Theodor W Adorno

Prisms
Translated from the German by Samuel and Shierry Weber

Ninth printng, 1997 First MIT Press paperback editon, 1983 First MIT Press editon, 1981 Cop right ! Theodor " #dorno 19$7 #%% rights reser&ed' No part o( this book ma be reprod)ced in an (orm or b an means, e%ectronic or mechanica%, inc%)ding photocop ing, recording, or b an in(ormaton storage and retrie&a% s stem, *itho)t permission in *ritng (rom the p)b%isher'

Contents
Series Foreword 6 . Weber &' ! Foreword by Theodor W. Adorno 7 Introduction: Translating the Untranslatable, by Samuel "ultural "riticism and Society S(engler a$ter the )ecline '# *eblen+s Attac, on "ulture 7& Aldous -u.ley and Uto(ia !' /erennial Fashion 0 1a22 ##! #&& #67 3ach )e$ended against -is )e4otees Arnold Schoenberg, #576 #!'# *al7ry /roust useum #7& <<7
(age>'

#7

The Sociology o$ %nowledge and Its "onsciousness

The 8eorge9-o$mannsthal "orres(ondence, #5!# #!:6 #57 A /ortrait o$ Walter 3en;amin =otes on %a$,a <6&

+eries Fore*ord
From -egel and ar., )ilthey and Weber, to Freud and the Fran,$urt School, 8erman social theory en;oyed an undis(uted (reeminence. A$ter the 4iolent brea, brought about by =ational Socialism and World War II, this tradition has recently come to li$e again, and indeed to such an e.tent that contem(orary 8erman social thought has begun to a((roach the heights earlier attained. ?ne im(ortant element in this renaissance has been the ra(id and e.tensi4e translation into 8erman o$ @nglish9language wor,s in the humanities and the social sciences, with the result that social thought in 8ermany is today mar,edly in$luenced by ideas and a((roaches o$ Anglo9American origin. Un$ortunately, e$$orts in the other direction, the translation and rece(tion o$ 8erman wor,s into @nglish, ha4e been s(oradic at best. This series is intended to correct that imbalance. The term social thought is here understood 4ery broadly to include not only sociological and (olitical thought as such but also the social9theoretical concerns o$ history and (hiloso(hy, (sychology and linguistics, aesthetics and theology. The term contemporary is also to be construed broadly: though our attention will be $ocused (rimarily on (ostwar thin,ers, we shall also (ublish wor,s by and on earlier thin,ers whose in$luence on contem(orary 8erman social thought is (er4asi4e. The series will begin with translations o$ wor,s by authors whose names are already widely recogni2ed in @nglish9s(ea,ing countries 0 Adorno, 3loch, 8adamer, -abermas, arcuse, Aitter 0 and by authors o$ similar accom(lishment who are not yet so $amiliar outside o$ 8ermany 0 3lumenberg, /eu,ert, Schmidt, Theunissen, Tugendhat. SubseBuent 4olumes will also include monogra(hs and collections o$ essays written in @nglish on 8erman social thought and its concerns. To understand and a((ro(riate other traditions is to broaden the hori2ons o$ oneCs own. It is our ho(e that this series, by ta((ing a neglected store o$ intellectual riches and ma,ing it accessible to the @nglish9 s(ea,ing (ublic, will e.(and the $rame o$ re$erence o$ our social and (olitical discourse. T-? AS ""AAT-D
(age>6

Fore*ord to the ,ng%ish ,diton

Although the author is delighted that $or the $irst time one o$ his 8erman boo,s is now to a((ear in @nglish 0 in a 4ery meticulous and thought$ul translation 0 he is none the less $ully aware o$ the di$$iculties which con$ront such te.ts in the @nglish9s(ea,ing world. That he is no stranger to Anglo9Sa.on norms o$ thought and (resentation has been demonstrated, the author belie4es, in his @nglish9language writings: his contributions to The Authoritarian Personality , his essays on music sociology $or the /rinceton Aadio Aesearch /ro;ect, and subseBuent studies such as E-ow to Foo, at Tele4isionC, or EThe Stars )own to @arthC.# These norms are essential to him as a control, lest he re;ect common sense without $irst ha4ing mastered itG it is only by use o$ its own categories, that common sense can be transcended. This, howe4er, must remain the authorCs aim as long as he considers matters o$ $act to be not mere $act, unre$lected and thing9li,e, but rather (rocesses o$ in$inite mediation, ne4er to be ta,en sim(ly at $ace94alue. -e cannot acce(t the usual mode o$ thought which is content to register $acts and (re(are them $or subseBuent classi$ication. -is essential e$$ort is to illuminate the realm o$ $acticity 0 without which there can be no true ,nowledge 0 with re$lections o$ a di$$erent ty(e, one which di4erges radically $rom the generally acce(ted canon o$ scienti$ic 4alidity. To ;usti$y this (rocedure it would ha4e been best to restate the considerations now collected in the Negative Dialektik.< The author has decided against this not merely $or considerations o$
#. c$. The Authoritarian Personality H=ew Dor,, #!':G (a(erbac, edition, =ew Dor,, #!66IG Radio Research H=ew Dor,, #!6# $$.IG E-ow to Foo, at Tele4isionC, The Quarterly of Film, Radio and Television *IuII HS(ring #!'6I, (. <#6 $$.G EThe Stars )own to @arthC, Jahr uch f!r Amerikastudien < H-eidelberg, #!'7I. <. Fran,$urt am ain, #!66. (age>7

time, but also because one o$ his (rimary concerns has been not to acce(t uncritically the con4entional o((osition between methodology and material ,nowledge. In thus (resenting a boo, that consists o$ indi4idual studies, he ho(es to be able to concreti2e that ty(e o$ ,nowledge towards which he is inclined. @4en without an e.(licit e(istemology, the essays should be able to s(ea, $or themsel4es. I$ this is (ossible, it will be due in no small measure to the Buality o$ the translation as well as to the Introduction by Samuel . Weber, which the author would wholeheartedly endorse as an accurate (resentation o$ his intentions were he not a$raid, in so doing, o$ seeming immodest. Finally, the author could wish $or nothing better than that the @nglish 4ersion o$ Prisms might e.(ress something o$ the gratitude that he cherishes $or @ngland and $or the United States 0 the countries which enabled him to sur4i4e the era o$ (ersecution and to which he has e4er since $elt himsel$ dee(ly bound. T. W. A. FAA=%FUAT, AA"- #!67
(age>5

Trans%atng the -ntrans%atab%e

"amuel #$ %e er #an lives &ith things mainly, even e'clusively ( since sentiment and action in him depend upon his mental representations ( as they are conveyed to him y language$ Through the same act y &hich he spins language out of himself he &eaves himself into it, and every language dra&s a circle around the people to &hich it elongs, a circle that can only e transcended in so far as one at the same time enters another one$ Wilhelm 4on -umboldt Je suis au out de l)anglais$ 1ames 1oyce
(age>!

The translation o$ (hiloso(hical (rose, o$ cultural criticism, might at $irst glance seem to (ose $ew (roblems, at least by com(arison to that o$ (oetry. Fiterature is said to de$ine itsel$ through the union o$ $orm and content, the EhowC ta,ing (recedence o4er the EwhatC. A (oem should mean but be. 3y im(lication, the being o$ non9imaginati4e, non9literary writing is absorbed in its meaning, which is situated beyond language. -ere it is the EwhatC that counts, the means o$ (resentation being considered incidental. The con4enient distinction between literature and non9literature, howe4er, e4a(orates at the lightest touch o$ re$lection on the history o$ (hiloso(hy. Are /latoCs dialogues non9imaginati4eJ -egelCs aster and Ser4antJ Is the $orm, structure and language o$ their argument merely a bridge to reach conce(tual content on the other sideJ Is the language o$ great (hiloso(hy merely a means o$ (resentationJ ?r is it the constituti4e medium in which content crystalli2es and $rom which it can no more be detached than the meaning o$ a (oem $rom its $orm. Such considerations, howe4er rudimentary and e4ident, are enough to trans(ort one to the 4ery limits o$ @nglish and o$ the conce(tual hori2ons it describes. For i$ it is true that (hiloso(hy in its greatest (roductions is no less imaginati4e, no less literary than literature, then what is literatureJ It is not that a de$inition is lac,ing no (henomenon as com(le. and 4ital as literature is susce(tible o$ uni4ocal determination 0 but rather that there is no name in @nglish $or that which as EliteratureC is too broadly described, as E(oetryC too narrowly. @$$orts at circumscribing the di$$iculty with notions such as Eimaginati4eC writing or E$ictionC are no more satis$actory. Is the "ymposium, the Phenomenology of #ind $ictitiousJ =on9imaginati4eJ The circumscribed (henomenon, nameless in @nglish, has a name in 8erman: Dichtung. The essays collected in Prisms are not Dichtung. They are literature, i$ by literature is meant language in which imagination, $iction and $orm are moments which constitute the EcontentC, a content which in (rinci(le can be distinguished $rom that o$ Dichtung, i$ at all, through its less mediate relation to truth. Fi,e Dichtung s(eci$icity o$ AdornoCs thought
(age>##

is inse(arable $rom its articulation. I$ conce(tual concreteness may be measured by the density with which thought and articulation (ermeate each other, then AdornoCs style can be characteri2ed by the constant stri4ing to be concrete. It is, howe4er, a concreteness which has no (lace within the intellectual hori2ons o$ @nglish. In @nglish what is concrete is what is immediate, tangible, 4isible. Whate4er the historical causes o$ this em(irical orientation may ha4e been, contem(orary @nglish does not tolerate the notion that what is nearest at hand may in $act be most abstract, while that which is in4isible, intangible, accessible only to the mind may in $ace be more real than reality itsel$. EArenCt there enough words $or you in @nglishJC 1oyce was once as,ed: EDes,C he re(lied, Ethere are enough, but they arenCt the right ones.C # Words such as Dichtung, *eist, "ache, all o$ which may easily be attac,ed as im(recise and unclear, ne4ertheless designate a dimension o$ intellectual e.(erience which has its concreteness in the dynamic nature o$ thoughtG they designate moments, stages o$ the mind on its way to truth. The $act that @nglish demands em(irical

concreteness $rom the outset (roduces the con$usion o$ literature with Dichtung mind with *eist, declares illegitimate the determinate indeterminacy o$ "ache ( sub;ect9matter, thing, item 0 as the ob;ect not yet illuminated by reason. Det it is not merely that @nglish $orces one to distinguish between EwordsC and EthingsC and (roscribes SachenG the tyranny o$ em(iricism is $ar more e$$ecti4e in estranging the entire s(eculati4e dimension $rom the realm o$ ordinary discourse. +rkenntnis, ,egriff, Aufhe ung all are translatable, i$ by that is meant $inding @nglish words with eBui4alent EmeaningsC, by EcognitionC, Econce(tC and the ridiculous EsublationC. What is lost, howe4er, is the concreteness which the words ha4e in 8erman as abstractions $rom the language o$ e4eryday acti4ity. Anschauung, -orstellung, Aufhe ung , $ormed, li,e so many (hiloso(hical terms in 8erman, $rom 4erbs describing $amiliar and rudimentary actions, are rendered into an @nglish which de(ri4es them o$ their e$$ecti4e connotations and thereby o$ their truth9content, generally by latini2ing themG< thus, +rkenntnis
#. c$. Aichard @llmann, James Joyce H=ew Dor,: ?.$ord Uni4ersity /ress, #!6'I, (. 6#:. <. A (rocess which ar. obser4ed at wor, in the distinction made by se4enteenth9century @nglish economists between the 8ermanic EworthC, and the French E4alueC to distinguish immediate use94alue $rom re$lected e.change94alue. The roots o$ the (rocess can (robably be traced bac, beyond the =orman in4asion to the decline o$ the early "hristian "hurch in @ngland, (reci(itated by the in4asion o$ the )anes at the end o$ the eighth century. (age>#<

must become cognition, and erkennen, a household word, is circumscribed as Ethe cogniti4e actCG E,nowingC and E,nowledgeC designate the static $und o$ $acts, in$ormation and insights o4er which the ,nower dis(oses, but the sim(le and crucial notion o$ coming9to9,now, er9,ennen, must be reser4ed $or s(ecialistsG ElearnC is similarly unsatis$actory, being too hea4ily burdened with (assi4ity, which, i$ it does indeed con$orm to em(irical $act, ne4ertheless de(ri4es @nglish o$ the name $or a cogniti4e (rocess that would be uni4ersal, s(ontaneous, acti4e. Det (erha(s the most serious obstacle to the de4elo(ment and articulation o$ dialectical thin,ing in @nglish is not semantic but syntactic. The criterion o$ clarity is rigidly en$orced by a grammar which taboos long sentences as clumsy and whose ideal remains bre4ity and sim(licity at all costs. /olemical e.ce(tions, $rom Sterne to 3yron, ha4e only rein$orced the (re4ailing ma.im that i$ something is worth saying it can be said directly and to the (oint. This tendency o$ @nglish synta. to brea, thought down into its smallest, sel$9contained, monadic (arts is (robably the most $ormidable barrier to dialectics. The absence o$ word9genders and in$lections ma,e long sentences (rohibiti4ely clumsy i$ not im(ossible, and thus (re4ent or discredit the com(le. hy(otactic constructions which are the li$e9blood o$ dialectical thin,ing. Similarly, long (aratactic constructions are to be bro,en down into shorter sentences. I$ this has hel(ed the @nglish9s(ea,ing world to ,ee( its $eet on the ground, as it undoubtedly has, it has also hindered it $rom seeing much beyond, a danger s(oradically recogni2ed by @nglish cultural critics at least since atthew Arnold. At the o((osite e.treme is 8erman Idealism, which de4elo(ed the remar,able syntactic $le.ibility o$ 8erman into its (resent $orm, the grandeur and (erils o$ which can be seen in the (rose o$ -egel and o$ -oelderlin. & The structure o$ the 8erman sentence, abo4e all, the relation between main and subordinate clauses 0 the latter being in no way as EsubordinateC as its @nglish name and hierarchical grammar would suggest 0 is a dynamic continuum that is only reali2ed as a meaning$ul whole with the com(letion o$ the Ne ensat. in its $inal 4erb. 8erman sentences ha4e a historyG sentences in @nglish tend to be stillborn. This is no less true o$ substanti4es which in 8erman can be (receded by long a((ositional clauses, e.(ressing not a (ro(erty but a (rocess. The -egelian use o$ abstract substanti4es as sub;ects 0 as with ,egriff, which thus too, on a li$e o$ its
&. The $irst sentence o$ -oelderlinCs essay, / er die -erfahrungs&eise des poetischen *eistes H?n the ode o$ /rocedure o$ the /oetic S(iritI, which see,s to articulate the sel$9estrangement and re(roduction o$ the *eist in the world, stands as the most e.treme e.am(le o$ this tendency. (age>#&

own 0 was only (ossible because o$ such tendencies o$ 8erman grammar, enabling the sentence to embody the dialectical thought ;ust as the (aragra(h embodies the argument. Adorno is thus able to use an Eeither9orC construction in which the second hal$ o$ the alternati4e $ollows two sentences a$ter the $irst.

This gi4es whole arguments a tautness and coherence otherwise $ound only in sentences, i$ at all. All this, in 8erman no less than in @nglish, brea,s with generally acce(table usage, with ordinary language. In 8erman this amounts to reawa,ening a (otential which has been largely neglected today but which still slumbers within the recesses o$ the language. Is it (ossible, howe4er, to translate this into a language which lac,s these Bualities, e4en as (otentialJ This reBuires re$lection on the notion o$ translation itsel$. Where the meaning o$ the original wor, is not e.ternal to its language, translation can no longer be concei4ed as the re(roduction o$ meaning in a more or less trans$ormed linguistic setting. With the abstraction o$ meaning $rom the (articular uni4erse o$ discourse in which it constituted itsel$, the meaning is no longer that which it was. AdornoCs language, constantly struggling with the communicati4e as(ect o$ 8erman, wrests its meanings $rom the latent (otential which still inheres in 8erman, in its syntactic $le.ibility which has remained relati4ely unim(aired by the semantic im(o4erishment and which thus (ro4ides an Archimedean (oint $rom which the critic is able not so much to in4o,e ;udgments against language $rom a $ictitious (oint outside but rather to turn it against itsel$ by means o$ inner contradictions which, i$ latent, still sur4i4e. I$ Adorno a((ears to do 4iolence to ordinary 8erman, it is as shoc, thera(y which legitimi2es itsel$ in e.(osing the 4iolence that language has already in$licted u(on itsel$. This is (ossible because the tyranny o$ communicati4e s(eech has not yet succeeded in eliminating the traditional Emeta(hysical sur(lusC 0 in AdornoCs words 0 o$ 8erman, which in turn becomes ideological once it narcissistically con$uses meta(hysics with reality. Det what o$ @nglish, which lac,s a meta(hysical sur(lus to o((ose to its communicati4e elementJ The answer is that i$ Adorno is translatable at all, something which can by no means be ta,en $or granted, it is (recisely by 4irtue o$ his untranslatability. The unresol4ed tension which sha(es an Adorno sentence, a(horism, essay, boo,, $rom beginning to end, li4es $rom and bears witness to the im(ossibility o$ a harmonious union o$ $orm and content, language and meaning, an idea which sur4i4es in his wor, (recisely in and through its determinate negation. The abyss which $orms between the su((osedly concrete use o$ language, which degrades it to an abstract semiotic system, and its
(age>#6

su((osedly abstract, mimetic $orm, as which language once sought to become as concrete as an abstraction is (ermitted to be, is lit u( with a glare which i$ it is da22ling in 8erman is blinding in @nglish. All satis$action at the word which by 4irtue o$ its conte.t re4eals its ambiguity and testi$ies against itsel$, at the thought which can un$old itsel$ in a sentence as it cannot in reality, is (rohibited $rom the start in @nglish. The barriers to the articulation o$ any meaning not restricted to reiterating reality emerge with stunning clarity. The $atal illusion that such barriers can be o4ercome by the sub;ecti4e intellect, howe4er brilliant it may be, that their mere articulation is their elimination, is swe(t away. The untranslatability o$ Adorno is his most (ro$ound and cruel truth. What remains is not the saturated unity o$ language and meaning but their dis;unction, EallegoricalC in the sense gi4en to the word by Walter 3en;amin. In the translation which ma,es literalness its guiding (rinci(le, the allegorical core o$ AdornoCs wor, becomes mani$est. I$ the @nglish9s(ea,ing reader is barred $rom (artici(ating in AdornoCs most brilliant successes, where he hits the mar, and language becomes thought, there may be consolation in the $act that the untranslatability o$ those successes traces the contours o$ a $ailure 0 the $ailure o$ language to say what must be said, its estrangement $rom itsel$ 0 whose shadow e4en the most brilliant success only dar,ens.
(age>#'

C)%t)ra% Critcism and +ociet

(age>#7

To anyone in the habit o$ thin,ing with his ears, the words Ecultural criticismC H 0ulturkritikI must ha4e an o$$ensi4e ring, not merely because, li,e EautomobileC, they are (ieced together $rom Fatin and 8ree,. The words recall a $lagrant contradiction. The cultural critic is not ha((y with ci4ili2ation, to which alone he owes his discontent. -e s(ea,s as i$ he re(resented either unadulterated nature or a higher historical stage. Det he is necessarily o$ the same essence as that to which he $ancies himsel$ su(erior. The insu$$iciency o$ the sub;ect 0 critici2ed by -egel in his a(ology $or the status 1uo ( which in its contingency and narrowness (asses ;udgment on the might o$ the e.istent, becomes intolerable when the sub;ect itsel$ is mediated down to its innermost ma,e9u( by the notion to which it o((oses itsel$ as inde(endent and so4ereign. 3ut what ma,es the content o$ cultural criticism ina((ro(riate is not so much lac, o$ res(ect $or that which is critici2ed as the da22led and arrogant recognition which criticism surre(titiously con$ers on culture. The cultural critic can hardly a4oid the im(utation that he has the culture which culture lac,s. -is 4anity aids that o$ culture: e4en in the accusing gesture, the critic clings to the notion o$ culture, isolated, unBuestioned, dogmatic. -e shi$ts the attac,. Where there is des(air and measureless misery, he sees only s(iritual (henomena, the state o$ manCs consciousness, the decline o$ norms. 3y insisting on this, criticism is tem(ted to $orget the unutterable, instead o$ stri4ing, howe4er im(otently, so that man may be s(ared. The (osition o$ the cultural critic, by 4irtue o$ its di$$erence $rom the (re4ailing disorder, enables him to go beyond it theoretically, although o$ten enough he merely $alls behind. 3ut he incor(orates this di$$erence into the 4ery culture industry which he see,s to lea4e behind and which itsel$ needs the di$$erence in order to $ancy itsel$ culture. "haracteristic o$ cultureCs (retension to distinction, through which it e.em(ts itsel$ $rom e4aluation against the material conditions o$ li$e, is that it is insatiable. The e.aggerated claims o$ culture, which in turn inhere in the mo4ement o$ the mind, remo4e it e4er $urther $rom those conditions as the worth o$ sublimation
(age>#!

becomes increasingly sus(ect when con$ronted both by a material $ul$ilment near enough to touch and by the threatening annihilation o$ uncounted human beings. The cultural critic ma,es such distinction his (ri4ilege and $or$eits his legitimation by collaborating with culture as its salaried and honoured nuisance. This, howe4er, a$$ects the substance o$ criticism. @4en the im(lacable rigour with which criticism s(ea,s the truth o$ an untrue consciousness remains im(risoned within the orbit o$ that against which it struggles, $i.ated on its sur$ace mani$estations. To $launt oneCs su(eriority is, at the same time, to $eel in on the ;ob. Were one to study the (ro$ession o$ critic in bourgeois society as it (rogressed towards the ran, o$ cultural critic, one would doubtless stumble on an element o$ usur(ation in its origins, an element o$ which a writer li,e 3al2ac was still aware. /ro$essional critics were $irst o$ all Ere(ortersC: they oriented (eo(le in the mar,et o$ intellectual (roducts. In so doing, they occasionally gained insights into the matter at hand, yet remained continually tra$$ic agents, in agreement with the s(here as such i$ not with its indi4idual (roducts. ?$ this they bear the mar, e4en a$ter they ha4e discarded the role o$ agent. That they should ha4e been entrusted with the roles o$ e.(ert and then o$ ;udge was economically ine4itable although accidental with res(ect to their ob;ecti4e Buali$ications. Their agility, which gained them (ri4ileged (ositions in the general com(etition 0 (ri4ileged, since the $ate o$ those ;udged de(ends largely on their 4ote 0 in4ests their ;udgments with the semblance o$ com(etence. While they adroitly sli((ed into ga(s and won in$luence with the e.(ansion o$ the (ress, they attained that 4ery authority which their (ro$ession already (resu((osed. Their arrogance deri4es $rom the $act that, in the $orms o$ com(etiti4e society in which all being is merely there for something else, the critic himsel$ is also measured only in terms o$ his mar,etable success 0 that is, in terms o$ his eing for something else. %nowledge and understanding were not (rimary, but at most by9(roducts, and the more they are lac,ing, the more they are re(laced by ?neu(manshi( and con$ormity. When the critics in their (layground 0 art 0 no longer understand what

they ;udge and enthusiastically (ermit themsel4es to be degraded to (ro(agandists or censors, it is the old dishonesty o$ trade $ul$illing itsel$ in their $ate. The (rerogati4es o$ in$ormation and (osition (ermit them to e.(ress their o(inion as i$ it were ob;ecti4ity. 3ut it is solely the ob;ecti4ity o$ the ruling mind. They hel( to wea4e the 4eil. The notion o$ the $ree e.(ression o$ o(inion, indeed, that o$ intellectual $reedom itsel$ in bourgeois society, u(on which cultural criticism is $ounded, has its own dialectic. For while the mind
(age><:

e.tricated itsel$ $rom a theological9$eudal tutelage, it has $allen increasingly under the anonymous sway o$ the status 1uo. This regimentation, the result o$ the (rogressi4e societali2ation o$ all human relations, did not sim(ly con$ront the mind $rom withoutG it immigrated into its immanent consistency. It im(oses itsel$ as relentlessly on the autonomous mind as heteronomous orders were $ormerly im(osed on the mind which was bound. =ot only does the mind mould itsel$ $or the sa,e o$ its mar,etability, and thus re(roduce the socially (re4alent categories. Aather, it grows to resemble e4er more closely the status 1uo e4en where it sub;ecti4ely re$rains $rom ma,ing a commodity o$ itsel$. The networ, o$ the whole is drawn e4er tighter, modeled a$ter the act o$ e.change. It lea4es the indi4idual consciousness less and less room $or e4asion, (re$orms it more and more thoroughly, cuts it o$$ priori as it were $rom the (ossibility o$ di$$erencing itsel$ as all di$$erence degenerates to a nuance in the monotony o$ su((ly. At the same time, the semblance o$ $reedom ma,es re$lection u(on oneCs own un$reedom incom(arably more di$$icult than $ormerly when such re$lection stood in contradiction to mani$est un$reedom, thus strengthening de(endence. Such moments, in con;unction with the social selection o$ the Es(iritual and intellectual leadersC, result in the regression o$ s(irit and intellect. In accordance with the (redominant social tendency, the integrity o$ the mind becomes a $iction. ?$ its $reedom it de4elo(s only the negati4e moment, the heritage o$ the (lanless9monadological condition, irres(onsibility. ?therwise, howe4er, it clings e4er more closely as a mere ornament to the material base which it claims to transcend. The strictures o$ %arl %raus against $reedom o$ the (ress are certainly not to be ta,en literally. To in4o,e seriously the censors against hac,9writers would be to dri4e out the de4il with 3eel2ebub. =e4ertheless, the brutali2ation and deceit which $lourish under the aegis o$ $reedom o$ the (ress are not accidental to the historical march o$ the mind. Aather, they re(resent the stigma o$ that sla4ery within which the liberation o$ the mind 0 a $alse emanci(ation 0 has ta,en (lace. This is nowhere more stri,ing than where the mind tears at its bonds: in criticism. When the 8erman $ascists de$amed the word and re(laced it with the inane notion o$ Eart a((reciationC, they were led to do so only by the rugged interests o$ the authoritarian state which still $eared the (assion o$ a arBuis /osa in the im(ertinence o$ the ;ournalist. 3ut the sel$9satis$ied cultural barbarism which clamoured $or the abolition o$ criticism, the incursion o$ the wild horde into the (reser4e o$ the mind, unawares re(aid ,ind in ,ind. The bestial $ury o$ the 3rownshirt against Ecar(ing criticsC arises not
(age><#

merely $rom his en4y o$ a culture which e.cludes him and against which he blindly rebelsG nor is it merely his resentment o$ the (erson who can s(ea, out the negati4e moment which he himsel$ must re(ress. )ecisi4e is that the criticCs so4ereign gesture suggests to his readers an autonomy which he does not ha4e, and arrogates $or itsel$ a (osition o$ leadershi( which is incom(atible with his own (rinci(le o$ intellectual $reedom. This is inner4ated by his enemies. Their sadism was idiosyncratically attracted by the wea,ness, cle4erly disguised as strength, o$ those who, in their dictatorial bearing, would ha4e willingly e.celled the less cle4er tyrants who were to succeed them. @.ce(t that the $ascists succumbed to the same nai4ete as the critics, the $aith in culture as such, which reduced it to (om( and a((ro4ed s(iritual giants. They regarded themsel4es as (hysicians o$ culture and remo4ed the thorn o$ criticism $rom it. They thus not only degraded culture to the ?$$icial, but in addition, $ailed to recogni2e the e.tent to which culture and criticism, $or better or $or worse, are intertwined. "ulture is only true when im(licitly critical, and the mind which $orgets this re4enges itsel$ in the critics it breeds. "riticism is an indis(ensable element o$ culture which is itsel$ contradictory: in all its untruth still as true as culture is untrue. "riticism is not un;ust when

it dissects 0 this can be its greatest 4irtue 0 but rather when it (arries by not (arrying. The com(licity o$ cultural criticism with culture lies not in the mere mentality o$ the critic. Far more, it is dictated by his relation to that with which he deals. 3y ma,ing culture his ob;ect, he ob;ecti$ies it once more. Its 4ery meaning, howe4er, is the sus(ension o$ ob;ecti$ication. ?nce culture itsel$ has been debased to Ecultural goodsC, with its hideous (hiloso(hical rationali2ation, Ecultural 4aluesC, it has already de$amed its raison d) 2tre. The distillation o$ such E4aluesC 0 the echo o$ commercial language is by no means accidental 0 (laces culture at the will o$ the mar,et. @4en the enthusiasm $or $oreign cultures includes the e.citement o4er the rarity in which money may be in4ested. I$ cultural criticism, e4en at its best with *al7ry, sides with conser4ati4ism, it is because o$ its unconscious adherence to a notion o$ culture which, during the era o$ late ca(italism, aims at a $orm o$ (ro(erty which is stable and inde(endent o$ stoc,9mar,et $luctuations. This idea o$ culture asserts its distance $rom the system in order, as it were, to o$$er uni4ersal security in the middle o$ a uni4ersal dynamic. The model o$ the cultural critic is no less the a((raising collector than the art critic. In general, cultural criticism recalls the gesture o$ bargaining, o$ the e.(ert Buestioning the authenticity o$ a (ainting or classi$ying it among the asterCs lesser wor,s. ?ne de4aluates in order
(age><<

to get more. The cultural critic e4aluates and hence is ine4itably in4ol4ed in a s(here stained with Ecultural 4aluesC, e4en when he rants against the mortgaging o$ culture. -is contem(lati4e stance towards culture necessarily entails scrutini2ing, sur4eying, balancing, selecting: this (iece suits him, that he re;ects. Det his 4ery so4ereignty, the claim to a more (ro$ound ,nowledge o$ the ob;ect, the se(aration o$ the idea $rom its ob;ect through the inde(endence o$ the critical ;udgment threatens to succumb to the thing9li,e $orm o$ the ob;ect when cultural criticism a((eals to a collection o$ ideas on dis(lay, as it were, and $etishi2es isolated categories such as mind, li$e and the indi4idual. 3ut the greatest $etish o$ cultural criticism is the notion o$ culture as such. For no authentic wor, o$ art and no true (hiloso(hy, according to their 4ery meaning, has e4er e.hausted itsel$ in itsel$ alone, in its being9in9itsel$. They ha4e always stood in relation to the actual li$e9(rocess o$ society $rom which they distinguished themsel4es. Their 4ery re;ection o$ the guilt o$ a li$e which blindly and callously re(roduces itsel$, their insistence on inde(endence and autonomy, on se(aration $rom the (re4ailing realm o$ (ur(oses, im(lies, at least as an unconscious element, the (romise o$ a condition in which $reedom were reali2ed. This remains an eBui4ocal (romise o$ culture as long as its e.istence de(ends on a bewitched reality and, ultimately, on control o4er the wor, o$ others. That @uro(ean culture in all its breadth 0 that which reached the consumer and which today is (rescribed $or whole (o(ulations by managers and (sycho9technicians 0 degenerated to mere ideology resulted $rom a change in its $unction with regard to material pra'is: its renunciation o$ inter$erence. Far $rom being cultureCs EsinC, the change was $orced u(on culture by history. For it is only in the (rocess o$ withdrawing into itsel$, only indirectly that is, that bourgeois culture concei4es o$ a (urity $rom the corru(ting traces o$ a totalitarian disorder which embraces all areas o$ e.istence. ?nly in so $ar as it withdraws $rom a pra'is which has degenerated into its o((osite, $rom the e4er9changing (roduction o$ what is always the same, $rom the ser4ice o$ the customer who himsel$ ser4es the mani(ulator 0 only in so $ar as it withdraws $rom an, can culture be $aith$ul to man. 3ut such concentration on substance which is absolutely oneCs own, the greatest e.am(le o$ which is to be $ound in the (oetry and theoretical writings o$ /aul *al7ry, contributes at the same time to the im(o4erishment o$ that substance. ?nce the mind is no longer directed at reality, its meaning is changed des(ite the strictest (reser4ation o$ meaning. Through its resignation be$ore the $acts o$ li$e and, e4en more, through its
(age><&

isolation as one E$ieldC among others, the mind aids the e.isting order and ta,es its (lace within it. The emasculation o$ culture has angered (hiloso(hers since the time o$ Aousseau and the Ein,9s(lattering ageC o$ SchillerCs Ro ers, to =iet2sche and $inally, to the (reachers o$ commitment $or its own sa,e. This is the result o$ cultureCs becoming sel$9consciously cultural, which in turn (laces culture in 4igorous and

consistent o((osition to the growing barbarism o$ economic hegemony. What a((ears to be the decline o$ culture is its coming to (ure sel$9consciousness. ?nly when neutrali2ed and rei$ied, does "ulture allow itsel$ to be idoli2ed. Fetishism gra4itates towards mythology. In general, cultural critics become into.icated with idols drawn $rom antiBuity to the dubious, long9e4a(orated warmth o$ the liberalist era, which recalled the origins o$ culture in its decline. "ultural criticism re;ects the (rogressi4e integration o$ all as(ects o$ consciousness within the a((aratus o$ material (roduction. 3ut because it $ails to see through the a((aratus, it turns towards the (ast, lured by the (romise o$ immediacy. This is necessitated by its own momentum and not merely by the in$luence o$ an order which sees itsel$ obliged to drown out its (rogress in dehumani2ation with cries against dehumani2ation and (rogress. The isolation o$ the mind $rom material (roduction heightens its esteem but also ma,es it a sca(egoat in the general consciousness $or that which is (er(etrated in (ractice. @nlightenment as such 0 not as an instrument o$ actual domination 0 is held res(onsible. -ence, the irrationalism o$ cultural criticism. ?nce it has wrenched the mind out o$ its dialectic with the material conditions o$ li$e, it sei2es it uneBui4ocally and straight$orwardly as the (rinci(le o$ $atality, thus undercutting the mindCs own resistance. The cultural critic is barred $rom the insight that the rei$ication o$ li$e results not $rom too much enlightenment but $rom too little, and that the mutilation o$ man which is the result o$ the (resent (articularistic rationality is the stigma o$ the total irrationality. The abolition o$ this irrationality, which would coincide with the abolition o$ the di4orce between mental and (hysical wor,, a((ears as chaos to the blindness o$ cultural criticism: whoe4er glori$ies order and $orm as such, must see in the (etri$ied di4orce an archety(e o$ the @ternal. That the $atal $ragmentation o$ society might some day end is, $or the cultural critic, a $atal destiny. -e would rather that e4erything end than $or man,ind to (ut an end to rei$ication. This $ear harmoni2es with the interests o$ those interested in the (er(etuation o$ material denial. Whene4er cultural criticism com(lains o$ EmaterialismC, it $urthers the belie$ that the sin lies in manCs desire $or consumer goods, and not in the organi2ation o$ the whole which
(age><6

withholds these goods $rom man: $or the cultural critic, the sin is satiety, not hunger. Were man,ind to (ossess the wealth o$ goods, it would sha,e o$$ the chains o$ that ci4ili2ed barbarism which cultural critics ascribe to the ad4anced state o$ the human s(irit rather than to the retarded state o$ society. The Eeternal 4aluesC o$ which cultural criticism is so $ond re$lect the (erennial catastro(he. The cultural critic thri4es on the mythical obduracy o$ culture. 3ecause the e.istence o$ cultural criticism, no matter what its content, de(ends on the economic system, it is in4ol4ed in the $ate o$ the system. The more com(letely the li$e9(rocess, including leisure, is dominated by modern social orders 0 those in the @ast, abo4e all 0 the more all s(iritual (henomena bear the mar, o$ the order. @ither, they may contribute directly to the (er(etuation o$ the system as entertainment or edi$ication, and are en;oyed as e.(onents o$ the system (recisely because o$ their socially (re$ormed character. Familiar, stam(ed and A((ro4ed by 8ood -ouse,ee(ing as it were, they insinuate themsel4es into a regressi4e consciousness, (resent themsel4es as EnaturalC, and (ermit identi$ication with (owers whose (re(onderance lea4es no alternati4e but that o$ $alse lo4e. ?r, by being di$$erent, they become rarities and once again mar,etable. Throughout the liberalist era, culture $ell within the s(here o$ circulation. -ence, the gradual withering away o$ this s(here stri,es culture to the Buic,. With the elimination o$ trade and its irrational loo(holes by the calculated distributi4e a((aratus o$ industry, the commerciali2ation o$ culture culminates in absurdity. "om(letely subdued, administered, thoroughly Eculti4atedC in a sense, it dies out. S(englerCs denunciation: that mind and money go together, (ro4es correct. 3ut because o$ his sym(athy with direct rule, he ad4ocated a structure o$ e.istence di4ested o$ all economic as well as s(iritual mediations. -e maliciously threw the mind together with an economic ty(e which was in $act obsolete. What S(engler $ailed to understand was that no matter to what e.tent the mind is a (roduct o$ that ty(e, it im(lies at the same time the ob;ecti4e (ossibility o$ o4ercoming it. 1ust as culture s(rang u( in the mar,et(lace, in the tra$$ic o$ trade, in communication and negotiation, as something distinct $rom the immediate struggle $or indi4idual sel$9(reser4ation, ;ust as it was closely tied to

trade in the era o$ mature ca(italism, ;ust as its re(resentati4es were counted among the class o$ Ethird (ersonsC who su((orted themsel4es in li$e as middlemen, so culture, considered Esocially necessaryC according to classical rules, in the sense o$ re(roducing itsel$ economically, is in the end reduced to that as which it began, to mere communication. Its alienation $rom human a$$airs terminates in its absolute
(age><'

docility be$ore a humanity which has been enchanted and trans$ormed into clientele by the su((liers. In the name o$ the consumer, the mani(ulators su((ress e4erything in culture which enables it to go beyond the total immanence in the e.isting society and allow only that to remain which ser4es societyCs uneBui4ocal (ur(ose. -ence, Econsumer cultureC can boast o$ being not a lu.ury but rather the sim(le e.tension o$ (roduction. /olitical slogans, designed $or mass mani(ulation, unanimously stigmati2e, as Elu.uryC, EsnobbismC, and EhighbrowC, e4erything cultural which dis(leases the commissars. ?nly when the established order has become the measure o$ all things does its mere re(roduction in the realm o$ consciousness become truth. "ultural criticism (oints to this and rails against Esu(er$icialityC and Eloss o$ substanceC. 3ut by limiting its attention to the entanglement o$ culture in commerce, such criticism itsel$ becomes su(er$icial. It $ollows the (attern o$ reactionary social critics who (it E(roducti4eC against E(redatoryC ca(ital. In $act, all culture shares the guilt o$ society. It e,es out its e.istence only by 4irtue o$ in;ustice already (er(etrated in the s(here o$ (roduction, much as does commerce Hc$. Dialektik der Aufkl3rungI. "onseBuently, cultural criticism shi$ts the guilt: such criticism is ideology as long as it remains mere criticism o$ ideology. Totalitarian regimes o$ both ,inds, see,ing to (rotect the status 1uo $rom e4en the last traces o$ insubordination which they ascribe to culture e4en at its most ser4ile, can conclusi4ely con4ict culture and its intros(ection o$ ser4ility. They su((ress the mind, in itsel$ already grown intolerable, and so $eel themsel4es to be (uri$iers and re4olutionaries. The ideological $unction o$ cultural criticism bridles its 4ery truth which lies in its o((osition to ideology. The struggle against deceit wor,s to the ad4antage o$ na,ed terror. EWhen I hear the word EEcultureK, I reach $or my gun,C said the s(o,esman o$ -itlerCs Im(erial "hamber o$ "ulture. "ultural criticism is, howe4er, only able to re(roach culture so (enetratingly $or (rostituting itsel$, $or 4iolating in its decline the (ure autonomy o$ the mind, because culture originates in the radical se(aration o$ mental and (hysical wor,. It is $rom this se(aration, the original sin as it were, that culture draws its strength. When culture sim(ly denies the se(aration and $eigns, harmonious union, it $alls bac, behind its own notion. ?nly the mind which, in the delusion o$ being absolute, remo4es itsel$ entirely $rom the merely e.istent, truly de$ines the e.istent in its negati4ity. As long as e4en the least (art o$ the mind remains engaged in the re(roduction o$ li$e, it is its sworn bondsman. The anti9(hilistinism o$ Athens was both the most arrogant contem(t o$ the man who need not soil his
(age><6

hands $or the man $rom whose wor, he li4es, and the (reser4ation o$ an image o$ e.istence beyond the constraint which underlies all wor,. In (ro;ecting its own uneasy conscience on to its 4ictims as their EbasenessC, such an attitude also accuses that which they endure: the sub;ugation o$ men to the (re4ailing $orm in which their li4es are re(roduced. All E(ure cultureC has always been a source o$ discom$ort to the s(o,esmen o$ (ower. /lato and Aristotle ,new why they would not (ermit the notion to arise. Instead, in Buestions concerning the e4aluation o$ art, they ad4ocated a (ragmatism which contrasts curiously with the pathos o$ the two great meta(hysicians. odern bourgeois cultural criticism has, o$ course, been too (rudent to $ollow them o(enly in this res(ect. 3ut such criticism secretly $inds a source o$ com$ort in the di4orce between EhighC and E(o(ularC culture, art and entertainment, ,nowledge and non9committal %eltanschauung. Its anti9(hilistinism e.ceeds that o$ the Athenian u((er class to, the e.tent that the (roletariat is more dangerous than the sla4es. The modern notion o$ a (ure, autonomous culture indicates that the antagonism has become irreconcilable. This is the result both o$ an uncom(romising o((osition to being9$or9something else, and o$ an ideology which in its hybris enthrones itsel$ as being9in9itsel$. "ultural criticism shares the blindness o$ its ob;ect. It is inca(able o$ allowing the recognition o$ its

$railty to arise, a $railty set in the di4ision o$ mental and (hysical wor,. =o society which contradicts its 4ery notion 0 that o$ man,ind 0 can ha4e $ull consciousness o$ itsel$. A dis(lay o$ sub;ecti4e ideology is not reBuired to obstruct this consciousness, although in times o$ historical u(hea4al it tends to contribute to the ob;ecti4e blindness. Aather, the $act that e4ery $orm o$ re(ression, de(ending on the le4el o$ technology, has been necessary $or the sur4i4al o$ society, and that society as it is, des(ite all absurdity, does indeed re(roduce its li$e under the e.isting conditions, ob;ecti4ely (roduces the semblance o$ societyCs legitimation. As the e(itome o$ the sel$9consciousness o$ an antagonistic society, culture can no more di4est itsel$ o$ this semblance than can cultural criticism, which measures culture against cultureCs own ideal. The semblance has become total in a (hase in which irrationality and ob;ecti4e $alsity hide behind rationality and ob;ecti4e necessity. =e4ertheless, by 4irtue o$ their real $orce, the antagonisms reassert themsel4es in the realm o$ consciousness. 1ust because culture a$$irms the 4alidity o$ the (rinci(le o$ harmony within an antagonistic society, albeit in order to glori$y that society, it cannot a4oid con$ronting society with its own notion o$ harmony and thereby stumbling on discord. The ideology which a$$irms li$e is $orced into
(age><7

o((osition to li$e by the immanent dri4e o$ the ideal. The mind which sees that reality does not resemble it in e4ery res(ect but is instead sub;ect to an unconscious and $atal dynamic, is im(elled e4en against its will beyond a(ologetics. The $act that theory becomes real $orce when it mo4es men is $ounded in the ob;ecti4ity o$ the mind itsel$ which, through the $ul$ilment o$ its ideological $unction must lose $aith in ideology. /rom(ted by the incom(atibility o$ ideology and e.istence, the mind, in dis(laying its blindness also dis(lays its e$$ort to $ree itsel$ o$ ideology. )isenchanted, the mind (ercei4es na,ed e.istence in its na,edness and deli4ers it u( to criticism. The mind either damns the material base, in accordance with the e4er9Buestionable criterion o$ its E(ure (rinci(leC, or it becomes aware o$ its own Buestionable (osition, by 4irtue o$ its incom(atibility with the base. As a result o$ the social dynamic, culture becomes cultural criticism, which (reser4es the notion o$ culture while demolishing its (resent mani$estations as mere commodities and means o$ brutali2ation. Such critical consciousness remains subser4ient to culture in so $ar as its concern with culture distracts $rom the true horrors. From this arises the ambi4alent attitude o$ social theory towards cultural criticism. The (rocedure o$ cultural criticism is itsel$ the ob;ect o$ (ermanent criticism, both in its general (resu((ositions 0 its immanence in the e.isting society 0 and in its concrete ;udgments. For the subser4ience o$ cultural criticism is re4ealed in its s(eci$ic content, and only in this may it be gras(ed conclusi4ely. At the same time, a dialectical theory which does not wish to succumb to E@conomismC, the sentiment which holds that the trans$ormation o$ the world is e.hausted in the increase o$ (roduction, must absorb, cultural criticism, the truth o$ which consists in bringing untruth to consciousness o$ itsel$. A dialectical theory which is uninterested in culture as a mere e(i(henomenon, aids (seudo9culture to run ram(ant and collaborates in the re(roduction o$ the e4il. "ultural traditionalism and the terror o$ the new Aussian des(ots are in basic agreement. 3oth a$$irm culture as a whole, sight9unseen, while at the same time (roscribing all $orms o$ consciousness which are not made9to9order. They are thus no less ideological than is criticism when it calls a disembodied culture be$ore its tribunal, or holds the alleged negati4ity o$ culture res(onsible $or real catastro(hes. To acce(t culture as a whole is to de(ri4e it o$ the $erment which is its 4ery truth 0 negation. The ;oyous a((ro(riation o$ culture harmoni2es with a climate o$ military music and (aintings o$ battle9scenes. What distinguishes dialectical $rom cultural criticism is that it
(age><5

heightens cultural criticism until the notion o$ culture is itsel$ negated, $ul$illed and surmounted in one. Immanent criticism o$ culture, it may be argued, o4erloo,s what is decisi4e: the role o$ ideology in social con$licts. To su((ose, i$ only methodologically, anything li,e an inde(endent logic o$ culture is to collaborate in the hy(ostasis o$ culture, the ideological proton pseudos. The substance o$ culture, according to this argument, resides not in culture alone but in its relation to something e.ternal, to the material li$e9 (rocess. "ulture, as ar. obser4ed o$ ;uridical and (olitical systems, cannot be $ully Eunderstood either in

terms o$ itsel$ . . . or in terms o$ the so9called uni4ersal de4elo(ment o$ the mindC. To ignore this, the argument concludes, is to ma,e ideology the basic matter and thus to establish it $irmly. And in $act, ha4ing ta,en a dialectical turn, cultural criticism must not hy(ostasi2e the criteria o$ culture. "riticism retains its mobility in regard to culture by recogni2ing the latterCs (osition within the whole. Without such $reedom, without consciousness transcending the immanence o$ culture, immanent criticism itsel$ would be inconcei4able: the s(ontaneous mo4ement o$ the ob;ect can be $ollowed only by someone who is not entirely engul$ed by it. 3ut the traditional demand o$ the ideology9critiBue is itsel$ sub;ect to a historical dynamic. The critiBue was concei4ed against idealism, the (hiloso(hical $orm which re$lects the $etishi2ation o$ culture. Today, howe4er, the de$inition o$ consciousness in terms o$ being has become a means o$ dis(ensing with all consciousness which does not con$orm to e.istence. The ob;ecti4ity o$ truth, without which the dialectic is inconcei4able, is tacitly re(laced by 4ulgar (ositi4ism and (ragmatism 0 ultimately, that is, by bourgeois sub;ecti4ism. )uring the bourgeois era, the (re4ailing theory was the ideology and the o((osing pra'is was in direct contradiction. Today, theory hardly e.ists any longer and the ideology drones, as it were, $rom the gears o$ an irresistible pra'is. =o notion dares to be concei4ed any more which does not cheer$ully include, in all cam(s, e.(licit instructions as to who its bene$iciaries are 0 e.actly what the (olemics once sought to e.(ose. 3ut the unideological thought is that which does not (ermit itsel$ to be reduced to Eo(erational termsC and instead stri4es solely to hel( the things themsel4es to that articulation $rom which they are otherwise cut o$$ by the (re4ailing language. Since the moment arri4ed when e4ery ad4anced economic and (olitical council agreed that what was im(ortant was to change the world and that to inter(ret it was allotria, it has become di$$icult sim(ly to in4o,e the Theses against Feuerbach. )ialectics also includes the relation between action and contem(lation. In an e(och in which
(age><!

bourgeois social science has, in SchelerCs words, E(lunderedC the ar.ian notion o$ ideology and diluted it to uni4ersal relati4ism, the danger in4ol4ed in o4erloo,ing the $unction o$ ideologies has become less than that o$ ;udging intellectual (henomena in a subsum(ti4e, unin$ormed and administrati4e manner and assimilating them into the (re4ailing constellations o$ (ower which the intellect ought to e.(ose. As with many other elements o$ dialectical materialism, the notion o$ ideology has changed $rom an instrument o$ ,nowledge into its strait9;ac,et. In the name o$ the de(endence o$ su(er9structure on base, all use o$ ideology is controlled instead o$ critici2ed. =o one is concerned with the ob;ecti4e substance o$ an ideology as long as it is e.(edient. Det the 4ery $unction o$ ideologies becomes increasingly abstract. The sus(icion held by earlier cultural critics is con$irmed: in a world which denies the mass o$ human beings the authentic e.(erience o$ intellectual (henomena by ma,ing genuine education a (ri4ilege and by shac,ling consciousness, the s(eci$ic ideological content o$ these (henomena is less im(ortant than the $act that there should be anything at all to $ill the 4acuum o$ the e.(ro(riated consciousness and to distract $rom the o(en secret. Within the conte.t o$ its social e$$ect, the (articular ideological doctrine which a $ilm im(arts to its audience is (resumably $ar less im(ortant than the interest o$ the homeward bound mo4ie9goer in the names and marital a$$airs o$ the stars. *ulgar notions such as EamusementC and Edi4ersionC are more a((ro(riate than (retentious e.(lanations which designate one writer as a re(resentati4e o$ the lower9 middle class, another o$ the u((er9middle. "ulture has become ideological not only as the Buintessence o$ sub;ecti4ely de4ised mani$estations o$ the ob;ecti4e mind, but e4en more as the s(here o$ (ri4ate li$e. The illusory im(ortance and autonomy o$ (ri4ate li$e conceals the $act that (ri4ate li$e drags on only as an a((endage o$ the social (rocess. Fi$e trans$orms itsel$ into the ideology o$ rei$ication 0 a death mas,. -ence, the tas, o$ criticism must be not so much to search $or the (articular interest9grou(s to which cultural (henomena are to be assigned, but rather to deci(her the general social tendencies which are e.(ressed in these (henomena and through which the most (ower$ul interests reali2e themsel4es. "ultural criticism must become social (hysiognomy. The more the whole di4ests itsel$ o$ all s(ontaneous elements, is socially mediated and $iltered, is EconsciousnessC, the more it becomes EcultureC. In addition to being the means o$ subsistence, the material (rocess o$ (roduction $inally un4eils itsel$ as that which it always was,

$rom its origins in the e.change9relationshi( as the $alse consciousness which the two
(age>&:

contracting (arties ha4e o$ each other: ideology. In4ersely, howe4er, consciousness becomes at the same time increasingly a mere transitional moment in the $unctioning o$ the whole. Today, ideology means society as a((earance. Although mediated by the totality behind which stands the rule o$ (artiality, ideology is not sim(ly reducible to a (artial interest. It is, as it were, eBually near the centre in all its (ieces. The alternati4es 0 either calling culture as a whole into Buestion $rom outside under the general notion o$ ideology, or con$ronting it with the norms which it itsel$ has crystalli2ed 0 cannot be acce(ted by critical theory. To insist on the choice between immanence and transcendence is to re4ert to the traditional logic critici2ed in -egelCs (olemic against %ant. As -egel argued, e4ery method which sets limits and restricts itsel$ to the limits o$ its ob;ect thereby goes beyond them. The (osition transcending culture is in a certain sense (resu((osed by dialectics as the consciousness which does succumb in ad4ance to the $etishi2ation o$ the intellectual s(here. )ialectics means intransigence towards all rei$ication. The transcendent method, which aims at totality, seems more radical than the immanent method, which (resu((oses the Buestionable whole. The transcendent critic assumes an as it were Archimedean (osition abo4e culture and the blindness o$ society, $rom which consciousness can bring the, totality, no matter how massi4e, into $lu.. The attac, on the whole draws strength $rom the $act that the semblance o$ unity and wholeness in the world grows with the ad4ance o$ rei$icationG that is, with di4ision. 3ut the summary dismissal o$ ideology which in the So4iet s(here has already become a (rete.t $or cynical terror, ta,ing the $orm o$ a ban on Eob;ecti4ismC, (ays that wholeness too high an honour. Such an attitude buys u( culture en loc society, regardless o$ the use to which it is (ut. I$ ideology is de$ined as socially necessary a((earance, then the ideology today is society itsel$ in so $ar as its integral (ower and ine4itability, its o4erwhelming e.istence9in9itsel$, surrogates the meaning which that e.istence has e.terminated. The choice o$ a stand(oint outside the sway o$ e.isting society is as $ictitious as only the construction o$ abstract uto(ias can be. -ence, the transcendent criticism o$ culture, much li,e bourgeois cultural criticism, sees itsel$ obliged to $all bac, u(on the idea o$ EnaturalnessC, which itsel$ $orms a central element o$ bourgeois ideology. The transcendent attac, on culture regularly s(ea,s the, language o$ $alse esca(e, that o$ the Enature boyC. It des(ises the mind and its wor,s, contending that they are, a$ter all, only man9made and ser4e only to co4er u( EnaturalC li$e. 3ecause o$ this alleged worthlessness, the (henomena allow them9
(age>&#

sel4es to be mani(ulated and degraded $or (ur(oses o$ domination. This e.(lains the inadeBuacy o$ most socialist contributions to cultural criticism: they lac, the e.(erience o$ that with which they deal. In wishing to wi(e away the whole as i$ with a s(onge, they de4elo( an a$$inity to barbarism. Their sym(athies are ine4itably with the more (rimiti4e, more undi$$erentiated, no matter how much it may contradict the le4el o$ intellectual (roducti4e $orces. The blan,et re;ection o$ culture becomes a (rete.t $or (romoting what is crudest, EhealthiestC, e4en re(ressi4eG abo4e all, the (erennial con$lict between indi4idual and society, both drawn in li,e manner, which is obstinately resol4ed in $a4our o$ society according to the criteria o$ the administrators who ha4e a((ro(riated it. From there it is only a ste( to the o$$icial reinstatement o$ culture. Against this struggles the immanent (rocedure as the more essentially dialectical. It ta,es seriously the (rinci(le that it is not ideology in itsel$ which is untrue but rather its (retension to corres(ond to reality. Immanent criticism o$ intellectual and artistic (henomena see,s to gras(, through the analysis o$ their $orm and meaning, the contradiction between their ob;ecti4e idea and that (retension. It names what the consistency or inconsistency o$ the wor, itsel$ e.(resses o$ the structure o$ the e.istent. Such criticism does not sto( at a general recognition o$ the ser4itude o$ the ob;ecti4e mind, but see,s rather to trans$orm this ,nowledge into a heightened (erce(tion o$ the thing itsel$. Insight into the negati4ity o$ culture is binding only when it re4eals the truth or untruth o$ a (erce(tion, the conseBuence or lameness o$ a thought, the coherence or incoherence o$ a structure, the substantiality or em(tiness o$ a $igure o$ s(eech. Where it $inds inadeBuacies it does not ascribe them hastily to the indi4idual and his (sychology, which are merely the $aLade o$ the $ailure, but instead see,s to deri4e them $rom the

irreconcilability o$ the ob;ectCs moments. It (ursues the logic o$ its a(orias, the insolubility o$ the tas, itsel$. In such antinomies criticism (ercei4es those o$ society. A success$ul wor,, according to immanent criticism, is not one which resol4es ob;ecti4e contradictions in a s(urious harmony, but one which e.(resses the idea o$ harmony negati4ely by embodying the contradictions, (ure and uncom(romised, in its innermost structure. "on$ronted with this ,ind o$ wor,, the 4erdict Emere ideologyC loses its meaning. At the same time, howe4er, immanent criticism holds in e4idence the $act that the mind has always been under a s(ell. ?n its own it is unable to resol4e the contradictions under which it labours. @4en the most radical re$lection o$ the mind on its own $ailure is limited by the $act that it remains only re$lection, without altering the e.istence to which
(age>&<

its $ailure bears witness. -ence immanent criticism cannot ta,e com$ort in its own idea. It can neither be 4ain enough to belie4e that it can liberate the mind directly by immersing itsel$ in it, nor naM4e enough to belie4e that un$linching immersion in the ob;ect will ine4itably lead to truth by 4irtue o$ the logic o$ things i$ only the sub;ecti4e ,nowledge o$ the $alse whole is ,e(t $rom intruding $rom the outside, as it were, in the determination o$ the ob;ect. The less the dialectical method can today (resu((ose the -egelian identity o$ sub;ect and ob;ect, the more it is obliged to be mind$ul o$ the duality o$ the moments. It must relate the ,nowledge o$ society as a totality and o$ the mindCs in4ol4ement in it to the claim inherent in the s(eci$ic content o$ the ob;ect that it be a((rehended as such. )ialectics cannot, there$ore, (ermit any insistence on logical neatness to encroach on its right to go $rom one genus to another, to shed light on an ob;ect in itsel$ hermetic by casting a glance at society, to (resent society with the bill which the ob;ect does not redeem. Finally, the 4ery o((osition between ,nowledge which (enetrates $rom without and that which bores $rom within becomes sus(ect to the dialectical method, which sees in it a sym(tom o$ (recisely that rei$ication which the dialectic is obliged to accuse. The abstract categori2ing and, as it were, administrati4e thin,ing o$ the $ormer corres(onds in the latter to the $etishism o$ an ob;ect blind to its genesis, which has become the (rerogati4e o$ the e.(ert. 3ut i$ stubbornly immanent contem(lation threatens to re4ert to idealism, to the illusion o$ the sel$9su$$icient mind in command o$ both itsel$ and o$ reality, transcendent contem(lation threatens to $orget the e$$ort o$ conce(tuali2ation reBuired and content itsel$ instead with the (rescribed label, the (etri$ied in4ecti4e, most o$ten E(etty bourgeoisC, the u,ase dis(atched $rom abo4e. To(ological thin,ing, which ,nows the (lace o$ e4ery (henomenon and the essence o$ none, is secretly related to the (aranoic system o$ delusions which is cut o$$ $rom e.(erience o$ the ob;ect. With the aid o$ mechanically $unctioning categories, the world is di4ided into blac, and white and thus made ready $or the 4ery domination against which conce(ts were once concei4ed. =o theory, not e4en that which is true, is sa$e $rom (er4ersion into delusion once it has renounced a s(ontaneous relation to the ob;ect. )ialectics must guard against this no less than against enthralment in the cultural ob;ect. It can subscribe neither to the cult o$ the mind nor to hatred o$ it. The dialectical critic o$ culture must both (artici(ate in culture and not (artici(ate. ?nly then does he do ;ustice to his ob;ect and to himsel$. The traditional transcendent critiBue o$ ideology is obsolete. In
(age>&&

(rinci(le, the method succumbs to the 4ery rei$ication which is its critical theme. 3y trans$erring the notion o$ causality directly $rom the realm o$ (hysical nature to society, it $alls bac, behind its own ob;ect. =e4ertheless, the transcendent method can still a((eal to the $act that it em(loys rei$ied notions only in so $ar as society itsel$ is rei$ied. Through the crudity and se4erity o$ the notion o$ causality, it claims to hold u( a mirror to societyCs own crudity and se4erity, to its debasement o$ the mind. 3ut the sinister, integrated society o$ today no longer tolerates e4en those relati4ely inde(endent, distinct moments to which the theory o$ the causal de(endence o$ su(erstructure on base once re$erred. In the o(en9air (rison which the world is becoming, it is no longer so im(ortant to ,now what de(ends on what, such is the e.tent to which e4erything is one. All (henomena rigidi$y, become insignias o$ the absolute rule o$ that which is. There are no more ideologies in the authentic sense o$ $alse consciousness, only ad4ertisements $or the world through its du(lication and the (ro4ocati4e lie which does not see, belie$ but commands silence. -ence,

the Buestion o$ the causal de(endence o$ culture, a Buestion which, seems to embody the 4oice o$ that on which culture is thought only to de(end, ta,es on a bac,woods ring. ?$ course, e4en the immanent method is e4entually o4erta,en by this. It is dragged into the abyss by its ob;ect. The materialistic trans(arency o$ culture has not made it more honest, only more 4ulgar. 3y relinBuishing its own (articularity, culture has also relinBuished the salt o$ truth, which once consisted in its o((osition to other (articularities. To call it to account be$ore a res(onsibility which it denies is only to con$irm cultural (om(osity. =eutrali2ed and ready9made, traditional culture has become worthless today. Through an irre4ocable (rocess its heritage, hy(ocritically reclaimed by the Aussians, has become e.(endable to the highest degree, su(er$luous, trash. And the huc,sters o$ mass culture can (oint to it with a grin, $or they treat it as such. The more total society becomes, the greater the rei$ication o$ the mind and the more (arado.ical its e$$ort to esca(e rei$ication on its own. @4en the most e.treme consciousness o$ doom threatens to degenerate into idle chatter. "ultural criticism $inds itsel$ $aced with the $inal stage o$ the dialectic o$ culture and barbarism. To write (oetry a$ter Auschwit2 is barbaric. And this corrodes e4en the ,nowledge o$ why it has become im(ossible to write (oetry today. Absolute rei$ication, which (resu((osed intellectual (rogress as one o$ its elements, is now (re(aring to absorb the mind entirely. "ritical intelligence cannot be eBual to this challenge as long as it con$ines itsel$ to sel$9satis$ied contem(lation.
(age>&6

The +ocio%og o( .no*%edge and Its Conscio)sness

(age>&'

The sociology o$ ,nowledge e.(ounded by %arl annheim has begun to ta,e hold in 8ermany again. For this it can than, its gesture o$ innocuous s,e(ticism. Fi,e its e.istentialist counter(arts it calls e4erything into Buestion and critici2es nothing. Intellectuals who $eel re(elled by EdogmaC, real or (resumed, $ind relie$ in a climate which seems $ree o$ bias and assum(tions and which o$$ers them in addition something o$ the (athos o$ a. WeberCs sel$9conscious and lonely yet undaunted rationality as com(ensation $or their $altering consciousness o$ their own autonomy. In annheim as in his (olar o((osite, 1as(ers, many im(ulses o$ WeberCs school which were once dee(ly embedded in the (olyhistoric edi$ice come to light. ost im(ortant o$ these is the tendency to su((ress the theory o$ ideologies in its authentic $orm. These considerations may ;usti$y returning to one o$ annheimCs older boo,s, #an and "ociety in an Age of Reconstruction . The wor, addresses itsel$ to a broader (ublic than does the boo, on ideology. It cannot be held to each o$ its $ormulations. All the greater, howe4er, is the insight it o$$ers into the in$luence o$ the sociology o$ ,nowledge. The mentality o$ the boo, is E(ositi4isticCG social (henomena are ta,en Eas suchC and then classi$ied according to general conce(ts. In the (rocess social antagonisms in4ariably tend to be glossed o4er. They sur4i4e merely as subtle modi$ications o$ a conce(tual a((aratus whose distilled E(rinci(lesC install themsel4es autocratically and engage in shadow battles: EThe ultimate root o$ all con$licts in the (resent age o$ reconstruction can be sei2ed in a single $ormula. All down the line tensions arise $rom the uncontrolled interaction o$ the EElaisser9$aire (rinci(leK and the new (rinci(le o$ regulation.C As i$ e4erything did not de(end on who regulates whom. ?r, instead o$ s(eci$ic grou(s o$ (eo(le or a s(eci$ic structure o$ society, Ethe irrationalC is made res(onsible $or the di$$iculties o$ the age. The growth o$ antagonisms is elegantly described as Ethe dis(ro(ortionate de4elo(ment o$ human ca(acitiesC, as though it were a Buestion o$ (ersonalities and not o$ the anonymous machinery which does away with the indi4idual. Aight and wrong are glossed o4er in li,e
(age>&7

mannerG the Ea4erage manC is abstracted $rom them and assigned an ontological Enarrow9mindednessC which Ehas always been thereC. ?$ his Ee.(erimental sel$9obser4ationC 0 the term is borrowed $rom more e.act sciences 0 annheim $ran,ly con$esses: EAll these $orms o$ sel$9obser4ation ha4e the tendency to gloss o4er and neglect indi4idual di$$erences because they are interested in what is general in man and its 4ariability.C =ot, howe4er, in his (articular situation and in the real trans$ormations he undergoes. In its neutrality the generali2ing order o$ annheimCs conce(tual world is ,indly dis(osed to the real worldG it em(loys the terminology o$ social criticism while remo4ing its sting. The conce(t o$ society as such is rendered im(otent $rom the outset by a language which in4o,es the e.ceedingly com(romised term, EintegrationC. Its occurrence is no accident. annheimCs use o$ the conce(t o$ the social totality ser4es not so much to em(hasi2e the intricate de(endence o$ men within the totality as to glori$y the social (rocess itsel$ as an e4ening9out o$ the contradictions in the whole. In this balance, theoretically, the contradictions disa((ear, although it is (recisely they which com(rise the li$e9(rocess o$ EsocietyC: EThus it is not immediately e4ident that an o(inion which (re4ails in society is the result o$ a (rocess o$ selection which integrates many similarly directed e.(ressions o$ li$e.C What disa((ears in this notion o$ selection is the $act that what ,ee(s the mechanism crea,ing along is human de(ri4ation under conditions o$ insane sacri$ice and the continual threat o$ catastro(he. The (recarious and irrational sel$9 (reser4ation o$ society is $alsi$ied and turned into an achie4ement o$ its immanent ;ustice or ErationalityC. Where there is integration, elites are ne4er $ar away. The Ecultural crisisC to which, in annheim, terror and horror are readily sublimated becomes $or him the E(roblem o$ the $ormation o$ elitesC. -e distills $our (rocesses in which this (roblem is su((osed to crystalli2e: the growing number o$ elites and the

resulting en$eeblement o$ their in$luence, the destruction o$ the e.clusi4eness o$ elite, grou(s, the change in the (rocess o$ selection o$ elites, and the change in their com(osition. In the $irst (lace, the categories em(loyed in this analysis are highly Buestionable. The (ositi4ist who registers the $acts sine ira et studio is ready to acce(t the (hrases which conceal the $acts. ?ne such (hrase is the conce(t o$ the elite itsel$. Its untruth$ulness consists in the $act that the (ri4ileges o$ (articular grou(s are (resented teleologically as the result o$ some ,ind o$ ob;ecti4e (rocess o$ selection, whereas in $act no one has selected these elites but themsel4es. In his use o$ the conce(t o$ the elite annheim o4erloo,s social (ower. -e uses the notion Edescri(9
(age>&5

ti4elyC, in the manner o$ $ormal sociology. This allows him to shed only as much light as he wishes on each (articular (ri4ileged grou(. At the same time, howe4er, the conce(t o$ the elite is em(loyed in such a way that the (resent emergency can be deduced $rom abo4e, $rom some eBually EneutralC mal$unctioning o$ the elite9mechanism, without regard to the state o$ (olitical economy. In the (rocess annheim comes into o(en con$lict with the $acts. When he asserts that in Emass democraticC societies it has become increasingly easy $or anyone to gain entrance into any s(here o$ social in$luence and that the elites are thereby de(ri4ed o$ Etheir e.clusi4e character, which is necessary $or the de4elo(ment o$ intellectual and (sychological im(ulsesC, he is contradicted by the most humble (rescienti$ic e.(erience. The de$icient homogeneity o$ the elites is a $iction, one related to those o$ chaos in the world o$ 4alues and the disintegration o$ all stable $orms o$ order. Whoe4er does not $it in is ,e(t out. @4en the di$$erences o$ con4iction which re$lect those o$ real interests ser4e (rimarily to obscure the underlying unity which (re4ails in all decisi4e matters. =othing contributes more to this ob$uscation than tal, o$ Ethe cultural crisisC, to which annheim unhesitatingly adds his 4oice. It trans$orms real su$$ering into, s(iritual guilt, denounces ci4ili2ation, and generally wor,s to the ad4antage o$ barbarism. "ultural criticism has changed its $unction. The cultural (hilistine has long ceased to be the man o$ (rogress, the $igure with which =iet2sche identi$ied )a4id Friedrich Strauss. Instead, he has learned (ro$undity and (essimism. In their name he denies the humanity which has become incom(atible with his (resent interests, and his 4enerable im(ulse to destruction turns against the (roducts o$ the culture whose decline he sentimentally bemoans. To the sociologist o$ the cultural crisis this matters little. -is heroic ratio does not e4en re$rain $rom turning the trite thesis o$ the demise o$ the $ormati4e (ower o$ @uro(ean art since the end o$ the 3iedermeyer (eriod against modern art in a manner which is both romantic and reactionary. Acce(ted along with elite theory is its s(eci$ic colouration. "on4entional notions are ;oined by naM4e res(ect $or that which they re(resent. annheim designates Eblood, (ro(erty, and achie4ementC as the selection (rinci(les o$ the elites. -is (assion $or destroying ideologies does not lead him to consider e4en once the legitimacy o$ these (rinci(lesG he is actually able, during -itlerCs li$etime, to s(ea, o$ a Egenuine blood9(rinci(leC, which is su((osed to ha4e $ormerly guaranteed Ethe (urity o$ aristocratic minority stoc,s and their traditionsC. From this to the new aristocracy o$ blood and soil it is only a ste(. annheimCs general cultural (essimism (re4ents
(age>&!

him $rom ta,ing that ste(. As $ar as he is concerned, there is still too little blood. -e dreads a Emass democracyC in which blood and (ro(erty would disa((ear as (rinci(les o$ selectionG the all too ra(id change o$ elites would threaten continuity. -e is (articularly concerned with the $act that things are no longer Buite right with the esoteric doctrine o$ the Egenuine blood9(rinci(leC. EIt has become democratic and Buite suddenly o$$ers to the great masses o$ the (o(ulation the (ri4ilege o$ social ascendancy without any achie4ement.C 1ust as the nobility o$ the (ast was ne4er any more noble than anyone else, the aristocracy o$ today has neither an ob;ecti4e nor a sub;ecti4e interest in really relinBuishing the (rinci(le o$ (ri4ilege. @lite theory, ha((y in the in4ariant, unites di$$erent le4els o$ what sociologists today call social di$$erentiation, such as $eudalism and ca(italism, under the heading Eblood9 and (ro(erty9(rinci(leCG with eBually good humour it se(arates what belongs together, (ro(erty and achie4ement. a. Weber had shown that the s(irit o$ early ca(italism identi$ies the two, that in a rationally constituted wor, (rocess the

ca(acity $or achie4ement can be measured in terms o$ material success. The eBuation o$ achie4ement and material success $ound its (sychological mani$estation in a readiness to ma,e success as such a $etish. In annheim this tendency a((ears in sublimated $orm as a Estatus dri4eC. In bourgeois ideology (ro(erty and achie4ement were $irst se(arated when it became ob4ious that Eachie4ementC as the economic ratio o$ the indi4idual no longer corres(onded to E(ro(ertyC as its (otential reward. ?nly then did the bourgeois truly become a gentilhomme. Thus, annheimCs Emechanisms o$ selectionC are in4entions, arbitrarily chosen co9 ordinates distanced $rom the li$e9(rocess o$ actual society. "onclusions can be drawn $rom them which bear a $atal resemblance to the la. conce(tions o$ Werner Sombart and ?rtega y 8asset. annheim s(ea,s o$ a E(roletariani2ation o$ the intelligentsiaC. -e is correct in calling attention to the $act that the cultural mar,et is $loodedG there are, he obser4es, more culturally Buali$ied H$rom the stand(oint o$ $ormal education, that isI (eo(le a4ailable than there are suitable (ositions $or them. This situation, howe4er, is su((osed to lead to a dro( in the social 4alue o$ culture, since it is Ea sociological law that the social 4alue o$ cultural goods is a $unction o$ the social status o$ those who (roduce themC. At the same time, he continues, the Esocial 4alueC Eo$ culture necessarily declines because the recruiting o$ new members o$ the intelligentsia e.tends increasingly to lower social strata, es(ecially that o$ the (etty o$$icialdom. Thus the notion o$ the (roletarian is $ormali2edG it a((ears as a mere structure o$ consciousness, as with the u((er
(age>6:

bourgeoisie, which condemns anyone not $amiliar with the rules as a E(roleC. The genesis o$ this (rocess is not considered and as a result is $alsi$ied. 3y calling attention to a EstructuralC assimilation o$ consciousness to that o$ the lowest strata o$ society, he im(licitly shi$ts the blame to the members o$ those strata and their alleged emanci(ation in mass democracy. Det stulti$ication is caused not by the o((ressed but by o((ression, and it a$$ects not only the o((ressed but, in their essentials, the o((ressors as well, a $act to which annheim (aid little attention. The $looding o$ intellectual 4ocations is due to the $looding o$ economic occu(ations as such, basically, to technological unem(loyment. It has nothing to do with annheimCs democrati2ation o$ the elites, and the reser4e army o$ intellectuals is the last to in$luence them. oreo4er, the sociological law which ma,es the so9called status o$ culture de(endent on that o$ those who (roduce it is a te.tboo, e.am(le o$ a $alse generali2ation. ?ne need only recall the music o$ the eighteenth century, the cultural rele4ance o$ which in the 8ermany o$ the time stands beyond all doubt. usicians, e.ce(t $or the maestri, (rimadonnas, and castrati attached to the courts, were held in low esteemG 3ach li4ed as a subordinate church o$$icial and the young -aydn as a ser4ant. usicians attained social status only when their (roducts were no longer suitable $or immediate consum(tion, when the com(oser set himsel$ against society as his own master 0 with 3eetho4en. The reason $or annheimCs $alse conclusion lies in the (sychologism o$ his method. The indi4idualistic $aLade o$ society concealed $rom him the $act that its essence consists (recisely in de4elo(ing $orms which undergo a (rocess o$ sedimentation and which reduce indi4iduals to mere agents o$ ob;ecti4e tendencies. Its disillusioned mien notwithstanding, the stand(oint o$ the sociology o$ ,nowledge is (re9-egelian. Its recourse to a grou( o$ organi2ers, in the case o$ annheimCs ElawC, to the bearers o$ culture, is based on the somewhat transcendental (resu((osition o$ a harmony between society and the indi4idual. The absence o$ such harmony $orms one o$ the most urgent ob;ects o$ critical theory, which is a theory o$ human relations only to the e.tent that it is also a theory o$ the inhumanity o$ those relations. The distortions o$ the sociology o$ ,nowledge arise $rom its method, which translates dialectical conce(ts into classi$icatory ones. Since in each case what is socially contradictory is absorbed into indi4idual logical classes, social classes as such disa((ear and the (icture o$ the whole becomes harmonious. When, $or instance, in the third section o$ the boo, annheim distinguishes three le4els o$ consciousness: chance disco4ery, in4ention, and (lanning, he is
(age>6#

sim(ly trying to inter(ret the dialectical scheme o$ e(ochs as that o$ the $luidly changing modes o$

beha4iour o$ sociali2ed man in general, in which the determinant o((ositions disa((ear: EIt is o$ course clear that the line which di4ides in4enti4e thin,ing, which is rationally stri4ing to reali2e immediate goals, $rom (lanned thin,ing is not a hard and $ast one. =o one can say $or certain at what degree o$ $oresight and at what (oint in the widening radius o$ conscious regulation the transition $rom in4enti4e to (lanned thin,ing ta,es (lace.C The notion o$ an unbro,en transition $rom a liberal to a E(lannedC society has its correlati4e in the conce(tion o$ that transition as one between distinct modes o$ Ethin,ingC. Such a conce(tion awa,ens the belie$ that the historical (rocess is guided by an inherently uni4ocal sub;ect embodying the whole o$ society. The translation o$ dialectical into classi$icatory conce(ts abstracts $rom the conditions o$ real social (ower u(on which alone those le4els o$ thought de(end. EThe no4el contribution o$ the sociological 4iew o$ the (ast and the (resent is that it sees history as an area o(en to e.(erimentation in regulatory inter4entionC 0 as though the (ossibility o$ such inter4ention always corres(onded to the le4el o$ insight at the time. Such a le4elling o$$ o$ social struggles into modes o$ beha4iour which can be de$ined $ormally and which are made abstract in ad4ance allows u(li$ting (roclamations concerning the $uture: EDet another way remains o(en 0 it is that uni$ied (lanning will come about through understanding, agreement, and com(romise, i.e. that the state o$ mind will trium(h in the ,ey9(ositions o$ international society which hitherto has been (ossible only within a gi4en national grou(, within whose encla4es (eace was established by such methods.C Through the idea o$ com(romise the 4ery contradictions which were su((osedly resol4ed through (lanning are retainedG the abstract conce(t o$ (lanning conceals them in ad4ance and is itsel$ a com(romise between the laisse29$aire (rinci(le which is (reser4ed in it and the insight into its insu$$iciency. )ialectical conce(ts cannot be EtranslatedC into the categories o$ $ormal sociology without their truth being im(aired. annheim $lirts with (ositi4ism to the e.tent that he belie4es himsel$ able to rely on ob;ecti4ely gi4en $acts, which, howe4er, in his rather la. manner he describes as EunarticulatedC. These unarticulated $acts can then be (ut through the sociological thought9machine and thus ele4ated to general conce(ts. 3ut such classi$ication according to ordering conce(ts would be an adeBuate cogniti4e (rocess only i$ the $acts, which are assumed to be immediately gi4en, could be abstracted $rom their concrete conte.t as easily as it would a((ear
(age>6<

to the naM4e $irst glance. It is not adeBuate, howe4er, i$ social reality has, (rior to e4ery theoretical ordering glance, a highly EarticulatedC structure u(on which the scienti$ic sub;ect and the data o$ his e.(erience de(end. As analysis ad4ances, the initial E$actsC cease to be descri(ti4e, sel$9contained data, and sociology is all the less at liberty to classi$y them to suit its needs. That E$actsC must undergo this correction as the theoretical understanding o$ society (roceeds means not so much that new sub;ecti4e ordering schemes must be de4ised, as it would seem to naM4e e.(erience, as that the data which are (resumably gi4en embody more than mere material to be (rocessed conce(tually, namely, that they are moulded by the social whole and thus EstructuredC in themsel4es. Idealism can be o4ercome only when the. $reedom to conce(tuali2e through abstraction is sacri$iced. The thesis o$ the (rimacy o$ being o4er consciousness includes the methodological im(erati4e to e.(ress the dynamic tendencies o$ reality in the $ormation and mo4ement o$ conce(ts instead o$ $orming and 4eri$ying conce(ts in accordance with the demand that they ha4e (ragmatic and e.(edient $eatures. The sociology o$ ,nowledge has closed its eyes to this im(erati4e. Its abstractions are arbitrary as long as they merely harmoni2e with an e.(erience which (roceeds by di$$erentiating and correcting. annheim does not allow himsel$ the logical conclusion that the EunbiasedC registration o$ $acts is a $iction. The social scientistCs e.(erience does not gi4e him undi$$erentiated, chaotic material to be organi2edG rather, the material o$ his e.(erience is the social order, more em(hatically a EsystemC than any e4er concei4ed by (hiloso(hy. What decides whether his conce(ts are right or wrong is neither their generality nor, on the other hand, their a((ro.imation to E(ureC $act, but rather the adeBuacy with which they gras( the real laws o$ mo4ement o$ society and thereby render stubborn $acts trans(arent. In a co9ordinate9system de$ined by conce(ts li,e integration, elite, and articulation, those determining laws and e4erything they signi$y $or human li$e a((ear to be contingent or accidental, mere sociological

Edi$$erentiationsC. For this reason, sociology which generali2es and di$$erentiates seems li,e a moc,ery o$ reality. It does not recoil be$ore $ormulations li,e Edisregarding the concentration and centrali2ation o$ ca(italC. Such abstractions are not EneutralC. What a theory regards and what it disregards determines its Buality. Were EdisregardingC su$$icient, one could, $or instance, also analyse elites by obser4ing such grou(s as the 4egetarians, or the $ollowers o$ a2da2nan and then re$ine this analysis conce(tually until its mani$est absurdity disa((eared. 3ut no correcti4e could com(ensate $or the $act that the choice o$ basic
(age>6&

categories was $alse, that the world is not organi2ed according to these categories. All correcti4es notwithstanding, this $alseness would shi$t the accents so $undamentally that reality would dro( out o$ the conce(tsG the elites would be Egrou(s o$ the a2da2nan $ormC which ha((ened to be characteri2ed in addition by the (ossession o$ Esocial (owerC. When at one (oint annheim says that Ein the cultural s(here H(ro(erly also in the economicI there has ne4er been an absolute liberalism, that alongside o$ the undirected wor,ing o$ the social $orces there has always e.isted, $or instance, regulation in educationC, he is ob4iously trying to establish a di$$erentiating correcti4e to the belie$ that the (rinci(le o$ laisse29$aire, long ago e.(osed as ideology, e4er (re4ailed in an unrestricted manner. 3ut through the choice o$ an initial conce(t which is to be di$$erentiated only a$terwards the crucial issue is distorted: the insight that e4en under liberalism the (rinci(le o$ laisse29$aire ser4ed only to mas, economic control and that accordingly the establishment o$ Ecultural goodsC was essentially determined by their con$ormity with the ruling social interests. The insight into a basic matter o$ ideology e4a(orates into mere $inesseG instead o$ directing itsel$ to the concrete in the $irst (lace without hy(ostasi2ing indis(ensable general conce(ts, the method see,s to conciliate by demonstrating that it remembers the concrete too. The inadeBuacies o$ the method become mani$est in its (oles, the law and the Ee.am(leC. The sociology o$ ,nowledge characteri2es stubborn $acts as mere di$$erentiations and subsumes them under the highest general unitsG at the same time, it ascribes an intrinsic (ower o4er the $acts to these arbitrary generali2ations, which it calls social ElawsC, such as the one relating cultural goods to the social status o$ those who (roduce them. The ElawsC are hy(ostasi2ed. Sometimes they assume a truly e.tra4agant character: EThere is, howe4er, a decisi4e law which rules us at the (resent moment. Un(lanned s(heres regulated by natural selection on the one hand and deliberately organi2ed areas on the other can e.ist side by side without $riction only as long as the unplanned spheres predominate C N annheimCs italicsO. Puanti$ied (ro(ositions o$ this $orm are no more e4ident than those o$ 3aaderian meta(hysics, o4er which they ha4e the ad4antage only o$ a lac, o$ imagination. The $alseness o$ annheimCs hy(ostasi2ation o$ general conce(ts can be gras(ed (recisely at the (oint where he inter;ects the E(rinci(ia mediaC to which he debased the laws o$ dialectical mo4ement: E-owe4er much we must ta,e the principia media and the corres(onding conce(ts HQlate ca(italismK, Qstructural unem(loymentK, Qlower middle9class ideologyK, etc.I as concrete e.(ressions o$ a
(age>66

s(ecial historical setting, it should ne4ertheless be borne in mind that what we are doing is di$$erentiating and indi4iduali2ing abstract and general determinants Hgeneral $actorsI. The principia media are in a certain sense nothing but tem(orary grou(s o$ general $actors so closely intertwined that they o(erate as a single causal $actor. That we are essentially dealing here with general $actors in an historical and indi4idual setting is e4ident $rom our e.am(le. ?ur $irst obser4ation im(lies the general (rinci(le o$ the $unctioning o$ a social order with $reely contracting legal (ersonalitiesG the second, the (sychological e$$ect o$ unem(loyment in general, and the last, the general law that ho(es o$ social ad4ancement tend to a$$ect indi4iduals in a way which obscures their real social (osition.C It is ;ust as mista,en, annheim continues, to belie4e that conce(tions o$ man in general are 4alid in themsel4es as Eto neglect or ignore the general (rinci(les o$ the human (syche within the concrete modes o$ beha4iour o$ these historical ty(esC. Accordingly, the historical e4ent seems to be determined in (art by EgeneralC, in (art by E(articularC causes which together $orm some sort o$ Egrou(C. This, howe4er, im(lies the con$usion o$ le4els o$ abstraction with causes. annheim sees the decisi4e wea,ness o$ dialectical thought in its misunderstanding o$

Egeneral $orcesC 0 as i$ the commodity $orms were not EgeneralC enough $or all the Buestions with which he deals. E8eneral $orcesC, howe4er, are not inde(endent in o((osition to E(articularC ones, as though a concrete e4ent were EcausedC once by a causal (ro(osition and then again by the s(eci$ic Ehistorical situationC. =o e4ent is caused by general $orces, much less by lawsG causality is not the EcauseC o$ e4ents but rather the highest conce(tual generality under which concrete causal $actors can be subsumed. The signi$icance o$ the obser4ation =ewton made on the $alling a((le is not that the general law o$ causality EactsC within a com(le. which includes $actors o$ a lower degree o$ abstraction. "ausality o(erates only in the (articular and not in addition to it. ?nly to this e.tent can the $alling a((le be called Ean e.am(le o$ the law o$ gra4ityCG the law o$ gra4ity is as much de(endent on the $alling o$ this a((le as 4ice94ersa. The concrete (lay o$ $orces can be reduced to schemata o$ 4arying le4els o$ generality, but it is not a Buestion o$ a con;unction o$ EgeneralC and E(articularC $orces. annheimCs (luralism, o$ course, which concei4es what is crucial as merely one (ers(ecti4e among many, is hardly eager to gi4e u( its sums o$ general and (articular $actors. The $act, ba(ti2ed in ad4ance as a EuniBue situationC, thereby becomes a mere e.am(le o$ these $orces. )ialectical theory, in contrast, can no more acce(t the conce(t o$ the e.am(le as 4alid than
(age>6'

could %ant. @.am(les $unction as con4enient and interchangeable illustrationsG hence they are o$ten chosen at a com$ortable distance $rom the true concerns o$ man,ind today, or they are (ulled, as it were, out o$ a hat. 3ut they are Buic,ly $orced to (ay the conseBuences. annheim writes, $or instance: EAn illuminating e.am(le o$ the disturbances which can arise $rom substantial irrationality may be seen where, $or e.am(le, the di(lomatic sta$$ o$ a state has care$ully thought out a series o$ actions and has agreed on certain ste(s, when suddenly one o$ its members $alls (rey to a ner4ous colla(se and then acts contrary to the (lan, thereby destroying it.C It is useless to (ortray such (ri4ate e4ents as E$actorsCG not only is the Eradius o$ actionC o$ the indi4idual di(lomat romantically o4erestimated, but also unless the blunder itsel$ ser4ed the course o$ (olitical de4elo(ments stronger than the di(lomatsC considerations it could be corrected in $i4e minutes o4er the tele(hone. ?r, with the (ictorial 4i4idness o$ a childrenCs boo,, annheim writes: EAs a soldier I must control my im(ulses and desires, to a Buite di$$erent degree than as a $ree hunter, whose acts are only (eriodically (ur(osi4e and who will only occasionally need to ta,e hold o$ himsel$ 0 $or instance, at the moment when he has to $ire at his (rey.C As is generally ,nown, the occu(ation o$ hunter has in recent years been re(laced by the s(ort o$ hunting, but e4en the s(ortsman who ta,es9hold o$ himsel$ only Eat the moment when he has to $ire at his (reyC, a((arently in order not to be startled by the crac, o$ his own ri$le, will hardly bag much, (robably $righten away his (rey, and (erha(s not e4en $ind it. The insigni$icance o$ such e.am(les is closely related to the in$luence the sociology o$ ,nowledge has had. Selected $or their sub;ecti4e neutrality and there$ore inessential in ad4ance, the e.am(les ser4e to distract. Sociology originated in the im(ulse to critici2e the (rinci(les o$ the society with which it $ound itsel$ con$rontedG the sociology o$ ,nowledge settles $or re$lections on hunters dressed in green and di(lomats in blac,. The direction in which, in terms o$ content, the $ormalism o$ such conce(tuali2ation tends re4eals itsel$ when (rogrammatic demands are 4oiced. An Eo(timumC $or the thorough organi2ation o$ society is demanded, but no thought is gi4en to the ga( that would ha4e to be breached to attain such an o(timum. I$ things are only (ut together rationally, e4erything will $all into (lace. annheimCs ideal o$ a Edesired directionC between Eunconscious conser4atismC and Emisdirected uto(ianismC corres(onds to this: EWe can see at the same time, howe4er, the general outline o$ a (ossible solution to the (resent tension, namely a sort o$ authoritarian democracy
(age>66

ma,ing use o$ (lanning and creating a stable system $rom the (resent con$lict o$ (rinci(les.C This is in accordance with the stylistic ele4ation o$ the EcrisisC to a Ehuman (roblemC, in which annheim shows himsel$ in agreement with modern 8erman anthro(ologists, his declaration against them notwithstanding,

and with the e.istentialist (hiloso(hers. Two characteristics more than all others, howe4er, re4eal the con$ormism o$ annheimCs sociology o$ ,nowledge. First, it remains concerned with sym(toms. It is thoroughly dis(osed to o4erestimate the signi$icance o$ ideologies as o((osed to what they re(resent. It (lacidly shares with them (recisely that eBui4ocal conce(tion o$ EtheC irrational to which the critical le4er should be a((lied: EWe must, moreo4er, reali2e that the irrational is not always harm$ul but that, on the contrary, it is among the most 4aluable (owers in manCs (ossession when it acts as a dri4ing $orce towards rational or ob;ecti4e ends, creates cultural 4alues through sublimation and culti4ation, or, as (ure 7lan, heightens the ;oy o$ li4ing without brea,ing u( the social order by lac, o$ (lanning.C There are no $urther hints as to the nature o$ this irrational, which is said to (roduce cultural 4alues through culti4ation, although such 4alues are by de$inition the (roduct o$ culti4ation, or to EheightenC the ;oy o$ li4ing, which is irrational anyway. In any case, howe4er, the eBuation o$ the instincts with the irrational is ominous, $or the conce(t is a((lied in E4alue9$reeC manner both to the libido and to the $orms its re(ression ta,es. The irrational seems to endow ideologies with substantiality in annheim. They recei4e a (aternal re(roo$ but are le$t intactG what they conceal is ne4er e.(osed. 3ut the 4ulgar materialism o$ (re4ailing (ra.is is closely related to this (ositi4istic tendency to acce(t sym(toms uncritically, this (erce(tible res(ect $or the claims o$ ideology. The $acade remains intact in the glow o$ amenable obser4ation, and the ultimate wisdom o$ this sociology is that no im(ulse could arise within the interior which could seriously threaten to (roceed beyond its care$ully mar,ed bounds: EIn actual $act the e.isting body o$ ideas Hand the same a((lies to 4ocabularyI ne4er e.ceeds the hori2on and the radius o$ acti4ity o$ the society in Buestion.C Whate4er Ee.ceedsC the limits, to be sure, can easily be seen as Ead;ustment to the emotional e4ocation o$ s(iritual 4alues, etc.C. This materialism, a,in to that o$ the $amily head who considers it utterly im(ossible $or his o$$s(ring to ha4e a new thought, since e4erything has already been thought, and hence recommends that he concentrate on earning a res(ectable li4ing, this seasoned and arrogant materialism is the re4erse image o$ the idealism in annheimCs 4iew o$ history, an idealism to which he also remains true in other res(ects, es(ecially in his conce(tions
(age>67

o$ ErationalityC and (rogress, an idealism according to which changes in consciousness are e4en ca(able o$ li$ting Ethe structural (rinci(le o$ society o$$ its hinges $rom the inside out, so to s(ea,C. The real attraction o$ the sociology o$ ,nowledge can be sought only in the $act that those changes in consciousness, as achie4ements o$ E(lanning reasonC, are lin,ed directly to the reasoning o$ todayCs (lanners: EThe $act that the com(le. actions o$ a $unctional, thoroughly rationali2ed society can be thought through only in the heads o$ a $ew organi2ers assures the latter o$ a ,ey (osition in society.C The moti$ which becomes a((arent here e.tends beyond the consciousness o$ the sociology o$ ,nowledge. The ob;ecti4e s(irit, as that o$ those E$ew organi2ersC, s(ea,s through it. While the sociology o$ ,nowledge dreams o$ new academic $ields to conBuer, it unsus(ectingly ser4es those who ha4e not hesitated a moment to abolish those $ields. annheimCs re$lections, nourished by liberal common sense, all amount to the same thing in the end 0 recommending social (lanning without e4er (enetrating to the $oundations o$ society. The conseBuences o$ the absurdity which has now become ob4ious and which. annheim sees only su(er$icially as a Ecultural crisisC, are to be molli$ied $rom abo4e, that is, by those who control the means o$ (roduction. This means, howe4er, sim(ly that the liberal, who sees no way out, ma,es himsel$ the s(o,esman o$ a dictatorial arrangement o$ society e4en while he imagines he is o((osing it. ?$ course, the sociology o$ ,nowledge will re(ly that the ultimate criterion $or ;udging (lanning is not (ower but reason and that reason includes the tas, o$ con4erting the (ower$ul. =e4ertheless, since the /latonic (hiloso(her9,ings it has been clear what such a con4ersion in4ol4es. The answer to annheimCs re4erence $or the intelligentsia as E$ree9$loatingC is to be $ound not in the reactionary (ostulate o$ its Erootedness in 3eingC but rather in the reminder that the 4ery intelligentsia that (retends to $loat $reely is $undamentally rooted in the 4ery being that must be changed and which it merely (retends to critici2e. For it the rational is the o(timal $unctioning o$ the: system, which (ost(ones the catastro(he without as,ing whether the system in its totality is not in $act the o(timum in irrationality. In totalitarian systems o$ e4ery ,ind,

(lanning directed at maintaining the system leads to the barbarous su((ression below the sur$ace o$ the contradictions it ine4itably (roduces. In the name o$ reason the ad4ocates, o$ (lanning turn (ower o4er to those who already (ossess it in the name o$ mysti$ication. The (ower o$ reason today is the blind reason o$ those who currently hold (ower. 3ut as (ower mo4es towards the catastro(he it induces the mind which denies it with moderation to abdicate to
(age>65

it. It still calls itsel$ liberal, to be sure, but $or it $reedom has already become E$rom the sociological (oint o$ 4iew nothing but a dis(ro(ortion between the growth o$ the radius o$ e$$ecti4e central control on the one hand and the si2e o$ the grou( unit to be in$luenced on the otherC. The sociology o$ ,nowledge sets u( indoctrination cam(s $or the homeless intelligentsia where it can learn to $orget itsel$.
(age>6!

+peng%er #/er the 0ec%ine

(age>'#

I$ the history o$ (hiloso(hy consists less in the solution o$ its (roblems than in the $act that they are always being $orgotten by the intellectual mo4ements that crystalli2e around them, ?swald S(englerCs doctrine is no e.ce(tion. It has been $orgotten with the ra(idity o$ the catastro(he towards which world history, according to his own theory, was mo4ing. A$ter the initial (o(ular success o$ The Decline of the %est, 8erman (ublic o(inion 4ery Buic,ly turned against the boo,. The o$$icial (hiloso(hers dismissed it as su(er$icial, the certi$ied academic disci(lines charged it with incom(etence and charlatanism, and in the hustle and bustle o$ 8erman in$lation and stabili2ation no one wanted anything to do with the thesis o$ the Decline. In the meantime S(engler had (ublished a number o$ smaller studies whose (retentious tone and glib antitheses le$t him an easy mar, $or the (re4ailing 4oie de vivre When the second 4olume o$ the Decline a((eared, in #!<<, its rece(tion did not e4en remotely a((roach that o$ the $irst, e4en though the thesis o$ the decline is not concretely de4elo(ed until the second 4olume. The laymen who had read S(engler as they had read =iet2sche and Scho(enhauer be$ore him had in the meantime become estranged $rom (hiloso(hyG the (ro$essional (hiloso(hers were soon to $loc, to -eidegger, whose wor, was to gi4e their irritation more digni$ied and re$ined e.(ression. -e e.alted death and (romised to trans$orm the thought o$ it into a (ro$essional secret $or academicsG S(engler had sim(ly decreed it without res(ect to (ersons. S(engler was le$t behind, his little boo, on #an and Technology inca(able o$ com(eting with the smart (hiloso(hical anthro(ologies o$ the time. Fittle attention was (aid his relations with =ational Socialism, his dis(ute with -itler, and his death. In 8ermany he was ostraci2ed as a (essimist and reactionary, in the sense gi4en those words by the gentlemen o$ the time. Abroad, he was considered one o$ those ideologically res(onsible $or the rela(se into barbarism. =e4ertheless, there is good reason to raise the Buestion o$ the truth and untruth o$ S(englerCs wor, again. It would be conceding
(age>'&

him too much to loo, to world history, which (assed him by on its way to the new order, $or the last ;udgment on the 4alue o$ his ideas. And there is all the less reason to do so, considering that the course o$ world history 4indicated his immediate (rognoses to an e.tent that would astonish i$ they were still remembered. Forgotten, S(engler ta,es his re4enge by threatening to, be right. -is obli4ion in the midst o$ con$irmation endows the ominous idea o$ blind $atality which emerges $rom his conce(tion with an ob;ecti4e moment. When, at the time, se4en 8erman academicians ;oined $orces in the (eriodical 5ogos to $inish o$$ the outside, their (hilistine 2eal (ro4o,ed derision. Today their 2eal seems less harmlessG it testi$ies to an intellectual im(otence com(arable to the (olitical im(otence o$ the Weimar Ae(ublic $aced with -itler. S(engler $ound hardly an ad4ersary who was his eBualG his obli4ion is the (roduct o$ e4asion. ?ne has only to read an$red SchroeterCs boo,, Der "treit um "pengler NThe "pengler 6ontroversy O, with its com(lete sur4ey o$ the critical literature u( to #!<<, to see how com(letely the 8erman mind colla(sed when con$ronted with an o((onent who, seemed to ha4e inherited all the historical $orce o$ its own (ast. Against a man who rebu,ed them as a sergeant does a raw recruit, 8erman (hiloso(hy and science could bring to bear only (edantic (unctiliousness in concrete matters, the rhetoric o$ con$ormist o(timism in its ideas, and, o$ten enough, an in4oluntary admission o$ wea,ness in the $orm o$ the assurance that things arenCt really all that bad or the so(histical tric, o$ undermining S(englerCs relati4istic (osition by e.aggerating his own relati4ism. 3ehind their (om(ous ha(lessness may well ha4e been a secret urge to dro( the resistance altogether. 3ut the more the world marches in ste( with him, the more urgent it is to consider the meaning o$ the wor, in which he (roclaimed a destiny $or man,ind which, with the murder o$ millions, has sur(assed his dire (ro(hecy. S(englerCs (ower becomes e4ident when his theses are con$ronted with subseBuent de4elo(ments. The sources o$ this (ower, which the wor, (ossesses des(ite

its mani$est em(irical and theoretical de$iciencies, should be in4estigated. Finally, while maintaining a $undamental distrust o$ his thesis, one should as, what considerations could hold their ground against S(englerCs arguments while a4oiding both the (ose o$ (ower and the guilty conscience o$ o$$icial o(timism. In demonstrating S(englerCs $orce one should turn $irst not to his general historical9(hiloso(hical conce(ts o$ (lant9li,e growth and cultural decay but to his a((lication o$ this (hiloso(hy o$ history to the (hase which he belie4ed to be imminent and which
(age>'6

he designated as E"aesarismC, in analogy to the (eriod o$ the Aoman @m(ire. -is most characteristic (redictions (ertain to Buestions o$ mass domination such as (ro(aganda, mass culture, and $orms o$ (olitical mani(ulation, in (articular, certain tendencies inherent in democracy which threaten to turn it into dictatorshi(. In accordance with S(englerCs general 4iew that economic matters do not (lay a determining role in social reality but are rather the Ee.(ressionC o$ a (articular Estate o$ soulC, s(eci$ically economic (rognoses are o$ com(arati4ely minor im(ortance. The Buestion o$ mono(olies is not raised, although S(engler is acutely aware o$ the cultural conseBuences o$ the increasing centrali2ation o$ (ower. Det his insight reaches $ar enough to disclose certain noteworthy economic (henomena, es(ecially concerning the decline o$ a money economy. Se4eral lines o$ thought in the second 4olume o$ the Decline concern ci4ili2ation in the era o$ "aesarism. To begin with, some (assages on EThe /hysiognomy o$ the odern etro(olisC. ?$ its houses S(engler writes: EThey no longer ha4e anything in common with the houses in which *esta and 1anus, the Fares and /enates residedG rather, they are mere shells, $ashioned not by blood but by utility, not by $eeling but by the s(irit o$ commercialism. As long as the hearth remains the real, meaning$ul centre o$ the $amily $or the (ious soul, the last bond to the country has not disa((eared. 3ut when that, too, is lost and the mass o$ tenants and o4ernight guests in this sea o$ houses leads a 4agrant e.istence $rom shelter to shelter, li,e the hunters and she(herds o$ (rime4al times, then the intellectual nomad is $ully $ormed. This city is a world, the world. ?nly as a whole does it ha4e the meaning o$ a human habitation. The houses are only the atoms out o$ which it is assembled.C Werner Sombart de4elo(ed 4ery similar thoughts in his (am(hlet EWhy is there no Socialism in AmericaJC The image o$ the latter9day city9dweller as a second nomad deser4es s(ecial em(hasis. It e.(resses not only an.iety and estrangement but also the dawning ahistorical character o$ a condition in which men e.(erience themsel4es solely as ob;ects o$ o(aBue (rocesses and, torn between sudden shoc, and sudden $orget$ulness, are no longer ca(able o$ a sense o$ tem(oral continuity. S(engler, who sees the connection between atomi2ation and the regressi4e ty(e o$ man which re4ealed itsel$ $ully only with the onslaught o$ totalitarianism states: E@ach o$ these s(lendid mass cities harbours horrendous (o4erty, a brutali2ation o$ all customs which e4en now, in the attics and garrets, the cellars and bac,yards, is breeding a new (rimiti4e man.C In the Ecam(sC o$ e4ery 4ariety, where there are no longer e4en
(age>''

any houses, that regression has become o4ert. S(engler has little understanding o$ the conditions o$ (roduction that ha4e brought about this situation. -e sees all the more clearly, howe4er, the $rame o$ mind that gri(s the masses outside the actual (rocess o$ (roduction in which they are harnessed, in the (henomena usually grou(ed under the heading o$ EleisureC. EIntellectual tension ,nows only one $orm o$ recreation, that which is s(eci$ic to the metro(olis, namely, the release o$ tension in the $orm o$ rela.ation, EEdistractionK. 8enuine (lay, 4oie de vivre (leasure, ecstasy are (roduced by the rhythm o$ the cosmos, and their essence is no longer understood. 3ut the relie$ $rom highly intensi4e, (ractical, intellectual wor, through its o((osite, consciously (racticed idiocy, the relie$ o$ intellectual tension through the (hysical tension o$ s(orts, o$ (hysical tension through the sensuous tension o$ (leasure and the intellectual tension induced by the Qe.citementK o$ com(etition and gambling, the re(lacement o$ the (ure logic o$ daily

wor, by consciously sa4oured mysticism 0 this recurs in e4ery metro(olis in e4ery ci4ili2ation.C From this idea S(engler constructed the thesis that Eart itsel$ becomes a s(ortC. -e ,new neither ;a22 nor Bui2 (rogrammes, but i$ one were to summari2e the most im(ortant trends o$ (resent9day mass culture, one could hardly $ind a more (regnant category than that o$ s(orts, the hurdling o$ rhythmic obstacles, the contest, be it between the (er$ormers or between the (roducers and the (ublic. The $ull $orce o$ S(englerCs scorn is directed not at the mani(ulators but at their 4ictims, at those who $all (rey to the Eci4ili2ingC industry o$ an ad4ertising culture. EThe Fellah9ty(e emerges.C S(engler describes this Fellah9ty(e as the result o$ the e.(ro(riation o$ human consciousness by the centrali2ed media o$ (ublic communication. The (rocess is still concei4ed in terms o$ the (ower o$ money, although he $oresees the end o$ a monetary economy. According to him, the intellect, in the sense o$ unlimited autonomy, can e.ist only in connection with the abstract unity o$ money. -owe4er this may be in actuality, his descri(tion is entirely correct with res(ect to the situation under a totalitarian r7gime which declares ideological war against both money and mind. ?ne could say that S(engler recogni2ed in the (ress traits which were de4elo(ed $ully only later with the ad4ent o$ the radioG similarly, the ob;ections he raised to democracy attained their $ull weight only with the coming o$ dictatorshi(s. EThrough the news(a(ers, democracy has utterly e.cluded the boo, $rom the intellectual li$e o$ the (eo(le. The world o$ boo,s, with its 4ariety o$ stand(oints which encouraged thought to select and critici2e, is now truly (ossessed only by
(age>'6

the $ew. The (eo(le read only one (a(er, QtheirK (a(er, which thrusts its way daily into e4ery house by the millions, s(ellbinds the mind $rom early morning on, dri4es boo,s into obli4ion through its $ormat, and on the rare occasions when one boo, or another does a((ear, $orestalls and nulli$ies its (ossible in$luence by Qre4iewingK it in ad4ance.C S(engler sees something o$ the dual character o$ enlightenment in the era o$ uni4ersal domination. EThe need $or uni4ersal education, which was totally lac,ing in the ancient world, is bound u( with the (olitical (ress. In it is a com(letely unconscious urge to bring the masses, as the ob;ects o$ (arty (olitics, under the control o$ the news(a(ers. To the idealist o$ early democracy, uni4ersal education seemed enlightenment as such, $ree o$ ulterior moti4es, and e4en today one $inds here and there wea, minds which become enthusiastic about the idea o$ $reedom o$ the (ress, but it is (recisely this that smooths the way $or the coming "aesars o$ world9;ournalism. Those who ha4e learned to read succumb to their (ower, and the antici(ated sel$9determination o$ late democracy turns into the radical determination o$ the (eo(le by the (owers behind the (rinted word.C The things S(engler ascribes to the modest (ress magnates o$ the First World War $ind their mature $orm in the techniBues o$ mani(ulated (ogroms and Es(ontaneousC (o(ular demonstrations. EWithout the reader noticing, the (a(er, and thus he himsel$, changes mastersC 0 this remar, became literally true in the Third Aeich. S(engler calls it Ethe style o$ the twentieth centuryC. EToday a democrat o$ the old ty(e would demand not $reedom o$ but $reedom $rom the (ressG in the meantime, howe4er, the leaders ha4e turned into (ar4enus who ha4e to secure their (osition 4is9R94is the masses.C S(engler (redicted 8oebbels: E=o trainer has better control o$ his animals. Unleash the (eo(le as a reading mass, and it storms through the streets, hurls itsel$ at the designated target, ma,es threats and brea,s windows. A gesture to the (ress, and it Buiets down and goes home. The (ress today is an army with care$ully organi2ed wea(ons, the ;ournalists its o$$icers, the readers its soldiers. 3ut, as in e4ery army, the soldier obeys blindly, and the war aims and o(erating (lans change without his ,nowledge. The reader neither ,nows nor is su((osed to ,now the (ur(oses $or which he is used and the role he is to (lay. There is no more a((alling caricature o$ $reedom o$ thought. Formerly no one was allowed to thin, $reelyG now it is (ermitted, but no one is ca(able o$ it any
(age>'7

more. =ow (eo(le want to thin, only what they are su((osed to want to thin,, and this they consider $reedom.C S(englerCs s(eci$ic (rognoses are no less astonishing. First, a military (rediction, which, incidentally, may ha4e been in$luenced by certain e.(eriences o$ the 8erman high command in the First World War, e.(eriences which ha4e since been (ut into (ractice: S(engler considers the EdemocraticC (rinci(le o$ uni4ersal military conscri(tion and the tactics it reBuired obsolete. EFrom now on a (ro$essional army o$ 4oluntary and enthusiastic soldiers will gradually ta,e the (lace o$ the standing army, hundreds o$ thousands will once again ser4e where there are now millions, but with this change this second century Na$ter the =a(oleonic WarsO will truly be one o$ embattled states. The mere e.istence o$ these armies is no substitute $or war Nas it was, according to S(engler, in the nineteenth centuryOG they are there $or war and they want war. In two generations their will will be stronger than that o$ all those who want (eace. In these wars $ought $or the heritage o$ the whole world, the sta,es will be continents, India, "hina, South A$rica, Aussia, Islam will be called into action, new techniBues and tactics will be (itted against each other. The great metro(olitan centres o$ (ower will dis(ose at will o$ the smaller states, their territories and their economiesG they will be mere (ro4inces, ob;ects o$ mani(ulation, means to ends, their $ate without signi$icance $or the larger course o$ things. In a $ew years we ha4e learned 4irtually to ignore things which be$ore the war would ha4e (etri$ied the world.C In the meantime, the mention o$ Auschwit2 already (ro4o,es bored resentment. =obody is concerned with the (ast any more. In S(englerCs scheme the era o$ embattled states is $ollowed by a word that is ahistorical in a sinister sense: the (resent economic tendency to create a static situation without crises in the economic sense o$ the term while eliminating the mar,et and the dynamic o$ com(etition coincides, with S(englerCs (rognosis clearly enough. -is (rediction is $ul$illed e4en more stri,ingly in the static state o$ culture, the most ad4anced e$$orts o$ which ha4e been denied understanding and a genuine rece(tion by society since the nineteenth century. This static state com(els the incessant and deadly re(etition o$ what has already been acce(ted, and at the same time standardi2ed art $or the masses, with its (etri$ied $ormulas, e.cludes history. All s(eci$ically modern art can be regarded as an attem(t to ,ee( the dynamic o$ history ali4e through magic, or to increase the horror at the stasis to shoc,, to (ortray the catastro(he in which the ahistorical suddenly begins to loo, archaic. S(englerCs (ro(hecy $or the smaller states is beginning to be $ul$illed in men
(age>'5

themsel4es, e4en in the citi2ens o$ the largest and most (ower$ul states. Thus history seems to ha4e been e.tinguished. All e4ents are things that ha((en to men, not things they bring about themsel4es. @4en the greatest strategic e.(loits and trium(hal (rocessions ha4e a touch o$ the illusionaryG they are not Buite real. The word E(honyC catches this. @4ents are the (ri4ate a$$air o$ the oligarchs and their assassinsG they do not arise $rom the dynamic o$ society but rather subordinate society to an administration intensi$ied to the (oint o$ annihilation. As ob;ects o$ (olitical (ower men surrender their s(ontaneity: EWith the arri4al o$ the Age o$ @m(ire there are no more (olitical (roblems. /eo(le get along with the situation as it is and with the (owers that be. In the age o$ the embattled states streams o$ blood reddened the walls o$ the world9cities in order to trans$orm the great truths o$ democracy into reality and achie4e rights without which li$e did not seem worth li4ing. =ow these rights ha4e been won, but not e4en (unishment can mo4e the grandchildren to ma,e use o$ them.C S(englerCs (rediction o$ a change in the essence o$ the (olitical (arty was radically con$irmed in =ational Socialism 0 (arties became $ollowings. -is characteri2ation o$ the (arty, (resumably ins(ired by Aobert ichels, is o$ the same clear9sightedness that $ascism ,new how to use so satanicallyG the untruth o$ a humanitarianism that declares itsel$ the measure o$ the world without being reali2ed is made to ;usti$y absolute untruth and inhumanity. S(engler sees the relation o$ the (arty structure to bourgeois liberalism. EThe entrance o$ an aristocratic (arty into a (arliament is ;ust as inherently s(urious as that o$ a (roletarian

(arty. ?nly the bourgeoisie is at home there.C -e em(hasi2es the mechanisms which allow the (arty system to turn into dictatorshi(. Such considerations ha4e been $amiliar to cyclical (hiloso(hies o$ history since the Stoics. achia4elli de4elo(ed the idea that in the long run the decay o$ democratic institutions would always necessitate dictatorshi(s. 3ut S(engler, who in a certain sense re4i4ed at the end o$ an era the (osition achia4elli too, at its beginning, shows himsel$ su(erior to the earlier (olitical (hiloso(her in ha4ing e.(erienced the dialectic o$ history, though he ne4er names it. For him the (rinci(le o$ democracy de4elo(s into its o((osite through the rule o$ the (arty. EThe age o$ true (arty rule embraces barely two centuries and $or us has been in $ull decline since the World War. That the 4oters will act as a grou(, on the basis o$ a common im(ulse, to elect men to manage their a$$airs, as is nai4ely su((osed in all constitutions, is
(age>'!

(ossible only at the outset and (resu((oses the absence o$ tendencies to organi2e (articular grou(s. This was so in France in #75!, in 8ermany in #565. 3ut to the e.istence o$ an assembly is immediately lin,ed the $ormation o$ tactical alliances. The cohesion o$ these grou(s rests on the will to maintain the dominant (osition once it has been achie4edG they no longer consider themsel4es in the least the 4otersC mouth(ieces but on the contrary use e4ery means o$ agitation to ma,e the 4oters submissi4e so as to use them $or their own (ur(oses. ?nce a tendency in the (eo(le has become organi2ed, it has ipso facto become a tool o$ organi2ation, and it continues relentlessly on its way until the organi2ation in turn becomes the instrument o$ the leader. The will to (ower is stronger than any theory. In the beginning the leadershi( and the a((aratus come into being $or the sa,e o$ the (rogrammeG then they are de$ended by the o$$icials $or the sa,e o$ (ower and (ro$it, as is already generally the case today, when thousands o$ (eo(le in all countries ma,e their li4ing through the (arty and the o$$ices and $unctions it bestowsG $inally the (rogramme 4anishes $rom memory and the organi2ation $unctions $or its own sa,e.C S(engler re$ers s(eci$ically to 8ermany, $oreseeing the years o$ minority r7gimes that hel(ed -itler to (ower: EThe 8erman "onstitution o$ #!#!, coming into being on the 4erge o$ the decline o$ democracy, most nai4ely allows $or the9dictatorshi( o$ (arty a((aratuses, which ha4e ca(tured all rights $or themsel4es and are seriously res(onsible, to no one. The notorious system o$ (ro(ortional re(resentation and the Reichsliste insure their maintenance and e.(ansion. In (lace o$ the (eo(leCs rights, which the "onstitution o$ #565 (osited, there are now only the (artiesC rights, and harmless though this sounds, it im(lies the "aesarism o$ the organi2ation. To be sure, in this sense the "onstitution o$ #!#! is the most (rogressi4e o$ the ageG it allows the $inal result to be seen. A $ew small alterations and it con$ers unrestricted (ower u(on indi4iduals.C S(englerCs (rediction that the (ower to thin, will die out culminates in a taboo on thought which he attem(ts to ;usti$y on the basis o$ the ine.orable course o$ history. This touches on the Archimedean (oint o$ S(englerCs scheme. -is historical9(hiloso(hical assertion that the mind is dying and the anti9intellectual conseBuences he deri4es $rom it a((ly not only to the Eci4ili2edC (hase o$ history but to man in general as S(engler concei4es him. ETruths e.ist $or the mindG $acts, only in relation to li$e. -istorical obser4ation 0 what I call (hysiognomic tact 0 is a matter o$ bloodG it is the gi$t o$ ;udging men e.tended o4er the (ast
(age>6:

and the $uture, an inborn eye $or (eo(le and situations, $or e4ents, $or things necessary, things that had to be, and not mere scienti$ic criticism or ,nowledge o$ data.C The decisi4e $actor here is the idea o$ the gi$t o$ E,nowingC men and its cou(ling with the ideology o$ blood, which in the meantime has come into its own as the horror S(engler (redicted. 3ehind this notion stands the achia4ellian assum(tion o$ an unchangeable human nature which need only be (ercei4ed 0 namely, as the worthless thing it isto be controlled once and $or all, since it must always be the same.

Understood in its $ull im(lications, to E,nowC men is to des(ise them: EThatCs the way they are, and thatCs that.C The interest which is decisi4e $or this attitude is domination. All o$ S(englerCs categories are determined by this conce(t. -is sym(athies are with the rulers, and when s(ea,ing o$ the immense intelligence and iron will o$ modern industrial leaders, the (hiloso(her o$ historical disillusionment can gush li,e one o$ the (aci$ists he is always moc,ing. -is entire image o$ history is measured by the ideal o$ domination. -is a$$inity $or this ideal gi4es him (ro$ound insight whene4er it is a Buestion o$ the (ossibilities o$ domination and blinds him with hatred as soon as he is con$ronted by im(ulses which go beyond all (re4ious history as the history o$ domination. In S(engler the tendency o$ the 8erman Idealists to $etishi2e broad general conce(ts in their theories and then im(assi4ely sacri$ice the e.istence o$ the indi4idual human being to them 0 a tendency Scho(enhauer, %ier,egaard, and ar. attac,ed in -egel 0 becomes undisguised ;oy in actual human sacri$ice. Whereas -egelCs (hiloso(hy o$ history s(ea,s with stunned grie$ o$ the shambles o$ history, S(engler sees nothing but $acts. Facts can, it is true, arouse regret, i$ one is so inclined, but they need not cause great concern as long as one is in com(licity with historical necessity and oneCs (hysiognomics side with the stronger $orces. In his $air9minded critiBue o$ S(engler in +ssays in 7ntellectual 8istory, 1ames Shotwell writes: ES(engler is interested in the great and tragic drama which he de(icts and wastes little idle sym(athy u(on the 4ictims o$ the recurring night.C It is in the swee(ing administrati4e gesture o$ S(englerCs conce(tual scheme, which s,i(s o4er cultures as though they were multi9coloured stones and blasts away with Fate, "osmos, 3lood, and S(irit with utter indi$$erence, that the moti$ o$ domination e.(resses itsel$. Anyone who stri(s all (henomena down to the $ormula EthatCs all ha((ened be$oreC e.ercises a tyranny o$ categories which is only too closely related to the (olitical tyranny about which S(engler is so enthusiastic. -e ;uggles history to ma,e it $it his master9(lan ;ust
(age>6#

as -itler shunted minorities $rom one country to another. In the end e4erything is ta,en care o$. =othing is le$t o4er and all resistances 0 which in any case lay only with what had not been gras(ed 0 ha4e been liBuidated. -owe4er inadeBuate the criticisms o$ S(engler by the indi4idual sciences may ha4e been, in this res(ect they ha4e their moment o$ truth. The $ata morgana o$ the historical large9scale economy, the *rossraum&irtschaft, can be esca(ed only by the indi4idual entity whose obstinacy sets limits on dictatorial subsum(tion. I$, by 4irtue o$ his (ers(ecti4e and the broad range o$ his categories, S(engler is su(erior to the indi4idual disci(line obsessed with details, he is at the same time in$erior to it because o$ that 4ery rangeG his breadth is the result o$ his (ractice o$ ne4er honesty $ollowing through the dialectic o$ conce(t and (articular detail but instead ma,ing a detour through a schematism which uses the E$actC ideologically to crush thought and ne4er grants it more than an initial co9ordinating glance. In S(englerCs world9 historical (ers(ecti4e there is an element o$ ostentation and (om( which resembles the s(irit o$ the Wilhelminian "iegesallee N*ictory A4enueOG only when the world is trans$ormed into a "iegesallee will it ta,e on the $orm he desires. The su(erstitious belie$ that the greatness o$ a (hiloso(hy lies in its grandiose as(ects is a bad heritage o$ Idealism 0 as though the Buality o$ a (ainting de(ending on the sublimity o$ its sub;ect9matter. 8reat themes (ro4e nothing about the greatness o$ insight. I$, as -egel argues, the whole is what is true, then it is so only i$ the $orce o$ the whole is absorbed into the ,nowledge o$ the (articular. There is nothing o$ this in S(engler. The (articular ne4er o(ens itsel$ to himG it is always accounted $or in ad4ance by his com(arati4e sur4ey o$ cultural mor(hology. -is method (roudly calls itsel$ (hysiognomic. In truth his (hysiognomic thought is chained to the totalitarian character o$ his categories. @4erything indi4idual, howe4er e.otic, becomes a sign o$ something grandiose, o$ the ci4ili2ation, because S(englerCs conce(tion o$ the world is so rigorously go4erned by his categories that there is no room $or anything which does not easily and essentially coincide with them. There is an element o$ truth in this, in that societies based on domination ha4e in $act always crystalli2ed into closed totalities which allow no $reedom $or anything indi4idualG totality is their logical $orm. S(englerCs (hysiognomics ha4e the merit o$ directing attention towards the EsystemC in the indi4idual, e4en where it assumes a semblance o$ $reedom which conceals the uni4ersal de(endency. 3ut this merit is counterbalanced by the $act that S(englerCs

insistence on the uni4ersal de(endence o$ indi4idual moments on the whole, in

(age>6<

the $orm o$ the de(endence o$ a cultureCs e.(ressi4e characteristics on its totality, is so abstract in its breadth that it tends to obscure the concrete and shar(ly di$$erentiated moments o$ de(endency which are decisi4e in human li4es. -ence S(engler (lays (hysiognomics against causality. 3y omitting all causal connections and (resenting the ty(ical (assi4ely reacting mass man on the same le4el as the concentration o$ (ower, which is the ,ey category o$ the system and which (roduced and re(roduces the mass men, S(engler is able to sim(li$y social relations o$ de(endency to ones o$ $ate or to a cultural (hase. Thus, meta(hysically, he ma,es the im(otent mass man himsel$ res(onsible $or the ignominy the "aesars ha4e in$licted u(on him. The (hysiognomic eye loses itsel$ by classi$ying (henomena under a $ew in4ariant catchwords. Instead o$ immersing himsel$ in the e.(ressi4e character o$ the (henomena, S(engler hastens to unload his ;oyless accumulated wares with the hel( o$ shrill ad4ertising slogans. S(engler scrutini2es the indi4idual sciences $rom to( to bottom, as though $or a clearance sale. I$ one were to characteri2e S(engler himsel$ in the terminology o$ the ci4ili2ation he denounces and name him in his own style, one would ha4e to com(are the Decline of the %est to a de(artment store where the intellectual agent sells the dried literary scra(s he (urchased at hal$9(rice at the close9out sale o$ culture. -is (rocedure re4eals the embittered resentment o$ the 8erman middle9class scholar who wants to ma,e ca(ital o$ his learning at last and in4est it in the most (romising branch o$ the economy, which at the time was hea4y industry. S(englerCs insight into the hel(lessness o$ liberal intellectuals in the shadow o$ rising totalitarian (ower (rom(ts him to become a turncoat. 3y denouncing itsel$ the mind ma,es itsel$ ca(able o$ (ro4iding anti9ideological ideologies. S(englerCs (roclamation o$ the demise o$ culture conceals wish$ul thin,ing. The mind which denies itsel$ and sides with $orce ho(es to be (ardoned. FessingCs dictum about the man who was too cle4er to be cle4er $inds its culminating e.am(le in S(engler. The introduction to the Decline of the %est contains a statement that was to become $amous: EI$ the in$luence o$ this boo, leads men o$ the new generation to turn $rom (oetry to technology, $rom (ainting to the merchant marine, $rom e(istemology to (olitics, they are doing what I desire. ?ne could wish nothing better $or them.C ?ne can imagine the (eo(le to whom this sentence is obseBuiously addressed. S(engler shares their belie$ that it is high time $or young (eo(le to come to their senses. They are the same (eo(le who were later to ad4ocate Realpolitik. S(englerCs wrath against (aintings, (oems, and (hiloso(hy re4eals a (ro$ound $ear, the $ear that in
(age>6&

the EhistorylessC stage which he de(icts with horri$ied delight, when all E(olitical (roblemsC and (erha(s e4en the economy itsel$ will ha4e been done away with, culture, i$ not dis(osed o$ in time, might cease to be the harmless $aLade S(engler would li,e to demolish. "ulture might then e.(ose contradictions which a regimented economic system had allegedly eliminated. ?$$icial $ascist culture (ro4o,ed the laughter and incredulity o$ those u(on whom it was $orced, and much o$ the o((osition to, $ascism too, re$uge in boo,s, churches, and classical drama, all o$ which were tolerated because they were classics but which ceased to be classics once they were tolerated. S(englerCs 4erdict stri,es indiscriminately at o$$icial culture and at its o((ositeG e.(ressionism and the mo4ies are mentioned in one breath. The undi$$erentiated character o$ the 4erdict harmoni2es (er$ectly with the $rame o$ mind o$ those who hold (ower in the totalitarian states, those who des(ise their own lies hate the truth and cannot rest until there is no one le$t who dares to dream. The indi4idual disci(lines, es(ecially in the Anglo9Sa.on countries, usually see S(engler as a meta(hysician who 4iolates reality with his arbitrary conce(tual schemes. A$ter the idealists, who $eel that S(engler denied that the consciousness o$ $reedom had (rogressed, the (ositi4ists are S(englerCs most bitter o((onents. There is no doubt that his (hiloso(hy does 4iolence to the word, but it is the same 4iolence that it endures daily in reality. -istory, so $ull o$ li$e that (rogress was too mechanistic $or it, ne4ertheless seems all the more willing to $ree2e in accordance with the S(englerian scheme. Whether a

(hiloso(hy is meta(hysical or (ositi4istic cannot be decided at $irst glance. eta(hysicians are $reBuently only more $ar9sighted or less timid (ositi4ists. Is S(engler really the meta(hysician he and his enemies consider himJ I$ one remains on a $ormalistic le4el and considers the (redominance o$ conce(tuali2ation o4er em(irical content, the di$$iculty or im(ossibility o$ 4eri$ication, and the crudely irrational su((orting conce(ts o$ his e(istemology, he is. I$, howe4er, one e.amines the substance o$ these conce(ts, one is always led to the desiderata o$ (ositi4ism, in (articular, to the cult o$ the E$actC. S(engler ne4er misses an o((ortunity to de$ame the truth, whate4er it may be, and to glori$y that which sim(ly is what it is and nothing else, that which needs only to be registered and acce(ted. E. . . 3ut in historical reality there are no idealsG there are only $acts. There is no causation, no ;ustice, no eBuity, no goalG there are only $acts. Anyone who does not understand this may write boo,s about (olitics, but he should not meddle in (olitics itsel$.C S(engler turns an essentially critical insight 0 that truth has been
(age>66

im(otent in all (re4ious history, that the merely e.istent has tyranni2ed all attem(ts by consciousness to brea, out o$ its s(here o$ (ower 0 unobtrusi4ely into a ;usti$ication o$ the merely e.istent. The idea that something which e.ists, which has (ower, and which (er(etuates itsel$ could ne4ertheless be wrong ne4er occurs to himG or, rather, he con4ulsi4ely $orbids himsel$ and others to thin, such thoughts. -e is o4ercome with rage when he hears the 4oice o$ im(otence, and yet all he can say against it is that it is (owerless now and $ore4er. -egelCs theory that what is real is rational degenerates to a caricature. S(engler retains -egelCs critiBue o$ re$ormers and the (athos associated with his notion o$ a meaning$ul reality, but by thin,ing in categories o$ na,ed domination he denies reality any claim to meaning and rationality, the sole (ossible basis $or the -egelian (athos. The reason and unreason o$ history are the same $or S(engler 0 (ure domination 0 and $acts are that through which domination mani$ests itsel$. =iet2sche, whose domineering tone S(engler constantly imitates without e4er dissociating himsel$, as =iet2sche did, $rom com(licity with the world, obser4es at one (oint that %ant used scienti$ic means to de$end the common manCs (re;udices against science. Something similar a((lies to S(engler. -e used meta(hysical wea(ons to de$end (ositi4ismCs belie$ in $acts and its ability to ad;ust to the gi4en against the critical o((osition o$ meta(hysics. A second "omte, he made (ositi4ism into meta(hysics, subordination to the gi4en into, amor fati, swimming with the stream into cosmic tact, meaninglessness into mystery, and the denial o$ truth into truth itsel$. This is the source o$ his (ower. S(engler is one o$ the theoreticians o$ e.treme reaction whose critiBue o$ liberalism (ro4ed itsel$ su(erior in many res(ects to the (rogressi4e one. It would be worthwhile to in4estigate the reasons $or this. It is the di$$erences in the relationshi( to ideology which are decisi4e. To the adherents o$ dialectical materialism liberal ideology seemed $or the most (art a $alse (romise. Their s(o,esmen Buestioned not the ideas o$ humanity, $reedom, and ;ustice but rather the claim o$ bourgeois society to ha4e reali2ed those ideas. Ideologies were a((earances $or them, but the a((earance o$ truth ne4ertheless. As a result, i$ not the e.istent itsel$ at least its Eob;ecti4e tendenciesC were endowed with a conciliatory gloss. Tal, o$ the increase o$ antagonisms and the admission o$ a real (ossibility o$ a regression to barbarism were not ta,en seriously enough $or anyone to recogni2e ideologies as something worse than a(ologetic disguises, as the ob;ecti4e absurdity that aids the society o$ liberal com(etition to turn into a system o$ direct o((ression.
(age>6'

The Buestion, $or instance, o$ how the e.isting order was to be changed by the 4ery (eo(le who had to bear its $ull brunt was hardly e4er raised. "once(ts li,e mass and culture continued to be acce(ted in their (ositi4e sense, without anyone e4en sus(ecting the dialectic in4ol4ed, or the $act that the s(eci$ic category, mass, is a (roduct o$ the (resent (hase o$ society, or the simultaneous trans$ormation o$ culture into a system o$ regimentation. =o one recogni2ed that ideas in their abstract $orm do not sim(ly re(resent regulati4e truths but are themsel4es a$$licted with the in;ustice under whose s(ell they were concei4ed. The less interested those on the right were in the truth the ideologies contained, albeit in a $alse $orm, the more easily they were able to see through them. The ad4ocates o$ the strong, $or whom $reedom,

humanity, and ;ustice are nothing but a $raud de4ised by the wea, as (rotection against the strong Hin this belie$ reactionary 8erman theoreticians generally $ollowed =iet2scheI, ha4e no di$$iculty (ointing out the contradiction between ideas which are already ailing and reality. Their critiBue o$ ideologies outdoes itsel$. It re(laces insight into a bad reality with insight into the badness o$ ideas, su((osedly 4eri$ied by the $act that the ideas ha4e not yet been reali2ed. What gi4es this glib criticism its $orce is its (ro$ound com(licity with the (owers that be. S(engler and his li,e are not so much (ro(hets o$ the course the %eltgeist will ta,e as its diligent (romoters. /rognosis as such im(lies mani(ulationG human s(ontaneity is abolished. A theory which sees men and their actions as the decisi4e $actor, which no longer thin,s in terms o$ (olitical E(ower relationsC but rather would (ut an end to the (lay o$ such $orces, ma,es no (ro(hecies. S(engler says that it is necessary to calculate the un,nown in history as $ar as (ossible. 3ut it is (recisely the un,nown in man,ind that cannot be calculated. -istory is not an eBuation, an analytic ;udgment. To thin, o$ it this way is to e.clude $rom the 4ery outset the (ossibility o$ anything Bualitati4ely di$$erent, S(englerCs (rediction $or history is reminiscent o$ the myths o$ Tantalus and Sisy(hus and o$ the words o$ the oracle, which always announced e4il. -e is more soothsayer than (ro(het. In his gigantic and destructi4e soothsaying the (etty bourgeois celebrates his intellectual trium(h. The mor(hology o$ world history ser4es the same (ur(ose $or S(engler as gra(hology did $or %lages. The (etty9bourgeoisC desire to ha4e his $ortune told $rom handwriting, the (ast, or cards arises $rom the same trait which S(engler s(ite$ully attac,s in the 4ictimi2ed o$ e4ery ,ind: the renunciation o$ conscious sel$9determination.
(age>66

S(engler identi$ies with (ower, but the soothsaying as(ect o$ his theory re4eals the im(otence o$ identi$ication. -e is as sure o$ his case as is the hangman a$ter the 4erdict has been (ronounced. -is historical9(hiloso(hical world9$ormula immortali2es his own im(otence no less than that o$ the others. /erha(s this characteri2ation o$ S(englerCs mode o$ thought allows some more $undamental critical considerations. -is meta(hysics is (ositi4ist in its resignation to what is so and not otherwise, in its elimination o$ the category o$ (otentiality, and in its hatred o$ all thought that ta,es the (ossible seriously in its o((osition to the actual. At one decisi4e (oint, howe4er, S(engler brea,s through this (ositi4ism 0 so much so that some o$ his theological re4iewers $elt entitled to claim him as an ally. This is the conce(tion o$ the mo4ing $orce o$ history, o$ EsouldomC, o$ the enigmatic, thoroughly inward, ine.(licable Buality which sometimes a((ears in history in a (articular ty(e o$ man, or, as S(engler sometimes calls it, a EraceC. )es(ite his belie$ in $acts and his relati4istic s,e(ticism, S(engler introduces a meta(hysical (rinci(le as the ultimate e.(lanation o$ the historical dynamic, a (rinci(le which, as he o$ten asserted, is closely related to Feibni2Cs conce(t o$ entelechy, which 8oethe $ormulated as E gepr3gte Form, die le end sich ent&ickelt C NEmoulded $orm, which li4ing does un$oldCO. This meta(hysics o$ a collecti4e soul which de4elo(s and dies li,e a (lant (uts S(engler in the com(any o$ 4italist (hiloso(hers such as =iet2sche, Simmel, and (articularly 3ergson, whom he slanders. For S(engler, the tactician, discussion o$ soul and li$e is a welcome aid in branding materialism as shallowG in $act, howe4er, he ob;ects to it only because it is not su$$iciently (ositi4istic $or him and would li,e the world to be other than it is. 3ut the meta(hysics o$ EsouldomC has conseBuences more $ar9reaching than the merely tactical. ?ne could call it a latent (hiloso(hy o$ identity. With a little e.aggeration it could be said that $or S(engler the history o$ the world becomes a history o$ styleG manCs historical e.(eriences are as much a (roduct o$ his inner sel$ as are wor,s o$ art. The man o$ $acts $ails to recogni2e the role (layed by scarcity in history. The con$rontation o$ man with nature, which $irst (roduces the tendency to dominate nature, which in turn results in the domination o$ men by other men, is nowhere to be seen in the Decline of the %est. S(engler does not gras( the degree to which historical $atality, which absorbs all his attention, results $rom the need

to con$ront and trans$orm nature. -e sees history aesthetically. @conomics becomes a E$orm9worldC li,e art, a s(here
(age>67

which is the (ure e.(ression o$ a soul that is as it is, a s(here which constitutes itsel$ essentially inde(endently o$ the need to re(roduce li$e. It is no accident that in matters o$ economics S(engler remains a hel(less dilettante. -e s(ea,s o$ the omni(otence o$ money in the same tone that a (etty9bourgeois agitator would use to rant about the international cons(iracy on the stoc, mar,et. -e $ails to see that in economics the decisi4e $actor is not the medium o$ e.change but (roduction. -e is so $ascinated by the $aLade o$ money, which he calls its Esymbolic (owerC, that he mista,es the symbol $or the thing itsel$. 3latantly contradicting all their (rogrammes, he charges that the wor,ersC (arties want not to o4ercome money 4alues but to (ossess them. For him sla4e economy, industrial (roletariat, and mechani2ed economy are, as categories, not Bualitati4ely di$$erent $rom the (lastic arts, musical (oly(hony, and in$initesimal calculus. They dissol4e into signs o$ something inward. The connections S(engler establishes between the heterogeneous categories o$ image and reality o$ten shed sur(rising light on the unity o$ historical e(ochs, but by the same to,en e4erything which does not $reely and autonomously belong to the realm o$ human e.(ression tends to disa((ear in the (rocess. @4erything that cannot be reduced to a symbol o$ human nature, which, des(ite all his $atalism, S(engler endows with so4ereignty, sur4i4es only in 4ague re$erences to cosmic interconnections. Thus the $atalistic determinism o$ S(englerCs conce(tion o$ history masBuerades as the essence o$ a realm o$ $reedom. 3ut this is mere a((earance. The result is a highly (arado.ical constellation: (recisely because e4erything e.ternal becomes an image o$ the internal and because the crucial Buestion no longer in4ol4es a real (rocess between sub;ect and ob;ect, the world seems to grow organically out o$ the substance o$ the soul li,e a (lant $rom a seed. 3y reducing history to the essence o$ the soul, S(engler gi4es it the a((earance o$ a sel$9contained entity, yet one which $or that 4ery reason is actually deterministic. In his article in the S(engler issue o$ 5ogos, %arl 1oel wrote that Ethe whole sic,ness o$ this signi$icant boo,C is Ethat it has $orgotten man with his (roducti4ity and $reedom. )es(ite all internali2ation, he dehumani2es history and ma,es it into a seBuence o$ ty(ical natural (rocesses. Although he in$uses it with soul, he ma,es history into something cor(oreal by aiming at its mor(hology, its (hysiognomics, and thus at a com(arison o$ its e.ternal con$igurations, its $orms o$ e.(ression, the (articular $eatures o$ its (henomena.C It is not Edes(ite all internali2ationC, howe4er, but (recisely be9
(age>65

cause o$ it that history is dehumani2ed. =ature, with which men ha4e had to struggle in history, is disdain$ully (ushed aside by S(englerCs (hiloso(hy. Thus history becomes trans$ormed into a second nature, as blind, closed, and $ate$ul as any 4egetable li$e. What can be called human $reedom constitutes itsel$ solely in manCs e$$orts to brea, the bondage o$ nature. I$ this is ignored, i$ the world is treated as a (ure mani$estation o$ the (ure essence o$ man, $reedom becomes lost in the e.clusi4ely human character o$ history. Freedom de4elo(s only through the resistance o$ the e.istentG i$ $reedom is (osited as absolute and souldom is raised to a go4erning (rinci(le, that (rinci(le itsel$ $alls (rey to the merely e.istent. The hybris o$ S(englerCs conce(tion o$ history and his debasement o$ man are actually one and the same thing. "ulture is not, as S(engler asserts, the li$e o$ collecti4e souls in the (rocess o$ un$olding themsel4esG rather, it arises in menCs struggle to acBuire the means to re(roduce themsel4es. "ulture thus contains an element o$ resistance to blind necessity 0 the will to determine onesel$ on the basis o$ ,nowledge. S(engler se4ers culture $rom man,indCs dri4e to sur4i4e. For him it becomes a game in which the soul is its own (laymate. -e eBuates the (hantasm o$ culture, a (roduct o$ (ure inwardness, with the real $orces o$ history, indeed, with natural $orces, since all others are e.cluded along with the reality against which they might be tested.

Thus S(englerCs 4ery idealism becomes subser4ient to his (hiloso(hy o$ (ower. "ulture becomes an immanent (art o$ dominationG the (rocess which begins and ends in mere inwardness becomes destiny, and history disintegrates to the timelessness o$ the aimless rise and $all o$ cultures, which S(engler blames on the late ci4ili2ations and which $orms the basis o$ his own world9(lan. The element in culture which resists being tra((ed in nature is ignored. /ure EsouldomC and (ure domination are the same thing, ;ust as S(englerCs soul brutally and im(lacably dominates its bearers. Aeal history is ideologically trans$igured into a history o$ the soul in order to bring what is antithetical and rebellious in man, consciousness, all the more com(letely under the sway o$ blind necessity. S(engler (ro4ides a $inal demonstration o$ the a$$inity between absolute idealism 0 his doctrine o$ the soul stems $rom Schelling 0 and demonic mythology. -is (ro(ensity $or mythological modes o$ thought can be gras(ed at certain eccentric (oints. The regular (eriodicity o$ certain e4ents, he writes in a $ootnote in the second 4olume, Eis yet another indication that the cosmic surgings in the $orm o$ human li$e on a small (lanet are not something
(age>6!

sel$9contained but rather stand in (ro$ound harmony with the unending mo4ement o$ the uni4erse. In a small but noteworthy boo, by A. ewes, Die 0riegs und *eistesperioden im -9lkerle en und -erk!ndigung des n3chsten %eltkrieges NPeriods of %ar and of 7ntellect in the 5ives of Peoples and the Annunciation of the Ne't %orld %ar H#5!6I, the relationshi( o$ (eriods o$ war to those o$ the weather, sun9s(ots, and certain (lanetary con;unctions is established and accordingly a great war is $oretold $or #!#: #!<:. 3ut these and innumerable other connections which are accessible to our senses conceal a mystery we ha4e to res(ect.C )es(ite his contem(t $or ci4ili2ed mysticism, S(engler comes 4ery close to astrological su(erstition in such $ormulations. They are the terminal (oint in the glori$ication o$ the soul. The return o$ what is always the same, in which such a doctrine o$ $ate terminates, is, howe4er, nothing but the (er(etual re(roduction o$ manCs guilt towards man. The conce(t o$ $ate, which sub;ects man to blind domination, re$lects the domination e.ercised by men. Whene4er S(engler s(ea,s o$ $ate he means the sub;ugation o$ one grou( o$ men by another. The meta(hysics o$ the soul assists his (ositi4ism by hy(ostasi2ing the (rinci(le o$ relentlessly sel$9(er(etuating domination as something eternal and ine.orable. In reality the ine.orability o$ $ate is de$ined through domination and in;ustice, and it is this that is absol4ed by S(englerCs world9order. In his system ;ustice a((ears as the (roscribed antithesis to $ate. In one o$ the most brutal, (assages in his wor,, an unintended (arody o$ =iet2sche, S(engler laments Ethat the world9$eeling $or race, the (olitical and thus national sense $or $actsCCmy country, right or wrongKthe decision to be the sub;ect and not the ob;ect o$ historical de4elo(ment H$or there is no third (ossibilityI, in short, the will to (ower, should be o4ercome by a trend whose standard9bearers are o$ten men without any originality but there$ore all the more obsessed with logic, at home in a world o$ truths, ideas, and uto(ias, men o$ boo,s who belie4e that they can re(lace the real with the logical, the $orce o$ $acts with abstract ;ustice, $ate with reason. It begins with men who are always a$raid, who retreat $rom reality into cloisters, cells, studies, and intellectual communities, who declare that world history is a matter o$ indi$$erence, and ends, in e4ery ci4ili2ation, with the a(ostles o$ world9(eace. @4ery (eo(le (roduces such 0 historically s(ea,ing 0 waste (roducts. /hysiognomically, e4en their heads constitute a grou( a(art. In the history o$ the mind they occu(y a high (lace 0 many illustrious names are numbered among them 0 but $rom the stand(oint o$ actual history they are in$erior.C
(age>7:

To answer S(engler on his own terms would be to o4ercome historically the Estand(oint o$ actual historyC, which is not history but nature in a bad sense, and to trans$orm what is historically (ossible into reality, something S(engler deems im(ossible because it has not yet been done. 1ames ShotwellCs critiBue (enetrates uncom(romisingly to the cru. o$ the matter: EWinter $ollowed Autumn in the (ast because li$e was re(etiti4e and was (assed within limited areas o$ sel$9contained economy. Intercourse between societies was more (redatory than stimulati4e because man,ind had not yet disco4ered the means to maintain culture without an un;ust de(endence u(on those who had no share in its material blessings.

From the sa4age raid and sla4ery down to the industrial (roblems o$ today, the recurring ci4ili2ations ha4e been largely built u(on $alse economic $orces, bac,ed u( by eBually $alse moral and religious casuistry. The ci4ili2ations that ha4e come and gone ha4e been inherently lac,ing in eBuilibrium because they ha4e built u(on the in;ustice o$ e.(loitation. There is no reason to su((ose that modern ci4ili2ation must ine4itably re(eat this cataclysmic rhythm.C This insight can e.(lode S(englerCs entire conce(tion o$ history. I$ the decline o$ antiBuity were dictated by the autonomous necessity o$ li$e and by the e.(ression o$ its EsoulC, then it would indeed assume the as(ect o$ $ate, and $atalistic traits could easily be trans$erred to the contem(orary situation. I$, howe4er, as ShotwellCs obser4ations im(ly, the decline o$ antiBuity is to be understood in terms, o$ its un(roducti4e system o$ lati$undia and the related sla4e economy, then $ate can be mastered i$ these and similar $orms o$ domination can be o4ercome, and S(englerCs uni4ersal structure re4eals itsel$ to be a $alse analogy drawn $rom a bad but uniBue occurrence. To be sure, this in4ol4es more than mere $aith in continuous (rogress and the sur4i4al o$ culture. S(engler stressed the (rimiti4e nature o$ culture so em(hatically that all naM4e trust in its conciliatory (ower should ha4e been swe(t away now once and $or all. -e demonstrates more stri,ingly than almost anyone else the way the (rimiti4e nature o$ culture always im(els it towards decay and the way culture itsel$, as $orm and order, is in com(licity with blind domination, which, $ore4er in crisis, is always (rone to annihilate itsel$ and its 4ictims. "ulture bears the mar, o$ deathG to deny this would be to remain im(otent be$ore S(engler, who betrayed as many o$ the secrets o$ culture as did -itler those o$ (ro(aganda. To esca(e the charmed circle o$ S(englerCs mor(hology it is not enough to de$ame barbarism and rely on the health o$ culture. S(engler could laugh in the $ace o$ such bliss$ul con$idence. Aather, it is the barbaric element in culture itsel$ which must be recogni2ed.
(age>7#

The only considerations that ha4e a chance o$ sur4i4ing S(englerCs 4erdict are those which challenge the idea o$ culture as well as the reality o$ barbarism. S(englerCs (lantli,e cultural soul, the 4ital Ebeing9in9 $ormC, the unconscious archaic world o$ symbols whose e.(ressi4e $orce into.icates him 0 all these signs o$ a sel$9glori$ying li$e are actually harbingers o$ doom whene4er they a((ear in reality. For they all testi$y to the coercion and sacri$ice which culture im(oses on man. To rely on them and deny the decline is to become e4en more $irmly caught in its $atal coils. It is also to see, to restore that on which history has already (ronounced ;udgment. For S(engler it is the last ;udgment. In e.ecuting it, howe4er, history restores that which has been right$ully condemned, its rights as something irre4ocably (ast. S(englerCs hunterCs eye, which mercilessly scrutini2es the cities o$ man,ind as though they were the wilderness they really are, o4erloo,s one thing 0 the $orces released by decay. :%ie scheint doch alles &erdende so krank) sick seems all ecomingCO 8eorg Tra,lCs line transcends S(englerCs landsca(e. In a world o$ brutal and o((ressed li$e, decadence becomes the re$uge o$ a (otentially better li$e by renouncing its allegiance to this one and to its culture, its crudeness, and its sublimity. The (owerless, who at S(englerCs command are to be thrown aside and annihilated by history, are the negati4e embodiment within the negati4ity o$ this culture o$ e4erything which (romises, howe4er $eebly, to brea, the dictatorshi( o$ culture and (ut an end to the horror o$ (re9history. In their (rotest lies the only ho(e that $ate and (ower will not ha4e the last word. What can o((ose the decline o$ the west is not a resurrected culture but the uto(ia that is silently contained in the image o$ its decline.
(age>7<

1eb%en2s #3ack on C)%t)re

(age>7&

*eblenCs Theory of the 5eisure 6lass became $amous $or its doctrine o$ cons(icuous consum(tion, according to which the consum(tion o$ goods, $rom the 4ery early E(redatoryC stage o$ history to the (resent, has ser4ed not so much to satis$y menCs true needs or to (ro4ide what *eblen chooses to call the E$ullness o$ li$eC as to maintain social (restigeSstatus. With res(ect to aesthetics, the conclusions *eblen deri4es $rom his critiBue o$ consum(tion as mere ostentation are 4ery close to those o$ $unctionalism, which Adol$ Foos $ormulated at about the same time. Where the (ractical is concerned they resemble those o$ technocracy. 3ut although these are the elements in *eblenCs sociology which were historically e$$ecti4e, they do not adeBuately describe the ob;ecti4e im(ulses o$ his thought, which are directed against the barbaric character o$ culture. Again and again, $rom the $irst sentence o$ his wor,, the e.(ression Ebarbarian cultureC a((ears, immobile, li,e a ritual mas,. -e uses the term to re$er s(eci$ically to one (hase o$ history, an unusually broad one to be sure, e.tending $rom the archaic hunter and warrior to the $eudal lord and the absolute monarch, a (hase whose boundary with the ca(italist (eriod is (ur(osely le$t unclear. In innumerable (laces, howe4er, it is unmista,ably his intention to denounce the modern as barbaric (recisely where it most em(hatically raises the claim to culture. According to *eblen the 4ery $eatures which seem to (ro4e that modernity has esca(ed the (rinci(le o$ un4arnished necessity and become humane are relics o$ historical e(ochs long (ast. For him emanci(ation $rom the realm o$ utility is nothing but the inde. o$ a (ur(oselessness arising $rom the $act that cultural EinstitutionsC and anthro(ological characteristics do not change simultaneously and in harmony with the means o$ (roduction but rather lag behind them and at times come into o(en contradiction with them. I$ one $ollows the direction o$ *eblenCs thoughts instead o$ concentrating on his $ormulations, which wa4er between the 4itriolic and the cautious, one arri4es at the conce(tion that those characteristics o$ culture in which greed, the search $or (ersonal ad4antage, and con$inement in mere immediacy a((ear
(age>7'

to ha4e been o4ercome are nothing but residues o$ ob;ecti4ely obsolete $orms o$ greed, (ersonal ambition, and bad immediacy. They originate in the need to (ro4e that crude (ractical considerations ha4e been dis(ensed with, to (ro4e, in (articular, that one can s(end oneCs time: on the useless in order to im(ro4e oneCs (osition in the social hierarchy, increase oneCs social honour, and, $inally, strengthen oneCs (ower o4er others. "ulture turns against utility $or the sa,e o$ a mediated utility. It is mar,ed by the li$e9lie. In trac,ing down this lie *eblen dis(lays a (ersistence not unli,e that o$ his contem(orary, Freud, in his in4estigation o$ the Edregs o$ the world o$ (henomenaC. Under *eblenCs gloomy ga2e, lawn and wal,ing9stic,, um(ire and domestic animal become re4ealing allegories o$ the barbarism o$ culture. It was as much this method as the contents o$ his teaching that led (eo(le to de$ame *eblen as a cra2y and destructi4e outsider. As a (ro$essor in "hicago he e4en created an academic scandal which ended in his dismissal. At the same time, howe4er, his theories ha4e been assimilated. Today they $ind wide o$$icial recognition, and, li,e FreudCs, his stri,ing terminology has (enetrated into ;ournalism. ?ne sees here the ob;ecti4e tendency to disarm a tiresome o((onent by gi4ing him a warm rece(tion. *eblenCs thought, howe4er, is not com(letely out o$ harmony with such a rece(tionG he is less an outsider than he seems at $irst sight. In (ursuing his intellectual genealogy one would need to name three sources. The $irst and most im(ortant is American (ragmatism. *eblen belongs to the older, )arwinistically inclined tradition in it. EThe li$e o$ man in society,C the central cha(ter o$ his main wor, begins, E;ust li,e the li$e o$ other s(ecies, is a struggle $or e.istence, and there$ore it is a (rocess o$ selecti4e ada(tation. The e4olution o$ social structure has been a (rocess o$ natural selection o$ institutions. The (rogress which has been made and is being made in human institutions and in human character may be set down, broadly, to a natural selection o$ the $ittest habits o$ thought and to a (rocess o$ en$orced ada(tation o$ indi4iduals to an en4ironment which has (rogressi4ely changed with the growth o$ the community and with the changing institutions

under which men ha4e li4ed.C The conce(t o$ ada(tation or ad;ustment is central. an is sub;ected to li$e as to the e.(erimental conditions set down by some un,nown laboratory director, and he is e.(ected to ad;ust to the natural and historical conditions im(osed u(on him in such a way that he has a chance to sur4i4e. The truth o$ thought is ;udged according to whether or not it ser4es this ada(tation and contributes to the sur4i4al o$ the s(ecies. *eblenCs critiBue always begins at (oints where this ada(tation is
(age>76

incom(lete. -e is well aware o$ the di$$iculties the doctrine o$ ada(tation encounters in the social realmG he ,nows that the conditions to which men must ada(t are themsel4es a (roduct o$ society, that there is an interaction between the internal and the e.ternal, and that ada(tation may wor, to rein$orce rei$ied conditions. This insight $orces him to re$ine and modi$y his doctrine continually, but he rarely reaches the (oint o$ Buestioning the absolute necessity o$ ad;ustment itsel$. /rogress is ada(tation and nothing else. *eblen stubbornly re$uses to see that the inner constitution o$ this conce(t and its dignity could be Bualitati4ely di$$erent in the case o$ conscious beings than they are in the blind world o$ nature. The harmony o$ this $undamental (osition with the intellectual climate in which *eblen $ound himsel$ greatly $acilitated the rece(tion o$ his heresies. The s(eci$ic content o$ his ad;ustment theory, howe4er, has a second source in an older 4ariety o$ (ositi4ism, the school o$ St. Simon, "omte, and S(encer. The world to which, according to *eblen, men are su((osed to ad;ust is that o$ industrial technology With St. Simon and "omte, *eblen (roclaims its su(remacy. For his (rogress means, concretely, the ada(tation o$ the $orms o$ consciousness and o$ Eli$eC, that is, the s(here o$ economic consum(tion, to those o$ industrial technology. The means to this ad;ustment is science. *eblen concei4es o$ it as the uni4ersal a((lication o$ the (rinci(le o$ causality, in o((osition to 4estigial animism. "ausal thin,ing is $or him the trium(h o$ ob;ecti4e, Buantitati4e relations, (atterned a$ter industrial (roduction, o4er (ersonalistic and anthro(omor(hic conce(tions. Abo4e all, the notion o$ teleology is strictly e.cluded. The conce(tion o$ history as slow and irregular but inherently continuous (rogress in ad;usting to the world and demysti$ying it corres(onds to a classi$icatory theory o$ stages not unli,e "omteCs. In this conte.t *eblen occasionally gi4es indications that he e.(ects the coming (hase to witness the abolition o$ (ri4ate (ro(erty. This (oints to ar. as his third source. *eblenCs attitude towards ar.ism is contro4ersial. The ob;ect o$ his critiBue is not the (olitical economy o$ bourgeois society seen in terms o$ its $oundations but the uneconomic li$e o$ that society. -is continual recourse to (sychology and Ehabits o$ thoughtC to e.(lain economic $acts is incom(atible with the ar.ian theory o$ ob;ecti4e 4alue. =e4ertheless, *eblen incor(orated as many o$ the secondary theories o$ ar.ism into his basically (ragmatic (osition as he could. S(eci$ic categories li,e cons(icuous waste and re4ersion also originate there. The notion o$ a ,ind o$ consum(tion which e.ists not $or its own sa,e but as a re$lection o$ the social Bualities o$
(age>77

e.change9ob;ects is related to the ar.ian theory o$ commodity $etishism. The thesis o$ re4ersion, the com(ulsi4e regression to obsolete $orms o$ consciousness under the (ressure o$ economic conditions, is at least indebted to ar.. In *eblen, as in )ewey, the attem(t to gras( the (rocess o$ human ad;ustment, which is concei4ed (ragmatically, (roduces dialectical moti$s. -is thin,ing is an amalgam o$ (ositi4ism and historical materialism. Such a $ormula, howe4er, o$$ers relati4ely little insight into the heart o$ *eblenCs theory. What is crucial is the $orce which dri4es these moti$s together in his theory. *eblenCs basic e.(erience may be characteri2ed as that o$ (seudo9uniBueness. As the mass (roduction and centrally organi2ed distribution o$ goods which are all basically similar ad4ances, and as the technological and economic $ramewor, o$ li$e increasingly e.cludes the indi4iduation o$ the here and now based on hand9(roduction, the a((earance o$ the here and now, that which cannot be re(laced by countless other ob;ects, becomes an im(osture. It is as i$ in claiming to be something s(ecial and uniBue 0 and this claim must be constantly e.aggerated in the interest o$ sales 0 each ob;ect were moc,ing a condition in which all men are sub;ugated to an order whose (rinci(le is

more o$ the same. *eblen cannot bear this moc,ery. 3itterly, he insists that the world (resent itsel$ in that abstract sameness o$ its ob;ects which is (redetermined by the underlying economic conditions. When *eblen argues $or a rational organi2ation o$ consum(tion, he is actually demanding nothing less than that mass (roduction, $or which the (urchaser is $rom the outset an ob;ect o$ calculation, re4eal its true colours in the s(here o$ consum(tion. =ow that such (hrases as Edeliciously di$$erentC and EBuaintC ha4e become standard $ormulas in ad4ertising, *eblenCs insight is ob4ious. -e was the $irst, howe4er, to reach it s(ontaneously. -e recogni2ed the (seudo9indi4iduality o$ things long be$ore technology had snu$$ed out real indi4iduality. -e saw sham uniBueness in the intrinsic inconsistency o$ the ob;ects themsel4es, in the contradiction between their $orm and their $unction. At the ris, o$ e.aggerating, one could say that the ,itsch o$ the nineteenth century, in the $orm o$ ostentation, # a((eared to him as the image o$ $uture tyranny. -e saw a side o$ ,itsch which esca(ed aesthetic critics but which hel(s e.(lain the shoc,ingly catastro(hic e.(ression which so many nineteenth9century buildings and interiors ha4e assumed today 0 the loo, o$ o((ression.
#. Its economic basis should be (recisely determined. That ,ind o$ (resentation might well stem $rom the necessity to de(ict onesel$ as a good ris, with a high credit rating. This necessity could re$lect the scarcity o$ ca(ital during (eriods o$ e.(ansion. (age>75

In *eblenCs eyes the ornamentation becomes menacing as it becomes increasingly similar to old models o$ re(ression. =owhere does he indicate this more stri,ingly than in a discussion o$ the buildings which house charitable institutions: E"ertain $unds, $or instance, may ha4e been set a(art as a $oundation $or a $oundling asylum or a retreat $or in4alids. The di4ersion o$ e.(enditure to honori$ic waste in such cases is not uncommon enough to cause sur(rises or e4en to raise a smile. An a((reciable share o$ the $unds is s(ent in the construction o$ an edi$ice $aced with some aesthetically ob;ectionable but e.(ensi4e stone, co4ered with grotesBue and incongruous details, and designed, in its battlemented walls and turrets and its massi4e (ortals and strategic a((roaches, to suggest certain barbaric Emethods o$ war$are.C *eblen uses this em(hasis on the threatening as(ects o$ magni$icence and ornamentation to su((ort his (hiloso(hy o$ history. For his belie$ in (rogress, the images o$ aggressi4e barbarism which he saw in nineteenth9century ,itsch, and (articularly in the decorati4e e$$orts o$ the years a$ter #57:, re(resented relics o$ (ast e(ochs or indications o$ the regression o$ those who were not (roducing anything, those e.em(t $rom (artici(ation in the industrial labour9(rocess. 3ut the things *eblen calls archaic characteristics are at the same time indications o$ the dawning horror. -is sad inner4ation disa4ows his o(timistic outloo,. The $orm human history too, $or him antici(ated its most terrible (hase. The shoc, he e.(erienced in seeing the $ortress9li,e $oundlingsC home became an historical $orce in the "olumbus -ouse, the =ational SocialistsC neo9$unctional torture chamber. *eblen hy(ostasi2es total domination. For him all culture becomes the distorted image o$ na,ed horror. -is $ascination with the im(ending doom e.(lains and ;usti$ies the in;ustice he does culture. "ulture, which today has assumed the character o$ ad4ertising, was ne4er anything $or *eblen but ad4ertising, a dis(lay o$ (ower, loot, and (ro$it. With s(lendid misanthro(y he ignores e4erything that goes beyond this. The mote in his eye becomes a means o$ (ercei4ing the bloody traces o$ in;ustice e4en in images o$ ha((iness. In the name o$ the right to unlimited dis(osition o4er human history, the metro(olis o$ the nineteenth century assembled a dece(ti4e collection o$ (illars $rom Attic tem(les, 8othic cathedrals, and the arrogant (alaces o$ Italian city9states. *eblen (ays it bac,G $or him the real tem(les, (alaces, and cathedrals are already as $alse as the imitations. World history is the worldCs $air. *eblen e.(lains culture in terms o$ ,itsch, not 4ice94ersa. -is generali2ation o$ a situation in which culture is consumed by ad4ertising has been concisely $ormulated by Stuart "lass: E/eo(le abo4e the line o$ bare subsistence, in this age and
(age>7!

all earlier ages, do not use sur(lus, which society has gi4en them, (rimarily $or use$ul (ur(oses.C 3y Eall earlier agesC is meant e4erything unli,e the business culture o$ the most recent age 0 the belie$ in the real (ower o$ ritual (ractices, the im(ulse o$ se.uality and its symbolism Hse.uality is not mentioned once in

the entire Theory of the 5eisure 6lass I, the com(ulsion to artistic e.(ression, all yearning to esca(e the ensla4ement to utility. Against his will, the (ragmatist, mortal enemy o$ teleological s(eculation, (roceeds according to the scheme o$ a satanic teleology. -is ingenious intelligence does not shrin, $rom using the crudest rationalism to e.(ose the uni4ersal domination o$ the $etish o4er the ostensible realm o$ $reedom. Under his attac, the concretion which im(oses unity on the monotony o$ that which is nature9bound is (er4erted to a mass9(roduced article which $alsely claims to be concrete. *eblenCs e4il eye is $ertile. It stri,es (henomena which are o4erloo,ed or deemed harmless when one does not linger o4er them but merely dis(enses with them $rom abo4e as nothing more than the $aLade o$ society. ?ne o$ these (henomena is s(orts. *eblen bluntly characteri2ed e4ery ,ind o$ s(ort, $rom childrenCs contest and college gymnastics to the grand athletic (ageants which subseBuently blossomed in the dictatorshi(s o$ both 4arieties, as outbursts o$ 4iolence, o((ression, and the (redatory s(irit. EThese mani$estations o$ the (redatory tem(erament are all to be classed under the head o$ e.(loit. They are (artly sim(le and unre$lected e.(ressions o$ an attitude o$ emulati4e $erocity, (artly acti4ities deliberately entered u(on with a 4iew to gaining re(ute $or (rowess. S(orts o$ all ,inds are o$ the same general character.C According to *eblen, the (assion $or s(orts is o$ a regressi4e nature: EThe ground o$ an addiction to s(orts is an archaic s(iritual constitution.C 3ut nothing is more modern than this archaismG athletic e4ents were the models $or totalitarian mass rallies. As tolerated e.cesses, they combine cruelty and aggression with an authoritarian moment, the disci(lined obser4ance o$ the rules 0 legality, as in the (ogroms o$ =a2i 8ermany and the (eo(leCs re(ublics. *eblen senses the a$$inity between the e.cesses o$ athletics and the mani(ulating elite: EI$ a (erson so endowed with a (rocli4ity $or e.(loits is in a (osition to guide the de4elo(ment o$ habits in the adolescent members o$ the community, the in$luence which he e.erts in the direction o$ conser4ation and re4ersion to (rowess may be 4ery considerable. This is the signi$icance, $or instance, o$ the $ostering care latterly bestowed by many clergymen and other (illars o$ society u(on Qboys brigadesK and similar (seudo9military organi2ations.C -is insight e.tends e4en $urther. -e recogni2es s(orts as (seudo9acti4ity, as the channelling
(age>5:

o$ energies which could otherwise become dangerous, as the endowing o$ meaningless acti4ity with a s(ecious seriousness and signi$icance. The less one su$$ers $rom economic constraint, the more one $eels im(elled to create the semblance o$ serious, socially re(utable and ne4ertheless non9(ro$it acti4ity. At the same time, howe4er, s(orts suits the aggressi4e and (ractical (redatory s(irit. It (ro4ides a common denominator $or the con$licting desires to act (ur(ose$ully and to waste time. 3ut it thus becomes $raudulent, ma,e9belie4e. *eblenCs analyses, o$ course, should be e.(anded. For s(orts includes not merely the dri4e to do 4iolence to others but also the wish to be attac,ed onesel$ and su$$er. ?nly *eblenCs rationalist (sychology (re4ents him $rom seeing the masochistic moment in s(orts. It is this which ma,es s(orts not so much a relic o$ a (re4ious $orm o$ society as (erha(s an initial ad;ustment to its menacing new $orm 0 as o((osed to *eblenCs com(laint that the EinstitutionsC ha4e remained behind the industrial s(irit, which, o$ course, he limits to technology. odern s(orts, one will (erha(s say, see, to restore to the body some o$ the $unctions o$ which the machine has de(ri4ed it. 3ut they do so only in order to train men all the more ine.orably to ser4e the machine. -ence s(orts along to the realm o$ un$reedom, no matter where they are organi2ed. Another com(le. in *eblenCs critiBue o$ culture, one which seems less to(ical, is the so9called woman Buestion. 3ecause the $inal emanci(ation o$ women was so sel$9e4ident to socialist (rogrammes, there seems $or a long time to ha4e been no need to thin, through the concrete (osition o$ women. Since Shaw the woman Buestion has been regarded as comical in bourgeois literature. Strindberg (er4erted it to the Buestion o$ men, ;ust as -itler shi$ted the em(hasis $rom the emanci(ation o$ the 1ews to the emanci(ation $rom the 1ews. The im(ossibility o$ liberating women under the (resent conditions is attributed not to the conditions but to the ad4ocates o$ $reedom, and the $railty o$ emanci(atory ideals, which brings them dose to neurosis, is con$used with their reali2ation. The o(en9minded o$$ice gi$t who is satis$ied with the world as long as she can go to the mo4ies with her date has su((lanted =ora and -edda,

and i$ she ,new about them she would re(roach them in chic (hrases $or being unrealistic. -er counter(art is the man who ma,es use o$ his erotic $reedom only to ta,e his (artner coldly and ;oylessly in her obtuse com(liance and then show his gratitude by deriding her all the more cynically. *eblen, who has much in common with Ibsen, is (erha(s the last thin,er o$ note who does not a4oid the woman Buestion. As a late a(ologist o$ the $eminist mo4ement he has absorbed the e.(eriences o$ Strindberg. For *eblen
(age>5#

woman becomes as a social (henomenon what she is $or hersel$ (sychologically 0 a wound. -e (ercei4es her (atriarchal humiliation. -e com(ares her (osition, which he includes among the relics $rom the (eriod o$ the hunter and the warrior, to that o$ the ser4ant. Free time and lu.ury are allotted her only to strengthen the status o$ the master. This im(lies two contradictory conseBuences. Ta,ing some liberties with *eblenCs te.t, one might state them as $ollows: on the one hand, (recisely by 4irtue o$ her debased situation as Esla4eC and ob;ect o$ ostentation, the woman is in a certain sense e.em(ted $rom E(ractical li$eC. She is, or at least still was in *eblenCs time, less e.(osed to economic com(etition than the man. In certain social strata and in certain e(ochs she was (rotected $rom the necessity o$ de4elo(ing those Bualities which *eblen describes under the general heading o$ the (redatory s(irit. 3y 4irtue o$ her distance $rom the (rocess o$ (roduction she retains certain traits which characteri2e the human being who is not yet entirely in the gras( o$ society. Thus women belonging to the u((er social strata seem most ready to turn their bac,s on their class. ?((osed to this, howe4er, is a counter9tendency the most (rominent sym(tom o$ which *eblen designates as the conser4atism o$ woman. She rarely ta,es (art as sub;ect in historical de4elo(ment. The state o$ de(endence to which she is con$ined mutilates her. This counterbalances the o((ortunity o$$ered her by her e.clusion $rom economic com(etition. easured against the manCs s(here o$ intellectual interests, e4en that o$ those men absorbed in the barbarism o$ business, most women $ind themsel4es in a mental state which *eblen does not hesitate to term imbecilic. Following this line o$ thought, one might reach the conclusion that women ha4e esca(ed the s(here o$ (roduction only to be absorbed all the more entirely by the s(here o$ consum(tion, to be ca(ti4ated by the immediacy o$ the commodity world no less than men are trans$i.ed by the immediacy o$ (ro$it. Women mirror the in;ustice masculine society has in$licted on them 0 they become increasingly li,e commodities. *eblenCs insight indicates a change in the uto(ia o$ emanci(ation. -o(e cannot aim at ma,ing the mutilated social character o$ women identical to the mutilated social character o$ menG rather, its goal must be a state in which the $ace o$ the grie4ing woman disa((ears simultaneously with that o$ the bustling, ca(able man, a state in which all that sur4i4es the disgrace o$ the di$$erence between the se.es is the ha((iness that di$$erence ma,es (ossible. *eblen, to be sure, did not draw these conseBuences. )es(ite his 4ague tal, about the E$ulness o$ li$eC, his image o$ society is based not on the ideal o$ ha((iness but on that o$ wor,. -a((iness
(age>5<

enters his $ield o$ 4ision only as the $ul$ilment o$ the Ewor, instinctC, his su(reme anthro(ological category. -e is a (uritan malgr; luim2me. While he ne4er tires o$ attac,ing taboos, his criticism sto(s at the sacredness o$ wor,. -is critiBue has something o$ the (aternal (latitude which asserts that culture is not su$$iciently (roud o$ its own wor, but instead ta,es e.cessi4e (ride in being e.cluded $rom wor,, in leisure. As its guilty conscience, he con$ronts society with its own (rinci(le o$ utility and (ro4es to it that according to this (rinci(le culture is both a waste and a swindle, so irrational that it raises doubts about the rationality o$ the whole system. *eblen has something o$ the bourgeois who ta,es the admonition to be thri$ty with grim seriousness. Thus all o$ culture becomes $or him the meaningless ostentatious dis(lay ty(ical o$ the ban,ru(t. Through his single9minded (ersistence in this one theme he unmas,s the absurdity o$ a social (rocess which can sur4i4e only by ma,ing E$alse calculationsC at e4ery ste( and constructing labyrinths o$ dece(tion and illusion. 3ut *eblen had to (ay $or his method. -e idoli2es the s(here o$ (roduction. -is theory im(lies a distinction li,e that between (redatory and (roducti4e ca(ital in bourgeois economics. -e distinguishes between two categories o$ modern economic Einstitutions: (ecuniary and industrialC. -e di4ides human occu(ations accordingly, and the modes o$ beha4iour which su((osedly corres(ond to

these occu(ations as well: ESo $ar as menCs habits o$ thought are sha(ed by the com(etiti4e (rocess o$ acBuisition and tenureG so $ar as their economic $unctions are com(rised within the range o$ ownershi( o$ wealth as concei4ed in terms o$ e.change 4alue, and its management and $inanciering through a (ermutation o$ 4aluesG so $ar their e.(erience in economic li$e $a4ours the sur4i4al and accentuation o$ the (redatory tem(erament and habits o$ thought.C 3y $ailing to gras( the social (rocess as a totality, *eblen arri4es at a distinction between (roducti4e and non(roducti4e $unctions. -is (rimary target in ma,ing this distinction is the irrational mechanisms o$ distribution, as is e4ident in his tal, o$ Ethat class o$ (ersons and that range o$ duties in the economic (rocess which ha4e to do with the ownershi( o$ enter(rises engaged in com(etiti4e industryG es(ecially those $undamental lines o$ economic management which are classed as $inanciering o(erations. To these may be added the greater (art o$ mercantile o(erations.C ?nly in the light o$ this distinction does it become clear what *eblenCs ob;ection to the leisure class really is. It is not so much the (ressure it e.erts on the others as the $act that there is not enough (ressure on it to satis$y his (uritanical wor, ethos. -e begrudges it its chance to esca(e, grotesBue though that chance is.
(age>5&

The $act that the economically inde(endent are not yet wholly within the gri( o$ the necessities o$ li$e seems archaic to him: EAn archaic habit o$ mind (ersists because no e$$ectual economic (ressure constrains this class to an ada(tation o$ its habits o$ thought to the changing situationC 0 an ada(tation, it should be noted, that *eblen constantly ad4ocates. The counter9moti$, it is true, leisure as the (recondition o$ humanity, is not alien to him. 3ut here an a9theoretical, (luralistic scheme o$ thought (re4ails. Feisure and waste are granted their rights, but only EaestheticallyCG as economist *eblen will ha4e nothing to do with them. ?ne should not o4erloo, the contem(t $or the aesthetic im(lied in such a di4ision. The Buestion o$ what EeconomicC means $or *eblen becomes thereby all the more im(erati4e. The (roblem is not the e.tent to which *eblenCs writings can be included in the disci(line o$ economics but rather the meaning o$ his own conce(tion o$ economics. The economic in *eblen remains im(licitly de$ined as the E(ro$itable.C -is tal, o$ economics con4erges with that o$ the businessman who re;ects an unnecessary e.(ense as uneconomical. The conce(ts o$ the use$ul and the useless (resu((osed in such thin,ing are not sub;ected to analysis. *eblen demonstrates that society $unctions uneconomically in terms o$ its own criteria. This is both much and littleG much, because he thus glaringly illuminates the unreason o$ reason, little, because he $ails to gras( the interde(endence o$ the use$ul and the useless. -e lea4es the Buestion o$ the useless to heteronomous categories (roduced by the intellectual di4ision o$ labour and ma,es himsel$ a cultural e$$iciency e.(ert whose 4ote can be 4etoed by his aesthetic colleagues. -e $ails to see in the o((osition o$ ;urisdictions itsel$ an e.(ression o$ the $etishistic di4ision o$ labour. While as economist he is all too so4ereign in his treatment o$ culture, cutting it $rom the budget as waste, he is secretly resigned to its e.istence outside the budgetary s(here. -e $ails to see that its legitimacy or illegitimacy can be decided only through insight into society as a totality, not $rom the de(artmental (ers(ecti4e o$ the Buestioner. Thus a moment o$ bu$$oonery is inherent in his critiBue o$ culture. *eblen would li,e to ma,e a clean slate, to wi(e away the rubble o$ culture and get to the bottom o$ things. 3ut the search $or EresiduesC regularly $alls (rey to blindness. As the re$lection o$ truth, a((earances are dialecticalG to re;ect all a((earance is to $all com(letely under its sway, since truth is abandoned with the rubble without which it cannot a((ear. *eblen, howe4er, re$uses to see the im(ulses behind all that against which his basic e.(erience rebels. In the (osthumously (ublished (a(ers o$ Fran,
(age>56

Wede,ind is the remar, that ,itsch is the 8othic or the 3aroBue o$ our age. *eblen did not seriously gra((le with the historical necessity o$ ,itsch Wede,ind has in mind. To *eblen the (hony castle is sim(ly anachronistic. -e does not understand the distinctly modern character o$ regression. The dece(ti4e images o$ uniBueness in an era o$ mass (roduction are only 4estiges $or him, not res(onses to highly industriali2ed mechani2ation which betray something o$ its essence. The world o$ these images, which *eblen unmas,s as that o$ cons(icuous consum(tion, is a synthetic, EimaginaryC world. It re(resents the $utile but com(ulsi4e attem(t to a4oid the loss o$ e.(erience in4ol4ed in modern modes o$ (roduction

and esca(e the domination o$ abstract eBui4alence through sel$9made concretion. en (re$er to decei4e themsel4es with illusions o$ the concrete rather than abandon the ho(e which clings to it. "ommodity $etishes are not merely the (ro;ection o$ o(aBue human relations onto the world o$ things. They are also the chimerical deities which originate in the (rimacy o$ the e.change (rocess but ne4ertheless re(resent something not entirely absorbed in it. *eblenCs thin,ing recoils be$ore this antinomy, which, howe4er, is (recisely what ma,es ,itsch a style. %itsch does not designate sim(ly a misuse o$ wor,. The $act that the synthetic images de(ict regressions to the distant (ast only testi$ies to its inaccessibility. The most ad4anced art has concei4ed images which bring together the le4el o$ technical (ossibilities and the human demand $or the concrete, but they ha4e been ill recei4ed by society. /erha(s it is (ermissible to $ormulate the relationshi( between (rogress 0 EmodernityC 0 and regression 0 EarchaismC 0 in the $orm o$ a thesis. In a society in which the de4elo(ment and the sti$ling o$ energies are ine.orable conseBuences o$ the same (rinci(le, each technical ad4ance signi$ies at the same time a regression. < *eblenCs tal, o$ the Ebarbarian normalC re4eals a sus(icion o$ this. 3arbarism is normal because it does not consist in mere rudiments but is steadily
<. FreudCs (sychological theory, which ma,es regression the (roduct o$ a censorshi( e.ercised by the ego 0 the sub;ect o$ all E(rogressC 0 contains something o$ this $act, e.ce(t that regression cannot be determined solely in terms o$ EmanC and his (syche, the ob;ect o$ all (re4ious history, but must rather be seen as emanating $rom the actual social (rocess, $rom the non9 conscious sub;ect whose naturalness comes to light in the $act that $or e4ery creation it (ays the (rice o$ annihilation. The ambiguity o$ EsublimationC is the (sychological symbol o$ the ambiguity o$ social (rogress, ;ust as the Freudian (rinci(le o$ economy, which designates the constant balancing o$ credit and debit in the (sychological household, denotes not a (rimary and unalterable anthro(ological condition but rather the (er(etual in4ariance o$ e4erything that has ha((ened u( to the (resent. (age>5'

re(roduced along with and in direct (ro(ortion to manCs domination o$ nature. *eblen too, this eBui4alence too lightly. -e saw the tem(oral dis(arity between the castle and the railway station but did not gras( this dis(arity as a historical law. The station mas,s itsel$ as a castle, but the mas, is its truth. ?nly when the technical world o$ things becomes the direct ser4ant o$ domination is it ca(able o$ throwing aside such mas,s. ?nly in the totalitarian terror9states does it a((ear as what it really is. In o4erloo,ing the com(ulsi4e element in modern archaism and thin,ing it (ossible to root out synthetic images as mere illusions, *eblen also abdicates be$ore the social 1uaestio iuris o$ lu.ury and waste, which as world re$ormer he would (re$er to e.tir(ate li,e a growth. Fu.ury has a dual character. *eblen concentrates his s(otlight on one side o$ it: that (art o$ the social (roduct which does not bene$it human needs and contribute to human ha((iness but instead is sBuandered in order to (reser4e an obsolete system. The other side o$ lu.ury is the use o$ (arts o$ the social (roduct which ser4e not the re(roduction o$ e.(ended labour, directly or indirectly, but o$ man in so $ar as he is not entirely under the sway o$ the utility (rinci(le. Although *eblen does not e.(licitly distinguish between these two moments o$ lu.ury, it is unBuestionably his intention to do away with the $irst as Econs(icuous consum(tionC and to sa4e the second in the name o$ the E$ullness o$ li$eC. In the crudeness o$ this intention, howe4er, lies the wea,ness o$ his theory. Fau' frais and ha((iness cannot be isolated in lu.ury today. They com(rise the inherently mediated identity o$ lu.ury. Although ha((iness e.ists only when men ha4e momentarily eluded the (rocess o$ a (ernicious Esocietali2ationC, the concrete $orm o$ their ha((iness always contains in itsel$ the general condition o$ society, the negati4e. & /roustCs no4el might be inter(reted as the attem(t to de4elo( this contradiction. Thus erotic ha((iness relates
&. *eblenCs inability to articulate the dialectic o$ lu.ury is most stri,ingly e4ident in his conce(tion o$ the beauti$ul. -e tries to (urge the beauti$ul o$ (om( and ostentation. -e thereby de(ri4es it o$ e4ery concrete social determination and re4erts to a (re9-egelian stand(oint on beauty, a (urely $ormal conce(t oriented on measurable natural categories. -is discussion o$ beauty is 4ery abstract because there is nothing beauti$ul in which the immanent moment o$ in;ustice can be eliminated. To be consistent, *eblen would ha4e to ad4ocate the abolition o$ art. -is (luralism, which adds to the economic (rinci(le o$ thri$t the aesthetic one o$ non9illusion, arises $rom this inability to be consistent. In their isolation, howe4er, both moments become absurd. 1ust as the utter e.(ediency o$ the beauti$ul thrusts it into irreconcilable contradiction with its (ur(oselessness, *eblenCs conce(tion o$ the economic comes into contradiction with his idea o$ a good society.

(age>56

not to man Eas suchC but rather to man as he is determined by society and in his social mani$estations. Walter 3en;amin once wrote that it is as erotically im(ortant to the man $or his belo4ed to a((ear in his com(any as $or her to gi4e hersel$ to, him. *eblen would ha4e ;oined in the bourgeois ;eering at this remar, and would ha4e tal,ed about cons(icuous consum(tion. 3ut the ha((iness that man actually $inds cannot be se(arated $rom cons(icuous consum(tion. There is no ha((iness which does not (romise to $ul$il a socially constituted desire, but there is also none which does not (romise something Bualitati4ely di$$erent in this $ul$ilment. Abstract uto(ian thin,ing which deludes itsel$ about this, sabotages ha((iness and (lays into the hands o$ that which it see,s to, negate. For, although it stri4es to (urge ha((iness o$ the social stigma, it is $orced to renounce e4ery concrete claim to ha((iness and to reduce human beings to a mere $unction o$ their own wor,. @4en the commodity $etishist who, has succumbed to cons(icuous consum(tion to the (oint o$ obsession (artici(ates in the truth9content o$ ha((iness. Although he denies his own li4ing ha((iness and re(laces it with the (restige o$ things 0 *eblen s(ea,s o$ Esocial con$irmationC 0 he re4eals against his will the secret that lies hidden in all (om( and ostentation, the $act that no indi4idual ha((iness is (ossible which does not 4irtually im(ly that o$ society as a whole. @4en malice, the $launting o$ status, and the dri4e to im(ress, in which the social moment o$ ha((iness ine.orably mani$ests itsel$ under the (rinci(le o$ com(etition, contain the recognition o$ society, o$ the whole, as the true sub;ect o$ ha((iness. Those $eatures o$ lu.ury which *eblen designates as Ein4idiousC, re4ealing a bad will, do not only re(roduce in;usticeG they also contain, in distorted $orm, the a((eal to ;ustice. -uman beings are no, worse than the society in which they li4e 0 therein lies the correcti4e to *eblenCs misanthro(y. 3ut his misanthro(y is also a correcti4e. It de$ames the bad will e4en in its most sublime im(ulses because it remains stubbornly loyal to a good will. It is dee(ly ironic, howe4er, that *eblenCs loyalty is com(elled to ta,e the $orm which he so 4igorously condemns in bourgeois society, that o$ regression. In his mind, the only ho(e lies in the (rehistory o$ man. All the ha((iness which $or him is e.cluded by dreamless realism, by (liant ada(tation to the conditions o$ the industrial world, is re$lected in the image o$ a (aradisical golden age. EThe conditions under which men li4ed in the most (rimiti4e stages o$ associated li$e that can (ro(erly be called human, seem to ha4e been o$ a (eace$ul ,indG and the character 0 the tem(erament and s(iritual attitude 0 o$ men under these early conditions o$ en4ironment
(age>57

and institutions seems to ha4e been o$ a (eace$ul and unaggressi4e, not to say an indolent cast. For the immediate (ur(ose this (eaceable cultural stage may be ta,en to mar, the initial (hase o$ social de4elo(ment. So $ar as concerns the (resent argument, the dominant s(iritual $eature o$ this (resum(ti4e initial (hase o$ culture seems to ha4e been an unre$lecting, un$ormulated sense o$ grou( solidarity, largely e.(ressing itsel$ in a com(lacent, but by no means strenuous, sym(athy with all $acility o$ human li$e, and an uneasy re4ulsion against a((rehended inhibition or $utility o$ li$e.C *eblen inter(rets the demythologi2ing and humanity which characteri2e man,ind in the bourgeois era not as indications o$ increasing sel$9consciousness but rather as a re4ersion to this (rimal state. EUnder the circumstances o$ the sheltered situation in which the leisure class is (laced there seems, there$ore, to be something o$ a re4ersion to the range o$ non9in4idious im(ulses that characteri2e the ante9(redatory sa4age culture. The re4ersion com(rises both the sense o$ wor,manshi( and the (rocli4ity to indolence and good9$ellowshi(.C %arl %raus, the critic o$ linguistic ornament, once wrote E?rigin is the goalC. Similarly, the nostalgia o$ *eblen, the technocrat, aims at the resurrection o$ the most ancientG the $eminist mo4ement is $or him the blind and incoherent e$$ort Eto rehabilitate the womenCs (re9glacial standingC. Such (ro4ocati4e $ormulations seem li,e insults to the (ositi4istCs sense o$ $act. 3ut here one o$ the most curious con;unctions in *eblenCs theory mani$ests itsel$, that which ;oins (ositi4ism and the Aousseauistic theory o$ a (rimiti4e ideal state. As a (ositi4ist who admits no norm but that o$ ad;ustment, *eblen sees himsel$ $aced with the Buestion why one should not also ad;ust to the gi4ens o$ Ethe (rinci(les o$ waste, $utility and $erocityC, which according to his conce(tion com(rise the Ecanon o$ (ecuniary decencyC. E3ut why are,

a(ologies neededJ I$ there (re4ails a body o$ (o(ular sentiment in $a4our o$ s(orts, why is not the $act a su$$icient legitimationJ The (rotracted disci(line o$ (rowess to which the race had been sub;ected under the (redatory and Buasi9(eaceable culture has transmitted to the man o$ today a tem(erament that $inds grati$ication in these e.(ressions o$ $erocity and cunning. So, why not acce(t these s(orts as legitimate e.(ressions o$ a normal and wholesome human natureJ What other norm is there that is to be li4ed u( to than that gi4en in the aggregate range o$ (ro(ensities that e.(ress themsel4es in the sentiments o$ this generation, including the hereditary strain o$ (rowessJC -ere, with a grin not unli,e IbsenCs, *eblen $ollows his reasoning to the (oint where it is in danger o$ ca(itulating to the world as it is, to normal barbarism. -is solution is sur(rising: EThe ulterior
(age>55

norm to which a((eal is ta,en is the instinct o$ wor,manshi(, which is an instinct more $undamental, o$ more ancient (rescri(tion, than the (ro(ensity to (redatory emulation.C This is the ,ey to his theory o$ the (rimiti4e age. The (ositi4ist (ermits himsel$ to concei4e o$ human (otentiality only by trans$orming it into a gi4en, something which actually e.isted in the (ast. There can be no ;usti$ication o$ a reconciled li$e without that li$e being more Egi4enC, more (ositi4e, more e.istent than the hell o$ e.istence. /aradise is the (ositi4istCs a(oria. *eblen in4ents the instinct o$ wor,manshi( only incidentally, in order to bring (aradise and the industrial age together under a common anthro(ological denominator. As he would ha4e it, men earned their bread by the sweat o$ their brow e4en be$ore the Fall. It was in theories o$ this ,ind, im(otent and sel$9caricaturing (ro(s in which the idea o$ the di$$erent tries to ma,e its (eace with ad;ustment to the eternally same, that *eblen most e.(osed himsel$. It is easy to deride the (ositi4ist who stri4es to brea, out o$ $acticity. *eblenCs entire wor, is (ermeated by the moti$ o$ s(leen. It is one big ;o,e at the e.(ense o$ that Esense o$ (ro(ortionC that the (ositi4istic rules o$ $air (lay demand. -e is insatiable in see,ing elaborate analogies between the customs and institutions o$ s(orts and religion, or between the aggressi4e codes o$ honour o$ the gentleman and the criminal. -e cannot e4en re$rain $rom com(laining about the economic waste in4ol4ed in the ceremonial (ara(hernalia o$ religious cults. -e has an a$$inity with the re$ormers o$ li$e. ?$ten enough his (rimiti4istic uto(ia degenerates to the crude belie$ in the EnaturalC, and he (reaches against so9called $ollies o$ $ashion li,e long s,irts and corsets, $or the most (art attributes o$ the nineteenth century which the (rogress o$ the twentieth has swe(t away without thereby bringing the barbarism o$ culture to an end. "ons(icuous consum(tion becomes an id;e fi'e. To understand the contradiction between this and the shar( insights o$ *eblenCs social analyses, one must consider the cogniti4e $unction o$ s(leen itsel$. Fi,e the image o$ a (eace$ul (rime4al age, s(leen in *eblen 0 and not only in him 0 is a ha4en o$ (otentiality. The obser4er who is guided by s(leen attem(ts to ma,e the o4erwhelming negati4ity o$ society commensurable with his own e.(erience. -e see,s to ma,e tangible the im(enetrable and alien character o$ the whole, but it is (recisely this Buality which lies beyond the gras( o$ direct, 4ital e.(erience. The id;e fi'e re(laces the abstract general conce(t in that it rigidi$ies and stubbornly (reser4es s(eci$ic and limited e.(erience. S(leen e.(resses the desire to com(ensate $or the lac, o$ authority and e4idence inherent in a merely mediated and deri4ed ,nowledge o$ what is most immediate 0 real su$$ering. 3ut this su$$ering originates in
(age>5!

the o((ressi4e social system as a whole and can there$ore be ele4ated to ,nowledge only in abstract and mediated $orm. S(leen rebels against this. It draws u( schemes $or dialogues with r. %now9nothing. They $ail because social estrangement consists (recisely in e.cluding the ob;ects o$ ,nowledge $rom the s(here o$ immediate e.(erience. The sub;ectCs loss o$ e.(erience in a world dominated by Emore o$ the sameC, the (remise o$ *eblenCs entire theory, designates the anthro(ological side o$ the (rocess o$ estrangement which since -egel has been gras(ed in ob;ecti4e categories. S(leen is a de$ence mechanism. Always and e4erywhere, e4en as early as 3audelaire, its gesture is accusing. 3ut it denounces society in its immediate mani$estations and attributes societyCs guilt to its (henomena. The commensurability o$ ,nowledge and e.(erience is (urchased at the cost o$ the insu$$iciency o$ that ,nowledge. In this res(ect s(leen resembles

the (etty bourgeois sect which attributes the worldCs down$all to a cons(iracy and at the same time $ran,ly admits the absurdity o$ that with which it is obsessed. When *eblen saddles a sur$ace (henomenon li,e barbaric la4ishness with total res(onsibility, the 4ery dis(ro(ortionality o$ his thesis becomes an element o$ its truth. It aims to shoc,. This e.(resses the incommensurability o$ this world and the (otential e.(erience o$ it. %nowledge accom(anies itsel$ with sardonic laughter o4er the $act that its actual ob;ect e4ades it as long as it remains human ,nowledgeG only as inhuman ,nowledge would it be eBual to the inhuman world. The sole a4enue o$ intellectual communication between the ob;ecti4e system and sub;ecti4e e.(erience is the e.(losion which tears both a(art and momentarily illuminates in its glare the $igure they $orm together. Inasmuch as this ,ind o$ criticism (ounces on barbarism at the nearest street corner instead o$ consoling itsel$ in the realm o$ general conce(ts, it retains, in contrast to less naM4e theory, be$ore which it ma,es itsel$ ridiculous, a memento o$ what began to be neglected with the conce(tion o$ Escienti$ic socialismC and $inally disa((eared in what %arl %raus called E os,auderwelschC, 3olshe4i, ;argon. =arrowness is not only the com(lement to broadnessG sometimes it is a wholesome antidote to the all too broad o4er4iew. As such, it ;usti$ies itsel$ in *eblen. -is s(leen stems $rom his disgust with the o$$icial o(timism o$ the s(irit o$ (rogress, whose (art he himsel$ ta,es in so $ar as he swims with the stream o$ common sense. S(leen dictates the (articular character o$ *eblenCs critiBue. It is one o$ disenchantment, o$ Edebun,ingC. *eblen eagerly $ollows a traditional (rocedure o$ the @nlightenment, that o$ e.(osing religion as a Ehoa. o$ the clergyC. EIt is $elt that the di4inity must be o$ a
(age>!:

(eculiarly serene and leisurely habit o$ li$e. And whene4er his local habitation is (ictured in (oetic imagery, $or edi$ication or in a((eal to the de4out $ancy, the de4out word9(ainter, as a matter o$ course, brings out be$ore his auditorsC imagination a throne with a (ro$usion o$ the insignia o$ o(ulence and (ower, and surrounded by a great number o$ ser4itors. In the common run o$ such (resentations o$ the celestial abodes, the o$$ice o$ this cor(s o$ ser4ants is a 4icarious leisure, their time and e$$orts being in great measure ta,en u( with an industrially un(roducti4e rehearsal o$ the meritorious characteristics and e.(loits o$ the di4inity.C The manner in which the angels are blamed here $or the un9(roducti4ity o$ their labour has something o$ seculari2ed swearing, but also something o$ the ;o,e which $i22les. The hardened man does not let himsel$ be bothered by the sli(s, dreams, and neuroses o$ society. -is humour is li,e that o$ the husband who $orces his hysterical wi$e to do housewor, in order to dri4e those cra2y ideas out o$ her head. While s(leen stubbornly clings to the estranged world o$ things, ma,ing the treachery o$ ob;ects res(onsible $or the sub;ectCs misdeeds, the attitude o$ debun,ing is that o$ the (erson who does not let himsel$ be ta,en in by the treachery o$ ob;ects. -e stri(s them o$ their ideological mas,s in order to be able to mani(ulate them better. -is rage is directed against the damned swindle rather than against the bad state o$ a$$airs. It is no accident that the debun,erCs hate turns so readily against all mediating $unctionsG swindle and mediation belong together. 3ut thin,ing and mediation as well. The hatred o$ thought has its roots in debun,ing. True criticism o$ barbarian culture, howe4er, cannot be content with a barbaric denunciation o$ culture. It must recogni2e o4ert uncultured barbarism as the telos o$ that culture and re;ect it, but it cannot crudely (roclaim the su(remacy o$ barbarism o4er culture sim(ly because barbarism has ceased to lie. -onesty as the trium(h o$ horror echoes in $ormula. 6 "onsciously, *eblen is Buite $ree o$ this hatred. 3ut anti9intellectualism is ob;ecti4ely contained in his struggle against the intermediary $unctions o$ society as well as in his denunciation o$ Ehigher learningC. In a debun,er li,e Aldous -u.ley it gains the u((er hand. -is wor, is largely the sel$9denunciation o$ the intellectual as a swindler in the name o$ an integrity which amounts to the glori$ication o$ nature. It is 4ery (ossible that the narrowness o$ *eblenCs theory can ultimately be e.(lained through his inability to thin, through the (roblem o$ mediation. In his (hysiognomy the 2ealotry o$ the Scandina4ian Futheran, which admits no intermediary between 8od and inwardness, blindly (re(ared itsel$ to enter the ser4ice o$ a social order which liBuidates the mediations between the commanded (roduction and the coerced consumers. The two attitudes, that o$ radical /rotestantism and that o$ state ca(italism, ha4e anti9intellectualism in common.

(age>!#

tions li,e that about the industrial un9(roducti4ity o$ the hea4enly hosts. Such ;o,es a((eal to con$ormism. The (erson who laughs at the image o$ beatitude is closer to the (owers that be than is the image, howe4er distorted by (ower and glory it may be. =e4ertheless, there is a good and wholesome element in *eblenCs insistence on the $acts, in his tabooing o$ all images. In him the resistance to a barbaric li$e has migrated into the strength to ad;ust to the merciless necessity o$ that li$e. For the (ragmatist o$ his ty(e there is no whole, no identity o$ thin,ing and being, not e4en the notion o$ such an identity. -e re(eatedly comes bac, to the (osition that Ehabits o$ thoughtC and the demands o$ the concrete situation are irreconcilable. EInstitutions are (roducts o$ the (ast (rocess, are ada(ted to (ast circumstances, and are there$ore ne4er in $ull accord with the reBuirements o$ the (resent. In the nature o$ the case, this (rocess o$ selecti4e ada(tation can ne4er catch u( with the (rogressi4ely changing situation in which the community $inds itsel$ at any gi4en timeG $or the en4ironment, the situation, the e.igencies o$ li$e which en$orce the ada(tation and e.ercise the selection, change $rom day to dayG and each successi4e situation o$ the community in its turn tends to obsolescence as soon as it has been established. When a ste( in the de4elo(ment has been ta,en, this ste( itsel$ constitutes a change o$ situation which reBuires a new ada(tationG it becomes the (oint o$ de(arture $or a new ste( in the ad;ustment, and so on interminably.C Irreconcilability (rohibits the abstract ideal or ma,es it a((ear a childish (hrase. Truth can be reduced to the smallest ste(G what is true is what is nearest, not what is $arthest. Against the demand to ado(t the interest o$ the EwholeC as o((osed to the (articular interest, howe4er it is understood, and thereby to transcend the utilitarian narrowness o$ truth, the (ragmatist can rightly contend that the whole is not de$initi4ely gi4en, that only the nearest can be e.(erienced and that there$ore the ideal is condemned to be $ragmentary and uncertain. Against this argument it is not su$$icient to in4o,e the distinction between the total interest o$ a good society and the limitations o$ (ractical utility. The e.isting society and the other society do not ha4e two di$$erent ,inds o$ truthG rather, truth in the latter is inse(arable $rom the real mo4ement within the e.isting order and each o$ its moments. -ence the contrast between dialectics and (ragmatism, li,e e4ery distinction in (hiloso(hy, is reduced to a nuance, namely, to the conce(tion o$ that Ene.t ste(C. The (ragmatist, howe4er, de$ines it as ad;ustment, and this (er(etuates the domination o$ what is always the same. Were dialectics to sanction this, it would renounce itsel$ in renouncing the idea o$ (otentiality. 3ut how is
(age>!<

(otentiality to be concei4ed i$ it is not to be abstract and arbitrary, li,e the uto(ias dialectical (hiloso(hers (roscribedJ "on4ersely, how can the ne.t ste( assume direction and aim without the sub;ect ,nowing more than what is already gi4enJ I$ one chose to re$ormulate %antCs Buestion, one could as, today: ho& is anything ne& possi le at all< In the shar(ening o$ this Buestion resides the seriousness o$ the (ragmatist, com(arable to that o$ the (hysician whose readiness to hel( is concei4ed in terms o$ the similarity o$ man and animal. It is the seriousness o$ death. The dialectician, howe4er, should be the one who is not resigned to this $ate. For his (osition the either9or o$ discursi4e logic dissol4es. Whereas $or the (ragmatist the bare $acts remain Eo(aBue itemsC, as which they cannot be com(rehended but only classi$ied, the dialectician sees himsel$ con$ronted with the cogniti4e tas, o$ dissol4ing those (henomenal residues, the EatomsC, by means o$ the conce(t. =othing, howe4er, is more o(aBue than ad;ustment itsel$, which the imitation o$ mere e.istence installs as the criterion o$ truth. The (ragmatist insists on the historical inde. o$ all truth, and his own idea o$ ad;ustment has such an inde.. It is what Freud called Eanan,eC 0 scarcity. The ne.t ste( is one o$ ad;ustment only as long as scarcity and (o4erty (re4ail in the world. Ad;ustment is the mode o$ beha4iour which corres(onds to the situation o$ Etoo littleC. /ragmatism is narrow and limited because it hy(ostasi2es this situation as eternal. This is the signi$icance o$ its conce(ts o$ nature and li$e. What it wants $or man is Eidenti$ication with the li$e9(rocessC, a mode o$ beha4iour that (er(etuates the (rocess by which li4ing beings e.ist in nature as long as nature does not (ro4ide them with su$$icient means o$ subsistence. *eblenCs outbursts against the EshelteredC, whose (ri4ileged (osition allows them to a certain e.tent to a4oid ad;usting to a changed situation, amounts to a glori$ication o$ the )arwinian struggle $or e.istence. It is

nothing less than the hy(ostasis o$ scarcity, which in its social $orm has now been made ob4iously obsolete by the 4ery technological de4elo(ment to which, according to *eblenCs doctrine, human beings are su((osed to ad;ust. Thus the (ragmatist $alls (rey to dialectics. The only adeBuate res(onse to the (resent technical situation, which holds out the (romise o$ wealth and abundance to men, is to organi2e it according to the needs o$ a humanity which no longer needs 4iolence because it is its own master. In one o$ the $inest (assages o$ his wor,, *eblen recogni2es the connection between (o4erty and the (ersistence o$ the bad situation: EThe ab;ectly (oor, and all those (ersons whose energies are entirely absorbed by the struggle $or daily sustenance, are conser4ati4e because they cannot a$$ord the e$$ort o$ ta,ing thought $or
(age>!&

the day a$ter tomorrowG ;ust as the highly (ros(erous are conser4ati4e because they ha4e small occasion to be discontented with the situation as it stands today.C 3ut the (ragmatist, himsel$ regressi4e, clings to the stand(oint o$ those who cannot thin, beyond tomorrow, beyond, the ne.t ste(, because they do not ,now what they will li4e $rom tomorrow. -e re(resents (o4erty. This is his truth, because men are still constrained to be (oor, and his untruth, because the absurdity o$ (o4erty has become mani$est. Today, ad;ustment to what is (ossible no longer means ad;ustmentG it means ma,ing the (ossible real.
(age>!6

#%do)s 4)5%e and -topia

(age>!'

?ne o$ the $ar9reaching e$$ects o$ the @uro(ean catastro(he was to create in America a social ty(e which had ne4er be$ore e.isted there 0 the intellectual emigr7. Those who came to the new world in the nineteenth century were lured by the unlimited (ossibilities it o$$ered. They emigrated to ma,e their $ortunes or at least $ind enough to ma,e ends meet, something they could not achie4e in the o4er(o(ulated @uro(ean countries. The interests o$ sel$9(reser4ation were stronger than those o$ (reser4ing the sel$, and the ra(id economic growth o$ the United States too, (lace under the aegis o$ the same (rinci(le that dro4e the emigrant across the ocean. The newcomer stro4e $or success$ul ad;ustmentG critical attitudes on his (art might ha4e com(romised the (ros(ects and the claim to legitimacy o$ his own e$$orts. =either their bac,grounds nor their (osition in the social (rocess enabled the new arri4als to a4oid being o4er(owered by the turbulent struggle $or the maintenance o$ li$e. Any uto(ian ho(es they might ha4e attached to their resettlement too, on a di$$erent character in the new conte.t o$ the saga o$ struggling u(wards, the hori2on o$ a still uncharted e.istence, the (ros(ect o$ ad4ancing $rom dish9washer to millionaire. The s,e(ticism o$ a 4isitor li,e )e TocBue4ille, who a century ago already (ercei4ed the element o$ un$reedom in unrestrained eBuality, remained the e.ce(tionG o((osition to what in the ;argon o$ 8erman cultural conser4atism was called EAmericanismC was to be $ound in Americans li,e /oe, @merson, and Thoreau rather than in the new arri4als. A hundred years later it was no longer indi4idual intellectuals who emigrated but the @uro(ean intelligentsia as a whole, by no means only the 1ews. They sought not to li4e better but to sur4i4eG o((ortunities were no longer unlimited, and thus the necessity $or ad;ustment which (re4ailed in the s(here o$ economic com(etition e.tended im(lacably to them. In (lace o$ the wilderness which the (ioneer intended to o(en u( s(iritually as well as materially and through which he was to accom(lish his s(iritual regeneration, there has arisen a ci4ili2ation which absorbs all o$ li$e in its
(age>!7

system, without allowing the un9regimented mind e4en those loo(holes which @uro(ean la.ness le$t o(en into the e(och o$ the great business concerns. It is made unmista,ably clear to the intellectual $rom abroad that he will ha4e to eradicate himsel$ as an autonomous being i$ he ho(es to achie4e anything or be acce(ted as an em(loyee o$ the su(er9trust into which li$e has condensed. The re$ractory indi4idual who does not ca(itulate and com(letely toe the line is abandoned to the shoc,s which the world o$ things, concentrated into gigantic bloc,s, administers to whate4er does not ma,e itsel$ into a thing. Im(otent in the machinery o$ the uni4ersally de4elo(ed commodity relation, which has become the su(reme standard, the intellectual reacts to the shoc, with (anic. -u.leyCs ,rave Ne& %orld is a mani$estation o$ this (anic, or rather, its rationali2ation. The no4el, a $antasy o$ the $uture with a rudimentary (lot, endea4ours to com(rehend the shoc,s through the (rinci(le o$ the disenchanted world, to heighten this (rinci(le to absurdity, and to deri4e the idea o$ human dignity $rom the com(rehension o$ inhumanity. The (oint o$ de(arture seems to be the (erce(tion o$ the uni4ersal similarity o$ e4erything mass9(roduced, things as well as human beings. Scho(enhauerCs meta(hor o$ nature as a manu$actured article is ta,en literally. Teeming herds o$ twins are (re(ared in test tubes: a nightmare o$ endless doubles li,e that which the most recent (hase o$ ca(italism has s(awned into e4eryday li$e, $rom regulated smiles, the grace instilled by charm schools, to the standardi2ed consciousness o$ millions which re4ol4es in the groo4es cut by the communications industry. The here and now o$ s(ontaneous e.(erience, long corroded, is stri((ed o$ its (owerG men are no longer merely (urchasers o$ the concernsC mass9(roduced consum(tion goods but rather a((ear themsel4es to be the de9indi4iduali2ed (roducts o$ the cor(orationsC absolute (ower. To the (anic,ed eye, obser4ations that resist assimilation (etri$y into allegories o$ catastro(heG it sees through the illusion o$ the harmlessness o$ e4eryday li$e. For it, the modelCs commercial smile becomes what it is, the contorted grin o$ the 4ictim. The more than thirty years since the boo,Cs a((earance ha4e (ro4ided more than su$$icient 4eri$ication: small horrors such as the

a(titude tests $or ele4ator boys which detect the least intelligent, and 4isions o$ terror such as the rational utili2ation o$ cor(ses. I$, in accordance with a thesis o$ FreudCs *roup Psychology and +go Analysis , (anic is the condition in which (ower$ul collecti4e identi$ications disintegrate and the released instinctual energy is trans$ormed into raw an.iety, then the (erson sei2ed by (anic is ca(able o$ inner4ating the dar, basis o$ the collecti4e identi$ication 0 the $alse conscious9
(age>!5

ness o$ indi4iduals who, without trans(arent solidarity and blindly sub;ected to images o$ (ower, belie4e themsel4es one with the whole whose ubiBuity sti$les them. -u.ley is $ree $rom the $oolhardy sobriety which emerges $rom e4en the worst situations with a tem(ori2ing EItCs not all that badC. -e ma,es no concessions to the childish belie$ that the alleged e.cesses o$ technical ci4ili2ation will be ironed out automatically through irresistible (rogress, and he scorns the consolation u(on which e.iles so readily sei2e: the notion that the $rightening as(ects o$ American ci4ili2ation are e(hemeral relics o$ its (rimiti4eness or (otent sa$eguards o$ its youth. We are not (ermitted to doubt that American ci4ili2ation has not only not lagged behind that o$ @uro(e but has indeed $orged ahead o$ it, while the ?ld World diligently emulates the =ew. 1ust as the world9state o$ ,rave Ne& %orld ,nows only arti$icially maintained di$$erences between the gol$ courses and e.(erimental stations o$ ombasa, Fondon, and the =orth /ole, Americanism, the butt o$ (arody, has ta,en o4er the world. And that world su((osedly resembles the uto(ia whose reali2ation, as the e(igra(h $rom 3erdyae4 indicates, is $oreseeable in the light o$ technology. 3ut, by e.tension, it becomes hellG -u.ley (ro;ects obser4ations o$ the (resent state o$ ci4ili2ation along the lines o$ its own teleology to the (oint where its monstrous nature becomes immediately e4ident. The em(hasis is (laced not so much on ob;ecti4e technological and institutional elements as on what becomes o$ human beings when they no longer ,now need. The economic and (olitical s(here as such recedes in im(ortance. It is sti(ulated only that there is a thoroughly rationali2ed class system on a (lanetary scale and totally (lanned state ca(italism, that total domination goes along with total collecti4i2ation, and that a money economy and the (ro$it moti4e (ersist. E"ommunity, Identity, and StabilityC re(laces the motto o$ the French Ae4olution. "ommunity de$ines a collecti4ity in which each indi4idual is unconditionally subordinated to the $unctioning o$ the whole Hthe Buestion o$ the (oint o$ this whole is no longer (ermitted or e4en (ossible in the =ew WorldI. Identity means the elimination o$ indi4idual di$$erences, standardi2ation e4en down to biological constitutionG stability, the end o$ all social dynamics. The art$ully balanced situation is an e.tra(olation $rom certain indications o$ a reduction in the economic E(lay o$ $orcesC in late ca(italism 0 the (er4ersion o$ the millenium. The (anacea that guarantees social stasis is EconditioningC. The e.(ression is a (roduct o$ biology and beha4iouristic (sychology, in which it signi$ies the e4ocation o$ (articular re$le.es or modes o$ beha4iour through arbitrary
(age>!!

trans$ormations in the en4ironment, through control o$ the conditionsG and it has made its way into colloBuial American @nglish as the designation $or any ,ind o$ scienti$ic control o4er the conditions o$ li$e, as in Eair9conditioningC. In ,rave Ne& %orld conditioning means the com(lete (re$ormation o$ human beings through social inter4ention, $rom arti$icial breeding and technological direction o$ the conscious and unconscious mind in the earliest stages o$ li$e to Edeath conditioningC, a training that (urges children o$ the horror o$ death by (arading the dying be$ore their eyes while they are being $ed candy, which they then $ore4er a$ter associate with death. The ultimate e$$ect o$ conditioning, which is in $act ad;ustment come into its own, is a degree o$ intro;ection and integration o$ social (ressure and coercion $ar beyond that o$ the /rotestant ethicG men resign themsel4es to lo4ing what they ha4e to do, without e4en being aware that they are resigned. Thus, their ha((iness is $irmly established sub;ecti4ely and order is maintained. "once(tions o$ a merely e.ternal in$luence o$ society u(on indi4iduals, through agencies li,e (sychology or the $amily, are recogni2ed to be obsolete. What today has already ha((ened to the $amily is in$licted u(on it once again in ,rave Ne& %orld, $rom abo4e. As children o$ society in the literal sense, men no

longer e.ist in dialectical o((osition to society but rather are identical with it in their substance. "om(liant e.(onents o$ the collecti4e totality in which all antitheses ha4e been absorbed, they are Esocially conditionedC in a non9meta(horical sense, not merely ad;usted secondarily to the dominant system through Ede4elo(mentC. The system o$ class relationshi(s is made eternal and biological: directors o$ breeding assign each (erson to a caste designated by a 8ree, letter while he is still an embryo. Through an ingenious method o$ cell di4ision, the common (eo(le are recruited $rom identical twins, whose (hysical and intellectual growth is stunted through an arti$icial addition o$ alcohol to the blood. That is, the re(roduction o$ stu(idity, which (re4iously too, (lace unconsciously under the dictates o$ material necessity, must be ta,en in hand by trium(hant mass ci4ili2ation now that scarcity could be eliminated. The rational $i.ation o$ irrational class relations indicates their su(er$luity. Today class lines ha4e already lost their EnaturalC character, an illusion created during the undirected history o$ man,ind, so that classes can be (er(etuated only through arbitrary selection and co9o(tion, only through administrati4e di$$erentiations in the distribution o$ the social (roduct. 3y de(ri4ing lower9caste embryos and in$ants o$ o.ygen in the -atching and "onditioning "entres o$ ,rave Ne& %orld, the directors create an arti$icial
(age>#::

slum atmos(here. In the midst o$ unlimited (ossibility they organi2e degradation and regression. Such regression, howe4er, de4ised and automatically induced by the totalitarian system, is truly total. -u.ley, who ,nows his way around, (oints out the signs o$ mutilation in the u((er class as well: E@4en al(has ha4e been conditioned.C @4en the minds o$ those who credit themsel4es with being indi4iduals are caught u( in standardi2ation by 4irtue o$ their identi$ication with the Ein9grou(C. They automatically (roduce the ;udgments to which they ha4e been conditioned, rather li,e the member o$ the (resent u((er middle class who babbles that the real (roblem is not material circumstances but a religious regeneration or who insists that he cannot understand modern art. =on9com(rehension becomes a 4irtue. Two lo4ers $rom the u((er caste $ly o4er the "hannel in stormy weather, and the man wishes to delay the $light so as to esca(e $rom the crowds and be alone with his belo4ed $or a longer time, closer to her and more himsel$. In res(onse to her reluctance, he as,s whether she understands his wish. EEEI donCt understand anything,K she said with decision, determined to (reser4e her incom(rehension intact.C -u.leyCs obser4ation does more than ;ust (oint u( the rancune that the statement o$ the most modest truth (ro4o,es in (ersons who can no longer allow such statements lest their eBuilibrium be disturbed. It diagnoses a (ower$ul new taboo. The more the e.isting society, through its o4erwhelming (ower and hermetic structure, becomes its own ideological ;usti$ication in the minds o$ the disillusioned, the more it brands as sinners all those whose thoughts blas(heme against the notion that what is, is right 0 ;ust because it e.ists. They li4e in air(lanes but heed the command, tacit li,e all genuine taboos, EThou shalt not $lyC. The gods o$ the earth (unish those who raise themsel4es abo4e the earth. A4owedly anti9mythological, the (act with the e.isting order restores mythic (ower. -u.ley demonstrates this in the s(eech o$ his characters. The idiocy o$ mandatory small tal,, con4ersation as chatter, is discretely (ursued to the e.treme. The (henomenon has long since ceased to be a mere conseBuence o$ con4entions intended to (re4ent con4ersation $rom becoming narrow sho( tal, or unabashed (resum(tion. Aather, the degeneration o$ tal, is due to ob;ecti4e tendencies. The 4irtual trans$ormation o$ the world into commodities, the (redetermination by the machinery o$ society o$ e4erything that is thought or done, renders s(ea,ing illusoryG under the curse o$ (er(etual sameness it disintegrates into a series o$ analytic ;udgments. The ladies o$ ,rave Ne& %orld ( and in this case e.tra(olation is hardly reBuired 0 con4erse only as consumers. In (rinci(le, their con4ersation concerns nothing but what is
(age>#:#

in any case to be $ound in the catalogues o$ the ubiBuitous industries, in$ormation about a4ailable commodities. ?b;ecti4ely su(er$luous, it is the em(ty shell o$ dialogue, the intention o$ which was once to $ind out what was hitherto un,nown. Stri((ed o$ this idea, dialogue is ri(e $or e.tinction. /eo(le com(letely collecti4i2ed and incessantly communicating might as well abandon all communication at once

and ac,nowledge themsel4es to be the mute monads they ha4e been surre(titiously since the beginnings o$ bourgeois society. They are swallowed u( in archaic childli,e de(endency. They are cut o$$ both $rom the mind, which -u.ley rather $latly eBuates with the (roducts o$ traditional culture, e.em(li$ied by Sha,es(eare, and $rom nature as landsca(e, an image o$ creation un4iolated by society. The o((osition o$ mind and nature was the theme o$ bourgeois (hiloso(hy at its (ea,. In ,rave Ne& %orld they unite against a ci4ili2ation which lays hands on e4erything and tolerates nothing which is not made in its own image. The union o$ mind and nature, concei4ed by idealist s(eculation as the su(reme reconciliation, now becomes the absolute o((osition to absolute rei$ication. ind, the s(ontaneous and autonomous synthesis achie4ed by consciousness, is (ossible only to the e.tent to which it is con$ronted by a s(here outside its gras(, something not categorically (redetermined 0 EnatureC. And nature is (ossible only to the e.tent to which mind ,nows itsel$ as the o((osite o$ rei$ication, which it transcends instead o$ enthroning it as nature. 3oth are 4anishing: -u.ley is well acBuainted with the latest9model a4erage citi2en who contem(lates a bay as a tourist attraction while seated in his car listening to radio commercials. =ot unrelated is hatred o$ things (ast. The mind itsel$ seems a thing o$ the (ast, a ridiculous addition to the glori$ied $acts, to the gi4en, whate4er it may be, and what is no longer around becomes bric9R9brac and rubbish. E-istory is bun,,C an e.(ression attributed to Ford, relegates to the ;un,(ile e4erything not in line with the most recent methods o$ industrial (roduction, including, ultimately, all continuity o$ li$e. Such reduction cri((les men. Their inability to (ercei4e or thin, anything unli,e themsel4es, the inesca(able sel$9su$$iciency o$ their li4es, the law o$ (ure sub;ecti4e $unctionalism 0 all result in (ure desub;ecti4i2ation. /urged o$ all myths, the scienti$ically manu$actured sub;ect9ob;ects o$ the anti9%eltgeist are in$antile. In line with mass culture, the hal$9in4oluntary, hal$9 organi2ed regressions o$ today $inally turn into com(ulsory ordinances go4erning leisure time, the E(ro(er standard o$ in$antile decorumC, -ellCs laughter at the "hristian dictum, EI$ you do not become as little children. . . .C The blame rests with the substitution o$ means $or all ends. The
(age>#:<

cult o$ the instrument, cut o$$ $rom e4ery ob;ecti4e aim Hin ,rave Ne& %orld, the im(licit religion o$ today 0 the auto 0 becomes literal with Ford $or Ford and the sign o$ the odel T $or that o$ the crossI, and the $etishistic lo4e o$ gadgetry, both unmista,able lunatic traits ingrained in (recisely those (eo(le who (ride themsel4es on being (ractical and realistic, are ele4ated to the norm o$ li$e. 3ut that substitution is also in $orce in areas o$ the Ne& %orld where $reedom seems to ha4e won out. -u.ley has recogni2ed the contradiction that in a society where se.ual taboos ha4e lost their intrinsic $orce and ha4e either retreated be$ore the (ermissibility o$ the (rohibited or come to be en$orced by e.ternal com(ulsion, (leasure itsel$ degenerates to the misery o$ E$unC and to an occasion $or the narcissistic satis$action o$ ha4ing EhadC this or that (erson. Through the institutionali2ation o$ (romiscuity, se. becomes a matter o$ indi$$erence, and e4en esca(e $rom society is relocated within its borders. /hysiological release is desirable, as (art o$ hygieneG accom(anying $eelings are dis(ensed with as a waste o$ energy without social utility. ?n no account is one to be mo4ed. The original bourgeois atara'ia now e.tends to all reactions. In in$ecting eros it turns directly against what was once the highest good, sub;ecti4e eudaemonia, $or the sa,e o$ which (urgation o$ the (assions was originally demanded. In attac,ing ecstasy it stri,es at all human relations, at e4ery attem(t to go beyond a monado9logical e.istence. -u.ley recogni2es the com(lementary relationshi( o$ collecti4i2ation and atomi2ation. -is (ortrayal o$ organi2ed orgiastics, howe4er, has an undertone which casts doubt u(on his satirical thesis. In its (roclamation o$ the bourgeois nature o$ what claims to be unbourgeois, the thesis itsel$ becomes ensnared in bourgeois habits. -u.ley wa.es indignant at the sobriety o$ his characters but is inwardly an enemy o$ into.ication, and not only that $rom narcotics, which he earlier condemned, thus endorsing the (re4ailing attitude. Fi,e that o$ many emanci(ated @nglishmen, his consciousness is (re$ormed by the 4ery /uritanism he ab;ures. -e $ails to distinguish between the liberation o$ se.uality and its debasement. In his earlier no4els libertinism already a((ears, as it were, as a locali2ed thrill without an auranot unli,e the way men in so9called EmasculineC cultures habitually s(ea, o$ women and lo4e with a

gesture in which (ride at ha4ing won the so4ereignty that enables them to discuss such matters is ine4itably mi.ed with contem(t. In -u.ley e4erything occurs on a more sublimated le4el than in the Fawrence o$ the $our9letter words, but e4erything is also more thoroughly re(ressed. -is anger at $alse ha((iness sacri$ices the idea o$ true ha((iness
(age>#:&

as well. Fong be$ore he ac,nowledged 3uddhist sym(athies, his irony dis(layed, es(ecially in the sel$9 denunciation o$ the intellectual, something o$ the sectarianism o$ the raging (enitent, a Buality to which his writing is usually immune. The $light $rom the world leads to the nudist colony, which destroys se.uality by o4er9e.(osure. )es(ite the (ains -u.ley ta,es to de(ict the (re9mass9ci4ili2ation world o$ the Sa4age Hwho is brought to the 3ra4e =ew World as a relic o$ humanityI, as being distorted, re(ellent, and insane in its own way, reactionary elements $ind their way into his (ortrayal. Freud is included among the anathemati2ed $igures o$ modernity, and at one (oint he is eBuated with Ford. -e is made a mere e$$iciency e.(ert o$ the inner li$e. With all too genial scorn he is credited with ha4ing been the $irst to disco4er Ethe a((alling dangers o$ $amily li$eC. 3ut this is in $act what he did, and historical ;ustice is on his side. The critiBue o$ the $amily as the agent o$ o((ression, a theme $amiliar to the @nglish o((osition since Samuel 3utler, emerged ;ust at the time when the $amily had lost its economic basis and, with it, its last legitimate right to determine human de4elo(ment, becoming a neutrali2ed monstrosity o$ the sort -u.ley so incisi4ely e.(oses in the s(here o$ o$$icial religion. -u.ley ascribes to the world o$ the $uture the encouragement o$ in$antile se.uality, in com(lete misunderstanding, incidentally, o$ Freud, who all too orthodo.ly adhered to instinctual renunciation as a (edagogical aim. 3ut -u.ley himsel$ sides with those who are less concerned with the dehumani2ation o$ the industrial age, than with the decline o$ its morals. Whether ha((iness is de(endent u(on the e.istence o$ (rohibitions to be bro,en is an endless dialectical Buestion, but the no4elCs mentality distorts the Buestion into an a$$irmati4e answer, into an e.cuse $or the (er(etuation o$ obsolete taboos 0 as i$ the ha((iness (roduced by the transgression o$ taboos could e4er legitimate the taboo, which e.ists not $or the sa,e o$ ha((iness but $or its $rustration. It is true that the regularly occurring communal orgies o$ the no4el and the (rescribed short9term change o$ (artners are logical conseBuences o$ the o$$icial se.ual routine that turns (leasure to $un and denies it by granting it. 3ut (recisely in the im(ossibility o$ loo,ing (leasure in the eye, o$ mil,ing use o$ re$lection in abandoning oneCs whole sel$ to (leasure, the ancient (rohibition $or which -u.ley (rematurely mourns continues in $orce. Were its (ower to be bro,en, were (leasure to be $reed o$ the institutional reins which bind it e4en in the Eorgy9(orgyC, 3ra4e =ew World and its $atal rigidity would dissol4e. Its highest moral (rinci(le, su((osedly, is that e4eryone belongs to e4eryone, an absolute interchangeability that e.tinguishes
(age>#:6

man as an indi4idual being, liBuidates as mythology his claim to e.ist $or his own sa,e, and de$ines him as e.isting merely $or the sa,e o$ others and thus, in -u.leyCs mind, as worthless. In the $oreword he wrote a$ter the war $or the American edition, -u.ley claimed, as the ancestor o$ this (rinci(le, de SadeCs statement that the rights o$ man include the absolute se.ual dis(osition o$ all o4er all. In this, -u.ley sees the $oolishness o$ conseBuent reasoning consummated. 3ut he $ails to see that the heretical ma.im is incom(atible with his world9state o$ the $uture. All dictators ha4e (roscribed libertinage, and -immlerCs much cited SS9studs were its (iously (atriotic o((osite. )omination may be de$ined as the dis(osition o$ one o4er others but not as the com(lete dis(osition o$ all o4er all, which cannot be reconciled with a totalitarian order. This is e4en more true o$ wor, relations than o$ se.ual anarchy. A man who e.isted only $or the sa,e o$ others, an absolute, would, to be sure, ha4e lost his indi4idual sel$, but he would also ha4e esca(ed the cycle o$ sel$9(reser4ation which maintains the 3ra4e =ew World as well as the old one. /ure $ungibility would destroy the core o$ domination and (romise $reedom. The wea,ness o$ -u.leyCs entire conce(tion is that it ma,es all its conce(ts relentlessly dynamic but ne4ertheless arms them against the tendency to turn into their own o((osites. The sc=ne > faire o$ the no4el is the erotic collision o$ the two EworldsC: the attem(t o$ the heroine, Fenina, a well9groomed and (olished American career woman, to seduce the Sa4age, who lo4es her, in a

way consonant with the mores o$ the conscientiously (romiscuous. -er o((onent belongs to the ty(e o$ shy, aesthetic youth, tied to his mother and inhibited, who (re$ers to en;oy his $eeling through contem(lation rather than e.(ression and who $inds satis$action in the lyrical trans$iguration o$ the belo4ed. This ty(e, incidentally, is bred at ?.$ord and "ambridge no less than are @(silons in test tubes, and it belongs to the sentimental standbys o$ the modern @nglish no4el. The con$lict arises $rom the $act that 1ohn $eels the (retty girlCs matter9o$9$act abandonment to be a debasement o$ his sublime (assion $or her and runs away. The e$$ecti4eness o$ the scene wor,s against its thesis. FeninaCs arti$icial charm and cello(hane shamelessness (roduce by no means the un9erotic e$$ect -u.ley intended, but rather a highly seducti4e one, to which e4en the in$uriated cultural sa4age succumbs at the end o$ the no4el. Were Fenina the imago o$ 3ra4e =ew World, it would lose its horror. @ach o$ her gestures, it is true, is socially (re$ormed, (art o$ a con4entional ritual. 3ut because she is at one with con4ention down to her 4ery core, the tension between the con4entional
(age>#:'

and the natural dissol4es, and with it the 4iolence in which the in;ustice o$ con4ention consistsG (sychologically, (oor con4entionality is always the mar, o$ unsuccess$ul identi$ication. The conce(t o$ con4ention does not sur4i4e its o((osite. Through total social mediation, $rom the outside, as it were, a new immediacy, a new humanity, would arise. American ci4ili2ation shows no lac, o$ tendencies in this direction. 3ut -u.ley construes humanity and rei$ication as rigid o((osites, in accordance with the tradition o$ the no4el, which has as its ob;ect the con$lict o$ human beings with rigidi$ied conditions. -u.ley cannot understand the humane (romise o$ ci4ili2ation because he $orgets that humanity includes rei$ication as well as its o((osite, not merely as the condition $rom which liberation is (ossible but also (ositi4ely, as the $orm in which, howe4er brittle and inadeBuate it may be, sub;ecti4e im(ulses are reali2ed, but only by being ob;ecti$ied. All the categories e.amined by the no4el, $amily, (arents, the indi4idual and his (ro(erty, are already (roducts o$ rei$ication. -u.ley curses the $uture with it, without reali2ing that the (ast whose blessing he in4o,es is o$ the same nature. Thus he unwittingly becomes the s(o,esman o$ that nostalgia whose a$$inity to mass culture his (hysiognomic eye so acutely (ercei4es in the test9tube song: E3ottle o$ mine, itCs you IC4e always wantedT 3ottle o$ mine, why was I e4er decantedJ . . . There ainCt no 3ottle in all the world Fi,e that dear little 3ottle o$ mine.C The Sa4ageCs outburst against his belo4ed, then, is not so much the (rotest o$ (ure human nature against the cold im(udence o$ $ashion, as was (erha(s intendedG rather, (oetic ;ustice turns it into the aggression o$ the neurotic who, as the Freud whom -u.ley treats rather shabbily could easily ha4e told him, is moti4ated in his $rantic (urity by re(ressed homose.uality. -e shouts abuse at the girl li,e the hy(ocrite who trembles with rage at things he has to $orbid himsel$. 3y (utting him in the wrong, -u.ley distances himsel$ $rom social criticism. Its actual ad4ocate in the no4el is 3ernard ar., an Al(ha9/lus who rebels against his own conditioning, a sce(tically com(assionate caricature o$ a 1ew. -u.ley is well aware that 1ews are (ersecuted because they are not com(letely assimilated and that (recisely $or this reason their consciousness occasionally reaches beyond the social system. -e does not Buestion the authenticity o$ 3ernardCs critical insight. 3ut the insight itsel$ is attributed to, a sort o$ organic in$eriority, the ine4itable in$eriority com(le.. At the same time, $ollowing the time9honoured model, -u.ley charges the radical 1ewish intellectual with 4ulgar snobbism and, ultimately, with re(rehensible moral cowardice. @4er
(age>#:6

since IbsenCs in4ention o$ 8regers Werle and Stoc,mann, actually since -egelCs (hiloso(hy o$ history, bourgeois cultural (olitics, claiming to sur4ey and s(ea, $or the whole, has sought to unmas, anyone who see,s to change things as both the genuine child and the (er4erse (roduct o$ the whole which he o((oses, and has insisted that the truth is always on the side o$ the whole, be it against him or (resent in him. As no4elist, -u.ley (roclaims his solidarity with this traditionG as (ro(het o$ ci4ili2ation, he detests the totality. It is true that 8regers Werle destroys those he see,s to sa4e, and no one is $ree $rom the 4anity o$ 3ernard ar. who, in raising himsel$ abo4e the general stu(idity, thereby imagines himsel$ untainted by it. 3ut the

4iew which e4aluates (henomena e.ternally, in a detached, $ree, su(erior way, deeming itsel$ abo4e the limitations o$ negation and the arbitration o$ the dialectic, is $or this 4ery reason neither one o$ truth nor one o$ ;ustice. A ;ust re$lection should not delight in the inadeBuacy o$ things which are better in order to com(romise them be$ore things which are worse, but should draw $rom inadeBuacy additional strength $or indignation. The $orces o$ negati4ity are underestimated in order to render them im(otent. 3ut it be$its this (osition that what is set u( as (ositi4e and absolute against the dialectic is no less (owerless. When, in his crucial con4ersation with the World "ontroller ond, the Sa4age declares, EWhat you need is something with tears $or a change,C his deliberately insolent e.altation o$ su$$ering is not merely a characteristic o$ the obdurate indi4idualist. It e4o,es "hristian meta(hysics, which (romises $uture sal4ation solely by 4irtue o$ su$$ering. 3ut, des(ite all a((earances to the contrary, the no4el is in$ormed by an enlightened consciousness in which "hristian meta(hysics no longer dares to assert itsel$. -ence the cult o$ su$$ering becomes an absurd end in itsel$. It is a mannerism o$ an aestheticism whose ties to the (owers o$ dar,ness cannot be un,nown to -u.leyG =iet2scheCs EFi4e dangerouslyC, which the Sa4age (roclaims to the resigned, hedonistic World "ontroller, was a (er$ect slogan $or the totalitarian ussolini, himsel$ a World "ontroller o$ a similar sort. In a discussion o$ a biological (a(er which the World "ontroller has su((ressed, the all too (ositi4e core o$ the no4el becomes clearly 4isible. It is Ethe sort o$ idea that might easily de9condition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes 0 ma,e them lose their $aith in ha((iness as the So4ereign 8ood and ta,e to belie4ing instead, that the goal was somewhere beyond, somewhere outside the (resent human s(hereG that the (ur(ose o$ li$e was not the maintenance o$ well9being, but some intensi$ication and re$inement o$ consciousness, some enlargement o$ ,nowledgeC. -owe4er (allid
(age>#:7

and diluted or cle4erly (rudent the $ormulation o$ the ideal may be, it still does not esca(e contradiction. EIntensi$ication and re$inement o$ consciousnessC or Eenlargement o$ ,nowledgeC $latly hy(ostati2e the mind in o((osition to (ra.is and the $ul$ilment o$ material needs. For mind by its 4ery nature (resu((oses the li$e9(rocess o$ society and es(ecially the di4ision o$ labour, and all mental and s(iritual contents are intentionally related to concrete e.istence $or their E$ul$ilmentC. "onseBuently, setting the mind in an unconditional and atem(oral o((osition to material needs amounts to (er(etuating ideologically this $orm o$ the di4ision o$ labour and o$ society. =othing intellectual was e4er concei4ed, not e4en the most esca(ist dream, whose ob;ecti4e content did not include the trans$ormation o$ material reality. =o emotion, no (art o$ the inner li$e e4er e.isted that did not ultimately intend something e.ternal or degenerate into untruth, mere a((earance, without this intention, howe4er sublimated. @4en the sel$less (assion o$ Aomeo and 1uliet, which -u.ley considers something li,e a E4alueC, does not e.ist autarchically, $or its own sa,e, but becomes s(iritual and more than mere histrionics o$ the soul only in (ointing beyond the mind towards (hysical union. -u.ley unwittingly re4eals this in (ortraying their longing, the whole meaning o$ which is union. EIt was the nightingale and not the lar,C is inse(arable $rom the symbolism o$ se.. To glori$y the aubade $or the sa,e o$ its transcendent Buality without hearing in the transcendence itsel$ its inability to rest, its desire to be grati$ied, would be as meaningless as the (hysiologically delimited se.uality o$ ,rave Ne& %orld, which destroys any magic which cannot be conser4ed as an end in itsel$. The disgrace o$ the (resent is not the (re(onderance o$ so9called material culture o4er the s(iritual 0 in this com(laint -u.ley would $ind unwelcome allies, the Arch9"ommunity9Songsters o$ all neutrali2ed denominations and world 4iews. What must be attac,ed is the socially dictated se(aration o$ consciousness $rom the social reali2ation its essence reBuires. /recisely the chorismos o$ the s(iritual and the material which -u.leyCs philosophia perennis establishes, the substitution o$ an indeterminable, abstract Egoal somewhere beyondC $or E$aith in ha((inessC, strengthens the rei$ied situation -u.ley cannot tolerate: the neutrali2ation o$ a culture cut o$$ $rom the material (rocess o$ (roduction. EI$ a distinction between material and ideal needs is drawn,C as a. -or,heimer once (ut it, Ethere is no doubt that the $ul$ilment o$ material needs must be gi4en (riority, $or this $ul$ilment also in4ol4es . . . social change. It includes, as it were, the ;ust society, which (ro4ides all human beings with the best (ossible li4ing conditions. This is

(age>#:5

identical with the $inal elimination o$ the e4il o$ domination. To em(hasi2e the isolated, ideal demand, howe4er, leads to real nonsense. The right to nostalgia, to transcendental ,nowledge, to a dangerous li$e cannot be 4alidated. The struggle against mass culture can consist only in (ointing out its connection with the (ersistence o$ social in;ustice. It is ridiculous to re(roach chewing gum $or diminishing the (ro(ensity $or meta(hysics, but it could (robably be shown that WrigleyCs (ro$its and his "hicago (alace ha4e their roots in the social $unction o$ reconciling (eo(le to bad conditions and thus di4erting them $rom criticism. It is not that chewing gum undermines meta(hysics but that it is meta(hysics 0 this is what must be made clear. We critici2e mass culture not because it gi4es men too much or ma,es their li$e too secure 0 that we may lea4e to Futheran theology 0 but rather because it contributes to a condition in which men get too little and what they get is bad, a condition in which whole strata inside and out li4e in $right$ul (o4erty, in which men come to terms with in;ustice, in which the world is ,e(t in a condition where one must e.(ect on the one hand gigantic catastro(hes and on the other cle4er elites cons(iring to bring about a dubious (eace.C As a counterweight to the s(here o$ the satis$action o$ needs, -u.ley (osits another, sus(iciously similar to the one the bourgeoisie generally designates as that o$ the Ehigher thingsC. -e (roceeds $rom an in4ariant, as it were biological conce(t o$ need. 3ut in its concrete $orm e4ery human need is historically mediated. The static Buality which needs a((ear to ha4e assumed today, their $i.ation u(on the re(roduction o$ the eternally unchanging, merely re$lects the character o$ (roduction, which becomes stationary when e.isting (ro(erty relations (ersist des(ite the elimination o$ the mar,et and com(etition. When this static situation comes to an end needs will loo, com(letely di$$erent. I$ (roduction is redirected towards the unconditional and unlimited satis$action o$ needs, including (recisely those (roduced by the hitherto (re4ailing system, needs themsel4es will be decisi4ely altered. The indistinguishability o$ true and $alse needs is an essential (art o$ the (resent (hase. In it the re(roduction o$ li$e and its su((ression $orm a unity which is intelligible as the law o$ the whole but not in its indi4idual mani$estations. ?ne day it will be readily a((arentC that men do not need the trash (ro4ided them by the culture industry or the miserable high9Buality goods (ro$$ered by the more substantial industries. The thought, $or instance, that in addition to $ood and lodging the cinema is necessary $or the re(roduction o$ labour (ower is EtrueC only in a world which
(age>#:!

(re(ares men $or the re(roduction o$ their labour (ower and constrains their needs in harmony with the interests o$ su((ly and social control. The idea that an emanci(ated society would cra4e the (oor histrionics o$ Fametta or the (oor sou(s o$ )e4ory is absurd. The better the sou(s, the more (leasant the renunciation o$ Fametta, ?nce scarcity has disa((eared, the relationshi( o$ need to satis$action will change. Today the com(ulsion to (roduce $or, needs mediated and (etri$ied by the mar,et is one o$ the chie$ means o$ ,ee(ing e4eryone on the ;ob. =othing may be thought, written, done, or made that transcends a condition which maintains its (ower largely through the needs o$ its 4ictims. It is inconcei4able that the com(ulsion to satis$y needs would remain a $etter in a changed society. The (resent $orm o$ society has in large measure denied satis$action to the needs inherent in it and has thus been able to ,ee( (roduction in its control by (ointing to these 4ery needs. The system is as (ractical as it is irrational. An order which does away with the irrationality in which commodity (roduction is entangled but also satis$ies needs will eBually do away with the (ractical s(irit, which is re$lected e4en in the non9 utilitarianism o$ bourgeois pour l)art. It would abolish not merely the traditional antagonism between (roduction and consum(tion but also its most recent uni$ication in state ca(italism, and it would con4erge with the idea that, in the words o$ %arl %raus, E8od created man not as consumer or (roducer but as manC. For something to be useless would no longer be shame$ul. Ad;ustment would lose its meaning. For the $irst time, (roducti4ity would ha4e an e$$ect on need in a genuine and not a distorted sense. It would not allay unsatis$ied needs with useless thingsG rather, satis$action would engender the ability to relate to the world without subordination to the (rinci(le o$ uni4ersal utility. In his critiBue o$ $alse needs -u.ley (reser4es the idea o$ the ob;ecti4ity o$ ha((iness. The mechanical

re(etition o$ the (hrase, E@4erybodyCs ha((y now,C becomes the most e.treme accusation When men are (roducts o$ an order based on denial and dece(tion, and that order im(lants imaginary needs in them, then the ha((iness which is de$ined by the satis$action o$ such needs is truly bad. It is a mere a((endage o$ the social machinery. In a totally integrated world which does not tolerate sorrow, the command $rom Aomans H.ii. #'I, EWee( with the wee(ing,C is more 4alid than e4er, but E3e ;oyous with the ;oy$ulC has become a gory moc,ery 0 the ;ob the order (ermits the ordered $eeds on the (er(etuation o$ misery. -ence the mere re;ection o$ $alse ha((iness has a sub4ersi4e e$$ect. FeninaCs reaction when the Sa4age $inds an idiotic
(age>##:

$ilm obno.ious, EWhy did he go out o$ his way to s(oil thingsJC is a ty(ical mani$estation o$ a dense networ, o$ dece(tion. E?ne shouldnCt s(oil it $or the othersC has always been one o$ the stoc, ma.ims o$ those who s(oil it $or the others. 3ut at the same time the descri(tion o$ FeninaCs irritation (ro4ides the basis $or a criticism o$ -u.leyCs own attitude. -e belie4es that by demonstrating the worthlessness o$ sub;ecti4e ha((iness according to the criteria o$ traditional culture he has shown that ha((iness as such is worthless. Its (lace is to be ta,en by an ontology distilled $rom traditional religion and (hiloso(hy, according to which ha((iness and the ob;ecti4e good are irreconcilable. A society which wants nothing but ha((iness, according to -u.ley, mo4es ine.orably into insanity, into mechani2ed bestiality. 3ut FeninaCs o4er2ealous de$ensi4eness betrays insecurity, the sus(icion that her ,ind o$ ha((iness is distorted by contradictions, that it is not ha((iness e4en by its own de$inition. =o (harisaical recollection o$ Sha,es(eare is necessary to become aware o$ the $atuousness o$ the $eelies and o$ the Eob;ecti4e des(airC o$ the audience which (artici(ates in it. That the essence o$ the $ilm lies in merely du(licating and rein$orcing what already e.ists, that it is glaringly su(er$luous and senseless e4en in a leisure restricted to in$antility, that its du(licati4e realism is incom(atible with its claim to be an aesthetic image 0 all this can be seen in the $ilm itsel$, without recourse to dogmatically cited v;rit;s ;ternelles. The holes in the 4icious circles which -u.ley draws with so much care are due not to inadeBuacies in his imaginati4e construction but to the conce(tion o$ a ha((iness sub;ecti4ely consummate but ob;ecti4ely absurd. I$ his critiBue o$ sub;ecti4e ha((iness is 4alid, then his idea o$ a hy(ostati2ed ob;ecti4e ha((iness remo4ed $rom the claims o$ humanity must be ideological. The source o$ untruth is the se(aration o$ sub;ecti4e and ob;ecti4e, which has been rei$ied to a rigid alternati4e. usta(ha ond, the raisonneur and de4ilCs ad4ocate o$ the boo,, who embodies the most articulate sel$9consciousness o$ ,rave Ne& %orld, $ormulates the alternati4e. To the Sa4ageCs (rotest that man is degraded by total ci4ili2ation he re(lies, E)egrade him $rom what (ositionJ As a ha((y, hard9wor,ing, goods9consuming citi2en heCs (er$ect. ?$ course, i$ you choose some other standard than ours, then (erha(s you might say he was degraded. 3ut youC4e got to stic, to one set o$ (ostulates.C In this image o$ the two sets o$ (ostulates, e.hibited li,e $inished (roducts between which one must choose, relati4ism is a((arent. The Buestion o$ truth dissol4es into an Ei$9thenC relation. Similarly, isolated by -u.ley, the 4alues o$ death and interiority $all (rey to (ragmati2ation. The Sa4age re(orts that he once stood
(age>###

on a cli$$ with outstretched arms in burning heat in order to $eel what it was li,e to be cruci$ied. As,ed $or an e.(lanation, he gi4es the curious answer: E3ecause I $elt I ought to. I$ 1esus could stand it, and then, i$ one has done something wrong . . . 3esides, I was unha((y, that was another reason.C I$ the Sa4age can $ind no other ;usti$ication $or his religious ad4enture, the choice o$ su$$ering, than the $act that he has su$$ered, he can hardly contradict his inter4iewer, who argues, that it is more reasonable to ta,e "oma, the eu(horia9(roducing cure9all drug, to dissol4e oneCs de(ressions. Irrationally hy(ostati2ed, the world o$ ideas is demoted to the le4el o$ mere e.istence. In this $orm, it continually demands ;usti$ication according to merely em(irical norms and is (rescribed $or the sa,e o$ (recisely that ha((iness which it is su((osed to negate. The crude alternati4e o$ ob;ecti4e meaning and sub;ecti4e ha((iness, concei4ed as mutually e.clusi4e, is the (hiloso(hical basis $or the reactionary character o$ the no4el. The choice is between the barbarism o$

ha((iness and culture as the ob;ecti4ely higher condition that entails unha((iness. EThe (rogressi4e domination o$ nature and society,C -erbert arcuse argues, Edoes away with all transcendence, (hysical as well as (sychical. "ulture, the all9embracing title $or one side o$ the o((osition, subsists u(on lac, o$ $ul$ilment, longing, $aith, (ain, ho(e, in short, on that which does not e.ist but lea4es its mar, in reality. That means, howe4er, that culture e.ists on the basis o$ unha((iness.C The ,ernel o$ the contro4ersy is the hard and $ast dis;unction that one cannot be had without the other, technology without death conditioning, (rogress without mani(ulated in$antile regression. -owe4er, the honesty o$ the thought e.(ressed in the dis;unction is to be distinguished $rom the moral constraint o$ ideology. Today, only con$ormism could acBuiesce in considering ob;ecti4e insanity to be a mere accident o$ historical de4elo(ment, $or retrogression is essential to the consistent de4elo(ment o$ domination. Theory is not $ree to choose good9 naturedly that which suits it in the course o$ history and to omit the rest. Attem(ts to come u( with a %eltanschauung which ta,es a E(ositi4e attitudeC to technology but ad4ocates that it ought to be gi4en meaning (ro4ide shallow com$ort and ser4e merely to rein$orce an a$$irmati4e wor, morale which is itsel$ highly Buestionable. =e4ertheless, the (ressure that ,rave Ne& %orld e.erts on e4eryone and e4erything is conce(tually incom(atible with the deathli,e stasis that ma,es it a nightmare. It is no accident that all the ma;or $igures in the no4el, e4en Fenina, show signs o$ sub;ecti4e derangement. The alternati4e is $alse. The (er$ectly sel$9contained state which -u.ley de(icts with such grim satis$action
(age>##<

transcends itsel$ not by 4irtue o$ an ine$$ecti4e melange o$ desirable and re(rehensible elements brought in $rom the outside, but by 4irtue o$ its ob;ecti4e nature. -u.ley is aware that historical tendencies reali2e themsel4es behind menCs bac,s. For him the essential tendency is the sel$9estrangement and (er$ected e.ternali2ation o$ the sub;ect, which ma,es itsel$ into a mere means in the absence o$ any end whatsoe4er. 3ut he ma,es a $etish o$ the $etishism o$ commodities. In his eyes the character o$ commodities becomes ontic and sel$9subsistent, and he ca(itulates to this a((arition instead o$ seeing through it as a mere $orm o$ consciousness, $alse consciousness which would dissol4e with the elimination o$ it economic basis. -u.ley does not admit that the (hantasmagoric inhumanity o$ ,rave Ne& %orld is actually a relation between human beings, a relation o$ social labour which is not aware o$ its own nature 0 that the totally rei$ied man is one who has been blinded to himsel$. Instead, he (ursues in succession 4arious unanalysed sur$ace (henomena, such as Ethe con$lict between men and machineC. -u.ley indicts technology $or something which does not, as he belie4es Hand in this he $ollows the tradition o$ romantic (hilistinismI, lie in its essential nature, which is the abolition o$ labour. It is rather a result o$ the in4ol4ement o$ technology in the social relations o$ (roductionG this insight, moreo4er, is im(licit throughout the no4el. @4en the incom(atibility o$ art and mass (roduction today does not originate in technology as such but rather in the need o$ these irrationally (ersisting social relations to maintain the claim to indi4iduation Hin 3en;aminCs words, an EauraCI which is only honoured in the breach. @4en the (rocess $or which -u.ley censures technology, the dis(lacement o$ ends by means to the (oint where the latter becomes com(letely inde(endent o$ the $ormer, does not necessarily eliminate ends. /recisely in art, # where consciousness ma,es use o$ unconscious channels, blind (lay with means can (osit and un$old ends. The relation o$ means and ends, o$ humanity and technology, cannot be regulated through ontological (riorities. -u.leyCs alternati4e amounts to the (ro(osition that man,ind should not e.tricate itsel$ $rom the calamity. -umanity is
#. Schumann writes somewhere that in his youth he de4oted his attention to his instrument, the (iano 0 the means, whereas in his maturity his interest was (urely in music 0 the end. 3ut the unBuestionable su(eriority o$ his early wor,s to his late ones cannot be di4orced $rom the incessantly (roducti4e imaginati4e richness o$ his use o$ the (iano, which (roduces the chiaroscuro, the bro,en harmonic colour, indeed the density o$ the com(ositional structure. Artists do not reali2e Ethe ideaC merely by themsel4esG it is $ar more the result o$ technological achie4ements, o$ten o$ aimless (lay. (age>##&

(laced be$ore the choice between regression to a mythology Buestionable e4en to -u.ley and (rogress towards total un$reedom o$ consciousness. =o room is le$t $or a conce(t o$ man,ind that would resist absor(tion into the collecti4e coercion o$ the system and reduction to the status o$ contingent indi4iduals.

The 4ery construction which simultaneously denounces the totalitarian world9state and glori$ies retros(ecti4ely the indi4idualism that brought it about becomes itsel$ totalitarian. In that it lea4es no esca(e o(en, this conce(tion itsel$ im(lies the thing that horri$ies -u.ley, the liBuidation o$ e4erything that is not assimilated. The (ractical conseBuence o$ the bourgeois E=othing to, be doneC, which resounds as the no4elCs echo, is (recisely the (er$idious EDou must ad;ustC o$ the totalitarian 3ra4e =ew World. The monolithic trend and the linear conce(t o$ (rogress, as handled in the no4el, deri4e $rom the restricted $orm in which the (roducti4e $orces de4elo(ed in E(re9historyC. The ine4itable character o$ the negati4e uto(ia arises $rom (ro;ecting the limitations im(osed by the relations o$ (roduction Hthe enthronement o$ the (roducti4e a((aratus $or the sa,e o$ (ro$itI as (ro(erties o$ the human and technical (roducti4e $orces per se. In (ro(hesying the entro(y o$ history, -u.ley succumbs to an illusion which is necessarily (ro(agated by the society against which he so 2ealously (rotests. -u.ley critici2es the (ositi4istic s(irit. 3ut because his criticism con$ines itsel$ to, shoc,s, while remaining immersed in the immediacy o$ e.(erience and merely registering social illusions as $acts, -u.ley himsel$ becomes a (ositi4ist. )es(ite his critical tone, he is in basic agreement with descri(ti4ely oriented cultural criticism, which, in lamenting the ine.orable decline o$ culture, (ro4ides a (rete.t $or the strengthening o$ domination. In the name o$ culture, ci4ili2ation marches into barbarism. Instead o$ antagonisms, -u.ley en4isages, something li,e an intrinsically non9sel$9contradictory total sub;ect o$ technological reason, and corres(ondingly, a sim(listic total de4elo(ment. Such conce(tions belong to the currently $ashionable ideas o$ Euni4ersal historyC and Estyle o$ li$eC which are (art o$ the cultural $aLade. Although he gi4es an incisi4e (hysiognomy o$ total uni$ication, he $ails to deci(her its sym(toms as e.(ressions o$ an antagonistic essence, the (ressure o$ domination, in which the tendency to totali2ation is inherent. -u.ley e.(resses scorn $or the (hrase, E@4erybodyCs ha((y nowadaysC. 3ut the essence o$ his conce(tion o$ history, which is better re4ealed by its $orm than by the e4ents which ma,e u( its content, is (ro$oundly harmonious. -is notion o$ uninterru(ted (rogress is distinguished $rom the liberalist idea only in em(hasis, not through ob;ecti4e insight. Fi,e a 3entha9
(age>##6

mite liberal, -u.ley $oresees a de4elo(ment to the greatest ha((iness o$ the greatest number, but it discom$its him. -e condemns ,rave Ne& %orld with the same common sense whose (re4alence there he moc,s. -ence, throughout the no4el there emerge unanalysed elements o$ that worn9out %eltanschauung which -u.ley de(lores. The worthlessness o$ the e(hemeral and the catastro(hic nature o$ history are contrasted to that which ne4er changes 0 the philosophia perennis, the eternal sunshine o$ the hea4enly realm o$ ideas. Accordingly, e.teriority and interiority mo4e into a (rimiti4e antithesis: men are the mere ob;ects o$ all e4il, $rom arti$icial insemination to gallo(ing senility, while the category o$ the indi4idual stands $orth with unBuestioned dignity. Unre$lecti4e indi4idualism asserts itsel$ as though the horror which trans$i.es, the no4el were not itsel$ the monstrous o$$s(ring o$ indi4idualist society. The s(ontaneity o$ the indi4idual human being is eliminated $rom the historical (rocess while the conce(t o$ the indi4idual is detached $rom history and inco(orated into the philosophia perennis$ Indi4iduation, which is essentially social, re4erts to the immutability o$ nature. Its im(lication in the networ, o$ guilt was discerned by bourgeois (hiloso(hy at its 2enith, but this insight has been re(laced by the em(irical le4elling o$ the indi4idual through (sychologism. In the wa,e o$ a tradition whose (redominance (ro4o,es resistance more readily than it in4ites res(ect, the indi4idual is immeasurably e.alted as an idea while each indi4idual (erson is con4icted o$ moral ban,ru(tcy by the e(igones o$ disillusioned romanticism. The socially 4alid recognition o$ the nullity o$ the indi4idual turns into an accusation le4elled against the o4erburdened (ri4ate indi4idual. -u.leyCs boo,, li,e his entire wor,, blames the hy(ostati2edC indi4idual $or his $ungibility and his e.istence as a Echaracter mas,C o$ society rather than as a real sel$. These $acts are attributed to the indi4idualCs inauthenticity, hy(ocrisy, and narrow egoism, in short, to all those traits which are the stoc,9in9trade o$ a subtle, descri(ti4e ego (sychology. For -u.ley, in the authentic bourgeois s(irit, the indi4idual is both e4erything 0 because once u(on a time he was the basis o$ a system o$ (ro(erty rights 0 and nothing, because, as a mere (ro(erty owner, he is absolutely re(laceable. This is the (rice which the ideology o$ indi4idualism

must (ay $or its own untruth. The no4elCs fa ula docet is more nihilistic than is acce(table to the humanity which it (roclaims. -ere, howe4er, -u.ley does not do ;ustice to the 4ery $acts on which he (uts his (ositi4istic em(hasis. ,rave Ne& %orld shares with all $ully wor,ed9out uto(ias the character o$ 4anity. Things ha4e de4elo(ed di$$erently and will continue to do so. It is not the
(age>##'

accuracy o$ imagination which $ails. Aather the 4ery attem(t to see into the distant $uture in order to (u22le out the concrete $orm o$ the non9e.istent is beset with the im(otence o$ (resum(tion. The antithetical com(onent o$ the dialectic cannot be con;ured away syllogistically, $or e.am(le by means o$ the general conce(t o$ enlightenment. Such an a((roach eliminates the 4ery material which (ro4ides the mo4ing $orce o$ the dialectic 0 those elements that are e.ternal to the sub;ect and are not already Es(iritualC and trans(arent. =o matter how well eBui((ed technologically and materially, no matter how correct $rom a scienti$ic (oint o$ 4iew the $ully drawn uto(ia may be, the 4ery underta,ing is a regression to a (hiloso(hy o$ identity, to idealism. -ence the ironic EaccuracyC $or which -u.leyCs e.tra(olations stri4e does his uto(ia no ser4ice. For howe4er surely the unsel$conscious conce(t o$ total enlightenment may mo4e towards its o((osite, irrationality, it is ne4ertheless im(ossible to deduce $rom the conce(t itsel$ whether this will occur and i$ so, whether it will sto( there. The looming (olitical catastro(he can hardly $ail to modi$y the esca(e route o$ technical ci4ili2ation. Ape and +ssence is a somewhat hasty attem(t to correct a mista,e which deri4es not $rom insu$$icient ,nowledge o$ atomic (hysics but $rom a linear conce(tion o$ history, a mista,e which thus cannot be corrected by the elaboration o$ additional material. Where the (lausibility o$ ,rave Ne& %orld)s (rognoses was o4ersim(li$ied, those o$ -u.leyCs second boo, dealing with the $uture bear the stigma o$ im(robability Has, $or instance, the de4il cultI. These characteristics can scarcely be de$ended in the midst o$ a no4el which is realistic in style by, allusions to (hiloso(hical allegory. 3ut the ideological bias o$ the conce(tion re4enges, itsel$ in this ine4itability o$ error. There is an unwitting resemblance to the member o$ the u((er middle class who solemnly insists that it is not in his own interest but in that o$ all man,ind that he ad4ocates the continuance o$ a (ro$it economy. en are not yet ready $or socialism, the argument runsG i$ they no longer had to wor,, they wouldnCt ,now what to do with their time. Such (latitudes are not only com(romised by the usage to which they are (utG they are also com(letely de4oid o$ truth, since they both rei$y EmenC in general and hy(ostati2e the obser4er as a disinterested ;udge. 3ut this coldness is dee(ly embedded in -u.leyCs conce(tual $ramewor,. Full o$ $ictitious concern $or the calamity that a reali2ed uto(ia could in$lict on man,ind, he re$uses, to ta,e note o$ the real and $ar more urgent calamity that (re4ents the uto(ia $rom being reali2ed. It is idle to bemoan what will become o$ men when hunger and distress ha4e disa((eared
(age>##6

$rom the world. For although -u.ley can $ind nothing more to critici2e in this ci4ili2ation than the boredom o$ a ne4er9ne4er land which is in (rinci(le unattainable anyway, it is by 4irtue o$ the logic o$ this ci4ili2ation that the world is sub;ect to hunger and distress. All his indignation at the calamitous state o$ things notwithstanding, the basis o$ -u.leyCs attitude is a conce(tion o$ a history which ta,es its time. Time is made res(onsible $or that which men must accom(lish. The relation to time is (arasitical. The no4el shi$ts guilt $or the (resent to the generations o$ the $uture. This re$lects the ominous EIt shall not be otherwiseC which is the end9(roduct o$ the basic /rotestant amalgamation o$ intros(ection and re(ression. 3ecause man,ind, tainted with original sin, is not ca(able o$ anything better in this world, the bettering o$ the world is made a sin. 3ut the no4el does not draw its li$e $rom the blood o$ the unborn. )es(ite many ingenuities o$ e.ecution, it $ails because o$ a basic wea,ness 0 an em(ty schematism. 3ecause the trans$ormation o$ men is not sub;ect to calculation and e4ades the antici(ating imagination, it is re(laced by a caricature o$ the men o$ today, in the ancient and much abused manner o$ satire. The $iction o$ the $uture bows be$ore the omni(otence o$ the (resentG that which does not yet e.ist is made comic through its resemblance to that which already is, li,e the gods in ?$$enbach o(erettas. The image o$ the most remote is re(laced by a 4ision o$ that which is closest to hand, seen through in4erted binoculars. The

$ormal tric, o$ re(orting $uture e4ents as though they had already ha((ened endows their content with a re(ulsi4e com(licity. The grotesBueness that the (resent assumes when con$ronted with its own (ro;ection into the $uture (ro4o,es the same laughs as naturalistic re(resentations with enlarged heads. The (athetic notion o$ the Eeternally humanC resigns itsel$ to the less humane one o$ the normal man o$ yesterday, today, and tomorrow. It is not $or its contem(lati4e as(ect as such, which it shares with all (hiloso(hy and re(resentation, that the no4el is to be critici2ed, but $or its $ailure to contem(late a (ra.is which could e.(lode the in$amous continuum. anCs choice is not between indi4idualism and a totalitarian word9state. I$ the great historical (ers(ecti4e is to be anything more than the Fata #organa o$ the eye which sur4eys only to control, it must o(en on to the Buestion o$ whether society will come to determine itsel$ or bring about terrestrial catastro(he.
(age>##7

Perennia% Fashion 6 7a88

(age>##!

For almost $i$ty years, since #!#6 when the contagious enthusiasm $or it bro,e out in America, ;a22 has maintained its (lace as a mass (henomenon. Its method, all declarations o$ (ro(agandistic historians notwithstanding, has remained essentially unchangedG its (rehistory dates bac, to certain songs $rom the $irst hal$ o$ the nineteenth century, such as ETur,ey in the StrawC and E?ld Ui( "oonC. 1a22 is music which $uses the most rudimentary melodic, harmonic, metric and $ormal structure with the ostensibly disru(ti4e (rinci(le o$ synco(ation, yet without e4er really disturbing the crude unity o$ the basic rhythm, the identically sustained metre, the Buarter9note. This is not to say that nothing has ha((ened in ;a22. The monochromatic (iano has been $orced to cede the dominant role it (layed during the ragtime (eriod to small ensembles, generally winds. The wild antics o$ the $irst ;a22 bands $rom the South, =ew ?rleans abo4e all, and those $rom "hicago, ha4e been toned down with the growth o$ commerciali2ation and o$ the audience, and continued scholarly e$$orts to reco4er some o$ this original animation, whether called EswingC or Ebebo(C, ine.orably succumb to commercial reBuirements and Buic,ly lose their sting. The synco(ation (rinci(le, which at $irst had to call attention to itsel$ by e.aggeration, has in the meantime become so sel$9e4ident that it no longer needs to accentuate the wea, beats as was $ormally reBuired. Anyone still using such accents today is derided as EcornyC, as out9o$9date as #!<7 e4ening dress. "ontrariness has changed into second9degree EsmoothnessC and the ;a229$orm o$ reaction has become so entrenched that an entire generation o$ youth hears only synco(ations without being aware o$ the original con$lict between it and the basic metre. Det none o$ this alters the $act that ;a22 has in its essence remained static, nor does it e.(lain the resulting enigma that millions o$ (eo(le seem ne4er to tire o$ its monotonous attraction. Winthro( Sargeant, internationally ,nown today as the art editor o$ 5ife maga2ine, is res(onsible $or the best, most reliable and most sensible boo, on the sub;ectG twenty9$i4e years ago he wrote that ;a22 was in no way a new musical idiom but rather,
(age>#<#

Ee4en in its most com(le. mani$estations a 4ery elementary matter o$ incessantly re(eated $ormulaeC. This ,ind o$ unbiased obser4ation seems (ossible only in AmericaG in @uro(e, where ;a22 has not yet become an e4eryday (henomenon, there is the tendency, es(ecially among those de4otees who ha4e ado(ted it as a %eltanschauung regard it $alsely as a brea,9through o$ original, untrammelled nature, as a trium(h o4er the musty museum9culture. -owe4er little doubt there can be regarding the A$rican elements in ;a22, it is no less certain that e4erything unruly in it was $rom the 4ery beginning integrated into a strict scheme, that its rebellious gestures are accom(anied by the tendency to blind obeisance, much li,e the sadomasochistic ty(e described by analytic (sychology, the (erson who cha$es against the $ather9$igure while secretly admiring him, who see,s to emulate him and in turn deri4es en;oyment $rom the subordination he o4ertly detests. This (ro(ensity accelerates the standardi2ation, commerciali2ation and rigidi$ication o$ the medium. It is not as though scurrilous businessmen ha4e corru(ted the 4oice o$ nature by attac,ing it $rom withoutG ;a22 ta,es care o$ this all by itsel$. The abuse o$ ;a22 is not the e.ternal calamity in whose name the (uristic de$enders o$ ErealC unadulterated ;a22 $uriously (rotestG such misuse originates in ;a22 itsel$. The =egro s(irituals, antecedents o$ the blues, were sla4e songs and as such combined the lament o$ un$reedom with its o((ressed con$irmation. oreo4er, it is di$$icult to isolate the authentic =egro elements in ;a22. The white lumpenproletariat also (artici(ated in its (rehistory, during the (eriod (receding its thrust into the s(otlight o$ a society which seemed to be waiting $or it and which had long been $amiliar with its im(ulses through the ca,ewal, and ta( dancing. It is (recisely this (altry stoc, o$ (rocedures and characteristics, howe4er, the rigorous e.clusion o$ e4ery unregimented im(ulse, which ma,es the durability o$ this Es(ecialityC 0 one which acce(ts change only when $orced to, and then generally only to suit the demands o$ ad4ertising 0 so di$$icult to gras(. For the $act remains that ;a22 has established itsel$ $or a short eternity in the midst o$ a (hase which is

otherwise anything but static, and that it dis(lays not the slightest inclination to relinBuish any (ortion o$ its mono(oly but instead only the tendency to ada(t itsel$ to the ear o$ the listener, no matter whether highly trained or undi$$erentiated. Det $or all o$ that it has not become any less $ashionable. For almost $i$ty years the (roductions o$ ;a22 ha4e remained as e(hemeral as seasonal styles. 1a22 is a $orm o$ manneristic inter(retation. As with $ashions what is im(ortant is show, not the thing itsel$G instead o$ ;a22 itsel$ being com(osed, ElightC music, the most dismal (roducts
(age>#<<

o$ the (o(ular9song industry, is dressed u(. 1a22 $ans, short $or $anatics, sense this and there$ore (re$er to em(hasi2e the musicCs im(ro4isational $eatures. 3ut these are mere $rills. Any (recocious American teenager ,nows that the routine today scarcely lea4es any room $or im(ro4isation, and that what a((ears as s(ontaneity is in $act care$ully (lanned out in ad4ance with machineli,e (recision. 3ut e4en where there is real im(ro4isation, in o((ositional grou(s which (erha(s e4en today still indulge in such things out o$ sheer (leasure, the sole material remains (o(ular songs. Thus, the so9called im(ro4isations are actually reduced to the more or less $eeble rehashing o$ basic $ormulas in which the schema shines through at e4ery moment. @4en the im(ro4isations con$orm largely to norms and recur constantly. The range o$ the (ermissible in ;a22 is as narrowly circumscribed as in any (articular cut o$ clothes. In 4iew o$ the wealth o$ a4ailable (ossibilities $or disco4ering and treating musical material, e4en in the s(here o$ entertainment i$ absolutely necessary, ;a22 has shown itsel$ to be utterly im(o4erished. Its use o$ the e.isting musical techniBues seems to be entirely arbitrary. The ban on changing the basic beat during the course o$ the music is itsel$ su$$icient to constrict com(osition to the (oint where what it demands is not aesthetic awareness o$ style but rather (sychological regression. The limitations (laced on metre, harmony and $orm are no less sti$ling. "onsidered as a whole, the (erennial sameness o$ ;a22 consists not in a basic organi2ation o$ the material within which the imagination can roam $reely and without inhibition, as within an articulate language, but rather in the utili2ation o$ certain well9de$ined tric,s, $ormulas and clich7s: toe the e.clusion o$ e4erything else. It is as though one were to cling con4ulsi4ely to the Elatest thingC and deny the image o$ a (articular year by re$using to tear o$$ the (age o$ the calendar. Fashion enthrones itsel$ as something lasting and thus sacri$ices the dignity o$ $ashion, its transience. In order to understand how an entire s(here can be described by a $ew sim(le reci(es as though nothing else e.isted, one must $irst $ree onesel$ o$ the clich7s, E4italityC and Erhythm o$ the timeC, which are glori$ied by ad4ertising, by its ;ournalistic a((endage and in the end, by the 4ictims themsel4es. The $act is that what ;a22 has to o$$er rhythmically is e.tremely limited. The most stri,ing traits in ;a22 were all inde(endently (roduced, de4elo(ed and sur(assed by serious music since 3rahms. And its E4italityC is di$$icult to ta,e
(age>#<&

seriously in the $ace o$ an assembly9line (rocedure that is standardi2ed down to its most minute de4iations. The ;a22 ideologists, es(ecially in @uro(e, mista,enly regard the sum o$ (sycho9technically calculated and tested e$$ects as the e.(ression o$ an emotional state, the illusion o$ which ;a22 e4o,es in the listenerG this attitude is rather li,e regarding those $ilm stars, whose regular or sorrow$ul $aces are modelled on (ortraits o$ $amous (ersons, as being there$ore o$ the same stature as Fucre2ia 3orgia or Fady -amilton i$, indeed, the latter were not already their own manneBuins. What enthusiastically stunted innocence sees as the ;ungle is actually $actory9made through and through, e4en when, on s(ecial occasions, s(ontaneity is (ublici2ed as a $eatured attraction. The (arado.ical immortality o$ ;a22 has its roots in the economy. "om(etition on the culture mar,et has (ro4ed the e$$ecti4eness o$ a number o$ techniBues, including synco(ation, semi94ocal, semi9instrumental sounds, gliding, im(ressionistic harmonies and o(ulent instrumentation which suggests that Enothing is, too good $or usC. These techniBues are then sorted out and ,aleidosco(ically mi.ed into e4er9new combinations without there ta,ing (lace e4en the slightest interaction between the total scheme and the no less schematic details. All that remains is the results o$ the com(etition, itsel$ not 4ery E$reeC, and the entire business is then touched u(, in (articular by the radio. The in4estments made in Ename bandsC, whose $ame is assured by scienti$ically engineered (ro(agandaG and e4en more im(ortant, the money used to (romote musical bestseller (rogrammes li,e EThe -it /aradeC by

the $irms who buy radio ad4ertising time, ma,e e4ery di4ergence a ris,. Standardi2ation, moreo4er, means the strengthening o$ the lasting domination o$ the listening (ublic and o$ their conditioned re$le.es. They are e.(ected to want only that to which they ha4e become accustomed and to become enraged whene4er their e.(ectations are disa((ointed and $ul$ilment, which they regard as the customerCs inalienable right, is denied. And e4en i$ there were attem(ts to introduce anything really di$$erent into light music, they would be doomed $rom the start by 4irtue o$ economic concentration. The insurmountable character o$ a (henomenon which is inherently contingent and arbitrary re$lects something o$ the arbitrary nature o$ (resent social controls. The more totally the culture industry roots out all de4iations, thus cutting o$$ the medium $rom its intrinsic (ossibilities o$ de4elo(ment, the more the whole blaring dynamic business a((roaches a standstill. 1ust as no (iece o$ ;a22 can, in a musical sense, be said to ha4e a history ;ust as all its com(onents can be mo4ed about at will, ;ust as no single measure
(age>#<6

$ollows $rom the logic o$ the musical (rogression 0 so the (erennial $ashion becomes the li,eness o$ a (lanned congealed society, not so di$$erent $rom the nightmare 4ision o$ -u.leyCs ,rave Ne& %orld. Whether what the ideology here e.(ressesor e.(osesis the tendency o$ an o4er9accumulating society to regress to the stage o$ sim(le re(roduction is $or economists to decide. The $ear that mar,ed the late writings o$ a bitterly disa((ointed Thorstein *eblen, that the (lay o$ economic and social $orces was coming to rest in a negati4e, historical state, a ,ind o$ higher9(otency $eudalism, may be highly unli,ely, yet it remains the innermost desire o$ ;a22. The image o$ the technical world (ossesses an ahistorical as(ect that enables it to ser4e as a mythical mirage o$ eternity. /lanned (roduction seems to (urge the li$e9(rocess o$ all that is uncontrollable, un(redictable, incalculable in ad4ance and thus to de(ri4e it o$ what is genuinely new, without which history is hardly concei4ableG in addition, the $orm o$ the standardi2ed mass9 (roduced article trans$orms the tem(oral seBuence o$ ob;ects into more o$ the same. The $act that a #!': locomoti4e loo,s di$$erent $rom one made in #!': lea4es a (arado.ical im(ressionG it is $or this reason that the most modern e.(ress trains are occasionally decorated with (hotogra(hs o$ obsolete models. The surrealists, who ha4e much in common with ;a22, ha4e a((ealed to this le4el o$ e.(erience since A(ollinaire: Eici meme V les automobiles ont lCair dCetreV anciennes.C Traces o$ this ha4e been unconsciously assimilated by the (erennial $ashionG ;a22, which ,nows what it is doing when it allies itsel$ with techniBue, collaborates in the Etechnological 4eilC through its rigorously re(etiti4e though ob;ectless cultic ritual, and $osters the illusion that the twentieth century is ancient @gy(t, $ull o$ sla4es and endless dynasties. This remains illusion, howe4er, $or although the symbol o$ technology may be the uni$ormly re4ol4ing wheel, its intrinsic energies de4elo( to an incalculable e.tent while remaining saddled by a society which is dri4en $orward by its inner tensions, which (ersists in its irrationality and which grants men $ar more history than they wish. Timelessness is (ro;ected on technology by a world9order which ,nows that to change would be to colla(se. The (seudo9eternity is belied, howe4er, by the bad contingencies and in$eriorities that ha4e established themsel4es as uni4ersal (rinci(le. The men o$ the Thousand Dear Aeichs o$ today loo, li,e criminals, and the (erennial gesture o$ mass culture is that o$ the asocial (erson. The $act that o$ all the tric,s a4ailable, synco(ation should ha4e been the one to achie4e musical dictatorshi( o4er the masses recalls the usur(ation that characteri2es techniBues, howe4er rational they may be in themsel4es, when they are (laced at
(age>#<'

the ser4ice o$ irrational totalitarian control. echanisms which in reality are (art and (arcel o$ the entire (resent9day ideology, o$ the culture industry, are le$t easily 4isible in ;a22 because in the absence o$ technical ,nowledge they cannot be as easily identi$ied as, $or e.am(le, in $ilms. Det e4en ;a22 ta,es certain (recautions. /arallel to standardi2ation is (seudo9indi4iduali2ation. The more strictly the listener is curbed, the less he is (ermitted to notice it. -e is told that ;a22 is Econsumer artC, made s(ecially $or him. The (articular e$$ects with which ;a22 $ills out its schema, synco(ation abo4e all, stri4e to create the a((earance o$ being the outburst or caricature o$ untrammelled sub;ecti4ity 0 in e$$ect, that o$ the listener 0 or (erha(s the most subtle nuance dedicated to the greater glory o$ the audience. 3ut the method becomes

tra((ed in its own net. For while it must constantly (romise its listeners something di$$erent, e.cite their attention and ,ee( itsel$ $rom becoming run9 o$9the9mill, it is not allowed to lea4e the beaten (athG it must be always new and always the same. -ence, the de4iations are ;ust as standardi2ed as the standards and in e$$ect re4o,e themsel4es the instant they a((ear. 1a22, li,e e4erything else in the culture industry, grati$ies desires only to $rustrate them at the same time. -owe4er much ;a229sub;ects, re(resenting the music listener in general, may (lay the non9con$ormist, in truth they are less and less themsel4es. Indi4idual $eatures which do not con$orm to the norm are ne4ertheless sha(ed by it, and become mar,s o$ mutilation. Terri$ied, ;a22 $ans identi$y with the society they dread $or ha4ing made them what they are. This gi4es the ;a22 ritual its a$$irmati4e character, that o$ being acce(ted into a community o$ un$ree eBuals. With this in mind, ;a22 can a((eal directly to the mass o$ listeners in sel$9;usti$ication with a diabolically good conscience. Standard (rocedures which (re4ail unBuestioned and which ha4e been (er$ected o4er long (eriods o$ time (roduce standard reactions. Well9meaning educators, who belie4e that a change in (rogramming would be enough to bring the 4iolated and o((ressed to desire something better, or at least something di$$erent, are much too credulous. @4en when they do not greatly transcend the ideological realm o$ the culture industry, serious changes in (rogramme (olicy are angrily re;ected in reality. The (o(ulation is so accustomed to the dri4el it gets that it cannot renounce it, e4en when it sees through it hal$way. ?n the contrary, it $eels itsel$ im(elled to intensi$y its enthusiasm in order to con4ince itsel$ that its ignominy is its good $ortune. 1a22 sets u( schemes o$ social beha4iour to which (eo(le must in any case con$orm. 1a22 enables them to (ractise those $orms o$ beha4iour, and they lo4e it all the more $or ma,ing the
(age>#<6

inesca(able easier to bear. 1a22 re(roduces its own mass9basis, without thereby reducing the guilt o$ those who (roduce it. The eternity o$ $ashion is a 4icious circle. 1a22 $ans, as has once again been em(hatically shown by )a4id Aiesman, can be di4ided into two clearly distinguishable grou(s. In the inner circle sit the e.(erts, or those who consider themsel4es such 0 $or 4ery o$ten the most (assionate de4otees, those who $launt the established terminology and di$$erentiate ;a22 styles with (onderous (retension, are hardly able to gi4e an account, in (recise, technical musical conce(ts, o$ whate4er it is that so mo4es them. ost o$ them consider themsel4es a4ant9gardistic, thus (artici(ating in a con$usion that has become ubiBuitous today. Among the sym(toms o$ the disintegration o$ culture and education, not the least is the $act that the distinction between autonomous EhighC and commercial ElightC art, howe4er Buestionable it may be, is neither critically re$lected nor e4en noticed any more. And now that certain culturally de$eatist intellectuals ha4e (itted the latter against the $ormer, the (hilistine cham(ions o$ the culture industry can e4en ta,e (ride in the con4iction that they are marching in the 4anguard o$ the ?eitgeist. The organi2ation o$ culture into Ele4elsC such as the $irst, second and third (rogrammes, (atterned a$ter low, middle and highbrow, is re(rehensible. 3ut it cannot be o4ercome sim(ly by the lowbrow sects declaring themsel4es to be highbrow. The legitimate discontent with culture (ro4ides a (rete.t but not the slightest ;usti$ication $or the glori$ication o$ a highly rationali2ed section o$ mass (roduction, one which debases and betrays culture without at all transcending it, as the dawn o$ a new world9sensibility or $or con$using it with cubism, @liotCs (oetry and 1oyceCs (rose. Aegression is not origin, but origin is the ideology o$ regression. Anyone who allows the growing res(ectability o$ mass culture to seduce him into eBuating a (o(ular song with modern art because o$ a $ew $alse notes sBuea,ed by a clarinetG anyone who mista,es a triad studded with Edirty notesC $or atonality, has already ca(itulated to barbarism. Art which has degenerated to culture (ays the (rice o$ being all the more readily con$used with its own waste9(roducts as its aberrant in$luence grows. @ducation, traditionally the (ri4ilege o$ the $ew, is (aid its due by sel$9conscious illiteracy which (roclaims the stu(or o$ tolerated e.cess to be the realm o$ $reedom. Aebelling $eebly, they are always ready to duc,, $ollowing
(age>#<7

the lead o$ ;a22, which integrates stumbling and coming9too9soon into the collecti4e march9ste(. There is a stri,ing similarity between this ty(e o$ ;a22 enthusiast and many o$ the young disci(les o$ logical

(ositi4ism, who throw o$$ (hiloso(hical culture with the same 2eal as ;a22 $ans dis(ense with the tradition o$ serious music. @nthusiasm turns into a matter9o$9$act attitude in which all $eeling becomes attached to techniBue, hostile to all meaning. They $eel themsel4es secure within a system so well de$ined that no mista,e could (ossibly sli( by, and the re(ressed yearning $or things outside $inds e.(ression as intolerant hatred and in an attitude which combines the su(erior ,nowledge o$ the initiate with the (retentiousness o$ the (erson without illusions. 3ombastic tri4iality, su(er$iciality seen as a(odictic certitude, trans$igures the cowardly de$ence against e4ery $orm o$ sel$9re$lection. All these old accustomed modes o$ reaction ha4e in recent times lost their innocence, set themsel4es u( as (hiloso(hy and thus become truly (ernicious. 8athered around the s(ecialists in a $ield in which there is little to understand besides rules are the 4ague, inarticulate $ollowers. In general they are into.icated by the $ame o$ mass culture, a $ame which the latter ,nows how to mani(ulateG they could ;ust as well get together in clubs $or worshi((ing $ilm stars or $or collecting autogra(hs. What is im(ortant to them is the sense o$ belonging as such, identi$ication, without their (aying (articular attention to its content. As girls, they ha4e trained themsel4es to $aint u(on hearing the 4oice o$ a EcroonerC. Their a((lause, cued in by a light9signal, is transmitted directly on the (o(ular radio (rogrammes they are (ermitted to attend. They call themsel4es E;itter9bugsC, bugs which carry out re$le. mo4ements, (er$ormers o$ their own ecstasy. erely to be carried away by anything at all, to ha4e something o$ their own, com(ensates $or their im(o4erished and barren e.istence. The gesture o$ adolescence, which ra4es $or this or that on one day with the e4er9(resent (ossibility o$ damning it as idiocy on the ne.t, is now sociali2ed. ?$ course, @uro(eans tend to o4erloo, the $act that ;a22 $ans on the "ontinent in no way eBual those in America. The element o$ e.cess, o$ insubordination in ;a22, which can still be $elt in @uro(e, is entirely missing today in America. The recollection o$ anarchic origins which ;a22 shares with all o$ todayCs ready9made mass mo4ements, is $undamentally re(ressed, howe4er much it may continue to simmer under the sur$ace. 1a22 is ta,en $or granted as an institution, housebro,en and scrubbed behind the ears. What is common to the ;a22 enthusiast o$ all countries, howe4er, is the moment o$ com(liance, in (arodistic e.aggeration. In this res(ect their (lay
(age>#<5

recalls the brutal seriousness o$ the masses o$ $ollowers in totalitarian states, e4en though the di$$erence between (lay and seriousness amounts to that between li$e and death. The ad4ertisement $or a (articular song (layed by a big name band was E$ollow your leader, WD.C While the leaders in the @uro(ean dictatorshi(s o$ both shades raged against the decadence o$ ;a22, the youth o$ the other countries has long since allowed itsel$ to be electri$ied, as with marches, by the synco(ated dance9ste(s, with bands which do not by accident stem $rom military music. The di4ision into shoc,9troo(s and inarticulate $ollowing has something o$ the distinction between (arty 7lite and rest o$ the E(eo(leC. The ;a22 mono(oly rests on the e.clusi4eness o$ the su((ly and the economic (ower behind it. 3ut it would ha4e been bro,en long ago i$ the ubiBuitous s(eciality did not contain something uni4ersal to which (eo(le res(ond. 1a22 must (ossess a Emass basisC, the techniBue must lin, u( with a moment in the sub;ects 0 one which, o$ course, in turn (oints bac, to the social structure and to ty(ical con$licts between the ego and society. What $irst comes to mind, in Buest $or that moment, is the eccentric clown or (arallels with the early $ilm comics. Indi4idual wea,ness is (roclaimed and re4o,ed in the same breath, stumbling is con$irmed as a ,ind o$ higher s,ill. In the (rocess o$ integrating the asocial, ;a22 con4erges with the eBually standardi2ed schemas o$ the detecti4e no4el and its o$$shoots, which regularly distort or unmas, the world so that asociality and crime become the e4eryday norm, but which at the same time charm, away the seducti4e and ominous challenge through the ine4itable trium(h o$ order. /sychoanalytic theory alone can (ro4ide an adeBuate e.(lanation o$ this (henomenon. The aim o$ ;a22 is the mechanical re(roduction o$ a regressi4e moment, a castration symbolism. E8i4e u( your masculinity, let yoursel$ be castrated,C the eunuch9li,e sound o$ the ;a22 band both moc,s and (roclaims, Eand you will be rewarded, acce(ted into a $raternity which shares the mystery o$ im(otence with you, a mystery re4ealed at the moment o$ the initiation riteC. # I$ this

#. This theory is de4elo(ed in the essay, E1a22C, (ublished in #!&6 in the ?eitschrift f!r "o.ialforschung H(. <'< $$I. and elaborated in a re4iew o$ the boo,s by Sargeant and -obson in "tudies in Philosophy and "ocial "cience, #!6#, (. #7'. NE1a22C is re(rinted in Th. W. Adorno, #oments #usicau', Fran,$urt am ain, #!66, ((. 56 ##'. TranslatorsC note.O (age>#<!

inter(retation o$ ;a22 0 whose se.ual im(lications are better understood by its shoc,ed o((onents than by its a(ologists 0 a((ear arbitrary and $ar9$etched, the $act remains that it can be substantiated in countless details o$ the music as well as o$ the song lyrics. In the boo,, American Ja.. #usic, Wilder -obson describes an early ;a22 bandleader i,e Ailey, a musical eccentric who must ha4e truly mutilated the instruments. EThe band sBuirted water and tore clothes, and Ailey o$$ered (erha(s the greatest o$ trombone comedy acts, an insane rendition o$ EE)inahK during which he re(eatedly dismembered the horn and reassembled it erratically until the tubing hung down li,e brass burnishings in a ;un, sho(, with a 4aguely harmonic hon, still sounding $rom one or more o$ the loose ends.C Fong be$ore, *irgil Thomson had com(ared the (er$ormances o$ the $amed ;a22 trum(eter, Fouis Armstrong, to those o$ the great castrati o$ the eighteenth century. The entire s(here is saturated with terminology which distinguishes between ElongC and Eshort hairedC musicians. The latter are ;a22 (eo(le who earn money and can a$$ord to a((ear (resentableG the others, the caricature o$ the Sla4ic (ianist, $or instance, whose long mane is e.em(lary, are grou(ed under the little esteemed stereoty(e o$ the artist who is star4ing and who $launts the demands o$ con4ention. This is the mani$est content o$ the terminology. What the shorn hair re(resents hardly reBuires elaboration. In ;a22, the /hilistines standing o4er Samson are (ermanently trans$igured. In truth, the /hilistines. The castration symbolism, dee(ly buried in the (ractices o$ ;a22 and cut o$$ $rom consciousness through the institutionali2ation o$ (erennial sameness, is $or that 4ery reason (robably all the more (otent. And sociologically, ;a22 has the e$$ect o$ strengthening and e.tending, down to the 4ery (hysiology o$ the sub;ect, the acce(tance o$ a dreamless9realistic world in which all memories o$ things not wholly integrated ha4e been (urged. To com(rehend the mass basis o$ ;a22 one must ta,e $ull account o$ the taboo on artistic e.(ression in America, a taboo which continues unabated des(ite the o$$icial art industry, and which e4en a$$ects: the e.(ressi4e im(ulses o$ childrenG (rogressi4e education, which see,s to stimulate their $aculties o$ e.(ression as an end in itsel$, is sim(ly a reaction to this. Although the artist is (artially tolerated, (artially integrated into the s(here o$ consum(tion as an EentertainerC, a $unctionary 0 li,e the better9(aid waiter sub;ect to the demands o$ Eser4iceC 0 the stereoty(e o$ the artist remains the intro4ert, the egocentric idiot, $reBuently the homose.ual. While such traits may be tolerated in (ro$essional artists 0 a scandalous (ri4ate li$e may e4en be e.(ected as (art o$ the entertainment 0 e4eryone else ma,es
(age>#&:

himsel$ immediately sus(icious by any s(ontaneous artistic im(ulse not ordered in ad4ance by society. A child who (re$ers to listen to serious music or (ractise the (iano rather than watch a baseball game or tele4ision will ha4e to su$$er as a EsissyC in his class or in the other grou(s to which he belongs and which embody $ar more authority than (arents or teacher. The e.(ressi4e im(ulse is e.(osed to the same threat o$ castration that is symboli2ed and mechanically and ritually subdued in ;a22. =e4ertheless, the need $or e.(ression, which stands in no necessary relation to the ob;ecti4e Buality o$ art, cannot be entirely eliminated, es(ecially during the years o$ maturation. Teenagers are not entirely sti$led by economic li$e and its (sychological correlati4e, the reality (rinci(le, Their aesthetic im(ulses are not sim(ly e.tinguished by su((ression but are rather di4erted. 1a22 is the (re$erred medium o$ such di4ersion. To the masses o$ young (eo(le who, year a$ter year, chase the (erennial $ashion, (resumably to $orget it a$ter a $ew years, it o$$ers a com(romise between aesthetic sublimation and social ad;ustment. The EunrealisticC, (ractically useless, imaginati4e element is (ermitted to sur4i4e at the (rice o$ changing its characterG it must tirelessly stri4e to rema,e itsel$ in the image o$ reality, to re(eat the latterCs commands to itsel$, to submit to them. Thus it reintegrates itsel$ into the s(here $rom which it sought to esca(e. Art is de(ri4ed o$ its aesthetic dimension., and emerges as (art o$ the 4ery ad;ustment which it in (rinci(le contradicts. *iewed $rom this

stand(oint, se4eral unusual $eatures o$ ;a22 can be more easily understood. The role (layed by arrangement, $or instance, which cannot be adeBuately e.(lained in terms o$ a technical di4ision o$ labour or o$ the musical illiteracy o$ the so9called com(osers. =othing is (ermitted to remain what it intrinsically is. @4erything must be $i.ed u(, must bear the traces o$ a (re(aration which brings it closer to the s(here o$ the well ,nown, thus rendering it more easily com(rehensible. At the same time, this (rocess o$ (re(aration indicates to the listener that the music is made $or him, yet without ideali2ing him. And $inally, arrangement stam(s the music with the o$$icial seal o$ a((ro4al, which in turn, testi$ies to the absence o$ all artistic ambitions to achie4e distance $rom reality, to the readiness o$ the music to swim with the streamG this is music which does not $ancy itsel$ any better than it is. The (rimacy o$ ad;ustment is no less decisi4e in determining the s(eci$ic s,ills which ;a22 demands $rom its musicians, to a certain e.tent $rom its listeners as well, and certainly $rom the dancers who stri4e to imitate the music. Aesthetic techniBue, in the sense o$ the Buintessence o$ means em(loyed to ob;ecti$y an autonomous
(age>#&#

sub;ect9matter, is re(laced by the ability to co(e with obstacles, to be im(er4ious to disru(ti4e $actors li,e synco(ations and yet at the same time to e.ecute cle4erly the (articular action which underlies the abstract rules. The aesthetic act is made into a s(ort by means o$ a system o$ tric,s. To master it is also to demonstrate oneCs (racticality. The, achie4ement o$ the ;a22 musician and e.(ert adds u( to a seBuence o$ success$ully surmounted tests. 3ut e.(ression, the true bearer o$ aesthetic (rotest, is o4erta,en by the might against which it (rotests. Faced by this might it assumes a malicious and miserable tone which barely and momentarily disguises itsel$ as harsh and (ro4ocati4e. The sub;ect which e.(resses itsel$ e.(resses (recisely this: I am nothing, I am $ilth, no matter what they do to me, it ser4es me right. /otentially this sub;ect has, already become one o$ those Aussians, accused o$ a crime, and who, although innocent, collaborates with the (rosecutor $rom the beginning and is inca(able o$ $inding a (unishment se4ere enough. I$ the aesthetic realm originally emerged as an autonomous s(here $rom the magic taboo which distinguished the sacred $rom the e4eryday, see,ing to ,ee( the $ormer (ure, the (ro$ane now ta,es its re4enge on the descendant o$ magic, on art. Art is (ermitted to sur4i4e only i$ it renounces the right to be di$$erent, and integrates itsel$ into the omni(otent realm o$ the (ro$ane which $inally too, o4er the taboo. =othing may e.ist which is not li,e the world as it is. 1a22 is the $alse liBuidation o$ art 0 instead o$ uto(ia becoming reality it disa((ears $rom the (icture.
(age>#&<

9ach 0e(ended #gainst 4is 0e&otees

(age>#&&

The 4iew o$ 3ach which (re4ails today in musicological circles corres(onds to the role assigned to him by the stagnation and industriousness o$ a resurrected culture. In him, it is said, there is once again the re4elation 0 in the middle o$ the "entury o$ @nlightenment 0 o$ the time9honoured bounds o$ tradition, o$ the s(irit o$ medie4al (oly(hony, o$ the theologically 4aulted cosmos. -is music is said to be ele4ated abo4e the sub;ect and its contingencyG in it is e.(ressed not so much the man and his inner li$e as the order o$ 3eing as such, in its most com(elling musical $orm. The structure o$ this 3eing, understood to be immutable and ine.orable, becomes a surrogate $or meaningG that which cannot be other than its a((earance is made the ;usti$ication o$ itsel$. This conce(tion o$ 3ach draws all those who, ha4ing lost either the ability to belie4e or the desire $or sel$9determination, go in search o$ authority, obsessed by the notion o$ how nice it would be to be secure. The (resent $unction o$ his music resembles the current 4ogue o$ ontology, which (romises to o4ercome the indi4idualistic condition through the (ostulation o$ an abstract (rinci(le which is su(erior to and inde(endent o$ human e.istence and yet which is $ree o$ all uneBui4ocally theological content. They en;oy the order o$ his music because it enables them to subordinate themsel4es. -is wor,, which originated within the narrow con$ines o$ the theological hori2on only in order to brea, through them and to (ass into uni4ersality, is called bac, within the boundaries it transcended. 3ach is degraded by im(otent nostalgia to the 4ery church com(oser against whose o$$ice his music rebelled and which he $illed only with great con$lict. What sets him a(art $rom the (ractices o$ his age, $ar $rom being gras(ed as the contradiction o$ his substance with them, is made a (rete.t $or glori$ying the nimbus o$ (ro4incial cra$tsmanshi( as a classical Buality. Aeaction, de(ri4ed o$ its (olitical heroes, ta,es, com(lete (ossession o$ the com(oser whom it long had claimed as one o$ its own by gi4ing him the ignominious name o$ the EThomas "antorC. )ilettante high schools mono(oli2e him, and his in$luence, unli,e that e4en o$ Schumann
(age>#&'

and endelssohn, no longer results $rom the musical substance o$ his music but rather $rom its style and (lay, $rom $ormula and symmetry, $rom the mere gesture o$ recognition. In being (laced into the ser4ice o$ (roselyti2ing 2eal, the neo9religious 3ach is im(o4erished, reduced and stri((ed o$ the s(eci$ic musical content which was the basis o$ his (restige. -e su$$ers the 4ery $ate which his $er4ent (rotectors are least willing to admit: he is changed into a neutrali2ed cultural monument, in which aesthetic success mingles obscurely with a truth that has lost its intrinsic substance. They ha4e made him into a com(oser $or organ $esti4als in well9(reser4ed 3aroBue towns, into ideology. The most elementary historical re$lection should arouse doubts concerning the historicist image o$ 3ach. A contem(orary o$ the @ncyclo(edists, he died si. years be$ore o2artCs birth and only twenty be$ore that o$ 3eetho4en. @4en the boldest construction o$ the Enon9simultaneityC o$ music could not sustain the thesis that a single ego can conser4e what the s(irit o$ the e(och dissol4ed, as though the truth o$ a (henomenon were e4er sim(ly attributable to its bac,wardness. 3ad indi4idualism and the irrational belie$ in timelessness con4ergeG isolating the indi4idual $rom this relation to the historical stage o$ consciousness, howe4er (olemical that relation may be, can only be arbitrary. To argue that, in his ahistorical wor,sho( 0 which was ne4ertheless eBui((ed with all the technical disco4eries o$ the e(och 0 3ach e.(erienced nothing o$ its ?eitgeist e.ce(t $or the /ietism o$ the te.ts he used $or his sacred wor,s 0 /ietism being anti9@nlightenment 0 is to o4erloo, the elementary $act that /ietism, li,e all $orms o$ restoration, absorbed the $orces o$ the 4ery @nlightenment that it o((osed. The sub;ect which ho(es to attain grace by becoming absorbed in itsel$ through re$lected EinwardnessC, has already esca(ed dogmatic order and is on its own, autonomous in the choice o$ heteronomy. 3achCs (artici(ation in his time, howe4er, is drastically demonstrated by central as(ects o$ his music. The contrast between /hili(( @manuelCs generation and his $atherCs o$ten blurs the $act that the latterCs wor, embraces the entire s(here

o$ the E8alantC, not alone in stylistic models li,e the French Suites 0 in which at times it seems as i$ the mighty hand has in ad4ance gi4en de$inite sha(e to the genre ty(es o$ the nineteenth century 0 but also in the large, com(letely constructed wor,s li,e the French ?4ertures, in which the moments o$ (leasure and
(age>#&6

organi2ation are, in 3achCs manner, no less (resent than in *iennese "lassicism. Det is there any o(enminded (erson who has (layed the EWell9Tem(ered "la4ichordC 0 the 4ery title o$ which ta,es the (art o$ the (rocess o$ rationali2ation 0 $rom beginning to end without being struc, again and again by a lyrical element, whose di$$erentiation, indi4iduation, $reedom ally it $ar more closely to -ier.ehnheiligen than to an image o$ the iddle Ages which has in any case become highly BuestionableJ ?ne need only recall the F9shar( a;or /relude and Fugue o$ the $irst boo,, a $ugue once com(ared by a com(oser to 8ott$ried %ellerCs short dance9legend, and which is not merely the direct re(resentation o$ sub;ecti4e grace but moreo4er moc,s all the rules o$ the 4ery $ugue that 3ach himsel$ created, through a musical (rogression in which the moti$ o$ the middle (art transmits its im(ulses to the de4elo(ments as the wor, un$olds. ?r the double9$ugue in g9shar( minor $rom the second boo,, which the late 3eetho4en must ha4e ,nown well, and which is astonishing not so much $or its chromaticism, by no means rare in 3ach, but rather $or its wa4ering, deliberately 4ague harmoni2ation, which, gi4en the 6S59character o$ the (iece, ine4itably e4o,es "ho(inCs most mature wor,G as a whole it is music bro,en down into countless coloured $acets, modern (recisely in the sense o$ that ner4ous sensibility which -istoricism would li,e to e.orcise. Anyone who thin,s this argument in4alid as a Eromantic misunderstandingC must $irst, $or the sa,e o$ the thesis, $ree himsel$ o$ that s(ontaneous relation to the musical idiom and its meaning, a relation which was the (rereBuisite to understanding music $rom onte4erdi to Schoenberg. To sacri$ice the sub;ect in such wor,s, to hear in them nothing but the ?rder o$ 3eing and not the nostalgic echo that the decline o$ such an order $inds in the mind, is to gras( only the caput mortuum. The (hantasma o$ 3achCs ontology arises through an act o$ $orce mechanically (er$ormed by /hilistines, whose sole desire is to neutrali2e art since they lac, the ca(acity to com(rehend it. All this, it is true, stands in shar( contrast to those $eatures o$ 3ach which e4en in his own li$etime were regarded as anachronistic. This anachronistic as(ect is at least (artly res(onsible $or the enigmatic amnesia in which his wor, was shrouded $or eighty years, and thus, with incalculable conseBuences $or the history o$ Western music, (re4ented $rom ta,ing its (lace in the tradition and being absorbed in all its breadth by *iennese "lassicism. Indeed, not only
(age>#&7

did 3ach $ul$il the s(irit o$ the asso continuo, with its inter4allic9harmonic mode o$ thin,ing, but within that s(irit he was also the (oly(honist who created the $orm o$ the $ugue $rom its gro(ing beginnings in the se4enteenth centuryG the theory o$ the $ugue stems $rom 3ach no less than that o$ strict counter(oint $rom /alestrina, and he remained its sole master. Det it is this 4ery duality o$ mind, harmonic and contra(untal, circumscribing e4ery one o$ the com(ositional (roblems that 3ach (aradigmatically resol4ed, which must e.clude the image o$ him as the consummation o$ the iddle Ages. Were the image 4alid, he would neither ha4e had that duality o$ mind, nor ha4e struggled, es(ecially in the s(eculati4e late wor,s, with a (arado. which would ha4e been unthin,able $or the old (oly(honic mind, namely, how, in terms o$ asso continuo harmony, music could ;usti$y its (rogression as meaning$ul and at the same time organi2e itsel$ (oly(honically, through the simultaneity o$ inde(endent 4oices. The e.(ressi4eness alone o$ many o$ the seemingly archaic (ieces should arouse sce(ticism. The a$$irmati4e tone o$ the @9$lat ma;or $ugue $rom the second boo, o$ the %ell@Tempered 6lavichord is not the immediate certainty o$ a sacral community articulated in music and secure in its re4ealed truthG such a$$irmation and em(hasis are utterly alien to the )utch. Aather, in its substance 0 certainly not in its sub;ecti4e consciousness 0 it is re$lection on the ha((iness o$ musical security, the li,e o$ which is (ossessed only by the emanci(ated sub;ect, $or only it can concei4e music as the em(hatic (romise o$ ob;ecti4e sal4ation. This ,ind o$ $ugue (resu((oses the dualism. It says how beauti$ul it would be to bring bac, its message o$ ha((iness $rom the circumscribed cosmos to man,ind. To the irritation o$ todayCs religious neo(hytes, it is romantic, although, o$ course, its

4ision is $ar more e.alted than that which the later romantic style could allow itsel$. It does not mirror the solitary sub;ect as the guarantee o$ meaning, but rather aims at its abolition and transcendence in an ob;ecti4e, com(rehensi4e absolute. 3ut this absolute is e4o,ed, asserted, (ostulated (recisely because and only inasmuch as it is not (resent in (hysical e.(erienceG 3achCs (ower is that o$ such e4ocation. -e was no archaic master cra$tsman but rather a genius o$ meditation. It is only rising barbarism that limits wor,s o$ art to what meets the eye, blind to the di$$erence between essence and a((earance in themG such a con$usion o$ the being o$ 3achCs music with its intention wi(es out the 4ery meta(hysics which it is su((osed to (rotect. Since such barbarism blurs not merely the essence, but with it the ob4ious as well, it o4erloo,s the $act that the (articular (oly(honic techniBues used by 3ach to construct musical ob;ecti4ity themsel4es
(age>#&5

(resu((osed sub;ecti4i2ation. The art o$ $ugue com(osition is one o$ moti4ic economy, o$ e.(loiting the smallest (art o$ a theme in order to ma,e it into an integral whole. It is an art o$ dissectionG one could almost say, o$ dissol4ing 3eing, (osited as the theme, and hence incom(atible with the common belie$ that this 3eing maintains itsel$ static and unchanged throughout the $ugue. 3y com(arison to this techniBue 3ach em(loys the genuinely medie4al one o$ (oly(honic $iguration, o$ imitation, only secondarily. In the (assages and (ieces where imitation trium(hs 0 by no means $reBuent in 3ach 0 in the stretti (assages and $ugues, such as the e.tremely dense ) ma;or $ugue $rom the second boo,, the 4enerable techniBue is (laced in the ser4ice o$ a dri4ing, thoroughly dynamic, thoroughly EmodernC e$$ect. The $act that the identity o$ the recurring themes in 3ach was able to (reser4e itsel$ at all, under the attac, o$ the new com(ositional techniBues that had been set $ree by (oly(hony, signi$ies nothing more static than do the dynamic 3eetho4en sonatas, which $aith$ully adhere to the tectonic demands o$ the re(rise, yet o$ course only in order to de4elo( the re(rise itsel$ out o$ the E(rocessC o$ the de4elo(ment. In his last boo, Schoenberg rightly s(ea,s o$ 3achCs techniBue o$ the de4elo(ing 4ariation, which then became the basic com(ositional (rinci(le in *iennese "lassicism. A social deci(hering o$ 3ach would (resumably ha4e to establish the lin, between the decom(osition o$ the gi4en thematic material through sub;ecti4e re$lection on the moti4ic wor, contained therein, and the change in the wor,9(rocess that too, (lace during the same e(och through the emergence o$ manu$acturing, which consisted essentially in brea,ing down the old cra$t o(erations into its smaller com(onent acts. I$ this resulted in the rationali2ation o$ material (roduction, then 3ach was the $irst to crystalli2e the idea o$ the rationally constituted wor,, o$ the aesthetic domination o$ natureG it was no accident that he named his ma;or instrumental wor, a$ter the most im(ortant technical achie4ement o$ musical rationali2ation. /erha(s 3achCs innermost truth is that in him the social trend which has dominated the bourgeois era to this 4ery day is not merely (reser4ed but, by being re$lected in images, is reconciled with the 4oice o$ humanity which in reality was sti$led by that trend at the moment o$ its ince(tion. I$ 3ach was indeed modern, then why was he archaicJ For there can be no doubt that his $orm9world, es(ecially in the most (ower$ul
(age>#&!

mani$estations o$ his late wor,, so grotesBuely misunderstood by -indemith in recent years, e4o,es much that e4en in his own time sounded li,e something out o$ the (ast, and which seems to ha4e been deliberately aimed at creating (edantic misunderstanding. It is im(ossible not to hear the se4enteenth century tone in (recisely such magni$icent conce(tions as the c9shar( minor tri(le $ugue $rom the $irst boo, o$ the %ell@Tempered 6lavichord where, in order to bring out the contrast between the three themes all the more drastically, 3ach lea4es e4erything not directly related to this contrast in a E(re9schematicC state, so to s(ea,, moti4ically unde4elo(ed li,e the rudimentary (re93ach $ugues, one o$ which, the Ricercata, is alluded to by a word9(lay in the #usical Affering Fi,e the Ricercata, the alla reve $ugue in @9ma;or in the second boo, carries the archaic element down to its 4ery score, as though it had been written in the 4i4acious s(irit o$ a highly styli2ed (ast, itsel$ naturally $ictitious, the same (rocedure $ollowed by 3ach in writing his $amous (iano concerto in the Italian style. -e $reBuently indulged an inclination, entirely

incom(atible with @.istentialist dignity, to e.(eriment with strange, arbitrarily chosen idioms and to awa,e their $ormati4e (ower $or music construction. As early as 3ach the rationali2ation o$ com(ositional techniBue, the (redominance o$ sub;ecti4e reason, so to s(ea,, brings with it the (ossibility o$ $reely choosing $rom all the ob;ecti4ely a4ailable (rocedures o$ the e(och. 3ach does not $eel himsel$ blindly bound to any o$ them but instead always chooses that which best suits the com(ositional intention. Such liberty 4is9R94is the ancient howe4er, can hardly be construed as the culmination o$ the tradition, which instead must (rohibit ;ust that $ree selection o$ a4ailable (ossibilities. @4en less can the meaning o$ 3achCs recourse to the tradition be described as restorati4e. For it is (recisely the archaic9sounding (ieces which are o$ten the most daring, not merely in terms o$ their contra(untal combinations, which indeed draw directly on the earlier (oly(honic arrangements, but also with regard to the most ad4anced as(ects o$ the general e$$ect. The c9shar( minor $ugue, which begins as though it were a dense networ, o$ eBually rele4ant lines, the theme o$ which seems at $irst to be nothing more than the unobtrusi4e glue that holds the 4oices together, (rogressi4ely re4eals itsel$, starting with the entrance o$ the $igured second theme, to be an irresistible crescendo, com(osed $rom beginning to end and clima.ing with the mighty e.(losion o$ the main theme entering in the bass, the most e.treme concentration o$ a (seudo9ten94oice stretto and the turning (oint o$ a hea4ily accented dissonance, in order then to 4anish as though through a
(age>#6:

dar, (ortal. =o a((eal to the acoustically static character o$ har(sichord and organ can co4er o4er the basic dynamism o$ the com(ositional structure itsel$, regardless o$ whether or not it could be reali2ed as a crescendo on the instruments o$ the time, or e4en, as some idly Buestion, whether 3ach could ha4e EthoughtC o$ such a crescendo. =owhere is it written that the conce(tion that a com(oser has o$ his music must coincide with its intrinsic nature, with the ob;ecti4e law (eculiar to it. -is wor, is EbaroBueC $ar more in the sense gi4en to that word by the se4enteenth century theatre, that o$ e.cess, o$ allegorical e.(ression heightened to the utmost, o$ reliance on (ers(ecti4e $or e$$ect, than in the sense o$ E(re9classicalC, which ine4itably $ails to e.(lain ;ust that which is s(eci$ic to 3ach, abo4e all, his archaic tendencies. In order to do them ;ustice the Buestion o$ their $unction within the $abric o$ com(osition must be raised. And here one stumbles u(on an ambiguity o$ (rogress itsel$, one which in the meanwhile has ta,en on a uni4ersal as(ect. In 3achCs time to be modern was to throw o$$ the burden o$ the res severa $or the sa,e o$ gaudium, o$ the (leasing and (lay$ul, in the name o$ communication, o$ consideration $or the (resum(ti4e listener who, with the decline o$ the old theological order, had also lost the belie$ that the $ormal 4ocabulary associated with that order was binding. It cannot be denied, either that it is historical necessity that art relinBuish techniBues once they are no longer 4alidated by the ob;ecti4e s(irit o$ the times, or that the $aculties o$ human eloBuence thereby set $ree in music ultimately (roduced a higher $orm o$ truth. 3ut the (rice which had to be (aid $or the $reedom o$ mo4ement thus attained was the immanent coherence o$ music. @4en the earliest (roducts o$ the Euns,illedC style, most cons(icuously, those o$ 3achCs own sons, bore witness to that (rice. The enigma becomes suddenly 4isible when one com(ares the corres(onding $ormal ty(es in *iennese "lassicism and in 3ach, the rondo o$ a o2art (iano concerto and the (resto o$ the Italian "oncerto. )es(ite all its newly won com(ositional $le.ibility and e$$er4escence, o2artCs (ro4erbial grace is, as (ure musical peinture, rather mechanical and crass in com(arison with 3achCs in$initely in4oluted, unschematic a((roach. It is a grace o$ tone rather than o$ score. The clearer the outlines o$ the $orm become, the more their dense and (ure logic seems, to be re(laced by the a((eal to a once9established schema. Anyone who has returned to 3eetho4en a$ter (rolonged, intensi4e study o$ 3ach sometimes $eels as though he were con$ronted by a ,ind o$ decorati4e light music, which only the culture9clich7 could consider E(ro$oundC. Such a ;udgement is distorted and biased, o$ course, and
(age>#6#

in4o,es e.ternal criteria. It is no accident that todayCs 3ach a(ologists would endorse it. Det it still includes elements o$ the historical constellation that constitutes 3achCs essence. Among his archaic traits is the attem(t to (arry the im(o4erishment and (etri$action o$ musical language, the shadow9side o$ its decisi4e (rogress. Such traits re(resent 3achCs e$$ort to resist the ine.orable growth o$ the commodity9character o$

music, a (rocess which was lin,ed to its sub;ecti4i2ation. Det such $eatures are also identical with 3achCs modernity inasmuch as they always ser4e to de$end the right o$ inherent musical logic against the demands o$ taste. 3ach as archaist distinguishes, himsel$ $rom all subseBuent classicists, u( to and including Stra4ins,y, by his re$usal to con$ront the historical le4el o$ the material with an abstract stylistic ideal. Aather what was becomes a means o$ $orcing what is toward a $uture o$ its own ma,ing. The: reconciliation o$ scholar and gentleman, which, as Al$red @instein stressed, set the tone and aim o$ *iennese "lassicism since -aydn, is in a certain sense also the dominant idea in 3ach. -e was not, howe4er, interested in stri,ing a mean between the two elements. -is music stro4e to achie4e the indi$$erence o$ the e.tremes towards each other more radically than any other until that o$ the late 3eetho4en. 3ach, as the most ad4anced master o$ asso continuo, at the same time renounced his obedience, as antiBuated (oly(honist, to the trend o$ the times, a trend he himsel$ had sha(ed, in order to hel( it reach its innermost truth, the emanci(ation o$ the sub;ect to ob;ecti4ity in a coherent whole o$ which sub;ecti4ity itsel$ was the origin. )own to the subtlest structural details it is always a Buestion o$ the undiminished coincidence o$ the harmonic9$unctional and o$ the contra(untal dimension. The distant (ast is entrusted with the uto(ia o$ the musical sub;ect9ob;ectG anachronism becomes a harbinger o$ things to come. This, i$ true, does not merely contradict the (re4ailing conce(tion o$ 3achCs music but also modi$ies the immediate relation to it. This relation de$ines itsel$ essentially through the (ra.is o$ (er$ormance. Today, howe4er, under the unholy star o$ -istoricism, the (er$ormance o$ 3ach has assumed a sectarian as(ect. -istoricism has incited a $anatical interest that no longer concerns e4en the wor, itsel$. At times one can hardly a4oid the sus(icion that the sole concern o$ todayCs 3ach de4otees is to see that no inauthentic dynamics, modi$ications o$ tem(o, o4ersi2e choirs and orchestras
(age>#6<

cree( inG they seem to wait with (otential $ury lest any more humane im(ulse become audible in the rendition. The critiBue directed at the late AomanticsC in$lated and sentimentali2ed 3ach image need not be challenged, e4en though the relation to 3ach a((arent in SchumannCs wor, (ro4ed to be incom(arably more (roducti4e than the (resent (unctilious (urity. What calls $or re$utation, howe4er, is that o$ which the (urists are most (roud 0 their Eob;ecti4ityC. The only ob;ecti4e re(resentation o$ music is one which shows itsel$ to be adeBuate to the essence o$ its ob;ect. This, howe4er, is not to be identi$ied 0 as -indemith, too, too, $or granted 0 with the idea o$ the historically $irst rendition. The $act that the colouristic dimension o$ music had hardly been disco4ered in 3achCs time, and had certainly not yet been liberated as a com(ositional techniBueG that com(osers did not ma,e shar( distinctions between the di$$erent ty(es o$ (iano and organ, but rather abandoned the sound in large measure to taste, (oints in a direction diametrically o((osed to the desire to sla4ishly imitate the customary sounds o$ the time. @4en had 3ach been in $act satis$ied with the organs and har(sichords o$ the e(ochs, with its thin choruses and orchestras, this would in no way (ro4e their adeBuacy $or the intrinsic substance o$ his music. The artistsC consciousness 0 the EideaC they had o$ their wor, cannot, o$ course, be reconstructed 0 may, it is true, contribute to elucidating certain as(ects o$ their wor,, but it can ne4er su((ly the canon. Authentic wor,s un$old their truth9content, which transcends the sco(e o$ indi4idual consciousness, in a tem(oral dimension through the law o$ their $orm. In addition, that which is ,nown o$ 3ach as inter(reter absolutely contradicts the musicological style o$ (resentation and (oints to a $le.ibility on the (art o$ the com(oser which would much (re$er to renounce the monumental than gi4e u( the chance o$ ada(ting the tone to sub;ecti4e im(ulse. ?$ course, For,elCs $amous re(ort a((eared too long a$ter 3achCs death to claim $ull authenticityG but what he writes about 3ach the (ianist is clearly based on (recise statements, and there is no a((arent reason why the (icture should be $alsi$ied at a time when the contro4ersy had not yet arisen and when there was little sym(athy $or the cla4ichord 0 E-e lo4ed best to (lay the cla4ichord. The so9called (ianos Hsc. har(sichordsI, des(ite a com(letely di$$erent actionC 0 which can only mean the register 0 Ewere too soulless $or him, and the (iano$ortes during his li$etime: were still too unde4elo(ed and much too (rimiti4e to ha4e satis$ied him. -ence, he held the cla4ichord $or the best instrument $or study as well as

$or (ri4ate musical di4ersion. -e $ound it most suitable $or e.ecuting his $inest ideas and did not belie4e that either the har(sichord or the (iano could
(age>#6&

(roduce as great a 4ariety o$ tonal nuances as this instrument, which des(ite its (oor tone was e.traordinarily (liable in its details.C What is true, howe4er, $or di$$erentiating within the intimate s(here, is con4ersely all the more so $or the e.tensi4e dynamics o$ the large choral wor,s. =o matter how it was done in the "hurch o$ St. Thomas, a (er$ormance o$ the "t$ #atthe& Passion, $or instance, done with meagre means sounds (ale and indecisi4e to the (resent9day ear, li,e a rehearsal which a $ew musicians ha4e by chance decided to attend, while at the same time it assumes a didacticS(edantic character. Det e4en more im(ortant is that such a (er$ormance thereby contradicts the intrinsic essence o$ 3achCs music. The only adeBuate inter(retation o$ the dynamic ob;ecti4ely embedded in his wor, is one which reali2es it. True inter(retation is an .9ray o$ the wor,G its tas, is to illuminate in the sensuous (henomenon the totality o$ all the characteristics and interrelations which ha4e been recogni2ed through intensi4e study o$ the score. The $a4ourite argument o$ the (urists is that all this should be le$t to the wor, itsel$, which need only be (er$ormed ascetically in order to s(ea,G inter(retation, they contend, ser4es only to unduly em(hasi2e music which can be e.(ressed sim(ly and which is all the more (ower$ul without such $rills. This argument com(letely misses the (oint. As long as music reBuires any ,ind o$ inter(retation whatsoe4er, its $orm de$ines itsel$ through the tension between the com(ositionCs essence and its sensuous a((earance. To identi$y the wor, with the latter is only ;usti$iable when the a((earance is a mani$estation o$ the essence. Det, (recisely this is achie4ed only through sub;ecti4e labour and re$lection. The attem(t to do ;ustice to 3achCs ob;ecti4e content by directing this e$$ort towards abolishing the sub;ect is sel$9de$eating. ?b;ecti4ity is not le$t o4er a$ter the sub;ect is subtracted. The musical score is ne4er identical with the wor,G de4otion to the te.t means the constant e$$ort to gras( that which it hides. Without such a dialectic, de4otion becomes betrayalG an inter(retation which does not bother about the musicCs meaning on the assum(tion that it will re4eal itsel$ o$ its own accord will ine4itably be $alse since it $ails to see that the meaning is always constituting itsel$ anew. eaning can ne4er be gras(ed by the E(ureC rendition, allegedly (urged o$ all e.hibitionismG rather, such a (resentation, which is meaningless in itsel$ and not to be distinguished $rom the EunmusicalC, becomes not the (ath to meaning, as which it sees itsel$, but a wall bloc,ing the way. This does not mean, howe4er, that the monstrously massi4e (er$ormances o$ 3ach which were the order o$ the day u( until the First World War are any better. The dynamics reBuired are not related to the le4el o$ 4olume
(age>#66

nor to the breadth o$ crescendo and decrescendo. The dynamics consist in the Buintessence o$ all the com(ositional contrasts, mediations, subdi4isions, transitions and relations which constitute the wor,G and at the time o$ 3achCs greatest maturity, com(osition was no less the art o$ in$initesimal transitions than in any o$ the later com(osers. The entire richness o$ the musical te.ture, the integration o$ which was the source o$ 3achCs (ower, must be (laced in (rominence by the (er$ormance instead o$ being sacri$iced to a rigid, immobile monotony, the s(urious semblance o$ unity that ignores the multi(licity it should embody and surmount. Ae$lection on style must not be (ermitted to su((ress the concrete musical content and to settle com(lacently into the (ose o$ transcendent 3eing. It must $ollow the structure o$ the musical com(osition that is concealed beneath the sur$ace o$ sound. echanically sBuea,ing continuo9instruments and wretched school choirs contribute not to sacred sobriety but to malicious $ailureG and the thought that the shrill and ras(ing 3aroBue organs are ca(able o$ ca(turing the long wa4es o$ the la(idary, large $ugues is (ure su(erstition. 3achCs music is, se(arated $rom the general le4el o$ his age by an astronomical distance. Its eloBuence returns only when it is liberated $rom the s(here o$ resentment and obscurantism, the trium(h o$ the sub;ectless o4er sub;ecti4ism. They say 3ach, mean Telemann and are secretly in agreement with the regression o$ musical consciousness which e4en without them remains a constant threat under the (ressures o$ the culture industry. ?$ course, there is also the (ossibility that the contradiction between the substance o$ 3achCs com(ositions and the means $or reali2ing it in sound, both

those a4ailable at the time and those accumulated since, can no longer be resol4ed. In the light o$ this (ossibility, the much discussed EabstractnessC o$ sound in the #usical Affering and the Art of the Fugue, as wor,s in which the choice o$ instruments is le$t o(en, acBuires a new dimension. It is concei4able that the contradiction between music and sound9material 0 es(ecially the inadeBuacy o$ the organ tone to the in$initely articulated structure 0 had already become 4isible at the time. I$ this were the case, 3ach would ha4e omitted the sound and le$t his most mature instrumental wor,s waiting $or the sound that would suit them. With such (ieces it is not e4en remotely (ossible $or (hilologists with no a$$inity $or com(osition to write out the (arts and assign them to unchanging instruments or grou(s. What is demanded is that they be rethought $or an orchestra which neither sBuanders nor scrim(s but rather which $unctions as a moment o$ the integral com(osition. In the case o$ the entire Art of the Fugue, the: only such e$$ort has been that o$
(age>#6'

Frit2 Stiedry, whose arrangement did not sur4i4e its =ew Dor, (remiere. 1ustice is done 3ach not through musicological usur(ation but solely through the most ad4anced com(osition which in turn con4erges with the le4el o$ 3achCs continually un$olding wor,. The $ew instrumentations contributed by Schoenberg and Anton 4on Webern, es(ecially those o$ the great tri(le $ugue in @ $lat ma;or and o$ the si.9(art Ricercata, in which e4ery $acet o$ the com(osition is trans(osed into a correlati4e timbre and in which the sur$ace interwea4ing o$ lines is dissol4ed into the most minute moti4ic interrelations and then reunited through the o4erall constructi4e dis(osition o$ the orchestra 0 such instrumentations are models o$ an attitude to, 3ach which corres(onds to the stage o$ his truth. /erha(s the traditional 3ach can indeed no longer be inter(reted. I$ this is true, his heritage has (assed on to com(osition, which is loyal to him in being disloyalG it calls his music by name in (roducing it anew.
(age>#66

#rno%d +choenberg 187: 19;1

8eard melodies are s&eet, ut those unheard Are s&eeterB therefore, ye soft pipes, play onB Not to the sensual ear, ut, more endear)d, Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone$ %eats
(age>#67

In the: (ublic mind o$ today Schoenberg a((ears as an inno4ator, as a re$ormer, e4en as the in4entor o$ a system. With grudging res(ect it is admitted that he (re(ared the way $or others, a way, it is true, which they had no great desire to tra4elG yet this concession is lin,ed to the im(lication that he himsel$ was a $ailure and has already become obsolete. The one9time (ariah is re(ressed, neutrali2ed and absorbed. =ot merely his early wor,s but those o$ his middle (eriod as well 0 which at the time earned him the hatred o$ all culture9lo4ers 0 are dismissed as EWagnerianC or Elate AomanticC, although in $orty years $ew ha4e learned how to (er$orm them (ro(erly. The wor,s he wrote a$ter the First Word War are a((raised as e.am(les o$ the twel4e9tone techniBue. In recent years, it is true, numerous young com(osers ha4e ta,en u( this techniBue again, but more in the search o$ a shell behind which to ta,e re$uge than as the necessary result o$ their own e.(erience, and hence without troubling to worry about the $unction o$ the twel4e9tone method within SchoenbergCs own wor,. Such re(ression and dressing9u( is (ro4o,ed by the di$$iculties that Schoenberg (oses to a listening (ublic which has been ,neaded into sha(e by the culture industry. I$ one does not understand something, it is customary to beha4e with the sublime understanding o$ ahlerCs ;ac,ass, and (ro;ect oneCs own inadeBuacy on to the ob;ect, declaring it to be incom(rehensible. And it is true that SchoenbergCs music demands $rom the 4ery beginning acti4e and concentrated (artici(ation, the most acute attention to simultaneous multi(licity, the renunciation o$ the customary crutches o$ a listening which always ,nows what to e.(ect, the intensi4e (erce(tion o$ the uniBue and s(eci$ic, and the ability to gras( (recisely the indi4idual characteristics, o$ten changing in the smallest s(ace, and their history, de4oid o$ all re(etition. The (urity and so4ereignty with which Schoenberg always entrusts himsel$ to the demands o$ his sub;ect9matter has restricted his in$luenceG it is (recisely because o$ its seriousness, richness and integrity that his music arouses resentment. The more it gi4es its listeners, the less it o$$ers them. It reBuires the listener
(age>#6!

s(ontaneously to com(ose its inner mo4ement and demands o$ him not mere contem(lation but (ra.is. In this, howe4er, Schoenberg blas(hemes against the e.(ectation, cherished des(ite all idealistic assurances to the contrary, that music will (resent the com$ortable listener with a series o$ (leasurable sensations. @4en schools such as )ebussyCs, des(ite the aesthetic atmos(here o$ art $or artCs sa,e, ha4e met this e.(ectation. The line di4iding the young )ebussy and salon music was $luid, and the technical accom(lishment o$ the mature com(oser were adroitly incor(orated by commercial mass music. With Schoenberg a$$ability ceases. -e (roclaims the end o$ a con$ormity which had made music into the natural (reser4e o$ in$antility within a society which had long been aware that it would be tolerated only as long as it allowed its inmates a Buota o$ controlled ;u4enile ha((iness. -e sins against the di4ision o$ li$e into wor, and leisureG he insists on a ,ind o$ wor, $or oneCs leisure that could easily call the latter into Buestion. -is (assion (oints to a music o$ which the mind need not be ashamed, and which there$ore shames the (re4ailing tem(er. -is music stri4es to be mature at both its (oles: it releases the threatening instinctual s(here which music otherwise (resents only a$ter it has been $iltered and harmoniously $alsi$ied, and it demands great intellectual energy, the (rinci(le o$ an ego strong enough not to ha4e to deny the instincts. %andins,y, in whose E3lue AiderC he (ublished the 8er.ge&aechse, $ormulated the (rogramme o$ the Eintellectual in artC. Schoenberg remained de4oted to this, not by aiming at abstractions but by ma,ing the concrete $orm o$ music itsel$ intelligible. This gi4es rise to the most (o(ular ob;ection to Schoenberg 0 against his so9called EintellectualismC. -owe4er, this either con$uses the intrinsic $orce o$ intellectuali2ation with re$lection that remains e.ternal

to the ob;ect, or it dogmatically e.em(ts music $rom the demands o$ intellectuali2ation which ha4e become obligatory $or all aesthetic media as a correcti4e against the trans$ormation o$ culture into iens culturels. The truth is that Schoenberg was a naM4e artist, abo4e all in the o$ten ha(less intellectuali2ations with which he sought to ;usti$y his wor,. I$ anyone was e4er guided by the tide o$ in4oluntary musical intuition it was he. -al$ sel$9taught, the language o$ music was sel$9e4ident to him. It was only with the greatest reluctance that he trans$ormed it down to its most elementary le4els. Although his music channeled all the energies o$ his ego towards ob;ecti$ying its im(ulses, it ne4ertheless remained ego9alien to him $or the duration o$ his li$e. -e himsel$ readily identi$ied with the elect who resist their mission. "ourage he considered the attribute o$ Ethose who accom(lish acts which e.ceed their con$i9
(age>#':

denceC. The (arado.ical nature o$ the $ormula characteri2es his attitude towards authority. It combines aesthetic a4ant9gardism with a conser4ati4e mentality. While in$licting the most deadly blows on authority through his wor,, he see,s to de$end the wor, as though be$ore a hidden authority and ultimately to ma,e it itsel$ the authority. In the eyes o$ the *iennese com(oser, coming $rom a (arochial bac,ground, the norms o$ a closed, semi9$eudal society seemed the will o$ 8od. Det this res(ect was lin,ed to an o((osing element, although one no less incom(atible with the notion o$ the intellectual. Something not integrated, not entirely ci4ili2ed, indeed hostile to ci4ili2ation, ,e(t him outside the 4ery order o$ which he was so uncritical. Fi,e a man without origins, $allen $rom hea4en, a musical "as(ar -auser, he hit the bullseye unerringly. =othing was to be allowed to recall the natural milieu to which he nonetheless belonged, and the result was that his unde4elo(ed nature became all the more e4ident. -e who se4ered all ties so that he alone could be res(onsible $or e4erything, was able (recisely because o$ that isolation, to win contact with the collecti4e undercurrent o$ music and to achie4e that so4ereignty which enables each one o$ his wor,s to re(resent the entire genre. There was no greater sur(rise than when that hoarse and irritable s(ea,er sang a $ew bars. -is warm, $ree, sonorous 4oice was untroubled by the $ear o$ singing which is burned into the ci4ili2ed mind and which ma,es the (seudo9non9chalance o$ the (ro$essional singer all the more distressing. usic had ta,en o4er the role o$ (arentsG EmusicallyC, he was borne along by the language o$ music, li,e the s(ea,er o$ a dialect, and in that res(ect com(arable to someone li,e Aichard Strauss or the Sla4ic com(osers. From the earliest wor,s 0 already mani$est in ETrans$igured =ightC 0 there $lows $rom this language a s(eci$ic warmth, both in tone and in the wealth o$ successi4e and simultaneous musical $igures, uninhibitedly (roducti4e, 4irtually oriental in their $ertility. @nough is not enough. SchoenbergCs intolerance o$ all e.cess ornament stems $rom his generosity, $rom his reluctance to ha4e the listener de(ri4ed o$ true riches by ostentation. -is generous imagination and artistic hos(itality, intent on (ro4iding each guest with the best, is (robably more im(ortant $or him than what is generally termed, dubiously enough, Ethe need $or e.(ressionC. =on9Wagnerian, his music s(rings $rom creati4e $er4our, not consuming desire, and is insatiable in its gi4ing. As though all the artistic materials with which he could (ro4e himsel$ were borrowed (ro(erty, he (roduces his own material as well as its resistances, dri4en incessantly by the disgust o$ e4erything he (roduces which is not entirely new. The $lame o$ untrammelled, mimetic creation,
(age>#'#

which came o4er Schoenberg $rom that subterranean heritage in the end also consumed the heritage. Tradition and $resh start are as interwo4en in him as the re4olutionary and conser4ati4e as(ect. The re(roach o$ EintellectualismC is lin,ed to the lac, o$ melody. Det he was su(remely melodic. Instead o$ the established $ormula he constantly (roduced new $orms. -is melodic imagination scarcely e4er contented itsel$ with a single melodyG instead, all simultaneous musical e4ents are treated as melodies, which ma,es them more di$$icult to gras(. @4en SchoenbergCs instincti4e mode o$ reaction is melodicG e4erything in him is actually EsungC, including the instrumental lines. This endows his music with its articulate character, $ree9mo4ing and yet structural down to the last tone. The (rimacy o$ breathing o4er the beat o$ abstract time contrasts Schoenberg to Stra4ins,y and to all those who, ha4ing ad;usted better to contem(orary e.istence, $ancy themsel4es more modern than Schoenberg. The rei$ied mind is allergic to

the elaboration and $ul$ilment o$ melody, $or which it substitutes the docile re(etition o$ mutilated melodic $ragments. The ability to $ollow the breath o$ the music una$raid had already distinguished Schoenberg $rom older, (ost9Wagnerian com(osers li,e Strauss and Wol$, in whom the music seemsG unable to de4elo( its substance according to its intrinsic im(ulses and reBuires literary and (rogrammatic su((ort, e4en in the songs. 3y contrast, the wor,s o$ SchoenbergCs $irst (eriod, including the sym(honic (oem, E/elleas and elisandeC, and the E8urreliederC, are already $ully com(osed. Wagnerian methods are as little related to Schoenberg as Wagnerian e.(ressionG by reaching its goal instead o$ brea,ing o$$ and beginning anew the musical im(ulse loses the moment o$ cra2ed desire, o$ obsessi4e (reoccu(ation. SchoenbergCs original e.(ression, generous and, in the meaning$ul sense, ;o4ial, recalls the humane e.(ression o$ 3eetho4en. From the 4ery start, o$ course, it is (re(ared to turn into the de$iance o$ a world which re;ects its gi$ts. Scorn and 4iolence see, to subdue the coolness, rebelliousnessG and the sentiment o$ one who $ails to reach human beings (recisely because he s(ea,s to them as such turns to $ear. This is the origin o$ SchoenbergCs ideal o$ (er$ection. -e reduces, constructs, arms his musicG the re;ected gi$t will become so (er$ect that it will ha4e to be acce(ted. 3y reaction, his lo4e had to become hard, li,e that o$ all minds since Scho(enhauer who ha4e not been content to ma,e do with the world as it is. %rausC 4erse, Ewhat has the world done to usJC is em(hatically true o$ the musician. SchoenbergCs noncon$ormity is not a matter o$ tem(erament. The com(le.ion o$ his musical intuition le$t him no choice but to com(ose coherently. -is integrity was $orced on himG he had to wor,
(age>#'<

out the tension between 3rahmsian and Wagnerian elements. -is e.(ansi4e imagination thri4ed on Wagnerian material, whereas the demands o$ com(ositional consistency, the res(onsibility o$ res(ecting the musicCs intrinsic tendencies drew him to 3rahman methods. ?ut o$ this conte.t, the Buestion o$ 3rahmsian or Wagnerian style was irrele4ant to Schoenberg. The Wagnerian style with its com(ositional limitations could not satis$y him any more than the 3rahmsian with its academic character. 3oth (ractically and then theoretically he stead$astly re;ected the notion o$ EstyleC, in the sense o$ a category e.isting (rior to the sub;ect9matter and oriented on e.ternal consensusG instead, he s(o,e o$ the EideaC, meaning the (ure elaboration o$ musical thoughts. ?n all le4els his (rimary concern was the What, not the -ow, the (rinci(les o$ selection and the means o$ (resentation. -ence, the di$$erent stylistic (hases o$ his wor, should not be o4er9inter(reted. The decisi4e (oint comes 4ery early, certainly not later than the Songs o(. 6 and the d minor Buartet o(. 7. These wor,s (ro4ide the ,ey to all the later ones. All subseBuent inno4ations, which (ro4o,ed such a sensation at the time, are nothing but the logical conseBuence $or musical language o$ what was inherent in the indi4idual musical e4ents o$ the s(eci$ic wor,. )issonance and large inter4als, the two most cons(icuous elements o$ the mature Schoenberg, are secondary, mere deri4ati4es o$ the inner structure o$ all o$ his musicG besides, the large inter4als are already (resent in his youth. The central (roblem is that o$ mastering the contradiction between essence and a((earance. Aichness and (lenitude are to be made the essence, not mere ornamentG the essence, in turn, will a((ear no longer as the rigid $ramewor, on which the music is dra(ed but rather as concrete and e4ident in its most subtle traits. What he designated as the EsubcutaneousC 0 the $abric o$ indi4idual musical e4ents, gras(ed as the ineluctable moments o$ an internally coherent totality 0 brea,s through the sur$ace, becomes 4isible and mani$ests itsel$ inde(endently o$ all stereoty(ed $orms. The inward dimension mo4es outward. ?rdering categories, which reduce the di$$iculties o$ acti4e listening at the cost o$ the (ure elaboration o$ the wor,, are eliminated. This absence o$ all mediations introduced into the wor, $rom outside ma,es the musical (rogression seem $ragmented and abru(t to the unnaM4e9naM4e listener, with the im(ression increasing in direct (ro(ortion to the actual degree o$ inner organi2ation. The early song, 5ockung, $rom o(. 6, is the (rototy(e o$ a characteristic that recurs, continually, u( into the twel4e9tone (hase. In its ten9 measure introduction three shar(ly contrasting grou(s, also distinct in tem(o, are ;u.ta(osedG the $irst
(age>#'&

consisting o$ $our measures, the other two o$ three each. =one o$ the grou(s cons(icuously re(eats anything $rom the (receding ones, yet all are interrelated through inter4ening 4ariation. The grou(s, are

also syntactically lin,ed: turbulent Buestion, insistence, and hal$9hearted, tentati4e and already transitional answer. There is an in$inite amount ta,ing (lace within the smallest s(ace and yet e4erything is so totally $ormed that there is ne4er any con$usion. The second grou(, $or instance, 4aries the $irst in retaining the diminished second and augmented $ourth inter4als while at the same time reducing the beat $rom &S5 to <S5, thus (roducing the general dri4en character. Amid radical change, melodic economy (re4ails. It is this organi2ation o$ the musical structure that is the true Schoenberg, not the (ri4ileged use o$ stri,ing techniBuesG what is crucial is the 4ariegated alternation o$ distinct and contrasting $igures with the general unity o$ moti4ic9thematic relations. It is music o$ identity in nonidentity. All the de4elo(ments un$old more concentratedly and more ra(idly than is deemed acce(table by the sluggish habits o$ culinary listeningG (oly(hony $unctions with real (arts, not with camou$laging counter(oint. The indi4idual characteristics are intensi$ied to the utmostG the articulation re;ects all $inished schemas, and contrast, re(ressed in the nineteenth century by transition, becomes, under the (ressure o$ an emotional state (olari2ed into e.tremes, the $ormati4e techniBue. Technically, the maturing o$ music means the (rotest against musical stu(idity. Although SchoenbergCs music is not intellectual, it does demand musical intelligence. Its basic (rinci(le is, to use his (hrase, the Ede4elo(ing 4ariationC. @4erything that a((ears stri4es to be de4elo(ed logically, to be intensi$ied and then resol4ed in an eBuilibrium. Uni4ersal res(onsibility and idiosyncrasy (re4ail against all musical traits which resemble ;ournalistic language. 3oth $atuous rhetoric and the dece(ti4e gesture that (romises more than it $ul$ils are scorned. SchoenbergCs music honours the listener by not ma,ing any concessions to him. -ence, it is re(roached $or being Ee.(erimentalC. Underlying this criticism is the notion that (rogress in artistic techniBue (roceeds in a steady, so to s(ea, organic $low. Anyone who, acting on his own, disco4ers something new, without o4ert historical aid, is thought not merely to sin against the tradition but also to succumb to 4anity and im(otence. 3ut wor,s o$ art, including music, reBuire consciousness and s(ontaneity, and these consistently destroy the semblance o$ continual growth. So long as the new music still had a clear conscience, resulting $rom its hostility to a tradition that ahler had labelled as Eslo((yCG so long as it did not try an.iously
(age>#'6

to (ro4e that its intentions were really not that bad, it ad4ocated the conce(t o$ e.(eriment. It is only the su(erstitious belie$ which $etishistically con$uses the rei$ied, rigidi$ied 0 (recisely what is estranged $rom nature 0 with nature itsel$, that sees to it that nothing new is tried in art. All the same, artistic e.tremism must be held res(onsible $or either $ollowing the logic o$ its sub;ect9matter, an ob;ecti4ity, howe4er concealed, or succumbing to mere (ri4ate ca(rice or an abstract system. It recei4es its legitimacy $rom the tradition it negates. -egel taught that where4er something new becomes 4isible, immediate, stri,ing, authentic, a long (rocess o$ $ormation has (receded it and it has now merely thrown o$$ its shell. ?nly that which has been nourished with the li$e9blood o$ the tradition can (ossibly ha4e the (ower to con$ront it authenticallyG the rest becomes the hel(less (rey o$ $orces which it has $ailed to o4ercome su$$iciently within itsel$. Det the bond o$ tradition is hardly eBui4alent to the sim(le seBuence o$ e4ents in historyG rather, it is subterranean. EA tradition,C writes Freud in his late wor, on and #onotheism, Ewhich was $ounded only on communication could not (roduce the com(ulsi4e Buality characteristic o$ religious (henomena. It would be heard, e4aluated, e4entually dismissed li,e e4ery other (iece o$ e.ternal in$ormation, and would ne4er attain that (ri4ileged status necessary to liberate men $rom the sway o$ logical thought. It must ha4e undergone the destiny o$ re(ression, the state o$ remaining in the unconscious, be$ore it could de4elo( a (ower$ul enough in$luence, u(on its return, to $orce the masses under its s(ellC. The aesthetic no less than the religious tradition is the recollection o$ something unconscious, indeed re(ressed. Where it does, in $act, un$old a E(otent in$luenceC, it is the result not o$ a mani$est, direct consciousness o$ continuity but rather o$ unconscious recollection which e.(lodes the continuum. Tradition is $ar more (resent in wor,s de(lored as e.(erimental than in those which deliberately stri4e to be traditional. What has long been obser4ed in modern French (ainting is no less true o$ Schoenberg and the *ienna School. The mani$est sound9material o$ "lassicism and Aomanticism, the tonal chords and their normed associations, the

melodic lines balanced between triad and second9inter4als, in short, the entire $aLade o$ the music o$ the last two9hundred years is submitted to (roducti4e criticism. Det what was crucial in the great music o$ the tradition was not those elements as such, but rather the s(eci$ic $unction they assumed in the (resentation o$ a (articular com(ositional content. 3eneath the $aLade there was a second, latent structure. The latter was determined by the $aLade in many res(ects, yet was continually (roducing and
(age>#''

;usti$ying it in its (roblematic character. The understanding o$ traditional music always meant the recognition not o$ the $aLade alone, but o$ that inner structure in its relation to that $aLade. As a result o$ the emanci(ation o$ the sub;ect, this relation became so (recarious that $inally both structures s(lit wide a(art. SchoenbergCs s(ontaneous (roducti4e (ower e.ecuted an ob;ecti4e historical 4erdict 0 he liberated the latent structure while dis(osing o$ the mani$est one. Thus, it is (recisely through his Ee.(erimentsC 0 through the anomalous, character he ga4e to the a((earances o$ his music 0 that he became heir to the tradition. -e heeded the norms which were teleologically im(licit in *iennese "lassicism and then in 3rahms, and thus, in this historical sense as well, he honoured his obligations. The ob;ecti$ication achie4ed under the (rimacy o$ Etotal com(ositionC had lost its authority by the time o$ 3rahms because it had begun to $unction mechanically, had lost its hold on a resistant musical material and categorically re(ressed the im(ulse to, rebel. In Schoenberg, howe4er, each indi4idual musical moment, down to the initial EideaC, is incom(arably more substantial. -is totality, true to the historical le4el o$ the mind, starts $rom the indi4idual, not $rom a (lan or architecture. As already had been done by 3eetho4en, although in rudimentary $orm, he includes the Aomantic element in integral com(osition. ?$ course, this also has its (lace in 3rahms, in lyrical melodies amid instrumental $ormsG there, howe4er, it is neutrali2ed, ,e(t in a ,ind o$ eBuilibrium with the Ewor,C, and this is the source o$ that illusoriness and resignation that characteri2e the 3rahmsian $orm, which (rudently smooths o4er o((ositions rather than immersing itsel$ in them. In Schoenberg the ob;ecti$ication o$ sub;ecti4e im(ulses becomes crucial. -e may ha4e learned his moti4ic9thematic 4ariations $rom 3rahms, but the (oly(hony which gi4es his ob;ecti$ication o$ sub;ecti4ity its (ungency belongs entirely to himG it is literally the recollection o$ something buried $or o4er two hundred years. This stems $rom the $act that 3eetho4enCs Ethematic wor,C, (articularly in the chamber music, incurred (oly(honic obligations which it $ailed to meet, e.ce(t $or a $ew e.ce(tions in his late (eriod. Wilhelm Fischer, in his study, E?n the Stylistic )e4elo(ment o$ *iennese "lassicismC, arri4ed at this insight: EIn general, the de4elo(ment9section $unctions in *iennese "lassicism as the (layground $or the melodic techniBues o$ the old classical style which ha4e been e.cluded $rom the e.(osition.C Det this is true not merely o$ the EbaroBueC (rinci(le o$ melodic elaboration, but to a $ar greater e.tent o$ (oly(hony, which continually a((ears in the de4elo(ment only to run aground. Schoenberg thin,s "lassicismCs un$ul$illed (romise through to its
(age>#'6

conclusion and in so doing brea,s down the traditional $aLade. -e reasserted 3achCs challenge, which "lassicism, including 3eetho4en, had e4aded, though without regressing behind "lassicism. The "lassic com(osers had neglected 3ach out o$ historical necessity. The autonomy o$ the musical sub;ect too, (riority o4er all other considerations and critically e.cluded the traditional $orm o$ ob;ecti4i2ation, at the same time ma,ing do with a semblance o$ ob;ecti4i2ation ;ust as the unrestricted inter(lay o$ sub;ects seemed the best guarantee $or society. ?nly today, when sub;ecti4ity in its immediacy can no longer be regarded as the su(reme category since its reali2ation de(ends on society as a whole, does the inadeBuacy o$ e4en 3eetho4enCs solution, which e.tended the sub;ect so as to co4er the whole, become e4ident. The de4elo(ment9section, which e4en at its heights in 3eetho4en, in the +roica, remains EdramaticC, not totally com(osed, is trans$ormed through SchoenbergCs (oly(honyG the sub;ecti4e melodic im(ulse is dialectically dissol4ed into its ob;ecti4e multi94ocal com(onents. It is this organi2ation, not ca(ricious tolerance, that distinguishes SchoenbergCs counter(oint $rom all the others o$ his e(och. At the same time it o4ercomes the burdensome harmonic em(hasis. -e is su((osed to ha4e said that no one thin,s about harmony with truly good counter(oint. This, howe4er, is characteristic not only o$ 3ach, in whom the stringency o$ the

(oly(hony distracts attention $rom the continuo schema within which it o(erates, but o$ Schoenberg as well, in whom such stringency ultimately ma,es all chord schemas and all $aLades su(er$luousG his is music o$ the intellectual ear. As Ede4elo(ing 4ariationC, intellectuali2ation becomes a technical (rinci(le. It o4ercomes all mere immediacy by acce(ting and $ollowing its inner dynamic. Schoenberg once ironically mentioned that musical theory is always concerned only with the beginning and the end and ne4er with what comes between, namely, with the music itsel$. -is entire wor, is a single e$$ort to answer this Buestion ignored by theory. Themes and their history, the musical (rogression, ha4e eBual weight, indeed, the di$$erence between the two is liBuidated. This ta,es (lace within the grou( o$ wor,s which e.tends roughly $rom the "ongs o(. 6 to the *eorge "ongs, and which includes the $irst two Puartets, the First 0ammersymphonie and the $irst mo4ement o$ the "econd. ?nly an obsessi4e concern with EstyleC could consider such wor,s EtransitionalCG as com(ositions they are o$ the greatest maturity. The d minor Puartet, down to its last note, created an entirely new le4el o$ thematically coherent chamber9music com(osition. Its $orm is that o$ the later twel4e9tone wor,sG anyone who wants to understand them would do better
(age>#'7

to study this Puartet than to count series. @ach EideaC, $rom the $irst beat on, is contra(untal and contains within itsel$ the (otentiality o$ its de4elo(mentG each de4elo(ment (reser4es the s(ontaneity o$ the $irst idea. And that which still trans(ired successi4ely in the First Puartet is then, within the scant dimensions and (oly(hony o$ the First 0ammersymphonie, com(ressed into simultaneity. Thus, the $aLade, still tolerated to a degree in the Puartet, begins to disintegrate. In his last boo,, Schoenberg described and illustrated how, in the e.(osition o$ the 0ammersymphonie, he $ollowed the unconscious im(ulse 0 that is, the desideratum o$ the latent structure 0 sacri$iced the usual conce(tion o$ the logical EconseBuenceC o$ o4ert thematic re$erences and instead drew the conseBuence $rom the inner consistency o$ the themes. The two, su(er$icially inde(endent main melodies o$ the $irst thematic com(le. re4eal themsel4es to be related in the sense o$ the serial (rinci(le o$ the later twel4e9tone techniBueG this is how $ar bac, in SchoenbergCs de4elo(ment the techniBue reachesG it must be seen as an im(lication o$ the com(ositional (rocedure rather than o$ the mere material. The com(ulsion, howe4er, to (urge music o$ all (reconcei4ed notions leads not only to new sounds li,e the $amous $ourth9chord, but also to a new e.(ressi4e dimension beyond the de(iction o$ human emotions. A conductor has com(ared the resolution $ield at the end o$ the great de4elo(ment section with the ;oy o$ a glacier landsca(e. For the $irst time a brea, is made in the 0ammersymphonie with what had been a basic stratum o$ music since the age o$ the asso continuo, $rom the rappresentativo, $rom the ad;ustment o$ musical language to the signi$icati4e as(ect o$ human language. For the $irst time SchoenbergCs warmth turns into the e.treme o$ coolness which e.(resses itsel$ through the absence o$ all e.(ression. Fater he (olemici2ed against those who demand Eanimal warmthC o$ musicG his dictum, which (roclaims that what music has to say can be said only through music, suggests the idea o$ a language unli,e that o$ human beings. The brilliant, dynamically reser4ed and yet barbed Buality which increases throughout the 0ammersymphonie, antici(ates $i$ty years be$orehand and without (reclassical gestures the later $unctionalism. usic which lets itsel$ be dri4en by (ure, unadulterated e.(ression becomes highly allergic to e4erything re(resenting a (otential encroachment on this (urity, to e4ery tendency to ingratiate itsel$ with the listener as well as the latterCs e$$orts to ingratiate himsel$ with it, to all identi$ication and em(athy. The logical conseBuence o$ the (rinci(le o$ e.(ression includes the
(age>#'5

moment o$ its own negation as that negati4e $orm o$ truth which trans$orms lo4e into the (ower o$ unremitting (rotest. At $irst, and $or many years therea$ter, Schoenberg did not (ursue this any $urther. The $irst mo4ement o$ the "econd 0ammersymphonie, written at the same time, is thoroughly e.(ressi4e and harmonicG with its 4ast wealth o$ Bualitati4ely distinct and constructi4ely em(loyed chord inter4als, it is one o$ the most consummate e.am(les o$ total harmoni2ation that SchoenbergCs imagination wrung $rom the 4ertical

dimension. The second mo4ement, howe4er, which was com(osed later in America at the urging o$ Frit2 Stiedry, a((lies the e.(eriences o$ the twel4e9tone techniBue to the late tonality, thus resulting in an intermingling o$ e.(ression and construction that is uniBue e4en $or Schoenberg. The (iece starts o$$ (lay$ully, li,e a serenade, but as it continues to condense contra(untally the tragic ,not is drawn e4er more tightly until at the end it con$irms the sombre tone o$ the $irst mo4ement 0 and merges with it. The "econd 0ammersymphonie is technically closer to the $ shar( minor Puartet o(. #: than to the First Sym(hony. This (iece, as -.F. Aedlich has remar,ed, re(resents in microcosm, retros(ecti4ely and (ros(ecti4ely, SchoenbergCs entire de4elo(ment. The $irst mo4ement, with its e.traordinary abundance o$ inter4als and thematic $igures, balancing on one $oot as it were, drains tonality o$ all it has le$t, e.(loiting it as a means o$ re(resentation. The second mo4ement, scher.ando, unleashes all the glaring whites and the blac, caricatures o$ Strindbergian @.(ressionismG demons mangle the tonality. In the third mo4ement, the lyric 4ariations on 8eorgeCs EFitanyC, music meditates on itsel$. The most essential moti4ic ingredients o$ the $irst two mo4ements con4erge serially in the theme. Integral construction curbs the outburst o$ grie$. The last mo4ement, howe4er, in song once again, sounds as though it came $rom another world, $rom the realm o$ $reedomG it is the new music through and through, des(ite the F shar( ma;or at the end, its $irst unadulterated mani$estation, more uto(ian in its ins(iration than any therea$ter. The instrumental introduction o$ this EwithdrawalC has the sound o$ truth, as though music had been $reed o$ all chains and was soaring abo4e and beyond enormous abysses towards that other (lanet in4o,ed in the (oem. SchoenbergCs encounter with 8eorgeCs (oetry, which is diametrically o((osed and yet inherently related to his wor,, is one o$ the $ew $ortunate e4ents in his s(oradic and uncertain e.(eriences with the non9musical li$e o$ his e(och. As long as he measured himsel$ against 8eorge, he was (rotected against the literary tem(tations o$ (altry Eur9soundsC.
(age>#'!

8eorgeCs ma.im: EThe strictest standard is also the su(reme $reedom,C could ha4e been his own. ?$ course, musical Buality does not de(end sim(ly on that o$ the (oetry, but authentic 4ocal music will succeed only when it encounters authentic (oetry. The *eorgelieder o(. #' already testi$y to the mani$est brea, in style, which is why Schoenberg introduced them at their (remiere (er$ormance with a (rogrammatic declaration. 3ut in their substance they belong to the $ shar( minor Puartet, es(ecially to its last mo4ement. The com(ositional techniBue, at the time thoroughly unusual and (ro4ocati4e, recalls once again, the idea o$ the great song cycles, o$ the *elie ten, the #!llerin and the %interreise. With Schoenberg, Ethe $irst timeC is always Eonce againC. The bre4ity, (regnancy and character o$ each indi4idual song is eBual in stature to the architecture o$ the whole, with the caesura a$ter the eighth song, the adagio clima.ing in the ele4enth and the intensi$ication o$ the last to the $inale. The (iano ascetically abandons the con4entional resonance and thus creates the muted charm o$ cosmic distance. The lyrical warmth o$ "aget mir auf &elchem pfade, the unconcealed na,edness o$ %enn ich heut nicht deinen lei er!hre , the (ulsating (ianissimo at the clima. o$ the almost unbearable e.(ressi4e intensity o$ Als &it hinter dem e l!mten tore all this sounds as though it could not ha4e been otherwise and had always e.isted. The sombre (arting at the end, howe4er, e.(ands sym(honically li,e the re;oicing o$ Cnd ein lie end 8er. erreichet D as ein lie end 8er. ge&eiht efore it. With the *eorgelieder the (hase o$ E$ree atonalityC begins. This brought Schoenberg the $ame o$ a sub4ersi4e a$ter the (ublic scandal which had already been caused by the 0ammersymphonie and the "econd Quartet. What at the time seemed a radical brea, may be seen today as rati$ication o$ the ine4itable. Schoenberg o4erturned the 4ocabulary, $rom the indi4idual sounds to, the schemas o$ the large $orms, but he continued to s(ea, the idiom and to stri4e $or the ,ind o$ musical te.ture which is inse(arably tied to the means he eliminated, not merely through common genesis but through its 4ery meaning. Such a contradiction hindered SchoenbergCs $urther de4elo(ment as much as it $urthered it. @4en in his most ad4anced wor,s he remained traditionalG he e.cluded the material o$ musical language which had (ro4ided musical structure with its basis since the beginning o$ the se4enteenth century, and yet retained the structural categories, the bearers o$ the EsubcutaneousC moment in his music, 4irtually intact. The idiom

was as sel$9e4ident and beyond Buestion to him as to Schubert, and this is at least (artly res(onsible $or the con4iction inherent in his wor,. Det
(age>#6:

at the same time, the $amiliar categories o$ musical structure, li,e theme, elaboration, tension, resolution, no longer suit the material he has set $ree. /urged o$ all (rior im(lications, the idiom is neutrali2ed. Actually, each instant and each tone should be eBually near the centre, and this would (reclude the organi2ation o$ musical time9(rogression which (re4ails in Schoenberg. ?ccasionally, in (articularly unruly (ieces such as the third one o$ o(. ##, he did com(ose accordinglyG otherwise, howe4er, he com(osed as though he were still using (re9structured material. /erha(s the innermost intention o$ the twel4e9tone techniBue was to endow, on its own, the material with that (re9structured Buality. ?therwise, the coordination o$ the material assumes an e.ternal, arbitrary, indeed blind character. =owhere is this more stri,ing than in SchoenbergCs relation to musical drama. It was determined directly by Wagernian aesthetics, des(ite the e.treme e.(ressionism o$ the $irst two dramatic wor,s. As late as #oses and Aaron, the relation o$ music to te.t is scarcely di$$erent $rom any (ost9Wagnerian o(era no matter how little attention is (aid to the music9dramatic scores. In Schoenberg di$$erent historical moments collide. The com(oser who, in immanent9musical terms, was light9years ahead o$ his e(och, remained a child o$ the nineteenth century where its terminus ad 1uem, its $unction, was concerned. To this e.tent Stra4ins,yCs critiBue o$ Schoenberg is not sim(ly reactionaryG it de$ines the bounds, set by SchoenbergCs naM4et7. This is, o$ course, o((osed by the anti9artistic, e.(losi4e element in Schoenberg. The (iano (ieces o(. ## are anti9ornamental to the (oint o$ gesticulating destructi4ely. Unadorned, na,ed e.(ression and hostility to art are united. # Something in Schoenberg, (erha(s
#. The gesture traces the direction o$ SchoenbergCs de4elo(ment, be$ore the listenerCs ears 0 the re4elation o$ the subcutaneous, not unli,e contem(orary "ubism, which trans(osed similar latent structures into the immediate (henomenon. The analogy is (articularly rele4ant to the elimination o$ traditional (ers(ecti4e in (ainting and o$ tonal 0 Es(atialC 0 harmony in music. 3oth result $rom the anti9ornamental im(ulse. Artistic (ers(ecti4e, not without reason called Etrom(e9lCoeilC, contains an element o$ dece(tion which is also (resent, in a manner that is di$$icult to de$ine, o$ course, in tonal harmony, which creates the illusion o$ s(atial de(th. It is (recisely this illusion that the mo4ement o$ the (iano (ieces o(. ## destroys. The illusionary moment in harmony became intolerable and the reaction it (roduced contributed decisi4ely to e.ternali2ing the inner dimension. The illusionary moment, howe4er, was (ro$oundly lin,ed to the 4ery stile rappresentativo $rom which Schoenberg distanced himsel$. In so $ar as art imitates, it has always in4ol4ed illusion. 3ut li,e (ainting, music does not sim(ly abolish s(aceG rather it re(laces the illusion, the (retence o$ it, with an, as it were, e.(anded, (eculiarly musical s(ace. (age>#6#

allegiance to the command cited in the te.t o$ the choral (ieces o(. <7 0 EThou shalt ma,e no gra4en imagesC 0 see,s to eradicate the de(icti4e9aesthetic $eatures o$ music, the imageless art. At the same time, this $eature characteri2es the idiom in which e4ery one o$ SchoenbergCs musical ideas is concei4ed. -e laboured under this contradiction to, the 4ery end. Ae(eatedly, e4en in the twel4e9tone (hase, he made heroic e$$orts to $orget, to demolish concealing musical layers, but the musical idiom always maintained its o((osition. -ence, his reductions are always $ollowed by com(le., richly wo4en wor,s in which musical language emerges out o$ the e$$ort to eliminate such language. Thus, the $irst atonal (iano (ieces were $ollowed by the orchestral (ieces o(. #6, which sacri$ice nothing o$ the emanci(ation o$ the material but which, amid their E(roseC, de4elo( anew in (oly(hony and thematic wor,. This results in Ebasic $iguresC, long be$ore the twel4e9tone techniBue. Pierrot lunaire, too, has similar elements, such as the Emoon s(otC, which became $amous through the tour de force o$ a $ugue accom(anied by two simultaneous crabli,e canonsG yet in addition, the theme o$ the $ugue and o$ the woodwind canon is strictly deri4ed $rom a series, whereas the canon in the strings $orms an Eaccom(anying systemC, o$ the ,ind that then became 4irtually the rule in the twel4e9tone techniBue. 1ust as $ree atonality de4elo(ed out o$ the $abric o$ large tonal chamber music, the twel4e9tone (rocedure in turn stemmed $rom $ree atonal com(osition. The $act that the orchestral (ieces disco4er the serial (rinci(le without rigidi$ying it into a system ranges them among the most success$ul o$ his wor,s. Some o$ them 0 the intricate lyric o$ the second, and the last, culminating in a $inale o$ un(aralleled (ers(ecti4al (owerare the eBuals o$ the great tonal chamber music

wor,s and o$ the *eorgelieder. As com(ositions, the stage wor,s, +r&artung and *l!ckliche 8and, are no worse. 3ut SchoenbergCs anti9artistic tendency becomes unartistic in them and so u(sets the conce(tion. It is true that he scarcely e4er com(osed anything which was $reer than +r&artung. It is not merely the means o$ (resentation which emanci(ates itsel$, but the synta. as well. Webern did not e.aggerate when, in the $irst (ublished collection on Schoenberg, he wrote that the score is Ean unheard9o$ e4ent. In it a brea, is made with all traditional architectonicsG there is always something new coming, with the most abru(t changes in e.(ressionC. @4ery moment abandons itsel$ to the s(ontaneous im(ulse, and the ob;ect 0 the re(resentation o$ dread 0 conser4es SchoenbergCs historical inner4ation, which was related to the most (ro$ound elements in @.(ressionism immediately (receding #!#6. 3ut Schoenberg was not ca(able o$ discrim9
(age>#6<

inating in his choice o$ te.t. arie /a((enheimCs monodrama is second9hand @.(ressionism, dilettante in its language and structure, and this rubs o$$ on the music as well. -owe4er ingenious Schoenberg is in di4iding the whole into three sections, search, outbrea, and concluding lament, the music still draws inner $orm $rom the te.t, and, in ada(ting itsel$ to it, is $orced to re(eat continually the same gestures and con$igurations. It thus 4iolates the (ostulate o$ incessant inno4ation. In the *l!ckliche 8and, a no less @.(ressionist attitude turns com(ositionally to the ob;ecti4e sym(honic $orm, designing (astose $ormal sur$acesG yet here, too, such ob;ecti4ity is ho(elessly com(romised by the $oolish, narcissistic sub;ect9 matter. The sym(hony into which SchoenbergCs wor, ought to coalesce was ne4er written. The ?rchestral Songs o(. << conclude with the words, Cnd in gan. allein in dem grossen "turm NAnd am all alone in the great stormO. At the time, Schoenberg must ha4e e.(erienced the height o$ his (owers. -is music e.(ands li,e a giant, as though the totality, the Egreat stormC, were about to emerge $rom sel$9obli4ious sub;ecti4ity, Eall aloneC. To these years belongs Pierrot lunaire, the best ,nown o$ all o$ SchoenbergCs wor,s a$ter his abandonment o$ tonality. The ob;ecti4ist, e.(ansi4e tendencies are ha((ily balanced by what the sub;ect is ca(able o$ $illing. A cosmos o$ e4ery concei4able musical and e.(ressi4e characteristic is created, yet one re$lected in the mirror o$ isolated inwardness, in a hothouse o$ souls li,e that mentioned shortly be$ore in the aeterlinc, songG a cosmos which is both $anci$ul and absurd. The restorati4e element 0 (assa9caglia, $ugue, canon, walt2, serenade and stro(hic song 0 enters the paradis artificiel only ironically, as though it were denatured, and the a(horistically abbre4iated themes sound li,e the distant echo o$ literal ones. This discontinuity is not to be se(arated $rom the anachronistic sub;ect9matter. Albert 8iraudCs (oems, translated by -artleben, regress behind @.(ressionism to the le4el o$ commercial art, $igured ornament and styli2ing. The $orm and content which con$ront the sub;ect remain its unconscious (ro;ection. It is not the sub;ect9matter alone that brings SchoenbergCs masterwor, into (arado.ical (ro.imity to kitsch, thus ;eo(ardi2ing e4erything e.Buisite in the (ieceG rather, through its (ro(ensity $or isolated $lowing and $lashy pointes, the music itsel$ sacri$ices something o$ what Schoenberg had accom(lished since +r&artung. All 4irtuoso s(irituality notwithstanding and des(ite the $act that some o$ SchoenbergCs most com(le. com(ositions are included in Pierrot, the musical (ro;ect 0 the (roduction o$ sur$ace connections 0 retreats incons(icuously $rom his most ad4anced (osition. Det this can
(age>#6&

in no way be attributed to a decline in com(ositional (ower. Schoenberg was ne4er more so4ereign in his use o$ techniBue than in the ArabesBues, which (lay$ully o4ercome all musical gra4ity. 3ut he collides with the 4ery historical necessity which he, more than any other com(oser o$ the e(och, embodies. -e became entangled in the a(oria o$ the $alse transition. =othing s(iritual has e4er esca(ed this $ate since -egel, (erha(s because non9contradiction can no longer be attained in the sel$9satis$ied realm o$ the mind, i$ indeed it e4er could. The aesthetic sub;ect, li,e the (hiloso(hical sub;ect, ha4ing de4elo(ed $ully and in control o$ itsel$, cannot sto( at that sel$ and its Ee.(ressionCG it must aim at ob;ecti4e authority, as SchoenbergCs bestowing gesture intended $rom the 4ery $irst. Det this authority cannot be deri4ed $rom mere sub;ecti4ity, e4en i$ the latter has drawn its sustenance $rom the entire dynamics o$ society, unless it is already (resent in society, $rom which the aesthetic sub;ect must detach itsel$ today (recisely because that

substantial content is lac,ing in society. In Schoenberg, the destiny o$ =iet2scheCs E=ew TableC re(eated itsel$, as well as that o$ 8eorge, who in4ented a new god in order to ensure the (ossibility o$ cultic (oetryG it was no accident that Schoenberg $elt himsel$ drawn to both men. A$ter Pierrot the Archestral "ongs, he began com(osing an ?ratorio. The musical $ragments that were (ublished dis(lay again SchoenbergCs ability to achie4e the most e.treme e$$ects un$ailingly, such as the hammer9stro,e in the *l!ckliche 8and. 3ut the te.t re4eals the des(erate nature o$ the enter(rise. The literary inadeBuacy discloses the im(ossibility o$ the ob;ect itsel$, the incongruity o$ a religious choral wor, in the midst o$ late ca(italist society, o$ the aesthetic $igure o$ totality. The whole, as a (ositi4e entity, cannot be antithetically e.tracted $rom an estranged and s(lintered reality by means o$ the will and (ower o$ the indi4idualG i$ it is not to degenerate into dece(tion and ideology, it must assume the $orm o$ negation. The chef d)oeuvre remained un$inished and SchoenbergCs admission o$ $ailure, his recognition that it was Ea $ragment, li,e e4erything elseC, says (erha(s more $or him than any success. There is no Buestion that he could ha4e $orcibly com(leted what he had in mind, but he must ha4e sensed something $alse in the (ro;ect itsel$G the idea o$ the master(iece has today been twisted into the genre o$ master(iece. The brea, between the substantiality o$ the ego and the o4er9all structure o$ social e.istence, which denies the ego not merely e.ternal sanction but its necessary (reconditions as well, has become too (ro$ound to (ermit wor,s o$ art a synthesis. The sub;ect ,nows itsel$ to be ob;ecti4e, remo4ed $rom the contingency o$ mere e.istence,
(age>#66

yet this ,nowledge, which is true, is at the same time also untrue. The ob;ecti4ity that inheres in the sub;ect is barred $rom reconciliation with a state o$ things which negates that ob;ecti4e substance (recisely by aiming at $ull reconciliation with it, and yet which that ob;ecti4ity must ne4ertheless become i$ it is to be sa4ed $rom the im(otence o$ mere Ebeing9$or9itsel$ C. The greater the artist, the stronger the tem(tation o$ the chimerical. For, li,e ,nowledge, art cannot wait, but as soon as it succumbs to im(atience it is tra((ed. In this res(ect Schoenberg resembles not merely =iet2sche and 8eorge, but also Wagner. The sectarian stimga that adhered to him and his circle is a sym(tom o$ the $alse transition. -is authoritarian nature is so constructed that, ha4ing $ollowed musical logic in ma,ing himsel$ the (rinci(le o$ all music, he then had to enthrone that (rinci(le abo4e himsel$ and obey it. The idea o$ $reedom is bloc,ed in his music by the des(erate need to submit to a heteronomous authority, a need that arises because the e$$ort to transcend mere indi4iduality and reach ob;ecti4ity is $utile. The inner im(ossibility o$ music ob;ecti$ying itsel$ is mani$ested in the com(ulsi4e traits o$ its aesthetic com(le.ion. It cannot truly go outside o$ itsel$ and hence must ele4ate its own arbitrary will, which $ailed to attain ob;ecti4ity, to a (osition o$ authority o4er itsel$. The iconoclast becomes the $etishist. "ut o$$ $rom its reali2ation, the (rinci(le o$ music which is both rationally trans(arent and inclusi4e o$ the sub;ect becomes an abstraction, a rigid, unBuestioned (rece(t. SchoenbergCs (ause in creation, o$ 3iblical length, cannot be adeBuately e.(lained in terms o$ his (ri4ate destiny in the war and in$lation. -is $orces regrou(ed as though a$ter a mortal de$eat. -e busied himsel$ with e.traordinary intensity in those years with the ESociety $or /ri4ate usical /er$ormancesC, which he had $ounded. -is signi$icance $or musical inter(retation can scarcely be o4er9estimated. Schoenberg, who as com(oser had turned the subcutaneous outwards, disco4ered and taught a mode o$ (resentation that rendered the subcutaneous structure 4isible, ma,ing the (er$ormance the integral reali2ation o$ the musical construction. The ideal o$ inter(retation con4erges with that o$ com(osition. The dream o$ the musical sub;ect9ob;ect concreti2ed itsel$ technologically a$ter the com(oser had abandoned the conclusion o$ Jaco )s 5adder. -e no longer loo,s to su(er9(ersonal ideas and $orms to lead the way to aesthetic authority, but instead recogni2es that this can be achie4ed only through the immanent mo4ement o$ the sub;ect9matter in the $orm o$ logically coherent com(osition. -e thus showed himsel$ to be incorru(tibly su(erior to the blandishments o$ all the usur(atory and restorati4e tendencies that emerged in (ost9@.(ressionist music,
(age>#6'

e4en at (oints where he brushed the neo9"lassical music he des(ised. 3ut the stubborn loyalty o$ the later

Schoenberg to the method, as a guarantee o$ com(rehensi4e totality, merely de$erred the a(oria. Something almost im(erce(tible ha((ened to his music under the (rimacy o$ the highly ingenious twel4e9 tone techniBue. ?$ course, the e.(eriences and rules that (reci(itated necessarily and con4incingly out o$ the com(ositional (rocess were com(rehended, codi$ied and systemati2ed. 3ut this act does not lea4e the truth9content o$ those e.(eriences untouched. They are no longer o(en and accessible to dialectical correction. Schoenberg is threatened by the nemesis o$ what %andins,y, in an article written in #!#< and dedicated to him, describes as $ollows: EThe artist thin,s that, ha4ing EE$inally $ound his $ormK, he can now continue to create wor,s o$ art in (eace. Un$ortunately, e4en he himsel$ does not usually notice that $rom this moment Ho$ Q(eaceKI on, he 4ery ra(idly begins to lose this $inally $ound $orm.C This is so because each wor, o$ art is a $orce9$ield, and ;ust as the act o$ thought cannot be se(arated $rom the truth9content o$ the logical ;udgement, wor,s o$ art are true only in so $ar as they transcend their material (reconditions. The element o$ delusion shared by both technical9aesthetic and cogniti4e systems does, it is true, assure them o$ their suggesti4e (ower. They become models. 3ut in denying themsel4es sel$9re$lection and ma,ing themsel4es static, they become moribund and cri((le the 4ery im(ulse that (roduced the system in the $irst (lace. There is no middle way that a4oids the alternati4e. To ignore the insights that ha4e coalesced into the system is to cling im(otently to what has been su(erseded. Det the system itsel$ becomes a $i.ed idea and uni4ersal reci(e. It is not the method itsel$ that is $alse 0 no one can com(ose any longer who has not sensed with his own ears the gra4itational (ull towards twel4e9tone techniBue 0 but rather its hy(ostasi2ation, the re;ection o$ all that is otherwise, o$ anything not already analytically assimilated. usic must not identi$y its methods, a (art o$ sub;ecti4e reason, with the sub;ect9matter, which is ob;ecti4e. The (ressures to do ;ust this, howe4er, increase as the aesthetic sub;ect is less and less able to orient itsel$ on something which is both distinct $rom it and yet in harmony with it 0 the magic $ormula re(laces the com(rehensi4e wor, which (rohibits itsel$. To be true to Schoenberg is to warn against all twel4e9tone schools. )e4oid o$ e.(erimentation as well as (rudence, these schools no longer in4ol4e any ris,, and hence ha4e entered the ser4ice o$ a second con$ormity. The means ha4e become ends. Schoenberg himsel$ bene$ited greatly through his bond to the tradition o$ musical languageG by means o$ the twel4e9tone
(age>#66

(rocedure he was able to organi2e music which was both highly com(le. and in need o$ such su((orts. With the com(osers that $ollowed, the method gradually loses its $unction and is abused as a mere substitute $or tonalityG it does nothing more than to glue together musical (henomena which are so sim(le that such great (ains are hardly worthwhile. For this turn o$ e4ents, howe4er, Schoenberg again is not wholly innocent. At times he wrote twel4e9tone gigues and rondos, $orms in which the twel4e9tone techniBue becomes su(er$luous, while remaining $undamentally incom(atible with musical ty(es that so unmista,ably (resu((ose tonal modulation. In the beginning he glaringly e.(osed the inconsistency o$ all too consistent music which de(ended on ;ust this ,ind o$ borrowing, only to s(end years therea$ter stri4ing to $ind a correcti4e. To this day the (otentiality o$ the twel4e9tone techniBue has remained o(en. It does in $act (ermit the synthesis o$ a (rocedure which is com(letely $ree and yet com(letely strict. Inasmuch as thematic wor, wholly dominates the material, the com(osition itsel$ can become truly athematic, E(roseC, without succumbing to contingency in the (rocess. 3ut the rei$ication o$ the method becomes $lagrant when Schoenberg claims that the twel4e9tone series, which solely (redis(ose the material, ha4e the (ower o$ creating large $orms. What tonality was once able to achie4e by 4irtue o$ modulatory (ro(ortions cannot be re(eated by a techniBue, the 4ery sense o$ which lies in its not a((earing outwardly. When twel4e9tone rows and relations become as e4ident in larger $orms as ,ey relations were in traditional music, the $orm rattles mechanically. The twel4e9tone rows do not describe a musical s(ace within which the wor, un$olds and which (redetermines intuition. They are rather the smallest units, which enable the construction o$ an integral whole com(rising the most 4ariegated relations. I$ they become mani$est, the whole disintegrates into its atoms. It was sel$9e4ident there$ore $or SchoenbergCs 4ariati4e imagination to ha4e concealed the rows behind the real musical (rogression. Thus hidden, howe4er, they could not e.ercise the architectonic

in$luence $or which he ho(ed. The contradiction between latent organi2ation and mani$est music re(roduces itsel$ at a higher stage. Schoenberg in4o,ed traditional $ormal means in order to e.orcise it. 3ecause he saddled the twel4e9tone techniBue with the burden o$ ob;ecti4ity as a ,ind o$ uni4ersal, conce(tual order 0 a burden it could not bear 0 he was com(elled to introduce e.ternal categories without regard $or the material, so as to (roduce that order. Faith in organi2ational musical categories was something he ne4er lost. any o$ the large twel4e9tone (ieces, es(ecially those com(osed in America, are con4incingly success$ul.
(age>#67

The best, howe4er, rely neither on the twel4e9tone rows nor on the traditional ty(es. They are characteri2ed by the $ree use o$ authentic com(ositional techniBues, as $or instance, stac,ing thematic sur$aces, which are based on distinct but dis(arate models, one on to( o$ the other. The logic o$ construction is intensi$ied anewG the main theme $rom the $irst mo4ement o$ the *iolin "oncerto, $or instance, is more (regnant in its construction than anything (rior to the introduction o$ the twel4e9tone techniBue. SchoenbergCs com(ositional $aculties were heightened through such resistances. For the disci(les, howe4er, the techniBue came to be regarded as EnaturalC, as the musical ordo, and in this sense, it became the bad heir o$ tonality, which itsel$ was not natural any more but rather the (roduct o$ rationali2ationG SchoenbergCs $ollowers thus succeeded only in dis(laying their own wea,ness, their im(otent longing $or security. This can be drastically demonstrated in the relation o$ twel4e9tone techniBue to the octa4e. The techniBue tacitly acce(ts the identity o$ the octa4e, without which one o$ the most im(ortant twel4e9tone (rinci(les, the interchangeability o$ each tone in any octa4e range, becomes inconcei4able. Det at the same time the octa4e retains something EtonalC about it, and disturbs the eBuilibrium o$ the twel4e hal$9tonesG whene4er octa4es are doubled there is the association o$ the triad. The contradiction mani$ested itsel$ in SchoenbergCs $luctuating (ra.is. @arlier, beginning already to a large e.tent in the wor,s o$ $ree atonality, the octa4e was a4oided. Then, howe4er, Schoenberg wrote octa4es, (robably to clari$y the bass sounds and main thematic (artsG the $irst time came in a (iece which (layed with tonality, the Ade to Napoleon ( here, ;ust as in the /iano "oncerto, it is im(ossible not to hear a certain $orced, im(ure Buality. The (seudo9nature betrays itsel$ entirely in the early days o$ the techniBue in a tendency to the a(ocry(hal, the shabby and the absurd. At times, music constructed according to $ormulas, essentially meaningless, threatens to undo all its sublimation and re4ert to raw material. Fi,e the dogma o$ astrologers, which lin,s the mo4ement o$ the stars to the (rogress o$ human destinies while both remain una$$ected by the cogniti4e act and are thus $ortuitous, the seBuence o$ twel4e9tone e4ents, determined down to its $inal note, contains 4estiges o$ contingency $or li4ed e.(erience. As though to moc, the (otential synthesis o$ $reedom and necessity, the latter, ha4ing been made absolute, re4eals itsel$ to be contingent. The great com(oser trium(hed once again o4er the in4entor, as Schoenberg in later li$e de4oted all his energies to the tas, o$ eliminating the a(ocry(hal elements in twel4e9tone techniBue. The $irst serial com(ositions, which were not strictly twel4e9tone, were still
(age>#65

$ree o$ such elements. In the $irst $our (ieces o$ o(. <&, the eru(ti4e $orces o$ the @.(ressionist (hase echo tremulously. There are hardly any rigid sections. The second (iece, $or instance, a (eri(atie which in SchoenbergCs hands became heir to the scher2o, is only a totally com(osed diminuendo o$ su(reme originalityG the outburst dies away ra(idly, lea4ing a nocturnally tranBuil, com$orting concluding (ostlude. The s(irited $ourth (iece comes closer to the idea o$ an athematic twel4e9tone com(osition than almost any other wor,. The /iano Suite o(. <' and the Woodwind Puintet o(. <6 are thoroughly twel4e9tone. They bring out the element o$ constraint with (articular em(hasis, a ,ind o$ 3auhaus9music, metallic constructi4ism which deri4es its $orce $rom (recisely the absence o$ (rimary e.(ressionG e4en where e.(ressi4e characteristics a((ear, they are Etotally constructedC. The Puintet, (robably the most di$$icult (iece to listen to o$ any that Schoenberg wrote, brusBuely dri4es sublimation, in one dimension, to an e.treme 0 it declares war on colour. The basic im(ulse against e4erything in$antile, against musical

stu(idity, ta,es hold o$ the medium which, more than any other, seems culinary, mere sensuous e.citation this side o$ intellectual acti4ity. ?$ all o$ SchoenbergCs accom(lishments in integrating musical means, not the least was that he conclusi4ely se(arated colour $rom the decorati4e s(here and ele4ated it to a com(ositional element in its own right. It changes into a means $or the elucidation o$ musical interrelations. 3y being thus included in the com(ositional (rocess, howe4er, it is also condemned. In a (assage $rom "tyle and 7dea Schoenberg e.(licitly re(udiated it. The more na,edly construction re(resents itsel$, the less it reBuires colouristic hel(. The (rinci(le thus turns against SchoenbergCs own achie4ements, com(arable (erha(s to the late 3eetho4en, in whom all sensuous immediacy reduces itsel$ to mere $oreground, to allegory. It is easy enough to imagine this late $orm o$ SchoenbergCs asceticism, the negation o$ all $aLades, e.tending to all musical dimensions. ature music becomes sus(icious o$ real sound as such. Similarly, with the reali2ation o$ the EsubcutaneousC, the end o$ musical inter(retation becomes concei4able. The silent, imaginati4e reading o$ music could render actual (laying as su(er$luous as, $or instance, s(ea,ing is made by the reading o$ written materialG such a (ractice could at the same time sa4e music $rom the abuse in$licted u(on the com(ositional content by 4irtually e4ery (er$ormance today. The inclination to silence, which sha(es the aura o$ e4ery tone in WebernCs lyrics, is related to the tendency stemming $rom Schoenberg. Its ultimate result, howe4er, can only be that artistic maturity and intellectuali2ation abolish not only sensuous a((earance, but
(age>#6!

with it, art itsel$. In SchoenbergCs late wor,, artistic intellectuali2ation mo4es em(hatically towards the dissolution o$ art, and so con4erges abysmally with anti9artistic, barbaric tendencies. For this reason, the e$$orts o$ 3oule2 and the younger twel4e9tone com(osers in all countries to achie4e total abstraction are by no means Eyouth$ul blunderingC, but rather the continuation and de4elo(ment o$ one o$ SchoenbergCs intentions. -e ne4er, howe4er, made himsel$ com(letely the sla4e o$ his own intention or o$ ob;ecti4e tendencies. /arado.ically enough, the com(oser who $orcibly organi2ed and co9ordinated his material, with e4er9increasing se4erity as he aged, in many res(ects bro,e through the systematic constraints o$ the logic he had unleashed. -is com(osing ne4er simulated the (rimiti4e unity o$ com(osition and technical (rocedure. The e.(erience that no, musical sub;ect9ob;ect can constitute itsel$ here and today was not wasted on him. ?n the one hand, it sa4ed his sub;ecti4e $reedom o$ mo4ementG on the other, it ,e(t the demon o$ the com(osing machine distant $rom the ob;ecti4e $orm. -e regained that $reedom as soon as he could $unction in the twel4e9tone techniBue as in a $amiliar ElanguageC, in the school o$ the untroubled, gay "hamber Suite o(. <! and o$ the almost didactic ?rchestral *ariations, $rom which Feibowit2 distilled a com(endium o$ the new techniBue. -is close contact with the te.t and with the pointes, howe4er modest, o$ the comic o(era, From Today to Tomorro& , returned to him all the $le.ibility o$ the musical idiom. With the latter $ully in mind, he tosses o$$ a master(iece $or the second time, again (ost(oning the conclusion with that enigmatic $aith in an endless li$e behind which his des(air at the Eit9shall9not9beC is concealed. The $act that his (owers, actually rose to a high(oint once again in the early thirties was brought out by the un$orgettable )armstadt (remiere o$ the Dance of the *olden 6alf in the summer o$ #!6#, only a $ew days be$ore SchoenbergCs death. The (er$ormance, under Scherchen, was met with wild enthusiasm and mar,ed the $irst time that a twel4e9tone (iece had recei4ed the a((ro4al which its creator both scorned and needed more than anyone else. The e.(ressi4e intensity, dis(osition o$ colour and constructi4e (ower swee( away all obstacles. To ;udge $rom the te.t o$ the $ragment, as a $inished o(era, #oses and Aaron would ha4e been lostG un$inished, it ran,s among the great $ragments o$ music. Schoenberg, who resisted all con4entions within the s(here o$ music, acce(ted the role assigned to him by the social di4ision o$ labour, which restricted him to the s(here o$ music. -is im(ulse to go beyond it as (ainter and (oet was $rustratedG the di4ision o$ labour is not to be re4o,ed by the claims o$ uni4ersal genius. -e
(age>#7:

thus too, his (lace among the Egreat com(osersC, as though this notion was eternal. The slightest criticism o$ any o$ the masters since 3ach he $ound intolerable. =ot only did he re;ect Bualitati4e di$$erences within

the wor, o$ each, but also, whene4er (ossible, stylistic distinctions between wor,s written in di$$erent genres, e4en those which are beyond Buestion, such as that between 3eetho4enCs sym(honic and his chamber music. That the category o$ the great com(oser was susce(tible to historical 4ariation did not occur to him any more than the doubt that his own wor, would be established as a classic when the time came. Against his will, that which crystalli2ed in his wor, embodied immanent musical o((osition to such socially naM4e conce(tions. The im(atience with sensuous a((earance in his late style corres(onds to the emasculation o$ art $aced with the (ossibility o$ its (romises being $ul$illed in reality, but also to the horror which, in order to su((ress that (ossibility, e.(lodes e4ery criterion o$ that which might become an image. In the midst o$ the blindness o$ s(eciali2ation, his music suddenly saw the light that shines beyond the aesthetic realm. -is incorru(tible integrity once attained this awareness when, during the $irst months o$ the -itler dictatorshi(, he unabashedly said that sur4i4al was more im(ortant than art. I$ his late wor, has been s(ared the $ate o$ all art since the Second World War with the e.ce(tion o$ /icassoCs, it is because o$ this relati4i2ing o$ the artistic, to which SchoenbergCs anti9cultural element sublimated itsel$. /erha(s this is only $ully re4ealed in his didactic traits. When *al7ry remar,ed that the wor, o$ great artists has something o$ the Buality o$ $inger e.ercises, o$ studies $or wor,s that were ne4er created, he could ha4e used Schoenberg as his model. The uto(ia o$ art transcends indi4idual wor,s. oreo4er, it is this medium alone which (roduces the characteristic consensus among musicians which holds that the distinction between (roduction and re(roduction is indi$$erent. usicians sense that they labour on music and not on wor,s, e4en i$ such labour (rogresses only through wor,s. The late Schoenberg com(osed not wor,s, but (aradigms o$ a (ossible music. The idea o$ music itsel$ grows all the more trans(arent as the wor,s insist less and less on their a((earance. They begin to acBuire the character o$ the $ragment, the shadow o$ which $ollowed SchoenbergCs art throughout his li$e. -is last (ieces gi4e a $ragmentary im(ression, not merely in their bre4ity but in their shri4elled diction. The dignity o$ the great wor,s de4ol4es on s(linters. ?ratorio and 3iblical o(era are outweighed by the tale o$ the "urvivor from %arsa& lasts only a $ew minutesG in this (iece, Schoenberg,
(age>#7#

acting on his own, sus(ends the aesthetic s(here through the recollection o$ e.(eriences which are inaccessible to art. An.iety, SchoenbergCs e.(ressi4e core, identi$ies itsel$ with the terror o$ men in the agonies o$ death, under total domination. The sounds o$ +r&artung, the shoc,s o$ the #usic for the Film, o$ Eim(ending danger, an.iety, catastro(heC, $inally meet what they had always (ro(hesied. That which the $eebleness and im(otence o$ the indi4idual soul seemed to e.(ress testi$ies to what has been in$licted on man,ind in those who re(resent the whole as its 4ictims. -orror has, ne4er rung as true in music, and by articulating it music regains its redeeming (ower through negation. The 1ewish song with which the "urvivor from %arsa& concludes is music as the (rotest o$ man,ind against myth.
(age>#7<

1a%<r Pro)st M)se)m

7n memory of 8ermann von *ra
(age>#7&

The 8erman word, EmusealC NEmuseumlikeCO, has un(leasant o4ertones. It describes ob;ects to which the obser4er no longer has a 4ital relationshi( and which are in the (rocess o$ dying. They owe their (reser4ation more to historical res(ect than to the needs o$ the (resent. useum and mausoleum are connected by more than (honetic association. useums are li,e the $amily se(ulchres o$ wor,s o$ art. They testi$y to the neutrali2ation o$ culture. Art treasures are hoarded in them, and their mar,et 4alue lea4es no room $or the (leasure o$ loo,ing at them. =e4ertheless, that (leasure is de(endent on the e.istence o$ museums. Anyone who does not ha4e his own collection Hand the great (ri4ate collections are becoming rareI can, $or the most (art, become $amiliar with (ainting and scul(ture only in museums. When discontent with museums is strong enough to (ro4o,e the attem(t to e.hibit (aintings in their original surroundings or in ones similar, in baroBue or rococo castles, $or instance, the result is e4en more distressing than when the wor,s are wrenched $rom their original surroundings and then brought together. Sensibility wrea,s e4en more ha4oc with art than does the hodge9(odge o$ collections. With music the situation is analogous. The (rogrammes o$ large concert societies, generally retros(ecti4e in orientation, ha4e continually more in common with museums, while o2art (er$ormed by candlelight is degraded to a costume (iece. In e$$orts to retrie4e music $rom the remoteness o$ the (er$ormance and (ut it into the immediate conte.t o$ li$e there is not only something ine$$ectual but also a tinge o$ industriously regressi4e s(ite. When some well9intentioned (erson ad4ised ahler to dar,en the hall during the concert $or the sa,e o$ the mood, the com(oser rightly re(lied that a (er$ormance at which one didnCt $orget about the surroundings was worthless. Such (roblems re4eal something o$ the $atal situation o$ what is called Ethe cultural traditionC. ?nce tradition is no longer animated by a com(rehensi4e, substantial $orce but has to be con;ured u( by means o$ citations because EItCs im(ortant to ha4e traditionC, then whate4er ha((ens to be le$t o$ it is dissol4ed into a means to an end. An e.hibition
(age>#7'

o$ a((lied art only ma,es a moc,ery o$ what it (retends to conser4e. Anyone who thin,s that art can be re(roduced in its original $orm through an act o$ the will is tra((ed in ho(eless romanticism. oderni2ing the (ast does it much 4iolence and little good. 3ut to renounce radically the (ossibility o$ e.(eriencing the traditional would be to ca(itulate to barbarism out o$ de4otion to culture. That the world is out o$ ;oint is shown e4erywhere in the $act that howe4er a (roblem is sol4ed, the solution is $alse. ?ne cannot be content, howe4er, with the general recognition o$ a negati4e situation. An intellectual dis(ute li,e the one on museums must be $ought out with s(eci$ic arguments. -ere two e.traordinary documents are a4ailable, $or the two authentic French (oets o$ the last generation ha4e e.(ressed themsel4es on the Buestion o$ the museum. Their (ositions are diametrically o((osed, but the statements are not directed (olemically against each other, nor in $act does either betray any acBuaintance o$ the other. In a contribution to a 4olume o$ essays dedicated to, /roust, *al7ry em(hasi2ed that he was not 4ery $amiliar with /roustCs no4els. *al7ryCs remar,s on museums are entitled EFe (roblXme des mus7esC and a((ear in the 4olume o$ essays Pi=ces sur l)art. The (assage $rom /roust occurs in the third 4olume o$ A l)om re des 4eunes filles en fleurs . *al7ryCs a((eal is ob4iously directed against the con$using o4erabundance o$ the Fou4re. -e is not, he writes, o4erly $ond o$ museums. The more mar4ellous the treasures which are (reser4ed in them, the more all delight disa((ears. The word *al7ry uses, Ed7licesC, is one o$ those which are utterly untranslatable. E)elicaciesC sounds too ;ournalistic, E;oysC, too hea4y and Wagnerian. E)elightsC is (erha(s closest to what is intended, but none o$ these words e.(resses the $aint reminiscence o$ $eudal (leasure that has been associated with l)art pour l)art since *illiers de lCIsle Adam. The only echo o$ it in 8erman is the Edeli2iYsC

NEdeliciousCO o$ the Rosenkavalier. In any case, in the Fou4re the seignorial *al7ry $eels himsel$ constrained $rom the $irst by the authoritarian gesture that ta,es away his cane and by the E=o Smo,ingC sign. "old con$usion, he says, reigns among the scul(tures, a tumult o$ $ro2en creatures each o$ which demands the non9e.istence o$ the others, disorder strangely organi2ed. Standing among the (ictures o$$ered $or contem(lation, *al7ry moc,ingly obser4es that one is sei2ed by a sacred aweG con4ersation is louder than in church, so$ter than in real li$e. ?ne does not ,now why one has come 0 in search o$ culture or en;oyment, in $ul$ilment o$ an obligation, in obedience to a con4ention. Fatigue and barbarism con4erge. =either a hedonistic nor a rationalistic
(age>#76

ci4ili2ation could ha4e constructed a house o$ such dis(arities. )ead 4isions are entombed there. The ear, *al7ry argues, which is $urther remo4ed $rom music than the eye is $rom (ainting and can there$ore, harbour illusions, is better o$$ 0 no one can as, it to listen to ten orchestras at once. Furthermore, the mind is certainly not ca(able o$ (er$orming all (ossible o(erations simultaneously. ?nly the mobile eye is $orced to a((rehend in the same moment a (ortrait and a seasca(e, a ,itchen and a trium(hal march, or, worst o$ all, styles o$ (ainting com(letely incom(atible with one another. The more beauti$ul a (icture is, the more it is distinct $rom all othersG it becomes a rare ob;ect, uniBue. This (icture, one sometimes says, ,ills the ones around it. I$ this is $orgotten, *al7ry warns, the heritage o$ art will be destroyed. 1ust as man loses, his abilities through an e.cess o$ technical aids, so an e.cess o$ riches im(o4erishes him. *al7ryCs argumentation bears the stam( o$ cultural conser4atism. -e certainly did not concern himsel$ with the critiBue o$ (olitical economy. It is there$ore all the more astounding that the aesthetic ner4es which register $alse wealth should react so (recisely to the $act o$ o4er9accumulation. When he s(ea,s o$ the accumulation o$ e.cessi4e and there$ore unusable ca(ital, *al7ry uses meta(horically an e.(ression literally 4alid $or the economy. Whether artists (roduce or rich (eo(le die, whate4er ha((ens is good $or the museums. Fi,e casinos, they cannot lose, and that is their curse. For (eo(le become ho(elessly lost in the galleries, isolated in the midst o$ so much art. The only other (ossible reaction to, this situation is the one which *al7ry sees as the general, ominous result o$ any and all (rogress in the, domination o$ material 0 increasing su(er$iciality. Art becomes a matter o$ education and in$ormationG *enus becomes a document. @ducation de$eats art. =iet2sche argues along 4ery similar lines in his Cntimely #editation, E?n the Use and Abuse o$ -istory $or Fi$eC. The shoc, o$ the museum brings *al7ry to historical9 (hiloso(hical insight into the (erishing o$ art wor,sG there, he says, we (ut the art o$ the (ast to death. @4en a$terwards, in the street, *al7ry cannot $ree himsel$ $rom the magni$icent chaos o$ the museum Ha meta(hor, one could say, $or the anarchical (roduction o$ commodities in $ully de4elo(ed bourgeois societyI, and he searches $or the basis o$ his malaise. /ainting and scul(ture, the demon o$ ,nowledge tells him, are li,e abandoned children. ETheir mother is dead, their mother, architecture. While she li4ed, she ga4e them their (lace, their de$inition. The $reedom to wander was $orbidden them. They had their (lace,
(age>#77

their clearly de$ined lighting, their materials. /ro(er relations (re4ailed between them. While she was ali4e, they ,new what they wanted. Farewell, the thought says to me, I will go no $urther.C With this romantic gesture, *al7ryCs re$lection ceases. 3y brea,ing it o$$, he a4oids the otherwise ine4itable conclusion o$ the radical cultural conser4ati4e: the renunciation o$ culture out o$ loyalty to it. /roustCs 4iew o$ the museum is wo4en most s,il$ully into the $abric o$ the Recherche du temps perdu. ?nly there can its meaning be inter(reted. /roustCs re$lections, which re(resent a return to the techniBues o$ the (re9Flaubertian no4el, are ne4er mere obser4ations on the material re(resented. They are bound u( with it through subterranean associations and hence $all, li,e the narrati4e itsel$, within the great aesthetic continuum o$ his inner dialogue. In s(ea,ing o$ his tri( to the sea resort 3albec, /roust remar,s on the caesura which 4oyages ma,e in the course o$ li$e by Eleading us $rom one name to another nameC. The caesuras are (articularly mani$est in railway stations, Ethese utterly (eculiar (laces . . . which, so to s(ea,, are

not (art o$ the town and yet contain the essence o$ its (ersonality as clearly as they bear its name on their signsC. Fi,e e4erything sur4eyed by /roustCs memory, which seems to drain the intention out o$ its ob;ects, the stations become historical archety(es and, as the archety(es o$ de(arture, tragic ones. ?$ the glass dome o$ the 8are St.9Fa2are he writes: E?4er a s(rawling city it stretched its wide, wasted hea4en $ull o$ ominous dramas. "ertain s,ies o$ antegna or *eronese are as modern, almost /arisian 0 under such a 4aulting s,y only terrible and solemn things can ha((en, the de(arture o$ a train or the raising o$ the cross.C The associati4e transition to the museum is le$t im(licit in the no4elG it is the (icture o$ that station (ainted by "laude onet, whom /roust lo4ed (assionately, which now hangs in the collection o$ the Jeu de Paume /roust com(ares the station to a museum. 3oth stand outside the $ramewor, o$ con4entional (ragmatic acti4ity, and, one might add, both are bearers o$ a death symbolism. In the case o$ the station, it is the ancient symbolism o$ the 4oyageG in that o$ the museum, the symbolism associated with the wor, o$ artClCuni4ers nou4eau et (7rissableC, the new and $ragile cosmos the artist has created. Fi,e *al7ry, /roust returns again and again to the mortality o$ arte$acts. What seems eternal, he says at another (oint, contains within itsel$ the im(ulse o$ its own destruction. The decisi4e lines on the museum are contained in /roustCs (hysiognomy o$ the station. E3ut in all areas our age is obsessed with the desire to bring things be$ore our eyes in
(age>#75

their natural surroundings and thus to su((ress what is essential 0 the mental e4ent that raised them out o$ those surroundings. Today one EEshowsK a (icture amidst $urniture, small art ob;ects, and curtains Qo$ the e(ochK, in a tri4ial decorati4e dis(lay (roduced by the hitherto ignorant lady o$ the house a$ter ha4ing s(ent her days in archi4es and libraries. 3ut the master(iece obser4ed during dinner no longer (roduces in us the e.hilarating ha((iness that can be had only in a museum, where the rooms, in their sober abstinence $rom all decorati4e detail, symboli2e the inner s(aces into which the artist withdraws to create the wor,.C It is (ossible to com(are /roustCs thesis with *al7ryCs because they share the (resu((osition that wor,s o$ art should be en;oyed. *al7ry s(ea,s o$ Ed7licesC, /roust o$ E;oie eni4ranteC, e.hilarating ;oy. =othing is more characteristic than that (resu((osition, o$ the distance not merely between the (resent generation and the (re4ious one but also between the 8erman and the French attitudes towards art. As early as the writing o$ A l)om re des 4eunes filles en fleurs , the e.(ression 0unstgenuss Naesthetic pleasureO must ha4e sounded as touchingly (hilistine in 8erman as a Wilhelm 3usch rhyme. This aesthetic (leasure, $urthermore, in which *al7ry and /roust ha4e as much $aith as in a re4ered mother, has always been a Buestionable matter. For anyone who is close to wor,s o$ art, they are no more ob;ects o$ delight than is his own breathing. Aather, he li4es among them li,e a modern inhabitant o$ a medie4al town who re(lies with a (erem(tory Eyes, yesC, when a 4isitor remar,s on the beauty o$ the buildings, but who ,nows e4ery corner and (ortal. 3ut it is only when the distance necessary $or en;oyment to be (ossible is established between the obser4er and wor,s o$ art that the Buestion o$ their continuing 4itality can arise. It would (robably ne4er occur to anyone who was at home with art and not a mere 4isitor. 3ut since they both continually re$lect u(on their own wor, as well as (roduce it, *al7ry and /roust are certain o$ the (leasure their wor,s (ro4ide those on the outside. They agree e4en to the (oint o$ recogni2ing something o$ the mortal enmity which e.ists among wor,s and which accom(anies the (leasure o$ com(etition. Far $rom recoiling be$ore it, howe4er, /roust a$$irms this enmity as though he were as 8erman as "harlus a$$ects to be. For him, com(etition among wor,s is the test o$ truth. Schools, he writes, at one (oint in "odom and *omorrah, de4our each other li,e microorganisms and insure through their struggle the sur4i4al o$ li$e. This dialectical attitude, which transcends $i.ation on the indi4idual as such, brings /roust into con$lict with *al7ry, the artiste. It ma,es
(age>#7!

his (er4erse tolerance o$ museums (ossible, whereas $or *al7ry the duration o$ the indi4idual wor, is the crucial (roblem. The criterion o$ duration is the here and now, the (resent moment. For *al7ry art is lost when it has

relinBuished its (lace in the immediacy o$ li$e, in its $unctional conte.tG $or him the ultimate Buestion is that o$ the (ossible use o$ the wor, o$ art. The cra$tsman in him, $ashions (oems with that (recision o$ contour which embodies attention to the surroundings, has become in$initely sensiti4e to the (lace o$ the wor, o$ art, including its intellectual setting, as though the (ainterCs $eeling $or (ers(ecti4e were intensi$ied in him to a $eeling $or the (ers(ecti4e o$ reality, in which it becomes (ossible $or the wor, to ha4e de(th. -is artistic stand(oint is that o$ immediacy, but dri4en to the most audacious conseBuences. -e $ollows the (rinci(le o$ art $or artCs sa,e to the 4erge o$ its negation. -e ma,es the (ure wor, o$ art the ob;ect o$ absolute, unwa4ering contem(lation, but he scrutini2es it so long and so intensely that he comes to see that the ob;ect o$ such (ure contem(lation must wither and degenerate to commerciali2ed decoration, robbed o$ the dignity in which both its raison) d)2tre and *al7ryCs consist. The (ure wor, is threatened by rei$ication and neutrali2ation. This is the recognition that o4erwhelms him in the museum. -e disco4ers that the only (ure wor,s, the only wor,s that can sustain serious obser4ation, are the im(ure ones which do not e.haust themsel4es in that obser4ation but (oint beyond, towards a social conte.t. And since, with the incorru(tibility o$ the great rationalist, *al7ry must recogni2e that this stage o$ art is irre4ocably (ast, there is nothing le$t $or the anti9rationalist and 3ergonian in him but to mourn $or wor,s as they turn into relics. /roust, the no4elist, 4irtually begins where *al7ry, the (oet, sto((ed 0 with the a$terli$e o$ wor,s o$ art. For /roustCs (rimary relationshi( to, art is the (recise o((osite o$ that o$ the e.(ert and (roducer. -e is $irst o$ all an admiring consumer, an amateur, inclined to that e$$usi4e and $or artists highly sus(ect awe be$ore wor,s that characteri2es only those se(arated $rom them as though by an abyss. ?ne could almost say that his genius consisted not least o$ all in assuming this attitude Hwhich is also that o$ the man who conducts himsel$ as a s(ectator e4en in li$eI so com(letely and accurately that it became a new ty(e o$ (roducti4ity, and the (ower o$ inner and outer contem(lation, thus intensi$ied, turned into recollection, in4oluntary memory. The amateur is incom(arably more com$ortable in the museum than is the e.(ert. *al7ry $eels himsel$ at home in the studioG /roust strolls through an e.hibition. There is something e.territorial about his relation to art,
(age>#5:

and many o$ his $alse ;udgments, as in Buestions o$ music, dis(lay traces o$ the dilettante to the end Hwhat, $or instance, has the conciliatory ,itsch o$ his $riend, Aeynaldo -ahn, to do with /roustCs no4el, where each sentence (uts an established attitude out o$ business with remorseless gentlenessI. 3ut he moulded this wea,ness into an instrument o$ strength as only %a$,a could. -owe4er nai4e his enthusiastic ;udgements o$ indi4idual wor,s o$ art, es(ecially those o$ the Italian Aenaissance, may sound in com(arison to *al7ryCs, he was $ar less nai4e in his relation to art as such. To s(ea, o$ naM4et7 in an artist li,e *al7ry, in whom the (rocess, o$ artistic (roduction is so indissolubly merged with re$lection u(on the (rocess, may sound li,e a (ro4ocation. 3ut he was in $act naM4e in ha4ing no doubts about the category o$ the wor, o$ art as such. -e too, it $or granted, and the $orce o$ his thought, his historical9(hiloso(hical energy, increased as a result. The category becomes the criterion in terms o$ which *al7ry can see changes in the internal structure o$ wor,s o$ art and in the way they are e.(erienced. /roust, howe4er, is entirely $ree o$ the unconditional $etishism o$ the artist who ma,es the things himsel$. For him wor,s o$ art are $rom the outset something more than their s(eci$ic aesthetic Bualities. They are (art o$ the li$e o$ the (erson who obser4es themG they become an element o$ his consciousness. -e thus (ercei4es a le4el in them 4ery di$$erent $rom that o$ the $ormal laws o$ the wor,. It is a le4el set $ree only by the historical de4elo(ment o$ the wor,, a le4el which has as its (remise the death o$ the li4ing intention o$ the wor,. /roustCs naM4et7 is a second nai4etM. At e4ery stage o$ consciousness a new and broader immediacy arises. Whereas *al7ryCs conser4ati4e belie$ in culture as a (ure thing in itsel$ a$$ords incisi4e criticism o$ a culture which tends by its 4ery historical nature to destroy e4erything sel$9subsistent, /roustCs most characteristic mode o$ (erce(tion, his e.traordinary sensiti4ity to changes in modes o$ e.(erience, has as its (arado.ical result the ability to (ercei4e history as landsca(e. -e adores museums as though they were 8odCs true creation, which in /roustCs meta(hysics is ne4er com(lete but always occurring anew in each concrete e.(erience, each original artistic intuition. In his mar4elling eye he has (reser4ed something out

o$ childhoodG *al7ry, by contrast, s(ea,s o$ art li,e an adult. I$ *al7ry understands something o$ the (ower o$ history o4er the (roduction and a((erce(tion o$ art, /roust ,nows that e4en within wor,s o$ art themsel4es history rules li,e a (rocess o$ disintegration. E"e BuCon a((elle la (ost7$it7, cCest la (ost7rit7 de lCoeu4reC might well be translated as, EWhat is
(age>#5#

called (osterity is the a$terli$e o$ the wor,.C In the arte$actCs ca(acity $or disintegration /roust sees its similarity to natural beauty. -e recogni2es the (hysiognomy o$ decom(osing things as that o$ their second li$e. 3ecause nothing has substance $or him but what has already been mediated by memory, his lo4e dwells on the second li$e, the one which is already o4er, rather than on the $irst. For /roustCs aestheticism the Buestion o$ aesthetic Buality is o$ secondary concern. In a $amous (assage he glori$ied in$erior music $or the sa,e o$ the listenerCs memories, which are (reser4ed with $ar more $idelity and $orce in an old (o(ular song than in the sel$9su$$iciency o$ a wor, by 3eetho4en. The saturnine ga2e o$ memory (enetrates the 4eil o$ culture. ?nce they are no longer isolated as domains o$ the ob;ecti4e mind but are drawn into the stream o$ sub;ecti4ity, distinctions between le4els o$ culture lose the (athetic Buality that *al7ryCs heresies constantly accord them. *al7ry ta,es o$$ence at the chaotic as(ect o$ the museum because it distorts the wor,sC e.(ressi4e reali2ationG $or /roust this chaos assumes tragic character. For him it is only the death o$ the wor, o$ art in the museum which brings it to li$e. When se4ered $rom the li4ing order in which it $unctioned, according to him, its true s(ontaneity is released 0 its uniBueness, its EnameC, that which ma,es the great wor,s o$ culture more than culture. /roustCs attitude (reser4es, in ad4enturously so(histicated $orm, the saying $rom ?ttilieCs ;ournal in 8oetheCs +lective Affinities: E@4erything (er$ect o$ its ,ind must go beyond its ,ind,C a highly un9classical thought which does art the honour o$ relati4i2ing it. Det anyone who is not satis$ied with intellectual history alone must $ace the Buestion: Who is right, the critic o$ the museum or its de$enderJ For *al7ry the museum is a (lace o$ barbarism. -is con4iction o$ the sanctity o$ culture Hwhich he shares, with allarm7I underlies this ;udgement. Since this religion o$ s(leen (ro4o,es so much o((osition, including ob;ections with a sim(listic social orientation, it is im(ortant to a$$irm its moment o$ truth. ?nly what e.ists $or its own sa,e, without regard to those it is su((osed to (lease, can $ul$il its human end. Few things ha4e contributed so greatly to dehumani2ation as has the uni4ersal human belie$ that (roducts o$ the mind are ;usti$ied only in so $ar as they e.ist $or menthe belie$ itsel$ bears witness to the dominance o$ mani(ulati4e rationality. *al7ry was able to show the ob;ecti4e character, the immanent coherence o$ the wor, in contrast to the contingency o$ the sub;ect with such incom(arable authority because he gained his insight through the sub;ecti4e e.(erience o$ the disci(line o$ the artistCs wor,. In this he was unBuestionably su(erior to /roustG incorru(t9
(age>#5<

ible, he had greater resistance. In contrast, the (rimacy /roust assigns the $lu. o$ e.(erience and his re$usal to tolerate anything $i.ed and determinate ha4e a sinister as(ect 0 con$ormity, the ready ad;ustment to changing situations which he shares with 3ergson. /roustCs wor, contains (assages on art which a((roach in unbridled sub;ecti4ism the (hilistine attitude that turns the wor, into a battery o$ (ro;ecti4e tests. In contrast, *al7ry occasionally com(lains 0 and hardly without irony 0 that there are no tests which can determine the Buality o$ a (oem. /roust says in the second 4olume o$ 5e temps retrouv; that the wor, is a ,ind o$ o(tical instrument o$$ered to the reader in order that he ma,es sel$9disco4eries (erha(s not otherwise (ossible. /roustCs arguments in $a4our o$ museums also ha4e as their (oint o$ re$erence not the thing itsel$ but the obser4ing sub;ect. It is not coincidental that it is something sub;ecti4e, the abru(t act o$ (roduction in which the wor, becomes something di$$erent $rom reality, that /roust considers to be (reser4ed in the wor,Cs a$terli$e in the museum. For him, the moment o$ (roduction is re$lected in the same isolation o$ the wor, that *al7ry considers its stigma. /roust, in his un$ettered sub;ecti4ism, is untrue to ob;ecti$ications o$ the s(irit, but it is only this sub;ecti4ism that enables him to brea, through the immanence o$ culture.

In the litigation im(licitly (ending between them, neither /roust nor *al7ry is right, nor could a middle9 o$9the9road reconciliation be arranged. The con$lict between them (oints u( in a most (enetrating way a con$lict in the matter itsel$, and each ta,es the (art o$ one moment in the truth which lies in the un$olding o$ contradiction. The $etishism o$ the ob;ect and the sub;ectCs in$atuation with itsel$ $ind their correcti4es in each other. @ach (osition (asses o4er into the other. *al7ry becomes aware o$ the intrinsic being o$ the wor, through unremitting sel$9re$lection, and, in4ersely, /roustCs sub;ecti4ism loo,s to art $or the ideal, the sal4ation o$ the li4ing. In o((osition to culture and through culture, he re(resents negati4ity, criticism, the s(ontaneous act that is not content with mere e.istence. Thus he does ;ustice to wor,s o$ art, which can be called art only by 4irtue o$ the $act that they embody the Buintessence o$ this s(ontaneity. /roust holds on to culture $or the sa,e o$ ob;ecti4e ha((iness, whereas *al7ryCs loyalty to the ob;ecti4e demands o$ the wor, $orces him to gi4e u( culture $or lost. And ;ust as both re(resent contradictory moments o$ the truth, so both, the two most ,nowledgeable men to ha4e written about art in recent times, ha4e their limits, without which, in $act, their ,nowledge would not ha4e been (ossible. Puite ob4iously *al7ry agrees with his teacher,
(age>#5&

allarm7 in $inding, as he wrote in his essay. EThe Trium(h o$ anetC, that e.istence and things are here only to be de4oured by art, that the world e.ists to (roduce a beauti$ul boo, and $inds its $ul$ilment in an absolute (oem. -e also saw clearly the esca(e to which po;sie pure as(ired. E=othing leads so surely to com(lete barbarismC, another o$ his essays begins, Eas com(lete absor(tion in what is (urely s(iritualC. And his own attitude, the ele4ation o$ art to idolatry, did in $act contribute to the (rocess o$ rei$ication and dila(idation which, according to *al7ryCs accusation, art undergoes in museums. For it is only in the museum, where (aintings are o$$ered $or contem(lation as ends in themsel4es, that they become as absolute as *al7ry desired, and he shrin,s bac, in terror $rom the reali2ation o$ his dream. /roust ,nows the cure $or this. In a sense wor,s o$ art return home when they become elements o$ the obser4erCs sub;ecti4e stream o$ consciousness. Thus they renounce their cultic (rerogati4e and are $reed o$ the usur(atory as(ect that characteri2ed them in the heroic aesthetics o$ Im(ressionism. 3ut by the same to,en /roust o4erestimates the act o$ $reedom in art, as would an amateur. ?$ten, almost in the manner o$ a (sychiatrist, he understands the wor, all too much as a re(roduction o$ the internal li$e o$ the (erson who had the good $ortune and the mis$ortune to (roduce it or en;oy it. -e $ails to ta,e $ull account o$ the $act that e4en in the 4ery moment o$ its conce(tion the wor, con$ronts its author and its audience as something ob;ecti4e, something which ma,es demands in terms o$ its own inner structure and its own logic. Fi,e artistsC li4es, their wor,s a((ear E$reeC only when seen $rom the outside. The wor, is neither a re$lection, o$ the soul nor the embodiment o$ a /latonic Idea. It is not (ure 3eing but rather a E$orce $ieldC between sub;ect and ob;ect. The ob;ecti4e necessity o$ which *al7ry s(ea,s is reali2ed only through the act o$ sub;ecti4e s(ontaneity which /roust ma,es the sole re(ository o$ all meaning and ha((iness. It is not merely because the (rotestations o$ culture against barbarism go unheard that *al7ryCs cam(aign against museums has a Bui.otic as(ect 0 ho(eless (rotests are ne4ertheless necessary. 3ut *al7ry is a bit too ingenuous in his sus(icion that museums alone are res(onsible $or what is done to (aintings. @4en i$ they hung in their old (laces in the castles o$ the aristocrats Hwith whom /roust is in any case more concerned than is *al7ryI, they would be museum (ieces without museums. What eats away at the li$e o$ the art wor, is also its own li$e. I$ *al7ryCs coBuettish allegory com(ares (ainting and scul(ture to children who ha4e lost their mother, one must remember that in myths the heroes, who re9
(age>#56

(resent the emanci(ation o$ the human $rom $ate, always lost their mothers. Wor,s o$ art can $ully embody the promesse du onheur only when they ha4e been u(rooted $rom their nati4e soil and ha4e set out along the (ath to their own destruction. /roust recogni2ed this. The (rocedure which today relegates e4ery wor, o$ art to the museum, e4en /icassoCs most recent scul(ture, is irre4ersible. It is not solely re(rehensible, howe4er, $or it (resages a situation in which art, ha4ing com(leted its estrangement $rom human ends, returns, in =o4alisC words, to li$e. ?ne senses something o$ this in /roustCs no4el, where

(hysiognomies o$ (aintings and (eo(le glide into one another almost without a brea, and memory traces o$ e.(eriences $use with those o$ musical (assages. In one o$ the most e.(licit (assages in the wor,, the descri(tion o$ $alling aslee( on the $irst (age o$ Du cEt; de che. "&ann the narrator says, EIt seemed to me that I was the thing the boo, was about: a church, a Buartet, the ri4alry between Francis the First and "harles the Fi$th.C This is the reconciliation o$ that s(lit which *al7ry so irreconcilably laments. The chaos o$ cultural goods $ades into the bliss o$ the child whose body $eels itsel$ at one with the nimbus o$ distance. The museums will not be shut, nor would it e4en be desirable to shut them. The natural9history collections o$ the s(irit ha4e actually trans$ormed wor,s o$ art into the hierogly(hics o$ history and brought them a new content while the old one shri4elled u(. =o conce(tion o$ (ure art, borrowed $rom the (ast and yet inadeBuate to, it, can be o$$ered to o$$set this $act. =o one ,new this better than *al7ry, who bro,e o$$ his re$lections because o$ it. Det museums certainly em(hatically demand something o$ the obser4er, ;ust as e4ery wor, o$ art does. For the in whose shadow /roust wal,ed, is also a thing o$ the (ast, and it is no longer (ossible to stroll through museums letting onesel$ be delighted here and there. The only relation to art that can be sanctioned in a reality that stands under the constant threat o$ catastro(he is one that treats wor,s o$ art with the same deadly seriousness that characteri2es the world today. The e4il *at7ry diagnoses can be a4oided only by one who lea4es his naM4et7 outside along with his cane and his umbrella, who ,nows e.actly what he wants, (ic,s out two or three (aintings, and concentrates on them as $i.edly as i$ they really were idols. Some museums are hel($ul in this res(ect. In addition to light and air they ha4e ado(ted the (rinci(le o$ selection that *al7ry declared to be the guiding one o$ his school and that he missed in museums. In the Jeu de Paume, where the 8are St.9Fa2are now hangs, /roustCs @lstir and *al7ryCs )7gas li4e (eace$ully near each other in discrete se(aration.
(age>#5'

The =eorge>4o(mannstha% Correspondence, 1891 19?$

7n #emory of %alter ,en4amin (age>#57

Anyone who comes to the 8eorge9-o$mannsthal corres(ondence in the ho(e o$ learning something about the situation o$ 8erman (oetry during the $i$teen years co4ered by the 4olume is liable to be disa((ointed. Although the two writers conceal themsel4es $rom each other with a stringency and discretion that borders on total reticence, their (ersonal disci(line hardly e4er encourages material discussion. Aather, thought itsel$ seems in$ected by the general rigidity. The (ages are $illed with technical details concerning (ublication and (ublishing houses, (unctuated by irritated, reser4ed attac,s and stereoty(ed de$ences. /assages such as 8eorgeCs criticism o$ a su(er$luous word in one o$ -o$mannsthalCs 4erses, 8eorgeCs (olemics against )ehmel and his, as it were, non9negotiable 4erdict on E*enice Sa4edC are e.ce(tions. The gesture o$ the letters tends to im(ly that the artistCs (ro$ound immersion in his material renders e.tensi4e re$lection unnecessary, or that the writers are too secure in their shared e.(eriences and attitudes to ha4e to tal, them to death. This im(lication, howe4er, rests more on a tacit agreement than on its actual ;usti$ication in the letters themsel4es. It is contradicted by the $ormal character o$ the rece(tion accorded by each to the otherCs wor,, abo4e all, by 8eorgeCs attitude to -o$mannsthalCs (oetryG throughout the corres(ondence 8eorge (lays the role o$ the younger (oetCs editor. It is not $rom 8eorge, but $rom a well9meaning re4iewer that one would e.(ect lines such as the $ollowing: EI ha4e recei4ed and read your (oems and I than, you. Dou can hardly write a 4erse which does not ma,e one richer with a new sensation, indeed a new sensibility.C At issue are two o$ -o$mannsthalCs most memorable lyrical models, E anche $reilich mZssen drunten sterben, NESome o$ Them, ?$ "ourse, ust )ie 3elowCO, and EWeltgeheimnisC NEWorld ysteryCO which 8eorge remembers e4en in his last 4olume, in the ESongC. To his (er$unctory (raise 8eorge adds the incredible Buestion: EIs it your intention to ha4e the (oem, QSome o$ Them . . . Q $ollow QWorld ysteryKJ ?r is it (art o$ itJ There is no mention o$ this.C The assum(tion o$ e4en
(age>#5!

the (ossibility that the two (oems 0 the one, trochaic, organi2ed in $our and si.9line stan2as, the other, iambio9dactylic, tetrameter throughout, in three9line rhymed stan2as 0 could be combined into one re$utes the assum(tion o$ an artistic understanding between the two writers. The (o4erty o$ theoretical content must thus be e.(lained in terms, o$ the (osition o$ the authors, neither o$ whom can be considered naM4e. The (lans $or their collaboration on the (eriodical, ,l3tter f!r die 0unst NFolios for ArtO, as discussed in #5!< by -o$mannsthal, with 8eorgeCs (ermission, in letters to "arl August %lein, are not utterly indi$$erent to theoretical (ublications. ?n 1uly, <6, -o$mannsthal inBuires: EWith what shall the indi4idual QissuesK be $illed, in 4iew o$ the necessarily small number o$ collaborators and the Buantitati4ely small (roduction o$ real wor,s o$ artJ ?r shall criticism and technical theory be included and i$ so, how muchJC -e is told that Eordinary critical essays are out o$ the BuestionC, but %lein adds the rather 4ague Buali$ication: EWe will not e.clude the (ossibility that each o$ us may o$$er his ;udgement on a (articular wor, o$ art. For in the old Franconian language o$ the 8erman decadence Q4ery interesting to hear all sorts o$ new or (iBuant o(inions about (aintings, about a theatrical or musical (ieceK.C -o$mannsthal, longstanding collaborator in (eriodicals li,e #oderne and #oderne Rundschau N#odern Revie& is not satis$ied: E3y (rose articles what I meant was not so much ordinary critical essays as rather re$lections on Buestions o$ techniBue, contributions to the colour9theory o$ words and similar by9(roducts o$ the artistic wor,9 (rocess, which each o$ us could communicate to the others and which, I belie4e, would be mutually bene$icial.C The Ecolour9theory o$ wordsC re$ers (resumably to E*oyellesC, one o$ three (oems by Aimbaud which 8eorge later included in his translations o$ contem(orary (oets. E*oyellesC is a litany to modernity, and e.ercised in$luence e4en u(on the Surrealists. The (oem, in which Aimbaud (romises that the 4owelsC

naissances latentes will be re4ealed in the $uture, re4eals in the meanwhile its own secret. It is the e.actitude o$ the ine.act, $irst demanded in *erlaineCs EArt /oetiBueC as the combination o$ the ind;cis and the pr;cis. /oetry becomes the technical mastery o$ something which does not allow itsel$ to be mastered by consciousness. The endowment o$ sounds with colours, de(ending solely on the gra4itation o$ language away $rom meaning, liberates the (oem $rom the conce(t. Det at the same time language, as su(reme tribunal, deli4ers the (oem o4er to techniBue 0 the characteri2ation o$ the 4owels is less their associati4e disguise than an indication o$ their (ro(er linguistic use in the (oem
(age>#!:

E*oyellesC, too, is a didactic (oem. *erlaineCs (oem is in accord with it. The nuance which *erlaine (roclaims as the rule is o$ the same cast as AimbaudCs corres(ondence o$ sound and colourG their subordination o$ the latter under the (rimacy o$ music conser4es its remoteness $rom meaning and ma,es technical coherence the criterion o$ the nuances themsel4es, as the correctly or $alsely chosen tone. # The tacit (rocedure o$ 8eorge and -o$mannsthal a((eals to nothing other than AimbaudCs and *erlaineCs mani$esto 0 to the incommensurable. This is not the meta(hysical Absolute which $ormed the core o$ 8erman Aomanticism and its (hiloso(hy. It is no accident that the tone is bearer o$ the incommensurable, since it is not intelligible but sensuous. /oetry inherits those sensual moments o$ the ob;ect 0 one could almost say, o$ the ob;ect o$ the natural sciences 0 which elude e.act measurement. The (oetic contrast between li$e and its technical distortion is itsel$ technical. The e.cessi4ely (raised e.Buisite sensibility o$ the artist ma,es him in a certain sense the com(lement o$ the natural scientistG it is as though his sensory a((aratus enabled him to register smaller di$$erences than those accessible to that o$ the scientist. himsel$ as a (recision instrument. Sensibility becomes an e.(erimental (rocedure, indeed an arrangement designed to gras( the basic stimuli which otherwise elude sub;ecti4e domination and ma,e them legible on the scale o$ sensation. Fi,e the technician, the artist is in $ull control o$ his sensibilityG he can turn it on and o$$ as =iels Fyhne does with his talent. -e a((ro(riates the une.(ected, that which has
#. The young 8eorge had not yet (ronounced his 4erdict on music, which he later (ermitted his $ollowers to e.ecute although he himsel$ a4oided it in the 3eetho4en /ro4erb o$ the "eventh Ring. Instead he re(laced the word music by EtoneC or EtonesC. ?ut o$ (rotest against the clich7 o$ assigning a single aesthetic dimension to the muse, he was led into the Aomantic error o$ trans(osing a highly de4elo(ed art to its mythic ur9stage. And, indeed, this was then made (art o$ the o$$icial doctrine o$ the "ircle. At the same time, howe4er, the reduction o$ music to tones also (oints to the technical element. "losely related is 8eorgeCs custom o$ using the word E(oetC in the (lural. <. This was obser4ed 4ery early in 1acobsen, who studied natural science and (ro(agated )arwinism be$ore his literary (roduction began. In an e.traordinarily incisi4e introduction, written in #5!5, to the edition o$ his collected wor,s (ublished in #!:' by @ugen )iederichs, arie -er2$eld obser4es: E1./. 1acobsen is both a man o$ dreamli,e imagination and a wide9 awa,e realist.C The unity o$ both moments in the com(le.ion o$ =eo9Aomanticism could not be (ercei4ed at the time. The authoress o$ this introduction was one o$ $our readers whom -o$mannsthal wished Eto in$orm (ersonally o$ our intentionsC HAugust <6, #5!<I. The $irst 4olume o$ 8eorgeCs translation o$ contem(orary (oets includes 1acobsen with Aossetti and Swinburne. (age>#!#

not yet been included in the current material o$ e.(ressionG new snow in which no intention has as yet le$t its trace.& When, howe4er, na,ed sensation resists the (oetCs inter(retation, he subdues it by enlisting the incalculable sensation in the ser4ice o$ calculated e$$ect. The secret o$ sensory data is no secret at all but rather blind intuition without conce(t. It is o$ the same cast as, $or instance, the theory o$ em(irio9criticism $ormulated contem(oraneously by @rnst ach, which combines the ideal o$ scienti$ic e.actitude with the sacri$ice o$ inde(endent categorical $orm. The (ure data which this (hiloso(hy distills remain as o(aBue as the thing9in9itsel$ it re;ects. The datum can only be EhadC, not held. As recollection it is no longer itsel$, as words e4en lessG it becomes an abstraction under which li$e in its immediacy is subsumed in order solely to mani(ulate it better through technology. The categorical $orms are no longer ca(able o$ $i.ing sub;ect and ob;ectG both sin, in the Estream o$ consciousnessC, the truly modern Fethe. The (oem to 8eorge which o(ens the corres(ondence has $or its title, E@inem, der 4orZbergehtC NETo ?ne Who /asses 3yCO. 8eorge immediately recogni2es the elements o$

insubordination: E3ut am I nothing more $or you than EEone who (asses byKJC 6 4ery beginning, he is intent on (reser4ing 3eing $rom the stream o$ obli4ion on whose ban,s he erects his wor,s. The esoteric ser4es as a shieldG that which other
&. In music it was 3erlio2, the chie$ ad4ocate o$ the Emodern styleC among the older Aomantics, who em(loyed the orchestra as a (alette in the name o$ the impr;vu. -e is the $irst orchestral technician. The notion o$ the impr;vu goes bac, to Stendhal. The young -o$mannsthal re$ers to this: EIt is nothing other than StendhalCs cra4ing $or the Qim(r74uK, $or the un$oreseen, $or that which is not Qre4olting, shallow, insi(id and intolerableK in lo4e, in li$eC HForis, Die Prosa des 4ungen 8ofmannsthal, 3erlin #!&:I. The impr;vu sus(ends the monotonous mechanism o$ bourgeois li$e and yet is itsel$ mechanically (roducedthrough tric,s. The inter(retation o$ music written (rior to 3erlio2 in terms o$ its techniBue belongs to a later as(ect and could be disclosed only historically. The (hrase, Ecom(ositional techniBueC occurs rarely in the times o$ o2art or 3eetho4en. 3eetho4en, o$ course, began to recogni2e the im(ortance o$ technical means as o((osed to the Enatural geniusC o$ the com(oser. 6. The wil$ul mani(ulation o$ the (ast is one o$ the oldest elements in the in4entory o$ aestheticism. In the )ia(salmata $rom %ier,egaard wrote in #56&: E?n each e.(erience I (er$orm the ba(tism o$ obli4ion and consecrate it to the eternity o$ memory. '. This im(ulse is e4inced in a (assage $rom the letters in which, a$ter discussing an issue o$ the ,l3tter f!r die 0unst $or a $ew lines, 8eorge continues: EForgi4e me $or again am(li$ying the historical (art o$ my letter so little.C For him the transitory immediately becomes eternal as history. This distortion o$ the EhistoricalC is a reaction to the disintegration o$ the ob;ect. -o$mannsthalCs EorganicC and 8eorgeCs E(lasticC sense o$ $orm, usually contrasted to each other, stem $rom the same historical9(hiloso(hical com(le.. (age>#!<

wise would elude control is held $ast as mystery. -ence, the none.istent tacit agreement. 3ecause the ordained mystery itsel$ does not e.ist. The bombastic analogy used to designate it in the corres(ondence remains entirely de4oid o$ content: EFater I would ha4e certainly colla(sed had I not $elt mysel$ bound through the Aing 0 that is one o$ the mysteriesTC writes 8eorge. The mystery must be seen, not so much to (re4ent its being (ro$aned as its being unmas,ed. The (ure materials are gathered in the mystic cell. Det should the techniBue which (rocesses the materials be re4ealed to the (ublic, it would end the (oetCs claim to an authority which had long since been ceded to the e4ent itsel$. A mystery is made o$ the non9 mysteriousG techniBue itsel$ is initiated into the rationale. The more that Buestions o$ (oetry are translated into Buestions o$ techniBue, the more readily e.clusi4e circles are $ormed. The ta(estry, intentionless inter9 wea4ing o$ materials, (oses a technical (u22leG its EsolutionC, howe4er, Ewill ne4er be granted to the multitude through tal,C. The ;usti$ication o$ the "ircle, howe4er, as it emerged $or 8eorge through his collaboration on ,l3tter f!r die 0unst, is by no means (artici(ation in concealed regions nor the substantiality o$ the indi4idualG rather, it is technical com(etence. EAnd I will not e4en o4erloo, the most minute (oints 0 the accidental $lourishes and ornaments 0 which, obser4ed in themsel4es, I $ully abandon. The $act, howe4er, that these minute ob;ects could ha4e been the occasion o$ such wor,G the $act that des(ite all their thinness they cannot be accused o$ the bungled character so o$ten (resent in more $amous wor,s, this seems to me, in tem(oral and s(atial terms, to be o$ $ar greater signi$icance $or our art and culture than all the organi2ations and theatrical (ieces in which you (resently set all such great ho(es.C The Buestion whether techniBue as arcana, treated sacramentally, does not necessarily turn into technical inadeBuacy, into that routine which 4ulgar criticism has in mind when it (rattles about $ormalism 0 this Buestion remains unanswered. The em(tier the mystery, the more its guardians must rely on EbearingC. 3esides techniBue, it is this that 8eorge sees $it to laud in his (u(ils: E3ut you, with your grand $eeling $or style, must at least ha4e been $ascinated, at least $ound grace$ul the sight o$ those Qwho did not go alongK, Qwho ne4er sought attentionK, that elegance o$ bearing as embodied in our common $riend, Andrian, in your circle.C -owe4er much the not going along and the distance $rom the business o$ e4eryday li$e s(ea,s in $a4our o$ such bearing, the notion is at the same time com(romised by the e(ithet EeleganceC, meant to de$ine that distance (ositi4ely. Indeed, the notion itsel$ is not to be trusted. Its role in the intelligible world is li,e that
(age>#!&

o$ smo,ing in the (ro$ane. To ha4e EbearingC is lean bac, with oneCs (ersonalityG the coolness which it e4inces ma,es a good im(ression. onads which are re(elled $rom one another by their material interests can still attract each other through the gesture o$ being blas7. The necessity o$ estrangement is twisted into the 4irtue o$ sel$9su$$iciency. -ence, all are united in the (raise o$ bearing. It is e.tolled where4er it is $ound, in a re4olutionary as readily as in a. WeberG and in the Nationalso.ialistischen #onatsheften NNational "ocialist #onthly #aga.ine the hunting dogs already struc, a trim, collected, resolute (ose. The 4ictorious indi4idual trans$orms the wrongs he is com(elled to do to all the others in a com(etiti4e society into moral (ro$it through bearing. It is not merely the taut, aggressi4e stance that is stigmati2ed but nobility as well, and e4en that grace which, in 8eorgeCs hierarchy o$ ideas ran,s su(reme, as the beauty o$ sim(le, statuesBue being. I$ grace was once the e.(ression o$ manCs gratitude 0 gratitude granted by the 8ods $or being able to mo4e about without $ear and without arrogance in the creation, as though it still were such 0 today it is distorted, the e.(ression o$ manCs gratitude granted by society because he is able to mo4e about in it securely and without resistance, gi4ing it his undi4ided obedience. "harm, grace, and their heir, the attracti4e (erson, ser4e (recisely to conceal (ri4ilege. =obility itsel$ is noble by 4irtue o$ the ignoble. This emerges clearly in 8eorge, and not merely in sinister $ormulations such as: EI ha4e ne4er wanted anything but your best. I ho(e you reali2e that be$ore it is too late.C Anyone who has the (resence o$ mind while reading 8eorgeCs (oetry not to $orget its (ragmatic content in $a4our o$ its (retended identity with the lyrical as(ect is o$ten struc, by a base element in the most ele4ated (assages. As early as the $amous introductory cycle in the Jahr der "eele NFear of the "oulO, in E=ach der leseC NEA$ter the -ar4estCO, a degrading substitute $or lo4e is de(icted which does not sto( short o$ insulting the belo4ed. The most tender 4erses are $ollowed by those o$ thoughtless crudity. Few businessmen would allow themsel4es to, tell their girl $riends Eund gan2 als glichest du der @inen FernenC NEand ;ust as though you were she, so $ar awayCO, and other such meagre com(liments. The thought o$ the businessman is no accidentG the ideal which can ne4er be allowed onesel$, which is ;ust good enough to, de4alue what one actually has, belongs to the stoc, and trade o$ the bourgeois. Such ideality is the other side o$ 3eing, substance and kairos. E)er heut nicht ,am bleib immer $ernTC NE-e who did not come today, let him e4er stay awayTCO. -e must (ress his nose $lat against
(age>#!6

the (ar, gate and, in addition, be told he has a $lat nose. The (rice o$ 8eorgeCs culture is always barbarous. The contrast between 8eorge and -o$mannsthal re4ol4es around the (ostulate o$ bearing, re(eatedly em(hasi2ed by 8eorge through e.am(le and language and e4aded by -o$mannsthal with the aid o$ incessantly 4aried de4ices, such as the outburst: EI $ind it e.tremely di$$icult to hear ideas such as the mastery o$ li$e, royalty o$ s(irit e.(ressed in a tone which at the same time $ails to $ill me with true aweCG or the e4asi4e retort: E/erha(s in me the (oetic (ower combines with other intellectual instincts to yield a duller mi.ture than in you.C In (lace o$ bearing, howe4er, he o$$ers a la.ity which re4eals itsel$ to be hardly more human than its im(lacable o((osite. It is the diligent cosmo(olitanism o$ the young gentleman o$ good $amily, the model which -o$mannsthal later used in styli2ing his own (ast, a legend $rom the 4ery $irst. -is is the la.ity o$ one who does not need bearing since he EbelongsC anyway. -e con4ulsi4ely identi$ies with the aristocracy, or at least with that ,ind o$ u((er9class society which shares most o$ its interests and ,nows its way around: ESo much about meG otherwise I am well, (lan to s(end se4eral days this summer in unich loo,ing at (aintings, autumn (robably hunting in 3ohemia. And youJ At least a $ew lines when you ha4e the chance would be most welcome.C The 3ohemian $orests ca(ti4ated him. "oncerning Eone o$ my $riendsC, he writes: E-e is utterly immersed in li$e, not art. -e will gi4e you a $ine idea o$ Austrian li$e, with a broad sur4ey o$ the mani$old internal and e.ternal as(ects, including those o$ other countries as well. -e is "ount 1ose$ Schoen 0 born o$ the 3ohemian line o$ the $amily.C The ElineC is nonchalantly tossed in at the end. 8eorge, more 4ersed in chthonic matters and su$$iciently sober to recogni2e the ho(elessness o$ such hobnobbing calls it by its true name: EDou write, my dear $riend, that Qhe is utterly immersed in li$e, not artK, which seems to me a 4irtual blas(hemy. "an anyone who is com(letely detached $rom art imagine that he is immersed in li$eJ -ow is that (ossibleJ At best during

times o$ semi9barbarism.C -o$mannsthalCs la.ity assimilates the criticism in less than a hal$9year: EI ha4e in mind a letter to a 4ery young $riend who is wholly immersed in li$e and who must be shown that he can ne4er be (ro(erly bound to li$e until he has estranged himsel$ $rom it in the mysterious manner which wor,s through the a((reciation o$ (oetry.C What ,ind o$ li$e the young $riend is to be (re(ared $or remains undetermined. There is reason, howe4er, $or the assum(tion that what is intended is the higher li$e o$ attach7s and o$$icers who are on a $irst9name basis with the sons o$ ban,ers and industrialists, a li$e in which all
(age>#!'

concerned tact$ully re$rain $rom mentioning their nobility. 6 The desire $or ha((iness inherent in snobbism should not be o4erloo,edG it ins(ires the snob in his e$$orts to esca(e $rom the (ractical s(here and reach a social dimension which, in its re;ection o$ utility, a((ears to be on the side o$ the mind. The girls o$ -o$mannsthalCs (oetry were not to be $ound in the middle9class. 3ut the mind which (ermits itsel$ to (artici(ate in this social ad4enture does not ha4e an easy time o$ it. It cannot content itsel$ with the s(lendour o$ the good li$e, and is thus com(elled to re(eat the EthatCs not what I meant at allC e.(erience $rom which it had originally $led. /roust alone did this (roblem ;ustice. The (hotogra(hs o$ his youth resemble those o$ -o$mannsthal, as though history had arranged the same e.(eriment twice, in di$$erent (laces. With -o$mannsthal the e.(eriment $ailed. The intellectual, surrounded by his dogs, antici(ating gay di4ersions or much Eriding through the dus,, wind and starlightC, can hardly be on good terms with himsel$. The mind is reGu at the (rice o$ sel$9denunciation. -o$mannsthalCs 3ohemian a$$iliations corres(ond to the secret (assion the on vivant has $or ,ee(ing his distance $rom other intellectuals. There is no 3ergotte and @lstir in his paradis artificiel: EUn$ortunately my society is so totally unliterary that I cannot thin, o$ any serious collaborator worth (ro(osing to you.C The tortured sel$9re;ection o$ the literati stems $rom the (roblematic relations between (ower and the intellectuals. Without automatic charm and agile cunning there is no mo4ing ahead. 8erman society, recruited $rom the rural gentry and the big industrialists, was less closely bound to the artistic and (hiloso(hical tradition than Western @uro(ean society. A$ter #57: the leisure class was in
6. he young -o$mannsthal did not wholly deny himsel$ insight into this as(ect o$ his world. ?$ arie 3ash,irt2e4, the (atron saint o$ the fin du si=cle, he says: E+n attendant she is as (roud as (ossible. @4erything which suggests (ower and royalty enchants her 0 the (alaces o$ "olonna and "hiarra, the Swiss 8uard o$ the *atican, e4ery sort o$ trium(hal carriage in e4ery sort o$ museum, e4ery (roud, Buietly su(erior word, all re$ined and legitimate arrogance. She hersel$ is too 4i4acious and too ner4ous $or this grand style o$ elegance des(ite all the inner nobility o$ her character. -ence her strongly (ronounced a$$inity $or such elegance has something o$ the en4y =a(oleon $elt when he saw that he could ne4er learn how to wal, (ro(erly. She s(ea,s too loudly and is too e.citableG the tone o$ her diary is also louder, less reser4ed than is $itting $or con4ersation in good society.C These lines may also be read as an unintentional (iece o$ sel$9criticism. The re(roach $or being too loud re4eals a (rototy(ical gesture o$ the snob, one which /roust described 0 calling the other (erson a snob. It is a characteristic o$ com(etiti4eness. @legance ne4er $orbid the ;lan vital to climb with the use o$ its elbows. (age>#!6

general ner4ous and unsure o$ itsel$ in its relations to cultureG the intellectuals it saw were ner4ous and unsure o$ themsel4es, unable to $orget how ready their (atrons were to throw out anyone who became troublesome. The $ew writers who insisted on re(resenting the EnationC had to choose between glori$ying the (re4ailing crudity as substance and Eli$eC and substituting a dream9society $or the real one which they obeyed and $eared, a dream9society organi2ed to suit them and to ser4e as a (edagogical model $or reality. -o$mannsthal tried to do both: he sei2ed on substantial moments in the Austrian tradition to create an ideology o$ high li$e, attributing to it (recisely the humanistic $rame o$ mind tram(led under $oot by the hunterCs boot, and he also concei4ed a $ictitious aristocracy in which his nostalgia was reali2ed. %ari 3uehl, EThe )i$$icult anC, is the (roduct o$ this e$$ort. The young -o$mannsthal was not yet ca(able o$ such artistic creations. -e made himsel$ (o(ular with the $eudal gentry as a middleman o$ the fin du =sicle. Sometimes laudatory, sometimes a(ologetic, he introduced them to the tone set by the elites in @ngland, France and Italy. It is as though he sought to e.(ress his gratitude towards those he courted by gi4ing them instruction in intellectual manners. At the same time, this ga4e him access to the mar,et. The tidbits he

im(arted to the *iennese monde concerning dCAnnun2io, 3ash,irt2e4 and the modern style were (er$ectly suited, as cultural ;ournalism, to ma,e the a4erage man 0 e.cluded $rom all this 0 smac, his li(s, ;ust as the esotericism that $ollowed was to include the $lattering a((eal to those not allowed to (artici(ate. 7 -ere, too, the secrets o$ aestheticism re4eal
7. ?scar Wilde is the clearest e.am(le o$ this. Dorian *ray (ro(agates art and is a bestseller. In 8ermany this trend made its mar, on the stage. Its models were dCAnnun2ioCs *iocanda and aeterlinc,Cs #onna -anna. -o$mannsthal was in4ol4ed in this s(here e4en be$ore his collaboration with Aichard Strauss. 8eorge recogni2ed this Buic,ly and re(roached -o$mannsthal $or EsensationalismC, es(ecially in his criticism o$ -enice "aved: EThe whole new historical and morality drama su$$ers 0 $or me 0 $rom badly a((lied Sha,es(eare. In him the (lot is $ormed out o$ $igures $rom his (assionate soulG today, they are $ormed out o$ conce(ts, out o$ rami$ications stemming $rom this or that (resu((osition. In Sha,es(eare e4erything is rough and raw necessity 0 today, howe4er, it consists in bungling a$terthoughts or e4en in mere scribbling . . .C Sensationalism ma,es (ublic the technical secret o$ the artist. Det with his ascetic ideology, 8eorge is still more sensational, es(ecially in the late wor,s, than he would li,e to admitG not merely in the (ro4ocations o$ Alga al, but also in (oems li,e E/orte =igraC $rom the "eventh Ring. The Aoman boy and (aramour, anlius, who curses modern ci4ili2ation, suggests -ugenbergCs Night +'tra in its thundering against the 0urf!rstendamm. From time immemorial it has been customary to see, allies against de(ra4ity by dis(laying a close $amiliarity with it. (age>#!7

themsel4es to the (ublic. The garrulous Foris abandons the ?eitgeist to the: audience which (roduced it in the $irst (lace. That segment o$ the 8erman Aight with which -o$mannsthal sym(athi2ed either ;oined the =ational Socialists in so $ar as it was (ermitted to or s(ent its energies in intellectual hand9wea4ing, o$ which Foren2 and "ordula are the most ty(ical $igures. They do ser4ice to (ro(aganda in their own wayt 0 heir sober moderation belies the limitless horror. In #!#6 the $orces o$ barbarism were content with rhymes, to which -o$mannsthal, o$ course, also contributed. 3y the time o$ the concentration cam(s the scribes ha4e learned discrete silence, rugged s(eech and elegiac abundance. The less worldly 8eorge School summoned u( greater resistance. In this res(ect, the sorely ta.ed notion o$ bearing still demonstrated its su(eriority to that Ema;estyC, the glance E$rom abo4eC that 3orchardt singled out $or (raise. 8eorge himsel$, at least, remained im(er4ious to a mondanit; which was able to conduct international dialogues e4en about -itler. The Esecret 8ermanyC (roclaimed by 8eorge was less com(atible with the =ew ?rder than was the e.Buisite con$ormity which $rom the 4ery $irst $elt itsel$ abo4e all those national boundaries that were later to be re4ised. 8eorge was sus(icious o$ the $atal tolerance that the modish salons sought to bestow u(on him. -e (re$erred con4enticles towards which he gra4itated anyway 0 as an outcast. The corres(ondence bears witness to this. The reason $or the e.citement (roduced by 8eorge in the house o$ the se4enteen9year9old -o$mannsthal is not mentioned. Aobert 3oehringer relates the a$$air to a ,ic, that 8eorge is su((osed to ha4e gi4en a dog with the words, Esale 4oyouC. The area o$ con$lict is (robably more accurately described in the letter in which 8eorge 0 intending to emigrate to e.ico 0 bids $arewell to -o$mannsthalCs $ather: EDour son and I may ne4er wish to ,now each other $or the rest o$ our li4es, he may turn away, I may turn away, he will always remain $or me the $irst (erson on the 8erman side to ha4e understood and a((reciated my wor, without $irst ha4ing been close to me (ersonally, and that at a time when I had begun to tremble on my solitary cli$$ it is di$$icult to e.(lain to a non9(oet the enormous im(ortance this had. Small wonder, then, that I threw mysel$ at such a (erson H"arlosJ /osaJI and $ound nothing disre(utable about it.C Two days earlier, in a letter to -o$mannsthal himsel$, he writes: ESo, because o$ something 0 god ,nows what 0 Qthat you thin, you ha4e understoodK you hurl a sanguine insult at a gentleman who was about to become your $riend. -ow could you ha4e been so negligent, e4en with a criminal one does not close oneCs ears to his shrie,ing hints.C This is the
(age>#!5

language o$ the outlaw. =othing but the $ear o$ being caught in the machinery o$ morality can ha4e im(elled 8eorge to call himsel$ a gentleman. -e must ha4e ,nown better than anyone else that the rules o$ language e.clude anyone who claims to be a gentleman $rom being one. 3ut the word re4eals a second as(ect $or him. ?4erwhelming an.iety demands the image o$ the gentleman as the historical model $or the

timeless 8eorge 0 the (hantasma o$ the fin du si=cle. 1ust as the monstrous is cited here in sacerdotal9 incognito garb, the railroad be$ore the end o$ time is cited in his )ream Ae(orts 0 and only in these 0 $rom Tage und Taten NDays and DeedsO.5 @nglish titles ser4e the same $unction in *erlaineCs (oetry. The Esanguine insultC, it a((ears, was not really hurled at the gentlemanG rather, his insulting $ace bore traces o$ blood $rom the 4ery $irst. In 8eorgeCs mouth the word EgentlemanC loo,s li,e a murderer. Its (ro(riety calls $or sacrilege as the dandyCs suit demands a gardenia. In 8eorgeCs era, the outlaw assumes the burden o$ un(roducti4e resistance. -e e.(eriences the social catastro(he through the destruction o$ the $amily which society $orces u(on him. This is (reser4ed in the a(horistic (oem, E*ormundscha$tC NETutelageCO, $rom the "eventh Ring:
Als aus dem schYnen sohn die $lammen $uhren Ums(errtest du ihn ,lug in sichern hY$en. )u hieltst ihn rein $Zr seine ersten huren . . . ?d ist dies haus nun: asche dec,t die Y$en. 5. The name o$ the $iend a((ears in the "tern des ,undes N"tar of the 5eagueO as the symbol o$ E(owers, not wholly $ormedC. It should (robably be understood as being outside the (olarity o$ the se.es, rather li,e the witches in #ac eth. The (oem ascribes to them (recisely that (ossibility which the e(och $ailed to reali2e: Unholdenha$t nicht gan2 gestalte ,r[$te: AllhYrige 2eit die ;edes schwache (oltern @intrug ins buch und alles staubgeblas *ernahm nicht euer unterirdisch rollen Allweis und un,und des was wir,lich war. @uch tr[chtig 4on gewesnem die sie nut2en Sich 2ur belebung h[tte bannen ,Ynnen @uch Zbersah sie dun,elste *erschollne . . . So seid iht machtlos rZc,gestZr2t in nacht Schwelende s(rZhe um das innre Ficht. E onstrous (owers, not wholly $ormed, S That watch$ul time recorded e4ery murmur, e4ery blast o$ dust S 3ut did not hear your subterranean rumblingS ?mniscient, yet not ,nowing what was real. S Dou (regnant with the (ast, S -ow it could ha4e used you, S 3rought you bac, to li$e, S And yet it did not see you, shrouded in obli4ion . . . S Thus, (owerless, you $ell bac, into night, S Smouldering s(ar,s around the inner light.C (age>#!!

NEAs $lames $lared $orth $rom the handsome son, S Dou cle4erly shut him u( in sa$e courts. S Dou ,e(t him (ure $or his $irst whores . . . S 3arren is this house nowG ashes co4er the sto4e.CO The son, shut u( by his $amily, $alls (rey to the 4ery world, a mar,et and desert, $rom which moral decay might ha4e (rotected him. In the sa$e courts, howe4er, 8eorge recogni2es the (ossession that ,ee(s this world ali4e, and he (ointedly e.(resses his o((osition to it in the ma.im to )erleth:
In unsrer runde macht uns dies 2um (aare: Wir los 4on ;edem band 4on gut und haus.!

NEIn our round Etis this that ma,es us one: S We $ree $rom e4ery bond to house and home.CO -e is ,e(t $rom 3ohemianism by its slo((iness, which trusts in the world as it isG he is bound to it by the (ossibility o$ criminality ser4ing as a mode o$ o((osition which renounces all $aith in the world. The beginning o$ the (oem to the $riend o$ his youth, "arl August
)u weisst noch ersten stZrmes;ahres gesell Wie du 4oll trot2 am 2aun den hagelschlossen -inwar$st den blan,en leib au$ den blauschwar2 )ie trauben hingenJ

NE)o you still recall, $riend o$ that $irst tem(estuous year S -ow, $ull o$ de$iance, by the gate S Dou hurled your bare body at the hail, S Where, blue9blac,, gra(es hung in clustersCOrecalls -aenschen AilowCs
!. 3orchardt contrasts -o$mannsthal to the Eworthless ri$$ra$$ who ,now no house but the co$$eehouse, the (awnbro,erCs house

and the house o$ ill re(uteC. Such abominable (raise could not ha4e been bestowed u(on 8eorge, e4en i$ one o4erloo,s the $act that according too all witnesses the *iennese setting $or his $riendshi( with -o$mannsthal was the ca$7. While com(laining o$ a 4isit -o$mannsthal $ailed to ma,e, 8eorge $inds a (hrase which all by itsel$ is enough to ma,e him unusable $or this sort o$ agitation against the literati 0 Elandsca(e as houseC. The chthonian e.(erience that it suggests its $undamentally related to that o$ he homeless wanderer. -omer s(un his entire e(ic out o$ the nostalgia o$ ?dysseus to see Ithaca one last time. The chthonians o$ today are no longer nostalgic. They are always at home with themsel4es. In (oems such as EAeturnC $rom the Fear of the "oul, 8eorge shows his su(eriority to them: E)u wohntest lang bei $remden st[mmen. S )och unsre liebe starb dir nicht.C NEDou li4ed long with $oreign tribes, S Det $or you our lo4e did not die.C Such 4erses, o$ course, stem rather $rom the strong $eelings e4o,ed in children by stories o$ cowboys and indians than $rom the thought o$ elegant $orms o$ society, which the early 8eorge so des(ised: EI ha4e nothing to say against that gullibility you $ind so attracti4e, i$ it $orms the soil in which something can grow . . . but where you em(hasi2e it, closer scrutiny will con4ince you that nothing could be more s(urious, more (utrid, more worm9eaten than such 4ulgar and idiotic doings.C (age><::

4ineyard in Wede,indCs Fr!hlings +r&achen N"pring "tirringsO. The tradition according to which 8eorge is said to ha4e esteemed Wede,ind highly is illuminating. 8eorgeCs great (oem about the ETaeterC NE"ul(ritCO does $ar more than merely describe criminality as one (ossibility among othersG it enters into direct collusion with it. This is ;oined by (etri$ied 4erses such as the third E1ahrhunderts(ruchC NE"entenary a.imCO $rom the Se4enth Aing and the E8ehen,teC NE-anged anCO $rom the Neuen Reich NThe Ne& 7mperiumO. This alone legitimi2es 8eorgeCs EbearingCit is the 3audelairean arrogance o$ the (ariah, Etr7sor de toute gueuserie.C #: When, o$ course, the hanged man lauds himsel$ in an unyielding meta(horCund ehe ihrs euch 4ersahet, biegeSIch diesen starren bal,en um 2um radC NEand be$ore you ,new itSI bent this rigid beam
#:. 3audelaire, EFe 4in du solitaireC, 5es fleurs du mal. =ot the least o$ 8undol$ Cs (er$idies is his attem(t to turn the outcast into a lawyerCs tidbit. In the third edition o$ his boo, on 8eorge there is the (om(ous but soothing statement, that Ewhate4er is seen to be 4irtue, order, (ower demands a subterranean destroyer who also (reser4es and renews, the bearer o$ the di4ine history o$ the $uture. ore e.actly, what is (roclaimed here is a doctrine o$ 8eorgeCs which is already announced in the "eventh Ring ( his belie$ in the renewal o$ the world through the most remote $actors, its reconstruction at its sorest (oint. The ,eystone is laid . . . through the wholesome act o$ the criminal, or e4en con4ictC. For renewal, reconstruction and similar cultural aims criminals are ;ust $ine in 8undol$ Cs eyes 0 as though what 8eorge had had in mind was their $orced labour and not their murderous assault on society. 8eorgeCs E8ehen,teC is eBui4ocal enough, yet in any e4ent it still e.(resses the most bitter contem(t $or that morality, in whose ser4ice the "ommentator see,s to (lace immorality: EAls, ich 2um richt(lat2 ,am und strenger mieneSdie -errn 4om Aat mir beides: e,el 2eigtenSUnd mitleid musst ich lachen: Qahnt ihr nichtSWie sehr des armen sZnders ihr bedZr$tKSTugenddie ich 4erbrachau$ ihrem antlit2SUnd sittiger $rau und maid, sei sie auch wahr,Sso strahlen ,ann sie nur wenn ich so $ehleTC NEAs I came to the gallows, and with stern mienSThe men o$ the council showed me bothdisgustSAnd (ity I had to laugh: Q)onCt you ,nowS-ow much you need the (oor sinnerKS*irtuewhich I s(urned 0 howe4er trueS"an only shine so brightly on their $aceS And on that o$ righteous woman and o$ maidS I$ I so errTCO 8undol$ continues: EIn such (oems Hto which the QTaeterK in the Teppich des 5e ens NTapestry of 5ifeO belongsI 8eorge re4eals the abyss out o$ which his much (raised and much derided sense o$ beauty emerges. This has nothing to do with @(icureanismG rather, ;ust as the 8ree, A(ollo (resu((oses the Titans, )anteCs /aradise his In$erno, Sha,es(eareCs comedies his tragedies, it (resu((oses a 4oyage into the realms o$ merciless terror.C The Fiterary -istorian, howe4er, can only imagine this 4oyage as a so;ourn. Immorality is $irst neutrali2ed as mythical amorality and then assimilated into the 4ictorious march o$ (ositi4e de4elo(ment as the 4ery EthresholdC, the conce(t o$ which 8eorge re;ected as idealistic. ?n the ma( o$ Edi4inely structured 3eingC, -ell becomes a tourist attraction. (age><:#

into a wheelCOthe heretic disintegrates into a hero, in accordance with the $ounding s(irit o$ the late 8eorge. The (rotest against marriage and $amily turns into its o((osite once the totalitarian state, which cast its shadow o4er 8eorgeCs last boo,s, re(udiates marriage and $amily and assumes their $unctions. The $irebrand then becomes standardi2ed as the in$lammatory agitator, the cul(rit becomes (ro(het o$ the e.ecutioner. The iconoclast who described himsel$ as E$ree $rom e4ery bond to house and homeC, now sees himsel$ as a $reelance mercenary: EWir ein2ig ,Ynnen stets beim ersten sausSWo grad wir stehn nach$olgen der $an$areC NEWe alone are always ready, at the 4ery $irst dinSWhere4er we may be, to, $ollow the $an$areCO. The $ate$ul (urity which tainted the young 8eorge as early as Alga al, and which made the E"ul(ritC as well as the 8rou( S(irit attracti4e to wayward schoolmasters, (er4erted him $inally into a $igure o$ light. In transcending society 8eorge re4eals its humanity. -is inhumanity, howe4er, is what society absorbs. -o$mannsthal also claimed to transcend society, and the thought o$ the outsider is ne4er $oreign to one

who must simulate his own society. 3ut he is a conciliatory outsider, too sel$9in$atuated to be truly angry with the others. EFrom my childhood on I was (ossessed with the most $e4erish desire to get through to the s(irit o$ our con$used e(och, through the most 4aried methods and guises. I was drawn to a certain ,ind o$ ;ournalism, in the most ele4ated sense, such as (erha(s only Aus,in re(resentsG we ha4e no such $igure. 3y (ublishing in the daily news(a(ers and in assorted re4iews, I was heeding an urge which I would rather e.(lain clearly than deny.C The desire to use disguises, which is oriented towards a (re9stabili2ed harmony with the demands o$ the mar,et, is that o$ the actor. This, too, was 4ery Buic,ly recogni2ed by 8eorge. In a letter dated ay &#, #5!7, he writes 4erse which then recur in a milder $orm, with -o$mannsthalCs initials, in the Fear of the "oul: EFinderS)es $luessig rollenden gesangs und s(ruehendS8ewandter 2wieges(r[che. $rist und trennungSerlaubt dass ich au$ meine daechtnisS)en alten hasser grabe, thu desgleichenTC NE)isco4ererS?$ the $luidly rolling song and s(ar,lingS)e$t dialogue. time and se(arationSlet me bury the old hatredSin my memory. do the sameTCO This characteri2es not the dramatist but the Eactor o$ your sel$9created dreamsC, the (age in EThe )eath o$ TitianC, who is de$ended and a(ostro(hi2ed by his $riend the (oet. ## What -o$mannsthalCs
##. 3orchardt $eels obliged to add his de$ence o$ aestheticism to the words o$ the /age: E-e, whom they try to dismiss as the sated cultural decadent, as the aesthete, the connoisseur o$ sound 0 and this is how he is still (ortrayed by the audacious and moronic breed that ;udges literature and @(ootnote contn)ed on ne5t pageA (age><:<

(oetry com(oses 0 more than the stylistic costuming, more e4en than the dramatic intention 0 is the rolling 4oice o$ the actor. It is as i$ the (oem were the ob;ecti$ication o$ this 4oice ;ust as (articular instruments are assigned to ob;ecti$y the lyrical immediacy o$ the sub;ect. *erses li,e: E@r glitt durch die FloeteSAls schluch2ender Schrei,SAn daemmernder Aoete,SFlog er 4orbeiC NE-e glid through the $luteSAs a sobbing cry,SIn the 4iolet o$ twilightS-e $lew byCO ha4e the tone o$ 1ose$ %ain2, $or whom -o$mannsthal wrote the obituary. #< Alls (sychologistic reductions notwithstanding, -o$mannsthalCs histrionics ha4e their origins in the technical demands in4ol4ed in the writing o$ (oetry. -is (oems recite themsel4es as though to (er$ect their sel$9control. Their discursi4e Es(o,enC character allows the 4erses to listen to themsel4es.#& -ence his (re$erence $or the discursi4e $orm o$ (oetry, blan, 4erse. Its synco(ation, the best ,nown o$ -o$mannsthalCs stylistic de4ices, was ta,en $rom the @nglish writers. It is designed by the (oet9technician to ser4e the needs o$ the actor inherent in the theatrical $ormG it introduces the $reedom that is otherwise (resent only in
(footnote contnued from previous page) theatre in 8ermany 0 he is the $irst 8erman (oet since 8oethe who has been able to gi4e uni4ersal 4alidity and artistic Buality to (roblematic and (ersonally endured situations, through his (ro$ound seriousness, his 4isionary (ower and his (artici(ation in all the higher as(ects o$ contem(orary e.istence.C -owe4er banal the ob;ections against which 3orchardt (rotests may be, conce(ts li,e (ro$ound seriousness and the higher as(ects o$ e.istence are no better. -o$mannsthal cannot be sa4ed $rom slander as an aesthete 0 aestheticism itsel$ must be sa4ed. What 3orchardt calls the Emoral dramasC, such as E)eath and the FoolC, and EThe @m(eror and the WitchC, in which all a((earances are abandoned and deli4ered u( to that (ro$ound seriousness $or correction, may well (ro4e to embody the same ,ind o$ betrayal o$ his basic e.(erience on the (art o$ -o$mannsthal as that committed by 8eorge in his EturnC which began with the ETa(estryC. #<. 8eorge (resents a (arallel (henomenon. The $inal line o$ the descri(tion o$ the anemonae at the end o$ E3etruebt als $uehrten sie 2um totenangerC assumes acoustically the Ahenist intonation which may well ha4e been 8eorgeCs own: EUnd sind wie seelen die im morgengrauenS)er halberwachten wuensche und im herbenS*or$rueh;ahrswind 4oll lauernden 4erderbenSSich gan2 2u oe$$nen noch nicht recht getrauenC NEAnd are li,e souls, which in the morning greyS?$ hal$9roused wishes and in the roughS Wind o$ early s(ring $ull o$ lur,ing ruinS"an hardly bring themsel4es to o(enCO. #&. -o$mannsthalCs listening to himsel$ tends towards sel$9adulation. At times (oems shut their eyes and taste themsel4es with their tongues, as though eager to dis(lay their own uniBueness. The 4erse E)ein Antlit2 war mit Traeumen gan2 beladen.SIch schwieg und sah dich an mit stummen 3ebenC NEDour $ace was $illed with dreams. SilentlySI loo,ed at you with 4oiceless tremblingCO, is $ollowed by the line: EWie stieg das au$TC NE-ow that roseTCO. It is re(eated three times. (age><:&

recitation into the closed $orm o$ (oetic metre itsel$. It is also, howe4er, the 4erse beBueathed to the child by a theatre which, since -o$mannsthalCs youth, had reser4ed -amlet and Schiller $or school. -o$mannsthal has reason to trace his e$$orts at intellectual disguise bac, to his childhood. The child (laying theatre arranges words and their resistances li,e heirlooms, bedec,ing them with colour$ul ;ewels and rhinestones. What may (ro4e to endure in -o$mannsthal is his untiring imitation o$ the childhood gestures which, as it were, re(roduce the only stage in which tragic drama can still be e.(erienced. In the hands o$ his 4oice e4ery sub;ect is bewitched into childhood, and it is this trans$ormation which enables him to a4oid the (it$alls o$ bearing and res(onsibility. The magical (ower to mani(ulate childhood is the strength o$ the wea,G#6 it eludes the im(ossibility o$ its tas, li,e the /eter /an o$ (oetry. Im(ossible indeed. -o$mannsthalCs theatricality, $rom its Ale.andrine end9results to the (seudo9mor(hoses o$ his later (eriod, stems $rom an eminently real insight: that language no longer allows anything to be said as it is e.(erienced.#' Fanguage is either rei$ied and banal, as the designation o$ commodities, $alsi$ying thought in
#6. This determines the tone o$ second naM4et7 in -o$mannsthalCs (oetry. The notion originates with 1acobsen. It is $ound in the small (rose wor,, EThere Should -a4e 3een AosesC, a treasure9chest o$ characteristic -o$mannsthal moti$s. The characters in the E/ro4erbC, dreamt in a southern garden, are two (ages. The descri(tion o$ them ;um(s to the two actresses who are to (ortray the (ages: EThe actress who is to be the younger o$ the two (ages is in thin sil,, tightly bound, (ale blue with embroidered heraldic lilies o$ the lightest gold. This, and as much lace as (ossible, is the most cons(icuous element o$ the costume, which is designed not so much to suggest a (articular century as to bring out the youth$ul, $ull $igure, the magni$icent blonde hair and the trans(arent tinge. She is married but her marriage sur4i4es only $or a year and a hal$G then she is di4orced $rom her husband and is said to ha4e acted badly towards him. And this may well be soG ne4ertheless, it would be di$$icult to $ind anything more innocent. This means that hers is not that uncommonly attracti4e, $irst9hand innocence, which certainly has its charm, but is on the contrary, the deliberate, culti4ated innocence about which there can be no mista,e, which goes directly to the heart and enthralls with all the (ower with which (er$ection is endowed.C #'. This insight is $ormulated, howe4er corru(ted by 4italistic ;argon, in -o$mannsthalCs "handos Fetter: EIn brie$, my situation is this: I ha4e com(letely lost the ca(acity to s(ea, or thin, coherently about anything. First, it became gradually im(ossible $or me to discuss a higher or more general theme, and thereby to utter those words which are used habitually and without a second thought by all men. I $elt an ine$$able uneasiness at e4en saying the words EEmindK, QsoulK, or QbodyK. . . abstract words which the tongue must em(loy, o$ course, in order $or any sort o$ ;udgement to see the light, disintegrated in my mouth li,e mouldy mushrooms.C (age><:6

ad4ance. ?r it enthrones itsel$, ceremonious without ceremony, em(owered without (ower, sel$9a((ointed 0 in short, in the manner that -o$mannsthal attac,ed in the 8eorge school. Fanguage utterly re;ects the ob;ect in a society in which the $orce o$ $acts assumes such an o4erwhelming as(ect that e4en the true word sounds li,e a moc,ery. -o$mannsthalCs childrenCs theatre is the attem(t to emanci(ate literature $rom language. Ae$used recognition as something substantial, language $alls silentG ballet and o(era are the necessary results. Among the tragic and comic mas,s no human $ace remains. -ence, the truth o$ -o$mannsthalCs a((earances. -is language ta,es on the as(ect o$ horror and uncertainty (recisely when it (retends to s(ea, with e(ic rationality: E"irce, ,annst du mich hYrenJS)u hast mir $ast nichts getanC NE"irce, can you hear meJSDouC4e done almost nothing to meCO, he writes in the te.t o$ Ariadne. The e(ic EalmostC, which, e4en in the $ace o$ mythical metamor(hosis, sto(s short with characteristic reser4e, de(ri4es the 4ery myth o$ its $oundations with modern lassitude. "on$ronted by -o$mannsthalCs (lay9acting, no ob;ection is too tri4ial $or 8eorge: EDour most (ain$ul (roblem is a certain rootlessness . . .C -e thus seems to dabble in the 4ocabulary o$ antisemitism, traces o$ which can be $ound in his wor,, des(ite his re;ection o$ %lages. The translator o$ 3audelaireCs #ala araise, (roclaimed, in the the 5eague: E it den $rauen $remder ordnungSSollt ihr nicht den leib be$lec,enS-arretT lasset ($au bei a$$eT S)ort am see wir,t die WelledeSWec,t den m[dchen tote ,unde: SWeibes eigenstes geheimnisC NEWith women $rom alien strainsS)o not besmirch your bodiesS3e strongT Fea4e (eacoc,s to a(esTSThere on the la,e rules *eledaSWa,ing maidens to dead tidings: S WomenCs dee(est, secretCO.4erses which would not ha4e $ared badly in the Turnhalle Ahenish *ymnasien. -owe4er, 8eorge recoiled at ha4ing anything to do with this atmos(here: EIt was an outrage $or the literary rabble to ha4e thrown these highly distinct (eo(le into a hea( sim(ly because they all distanced themsel4es $rom the rabble in a similar

manner a selection much li,e that made by the Ahenish 1an -agel, who screamed Q;ewK at all those who beha4ed di$$erently.C It was not 8eorgeCs intention to hold u( his own em(irical ErootedC e.istence to -o$mannsthalCs lac, o$ roots: EFor "hristmas I ha4e little to o$$er you here. I scarcely e4en ,now whether I will be here then. The intimate winter com(anionshi( which you de(ict, whether in the country or in the city, can only be e.(erienced by one who, li,e yoursel$, has a home, not by one, who is always a 4isitor as I am.C In a letter written on August <7, #5!<, this is $ormulated in an e4en more astonishing manner,
(age><:'

one which 8eorge can hardly ha4e meant ironically: EI do not belie4e that you should allow yoursel$ to be swe(t away so com(letely by your (assion $or something beauti$ul and sonorous. That is the granite9 8erman in you, the Fatin in me. Through constant contact with (eo(le o$ $oreign tongues you will notice that they are $ar more acti4e \ more genuine in their li,es Eand disli,es.C #6 From the 4ery beginning 8eorge inter(rets his contrast to the ErootlessC -o$mannsthal not as one o$ origins but o$ decision. #7 -e does not a((eal to the EsoilC, the (ower o$ 3eing or to unconscious elements. The de$initi4e letter that he writes -o$mannsthal in 1uly #!:< is ins(ired by strategic considerations, namely o$ the literary situation, yet without their leading him to e.clude the o((osite (osition $rom the out9
#6. As late as arch <6, #5!6, 8eorge writes -o$mannsthal: EWho ,nows i$ I would ha4e continued writing (oetry in my mother tongue, had I not $ound a (oet in you or in 87raudyTC As late as February #5!& he (ublished the original French 4ersion o$ a (oem in Flor;al. The (atriotic 8undol$ would ha4e none o$ this: EThose who see, to inter(ret him as a disci(le o$ the French /arnassiens and Symbolists and to situate him with Swinburne or dCAnnun2io mista,e the sur$ace $or the $oundationG these (oets were im(ortant $or him 0 whate4er they may mean to their countries as literary mo4ements or whate4er new moti$s or techniBues they may ha4e introduced 0 solely as the embodiments o$ the richest, (urest and most re$ined linguistic com(le.es o$ their (eo(le e.isting at the time. 3audelaireCs in$ernal consecration and *erlaineCs morbid grace and $atigue, dCAnnun2ioCs sensual s(lendour, SwinburneCs into.icating (sychic oscillations, AossettiCs "eltic9Italic, melancholy $ire, e4en the (oetry o$ his (ersonal $riends, *erwey and Fieder, all were im(ortant $or him only in so $ar as they enriched language with new masses, weights, resistances, mo4ements, de(ths and lights. To inter(ret these (oets in relation to 8eorge in terms o$ Qmo4ementsK or o$ emotional 4alues, as embodying certain moods or styles, is a mista,e o$ the literati and con$uses the su(reme synthesi2er o$ all these mo4ements with their disci(le.C ?nly dilettants can isolate the (oetic E$oundationC $rom mere Emoti$s or techniBuesCG only (hilistines are inca(able o$ mentioning 3audelaire without immediately adding *erlaine. #7. It is to decision 0 in the $inal instance, to (olitical action 0that 8eorge loo,s $or (recisely what cannot be a matter o$ decision: the (resence o$ what has been. )ecision, howe4er, is thereby trans$ormed into an enemy o$ whate4er it is that is decided. The neo9chthonians $orgot that Aum(elstils,in tears himsel$ into (ieces as soon as he is con$ronted by his name. Such is the calamity (re(ared by the agitatory cult o$ (rimordial (owers. In this 8eorge and %lages antici(ate $ate$ul tendencies o$ =ational Socialism. The mythologists unceasingly destroy what they ta,e to be their substance through the act o$ naming. They heralded the sell9out o$ allegedly (rimal words li,e EdeathC, EinwardnessC and EgenuinenessC which subseBuently was consummated in the Third Aeich. /henomenology, which in a certain sense (uts essences on dis(lay, hel(ed to (a4e the way $or this sell9out. The boo,, Die Trans.enden. des +rkennens NThe Transcendance of 0no&ledgeO by @dith Fandmann, establishes the connection between the 8eorge and the /henomenological schools. (age><:6

set as in$erior or o$ less dignity: E=ow that you ha4e had your say, let me ha4e mine. I$ you $ind it admirable $or you to allow yoursel$ to be swe(t along by the colour$ul $low o$ e4ents, the $act remains that $or me they are meaningless without selection and disci(line. Which attitude is su(erior is a Buestion which is outside this discussion. only this is certain: the $act that something ha((ens at all is only made (ossible by the latter $orm o$ conduct \ o$ course I ,now that all the bearing and conduct (ossible will not (roduce a masterwor, 0 yet it is eBually true that much, i$ not e4erything, is su((ressed without them. Dou, too, will ha4e already been struc, by how our entire art has been con$ounded by the trend towards the $ragmentary and the 4olatile \ through the series o$ Qmen9o$9(owerK who were always denied the $inal touch 0 all that has its roots in that way o$ mind . . . And now the higher ;ournalism that you (raise and which should be $urthered 0 this demands not the te(id sensiti4ity and mollus,9li,e sensibility which is absorbed in Q3erlin =aturalismK today, in Q*iennese SymbolismK tomorrowG what is needed is the o((osite: rigorous concentration on a single (oint . . .C "oncerning the disintegration o$ language he has as $ew illusions as does -o$mannsthal: E@4erything can be said todayG dross and em(ty straw.C 3ut where -o$mannsthal

chooses the $eint, he resorts in des(eration to $orce. -e strangles words until they can no longer elude himG dead, he $eels them sa$ely in his gras(, whereas they are as lost to him as when they were e4anescent. Thus 8eorgeCs heroism turns into its o((osite. Its mythical $eatures are diametrically o((osed to the heritage in whose name they were a((ro(riated by (olitical a(ologists. They are $eatures o$ de$iance. EIt has grown late.C There is no trace o$ the archaic in 8eorgeCs wor, which is not directly related to this ElateC as its contrary. -e scrutini2es words, so close and so alien, as though he ho(ed thus to see them as they were the day they were made. Such estrangement is no less com(letely determined by the liberalist e(och than is the anti9liberalist (olitics which in 8ermany so a((ealed to 8eorge as the needed authority. The e.tent to which he combines the liberal notion o$ security o$ law, the obstinate dri4e to dominate and a conce(tion o$ (rehistorical, archety(al relations is indicated in se4eral lines $rom a letter o$ 1uly !, #5!&: E@4ery society, including the smallest and most loosely organi2ed, is built on contracts. Dour 4oice counts as much as any other it must howe4er in e4ery case ma,e itsel$ heard without dissembling.C I$ contracts a((arently (resu((ose the $ull legal eBuality o$ the contracting (arties, their introduction into Buestions o$ intellectual solidarity ne4ertheless remains an instrument $or the sus(ension o$ eBuality
(age><:7

and $or sub;ugation, and (resu((oses a condition in which the indi4idual sub;ects are in mortal enmity with one another, by means o$ which com(etiti4e society becomes increasingly li,e the (rimal horde. 8eorgeCs insistence that -o$mannsthal Ema,e HhimI9sel$ heard without dissemblingC, in connection with the ,l3tter f!r die 0unst only (roduce calamity when heeded. Whene4er -o$mannsthal actually did allow himsel$ to be lured into criticism o$ 8eorge and his $ollowers he came o$$ badly. Against a world which seemed rootless to him, 8eorge a((ealed to the uneBui4ocal character o$ nature. 3ut this modern nature became uneBui4ocal only through its domination by man. This endows the $amous concluding stan2as o$ E)ie Tem(lerC NETem(larsCO, which outline 8eorgeCs theory o$ $orm, with their historical9(hiloso(hical meaning, which was not (art o$ the original intention: EUnd wenn die grosse =[herin im 2orneS=icht mehr sich mischend neigt am untern borne,SIn einer weltnacht starr und mZde (ocht: SSo ,ann nur einer der sie stets be$ochtSUnd 2wang und nie 4er$uhr nach ihrem rechteS)ie hand ihr (ressen, (ac,en ihre $lechte,S)ass sie ihr wer, will$[hrig wieder treibt: S)en leib 4ergottet und den gott 4erleibt.C#5 NEAnd when the great seamstress in
#5. In his conce(tion o$ the com(ulsion which the Egreat seamstressC is said to ha4e encountered, 8eorge is as o((osed to %lages as he is similar to him in his neo9heathen in4ocation o$ the earth. This indicates how greatly his relation to %lages $luctuated. In the corres(ondence with -o$mannsthal, he de$ends the /elasgian. As early as #!:< -o$mannsthal recogni2ed the bi2arre inconsistency between the (edantic sobriety o$ e.(ression and the dogma o$ into.ication which %lagesC (hiloso(hy unceasingly disa4ows and com(ares it to the mas,ed9ball (oetry o$ Al$red Schuler: EI must $ran,ly con$ess, howe4er, that %lagesC study o$ you seemed to me to $all short at innumerable im(ortant (oints, to lac, the (ower to embody its intuitions. It contained meta(hors which I am still endea4ouring to $orget.C 8eorgeCs re(ly is e.ceedingly general: E"oncerning %. and his boo,, let me ;ust say at this (oint that in them we ha4e a sub;ect worthy o$ dis(ute. -e has great nobility, a consuming dri4e $or the highest 4alues, but is also a titan who mo4es mountains.C In the "tar of the 5eague o$ #!#& the chthonians are dealt a rebu$$ that also a((lies to =ational Socialism, the langue o$ which it em(loys: EIhr habt, $Zrs rec,enalter nur bestimmte SUnd nach der Urwelt, s([ter nicht bestand.S)ann mZsst ihr euch in $remde gaue w[l2enS @ur ,ostbar tierha$t ,indha$t blut 4erdirbtSWenn ihrs nicht mischt im reich 4on ,orn und wein.SIhr wir,t im andern $ort, nicht mehr durch euch,S -ellhaarige scharT wisst dass eur eigner 8ottS eist ,ur2 4orm siege meuchlings euch dutchbohrt.C NE eant $or an age o$ heroes,SA$ter (rime4al times you cannot endure,SThen you must hurl yoursel4es through $oreign landsSDour (recious bestial childli,e blood turns badSI$ you do not mi. it in the realm o$ liBuor and wineSDour wor,s li4e on in others, no longer in you,SFighthaired bandT ,now that your own 8odS?$ten on the e4e o$ 4ictory, turns assassin, runs you through.CO The (footnote contnued on next page) (age><:5

wrathS=o longer bends to mi. at the lowest gate,S3eats in a world9night rigid and wearySThen only one who always $ought herSAnd com(elled and ne4er heeded her laws,S "an (ress her hand, sei2e her braid,SThat she submissi4ely ta,e u( her wor, again:STo dei$y the body and embody the di4ine.CO ?ne who can only concei4e o$ nature as the ob;ect o$ his 4iolence should not ;usti$y his own being as nature. This

contradiction is the, counter(art in 8eorge to -o$mannsthalCs $iction. 8eorge would li,e to dominate -o$mannsthal. What is said o$ Austria in the (oem, E)en 3rZdernC NETo the 3rothersCO, dedicated to Andrian, designates the relationshi(: E)a wollten wir euch $reundlich an uns reissenS it dem was auch in euch noch ,eimt und w[chst.C NEWe sought as $riends to snatch you to usSWith the seed o$ $uture growth in you as well.CO -o$mannsthal is on the de$ensi4e. 1ust as in (ri4ate li$e he e4ades all o$$ers o$ $riendshi( and closeness, in literary matters as well he assumes the stand(oint o$ the (eriod 0 aloo$ness. It does not e4en cause him great concern to see his (oems (ublished in obscure maga2ines, whereas 8eorge throws bearing to the winds as soon as his literary m7tier is a$$ected and shows himsel$ to, be as (assionate as any o$ his /aris $riends. -o$mannsthalCs de$ensi4e manoeu4res (rudently mani$est the most 4aried imaginati4e (owers. -e ado(ts the ceremonial character o$ the elder 8oethe or o$ the letters written by -oelderlin during his madnessG he coBuettishly deserts to the Emass o$ readersCG he conciliates through sym(athy, e4en $or the otherwise des(ised $riends o$ 8eorgeG and he insults through the pathos o$ gratitude which distances itsel$. @4en his EclosenessC to 8eorge, a$$irmed countless times to the 4ery end, is made remote through the stereoty(ed Buality o$ the many assurances. -e conceals himsel$ close by and sli(s into 8eorgeCs languageG the letters he wrote to others would ne4er be thought to ha4e the same author. The most de(endable techniBue, howe4er, is that o$ sel$9accusation. The Ehumble e4asionC 0 recogni2ed and labelled as such by 8eorge 0 with which he reacts to 8eorgeCs (ro(osal to edit the ,l3tter f!r die 0unst, is not to be e.celled. -o$mannsthal e4en (arries insulting rebu,es made by 8eorge, such as the condemnation o$ his solidarity with EdeliriumC, by a((ealing to, his own bad condition. -is com(liance and o(enness are so limitless 0 e4en in the last letter he writes that
(footnote contnued from previous page) dialogue between man and druid, howe4er, in the Ne& 7mperium, can no longer be distinguished $rom the school o$ %lages. The more 8eorgeCs abstractly glori$ied EdeedC was trans(osed to the realm o$ $atal (olitical (ra.is, the more necessarily it reBuired undisturbed nature and Eli$eC as its ideology. (age><:!

he had EgraduallyC come to acce(t $ully 8eorgeCs annihilating Ee4aluation o$ -enice "avedC, although it had seemed se4ere at $irst 0 that he a((ears incorrigible: only someone who is untouched by criticism can acce(t it all without resistance. The $riendshi( o$ the two is on the decline be$ore it e4er attains reality. Already at this time $riendshi( on the basis o$ mere sym(athy or mere taste was no longer (ossible, e4en between men o$ the most e.traordinary (roducti4e (owerG rather its sole remaining $oundation was that o$ binding common ,nowledge 0 $riendshi( $rom solidarity, which embraces theory as an element o$ its (ra.is. In the corres(ondence ,nowledge is an.iously e.cluded $rom the (reconditions o$ $riendshi( 0 the trauma o$ their $irst meeting in *ienna continues to ha4e its e$$ect and ma,es e4ery attem(t at e.(lication a new act o$ con$usion: E/erha(s I ;udged you too strongly be$ore \ not because o$ re(ented deed but because o$ the uttered sentiment. I (aid $ar too little attention to your utterly di$$erent manner o$ $eeling as well as to your utterly di$$erent education in another clime: I belie4ed that the (rinci(le that great and distinguished men ha4e at all times recogni2ed each other with noble suddenness su$$ered no e.ce(tions and in my mind I assigned you the (lace Ewhere the rudders gra2e the shi(C. Det as e.cuse $or you I always had the incom(rehensibility o$ madness and I ha4e: ne4er ceased to lo4e you with that lo4e whose basic $eature is awe and which only comes into consideration $or higher humanity. So much $or the (ersonal.C It is hardly to be e.(ected that the (ersonal was (romoted through these 4ague lines which are both $lattering and biting. They come $rom 8eorgeCs ceremonious letter o$ reconciliation, the same one to which the 4erses on the Eold hatredC are a((ended. Through the corres(ondence, 8eorge 4aries the always $atal intention o$ $orgi4ing and $orgetting. @ach amiable intermittent letter see,s to e.tinguish a debt while the liabilities mount irresistibly through obstinate consideration: a gesture o$ concession by the one is all that is reBuired $or the other to be mo4ed to attac, or to withdraw. 3ehind the casuistry o$ the letters stand Buestions o$ (restige, o$ controlling rights o4er the wor, 0 be it intellectual 0 o$ others, and $inally, Buestions o$ intellectual (ro(erty and o$ a ,ind o$ originality which contradicts the conce(t o$ style em(hatically

ad4ocated by both authors. In #5!< -o$mannsthal writes 8eorge: EIn the Death of Titian you will see a $amiliar detailI mean the (icture o$ the in$ante.C This is an allusion to a (oem $rom the 8ymns. With irritated, ostentatious noblesse 8eorge re(lies: ESince you did not (re$i. a motto to the E/rologueC, and since in the same issue e.cer(ts $rom my boo,s are (rinted, I had my Ein$ante.C
(age><#:

deleted. The masses could easily misunderstand.C Scorn $or the masses did not (rotect 8eorge $rom a ;ealousy common to ;ust those circles which lac, his e.clusi4eness. =othing, howe4er, could more glaringly illuminate the absurdity o$ such concerns than the ob;ect o$ the contro4ersy. The cultural e.(erience o$ the infante was had $irst by neither 8eorge nor -o$mannsthalit stems $rom 3audelaire. #! It is calculations o$ this ,ind which e.clude solidarity and cast a shadow o4er acts such as the ;ournalistic inter4ention o$ the one on behal$ o$ the other. -o$mannsthal wrote re(eatedly about 8eorge while 8eorge ne4er wrote about -o$mannsthal, and yet the re(roach $or lac, o$ solidarity always comes $rom 8eorge. 8eorge almost wrote a (iece on -o$mannsthal once, but the e.(loratory discussion o$ the (lan 0 which im(licitly re(roached -o$mannsthal $or his $ame 0 lea4es no doubt as to why the essay was ne4er com(leted. EFor some time now I ha4e been contem(lating an article on you 0 although I will ha4e to $ind a large $oreign ;ournal to (ublish it 0 one in which artistic e4ents really count as e4entsI will not s(ea, about you a$ter e4ery sa4age tribe, e4ery s(ice and money bro,er has had his say.C In the decline o$ the $riendshi( between the two the mar,et (re4ails, in the negation o$ which lyric (oetry has its origins. Those who, disdain to com(ete lose out as com(etitors. 8eorge was less naM4e in relation to the mar,et than was -o$mannsthal. 3ut he was hardly less naM4e towards society. Thus, he o((oses the mar,et as a (henomenon without touching its underlying conditions. -e would li,e to emanci(ate (oetry $rom the demands o$ the (ublic, yet at the same time he remains within a social $ramewor, which he will later mythologi2e with words li,e EleagueC and EheroC, E$ol,C and EdeedC. To (lace onesel$ abo4e Eregard $or the mass o$ readersC means, $or 8eorge, to trans$orm the mass o$ readers into a mass o$ coerced consumers through a techniBue o$ domination closely allied to artistic techniBue. -ence his ambi4alent attitude towards success. The dra$t o$ a letter to -o$mannsthal, since lost, contains the $ollowing linesG E?n no account will I begin, be$ore I ha4e settled e4erything contractually with e4eryone 0 deli4ery and remuneration, $ormat and bearing. With some o$ my $riends this is unnecessary, with others, howe4er, all the more im(erati4e, $or as you ,now, not to see, success is magni$icent, to see, it and not attain it, disre(utable.C <: -is scorn o$ success a((lies solely to the
#!. E1e suis comme le roi dCun (ays (lu4ieu., S Aiche, mais im(uissant, ;eune et (ourtant trXs 4ieu..C 8eorge translated the (oem. <:. The dra$t is $rom #5!7. This is the year in which the Fear of the "oul a((eared. The turn which too, (lace between the 8anging (footnote contnued on next page) (age><##

mar,et mechanism which sub;ects the com(eting (arties to re4erses. -e stri4es $or success while a4oiding the mar,et. The grandeur that (roudly led him not to see, success is that o$ the literary tycoon, as which 8eorge (re4iously saw himsel$ and the model o$ which he could ha4e easily ta,en $rom the 8erman economy o$ the time. EI was $irmly con4inced that we 0 you and I 0 could ha4e e.ercised a 4ery wholesome dictatorshi( $or years through our writing 0 that this did not ha((en is solely your res(onsibility.C It is not easy $or dictators to ma,e mista,es. Those who li4e dangerously ha4e true security. In the long run they are s(ared disre(utable $ailure. With the acumen o$ hatred, 3orchardt saw the mono(olistic traits o$ the 8eorge school in his (olemics against the Jahr uch f!r die geistige ,e&egung NFear ook for the "piritual #ovement O: EThe central ;ournal $or 8erman industrialists must (roclaim that economic (ower is $ree only when man binds himsel$ to man $or the sa,e o$ man, that the hermit should not com(lain about economic ruin, and the li,e. . . . The $riends o$ -errn Wol$s,ehl ma,e this necessity into both a 4irtue and a dogma o$ what they (uniti4ely term EisolationC, which is said to wither and lay waste to e4erythingG they modi$y

(footnote contnued from previous page) 8arden and the Dear o$ the Soul can be (laced in its (ro(er conte.t by regarding it in relation to success and the techniBues $or achie4ing it. This turn has its model in *erlaine, to which the Fear of the "oul is substantially indebted. The title, ETraurige T[n2eC NESorrow$ul )ancesCO, (oems li,e E@s win,te der abendhauchC NEThe @4ening 3ree2e Wa4edCO with the concluding lines: E eine trZbste stundeS=un ,ennst du sie auchC NE y dar,est hourS=ow you ,now it tooCO are inconcei4able without *erlaine. The a(otheosis $rom Days and Deeds describes what $or 8eorge is the de$initi4e e4ent: EA$ter his $irst Saturnian (oems, in which the youth was into.icated with /ersian and /a(al s(lendour, yet still (layed with $amiliar /arnassian sounds, he leads us into his own rococo garden o$ the feste galante, where (owdered ,nights and (ainted ladies stroll about or dance to grace$ul guitars, where Buiet cou(les row in boats and little girls in concealed corridors loo, u( lasci4iously at the na,ed marble gods. ?4er this light alluring France, howe4er, he breathes a ne4er9$elt breath o$ (ain$ul inwardness and deathly melancholy. . . . 3ut what most gri((ed an entire (oetic clan was the "ongs &ithout %ords ( stan2as o$ su$$ering and celebrating li$e . . . here, $or the $irst time, we heard our souls, $ree o$ all discursi4e addition, throbbingG ,new that it no longer needed bus,in or mas, and that the sim(le $lute was enough to betray what is most (ro$ound to man. ?ne colour magically e4o,es, $igures, while three s(are stro,es $orm a landsca(e and a shy sound gi4es the e.(erience.C The turn consists in the attem(t to e4ade the interior and to ste( into the Elandsca(e as houseC. It in4ol4es the greatest sim(li$ication o$ techniBue: the language o$ the solitary resounds as the echo o$ the $orgotten language o$ all. This sim(li$ication o(ens (oetry once more to a circle o$ readersG but the solitary is the dictator o$ those who resemble him Hc$. Walter 3en;amin, C er einige #otive ei ,audelaire, Schri$ten I, Fran,$urt #!'', (. 6<6 $$.I. (age><#<

SchillerCs heroic ma.im to suit their modernity: QThe strong man is most (ower$ul in a grou(K, in the syndicate o$ souls.C<# An e$$ort is made to trans$orm com(etition into domination, and the com(etiti4e moti4e is cynically cited when it ser4es the cause o$ domination. 3y #5!6 8eorge o$$ers -o$mannsthal co9 editorshi( o$ the ,l3tter f!r die 0unst. -e lends em(hasis to the o$$er with the words: ESince this is a matter o$ a serious collaboration in4ol4ing all your talents, your occasional collaboration Hwhich you could surely o$$erI would be meaningless. In the latter case we would ha4e to endea4our to $ill your (lace with someone else, but I (re$er not to thin, about this se4ere loss.C The ,l3tter f!r die 0unst embody most cons(icuously the di$$erences between 8eorge and -o$mannsthal. In the attitude o$ each towards the ,l3tter and its (arty<< a true antinomy becomes mani$est. It subseBuently reasserted itsel$ in the realm o$ (olitics, in (laces o$ which the two authors would ne4er ha4e dreamed. In #5!& -o$mannsthal writes %lein: EThe (ros(ect o$ writing a news(a(er article on the ,l3tter is no (leasant one $or meG $or my taste (ast issues ha4e contained #. too $ew really worthwhile items, <. too much o$ me. 3oth these $acts would so restrict what I could say that I (re$er to be silent.C The bac,ground o$ this utterance may be disco4ered in an early letter o$ -o$mannsthal to %lein: EIn general, your (ro(osal to discuss our underta,ing in another (ublic ;ournal com(letely astonishes me. To what endJ In that case, why not sim(ly (ublish my (ieces elsewhere, with strangersJ A((arently I ha4e com(letely misunderstood the entire (oint o$ the enter(rise. I ha4e absolutely no $ear o$ Ecom(romisingC mysel$ and in artistic matters I am $ree o$ all (ersonal obligations and ties. 3ut (lease, tell me clearly what you want and to what endTC The matter is dialectical enough: 8eorgeCs e.clusi4eness stri4es dictatorially towards (ublic, e4en ;ournalistic (ronouncements, and thus 4irtually negates itsel$G this, howe4er, allows -o$mannsthal to a((eal (recisely to the esoteric Buality o$ the circle which has been transgressed,
<#. 3y contrast to the 8eorge school, 3orchardtCs criticism assumes the stand(oint o$ the ultra9right. At times this (osition (ermits materialist insights. The im(ortant article on the Toscan 4illa de4elo(s the latter as an art $orm out o$ the underlying economic condition o$ land9tenure. <<. 3ut sectarian grou(s $ormed at the same time in other s(heres as well, $rom the 3ayreuthian Aound to the (sychoanalysts. )es(ite di4ergences in content, notable similarities in their structure are e4ident. "ommon to all is an ambiguous notion o$ (urgation and renewal which $eigns resistance to the e.isting order while collaborating with it. /olitical solidarity is re(laced by $aith in (anaceas. The e$$icacy o$ this catharsis (ro4ed itsel$ in the guerilla war$are o$ com(etition as well as in the one9 (arty system. (age><#&

gressed, and to (ublish his (ieces Eelsewhere, with strangersC, thus com(letely abandoning the esoteric (osition. -is attitude is determined by the $ear o$ com(romising himsel$, which he deniesG what he is a$raid o$, howe4er, is not so much the actual danger o$ lowering himsel$ to the le4el o$ the commercial

(ublic, but rather o$ ruining his chances with it. -is isolation within the circle ma,es him an understanding s(o,esman $or the profanum vulgus against which the ,l3tter were $ounded: EWhat I would li,e to do is not so much (ersuade as to e.(erience less s(aringly. ?n the basis o$ my $ar $rom (er$ect insight, I antici(ate the 4irtual bewilderment o$ the (ublic in $ace o$ such a strange and bitterly taciturn underta,ing.C Through his critical insight -o$mannsthal sur(assed the (ublicCs a4ersion. There was no eBui4ocation in his re;ection not merely o$ the bad (oems which $illed the 3l[tter but o$ the imitators o$ 8eorge himsel$. The $ollowing $ormulation is one o$ the more (olite ones: EI$ you had the $riends and com(anions you deser4ed I, too, would be delighted.C There is no Buestion that 8eorge was as well aware o$ the Buality o$ the 3l[tter as was -o$mannsthal. -e could easily re(roach -o$mannsthal in return $or the in$erior literary Buality o$ his $riends, e.ce(t that -o$mannsthal had ne4er committed himsel$ so decisi4ely to them as 8eorge had to his collaborators. 3ut 8eorge was not content with this: EI maintain my attitude in o((osition toSyours, which re;ects all wor, e.ce(t $or yours and mine. =ot to s(ea, o$ $oreigners li,e Fieder \ *erwey I do not understand how you can (ass o4er artists and thin,ers li,e e.g. Wol$s,ehl and %lages 0 the sombre ardour o$ the one, the bris, steady air o$ the other are so uniBue so (rimordial that I cannot e4en remotely com(are anyone $rom your circle Hin so $ar as it has mani$ested itsel$I. . . . I$ you s(ea, o$ the lesser stars, it is easy to ma,e the ;udgement that they themsel4es ,now 0 but you ma,e a great mista,e i$ you sus(ect them o$ what you allege to be dishonesty and $alse (oise 0 they are all men o$ good intellectual stamina with whom, i$ you ,new them \ you would li4e most (leasantly \ to beha4e li,e geniuses 0 is something they ne4er did, unli,e those whom in contrast to ours you choose to (rotect. . . . In the 3l[tter e4eryone ,nows what he is \ there is a shar( line drawn here between the wor, which is made and that which is born \ all those who hate the 3l[tter see, to blur this line . . . I$, howe4er, you were to tell me that all you saw there was a collection o$ more or less good 4erse 0 and not the constructi4e element, to which, o$ course, little attention is (aid today 0 you would (resent me with a great new disa((ointment.C The constructi4e element includes the co9ordination o$ the dominated no less than the unity o$ the consciously (ro(agated
(age><#6

techniBue 0 the su((ression and intensi$ication o$ (roducti4e (ower. -o$mannsthal sees the su((ression but has nothing to o((ose to it e.ce(t $or current conce(tions, o$ tradition and indi4iduality: EI would thereby e.change much o$ 4alue, homogeneous to the indi4idual, in $orms, relations, insights, $or more shallow things.C @ach is right with res(ect to the other. In -o$mannsthalCs aloo$ness 8eorge senses Ecle4erness ready to sei2e any o((ortunity to suit the needs o$ the mar,etC. -o$mannsthal, in turn, re4eals the s(urios Buality o$ the collecti4e held together by command, di4est o$ all s(ontaneity, and the $ate o$ the E(lebeianC who eludes this collecti4e. The solitary and the organi2ation man are both threatened by the e.isting order, the $ormer through his own im(otence which s(eciously installs itsel$ as su(reme tribunal and in reality cedes its rights to the inimical (owers, the latter through the (ower which he obeys and which thereby carries the in;ustice which ought to be resisted into the ran,s o$ those who resist. For both must li4e in a world o$ uni4ersal in;ustice. 8eorgeCs bearing is mar,ed by this stigma down to its 4ery language. )uring the days o$ their initial con$lict he challenged -o$mannsthal: E-ow much longer must we (lay hide9and9see,J I$ you want to s(ea, $reely Hwhich is also my aimI, then I in4ite you once more to a((ear on neutral territory. Dour letter which was also so di(lomatic 0 but was it my $ault that you had to come into ;ust that un$ortunate ca$7 . . .C As the tal, o$ contracts does later, here that o$ neutral territory and di(lomacy in$lates the (ri4ate s(here to the general, as though it (ossessed (olitical rele4ance. That re$lects the news(a(ers which re(ort the general, (olitically signi$icant e4ents to the (ri4ate man. @soteric (athos can easily ha4e originated in the world o$ commodities: the dignity o$ the indi4idual is borrowed $rom that o$ the headlines. 8eorgeCs e.(ansi4e gestures ha4e the naM4et7 o$ one who clothes himsel$ in big words without blushing. -e is inca(able o$ regarding any matter, e4en the most (ri4ate, as though it were anything else but (ublic. -is literary strategy stems $rom (olitical im(ulses gone astray. These im(ulses had at least one o((ortunity to reali2e themsel4es in their (ro(er ob;ect. In #!:' -o$mannsthal, acting on behal$ o$ "ount -arry %essler, o$ whom he himsel$ was highly critical in se4eral

letters to 3odenhausen, made himsel$ s(o,esman o$ that glittering (aci$ism o$ the ruling classG already at this time such (aci$ism embodied teleologically the attitude o$ those who later, during the occu(ation o$ /aris, acted as though the whole a$$air had been arranged by the /@= club merely to allow them to dine with their French colleagues at /runier. The (lan was to include
(age><#'

8eorge. -o$mannsthalCs letter, dater Weimar, )ecember #, #!:', reads as $ollows:

y dear 8eorge, I ha4e been as,ed to write you concerning a most serious matter, one which transcends the (ersonal s(here. The $ear$ul, inconcei4able danger o$ an @nglish98erman war 0 although it was e4ident in the summer 0 is closer now, remains closer than news(a(er re(orters and most (oliticians care to belie4e. The $ew (ersons on this side who are aware o$ the seriousness o$ the situation and the $ew on the other side who wish to ward o$$ the im(ending e.(losion ha4e ;oined together, ,nowing how much $orce im(onderables bear in such e(ochs, in order to e.change o(en letters, each signed by $orty to $i$ty o$ the absolutely $irst names o$ the country He.cluding (ro$essional (oliticiansI. The @nglish o(en letter Hsigned by Ford %el4in, 8eorge eredith, A. Swinburne etc.I will be addressed to the editors o$ 8erman news(a(ers, the 8erman letter to the @nglish (a(ers Hsince the news(a(ers are the real (owder,egsI. In this e.ce(tional situation and with $ull ,nowledge o$ your distaste $or (ublicity, you are being as,ed to lend your name to this (ro;ect, whereas e.g. there is no intention o$ including that o$ the well ,nown Sudermann. The aim is to unite the most serious intellectual (owers o$ the nation in this (ro$oundly gra4e matter. I$ you would care to sign the enclosed letter, (lease return within ten days to -arry "ount %essler, Weimar, "ranachstrasse &. Dours, -?F A==ST-AF.

The all9star cast o$ Eabsolutely $irst namesC, the e.clusion o$ the un$ortunate Sudermann, reBuired to rein$orce the included in their sentiment o$ su(eriority, and the 4ague im(ersonality in (hrasing, suggesting that the (ower$ul $orces which are behind the im(ortant doings are so (ower$ul that their emissary, into.icated with awe, does not dare to name them 0 all that has as much style as the 1ose(h legend. 8eorge did not answer the unworthy letter. 3ut an outline o$ his answer has been (reser4ed and included in the corres(ondence, $irst without the most im(ortant sentence because o$ (ressure $rom the -itler r7gime, and now unabridged:
EI$ this message had not come $rom someone $or whose understanding I ha4e the greatest admiration, I would ha4e held it $or a ;o,e. The two sides ha4e no relations, whether in intellectual or in tangible matters, how can this hel(J And then the situation is (age><#6 hardly as sim(le as this note would ha4e it, war is only the last conseBuence o$ senseless economic acti4ities on both sides which ha4e lasted $or many years, glue consisting o$ a $ew men seems to me utterly ine$$ecti4e and in the long run who ,nows whether any genuine $riend o$ the 8ermans should not ho(e $or a 4igorous na4al catastro(he, so that they can thus reco4er that (atriotic humility which would enable them once again to engender s(iritual 4alues. I would ha4e re(lied with greater tranBuillity had I not been o4erta,en with sorrow at the $act that there seems hardly to be any (oint remaining in which we do not misunderstand each other.C

Shortly therea$ter a (ublishing matter (ro4ided the occasion o$ the $inal brea,. The $act that 8eorge recogni2ed the relationshi( between Einternational aggressi4eness and im(erialistic ambitions, that the $uture emigrant already was s(ea,ing o$ 8ermany in words that must ha4e sounded blas(hemous to his own circle, indeed, that without theoretical insight into society he ne4ertheless (ercei4ed the ob;ecti4e necessity which leads to war 0 all this cannot be adeBuately e.(lained by what 3orchardt terms his Eim(ortant international a$$iliationsC. Aather the true cause o$ his awareness is to be $ound in the substance o$ his (oetry. In the wor,ing9class mo4ement it has become habit, es(ecially since the time o$ ehring, to 4iew naturalistic and realistic tendencies in art which tend to re$lect social li$e in its immediacy as being inherently (rogressi4e and e4erything o((osed to this as reactionary. Any artist who does not de(ict bac,yards, (regnant mothers and, more recently, (rominent $igures, is deemed a mystic. This badge may occasionally $it the consciousness o$ the censored authors. 3ut to insist on the rendering o$ social reality in its immediacy is to ado(t the em(irical bias o$ the bourgeoisie which is su((osed to be

the ob;ect o$ criticism. Society, based on e.change, im(els its o$$9s(rings to go about their business incessantly, to organi2e their li4es around it, to ha4e eyes solely $or (ersonal ad4antage, which is made the ob;ect o$ blind (ursuit. Whoe4er ste(s out o$ line $aces ruin. The $orce o$ immediacy (re4ents men $rom becoming conscious o$ the 4ery mechanism which mutilates them 0 it re(roduces itsel$ in their (liant minds. This consciousness is hy(ostasi2ed in the (ostulate which insists on the obser4ation and re$lection o$ the immediate at the same time, its com(lement, the $etishi2ed theory, is betrayed through loyalty. The realist, in literature sworn to the (al(able, writes $rom the mentally retarded (ers(ecti4e o$ the (erson whose im(ulses are limited to re$le. actions. The realist tends to become a re(orter who runs a$ter stri,ing e4ents li,e a businessman a$ter (ro$it. Fiterary wor,s,
(age><#7

classed today as lu.uries and disdained as such, stand outside o$ this s(here. Today the doctrine o$ socialist realism, ha4ing become o$$icial ideology, is de4oid o$ 4alue. @4en in regard to the conser4ati4e: 8eorge and -o$mannsthal, tal, o$ a $light $rom reality is not e4en hal$9true. First o$ all, the wor, o$ both is (ointedly turned against mystical inwardness: ESchw[rmer aus 2wang weil euch das $este drZc,tSSehner aus not weil ihr euch nie ent$ahrtS3leibt in der trZbe schuldlos . . . die ihr (reistS@in schritt hinaus wird alles dasein lugTC NEForced to become enthusiast, because o((ressed by the $i.edS)reamer, because: unable to esca(e yoursel$SStay in the gloom guiltless . . . which you (raiseS?ne ste( beyond and li$e becomes a lieTCO In -o$mannsthalCs E"on4ersations about /oemsC, his de$initi4e utterance about 8eorgeCs (oetry, he stri4es $or an adeBuate theory: EI$ we wish to $ind oursel4es we must not descend within usG it is outside that we are to be $ound, outside. Fi,e the insubstantial rainbow, our soul bends o4er the irresistible torrent o$ e.istence. We do not (ossess oursel$G it wa$ts o4er us $rom outside, it $lees us $or long times and returns to us in a breath o$ wind.C 1ust as reconstructi4e @m(irio9criticism is led, by way o$ the immanence o$ sub;ecti4ity, to deny the sub;ect and ado(t a second, naM4e realism, inwardness is led to e.tinguish itsel$ in -o$mannsthalCs conce(tion. I$ it is true that the SymbolistsC secret is not so much one o$ inwardness as one o$ m;tier, it is certainly not (ermissible to assign them a (rogressi4e $unction in regard to techniBue, as E$ormalistsC, while insisting on the reactionary content o$ their (oetry. any (rogressi4es ha4e trans(osed the crude $orm9content schema o$ (ositi4ism to the s(here o$ art as though its language were the dis(ensable semiotic system which e4en scienti$ic language is not. 3ut e4en were this schema true, it is com(letely $alse to su((ose that all the light would $all on the so4ereign $orm and all shadow on the subordinate content. It would be $alse, to 8eorge and -o$mannsthal as well as to the mo4ements designed as Symbolism and =eo9Aomanticism, to (raise or blame them $or what they themsel4es would ha4e readily admitted 0 that they (reser4ed the beauti$ul while the =aturalists resigned themsel4es to the barren li$e o$ industrial society. The renunciation o$ the beauti$ul can (reser4e its idea more (ower$ully than the illusory conser4ation o$ disintegrating beauty. "on4ersely, nothing is as e(hemeral in 8eorge and -o$mannsthal as the beauti$ul that they celebrate 0 the beauti$ul ob;ect. It tends towards the commercial o 4et d)art, which 8eorge did not deny his blessing. In the (re$ace to the second edition o$ the 8ymns he a((ro4ingly cites the E$ortunate rise o$ acti4ity in (ainting and decorationC, and
(age><#5

similarly, in a letter to -o$mannsthal $rom #5!6 which was ne4er sent: EA$ter decades o$ (ure (hysical or scienti$ic e$$ort a new yearning $or higher art hasC become e4ident at many /oints in 8ermany. It (asses $rom (ainting tone and (oetry through decoration and architecture and $inally e4en reaches $ashion and li$e.C ?n the way to $ashion and li$e, beauty $raterni2es with the 4ery same ugliness against which it, being outside the s(here o$ utility, had declared war. The communal li$e which 8eorge desisted has handicra$t character: EToday this is all easier to $orget, since our e$$orts ha4e turned out well Hdes(ite e4erythingIand we ha4e behind us a youth $ull o$ con$idence sel$9disci(line and the ardent desire $or beauty.C This de$ines the Egreat and distinguished (ersonsC, who, e4er since "harcot and onna *anna, $lee their $amilies into illness. The de(ra4ation into handicra$ts a$$ected not merely things, but indi4iduals as wellG handicra$ts are the stigma o$ emanci(ated beauty. It succumbs once the newly won and technically controlled materials,

manu$actured at will, become mar,etable. 8eorge came 4ery close to recogni2ing this in the concluding (oem o$ the Pilgerfahrten NPilgrimagesO, which leads into Alga al. The ideal o$ the beauti$ul is re(resented through the meta(hor o$ the clas(: EIch wollte sie aus ,Zhlem eisenSUnd wie ein glatter $ester strei$,S)och war im schacht au$ allen gleisenSSo ,ein metall 2um gusse rei$.S=un aber soll sie also sein:SWie eine grosse $remde doldeS8e$ormt aus $euerrotem goldeSUnd reichem blit2enden gestein.C NEI wanted it o$ iron coolSAnd smooth li,e a hard solid (late,S3ut in all the tunnels o$ the sha$tSThere was no metal ready to cast,S=ow howe4er it must be:SFi,e a large strange clusterSFormed o$ $ire9red gold SAnd rich shimmering stones.CO I$ Ethere was no, metal ready to castC, i$ the conditions o$ material li$e did not contain the ob;ecti4e (ossibility o$ the beauti$ul, which mani$ests itsel$ instead Eli,e a large strange clusterC in the negation o$ material li$e, then it $ollows that material li$e draws the chimera bac, into itsel$ through imitation. The sim(le clas( o$ commercial handicra$ts, consisting o$ ine.(ensi4e metal, re(resents allegorically the golden clas(, which had to be cast because the (ro(er metal was lac,ing. The corres(ondence lea4es no doubt as to the chimerical character o$ the e.Buisite. It emerges e4en out o$ the economic machinations. 8eorgeCs biblio(hilic (assion led him to in4ent a ty(e$ace which imitated his handwriting. EI am sending you new sam(les o$ the binding, as well as o$ the ty(e Hmy own which I ha4e been wor,ing $or some time to im(ro4eI I thin, you will li,e them. Dou will see that they ha4e been modelled on my handwriting 0 in any case, a good solution a$ter all the recent designers o$ ty(e merely added
(age><#!

a $ew $rills, to the already e.isting characters to get away $rom the old ones.C The (honeyness inherent in a (roduct o$ mass (roduction (retending to be uniBue results $rom the attem(t to create beauty without any ob;ecti4e criterion $or it other than the withered (rogrammatic intention Eto get away $rom the oldC. The s(urious singularity, howe4er, is at the same time (lanned $or the sa,e o$ material 4alue: EThe $irst aim o$ our circle He.(anded through the $i.ed readershi( o$ the dealersI is to (roduce truly beauti$ul boo,s that (eo(le can a$$ord \ which will also not sacri$ice what is essential to the connossieurrarity \ the reader with little understanding o$ us, who sim(ly $ollows us $rom a$ar, may then (ay the raised (rice . . . A way other than subscri(tion does not e.ist.C The mere $act that the e.Buisite allure can be e.(ressed in terms o$ 4alue, that the uniBue can be com(ared 0 this abstractness o$ malachite and alabaster ma,es the e.Buisite interchangeable. The symbolically beauti$ul is doubly distorted 0 through naM4e $aith in the material and through allegorical ubiBuity. @4erything can signi$y e4erything on the handicra$ts mar,et. The less $amiliar the materials, the less limited their intentionality. /age a$ter (age can be de4oted to a ;ewellerCs catalogue in ?scar Wilde, countless interiors o$ the fin du si=cle resemble a curiosity sho(. @4en 8eorge and -o$mannsthal dis(lay an enigmatic lac, o$ taste concerning the (ainting and scul(ture o$ their era. Among the (ainters (raised in the corres(ondence the $a4ourites are 3urne91ones, /u4is de "ha4annes, %linger, Stuc, and the incredible elchior Fechter. The great French (ainting o$ the e(och is ne4er mentioned. <& When 8eorge, in an entirely di$$erent conte.t, o$ course, s(ea,s with regret o$ the $act that Eour better minds . . . can no longer distinguish brash dabblers in colour $rom (aintersC, it should be remembered that the Wilhelmian ;udgement o$ im(ressionism and toilet9art is not so 4ery di$$erent. The (aintings which embody the true im(ulses o$ the (oem EFrZhlingswindC NES(ring WindCO, or o$ the ice landsca(es in the Fear of the "oul,
<&. ?nce again this recalls arie 3ash,ir2e4. She lac,ed the slightest understanding o$ ad4anced art. -er hori2on in (ainting was determined by the salonG she admired 3astien9Fe(age. -er (aintings are li,e early (icture (ostcards. With a candour which suggests the obsessi4e need to con$ess and which, abo4e all, sacri$ices the sic, (ersonCs healthy cra4ing $or success, she occasionally characteri2es hersel$ as a raw and ignorant barbarian. -er ;udgement o$ the art she has ;ourneyed to see is that o$ the cultural touristG she is inca(able o$ a((rehending nuances since she brutally subordinates e4erything she beholds to her interest in status. This did not hinder the mi.ture o$ naM4et7, mor ide..a and the cult o$ (ower which she ostentatiously dis(layed $rom ma,ing her the heroine o$ a mo4ement with which she ob;ecti4ely had little in common. (age><<:

are (laced under a taboo. The seal o$ a((ro4al is gi4en to (hotogra(hically accurate ideal $igures, beauti$ul creatures in the erotic taste o$ the time, which assume sublime signi$icance without the allegorical intention

being burdened with the demands o$ autonomous (ainting. =othing less im(ortant is neglected than the dictate o$ $orm, under which 8eorgeCs own (oetry stands. 8eorge retreats $rom his (rinci(le, howe4er, when he stri4es to subordinate the material to meanings in order to (urge himsel$ $rom the re(roach o$ aestheticism. In his youth he was as indi$$erent to meaning as the Aimbaud o$ E*oyellesC: EDou need not regret the one mista,e, EEsingK instead o$ Qsuc,K. It does not harm anythingG in $act it $its 4ery well.C True symbolism is a lucus a non lucendo. In -o$mannsthalCs 8eorge dialogue, the student o$ language says: EIt is $ull o$ images and symbols. It sets one thing in (lace o$ another.C -o$mannsthal corrects him with the words: EWhat a re(ulsi4e thoughtT Are you tal,ing seriously. /oetry ne4er set one thing in (lace o$ another, $or it is (recisely (oetry which $er4ently stri4es to set the thing in its own (lace, with an energy which is utterly distinct $rom the dull language o$ e4eryday, with a magical (ower utterly distinct $rom the $eeble terminology o$ science. I$ (oetry does anything, it is this: out o$ e4ery (henomenon in the world and in dreams it e.tracts, with (assionate thirst, that which is most (eculiar, most essential to it.C And to the (rotest, Eare there no symbolsJCCWhy, o$ course, there is nothing but them.C The desired aim is to e.(lode a reality which has rigidi$ied into con4entional meanings through the use o$ material $oreign to intentionG that which could be $lees to $resh data, lest it be drawn through ordinary communication down into the s(here o$ that which is. Such (oetry com(romises itsel$ through e4ery gesture which signi$ies and thus goes beyond the mere materialsG elchior Fechter trium(hs with the Angel o$ the E/rologueC. 3ut it is not 8eorgeCs (articular blindness which is res(onsible. What he as,ed o$ the (ure material was beyond what it could achie4e. 3oth as the abstract relics o$ the thing9world and as the sub;ectCs Ee.(erienceC, they belonged to the 4ery s(here they were intended to lea4e behind. Ironically, -o$mannsthal is right: the un9symbolic necessarily turns into the all9symbolic. In this there is no di$$erence between AimbaudCs (ure sounds and the noble materials o$ the later (oets. ?ne can, it is true, call the early, aesthetic 8eorge ErealC, and the later, realistic 8eorge a bad aesthete 0 but the latter is already (resent in the $ormer. The beauty, $rom whose blind eyes stare s(ar,ling ;ewels already contains the ideology o$ the Eyoung f!hrer in the First World WarC, who co4ers o4er the business side, the curse
(age><<#

o$ which is su((osed to be li$ted by magic. The ;ewels acBuire their 4alue $rom sur(lus labour. The secret o$ non9intentional materials is money. 3audelaire is su(erior to all those who $ollowed because he nowhere inclined towards beauty as something (ositi4e and immediate, but only as that which has been irre4ocably lost, or as that which is its most radical negation. Satan, the deus a sconditus betrayed by $ate, is $or him Ele (lus sa4ant et le (lus beau des AngesCG he is not saddened by the rosy angel o$ the 3eauti$ul Fi$e, to whose $aith$ul image beauty abandons itsel$ in 8eorge. Through beauty 8eorge communes with the realistic co(yists. What drew him to this beauty was not (rimarily the (oetic will to $orm, but rather an as(ect o$ its content. Fi,e a shibboleth, the ob;ect is held u( to im(ending ruin while a((eals are made to its beauty. The corres(ondence with -o$mannsthal o$$ers a remar,able e.am(le o$ this. )iscussing the (ublication o$ The Death of Titian in the f!r die 0unst, 8eorge writes: EI com(leted the boo,mar,s where4er they had been omitted unintentionally, in accordance with your meaning . . . and then, on my own Hthere was so little timeI, in the note deleted Qsince Titian died o$ the (lague at the age o$ ninety9nineK. ?therwise you would ha4e introduced an in;urious tone into your wor,, ob4iously by accidentC. According to this, the mere mention o$ the (lague in a wor, o$ art could do damage to it, and not ;ust to it alone. Symbolism is dominated by the magic o$ tortured beauty. In the 8eorge dialogue -o$mannsthal see,s to gras( the aesthetic symbol as a sacri$icial rite: E)o you really ,now what a symbol isJ Will you try to imagine how sacri$ice originatedJ . . . It seems to me that I can see the $irst (erson who sacri$iced. -e $elt that the 8ods hated him . . . then, in the dual dar,ness o$ his lowly hut and his heart$elt dread, he sei2ed his shar(, cur4ed ,ni$e and was ready to let the blood run $rom his throat to (lease the $ear$ul, in4isible deity. And then, drun, with dread and sa4agery and the nearness o$ death, his hands clutched once again, hal$ unconsciously, at the woolly warm $leece o$ the ram. And this animal, this li$e, this thing

breathing in the dar,, blood 0 warm, so close to him, so $amiliar 0 suddenly the ,ni$e tore through the throat and the warm blood s(urted o4er both the animalCs $leece and the manCs breast, then his arms 0 and $or one moment he must ha4e thought that it was his own bloodG $or that moment, in which a sound o$ 4olu(tuous trium(h issued $rom his throat to mi. with the dying moans o$ the animal, he must ha4e mista,en the 4olu(tuousness o$ a heightened li$e $or the $irst con4ulsion o$ deathG $or a moment he must ha4e died in the animal, $or only thus could the animal die $or him. . . . -ence$orth, the
(age><<<

animal died the symbolic sacri$icial death. 3ut e4erything rests on the $act that he, too, died in the animal, $or one moment. . . . That is the root o$ all (oetry . . . -e died in the animal. And we dissol4e in symbols. Is this how you meant itJCC"ertainly. In so $ar as they ha4e the (ower to enchant us.C This gory theory o$ the symbol, which com(rehends the sinister (olitical (ossibilities o$ neo9romanticism, says something about its own moti4es. )read com(els the (oet to worshi( the inimical (owers o$ li$eG -o$mannsthal uses it to ;usti$y the symbolic act. In the name o$ beauty he consecrates himsel$ to the (re(onderant thing9 world as a sacri$ice. I$ the (rimiti4e man, to whom -o$mannsthal attributes his ideology, did not really die but instead slaughtered the animal, the non9committal sacri$ice o$ modern man must be ta,en all the more drastically. -e see,s to sa4e himsel$ by throwing himsel$ away and ma,ing himsel$ the mouth(iece o$ things. The estrangement o$ art $rom li$e urged by 8eorge and -o$mannsthal, intended to ele4ate art, changes into unlimited, ada(table (ro.imity to li$e. In truth, it is not the aim o$ symbolism to subordinate all material moments as symbols o$ an inner s(here. It is ;ust this (ossibility that is sub;ected to doubt, whereas it is the absurd, the estranged thing9world itsel$, in its im(enetrability $or the sub;ect, which endows the latter with its dignity and meaning on the condition that the sub;ect dissol4e itsel$ in the world o$ things. Sub;ecti4ity no longer regards itsel$ as the animating centre o$ the cosmos. It abandons itsel$ to the miracle that would ha((en i$ the mere material, di4ested o$ meaning, were on its own to animate waning sub;ecti4ity. Instead o$ things yielding as symbols o$ sub;ecti4ity, sub;ecti4ity yields as the symbol o$ things, (re(ares itsel$ to rigidi$y ultimately into the thing which society has in any case made o$ it. Thus, $or the unus(ecting $aith o$ the early Ail,e, the 4ery word, EthingC, became the $ormula o$ a cult. Such an.iety embodies e.(eriences o$ society which are concealed in its immediate a((earance. They relate to the com(osition o$ the indi4idual. In the (ast, autonomy demanded that the in4iolable e.ternality o$ the ob;ect be o4ercome by sub;ecting it to oneCs own will. The economic com(etitor sur4i4ed by antici(ating $luctuations in the mar,et, e4en i$ he could not do anything about them. The modern (oet lets himsel$ be o4erwhelmed by the (ower o$ things as though he were an outsider being swallowed by a cartel. 3oth win the semblance o$ securityG the (oet, howe4er, without sensing its o((osite. The Eci(hers, which language is (owerless to dissol4eC 0 namely those, which e.haust themsel4es in the signi$ication o$ their ob;ects 0 become a menetekel to -o$mannsthal. The estrangement o$ art $rom li$e has a dual meaning.
(age><<&

It com(rises not merely the re$usal to acce(t the status 1uo, in contrast to the naturalists who are always tem(ted to a$$irm the horrors seen by their acute artistic eye, as sim(ly e.isting 0 now and always. 8eorge and -o$mannsthal curried $a4our eBually with the established order. 3ut it remained an order which was estranged $rom them. ?rgani2ed estrangement re4eals as much o$ li$e as can be re4ealed without theory, since the essence itsel$ is estrangement. The others re(resent ca(italist society, but allow human beings to s(ea, $ictitiously as though they could still tal, to each other. Aesthetic $ictions s(ea, the true monologue, which communicati4e s(eech merely conceals. The others narrate e.(eriences, as though it were still (ossible to narrate anything about ca(italism. All neo9romantic words are $inal. <6 The others em(loy (sychology as glue to (asteC together the inner dimension and the estranged outer oneG but it is a (sychology which is inadeBuate $or the social tendencies o$ the age while at the same time, as Feo Fowenthal has remar,ed, remaining behind the scienti$ic ad4ances de4elo(ed since the end o$ the nineteenth century.<' Instead o$ (sychology, its aesthetic o((onents in4o,e the ine.tinguishable image, which 0 howe4er lac,ing in trans(arency 0 still designates the (owers which dri4e towards the catastro(he. It is the con$iguration o$ that which (sychology can only suggest in deri4ati4e and scattered hints, ;ust as

the indi4iduals with which it is occu(ied themsel4es are only deri4ati4es o$ the historical reality. 3audelaireCs E/etites *illesC, and e4en 8eorgeCs E"ul(ritC, or EDou Wal,ed to the ?4enC, are closer to the insight o$ the colla(se, to its necessity, than are the assiduous descri(tion o$ slums and mines. I$ the historical hour echoes obscurely in the latter, the (oems, by contrast, ,now what the hour means. It is in this ,nowledge, not in the unheard (rayer to beauty, that $orm originates 0 in de$iance. The (assionate e$$ort to e.(ress onesel$ in language, ,ee(ing banality at a distance, is the attem(t, howe4er ho(eless, to e.tricate e.(erience $rom its mortal enemy, which engul$s it in late bourgeois society 0 obli4ion. The banal is consecrated
<6. The e.ecutor o$ the will was Wede,ind. -is dialogue rests on the (rinci(le that no s(ea,er e4er understands the other. Wede,indCs (lays are (ermanent misunderstandings. This was (ointed out, astoundingly enough, by a. -albe in his memoires. As acrobats, the dramatis personae resemble mechanisms. Although they do not ,now it yet, it is no longer (ossible $or them to s(ea, 0 hence the (ro$ound ;ustice o$ Wede,indCs arti$icial 8erman. <'. -o$mannsthal, who was a $riend o$ Schnit2lerCs, was interested in (sychoanalysis but his wor, remained una$$ected by it. -e distanced himsel$ $rom the (sychological no4el. The 8eorge school, li,e (henomenology, is utterly anti9(sychological. (age><<6

to obli4ionG that which is gi4en $orm is to endure as secret historiogra(hy. -ence, the blindness to im(ressionismG they $ailed to understand that no (ower on earth can resist transience which is not itsel$ a transient (ower. )e$iance o$ society includes de$iance o$ its language. <6 The others share the language o$ men. They are EsocialC. The aesthetes are as $ar ahead o$ them as they are asocial. <7 Their wor,s measure themsel4es against the recognition that the language o$ men is the language o$ their degradation. To steal language $rom them, to renounce communication, is better than to ad;ust. The bourgeois glori$ies the e.isting order as nature and demands that his $ellow citi2ens s(ea, EnaturallyC. This norm is o4erturned by aesthetic a$$ectation. The a$$ected aesthete s(ea,s as though he were his own idol. -e thus ma,es himsel$ an easy target. Anyone can (ro4e to him that he is no di$$erent $rom e4eryone else. 3ut he re(resents the uto(ia o$ not being onesel$. ?$ course, the others may critici2e society. 3ut they remain as true to themsel4es as to their notion o$ ha((iness as a healthy, well organi2ed, rationally ordered li$e. The uto(ia o$ aestheticism abrogates the social contract o$ ha((iness. -a((iness li4es o$$ an antagonistic society, a world Eo] lCaction nCest (as la soeur du r^4eC.<5 As $aith$ul i$ moderate (u(ils o$ 3audelaire, 8eorge and -o$mannsthal established ha((iness where it was de$amed. "on$ronted with the de$amed, what is
<6. -ence the (riority o$ translation $rom Aossetti and 3audelaire to 8eorge and 3orchardt. They all see, to sa4e their own language $rom the curse o$ banality by 4iewing it $rom the stand(oint o$ a $oreign language and thus letting its e4erydayness $ree2e under the 8orgon glance o$ strangenessG e4ery (oem o$ 3audelaire as well as o$ 8eorge must, according to its own linguistic $orm, be ;udged solely against the ideal o$ translation. <7. ?$ course, only this $arG as long as they o$$end by their EdegeneracyC, $or which they ha4e been re(roached since a. =ordauCs boo,. @4ery turn to the (ositi4e is in $act disintegration. ?ne e.am(le will ser4e $or many: the great 3audelairean moti$ o$ sterility. The sterile woman esca(es $rom the (rocreati4e order o$ the detested society. 3audelaire celebrates her together with the lesbian and the whore. -e com(ares the froide ma4est;de la femme sterile to the useless starlight which is outside the s(here o$ social (ur(oses. -o$mannsthal ado(ts the moti$ in order to turn it to (atriotic and at the same time tri4ial ends. EFrom all these thingsS And $rom her beauty 0 that was sterile,C he ta,es lea4e, $or the sa,e o$ the belo4ed. In the EWoman Without ShadowC sterility is a curse which must be li$ted. <5. 8eorge translates: EI am truly ha((y to $lee this raceSWhich re$used to ;oin dream and deed.C The translation is a betrayal. 3audelaire s(ea,s o$ the monde, o$ the total structure o$ reality which ,ee(s the dream $ar $rom acti4e hands. 8eorge ma,es a EraceC out o$ it, as though it were a Buestion o$ degeneration, o$ EdecadenceC, whereas 3audelaireCs re4olt stri,es at the (rinci(le o$ order itsel$. In 8eorge scandal is re(laced by that ErenewalC which always associates itsel$ with EraceC. (age><<'

allowed withers and 4anishes $or them. The unnatural is charged with the tas, o$ recreating the multitude o$ instincts which were distorted by the (rimacy o$ (rocreationG irres(onsible (lay see,s to o4ercome the ruinous seriousness o$ whate4er one ha((ens to be. 3oth sha,e (ersonal identity to the roots with a silent roar, identity, the walls, o$ which com(rise the innermost (rison cell o$ the e.isting order. Whate4er they may choose to (ro4ide a (ositi4e contrast to the ruling society is subordinate to it as a re$lection o$ the

indi4idual, ;ust as 8eorgeCs angel resembles the (oet, ;ust as the lo4er in the "tar of the 5eague $inds Emy own $leshC in the belo4ed. What sur4i4es is, determinate negation.
(age><<6

# Portrait o( "a%ter 9enBamin

$ $ and listen to the sounds of the day as though they &ere chords of eternity$ %arl %raus (age><<7

The name o$ the (hiloso(her who too, his li$e while $leeing -itlerCs e.ecutioners has, in the more than twenty years since then, acBuired a certain nimbus, des(ite the esoteric character o$ his early writings and the $ragmentary nature o$ his later ones. The $ascination o$ the (erson and o$ his wor, allowed no alternati4e other than that o$ magnetic attraction or horri$ied re;ection. @4erything which $ell under the scrutiny o$ his words was trans$ormed, as though it had become radioacti4e. -is ca(acity $or continually bringing out new as(ects, not by e.(loding con4entions through criticism, but rather by organi2ing himsel$ so as to be able to relate to his sub;ect9matter in a way that seemed beyond all con4ention 0 this ca(acity can hardly be adeBuately described by the conce(t o$ EoriginalityC. =one o$ the ideas which $lowed $rom his ine.haustible reser4e e4er (retended to be mere ins(iration. 3en;amin, who as sub;ect actually li4ed all the EoriginaryC e.(eriences that o$$icial contem(orary (hiloso(hy merely tal,s about, seemed at the same time utterly detached $rom them. =othing was more $oreign to him, and abo4e all to his $lair $or instantaneous, de$initi4e $ormulations, than what is traditionally associated with s(ontaneity and ebullience. The im(ression he le$t was not o$ someone who created truth or who attained it through conce(tual (owerG rather, in citing it, he seemed to, ha4e trans$ormed himsel$ into a su(reme instrument o$ ,nowledge on which the latter had le$t its mar,. -e had nothing o$ the (hiloso(her in the traditional sense. -is own contribution to his wor, was not anything E4italC or EorganicCG the meta(hor o$ the creator is thoroughly ina((ro(riate $or him. The sub;ecti4ity o$ his thought shran, to its own s(eci$ic di$$erenceG the idiosyncratic moment o$ his mind, its singularity 0 something which, according to con4entional (hiloso(hical mores, would ha4e been held $or contingent, e(hemeral, utterly worthless 0 legitimi2ed itsel$ by gi4ing his thought its com(elling character. The thesis that where ,nowledge is concerned the most indi4idual is the most general, suits him (er$ectly. -ad all analogies drawn $rom (hysics not become (ro$oundly sus(ect in an age which has been characteri2ed by the radical di4ergence o$ social
(age><<!

and scienti$ic consciousness, his intellectual energy might well be described as a ,ind o$ mental atomic $ission. -is insistence dissol4ed the insolubleG he gras(ed the essential (recisely when walls o$ sheer $acticity sealed o$$ illusi4e essences. To s(ea, in terms o$ $ormulae, he was im(elled to brea, the bonds o$ a logic which co4ers o4er the (articular with the uni4ersal or merely abstracts the uni4ersal $rom the (articular. -e sought to com(rehend the essence where it did not (ermit itsel$ to be distilled by automatic o(eration or re4eal itsel$ to dubious intuition, by sub;ecting it to methodic con;ecture within a con$iguration o$ indi4idually o(aBue elements. The rebus is the model o$ his (hiloso(hy. The deliberate digressi4eness o$ his thought, howe4er, is matched by its gentle irresistibility. This resides neither in magical e$$ects, which were not $oreign to him, nor in an Eob;ecti4ityC, denoting the disa((earance o$ the sub;ect in those constellations. It stems rather $rom a Buality which intellectual de(artmentali2ation otherwise, reser4es $or art, but which sheds all semblance when trans(osed into the realm o$ theory and assumes incom(arable dignity 0 the (romise o$ ha((iness. @4erything that 3en;amin said or wrote sounded as i$ thought, instead o$ re;ecting the (romises o$ $airy tales and childrenCs boo,s with its usual disgrace$ul EmaturityC, too, them so literally that real $ul$ilment itsel$ was now within sight o$ ,nowledge. In his (hiloso(hical to(ogra(hy, renunciation is totally re(udiated. Anyone who was drawn to him was bound to $eel li,e the child who catches a glim(se o$ the lighted "hristmas tree through a crac, in the closed door. 3ut the light, as one o$ reason, also (romised truth itsel$, not its (owerless shadow. I$ 3en;aminCs thought was not creation e' nihilo, it had the generosity o$ abundanceG it sought to ma,e good e4erything, all the (leasure (rohibited by ad;ustment and sel$9(reser4ation, (leasure which is both sensual and intellectual. In his essay on /roust, a writer $or whom he $elt the strongest o$ a$$inities, 3en;amin

de$ined the desire $or ha((iness as the basic moti$G one would scarcely be misled in sus(ecting this to be the origin o$ a (assion which (roduced two o$ the most (er$ect translations in 8ermanthose o$ A l)om re des 4eunes filles en fleurs and of 5e cEt;de *uermantes . -owe4er, ;ust as in /roust the desire $or ha((iness acBuires (ro$undity only through the onerous weight o$ the no4el o$ disillusion, which is $atally com(leted in 5a Recherche du temps perdu in 3en;amin the de4otion to ha((iness which has been denied is won only through a regret$ul sorrow, the li,e o$ which is as rare in the history o$ (hiloso(hy as the uto(ia o$ cloudless days. -is relation to %a$,a is no less intimate than that to /roust. %a$,aCs remar,, that there is
(age><&:

in$inite ho(e e.ce(t $or us, could ha4e ser4ed as the motto o$ 3en;aminCs meta(hysics, had he e4er deigned to write one, and it is no accident that at the centre o$ his most elaborate theoretical wor,, The Arigins of the *erman Tragic Drama, NCrsprung des deutschen TrauerspielsO there is the construction o$ EsorrowC NETrauerCO as the last sel$9negating, sel$9transcending allegory, that o$ Aedem(tion. Sub;ecti4ity, (lunging into the abyss o$ signi$icances, Ebecomes the ceremonial guarantee o$ the miracle because it announces di4ine action itsel$.C In all his (hases, 3en;amin concei4ed the down$all o$ the sub;ect and the sal4ation o$ man as inse(arable. That de$ines the macrocosmic arc, the microcosmic $igures o$ which drew his de4oted concern. 3ecause what distinguishes his (hiloso(hy is its ,ind o$ concretion. 1ust as his thought sought again and again to $ree itsel$ o$ all im(ulse to classi$y, the (rime image o$ all ho(e $or him is the name, o$ things and o$ men, and it is this that his re$lection see,s to reconstruct. In this res(ect he seems to con4erge with the general intellectual current which (rotested against idealism and e(istemology, demanding Ethe things themsel4esC instead o$ their conce(tual $orm, and which $ound an academically res(ectable e.(ression in (henomenology and the ontological schools stemming $rom it. 3ut the decisi4e di$$erences between (hiloso(hers ha4e always consisted in nuancesG what is most bitterly irreconcilable is that which is similar but which thri4es on di$$erent centresG and 3en;aminCs relation to todayCsG acce(ted ideologies o$ the EconcreteC is no di$$erent. -e saw through them as the mere mas, o$ conce(tual thin,ing at its wits end, ;ust as he also re;ected the e.istential9ontological conce(t o$ history as the mere distillate le$t a$ter the substance o$ the historical dialectic had been boiled away. The later =iet2scheCs critical insight that truth is not identical with a timeless universal, but rather that it is solely the historical which yields the $igure o$ the absolute, became, (erha(s without his ,nowing it, the canon o$ his (ractice. The (rogramme is $ormulated in a note to his $ragmentary main wor,, that Ein any case the eternal is more li,e lace trimmings on a dress than li,e an ideaC. 3y this he in no way intended the innocuous illustration o$ conce(ts through colour$ul historical ob;ects as Simmel did when he de(icted his (rimiti4e meta(hysics o$ $orm and li$e in the cu(9 handle, the actor, *enice. Aather, his des(erate stri4ing to brea, out o$ the (rison o$ cultural con$ormism was directed at constellations o$ historical entities which do not remain sim(ly interchangeable e.am(les $or ideas but which in their uniBueness constitute the ideas themsel4es as historical. This brought him the re(utation o$ an essayist. Until today his
(age><&#

nimbus has remained that o$ the so(histicated EliteratorC, as he himsel$, with antiBuarian coBuetry, would ha4e (ut it. In 4iew o$ his wily aim in o((osing the sho(worn themes and ;argon o$ (hiloso(hy 0 the latter he habitually termed E(rocurer languageC 0 it would be easy enough to dismiss the clich7 o$ EessayistC as a mere misunderstanding. 3ut the recourse to EmisunderstandingsC as a means o$ e.(laining the e$$ect o$ intellectual (henomena does not lead 4ery $ar. It (resu((oses that there is an intrinsic substance, o$ten sim(ly eBuated with the authorCs intention, which e.ists inde(endently o$ its historical $ateG such a substance is in (rinci(le hardly identi$iable and this is all the more so with an author as com(le. and as $ragmentary as 3en;amin. isunderstandings are the medium in which the noncommunicable is communicated. The (ro4ocati4e assertion that an essay on the /aris Arcades is o$ greater interest (hiloso(hically than are (onderous obser4ations on the 3eing o$ beings is more attuned to the meaning o$ his wor, than the Buest $or that unchanging, sel$9identical conce(tual s,eleton which he relegated to the dustbin. oreo4er, by not res(ecting the boundary between the man o$ letters and the (hiloso(her, he

turned em(irical necessity into EintelligibleC 0 in the %antian sense 0 4irtue. To their disgrace the uni4ersities re$used him, while the antiBuarian in him $elt itsel$ drawn to academic li$e in much the same ironic manner as %a$,a $elt drawn to insurance com(anies. The (er$idious re(roach o$ being Etoo intelligentC haunted him throughout his li$eG an @.istentialist o4erlord had the e$$rontery to de$ame him as being Etouched by demonsC, as though the su$$ering o$ a (erson dominated and estranged by the mind should be considered his meta(hysical death sentence, merely because it disturbs the all9too9li4ely I9Thou relationshi(. In $act, howe4er, he shran, be$ore e4ery act o$ 4iolence against wordsG ingenuity was $undamentally alien to him. The true reason that he aroused hatred was that, ine4itably and without any (olemical intention, his glance re4ealed the ordinary world in the ecli(se which is its (ermanent light. At the same time, the incommensurable Buality o$ his nature, undaunted by e4ery tactic and inca(able o$ indulging in the social games o$ the Ae(ublic o$ Intellects, (ermitted him to earn his li4ing as an essayist, on his own and un(rotected. That greatly de4elo(ed the agility o$ his (ro$ound mind. -e learned how to con4ict the (rodigious and (onderous claims o$ the prima philosophia o$ their hollowness, with a silent chuc,le. All o$ his utterances are eBually near the centre. The articles scattered throughout the 5iterarische %elt and the Frankfurter ?eitung are hardly less indicati4e o$ his stubborn intention than are the boo,s and longer studies in the ?eitschrift f!r "o.ial 9
(age><&<

forschung. The ma.im in Ane@%ay "treet which asserts that today all decisi4e blows are struc, le$t9handedly, was one he $ollowed himsel$, yet without e4er sacri$icing the truth e4en in the slightest. @4en his most (recious literary 4eu' ser4e as studies $or a genre, the masterwor,, which he ne4ertheless thoroughly mistrusted. The essay as $orm consists in the ability to regard historical moments, mani$estations o$ the ob;ecti4e s(irit, EcultureC, as though they were natural. 3en;amin could do this as no one else. The totality o$ his thought is characteri2ed by what may be called Enatural historyC. -e was drawn to the (etri$ied, $ro2en or obsolete elements o$ ci4ili2ation, to e4erything in it de4oid o$ domestic 4itality no less irresistibly than is the collector to $ossils or to the (lant in the herbarium. Small glass balls containing a landsca(e u(on which snow $ell when shoo, were among his $a4ourite ob;ects. The French word $or still9li$e, nature morte, could be written abo4e the (ortals o$ his (hiloso(hical dungeons. The -egelian conce(t o$ Esecond natureC, as the rei$ication o$ sel$9estranged human relations, and also the ar.ian category o$ Ecommodity $etishismC occu(y ,ey (ositions in 3en;aminCs wor,. -e is dri4en not merely to awa,en congealed li$e in (etri$ied ob;ects 0 as in allegory 0 but also to scrutini2e li4ing things so that they (resent themsel4es as being ancient, Eur9historicalC and abru(tly release their signi$icance. /hiloso(hy a((ro(riates the $etishi2ation o$ commodities $or itsel$: e4erything must metamor(hose into a thing in order to brea, the catastro(hic s(ell o$ things. 3en;aminCs thought is so saturated with culture as its natural ob;ect that it swears loyalty to rei$ication instead o$ $latly re;ecting it. This is the origin o$ 3en;aminCs tendency to cede his intellectual (ower to ob;ects diametrically o((osed to it, the most e.treme e.am(le o$ which was his study on EThe Wor, o$ Art in the @ra o$ its echanical Ae(roductionC. The glance o$ his (hiloso(hy is edusan. I$ the conce(t o$ myth, as the anti(ode to reconciliation, occu(ies a central (osition in it, es(ecially during its o(enly theological (hase, then e4erything, and es(ecially the e(hemeral, becomes in his own thought mythical. -is critiBue o$ the domination o$ nature, (rogrammatically stated in the last (iece o$ Ane@%ay "treet, negates and transcends the ontological dualism o$ myth and reconciliationG reconciliation is that o$ myth itsel$. In the course o$ such criticism the conce(t o$ myth becomes seculari2ed. Fate, which begins as the guilt o$ the li4ing, becomes that o$ society: ESo long as one beggar remains, there is still myth.C Thus, 3en;aminCs (hiloso(hy, which once sought to con;ure u( EessencesC directly, as in his E"ritiBue o$ ForceC, mo4ed e4er more decisi4ely towards dialectics. The latter did not intrude $rom without on a thought
(age><&&

which was inherently static, nor was it the (roduct o$ mere de4elo(ment, but was rather antici(ated in the 1uo between the most rigid and the most dynamic elements in his thought during all o$ its (hases. -is conce(tion o$ Edialectics at a standstillC emerged with increasing clarity.

The reconciliation o$ myth is the theme o$ 3en;aminCs (hiloso(hy. 3ut, as in good musical 4ariations, this theme rarely states itsel$ o(enlyG instead, it remains hidden and shi$ts the burden o$ its legitimation to, 1ewish mysticism, to which 3en;amin was introduced in his youth by his $riend, 8ershom Scholem, the distinguished student o$ the ca ala. It is di$$icult to say to what e.tent he was in$luenced by the neo9 (latonic and antinomian9messianic tradition. There is much to indicate that 3en;amin 0 who hardly e4er showed his cards and who was moti4ated by a dee(ly seated o((osition to thought o$ the shoot9$rom9the9 hi( 4ariety, to E$ree $loatingC intelligentsia 0 made use o$ the (o(ular mystic techniBue o$ (seudo9e(igra(hy 0 ne4er, to be sure, disclosing the te.ts, in order thus to outwit truth, which he sus(ected o$ being no longer accessible to autonomous re$lection. In any case, his notion o$ the sacred te.t was deri4ed $rom the cabbala. For him (hiloso(hy consisted essentially in commentary and criticism, and language as the crystalli2ation o$ the EnameC, too, (riority o4er its $unction as bearer o$ meaning and e4en o$ e.(ression. The concern o$ (hiloso(hy with (re4iously e.istent, codi$ied doctrines is less $oreign to its great tradition than 3en;amin might ha4e belie4ed. "rucial writings or (assages o$ Aristotle and Feibni2, %ant and -egel, are EcritiBuesC not merely in the im(licit sense o$ wor,s which deal with (roblems already (osed but rather as s(eci$ic con$rontations. It was only a$ter they had banded together to $orm their own disci(line and had begun to lose touch with their own thought that (hiloso(hers all deemed it necessary to co4er themsel4es by beginning be$ore the creation o$ the world, or, i$ at all (ossible, to incor(orate it into the system. 3en;amin maintained a determined Ale.andrinism in the $ace o$ this trend and thereby (ro4o,ed all $undamentalist $uries. -e trans(osed the idea o$ the sacred te.t into the s(here o$ enlightenment, into which, according to Scholem, 1ewish mysticism itsel$ tends to culminate dialectically. -is EessayismC consists in treating (ro$ane te.ts as though they were sacred. This does not mean that he clung to theological relics or, as the religious socialists, endowed the (ro$ane with transcendent signi$icance. Aather, he loo,ed to radical, de$enceless (ro$anation as the only chance $or the theological heritage which sBuandered itsel$ in (ro$anity. The ,ey to the (icture (u22les is lost. They must, as a baroBue (oem
(age><&6

about melancholy says, Es(ea, themsel4esC. The (rocedure resembles Thorstein *eblenCs Bui(, that he studied $oreign languages by staring at each word until he ,new what it meant. The analogy with %a$,a is unmista,able. 3ut he distinguishes himsel$ $rom the older /rague writer, who e4en at times o$ the most e.treme negati4ity retains an element o$ the rural, e(ic tradition, through the $ar more (ronounced moment o$ urbanity which ser4es as a contrast to the archaic, and through the resistance to demonic regression acBuired by his thought through its a$$inity to enlightenment, a regression which o$ten lea4es %a,$a unable to distinguish between the deus a sconditus and the de4il. )uring his mature (eriod, 3en;amin was able to gi4e himsel$ o4er $ully to socially critical insights without there being the slightest mental residue, and still without ha4ing to ban e4en one o$ his im(ulses. @.egetical (ower became the ability to see through the mani$estations and utterances o$ bourgeois culture as hierogly(hs o$ its dar,est secret 0 as ideologies. -e s(o,e occasionally o$ the Ematerialist to.insC that he had to add to his thought so that it might sur4i4e. Among the illusions that he renounced in order not to concede the necessity o$ renunciation, was that o$ the monadological, sel$9contained character o$ his own re$lection, which he measured tirelessly and without $linching at the (ain o$ ob;ecti$ication against the o4erwhelming trend o$ the collecti4e. 3ut he so utterly assimilated the $oreign element to his own e.(erience that the latter im(ro4ed as a result. Ascetic $orces counterbalanced an imaginati4e (ower ,indled e4er anew by each ob;ect. This hel(ed 3en;amin to de4elo( a (hiloso(hy directed against (hiloso(hy. It can well be described in terms o$ the categories which it does not use. A conce(tion o$ them emerges i$ one e.amines his idiosyncratic distaste $or words li,e E(ersonalityC. From the 4ery start his thought (rotested against the $alse claim that man and the human mind are sel$9constituti4e and that an absolute originates in them. The incisi4eness o$ this ,ind o$ reaction ought not to be con$used with modern religious mo4ements that attem(t, in the s(here o$ (hiloso(hic re$lection, to ma,e o$ man the creature to which total social de(endency has already degraded him inde(endently o$ their e$$orts. -is target is not an allegedly o4er9in$lated sub;ecti4ism but rather the

notion o$ a sub;ecti4e dimension itsel$. 3etween myth and reconciliation, the (oles o$ his (hiloso(hy, the sub;ect e4a(orates. 3e$ore his edusan glance, man turns into the stage on which an ob;ecti4e (rocess un$olds. For this reason 3en;aminCs (hiloso(hy is no, less a source o$ terror than a (romise o$ ha((iness. 1ust as the domain o$ myth
(age><&'

is ruled by multi(licity and ambiguity and not sub;ecti4ity, the uneBui4ocal character o$ reconciliation 0 concei4ed a$ter the model o$ the EnameC 0 is the contrary o$ human autonomy. -e reduces this autonomy to a moment o$ transition in a dialectical (rocess, as with the tragic hero, and the reconciliation o$ men with the creation has as its condition the dissolution o$ all sel$9(osited human e.istence. According to an oral statement, 3en;amin acce(ted the Esel$ C solely as something mystical and not as meta(hysical9 e(istemological, as EsubstantialityC. Inwardness $or him is not merely the seat o$ tor(or and melancholic com(lacencyG it is also, the (hantasma which distorts, the (otential image o$ manhe always contrasts it to the (hysical, e.ternal things. Thus, one will search his writings in 4ain $or a conce(t li,e autonomyG yet others, such as totality, li$e, system, $rom the s(here o$ sub;ecti4e meta(hysics, are eBually absent. What he (raised in %arl %raus, a writer as di$$erent $rom 3en;amin in all other res(ects as (ossible, was one o$ his own traits 0 inhumanity against the dece(tion o$ Ethe uni4ersally humanCG %raus, it may be added, did not ta,e ,indly to, this (raise. The categories which 3en;amin re;ected, howe4er, are those which com(romise the essential ideology o$ society. From time immemorial, the masters ha4e used such categories to set themsel4es u( as 8od. As a critic o$ $orce, 3en;amin as it were re4o,es the unity o$ the sub;ect to mythic turmoil in order to com(rehend such unity as itsel$ being only a natural conditionG with his (hiloso(hy o$ language oriented on the cabbala, 3en;amin saw sub;ecti4e unity as scribbling o$ the =ame. That lin,s his materialistic (eriod with his theological one. -e 4iewed the modern world as archaic not in order to conser4e the traces o$ a (ur(ortedly eternal truth but rather to esca(e the trance9li,e ca(ti4ity o$ bourgeois immanence. -e sees his tas, not in reconstructing the totality o$ bourgeois society but rather in e.amining its blinded, nature9bound and di$$use elements under a microsco(e. -is micrological and $ragmentary method there$ore ne4er entirely integrated the idea o$ uni4ersal mediation, which in -egel as in ar. (roduces the totality. -e ne4er wa4ered in his $undamental con4iction that the smallest cell o$ obser4ed reality o$$sets the rest o$ the world. To inter(ret (henomena materialistically meant $or him not so much to elucidate them as (roducts o$ the social whole but rather to relate them directly, in their isolated singularity, to material tendencies, and social struggles. 3en;amin thus sought to a4oid the danger o$ estrangement and rei$ication, which threaten to trans$orm all obser4ation o$ ca(italism as a system itsel$ into a system. oti$s o$ the young -egel, whom he hardly would ha4e ,nown, are (rominentG in dialectical materialism,
(age><&6

too, he sensed what -egel called E(ositi4ityC, and o((osed it in his way. In its close contact with material which was close at hand, in its a$$inity to that which is, his thought, des(ite all its strangeness and acumen, was always accom(anied by a characteristic unconscious element, by a moment o$ naM4et7. This naM4et7 enabled him at times to sym(athi2e with grou(s in (ower9(olitics which, as he well ,new, would ha4e liBuidated his own substance, unregimented intellectual e.(erience. 3ut also towards them he cunningly ado(ted the r_le o$ an e.egete, as though one had only to inter(ret the ob;ecti4e s(irit to satis$y its demands and to com(rehend its horror in order to eliminate it. -e (re$erred to su((ly heteronomy with s(eculati4e theories than to abandon s(eculation. /olitics and meta(hysics, theology and materialism, myth and modernity, non9intentional matter and e.tra4agant s(eculation 0 all the streets o$ 3en;aminCs city9tableau con4erge in the (lan o$ the /aris boo, as in their @toile. 3ut he would ne4er ha4e agreed to use this (ro;ect, destined $or him a priori, as it were, to (resent a coherent e.(osition o$ his (hiloso(hy. 1ust as the conce(tion arose out o$ a concrete occasion, it ne4er in all the years that $ollowed relinBuished the $orm o$ a monogra(h. E)ream %itsch,C an article which a((eared in the Neue Rundschau concerned with the shoc,9li,e $lashes o$ obsolete elements $rom the nineteenth century in surrealism. The material (oint o$ de(arture was (ro4ided by a maga2ine article on

the /aris arcades, which he and Fran2 -essel (lanned to write. -e clung to the title o$ the arcades article long a$ter a (lan had crystalli2ed according to which e.treme (hysiognomic traits o$ the nineteenth century were to be handled in a manner similar to that used in dealing with the 3aroBue in the boo, on the tragic drama. ?ut o$ these traits he intended to construe the idea o$ the e(och in terms o$ an ur9history o$ modernity. This EhistoryC was not designed to unco4er archaic rudiments in the recent (ast, but rather to de$ine the idea o$ newness, o$ the Elatest thingC, as itsel$ an archaic (attern. EThe $orm o$ the new means o$ (roduction, which in the beginning was still dominated by the old $orm . . . has its correlati4e within the collecti4e mind in images in which the new mingles with the old. These images embody desires, and in them the collecti4e see,s both to transcend and to trans$igure the un$inished character o$ the social (roduct and the de$iciencies in the order o$ social (roduction. The images also dis(lay the em(hatic e$$ort to set onesel$ a(art $rom the obsolete, which, howe4er, means $rom the recent (ast. These tendencies guide the image9(roducing imagination, which recei4ed its initial im(ulse $rom the new, bac, to the ancient (ast. )reams, in which e4ery e(och sees the images
(age><&7

o$ that which is to succeed it, now show the coming age mingled with elements o$ ur9history 0 that is to say, o$ a classless society. The e.(eriences o$ this society, stored in the unconscious o$ the collecti4e, ;oin with the new to (roduce the uto(ia which has le$t its trace in a thousand con$igurations o$ li$e, $rom lasting buildings to the most $leeting $ashions.C Such images, howe4er, were $or 3en;amin much more im(ortant than 1ungCs archety(es o$ the collecti4e unconsciousG he thought o$ them as ob;ecti4e crystalli2ations o$ the historical dynamic and ga4e them the name: o$ Edialectical imagesC: A magni$icently im(ro4ised theory o$ the gambler (ro4ided their model: they were to deci(her historically9(hiloso(hically the (hantasmagoria o$ the nineteenth century as the $igure o$ hell. The original layer o$ the Arcades (ro;ect, $rom about #!<5, was then co4ered o4er by a second, materialist one, (erha(s because the determination o$ the nineteenth century as hell became untenable with the rise o$ the Third Aeich, (erha(s because the thought o$ hell tended to lead in a (olitical direction entirely di$$erent $rom that which 3en;amin saw im(lied in the strategic r_le which -aussmannCs boule4ards were to (layG but abo4e all, (robably because he ha((ened to come across a $orgotten wor,, written in (rison by Auguste 3lanBui, 5);ternit; par les astres, which, in accents o$ absolute des(air, antici(ates =iet2scheCs theory o$ the eternal return. The second (hase o$ the Arcades (lan is documented in the memorandum, dating $rom #!&', entitled E/aris, "a(ital o$ the =ineteenth "enturyC. This relates certain ,ey $igures o$ the e(och to categories o$ the world o$ images. Its sub;ect9matter was su((osed to consist o$ Fourier and )aguerre, o$ 8rand4ille and Fouis /hili((e, o$ 3audelaire and -aussmannG instead it dealt with themes li,e $ashions and nouveaut;, $airs and cast9iron construction, the collector, the flaneur, (rostitution. A (assage on 8rand4ille bears witness to the e.treme e.citement with which the inter(retation was charged: EWorldCs Fairs erect a commodity uni4erse. 8rand4illeCs (hantasies endow the uni4erse with commodity9character. They moderni2e it. SaturnCs ring becomes a cast9iron balcony on which the inhabitants o$ Saturn ta,e a breath o$ air in the e4ening. . . . Fashion (rescribes the ritual which determines how the $etish will be honoured, 8rand4ille e.tends $ashionCs authority to the ob;ects o$ e4eryday use as well as to the cosmos. 3y (ursuing $ashion to its e.tremes he re4eals its nature. It stands in o((osition to the organic. It cou(les the li4ing body with the inorganic world. In the li4ing it sees the (rerogati4es o$ the cor(se. Fetishism, which succumbs to the se. a((eal o$ the inorganic, is its 4ital ner4e. The commodity cult (uts it to good use.C "onsiderations o$ this sort led
(age><&5

to the (lanned cha(ter on 3audelaire. 3en;amin detached it $rom the larger (ro;ect in order to ma,e a shorter, three9(art boo,G a large section o$ it a((eared in the #!&! 6: issue o$ the ?eitschrift f!r "o.ialforschung article entitled, E?n Some oti$s o$ 3audelaireC. It is one o$ the $ew te.ts o$ the Arcades com(le. which he was able to com(lete. A second consists o$ the theses, E?n the "once(t o$ -istoryC, which summari2e, so to s(ea,, the e(istemological considerations which de4elo(ed together with the Arcades (ro;ect. Thousands o$ (ages o$ this (ro;ect ha4e been (reser4ed, studies o$ indi4idual sub;ects

which were hidden during the occu(ation o$ /aris. The whole, howe4er, can hardly be reconstructed. 3en;aminCs intention was to eliminate all o4ert commentary and to ha4e the meanings emerge solely through a shoc,ing montage o$ the material. -is aim was not merely $or (hiloso(hy to catch u( to surrealism, but $or it to become surrealistic. In Ane@%ay "treet he wrote that citations $rom his wor,s were li,e highwaymen, who suddenly descend on the reader to rob him o$ his con4ictions. -e meant this literally. The culmination o$ his anti9sub;ecti4ism, his ma;or wor, was to consist solely o$ citations. ?nly seldom are there inter(retations noted which could not be integrated into the 3audelaire study or the theses E?n the "once(t o$ -istoryC, and there is no canon to indicate how the audacious 4enture o$ a (hiloso(hy (uri$ied o$ argument might be carried out, or e4en how the citations might be meaning$ully ordered. -is (hiloso(hy o$ $ragmentation remained itsel$ $ragmentary, the 4ictim, (erha(s, o$ a method, the $easibility o$ which in the medium o$ thought must remain an o(en Buestion. The method, howe4er, cannot be se(arated $rom the content. 3en;aminCs ideal o$ ,nowledge did not sto( at the re(roduction o$ what already is. -e mistrusted all limitations (laced on the realm o$ (ossible ,nowledge, the (ride o$ modern (hiloso(hy in its illusionless maturity, $or in it he sensed a (lot to sabotage the claim o$ ha((iness, the attem(t to strengthen a situation which tolerates only what is more o$ the interminable sameG he sensed the (resence o$ myth itsel$. The uto(ian moti$ in him, howe4er, is (aired with his anti9romanticism. -e remained uncorru(ted by all a((arently similar attem(ts, such as a. SchelerCs, to gras( transcendence through natural reason, as though the limiting (rocess o$ the enlightenment could be re4o,ed and one could sim(ly reinstate the theologically grounded (hiloso(hies o$ the (ast. For this reason $rom its 4ery ince(tion his thought (rotected itsel$ $rom the EsuccessC o$ unbro,en cohesion by ma,ing the $ragmentary its guiding (rinci(le. In order to achie4e his aim he chose to remain com(letely
(age><&!

outside o$ the mani$est tradition o$ (hiloso(hy. )es(ite its great culture, the elements o$ that tradition enter his labyrinth scattered, submerged, obliBuely. -is incommensurability lies in the inordinate ability to gi4e himsel$ o4er to his ob;ect. 3y (ermitting thought to get, as it were, too close to its ob;ect, the ob;ect becomes as $oreign as an e4eryday, $amiliar thing under a microsco(e. To inter(ret his lac, o$ system and o$ a closed theoretical $oundation as su$$icient reason to align him with the re(resentati4es o$ EintuitionC, eidetic or otherwise 0 and he was o$ten misunderstood in this way, e4en by $riends 0 is to o4erloo, what is best in him. It is not his glance as such which lays claim to the unmediated (ossession o$ the absoluteG rather his manner o$ seeing, the entire (ers(ecti4e is altered. The techniBue o$ enlargement brings the rigid in motion and the dynamic to rest. -is (re$erence in the Arcades $or small or shabby ob;ects li,e dust and (lush is a com(lement o$ this techniBue, drawn as it is to e4erything that has sli((ed through the con4entional conce(tual net or to things which ha4e been esteemed too tri4ial by the (re4ailing s(irit $or it to ha4e le$t any traces other than those o$ hasty ;udgement. 3en;amin, the dialectician o$ the imagination, which he de$ined as Ee.tra(olation at its most minuteC, sought, li,e -egel, Eto obser4e the thing as it is, in and $or itsel$ CG that is, he re$used to acce(t as ineluctable the threshold between consciousness and the thing9in9itsel$. 3ut the distance o$ such obser4ation has been shi$ted. =ot because, as in -egel, sub;ect and ob;ect are ultimately de4elo(ed as being identical, but rather because the sub;ecti4e intention is seen to be e.tinguished in the ob;ect, 3en;aminCs thought is not content with intentions. The thoughts (ress close to its ob;ect, see, to touch it, smell it, taste it and so thereby trans$orm itsel$. Through this secondary sensuousness, they ho(e to (enetrate down to the 4eins o$ gold which no classi$icatory (rocedure can reach, and at the same time a4oid succumbing to the contingency o$ blind intuition. The radical reduction o$ the distance o$ the ob;ect also establishes the relation to (otential (ra.is which later guided 3en;aminCs thin,ing. What con$ronts e.(erience in the d;4> vu as o(aBue and without ob;ecti4ity, what /roust ho(ed to gain $or (oetic reconstruction through in4oluntary memory, 3en;amin sought to reca(ture and ele4ate to truth through the conce(t. -e charged it with accom(lishing what is otherwise reser4ed $or non9 conce(tual e.(erience. -e stro4e to gi4e thought the density o$ e.(erience without ha4ing it there$ore lose any o$ its stringency.

The uto(ia o$ ,nowledge, howe4er, has uto(ia as its content. 3en;amin called it Ethe unreality o$ des(airC. /hiloso(hy condenses
(age><6:

into e.(erience so that it may ha4e ho(e. 3ut ho(e a((ears only in $ragmented $orm. 3en;amin o4ere.(oses the ob;ects $or the sa,e o$ the hidden contours which one day, in the state o$ reconciliation, will become e4ident, but in so doing he re4eals the chasm se(arating that day and li$e as it is. The (rice o$ ho(e is li$e: E=ature is messianic in its eternal and total transienceC, and ha((iness, according to a late $ragment which ris,s e4erything, is its Eintrinsic rhythmC. -ence, the core o$ 3en;aminCs (hiloso(hy is the idea o$ the sal4ation o$ the dead as the restitution o$ distorted li$e through the consummation o$ its own rei$ication down to the inorganic le4el. E?nly $or the sa,e o$ the ho(eless are we gi4en ho(eC, is the conclusion o$ the study o$ 8oetheCs +lective Affinities (arado. o$ the im(ossible (ossibility, mysticism and enlightenment are ;oined $or the last time in him. -e o4ercame the dream without betraying it and ma,ing himsel$ an accom(lice in that on which the (hiloso(hers ha4e always agreed: that it shall not be. The character o$ the (icture (u22le, as which he himsel$ described the a(horisms in Ane@%ay "treet and which distinguished e4erything he e4er wrote, originates in that (arado.. It was nothing other than the e.(lication and elucidation o$ this (arado., with the only means which (hiloso(hy has at its dis(osal, conce(ts, that dro4e 3en;amin to immerse himsel$ without reser4e in the world o$ multi(licity.
(age><6#

Notes on .aCa
For *retel "i Dieu le P=re a cr;; les choses en les nommant, c)est en leur Etant leur nom, ou en leur donnant un autre 1ue 7)artiste les recr;;$ arcel /roust (age><6&

%a$,aCs (o(ularity, that com$ort in the uncom$ortable which has made o$ him an in$ormation bureau o$ the human condition, be it eternal or modern, and which ,nowingly dis(enses with the 4ery scandal on which his wor, is built, lea4es one reluctant to ;oin the $ray, e4en i$ it is to add a dissenting o(inion. Det it is ;ust this $alse renown, $atal 4ariant o$ the obli4ion which %a$,a so bitterly desired $or himsel$, that com(els one to dwell on the enigma. ?$ that which has been written on him, little countsG most is e.istentialism. -e is assimilated into an established trend o$ thought while little attention is (aid to those as(ects o$ his wor, which resist such assimilation and which, (recisely $or this reason, reBuire inter(retation. As though %a$,aCs Sisy(hean labours would ha4e been necessary, as though the maelstrom $orce o$ his wor, could be e.(lained, i$ all he had to say was that man had lost the (ossibility o$ sal4ation or that the way to the absolute is barred, that manCs li$e is dar,, con$used, or, in currently $ashionable terminology, Esus(ended in nothingnessC, and that the only alternati4e le$t is $or him to do his duty, humbly and without great as(irations, and to integrate himsel$ into a collecti4e which e.(ects ;ust this and which %a$,a would not ha4e had to a$$ront had he been o$ one mind with it. To Buali$y such an inter(retation by arguing that %a$,a o$ course did not say this in so many words but rather wor,ed as an artist with realistic symbolism is to admit a dissatis$action with $ormulas but not much more. For an artistic re(resentation is either realistic or symbolicG no matter how densely organi2ed the symbols may be, their own degree o$ reality cannot detract $rom the symbolic character. 8oetheCs (lay, Pandora, is no less rich in sensuous de(iction than a no4el by %a$,a, and yet there can be no doubt concerning the symbolism o$ 8oetheCs $ragment, e4en though the (ower o$ the symbols 0 as with @l(ore, who embodies ho(e 0 may e.ceed what was originally intended. I$ the notion o$ the symbol has any meaning whatsoe4er in aesthetics 0 and this is $ar $rom certain 0 then it con only be that the indi4idual moments o$ the wor, o$ art (oint beyond themsel4es by 4irtue o$ their interrelations, that their totality coalesces into meaning. =othing could be less true o$ %a$,a. @4en
(age><6'

in a wor, such as 8oetheCs, which (lays so (ro$oundly with allegorical moments, these still relinBuish their signi$icance, by 4irtue o$ their conte.t, to the thrust o$ the whole. In %a$,a, howe4er, e4erything is, as hard, de$ined and distinct as (ossibleG in this his wor,s resemble the no4el o$ ad4enture, as described by 1ames Fenimore "oo(er in his (re$ace to The Red Rover: EThe true Augustan age o$ literature can ne4er e.ist until wor,s shall be as accurate in their ty(ogra(hy as a EElog9boo,K, and as sententious in their matter as a Qwatch9billK.C =owhere in %a$,a does there glimmer the aura o$ the in$inite ideaG nowhere does the hori2on o(en. @ach sentence is literal and each signi$ies. The two moments are not merged, as the symbol would ha4e it, but yawn a(art and out o$ the abyss between them blinds the glaring ray o$ $ascination. -ere too, in its stri4ing not $or symbol but $or allegory, %a$,aCs (rose sides with the outcasts, the (rotest o$ his $riend notwithstanding. Walter 3en;amin rightly de$ined it as (arable. It e.(resses itsel$ not through e.(ression but by its re(udiation, by brea,ing o$$. It is a (arabolic system the ,ey to which has been stolen: yet any e$$ort to ma,e this $act itsel$ the ,ey is bound to go astray by con$ounding the abstract thesis o$ %a$,aCs wor,, the obscurity o$ the e.istent, with its substance. @ach sentence says Einter(ret meC, and none will (ermit it. @ach com(els: the reaction, EthatCs the way it isC, and with it the Buestion, Ewhere ha4e I seen that be$oreJCG the d;4> vu is declared (ermanent. Through the (ower with which %a$,a commands inter(retation, he colla(ses aesthetic distance. -e demands a des(erate e$$ort o$ the allegedly EdisinterestedC

obser4er o$ an earlier time, o4erwhelms him, suggesting that $ar more than his intellectual eBuilibrium de(ends on whether he truly understandsG li$e and death are at sta,e. Among %a$,aCs (resu((ositions, not the least is that the contem(lati4e relation between te.t and reader is sha,en to its 4ery roots. -is te.ts are designed not to sustain a constant distance between themsel4es and their 4ictim but rather to agitate his $eelings to a (oint where he $ears that the narrati4e will shoot towards him li,e a locomoti4e in a three9 dimensional $ilm. Such aggressi4e (hysical (ro.imity undermines the readerCs habit o$ identi$ying himsel$ with the $igures in the no4el. It is by reason o$ this (rinci(le that surrealism can right$ully claim him. -e is Turandot set down in writing. Anyone who sees this and does not choose to run away must stic, out his head, or rather try to batter down the wall with it at the ris, o$ $aring no better than his (redecessors. As in $airy9tales, their $ate ser4es not to deter but to entice. As long as the word has not been $ound the reader must be held accountable.
(age><66

Far more than $or most other writers, it may be said o$ %a$,a that not verum but falsum is inde' sui. -e himsel$, howe4er, contributed to the s(read o$ the untruth. -is two great no4els, The 6astle and The Trial, seem to bear the mar, o$ (hiloso(hical theorems, i$ not in their details then in their general outlines, which des(ite all intellectual (ro$undity, in no way belie the title gi4en to a collection o$ %a$,aCs theoretical writings, EAe$lections on Sin, /ain, -o(e and the True WayC. Still, the content o$ the title is not canonic, $or the literary wor,. The artist is not obliged to understand his own art, and there is (articular reason to doubt whether %a$,a was ca(able o$ such understanding. In any case, the a(horisms are hardly eBual to his most enigmatic stories and e(isodes, such as E"are o$ a Family anC or EThe 3uc,et AiderC. %a$,aCs wor,s (rotected themsel4es against the deadly aesthetic error o$ eBuating the (hiloso(hy that an author (um(s into a wor, with its meta(hysical substance. Were this so, the wor, o$ art would be stillbornG it would e.haust itsel$ in what it says and would not un$old itsel$ in time. To guard against this short9circuit, which ;um(s directly to the signi$icance intended by the wor,, the $irst rule is: ta,e e4erything literallyG co4er u( nothing with conce(ts in4o,ed $rom abo4e. %a$,aCs authority is te.tual. ?nly $idelity to the letter, not oriented understanding, can be o$ hel(. In an art that is constantly obscuring and re4o,ing itsel$, e4ery determinate statement counterbalances the general (ro4iso o$ indeterminateness. %a$,a sought to sabotage this rule when he let it be announced at one (oint that messages $rom the castle must not be ta,en EliterallyC. All the same, i$ one is not to lose all ground on which to stand, one must cling to the $act that at the beginning o$ Trial, it is said that someone must ha4e been s(reading rumours about 1ose$ %., E$or without ha4ing done anything wrong, he was arrested one $ine morningC. =or can one throw to the winds the $act that at the beginning o$ 6astle, %. as,s Ewhat 4illage is this that I ha4e wandered intoJ Is there a castle hereJC and hence, cannot (ossibly ha4e been summoned there. -e also ,nows nothing o$ "ount West9west, whose name is mentioned only once and who is thought o$ less and less until he is entirely $orgotten, li,e the /rometheus o$ one o$ %a$,aCs $ables, who merges with the roc, to which he is chained and is then $orgotten. =e4ertheless, the (rinci(le o$ literalness, (robably a reminiscence o$ the Torah e.egesis o$ 1ewish tradition, $inds su((ort in many o$ %a$,aCs te.ts. At times, words,
(age><67

meta(hors in (articular, detach themsel4es and achie4e a certain autonomy. 1ose$ %. dies Eli,e a dogC, and %a$,a re(orts the EIn4estigations o$ A )ogC, U(on occasion the literalness is dri4en to the (oint o$ a (un. Thus, in the story o$ 3arnabasC $amily, in The 6astle, the o$$icial, Sortini, is described as ha4ing remained Eat the no22leC during the Fire )e(artment (arty. The colloBuial 8erman e.(ression $or de4otion to duty is ta,en seriously, the res(ectable (erson stays at the no22le o$ the $ire9hose, and simultaneously an allusion is made, as in (ara(ra.es, to the crude desire which dri4es the $unctionary to write the $ate$ul letter to Amalia 0 %a$,a, dis(arager o$ (sychology, is abundantly rich in (sychological insights, such as that into the relation between instinctual and obsessi4e (ersonality. Without the (rinci(le o$ literalness as criterion, the ambiguities o$ %a$,a would dissol4e into indi$$erent eBui4alence. This (rinci(le, howe4er, in4alidates the most commonly held conce(tion o$ the author, one which see,s to unite in him the claim to (ro$undity with eBui4ocation. "octeau rightly (ointed out that the introduction o$ anything startling in the $orm o$ a

dream in4ariably remo4es its sting. It was to (re4ent such misuse that %a$,a himsel$ interru(ted The Trial at a decisi4e (oint with a dream 0 he (ublished the truly horri$ying (iece in A 6ountry Doctor ( and by contrast con$irmed the reality o$ e4erything else, e4en i$ it should be that dream9reality suggested (eriodically in The 6astle and America by (assages so agoni2ingly drawn out that they lea4e the reader gas(ing $or air. Among the moments o$ shoc,, not the least results $rom the $act that %a$,a ta,es dreams la lettre. 3ecause e4erything that does not resemble the dream and its (re9logical logic is e.cluded, the dream itsel$ is e.cluded. It is not the horrible which shoc,s, but its sel$9e4idence. =o sooner has the sur4eyor dri4en the bothersome assistants $rom his room in the inn than they climb bac, through the window without the no4el sto((ing $or one word more than reBuired to communicate the e4entG the hero is too tired to dri4e them away again. The attitude that %a$,a assumes towards dreams should be the readerCs towards %a$,a. -e should dwell on the incommensurable, o(aBue details, the blind s(ots. The $act that FeniCs $ingers are connected by a web, or that the e.ecutioners resemble tenors, is more im(ortant than the @.cursus on the law. It is true both o$ the mode o$ re(resentation and o$ the language. 8estures o$ten ser4e as counter(oints to words: the (re9linguistic that eludes all intention u(sets the ambiguity, which, li,e a disease, has eaten into all signi$ication in %a$,a. EQThe letter,K began %., QI ha4e read it. )o you ,now the contentsJK Q=o,CC said 3arnabas, whose
(age><65

loo, seemed to im(ly more than his words. /erha(s %. was as mista,en in 3arnabasC goodness as in the malice o$ the (easants, but his (resence remained a com$ort.C ?r: EQWell,K she said e.tenuatingly, Qthere was a reason $or laughing. Dou as,ed i$ I ,new %lamm, and you see IKhere she in4oluntarily straightened u( a little, and her trium(hant glance, which had no connection whate4er with what she was saying, swe(t o4er %. QI am his mistress.CCC ?r in the scene o$ FriedaCs (arting $rom the sur4eyor: EFrieda had let her head $all on %Cs shoulderG their arms round each other, they wal,ed silently u( and down. QI$ we had only,K said Frieda a$ter a while, slowly, Buietly, almost serenely, as i$ she ,new that only a 4ery short res(ite o$ (eace on %Cs shoulder was reser4ed $or her and she wanted to en;oy it to the utmost, QI$ we had only gone away somewhere at once that night, we might be in (eace now, always together, your hand always near enough $or mine to gras(G oh, how much I need your com(anionshi(, how lost I ha4e $elt without it e4er since IC4e ,nown youT To ha4e your com(any, belie4e me, is the only dream IC4e had, that and nothing else.KE Such gestures are the traces o$ e.(eriences co4ered o4er by signi$ication. The most recent state o$ a language that wells u( in the mouths o$ those who s(ea, it, the second 3abylonian con$usion, which %a$,aCs sober diction tirelessly o((oses, com(els him to in4ert the historical relation o$ conce(t and gesture. The gesture is the EthatCs the way it isCG language, the con$iguration o$ which should be truth, is, as a bro,en one, untruth. EQAlso you should be $ar more reticent, nearly e4erything you ha4e ;ust said could ha4e been im(lied in your beha4iour with the hel( o$ a word here and there, and in any case does not redound (articularly to your credit.KC The e.(eriences sedimented in the gestures will e4entually ha4e to be $ollowed by inter(retation, one which recogni2es in their mimesis a uni4ersal which has been re(ressed by sound common sense. In the scene o$ %Cs arrest at the beginning o$ The Trial, there is the $ollowing (assage: EThrough the o(en window, he had another glim(se o$ the old woman who with genuine senile inBuisiti4eness had mo4ed along to the window e.actly o((osite, in order to see all that could be seenJ Is there anyone who has li4ed in boarding houses and has not $elt himsel$ obser4ed by the neighbours in (recisely the same mannerG together with the re(ulsi4e, the $amiliar, the unintelligible and the ine4itable, such a (erson has seen the image o$ $ate suddenly light u(. The reader who succeeds in sol4ing such rebuses will understand more o$ %a$,a than all those who $ind in him ontology illustrated.
(age><6!

-ere one may ob;ect that an inter(retation can no more rely on this than on anything else in %a$,aCs deranged cosmos, that such e.(eriences are nothing but contingent and (ri4ate (sychological (ro;ections. Anyone who belie4es that the neighbours are watching him $rom their windows or that the tele(hone s(ea,s to him with its own singing 4oice 0 and %a$,aCs writing teems with such statements 0 is su$$ering $rom delusions o$ (ersecution and o$ relation, and anyone who see,s to ma,e a ,ind o$ system out o$

such things has been in$ected by the (aranoiaG $or such a (erson %a$,aCs wor,s ser4e solely to rationali2e his own (sychological in;uries. This ob;ection can be answered only through re$lection on the relation o$ %a$,aCs wor, itsel$ to the 2one o$ (sychology. -is words, E$or the last time, (sychologyC, are well ,nown as is his remar, that e4erything o$ his could be inter(reted (sychoanalytically e.ce(t that this inter(retation would in turn reBuire $urther inter(retation ad indefinitum neither such 4erdicts, nor the 4enerable haughtiness which is the most recent ideological de$ence o$ materialism, should tem(t one to acce(t the thesis that %a$,a has nothing to do with Freud. It would be a bad sign $or his much (raised (ro$undity i$ one re$used to ac,nowledge what e.ists in those de(ths. In their conce(tion o$ hierarchy, %a$,a and Freud are hardly to be distinguished. In Totem and Ta oo, Freud writes: EA ,ingCs taboo is too strong $or his sub;ect because the social di$$erence between them is too great. 3ut a minister may ser4e as a harmless intermediary between them. Trans(osed $rom the language o$ taboo into that o$ normal (sychology this means the $ollowing: the sub;ect, who $ears the great tem(tation in4ol4ed in contact with the ,ing, can still tolerate dealings with an o$$icial whom he does not need to en4y so much and whose (osition may e4en a((ear within his gras(. The minister, howe4er, can tem(er his en4y o$ the ,ing by considering the (ower which he has been allotted. Thus smaller di$$erences in the magical (ower leading to tem(tation are less to be $eared than (articularly great ones.C In The Trial, a high o$$icial says: E=ot e4en I can bear the sight o$ e4en the third door9,ee(erC, and there are analogous moments in The 6astle. This also sheds light on a decisi4e com(le. in /roust, snobbism as the will to sooth the dread o$ the taboo by winning acce(tance among the initiates: EFor it was not ;ust %lammCs (ro.imity as such that was worth stri4ing $or but rather the $act that it was he, %., only he, no one else with his wish or with any other, who a((roached %lamm, not in order to rest with him but rather to (ass beyond him, $arther, into
(age><':

the castle.C The e.(ression, d;lire de toucher, which Freud cites and which is eBually germane to the s(here o$ the taboo, e.actly describes, the se.ual magic that dri4es (eo(le together in %a$,a, es(ecially those o$ lower social station with those o$ a higher class. @4en the Etem(tationC sus(ected by Freud 0 that o$ murdering the $ather9$igure 0 is alluded to in %a$,a. At the conclusion o$ the cha(ter in The 6astle in which the landlady e.(lains to the sur4eyor that it is utterly im(ossible $or him to s(ea, with -err %lamm in (erson, he has the last word: E QWell, what are you a$raid o$ J DouCre surely not a$raid $or %lamm, are youJK The landlady ga2ed silently a$ter him as he ran down the stairs with the assistants $ollowing.C To come closest to understanding the relation between the e.(lorer o$ the unconscious and the (arabolist o$ im(enetrability, one must remember that Freud concei4ed o$ an archety(al scene such as the murder o$ the (rimal $ather, a (re9historical narrati4e such as that o$ oses, or the young childCs obser4ation o$ its (arents ha4ing se.ual relations, not as (roducts o$ the imagination but in large measure as real e4ents. In such eccentricities %a$,a $ollows Freud with the de4otion o$ a Till @ulens(iegel to the limits o$ absurdity. -e snatches (sychoanalysis $rom the gras( o$ (sychology. /sychoanalysis itsel$ is already in a certain sense o((osed to the s(eci$ically (sychological inasmuch as it deri4es the indi4idual $rom amor(hous and di$$use dri4es, the @go $rom the Id. /ersonality is trans$ormed $rom something substantial into a mere organi2ational (rinci(le o$ somatic im(ulses. In Freud as in %a$,a the 4alidity o$ the soul is e.cludedG %a$,a, indeed, too, 4irtually no notice o$ it $rom the 4ery beginning. -e distinguishes himsel$ $rom the $ar older, scienti$ically inclined Freud, not through a more delicate s(irituality but rather through a sce(ticism towards the @go which, i$ anything, e.ceeds that o$ Freud. This is the $unction o$ %a$,aCs literalness. As though conducting an e.(eriment, he studies what would ha((en i$ the results o$ (sychoanalysis were to (ro4e true not merely meta(horically but in the $lesh. -e acce(ts (sychoanalysis in so $ar as it con4icts ci4ili2ation and bourgeois indi4iduation o$ their illusorinessG he e.(lodes it by ta,ing it more e.actly at its word than it does itsel$. According to Freud, (sychoanalysis de4otes its attention to the Edregs o$ the world o$ a((earancesC. -e is thin,ing o$ (sychic (henomena, (ara(ra.es, dreams and neurotic sym(toms. %a$,a sins against an ancient rule o$ the game by constructing art out o$ nothing but the re$use o$ reality. -e does not directly outline the image o$ the society to come 0 $or in his as in all great art, asceticism towards the $uture (re4ails 0 but rather de(icts it as a montage com(osed o$ waste9(roducts which the new

(age><'#

order, in the (rocess o$ $orming itsel$, e.tracts $rom the (erishing (resent. Instead o$ curing neurosis, he see,s in it itsel$ the healing $orce, that o$ ,nowledge: the wounds with which, society brands the indi4idual are seen by the latter as ci(hers o$ the social untruth, as the negati4e o$ truth. -is (ower is one o$ demolition. -e tears down the soothing $aLade to which a re(ressi4e reason increasingly con$orms. In the (rocess o$ demolition 0 ne4er was the word more (o(ular than in the year o$ %a$,aCs death 0 he does not sto( at the sub;ect as does (sychology, but dri4es through to the bare material e.istence that emerges in the sub;ecti4e s(here through the total colla(se o$ a submissi4e consciousness, di4est o$ all sel$9assertion. The $light through man and beyond into the non9human 0 that is %a$,aCs e(ic course. The decline o$ genius, the s(asmodic lac, o$ resistance which so com(letely con4erges with %a$,aCs morality, is (arado.ically rewarded by the com(elling authority o$ its e.(ression. Such a (osture, rela.ed 4irtually to the brea,ing (oint, is heir to what was $ormerly meta(hor, signi$icance, mind, and it inherits it as though it were a (hysical reality o$ its own, as Es(iritual bodyC. It is as though the (hiloso(hical doctrine o$ the Ecategorical intuitionC, which was becoming well ,nown at the time that %a$,a wrote, were to be honoured in hell. The windowless monad (reser4es itsel$ as the magic lantern, mother o$ all images as in /roust and 1oyce. That abo4e which indi4iduation li$ts itsel$, what it conceals and what it dro4e $rom itsel$, is common to all but can only be gras(ed in solitude and undistracted concentration. To $ully (artici(ate in the (rocess that (roduces the abnormal e.(eriences which in %a$,a de$ine the norm, one must ha4e e.(erienced an accident in a large cityG uncounted witnesses come $orward, (roclaiming themsel4es acBuaintances, as though the entire community had gathered to obser4e the moment when the (ower$ul bus smashed into the $limsy ta.icab. The (ermanent the d;4> vu o$ all. This is the source o$ %a$,aCs success, which becomes betrayal only when the uni4ersal is distilled $rom his writings and the labours o$ deadly seclusion a4oided. /erha(s the hidden aim o$ his art as a whole is the manageability, techni$ication, collecti4i2ation o$ the d;4> vu. The best, which is $orgotten, is remembered and im(risoned in a bottle li,e the "umaean sibyll. @.ce(t that in the (rocess it changes into the worst: EI want to dieC, and that is denied it. ade eternal, the transient is o4erta,en by a curse. @ternali2ed gestures in %a$,a are the momentaneous brought to a
(age><'<

standstill. The shoc, is li,e a surrealistic arrangement o$ that which old (hotogra(hs con4ey to the 4iewer. Such a sna(shot, unclear, almost entirely $aded, (lays its r_le in The 6astle. The landlady shows %. a (hotogra(h she has ,e(t as a relic o$ her contact with %lamm and through him with the hierarchy. ?nly with di$$iculty can %. recogni2e anything on it. DesterdayCs gaudy tableau., drawn $rom the s(here o$ the circus 0 $or which %a$,a, with the a4ant9garde o$ his generation, $elt an a$$inity 0 are $reBuently introduced into his wor,G (erha(s e4erything was originally su((osed to become a tableau and only an e.cess o$ intention (re4ented this, through long dialogues. Anything that balances on the (innacle o$ the moment li,e a horse on its hindlegs is sna((ed, as though the (ose ought to be (reser4ed $ore4er. The most gruesome e.am(le o$ this is (robably to be $ound in The Trial: 1ose$ %. o(ens the lumber9room, in which his warders had been beaten a day earlier, to $ind the scene $aith$ully re(eated, including the a((eal to himsel$. EAt once %. slammed the door shut and then beat on it with his $ists, as i$ that would shut it still more securely.C This is the gesture o$ %a$,aCs own wor,, which 0 as /oe had already begun to do 0 turns away $rom the most e.treme scenes as though no eye could sur4i4e the sight. In it what is (er(etually the same and what is e(hemeral merge. ?4er and o4er again, Titorelli (aints that monotonous genre (icture, the heath. The sameness or intriguing similarity o$ a 4ariety o$ ob;ects is one o$ %a$,aCs most (ersistent moti$sG all (ossible demi9creatures ste( $orward in (airs, o$ten mar,ed by the childish and the silly, oscillating between a$$ability and cruelty li,e sa4ages in childrenCs boo,s. Indi4iduation has become such a burden $or men and has remained so (recarious, that they are mortally $rightened whene4er its 4eil is raised a little. /roust was $amiliar with the shi4er o$ discom$ort that comes o4er someone who has been made aware o$ his resemblance to an un,nown relati4e. In %a$,a, this becomes (anic. The realm o$ the d;4> vu is (o(ulated by doubles, revenants, bu$$oons, -asidic dancers, boys who a(e their teachers and then suddenly

a((ear ancient, archaicG at one (oint, the sur4eyor wonders whether his assistants are $ully ali4e. Det there are also images o$ what is coming, men manu$actured on the assembly9line, mechanically re(roduced co(ies, -u.leyian @(silons. The social origin o$ the indi4idual ultimately re4eals itsel$ as the (ower to annihilate him. %a$,aCs wor, is an attem(t to absorb this. There is nothing mad in his (rose, unli,e the writer $rom whom he learned decisi4ely, Aobert WalserG e4ery sentence has been sha(ed by a mind in $ull control o$ itsel$G yet, at the same time, e4ery sentence has been snatched $rom the
(age><'&

2one o$ insanity into which all ,nowledge must 4enture i$ it is to become such in an age when sound common sense only rein$orces uni4ersal blindness. The hermetic (rinci(le has, among others, the $unction o$ a (rotecti4e measure: it ,ee(s out the onrushing delusion, which would mean, howe4er, its own collecti4i2ation. The wor, that shatters indi4iduation will at no (rice want to be imitatedG $or this reason, surely, %a$,a ga4e orders $or it to be destroyed. =o tourist trade: was to blossom where it had goneG yet anyone who imitated its gestures without ha4ing been there would be guilty o$ (ure e$$rontery in attem(ting to (oc,et the e.citement and (ower o$ alienation without the ris,. The result would be im(otent a$$ectation. %arl %raus, and to a certain e.tent Schoenberg, reacted much li,e %a$,a in this res(ect. Det such inimitability also a$$ects the situation o$ the critic. "on$ronted by %a$,a his (osition is no more en4iable than that o$ the disci(leG it is, in ad4ance, an a(ology $or the world. =ot that there is nothing to critici2e in %a$,aCs wor,. Among the de$ects, which become ob4ious in the great no4els, monotony is the most stri,ing. The (resentation o$ the ambiguous, uncertain, inaccessible, is re(eated endlessly, o$ten at the e.(ense o$ the 4i4idness that is always sought. The bad in$inity o$ the matter re(resented s(reads to the wor, o$ art. This $ault may well re$lect one in the content, a (re(onderance o$ the abstract idea, itsel$ the myth that %a$,a attac,s. The (ortrayal see,s to ma,e the uncertain still more uncertain but (ro4o,es the Buestion, why the e$$ortJ I$ e4erything is Buestionable to begin with, then why not restrict onesel$ to the gi4en minimumJ %a$,a would ha4e re(lied that it was ;ust this ho(eless e$$ort that he demanded, much as, %ier,egaard sought to irritate the reader through his di$$useness and thus startle him out o$ aesthetic contem(lation. )iscussions concerning the 4irtues and de$iciencies o$ such literary tactics are so $ruitless because criticism can address itsel$ only to that in a wor, wherein it see,s to be e.em(laryG where it says, Eas I am, so shall it beC. 3ut (recisely this claim is re;ected by %a$,aCs disconsolate EthatCs the way it isC. =e4ertheless, at times the (ower o$ the images he con;ures u( crac,s through their (rotecti4e co4ering. Se4eral sub;ect the readerCs sel$9awareness, to say nothing o$ the author, to a se4ere test: EThe /enal "olonyC and EThe etamor(hosisC, re(orts which had to await those o$ 3ettelheim, %ogon and Aousset $or their eBuals, much as the birdCs eye (hotos o$ bombed out cities redeemed, as it were, "ubism, by reali2ing that through which the latter bro,e with reality. I$ there is ho(e in %a$,aCs wor,, it is in those e.tremes rather than in the milder (hases: in the ca(acity to stand u( to the worst by ma,ing it into language. Are these, then, the wor,s which
(age><'6

o$$er the ,ey to an inter(retationJ There are grounds to thin, so. In EThe etamor(hosisC, the (ath o$ the e.(erience can be reconstructed $rom the literalness as an e.tension o$ the lines. EThese tra4elling salesmen are li,e bugsC, is the 8erman e.(ression that %a$,a must ha4e (ic,ed u(, s(eared u( li,e an insect. 3ugs 0 not What becomes o$ a man who is a bug as big as a manJ As big as adults must a((ear to the child, and as distorted, with gigantic, tram(ling legs and $ar9o$$, tiny heads, were one to catch and isolate the childCs terri$ied 4isionG it could be (hotogra(hed with an obliBue camera. In %a$,a, an entire li$etime is not enough to reach the ne.t town, and the sto,erCs shi(, the sur4eyorCs inn, are o$ dimensions so enormous that one would ha4e to return to a long9$orgotten (ast to $ind a time when man saw his own (roducts similarly. Anyone who desires such 4ision must trans$orm himsel$ into a child and $orget many things. -e recogni2es his $ather as the ogre he has always $eared in in$initesimal omensG his re4ulsion against cheese rinds re4eals itsel$ as the ignominious, (re9human cra4ing $or them. The EboardersC are 4isibly shrouded in the horror 0 their emanation 0 which hitherto clung almost im(erce(tibly to the word. %a$,aCs literary techniBue $astens on to words as /roustCs in4oluntary recollection does to sensuous ob;ects, only with the

o((osite result: instead o$ re$lection on the human, the trial run o$ a model o$ dehumani2ation. Its (ressure $orces the sub;ect into a regression which is, so to s(ea,, biological and which (re(ares the ground $or %a$,aCs animal (arables. The crucial moment, howe4er, towards which e4erything in %a$,a is directed, is that in which men become aware that they are not themsel4es 0 that they themsel4es: are things. The long and $atiguing imageless sections, beginning with the con4ersation with the $ather in EThe 1udgementC, ser4e the (ur(ose o$ demonstrating to men what no image could, their un9identity, the com(lement o$ their co(y9li,e similarity. The lesser moti4es, conclusi4ely demonstrated to the sur4eyor by the landlady and then also by Frieda, are alien to him 0 %a$,a brilliantly antici(ated the conce(t o$ the @go9alien later de4elo(ed by (sychoanalysis. 3ut the sur4eyor admits these moti4es. -is indi4idual and his social character are s(lit as widely as in "ha(linCs #onsieur -erdou'G %a$,aCs hermetic memoranda contain the social genesis o$ schi2o(hrenia. %a$,aCs world o$ images is sad and dila(idated, e4en where it sets its sights high, as in EThe =atural Theatre o$ ?,lahomaC 0 as though
(age><''

he had $oreseen the migration o$ wor,ers $rom this state 0 or in the E"are o$ a Family anCG the $und o$ $lash (hotogra(hs is as chal,y and mongoloid as a (etty9bourgeois wedding by -enri AousseauG the odour is that o$ unaired beds, the colour, the red o$ mattresses whose sheets ha4e been lostG the dread %a$,a e4o,es, that o$ 4omiting. And yet most o$ his wor, is a reaction to unlimited (ower. To this (ower, that o$ the raging (atriarch, 3en;amin ga4e the name E(arasiticC: it li4es o$$ the li$e it o((resses. 3ut characteristically, the (arasitic moment is dis(laced. 8regor Samsa, not his $ather, becomes the bug. It is not the (ower$ul but the im(otent who a((ear su(er$luousG none none o$ them (er$orms socially use$ul wor,. @4en the $act that the accused ban, cler,, 1ose$ %., being (reoccu(ied with his trial, cannot do his ;ob (ro(erly, is recorded. They cree( around among (ro(erties which ha4e long since been amorti2ed and which grant them their e.istence only as charity, since they ha4e outli4ed themsel4es. The dis(lacement is modelled on the ideological habit o$ glori$ying the re(roduction o$ li$e as an act o$ grace on behal$ o$ those who dis(ose o4er the means o$ (roduction, those who E(ro4ideC wor,. It describes a social whole in which those whom society holds in its gri( and through whom it maintains itsel$ become su(er$luous. 3ut the shabbiness in %a$,a goes $urther. It is the cry(togram o$ ca(italismCs highly (olished, glittering late (hase, which he e.cludes in order to de$ine it all the more (recisely in its negati4e. %a$,a scrutini2es the smudges le$t behind in the delu.e edition o$ the boo, o$ li$e by the $ingers o$ (ower. =o world could be more homogeneous than the sti$ling one which he com(resses to a totality by means o$ (etty9bourgeois dreadG it is logically air9tight and em(ty o$ meaning li,e e4ery system. @4erything that he narrates belongs to the same order o$ reality. All o$ his stories ta,e (lace in the same s(aceless s(ace, and all holes are so tightly (lugged that one shudders whene4er anything is mentioned that does not $it in, such as S(ain and southern France at one (oint in The 6astleG all o$ America, howe4er, is incor(orated into that s(ace in the image o$ steerage. ythologies are interconnected li,e %a$,aCs labyrinthian descri(tions. The in$erior, abstruse, de$ormed, howe4er, is as essential to their continuum as are corru(tion and criminal a9sociality to totalitarian domination, and the lo4e o$ e.crement to the cult o$ hygiene. Intellectual and (olitical systems desire nothing that does not resemble them. The more (ower$ul they become, the more they see, to bring e.isting reality under a single heading, the more they o((ress it, and the $arther they remo4e themsel4es $rom it. /recisely $or this reason, the slightest Ede4iationC becomes a threat to their basic (rinci(le, as intolerable as are the strangers and solitaries to
(age><'6

the (owers9that9be in %a$,a. Integration is disintegration, and in it the mythic s(ell con4erges with the rationality o$ domination. The so9called (roblem o$ contingency, which has been the cause o$ so much agony to (hiloso(hical systems, is their own creation. It is only because o$ their (ure ine.orability that whate4er sli(s through their net becomes a mortal enemy, ;ust as the mythical Bueen cannot rest while there is still someone, $ar beyond the mountains, the child o$ the $airy9tale, who is more beauti$ul than she. There is no system without its residue. From this %a$,a (ro(hesies. I$ it is true that e4erything that ha((ens in his com(ulsi4e world combines the e.(ression o$ utter necessity with that o$ the utter

contingency (eculiar to shabbiness, then it is no less true that he deci(hers the notorious law in his mirror9 writing. "onsummate untruth is the contradiction o$ itsel$G it need not, there$ore, be e.(licitly contradicted. %a$,a unmas,s mono(olism by $ocusing on the waste9(roducts o$ the liberal era that it liBuidates. This historical moment, not anything allegedly meta9tem(oral illuminating history $rom abo4e, is the crystalli2ation o$ his meta(hysicsG there is no eternity $or him other than that o$ the endlessly re(eated sacri$ice, which culminates in the image o$ the last one. E?nly our notion o$ time (ermits us to s(ea, o$ the Fast 1udgmentG actually, it is a summary court in (er(etual session.C The last sacri$ice is always yesterdayCs. /recisely $or this reason 4irtually e4ery o4ert re$erence to anything historical 0 the E3uc,et AiderC, drawn $rom the coal shortage, is a rare e.ce(tion 0 is a4oided in %a$,a. -is wor, assumes a hermetic stance towards history as well: a taboo hangs o4er this conce(t. To the eternity o$ the historical moment there corres(onds an attitude which sees the way o$ the world as naturally $allen and in4ariantG the moment, the absolutely transient, is the li,eness o$ the eternity o$ (assing away, o$ damnation. The name o$ history may not be s(o,en since what would truly be history, the other, has not yet begun. ETo belie4e in (rogress is to belie4e that there has not yet been any.C In the midst o$ a((arently static li4ing conditions, those o$ (easants and artisans in a sim(le commodity economy, %a$,a de(icts e4erything historical as condemned, ;ust as those conditions themsel4es are condemned. -is scenery is always obsoleteG the Elong, low buildingC that $unctions as a school is said to combine Eremar,ably a loo, o$ great age with a (ro4isional a((earanceC. -uman beings are not 4ery di$$erent. The obsolete is the stigma o$ the (resentG %a$,a has ta,en an in4entory o$ such mar,s. Det $or children, who ha4e to do with the disintegration o$ the historical world, the obsolete is also the image o$ that in which history as such $irst a((earsG it is the EchildCs image o$ modernityC, the ho(e
(age><'7

beBueathed them that history might yet come to be. EThe $eeling o$ one who is in need and hel( comes, one who is ha((y not because he is sa4ed 0 he is not sa4ed 0 but rather because new, young (eo(le come, con$ident, ready to ta,e u( the struggle, ignorant, o$ course, o$ what stands be$ore them, yet in an ignorance which does not cause the obser4er to lose ho(e but rather $ills him with awe, with ;oy, with tears. -atred o$ him against whom the struggle is waged is also (resent.C For this struggle there is a call to arms: EIn our house, this enormous suburban house, a rented barrac,s o4ergrown with indestructible medie4al ruins, there was (roclaimed today, on a misty, icy winter morning, the $ollowing call to arms: QFellow Tenants, I (ossess $i4e toy guns. They are hanging in my closet, one on each hoo,. The $irst is mine, the rest are $or anyone who wants them. Should there be more than $our, the others will ha4e to bring their own wea(ons and de(osit them in my closet. For there will ha4e to be unityG without unity we will not mo4e $orward. Incidentally, I only ha4e guns which are entirely useless $or any other (ur(ose, the mechanism is ruined, the wads are torn o$$, only the hammers still sna(. There$ore, it will not be 4ery di$$icult to (rocure more such wea(ons should they be needed. 3ut $undamentally, I will be ;ust as ha((y, in the beginning, with (eo(le who ha4e no guns. Those o$ us who do, will, at the crucial moment, ta,e the unarmed into our midst. This is a strategy which (ro4ed itsel$ with the $irst American $armers against the IndiansG why shouldnCt it (ro4e itsel$ here as well, since the conditions are, a$ter all, similar. We can e4en $orget about guns, then, $or the duration, and e4en the $i4e guns are not absolutely necessary, and they will be used sim(ly because they are already here. I$ the other $our do not want to carry them, then they can $orget about them. I alone will carry one, as the leader. 3ut we shouldnCt ha4e a leader, and so I, too, will destroy my gun or lay it aside.K That was the $irst call to arms. In our house no one has the time or desire to read such calls, much less consider them. Soon the little (a(ers were swimming along in the stream o$ dirt which originates in the attic, is nourished by all the corridors and s(ills down the stairs to struggle there with the o((osing stream that swells u(wards $rom below. 3ut a wee, later came a second call: QFellow TenantsT So $ar no one has re(orted to me. I was, in so $ar as the necessity o$ earning my li4ing allowed, constantly at home, and during the time o$ my absence, when the door to my room was always le$t o(en, a sheet o$ (a(er lay on my table on which anyone who so desired could enrol. =o one has done so.K E This is the $igure o$ the re4olution in %a$,aCs narrati4es.

(age><'5

%laus ann insisted that there was a similarity between %a$,aCs world and that o$ the Third Aeich. And while it is true that any direct (olitical allusion would ha4e 4iolated the s(irit o$ a wor, whose Ehatred o$ him against whom the struggle is wagedC was $ar too im(lacable to ha4e sanctioned any ,ind o$ aesthetic realism, any acce(tance o$ the $aLade o$ reality at $ace94alue 0 ne4ertheless, it is =ational Socialism $ar more than the hidden dominion o$ 8od that his wor, cites. )ialectical theology $ails in its attem(t to: a((ro(riate him not merely because o$ the mythical character o$ the (owers at wor,, an as(ect which 3en;amin rightly em(hasi2ed, but also because in %a$,a, unli,e Fear and Trem ling, ambiguity and obscurity are attributed not e.clusi4ely to the ?ther as such but to human beings and to the conditions in which they li4e. /recisely that Ein$inite Bualitati4e distinctionC taught by %ier,egaard and 3arth is le4elled o$$G there, is no real distinction, %a$,a writes, between town and castle. %a$,aCs method was 4eri$ied when the obsolete liberal traits that he sur4eyed, stemming $rom the anarchy o$ commodity (roduction, changed into the $orms o$ $ascist organi2ation. And it was not only %a$,aCs (ro(hecy o$ terror and torture that was $ul$illed. EState and /artyC 0 they meet in attics, li4e in ta4erns, li,e -itler and 8oebbels in the 0aiserhof, a band o$ cons(irators installed as the (olice. Their usur(ation re4eals that inherent in the myth o$ (ower. In The 6astle the o$$icials wear a s(ecial uni$orm, as the SS did 0 one which any (ariah can ma,e himsel$ i$ need be. In $ascism, too, the elites are sel$9a((ointed. Arrest is assault, ;udgment 4iolence. The /arty always allowed its (otential 4ictims a dubious, corru(t chance to bargain and negotiate, as do %a$,aCs inaccessible $unctionariesG he could ha4e in4ented the e.(ression, E(rotecti4e custodyC, had it not already become current during the First World War. 8isa, the blonde schoolmistress, cruel and $ond o$ animals 0 (robably the only (retty girl de(icted by %a$,a who is $ree $rom mutilation, as though her hardness scorned the %a$,aesBue maelstrom 0 steams $rom the (re9adamite race o$ -itler Jungfrauen who hated the 1ews long be$ore there were any. Acts o$ unbridled 4iolence are (er$ormed by $igures in subordinate (ositions, ty(es such as non9commissioned o$$icers, (risoners9o$9war and concierges. They are all d;class;s, caught u( in the colla(se o$ the organi2ed collecti4e and (ermitted to sur4i4e, li,e 8regor Samsa s $ather. As in the era o$ de$ecti4e ca(italism, the burden o$ guilt is shi$ted $rom the s(here o$ (roduction to the agents o$
(age><'!

circulation or to those who (ro4ide ser4ices, tra4elling salesmen, ban, em(loyees, waiters. The unem(loyed 0 in 6astle ( and emigrants 0 in America ( are dressed and (reser4ed li,e $ossils o$ the (rocess o$ d;classement. The economic tendencies whose relics they re(resent almost be$ore those tendencies had (re4ailed, were by no means as $oreign to %a$,a as his hermetic (rocedure might suggest. A glim(se o$ this is to be $ound in a remar,able em(irical (assage $rom America, the $irst o$ his no4els: EIt was some ,ind o$ wholesale ordering and trans(orting business, which, to the best o$ %arlCs memory, was unli,e anything in @uro(e. The business consisted in ser4ing as a middlemanG not, howe4er, between (roducers and consumers, or (erha(s the sellers, but rather in distributing all goods and basic (roducts among the large $actory cartels.C It was this 4ery mono(olistic a((aratus o$ distribution, Eo$ gigantic dimensionsC, that destroyed trade and tra$$ic, the hi((ocratic $ace o$ which %a$,a immortali2ed. The historical 4erdict is the (roduct o$ disguised domination, and thus becomes integrated into the myth, that o$ blind $orce endlessly re(roducing itsel$. In the latest (hase o$ this $orce, that o$ bureaucratic control, he recogni2es the earliest stageG its waste9(roducts become (re9historical. The rents and de$ormations o$ the modern age are in his eyes traces o$ the stone ageG the chal, $igures on yesterdayCs school blac,board, le$t un9erased, become the true ca4e drawings. The daring $oreshortening in which such regressions a((ear, howe4er, also re4eals the trend o$ society. With his trans(osition into archety(es, the bourgeois comes to an end. The loss o$ his indi4idual $eatures, the disclosure o$ the horror teeming under the stone o$ culture mar,s the disintegration o$ indi4iduality itsel$. The horror, howe4er, consists in the $act that the bourgeois was unable to $ind a successorG Eno one has done soC. /erha(s this is what is meant by the tale o$ 8racchus, the once wild hunter, a man o$ $orce who was unable to die. 1ust as the bourgeoisie $ailed to die. -istory becomes -ell in %a$,a because the chance which might ha4e sa4ed was missed. This hell was inaugurated by the late bourgeoisie itsel$. In the concentration cam(s, the boundary between li$e and death was eradicated. A

middle9ground was created, inhabited by li4ing s,eletons and (utre$ying bodies, 4ictims unable to ta,e their own li4es, SatanCs laughter at the ho(e o$ abolishing death. As in %a$,aCs twisted e(ics, what (erished there was that which had (ro4ided the criterion o$ e.(erience 0 li$e li4ed out to its end. 8racchus is the consummate re$utation o$ the (ossibility banished $rom the world: to die a$ter a long and $ull li$e.
(age><6:

The hermetic character o$ %a$,aCs writings o$$ers the tem(tation not merely to set the idea o$ his wor, in abstract o((osition to history 0 as he himsel$ $reBuently does 0 but in addition to re$ine the wor, itsel$ out o$ history with ready (ro$undity. Det it is (recisely this hermetic Buality that lin,s it to the literary mo4ement o$ the decade surrounding the First World WarG one o$ the $ocal (oints o$ this mo4ement was /rague and its milieu was %a$,aCs. ?ne must ha4e read %urt Wol$$ Cs blac, so$t9bound editions o$ EThe Fast 1udgmentC, EThe 1udgmentC, E etamor(hosisC, and the ESto,erC cha(ter to ha4e e.(erienced %a$,a in his authentic hori2on, that o$ e.(ressionism. -is e(ic tem(erament sought to a4oid its characteristic linguistic gesture, although lines li,e: E/e(i, (roud, head tossed bac,, smile ne4er changing, irre$utably aware o$ her dignity, twirling her braid at e4ery turn, hurried bac, and $orthCG or: E%. ste((ed out on to the, stoo( in the wildly swirling wind and (eered into the dar,nessC, dis(lay his consummate mastery o$ the style. /ro(er names, es(ecially in the shorter (rose (ieces, stri((ed o$ $irst names, li,e Wese and Schmar, recall the list o$ characters in e.(ressionist (lays. It is no rarity $or %a$,aCs language to disa4ow its content as audaciously as in that ecstatic descri(tion o$ the little barmaid 0 its 4er4e swee(s the narrati4e u( out o$ the desolate stagnancy o$ the story. In his liBuidation o$ the dream through its ubiBuity, %a$,a, the e(ic writer, $ollows the e.(ressionist im(ulse $arther than any but the most radical o$ the (oets. -is wor, has the tone o$ the ultra9le$tG to le4el it down to the Euni4ersally humanC is to $alsi$y it con$ormistically. )ebatable $ormulations such as the Etrilogy o$ solitudeC, retain their 4alue because they em(hasi2e a (recondition inherent in e4ery line o$ %a$,a. The hermetic (rinci(le is that o$ com(letely estranged sub;ecti4ity. It is no accident that %a$,a resisted all social in4ol4ement in the contro4ersies o$ which 3rod re(ortsG only $or the sa,e o$ such resistance did this in4ol4ement become thematic in The 6astle. -e is %ier,egaardCs (u(il solely with regard to Eob;ectless inwardnessC. This inwardness e.(lains e.treme traits. What is enclosed in %a$,aCs glass ball is e4en more monotonous, more coherent and hence more horrible than the system outside, because in absolute sub;ecti4e s(ace and in absolute sub;ecti4e time there is no room $or anything that might disturb their intrinsic (rinci(le, that o$ ine.orable estrangement. Again and again, the s(ace9time continuum o$ Eem(irical realismC is e.(loded through small acts o$ sabotage, li,e (ers(ecti4e in contem(orary (aintingG as, $or instance,
(age><6#

when the land9sur4eyor, wandering about, is sur(rised by night$all which comes much too soon. The undi$$erentiated character o$ autarchic sub;ecti4ity strengthens the $eeling o$ uncertainty and the monotony o$ com(ulsi4e re(etition. Inwardness, re4ol4ing in itsel$ and de4oid o$ all resistance, is denied all those things which might (ut a sto( to its interminable mo4ement and which thus ta,e on an aura o$ mystery. A s(ell hangs o4er %a$,aCs s(aceG im(risoned in itsel$, the sub;ect holds its breath, as though it were not (ermitted to touch anything unli,e itsel$. Under this s(ell (ure sub;ecti4ity turns into mythology, and s(iritualism, carried to its logical e.treme, turns into the cult o$ nature. %a$,aCs eccentric interest in nudism and nature9cures, his tolerance, howe4er Buali$ied, o$ Audol$ SteinerCs wild su(erstitions, are not rudiments o$ intellectual insecurity but rather con$orm to a (rinci(le, which, in im(lacably denying itsel$ all basis o$ di$$erentiation, itsel$ loses the (ower to di$$erentiate and threatens to succumb to the 4ery regression which %a$,a uses with such mastery as a literary techniBue 0 to the eBui4ocal, amor(hous, nameless. EThe mind sets itsel$ in o((osition to nature as a $ree and autonomous entity because it sees nature as demonic, both in e.ternal reality and in itsel$. In that the autonomous mind a((ears as something (hysical, howe4er, nature ta,es (ossession o$ it at the (oint when it emerges in its most historical $orm 0 the ob;ectless interior . . . The natural element o$ the mere, inherently EEhistoricalK mind may be called mythical.C Absolute sub;ecti4ity is also sub;ectless. The sel$ li4es solely through trans$ormation into othernessG as the secure residue o$ the sub;ect which cuts itsel$ o$$ $rom e4erything alien it becomes the

blind residue o$ the world. The more the I o$ e.(ressionism is thrown bac, u(on itsel$, the more li,e the e.cluded world o$ things it becomes. 3y 4irtue o$ this similarity %a$,a $orces e.(ressionism 0 the chimerical as(ect o$ which he, more than any o$ his $riends, must ha4e sensed, and to which he ne4ertheless remained $aith$ul 0 into the $orm o$ a torturous e(icG (ure sub;ecti4ity, being o$ necessity estranged $rom itsel$ as well and ha4ing become a thing, assumes the dimensions o$ ob;ecti4ity which e.(resses itsel$ through its own estrangement. The boundary between what is human and the world o$ things becomes blurred. This $orms the basis o$ the $reBuently noted a$$inity with %lee. %a$,a called his writing EscribblingC. The thing9li,e becomes a gra(hic signG his s(ellbound $igures do not determine their actions but rather beha4e as i$ each had $allen into a magnetic $ield. # It is
#. This dooms all dramati2ations. )rama is (ossible only in so $ar as $reedom 0 e4en in its (ain$ul birth9(angs 0 is 4isibleG all other action is $utile. %a$,aCs $igures are struc, by a $ly9swatter e4en be$ore they can (footnote contnued on next page) (age><6<

(recisely this as it were e.ternal determination o$ (ersons e.isting inwardly which gi4es %a$,aCs (rose the inscrutable semblance o$ sober ob;ecti4ity. The 2one in which it is im(ossible to die is also the no9manCs9 land between man and thing: within it meet ?drade,, which 3en;amin 4iewed as an angel in %leeCs style, and 8racchus, the humble descendant o$ =imrod. The understanding o$ these most ad4anced, incommensurable (roductions, and o$ se4eral others that similarly e4ade current conce(tions o$ %a$,a, may one day (ro4ide the ,ey to the whole. -is entire wor,, howe4er, is (ermeated by the theme o$ de(ersonali2ation in se.. 1ust as, according to the rite o$ the Third Aeich, girls were not (ermitted to re$use medal9o$9honour winners, %a$,aCs s(ell, the great taboo, e.tinguishes all the lesser taboos which (ertain to the s(here o$ the indi4idual. The te.tboo, e.am(le o$ this is the (unishing o$ Amalia and her $amily 0 by tribal rite 0 because she re$uses to submit to Sortini. In the ruling (owers, the $amily trium(hs as an archaic collecti4e o4er its later, indi4iduali2ed $orm. -el(less, dri4en together li,e animals, men and women are cou(led. %a$,a $ashioned his own neurotic guilt $eelings, his in$antile se.uality as well as his obsession with E(urityC, into an instrument with which to etch away the a((ro4ed notions o$ eroticism. The absence o$ choice and o$ memory which characteri2es the li$e o$ white collar wor,ers in the huge cities o$ the twentieth century becomes, as later in @liotCs EWaste FandC, the image o$ an archaic (ast. It is anything but hetaeric. In the sus(ension o$ its rules, (atriarchal society re4eals its true secret, that o$ direct, barbaric o((ression. Women are rei$ied as mere means to an end: as se.ual ob;ects and as connections. 3ut in the gloom %a$,a gro(es $or an image o$ ha((iness. It emerges out o$ the hermetically secluded sub;ectCs incredulity at the (arado. that it can be lo4ed all the same. As incom(rehensible as is the inclination dis(layed by all women $or the (risoner in The Trial, is all ho(eG %a$,aCs disenchanted eros is also ecstatic masculine gratitude. When (oor Frieda calls hersel$ %lammCs belo4ed, the wordCs aura is brighter than at the most sublime moments in 3al2ac or 3audelaireG when, while denying the (resence o$ the sur4eyor hidden under the table to the searching inn,ee(er, Eshe (laces her little $oot on his chestC, and then bends down and EBuic,ly ,issesC him, she $inds the
(footnote contnued from previous page) ma,e a mo4eG to drag them on to the tragic stage as heroes is to ma,e a moc,ery o$ them. Andr7 8ide would ha4e remained the author o$ E/aludes,C had he not made the mista,e o$ attem(ting to do The TrialG amid the rising tide o$ illiteracy, he, at least, ought not to ha4e $orgotten that $or wor,s o$ art which deser4e the name, the medium is not a matter o$ indi$$erence. Ada(tations should be reser4ed $or the culture industry. (age><6&

gesture $or which one can wait an entire li$etime in 4ainG and the hours which the two s(end lying together Ein little (uddles o$ beer and other garbage which co4ered the $loorC, are those o$ $ul$ilment in a world so $oreign that Ee4en the air did not ha4e a (article o$ the air at homeC. This dimension was made accessible to lyric (oetry by 3recht. In both writers, howe4er, the language o$ ecstasy is $ar remo4ed $rom that o$ e.(ressionism. "on$ronted by the tas, o$ sBuaring the circle, o$ $inding words $or the s(ace o$ ob;ectless inwardness, in s(ite o$ the $act that the sco(e o$ e4ery word transcends the absolute immediacy o$ that

which it is su((osed to e4o,e 0 the contradiction on which all e.(ressionalist literature $ounders 0 %a$,a mastered it ingeniously through the 4isual element. As the medium o$ gestures, it asserts its (riority. ?nly the 4isible can be narrated, yet in the (rocess it becomes com(letely alien, a (icture. In the most literal sense. %a$,a sa4es the idea o$ e.(ressionism not by listening in 4ain $or E(rimal soundsC, but by trans$erring the (ractices o$ e.(ressionist (ainting to literature. -is attitude towards e.(ressionist (ainting is similar to that o$ Utrillo to the (icture (ostcards which are su((osed to ha4e ser4ed as the models $or his $rosty streets. In the eyes o$ the (anic9stric,en (erson who has withdrawn all e$$ecti4e cathe.is $rom ob;ects, they (etri$y into a third thing, neither dream, which can only be $alsi$ied, nor the a(ing o$ reality, but rather its enigmatic image com(osed o$ its scattered $ragments. any decisi4e (arts in %a$,a read as though they had been written in imitation o$ e.(ressionist (aintings which should ha4e been (ainted but ne4er were. At the end o$ The Trial %.Cs eye $alls Eon the to( storey o$ the house bordering on the Buarry. As a light s(rung on, the shutters $lew o(en, a man, wea, and thin in the distance and height, leaned suddenly $ar out and stretched his arms out e4en $arther. Who was itJ A $riendJ a good manJC This ,ind o$ trans$er is at the heart o$ %a$,aCs (icture9world. This world is built on the strict e.clusion o$ e4erything musical, in the sense o$ being li,e music, on the re$usal to re;ect myth through antithesisG according to 3rod, %a$,a was unmusical, ;udged by usual criteria. -is mute battle9cry against myth is: not to resist. And this asceticism endows him with the most (ro$ound relation to music in (assages such as the song o$ the tele(hone in The 6astle, the musicology in the EIn4estigations o$ a )ogC, and in one o$ the last com(leted stories, E1ose(hineC. 3y a4oiding all musical e$$ects, his brittle (rose $unctions li,e music. It brea,s o$$ its meaning li,e bro,en (illars o$ li$e in nineteenth9century cemeteries, and the lines which describe the brea, are its hierogly(hics.
(age><66

An e.(ressionist e(ic is a (arado.. It tells o$ something about which nothing can be told, o$ the totally sel$9contained sub;ect, which is un$ree and which, in $act, can hardly be said to e.ist. )issociated into the com(ulsi4e moments o$ its own restricti4e and con$ined e.istence, stri((ed o$ identity with itsel$, its li$e has no continuityG ob;ectless inwardness is s(ace in the (recise sense that e4erything it (roduces obeys the law o$ timeless re(etition. This law is not unrelated to the ahistorical as(ect o$ %a$,aCs wor,. Form which is constituted through time as the unity o$ inner meaning is not (ossible $or himG the 4erdict condemning the large e(ic which he carries out was obser4ed by Fu,`cs in authors as early as Flaubert and 1acobsen. The $ragmentary Buality o$ the three large no4els, wor,s which, moreo4er, are hardly co4ered any more by the conce(t o$ the no4el, is determined by their inner $orm. They do not (ermit themsel4es to be brought to an end as the totality o$ a rounded tem(oral e.(erience. The dialectic o$ e.(ressionism in %a$,a $orces the no4el9$orm e4er closer to the seriali2ed ad4enture story. %a$,a lo4ed such no4els. 3y ado(ting their techniBue he at the same time dissociated himsel$ $rom the established literary mores. To the list o$ his ,nown literary models should be added, in addition to Walser, surely the beginning o$ /oeCs EArthur 8ordon /ymC and se4eral cha(ters o$ %ZrnbergerCs Amerikam!de, such as the descri(tion o$ a =ew Dor, a(artment. Abo4e all, howe4er, %a$,a allied himsel$ with a(ocry(hal literary genres. Uni4ersal sus(icion, a trait etched dee(ly into the (hysiognomy o$ the (resent age, he learned $rom the detecti4e no4el. In detecti4e no4els, the world o$ things has gained mastery o4er the abstract sub;ect and %a$,a uses this as(ect to re$ashion things into e4er9(resent emblems. The large wor,s are rather li,e detecti4e no4els in which the criminal $ails to be e.(osed. @4en more instructi4e is his relationshi( to Sade, regardless o$ whether or not %a$,a ,new him. Fi,e the innocents in Sade 0 not to mention those in American grotesBue $ilms and the E$unniesC 0 %a$,aCs sub;ect, es(ecially the emigrant %arl Aossmann, (asses $rom one des(erate and ho(eless situation to the ne.tG the stations o$ the e(ic ad4enture become those o$ a modern (assion. The closed com(le. o$ immanence becomes concrete in the $orm o$ a $light $rom (risons. In the absence o$ contrast, the monstrous becomes the entire world, as in Sade, the norm, whereas the unre$lecti4e ad4enture no4el, by concentrating on e.traordinary e4ents thus con$irms the rule o$ the ordinary. In Sade and %a$,a, howe4er, reason is at wor,G by ma,ing madness the stylistic
(age><6'

(rinci(le, the ob;ecti4e insanity is allowed to emerge. 3oth authors are in the tradition o$ enlightenment, although they re(resent di$$erent stages. In %a$,a its disenchanting touch is his EthatCs the way it isC. -e re(orts what actually ha((ens, though without any illusion concerning the sub;ect, which, (ossessing the greatest degree o$ sel$9awareness 0 o$ its nullity 0 throws itsel$ on the ;un,9(ile, no di$$erent $rom what the death9machine does to its 4ictims. -e wrote the consummate Aobinson "rusoe story, that o$ the (hase in which each man has become his own Aobinson, adri$t with his accumulated things on a rudderless ra$t. The connection between the Aobinson "rusoe legend and allegory, originating in )e$oe himsel$, is not alien to the great tradition o$ the enlightenment. It is (art o$ the early9bourgeois struggle against religious authority. In the @ighth /art o$ the A'iomata directed against the orthodo. chie$ (astor 8oe2e, by an author %a$,a esteemed highly, Fessing, there is the story o$ a Edischarged Futheran (reacher $rom the /$al2C and his $amily, Ewhich consisted o$ $oundlings o$ both se.esC. Their shi( is wrec,ed and the $amily sa4es itsel$ and a catechism on a small, uninhabited grou( o$ islands in the 3ermudas. 8enerations later a -essian minister $inds their descendants on the island. They s(ea, a 8erman Ein which he thought he heard nothing but (hrases and e.(ressions $rom FutherCs catechismC. They are orthodo., Ewith the e.ce(tion o$ a $ew tri4ia. The catechism had naturally been used u( during the #': years and they had nothing remaining e.ce(t the boards o$ the co4er. This co4er, they said, contains e4erything we ,now. QIt used to contain it, my dear $riends,K said the cha(lain. QIt still does, it still contains itTK they said. QWe oursel4es cannot read, o$ course, and we hardly e4en ,now what reading is. 3ut our $athers, heard their $athers read $rom it. And our $ore$athers ,new the man who engra4ed the co4er. The manCs name was Futher, and he li4ed soon a$ter "hrist.KE /erha(s e4en closer to, %a$,aCs style is FessingCs E/arableC, which shares with the later writer a moment, unintentional certainly, o$ obscurity. The man to whom it was addressed, 8oe2e, misunderstood it com(letely. The (arable $orm as such, howe4er, is hardly to be se(arated $rom a rationalistic intention. 3y embedding human Emeaning and theories in natural materials 0 is not Aeso(Cs ass a descendant o$ ?cnosCJ 0 the mind recogni2es itsel$ in them. It thus brea,s the s(ell o$ myth by staring it in the eye without gi4ing ground. Se4eral (assages $rom FessingCs (arable, which he intended to reissue under the title, EThe /alace on FireC, e.em(li$y this all the more $or the $act that they are $ar remo4ed $rom that awareness o$ being caught in myth which dawns, in analogous (assages in %a$,a. EA wise, resource$ul
(age><66

,ing o$ a great, great realm had in his ca(ital city a (alace o$ immeasurable si2e and e.traordinary architecture. The si2e was immeasurable because he had gathered within it all the (eo(le whom he needed as assistants or agents $or his go4ernment. The architecture was e.traordinary because it 4iolated all the acce(ted rules. many, many years, the entire (alace was still as (ure and as (er$ect as when it had le$t the hands o$ its builders 0 $rom the outside somewhat (u22ling, $rom within light and harmony e4erywhere. Anyone who claimed to ,now something about architecture was (articularly o$$ended by the e.terior, which was bro,en u( by a $ew scattered windows, large and small, round and rectangular, but which there$ore had all the more doors and gates o$ di$$erent sha(es and si2es. . . . It was di$$icult to understand why so many 4aried entrances were necessary, since one large (ortal on each side would ha4e been more decorous and no less e$$icient. For $ew (eo(le were willing to concede that $or each (erson who was summoned to the (alace, the shortest and easiest way to where he was needed was through one o$ the many small entrances. And thus all ,inds o$ dis(utes arose among the su((osed e.(erts, o$ whom the most contentious were generally those who had had the least o((ortunity to see the interior o$ the (alace. oreo4er, there was something that one would ha4e thought would sim(li$y and end the dis(ute but which instead com(licated it still more and (ro4ided the richest $uel $or its stubborn sur4i4al. =amely, there were certain old (lans which were belie4ed to stem $rom the original architects o$ the (alace, and these (lans were mar,ed u( with words and signs, $or which the language and character were as good as lost. . . . ?nce, when the dis(ute o4er the (lans was not so much settled as dormant 0 once at midnight the watchmanCs 4oice suddenly rang out: QFireT $ire in the (alaceTK . . . @4eryone lea(ed $rom his bed and, acting as though the $ire were not in the (alace but in his own house, ran $or what he considered his most (recious (ossession 0 his (lan. I$ we can only sa4e that, e4eryone thought. @4en i$ the (alace burns down there, its

authenticity is sa$e hereT . . . With all this 2ealous Buibbling the (alace might indeed ha4e burned to the ground, i$ it had burned. 3ut the startled watchman had mista,en the northern lights $or a con$lagration.C It would reBuire only the slightest shi$t in accent $or this story, a lin, connecting /ascal and %ier,egaardCs Diapsalms to #yself, to become one by %a$,a. -ad Fessing merely (laced stronger em(hasis on the bi2arre and monstrous lines o$ the edi$ice at the e.(ense o$ its utilityG had he only used the statement that e4en i$ the (alace burns down there, its authenticity is (reser4ed in the (lans, as a $a4ourite answer o$ all
(age><67

those ministries whose sole legal (rinci(le is EBuod non est in actis non est in mundoC, and the a(ology $or religion against its (edantic e.egesis would ha4e become the denunciation o$ the noumenal (ower itsel$ through the medium o$ its own e.egesis. The increased obscurity and ambiguity o$ the (arabolic intention are conseBuences o$ the enlightenment. The more its rationalism reduces ob;ecti4e matters to human dimensions, the more barren and unintelligible become the outlines o$ the merely e.isting word which man can ne4er entirely dissol4e into sub;ecti4ity and $rom which he has already drained e4erything $amiliar. %a$,a reacts in the s(irit o$ the enlightenment to its re4ersion to mythology. -e has o$ten been com(ared to the cabbala. Whether ;usti$iably or not can be decided only by those who ,now that te.t. I$, howe4er, it is true that, in its late (hase, 1ewish mysticism 4anishes and becomes rational, then this $act a$$ords insight into the a$$inity o$ %a$,a, a (roduct o$ the late enlightenment, with antinomian mysticism. %a$,aCs theology, i$ one can s(ea, o$ such at all, is antinomian with res(ect to, the 4ery same 8od which Fessing de$ended against the orthodo.y, the 8od o$ the enlightenment. This 8od, howe4er, is a deus a sconditus thus becomes not a (ro(onent o$ dialectical theology, as is o$ten asserted, but its accuser. Its Eabsolute di$$erenceC con4erges with the mythic (owers. Totally abstract, and indeterminate, (urged o$ all anthro(omor(hic and mythological Bualities, 8od becomes the ominously ambiguous and threatening deity who e4o,es nothing but dread and terror. -is E(urityC 0 (atterned a$ter the mind 0 which e.(ressionist inwardness sets u( as absolute, recreates the archaic terror o$ nature9bound man in the horror o$ that which is radically un,nown. %a$,aCs wor, (reser4es the moment in which the (uri$ied $aith was re4ealed to be im(ure, in which demythologi2ing a((eared as demonology. -e remains a rationalist, howe4er, in his attem(t to recti$y the myth which thus emerges, to reo(en the trial against it, as though be$ore an a((ellate court. The 4ariations o$ myths which were $ound in his un(ublished writings bears witness to his e$$orts in search o$ such a correcti4e. The Trial no4el is itsel$ the trial o$ the trial. %a$,a used moti$s $rom %ier,egaardCs Fear and Trem ling not as heir but as critic. In %a$,aCs statement to whoe4er it may concern, he describes the court which sits in ;udgment o4er men in order to con4ict law itsel$. "oncerning the latterCs mythic character he
(age><65

le$t no doubt. At one (oint in the Trial, the goddesses o$ ;ustice, war and the hunt are treated as one. %ier,egaardCs theory o$ ob;ecti4e des(air a$$ects absolute inwardness itsel$. Absolute estrangement, abandoned to the e.istence $rom which it has withdrawn, is e.amined and re4ealed as the hell which it inherently was already in %ier,egaard, although unconsciously. As hell seen $rom the (ers(ecti4e o$ sal4ation. %a$,aCs artistic alienation, the means by which ob;ecti4e estrangement is made 4isible, recei4es its legitimation $rom the wor,Cs inner substance. -is writing $eigns a stand(oint $rom which the creation a((ears as lacerated and mutilated as it itsel$ concei4es hell to be. In the middle ages, 1ews were tortured and e.ecuted E(er4erselyC 0 i.e. in4erselyG as early as Tacitus, their religion was branded as (er4erse in a $amous (assage. ?$$enders were hung head down. %a$,a, the land9sur4eyor, (hotogra(hs the earthCs sur$ace ;ust as it must ha4e a((eared to these 4ictims during the endless hours o$ their dying. It is $or nothing less than such unmitigated torture that the (ers(ecti4e o$ redem(tion (resents itsel$ to him. To include him among the (essimists, the e.istentialists o$ des(air, is as misguided as to ma,e him a (ro(het o$ sal4ation. -e honoured =iet2scheCs 4erdict on the words o(timism and (essimism. The light9source which shows the worldCs cre4ices to be in$ernal is the o(timal one. 3ut what $or dialectical theology is light and shadow is re4ersed. The absolute does not turn its absurd side to the $inite creature 0 a doctrine which already in %ier,egaard leads to things much more 4e.ing than mere (arado. and which in %a$,a would

ha4e amounted to the enthroning o$ madness. Aather, the world is re4ealed to be as absurd as it would be $or the intellectus archetypus. The middle realm o$ the $inite and the contingent becomes in$ernal to the eye o$ the arti$icial angel. This is the (oint to which %a$,a stretches e.(ressionism. The sub;ect ob;ecti$ies itsel$ in renouncing the last 4estiges o$ com(licity. ?$ course, this is a((arently contradicted by the theory that can be read out o$ %a$,a, as well as by the stories o$ the 3y2antine res(ect which he not without scurrility, (ersonally (aid to strange (owers. 3ut the o$ten noted irony o$ these traits is itsel$ (art o$ the didactic content. It was not humility that %a$,a (reached, but rather the most tried and tested mode o$ beha4iour against myth 0 cunning. The only chance, in %a$,aCs eyes, howe4er $eeble and minute, o$ (re4enting the world $rom being all9trium(hant, was to concede it the 4ictory $rom the beginning. Fi,e the youngest boy in the $airy tale, one must ma,e onesel$ com(letely unobtrusi4e, small, a de$enceless 4ictim, instead o$ insisting on oneCs rights
(age><6!

according to the mores o$ the world, that o$ e.change, which unremittingly re(roduced in;ustice. %a$,aCs humor ho(es to reconcile myth through a ,ind o$ mimicry. In this as well he $ollows that tradition o$ enlightenment which reaches $rom the -omeric myth to -egel and ar., in whom the s(ontaneous deed, the act o$ $reedom, coincides with the culmination o$ the ob;ecti4e trend. Since then, howe4er, the crushing burden o$ human e.istence has e.ceeded all bounds in relation to the sub;ect and with this de4elo(ment the untruth o$ the abstract uto(ia has also increased. As was done thousands o$ years ago, %a$,a see,s sal4ation in the incor(oration o$ the (owers o$ the ad4ersary. The sub;ect see,s to brea, the s(ell o$ rei$ication by rei$ying itsel$. It (re(ares to, com(lete the $ate which be$ell it. EFor the last time, (sychologyC 0 %a$,aCs $igures are instructed to, lea4e their (syches at the door, at a moment o$ the social struggle in which the sole chance o$ the bourgeois indi4idual lies in the negation o$ his own com(osition, as well as o$ the class situation which has condemned him to be what he is. Fi,e his countryman, 8usta4 ahler, %a$,a sides with the deserters. Instead o$ human dignity, the su(reme bourgeois conce(t, there emerges in him the salutary recollection o$ the similarity between man and animal, an idea u(on which a whole grou( o$ his narrati4es thri4es. Immersion in the inner s(ace o$ indi4iduation, which culminates in such sel$9contem(lation, stumbles u(on the (rinci(le o$ indi4iduation, the (ostulation o$ the sel$ by the sel$, o$$icially sanctioned by (hiloso(hy, the mythic de$iance. The sub;ect see,s to ma,e amends by abandoning this de$iance. %a$,a does not glori$y the world through subordinationG he resists it through non4iolence. Faced by the latter, (ower must ac,nowledge itsel$ as that which it is, and it is on this $act alone that he counts. yth is to succumb to its own re$lected image. The heroes o$ the Trial and the 6astle become guilty not through their guilt 0 they ha4e none 0 but because they try to get ;ustice on their side. EThe original sin, the ancient in;ustice committed by man, consists in his (rotest 0 one which he ne4er ceases to ma,e 0 that he has su$$ered in;ustice, that the original sin was done against him.C It is $or this reason that their cle4er s(eeches, es(ecially those o$ the land9sur4eyor, ha4e something o$ the inane, doltish, nai4e about them 0 their sound reasoning strengthens the delusion against which it (rotests. Through rei$ication o$ the sub;ect, demanded by the world in any e4ent, %a$,a see,s to beat the world at its own game 0 the moribund become harbinger o$ Sabbath rest. This is the other side o$ %a$,aCs theory o$ the unsuccess$ul death 0 the $act that the mutilated creation cannot die any more is the sole (romise o$ immortality which
(age><7:

the rationalist %a$,a (ermits to sur4i4e the ban on images. It is tied to the sal4ation o$ things, o$ those which are no longer enmeshed in the networ, o$ guilt, those which are non9e.changeable, useless. This is what is meant in his wor, by the (henomenon o$ obsolescence, in its innermost layer o$ meaning. -is world o$ ideas 0 as in the E=atural Theatre o$ ?,lahomaC 0 resembles a world o$ sho(,ee(ersG no theologoumenon could describe it more accurately than the title o$ an America $ilm comedy, ESho(worn AngelC. Whereas the interiors, where men li4e, are the homes o$ the catastro(he, the hide9outs o$ childhood, $orsa,en s(ots li,e the bottom o$ the stairs, are the (laces o$ ho(e. The resurrection o$ the

dead would ha4e to, ta,e (lace in the auto gra4eyards. The innocence o$ what is useless (ro4ides the counter(oint to the (arasitical: EIdleness is the beginning o$ all 4ice, the crown o$ all 4irtue.C According to the testimony brought by %a$,aCs wor,, in a world caught in its own toils, e4erything (ositi4e, e4ery contribution, e4en the 4ery wor, which re(roduces li$e, hel(s increase that entanglement. E?ur tas, is to, do the negati4e 0 the (ositi4e has already been gi4en us.C The only cure $or the hal$9uselessness o$ a li$e which does not li4e would be its entire inutility. %a$,a thus allies himsel$ with death. The creation gains (riority o4er the li4ing. The sel$, innermost $ortress o$ myth, is smashed, re(udiated as the illusion o$ mere nature. EThe artist waited until %. had calmed himsel$, and then, $inding no other way out, decided to continue writing. The $irst small stro,e that he made was a deli4erance $or %., although the artist a((eared to accom(lish it only in o4ercoming the greatest resistanceG the writing, moreo4er, was no longer as beauti$ul, abo4e all there seemed to be lac, o$ goldG (ale and uncertain the line (rogressed, the letter grew 4ery large. It was a 1 and was almost $inished when the artist stam(ed $uriously with his $oot into the mound on the gra4e, causing the earth to $ly u( into the air. At last %. understood himG there was no longer any time le$t to (lead with him. With all his $ingers he clawed at the dirt, which o$$ered scarcely any resistance. @4erything seemed (re(ared. A thin sur$ace crust seemed to ha4e been (ut there only $or the sa,e o$ a((earanceG directly beneath it yawned a large hole with stee( walls, into, which %., turned o4er on his bac, by a so$t bree2e, san,. While below, his head still straining u(wards, he was already being absorbed into the im(enetrable de(ths, abo4e his name, la4ishly embellished, $lashed across the stone. @nchanted by this sight he awo,e.C The name alone, re4ealed through a natural death, not the li4ing soul, 4ouches $or that in man which is immortal.
(age><7#