The Melancholy Science (1978) Rose's first book,
The Melancholy Science, is a text that shows Adorno's most significant contribution to the sociology of culture is a Marxist aesthetic. Rose traces Adorno's Marxist critique of philosophy through the works of various philosophers such as Hegel, Kierkegaard, Husserl and Heidegger and essays on Kafka, Mann, Beckett, Brecht and Schönberg. She posits that Adorno offers a ‘sociology of illusion’ that rivals structural Marxism as well as phenomenological sociology and that of the Frankfurt School. In 2014,
The Melancholy Science was republished by
Verso Books.
Hegel Contra Sociology (1981) Her second book,
Hegel Contra Sociology, argues that all the major sociological traditions derive from neo-Kantian philosophy and fail to grasp the radical significance of Hegel's critique of Kant. The book sets out Rose's understanding of Hegel, in particular her view that Hegel's is a 'speculative' rather than a 'dialectical' philosophy. Speculative philosophy is concerned with non-identity as much as identity and in this way Hegel was able to pre-empt and disarm many of the charges (not least
Popper's
charge of justifying totalitarianism) leveled at him. The book has twice been republished: first, in 1995, with a new preface, by Athlone Press, the original publisher; and then in 2009, by Verso Books.
Dialectic of Nihilism (1984) Rose's third book,
Dialectic of Nihilism, is a reading of
post-structuralism through the lens of law. Specifically, she attempts to read a number of thinkers preceding and constituting post-structuralist philosophy against Kant's "defense of the 'usurpatory concept' of freedom", that is, his answer to the question of "How [Reason] is to justify its possession" of freedom "through
pure reason, systematically arranged." Rose's primary foci are Martin Heidegger, to whom she devotes three chapters, and Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Derrida, to whom she devotes one chapter apiece. In addition, however, she scrutinises a few of the neo-Kantians (
Emil Lask,
Rudolf Stammler, and
Hermann Cohen),
Henri Bergson, and
Ferdinand de Saussure and
Claude Lévi-Strauss. Her central argument is that with the post-structuralists a "newly insinuated law [is] dissembled as a nihilistic break with knowledge and law, with tradition in general." Describing this situation in the case of Foucault, Rose writes, "like all nihilist programmes, this one insinuates a new law disguised as beyond politics." Concomitantly, Rose contends that similar fates befall the neo-Kantians and other thinkers who try to transcend or ignore the problems of law. According to Rose, the neo-Kantians seek to resolve the Kantian antinomy of law "by drawing an 'original' category out of the
Critique of Pure Reason, be it 'mathesis', 'time', or 'power'", yet remain unable to do so because "[t]his mode of resolution ... depends on changing the old sticking point of the unknown categorical imperative into a new vanishing point, where it remains equally categorical and imperative, unknowable but forceful"; while other thinkers—including Lévi-Strauss and Henri Bergson—"fall into the familiar transcendental problem" wherein the "ambiguity in the relation between the conditioned and the precondition is exploited." The philosopher
Howard Caygill—also Rose's literary executor—has taken issue with her readings of Deleuze and Derrida in
Dialectic of Nihilism, going so far as to call some of them "frankly tendentious". In a more critical review of the book, Roy Boyne, too, argues that Rose failed to do justice to these figures. "She operates on the highest plane of abstraction", Boyne writes, "for it is only at that level that the polemic makes any sense. Were she to drop down a level or so, she would see that the position she is so concerned to defend is not under attack from the quarters to which she addresses herself." However, Caygill insists that "Whatever the shortcomings of the readings in
Dialectic of Nihilism and the unfortunate and unnecessary borders it raised between Rose's thought and that of many of her contemporaries, it did mark a further stage in her retrieval of speculative thought."
Scott Lash has asserted that the "real weakness of
Dialectic of Nihilism is its propensity toward academic point-scoring", the result of which, according to Lash, is Rose's "devoting some half of its length attempting to discredit the analysts under consideration with their own assumptions, rather than straightforwardly confronting them with her own juridical prescriptions." Yet Lash considers her chapters on Derrida and Foucault to be partial remedies to this issue.
The Broken Middle (1992) Begun in early 1986,
The Broken Middle: Out of Our Ancient Society was Rose's fourth book and it is considered by some her magnum opus. In his review,
John Milbank wrote, "this book is one of the most important written by a British philosopher and social theorist in recent times."
Judaism and Modernity (1993) Judaism and Modernity: Philosophical Essays, her fifth book, is a collection of essays in which Rose tries to work out the relationship between philosophy and Judaism. Her aim is to explain how and why philosophers turned to Jews and Judaism to evade the dilemmas of modern philosophy, and how and why religious thinkers turned to the same source to evade the dilemmas of a modern faith confronted by the demands of philosophy. In 2017, like
The Melancholy Science and
Hegel contra Sociology,
Judaism and Modernity was brought back into print by Verso Books.
Mourning Becomes the Law (1996) Rose's last expressly philosophical work,
Mourning Becomes the Law: Philosophy and Representation was a posthumous collection of essays. In the book's thematically connected essays, Rose deals with a range of topics, from modern philosophy's melancholic attachments to the failures of the politics of authority and representation.
Mourning Becomes the Law is the most personal of Rose's primarily philosophical texts, interweaving autobiographical reflections with rigorous analysis. ==Influence==