1

TheDialecticalImage:

Kant,MarxandAdorno

-MikeWayne-

Pre-proofedversionofessaypublishedin:MarxattheMovies,Revisiting

History,TheoryandPractice(eds)EwaMazierskaandLarsKristensen,

PalgraveMacmillan2014.

******************

Fortheintellectuals,thephilosophersandthepriests,theWordhasalwaysbeen

favouredovertheImage.SincePlato’sparableofthecaveofshadowshelpingto

enslavethecredulous,theImagehasbeenassociatedwithin-authenticity,

manipulation,thetransientandcontingent,thefeeble-mindedandthemasses.

TherehasbeenatheologicaldimensiontothisdistastefortheImage.For

ThomasHobbesinLeviathan,theimage,whichisbydefinitionafinitething,is

singularlyill-equippedtorepresentsomethingasinfiniteasGod(Hobbes2006:

34-5).HencetheprohibitiononGravenImagesintheJewishreligion.TheWord

bycontrastseemedtobelongtotheMind,notmatterthatcoulddecompose,it

wasUniversalnotparticular,itswrittenmanifestationbelongedforalongtime

astheexclusivepropertyoftherulingclasses.InthiscontexttheImage

threatenedineffecttotransferthepropertyoftherulingclass–itscognitive

conceptsandmoralideas–tothemassesinaformtheycanmaster.For

Benjamin,thiswasoneoftheimplicationsoftheincreasingmechanical

reproductionofartinthetwentiethcentury:‘thetechniqueofreproduction

detachesthereproducedobjectfromthedomainoftradition…inpermittingthe

reproductiontomeetthebeholderorlistenerinhisownparticularsituation,it

reactivatestheobjectreproduced’(Benjamin1999a:215).Inthemeantime,

publishing,massdemocracyandmasseducationchangedtheWordfromamere

instrumentofrulingclasspowertoasiteofstrugglebetweenclasses.Butitis

stillanunevenstruggleinwhichthewrittenWordespeciallycontinuestoexude

classconditions.HansMagnusEnzensbergerhasgivenawonderfulsummaryof

2

thewrittenWord’sconnectionwithauthority.Henotestherigidbodyposture

writingdemands,thetaboosassociatedwithwritingthatareimmaterialto

communicating,theintimidationwithwhichthewrittenwordisdrenched,its

linkswithinstitutionalizedauthority(forthesubject,initiallytheschooland

laterbusinessandthelaw)andthewaythewrittenwordsmoothesover

contradictionsandfacilitatesrationalizationandunempatheticdistanciation

(Enzensberger1982:70-72).Wemayaddthatilliteracyandlinguisticdivisions

amongstthepeoplehavemadefilmanattractivemediumforradicalsinthe

developingworld.

Soitisperhapsoddthatradicalintellectualshaveveryoftengonealongwiththis

traditionofvalorizingtheWordovertheImage.Thereareofcoursereasonsfor

thisvalorization,notallofthembad.Writersacrossthedisciplineshavefound

thatwiththeemergenceofcapitalismwefind‘theubiquityofvisionasthe

mastersenseofthemodernera’(Jay1988:3).Andthevisual,dominatedbythe

modelofCartesianperspectivalism,washardlyinnocent.InFrenchphilosophical

thoughtinparticular,asMartinJayhasshown,thevisualfield,fromFoucault’s

panopticon,toDebord’sSocietyoftheSpectacle,toAlthusserandLacan’s

specularImaginarytoMetz’scinematicapparatus,wasassociatedwithpower,

domination,illusionandmanipulation(Jay1994).

Thereishoweveranothertradition,onelargelyassociatedwithGerman

philosophythatbreaksdownthehierarchicalorderinginwhichtheWordis

uncriticallyvalorizedovertheImage.Instead,inthistradition,wecandiscerna

muchmoreproductivecross-fertilizationbetweentheWordandtheImage,one

inwhichtheWordreturnstotheaestheticImageasasourceforrevivifyingits

ownformulations,questioningitsassumptionsorevencircumnavigatingthe

aporiasinitsownphilosophicalstructures(Buck-Morss1989).Thisisthe

traditionfromwhichtheDialecticalImageemerges.Iwanttotracethis

emergenceintheworkofKant,withreferencetotheCritiqueofPureReasonand

theCritiqueofJudgment.Kantprovidesthephilosophicalframeworkandrootsof

theDialecticalImage.ThenweshallseehowMarxtakesuptheDialecticalImage

ascognitivemetaphorforthepurposeofsocialscientificcritiquewithinpolitical

3

economy.FinallyIwanttogivesomeindicatorsastohowtheconceptofthe

DialecticalImageinformedthephilosophyofculturalcritiqueintheworkof

AdornoandBenjaminespecially.OneofthekeywaysthattheDialecticalImage

isdialecticalisthatitovercomesthefissuresbetweentheconceptualandthe

perceptual,theuniversalandtheparticular,thecognitiveandtheaffective,the

eliteandthepopular,thegivenandtheought.TheDialecticalImageismuch

broaderthanaspecificaestheticstrategy,forexample,montage.Insteadittakes

usintoadebateaboutthecriticalpotentialoftheaestheticwithinthevisual

field.

KantandtheoriginsoftheDialecticalImage

Kant’sCritiqueofPureReasonisadeeplycontradictorytext.ForAdorno,the

profundityofKant’stextisthatitbrings‘tothesurfacecontradictionsthatare

deeplyembeddedinthesubjectofinvestigation’(Adorno2001:82).TheCritique

splitstheWordintoanantinomywhichhasitsrootsintheemergingcapitalist

order.TheWordontheonehanddevelopstheentirefieldofcognitive

rationalitybywhichconsciousnessmapstheworldaccordingtothelogical

relationsthatconceptsandthepurecategoriesoftheunderstandingimpose.The

purecategoriesrefertoQuantity,Quality,RelationandModality.Fornothingcan

bethoughtthatdoesnothavesomequantity,somequalities,somerelations(to

itselfandotherthings)andsomemodality(doesitexistsobjectivelyorisits

status,aswiththeaesthetic,ofadifferentontologicalorderfromreality?).The

problemhoweveristhatthelogicalrelationsthatordersubjectivity(the

transcendentalsubject)aresopre-given,soapriori,thatnosocialandhistorical

consciousnesscanemergefromthefirstCritique.Theself-activeconsciousness

thatKantelucidatesintheCritiqueofPureReasonturnsouttobeimprisoned

withinacageofreifiedunderstanding.Asaresult,themoral-politicaldimension

oftheWordissplitoffandprotectedfromthemassiveedificeofreificationthat

Kantconstructs,butatthecostofconsigningReasontoimpotencewithregardto

ouractualinstitutionallife.InKant’sCritiqueofPracticalReason,ethicalpractical

activityislockedupintheprivateindividualsubject,self-generated,inwardly

4

orientatedanduncoupledfrom‘external’institutionalpracticesthatmustobey

theapriorilawsofnaturemappedoutintheCritiqueofPureReason.Thusthe

ethicalact,Lukácsobserved‘collapsesassoonasthefirstconcretecontentisto

becreated’(Lukács1971:125).

ThefirstCritiquehoweveraswellasbeingstructuredaroundsuchparalyzing

antinomies,alsodisplaysthepressureofalatentdialectic,asAdornoagainnoted

inhismasterfulexpositionofthatwork(Adorno2001:87).Twokeyexamplesof

thislatentdialecticareparticularlyrelevantforthinkingabouttheDialectical

Image.Firstly,Kant’sconceptofthenoumena.Kantarguedthatthesubject’s

mappingoftheworldwasonlyamappingofappearance-forms,thatistosay

onlyamappingofthosecharacteristicsoftheobjectworldthatcanbeknown

accordingtothelogical-empiricallimitsofoursubjectivity.Whattheobject

worldmaybe,independentofourwayofapprehendingtherealaccordingtoour

logical-empiricalmachineryofconsciousness,istousanunknownobjectXor

whatKantcalledanoumenon(Kant1996:159-160/A109).Kant’sconceptofthe

noumenaanditsdistinctionfromappearances,clearlypointsforwardtoMarx’s

distinctionbetweenthephenomenalformsoflifeundercapitalism,howfor

examplethemarketandcommoditiesappeartousintheirimmediacy,andthe

essentialrelations,thatcomplexnetworkofsocialrelationsthatmediateand

contextualiseobjectstornfromtheircircumstancesandconditionsbytheways

ofseeingandbehavingthatcommodityproductionimposesonus.The

movementfromphenomenalformstoessentialrelationsisforMarxaquestion

ofcriticalsocialscientificresearch.Butthelimitsandfinitudeoftheimage,ofthe

worldofappearances,andhowthesensuousapprehensionoftheworldmight

overcomethoselimitsandregistersomethingofthedomainofthenoumena,

waspreciselywhatmotivatedKanttotakehisaestheticturnandwritethe

CritiqueofJudgment.

Thelatentdialecticbetweentheempiricalandthenon-empirical,the

immediatelygivenanditsmediatedconditions,whichtheconceptsof

appearancesandnoumenaregister,linkstoanotherlatentdialecticalpressure

pushingagainstKant’santinomousphilosophicalarchitecture.Thisisthe

5

relationshipsbetweentheconceptsandpurecategoriesoftheunderstanding,

wherelogicalrelationsaresecuredasuniversalandnecessary,andwhatKant

callstheTranscendentalAesthetic.Kantrecognizesthatinorderforlogical

relationstohaveanycognitivepower,theymustactuallybeappliedtosense

datacomingtothesubjectfromtheoutsideworld.Thissensedata(theworldof

appearances)canonlybemappedconceptuallyifitisorderedaccordingto

principlesoftemporalandspatialmapping.TimeandSpacehoweverarenot

derivedfromconcepts,butfromthepureformsofintuitionthatbelongtothe

TranscendentalAesthetic.Beforewecanapprehendanyactualsensedatathe

subjectmusthavea‘receptivityforbeingaffectedbyobjects’andthis‘precedes

necessarilyallintuitionsoftheseobjects’(Kant1996:81/B42).The

TranscendentalAestheticmakesitpossibleforustomapobjectsaccordingto

theprinciplesoftimeandspace.Oncethesubjecthasassembledobjectsofsense

dataaccordingtoaprocessKantcallssynthesis,thentheseempiricalobjectscan

bestamped,asitwerewiththeobjectiveuniversalityofempiricalconcepts

whichareinturngovernedbythepurecategories.Sothattheempiricalconcept

‘dog’canbestampedonaparticulardoginconcretothatcomestooursenses

(Kant1996:213-4/A141).Adoglikeallthingsobservablewillbeaparticular

instantiationofthepurecategories,beingacertainquantity(e.g.size)having

certainqualities,relationsandmodality(arealdogorarepresentationofadog).

However,crucially,theentirethrustoftheCritiqueofPureReason,istoargue

thatconcepts,whetherabstractorempirical,canonlybecombinedinto

combinationsthatgeneratenewknowledgebecauseoftheycanbefiguredin

pureformsofintuition(timeandspace).SotheTranscendentalAestheticnot

onlyplaysadeterminateroleinrelationtoactualsensedata(content)theyalso

playacrucialroleinrelationthedevelopmentofourconceptualandcognitive

capacities.ThislaysthebasisforovercomingKant’sdichotomybetween

conceptsandsenseuousness.

…nogeometricprinciples–e.g.,theprinciplethatinatriangletwo

sidestogetheraregreaterthanthethird–areeverderivedfrom

universalconceptsoflineandtriangle;rather,theyareallderived

6

fromintuition,andarederivedfromitmoreoverapriori(Kant1996:

79/B40).

Lineandtriangleareconceptsoftheunderstandingbutitispureintuitionof

spatialrelationsthatallowsustocombinesuchconceptsas‘line’‘length’and

‘angle’intogeometricprinciples.Thussomeformoffigurationbecomesessential

fortheunderstandingtocombineconceptsandgenerateknowledgeofprinciples

andthislaysoneofthebasesforovercomingtheotherwisesharpdivisionKant

establishesbetweentheTranscendentalAestheticandtheunderstandingand

further,betweenthepuretranscendentalconditionsofexperienceandits

particular(sociallyandhistoricallydeterminate)‘contents’.Whatwillhappen

withKant’saestheticturnintheCritiqueofPureJudgmentisthattheaestheticas

anaidtothinkingwillbeuncoupledfromitsroleinprovidingareifieduniverse

ofconceptswithsensedata.Insteadtheaestheticwilldevelopitsownrelatively

autonomousplaywithsensuousforms,afiguringthatwillrelativizeuniversal

concepts,callthemintoquestion,historicizethemandopenthemuptocritique.

Thisinturnprovokesthemoral-politicalcapacitiesofreason–hithertolocked

upimpotentlyintheprivateconscience,intore-engagingwiththeworld,

becauseitsownprincipleshavebeenmadesensuouslypalpableintheaesthetic.

ThusitisthattheaestheticImagecomestotherescueoftheWord,helpingit

thinkpasttheblockagesinKant’sphilosophicalsystem.

IntheCritiqueofJudgmentKantdistinguishesbetweenthedeterminative

judgmentsthatsubsumedtheparticular(sensedata)underuniversalconcepts

andcategoriesinthefirstCritique,andanewmodeofjudgingthathecalls

reflectivejudgment.

Determinativejudgment,[whichoperates]underuniversal

transcendentallawsgivenbytheunderstanding,isonly

subsumptive.Thelawismarkedoutforitapriori…reflective

judgment…isobligedtoascendfromtheparticularinnaturetothe

universal…(Kant1987:19)…Toreflect...istoholdgiven

presentationsupto,andcomparethemwith,eitherother

7

presentationsorone’scognitivepower[itself],inreferencetoa

conceptthatthis[comparison]makespossible(Kant1987:400).

Reflectivejudgmentthusrecognizesthattheuniversalisnotnecessarilygiven,

andthislicensesamodeofjudgingthatisfarmoreopenandexploratory.Here

wehaveveryclearlytheoriginsofaGermantraditionofthoughtthatmixedthe

aestheticwithphilosophy.RejectingtheuniversalasgivenKantlaysthebasisfor

subjective,aestheticallytinged,‘poetic’juxtapositionsthatilluminatespecific

materialisttruthsofanepoch.Herewehavetherationaleforacriticalprocedure

(analogyormetaphor)thatmakesitpossibletothinkaconceptthrough

perceptionthatitwasdifficultornotpossibletothinkwithoutthatsensible

operation.Thecriticalprocedurecombinesinduction(startingwiththe

particular)withanalogy(comparingparticularsinaplayofforms)togenerate

newwaysofthinkingorthinkingaboutthingsinnewways,thatthereified

universeofconceptshadblocked(seeFigure1).TypicallyinKant’sthirdCritique,

someparticularofnatureisusedtoreflectonourowncognitivepowers,and

implicitly,oursocialrelationships.Thisshouldbecontrastedwiththe

determinativejudgmentofthefirstCritique,wherenatureisoverextendedtothe

socialworld,withtheresultthatourcapacitiesforcriticalreflectivereason

atrophy.

ConceptualMetaphorsinMarx

Kant’sCritiqueofPureReasonisanattempttodevelopaphilosophyof

consciousnessbasedonthenewemergingnaturalsciences(especiallyNewton’s

successesinastronomy).Butthisledtoover-extendingthelogicaland

empiricallyobservablelawsofnaturetotheentireterrainofhumanendeavour.

Whilewearenaturalcreaturesweare,bynature,alsosocialcreaturesanditis

oursocialdimensionthatthisover-extensionofthenaturalscienceframework

completelyeclipses.Thisover-extensionisofcoursequitetypical,andacrossthe

disciplines,thesocialscienceshaveadaptedthemodelsdevelopedinthenatural

sciences.Economics,sociology,psychologyandsoonhavebeendominatedbythe

8

problemthatfirstbesetKantintheCritiqueofPureReason.Socialrelationsand

practicesacquirethequalityofsomethinggiven,somethingapriori,constituted,

asifbynature,withoutourownparticipationintheirmaking.Marxtrackedthe

rootsofthisnaturalizationprocesstotheuniversalisationofcommodity

productionthatdefinescapitalism.TheCritiqueofPureReasonhasadualistic

structurewhichbearstheoutlinesofthecommodity-form.Thecommodityform

bracketsoffthewidersocialrelationshipswhichareaconditionofcommodity

exchangebecauseprivatepropertyisfoundedonthenon-interferenceofpopular

control,consciousregulationandoversightofcommodityoperations.Thisis

whatgivesthefirstCritiqueitsemphasisontheempirical.Yetofcourseitisnot

thecasethatsocialimperativesareinfactabsentfromdiscreteinstancesof

commodityexchange–whetheritisthebuyingandsellingoflabourpower,the

buyingandsellingofconsumergoods,thebuyingandsellingoftechnology,

money,andsoon.Infactherewhatimposesitselfontheseapparentlydiscrete

exchangesisthefullforceofthecapitalistmotivetoaccumulatecapital.This

abstractpowerandpressureattemptstosubsumeeverythingwithinitsforce

fieldandthismanifestsitselfinthefirstCritiqueasthesubsumptionofall

empiricalsensedatabythelogicalrulesofdeterminativejudgment.Together,a

generalized,abstractaprioricapitalistimperativetoaccumulateandempirical

instancesofmarketexchangestornfromtheircontext(thestrugglebetween

capitalandlabourforexample)producesanaturalizationeffect.

Onecannotcombatthisnaturalizationeffectbysimplyabolishingnatureand

declaringthateverythingisasocialconvention.Thishasbeenthedefault

strategyfortheoriesoflanguageandrepresentationformuchofthe20thcentury,

startingwithstructuralismthroughtopostmodernism.Abetterstrategycanbe

foundinMarx’smethodologywhichattemptstorethinkwhatthecategories

‘nature’and‘society’meanandhowtheyrelatetooneanother.Intheprefaceto

theGermaneditionofCapital,Marx,referringtothe‘capitalistandthelandlord’,

wroteofhowhumanbehaviorwithintheframeworkofcapitalistsocialrelations

andclassinterestsmustbeviewed‘asaprocessofnaturalhistory’(Marx1983:

21).WhatMarxintendedbythismetaphoricalcomparisonandjuxtaposition

betweenthecapitalistsocialsystemandnaturalevolution,wasnottonaturalise

9

capitalism,buttosuggestthatwithinthecontextofcapitalistsociety,certain

formsofcapitalistbehavior,certaintrendsanddevelopments,certaindynamics

(suchascrisesorthetendencytowardsmonopoly)dohaveaforceofnature

abouttheminsofarasthesepatternspertaintotheessentialsofcapitalismwhich

cannotoperateinanyotherwaywithoutviolatingorattheveryleastmitigating

(throughreforms)thenatureofcapital.Intrinsictothenatureofcapitalisthatit

turnsitselfinto(asecond)nature,becauseitispremisedonrobbingthesubject

thatcreatesitofcollectivecontroloverit.Withinthemainstreammediafor

instancewhatthe‘markets’aredoingisdiscussedasifthe‘markets’werenot

humanmadeinstitutions,butinsteadforcesofnatureindependentofhuman

activity.Thisnaturalizationeffectisparadoxicallyakindofviolationofwhatis

naturaltoourspeciesbeing–namelythatwehavedifferentiatedourselvesfrom

naturetoadegreeandcantoadegreethatcapitalismrepresses,achieve

consciouscontroloverourselvesandourenvironment.

Marx’smetaphoricalreferencetonaturefunctionsasacritiqueoftheway

capitalismnaturalizesitselfbymakingitsdynamicsandimperatives(suchas

capitalaccumulation)‘lawsofnature’.Fromthispointofview,thefrequent

transformationofMarx’sconceptof‘naturalhistory’,whichisacritiqueofthe

robbingoftheobjectfromanymediationbythesubject,intoapositivistic

scienceofthelawsofmotionofsocietythatoperatesexclusivelyindependently

ofcollectiveinterventionis,asAdornoremarks,aperversion.Thisiswhyitis

importanttonotethatMarxinvokestheconceptofnaturalhistoryinrelationto

thecapitalistandthelandlordbutnottheproletariat,towhomfallsthenecessity

ofbreakingcapital’snaturalevolution.Intheabsenceofsuchabreak,‘the

historyoftheprogressingmasteryofnature,continuestheunconscioushistory

ofnature,ofdevouringandbeingdevoured’(Adorno1973:355).Thusthemore

thespeciesadvancestechnologically,themoreitregresses;whereoncenature

terrorizedthespecies,nowitisourownpowersthatwehavenotbroughtunder

ourcontrolthatdoestheterrorizing.Theexpansionoftheproductiveforcesin

theabsenceofachangeinthesocialrelationsofproduction,merelyexpandsour

abilitytodevourandbedevoured.Thistransformationofthesocialintoanew

kindofnatureconstitutesthe‘lawofmotionfortheunconscioussociety’

10

(Adorno1973:356),whichistosayonewhichescapesdemocraticcollective

control.ThesamepointwasmadebyMarx’sfriendandco-author,Engels:

Darwindidnotknowwhatabittersatirehewroteonmankind,and

especiallyonhiscountrymen,whenheshowedthatfree

competition,thestruggleforexistence,whichtheeconomists

celebrateasthehighesthistoricalachievement,isthenormalstate

oftheanimalkingdom.Onlyconsciousorganizationofsocial

production,inwhichproductionanddistributionarecarriedonina

plannedway,canelevatemankindabovetherestoftheanimal

world…(Engels1977:349-50)

TheDialecticalImageofNatureandHistory

Inasuggestiveanalogyfromhisnotebooksondialectics,LeonTrotskywrote:

Contrarytoaphotograph,whichistheelementofformallogic,the

[motion-picture]filmis“dialectical”(badlyexpressed)

(Trotsky1986:97).

Thisshouldnotbetakenasthefinalwordonphotographybutratherthroughan

analogybetweenthetwomediums,Trotskytriestogetatthedifferencebetween

twoantagonisticphilosophicaltraditions,logicalpositivismortheformallogic

thatKantoutlinedinthefirstCritique,anddialecticalthinking,which,Ihave

suggested,Kant’sCritiqueofJudgmentbeginstoseed.Trotsky’sanalogyalights

onanelementthatiscrucialtofilm:namelythatitmoves.Themovingpicture,

themotionpictureemergedfromawholepre-historyoftechnologicaldevices

aimedatgettingthestillimagetomove:dioramas,panoramas,myrioramas,

magiclanterns,mutoscopes,kinetescopesandsoforth.Themovingimagemoves

boththeobjectandthevantagepointontheobjectandthismovementopened

upthewholethematicsofdialectics:change,development,shifts,altered

relationships,andtherevaluationofinitialperspectivesandidentifications.If

11

thenaturalizationeffecttendstofreezeorcongealsocialnaturesothatchange

andthepotentialforchangebecomesimperceptible,themovies,potentiallyat

least,de-congealssocialnaturebyitsmotiondynamics.Themoviesrealizethe

potentialoftheaestheticaspureintuition(activatingtheprinciplesofspaceand

time)tonotonlyaidthinkingbutcritiquewhatwetakeisgiven.

Itwasthisthematicofdialecticalmotionthatattractedtheleftintelligentsiato

filminthe1920sand1930s.Here’sWalterBenjaminforexample:

Ourtavernsandourmetropolitanstreets,ourofficesandfurnished

rooms,ourrailroadstationsandourfactoriesappearedtohaveus

lockeduphopelessly.Thencamethefilmandburstthisprison-world

asunderbythedynamiteofthetenthofasecond,sothatnow,inthe

midstofitsfar-flungruinsanddebris,wecalmlyandadventurouslygo

travelling(Benjamin1999a:229).

HereBenjaminstressesthepotentialitiesofthemediumasaproductivecognitive

augmentationofthehumaneyewhichintransformingourrelationstomaterial

natureisatthesametimeregisteringnewsocialmeanings,relationsand

possibilitiesslumberingwithinthatmaterialnaturebutunrecognizedbecause

weare‘lockeduphopelessly’withinit.Filmexplodesthisreifiedworld,turningit

into‘ruinsanddebris’–thatismontageelementsthatcanbereconfigured

dialecticallyforcognitivetravelling.Nowtheterms‘ruins’and‘debris’remindus

thatforBenjamin,theinertqualitieswhichreifiedmaterialnatureacquiresunder

capitalismcanbecounteractedwhenthatmaterialnaturebreaksdowninsome

way.AkeytermthatundergirdsBenjamin’sconceptionofthedialecticalimageis

decomposition.Decompositionrefersthematicallytodeathandadialectic

betweenthelivingandthedead.Death,mortality,bringsnaturebackintothe

frame,butnotasasupportstructureforcapitalism.Marx’sreconfiguringofthe

conceptsof‘nature’and‘history’showusthattheconceptionofnatureunder

capitalismisathoroughlyideologicalone.Thetaskisnottorejectnaturebut

recoveranauthenticunderstandingofnatureandourimmersionand

relationshiptonaturewhichcapitalismblocksusfromachieving.Forcapitalism

12

anditscommodityconsciousness,themortalityofallnaturalthingsisatraceof

historicalchangeandtransformationwhichitabhors.Consciousnessunderthe

signofthecommodityisencouragedtothinkitwillliveforever,asif

consciousnesswasnotalsoamaterialbodythatwillonedaydie.Thehostility

towardsagingincommodityculture,evidentinthecosmeticsurgeryindustry

thathasspreadfromfilmstarstothehighstreet,issymptomaticofthisdeeply

ideologicalhostilitytowardsnature.

Benjamin’sconceptionofdecompositionpointstoadoubledeath.Thedeath

whichthecommoditybringstothelivingwhenitdominatesthemandthe

potentialtointurnbringthelivingbacktoamoreauthenticlifeoncethe

commodityhasagedandbeenleftbehind,renderedoutofdatebythenextwave

ofcommodityinnovation.Decompositionasdeathinthisdoublesenseandasa

methodologyarelinkedforexampleinBenjamin’stheoryofthecollector.The

collectorlovinglybringsbackobsolescentcommoditieswhoseoriginalusesand

exchangevalueshavedied,reconstructingtheirhistoryasa‘magicencyclopedia’

thattracesthe‘fateofhisobject’(Benjamin1999a:62).Thecollectorasakindof

historianhasanintensepersonalrelationshipwiththecommodityambiguously

differentfromthewaythecommodityinterpellatesthesubjectwhenthe

commodityisinitsfullgloryasthe‘prodigies’oftheirday(Benjamin1999b:

203).Deathoragemakesthecommoditymorereceptivetotheliving,itspowers

overthelivingweakenwithitshistoricaldisplacementintothecollector’s

arrangementofartifacts.Thecollectorthenisnotonlyahistorianbutanartist.

BenjaminquotesMarxintheConvoluteonTheCollectorinTheArcadesProject:‘I

can,inpractice,relatemyselfhumanlytoanobjectonlyiftheobjectrelatesitself

humanlytoman’(quotedinBenjamin1999b:209).Thepossibilityofahuman

relationship(ofthekindfoundtodaythroughFreecycleandusingsecondhand

shops)opensuponlywiththeobsolescenceorpartialobsolescenceofthe

commodity.Atthatpointtheobjectbecomesmeaningful,whichistosay,through

decomposition,theobjectfromhistorybecomesallegorical.AsBenjamin

crypticallyputsitinTheArcadesProject:‘Broken-downmatter:theelevationof

thecommoditytothestatusofallegory’(Benjamin1999b:207).Thegenrewhere

13

brokendownmatterhasdecomposedtoproduceanallegoryaroundbeingalive

andbeingdeadundercapitalismisofcourse,thezombiefilm.

AdornoandFilm

Benjamin’sthematicsofdecomposition,ruin,deathandsoonwaslinkedtohis

interestinmontageofthekindthatcouldbefoundacrosstheavant-gardeartsin

the1920sand1930s.ButlikemanyofthepoliticalLeft,hewaspreparedtoseea

latentcultureofavant-gardeexperimentationanddisruptiontoconventional

bourgeoisnormsinpopularandmasscultureaswell.Thiswasaperspective

thatAdornosharedratherlessthanBenjaminorBrecht.Adornoregardedthe

integrationoffilmintomonopolycapitalasfatefulforthemedium,destroying

anyclaimitmighthavetobeinganautonomousart.Hisshortessay

‘TransparenciesonFilm’wasoccasionedbythedisputebetweenthenewyoung

Germanfilmmakerswhohadrecentlysignedthe1962OberhausenManifesto,

andtheestablishedGermancinemawhichtheOberhausenersdescribed

disparaginglyas'Daddy'sCinema'.AlthoughAdornosidedwiththeyoung

filmmakersoftheGermanNewWave,describingDaddy'sCinemaas

'infantile...regressionmanufacturedonanindustrialscale’(Adorno1981:199)

andhopedthatfromthenewcinema‘somethingqualitativelydifferent’might

emerge,histhoughtsontheontologyoffilmsuggestthatthemediumhasits

workcutoutifitwastoescapeitsconformisttendencies.Comparingthewritten

wordtotheiconicmediumoffilmimages,hesuggeststhatinthenovel,language

hasanin-builtcapacitytoachieveadistanciationfrommereimitationofthe

empiricalworld:

Evenwhendialogueisusedinanovel,thespokenwordisnot

directlyspokenbutisratherdistancedbytheactofnarration–

perhapsevenbythetypography–andtherebyabstractedfromthe

physicalpresenceoflivingpersons.Thus,fictionalcharactersnever

14

resembletheirempiricalcounterpartsnomatterhowminutelythey

aredescribed.Infact,itmaybeduetotheveryprecisionoftheir

presentationthattheyareremovedevenfurtherfromempirical

reality;theybecomeaestheticallyautonomous.Suchdistanceis

abolishedinfilm:totheextentthatafilmisrealistic,thesemblance

ofimmediacycannotbeavoided(Adorno1981:200).

ThisisaquiteconventionalprivilegingoftheaestheticWordoverimages,

especiallymassmediatedimages.Whereasthenovelcanmakeaclaimto

aestheticautonomyfromempiricalrealitybecauselanguagemustactively

reconstructitsresemblanceoftheworld,sothatweareawarethatits

‘immediacy’hasbeenmediated,thesamecannotbesaidofthecinematicimage.

ForAdorno,theiconicqualityofthefilmimageabolishesthesenseofmediation

andinsteadleavesuswiththe‘semblanceofimmediacy’,thedirectimitationand

copyingoftheexternalphysical-materialworld.Thisimmediacyisasemblance

(Adornoisnotarguingthatfilmhasanunproblematic‘realist’relationshipwith

theworld)becauseitdisguisesthemediationofthereifiedsocialmechanisms

thatdresstheautomaticityofthefilmimage’scorrelationwiththerealupas

naturalandinevitable.

Thephotographicprocessoffilm,primarilyrepresentational,places

ahigherintrinsicsignificanceontheobject,asforeigntosubjectivity,

thanaestheticallyautonomoustechniques;thisistheretarding

aspectoffilminthehistoricalprocessofart.Evenwherefilm

dissolvesandmodifiesitsobjectsasmuchasitcan,the

distintegrationisnevercomplete.Consequently,itdoesnotpermit

absoluteconstruction:itselements,howeverabstract,alwaysretain

somethingrepresentational;theyareneverpurelyaestheticvalues.

Duetothisdifference,societyprojectsintofilmsquitedifferently–

farmoredirectlyonaccountoftheobjects–thanintoadvanced

paintingorliterature(Adorno1981:202).

15

Adornoseemstocomeclosetosuggestingthatfilmisbeyondredemptiondueto

theintrinsicnatureofitsiconiclanguagewhichappearstotransparently

inscribeexternalreality.ForAdorno,society‘projects’intofilmrathermore

thanfilmitselfcan‘project’backintosociety.Thisitseemsisquestionabletome

andindeedthe‘intrinsicsignificanceoftheobject’infilm’siconiclanguage

meansthatfilmisinescapablysaturatedwiththesocialthroughandthrough.

Butthisneednotmeanthatfilmcannotthenacquireenoughrelativeautonomy

fromthesocialtoencouragethekindofreflectivejudgmentsthatKantidentified

ascentraltotheaesthetic.Adornohoweverdoesnotquitegiveuponfilm.Inthe

nextpassageheevokesajuxtapositionbetweennatureandhistory(herefilm

technology)thatsuggestsawayout:

Irrespectiveofthetechnologicaloriginsofthecinema,theaesthetics

offilmwilldobettertobaseitselfonasubjectivemodeofexperience

whichfilmsresembleandwhichconstitutesitsartisticcharacter.A

personwho,afterayearinthecity,spendsafewweeksinthe

mountainsabstainingfromallwork,mayunexpectedlyexperience

colorfulimagesoflandscapesconsolinglycomingoverhimorherin

dreamsordaydreams.Theseimagesdonotmergeintooneanotherin

acontinuousflow,butarerathersetoffagainsteachotherinthe

courseoftheirappearance,muchlikethemagiclanternslidesofour

childhood.Itisinthediscontinuityoftheirmovementthattheimages

oftheinteriormonologueresemblethephenomenonofwriting…

(Adorno1981:201).

ThispassageistypicalofAdorno’swritingstyleandshowshowmuchheworked

uphisargumentsaroundacollageofimagesinsteadofthemoretraditional

modesoflogicalconstruction.Inafewshortlineswefindfilmtechnologyand

thecitybeingjuxtaposedtothecountrysideandleisurebeforethesubjective

mediationofnatureintheformofdaydreamsanddreamsthatviolatetraditional

continuityrulesofthedominantfilmharkback,notnostalgically,butintheform

ofarevolutionaryconstellation,tothepre-cinematictechnologyofthemagic

lanternshows.Thisinturnsuggestsamodelforaradicalcontemporarycinema

16

attunedtothe‘interiormonologue’ofsubjectivelifewhichisinturnthenmade

alike,inanotheranalogy,withthediscontinuityandmobile,shiftingimages

generatedbywriting(suchasAdornohasjustgivenusawonderful

demonstrationof).

Therearetwothingsgoingonhere.FirstlyAdorno’saestheticprescriptionsfor

filmwouldseemtoinsistthatitmovesinthedirectionofanon-linearfreeform,

subjectivelyassociationalarrangementofmaterialthatwouldcounteractits

passivereflectionofthereifiedsocialworldjustasitis.Butthisavant-garde

prescriptivenessisproblematicinsofarasitlimitsAdorno’sreceptivitytowards

popularculturewhichinsteadorganizesitsmovementsaroundstories.Forwe

canfinddialecticalimagessuffusingpopularculturerathermoreroutinelythan

Adornowouldadmit.InthissensetheaestheticcomestotherescueofAdorno’s

aesthetictheory(asitdidtoKant’sphilosophy)bydemonstratingthathis

culturaldiscriminationagainstpopularcultureingeneralandfilminparticular

arenon-identicalwiththegeneralpremisesofhisaesthetictheory.Thesecond

thinggoingonhereisthatAdornoismobilisingMarx’sconceptofnaturalhistory

inhisreconfiguringofnatureandtechnology.InAdorno’spoeticphilosophy

naturebecomesaninspirationforrethinkinghowweuseagiventechnology

(herefilm)thusovercomingthedivisionbetweennatureandtechnologythatis

typicalofdominantmodesofthinking.

Adorno’sconceptofnaturalbeauty,whichhedevelopedinhisfinalwork

AestheticTheory,doessomethingsimilar.HereAdornoagainreturnstothe

questionofnatureandculture.Theconceptofnaturalbeautyhasbeenonthe

declineeversincethemid-nineteenthcenturywhen,undertheinfluenceof

Hegel,itdisappearedfromaesthetictheoriesinfavourofacelebrationofthe

autonomyoftheartworkasaproductmadebyhumandesign.Eversince

Marxistshavebeenhappytoseethebackoftheconceptofnaturalbeauty,seeing

initanynumberofirredeemableideologicalproblems.ButAdornoiscriticalof

Hegel’sdismissalofnaturalbeauty:fornaturefunctionsinAdorno’saestheticsas

ametaphorforwhatisdeniedanddisavowedwithinthesocialworldofmenand

women–includingthedenialofnatureitself.Nowthisreturnsuspreciselyto

17

Kant’sreflectivejudgment,whichaswesawtakesaparticularimageofnature

andmetaphoricallycomparesitwithsomeaspectofourownrelations,including

ourrelationswithnaturewhichisalwaysalreadypresumedbythefactthatwe

canfindbeautyinit.Thisstrategyofusingnatureasawayofdiscussingthe

socialandtheculturalistypicalofthehorrorgenreforexample,althoughno

doubtitishandledwithvaryingdegreesofsophisticationandcognitiveinsight.

ForKant,thecategoryofnaturalbeautywasthoroughlyhistoricalforwecan

onlyfindbeautyinnaturewhenwearenolongeridenticalwithnaturebuthave

differentiatedourselvesfromit.Naturethusposesthequestionofthetermsby

whichwehavedifferentiatedourselvesfromitandtherelationsamong

ourselvesbywhichwehaveachievedthatdifferentiation.

Letustakeanexampleofhowapopularculturaltextmayhandlethethemesof

nature,difference,death,decompositionandbeauty,andtherelationsofthese

termstoourbroadersocialrelationshipsinGeorgeRomero’sLandoftheDead

(2005).Hereabrutalisedclassdividedcity,theremnantsofcivilisation,sends

outraidsseekingfoodsuppliesbeyondtheelectrifiedfences.Arrivinginasmall

townearlyoninthefilm,theraidingpartyfindzombiesshufflingaround,still

dressedintheclothesoftheirformerlifeandperforming,badly,someofthe

gesturesandroutineswhichoncemadethemhuman.Thehumansmeanwhile

haveaweaponofdistractionthatallowsthemtomanipulatethezombies,shoot

themandgrabsupplies.Thisweaponisthespectacleoffireworksthattheyfire

fromthemilitarisedvehicleorquasitankthattheytravelin.Thefireworksor

‘skyflowers’asanothersignificantlysimple-mindedcharactercallsthem–refer

tosomethingbeautifulwhichthehumancharactersbyandlargecannolonger

appreciatebutonlyuseinstrumentally.Thezombiesstareattheskyflowersthus

indicatingthatdespitetheirbestialstate,theyretain,ironically,atraceofhuman

feelingforwhattheyoncewerethatthehumansthemselveshaveinmanyways

inuredthemselvestobecauseoftheirbrutalconditionsoflife.Theeyelinematch

thattakestheviewertothefireworks/skyflowers,whichweourselvescannot

helpfindattractive,isfromthelookofthezombies,acutthatpositionsthe

spectatorinanambiguouspositionwhichtherestofthefilm’snarrativeplays

upon.

18

INSERTTWOIMAGESHEREFROMLANDOFTHEDEAD

Thefireworks/skyflowersthencanbethoughtofasadialecticalimageofour

contemporarymediawhosespectaclesdistractandmanipulatethemasses–but

eventoformulatetheallegoryinthewordsofaclichéoftenassociatedwith

Adornohimselfistodoaninjusticetotherichnessoftheimagejustelaborated,

withitsdialecticalswitchingbetweenthezombiesandthehumansintermsof

thosewhostillretainafeelingforbeautywithinthemechanismofdistraction.

Thehumansareinfactlesshumanthanthedeadinthisregard,afeeling

underscoredbythereversalofourexpectationsastowhichgroup–thezombies

orthehumans-poseathreattotheother.Forthehumans,withtheirweaponof

distraction,tearthroughthetownshootingitupandtakingwhattheywantinan

imagethatself-consciouslyechoestheUSprojectionofmilitarypoweraround

theworld.Thetraceofafeelingfortheirformerlife,theirformerhumanity

shownbytheirinterestinbeauty,isthenamplifiedanddevelopedbytheraid,as

thezombiesbegintoorganiseandmarchonthecity(ledbyablackworking

classzombie,aformergaragemechanic).Thenarrativetrajectoryofthe

zombiestowards(class?)consciousnessofthemselvesandtheirinterestsmeans

thatattheendofthefilm,whentheskyflowersarelaunchedoncemorethe

zombiesagainlookupandthetrappedhumanscelebrateamomentofhope,only

forthezombiestothenturntheirheadsbacktoearthandlocktheirgazeon

humanflesh.Sensingnowtheideologicalmanipulationwithintheskyflowers,

thetraceofthefeelingofbeautywhichhintedattheircapacitytodeveloptheir

consciousness,nowhastobesetaside,inaFanonianmomentofnecessary

violence,atleastmomentarily,iftheirliberationistobeachieved.Sincewehave

seenenoughofthecitytoknowitscorruptionandbrutality,thespectatorhas

beengiveneveryopportunitytofeeldialecticallyambivalentaboutits

destruction.Asinthebesthorrorfilms,ourinitialcertaintiesregardingthefirm

divisionbetweenthehumanandthemonstrous,preciselythelinedrawnby

thoseuniversalconceptsthattheaestheticdeclaresisnotgiven,aresubverted

andamorecomplexdialecticandreconfigurationofthemeaningandrelations

19

betweenterms(herezombiesandhumans,thedeadandtheliving,thecivilised

andthebestial)isexplored.

Conclusion

WehaveseenthattheoriginsoftheDialecticalImagecanphilosophically,be

discoveredinKant’sCritiqueofPureReason.Theimportanceofthe

TranscendentalAestheticfornewconceptformationwouldthenbe

substantivelydevelopedintheCritiqueofJudgment,butnowthe‘concept

formation’isuncoupledfromtheuniverseofreifiedconceptsthatdominatedthe

firstCritique.Critiquethroughaestheticsbecomespossible.Whereasinthefirst

CritiqueKantinsistedontheabsolutedivisionbetweentheempiricalandthe

noumena,inthethirdCritique,thesensiblebecomes,throughtheplayof

aestheticforms,awayofglimpsingthesuprasensible(therealbarbarismof

moderncapitalist‘civilization’inRomero’szombiemovies).Marxdevelopedthe

criticalpotentialofKant’sreflectivejudgmentasconceptualmetaphorsforsocial

scientificcritique,dialecticallyreconfiguringthemastercoupletofnatureand

historyintheconceptofnaturalhistory.Thiscritiqueofreificationwasthen

takenupbyGermanaestheticphilosophyintheworkofBenjamin,Adornoand

others.ForKant,whatwastranscendentalabouttheaestheticwasnotthe

particularjudgmentsthatweremade-sincethentheywouldonlyreproducethe

reifiedjudgmentstheywerecritiquing,butthefactthatwetakethesejudgments

asworthdiscussingandcommunicating.Thustheaestheticopensupthewhole

dimensionofthesocialandthehistorical.EvokingBenjamininhisdiscussionof

naturalbeauty,Adornopoeticallyconjuresup‘illuminatededgesofclouds[that]

seemtogivedurationtolightningflashes.’(Adorno1997:92).Themeaningsor

truthsofaestheticimagesoughttobegivenjustenoughdurationbeforethey

disappearorarereconfiguredintoanewpattern.‘Naturalbeautyissuspended

history,amomentofbecomingatastandstill.’(Adorno1997:93)arguesAdorno,

evokingonceagainBenjamin’sfamousdefinitionofthedialecticalimage.Thus

naturalbeautyortheDialecticalImageisacombinationofstasisandtransience,

wherethemovementofthedialecticisarrestedinavividformthatilluminatesa

20

totality(theconditionofthehumanbeingundercapitalism,forexample)but

fromapositionthatisamomentaryarrangement(theaestheticexperienceitself)

gonebeforeitcancongealintoareifiedmonolithornewuniversalconcept.Yetit

leavestracesbehindit(intheformoftheaestheticpracticeandtheseedsithas

sowninconsciousness)thatcanbereconfiguredinfuturework/future

receptions(andalsosocialchange)ratherthanbelostforever.

Bibliography

Adorno,T.W.(1973)NegativeDialectics,London:RoutledgeKeganPaul.Adorno,T.W.(1981)‘TransparenciesonFilm’NewGermanCritique,no.24/45.Adorno,T.W.(1997)AestheticTheory,London:ContinuumPress.Adorno,T.W.(2001)Kant’sCritiqueofPureReason,Oxford:PolityPress.Benjamin,W.(1999a).Illuminations,London:Pimlico.Benjamin,W(1999b)TheArcadesProject,TranslatedbyHowardEilandandKevinMcLaughlin,CambridgeMassachusetts:HarvardUniversityPress.Buck-Morss,S(1989)TheDialecticsofSeeing,CambridgeMassachusetts:MITPress.Engels,F.(1977)‘IntroductionToDialecticsofNature’inKarlMarxandFrederickEngels,SelectedWorks,Vol.1,London:LawrenceandWishart.Enzensberger,H.M.(1982)CriticalEssays,NewYork:Continuum.Hobbes,T.(2006)‘ImageandIdolatry’inImages:AReader(eds)SunilManghani,ArthurPiperandJonSimons,London:Sage.Jay,M(1988)‘ScopicRegimesofModernity’inVision&Visuality(ed)HalFoster,SanFranscisco:BayPress.Jay,M(1994)TheDenigrationofVisioninTwentieth-CenturyFrenchThought,Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Lukács,G.(1971)HistoryandClassConsciousness:StudiesinMarxistdialectics,translatedbyRodneyLivingstone,London:MerlinPress.

21

Kant,I(1987)CritiqueofJudgment,translatedbyWernerS.Pluhar,

Indianapolis/Cambridge:HackettPublishingCompany,Inc.

Kant,I(1996)CritiqueofPureReason,translatedbyWernerS.Pluhar,

Indianapolis/Cambridge:HackettPublishingCompany,Inc.

Marx,K(1983)Capital,ACritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,London:Lawrenceand

Wishart.

Trotsky,L(1986)Trotsky’sNotebooks,1933-1935,TranslatedbyPhilipPomper,

NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityText.

Biography

MikeWayneisaProfessorinScreenmediaatBrunelUniversity.Heistheauthor

ofPoliticalFilm:thedialecticsofThirdCinema(2001),MarxismandMediaStudies:

KeyConceptsandContemporaryTrends(2003)andMarx’sDasKapitalFor

Beginners(2012).HeiscurrentlyworkingonRedKant:Marxism,Aestheticsand

theThirdCritique,tobepublishedbyContinuum.