We Cannot Say What the Human Is: The Problem of Anthropology in Adorno’s Philosophy of Art

IF 0.4 3区 文学 0 LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE Pub Date : 2021-02-01 DOI:10.1215/0094033X-8732159
K. Gilchrist
{"title":"We Cannot Say What the Human Is: The Problem of Anthropology in Adorno’s Philosophy of Art","authors":"K. Gilchrist","doi":"10.1215/0094033X-8732159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article investigates a problem in Theodor W. Adorno’s thought: how can Adorno critique advanced capitalist societies for their dehumanizing tendencies while also refusing the possibility of defining the human? Motivating this inquiry is a renewed investigation of philosophical anthropology by thinkers like Axel Honneth and Jürgen Habermas, who explore positive theories of human limits and needs as the basis of social critique. As Adorno consistently refused to define the human on philosophical and political grounds, this article asks whether his work offers an unexamined alternative to philosophical anthropology’s revival. A reconstruction of Adorno’s position shows how Adorno displaces anthropological problems into his philosophy of art, where the principle of mimesis offers a potentially nonanthropological model of human potential. Yet it also reveals how Adorno’s refusal to directly interrogate philosophical anthropology leads him to implicitly prescribe a certain figure of the human, undermining the value of his resistance to anthropological definitions.","PeriodicalId":46595,"journal":{"name":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","volume":"48 1","pages":"71-102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/0094033X-8732159","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article investigates a problem in Theodor W. Adorno’s thought: how can Adorno critique advanced capitalist societies for their dehumanizing tendencies while also refusing the possibility of defining the human? Motivating this inquiry is a renewed investigation of philosophical anthropology by thinkers like Axel Honneth and Jürgen Habermas, who explore positive theories of human limits and needs as the basis of social critique. As Adorno consistently refused to define the human on philosophical and political grounds, this article asks whether his work offers an unexamined alternative to philosophical anthropology’s revival. A reconstruction of Adorno’s position shows how Adorno displaces anthropological problems into his philosophy of art, where the principle of mimesis offers a potentially nonanthropological model of human potential. Yet it also reveals how Adorno’s refusal to directly interrogate philosophical anthropology leads him to implicitly prescribe a certain figure of the human, undermining the value of his resistance to anthropological definitions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们不能说人是什么:阿多诺艺术哲学中的人类学问题
本文探讨了西奥多·W·阿多诺思想中的一个问题:阿多诺如何批判先进资本主义社会的非人化倾向,同时又拒绝定义人的可能性?阿克塞尔·洪内斯(Axel Honneth)和于尔根·哈贝马斯(Jürgen Habermas)等思想家对哲学人类学进行了新的研究,他们探索了作为社会批判基础的人类极限和需求的积极理论。由于阿多诺一直拒绝从哲学和政治的角度来定义人,本文质疑他的作品是否为哲学人类学的复兴提供了一个未经检验的替代方案。对阿多诺立场的重建表明,阿多诺如何将人类学问题转移到他的艺术哲学中,在那里,模仿的原则提供了一个潜在的人类潜力的非人类学模型。然而,这也揭示了阿多诺拒绝直接质疑哲学人类学,这导致他含蓄地规定了某种人类形象,破坏了他对人类学定义的抵制价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE
NEW GERMAN CRITIQUE LITERARY THEORY & CRITICISM-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: Widely considered the top journal in its field, New German Critique is an interdisciplinary journal that focuses on twentieth- and twenty-first-century German studies and publishes on a wide array of subjects, including literature, film, and media; literary theory and cultural studies; Holocaust studies; art and architecture; political and social theory; and philosophy. Established in the early 1970s, the journal has played a significant role in introducing U.S. readers to Frankfurt School thinkers and remains an important forum for debate in the humanities.
期刊最新文献
Queer Spectrality and the Hope of Heterolingual Address The Sociability of Narrative: Freedom, Vulnerability, and Mediation in the Intercultural Novel Coming to Terms with the Future Undisciplined Knowledge: Intersectional Black European Studies Where Next for New German Critique?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1