Adorno and Horkheimer take the ‘Enlightenment’ realising it was useful but somewhere along the lines it went wrong. What is important to note here is that they are both German Jews, from the Frankfurt school of thought, writing at the time of World War two in particular the time of the Holocaust, this was as an engagement of their own contemporary reality. These actions contradicted everything the Enlightenment from Hegel’s perspective had foretold, that apparently by that stage in History all would have been well with the world. For if everyone was meant to be in a state of ‘Enlightenment’ why on earth would such atrocities and war take place? This is noted in Chapter One ‘The Concept of Enlightenment’:
… ‘The Enlightenment has always aimed at liberating men from fear and establishing their sovereignty. Yet the fully enlightened earth radiates disaster triumphant.’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. 1972 p.3 ]
This opening paragraph appears to rather mock Hegel’s idea of Enlightement, in saying that look at us now, all that has come out of the Enlightenment is a great disaster. As opposed to Hegel’s idea that as a collective we would stop struggling and all live in harmony in an ideal and ‘Enlightened’ world.
Referring heavily to mythology and the idea that previously the Enlightenment was about the ‘dissolution of myths’. Adorno and Horkheimer embrace mythology in saying that the two can not work withouth eachother going as far to say
‘Every spiritual resistance it encounters serves merely to increase its strength. Which means that enlightnement still recogniszes itself even in myths.’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972]
This form of Enlightenment reverts back to mythology, the belief is a form of mythology itself, by saying Enlightenment has been here all along and by escaping mythology through Enlightenment we only revert back to mythology as it in itself is mythology.
‘Myth is already enlightnement; and enlightenment reverts to mythology’. [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p. xvi]
Mythology and Enlightenment to Adorno and Horkheimer have their roots in the same basic needs. Survival, self preservation and fear. Fear being the most important aspect as it leaves room for control, fear of the unknown is something people in power can use to control society and have been doing so since the beginning of power struggles in the world. This fear also stops us from ‘going too far’ restrictions of law, fear of getting caught etc. All form the fear installed in society from a young age to keep order.
‘Man imagines himself free from fear when there is no longer anything unknown,. That determines the course of demythologization , of enlightenment, which compounds the animate with the inanimate just as myth compounds the inanimate with the animate. Enlightenment is mythic fear turned radical.’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p. 16]
This ‘fear’ leads to ‘domination’, domination of man over man and domination of man over nature.
‘Myth turns into enlightenment and nature into mere objectivity. Men pay for the increase of their power with alienation from that over which they exercise their power. Enlightenment behaves toward things as a dictator toward men. He knows them in so far as he can manipulate them’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p.9]
Adorno and Horkheimer believe that the modern subject is the victim of oppression and domination, i.e. subject/object domination. This view of the planet again is part of the idea of ‘instrumental reason’. We have the earth to use it to our own benefit, for food, economics and power.
‘What men want to learn from nature is how to use it in order wholly to dominate it and other men. That is the only aim’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p.4]
Adorno and Horkheimer, focus on ‘instrumental reason’, whereby if a product, whether human or inanimate is no longer useful it should be discarded.
‘For the Enlightenment, whatever does not conform to the rule of computation and utility is suspect.’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p.6]
Enlightenment follishly thinks it will achieve a picture of objective reality. Suggesting this is possible by using reason, this leaves man himself out of the equation as he is the subject and therefore not the object.
This allows Adorno and Horkheimer to understand and if not accept the genocide during the second World War, whereby the Jews were effectively ‘suspect’ and hence disregarded. Which was seen as totally normal in that particular society, human beings had become objects of use just as everything else. This type of decision is arrived upon by ‘reason’, Adorno and Horkheimer believe that this ‘reason’ is a form of power and untility, whereby human beings do eventually become mere objects.
Freud believed that there were high levels of conformity which existed, and the more conformity that existed lead to more exclusion, and eventually those that did not conform were seen as a ‘threat’.
Adorno and Horkheimer developed a wider, and more pessimistic concept of enlightenment. In their analysis enlightenment had its dark side: while trying to abolish superstition and myths by 'foundationalist' philosophy, it ignored its own 'mythical' basis. Its strivings towards totality and certainty led to an increasing instrumentalization of . In their view the enlightenment itself should be enlightened and not posed as a 'myth-free' view of the world.
Enlightnement is a ‘process of engagement’, this engagement with a ‘temporary’ reality, a reality that is forever changing and therefore the need for philosopher’s should be constantly changing. Core theories of Hegel and Marx are relevant and do find their places in history however there is a need to adapt these theories for the relevant times in history. This is the complexity of contemporary reality, we may understand Hegel, then we may lose this comprehension due to changes in time.
…..‘That arid wisdom that holds there is nothing new under the sun, because all the pieces in the meaningless game have been played, and all the great thoughts have already been thought, and because all possible discoveries can be construed in advance’ [‘Dialectic of Enlightenment’, M. Horkheimer & T. Adorno. Trans. By John Cumming 1972 p.12]
Nothing new, all seen before