Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T09:04:43.121Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Speculation, Dialectic and Critique: Hegel and Critical Theory in Germany after 1945

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2017

Cat Moir
Cat Moir*
Affiliation:
University of Sydney, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

This article challenges the restrictive association of critical theory with the Frankfurt School by exploring the differential reception of Hegel by German critical thinkers on both sides of the Iron Curtain after 1945. In the West, Theodor Adorno held Hegelian ‘identity thinking’ partly responsible for the atrocities of National Socialism. Meanwhile in the East, Ernst Bloch turned Hegel into a weapon against the communist regime. The difference between Adorno and Bloch’s positions is shown to turn on the relationship between speculation, dialectics and critique. Whereas for Adorno Hegelian speculation was the root of dangerous identity thinking, Bloch saw the repression of speculative thought as a cornerstone of totalitarianism. However, it is argued that ultimately Bloch and Adorno were united in their reception of Hegel by a shared understanding that the goal of critical theory, namely the transformation of the social totality, could not be achieved without utopian speculation.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Hegel and Critical Theory , October 2017 , pp. 199 - 220
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abusch, A. (1962), Kulturelle Probleme des sozialistischen Humanismus. Beiträge zur deutschen Kulturpolitik, 1946–1961. Berlin: Aufbau.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. (1993), Hegel: Three Studies. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. (2003), Can One Live after Auschwitz? A Philosophical Reader. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
Adorno, T. (2004), Negative Dialectics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Adorno, T. and Horkheimer, M. (2002), The Dialectic of Enlightenment . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1962), Subjekt–Objekt. Erläuterungen zu Hegel. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1969), Philosophische Aufsätze zur objektiven Phantasie. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1970), Politische Messungen. Pestzeit, Vormärz. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1975), Experimentum Mundi. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1986), The Principle of Hope. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1988), The Utopian Function of Art and Literature. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1991), ‘Ein Tribunal gegen Ernst Bloch Protokolle. Sitzung der Parteigruppe des Präsidialrates des Kulturbundes 12. Dezember 1957 im Gästehaus der Regierung’, UTOPIE kreativ 15: 60–78.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (1998), Literary Essays . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloch, E. (2000), Spirit of Utopia . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodei, R. (1975), Sistema e epoca in Hegel. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
Caysa, V. (1992), ‘Hegel im Bann des anamnestischen Materialismus; contra Ernst Blochs materialistische Anamnesis der Hegelschen Philosophie’, in V. Caysa, P. Caysa and E. Uhl (eds.), “Hoffnung kann enttäuscht warden”: Ernst Bloch in Leipzig. Meisenheim: Anton Hain.Google Scholar
Fetscher, I. (1965), ‘Ernst Bloch auf Hegels Spuren’, in S. Unseld (ed.), Ernst Bloch zu ehren: Beiträge zu seinem Werk. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Frei, N. (2012), Vergangenheitspolitik. Die Anfänge der Bundesrepublik und die NS-Vergangenheit. Munich: Beck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gassert, P. and Steinweis, A. E. (2007), Coping with the Nazi Past: West German Debates on Nazism and Generational Conflict 1955–1975. New York/Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
Gropp, R. O. (1954), ‘Die marxistische dialektische Methode und ihr Gegensatz zur idealistischen Dialektik Hegels’, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie 1: 71–98.Google Scholar
Grotewohl, O. (1948), Die geistige Situation der Gegenwart und der Marxismus. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. (1960), ‘Ein marxistischer Schelling. Zu Ernst Blochs spekulativem Materialismus’, Merkur XIV: 1078–1091.Google Scholar
Hammer, E. (2013), Adorno and the Political. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horkheimer, M. (2002), Critical Theory: Selected Essays. New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
Jay, M. (1984), Marxism and Totality: The Adventures of a Concept from Lukács to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Landmann, M. (1975), ‘Talking with Ernst Bloch: Korcula 1968’, Telos 25: 165–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maker, W. (2000), ‘The Science of Freedom: Hegel’s Critical Theory’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 41: 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, J. and Tar, Z. (1984), Foundations of the Frankfurt School of Social Research. New Brunswick: Transaction Books.Google Scholar
Mendieta, E. (2005), The Frankfurt School on Religion: Key Writings by the Major Thinkers. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ottmann, H. (1977), Individuum und Gemeinschaft bei Hegel. Berlin: de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, G. (2017), Judaism and Modernity: Philosophical Essays. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Shdanow, A. (1951), Über Kunst und Wissenschaft. Kiel: Rotfront.Google Scholar
Sherratt, Y. (2012), Hitler’s Philosophers . New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Stepanow, W. (1946), ‘Die Grundzüge der marxistischen dialektischen Methode’, Neue Welt 7: 3–15.Google Scholar
Stern, R. (2009), Hegelian Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stewart, J. (1996), The Hegel Myths and Legends . Evanston IL: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Warnke, C. (2000), ‘“Das Problem Hegel ist längst gelöst”: Eine Debatte in der DDR der fünfziger Jahre’, in V. Gerhardt and H.-C. Rauh, Anfänge der DDR–Philosophie: Ansprüche, Ohnmacht, Scheitern. Berlin: Ch. Links.Google Scholar
de Warren, N. and Staiti, A. (2015), New Approaches to Neo-Kantianism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmerli, W. (1984), ‘Die Aneignung des philosophischen Erbes. Eine Analyse der Diskussion “Über das Verhältnis des Marxismus zur Philosophie Hegels” in der DDR 1952/1953 bis 1956/1957’, in C. Burrichter (ed.), Ein kurzer Frühling der Philosophie. DDR–Philosophie in der ‘Aufbauphase’. Munich: Schöningh.Google Scholar
Zudeick, P. (1985), Der Hintern des Teufels. Ernst Bloch: Leben und Werk. Elster: Luchterhand.Google Scholar