THE PERIOD FROM THE FIRST WORLD WAR to the Cold War belies easy classification. Unlike the single decade associated with the New Left, this extensive and historically dense period, that of the āOld Left,ā has to be broken up into decades. Indeed, this is done even in the popular imagination, in which the 1930s were a time of economic collapse and union radicalism; the 1940s, a time of āthe common enemy,ā fascism; and the 1950s, a time of refrigerators and consumerism, of complacency and automatic dishwashers. The 1920s are willfully neglected, or else acknowledged only with respect to the āLost Generation,ā an historical touchstone that, while important, draws us away from America, back to the Old World of Europe. But, as is often the case, actual history cuts against the grain of popular storytelling.
[. . .]
LIFE IN CONTEMPORARY PAKISTAN is marked by a sense of despair and helplessness. A report commisĀsioned by the British Council based on research conĀducted by the Nielsen Company recently found that only a third of the Pakistanis surveyed thought democracy was the best system for the country, a ratio roughly equal to that preferring sharia. The findings amounted to what David Martin, director of the British Council in Pakistan, called āan indictment of the failures of democracy over many years."
[. . .]
CHRIS CUTRONE WRITES, āWhat the usual interpretive emphasis on LukĆ”cs occludes is that the Frankfurt School writers grappled not only with the problem of Stalinism but with that of āanti-Stalinismā as well.ā This statement is well founded, considering how Korschās troubled relationship with Adorno and Horkheimer was paralleled by Sohn-Rethelās with those two during the same period; not to mention the later dialogues Dunayevskaya had with Marcuse and Fromm.
[. . .]
FOR YEARS Theodor Adornoās theoretical work has suffered from either neglect or semi-hostile āinterpretation.ā It is therefore refreshing to see Detlev Claussen, who studied under Adorno at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt from 1966 to 1971, take a more sympathetic approach to the study of Adornoās philosophy and intellectual life. In Theodor W. Adorno: One Last Genius, Claussen attempts to track the historical and biographical factors that influenced Adornoās critical theory and, in doing so, strives to carefully reconstruct both the changing context and the abiding problematic that Adorno was attempting to grasp in and through his work.
[. . .]
THE AESTHETIC EXPERIENCE OF DRONE MUSIC is not just aesthetically defined, but socially and historically located. The significance of this location is especially intriguing when concealed in a music legacy that aims exclusively at the pure presentation of sound, a music intent upon expelling all that is foreign to the aesthetic experience while underscoring a formal, perceptual physicality. As such, it is difficult to review an instance of drone music in isolation from either the widespread classification of the genre that increasingly defines the music listening experience or drone musicās historically accumulated predilection for spatial sound masses over temporal themes.
[. . .]