Revision as of 11:25, 13 April 2015 view source99.251.210.59 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 November 2024 view source Bobfrombrockley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,542 editsm →Critical theory: line break | ||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Short description|School of social theory and critical philosophy}} | |||
{{Frankfurt School}} | |||
{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ] This has been a long term problem.|small=yes}} | |||
The '''Frankfurt School''' ({{lang-de|Frankfurter Schule}}) is a cultural Marxist school of ] and ] associated in part with the ] at the ] in ], ]. The school initially formed during the interwar period in Germany and consisted of dissidents who were at home neither in the existent capitalist, fascist nor communist systems that had formed during the ] period. Meanwhile, many of these theorists believed that traditional theory could not adequately explain the turbulent and unexpected development of ] societies in the twentieth century. Critical of both capitalism and ] socialism, their writings pointed to the possibility of an alternative path to ].<ref>Held, David (1980). ''Introduction to critical theory: Horkheimer to Habermas''. University of California Press, p. 14</ref> | |||
{{use American English|date=September 2018}} | |||
{{use dmy dates|date=June 2018}} | |||
{{Frankfurt School|all}} | |||
The '''Frankfurt School''' is a ] in ] and ]. It is associated with the ] founded at ] in 1923. Formed during the ] during the European ], the first generation of the Frankfurt School was composed of intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the socio-economic systems of the 1930s: namely, ], ], and ]. Significant figures associated with the school include ], ], ], ], ], and ]. | |||
The Frankfurt theorists proposed that existing ] was unable to explain the turbulent ]alism and ] politics, such as ], of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical of ] as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths to ]. | |||
Although sometimes only loosely affiliated, Frankfurt School theorists spoke with a common ] in mind, thus sharing the same assumptions and being preoccupied with similar questions.<ref>Finlayson, James Gordon. (2005). ''Habermas: a very short introduction''. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.1</ref> In order to fill in the perceived omissions of traditional Marxism, they sought to draw answers from other schools of thought, hence using the insights of ] ], ], ], and other disciplines.<ref name="britannica">"Frankfurt School". (2009). In ]. Cited from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: (Retrieved December 19, 2009)</ref> The school's main figures sought to learn from and synthesize the works of such varied thinkers as ], ], ], ], ] and ].<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 16</ref> | |||
What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project of ], theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of the ] tradition, ], and empirical sociological research.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Bohman |first1=James |title=Critical Theory |chapter=Critical Theory (Frankfurt School) |chapter-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ |website=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition)|date=7 January 2024 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Corradetti |first1=Claudio |title=The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory |url=https://iep.utm.edu/critical-theory-frankfurt-school/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Held |first1=David |editor1-last=Bottomore |editor1-first=Tom |title=A Dictionary of Marxist Thought |date=1983 |publisher=Blackwell |pages=208–13 |edition=2nd |chapter=Frankfurt School}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author-last=Held |author-first=David |date=1980 |title=Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas |publisher=University of California Press |pages=14}}</ref> | |||
Following Marx, they were concerned with the conditions that allow for ] and the establishment of rational institutions.<ref name="Held, David 1980, p. 15">Held, David (1980), p. 15</ref> Their emphasis on the ] was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of ], ] and ] by returning to Kant's ] and its successors in ], principally Hegel's philosophy, with its emphasis on ] and ] as inherent properties of human reality. | |||
Since the 1960s, Frankfurt School critical theory has increasingly been guided by ]'s work on ],<ref>Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). ''The Theory of Communicative Action''. Third Edition, Vols. 1 & 2, Beacon Press.</ref><ref>Habermas, Jürgen. (1990). ''Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action'', MIT Press.</ref> linguistic ] and what Habermas calls "the philosophical discourse of ]".<ref>Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity''. MIT Press.</ref> Critical theorists such as ] and ] have voiced opposition to Habermas, claiming that he has undermined the aspirations for social change which originally gave purpose to critical theory's various projects—for example the problem of what ] should mean, the analysis and enlargement of "conditions of possibility" for social ], and the critique of modern ].<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006). ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future'', MIT Press</ref> | |||
==History== | ==History== | ||
===Institute for Social Research=== | |||
===The Institute for Social Research=== | |||
{{Main|Institute for Social Research}} | {{Main|Institute for Social Research}} | ||
] | |||
{{Marxism}} | |||
The term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research, an adjunct organization at ], founded in 1923, by ], a Marxist professor of law at the ].<ref>Corradetti, Claudio (2011). "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published: 21 October 2011).</ref> It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largess of the wealthy student ] (1898–1975).<ref name="britannica">"Frankfurt School". (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica Online: {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100522064749/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217277/Frankfurt-School |date=22 May 2010 }} (Retrieved 19 December 2009)</ref> | |||
The term "Frankfurt School" arose informally to describe the thinkers affiliated or merely associated with the Frankfurt ]; it is not the title of any specific position or institution ''per se'', and few of these theorists used the term themselves. The Institute for Social Research (''Institut für Sozialforschung'') was founded in 1923 by ], a Marxist legal and political professor at the University of Vienna,<ref name="iep">Corradetti, Claudio (2011). , Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Originally published: October 21, 2011). | |||
</ref> as an adjunct of the ]; it was the first Marxist-oriented research center affiliated with a major German university.<ref name="britannica" /> However, the school can trace its earliest roots back to ], who used money from his father's grain business to finance the ''Institut''. | |||
Weil |
Weil's ] dealt with the practical problems of implementing ]. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek in effort to synthesize different trends of ] into a coherent, practical philosophy; the first symposium included ], ], ], and ]. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education for a university professor to be director of the Institute for Social Research, thereby, formally ensuring that the Frankfurt School would be a university institution.<ref name="Marxist Internet Archive">"The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183632/http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm |date=27 September 2007 }} (Retrieved 12 September 2009)</ref> Korsch and Lukács participated in the Workweek, which included the study of ''Marxism and Philosophy'' (1923), by Karl Korsch. Their Communist Party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research; nevertheless, Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture. | ||
The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School – the multi-disciplinary integration of the social sciences – is associated with the philosopher ], who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as ] (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist), ] (psychoanalyst), and ] (philosopher).<ref name="britannica" /> | |||
Although György Lukács and Karl Korsch both attended the ''Arbeitswoche'' which had included a study of Korsch's ''Marxism and Philosophy'', both were too committed to political activity and Party membership to join the ''Institut'', although Korsch participated in publishing ventures for a number of years. The way Lukács was obliged to repudiate his '']'', published in 1923 and probably a major inspiration for the work of the Frankfurt School, indicated that independence from the ] was necessary for genuine theoretical work.<ref name="Marxist Internet Archive"/> | |||
===European interwar period (1918–39)=== | |||
The philosophical tradition now referred to as the "Frankfurt School" is perhaps particularly associated with ] (philosopher, sociologist and social psychologist), who took over as the institute's director in 1930 and recruited many of the school's most talented theorists, including ] (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist), ] (psychoanalyst), and ] (philosopher).<ref name="britannica" /> | |||
In the ] (1918–33), the continual political turmoils of the interwar years (1918–39) much affected the development of the ] philosophy of the Frankfurt School. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communists' failed ] and by the rise of ] (1933–45), a German form of ]. To explain such ] politics, the Frankfurt scholars applied ] of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socioeconomics in 20th-century Europe (a type of ] unknown to Marx in the 19th century). The School's further intellectual development derived from the publication, in the 1930s, of the '']'' (1932) and '']'' (1932), which were interpreted as showing a continuity between ] and ]. | |||
As the ] threat of Nazism increased to political violence, the founders decided to move the Institute for Social Research out of ] (1933–45).<ref>Dubiel, Helmut. "The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Löwenthal", ''Telos'' 49.</ref> Soon after ] in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, where it joined ]. The School's journal, the ''Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung'' ("Journal of Social Research"), was renamed "Studies in Philosophy and Social Science". This began the period of the School's important work in Marxist critical theory. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, while Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 38.</ref> | |||
===The German prewar context=== | |||
The political turmoil of ] greatly affected the School's development. Its thinkers were particularly influenced by the ] (precisely where Marx had predicted that a communist revolution would take place) and by the rise of ] in such an economically and technologically advanced nation as Germany. This led many of them to take up the task of choosing what parts of Marx's thought might serve to clarify contemporary social conditions which Marx himself had never seen. Another key influence also came from the publication in the 1930s of Marx's '']'' and '']'', which showed the continuity with ] that underlay Marx's thought. | |||
==Critical theory== | |||
As the growing influence of National Socialism became ever more threatening, its founders decided to prepare to move the Institute out of the country.<ref>"The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Lowenthal" by ] in '']'' 49</ref> Following ] in 1933, the Institute left Germany for ], before moving to ] in 1935, where it became affiliated with ]. Its journal ''Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung'' was accordingly renamed ''Studies in Philosophy and Social Science''. It was at this moment that much of its important work began to emerge, having gained a favorable reception within American and English ]. Horkheimer, Adorno and Pollock eventually resettled in ] in the early 1950s, although Marcuse, Lowenthal, Kirchheimer and others chose to remain in the United States. It was only in 1953 that the Institute was formally re-established in Frankfurt.<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 38</ref> | |||
{{see also|Critical theory}} | |||
{{Marxism |expanded=Schools of thought}} | |||
The works of the Frankfurt School are to be understood in the context of the intellectual and practical objectives of ]. In "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), ] defined critical theory as social critique meant to effect sociologic change and realize intellectual emancipation, by way of enlightenment that is not dogmatic in its assumptions.<ref>Geuss, Raymond. ''The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school''. Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 58.</ref><ref name="Carr, Adrian 2000 p. 208-220">Carr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the Management of Change in Organizations", ''Journal of Organizational Change Management'', pp. 13, 3, 208–220.</ref> Critical theory analyzes the true significance of ''the ruling understandings'' (the ]) generated in bourgeois society in order to show that the dominant ideology misrepresents ''how'' human relations occur in the ] and how capitalism justifies and legitimates the domination of people. | |||
According to the theory of ], the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative that provides an explanatory justification of the current power-structure of society. Nonetheless, the story told through ''the ruling understandings'' conceals as much as it reveals about society. The task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century – especially the ] aspects of a capitalist society.<ref>Martin Jay. ''The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950''. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.</ref> | |||
===Theorists=== | |||
{{See also|List of critical theorists}} | |||
Horkheimer opposed critical theory to ''traditional theory'', wherein the word ''theory'' is applied in the positivistic sense of ], in the sense of a purely observational mode, which finds and establishes ] (generalizations) about the real world. Social sciences differ from natural sciences because their scientific generalizations cannot be readily derived from experience. The researcher's understanding of a social experience is always filtered through biases in the researcher's mind. What the researcher does not understand is that he or she operates within an historical and ideological context. The results for the theory being tested would conform to the ideas of the researcher rather than the facts of the experience proper; in "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), Horkheimer said: | |||
Which "theorists" may be included in what is now called the "Frankfurt School" will likely vary among different scholars. Indeed, the title of "school" can often be a misleading one, as the Institute's members did not always form a series of tightly woven, complementary projects. Some scholars have therefore limited their view of the Frankfurt School to Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Lowenthal and Pollock.<ref name="Held, David 1980, p. 15"/> However, most pre-war theorists can be considered as having shared a very similar paradigm. Although he was initially part of the School's inner circle, ] is generally considered as the first to have diverged from Horkheimer's research program, thus giving rise to a new generation of ]. | |||
{{quote|The facts, which our senses present to us, are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived, and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976). "Traditional and critical theory". In: Connerton, P (Eds), ''Critical Sociology: Selected Readings'', Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213</ref>}} | |||
Early members of the Frankfurt School were: | |||
For Horkheimer, the methods of investigation applicable to the social sciences cannot imitate the ] applicable to the ]. In that vein, the theoretical approaches of ] and ], of ] and ] failed to surpass the ideological constraints that restricted their application to social science, because of the inherent logico–mathematic prejudice that separates theory from actual life, i.e. such methods of investigation seek a logic that is always true, and independent of and without consideration for continuing human activity in the field under study. He felt that the appropriate response to such a dilemma was the development of a critical theory of Marxism.<ref>Rasmussen, D. "Critical Theory and Philosophy", ''The Handbook of Critical Theory'', Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. p .18.</ref> | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
Horkheimer believed the problem was ] saying "we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing individual, in general."<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 221.</ref> Unlike ], which applies a template to critique and to action, critical theory is self-critical, with no claim to the ] of absolute truth. As such, it does not grant primacy to matter (]) or consciousness (]), because each epistemology distorts the reality under study to the benefit of a small group. In practice, critical theory is outside the philosophical strictures of traditional theory; however, as a way of thinking and of recovering humanity's self-knowledge, critical theory draws investigational resources and methods from Marxism.<ref name="Carr, Adrian 2000 p. 208-220"/> | |||
People who were associated with the Institute or its theorists include: | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
Later theorists with roots in Frankfurt School critical theory include: | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
*] | |||
] (front left), ] (front right), and ] in the background, right, in 1965 at ].]] | |||
==Theoretical work== | |||
===Critical theory and the critique of ideology=== | |||
The Frankfurt School's work cannot be fully comprehended without equally understanding the aims and objectives of critical theory. Initially outlined by ] in his ''Traditional and Critical Theory'' (1937), critical theory may be defined as a self-conscious ] critique that is aimed at change and emancipation through enlightenment, and does not cling dogmatically to its own doctrinal assumptions.<ref>Geuss, Raymond (1981). ''The idea of a critical theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school''. Cambridge University Press, p. 58</ref><ref name="Carr, Adrian 2000 p. 208-220">Carr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the management of change in organizations". In: ''Journal of Organizational Change Management'', 13, 3, p. 208-220</ref> The original aim of critical theory was to analyze the true significance of "the ruling understandings" generated in bourgeois society, in order to show how they ''misrepresented'' actual human interaction in the real world, and in so doing functioned to ''justify'' or ''legitimize'' the domination of people by capitalism. A certain sort of story (a narrative) was provided to explain what was happening in society, but the story concealed as much as it revealed. The Frankfurt theorists generally assumed that their own task was mainly to interpret all the other areas of society which Marx had not dealt with, especially in the ] of society.<ref>Martin Jay, ''The Dialectical Imagination. A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950''. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.</ref> | |||
Horkheimer opposed it to "traditional theory", which refers to theory in the positivistic, ], or purely observational mode – that is, which derives generalizations or "]" about different aspects of the world. Drawing upon Max Weber, Horkheimer argued that the ]s are different from the ]s, inasmuch as generalizations cannot be easily made from so-called experiences, because the understanding of a "social" experience itself is always fashioned by ideas that are in the researchers themselves. What the researcher does not realize is that he is caught in a historical context in which ideologies shape the thinking; thus theory would be conforming to the ideas in the mind of the researcher rather than the experience itself: | |||
{{cquote|The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976). "Traditional and critical theory". In: Connerton, P (Eds), ''Critical Sociology: Selected Readings'', Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213</ref>}} | |||
For Horkheimer, approaches to understanding in the social sciences cannot simply imitate those in the natural sciences. Although various theoretical approaches would come close to breaking out of the ideological constraints which restricted them, such as positivism, ], ] and ], Horkheimer would argue that they failed, because all were subject to a "logico-mathematical" prejudice which separates theoretical activity from actual life (meaning that all these schools sought to find a logic which would always remain true, independently of and without consideration for ongoing human activities). According to Horkheimer, the appropriate response to this dilemma is the development of a critical theory.<ref>Rasmussen, D. (1996). "Critical theory and philosophy". In: Rasmussen, D. (Eds), ''The Handbook of Critical Theory'', Blackwell, Oxford, p .18</ref> | |||
The problem, Horkheimer argued, is ]: we should not merely reconsider the scientist but the knowing individual in general.<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 221</ref> Unlike ], which merely applies a ready-made "template" to both critique and action, critical theory seeks to be self-critical and rejects any pretensions to ]. Critical theory defends the primacy of neither matter (materialism) nor consciousness (]), arguing that both epistemologies distort reality to the benefit, eventually, of some small group. What critical theory attempts to do is to place itself outside of philosophical strictures and the confines of existing structures. However, as a way of thinking and "recovering" humanity's self-knowledge, critical theory often looks to Marxism for its methods and tools.<ref name="Carr, Adrian 2000 p. 208-220"/> | |||
Horkheimer maintained that critical theory should be directed at the totality of society in its ] (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), just as it should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology. While critical theory must at all times be self-critical, Horkheimer insisted that a theory is only critical if it is explanatory. Critical theory must therefore combine practical and normative thinking in order to "explain what is wrong with current social reality, identify actors to change it, and provide clear norms for criticism and practical goals for the future."<ref>Bohman, J (1996). "Critical theory and democracy". In: Rasmussen, D. (Eds), ''The Handbook of Critical Theory'', Blackwell, Oxford, p. 190</ref> Whereas traditional theory can only mirror and explain reality as it presently is, critical theory's purpose is to ''change'' it; in Horkheimer's words the goal of critical theory is "the emancipation of human beings from the circumstances that enslave them".<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 219 (see also p. 224)</ref> | |||
Frankfurt School theorists were explicitly linking up with the critical philosophy of ], where the term '']'' meant philosophical reflection on the limits of claims made for certain kinds of knowledge and a direct connection between such critique and the emphasis on ] – as opposed to traditionally deterministic and static theories of human action. In an intellectual context defined by dogmatic positivism and scientism on the one hand and dogmatic "]" on the other, critical theorists intended to rehabilitate Marx's ideas through a philosophically critical approach. | |||
Whereas both ] and ] orthodox thinkers viewed Marxism as a new kind of positive science, Frankfurt School theorists, such as Horkheimer, rather based their work on the epistemological base of Karl Marx's work, which presented itself as critique, as in Marx's '']''. They thus emphasized that Marx was attempting to create a new kind of critical analysis oriented toward the unity of theory and ] rather than a new kind of positive science. Critique, in this Marxian sense, meant taking the ideology of a society – e.g. the belief in ] or ] under capitalism – and critiquing it by comparing it with the social reality of that very society – e.g. ] and ]. The methodology on which Frankfurt School theorists grounded this critique came to be what had before been established by Hegel and Marx, namely the dialectical method. | |||
===Dialectical method=== | ===Dialectical method=== | ||
In contrast to modes of reasoning that view things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegel's "dialectical" innovation was to consider reality according to its movement and change in time, according to interrelations and interactions of its various components or "moments". The Frankfurt School attempted to reformulate Hegel's idealistic dialectics into a more concrete method of investigation.<ref name="dialectic1">dialectic. (2009). Retrieved 19 December 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161174/dialectic {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429180053/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161174/dialectic|date=29 April 2015}}</ref> | |||
According to Hegel, human history can be reconstructed to show how what is rational in reality is the result of the overcoming of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process of human activity, the {{lang|de|]}}, which is the ] towards a specific human condition; namely, the actualization of human freedom.<ref name="HegelStanford">Little, D. (2007). "Philosophy of History", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (18 February 2007), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131028200825/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis |date=28 October 2013 }}</ref> However, the ] (considerations about the future) did not interest Hegel, for whom philosophy cannot be ], because philosophy comprehends only in hindsight.<ref>"When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. . . . The ] spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" – Hegel, G. W. F. (1821). ] (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts), p.13</ref><ref>"Hegel's philosophy, and in particular his political philosophy, purports to be the rational formulation of a definite historical period, and Hegel refuses to look further ahead into the future." – Peĺczynski, Z. A. (1971). ''Hegel's political philosophy – Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays'', CUP Archive. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504032213/https://books.google.com/books?id=JEI4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200|date=4 May 2016}}</ref> The study of history is limited to descriptions of past and present human realities.<ref name="HegelStanford" /> For Hegel and his successors (the ]), philosophy can only describe what is rational in the reality of the present, which in Hegel's time was ] and the ]. | |||
Karl Marx and the ] strongly criticized that perspective. According to them, Hegel had over-reached in his abstract conception of "absolute reason" and had failed to notice the "real"— that is, {{em|undesirable}} and {{em|irrational}} – life conditions of the ]. Marx claims to invert Hegel's idealist dialectics in his own theory of ], arguing that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but that their social being that determines their consciousness."<ref>Karl Marx (1859), Preface to {{lang|de|]}}.</ref> Marx's theory follows a ] and ], where the development of the productive forces is the primary motive force for historical change.<ref>Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. London: Verso. (pp. 76–93)</ref> The social and material ] inherent to capitalism must lead to its negation, which according to this theory, will be the replacement of capitalism with ], a new, rational form of society.<ref>{{Cite encyclopedia |editor=Jonathan Wolff, PhD |encyclopedia=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |title=Karl Marx |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/ |access-date=17 September 2009 |publisher=Stanford |archive-date=8 February 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120208100606/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/ |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
Marx |
Marx used dialectical analysis to uncover the contradictions in the predominant ideas of society, and in the social relations to which they are linked – exposing the underlying struggle between opposing forces. Only by becoming aware of the dialectic (i.e., attaining ]) of such opposing forces in a struggle for power can men and women intellectually liberate themselves, and change the existing social order through social progress.<ref>Seiler, Robert M. "Human Communication in the Critical Theory Tradition", University of Calgary, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100114041325/http://people.ucalgary.ca/~rseiler/critical.htm |date=14 January 2010 }}</ref> The Frankfurt School understood that a dialectical method could only be adopted {{em|if it could be applied to itself}}; if they adopted a self-correcting method – a dialectical method that would enable the correction of previous, false interpretations of the dialectical investigation. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the ] and materialism of orthodox Marxism.<ref>Bernstein, J. M. (1994) ''The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments'', Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, pp. 199–202, 208.</ref> | ||
===Critique of capitalist ideology=== | |||
For their part, Frankfurt School theorists quickly came to realize that a dialectical method could only be adopted ''if it could be applied to itself''—that is to say, if they adopted a self-correcting method—a dialectical method that would enable them to correct previous false dialectical interpretations. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the dogmatic ] and materialism of ].<ref>Bernstein, J. M. (1994) ''The Frankfurt School: critical assessments'', Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, p. 208 (See also pp. 199–202)</ref> Indeed, the material tensions and ]s of which Marx spoke were no longer seen by Frankfurt School theorists as having the same ] within contemporary Western societies—an observation which indicated that Marx's dialectical interpretations and predictions were either incomplete or incorrect. | |||
====''Dialectic of Enlightenment''==== | |||
] and ]'s '']'', written during the Institute's exile in America, was published in 1944. While retaining many Marxist insights, this work shifted emphasis from a critique of the material forces of production to a critique of the social and ideological forces bought about by early ]. The ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' uses the '']'' as a paradigm for their analysis of ] consciousness. In this work, Adorno and Horkheimer introduce many themes that central to subsequent ]. Their exposition of the ] as a central characteristic of ] and its application within the capitalism of the ] era was made long before ] and ] became popular concerns. | |||
They claim that ] is the new means of cultural reproduction within the mechanical age. It is a fusion of domination and technological rationality that brings all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process the subject gets swallowed up and no social force analogous to the ] can be identified that could enable the subject to emancipate itself. | |||
Contrary to orthodox Marxist '']'', which solely seeks to implement an unchangeable and narrow idea of "communism" into practice, critical theorists held that praxis and theory, following the dialectical method, should be interdependent and should mutually influence each other. When Marx famously stated in his '']'' that "philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it", his real idea was that philosophy's ''only'' validity was in how it informed action. Frankfurt School theorists would correct this by claiming that when action fails, then the theory guiding it must be reviewed. In short, socialist philosophical thought must be given the ability to criticize itself and "overcome" its own errors. While theory must inform praxis, praxis must ''also'' have a chance to inform theory. | |||
It is their contention that, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience, on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory, on the other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: "Its truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." This intention must be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: "The only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption."<ref>{{Cite book |last=Adorno |first=Theodor |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZiD-I5vX-oMC |title=Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life |date=2005 |publisher=Verso |isbn=978-1-84467-051-2 |pages=247 |language=en |translator-last=Jephcott |translator-first=E. F. N}}</ref> | |||
===Early influences=== | |||
The intellectual influences on and theoretical focus of the first generation of Frankfurt School critical theorists can be summarized as follows: | |||
From a sociological point of view, Adorno and Horkheimer's works demonstrate an ambivalence concerning the ultimate source of social domination, an ambivalence that gave rise to the "pessimism" of critical theory about the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.<ref>Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002). ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 242.</ref> This ambivalence was rooted in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of ], ], and ] as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology.<ref>"Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer's circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions" – Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures''. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 116.{{pb}}See also: Dubiel, Helmut. (1985). ''Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory''. Trans. Benjamin Gregg. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.</ref> For Adorno and Horkheimer, ] in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "]" and "material ] of society"—a tension that, according to traditional ], constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The previously "free" market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and "irrevocable" ] of Marx's epoch gradually had been replaced by the more central role of management hierarchies at the firm level and macroeconomic interventions at the state level in contemporary Western societies.<ref>"one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." – Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (2002). ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', p. 38.</ref> The dialectic through which Marx predicted the emancipation of modern society was suppressed, effectively subjugated to a positivist rationality of domination. | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
|- | |||
|width="150pt"| '''Historical context''' | |||
| ] from small-scale entrepreneurial capitalism to ] and ]; socialist labor movement grows, turns ]; emergence of the ]; ] and the rise of ]; ] period; emergence of ] and ], ]; rise of ]. | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| ] of Western ] in capitalism, the modern state, secular scientific rationality, culture, and religion; analysis of the forms of domination in general and of modern rational-legal ] in particular; articulation of the distinctive, ] of the social sciences. | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| Critique of the ] structure of the ] of advanced civilization and of the normal ] of everyday life; discovery of the ], primary-process thinking, and the impact of the ] and of anxiety on psychic life; analysis of the psychic bases of ] and irrational social behavior. | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| Critique of ] as a philosophy, as a ]ology, as a political ] and as everyday ]; rehabilitation of – negative – ], return to Hegel; appropriation of critical elements in phenomenology, historicism, existentialism, critique of their ahistorical, idealist tendencies; critique of ] and ]. | |||
|- | |||
| '''Aesthetic modernism''' | |||
| Critique of "false" and ] experience by breaking through its traditional forms and language; projection of alternative modes of existence and experience; liberation of the unconscious; consciousness of unique, modern situation; appropriation of ], ], ], ]; critique of the ] and "affirmative" culture; aesthetic utopia. | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| Critique of ] ideology; critique of ]; ]; history as class struggle and ] in different ]; ] of capitalism as extraction of surplus labor through free labor in the free market; unity of theory and practice; analysis for the sake of revolution, ], classless society. | |||
|- | |||
| ''']''' | |||
| Critique of ] as suppression and absorption of negation, as integration into ''status quo''; critique of ] as a culture of domination, both of an external and internal nature; dialectic differentiation of emancipatory and repressive dimensions of ] culture; ]'s critique of the ], ]'s transvaluation, and ]'s aesthetic education. | |||
|} | |||
Philosopher and critical theorist ] writes: | |||
Responding to the intensification of ] and ] in an ], critical theory is a comprehensive, ideology-critical, historically self-reflective body of theory aiming simultaneously to explain domination and point to the possibilities of bringing about a rational, humane, and free society. Frankfurt School critical theorists developed numerous theories of the economic, political, cultural, and psychological domination structures of advanced industrial civilization. | |||
{{quote|According to the now canonical view of its history, Frankfurt School critical theory began in the 1930s as a fairly confident interdisciplinary and materialist research program, the general aim of which was to connect normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes. Only a decade or so later, however, having revisited the premises of their philosophy of history, Horkheimer and Adorno's ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' steered the whole enterprise, provocatively and self-consciously, into a skeptical cul-de-sac.<ref name="Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006, p. 256">Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 256</ref>}} | |||
Kompridis argues that this "sceptical cul-de-sac" was arrived at with "a lot of help from the once unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of European fascism" and could not be gotten out of without "some well-marked {{lang|de|Ausgang}}, showing the way out of the ever-recurring nightmare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust horrors are fatally entangled." However, {{lang|de|Ausgang}}, according to Kompridis, this would not come until later – purportedly in the form of Jürgen Habermas's work on the intersubjective bases of ].<ref name="Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006, p. 256"/> | |||
The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of human ]s to be rational, i.e. individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own ] and their own ]. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the "]" or as ]: ], ] and ] structures (one of the earliest works published bore the title ''Studies of Authority and the Family''), and the realm of ] and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary ]. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social ] sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory's recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure. | |||
In psychoanalytic terms, consumption culture and mass media displaced the role of a father figure in the paternalistic family. Rather than serving to liberate society from patriarchal authority however, this merely replaced it with the authority of the "totally administered" society. ] criticized subsequent liberatory movements of the 1960s for failing to reckon with this dynamic, which in his view led to a "culture of ]".<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Tucker|first1=Ken|last2=Treno|first2=Andrew|title=The Culture of Narcissism and the Critical Tradition|journal=Berkeley Journal of Sociology|volume=24/25|pages=341–355|jstor=41035493 |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/41035493}}</ref> Lasch believed the "later Frankfurt School" tended to ground political criticisms too much on psychiatric diagnoses like the ]: "This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds."<ref>Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch", ''Journal of American History'' 80, No. 4 (March), pp. 1310–1332.</ref> | |||
===Critique of Western civilization=== | |||
==== |
====Art and music criticism==== | ||
Walter Benjamin's essay "]" is a canonical text in art history and film studies.<ref name="Kirsch">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/21/the-philosopher-stoned|last=Kirsh|first=Adam|title=The Philosopher Stoned|magazine=The New Yorker|date=August 21, 2006}}</ref> Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introduce radical political views to the proletariat.<ref name="Ross">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/15/naysayers|last=Ross|first=Alex|title=The Naysayers|magazine=The New Yorker|date=September 15, 2014}}</ref> In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer saw the rise of the ] as promoting homogeneity of thought and entrenching existing authorities.<ref name="Ross"/> For instance, Adorno (a trained classical pianist) polemicized against ] because it had become part of the culture industry of ] and the ] that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence, "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music".<ref>Adorno, Theodor W. (2003) ''The Philosophy of Modern Music''. Translated into English by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 41–42.</ref> | |||
This view of ] as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony.{{cn|date=August 2022}} In particular, Adorno criticized ] and ], viewing them as part of the culture industry that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable". ] has called the attack on jazz the least successful aspect of Adorno's work in America.<ref name="JayAdornoInAmerica">{{cite journal|last=Jay|first=Martin|title=Adorno In America|journal=New German Critique|year=1984 |volume=Winter 1984|number=31|pages=157–182|publisher=Duke University Press|doi=10.2307/487894|jstor=487894 }}</ref> | |||
The second phase of Frankfurt School critical theory centres principally on two works: ] and ]'s '']'' (1944) and Adorno's '']'' (1951). The authors wrote both works during the Institute's exile in America. While retaining much of a Marxian analysis, in these works critical theory shifted its emphasis. The critique of capitalism turned into a critique of ] as a whole. Indeed, the ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' uses the '']'' as a paradigm for the analysis of ] consciousness. Horkheimer and Adorno already present in these works many themes that have come to dominate the ] of recent years; indeed, their exposition of the ] as a central characteristic of ] in Western civilization was made long before ] and ] had become popular concerns. | |||
==Praxis== | |||
The analysis of reason now goes one stage further. The ] of Western civilization appears as a fusion of domination and of technological rationality, bringing all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process, however, the subject itself gets swallowed up, and no social force analogous to the ] can be identified that will enable the subject to emancipate itself. Hence the subtitle of ''Minima Moralia'': "Reflections from Damaged Life". In Adorno's words, | |||
Members of the Frankfurt School were academics and generally avoided (direct) political action or ].<ref name="KellnerNewLeft">{{cite book|last=Kellner|first=Douglas|title=Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s|publisher=Routledge|year=2005|isbn=9780815371670|chapter=Introduction}}</ref> Max Horkheimer opposed any revolutionary rhetoric in the institute's publications, since it could jeopardize funding from the West German government.<ref name="Abyss15">{{cite book|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School|publisher=Verso|isbn=9-781-78478-569-7|chapter=Up against the wall, motherfuckers|date=26 September 2017 }}</ref> Theodor Adorno showed some sympathy to student movements, particularly after the ], but he did not believe street violence had the potential to effect change.<ref name="AbyssIntro">{{cite book|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School|publisher=Verso|isbn=9-781-78478-569-7|chapter=Introduction|date=26 September 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Abyss16"/> ], a student of Marcuse, recounted advice given to her by Adorno that critical theorists working in the radical movements of the 1960s were, "akin to a media studies scholar deciding to become a radio technician".<ref name="Abyss15"/><ref name="DavisForeword">{{cite book|editor-last=Kellner|editor-first=Douglas|title=Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s|publisher=Routledge|year=2005|isbn=9780815371670|chapter=Foreword|last=Davis|first=Angela Y.}}</ref> | |||
In ''The Theory of the Novel'' (1971), ] criticized the "leading German intelligentsia", including some members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno is named explicitly), as inhabiting the ''Grand Hotel Abyss'', a metaphorical place from which the theorists comfortably analyze the ''abyss'', the world beyond. Lukács described this contradictory situation as follows: They inhabit "a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss, between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered."<ref>Lukács, Georg. (1971). ''The Theory of the Novel''. MIT Press, p. 22.</ref><ref name="AbyssIntro"/> | |||
{{cquote|For since the overwhelming ] of historical movement in its present phase consists so far only in the dissolution of the subject, without yet giving rise to a new one, individual ] necessarily bases itself on the old subject, now historically condemned, which is still for-itself, but no longer in-itself. The subject still feels sure of its ], but the nullity demonstrated to subjects by the ] is already overtaking the form of ] itself.<ref>Theodor W. Adorno, ''Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life,'' Verso (2006), pp. 15–16.</ref>}} | |||
The singular exception to this was Herbert Marcuse, who engaged with the ] in the 1960s and 1970s.<ref name="KellnerNewLeft"/><ref name="AbyssIntro"/> Marcuse's '']'' described the containment of the working class by material consumption and mass media that diverted any possibility of a proletarian revolution. Although Marcuse considered this pessimistic state of affairs to be ''fait accompli'' when the book was published in 1964, he was surprised and pleased when almost immediately the ] intensified and serious ] began. Student activists such as the ] in turn took an interest in Marcuse and his works. Formerly an obscure academic ''émigré'', he rapidly became a controversial public intellectual known as the "Guru of the New Left". Marcuse did not aim for narrow, incremental reforms but for the "Great Refusal" of all existing culture and "total revolution" against capitalism. In the democratic protests movements, Marcuse saw agents of change that could supplement the quiescent working class and unite with ] communist revolutionaries. Marcuse took an active role in the New Left, organizing events with students in the United States and the ].<ref name="KellnerNewLeft"/> | |||
Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory on the other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: "its truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." This intention ''must'' be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: "the only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of ]". Adorno goes on to distance himself from the "optimism" of orthodox Marxism: "beside the demand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality or unreality of redemption itself hardly matters."<ref>Adorno, Theodor W. (2006), p. 247.</ref> | |||
Marcuse's relationship with Horkheimer and Adorno was strained by their divergence of opinion about the student movements.<ref name="KellnerNewLeft"/><ref name="Abyss16">{{cite book|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School|publisher=Verso|isbn=9-781-78478-569-7|chapter=Philosophising with Molotov cocktails|date=26 September 2017 }}</ref> The ] was harshly critical of Adorno for his lack of political engagement and would disrupt his lectures.<ref name="Abyss16"/> When a student's room was trashed for refusing to take part in protests, Adorno wrote, "praxis serves as an ideological pretext for exercising moral constraint." Adorno further said it was a manifestation of the ].<ref name="AbyssIntro"/> Adorno's student ] was also critical of Adorno's inaction.<ref name="Abyss16"/> When in January 1969, Krahl led a group of students to occupy a room, Adorno called the police to remove them, further angering the students.<ref name="Abyss16"/> Marcuse criticized Adorno's decision to call the police, writing "I reject the unmediated translation of theory into praxis just as emphatically as you do. But I do believe that there are situations, moments, in which theory is pushed on further by praxis — situations and moments in which theory that is kept separate from praxis becomes untrue to itself".<ref name="Abyss16"/> | |||
From a sociological point of view, both Horkheimer's and Adorno's works contain a certain ambivalence concerning the ultimate source or foundation of social domination, an ambivalence which gave rise to the "pessimism" of the new critical theory over the possibility of human emancipation and freedom.<ref>Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002). ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 242.</ref> This ambivalence was rooted, of course, in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of ], ], and ] as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology.<ref>"Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer's circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions" – Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures''. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, p. 116.<br/>See also: Dubiel, Helmut. (1985). ''Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory''. Trans. Benjamin Gregg. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.</ref> For Adorno and Horkheimer, ] in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "]" and "material ] of society"—a tension which, according to traditional ], constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The previously "free" market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and "irrevocable" ] of Marx's epoch have gradually been replaced by the ] and socialized ownership of the ] in contemporary Western societies.<ref>"one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." – Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (2002). ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', p. 38.</ref> The dialectic through which Marx predicted the emancipation of modern society is thus suppressed, effectively being subjugated to a positivist rationality of domination. | |||
In the 1970s, perceiving the limitations of the new left, Marcuse de-emphasized the third world and revolutionary violence in favor of a focus on social issues in the United States.<ref name="KellnerNewLeft" /> He sought to recruit other movements on the political periphery, such as ] and ], to a ] for socialism. During this period, he spoke enthusiastically about ], seeing in it echoes of his earlier work in '']''. Seeing that the revolutionary moment of the 1960s was over, Marcuse advised students to avoid even a suggestion of violence. Instead, he advocated the "]" and recommended educational institutions as a refuge for radicals in the U.S.<ref name="KellnerNewLeft" /> | |||
Of this second "phase" of the Frankfurt School, philosopher and critical theorist Nikolas Kompridis writes that: | |||
== Criticism == | |||
{{cquote|According to the now canonical view of its history, Frankfurt School critical theory began in the 1930s as a fairly confident interdisciplinary and materialist research program, the general aim of which was to connect normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes. Only a decade or so later, however, having revisited the premises of their philosophy of history, Horkheimer and Adorno's ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' steered the whole enterprise, provocatively and self-consciously, into a skeptical ]. As a result they got stuck in the irresolvable dilemmas of the "philosophy of the subject," and the original program was shrunk to a negativistic practice of critique that eschewed the very normative ideals on which it implicitly depended.<ref name="Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006, p. 256">Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 256</ref>}} | |||
=== Psychoanalytic categorization === | |||
The historian ] criticized the Frankfurt School for their initial tendency of "automatically" rejecting opposing political criticisms, based upon "psychiatric" grounds: | |||
{{quote|'']'' had a tremendous influence on ], and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.<ref>Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch", ''Journal of American History'' 80, No. 4 (March), pp. 1310–1332.</ref>}} | |||
=== Economics and communications media === | |||
Kompridis claims that this "sceptical cul-de-sac" was arrived at with "a lot of help from the once unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of European fascism," and could not be gotten out of without "some well-marked ''Ausgang'', showing the way out of the ever-recurring nightmare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust horrors are fatally entangled." However, this ''Ausgang'', according to Kompridis, would not come until later – purportedly in the form of Jürgen Habermas's work on the intersubjective bases of ].<ref name="Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006, p. 256"/> | |||
During the 1980s, anti-authoritarian socialists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand criticized the rigid and deterministic view of popular culture deployed within the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social critique within such work. They argued that ] often did contain such cultural critiques.<ref>Martin Barker: ''A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign'': London: Pluto Press: 1984</ref><ref>Roy Shuker, Roger Openshaw and Janet Soler: ''Youth, Media and Moral Panic: From Hooligans to Video Nasties'': Palmerston North: Massey University Department of Education: 1990</ref> Recent criticism of the Frankfurt School by the ] ] focused on the claim that culture has grown more sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free markets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche audiences.<ref>Cowen, Tyler (1998) "Is Our Culture in Decline?" Cato Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v20n5/culture.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121104154453/http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v20n5/culture.pdf|date=4 November 2012}}</ref> | |||
====Philosophy of modern music==== | |||
Adorno, a trained musician, wrote ''The Philosophy of Modern Music'' (1949), in which he, in essence, polemicizes against ] itself ― because it has become part of the ideology of ]{{Page needed|date=September 2010}} and the ] that contributes to social domination. It hence contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable". Only ] art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence: | |||
{{cquote|What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music. It forbids continuity and development. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human being whom anxiety causes to freeze in her tracks Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its goal. It is the surviving message of despair from the shipwrecked.<ref>Adorno, Theodor W. (2003) ''The Philosophy of Modern Music''. Translated into English by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 41–42.</ref>}} | |||
This view of ] as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony. | |||
===Critical theory and domination=== | |||
====Negative dialectics==== | |||
{{Expert-subject|Philosophy|ex2=Sociology|section|date=February 2010}} | |||
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2009}} | |||
With the growth of advanced industrial society during the ] era, critical theorists recognized that the path of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial ] no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism. This led to the attempt to root the dialectic in an absolute method of negativity, as in Marcuse's '']'' (1964) and Adorno's '']'' (1966). During this period the Institute of Social Research re-settled in ] (although many of its associates remained in the United States) with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and ] of West Germany. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis. | |||
During this period, Frankfurt School critical theory particularly influenced some segments of the ] and leftist thought, particularly the ]. Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left. Their critique of technology, totality, teleology and (occasionally) civilization is an influence on ]. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual discourse on popular culture and scholarly popular culture studies. | |||
More importantly, however, the Frankfurt School attempted to define the fate of reason in the new historical period. While Marcuse did so through analysis of structural changes in the ] process under capitalism and inherent features of the ] of ], Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-examination of the foundation of critical theory. This effort appears in systematized form in Adorno's ''Negative Dialectics'', which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in which "philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed". Negative dialectics expresses the idea of critical thought so conceived that the apparatus of domination cannot co-opt it. | |||
Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and Adorno, suggests that the ] of thought lies in its attempt to eliminate all that is other than thought, the attempt by the subject to devour the object, the striving for ]. This ] makes thought the accomplice of domination. ''Negative Dialectics'' rescues the "preponderance of the object", not through a naive ] or ] but through a thought based on ], ], and ruse: a "logic of disintegration". Adorno thoroughly criticizes ]'s fundamental ], which he thinks reintroduces idealistic and identity-based concepts under the guise of having overcome the philosophical tradition. | |||
''Negative dialectics'' comprises a monument to the end of the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of criticism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frankfurt School had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the ] capitalist social basis of the autonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic based on it became more and more abstract. | |||
====Habermas and communicative rationality==== | |||
{{Expert-subject|Philosophy|ex2=Sociology|section|date=February 2010}} | |||
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2009}} | |||
{{Main|Jürgen Habermas}} | |||
Habermas's work takes the Frankfurt School's abiding interests in rationality, the human subject, ], and the dialectical method and overcomes a set of contradictions that always weakened critical theory: the contradictions between the materialist and ] methods, between Marxian social theory and the ] assumptions of critical ] between technical and social rationalization, and between cultural and psychological phenomena on the one hand and the ] structure of society on the other. | |||
The Frankfurt School avoided taking a stand on the precise relationship between the materialist and transcendental methods, which led to ambiguity in their writings and confusion among their readers. Habermas's epistemology synthesizes these two traditions by showing that phenomenological and transcendental analysis can be subsumed under a materialist theory of ], while the materialist theory makes sense only as part of a quasi-transcendental theory of emancipatory knowledge that is the self-reflection of cultural evolution. The simultaneously empirical and transcendental nature of emancipatory knowledge becomes the foundation stone of critical theory. | |||
By locating the conditions of rationality in the social structure of ] use, Habermas moves the locus of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects in ]. Rationality is a property not of individuals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted ]. In this notion Habermas has overcome the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domination of the individual by the apparatus but through technological rationality supplanting a describable rationality of communication. And, in his sketch of communicative ] as the highest stage in the internal logic of the evolution of ethical systems, Habermas hints at the source of a new ] practice that incorporates the imperatives of evolutionary rationality. | |||
==Criticism of Frankfurt School theorists== | |||
===Criticism of psychoanalytic categorizations=== | |||
In an interview with Casey Blake and ], historian ] criticized the Frankfurt School's initial tendencies towards "automatically" rejecting opposing political criticisms on "psychiatric" grounds: | |||
{{cquote|'']'' had a tremendous influence on ] and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.<ref>Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as social criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch" – ''Journal of American History'' 80, no.4 (March) (p.1310-1332)</ref>}} | |||
===Horkheimer and Adorno's pessimism=== | |||
An early criticism, originating from the left, argues that Frankfurt School critical theory is nothing more than a form of "bourgeois idealism" devoid of any actual relation to political practice, and is hence totally isolated from the reality of any ongoing revolutionary movement. This criticism was captured in ]'s phrase "Grand Hotel Abyss" as a syndrome he imputed to the members of the Frankfurt School: | |||
{{cquote|A considerable part of the leading German intelligentsia, including Adorno, have taken up residence in the ''Grand Hotel Abyss'' which I described in connection with my critique of ] as "a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered."<ref>Lukács, Georg. (1971). ''The Theory of the Novel''. MIT Press, p.22</ref>}} | |||
Philosopher ] equally believed that the school did not live up to Marx's promise of a better future: | |||
{{cquote|Marx's own condemnation of our society makes sense. For Marx's theory contains the promise of a better future. But the theory becomes vacuous and irresponsible if this promise is withdrawn, as it is by Adorno and Horkheimer.<ref>]: ''Addendum 1974: The Frankfurt School.'' in: ''The Myth of the Framework.'' London New York 1994, p. 80</ref>}} | |||
===Habermas's solutions: critical theory "between past and future"=== | |||
In 2006, Nikolas Kompridis (who undertook a post-doctoral fellowship with Jürgen Habermas) published new criticisms of Habermas's approach to critical theory, calling for a dramatic break with the proceduralist ethics of communicative rationality. He writes: | |||
{{cquote|For all its theoretical ingenuity and practical implications, Habermas's reformulation of critical theory is beset by persistent problems of its own… In my view, the depth of these problems indicate just how wrong was Habermas's expectation that the paradigm change to linguistic intersubjectivity would render "objectless" the dilemmas of the philosophy of the subject.<ref>Habermas, Jürgen (1987), ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity'', MIT Press, 1987. p. 301</ref> Habermas accused Hegel of creating a conception of reason so "overwhelming" that it solved ''too well'' the problem of modernity's self-reassurance.<ref>Habermas, Jürgen (1987), p. 42</ref> It seems, however, that Habermas has repeated rather than avoided Hegel's mistake, creating a theoretical paradigm so comprehensive that in one stroke it ''also'' solves too well the dilemmas of the philosophy of the subject ''and'' the problem of modernity's self-reassurance.<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), pp.23–24</ref>}} | |||
In addition, he writes that: | |||
{{cquote|The change of paradigm to linguistic intersubjectivity has been accompanied by a dramatic change in critical theory's self-understanding. The priority given to questions of justice and the normative order of society has remodeled critical theory in the image of liberal theories of justice. While this has produced an important contemporary variant of liberal theories of justice, different enough to be a challenge to liberal theory, but not enough to preserve sufficient continuity with critical theory's past, it has severely weakened the identity of critical theory and inadvertently initiated its premature dissolution.<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p.25</ref>}} | |||
In order to prevent that dissolution, Kompridis suggests that critical theory should "reinvent" itself as a "possibility-disclosing" enterprise, incorporating Heidegger's controversial insights into ] and drawing from the sources of normativity that he feels were blocked from critical theory by its recent change of paradigm. Calling for what ] has named a "new department" of reason,<ref>Charles Taylor, Philosophical Arguments pp. 12, 15.</ref> with a possibility-disclosing role that Kompridis calls "]", Kompridis argues that critical theory must embrace its neglected ] and once again imagine alternatives to existing social and political conditions, "if it is to have a future worthy of its past."<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p.xi</ref> | |||
===Economic and media critiques=== | |||
During the eighties, anti-authoritarian socialists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand criticised the rigid and determinist view of popular culture deployed within the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social critique within such work. They argued that ] often did contain such cultural critiques.<ref>Martin Barker: ''A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign'': London: Pluto Press: 1984</ref><ref>Roy Shuker, Roger Openshaw and Janet Soler: ''Youth, Media and Moral Panic: From Hooligans to Video Nasties'': Palmerston North: Massey University Department of Education: 1990</ref> Recent criticism of the Frankfurt School by the ] ] focused on the claim that culture has grown more sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free markets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche audiences.<ref>Cowen, Tyler (1998) "Is Our Culture in Decline?" Cato Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v20n5/culture.pdf</ref><ref>Radoff, Jon (2010) "The Attack on Imagination," http://radoff.com/blog/2010/05/27/attack-imagination/</ref> | |||
==Conspiracy theory== | |||
A notable 21st-century conspiracy theory regards the Frankfurt School as the origin of a contemporary movement in the ] to subvert traditional ], referred to as "'''Cultural Marxism'''" by theory proponents. It advocates for the idea that ] and ] are products of ], which originated with the Frankfurt School. The theory is associated with American conservative thinkers such as ], ] and ], and has received institutional support from the ].<ref name=Berkowitz>Berkowitz, Bill (2003), "Reframing the Enemy: ‘Cultural Marxism’, a Conspiracy Theory with an Anti-Semitic Twist, Is Being Pushed by Much of the American Right." Intelligence Report. ], Summer. http://web.archive.org/web/20040207095318/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53&printable=1</ref><ref name=Lind>{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=What is Cultural Marxism?|url=http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm|website=Maryland Thursday Meeting|accessdate=9 April 2015}}</ref> A copy of ''Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology'' by the FCF was included in a document titled ''2083: A European Declaration of Independence'' by Norwegian terrorist ], which was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses about 90 minutes before ].<ref name=TAYLOR>{{cite news|last1=Taylor|first1=Matthew|title=Breivik sent 'manifesto' to 250 UK contacts hours before Norway killings|url=http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/26/breivik-manifesto-email-uk-contacts|accessdate=30 March 2015|agency=Guardian UK|publisher=Guardian|date=27 July 2011}}</ref> | |||
Although it became more widespread in the late 1990s and 2000s, it originated with Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in ''Fidelio'' by the ].<ref name="schillerinstitute.org">, Schiller Institute</ref><ref name=Jay>] (2010), "". ] (Fall 2010-Winter 2011, 168–169): 30–40.</ref><ref>Jay (2010) notes that Daniel Estulin's book cites this essay and that the Free Congress Foundation's program was inspired by it.</ref> The Schiller Institute, a branch of the ], further promoted the idea in 1994.<ref>Michael Minnicino (1994), (] 1994), part of "Solving the Paradox of Current World History", a conference report published in '']''</ref> The Minnicino article charges that the Frankfurt School promoted ] in the arts as a form of ], and played a role in shaping the ].<ref name="schillerinstitute.org"/> In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program ''Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School''.<ref name=Jay/> The documentary | |||
<blockquote>"...spawned a number of condensed textual versions, which were reproduced on a number of radical right-wing sites. These in turn led to a welter of new videos now available on You Tube, which feature an odd cast of pseudo-experts regurgitating exactly the same line. The message is numbingly simplistic: all the ills of modern American culture, from feminism, affirmative action, sexual liberation and gay rights to the decay of traditional education and even environmentalism are ultimately attributable to the insidious influence of the members of the Institute for Social Research who came to America in the 1930's. The origins of "cultural Marxism" are traced back to ] and ], but because they were not actual émigrés, their role in the narrative is not as prominent."<ref name=Jay/></blockquote> | |||
According to Chip Bertlet, proprietor of "Research for Progress", the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground with the development of the ] in 2009, with contributions published in the '']'' and '']'' highlighted by some Tea Party websites.<ref name=Collectivists>{{cite journal | url=http://crs.sagepub.com/content/38/4/565.abstract | title=Collectivists, Communists, Labor Bosses, and Treason: The Tea Parties as Right-Wing Populist Counter-Subversion Panic | author=Berlet, Chip | journal=Critical Sociology |date=July 2012 | volume=38 | pages=565–587 | doi=10.1177/0896920511434750 | issue=4}}</ref> | |||
Philosopher and Political Science Lecturer Jérôme Jamin has stated "Next to the global dimension of the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, there is its innovative and original dimension, which lets its authors avoid racist discourses and pretend to be defenders of democracy."<ref name=JAMIN>{{cite book | editor1-last = Shekhovtsov | editor1-first = A. | editor2-last = Jackson | editor2-first = P. | last = Jamin | first = Jérôme | title = The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate | chapter = Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right | publisher = Palgrave Macmillan | location = Basingstoke | isbn = 9781137396198 | doi = 10.1057/9781137396211.0009 | pages = 84–103 | chapterurl = https://books.google.com/books?id=VbLSBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA84 | work = The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate | year = 2014 | accessdate = 18 January 2015}}</ref> | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
{{columns-list| |
{{columns-list|colwidth=22em| | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
*] | |||
*] | * ] | ||
* ] | |||
* ] | |||
}} | }} | ||
Line 246: | Line 117: | ||
==Further reading== | ==Further reading== | ||
{{Refbegin}} | {{Refbegin|30em}} | ||
* Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, Eds. ''The Essential Frankfurt School Reader''. New York: Continuum, 1982. | * Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, Eds. ''The Essential Frankfurt School Reader''. New York: Continuum, 1982. | ||
* Bernstein, Jay |
* Bernstein, Jay (ed.). ''The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments'' I–VI. New York: Routledge, 1994. | ||
* Benhabib, Seyla. ''Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory''. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. | * Benhabib, Seyla. ''Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory''. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986. | ||
* Bottomore, Tom. ''The Frankfurt School and its Critics''. New York: Routledge, 2002. | * Bottomore, Tom. ''The Frankfurt School and its Critics''. New York: Routledge, 2002. | ||
* Bronner, Stephen Eric and Douglas MacKay Kellner |
* Bronner, Stephen Eric and Douglas MacKay Kellner (eds.). ''Critical Theory and Society: A Reader''. New York: Routledge, 1989. | ||
* Brosio, Richard A. 1980. | * Brosio, Richard A. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121004085053/http://libx.bsu.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=%2FBSMngrph&CISOPTR=21&CISOBOX=1&REC=11 |date=4 October 2012 }} 1980. | ||
* Friedman, George. ''The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School''. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981. | |||
* Crone, Michael (ed.): ''Vertreter der Frankfurter Schule in den Hörfunkprogrammen 1950–1992.'' ], Frankfurt am Main 1992. (bibliography) | |||
* Friedman, George. ''The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School''. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981. | |||
* Held, David. ''Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. | * Held, David. ''Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas''. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980. | ||
* Jay, Martin. ''The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923–1950''. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1996. | |||
* Gerhardt, Christina. "Frankfurt School. ''The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, 1500 to the Present''. 8 vols. Ed. Immanuel Ness. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009. 12-13. | |||
* {{Cite book| publisher = Verso| isbn = 978-1-78478-568-0| last = Jeffries| first = Stuart| title = Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School| location = London – Brooklyn, New York| date = 2016 }} | |||
* Jay, Martin. ''The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923–1950''. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 1996. | |||
* Kompridis, Nikolas. ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future''. Cambridge, |
* Kompridis, Nikolas. ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006. | ||
* Postone, Moishe. ''Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory''. Cambridge, |
* Postone, Moishe. ''Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1993. | ||
* Schwartz, Frederic J. ''Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany''. New Haven, |
* Schwartz, Frederic J. ''Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany''. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005. | ||
* Shapiro, Jeremy J. "The Critical Theory of Frankfurt". ''Times Literary Supplement'' 3 (October 4, 1974) 787. | |||
* Scheuerman, William E. ''Frankfurt School Perspectives on Globalization, Democracy, and the Law''. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. | * Scheuerman, William E. ''Frankfurt School Perspectives on Globalization, Democracy, and the Law''. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008. | ||
* Wiggershaus, Rolf. ''The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance''. Cambridge, |
* Wiggershaus, Rolf. ''The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995. | ||
* Wheatland, Thomas. ''The Frankfurt School in Exile''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. | * Wheatland, Thomas. ''The Frankfurt School in Exile''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009. | ||
{{Refend}} | {{Refend}} | ||
==External links== | ==External links== | ||
* | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20050118052642/http://www.ifs.uni-frankfurt.de/english/ |date=18 January 2005 }} | ||
* Gerhardt, Christina. . The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Ness, Immanuel (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Blackwell Reference Online. | |||
* | |||
* {{IEP|frankfur|The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory}} | * {{cite IEP |url-id=frankfur |title=The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory}} | ||
* | * | ||
* | * | ||
{{navboxes | |||
|list= | |||
{{Critical theory}} | {{Critical theory}} | ||
{{ |
{{Social philosophy}} | ||
{{Continental philosophy}} | |||
{{Goethe University Frankfurt}} | {{Goethe University Frankfurt}} | ||
}} | |||
{{Portal bar|Socialism|Communism|Capitalism|Politics|Philosophy|Germany}} | |||
{{Authority control}} | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | |||
] | |||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] | ] | ||
] |
Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 November 2024
School of social theory and critical philosophy
Part of a series on the |
Frankfurt School |
---|
Major works
|
Notable theorists |
Important concepts |
Related topics |
The Frankfurt School is a school of thought in sociology and critical philosophy. It is associated with the Institute for Social Research founded at Goethe University Frankfurt in 1923. Formed during the Weimar Republic during the European interwar period, the first generation of the Frankfurt School was composed of intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the socio-economic systems of the 1930s: namely, capitalism, fascism, and communism. Significant figures associated with the school include Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and Jürgen Habermas.
The Frankfurt theorists proposed that existing social theory was unable to explain the turbulent political factionalism and reactionary politics, such as Nazism, of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical of Marxism–Leninism as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths to social development.
What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project of human emancipation, theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of the Marxist tradition, psychoanalysis, and empirical sociological research.
History
Institute for Social Research
Main article: Institute for Social ResearchThe term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research, an adjunct organization at Goethe University Frankfurt, founded in 1923, by Carl Grünberg, a Marxist professor of law at the University of Vienna. It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largess of the wealthy student Felix Weil (1898–1975).
Weil's doctoral dissertation dealt with the practical problems of implementing socialism. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek in effort to synthesize different trends of Marxism into a coherent, practical philosophy; the first symposium included György Lukács, Karl Korsch, Karl August Wittfogel, and Friedrich Pollock. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education for a university professor to be director of the Institute for Social Research, thereby, formally ensuring that the Frankfurt School would be a university institution. Korsch and Lukács participated in the Workweek, which included the study of Marxism and Philosophy (1923), by Karl Korsch. Their Communist Party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research; nevertheless, Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture.
The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School – the multi-disciplinary integration of the social sciences – is associated with the philosopher Max Horkheimer, who became the director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as Theodor W. Adorno (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist), Erich Fromm (psychoanalyst), and Herbert Marcuse (philosopher).
European interwar period (1918–39)
In the Weimar Republic (1918–33), the continual political turmoils of the interwar years (1918–39) much affected the development of the critical theory philosophy of the Frankfurt School. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communists' failed German Revolution of 1918–19 and by the rise of Nazism (1933–45), a German form of fascism. To explain such reactionary politics, the Frankfurt scholars applied critical selections of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socioeconomics in 20th-century Europe (a type of political economy unknown to Marx in the 19th century). The School's further intellectual development derived from the publication, in the 1930s, of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (1932) and The German Ideology (1932), which were interpreted as showing a continuity between Hegelianism and Marxist philosophy.
As the anti-intellectual threat of Nazism increased to political violence, the founders decided to move the Institute for Social Research out of Nazi Germany (1933–45). Soon after Adolf Hitler's rise to power in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, where it joined Columbia University. The School's journal, the Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung ("Journal of Social Research"), was renamed "Studies in Philosophy and Social Science". This began the period of the School's important work in Marxist critical theory. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, while Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.
Critical theory
See also: Critical theoryThe works of the Frankfurt School are to be understood in the context of the intellectual and practical objectives of critical theory. In "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), Max Horkheimer defined critical theory as social critique meant to effect sociologic change and realize intellectual emancipation, by way of enlightenment that is not dogmatic in its assumptions. Critical theory analyzes the true significance of the ruling understandings (the dominant ideology) generated in bourgeois society in order to show that the dominant ideology misrepresents how human relations occur in the real world and how capitalism justifies and legitimates the domination of people.
According to the theory of cultural hegemony, the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative that provides an explanatory justification of the current power-structure of society. Nonetheless, the story told through the ruling understandings conceals as much as it reveals about society. The task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century – especially the base and superstructure aspects of a capitalist society.
Horkheimer opposed critical theory to traditional theory, wherein the word theory is applied in the positivistic sense of scientism, in the sense of a purely observational mode, which finds and establishes scientific law (generalizations) about the real world. Social sciences differ from natural sciences because their scientific generalizations cannot be readily derived from experience. The researcher's understanding of a social experience is always filtered through biases in the researcher's mind. What the researcher does not understand is that he or she operates within an historical and ideological context. The results for the theory being tested would conform to the ideas of the researcher rather than the facts of the experience proper; in "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), Horkheimer said:
The facts, which our senses present to us, are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived, and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.
For Horkheimer, the methods of investigation applicable to the social sciences cannot imitate the scientific method applicable to the natural sciences. In that vein, the theoretical approaches of positivism and pragmatism, of neo-Kantianism and phenomenology failed to surpass the ideological constraints that restricted their application to social science, because of the inherent logico–mathematic prejudice that separates theory from actual life, i.e. such methods of investigation seek a logic that is always true, and independent of and without consideration for continuing human activity in the field under study. He felt that the appropriate response to such a dilemma was the development of a critical theory of Marxism.
Horkheimer believed the problem was epistemological saying "we should reconsider not merely the scientist, but the knowing individual, in general." Unlike orthodox Marxism, which applies a template to critique and to action, critical theory is self-critical, with no claim to the universality of absolute truth. As such, it does not grant primacy to matter (materialism) or consciousness (idealism), because each epistemology distorts the reality under study to the benefit of a small group. In practice, critical theory is outside the philosophical strictures of traditional theory; however, as a way of thinking and of recovering humanity's self-knowledge, critical theory draws investigational resources and methods from Marxism.
Dialectical method
In contrast to modes of reasoning that view things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegel's "dialectical" innovation was to consider reality according to its movement and change in time, according to interrelations and interactions of its various components or "moments". The Frankfurt School attempted to reformulate Hegel's idealistic dialectics into a more concrete method of investigation.
According to Hegel, human history can be reconstructed to show how what is rational in reality is the result of the overcoming of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process of human activity, the Weltgeist, which is the idea of progress towards a specific human condition; namely, the actualization of human freedom. However, the problem of future contingents (considerations about the future) did not interest Hegel, for whom philosophy cannot be prescriptive and normative, because philosophy comprehends only in hindsight. The study of history is limited to descriptions of past and present human realities. For Hegel and his successors (the right Hegelians), philosophy can only describe what is rational in the reality of the present, which in Hegel's time was Christianity and the Prussian state.
Karl Marx and the young Hegelians strongly criticized that perspective. According to them, Hegel had over-reached in his abstract conception of "absolute reason" and had failed to notice the "real"— that is, undesirable and irrational – life conditions of the proletariat. Marx claims to invert Hegel's idealist dialectics in his own theory of dialectical materialism, arguing that "it is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but that their social being that determines their consciousness." Marx's theory follows a materialist conception of history and geographic space, where the development of the productive forces is the primary motive force for historical change. The social and material contradictions inherent to capitalism must lead to its negation, which according to this theory, will be the replacement of capitalism with communism, a new, rational form of society.
Marx used dialectical analysis to uncover the contradictions in the predominant ideas of society, and in the social relations to which they are linked – exposing the underlying struggle between opposing forces. Only by becoming aware of the dialectic (i.e., attaining class consciousness) of such opposing forces in a struggle for power can men and women intellectually liberate themselves, and change the existing social order through social progress. The Frankfurt School understood that a dialectical method could only be adopted if it could be applied to itself; if they adopted a self-correcting method – a dialectical method that would enable the correction of previous, false interpretations of the dialectical investigation. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the historicism and materialism of orthodox Marxism.
Critique of capitalist ideology
Dialectic of Enlightenment
Adorno and Horkheimer's Dialectic of Enlightenment, written during the Institute's exile in America, was published in 1944. While retaining many Marxist insights, this work shifted emphasis from a critique of the material forces of production to a critique of the social and ideological forces bought about by early capitalism. The Dialectic of Enlightenment uses the Odyssey as a paradigm for their analysis of bourgeois consciousness. In this work, Adorno and Horkheimer introduce many themes that central to subsequent social thought. Their exposition of the domination of nature as a central characteristic of instrumental rationality and its application within the capitalism of the post-Enlightenment era was made long before ecology and environmentalism became popular concerns.
They claim that Instrumental rationality is the new means of cultural reproduction within the mechanical age. It is a fusion of domination and technological rationality that brings all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process the subject gets swallowed up and no social force analogous to the proletariat can be identified that could enable the subject to emancipate itself.
It is their contention that, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become the basis for ideology, the greatest contribution that critical theory can make is to explore the dialectical contradictions of individual subjective experience, on the one hand, and to preserve the truth of theory, on the other. Even dialectical progress is put into doubt: "Its truth or untruth is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." This intention must be oriented toward integral freedom and happiness: "The only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption."
From a sociological point of view, Adorno and Horkheimer's works demonstrate an ambivalence concerning the ultimate source of social domination, an ambivalence that gave rise to the "pessimism" of critical theory about the possibility of human emancipation and freedom. This ambivalence was rooted in the historical circumstances in which the work was originally produced, in particular, the rise of Nazism, state capitalism, and mass culture as entirely new forms of social domination that could not be adequately explained within the terms of traditional Marxist sociology. For Adorno and Horkheimer, state intervention in the economy had effectively abolished the tension in capitalism between the "relations of production" and "material productive forces of society"—a tension that, according to traditional Marxist theory, constituted the primary contradiction within capitalism. The previously "free" market (as an "unconscious" mechanism for the distribution of goods) and "irrevocable" private property of Marx's epoch gradually had been replaced by the more central role of management hierarchies at the firm level and macroeconomic interventions at the state level in contemporary Western societies. The dialectic through which Marx predicted the emancipation of modern society was suppressed, effectively subjugated to a positivist rationality of domination.
Philosopher and critical theorist Nikolas Kompridis writes:
According to the now canonical view of its history, Frankfurt School critical theory began in the 1930s as a fairly confident interdisciplinary and materialist research program, the general aim of which was to connect normative social criticism to the emancipatory potential latent in concrete historical processes. Only a decade or so later, however, having revisited the premises of their philosophy of history, Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment steered the whole enterprise, provocatively and self-consciously, into a skeptical cul-de-sac.
Kompridis argues that this "sceptical cul-de-sac" was arrived at with "a lot of help from the once unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of European fascism" and could not be gotten out of without "some well-marked Ausgang, showing the way out of the ever-recurring nightmare in which Enlightenment hopes and Holocaust horrors are fatally entangled." However, Ausgang, according to Kompridis, this would not come until later – purportedly in the form of Jürgen Habermas's work on the intersubjective bases of communicative rationality.
In psychoanalytic terms, consumption culture and mass media displaced the role of a father figure in the paternalistic family. Rather than serving to liberate society from patriarchal authority however, this merely replaced it with the authority of the "totally administered" society. Christopher Lasch criticized subsequent liberatory movements of the 1960s for failing to reckon with this dynamic, which in his view led to a "culture of narcissism". Lasch believed the "later Frankfurt School" tended to ground political criticisms too much on psychiatric diagnoses like the authoritarian personality: "This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds."
Art and music criticism
Walter Benjamin's essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is a canonical text in art history and film studies. Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introduce radical political views to the proletariat. In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer saw the rise of the culture industry as promoting homogeneity of thought and entrenching existing authorities. For instance, Adorno (a trained classical pianist) polemicized against popular music because it had become part of the culture industry of advanced capitalist society and the false consciousness that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence, "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music".
This view of modern art as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony. In particular, Adorno criticized jazz and popular music, viewing them as part of the culture industry that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable". Martin Jay has called the attack on jazz the least successful aspect of Adorno's work in America.
Praxis
Members of the Frankfurt School were academics and generally avoided (direct) political action or praxis. Max Horkheimer opposed any revolutionary rhetoric in the institute's publications, since it could jeopardize funding from the West German government. Theodor Adorno showed some sympathy to student movements, particularly after the killing of Benno Ohnesorg, but he did not believe street violence had the potential to effect change. Angela Davis, a student of Marcuse, recounted advice given to her by Adorno that critical theorists working in the radical movements of the 1960s were, "akin to a media studies scholar deciding to become a radio technician".
In The Theory of the Novel (1971), György Lukács criticized the "leading German intelligentsia", including some members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno is named explicitly), as inhabiting the Grand Hotel Abyss, a metaphorical place from which the theorists comfortably analyze the abyss, the world beyond. Lukács described this contradictory situation as follows: They inhabit "a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss, between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered."
The singular exception to this was Herbert Marcuse, who engaged with the new left in the 1960s and 1970s. Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man described the containment of the working class by material consumption and mass media that diverted any possibility of a proletarian revolution. Although Marcuse considered this pessimistic state of affairs to be fait accompli when the book was published in 1964, he was surprised and pleased when almost immediately the civil rights movement intensified and serious opposition to the Vietnam war began. Student activists such as the Students for a Democratic Society in turn took an interest in Marcuse and his works. Formerly an obscure academic émigré, he rapidly became a controversial public intellectual known as the "Guru of the New Left". Marcuse did not aim for narrow, incremental reforms but for the "Great Refusal" of all existing culture and "total revolution" against capitalism. In the democratic protests movements, Marcuse saw agents of change that could supplement the quiescent working class and unite with third-world communist revolutionaries. Marcuse took an active role in the New Left, organizing events with students in the United States and the West German student movement.
Marcuse's relationship with Horkheimer and Adorno was strained by their divergence of opinion about the student movements. The Socialist German Students' Union was harshly critical of Adorno for his lack of political engagement and would disrupt his lectures. When a student's room was trashed for refusing to take part in protests, Adorno wrote, "praxis serves as an ideological pretext for exercising moral constraint." Adorno further said it was a manifestation of the authoritarian personality. Adorno's student Hans-Jürgen Krahl was also critical of Adorno's inaction. When in January 1969, Krahl led a group of students to occupy a room, Adorno called the police to remove them, further angering the students. Marcuse criticized Adorno's decision to call the police, writing "I reject the unmediated translation of theory into praxis just as emphatically as you do. But I do believe that there are situations, moments, in which theory is pushed on further by praxis — situations and moments in which theory that is kept separate from praxis becomes untrue to itself".
In the 1970s, perceiving the limitations of the new left, Marcuse de-emphasized the third world and revolutionary violence in favor of a focus on social issues in the United States. He sought to recruit other movements on the political periphery, such as environmentalism and feminism, to a popular front for socialism. During this period, he spoke enthusiastically about women's liberation, seeing in it echoes of his earlier work in Eros and Civilization. Seeing that the revolutionary moment of the 1960s was over, Marcuse advised students to avoid even a suggestion of violence. Instead, he advocated the "long march through the institutions" and recommended educational institutions as a refuge for radicals in the U.S.
Criticism
Psychoanalytic categorization
The historian Christopher Lasch criticized the Frankfurt School for their initial tendency of "automatically" rejecting opposing political criticisms, based upon "psychiatric" grounds:
The Authoritarian Personality had a tremendous influence on Hofstadter, and other liberal intellectuals, because it showed them how to conduct political criticism in psychiatric categories, to make those categories bear the weight of political criticism. This procedure excused them from the difficult work of judgment and argumentation. Instead of arguing with opponents, they simply dismissed them on psychiatric grounds.
Economics and communications media
During the 1980s, anti-authoritarian socialists in the United Kingdom and New Zealand criticized the rigid and deterministic view of popular culture deployed within the Frankfurt School theories of capitalist culture, which seemed to preclude any prefigurative role for social critique within such work. They argued that EC Comics often did contain such cultural critiques. Recent criticism of the Frankfurt School by the libertarian Cato Institute focused on the claim that culture has grown more sophisticated and diverse as a consequence of free markets and the availability of niche cultural text for niche audiences.
See also
- Analytical Marxism
- Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
- Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory
- Eurocommunism
- Fredric Jameson
- Freudomarxism
- Gerhard Stapelfeldt
- Karl Mannheim
- Leo Kofler
- Lumpenproletariat
- Marxist cultural analysis
- Neo-Gramscianism
- Neo-Marxism
- Neue Marx-Lektüre
- Psychoanalytic sociology
- School of suspicion
- Social conflict theory
- Zygmunt Bauman
References
- Bohman, James (7 January 2024). "Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)". Critical Theory. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.
{{cite book}}
:|website=
ignored (help) - Corradetti, Claudio. "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Held, David (1983). "Frankfurt School". In Bottomore, Tom (ed.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (2nd ed.). Blackwell. pp. 208–13.
- Held, David (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press. p. 14.
- Corradetti, Claudio (2011). "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published: 21 October 2011).
- ^ "Frankfurt School". (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica Online: https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217277/Frankfurt-School Archived 22 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine (Retrieved 19 December 2009)
- "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Marxist Internet Archive Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine (Retrieved 12 September 2009)
- Dubiel, Helmut. "The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Löwenthal", Telos 49.
- Held, David (1980), p. 38.
- Geuss, Raymond. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 58.
- ^ Carr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the Management of Change in Organizations", Journal of Organizational Change Management, pp. 13, 3, 208–220.
- Martin Jay. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.
- Horkheimer, Max (1976). "Traditional and critical theory". In: Connerton, P (Eds), Critical Sociology: Selected Readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213
- Rasmussen, D. "Critical Theory and Philosophy", The Handbook of Critical Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. p .18.
- Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 221.
- dialectic. (2009). Retrieved 19 December 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161174/dialectic Archived 29 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Little, D. (2007). "Philosophy of History", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (18 February 2007), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis Archived 28 October 2013 at the Wayback Machine
- "When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. . . . The Owl of Minerva spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" – Hegel, G. W. F. (1821). Elements of the Philosophy of Right (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts), p.13
- "Hegel's philosophy, and in particular his political philosophy, purports to be the rational formulation of a definite historical period, and Hegel refuses to look further ahead into the future." – Peĺczynski, Z. A. (1971). Hegel's political philosophy – Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays, CUP Archive. Google Print, p. 200 Archived 4 May 2016 at the Wayback Machine
- Karl Marx (1859), Preface to Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie.
- Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. London: Verso. (pp. 76–93)
- Jonathan Wolff, PhD (ed.). "Karl Marx". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2009.
- Seiler, Robert M. "Human Communication in the Critical Theory Tradition", University of Calgary, Online Publication Archived 14 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- Bernstein, J. M. (1994) The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, pp. 199–202, 208.
- Adorno, Theodor (2005). Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life. Translated by Jephcott, E. F. N. Verso. p. 247. ISBN 978-1-84467-051-2.
- Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 242.
- "Critical Theory was initially developed in Horkheimer's circle to think through political disappointments at the absence of revolution in the West, the development of Stalinism in Soviet Russia, and the victory of fascism in Germany. It was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions" – Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures. Trans. Frederick Lawrence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, p. 116.See also: Dubiel, Helmut. (1985). Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory. Trans. Benjamin Gregg. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London.
- "one are the objective laws of the market which ruled in the actions of the entrepreneurs and tended toward catastrophe. Instead the conscious decision of the managing directors executes as results (which are more obligatory than the blindest price-mechanisms) the old law of value and hence the destiny of capitalism." – Horkheimer, Max and Theodor Adorno. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 38.
- ^ Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 256
- Tucker, Ken; Treno, Andrew. "The Culture of Narcissism and the Critical Tradition". Berkeley Journal of Sociology. 24/25: 341–355. JSTOR 41035493.
- Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch", Journal of American History 80, No. 4 (March), pp. 1310–1332.
- Kirsh, Adam (21 August 2006). "The Philosopher Stoned". The New Yorker.
- ^ Ross, Alex (15 September 2014). "The Naysayers". The New Yorker.
- Adorno, Theodor W. (2003) The Philosophy of Modern Music. Translated into English by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 41–42.
- Jay, Martin (1984). "Adorno In America". New German Critique. Winter 1984 (31). Duke University Press: 157–182. doi:10.2307/487894. JSTOR 487894.
- ^ Kellner, Douglas (2005). "Introduction". Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge. ISBN 9780815371670.
- ^ Jeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Up against the wall, motherfuckers". Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso. ISBN 9-781-78478-569-7.
- ^ Jeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Introduction". Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso. ISBN 9-781-78478-569-7.
- ^ Jeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Philosophising with Molotov cocktails". Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso. ISBN 9-781-78478-569-7.
- Davis, Angela Y. (2005). "Foreword". In Kellner, Douglas (ed.). Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge. ISBN 9780815371670.
- Lukács, Georg. (1971). The Theory of the Novel. MIT Press, p. 22.
- Blake, Casey and Christopher Phelps. (1994). "History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch", Journal of American History 80, No. 4 (March), pp. 1310–1332.
- Martin Barker: A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign: London: Pluto Press: 1984
- Roy Shuker, Roger Openshaw and Janet Soler: Youth, Media and Moral Panic: From Hooligans to Video Nasties: Palmerston North: Massey University Department of Education: 1990
- Cowen, Tyler (1998) "Is Our Culture in Decline?" Cato Policy Report, http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v20n5/culture.pdf Archived 4 November 2012 at the Wayback Machine
Further reading
- Arato, Andrew and Eike Gebhardt, Eds. The Essential Frankfurt School Reader. New York: Continuum, 1982.
- Bernstein, Jay (ed.). The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments I–VI. New York: Routledge, 1994.
- Benhabib, Seyla. Critique, Norm, and Utopia: A Study of the Foundations of Critical Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
- Bottomore, Tom. The Frankfurt School and its Critics. New York: Routledge, 2002.
- Bronner, Stephen Eric and Douglas MacKay Kellner (eds.). Critical Theory and Society: A Reader. New York: Routledge, 1989.
- Brosio, Richard A. The Frankfurt School: An Analysis of the Contradictions and Crises of Liberal Capitalist Societies. Archived 4 October 2012 at the Wayback Machine 1980.
- Friedman, George. The Political Philosophy of the Frankfurt School. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 1981.
- Held, David. Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980.
- Jay, Martin. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923–1950. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. 1996.
- Jeffries, Stuart (2016). Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. London – Brooklyn, New York: Verso. ISBN 978-1-78478-568-0.
- Kompridis, Nikolas. Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006.
- Postone, Moishe. Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
- Schwartz, Frederic J. Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005.
- Scheuerman, William E. Frankfurt School Perspectives on Globalization, Democracy, and the Law. 3rd ed. New York: Routledge, 2008.
- Wiggershaus, Rolf. The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories and Political Significance. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995.
- Wheatland, Thomas. The Frankfurt School in Exile. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2009.
External links
- Official website of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt Archived 18 January 2005 at the Wayback Machine
- Gerhardt, Christina. "Frankfurt School (Jewish émigrés)". The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest. Ness, Immanuel (ed). Blackwell Publishing, 2009. Blackwell Reference Online.
- "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- The Frankfurt School on the Marxists Internet Archive
- BBC Radio 4 Audio documentary "In our time: the Frankfurt School"
Links to related articles | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|