§ Art • Art and the Promise of Happiness • Poetry after Auschwitz • Imageless images
§ Religion • Judaism • Ban on images and prohibition on naming • Negative Theology • Mysticism
Philosophy and Critical Theory
Restauration ist in der Philosophie so vergeblich wie sonstwo.
Adorno, 1963
Many different books have been written on Adorno by musicologists, sociologists, cultural theorists, and particularly by twentieth century intellectual historians. Some, though surprisingly few, have been written by philosophers. Though Adorno came to be recognised as one of the most important German intellectuals of the last century, he has never been accepted as one of its great philosophers, and is still today a relatively minor figure in the discipline. There are various reasons for this, including the formidable difficulty of his work, the fact that over half his oeuvre consists in musical writings, and that he remained for most of his career outside the German academic establishment. In addition to this, there is Adorno’s lifelong animus against the major traditions of philosophy, combined with an intransigent and virulent hostility towards almost all the main currents of philosophy contemporary to him – neo-Kantianism, phenomenology, existentialism and Vienna School positivism. Adorno's critical theory of society is, at the same time, a self-criticism of philosophy. However, the chief reason Adorno never made the ranks of the great twentieth century philosophers probably stems from the fact that his work consists in a novel and for most philosophers baffling amalgam between music theory, aesthetic theory and philosophy. As we will see later when we discuss Adorno’s philosophical style and ‘method’, just as he has a highly reflective and philosophical approach to music, Adorno has a musical (or at least aesthetic) approach to philosophy. Philosophers schooled in the analytic tradition, who share none of Adorno’s qualms about philosophy and none of his interests, wonder why they should concern themselves with his thought at all. By contrast, anyone who comes to share Adorno's view of philosophy, and many do, for Adorno has a style of writing and thinking that exerts a fascinating hold on his readers, find that it makes the attempt to write a philosophical book on Adorno intrinsically problematic. To write philosophically on Adorno, as he might have said, is both a requirement and an impossibility. Quite a number of his interpreters respond to this difficulty by emulating Adorno’s style and repeating his formulations, with the result that everything that is difficult to understand in Adorno’s work is equally difficult to grasp in the interpretation of it. This is a mistake. To be true to the spirit of Adorno’s writings one has to find one’s own way into his ideas, and one’s own way out of them, to think them through for oneself. For someone like me who is interested in Adorno, but who does not share his view of what philosophy is, there is no particular problem. To write a philosophical book about Adorno is just to interpret his ideas with charity and sensitivity, with the aim of making sense of them, but to temper this aim with a willingness to argue with him and where necessary against him. The danger in writing a philosophical interpretation of Adorno, for someone who has a different understanding of philosophy, and who disagrees with many of his ideas, is that one risks treating the questions Adorno addresses in his work as if they were a timeless philosophical problems free from intellectual, social and historical context. This is perhaps not such a danger for intellectual historians. The corresponding danger for them is rather that, by focusing on the questions Adorno asked and on the answers he gave, they risk turning critical theory into an intellectual heritage site, drained of any contemporary relevance. I hope to steer between these two dangers, to avoid snagging on the first by being historically sensitive both to the situation in which Adorno was writing, and to the different situation in which his work is now being interpreted and written about; and to avoid snagging on the second by being willing to contest the questions he raises and the answers he offers.
Just in case anyone out there is interested, here is a synopsis of my new book on Adorno, which I am aiming to finish by Christmas. Now where I have I heard that it will be over by Christmas before?
Atopia, Critique and Resistance:
Adorno’s Social, Moral and Political thought
§ Introduction
* Philosophy and Critical Theory * Adorno’s Atopianism
§ Truth
* Negativism * Ban on images and prohibition on naming * Non-identity
Just received my expected pfo from J Phil after sending them an article for consideration nearly 5 months ago. Zip comments because the pfo came before 6 months was out. No reasons given either. Only this:
"There are, of course, many possible reasons for such rejections, not all having to do with the intrinsic quality of the article. Unfortunately, because of the large number of manuscripts received, combined with the pressure of other work, the editors find it impossible to detail these reasons in each case; they trust that you will understand."
What I fail to understand is why it should take 5 almost months to reject it without reasons. If you don't have to offer reasonsit should not take that long.
Mind you, Phil Review gave me a pfo with nil comments after nearly 8 months for a different article. When I complained, pointing out that they say they usually reply within 3 months, the editor sent me an apologetic note. I would have preferred some comments. I doubt I'll be submitting anything to Phil Review or J Phil again any time soon.I'll try my luck with Ethics, Mind and PPR.
By contrast I've had excellent responses from Ethics, Journal of Political Philosophy, European Journal of Philosophy, Inquiry, and most recently from Review of Politics.
Does someone collate the actual response times of these journals, rather than the advertised response times?
Gordon Finlayson
Last update: 08-09-2009 17:00
Forthcoming Edited Collection on Habermas and Rawls
Finally Fabian and I have signed a contract for Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political. It has been a long road. Publishers don't want to know about collections of essays. As Raymond Geuss told me they will try to get away with publishing as few as they can decently get away with publishing. Any hint of a lukewarm remark in a reader's report is likely to put them off. Remember that if and when you write a reader's report for a proposal. There is always something that can be criticised in a proposal, but doing so may well scupper it.
Some publishers now want a non refundabe subvention of $9000 lest they lose money. Others are only interested if all the same old big names are in the book. The same familiar roster of stars that everyone knows about. Above all, no new voices. Finally, many publishers - I've heard this more than once - say that the book won't sell in the US unless a majority of US academics be among the contributors. Strange eh. A Friend of mine Henry Pickford, had a proposed volume with Cornell sunk because it did not contain a piece by a particular author - a rising star in the field, apparently. For similar reasons, I guess, British Films always have to have American stars in them. I never thought academic publishing would be so like the film industry.
Still, it'll be a good volume. Here is a quick preview.
Disputing the Political: Habermas and Rawls
Contents
(1) a substantial introduction; (2) reproduction of the contributions by Rawls and Habermas to the original dispute; (3) chapters evaluating the original dispute, or on substantive issues relevant to the debate (4) an afterword by Habermas; (5) a select topic by topic bibliography and index.
4. Overview of the Volume and List of Contributors
Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the Political
I: Editors’ Introduction:
The pre-history of the dispute. The actual dispute. Post-dispute developments. Contents of the volume.
II: The Original Dispute
Ch. 1 ‘Reconciliation through the Public Reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s Political Liberalism.’ Jürgen Habermas.
Ch. 2 ‘Reply to Habermas.’ John Rawls†.
Ch. 3 ‘Reasonable versus True: or the Morality of World Views.’ Jürgen Habermas.
III: Disputing the Political
Ch. 4 ‘Habermas and Rawls on Collective Reasoning.’ Chris McMahon, (University of California, Santa Barbara).
Ch. 5 ‘Justice: Transcendental not Metaphysical. What Habermas should have said to Rawls.’ Joseph Heath, (University of Toronto, Canada).
Ch. 6 ‘The Justification of Justice.’ Rainer Forst, (University of Frankfurt).
Ch. 7. ‘The Idea of Social Criticism in Habermas and Rawls.’ Andrea Sangiovanni (King's College London).
Ch. 8. ‘Habermas and Rawls on Human Rights.’ Jeff Flynn (Fordham).
Ch. 9 ‘Procedural versus substantive conceptions of justice.’ Cristina Lafont (Northwestern University)
Ch. 10 ‘Democracy and Public Reasons.’ Anthony Simon Laden (University of Illinois at Chicago).
Ch. 11. ‘Habermas and Rawls on Religion.’ Catherine Audard (London School of Economics). Ch. 12 ‘Habermas and Rawls on International Justice.’ Jim Bohman (St. Louis).
