Adorno’s natural history concept rejected Heideggerian historicity

Evidence

Riezler, like Adorno, belonged to the so-called Circle' (Kränzchen), a Frankfurt debating group of which Tillich, Horkheimer, Pollock, Mannheim, Adolph Löwe and Carl Mennicke were also members. … In his lecture, Adorno defended a position which, to avoid misunderstanding, he did not call historical ontology’, but preferred instead to define by using the concepts history' and nature’. While a historical ontology in the spirit of Heidegger, by means of the category of historicity, devalued history as being merely the location of what was new, the concept of natural history would reveal history up to the present as being bound to nature, as a scene of constantly changing `historical prisons for the primeval essence of humanity’. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 386

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness reification thesis, which Adorno here supports independently of class categories. — connects to: Adorno’s natural history reconciles nature and history as a change of perspective — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 386; Heidegger defines Dasein as local and historical, not universal — Sarah Bakewell, At the Existentialist Café: Freedom,…, 291; Marcuse criticized Heidegger’s existentialism for ignoring concrete historical conditions
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 386