Este libro promete ser una contribución para el estudio de la teoría crítica en general y para el análisis de la historia de la Escuela de Frankfurt en particular. Todos los trabajos que están contenidos en este volumen hacen parte del amplio marco teórico de la teoría crítica de la sociedad. Muchos siguen las huellas de los fundadores de esta tendencia, mientras que otros se presentan como críticos de la misma y unos cuantos más tratan de vincular problemas y contextos (...) de relevancia a los conceptos más destacados que se empezaron a construir hace cien años en Frankfurt. Encontramos como buena excusa para su publicación precisamente el año centenario del Instituto de Investigación Social. Además, hemos creído conveniente organizar los materiales en secciones que van desde la historia de la Escuela de Frankfurt hasta la consideración de algunos interrogantes de actualidad motivados por el desarrollo de la teoría crítica. No obstante, con esto no pretendemos establecer límites absolutos de clasificación. Confesamos que nuestra forma de organizar los ensayos responde simplemente a criterios editoriales más que a cuestiones teóricas y conceptuales. Claramente las intersecciones entre los estudios aquí presentados son amplias y hacen que cada una de las propuestas pueda dialogar con las otras en función de sus evidentes parecidos de familia. (shrink)

Der vorliegende Aufsatz stellt Kooperation und Konkurrenz als zwei zentrale Mechanismen in den Vordergrund, die zur Etablierung des Instituts für Sozialforschung (IfS) und der Entstehung der „Frankfurter Schule“ im Laufe der 1950er Jahre geführt haben. Nach ihrer Rückkehr aus dem amerikanischen Exil nach Frankfurt am Main kooperierten die Leiter des IfS, Max Horkheimer, Friedrich Pollock und Theodor W. Adorno mit amerikanischen Militärbehörden, westdeutschen Erziehungspolitikern, deutschen Soziologen und Professoren an der Universität Frankfurt in der Absicht, die deutsche Bevölkerung im demokratischen Sinne (...) zu erziehen und das IfS wieder zu etablieren. Für diese Kooperation war entscheidend, dass alle genannten Akteure ein gemeinsames Ziel vor Augen hatten, nämlich die Demokratisierung Westdeutschlands und die Konstituierung der Soziologie als „Demokratisierungswissenschaft“. Gleichzeitig konkurrierten die zahlreichen Institute für Sozialforschung in Westdeutschland um finanzielle Ressourcen, um Deutungsanspruch der empirischen Forschungsergebnisse und um die Frage, wie mit der deutschen NS-Vergangenheit umgegangen werden soll. In den späten 1950er Jahren, als die erste Phase der Institutionalisierung der Soziologie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ihrem Ende zuging, verstärkte sich die Konkurrenz unter den Soziologen und kumulierte schließlich im Positivismusstreit von 1961. Die intensivierte Konkurrenz in den späten 1950er Jahren und die Auseinandersetzungen unter den Soziologen um 1960 waren wichtige Mechanismen bei der Herausbildung der Bezeichnung „Frankfurter Schule“, unter der das IfS in den 1960er Jahren bekannt wurde. (shrink)

Der vorliegende Aufsatz stellt Kooperation und Konkurrenz als zwei zentrale Mechanismen in den Vordergrund, die zur Etablierung des Instituts für Sozialforschung (IfS) und der Entstehung der „Frankfurter Schule“ im Laufe der 1950er Jahre geführt haben. Nach ihrer Rückkehr aus dem amerikanischen Exil nach Frankfurt am Main kooperierten die Leiter des IfS, Max Horkheimer, Friedrich Pollock und Theodor W. Adorno mit amerikanischen Militärbehörden, westdeutschen Erziehungspolitikern, deutschen Soziologen und Professoren an der Universität Frankfurt in der Absicht, die deutsche Bevölkerung im demokratischen Sinne (...) zu erziehen und das IfS wieder zu etablieren. Für diese Kooperation war entscheidend, dass alle genannten Akteure ein gemeinsames Ziel vor Augen hatten, nämlich die Demokratisierung Westdeutschlands und die Konstituierung der Soziologie als „Demokratisierungswissenschaft“. Gleichzeitig konkurrierten die zahlreichen Institute für Sozialforschung in Westdeutschland um finanzielle Ressourcen, um Deutungsanspruch der empirischen Forschungsergebnisse und um die Frage, wie mit der deutschen NS-Vergangenheit umgegangen werden soll. In den späten 1950er Jahren, als die erste Phase der Institutionalisierung der Soziologie in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland ihrem Ende zuging, verstärkte sich die Konkurrenz unter den Soziologen und kumulierte schließlich im Positivismusstreit von 1961. Die intensivierte Konkurrenz in den späten 1950er Jahren und die Auseinandersetzungen unter den Soziologen um 1960 waren wichtige Mechanismen bei der Herausbildung der Bezeichnung „Frankfurter Schule“, unter der das IfS in den 1960er Jahren bekannt wurde. (shrink)

In 1943, Henryk Grossman sent a draft of the study, eventually published in two parts as ‘The Evolutionist Revolt against Classical Economics’, to Max Horkheimer for comment. His very hostile response, Grossman’s drafts and the published study cast light not only on the changing relationship between Grossman and Horkheimer but also on the distance between Grossman’s classical Marxism and nascent mature Critical Theory. Grossman’s study identified the emergence of the idea of successive economic systems in the work of Condorcet, Henri (...) Saint-Simon and Simonde de Sismondi in France, James Steuart and Richard Jones in England, culminating in Marx’s formulations which entailed the role of class struggle and capitalism’s tendency to break down. Hegel was not an influence on Marx’s conception of modes of production. In addition to a series of spurious and minor criticisms, Horkheimer objected that Grossman’s approach was positivist, that it misconceived Hegel’s philosophy, and that it amounted to a conventional history of ideas. In response, Grossman made some changes in his study, but these were designed to strengthen his main arguments and successfully reaffirmed his Marxist approach in the face of Horkheimer’s criticisms. (shrink)

Following Max Horkheimer, I will first attempt to reconstruct an anthropology that essentially wants to be understood as critical social research. I will then pursue the question of humanism in critical theory. In doing so, I want to show that a reference to a normatively substantive humanism does actually exist in critical theory. On the other hand, I want to show that this humanism is anything but unambiguously and systematically formulated but has been reflected and articulated differently by different representatives (...) of critical theory. The two examples I will refer to here are Theodor W. Adorno and Erich Fromm. I will define Adorno’s humanism as ‘dialectical humanism’, whereas Fromm’s humanism could be described as ‘emphatic humanism’. My reading, however, attempts to interrogate the two positions as to their complementarity. Not ‘Adorno or Fromm’, but ‘Adorno and Fromm’ is the motto that guides me. Finally, I will relate this complementary reading of both approaches in such a way that the possibility of a ‘Critical Humanism’ can be derived from it, which above all also wants to be understood as a sociological research program. (shrink)

After the initial formulation of the concept of reification in Georg Lukács’s History and Class Consciousness (HCC, 1923), a series of confusing uses of it within critical theory have contributed to blurring its contours. In his pre-Marxist work, while analyzing the social rationalization process, Lukács located the modern form of mediation between subject and object and connected it with certain effects on the level of human consciousness and behavior. This very scheme is repeated and refined in HCC. In the Reification (...) essay, Lukács uses the neo-Kantian concept of the “form of objectivity” to grasp the central constitutive form of all kinds of objects in bourgeois society. He interprets Marx’s commodity form as the “archetype” of all capitalist objectivity, which consists in converting qualitative contents into quantitative categories. Thus, the formal/calculative rationality of exchange penetrates all kinds of objectification in modern society. In Lukács’s view, only in its modern, universalized form does rational objectification bring about the phenomenon of reification, i.e. the de-historicization and political neutralization of the social relations that constitute the social system and the dominant forms of consciousness. This systemic, cultural, and political understanding of reification can prove to be fruitful in the context of contemporary discussions on democratic transformative praxis. (shrink)

The critique of capitalism is the bedrock on which rests the reputation of Frankfurt School critical theory. Though critical theory has often been heralded – or criticized and rejected – as a reformulation of Marxian theory for our times, its relation with the critique of political economy, and in particular the economic treatises, has barely been studied. Friedrich Pollock, who was Max Horkheimer’s lifelong friend and close associate at the Institute for Social Research, was responsible for all administrative and financial (...) questions, but he wrote few theoretical essays and Wiggershaus calls him ‘the last unknown member of the Frankfurt School’. Nevertheless this article asks whether not only has his influence on early critical theory been sorely underestimated, but also his impact on the late philosophies of Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse. (shrink)

In the 2016 American presidential election, 81% of White evangelicals voted for Donald Trump despite the obvious fact that he had little knowledge or interest in Christianity. This has continued to puzzle many commentators, as well as conservative Christian leaders. This paper argues that Theodor W. Adorno’s 1943 analysis of the radio broadcasts of Martin Luther Thomas provides insight into Trump’s popularity among evangelicals. Adorno compares the fascist-style broadcasts of Thomas to a pagan religious sect. He describes this practice as (...) “racketeering in religion,” which effectively results in the “liquidation of religion.” The article demonstrates ways in which this analysis is relevant for understanding the relationship between Trump and American Evangelicals. (shrink)

Frankfurt School critical theory is perhaps the most significant theory of society to have developed directly from a research programme focused on the critique of political authoritarianism, as it manifested during the interwar decades of the 20th century. The Frankfurt School’s analysis of the persistent roots – and therefore the perennial nature – of what it describes as the ‘authoritarian personality’ remains influential in the analysis of authoritarian populism in the contemporary world, as evidenced by several recent studies. Yet the (...) tendency in these studies is to reference the final formulation of the category, as expressed in Theodor Adorno and co-thinkers’ The Authoritarian Personality, as if this were a theoretical readymade that can be unproblematically inserted into a measured assessment of the threat to democracy posed by current authoritarian trends. It is high time that the theoretical commitments and political stakes in the category of the authoritarian personality are re-evaluated, in light of the evolution of the Frankfurt School. In this paper, I review the classical theories of the authoritarian personality, arguing that two quite different versions of the theory – one characterological, the other psychodynamic – can be extracted from Frankfurt School research. (shrink)

In this paper, I examine the extent to which Marcien Towa (1931-2014) can be considered the Father of Cameroonian Critical Theory. In this regard, I compare what can be called his social philosophy with the project of a critical theory of society, as outlined by Max Horkheimer (1895-1973). I specifically consider Marcien Towa’s idea of philosophy, which I confront with Horkheimer’s project from the perspectives offered by their sociopolitical premises, conceptual references, and progressive goals. On each of these aspects, I (...) discover sufficient correspondences that allow me to argue that Towa and Horkheimer, who barely knew each other, formulated a somewhat similar claim, namely to provide a critical theory of society, whose aim is not only to understand society but more importantly to change it. (shrink)

Presentation to the translation of Max Horkheimer's "On the Sociology of Class Relations".

This dissertation thematizes the reception of Nietzsche's philosophy in Horkheimer's critical theory from the 1930s and 1940s, investigating how it is appropriated for an analysis of the obstacles to social emancipation situated in subjectivity, with reference to the concept of internalization [Verinnerlichung]. In the 1930s, the fixation of the individuals on authority and the manipulation of the masses are investigated through an analysis of the effects of the renunciation and the internalization of instincts, in the context of an anthropology of (...) the bourgeois society. In the 1940s, Horkheimer and Adorno explicit the entailment of enlightened reason on domination, arising from the domination of oneself and of others that permeated the subjective formation since its pre-history, described with the resource to the idea of internalization of sacrifice. This dissertation intends to disclose the role of Nietzsche's philosophy in Horkheimer's thought, arguing, in the first place, that it goes back to the 1930s and it is not a consequence of Adorno's influence in the process of elaboration of the Dialects of Enlightenment, and, secondly, that the contradictions internal to this philosophy and its contradictions with critical theory are productive for Horkheimers philosophy. (shrink)