Review essay

European Journal of Social Theory

16(1) 122–130
Adorno on music, space ª The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:

and objectification sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1368431012449233
est.sagepub.com

Wesley Phillips
Barcelona, Spain

Book reviewed
T.W. Adorno, Current of Music: Elements of a Radio Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press,
2009. 511 pp. £19.99/€24.00 ISBN 9780745642864 (pbk)

Current of Music is the latest in the series of Theodor W. Adorno’s hitherto unpublished
lectures and fragments to be published by Suhrkamp and Polity. Two points single out
this offering from its predecessors. First, much of it was originally written in English,
a language that the author was still mastering (having fled Germany for Oxford in
1934). The book documents Adorno’s contribution to the Princeton Radio Research
Project from his time as its Director of Music between 1938 and 1941. Second, Current
of Music is, in a too obvious sense, a failed work, given Adorno’s ‘dismissal’ from the
Project without a complete publication (only a couple of articles appeared). Moreover,
whereas the other music themed books in the above series may be termed genuine
fragments – Beethoven (1998) and Towards a Theory of Musical Reproduction (2006)
– Current of Music is comprised of highly worked and at times repetitive documents
(seven in total, plus nine ‘Other Materials’). This weariness is exacerbated by the fact
that its subject, US radio music of the 1930s, is for us a distant one.
Having said all that, the work’s underlying question concerning the relationship
between cultural forms, technology and capitalism remains extremely pertinent, as I
shall attempt to demonstrate. Looking beyond the problems of its mode of presentation,
Current of Music serves as an important counterpoint to Walter Benjamin’s ‘The Work
of Art in the Age of its Technological Reproducibility’ (1936, in Benjamin 2006).
Adorno responded critically to that now famous essay in correspondence with Benjamin,

Corresponding author:
Wesley Phillips, C/Princesa, 15, 1–2, Barcelona 08003, Spain
Email: wesleyjphillips@hotmail.com

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

Phillips 123

and he later discussed its use of the concept of ‘aura’ in Aesthetic Theory ([1970] 1997).
But Current of Music provides a more involved consideration of Benjamin’s thesis,
albeit in particular sections. Adorno’s working title plays on the idea of electric current,
of technological reproduction generally, and the belated appearance of this project
actually allows for a rethinking of the relationship between Benjamin’s and Adorno’s
theories of art. But first, what was the Project?

Adorno in New York

After having made contact with Paul Lazersfeld, the newly appointed director of the
Princeton Project, the Institute’s director, Max Horkheimer, informed Adorno that a
position had been secured for him. Horkheimer and Adorno knew Lazersfeld, since he
had contributed an article to the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung in the previous year.
Adorno had the greater misgivings about Lazersfeld’s ‘positivist’ methodologies –
David Jenemann has set out the tensions between empirical and theoretical approaches
within the Institute at this time. Ultimately, the deal with Lazersfeld was about mutual
benefit. Lazersfeld sought to repay Horkheimer having received past assistance from the
Institute – though he also remained genuinely curious about the compatibility between
Adorno’s theory and ‘administrative research’. Horkheimer wanted Adorno near to the
Institute in New York and Adorno needed both a visa and income to make that possible
(Jenemann, 2007: Chapter 1).
Aside from these practical advantages, Adorno saw in the Project an opportunity to
study the globally most advanced culture industry at close quarters. Allied to this was
the above-mentioned critical theorist’s interest in taking on Benjamin’s thesis concern-
ing the affinity between technological and social progress in culture. Given Adorno’s
ambiguous stance on empirical research, we can sense a sub-current of bad faith in this
combination of interests. It is as if Adorno had theoretically exhausted the possibilities of
any popular culture not yet having studied it (except for some jazz, famously) – only to
retroactively make the empirical data ‘scientifically’ contest Benjamin’s study. As the
editor of Current of Music, Robert Hullot-Kentor, indicates, Adorno made claims about
the US radio listener not having met very many Americans.
The idea of ‘[bringing] together people from commerce and academia’ sounds all too
familiar today. The Project was established with money from the Rockefeller Founda-
tion, whose generosity happened to coincide with the generation of research useful to
commercial radio stations. The collaboration between the Institute and the Project – a
joint publication was planned – is an instance of this consensus around the consumer-
oriented democratization of culture, captured in Hullot-Kentor’s ominous line: ‘radio’s
educational potential for advertisers’ (Adorno, 2009: 11).
However, Adorno will not play ball with the Radio Project. He is not especially inter-
ested in Lazersfeld’s ‘benevolent administrative research’ (Adorno, 2009: 134). The phi-
lanthropists see radio as a means of cultivation through the dissemination of a largely
bourgeois, European art. According to Hullot-Kentor, the majority of US radio music
during the 1930s was live classical, with ‘light music’ remaining in the minority. Rather
than simply allowing for the reproduction of the classics, Adorno contends, radio has
changed the nature of listening itself, in a manner that calls for new production. This

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

124 European Journal of Social Theory 16(1)

is consistent with Benjamin’s ‘The Author as Producer’ (1934), as well as ‘The Work of
Art’ text: ‘Just as the entire mode of existence of human collectives changes over long
historical periods, so too does their mode of perception’ (Benjamin, 2006: 255). Against
the orthodoxy of material base determining superstructure, Benjamin and Adorno pro-
pose an avant-gardist thesis on new cultural modes of perception changing the relations
of production themselves.
The second reason for the dissenting tone of Current of Music is that Adorno carries
over his conclusions from his important essay ‘The Fetish-Character in Music and the
Regression of Listening’ (1938), according to which commodity music assumes an
authoritarian character. Radio is a means of reproduction of commodity music, alongside
that of the gramophone, and must be understood according to the same categories:
standardization, atomization and regression. Radio is not the gramophone, however. The
most interesting parts of Current of Music consider radio’s socio-spatiotemporal speci-
ficity. These serve, in a roundabout way, to problematize Benjamin’s ‘The Work of Art’.

Autonomous vs. political art

Adorno’s familiar critique of Benjamin’s essay is to be found in his letter of March 18
1936, in response to one of several drafts that Benjamin would ultimately produce,
including after its 1936 appearance in the Zeitschrift. Adorno charges Benjamin with
failing to mediate traditional and progressive art. On the basis of Benjamin’s 1934 essay
on Kafka, Adorno had understood this mediation in terms of ‘the dialectical construction
of the relationship between myth and history’ (Adorno and Benjamin, 2003: 127). Being
dialectical, there is identity, difference, and the (non-)identity of the two. Adorno sees a
polarization of identity and difference and hence an impossible leap from tradition to
progress. The contradiction of Benjamin’s narrative is that the possibility of revolutionary
art is positively constructed out of the destruction of traditional art – ‘a shattering of tra-
dition which is the reverse side of the present crisis and renewal of humanity’ (Benjamin,
2006: 254). Benjamin could simply have stated that traditional art is dead and that revo-
lutionary art is an independent development. Technical reproduction destroys the ‘ritual’
function of art – its ‘aura’. This is the moment of radical difference from progressive art.
However, the value of art as art is strangely preserved. This is the moment of identity.
Without it, there is no need to ground the latter in a history of the destruction of the former.
What is it that is art about progressive art?
For Adorno, the answer to this problem is: autonomy – both that of the work of art and
of the (collective) subject. Since Benjamin does not discuss autonomy, he must find his
mediation either in the fate of technology – the inherently progressive nature of repro-
duction – or in an unwittingly conservative valorization of the continuing power of art
as a privileged expression of human perception. The value of traditional art is not simply
destroyed; it is transvalued. Benjamin acknowledges this ‘qualitative transformation of
[the artwork’s] nature’ by means of photography and film.
In Adorno’s mind, Benjamin’s misapprehensions about aesthetic autonomy stem
from his polarization of art-historical (more broadly, anthropological) and political-
ontological approaches (Adorno and Benjamin, 2003: 131). Benjamin reserves each
approach for traditional and progressive art respectively, begging the question as to the

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

Phillips 125

emancipating mediation of the one to the other. Instead of locating the question of auton-
omy in the historically mediated material, ‘authenticity’ is pejoratively ascribed to the
‘originality’ of traditional art, understood in terms of physical rarity. Hence, Benjamin’s
initial examples are thingly artefacts. The reproduction of the painting – in the woodcut,
lithograph and photograph – destroys the original, perhaps taking some of its value in the
process (Benjamin, 2006: 252–3). By contrast, with his post-Kantian concept of art (iro-
nically, taken from the younger Benjamin) Adorno can maintain that most traditional art
is simply no longer art for us (cf. Adorno and Benjamin, 2003: 129).
The case of music and radio not only contests Benjamin’s thesis, Adorno implies, but
reverses it. This reversal concerns the fact that: (a) listening is somewhat unthingly,
revealing the intertwined nature of technological production and reproduction; and (b)
the destruction of the original does not destroy aura – especially if there is no discernible
original (that conclusion only follows from the conflation of autonomy with rarity).
Adorno problematizes both ends of Benjamin’s narrative: the destruction of traditional
art and the (re-)production of progressive art. The new art of radio does not destroy aura
but more often regresses back into it: ‘what Benjamin calls the ‘‘aura’’ of the original
certainly constitutes an essential part of the live reproduction’ (Adorno, 2009: 89). This
is because ‘the radio voice’ brings a mythic community into the ‘here and now’ of the
living room. Benjamin had connected aura, defined in terms of ‘uniqueness’ and the
‘apparition of distance’, to the ‘here and now’ (Benjamin, 2006: 255–6). Allied to this
otherworldly ‘here and now’ is the notion of contemplation, to which Benjamin opposes
this-worldly ‘distraction’. But for Adorno, the radio distracts without destroying aura.
Benjamin’s account of aura and distraction has not aged well, not least because it is
almost impossible to identify social progress in a technologically progressive culture.
And yet, the spatial character of the transformation of art in Benjamin remains richer
than in Adorno – something that the latter is perhaps uncomfortably aware of.
According to Adorno, ‘there is no conceivable music . . . which is not based upon the
idea of reproducibility’. For, the ‘score is, in a way, only a system of prescriptions for
possible reproduction, and nothing ‘‘in itself’’’ (Adorno, 2009: 89). Radio brings this
tendency to its logical conclusion: ‘In radio the authentic original has ceased to exist’
(p. 90). Adorno initially wants to emphasize the difference between the two levels of
reproduction, performative and technical, in order to challenge the assumption – shared
by Lazersfeld and Benjamin – that mechanical reproduction is inherently progressive.
Hence, Adorno contrasts the impoverished sound of 1930s radio reproduction and its
domestic space of casual listening with the living sound of orchestral production and the
collective space of its concentrated listening. But once again, radio has changed the way
we listen to the live music ‘originally’, and there is no going back. The levels of repro-
duction are interconnected as a whole listening phenomenon. Adorno actually reverses
Benjamin’s alleged archaism by transposing the original from the past into the future.
This is not to do away with the idea of an original, therefore. There is a speculative idea
of the compelling musical performance, but this can neither be identified in the score nor
in the performance, since there can be many compelling performances of the same com-
position. The line about the original ceasing on the radio now reads pejoratively,
whereby the mechanical reproduction destroys all possible production. Adorno risks lap-
sing into Romantic humanism at this point. But it is more akin to a materialist philosophy

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

126 European Journal of Social Theory 16(1)

of the ear. What is important is ‘to enable the listener himself to compose the piece
virtually in the act of listening’ (Adorno, 2009: 218).
These ideas are germane to Towards a Theory of Musical Reproduction. But here too
the thesis tends to be limited to the past musical tradition. In one of his concessions to the
radio in Current of Music, notably, Adorno suggests that the atomization of listening can
be turned into ‘a sharpening of attention upon the parts. One may listen to individual sec-
tions in radio as if through a microscope’ (2009: 64). This recalls Hegel’s ‘afterlife’ of
the artwork. But afterlife is not new life. Adorno’s paradigm of new music predates the
proliferation of radio in the 1930s. The inclusion of modernist examples by Alban Berg
and Hanns Eisler in his proposed lectures for New York public radio was intended to
counter ‘music appreciation’ (see ‘What a Music Appreciation Hour Should Be’). That
the programme was pulled after a couple of weeks indicates that its presenter was push-
ing at the limits of the possible. But stopping at the 1920s surely constitutes a block to
Adorno’s theorization of radio (re)production. It cuts short his own transition to new pro-
duction – that which is necessary though not sufficient to negate the fetish-character of
dominant reproduction. Adorno even falls prey to his reservation about the democratiza-
tion of bourgeois culture (Adorno, 2009: 134). In the newspaper age, Schoenberg
negated the fetish-character. But the newspaper age is not the radio age.
To be fair to Adorno, the musical avant-garde was not quite ready to respond to the
radio, partly because of what was happening in Europe in the 1930s. The 1920s radio
cantatas and Lehrstücke of Eisler and Kurt Weill, often comprising settings of Brecht,
inaugurated and temporarily ended the project of progressive radio music. The text of
Eisler’s Tempo der Zeit (1929) even reflects upon the potential of its medium: ‘In these
times in which the speed of the airplane begins to compete with the speed of the rotating
Earth, it is necessary the test the utilization of technical progress for the collective.’
Technology is ambiguous. Its progress is not to be taken for granted but rather should
be tested and proved [zu überprüfen] on each occasion. Despite Eisler’s insight, these
works do not carry out this testing beyond their capacity to disseminate literary and polit-
ical texts to a larger audience. The integral meeting of radio and progressive music more
likely occurs during the 1950s. And curiously, Adorno was there when it happened.
Having returned to Frankfurt in 1949, the critical theorist regularly attended the
International Summer Courses for New Music held in Darmstadt. There, he belat-
edly came to recognize the ‘new music’ of Karlheinz Stockhausen, Pierre Boulez
and Luigi Nono (having initially disregarded these young composers as examples
of ‘The Aging of the New Music’). This moment will prove to be relevant to
Current of Music.

Musical spatialization
In the first, introductory document in the book, ‘Radio Physiognomics’, Adorno regards
the radio as subject-like – an alien, unfamiliar subject. By the term ‘radio voice’, Adorno
has in mind the literal sense of ‘speaker’, as well as the facial appearance of the radio-set
itself. Above all, the author refers to the concept of ‘fetish-character’. The Marxist
terminology is hidden between the lines of this ostensibly non-political study. But the

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

Phillips 127

contemporaneous ‘Fetish-Character’ essay would suggest that ‘Radio Physiognomics’

details the specific fetish-character of the radio.
Marx uses the term ‘fetishism’ to describe a reversal of subject and object in commodity
production: ‘the products of the human brain appear as autonomous figures endowed with
a life of their own, which enter into relations both with each other and with the human race’
(Marx, 1976: 165). Adorno mentions the ‘fetish’ without its sibling concept of alienation.
But this conceptual re-connection allows us to read Current of Music in terms of cultural
objectification(s), so as to bring Adorno back towards Benjamin’s emphasis upon the
necessarily spatial character of progressive culture. The former’s critique of aura and posit-
ing of autonomy too often misses the basic opposition between interiority and exteriority.
In progressive art and film, Benjamin claimed, immersed attention into the here and now
gives way to the spatially dispersed attention of the collective: ‘With the close up, space
expands; with slow motion, movement is extended.’ Hence,

Distraction and concentration form an antithesis, which may be formulated as follows. A per-
son who concentrates before a work of art is absorbed by it; he enters into the work . . . By
contrast, the distracted masses absorb the work of art into themselves. This is most obvious
with regard to buildings. Architecture has always offered the prototype of an artwork that
is received in a state of distraction and through the collective. (Benjamin, 2006: 265)

There is a precise, spatial inversion here (‘By contrast . . . ’) that begins to respond to the
problem of mediation raised by Adorno: the contemplative distance that characterized
traditional art becomes ‘tactile’ [taktisch], progressive art. To paraphrase Hegel, the
‘I’ becomes ‘We’ – yet without, pace Adorno, the ‘We’ also becoming ‘I’, since there
is no autonomy in distraction. For Adorno, ‘in a communist society, work would be orga-
nised in such a way that human beings would no longer be so exhausted or so stupefied as
to require such distraction’ (Adorno and Benjamin, 2003: 130). So the question for
Adorno is: does his ‘I’ also become ‘We’?
Despite the ‘dual character’ of autonomous art in Aesthetic Theory, its ‘empirical’
space is of necessity absent, as can be gauged from the work’s non-treatment of archi-
tecture. It is notable that Adorno’s discussion of ‘The Work of Art’ essay appears, in
Current of Music, in the midst of a subsection entitled ‘Space Ubiquity’. Adorno initially
conflates two forms of spatial ubiquity in radio music. Music has a tendency to negate
the place of its production. But this is not specific to radio music. What radio adds is
simultaneous transmission. Adorno notes that phenomenologist Günther Stern referred
to the experience of walking down a street and hearing the same music from several
buildings (2009: 81). The latter ubiquity is as social as it is acoustic. For Adorno, this
simultaneity of acoustically and aesthetically impoverished reproduction constitutes a
non-temporalization of music, the ‘art of time’. Moreover, Adorno repeatedly associates
non- or de-temporalization with spatialization in his essays on music, thus following
Lukács’ definition of reification – the process of becoming a thing – from History and
Class Consciousness (1923): the commodity form ‘degrades time to the dimension of
space’ (Lukács, 1971: 89).
How, then, does Adorno present the alternative social space to that of Benjamin?
There are clues within ‘Radio Physiognomics’. ‘To speak metaphorically, symphonic

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

128 European Journal of Social Theory 16(1)

works transform the time element of music into space’ (Adorno, 2009: 52). Art music,
like radio music, enacts a metaphorical spatialization. Responding to Paul Bekker’s the-
ory of the symphony, Adorno regards this space as living, not geometric space: ‘A
symphony does not create a community; but its inherent technical qualities are certainly
linked with the fact that it is supposed to be listened to by a community and in a large
room’ (p. 51). In another essay, Adorno connects the space of the performance to the
inherent (or structural) musical space of the work, which ‘springs from the collective
implications of all music, the character of something that embraces groups of human
beings’ (Adorno, 2002: 150).
The two ‘spatializations’ of music, reified and non-reified, are outwardly opposed in
Adorno’s thinking. His dispute with Benjamin concerns the fact that, far from opening
up an emancipatory space, reproduction of itself tends to pre-empt this with an author-
itarian space of its own. Adorno’s point should be conceded without negating the more
promising theorization of space in Benjamin – one that Adorno in fact requires. In order
to find a way between Adorno and Benjamin, we should briefly reconsider Marx’s earlier
account of social reproduction. For this contextualizes the dialectical understanding of
commodity fetishism in Capital, the source of Adorno’s fetish-character, so that we may
revise his concepts of reification and objectification.

Dialectic of objectification
The 1844 Economic and Political Manuscripts develop a distinction between, on the one
hand, objectification, Vergegenständlichung, and, on the other, both estrangement,
Entfremdung, and alienation, Entäußerung. The relation between these latter concepts
is of importance here. In The Young Hegel ([1938] 1975), Lukács suggested that
Entfremdung and Entäußerung are more or less interchangeable, since each translates the
English ‘alienation’ (p. 538). Chris Arthur noticed the crucial difference in emphasis,
however, only to worry that rendering Entäußerung literally as ‘externalization’ risks
confusion with ‘objectification’ (Arthur, 1986: Appendix). In fact, there must be some-
thing of objectification in externalization – a relation of difference and not simple oppo-
sition. This differentiation allows for a means of the negation of the negation.
Objectification is, on the one hand, the alienating ‘loss of and bondage to the object’.
But on the other hand, to be genuinely human is to objectify: ‘It is in the fashioning of the
objective that man really proves himself to be a species-being’ (Marx, 1975: 329). The
capitalist mode of production constitutes one, regressive objectification from the stand-
point of communist objectification: ‘it is only when man’s object becomes a human
object or objective man that man does not lose himself in that object . . . he himself
becomes the object’ (p. 353). This dual account of objectification is the consequence
of Marx’s mediation of externalization, which is partly objective, and objectification,
which is partly externalizing. The question of technological reproduction (and for Marx,
‘industry’) lies in the midst of this struggle, as Benjamin was right to emphasize.
History and Class Consciousness predates the eventual publication of Marx’s Manu-
scripts by some nine years. In 1967, Lukács recalled realizing that he had disastrously
conflated alienation with objectification. He methodologically salvaged the latter by way
of Hegelian panlogicism: the subjective consciousness of the commodity-worker is

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

Phillips 129

raised to objective self-consciousness by way of an assumption about dialectical logic’s

solution to ‘the antinomies of bourgeois thought’ (Lukács, 1971: xxiv). Ultimately, the
young Marx must make a similarly Hegelian move, albeit in a more sophisticated man-
ner. Alienated objectification follows the dialectical self-externalization of spirit familiar
to the Phenomenology of Spirit (Entäußerung and Erinnerung), whose only fault was to
determine spirit as the bourgeois mind. Marx thus turns to a consideration of the Phe-
nomenology in the same, third manuscript, and also optimistically defines industry as
‘the exoteric revelation of man’s essential powers’ (Marx, 1975: 355).
My digression into Marx and Lukács is justified to the extent that the socio-spatial status
of objectification and reification lies behind the distinction between regressive and progres-
sive spatializations within cultural forms of the technological present. Again, Adorno’s cri-
tique of the culture industry often seems to offer no real alternative space to that of globalized
reification. Autonomous art shows ‘that the world could be other than it is’ (Adorno, 1997:
138). But this ‘other’ remains perpetually deferred – a utopia that must never come.
The composer Luigi Nono – whom Adorno met at Darmstadt – provides an interesting
case study at this point, insofar as he remained both a student of Adorno, with his adher-
ence to advanced musical language, and of Benjamin, with his use of ‘tendential’ (and
literary) texts. Equally pertinent to this discussion: Nono became interested in radio
technology during the 1960s. This formed a part of the avant-garde production in radio
studios in Italy and West Germany from the mid-1950s onwards.
For La Fabbrica illuminata (1964) Nono recorded sounds from the Italsider forgery
of Cornigliano, northern Italy, and manipulated them together with text sung by soprano
Carla Henius. The texts decry the working conditions of the factory. La Fabbrica uses a
multiplicity of radio technology in the service of multiple spatializations – including being
taken out into the factory (except that this was blocked by the radio authorities). At the
same time, Nono’s acerbic sonorities and long durational values render the work a mimetic
expression of reification, in keeping with Adorno’s theory of de-temporalization. This is
because, for Adorno, mimesis is fundamental to art’s modernity: art ‘is modern art through
its mimesis of the hardened and alienated’ (1997: 21). But equally, contra Adorno, Nono’s
static or spatial character only becomes temporalized by way of the concrete spaces of
political struggle and possibility.
As if in response to Current of Music, Nono indicates how a negation of regressive
objectification, reification, must accompany a positing objectification, albeit as a gesture
of solidarity. This might constitute a corrective to Adorno’s aesthetic theory, without los-
ing the concept of autonomy. As the young Marx recognized, only art’s mediation of the
regressive and progressive spatial objectifications sanctions the claim to social progress.
It is Benjamin who knows that the question of technology is bound to the question of
externalization – his problem being the conflation of the two. Like Eisler before him,
Nono cautiously takes up Marx’s promethean claim for industry, or the revolutionary
orientation of objectification (Prometeo is the title of Nono’s most important later work).
Because of its spatial fluidity, radio technology holds a historically symbolic role in this
process, though one that is now being superseded by other technologies.
Adorno almost theorizes this mediation of spaces, yet once again without finding
contemporary examples. In the ‘Fetish-Character’ essay, the author refers to ‘two
spheres of music’, commodity and autonomous music (we might even read ‘Sphären’

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015

130 European Journal of Social Theory 16(1)

spatially here), as comprising ‘an unresolved contradiction’. ‘The whole cannot be put
back together by adding the separated halves, but in both there appear, however dis-
tantly, the changes of the whole, which only moves in contradiction’ (Adorno, 2002:
293). If we extend Adorno’s logic to Current of Music, objective unity is to be conceived
in terms of the contradiction between reified and non-reified spatial objectifications.
In making this concession to Benjamin’s technological modernism (pre- ‘On the Con-
cept of History’), we nevertheless inherit a different problem from him. In the absence of
a concept of mediation, Benjamin’s concept of negation is pressed into a philosophically
less sophisticated active nihilism. By opening up the empty space of reification, music
(pure exchange, repetition, reproduction) forces the question of human objectification.
‘Music as nihilism’ is hardly new to philosophy, from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche to Attali.
Lukács reminds us that it is the modern philosophers and not the anti-philosophers who can
offer a concept of mediation rather than faith in redemption from nothingness. Adorno is
right to oppose panlogicism. Progress through technology can hardly be taken for granted.
Yet ‘the whole is the false’ lapses into ordinary scepticism (Adorno, 2005: 50). As Eisler
predicted in theory, cultural practices such as Nono’s show an alternative way: the concrete
instantiation of intermittent mediation.

References
Adorno T W ([1970] 1997) Aesthetic Theory. London: Athlone Press.
Adorno T W (2002) Essays on Music, ed. R. Leppert. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Adorno T W (2005) Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life. London: Verso.
Adorno T W (2009) Current of Music: Elements of a Radio Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Adorno T W and Benjamin W (2003) The Complete Correspondence, 1928–1940. Cambridge:
Polity Press.
Arthur C (1986) Dialectics of Labour: Marx and his Relation to Hegel. http://chrisarthur.net/
dialectics-of-labour/appendix.html (accessed 4 April 2012).
Benjamin W (2006) Selected Writings, vol. 4, 1938–1940, ed. H Eiland and M W. Jennings
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Jenemann D (2007) Adorno in America. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Lukács G (1971) History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. London: Merlin
Press.
Lukács G (1975) The Young Hegel: Studies in the Relations Between Dialectics and Economics.
London: Merlin Press.
Marx K (1975) Early Writings, ed. L Colletti. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Marx K (1976) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

About the author

Wesley Phillips is an independent scholar living in Barcelona. His research lies in the areas of
German idealism, historical materialism and Frankfurt School critical theory. Wesley’s recent
publications include ‘Spaces of resistance: the Adorno-Nono complex’, Twentieth Century Music,
9, 2012, ‘The future of speculation?’, Cosmos and History, 7(1), 2012, ‘Melancholy science? Crit-
ical theory and German idealism reconsidered’, Telos, 156, Winter 2011/12, and ‘History or coun-
ter-tradition? The system of freedom after Walter Benjamin’, Critical Horizons, 11(1), 2010.

Downloaded from est.sagepub.com at CARLETON UNIV on March 16, 2015