Concerning Some Marrano Threads in The Aesthetic Theory of Theodor W. Adorno

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

I learned a good deal from this article and find it to be successful overall. Although I have not read Bielek-Robson's book yet, I was able to understand its main arguments through their presentation in the article, as well as their connection to the issue of the dialectic of the universal and the particular in Adorno's work, especially in Aesthetic Theory. The “Marrano strategy” in that work is convincingly demonstrated: the author shows that Adorno’s understanding of the artwork as an object that sustains a dialectic between immanence and transcendence by holding to the extremes—and only thereby points towards reconciliation. Drawing from Bielek-Robson’s theory, as well as Hent de Vries’s important interpretation of Adorno’s “minimal theology,” the article reads Adorno’s aesthetic theory through the lens of the specifically Jewish form of nominalism: one which holds a plurality of singularities in horizontally related constellations, and therefore, within the larger framework of Adorno’s negative dialectics, refuses to subsume the particular under the universal.

The paper is well organized, providing a thorough explication of Bialek-Robson’s argument (particularly her account of Benjamin, Scholem, and Derrida) and a systematic account of the “Marrano strategy” in Adorno’s work. It may be useful to clarify the stakes of the paper for Adorno scholarship by explaining how the analysis via Bialek-Robsen expands upon or departs from other accounts of Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory, of which there are many (e.g. J.M. Bernstein, Martin Jay, Robert Hullot-Kentor). Indeed, references to the existing scholarship on Adorno are a bit sparse. It may also be worth briefly addressing the complicated status of Adorno’s own Jewishness and his increasing identification with the Jews after the Holocaust. 

Overall, I think that this article contributes to understanding an important dimension of Bialek-Robsen’s work and illuminates an important dimension of Adorno’s work in a new way.

Author Response

1) Moderate English change required

Ad.1) the whole paper has been checked and corrected by native-speaker;

2)  "It may be useful to clarify the stakes of the paper for Adorno scholarship by explaining how the analysis via Bialek-Robson expands upon or departs from other accounts of Adorno’s Aesthetic Theory, of which there are many (e.g. J.M. Bernstein, Martin Jay, Robert Hullot-Kentor). Indeed, references to the existing scholarship on Adorno are a bit sparse."

Ad. 2) lines from 398-413 includes a short explanation of the importance of the Jewish dimension of Adorno's aesthetics. See also: footnotes 37-40 (M. Jay, R. Foster, R. Hullot-Kentor, J. M. Bernstein) for more clarity.

3)  "It may also be worth briefly addressing the complicated status of Adorno’s own Jewishness and his increasing identification with the Jews after the Holocaust."

Ad. 3) I don't think it is necessary. In my opinion, the fullest expression of Adorno's own Jewishness is included in his major (and minor) works to which I refer in my essay. I also think that this essay is, to some extent, an elaboration of Adorno's complicated status as a "Jew" (a Marrano Jew).  

Reviewer 2 Report

The author provides the outline--and to a certain extent, the substance--of a successful argument in which they demonstrate their stated thesis that “the implementation of the Marrano strategy to the modern art criticism, redefines and reverses the relationship between the particular element and the universal domain” (p. 1). Through their argument they aim to show that “this dialectical appreciation of the particular establishes a common conceptual field for the critical thinking [“the” should be deleted] and traditional religious motifs” (p. 1). In my judgment, they do so in a provocative and possibly compelling manner. Furthermore, the article accomplishes the specific goal stated by the journal special editor, Professor Agata Bielik-Robson, to “approach the Marrano phenomenon in a more affirmative manner” (Special Issue Information letter to colleagues) in a nuanced form through the application of the Marrano strategy to Adorno’s aesthetic magnum opus.

Yet, there are several points and statements that require clarification or correction (for example, attributing any ‘essence’ of language to Adorno’s aesthetic theory, or conflating Adorno’s philosophic theory with Hegel’s in striving for a positive reconciliation). There are also some unclear or over-generalized statements that need more specific formulations. Consider the over-generalization in the sentence that includes the phrase “understood by Western philosophical tradition” (lines 113-114 p. 5); this  should be made more specific at this development in the argument. For example, the author could name Hegel or another philosopher specifically instead of attributing this to “Western philosophical tradition” per se. I also recommend correcting for grammar and punctuation, of which there are minor errors throughout the entire article. (I listed below what I found). The writing is at times difficult to access because of errors in grammar and sentence formation. If the writing is refined and some major points clarified, the creative insights of the article could be provide a helpful contribution to interpreting Adorno’s aesthetics.

Suggested corrections:

The author should delete the comma in the thesis statement: “the implementation of the Marrano strategy to the modern art criticism, redefines and reverses the relationship between the particular element and the universal domain,” and delete "the" preceding "critical thinking" in “for the critical thinking and traditional religious motifs” (p. 1). 

In footnote 4, delete “the” from “the Sholem’s category” and “the Adorno’s concept of art criticism” (p. 3).

Line 123 on p. 5: I recommend adding the word “by” and deleting the comma preceding “not directly expressing…” for clarity. 

Line 131: What does the author mean by “subjectify”? Do they mean “subjectivize”? Either way, the term should be clarified at this point in the article.

Lines 143-147 p. 6: I believe that a citation of Benjamin is needed in addition to, or else within, footnote 7.

Lines 165-166 p. 7: delete the commas in line 165 and delete "the" preceding “systemic regulation.” 

Footnote 9 p. 7: “mystic” should be "mystical" throughout the footnote.

Line 177 p. 7: delete “the” preceding “memory” and delete the comma after “peculiar”

Line 180: delete “the” preceding “Western thought”

Line 201 p. 8: The sentence, “I would like to remind you that the subject of the dissertation is to define…” should be deleted or corrected. In fact, the sentences in lines 201-204 could be completely deleted.

Line 212: change “of” to “as a specific particularity”

Lines 213-219, p. 9: Regarding the sentence, “Only when, at the end [should be “in the end”], individualization of what is particular goes hand in hand with universalization, can we talk about a successful project of reconciliation of the previously non-reconcilable.” Is this not what Adorno rejects, namely, that any such positive reconciliation ever be possible? I recommend correcting this claim. In fact, the author describes Adorno’s model of reconciliation as “reconciliation in difference,” so this would not be equivalent to “individualization of what is particular [going] hand in hand with universalization.” If the author grants such a possibility of reconciliation to Adorno's theory, they should state where and in what context--only in the successful modernist artwork?

The sentences that immediately follow (lines 217-219) are a bit confusing. Could the author re-write these for clarity? The phrases “future time leaning” and the mere mention of “spatial” are particularly in need of clarification here.

I question whether any essence of language is ever possible for Adorno. See Yasemin Yildiz’s chapter on Adorno in her 2012 monograph: Yasemin Yildiz, Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition (New York: Fordham University Press, 2012), 67-108. I don’t think we can refer to any “essence of Jewish linguisticity in Adorno’s aesthetic theory” or in his philosophy per se, because he adamantly frustrates and thwarts any such possibility of essential identity.

Line 231: insert “one’s” into “the question of own”

Line 232: change “act” to “acts”

Line 278 p. 11: delete “one of the” in “If the one of the Christian origin”

Line 301 p. 12: delete “called by their name” before “singularities”

Line 307: change “Marx’s” to “Marxist”

Line 308: change “him” at the beginning to “Adorno”

Line 312 p. 13: “Aborno” should be “Adorno”

Line 317: What is the phrase “striving for universal application” referring to, secularization or its opposite? This needs to be made clear.

Line 337 p. 14: “dialectic” should be “dialectical”

Lines 337-338: delete the commas after “Jewish tradition”

Line 342: delete the double-dash

Line 370: “dialectic” should be “dialectical”

Line 372: “Author” should be “author”

Line 399: Please clarify the meaning of “Decapitation cannot be severed from the totality such as society in one gesture;” [end the sentence with a semi-colon, not comma].

Line 403: What does the author of this article mean by “notions” in Adorno’s sense?

Line 405: Adorno does not uphold specific allegories as successful models of artworks in his aesthetic theory. He rather understands ‘the allegorical’ as a method of interpreting all texts, following the topos of the “Denkbild” [thought-image] that shines through the text. See Gerhard Richter, Thought-Images: Frankfurt School Writers’ Reflections on Damaged Life(Stanford University Press, 2007), chapter 1 and 4, for clarification on this.

Line 411-412: Should be “concerning the relationship between the work and society.” Delete the rest of the sentence.

Line 413: I don’t understand this sentence: “Aesthetic Theory defines is the work of art.”

Line 420-421: The sentence is missing a verb.

Line 461: “Considering the way of preserving tradition…” could be re-written for clarity as “Tradition can be preserved by way of hidden expression…”

Line 468: should be “dialectics of ‘tradition-new’, not just “dialectics”

Line 478: Which “category” is the author referring to?

Lines 478-482: It is not clear what the author is arguing. Is the lack of romantic sentiment corresponding to a lack of objective ground? Where does Adorno equate objective ground to romantic sentiment? I do not think this is the case. 

What is the “it” in line 481?

Line 483: What is the “it” at the beginning of the sentence?

Line 485-6: What does the author mean by: “’consideration’ of one’s own idiom as an incorporation of criticism”?

Line 487: There is no such thing as an “original” language according to Adorno in his AT. Again, see Yasemin Yildiz (noted above).

Line 487-488: The sentence should read: “The importance of critical self-reflection achieved by the modern artwork [not ‘the modernity artwork’] can therefore be compared to the importance and validity of the traditional moment as a reflection on one’s own possibility of permanence.” The problem with this claim, similar to what I have pointed out above, is that there is no such “original” “tradition” in Adorno’s thinking. Every word, even in its originary first instance, is “foreign” and “alien” according to Adorno. This is actually related to the point made by the author themselves in what follows, in regard to the pair of ‘heteronomy-autonomy’.

Yet, as the argument continues, it becomes a bit muddled again, in lines 511-514, regarding “reconciliation of what is ‘natural’ with what is ‘rational’ in the work.” This requires more explanation and context from Adorno’s AT.

Line 566: change “to preserve” to “the preservation of”

Line 593-595: The sentence is missing a verb.           

Author Response

1) Moderate English changes required.

Ad. 1 ) the whole paper has been checked and corrected by a native speaker;

2) "Suggested corrections".

Ad.2) I agree with all suggested corrections. Thus, I've complied with all the suggestions: from footnote 4 on p.3 to line no. 595. I removed all over-generalizations indicated by the Reviewer. 

3. a) "Regarding the sentence, “Only when, at the end [should be “in the end”], individualization of what is particular goes hand in hand with universalization, can we talk about a successful project of reconciliation of the previously non-reconcilable.” Is this not what Adorno rejects, namely, that any such positive reconciliation ever be possible? I recommend correcting this claim."

Ad. 3.a) firstly I replaced "the end" by "finally", but in fact, it didn't change anything. Thus, I decided to remove it, too. I agree that there is no space for any kind of teleology in Adorno's critical thought. Consequently, the noun "project" has been also replaced by "striving for endless reconciliation". There is no projection of reconciliation in Adorno's aesthetics/philosophy.   

3.b) "The sentences that immediately follow (lines 217-219) are a bit confusing. Could the author re-write these for clarity? The phrases “future time leaning” and the mere mention of “spatial” are particularly in need of clarification here."

Ad. 3.b) I agree that a spatiotemporal metaphor that I used here is a little bit confusing. Thus, I removed it. 

4) "I question whether any essence of language is ever possible for Adorno. See Yasemin Yildiz’s chapter on Adorno in her 2012 monograph: Yasemin Yildiz, Beyond the Mother Tongue: The Postmonolingual Condition (New York: Fordham University Press, 2012), 67-108. I don’t think we can refer to any “essence of Jewish linguisticity in Adorno’s aesthetic theory” or in his philosophy per se, because he adamantly frustrates and thwarts any such possibility of essential identity. 

Ad. 4) I absolutely agree with the Reviewer. There isn't any kind of ontological essentiality of language in Adorno's aesthetic theory. therefore, there's no need for using this adjective - "essential" For more clarity I decided to remove or replaced it with non-essential ones.

5)"Adorno does not uphold specific allegories as successful models of artworks in his aesthetic theory. He rather understands ‘the allegorical’ as a method of interpreting all texts, following the topos of the “Denkbild” [thought-image] that shines through the text. See Gerhard Richter, Thought-Images: Frankfurt School Writers’ Reflections on Damaged Life(Stanford University Press, 2007), chapter 1 and 4, for clarification on this".

Ad. 5) Following the Reviewer's advice, I replaced "allegories" with "thought-images". I also added a footnote with Richter's Language Without Soil. Adorno and Late Philosophical Modernity for

more clarity. Knowing that there are a few distinctive differences between Benjamin's mystical-allegorical theory of language and Adorno's language (communication) of particular and universal, this correction was necessary. 

6) "The sentence should read: “The importance of critical self-reflection achieved by the modern artwork [not ‘the modernity artwork’] can, therefore, be compared to the importance and validity of the traditional moment as a reflection on one’s own possibility of permanence.” The problem with this claim, similar to what I have pointed out above, is that there is no such “original” “tradition” in Adorno’s thinking. Every word, even in its originary first instance, is “foreign” and “alien” according to Adorno. This is actually related to the point made by the author themselves in what follows, in regard to the pair of ‘heteronomy-autonomy’.

Ad. 6) Adorno's dialectics of "foreign-original" or "traditional-new" is grounded in Scholem's idea of tradition as commentary. In my interpretation, Adorno widens the meaning of commentary to criticism (critical commentary) that is, "open" "unfinished", "ontologically undefined", "anti-essential", etc. Thus, the equation: foreign-original is acceptable (for Scholem commentary=original). Furthermore, there are few references to Scholem's idea in this paper.

7) "Yet, as the argument continues, it becomes a bit muddled again, in lines 511-514, regarding “reconciliation of what is ‘natural’ with what is ‘rational’ in the work.” This requires more explanation and context from Adorno’s AT."

Ad. 7) Basing on Adorno's AT I elaborate abovementioned relation as dialectical interdependence between mimetic and constructive aspects of modernist artwork: see: lines 510-523. For more clarification, I added two footnotes that refer to particular subchapters in AT.

Furthermore, I tried to clarify the results and conclusions by providing additional explanations. See: lines 639-644, lines 675-679, lines  837-841; footnote no.51, 73;

Round  2

Reviewer 2 Report

The changes made have significantly improved the presentation and overall coherence of the argument, and I believe the article should be published.