Adorno’s appeal to barbarism was problematic because both senses of the term stayed opaque

Evidence

There were echoes in this idea of, for example, Schoenberg’s conception of the artist as a connoisseur of tradition following his own instincts; or of Thomas Mann’s conception of art as being the outcome of a union between barbarism and intellectualism; and also of Bloch’s and Benjamin’s demand that the energies of barbarism and intoxication should be put at the service of the revolution'. But Adorno's was a problematic view in at least two respects. It was problematic to speak of something which could not be grasped without making it clear what was to be understood by thisparticularly when it was possible for concepts like barbarism’ and `nature’, which occurred as synonyms, to be understood both in a positive and a negative sense. The negative sense was relatively clear, but the positive sense remained opaque. It was also problematic to put one’s faith in a beneficial exacerbation of the rigidifying processin the same way that Benjamin’s allegorizing philology gave its backing to construction through demolitionif at the same time the only means of preserving the mind against insane self-glorification was held to be its connection with something that could not be grasped. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 1278

Categorization

• XREF: Ties Adorno’s defense of barbarism to Mann, Schoenberg, Bloch, and Benjamin — useful for a synthetic note on the Frankfurt School’s shared vocabulary of artistic ‘barbarism’. — connects to: Adorno conflated two distinct senses of ‘that is no longer possible’ — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2252

Broader Connections

• Adorno conflated two distinct senses of ‘that is no longer possible’ #qualifies (0.75) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2252