The Rose Is Red, But Is That What It Is? Hegel, Adorno and the Problem of Identity Thinking
'This rose is red.'
The statement seems straightforward. Yet what does it tell us about the rose? The concept 'red' identifies a property of the flower, but this particular rose has a shape, scent and texture, occupies a specific place and has a history of growth. The predicate expresses one of its characteristics without expressing everything that makes it the particular object it is.
Ordinary descriptions, of course, are not normally intended to provide exhaustive accounts of their objects. The philosophical question arises when we examine the logical relationship between the subject and its predicate: what exactly do we assert when we say that something is something? Does the concept through which we identify an object adequately express what that object is?
Hegel investigates this problem through the structure of judgement. Adorno takes up the underlying tension and develops it into a broader critique of what he calls identity thinking, eventually formulating his conception of negative dialectics.
2. Hegel: What Does the 'Is' Assert?
To understand the problem, consider the structure of the sentence 'This rose is red'. It consists of a subject ('this rose'), a predicate ('red') and a copula ('is'), which connects the two. For Hegel, however, the relationship established by this connection involves more than the external attribution of a property to an independently existing object.
In §166 of the Encyclopaedia Logic, Hegel describes judgement as the concept (Begriff) in its particularity, involving a connection that simultaneously distinguishes its constituent moments. The subject and predicate are different, but they belong to a single conceptual unity. The copula 'is' expresses this relationship: rather than merely placing an object under a category supplied by our thinking, it presents the predicate as a determination of the object itself. When we say that the rose is red, we claim that redness belongs to the rose as one of its own characteristics (Hegel, 1991, §166).
Hegel expresses the underlying logical relationship in terms of the individual and the universal. The subject initially represents the individual, concrete object, while the predicate expresses a universal determination. The judgement therefore involves both unity and difference: it asserts that the universal belongs to the individual, without making the two simply identical. The rose is red, but it is not redness.
In §§169–171, Hegel develops the tension within this relationship. The subject is concrete and contains numerous determinations, whereas the predicate initially expresses an abstract universal. In one sense, the subject is richer than the predicate because it possesses more characteristics than the particular one expressed in the judgement. In another, the predicate is wider in its range because it applies to other objects besides this particular subject. The copula asserts their unity, but this identity remains abstract. The judgement has yet to develop a more fully determined relationship between its two moments.
Hegel illustrates this inadequacy in §172 through the example of the rose. Although the rose is red, it is not red only: it also possesses a particular scent, form and many other characteristics. Moreover, redness is an abstract universal that applies to other flowers and objects. As Hegel observes, subject and predicate touch at a single point without fully coinciding (Hegel, 1991, §172 Addition, pp. 249–250).
This is why Hegel distinguishes between correctness (Richtigkeit) and truth (Wahrheit). The judgement 'This rose is red' may be perfectly correct as an empirical statement, but its correctness does not establish the truth of the object in the philosophical sense. For Hegel, truth involves the object's agreement with its own concept: the correspondence of its actual constitution with what it is in its conceptual determination. A sick body, for example, may correctly be described as sick, although its condition is not in harmony with the concept of the body.
The judgement remains correct as an empirical statement, yet its form asserts a unity between subject and predicate that its particular content does not adequately realise. This reveals a tension between the individual object and the universal determination through which we understand it, even in what appears to be a straightforward act of identification.
3. Adorno: Identity Thinking and Non-Identity
Adorno takes up this problem of conceptual adequacy and gives it a broader philosophical significance. He calls the tendency to understand objects by subsuming them under general concepts identity thinking. One of its characteristic operations is classification: instead of trying to say what something is, it determines what category something falls under, of what it is an example or representative (Jarvis, 1998, p. 165).
Whenever we identify something, we relate a particular object to a general concept. We recognise a rose as a flower, or describe a person as a worker. Such identifications are indispensable because concepts make objects intelligible and allow us to organise and communicate our experience. The difficulty arises when a conceptual determination is treated as an adequate account of the object itself.
A person, for example, may indeed be a worker. Yet this description does not capture everything that makes that person who they are. Their experiences, relationships, aspirations and particular circumstances cannot be reduced to that social category. Similarly, the rose is red, but its particularity extends beyond the property named by the predicate.
Adorno describes this discrepancy through the notion of non-identity (Nichtidentität). The object is never entirely identical with the concept through which thought understands it. As he writes, 'objects do not go into their concepts without leaving a remainder' (Adorno, 1973, p. 5).
This remainder should not be understood as a mysterious reality lying beyond the reach of all knowledge, nor simply as a list of additional properties that a more detailed description could eventually include. It points to a more fundamental limitation: no conceptual determination can fully exhaust the particular object to which it refers. Every concept makes its object intelligible by bringing certain features into focus, but this process of determination also leaves aspects of its particularity unaccounted for.
The problem of identity thinking, therefore, is not that it identifies objects, but that it mistakes its identifications for complete accounts of what those objects are. It allows the universal concept to take precedence over the particular object, treating the latter as merely an example of a general category.
4. Why We Cannot Stop Identifying
If identity thinking reduces objects to concepts, why does Adorno insist that we cannot simply abandon identification? The difficulty is that the very act of thinking depends on the operation he criticises.
Adorno expresses this in the concise formulation that 'thinking means identifying' (1973, p. 5). To think is necessarily to distinguish, determine and relate things through concepts. Even when we try to describe something in its particularity, we must employ general terms. There is no completely non-identificatory standpoint from which we could think about reality.
Consequently, dialectical thinking cannot simply abandon concepts, classifications or judgements. Any attempt to replace conceptual thought with an entirely different kind of thinking, free from identification, would be self-defeating, since that alternative would itself depend on conceptual determinations.
Adorno therefore distinguishes between the necessity of identification and its elevation into an absolute principle of knowledge. As he explains, consciousness can see through the principle of identity, but it cannot think without identifying; every determination involves an act of identification (Adorno, 1973, p. 152). The task is not to eliminate this operation but to prevent it from becoming the final criterion of truth.
Indeed, Adorno makes a more surprising claim: 'Non-identity is secretly the telos of identification' (1973, p. 152). Identification ultimately aims at understanding the object itself, rather than merely confirming the categories into which thought places it. The object should be allowed to challenge the determination through which it is initially recognised. This possibility provides the starting point for Adorno's conception of negative dialectics.
5. Negative Dialectics: Criticism Without Conceptual Closure
The distinction between dialectical thinking and negative dialectics is important here. Dialectical thinking describes the critical movement through which thought examines the relationship between concepts and their objects. Negative dialectics names Adorno's philosophical attempt to sustain this movement without allowing it to culminate in a final conceptual identity.
Its task is to bring concepts into critical confrontation with their objects, exposing the inadequacies and contradictions that emerge in this relationship. Adorno describes this as a reciprocal criticism of the universal and the particular: thought must examine whether its concepts do justice to the objects they seek to understand, while also considering whether particular objects correspond to the concepts through which they are determined (Adorno, 1973, pp. 146–152).
This critical movement gives dialectical thinking a different orientation from identity thinking. Adorno writes that dialectical cognition 'identifies more, and identifies differently' than identity thinking. It wishes to say what something would be, whereas identity thinking determines what it falls under, of what it is an example or representative (Adorno, 1973, p. 152). The distinction does not suggest that dialectical thought can capture an object's complete essence. Rather, it indicates an effort to understand the particular in ways that remain attentive to what its existing conceptual determinations fail to express.
Adorno describes dialectics as 'the consistent consciousness of non-identity' (1973, p. 5). Its negativity lies in refusing to treat the conceptual determination of an object as final. Whenever thought presents something as fully understood, negative dialectics examines the contradictions and exclusions involved in arriving at that conclusion. It does not reject knowledge, but resists the premature closure of thought.
The relationship between Adorno and Hegel is particularly important here. Adorno draws deeply on Hegel's insight that apparently immediate and self-sufficient identities contain internal tensions and dependencies. Hegel's dialectic develops these contradictions through the progressive determination of the concept, seeking a more comprehensive unity in which identity and difference are understood together. Adorno retains the critical force of this movement but questions whether its development can culminate in a philosophical totality that fully comprehends its objects.
His criticism concerns the idealist tendency to give conceptual mediation the final word. In Adorno's reading, Hegel's system ultimately understands the particular as a moment within the self-development of Spirit. The danger is that what initially resists conceptual determination becomes absorbed into the very totality that claims to explain it. This is not to say that Hegel simply eliminates difference: his dialectic works through determinate negation and preserves what it negates. Adorno's objection is directed at the claim that the movement of thought can ultimately reconcile these differences within a comprehensive conceptual whole.
Yet Adorno does not abandon reconciliation as a philosophical horizon. What he questions is the assumption that reconciliation has already been achieved in thought or reality. In the Introduction to Negative Dialectics, he suggests that dialectics would have its end in reconciliation, understood as the possibility of a differentiated multiplicity no longer subjected to domination (Adorno, 1973, pp. 18–19). The point is to preserve this possibility without prematurely declaring it accomplished.
Negative dialectics is therefore neither a rejection of Hegel nor a new philosophical system. Adorno retains the immanent movement of Hegelian dialectics while directing its critical power against the assumption that thought can achieve a final reconciliation with its objects.
6. The Social Model of Identity: Commodity Exchange
For Adorno, the problem of identification is not confined to philosophical thought. He also finds a related structure in the organisation of social life, particularly in the exchange of commodities, drawing on Marx's analysis of exchange value.
Consider Marx's example of twenty yards of linen exchanged for one coat. The two commodities differ in their material properties and uses, yet they can be equated in a definite quantitative relation. Their qualitative differences do not disappear, but exchange abstracts from their particular use values and makes them commensurable through value. Marx explains this abstraction through the reduction of different kinds of concrete labour to abstract human labour, whose magnitude is measured by socially necessary labour time (Marx, 1976, ch. 1, sec. 3).
Adorno sees a structural affinity between this process and identity thinking. Conceptual thought subsumes particular objects under general categories, while commodity exchange makes different products equivalent through value. In both cases, qualitative differences are subjected to an abstract principle of equivalence. Adorno describes the exchange principle as the 'social model' of the principle of identification (1973, p. 146).
This connection matters because it shows that identity thinking is not simply an intellectual or linguistic error. The reduction of differences to abstract equivalence is also embedded in the historical and social organisation of human life. Adorno does not suggest that identification originates exclusively in capitalism; rather, commodity exchange gives the principle a historically specific social form. Abstraction becomes a material feature of social relations as well as a characteristic of conceptual thought.
Adorno's criticism does not amount to an abstract rejection of equivalence or comparability. He argues that simply abolishing the principle of exchange would risk replacing its contradictions with more direct forms of appropriation and coercion. The point is instead to expose the inequality concealed within apparently equivalent transactions, so that the promise of free and fair exchange might be realised rather than abandoned (Adorno, 1973, pp. 146–147).
7. The Rose Is Red, But It Is Not Exhausted by the Predicate
Let us return to our opening statement: 'This rose is red.' The statement is correct, but it does not exhaust what the rose is. Hegel's analysis reveals a tension within the immediate judgement: the unity asserted by the copula exceeds the particular determination expressed by the predicate. Adorno develops this problem into a broader critique of identity thinking, showing that identification is indispensable to thought yet never guarantees a complete account of its object.
Negative dialectics keeps this discrepancy in view, questioning the tendency to mistake conceptual determination for final knowledge. Its task is not to stop identifying things, but to make identification responsive to what it cannot fully express. To think dialectically is to recognise that concepts are necessary for understanding reality, while remaining attentive to the particularity that resists their claims to completeness.
References
Adorno, T. W. (1973). Negative dialectics (E. B. Ashton, Trans.). Seabury Press. (Original work published 1966)
Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). The encyclopaedia logic: Part I of the Encyclopaedia of philosophical sciences with the Zusätze (T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, & H. S. Harris, Trans.). Hackett Publishing. (Original work published 1830)
Jarvis, S. (1998). Adorno: A critical introduction. Polity Press.
Marx, K. (1976). Capital: A critique of political economy (Vol. 1, B. Fowkes, Trans.). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867)
Comments
Post a Comment