In this article, I argue that Adorno’s conception of a possible reconciliation with nature is neither one of complete synthesis, nor absolute alienation. The most elaborated formulations regarding the possibility of such a reconciliation, which would be tantamount to a liberated nature, are to be found in Adorno’s aesthetics, and particularly in his discussion of the art–nature relation. The article engages Simon Hailwood’s recent criticism of the concept of the Anthropocene and his discussion of Adorno’s conception of the domination of (...) nature. While I concur with Hailwood’s insistence on the idea of “alienation from nature” in order to reach a more appropriate understanding of our current predicament, his analysis of Adorno’s take on this idea is problematic. I conclude by discussing another recent work on our troubled relationship with nature. While more attentive to artistic expressions than Hailwood’s work, Andreas Malm’s The Progress of This Stormconstitutes an inverted parallel to the former through its negligence of Adorno’s contribution to the discussion of the human–nature dialectic. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that Adorno’s conception of a possible reconciliation with nature is neither one of complete synthesis, nor absolute alienation. The most elaborated formulations regarding the possibility of such a reconciliation, which would be tantamount to a liberated nature, are to be found in Adorno’s aesthetics, and particularly in his discussion of the art–nature relation. The article engages Simon Hailwood’s recent criticism of the concept of the Anthropocene and his discussion of Adorno’s conception of the domination of (...) nature. While I concur with Hailwood’s insistence on the idea of “alienation from nature” in order to reach a more appropriate understanding of our current predicament, his analysis of Adorno’s take on this idea is problematic. I conclude by discussing another recent work on our troubled relationship with nature. While more attentive to artistic expressions than Hailwood’s work, Andreas Malm’s The Progress of This Stormconstitutes an inverted parallel to the former through its negligence of Adorno’s contribution to the discussion of the human–nature dialectic. (shrink)

This article develops a critique of the notion of the Anthropocene through the lens of Adorno’s reading of Beethoven’s late style. The popularisation of the term Anthropocene has been accompanied by the emergence of two seemingly opposed discourses: one response could be characterised in terms of a Promethean faith in science, and the other as a turn towards new materialism. While the differences between those two approaches could hardly appear greater, they converge at their margins: both operate on the assumption (...) that the Anthropocene signifies a nature-culture continuum. It is at this point that Adorno’s work, and, in particular, his thinking on aesthetics can make an important intervention. For Adorno, the recognition of the historical truth of the distinction between history and nature is the driving force of critique, the comportment of which Adorno regards as most clearly expressed in artworks, in particular, in music. I read Adorno’s interpretation of Beethoven’s late works as a contrasting response to a situation that is pervaded by the experience of finitude. In lending form to transience, the compositions of the late Beethoven, as seen through Adorno’s eyes, attain exemplary status for a dialectical rethinking of nature and history: While Beethoven’s compositions of the middle period let history retreat beyond the semblance of reconciled nature, his late style, in turn, makes explicit the historical nature of what has been “naturalised” by the semblance of the reconciled whole. It is precisely in its commitment to negativity that Beethoven’s late style becomes instructive to us in a time of crisis. (shrink)

In The Jargon of Authenticity Adorno criticizes the jargon he argues is to be found amongst followers of Heidegger. He describes it as displaying a fetishizing of understanding as belonging, and as a ground for authenticity, meaning and identity. This article develops the idea that Adorno’s critique also allows us to understand certain aspects of contemporary discussions concerning phenomena such as global warming and the Anthropocene. A common reaction to these phenomena is that we have to make them graspable through (...) stories that make facts comprehensible, and that tie us together in unity and enable understanding. But if we were to follow Adorno, we might, instead of continuing to believe in meaning and communication within a community of understanding that has proven itself to be the part of the problem, try to create poetry that imitates “the dead speaking of stones.” Understanding could then, perhaps, be something else. (shrink)

The article confronts contemporary ecocriticism with Adorno’s concept of natural beauty. If ecocriticism may be understood as a reaction to climate change – the gravity of the situation turns the academic into an activist – a fundamental question often remains unanswered: why should we turn to art if we are facing ecological disaster? The article then presents Adorno’s answer to this question, an answer that is closely tied to his theory of natural beauty. A crucial point in Adorno’s discussion of (...) nature is that we no longer have access to it. We are stuck in a second nature which deprives us of all contact with first nature. But the closest we can get to this absent nature is art, and more precisely natural beauty, which contains both a memory of something lost, and a promise of something yet to come. Therefore the aesthetic experience is a moment where the subject may approach something unknown – something which is not subject, not human – in a non-dominating way. In that sense art may be our best option to get out of the anthropocentrism which prevents us from even understanding the current situation. After a comparison with contemporary theorists like Timothy Morton and Claire Colebrook, the article finally turns to Andrei Tarkovsky’s film The Sacrifice in order to illustrate what the strange combination of memory and promise in natural beauty may look like in practice. (shrink)

The article confronts contemporary ecocriticism with Adorno’s concept of natural beauty. If ecocriticism may be understood as a reaction to climate change – the gravity of the situation turns the academic into an activist – a fundamental question often remains unanswered: why should we turn to art if we are facing ecological disaster? The article then presents Adorno’s answer to this question, an answer that is closely tied to his theory of natural beauty. A crucial point in Adorno’s discussion of (...) nature is that we no longer have access to it. We are stuck in a second nature which deprives us of all contact with first nature. But the closest we can get to this absent nature is art, and more precisely natural beauty, which contains both a memory of something lost, and a promise of something yet to come. Therefore the aesthetic experience is a moment where the subject may approach something unknown – something which is not subject, not human – in a non-dominating way. In that sense art may be our best option to get out of the anthropocentrism which prevents us from even understanding the current situation. After a comparison with contemporary theorists like Timothy Morton and Claire Colebrook, the article finally turns to Andrei Tarkovsky’s film The Sacrifice in order to illustrate what the strange combination of memory and promise in natural beauty may look like in practice. (shrink)

The Anthropocene has been promoted as a potential geological periodization but what kind of history does it imply? It chronicles cumulative social interventions into planetary forces. Its ultimate stakes may well be the parametric conditions of our species survival. In this article, I argue that the Anthropocene compels us to rethink the tradition of universal history. Enlightenment thinkers sought to discern a continuous history of humankind tending toward an upward development. Adorno writes for disappointed times. For him, fragments of history (...) cohere not in species advancement but in catastrophe. What was catastrophic for Adorno remains so for us: modes of production that dominate nature. Despite this, I argue that we should remain wary of the politics of catastrophe. The notion that we are on a course of destruction primes us for knee-jerk policy responses, cynical political co-option or despairing resignation. Adorno navigates a form of history that undercuts the totalizing ambitions of the tradition from which it springs. Negative universal history models ways of attending to the overall forces sweeping the planet precisely in their uneven, local manifestations. (shrink)

In this paper I interrogate the actuality of Adorno’s concept of nature in the light of the contemporary environmental crisis. In particular, I try to understand what happens to the critical force of Adorno’s concept of nature if we accept that a decisive turn has been taken in the domination of nature. I articulate two key aspects of Adorno’s critical theory that I think are important resources for thinking in a time of potential environmental catastrophe, which are the themes of (...) a dialectical understanding of reason and nature and the theme of “lifeless life.” I then question whether two key mediating concepts in Adorno’s dialectic, namely the concepts of self- reflection and self-preservation, need to be rethought. Finally, I consider how the concept of a reconciliation with nature, a concept central to the first generation of the Frankfurt school, can be thought anew in an era marked by ever increasing human domination of nature. (shrink)