Theodor W. Adorno (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

文章推薦指數: 80 %
投票人數:10人

Theodor W. Adorno was one of the most important philosophers and social critics in Germany after World War II. Although less well known ... StanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophy Menu Browse TableofContents What'sNew RandomEntry Chronological Archives About EditorialInformation AbouttheSEP EditorialBoard HowtoCitetheSEP SpecialCharacters AdvancedTools Contact SupportSEP SupporttheSEP PDFsforSEPFriends MakeaDonation SEPIAforLibraries EntryNavigation EntryContents Bibliography AcademicTools FriendsPDFPreview AuthorandCitationInfo BacktoTop TheodorW.AdornoFirstpublishedMonMay5,2003;substantiverevisionMonOct26,2015 TheodorW.Adornowasoneofthemostimportantphilosophersand socialcriticsinGermanyafterWorldWarII.Althoughlesswellknown amonganglophonephilosophersthanhiscontemporaryHans-Georg Gadamer,Adornohadevengreaterinfluenceonscholarsand intellectualsinpostwarGermany.Inthe1960shewasthemost prominentchallengertobothSirKarlPopper'sphilosophyofscience andMartinHeidegger'sphilosophyofexistence.JürgenHabermas, Germany'sforemostsocialphilosopherafter1970,wasAdorno'sstudent andassistant.ThescopeofAdorno'sinfluencestemsfromthe interdisciplinarycharacterofhisresearchandoftheFrankfurt Schooltowhichhebelonged.Italsostemsfromthethoroughnesswith whichheexaminedWesternphilosophicaltraditions,especiallyfrom Kantonward,andtheradicalnesstohiscritiqueofcontemporary Westernsociety.Hewasaseminalsocialphilosopherandaleading memberofthefirstgenerationofCriticalTheory. UnreliabletranslationshamperedtheinitialreceptionofAdorno's publishedworkinEnglishspeakingcountries.Sincethe1990s, however,bettertranslationshaveappeared,alongwithnewly translatedlecturesandotherposthumousworksthatarestillbeing published.Thesematerialsnotonlyfacilitateanemergingassessment ofhisworkinepistemologyandethicsbutalsostrengthenanalready advancedreceptionofhisworkinaestheticsandculturaltheory. 1.BiographicalSketch 2.DialecticofEnlightenment 3.CriticalSocialTheory 4.AestheticTheory 5.NegativeDialectics 6.EthicsandMetaphysicsafterAuschwitz Bibliography AcademicTools OtherInternetResources RelatedEntries 1.BiographicalSketch BornonSeptember11,1903asTheodorLudwigWiesengrund,Adornolived inFrankfurtamMainforthefirstthreedecadesofhislifeandthe lasttwo(Müller-Doohm2005,Claussen2008).Hewastheonlyson ofawealthyGermanwinemerchantofassimilatedJewishbackgroundand anaccomplishedmusicianofCorsicanCatholicdescent.Adornostudied philosophywiththeneo-KantianHansCorneliusandmusiccomposition withAlbanBerg.HecompletedhisHabilitationsschrifton Kierkegaard'saestheticsin1931,underthesupervisionofthe ChristiansocialistPaulTillich.Afterjusttwoyearsasauniversity instructor(Privatdozent),hewasexpelledbytheNazis, alongwithotherprofessorsofJewishheritageoronthepolitical left.Afewyearslaterheturnedhisfather'ssurnameintoamiddle initialandadopted“Adorno,”thematernalsurnamebywhichheisbest known. AdornoleftGermanyinthespringof1934.DuringtheNazierahe residedinOxford,NewYorkCity,andsouthernCalifornia.Therehe wroteseveralbooksforwhichhelaterbecamefamous,including DialecticofEnlightenment(withMaxHorkheimer), PhilosophyofNewMusic,TheAuthoritarian Personality(acollaborativeproject),andMinima Moralia.Fromtheseyearscomehisprovocativecritiquesofmass cultureandthecultureindustry.ReturningtoFrankfurtin1949to takeupapositioninthephilosophydepartment,Adornoquickly establishedhimselfasaleadingGermanintellectualandacentral figureintheInstituteofSocialResearch.Foundedasafree-standing centerforMarxistscholarshipin1923,theInstitutehadbeenledby MaxHorkheimersince1930.Itprovidedthehubtowhathascometobe knownastheFrankfurtSchool.AdornobecametheInstitute'sdirector in1958.Fromthe1950sstemInSearchofWagner,Adorno's ideology-critiqueoftheNazi'sfavoritecomposer;Prisms,a collectionofsocialandculturalstudies;Against Epistemology,anantifoundationalistcritiqueofHusserlian phenomenology;andthefirstvolumeofNotestoLiterature,a collectionofessaysinliterarycriticism. ConflictandconsolidationmarkedthelastdecadeofAdorno'slife. Aleadingfigureinthe“positivismdispute”inGermansociology, AdornowasakeyplayerindebatesaboutrestructuringGerman universitiesandalightningrodforbothstudentactivistsandtheir right-wingcritics.Thesecontroversiesdidnotpreventhimfrom publishingnumerousvolumesofmusiccriticism,twomorevolumesof NotestoLiterature,booksonHegelandonexistential philosophy,andcollectedessaysinsociologyandinaesthetics. NegativeDialectics,Adorno'smagnumopusonepistemologyand metaphysics,appearedin1966.AestheticTheory,theother magnumopusonwhichhehadworkedthroughoutthe1960s,appeared posthumouslyin1970.HediedofaheartattackonAugust 6,1969,onemonthshyofhissixty-sixthbirthday. 2.DialecticofEnlightenment Longbefore“postmodernism”becamefashionable,AdornoandHorkheimer wroteoneofthemostsearchingcritiquesofmodernitytohaveemerged amongprogressiveEuropeanintellectuals.Dialecticof Enlightenmentisaproductoftheirwartimeexile.Itfirst appearedasamimeographtitledPhilosophicalFragmentsin 1944.Thistitlebecamethesubtitlewhenthebookwaspublishedin 1947.TheirbookopenswithagrimassessmentofthemodernWest: “Enlightenment,understoodinthewidestsenseastheadvanceof thought,hasalwaysaimedatliberatinghumanbeingsfromfearand installingthemasmasters.Yetthewhollyenlightenedearthradiates underthesignofdisastertriumphant”(DE1,translation modified).Howcanthisbe,theauthorsask.Howcantheprogressof modernscienceandmedicineandindustrypromisetoliberatepeople fromignorance,disease,andbrutal,mind-numbingwork,yethelp createaworldwherepeoplewillinglyswallowfascistideology, knowinglypracticedeliberategenocide,andenergeticallydevelop lethalweaponsofmassdestruction?Reason,theyanswer,hasbecome irrational. AlthoughtheyciteFrancisBaconasaleadingspokesmanforan instrumentalizedreasonthatbecomesirrational,HorkheimerandAdorno donotthinkthatmodernscienceandscientismarethesoleculprits. Thetendencyofrationalprogresstobecomeirrationalregressarises muchearlier.Indeed,theyciteboththeHebrewscripturesandGreek philosophersascontributingtoregressivetendencies.IfHorkheimer andAdornoareright,thenacritiqueofmodernitymustalsobea critiqueofpremodernity,andaturntowardthepostmoderncannot simplybeareturntothepremodern.Otherwisethefailuresof modernitywillcontinueinanewguiseundercontemporaryconditions. Societyasawholeneedstobetransformed. HorkheimerandAdornobelievethatsocietyandcultureforma historicaltotality,suchthatthepursuitoffreedominsocietyis inseparablefromthepursuitofenlightenmentinculture(DExvi). Thereisaflipsidetothis:alackorlossoffreedomin society—inthepolitical,economic,andlegalstructureswithin whichwelive—signalsaconcomitantfailureincultural enlightenment—inphilosophy,thearts,religion,andthe like.TheNazideathcampsarenotanaberration,noraremindless studiomoviesinnocententertainment.Bothindicatethatsomething fundamentalhasgonewronginthemodernWest. AccordingtoHorkheimerandAdorno,thesourceoftoday'sdisasteris apatternofblinddomination,dominationinatriplesense:the dominationofnaturebyhumanbeings,thedominationofnaturewithin humanbeings,and,inbothoftheseformsofdomination,the dominationofsomehumanbeingsbyothers.Whatmotivatessuchtriple dominationisanirrationalfearoftheunknown:“Humansbelieve themselvesfreeoffearwhenthereisnolongeranythingunknown.This hasdeterminedthepathof demythologization … .Enlightenmentismythicalfear radicalized”(DE11).Inanunfreesocietywhoseculturepursues so-calledprogressnomatterwhatthecost,thatwhichis“other,” whetherhumanornonhuman,getsshovedaside,exploited,ordestroyed. ThemeansofdestructionmaybemoresophisticatedinthemodernWest, andtheexploitationmaybelessdirectthanoutrightslavery,but blind,fear-drivendominationcontinues,withevergreaterglobal consequences.Theall-consumingenginedrivingthisprocessisan ever-expandingcapitalisteconomy,fedbyscientificresearchandthe latesttechnologies. Contrarytosomeinterpretations,HorkheimerandAdornodonot rejecttheeighteenth-centuryEnlightenment.Nordotheyprovidea negative“metanarrative”ofuniversalhistoricaldecline.Rather, throughahighlyunusualcombinationofphilosophicalargument, sociologicalreflection,andliteraryandculturalcommentary,they constructa“doubleperspective”onthemodernWestasahistorical formation(Jarvis1998,23).Theysummarizethisdoubleperspectivein twointerlinkedtheses:“Mythisalreadyenlightenment,and enlightenmentrevertstomythology”(DExviii).Thefirstthesisallows themtosuggestthat,despitebeingdeclaredmythicalandoutmodedby theforcesofsecularization,olderrituals, religions,andphilosophiesmayhavecontributedtotheprocessof enlightenmentandmaystillhavesomethingworthwhiletocontribute. Thesecondthesisallowsthemtoexposeideologicalanddestructive tendencieswithinmodernforcesofsecularization, butwithoutdenyingeitherthattheseforcesareprogressiveand enlighteningorthattheolderconceptionstheydisplacewere themselvesideologicalanddestructive. AfundamentalmistakeinmanyinterpretationsofDialecticof Enlightenmentoccurswhenreaderstakesuchthesestobe theoreticaldefinitionsofunchangingcategoriesratherthancritical judgmentsabouthistoricaltendencies.Theauthorsarenotsayingthat mythis“bynature”aforceofenlightenment.Noraretheyclaiming thatenlightenment“inevitably”revertstomythology.Infact,what theyfindreallymythicalinbothmythandenlightenmentisthethought thatfundamentalchangeisimpossible.Suchresistancetochange characterizesbothancientmythsoffateandmoderndevotiontothe facts. Accordingly,inconstructinga“dialecticofenlightenment”the authorssimultaneouslyaimtocarryoutadialecticalenlightenmentof enlightenmentnotunlikeHegel'sPhenomenologyofSpirit.Two Hegelianconceptsanchorthisproject,namely,determinatenegation andconceptualself-reflection.“Determinatenegation”(bestimmte Negation)indicatesthatimmanentcriticismisthewaytowrest truthfromideology.Adialecticalenlightenmentofenlightenment “discloseseachimageasscript.Itteachesustoreadfrom[the image's]featurestheadmissionoffalsenesswhichcancelsitspower andhandsitovertotruth”(DE18).Beyondandthroughsuch determinatenegation,adialecticalenlightenmentofenlightenment alsorecallstheoriginandgoalofthoughtitself.Suchrecollection istheworkoftheconceptastheself-reflectionofthought(der BegriffalsSelbstbesinnungdesDenkens,DE32).Conceptual self-reflectionrevealsthatthoughtarisesfromtheverycorporeal needsanddesiresthatgetforgottenwhenthoughtbecomesamere instrumentofhumanself-preservation.Italsorevealsthatthegoal ofthoughtisnottocontinuetheblinddominationofnatureand humansbuttopointtowardreconciliation.Adornoworksoutthe detailsofthisconceptioninhissubsequentlecturesonKant(KC), ethics(PMP),andmetaphysics(MCP)andinhisbooksonHusserl(AE), Hegel(H),andHeidegger(JA).Hismostcomprehensivestatementoccurs inNegativeDialectics,whichisdiscussedlater. 3.CriticalSocialTheory DialecticofEnlightenmentpresupposesacriticalsocial theoryindebtedtoKarlMarx.AdornoreadsMarxasaHegelian materialistwhosecritiqueofcapitalismunavoidablyincludesa critiqueoftheideologiesthatcapitalismsustainsandrequires.The mostimportantoftheseiswhatMarxcalled“thefetishismof commodities.”Marxaimedhiscritiqueofcommodityfetishismagainst bourgeoissocialscientistswhosimplydescribethecapitalisteconomy but,insodoing,simultaneouslymisdescribeitandprescribeafalse socialvision.AccordingtoMarx,bourgeoiseconomistsnecessarily ignoretheexploitationintrinsictocapitalistproduction.Theyfail tounderstandthatcapitalistproduction,forallitssurface“freedom” and“fairness,”mustextractsurplusvaluefromthelaborofthe workingclass.Likeordinaryproducersandconsumersundercapitalist conditions,bourgeoiseconomiststreatthecommodityasafetish.They treatitasifitwereaneutralobject,withalifeofitsown,that directlyrelatestoothercommodities,inindependencefromthehuman interactionsthatactuallysustainallcommodities.Marx,bycontrast, arguesthatwhatevermakesaproductacommoditygoesbacktohuman needs,desires,andpractices.Thecommoditywouldnothave“usevalue” ifitdidnotsatisfyhumanwants.Itwouldnothave“exchangevalue” ifnoonewishedtoexchangeitforsomethingelse.Anditsexchange valuecouldnotbecalculatedifthecommoditydidnotsharewithother commoditiesa“value”createdbytheexpenditureofhumanlaborpower andmeasuredbytheaveragelabortimesociallynecessarytoproduce commoditiesofvarioussorts. Adorno'ssocialtheoryattemptstomakeMarx'scentralinsights applicableto“latecapitalism.”AlthoughinagreementwithMarx's analysisofthecommodity,Adornothinkshiscritiqueofcommodity fetishismdoesnotgofarenough.Significantchangeshaveoccurredin thestructureofcapitalismsinceMarx'sday.Thisrequiresrevisions onanumberoftopics:thedialecticbetweenforcesofproductionand relationsofproduction;therelationshipbetweenstateandeconomy; thesociologyofclassesandclassconsciousness;thenatureand functionofideology;andtheroleofexpertcultures,suchasmodern artandsocialtheory,incriticizingcapitalismandcallingforthe transformationofsocietyasawhole. Theprimarycluestotheserevisionscomefromatheoryof reificationproposedbytheHungariansocialistGeorgLukácsin the1920sandfrominterdisciplinaryprojectsanddebatesconductedby membersoftheInstituteofSocialResearchinthe1930sand1940s. BuildingonMaxWeber'stheoryofrationalization,Lukácsargues thatthecapitalisteconomyisnolongeronesectorofsociety alongsideothers.Rather,commodityexchangehasbecomethecentral organizingprincipleforallsectorsofsociety.Thisallowscommodity fetishismtopermeateallsocialinstitutions(e.g.,law, administration,journalism)aswellasallacademicdisciplines, includingphilosophy.“Reification”refersto“thestructuralprocess wherebythecommodityformpermeateslifeincapitalistsociety.” Lukácswasespeciallyconcernedwithhowreificationmakeshuman beings“seemlikemerethingsobeyingtheinexorablelawsofthe marketplace”(Zuidervaart1991,76). InitiallyAdornosharedthisconcern,eventhoughheneverhad Lukács'sconfidencethattherevolutionaryworkingclasscould overcomereification.LaterAdornocalledthereificationof consciousnessan“epiphenomenon.”Whatacriticalsocialtheoryreally needstoaddressiswhyhunger,poverty,andotherformsofhuman sufferingpersistdespitethetechnologicalandscientificpotentialto mitigatethemortoeliminatethemaltogether.Therootcause,Adornosays, liesinhowcapitalistrelationsofproductionhavecometodominate societyasawhole,leadingtoextreme,albeitofteninvisible, concentrationsofwealthandpower(ND189–92).Societyhascometobe organizedaroundtheproductionofexchangevaluesforthesakeof producingexchangevalues,which,ofcourse,alwaysalreadyrequiresa silentappropriationofsurplusvalue.Adornoreferstothisnexusof productionandpowerasthe“principleofexchange” (Tauschprinzip).Asocietywherethisnexusprevailsisan “exchangesociety”(Tauschgesellschaft). Adorno'sdiagnosisoftheexchangesocietyhasthreelevels: politico-economic,social-psychological,andcultural.Politicallyand economicallyherespondstoatheoryofstatecapitalismproposedby FriedrichPollockduringthewaryears.Aneconomistbytrainingwho wassupposedtocontributeachaptertoDialecticof Enlightenmentbutneverdid(Wiggershaus1994,313–19),Pollock arguedthatthestatehadacquireddominanteconomicpowerinNazi Germany,theSovietUnion,andNewDealAmerica.Hecalledthisnew constellationofpoliticsandeconomics“statecapitalism.”While acknowledgingwithPollockthatpoliticalandeconomicpowerhave becomemoretightlymeshed,Adornodoesnotthinkthisfactchangesthe fundamentallyeconomiccharacterofcapitalistexploitation.Rather, suchexploitationhasbecomeevenmoreabstractthanitwasinMarx's day,andthereforeallthemoreeffectiveandpervasive. Thesocial-psychologicallevelinAdorno'sdiagnosisservesto demonstratetheeffectivenessandpervasivenessoflatecapitalist exploitation.HisAmericanstudiesofanti-Semitismandthe “authoritarianpersonality”arguethatthesepathologicallyextend“the logicoflatecapitalismitself,withitsassociateddialecticof enlightenment.”Peoplewhoembraceanti-Semitismandfascismtendto projecttheirfearofabstractdominationontothesupposedmediators ofcapitalism,whilerejectingaselitist“allclaimstoaqualitative differencetranscendingexchange”(Jarvis1998,63). Adorno'sculturalstudiesshowthatasimilarlogicprevailsin television,film,andtherecordingindustries.Infact,Adornofirst discoveredlatecapitalism'sstructuralchangethroughhisworkwith sociologistPaulLazarsfeldonthePrincetonUniversityRadioResearch Project.Hearticulatedthisdiscoveryinawidelyanthologizedessay “OntheFetish-CharacterinMusicandtheRegressionofListening” (1938)andin“TheCultureIndustry,”achapterinDialecticof Enlightenment.ThereAdornoarguesthatthecultureindustry involvesachangeinthecommoditycharacterofart,suchthatart's commoditycharacterisdeliberatelyacknowledgedandart“abjuresits autonomy”(DE127).Withitsemphasisonmarketability,theculture industrydispensesentirelywiththe“purposelessness”thatwas centraltoart'sautonomy.Oncemarketabilitybecomesatotaldemand, theinternaleconomicstructureofculturalcommodities shifts.Insteadofpromisingfreedomfromsocietallydictateduses, andtherebyhavingagenuineusevaluethatpeoplecanenjoy,products mediatedbythecultureindustryhavetheirusevalue replacedbyexchangevalue:“Everythinghasvalueonly insofarasitcanbeexchanged,notinsofarasitissomethingin itself.Forconsumerstheusevalueofart,itsessence,isafetish, andthefetish—thesocialvaluation[gesellschaftliche Schätzung]whichtheymistakeforthemerit[Rang] ofworksofart—becomesitsonlyusevalue,theonlyquality theyenjoy”(DE128).Hencethecultureindustrydissolvesthe “genuinecommoditycharacter”thatartworksoncepossessed whenexchangevaluestillpresupposedusevalue(DE 129–30).LackingabackgroundinMarxisttheory,anddesiringto securelegitimacyfor“massart”or“popular culture,”toomanyofAdorno'sanglophonecriticssimplyignore themainpointtohiscritiqueofthecultureindustry.Hismainpoint isthatculture-industrialhypercommercializationevidencesafateful shiftinthestructureofallcommoditiesandthereforeinthe structureofcapitalismitself. 4.AestheticTheory Philosophicalandsociologicalstudiesoftheartsandliteraturemake upmorethanhalfofAdorno'scollectedworks(Gesammelte Schriften).Allofhismostimportantsocial-theoreticalclaims showupinthesestudies.Yethis“aestheticwritings”are notsimply“applications”or“testcases”for thesesdevelopedin“nonaesthetic”texts.Adornorejects anysuchseparationofsubjectmatterfrommethodologyandallneat divisionsofphilosophyintospecializedsubdisciplines.Thisisone reasonwhyacademicspecialistsfindhistextssochallenging,not onlymusicologistsandliterarycriticsbutalsoepistemologistsand aestheticians.Allofhiswritingscontributetoacomprehensiveand interdisciplinarysocialphilosophy(Zuidervaart2007). FirstpublishedtheyearafterAdornodied,AestheticTheory markstheunfinishedculminationofhisremarkablyrichbodyof aestheticreflections.Itcastsretrospectivelightontheentire corpus.Italsocomesclosesttothemodelof“paratactical presentation”(Hullot-KentorinATxi-xxi)thatAdorno,inspired especiallybyWalterBenjamin,foundmostappropriateforhisown “atonalphilosophy.”Relentlesslytracingconcentriccircles, AestheticTheorycarriesoutadialecticaldouble reconstruction.Itreconstructsthemodernartmovementfromthe perspectiveofphilosophicalaesthetics.Itsimultaneously reconstructsphilosophicalaesthetics,especiallythatofKantand Hegel,fromtheperspectiveofmodernart.FrombothsidesAdorno triestoelicitthesociohistoricalsignificanceoftheartand philosophydiscussed. Adorno'sclaimsaboutartingeneralstemfromhisreconstructionof themodernartmovement.Soasummaryofhisphilosophyofart sometimesneedstosignalthisbyputting“modern”in parentheses.Thebookbeginsandendswithreflectionsonthesocial characterof(modern)art.Twothemesstandoutinthese reflections.OneisanupdatedHegelianquestionwhetherartcan surviveinalatecapitalistworld.TheotherisanupdatedMarxian questionwhetherartcancontributetothetransformationofthis world.Whenaddressingbothquestions,AdornoretainsfromKantthe notionthatartproper(“fineart”or“beautiful art”—schöneKunst—inKant's vocabulary)ischaracterizedbyformalautonomy.ButAdornocombines thisKantianemphasisonformwithHegel'semphasisonintellectual import(geistigerGehalt)andMarx'semphasisonart's embeddednessinsocietyasawhole.Theresultisacomplexaccountof thesimultaneousnecessityandillusorinessoftheartwork'sautonomy. Theartwork'snecessaryandillusoryautonomy,inturn,isthekeyto (modern)art'ssocialcharacter,namely,tobe“thesocial antithesisofsociety”(AT8). Adornoregardsauthenticworksof(modern)artassocialmonads.The unavoidabletensionswithinthemexpressunavoidableconflictswithin thelargersociohistoricalprocessfromwhichtheyariseandtowhich theybelong.Thesetensionsentertheartworkthroughtheartist's strugglewithsociohistoricallyladenmaterials,andtheycallforth conflictinginterpretations,manyofwhichmisreadeitherthe work-internaltensionsortheirconnectiontoconflictsinsocietyasa whole.Adornoseesallofthesetensionsandconflictsas “contradictions”tobeworkedthroughandeventuallytoberesolved. Theircompleteresolution,however,wouldrequireatransformationin societyasawhole,which,givenhissocialtheory,doesnotseem imminent. Ascommentaryandcriticism,Adorno'saestheticwritingsare unparalleledinthesubtletyandsophisticationwithwhichtheytrace work-internaltensionsandrelatethemtounavoidablesociohistorical conflicts.OnegetsfrequentglimpsesofthisinAesthetic Theory.Forthemostpart,however,thebookproceedsatthelevel of“thirdreflections”—reflectionsoncategoriesemployedinactual commentaryandcriticism,withaviewtotheirsuitabilityforwhat artworksexpressandtotheirsocietalimplications.Typicallyhe elaboratesthesecategoriesaspolaritiesordialecticalpairs. Onesuchpolarity,andacentraloneinAdorno'stheoryofartworks associalmonads,occursbetweenthecategoriesofimport (Gehalt)andfunction(Funktion).Adorno'saccountof thesecategoriesdistinguisheshissociologyofartfromboth hermeneuticalandempiricalapproaches.Ahermeneuticalapproachwould emphasizetheartwork'sinherentmeaningoritsculturalsignificance anddownplaytheartwork'spoliticaloreconomicfunctions.An empiricalapproachwouldinvestigatecausalconnectionsbetweenthe artworkandvarioussocialfactorswithoutaskinghermeneutical questionsaboutitsmeaningorsignificance.Adorno,bycontrast, arguesthat,bothascategoriesandasphenomena,importandfunction needtobeunderstoodintermsofeachother.Ontheonehand,an artwork'simportanditsfunctionsinsocietycanbediametrically opposed.Ontheotherhand,onecannotgiveaproperaccountofan artwork'ssocialfunctionsifonedoesnotraiseimport-related questionsabouttheirsignificance.Sotoo,anartwork'simport embodiesthework'ssocialfunctionsandhaspotentialrelevancefor varioussocialcontexts.Ingeneral,however,andinlinewithhis critiquesofpositivismandinstrumentalizedreason,Adornogivespriority toimport,understoodassocietallymediatedandsociallysignificant meaning.Thesocialfunctionsemphasizedinhisowncommentariesand criticismsareprimarilyintellectualfunctionsratherthan straightforwardlypoliticaloreconomicfunctions.Thisisconsistent withahyperbolicversionoftheclaimthat(modern)artissociety's socialantithesis:“Insofarasasocialfunctioncanbepredicatedfor artworks,itistheirfunctionlessness”(AT227). ThepriorityofimportalsoinformsAdorno'sstanceonartand politics,whichderivesfromdebateswithLukács,Benjamin,and BertoltBrechtinthe1930s(Lunn1982;Zuidervaart1991, 28–43).Becauseoftheshiftincapitalism'sstructure,andbecauseof Adorno'sowncomplexemphasison(modern)art'sautonomy,hedoubts boththeeffectivenessandthelegitimacyoftendentious,agitative, ordeliberatelyconsciousness-raisingart.Yethedoesseepolitically engagedartasapartialcorrectivetothebankruptaestheticismof muchmainstreamart.Undertheconditionsoflatecapitalism,the bestart,andpoliticallythemosteffective,sothoroughlyworksout itsowninternalcontradictionsthatthehiddencontradictionsin societycannolongerbeignored.TheplaysofSamuelBeckett,towhom AdornohadintendedtodedicateAestheticTheory,are emblematicinthatregard.Adornofindsthemmoretruethanmany otherartworks. Arguably,theideaof“truthcontent”(Wahrheitsgehalt)is thepivotalcenteraroundwhichalltheconcentriccirclesofAdorno's aestheticsturn(Zuidervaart1991;Wellmer1991,1–35;Jarvis1998, 90–123).Togainaccesstothiscenter,onemusttemporarilysuspend standardtheoriesaboutthenatureoftruth(whetheras correspondence,coherence,orpragmaticsuccess)andallowfor artistictruthtobedialectical,disclosive,and nonpropositional.AccordingtoAdorno,eachartworkhasitsownimport (Gehalt)byvirtueofaninternaldialecticbetweencontent (Inhalt)andform(Form).Thisimportinvites criticaljudgmentsaboutitstruthorfalsity.Todojusticetothe artworkanditsimport,suchcriticaljudgmentsneedtograspboththe artwork'scomplexinternaldynamicsandthedynamicsofthe sociohistoricaltotalitytowhichtheartworkbelongs.Theartworkhas aninternaltruthcontenttotheextentthattheartwork'simportcan befoundinternallyandexternallyeithertrueorfalse.Suchtruth contentisnotametaphysicalideaoressencehoveringoutsidethe artwork.Butneitherisitamerelyhumanconstruct.Itishistorical butnotarbitrary;nonpropositional,yetcallingforpropositional claimstobemadeaboutit;utopianinitsreach,yetfirmlytiedto specificsocietalconditions.Truthcontentisthewayinwhichan artworksimultaneouslychallengesthewaythingsareandsuggestshow thingscouldbebetter,butleavesthingspracticallyunchanged:“Art hastruthasthesemblanceoftheillusionless”(AT132). 5.NegativeDialectics Adorno'sideaofartistictruthcontentpresupposesthe epistemologicalandmetaphysicalclaimsheworksoutmostthoroughly inNegativeDialectics.Theseclaims,inturn,consolidate andextendthehistoriographicandsocial-theoreticalarguments alreadycanvassed.AsSimonJarvisdemonstrates,Negative Dialecticstriestoformulatea“philosophicalmaterialism”that ishistoricalandcriticalbutnotdogmatic.Alternatively,onecan describethebookasa“metacritique”ofidealistphilosophy, especiallyofthephilosophyofKantandHegel(Jarvis1998, 148–74;O'Connor2004).Adornosaysthebookaimstocompletewhatheconsideredhis lifelongtaskasaphilosopher:“tousethestrengthofthe [epistemic]subjecttobreakthroughthedeception[Trug]of constitutivesubjectivity”(NDxx). Thisoccursinfourstages.First,alongIntroduction(ND1–57) worksoutaconceptof“philosophicalexperience”that bothchallengesKant'sdistinctionbetween“phenomena”and “noumena”andrejectsHegel'sconstructionof “absolutespirit.”ThenPartOne(ND59–131) distinguishesAdorno'sprojectfromthe“fundamental ontology”inHeidegger'sBeingandTime.PartTwo(ND 133–207)worksoutAdorno'salternativewithrespecttothe categorieshereconfiguresfromGermanidealism.PartThree(ND 209–408),composingnearlyhalfthebook,elaborates philosophical“models.”Thesepresentnegativedialectics inactionuponkeyconceptsofmoralphilosophy (“freedom”),philosophyofhistory(“world spirit”and“naturalhistory”),and metaphysics.Adornosaysthefinalmodel,devotedtometaphysical questions,“triesbycriticalselfreflectiontogivethe Copernicanrevolutionanaxialturn”(NDxx).AlludingtoKant's self-proclaimed“secondCopernicanrevolution,”this descriptionechoesAdorno'scommentaboutbreakingthroughthe deceptionofconstitutivesubjectivity. LikeHegel,AdornocriticizesKant'sdistinctionbetweenphenomenaand noumenabyarguingthatthetranscendentalconditionsofexperience canbeneithersopurenorsoseparatefromeachotherasKantseems toclaim.Asconcepts,forexample,theaprioricategoriesofthefacultyof understanding(Verstand)wouldbeunintelligibleiftheywere notalreadyaboutsomethingthatisnonconceptual.Conversely,the supposedlypureformsofspaceandtimecannotsimplybenonconceptual intuitions.Notevenatranscendentalphilosopherwouldhaveaccessto themapartfromconceptsaboutthem.Sotoo,whatmakespossibleany genuineexperiencecannotsimplybethe“application”ofapriori conceptstoaprioriintuitionsviathe“schematism”ofthe imagination(Einbildungskraft).Genuineexperienceismade possiblebythatwhichexceedsthegraspofthoughtand sensibility.Adornodoesnotcallthisexcessthe“thinginitself,” however,forthatwouldassumetheKantianframeworkhe criticizes.Rather,hecallsit“thenonidentical”(das Nichtidentische). Theconceptofthenonidentical,inturn,marksthedifferencebetween Adorno'smaterialismandHegel'sidealism.AlthoughhesharesHegel's emphasisonaspeculativeidentitybetweenthoughtandbeing,between subjectandobject,andbetweenreasonandreality,Adornodeniesthat thisidentityhasbeenachievedinapositivefashion.Forthemost partthisidentityhasoccurrednegativelyinstead.Thatistosay, humanthought,inachievingidentityandunity,hasimposedtheseupon objects,suppressingorignoringtheirdifferencesanddiversity. Suchimpositionisdrivenbyasocietalformationwhoseexchange principledemandstheequivalence(exchangevalue)ofwhatis inherentlynonequivalent(usevalue).WhereasHegel'sspeculative identityamountstoanidentitybetweenidentityandnonidentity, Adorno'samountstoanonidentitybetweenidentityandnonidentity. ThatiswhyAdornocallsfora“negativedialectic”and whyherejectstheaffirmativecharacterofHegel'sdialectic(ND 143–61). Adornodoesnotrejectthenecessityofconceptualidentification, however,nordoeshisphilosophyclaimtohavedirectaccesstothe nonidentical.Undercurrentsocietalconditions,thoughtcanonlyhave accesstothenonidenticalviaconceptualcriticismsoffalse identifications.Suchcriticismsmustbe“determinatenegations,” pointingupspecificcontradictionsbetweenwhatthoughtclaimsand whatitactuallydelivers.Throughdeterminatenegation,thoseaspects oftheobjectwhichthoughtmisidentifiesreceiveanindirect, conceptualarticulation. ThemotivationforAdorno'snegativedialecticisnotsimply conceptual,however,norareitsintellectualresources.His epistemologyis“materialist”inbothregards.Itis motivated,hesays,byundeniablehumansuffering—afactof unreason,ifyouwill,tocounterKant's“factofreason.” Sufferingisthecorporealimprintofsocietyandtheobjectupon humanconsciousness:“Theneedtoletsufferingspeakisa conditionofalltruth.Forsufferingisobjectivitythatweighsupon thesubject…”(ND17–18).Theresourcesavailable tophilosophyinthisregardincludethe“expressive”or “mimetic”dimensionsoflanguage,whichconflictwith “ordinary”(i.e.,societallysanctioned)syntaxand semantics.Inphilosophy,thisrequiresanemphasison “presentation”(Darstellung)inwhichlogical stringencyandexpressiveflexibilityinteract(ND18–19, 52–53).Anotherresourceliesinunscriptedrelationshipsamong establishedconcepts.Bytakingsuchconceptsoutoftheirestablished patternsandrearrangingthemin“constellations”arounda specificsubjectmatter,philosophycanunlocksomeofthehistorical dynamichiddenwithinobjectswhoseidentityexceedsthe classificationsimposeduponthem(ND52–53,162–66). Whatunifiesallofthesedesiderata,andwhatmostclearly distinguishesAdorno'smaterialistepistemologyfrom“idealism,” whetherKantianorHegelian,ishisinsistingonthe“priorityofthe object”(VorrangdesObjekts,ND183–97).Adornoregardsas “idealist”anyphilosophythataffirmsanidentitybetweensubjectand objectandtherebyassignsconstitutiveprioritytotheepistemic subject.Ininsistingonthepriorityoftheobject,Adornorepeatedly makesthreeclaims:first,thattheepistemicsubjectisitself objectivelyconstitutedbythesocietytowhichitbelongsandwithout whichthesubjectcouldnotexist;second,thatnoobjectcanbefully knownaccordingtotherulesandproceduresofidentitarianthinking; third,thatthegoalofthoughtitself,evenwhenthoughtforgetsits goalundersocietallyinducedpressurestoimposeidentityonobjects, istohonorthemintheirnonidentity,intheirdifferencefromwhata restrictedrationalitydeclaresthemtobe.Againstempiricism, however,hearguesthatnoobjectissimply“given”either,both becauseitcanbeanobjectonlyinrelationtoasubjectandbecause objectsarehistoricalandhavethepotentialtochange. Undercurrentconditionstheonlywayforphilosophytogivepriority totheobjectisdialectically,Adornoargues.Hedescribesdialectics astheattempttorecognizethenonidentitybetweenthoughtandthe objectwhilecarryingouttheprojectofconceptual identification.Dialecticsis“theconsistentconsciousnessof nonidentity,”andcontradiction,itscentralcategory,is“the nonidenticalundertheaspectofidentity.”Thoughtitselfforcesthis emphasisoncontradictionuponus,hesays.Tothinkistoidentify, andthoughtcanachievetruthonlybyidentifying.Sothesemblance (Schein)oftotalidentityliveswithinthoughtitself, mingledwiththought'struth(Wahrheit).Theonlywayto breakthroughthesemblanceoftotalidentityisimmanently,usingthe concept.Accordingly,everythingthatisqualitativelydifferentand thatresistsconceptualizationwillshowupasacontradiction.“The contradictionisthenonidenticalundertheaspectof[conceptual] identity;theprimacyoftheprincipleofcontradictionindialectics teststheheterogeneousaccordingtounitarythought [Einheitsdenken].Bycollidingwithitsownboundary [Grenze],unitarythoughtsurpassesitself.Dialecticsisthe consistentconsciousnessofnonidentity”(ND5). Butthinkingincontradictionsisalsoforceduponphilosophyby societyitself.Societyisrivenwithfundamentalantagonisms,which, inaccordancewiththeexchangeprinciple,getcoveredupby identitarianthought.Theonlywaytoexposetheseantagonisms,and therebytopointtowardtheirpossibleresolution,istothinkagainst thought—inotherwords,tothinkincontradictions.Inthisway “contradiction”cannotbeascribedneatlytoeitherthoughtor reality.Insteaditisa“categoryofreflection” (Reflexionskategorie),enablingathoughtfulconfrontation betweenconcept(Begriff)andsubjectmatterorobject (Sache):“Toproceeddialecticallymeanstothinkin contradictions,forthesakeofthecontradictionalreadyexperienced intheobject[Sache],andagainstthatcontradiction.A contradictioninreality,[dialectics]isacontradictionagainst reality”(ND144–45). Thepointofthinkingincontradictionsisnotsimplynegative, however.Ithasafragile,transformativehorizon,namely,asociety thatwouldnolongerberivenwithfundamentalantagonisms,thinking thatwouldberidofthecompulsiontodominatethroughconceptual identification,andtheflourishingofparticularobjectsintheir particularity.BecauseAdornoisconvincedthatcontemporarysociety hastheresourcestoalleviatethesufferingitnevertheless perpetuates,hisnegativedialecticshasautopianreach:“Inviewof theconcretepossibilityofutopia,dialecticsistheontologyofthe falsecondition.Arightconditionwouldbefreedfromdialectics,no moresystemthancontradiction”(ND11).Sucha“rightcondition” wouldbeoneofreconciliationbetweenhumansandnature,including thenaturewithinhumanbeings,andamonghumanbeings themselves.ThisideaofreconciliationsustainsAdorno'sreflections onethicsandmetaphysics. 6.EthicsandMetaphysicsafterAuschwitz LikeAdorno'sepistemology,hismoralphilosophyderivesfroma materialisticmetacritiqueofGermanidealism.Themodelon“Freedom” inNegativeDialectics(ND211–99)conductsametacritiqueof Kant'scritiqueofpracticalreason.Sotoo,themodelon“World SpiritandNaturalHistory”(ND300–60)providesametacritiqueof Hegel'sphilosophyofhistory.Bothmodelssimultaneouslycarryouta subterraneandebatewiththeMarxisttradition,andthisdebateguides Adorno'sappropriationofbothKantianandHegelian“practical philosophy.” ThefirstsectionintheIntroductiontoNegativeDialectics indicatesthedirectionAdorno'sappropriationwilltake(ND 3–4).Thereheaskswhetherandhowphilosophyisstill possible.AdornoasksthisagainstthebackdropofKarlMarx's ThesesonFeuerbach,whichfamouslyproclaimedthat philosophy'staskisnotsimplytointerprettheworldbuttochange it.Indistinguishinghishistoricalmaterialismfromthesensory materialismofLudwigFeuerbach,Marxportrayshumanbeingsas fundamentallyproductiveandpoliticalorganismswhoseinterrelations arenotmerelyinterpersonalbutsocietalandhistorical.Marx's emphasisonproduction,politics,society,andhistorytakeshis epistemologyina“pragmatic” direction.“Truth”doesnotindicatetheabstract correspondencebetweenthoughtandreality,betweenpropositionand fact,hesays.Instead,“truth”referstotheeconomic, political,societal,andhistoricalfruitfulnessofthoughtin practice. AlthoughAdornosharesmanyofMarx'santhropologicalintuitions,he thinksthatatwentieth-centuryequationoftruthwithpractical fruitfulnesshaddisastrouseffectsonbothsidesoftheironcurtain. TheIntroductiontoNegativeDialecticsbeginsbymakingtwo claims.First,althoughapparentlyobsolete,philosophyremains necessarybecausecapitalismhasnotbeenoverthrown.Second,Marx's interpretationofcapitalistsocietywasinadequateandhiscritique isoutmoded.Hence,praxisnolongerservesasanadequatebasisfor challenging(philosophical)theory.Infact,praxisservesmostlyasa pretextforshuttingdownthetheoreticalcritiquethattransformative praxiswouldrequire.Havingmissedthemomentofitsrealization(via theproletarianrevolution,accordingtoearlyMarx),philosophytoday mustcriticizeitself:itssocietalnaivete,itsintellectual antiquation,itsinabilitytograspthepoweratworkinindustrial latecapitalism.Whilestillpretendingtograspthewhole,philosophy failstorecognizehowthoroughlyitdependsuponsocietyasawhole, allthewayintophilosophy's“immanenttruth”(ND 4).Philosophymustshedsuchnaivete.Itmustask,asKantasked aboutmetaphysicsafterHume'scritiqueofrationalism,Howis philosophystillpossible?Morespecifically,How,afterthecollapse ofHegelianthought,isphilosophystillpossible?Howcanthe dialecticalefforttoconceptualizethenonconceptual—whichMarx alsopursued—howcanthisphilosophybecontinued? Thisself-implicatingcritiqueoftherelationbetweentheoryand practiceisonecrucialsourcetoAdorno'sreflectionsonethicsand metaphysics.Anotheristhecatastrophicimpactoftwentieth-century historyontheprospectsforimaginingandachievingamorehumane world.Adorno'sisanethicsandmetaphysics“afterAuschwitz” (Bernstein2001,371–414;Zuidervaart2007,48–76).Ethically,he says,Hitler'sbarbarismimposesa“newcategoricalimperative”on humanbeingsintheirconditionofunfreedom:sotoarrangetheir thoughtandactionthat“Auschwitzwouldnotrepeatitself,[that] nothingsimilarwouldhappen”(ND365).Metaphysically,philosophers mustfindhistoricallyappropriatewaystospeakaboutmeaningand truthandsufferingthatneitherdenynoraffirmtheexistenceofa worldtranscendenttotheoneweknow.Whereasdenyingitwould suppressthesufferingthatcallsoutforfundamentalchange, straightforwardlyaffirmingtheexistenceofutopiawouldcutoffthe critiqueofcontemporarysocietyandthestruggletochangeit.The basisforAdorno'sdoublestrategyisnotahiddenontology,assome havesuggested,butrathera“speculative”or“metaphysical” experience.Adornoappealstotheexperiencethatthoughtwhich“does notdecapitateitself”flowsintotheideaofaworldwhere“notonly extantsufferingwouldbeabolishedbutalsosufferingthatis irrevocablypastwouldberevoked”(403).Neitherlogicalpositivist antimetaphysicsnorHeideggerianhypermetaphysicscandojusticeto thisexperience. Adornoindicateshisownalternativetobothtraditionalmetaphysics andmorerecentantimetaphysicsinpassagesthatjuxtaposeresolute self-criticismandimpassionedhope.Hishistoriographic,social theoretical,aesthetic,andnegativedialecticalconcernsmeetin passagessuchasthis: Thoughtthatdoesnotcapitulatebefore wretchedexistencecomestonoughtbeforeitscriteria,truthbecomes untruth,philosophybecomesfolly.Andyetphilosophycannotgiveup, lestidiocytriumphinactualizedunreason[Widervernunft] …Follyistruthintheshapethathumanbeingsmustaccept whenever,amidtheuntrue,theydonotgiveuptruth.Evenatthe highestpeaksartissemblance;butartreceivesthesemblance …fromnonsemblance[vom Scheinlosen] … .Nolightfallsonpeopleand thingsinwhichtranscendencewouldnotappear [widerschiene].Indelibleinresistancetothefungibleworld ofexchangeistheresistanceoftheeyethatdoesnotwantthe world'scolorstovanish.Insemblancenonsemblanceispromised(ND 404–5). Addressingsuchpassagesiscrucialintheongoingassessmentof Adorno'sphilosophy. Bibliography Section1listsmanyofAdorno'sbooksinEnglish,includingseveral heco-authored,intheorderoftheirabbreviations.Section2lists someanthologiesofAdorno'swritingsinEnglish.Bookslistedin section1withoutabbreviationswereoriginallypublishedinEnglish; allotherswereoriginallypublishedinGerman.Adateinparentheses followingatitleindicateseitherthefirstGermaneditionor,inthe caseofposthumouspublications,thedateoftheoriginal lectures.Oftenthetranslationscitedabovehavebeensilently modified.Theabbreviation“GS”or“NS”after anentrybelowtellswherethisbookcanbefoundinAdorno's collectedwritings.“GS”indicateswritingspublished duringAdorno'slifetimeandcollectedinthe20volumesofTheodor W.Adorno, GesammelteSchriften,editedbyRolfTiedemannetal. (FrankfurtamMain:Suhrkamp,1970–1986).“NS” indicatesposthumousworksthatareappearingaseditionsofthe TheodorW.AdornoArchiveinthecollectionNachgelassene Schriften(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1993–). FormoreextensiveAdornobibliographies,seeHuhn2004, Müller-Doohm2005,andZuidervaart2014,anannotated bibliography. PrimaryLiterature AT AestheticTheory(1970),trans.R.Hullot-Kentor, Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997.(GS7) AE AgainstEpistemology:AMetacritique;StudiesinHusserland thePhenomenologicalAntinomies(1956),trans.W.Domingo, Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1982.(GS5) — TheAuthoritarianPersonality,T.W.Adorno,etal.,New York:Harper&Brothers,1950.(GS9.1) B AlbanBerg:MasteroftheSmallestLink(1968),trans.J. BrandandC.Hailey,NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,1991.(GS 13) BPM Beethoven:ThePhilosophyofMusic;FragmentsandTexts (1993),ed.R.Tiedemann,trans.E.Jephcott,Cambridge:PolityPress, 1998.(NSI.1) CC TheCompleteCorrespondence,1928–1940(1994),T.W. AdornoandW.Benjamin,ed.H.Lonitz,trans.N.Walker,Cambridge: PolityPress,1999. CM CriticalModels:InterventionsandCatchwords(1963, 1969),trans.H.W.Pickford,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress, 1998.(GS10.2) DE DialecticofEnlightenment:PhilosophicalFragments (1947),M.HorkheimerandT.W.Adorno,ed.G.S.Noerr,trans.E. Jephcott,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2002.(GS 3) H Hegel:ThreeStudies(1963),trans.S.WeberNicholsen, Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1993.(GS5) HF HistoryandFreedom:Lectures1964-1965,trans.R.Livingstone, Cambridge,Mass.:Polity,2006. IS IntroductiontoSociology(1968),ed.C.Gödde, trans.E.Jephcott,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2000.(NSIV.15) JA TheJargonofAuthenticity(1964),trans.K.Tarnowskiand F.Will,London:Routledge&KeganPaul,1973.(GS6) KC Kant'sCritiqueofPureReason(1959),ed.R.Tiedemann, trans.R.Livingstone,Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2001.(NSIV.4) KCA Kierkegaard:ConstructionoftheAesthetic(1933),trans. R.Hullot-Kentor,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1989.(GS 2) LND LecturesonNegativeDialectics:FragmentsofaLectureCourse 1965/1966,ed.R.Tiedemann,trans.R.Livingstone,Cambridge: Polity,2008.(NSIV.16) M Mahler:AMusicalPhysiognomy(1960),trans.E.Jephcott, Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1988.(GS13) MCP Metaphysics:ConceptandProblems(1965),ed.R. Tiedemann,trans.E.Jephcott,StanfordUniversityPress,2000.(NSIV.14) MM MinimaMoralia:ReflectionsfromDamagedLife(1951), trans.E.F.N.Jephcott,London:NLB,1974.(GS4) ND NegativeDialectics(1966),trans.E.B.Ashton,NewYork: SeaburyPress,1973.(GS6) NL NotestoLiterature(1958,1961,1965,1974),2vols., ed.R.Tiedemann,trans.S.WeberNicholsen,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1991,1992.(GS 11) P Prisms(1955),trans.S.WeberandS.Weber,London: NevilleSpearman,1967;Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress,1981.(GS 10.1) PM PhilosophyofNewMusic(1949),trans.,ed.,andwithan introductionbyR.Hullot-Kentor,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota Press,2006.(GS12) PMP ProblemsofMoralPhilosophy(1963),ed.T.Schröder, trans.R.Livingstone,UniversityPress,2000.(NSIV.10) PS ThePositivistDisputeinGermanSociology(1969),T.W. Adorno,etal.,trans.G.AdeyandD.Frisby,London:Heinemann,1976. (GS8) W InSearchofWagner(1952),trans.R.Livingstone,London: NLB,1981.(GS13) 2.AdornoAnthologies TheAdornoReader,ed.B.O'Connor,Oxford:Blackwell, 2000. CanOneLiveafterAuschwitz?:APhilosophicalReader, ed.R.Tiedemann,trans.R.Livingstoneetal.,Stanford:Stanford UniversityPress,2003. TheCultureIndustry:SelectedEssaysonMassCulture, ed.J.M.Bernstein,London:Routledge,1991. EssaysonMusic:TheodorW.Adorno,ed.R.D.Leppert, trans.S.H.Gillespieetal.,Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press,2002. 3.SecondaryLiterature Benhabib,S.,1986,Critique,Norm,andUtopia:AStudyofthe FoundationsofCriticalTheory,NewYork:ColombiaUniversity Press. Benzer,M.,2011,TheSociologyofTheodorAdorno, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Bernstein,J.M.,1992,TheFateofArt:AestheticAlienation fromKanttoDerridaandAdorno,UniversityPark:Pennsylvania StateUniversityPress. –––,2001,Adorno:Disenchantmentand Ethics,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. –––(ed.),2010,ArtandAestheticsafter Adorno,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Boucher,G.,2013,AdornoReframed:InterpretingKeyThinkers fortheArts,London:I.B.Tauris. Bowie,A.,2013,AdornoandtheEndsofPhilosophy, Cambridge,Mass.:Polity. Brittain,C.C.,2010,AdornoandTheology,London: T.&T.Clark. Brunkhorst,H.,1999,AdornoandCriticalTheory, Cardiff:UniversityofWalesPress. Buck-Morss,S.,1977,TheOriginofNegativeDialectics; TheodorW.Adorno,WalterBenjaminandtheFrankfurtInstitute, NewYork:FreePress. Bürger,P.,1984,TheoryoftheAvantGarde, trans.M.Shaw,Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Burke,D.A.,etal.(eds.),2007,AdornoandtheNeedin Thinking:NewCriticalEssays,Toronto:UniversityofToronto Press. Claussen,D.,2008,TheodorW.Adorno:OneLastGenius, trans.R.Livingstone,Cambridge,Mass.:HarvardUniversity Press. Cook,D.,2004,Adorno,Habermas,andtheSearchfora RationalSociety,NewYork:Routledge. –––,2011,AdornoonNature,Durham, UK:Acumen. –––(ed.),2008,TheodorAdorno:Key Concepts,Durham,UK:Acumen. deVries,H.,2005,MinimalTheologies:CritiquesofSecular ReasoninAdornoandLevinas,trans.G.Hale,Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress. Foster,R.,2007,Adorno:TheRecoveryofExperience, Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. FrankfurterAdornoBlätter,1992–2003, ed.TheodorW.AdornoArchiv,Munich:EditionText+ Kritik.(Publishedannually,moreorless.) Freyenhagen,F.,2013,Adorno’sPracticalPhilosophy: LivingLessWrongly,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Gibson,N.C.,andA.Rubin,(eds.),2002,Adorno:ACritical Reader,Oxford:Blackwell. Geuss,R.,2005,OutsideEthics,Princeton:Princeton UniversityPress. Habermas,J.,1987,ThePhilosophicalDiscourseofModernity: TwelveLectures,trans.F.Lawrence,Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press. Hammer,E.,2005,AdornoandthePolitical,NewYork: Routledge. –––,2015,Adorno’sModernism:Art, Experience,andCatastrophe,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Hansen,M.B.,2012,CinemaandExperience:Siegfried Kracauer,WalterBenjamin,andTheodorW.Adorno,Berkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Heberle,R.J.(ed.),2006,FeministInterpretationsof TheodorAdorno.UniversityPark:PennsylvaniaStateUniversity Press. Hellings,J.,2014,AdornoandArt:AestheticTheorycontra CriticalTheory,Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire:Palgrave Macmillan. Hohendahl,P.U.,1995,PrismaticThought:TheodorW. Adorno,Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress. –––,2013,TheFleetingPromiseofArt: Adorno’sAestheticTheoryRevisited,Ithaca,N.Y.:Cornell UniversityPress. Honneth,Axel,1991,TheCritiqueofPower:ReflectiveStages inaCriticalSocialTheory,trans.K.Baynes,Cambridge,Mass.: MITPress. –––,2009,PathologiesofReason:Onthe LegacyofCriticalTheory,trans.J.Ingrametal.,NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress. Huhn,T.,andL.Zuidervaart(eds.),1997,TheSemblanceof Subjectivity:EssaysinAdorno'sAestheticTheory,Cambridge, Mass.:MITPress. Huhn,T.(ed.),2004,TheCambridgeCompaniontoAdorno, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Hullot-Kentor,R.,2006,ThingsbeyondResemblance:Collected EssaysonTheodorW.Adorno,NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity Press. Jäger,L.,2004,Adorno:APoliticalBiography, trans.S.Spencer,NewHaven,Conn.:YaleUniversityPress. Jameson,F.1990,LateMarxism:Adorno,or,ThePersistenceof theDialectic,London;NewYork:Verso. Jarvis,S.,1998,Adorno:ACriticalIntroduction,New York:Routledge. –––(ed.),2006,TheodorAdorno,4 vols.,London:Routledge. Jay,M.,1984,Adorno,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard UniversityPress. –––,1996,TheDialecticalImagination, 2ded.,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Jenemann,D.,2007,AdornoinAmerica,Minneapolis: UniversityofMinnesotaPress. Krakauer,E.L.,1998,TheDispositionoftheSubject:Reading Adorno'sDialecticofTechnology,Evanston,Ill.:Northwestern UniversityPress. Lee,L.Y.,2005,DialecticsoftheBody:Corporealityinthe PhilosophyofT.W.Adorno,NewYork:Routledge. Lunn,E.,1982,MarxismandModernism:AnHistoricalStudyof Lukács,Brecht,Benjamin,andAdorno,Berkeley:University ofCaliforniaPress. Macdonald,I.andK.Ziarek(eds.),2008,Adornoand Heidegger:PhilosophicalQuestions,Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press. Martinson,M.,2000,PerseverancewithoutDoctrine:Adorno, Self-Critique,andtheEndsofAcademicTheology,Frankfurtam Main:PeterLang. McArthur,J.,2013,RethinkingKnowledgewithinHigher Education:AdornoandSocialJustice,NewYork:Bloomsbury Academic. Menke,C.,1998,TheSovereigntyofArt:AestheticNegativity inAdornoandDerrida,trans.N.Solomon,Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press. Morgan,A.,2007,Adorno’sConceptofLife,New York:Continuum. Morris,M.,2001.RethinkingtheCommunicativeTurn:Adorno, Habermas,andtheProblemofCommunicativeFreedom,Albany:State UniversityofNewYorkPress. Müller-Doohm,S.,2005,Adorno:ABiography, trans.RodneyLivingstone,Cambridge:PolityPress. Nicholsen,S.W.,1997,ExactImagination,LateWork:On Adorno'sAesthetics,Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. O'Connor,B.,2004,Adorno'sNegativeDialectic:Philosophy andthePossibilityofCriticalRationality,Cambridge,Mass.: MITPress. –––,2013,Adorno,London: Routledge. Paddison,M.,1993,Adorno'sAestheticsofMusic,New York:CambridgeUniversityPress. Pensky,M.,(ed.),1997,TheActualityofAdorno:Critical EssaysonAdornoandthePostmodern,Albany:StateUniversityof NewYorkPress. Rensmann,L.,andS.Gandesha(eds.),2012,ArendtandAdorno: PoliticalandPhilosophicalInvestigations,Stanford,Calif.: StanfordUniversityPress. Rose,G.,1978,TheMelancholyScience:AnIntroductiontothe ThoughtofTheodorW.Adorno,London:MacmillanPress. Ross,N.(ed.),2015,TheAestheticGroundofCriticalTheory: NewReadingsofBenjaminandAdorno,Lanham,MD:Rowman& Littlefield. Schweppenhäuser,G.,2009,TheodorW.Adorno:An Introduction,Durham:DukeUniversityPress. Sherman,D.,2007,SartreandAdorno:TheDialecticsof Subjectivity,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Sherratt,Y.,2002,Adorno'sPositiveDialectic, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Shuster,M.,2014,AutonomyafterAuschwitz:Adorno,German Idealism,andModernity,Chicago:TheUniversityofChicago Press. Vogel,S.,1996,AgainstNature:TheConceptofNaturein CriticalTheory,Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress. Vries,H.de,2005,MinimalTheologies:CritiquesofSecular ReasoninAdornoandLevinas,trans.G.Hale.,Baltimore:Johns HopkinsUniversityPress. Wellmer,A.,1991,ThePersistenceofModernity:Essayson Aesthetics,Ethics,andPostmodernism,trans.D.Midgley, Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. –––,1998,Endgames:TheIrreconcilable NatureofModernity;EssaysandLectures,trans.D.Midgley, Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. Whitebook,J.,1995,PerversionandUtopia:AStudyin PsychoanalysisandCriticalTheory,Cambridge,Mass.:MIT Press. Wiggershaus,R.,1994,TheFrankfurtSchool:ItsHistory, Theories,andPoliticalSignificance,trans.M.Robertson, Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. Witkin,R.W.,2003,AdornoonPopularCulture,NewYork: Routledge. Zuidervaart,L.,1991,Adorno'sAestheticTheory:The RedemptionofIllusion,Cambridge,Mass.:MITPress. Zuidervaart,L.,etal.,1998,“Adorno,Theodor Wiesengrund,”EncyclopediaofAesthetics,Vol.1, pp.16–32,ed.M.Kelly,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress; secondedition,2014. Zuidervaart,L.,2007,SocialPhilosophyafterAdorno, Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Zuidervaart,L.,2014,“TheodorAdorno,”Oxford BibliographiesinPhilosophy,ed.D.Pritchard,Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press, abridgedversionavailableonline AcademicTools Howtocitethisentry. PreviewthePDFversionofthisentryatthe FriendsoftheSEPSociety. Lookuptopicsandthinkersrelatedtothisentry attheInternetPhilosophyOntologyProject(InPhO). Enhancedbibliographyforthisentry atPhilPapers,withlinkstoitsdatabase. OtherInternetResources ArchivesCenter/UniversityLibraryJ.C.Senckenberg attheJohannWolfgangGoetheUniversityinFrankfurt.Thisuniversity archivecontainstheliterarybequestsofHorkheimer,Pollock,and otherofAdorno’scolleaguesintheFrankfurtSchool. AssociationforAdornoStudies TheodorW.AdornoArchive/InstituteofSocialResearch, attheJohannWolfgangGoetheUniversityinFrankfurt. TheodorW.AdornoArchiveintheWalterBenjaminArchive, attheAkademiederKünsteinBerlin. RelatedEntries Benjamin,Walter| contradiction| criticaltheory| domination| Enlightenment| Habermas,Jürgen| Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich| Hegel,GeorgWilhelmFriedrich:dialectics| Heidegger,Martin| Horkheimer,Max| Husserl,Edmund| identity| Kant,Immanuel| Lukács,Georg[György]| Marx,Karl| Popper,Karl| postmodernism| rationality| truth| Weber,Max Copyright©2015by LambertZuidervaart OpenaccesstotheSEPismadepossiblebyaworld-widefundinginitiative. TheEncyclopediaNowNeedsYourSupport PleaseReadHowYouCanHelpKeeptheEncyclopediaFree Browse TableofContents What'sNew RandomEntry Chronological Archives About EditorialInformation AbouttheSEP EditorialBoard HowtoCitetheSEP SpecialCharacters AdvancedTools Contact SupportSEP SupporttheSEP PDFsforSEPFriends MakeaDonation SEPIAforLibraries MirrorSites Viewthissitefromanotherserver: USA(MainSite) Philosophy,StanfordUniversity Infoaboutmirrorsites TheStanfordEncyclopediaofPhilosophyiscopyright©2021byTheMetaphysicsResearchLab,DepartmentofPhilosophy,StanfordUniversity LibraryofCongressCatalogData:ISSN1095-5054



請為這篇文章評分?