Traditionally, the works of Adorno and Foucalt are considered to be anti-enlightenment, and this inadequate path was followed while originally attempting to analyse their relationship. The enlightened nature of their works, the axis which aims towards emancipation and freedom, was neglected. More recently, consideration of both their works has emphasised this aspect. Rather than arbitrary extremist who resist the inheritance of the Enlightenment, and are therefore too extreme to be taken seriously, many are ready to understand their works as profound, thoughtful and extremely relevant contributions. Therefore, a number of analysts insist that a new relationship analysis is needed to consider these views.
What kind of relationship? I believe that closeness and distance need to be shown simultaneously. This is exactly what makes a comparison of their works so interesting, that both name similar problems, but come to conclusions that are almost completely different to each other. In the context of enlightenment, this is seen clearly, whether through contrasting conclusions on the timing of enlightenment or its nature.
Rather than trying to set an unsuitable framework for their works, and discussing them through that foreign framework, I will attempt, by naming common subjects, to begin a dialogue between both of them on that subject. Through this, the hope is to be able to show Adorno and Foucalt's contribution to the discussion on the nature of enlightenment, but also, to show the relevance of their ideas in this day and age.