Examining the Frankfurt School’s Paradigm of Enlightenment Critique

The Enlightenment is the most important historical and cultural event of the modern West, and its spirit has also become the essence and core of the spirit of modern Western culture. Among the many currents of thought, the Frankfurt School’s critique of the Enlightenment possesses a unique perspective. Its founders, Horkheimer and Adorno, under the influence of the young Marx’s thought, German philosophy of life, existentialism, Freudianism, and early Western Marxism, inaugurated the “critical theory” paradigm concerning the Enlightenment. Their critique of technological rationality and their analysis of the mechanisms of domination in modern society provide a new perspective for profoundly understanding and comprehending, under new historical conditions, the essence of science and technology, the relationship between science and technology and human beings, and the contradictions of capitalism in advanced industrial society. However, this perspective should be subjected to critical scrutiny.

启蒙是西方近代最重要的历史文化事件，其精神也成为西方现代文化精神的本质和核心。在众多思想中，法兰克福学派启蒙批判具有独特的视角，其奠基者霍克海默、阿多尔诺在青年马克思思想、德国生命哲学、存在主义以及弗洛伊德主义、早期西方马克思主义等思潮和理论的影响之下开启了关于启蒙的“批判理论”范式。他们对技术理性的批判、对现代社会统治机制的分析，对于在新的历史条件下深刻认识和理解科学技术的实质、科学技术与人的关系，以及发达工业社会资本主义的矛盾提供了新的视角，但应给予批判的审视。

The Cultural Critical Theoretical Paradigm of the Enlightenment

启蒙的文化批判理论范式

In *Dialectic of Enlightenment*, Horkheimer and Adorno summarize the spirit of the Enlightenment in three aspects. First, the Enlightenment implements a rationalist standpoint. The Enlightenment advocates replacing imagination and myth with reason and knowledge, enabling people to become sober, to shake off ignorance, and to overcome all mysterious forces. Second, the Enlightenment is a kind of anthropocentrism that emphasizes the spirit of subjectivity. The Enlightenment holds that humanity and nature are opposed; humanity either dominates nature or is dominated by nature. The Enlightenment resolutely advocates taking humanity as the center, to conquer and dominate nature. Third, the Enlightenment possesses a progressivist historical and cultural promise, believing that reason, knowledge, and technology are fundamentally progressive forces. The Enlightenment believes that reason has created a beautiful world for humanity and realized human freedom and liberation. However, in the view of Horkheimer and Adorno, as tested by historical practice and actual historical development, the spirit of the Enlightenment has encountered serious problems in modernity and has undergone a tragic transformation. Therefore, this spirit must be subjected to severe critique.

霍克海默、阿多尔诺在《启蒙辩证法》中将启蒙精神概括为三个方面。第一，启蒙贯彻了理性主义立场。启蒙主张以理性和知识代替想象和神话，让人们清醒、摆脱蒙昧，战胜一切神秘的力量。第二，启蒙是一种强调主体性精神的人类中心主义。启蒙认为人与自然是对立的，人要么统治自然，要么被自然所统治。启蒙坚决主张以人为中心，对自然进行征服和统治。第三，启蒙具有进步主义的历史和文化承诺，相信理性、知识、技术在根本上是进步的力量。启蒙相信理性为人类创造了一个美好的世界，实现了人类的自由与解放。然而，在霍克海默、阿多尔诺看来，经历史实践和历史发展的实际检验，启蒙精神在现代出现了严重的问题，发生了悲剧性的转变，因而对这种精神必须给予严厉的批判。

The theoretical paradigm of this critique can be called the “cultural critical paradigm,” which has three main theoretical characteristics. First, Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the Enlightenment emphasizes a “cultural” dimension. What they call culture refers not merely to culture at the level of spiritual concepts, but more importantly to the general mode of human existence and the operational mechanisms and deep-seated patterns of modern society; this paradigm touches upon a universal, intrinsic cultural spirit and deep logic within the historical practice of Western modernity.

这种批判的理论范式可以称为“文化批判范式”，在理论上有三个主要特征。第一，霍克海默、阿多尔诺的启蒙批判侧重一种“文化”的维度。他们所谓的文化并非仅仅指精神观念层面的文化，更重要的是指人的一般性的生存方式和现代社会的运行机制和深层模式；这种范式触及西方现代性历史实践中一种普遍的、内在的文化精神和深层机理。

Second, the theoretical logic of this critique of the Enlightenment is precisely the logic of the theory of alienation. Horkheimer and Adorno reveal three aspects of alienation: the alienation between humanity and nature, the alienation between human beings, and the alienation of the human being from the self. From the perspective of the relationship between humanity and nature, the Enlightenment emphasizes unlimited dominion over nature from an anthropocentric standpoint, which leads to severe opposition and conflict between humanity and nature. The intensification of the ecological crisis proves the narrowness and shortsightedness of Enlightenment concepts. Regarding the relationship between human beings, the Enlightenment endorses the principles of universality and uniformity, advocating the achievement of social totality’s unity through coercive means. The Enlightenment destroyed old inequalities but also brought new modes of domination and rationalized mechanisms of domination. Concerning the relationship of the human being with the self, Horkheimer and Adorno argue that the Enlightenment’s blind veneration of reason and knowledge, in practice, gave rise to technological rationality and instrumental rationality, which led to the self-alienation of the human being. The technological system and mechanized production of modern society sustain human beings, but they also render human nature incomplete and fragmented.

第二，这种启蒙批判的理论逻辑就是异化理论的逻辑。霍克海默、阿多尔诺揭示了三个方面的异化，即人与自然的异化、人与人的异化以及人与自我的异化。从人与自然的关系来看，启蒙从人类中心主义的立场强调对自然的无限统治权，这导致人与自然之间出现了严重的对立与冲突。生态危机的加剧证明了启蒙观念的狭隘和短视。在人与人的关系上，启蒙赞同普遍性、一致性原则，主张通过强制性手段实现社会整体的统一。启蒙摧毁了旧的不平等，也带来了新的统治方式和理性化的统治机制。在人与自我的关系上，霍克海默、阿多尔诺认为启蒙对理性和知识的盲目崇尚在实践中催生了技术理性和工具理性，这导致了人的自我异化。现代社会的技术体系和机器化生产供养了人，但也使人性变得残缺不全。

Third, Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the Enlightenment adheres to a modern humanist cultural value standpoint. The greatest difference between this standpoint and traditional Western humanism lies in its presupposition of a transcendental understanding of life and a humanist position that resists universality. This standpoint mainly inherits the critical stance on reason from philosophers of life such as Nietzsche and Simmel, as well as from social theorist Max Weber, and is also deeply influenced by Marx’s critique of capitalist alienation. Based on this standpoint, they conduct an analysis and critique of various irrational and inhumane phenomena in contemporary capitalist society, especially the new totalitarian mechanisms of domination and the alienated existential predicament of human beings brought about by modernity, in a manner that is culturally radical and culturally pessimistic. In their view, the enlightened reason of the 20th century has become a new myth. The world enlightened by reason is not a world where human nature has truly developed and freedom has been fully realized, but a world of universal alienation. The history of reason no longer appears as progress but has transformed into regression. The comedy of the Enlightenment has turned into tragedy, moving toward self-destruction. The reason and knowledge revered by the Enlightenment have degenerated into instrumental rationality, evolving into the totalitarian rule of technological rationality. The total alienation of humanity in the 20th century is the wound of Enlightenment reason.

第三，霍克海默、阿多尔诺的启蒙批判坚持了一种现代人本主义的文化价值立场。这种立场与西方传统人文主义最大的不同在于预设了反抗普遍性的超越论的生命理解和人本主义立场。这一立场主要继承了生命哲学家尼采、席美尔以及社会理论家马克斯·韦伯等人的理性批判立场，也深受马克思关于资本主义异化批判的影响。基于这种立场，他们对当代资本主义社会的种种不合理、不人道现象，特别是新的极权主义的统治机制以及现代性所带来的人的异化的生存困境等进行了一种文化激进主义、文化悲观主义的分析和批判。在他们看来，被启蒙的理性在20世纪已经成为一个新的神话。被理性启蒙的世界不是一个人性得到真正发展、自由得到全面实现的世界，而是一个普遍异化的世界。理性的历史不再表现为进步，而是转化成了退步。启蒙的喜剧转变成了悲剧，走向了自我摧毁。启蒙所崇尚的理性、知识堕落为工具理性，演变成技术理性的总体性的统治。20世纪人的全面异化是启蒙理性之殇。

The Limits and Limitations of the Enlightenment’s Cultural Critical Paradigm

启蒙文化批判范式的限度与局限

The analysis and critique by Horkheimer and Adorno, based on the cultural philosophical paradigm, of the rationalism, anthropocentrism, and cultural optimism propagated by Enlightenment thought possess significant intellectual and cultural value. This critique helps people in the present era to recognize and grasp the one-sidedness, extremism, and self-contradictory or self-reflexive characteristics of the Western Enlightenment spirit, to reflect on the crises and predicaments of modernity, and to reassess the value of Western culture. Horkheimer and Adorno mainly analyze and reveal the historical and cultural consequences of the Enlightenment spirit from a negative aspect, pointing out the intellectual limitations and limits of the Enlightenment. The main intellectual limitations of Western Enlightenment culture are manifested in its uncritical, blindly optimistic faith in reason, knowledge, and technology; its arrogant and self-willed anthropocentric concept of humanity; and its narrow, conquest-oriented view of nature.

霍克海默、阿多尔诺基于文化哲学范式对启蒙思想所宣扬的理性主义、人类中心主义、文化乐观主义所做的分析和批判具有重要的思想文化价值。这种批判有助于现时代的人认识和把握西方启蒙精神的片面性、极端性和自我矛盾性或自反性特征，反思现代性的危机与困境，重估西方文化的价值。霍克海默、阿多尔诺主要从消极方面分析和揭示了启蒙精神的历史文化后果，指出了启蒙的思想局限和限度。西方启蒙文化主要的思想局限表现在它对理性、知识、技术的非批判的盲目乐观的信仰，对人的刚愎自负的人类中心主义观念以及狭隘的征服论的自然观等方面。

This also makes us clearly recognize that Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the Enlightenment itself has limitations and limits. These limits are mainly in three aspects. First, the Enlightenment that Horkheimer and Adorno discuss and define is not a complete understanding of the Western Enlightenment spirit. The Enlightenment spirit they emphasize and critique mainly focuses on the supremacy of reason, the anthropocentric view of nature, and rational optimism. However, the modern Western cultural Enlightenment is a very broad and extremely complex historical process. Within this process, there is not only the French Enlightenment and the German Enlightenment, but also the British and Italian Enlightenments. The Enlightenment is pluralistic and heterogeneous. The French Enlightenment movement exhibited strong rationalist characteristics, with a pronounced tendency to oppose tradition and religious obscurantism. The British Enlightenment, especially the Scottish Enlightenment, such as Hutcheson and Hume, had conservative and moderate tendencies. They adhered to sentimentalism on issues of ethical practice and did not completely negate the tradition of virtue ethics. The German Enlightenment tradition was also highly differentiated, encompassing both Kant’s veneration of rationalism and the romanticism and expressionism of Goethe, Herder, and others, which emphasized individuality, sensibility, and irrationality. Horkheimer and Adorno’s critique of the Enlightenment mainly targets the French-style Enlightenment of Descartes, Voltaire, and others. Therefore, this critique is limited in its validity.

这也让我们清醒地认识到，霍克海默、阿多尔诺的启蒙批判本身存在着局限与限度。这些限度主要有三个方面。首先，霍克海默、阿多尔诺所谈论和界定的启蒙并非对西方启蒙精神的完整理解。他们所强调和批判的启蒙精神主要侧重于理性至上论、人类中心主义的自然观以及理性乐观主义。然而，近代西方的文化启蒙是一个范围很广、极其复杂的历史进程，在这一进程中不仅有法国的启蒙、德国的启蒙，也有英国、意大利的启蒙。启蒙是多元的、异质的，法国的启蒙运动表现出强烈的理性主义特征，具有浓厚的反传统、反宗教蒙昧主义倾向。英国的启蒙特别是苏格兰启蒙如哈奇逊、休谟等具有保守温和的倾向。他们在伦理实践问题上坚持情感主义，也没有完全否定德性论传统。而德国的启蒙传统也是高度差异化的，既有康德对理性主义的崇尚，也有歌德、赫尔德等强调个性、感性和非理性的浪漫主义、表现主义等。霍克海默、阿多尔诺的启蒙批判主要指向笛卡尔、伏尔泰等人的法国式启蒙，所以，这种批判在有效性上是有限度的。

Second, Horkheimer and Adorno’s cultural critique of the Enlightenment does not truly and thoroughly adhere to a historical standpoint. The analysis and examination of the Enlightenment cannot be separated from its historicity. On the one hand, the historicity of the Enlightenment lies in its primary target: the historical and cultural obscurantism of European feudal autocracy and religious obscurantism. On the other hand, as a modern spirit, the Enlightenment provided cultural impetus for the construction of modern society and historical development. The Enlightenment provided a genuine spiritual force for the discovery of humanity and human freedom and liberation. This is an important legacy of the Enlightenment and also the spiritual foundation of modern civilization. Moreover, the Enlightenment still has constructive significance for contemporary society’s self-understanding of humanity and the defense of human nature. Therefore, the historical progressiveness of the Enlightenment is beyond doubt, even though the Enlightenment is not perfect.

其次，霍克海默、阿多尔诺对启蒙的文化批判并没有真正彻底坚持历史性的立场。对待启蒙不能脱离启蒙的历史性来分析和考察。一方面，启蒙的历史性在于其主要针对欧洲封建专制主义和宗教蒙昧主义的历史文化遮蔽；另一方面，启蒙作为现代精神为现代社会的构建和历史发展提供了文化推动力。启蒙为人的发现、人的自由解放提供了真实性的精神力量。这是启蒙的重要遗产，也是现代文明的精神基础。不仅如此，启蒙对于当代社会人的自我理解和人性捍卫依然具有建设性意义，所以启蒙的历史进步性不容置疑，尽管启蒙并不完善。

Finally, is it reasonable to attribute the civilizational predicament and the crisis of modernity, as revealed by the theme of alienation, to enlightenment itself? Horkheimer and Adorno directed the main thrust of their critique at the spirit of enlightenment itself, a stance that identifies reason, knowledge, and technology as bearing original sin. They traced the roots of alienation and crisis to the process of rationalization, which is a cognitive error; this critical paradigm is an ahistorical mode of critique. In our view, reason itself is not self-sufficient, and the cultural concept of reason is inherently incapable of bearing such a historical responsibility. Cultural concepts take effect only through their integration with other historical factors within the overarching historical structure and through the conscious practical activity of human beings.

最后，由异化主题揭示出来的文明困境和现代性危机归因于启蒙本身是否合理？霍克海默、阿多尔诺将批判的锋芒主要指向了启蒙精神本身，这种立场指认理性、知识和技术本身具有原罪。他们将异化和危机的根源归因于理性化进程，这是一种认识误区，这种批判范式是一种非历史的批判方式。在我们看来，理性本身不是自足的，理性的文化观念本身无力承担起这样的历史责任。文化观念发生作用，是通过在总体性的历史结构中与其他历史因素的结合，并通过人的自觉的实践活动实现的。

Reason and knowledge are not inherently hostile to life; they possess a dual character. The negativity of science and reason stems both from the imperfection of science itself and from the blindness of human activity and its inhuman application. The catastrophes of humanity in the 20th century were not solely disasters caused by reason; irrationality is hardly blameless. What ultimately determines behind instrumental reason are irrational interests and desires. Without reference to irrationality, it is impossible to understand reason and the historical consequences of its negativity. Just as Nietzsche theoretically correctly perceived the irrational background of reason and knowledge—namely, the will to power—yet directed his critique not against irrationality but against reason itself, Horkheimer and Adorno, along with later deconstructionist thinkers such as Foucault, followed the same path. Thus, this critique does not fully hit the mark and is, in fact, not thoroughgoing in its critical spirit. Various forms of irrationality, as well as actual social institutions such as the power of capital and institutional design, should also be subjected to examination and critique. The error of the cultural critique theory lies in its failure to conduct a comprehensive historical and practical analysis of the true roots of reason. From this perspective, although Horkheimer and Adorno endorsed the humanist spirit of Marxism and its critical spirit toward capitalism, they fundamentally failed to adhere to the stance of historical materialism.

理性、知识并非在本性上与生命相敌对，它们具有双重性。科学、理性的负面性既来自科学本身的不完善，也源自人的活动的盲目性和非人道的使用。20世纪人的灾难不仅是理性导致的灾难，非理性也难以免责。在工具理性背后起决定作用的是非理性的利益和欲望。脱离非理性，无法理解理性及其负面性的历史后果。正如尼采在理论上正确地看到了理性、知识的非理性背景即权力意志，但是却没有将批判指向非理性，而是拒斥了理性。霍克海默、阿多尔诺包括后来的解构主义思想家福柯等也步其后尘。所以，这种批判并未完全切中要害，在批判精神上实际上也并不彻底。各种非理性以及实际的社会建制如资本的力量、制度设计也应该一同受到检省和批判。文化批判理论的误区在于他们没有对理性的真正根源作出总体性的历史分析和实践分析。由此看来，霍克海默、阿多尔诺虽然认同了马克思主义的人本精神和对资本主义的批判精神，却没有在根本上坚持历史唯物主义的态度。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗