Christine Magerski

This paper aims at transforming the nexus institution–passivity into a vibrant interrelation. With this goal on my mind, I will refer to Arnold Gehlen and his controversial discussion of the state as the most powerful institution that offers an analysis not only of the complexity of institutions but also of the genuinely paradoxical nature of the institution. Seen from the perspective of philosophical anthropology, institutions are, on the one hand, inextricably intertwined with restriction and passivity, but, on the other hand, the restriction and passivity fostered by the institution must be understood as the pre-condition of an action and therefore as a force of freedom. In order to outline this thought, the paper focusses on Gehlen's last book Moral und Hypermoral (1969) and presents the institution of the state as a social-political form from which a critique – that is, a rethinking of the concept of the institution – could start.

Der Beitrag entfaltet die These, dass die umfassende Ästhetisierung der Gesellschaft weitreichende Folgen für das ästhetische Widerstandspotential hat. Der Gegenstand der Untersuchung ist die spezifisch moderne Lebensform der Bohème, verstanden als jene Sub- oder Gegenkultur, mit der die Ästhetisierung des Sozialen überhaupt erst begann. Gezeigt wird, wie sich die Bohème, indem sie maßgeblich zum Entgrenzungsprozess der Kunst beitrug, selbst abgeschafft und das Widerspruchspotential des Ästhetischen historisiert hat. Die historische Bohème wird als Vorläufer eines sozialen Wandels vorgestellt, dem sie selbst zum Opfer fiel. Während der 1960er Jahre verwandelte sich die alte/historische Bohème in eine neue, nicht länger durch Selbstexklusion definierte Gegenkultur. Abschließend wird anhand der sogenannten digitalen Bohème der gegenwärtige, vom Verlust der Unterscheidungskriterien gezeichnete Zustand einstiger Gegenkultur diskutiert.

This volume examines Arnold Gehlen’s theory of the state from his philosophy of the state in the 1920s via his political and cultural anthropology to his impressive critique of the post-war welfare state. The systematic analyses the book contains by leading scholars in the social sciences and the humanities examine the interplay between the theory and history of the state with reference to the broader context of the history of ideas. Students and researchers as well as other readers interested in this subject will find this book offers an informative overview of how one of the most wide-ranging and profound thinkers of the twentieth century understands the state. With contributions by Oliver Agard, Heike Delitz, Joachim Fischer, Andreas Höntsch, Tim Huyeng, Rastko Jovanov, Frank Kannetzky, Christine Magerski, Zeljko Radinkovic, Karl-Siegbert Rehberg and Christian Steuerwald.

Arnold Gehlen is one of the most controversial figures of German intellectual history. Gehlen’s commitment to National Socialism (a commitment he never disavowed) is mostly seen in close connection with his theoretical focus on institutions. According to Gehlen, what mankind requires above all is order and thus the protection of institutions. And yet, by reducing Gehlen’s sociology to the necessity of order one misses the analytical scope of his writings. As this article aims to show, the strength of Gehlen’s sociology lies less in its theory of institutionalization than in its attempt to comprehend change, i.e. the conceptual clarification of the interplay between radical innovation and institutionalization. In order to apprehend Gehlen’s understanding of change we have to look at his sociology of art as it is art which works as ‘a small symbol of society’. To approach Gehlen from this perspective is not to rehabilitate the controversial thinker. Instead, I am trying to show that Gehlen’s theoretical framework is as complex as modern culture itself and should therefore not prematurely be declared a reactionary testimony of the past.