Abstract
Matthias Benzer has provided the first comprehensive account in the English language of Theodor W. Adorno’s sociological writings. The Sociology of Theodor Adorno also comprises Adorno’s contributions in other fields (especially philosophy) that have a bearing on sociology and on his understanding and criticisms of the latter. His familiarity with and access to Adorno’s writings in German, including those that have not been translated yet into English (along with the related secondary literature) enhances the efficacy of his effort to provide an overview of the scope and the depth of Adorno’s sociological interests and pursuits. Considering that Adorno arguably was the most sophisticated and most scrupulous member of the Frankfurt School of critical theory, this is a tall order, indeed.
In recent decades and the English-speaking world, philosophers, social and political theorists, and musicologists, among others, have established track records of examining Adorno’s oeuvre from a variety of angles with regard to form, substance, and socio-historical context—thus interpreting, criticizing, extrapolating from, and updating his specific concerns, framings, and critiques with regard to a range of subjects. By comparison, sociology has been disconcertingly negligent, especially sociology as a well-established, professionally-oriented discipline—sociology as a social science (as opposed to a vocation). To the extent that Adorno’s contributions are being acknowledged by sociologists, focus tends to be on their place in the history of ideas (stressing especially his purportedly anachronistic advocacy of dialectics and Marxism), his role in The Authoritarian Personality, or his critique of jazz. Benzer disposes of such narrow views with great effect, documenting both in how many ways sociological themes feature in Adorno’s thought, and the ubiquity of linkages between challenges inherent to the project of sociology, and the questions that motivated and sustained Adorno’s varied theoretical, analytical, and empirical endeavors.
To be sure, neglect especially in American and British sociology of Adorno’s theory and sociological writings should not be surprising given his critical stance regarding traditional or mainstream approaches in and to sociology. At the same time, considering that Adorno’s efforts were directed in no small part at the theoretically rigorous illumination of the problematic relationship between sociology, social research, and specific socio-historical contexts and structures that continue to be fraught with contradictions, the marginalization in sociology qua science of his writings is likely to be synonymous with the rejection of the particular kind of reflexivity that Adorno insisted was essential for the theoretical and practical success of sociology, whose orientations, agendas, and tools are embedded in and influenced by concrete conditions in modern societies. Inasmuch as the latter are problematic in clearly discernible ways, so are the former.
The book is organized into six chapters, plus an introduction and a conclusion. The first chapter, “Nothing under the sun,” refers to Adorno’s concept of society and his view that all human affairs are permeated by the social (an expression that remains unexplained until p. 41). The remaining chapters address sociological material, sociological reflection, the socio-critical dimension, the sociological text, and sociology and the non-social. As the emphasis is on examining and reconstructing Adorno’s methodology, the book has at its core an irresolvable paradox given Adorno’s persistent criticism of the preoccupation with methodological issues in sociology at the expense of theoretical focus on and substantive engagement with the dynamic social forms characteristic of modern societies.
One might have expected a direct engagement with the underlying motif or theoretical orientation of Adorno’s writings to provide a map of sorts to readers unfamiliar with Adorno’s work, and to navigate and discern the intricacies of his efforts to scrutinize the contradictions of modern societies and the strength and kind of related ideological frameworks and notions. Instead, Benzer’s “focus rests on [Adorno’s] more narrowly conceived sociological writings” (p. 6), which, as he asserts, can be done and is justified since the “claim that only interdisciplinary studies of Adorno’s work can be successful would be nonsense” (p. 7). The latter statement is a response to the view that Adorno must be interpreted as a critical theorist since his thought transgressed the confines of individual disciplines. Benzer recognizes Adorno’s related concerns, but posits the need to assess Adorno’s sociological writings on their own terms without explicit reference to and elucidation of how they are part and parcel of critical theory, or of Adorno’s specific rendering of the tradition, or of the related discussions in the ever-expanding literature. In addition, as he puts it, “Emphasising Adorno’s relationship with one or more intellectual traditions is not a specific objective of this study” (p. 8). Thus, the book resembles a reconstruction of Adorno’s sociological pursuits organized around the interrelations between formal categories, concepts, and tools. Benzer provides an assemblage of details about Adorno’s sociology whose organizing principle, in the absence of a rigorous discussion of the critique of methodology at the core of critical theory, remains elusive. Still, the ubiquity of citations and references relating to Adorno’s writings and formulations makes for a highly useful resource.
As the revised version of a 2008 dissertation, the book (dedicated to the dissertation supervisor) suffers from flaws characteristic of dissertations. Benzer does not delineate his own take on sociology or on critical theory—a term that is mentioned just a few times, mostly relating to Horkheimer; he appears to regard as unnecessary a familiarity with the intricacies of critical theory and Adorno’s ongoing engagement with it. Benzer’s agnostic attitude toward sociology as well as Adorno’s work is disappointing given Adorno’s status as one of the most controversial theorists of the twentieth century. If we treat Adorno’s work as potentially constructive contributions to sociology as is (i.e., without scrutinizing its links to modern society as problematic), we risk turning his writings inside out thus undercutting efforts to assess its flaws and lasting contribution. Benzer might have concluded that there is a continuing need for “determined negation” regarding types of contemporary sociological practices that impede the discipline’s ability to recognize emerging challenges sociologists must be able and allowed to confront to ensure the increasing relevance and practical utility of sociology into the twenty-first century in light of modern societies’ mounting problems; doing so would have been beyond his purview.