ND Part II / Relationship to Left Hegelianism
Hegel’s philosophy was regarded by many or most Marxists as a philosophy that had been superseded in Marx’s own work. Marx began as a Left Hegelian alongside Feuerbach, but once he had come up with his original theory, he had—according to Marxists—progressed beyond that group, and Marxists later tended to think of the Hegelian vestiges in Marx’s writings as something that could be expunged from the theory proper. From this point of view—that of Karl Korsch and many others—Adorno and the other members of the Frankfurt School had regressed into Left Hegelianism, an essentially pre-Marxist theory.
And the gist of the criticism was that Adorno had retreated back into theory, ignoring the fact that the theory was finished already. The Marxist critique of philosophy said that the point is to change it, and this was taken by Marxists as a call to action. Thus, according to these critics, negative dialectics failed to make this move into praxis.
Adorno responds to these accusations in this section, and it’s a response we’re familiar with from the lectures, specifically lecture 5 (I posted about it here).
The overall point is that for Adorno, theory must remain independent of praxis and must not be expected to justify itself according to practical applicability, if it is ever to be of any use to praxis at all.
In lecture 6 he shows how serious he is about practical matters, despite the abstraction of his philosophy:
This fact of being thrown back onto philosophy has its real equivalent in the present situation. We find ourselves in a kind of historical breathing space. We are in a situation in which it is once again possible to give serious attention to thought, thanks to current material conditions and also to the relatively peaceful climate, at least in the Federal Republic. And the attempts to confuse us about this and to keep on crying wolf have become ideology at this moment in time because an analysis of con- temporary society suggests that in the long run a situation in which reflection is possible cannot last – so that we should seize the oppor- tunity while it is there. And I would say that this opportunity implies a kind of obligation for us all, and especially for you, to put in some serious thought and not allow yourselves to be diverted by the feeling that mental activity should be subordinated to the hectic bustle of everyday activity
LND, p.57
With the benefit of hindsight we may doubt the optimism of this assessment (though he was right that the peaceful and prosperous postwar situation wouldn’t last) but the basic point regarding the relationship of theory and praxis seems plausible enough.
In the present section of ND, Adorno is defending himself (and others like him) against critics and enemies on both sides of the Iron Curtain. In the East, dialectical materialism (Diamat) had hardened into an unquestionable dogma according to which the philosophy had been completed already, and it was now just a matter of allowing the Party to guide society towards communism. In the West, there were critics on the right, such as liberal positivists, and on the left, not only the official Communist Parties but also the anti-Stalinist groups who persitently demanded action.
The most interesting passage is this one:
Whoever scolds theory as anachronistic, obeys the topos of dismissing as outmoded what was thwarted and remains painful. Therein precisely the course of the world is reconfirmed, which it is the very idea of theory not to obey, and the theoretical target is missed, even when it is successfully abolished, whether positivistically or by power-decree.
What was thwarted and remains painful refers to the failure of socialist movements and continued suffering—whether in socialist states that hardened into authoritarian bureaucracies, fascist dictatorships, or in Western capitalism. He is saying that the attack on mere theory is tantamount to dismissing these realities, to accept what has happened and to paper over it—which is exactly what theory does not do.
Theory’s target, namely real injustice, is left untouched by the abolition of theory. You cannot pretend that the injustice has been banished by silencing the theory that criticized it.