456 Part IV: Thinking the Unconditional
society. On the contrary, isolated attempts to introduce radical change
in the university.. .will only fuel the dominant resentment towards
intellectuals and thus pave the way for the reaction.’^32
Adorno went back to some of the ideas put forward in this radio talk
when he agreed to a discussion with the students attending his lectures
on aesthetics at the end of November. The question at issue was whether
the provocative disruption of lectures could be regarded as a legitimate
method of debate in the universities. Adorno expressed his support
for the idea of student co-determination on university committees, even
on the committees for appointing professors. He also defended the
students against the accusations of fascist behaviour. On the other hand,
he argued that, instead of constantly breaking rules, the students should
try to take advantage of the opportunity to bring about university
reform by means of open discussion. He also reminded them that it was
important to respect the personal rights of the university teaching staff.
The formalized statutes had a positive aspect for anyone who has dis-
covered ‘what it means when the doorbell rings at 6 a.m. and you do not
know whether it is the Gestapo or the baker’.^33 At the end of what was
a lively discussion, Adorno made it clear that, whatever the current
threats to democracy in West Germany might be, the Federal Republic
could not be regarded as a fascist state. To ignore the differences was a
sign of fanaticism. He warned the students not to make the mistake of
‘attacking what was a democracy, however much in need of improve-
ment, rather than tackling its enemy, which was already starting to stir
ominously.’^34
Adorno was astonishingly open in his efforts to enter into dialogue
with the political students and in his sympathy for their motives, while
at the same time he did not hesitate to explain his reservations about
their strategy of a targeted breaking of the rules, of violence towards
things and provocation of people. His doubts about the political conse-
quences of direct action were expressed even more frankly in his letters.
In summer 1967, for example, he wrote to Marcuse, the theoretician
and ‘sacred cow’ of the student movement,^35 that many of their repres-
entatives tended ‘to synthesize their practice with a non-existent theory,
and this expresses a decisionism that evokes horrific memories.’^36
Adorno wished to spend the vacation weeks in July and August with
Gretel somewhere where they could put the requisite distance between
themselves and the agitating events in Frankfurt. For years they had
found the rest they needed in the Waldhaus Hotel in Sils Maria. On this
occasion, however, they chose to spend the summer in the Hôtel L’Etrier
in Crans sur Sierre in the Valais. Gretel was fed up with the food in the
Waldhaus, and he was fed up with the company there. He hoped to
meet up with Marcuse, who was staying in Zermatt, which was not far
away. Adorno hoped that they would discuss their political disagree-
ments and hopefully come to an understanding about the relation of
critical theory to practical politics.