emanzipation und Humanität zu befördern, verhängnisvolle Folgen zeitigte, stützt sich einerseits auf eine grundsätzliche Rationalitätskritik, andererseits auf eine Analyse der Philosophien von Autoren, die sie als Protagonisten der Aufklärung einstufen: Bacon, Spinoza, Kant und de Sade. Zwar ist ‚Aufklärung‘ im Sinne Horkheimers und Adornos ein von Anbeginn mit der okzidentalen Kultur verbundenes Phänomen. Doch trat aus ihrer Sicht (...) erst in den Philosophien des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts ihre ambivalente, ja fatale Natur vollends zutage. Während sich die Diskussionen über die Dialektik der Aufklärung zumeist auf die grundsätzliche Rationalitätskritik Horkheimers und Adornos konzentrierten, haben Philosophiehistoriker nur selten die Frage aufgeworfen, ob die dort herangezogenen Philosophen tatsächlich geeignete Kronzeugen ihrer Aufklärungskritik sind. Ziel des vorliegenden Bandes ist es daher, das von Horkheimer und Adorno gezeichnete Gesamtbild der Aufklärung und ihre Interpretationen Bacons, Spinozas, Kants und de Sades auf den Prüfstand zu stellen. (shrink)

This article revisits the Frankfurt School’s reflections on race, anti-Semitism and fascism, focusing especially on the theory of race implicit in Dialectic of Enlightenment. It argues that this theory has the potential to be developed into a critical functionalist theory of race that avoids both class and race reductionism, offering a thoroughly intersectional competitor to currently dominant philosophies of race. The key to such a theory is the view that racialization plays a functional role in sustaining capitalist exploitation. While Horkheimer (...) and Adorno focus on the scapegoat function of racialization, I argue that this function, while important, does not exhaust the possible functionalities of racialization and neglects an especially crucial function: the maintenance of a specifically racial form of exploitation. (shrink)

“Think of the disaster” is the first injunction of thought when faced with the disaster that struck European Jews during the Shoah. Thinking of the disaster means understanding why the Shoah was able to occur in civilized Europe, moulded by humane reason and the values of progress and enlightenment. It means thinking of a possibility for philosophy’s future. Walter Benjamin, who wrestled with these problems ahead of time, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Emmanuel Levinas had the courage, the strength (...) and the perception—and sometimes simply the desperation—to think about what had happened. Moved by indignation and the desire to testify, they felt the urgent need to address the cries of agony of Auschwitz’s victims in their thinking. (shrink)