The Institute’s attack on escapism was not puritanical in motivation.

Evidence

Adorno, Prisms, pp. 103-1o4. This serves to contradict the analysis of such critics as Edward Shils (“Daydreams and Nightmares: Reflections on the Criticism of Mass Culture,” Sewanee Review LXV, 4 [Autumn, 1957]), who call the Institut puritanical because of its attack on escapism. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 1521

Categorization

• XREF: Ties to Marcuse’s and Adorno’s nuanced views on fantasy and art, which resist the ‘puritanical’ label critics later applied. — connects to: The Institute’s censorship of Benjamin reflected self-protection, not doctrinal rigidity — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 614