The Institute’s censorship of Benjamin reflected self-protection, not doctrinal rigidity

Evidence

What is crucial to understand is that they were not done specifically to bring Benjamin into line with a dogmatic Critical Theory, but were rather a reflection of the Aesopian language the Zeitschrift frequently used, to protect itself from political harassment. … It is abundantly clear that the Institut felt insecure in America and wished to do as little as possible to jeopardize its position. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 614

Categorization

• XREF: Aesopian language as protective camouflage connects to broader histories of intellectual censorship under threat, and to the Diaspora scholars’ adaptive strategies. — connects to: The Institut censored Benjamin’s text by softening its radical political language. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 613; The Institute’s attack on escapism was not puritanical in motivation. — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 1521; Adorno’s reservations blocked publication of Benjamin’s Passagenarbeit section — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination: A History…, 616 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• The Institute’s attack on escapism was not puritanical in motivation. #corroborates (0.90) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 1521
• Adorno’s reservations blocked publication of Benjamin’s Passagenarbeit section #exemplifies (0.78) — Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination, 616
• Adorno judged Benjamin’s Marxism an unwitting productive misreading, not orthodoxy #complicates (0.75) — Dirk Braunstein, Adorno’s Critique of Political Economy, 297