The Dialectics of Enlightenment and Its Discontents

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Professor, Department of Social Science and Law, Center of Strategic Studies, Kurdistan Institution for Strategic Studies; Suleimanieh, Iraqi Kurdistan

Abstract

On a broad scale, The Dialectic of Enlightenment re-conceptualizes the concept of enlightenment and its close association to mythical thinking. Through the meaning of Myth, Horkheimer and Adorno sought to challenge the mainstream meaning of enlightenment. However, why did The Enlightenment fall into the trap of mythical thinking again? Why does mythical thinking persist despite the ongoing progress of The Enlightenment ? The myth semantically includes a twofold connotation: the genre, and the dark side of rationality. The Enlightenment has a mythological foundation that manifests itself in control, exploitation, and destruction tendencies. The power-knowledge relations are foregrounded as long as the overcoming of fear is resolved. Additionally, rationality is reduced to a control instrument and a monopoly of power. This paper thus focuses on the significance of the authors' criticism of the hidden agenda of the Enlightenment. It also addresses the paradox and dialectical aspect of myth and enlightenment within the historical and sociopsychological framework. The study demonstrates the discrepancy between the edefinition of myth referred to in the arguement and F. W. J. Schilling's framework of thought, which is not explicitlymentioned in the text. The key findings are the contradiction between rationality and its outcome as a counterproductive force. The progress in human civilisation results in the self-reversion toward the myths. The Enlightenment was not thus the antithesis of myth, but a sub-category of myth. 

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Dialectic of Enlightenment. London- New York: Stanford University Press, 2002.
Bataille, Georges. The Absence of Myth in Writings on Surrealism. London: Verso, 1994.
Beiser, Frederick. "The Enlightenment and Idealism." Ameriks, Karl. The Cambridge companion to German Idealism, Second edition. Indiana: University of Notre Dame, 2017. 21-42.
Berman, Marshall. All that ls Solid Melts into Air: The Experience of Modernity. Penguin Book, 1988.
Fischbach, Franck. "Adorno and Schelling How to Turn Philosophical Thought Towards the Nonidentical." British Journal for the History of Philosophy (2014 Vol. 22, No. 6): 1167–1179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09608788.2015.1004621.
Greene, Doug Enaa and Harrison Fluss. Hegel, Enlightenment, and Revolution. 26 July 2020. https://www.leftvoice.org/.
FÖLDÉNYI, LÁSZLÓF. Dostoyevsky Reads Hegel in Siberia and Bursts into Tears. Yale University Press: New Haven and London, 2020.
Frye, W. T. Man the Myth-Maker. Harcourt: Brace Jovanovich INC, 1973.
Grumley, John. " The Dialectic of Enlightenment Reconsidered." Critical Horizons (2019). To cite this article: John Grumley (2019): The Dialectic of Enlightenment Reconsidered, Critical Horizons, DOI: 10.1080/14409917.2019.1563998.
Habermas, J. "The Entwinement of Myth and Enlightenment: Horkheimer and Adorno." Journal of New German Critique, Issue 26 (1982): 13-30.
Horkheimer, Max. Eclipse of Reason. London- New York: Continuum, 2004.
Land, Nick. The Dark Enlightenment. Imperium Press, 2014.
Noerr, Gunzelin Schmid. "Edtior's Afterword." Adorno, Theodor and Max Horkheimer. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Stanford University Press, 2002. 217-247.
Pelluchnon, Corine. Leo Strauss and the Crisis of Rationalism: Another Reason, Another Enlightenment. Sunny Press, 2014.
Wiggershaus, R. Dialektiek der Afuflarun: Een te Radicale Maatschappelijke Kritiek. Munchen: Hanser, 1986.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 21 June 2025
  • Revise Date: 27 October 2025
  • Accept Date: 11 November 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics