阿多诺美学理论中的模仿

Bed P. Paudyal
{"title":"阿多诺美学理论中的模仿","authors":"Bed P. Paudyal","doi":"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Theodor W. Adorno's reflections on literature and the arts are spread over several of his works, but his \"systematic\" and comprehensive theorization of art (including literature) was to wait until Aesthetic Theory, which Adorno did not live to complete. However, as the editors of the original German edition, Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedeman, quote Adorno (from a letter he wrote \"several days before his death\"), \"the final version 'still needed a desperate effort' but ... 'basically it is now a matter of organization and hardly that of the substance of the book'\"; (1) it is not inappropriate to rely on Aesthetic Theory as repository of Adorno's thought on the subject of art and literature. Supplementing its \"reading\" with relevant chapters from Adorno's other works -Dialectic of Enlightenment (which he coauthored with Max Horkheimer), Prisms, and Notes to Literature)-this essay concentrates on the concept of mimesis in Adorno's theory of arts and literature in order to examine the various meanings Adorno assigns to that concept as well as the \"constellations\" in which this concept articulates with other concepts. Since Adorno's aesthetic theory forms a coherent part of his overall philosophical enterprise, the strategy used here is to discuss briefly some key concepts constitutive of Adorno's critique of philosophy and of Capitalist society, and then zero in on the concept of mimesis. Adorno was a leading member of the Frankfurt School-an institute that championed \"critical theory,\" which attempted to \"grasp contemporary society and culture as a totality,\" espoused \"unity of theory and praxis,\" and critiqued instrumental rationality. (2) Key to Adorno's thinking, as to the Frankfurt School's, were Marx's concept of commodity fetishism and Georg Lukacs's concept of reification. Commodity fetishism names the enigma in Capitalist society, where the value of the commodity as the product of social labor appears as the value of the commodity itself just as the relation between human beings essential to the production and exchange of commodities appears as the relation between commodities themselves. In other words, commodities become fetishes because they seem to acquire a life of their own. (3) Lukacs's theory of reification extends Marx's concept of commodity fetishism, via Max Weber's theory of rationalization, to argue that not only the economic sphere (in Marxist base-superstructure model, the socio-economic base comprising of the forces and relations of production) but \"social institutions such as law, administration, and journalism\" and \"academic disciplines such as economics, jurisprudence, and philosophy\" also become permeated by the commodity form or the logic of exchange. Indeed, according to Lukacs, commodity fetishism governs not only the objects in the world but equally the subjects, who are reduced to exchangeable commodities, \"like mere things obeying the inexorable laws of the marketplace.\" (4) Adorno's favorite word for the total reification of society under Capitalism is \"administered world,\" which appears repeatedly in Aesthetic Theory as it does in his other works. In \"Cultural Criticism and Society,\" Adorno thus describes the totalizing and totalitarian effect of reification: This regimentation, the result of the progressive societalization of all human relations, did not simply confront the mind from without; it immigrated into its immanent consistency.... The network of the whole is drawn ever tighter, modeled after the act of exchange. It leaves the individual consciousness less and less room for evasion, performs it more and more thoroughly, cuts it off a priori as it were from the possibility of differencing from itself as all difference degenerates into a nuance in the monotony of supply. (5) The Cartesian division between the thinking self and the extended reality, therefore, no longer holds (if it ever did); the subject does not confront the object from a position transcendent to it but is rather enmeshed in \"the network of the whole\" that leaves no room for authentic difference and autonomy. …","PeriodicalId":288505,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mimesis in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory\",\"authors\":\"Bed P. Paudyal\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009481\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Theodor W. Adorno's reflections on literature and the arts are spread over several of his works, but his \\\"systematic\\\" and comprehensive theorization of art (including literature) was to wait until Aesthetic Theory, which Adorno did not live to complete. However, as the editors of the original German edition, Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedeman, quote Adorno (from a letter he wrote \\\"several days before his death\\\"), \\\"the final version 'still needed a desperate effort' but ... 'basically it is now a matter of organization and hardly that of the substance of the book'\\\"; (1) it is not inappropriate to rely on Aesthetic Theory as repository of Adorno's thought on the subject of art and literature. Supplementing its \\\"reading\\\" with relevant chapters from Adorno's other works -Dialectic of Enlightenment (which he coauthored with Max Horkheimer), Prisms, and Notes to Literature)-this essay concentrates on the concept of mimesis in Adorno's theory of arts and literature in order to examine the various meanings Adorno assigns to that concept as well as the \\\"constellations\\\" in which this concept articulates with other concepts. Since Adorno's aesthetic theory forms a coherent part of his overall philosophical enterprise, the strategy used here is to discuss briefly some key concepts constitutive of Adorno's critique of philosophy and of Capitalist society, and then zero in on the concept of mimesis. Adorno was a leading member of the Frankfurt School-an institute that championed \\\"critical theory,\\\" which attempted to \\\"grasp contemporary society and culture as a totality,\\\" espoused \\\"unity of theory and praxis,\\\" and critiqued instrumental rationality. (2) Key to Adorno's thinking, as to the Frankfurt School's, were Marx's concept of commodity fetishism and Georg Lukacs's concept of reification. Commodity fetishism names the enigma in Capitalist society, where the value of the commodity as the product of social labor appears as the value of the commodity itself just as the relation between human beings essential to the production and exchange of commodities appears as the relation between commodities themselves. In other words, commodities become fetishes because they seem to acquire a life of their own. (3) Lukacs's theory of reification extends Marx's concept of commodity fetishism, via Max Weber's theory of rationalization, to argue that not only the economic sphere (in Marxist base-superstructure model, the socio-economic base comprising of the forces and relations of production) but \\\"social institutions such as law, administration, and journalism\\\" and \\\"academic disciplines such as economics, jurisprudence, and philosophy\\\" also become permeated by the commodity form or the logic of exchange. Indeed, according to Lukacs, commodity fetishism governs not only the objects in the world but equally the subjects, who are reduced to exchangeable commodities, \\\"like mere things obeying the inexorable laws of the marketplace.\\\" (4) Adorno's favorite word for the total reification of society under Capitalism is \\\"administered world,\\\" which appears repeatedly in Aesthetic Theory as it does in his other works. In \\\"Cultural Criticism and Society,\\\" Adorno thus describes the totalizing and totalitarian effect of reification: This regimentation, the result of the progressive societalization of all human relations, did not simply confront the mind from without; it immigrated into its immanent consistency.... The network of the whole is drawn ever tighter, modeled after the act of exchange. It leaves the individual consciousness less and less room for evasion, performs it more and more thoroughly, cuts it off a priori as it were from the possibility of differencing from itself as all difference degenerates into a nuance in the monotony of supply. (5) The Cartesian division between the thinking self and the extended reality, therefore, no longer holds (if it ever did); the subject does not confront the object from a position transcendent to it but is rather enmeshed in \\\"the network of the whole\\\" that leaves no room for authentic difference and autonomy. …\",\"PeriodicalId\":288505,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2009-12-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009481\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Philosophy: A Cross-Disciplinary Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/JPHILNEPAL2009481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

阿多诺对文学和艺术的思考贯穿在他的几部作品中,但他对艺术(包括文学)的“系统”和全面的理论化是等到《美学理论》之后才出现的,而阿多诺并没有活着完成《美学理论》。然而,正如德文版的编辑格莱特·阿多诺(Gretel Adorno)和罗尔夫·蒂德曼(Rolf Tiedeman)引用阿多诺的话(摘自他“死前几天”写的一封信),“最终版本‘仍然需要绝望的努力’,但是……'现在基本上是组织问题,而不是书的内容问题'";(1)将《美学理论》作为阿多诺关于艺术与文学主题的思想宝库,并非不恰当。补充了阿多诺其他作品的相关章节——《启蒙辩证法》(他与马克斯·霍克海默合著)、《棱镜》和《文学笔记》——这篇文章集中在阿多诺艺术和文学理论中的模仿概念上,以检验阿多诺赋予这个概念的各种含义,以及这个概念与其他概念相结合的“星座”。由于阿多诺的美学理论构成了他整个哲学事业的一个连贯部分,这里使用的策略是简要讨论构成阿多诺对哲学和资本主义社会批判的一些关键概念,然后将重点放在模仿的概念上。阿多诺是法兰克福学派的主要成员,该学派倡导“批判理论”,试图“将当代社会和文化作为一个整体来把握”,支持“理论与实践的统一”,并批评工具理性。(2)与法兰克福学派一样,阿多诺思想的关键是马克思的商品拜物教概念和卢卡奇的物化概念。商品拜物教指出了资本主义社会中的一个谜,在这个谜中,作为社会劳动产物的商品价值表现为商品本身的价值,正如对商品生产和交换至关重要的人与人之间的关系表现为商品本身之间的关系一样。换句话说,商品之所以成为恋物,是因为它们似乎获得了自己的生命。(3)卢卡奇的物化理论通过马克斯·韦伯的理性化理论扩展了马克思的商品拜物教概念,认为不仅经济领域(在马克思主义的基础-上层建筑模型中,由生产力和生产关系组成的社会经济基础),而且“法律、行政和新闻等社会机构”和“经济学、法学等学术学科”哲学也被商品形式或交换逻辑所渗透。事实上,根据卢卡奇的观点,商品拜物教不仅支配着世界上的客体,也同样支配着主体,这些主体被简化为可交换的商品,“就像服从无情的市场法则的纯粹事物”。(4)阿多诺最喜欢用“被管理的世界”来形容资本主义下社会的整体物化,这个词在《美学理论》和他的其他作品中反复出现。因此,在《文化批判与社会》中,阿多诺描述了物化的总体化和极权主义的影响:这种管制,是所有人类关系的进步社会化的结果,并不是简单地从外部面对心灵;它迁移到其内在的一致性....以交换行为为模型,整体的网络变得越来越紧密。它使个体意识逃避的余地越来越小,使个体意识表现得越来越彻底,先验地切断了个体意识与自身差别的可能性,因为一切差别都在供给的单调中退化为细微差别。(5)因此,笛卡尔关于思维的自我与扩展的实在的区分,即使曾经成立,也不再成立了;主体不是从一个超越客体的位置来面对客体,而是被卷入“整体的网络”中,没有给真正的差异和自主性留下空间。...
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Mimesis in Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory
Theodor W. Adorno's reflections on literature and the arts are spread over several of his works, but his "systematic" and comprehensive theorization of art (including literature) was to wait until Aesthetic Theory, which Adorno did not live to complete. However, as the editors of the original German edition, Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedeman, quote Adorno (from a letter he wrote "several days before his death"), "the final version 'still needed a desperate effort' but ... 'basically it is now a matter of organization and hardly that of the substance of the book'"; (1) it is not inappropriate to rely on Aesthetic Theory as repository of Adorno's thought on the subject of art and literature. Supplementing its "reading" with relevant chapters from Adorno's other works -Dialectic of Enlightenment (which he coauthored with Max Horkheimer), Prisms, and Notes to Literature)-this essay concentrates on the concept of mimesis in Adorno's theory of arts and literature in order to examine the various meanings Adorno assigns to that concept as well as the "constellations" in which this concept articulates with other concepts. Since Adorno's aesthetic theory forms a coherent part of his overall philosophical enterprise, the strategy used here is to discuss briefly some key concepts constitutive of Adorno's critique of philosophy and of Capitalist society, and then zero in on the concept of mimesis. Adorno was a leading member of the Frankfurt School-an institute that championed "critical theory," which attempted to "grasp contemporary society and culture as a totality," espoused "unity of theory and praxis," and critiqued instrumental rationality. (2) Key to Adorno's thinking, as to the Frankfurt School's, were Marx's concept of commodity fetishism and Georg Lukacs's concept of reification. Commodity fetishism names the enigma in Capitalist society, where the value of the commodity as the product of social labor appears as the value of the commodity itself just as the relation between human beings essential to the production and exchange of commodities appears as the relation between commodities themselves. In other words, commodities become fetishes because they seem to acquire a life of their own. (3) Lukacs's theory of reification extends Marx's concept of commodity fetishism, via Max Weber's theory of rationalization, to argue that not only the economic sphere (in Marxist base-superstructure model, the socio-economic base comprising of the forces and relations of production) but "social institutions such as law, administration, and journalism" and "academic disciplines such as economics, jurisprudence, and philosophy" also become permeated by the commodity form or the logic of exchange. Indeed, according to Lukacs, commodity fetishism governs not only the objects in the world but equally the subjects, who are reduced to exchangeable commodities, "like mere things obeying the inexorable laws of the marketplace." (4) Adorno's favorite word for the total reification of society under Capitalism is "administered world," which appears repeatedly in Aesthetic Theory as it does in his other works. In "Cultural Criticism and Society," Adorno thus describes the totalizing and totalitarian effect of reification: This regimentation, the result of the progressive societalization of all human relations, did not simply confront the mind from without; it immigrated into its immanent consistency.... The network of the whole is drawn ever tighter, modeled after the act of exchange. It leaves the individual consciousness less and less room for evasion, performs it more and more thoroughly, cuts it off a priori as it were from the possibility of differencing from itself as all difference degenerates into a nuance in the monotony of supply. (5) The Cartesian division between the thinking self and the extended reality, therefore, no longer holds (if it ever did); the subject does not confront the object from a position transcendent to it but is rather enmeshed in "the network of the whole" that leaves no room for authentic difference and autonomy. …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emily Dickinson: What Is Called Thinking at the Edge of Chaos? Relational Selves: Gender and Cultural Differences in Moral Reasoning Late Pound: The Case of Canto CVII The Reproduction of Subjectivity and the Turnover-time of Ideology: Speculating with German Idealism, Marx, and Adorno Toward an Ethics of Speculative Design
×
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