Horkheimer and Adorno took as their starting point the observation that modern liberal, human and social progress has tipped over into a new form of barbarism but explicitly refused to develop it into a rejection of the enlightenment and its values as such. Adorno's emblematic book Dialectic of Enlightenment(1947).
This article proposes a novel reading of Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. It is in analyzing this abstract dimension that what is historically-unique about capitalism’s domination over nature can be unveiled. As Norbert Trenkle and Moishe Postone point out, the abstract dimension of labor in capitalism has a socially-mediating character that produces an abstract form of social domination. Yet, as Karl Marx points out, what makes capitalism historically-unique is that labor has a dual-dimensionality, that labor is not merely concrete but also abstract. In doing so, these scholars examine labor in capitalism one-dimensionally. In particular, each of these scholars roots domination over nature in an anthropological notion of labor, a notion of labor per se. However, the narrative of domination over nature as reflected by these scholars is also incomplete. This literature situates domination over nature in social mediation, specifically that labor mediates and determines the human relationship to nature. This chapter examines critical theory’s conceptualization of capitalism’s domination over nature, from Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, and Alfred Schmidt to the work of contemporary scholars like John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett. This chapter is based on a close reading and examination of key passages of the text and concludes that the idea that there was a ‘negative turn’ of which Dialectic of Enlightenment was the avatar is simplistic and unconvincing. Observations like these suggest that there are multiple shifts in emphasis between the many different texts that comprise the canon of Critical Theory but no definitive and central shift of perspective.
He also points out, though, that several projects that involved empirical research, and which were begun in parallel with and completed after Dialectic of Enlightenment, closely followed the programme of Critical Theory as formulated by Horkheimer in the 1930s, including proposals for reform of the education system meant to prevent the emergence of the ‘authoritarian character’ prone to fascist mobilization (Schmid Noerr, 1987: 448). Schmid Noerr, one of the most authoritative commentators in the German-language literature, asserts that in his writings from the 1930s Horkheimer had seemed more optimistic about the possibility that Critical Theory could be articulated with critical empirical scholarship as well as radical political action than Dialectic of Enlightenment suggests (Schmid Noerr, 1987: 437).
There is a general tendency to overstate the extent to which Dialectic of Enlightenment constitutes a turning point in Critical Theory. Much of it is meta-theoretical and often sidesteps detailed textual analysis. The secondary literature on Dialectic of Enlightenment is vast but most contributions focus on one isolated aspect or chapter of the book.
0 kommentar(er)
