Report on the Work “Totalitarian Propaganda in Germany and Italy,” by Siegfried Kracauer, pp. 1–106
T. W. ADORNO
In evaluating Kracauer’s text, which in terms of length will comprise approximately half the overall piece, it seems to me insufficient simply to confront him with our categories and to examine the extent to which he is in unison with them.1 Instead, we should presume from the outset that Kracauer is neither committed to us in terms of his theoretical approach, nor does he rank as a scholarly {wissenschaftlich} writer in terms of his working methods. The question then is, having acknowledged these preconditions familiar to us, does his work have anything to offer us, and what can we best use—be it for publication or for developing our own theory.
I would like to formulate my impression as a preliminary thesis as follows: the work is neither of real theoretical value nor sufficiently grounded in the empirical material, but it does occasionally express in highly useful literary formulations particular experiences and observations whose validity transcends the outsider position of the author.
As regards the theoretical side, it should be noted that Kracauer is not a trained Marxist and as a result constructs the relationship of fascism and fascistic propaganda with the current phase of capitalism in more or less vague analogies and sometimes betrays an aversion to Marxist methodology itself, springing from individualistic reservations. Furthermore, his social-psychological reflections are not truly grounded, and psychoanalysis, in particular, plays the role of stopgap. This becomes clear, for example, in his remarks about sadomasochism, where the decisive difference between repressed and practised sadism is completely overlooked, so that Kracauer, who constantly refers to Horkheimer’s theses, twists them to mean just the opposite. In the place of a sound theoretical foundation, Kracauer’s text relies instead on a trove of convictions popular among present-day left-wing intellectuals, in which Marxist and psychoanalytic concepts quietly take their place alongside vulgar psychological and sociological notions and common-sense argumentation. Kracauer’s inventory of categories is not so far removed from the leftist bourgeois writer of Stefan Zweig’s ilk, as the pretension of the expression makes us think. The consequence of this is a certain non-binding informality and contingency of the theoretical underpinnings, which at times borders on the amateurish. This is particularly true of the derivation of fascism from the principle of the war, which is conceptualized in a socially neutral way. Thus, the entire introduction of the work, at least up to p. 30, probably even longer, is unusable—about which, incidentally, our group appears to be unanimous.
As for its empirical-scholarly {empirisch-wissenschaftlich} credentials, it should be stated that Kracauer—for reasons, I assume, connected with his precarious situation—has not studied the sources enough. His citations are mostly second hand, and the direct quotations from Hitler, some of which are extraordinarily interesting, are not evaluated sufficiently. The material about Italy is taken almost exclusively from Silone, who seems to me in no way above suspicion as a Marxist authority. I would therefore like to propose that all sections referring to Italy are dropped from any publication.
The strengths of the work lie for me in the quality of observation, of the literary experience of many formulations (we are not overly blessed with contributions of such writerly quality) and in a certain ability to arrange the factual material which at times compensates for what the work lacks in actual theoretical prowess. I would like to draw particular attention to pp. 53–57, which remain strictly within a purely phenomenological framework, but must, by these standards, be considered truly extraordinary. The thesis of the mobility of partial ideologies in fascism; much in the representation of Terror; the method and insights of drawing conclusions about fascism from the “mirror reflection”—that is, from the fascist representation of non-fascist facts; what’s more, the theses about the constant reproduction of the mass through fascism and the critique of the opposition between the personality of the leader and the mass as a mere pseudo-opposition (a critique, incidentally, which could be made even sharper). I find all this so illuminating, and also new, that we should publish it.
Even though all these analyses lack economic rigor, one can say in Kracauer’s defense that an economic theory of monopoly capitalism, which could support the analysis of fascism, does not yet exist; but also that precisely the detailed description of the fascist propaganda mechanism can call into question the kind of naively economistic approach which hinders Marxism at the current stage. One could, so to speak, make a Marxist virtue of Kracauer’s theoretical necessity. Regarding this point, I would like to draw particular attention to the passage in Kracauer’s text where he criticizes the argument that fascist mass events and the fascist construction of façades, more generally, are “unprofitable.”
Since the positive elements of the work are beset throughout with theoretical improvisation and naiveties, and furthermore, since the work extends far beyond the space available in the journal—even if the first 30 or pages were omitted—I would like to suggest working through to find the usable sections, to note these down under headings and separate them out from Kracauer’s context, inasmuch as this context appears arbitrary. On the other hand, Kracauer’s useful classifications ought to be retained. This material would then be used to produce a new article no longer than two journal signatures {Zeitschriftenbogen}.2 I am willing to commit to completing this task.
I would like us to bear in mind one thing: Kracauer has clearly made a herculean effort in this work to work his way out of the sphere of market-driven writing, to which the Offenbach book belongs. I commend his effort highly. Essentially, the quality of the work improves as it progresses. I therefore consider it entirely possible that the as yet uncompleted second part of the work will be better than the first. It therefore perhaps makes sense to wait for the arrival of the second part before we embark upon editing.
Finally, I don’t think I’m guilty of any sentimentality if I say that, in the case of a victim of emigration like Kracauer who is, after all, making an honest effort to regain his intellectual standard, the morale boost that a publication has on an author should be taken seriously and not left out of our considerations as we reach a decision.
At the same time, in the course of the European propaganda campaign I have repeatedly encountered the wish for more contributions on political sociology, and the edited Kracauer essay could well meet this desideratum, without overly burdening us politically.
New York, 5 March 1938
Translated by John Abromeit
1. {Adorno was reviewing the sections of the text that Kracauer had finished and sent to him and Horkheimer by the beginning of March, 1938. Adorno did not yet have the complete text at his disposal. See the editor Bernd Stiegler’s “Nachwort,” in Siegfried Kracauer, Totalitäre Propaganda, ed. Bernd Stiegler (Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2013), 322–23.}
2. {In printing, a “signature” (the equivalent of a “Druckbogen”) is four sheets cut and bound together to form sixteen pages. So, this means that the article was intended to be two signatures—that is, thirty-two pages long.}