忠信兄，
我翻書，無意中找到Horkheimer和Ardono合著的【
此想法，你認為怎樣？
-----
漢清兄：
大函所提討論，我認為不易。我不曉得友那些朋友對 Horkheimer、Ardono 熟？我自己雖讀過一些，但不是專門攻此，也很久
沒碰了，偶而要提到才再翻出參考。
至於舊作，無足觀矣，還談到思想云云，那就太抬舉了！倒是前一、
的討論，我正陸續就此題材寫一些東西，
以上敬覆
杭之
-----
閣下提的《1949禮讚》，自是您一向關心的台北現代化史之重要一環。
上次4月15 (周五)是Wikipedia 說您的生日。如要約棟兄，考慮4.13 (周三)，他休假日。我們2月底、3月初再敲定。
敬祝
新年新希望***
East coast) and Friedrich Pollock and Adorno (in Los Angeles with Horkheimer). Undoubtedly the handwritten notes that annotate several of the type-script pages reflects some of the comments he received from his respondents. More mysterious is the fact that the essay was never published in the form presented here. Paragraphs from it appear in Eclipse of Reason, and long passages comprise a German edition of the text in the Nachlass (volume 12) but that version is a contemporary product of the editors. What appears here for the first time is Horkheimer’s original essay in full and in its original English-language format. To say that Horkheimer’s command of English was far from fluent in 1943 will be clear to readers at once. I have done my best to reconstruct the text from the type-script original which was overlain, probably over many months, if not years, with hand-written notes, alterations and additions."
*****
In «Culture industry reconsidered»
| Terje S. Skjerdal [ Home ]
《佛樂文化今昔》商業經營策略在現代佛樂中的滲透 (119講 11月14 日)
這和時報出版等公司操作SPENCE 演講等等 都是 T. W. Adorno所謂的 :文化工業 : In search of a philosophy of praxis in Theodor Adorno's negative dialecticsAbstractThis paper evaluates Theodor Adorno's work in light of Karl Marx's preference to expand ideology beyond its mere theoretical framework. Particular attention is paid to Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment", which he co-authored with Max Horkheimer. The concepts of culture and modernity are most important in this regard. The conclusion remains that Adorno diverges significantly from Marx, both in his interpretation of modernity and his proposed possibilities for change.Content
Framework: philosophy as a vehicle for changeIn introducing the expression «the philosophy of praxis», Antonio Gramsci (1971) captured well the intention of Karl Marx's philosophical project, namely, to bring about a philosophy that was not merely a philosophy per se, but also a philosophy that actually sought to change the world for the better. To investigate whether Marx succeeded in his project is not at stake here. Rather, we will look into the thoughts of Theodor W. Adorno, whose aim was in part to advance the Marxian project to an application of contemporary culture. Our argument is twofold: Firstly, that the works of Adorno must be read as an imperative cry for change; secondly, that Adorno's concern nonetheless was more that of a pessimistic interpretation than that of an optimistic action. The observant reader will notice that we fail to answer to what extent the thoughts of Adorno actually has led to change of any kind. The objection is sound. We will namely to no degree claim to prove the link between theory and practice. On the contrary, it is our proposition that such a link can hardly be established at all on the explanatory level.In investigating Adorno's thoughts – which is a more appropriate word than 'philosophy' since Adorno probably nowhere claimes to give birth to a new philosophy departed from all previous [ 1] – we will look at his view of culture and modernity, and his relationship to Marx. Culture and modernity will not be dealt with separately, since they overlap, at least when it comes to understanding contemporary society. Culture is the manifold expression of human activity in a given group or groups of people. It involves manners of production as well as ways of exchanging ideas. Modernity, then, is the general depiction of Western society and culture subsequent to the advent of advanced production methods and after the increase in mass communication, usually specified to the eighteenth century and onwards. It is reasonable that Adorno would agree on these general definitions; we see no need to elaborate on them further. An underlying framework of this paper is the role of change in philosophy, or the relationship between theory and practice. This approach may very well provide a relatively exhaustive method to look at a certain philosophy, yet it also leaves behind some blind spots. The reader should be aware of this shortcoming. To read this paper as a comprehensive comparison between Adorno and Marx is wrong and unfruitful. Adorno's interpretation of modern culture: pessimism in its fullest extentAdorno's view of modern culture was pessimistic from A to Z. He saw the progress of enlightenment as a calamity to mankind, not only on the outward, mechanic level, but on the inward, intuitive level as well. This is the blunt way to summarize Adorno's interpretation of modernity. The sophisticated way is not as simplistic since it will have to take into consideration various presuppositions and explanations, but it remains just as pessimistic.The main source to Adorno's interpretation of modernity is Dialectic of Enlightenment (1979 [1947]), which he composed together with Max Horkheimer during the Frankfurt school's American exile. The significance of the work lies in its demand that all parts of modern culture is unconsciously penetrated by the «self-destruction of the Enlightenment» (p. xiii). Adorno did not tone down these thoughts later in his academic writings; rather, he reinforced them. In «The schema of mass culture» ( 1991), he paid particular attention to the collapse of the difference between culture and practical life (Bernstein, 1991) [2]. In «Culture industry reconsidered» (1991), he repeated that «the total effect of the culture industry is one of anti-enlightenment» (p. 92) [ 3]. Hence, we may utilize Saussurean terms and in the name of Adorno doom the signified «enlightenment» ironic and false since the signifier (the enlightenment era) actually does not at all 'signify' true information or freedom from deception [ 4]. The same irony appears in the title «The culture industry: enlightenment as mass deception», a significant chapter on modernity in Dialectic of Enlightenment . Therein lies the very core of Adorno and Horkheimer's argument.The modern man should, according to Adorno (1979), be viewed as having a «fallen nature» (p. xiv). This fallen nature appeared through all of modern culture: in the means of production, in man's thought, in society's superstructure, in the trace of history. Enlightenment rendered no room for reason in its redeeming sense. A substantial part of Adorno's critical theory was built on his notion of the «culture industry», which he claimed to be a preferred term over «mass culture» since the latter falsely implies «a culture that arises spontaneously from the masses themselves, the contemporary form of popular art» (Adorno, 1991, p. 85). Adorno claimed that the whole and the parts of the modern world have no choice but to conform to the culture industry: «The whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry» (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1979, p. 126). Thus, «monopoly» and «sameness» contained to Adorno some important features of the culture industry. Adorno claimed that what enlightenment was expected to bring about, pluralism and demythologization, turned out to be the contrary. Man is subject to conformity rather than choice, and myth is still a predominant guiding force, though it has taken on a different costume than previous ages' all-absorbing Christianity. The important, underlying assumption that Adorno makes here is that all these things take place on the unconsicous level. Man thinks he is free, but he is not. «Freedom to choose an ideology – since ideology always reflects economic coercion – everywhere proves to be freedom to choose what is always the same» (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1979, pp. 166–167). If someone wants to object to the preset order of the culture industry, the only way is through «realistic dissidence», which is in reality not a threat to the industry but rather a reinforcement (p. 132). The cultural chaos of enlightenment was to Adorno and Horkheimer a result of the power of capitalism. Their ideas in this respect clearly owe a great deal to Marx. Culture was not any more a product of man's creative mind, but of the standardized, uniform mechanisms put forth by large intenational financial conerns. The result was «the circle of manipulation» and a society «alienated from itself» (Adorno & Horkheimer, 1979, p. 121). The motive of the culture industry is questioned in a number of Adorno's writings, and the assumption remains that the industry is interested in people merely as costumers – people become objects and surrender to the overall driving force of capitalism. One last important characteristic of Adorno's view of modernity and culture is his thorough disbelief in progress. The trajectory of modern history is unequivocally making its way to the worse. What gave rise to a certain protest against the establishment from Romanticism to Expressionism, is no longer appreciated or acknowledged. A keen art critic, Adorno gave several examples to prove his point in this regard. Broad attention was given to the field of music, where jazz in particular became the materialized representation of how enlightenment deteriorates [ 5]. We are then left with three characteristics which summarize Adorno's view of modernity: a mankind with a collectively corrupted mind, an industry with exploitative motives, and a history with a collapsing progress. The natural way to read Adorno in these matters is that he was careful to provide a thorough interpretation of modern culture and all its shortcomings. The next step would then be to look for proposals for change, be it on the theoretical or the practical level. But Adorno never got there. He was stuck in his pessimistic interpretations, his subjectivist explanations, his anti-revolutionary nihilism. Before elaborating this point, we will turn to Adorno's relationship to classical Marxism. |
沒有留言:
張貼留言