For the sake of humanity talk is restricted to the most obvious, dullest, and tritest matters. The judges recently announced their prizes for It is not too hard to guess what Orwell would have made of Minima Moralia had he been able to read it. Orwell's political errors may well comfort academic critics of "left conservatism.
Her argument went like this: The role of scholars in the humanities is to 'question common sense, interrogate its tacit presumptions and provoke new ways of looking at a familiar world. Insofar as such a work succeeds in single-mindedly addressing its proper audience, it may well be understood properly by no one--save the Messiah who, of course, may never appear.
What's more, it raises questions about the purpose of scholarship. In Minima Moralia, Adorno charged that the effort, so characteristic of Anglo-American investigative reporting, to give readers "the facts full in the face" succumbed to "the form and timbre of the command issued under Fascism by the dumb to the silent.
He would "make political writing into an art. At the core of Orwell's writing was his obsessive concern for factual truth, which, he could see, was an infinitely fragile thing, forever susceptible to the kinds of lies favored by those in power.
Ordinary journalism, fiction, departmental memos, etc. Nussbaum writes.