"Concept of Enlightenment" from Dialectic of Enlightenment
Horkheimer, Max, and Theodor W. Adorno. Dialectic of Enlightenment. New York: Continuum, 1993. Print.
SummaryIn "Concept of Enlightenment," Horkheimer and Adorno address the problem of the enlightenment, as it focuses on the ideal of clear and natural truth. They advocate for a critique of--a way of deconstructing--ideology with the purpose of unmasking power and domination. When the authors discuss "enlightenment," they are not specifically addressing one event or movement, but rather a way of thinking. Enlightenment, as Horkheimer and Adorno discuss, leaves no space for anything that's not known.
Horkheimer and Adorno argue that myth is a form of enlightenment, while enlightenment also rejects myth. They write, "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to technology" (xvii). Myth is enlightenment as it tries to understand and explain nature in order to control it. There is an underlying feeling of violence and tension in their words--a theme of self-destruction of civilization, as Horkheimer and Adorno are writing in the midst of WW2. Response"On the road to science, men renounce any claim to meaning. They substitute formula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive" (5). Here, Horkheimer and Adorno tell us that meaning is not from men, but from the natural world. Meaning is externalized from mankind. This is seen as progress; we're discovering meaning is not from us. We need to focus on discovering what is already there. Further, we need to consider the role science plays in our meaning-making, and the role we play in science and nature (as scientists are merely human). In what ways do we get in the way of the natural world in order to use science (in every sense of the word use) to construct meaning?
Connections/QuestionsHorkheimer and Adorno write, “Humans believe themselves free of fear when there is no longer anything unknown” (11). Ironically, enlightenment, as Horkheimer and Adorno discuss, leaves no space for anything unknown and fear is the unknown, so can we ever be free of fear?
In this text, we can sense Horkheimer and Adorno move away from phenomenology and toward structuralism. There is a shift happening within the course's readings thus far; we're beginning to focus more on the relation between language and power rather than our earlier focus on language, consciousness, and phenomenology. We should consider Langer, Heidegger, and Volosinov when thinking about Horkheimer and Adorno's ideas. For Langer, there is no universal meaning. Langer brings up ideas of feeling, consciousness, and fear. Heidegger focuses on the idea of revealing and order. Volosinov exposes Marxist ideas in his work. How do all of these theorists relate to constructions of power? We can argue that language equates to power, as language--written or spoken--allows for the articulation of argument and ideas. |
Key Quotes
“Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters. Yet the wholly enlightened earth is radiant with triumphant calamity. Enlightenment’s programs was the disenchantment of the world. It wanted to dispel myths, to overthrow fantasy with knowledge” (1).
“Knowledge, which is power, knows no limits, either in its enslavement of creation or in its deference to worldly matters. Just as it serves all the purposes of the bourgeoisie economy both in factories and on the battlefield, it is at the disposal of entrepreneurs regardless of their origins. Kings control technology no more directly than do merchants: it is as democractic as the economic system with which it evolved. Technology is the essense of this knowledge” (2).
“What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts. Ruthless towards itself, the Enlightenment has eradicated the last remnant of its self-awareness. Only though which does violence to itself is hard enough to shatter myths” (2).
“For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately one, is illusion; modern positivism consigns it to poetry. Unity remains the watchword from Parmenides to Russell. All gods and qualities must be destroyed” (4-5).
"On the road to science, men renounce any claim to meaning. They substitute formula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive" (5).
“Humans believe themselves free of fear when there is no longer anything unknown” (11).
“Knowledge, which is power, knows no limits, either in its enslavement of creation or in its deference to worldly matters. Just as it serves all the purposes of the bourgeoisie economy both in factories and on the battlefield, it is at the disposal of entrepreneurs regardless of their origins. Kings control technology no more directly than do merchants: it is as democractic as the economic system with which it evolved. Technology is the essense of this knowledge” (2).
“What human beings seek to learn from nature is how to use it to dominate wholly both it and human beings. Nothing else counts. Ruthless towards itself, the Enlightenment has eradicated the last remnant of its self-awareness. Only though which does violence to itself is hard enough to shatter myths” (2).
“For the Enlightenment, anything which cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately one, is illusion; modern positivism consigns it to poetry. Unity remains the watchword from Parmenides to Russell. All gods and qualities must be destroyed” (4-5).
"On the road to science, men renounce any claim to meaning. They substitute formula for concept, rule and probability for cause and motive" (5).
“Humans believe themselves free of fear when there is no longer anything unknown” (11).