In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

153 Notes Introduction The epigraph to this introduction comes from Plato, Protagoras, trans. Stanley Lombardo and Karen Bell (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1992), 17–18. 1. See, e.g., Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function , trans. W. D. Halls (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1964); James George Frazer, The Magic Art and the Evolution of Kings, vol. 1, pt. 1, of The Golden Bough (New York: Macmillan, 1935); and Edward B. Tylor, Primitive Culture: Researches into the Development of Mythology, Philosophy, Religion, Art, and Custom, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1871). 2. Sigmund Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents, trans. James Strachey (New York: Norton, 1961), 111–12. 3. Georges Bataille, The Accursed Share: An Essay on General Economy (New York: Zone Books, 1988). 4. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 1972), 48–62. 5. René Girard, Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, trans. Stephen Bann and Michael Metteer (London: Athlone Press, 1987). See also Wolfgang Palaver, René Girards mimetische Theorie im Kontext kulturtheoretischer und gesellschaftspolitischer Fragen (Hamburg: LIT Verlag, 2003), 299–301. 6. Giorgio Agamben, Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, trans. Daniel Heller-Roazen (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1998). 7. J. P. Stern, The Dear Purchase: A Theme in German Modernism (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1995), 63–71. 8. Ibid., 83. 9. Hubert and Mauss, Sacrifice, 13. 10. Claudia Koonz, The Nazi Conscience (Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press, 2003). Chapter 1 1. Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming (New York: Continuum, 1972), 11–14. Cited hereafter as DE. For an account of the ethical implications of Adorno’s philosophy that defends his privileging of the “complex” concept, see Jay Bernstein, Adorno: Disenchantment and Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001). 2. Jürgen Habermas, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity, trans. Frederick Lawrence (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1987), 125. Cited hereafter as PD. 3. Peter Uwe Hohendahl, Prismatic Thought: Theodor W. Adorno (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995), 205–9, 241–42. 154 Notes to Pages 16–22 4. For another description of this distinction between a rational and an aesthetic totality, see Carl Einstein,“Totalität,” in 1907–1918, vol. 1 of Werke, ed. Rolf-Peter Baacke with Jens Kwasny (Berlin: Medusa, 1980), 226–29. 5. Theodor W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, ed. Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann , trans. Robert Hullot-Kentor (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1997), 100–118. Cited hereafter as AT. For an analysis of Adorno’s distinction between semblance and expression, see Robert Hullot-Kentor, “The Impossibility of Music: Adorno, Popular and Other Music,” Telos 87 (Spring 1991): 97–117. Compare Walter Benjamin’s idea of mimesis as a recognition of “ingenuous similarity.” Walter Benjamin, “On the Mimetic Faculty,” in Reflections : Essays, Aphorisms, Autobiographical Writings, ed. Peter Demetz, trans. Edmund Jephcott (New York: Schocken, 1986), 334. For a discussion of the relation between Benjamin’s and Adorno’s concepts of mimesis, see Shierry Weber Nicholsen, Exact Imagination, Late Work: On Adorno’s Aesthetics (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997), 137–80. 6. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Birth of Tragedy and Other Writings, ed. Raymond Geuss and Ronald Speirs, trans. Ronald Speirs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 38. Cited hereafter as BT. 7. On this distinction, see Hohendahl, Prismatic Thought, 241–42, and Nicholsen, Exact Imagination, 66–73. 8. W. Tatarkiewicz, “Mimesis,” in Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas, ed. Philip W. Wiener (New York: Scribner’s Sons, 1973), 3:226. In noting the origin of this term, Martin Jay fails to draw any consequences for Adorno’s notion of mimesis. Martin Jay,“Mimesis in Adorno and Lacoue-Labarthe,” in The Semblance of Subjectivity, ed. Tom Huhn and Lambert Zuidervaart (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1997). 9. Norbert Bolz also notes this difference between Nietzsche’s and Adorno’s theories of art, but then goes on to criticize Nietzsche for a lack of “historicophilosophical ” understanding. The key issue, however, is how Adorno uses the idea of history in order to escape the contradictions posed by nature. See Norbert W. Bolz,“Nietzsches Spur in der Ästhetischen Theorie,” in Materialien zur ästhetischen Theorie: Theodor W. Adornos Konstruktion der Moderne, ed. Burkhardt Lindner and W. Martin Lüdke (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1980), 390. 10. Frederic Jameson, Late Marxism: Adorno, or, The Persistence of the Dialectic (London: Verso, 1990), 239. 11. Ibid., 225. 12. Nicholsen follows Adorno in making the assumption that violence can originate only from the subject...

Share