Summary: Adorno and Horkheimers The Concept of Enlightenment In this section of Dialectic of Enlightenment !

"##$% Adorno and Horkheimer &egin their argument &y e'amining enlightenments self(constructed opposition to myth% and ho) that opposition ultimately &reaks do)n% rendering enlightenment a false and empty discursi*e category+ The terms they use are generally apolitici,ed- )hile )e might attach them easily to particular cultural or historical mo*ements% Adorno and Horkheimer )ork deli&erately )ith a&stract terminology that may refer to *ast ideological phenomena+ .ecause of enlightenments false opposition to myth% they argue% su&/ecti*ity is de*alued% critically impacting artistic production in its integrity and authenticity% )hich the authors discuss in their later chapters% especially the influential Enlightenment as 0ass 1eception+ .ecause of enlightenment and its militant o&/ecti*ity% modernity is plagued &y a morally and aesthetically *apid mass culture+ .elo)% I ha*e outlined Adorno and Horkheimers introductory chapter in 2uestion(and(ans)er form3a sort of catechism% if you )ill% focusing on concepts that I feel carry most crucially o*er to the authors o*erarching argument against enlightenment culture and indictment of Enlightenment rhetoric+ What do Adorno and Horkheimer mean by enlightenment? Enlightenment% understood in the )idest sense as the ad*ance of thought% has al)ays aimed at li&erating human &eings from fear and installing them as masters+ 4hen Adorno and Horkheimer refer to enlightenment% they are speaking not necessarily of the cultural mo*ement of the !5th and !6th centuries% although many of the modern cultural attitudes and mores they discredit may argua&ly originate in this period from the standpoint of intellectual history+ They take a &roader definition of enlightenment% using it to refer to any general cultural practice or ideology that aims to empo)er man a&o*e nature or superstition+ Enlightenment pri*ileges o&/ecti*ity o*er su&/ecti*ity- the 2uantitati*e o*er the 2ualitati*e% and the measura&le o*er the immeasura&le+ It holds as its central tenant that the )orld is kno)a&le% and that po)er is o&tained through kno)ledge+ Enlightenment has no concept of transcendent truth+ Things e'ist in systems that are kno)a&le through the dual lenses empiricism and rationalism- su&(systems can &e linked &y o*erarching principles+ 7or instance% science still seeks to unify the go*erning mathematical principles of 2uantum and molecular physics3in other )ords% the same rules of physics must go*ern the *ery &ig A81 the *ery small+ 1issimilarity emphasi,es su&/ecti*ity% so enlightenment must make o&/ects similar under a single system &y reducing them to a&stract 2ualities+ What do Adorno and Horkheimer mean by myth? 0yth is all forms of kno)ledge that e'isted &efore enlightenment+ 0agic is differentiated as a sort of proto(myth that lacks a comple' understanding of Saussurean semiotics+ 0yth% )hile containing magical elements% e'hi&its a much more sophisticated notion of the relationship &et)een signifier and signified+ 0yth is superstitious and su&/ecti*e+ It emphasi,es distinct indi*idual e'perience o*er replica&le scientific o&ser*ation empiricism$+ 0yth is closely associated )ith ritual% )hich emphasi,es the centrality of sym&ol to myth+ The a&ility of o&/ects to represent &ut not em&ody to &e e2ual &ut not e2ual% or non(e'changea&le in the e'change$ is essential to mythic practice+ Indeterminacy and the unkno)a&le are central tenets of myth as an ideological structure+

Is myth different than religion? Is enlightenment atheistic? 0yth is distinct from religion- enlightenment is analogous )ith% rather than distinct from% a 4estern tradition of religious patriarchy+ 9eligion fits into enlightenment in so far as man resem&les% or to an e'tent em&odies% the space pre*iously occupied &y :od;gods+ 7or enlightenment% :od and the ordering mind are alike+ 1i*inity is reflected in mans authority o*er the kno)a&le uni*erse+ :od% as an unkno)a&le 2uality% cannot e'ist outside of mans a&ility to order and em&ody di*inity+ Why is myth always already enlightenment? 0yth% too% attempts to understand nature and forces &eyond man% &ut does so in a )ay that accepts certain unkno)a&le 2ualities% especially death+ 0yths primary )ay of understanding natural phenomena is not to assert po)er o*er them &ut to identify )ith them+ This is e'hi&ited in the mimetic 2uality &et)een myth and nature+ 0yth insists )e must &ecome )hat )e are afraid of to assuage our fears+ As A<H argue% 0agic like science is concerned )ith ends% &ut it pursues them through mimesis% not through an increasing distance from the o&/ect+ It certainly is not founded on the =omnipotence of thought% )hich the primiti*e is supposed to impute to himself like the neurotic- there can &e no o*er(*aluation of psychical acts in relation to reality )here thought and reality are not radically distinguished+ Enlightenment demands that )e must measure and kno) it% and then assert oursel*es o*er it+ Thus% enlightenment insists that )e make )hat )e fear our other% )hile myth insists that )e merge it )ith oursel*es+ Why is enlightenment ultimately myth? Why is this a problem? >ne of Adorno and Horkheimers main criti2ues of the concept of enlightenment is that it undermines or deconstructs?$ itself+ Enlightenment *ehemently opposes myth% yet cannot a*oid &ecoming myth itself+ Important to this process is )hat A<H call immanence% or the 2uality of &eing kno)a&le through the possi&ilities of e'perience+ .ut this &arren )isdom merely reproduces the fantasy doctrine it re/ects &ecause immanence% the e'planation of e*erything as repetition% )hich enlightenment holds up against mythical imagination is myth in itself+ This is &ecause myth is self(perpetuating- &y enlightenments *ie) it repeats its o)n claims tautologically+ Thus% the repetition of the kno)a&le and the measura&le% the endless impulse to reduce life and nature to the measura&le and the controlla&le makes enlightenment mythenlightenments opposition to myth cannot stand+