The term itself was made famous by Leibniz in his Monadology (1714). Monads are simple substances, analogous to the soul. Each monad is dependent upon God for its continuous existence, so God can be thought of as the King Monad. Monads are "perpetual living mirrors of the universe." The Monadology was Leibniz' answer to Descartes' dualistic ontology, for each monad is a distinct substance and the universe is comprised only of these immaterial substances. As is the case for Plato, bodies have no real existence. Indeed, Leibniz can be read as attempting to synthesize ancient teleological metaphysical systems with modern rationalism.
Okay, with that brief background in place, we can turn to Adorno's discussion of the individual as monad in Minima Moralia (1948). Adorno begins by pointing out that the individual exists as a result of economic forces--the individual is a commodity like any other. He next points out that "what enables him to resist, that streak of independence in him, springs from monadological individual interest and its precipitate, character. The individual mirrors in his individuation the preordained social laws of exploitation, however mediated (Minima Moralia, p. 148). So, whereas Leibniz saw each monad as a dependent substance that mirrored God, Adorno sees each individual as a mirror of the exploitation of the market and the exploitation inherent within capitalism. At the same time, due to the shallowness of individualism (which cannot see the individual as a product, but simply as a cause), true individual identity as a critical wedge against the suffering imposed by society becomes impossible (since according to individualism, you are responsible for your suffering: not happy? Do something about it!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Finally, Dr. McCall enlightens us all with what a monad is. On account of our numerous class discussions on the topic, I don’t think we should let this post feed die quite yet.
ReplyDeleteSo, what McCall is saying goes as follows:
Leibniz wrote that a monad is equivalent (basically) to the soul, our little individual part, which is all that actually exists. So, God is like the big mother-ship monad in the sky which we are all somewhat independent from, in that we live separate from it, but still depend on for our existence.
The part I seem to trip up on is where Adorno comes in. McCall says: “the individual exists as a result of economic forces.” If it is a result of it, is this saying that the economy creates the individual? As McCall later states, which seems to support this: “whereas Leibniz saw each monad as a dependent substance that mirrored God, Adorno sees each individual as a mirror of the exploitation of the market and the exploitation inherent within capitalism.” It seems Leibniz could say that God’s existence allows the soul, and he created the soul. But can we really make the analogous claim that Adorno does?