Critique from the Margins: Adorno and the Politics of Withdrawal

7/27/2019 Critique from the Margins: Adorno and the Politics of Withdrawal

1/11

Critique from the Margins: Adorno and the Politics of WithdrawalAdorno: A Political Biography by Lorez Jger; Stewart Spencer; Adorno in America byDavid Jenemann; Adorno: A Biography by Stefan Mller-Doohm; Rodney Livingstone;Shannon MariottiPolitical Theory, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jun., 2008), pp. 456-465Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452641 .

Accessed: 10/04/2012 14:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Theory.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20452641?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/20452641?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/11

tt T t vt 33a, 3 |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~V6fieX0;113.6:0::NuiiberJue2008 456-465? 2008 Sag PublicafionsCritique from theMNargins:10.1,,05 ,p3b5149

hosted atAdorno and the Politics of httpH//online.sagepub.coWithdrawalAdorno:A Political BiographybyLorez Jager, ranslated y StewartSpencer.New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress, 2004. 249 pp.$35.00 (cloth).Adorno in merica byDavid Jenemann. inneapolis: University fMinnesota Press,2007. 280 pp. $66.00 (cloth); $22.95 (paper).Adorno:A Biographyby StefanMuiller-Doohm, ranslatedyRodneyLivingstone.Malden, MA: Polity, 005. 667 pp. $75.00 (cloth).

IIs "democracy" necessarily defined in terms of engagement and

participation inpublic spaces? Can someone who removes himself frommainstream society and politics in his personal life, theory,or both, stillenact a democratic politics? Given the registersof withdrawal inAdorno'slife and work, these questions of representation are confronted by LorenzJager,David Jenemann, and StefanMuiller-Doohm. Though each authortreatsdifferentperiods ofAdorno's life at differentdepths, all threemakechoices (implicitly or explicitly) regarding how to characterize Adorno'slifeandwork. Significantly, these decisions often seem tohinge on how theauthor imagines democratic politics. But as we will see, these hiddenassumptions can be especially problematic given thatAdorno himself triesto reconfigure our notions of what counts as a political practice and toexpand our understanding of what itmeans tobe "democratic."Jager and Jenemann represent opposing perspectives. For Jager,Adornowas withdrawn frommainstream social and political life, and therebyhistheory ispolitically insufficient.For Jenemann, on the other hand,Adornowas in fact quite immersed in collective social life and the rediscoveredrelevance of his theoryderives from this embrace and engagement. Theseauthors take opposing positions on thequestion ofwhether or notAdornowas a reclusive, withdrawn, elitist resident of the "Grand Hotel Abyss," to456


3/11

Mariotti / dorno and the Politics ofWithdrawal 457

draw upon Georg Lukaics' memorable characterization.' And yet, bothreaffirm the traditionalview thatdemocratic politics is premised upon participation inmainstream society: they ust differon thequestion ofwhether

Adorno was in fact immersed in thatsociety.StefanMuller-Doohm, however, traces out a thirdpossibility. Rather

than trying o recuperateAdorno's value by discrediting or downplaying hiswithdrawal frommainstream society,Muiller-Doohm shows how being anoutsider and a continual exile is in factpart ofAdorno's democratic political practice.We do not have tochoose between "political Adorno" and "disengaged Adorno": Miiller-Doohm shows how Adorno's unique form ofdemocratic politics is premised upon a distance, a withdrawal, a critiquefrom the margins of mainstream society and politics, that neverthelessavoids apathy, resignation, or disengagement.In doing so, Miiller-Doohm helps us construct an understanding ofAdorno that lluminates the idiosyncraticways he enacted what Iwould calla "politics ofwithdrawal," thathighlights how Adorno's "negative dialectics" is in facta kind of democratic political practice. In thepractice of negative dialectics, thinking tselfbecomes a formof praxis because of thewayithighlights contingency, invokes a need for change, and actively worksagainst the instrumentalism and identity thinking that characterize whatAdorno alternately calls "damaged life," "systematized society," and the"administered world." For Adorno, we can only engage in thispractice ofthinkingwhen we pay attention toparticular objects and listen to theirdiscordant speech. This way of thinking ispotentially a shared human formofpraxis, since thequalities that can stimulate our own critical capacities arecontained within theantagonistic featuresof theobject: thepractice of negative dialectics exists at least as a possibility for thosewho can learn to see,listen to, and engage particular objects. By focusing on the rupturingqualities of particular things thatresist a systematizing logic,Adorno engagesin a broader social critique to show how the supposed harmony of societyunder the logic of identity nd abstract exchange is an illusion.But this practice of negative dialectics is premised upon what Adornocalls a "distanced nearness."2 To thinkin thisway, we must cognitively distance ourselves frommainstream society to lessen theforce of conventionalways of thinkingand the force of thecollective. But we must also distanceourselves from theobject of our analysis, so as not toviolate it,to truly ive"preponderance" to the object and let its nonidentical qualities "speak."3The specific conditions ofmodernity necessitate thatwe engage in negativedialectics throughpractices of withdrawal and distancing frommainstreamsociety; paradoxically, to engage in the (potentially collective) praxis of


4/11

458 Political heorythinking,we must withdraw frommainstream society. This is, in part, why

Adorno identifiesan ethical and critical value in theposition of exile, inonewho is not "at home": the exile, the emigrant, inhabits thismarginal spaceof "distanced nearness."

Adorno does not idealize withdrawal but instead shows how itneed notnecessarily be equated with apolitical apathy.To withdraw typicallymeanstopull back, to retire, recede, quit, and disengage. But Adorno's withdrawalfurthers the kind of critical thinking thathe sees as essential to the idea ofdemocracy. Negative dialectics instantiates, performs, and enacts the critical negation thatdemocracy depends upon and is defined by: Adorno saysthat "Critique is essential to all democracy . . .Democracy is nothing lessthan defined by critique."4 For these reasons, Adorno gives us a valuablelanguage for articulating thepolitical value ofwithdrawal itself.He givesus compelling reasons tohesitate, to refrain fromuncritically accepting theparticipatory imperatives of contemporary democratic theory.How cancoming together collectively be the only solution for political problemsolving when the individual is so easily lost to the collective and to conventional ways of thinking?But ifwe define democracy only in terms ofintersubjective action in a public sphere,we cannot see the political valueof Adorno's work. The strengths of Jager's, Jenemann's, and MullerDoohm's analyses of the relationship between Adorno's life and workhinge, in large part, on how well they appreciate, or fail to appreciate, howAdorno is tryingto reconfigure our traditional notions of what counts as ademocratic political practice. Ultimately, maybe Adorno's supposed aporiais constructed by our own limited understanding of theparameters of democratic political practice.

IIJager presentsAdorno's theoryas critical of all engagement: democracy

and positive political action were impossible and "all that remained in thefrenzyof thisdisappearance was the abstract concept of 'resistance' . . ."(p. 177). To drive thepoint home in a personal way, Jagerquotes lettersfrom

Adorno's friendsexpressing their oncerns about the direction of his theory.In a letter toLeo Lowenthal, Siegfried Krakauer criticizesAdorno's disengaged, quietistic, but "invasive criticism": "Ultimately everythingremains asbefore, and basically he feels very comfortable with this . . ." (p. 179).Another letter, fromHorkheimer, expresses skepticism about Adorno's"abstractnegativity" nd notes "And on a personal levelhe remainsuninvolved"


5/11


(p. 179). Another letterJagerquotes from calls Adorno's theory "the product of his own vanity" and describes his style as creating "beautiful spiraling towers thatultimately lack foundation" (p. 179). Jager's presentation of

Adorno retreads familiar ground: here is theAdorno who finds theoreticalways to legitimate and justifyhis own personal abhorrence to getting hishands dirty inmainstream, participatory politics.

Jager goes into significantdetail exploring the studentmovements of the1960s, the time period when Adorno was attackedmost viciously for hislack of involvement.For Jager,Adorno's failure is double: he himself failsto engage with the students of the 1960s who take up his "message in abottle," but thatmessage itself lso fails in itsapplication. Jager presents theperformance artists who led the studentmovements of the 1960s as therightful nheritors fAdorno's theorybut sees this as a factAdorno did notwant to accept. In rejecting them,Adorno repudiatesmore political interpretations of his own theory in favor of a withdrawal. The failures of thestudent movement-and Jager does see them as failures-were nothingmore than the failures of Adorno's own theory. In a particularly revealingpassage, Jager invokesLukaics' reading of Adorno:

The 'Grand otelAbyss'. . .was now inhabited, hile here and there roupswere slowly forming ho had literallytakenAdomo's invitation o resistance.Adomo faced them ike a sorcerer's pprenticeno longer ble tocontrolthe lementalforces that e had unleashed. (p. 179)Jagerdoesn't call Lukacs' characterization of Adorno as amandarin and acultural elitist into question here; he simply notes thatAdorno had foundpotential followers. And yet, forJager, "In the end itwas thosewho wereclosest toAdorno and who had learntthemost fromhim who turned gainsthim" (p. 192): Adorno became "both the inspirationalmentor and the firstvictim of thenew studentmovement" (p. 195).The twomost visible studentgroups were led byAdorno's own students:the"kingpin" of theSocialist League of German Studentswas Hans-JuirgenKrahl, while Hans Imhoffwas an "action artist" influenced by theDadaistand Surrealist avant-garde (p. 194). Jager gives many interesting examplesof the students' attempts to apply theirunderstanding ofAdorno's theorythrough actions, demonstrations, theatrics, and "carefully timed disturbances" (p. 206). Jager sees these students as tryingto embody Adorno'snotion of the "non-identical" and act in unexpected, awkward, disruptiveways.; unfortunately,Adorno himself, after repudiating these actions, wasoften himself the target f them.Students continually disrupted his lectures,


6/11

460 Political heoryattacked him personally, and made funof him publicly. During this timeperiod, Gunter Grass wrote toAdorno tocomplain thathe had not publiclyshown himself to be on the side of the students and in support of socialdemocracy. Grass wrote a poem called "Adorno's Tongue," which featuresa silver tongue that remains immobile and impassive as the action creepscloser; Adorno sitsplaying with his silver tongue and looking at it in amirror pp.200-201).

Themes of failure and defeat also dominate the epilogue, titled "TheAbandoned Room." Why does Jager give this title to the final pages of thebook? He doesn't explain, but is he perhaps implying thatevenAdorno hasleft nd abandoned his hotel room in the"Grand Hotel Abyss"? Again, failure piles on top of failure. Jager's epilogue implies thatAdorno ultimatelyabandoned his own ostensibly failed theory. he finalpages of Jager's bookshow Adorno escaping to themountains, toValais, a region in SouthernSwitzerland, in theperiod rightbefore his death: he died of a heart attack inthismountain region. Jlger saysAdorno "fled" toValais where he "soughtrefuge"; Adorno is portrayed as searching forpeace, tranquility,reconciliation, to leave society toengage inunconscious reveries in nature. This searchforpeace and reconciliation isdeeply opposed toAdorno's dissonant practiceof negative dialectics; thusJager seems to imply that dorno recognized thefailure of his theoryand ultimately abandoned it. Jager ends thebook bygoing back to an essay on nature thatAdorno wrote for his school-leavingexamination. In thisearly piece, Adomo noted that"anyone who sought outnature wanted 'unconscious existence in contrast to conscious civilization"'(p. 212). We are leftwith images of Adorno seeking thoughtless repose innature,going into thecountry to search for a home out of theworld.

IIIDavid Jenemann's Adorno is very different:he wants to revise the tradi

tional image ofAdorno as a "disengaged," "aloof," "anti-American intellectual elitist." Jenemann notes that even Adorno's defenders affirm thisimage: because of the "administration of life at every level,"Adorno sawtheonly "righteous position" as "disengagement fromthatsystem" (p. xvi).Jenemannwants to reconsider the idea ofAdorno as "an intellectual loner":"To dismiss Adorno as politically and socially detached is also tomisunderstand how thoroughlyhe immersed himself inAmerica's myriad formsof entertainment and communication (p. xvii). Jenemann shows howAdorno's thoughtson theculture industrywere formed through significantinteractionswith the radio and film industry, s well as Hollywood society.


7/11


Jenemann gives us insight into thenature of the radio industryduring the1930s and 1940s, the state of advertising, and the relationships thatexistedbetween the industry and organizations like Paul Lazersfeld's PrincetonRadio Research Project (which employed Adorno when he firstemigratedto theUnited States). In addition, drawing from new sources, Jenemannalso gives us new informationabout theextentof theFBI's monitoring andsurveillance of Adorno and other FrankfurtCircle members.

The social history that Jenemann explores is very interesting,novel, andan important contribution to our understanding of the development ofAdorno's critique of the culture industry. ut thereare inconsistencies andcontradictions in how Jenemann frames his project and his portrayal ofAdorno. These problems seem rooted inJenemann's sense that to recuperateAdorno's political and social value, he must prove his deep immersion,engagement, and interaction with mainstream society. But the wayJenemann frames his project and articulates his goals makes several problematic assumptions.Most fundamentally,he poses Adorno's withdrawal asprimarily physical and corporeal. Jenemann argues against the image ofAdorno as a kind of recluse or hermit. Thus to prove this image false, allJenemann has to do is show thatAdorno was, in fact, physically engagedwith theculture industry: "he really did know theAmerican radio industry;he knew the television industry;he knew Hollywood" (p. 186). But theseare only surprising and original contributions ifwe had initially assumedthat dorno's theorieswere not grounded in sociological research.Who canread Minima Moralia and still thinkAdorno's critiques of America areuninformed?Or Stars to arth? Or Prisms? Or The Culture Industry itself?I am unconvinced that theAdorno scholars who would comprise the audience forJenemann's book thinkof his writing as formedwithout research,without being grounded in material experience. We would only thinkAdorno's writings weren't shaped by his own experiences with thecultureindustryifwe see Adomo's "detachment" and his withdrawal as primarilyphysical, imagining him as a recluse or hermitwho didn't leave his study.But Adorno's "withdrawal" ismore complicated: it is not primarily physical or literal,but intellectual and cognitive.

Perhaps because of his emphasis on the physical nature ofAdorno'swithdrawal, Jenemann fails to address some highly relevant questions heraises concerning how Adorno's "ethical position of exile" relates to hispolitical value. In his introduction,Jenemann says, "I would suggest that itis precisely thechallenge thatAdorno lays out inhis alienating prose thatholds up exile as an-perhaps the-ethical position fromwhich toapproachAmerican life . . ." (p. xxvii). Jenemann admits thatAdorno remains an


8/11

462 Political heoryexile and identifies thisas Adorno's "ethical position"; yet at thesame time,Jenemann's book is devoted tohighlightingAdorno's immersion in theculture industry. nstead of exploring thisparadox further, enemann ends thebook on a note that in fact undoes themore complex image of Adorno hehints at in the introduction to the book. In the coda, titled "Theodor Adorno,American," he implies thatAdorno is valuable to democracy because hecared deeply aboutAmerica and because we need his critical insight in thepost-9/11world. In effect, the book concludes that dorno's political valueis rooted in his commitment toAmerica, his immersion inAmerican culture. Jenemann seems to try to highlight Adorno's commitment to "substantive democracy" by showing how deeply he cared for his temporaryhome, like Superman:

Created by young Jewish llustrators rom leveland, Jerry iegel and JoeSchuster,Superman took his comic-book bow in June,fourmonths afterAdomo landed inNew York ... There is a poignantresonancebetween theexile experienceof theGerman scholarAdomo and theserialized life f theMan of Steel, a poignance that ecomesmore pronouncedwhen one considers that, espite the fact that othSuperman andAdomo were committedtothenotions of 'truth,ustice,and theAmerican way,'Americans ultimatelyembraced the uperhero s a populist icon,while Adomo has been dogged foryearsby chargesof elitism and anti-Americanism.p. 180)

It seems inaccurate and misleading to say thatAdomo was committed to"truth, ustice, and theAmerican way," given his critiques of the cultureindustry nd themode of capitalist production thathe called "Americanism."sEarlier, Jenemann alludes toAdomo's complicated "ethical position of exile,"but nowwe arepresentedwith an oversimplifiedAdomo who, likeSuperman,is "committed" to theAmerican way and is in a "tendentious embrace ofAmerica" (p. 191). The second image thatJenemann invokes inhis coda is9/11, noting that September 11th (1903) was also Adomo's birthday.Jenemannargues that in thepolitical aftermath f our September 11, it ismybelief thatby embracing Adorno and his complicated relationship to theUnited States,Americans stand the best hope of defending the 'substantivedemocracy' Adomo himself so cherished" (p. 190).

Jenemannwants to recuperateAdomo as a valuable figure fordemocraticpolitics, but he can't seem to find away to do thiswhile retaining the imageofAdorno asworking from position of exile. His book lacks a deeper analysis ofwhat "withdrawal" canmean, ofwhat itcan mean tobe "not athome,"tobe an exile: tobe a partof somethingwithout being taken inby it. n otherwords, what is Adomo's unique, contradictory, and paradoxical brand of


9/11


withdrawal? Instead of addressing thisdilemma, the book leaves us with amore traditional image of Adomo as someone who embraces Americandemocracy, as a political hero fromwhom we can draw inspiration.

IVStefan uiller-Doohm'sntellectualiographys richly etailed, hor

oughly researched, well written, and engrossing to read. It is certainly thebest biography of Adomo currentlyavailable inEnglish (itwas translatedfrom German by Rodney Livingstone). Miiller-Doohm is both a superbbiographer and theorist, thusAdorno's life and work are explored equallywell. He appreciates the complex, and indeed, paradoxical ways thatAdorno's status as an exile, as an outsider, shapes his theory and his politics in valuable, if unusual, ways, instead of invalidating them.Muller

Doohm explores thevital questions thatJenemann's book also raises:Whatdoes itmean to engage inpolitics, paradoxically, while also holding oneselfapart, y cognitivelyistancingndwithdrawing?uller-Doohm'sAdorno was not a recluse or a hermit inhis personal life.Miiller-Doohmshows how Adorno was a leading figure in thepost-WWII rebuilding ofGermany and was a prominent member of society, "in the spotlight ofpublic affairs" (p. 385). Miiller-Doohm also makes itclear that dorno doeswithdraw and distance himself frommainstream society and politics, inboth his life and his theory.And yet, the result is not apolitical apathy.Muller-Doohm sees thiswithdrawal, this critique from themargins, asAdorno's unique form of democratic politics. As Miiller-Doohm notes,Adornoshows he ollowing:

exilemeant above all thefeelings f exclusion andhomelessness . ..On theotherhand, thefeeling fbeing uprooted, f release from ne's bourgeois traditions,also containedan element of autonomyand freedom. s someonewho had beenmarginalized,Adomo made the cquaintance of the intermediary positionof thosesocial criticswho both live insocietyandyetarenotquite of it. his start funcertaintyetween inside and outsidewas the dealobservationpost from ispointof view. (pp. 305-306)This critiquemust occur from position on themargins because of the alienated nature of life inmodem society,what Adomo calls "damaged life," in

Minima Moralia. As Miiller-Doohm recognizes, the "end of individuality"and the loss of "self-determining active subjects" "must be regarded as acentral featureof his analysis of theage" (pp. 388-389). Late modem society


10/11

464 Political heoryhas weakened the individual's ability to negate conventions and the statusquo: this is the aspect of "damaged life" thatposes the greatest threat to thepossibility of democracy, which relies upon "mature," "autonomous" individuals capable of thecritical thoughtnecessary forself-government nd selfdetermination. If the "self' is constantly being lost to the collective,sacrificing autonomy to the group, then itbecomes politically importanttolearn to stand apart, to think gainst. As Muller-Doohm puts it, democracy"forAdorno was defined not in terms f political institutions ut by a person'scapacity for critical thinking,forquestioning conventions and the statusquo:

He emphasized the ideaofpolitical criticism ince, inAdomo's understanding of democracy, the intellectual racticeof criticismwas a definingelement. Criticismwas an essential componentof all democracy; democracywas in fact tobe definedby criticism. p. 387)But asMuller-Doohm has toldus, forAdorno, thiscritique is best practicedfromthemargins. Given the topographyofmodern alienation, of "damagedlife,"we must distance ourselves frommainstream society and the force ofthe collective ifwe are tobe able tonegate the statusquo and imagine alternatives to "what is."Muller-Doohm gives an example ofwhat motivatesAdorno's withdrawal: he explains how Adorno's initial sympathy to thestudentmovement, which "he interpreted ... as a resistance to thepressurestoconform," became more cynical as he saw themovement itselfmountingits own pressures to conform (p. 443). Even if the cause is good, the individual thinker s easily co-opted bymovements. Muller-Doohm quotes fromAdorno's "Marginialia toTheory and Practice": "More implicit and therefore all themore powerful, is the commandment: you must sign.The individual must yield to the collective: as recompense for his jumping into themelting pot, he ispromised thegrace of being chosen, of belonging" (p. 462).Muller-Doohm describes how, forAdorno, thepressure "to sign," topubliclydeclare one's support for amovement, and to toe theparty-line, so to speak,amounted to littlemore than left-wingfascism. And yet, forMuiller-Doohm,Adorno's criticisms of such movements do not amount to a rejection ofdemocratic politics as such.Muller-Doohm recognizes that,given the forceof the collective in latemodernity,Adorno's democratic politics necessarilycome in the form of a critique from themargins.

Shannon MariottiRollinsCollege


11/11

Mariotti/ dorno nd the olitics fWithdrawal 465

Notes1.As Lukacswrites, A considerableart f the eading erman ntelligentsia,ncluding

Adorno, have taken up residence in the 'Grand Hotel Abyss' . . . 'a beautiful hotel, equippedwith every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the dailycontemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can onlyheightenhe njoymentfthe ubtle omfortsffered."'eorg ukacs,TheTheory f the ovel(Cambridge,ass.:MIT Press,1994),22.

2. Adorno, Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life, 90.3.Adorno, egative ialectics,183.4. Theodor dorno, Critique,"nCriticalModels: Interventionsnd CatchwordsNewYork:ColumbiaUniversityress,1998),281.5. In one essay, for example, Adomo remarks that themost insightfulcriticsof "Americanism"

and its attendant "unfreedom" were, surprisingly,native sons, such as Thoreau, Emerson, and Poe(he cites de Tocqueville as a notable exception to his theory). Theodor Adorno, "Aldous Huxleyand Utopia," in Prisms (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1983), 97.

Shannon Mariotti specializes in 19th-centuryAmerican transcendental thought and 20thcentury critical social theory.Her book manuscript, titled Thoreau's Democratic Withdrawal:Alienation, articipation,ndModernity, eadsThoreau through he theoreticalens ofTheodor dornoto lluminatehe diosyncraticemocraticolitics f the hermitfWaldenPond." She also has written an article titled "Thoreau, Adorno, and the Critical Potential ofParticularity," which will be published inA Political Companion toHenry David Thoreau,forthcoming fromUniversity Press ofKentucky. She received her doctorate inpolitical theoryfromCornell University in 2006 and is currently an assistant professor atRollins College, inWinter ark, lorida.

Critique from the Margins: Adorno and the Politics of Withdrawal

Documents

Transcript of Critique from the Margins: Adorno and the Politics of Withdrawal