Adorno’s commodity critique of music rests on homology, not mere analogy

Evidence

In the version of ‘Fetish-Character’ published in the essay collection Dissonanzen, the passage criticised by Mayer which claims that ‘application of the commodity category to music is not an analogy’ is omitted. This prompts Wolfram Ette to speculate: ‘Nothing … could have possibly been less like Adorno than to assume an analogy between art and commodity. Art is commodity: hence, the commodity character encompasses everything related to art’. In reality, ‘Fetish- Character’ is not about an analogy, but rather a structural affinity based on real relations of participation, that is, a homology which differs from analogy precisely in the existence of a relation of participation. Thus, it appears all the more puzzling that Adorno deleted the corresponding passage in the revision of the text. Perhaps the critique appeared graver in his memory than it actually was on this point. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 485

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes homology (structural affinity via actual participation) from analogy — a key conceptual tool for reading Adorno’s political economy.
• QUESTION: Why did Adorno delete the passage? Braunstein offers two hypotheses; worth chasing archival evidence on this editorial decision.
• XREF: connects to: Adorno was the first Marxist after Lukács to apply commodity-form analysis to music — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 151; Adorno analogizes singing voices to branded commodities to critique absolute voice — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 419; Adorno insisted music’s commodification is literal, not merely analogous to commodity exchange. — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 435 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Adorno insisted music’s commodification is literal, not merely analogous to commodity exchange. #expands (0.90) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 435