of capitalism, the world will remain as it is. Then, the terrifying neo-conser-
vative pronouncement of capitalism being the “end of history” and the self-
centered bourgeois being the “last man”, who for the moment might have
autonomy but no chance of solidarity, becomes reality (Fukuyama 1992).
According to Horkheimer and many other critical social theorists, this devel-
opment is “the immanent logic of history” that leads inexorably toward the
totally administered, bureaucratized, instrumentalized, integrated and con-
trolled society. In such a society, human individuality, autonomy, love, and
longing for that which is other than what is will be increasingly diminished
through the necessity of conforming to demands of the social cybernetic, iron
cage system, from which no one can escape. In fact it is questionable to
Horkheimer whether humanity even will be conscious of the loss due to the
rhythm of the iron system becoming instinctual. Not only will serious and
liberating theology, but aesthetics and philosophy too, whose true social func-
tion is also the criticism of what is in light of that which is other and socially
realizable, will be thrown on the trash heap of history as mere expressions
of humanity’s childhood and forgotten. Life in the totally administered soci-
ety will be boring.
Horkheimer does hold out that there may be also a positive side to the
development of a totally administered society, namely that the material needs
of humanity may be satisfied in this society, the administration of justice
might be better served in the abolishment of world conflicts, and a con-
sciousness of universal solidarity may also arise. I do not share Horkheimer ’s
qualified optimism in regards to these issues, for even if these positive affects
were possible, the question must be asked: at what and at whose cost were
these developments made? As Benjamin (1968:256–257) stated, there isn’t a
historical act in, or document of, the development of civilization that isn’t at
the same time expressive of barbarism; that isn’t developed on the labor and
sacrifice of multitudes of unknown workers. The critical theory thus has a
double task: to designate that which is to be changed, and to name that which
is to be preserved. It has the task of showing what the price is that has to be
paid for such “progress”; what the effect history or “Wirkungsgeschichte”is
for any action. It is the task of critical theory of society and religion to rub
against the grain of history’s development and remember, reveal and possi-
bly redeem the hopes of the past as history moves toward the totally admin-
istered society.
148 • Michael R. Ott