CRITICAL THEORY IN DOCK - Jersey Flight

Dialectic is a powerful thing.

One will say that I have here done nothing? Then one should be able to answer the questions.

"Critical thought, which does not call a halt before progress itself, requires us to take up the cause of the remnants of freedom, of tendencies toward real humanity, even though they seem powerless in face of the great historical trend."*

It "requires us"? According to what law? Here the assumption seems to be bent in favor of a certain (undisclosed) concept of freedom. And yet the authors admit that this act "seems" futile. One must be able to give some kind of foundation for this presumption of hope. Why will our "cause" matter? The fact that life is very short, and lacking power toward the prevalence of sanity, must qualify the value of our imperative.

"Real humanity," is an interesting way to speak. If there is anything to the "cause" of critical theory it must be found in this concept. Our striving is toward the realization of a "real humanity," in contrast to that which is destructive.

Still, one could probe deeper: what happens to the concept of "real humanity" in light of broader analysis? Can we ever raise the notion above preference?

The only reason I affirm the position is because I reject the axioms of barbarism (but this is very far from proving something metaphysical about my humanitarian values).

However, I do believe we will be able to appeal to civility as a justification for critical theory; I also believe we can appeal to intelligence. These two attributes alone mark out the reason for our vocation.

"...to construct a systematic theory which would do justice to the present economic and political circumstances is a task which, for objective and subjective reasons, we are unable to perform today." Ibid. Preface to Italian Edition 1962/1966     

Is this a confession? Would such a theory have any power toward the betterment of social conditions? [Are we prepared to face this question?] If these gentlemen were unable to perform such a task, then it falls to us? But what if the "administered world" is immune to the powers of criticism? What if criticism simply doesn't matter?

Does one retreat into theory; is theory itself a retreat from society, like a drug, the hedonistic indulgence of one's personal aesthetic?

I maintain that these questions haunt the critical theorist.

* Adorno/ Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Preface to the New Edition 1969

-
-