Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:09:12 +0200
From: Claus Hansen <clausdh-AT-tdcspace.dk>
Subject: Re: Translations of the Dialectic of Enlightenment


Hi Ralph and the rest of the list,

I don't think the new translation alone will change your view on A & H's 
understanding of the science in the Dialectic of Enlightenment. But as I am 
currently about DoE in my Thesis on Adorno and the list being so silent 
recently I wouldn't mind a quick discussion about the book on this list.

I'm quite sure that Adorno did not mean his statement about Enlightenment 
reverting to mytholody literally. In fact in one of his lectures (the one 
on Metaphysics) he states

"I once said that after Auschwitz one could no longer write poetry, and 
that gave rise to a discussion I did not anticipate when I wrote those 
words. I did not anticipate it because it is in the nature of philosophy 
and everything I write is, unavoidably, philosophy, even if it is not 
concerned with so-called philosophical themes that nothing is meant quite 
literally"

This is also what Buck-Morss and Rose emphasises in their early readings of 
Adorno, in order to understand this paradoxical claim about myth 
being  enlightenment etc. one has to understand the style of writing 
employed by Adorno. The question is how we are to interpret this claim. In 
my understanding (which leans heavily on the interpretations offered by J.M 
Bernstein, Disenchantment and Ethics and S. Jarvis, Adorno: Critical 
Introduction) myth is already enlightenment because it is already an 
attempt at explaining and controling our natural environment thereby being 
a tool for overcoming our fear of what is unknown to us (and therefore 
potentially dangerous). This thesis is the easiest to accept. However, 
Adorno also aligns enlightenment with myths and he tries to make this 
plausible by appealing to the fact that enlightenment is dogmatic because 
it relegates everything outside itself to be mere myth (which should be 
understood as the 'projection of subjective properties onto nature'). This 
is problematic even for enlightenment itself because being nothing more 
than critique it depends on myths (if there were no myths then there was 
nothing to enlighten us about) and being unable to recognise this 
dependence it becomes sceptical with the result that it devalues itself in 
the end because we cannot be sure if enlightenment itself could not be a 
myth - a mere 'projection of subjective properties onto nature'. While this 
explains what Adorno means this does not defend his claim but I find both 
Bernsteins, Jarvis' and Espen Hammer's interpretations of Adorno and his 
critics convincing in this respect. Hammer and Bernstein tries to show how 
for instance Habermas in fact succumbs to 'identity thinking' if one 
interprets Adorno the way they do.

But please elaborate on your claim about their knowledge of the 'man of 
science', that would be interesting.

Claus



At 16:26 16-07-03 -0400, you wrote:
>The two passages compared are not yet enough for me to spend the money on 
>the new translation, though when I feel the need for crystal clarity I 
>suppose I will have to do so.  I am now reading my copy of the old 
>Cummings translation, through the first chapter so far.  The less murky 
>new translation does not help to ease my discomfort with the passage 
>cited, which requires another sort of decoding after reading it.  That is, 
>for me to make sense out of this passage, I have to transform it into my 
>own frame of reference, as I do not believe that the authors' claim about 
>the Enlightenment as myth is an acceptable claim literally speaking.  And 
>of course they never knew squat about the 'man of science', only an 
>ideological image of him.  Do you think that the new translation will make 
>this book more palatable to me?
>
>At 09:38 PM 6/20/2003 +0100, Lloyd SPENCER wrote:
>>Thanks to Claus Hansen for his note making tentative comparisons between the
>>translations. It is certainly useful to have the tough philosophical
>>terminology left strange. But otherwise the two translations were remarkably
>>close. I am looking forward to looking at the new translation more closely.
>>
>>Lloyd
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Claus Hansen" <clausdh-AT-tdcspace.dk>
>>To: <frankfurt-school-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>; <marcusb49-AT-excite.com>
>>Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 4:11 PM
>>Subject: Re: Fwd: Dialectic of Enlightenment translations
>>
>>
>>Dear all
>>
>>I have also only read passages of the new translation but I have both and my
>>first impression is that the new translation is a lot better than the old
>>one
>>which cannot surprise given the development in readings on Adorno in
>>English since 1972 when the first translation appeared. The new edition
>>also has a lot of extra notes that give an insight into the changes A & H
>>made
>>to DoE in order for them not to appear to marxist in their exile in the
>>States.
>>There are also a few essays that deals with DoE and its relation to the
>>Frankfurt School development in that period.
>>
>>This is a passage from the new and the old
>>
>>"Myth becomes enlightenment and nature mere objectivity. Human beings
>>purchase the increase in their power with estrangement from that over
>>which it is exerted. Enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things
>>as the dictator to human beings. He knows them to the extent that he can
>>manipulate them. The man of science knows things to the extent that he
>>can make them. Their 'in-itself' becomes 'for him.' In their transformation
>>the
>>essence of things is revealed as always the same, a substrate of domination"
>>(DoE 2002 Edition p. 6).
>>
>>"Myth turns into enlightenment, and nature into mere objectivity. Men pay
>>for the increase of power with alienation from that over which thet exercise
>>their power. Enlightenment behaves toward things as a dictator toward men.
>>He knows them in so far as he can manipulate them. The man of science
>>knows things in so far as the can make them. In this way their potentiality
>>is turned to his own ends. In the metamorphosis the nature of things, as
>>a substratum of domination, is revealed as always the same" (DoE 1972
>>Edition p. 9).
>>
>>What is instructive is the differences in the passage I have made italic.
>>In the
>>old edition it is virtually impossible to understand what A & H are saying
>>while
>>it is (IMHO) much easier in the new edition. I think one of the problems
>>with
>>the old translation of both DoE and Negative Dialectics is that they do not
>>translate the philosophical terminology (for instance 'in-itself',
>>'for-him', 'reason',
>>'understanding', 'intuition' etc.) as they are done in the english
>>translations of Kant
>>and Hegel making it impossible to see when A & H are refering to and
>>building on Kantian and Hegelian understandings of the world.
>>
>>Hope this helps,
>>
>>Claus