the face of radical evil in the most murderous 20th century, the religious
dogma of an all-powerful and all-benevolent God had become almost unbe-
lievable. However, in the critical theorists’ perspective, the longing for the
totally Other could still be concretized, expressed and preserved through
commitment to ethical norms and the celebration of cultic or liturgical events
in the context of the old world-religions (Hegel 1986m; 1986n; Fromm 1976).
It was certainly continually newly re-ignited through the never-ending theodicy-
events and -experiences: tsunamis, hurricanes, earthquakes, and always-new
wars, etc. As a matter of fact, according to the critical theorists, the world-
religions could possibly continue to exist and survive for some time, if they
were willing and able to transform their dogmatic interpretations of reality
and orientations of action into such longing and hope for the totally Other
as the source of unconditional meaning, ethical validity claims, and possible
if not theoretical, then at least practical theodicy solutions (Horkheimer 1970;
Habermas 1991). In any case, for Horkheimer and Adorno the reference to
the totally Other was no utopianism (Horkheimer 1996). In the critical theo-
rists’ perspective, without an object in the theological sense the very notion
of theory became meaningless, archaic and obsolete. An atheistic-communistic
theory was a contradiction in adjecto: the pure contemplation of something,
which did no longer exist. Thus today Habermas can speak of a post-secular
society: one which has become aware that religion does not disappear so fast
as bourgeois, Marxist and Freudian enlighteners had once expected (Habermas
2001).
The Other Dimension
To be sure, the critical theory of society claims to be thoroughly scientific,
and participates fully in the argumentative discourse between the positive
natural and social sciences (Schmidt and Altwicker 1986; Habermas 1971).
However, it remains, nevertheless, deeply rooted in philosophy and even in
theology (Schmidt and Altwicker 1986; Küng 1981). While the Hegelian phi-
losophy had for its other dimension the absolute Spirit, and the Parsonian
structural-functionalism had for its highest sphere the Ultimate Reality, the
leading critical theorists, Horkheimer and Adorno, had for their highest long-
ing and hope the totally Other (Hegel 1986j; Parsons 1964; Horkheimer 1970).
While according to Hegel the finite realms of nature, subjective and objec-
tive spirit had been the other of the Infinite, for Horkheimer and Adorno the
80 • Rudolf J. Siebert