We live in a society

You cannot define a team. Adorno’s “we live in a society” falls into the category of concepts defined by Niche and its name refers to the process; not the object, thus avoiding definition. In his introduction to dialectics in the lecture series, Adorno argued that the rejection of the definition is necessary for dialectical thinking as well as for naturalists; lawyers, economists, and sociologists such as Kant, Hegel, and Nietzsche. Failure to make claims is an acknowledgment that the use of definitions in normative intellectual practice has a passionate function; primarily to convey a fantastic sense of security.

Is-you. Another view from Nietzsche: Our definition proves that we are still religious, especially as far as we know. The role of dialect critics (later simply critics) is to “disturb the deceptive belief in this belief in the definition” (see 18). Adorno writes: “This rejection arises from the need to reflect on moments that are not the same here because the concept and the object [concept] are not the same” .

The main criticism for Adorno is the process of creating a “continuous conflict” between the concept and the object to be explained, “until you are convinced of your shortcomings” (here). Through this process, concepts are not simply defined or simply given up but rather developed. Or at least the maximum improvement will occur before abandonment. But “we live in a society” is simply an indescribable or inescapable concept.

This is one of the concepts Adorno wrote: “It effectively escapes definition because it contains historical content that cannot be consolidated or linked” (Chapter 19). However; if we completely abandon the concept of society and enumerate social facts; we lose the ability to explain how social facts are themselves formed. This is the first problem identify in Adorno sociology.

Adorno’s criticism of sociology

Adorno’s criticism of sociology begins with the taxonomic term “we live in a society” or the social term of the highest social abstraction (144); in which “all lower social forms are embedded”. For Adorno, this harmless social concept is primarily under criticism because it is an example of pure self-confidence. For sociologists, “existing scientific ideals are confuse with knowledge itself, with society” (144). The problem with defining “society” as a meta social concept is that society is sufficiently continuous (e.g. babies in the Russian social form; each defined as superior and containing sub-forms).

This is not an umbrella either. My world that can handle all social details. But if Adorno rejects this definition, he rejects it in another sentence, using a functional definition of society as a whole or a network associated with an all-encompassing existence.

definition contradicts

For Adorno, this functional definition contradicts (1) the immediate concerns of the public concept (2) and (2) the empirical investigation. Strengthening this definition is one way to prevent society from accepting it as a different reality. In other words, this definition is a problem for those who think they know a particular concept rather than a solution, and this is a true philosophical definition.

In the opening part of the controversial report, Adorno explains that critics hate the definition sly and identify the idea; of ​​creating false trust at the beginning of the investigation – from the start. And only by determining what the process can do will ultimately “violate the legitimacy of philosophy”. (Chapter 19. These philosophical definitions, however, end at the end of rigorous research on the subject.

Benjamin’s definition

This is a provocation of a new investigation in itself. Adorno cites Benjamin’s definition of “fate” as an example. (1) useless, he still does not know that Version of the concept of “fate” and (2) the problem for those he encounters is a different concept of the fate in which he lives (e.g., blind need). The point is to have sex while he tries to solve it. Including / combining moments, threatening moments, the interrelationships of events (same place). Adorno: “So these definitions work clearly and freely.

we live in a society
we live in a society

Adorno’s basic understanding in this essay is that society itself cannot be another fact; because society as a whole clearly defines the shape of all social facts (confirmed by experimental sociology). This means that “we cannot view we live in a society as a mere philosophical survival” (145). When the concept of we live in a society disappears, we find ourselves in a sea of ​​floating social facts that are just as cruel; subtle, and indifferent as others.

This is a problem for Marxists because it reduces our ability to explain the formation; of social facts in terms of social contradictions. Adorno example: With your boss, you only bother him for personal reasons. Whether the workers are satisfy with their jobs is a result of the price system and the balance of power between management and workers.


Both factors are determine by the structure of production in the society (especially the management of means of production). Maxima Adrienne: Don’t tag something that belongs to a fetish. For Adorno, the relationship between the part and the whole (according to Marx, Hegel) is mediation; which means that we live in a society (capitalist society) cannot exist without the same intermediate elements (individuals, institutions, situations).

How could these elements not exist without moving them? In other words, social cohesion is how social elements are found, and these social elements themselves are how social cohesion is found. The dynamic of reciprocal mediation creates social facts. The Marxist abbreviation for this process is integrity. [One]

Another way to talk about this dynamic is to visualize the laws of social movement and their practical examples. According to Adorno (after Hegel and again after Marx); there are in fact laws that govern the interaction of social elements at the level of social cohesion (again: individuals, institutions; “experiences”, etc.). However; these laws have changed as these laws are applied in different social situations. (Class struggle always occurs somewhere; so the local outcome of fights between bosses and employees unknown in the world today may affect how you get their paychecks tomorrow.)

Society thrives

Society thrives when laws come into effect. And we can think of it here in the balance of reductions or the progressive sense; because society only develops in qualitative intervals, whether in the form of social forces that invade us suddenly. Daily or the same forces, in the form of those behind us conspiring to break the normal circumstances.

In any case, we are jeopardizing the existence and development of the firm so that the firm cannot be another argument and can only be established in theory. However, Adorno says, we cannot call we live in a society theory of scientific phenomena: “In the natural sciences; a theory represents a certain point of contact between clearly defined concepts and repeated experiments” (146).

Since a community contains specific historical (or dynamic) content; it cannot be identify and replicate as an experiment because experiences can only reproduce events that can be isolated under artificially created conditions. . The generality or dynamics of social cohesion; and social elements that are mutually mediate in laboratory or simulation cannot be separated. He can only live.

When people think they are closest to things like televisions that move into their living room; the intimacy itself is transmitted across social distance through a large concentration of power. Nothing is symbolic of the lives of people, the things closest to them, but rather a greater personal reality from above; as they maintain a broad acceptance of their content. Personal life more than we could imagine, simple reassignment; People’s facts have been fulfilled. Life itself is lifeless.