Notes to pp. 378–382 58151 A draft by Horkheimer with revisions in Adorno’s handwriting as well
as a version of the report in two and a half pages are preserved in the
Horkheimer–Pollock Archive of the Stadt- und Universitätsbibliothek,
Frankfurt am Main.
52 See Clemens Albrecht et al., Die intellektuelle Gründung der Bundes-
republik, p. 194. Albrecht points out that, ‘underlying the dispute about
the appointment of Golo Mann, there were profound disagreements
about the nature of anti-Semitism and its anthropological and socio-
psychological causes. This was not merely a question of different theories
being advanced to explain a historical phenomenon of central importance,
but in the heated atmosphere of the 1960s there were also considerations
of the political and educational consequences at stake.’ Ibid., p. 198.
53 See Christoph von Schwerin, Als sei nichts gewesen, p. 122f. Adorno’s
dislike of Golo Mann persisted. He regarded Mann as a key figure in
the attempt to smear him in 1963 by disinterring his review of Müntzel
in 1933–4 (see the account in chapter 11: ‘Hibernating with Dignity?’). In
1963 a meeting between him and Golo Mann was supposed to take place
in Vienna, but Adorno went out of his way to avoid it. He wrote to
Arnold Gehlen, saying that he wished to avoid such a meeting. ‘Since
my relations with him are so fraught, the situation would have been
embarrassing’ (Adorno to Gehlen, 19 June 1963, Gehlen Archive, TU
Dresden). The correspondence between Adorno and Gehlen is preserved
in the Gehlen Archive administered by Karl-Siegberg Rehberg in the
Technical University, Dresden. There are thirty-nine letters there in all,
eleven from Adorno. The present writer has read the correspondence.
54 Adorno to Gehlen, 2 December 1960, Gehlen Archive, TU Dresden; see
also Christian Thies, Die Krise des Individuums, p. 45ff.
55 Gehlen to Adorno, 18 October 1961, Gehlen Archive, TU Dresden.
56 See Adorno, Philosophische Terminologie, vol. 1, p. 190ff.
57 See Christian Thies, Die Krise des Individuums, p. 51.
58 Talk on Radio Free Berlin, Literarisches Wort, 9 March 1956, quoted by
Demirovic, Der nonkonformistische Intellektuelle, p. 500.
59 Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, p. 257.
60 Adorno, Minima Moralia (Appendix), GS, vol. 4, p. 288f.
61 Adorno, ‘Schuld und Abwehr’, GS, vol. 9.2, p. 143; cf. R. Wiggershaus,
The Frankfurt School, p. 472ff.; Demirovic, Der nonkonformistische
Intellektuelle, p. 353ff.
62 For Adorno what emerged from chance conversations in a train was
the terrorism of a society that compels conformism: ‘There is nothing
innocuous left’, he remarks in one of the first aphorisms in Minima Moralia.
‘The chance conversation in the train, when, to avoid dispute, one con-
sents to a few statements that one knows ultimately to implicate murder,
is already a betrayal; no thought is immune against communication,
and to utter it in the wrong place and in wrong agreement is enough to
undermine its truth’ (Minima Moralia, p. 25).
63 Ibid., p. 233.
64 Ibid., p. 108.
65 Adorno, ‘Schuld und Abwehr’, GS, vol. 9.2, p. 136; Institute of Social
Research, Gruppenexperiment. The section written by Adorno includes
pp. 275–426 of the original text revised by Fritz Pollock.