"Instrumental Reason"

Someone uttered this phrase to me over the weekend. We only discussed it briefly. I wish we had had more time.

In the two or three short minutes that we spent discussing it, I picked up these fragments, but need some help understanding it all futher:

This phrase, unless I am mistaken and misinformed, is associated with Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno. It issues specifically from their book "Dialectic of Enlightenment" (1944) ['Philosophische Fragmente' was the original title]. Horkheimer and Adorno were members of the Frankfurt School of Philosophy, the latter being a co-founder. This piece was an attempt to expose the darkside of modernity, mass culture, the Enlightenment, and the dominant discourse in Western culture (and indeed the world) ever since. There is some relevance or connection to the Holocaust within its ideas. I didn't have time to explore that but the next paragraph indicates towards it.

This is also relevant to the work of Max Weber, who shared the view that "instrumental reason" or "instrumental rationality" was intrinsic to the modernising process, and that rationalisation was said to possess an irresistable urge to extend itself from its primary locale in the adminstrative process into other realms of society, such as the industrialization of work. Herbert Marcuse, I was told, added to this the idea that rationalization is in fact a hidden system of domination.

Now, I haven't read nearly enough of these works and people, but have had some insights into these ideas from elsewhere. I am opening this thread to kindly ask for your input into the conversation that got cut short.

- Would anyone like to "enlighten" us futher on these ideas?
- Anyone care to present a critique of them?
- Any further reading recommendations?

Thanks!

Interesting and important topic.
This was certainly a stroll down memory lane - I remember reading DOE as part of a philosophy seminary back in 84.
Unfortunately I don't have the book anymore, and I am rather busy this afternoon, but let me at least offer this interesting piece that I found on my hard-disk
http://www.othervoices.org/cubowman/siren.html
which discusses the work at some length.

The lecture text you've linked to looks like damn good material. Thanks a lot for digging around in the Luceafarul goldmines

Has no one else heard of these guys or ideas?

Sounds like the theory of "The Progressivist Decay on the Subject of Historical Trend in Western Society."

It is sad that the Frankfurt school is still developing nonsense neo-Hegelian Idealism.

I happen to aware of these theories and I kind of agreed with parts of them.

I do like the Horkheimer's view of subjective reason, as well as Adorno's analysis of the mass culture, not forgetting the ever important insight into religion and production by Weber.

Still it's been some time that I last time really put too much thought into them.
They open new horizons though, so I recommend reading them, it's another thing were you can use them.

I believe they promote the critical analysis of modern society which is important in all it's aspects.

the linked text sums it up really good, as far as i can judge it.

I try to give a very short simplification of the dialectic of the enlightenment, and i mean the term, not the book.

for adorno and horkheimer enlightenment is a process of demystification and analyse. you can demystify a phenomenon, discourse, etc. but by doing this, the object which is to be enlightened, gets enchanted again.

i stumbled over a good example a few weeks ago.
i had to work out how members/"followers" of gender studies in germany analyze and interprete the role of the women in the ns-era, so which discourse they are producing.
the gender studies is of course not only an instrument of science or a method and a collection of theories and certain topics, but also is a social movement with the intention to liberate women and to strengthen and to demystify womens role and so on.
the "feminists" (im a lacking a proper translation...) produced 3 main strings/issues in their discourse.
they focused on the womens role as victims of nazi ideology, i.e. nazi ideology transported a very traditional role model of women ( and they were opressed by it.
this focus lacks and negates the womens abilty to act on/for their own, etc and ignores their paricipation in war crimes or helping activities. the women were victimized by this focus.
the second string focuses on the womens independence/autonomy and her position in the war years, when she had to organize the daily life of the family on her own, because the men were fighting...the women were glorified by this focus
the third string focused on the thesis, that antisemitism is a male illness/disease by margarete mitscherlich (a topic on its own, so i dont go into detail...). in this focus the women are victims of male priciples and actings aswell.
the critique on these strings and the way back to the term of "dialectic of enlightenment" is now, that allthough all those issues were intentionally produced -- with the claim of objectivity -- to enlighten about the role of the women, they followed an agenda to liberate and empower the role of the women and by doing this, the theses enchanted the womens role once again. this is the dialectic part of the term.
the process of enlightenment and demystification unintentionally produces the effect of a new mystification of the object, which is to be demystified.

i hope my english skills were good enough to demystify adornos term...

kalif said:

for adorno and horkheimer enlightenment is a process of demystification and analyse. you can demystify a phenomenon, discourse, etc. but by doing this, the object which is to be enlightened, gets enchanted again.

the process of enlightenment and demystification unintentionally produces the effect of a new mystification of the object, which is to demystify.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

This is the problem with "rational reality" which people are so fond of.
Just recently I happened to bump into same phenomena when I tried to study the philosophy of mind and human consciousness.

Also in the light of recent events it does raise questions about the nature of western thinking and rationalization.

Edit: One more thing, I believe the new mystification also happens through using specific vocabulary, this is link to Wittgenstein's language games.

i digged, too:

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/adorno/

http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/critical-theory/

both good introductions about critical theory. they show the claim of the theory: a method of social science/analysis and a way how western sciences work.the links on the bottom of the pages are recommendable, too! One of them leads you to a chapter of dialektik der aufklärung - in english, of course:

http://alum.hampshire.edu/~cmnF93/culture_ind.txt

its about massculture or the industry of culture. adornos second big concern.
the texts around this topic are not that hard to read, but imo its not really worth the time, unless you are really interested in analysis of mass/popular culture (i am). hes a hardcore pessimist on that topic.
to sum it up in a simple way: all aspects of live are becoming economized, so mass culture is economized, has no use but to bring profits to its producers and leaves recipients as brainless consumers, who only want to be entertained.

these works of him are often only quoted to show a history of the instruments of the analysis of pop culture. the works of the birmingham cccs/british cultural studies have gone way further in this topic. shifting the focus to a subject that is capable to act and change the intended meanings of a consumed product.

kalif: Great posts. Thanks for all the effort in explaining these matters.

One of your links hits on what I am currently understanding to be the key to it all....

Beyond and through such determinate negation, a dialectical enlightenment of enlightenment also recalls the origin and goal of thought itself. Such recollection is the work of the concept as the self-reflection of thought (der Begriff als Selbstbesinnung des Denkens, DE 32). Conceptual self-reflection reveals that thought arises from the very corporeal needs and desires that get forgotten when thought becomes a mere instrument of human self-preservation. It also reveals that the goal of thought is not to continue the blind domination of nature and humans but to point toward reconciliation.

From http://www.science.uva.nl/~seop/entries/adorno/

Click to expand...

My question, based on Luceafarul's linked lecture notes:

Is this "reconciliation" the same as Kant's "enlightment" below? Or am I missing something?

Kant's definition of enlightenment helps us to formulate the notion of the project of enlightenment more clearly. Our task is to become enlightened individuals who are truly autonomous, who choose and set ends for themselves and develop the appropriate means to those ends. Furthermore, we are to do this in a way which respects the freedom of others, and so we are to act in ways that others can rationally consent to, thereby maximizing the amount of freedom in the world. As Kant sometimes puts it, we are always to treat others as ends and never merely as means. If fully carried out, this project would transform the world so as to make it unrecognizable to those of us living in the unenlightened era of today. A world of free individuals who respect and promote not only their own freedom but that of others as well would be a radically different world. This is the goal of the project of enlightenment. Kant recognizes that it is an ideal that we should approach without necessarily being able to attain it in full. Yet it is the highest moral demand made on us, and thus it is to guide all of our actions.

http://www.othervoices.org/cubowman/siren.html

Click to expand...

Is it just me, or is this a simple idea dressed up in pages of verbeage?
Can it be summarised thus:
'There are ends and the means. Humans tend to assume that the ends remain the same and think only about the means. We need to learn always to be assessing whether our ends are appropriate, as well as devising means through which to achieve our ends'?
And about enlightenment, it is the continual reassessing of one's ends, as actions and events change the situation, just as humans naturally reassess what needs to be done to achieve a goal when the situation changes.

Or is enlightenment realising that our ends can be whatever we make them, and therefore are unimportant?

Brighteye said:

Is it just me, or is this a simple idea dressed up in pages of verbeage?
Can it be summarised thus:
'There are ends and the means. Humans tend to assume that the ends remain the same and think only about the means. We need to learn always to be assessing whether our ends are appropriate, as well as devising means through which to achieve our ends'?
And about enlightenment, it is the continual reassessing of one's ends, as actions and events change the situation, just as humans naturally reassess what needs to be done to achieve a goal when the situation changes.

Or is enlightenment realising that our ends can be whatever we make them, and therefore are unimportant?

Click to expand...

A decent summary Brighteye but I'm still very confused as to what is going on in this thread. Not much call for the study of filosofy like this in the Man's World of Wigan.

Ram, very interesting thread, and excuse my spam, but 'Instrumental Reason' would make a great name for a Jazz Greatest Hits album.

edit:

Instrumental Reason - Fifty Years of Jazz

Brighteye said:

Is it just me, or is this a simple idea dressed up in pages of verbeage?
Can it be summarised thus:
'There are ends and the means. Humans tend to assume that the ends remain the same and think only about the means. We need to learn always to be assessing whether our ends are appropriate, as well as devising means through which to achieve our ends'?
And about enlightenment, it is the continual reassessing of one's ends, as actions and events change the situation, just as humans naturally reassess what needs to be done to achieve a goal when the situation changes.

Or is enlightenment realising that our ends can be whatever we make them, and therefore are unimportant?

Click to expand...

It seems to me that Adorno and Horkheimer are suggesting that humans do not "naturally reassess what needs to be done to achieve a goal". Rather the ends define the means for us, and our very thought itself....

Normally, we accept the ends and goals sanctioned by society, and thus simply calculate the means required to attain these ends. (This says nothing about whether or not these values and ends are somehow the rational or proper ones. It is simply a claim about how most of us come to adopt them.) Therefore, we tend to reason instrumentally rather than objectively.

http://www.othervoices.org/cubowman/siren.html

Click to expand...

C~G said:

Edit: One more thing, I believe the new mystification also happens through using specific vocabulary, this is link to Wittgenstein's language games.

Click to expand...

Perhaps coincidentally, this thread is heavy on technical jargon ...

Can anyone please provide some insights and answers into my question in post #9?

Rambuchan said:

It seems to me that Adorno and Horkheimer are suggesting that humans do not "naturally reassess what needs to be done to achieve a goal". Rather the ends define the means for us, and our very thought itself....

Click to expand...

That's what I said: we do not question our ends, but instead use 'instrumental reason' to calculate how to achieve those ends. We are continually reassessing (calculating) how to achieve those ends, but never the ends themselves. These folks want us to assess the ends.

And yes, the reconciliation mentioned is a strange word to choose, but it looks very much like the 'enlightenment' described elsewhere.

Kant's idea of enlightenment seems to reflect that of the Golden Rule, treat others as you would have them treat you. One element of his categorical imperative is "Act so that you treat humanity, both in your own person and in that of another, always as an end and never merely as a means".
He seems to suggest that morals are not something that we should all agree on rather that the rule is innately universal. This universal rule is the goal of enlightenment. He suggests that this goal may never be realized however the importance lies in striving to achieve enlightenment, thus using the rule as a guide for all our actions. He stresses that "it is the highest moral demand made on us".
Many like Brighteye may reject this because it can be seen to deal only in absolutes.

The goal of reconciliation does not necessarily conflict with Kant's goal of enlightenment however they are not the same philosophy. Reconciliation deals more with acceptance rather than accordance.

Kant's categorical imperative is based on his reasoning that we must judge actions by the principles behind them.
If you do something, the 'principle' is that it is right to do such an action. Thus he deduces something very like 'do as you would be done by', but not identical to this rule.
For example, the categorical imperative says that you should not litter, and you should vote, because although 'my actions don't make a difference' it's not the difference that matters: it's the principle. If you are content for no-one to vote and everyone to litter, then you should follow these principles.
This isn't something you can get to from 'do as you would be done by', which only concerns actions towards other people, and not the principles behind the actions.

It's a very good rule, but I disagree with his belief that it's a universal rule. There is no such thing as an innate moral law. It's a nonsensical idea. However, you can easily build the categorical imperative into a social contract. I've got no problem with dealing in absolutes.

Kant's idea of enlightenment was that enlightened people would accept his philosophy. How very broad-minded. For the description posted, it contains the same stuff as the reconciliation/ enlightenment of these German refugees.