Misplaced Pages

Frankfurt School: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] 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 03:47, 25 February 2004 view sourceRobbot (talk | contribs)94,607 editsm Andre Engels - robot Modifying:pl← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 November 2024 view source Bobfrombrockley (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users29,659 editsm Critical theory: line break 
Line 1: Line 1:
The ] is a school of neo-] ], ], and ]. {{Short description|School of social theory and critical philosophy}}
{{pp-protected|reason=Persistent ] This has been a long term problem.|small=yes}}
{{use American English|date=September 2018}}
{{use dmy dates|date=June 2018}}
{{Frankfurt School|all}}
The '''Frankfurt School''' is a ] in ] and ]. It is associated with the ] founded at ] in 1923. Formed during the ] during the European ], the first generation of the Frankfurt School was composed of intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the socio-economic systems of the 1930s: namely, ], ], and ]. Significant figures associated with the school include ], ], ], ], ], and ].


The Frankfurt theorists proposed that existing ] was unable to explain the turbulent ]alism and ] politics, such as ], of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical of ] as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths to ].
The grouping emerged at the ] (''Institut für Sozialforschung'') of the ] in ] when ] became the Institute's director in 1930.


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>
The Frankfurt School gathered together dissident ], severe critics of ] who believed that some of ] alleged followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of Marx's ideas, usually in defense of orthodox ]. Influenced especially by the failure of working-class revolutions in Western Europe after World War I and by the rise of ] in an economically, technologically, and culturally advanced nation (Germany), they took up the task of choosing what parts of Marx's thought might serve to clarify social conditions which Marx himself had never seen. They drew on other schools of thought to fill in Marx's perceived omissions. ] exerted a major influence, as did ] (as in ]'s integration of ] and ]). Their emphasis on the "critical" component of theory was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of ], crude ], and ] by returning to ]'s critical philosophy and its successors in German ], principally ]'s philosophy, with its emphasis on negation and contradiction as inherent properties of ]. A key influence also came from the publication in the 1930s of Marx's <I>Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts</I> and '']'', which showed the continuity with ] that underlay Marx's thought. The intellectual influences on and theoretical focus of the first generation of Frankfurt School critical theorists appear in the following diagram:


==History==
]
===Institute for Social Research===
{{Main|Institute for Social Research}}
]


The term "Frankfurt School" describes the works of scholarship and the intellectuals who were the Institute for Social Research, an adjunct organization at ], founded in 1923, by ], a Marxist professor of law at the ].<ref>Corradetti, Claudio (2011). "The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (published: 21 October 2011).</ref> It was the first Marxist research center at a German university and was funded through the largess of the wealthy student ] (1898–1975).<ref name="britannica">"Frankfurt School". (2009). Encyclopædia Britannica Online: {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100522064749/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/217277/Frankfurt-School |date=22 May 2010 }} (Retrieved 19 December 2009)</ref>
The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of rational human subjects, i.e. individuals who could act rationally to take charge of their own society and their own history. The first consisted of social phenomena previously considered in Marxism as part of the "superstructure" or as ideology: personality, family and authority structures (its first book publication bore the title (<I>Studies of Authority and the Family</I>), and the realm of ] and mass culture. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of capitalism to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary ]. This meant arriving at a sophisticated awareness of the depth dimension in which social oppression sustains itself. It also meant the beginning of critical theory's recognition of ideology as part of the foundations of social structure. The Institute and various collaborators had a gigantic impact on (especially American) social science through their work <I>The Authoritarian Personality</I>, which conducted extensive empirical research, using sociological and psychoanalytic categories, in order to understand the forces that led individuals to affiliate with or support ] movements or parties.


Weil's ] dealt with the practical problems of implementing ]. In 1922, he organized the First Marxist Workweek in effort to synthesize different trends of ] into a coherent, practical philosophy; the first symposium included ], ], ], and ]. The success of the First Marxist Workweek prompted the formal establishment of a permanent institute for social research, and Weil negotiated with the Ministry of Education for a university professor to be director of the Institute for Social Research, thereby, formally ensuring that the Frankfurt School would be a university institution.<ref name="Marxist Internet Archive">"The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory", {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927183632/http://www.marxists.org/subject/frankfurt-school/index.htm |date=27 September 2007 }} (Retrieved 12 September 2009)</ref> Korsch and Lukács participated in the Workweek, which included the study of ''Marxism and Philosophy'' (1923), by Karl Korsch. Their Communist Party membership precluded their active participation in the Institute for Social Research; nevertheless, Korsch participated in the School's publishing venture.
The nature of Marxism itself formed the second focus of the Institute, and in this context the concept of ''critical theory'' originated. Although Horkheimer's distinction between traditional and ] in one sense merely repeated Marx's dictum that philosophers have always interpreted the world and the point is to change it, the Institute, in its critique of ideology, took on such philosophical currents as ], ], ], and ], with an implied critique of contemporary Marxism, which had turned dialectics into an alternate science or ]. The Institute attempted to reformulate dialectics as a concrete method, continually aware of the specific social roots of thought and of the specific constellation of forces that affected the possibility of liberation. Accordingly, critical theory rejected the materialist metaphysics of orthodox Marxism. For Horkheimer and his associates, materialism meant the orientation of theory towards practice and towards the fulfillment of human needs, not a metaphysical statement about the nature of reality.


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" />
The second phase of Frankfurt School critical theory centres principally on two works that rank as classics of twentieth-century thought: Horkheimer's and Adorno's <I>Dialectic of Enlightenment</I> and Adorno's <I>Minima Moralia</I>. The authors wrote both works during the Institute's American exile in the Nazi period. While retaining much of the Marxian analysis, in these works critical theory has shifted its emphasis. The critique of capitalism has turned into a critique of Western civilization as a whole. Indeed, the <I>Dialectic of Enlightenment</I> uses the <I>Odyssey</I> as a paradigm for the analysis of bourgeois consciousness. Horkheimer and Adorno already present in these works many themes that have come to dominate the social thought of recent years: the domination of nature appears as central to Western civilization long before ecology had become a catchphrase of the day.


===European interwar period (1918–39)===
The analysis of reason now goes one stage further. The rationality of Western civilization appears as a fusion of domination and of technological rationality, bringing all of external and internal nature under the power of the human subject. In the process, however, the subject itself gets swallowed up, and no social force analogous to the proletariat can be identified that will enable the subject to emancipate itself. Hence the subtitle of <I>Minima Moralia</I>: "Reflections from Damaged Life". In Adorno's words,
In the ] (1918–33), the continual political turmoils of the interwar years (1918–39) much affected the development of the ] philosophy of the Frankfurt School. The scholars were especially influenced by the Communists' failed ] and by the rise of ] (1933–45), a German form of ]. To explain such ] politics, the Frankfurt scholars applied ] of Marxist philosophy to interpret, illuminate, and explain the origins and causes of reactionary socioeconomics in 20th-century Europe (a type of ] unknown to Marx in the 19th century). The School's further intellectual development derived from the publication, in the 1930s, of the '']'' (1932) and '']'' (1932), which were interpreted as showing a continuity between ] and ].


As the ] threat of Nazism increased to political violence, the founders decided to move the Institute for Social Research out of ] (1933–45).<ref>Dubiel, Helmut. "The Origins of Critical Theory: An interview with Leo Löwenthal", ''Telos'' 49.</ref> Soon after ] in 1933, the Institute first moved from Frankfurt to Geneva, and then to New York City, in 1935, where it joined ]. The School's journal, the ''Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung'' ("Journal of Social Research"), was renamed "Studies in Philosophy and Social Science". This began the period of the School's important work in Marxist critical theory. By the 1950s, the paths of scholarship led Horkheimer, Adorno, and Pollock to return to West Germany, while Marcuse, Löwenthal, and Kirchheimer remained in the U.S. In 1953, the Institute for Social Research (Frankfurt School) was formally re-established in Frankfurt, West Germany.<ref>Held, David (1980), p. 38.</ref>
"For 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 one, 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 concentration camp is already overtaking the form of subjectivity itself."


==Critical theory==
Consequently, at a time when it appears that reality itself has become 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 the dialectic can become a means to domination: "Its truth or untruth, therefore, is not inherent in the method itself, but in its intention in the historical process." And this intention must be toward integral freedom and happiness: "the only philosophy which can be responsibly practised in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption". How far from orthodox Marxism is Adorno's conclusion: "But beside the demand thus placed on thought, the question of the reality or unreality of redemption itself hardly matters."
{{see also|Critical theory}}
{{Marxism |expanded=Schools of thought}}
The works of the Frankfurt School are to be understood in the context of the intellectual and practical objectives of ]. In "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), ] defined critical theory as social critique meant to effect sociologic change and realize intellectual emancipation, by way of enlightenment that is not dogmatic in its assumptions.<ref>Geuss, Raymond. ''The Idea of a Critical Theory: Habermas and the Frankfurt school''. Cambridge University Press, 1981. p. 58.</ref><ref name="Carr, Adrian 2000 p. 208-220">Carr, Adrian (2000). "Critical theory and the Management of Change in Organizations", ''Journal of Organizational Change Management'', pp. 13, 3, 208–220.</ref> Critical theory analyzes the true significance of ''the ruling understandings'' (the ]) generated in bourgeois society in order to show that the dominant ideology misrepresents ''how'' human relations occur in the ] and how capitalism justifies and legitimates the domination of people.


According to the theory of ], the dominant ideology is a ruling-class narrative that provides an explanatory justification of the current power-structure of society. Nonetheless, the story told through ''the ruling understandings'' conceals as much as it reveals about society. The task of the Frankfurt School was sociological analysis and interpretation of the areas of social-relation that Marx did not discuss in the 19th century – especially the ] aspects of a capitalist society.<ref>Martin Jay. ''The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research 1923–1950''. London: Heinemann, 1973, p. 21.</ref>
From these thoughts only a short step remained to the third phase of the Frankfurt School, which coincided with the postwar period, particularly from the early 1950s to the middle 1960s. With the growth of advanced industrial society under ] conditions, the critical theorists recognized that the structure of capitalism and history had changed decisively, that the modes of oppression operated differently, and that the industrial ] no longer remained the determinate negation of capitalism. This led to the attempt to root the dialectic in an absolute method of negativity, as in Marcuse's <I>One-Dimensional Man</I> and Adorno's <I>Negative Dialectics</I>. During this period the Institute of Social Research re-settled in Frankfurt (although many of its associates remained in the United States), with the task not merely of continuing its research but of becoming a leading force in the sociological education and democratization of ]. This led to a certain systematization of the lnstitute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.


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:
More importantly, however, the Frankfurt School attempted to define the fate of reason in the new historical period. While Marcuse did so through analysis of structural changes in the labor process under capitalism and inherent features of the ] of ], Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-examination of the foundation of critical theory. This effort appears in systematized form in Adorno's <I>Negative Dialectics</I>, which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in which "philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the moment to realize it was missed". Negative dialectics expresses the idea of critical thought so conceived that the apparatus of domination cannot co-opted it. Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and Adorno, suggests that the original sin of thought lies in its attempt to eliminate all that is other than thought, the attempt by the subject to devour the object, the striving for identity. This reduction makes thought the accomplice of domination. <I>Negative Dialectics</I> rescues the "preponderance of the object", not through a naive ] or metaphysical realism but through a thought based on differentiation, paradox, and ruse: a "logic of disintegration". Adorno thoroughly criticizes ]'s fundamental ], which reintroduces idealistic and identity-based concepts under the guise of having overcome the philosophical tradition.


{{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>}}
<I>Negative Dialectics</I> comprises a monument to the end of the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of criticism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frankfurt School had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the liberal capitalist social basis of the autonomous individual receded into the past, the dialectic based on it became more and more abstract. This stance helped prepare the way for the fourth, current phase of the Frankfurt School, shaped by the communication theory of Habermas.


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>
Habermas' work takes the Frankfurt School's abiding interests in rationality, the human subject, democratic socialism, and the dialectical method and overcomes a set of contradictions that always weakened critical theory: the contradictions between the materialist and transcendental methods, between Marxian social theory and the individualist assumptions of critical rationalism between technical and social rationalization, and between cultural and psychological phenomena on the one hand and the economic structure of society on the other. The Frankfurt School avoided taking a stand on the precise relationship between the materialist and transcendental methods, which led to ambiguity in their writings and confusion among their readers. Habermas' epistemology synthesizes these two traditions by showing that phenomenological and transcendental analysis can be subsumed under a materialist theory of social evolution, while the materialist theory makes sense only as part of a quasi-transcendental theory of emancipatory knowledge that is the self-reflection of cultural evolution. The simultaneously empirical and transcendental nature of emancipatory knowledge becomes the foundation stone of critical theory.


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"/>
By locating the conditions of rationality in the social structure of language use, Habermas moves the locus of rationality from the autonomous subject to subjects in interaction. Rationality is a property not of individuals per se, but rather of structures of undistorted communication. In this notion Habermas has overcome the ambiguous plight of the subject in critical theory. If capitalistic technological society weakens the autonomy and rationality of the subject, it is not through the domination of the individual by the apparatus but through technological rationality supplanting a describable rationality of communication. And, in his sketch of communicative ethics as the highest stage in the internal logic of the evolution of ethical systems, Habermas hints at the source of a new political practice that incorporates the imperatives of evolutionary rationality.


===Dialectical method===
Frankfurt School ] has influenced some segments of ] and thought (particularly the ]). Herbert Marcuse was sometimes described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the New Left.
In contrast to modes of reasoning that view things in abstraction, each by itself and as though endowed with fixed properties, Hegel's "dialectical" innovation was to consider reality according to its movement and change in time, according to interrelations and interactions of its various components or "moments". The Frankfurt School attempted to reformulate Hegel's idealistic dialectics into a more concrete method of investigation.<ref name="dialectic1">dialectic. (2009). Retrieved 19 December 2009, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161174/dialectic {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429180053/https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/161174/dialectic|date=29 April 2015}}</ref>


According to Hegel, human history can be reconstructed to show how what is rational in reality is the result of the overcoming of past contradictions. It is an intelligible process of human activity, the {{lang|de|]}}, which is the ] towards a specific human condition; namely, the actualization of human freedom.<ref name="HegelStanford">Little, D. (2007). "Philosophy of History", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (18 February 2007), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131028200825/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/history/#HegHis |date=28 October 2013 }}</ref> However, the ] (considerations about the future) did not interest Hegel, for whom philosophy cannot be ], because philosophy comprehends only in hindsight.<ref>"When philosophy paints its grey on grey, then has a shape of life grown old. . . . The ] spreads its wings only with the falling of the dusk" – Hegel, G. W. F. (1821). ] (Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts), p.13</ref><ref>"Hegel's philosophy, and in particular his political philosophy, purports to be the rational formulation of a definite historical period, and Hegel refuses to look further ahead into the future." – Peĺczynski, Z. A. (1971). ''Hegel's political philosophy – Problems and Perspectives: A Collection of New Essays'', CUP Archive. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504032213/https://books.google.com/books?id=JEI4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA200|date=4 May 2016}}</ref> The study of history is limited to descriptions of past and present human realities.<ref name="HegelStanford" /> For Hegel and his successors (the ]), philosophy can only describe what is rational in the reality of the present, which in Hegel's time was ] and the ].
Two main sorts of criticism have repeatedly been made of critical theory, captured in ]'s assertion that the members of the Frankfurt School suffered from "Grand Hotel" syndrome. The first is that the intellectual perspective of the Frankfurt School is really a romantic, elitist critique of mass culture dressed-up in neo-Marxist clothing: what really bothers the critical theorists, in this view, is not social oppression but that the masses like Ian Fleming and the Beatles instead of Samuel Beckett and Webern. The second, originating on the Left, is that critical theory is a form of bourgeois idealism that has no inherent relation to political practice and is totally isolated from any ongoing revolutionary movement.


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>
===Major Frankfurt school thinkers and scholars===


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>
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]


===Notable Frankfurt school critics=== ===Critique of capitalist ideology===
====''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.
]

]
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>

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.

Philosopher and critical theorist ] writes:
{{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"/>

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>

====Art and music criticism====
Walter Benjamin's essay "]" is a canonical text in art history and film studies.<ref name="Kirsch">{{cite magazine|url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/08/21/the-philosopher-stoned|last=Kirsh|first=Adam|title=The Philosopher Stoned|magazine=The New Yorker|date=August 21, 2006}}</ref> Benjamin is optimistic about the potential of commodified works of art to introduce radical political views to the proletariat.<ref name="Ross">{{cite magazine|url=http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/15/naysayers|last=Ross|first=Alex|title=The Naysayers|magazine=The New Yorker|date=September 15, 2014}}</ref> In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer saw the rise of the ] as promoting homogeneity of thought and entrenching existing authorities.<ref name="Ross"/> For instance, Adorno (a trained classical pianist) polemicized against ] because it had become part of the culture industry of ] and the ] that contributes to social domination. He argued that radical art and music may preserve the truth by capturing the reality of human suffering. Hence, "What radical music perceives is the untransfigured suffering of man.... The seismographic registration of traumatic shock becomes, at the same time, the technical structural law of music".<ref>Adorno, Theodor W. (2003) ''The Philosophy of Modern Music''. Translated into English by Anne G. Mitchell and Wesley V. Blomster. Continuum International Publishing Group, pp. 41–42.</ref>

This view of ] as producing truth only through the negation of traditional aesthetic form and traditional norms of beauty because they have become ideological is characteristic of Adorno and of the Frankfurt School generally. It has been criticized by those who do not share its conception of modern society as a false totality that renders obsolete traditional conceptions and images of beauty and harmony.{{cn|date=August 2022}} In particular, Adorno criticized ] and ], viewing them as part of the culture industry that contributes to the present sustainability of capitalism by rendering it "aesthetically pleasing" and "agreeable". ] has called the attack on jazz the least successful aspect of Adorno's work in America.<ref name="JayAdornoInAmerica">{{cite journal|last=Jay|first=Martin|title=Adorno In America|journal=New German Critique|year=1984 |volume=Winter 1984|number=31|pages=157–182|publisher=Duke University Press|doi=10.2307/487894|jstor=487894 }}</ref>

==Praxis==
Members of the Frankfurt School were academics and generally avoided (direct) political action or ].<ref name="KellnerNewLeft">{{cite book|last=Kellner|first=Douglas|title=Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s|publisher=Routledge|year=2005|isbn=9780815371670|chapter=Introduction}}</ref> Max Horkheimer opposed any revolutionary rhetoric in the institute's publications, since it could jeopardize funding from the West German government.<ref name="Abyss15">{{cite book|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School|publisher=Verso|isbn=9-781-78478-569-7|chapter=Up against the wall, motherfuckers|date=26 September 2017 }}</ref> Theodor Adorno showed some sympathy to student movements, particularly after the ], but he did not believe street violence had the potential to effect change.<ref name="AbyssIntro">{{cite book|last=Jeffries|first=Stuart|title=Grand Hotel Abyss: The Lives of the Frankfurt School|publisher=Verso|isbn=9-781-78478-569-7|chapter=Introduction|date=26 September 2017 }}</ref><ref name="Abyss16"/> ], a student of Marcuse, recounted advice given to her by Adorno that critical theorists working in the radical movements of the 1960s were, "akin to a media studies scholar deciding to become a radio technician".<ref name="Abyss15"/><ref name="DavisForeword">{{cite book|editor-last=Kellner|editor-first=Douglas|title=Herbert Marcuse: The New Left and the 1960s|publisher=Routledge|year=2005|isbn=9780815371670|chapter=Foreword|last=Davis|first=Angela Y.}}</ref>

In ''The Theory of the Novel'' (1971), ] criticized the "leading German intelligentsia", including some members of the Frankfurt School (Adorno is named explicitly), as inhabiting the ''Grand Hotel Abyss'', a metaphorical place from which the theorists comfortably analyze the ''abyss'', the world beyond. Lukács described this contradictory situation as follows: They inhabit "a beautiful hotel, equipped with every comfort, on the edge of an abyss, of nothingness, of absurdity. And the daily contemplation of the abyss, between excellent meals or artistic entertainments, can only heighten the enjoyment of the subtle comforts offered."<ref>Lukács, Georg. (1971). ''The Theory of the Novel''. MIT Press, p. 22.</ref><ref name="AbyssIntro"/>

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"/>

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"/>

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" />

== Criticism ==
=== 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 ===
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>

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

==References==
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Further reading==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* 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. {{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.
* 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.
* {{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 }}
* 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.
{{Refend}}

==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}}
*
*

{{navboxes
|list=
{{Critical theory}}
{{Social philosophy}}
{{Continental philosophy}}
{{Goethe University Frankfurt}}
}}
{{Portal bar|Socialism|Communism|Capitalism|Politics|Philosophy|Germany}}
{{Authority control}}

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 13:35, 6 November 2024

School of social theory and critical philosophy

Part of a series on the
Frankfurt School
Major works
Notable theorists
Important concepts
Related topics

The Frankfurt School is a school of thought in sociology and critical philosophy. It is associated with the Institute for Social Research founded at Goethe University Frankfurt in 1923. Formed during the Weimar Republic during the European interwar period, the first generation of the Frankfurt School was composed of intellectuals, academics, and political dissidents dissatisfied with the socio-economic systems of the 1930s: namely, capitalism, fascism, and communism. Significant figures associated with the school include Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Walter Benjamin, Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse, and Jürgen Habermas.

The Frankfurt theorists proposed that existing social theory was unable to explain the turbulent political factionalism and reactionary politics, such as Nazism, of 20th-century liberal capitalist societies. Also critical of Marxism–Leninism as a philosophically inflexible system of social organization, the School's critical-theory research sought alternative paths to social development.

What unites the disparate members of the School is a shared commitment to the project of human emancipation, theoretically pursued by an attempted synthesis of the Marxist tradition, psychoanalysis, and empirical sociological research.

History

Institute for Social Research

Main article: Institute for Social 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:
Frankfurt School: Difference between revisions Add topic