Instrumental Rationality

[Faceless]

OK, so ive been studying Adorno and need answers...

Instrumental rationality (or subsumtive rationality)

This is the foundation of what is considered the Enlightenment and with it "myth" was defeated...

...but within Enlightenment lay naturally degenerative properties which created myths greater than any religious bollocks...

...and apparently the problem is with instrumental rationality, according to Adorno, which dictates that science can naturally liberate us; a technocratic rationale.


How though does this relate to subsumption and how is such a rationality equal to a subsumumptive rationality? I can understand how subsumption effectively can prevent people from understanding what it is to strive for happiness but how does this also relate to capital accumulation? Production is for this reason and hence exchange value dominates use value more and more.

How is "Enlightenment" wrapped up with the rationality which subsumes the particulars under the universals?

[redstar2000]

...but within Enlightenment lay naturally degenerative properties which created myths greater than any religious bollocks...

...and apparently the problem is with instrumental rationality, according to Adorno, which dictates that science can naturally liberate us; a technocratic rationale.

The phrase "science can naturally liberate us" could have several meanings.

But there's at least one interpretation that would indeed put that sentence "at the base" of Marxism itself.

Changes in the means of production do arise as a consequence of "science" (in the broadest sense of the word).

And, as we know, it is changes in the means of production that cause changes in the relations of production...including a change into a classless society.

Scientific discoveries and technological innovations certainly seem to be as "natural" as anything that can be said about modern humans.

So, as usual, I completely fail to understand Adorno's "objections" -- unless he wants to argue something along the lines of "the ruling class has the power to guide technology in such a way as to always reinforce its power and weaken the power of the proletariat".

I suppose that's a possibility that can't be ruled out...but it seems unlikely on its face to me. Profitability has to come first.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Faceless]

And, as we know, it is changes in the means of production that cause changes in the relations of production...including a change into a classless society.

But isnt it naive to think that this alone will "liberate" us or that such a power exists in technology alone? I am not trying to suggest that any aspect of history or something is independant of the means of production. It might be naive though to think that the natural course of the Enlightenment (or whatever rationality that entails) is toward a free society.

If we look at modern capitalism it is becoming more and more intergrated; more and more secure in appearance. The domestic proletarians are a passive mass of nothing from which the bourgeois uses this base to destroy the means of production elsewhere in defiance of falling profit. Fascist "order" of thought (if not politics) seems to be the final destination even not under capitalism...

It could also be possible for oppressive socialism. I dont mean that in the form of statism or sovietism (though I'm no anarchist) but where people continue building socialism not for human happiness but for indiscriminate technocratic reasoning. Culture might be the same old jab in the arm for the workers who could reproduce themselves in this state without any help from capitalists.

Technology isnt bad necessarily but we now push forward a rationale that demands science as the end and not that happiness. We would like to think that human happiness would be the end in socialism but there is no guaruntee of this.

Does this make sense?

Adorno makes more sense of this in his idea of subsumption of particular under universal which he equates with instrumental rationality.

How though does subsumption equal the instrumental rationale?

[redstar2000]

If we look at modern capitalism it is becoming more and more integrated; more and more secure in appearance. The domestic proletarians are a passive mass of nothing from which the bourgeois uses this base to destroy the means of production elsewhere in defiance of falling profit.

This is a good example of what I think of as the "spirit" of the "Frankfurt School" in general.

It is profoundly pessimistic...it assumes that capitalism "has won" and then seeks "explanations" for its "victory".

For example...

1. "modern capitalism is becoming more and more integrated" -- Does that mean that if a crises arises in one part of the system, it is less likely to spread to all parts of the system. Nobody knows.

2. "more and more secure in appearance" -- from a massive and rapidly growing domestic security apparatus, I presume. Will it work? Nobody knows.

3. "The domestic proletarians are a passive mass of nothing..." -- but is that true? There have been large strikes and demonstrations in France, Germany, Italy, etc. in recent years against the attempts of capital to "turn back the clock" in social welfare. Will those struggles stay "containable"? Again, nobody knows.

Adorno & Co. assume, in my opinion, that the answers to those questions are all positive.

I do not think that's a justifiable conclusion...it is premature, to say the least.

If there are no successful proletarian revolutions and viable communist societies over the next two or three centuries, then the pessimism of the "Frankfurt School" would be justified.

Right now, the jury is "still out".


Culture might be the same old jab in the arm for the workers who could reproduce themselves in this state without any help from capitalists.

Yeah, it might...and it might not. How could we possibly decide such a question at this point in time?


Technology isn't bad necessarily but we now push forward a rationale that demands science as the end and not that [of] happiness.

Who does that? The present "use" of science is to offset the tendency of the rate of profit to fall over time through technological innovation.

How a communist society would "use" science is obviously unknown...but why wouldn't it be used to fulfill human needs in a more efficient manner?

Frankly, this statement sounds almost mystical to me...it suggests a society that "worships science" no matter how it's applied. I don't think there is or can be any such thing.


Does this make sense?

Not to me. :P

I see the "Frankfurt School" historically. They emerged in the last years of the Weimar Republic, fled Germany ahead of the Nazis, and spent the remainder of their lives mostly (I think) in the U.S. I think their deeply pessimistic views about the power of reaction were rooted in their actual historical experiences. They did have some interesting insights on occasion and one of them composed what was probably the worst music in the history of the human species.

But as a genuinely useful source of revolutionary theory, I just can't see much to be gained from those guys.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas