Adorno’s use of the term “barbarism” has probably been most often referred to in the context of his much- cited dictum that “to write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric” (Adorno 1983: 34). While, nowadays, the term is usually and fortunately presented within the broader context of his works, his intended meaning was frequently misunderstood particularly after Adorno had articulated it for the first time. For clarity, the aforementioned dictum was not a verdict intended to silence poets or artists. It was (...) rearticulated a few times by Adorno — specifically in response to Celan’s poetry — who calls for arts and culture to respond from within and in the face of an inescapable aporetic condition. Namely, to write poetry after Auschwitz means to write from within a differend—a radical chasm between the signifier and the signified that one neither ought nor could overcome via writing or aesthetic means in general. Yet, poetry (and also art and thinking, per se) as a form of active engagement with sociopolitical realities, has to respond to the ungraspable (i.e., the Holocaust); it cannot simply avoid doing so. It permanently has to speak whilst knowing that it will never reach the addressee; that it must fail in speaking. -/- . (shrink)

This essay explores the works of German artist Gustav Metzger as a potential response to Theodor W. Adorno’s dictum “Nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht zu schreiben, ist barbarisch” (“To write poetry after Auschwitz is barbaric”). It argues that culture, as understood in the Adornian sense, is inextricably barbaric as a result of simply being after Auschwitz. Culture must acknowledge the finitude in its own ability to live up to an ethical demand in response to justice, whose arrival is infinitely deferred. In (...) spite of this, culture, and art in particular, must not refrain from the very act of writing. Metzger’s works are discussed as aesthetic responses to the “new categorical imperative” of Adorno, who addresses art’s failure in light of Auschwitz by pointing to aporias that constitute the inescapable condition of “barbarism.” This essay suggests that Metzger’s aesthetic articulations are nonbarbaric ruptures, in that they challenge our living on irresponsibly within the condition of barbarism via a constant confrontation with complicity. (shrink)

Resumen: El texto propone un diálogo entre fenomenología y teoría crítica, concretamente en Merleau-Ponty y Adorno. Sostenemos que la labor asignada por ellos a la filosofía pone en evidencia una concepción dialéctica de la experiencia en la que se reivindica el sentido de ésta como experiencia viva. No obstante las fuertes objeciones dirigidas a la fenomenología por Adorno, Horkheimer y Marcuse, identificamos a modo de introducción la negatividad de la experiencia como rasgo característico en Husserl, Heidegger y Merleau-Ponty. En segundo (...) lugar, nos ocupamos de la concepción de percepción como experiencia sensible en Merleau-Ponty, con el fin de precisar el sentido dialéctico de esta. En tercer lugar, señalamos la importancia que Adorno asigna al trabajo conceptual de la filosofía con el propósito de ver el sentido dialéctico de este que lo vincula a la experiencia viva de las cosas. Por último, identificamos a modo de conclusión puntos de encuentro en la concepción de la dialéctica en ambos autores y presentamos una reflexión sobre la actualidad de esta.: The text proposes a dialogue between phenomenology and critical theory, specifically in Merleau-Ponty and Adorno.We argue that the work assigned by them to philosophy highlights a dialectical conception of experience in which its meaning as living experience is vindicated. Notwithstanding the strong objections to phenomenology by Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, we identify by way of introduction the negativity of experience as a characteristic feature in Husserl, Heidegger, and Merleau-Ponty. Second, we deal with the conception of perception as sensible experience in Merleau-Ponty, in order to clarify its dialectical meaning. Third, we point out the importance that Adorno assigns to the conceptual work of philosophy in order to see its dialectical meaning that links it to the living experience of things. Finally, by way of conclusion, we identify meeting points in the conception of dialectics in both authors and present a reflection on its current relevance. (shrink)

This article suggests reading Theodor Adorno not as a notoriously pessimistic sociologist but as a committed public educator. Partly drawing on still unpublished transcripts of lectures, public talks and radio broadcasts from the 1950s and ’60s, the article offers an account of Adorno’s concept and practice of a ‘democratic pedagogy’. The key question is how we should understand the difference between Adorno the social philosopher, on the one hand, and Adorno the educator, on the other. It is argued that Adorno’s (...) pedagogical interventions are not a footnote to his social theory, but a key to understanding his entire oeuvre. (shrink)