What does a book look like when it asks all the right questions, is concerned about all the right things, and is so completely and utterly conditioned by its historical moment and the author's intellectual and personal background that its answers to these questions and concerns is flat out bizarre? Like this book. Voegelin has a lot in common with Adorno: they both worry that the modern world tends to make people materialistic idiots; they both worry that high culture is being undermined; they both worry about the sort of materialistic idiots who thought Stalinism was a really great idea. They were both far too unwilling or unable to think outside the box of the post-war, Cold War world, and didn't seem to realize that a lot of their pessimism could be explained by the fact that they lived in one of the shittiest epochs of human history. They both something along the lines of "the truth isn't in history" (i.e., 'truth' can't necessarily be judged by what seems to be the case right now) and that "history is in the truth," that is, that 'truth' changes over time. They both have essentially dialectical views of culture, although they'd both deny that (e.g., Voegelin argues that the doubtfulness inherent in Christianity leads to the Gnostic search for certainty, which then undermines Christianity...)

The differences then: Adorno thinks that if you're going to do or think anything, you should probably do or think something that will make the world a better place, while admitting that you'll probably mess it up; Voegelin thinks that any effort to make the world a better place is doomed to failure, and it's better not to try. Voegelin thinks the major problem with the world is Gnosticism (that is, roughly, the tendency to treat history, subjects and God as if they were objects that we can know in the same way we know objects); Adorno thinks the major problem with the world is capitalism (that is, roughly, the tendency to treat everything as if it were a commodity and, therefore, an object). So that's a similarity and a difference.

From my perspective, both of those guys have a lot to tell us. This isn't the place to rag on Adorno, but there are some problems you should be aware of, if you plan on reading this book. First, Voegelin's argument is awfully incoherent in a number of spots, most importantly, his claims that Gnosticism ignores the 'structures of reality;' surely only a Gnostic would think there was such a thing as a knowable 'structure of reality'? Second, his insistence on the importance of political order, while perfectly understandable in the face of the second world war, can hardly be transhistorical: sometimes the breakdown of order is a good thing. Tied in to this, I'm pretty sure he's sometimes just trying to get a rise out of his reader, as, for instance, when he complains about the 'magical dream' foolishness of wanting world peace. Finally, and most obviously, his suggestion at the end of the book that the U.S., despite being founded by Gnostic Puritans, is a bastion of the 'Mediterranean' tradition, is either wishful thinking or a joke. Admit it man! Capitalism is a Gnosticism! More specifically: there is *no* force in the world which is neither 'Gnostic' nor revolutionary. Voegelin should have just bitten the bullet. If he's right, either it's all downhill from here, or there will have to be massive social change. Like Adorno, so for a consistent Voegelin: our choice is socialism or barbarism. ( )