Governing through conflict on Adorno's critique of postwar sociology

The mass media have tried to idealize the fifties, in retrospect, as an age of innocence. They did not seem that way to me or to most of my contemporaries. A chronic state of international emergency led to the erosion of civil liberties at home and the militarization of American life. (Lasch, 1991, p. 25) The “chronic state of international emergency,” the result of increasing tension between the USA and the USSR, and intensified by the revolutionary events in China in the late 1940s and the proclamation of the Truman doctrine and McCarthyism in the USA, led to an increasing militarization of everyday life worldwide. One of the opening scenes of Europa 51, directed by Roberto Rossellini, deals with this belligerent atmosphere: after hearing that Andrea Casati (Ettore Giannini) is a journalist, one of the guests at a dinner party asks him if there will be war or peace and then adds that she thinks another war will begin. This scene was shot six years after the end of the war, and it is indicative of how fears concerning a new war prevalent among Europeans. The modern Welfare State and its accelerated support of academic sociology are the responses of a modern middle class which is both entrenched and threatened. No longer living under the shadow of restorationism, it is a middle class that has great influence on the society and state apparatus. At the same time, this middle class is threatened by the development of international communism and by the collapse of its influence abroad. It is threatened also by growing internal crises at home, by the demands of dissident social strata, like the racially subjugated, the students, the welfare dependents. (Gouldner, 1972, p. 161) This postwar middle class believed that it was possible to solve the “social problem” (i.e., the “demands of dissident social strata” and “the welfare dependents”) through expert administration and the development of social engineering. This configuration was an answer to the fears of another war and to the rise of Communism. The main agenda, then, both the United States and in Europe was the maintenance of the new social pact. In this context, the development of academic sociology was also driven by the need of contain social struggles and conflicts. (1) Societies are relatively stable social orders; (2) The elements of these orders—individuals and social groups—are in a kind of state of equilibrium or balance. (3) All elements within the whole contribute to its functioning. (4) Societies integrate themselves through consensus on common values and norms. (Celikates, 2007, p. 214–215) Understood in this way, Parsons’ social system is a totality in relative equilibrium, where its elements contribute for its maintenance, and it expressed the image of stability that was desired by the postwar middle classes referred to by Gouldner. Functional sociology conceives itself as a science of purely “social” relationships, which premises that social order can be maintained regardless of the level and distribution of economic gratifications, and thus treats economic arrangements as “givens.” (Gouldner, 1972, p. 343) In this sense, for Parsons, society is made up of pure “social relationships,” and integration is a matter of moral motivation, of social actors’ “value-orientation,” and has little to do with economic reparations. But this theoretical model soon seemed inadequate to the demands of its time, since economic compensations were in the core of the welfare state. Whereas functionalism considers moral commitment as the crucial condition for social stability, social integration was being guaranteed in reality through progressive income taxation, democratic accountability, and social leveling. But before analyzing the decline of the functionalist paradigm, it is important to examine one of its most influential outcomes in Western sociology: the modernization theory. … Underneath the ideological conflicts between capitalism and communism that have been so prominent, there has been emerging an important element of wide consensus at the level of values, centering in the complex we often refer to as “modernization.” (Parsons apud Gilman, 2003, p. 103) Modernization was thus understood as an automatic and broad process, regardless of the prevalent economic system (communism or capitalism). According to its theorists, “impersonal features”—such as urbanization, instruction, and mass communication—would systemically lead archaic ways of life to homogeneous and equalitarian situations (Lasch, 1991, p. 158). Ultimately, it would provide traditional societies with the resources for what Parsons would later call in the 1960s “a general process of adaptive ‘upgrading’, including economic takeoff to industrialization, democratization via law, and secularization and science via education” (Parsons apud Alexander, 1995, p. 11). That is what, in this context, came to be known as the “convergence thesis.” According to this view, replacing old standards and habits by “better ones” would result in a situation of homogeneity worldwide, which would finally lead to progress. This “systemic” process was to be replicated in various areas of life and territories of the world by experts and technicians from several fields. Modernization was broadly used as a theoretical framework to understand post-war changes in impoverished parts of the world—and, eventually, intervene in these areas (Gilman, 2003, p. 94). In spite of being sometimes characterized as a “spontaneous” development, it consisted in a highly stratified process, guided by a scientific elite. Parsons, for example, assumed that an increasing complex system supposed greater differentiation and stratification of its elements. In this sense, he argues that “systems of stratification in certain respects are seen to have positive functions in the stabilization of social systems” (Parsons, 1949, p. 26). In other words, the good functioning of the social machinery supposed that each element has a certain function within the hierarchical gradation of the system.11 In fact, Parsons had a significantly different position on this matter after 1937. At that time, he considered differentiation and rationalization features for destabilizing, polarizing, and antidemocratic effects of social systems. By that time, he repeatedly took Germany as a model. In his later works, however, his perspective changed. “After 1947, Parsons took the United States as the type case for his studies of social change, relegation Nazi Germany to the status of deviant case” (Alexander, 1995, p. 50). In other words, in the late 1940s, Parsons started to perceive stratification and differentiation as natural consequences of the system's complexification. Due to this sharp elitist perspective, the communication specialist Ithiel de Sola Pool had called the modernization theorists “mandarins of the future” (Gilman, 2003, p. 8). In the new states “modern” means democratic and equalitarian, scientific, economically advanced and sovereign. “Modern” states are “welfare states,” proclaiming the welfare of all the people and especially the lower classes as their primary concern. (…) Modernity entails democracy, and democracy in the new states is, above all, equalitarian. (…) It believes the progress of the country rests on rational technology, and ultimately on scientific knowledge. (…) All this requires planning and the employment of economists and statisticians, conducting surveys to control the rates of savings and investments, the construction of new factories, the building of roads and harbors, the development of railways, irrigation schemes, (…). “Modernization” means being western without the onus of following the West. It is the model of the West detached in some way from its geographical origins and locus. (Shils, apud Gilman, 2003, p. 2) Understood on its own terms, modernization theory was the fruit of American social scientists’ effort to build a comprehensive theory not only for understanding what was happening in postcolonial regions, but also for promoting change that would make these regions become more like “us”—and less like the Russians or the Chinese. (Gilman, 2003, p. 3) Interestingly, by the 1950s, a significant number of western sociologists considered that the modernization process was the clear demonstration for the fact that the differences between capitalism and communism were being increasingly dissolved. They believed that by implementing planning policies, western nations were not pure forms of capitalism any longer. According to Howard Brick, a kind of “post-capitalist” (or even “post-economic”) perspective was widespread among sociologists at the time. In 1954, Raymond Aron claimed that “socialism ceased to be a myth in the West since it had become part of reality” (apud Brick, 2006, p. 6) and Parsons stated that the dichotomy between capitalism and communism was no longer applicable because American society was not simply capitalist any more (Brick, 2006, p. 20). Nevertheless, some critical theorists such as Theodor W. Adorno never subscribed to these interpretations. His criticisms of modernization theory and of functionalism in general converged with the moment when this theory was being increasingly questioned. The protest movements against the Vietnam war that took place during 1968, as well as the civil rights struggles in the USA and the liberation wars in the colonies had an important impact on the postwar consensus among the middle classes. Adorno became a leading theoretical reference for the protesting youth in Germany due to his permanent skepticism and critical attitude towards the promises of welfare and modernization. Economic intervention is not, as the older liberal school believed, an alien element grafted on from outside, but an intrinsic part of the system, the epitome of self-defense. Nothing could provide a more significant illustration of the concept of dialectic. (Adorno, 2003, p. 122) Welfare-state mass democracy is an arrangement that renders the class antagonism still built into the economic system innocuous, under the condition, however, that the capitalist dynamics of growth, protected by measures of state intervention, do not grow weak. (Habermas, 1985, p. 350) Thus, state intervention was not responsible for transcending capitalism, but for saving it. The generalized idea that capitalism would be overcome gradually, as Jean Jaurès had suggested, in the early 20th century, with his maritime metaphor that described the advent of socialism—suggesting that capitalism would be overcome in the long run through successive reforms in such a way that one would not notice when socialism will already be a reality33 “Aware of having crossed the line of a hemisphere—not that they have been able to see as they crossed it a cord stretched over the ocean warning them of their passage, but that little by little they have been led into a new hemisphere by the progress of their ship” (Jaurès 1903 apud Rodgers, 1998, p. 17).—would be nothing more of capitalism as a these could only be at the of and to be to by economic have long since ceased to be the they in and their (Adorno, 2003, p. which long seemed to have been to the state of the of no one on the to there will be and are the same be by the of through the rational of the whole society as (Adorno, p. Adorno did not that the general were for the lower classes years in but he did not this fact as an that capitalism was the of general According to the fact that of people still the most advanced condition, that was not as or rational process as it a the common that modernization is a process, to which country would progress towards one and the same of homogeneity In Adorno argues the the and are by no means of the they are for the (Adorno, p. The fact that modernization was a highly kind of development was which was by the (1) are being and can only be understood from a they do not to an type and do not towards (2) Societies of and social have a to one (3) This permanent social (4) integration is also on and and place or only by (Celikates, 2007, p. In this it is possible to see how society is Whereas for social towards equilibrium, theorists them as since and are not from the They on the elements to these have common such as the of of and the on system The crucial is that one the of consensus and the other the of theory during the as an to ways to solve internal conflicts in a had become because it that social system not need a because it is of as it conceives of the among or on the model of a of a welfare (Gouldner, 1972, p. by social as highly stable and Parsons could not provide a of that within the In this sense, early functionalism was inadequate for as it was that social reality was not towards A model had only to and to it In an of that was considered to be p. stated that the American had the theory to being with or for the the highly of the new she we we the they are people the when they of their p. Interestingly, the of the modern theory a it them and the idea of which would be widespread in of the welfare from the it can be that “the of social science by both for welfare and (Gouldner, 1972, p. The in had a perspective, being of as an to with In the the state of Adorno the state of of various of the sociology in his and already the function for that characterized modern as a the sociology of This also in the postwar years and was to more on the tension between and According to the “social was to the pure of of a p. the of the 1950s, this theory thus means by which conflicts within a could be theorists, sociologists to see social as an to be they considered it as of the By they and the idea of this Adorno as an it had of “the from which had on the one from the of social democracy, on the from the and of by the permanent p. The by the of theory and the between the and the way to a which of the between social it as an social It itself from the of of the functioning of the social machinery into It is not for nothing that the dichotomy of and is the to which the of Parsons which is to have an in in Germany p. The influence of functionalist sociology could be among other in the idea that the good functioning of the “social is to be Adorno had he a common with his own that is, in the of the of over positive But on a this According to the functionalist theory had a perspective these them as a on the is by the of these not them but (Adorno, 2003, p. such as the of and the of he how they their own that is, its of that the functionalist theory could not in social are not in which can be from view, not in its own into the a That is to that the not as in and to them by the of the scientific It is more of the and that its But because in certain between of as the of and reality it is of the core of social In and Adorno the of antagonism between and society and Parsons’ and the Parsons’ a between the and the general in a progressive Adorno an antagonism (Adorno, p. has to a for his his of a of the of and for an society to its from the In other words, the that the of to reality in a with the state of This means to the opening of no can be for it would then be of process and as well as as well as and conflicts within them are by no means p. In this way, to theory from which assumed that conflicts were by some that could be as well as social conflicts as in development and these theorists to understanding as an of Adorno and its influence over the of in a in during the to This was even expressed there is life in there is thus societies are as not by the or of but only the and of p. sociologists referred to by never in due to fears of being with theorists of on conflicts in order to make them relatively less to system society that internal conflicts on itself from the of a into the apud p. these words, argues by an of chronic into the functionalist equilibrium, the system could become less to a and That is an would be a It is that The society and its was in and claimed a liberal and of with the model of theory. The process of is not that place social conflicts and or in spite of It through the at the same society in the in the of there is and that antagonism which could at any society to and it. (Adorno, p. and were social values for functionalist both for consensus and for the of the functioning of the social for his claimed that the process of integration was its and there is no it will be a or a (Adorno, p. social progress can have both a like or an a that the by the between the for the of the and the for social lead to socialism or to like was in a society that to p. the its which or later will the development of late capitalism are as they are both for their and for Adorno did not the economic crises of the the of the but he in a sense, the decline of social In this sense, one could that this is not a in a of social but a of social some years after Adorno could the of the be capitalism, which has from a to the by class the class at a The system of late capitalism is by a of which the of the to such an that the built into the of society with the of is the one that with the apud p. The integration of the class by the of and with each other the of at the same time, and the p. Thus, an of the of the and its if its is it is an ideological since it the maintenance of this and not its is not on the any only the theory of social modern theory not to a theory of but a theory of the most of the democracy is the through p. According to this is the condition of of the social system, as well as the condition of progress. and are without the conflicts be a social without become and progress. … the core of this theory is that without without the antagonism of like progress not social the the of is to be as the so to of living social life. p. for the within the liberal democracy to the of the same since it and the antagonism in the capitalist the of and what it (Adorno, p. is thus to the same from which progress would be able to this of the of the system into the more the system the more it into what it has (Adorno, p. can be it the condition for a progress that is the of the The the of the is expressed in social sometimes where integration has not been sometimes in the of the world of from which the process sometimes in the of are to as or p. the of by the idea of “social can through social described by the of the world of This in the by in on is that that it has never itself with the the for its is by the events which have been by other as being one of the world of p. and In these social antagonism to be able to through the of by itself in life. This can in for has not been as as in are with to with the economic will under But the of the on the the to an the to the and to the of society even they not be to and under But the of being the social economic have long been with other and have their on the In the of this has become it is not for nothing that the in by means the fact of being and the of in the economic (Adorno, 1968, p. A in the of the is, no less the that is the of a of This is on on a moment that both economic and the (Adorno, 1968, p. the functionalist that integration to place through a rational and Adorno states that it not to on in the of In Adorno that is that the its most its is (Adorno, is the of that both and is to the of the It can be described as and that only that they simply and not on which they are able to The of the system as But the that the of social can its own and for the have been as a By the of the welfare state a way of with social which to be in this sociology was used as for social during the and the in which theory was to the and in order to among and other social during the this model came to be and the of late capitalist societies to be such as the of and are in movements in the years the fact that for social conflicts are In some this is being as a of or as a The idea of a element of both the of postwar and the postwar is also in in the has been and the idea of is in its the the of of simply nothing like what Parsons one were to to generalized to the new then it would seem to of a process of growing from the of and the of the on which they p. … employment and all these of the of to to such an that in the age of people are in the process already themselves to be it in be (Adorno, p. The new of being is that Adorno several in the late 1960s but in this he it as the for the of This process be understood also however, it is no longer possible to to the system of compensations of the postwar the postwar social was only possible as long as economic was because the system already its it to be to the social order of the welfare state. the with the means to it. Adorno even if the of and social to have a the of society would not be they would be The of each in be to with the of is a at the and an at the in and at the of is social and social antagonism in Theodor W. social theory.