Winston C.

Quilaton
Emmanuel Servants of the Holy Trinity (ESHT)
3rd Year AB Philosophy
Political & Social Philosophy
Dr. James Piscos
Critical Theory: Adorno and Marcuse
1. Read Adorno's work attached below and discuss the core concepts of the
Dialectic of Enlightenment by citing what he said. Explain its contextual meaning
within the ambit of political and social philosophy? Cite what he said to show that
you are reading the given primary source. (40 points)
Adorno’s Social and Political Philosophy:
“Dialectic of Enlightenment”
radical critique of science, technology and
instrumental rationality (Critical Theory)

self-destruction of the Enlightenment

“Myth is already “Enlightenment reverts to

Enlightenment” Two Theses mythology”

prototype of modern
“Odyssey” "economic man" “Juliette or Enlightenment
and Morality”

sacrifice renunciation

myth difference and oneness of mythical nature enlightenment

and enlightened dominance of nature

enlightenment
continuity between Totalitarianism
rationality leads
reason destroys the humanity bourgeois liberalism (Kant) logically to (Sade and Nietzsche)
fascism
power of control over non-human man as ends rather
nature and over other man than means will-to-power
20th century
barbarism (Sade) (Nietzsche)
both myth and enlightenment are driven by
attempts to control nature subjugation
of women
foreshadows man’s
myth turns into enlightenment, and nature into Enlightenment ethos in the development
mere objectivity culture industry and in
modern anti-Semitism
reject the optimistic
Capitalism permeates social life and lead to premises and learn to
social domination (Enlightenment is totalitarian) demythologize
 DISCUSSION

The radical critique of science, technology, and instrumental rationality is a major

theme of Dialectic of Enlightenment, and it remains relevant in today's society, where the trends
indicated by Horkheimer and Adorno are expanding in both breadth and severity. Yet, in a
crucial manner, the Dialectic contradicts the foundation and potential of critical social theory.
The Dialectic's main aim is the entire Enlightenment tradition, akin to the processes of
apparently liberating outward manifestations that Max Weber referred to as "die Entzauberung
der Welt," while following Lukacs' example in "History and Class Consciousness." The Dialectic
aims to find in this manner...

“Why mankind, instead of entering into a truly human condition, is sinking into a new kind of
barbarism” (Adorno, 2002: xi).

Science and scientific thought have grown increasingly formalist, authoritarian,

instrumental, and so in slave to the interests of the current systems of dominance, according to
Horkheimer and Adorno, as a significant indication of "the tireless self-destructiveness of
enlightenment":

“There is no longer any available form of linguistic expression which has not tended toward
accommodation to dominant currents of thought; and what a devalued language does not do
automatically is proficiently executed by societal mechanisms” (Adorno, 2002: xii).

Thus, "the self-destruction of the Enlightenment" may not be one of their work's main
topics, but also the issue they are compelled to confront throughout. In the first article, "The
Concept of Enlightenment," Horkheimer and Adorno present two theses: (1) "myth is already
enlightenment" and (2) "enlightenment reverts to mythology" (Adorno, 2002: xvi). In the
analysis and evaluation of the relationship between humans and nature, the term 'enlightenment'
refers to a way of thought that liberates humans from the authoritarian rule of myth and allows
them to control and dominate nature, while the term 'dialectic of enlightenment' pertains to the
aspects in which enlightened, rational thought contains traces of myth and irrationality, that
consist a rational foundation. (1) Odysseus and (2) Marquis de Sade's Juliette become essential
figures in an enlightenment phase that disintegrates into widespread illusion at its self-destructive
finale.
 The first thesis follows the Odyssey's dialectic of myth and enlightenment as one of the
oldest typical testimonies of Western bourgeois society. The concepts of 'sacrifice' and
'renunciation' are important, explaining both the difference and oneness of mythical nature
and enlightened dominance of nature. The second thesis is on Kant, Sade, and Nietzsche,
who cruelly aroused the Enlightenment's significance.

First Thesis: Odyssey

“In class history, the enmity of the self to sacrifice implied a sacrifice of the self, inasmuch as it
was paid for by a denial of nature in man for the sake of domination over non-human nature and
over other men… The history of civilization is the history of the introversion of sacrifice. In
other words: the history of renunciation (Adorno, 2000: 54-55).”

Their interpretation of the Odyssey, termed "the primary source of European civilization"
(Adorno, 2002: 46), aims to demonstrate the links between myth and enlightenment, as well as
the formation of the contemporary identity from the mythical history. Odysseus is depicted here
as a bourgeois character who demonstrates the ties between self-preservation, natural dominance,
and the intertwining of myth and enlightenment. Odysseus' narrative also depicts the cost of
dominance over nature and the rise of the self's dominion over the fullness of being: as Odysseus
triumphs the difficulties, he becomes progressively estranged from nature, other people, and
even the potential for joy. In this regard, Odysseus was the prototype of modern "economic
man." Enlightenment is defined by the dominance of an objectified external nature and a
suppressed interior nature. The first theses substantiate the idea that reason destroys the
humanity that it originally created.

Horkheimer and Adorno stresses that the "power of control over non-human nature
and over other man" has been continually compensated for by the "denial of nature in man."
The denial of nature in man distorts and renders unintelligible not just the purpose of the external
conquest of nature, but also the goal of man's own personal life. Man's control over himself,
which is the foundation of his self, entails the annihilation of the man as subject, so contradicting
the whole aim of that mastery. According to Horkheimer and Adorno:
 “As soon as man discards his awareness that he himself is nature, all the aims for which he
keeps himself alive - social progress, the intensification of all his material and spiritual powers,
even consciousness itself - are nullified, and the enthronement of the means as an end, which
under late capitalism is tantamount to open insanity, is already perceptible in the prehistory of
subjectivity... Man's domination over himself, which grounds his selfhood, is almost always the
destruction of the subject in whose service it is undertaken; for the substance which is
dominated, suppressed, and dissolved by virtue of self-preservation is none other than that very
life as functions of which the achievements of self-preservation find their sole definition and
determination: it is, in fact, what is to be preserved (Adorno, 2002: 54-55).”

What is particularly devastating is the impact of the Enlightenment's dominance of nature

on social beings. Totalitarianism is rather a rejection of liberty and Enlightenment ideas than the
expression of their innate dynamism. Man's instrumental control of nature necessarily leads to a
connection between humans. In human relations, the commercialization of the world has had a
significant influence. Both myth and enlightenment, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, are
driven by ambitions to control nature. Humans in myth attempt to achieve dominion over
nature and the spirit realm via identification, ritual, and magic. Dominance over nature is made
possible in science by the discovery of scientific rules in nature. Tribal sacrifices are an attempt
to secure dominance over nature, and these attempts exhibit an 'introversion of sacrifice,' a
renunciation of one's own primal urges for pleasure. These procedures result in:

“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 (Adorno, 2002: 9).”

Though Horkheimer and Adorno divert attention away from production and labor, they
demonstrate how capitalism's demands and organization permeate social life and lead to
societal dominance. They contend that all concepts and styles of thought associated with
enlightened reason may be viewed as manifestations of bourgeois ideology:

“The system the Enlightenment has in mind is the form of knowledge which copes most
proficiently with the facts and supports the individual most effectively in the mastery of nature.
Its principles are the principles of self-preservation. Immaturity is the the inability to survive.
The burgher, in the successive forms of slaveowner, free entrepreneur, and administrator, is the
logical subject of the Enlightenment (Adorno, 2002: 83)."

In the same sense, Horkheimer and Adorno argue:

“For the Enlightenment, whatever does not conform to the rule of computation and utility is
suspect··· Enlightenment is totalitarian··· its ideal is the system from which all and everything
follows. Its rationalist and empiricist versions do not part company on that point··· Formal logic
was the major school of unified science. It provided the Enlightenment thinkers with the schema
of the calculability of the world. The mythologizing equation of Ideas with numbers in Plato's
last writings expresses the longing of all demythologization: number became the canon of the
Enlightenment. The same equations dominate bourgeois justice and commodity exchange
(Adorno, 2002: 6-7).”

Second Thesis: "Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality"

Horkheimer and Adorno show how enlightenment reasoning leads logically to fascism
in their second theses, "Juliette or Enlightenment and Morality." They investigate the
reappearance of restrained nature, the wrath of dehumanizing nature, which resulted in twentieth-
century barbarism. Here, Horkheimer and Adorno emphasize the connection between Kant's
bourgeois liberalism and Sade's and, to a lesser extent, Nietzsche's totalitarianism.

Kantian logic posits an ideal of a man who overcomes both nature and history. While
Kant's mandate to see “man as an end rather than a means”, the Enlightenment's portrayal of
nature and man as objects is essentially consistent with the severe formalism of the categorical
imperative. When taken to its logical conclusion, instrumental and formal rationality result in the
horrors of twentieth-century barbarism. One of the step along the path is Marquis de Sade. His
"Histoire de Juliette" is a functional rationality concept:

“Juliette believes in science. She wholly despises any form of worship whose rationality cannot
be demonstrated… She is attracted by the reactions proscribed by the legends of civilization. She
operates with semantics and logical syntax like the most up-to-date positivism, but does not
anticipate this servant of our own administration in directing her linguistic criticism primarily
against thought and philosophy; instead, as a child of aggressive Enlightenment, she fixes upon
religion (Adorno, 2002: 96).”

Furthermore, the typical Enlightenment control of nature is apparent in his subjugation

of women, who are deprived of subjectivity when reduced to their biological role alone. Sade's
naked violence is only the most visible manifestation of a considerably more widespread
occurrence. Nietzsche's will-to-power, like Kant's categorical imperative, foreshadows man’s
development by assuming man's independence from external influences. The overreliance on
man's individuality conversely leads to his subordination, since nature's destiny turns into man's
own.

“Enlightenment which is in possession of itself and coming to power can break the bounds of
enlightenment (Adorno, 2002: 208).”

Fascism, in effect, harnessed suppressed nature's fight against human dominion for the
evil objectives of that exact dominance.

CONCLUSION

Hence, by political means, the Enlightenment generated technologically advanced but

cruel and inhumane ways of rule, embodied in the twentieth century by fascism and
totalitarianism (Bowle, 2019). Horkheimer and Adorno examine the carrying out of the
Enlightenment ideology in the culture industry and modern anti-Semitism in the remaining
portion of the Dialectic. The article on the "culture industry," which is even more fragmented
than the others, depicts the return of enlightenment to ideology, as seen in film and media.
Enlightenment in this context consists in the assessment of efficacy as well as production and
distribution strategies. "Elements of Anti-Semitism," the concluding essay, is dealt with the
real regression of enlightened civilization to barbarism. The thesis here is that rationalism has
always had a practical tendency towards self-destruction, not just an ideal tendency. The authors
provide the major points of a philosophical background of anti-Semitism, arguing that its
"irrationalism" stems from the structure of the dominating ratio and the universe that conforms to
its perception.
 The theme is negative throughout, and the outlook is terrible. As a social philosophical
approach, total transformation entails the rejection of every individual not just of the ego's
dominant aspects, but also of its non-dominant ones. This is indeed a fact that both Horkheimer
and Adorno are concerned with in their discussion of redefinition of the body in an aphorism
from "The Importance of the Body" (Adorno, 2002: 231-36). The estrangement of man from
nature, which is crucial to Western civilization's current dilemma, appears to be an almost
unstoppable development. Horkheimer and Adorno expressly reject optimistic premises and
demythologize the hopeful foundations of Christianity, Hegelian idealism, and historical
materialism in an aphorism on philosophy of history. Looking for better conditions, while not
wholly fictitious, is based on the 'determinate negation' of the existent rather than the promise of
its fulfilment.

2. Read Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man as posted below, and present why he termed it as "one-
dimensional man?" What are its implications for political and social philosophy? Cite what he
said preferably give striking quotations related to his core concepts to present in-depth answer to
his works. (40 points)

According to Collins Dictionary (2021), the literal meaning of one-dimensional is an

adjective which means “having only one dimension and therefore showing only linear
information such as length or width or height (mathematics)” or “having a single focus; narrow
and superficial”. In mathematics, for example, a 100 meter-dash course in athletics does not
illustrate a curve track but instead a straight line from the start to the end. As a form of
symbolism, it may refer to the one mindedness of a person in his present situation. To achieve
his goal, he becomes a goal-oriented person by focusing only on one track he has chosen. We
may think that being one dimensional is great so that we may be guided accordingly along the
journey. However, we also neglected the fact that this kind of mindset is already deceiving us
towards the understanding of truth and reality. That is why the definition itself states the word
“superficial” which stands for understanding only the existing or outer surface of the image. We
may believe that the thing in reality is real but on the other hand, one-dimensionality is stating
only the reality of existing things but not the real reality. We should understand deeply that
reality is different from real reality.

This may be the reason why Marcuse thought that the definition of one dimensional is
applicable in developing his critical theory of one-dimensional man, a term for demythologizing
the advanced industrial society. Here he said:

“The totalitarian tendencies of the one-dimensional society render the traditional ways and
means of protest ineffective – perhaps even dangerous because they preserve the illusion of
popular sovereignty. This illusion contains some truth: ‘the people’, previously the ferment of
social change, have “moved up” to become the ferment of social cohesion. Here rather than in
the redistribution of wealth and equalization of classes is the new stratification characteristic of
advanced industrial society (Marcuse, 1964:13).”

Marcuse defines the "one-dimensional man" as someone who is subjugated to a new sort
of authoritarianism in the guise of consumerist and technological capitalism. Capitalism is
"softly enslaving us," not via brutal tyranny, but rather by pleasant persuasion. The pleasant
persuasion cannot be seen at first glance because our decisions are being controlled by a kind of
system that enslaves us unknowingly in our daily lifestyle. Here he said:

“The result is the atrophy of the mental organs for grasping the contradictions and the
alternatives and, in the one remaining dimension of technological rationality, the Happy
Consciousness comes to prevail (Marcuse, 1964:56).”

The kind of system that affects our own decision-makings is the new form of totalitarian
government called Capitalism. Capitalism has the ability to control and monopolize the global
market. With every suggestion, development, progress, demands, and decision they make, the
consumers of the advanced industrial society are clicking the bait. The humans think that this is
the “Happy Consciousness” they were looking for. They become one-dimensional as if they were
given the opportunity to decide on their own, express their freedom, and define who they are out
of the existing realities in the capitalist society. On the other hand, they were just like puppets
and their strings are handled by the capitalists. Above all these, the capitalist uses the media to
spread their intelligent plan.
 “Our insistence on the depth and efficacy of these controls is open to the objection that we
overrate greatly the indoctrinating power of the “media,” and that by themselves the people
would feel and satisfy the needs which are now imposed upon them. The objection misses the
point (Marcuse, 1964:12).”

For example, in the Philippine context, we may be led by a misguided understanding of

justice to enact a fundamentally unfair reality (Hartley, 2011). The human rights situation in the
Philippines eventually degraded in 2020 as President Rodrigo Duterte's violent "war on drugs"
misguided the public sphere into believing in what the government says through media. They
become one-dimensional and no longer investigates the real reality behind the existing reality.
This is an illustration of Marcuse's point regarding social control through public opinion
manipulation. The military, public security services, and police have aggressively utilized social
media to disseminate threats that have resulted in the deaths of tens of red-tagged persons in the
last years (Human Rights Editors, 2020).

In this manner, Marcuse suggests that we should stop from being one-dimensional or else
we may regret the things that we expecting of. However, he also admitted that the existing
situation is inevitable. In this regard, the only thing we can do is to identify the factors of one-
dimensional. After this, we can be aware of the reality. In order to do this, we must first pause
for a while, refrain from deciding immediately and learn the other dimensional way of thinking,
instead of sticking to the one-dimensional way of thinking, the Dialectical thinking: a similar
explanation of what Adorno argues in his Dialectic of Enlightenment. For him, as social
creatures, we do not participate in either one-dimensional or dialectical thought as a pure ideal
type, but rather shift from one to the other depending on the social situation. In summary of his
text, he differentiated the two as opposing ways of thinking.

One-Dimensional Dialectical

-No Historical -Historical Consciousness

Consciousness -Lives on both
civilization and
-Lives on civilization culture
only (status quo) -Negative Consciousness
-Happy Consciousness (self- consciousness)
  Ends of
Spectrum
 Consciousness

Being at opposing ends of the spectrum, dialectical thinking has historical

consciousness, whereas one-dimensional thinking does not. The current condition
of civilisation represents the natural order's economic, political, and social aspects.
Dialectical thinking has a negative awareness of the existing quo, whereas one-
dimensional thinking no longer questions the current quo but is satisfied with it. As
a result, rather than both civilization and culture, the one-dimensional type exists in
the dimension of civilisation. One-dimensional thinking is limited to the reality of
the current status quo (Trappen, 2016). When we reduce the two-dimensional style
of thinking and acting to a one-dimensional way of thinking and acting, we
discover that the one-dimensional kind becomes more prevalent. The 1944
publication of Horkheimer and Adorno's "Dialectic of Enlightenment," widely
regarded as the Frankfurt School's classic book, could be interpreted as a more
sophisticated version of Marcuse's later One-Dimensional Man by acknowledging
their efforts to identify one-dimensional way of thinking as a form of capitalist
dominance.
“Perhaps no other writing shows Freud closer to the great tradition of
Enlightenment; but also, no other shows him more clearly succumbing to the
dialectic of Enlightenment. In the present period of civilization, the progressive
ideas of rationalism can be recaptured only when they are reformulated. The
function of science and of religion has changed- as has their interrelation. Within
the total mobilization of man and nature which marks the period, science is one of
the most destructive instruments - destructive of that freedom from fear which it
once promised.” – (Marcuse, 1955:72)
Meanwhile, the existing human understanding as one-dimensional of
recognizing their own needs in capitalist world is unneeded, and may lead to
people acquiring false needs rather than actual needs. In the long term, if a person
continues to think in one dimension, the illusory needs might evolve into 'false
freedom' rather than 'real freedom.' False freedom is characterized as economic,
political, or intellectual unfreedom.
“Thus, economic freedom would mean freedom from the economy - from being
controlled by economic forces and relationships; freedom from the daily struggle
for existence, from earning a living. Political freedom would mean liberation of
the individuals from politics over which they have no effective control. Similarly,
intellectual freedom would mean the restoration of individual thought now
absorbed by mass communication and indoctrination, abolition of ‘public opinion’
together with its makers (Marcuse, 1964:10).”
However, this is not the end of the discourse, Marcuse still believes that after
we become aware of the aftershocks of one-dimensionality, we may have the
chance to discover the authentic truth and become dialectical. As one-dimensional
realizes that he’s being dominated by technocracy, individuals would be free to
realize their real and authentic needs as redefinition of needs (Trappen, 2016).
Here he stated;
“The more they have become the individual's own needs and satisfactions, the
more would their repression appear to be an all but fatal deprivation. But
precisely by virtue of this fatal character, it may create the primary subjective
prerequisite for qualitative change – namely, the redefinition of needs (Marcuse,
1964:159).”

SOCIAL AND POLITICAL IMPLICATIONS

POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY:
We imagined that totalitarian tyranny, which restricts our freedom, no longer
existed; regrettably, capitalism now does. "Democracy would appear to be the
most efficient system of domination (1964:37)," he observed, yet present
democracy is still founded on Capitalism. This does not support any claims to
systemic legitimacy since it is the consequence of quiet manipulation and is
founded on an authoritarian social order (Robinson, 2010). For example, Despite
the fact that the government permits us to express our views, thoughts, and
feelings, our freedom has been restricted to the point that we are weaponizing our
own rights, despite the fact that they themselves utilize it. Many critics of the
heinous drug war, such as activists, have already sought to criticize the system, but
have been powerless owing to political assassination, threats, and harassment. As a
consequence, Leftist and human rights activists have become frequent targets of
physical and online harassment. This is an example of Marcuse's statement on
social control by public opinion manipulation. In recent years, the military, public
security agencies, and police have actively used social media to propagate threats
that have resulted in the deaths of tens of red-tagged individuals (Human Rights
Editors, 2020).

The influence of capitalism on freedom (as well as revolt) has rendered it

worthlessness. Remember that Marcuse is now questioning the Marxist assumption
that a historical or capitalism crisis is inescapable. As a result, it is obvious from
his statement:
“One-dimensional thought is systematically promoted by the makers of politics
and their purveyors of mass information. Their universe of discourse is populated
by self-validating hypotheses which, incessantly and monopolistically repeated,
become hypnotic definitions of dictations.” – (Marcuse, 1964:15)

SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY:
One-Dimensional man's social philosophy is based on consciousness and
self-determination. He implies that many people can no longer think for
themselves. This is because man in mass society has no inner identity and is
obsessed. He feels he is happy, but he might have simply been indecisive. In any
event, this type of person is the product of what Marx called false consciousness.
As a result, those who suffer from false awareness find it impossible to cultivate a
revolutionary consciousness. Slaves are no longer bound by tangible shackles;
instead, the mind develops its own. People figure out how to be happy with where
they are in life (Trappen, 2016). In today's advanced culture, which is strongly
influenced by technology and the media, self-evaluation and consciousness no
longer exist. He then stated:
“In any case, the combination of centralized authority and direct democracy is
subject to infinite variations, according to the degree of development. Self-
determination” will be real to the extent to which the masses have been dissolved
into individuals liberated from all propaganda, indoctrination, and manipulation,
 capable of knowing and comprehending the facts and of evaluating the
alternatives. In other words, society would be rational and free to the extent to
which it is organized, sustained, and reproduced by an essentially new historical
Subject.” – (Marcuse, 1964:163-164)
In the end, we were unable to obtain freedom, consciousness, and awareness,
since capitalism still controls all aspects of earthly life. Individual strong
opposition is insufficient as long as capitalism is the foundation of society's
progress. Slowly but surely, let us learn how to demythologize or think on the
negative side so that we may learn how to discover the real reality behind the
existing realities. Maybe some of them are just illusions that tries to cover the
truth. For example, Marcos’ regime declaring martial law is indeed the best way of
governance but had been fabricated by the Liberal Party to take over his place and
leadership. The people as a social being are free to think and the deciaion and
future of the country is relying upon them.

Primary References:
Adorno, T. & Horkeimer, M. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment (Trans. by.
Jephcott, E.). Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/title/?id=1103
Marcuse, H. (1964). One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of
Advanced Industrial Society (Trans. by Douglas Kellner). Beacon Press. https://b-
ok.asia/book/784632/1920f7

Secondary References:
__________ (2021). One-Dimensional. Collins Dictionary.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/one-dimensional
Bowle, J. E. (2019). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Britannica Encyclopedia.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Dialectic-of-Enlightenment
Human Rights Editors (2020). Philippines Events of 2020. Human Rights
Watch. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2021/country-chapters/philippines
Robinson, A. (2010). In Theory – Herbert Marcuse: One Dimensional Man?
Ceasefire Magazine. https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-6-marcuse/
 Ryu, H. (n.d.). A Reading of the Dialectic of Enlightenment: The Fate of
Reason in the Contemporary World. Seoul National University. https://s-
space.snu.ac.kr/bitstream/10371/89993/1/28%20A%20Reading%20of%20the
%20Dialectic%20of%20Enlightenment.pdf
Trappen, S. (2016). Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man. Penn State
University. https://sandratrappen.com/2016/03/11/one-dimensional-man/