On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 17:51:33 -0400 curtiss_leung at ibi.com wrote:
> Hi Ken (whose posts I've managed to lose):
Hey.
> I'm glad you pointed out Adorno's adversarial relation to Heidegger.
> I often wonder how much the "jargon of authenticity" continues to infect
> left politics -- it's eerie to realize that an ideology that helped enable
> a reactionary, genocidal regime seems to have found a second wind
> among people who are (or think they are) anything but. But the problem
> with the ideology of authenticity and commitment isn't its genesis, but
> its use, for it only seems to enable an ethos and practice of obedience
> and self-sacrifice. Now, if you want willing cannon-fodder this is terrific,
> but it seems the left needs the very opposite for the protracted struggle
> we're now in: individuals who are able to cooperate within loose structures
> and whose instinct for self-preservation will keep them around long enough
> so they can become reservoirs of tactical and strategic experience.
The relation between Heidegger and Adorno is a strange one, at least I've always found it strange. I know people who swear by both... despite "Jargon." The odd thing is the theoretical similarity between negative dialectics and destruction (deconstruction these days). The most notable difference, it seems to me, is language. Adorno adopts the language of humanism while Heidegger adopts the language of ontology... but I'm not much of a Heidegger reader / scholar... Slavoj Zizek has an interesting reading of Heidegger in his latest book The Ticklish Subject which I've found helpful in sorting out the differences. As for Jargon of Authenticity... I don't "trust" Adorno in this text. Mind you, I love it, it's a wonderful book and Teddie manages to spin the hell out of a phrase.... But I'm also convinced that it isn't a very good reading or understanding of Heidegger... of course... maybe there's nothing to understand...
ken