L

:~1. 1
1
-c;v

.. P.olitical and Philosophic~!

Investigations
C

Edited by

___ \
.
Lars Rensmann
and Samir Gandesha
 u 1\., t' .... --- · . l ocess of prod ucti on and cons ump tion - -'"' . . l 01
. a biologica pr art ob,
\ fcts to .
• , b . incid enta l, one cou ld argu e that this char a .
-· Far from e1ng . cterizatio
:_ d lopm enta l feat ure of mod ern1 ty-t he devouring nof
;the centra1 eve . . or
i f h part icul ar by the un1 vers al-m 1gh t be understood h UJ_ szuaflo
1ing up o t e .
1 h . . t rou h
1
• ti·ve turn s tow ard reev alua t1ng t e s1gn1fica
their respec . nce of aesth . . g
. et1c Jud _
', othe r word s, 1f for Ado rno and Are ndt, mod ernu y inval
\. ment. 1n . g
ves the
subord. ination of the "new " to the alwa ys-t he-s ame , then it is in aesth .
ene
judgment, that the "new " is spec ifica lly pose d as a problem. Tuis
is be-
cause, unlike dete rmin ative judg men t in whi ch a law, principle, or
concept
is already given and merely awaits appl icati on, reflective judgment
is char-
acterized by precisely the abse nce of the form er. If cogn ition involv
es rhe
subsumption of a part icula r bene ath a universa!, then reflective judgm
em
involves a raising or liftin g (erheben) of the part icul ar to universality.
For
example, when I judge this part icul ar rose to be beau tiful , I do not
claim:
"All roses are beautiful, this flower is a rose, henc e this rose is beautiful";
nor do I say: "Beauty is roses, this flower is a rose, this rose is beaut
iful.''
Rather, I am judging the object in its singularity. The temporal natur
e of
such singularity becomes especially pron
ounc ed with the turn of aesrherics
away from natural beau ty in the late eigh teen th cent ury to works of art
in
the nineteenth, in whic h the
ques tion then becomes, not whether a given
object can be judged to be beau tiful or not, but rath er whether it can
be
st
judged ae hetically or not, that is to say, as an art object. Here, the queSr
ion
that arise · h 1: ll • .
s is t e ro ow1ng: How is it possible to judge· a g1ven b.Je et as an
° .
artwork when th . 1
. ere are simp y no exis ting criteria that cou ld or ient stH.h
a Judgment;> M as .1 11
artwo rk when it
· ore spec1•fica lly, how is it possible to judge an °b·ect l l
. . represents, not the exemplification of ex1snng . . ,. · · farm s .1 1"·
or art1sc1c pract ice b . - -h hlrn1~ J.
c · s, ut rather the afte n explicit negauon
ror c.:xam l . of SUL ', .
• P e, 1n th e c f . . 't'rd
i\ it po . ase O · nchcr ''
1
the h1stoncal avant-garde? Ho,v, 111 j, h1.' '
\~ 61 <.: to jud ·
to ntgatc th. \ ge an °bJect as an artw ork v\,he n such an t). 1 • b,· :)·· b·c . ·c
. ''
. t )<>ur gcois i . . .
v1nu c: <>f W \.) IC h . 1. . ()t
.1 1r.
' 11 st1 tut1o n ' 1f not the cntir c 11snn ~,.
an n 1 .. . ·1.
1
l),etu rn i , . Il. can .• ou nee r 1c s/U)('k of~ t/,c neu '~
ng spc:u hca ll , .. . •1.·P\'
narn e\y, the: . .'
Y to th e probl c1n w1th ,vh1c . , . . • cd
h Wt ~t.llt rht~ ~,- /1 . rh~· 1
prop c: n sit .
111 . - •()rf'O'''
· Y niod c rnit y for th e uni vc rsal ro 111
'
 l-I oM EL E s s
Pfr rt os
. . h - o ri H y
t
articu 1ar, 1t 1s wo. rt h no tin g tha cen tra I 275
p . d .
1 d conce1ve 1t, 1s t e an tin o to aes th . .
my of taste - ~ t1c Jud J

. l 1.
ha the nca . , nar nei y, the opgrn ent , as Kanr
nti c a1m s:. tas te is sub Jective
· d 0 .-
a . P s1ti on of t Wö
tas te 1s ob3 ect ive an d b ase d on an thu s conc eptles
hand, or
of t concepts, on h s, on the on
tio11 berween the tw o for ms ast e for m h . t e oth e 71 1h e
' Th' d Cnt1 .. s t e bas is of A r. . e rel a-
of Kant s H que , wh ich rendt's d.
,,--, ' as she no t tscussion
"7
d es, Ka nt as 1
"Critique o f i ''ast e. 2 W hy' Ar en t asks d ate as 178 1
seek b 7 ca led the
·udgment on . tas te, " as op po s ed to the' oes Ka nt to ase a th
. d of
J d, how is JU gm en t eve n po 'bl . th mo re objective sense of s1. eor h :> yI
dee ss1 e In
e case of senses such as tast g t. n-
ll, wh ere the tas te of a sum l ea d
sme
. f ptu ou s me n
pre sen tati on? In b h a or the smell of a fragrant rose
adm1t o no·L d.
'h
re- ot cases th O b' . medi-'
1n its bei ng exp . d 'It · e f; Ject is, as it we re, 1m
arely annt t ate . ene nce
. ns
be bey on d d' ·· "D is or this. reason that quesno
of taste we re he ld to 1sp ute
sam e tim e, it is pr . l b eca ·us e gusnbus non disput an d urn
est." At the eczs ery
res ses the sin gu lar it f b· e taste is inherently discrimina-
tory and add y o an o Ject th . b
}t, As Ar en dt pu ts it: at 1t ecomes the vehicle of
reflective jud gm e-!

ell are the mo ·pri

· stthi vat e Of t h e senses· th · h sense not an
butsm
tast.e and
a sen sat ion ' an d s se nsat10 . . ' at is, t ey
o 1ect n is not obJ'ect bo d d cannot be
b l - un an •
reco11ecte d . . . . At the sam e time · · · on Y taste and smell ar d ·iscn·mma-
1 e
and . . . only th ese senses re ate to the particular
l ver yh nat ure
rory by t.h eir
. senses share the.u
en to the ob'Ject1ve
qua par.ucu ar,. w ereas .all obJ. ects giv
t is, they are not unique.73
propert1es w1th oth er obJects, tha
ply
.ect ive jud gm en t, the n, beg ins wi th the particular, but does not sim
ReB
a claim
e as the exp res sio n of a sub jec tiv e preference; rather, it makes
serv
ul, I am not
to universality. In ass ert ing
tha t thi s par tic ula r rose is beautif
er ic
t tha t everyone ought also to consid
simply cla im ing tha t / lik e it bu e this
of a con cep t und er which to subsum
beautiful. Ho w, in the abs enc e ding
assert the necessity, that is, the bin
particular ob jec t, is it po ssi ble to ot_her
gm ent of an object as beautiful, in
quality, of thi s jud gm en t? Th e jud sim -
t, insofar as such judgments do not
words, is no t sim ply sub jec tiv e, bu a
uty, neither is it obj ecn ve. How can
ply derive fro m the concept of bea
ive? . . .
jud gm ent be ,bo th no nsu bje cti ve . .
an d nonobj d' ect. berwee n the 1mag1n an0n
iar wnmm un al. sense. 111 -- . .1 ~ -
n ren dt s vie w the ans we r lies 1n me l . d c 1111
I
and hA ' 1 . 1 . •
1 co d · l ·ubjec t Jll lH?,1n~ .H in
t e ,sen sus co mm un is- co mm on , or s a .e
. . ,es ) l1 . . . 1; ,l)cdi'",'
en the obJ ect an t scn
tnation est abl ish es dis tan ce ber we 1 (-1b r o JLl r. , t (Y in."
as m h . pre sen t t ,e ' ' t-- -1
uc as 1t ena ble s the sub jec t to re- I l ", 1-1r gc n1 c 11r Ll t H)ll ~
. d
on wh at K an t ca ll<x r i c en '
L

Ju gm ent is pre mi sed

 SAMIR GANDESHA
276
. . to take into account the "possible rather than the a l .
t h e a6111ty . ctua Jud
ments of Others , and by putting ourselves 1n the place of any othe r tnan "g-14
The greater the individual's ability
•
to engage in this thought exper·1 ·
• ment,
the more genera! her thought w1ll be. Such generaluy, again, must be d·
lS-
tinguished from the empty generality of the concept, which works from the
universa! to particular, for example, from the concept of "table" to the dif-
ferent objects that could be classified under it. The generality that emerges
from an "enlarged mentality" is "closely connected with particulars, wirh
the particular conditions of the standpoints one has to go through in order
to arrive at one's own 'genera! standpoint."' 75 In other words, the generaliry
of reflective judgment entails the ability to view an object from a mulri-
plicity of standpoints or perspectives as a process of arriving at one's own
viewpoint rather than simply subsuming a particular object as a species of
a genus. Only through its re-presentation by way of the faculty of imagina-
tion can an object be reflected upon and thus judged to be beautiful. Whar
is at issue, then, is not the sensually given rose, in relation to which we have
managed to establish a certain distance, but rather the act ofjudging it. The
pleasure in the judgment of objects, as opposed to the objects themselves,
is a pleasure that is only possible in the context of a "world" shared wirh
others, that is, it is possible only in the context of being-in-the-world-wirh-
others (mit-Sein). Because aesthetic judgments can never compel in a way
that logica! proofs can, such judgments necessarily must rely on persuasion,
and therefore, in the final instance, on a sensus communis.
Arendt's answer to the problem of sacrifice of the particular entailed in
the progressive intertwining of nature and history, chen, rests upon a re-
habilitation of Kant's reflective judgment as the political faculty par excel-
lence. Such rehabilitation hinges, moreover, on the central role played b~-
the sensus communis. What makes possible the "nonsubjective'' yer, ar the_
•
same time, «
nono b'Jective
. " nature of reflective judgment . h L'l1 it'• ot
1s t e at1 . ·.
th e citizen to enlarge his or her mentality in the contex t of rhe poltm·Jl
communi·ty o f wh.IC · h he or she is a member. Ye t, at the sa me r1111 · . é' • •su~h.
a re d· 7 f K · d I
a in g O ant 1 s eep y perpl ex ing. It is clea rlv,
at odus J
wttn· t
·-\ rende 1'·
. , lll)'
own acco u nt O f mo d crn 1ty, · 111 · w h ich, as we have sec n. wie 1, t 1lC ri·llt rn~1
th C ~OC J. 1- . . . - . ,, ,
.ttl l Jl Î\ 1,lt1
a and the co nseq uent el1m1n:1r1on ot sp:Kcs bct\H tn ttr
I . .. - ·. 1
conu 1tions o r t 1c poss 1bdtt y of a sf11s11s co rm11utm 1•1,·c _,dl iin:-
als- t he - . J · · ,. !,
becn J cstroyc l I· c·... en tra J to t 11c 11roccss o f- the dc-world11• 1g l) t· r he 11H ,t ll •1~
,
fu I o bJcc '- · · n l) (ll
. .
rs an<l st .· , . 1· . I
togct hcr ncatl'. wor
l'- l 1·~ •1 "·orrf~r
or l <:s t 1a1 ta <.c: 11 a •enfl'll
mg des tructi o n 0 f . J· .·
tr a Il 10 11 t l1a t h ad o ncc p rov 1dcd enter.·.1•1 rh,n ort
. .
 ay
PHJLosop
HüMELEss 2 77
· b
se ly th e tr re vo ca le erosio
f h
is th a t it is p re ci °
n t 1 h e p ar ad o x . d u ct io n d n t e
·udgme . , 1 m m ed ia te p ro an cohn su m p ti o n·
th at
) communis in en d le ssh. 1" . t' s t
nd on
tati
sensus rerizes th e '' soc1a t a t o cc as io n s A re u rn to t e rehabili
.
. . . A re n d t' s at t t to re1uvenate th.e
charac
Bective 1 u d g m en t 1n th e fi.rs t. p la ce em p
. im at el f . . as tt
of re n g ae st h eu c Ju d
g m en t u lt Y a11s, 1nasmuch .
•tical by re co v en . . ..
s o w n q u e t' n by presuppos1ng
pol1 . .
nczpu, b eg g in g it s 10
umbs ro a p et tt to. prz o f the common,
sucC . mely, .th e recovery
se ek s to effect, na
precisely th at wh1ch 1t
public world. e in
w e m ak e ourselves at "h om
u g h ju d g in g th at
Por A re n d t it is th ro te d . 76 "P or a m an
w ho no langer has
a
B ei n er h as su g g es a-
che world," R o n al d ys in M in im a Mor
to live," A d o rn o sa
b ec o m es a p la ce his authentic- - -
homeland, w ri ti n g an t' s T h ir d C ri ti qu e as
te m p ts to re ad K ctive judg-
lia. 77 W hi le A re n d t at ri at es K an t's co nc ep t o f reB.e
, A d o rn o ap p ro p e media-
political ph il os op hy g ." It is w ri ti ng th at unfolds th
in g it in to "w ri ti n s most - - -
ment by tr an sf o rm tu al ex pe ri en ce . Arguably, Adorno'
o b je ct as in te ll ec "Der
tion o f subject an d e fo u n d in hi s unpublished piece
o n w ri ti n g ca n b the historical
sustained reflection sa y, A d o rn o re tu rn s to
th is im p o rt an t es introduced in
Essay als F or m ." In ex pr es si on, sd en ce an d art,
m u n ic at io n an d mply ~ot possible
bifurcation o f co m le dg in g th at it is si
ng. W h il e ac kn ow form
Dialektik der Aufkläru nce an d th e subjec
tivism o f ar t m the
to reconcile th e
o b je ct iv is m o f scie h t 1·t is in de ed possible, via th
' . . e
,
. to ta h.ty , A d o rn o argues t a a specific relatton w ,,
1th
of an encompass1ng . . d express1
· 0 n in "
others ,
co m m un 1c at 1o n an k biect available fohr . .
.
essay form, to place . a es an °' rens10n
each other. W h il e
co m m u n ic at to n " ·I .
m
· ely this tens1on,. t ) e h h
lf t ts prects t e
th e "t h in g itse · ty (express10n ' t at uc
expression adheres to ·1· ) d articulari . v. .. ~ , J I sm
h
an P on or nra.J ".leta. na s the
o m m u n ic ab t tt y d s1
etween universa! (c uc
.
nv e te n l ' . 1stance vis-à-vi
o ld w it h in a p ro sent a p o em 1ca is either
ssay form seeks to h h. h h particular
h ns io n, essays re phre by w te t e red transparent by
as t ey embody th is te . h 'l
1 p y, l . de h
. . n w it h tn P ho so niversa o r is rend to uncovering tr u t
pnonry o f co g n it io . . f . . ..
v· ed as an ex em p h fi ca n o n o. t e u h s tt 1s 011ente the early Luk ác s, be
iew uc a . t-
sa m e ti m e, tn as m o t co nr ra ry to 1· e rhe inrenr10ns 0
means o f it. A t th e ' .
b the use o f co nc ep ts th e essay ca n n seeks to rea de iz
nsit)' of ex pe ne.rn_~.e
y ' es sa y J I
c . tw o rk itself. T h e · rhoug 1 t t , e ly. rh e cxpenen -
once1ved o f as an ar A or di ng
.· rc·tv-
, op hy : to give
7
Ad o f ph il os 8
cc · · l' P·1
. orno s conception · .·
1ts s ru n ge
nc y. I . m er sion in rh
· -•ne s
w h
lt out, at the
same ti m e, Iosing w ra un l' nf· co nu . r ·
fj a 11 a
, J m o~·t . . ., rhe us f0 0 •
tial moment o f the essay results ro m · re no u rn .
.1 ng
irn c, chc c~ s. ~· l tlt
1 .
ru n e, · ,
ul ·uy o f an object w it ho ut , at th e sa m cJ . Ar rh c sarn c. .r rh c p ,1 rr K. t1 1anr_,
ar ou g it .
and h t erefor e th e st ri ng en cy o f rh b' ·s or hc rw1 st:
O JC C t '
ts to su bs um e irs
n
ot use such concep
 . Id be sacrificed. The essay, then, embodies the follow·1
its obJect wou . . .. ng anti
·) h ncept sacrifices the non1dent1cal; (11) the essay cannot d n-
omy: (1 t e co . . o With-
is antinomy 1s overcome, that 1s to say, the nonid .
out concepts. Th . . . entity that
. .6 d is redeemed by the m1met1c unfold1ng of experience e
1s sacn ce , . . xpressed
79 Thus "The manner of express1on 1s to salvage the precision f
as sty1e. , .. . . · o the
. ti•fied contents sacrificed when defin1t1on 1s om1tted, without betray1.ng
o 6JeC
the subject matter to the arbitrariness of conceptual meanings decreed once
and for all."80 Writing, then, pushes the tension between communication and
expression to its limit. On the one hand, it seeks, through its style, to rescue
those very moments that are sacrificed by the concept-the rough edges of
the object that must, as it were, be smoothed over or "normalized" before ir
can be grasped conceptually or made commensurable with other objects-
but at the same time, writing embodies a conceptuality without which it
would relinquish its own claim to universality and truth. In contrast, then,
to Arendt who can be criticized for providing what is, ultimately, an aes-
theticized vision of the political-praxis -as self-disdosing activity-Adorno
argues that aesthetic experience, paradoxically, can only take up its politica!
vocation by jealously guarding its own autonomy from polities. By juxtapos-
ing the parallel critiques of modernity in Adorno and Arendt, it becomes
possible to recognize in Adorno, not so much a critica! theory erected upon
shaky normative foundations, as an account of the' withdrawal of the political
in modernity, which can only be addressed negatively.

Conclusion

We are now in the position to address the question raised at the ourser.
namely: What do Arendt and Adorno have to say to us roday? Edward Said.
~ n his magnificent essay "Reflections on Exile," argues chat "our age-\~·ic h
.' its modern warfare, imperialism, and the quasi-theological a mbirions ot tL)-
tali tari an rulers-is indeed the age of the refugee, the displaced person, n l.l'.'-'
immigratton · ." 81 11. 11s
· 1s
· perl1aps truer today than w hen Said h· rs r pu Lli,
t} · h'"-{
"
~ thi_s essay in 1984. While seeking to avoid a ro manticizario n t)t. th is t, ~t1 rl':
Sa1d argucs . rhat t hc reru
c gee (ec hom
. g Arend t,s notio n ot-·I
r ll' re t-ll :--'"
~·c •,, th-
"vanguar<l of h . . 1 ,,) . . . . - • ''!\ hisr !'"")-
er pcop c occ up1cs a pn vdcged v.1m;te;c porn c. ' .
. . 11
PI ,are Pn,l CJ pa Y. awa rc
e ., . ~ . ·1·,
,. c, 1t • •1r~
oî one cultu re , onr scrnn g. o ne horrn.. ..
f .. •nc~~
. o at leas t tw o, ,H llI t J11· s p1u ra 1it y o{ · v isio n givcs rtsf
awarc · W a 11 'n,·.t .rt__ j
5
of s1multaneo J 11· -· c.
11 0111 nn1stl
us n ens1ons, a n aw:i rcncss th :H- W bo rrow
 HOM ELE ss
PBr toso pHy
279
tal."s2 lt was from such a "con trap u l"
apun
cont~ d rno were able to turn a criti cal eye nta h persp ectiv
.
e that Arendt
dA o on t e Ger h'l
an . . n that had nurt ured them , albe it as I . d' . man P 1 osophical
ad1t10 ,
rr as well as on the inte llect ual trad ition in icate m d. 11 .
ways, l ' ra ica Ydifferent
s, ture
. of the Unit ed Stat es-A rend t's perm an h '. and po1·ltlca
cu . l.
nons mstitu-
dAdorno's temp orar y abod e unti l ent ome m the os . d
an . h 1949 M f P twar peno
b
erspecnve, t ey were a le, moreover, to reflect er, rom
. oreov this comrapuntal
P d h
upon
results when men an wom en are progressively turn td e catastrophe rhat
· d f · · . e
. d I
citizens, stnp pe o c1t1zensh1p altogether rendered h mto secon -c ass
, 1
ome ess, an , nally,
d fi
placed in camps. In a wor d, whe n they are made superfluou
s. s3
I have sought to argu e that Arendt's and Adorno's experience of exile
en-
ters deeply and prof ound ly into their own conceptions of exper
ience, which
forms the basis of wha t l've called a "ho~ less 2hilc:i~otr " Aren
dr ap-
propriates Kan t's noti on of "reflective judgmem t wfilêlî -
nds its analogue
in Adorno' s conc epti on of a mimetic relation to the objec
t. In the first, a
universal is gene rated out of the particular as an effect of the
imagination,
while in the seco nd, the boun dary between subject and objec
t is held in
. . l l ffi d
tens1on, ~1mu tane ous y a rme an d questioned · In both,
. .·~ " . what is made
. . ,, b
poss1ble 1 new beg1nn1n g, ecause such a form of expenence, . .
rather than
.
. f the struc tures of dommatmg su 6Jec-
endlessly1I repeat'1ng the affirmauon
.. \
° •c . .
f the plurahty consntuttve . .
t1v1ty, opens up the poss1'bT 1 ity of mann .
estanon o
releological telos a condition of
- ~ d ) kes as its non
of the15'olitical (Aren t or ta ication between subject and ob-
peace, or a genu ine, nonr e d u ctive comm .
un
hen, is openness to what is. d.wer- cc
enence, t
)·eet, self and other. Gen uine exp . . to che Hegelian concept of Spmt ..
. h pos1t 10ll · lf
ent, and 1s t us steadfastly in op its corcuo us J. ourney home to 1tse , an d
f rherness 011
unburdening itsel f O O . ropos of onto log_ical uproo .
tedne ss.
equally to the Hei egg
.d enan day l1es prec1se ly in the force field
t direcrlY t~ to show che possibiliry of
s rnos 1 ,mpu 1se
Wha t speaks to u rnenologica ·d h depredations of narure. on rhe
between Aren d t s p ' heno mt t e . f
11 beings a l to shov,, how ,-111 )' conce pnon
c hurna . l impu se o
making a home ior d·,.,jectlca . ln." ,
's l o of tt S oW 11 negacion. on the orher. i.s
one hand and Adorno b rhc for01 . he fa
<
ce of
•
incrcas111g homek·~,-
' . d )' 1 rhat ,n t
home must be urn1te rhe rhou g ,cl "yoncl r I1 c borders ot rhe n ,Hll)l1
, . , .
- \ {,Hl. tl

can b eun d er S
rood as f ourse , -,e
do c l1 ·c the " ri o hr w h ,t\T ri~ln, ... \ l
. hiO a o ' \· 1 rn an 1c ~ l •in 1~ 10 .1 ' t' ,.
ness both -wit i-. ,he , P'-1 t)I ,\1lh khH1 ~rnf-
. for Jl \ c fo rg 01 icn
. porcant -c neve r -, . mun it \', n el l' \\Î\ ,\tl'' .rnd , .tt11h1t
is equally un t.at rnLts nit )', a n ~· Ln n, .
y,/P
the same time, . in cof11 .J11ll .. \
f; ci~d lo g.iL o l I l en , ' .
l l\

bersb1P t. 53cr1
that mem \eteh' cve j
avoid comP