Adorno on Spengler

MEN AND IDEAS

Was Spengler Right?By T. W..,4DORNO

W^S after all? TheSpengler righttemptation is strong to take an atti-tude of prim superciliousness: surely

Oswald Spengler, who had conceived of cultures(with so-called souls) as organisms, growing andspreading, flowering and withering from within,had never thought of anything so crude, sogrossly external as cities and nations in ruins,as genocide and homeless refugee masses; andhe certainly never imagined the possibility thatmankind would, a few brief decades after theappearance of his famous volumes, actuallypossess the technical means for literal self-destruction. He had been thinking rather of thedry exhaustion of creative impulses, of thetransition from what he called culture to whathe stigmatised as civilisation. It was this historictransformation which constituted for him thereal Untergang. But it seems to me, we wouldbe making things too easy for ourselves if wethinned Spenglers ideas down to their merelyspiritual, or aesthetic aspect. The books cele-brated impact on the general European andAmerican public over the last forty years wasinsepa, r, ably linked to its somb,r,e, ly prophetictitle: The Decline o[ the West. 1 Few wouldhave been moved or engaged if this phrase hadnot implied a great deal more than the cyclicaldrying-up of the sources for power and style inart. There was an element of brutality inSpenglers thought and it lent itself easily tobillboard simplifications. To overlook this is toretreat to that thin, refined, inadequate intellec-tuality which Spengler himself found so repel-lent.

So, to begin with, one must make the simplestcomment ofall--the West has notyet declined,the Abendland has not yet gone under. It is truethat the chronicle of the years from Hitlers

t An abridged edition (by Helmut Werner) waspublished ini96x by Allen & Unwin (32s.) and Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

25

seizure of power in Germany to the atomicdestruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki has sur-passed the wildest apocalyptic visions. But thetoughness, the resiliency, of the collective socialfabric of twentieth-century life which has notmerely repaired the immense human losses buteven, to a large extent, made good the unpre-cedented material destruction, has provedastonishing. Think of the current picture ofSpenglers Germany, building, booming, pros-perous, and this needs hardly be stressed. As amatter of fact the very contrary should, I think,be emphasised. In our contemporary mind therecent horror is all too easily repressed; the genu-ine proportions of the catastrophe are carelesslydiminished, and even dismissed as a kind ofregrettable traffic accident along the highway ofeconomic-technical progress. Spengler himselfrnight conceivably have argued that the periodsof decline from which he drew his analogies,especially the collapse of the Roman Empire,stretched out over centuries, that the deep tragicdecline of our own world has only just begunwith the passing but symptomatic phenomenonof Hitlerism, that a world split monstrouslyinto two gigantic military blocs, each bristlingwith atomic weapons, could only promisedisaster for the future. The anxiety, the fear andtrembling, in which nations and peoples of ourday live, and which are so all-pervasive that theyare almost everywhere mistaken for basic quali-ties of mankind, would only seem to strengthenthe argument for the Spenglerian position.

But this leads us, once again very simply, to ade-limitation of Spenglers method of analogy. Foris not the "technical progress," which has arousedthe panic of anxiety, the very same factor whichwould make any century-long period of declinean improbable thing? If the fate of Rome andBabylon were to overtake our world would it notbe with suddenness and violence? Kaputt wasthe tide of Curzio Malapartes fantasy of theSecond World War, and it summed up sensi-

PRODUCED 2003 BY UNZ.ORGELECTRONIC REPRODUCTION PROHIBITED

26 T. W. Adoraotively a feeling which had settled over the West.It is a feeling which today is denied and sup-pressed but the very idea of the renewal andreconstruction of cukure has about it an under-tone of futility which is revealing. I myself, in aIbook of reflections written during the last war(and later published under the title of MinimaMoralia) was pressed to ask what a civilis.~tion,in which innocent millions were done to deathin gas-chambers, could still be waiting for beforeconceding its own "decline." The foundationsof the life of the modern mind have been under-mined. This must be part of the painful aware-ness, the tragic self-consciousness, of every manof thought and feeling, unless he escapes intonarrow specialisation, modish aestheticism, ormerely keeping very busy. In Paris, where themodern mind once found its freest form andspirit, this can be felt to-day most acutely: thepresent is dominated only by memories. By thevery force of his theoretical concept Spenglereliminated the possibility of rendering eventsinnocuous by treating them as a kind of histori-cal interlude. I can remember a dream I oncehad during the first months of the Hitlerdictatorship: I dreamed that the world had cometo an end; I had hidden myself in a cellar, andafter the end of the world I crept out again.Was it only I who was dreaming, or our wholecollective unconscious? What has been happen-ing to us in our time can only be effectivelyresisted if one lives with the paradox of somehowhaving survived the very end.

GXVEN all this, and the implicit rejection ofthe fashionable attitude towards what isfamiliar, hence dated, hence old-hat--whereamong all of Spenglers disputatious critics wasthere one who was his peer?--perhaps we couldgo on to consider some of his concrete assertions,especially those for which the most can be said(and for which Spengler can scarcely claimexclusivity). Spenglers doctrine of the trans-formation of parliamentary democracy into dic-tatorship has, of course, many sources: there wasRobert Michels book on the sociology of politicalparties, and behind that the long realistic tradi-tion which includes not only Machiavelli but alsoAristotles Politics. In Werner Sombarts almost-forgotten study, published more than fifty yearsago, Why There Is No Socialism in /tmc~ica,there are some extraordinarily acute remarks onthe atavistic symptoms of mass society.

Has, then, the thesis of the metamorphosisof democracy into dictatorship, into "Caesar-ism," been in fact borne out by the totalitarianstates? The analogy, it seems to me, is so super-ficial that its validity would remain question-able even if the Hitler and Mussolini dictator-ships had not been overthrown. In Russia, surely,

the dictatorship did not arise out of parliamen-tary democracy; in fact, the short-livedConstitu-ent Assembly was forcibly dissolved. InGermany, to be sure, Der Fiihrer came to poweraccording to "the rules of the democratic game";the law by which he became dictator was ratifiedby a parliamentary majority. But, firstly, hismargin of support in the last Reichstag electionswas so narrow that he and his Nazi followerswould have been unable to govern without aputsch like that which followed the Reichstagfire. In any case the functioning of the Germanparliamentary system had been severely limitedever since i918 by the actual distribution ofpower; it never possessed the instruments foreffectiveness, and from the very beginningHitler was able to take advantage of the im-potence of the Weimar majorities. Parliamentarydemocracy did not "produce" Hitler; he ex-ploited its formal possibilities to undermine andeventually to destroy it. I seriously doubt whetherany conclusions can be drawn from the downfallof the Weimar Republic that would apply to agenuine democracy strong enough to face up toprivate arrogations of power witia the confidenceof wide popular support. In this very case ofso-called modern Caesarism Spenglers analogicalmethod begins to slip badly. In a reported con-versation with Hitler, Spengler once issued awarning to "beware of his Praetorians." It wasa simple, all too easy transference to modernrelationships of the ancient Roman dependenceon the imperial guards. But to-day the concen-tration of economic and military power makesit difficult to overthrow a dictatorship fromwithin; a pattern of rival cliques succeedingeach other on the throne of power is possibleonly in peripheral societies like Argentina.Hitler not only rid himself of his Praetorianguard (June 3oth, I934); he managed successfullyto paralyse the resistance of powerful dissidentArmy factions even at a time when the Reichwas in chaos and total military defeat certain.In other words, nowhere in the Spenglerianschema is there the conception of a highly-organised and thoroughly centralised society aswe have come to observe it under totalitarianism.It is something new in history. Never have menbeen so ruthlessly subjected to political power.In relation to this the Spenglerian prophecies,dark and realistic as they sometimes a~pear, havesomething naive and good-natured at~out them,something of the raised forefinger of a Germanschool-teacher telling his class, "Schon die altenRi~mer..." (even in the days of ancientRome...).

W H^x remains indisputably striking forany reader to-day are Spenglers predic-tions or modern mass society, especially its


Four LettersSpengler to Adolf Hitler

SEHR VEREHRTER HERR REICHSKANZLER ]I am taking the liberty o[ sending you to-day

a copy ol my new book ["lahre der Entschei-dung," "Years ot Decision"], which I hope willmeet with a lriendly reception. I wouldappreciate it i t at some time you could give meyour opinion on these questions in person.

Mit sehr ergebenem Grass lhr

Joseph Goebbels to SpenglerBerlin, 2~ October

In view o/ the derisive importance o/ the/orthcoming general election both 1or ihe 1utureol German polities and o[ the German people,1 would be grate/ul i/you could place at my dis-posal an article which would enlighten theGerman people as to the tar-reaching signifi-cance of their impending derision and wouldendorse the policies o/ the Volkskanzler. Thisarticle could be three to tour typewritten pagesin length and would then be given by me to thepress 1or/urther circulation.

As regards the essays theme and content, 1think that your particular interests and fieldo[ study will provide the most natUral point odeparture. I could well imagine that the cultiva-tion oI Germanys cultural and intellectualheritage, as the Government has set it in motion,and the struggle /or Germanys honour andplace in the world, which the Government hastaken up with such determination, could [ormthe subject oI the article.

Naturally the details ol the composition arele/t to you. A prompt delivery o/the requestedarticle would be welcome.

Spengler to Joseph Goebbels3 November

SEHR VEREHRTER HERR MINISTER,On my return /rom Italy 1 /ound the letter

Irom your Ministry, a copy o[ which is enclosed.I take this opportunity to write to you person-ally. I have never participated in election propa-ganda, nor will I do so in the/uture. However, 1would very much appreciate it i[ 1 could writearticles 1or the German press concerning impor-tant developments in /oreign policy (such as thesecession 1rom the League o/ Nations, which 1consider to be diplomatically quite correct). I have not been able to do this in the past [orwant o[ an agency to submit them to the press.

However, I can only do this on the conditionthat the unwarranted attacks against me thathave appeared recently in various organs o[ thenationalist press are discontinued. To give an ex-

I Spengler had met Hitler once. In a letter of a8 July ~9~3, heb~efly noted: "Yesterday had long conversation wi~ Gustav [hiscode name for Hitler, lX~sibly becat~e of the "Gustav~ Adolphus"association] ....

z There is no copy of Spenglers reply avathble. Most of the lettees,especially those that could compromise him politically with the Naziauthorities, Were destroyed by him after the purge of 3o June ~9~;4.

ample, while the chic[ editor o/ the "Kreuz-zeitung" happened to be away, two articlesappeared in it describing me, among otherthings, as a traitor. It is impossible to give publicsupport to Germany i[ such attacks appear atthe same time. Personally, i am utterly in-different; I have suffered so many insults in thelast filteen years that 1 have become thoroughlythick-skinned. But as regards my endeavour toserve the German cause, they are an obstaclewhich will have to be removed. When 1 had mytal k with the Reichskanzler in Bayreuth a/ew months ago, he told me that he attachedgreat importance to winning people outside theparty over to German policy3 This is also myconviction; but as I have said, it is thwarted i/ acertain moderation is not observed in criticism.I ask you, therelore, to try to see to it that thiskind of thing does not go on.

l should like to add my request to speak toyou personally sometime, and an occasion willundoubtedly arise here in Munich soon. Thereare a number o/things Id like to tell you, andperhaps make a [ew suggestions.

I remain most respect/ully,lhr sehr ergebener,

OSWALD SPENGLER

Elisabeth Ffrster-Nietzsche to SpenglerMr DEAR FRIEND, IVeimar, I~ October z93f

I hear to my great distress that you are turn-ing your back on the Nietzsche Archive andre[use to have anything more to do with it.I greatly deplore this/act and cannot at all com-prehend the reason/or it. 1 have been in/ormedthat you have taken a strongly antagonisticstand against the Third Reich and its Fiihrerand that your break with the Nietzsche Archive,which holds the Fiihrer in the warmest esteem,is said to be related to this. Now I myselt haveheard you speak most energetically against ourhighly esteemed new Ideal. But this is preciselywhat I do not understand. Does not our deeplyrespected Fiihrer bring the same ideals andvalues to the Third Reich as you expressed in"Preussentum and Sozialismus"? What, then,has brought about your strong opposition now?

But perhaps 1 am mistaken and it is not ouralignment with the ideals ol National Socialismbut other reasons that separate you trom us. Dowrite me an enlightening, com/orting word.

I was told that possibly your withdrawal wascaused by a book. I searched m,y memory andasked mysel/--surely, it couldn t be my latestbook? For this consists entirely o/ harmlessanecdotes which, in the past, have given youpleasure.

Well then, dear /riend, tell me what it isthat divides us. You leaving us causes me deeppain and I cannot find the true explanation,s

With warmest greetings in the old spirit o/devotion and respect, lhr ergebene,

ELISABETH F~RSTER-NIETZ$CHR


28 T. W.. Adornoatavistic aspects for which he developed theimage of "modern cave-men," and th1% longbefore contempt for the masses itself became an

:article for mass consumption. Here there is an imitation of the Nietzschean note, but a bitshriller. Spengler ignores the general conditionsunder which the "barbarian reversion of themodern masses" takes place, and operates onlywith catch-words like rootlessness, urban, chaos,Caesarism, neo-primitivism, pseudo-religiosity,etc. History becomes a mystical thing, partmythology, part zodiac. It takes another kind ofvision and discipline to see. that the defects andirrationalities of mass attitudes are a responseto unique social pressures which weigh unceas-ingly on men and women to-day. SigmundFreud, in his brilliant (and far too little known)work on das Unbehagen in der Kultur (Civilisa-tion and Its Discontents) traces the mass traitsdescribed by Gustav Le Bon back to the basicdeprivations which civilisation (or "Kultur")--that is, organised society ruled by laws of worka-day living and constant adjustment--imposeson mankind. For Spengler these traits are fixedfor all time as "eternal recurrences."

It is obvious, I think, that here Spenglersphilosophy is really dispensing altogether withthe concept of history, for he has linked it toan inviolable rhythm of unvarying repetition;the charge is not without justice that he is guiltyof a kind of defeatism towards humanity. Notunlike many other great philosophers of history:before him, the people~ the masses, are reducedto the inevitable waste-product thrown off by thecyclical process of life and politics, and as suchan element fated for control and subjugation.Pessimism, which not infrequently serves as acritique and indictment of present evils, serveshere only as a kind of deification of the ironforces. That special 3lite, whose approval theauthor of The Decline. o~ the West craved for,could only welcome the new .S~englerian notefor the traditional contempt of me masses. Thatin the general Giitterdiimmerung even this3lite was thieatened with destruction certainlydid not escape Spenglers sharp eyes; but itserved to glorify domination and authority asa tragic, heroic, fateful thing.

Spengler also predicted the mounting intel-lectual indifference which characterises our age.An observer of the development of the socialsciences over the last decades can only confirmthe. displacement of social criticism by a kindof mindless realism whose final message isadjustment to the world as it is. Where criticalenergies dry up because there is no hope forchanging the world, intellect itself becomessomething vague and shadowy; Spengler did notquite say this in so many words, but he sensedit clearly enough, especially in his analysis of

the intelligentsia in a dynamic, mobile, society,(in his language: the relationship between intel-lect and money). How final is hl~s verdict on themodern mind? Is Geist condemned to a narrow-ing, limiting historical phase, or is there still afuture in which thought, spirit, intellect, nolonger powerless, will recover its sense of generalrange and scope? Where Spengler confrontedsigns of Ohnm~cht, powerlessness, there for himwere the symbols of fate. And to fate, toSchicl(sal, he could only surrender. He thoughtof himself as impartial, as free from personalbias or desire, but his very impartiality helped,so to say, the declension of what was alreadydeclining.

S r ~- ~ o ~. ~- a belongs among the fore-runnersof National-Socialism, even if, as with somany others in the Germany of his time, Hitlerwas never lein genug, well-bred enough. Thisgave his body of thought a certain note of pro-vincialism, a framework of narrower limitswhich distorted just those "timeless" and"universal" perspectives he was so fond of pro-claiming. What-he ascribed to "the West" (dasAbendland) and to what he Called "the Faustiansoul" has come to take root eve[ywhere and hasbecome, for better or worse, the way of theworld. And What has followed has not been theemergence of "a new Soul" (like that "Russiansoul" Spengler believed in) but a dramatic,drastic alternative between a reasonable re-organisation of world order or the precipitationof general catastrophe. Nowhere has Spenglerbeen more sharply and conclusively refuted thanon his views of Western technology and itsuniquely boundless drive towards mastery overnature. For who can doubt to-day that allpeoples, even those of the East (or South), areCapable of ambitious industrial development andof technological achievements not tar behindthat of the Spenglerian West. To speak here ofa "pseudo-morphosis" would be to indulge onlyin face-saving sophistry.

Clearly, a decisive change has overtaken whatSpengler called the West. The political centreof gravity has shifted from England and theold European continent to America and Russia,who enioy to-day a certain historic extra-territoriality. There has been a deep and wide-spread break, in continuities,. . especially in thegeneral sense of h,story. But tt would be wrongto make any one-sided emphasis on differencesand special cultural nuances. Tractors rumblealong, penicillin shots cure, atom-bombs go onexploding, no matter what "Seelentum" markthe souls of the managing experts. WhenSpengler devotes brilliant pages to the classifica-tion of the "souls" of the various great systemsof mathematics, this may be an incisive and


Was Spengler Right ?correct ~c-~u~~ of-their ~i~tual beginnings anddevelopment; but it is quite certain that thesevarious intellectual systems are only mathe-matics if they are correct and coherent withinthemselves, if they obey the general laws ofmathematics and ultimately the reason of logic.Spengler, however, indulged in a mythologisa-tion of "culture-souls" which could lead only tothe relativistic extremism in which reason appar-ently exhausts itself in the social and psycho-logical activities of individual peoples. From thisit was only a step to the mad racial anthropolo-gies which flowered in the Third Reich, andwhich, by making the peculiar assignment ofphilosophy to Germany alone, destroyed the veryessence of philosophy, the idea of truth.

T ~r ~. question still remains, after these fewbrief suggestions, whether Spengler, in thelast analysis, could be right. He felt that theblind nature-ridden character of society, itsimmaturity, drives it on to disaster. His notionsof fate and destiny always had a note of doomabout them. But it was also those economistsand political scientists whom Spengler scornfullydismissed who had issued blunt warnings aboutthe coming breakdown of the Western socialorder. When so precious little of what wasabsolutely necessary was undertaken at all,Spenglers harshness with his contemporariesmight almost have constituted a shock whichmight have helped to save them.

29But Spenglers untruth lies in his identification

of the "natural" qualities of previous history, or~re-history, with Nature and the nature of thingsself, and this in turn became an Absolute for

him which he was prepared to defend againstthe elements of reason and enlightenment. Hewas a patron of that dark doom whose cominghe had so gloomily forecast. The importantquestion is not how and why various historicalepochs blindly displace each other, and whichsocieties survive or decline, but rather whetherthis instinctive thoughtless mechanical process,this monstrous rhythm with which Spenglersmind had intoxicated itself, can be overcome--whether mankind will learn to determine itself.For reason and its .objective virtues make possiblea rational and genuinely free organisation of theworld. But for it to become a reality it is neces-sary to abandon that contemplative pose, insecret league with disaster, which Spenglerstrikes. Mankinds downfall will not be decidedby "cosmic souls." If man is ever to come toshape his own destinies more effectively, it isnot Spenglerian appeals to the "weakness of theself" which will help. Sympathising as he didwith the alleged cosmic laws which rule man-kind, he brought philosophy down to the levelof astrology and responded to the horror whichhe had so keenly sensed with a superstitionwhich could only facilitate it. It is this which hasto be resisted, the will and urge, as in WagnersWotan, to end all things.

The Man in the HeartLook into my heart,Stranger, and tell meWhat you see there.Our lives have crossedBriefly. You have seenThese hands move,This mouth mumbleDumbly, and I have notBeen blind to theQuadratic equationOf your mind. ButThe man in the mouthAnd the man in the heartAre not the sameqAnd you cannot seeInto my heart.

David John Lines


Documents

Adorno on Spengler