Identity and Reason in Adorno

 

Adorno rejected the idea that philosophy and reason provided access to a realm of pure thoughts and reality. He argued that philosophical concepts expressed the social structures within which they were found, and there was no single standpoint from which 'truth' could be universally discerned. This concept is often criticized as philosophical relativism, but Adorno's analysis of philosophical concepts aims to uncover the extent to which these concepts are predicated upon relations of power and domination.

Adorno coined the term 'identity thinking' to refer to the most expressive philosophical manifestation of power and domination. He condemned identity thinking as systematically and necessarily misrepresenting reality by subsuming specific phenomena under general, more abstract classificatory headings within which the phenomenal world is cognitively assembled. This mode of representing reality may have the advantage of facilitating the manipulation of the material environment, but it does so at the cost of failing to attend to the specificity of any given phenomenal entity.

Adorno and Horkheimer's critical study of enlightenment presents both a critical analysis of enlightenment and an account of the instrumentalization of reason. They do not conceive of enlightenment as confined to a distinct historical period but rather a series of related intellectual and practical operations that are presented as demythologizing, secularizing, or disenchanting some mythical, religious, or magical representation of the world. They extend their understanding of enlightenment to include a mode of apprehending reality found in the writings of classical Greek philosophers and 20th-century positivists.

Adorno and Horkheimer's understanding of enlightenment differs fundamentally from those accounts of the development of human thought and civilization that posit a developmental schema according to which human history is considered as progressively proceeding through separate stages of cognitively classifying and apprehending reality.

Adorno and Horkheimer challenge the assumption that myth is already enlightenment, arguing that both myth and enlightenment are modes of representing reality. They argue that enlightenment's rationalization of society reverts to mythology, which they view as a betrayal of the emancipatory ideals of enlightenment. They believe that this reversion to mythology means reverting to an unreflexive, uncritical mode of configuring and understanding reality, leading to the institution of social conditions over which individuals have little perceived control.

Enlightenment is conceived as a demythologizing mode of apprehending reality, with the fundamental aim being the establishment of human sovereignty over material reality and nature. This requires the ability to cognitively and practically manipulate the material environment in accordance with our will. In highly technologically developed societies, the constraints upon our ability to manipulate nature are typically thought of in terms of the development of technological forces available to us. Overcoming myth was achieved by conceiving myth as a form of anthropomorphism, allowing matter to be mastered without any illusion of ruling or inherent powers.

Adorno and Horkheimer argue that human beings' attempt to gain sovereignty over nature has been pursued through the accumulation of objective, verifiable knowledge of the material realm and its constitutive processes. Nature is conceived of in primarily instrumental terms, with humans as categorically distinct entities capable of becoming subjects through the exercise of reason upon nature. This process results in the establishment of a generally heteronomous social order, with humans having little control over nature. The drive to dominate nature results in a form of reasoning and a general world-view that appears independent of human beings and is principally characterized by a systematic indifference to human suffering.

Adorno and Horkheimer argue that authoritative forms of knowledge have become synonymous with instrumental reasoning, making reality discernible only in the form of objectively verifiable facts. This undermines alternative modes of representing reality and makes human beings objects of the form of reasoning through which their status as subjects is first formulated. Enlightenment prioritizes the accumulation of hard, objective data that accurately describe and catalogue this reality, limiting legitimate knowledge to what is considered 'factual'. However, this approach does not promote human freedom, as accurate descriptions of the world are not sufficient. Enlightenment restricts legitimate knowledge to objectively verifiable facts, leading to an immutable and fixed order of things that pre-structures and pre-determines our consciousness of it. Facts have come to take on the functional properties of a belief in mythical forces or beings, representing an external order to which we must conform. The realm of facts appears objective and devoid of subjective prejudices and fallacies, making subjective reasoning fallacious.

Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the instrumentalization of reason and the epistemological supremacy of 'facts' have established a single order, a mode of representing and relating to reality. They believe that this mode of configuring reality originates from a desire to dominate nature, which is achieved by reducing the diversity of nature to a single, manipulable form. They propose that enlightenment is driven by the desire to master nature, bringing all of material reality under a single representational system, and that reason is transformed into a tool for achieving this end.

Adorno's concept of 'identity thinking' challenges this view by insisting that such 'objective' forms of representing reality are not objective enough. The facts upon which instrumental reasoning works are conceptual abstractions rather than direct manifestations of phenomena. Adorno's philosophical writings aim to demonstrate the two-fold falsity of identity thinking: debunking its claims of representing reality objectively and examining the effects of instrumental reasoning on human freedom. He posits identity thinking as concerned not with understanding phenomena but with controlling and manipulating them. A critical form of philosophy aims to undercut the dominance of identity thinking and create an awareness of the potential of apprehending and relating to phenomena in a non-coercive manner.

In conclusion, Adorno's philosophical writings address the status of morality and moral theory within a fully enlightened earth, challenging the epistemological conceit of 'identity thinking'.

 

Culture Industry (Adorno)

Culture Industry

Adorno, a highly unconventional philosopher, was among the first to recognize the potential social, political, and economic power of the entertainment industry. He saw the culture industry as a principal source of domination within complex, capitalist societies, denying freedom and obstructing the development of a critical consciousness. Adorno's vision of the culture industry is unequivocal in its depiction of mass consumer societies as being based upon the systematic denial of genuine freedom.

Adorno described the culture industry as a key integrative mechanism for binding individuals, as both consumers and producers, to modern, capitalist societies. He argued that the culture industry functions to maintain a uniform system, to which all must conform. David Held, a commentator on critical theory, describes the culture industry as producing for mass consumption and significantly contributing to the determination of that consumption. The culture industry, integrated into capitalism, integrates consumers from above, with the goal of producing profitable and consumable goods.

Adorno's specific notion of the culture industry goes much further, arguing that individuals' integration within the culture industry has the fundamental effect of restricting the development of a critical awareness of the social conditions that confront us all. The culture industry promotes domination by subverting the psychological development of the mass of people in complex, capitalist societies.

Adorno argues that cultural commodities are subject to the same instrumentally rationalized mechanical forces that serve to dominate individuals' working lives. Through our domination of nature and the development of technologically sophisticated forms of productive machinery, we have become objects of a system of our own making. Through the exponential increase in volume and scope of the commodities produced under the auspices of the culture industry, individuals are increasingly subjected to the same underlying conditions through which the complex capitalist is maintained and reproduced.

Symmetric exposure to the culture industry has the fundamental effect of pacifying its consumers, as they are denied any genuine opportunities to actively contribute to the production of the goods to which they are exposed. Adorno locates the origins of the pacifying effects of cultural commodities in the underlying uniformity of such goods, a uniformity that belies their ostensible differences.

Adorno conceives of the culture industry as a manifestation of identity-thinking and as being effected through the implementation of instrumentally rationalized productive techniques. He presents the culture industry as comprising an endless repetition of the same commodified form, arguing that the diverse range of commodities produced and consumed under the auspices of the culture industry actually derive from a limited, fundamentally standardized menu of interchangeable features and constructs. The structural properties of the commodities produced and exchanged within the culture industry are increasingly standardized, formulaic, and repetitive in character, as it results from the increasingly mechanized nature of the production, distribution, and consumption of these goods.

Adorno's analysis of the culture industry, particularly music, is extensive and focuses on the production and consumption of musical commodities. He argues that industrialized production techniques have changed the structure and manner in which these commodities are received. Adorno presents such musical commodities as set pieces that elicit set, largely unreflected responses, and that contemporary listening has regressed to an infantile stage, losing the capacity for conscious perception of music and rejecting the possibility of such perception.

Adorno also viewed the production and consumption of musical commodities as exemplary of the culture industry in general. He also extended his analysis to other areas of the culture industry, such as television and astrology columns. Adorno considered astrology to be a symptom of complex, capitalist societies and recognized its widespread appeal as an albeit uncritical and unreflexive awareness of the extent to which individuals' lives remain fundamentally conditioned by impersonal, external forces. Society is projected onto the stars, unwittingly, to obtain a higher degree of dignity and justification in which individuals hope to participate themselves.

Adorno argued that the instrumentally rational character of complex, capitalist societies actually served to lend astrology a degree of rationality in respect of providing individuals with a means for learning to live with conditions beyond their apparent control. He described astrology as an ideology for dependence, as an attempt to strengthen and justify painful conditions that seem more tolerable if an affirmative attitude is taken towards them.

For Adorno, no single domain of the culture industry is sufficient to ensure the effects it generally exerts upon individuals' consciousness and lives. However, when taken together, the assorted media of the culture industry constitute a web within which the conditions for leading an autonomous life, for developing the capacity for critical reflection upon oneself and one's social conditions, are systematically obstructed. The culture industry fundamentally prohibits the development of autonomy by means of the mediatory role its various sectors play in the formation of individuals' consciousness of social reality.

The culture industry is understood by Adorno to be an essential component of a reified form of second nature, which individuals come to accept as a pre-structured social order with which they must conform and adapt. The commodities produced by the culture industry may be "rubbish," but their effects upon individuals are deadly serious.

 

Adorno’s Moral Philosophy

 

Adorno's moral philosophy is concerned with the effects of enlightenment on individuals leading a "morally good life" and philosophers' ability to identify what such a life may consist of. Adorno argues that the instrumentalization of reason has fundamentally undermined both, as social life in modern societies no longer coheres around a set of widely espoused moral truths and that modern societies lack a moral basis. Instead, morality has replaced morality as the integrating "cement" of social life with instrumental reasoning and the exposure of everyone to the capitalist market.

In a nihilistic world, moral beliefs and moral reasoning are held to have no ultimately rational authority, with moral claims being conceived of as inherently subjective statements expressing not an objective property of the world but the individual's own prejudices. Morality is presented as lacking any objective, public basis, and the espousal of specific moral beliefs is understood as an instrument for the assertion of one's own, partial interests. Adorno attempts to critically analyze this condition, criticizing nihilism rather than nihilism itself.

Adorno's account of nihilism rests on his understanding of reason and how modern societies have come to conceive of legitimate knowledge. He argues that morality has fallen victim to the distinction drawn between objective and subjective knowledge. Objective knowledge consists of empirically verifiable facts about material phenomena, while subjective knowledge consists of all that remains, including evaluative and normative statements about the world. Under the force of the instrumentalization of reason and positivism, we have come to conceive of the only meaningfully existing entities as empirically verifiable facts: statements on the structure and content of reality. Moral values and beliefs, in contrast, are denied such a status, making morality inherently prejudicial in character.

Adorno identifies the effects of nihilism within moral philosophy itself, paying particular attention to the moral theory of Immanuel Kant. Adorno argues that Kant's account of the moral law demonstrates the extent to which morality has been reduced to the status of subjective knowledge. Kant attempts to establish valid moral reasoning upon a series of utterly formal, procedural rules or maxims, which exclude even the pursuit of human happiness as a legitimate component of moral reasoning.

Adorno criticizes Kant for emptying the moral law of any and all reference to substantive conceptions of human well-being or the 'good life'. He believes that Kant's moral philosophy is not sufficiently reflexive and fails to identify the effects of these conditions. Adorno does not think that nihilism can be overcome by a mere act of will or affirming some substantive moral vision of the good life. He does not seek to philosophically circumnavigate the extent to which moral questions concerning the possible nature of the 'good life' have become so profoundly problematic for us.

Adorno's role as a critical theorist is to retain and promote an awareness of the contingency of such conditions and the extent to which they can be changed. His dystopian account of morality in modern societies follows from his argument that such societies are enthralled by instrumental reasoning and the prioritization of 'objective facts'. Nihilism serves to fundamentally frustrate the ability of morality to impose authoritative limits upon the application of instrumental reason.

 

 

Adorno's Philosophical Thoughts

 

Adorno and Horkheimer's View on Enlightenment and Its Impact

• Adorno and Horkheimer challenge the optimistic view of enlightenment's effects on society.
• They argue that enlightenment has always aimed to liberate men from fear and establish their sovereignty.
• They challenge the developmental schema of human thought, which posits that human history progresses through stages of cognitive classification and apprehending reality.
• They argue that both myth and enlightenment represent reality and attempt to explain and account for it.
• They argue that enlightenment's rationalization of society reverts to a mythical order, a betrayal of enlightenment's emancipatory ideals.
• They view enlightenment as a demythologizing mode of apprehending reality, aiming to establish human sovereignty over material reality and nature.
• They argue that the realization of human sovereignty requires the dissolution of myths and the disenchantment of nature.
• They believe that enlightenment is conceived of as superseding and replacing mythical and religious belief systems, which are often inability to discern the subjective character and origins of these beliefs.

Adorno and Horkheimer's View on Enlightenment and Mythology

• Adorno and Horkheimer argue that enlightenment reverts to mythology, arguing that humans' attempts to control nature are primarily instrumental.
• They argue that nature is seen as an object for human will, with humans as distinct entities capable of subordinating nature to their will.
• This instrumentalist conception of nature leads to a hierarchical relationship between humans and nature, with reason instrumentalized.
• Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the drive to dominate nature results in a form of reasoning and a general world-view that appears independently of humans and is characterized by a systematic indifference to human suffering.
• They insist that individual self-preservation in 'enlightened' societies requires conformity to the dictates of instrumental reason.

Adorno's Defense of the Controversy

• Adorno argues that authoritative forms of knowledge have become synonymous with instrumental reasoning, deeming reality discernible only in the form of objectively verifiable facts.
• He argues that human beings are increasingly incapable of legitimately excluding themselves from the determinative processes thought to prevail within the disenchanted material realm.
• He argues that the very constituents of this way of thinking are inextricably entwined with heteronomy.
• Adorno and Horkheimer argue that material reality appears as an immutable and fixed order of things, pre-structuring and pre-determining our consciousness of it.
• They argue that enlightenment reverts to mythology, which they never really knew how to elude, as it had the essence of the status quo: cycle, fate, and domination of the world reflected as the truth and deprived of hope.

Adorno and Horkheimer's View on Enlightenment and Nature

• Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the instrumentalization of reason and the epistemological supremacy of 'facts' establish a single order and mode of representing and relating to reality.
• They believe that the pursuit of human sovereignty over nature is predicated on a mode of reasoning that subsumes all of nature within a single, representational framework.
• They believe that this mode of configuring reality originates from a desire to dominate nature, reducing the diversity of nature to a single, manipulable form.
• They view enlightenment as aspiring towards a form of reasoning that is fundamentally universal and abstract, positing the existence of a unified order, a priori.
• They present the aspiration towards achieving human sovereignty over nature as culminating in the institution of a mode of reasoning bound to the identification and accumulation of facts.
• They believe that the aspiration to fully master nature culminates in the institution of a social and political order over which we have lost control.
• They argue that thought and philosophy aid and abet this order by seeking to mirror or 'objectively' reflect that reality.

Adorno's Moral Philosophy and Nihilism

Adorno's Moral Philosophy
• Adorno criticizes the instrumentalization of reason and the lack of a moral basis in modern societies.
• He argues that morality has been replaced by instrumental reasoning and capitalism, leading to a nihilistic world where moral beliefs and reasoning have no rational authority.
• Adorno argues that morality has become a tool of power under nihilistic conditions, with the influence of any moral vision being an expression of the material interests that underlie it.

Effects of Nihilism within Moral Philosophy
• Adorno identifies the effects of nihilism within moral philosophy, particularly the moral theory of Immanuel Kant.
• Kant's account of the moral law demonstrates the reduction of morality to the status of subjective knowledge.
• Adorno criticizes Kant for emptying the moral law of all substantive moral claims, excluding the pursuit of human happiness as a legitimate component of moral reasoning.

Nihilism and the Role of the Critical Theorist
• Adorno does not believe that nihilism can be overcome by a mere act of will or affirming some substantive moral vision of the good life.
• He believes that reason has become entwined with domination and has developed as a manifestation of the attempt to control nature.
• Adorno considers nihilism a consequence of domination and a testament to the extent to which human societies are no longer enthralled by moral visions grounded in some naturalistic conception of human well-being.
• The critical theorist must aim to retain and promote an awareness of the contingency of such conditions and the extent to which such conditions can be changed.

Adorno's View on the Culture Industry

Adorno's Perspective on Mass Entertainment
• Adorno, a philosopher, viewed mass entertainment as a manifestation of domination.
• He viewed both abstract philosophical texts and easily consumable media as manifestations of domination.

The Culture Industry
• Adorno saw the culture industry as a principal source of domination within complex, capitalist societies.
• He argued that areas of life that many people believe are free from work obstruct freedom and the development of a critical consciousness.

Defense of the Culture Industry
• Adorno argued that the culture industry is a key integrative mechanism for binding individuals to modern, capitalist societies.
• He argued that the culture industry maintains a uniform system, to which all must conform.
• He argued that individuals' integration within the culture industry restricts the development of a critical awareness of social conditions.

Adorno's Defense of the Culture Industry
• Adorno argued that cultural commodities are subject to the same instrumentally rationalized mechanical forces that dominate individuals' working lives.
• He argued that systematic exposure to the culture industry has the fundamental effect of pacifying its consumers.
• He presented the pacifying effects of cultural commodities in the underlying uniformity of such goods.

The Culture Industry as a Manifestation of Identity-Thinking
• Adorno conceived of the culture industry as a manifestation of identity-thinking and as being effected through the implementation of instrumentally rationalized productive techniques.
• He presented the culture industry as an endless repetition of the same commodified form.
• He argued that the standardized character of cultural commodities results from the increasingly mechanized nature of the production, distribution, and consumption of these goods.

Adorno's Analysis of Culture Industry

• Adorno's main focus is on music, a medium that reveals the culture industry's features and effects.
• He argues that industrialized production techniques have changed the structure and reception of musical commodities.
• Adorno presents musical commodities as set pieces eliciting set responses, promoting a general condition of immaturity.
• He contrasts the fetishism of music with a regression of listening, where listeners lose freedom of choice and responsibility, and reject the possibility of conscious perception of music.
• Adorno's analysis extends to other areas of the culture industry, including television and astrology columns.
• He sees astrology as a symptom of complex, capitalist societies, conditioned by impersonal, external forces.
• Adorno argues that astrology contributes to a fetishistic attitude towards conditions that confront individuals' lives, promoting a vision of human life as determined by forces beyond our control.
• Adorno argues that the culture industry fundamentally prohibits the development of autonomy by forming individuals' consciousness of social reality.
• He sees the culture industry as an essential component of a reified form of second nature, with which individuals must conform and adapt.
• Despite the 'rubbish' commodities produced by the culture industry, their effects on individuals are serious.