Frankfurt School: A Brief Introduction

Introduction
Early Years of Institute: Period of Carl Grunberg and Others
Institute under Horkheimer as Director
Understanding of Modern Society and the Frankfurt School
Studies on Authoritarian Personality and Anti-Semitism
Process of one Dimensionality and Herbert Marcuse
Habermas and the Frankfurt School
Conclusion

Introduction

The term "Frankfurt School" is associated with a "critical theory" developed by a group of social scientists at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. Over time, there have been some changes in the geographic location and research focus of the institute. However, the critical reassessment of Marxism acted as a common thread linking all these divergences. Although the Institute was founded in 1923, the founding of "critical theory of society" at the Frankfurt School dates back to the 1930s, when Max Horkheimer became its director and the school produced some of the most important work on the idea of critical theory (Slater 1977: xiii).

The main objective of critical theory was the revaluation of Marxism. The University of Frankfurt in Germany had to change its location for a few years and in the changing circumstances of the times, the treatment of Marxism became the central subject of study for the Frankfurt School in exile. Although there were differences within the critical theory propagated by the Frankfurt School, a common thread that connected all the work was the school's fundamental aim of examining the emergent nature of organized capitalism and of re-engage the question of human emancipation, which differs from the earlier Frankfurt School concept of emancipation in the line of proletarian revolution (Piccone 1980: 21). The fundamental objective of this module is to give a brief overview of the Frankfurt School. An attempt has been made to provide a brief introduction to the work of the Institute, emphasizing the underlying theme of the Institute and its development over time. An attempt was also made to critically assess the work of the institute.

Early Years of Institute: Period of Carl Grunberg and Others

The "Frankfurt School" had a certain socio-political precursor and background to its emergence in Germany. The Institute for Social Research was founded in 1923 with the financial support of Felix Weil at the University of Frankfurt, at a time when Marxist theory was regaining importance due to the victory of the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia and the failure of the Central European revolution (Bottmore 2007). . During this period, Felix Weil, Fredrich Pollock and Max Horkheimer were the main pioneers of the Institute (Slater 1977), who began to work on a vague subject. Although the Institute began to work on a vague subject, it had a clear orientation towards the Marxist tradition, perhaps not orthodox. The idea of calling the institute "the Institute of Marxism" was originally conceived, but was later dropped as deemed too provocative (Jay 1973). The Institute's early work in the pre-Horkheimer period was associated with orthodox and scholarly Marxism (Jay 1973; Antonio 1983). Initially headed by Carl Grunberg, professor of law and political science at the University of Vienna, the Institute focused on empirical research (Bottomore 2007). Grunberg was a Marxist who has been called the father of "Austro-Marxism" (Jay 1973: 32). In the inaugural lecture itself, Grunberg explicitly declared himself to be one of the "proponents of Marxism" and advocated solving problems by applying the Marxist method as institute policy (Slater 1977: 2). Grunberg further argued that the materialist view of history should be neither a philosophical system nor an abstraction, but to understand the development and change of the world (Bottomore 2007). One of the interesting features of Grunberg's "Marxism" was the lack of a link between theory and practice (Slater 1977: 3). Although his works were somewhat related to the subject, he did not feel the need to relate his works to critical social practice and therefore assured that the Institute would keep its distance from "everyday politics" ( Ibid. 3).

During this period, the work of the institute showed the dominance of director Grunberg's work. Some of the important works of this period were "The Law of Accumulation and Collapse in the Capitalist System" (1929) by Henryk Grossmann, "Economic Planning Experiments in the Soviet Union 1917-1927" by Friedrich Pollock (1929), Karl August Wittfogels “Economy and Society in China” (1931) alongside the works of director Grunberg (Bottomore 2007: 12; Slater, 1977: 4-9). In The Law of Accumulation and Collapse in the Capitalist System, Grossmann advocated reconsidering the complex Marxist method if it were to be pursued, believing that "Marxist critiques of political economy should not be taken for granted" (Slater 1977: 4-5). . Grossmann argued that there is confusion about the stepwise method used by Marx because it leads to confusion in the law of the falling rate of profit. Consequently, Grossmann tried to see the need for legal forces and how a "law" works (Slater 1977: 5). In Experiments in Economic Planning in the Soviet Union 1917-1927, Fredrich Pollock examined the economic developments of the USSR in a socio-economic context where the dictatorship of the proletariat was rising. He therefore wanted to reexamine the Marxist idea of communism (ibid. 6). Another important work along the same lines was Karl August Wittfogel's "Economy and Society in China", in which he focused on the dialectical aspect of Marxism together with the Marxist emphasis on the economic basis (Ibid. 6).

Institute under Horkheimer as Director

Horkheimer's appointment as director of the institute in July 1930 brought about a clear shift in the institute's research focus from history and economics to philosophy. This direction of research also continued after the entry of Marcuse and Adorno. This phase of the Frankfurt School was shaped by neo-Hegelian critical theory (Bottomore 2007). Horkheimer was by no means a proponent of positivism (Slater 1977), and his critique of positivism as a philosophy of science can be seen at three levels. He criticized the treatment of the active human being as a mere fact or object. He argued that the conception of the world in an immediately given experience left no room for distinctions between essence and experience and the separation of knowledge from human experience making an absolute distinction between fact and value (Bottomore 2007). There was also an emphasis on psychoanalysis during this period, which can be seen in the works of Erich Fromm whose analysis of Freud's work has given us a more sociological understanding of Freudian psychoanalysis.

Horkeimer's work "Origin of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History" is a collection of studies written for the author's elucidation. He argued that the role of philosophy in learning should be seen as an object of study and not a method of study (Slater 1977:12). He underlined the great practical value of the philosophy of history in understanding reality, especially in its practical representation (ibid. 12). Horkheimer's work was of great importance in initiating work on the critique of ideology as a theme of the institute. Horkheimer believed that philosophy could help us understand historically determined distortions of reality, allowing us to understand the mental representations we have of reality (ibid.).

In his well-known essay "Traditional and Critical Theory" (1937), Horkeimer argued that while traditional theory is influenced by the philosophy of positivism or empiricism, i.e. have an inheritance from natural science, critical theory has a purely external view and therefore has something to do with transcending rationality and individual purpose (Bottomore 2007). He argued that critical theory can be seen as integral to the development of society and as such is an intrinsic part of human labor (Horkheimer 1972 (1937). Horkheimer argued that the role of the critical theorist or critical school of thought is to give consciousness to the working class in the specific context in which even the proletariat may not have a correct knowledge of the world because even the proletariat has a knowledge of the world that differs from what really is (ibid. 213-214).

There were two main aspects to Horkeimer's critical theory. First, his pessimistic assessment of the emancipatory role of the working class and, second, his emphasis on the political significance of the role of critical intellectuals was similar to that of the Young Hegelians (Bottomore 2007). He (Horkeimer 1972 (1937): 213) argued that the emancipatory role of the proletariat is maintained only by the injustice that prevailed in society (ibid. 241).

Understanding of Modern Society and the Frankfurt School

The growing influence of America and the penetration of the commodity into all aspects of society shaped the work of critical theorists, as it occupied an important place in Frankfurt School research. Theodor Adorno was one of the important members of the school who worked in the fields of culture, psychoanalysis and aesthetic theory. In 'Dialectic of the Enlightenment' (1747) Adorno, together with Herbert Marcuse, gave a completely new interpretation of the Enlightenment. They criticized the Enlightenment for promoting the exact calculation of exchange value and for the domination of technology over nature (ibid. 93). They argued that scientific consciousness has led man into a new kind of barbarism rather than true human worth. For them, enlightenment can act as an instrument of domination by acting as an "ideology." Moreover, the idea of the "cultural industry" led them to conclude that the Enlightenment can act as a tool of mass deception, since "mass culture" is promoted by science and technology to subvert criticism. (ibid.). Adorno criticized modern capitalism as a totally managed society in which there was no room for autonomy, spontaneous expression or criticism and therefore subordinated people to the preexisting order (Antonio 1983: 334). Horkheimer (1947) argued that the advent of instrumental rationality reduced the capacity for rational discourse and critical debate because it viewed technological progress as the supreme form of human activity and therefore uncritically served institutions. He called this situation “an eclipse of reason”. In such a context, institutions are understood in terms of a single dimension of institutional presupposition rather than the idea of needs or justice (ibid.). In Knowledge and Human Interests (1972), Habermas criticized positivism or scientism for replacing epistemology with a methodology that has no philosophical thought. Habermas distinguishes three forms of knowledge according to the interests that constitute knowledge.

They are: a “technical” interest which constitutes empirical-analytical science, a “practical” interest which constitutes historical-hermeneutic knowledge, and an “emancipatory” interest which constitutes self-reflective or critical knowledge. He argued that "scientism" means the belief that we no longer view science as just a form of knowledge. On the other hand, we must identify knowledge with science (Ibid. 4). He thus overcomes the dichotomy between fact and value and furthermore does not give exclusive validity to empirical-analytical science.

Studies on Authoritarian Personality and Anti-Semitism

The authoritarian personality and the family were other important research areas for the Frankfurt School. The school had a legacy of such works focusing on the relationship between individual personality traits and authority. Another important theme of the school, or rather the studies on anti-Semitism, can be found in the publication of the 'Studies on authority and personality'; which was a collective work of Institute members under Horkeimer's direction (Bottomore, 2007, 20-22; Slater, 1977, 14-15).

The work consists of both theoretical and empirical studies focusing on the connection that can exist between the areas of material culture and that of mental culture, together with discussions on the historical and philosophical aspect of Marcuse's freedom and authority (Ibid. .). The work had a broader theme of how ideas and attitudes are formed and in this context we tried to see the role of the family and more specifically of various contemporary institutions in the formation of the "authoritarian personality" of the individual (Ibid.). The Authoritarian Personality (1950) was a product of the Frankfurt School's large-scale studies of anti-Semitism. This study, along with several related studies from the Frankfurt School experience of fascism, helped them to provide a psychological interpretation of prejudice. The Frankfurt School has launched a series of books in England and the United States on how a family can discipline its members and prepare them to assume authority (ibid.). There have been many criticisms of the psychological interpretation of authoritarian personality. In such a context, Adorno and Horkheimer, in their book Elements of Antisemitism in Dialectics of Enlightenment, offered a more sociological examination of antisemitism. They argued that bourgeois anti-Semitism had a particular economic root (Bottomore 2007) and this led to the obscuring of dominance in production. While Adorno's various studies of authoritarian personality and anti-Semitism have made no significant contribution to the positivism debate or empirical studies, their significance lies in the fact that these works were produced at the height of the Frankfurt School and therefore had their own important (ibid.).

Process of one Dimensionality and Herbert Marcuse

One Dimensional Man (1964) is one of Herbert Marcuse's original contributions, bringing a pessimistic dimension to critical theory (Antonio, 1983: 334). Herbert Marcuse became one of Frankfurt's most important scholars after the 1950s, when the school was spread over different locations. He argued that the inherent contradictions between ideology and society are distracted by "technological rationality" in contemporary times (Marcuse 1964:1). The book provided a critical examination of the modern industrial society of the time. He argued that in modern capitalism there are two main classes, viz. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat still exist, but they are no longer agents of social transformation, which has led to the domination by the impersonal power of technological rationality (Bottomore 2007). He further argued that in this process, the working class is pacified and assimilated through high mass consumption and rationalization of production, leading to the abolition of any opposing class (ibid.). At the ideological level, he argues, criticism is pushed to a higher level of abstraction, leaving no room for theory and practice to meet and making any empirical analysis in this context unrealistic (Marcuse 1964).

Marcuse (1964) said that modern society is irrational. He blamed modern productivity for destroying the free development of human needs and for pacifying the struggle for existence of the individual, the national and the international for the growth of productivity in modern societies (Marcuse 1964). He criticized the increase in intellectual and material wealth of modern societies, as such a development has also led to greater domination of the individual by society (Ibid.).

He argued that technological development has produced a form of power that has led to the reconciliation of all forms of opposing forces and protest movements in the name of the historical development of freedom (Ibid.). The technological system of production and distribution of the advanced industrial society acts as a totalitarian force because it determines social needs as well as individual needs and aspirations, blurring the distinction between individual needs and social needs. For Marcuse, "One Dimensional Man" revolves around two assumptions: first, that the advanced industrial society can contain the qualitative changes in the near future, and second, that there are some forces and trends that can break through this to blow up the society ( ibid. . .). . According to Marcuse, both tendencies predominate, and of course the earlier tendencies are more dominant in modern society (Ibid.). At the end of the work, Marcuse stated that in the one-dimensional society there is a change in the relationship between rational and irrational (ibid. 161). For him, progress and rationalization lead to a continuous rationalization of various aspects, sometimes even imaginary, which contradicts the philosophies opposed to “imagination to scientific and empirical reason” (ibid., 161-162).

Habermas and the Frankfurt School

In the post-Adorno and Horkheimer phase of the Frankfurt School, various scholars such as Jürgen Habermas, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer, etc. continued to work, although their work differed in some respects from previous theorists. Prominent among them was Jürgen Habermas, whose work on communicative rationality differed from the early Frankfurt School work on instrumental reason, provided by Adorno and Horkheimer in their Dialectics of Enlightenment and Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man. With his theory of communication, Habermas proposes a reconstruction of historical materialism (Habermas 1979).

In his well-known two-volume work on the “Theory of Communicative Action”, Habermas insists above all on the concept of rationality. He gave an evolving view of rationality in the modern world and attempted to show the relationship between rationality theory and social theory both theoretically and methodologically (Bottomore 2007: 61). He distinguishes two types of action: instrumental action and communicative action, and emphasizes the relative autonomy of communicative action. Rejecting the basic orthodox superstructure model, he proposed an evolutionary and structural model of differentiation of productive forces leading to communicative action based on autonomy and freedom. He argued that communication should be such that there can be a free flow of information without coercion, and in this context he conceived the idea of the "ideal speech situation" in which there is the possibility of unconstrained communication between free and equal persons. . Habermas further noted that the evolution of the individual and society has led to a point where there is the possibility of free and open communication (Habermas 1979:69-94).

Habermas' work on the "public sphere" addressed the free public discussion among equals that can shape public opinion and, ultimately, the structure and functioning of society (Habermas 1974 (1964). Habermas also addressed the theme of the revolutionary potential of work, which has long been central to the Frankfurt School. He criticized the role of technology and science in shaping modern society by providing legitimizing ideology. It is interesting to note at this point the difference between the work of Habermas and the other Frankfurt School theorists such as Adorno, Horkeimer and Marcuse etc. other theorists because he deviated from their idea that philosophy or art is superior to science (Habermas 1968). Later, Habermas began to give more weight to science than to philosophy, because for him philosophy can no longer function as a body of knowledge. He argued that even 'reason' as a theme of philosophy is now understood within sociology as 'rationality' (Bottomore 2007: 77).

Conclusion

Although critical theory as a field of study propagated by the Frankfurt School in its various contributions has undergone drastic changes over time, its legacy and significance cannot be compromised. The main criticism of the Frankfurt School was that it did not attempt to reevaluate Marxist theory of history (Bottomore 2007). Although Habermas's work represented a significant break in this regard, it also lacked a historical approach and its analysis was mainly based on conceptual understanding. Another major criticism of the Frankfurt School was its reduced emphasis on economic analysis, except for the early work of economic theorist Henryk Grossmann and later Friedrich Pollock's work on Soviet planning. Such neglect of history and economic analysis somehow distinguishes the works of the Frankfurt School from those of “classical” Marxism (ibid. 73-74). Despite much criticism, the importance of the Frankfurt School lies in the critical reassessment of Marxism and the legacy it left in the study of critical theory. Despite many setbacks and ups and downs, the Frankfurt School also influenced later variants of Marxist theory.

References

Antonio, Robert J. “The Origin, Development and Contemporary Status of Critical Theory.” The Sociological Quarterly 24, no.3: 325-351.
Bottomore, Tom. „The Frankfurt School and its Critics‟. London and New York: Routledge. 2007. Geuss, Raymond. „The Idea of a Critical Theory‟. New York: Cambridge University Press. 1981.
Jay, Martin.The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950. Boston: Brown and Co. 1973.
Jay, Martin. “Some Recent Developments in Critical Theory”. Berkeley Journal of Sociology. Vol 18 (1973-74): 27-44.
Lee Davis, Devra. “Theodore W. Adorno: Theoretician through Negations”. Theory and Society 2, no.3(1975): 389-400.
Manheim, Ernest. “The Frankfurt School and Critical Sociology and Critical Philosophy .” MidAmerican Review of Sociology 16, no. 2(1992): 31-35.