Podcasts about Horkheimer

Att fördöma uppslutningen kring Reza Pahlavi bland demonstranterna i Iran är ett exempel på det Adorno och Horkheimer kallade ”smarthetens dumhet” – vilket riskerar att bana väg för diktatorn. Det skriver Shervin Mirzaeighazi, forskare i praktisk filosofi vid Lunds universitet, i en replik på Nahid Persson Sarvestanis artikel Iran behöver inte en ny diktator. Inläsare: Staffan Dopping

„Kaube im Gespräch“ ist eine Reihe zu aktuellen Sachbüchern. Gastgeber und Kurator ist Jürgen Kaube. Der Publizist, Träger des ersten Deutschen Sachbuchpreises und Herausgeber der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung stellt aktuelle Titel, die ihm besonders aufgefallen sind, im Gespräch mit den Autorinnen und Autoren vor. In der neunten Folge ist der Philosoph Michael Hampe zu Gast. Dieser widmet sich in seinem aktuellen Buch der Aufklärung, einem Begriff, der zugleich eine historische Epoche und ein bis in die Gegenwart wirkmächtiges Emanzipationsprojekt bezeichnet. Die im Jahr 1784 von Kant formulierte Aufforderung, sich mündig des eigenen Verstandes zu bedienen, hat im Zuge des vermeintlich unaufhörlichen gesellschaftlichen Fortschritts keineswegs nur selbstbestimmte Bürgerinnen und Bürger hervorgebracht, sondern auch zahlreiche Verlierer und Verwerfungen, wie Horkheimer und Adorno 1944 in ihrer „Dialektik der Aufklärung“ zeigten. Aus heutiger Perspektive lässt sich die Aufklärung – etwa aus postkolonialistischer Sicht – als unvollendetes oder gescheitertes Unternehmen betrachten, mindestens jedoch als eines, dessen große Illusionen zerplatzt sind. Der Clou allerdings liegt darin, dass diese Einsicht selbst Ausdruck einer aufgeklärten Haltung ist. „Krise der Aufklärung. Über die Fortsetzbarkeit einer Lebensform“ (Suhrkamp) In Kooperation mit dem Kulturamt Frankfurt. Das Gespräch wurde am 10. Dezember 2025 aufgezeichnet.

Andreas Hardhaug Olsen er en norsk kommunikasjonsrådgiver, skribent og forfatter med bakgrunn fra forskningsformidling. Han har utdanning innen markedskommunikasjon, med forskningsinteresser i politisk filosofi, informasjons- og kommunikasjonshistorie samt økonomisk idéhistorie. Hans publikasjoner inkluderer analyser av kritisk teori og idéutvikling. Kateterprofetenes opprør er en debattbok skrevet av Andreas Hardhaug Olsen, utgitt i 2025. Den undersøker arven fra studentopprøret i 1968 og Det nye venstre, og hvordan denne utviklingen har påvirket dagens kritiske teorier og kulturdebatt.Boken sporer utviklingen fra mellomkrigstidens kritiske teori via nymarxister som Horkheimer og Marcuse til moderne retninger som kritisk rase-teori, postkolonialisme og aktivistisk akademia. Den kritiserer tendensen til politisk aktivisme i forskning og undervisning, med referanse til Max Webers begrep om "kateterprofeter" – professorer som bruker plattformen sin ideologisk.Kjøp boken Kateterprofetenes Opprør her: https://bannlysteboker.no***► NY BOK UTE NÅ: Frykt og Stillhet - jødiske stemmer i Norge etter 7. oktober. Bestill her:  https://bok.norli.no/frykt-og-stillhet► STØTT ARBEIDET PÅ VIPPSOm du ønsker å støtte arbeidet med denne podcasten, kan du bidra med et stort eller lite beløp, etter eget ønske. All støtte settes pris på, og du bidrar til arbeidet med å lage flere episoder. Bruk Vippsnummer: #823278►  ⁠BLI ⁠⁠⁠⁠MEDLEM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Fremover vil de som er støttemedlemmer få tilgang til episodene først. Da støtter du podcasten med det samme som prisen av en kaffe hver måned. Setter stor pris på om du blir støttemedlem. Tusen takk.► Annonsere på Henrik Beckheim Podcast?Send en mail til post@henrikbeckheim.no ► MERCH: Kjøp klær, kopper, capser og mer: https://henrikbeckheim.com/store► Linker:⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Nettside⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠ | Podimo | ⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠Apple

This episode of The Common Reader podcast is a little different. I spoke to both Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin about literature, politics, and the future of the academic humanities. Questions included: what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets? Can we leave politics out of literary discussion? Should we leave it out? If we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it? What is academic Marxism? We also talked about whether Stephen Greenblatt is too ideological and why universities are necessary to literary culture, academics on Substack. Julianne writes Life and Letters. Jeffrey writes Avenues of the Americas. Here is Julianne's interview in The Republic of Letters. Transcript (AI generated, will contain some errors)Henry Oliver (00:00)Today I am talking to Jeffrey Lawrence and Julianne Werlin.Jeffrey is a professor of English literature and comparative literature at Rutgers University. He specializes in the 20th and 21st century and he writes the sub stack, Avenues of America. Julianne probably needs no introduction to a sub stack audience. She writes Life and Letters, one of my favorite sub stacks. She's a professor of English at Duke University, where as well as specializing in early modern poetry, she is interested in sociological and demographic studies of literature.and we are going to have a big conversation about literature and markets, politics, what do we mean when we talk about literature and markets, can we leave politics out of literary discussion, should we leave it out, if we can't leave it out, can we have nice friendly conversations about it, and also maybe what is academic Marxism and what should it be and why is it so confusing? Jeffrey and Julianne, hello.Julianne (00:59)Hi.Jeffrey Lawrence (01:01)Hi, thanks for having us.Julianne (01:02)Yeah, thank you.Henry Oliver (01:04)I am going to start by referencing an interview that you did, Julianne, for Republic of Letters, which everyone has been reading. And you said, I've printed it out wrong, so I can't read the whole quote. But you said something like, you joined Substack because you wanted people to talk with and because you felt a lack of debate in your academic field. There are lots of good things about scholarship being slow and careful, but it also needs to be animated by debate and conversation.and a sense of the stakes of what we're doing, and that is eroding in the academy. So I want you both to talk about that. Why is that happening? How much of a problem is it? How much is Substack or the internet more generally the solution? What should we be doing? Why don't we go to Julianne first, because it's your quote.Julianne (01:54)Sure, I mean, won't go on too long ⁓ since I have already spoken about this, but my sense within English departments is, you know, they're becoming smaller, fewer people are taking our classes, we have much less of a role in public conversation and public debate, except as kind of a stalking horse for certain types of arguments. And certainly, if you are an early modernist, it's very hard to locate a kind of a...Henry Oliver (02:14)YouJulianne (02:25)discrete set of debates within early modern literature because there is so little public salience to literary fields. And I think this is happening in all literature. It's especially pronounced if you're working in the earlier periods. So my sense in joining SUBSTAC was that perhaps there will be debates by people who are not already so deep within the particular professional and disciplinary structures of a field that they canfind new points of connection between literature and public life along different ⁓ axes that we have maybe not explored adequately within English departments and are maybe becoming harder to explore as English departments contract and recede from public life.Henry Oliver (03:04)Mm-hmm.So we're bringing Milton back to the people and also finding out why they care about him at all. ⁓ What do you think about it, Geoff?Julianne (03:16)Well, hopefully. I mean, that's the goal.Jeffrey Lawrence (03:21)Great, ⁓ so I actually restacked that specific quote from Julianne because it resonated so much with me. Yeah, I mean, my sense is that as someone who works on 20th and 21st century literature, there is more crossover there, I would say, between sort of academic scholarship and public debate. But I really wanna just echo what Julianne said there, that ⁓ I have gotten the feeling that withinlet's call it like the legacy media. There are particular arguments that come from academia that are pushed forward and that become representative of the field of 20th and 21st century literature as a whole. And those kind of come to stand in for academic debate more generally. And I think it becomes very difficult. One of the things that I was noticing so much isthat the people who had access to those legacy journals, are places like the Atlantic, the New York Times, that those began to dominate the debates and people just aren't recognizing that in scholarships. So one of the things I particularly like about Substack is that I feel like although it has some of the same problems as social media more generally about kind of like who gets to participate and algorithmic culture and all of that sort of stuff.I did feel like the ideological diversity both left and right compared to the sort of a kind of monoculture, mono, you know, sort of academic argument that I found over and over in these legacy magazines, that Substack was the place where a lot of these debates are happening. And I only joined maybe four or five months ago, but for me,⁓ sort of just in terms of my relationship to the Academy, it's really changed my sense of what can be said and what's being said by academics.Henry Oliver (05:17)feels to me like in some way humanities academia needs deregulating because there's all sorts of things people can't feel like they can't say and can't do. But it's such a tangled mess that the easiest thing is for you all to just go to Substack and do it there and just try and avoid the bureaucracy because it's gone too far. But when you're on Substack...I feel like you're often faced with people saying, these English literature academics, it's all woke BS. They don't know anything. They've killed this, right? You're simultaneously in a kind of semi hostile environment. How do you, how does that seem to you?Julianne (05:56)Yeah, mean, that's certainly true. I think that we are avatars on Substack for a kind of authority that we feel in our own lives we do not possess in any way. So we're in this position where, you know, at least I feel this, I'm responding to comments that are, you know, very much, by people who very much feel that they're attacking authority figures. And I'm, you know, I'm just a person on the internet, you know, talking with them when I'm on Substack. What I like about it is precisely that it levels any kind of authority structures insofar as they exist, which is debatable at this phase. But that's not always the reality on Substack. I also feel there's an additional thing, again, as an early modernist, where you feel like, you you don't have...Henry Oliver (06:27)Yeah.Julianne (06:52)there's not a lot of interest by people who are kind of on the left in contemporary politics in the Renaissance. It's seen as kind of a conservative, canonical thing to study. And there's a lot of pushback. even within English departments, there's a lot of pushback ⁓ surrounding the idea that people should study Shakespeare or study Milton. It's seen as kind of old and fussy and conservative. And then at the same time, you go on the internet and you're the kind of ⁓ exemplar.Henry Oliver (06:59)Mmm. Yeah.Mmm.Julianne (07:22)of woke cultural discourse. So you feel like as a Renaissance scholar, you can't win. You're nobody's idea of what people should be doing intellectually or culturally.Henry Oliver (07:25)HahahaDo you think, someone asked me this the other day about why academics write in this funny way and why no one reads their books and all this. That was the way they phrased it. And I said, I think what you're saying is like, why is there no AC Bradley today? Because Shakespeare in tragedy, so I don't remember the number, of like quarter of a million copies or something that to us just feels like an insane number.Is there some legitimate criticism there that A.C. Bradley wrote in a way that, you know, your grandmother could understand? And a lot of what comes out of the Academy today is much more cut off from the ordinary reading experience.Julianne (08:18)Yeah, I mean, think that's not debatable. think there have been quantitative studies, ⁓ DH studies that have shown that academic prose has become more difficult. I think it's much more a consequence of how literary culture has become this sort of narrow and marginalized field that is preserved within academic debate and academic structures of argument and disciplinarity. Stephen Greenblatt certainly tries to benew A.C. Bradley and he does reach readers outside of academia but his audience is you know especially as a share of the population is not A.C. Bradley's audience and I don't think that's a fault of his prose. Well that's true.Henry Oliver (08:59)might be the fault of some of his ideas.Well, Jeff, I want to come to you on that. A.C. Bradley was not politically ideological. Maybe he's a crazy Hegelian and he's insane on that level. But is the problem that Stephen Greenblatt's just obviously kind of a bit cranky in some ideological way, is this a general problem of the modern humanities academia?Jeffrey Lawrence (09:24)Yeah, I mean, I tend to see the problem as it's kind of being a dual problem. One, I think, is the fact that we are facing in a lot of the academy a kind of scarcity politics. there are very, if you look at just academic hiring since the financial crisis in 2008, there's just much less of it that's happening. And so I think, I mean, part of what I see is this sense that there are certainI mean, we could say certain ideological lines that over the past 10 years, but even let's say over the past 15 years ⁓ have been the ones that have become dominant in the academy. And I think my problem is not that people connect politics to literature. I think that that's something that we all do to a certain degree. think the part of the problem is that we are now entering a situation in whichif you deviate from a particular political line, which I have sort of identified with the Democratic Party, because I think you can follow a foul of it to the right, you can also follow a foul of it to the left, then you are seen as someone who is saying something that is not in line with the contemporary academy. And I think it used to be that when there were many jobs and many different departments that you could go to,Henry Oliver (10:28)Mm, mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (10:48)there were fewer consequences for making those types of statements that were out of sync with the dominant. And now I think it's it's become very, very punitive. And this is also reinforced again by the fact that what public scholarship we do have tends to be in line with this because the institutions that are kind of the elite, I would say Ivy league.institutions are also the ones that are feeding people into ⁓ sort of that public legacy discourse.Henry Oliver (11:23)Let's talk about politics and literature because I don't like making literature political as such. But whenever I read, Julianne's probably read the Lisa Liebes substack. I don't know if you've got to that yet, Jeff. She's like, there should be no politics at all and it's all aesthetics, which I kind of sympathize with. But then it just makes me think like, well, what about Edmund Spenser?Like there's a certain extent to which a lot of poetry is political and we have to be political when we talk about it, otherwise we're just ignoring a big part of it. ⁓ So how do we solve that problem? Like are we like badly trained in thinking about politics in the humanities academy or is it like what's going on?have we got to a point where you can say there should be no politics about explicitly political writers?Julianne (12:19)Do you want to begin, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (12:20)Yeah, I mean, I can just say briefly because I mean, I teach courses, a number of courses that are about politics and literature. I actually think, I mean, I started doing this in 2016, right after Trump's election. I taught Steve Bannon's film about the financial crisis alongside ⁓ the Big Short and a couple of kind of like trying to show kind of like the left and right responses. I mean, that's not literature, that's film, but many of thethe literary works that we look at in those courses. There are conservatives, there are more classic liberals, there are Marxists. I mean, my personal feeling is that we need to talk about politics and literature, that it is a fair, it is a reasonable object of study. The problem, I think, is partially when you act as if certain...certain political writers or certain topics are simply out of bounds for study. And so there was actually a post by Dan Silver today about why I teach conservative thinkers and a response from the points John Baskin saying, who would think that you wouldn't teach conservative thinkers in a sociology course? But I do think that it's become par for the course thatHenry Oliver (13:20)Mmm.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.Jeffrey Lawrence (13:37)teaching someone, whether you're on the right and you're teaching someone who's a Marxist or you're a Marxist and you're teaching conservatives, that somehow this is kind an ethical failure. And I think that's a real problem of not assuming that what you're teaching is kind of necessarily what you believe in or talking about politics means necessarily taking an ideological stance.Julianne (14:04)Yeah, I think that's completely right. I think there's this very pervasive confusion between ⁓ talking about the politics of literature andarticulating an authoritative political perspective on that literature. Almost everybody who studies literature, especially in a historical context or in a contemporary context, honestly, is going to be talking about politics. Spencer, course, right? Milton. ⁓ How do you talk about somebody who was a literal revolutionary who wrote in favor of regicide and not talk about politics? You have to talk about politics.Henry Oliver (14:31)YouJulianne (14:37)⁓ But then there's become this confusion where people assume that if you are talking about the politics of literature, you have not just a political, but actually an ethical ⁓ teaching that you are imparting by way of that literature. And that if you're not doing that, you're somehow not talking about literature, you're not teaching the literature. That's the confusion that has been so devastating to us and I think so devastating to literary study.Henry Oliver (15:03)So what's the alternative? What should we be doing instead?Julianne (15:07)I I think that we should be talking about the politics of literature while acknowledging that literature raises political debates, not endless debates. know, there's not any given author is going to raise, you know, a certain salient set of questions that we can talk about, that we can debate and acknowledging that people historically have had different responses to these, that it has been used in different ways in different moments and that it is still used in different ways today. That doesn't mean that as intellectuals and scholars, we won't have our own positions that may inform our scholarshipin our writing and even our teaching, it just means that our positions do not shut down conversation and do not exhaust the range of possible positions.Henry Oliver (15:48)Yeah, and we should say, we're saying about, you you should teach conservative thought and stuff. I don't think either of you would identify as being on the right or conservative. So you're saying that from a, from that position. ⁓ How do we, how do we get out of this then? How do we leave politics at the door? Because when I read modern ⁓ literary scholarship, to me, it's either like very useful because it's not political.Julianne (16:01)Yeah.Henry Oliver (16:17)Or I just, as I did with that book that we all, or that Jeff and I, sort of disagreed about. I just find it almost unreadable because it's not scholarship anymore. It's just partisanship. How do we move past this? Like, what's the solution?Jeffrey Lawrence (16:33)I mean, if I can jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that, you know, allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really meanJulianne (16:33)I mean, if I could jump in just there, I mean, I would say one of the issues is having an ideological litmus test for scholars. And I think I see this in 20th and 21st century literature in a very strong way. And so what I would say is that allowing people to occupy different political positions, and I really mean,Henry Oliver (16:36)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:03)like people who I know on the left because they're not toeing a particular line are also not welcome or are also kind of meat pushback in contemporary humanities departments that I think we need to get rid of that. And my thought about the Adam Kelly book, ⁓ the New Sincerity book is that to me, I think that what he's trying to do in that bookHenry Oliver (17:10)Yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (17:31)is to understand neoliberalism as an economic and political philosophy that has effects on culture and to try to understand how authors themselves are dealing with that in their prose.To me, that is somewhat different from the way that neoliberalism is occasionally bandied about in the academy, where it doesn't just, it isn't just another word for saying, okay, this is the Chicago school or the Austrian school, and we're gonna kind of take it seriously as a mode of thought. if just saying like, neoliberalism is like our ontological condition in the 21st century, and therefore everything is.necessarily an expression of neoliberalism and we don't need to necessarily define it. So I mean, I think that may be where the disagreement extends is that I think that ⁓ Adam Kelly is trying to sort of be precise about that politics in order to understand how contemporary writers generally on the left are using it. Whereas I think that the kind of more wishy washy version of that isHenry Oliver (18:37)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (18:44)You know, just to say that neoliberalism is the air that we breathe. And there, I think I agree with you that it's just not super helpful.Henry Oliver (18:49)Mmm.Yeah, my problem with the book was that he would not tell you what did Hayek think or say. He would say Hayek was a cheerleader for the free market. Or he would not tell you what is the Gary Becker view of human capital. He would say human capital is an ideology that infuses itself into every aspect of your life so that you can no longer be separate from the market. And it's all this stuff, and it's like, well, that's nothing to do with Hayek and Gary Becker. ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (19:19)Can I just,just one thing on that, is that, I mean, I did go back and I mean, he has these moments where he's talking specifically about Hayek and the road to serfdom and saying, I think that this is a worldview in which, he'll quote Hayek talking about the problem with representative democracy and say, the real moral choices are choices that are made in the market.To me, I think that that is to engage to a certain degree with the thought. It is true, I think, as often happens in scholarship that you have the people who are defining a phenomenon from the perspective that you may be interested in. So there are a number of people from the left who are criticizing neoliberalism. I see him as engaging a little bit more than you do.Henry Oliver (20:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (20:11)in that in that direct thought and particularly compared to other humanities scholars who do I think what you're saying which is to just do that. So that's where I think I see him as doing.Henry Oliver (20:18)sure, yeah.I guess you could summy critique up as being like, if this is the good version, things are worse than I thought. Yeah. Yeah. So from here, let's go to the question of what is academic Marxism?Jeffrey Lawrence (20:27)Okay, well.Henry Oliver (20:35)Because I think a lot of people think that there's a lot of Marxism in the academy and that if they're not woke, they're Marxists or maybe they're both, right? And ⁓ personally, I spend a lot of time trying to work out what these Marxists think and it's quite confusing. And there seem to be lots of, and Julianne, you and I have talked about this, all the different, some Marxists aren't Marxists, as it were. tell us, give us a quick overview of how Marxist things really are.Julianne (21:04)Yeah, I mean it's a very complicated question to answer.because Marxism is too, well, debatably a living tradition. ⁓ And there's a huge amount of disagreement about what constitutes Marxism, ⁓ what is a legitimate form of Marxism, what is not, where do the boundaries lie, what is reconcilable with other schools of thought, what is not. But I think the big picture is that beginning, even in the 60s, Marxism moved into academia. This is a story that is told very inflectionallyHenry Oliver (21:11)youJulianne (21:37)and Perry Anderson's considerations on Western Marxism, where he argues that in the West, Marxism becomes alienated from actual political, economic, and social movements. It moves into academia. And as a result, it becomes much more philosophical, much more abstruse, much less concerned with the traditional concerns of Marxism, labor and the politics of labor and the politics and economics of labor. And that this continues and is accelerated, in fact, in the Cold War. So what you get atthe same time, you have something called the cultural turn in history and in sociology, ⁓ the rise of what is, debatably called identity politics. so Marxism remains a current within that, but it's far less of an influential current as time goes by. ⁓ And I think that many, many people...use the word Marxism and would say that there are Marxist influences in their work, but they're not viewing it as a kind of systematic approach to economics or to economic history. And so at that point, I do think you have to ask, well, what does Marxism actually mean? There are certainly people that work with, you know, ideas that they refer to as Marxist, but that have implications that to my mind are entirely antithetical to Marxism. And so I kind of feelas somebody who does work within what I would call the historical materialist tradition.⁓ in a very sort of straightforwardly economic sense, know, are markets becoming more efficient in Renaissance England? Those kinds of questions. How much does bread cost? How much do books cost? Those kinds of questions. ⁓ If you're interested in that tradition within Marxist thought, you feel that it's actually really incredibly peripheral within academia in comparison to, say, the politics of gender ⁓ or other considerations of that kind. And there's just not always sensitivityHenry Oliver (23:16)Mm-hmm.Julianne (23:35)to whether these different schools of thought actually cohere in any meaningful or deep way. What would you say, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (23:44)Yeah, that's, I mean, just to pick up on that, think that that's really helpful in that trajectory, which I also, know, the Perry Anderson, a lot of people who have talked about how Marxism.moves into the academy after the 1960s, I think it is just really important to say it becomes a different thing. And I think part of the confusion, Henry, may also be that it's like, so the Christopher Ruffo version of this is it's like, it's all Marxism, it's all everywhere. But then I think that becomes, it's so broad a definition of Marxism that what we're really talking about is aof progressive politics or sort of an amalgam of different ideas that may have some roots in Marxism of previous periods, but really don't, as Julianne is saying, really don't align with like Marxist thought or Marxian thought as such. And also as someone who does take that tradition very seriously, I think a lot about Silvia Federici, who's a feminist, know, a Marxist feminist. Like these are people who are absolutely steeped.in a Marxist political tradition. And in some ways, these are figures that may be very important to the contemporary tradition. But if you actually read what they're writing, it's like, it's an extremely watered down version that we get in the academy in part, and I'll just end with this, in part because to Julianne's point, I think it like when Marxism also becomesHenry Oliver (24:59)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (25:10)a kind of one discourse among many that you are using in what are often very bourgeois institutions, then it becomes a kind of intellectual tool and sometimes even an intellectual weapon, as many of these things are, where the question of how it relates to practical politics, working class politics,politics outside of the academy becomes sort of secondary. And so then really we're not talking about someone who's a Marxist as in they're like fighting for the working class. You're talking about someone who's just using Marx as a tool, which is fine, but that certainly shouldn't give them any sort of like, you know, moral high ground when speaking from the position of the left is my view.Henry Oliver (25:53)Is there some inherent aspect of literature that means it has been more amenable to Marxist study of any description than it has been to, you know, ⁓systems of thought that come more from a kind of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek tradition. Because it's very striking to me how few liberals and libertarians they're currently, publicly currently, I know a lot of them keep it to themselves, some of them have said as much to me. ⁓ But is there some good literary reason for this? Or is it just an institutional ⁓ problem?Julianne (26:33)That's an interesting question. ⁓ I mean, there are sort of traditional reasons for this in thatMarxism from, you know, in Marxist writing from very early on was interested in the relationship between culture and historical change. So there's a very, even by the time you get to the beginning of the 20th century, there's already a very well developed materialist tradition for thinking about cultural change and cultural transformation over the long run in a way that I don't think is true ⁓ of rival ideologies. Not that there isn't great literary work, but that there's not the sameHenry Oliver (27:09)Sure, sure, sure.Julianne (27:11)kind of sense of a methodological tradition. So there's a lot of momentum there.⁓ But in terms of more intrinsic reasons, I don't know. I mean, it doesn't seem obvious. Certainly at other times and places, we haven't had the situation that we have now. I often find myself thinking of, know, Piketty's arguments, which this does not pertain to Marxism, but this does pertain to the ⁓ difference between the political parties in the US, which is just that ⁓ education has become the means of differentiating between two rival elites, you know, not...Henry Oliver (27:27)Mm.Julianne (27:47)a difference between a working class and an elite, but two rival elites that are actually distinguished by the university itself. So as long as the university plays that structural role, it seems unlikely that its politics are going to drift to the other side, because that is actually precisely what the university has become. ⁓ I don't know, what do you think, Jeff?Jeffrey Lawrence (28:06)Yeah, I mean, it's a really good question. I mean, I share the sense that, I mean, I think that there is an extraordinary ⁓ Marxist literary tradition that goes back to, you know, sort of Lukacs and these debates, Adorno, Horkheimer. These are critics that are important to me, cultural studies with people like Stuart Hall and Raymond Williams. I mean, they very much, I think, were, though,Henry Oliver (28:20)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (28:30)That was a kind of insurgent force, we could say, within the academy that has now become, I would say, almost entirely dominant. I personally, mean, one of the things when I was writing my first book was on US and Latin American literature. I was very interested in a certain liberal tradition that comes from, you know, John Dewey. We would now say that, I mean, it's not the liberalism of, you know, Milton Friedman and von Hayek, but it is,Dewey, think, was for many people the most important philosopher, aesthetic philosopher of the early part of the 20th century. And he was a sort of radical liberal who thought a lot about the liberal tradition. I people like Lionel Trilling with the liberal imagination, these were, I think, writers who were very important.Henry Oliver (29:16)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (29:19)in a particular moment. And I guess, you this is, you may see this as a dodge, I, Henry, but I definitely feel like these are books that are really important to my formation and whether or not I associate with a certain particular strain of contemporary ⁓ liberalism, I don't tend to think of myself necessarily in those terms. And so,Henry Oliver (29:26)HahahaJeffrey Lawrence (29:43)I think we really should be reading those because those types of people, people like John Dewey, people like Lionel Trilling, know, Philip Rav, these kind of mid-century intellectuals, they were really engaging in major debates and they were foundational for the field, even if now I think there may be some desire to take distance from them.Henry Oliver (30:07)It's the bigger problem that we should just get back to more for literature as literature.And once we allow a kind of methodological approach from one tradition or another, we're just no longer really studying literature. We're using literature to, like I had a professor once and they said an essay about Anglo-Saxon poetry with some Harold Bloom quote saying, none of this is any good. It's like the great age before the flood, that kind of thing. And I basically wrote an essay saying, yes, that's correct. And she did not like that. And I said, look, I bet you don't actually love anyof this poetry. I bet you don't care about any of this. You know, I just sort of... And she said, that's not the point. The point is that we can use it to impose the... You we can use it as a way of dealing with the ideas we want to deal with and having methodological... And I was just like, I'm never coming back. You know, goodbye. And that to me is kind of... Is that the more foundational problem, right? Some people want to take a kind of...Northrop Frye, Christopher Ricks, literature as literature approach, and some people want to have an extra literary methodology. Be it Freudian, be it feminist, be it identity politics, be it whatever. And that is the bigger sort of division here, and is the solution to just say Shakespeare is Shakespeare and you can keep the other stuff for your other classes.Julianne (31:33)Well, I don't know because, I mean, in terms of what actually goes into the classroom, I think that's a different question. I don't teach very much theory in the classroom. ⁓ But I don't think that we can just say that because the ability to say, you know, these are great works, this is part of a canon, it came with its own set of ideological commitments that are now...Henry Oliver (31:40)Show. Show, show, show.Julianne (31:57)sort of vanishing, right? So we need some kind of framework for making sense of why we read literary history at all, what its coherence is, what its shape is, what its structure is. A lot of those frameworks were implicit. didn't, you know, they were articulated, they didn't need to be articulated every single time because they were so woven into the whole system of education. As that becomes increasingly untrue, I think we do find ourselves in a position where we need to explain why we care about this object literature at all.in the first place. And I don't think just saying, you know, literature for literature's sake without situating it within some kind of wider account of culture really works. I don't know that situating it within some wider account of culture really works either in terms of persuading anyone, but I don't think you can say to people, look, Shakespeare is Shakespeare, we have to read him because he's great. I think you need to...Jeffrey Lawrence (32:45)Mm-hmm.Henry Oliver (32:45)HahahaJulianne (32:53)have an argument about the place that Shakespeare has in culture ought to have ⁓ because that is increasingly not true.Henry Oliver (33:02)So I mostly agree, but it is very striking to me. I mean, I sort of half agree. It is very striking to me that the just read it because it's great argument is winning a lot of ⁓ admirers on the internet, while some version of what you've just said is sort of dying in the academy. And I'm not saying that therefore that's a decisive factor and we should just do this. But in terms of getting people interested,that does see something on the internet among the new humanities culture on Substack and other places, does just seem to be resistant to these methodologies and ideology, right? Do you see what I'm saying? ⁓Jeffrey Lawrence (33:43)Can I, I mean, yeah, Imean, I would say, and we may just disagree on this, but I agree with Julianne that, I mean, the ideological context of a work, the historical context of work seems incredibly important. I saw Henry, yeah, yeah. And so I think that there, yeah, yeah, but I think that's not, I mean, I think we can't totally gloss over that because all three of us have had long educational sort of,Henry Oliver (33:58)sure, yeah. We're all historicists, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:11)a long educational formation that has allowed us to even have this conversation, let alone read these works. I, you you, you, I think you had a post about this on, on Austin about like, you know, sort of there, there are certain things that are helpful for you to know in order, once you're going into work. I think that that's different from the thing that you're pointing to and where I think I would agree with you, which is that when, when methodology becomes the TrumpHenry Oliver (34:15)Yes.Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (34:41)card over literature. think that that is that is an important cultural shift. And I think we are now at the point in which this is my formulation for it. It's like if you're just going to read literature for, you know, for a particular political thing, for Marxism, let's say, in order to understand, you know, sort of like a Marxist conception of society, why not just read Marxism?Henry Oliver (34:42)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:11)like Marxist theory. mean, so I do think that that is a real problem and the failure, and to be fair to humanities scholars, this is, has been a big debate over the past five or 10 years. I think it's just more contested in the academic space than it is on Substack, where I think Substack is kind of demonstrating to my mind also that some of the more frank, I, I sweat, some of the more BS, yeah.Henry Oliver (35:11)Yes.Say what you want.Jeffrey Lawrence (35:39)Some of the more b******t arguments that I see about like, ⁓ well, there aren't X people, like there aren't white men who are writing and reading, and then you just see the tremendous number of people who are reading, they may just feel alienated from certain ways of doing things. And that, I think, that's a wide range of people. And I think it's a wide range of people who are turned off by certain things in the academy.Henry Oliver (35:49)yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (36:07)I think a lot of that though has to do with a general problem that we need people in literary studies who deeply care about literature, regardless of what ideological thing, you know, where they're coming from. And if you are always just interested in the methodology that you're bringing to it, as opposed to literature, then this is going to be a long-term problem because people are going to start asking, why is it that we are reading literature?Henry Oliver (36:34)To what extent is that the basic problem that the universities have right now? To me that just seems to be it's that, right?Julianne (36:39)I think that's a huge problem. Yeah, I think it's a huge problem.Yeah, it's a huge problem. guess, you know, while sort of agreeing with you and definitely agreeing with Jeff, I guess what I would say to sort of refine what I was saying earlier is, no, I don't think you should study the methodologies instead of studying literature. Of course not.⁓ But the questions that the methodologies ask are really basic to the questions that we need to ask about the study of literature. So it's not that you should be studying Marxism or feminism or this or that instead of studying literature, but I don't think you can...totally do away with the questions of, what is this thing? What is its role in culture? What does it mean? Why do we study it over long, long periods of time? ⁓ It is, it has become very hard to make that, that case. And it's not that I think making that case explicitly is going to win converts as opposed to talking about the literature itself. In the end, it's going to be the literature itself, if it's going to be anything at all. But to have an account of the meaning of what we're doing, even for our own sakes, we do need to be thinking about questions like what is this thing?and why, right, which are supposed to be questions that methods help us ask.Jeffrey Lawrence (37:53)And can I just add to that kind of the, I mean, a word that we haven't used so far is specialization. And I think to a certain degree, like what may unite us in this conversation is a sense too, that like, that literature is not just like this particular corner that you're studying and that you're interested in because it's your field. And so,Henry Oliver (38:13)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:16)Those type of turf battles, I think, are also really important to this. The sense that your topic is the thing that you specifically focus on and the difficulty of communicating that is an issue. And also just the sense that, like, I mean, my sense is you can be interested in history and sociology. Julianne and I are both interested in that. And also literature, so that it doesn't, I mean, part of it is, I think, restoring the notion that a kind of broadHenry Oliver (38:19)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (38:46)like intellectual training is not a liability, but is actually something that you need in order to understand literature and that heightens your appreciation.Henry Oliver (38:57)Somewhere in one of Iris Murdoch's interviews, she talks about the state of literary undergraduates today, because obviously she was married to John Bailey and had a lot of, and this is like in the 80s or something, ⁓ and she said, well, they're not interested in just reading the literature and understanding the history of it anymore. They want to have all these crazy theories.It's very striking when you see stuff like that from 50 years ago. Did the cannon wars ever end? Did we ever change the arguments? In some ways, is this not just the Harold Bloom thing? It's still going, right? And one route out that I think you've identified is just ⁓ be broader. Just read more outside your own area.The people who everyone loves on Twitter, like CS Lewis and Harold Bloom, are the ones who weren't in their public facing work. They weren't narrow specialists. CS Lewis would do everything from some random Latin medieval writer to Jane Austen. And in a way, is that what we need? We just need to have more of that appreciation of the long history of literature.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:10)I mean, just one thing, then Julianna, I'd be curious to like from like a ⁓ 20th and 21st century perspective. Like I agree with that, but I also think that like that was Toni Morrison as well. I mean, talking about the classics, mean, part of the problem I think is that we have these readings of figures that become then sort of symbolic or totemic of.Henry Oliver (40:23)Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (40:33)like a contemporary, you know, whatever that may be, an identity category or whatever it may be. Whereas if you actually read Toni Morrison, absolutely voracious, absolutely thinking about like, you know, the classics, you know, thinking through Greek drama, ⁓ know, Faulkner, you know, ⁓ master's thesis on the outsider in Faulkner and Virginia Woolf. I mean, I think some of this also has to dowith something that has happened very specifically in the past 10 years of also subjecting figures of the past who were interested in that more Catholic notion of culture to these kind of like very selective readings. I mean, it's true of James Baldwin. I thought about this a lot. Like a lot of these figures who just didn't want to be boxed in in a particular identity way get then taken up asHenry Oliver (41:11)Hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:26)kind of figures for that when actually, mean, in some ways they were, you know, I'm sure Toni Morrison and Harold Bloom wouldn't have agreed on everything, but there was actually, I mean, but really there is actually more alignment there than like the 2025 reading of them would give credit for.Henry Oliver (41:40)Yeah, yeah, yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (41:47)Yeah, don't know, Julianne, if yeah.Julianne (41:49)Yeah, no, mean, I obviously I agree so, so entirely with.everything you're saying, but especially with your comments about longer literary histories, more capacious reading, know, longer, wider. Obviously you read cross linguistically and do work cross linguistically. So both broader and longer literary histories, much more than kind of a focus on methodology. Part of the reason I'm defending methodology here is because methodology, if used well, forces you outside of disciplinary specialization or can, has that capacity. In my field, the problem is not thatpeople are adhering to big sweeping methodologies anymore. In my field, the problem is that the big questions have almost disappeared, replaced by, in many cases, extremely excellent, detailed, narrow, pointillist empiricist work. I think that work is...valuable and it's foundational, but you can't have a field that just has that. You have to have something that makes the field cohere. You have to have questions that the field coheres around. know, and increasingly, I'm a historicist. I got into this because I love this kind of like, ⁓ you know,tell me everything about this particular edition of the Fairy Queen. ⁓ I love that kind of thing. ⁓ And yet at the same time, there is part of me that is starting to wonder.Henry Oliver (43:09)YouJeffrey Lawrence (43:10)YouJulianne (43:17)is it actually more relevant even for being a Renaissance literary scholar to have read every single person writing in England in 1592 and then maybe instead of Dante or going the other way, right? Instead of...Richardson or Voltaire. Like maybe we should be reading more Voltaire instead of every non-entity. And I'm guilty of this because my whole project is every non-entity who published a book in 1592. So this is very much self-critique. But that more capacious sense, and that more capacious sense exactly as Jeff says, is very much aligned with how writers themselves, especially great writers, approach literature. I teach Toni Morrison in my Shakespeare class sometimes because she has a short play on Desdemona.Jeffrey Lawrence (43:47)If you ⁓Henry Oliver (44:06)So we're obviously all going to await your blog about the different editions of the Fairy Queen and your favorite things about each of them. Just give us some examples of what the big questions would be and what these empirical questions that people are. Just make it sort of concrete for us what you're talking about there.Julianne (44:11)Hawell i mean there are a lot of people who have big ideas ⁓that maybe make their way into their own work, that show up in the introduction of their own work, but that are not defining the field in a meaningful way. There are a few debates that think are actually happening within my field that are interesting, like the extent to which ⁓ Renaissance literature should be understood on national versus international lines. I think that's quite an active one that's very interesting. ⁓ But I think a lot of books written in the Renaissance, and I don't wantHenry Oliver (44:39)Mm-hmm.Julianne (45:03)topoint to any one book because these are all you know good books and books that I like but a lot of books will be have a very narrow date range a set there you know the typical organization of a book in literary studies is to have a sort of thematic topic not always thematics sometimes it'sbook historical or cultural, but ⁓ often it will be a thematic topic. Say a topic like ⁓ shame in Renaissance literature, right? So you'll take shame in Renaissance literature. This is fictional. This isn't anybody's book. If it is accidentally somebody's book, I apologize. Shame in Renaissance literature, okay? And then you'll have this ⁓ contextualizing introduction where you might bring in a bit of Foucault and you might bring in various other theorists.Henry Oliver (45:23)Mm-hmm.Sure, sure,Jeffrey Lawrence (45:39)YouJulianne (45:52)But you will also go very, very deeply into, say, sermons, right, the sermon literature. And then you'll have five chapters. you know, one will be like Shakespeare play, and then maybe one will be Spencer. And then maybe one will be somebody, you know, more marginal or be Ben Johnson or there'll be Webster, you know. ⁓ And then you will put them, you know, this is the method of New Hizorizis. You'll put them beside legal documents and you'll put them beside sermons and you'll put them beside other very, very contextualized and often very well contextualized.works from the period. But you won't write a book that is like, you know, literature and shame, you know, across three centuries ⁓ that would then maybe potentially think about, you know, is there a fundamentally different way that drama versus the novel represent shame? Does this help us understand long range debates about interiority? And again, it's not that nobody ever does this. It's that the feelI feel English literature used to be more aligned over around these kind of shared long-term questions and debates and they're much less aligned around them now because of specialization and because of the sort of dynamic of know decline and and narrowing of prospects that Jeff has mentioned.Henry Oliver (47:11)A lot of people complain about the administrators, the way funding is done, the way you can only get funding for certain types of work, career structures, all these structural factors that make life either difficult as an academic or just force you into certain decisions and activities. ⁓ To what extent is writing on Substack actually going to be a beneficial solution?to get around those problems and to what extent is it just going to be a sort of useful addition and is going to be very stimulating for you all but might not, you know, might not actually change things. What's your sense of that?Jeffrey Lawrence (47:54)This was something I've thought about this a lot because I wrote for the Chronicle of Higher Education. think Julianne and I have both write or have written for the Chronicle and something that was on the public humanities and I very specifically this is 2022 or 2023 said like, sub stack is not going to be the solution. Partially and my point there was something that I still believe to a certain extent which is thatas someone who has worked in different public humanities ⁓ programs, as someone who knows to a certain degree the publishing industry in the US and Latin America and has done work on that, I think that it's hard to ⁓ exaggerate the degree to which funding for this type of research, it's just really expensive and the existing funding models that exist for something like Substack or I mean any other sort of ⁓platform economy, even public humanities projects, it's just really hard to do. So I'm much more in favor. So I think Substack is really important as a venue. I think that as a potential model for, you know, a sustainable model for doing academic scholarship, I see a lot more limitations. And that's why I've said, I mean, I think in some ways, if the types of conversations that happen on Substack,could be then imported back into our fields. Like, I don't think we should just destroy the institutions and get rid of these departments. I think that there needs to be a sort of infusion of these types of debates that are happening on Substack in the university, because the universities have funding, you know, have funding. And I think it's partially about fighting for that, this kind of holistic thing that we've been talking about up to this point.Julianne (49:49)Yeah, I completely agree. That's my view as well. I don't think that Substack's funding model would actually be good for scholarship. I'm not saying that you couldn't get a few people making it viable, but for a scholarship as a whole, I think it would be terrible for scholarship as a whole. At the same time, for the reasons we've been discussing here, we need to be talking with other people and not just with people in our subfield of a subfield of a subfield. And Substack is great for that.Henry Oliver (50:18)I sometimes think that if you can draw a distinction between scholarship and criticism, the academy can keep the scholarship and the criticism needs to come outside. You can all still write it, right? But it needs to be done in a way that is free of all the institutional incentives and constraints and just all that problem and you can all just be free to say other things online.Jeffrey Lawrence (50:43)I mean, just very quickly on that, I mean, I do think that in my personal case, because I came to Substack partially because I had a very bad experience with a kind of ⁓ a piece that I had pitched to like a venue that was, you know, sort of like progressive venue where I felt like I was saying things about contemporary author that everyone else was saying, right? It was a kind of public secret, a kind of critique of this writer.And I felt like it was not going to be published in any of those venues and in the Academy itself, that would be a problem. And not because this was something that even, you know, sort of ⁓ departed so much from things that people would say, but just because of kind of like the power structures. And since I've been on Substack, I've had multiple people, particularly with the first Substack piece that I wrote, but with other ones as well.Henry Oliver (51:11)Mmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (51:35)people in academia telling me, thank you for saying this. And also I'm reading your sub stack as an academic right now. But I also, do think that there remains, I mean, it's changing, but I do think that there's speaking of shame, like there are people who they're just not sure as graduate students.what they can say and what they can't say. And I think that's a real issue. So I agree, criticism is important, but even for scholarships too, I think that there need to be taboos that are broken in order for scholarship, as Julianne said, to kind of like return to that more sort of vibrant feel that it once had.Julianne (52:20)Yeah, I think that's right. Obviously those taboos are less present in my field than in yours because the contemporary stakes are much less clear. ⁓ And sometimes I'm jealous of people who work in the contemporary field because there are stakes. And then I hear things like what you just said and I'm no longer so jealous. But yeah, no, do think that...Henry Oliver (52:35)YouJeffrey Lawrence (52:35)YouJulianne (52:46)People, even beyond what you would think that they would plausibly need to be, people are very cautious and graduate students especially are very cautious and even having the example of people saying things publicly is incredibly important and helpful.Henry Oliver (53:02)It's interesting how many PhD students there are on Substack. There are several English literature PhD students and I find it amazing actually that they're writing a Substack ⁓ rather than writing something academic. This to me is a very clear signal of something is changing, right? Something important is changing.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:28)I would say it's pragmatic too. I mean, I don't think that there's any reason people shouldn't graduate students. I don't think that they necessarily need to have a substack, but I also, I just think that there's a kind of recognition that, you know, especially at this moment, mean, frankly, with a lot of this does have to do with the Trump administration and kind of the way that it's been directed very specifically at, you know, sort of the humanities andHenry Oliver (53:47)Mm-hmm.Jeffrey Lawrence (53:53)So I do think that there's a kind of sense that the hiring isn't happening. And so it's like, well, why am I going to invest in this very small possibility of getting an, an academic job or even better yet, I'm going to build my own audience. I'm going to talk about these things because that's going to empower me at the moment in which I'm actually looking for jobs. So I, I, I'm like, I agree with you that I think it's just like, ⁓ it's a pretty astonishing thing.in the sense of the sort of initiative, but it also kind of makes sense given the world that exists.Julianne (54:30)Yeah, mean, you know, our graduate students are not.coming in, I'm sure yours are the same way, they're not coming in thinking they're going to get jobs ⁓ anymore. So they're coming in thinking, I have six years to build the kind of intellectual life to become the kind of writer and the kind of thinker that I want to be. And that's the priority, much more than anything sort of pragmatic about what they might do in terms of future career prospects, because most of them have absolutely no idea. It's much more about how can I find an intellectual community? How can I become the kindintellectual I want to be. And if academia is not going to be their home long term for that, it cannot be in academia. It has to be elsewhere. In addition, now that there are fewer conferences, journals, you know, are delayed by years. That was another thing that got me on Substack is I wrote a review.And I wrote the review as soon as I got the book. I wrote the review that I was asked to review. Then like, you know, six weeks, sent it back. ⁓ It took four years for the review to appear in that journal. And I was like, why, how can we possibly have a conversation when this journal has just been sitting on this copy edited review until they could find a slot for it in their, you know, in this day and age? How can that be the case? You know, so I think, you know, that's also part of what's going on.Henry Oliver (55:49)Yes.So are you running introduction to sub-stack classes for your graduate students? This is not yet, yes.Julianne (55:59)No, not yet, not yet.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:00)Yeah, yeah. I mean,interestingly, we had an event with Lincoln Michelle, who's a very popular at Rutgers, who's a very popular Substack writer. I mean, that was one of our, was a hugely well attended event. I mean, I do think, and it doesn't necessarily need to be just Substack, but I think public intellectual work, think graduate students and also undergraduates, they want to understand this because they know ⁓Henry Oliver (56:08)Mm-mm.Jeffrey Lawrence (56:29)precisely what Julianne said, that it's not gonna work for them to just stay in their lane and keep the blinders on and keep going. Even if they want a career in academia, they know that they need to be involved in these other things. so, I mean, to the extent that I think we can do that in our institutions and give them a sense of what's going on, I mean, definitely we're thinking about that at Rutgers.Henry Oliver (56:55)If the humanities goes into some sort of terminal decline and there are fewer departments and the student numbers never recover and all these blah blah blah, all these bad things, ⁓ does it matter?Julianne (57:08)Well, for what? mean...Jeffrey Lawrence (57:10)Ha ha.Henry Oliver (57:10)Well, because everyone talksabout it like, the humanities are dying, this is terrible. And I'm like, what's the problem? We had like English literature was the number one subject for undergraduates, and now it's not, right? What is the actual problem if the humanities are in this terminal decline? No, I get that it's all bad for you. Yeah, no, for all of you, of course, right? But like, what's the what's the actual problem here? Yeah.Jeffrey Lawrence (57:27)You mean besides the jobs of, mean, because part of that, right, right, Yeah, for us. But for society.Henry Oliver (57:38)Obviously when someone doesn't have a job or can't get a job, like of course, of course. But can you give us a succinct explanation of why people who are not involved in it should care about the decline of the humanities or should recognize that it's something that we don't want to happen in some way?Julianne (57:56)I mean, I think the sort of simplest thing is that we still do have, it's fading, but we still do have some shared cultural literary heritage ⁓ or basis. Yeah, I don't use the word heritage since it's a kind of nationally charged word, but some kind of shared basis that allows us to talk with each other about literature. ⁓ And most of this, think, is predicated not on the university, but on the high school canon.Henry Oliver (58:11)Sure.Julianne (58:25)is an extension of that. So I think our number one thing should be the high school curriculum. ⁓ But then our number two thing should be ⁓ ensuring that people have some kind of foundation in, you know, a...as wide a range as we can give them of literary texts that they get in university because that is the basis of a shared literary culture. I don't think you get, you know, I don't think you get a wider literary culture where people can talk about things, ⁓ you know, like 18th century books or, you know, 19th or 20th century books across the world ⁓ without having some kind of institutional basis, having some kind of shared institutional structure that people have passed through. Otherwise, what you will get is people, you know, picking up thingsyou know, a bit here, a bit there. Some of them will be so unfamiliar that they will be put off by it. Some of them maybe won't. ⁓ But you won't get anything like a common culture. And for me, that's sort of intrinsically good. But there is also this kind of idealistic ⁓ democratic aspect to this that you got in the mid-20th century in the post-war expansion of higher education and also the expansion of public education. This idea that you would have a citizenship thatbe participating in intellectual, philosophical, and political culture at a very high level. I don't see how you get that without having some kind of shared institutional basis for it.Jeffrey Lawrence (59:50)Yeah, mean, would just, yeah, I think everything and then maybe the only like word that I would use that you didn't use there is just kind of like literacy. mean, cultural literacy, but actual literacy, because I do think that beyond the culture wars, like the one thing that I think I'd like across the political spectrum is that there is this sense that a certain ability to read and to engage in civic life is declining.⁓ And so, yeah, I mean, I think that reading all sorts of texts is important and having cultural literacy is important to having an informed citizenry. So that to me seems like the reason for doing it. But as Julianne says, and maybe this doesn't totally answer the question, because I do think some of these are perhaps like for us at the college level, it's a little bit downstream of these sort of.broader issues, which is one more reason I think that making the case about why we should care about literature is also on us. It shouldn't just be assumed, as you're saying, Henry, that because we want jobs that this is good for everyone. I think we need to make that case.Henry Oliver (1:01:05)Will you be making that case on Substack?Jeffrey Lawrence (1:01:09)Yeah, mean, don't know, I mean, I think, you know, sort of more and more, I do think that, you know, that we need to be doing this. I mean, for me, everything that's happened over the past couple of years, I think the way my sense of kind of like the failure of a certain liberal project after the Trump election, you know, last year was really important to me in saying there is a way that we're going about the assumptions that we have aboutHenry Oliver (1:01:10)HahahaJulianne (1:01:11)ThankJeffrey Lawrence (1:01:38)literacy and what we should be doing and the role of academic scholarship. I mean, that I feel like was a turning point, at least personally for me. And I think engaging in places like Substack, but just generally in like public culture, to me, seems like it's just like it is the one avenue that we have. So yes, I guess.Henry Oliver (1:02:00)If your colleagues are listening and you both want to say something to them to encourage them onto Substack, what would you say?Julianne (1:02:10)Jeff, your colleagues, ⁓ do they subscribe to your Substack? Because one of the things that has happened is at first nobody, you know, I told a couple friends, but nobody else knew about this. But now more and more members of my department have subscribed to my Substack, which feels like, which does make it feel sort of high stakes in a different way. Has that happened to you?Henry Oliver (1:02:28)YouJeffrey Lawrence (1:02:32)I'm still pretty under the radar. ⁓ I have some colleagues, I know that there's some graduate students who also read it, ⁓ I mean, and colleague is a small thing. I'm more like, you my colleagues, have a great relationship with my department. I talk to them and sort of, but I think it's more like colleagues in general in terms of the academy that is important.Right? mean, and it again, I don't think it necessarily has to be sub-stacked, but it just shouldn't be Twitter. mean, I think that the long form writing that one finds in the debates for me, at least this is where it's happening right now. And so that would be my pitch is that I just think that the debates that are happening are better than they are anywhere else on the internet.Henry Oliver (1:03:18)Thank you both. I thought this was very interesting and I hope it encourages more of your peers to come and join us on Substack This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

Bourgeois Coldness (Divided Publishing, 2025) refers to an affective strategy that offers an explanation for how self-preservation works. Bourgeois coldness is one of the most advanced affective and aesthetic forms of preserving the structure of the colonial status quo. It creates an affective shelter in the world, unencroached upon by the immediate consequences of its many catastrophes. It functions like air conditioning – a complex technology which reliably stabilises the climate until those inside consider it natural. Bourgeois spaces – institutional and affective – stay cool and pleasant. But outside it's burning.  Canonical critical theory by Adorno and Horkheimer enters a dialogue with Black studies through Hartman and Moten. Host: Michael L. Rosino, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Molloy University Recent Books: Democracy is Awkward: Grappling with Racism inside Grassroots Political Organizing (UNC Press) 30% off with code: 01UNCP30 Debating the Drug War: Race, Politics, and the Media (Routledge) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Bourgeois Coldness (Divided Publishing, 2025) refers to an affective strategy that offers an explanation for how self-preservation works. Bourgeois coldness is one of the most advanced affective and aesthetic forms of preserving the structure of the colonial status quo. It creates an affective shelter in the world, unencroached upon by the immediate consequences of its many catastrophes. It functions like air conditioning – a complex technology which reliably stabilises the climate until those inside consider it natural. Bourgeois spaces – institutional and affective – stay cool and pleasant. But outside it's burning.  Canonical critical theory by Adorno and Horkheimer enters a dialogue with Black studies through Hartman and Moten. Host: Michael L. Rosino, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Molloy University Recent Books: Democracy is Awkward: Grappling with Racism inside Grassroots Political Organizing (UNC Press) 30% off with code: 01UNCP30 Debating the Drug War: Race, Politics, and the Media (Routledge) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Bourgeois Coldness (Divided Publishing, 2025) refers to an affective strategy that offers an explanation for how self-preservation works. Bourgeois coldness is one of the most advanced affective and aesthetic forms of preserving the structure of the colonial status quo. It creates an affective shelter in the world, unencroached upon by the immediate consequences of its many catastrophes. It functions like air conditioning – a complex technology which reliably stabilises the climate until those inside consider it natural. Bourgeois spaces – institutional and affective – stay cool and pleasant. But outside it's burning.  Canonical critical theory by Adorno and Horkheimer enters a dialogue with Black studies through Hartman and Moten. Host: Michael L. Rosino, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Molloy University Recent Books: Democracy is Awkward: Grappling with Racism inside Grassroots Political Organizing (UNC Press) 30% off with code: 01UNCP30 Debating the Drug War: Race, Politics, and the Media (Routledge) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Die globale Lage ist unübersichtlich und beängstigend. Der Philosoph Moritz Rudolph versucht, die großen Bögen von globalen Vereinheitlichungen und Verwerfungen zu erhellen – mit Rückgriff auf Denker der Kritischen Theorie wie Adorno und Horkheimer. Eilenberger, Wolfram; Rudolph, Moritz www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Sein und Streit

In der letzten Folge haben wir uns ja mit Homers Odyssee beschäftigt. In dieser Folge machen wir einen großen Sprung. Denn die Odyssee spielt in der "Dialektik der Aufklärung" von Horkheimer und Adorno eine große Rolle und hat im Text ein eigenes Kapitel bekommen. Odysseus' Reise dient als Bild, wie der Mythos zur Aufklärung wird und die Aufklärung in den Mythos zurückschlägt. Aber wie ist die "Dialektik der Aufklärung" eigentlich entstanden und was genau wollten Horkheimer und Adorno jetzt mit der Odyssee? Darüber spricht Christian mit Martin Mittelmeier, er ist Literaturwissenschaftler und hat 2021 "Freiheit und Finsternis: Wie die »Dialektik der Aufklärung« zum Jahrhundertbuch wurde" veröffentlicht.

En esta conversación, Gibrán Larrauri y Christian exploran el texto 'Historia y Psicología' de Max Horkheimer, fundador de la escuela de Frankfurt. Discuten la relación entre historia y psicología, la importancia del psicoanálisis en la teoría crítica, y critican la fragmentación de las ciencias sociales. Horkheimer propone una visión interdisciplinaria que busca entender la realidad social a través de la psicología profunda y el materialismo histórico, cuestionando las concepciones tradicionales de la historia y la moralidad en la sociedad contemporánea. En esta conversación, se exploran las intersecciones entre la psicología, la teoría crítica y la historia, destacando la relevancia de la obra de Horkheimer. Se discuten temas como la irracionalidad en la acción humana, la influencia de la industria cultural en la política, y la necesidad de una psicología profunda para entender la historia y la sociedad contemporánea. Además, se critica la academia y se reflexiona sobre la importancia de la psicología en tiempos de crisis.#teoriacritica #escueladefrankfurt #horkheimer00:00 Introducción a la Teoría Crítica y Horkheimer02:52 Contexto Histórico y Relevancia del Texto05:37 Interdisciplinariedad y la Teoría Crítica08:18 La Relación entre Historia y Psicología11:34 Crítica a Hegel y Propuesta de Horkheimer14:16 Psicoanálisis y Freudomarxismo17:30 Olfato Político y Contexto del Nazismo20:19 Conclusiones y Reflexiones Finales27:35 La Dialéctica de la Historia y la Lucha Social30:36 Crítica al Positivismo y la Ontología33:24 La Concepción de la Totalidad en la Historia37:01 La Psicología como Ciencia Auxiliar en la Historia39:43 Mecanismos Psicológicos en la Participación Social42:55 La Moral Diferenciada y el Esquematismo Perceptivo46:18 La Necesidad de la Psicología en la Teoría Crítica52:33 La relación entre conocimiento y psicología55:39 La industria cultural y la política58:50 Crítica a la academia y la investigación social01:00:20 Motivaciones humanas más allá del egoísmo01:03:13 Psicología de grupos y su relación con la individualidad01:05:57 Constantes antropológicas y la pulsión de muerte01:10:32 La importancia del estudio de casos individuales01:15:02 Condicionamiento económico del aparato psíquico01:16:29 Aplicaciones del Psicoanálisis en Contextos Sociales01:19:20 La Influencia del Capitalismo en la Psicología01:23:28 La Relevancia de la Teoría Crítica en la Actualidad01:27:23 Interrelación entre Economía y Psicología01:31:25 Reflexiones Finales sobre Horkheimer y la Teoría Crítica

On "The Concept of Enlightenment" (1944), the first essay in this Frankfurt School book of critical theory, The Dialectic of Enlightenment. Our authors lay out what they take The Enlightenment to consist of, including some quotes from Francis Bacon, and some ultimately fatal tensions within it that make it no longer serve the humanistic purposes it was created for. Read along with us on PDF p. 22. You can choose to watch this on video. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"Some people hustle pool, some people hustle cars, but have you ever heard of the man who hustles stars?" From 1976 to 1997, these lines began every episode of Jack Horkheimer: Star Hustler, the astronomy show from WPBT, South Florida PBS. Later on Star Hustler was rebranded to Star Gazers, and hosts Dean Regas and James Albury took over after Horkheimer's passing. In this episode of Looking Up, Dean and James reminisce on production of the show, plus, "buzzkill" astronomy is back!

In unserer Reihe zu falschen Erklärungen des Antisemitismus behandeln wir nach Adorno und Horkheimer nun Moishe Postone, der Antisemitismus aus einer „verkürzten Kapitalismuskritik“ ableitet. Wir sind 99 ZU EINS! Ein Podcast mit Kommentaren zu aktuellen Geschehnissen, sowie Analysen und Interviews zu den wichtigsten politischen Aufgaben unserer Zeit.#leftisbest #linksbringts #machsmitlinks Wir brauchen eure Hilfe! So könnt ihr uns unterstützen: 1. Bitte abonniert unseren Kanal und liked unsere Videos. 2. Teil unseren content auf social media und folgt uns auch auf Twitter, Instagram und FB 3. Wenn ihr Zugang zu unserer Discord-Community, sowie exklusive After-Show Episoden und Einladungen in unsere Livestreams bekommen wollt, dann unterstützt uns doch bitte auf Patreon: www.patreon.com/99zueins 4. Wir empfangen auch Spenden unter: https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hostedbuttonid=NSABEZ5567QZE

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/german-studies

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Why does critical theory matter today? In Critical Theory: The Basics (Routledge, 2024), Martin Shuster, a Professor of Philosophy and the Isaac Swift Distinguished Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, explores the history, thought and legacy of the Frankfurt School to demonstrate the urgency of critical theory for explaining the world. Beginning with the idea of needless suffering as a concept animating the theory and practice of thinkers such as Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and Benjamin, the book ranges widely across topics including subjectivity, the social world, art, culture and religion. An accessible introduction to complex, but urgent, thought, the book is essential reading for arts, humanities and social science scholars, as well as for anyone who would like to change the world. Dave O'Brien is Professor of Cultural and Creative Industries, at the University of Manchester. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Thu, 10 Jul 2025 18:41:54 +0000 https://jung-naiv.podigee.io/1087-771-historiker-wolfgang-benz-uber-faschismus-demokratie-parallelen-zu-fruher 12f0329efa4003f1cd7266620c8ba34e Politik für Desinteressierte Zu Gast im Studio: Wolfgang Benz. Historiker der Zeitgeschichte und international anerkannter Vertreter der Vorurteilsforschung, der Antisemitismusforschung und der Nationalsozialismus-Forschung. Er lehrte von 1990 bis 2011 an der Technischen Universität Berlin und leitete das zugehörige Zentrum für Antisemitismusforschung, dessen Jahrbuch er bis 2011 herausgab. Ein Gespräch über Wolfgangs akademischen Werdegang und die Überraschung Professor geworden zu sein, die 68er-Zeit, Reibungen mit der Uni-Verwaltung, revolutionäre Gedanken, Antisemitismus und Muslimfeindlichkeit, Schutz von Minderheiten, ein AfD-Verbot, dumme Politiker, Parallelen zur Weimarer Republik und NS-Machtübernahme, die Verrohung des bürgerlichen Lagers, Horkheimer zu Kapitalismus und Faschismus, Trump und die MAGA-Bewegung, Israel, Palästinenser und der Gazakrieg, Erinnerungskultur uvm. + eure Fragen via Hans Wolfgangs neues Buch: "Zukunft der Erinnerung - Das deutsche Erbe und die kommende Generation" (dtv Verlag, 2025) Bitte unterstützt unsere Arbeit finanziell: Konto: Jung & Naiv IBAN: DE854 3060 967 104 779 2900 GLS Gemeinschaftsbank PayPal ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv Link: Wolfgang Benz bei Jung & Naiv, Folge 358 full Politik für Desinteressierte no faschismus,antisemitismus,israel,gaza,erinnerung,holocaust,afd,demokratie,geschichte,trump

Pensiero filosofico, storia e caratteristiche della Scuola di Francoforte, scuola sociologico-filosofica i cui esponenti furono Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse e Benjamin.

In an era where automation is taking over more and more physical labor, you'd think our minds would get a break, but many of us are feeling more mentally drained than ever before. In this video, I explore how our digital devices contribute to this ongoing sense of fatigue and energetic imbalance.We'll take a deeper look at how capitalism feeds this dynamic, drawing on Adorno and Horkheimer's (1944) critique of the culture industry. Finally, I reflect on how shifting from passive to active consumption, and engaging in creative expression, might be key to reclaiming our energy and mental clarity.

Max Horkheimer dachte in den 1930er- und 40er-Jahren intensiv über den Kapitalismus nach, aus dem sich der Faschismus entwickeln konnte. In seinem kurzen Text „Die Rackets und der Geist“, der eigentlich der Aufschlag für ein größeres Forschungsprogramm werden sollte, setzt er sich mit Banden- bzw. Clan-Strukturen auseinander, die so dominant werden können, dass sie alles beherrschen und letztlich sowohl den marktwirtschaftlichen Liberalismus wie auch das Recht außer Kraft setzen. Wenn wir heute die Herrschaftsstrukturen in Russland, Ungarn oder zunehmend auch in den USA betrachten, scheint Horkheimers Charakterisierung der Racket-Herrschaft wieder zuzutreffen. Allerdings birgt dieser Begriff auch Probleme, da er oftmals unscharf bleibt. Zugleich will Horkheimer die Herrschaft des Rackets als eine grundsätzliche Eigenschaft von Herrschaft betrachten, die nicht nur unter einem Monopolkapitalismus zum Vorschein tritt. In der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“ sprechen Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt über die Rackets der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Literatur: Bertolt Brecht: Der aufhaltsame Aufstieg des Arturo Ui, Suhrkamp. Thorsten Fuchshuber über den Racket-Begriff: https://www.ca-ira.net/thorsten-fuchshuber-ueber-rackets-als-struktur-in-der-neuen-iz3w/. Max Horkheimer: „Die Rackets und der Geist.“ In: Gesammelte Schriften, Band 12, S. Fischer, S. 287–291. „Handelsblatt“-Interview mit Katharina Pistor: https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/usa-fuer-trump-und-musk-sind-universitaeten-parasiten-die-auf-der-staatskasse-liegen/100123600.html Termine: Ole und Wolfgang sind am 18.05. in Trier: http://www.museumsstadt-trier.de/downloads/Museumstag_2025_Leporello.pdf Ole ist am 19. 05. in Trier, um über sein Kriegsbuch zu sprechen: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJn9D7Iqv5m/?hl=de Wolfgang ist am 20.05. in Bremen: https://www.uni-bremen.de/fileadmin/user_upload/fachbereiche/fb10/fb10/pdf/PlakatGastvortrag_Schmitt.pdf Wolfgang ist am 21.05. in Erlangen: https://www.gew-bayern.de/aktuelles/detailseite/durch-die-linse-des-profits-hollywoods-kapitalismuskritik Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank! Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about

„Kultur heute schlägt alles mit Ähnlichkeit. Film, Radio, Magazine machen ein System aus. Jede Sparte ist einstimmig in sich und alle zusammen“, schreiben Max Horkheimer und Theodor W. Adorno im Kulturindustrie-Kapitel in der „Dialektik der Aufklärung“. Wo manche Pluralisierung und Buntheit erkennen wollen, sehen die Philosophen der Frankfurter Schule eine große Vereinheitlichung innerhalb des Monopolkapitalismus am Werk, die konformes Denken und Autoritätshörigkeit produziert. Die Freizeitgestaltung unterscheidet sich nicht mehr wesentlich von der Arbeitszeit. Im Akkord wird konsumiert und produziert. Auch der Unterschied zwischen einer Ware und Kulturerzeugnissen verschwimmt, wenn alles käuflich wird. Im Zeitalter von algorithmischer Sortierung, von Spotify-Playlisten und KI-generierter Kunst lohnt es sich, das Kapitel aus dem Klassiker der Kritischen Theorie noch einmal zu lesen. In der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“ sprechen Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt über die Kulturindustrie der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart. Literatur: Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno: Dialektik der Aufklärung. Philosophische Fragmente, S. Fischer. Liz Pelly: Mood Machine. The Rise of Spotify and the Costs of the Perfect Playlist, Hodder & Stoughton. Tim Wu: The Master Switch. The Rise and Fall of Information Empires, Vintage Reprint. Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank! Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Veranstaltungen: Wir sind am 3. Mai in Zürich: https://www.millers.ch/spielplan/detail/jean-philippe-kindler-2186 Wir sind am 5. Mai in Stuttgart: https://theaterhaus.reservix.de/p/reservix/event/2318654

So what, exactly, was “The Enlightenment”? According to the Princeton historian David A. Bell, it was an intellectual movement roughly spanning the early 18th century through to the French Revolution. In his Spring 2025 Liberties Quarterly piece “The Enlightenment, Then and Now”, Bell charts the Enlightenment as a complex intellectual movement centered in Paris but with hubs across Europe and America. He highlights key figures like Montesquieu, Voltaire, Kant, and Franklin, discussing their contributions to concepts of religious tolerance, free speech, and rationality. In our conversation, Bell addresses criticisms of the Enlightenment, including its complicated relationship with colonialism and slavery, while arguing that its principles of freedom and reason remain relevant today. 5 Key Takeaways* The Enlightenment emerged in the early 18th century (around 1720s) and was characterized by intellectual inquiry, skepticism toward religion, and a growing sense among thinkers that they were living in an "enlightened century."* While Paris was the central hub, the Enlightenment had multiple centers including Scotland, Germany, and America, with thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant, Hume, and Franklin contributing to its development.* The Enlightenment introduced the concept of "society" as a sphere of human existence separate from religion and politics, forming the basis of modern social sciences.* The movement had a complex relationship with colonialism and slavery - many Enlightenment thinkers criticized slavery, but some of their ideas about human progress were later used to justify imperialism.* According to Bell, rather than trying to "return to the Enlightenment," modern society should selectively adopt and adapt its valuable principles of free speech, religious tolerance, and education to create our "own Enlightenment."David Avrom Bell is a historian of early modern and modern Europe at Princeton University. His most recent book, published in 2020 by Farrar, Straus and Giroux, is Men on Horseback: The Power of Charisma in the Age of Revolution. Described in the Journal of Modern History as an "instant classic," it is available in paperback from Picador, in French translation from Fayard, and in Italian translation from Viella. A study of how new forms of political charisma arose in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the book shows that charismatic authoritarianism is as modern a political form as liberal democracy, and shares many of the same origins. Based on exhaustive research in original sources, the book includes case studies of the careers of George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Toussaint Louverture and Simon Bolivar. The book's Introduction can be read here. An online conversation about the book with Annette Gordon-Reed, hosted by the Cullman Center of the New York Public Library, can be viewed here. Links to material about the book, including reviews in The New York Review of Books, The Guardian, Harper's, The New Republic, The Nation, Le Monde, The Los Angeles Review of Books and other venues can be found here. Bell is also the author of six previous books. He has published academic articles in both English and French and contributes regularly to general interest publications on a variety of subjects, ranging from modern warfare, to contemporary French politics, to the impact of digital technology on learning and scholarship, and of course French history. A list of his publications from 2023 and 2024 can be found here. His Substack newsletter can be found here. His writings have been translated into French, Spanish, Portuguese, Chinese, Hebrew, Swedish, Polish, Russian, German, Croatian, Italian, Turkish and Japanese. At the History Department at Princeton University, he holds the Sidney and Ruth Lapidus Chair in the Era of North Atlantic Revolutions, and offers courses on early modern Europe, on military history, and on the early modern French empire. Previously, he spent fourteen years at Johns Hopkins University, including three as Dean of Faculty in its School of Arts and Sciences. From 2020 to 2024 he served as Director of the Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies at Princeton. He is a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and a corresponding fellow of the British Academy. Bell's new project is a history of the Enlightenment. A preliminary article from the project was published in early 2022 by Modern Intellectual History. Another is now out in French History.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting the daily KEEN ON show, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy interview series. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, in these supposedly dark times, the E word comes up a lot, the Enlightenment. Are we at the end of the Enlightenment or the beginning? Was there even an Enlightenment? My guest today, David Bell, a professor of history, very distinguished professor of history at Princeton University, has an interesting piece in the spring issue of It is One of our, our favorite quarterlies here on Keen on America, Bell's piece is The Enlightenment Then and Now, and David is joining us from the home of the Enlightenment, perhaps Paris in France, where he's on sabbatical hard life. David being an academic these days, isn't it?David Bell: Very difficult. I'm having to suffer the Parisian bread and croissant. It's terrible.Andrew Keen: Yeah. Well, I won't keep you too long. Is Paris then, or France? Is it the home of the Enlightenment? I know there are many Enlightenments, the French, the Scottish, maybe even the English, perhaps even the American.David Bell: It's certainly one of the homes of the Enlightenment, and it's probably the closest that the Enlightened had to a center, absolutely. But as you say, there were Edinburgh, Glasgow, plenty of places in Germany, Philadelphia, all those places have good claims to being centers of the enlightenment as well.Andrew Keen: All the same David, is it like one of those sports games in California where everyone gets a medal?David Bell: Well, they're different metals, right, but I think certainly Paris is where everybody went. I mean, if you look at the figures from the German Enlightenment, from the Scottish Enlightenment from the American Enlightenment they all tended to congregate in Paris and the Parisians didn't tend to go anywhere else unless they were forced to. So that gives you a pretty good sense of where the most important center was.Andrew Keen: So David, before we get to specifics, map out for us, because everyone is perhaps as familiar or comfortable with the history of the Enlightenment, and certainly as you are. When did it happen? What years? And who are the leaders of this thing called the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, that's a big question. And I'm afraid, of course, that if you ask 10 historians, you'll get 10 different answers.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm only asking you, so I only want one answer.David Bell: So I would say that the Enlightenment really gets going around the first couple of decades of the 18th century. And that's when people really start to think that they are actually living in what they start to call an Enlightenment century. There are a lot of reasons for this. They are seeing what we now call the scientific revolution. They're looking at the progress that has been made with that. They are experiencing the changes in the religious sphere, including the end of religious wars, coming with a great deal of skepticism about religion. They are living in a relative period of peace where they're able to speculate much more broadly and daringly than before. But it's really in those first couple of decades that they start thinking of themselves as living in an enlightened century. They start defining themselves as something that would later be called the enlightenment. So I would say that it's, really, really there between maybe the end of the 17th century and 1720s that it really gets started.Andrew Keen: So let's have some names, David, of philosophers, I guess. I mean, if those are the right words. I know that there was a term in French. There is a term called philosoph. Were they the founders, the leaders of the Enlightenment?David Bell: Well, there is a... Again, I don't want to descend into academic quibbling here, but there were lots of leaders. Let me give an example, though. So the year 1721 is a remarkable year. So in the year, 1721, two amazing events happened within a couple of months of each other. So in May, Montesquieu, one of the great philosophers by any definition, publishes his novel called Persian Letters. And this is an incredible novel. Still, I think one of greatest novels ever written, and it's very daring. It is the account, it is supposedly a an account written by two Persian travelers to Europe who are writing back to people in Isfahan about what they're seeing. And it is very critical of French society. It is very of religion. It is, as I said, very daring philosophically. It is a product in part of the increasing contact between Europe and the rest of the world that is also very central to the Enlightenment. So that novel comes out. So it's immediately, you know, the police try to suppress it. But they don't have much success because it's incredibly popular and Montesquieu doesn't suffer any particular problems because...Andrew Keen: And the French police have never been the most efficient police force in the world, have they?David Bell: Oh, they could be, but not in this case. And then two months later, after Montesquieu published this novel, there's a German philosopher much less well-known than Montesqiu, than Christian Bolz, who is a professor at the Universität Haller in Prussia, and he gives an oration in Latin, a very typical university oration for the time, about Chinese philosophy, in which he says that the Chinese have sort of proved to the world, particularly through the writings of Confucius and others, that you can have a virtuous society without religion. Obviously very controversial. Statement for the time it actually gets him fired from his job, he has to leave the Kingdom of Prussia within 48 hours on penalty of death, starts an enormous controversy. But here are two events, both of which involving non-European people, involving the way in which Europeans are starting to look out at the rest of the world and starting to imagine Europe as just one part of a larger humanity, and at the same time they are starting to speculate very daringly about whether you can have. You know, what it means to have a society, do you need to have religion in order to have morality in society? Do you need the proper, what kind of government do you need to to have virtuous conduct and a proper society? So all of these things get, you know, really crystallize, I think, around these two incidents as much as anything. So if I had to pick a single date for when the enlightenment starts, I'd probably pick that 1721.Andrew Keen: And when was, David, I thought you were going to tell me about the earthquake in Lisbon, when was that earthquake?David Bell: That earthquake comes quite a bit later. That comes, and now historians should be better with dates than I am. It's in the 1750s, I think it's the late 1750's. Again, this historian is proving he's getting a very bad grade for forgetting the exact date, but it's in 1750. So that's a different kind of event, which sparks off a great deal of commentary, because it's a terrible earthquake. It destroys most of the city of Lisbon, it destroys other cities throughout Portugal, and it leads a lot of the philosophy to philosophers at the time to be speculating very daringly again on whether there is any kind of real purpose to the universe and whether there's any kind divine purpose. Why would such a terrible thing happen? Why would God do such a thing to his followers? And certainly VoltaireAndrew Keen: Yeah, Votav, of course, comes to mind of questioning.David Bell: And Condit, Voltaire's novel Condit gives a very good description of the earthquake in Lisbon and uses that as a centerpiece. Voltair also read other things about the earthquake, a poem about Lisbon earthquake. But in Condit he gives a lasting, very scathing portrait of the Catholic Church in general and then of what happens in Portugal. And so the Lisbon Earthquake is certainly another one of the events, but it happens considerably later. Really in the middle of the end of life.Andrew Keen: So, David, you believe in this idea of the Enlightenment. I take your point that there are more than one Enlightenment in more than one center, but in broad historical terms, the 18th century could be defined at least in Western and Northern Europe as the period of the Enlightenment, would that be a fair generalization?David Bell: I think it's perfectly fair generalization. Of course, there are historians who say that it never happened. There's a conservative British historian, J.C.D. Clark, who published a book last summer, saying that the Enlightenment is a kind of myth, that there was a lot of intellectual activity in Europe, obviously, but that the idea that it formed a coherent Enlightenment was really invented in the 20th century by a bunch of progressive reformers who wanted to claim a kind of venerable and august pedigree for their own reform, liberal reform plans. I think that's an exaggeration. People in the 18th century defined very clearly what was going on, both people who were in favor of it and people who are against it. And while you can, if you look very closely at it, of course it gets a bit fuzzy. Of course it's gets, there's no single, you can't define a single enlightenment project or a single enlightened ideology. But then, I think people would be hard pressed to define any intellectual movement. You know, in perfect, incoherent terms. So the enlightenment is, you know by compared with almost any other intellectual movement certainly existed.Andrew Keen: In terms of a philosophy of the Enlightenment, the German thinker, Immanuel Kant, seems to be often, and when you describe him as the conscience or the brain or a mixture of the conscience and brain of the enlightenment, why is Kant and Kantian thinking so important in the development of the Enlightenment.David Bell: Well, that's a really interesting question. And one reason is because most of the Enlightenment was not very rigorously philosophical. A lot of the major figures of the enlightenment before Kant tended to be writing for a general public. And they often were writing with a very specific agenda. We look at Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau. Now you look at Adam Smith in Scotland. We look David Hume or Adam Ferguson. You look at Benjamin Franklin in the United States. These people wrote in all sorts of different genres. They wrote in, they wrote all sorts of different kinds of books. They have many different purposes and very few of them did a lot of what we would call rigorous academic philosophy. And Kant was different. Kant was very much an academic philosopher. Kant was nothing if not rigorous. He came at the end of the enlightenment by most people's measure. He wrote these very, very difficult, very rigorous, very brilliant works, such as The Creek of Pure Reason. And so, it's certainly been the case that people who wanted to describe the Enlightenment as a philosophy have tended to look to Kant. So for example, there's a great German philosopher and intellectual historian of the early 20th century named Ernst Kassirer, who had to leave Germany because of the Nazis. And he wrote a great book called The Philosophy of the Enlightened. And that leads directly to Immanuel Kant. And of course, Casir himself was a Kantian, identified with Kant. And so he wanted to make Kant, in a sense, the telos, the end point, the culmination, the fulfillment of the Enlightenment. But so I think that's why Kant has such a particularly important position. You're defining it both ways.Andrew Keen: I've always struggled to understand what Kant was trying to say. I'm certainly not alone there. Might it be fair to say that he was trying to transform the universe and certainly traditional Christian notions into the Enlightenment, so the entire universe, the world, God, whatever that means, that they were all somehow according to Kant enlightened.David Bell: Well, I think that I'm certainly no expert on Immanuel Kant. And I would say that he is trying to, I mean, his major philosophical works are trying to put together a system of philosophical thinking which will justify why people have to act morally, why people act rationally, without the need for Christian revelation to bolster them. That's a very, very crude and reductionist way of putting it, but that's essentially at the heart of it. At the same time, Kant was very much aware of his own place in history. So Kant didn't simply write these very difficult, thick, dense philosophical works. He also wrote things that were more like journalism or like tablets. He wrote a famous essay called What is Enlightenment? And in that, he said that the 18th century was the period in which humankind was simply beginning to. Reach a period of enlightenment. And he said, he starts the essay by saying, this is the period when humankind is being released from its self-imposed tutelage. And we are still, and he said we do not yet live in the midst of a completely enlightened century, but we are getting there. We are living in a century that is enlightening.Andrew Keen: So the seeds, the seeds of Hegel and maybe even Marx are incant in that German thinking, that historical thinking.David Bell: In some ways, in some ways of course Hegel very much reacts against Kant and so and then Marx reacts against Hegel. So it's not exactly.Andrew Keen: Well, that's the dialectic, isn't it, David?David Bell: A simple easy path from one to the other, no, but Hegel is unimaginable without Kant of course and Marx is unimagineable without Hegel.Andrew Keen: You note that Kant represents a shift in some ways into the university and the walls of the universities were going up, and that some of the other figures associated with the the Enlightenment and Scottish Enlightenment, human and Smith and the French Enlightenment Voltaire and the others, they were more generalist writers. Should we be nostalgic for the pre-university period in the Enlightenment, or? Did things start getting serious once the heavyweights, the academic heavyweighs like Emmanuel Kant got into this thing?David Bell: I think it depends on where we're talking about. I mean, Adam Smith was a professor at Glasgow in Edinburgh, so Smith, the Scottish Enlightenment was definitely at least partly in the universities. The German Enlightenment took place very heavily in universities. Christian Vodafoy I just mentioned was the most important German philosopher of the 18th century before Kant, and he had positions in university. Even the French university system, for a while, what's interesting about the French University system, particularly the Sorbonne, which was the theology faculty, It was that. Throughout the first half of the 18th century, there were very vigorous, very interesting philosophical debates going on there, in which the people there, particularly even Jesuits there, were very open to a lot of the ideas we now call enlightenment. They were reading John Locke, they were reading Mel Pench, they were read Dekalb. What happened though in the French universities was that as more daring stuff was getting published elsewhere. Church, the Catholic Church, started to say, all right, these philosophers, these philosophies, these are our enemies, these are people we have to get at. And so at that point, anybody who was in the university, who was still in dialog with these people was basically purged. And the universities became much less interesting after that. But to come back to your question, I do think that I am very nostalgic for that period. I think that the Enlightenment was an extraordinary period, because if you look between. In the 17th century, not all, but a great deal of the most interesting intellectual work is happening in the so-called Republic of Letters. It's happening in Latin language. It is happening on a very small circle of RUD, of scholars. By the 19th century following Kant and Hegel and then the birth of the research university in Germany, which is copied everywhere, philosophy and the most advanced thinking goes back into the university. And the 18th century, particularly in France, I will say, is a time when the most advanced thought is being written for a general public. It is being in the form of novels, of dialogs, of stories, of reference works, and it is very, very accessible. The most profound thought of the West has never been as accessible overall as in the 18 century.Andrew Keen: Again, excuse this question, it might seem a bit naive, but there's a lot of pre-Enlightenment work, books, thinking that we read now that's very accessible from Erasmus and Thomas More to Machiavelli. Why weren't characters like, or are characters like Erasmuus, More's Utopia, Machiavell's prints and discourses, why aren't they considered part of the Enlightenment? What's the difference between? Enlightened thinkers or the supposedly enlightened thinkers of the 18th century and thinkers and writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.David Bell: That's a good question, you know, I think you have to, you, you know, again, one has to draw a line somewhere. That's not a very good answer, of course. All these people that you just mentioned are, in one way or another, predecessors to the Enlightenment. And of course, there were lots of people. I don't mean to say that nobody wrote in an accessible way before 1700. Obviously, lots of the people you mentioned did. Although a lot of them originally wrote in Latin, Erasmus, also Thomas More. But I think what makes the Enlightened different is that you have, again, you have a sense. These people have have a sense that they are themselves engaged in a collective project, that it is a collective project of enlightenment, of enlightening the world. They believe that they live in a century of progress. And there are certain principles. They don't agree on everything by any means. The philosophy of enlightenment is like nothing more than ripping each other to shreds, like any decent group of intellectuals. But that said, they generally did believe That people needed to have freedom of speech. They believed that you needed to have toleration of different religions. They believed in education and the need for a broadly educated public that could be as broad as possible. They generally believed in keeping religion out of the public sphere as much as possible, so all those principles came together into a program that we can consider at least a kind of... You know, not that everybody read it at every moment by any means, but there is an identifiable enlightenment program there, and in this case an identifiable enlightenment mindset. One other thing, I think, which is crucial to the Enlightenment, is that it was the attention they started to pay to something that we now take almost entirely for granted, which is the idea of society. The word society is so entirely ubiquitous, we assume it's always been there, and in one sense it has, because the word societas is a Latin word. But until... The 18th century, the word society generally had a much narrower meaning. It referred to, you know, particular institution most often, like when we talk about the society of, you know, the American philosophical society or something like that. And the idea that there exists something called society, which is the general sphere of human existence that is separate from religion and is separate from the political sphere, that's actually something which only really emerged at the end of the 1600s. And it became really the focus of you know, much, if not most, of enlightenment thinking. When you look at someone like Montesquieu and you look something, somebody like Rousseau or Voltaire or Adam Smith, probably above all, they were concerned with understanding how society works, not how government works only, but how society, what social interactions are like beginning of what we would now call social science. So that's yet another thing that distinguishes the enlightened from people like Machiavelli, often people like Thomas More, and people like bonuses.Andrew Keen: You noted earlier that the idea of progress is somehow baked in, in part, and certainly when it comes to Kant, certainly the French Enlightenment, although, of course, Rousseau challenged that. I'm not sure whether Rousseaut, as always, is both in and out of the Enlightenment and he seems to be in and out of everything. How did the Enlightement, though, make sense of itself in the context of antiquity, as it was, of Terms, it was the Renaissance that supposedly discovered or rediscovered antiquity. How did many of the leading Enlightenment thinkers, writers, how did they think of their own society in the context of not just antiquity, but even the idea of a European or Western society?David Bell: Well, there was a great book, one of the great histories of the Enlightenment was written about more than 50 years ago by the Yale professor named Peter Gay, and the first part of that book was called The Modern Paganism. So it was about the, you know, it was very much about the relationship between the Enlightenment and the ancient Greek synonyms. And certainly the writers of the enlightenment felt a great deal of kinship with the ancient Greek synonymous. They felt a common bond, particularly in the posing. Christianity and opposing what they believed the Christian Church had wrought on Europe in suppressing freedom and suppressing free thought and suppassing free inquiry. And so they felt that they were both recovering but also going beyond antiquity at the same time. And of course they were all, I mean everybody at the time, every single major figure of the Enlightenment, their education consisted in large part of what we would now call classics, right? I mean, there was an educational reformer in France in the 1760s who said, you know, our educational system is great if the purpose is to train Roman centurions, if it's to train modern people who are not doing both so well. And it's true. I mean they would spend, certainly, you know in Germany, in much of Europe, in the Netherlands, even in France, I mean people were trained not simply to read Latin, but to write in Latin. In Germany, university courses took part in the Latin language. So there's an enormous, you know, so they're certainly very, very conversant with the Greek and Roman classics, and they identify with them to a very great extent. Someone like Rousseau, I mean, and many others, and what's his first reading? How did he learn to read by reading Plutarch? In translation, but he learns to read reading Plutach. He sees from the beginning by this enormous admiration for the ancients that we get from Bhutan.Andrew Keen: Was Socrates relevant here? Was the Enlightenment somehow replacing Aristotle with Socrates and making him and his spirit of Enlightenment, of asking questions rather than answering questions, the symbol of a new way of thinking?David Bell: I would say to a certain extent, so I mean, much of the Enlightenment criticizes scholasticism, medieval scholastic, very, very sharply, and medieval scholasticism is founded philosophically very heavily upon Aristotle, so to that extent. And the spirit of skepticism that Socrates embodied, the idea of taking nothing for granted and asking questions about everything, including questions of oneself, yes, absolutely. That said, while the great figures of the Red Plato, you know, Socrates was generally I mean, it was not all that present as they come. But certainly have people with people with red play-doh in the entire virus.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Benjamin Franklin earlier, David. Most of the Enlightenment, of course, seems to be centered in France and Scotland, Germany, England. But America, many Europeans went to America then as a, what some people would call a settler colonial society, or certainly an offshoot of the European world. Was the settling of America and the American Revolution Was it the quintessential Enlightenment project?David Bell: Another very good question, and again, it depends a bit on who you talk to. I just mentioned this book by Peter Gay, and the last part of his book is called The Science of Freedom, and it's all about the American Revolution. So certainly a lot of interpreters of the Enlightenment have said that, yes, the American revolution represents in a sense the best possible outcome of the American Revolution, it was the best, possible outcome of the enlightened. Certainly there you look at the founding fathers of the United States and there's a great deal that they took from me like Certainly, they took a great great number of political ideas from Obviously Madison was very much inspired and drafting the edifice of the Constitution by Montesquieu to see himself Was happy to admit in addition most of the founding Fathers of the united states were you know had kind of you know We still had we were still definitely Christians, but we're also but we were also very much influenced by deism were very much against the idea of making the United States a kind of confessional country where Christianity was dominant. They wanted to believe in the enlightenment principles of free speech, religious toleration and so on and so forth. So in all those senses and very much the gun was probably more inspired than Franklin was somebody who was very conversant with the European Enlightenment. He spent a large part of his life in London. Where he was in contact with figures of the Enlightenment. He also, during the American Revolution, of course, he was mostly in France, where he is vetted by some of the surviving fellows and were very much in contact for them as well. So yes, I would say the American revolution is certainly... And then the American revolutionary scene, of course by the Europeans, very much as a kind of offshoot of the enlightenment. So one of the great books of the late Enlightenment is by Condor Say, which he wrote while he was hiding actually in the future evolution of the chariot. It's called a historical sketch of the progress of the human spirit, or the human mind, and you know he writes about the American Revolution as being, basically owing its existence to being like...Andrew Keen: Franklin is of course an example of your pre-academic enlightenment, a generalist, inventor, scientist, entrepreneur, political thinker. What about the role of science and indeed economics in the Enlightenment? David, we're going to talk of course about the Marxist interpretation, perhaps the Marxist interpretation which sees The Enlightenment is just a euphemism, perhaps, for exploitative capitalism. How central was the growth and development of the market, of economics, and innovation, and capitalism in your reading of The Enlightened?David Bell: Well, in my reading, it was very important, but not in the way that the Marxists used to say. So Friedrich Engels once said that the Enlightenment was basically the idealized kingdom of the bourgeoisie, and there was whole strain of Marxist thinking that followed the assumption that, and then Karl Marx himself argued that the documents like the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, which obviously were inspired by the Enlightment, were simply kind of the near, or kind of. Way that the bourgeoisie was able to advance itself ideologically, and I don't think that holds much water, which is very little indication that any particular economic class motivated the Enlightenment or was using the Enlightment in any way. That said, I think it's very difficult to imagine the Enlightement without the social and economic changes that come in with the 18th century. To begin with globalization. If you read the great works of the Enlightenment, it's remarkable just how open they are to talking about humanity in general. So one of Voltaire's largest works, one of his most important works, is something called Essay on Customs and the Spirit of Nations, which is actually History of the World, where he talks learnedly not simply about Europe, but about the Americas, about China, about Africa, about India. Montesquieu writes Persian letters. Christian Volpe writes about Chinese philosophy. You know, Rousseau writes about... You know, the earliest days of humankind talks about Africa. All the great figures of the Enlightenment are writing about the rest of the world, and this is a period in which contacts between Europe and the rest the world are exploding along with international trade. So by the end of the 18th century, there are 4,000 to 5,000 ships a year crossing the Atlantic. It's an enormous number. And that's one context in which the enlightenment takes place. Another is what we call the consumer revolution. So in the 18th century, certainly in the major cities of Western Europe, people of a wide range of social classes, including even artisans, sort of somewhat wealthy artisians, shopkeepers, are suddenly able to buy a much larger range of products than they were before. They're able to choose how to basically furnish their own lives, if you will, how they're gonna dress, what they're going to eat, what they gonna put on the walls of their apartments and so on and so forth. And so they become accustomed to exercising a great deal more personal choice than their ancestors have done. And the Enlightenment really develops in tandem with this. Most of the great works of the Enlightment, they're not really written to, they're treatises, they're like Kant, they're written to persuade you to think in a single way. Really written to make you ask questions yourself, to force you to ponder things. They're written in the form of puzzles and riddles. Voltaire had a great line there, he wrote that the best kind of books are the books that readers write half of themselves as they read, and that's sort of the quintessence of the Enlightenment as far as I'm concerned.Andrew Keen: Yeah, Voltaire might have been comfortable on YouTube or Facebook. David, you mentioned all those ships going from Europe across the Atlantic. Of course, many of those ships were filled with African slaves. You mentioned this in your piece. I mean, this is no secret, of course. You also mentioned a couple of times Montesquieu's Persian letters. To what extent is... The enlightenment then perhaps the birth of Western power, of Western colonialism, of going to Africa, seizing people, selling them in North America, the French, the English, Dutch colonization of the rest of the world. Of course, later more sophisticated Marxist thinkers from the Frankfurt School, you mentioned these in your essay, Odorno and Horkheimer in particular, See the Enlightenment as... A project, if you like, of Western domination. I remember reading many years ago when I was in graduate school, Edward Said, his analysis of books like The Persian Letters, which is a form of cultural Western power. How much of this is simply bound up in the profound, perhaps, injustice of the Western achievement? And of course, some of the justice as well. We haven't talked about Jefferson, but perhaps in Jefferson's life and his thinking and his enlightened principles and his... Life as a slave owner, these contradictions are most self-evident.David Bell: Well, there are certainly contradictions, and there's certainly... I think what's remarkable, if you think about it, is that if you read through works of the Enlightenment, you would be hard-pressed to find a justification for slavery. You do find a lot of critiques of slavery, and I think that's something very important to keep in mind. Obviously, the chattel slavery of Africans in the Americas began well before the Enlightment, it began in 1500. The Enlightenment doesn't have the credit for being the first movement to oppose slavery. That really goes back to various religious groups, especially the Fakers. But that said, you have in France, you had in Britain, in America even, you'd have a lot of figures associated with the Enlightenment who were pretty sure of becoming very forceful opponents of slavery very early. Now, when it comes to imperialism, that's a tricky issue. What I think you'd find in these light bulbs, you'd different sorts of tendencies and different sorts of writings. So there are certainly a lot of writers of the Enlightenment who are deeply opposed to European authorities. One of the most popular works of the late Enlightenment was a collective work edited by the man named the Abbe Rinal, which is called The History of the Two Indies. And that is a book which is deeply, deeply critical of European imperialism. At the same time, at the same of the enlightenment, a lot the works of history written during the Enlightment. Tended, such as Voltaire's essay on customs, which I just mentioned, tend to give a kind of very linear version of history. They suggest that all societies follow the same path, from sort of primitive savagery, hunter-gatherers, through early agriculture, feudal stages, and on into sort of modern commercial society and civilization. And so they're basically saying, okay, we, the Europeans, are the most advanced. People like the Africans and the Native Americans are the least advanced, and so perhaps we're justified in going and quote, bringing our civilization to them, what later generations would call the civilizing missions, or possibly just, you know, going over and exploiting them because we are stronger and we are more, and again, we are the best. And then there's another thing that the Enlightenment did. The Enlightenment tended to destroy an older Christian view of humankind, which in some ways militated against modern racism. Christians believed, of course, that everyone was the same from Adam and Eve, which meant that there was an essential similarity in the world. And the Enlightenment challenged this by challenging the biblical kind of creation. The Enlightenment challenges this. Voltaire, for instance, believed that there had actually been several different human species that had different origins, and that can very easily become a justification for racism. Buffon, one of the most Figures of the French Enlightenment, one of the early naturalists, was crucial for trying to show that in fact nature is not static, that nature is always changing, that species are changing, including human beings. And so again, that allowed people to think in terms of human beings at different stages of evolution, and perhaps this would be a justification for privileging the more advanced humans over the less advanced. In the 18th century itself, most of these things remain potential, rather than really being acted upon. But in the 19th century, figures of writers who would draw upon these things certainly went much further, and these became justifications for slavery, imperialism, and other things. So again, the Enlightenment is the source of a great deal of stuff here, and you can't simply put it into one box or more.Andrew Keen: You mentioned earlier, David, that Concorda wrote one of the later classics of the... Condorcet? Sorry, Condorcets, excuse my French. Condorcès wrote one the later Classics of the Enlightenment when he was hiding from the French Revolution. In your mind, was the revolution itself the natural conclusion, climax? Perhaps anti-climax of the Enlightenment. Certainly, it seems as if a lot of the critiques of the French Revolution, particularly the more conservative ones, Burke comes to mind, suggested that perhaps the principles of in the Enlightment inevitably led to the guillotine, or is that an unfair way of thinking of it?David Bell: Well, there are a lot of people who have thought like that. Edmund Burke already, writing in 1790, in his reflections on the revolution in France, he said that everything which was great in the old regime is being dissolved and, quoting, dissolved by this new conquering empire of light and reason. And then he said about the French that in the groves of their academy at the end of every vista, you see nothing but the gallows. Nothing but the Gallows. So there, in 1780, he already seemed to be predicting the reign of terror and blaming it. A certain extent from the Enlightenment. That said, I think, you know, again, the French Revolution is incredibly complicated event. I mean, you certainly have, you know, an explosion of what we could call Enlightenment thinking all over the place. In France, it happened in France. What happened there was that you had a, you know, the collapse of an extraordinarily inefficient government and a very, you know, in a very antiquated, paralyzed system of government kind of collapsed, created a kind of political vacuum. Into that vacuum stepped a lot of figures who were definitely readers of the Enlightenment. Oh so um but again the Enlightment had I said I don't think you can call the Enlightement a single thing so to say that the Enlightiment inspired the French Revolution rather than the There you go.Andrew Keen: Although your essay on liberties is the Enlightenment then and now you probably didn't write is always these lazy editors who come up with inaccurate and inaccurate titles. So for you, there is no such thing as the Enlighten.David Bell: No, there is. There is. But still, it's a complex thing. It contains multitudes.Andrew Keen: So it's the Enlightenment rather than the United States.David Bell: Conflicting tendencies, it has contradictions within it. There's enough unity to refer to it as a singular noun, but it doesn't mean that it all went in one single direction.Andrew Keen: But in historical terms, did the failure of the French Revolution, its descent into Robespierre and then Bonaparte, did it mark the end in historical terms a kind of bookend of history? You began in 1720 by 1820. Was the age of the Enlightenment pretty much over?David Bell: I would say yes. I think that, again, one of the things about the French Revolution is that people who are reading these books and they're reading these ideas and they are discussing things really start to act on them in a very different way from what it did before the French revolution. You have a lot of absolute monarchs who are trying to bring certain enlightenment principles to bear in their form of government, but they're not. But it's difficult to talk about a full-fledged attempt to enact a kind of enlightenment program. Certainly a lot of the people in the French Revolution saw themselves as doing that. But as they did it, they ran into reality, I would say. I mean, now Tocqueville, when he writes his old regime in the revolution, talks about how the French philosophes were full of these abstract ideas that were divorced from reality. And while that's an exaggeration, there was a certain truth to them. And as soon as you start having the age of revolutions, as soon you start people having to devise systems of government that will actually last, and as you have people, democratic representative systems that will last, and as they start revising these systems under the pressure of actual events, then you're not simply talking about an intellectual movement anymore, you're talking about something very different. And so I would say that, well, obviously the ideas of the Enlightenment continue to inspire people, the books continue to be read, debated. They lead on to figures like Kant, and as we talked about earlier, Kant leads to Hegel, Hegel leads to Marx in a certain sense. Nonetheless, by the time you're getting into the 19th century, what you have, you know, has connections to the Enlightenment, but can we really still call it the Enlightment? I would sayAndrew Keen: And Tocqueville, of course, found democracy in America. Is democracy itself? I know it's a big question. But is it? Bound up in the Enlightenment. You've written extensively, David, both for liberties and elsewhere on liberalism. Is the promise of democracy, democratic systems, the one born in the American Revolution, promised in the French Revolution, not realized? Are they products of the Enlightment, or is the 19th century and the democratic systems that in the 19th century, is that just a separate historical track?David Bell: Again, I would say there are certain things in the Enlightenment that do lead in that direction. Certainly, I think most figures in the enlightenment in one general sense or another accepted the idea of a kind of general notion of popular sovereignty. It didn't mean that they always felt that this was going to be something that could necessarily be acted upon or implemented in their own day. And they didn't necessarily associate generalized popular sovereignty with what we would now call democracy with people being able to actually govern themselves. Would be certain figures, certainly Diderot and some of his essays, what we saw very much in the social contract, you know, were sketching out, you knows, models for possible democratic system. Condorcet, who actually lived into the French Revolution, wrote one of the most draft constitutions for France, that's one of most democratic documents ever proposed. But of course there were lots of figures in the Enlightenment, Voltaire, and others who actually believed much more in absolute monarchy, who believed that you just, you know, you should have. Freedom of speech and freedom of discussion, out of which the best ideas would emerge, but then you had to give those ideas to the prince who imposed them by poor sicknesses.Andrew Keen: And of course, Rousseau himself, his social contract, some historians have seen that as the foundations of totalitarian, modern totalitarianism. Finally, David, your wonderful essay in Liberties in the spring quarterly 2025 is The Enlightenment, Then and Now. What about now? You work at Princeton, your president has very bravely stood up to the new presidential regime in the United States, in defense of academic intellectual freedom. Does the word and the movement, does it have any relevance in the 2020s, particularly in an age of neo-authoritarianism around the world?David Bell: I think it does. I think we have to be careful about it. I always get a little nervous when people say, well, we should simply go back to the Enlightenment, because the Enlightenments is history. We don't go back the 18th century. I think what we need to do is to recover certain principles, certain ideals from the 18 century, the ones that matter to us, the ones we think are right, and make our own Enlightenment better. I don't think we need be governed by the 18 century. Thomas Paine once said that no generation should necessarily rule over every generation to come, and I think that's probably right. Unfortunately in the United States, we have a constitution which is now essentially unamendable, so we're doomed to live by a constitution largely from the 18th century. But are there many things in the Enlightenment that we should look back to, absolutely?Andrew Keen: Well, David, I am going to free you for your own French Enlightenment. You can go and have some croissant now in your local cafe in Paris. Thank you so much for a very, I excuse the pun, enlightening conversation on the Enlightenment then and now, Essential Essay in Liberties. I'd love to get you back on the show. Talk more history. Thank you. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Spencer Leonard discusses the Frankfurt School's Marxism, how these Marxists are still relevant to us today, and explains Horkheimer's "Egoism and Freedom Movements: On the Anthropology of the Bourgeois Epoch." Support Sublation Media and Listen to the Second Half:https://patreon.com/dietsoap

Verleger Dr. Georg Hauptfeld, Edition Konturen aus Wien, im Gespräch mit Ralf Plenz, Folge 2 von 3

Eine Rede des neuen US-Vizepräsidenten auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz hat für ordentlich Aufsehen gesorgt. J.D. Vance will Brandmauern niederreißen und sieht die Redefreiheit in Europa gefährdet. Was der US-amerikanische Vizepräsident damit erreichen wollte, welche Wirkung das Ganze hatte und vor allem, warum er diese Rede gehalten hat – darum geht es in Folge 44 von Rechtsgerichtet. Außerdem: Was die Rackettheorie von Adorno und Horkheimer mit dem Auftreten der US-amerikanischen Administration zu tun hat und warum plötzlich eine neue Gang das Sagen hat.

From Adorno & Horkheimer's "The Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1947). Support the podcast! Links below.Support the showSupport the podcast:https://www.acidhorizonpodcast.com/Linktree: https://linktr.ee/acidhorizonAcid Horizon on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/acidhorizonpodcastJoin The Schizoanalysis Project: https://discord.gg/4WtaXG3QxnSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438Merch: http://www.crit-drip.comSubscribe to us on your favorite podcast: https://pod.link/1512615438 LEPHT HAND: https://www.patreon.com/LEPHTHANDHappy Hour at Hippel's (Adam's blog): https://happyhourathippels.wordpress.com​Revolting Bodies (Will's Blog): https://revoltingbodies.com​Split Infinities (Craig's Substack): https://splitinfinities.substack.com/​Music: https://sereptie.bandcamp.com/ and https://thecominginsurrection.bandcamp.com/

Das groteske Point-and-Click-Adventure Harvester, das 1996 auf den Markt kam, ist eines der umstrittensten Spiele seiner Zeit. Es galt als Skandalspiel, das mit seinen brutalen Bildern und seiner bissigen Satire nicht nur Fans, sondern auch Kritiker auf den Plan rief. Doch was macht dieses Spiel so besonders – und warum ist es heute aktueller denn je?Michael und Wolfram widmen sich in dieser Folge unserer Retrospektive genau diesen Fragen. Gemeinsam nehmen sie die gesellschaftlichen, philosophischen und medienkritischen Aspekte von Harvester unter die Lupe. Wie greifen Horkheimer und Adornos Thesen zur Kulturindustrie in diesem verstörenden Werk? Welche Rolle spielt die Fassade der heilen Kleinstadt, die ins Gegenteil kippt? Und wie entlarvt das Spiel Machtstrukturen, Gewalt und die moralische Doppelmoral in Medien?Neben der Diskussion über die philosophische Tiefe von Harvester beleuchten wir auch, warum das Spiel gerade in der aktuellen politischen und gesellschaftlichen Lage relevant bleibt. Es ist die erste Folge unseres Formats „Retrospektive“ mit Wolfram als festem Teammitglied. In zwei Stunden intensiver Analyse erwarten euch provokante Fragen, scharfe Beobachtungen und ein frischer Blick auf ein Spiel, das in seiner Radikalität einzigartig ist.Inhaltswarnung: In Harvester werden alle möglichen Tabus gebrochen. Wir verzichten in der Folge zwar darauf grausame Szenen zu beschreiben, aber trotzdem möchten wir eine Warnung aussprechen. Harvester ist nichts für den schwachen Magen.Außerdem noch ein Hinweis: Wir haben uns im Podcast vor allem auf Philosophie und Medienforschung konzentriert. Zum Spiel selbst, als auch einigen Personen im Entwicklerteam gibt es noch weitaus mehr zu sagen, aber das hätte den Rahmen gesprengt. Zum Beispiel war der Hauptdarsteller einige später im Gefängnis - fast so, als hätte Harvester es vorausgesehen.Um euch die anschließende Recherche zu erleichtern, hier unsere grobe Struktur, die wir als Stütze für unser Gespräch hatten. Schreibt uns gerne im Discord, wenn ihr Fragen habt:1. Einleitung• Begrüßung und Vorstellung des Formats• Was ist Harvester? (Point-and-Click-Adventure, Horror, Satire)• Erscheinungsdatum, Entwickler und Relevanz heute• Content-Warnung: Gewalt, Inzest, Kannibalismus, usw.2. Hintergrund und Entwicklung• Historischer Kontext: Zeitgeist der 90er• Gesellschaftliche Moralpanik: Gewaltdebatte in Videospielen (Mortal Kombat, Doom)• Adorno & Horkheimer: Kulturindustrie und Dialektik der Aufklärung• Parallelen zu „Twin Peaks“3. Handlung und Setting• Kleinstadt „Harvest“: Parodie der 50er-Jahre-Fassade• Themen: Konformität, Korruption, soziale Rollen• Der „Order of the Harvest Moon“ und seine Rituale• Auflösung: Nihilismus und Simulation (Jean Baudrillard, Simulacra and Simulation)4. Spielmechanik und Design• Gameplay: Gewalt als Progression, lineares Design, moralische Entscheidungen• DIY-Ästhetik, Surrealismus und grotesker Humor• Kritische Inhalte: Kannibalismus, Inzest, Tierquälerei• Vergleich: Ästhetische Provokation wie bei Michael Hanekes Funny Games5. Themen und Motive• Adorno & Horkheimer: Massenkultur, Eskapismus, Ideologieerhaltung• Marshall McLuhan: „Das Medium ist die Botschaft“ – Medien formen Realität• Behaviorismus (B.F. Skinner): Gewalt als konditionierte Handlung• Philosophie des Absurden (Albert Camus): Steves Weg als Sinnsuche• John Locke: „Tabula rasa“ und die Rolle von Erfahrungen in der Identitätsbildung• Parallelen zu H.P. Lovecrafts „Literatur der Angst“6. Rezeption und Einordnung• Kontroversen und Kultstatus (1996)• Funktioniert Satire heute noch?• Vergleich: Gesellschaftskritik in Black Mirror und Get Out• „Harvester“ als Spiegel medialer und sozialer Doppelmoral7. Abschlussdiskussion• Ist Harvester relevant und lohnenswert?• Katharsis und Faszination extremer Themen• Edgelord vs. Punk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel Tutt and Douglas Lain discuss Losurdo's Western Marxism and Postpone's critique of "Anti-Imperialism" in this special edition of Diet Soap. What is the substance of the new "anti-Imperialists"? What is cherry-picking? Was Losurdo charitable enough in his reading of the Frankfurt school?Support Sublation Media on Patreonhttps://patreon.com/dietsoap

Delve into the 'Dialectic of Enlightenment,' a cornerstone of critical theory that has influenced cultural thought across the 20th and 21st centuries. This episode covers themes from the rise of fascism and the interplay of myth and enlightenment to the development of a culture industry that shapes modern desires. Join us to simplify and explore this pivotal text. 0:00: Introduction to the episode.3:13: Discussion on Enlightenment as Myth.12:02: Analysis of The Culture Industry.23:28: Exploration of Elements of Anti-Semitism.26:26: Final message and wrap-up. #DialecticofEnlightenment #criticaltheory #cultureindustry #Adorno #Horkheimer #fascism #myth #enlightenment Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

To complete our series on Dialectic of Enlightenment, we take an extended look at the famous chapter on the culture industry. The function of the culture industry, or the sphere of production concerned with creating entertainment and art is to inure and train consumers to acquiesce to the dominant ideology expressed through its culture products. The tendency of this process, according to Adorno and Horkheimer, is to reproduce sameness, conformity, and eliminate the thought of rebellion against the status quo. The culture industry is a totalizing system that continuously creates desires by the management of consumer preference, while foreclosing the means of actually fulfilling these desires. Some have argued that this analysis is no longer applicable to a digital age characterized by a fragmentation of mass media and infinite streams of information. In this episode, we ask to what extent does the internet age continue to stifle authentic creativity and individuality and reproduce formulaic entertainment? Finally, we pose the question of whether rebellion is still possible within a system that anticipates and absorbs the gesture of rebellion. 

In this multi-part series, we examine the legacy of critical theory and the prospects of a recuperation of Marxist theory in the face of rising fascism by delving into the dense and fragmentary landmark text of the Frankfurt School, Dialectic of Enlightenment. In Part 2, we focus on the final completed fragment, "Elements of Anti-Semitism: The Limits of Enlightenment,' which analyzes the concept and instrumentalization of antisemitism in fascist political currents. Adorno and Horkheimer, over the course of seven theses, interweave insights from Freudan psychoanalysis, Marxist theories of reification and class struggle, and Nietzchean analyses of power to argue that antisemitism is a recurrent symbolic structure for the mobilisation of repressed violent urges.  This structure casts whomever is unassimilable to the dominant order in the role of scapegoat for the ills of the wrong society.  It is this shared feeling of impotence of a purportedly rational order to resolve the inherent contradictions of "the wrong society" that leads to the unleashing of irrational forces of destruction. The enlightenment is premised upon the promise of universal humanity and general emancipation, but the capitalist order keeps this nascent potential on the other side of the dialectic as a promise deferred. Is it possible to break the spell?

Send us a Text Message.This week I dive back into some philosophical theory related to why we are so prone to struggle with anxiety, addiction and alienation in today's world. Guy Debord wrote The Society of the Spectacle more than 50 years ago, and in it he explained the current state of so-called "Western Cultures" as having moved from the importance of being  to a culture where the importance is on having, and eventually, on to the importance being placed on appearance only (to appear to own something by snapping a photo is good enough).As a culture, we are now completely preoccupied with and focused on the spectacle, not the real. It's more important to change your Facebook banner to an LGBTQ+ flag on the right day to show your support than it is to support LGBTQ+ people in your heart. It's more important to be seen as having the perfect family or the perfect life than it is to actually build the perfect family or the perfect life. Some people drive $60k cars and live in crumbling homes. In today's cultural setting, a reputation for success requires the complete abandonment of one's personal identity in exchange for the stock characteristics that the audience wants in a performer — whether Marylin Manson actually drinks blook or Ozzy Osborn actually worships the devil doesn't matter. Only the spectacle of performance is valued.I also cover Marx's theory of capitalism increasing alienation, the Frankfurt School's and the Situationists' (many of the same people) work on how Marx's world of commodity fetishism expanded to spectacle fetishism (the appearance came to be more important than the real), and Debord's (and re-Marx's) concept of magic properties bestowed upon commodities if producers can manage to hide the actual process of manufacturing from the public. Before you listen to this episode, you might want to take a moment to listen to Macklemore's "Wings." on YouTube here, or anywhere you stream music. Check out the Nike commercial from that song on YouTube for a great example of recuperation (pt 2), and check out the corporate logo US flag for a great example of détournement (pt 2). Support the Show.

In this multi-part series, we examine the legacy of critical theory and the prospects of a recuperation of Marxist theory in the face of rising fascism by delving into the dense and fragmentary landmark text of the Frankfurt School, Dialectic of Enlightenment. In Part 1, we discuss the meaning of Enlightenment as the advancement of thought and ask how we square the traditional narratives of historical progress and emancipatory potential with the pernicious effects of rationalised management, social alienation, and the homogenisation of political possibilities under the logic of Enlightenment. As argued by Adorno and Horkheimer, the destructive trajectory of the enlightenment project can only be understand by its purported point of departure—myth. By posing itself in opposition to myth it recapitulates the impulse of myth to subsume the multiplicity of the world under the dictates of unitary, abstracting logic. By detaching ourselves from the influence of nature and attempting to master it, we have enslaved ourselves more surely to the claims of the “natural” and “objective” and left ourselves exposed to the forces of irrationality that the Enlightenment supposedly had left behind. Is there a way to preserve the emancipatory potential of Enlightenment in the face of our radically circumscribed political present?

Send us a Text Message.This week I dive back into some philosophical theory related to why we are so prone to struggle with anxiety, addiction and alienation in today's world. Guy Debord wrote The Society of the Spectacle more than 50 years ago, and in it he explained the current state of so-called "Western Cultures" as having moved from the importance of being  to a culture where the importance is on having, and eventually, on to the importance being placed on appearance only (to appear to own something by snapping a photo is good enough). As a culture, we are now completely preoccupied with and focused on the spectacle, not the real. It's more important to change your Facebook banner to an LGBTQ+ flag on the right day to show your support than it is to support LGBTQ+ people in your heart. It's more important to be seen as having the perfect family or the perfect life than it is to actually build the perfect family or the perfect life. Some people drive $60k cars and live in crumbling homes. In today's cultural setting, a reputation for success requires the complete abandonment of one's personal identity in exchange for the stock characteristics that the audience wants in a performer — whether Marylin Manson actually drinks blook or Ozzy Osborn actually worships the devil doesn't matter. Only the spectacle of performance is valued. I also cover Marx's theory of capitalism increasing alienation, the Frankfurt School's and the Situationists' (many of the same people) work on how Marx's world of commodity fetishism expanded to spectacle fetishism (the appearance came to be more important than the real), and Debord's (and re-Marx's) concept of magic properties bestowed upon commodities if producers can manage to hide the actual process of manufacturing from the public.  Before you listen to this episode, you might want to take a moment to listen to Macklemore's "Wings." on YouTube here, or anywhere you stream music. Check out the Nike commercial from that song on YouTube for a great example of recuperation (pt 2), and check out the corporate logo US flag for a great example of détournement (pt 2). Support the Show.

durée : 00:58:06 - Avec philosophie - par : Géraldine Muhlmann - "De même que la prohibition a de tout temps ouvert la voie aux produits plus toxiques, l'interdiction de l'imagination théorique ouvre la voie à la folie politique", écrivent Adorno et Horkheimer. Quelle place donner à l'imagination théorique en politique ? - invités : Jean-Baptiste Lajoux Préhistorien, archéologue à l'Inrap et chercheur à l'UMR Temps (Nanterre).; Benjamin Torterat Doctorant en sciences politiques à l'Université Paris II Panthéon-Assas; Michèle Cohen-Halimi Philosophe, professeure de philosophie à l'université Paris 8

Today, we're excited to share with you Bishop Barron's keynote talk from the 2023 Acton University conference, hosted by The Acton Institute. “Wokeism” is arguably the most influential public philosophy in our country today. It has worked its way into the minds and hearts of our young people, into the world of entertainment, and into the boardrooms of powerful corporations. But what is it precisely, and where did it come from? Bishop Barron argues in his presentation that “wokeism” is a popularization of critical theory, a farrago of ideas coming out of the French and German academies in the mid-twentieth century. Until we understand its origins in the thinking of Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Marcuse, and Foucault, we will not know how critically to engage this dangerous philosophy.   NOTE: Do you like this podcast? Become a patron and get some great perks for helping, like free books, bonus content, and more. Word on Fire is a non-profit ministry that depends on the support of our listeners…like you! So be part of this mission, and join us today!

Dr. Jerome Corsi digs deeply into Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno, who despised capitalism and the "enlightenment morality." The two men canonized the Marquis de Sade, celebrating him in their own collaborative works, and advocated the abandonment of objective classical values for a more self-centered inhibition-releasing cultural direction. Dr. Corsi takes a critical look at Horkheimer's and Adorno's worldview and influence on modern Neo-Marxist theory.Today's The Truth Central features commentary from Dr. Corsi's new book: The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism and Anarchy. Pick up your copy today on Amazon: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-truth-about-neo-marxism-cultural-maoism-and-anarchy-exposing-woke-insanity-in-the-age-of-disinformation/Get your FREE copy of Dr. Corsi's new book with Swiss America CEO Dean Heskin, How the Coming Global Crash Will Create a Historic Gold Rush by calling: 800-519-6268Follow Dr. Jerome Corsi on Twitter: @corsijerome1Our website: https://www.thetruthcentral.comOur link to where to get the Marco Polo 650-Page Book on the Hunter Biden laptop & Biden family crimes free online: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/marco-polo-publishes-650-page-book-on-hunter-biden-laptop-biden-family-crimes-available-free-online/Our Sponsors:MyVital https://www.thetruthcentral.com/myvitalc-ess60-in-organic-olive-oil/ Swiss America: https://www.swissamerica.com/offer/CorsiRMP.php The MacMillan Agency: https://www.thetruthcentral.com/the-macmillan-agency/ Pro Rapid Review: https://prorrt.com/thetruthcentralmembers/Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-truth-central-with-dr-jerome-corsi--5810661/support.

Derrick Varn and Douglas Lain discuss Horkheimer's book "The Eclipse of Reason," the technocracy, and the question of the PMC in this month's edition of Pop the Left!

Henrike Kohpeiß zu bürgerlicher Kälte als Selbstimmunisierung des Bürgertums.   Shownotes Henrike Kohpeiß (Freie Universität Berlin): https://www.sfb-affective-societies.de/teilprojekte/B/B05/team_b05/kohpeiss/index.html Henrike auf Twitter: https://twitter.com/H_Kohpeiss Kohpeiß, Henrike. 2023. Bürgerliche Kälte - Affekt und koloniale Subjektivität. Philosophie und Kritik. Frankfurt / New York: Campus Verlag.: https://www.campus.de/buecher-campus-verlag/wissenschaft/philosophie/buergerliche_kaelte-17482.html   Weitere Shownotes Theodor Adorno: https://monoskop.org/Theodor_Adorno Max Horkheimer: https://monoskop.org/Max_Horkheimer Adorno, Theodor W., und Max Horkheimer. 2022 [1947]. Dialektik der Aufklärung. Fischer Verlag, Berlin: https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/max-horkheimer-theodor-w-adorno-dialektik-der-aufklaerung-9783103971521 Lemke, Thomas. 2021. The Government of Things - Foucault and the New Materialisms. New York: NYU Press.: https://nyupress.org/9781479829934/the-government-of-things/ Jonas Bens: https://www.polsoz.fu-berlin.de/ethnologie/personen/wiss_mitarb_u_koord_aus_drittmitteln/bens/index.html Letzte Generation –Bürger*innenrat: https://letztegeneration.org/gesellschaftsrat/ Hannah Arendt: https://monoskop.org/Hannah_Arendt Das neue Berlin – Podcast: https://dasneue.berlin/ „Rammstein-Vorwürfe: Lindemann und die Drübersteher“ - Özge İnan: https://www.freitag.de/autoren/oezge-inan/rammstein-vorwuerfe-lindemann-und-die-druebersteher Ruth Wilson Gilmore (City University of New York): https://www.gc.cuny.edu/people/ruth-wilson-gilmore Helmut, Plessner. 2022. Grenzen der Gemeinschaft. Eine Kritik des sozialen Radikalismus. Suhrkamp Verlag, 8. Auflage.: https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/helmuth-plessner-grenzen-der-gemeinschaft-t-9783518291405 van Dyk, Silke & Haubner, Tine. 2021. Community-Kapitalismus. Hamburger Edition: https://www.hamburger-edition.de/buecher-e-books/artikel-detail/community-kapitalismus/d/2649/ Denise Ferreira da Silva und Valentina Desideri (The Sensing Salon): https://www.thesensingsalon.org/about   Boltanski, Luc und Ève Chiapello. 2006. Der neue Geist des Kapitalismus. Köln: Huber von Halem Verlag: https://www.halem-verlag.de/der-neue-geist-des-kapitalismus/ Automatisierte Transkriptionen von allen Future Histories Episoden, erstellt duch ybaumy (danke!): https://github.com/autonompost/podcasts-transcriptions/tree/main/podcasts/futurehistories/transcripts Thematisch angrenzende Future Histories Episoden S02E51 | Silvia Federici on Progress, Reproduction and Commoning: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e51-silvia-federici-on-progress-reproduction-and-commoning/ S02E39 | Daniel Loick zu Freiheit, Souveränität und Recht ohne Gewalt: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e39-daniel-loick-zu-freiheit-souveraenitaet-und-recht-ohne-gewalt/ S02E36 | Thomas Lemke zum Regieren der Dinge: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e36-thomas-lemke-zum-regieren-der-dinge/ S02E13 | Tine Haubner und Silke van Dyk zu Community-Kapitalismus: https://www.futurehistories.today/episoden-blog/s02/e13-tine-haubner-und-silke-van-dyk-zu-community-kapitalismus/   Wenn euch Future Histories gefällt, dann erwägt doch bitte eine Unterstützung auf Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/join/FutureHistories? Schreibt mir unter office@futurehistories.today  Diskutiert mit auf Twitter (#FutureHistories): https://twitter.com/FutureHpodcast auf Mastodon: https://mstdn.social/@FutureHistories oder auf Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/FutureHistories/ www.futurehistories.today   Keywords: #HenrikeKohpeiss, #JanGroos, #FutureHistories, #Podcast, #Interview, #bürgerlicheKälte, #kolonialeSubjektivität, #kritischeTheorie, #Odysseus, #Horkheimer, #Adorno, #Subjekt, #Aufklärung, #gesellschaftlicheSubjektivität, #liberalesSubjekt, #Affekt, #affektiveGesellschaften, #Vernunft, #befreiteGesellschaft, #Selbstbestimmung, #Gemeinschaft   

This week, we're bringing you one of the plenary lectures from this year's Acton University, featuring Bishop Robert Barron speaking on “The Philosophical Roots of Wokeism.”"Wokeism” is arguably the most influential public philosophy in our country today. It has worked its way into the minds and hearts of our young people, into the world of entertainment, and into the boardrooms of powerful corporations. But what is it precisely, and where did it come from? I will argue in my presentation that “wokeism” is a popularization of critical theory, a farrago of ideas coming out of the French and German academies in the mid-twentieth century. Until we understand its origins in the thinking of Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Marcuse, and Foucault, we will not know how critically to engage this dangerous philosophy.Subscribe to our podcasts Word on Fire Catholic Ministries Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A Special Edition of Acton Vault featuring Acton Line This week, we're bringing you one of the plenary lectures from this year's Acton University, featuring Bishop Robert Barron speaking on “The Philosophical Roots of Wokeism.” "Wokeism” is arguably the most influential public philosophy in our country today. It has worked its way into the minds and hearts of our young people, into the world of entertainment, and into the boardrooms of powerful corporations. But what is it precisely, and where did it come from? I will argue in my presentation that “wokeism” is a popularization of critical theory, a farrago of ideas coming out of the French and German academies in the mid-twentieth century. Until we understand its origins in the thinking of Adorno, Horkheimer, Derrida, Marcuse, and Foucault, we will not know how critically to engage this dangerous philosophy. Subscribe to our podcasts  Word on Fire Catholic Ministries

Today I'm speaking with Mark LeVine, a professor, touring musician, and author of several books, including Heavy Metal Islam, a book on the metal scene in the Muslim world. Mark has traveled throughout the world to explore musical styles and scenes outside of the Western mainstream. He became a rock musician at a young age, and spent his twenties reading Nietzsche in graduate school during the day, and gigging in New York City at night. In the course of his career, he's set up concerts in Cairo and Baghdad, discovered artists from Indonesia and Togo, and brought musical acts from around the world to perform in the United States. Mark and I share many interests as we both have a deep connection with Nietzsche and heavy metal, and both see a connection between aggressive, challenging styles of musical expression and Nietzsche's philosophy. In the course of the conversation we venture into the Frankfurt School and Nietzsche's influence there, consider how the different generations of that tradition approached Nietzsche, and discuss how Nietzsche's project differed from that of Adorno, Horkheimer, or Fromm. In spite of their critiques of him, Nietzsche remains indispensable for understanding the social critique that came out of the Frankfurt School, both because of his attack on the Enlightenment, but also through his influence on Freud. Heavy Metal Islam on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Heavy-Metal-Islam-Resistance-Struggle/dp/0307353397 Mark also offered some suggestions for Heavy Metal from the Muslim world: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCZnQlkC-VQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNav2lzd-TQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iak5NDINSPQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhQ-99Qqj_w https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P82dJIwi4Qc

Mere Simulacrity, Session 11 We are in the midst of transitioning from an objectively true, historically consistent, analogue world and into a world that is subjectively purposed, revolutionary, and digital in construct. In fact, more so than ever before, we are in a period of time where the “what is” is being demonized and the wizard's trick of “what it should be” is being lauded as a preferred pathway to the real. A hyperreal world of dreams, visions, technology and digital realization is in many ways attempting to take the place of what mankind has always called “reality.” In the late second century, the Christian Bishop, Irenaeus of Lyon, confronted the Gnostic parasitic cult of Valentinus which proposed that this physical world was a “prison” by which men and women needed to be liberated through Gnostic faith and practice. More specifically understood as “anticosmicism”, the Gnostics proclaimed the belief that the objectively knowable world is inherently evil and opposed to the divine. In the Gnostic formulation of their transformed Christianity, true divinity was not the essence of this real, natural world, but its negation and cancellation. Irenaeus of Lyon warned Christians that this parasitic religion of Gnosticism was a religion masquerading as the Gospel but in reality was a simulacrum of true Christianity: “Error, indeed is never set forth in its naked deformity, lest, being thus exposed, it should at once be detected. But it is craftily decked out in an attractive dress, so as, by its outward form, to make it appear to the inexperienced more true than truth itself.” -Irenaeus of Lyons, AD 180 The Gnostics did not seek harmony with the natural world or with the normative Christian understanding of cultivation and dominion. Instead, the Gnostics attempted to parasitically transform the established Christian faith that sought harmony with God's creation and instead promoted the false concept of the mystical, otherworldly insight that our world must be seen as unnatural and even anti-natural. The natural, in the Gnostic sense, was only available to those that have embraced special knowledge or what can be described as a critical consciousness of the natural world. The way that things are in a natural sense to the Gnostics was “imprisonment” and the mystical otherness of what was not naturally attainable was “liberation.” If you were a woman in the natural and objectively knowable world, in the spiritually anti-natural world the woman's true self was actually that of a man who has been imprisoned by the Demiurgic forces of the natural world. This denial of the objectively real and knowable experienced a renaissance in the 18th and 19th centuries through the works of Swedenborg, Kant, Hegel and eventually Karl Marx. As Dr. James Lindsay has explained at Sovereign Nation's conferences in the past, Marxism is a Neo-Gnostic theology where Man is made to realize he is his own Creator, his own true Sun that revolves around itself. Marx sees himself as the light-bringer, Lucifer, the Morning Star, that awakens this Gnostic consciousness and rebels against God and order. It has continued to this day with further gain of function through Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse and a host of other Neo-Marxists who have embraced unreality and rejected objective standards for truth, life, and human existence. In this powerful presentation from the Sovereign Nation's Mere Simulacrity Conference, Michael O'Fallon explains how the spectre of Gnosticism has been infused into our culture, our faith, and our world. https://sovereignnations.com Support Sovereign Nations: https://paypal.me/sovnations https://patreon.com/sovnations Follow Sovereign Nations: https://sovereignnations.com/subscribe/ © 2023 Sovereign Nations. All rights reserved. #sovereignnations #michaelofallon #4thindustrialrevolution

On this edition of Parallax Views, Ramon Glazov, whose articles have been featured in such publications as Jacobin and Overland Magazine, returns to the program to discuss the problematic elements of political philosophers Hannah Arendt's famous "Banality of Evil" hypothesis born out SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann's trial in Jerusalem after the Holocaust. Among the topics covered in this conversation: - Ramon's interest in the topic and the classic cinematic thriller Boys from Brazil - Virulent antisemitic politics vs. the "Banality of Evil" hypothesis as an explanation for Eichmann's actions - Heidegger's Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Lowith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse by Richard Wolin; Arendt's relationship with the German philosopher and Nazi party member Maritn Heidegger; Arendt's identification with high German culture; her condescending views on Eastern European Jews; how did these things potentially inform Arendt's views on the Holocaust? - The question of deviance in understanding Eichmann; the concept of thoughtlessness in Arendt's "Banality of Evil" hypothesis ; the idea of the dark side of the Enlightenment; Horkheimer, Adorno, the Frankfurt School, and the Dialectic of the Enlightenment; the Enlightenment, modernity, and the Holocaust; - The question of whether or not Adolf Eichmann was a true believer or a functionary bureaucrat "desk murderer" who was "just following orders" - Bettina Stangneth's biography Eichmann Before Jerusalem: The Unexamined Life of a Mass Murderer - The myth and reality of Adolf Eichmann; Eichmann was in charge of logistics for the Holocaust and put on trial; did Eichmann seek to craft/present a specific image of himself at the trial?; - Eichmann, Immanuel Kant, and the Kant's categorical imperative; claims that Eichmann was "just doing his job" rather than a committed antisemite and political supporter of Nazism; the psychiatric examination of Eichmann and Eichmann as a fake or simulated neurotic - Eichmann's career in the SS as a flamboyant glory-hound who quickly rose up through the ranks; Eichmann's relationship with the Jewish people (specifically in Vienna, Austria) and his spying on Jewish communities as an SS officer; evidence of Eichmann's loyalty to the Nazi cause - Eichmann's study of Hebrew, his self-presentation as an expert in Hebrew, and his self-mythology claiming that he was born in Palestine (this is before the trial; he was actually a German Austrian); Eichmann's grandiose myth-making about himself - High-ranking Nazi official Herman Göring's comment at a trial that "This Wisliceny is just a little swine, who looks like a big one because Eichmann isn't here" in reference to SS officer Dieter Wisliceny and Eichmann's role in the Holocaust - Simon Wiesenthal and the rise of the Nazi hunters; false rumors about Eichmann being in the Middle East and stirring up Arab nationalists against Israel in the post-war period when he was really hiding out in Argentina - Eichmann's own myth making as indicative of someone who wasn't banal but cunning and knowing in his actions - While in Argentina Eichmann wrote a large amount of written materials justifying himself; examining Eichmann's Argentina papers and what they tell us about Eichmann before his trial; he attacks humanism and Kant in these papers despite later claiming to have been a Kantian led astray; Eichmann treats the Holocaust as being a justified military operation in these papers rather than a genocide - Eichmann wasn't non-philosophical; he was deeply interested in Heidegger; Eichmann's Black Notebooks and his views on "calculation" and modernity; Eichmann's view of modernity being a product of Jewish culture and the Holocaust as a "self-annihilation" - Eichmann, the Frankfurt School, Arendt, Romanticism, and the Enlightenment; differences and similarities between the left and right critiques of modernity, instrumentalization of reason, etc. - The consequences of the "Banality of Evil" hypothesis; the application of the "Banality of Evil" hypothesis to Colonialism; obfuscation of the deliberate actions taken by oppressors over oppressed group - Rwanda, Modernity, the "Banality of Evil", and the paradigms of evil and genocide - How Arendt's "Banality of Evil" hypothesis has impacted both Anglo-thinkers and Continental-thinkers in psychology and psychoanalysis; Stanley Milgram and the Milgram experiment; the problems with the Milgram experiment; - Slavoj Zizek and the Eichmann-ization of concept of the pervert in psychoanalytic thought; the Marquis de Sade and Lacan's essay "Kant With Sade" that appears after Eichmann's execution; the pervert as a functionary following directions from "the Big Other"; the pervert as the perfect conformist; pre-Eichmann trial views of the concept of the pervert and how they differ from the Eichmann-ized pervert; psycho-dynamics and the pervert as inherently conservative in the post-Eichmann trial period - A slight digression into the changing views about the Marquis de Sade over the years; the Marquis de Sade as the ancestor of 007 James Bond creator Ian Fleming - Hannah Arendt and her philosophical hero Socrates; Arendt's attempt to grapple with what constitutes thinking; Arendt and thought as the antidote to totalitarian atrocities; Socrates and the Thirty Tyrants; Socrates as a not particularly pro-democracy philosopher even in the narrower, ancient sense of the term; Socrates, Plato, and Xenophon; Socrates in Athens; The Trial of Socrates by I.F. Stone; the charge of impiety against Socrates and his execution - Are there real world consequences to examining the world and social phenomena through the lens of the "Banality of Evil" hypothesis; the "Banality of Evil" as downplaying the specific cultural racial bigotries/hatreds and their role in social phenomena; the "Banality of Evil" as an elitist hypothesis - The range of personalities that supported the Nazi cause; the movement was not just supported by philistine thugs but elements of the society's well-educated as well - And much, much more!

This is an excerpt from a patrons-only episode. To become a patron from just £3 a month, got to Patreon.com/LoveMessagePod In this patrons-only episode, Jeremy dons his professorial gown to deliver the first of two lectures on music and Marxism. What is historical materialism? What does it mean to apply historical materialist analysis to culture? Jeremy shows how Marxist theory can be - and has been - applied to music from Bach to Jazz, illustrating ways in which we can explain cultural and aesthetic changes with Marxian thinking. In this episode Jeremy gives a whistlestop refresher on Marxist thought, then introduces us to some of the writers whose work can be applied to analysing music: Lukács, Bakhtin, Voloshinov, and members of the Frankfurt School including Benjamin, Adorno and Horkheimer. Jeremy considers the main innovation of the interwar period - the development of recording technology - and introduces the idea of reification as both a positive and negative phenomenon. He also considers how various forms of music-making embody egalitarian or bourgeois subjectivities, and tees us up for the next episode, starting in the 1940s. Tracklist: JS Bach - Harpsichord Concerto No.1 in D Minor BWV 1052 Beethoven - Symphony No. 3 in E flat major Beethoven - Symphony No. 5 in C minor Igor Stravinsky - Firebird Arnold Schoenberg - Verklärte Nacht Books and Articles: The SAGE Handbook of Marxism Jeremy Gilbert - A Brief History of Marxist Cultural Theory (https://jeremygilbertwriting.wordpress.com/2022/07/24/a-brief-history-of-marxist-cultural-theory/) György Lukács - History and Class Consciousness Valentin Voloshinov - Marxism and the Philosophy of Language Walter Benjamin - The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction Adorno & Horkheimer - The Dialectic of Enlightenment

In this episode, I present Adorno and Horkheimer's notion of pseudo-individualism. If you want to support me, you can do that with these links: Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/theoryandphilosophy paypal.me/theoryphilosophy Twitter: @DavidGuignion IG: @theory_and_philosophy