|
''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' ((ドイツ語:Dialektik der Aufklärung)) is a work of philosophy and social criticism written by Frankfurt School philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno and first published in 1944. A revised version appeared in 1947. One of the core texts of Critical Theory, ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' explores the socio-psychological ''status quo'' that had been responsible for what the Frankfurt School considered the failure of the Age of Enlightenment. Together with ''The Authoritarian Personality'' (1950; also co-authored by Adorno) and Frankfurt School member Herbert Marcuse's ''One-Dimensional Man'' (1964), it has had a major effect on 20th -century philosophy, sociology, culture, and politics, inspiring especially the New Left of the 1960s and 1970s.〔Held, D. (1980).Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas.Berkeley, University of California Press.〕 ==Historical context== One of the distinguishing characteristics of the new Critical Theory, as Adorno and Horkheimer set out to elaborate it in ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', is a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination. This ambivalence gave rise to the “pessimism” of the new Critical Theory over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.〔Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford UP, 2002. 242.〕 This ambivalence was rooted in the historical circumstances in which ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' was originally produced: the authors saw National Socialism, Stalinism, state capitalism, and mass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Critical Theory.〔"Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer’s circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions." "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno." in Habermas, Jürgen. ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures''. trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1987. 116. Also, see Helmut Dubiel, ''Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory'', trans. Benjamin Gregg (Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1985).〕 For Adorno and Horkheimer (relying on the economist Friedrich Pollock’s thesis on National Socialism),〔Willem van Reijen and Jan Bransen. "The Disappearance of Class History in the Dialectic of Enlightenment." in ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. 248. Also see, Friedrich Pollock. "Is National Socialism a New Order?" ''Studies in Philosophy and Social Science'' 9 (1941), 453.〕 state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "relations of production" and the "material productive forces of society," a tension which, according to traditional Critical Theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and private property had been replaced by centralized planning and socialized ownership of the means of production.〔"()one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. p. 38.〕 Yet, contrary to Marx’s famous prediction in the ''Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy'', this shift did not lead to "an era of social revolution," but rather to fascism and totalitarianism. As such, traditional Critical Theory was left, in Jürgen Habermas’ words, without "anything in reserve to which it might appeal; and when the forces of production enter into a baneful symbiosis with the relations of production that they were supposed to blow wide open, there is no longer any dynamism upon which critique could base its hope."〔"The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment," p. 118.〕 For Adorno and Horkheimer, this posed the problem of how to account for the apparent persistence of domination in the absence of the very contradiction that, according to traditional Critical Theory, was the source of domination itself.〔Held, D. (1980).Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas.Berkeley, University of California Press.〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Dialectic of Enlightenment」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|