Focus Fall 1996.tif Adorno's 'Ban ' on Poetry After Auschwitz l Jeffrey D . Todd o doubt many of you will be acquainted with Theodor W. Adorno 's controversial di ctum "[ ... ] nac h Ausch wit z. e in Gedic ht zu sc hreiben ist barba risch [ ... ]." And all hough Adorno has :l great many friends in the Ameri can academy, you m ight well bt: infu­ riated by this particular statement . It is remarkable, among other things, fo r its LO ne: it has o f len been referred to as a "verdict" for the reaso n that it sounds legislative, law-givi ng, as if the co-auth or of a hook on the authoriucian personality1 had learned too much fro m bis subjecl. This provocative declaration has had bOlh irs adherents and its oppo­ nents, and has elicited a great number of responses in p OSt-Waf Ger­ man literature, a choice sampling of which is to be foun d in Petr.l Kiedaisch's recem iy published Reclarn volume emitled Lyrtk nach Auschwitz? Adorno lind die Dzehler. 3 Wh at I propose lOday is to ex­ amine criticall y Adorno's dictum in the context of the essay in which it was publ ished, as well as speak briefl y about so me of the fo ll ow-up statements he made, in which he which amplifies, qualifies, and fi ­ nall y retracts his o ri ginal pron oun cement. It is nOLewo n hy thaL Adorno 's dictum , t hough ofren cited, is seldom read closely ,mel in conrext. It is cen.ainly permissible to leave out a discussion of the o riginal context when the main point of an essay is someth ing other than Adorno's S13tementi it is also understandable, in considerati on of the pains awaiting those who would read Ado rno in the o rigi nal. But it is sti ll a risky business: risky because. when you read Adorno's stateme nt in context, your understanding is very different t h an when you re.ld it out of context. H ere is lhe original pronouncement in its immedi ate context from the essay "Kulturkri ti k und GeseUschaft ," written in 1949, pub­ lished singl y in 1951: Focm on LiteratlOr Vol. J , No. 1 (1996) 148 Focus on Literalltr Kulturkritik finder sich cler letzten Stu fe cler Dialektik von Kultur und Barbarei gegeniiber: nach Auschwitz ein Gedicht 2U schreiben, ist barbarisch, und das frilh auch die Erkenmnis .In, die ausspricht. wamm es unmogl ich ward, heme Gedichte zu schreiben. Dcr absoluten Verdingl ichung, die den FOl15chriu des Geistes als cines ihrer Elemente voraussetzte und die ihn heute gaozlich aufzusaugen sich anschickc, ist clef kritische Geist nicht gewachsen, solange er bei sich bleibt in selbstgenugsamer Kontemplation (30). So concludes the essay. Key concepts for Adorno's argument are: "Barbarei," "Dialektik," "Kri l ik," "Kultur," "Kulturkritik," "Verdinglichung," and "Geist." You will notice that the word "Auschwitz" was left out . The way Adorno's phrase is commonly bandied about, one wou ld think that the relation between Auschwitz. and poetry was the focal point of Adorno's essay. It is not. In fact, Auschwitz is only meOlioned this once. The actual focal poim of Adorno's essay is his criticism of the culture industry. Let us examine some salient aspects of that critique. Adorno's fundamental theoretical construct, though often not employed in an explicit manner, is a dialeClic of sorts. As is well known, that dialectic contains tWO antagonistic terms, a thesis and an antith­ esis. Adorno then applies this theoretical consu-uct to the soci al or­ der. The primary given, the thesis of the dialectic, is the socio-eco­ nomic base. Adorno's term in (h is essay for that social order, which he deems to be pro foundly unjust, is wBarbarei." This way of refer­ ring to the social order is absolutely negative, and therefore makes it difficult to speak of anything positive within that order. And in fact, Adorno really does nOt have anything heartening to say in th is essay. As we shall see, not only did Adorno apply the term "Barba rei" to advanced capitalism, bur also to the communism of his day. On the other hand, the antithesis is formed by productions of the "Geist," the human mind, both individually and collectively, with works of art being chief among lhem. These productions are called "Kultur," and they form the antithesis to t he social infrast ructure in Adorn o's sociology of art because they contain the negative reaction to aU of that order's injustices and flaws. H owever, economic pressure has been exerted on culture to join in confo rmity with barbarism. According Adorno's 'Ban' o n Poet ry 149 to Adorno, culture has largely ceded to that pressure. Adorno de­ scri bes rhis process: Je vo llkommener die gegenwarugen gesellsc haftlichen Ordnungen, voran die ostliche, den Lebensprozefi, die "Mufie" inbegriffen, einfangen, urn so mehr wird allen Phanomenen des Geistes die Marke der Ordnung aufgepragl. Emweder sie tragen als Unterhaltung oder Erbauung un mi uelbar zu deren Fonbestand bei llnd werden als ihre Exponentell, namlich gerade um il1 rer gesellschaftl iche n Praformiertheit wi llen, genossen. Als all bekannt, geslempelt, angetastet, schmeicheln sie beim regredierten Bewufilsein sich ein, empfehlen sich als Il.ltiirli.~h und erlauben die Identifi kation mit den Machlen, dcren Ubergcwicht kelne Wahlliifit als die falsche Liebe. Oder sic werden durch Abwe ichung zur Rarita t und aberma ls verkauflich (Adorno, "Kulturkrilik" 18). AI! phenomena of lhe mind t end to take the stamp of lheir social order. I say "tend to" because Adorno wishes to avoid any mechanis­ tic view of social causa lity . 4 This process of assimilation can be either direct or indirect: either wo rks of al1. are enjoyed precisely because rhey contribute directly to the social order, or, if they resist assimila­ tio n (through their explicitly critical nature). they become prized as curiosities and for that reason saleable. Even ErballlmgsJileralJlr, or edi ficational literature, which many consider to be effective in wlti­ vat ing a type of consciousness to some extent independcm and critical of everyday life, even this Adorno denounces as part and parcel o f the culture industry. Fina ll y, the phrase "voran die ostliche" is interest­ ing: Adorno saw culture unde r communism as even more subject to the processes of assimilatio n t han that under Western capitalism, be­ cause the communist government was so intent on controlling liter­ ary production and steering it in a particular direction. This synt hesis of culture and barbarism has created a "culture industry," in which works of art become "\'(Iarcn" or "wares" and their critical potentialities ignored. This State of the work of aI1 within the culture industry is called "Verdinglichung," or teification: the work of art has become a "thing" to be sold. Adorno's pessimism is such that he often writes as if the assimilation of culture to barb.1rism were 150 Focus on Literalllr complete. For example, he states not merely that poetry is difficult to write but that it is "unmoglich." H owever, an antithesis to culture has arisen called "'Kulturkritik." One might expect the spirit of dialectical antagonism to be s,lved by the appearance of this new critical ele­ ment, but one would be mistaken, fo r even this criticism is subjected to the same to[alizing, assimilative pressures to which culture has suc­ cumbed; even it is "angefressen" by them. Will it suffer the same hte? The on ly ray of hope for the crit ical mind lies expressed in negative fo,:"n~ in the. fi n.al eight words of our principal passage: "[ ... ] solange er be l slch blelbt In selbstgeniigsamer Komemplation. " The implication is that , if the c riti ca l min d does no t remain in t h e stal e o f "selbslgeniigsame Kontemplatio n," it may continue to flourish. In all this, the concept "Auschwitz" is not an integral pan of the theoretic.ll argument. The word does have an emphati c function: invoking Auschwitz dramatizes the urgent need for socidl cntique, and thereby heightens the scandal of its deflection. Howeve r, lhe key word for Adorno's theoretical argument is the adjective "barb::u·isch." in this place, the word takes o n a meaning very different from lhe pejorative one which it hdS in common usage. It has the very specific contextual meaning of "an act which participates In or reproduces the state of ~arba.rism." in this sense, Mbarbarisch" is a descriptive rather th~ a p~Jorauv~ term. On the o ther hand, Adorno has taken no pains t~ disclaim or disavow its normal pejorative sense. Indeed, the pejora­ tive force of the term fits in perfectly with Adorno's negative rheto­ ric. The entire statement , interpreted in light of Adorno's theory, would thus mean: "After Auschwitz it is 'barbaric' [0 write poeIry, because poetry has become reified through its assimilatio n by the cui­ rure industry." It would seem that Adorno takes quite a hard line: that a poem written under the present conditions can only be bar­ baric. This hard-line imerpretati on is further confirmed by Adorno's statement that it has become " impossible" [0 write poetry. What is the meaning of "impossible" here? Does he mean that poems or verse cannot be written at all? Of course not, because if no verse can be written, there would be no poems to call "'barbaric." What then does he mean by "impossible?" I submit that he is writing about poems that are in some sense true, about poems which have the power to reveal something essential about the human condition to us. Tme poetry is impossible, because it is inevitably distorted either in irs Adorno's 'Ban' o n Poetry 15 1 creation or its reception by an ubiquitous culture industry. Thus, what makes it "barbaric" to write poetry after Ausc hwitz also makes tme poetry "impossi ble." Note the extremism of Adorno's rhetoric m this essay: the social order is reduced to "bMbarism"; it is ~bJ.rbaric" and even "i m­ possible" to write poetry after Auschwitz. Does n Ot the extremism of Adorno's rhetoric and argumenta­ tion present a problem? Some commenlators Sltion , on the other , It is obvious dlat he leave!. the door open for some lorm of .ln, and hence of poetry-blu not JUSt any form. An: is cll:l li enged to justi fy itself in the LIce of the terrible eve-ills of his­ tory, and can survive only under the condition that it not be used ,IS J tOol for the cynicism of the culture IIldustry. In p,lnu:ulJ.r, Adorno propagates the Sartri ... n nOl ion of "buerature engagee," .111 expressly politicized not ion of liter.HurL'. Adorno's position has indeed changed. In "Kuhurkritik und Gesellschaft," true poetry WdS Im possible; here, Adorno no longer lISes such dbsohue language. I stated earber thdt Adorno Il.lJ ta choose. H e has chosen to .Idrnit thc pOSSIbi lity of poetry rather tballta ci.1im the impossibility of cuhur.ll cri tique. And while he does not ex plic­ itly admit that true poetry is being wriuen, he does v~lgudy envision the theo retic.11 conditions lhat a true poetry would ha ve It) meet. The "it;idity of his origin,l\ pOSI tion has softened . T here is also somet hing new in this l.ner posi lion : in.1 discus­ sio n of Arnold Schoenhcrg's Der Oberleberule VOI'I U't';u"Sc/J.w, Adorno renders more ex plic it .m argument reg.1fdlllg the relation hetween poetry and Ausc hwitz: DurdlS dsthetische Sti li sationspnnzip, lind gar J,lS feierliLiu.· Gebet des Chars, erschcim d.ls un.lusdenkliche Sdllck.sal dot:h, .lIs bllte es irgend Si nn gehJbl; es wird verkl.in, ftWJS von dem Gr.lllcn weggenommen; d.lln it allein scho n widerfahrt 154 Focus on Lileralur den Op(ern U nrecht , wah rend doch vor der Gerechtigkeit keine KunSt standhiehe, die ihnen ausweicht (Adorno, NOlen 127). The principle of stylizOition is the source of injustice in the represellla­ tion of Auschwitz. Therefore, an should not stylize when represent­ ing Auschwitz: one should find a way to let the horrors appear in an unvarnished a fashion as possible. Any concession to aesthetic plea­ sure in works represent ing the holocaust should be resolutely es­ chewed. Adorno's essay documents just how difficult it is even for works which are expressly "commiued"-he speaks at lengt h about B re~ ln's w~rk-:-to live up to their purposes. Adorno's proscripti on agamst slyitzallon has been taken up by numerous commentat ors: in panicular, it is one of the main themes in the importam collecti on of papers entitled Probmg lhe LlmllS 0/ RepreSenlallon. Moreover, a re­ cent paper by Joachim Seng argues that this thought moved Paul Celan to a change in his poetic style, to develop a "grauere Sprache," wh ich found expression first in eebn's poem "Engfiihrung." 9 In "Engagement," Adorno's thinking o n lyric poetry dfter ~usch~'it2 ceases to be purely pessimistic and begins to make stipula­ tions, If not on how poetry should be written, at least on how it s?oul~ not. be wrine.n. ~ere again we see very clea rly how his nega­ tive dialectiC works: 11 might not show us how th ings OUghltO be, but OIL least how they ought not be. • • • Adorno fin.aUy retracted his statement definitively in 1966 in a pas­ sage from hIS Negau'Ut Dlalekllk: "Das perennierende Leiden hat soviel Recht auf Ausdruck wie der Gemarterte zu briillen; darum mag fa lseh gewesen sein, nach Auschwitz lid~e kein Gedicht mehr sich seh rei ben" (353). Let us reca ll that, in "Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft," poetry after Auschwitz was impossible and barbaric, and therefore wi thout ju~tification. Here, albeit somewhat reluctantly, Adorno eKp licity relOstates poetry's right to ex istence, using the term "Recht" to make his point. What has brought about this justification? Why is poetry again possible? It is justified and possible at least 3S an ex pressio n of suffering or complaint . The survivors of Auschwitz must be able to Adorn o's ' Ban ' o n Poetry 155 express their grief, rage, and despair. Wah Whitman's optimistic hymns to the world, on the other hand, would be unacceptable to Adorno after Auschwitz. What makes the bitter pill of retraction no doubt easier to swallow is that Adorno can now justify poetry according to his own theory. Poetry expressing suHering and compl.tim comains within itself lhon negation, that antagonistic relationship to social co n­ ditions which Adorno demands from art. This is a poetry after Adorno's own hea n . Thus, th e idea of Auschwitz, peripheral and merely emphat ic in Adorno's original Slalcmelll , has assumed a cent l'al p Llce in his late r musi ngs about a valid poelry. Moreover, Adorno did not main ­ tai n the absolute, inflexible rhetoric of "Kullurkritik und Geselbd laft," bu t he does mai ntain I hrougho ut these statemem s, nOI tlllt it is im­ possible, bu t at least that it is tremendously difficult for Jrt 11\ general, and poetry in panicu lar. to escape the tentacles of a culture industry which lends to soften those "hard sayings" which the great prophets, teachers, and anists have to speak to us. And in so dOing, he has per· formed a valuable provocative function, even if one InLght not share his point of view. Univermyo/Cmcmnati Notes I Read allhe Kentucky Foreign Langu3ge Conference, .'\pnI 1996. The style of the paper prepared for oral deltvery hlS been ret.uned. 2 T. W. Adorno, et. OIL The AllthorlLari.:m Penollaluy. (New York: H;l. rper, 1950). J This volume is indispensJble for anyone doing research on the lop ic of Adorno's sentence and its resonances. It consists of a collecl ion of Adorno's utterances on the subject of poelry Jfter AuschWItz., as well as theOrelical reOections on and literary reaClions to those utterJnC