history and remains subject to ongoing development, effectively reifies what
it intends to study. The Frankfurt theorists argue that, not only does this atti-
tude result in faulty theoretical conclusions, it also serves to canonize the sta-
tus quo. It suggests that existing society is unalterable and is the best of all
possible worlds. And so, the behavior of the men in A Beautiful Mindcan be
considered to be an accurate and universal portrait of relationships between
the genders, and the observations of Stark and Iannaccone regarding some
American Protestant churches can be taken as validation for the “rules” of
free market economic theory, along with an explanation of different forms of
“religion.” By neglecting to appreciate the constructed nature of all social
phenomena, such an approach “causes its object to congeal into something
solid while at the same time ‘momentizing’ it. That which is nothing other
than ‘here and now’ hardens and solidifies” (2000a:149).
For Adorno, subjective conceptual thought is always inadequate to its object.
But, since one cannot think without concepts, “necessity compels philosophy
to operate with concepts” (1995:11). And so self-critical thought proceeds,
careful not to assume that its concept isidentical to its object – a mistake that
Adorno calls “identity thinking.” This is what social theory does when it
“congeals” historical experience. And so, even though one might acknowl-
edge that Stark’s approach to religion is certainly aware of historical changes
and developments in different religions, from the perspective of Adorno, his
rational choice model stops short of analyzing and explaining the social pat-
terns he observes among religious adherents. Adorno argues that such phe-
nomena need to be examined and explained in the context of the larger social
totality – in order to determine how society is shaping and constructing the
very patterns being studied, along with the observing theorist herself.
Adorno argues that identity thinking also results in an undialectical sepa-
ration between actuality and potentiality. In Negative Dialectics, he refers to the
example of freedom to explain what he means: “Emphatically conceived, the
judgment that a man is free refers to the concept of freedom.” But as the indi-
vidual encounters barriers to its actions, “the concept of freedom lags behind
itself as soon as we apply it empirically.” Such a confrontation forces the con-
cept to contradict itself, as the particular individual seeks to be free, but must
also diminish what the concept of freedom implies practically “for utility’s
sake” (1995:149–151). Adorno’s social theory wrestles with this dilemma. The
contradiction between the concept of freedom and the particular experience
of social unfreedom cannot simply be resolved in thought. Instead, the “poten-
170 • Christopher Craig Brittain