Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno's critique of instrumental reason, as presented in "Dialectic of Enlightenment," is a key part of their argument against the pursuit of enlightenment. They assert that modern philosophy is largely driven by the desire to dominate and control nature.

 

This excessive focus on positivism prioritizes the means to achieve enlightenment (instrumental reason) over evaluating the legitimacy of the resulting enlightenment. This overemphasis on instrumental reason, especially in the form of historicism, can be observed in Plato's "Republic" and Friedrich Nietzsche's "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life." Plato's political philosophy is rooted in a purely instrumental understanding of history, criticized for its totalitarian vision of all-powerful "philosopher-kings." Nietzsche, on the other hand, critiques this historicism, arguing that it reduces the rich, subjective nature of humanity to simplistic materialism.

​

In both texts, we can see the dangers of instrumental reason, unintentionally in Plato's case and intentionally in Nietzsche's. They argue that instrumental reason cannot serve as the sole guiding principle for governing a society or examining one's inner self without first incorporating a sense of subjectivity. Both aspects, governing society and understanding human nature, are essential components of enlightenment. This reaffirms Horkheimer and Adorno's argument that excessive and unchecked instrumental reason leads humanity to negative outcomes.

 

Horkheimer and Adorno wrote "Dialectic of Enlightenment" during a period of intense personal and ideological persecution, forced into exile in the United States due to the rise of the Nazi regime. Their work was significantly influenced by this historical context and their growing awareness of totalitarianism's emergence in Europe and elsewhere. In the United States, they observed the emergence of a different form of totalitarianism – mass consumer culture driven by oppressive large-scale industrial capitalism. In the collective pursuit of enlightenment, philosophy increasingly prioritized conquering and controlling nature. Positivism and instrumental reason took precedence over identifying rational and meaningful goals. This led to the justification of fascist tendencies as means to an end, with little regard for the moral implications.

 

Horkheimer and Adorno extended the concept of instrumental reasoning to encompass all branches of philosophy, even traditionally subjective ones like history, government, and epistemology. They argued that allowing instrumental reason and objectivity to invade traditionally subjective domains and normalizing indifference toward this phenomenon would ultimately result in the establishment of a fascist state. This epidemic of objectivity also constrained cognition, preventing subjective or internal questioning, and trapping critical intuition in a cycle of objectivity. Subjective thought was reduced to mere representation, while objective thought was considered true, unchangeable, and universal, effectively elevating it to a divine status. This internal entrenchment of a fascist state became a technocracy, where decision-makers were exclusively experts in their respective fields, further widening the gap between the governing body and the citizens. The concerns of the general public were marginalized, completing the transformation into a fascist government under the guise of objective, instrumental reason as the guiding principle. This system diverged from traditional forms of social domination seen in Europe and necessitated its own theoretical analysis.

​

As an alternative to excessive instrumental reason, Horkheimer and Adorno proposed a mode of reasoning that did not reshape all subjects into a convenient format for analysis but allowed for the accommodation of subjects' true, unaltered forms.

​

Horkheimer and Adorno's critiques of instrumental reason are directly applicable to Plato's political philosophy in "The Republic." Plato's vision of the philosopher-king ruling over an ideal society has been criticized for its totalitarian undertones. He posits that this ruler's power is justified by their knowledge of natural laws, which, according to Plato's historicism, determine all aspects of history and humanity. By extending this idea to the philosopher-king, Plato promotes an extreme form of instrumental reasoning. This model has been strongly criticized for its potential to enable tyrants, demagogues, and totalitarians who can impose their oppressive interpretations of Plato's natural laws under the pretext of objectivity. Popper, in "The Open Society and Its Enemies," particularly accuses Plato of indirectly inspiring Nazism and other 20th-century fascist movements, citing the lack of criticism historically directed at "The Republic." Plato also disparages democracy and any form of government that encourages public input, fearing that such freedom would allow subjective motives to undermine the objective integrity of society. The totalitarian implications of Plato's ideal society result from extreme instrumental reasoning, where the technocratic authority is funneled into the all-powerful philosopher-king who makes all government decisions. Despite humanity and government traditionally being considered subjective areas of analysis, Plato imposes an overarching objective principle on all philosophical matters related to governance. This mirrors the adverse instrumental reasoning criticized in "Dialectic of Enlightenment." Plato believes it's essential to eliminate subjective modes of reasoning for his ideal society to flourish, creating a system of governance that entirely excludes the general public from participating in societal decisions unless their motivations are purely altruistic. This leads to cognitive entrapment, as the public is forced to conform their critical intuition to a state of pure objectivity. Society's perceptions of the world become purely empirical, with subjective modes of reason deemed irrelevant. According to Plato's critics, this results in a totalitarian government reflective of an unchallenged application of instrumental reason, much like the critical failure described by Horkheimer and Adorno.

​

In "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life," Friedrich Nietzsche echoes Horkheimer and Adorno's critiques of instrumental reason. However, while "Dialectic of Enlightenment" focuses on the damaging effects of philosophical objectivity on governance and society, Nietzsche's arguments are centered on individuals and knowledge. He first challenges the same historicism used by Plato, an approach that suggests man can be understood empirically through natural laws. Nietzsche argues that there are fundamental subjective elements within man, rendering strict instrumental reasoning incompatible and prone to yielding false conclusions. Human perceptions are subjective, and so is the reality individuals construct for themselves. To assume that man is purely objective overlooks the significant subjective variations in human experience. Nietzsche highlights the dangers of excessive historicism, reducing critical intuition to a single inflexible perspective. In strictly objective analysis, subjective elements are either misunderstood or dismissed as mere representations, distorting one's understanding of the world. This distortion becomes more profound when it affects an entire society, hindering and eventually reversing collective intellectual growth. This aligns with Horkheimer and Adorno's concept of cognitive entrapment, where thought becomes trapped in a cycle of objectivity each time it applies strict instrumental reasoning. Nietzsche also identifies a certain arrogance in instrumental reasoning, as reasoners come to believe they possess an infallible, universal understanding, making it challenging to reexamine their critical intuition. This is particularly evident in cases of excessive historicism, where modernity believes its mode of reasoning is superior and cumulative, encompassing all that came before it. Furthermore, since Nietzsche views knowledge as a subjective construct, relying on strictly objective processes in thought undermines the pursuit of truth. Reasonable thinking should always be dynamic, questioning its own epistemological assumptions and drawing from various philosophical branches to refine itself. Staying content and stagnant with instrumental reason is an unfavorable epistemological outcome for humanity. Horkheimer and Adorno's criticisms accurately reflect Nietzsche's model of devolution, where instrumental reason reshapes critical intuition into a pattern of thought that falsely assumes the objectivity and constancy of human perception. Nietzsche's critiques of historicism are noteworthy because they extend the adverse consequences of blind objective assumptions to humanity as a whole. Consequently, Nietzsche's "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life" provides a localized argument that aligns with Horkheimer and Adorno's critiques of instrumental reason on a societal and governmental scale.

​

The primary argument against the pursuit of enlightenment in "Dialectic of Enlightenment" revolves around the excessive use of instrumental reason as a guiding philosophical principle. Horkheimer and Adorno contend that this overreliance on positivism and empirical observation, which are consequences of a strictly instrumental mode of reasoning, causes individuals to focus more on the process than on the ultimate goals. This emphasis on process is particularly problematic in the contexts of society and government. "Dialectic of Enlightenment" specifically examines the mass consumer culture of the United States, where philosophy increasingly prioritizes the conquest and control of nature. Positivism and instrumental reason take precedence over identifying rational and meaningful objectives. This leads to the justification of fascist tendencies under the guise of pursuing enlightenment, with little consideration for the moral implications.

​

In conclusion, Horkheimer and Adorno's critiques of instrumental reason are relevant not only to the pursuit of enlightenment but also to the realms of governance, society, and human understanding. Their arguments resonate in the contexts of Plato's "Republic" and Nietzsche's "On the Use and Abuse of History for Life," where the dangers of excessive instrumental reasoning are evident. All three texts emphasize that instrumental reason cannot be the sole guiding principle in governing society or comprehending human nature without first incorporating subjective considerations. This echoes Horkheimer and Adorno's central message: an unchecked reliance on instrumental reason can lead to detrimental outcomes.