Both Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin borrow from Freudian theory in their analyses of fetishism's relation contemporary of cultural products. I will argue that both authors have confused Marxian and Freudian theories of fetishism, resulting in mistaken conclusions about artistic reception. By disentangling Marxian and Freudian elements in both authors' positions, I want show that 1) Adorno's characterization of regressive listening implies, contrary his intentions, that current of artwork is in fact antagonistic fetishism, and that 2) his criticism of Benjamin's optimism toward reception in distraction is nevertheless justified. If I am correct, it may be necessary reassess Adorno's demand for asceticism in advanced art. current danger may not be at all, but rather troublesome consequences of fetishism's decline. Marxian Fetish of Commodity Alienation According Marx, laborer's product becomes commodity when produced for purpose of exchange rather than direct use. He compares commodity religious fetish because the productions of human brain appear as independent beings endowed with life, entering into relation both with one another and human race.1 However, this is not simply an illusion. Marx claims commodity's fetishistic appearance is both true and false: the relations connecting labor of one individual with that of rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things (emphasis mine).2 Given private production of capitalism, it is true that laborers relate one another indirectly through exchange of material goods. Their social relations are material relations. workers' alienation from commodity-its seeming lack of direct relation their labor-- truthfully reflects workers' alienation from one another. At same time, commodity fetishism is illusive because this impoverished social relationship between laborers is attributed commodities: a definite social relation between men, assumes, in their eyes, fantastic form of relation between things:3 concrete labor-relations of humans, very source of commodities and their value, go unnoticed in commodity's abstract exchange-value. Because link of commodity's exchangeability actual human activity is shrouded, the process of production has mastery over man, instead of being controlled by him.4 illusion is not this mastery (just as it is not illusory that religious fetishist is subservient fetish-god); what is illusory is implication that such state of affairs is self-evident necessity imposed by nature.5 commodity, seemingly disconnected from worker's activity, takes on character of external necessity or independent law; its existence and value appear fall outside realm of human control. Consequently, fetishistic commodity falsely implies impossibility of social change. Freudian Fetish: Fantasy of Reconciliation Freudian theory of fetishism emphasizes, not alienation, but illusion of relation. Freud traces origins of sexual fetishism castration complex. He claims that young boy, upon discovering that women do not possess penis, interprets this fact as verification of threat of castration. In order preserve his relation of desire mother without endangering his own body, he must reject this lack: The fetish is substitute for woman's (mother's) penis that little boy once believed in and . does not want give up.6 fetish is substituted for mother's penis, Freud tells us, to preserve it from extinction.7 As in Marx's view, fetishism is related substitution. Here fetish is substituted for maternal phallus, rather than exchange-value substituting for social relations of labor. …