In The Dialectic of Enlightenment (1947) Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer defend the provocative claim that Odysseus of Homer’s Odyssey is, in some sense at least, a “bourgeoisie” figure. The text elucidates enlightenment through the critical analysis of myth within the context of superstition and the reassertion of fascist design. By exemplifying a critique of the extreme psychological terror and genocide inflicted by the Nazi party of Germany they subtly reverted in order to re-educate mass psychology post world war two. In this paper I would like to hypothesize that post-nationalism transcends this subordination in favour of the universal theory of a greater good that benefits the German economy. They use the text to critique the means to fascism by defining the way that superstition, mythology and enlightenment were utilized by the Nazi party of Germany as isomorphic tropes to insinuate subordination and authoritarianism ( power and exploitation ) to suppress the state and justify the genocidal means to social cleansing as an economic and anthropic means to domination.
The philosophers in question were exiled by Nazi Germay from the Frankfurt School and banished to Los Angeles where they continued to write. The existence of their work in a contemporary setting pinpoints and elucidates genocidal and theoretical implications of civil warfare that were executed through the basis of fascist and totalitarian domination. Fascism beginning in the Weimar Republic, dominating Germany, Poland and the rest of Europe resulted in a national-global crisis, “ The anti reason of totalitarian capitalism, whose technique of satisfying needs, in their objectified form determined by domination, makes the satisfaction of needs impossible and tends towards the extermination of humanity - this anti reason appears prototypically in the hero who escapes the sacrifice by sacrificing himself.” (43) In this way we can envision the nature of a genocidal hyperbole to be again re-considered in North American society through The Dialectic of Enlightenment.
The text is primarily composed by the canonically relevant historical vices of greek mythology, specifically Excursus 1 : Odysseus or Myth and Enlightenment where the text reviews the various elements of Odysseus’s ventures through Homer’s Odyssey. Horkheimer and Adorno, through the explication of framework, use this historical model of greek mythology in that of Homer’s protagonist, Odysseus, to archive and immortalize perspectives of self-righteousness in what they respect as bourgeois. They epitomize him in a seraphic and godlike manner, echoing Homers intentional representation of the idealistic exponent. Praising his cunning intellect and manner of conduction through his voyages, his athleticism and mastery of nature have his abilities transcend the mortal status of the mere proletariat civilian to that of a godlike status and demeanor. For example, “ Imitation enters the service of power even when the human being becomes an anthropomorphism for human beings ” (45). Odysseus’s ability to conquer all feats in his renunciation of self and ego is a linguistic understanding of dualism that pulls through into a reference about formalism. In Homer’s polarization of the term Udeis, meaning both hero and nobody he narrates Odysseus’s emancipation from his character’s consciousness of self through metaphysical vice wherein he dichotomizes his understanding of mind over body to protect his life through athleticism and wit.
“ He declares allegiance to himself by disowning himself as Nobody; he saves his life by making himself disappear. This adaptation to death through language contains the schema to modern mathematics.” (48)
The nature of his ability to separate mind over body is a derivative to his understanding in rationalism which he makes use of, in order to survive. In this way Odysseus is able to emancipate his ability of mind over body similar to the deconstructive states of nature and culture, wherein he sacrifices his physical self in favour of psychological predominance in order to achieve his goals and to differentiate himself from the primal horde of the proletarian devices. In Freudian Theory and Fascist Propaganda, Adorno and Horkheimer state “ A number of individuals who have substituted one and the same object for their ego ideal and have consequently identified themselves with another in their ego.” (128 Adorno & Horkheimer- Freud ). His incalculable ability to defeat death on several occasions also adds to the indestructible status he earned through his ventures, proving immortal qualities that are vices associated with the European bourgeois. The text idolizes his actions in such a way as to glorify his accomplishments in society, presenting his character as that of an anthropomorphic deity of monarchal descent, another amiable trait of the inherent bourgeoise splendour that continually enables and promotes relentless violent supremacy.
Arguably, the nature of Odysseus’s actions are a primary model for the bourgeois individual, as he represents this righteous character of greek origin who sails the Mediterranean or Adriatic sea at will with little to no responsibility except to return to his wife Penelope where they rule the kingdom of Ithaca. He sacrifices numerous lives throughout the course of his voyage and is congratulated for the bloodshed. Meeting various characters throughout southern Europe and as such he conducts his business accordingly. He capitalizes off of various meetings with said communities through economic pretext reinstated through The Dialectic of Enlightenment in that
“ Odysseus defencelessness against the foaming sea sounds like a legitimation of the enrichment of the voyager at the expense of indigenous inhabitants. Bourgeois economics later enshrined this principle in the concept of risk: The possibility of foundering is seen as a moral justification for profit.* … Odysseus lives according to the ancient principle which originally constituted bourgeois society.” (48). In a way this makes him a model for bourgeois society in part due to the capitalist economy as he basically finances his kingdom, ruthlessly profiting on whatever capital interest that can be generated. The mission in that respect, is therefore an entrepreneurial vice, the text even exaggerating the nature of this in capitalist terms stating “ … The truth that the entrepreneur* has always entered the competition armed with more than the industry of his hands.” (48) in detaching the principle of manual labour from his ability to master self preservation.
The fact that Odysseus and his comrades are subject to nature just means that they are even more so, due to enlightenment, able to willfully capitalize through their ventures. The text declares this as “ a moral justification for profit*”, perhaps another contemplated ideal that had been utilized throughout nazi Germany. The canonical work is exploited in order to develop a mastery and monopolization of European culture. Therefore again the use of European aristocracy is a prime example of how Odysseus proves to be a model form for the modern bourgeois individual. In conclusion, I agree with Amy Allen in her revision of the work not as a negativist perspective on enlightenment but a statement of bourgeois reform that reinstates the contemplation of morality and reason in a modern day and age.
Bibliography
Adorno, Theodor, Horkheimer, Max, 1895-1973. Dialectic Of Enlightenment : Philosophical Fragments. Stanford, Calif. :Stanford University Press, 2002.
Allen, Amy. (2016). “The Dialectic of Progress: Adorno and the Philosophy of History.” The End of Progress: Decolonizing the Normative Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press. pp.166-176.
