I’ve noticed a peculiar strategy in the slew of recent articles that attempt to rehabilitate reification. Each article points out the problems and contradictions in Lukacs’ theory. They then go on to use an aspect of this theory for their respective attempts to revise reification without addressing the problems they identify with Lukacs’ theory. This raises a quandry that is not addressed: they need the theory to be both authoritative in order to use it, but problematic in order to revise it, so they somehow need the authority of this theory to shine through its problems in order to back up their revision. I don’t quite see how this is possible, or the point of it all. Surely it makes more sense just to argue for the aspect of Lukacs’ theory you are drawing on without using Lukacs.