« Having Opinions Isn't Autocratic | Main | In Defense of High-Minded Theorizing »

December 04, 2011


Sean Matthews

Well my first response is to ask who on earth reads Judith Butler? Other than cultural studies grad students, looking for the hermetic thrill of higher 'knowledge'. The second thought is that Butler is not correct: Adorno's sentence can mean more or less anything you want (like any hermetic 'wisdom'). It's an ink-blot. Butler just imposed a reading she liked.

Retro Jordan Shoes

shape the world. A sentence of his such as "Man is the ideology of dehumanization" is hardly transparent in its meaning. Adorno maintained that the way the word "man" was used by some of his contemporaries was dehumanizing.
Taken out of context, the sentence may seem vainly paradoxical. But it becomes clear when we recognize that in Adorno's time the word "man" was used by humanists to regard the individual in isolation from his or her social context. For Adorno, to be deprived of one's social context was precisely to suffer dehumanization. Thus, "man" is the ideology of dehumanization.

So why do we have to write sentences like "man is the ideology of dehumanization" when ones like "Early 20th century humanists used the word 'man' when considering individuals in isolation from their social contexts, a usage which ignores that precisely what makes

rc helicopter

Impressive blog! -Arron

The comments to this entry are closed.