Adorno adopted ego psychology and character typologies he had formally condemned, diluting nonidentity theory

Evidence

Although the basic perspective was Freudian, a certain measure of ego psychology was added to the analytic framework, the same ego psychology of Hartmann and Kris whose conformist implications Adorno criticized elsewhere. Similarly, the use made in The Authoritarian Personality of a character typology seemed at first glance to contradict Adorno’s critique of Fromm’s typology. By describing integrated character types, he and his colleagues appeared to be abandoning that insistence on nonidentity that was one of the central tenets of Critical Theory. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 680

Categorization

• XREF: Adorno’s pragmatism here parallels the practical compromises of other exiled theorists adapting to new institutional contexts, similar to the ‘exile’ pressures in my reading of Milgrom on institutions. — connects to: Adorno rejected both positivism and abstract individualism while insisting on nonidentity. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 268; Methodological experience softened Adorno’s early hostility to American empirical techniques — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 671; Adorno’s historical defense of typologies fails to justify classifying the genuinely autonomous — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 682 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Adorno’s historical defense of typologies fails to justify classifying the genuinely autonomous #expands (0.85) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 682
• Adorno defended typologies because capitalism had destroyed authentic individualism for most people #expands (0.80) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 681