> Perhaps his critique of 'identity thinking' is rather limited in _Minima
> Moralia_ (and elsewhere as well).
I seriously doubt that: "Auschwitz confirmed the philosopheme of pure identity as death." If you haven't read Negative Dialectics, have a peek at the 3rd section of chapter 3 - Meditations of Metaphysics.
> Adorno seems more dazzled by his own
> 'dialectical' exercise than anything else, and his dialectical exercise is
> parasitical upon the categories whose 'identity' his writing leaves
> untouched (homo/hetero, East/West, worker/intellectual, etc.).
This runs in sharp contrast to the experience of a good many people that knew Adorno, despite some of the rather serious and problematic statements he makes in his written work (see Albrecht Wellmer's essay on Adorno and Horkheimer in Endgames). The statement you are making above misses the deeply engaged nature of Adorno's work. It is almost impossible to understand ND without having a detailed knowledge of the political dynamics of post-War Germany. If parts of it are incoherent, it is because they are related to the most intimate historical details. What you are saying here reminds me of Noam Chomsky's critique of Reinhold Niebuhr. Chomsky dubbs him an "institutional apologist." But for those who knew Niebuhr, this comment is completely untrue. Yes, In Moral Man, Immoral Society Niebuhr refers to the stupidity of the common man. But in Niebuhr's life, it is unlikely that he could ever have pointed out a "common man." His journals talk about meeting factory workers in Detroit, and speaking with them. He loved people, he was a pastor and constantly preached a gospel of social justice for all. He was also a committed Marxist, and never failed to challenge corporate exploitation. His students, inspired by Neibuhr's spirit, have become some of the leading religious activists of our day. So, sometimes things can't be taken at face value. There is a disjunction between the writer and the written. Sometimes people write stupid things and, if questioned about them, will acknowledge error (Habermas talks about this in regard to Adorno in a good many places) (Autonomy and Solidarity, The New Conservatism, Philosophical Profiles).
> [Yoshie: An 'uncompromising' elitism from an
'uncompromising mind'!]
Few sane people would challenge the fact that Adorno was an elitist.
> [Yoshie: Adorno's condescension toward workers is
intertwined with his racism & orientalism.]
Yes, and if asked whether or not it was better to think or be, he'd surely chose think. Cutting and pasting these kind of comments, as systematic in Adorno as they are, is an easy thing to do. If you read Habermas's comments on Jewish mysticism late in the evening you'd swear he was an anti-Semite. Of course, he isn't. Oddly enough I don't see too many complaints about Adorno's elitism in the work of Angela Davis (a student of Adorno) or Paul Gilroy, or queer theorist ("Adorno is still my favorite theorist") Stephen Schecter. Adorno opened a door, a way of thinking about things that encourages a radical negativity (as flawed as this appears in Adorno's work), a radical self-reflection. Surely Zizek is correct in regarding hysteria as a modern pathology. ND is a hysterical model.
> Why either Adorno or Popper?
Other than B. Russell, I couldn't think of a more non-dialectical thinker to join in the ritual chant: "the poverty of dialectics."
> There is no reason to assume such limited alternatives.
Adorno's 'dialectic' is impoverished because it is divorced
from any interest in concrete investigations (be they on
sexuality, working-class interest in education, or
whatever) that can't be made to fit his 'dialectical'
schema.
I guess music, psychoanalysis, astrology, literature, the family, anti-Semitism, german idealism, ontology, the culture industry, film, and existentialism don't count eh? Again, check out Wellmer's essay in Endgames to see an account of Adorno and education. Adorno can hardly be criticized seriously for not providing a critique of what *you* are interested in. He didn't, to my knowledge, ever write an essay on eco-feminism or case-based reasoning. Ha! Proof positive of "The poverty of dialectics!!!"
> I suppose such peoples are excluded from his rhetorical
bounds (and this exclusion, pace Adorno, does not give
birth to 'a possessive, intolerant kind of love' of 'diehard
defenders').
Look, Adorno and Horkheimer returned to Germany after the War. They were *the* leading thinkers in post-War (leading enough to be accussed of being the "architects of fascism" by Willie Brandt) (A&H being a key inspiration for the student movements of the 60's in Germany). There was a vacuum, an emptiness - esp. following the "fall" of Heidegger. Hegel, Kant, Marx, Nietzcshe, Schelling, Goethe... had all been banned or demolished. Adorno brought them back, pretty much single handedly. He was able to return German Idealism to the universities. This was no small accomplishment. If you wanted to look left, there was only Frankfurt. For better or worse. Sure, there were a good many shining stars... but even Gadamer, in his intellectual autobiography, tips his hat to the Frankfurt School elitists. BTW - Gadamer is doing fine at 99, still coherent, still publishing... Anyway - look at what many of Adorno's students / colleagues went on to do.. Davis, Habermas, Wellmer, Kluge, Arendt, Brecht, Kracauer, Lazarsfeld, Lukacs, Mannheim, Mann, Neumann, Pollock, Reich, Scholem, Tillich...
Adorno on love: universal love implies an equal distance to all things. To love everything is to lack (moral!) taste. Paraphrased from MM.
> For the reasons stated above, I do not think that Adorno sustains the
> 'negative' part of 'negative dialectics' in his writing.
And Adorno acknowledges this...
> Here you may recall Spivak's criticism of Foucault: what remains
> (after 'critical theory,' after 'deconstruction,' after
> 'post-structuralism,' etc.) is the Subject of the (Post)Modern Critic.
> "The Subject Is Dead! Long Live the Subject!" That's the poverty of
> left-Hegelianism (be it modernist or postmodernist), if you ask me, and
> smart left-Hegelians (such as Spivak) know as much.
Spivak also tacitly endorses everything Zizek has written (in a footnote in her most recent book). Zizek, along with Jameson, acknowledge that negative dialectics is *the* most sustained critical philosophical paradigm to date... so, is this not a tremendous tribute to a crusty high conservative.
ken