Einherjar86
Active Member
For the sake of the middle ground, I wouldn't defend the qualities of Badiou and Lacan for a wide audience, specifically because:
a) Lacan is relevant for no one who isn't interested in the history of structuralist theory, and
b) I can't understand Badiou (I've tried).
I'm saddened that Adorno gets so much hate, especially when I find him immensely valuable despite the fact that I routinely perceive conservative elements in his writing. Nothing Adorno wrote was revolutionary or championing revolution. He wrote dour, pessimistic reflections on the intractability of modernity. Revolution wasn't the answer to anything, according to Adorno (and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment), because it would merely result in further dehumanization at the hands of whoever comes to power. They were as critical of Hollywood and American pop culture as they were of German fascism, and saw Hollywood as the engine of populist beliefs in a liberal democratic society. What could be more relevant to our situation here in the twenty-first century?
So anyway, I won't argue about Lacan and Badiou (or even Zizek, although I do find a lot of his cultural commentary on point), but I'll always defend Adorno against what I see as perpetually unjustified attacks. His writings are the opposite of "empty."
a) Lacan is relevant for no one who isn't interested in the history of structuralist theory, and
b) I can't understand Badiou (I've tried).
I'm saddened that Adorno gets so much hate, especially when I find him immensely valuable despite the fact that I routinely perceive conservative elements in his writing. Nothing Adorno wrote was revolutionary or championing revolution. He wrote dour, pessimistic reflections on the intractability of modernity. Revolution wasn't the answer to anything, according to Adorno (and Horkheimer in Dialectic of Enlightenment), because it would merely result in further dehumanization at the hands of whoever comes to power. They were as critical of Hollywood and American pop culture as they were of German fascism, and saw Hollywood as the engine of populist beliefs in a liberal democratic society. What could be more relevant to our situation here in the twenty-first century?
So anyway, I won't argue about Lacan and Badiou (or even Zizek, although I do find a lot of his cultural commentary on point), but I'll always defend Adorno against what I see as perpetually unjustified attacks. His writings are the opposite of "empty."
)
