Talk:Dialectic of Enlightenment

Counter-Culture

I doubt that this intellectual book had any impact on the drug-saturated, illiterate 1960s counter-culture. The people who belonged to that counter-culture had two motivations: avoiding military service and experiencing as much pleasure as possible. They were listening, in a narcotized stupor, to their so-called "music," not reading Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse. The statement in the article that this book had the effect of "inspiring especially the 1960s counter-culture," falsely represents the behavior of that time as a romantic, intellectual "movement." In actuality, it was the outward expression of extreme selfishness and egoism. Academics claim that it was a people's revolt, created by intellectuals, because that fits the nineteenth century model as propounded by Marx, and enhances their position. It was, however, not a physical manifestation of the intellectual ideas of reason and dialectic, but a physical manifestation of the will to live, coupled with an unquenchable thirst for pleasure. Future generations will be exposed only to the version that is disseminated by the academics and the media. What really occurred will be a well-kept secret, known only by those who had actual experience and are now passing into geriatric apathy. 66.82.9.88 16:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)Aubrey Aubervilliers

You really ought to have a look at Counterculture of the 1960s and New Left. Furthermore, since many people perceive the 1960s Counterculture as the counterculture, you can find Dialectic of Enlightenment under see also at Counterculture. --TlatoSMD (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a huge difference between the Counterculture of the 1960s and the New Left. I wasn't there, but I would doubt that Jerry Garcia, Janice Joplin, or even Timothy Leary were influenced by the Dialectic of Enlightenment. It was not being read onstage at Woodstock, and I doubt it was being read amongst the concert-attendees. I learned of it through the teachings of Murray Bookchin, who was a member of both the Old Left and the New Left. When we separate the New Left from the Counterculture of the 1960s, or at least see the New Left as a sub-set of the Counterculture, this can make more sense. MasterPrac (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I heard Habermas talking about this book's influence on Jerry Garcia and Jerry's thoughts on at some point. Said something about the culture industry. I forget what he said and couldn't find it on Google. I'll see if I can dig something up. Carlsher (talk) 03:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I think avoiding war and seeking as much pleasure as possible are the same motivation, not two. They may be regarded as a polarity, but the motivation to flee death and experience life as fully as possible are one and the same. The essential directive of a sentient being. You may argue what a fully lived life looks like, but I do not wish to do so with you as you appear to be a bit of a colorless thing. Billy the seal boy (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

An interesting quote from Adorno about the 1960s protests and popular music: “I believe… that attempts to bring political protest together with “popular music” – that is, with entertainment music – are.. doomed from the start. The entire sphere of popular music… is to such a degree inseparable… from consumption, from the cross-eyed transfixion with amusement, that… attempts to attempts to outfit it with a new function remain entirely superficial.” Apparently, Adorno and Horkheimer didn’t think that Dialectic of Enlightenment would have much of an impact on anyone when the wrote it, which is why, according to Habermas, they sent the manuscript off to a small émigré Dutch publisher after the war; the intention, apparently, was “to leave behind messages like letters in a bottle.” “Copies of the first edition were available for almost twenty years. The impact of this book – through which Horkheimer and Adorno exercised a special influence upon the intellectual development of the Federal Republic of Germany, especially in its first two decades – stands in a curious relation to the number of its purchasers.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.124.168 (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To the anonymous IP above me: What you're quoting there is pretty much Adorno's take on the Kulturindustrie (aka entertainment industry). Adorno pretty much believed it impossible that truly subversive, challenging content can be communicated via a commercial(ilized) and/or popular medium due to the conditions of production behind those, and that any attempt of such will irretrievably corrupt, distort, mutilate, misrepresent, misinterpret the message. Note, however, that there's also an opposing view within Critical Theory, and that is by Herbert Marcuse, who is just as much a core theorist of first-generation CT and who thought it indeed possible to convey subversive messages even through a commercial, popular medium by careful guerilla tacticts, see for instance his 1959 essay, Über Gleichgültigkeiten gegen die Kultur ("On indifferences towards culture") A radio recording of said essay on YouTube (in German).

Oh, and as for the New Left: Adorno was with the protesting students in spirit, it was just that he saw plainly they had no chance in a society that didn't listen to the small minority that they were. And like any true marxist, he disapproved of individual terrorism as counter-productive: You need the majority of people on your side to get anything done, and you don't win them over by terror. --79.193.61.218 (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note the large influence that Marcuse had upon the New Left (including Angela Davis and the Black Panthers), especially in the USA, and he was part of Critical Theory that traces all its roots to DoE as its seminal core foundational text. No DoE, no Critical Theory. Yes, Adorno and Horkheimer were surprised when a generation after its first publication, their "message in a bottle" aka "time capsule" did reach its intended audience, but the fact that it was their "message in a bottle" doesn't take away one bit of its significance. It speaks more of Adorno's cultural pessimism that in the 1940s he thought that they wouldn't see someone getting their message within their own lifetimes, but 20 years later, people did start to read and understand it. Unfortunately, all that pretty much got undone during the reactionary rollback throughout the 1980s under such paleoconservatives as Reagan, Thatcher, Kohl; thanks to this rollback in society, CT today is once again reduced to a "message in a bottle", waiting for its intended audience that will be able to read it. --79.193.36.127 (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)