What is Enlightenment? The Dialectic of Enlightenment

von: Kristian Klett

Contents

Introduction to Enlightenment in Modernity  4

Adorno and Horkheimer, Concepts of Enlightenment 5

Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment?  10

Conclusion – Modernity, Ethos, Knowledge, Dialectic  15

Bibliography  18

Introduction to Enlightenment in Modernity

While we live in a post-modern World - having the age of Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, far in our rear view mirror - the concept of Enlightenment is still a basic philosophical task. Its origin, its constitution and its goal are wildly disputed, unknown or undefined, whatever point of view might here be adequate. Still, Enlightenment is seen to be a determining part of human nature, of “what we are, what we think, what we do.” (Foucault, p.32) We still live (and an interesting question here would be: will we always live?) within the ‘shadow’ of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, even though the new era of modernity or post-modernity has been introduced. Since Enlightenment "dissolve[d] the injustice of the old inequality" (Adorno, p.12) of church, nobility, Bourgeoisie and the people, of mastery and serfdom with reason as its mediator, we face the problem of its side effects and its results, and - most importantly - its limits. Must man define his border to experience freedom (which is still within limits though they are not consciously felt, if these limits are wide enough), or can he overcome a reasonable reason in some way? Alternatively has institutionalised knowledge (with the help of religion) established a "building" of ideologies1 that is of eternal character? This leads to the question of possible "exits" from Enlightenment which already happens to have been a "way out" (Foucault, p.34) from immaturity, but is now mutilated to a new "prison" of human beings in post-modernity. Is the human mind ever to reach a state of "nirvana" or its secular utopia, a never available dream world; liberty of universals, the ultimate freedom? Will man ever be able to come back to paradise, now that he has eaten from the "tree of knowledge"? (Kantos, p.239) This essay tries to elaborate on the post-modern view of Enlightenment through the perspective of Adorno and Horkheimer′s "Dialectic of Enlightenment" and the contrary perspective of Foucault′s essay, "What is Enlightenment?”

Adorno and Horkheimer, Concepts of Enlightenment

Enlightenment in Adorno and Horkheimer′s view is in many aspects disconnected from the common understanding. When we think of Enlightenment, we think of its prosperity in the eighteenth century - the age of Enlightenment - with the rise of reason, which has Kant and Descartes as its primary authorities. We also think of the liberation of knowledge of the doctrines of clerical and aristocratic classes, church and politics. In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer not only see the emergence of Enlightenment much earlier in history, but at the same time give Enlightenment a new face as a “totalitarian” (Adorno, p.6) and “radical” (Adorno, p.16) influence on man. This influence results in humanity’s biggest cultural shift ever, the change “from chaos to civilisation” (Adorno, p.17). Here we encounter a major discrepancy compared to the concept that Foucault uses. Adorno and Horkheimer locate the creation of enlightenment somewhere in the transition from prehistory to history and show a literary place in Homer′s Odyssey where the moment of transition is preserved. (Adorno, p.34) To give a rough overview of the change Enlightenment introduced into human culture,2 Adorno and Horkheimer explicate the difference before and after its emergence at the ‘alteration’ in language and the awareness of its function.3

Before Enlightenment, there was the prehistoric age. Man was ruled (or dominated) by nature (Adorno, p.3), as he was part of it. Man in an enchanted world did not know that the world is round and circles around the sun in rotation, they did not know that summer and winter are repeating periods due to this, but they knew everything they needed to survive the changing seasons. They knew their hunting tools - how to make them, how to use them. They knew which fruit can be eaten and which are poisonous. But the will of nature was nevertheless a mystery to them. Their lives could only be understood as an "organic unity" (Kantos, p.228) between human and nature. Myth occupied the place reason does in an enlightened world.

[...]

1 Ideologies here and later in the positive meaning, including capitalism.

2 This concerns at least European culture, though Adorno and Horkheimer always seem to globalise in their historical statements; but this is a subject for another discussion.

3 Here Adorno and Horkheimer depart from the traditional argument that “reason was unthinkable without language, and without reason, no language was thinkable.” (Rieken, p.145)