Changes

The '''Frankfurt [[School]]''' is a school of [[neo-Marxism|neo-Marxist]] [[Sociology|social theory]], [[social research]], and [[philosophy]]. The grouping emerged at the [[Institute for Social Research]] (''Institut für Sozialforschung'') of the [[Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt am Main|University of Frankfurt am Main]] in [[Germany]] when [[Max Horkheimer]] became the Institute's director in [[1930]]. The term "Frankfurt School" is an informal term used to designate the thinkers affiliated with the Institute for [[Social ]] Research or influenced by [[them]]: it is not the title of any institution, and the main thinkers of the Frankfurt School did not use the term to describe themselves.

The Frankfurt School gathered together dissident [[Marxism|Marxists]], severe critics of [[capitalism]] who believed that some of [[Karl Marx|Marx]]'s alleged followers had come to parrot a narrow selection of [[Marx]]'s [[ideas]], usually in [[defense ]] of orthodox [[Communist party|Communist]] or [[Social-Democratic]] parties. Influenced especially by the failure of [[working]]-[[class ]] revolutions in Western [[Europe ]] after [[World War I]] and by the rise of [[Nazism]] 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. [[Max Weber]] exerted a major influence, as did [[Sigmund Freud]] (as in [[Herbert Marcuse]]'s [[Freudo-Marxism|Freudo-Marxist]] [[synthesis ]] in the [[1954]] [[work ]] ''[[Eros ]] and [[Civilization]]''). Their emphasis on the "critical" component of [[theory ]] was derived significantly from their attempt to overcome the limits of [[positivism]], crude [[materialism]], and [[phenomenology]] by returning to [[Immanuel Kant|Kant]]'s [[critical philosophy]] and its successors in [[German ]] [[idealism]], principally [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]'s philosophy, with its emphasis on [[negation]] and [[contradiction]] as inherent properties of [[reality]]. A key influence also came from the publication in the [[1930s]] of Marx's ''[[Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844|Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts]]'' and ''[[The German Ideology]]'', which showed the continuity with [[Hegelianism ]] that underlay Marx's thought: [[Marcuse ]] was one of the first to articulate the [[theoretical ]] [[significance ]] of these [[texts]].

The [[intellectual ]] influences on and theoretical focus of the first generation of Frankfurt School critical theorists appear in the following diagram:

The Institute made major contributions in two areas relating to the possibility of [[rational ]] [[human ]] [[subject]]s, 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 ''Studies of Authority and the Family''), and the realm of [[aesthetics]] and [[popular culture|mass culture]]. Studies saw a common concern here in the ability of [[capitalism]] to destroy the preconditions of critical, revolutionary [[consciousness]]. 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 effect on (especially [[United States|American]]) [[social science]] through their work ''The Authoritarian Personality'', which conducted extensive [[empirical research]], using sociological and [[psychoanalysis|psychoanalytic]] [[categories]], in [[order ]] to characterize the forces that led individuals to affiliate with or support [[fascism|fascist]] movements or parties. The study found the assertion of [[Universal (metaphysics)|universals]], or even [[truth]], to be a hallmark of [[fascism]]; by calling into question any [[notion ]] of a higher [[ideal]], or a shared mission for humanity, ''The Authoritarian Personality'' contributed greatly to the emergence of the [[counterculture]].

The nature of Marxism itself formed the second focus of the Institute, and in this context the [[concept ]] of ''critical theory'' originated. The term served several purposes - first, it contrasted from traditional notions of theory, which were largely either positivist or [[scientific]]. Second, the term allowed them to escape the politically charged label of "Marxism." [[Third]], it explicitly linked them with the "critical philosophy" of [[Immanuel Kant]], where the term "critique" meant [[philosophical ]] [[reflection ]] on the limits of claims made for certain kinds of [[knowledge ]] and a direct connection between such critique and the emphasis on [[moral ]] [[autonomy]]. In an intellectual context defined by dogmatic positivism and scientism on the one hand and dogmatic "scientific [[socialism]]" on the other, critical theory meant to rehabilitate through such a philosophically critical approach an orientation toward revolutionary [[agency]], or at least its possibility, at a [[time ]] when it seemed in decline.

Finally, in the context of both [[Marxist]]-Leninist and Social-Democratic orthodoxy, which emphasized Marxism as a new kind of positive science, they were linking up with the implicit [[epistemology ]] of [[Karl Marx]]'s work, which presented itself as critique, as in Marx's "[[Capital]]: a critique of [[political ]] [[economy]]", wanting to emphasize that Marx was attempting to create a new kind of critical [[analysis ]] oriented toward the [[unity ]] of theory and revolutionary [[practice ]] rather than a new kind of positive science. In the 1960s, [[Jürgen Habermas]] raised the [[epistemological ]] [[discussion ]] to a new level in his "Knowledge and Human Interests" ([[1968]]), by [[identifying ]] critical knowledge as based on principles that differentiated it either from the [[natural ]] [[sciences ]] or the humanities, through its orientation to [[self]]-reflection and emancipation.

Although [[Horkheimer]]'s [[distinction ]] between traditional and critical theory in one [[sense ]] merely repeated Marx's dictum that [[philosophers ]] have always [[interpretation|interpreted]] the [[world ]] and the point is to [[change ]] it, the Institute, in its critique of ideology, took on such philosophical currents as [[positivism]], [[phenomenology]], [[existentialism]], and [[pragmatism]], with an implied [[critique]] of contemporary Marxism, which had turned [[dialectics]] into an alternate [[science]] or [[metaphysics]]. The Institute attempted to reformulate dialectics as a [[concrete ]] [[scientific method|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 second [[phase ]] of Frankfurt School critical theory centres principally on two works that rank as classics of twentieth-century thought: [[Max Horkheimer|Horkheimer]]'s and [[Theodor Adorno|Adorno]]'s ''[[Dialectic of Enlightenment]]'' (1944) and [[Adorno]]'s ''[[Minima Moralia]]'' (1951). 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 ''[[Dialectic ]] of [[Enlightenment]]'' uses the ''[[Odyssey]]'' as a paradigm for the analysis of [[bourgeoisie|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.

The analysis of [[reason]] now goes one [[stage ]] further. The [[rationality]] of Western civilization appears as a fusion of domination and of [[technology|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 [[emancipation|emancipate]] itself. Hence the subtitle of ''Minima Moralia'': "Reflections from Damaged [[Life]]". In Adorno's [[words]],

::"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 [[Wiktionary:autonomy|autonomy]], but the nullity demonstrated to [[subjects ]] by the [[concentration camp]] is already overtaking the [[form ]] of [[subjectivity]] itself."

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."

Adorno, a trained musician, wrote ''The Philosophy of Modern [[Music]]'', in which he, in [[essence]], polemicizes against [[beauty]] itself -- because it has become part of the ideology of advanced [[capitalist ]] society and the [[false ]] consciousness that contributes to domination by prettifying it. Avant-garde art and music 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. It forbids continuity and [[development]]. Musical language is polarized according to its extreme; towards gestures of shock resembling [[bodily ]] convulsions on the one hand, and on the other towards a crystalline standstill of a human [[being ]] whom [[anxiety ]] causes to freeze in her tracks... Modern music sees absolute oblivion as its [[goal]]. It is the surviving [[message ]] of despair from the shipwrecked."

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]].

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 [[Cold War]] 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 [[working class]] 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 ''[[One-Dimensional Man]]'' and Adorno's ''[[Negative Dialectics]]''. 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 [[West Germany]]. This led to a certain systematization of the Institute's entire accumulation of empirical research and theoretical analysis.

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 [[labour (economics)|labor]] process under capitalism and inherent features of the [[methodology]] of [[science]], Horkheimer and Adorno concentrated on a re-examination of the foundation of critical theory. This effort appears in systematized form in Adorno's ''[[Negative ]] Dialectics'', which tries to redefine dialectics for an era in which "philosophy, which once seemed obsolete, lives on because the [[moment ]] to realize it was missed". [[Negative dialectics ]] expresses the [[idea ]] of critical thought so conceived that the [[apparatus ]] of domination cannot co-opt it. Its central notion, long a focal one for Horkheimer and Adorno, suggests that the [[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 (philosophy)|identity]]. This [[reduction (philosophy)|reduction]] makes thought the accomplice of domination. ''Negative Dialectics'' rescues the "preponderance of the object", not through a naive [[epistemology|epistemological]] or metaphysical [[realism]] but through a thought based on [[differentiation]], [[paradox]], and ruse: a "[[logic ]] of disintegration". Adorno thoroughly criticizes [[Martin Heidegger|Heidegger]]'s fundamental [[ontology]], which reintroduces [[idealism|idealistic]] and [[identity]]-based [[concepts ]] under the guise of having overcome the philosophical [[tradition]].

''Negative Dialectics'' comprises a monument to the end of the tradition of the individual subject as the locus of criticism. Without a revolutionary working class, the Frankfurt School had no one to rely on but the individual subject. But, as the [[liberalism|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]].

Habermas's 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 [[individualism|individualist]] assumptions of critical [[rationalism]] between technical and social [[rationalization]], and between [[cultural ]] and [[psychological ]] phenomena on the one hand and the [[economics|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.

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 [[politics|political]] practice that incorporates the imperatives of evolutionary rationality.

Frankfurt School [[critical theory]] has influenced some segments of the [[Left-wing politics|Left wing]] and [[leftist ]] thought (particularly the [[New Left]]). Herbert Marcuse has occasionally been described as the theorist or intellectual progenitor of the [[New Left]]. Their work also heavily influenced intellectual [[discourse ]] on [[popular culture]] and scholarly [[popular culture studies]].

*One criticism is that the intellectual perspective of the Frankfurt School is really a romantic, [[academic elitism|elitist]] critique of mass [[culture ]] dressed-up in [[neo-Marxism|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 [[Anton Webern|Webern]].

*[[Another ]] criticism, originating from 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.

Both of these criticisms were [[captured ]] in [[Georg Lukács]]'s phrase "Grand Hotel Abyss" as a syndrome he imputed to the members of the Frankfurt School.

*Martin Jay. ''The Dialectical [[Imagination]]: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute for Social Research 1923-1950''. Berkeley, [[University ]] of California Press, 1996. ISBN 0520204239.

*Jeremy J. Shapiro, "The Critical Theory of Frankfurt", ''[[Times ]] [[Literary ]] [[Supplement]]'', Oct. 4, 1974, No. 3,787. ([[Material ]] from this publication has been used or adapted for the present article with permission.)