TheodorWAdorno

Prisms
TranslatedfromtheGermanbySamuelandShierryWeber
Ninthprintng,1997
FirstMITPresspaperbackediton,1983FirstMITPressediton,1981
CopyrightTheodorWAdorno1967Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform
orbyanymeans,electronicormechanical,includingphotocopying,recording,orbyanyinformatonstorage
andretrievalsystem,withoutpermissioninwritngfromthepublisher.
Contents
SeriesForeword6ForewordbyTheodorW.Adorno7Introduction:Translatingthe
Untranslatable,bySamuelM.Weber9CulturalCriticismandSociety17TheSociologyof
KnowledgeandItsConsciousness35SpengleraftertheDecline51Veblen'sAttackon
Culture73AldousHuxleyandUtopia95PerennialFashionJazz119BachDefended
againstHisDevotees133ArnoldSchoenberg,18741951147ValryProustMuseum173
TheGeorgeHofmannsthalCorrespondence,18911906187APortraitofWalterBenjamin
227NotesonKafka243
page_5
SeriesForeword
FromHegelandMarx,DiltheyandWeber,toFreudandtheFrankfurtSchool,German
socialtheoryenjoyedanundisputedpreeminence.Aftertheviolentbreakbroughtaboutby
NationalSocialismandWorldWarII,thistraditionhasrecentlycometolifeagain,and
indeedtosuchanextentthatcontemporaryGermansocialthoughthasbeguntoapproach
theheightsearlierattained.Oneimportantelementinthisrenaissancehasbeentherapid
andextensivetranslationintoGermanofEnglishlanguageworksinthehumanitiesandthe
socialsciences,withtheresultthatsocialthoughtinGermanyistodaymarkedlyinfluenced
byideasandapproachesofAngloAmericanorigin.Unfortunately,effortsintheother
direction,thetranslationandreceptionofGermanworksintoEnglish,havebeensporadic
atbest.Thisseriesisintendedtocorrectthatimbalance.
Thetermsocialthoughtishereunderstoodverybroadlytoincludenotonlysociological
andpoliticalthoughtassuchbutalsothesocialtheoreticalconcernsofhistoryand
philosophy,psychologyandlinguistics,aestheticsandtheology.Thetermcontemporaryis
alsotobeconstruedbroadly:thoughourattentionwillbefocusedprimarilyonpostwar
thinkers,weshallalsopublishworksbyandonearlierthinkerswhoseinfluenceon
contemporaryGermansocialthoughtispervasive.Theserieswillbeginwithtranslationsof
worksbyauthorswhosenamesarealreadywidelyrecognizedinEnglishspeaking
countriesAdorno,Bloch,Gadamer,Habermas,Marcuse,Ritterandbyauthorsof
similaraccomplishmentwhoarenotyetsofamiliaroutsideofGermanyBlumenberg,
Peukert,Schmidt,Theunissen,Tugendhat.Subsequentvolumeswillalsoinclude
monographsandcollectionsofessayswritteninEnglishonGermansocialthoughtandits
concerns.
Tounderstandandappropriateothertraditionsistobroadenthehorizonsofonesown.
Itisourhopethatthisseries,bytappinganeglectedstoreofintellectualrichesandmaking
itaccessibletotheEnglishspeakingpublic,willexpandtheframeofreferenceofour
socialandpoliticaldiscourse.
THOMASMCCARTHY
page_6
ForewordtotheEnglishEditon
AlthoughtheauthorisdelightedthatforthefirsttimeoneofhisGermanbooksisnowto
appearinEnglishinaverymeticulousandthoughtfultranslationheisnonethelessfully
awareofthedifficultieswhichconfrontsuchtextsintheEnglishspeakingworld.Thatheis
nostrangertoAngloSaxonnormsofthoughtandpresentationhasbeendemonstrated,the
authorbelieves,inhisEnglishlanguagewritings:hiscontributionstoTheAuthoritarian
Personality,hisessaysonmusicsociologyforthePrincetonRadioResearchProject,and
subsequentstudiessuchasHowtoLookatTelevision,orTheStarsDowntoEarth.1
Thesenormsareessentialtohimasacontrol,lestherejectcommonsensewithoutfirst
havingmasteredititisonlybyuseofitsowncategories,thatcommonsensecanbe
transcended.This,however,mustremaintheauthorsaimaslongasheconsidersmatters
offacttobenotmerefact,unreflectedandthinglike,butratherprocessesofinfinite
mediation,nevertobetakensimplyatfacevalue.Hecannotaccepttheusualmodeof
thoughtwhichiscontenttoregisterfactsandpreparethemforsubsequentclassification.
Hisessentialeffortistoilluminatetherealmoffacticitywithoutwhichtherecanbenotrue
knowledgewithreflectionsofadifferenttype,onewhichdivergesradicallyfromthe
generallyacceptedcanonofscientificvalidity.
Tojustifythisprocedureitwouldhavebeenbesttorestatetheconsiderationsnow
collectedintheNegativeDialektik.2Theauthorhasdecidedagainstthisnotmerelyfor
considerationsof
1. cf. The Authoritarian Personality (New York, 1950 paperback edition, New York, 1964) Radio Research
(New York, 1941 ff.) How to Look at Television, The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television VIuII (Spring
1954),p.214ff.TheStarsDowntoEarth,JahrbuchfrAmerikastudien2(Heidelberg,1957).
2.FrankfurtamMain,1966.
page_7time,butalsobecauseoneofhis
primaryconcernshasbeennottoacceptuncriticallytheconventionaloppositionbetween
methodologyandmaterialknowledge.Inthuspresentingabookthatconsistsofindividual
studies,hehopestobeabletoconcretizethattypeofknowledgetowardswhichheis
inclined.Evenwithoutanexplicitepistemology,theessaysshouldbeabletospeakfor
themselves.Ifthisispossible,itwillbedueinnosmallmeasuretothequalityofthe
translationaswellastotheIntroductionbySamuelM.Weber,whichtheauthorwould
wholeheartedlyendorseasanaccuratepresentationofhisintentionswerehenotafraid,in
sodoing,ofseemingimmodest.
Finally, the author could wish for nothing better than that the English version of Prisms
might express something of the gratitude that he cherishes for England and for the United
States the countries which enabled him to survive the era of persecution and to which he
haseversincefelthimselfdeeplybound.
T.W.A.FRANKFURT,MARCH1967
page_8
TranslatngtheUntranslatable
SamuelM.Weber
Manliveswiththingsmainly,evenexclusivelysincesentimentandactioninhim
dependuponhismentalrepresentationsastheyareconveyedtohimbylanguage.
Throughthesameactbywhichhespinslanguageoutofhimselfheweaveshimselfinto
it,andeverylanguagedrawsacirclearoundthepeopletowhichitbelongs,acirclethat
canonlybetranscendedinsofarasoneatthesametime
entersanotherone.WilhelmvonHumboldt
Jesuisauboutdelanglais.JamesJoyce
page_9Thetranslationofphilosophicalprose,
ofculturalcriticism,mightatfirstglanceseemtoposefewproblems,atleastby
comparisontothatofpoetry.Literatureissaidtodefineitselfthroughtheunionofformand
content,thehowtakingprecedenceoverthewhat.Apoemshouldmeanbutbe.By
implication,thebeingofnonimaginative,nonliterarywritingisabsorbedinitsmeaning,
whichissituatedbeyondlanguage.Hereitisthewhatthatcounts,themeansof
presentationbeingconsideredincidental.Theconvenientdistinctionbetweenliteratureand
nonliterature,however,evaporatesatthelightesttouchofreflectiononthehistoryof
philosophy.ArePlatosdialoguesnonimaginative?HegelsMasterandServant?Isthe
form,structureandlanguageoftheirargumentmerelyabridgetoreachconceptualcontent
ontheotherside?Isthelanguageofgreatphilosophymerelyameansofpresentation?Or
isittheconstitutivemediuminwhichcontentcrystallizesandfromwhichitcannomorebe
detachedthanthemeaningofapoemfromitsform.Suchconsiderations,however
rudimentaryandevident,areenoughtotransportonetotheverylimitsofEnglishandofthe
conceptualhorizonsitdescribes.Forifitistruethatphilosophyinitsgreatestproductions
isnolessimaginative,nolessliterarythanliterature,thenwhatisliterature?Itisnotthata
definitionislackingnophenomenonascomplexandvitalasliteratureissusceptibleof
univocaldeterminationbutratherthatthereisnonameinEnglishforthatwhichas
literatureistoobroadlydescribed,aspoetrytoonarrowly.Effortsatcircumscribingthe
difficultywithnotionssuchasimaginativewritingorfictionarenomoresatisfactory.Isthe
Symposium,thePhenomenologyofMindfictitious?Nonimaginative?Thecircumscribed
phenomenon,namelessinEnglish,hasanameinGerman:Dichtung.Theessayscollected
inPrismsarenotDichtung.Theyareliterature,ifbyliteratureismeantlanguageinwhich
imagination,fictionandformaremomentswhichconstitutethecontent,acontentwhichin
principlecanbedistinguishedfromthatofDichtung,ifatall,throughitslessmediate
relationtotruth.LikeDichtungspecificityofAdornosthought
page_11isinseparablefromitsarticulation.If
conceptualconcretenessmaybemeasuredbythedensitywithwhichthoughtand
articulationpermeateeachother,thenAdornosstylecanbecharacterizedbytheconstant
strivingtobeconcrete.Itis,however,aconcretenesswhichhasnoplacewithinthe
intellectualhorizonsofEnglish.InEnglishwhatisconcreteiswhatisimmediate,tangible,
visible.Whateverthehistoricalcausesofthisempiricalorientationmayhavebeen,
contemporaryEnglishdoesnottoleratethenotionthatwhatisnearestathandmayinfact
bemostabstract,whilethatwhichisinvisible,intangible,accessibleonlytothemindmay
infacebemorerealthanrealityitself.ArentthereenoughwordsforyouinEnglish?Joyce
wasonceasked:Yes,hereplied,thereareenough,buttheyarenttherightones.1
WordssuchasDichtung,Geist,Sache,allofwhichmayeasilybeattackedasimprecise
andunclear,neverthelessdesignateadimensionofintellectualexperiencewhichhasits
concretenessinthedynamicnatureofthoughttheydesignatemoments,stagesofthe
mindonitswaytotruth.ThefactthatEnglishdemandsempirical
concretenessfromtheoutsetproducestheconfusionofliteraturewithDichtungmindwith
Geist,declaresillegitimatethedeterminateindeterminacyofSachesubjectmatter,thing,
itemastheobjectnotyetilluminatedbyreason.YetitisnotmerelythatEnglishforces
onetodistinguishbetweenwordsandthingsandproscribesSachenthetyrannyof
empiricismisfarmoreeffectiveinestrangingtheentirespeculativedimensionfromthe
realmofordinarydiscourse.Erkenntnis,Begriff,Aufhebungallaretranslatable,ifbythatis
meantfindingEnglishwordswithequivalentmeanings,bycognition,conceptandthe
ridiculoussublation.Whatislost,however,istheconcretenesswhichthewordshavein
Germanasabstractionsfromthelanguageofeverydayactivity.Anschauung,Vorstellung,
Aufhebung,formed,likesomanyphilosophicaltermsinGerman,fromverbsdescribing
familiarandrudimentaryactions,arerenderedintoanEnglishwhichdeprivesthemoftheir
effectiveconnotationsandtherebyoftheirtruthcontent,generallybylatinizingthem2thus,
Erkenntnis
1.cf.RichardEllmann,JamesJoyce(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1965),p.410.
2.AprocesswhichMarxobservedatworkinthedistinctionmadebyseventeenthcenturyEnglish
economistsbetweenthe
Germanicworth,andtheFrenchvaluetodistinguishimmediateusevaluefromreflectedexchangevalue.
TherootsoftheprocesscanprobablybetracedbackbeyondtheNormaninvasiontothedeclineofthe
earlyChristianChurchinEngland,precipitatedbytheinvasionoftheDanesattheendoftheeighthcentury.
page_12mustbecomecognition,and
erkennen,ahouseholdword,iscircumscribedasthecognitiveactknowingand
knowledgedesignatethestaticfundoffacts,informationandinsightsoverwhichthe
knowerdisposes,butthesimpleandcrucialnotionofcomingtoknow,erkennen,mustbe
reservedforspecialistslearnissimilarlyunsatisfactory,beingtooheavilyburdenedwith
passivity,which,ifitdoesindeedconformtoempiricalfact,neverthelessdeprivesEnglish
ofthenameforacognitiveprocessthatwouldbeuniversal,spontaneous,active.Yet
perhapsthemostseriousobstacletothedevelopmentandarticulationofdialectical
thinkinginEnglishisnotsemanticbutsyntactic.Thecriterionofclarityisrigidlyenforcedby
agrammarwhichtabooslongsentencesasclumsyandwhoseidealremainsbrevityand
simplicityatallcosts.Polemicalexceptions,fromSternetoByron,haveonlyreinforcedthe
prevailingmaximthatifsomethingisworthsayingitcanbesaiddirectlyandtothepoint.
ThistendencyofEnglishsyntaxtobreakthoughtdownintoitssmallest,selfcontained,
monadicpartsisprobablythemostformidablebarriertodialectics.Theabsenceof
wordgendersandinflectionsmakelongsentencesprohibitivelyclumsyifnotimpossible,
andthuspreventordiscreditthecomplexhypotacticconstructionswhicharethelifeblood
ofdialecticalthinking.Similarly,longparatacticconstructionsaretobebrokendowninto
shortersentences.IfthishashelpedtheEnglishspeakingworldtokeepitsfeetonthe
ground,asitundoubtedlyhas,ithasalsohindereditfromseeingmuchbeyond,adanger
sporadicallyrecognizedbyEnglishculturalcriticsatleastsinceMatthewArnold.Atthe
oppositeextremeisGermanIdealism,whichdevelopedtheremarkablesyntacticflexibility
ofGermanintoitspresentform,thegrandeurandperilsofwhichcanbeseenintheprose
ofHegelandofHoelderlin.3ThestructureoftheGermansentence,aboveall,therelation
betweenmainandsubordinateclausesthelatterbeinginnowayassubordinateasits
Englishnameandhierarchicalgrammarwouldsuggestisadynamiccontinuumthatis
onlyrealizedasameaningfulwholewiththecompletionoftheNebensatzinitsfinalverb.
GermansentenceshaveahistorysentencesinEnglishtendtobestillborn.Thisisnoless
trueofsubstantiveswhichinGermancanbeprecededbylongappositionalclauses,
expressingnotapropertybutaprocess.TheHegelianuseofabstractsubstantivesas
subjectsaswithBegriff,whichthustookonalifeofits
3.ThefirstsentenceofHoelderlinsessay,berdieVerfahrungsweisedespoetischenGeistes(Onthe
ModeofProcedureofthePoetic
Spirit),whichseekstoarticulatetheselfestrangementandreproductionoftheGeistintheworld,standsas
themostextremeexampleofthistendency.
page_13ownwasonlypossiblebecause
ofsuchtendenciesofGermangrammar,enablingthesentencetoembodythedialectical
thoughtjustastheparagraphembodiestheargument.Adornoisthusabletousean
eitherorconstructioninwhichthesecondhalfofthealternativefollowstwosentences
afterthefirst.
Thisgiveswholeargumentsatautnessandcoherenceotherwisefoundonlyinsentences,if
atall.Allthis,inGermannolessthaninEnglish,breakswithgenerallyacceptableusage,
withordinarylanguage.InGermanthisamountstoreawakeningapotentialwhichhasbeen
largelyneglectedtodaybutwhichstillslumberswithintherecessesofthelanguage.Isit
possible,however,totranslatethisintoalanguagewhichlacksthesequalities,evenas
potential?
Thisrequiresreflectiononthenotionoftranslationitself.Wherethemeaningofthe
originalworkisnotexternaltoitslanguage,translationcannolongerbeconceivedasthe
reproductionofmeaninginamoreorlesstransformedlinguisticsetting.Withthe
abstractionofmeaningfromtheparticularuniverseofdiscourseinwhichitconstituted
itself,themeaningisnolongerthatwhichitwas.Adornoslanguage,constantlystruggling
withthecommunicativeaspectofGerman,wrestsitsmeaningsfromthelatentpotential
whichstillinheresinGerman,initssyntacticflexibilitywhichhasremainedrelatively
unimpairedbythesemanticimpoverishmentandwhichthusprovidesanArchimedean
pointfromwhichthecriticisablenotsomuchtoinvokejudgmentsagainstlanguagefroma
fictitiouspointoutsidebutrathertoturnitagainstitselfbymeansofinnercontradictions
which,iflatent,stillsurvive.IfAdornoappearstodoviolencetoordinaryGerman,itisas
shocktherapywhichlegitimizesitselfinexposingtheviolencethatlanguagehasalready
inflicteduponitself.Thisispossiblebecausethetyrannyofcommunicativespeechhasnot
yetsucceededineliminatingthetraditionalmetaphysicalsurplusinAdornoswordsof
German,whichinturnbecomesideologicalonceitnarcissisticallyconfusesmetaphysics
withreality.YetwhatofEnglish,whichlacksametaphysicalsurplustoopposetoits
communicativeelement?TheansweristhatifAdornoistranslatableatall,something
whichcanbynomeansbetakenforgranted,itispreciselybyvirtueofhisuntranslatability.
TheunresolvedtensionwhichshapesanAdornosentence,aphorism,essay,book,from
beginningtoend,livesfromandbearswitnesstotheimpossibilityofaharmoniousunionof
formandcontent,languageandmeaning,anideawhichsurvivesinhisworkpreciselyin
andthroughitsdeterminatenegation.Theabysswhichformsbetweenthesupposedly
concreteuseoflanguage,whichdegradesittoanabstractsemioticsystem,andits
page_14supposedlyabstract,mimeticform,
aswhichlanguageoncesoughttobecomeasconcreteasanabstractionispermittedto
be,islitupwithaglarewhichifitisdazzlinginGermanisblindinginEnglish.All
satisfactionatthewordwhichbyvirtueofitscontextrevealsitsambiguityandtestifies
againstitself,atthethoughtwhichcanunfolditselfinasentenceasitcannotinreality,is
prohibitedfromthestartinEnglish.Thebarrierstothearticulationofanymeaningnot
restrictedtoreiteratingrealityemergewithstunningclarity.Thefatalillusionthatsuch
barrierscanbeovercomebythesubjectiveintellect,howeverbrilliantitmaybe,thattheir
merearticulationistheirelimination,issweptaway.TheuntranslatabilityofAdornoishis
mostprofoundandcrueltruth.Whatremainsisnotthesaturatedunityoflanguageand
meaningbuttheirdisjunction,allegoricalinthesensegiventothewordbyWalter
Benjamin.Inthetranslationwhichmakesliteralnessitsguidingprinciple,theallegorical
coreofAdornosworkbecomesmanifest.IftheEnglishspeakingreaderisbarredfrom
participatinginAdornosmostbrilliantsuccesses,wherehehitsthemarkandlanguage
becomesthought,theremaybeconsolationinthefactthattheuntranslatabilityofthose
successestracesthecontoursofafailurethefailureoflanguagetosaywhatmustbe
said,itsestrangementfromitselfwhoseshadoweventhemostbrilliantsuccessonly
darkens.
page_15
CulturalCritcismandSociety
page_17Toanyoneinthehabitofthinkingwith
hisears,thewordsculturalcriticism(Kulturkritik)musthaveanoffensivering,notmerely
because,likeautomobile,theyarepiecedtogetherfromLatinandGreek.Thewords
recallaflagrantcontradiction.Theculturalcriticisnothappywithcivilization,towhichalone
heoweshisdiscontent.Hespeaksasifherepresentedeitherunadulteratednatureora
higherhistoricalstage.Yetheisnecessarilyofthesameessenceasthattowhichhe
fancieshimselfsuperior.TheinsufficiencyofthesubjectcriticizedbyHegelinhisapology
forthestatusquowhichinitscontingencyandnarrownesspassesjudgmentonthemight
oftheexistent,becomesintolerablewhenthesubjectitselfismediateddowntoits
innermostmakeupbythenotiontowhichitopposesitselfasindependentandsovereign.
Butwhatmakesthecontentofculturalcriticisminappropriateisnotsomuchlackof
respectforthatwhichiscriticizedasthedazzledandarrogantrecognitionwhichcriticism
surreptitiouslyconfersonculture.Theculturalcriticcanhardlyavoidtheimputationthathe
hastheculturewhichculturelacks.Hisvanityaidsthatofculture:evenintheaccusing
gesture,thecriticclingstothenotionofculture,isolated,unquestioned,dogmatic.Heshifts
theattack.Wherethereisdespairandmeasurelessmisery,heseesonlyspiritual
phenomena,thestateofmansconsciousness,thedeclineofnorms.Byinsistingonthis,
criticismistemptedtoforgettheunutterable,insteadofstriving,howeverimpotently,sothat
manmaybespared.Thepositionoftheculturalcritic,byvirtueofitsdifferencefromthe
prevailingdisorder,enableshimtogobeyondittheoretically,althoughoftenenoughhe
merelyfallsbehind.Butheincorporatesthisdifferenceintotheverycultureindustrywhich
heseekstoleavebehindandwhichitselfneedsthedifferenceinordertofancyitself
culture.Characteristicofculturespretensiontodistinction,throughwhichitexemptsitself
fromevaluationagainstthematerialconditionsoflife,isthatitisinsatiable.The
exaggeratedclaimsofculture,whichinturninhereinthemovementofthemind,removeit
everfurtherfromthoseconditionsastheworthofsublimation
page_19becomesincreasinglysuspect
whenconfrontedbothbyamaterialfulfilmentnearenoughtotouchandbythethreatening
annihilationofuncountedhumanbeings.Theculturalcriticmakessuchdistinctionhis
privilegeandforfeitshislegitimationbycollaboratingwithcultureasitssalariedand
honourednuisance.This,however,affectsthesubstanceofcriticism.Eventheimplacable
rigourwithwhichcriticismspeaksthetruthofanuntrueconsciousnessremainsimprisoned
withintheorbitofthatagainstwhichitstruggles,fixatedonitssurfacemanifestations.To
flauntonessuperiorityis,atthesametime,tofeelinonthejob.Wereonetostudythe
professionofcriticinbourgeoissocietyasitprogressedtowardstherankofculturalcritic,
onewoulddoubtlessstumbleonanelementofusurpationinitsorigins,anelementofwhich
awriterlikeBalzacwasstillaware.Professionalcriticswerefirstofallreporters:they
orientedpeopleinthemarketofintellectualproducts.Insodoing,theyoccasionallygained
insightsintothematterathand,yetremainedcontinuallytrafficagents,inagreementwith
thesphereassuchifnotwithitsindividualproducts.Ofthistheybearthemarkevenafter
theyhavediscardedtheroleofagent.Thattheyshouldhavebeenentrustedwiththeroles
ofexpertandthenofjudgewaseconomicallyinevitablealthoughaccidentalwithrespectto
theirobjectivequalifications.Theiragility,whichgainedthemprivilegedpositionsinthe
generalcompetitionprivileged,sincethefateofthosejudgeddependslargelyontheir
voteinveststheirjudgmentswiththesemblanceofcompetence.Whiletheyadroitly
slippedintogapsandwoninfluencewiththeexpansionofthepress,theyattainedthatvery
authoritywhichtheirprofessionalreadypresupposed.Theirarrogancederivesfromthe
factthat,intheformsofcompetitivesocietyinwhichallbeingismerelythereforsomething
else,thecritichimselfisalsomeasuredonlyintermsofhismarketablesuccessthatis,in
termsofhisbeingforsomethingelse.Knowledgeandunderstandingwerenotprimary,but
atmostbyproducts,andthemoretheyarelacking,themoretheyarereplacedby
Oneupmanshipandconformity.Whenthecriticsintheirplaygroundartnolonger
understandwhat
theyjudgeandenthusiasticallypermitthemselvestobedegradedtopropagandistsor
censors,itistheolddishonestyoftradefulfillingitselfintheirfate.Theprerogativesof
informationandpositionpermitthemtoexpresstheiropinionasifitwereobjectivity.Butit
issolelytheobjectivityoftherulingmind.Theyhelptoweavetheveil.
Thenotionofthefreeexpressionofopinion,indeed,thatofintellectualfreedomitselfin
bourgeoissociety,uponwhichculturalcriticismisfounded,hasitsowndialectic.Forwhile
themind
page_20extricateditselffroma
theologicalfeudaltutelage,ithasfallenincreasinglyundertheanonymousswayofthe
statusquo.Thisregimentation,theresultoftheprogressivesocietalizationofallhuman
relations,didnotsimplyconfrontthemindfromwithoutitimmigratedintoitsimmanent
consistency.Itimposesitselfasrelentlesslyontheautonomousmindasheteronomous
orderswereformerlyimposedonthemindwhichwasbound.Notonlydoesthemindmould
itselfforthesakeofitsmarketability,andthusreproducethesociallyprevalentcategories.
Rather,itgrowstoresembleevermorecloselythestatusquoevenwhereitsubjectively
refrainsfrommakingacommodityofitself.Thenetworkofthewholeisdrawnevertighter,
modeledaftertheactofexchange.Itleavestheindividualconsciousnesslessandless
roomforevasion,preformsitmoreandmorethoroughly,cutsitoffprioriasitwerefromthe
possibilityofdifferencingitselfasalldifferencedegeneratestoanuanceinthemonotony
ofsupply.Atthesametime,thesemblanceoffreedommakesreflectionupononesown
unfreedomincomparablymoredifficultthanformerlywhensuchreflectionstoodin
contradictiontomanifestunfreedom,thusstrengtheningdependence.Suchmoments,in
conjunctionwiththesocialselectionofthespiritualandintellectualleaders,resultinthe
regressionofspiritandintellect.Inaccordancewiththepredominantsocialtendency,the
integrityofthemindbecomesafiction.Ofitsfreedomitdevelopsonlythenegative
moment,theheritageoftheplanlessmonadologicalcondition,irresponsibility.Otherwise,
however,itclingsevermorecloselyasamereornamenttothematerialbasewhichit
claimstotranscend.ThestricturesofKarlKrausagainstfreedomofthepressarecertainly
nottobetakenliterally.Toinvokeseriouslythecensorsagainsthackwriterswouldbeto
driveoutthedevilwithBeelzebub.Nevertheless,thebrutalizationanddeceitwhichflourish
undertheaegisoffreedomofthepressarenotaccidentaltothehistoricalmarchofthe
mind.Rather,theyrepresentthestigmaofthatslaverywithinwhichtheliberationofthe
mindafalseemancipationhastakenplace.Thisisnowheremorestrikingthanwhere
themindtearsatitsbonds:incriticism.WhentheGermanfascistsdefamedthewordand
replaceditwiththeinanenotionofartappreciation,theywereledtodosoonlybythe
ruggedinterestsoftheauthoritarianstatewhichstillfearedthepassionofaMarquisPosa
intheimpertinenceofthejournalist.Buttheselfsatisfiedculturalbarbarismwhich
clamouredfortheabolitionofcriticism,theincursionofthewildhordeintothepreserveof
themind,unawaresrepaidkindinkind.ThebestialfuryoftheBrownshirtagainstcarping
criticsarisesnot
page_21merelyfromhisenvyofaculture
whichexcludeshimandagainstwhichheblindlyrebelsnorisitmerelyhisresentmentof
thepersonwhocanspeakoutthenegativemomentwhichhehimselfmustrepress.
Decisiveisthatthecriticssovereigngesturesuggeststohisreadersanautonomywhich
hedoesnothave,andarrogatesforitselfapositionofleadershipwhichisincompatible
withhisownprincipleofintellectualfreedom.Thisisinnervatedbyhisenemies.Their
sadismwasidiosyncraticallyattractedbytheweakness,cleverlydisguisedasstrength,of
thosewho,intheirdictatorialbearing,wouldhavewillinglyexcelledthelessclevertyrants
whoweretosucceedthem.Exceptthatthefascistssuccumbedtothesamenaiveteasthe
critics,thefaithincultureassuch,whichreducedittopompandapprovedspiritualgiants.
Theyregardedthemselvesasphysiciansofcultureandremovedthethornofcriticismfrom
it.TheythusnotonlydegradedculturetotheOfficial,butinaddition,failedtorecognizethe
extenttowhichcultureandcriticism,forbetterorforworse,areintertwined.Cultureisonly
truewhenimplicitlycritical,andthemindwhichforgetsthisrevengesitselfinthecriticsit
breeds.Criticismisanindispensableelementofculturewhichisitselfcontradictory:inall
itsuntruthstillastrueascultureisuntrue.Criticismisnotunjustwhen