Popular Is Not Enough: The Political Voice Of Joan Baez. Markus Jaeger

change (Ibid.).

      This kind of defense implies a wrongful and biased position, as it presupposes political activism to always result in violence, dismissing even the option of non-violent resistance—the only kind of revolution Joan Baez has always supported. Adorno is convinced that the only form of active resistance is organized violence. A closer analysis of Baez’s work during the last 60 years, as done in the following chapters, refutes this conviction. A collection of essays about Adorno’s work, which was published soon after his death in 1969, deals with this kind of divergence between activity and passivity. Adorno is quoted from one of his early essays on this topic:

Thinking actionists answer: among other things, it is important to change the state of separation of theory and practice. In order to get rid of the rule of the practical people and the practical ideal, practice is required. This, however, turns into a ban on thinking […]. One clings to actions for the impossibility of action7 (see Adorno in Schweppenhäuser 10, transl. by Jaeger).

      Without giving reasons for his accusation that anyone who is active necessarily articulates the mechanisms of authoritarian governance, Adorno claims a radical impossibility of being politically active and separates theory from practice in a totalitarian manner, because, as he puts it, “[…] according to its sheer form, praxis tends toward that which, in terms of its own logic, it should abolish […]” (Adorno 241). This leads to an obvious question: how shall society, which involves the kind of ugliness that also Adorno criticizes, be changed, if no one takes action at all? Another dimension, which can only be hinted at, but should not be neglected either, is the question: to what extent could the modern democratic parliamentary right to vote be considered to be a form of political action? Applying Adorno’s point of view on the primacy of thought over action to the modern democratic parliamentary system would mean to dismiss (or even abolish) one of the most incisive political activities: the right to vote.

      The work of thought doubtlessly marks the first condition to influence society—still, can this be enough? Theodor W. Adorno is convinced that we ourselves cling to action just for the sake of action’s impossibility. My reason to reproach Adorno for this pessimistic conviction is that this total negation of the necessity to be active, in order to influence society, offers no alternative to the countless misfortunes in society (injustices, which he, all the same, does not stop criticizing). His obviously depressing conclusion is that all actions were senseless and in this simplifying manner opens an artistic and political debate about the question: if this was true, then why do we need (not only his) theory at all?

      The life and work of Baez contradicts Adorno’s passive theoretical assumptions. Two steps are necessary to set the course for a successful analysis of this contradiction: first, a biographical summary of Baez’s childhood and her experiences as an adolescent depicts the most relevant roots of her political and artistic background. The early years of Baez’s life have influenced her impetus as a forthcoming artist as well as her work as a political activist; this is the reason why a synopsis of this significant period is helpful for any further debate. The following sub-chapter about Baez’s childhood offers this kind of synopsis.

      In addition to that, a definition and closer analysis of political disobedience and organized non-violence—the most incisive conditions for her work—finishes the theoretical background of my study. Henry David Thoreau and his famous “Essay on Civil Disobedience” can be interpreted as one of the most influential sources of inspiration for Baez; this is the reason why a discussion about this outstanding figure in the cultural history of the United States of America reflects relevant reasons for Baez not to fall into the trap of resignation; an approach which Adorno’s philosophy obviously is based upon. In chapters 4 to 10 of this study, a chronology of when and how Baez took action—with a focus on her position as a singer of national and international renown—then refutes Adorno’s pessimism and verifies my main thesis.

1 Joan Baez, Bowery Songs, Proper Records, 2006.

2 „Popmusiker haben erfahren, daß es in ihrer Macht liegt, sowohl ihre Musik als auch ihre Position zu nutzen, um Kommentare abzugeben, […] große Geldbeträge zu sammeln und den Gang der Geschichte widerzuspiegeln […] so wie es die früheren Troubadoure der Folkmusik-Bewegungen auf der ganzen Welt getan haben […]“ (Denselow 382).

3 „Einerseits gehen alle Probleme […] in die Kunst ein, andererseits sind es die Kunstwerke, die noch Kritik am schlechten Zustand der Gesellschaft üben können, ohne sich auf ihn selbst einlassen zu müssen […]“ (Sauerland 1).

4 Joan Baez, “Time Rag,“ Blowin’ Away, Portrait Records, 1977.

5 „In seiner Kritik des Musikanten schrieb Theodor W. Adorno 1956: ‘Nirgends steht geschrieben, daß Singen not sei’. Walter Moßmann und Peter Schleuning – Sänger politischer Lieder der eine, Musikwissenschaftler der andere – sprachen später von einer ‘adornitischen Schweigezeit’ und von ‘ideologiekritischer Gesangsverweigerung’“ (Böning 2004).

6 „[…] indem sie die Wahrheit direkt ausspreche, werde sie selber zur Ideologie im Sinne von falschem Bewußtsein. Sie helfe […] die Maschen des Lügennetzes, mit dem die Gesellschaft übersponnen ist, verdichten […]“ (Sauerland 3).

7 „Von denkenden Aktionisten wird geantwortet: zu verändern gelte es, neben anderem, eben den Zustand der Trennung von Theorie und Praxis. Gerade um der Herrschaft der praktischen Leute und des praktischen Ideals ledig zu werden, bedürfe es der Praxis. Nur wird daraus fix ein Denkverbot […]. Man klammert sich an Aktionen um der Unmöglichkeit der Aktion willen“ (Adorno in Schweppenhäuser 10).