Thinking as Gesture: A Note on Dialectic of Enlightenment

Author(s): Alexander Garca Dttmann

Source: New German Critique, No. 81, Dialectic of Enlightenment (Autumn, 2000), pp. 143-152
Published by: New German Critique
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/488550 .
Accessed: 30/07/2013 03:56
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

New German Critique and Duke University Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to New German Critique.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

as Gesture:
Thinking

A Noteon DialecticofEnlightenment
AlexanderGarciaDuittmann
The idea thatthereis a relationship
betweenthinking
and exaggerawhich
itspresentato
be
constitutive
of
itself
and
tion,
thinking
proves
is
an
idea
formulates
without
ever
Adorno
tion,
repeatedly
expressly
is meantto
and systematically
developing.Because thisrelationship
thelack of a systematic
allow thinking
to relateto truth,
development
cannotbe explainedas theresultofa simpleomissionon thepartofthe
The questionmustbe raisedwhether
Adorno'sidea does
philosopher.
ofthinkDoes theexaggeration
notin itselfamountto an exaggeration.
to
a
Does
thwart
the
not
systematically?
ing
attempt develop thought
of
the
idea
that
the
theabsenceof a systematic
verycondevelopment
not
result
from
of thinking
stitution
exaggeradependson exaggeration
ofjustifying
it?
fromtheimpossibility
tionitself,
Oncejustiis no longeran exaggeration.
Everyjustifiedexaggeration
is eitheran externaldeviceor a necessarylimitation
fied,exaggeration
whichconstiIn bothcases it ceases to be an exaggeration
of thought.
indeedit ceases to be an exaggeratutesthought
and itsclaimto truth;
The external
tioncapableof constituting
and itsclaimto truth.
thought
devicemayservethepurposeof rhetorical
speakemphasis,yetstrictly
cannotbe justifiedfromthepointof view of thought.
ing its function
Thoughtas suchstandsin no needof rhetorical
emphasis.Thus,exaga thoughtit emphasizesrhetorically.
As
gerationdoes not constitute
soon as ithas beenjustifiedas a rhetorical
italso
deviceor supplement,
ceases tobe an exaggeration.
Ithasbeendomesticated.
A necessarylimitation,
on theotherhand,belongsto thinking
itself.
143

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

144

As Gesture
Thinking

The moment
has elucidated
thisbelonging,
thenecessary
limitacritique
tioncan no longerbe viewedas an exaggeration
thatis activein even'
The insightintothinking
and its predisposition
to deviate,to
thought.
overshoot
theobjectit deemsto graspcognitively,
is indebted
to a crithatexaggeration
is an illusion,
evenifitlocates
tiquewhichunderstands
thenecessity
oftheillusionin theverystructure
ofthinking.
Once again
thejustifiedexaggeration
no longerappearsto be an exaggeration.
To
itpertains
theextentthatitis justified,
to thepastofan uncritical
orprecriticalthinking.
Given thatany justification
of an exaggeration
can
an
be
identified
as
actualization
of
one
of
these
two
always
possibilities,
one maystatethatin generaltherearenojustified
or that
exaggerations,
canbejustified
exaggerations
onlyatthepriceoftheirrelinquishment.
We seemto be movingin a circle.On theone hand,theassertion
that
is in essenceexaggeration
rousesthe suspicionof beingan
thinking
an unjustified
whichhas nothing
to do
assertion,
arbitrary
exaggeration,
withthinking.
On the otherhand,the systematic
of
development the
idea thatexaggerations
are constitutive
of thinking,
a development
whichalone can renderthisidea plausible,leads to its own negation
and thereby
annulsthe possibility
of an insight.To defineinsightin
termsof an intuition
or an inspiration
at odds withany systematic
andjustification,
does notopenthecircle,forto givesuch
development
a definition
meanstorenounce
thinking.
The circlewhichenvelopsthinking
and prevents
it frombeingfree,
more
which
within
itsmovement,
can
or,
precisely,
comprisesthinking
be describedas a peculiardialecticof enlightenment.
Enlightenment
seeks a way out of exaggeration,
an escape fromthe overwhelming
experience,whichthoughtcannotpenetrateand whichAdornoand
Horkheimer
as myth.
Yet thefurther
itproceedsin itsdestrucdesignate
tionof themythical,
themoreit fallspreyto mythand engenders
the
An
a
mythical. entirelyenlightened
thought, thoughtwhich,having
become identicalto itself,as it were,would meetno resistanceand
wouldbejustas littlea thought
as a mereexaggeration
everis.
Thatit is at all possibleto speakof sucha dialecticof enlightenment
and of sucha circlein whichthinking
is caughtup presupposes
thatthe
circleis notclosed and thatthe dialecticdoes notconsummate
itself
undisturbed.
At thispoint,all thatcan be said abouttheopennessof the
circleis thatit cannotresultfroma justification
of exaggeration.
How
does thinking
relateto theexaggeration
it is meantto be, andwhatis it

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Alexander
GarciaDiittmann

145

therelationto truth
whichcharacterizes
theexaggerating
thatinstitutes
if exaggeration
cannotbe justifiedand if thatwhichremains
thought,
a
fora justification,
intoa substitute
cannotbe transformed
unjustified
To put it differently,
how
alien to the claimsof thought?
substitute
relateto mythifmythis notan illusion,whichcan
does enlightenment
is notto be
be recognizedand done away with,and if enlightenment
tomyth
either?
submitted
of thesetwoquestions
It couldbe objectedto theanalogicaltreatment
as exaggeration
theunusualthesisof thinking
thathoweverenigmatic,
between
remainsa positiveclaim,whileanyclaimabouttherelationship
But
such
or
critical
claim.
be
a
must
and
negative
myth enlightenment
a "causal"linkbetween
an objectionis acceptableonlyifone constructs
and Adornosummarize
thetwothesesby meansof whichHorkheimer
of theirworkin theprefaceto DialecticofEnlightenment.
theargument
of a "causal" linkamountsto an arbitrary
In theend,theconstruction
of
and
Strictly
speakingsucha "causal"
enlightenment.
separation myth
as historical
linkcan onlyexistbetweenmythandenlightenment
forces,
not betweenthe two theses.Because mythis alreadyenlightenment,
must relapse into mythor, to quote verbatim,into
enlightenment
which presupposesa "causal" link
An interpretation
"mythology."
entailsthenecesand whichtherefore
betweenmythand enlightenment
sityof a criticalapproachcan referto a passagefromthefirstpartof
and Adorno'sbook: "To be sufficiently
Horkheimer
strongto shatter
is capableof
to
do
violence
must
thinking
myths,
itself."'Enlightenment
comthem
as
not
hence
does
and
something
oppose
myths
shattering
the
is
itself
incommensurable.
and
historical,
Myth
pletelyheterogeneous
and
Horkheimer
fact
of
resultof an earlyprocess enlightenment
(a
of theconceptof enlightenAdornotryto establishin theirexposition
of enlightenment
(a fact
ment)and containswithinitselfthepossibility
and Adornotryto establishin theirexcursuson theHomHorkheimer
ofthemythiforitspartimpliesthepossibility
ericepic).Enlightenment
itself
and
can
assert
a
of
violent
reification,
cal,
againstmythonlyto the
and Adornotryto
fact
Horkheimer
extentthatit becomesmythical
(a
of anti-Semitism).
in
of
establish theirreconstruction the "prehistory"
which link mythand
and commensurability
Thus, the homogeneity
a threefold
toeachothercanbe gaugedfrom
implication.
enlightenment
trans.
1. Max Horkheimer
and TheodorW. Adorno,DialecticofEnlightenment,
- AGD].
modified
JohnCumming
1972)4 [trans.
(NewYork:Continuum,

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

146

As Gesture
Thinking

in thefigure
of mythand fromthefigure
of
stepsforth
Enlightenment
from
the
of
inasmuch
as
it
forth
myth,
yet
steps
figure myth,
enlightenmentalso assumesa mythical
form.The interpretation
ofthedialecticof
whichcreatesa "causal"linkbetweenthisthreefold
enlightenment
impliand
cation therelapseofenlightenment
into"mythology,"
cannotbutcurof the propositionthat mythis already
tail the comprehension
Doubtless,thisinterpretation
enlightenment.
proceedsfromthehomogeofmyth
andenlightenment,
butonlyinorder
neityandcommensurability
and subordinate
the homogeneity
and
to set up an abstractopposition
to
a
and
It
ends
commensurability heterogeneity incommensurability. up
offagainstmyth,
andmythagainstenlightenment.
playingenlightenment
bearsmythictraitsmeansthatit can neverwholly
Thatenlightenment
and without
residueturnintomyth,
just as littleas mythcan neversimThe dialecticof enlightenment
is nota scheplyturnintoenlightenment.
of one intotheother,it is nota conversion,
maticand finalconversion
entanBecauseenlightenment
is inherently
whichendswitha finalresult.
with
it
is
determined
a
resistance
because
againstwhich
gled
myth,
by
it
is
non-identical
or
theenlightened
must
measure
because
itself,
thought
can onlysignify
a tenat odds withitself,therelapseinto"mythology"
- a tendency
an exaggeration
aboutby
brought
dencyand,consequently,
thetensionwhichdrivesmythand enlightenment
apartwhilealso relattwo
and
forces
these
homogeneous heterogeneous toeachother.
ing
also misjudgedby a critiThe dialecticof enlightenment
is therefore
or ineluctability
cism whichdenouncesits presumedinevitability
as a
or
to
this
totalization
exaggeration
dogmatic
referring
hypostasization,
which
betweenan enlightenment
as an occasion for distinguishing
whichhas been
remainsunderthespellof mythand an enlightenment
theory.For even a formof enlightenment
purifiedby communication
communication
mustdependon something
by
theory
mythical,
purified
whichprovesto be heterogeneous
on something
whencomparedto a
it pursues
communication
guidedby reason,at leastifthetransparency
the
is not to coincidewiththe opacityof myth,therebyconfirming
denouncedschema.An examplewill clarifythis constitutive
depenand paraphrasing
sectionof his noteson a
dency.In theintroductory
of discourseethics,Habermasspeaksof the
philosophical
justification
dialecticalforce field extendingbetweenthe actingand observing
of an individual
"whobelongsto a life
agents,betweentheperspective
world"and theperspective
this
of a moralphilosopher
who objectifies

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AlexanderGarcia Diittmann

147

world.He thusdrawsattention
to thefactthatethicsis keptalive bythe
of
both
unifying
perspectives,
bytheblindspotwhichforimpossibility
a radicaldecontextualization
and universalization
and in
everobstructs
"moral
intuitions
of
life"
from
so
the
doing prevents
everyday
being
valid reasons.2A perfinallyjustifiedon the groundsof universally
would
and,in thissense,universalcommunity
fectlydecontextualized
The unlimited
it would not be a community.
be sterileand abstract,
forces
of communicating
agentsmustrenewits sustaining
community
of
bound
a
recollection
means
of
constant
concrete,
contextually
by
Elias
of communicating
communities
agents.In his autobiography,
Canettiexpressesthisnecessityin a mannerwhichstressesthe diverperspectives
up thepointof paradox:"A 'moral'
genceof thedifferent
withthewayyoufeelandbehavein orderto strikeyou,
has to contrast
and it has to remainin you fora longtimebeforeit findsitsopportuThe factthatby seizingits
nity,suddenlybracesitself,and strikes."3
and comcannot
sublate
theantithesis
moral
the
opportunity assailing
fact
that
such an
the
in
it
without
becomingpowerless,
itself
prehend
and
to
an
amoral
to
nor
neither
experience
morality
belongs
opportunity
an entanglebehavior,shows, in termsof Dialectic of Enlightenment,

whichis vitalforenlightenment.
mentwithmyth
for
It is well knownthatthe "positive"conceptof enlightenment,
a
whichHorkheimer
andAdornowishto preparethepath,4presupposes
"self-reflecis
meant
here
What
"self-reflection"
by
[Selbstbesinnung].
of themisunderclarification
tion"can onlyamountto an enlightening
dialectic
of
in
the
which
consists
enlightenment
identifying
standing,
withan unavoidableand schematicrelapseintomyth.For the thesis
does not
relapsesinto"mythology"
accordingto whichenlightenment
followfromthethesisaccordingto whichmythis alreadyenlightenconsistsin going
ment.Securingthepositiveconceptof enlightenment
theentanglement
of
critical
or
a
understanding
merely
negative
beyond
It does notconsistin replacinga negative
of mythand enlightenment.
witha positiveone. The positiveconceptwill
conceptof enlightenment
do nothingbut indicatean awarenessof theblockagewhichprevents
ofPhilosophical
Jus"DiscourseEthics:Noteson a Program
2. Jiirgen
Habermas,
Lenhardt
Moral Consciousness
and Communicative
Action,trans.Christian
tification,"
WeberNicholsen(Cambridge:
andShierry
Polity,1990)47.
3. Elias Canetti,The TongueSet Free, trans.JoachimNeugroschel
(New York:
Seabury,1979)231.
xvi.
4. Horkheimer
andAdorno,
DialecticofEnlightenment

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

148

As Gesture
Thinking

the two theses of the book frombeing inscribedin a purely

in a relationship
of cause and effectwhich
(con)sequential
relationship,
frommythin an abstractfashion.Thus, the
detachesenlightenment
whichis constitutive
analogybetweenthequestionof an exaggeration,
of thought,
and thequestionof a mythical
whichis constituelement,
outtobejustified
afterall.
tiveofenlightenment,
turns
In MinimaMoralia,Adornopolemically
statesthatthetruthof psyin
His
lies
its
alone.5
seemsto
choanalysis
exaggerations
pointedremark
be directed
a
or
conformism.
One
could,of
against suppressing negating
of
it
as
a
a
more
course,interpret
specificexpression
generalthought:
Adomoclaimsthattruth
elsewhere,
generally
dependson theexaggerationsof thinking.
But thisinterpretation
would play down a remark
is inseparable
fromits specificity.
it would
whosesharpness
Moreover,
the
that
Adomo's
remark
cannot
be
itself
to
objection
separated
expose
fromthetherapeutic
froma value
valueof thepsychoanalytic
doctrine,
whichdoes notdetermine
discourse
the
way it detereveryconceptual
to
minespsychoanalysis.
It seemsplausible,however, assumethatthe
ofargumentation
includetheclaimto validity
pragmatic
presuppositions
of a universal
of arguments,
a claimwhichanticipates
theestablishment
in itsargumentative
and a striving
and
fordissent.Is thinking
consensus,
form
not
thwarted
and
the
irreconcilable
always
impelledby
conceptual
If an established
consensus
conflict
betweena doubleclaimor striving?
A consensus
is notheldopenby (virtual)dissent,it becomespetrified.
whichcouldno longerbe challenged
by dissentbecauseit wouldcoincide withwhatis trueand thusradicallyopposeitselfto thearbitrariwouldnotbe a consensusanymore.
nessof dogmaticassertions,
Hence,
is thwarted
and
to the extentthatthe claim to validityof a thought
a
of
a
for
the
establishment
double
a
impelledby
striving,
by striving
fora provocation
consensusand by the striving
dissent,only
through
are constitutive
can aim at truth,
thoughtsof which exaggerations
whicharedriven
thoughts
beyondtheir
possiblejustification.
In thetexton the"Essayas Form,"written
fromexile,
afterhisreturn
theaffinity
betweentheessayand "luckand play."6
Adornounderlines
He regardsitsformas rejecting
a wayofthinking
whichdrawson a phiof
the
"Its
are
not
derived
fromwhatcomes
losophy
origin:
concepts
5. Adorno,
MinimaMoralia,trans.E.F.N.Jephcott
(London:New Left,1974)49.
6. Adorno,"The Essayas Form,"NotestoLiterature,
vol. 1,trans.Shierry
Weber
- AGD].
Nicholsen(New York:NewYorkUP, 1991)4 [trans.
modified

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AlexanderGarcia Diittmann

149

offandtransformed
intowhatcomeslast."The
noraretheyrounded
first,
to be fundamentally
of
the
reveal
themselves
essayist
interpretations
If
Adomo's
of
is tied to the
"over-interpretations."
concept thinking
he gainsfromhisanalysisoftheessayas form,
thenhis exposiinsights
of an idea are determined
and his presentation
tionof a thought
by the
In his essay
whichresidesin every"over-interpretation."
exaggeration
"OpinionDelusionSociety"whichwas publishedin the early 1960s,
itselfinitsadequation
to a given,
exhausts
Adornoclaimsthatno thought
must
to factsor data,andthat,as a consequence,
exaggeration be considA
ofthinking. thought
moment
ereda constitutive
alwaysshootsbeyond
lies as much
its"confirmation
by thegivenfacts,"yetin thisdifference
fordelusionand madness.7The
fortruth
as its"potential"
its"potential"
whichis expressly
at stakehere,is already
to truth,
relationof thought
in
introduction
in
Adomo
the
to hismetaca
raises
conspicuous question
on the
the
reflections
This
calls
to
mind
of
ritique epistemology. question
of
luck
should
the
"For
form:
as
spiritbe
why,indeed,
playful
essay
Ten yearslater,inNegativeDialectics,
diminished
bytheriskoferror?"8
whichcannotfallintothe"abyss"of "madAdornowritesthata truth
buta "potential
andnothing
ness"is merely
tautology."9
"analytical"
withstands
which
in
of
movement
the
justification
exaggeration
Only
of
is thought
becomethought,
does thought
capable aspiringto truth.
of adequacy
to be conceivedof as a relationship
Thus truthis neither
of
nor
self-referential
as
a
and a given
betweena thought
relationship
and truth.Only
Thinkingand truthare not simplythinking
thinking.
and exposedto madnessand
whentheyare carriedbeyondthemselves
or truth.
delusioncan theybecomewhatdeservesto be calledthinking
whichno longermeasuresitselfagainstsomething
An exaggeration
to whichit could be reducedand
something
given or presupposed,
is neitheran indicationof
whichwould accountforits intelligibility,
nor
of madnessand delusion;it is neither
nora symptom
truth
thinking
as gesture.
itsopposite.Ratheritis thinking
constitute
Why
aimingat truth?
everythought
Whydoes exaggeration
a gesture?
Becausewitheverynewand inaugurating
is thinking
thought
and Catch7. Adorno,"OpinionDelusionSociety,"CriticalModels:Interventions
words,trans.HenryW. Pickford
(New York:ColumbiaUP, 1998) 108. Cf. Alexander
Studien(FrankDrei aesthetische
GarciaDilttmann,
"Das RechtderKunst,"Kunstende.
/Main:Suhrkamp,
furt
2001).
A Metacritique,
trans.WillisDomingo(Oxford:
8. Adorno,
AgainstEpistemology:
Basil Blackwell,1982) 15.
9. Adorno,
NegativeDialectics,trans.E. B. Ashton(NewYork:Seabury,1973)34.

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

150

As Gesture
Thinking

theworldis experienced
and because in openingand disdifferently,
a
has
been driven
world,
thinking alreadyand irrecoverably
closing
in
a
world
disclosed
can
a thought
itself.
Only
beyond
previously
to
in
what
is
this
there
can
one
world,only
correspond
given
speak
and distinguish
of a "mere"exaggeration
betweena justifiedand an
Yet, does one notjustifytheexaggeration
unjustified
exaggeration.10
if one gives suchan answerto thequestionof its constiof thinking
No. For an exaggeration
is an exposure.Thereis no
tutivefunction?
without
the
thinking
disclosingpractice,whichexposes it to both
madness and truth.Precisely because it can never be decided
whethera thoughtis in facta truethought,
cannotbe
exaggeration
however,does not triggera relativistic
justified.This impossibility,
of thinking
vacillation.A manifestation
is incompatiblewithother
of thinking,
since it mustclaim thattheworldshould
manifestations
be viewedand understood
accordingto theway in whichit opens it
it.
and
discloses
That
the
veryidea of an opening,thatis, a disup
of
a
world
be
can
closure,
deconstructed,
changes nothing.As a
of thinking,deconstruction
manifestation
claims that the world
should be understoodas a worldin the processof deconstruction.
The incompatibleclaim of thinkingwithdrawsfromits justificawhichallows fora disclosureand
tion,giventhatthe exaggeration,
in thefirstplace,
to claimsomething
makesit possiblefora thought
cannotbe justified.Thinkingresemblesartif theworkof artis considered fromthe radicallyantagonisticpoint of view of Valery
10. In "Social TheoryandtheArtofExaggeration,"
BertvandenBrinkreadsDiaas a testimony
lecticofEnlightenment
toan "artofexaggeration."
Theauthorappealsto a
in whichHorkheimer
and Adornomaintain
that"exaggeration
alone is true"
paragraph
theconceptofexaggeration.
The"artofexaggera(49). Yet he doesnotmanagetoclarify
tion"is tobe construed
as an "uncompromising
andforthisreasonemancipatory"
attempt
to"escapetheattenuating
coercionofthegiven."Thisattempt
is saidtobe "basedonpersonalexperience."
It is impossible
to"justify"
an exaggeration
fromthestandpoint
ofthe
vandenBrinkmustpresupposeinorderto distin"given"orofthe"facts"- a standpoint
fromit.Thusexaggeration
becomesa "rhetorical
device"(59). On the
guishexaggeration
onehand,thisrhetorical
deviceservesthepurposeof"shaking
[someone]outof[his]apaithas a psychological,
nota logical
thy"andof"making[him]sensitive
[tosomething]":
function.
On theotherhand,itis meantto allowforthe"designation"
of"whatis essenforce"(55). To theextent
thatexagtial,"andhenceprovestohavea "'world-disclosing'
is a "'world-disclosing'
force,"itis morethanjusta "rhetorical
geration
device,"which
has an effect
thatcan be measuredagainstpresupposed"facts."Van denBrinkdoes not
elucidatetherelationship
betweenthe(onto)logical
andthepsychological
function
ofhis
See "Social TheoryandtheArtof Exaggeration,"
Neue Rundconceptof exaggeration.
schau,vol. 1 (Frankfurt/Main:
Fischer,1997).

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

AlexanderGarcia Diittmann

151

is also a messagein a
whichAdornoappropriates.11
However,thinking
bottle,a "gesturecomposedof concepts,"to quote an expression
fromtheforties.12
Adornouses ina letter
toHorkheimer
at leastto theextentthatitopens
is
exaggeration,
Thinking essentially
whichdependson sucha disa
and
world.
discloses
Everythought,
up
an
must
the
trace
of
bear
Yet,does thesubstanticlosure,
exaggeration.
ationof theseclaimsindeedjustifythe far-reaching
analogybetween
of
Whileit is assertedthatmythis constitutive
mythand exaggeration?
in thesenseof thearguin all itsmanifestations,
exaggeration
thinking
constitutes
mentpresented
namelythat
onlya specifickindof thinking,
as
the
be
which
can
characterized
Therefore,
thinking
philosophical.
be
and
cannot
a
limited
has
exaggeration
only
validity.Myth
analogy
in
the
of
used as synonyms thiscontext; exaggeration philosophyis
and exceptionalcase of themythical.
However,one
onlya particular
identificamustbearin mindthatinstrumental
reason,or theconceptual
Horkheimer
and
tion effectedby the mythically
rationality
petrified
the
cannot
be
of
Adornodescribeas thedominant
figure enlightenment,
one
it
to
of
form
Rather, corresponds
enlightenment.
only possible
of theconopeningand to one disclosureof theworld,as thesplitting
intoa positiveconceptand a negativeconcept
cept of enlightenment
clearlyshows.In NegativeDialectics,Adornoadmitsof thepossibility
continand thusrecognizestheirreducibly
of a prehistoric
catastrophe
Not
of
the
dialectic
moment
of
enlightenment.13 everyopeningof
gent
But withoutthe exaggeration
a
a worldis performed
by philosopher.
to
itselfin everynew philosophical
whichmustalso manifest
thought,
This
unthinkable.
remain
points
openup and to disclosea worldwould
cannotbe tracedback to an exaggerating
to thefactthatexaggeration
and thatitspracticeis neversimplythepracticeof thephisubjectivity
as
losopher subject.
11. It is wellknownthatProust'sworkplayeda centralroleinAdorno's"intellectualeconomy."In TheGuermantes
Way,Proustwrites:"And,lo' andbehold,theworld
aroundus (whichwas notcreatedonceandforall,butis createdas oftenas an originalartclear."Marcel
fromtheold world,butperfectly
different
ist is born)appearsentirely
revised
andTerenceKilmartin,
Proust,TheGuermantes
Way,trans.C. K. ScottMoncrieff
1993).
(NewYork: ModemLibrary,
byD. J.Enright
ed. W. vanReijenandG. Schmidt-Noerr
12. Citedin VierzigJahreFlaschenpost,
Fischer,1987)9.
(Frankfurt/Main:
Das
13. Adomo, NegativeDialectics 323. Cf. AlexanderGarcia Diittmann,
des Denkens. Versuchiiber Heidegger und Adorno (Frankfurt/Main:
Geddichtnis
1991) 123.
Suhrkamp,

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

152

As Gesture
Thinking

A critiqueofDialecticofEnlightenment
itselfsolelywith
concerning
hencewiththeclaimthatHorkheitstheticstyleand apodicticmanner,
imerand Adornodo notexaminetheirideaswithsatisfactory
scientific
them
andconfirming bymeansofdatafromanthrorigor,corroborating
historical,
sociological,political,and economic
pological,ethnological,
missestheargument
and developedin
research,inevitably
putforward
for
theirbook. Revisionsof the chapteron the cultureindustry,
in a spiritof eitherenlightenment
or counterinstance,undertaken
will alwaysbe toilingin itswake,no matter
howjustienlightenment,
be.
the
of
fiedand howconvincing
theymay Perhaps thought a converand of a relapseof enlightenment
into
sion of mythintoenlightenment
if one seriouslyattempts
is exaggerated
to
and schematic
"mythology"
of the thesisthatmythis alreadyenlightenanalyzethe implications
without
at the
ment.But howwouldone criticizesuchan exaggeration
whichprosame timemakinglightof the"NationalSocialistterror,"
fortheir
withthemostterrifying
incentive
videdthetwophilosophers
with
the
How
one
establish
that
book?
would
certainty
exaggerating
whichtheinsight
thegesturewithout
intothedialectic
traitof thinking,
of enlightenment
wouldhave remainedhidden,does notexpressitself
inthisexaggeration?

This content downloaded from 128.151.244.46 on Tue, 30 Jul 2013 03:56:30 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions