TY - JOUR
AU - Felski,, Rita
AB - Abstract In recent years, the writings of the Frankfurt School have become heavily “sociologized” in form as well as content and no longer register on the radar of literary scholars. Hartmut Rosa’s Resonance (2019) may well reverse this trend. Ranging widely across literature, aesthetics and popular culture as well as sociology and politics, Rosa contends that the idea of resonance can help renew critical theory. Confronting a question that is also exercising literary scholars—Is it possible to orient away from negativity and skepticism without lapsing into dubious universalism or naïve affirmation?—his account of resonance hooks up in suggestive ways with recent literary-critical discussions of attunement, mood, and atmosphere. Rosa’s argument pivots on a contrast between two forms of relation: the world as resonance and the world as resource (material to be exploited in the maximization of profit and the frenetic acceleration of social life). In contrast to the acute pessimism of the early Frankfurt School, however, he stresses the double-sidedness of modernity; rather than simply destroying resonance, modern societies can also heighten or even create new capacities for experiencing resonance. Can the idea of resonance help to renew and reinvigorate critical theory? Might it cast a fresh light on modernity and history, art and politics? In Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World (2019), Hartmut Rosa pursues such questions in exhaustive detail and with encyclopedic amplitude. Riffing on Marx and mirror neurons, Baudelaire and Black Sabbath, smartphones and Schopenhauer, he elucidates not just the sociological, but also the psychological, philosophical, aesthetic, and economic facets of his title word. His self-declared aim is to provide critical theory with a positive concept that can move beyond critique to articulate a vision of a better life. Here Rosa confronts a question that is also exercising literary scholars: Is it possible to orient away from negativity and skepticism without lapsing into dubious universalism or naïve affirmation? Published in German in 2016, Resonanz has attracted widespread interest within and beyond academia—it was featured last year on the cover of the German news magazine Stern—and the English translation now arrives bearing glowing endorsements from Charles Taylor and former Director of the London School of Economics Craig Calhoun.1 Resonance: A Sociology of our Relationship to the World, Hartmut Rosa. Translated by James Wagner, Polity, 2019. Rosa confronts a question that is also exercising literary scholars: Is it possible to orient away from negativity and skepticism without lapsing into dubious universalism or naïve affirmation? How does Rosa’s work slot into the constellation of German critical theory? While the Frankfurt School crops up frequently in literary studies, it does so as an intellectual formation preserved in amber: Weimar Germany and its aftermath. The figures cited are Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, sometimes Georg Lukács or Ernst Bloch. Almost a hundred years after the foundation of the Frankfurt School, their writings are still being hailed for their prescience and timeliness. But what of the thought that followed? Why is the literary critical reception of German theory so strongly oriented to its past? Things started to go downhill with Jürgen Habermas, who paid scant attention to literature and art while engaging in a polemic against post-structuralism in The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity (1987). Literary scholars returned the favor, spurning what they portrayed as his naïve or nefarious rationalism. (The idea of the “ideal speech situation,” especially, came in for countless thrashings.)2 Meanwhile, Axel Honneth, who took over Habermas’s chair at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, is a massively influential figure in social and political theory who has received no uptake, while Honneth’s former students Robin Celikates and Rahel Jaeggi have recently published reassessments of critique that might seem highly pertinent to current debates in literary studies. An obvious reason for this neglect is that these thinkers, unlike the first-generation Frankfurt School, pay scant attention to aesthetic questions. Speaking from, and to, the fields of social and political theory and philosophy, they rarely cite literature and never literary critics. (Honneth, for example, gestures briefly toward Henry James and Heinrich von Kleist in his recent Freedom’s Right [2014], but only as token illustrations for ideas that have been worked out elsewhere.) Meanwhile, German critical theory displays minimal interest in the commitments that drive much literary criticism in the English-speaking world: race, gender, sexuality, the environment. (Of all these, gender has received most attention, but in a manner that literary scholars are unlikely to find scintillating, much less edifying.) Finally, the ponderous abstractions and leaden gravity of much Frankfurt School prose is likely to turn off most literary critics—along with a language that can seem naively therapeutic (“healthy self-esteem”), questionably medicalized (“social pathologies”), or inadmissibly confident about its own judgments (“distorted rationality”).3 The highly attuned aesthetic sensibilities of Adorno or Benjamin have long since vanished; heavily “sociologized” in its form as well as its content, German critical theory no longer registers on the radar of literary scholars. If anyone can reverse this trend, it is likely to be Rosa, who wrote a dissertation on Taylor under Honneth’s supervision and who now teaches at the University of Jena. His previous book, Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity (2013), an analysis of the sociological, technological, and phenomenological dimensions of the speeding-up of modern life, was widely and positively reviewed. But it is the follow-up volume (whose opening sentence runs: “If acceleration is the problem, then resonance may well be the solution” [1]) that is likely to catch literary scholars’ attention, especially those concerned with related themes of attunement, atmosphere, and mood. Rosa engages literature more frequently than Habermas or Honneth: in contrast to their abstract, sometimes arid styles of philosophizing, his prose is studded with examples drawn from popular culture and everyday life. Yet Resonance also engages in sociological and philosophical heavy lifting, including substantive discussions of Max Weber and Émile Durkheim, Georg Simmel and Adorno, even as it advocates, in its concluding analysis of late capitalist dynamics, the need for a “post-growth” society. Meanwhile, Rosa carefully avoids the impression of an agonistic struggle with his predecessors; the book carries an epigraph from Adorno, offers a measured engagement with Habermas, and strives to do justice to Honneth’s theories of recognition. In its amplitude of reference and its fluency in differing intellectual idioms, Resonance might be seen as returning to the interdisciplinary ambitions of the early Frankfurt School. What, then, does Rosa mean by “resonance” and how does it relate to the tradition of critical theory? Possessing an irreducible phenomenological dimension—the relation of self to world—it demands a style of theorizing that is seismographically sensitive to the textures of experience. Resonance is a process of becoming attuned to something that alters one’s being in the world and that has cognitive, affective, and bodily dimensions. According to psychologist Daniel Stern, early childhood development pivots on a process of mutual attunement, as parent and infant learn to respond to each other’s expressions and gestures in a complex choreography of reflection and variation. Rosa, similarly, sees the capacity for resonance as an affordance of being human—part of our built-in software—even as he is concerned to chart the social and historical conditions that allow it to fail or flourish. He riffs at some length on its etymology and its acoustic connotations; resounding and vibration; the tuning of forks and the striking of chords. Yet resonance, he insists, should not be confused with consonance or harmony: “Resonance means not merging in unity, but encountering another as an Other” (447). To resonate is not to echo; each party retains its own voice. Nor does it require positive feelings; we can feel strongly attuned to a melancholic aria, a desolate landscape, a historical site that memorializes suffering. As a mode of relation, Rosa remarks, it is neutral with respect to emotional content. Resonance is about mattering rather than making happy, about how things come to concern or affect us. As a counterconcept to autonomy, it speaks to the vital role of relations in defining the self and the limits of our power to predict or control them. Resonance cannot be willed or forced into being; even when conditions seem favorable, it may fail to materialize: “Our lover’s smile may become frozen or petrified, our cat might not purr, our favorite music may leave us cold, the forest or sea might deny us any resonance” (172). Experiencing the world as relation is contrasted with treating the world as resource. The latter denotes a purposive-instrumental stance geared toward increasing one’s share of the world. Modern societies are driven by a developmental logic: an exploitation of resources that is triggering ecological catastrophe. Here Rosa reviews his past work on acceleration. Capitalism demands logic of constant growth, innovation, and temporal escalation, that is, an increase in quantity per unit of time. This drive toward ever faster movement and maximizing of resources filters down into the pores of everyday experience; individuals feel impelled to strive for more money, knowledge, status, to demonstrate flexibility and openness to change, to enhance their skills and extend their networks, in the hope of improving their life chances. The compulsion to run faster and faster to maintain one’s place in the world is reinforced through discourses of self-help and practices of physical as well as mental monitoring (how many steps did I take today?) that stress the need for constant self-improvement: “human life appears optimizable and enhanceable, even quantifiable” (23). Such a stress on resources is intrinsically tied to a lack of resonance. The world that is treated as material to be appropriated and objectified is a world that falls silent, that no longer speaks to us. Even as we strive to make it more attainable and accessible, it recedes from our grasp. For Rosa, this lack needs to be grasped as a phenomenological as well as a social reality. Things come to seem mute, cold, or hollow; the world confronts us as alien and indifferent. This is not just a loss of meaning but also a shift in affective and bodily relations to one’s surroundings. (An early section of the book explicates at length how stance, breathing, ingestion, vision, voice, and touch mediate our relations to the world, how they testify to the absence or presence of resonance.) Psychological labels such as depression and burnout are commonly used to diagnose such feelings of emptiness—and to treat them with pharmaceuticals. Drawing on the work of Jaeggi, Rosa revives the idea of alienation, a word that fell from theoretical fashion due to its essentialist overtones. “Alienation,” he writes, “denotes a specific form of relationship to the world in which subject and world confront each other with indifference or hostility (repulsion) and thus without any inner connection. Alienation can therefore also be defined as a relation of relationlessness” (184). It does not, in this sense, require a substantive view of human nature, nor is it deployed in a Marxist sense to denote the expropriation of labor. Rather, it captures a phenomenological reality that is shaped by social conditions: the world appears mute, indifferent, nonresponsive. Yet even as he opposes resonance to alienation, Rosa insists on their entanglement and interdependence. Alienation is not always to be mourned or lamented. A disengaged, reifying attitude may be crucial for certain kinds of complex tasks (the work of a surgeon, for example), just as artistic portrayals of alienation may be experienced as highly resonant (Albert Camus’s The Stranger [1942]). In a Hegelian move, Rosa suggests that alienation may indeed be a precondition of any form of meaningful connection. It is only after being wrenched out of a primordial state of nondifferentiation into an awareness of otherness that it becomes possible to experience both the force and the fragility of resonance. Some of Rosa’s analysis might seem to cover familiar ground, echoing Marx, Weber, and the early Frankfurt School and their analyses of disenchantment, reification, and instrumental rationality. Canvassing the work of these thinkers, Rosa contrasts his approach in terms of its more dialectical—and hopeful—line of argument. “Modernity,” he writes, “cannot be understood simply as a ‘catastrophe of resonance’ … because at the same time it has also greatly heightened our sensitivities to resonance and in many respects even produced certain capacities for resonance in the first place” (29). The weakness of past critical theories, he contends, is their failure to fully engage this double-sidedness. Rosa traces this heightened sensitivity to resonance back to Romanticism, contending that Western mentalities are still deeply shaped by its visions of love and friendship, of art, nature, education, and community. While overlain by later ideas, and sensibilities, Romanticism is not overcome or rendered obsolete. (Rosa’s argument for the contemporaneity of a Romantic sensibility is one of the book’s more provocative theses.) And here Resonance takes issue with critical theories seeking to demystify longings for nature, or spiritual experience, or authentic personal relationships by portraying them as evading or obscuring the harsh truth of disenchantment. Insofar as such longings continue to shape thoughts and feelings, behaviors, and self-understandings, they are, he submits, an essential part of reality: not epiphenomenal but fundamental, shaping the habitus and dispositions of late modern subjects. In the most interesting part of the book, Rosa elaborates on different axes of resonance. Vertical axes of resonance include nature, art, and history, which do not require metaphysical systems of belief yet are seen as offering access to something “higher.” The romanticizing of nature is now often treated in a highly critical light; while acknowledging the force of these objections, Rosa nevertheless seeks to understand why “Nature” serves as a solace or a refuge, drawing out the interpenetration of the corporeal and the cultural. Faced with the vast expanse of the sea or a sun-bright landscape, our breathing and posture are likely to change and our sensory apparatus is reoriented: “We are situated in the world differently when we stand in the forest, on the mountain, or by the sea compared to in an office or at the mall” (271). Turning to art, he asks why audiences—at the Museum of Modern Art or the multiplex—seek out aesthetic experiences in order to be touched or moved. For Rosa, the promise of resonance can be found in popular as well as in high art (heavy metal is a recurring theme). Aesthetic experience is, of course, highly mediated yet can feel intensely immediate. Not only readers of Romantic poetry but fans of Bruce Springsteen testify to the intensity and unexpectedness of aesthetic encounters that leave them transformed (Felski). Finally, in discussing history as a source of resonance, Rosa focuses on sites that are heavy with meaning, like ruins, ancient buildings, battlegrounds—spatial markers of suffering that expand temporal awareness such that the past comes to seem newly present and one feels obligated to bear witness to historical traumas. (Here again, we can see that resonance has little to do with “happiness.”) Horizontal axes of resonance, meanwhile, refer to the sphere of interpersonal relations, where the legacy of Romanticism lives on: the view of love and intimacy as essential to a fully lived life, the image of a soul mate who will fulfill one’s needs, the injunction—often voiced by advice columnists—to remain true to one’s self in a relationship, the perceived sanctity of childhood that has driven a shift to less authoritarian styles of parenting. For many individuals, Rosa remarks, family life, in spite of the increasing stresses placed upon it, remains an oasis of resonance in a hostile world. Beyond romantic love, family, and friendship, Rosa considers politics from the standpoint of resonance. Alienation from institutions (complaints about Beltway bureaucrats or Brussels “eurocrats”) fuels expressions of protest that are driven by a desire for more authentic forms of political connectedness, stretching back to 1968 and to social movements such as feminism or the AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power (ACT UP). (The recent revival of the language of “solidarity” in the Bernie Sanders campaign and among political theorists could be usefully considered in this light.) “I love to hear the singing of things.” Quoting Rainer Maria Rilke’s words, Rosa turns to diagonal axes of resonance: attachments to objects. Here he draws from Bruno Latour and anthropologist Daniel Miller to elaborate on our affective and meaning-saturated relations to things: how objects can appear animated and lively, sources of meaning and solace; how they make us even as we make them. Forms of tactile engagement—kneading dough or repairing a motorcycle—can feel especially satisfying, as we sense the material responding to or resisting our efforts. Resonance, in this sense, can be an everyday as well as an extraordinary experience. Zooming out to broader questions of work and resonance, Rosa observes that precarity, financial insecurity, and burnout are causing alienation to skyrocket, but he also cites evidence of intensifying emotional investments in the workplace, as a potential refuge from the fractious or harried conditions of family life (endless arguments about housework, the ferrying of children to activities). Rosa is fully cognizant, then, of how resonance is shaped by economic and social dynamics and expounds on its commodification: how the desire for fulfilling experiences of spirituality, nature, art, love is channeled into purchases. (A longer quotation can convey something of the flavor of his prose.) Buy yourself resonance! is the implicit siren song of nearly all advertising campaigns and sales pitches. Get spring freshness in your bathroom (with a shower gel); experience the jungle (on a package tour); awaken the forces of nature within you (with a pill or yoga class); become a good father or lover (by reading this book or signing up for this course); experience history up close (with weekend discounts at the history museum); let yourself be overcome by the most virtuosic musicians and most poignant voices in the world (at one of Europe’s most beautiful opera houses), listen to your body (and come to the gym); find your soul (for just €399), etc. (370) Resonance, moreover, is raided for its use-value in the sphere of production as well as consumption, transformed, in the ultimate ironic twist, into yet another tool or resource. It is no longer enough to do one’s job competently; we are now expected to do what we love, to advertise our passion for our work. Yoga, wellness, and mindfulness training are buzzwords in even the stodgier corporations. Meanwhile, at my local airport, an advertisement for an employment agency announces that jobs have been superseded by journeys. Similar patterns are evident in the sphere of education. The challenge to authoritarian and exam-driven styles of teaching is headed by upper-middle-class parents, whose own preferences for Montessori schools and violin lessons for their offspring can be parlayed into increased social status and cultural capital. Rosa reflects at some length on the industrialization of happiness, its interlacing with economic and technological imperatives. Yet Rosa repeatedly insists that there is more to resonance, that it retains a potential that cannot be fully commodified or reified, and that ineradicable desires for fulfillment and well-being need to be more fully engaged by critical theory. “Every resonant experience,” he writes, “inherently contains an element of ‘excess’ that allows … a different form of relating to the world to shine forth” (445). Our corporeal, affective, and ethical responses cannot be fully scripted or regulated. That an artwork is a commodity does not determine its every aspect; that we pay to go to a heavily advertised film does not mean that we cannot be moved by the images on the screen. And the unpredictability of resonance—we may be touched by a film, a landscape, a historical site, or not—underscores that it is far more than a Pavlovian response orchestrated by multinational corporations. Similarly, that friends or lovers can serve as sources of social, cultural, or emotional capital (irrespective of our awareness of this fact) does not diminish the strength and the meaningfulness of personal relationships. There is no theoretical or empirical rationale, Rosa contends, for assuming that alienation automatically trumps resonance, that the former constitutes the hard rock of reality while the latter can be relegated to the status of an ideological symptom. Resonance, in short, is both descriptive and normative. We cannot help being attuned to the world via our senses, emotions, and bodies, yet social conditions can promote or prevent access to specific axes of resonance. In this sense, resonance also serves as an ideal for clarifying what constitutes a good—or at least a better—life and for challenging what Rosa calls the normative abstinence of contemporary thought. “Many adherents of critical theory,” he remarks in an interview, “believe that critique should be purely negative. . . . A vital critical theory needs to do more than this” (Interview 7). To be sure, the Frankfurt School has long since decamped from the Grand Hotel Abyss: see Habermas on communicative reason, Honneth’s countless publications on recognition, or Nikolas Kompridis’s insistence that critical theory is insufficient unless combined with the creative force of disclosure or world-making. And yet, Rosa observes, much critical theory remains highly abstract and self-enclosed. “Too much of the discussion is purely meta-theoretical. You find book after book after book about the conditions of the ‘possibility of critique,’ of the merits and pitfalls of ‘immanent’ versus ‘transcendent,’ or of ‘local’ versus ‘universal’ critique” (6). Resonance opts for a different path in its evocative descriptions of the everyday lives of late modern subjects; how the skin can be experienced as a resonant surface; the effect of landscape on mood; the passions unleashed at a soccer match and the collective effervescence of a rock concert; how postures are altered as we bow over our smartphones. It discusses at length how access to resonance is shaped by class and education as well as reflecting on its gendered dimension—the marking of resonance as feminine. Such attention to empirical and phenomenological detail both complements and qualifies broad theoretical claims about capitalism or modernity. Rosa acknowledges, however, that Resonance is almost entirely West-centered in its analytical reach; the specifics of resonance will manifest differently across other geopolitical and cultural contexts. As a guiding concept, resonance radiates a certain promise. It can encompass, without being limited to, other ideals that are often wielded in order to criticize the present. In contrast to recognition, for example, it addresses the pivotal issue of human relations to the nonhuman: things, animals, and the environment. Rosa also discusses empathy, yet his more capacious term can avoid charges of moralism or sentimentalism. And unlike recent defenses of enchantment, resonance is less easily taken as denying the value of reason or scientific thought. Here Rosa’s work links up in suggestive ways with current literary critical trends. Stephen Greenblatt’s reflections on resonance and wonder as well as Wai Chee Dimock’s account of how literature resonates across time have been supplemented by discussions of resonance’s relevance for transsexual readers (Alexander Eastwood) and its value in the classroom (Katie Dyson). In its concern with affective-sensorial relations that are often hard to articulate or pin down but that profoundly affect how the world appears to us, Resonance also connects up to recent work on mood (Jonathan Flatley), attunement (Theo Davis), and atmosphere (Dora Zhang). To be sure, a term that is so highly elastic can run the risk of losing its grip. Rosa is upfront about his commitment to a holistic social theory and to a monistic philosophy centered on a single principle or idea. There is an almost bulimic drive to Resonance. Even as it canvasses a broad range of intellectual traditions and captures myriad details of everyday life, everything becomes grist to the mill of its guiding idea. At times resonance seems to delineate a specific kind of relation, while at other times, it seems to encompass all conceivable forms of meaningful relation. In his reckoning with critical theory, Rosa argues that distributive justice (redistributing economic and other resources), while an essential goal, cannot address fundamental questions about what constitutes a good life. (Many well-off Westerners are stressed out, exhausted, and miserable.) That political and economic analysis needs to be supplemented by more explicit attempts to articulate different modes of living is a compelling claim that drives Rosa’s style of phenomenologically inflected theory. Yet experiences of resonance, as he notes throughout his book, are elusive, uncertain, and often unpredictable, depending on many different things (social conditions, physical environment, temperament, and state of mind) coming together—or failing to do so. In this sense, resonance would seem to offer a vital addition to current concepts in critical theory rather than, as Rosa sometimes suggests, having the power to incorporate or subsume them. At several moments, Rosa touches on the relevance of resonance for intellectual work: a lecture falls flat; an essay remains dead on the page; a book chapter that we were keen to write somehow fails to jell. His book, as I’ve suggested, is highly attuned to the aesthetic and affective aspects of theoretical argument, striving to actualize its key concept in its own style, rhetoric, and manner of address. Occasionally, these efforts to engage readers more fully, or to attract a broader readership, can misfire. In the book’s preface, for example, we encounter folksy portraits of a series of character types: cheerful Anna, who beams at her children over the breakfast table and is eager to start her working day, is contrasted with grumpy Hannah, who dreads going to the office and stews in her irritable mood at the gym. Even so, what might appear in its opening pages to be little more than self-help bromides (be more like Anna!) turn out be nothing of the sort, as the book’s arguments unfold in all their theoretical and empirical amplitude. Whether Rosa fully succeeds in his ambition of renewing and reorienting critical theory is something that readers will judge for themselves, but Resonance qualifies, without a doubt, as a major addition to the ongoing, and still vital, tradition of Frankfurt School thought. Footnotes 1 " The writing of this essay was supported by the Danish National Research Foundation (DNRF 127). 2 " The few exceptions include Nicholas Hengen Fox, “A Habermasian Literary Criticism,” New Literary History, vol. 43, no. 2, 2012, pp. 235–54; and David L. Colclasure, Habermas and Literary Rationality (2010). Amanda Anderson, The Way We Argue Now (2006), is the only prominent literary critic to engage sympathetically with Habermas. 3 " Such phrasing permeates the work of Honneth especially. See, for example, The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts (1996). Works Cited Celikates Robin. Critique as Social Practice: Critical Theory and Social Self-Understanding. Translated by Naomi van Steenbergen, Rowman & Littlefield, 2018 . Davis Theo. “Emerson Attuning: Issues in Attachment and Intersubjectivity .” American Literary History , vol. 31 , no. 3 , 2019 , pp. 369 – 94 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dimock Wai Chee. “A Theory of Resonance .” PMLA , vol. 112 , no. 5 , 1997 , pp. 1060 – 71 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Dyson Katie. “Resonant Reading: From Anxiety to Attunement .” Pedagogy , vol. 19 , no. 3 , 2019 , pp. 537 – 42 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Eastwood Alexander. “How, Then, Might the Transsexual Read? Notes toward a Trans Literary History .” Transgender Studies Quarterly , vol. 1 , no. 4 , 2014 , pp. 590 – 604 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Felski Rita. Hooked: Art and Attachment . U of Chicago P , 2020 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Flatley Jonathan. “Reading for Mood .” Representations , vol. 140 , no. 1 , 2017 , pp. 137 – 58 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Greenblatt Stephen. “Resonance and Wonder.” Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display , edited by Karp Ivan, Lavine Steven D.. Smithsonian , 1991 , pp. 42 – 56 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Habermas Jürgen. The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures . Translated by Lawrence Frederick G., MIT , 1987 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Honneth Axel. Freedom’s Right: The Social Foundations of Democratic Life . Columbia UP , 2014 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Jaeggi Rahel. Critique of Forms of Life . Translated by Cronin Ciaran, Harvard UP , 2018 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Kompridis Nikolas. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future . MIT Press , 2006 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Rosa Hartmut. Interview with Bjørn Schiermer. Acta Sociologica, E-Special: Four Generations of Critical Theory in Acta Sociologica, 2019 , pp. 1 – 7 . Rosa Hartmut. . Resonance: A Sociology of Our Relationship to the World . Translated by Wagner James, Polity , 2019 . Google Scholar Google Preview OpenURL Placeholder Text WorldCat COPAC Rosa Hartmut. . Social Acceleration: A New Theory of Modernity. Translated by Trejo-Mathys Jonathan, Columbia UP , 2013 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Google Scholar Google Preview WorldCat COPAC Zhang Dora. “Notes on Atmosphere .” Qui Parle , vol. 27 , no. 1 , 2018 , pp. 121 – 55 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS WorldCat Author notes " Rita Felski is William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of English at the University of Virginia, Niels Bohr Professor at the University of Southern Denmark, and author of Uses of Literature (2008), The Limits of Critique (2015), and Hooked: Art and Attachment (2020). Her new book Remix is on the contemporary Frankfurt School. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Good Vibrations
JF - American Literary History
DO - 10.1093/alh/ajaa010
DA - 2020-05-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/good-vibrations-Ikt2Xn4ExJ
SP - 405
VL - 32
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -