“From what comes about, the meaning of our earlier work, indeed our existence, should only become clear retrospectively.” This is what Max Horkheimer wrote to the literary sociologist Leo Löwenthal on November 29, 1941. Both belonged to the “Institute for Social Research”, which emigrated from Frankfurt first to Geneva and then to the USA in 1933: Horkheimer as one of two directors, Löwenthal as an employee belonging to the closest circle.
Together with the philosopher Theodor W. Adorno, another member of the institute, Horkheimer had dared to do something since 1938 that was obviously intended to educate about their own intellectual development. The writing that was so emphatically announced in the letter was the collection of texts “Philosophical Fragments” that was in the process of being formed and was finally published in 1944, which appeared three years later in an altered version as “Dialectics of Enlightenment” by the Amsterdam Querido publishing house and thus their received final title. The subtitle emphasized that it was also about “Philosophical Fragments”.
From what “elements” did modern anti-Semitism emerge, and why does it seem invincible?
The book by the literary scholar Martin Mittelmeier is now an easily readable history of the emergence of the “Dialectic of Enlightenment”. Anyone who has read Mittelmeier’s study will want to take a closer look at the supposed “book of the century”. Some will go to the shelf and pull out their old copy. How was that again with Odysseus, who supposedly already carries the interpretation of his fate in his name? What is it about the Enlightenment, which historically necessarily always turns into barbarism? What role do the supposed perfectors of the Enlightenment, Kant, de Sade and Nietzsche, play in this? From what “elements” did modern anti-Semitism emerge, and why does it seem invincible? Is there no escape at all from the culture industry that is corrupting everything? Is capitalism behind all this? Ha! some will exclaim, remembering nights of intense discussion that simply had to be, after all, “Dialectics of Enlightenment” was written in German in American exile, but who would ever have understood it straight away? The work on the sentence is required here.
Not to be envied, on the other hand, are those who, inspired by Mittelmeier’s sometimes narrative, sometimes illustrative, but mostly analytical study, rush to their bookshop. For although they will be offered the famous vast amount of excellent secondary literature, the “dialectics of enlightenment” itself has fallen victim to bad dialectics at best.
“Philosophical Fragments”: Title page of the first official edition of “Dialectics of Enlightenment” published in 1974 by the Amsterdam publishing house Querido.
(Photo: public domain)
It is available from Suhrkamp, Adorno’s house publisher, as Volume 3 of his “Collected Writings”, but not as a single edition – you have to want everything, otherwise you get nothing. If you have shelled out 268 euros, you can buy the enormously important posthumous text “The Scheme of Mass Culture”, originally written for the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” and cleverly analyzed for the first time by Gabriele Geml (“Adorno’s critical theory of time”, Metzler-Verlag). study, but that’s about it.
On the other hand, the readers of the individual editions from the Fischer paperback publishers have to do without the “scheme”, in return Horkheimer’s parent company provides them with a clever appendix, which contains an interpreted list of the text changes in the various editions of “Dialektik” and also explains what’s going on with the book has at all. But without the collective commentary orchestrated by Gunnar Hindrichs (Akademie-Verlag), the analyzes by Helmut König on the “Anti-Semitism” chapter (Velbrück-Verlag) and the anthology by Gunzelin Schmid Noerr and Eva-Maria Ziege (VS-Springer-Verlag ) one gets stuck in the undergrowth of many claims made by Horkheimer and Adorno, despite Mittelmeier’s concise educational work. And anyone who needs an antidote because he no longer believes in anything because of all the claims in the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” can read Rainer Ensikat’s virtuoso reckoning, which he published ten years ago, well, where, in the magazine “Enlightenment”. . After that one sees more clearly Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s classics.
“Only get involved with these tough thinkers if you’re not committed, stuck, or paid.”
That sounds sobering, but what was the warning of the only review the original 1944 edition ever received? “Anyone who can’t bring themselves to study (not just ‘read’) 300 pages should keep their hands off this volume, which is in no way pocket-sized. Anyone who hopes that after reading it they will be able to say in no uncertain terms: how to set up an office against barbarism (OGB) – better buy the collected ‘How to do it’ for the $5 You only get involved with these tough thinkers if you are neither committed nor stuck nor paid – and actually ready to take the risk of thinking.”
What Martin Mittelmeier offers, on the other hand, is a participatory search for clues that always has the questions asked at the beginning in mind, who tells the personal and professional trials and tribulations easily but never lightly, and who protects his heroes from admirers and opponents alike. A book that makes you want to read the book, encourages you to buy Adorno’s complete edition and asks you to delve into Horkheimer’s thoughts after all. And in both cases is ready to look into the abyss. This is something that the numerous real and fake experts in the matter of Adorno/Horkheimer have really only succeeded in the rarest of cases. Mittelmeier, on the other hand, does.
Martin Mittelmeier: Freedom and Darkness – How the “Dialectic of Enlightenment” became the book of the century. Siedler Verlag, Munich 2021. 318 pages, 24 euros.