2021, issue 2
The Idea of Tolerance and The Perspective of The Individual
Arthur Cools
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 License International License (CC
BY 4.0). © 2021 The author(s).
DOI Licence
Krisis 41 (2): 55-56.
10.21827/krisis.41.2.38240
552021, issue 2
The Idea of Tolerance and The Perspective of The Individual
Arthur Cools
How is critical theory possible? – The question must have had an immediate urgency in
the context in which Adorno was writing the aphorisms of Minima Moralia. The legit-
imacy of Max Horkheimer’s distinction between critical theory and traditional theory
and the social relevance of the interdisciplinary research programme at the Institut für
Sozialforschung were radically at stake given World War II and the ongoing destruction
of the European continent through fascism. Exiled in the United States, Adorno was
facing the breakdown of civil society, the subjugating logic of industrial production,
the rise of the consumer society, the solitude of the individual. The historical context
has changed but late-capitalist production, individualism, and consumer society did not
disappear.
How is critical theory possible? – the question still demands. The answer to
this question that motivated Adorno to write the aphorisms of Minima Moralia is “the
sphere of the individual”: in this sphere, he contends that “… critical theory lingers not
only with a bad conscience” (“Dedication”).1 In the individualist society, the historical
meaning of the social and the inner conicts of society are repressed, but they re-appear
in the experience of the individual. Moreover, in an individualist society, the emanci-
patory power of contestation can only come from the individual. The aphorism is the
form that imposes itself in order to take into account this condition of the individual.
The negative is given with this form because the aphorism does not lead to synthesis.
It refuses to be integrated with the dialectical unication of opposites. However, the
aphorism is not sealed – it is not a hedgehog as in the case of Schlegel’s Romantic
idea of aphorism – it leads the individual beyond itself. It intends to reveal and express
from the perspective of the individual the meaning of the social, the various relations
of actual society to the individual, and how far disconnected they may be from a true
sense of universality. There is no encompassing theory, no argument-based connections
between denitions, no conclusions, but in each fragment, a new unique reection on
basic concepts of modernity and modern society arising from a minimal individual
sensibility; – how does critical theory appear from this condition?
Tolerance is such a concept to which Adorno draws our attention in the aph-
orism “Mélange” (§ 66). It is a fundamental principle in a multicultural society. The
idea of tolerance is based upon the argument that all people and all races are equal, but
“it lays itself open to the easy refutation by the senses”.2 Given the scientic evidence
that Jews are not a race, the idea of tolerance does not alter the fact that in the event
of a pogrom, it is the Jew who is intended to be killed. The “refutation” of the idea of
tolerance is not limited to the factual event of genocide. As an abstract normative ideal,
the idea of tolerance is complicit in supporting social mechanisms which neglect dier-
ences between individuals and stimulate convictions that not enough has been done to
consider individuals as equal. In this way, the individual is subsumed under a standard of
which they fall short. “To assure the black”, says Adorno (who is using here the N word
in German), “that he is exactly like the white man, while he is obviously not, is secretly
to wrong him still further.”3 From the perspective of the individual, the idea of tolerance
562021, issue 2
appears to be an instrument of adaptation to a given standard of norms. However, the
aphorism that critically reveals this complicity between the idea of tolerance and the
system of industrial capitalism cannot guarantee avoiding the risk of being unjust in its
turn. Nor can the individual that opposes the normative ideals of the system: “stubborn
enthusiasm for blacks gets along with outrage at Jewish uncouthness”.4
How then is critical theory possible? – The question is not resolved. The answer
is not given once and for all. Yet the very act of addressing this question anew in the
present context of political activism attests to the power of critical theory.
I slightly changed the English translation of
Minima Moralia by E.F.N. Jephcott (London / New
York, Verso, 2005) in accordance with the original
text that I quote in the footnote. “In ihr [die Sphäre
des Individuellen] verweilt die kritische Theorie
nicht nur mit schlechtem Gewissen.”
“Es setzt sich der bequemen Widerlegung durch
die Sinne aus, […].”
“Attestiert man dem Neger, er sei genau wie
der Weiße, während er es doch nicht ist, so tut man
ihm insgeheim schon wieder Unrecht an.”
“mit der sturen Begeisterung für die Neger
verträgt sich die Entrüstung über jüdische
Unmanieren.”
1
2
3
4
Arthur Cools is professor in the philosophy depart-
ment at the University of Antwerp. He teaches
Contemporary Philosophy (continental tradition),
Philosophy of Art and Aesthetics. He publishes in the
field of critical theory, philosophy of literature,
herme neutics and contemporary French phenome-
nol ogy. He is the author ofLangage et subjectivité.
Vers une approche du différend entre Maurice Blanchot et
Emmanuel Levinas(2007) and has co-editedLevinas
and Literature. New Directions(2021),Kafka and the
Universal(2016),Debating Levinas’ Legacy(2015),
Metaphors in Modern and Contemporary Philosophy
(2013),andThe Locus of Tragedy(2008) amongst others.
BiographyNotes
