The Institut censored Benjamin’s text by softening its radical political language.

Evidence

Because of Benjamin’s admitted financial dependency on the Institut, it has been argued by the Alternative circle that his work was changed in fundamental ways, even censored, by his editors in New York. Without going into the textual questions in all their complexity, it does seem accurate to say that on occasion the wording of Benjamin’s essays was altered in a less radical direction. A clear example of this was his article “The Work of Art in the Era of Mechanical Reproduction,” which ended in Benjamin’s original text with the words: “This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rendering aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art.” These are the words that also appear in the English translation, in Illuminations (page 244). In the Zeitschrift, however, the printed version replaced “Fascism” with “the totalitarian doctrine” and “Communism” with “the constructive forces of mankind” (page 66). On the same page, the original “imperialistic warfare” was changed to “modern warfare.” — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 613

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to the running theme in this book of the Institute’s cautious political self-presentation during exile and the later Alternative/leftist critiques of the Frankfurt School. — connects to: The Institute’s censorship of Benjamin reflected self-protection, not doctrinal rigidity — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 614; Adorno’s reservations blocked publication of Benjamin’s Passagenarbeit section — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 616

Broader Connections

• The Institute’s censorship of Benjamin reflected self-protection, not doctrinal rigidity #expands (0.85) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 614
• Adorno’s reservations blocked publication of Benjamin’s Passagenarbeit section #corroborates (0.80) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 616