Adorno

The Institute of Social Research 139

Adorno evidently had his own view of the relation between social
theory and practical change in the social world, and one that differed
from Horkheimer’s. Horkheimer believed that theoretical enlighten-
ment about the irrationality of society and its internal contradictions
could lead to different forms of practice. Adorno, for his part, did not
direct his criticism at the contents of social theory, i.e., at class
antagonisms, or findings about the mechanisms of economic exploita-
tion and the results of social research. Instead, he started from the
assumption that the frozen images of reality could only be dissolved by
a different approach to thinking about them, one that would construct
intellectual models in a concrete fashion. Adorno did indeed use the
term ‘dialectics’ in this connection, but failed to show in detail how
dialectical thinking might actually lead to specific results.^27 Some of his
listeners appear to have registered the absence of content in his lecture,
and the failure to demonstrate the analytical benefits of the dialectical
method. For example, Willy Strzelewicz, an assistant in the Institute of
Social Research at the time, reports that, when he discussed Adorno’s
lecture with Horkheimer afterwards on the train, Horkheimer spoke
quite disparagingly about what he had just heard. ‘His reaction to
Adorno’s views was: what’s the point?’ It was a clear indication of
‘the disagreement between them’.^28
Apart from Horkheimer’s cool response, Adorno’s lecture provoked
widespread criticism. Kracauer, however, in a letter of 7 June 1931,
went out of his way to praise the introductory section in which Adorno
had criticized contemporary philosophy. He evidently based his com-
ments on a typewritten version of the lecture that he had before him
in Berlin. However, he followed up his praise with the remark that,
instead of the abstract statement of a philosophical programme, it would
have been preferable to ‘give his audience a little real-life example of
dialectical research’.^29 Moreover, Kracauer proffered the advice that in
his future career as a lecturer he should cultivate the ‘tactical astute-
ness’ that was more indispensable for Marxist theory than for any other.

You probably found yourself in a game of hide-and-seek because

of the place you had to speak in. You wanted to trail your coat

but were unable to do so. In fact, it would not have been possible

to declare your Marxism openly right after the Habilitation and

on such an official occasion. It would also have been tactically

unfortunate since it would have conveyed the impression to other

lecturers that you had only been willing to state your principles

openly once your Habilitation had been approved. You presum-

ably disguised your views in order to avoid the impression that

you were acting in an underhand way.^30

Looking back on the ‘scandal’ forty years later, Peter von Haselberg
saw the situation quite differently. ‘It was a genuine inaugural lecture,