Is Adorno’s Plea for the Primacy of Theory Still Appropriate?
In a world demanding immediate climate action, can we still afford to prioritize theory? This essay delves into Adorno’s arguments for theoretical primacy and explores their relevance today. It tackles the tension between urgent action and the necessity of critical reflection, asking whether effective change is possible without a solid theoretical foundation.
1 Nuances of the Present
The geophysical reality basically only allows for the conclusion that immediate and radical action is necessary. Only in this way could it be possible to limit the catastrophe to a more manageable scale. For this reason, it would probably occur to few to assert a primacy of theory over practice with regard to the present. Nevertheless, this is precisely the diagnosis we should make. Although time is painfully pressing, a collective understanding of the social obstacles to successful action is the most important requirement. Otherwise, the climate movement threatens to increasingly fall into senseless activism and possibly even harm the cause. This lesson can be drawn from the writings of Theodor W. Adorno, regarding which Fabian Freyenhagen (2014) pointedly states: “Adorno’s stance consists in the view that people in the 1960s have tried to change the world, in various ways; the point - at that time - was to interpret it.” As I will argue below, this maxim remains valid today, albeit under changed circumstances.
2 The Danger of Actionism
In a Nutshell
The essay begins by acknowledging the urgent need for climate action, seemingly prioritizing practice. However, it argues for the continued relevance of Adorno's emphasis on theory.
It explains Adorno's 1960s focus on theory as a response to concerns that revolutionary practice could lead to authoritarianism and violence, with theory providing necessary reflection and analysis.
The author then contrasts the present day with the 1960s, noting reduced risks of left-wing authoritarianism but highlighting the danger of unreflective "actionism" in the climate movement.
Drawing on Nancy Fraser, the essay emphasizes the need for a collective theoretical understanding to guide effective action.
While acknowledging the importance of immediate action and activism, the essay concludes by reiterating the enduring importance of Adorno's emphasis on theory for achieving meaningful and sustainable change.
According to Adorno, the primacy of theory lay in its capacity to provide the necessary reflection. Although he also attested that theory was compromised by the historical circumstances (cf. ibid., p. 873), he emphasized that it is capable of analyzing mistakes that were made in the past in theory and practice (cf. ibid., p. 874). Furthermore, Adorno identifies a decisive difference in that “thought has - at least in the current context - more resources to avoid negative, unintended repercussions than praxis” (ibid., p. 873). This means he sees it as less susceptible to authoritarianism and the passive reproduction of the status quo (cf. ibid., p. 874). Overall, theory thus appears as a necessary precondition for successful practice. The role that Adorno assigns to it is not the provision of “immediate, concrete instructions or directives for praxis” (ibid. 874). It can (corresponding to Hegel’s owl of Minerva) only reflect on what has already happened and bring it to consciousness (cf. ibid.). He presents theory as a specific form of practice that is both resistant because it questions and counteracts distortions of consciousness, and provides a foundation on which revolutionary activity can build (cf. ibid. 876 f.). Adorno found such a foundation lacking at that time (cf. ibid., p. 874).
Today, the situation is of course different. Adorno’s concern about left-revolutionary authoritarianism was strongly influenced by the devastations caused by nominally socialist regimes (cf. ibid., p. 869), as well as by corresponding tendencies within the student movement (cf. ibid., p. 872), from which, as we know today, the RAF, among other things, developed. It seems as if Adorno wanted to distance himself as much as possible from such phenomena, which is why he was fundamentally critical of confrontational practices (cf. ibid., p. 880). Such an attitude is at least controversial in contemporary political theory (cf. Celikates 2016). In view of the unfolding climate crisis, voices are also growing louder that legitimize militant protest (cf. Malm 2021). Perhaps Adorno would nowadays consider political violence permissible even within nominally liberal democracies. After all, he did consider violent resistance against fascist regimes to be legitimate (cf. Freyenhagen 2014, 880), and the brutality of the profit-driven global elites, who have knowingly brought about and continue to drive the climate crisis, is quite comparable to such regimes (which does not necessarily mean that such a comparison would be advisable). Moreover, there is no real reason to warn against the emergence of a climate RAF or even a climate dictatorship. Thus, as far as Adorno’s more specific concerns are concerned, there are at least doubts as to whether they are still appropriate today. Added to this is the contradiction that apparently exists between the urgency of the situation and the demand for a stronger focus on theory. It could therefore be understandably argued that a primacy of practice prevails today. However, this is a dangerous short circuit that (it seems to me) is widespread. Exemplary of this are Greta Thunberg’s well-known words at the 2019 World Economic Forum: “I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act. I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if the house is on fire. Because it is.” 1
Adorno's stance consists in the view that people in the 1960s have tried to change the world, in various ways; the point - at that time - was to interpret it.
Thunberg is of course not to be blamed here, especially since the quote is easily taken out of context and she was speaking not to the climate movement but to the elites mentioned. I am repeating her words here because they perfectly capture what Adorno calls activism: action driven by necessity for the sake of action, unreflective and disoriented, possibly legitimate in the face of catastrophe, but certainly not constructive (cf. ibid., pp. 882 f.). Or, to stay with the roughly simplified image, our house is on fire, but it is a phosphorus fire and a fire brigade is not available. In such a moment, it is obviously advisable to pause, think, seek further opinions, and only then act. In reality, there is no such temporal sequence, but there is a logical one. This can be justified as follows, with Nancy Fraser:
On the one hand, more and more people see climate change as a threat to life as we know it on planet Earth. On the other hand, they have no common idea of the social forces that drive this process, nor of the social changes that are necessary to stop it. They agree scientifically (more or less), but disagree politically (more rather than less). [...] The task is to dissolve the current cacophony of opinions into an ecopolitical common sense that can give direction to a broad-based transformation process.
3 Relevance of Adorno Today
Thus, even today, the necessary theoretical preconditions for successful practice are lacking. Otherwise, it is of course also true in this regard that things are very different today. I consider it central that today, more than in the 1960s, it should also be about tangible social functional problems. On the other hand, it no longer seems appropriate today to display a fundamental skepticism towards immediate action. A reformist climate policy, also called the energy transition, is urgently needed to mitigate the damage and buy time; and even insufficiently theoretically underpinned activism can have a decisive influence on the collective consciousness, as the case of Greta Thunberg impressively demonstrates. However, it should always be borne in mind (especially in the case of confrontational protest) that it can also have negative consequences. The impression must not be reinforced that climate protection is directed against the majority. Otherwise the thread of a massive backlash toward fossil fascism looms large (cf. Malm and Zetkin Collective 2021)