February 1, 2007
Autonomy is a key ethical (and aesthetic) category for Adorno given his analysis of rationality.Though it enables humans to separate themselves from nature, and thus the dominance of the mythic, this entails also a dominance over the self and others. It is a a rationality which thereby subjects the human to a new myth. As this quote from the entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Adorno indicates, the autonomous individual is a threatened species in liberal capitalist societies:
Adorno argues that reason has become entwined with domination and has developed as a manifestation of the attempt to control nature. Adorno thus considers nihilism to be a consequence of domination and a testament, albeit in a negative sense, to the extent to which human societies are no longer enthral to, for example, moral visions grounded in some naturalistic conception of human well-being. For Adorno, this process has been so thorough and complete that we can no longer authoritatively identify the necessary constituents of the good life since the philosophical means for doing so have been vitiated by the domination of nature and the instrumentalization of reason. The role of the critical theorist is, therefore, not to positively promote some alternative, purportedly more just, vision of a morally grounded social and political order. This would be to far exceed the current bounds of the potential of reason. Rather, the critical theorist must fundamentally aim to retain and promote an awareness of the contingency of such conditions and the extent to which such conditions are capable of being changed.
I understand that, for Adorno, avant-garde art and music respond to this situation by preserving the truth through expressing the reality of human suffering. But how do we respond ethically? Where is the critical, emancipatory intent in Adorno's virtue ethics? Or is philosophical ethics grounded in aesthetic theory?
Without a revolutionary working class, Adorno had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the liberal capitalist social basis of the autonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic based on it became more and more abstract-- a negative dialectic based around the non-identical. We do have the gains of the sixties, the new possibilities for individual autonomy and spontaneity, the new acceptance of desire and creativity, and the new recognition of cultural pluralism.
So how does this square with Adorno? Clifford Duffy over at the eyebeam list says that Adorno is a historical relic, period:
Adorno's ideas about technology and by extension the web have also to be seen critically. He ideas represent a typical looking backward to the old dualities of machine verus the human of will versus power of organic verus non-organic. He has no means of integrating such sophisticated ideas as desire-machine, or body without organs, or plane of consistency. Nor has he the means of thinking (I mean this in exact transitive sense of actually thinking the object at hand, and not thinking about it) multiplicity as that which adds to the already made. He has no methods which allow him to see the ethical in a world which no longer even remotely thrives on the so-called classical verities. Adorno is plagued by the nostalgia and malaise of old Europe. A period which pre-dates the events and realites of the 20th. century. In that respect he shares with Heidegger a false understanding of technology and machines.
This kind of blanket dismissal is disturbing. Yet it is common.
|
I suspect Adorno would question the alleged notion of an acceptance of creativity, desire, etc. He, so I think anyway, would see the levelling of culture in all this, the illusion of this acceptance, or the illusion of creativity. What creativity? What desire? How is that determined?
In other words...the appearance of these things, is only that. False consciousness operates in an arena of the non-individual. Isnt Adorno concerned with the notions of what makes up the subject?
Now, I might bring up Deleuze here, or Lacan....and in general our notions of self (now more atomized) but to dismiss Adorno as a relic is absurd ---.