Dialectic of Enlightenment by Theodor W. Adorno

They develop the latter's dialectical account of subjectivization. Furthermore, I contend that Adorno's Negative Dialectics and Aesthetic Theory eschew Habermas's mistaken reading of Dialectic of Enlightenment. I interpret Dialectic of Enlightenment as a theory of the formation of the subject. They maintain that enlightenment comprises both instrumental and critical thought, critical thought being understood by them as determinate negation. Adorno and Horkheimer do not reduce thought to instrumental reason, and they characterize enlightenment as a historically differentiated process. In my view, Habermas dedifferentiates the dialectic of enlightenment. He thinks critical social theory can only be reflexively grounded if it recognizes as its pragmatic truth-condition a counterfactually conceived communicative procedure that would be free of distortion. Habermas claims that Adorno and Horkheimer universalize instrumental reason, and that they hence undermine their own discursive-rational contribution.

In my dissertation, I argue that Juergen Habermas misinterprets Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment.

Dialectic of Enlightenment by Theodor W. Adorno