Critique of Horkheimer and Adornos Critical Theory - Essay Example

Critique of Horkheimer and Adorno’s Critical Theory Introduction Critical theory is a sociological approach that seeks to give a direct apprehension of Marxist philosophy and a breakdown of some of its core socioeconomic ideologies such as fetishization, reification and critique of mass social culture. In essence, it alludes to the writing and evaluations adopted by western European Marxist customs that are displayed trough the Frankfurt School. In a condensed perspective, a Critical theory can be distinguished from conventional theories based on a specific practical purpose. According to critical theorists from the Frankfurt School, a theory can be considered as critical as long as it seeks to liberate people from the societal issues that subjugate them. Since such theories contrive to rationalize and transform all the issues that oppress people, numerous “critical theories” exist. They have been developed in line with the various social movements and campaigns that highlight varied dimensions regarding the governance of people in modern societies. A critical theory, therefore, provides the illustrative and prescriptive justifications for social monitoring that is in turn aimed at increasing freedom while at the same time reducing domination of people (Klapwijk 2010, p.4). The Critical theory is attributed to the workings of a group of Germans compose largely of social theorists who formed part of the Institute of Social Research established in Frankfurt in the early to mid-1920s. Their key concern was to determine how the scientific and technologically driven development process that resulted from the industrial revolution had unravelled into a problematic and dysfunctional system. Their critique with regards to this matter was therefore diverse and aimed to develop entirely new points of view concerning the approaches of modernity. Critical theory, therefore, begun by placing a Marxian political economy at the core of its analysis and reflecting earlier critical understandings as materialistic and in support of communism. One of the pronounced features of critical theory was based on the reasoning that social theory was unable to consider the familiar and observed as assured and permanent. Instead, it presented that all of social life was a depiction of the economic systems in existence and that social theories existed to determine how these systems affected the lives of individuals. Horkheimer argued in favour of the need to study how various categories of our inner awareness were shaped and influenced and the consequent result of what we saw as well as how we perceived as possible or impossible. According to him, this nether constituted a crude form of materialism where economic status directly influenced individual alertness nor did it stand as an idealist theory whereby material reality and consciousness are independent of each other. Instead, Critical theory defines the compound set of interventions that link consciousness and society, states and their citizens as well as economy with culture. Critical theorists established an approach that conflates the economic and materialistic aspects of life with an evaluation of people and their social psychology while attempting to tackle the issue of the agency-structure (Horkheimer, Adorno & Noerr 2002. p. 15). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Dialectic of Enlightenment is one of the famous works that has been undertaken under critical theory. Adorno and Horkheimer’s book incorporates a critique of Western modernization and rationality and a compelling critique about the ‘governed society’ thereby shifting the attention of critical theory to a philosophy of anthropology, philosophy of history as well as a philosophical critique of modern culture. The Dialectic of Enlightenment distances the authors from emphasized philosophical issues and Marxism and places the dominion of nature as the focal point of their analysis. The book adheres strongly to the influence of Adorno, whose views take on a more philosophical approach as compared to his co-writer. The argument that is developed within the context of the book stems from the fact that both writer were in exile at the time of their writing and were limited in their involvement with social movements. Enlightenment here refers to the 100 year period preceding the French Revolution in which writers like Rousseu came up with a critical take towards conventional societies and ideologies. According to Adorno and Horkheimer, all aspects of society including ideas and religions should be able to undergo some critique. However, they assert that is the compulsion of human rationale to social matters, with regards to empirical studies and reason, to attain a comprehension of the social world. On their own, empirical research and reason could not lead to the complete understanding of society and its issues. In essence, it is the application of a blend of the two that can lead to a better understanding and appreciation of the dynamics and frameworks of the social world. The question posed by the two writers in book seeks to investigate why humanity, rather than evolving into a truly human aspect, is instead moving towards a new type of barbarism. They perceived enlightenment to have been a lengthy development that begun from the time of the Greeks whereby enlightened thinking “freed people from mythical mentalities and aided them in in overcoming and gaining control over the forces of nature” (Klapwijk 2010, p.5). Whereas enlightenment is considered to bring about rationality as well as the dominion of nature, the authors argue that the only thing that people seek to learn from nature is with regard as to how to dominate it, as well as their fellow man. As a result, they point out that enlightenment no longer bear any semblance of liberation but is transformed into a totalitarian tool that utilizes reason to serve the interests of dominating other members of society by the elite. Despite their consideration of enlightenment as having progressive elements, they maintained such reason as mainly instrumental and dependent on a formal rationale and not as critical reason. The implications of this is that truth was then associated with certain scientific forms such as efficiency, math, logic, probability and quantification, with these particular forms of rationality being given more consideration over others. The writers identify science and technology as limiting forms of reason whereby every aspect required some form of calculation and formal equivalence and hence falling under the category of totalitarian thought that inhibits human innovation, individuality and uniqueness. Under this extreme analysis, there exist palpable shortcomings to their approach in that capitalism has not fallen in line with the expectations that were conceived in Nazi Germany. Drawbacks in Critical Theory Since its inception as a political enterprise, Critical theory aimed at unmasking the implicit power relations that dominated the economic and political structures of capitalism. The basis of cultural critique in this regard was premised on the notion that subluminal constructs defuse political manifestations and subsequently, political action. This insight was borrowed from Marx but was also emphasized by philosophers like Georg Lukacs in their teachings. It would be misleading to assert that the extreme critique of enlightenment rationality stipulated in Adorno and Horkheimer’s book and other works on critical theory can be simply implemented. In this regard, the sooner we realize that the critique of modernity as explained in Dialectic of Enlightenment is deluded by the authors’ understanding of reason and their perception of freedom from the shambles of intellectual history. What is evident here is that any critical or radical utilization of reason has disintegrated and that bourgeois values established during the 19th century have in effect been incorporated by the advancement of liberal capitalism against the minor conceptions of economic freedom as well as institutional democracy. The objective of modern critical thinking should focus on its feasibility as a metacritique of the reasoning behind which the prevailing political and cultural dispositions and institutions operate. The radical critique of rationality has, however, led to increased scepticism and the shift from the indictment of the enlightenment campaign in Adorno and Horkheimer’s concept to its utter dismissal in many aspects of critical theory. It is widely known that the purpose of the radical critique of rationale was to reveal that enlightenment indeed did have its own negative motives and that the working of instrumental reason remained the controlling pulse of modernity, assuring freedom but instead delivering imprisonment. Of course, this was ultimately intended as a prosecution of cultural modernity (Cohen 2010, p 590). The intended target of the critique was the measure at which instrumental rationale became comprehensive with regards to the cultural content of the modernized world. Where Georg Lukacs identified reification as the implications of the “cash nexus” of capitalism and its divisive effect on class consciousness, Horkheimer and Adorno perceived that the problem of reification precedes such institutional manifestations and that this is the fundamental driving force that facilitates the existence of capitalism and modernity. Much larger than Capitalism on its own, enlightenment reason, considered as the comprehensively formulated Cartesian ration, is the major instigator of the problems of humanity. The shortcomings of the critique of enlightenment may in actuality have some grave consequences on critical theory itself. Adorno‟s and Horkheimer‟s critique doesn’t just isolate the issues of instrumental reason and technological rationale. It does not differentiate between Wissenschaft and positivist science or between ration and other liberating types of reason. In a political setting, the elusion from reason or its destruction remains a shift towards irrationality, intuitionism, subjectivism and emotivism. Looking at it, none of the renowned critics of enlightenment including the likes of Burke, Hamann and Heidegger supported democracy. It therefore becomes unclear as to what Adorno and Horkheimer’s greater objective really was though Adorno’s later works point towards the direction of a clean break away from enlightenment rationality whereas Horkheimer’s path followed vestigial religious philosophy. The only clear thing is that Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of enlightenment does not offer anything that supports their view on how these contentious issues ought to be handled. Adorno and Horkheimer’s radical critique therefore fall short in this regard and requires some reconsideration. Although it may not completely make sense to assert that critical theory has faced challenges caused by the critique of enlightenment and reason as outlined in the Dialectic of Enlightenment, it certainly exposed paths through the dismissal of enlightenment thought remained possible as well as the likelihood of an elective affinity with reference to conservative political patterns and extreme intellectual ideologies, most of which were clearly evident in the workings of postmodernists who shared their doubt over enlightenment rationality. The assertion here is that in their mission to define the root of modernity’s wrong’s, their hastiness made them question the one fundamental aspect of thought that could in essence help man liberate himself from the problems they had created for themselves and in so doing, they had failed to show that critical theory can in essence right these wrongs. Despite the fact that that freedom and reason are not necessarily synonymous with each other though they do hinge on one another. Without visualizing the vital link to the tradition of Hegel and Marx, we cannot actively recreate a critical theory that seeks to right the ills of society and social freedom. The only thing that can be realized here therefore ceases to become a reconstruction and changes into a critique in itself of Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique of enlightenment reason as well as enlightenment so as to achieve the liberation of enlightenment from its inaccurate interpretations as depicted in the Dialectic of Enlightenment (Cohen 2010, p 592). From another point of view, the Dialectic of Enlightenment regards the hypostatization of reason as being accountable for the issues arising from modernity. In enlightenment, the proclamation of the overcoming of myth is in truth, nothing other than the conversion of myth into the enlightened notion of reason. Adorno and Horkheimer fuse enlightenment reason together with instrumental reason and in the event initialize a trend that moves towards an unpopular destruction of reason which in essence remains rooted in the customs of romantic anti-rationalism in contrast to their intentions. Reason, as the grasp of nature, is regarded as being at the heart of enlightenment thought. The appearance of every encompassing ratio transforms into a technological rationale that is embedded into the very framework of reason and an individual’s opposition to nature which is in turn conceived through enlightenment rationality as the counteractive force to human sovereignty. Nature’s position such a scenario is to be subdued by the human praxis. In this way, the dialectic is seen to begin taking shape by lowering the structure of rationality to the level of the structure of nature, thereby bringing out the eventual subjectivity of nature (Horkheimer, Adorno & Noerr 2002. p. 33). However, the radical assertions of Adorno and Horkheimer do not only reside in the development of their explanation of technological rationality. Dialectic of Enlightenment is, after all, a critique of culture and the impacts of rationalization as well as the cultural tendencies of human culture and society in its native environment and in correlation to itself. It is here, when the sense of technological rationality implants itself into the fabric of human culture that the real production of individualism is converted thereby transforming philosophy into anthropology. It is not that Dielectric of Enlightenment develops a critique concerning enlightened reason as a variance from conventional forms of thought. In contrast, enlightened reason is considered as a shift whereby there is maintained continuity with existing pre-enlightenment types of myth and rationalism, but currently enlightenment reason has developed into an effective means of the subjectivity of nature while concurrently being a more effectual channel through which others can be subdued. It is only through its transformation that is triggered by enlightened rationalism that the control of nature reaches the peak of its effectiveness. Enlightened rationalism becomes nothing more than for the purpose of domination as is largely seen in various instances of modernity. In this case as well, the Dialectic of Enlightenment fails to provide us with any tangible proof that critical theory offers an alternative solution to the need for domination. Here, the critique of reason and rationalism is seen to be similar to that of science. Science is made similar with positivism and the likelihood to minimize phenomena to the affair of relating things to technical and mathematical models. Enlightenment rationalism takes up a reductive inclination in modern thinking where all flux is diminished into manipulation prone scientific models. The difference highlighted here between subjective rationality and cognition is a crucial factor since its cultural manifestation is what translates into a problematic cause of the evils of modernity. The critique of science in this case becomes the critique of culture. Furthermore, the argument seeps into the very essence of thinking at the daily level. Associating subjective rationality and the positivist ideology of science infers that cognition has undergone complete reification. It is considered that enlightenment ratio has colonized cognition. However, this is an over statement since enlightenment reason cannot be fused with instrumental reason considering that enlightenment reason bears a complexity that the Dialectic of Enlightenment fails to fully appreciate (Cohen 2010, p 590). The positive moments attributed to enlightenment remain concealed by the extreme critique of enlightenment rationale. Habermas tries to highlight the progressive and extreme likelihood of enlightenment thought. The recognition of enlightenment reason with aspects of refined technology as relates to techno-productivity as well as the use of scientific reason in the manipulation and subjectivity of nature and the rise of rationalization for the purpose of its regulation and manipulation is as a result not very accurate. Enlightenment thought possesses liberating characteristic and acts as a vital go-between in social and political processes. Its disposal translates into the victory of technological reason gained at the through the expense of ethical and well informed political reasoning. What needs to be understood is that the development of technological thought and the dominion over society through technical and rationalized calibers can only be monitored through its confrontation with ethical and political views demonstrated through enlightenment thought. The irony that is displayed here is that enlightenment sows the seed of its self-reflection, growth and critique (Horkheimer, Adorno & Noerr 2002. p. 18). Adorno and Horkheimer’s critique hinges on the analysis of science considering that it is the world is reduced to a malleable form and mere appearances through the logic of scientific rationality. But this critique is mostly mistaken where reason is blended with instrumental reason with science thereby portraying it as sheer positivism. Naturally, it is the exposition that positivism as a philosophy resulted from enlightenment thought though this is not considered the sole manifestation behind scientific reason. In truth, the undifferentiated ideologies of reason and science adopted in Dialectics of Enlightenment suggest that enlightenment reason has some dubious aspects in it. Enlightenment reason and thought, however, are not necessarily similar to instrumental reason which may not be harmful by itself unless it is grounded in certain institutional and ideological realities that are as a result of capitalism and the essential of modernity. It matters not that Adorno and Horkheimer presumed Marx’s critique concerning capitalism and the political economy. The fundamental point here is that the authors are unable to pinpoint the actual driving force of human domination (Cohen 2010, p 586). Whereas this did not fully define enlightenment reason, it captured the means through which capitalism has influenced the subjugation of nature with the end goal of catering for its own ends as well as the manner in which it nurtured a notion of command over nature as a progressive thought. Science possesses social tendencies and is based in social concerns that are either capitalistic or displaying more democratic and progressive outcomes. This had been the core essence of Critical theory since its inception though the likelihood of instrumental rationality being one among several rationality types with the objective of domination was used. In addition, the thought that other instances of science and enlightenment thought would replicate this seemed to have become apparent in their critique. Political and economic frameworks, aimed at safeguarding the environment against degradation and over-exploitation, coupled with ethical imperatives may not be well brought out beyond the framework of enlightenment. We can regard pre-enlightenment as well as non-western arguments as a means to promote the continuity of humans with nature. However, this does not imply that such standings are or will be productive or even progressive with regards to a political perspective. What is important to realise is that there is need to differentiate instrumental reason from other kinds of enlightenment reason or the moral and ethical aspect away from the aesthetic. The Dialectic of Enlightenment perceives the success of instrumental reason as a priority over moral reason, experience and aesthetic judgement. However, the application of practical reason as well as the growth of the aesthetic experience should be factored in as an essential element of enlightenment thought and as a needed function of critical theory in society and its problems (Cohen 2010, p 587). The Dialectic of Enlightenment rationality gives us the theory of how incapable enlightenment is on itself in creating a sense of freedom. The dominion of nature, which Adorno and Horkheimer consider as being a function of the model of techno-production rather than the political notions of enlightenment, is itself taken to be the enslavement of man. State institutions, the economy and society in general are considered to be synonymous to the dominion over nature in one particular aspect; they both make use of instrumental reason in the attainment of their goals. This connection is as a result of a deeper cultural logic in which enslavement becomes the norm once the governed society has become well-articulated and is reified and impotent (Horkheimer, Adorno & Noerr 2002. p. 54). The problem of freedom that is brought forth in the Dialectic of Enlightenment regards the point of intellectual argument it presents rather a solution-based reading of enlightenment reason as well as its political capabilities and outcomes. Enlightenment coupled with the idea of the Western take of modern rationalization has been often considered as synonymous to the issue of technological rationality and not adequately with the political notions that are put forth in the ideas of Western enlightenment. Friedrich Pollock, to whom the Dialectic of Enlightenment is dedicated, presents a decisive argument in his The State Capitalism essay that forms the basis for Adorno and Horkheimer’s interpretation of modernized industrial communities and this gives an explanation concerning the pessimistic tone set in their critique (Horkheimer, Adorno & Noerr 2002. p. 54). Pollock’s essay suggests that the state’s political institutions are implicitly fused with the imperatives of the nation while simultaneously the completely governed society now governed every aspect of social life. Conclusion Adorno and Horkheimer, in the Dialectic of Enlightenment, present a critique of a capitalistic society based on many conventional Marxist interpretations. The critique of enlightenment as proposed in the book has meant that critical thought has become reactionary in countering enlightenment. This take proposed by the writers provides no real evidence that critical theory as a concept of philosophy can provide better solutions to the problems of mankind that are as a result of modernity. Critical theory needs to be revised and the complexities arising from its engagement with various institutions need to be analysed. The pessimistic undertone brought out in the book is well channeled through the writer’s critique of enlightenment and the elimination of any positive possibilities that are espoused by the political perfection of enlightenment. In this sense, it is seen that the Dialectic of Enlightenment offers very little in righting the so-called evils of modernity. References Cohen, A 2010, ‘Myth and myth criticism following the dialectic of enlightenment’, The European Legacy, Vol. 15, No. 5, pp. 583-598 Horkheimer, M, Adorno, T & Noerr, G 2002, Dialectic of enlightenment : philosophical fragments. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California Klapwijk, J 2010, Dialectic of enlightenment : critical theory and the messianic light. Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon. Read More