When sociology must comprehend the incomprehensible: interpretation of Weber and Durkheim in the sociology of Theodor W. Adorno

The article examines Adorno’s theory of society and its implications for sociological interpretation, arguing that society must be the central object of sociology. Using Adorno’s 1965 text ‘Society’ as a focal point, the author reconstructs Adorno’s model that juxtaposes Weber’s comprehensive sociology (Verstehen) with Durkheim’s sociology of social facts (chosisme) to interrogate whether the social is comprehensible. Adorno does not propose a synthetic method but an interpretive constellation that reveals each approach’s limits while extracting their moments of truth. The study situates this reading within Adorno’s broader critique of capitalism as an exchange society (antagonistic totality) and emphasizes interpretation as model-building (constellations) rather than mere definitional clarification. It advances three theses: (a) capitalist society is a fractured totality—rational/irrational, comprehensible/incomprehensible, human/inhuman; (b) the constellation suggests how to interpret concrete phenomena while retaining a genetic perspective on active subjects amid reified praxis; and (c) Adorno’s dialectical reading reworks classical terminology by revealing its objective historical content. The article contributes to underdeveloped scholarship on Adorno’s sociology, showing his categories emerge from immanent critique within the sociological tradition rather than from philosophy alone.

The article engages two strands of reception: (1) scholarship highlighting Adorno’s social theory and critique of capitalism—especially the exchange society and antagonistic totality (e.g., Bonefeld 2016; Heitmann 2018; Maiso 2022; Reichelt 2011); and (2) studies stressing interpretation, model-building, and constellations in Adorno’s work (Buck-Morss 1977; Romero 2010; Sevilla 2005; Vidal 2021). It also references broader debates on the crisis of the concept of society in postwar and contemporary sociology (e.g., König, Schelsky, Lepsius; post-social and individual-centered sociologies such as Dubet, Lahire, Latour, Martucelli and Santiago), situating Adorno’s insistence on ‘society’ against positivism and asocial discourses. These literatures frame the analysis of Weber and Durkheim and inform the interpretive reconstruction of Adorno’s sociological categories.

This is a theoretical, interpretive commentary centered on Adorno’s text ‘Society’ (1965/66), supplemented by his later sociological and philosophical writings (e.g., Introduction to Sociology, Negative Dialectics, Aesthetic Theory) and by secondary literature. The author employs Adorno’s own method of ‘constellations’—arranging concepts in models that juxtapose elements to illuminate their objective historical content—rather than offering fixed definitions. The study conducts an immanent critique: (a) reconstructs Adorno’s concept of exchange society via Marx’s critique of value (objective abstraction, real abstraction) and psychoanalytic insights into socialization; (b) stages a dialectical confrontation between Weberian Verstehen and Durkheimian chosisme on comprehensibility/incomprehensibility; (c) treats sociological concepts as historically sedimented figures whose latent objective moments can be disclosed by model-building. The approach is non-synthetic (no fusion of action/system theories) and aims to ‘comprehend the incomprehensible’ by exposing reified second nature as historically produced.

• Adorno’s social diagnosis: Capitalist ‘exchange society’ is an antagonistic totality that reproduces itself through the suffering of socialised individuals. It is simultaneously rational/irrational, comprehensible/incomprehensible, human/inhuman.
• Comprehensibility vs. incomprehensibility constellation: Adorno reveals the moments of truth and falsity in both Weber and Durkheim. Verstehen captures residual practical rationality within reified structures but ignores what resists identification; Durkheim’s treatment of social facts as things registers second nature but absolutises non-comprehensibility and dehistoricises reification. Sociology must ‘comprehend the incomprehensible’ by revealing how relations between people become autonomous and opaque (second nature).
• Interpretation as model-building: Sociological interpretation should proceed via constellations and social physiognomy, making visible the historical totality within concrete phenomena without reducing them to meaning. A genetic perspective is required to recover praxis and expose ‘immobilised dynamics’ (anamnesis of genesis).
• Socialisation and damaged life: Society reproduces itself through antagonism and violence, both between groups and intrapsychically. Individuals internalise social coercion; life under post-liberal capitalism becomes ‘damaged life’. Psychoanalysis complements sociological theory in deciphering the subjective conditions of objective irrationality.
• Reading the classics dialectically: Adorno links to inherited terminology and reworks it in constellations to reveal objective moments. Weber and Durkheim inadvertently register reification; immanent critique uncovers their critical potential without synthesising their methods.
• Theoretical payoff: A non-systematic social theory emerges that preserves non-identity and the perspective of an ‘individuation that is not yet’, positioning critical sociology beyond positivism and traditional hermeneutics.

The findings address the central question—how Adorno’s theory of society relates to sociological interpretation—by showing that ‘society’ as exchange-mediated totality must be theorised to interpret concrete phenomena critically. The Weber–Durkheim constellation reframes the methodological debate: rather than choosing comprehensibility (Verstehen) or treating social facts as opaque things, sociology must expose how reified relations (second nature) originated in human praxis and thus can be transformed. This approach links epistemology to critique: uncovering the historical constitution of social objectivity prevents ideology, preserves the active subject’s perspective, and enables interpretations that connect micro-phenomena to the antagonistic totality. The model advances critical sociology beyond both positivism and naive interpretivism, retaining the tension of non-identity as constitutive of late capitalist society.

Adorno’s dialectical reading incorporates Weber’s and Durkheim’s frameworks into a constellation of comprehensibility–incomprehensibility to diagnose capitalist society as fractured and to guide critical interpretation. The article underscores a non-systematic social theory that preserves non-identity and keeps open the prospect of ‘individuation that is not yet’. For sociology to be critical, it must approach society as object while not forfeiting the perspective of society as subject—necessary to theorise totality’s constitution via reification and to envision emancipated social relations. The paper situates Adorno’s stance against the ongoing crisis of the concept of society and argues for a renewed sociological perspective that remains centered on late capitalist society while addressing the individualized conditions of contemporary life.

No formal limitations section is presented. The author notes that Adorno’s ‘Society’ is “very short and sometimes schematic,” necessitating reliance on Adorno’s wider corpus and selective secondary literature for reconstruction. The study is theoretical and interpretive (no empirical analysis) and confines its scope to Adorno’s immanent critique and the Weber–Durkheim constellation without engaging in a comprehensive debate with contemporary individual-centered sociologies.