Misplaced Pages

Frankfurt School: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:57, 28 October 2017 view sourceJobrot (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,900 editsm *attempting to install← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 November 2024 view source Bobfrombrockley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,554 editsm Critical theory: line break 
(829 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|School of social theory and critical philosophy}}
{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ] This has been a long term problem.|small=yes}} {{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ] This has been a long term problem.|small=yes}}
{{use American English|date=September 2018}}
{{Frankfurt School}}
{{use dmy dates|date=June 2018}}
The '''Frankfurt School''' (''Frankfurter Schule'') is a school of social theory and critical philosophy associated with the ], at ]. Founded in the ] (1918–33), during the European ] (1918–39), the Frankfurt School comprised intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents who were ill-fitted to the contemporary socio-economic systems (capitalist, fascist, communist) of that time. The Frankfurt theoreticians proposed that ] was inadequate for explaining the turbulent ] and ] politics of capitalist societies in the 20th century. Critical of ] and ] as philosophically inflexible systems, the School's ] research indicated alternative paths to realising the ] of a nation.<ref>Held, David (1980). ''Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas''. University of California Press, p. 14.</ref>
{{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 loosely affiliated as intellectuals, the Frankfurt School theoreticians spoke from the perspective of a common paradigm of critical investigation (open-ended, self-critical approach) based upon Marxist and Hegelian premises of ].<ref name="FIN">{{cite book|last1=Finlayson|first1=James Gordon|title=Habermas a Very Short Introduction|date=2005|publisher=Oxford Univ. Press|location=Oxford|isbn=0-19-284095-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ydf-9hbeh-IC&oi=fnd&pg=PT11&dq=Habermas:+a+very+short+introduction&ots=H-ehtjtI1m&sig=VvDohnB1EEhXgKOST1Tm89EaV2g#v=onepage&q=frankfurt&f=false|access-date=26 March 2016}}</ref> To fill the omissions of 19th-century ], which could not address 20th-century social problems, they sought answers in the philosophies of ] sociology, ], ], etc.<ref name="britannica">"Frankfurt School". (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica Online: (Retrieved 19 December 2009)</ref> The School’s sociologic works derived from syntheses of the thematically pertinent works of ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 16</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Jameson|first1=Fredric|editor1-last=Nealon|editor1-first=Jeffrey|editor2-last=Irr|editor2-first=Caren|title=Rethinking the Frankfurt School: Alternative Legacies of Cultural Critique|date=2002|publisher=SUNY Press|location=Albany|pages=11-30|chapter=The Theoretical Hesitation: Benjamin's Sociological Predecessor}}</ref>

Like Karl Marx, the Frankfurt School concerned themselves with the conditions (political, economic, societal) that allow for ], by way of rational social institutions.<ref name="Held, David 1980, p. 15">Held, David (1980), p. 15.</ref> The emphasis upon the ] of social theory derived from surpassing the ideological limitations of ], ], and ], by returning to the ] of Kant, and his successors in ] — principally the philosophy of G. W. F. Hegel, which emphasised ] and ] as intellectual properties inherent to human ].

Since the 1960s, the critical-theory work of the Frankfurt School has been guided by the work of ] in the fields of ], linguistic ], and “the philosophical discourse of ]”.<ref>Habermas, Jürgen. (1987). ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity''. MIT Press.</ref> Nonetheless, the critical theorists ] and ] have opposed Habermas’s propositions, claiming he has undermined the original social-change purposes of critical theory, problems such as: What should ] mean?, the analysis and expansion of the conditions necessary to realise social ]; and critiques of contemporary capitalism.<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006). ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future'', MIT Press</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>


==History== ==History==
===Institute for Social Research=== ===Institute for Social Research===
{{Main|Institute for Social Research}} {{Main|Institute for Social Research}}
]
{{Marxism |expanded=Schools of thought}}
The term '''Frankfurt School''' informally describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the ] (''Institut für Sozialforschung''), 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> As such, the Frankfurt School was the first Marxist research center at a German university, and originated through the largesse of the wealthy student ] (1898–1975).<ref name="britannica" />


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>
At university, Weil’s ] dealt with the practical problems of implementing ]. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek (''Erste Marxistische Arbeitswoche'') in effort to synthesize different trends of ] into a coherent, practical philosophy; the symposium included ], ], ], and ]. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted Weil to pursue the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and 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", (Retrieved 12 September 2009)</ref>


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.
Korsch and Lukács participated in the ''Arbeitswoche'', which included study of ''Marxism and Philosophy'' (1923), by Karl Korsch, but their communist-party membership precluded active participation in the Frankfurt School; yet Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture. Moreover, the political correctness by which the Communists compelled Lukács to repudiate his book '']'' (1923) indicated that political, ideological, and intellectual independence from the communist party was a necessary work condition for realising the production of knowledge.<ref name="Marxist Internet Archive"/>


The philosophical tradition of the Frankfurt School the multi-disciplinary integration of the social sciences is associated with the philosopher ], who became director in 1930, and recruited intellectuals such as ] (philosopher, sociologist, musicologist), ] (psychoanalyst), and ] (philosopher).<ref name="britannica" /> 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" />


===European interwar period (1918–39)===
===Germany before WWII===
In the ] (1918–33), the continual, political turmoils of the interwar years (1918–39) much affected the development of the Frankfurt School philosophy of critical theory. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communist’s failed ] (which Marx predicted) and by the rise of ] (1933–45), a German form of ]. To explain such ] politics, Frankfurt scholars applied ] of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socio-economics 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), in which Karl Marx showed logical continuity with ], as the basis of ]. 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 ] 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 the Frankfurt School joined ]. In the event, the School’s journal, the ''Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung'' (“Magazine of Social Research”) was renamed “Studies in Philosophy and Social Science”. Thence began the period of the School’s important work in Marxist critical theory; the scholarship and the investigational method gained acceptance among ], in the U.S and in Britain. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, whilst Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Frankfurt School was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 38.</ref> 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>


==Critical theory==
===Theorists and influences===
{{See also|List of critical theorists}} {{see also|Critical theory}}
{{Marxism |expanded=Schools of thought}}
] (ft. left), ] (ft. right), ] (background, right), Heidelberg, 1965.]]
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>
The intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents who were the Frankfurt School, Max Horkheimer and Teodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Löwenthal, and Friedrich Pollock, were ill-fitted to the ], ], and ] political systems in power before the Second World War (1939–45) began in Europe, yet they shared a paradigm for ] — an open-ended, self-critical approach to the subject under study.<ref name="Held, David 1980, p. 15"/>


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:
Beginning in the post–War period, their critical-theory scholarship produced new knowledge in the social sciences, and provoked ideological divisions among of the inner-circle of the School. ] was the first scholar to diverge from Horkheimer’s research program, presented in ''Traditional and Critical Theory'' (1937), from that divergence emerged the second generation of Frankfurt School theoreticians.<ref>Finlayson, James Gordon (2005), ''Habermas: A Very Short Introduction'', p. 4</ref>
;Early scholars of the Frankfurt School were:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]<ref>Kuhn, Rick ''Henryk Grossman and the Recovery of Marxism'' Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2007</ref>


{{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>}}
;Intellectuals associated with the School include:
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


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>
===Influences===
The critical theories of the Frankfurt School developed under the intellectual influences of:


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"/>
{| class="wikitable"
|-
|width="150pt"| '''Historical context'''
| ] from small-scale capitalism to ] and ]; socialist labor ]; emergence of the ]; the ]; the rise of ]; the ] period; emergence of ] and mass culture, ]; and the rise of ].
|-
| '''Max Weber'''
| ] of Western ]; analyses of ]; articulation of ] in the social sciences.
|-
| ''']'''
| Critique of ] in the ] of civilization and daily-life ]; discovery of the ] and the ]; analyses of the psychological bases of ].
|-
| ''']'''
| Critique of ] as philosophy and scientific method, as ideology and ]; resumption of ]; critique of ] and ].
|-
| '''Aesthetic modernism'''
| Critique of ]; of the ].
|-
| ''']'''
| Critique of ]; ]; the ] of labor in each ]; ] of the capitalist extraction of ]; and ].
|-
| ''']'''
| Critique of mass ] as the ''status quo''; critique of ] as domination; dialectical differentiation of emancipatory and repressive aspects of ] culture; Kierkegaard's critique of the ], Nietzsche's transvaluation, and Schiller's aesthetic education.
|}


===Dialectical method===
==Works==
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>
===Critical theory===
The works of the Frankfurt School are 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> The purpose of critical theory is to analyze the true significance of ''the ruling understandings'' (the ]) generated in bourgeois society, by showing that the dominant ideology misrepresents ''how'' human relations occur in the ], and how such misrepresentations function to justify and legitimate the domination of people by capitalism. In the praxis of ], the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative story, which explains that what is occurring in society is ]. Nonetheless, the story told through ''the ruling understandings'' conceals as much as it reveals about society, hence, 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 in the ] 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>


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 ].
Horkheimer opposed critical theory to ''traditional theory'', in which the word ''theory'' is applied in the positivistic sense of ], of a purely observational mode that finds and establishes ] (generalizations) about the real world. That the social sciences differ from the natural sciences inasmuch as scientific generalizations are not readily derived from experience, because the researcher’s understanding of a social experience always is shaped by the ideas in the mind of the researcher. What the researcher does not understand is that he or she is in an historical context, wherein ideologies shape human thought, thus, the results for the theory being tested would conform to the ideas of the researcher, rather than conform to the facts of the experience proper; in “Traditional and Critical Theory”, Horkheimer said:


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>
{{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>}}


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>
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. 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>


===Critique of capitalist ideology===
Because the problem was ], Horkheimer said that “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, critical theory does not grant primacy to matter (]) or to 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"/>
====''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.
===Critique of ideology===
Critical investigation must be directed at the totality of a society in its ] (how society became configured at a given time) in order to understand its social reality, by applying a method of investigation derived from the inter-disciplinary integration of the social sciences, such as geography, economics, and sociology, history and political science, anthropology and psychology. Although critical theory must always be self-critical, Horkheimer said that a theory is critical only if it explains the subject. Hence, by combining practical and normative ways of thinking, critical theory can “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. “Critical Theory and Democracy”, ''The Handbook of Critical Theory'', Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. p. 190.</ref> Whereas the purpose of traditional theory is the description, explanation, and justification of reality, the purpose of critical theory is to describe, explain, and change reality, because the goal of critical theory is “the emancipation of human beings from the circumstances that enslave them.”<ref>Horkheimer, Max (1976), pp. 219, 224.</ref>


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>
===''Dialectic of Enlightenment'' and ''Minima Moralia''===
The second phase of Frankfurt School critical-theory derives from two Marxist critiques of Western civilization: (i) the '']'' (1944), by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer; and (ii) '']'' (1951), by Adorno. The ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', applies the epic poem '']'' as the investigational paradigm to demonstrate that the ] characterizes the ] of the West; in their analyses, Horkheimer and Adorno anticipated late-twentieth-century ]. In ''Minima Moralia'', Adorno identified Western ] as technological effort to subordinate and ]{{dn|date=September 2017}} Nature to humanity:


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.
{{cquote|. . . since the overwhelming objectivity of historical movement, in its present phase, consists, so far, only in the dissolution of the subject, without yet giving rise to a new , individual experience 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 autonomy, but the nullity demonstrated to subjects by the ] is already overtaking the form of ], itself.<ref>Adorno, Theodor W. ''Minima Moralia: Reflections on a Damaged Life'' (1951), pp. 15–16.</ref>}}


Philosopher and critical theorist ] writes:
Consequently, when ] is the basis for ideology, critical analyses of the dialectical contradictions preserve the facts of the matter, because the “truth or untruth is not inherent in the method, itself, but in its intention in the historical process”, because “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’s contemporary ] perspective progresses from the philosophic optimism of 19th-century orthodox Marxism: “besides 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>
{{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"/>
From Horkheimer and Adorno’s ambivalence about the source of ]{{dn|date=September 2017}} arose the philosophic pessimism of the second-phase Frankfurt School about the possibility of human freedom and emancipation.<ref>Adorno, T. W., Horkheimer, M. ''Dialectic of Enlightenment''. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1944. p. 242.</ref> Uncertainty about the domination-source arose from the historical circumstances (the '']'') of Germany’s ] (1918–39), during which ], ], and ] arose as forms of social domination, which 19th-century Marxist sociology could not explain.<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. was supposed to explain mistaken Marxist prognoses, but without breaking Marxist intentions" — Jürgen Habermas, ''The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity: Twelve Lectures'' (1987) p. 116.<br/>See also: Dubiel, Helmut. ''Theory and Politics: Studies in the Development of Critical Theory'' (1985) p. 00.</ref> Such sources of social domination became noticeable when the state eliminated the socially-destabilizing tension between the ] and the material ] of society (the primary contradiction in capitalism) with a ] and public ownership of the ] .<ref>“Gone 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 Adorno, T. W. ''Dialectic of Enlightenment'', (1944) p. 38.</ref>


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>
Nikolas Kompridis criticized the second-phase Frankfurt School as being at an impasse, which:


====Art and music 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 sceptical cul-de-sac. 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>}}
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>
In the event, the Frankfurt School arrived at the cul-de-sac of scepticism with much “help from the once-unspeakable and unprecedented barbarity of ]”, but escaped through the progressive work of Jürgen Habermas on the intersubjective bases of ].<ref name="Kompridis, Nikolas. 2006, p. 256"/>


==Praxis==
===Philosophy of music===
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 Philosophy of Modern Music'' (1949), Teodor Adorno criticizes modern music as integral to the ideology of ], which represents the music as a ] that contributes to social domination.{{Page needed|date=September 2010}} That radical art and music can preserve aesthetic truth by capturing the reality of human suffering: “What radical music perceives is the un-transfigured 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 extremes; towards gestures of shock, resembling bodily convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline stand-still 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. ''The Philosophy of Modern Music'' (1949), pp. 41–42.</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"/>
In particular, Adorno dislike ] and ], viewing those genres as part of the ] that sustains capitalism by rendering it aesthetically pleasing and agreeable. Moreover, in ''The Uses of Pessimism and the Danger of False Hope'' (2010), the philosopher ] dismissed Adorno as a Marxist intellectual who produced “reams of turgid nonsense devoted to showing that the American people are just as alienated as Marxism requires them to be, and that their cheerful life-affirming music is a ‘fetishized’ commodity, expressive of their deep spiritual enslavement to the capitalist machine.”<ref>Scruton, Roger. ''The Uses of Pessimism: and the Danger of False Hope'', Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 89.</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"/>
==Criticism==
===Pessimism===
Left-wing critics of the Frankfurt School said the ] is a form of bourgeois idealism unrelated to political praxis, and isolated from the reality of a revolutionary movement. In the ''Theory of the Novel'', ] summarised the criticism: “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 Schopenhauer 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>


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"/>
Likewise, in ''The Myth of the Framework'', the philosopher ] said that the Frankfurt School did not fulfil the Marxist promise of a better future: “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>


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" />
===Between the past and the future===
Nikolas Kompridis’s criticism of Habermas’s approach to critical theory called for a break with the proceduralist ethics of ]: “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 indicates 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, ''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>


== Criticism ==
That the change of paradigm to linguistic intersubjectivity caused a great change in the self-understanding of the critical-theory method of investigation. That the priority given to questions of justice and normative order in society remodeled critical theory in the image of liberal theories of justice, which are challenged by contemporary variants of liberal theories of justice that preserve continuity with the past formulation of critical theory, yet inadvertently initiated its premature dissolution.<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 25</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 ===
To prevent that premature dissolution, Kompridis said that critical theory must become a “possibility-disclosing” enterprise, by incorporating Heidegger’s insights into ], and by drawing from the sources of normativity, which were blocked from critical theory, by the change of investigational paradigm. Calling for what the philosopher ] named as a “new department” of reason, with a possibility-disclosing role of ],<ref>Taylor, Charles. ''Philosophical Arguments'' pp. 12, 15.</ref> that critical theory must return to ] to imagine socio-political alternatives to the existing social and political conditions, “if it is to have a future worthy of its past.”<ref>Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. xi</ref>
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>

===Psychoanalytic categorization===
], historian ] criticized the Frankfurt School's initial tendencies towards "automatically" rejecting opposing political criticisms on psychiatric grounds: “'']'' 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 Phelps, Christopher. “History as Social Criticism: Conversations with Christopher Lasch” – ''Journal of American History'' 80, no.4, March 1994, pp.1310–32</ref>

===Economy and mass media===
During the 1980s, 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," {{cite web |url=http://radoff.com/blog/2010/05/27/attack-imagination/ |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2010-10-05 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100926222855/http://radoff.com/blog/2010/05/27/attack-imagination/ |archivedate=2010-09-26 |df= }}</ref>

==={{anchor|Conspiracy theory}}Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory===

'Cultural Marxism' in modern political parlance refers to a ] which sees the Frankfurt School as part of an ongoing movement to take over and destroy ].<ref name="Jay" /><ref name="JAMIN" /><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. https://web.archive.org/web/20040207095318/http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=53&printable=1</ref><ref name="Richardson" />

The term 'cultural Marxism' had an academic usage within ] where in the 1970s it referred to a form of ] cultural critique which specifically targeted those aspects of culture that are seen as profit driven and mass-produced under capitalism.<ref name="EAMD">{{cite web|last1=Adorno|first1=Theodor|title=The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception|url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm|website=www.marxists.org|access-date=25 April 2017}}</ref><ref name="BARKERJANE">{{cite book|last1=Barker|first1=Chris|last2=Jane|first2=Emma|title=Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice|publisher=SAGE|isbn=9781473968349|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vKX0CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT116&lpg=PT116&dq=Frankfurt+School+inauthentic+culture+of+capitalism&source=bl&ots=z7V1K3nQWd&sig=NING56ofR8i2zJatxFSbwGcJIiY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwippsvVqe3OAhWPNpQKHfF2CO0Q6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=Frankfurt%20School%20inauthentic%20culture%20of%20capitalism&f=false|language=en}}</ref><ref name="TOCA">{{cite book|last1=Habermas|first1=Jürgen|title=Theory of Communicative Action|date=1985|publisher=Beacon Press|isbn=978-0807015070|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RmSzCgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Theory+of+Communicative+Action&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=authentic&f=false|access-date=29 August 2016}}</ref><ref name="KELLNER1">{{cite web|last1=Kellner|first1=Douglas|title=Cultural Studies and Social Theory: A Critical Intervention|url=https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalstudiessocialtheory.pdf|website=UCLA|publisher=ucla.edu|access-date=31 August 2016}}</ref><ref name="RITZER">{{cite book|last1=Ritzer|first1=ed. George|title=Encyclopedia of social theory|date=2005|publisher=Sage|location=Thousand Oaks, CA |isbn=978-0761926115|pages=171|edition=|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mTZ1AwAAQBAJ&pg=PT209&lpg=PT209&dq=%22Cultural+Marxism%22+George+Ritzer&source=bl&ots=ln__wom5eJ&sig=QU6SPq56hqTcNw3hrdQczFrDj7E&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAmoVChMIw5qYgI6YxwIVhm8UCh2PAAv4#v=onepage&q=%22Cultural%20Marxism%22%20George%20Ritzer&f=true}}</ref> As an area of The Frankfurt School's discourse 'Cultural Marxism' was a label for their critique of the industrialization and mass-production of culture by ] which they claim has an overall negative effect on society, an effect which can ] an audience away from perceiving a more authentic sense of ].<ref name="ADORNO">{{cite book|last1=Horkheimer|first1=Max|last2=W. Adorno|first2=Theodor|title=Dialectic of enlightenment philosophical fragments|date=2002|publisher=Stanford Univ. Press|location=Stanford, Calif.|isbn=978-0804736336|edition=|url=https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/adorno/1944/culture-industry.htm}}</ref><ref name="BARKERJANE"></ref> British theorists such as ] of ] developed a ] sense of 'British Cultural Marxism' which objected to the ] and ] away from local cultures, a process of ] Hoggart saw as being enabled by ] newspapers, ], and the ].<ref name="HOGGART">{{cite book|last1=Hoggart|first1=Richard|title=The Uses of Literacy|date=1957|publisher=Transaction Publishers|location=New Brunswick, NJ|isbn=|pages=260–268|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=P3sywFksmrcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=The+Uses+of+Literacy&ots=OURl01gCaf&sig=teZD0LaRkwm_zgu_EnpFp1QdJUc#v=snippet&q=hollywood&f=false}}</ref>

The term remained academic until the late 1990s when it was misappropriated by ] as part of an ongoing ] in which it is claimed that the very same theorists who were analysing and objecting to the ] and mass control via commercialization of culture were in fact working in a conspiracy to control and stage their own attack on ], using ], ], ] and ] as their methods.<ref name=Berkowitz /><ref name="Lind" /><ref name="Weyrich" /> Adherents of the theory often seem to mean that the existence of things like modern ], anti-white racism, and ] are dependent on the Frankfurt School, even though these processes and movements predate the 1920s. This conspiracy theory version of the term is associated with American religious paleoconservatives such as ], ], and ], but also holds currency among ]/] groups and the ] movement.<ref name="Weyrich">{{cite web|last1=Weyrich|first1=Paul|title=Letter to Conservatives by Paul M. Weyrich|url=https://www.nationalcenter.org/Weyrich299.html|website=Conservative Think Tank: "The National Center for Public Policy Research"|access-date=30 November 2015}}</ref><ref name="Richardson">{{cite book |editor1-last=Copsey |editor1-first=Nigel |editor2-last=Richardson |editor2-first=John E. |last=Richardson |first=John E. |title=Cultures of Post-War British Fascism |chapter=‘Cultural-Marxism’ and the British National Party: a transnational discourse |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HIwGCAAAQBAJ}}</ref><ref name="WODAK">{{cite book|last1=Wodak|first1=ed. by Ruth|last2=KhosraviNik|first2=Majid|last3=Mral|first3=Brigitte|title=Right wing populism in Europe: Politics and discourse|date=2012|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|location=London|isbn=978-1-7809-3245-3|pages=96, 97|edition=1st. publ. 2013.|url=https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Wrw8gC8vCnUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA89&dq=British+nationalism+white+supremacy+and+%22Cultural+marxism%22&ots=QhoHmBHA8Z&sig=4cs7ghMa6a4P9Xi7b6Puv4r038g#v=onepage&q=Cultural%20Marxism&f=false|access-date=30 July 2015}}</ref>

Weyrich first aired his misappropriation of the term 'Cultural Marxism' in a 1998 speech to the ] ], later repeating this usage in his widely syndicated ].<ref name="Weyrich" /><ref name="CBS">{{cite web|last1=Moonves|first1=Leslie|title=Death Of The Moral Majority?|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/death-of-the-moral-majority/|website=CBS news|publisher=The Associated Press|access-date=19 April 2016}}</ref><ref name="KOYZIS">{{cite book|last1=Koyzis|first1=David T.|title=Political visions and illusions: A survey and Christian critique of contemporary ideologies|date=2003|publisher=InterVarsity Press|location=Downers Grove, Ill.|isbn=0-8308-2726-9 |page=82|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4elGv0rz-u4C&pg=PA82&lpg=PA82&dq=A+moral+minority?+An+open+letter+to+conservatives&source=bl&ots=50m6RBqNe_&sig=Ou4_j531xCy-zehxHaunbjw-114&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj3jLeWz6jLAhXlLKYKHRrtAiIQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=A%20moral%20minority%3F%20An%20open%20letter%20to%20conservatives&f=false|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref> At Weyrich's request William S. Lind wrote a short history of his conception of Cultural Marxism for ]; in it Lind identifies the presence of ] on television as proof of Cultural Marxist control over the mass media and claims that Herbert Marcuse considered a coalition of "blacks, students, feminist women and homosexuals" as a vanguard of cultural revolution.<ref name="Berkowitz" /><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|access-date=9 April 2015}}</ref><ref name="HOROWITZ">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology|url=http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1332|website=Discover The Networks|publisher=David Horowitz|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref> Lind has since published his own depiction of a fictional Cultural Marxist apocalypse.<ref name="TAC">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=Washington's Legitimacy Crisis|url=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/washingtons-legitimacy-crisis/|website=The American Conservative|access-date=May 4, 2015}}</ref><ref name="VICTORIA">{{cite book|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=Victoria: A Novel of 4th Generation Warefare|publisher=Castalia House|isbn=978-952-7065-45-7|url=https://www.traditionalright.com/victoria/|access-date=30 November 2015}}</ref> Lind and Weyrich's writings on this subject advocate fighting what they perceive as Cultural Marxism with "a vibrant ]" composed of "retroculture" fashions from the past, a return to rail systems as public transport and an ] of self-reliance modeled after the ].<ref name="Berkowitz" /><ref name="VICTORIA" /><ref name="AmericanIdeas">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|last2=Weyrich|first2=Paul M.|title=The Next Conservatism|url=http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-next-conservativism/|website=The American Conservative|publisher=American Ideas Institute|date=12 February 2007|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref><ref name="TNC">{{cite book|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|last2=Weyrich|first2=Paul M.|title=The Next Conservatism|date=2009|publisher=St. Augustine's Press|location=South Bend, Ind.|isbn=978-1-58731-561-9|edition=1|url=https://books.google.com/books?redir_esc=y&id=peobAQAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=amish|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref><ref name="CCP">{{cite web|last1=O'Meara|first1=Michael|title=The Next Conservatism? a review|url=http://www.counter-currents.com/2010/12/the-next-conservatism/|website=Counter Currents Publishing|publisher=Counter-Currents Publishing, Ltd|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref><ref name="TOMMYTERRY">{{cite book|last1=Terry|first1=Tommy|title=The Quelled Conscience of Conservative Evangelicals in the Age of Inverted Totalitarianism|isbn=978-1-105-67534-8| year=2012|page=9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-dyuAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=Paul+Weyrich+1999+%22Letter+to+Conservatives%22&source=bl&ots=qCCG3jWgic&sig=DwpLWm5gRXNVH5RnIx8HrKT9BZU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQobWKyKjLAhXFg6YKHUDVAd0Q6AEIQzAJ#v=onepage&q=Paul%20Weyrich%201999%20%22Letter%20to%20Conservatives%22&f=false|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref><ref name="DISCARD">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=The Discarded Image|url=http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Lind_012704,00.html|website=Various|access-date=5 March 2016}}</ref>{{Excessive citations inline|date=September 2016}}

In 1999 Lind led the creation of an hour-long program entitled "Political Correctness: The Frankfurt School".<ref name="Jay" /> Some of Lind's content went on to be reproduced by James Jaeger in his YouTube film "CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America".<ref name="JAEG1">{{cite web|last1=Jaeger|first1=James|title=CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIdBuK7_g3M?t=14m29s|website=Youtube|publisher=Google|access-date=3 April 2016}}</ref>

The intellectual historian ] commented on this phenomenon saying that Lind's original documentary:

<blockquote>"...&nbsp;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 YouTube, 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."<ref name="Jay" /></blockquote>

Heidi Beirich likewise claims the conspiracy theory is used to ] various conservative “bêtes noires” including "feminists, homosexuals, secular humanists, multiculturalist, sex educators, environmentalist, immigrants, and black nationalists."<ref name="PERRY">{{cite book|last1=Perry|first1=Barbara (ed.)|last2=Beirich|first2=Heidi|title=Hate crimes |date=2009|publisher=Praeger Publishers|location=Westport, Conn.|isbn=978-0-275-99569-0|pages=119|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=M7p6TDR1zwcC&pg=PA109&dq=Heidi+Beirich+Cultural+Marxism&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=noires&f=false|access-date=30 November 2015}}</ref>

According to ], who specializes in the study of extreme ], the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory found fertile ground within the ] of 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><ref name="WND">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=Who Stole Our Culture?|url=http://www.wnd.com/2007/05/41737/|website=World Net Daily|access-date=8 November 2015}}</ref><ref name="KIMBALL">{{cite web|last1=Kimball|first1=Linda|title=Cultural Marxism|url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html|website=American Thinker|access-date=11 March 2016}}</ref>

The ] has reported that William S. Lind in 2002 gave a speech to a ] conference on the topic of Cultural Marxism. In this speech Lind noted that all the members of The Frankfurt School were "to a man, Jewish", but it is reported that Lind claims not to question whether the Holocaust occurred and claims he was present in an official capacity for the ] "to work with a wide variety of groups on an issue-by-issue basis".<ref name="BERK">{{cite web|last1=Berkowitz|first1=Bill|title=Ally of Christian Right Heavyweight Paul Weyrich Addresses Holocaust Denial Conference|url=https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2002/ally-christian-right-heavyweight-paul-weyrich-addresses-holocaust-denial-conference|website=Southern Poverty Law Center|publisher=SPLC 2003|access-date=19 April 2016}}</ref><ref name="BILL" />

Although the theory became more widespread in the late 1990s and through the 2000s, the modern iteration of the theory originated in Michael Minnicino's 1992 essay "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'", published in ] by the ].<ref name="Jay">] (2010), "". ] (Fall 2010-Winter 2011, 168–169): 30–40. Quote:"On August 18, 2010, Fidel Castro contributed an article to the Cuban Communist Party paper Granma in which he endorsed the bizarre allegations of an obscure Lithuanian-born conspiracy theorist named Daniel Estulin in a 2005 book entitled The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club&nbsp;... what makes his embrace of Estulin's book especially risible is the subordinate argument—and this is the part that most concerns me here—that the inspiration for the subversion of domestic unrest came from Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Lowenthal and their colleagues at the Institute for Social search in the 1950's. Here we have clearly broken through the looking glass and entered a parallel universe in which normal rules of evidence and plausibility have been suspended. It is a mark of the silliness of these claims that they even subjected to ridicule by Rush Limbaugh on his August 20, 2010 radio show&nbsp;... Limbaugh, to be sure, ignored the other most blatant absurdity in Estulin's scheme, which was attributing to the Frankfurt School a position precisely opposite to what its members had always taken. That is, when they discussed the "culture industry" it was with the explicit criticism, ironically echoed here by Castro, that it functioned to reconcile people to their misery and dull the pain of their suffering&nbsp;... But the opening salvo had, in fact, been fired a decade earlier in a lengthy essay by one Michael Minnicino called "New Dark Age: Frankfurt School and 'Political Correctness'," published in 1992 in the obscure journal Fidelio. Its provenance is particularly telling: it was an organ of the Lyndon Larouche movement cum cult, one of the less savory curiosities of nightmare fringe politics&nbsp;...What began as a bizarre Lyndon Larouche coinage has become the common currency of a larger and larger public of addled ''enragés''&nbsp;...</ref><ref name="schillerinstitute.org">, Schiller Institute</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 shaped the ] (such as the British pop band ]) after the ] of the ].<ref name="schillerinstitute.org" />

More recently, the Norwegian terrorist ] included the term in his document ''"2083: A European Declaration of Independence"'', which along with ]'s ''"Political Correctness: A Short History of an Ideology"'' was e-mailed to 1,003 addresses approximately 90 minutes before ] for which Breivik was responsible.<ref>{{cite news|title='Breivik manifesto' details chilling attack preparation|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-14267007|access-date=2 August 2015|publisher=BBC News|date=24 July 2011}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Trilling|first1=Daniel|title=Who are Breivik’s fellow travellers?|url=http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2012/04/who-are-breivik%E2%80%99s-fellow-travellers|access-date=18 July 2015|publisher=New Statesman|date=18 April 2012}}</ref><ref name="QANTARA">{{cite web|last1=Buruma|first1=Ian|title=Breivik's Call to Arms|url=http://en.qantara.de/content/islamophobia-in-europe-breiviks-call-to-arms|website=Qantara|publisher=German Federal Agency for Civic Education & Deutsche Welle|access-date=25 July 2015}}</ref> Segments of William S. Lind's writings on Cultural Marxism have been found within Breivik's manifesto.<ref name="PINO">{{cite book|last1=Shanafelt|first1=Robert|last2=Pino|first2=Nathan W.|title=Rethinking Serial Murder, Spree Killing, and Atrocities: Beyond the Usual Distinctions|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-317-56467-6 | year=2014|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XDmLBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT10&lpg=PT10&dq=Rethinking+Serial+Murder,+Spree+Killing,+and+Atrocities:+Beyond+the+Usual+author&source=bl&ots=Oexd4yu0U7&sig=fGLopgpa7MsljFjUrNLy7uAyhdk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD3oXnk5rMAhUW5GMKHVIqBcEQ6AEIIjAB#v=snippet&q=Lind&f=false|language=en}}</ref>

In July 2017, Rich Higgins was removed by US National Security Advisor ] from the ] following the discovery of a seven-page memorandum he had authored, describing a conspiracy theory concerning a plot to destroy the presidency of ] by cultural Marxists, "inter-operating with" Islamists, globalists, bankers, the media and members of the Republican and Democratic parties.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/13/donald-trump-white-house-steve-bannon-rich-higgins|title=How Trump’s paranoid White House sees ‘deep state’ enemies on all sides|date=13 August 2017|publisher=''The Guardian''}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/08/10/heres-the-memo-that-blew-up-the-nsc/|title=Here’s the Memo That Blew Up the NSC |date=10 August 2017|publisher=''Foreign Policy''}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/a-national-security-council-staffer-is-forced-out-over-a-controversial-memo/535725/|title=An NSC Staffer Is Forced Out Over a Controversial Memo|date=2 August 2017|publisher=''The Atlantic''}}</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=978-1-137-39619-8 |doi=10.1057/9781137396211.0009 |pages=84–103 |chapterurl=https://books.google.com/books?id=VbLSBAAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA84 |year=2014 |access-date=18 January 2015}}</ref> Professor and Oxford Fellow Matthew Feldman has traced the terminology back to the pre-war German concept of ] locating it as part of the ] that aided in ].<ref name="MATT">{{cite book|last1=Matthew|first1=Feldman|last2=Griffin|first2=Roger (editor)|title=Fascism: Fascism and culture|date=2003|publisher=Routledge|location=New York|isbn=0-415-29018-X |page=343|edition=1. publ.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=MOH4yTFvBokC&pg=PA343&lpg=PA343&dq=Cultural+Marxism|access-date=28 October 2015}}</ref> William S. Lind confirms this as his period of interest, claiming that "It is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s and the hippies and the peace movement, but back to World War I."<ref name="BILL">{{cite web|last1=Lind|first1=William S.|title=The Origins of Political Correctness|url=http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/|website=Accuracy in Academia|publisher=Accuracy in Academia/Daniel J. Flynn|access-date=8 November 2015}}</ref>


==See also== ==See also==
{{columns-list|3| {{columns-list|colwidth=22em|
*] * ]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
*] * ]
*] * ]
*] * ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
}} }}


Line 190: 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 (ed.). ''The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments'' I–VI. New York: Routledge, 1994. * Bernstein, Jay (ed.). ''The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments'' I–VI. New York: Routledge, 1994.
Line 196: Line 123:
* 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 (eds.). ''Critical Theory and Society: A Reader''. New York: Routledge, 1989. * 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, Mass.: 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 }}
* {{cite book | author=Immanen, Mikko | title=A Promise of Concreteness: Martin Heidegger’s Unacknowledged Role in the Formation of Frankfurt School in the Weimar Republic | publisher=University of Helsinki | type=Ph.D. thesis | year=2017 | isbn=978-951-51-3205-5 | laysummary=http://urn.fi/URN:ISBN:978-951-51-3205-5 }}
* Kompridis, Nikolas. ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 2006.
* 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.
* Postone, Moishe. ''Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory''. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
* {{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, NY| date = 2016 }}
* Kompridis, Nikolas. ''Critique and Disclosure: Critical Theory between Past and Future''. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006. * Schwartz, Frederic J. ''Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany''. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 2005.
* Postone, Moishe. ''Time, Labor, and Social Domination: A Reinterpretation of Marx's Critical Theory''. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
* Schwartz, Frederic J. ''Blind Spots: Critical Theory and the History of Art in Twentieth-Century Germany''. New Haven, CT: 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, MA: MIT Press, 1995. * 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.
*
* .
* {{cite IEP |url-id=frankfur |title=The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory}} * {{cite IEP |url-id=frankfur |title=The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory}}
* *
* *


{{navboxes
|list=
{{Critical theory}} {{Critical theory}}
{{continental philosophy}} {{Social philosophy}}
{{Continental philosophy}}
{{Goethe University Frankfurt}} {{Goethe University Frankfurt}}
}}

{{Portal bar|Socialism|Communism|Capitalism|Politics|Philosophy|Germany}}
{{Authority control}} {{Authority control}}


Line 230: Line 156:
] ]
] ]
]
]
] ]
] ]
] ]
] ]
]
]
] ]

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 Research
The Institute for Social Research, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

The 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 theory
Part of a series on
Marxism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
Theoretical works
Philosophy
Critique of political economy
Sociology
History
Aspects
Common variants
Structural
Hegelian
Both
Other variants
People
Journals
Related topics

The 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

References

  1. Bohman, James (7 January 2024). "Critical Theory (Frankfurt School)". Critical Theory. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  2. Corradetti, Claudio. "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  3. Held, David (1983). "Frankfurt School". In Bottomore, Tom (ed.). A Dictionary of Marxist Thought (2nd ed.). Blackwell. pp. 208–13.
  4. Held, David (1980). Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas. University of California Press. p. 14.
  5. Corradetti, Claudio (2011). "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published: 21 October 2011).
  6. ^ "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)
  7. "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Marxist Internet Archive Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine (Retrieved 12 September 2009)
  8. Dubiel, Helmut. "The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Löwenthal", Telos 49.
  9. Held, David (1980), p. 38.
  10. Geuss, Raymond. The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school. Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 58.
  11. ^ Carr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the Management of Change in Organizations", Journal of Organizational Change Management, pp. 13, 3, 208–220.
  12. Martin Jay. The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.
  13. Horkheimer, Max (1976). "Traditional and critical theory". In: Connerton, P (Eds), Critical Sociology: Selected Readings, Penguin, Harmondsworth, p. 213
  14. Rasmussen, D. "Critical Theory and Philosophy", The Handbook of Critical Theory, Blackwell, Oxford, 1996. p .18.
  15. Horkheimer, Max (1976), p. 221.
  16. 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
  17. ^ 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
  18. "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
  19. "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
  20. Karl Marx (1859), Preface to Das Kapital: Kritik der politischen Ökonomie.
  21. Soja, E. (1989). Postmodern Geographies. London: Verso. (pp. 76–93)
  22. Jonathan Wolff, PhD (ed.). "Karl Marx". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford. Archived from the original on 8 February 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2009.
  23. Seiler, Robert M. "Human Communication in the Critical Theory Tradition", University of Calgary, Online Publication Archived 14 January 2010 at the Wayback Machine
  24. Bernstein, J. M. (1994) The Frankfurt School: Critical Assessments, Volume 3, Taylor & Francis, pp. 199–202, 208.
  25. Adorno, Theodor (2005). Minima Moralia: Reflections from Damaged Life. Translated by Jephcott, E. F. N. Verso. p. 247. ISBN 978-1-84467-051-2.
  26. Adorno, T. W., with Max Horkheimer. (2002). Dialectic of Enlightenment. Trans. Edmund Jephcott. Stanford: Stanford University Press, p. 242.
  27. "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.
  28. "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.
  29. ^ Kompridis, Nikolas. (2006), p. 256
  30. Tucker, Ken; Treno, Andrew. "The Culture of Narcissism and the Critical Tradition". Berkeley Journal of Sociology. 24/25: 341–355. JSTOR 41035493.
  31. 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.
  32. Kirsh, Adam (21 August 2006). "The Philosopher Stoned". The New Yorker.
  33. ^ Ross, Alex (15 September 2014). "The Naysayers". The New Yorker.
  34. 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.
  35. Jay, Martin (1984). "Adorno In America". New German Critique. Winter 1984 (31). Duke University Press: 157–182. doi:10.2307/487894. JSTOR 487894.
  36. ^ Kellner, Douglas (2005). "Introduction". Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge. ISBN 9780815371670.
  37. ^ 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.
  38. ^ Jeffries, Stuart (26 September 2017). "Introduction". Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School. Verso. ISBN 9-781-78478-569-7.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. Davis, Angela Y. (2005). "Foreword". In Kellner, Douglas (ed.). Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s. Routledge. ISBN 9780815371670.
  41. Lukács, Georg. (1971). The Theory of the Novel. MIT Press, p. 22.
  42. 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.
  43. Martin Barker: A Haunt of Fears: The Strange History of the British Horror Comics Campaign: London: Pluto Press: 1984
  44. 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
  45. 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

Links to related articles
Critical theory
Origins
Concepts
Derivatives
Critical ...
Theorists
Related
Social philosophy
Concepts
Schools
Philosophers
Ancient
Medieval
Early modern
18th and 19th
centuries
20th and 21st
centuries
Works
See also
Continental philosophy
Philosophers
Theories
Concepts
Goethe University Frankfurt
Colleges
Facilities
Related
Portals: Categories: