Personally, I think that the question is a good question and I've voted to reopen it. At the same time, to an extent I understand what Joseph means in his comments (or at least I can understand what I would mean if I raised his specific objection to the question). A lot of the time there are questions that come to SE sites like this one that have a lot of background assumed in the question and I've seen arguments that arise around these sorts of questions.
One side of the argument is "well, anyone who has the technical knowledge to answer the question will understand what I'm asking and anybody who doesn't understand what I'm asking won't have the technical knowledge to answer the question," and I think that this makes a fair enough point. However, the counter argument is usually something like "yes, but SE sites are community driven and it is better to have answers that appeal to a broad range of people. It serves the community better to have very detailed questions that don't assume too much so that they and the answers are more accessible to everyone."
In regards to this specific question, I would argue that the OP did make a clear statement of what their question is, however.
If "seeing through" it is not enough, how is Adorno suggesting we respond to culture, to regain out particularity?
This is a clear question. Joseph said:
you need to be able to indicate the criteria for a great answer (what exactly it is that you are confused about in the text you're reading, that you would like someone to explain to you)
and I think that it is very clear from the phrasing of the question that the answer the OP is looking for is something along the lines of "Adorno said that 'seeing through' is not enough and instead argued that we should do 'x'."
I believe that the response to this would be that your question lacks any sort of explanation of what your question is, besides just the statement of the question. Aside from the quotes you only have two sentences in the question that really say what your question is. This question that I asked was very well received in terms of votes, comments, and answers, and as I think you can see I tried to give background to the question that I was asking. It would have been very simple for me to have just said "Did Quine ever write about the continuum hypothesis or large cardinal axioms?" but I tried to make the question as self contained as is reasonable. Maybe "reasonable self containment" captures the idea that the people on the "detailed questions" side are arguing for. Here is another well received question that does a lot to explain the question that is being asked with 'reasonable self containment'.
Whether or not one side or the other is right, at this moment the question is only put on hold which means you are being asked to edit it for more clarity. This is, of course, different than the question being outright rejected. Maybe you could try paraphrasing the topic of the article you are asking about into your own words, paraphrase . At the end of the day, though, I have to say that I don't see a problem with this question. It is very clear what the question is asking and what constitutes a good answer.