Do We Need Adorno?

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Todd S Cronan, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2012-08-17
• Publisher: Emory College of Arts and Sciences
• Publication Version: Final Published Version
• Copyright Statement: © 2020 all rights reserved.
• License: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
• Final Published Version (URL): https://nonsite.org/do-we-need-adorno/
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: NonSite
• Keywords: class conflict; Dialectic of Enlightenment; class; illusion; bourgeoisie; proletariat; identity; economics
• Research Categories: Sociology, Social Structure and Development; Economics, General

Abstract

According to J. M. Bernstein, “the point of [Horkheimer and Adorno’s] Dialectic of Enlightenment was to explain why the dialectic of class had come to a standstill.” The “conflictual dialectic of proletariat and bourgeoisie,” Bernstein writes, “is unavailable for interpretive purposes” (31). It bears noting that this is the only appearance of the term “class conflict” in the 428 pages of The Cambridge Companion to Adorno (2004). Bernstein’s point is made again by Simon Jarvis in the same volume when he writes that the “concept of class…designates not a real entity but a real illusion” (94). “There is,” he insists, “no such thing as a ‘class.’” Because to “classify a diverse group of people under a single concept inevitably misleadingly identifies them” (94). What real or potential use could emerge from this rereading of Marx? It’s a matter of understanding the sea change in Marxist analysis that Adorno initiated when he criticized the basic Marxist tenet that “economics has priority over domination; domination may not be deduced otherwise than economically” (Negative Dialectics). That domination exists without private property was presumed to point to a more basic fact about civilization than any economic analysis could explain. For Adorno the fact that “human beings…are always being humiliated” has absolute priority over any economic analysis (48). At stake is nothing less than a vision of Marxism as an analysis of humiliation, of shame, not exploitation.