Questions to ponder:

1. What is the "dialectic of Enlightenment"?

2. Adorno and Horkheimer's criticisms of certain scientific disciplines and particularly their critique of instrumental reason (Horkheimer even wrote a series of essays under the title _A Critique of Instrumental Reason_) have brought upon them a variety of accusations. Some claim that they have abandoned the Marxian preoccupation with the conditions of capitalist production and opted instead for a (Max) Weberian concern for modern bureaucracy and the conditions of legitimation in an advanced society. Some claim that they are debilitatingly hostile to any version of empirical scientific inquiry, leaving us only with hermeneutic critique. The latter criticism does explain why A&H opt to demonstrate their claims with close analyses of literary texts rather than with opinion surveys or demographics. Based on your reading of the 1st half of _DofE_, are A&H hostile to the empirical sciences, and if so, so what? Are they less interested in capitalism and more interested in bureaucracy/ideology? Is that shift in emphasis reasonable given the advent of "industrial" or "monopoly" capitalism?

3. Adorno and Horkheimer's emphasis on the negative (a characteristic of dialectical reason) permits little positive articulation of a political program (they're all pessimism of the intellect, no optimism of the will). Is this "negative dialectic" a necessary condition under a system of commodification that invades even the remotest corners of artistic and literary production?

4. Is it fair to say that Adorno and Horkheimer equate their critique of Enlightenment with a critique of capitalism? If so, can we reform or revolt against capitalism without likewise reforming or revolting against the categories of Enlightenment rationality and subjectivity?