Theodor Adorno, Cornelius Castoriadis,
& the critique of identity thinking

Browne, Craig. “Two Critiques of Identity: Adorno and Castoriadis on the Capitalist Imaginary,” in Reading Adorno: The Endless Road, edited by Amirhosein Khandizaji (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2019), pp. 1-35.

Browne hones in on the fine points of Adorno’s conception of identity thinking and contrasts it with Castoriadis’ approach. Here are key quotes; boldfacing is mine [RD]:

Adorno contended that the principle of identity constitutes the nucleus of the capitalist constellation, because it underpins commodity exchange and the formal rationality of bureaucratic administration. Castoriadis associated the extension of the logic of identity in modernity with similar tendencies, but he accentuated the social imaginary horizon of meaning that animates the deployment of this logic. In either case, the logic of identity is perceived to underlie capitalism’s tendencies to dissolve meaningful social relations and to anchor rationality in the repression of aspects of subjectivity. Yet, Adorno and Castoriadis equally recognise that the critique of the logic of identity confronts a genuine antinomy. Although it is integral to capitalism and expands with it, the logic of identity is present in every form of the institution of society and the existence of an individual is conditional on an ability to exercise it. This universality is evident from the fact that the logic of identity enables the definition of what is the same (identical) and what is different. It is then a necessary, though not sufficient, dimension of such elemental conditions of social life as the use of language, the classification of things, and the technical relating of means to ends. There are three primary senses of the logic of identity that Adorno and Castoriadis critique: the formal logical attribution, the identifying format of subjective consciousness, and Hegel’s dialectical conception of the identity of identity and non-identity. [pp. 2-3]

*     *     *     *     *

[. . . .] Castoriadis argues that social imaginaries are irreducible to the logic of identity, owing to their complex and multifaceted combination of meanings and significations. Like Castoriadis, Adorno believes that the systematic and unlimited application of identity logic is contradictory. Its aporias are concealed by meanings that transcend it. Of particular significance, Adorno and Castoriadis claim that the logic of identity is integral to the distinctive form of capitalist domination, because it consolidates a manner of relating to the world as an objectified reality. The capitalist imaginary is primarily that of the rational, but actually pseudo-rational, unlimited domination and control of nature and society. 4 In Adorno’s opinion, rational domination is contingent on the logic of identity.” [p. 3]

Both were influenced by Weber’s theory of [capitalist] rationalization. Browne thinks that these critiques may be limited, especially in light of subsequent developments.

I will initially outline aspects of the three primary senses of identity. This will provide insights into the overlapping and contrasting dimensions of Adorno’s and Castoriadis’ critiques. In particular, Adorno and Castoriadis explore the nexus between identity logic and the capitalist imaginary in relation to the denaturing of subjectivity, the prospective alignment of value and justice in the notion of equivalence, and the social-historical formation of the signification of rational domination. The different perspectives on the social-historical complexion of the capitalist imaginary are shown to be in some tension with the model of organised capitalism that they suggest gives unprecedented expression to the logic of identity. The possibilities that these divergent theoretical tendencies may have opened up for grasping permutations in the capitalist imaginary were not fully pursued by them. Instead, these critiques centre on the insufficiency of the logic of identity and the constraints that it imposes on any project of emancipation. Whether there has been a metamorphosis in the capitalist imaginary will then explored in relation to several relevant recent interpretations of changes in significations and institutionalised practices.” [p. 4]

See also:

Adorno, Theodor W. “Late Capitalism or Industrial Society?” (1968), translated by Dennis Redmond, 2001.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Castoriadis Reader, translated and edited by David Ames Curtis. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1997.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. Crossroads in the Labyrinth [1978], translated from the French by Kate Soper and Martin H. Ryle. Brighton, Sussex, UK: The Harvester Press, 1984.

Castoriadis, Cornelius. The Imaginary Institution of Society, translated by Kathleen Blamey. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1987.

Cornelius Castoriadis: Key Concepts, edited by Suzi Adams. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.

Note: My previous, tangential ‘engagement’ with Cornelius Castoriadis occurred over 20 years ago, as Castoriadis’ erstwhile Marxist group Socialisme ou Barbarie collaborated with C.L.R. James and his Johnson-Forest Tendency. Castoriadis moved on. I did not take an interest in his more contemporary work, though I at least knew of the existence of The Imaginary Institution of Society and Crossroads in the Labyrinth.

Theodor W. Adorno & Critical Theory Study Guide

Positivism vs Life Philosophy (Lebensphilosophie) Study Guide

100 Years of C.L.R. James

Marx and Marxism Web Guide