6 Introductory Overview of the Frankfurt School

Partha Pratim Borah

1. A Brief Introduction

The term „Frankfurt School‟ is associated with a body of „critical theory‟ developed by a group of social scientists in Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. There were some shifts in the geographical location and focus of research of the institute over the period of time. However, the critical re-appraisal of the Marxism worked as a thread that binds all these divergence. Although, the Institute was started in 1923, the basis of „critical theory of society‟ at Frankfurt School can be traced from 1930s when Max Horkheimer became its director and the school produced some of the most important works on the idea of critical theory (Slater 1977: xiii).

The main aim of the critical theory was reappraisal of Marxism. Frankfurt University in Germany had to shift their location for some years and in the changed situation of the time, reappraisal of Marxism became the main theme of study for the Frankfurt School in exile. Although there were diversity within the critical theory propagated by Frankfurt School, one commonality that binds all the works together was the basic objective of the school to study the emerging nature of organised capitalism and to relook into the question of human emancipation which is different from the earlier concept of emancipation seen in the line of proletarian revolution (Piccone 1980: 21).

The basic objective of this module is to give a brief overview of the Frankfurt School. An attempt has been made to give a brief introduction to the works of the institute with an emphasis of the basic theme of the institute and their trajectory over time. Besides, an attempt has been made to have a critical appraisal of the work of the institute.

2. Early Years of Institute: Period of Carl Grunberg and Others 

The „Frankfurt School‟ had a definite socio-political precursor and context of  its emergence in Germany. The Institute of Social Research was started in 1923 with financial support from Felix Weil at Frankfurt University during a time when Marxist theory was again getting emphasis because of the victory of the Bolshevik revolution in Russia and the failure of the Central European Revolution (Bottmore 2007). During this time, Felix Weil, Fredrich Pollock and Max Horkheimer were the main pioneers of the institute (Slater 1977), who started work on an unfocussed theme. Although, the institute started with work on an unfocussed theme, it had definite orientation to the Marxian tradition, it may not be orthodox one. Initially, there was an idea to name the institute as „Institute for Marxism‟, but it was abandoned later thinking that it would be too provocative (Jay 1973).

The initial works of the institute during the pre-Horkheimer phase was associated with orthodox and scientific Marxism (Jay 1973; Antonio 1983). Initially under the directorship of Carl Grunberg, who was a Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Vienna, the institute focussed on empirical research work (Bottomore 2007). Grunberg was a Marxist who was also referred as the father of „Austro Marxism‟ (Jay 1973: 32). In the inaugural lecture itself, Grunberg explicitly stated that he belongs to the „adherents of Marxism‟ and he advocated solving the problems by using Marxist Method as the policy of the institute (Slater 1977: 2). Grunberg further argued that materialist conception of history is to be neither a philosophical system nor an abstraction, but for understanding the development and change of the world (Bottomore 2007). One of the interesting features of„ Marxism‟ advocated by Grunberg was lack of any nexus between theory and praxis (Slater 1977: 3). Although his works had some connection with the topic, he did not feel the need to relate his works to critical social praxis and hence he assured that the institute will keep distance from „day-to-day politics‟ (Ibid. 3).

In this period, the work of the institute revealed the dominance of the work of director Grunberg. Some of the important works in this period included „The Law of Accumulation and Collapse in the Capitalist System‟ (1929) by Henryk Grossmann, Friedrich Pollock‟s „Experiments in Economic Planning in the Soviet Union 1917-1927‟ (1929), Karl August Wittfogel‟s „Economy and Society in China‟ (1931) apart from the works of the director Grunberg (Bottomore 2007: 12; Slater, 1977: 4-9).

In the book „The Law of Accumulation and Collapse in the Capitalist System‟ Grossmann advocated the reconsideration of the complex Marxian method if it need to be continued because he felt that „Marxian critique of political economy cannot be taken for granted‟ (Slater 1977: 4-5).Grossmann argued that there is confusion over stage-by-stage method used by Marx because it leads to confusion in the law of the falling rate of profit. Hence Grossmann tried to see the necessity of forces of law, and to see how a „law‟ operates (Slater 1977: 5).

In „Experiments in Economic Planning in the Soviet Union 1917-1927‟, Fredrich Pollock studied the economic developments of the USSR in a socio-economic context where there was a rise of dictatorship of the proletariat. He therefore wanted re-examine the Marxian idea of communism (Ibid. 6). Another important work in the similar line was „Economy and Society in China‟ by Karl August Wittfogel where he focussed on the dialectical aspect of Marxism along with Marxian emphasis on the economic base (Ibid. 6).

3. Institute under Horkheimer as Director 

The appointment of Horkheimer as director of the institute in July 1930 brought definite change to the focus of research of the institute from history and economics to that of philosophy. This line of research continued even after Marcuse and Adorno joined the institute in the subsequent times. This phase of Frankfurt School was marked by neo-Hegelian critical theory (Bottomore 2007). Horkheimer was not at all a supporter of positivism (Slater 1977) and his criticism of Positivism as a philosophy of science can be seen at three levels. He criticised the treatment of the active human being as mere fact or object. He argued that the conception of the world in immediately given experience left no scope for distinction between essence and experience and the separation of knowledge from the human experience by making absolute distinction between fact and value (Bottomore 2007). There was also an emphasis on psychoanalysis in this period which can be seen in the works of Erich Fromm whose analysis of the work of Freud gave us a more sociological understanding of Freudian psychoanalysis.

Horkeimer‟s work „Origin of the Bourgeois Philosophy of History‟ is a collection of studies that were written for self clarification of the author. He argued that the role of philosophy in study is to be seen as an object of study and it need not be method of study (Slater 1977: 12). He put emphasis on the great practical value of the philosophy of history in making sense of the reality, mainly in its practical representation (ibid. 12). Horkheimer‟s work had a great significance in starting works on ideology- critique as the theme of the institute. Horkheimer believed that the philosophy can help us to understand the historically determined distortions of the reality thereby helping us to understand the mental representations that we have about the reality (ibid.).

In his well known essay „Traditional and Critical Theory‟ (1937), Horkeimer argued that while the traditional theory is influenced by philosophy of positivism or empiricism i.e. the they have a legacy of natural science, the critical theory do not support the study of the society from purely external standpoint and thus has something to do with transcending the rationality and individual purpose (Bottomore 2007). He argued that the critical theory can be seen as an integral part of the development of the society and as such is intrinsic part of the human work (Horkheimer 1972 (1937). Horkheimer argued that the role of the critical theorist or the critical school of thought lies in giving consciousness to the working class in the particular context where even the proletariat may not have correct knowledge of the world because even the proletariat have a knowledge of the world which is different from what it really is (ibid. 213-214).

There were two main aspects of the critical theory of Horkeimer. First, was his pessimistic evaluation of the emancipatory role of the working class and second was his emphasis on the political significance of the role of critical intellectuals was similar to the works of young Hegelians (Bottomore 2007). He (Horkeimer 1972 (1937): 213) argued that the emancipatory role of the Proletariat is only kept alive by the injustice which prevailed in the society (ibid. 241).

4. Understanding of Modern Society and the Frankfurt School 

The increasing influence of America and the penetration of the commodity into every aspects of society shaped the works of the critical theorists as it occupied an important place in the research of the Frankfurt School. Theodor Adorno was one of the important members of the School who worked in the area of the culture, psychoanalysis and aesthetic theory. In „Dialectic of Enlightenment‟ (1747) Adorno along with Herbert Marcuse gave a totally new interpretation of the enlightenment. They criticised enlightenment for promotion of the exact calculation of exchange value and the domination of nature by technology (ibid. 93). They argued that the scientific consciousness has put human being into a new kind of barbarism rather than to a true human value. For them, enlightenment can work as an instrument of domination by working as „ideology‟. Besides, the idea of „cultural industry‟ led them to conclude that the enlightenment can work as an instrument of the mass deception because of the „mass culture‟ which is promoted by the science and technology to subvert criticism (Ibid.). Adorno criticised modern capitalism as totally administered society where there is no scope for autonomy, spontaneous expression or criticism and hence it made people subordinate to the already existing order (Antonio 1983: 334). Horkheimer (1947) argued that the coming of the instrumental rationality reduced the capacity of rational discourse and critical debates because it saw technological advance as highest form of the human activity and thereby uncritically serving the institutions. He termed this situation as the „Eclipse of Reason‟. In such a context, institutions are understood on the basis of single dimension of the institutional requisite rather than on the idea of needs or justice (ibid.).

In „Knowledge and Human Interests‟ (1972), Habermas criticised the positivism or scientism for their replacement of the theory of knowledge with a methodology which does not have a philosophical thought. Habermas differentiated three forms of knowledge based on the interest that constitute the knowledge.  They  are:  a  „technical‟  interest  that  constitute  the  empirical  analytical  science,  a „practical‟ interest that constitute the historical-hermeneutic knowledge and an „emancipatory‟ interest that constitute the self-reflexive or critical knowledge. He argued that the „scienticism‟ means a conviction that we no longer understand science as just one form of knowledge. On the other hand, we must identify knowledge with science (Ibid. 4). Thus, it overcomes the dichotomy between facts and value and also does not give exclusive validity to empirical-analytic science.

5. Studies on Authoritarian Personality and Anti-Semitism 

The authoritarian personality and the family were other important areas of research for the Frankfurt School. The school had a legacy to such works which focussed on the relation of the individual personality traits with authoritativeness. Another important theme of the the school i.e. the studies on anti-semitism can be found in the publication of the „Studies in Authority and Personality‟; which was a collective work of the members of the institute under the leadership of the Horkeimer (Bottomore, 2007, 20-22; Slater, 1977, 14-15). The work consists of both theoretical as well as empirical studies that focussed on the connection that can exist between areas of material culture to that of mental culture along with discussions on the historical and the philosophical aspect of the freedom and the authority by Marcuse (Ibid.). The work had a broader theme of how ideas and attitudes are formed and in this context they tried to see the role of family and more particularly of various contemporary institutions in the formation of the „authoritarian personality‟ of the individual (Ibid.).

“The Authoritarian Personality‟ (1950) was a result of the large scale studies of Frankfurt School on anti-Semitism. This study along with several related studies, which were product of the experience of the fascism by the Frankfurt School, which helped them to give a psychological interpretation of the prejudice. Frankfurt school started a series of work in England and United States on how a family can discipline members and prepare them to accept authority (Ibid.). There were many criticisms against the psychological interpretation of the authoritarian personality. In such a context, Adorno and Horkheimer in their work „Elements of anti-Semitism‟ in „Dialectic of Enlightenment‟ provided a more sociological study of the anti-Semitism. They argued that the anti-Semitism bourgeois has a particular economic cause (Botttomore 2007) and this led to the concealment of the domination in the production.

Although, the various studies on the authoritarian personality and anti-semitism by Adorno did not provide any substantial contribution to the debate on positivism or empirical studies, but their importance lies in the fact that these works were produced during the peak days of the Frankfurt School and hence had their own significance (Ibid.).

6. Process of one Dimensionality and Herbert Marcuse 

One Dimensional Man‟ (1964) was one of the original contributions of the Herbert Marcuse that provided a pessimistic dimension to the critical theory (Antonio, 1983, 334). Herbert Marcuse emerged as one of the most important Frankfurt scholars in post 1950‟s when the school dispersed to different locations. He argued that inherent contradictions between ideology and the society are deflected by the „technological rationality‟ in the contemporary period (Marcuse 1964: 1). The work provided a critical analysis of the modern industrial society at that time. It argued that in the modern capitalism two main classes, viz. the bourgeoisie and the proletariat still exists, but they are no longer agents of social transformation and this led to domination by the impersonal power of technological rationality (Bottomore 2007). He further argued that in the process, the working class is pacified and assimilated by the means of high mass consumption and rationalisation of the production that leads to abolition of the any opposing class (Ibid.). At the ideological level, as he argued, the critique is thrown to a higher level of abstraction such that it left no scope for the theory and practice to meet and any empirical analysis seemed to be unrealistic in this context (Marcuse 1964).

Marcuse (1964) said that the modern society is irrational. He criticised modern productivity for destroying the free development of the human needs and for pacification of the struggle of existence of the individual, national and the international for the growth of productivity of the modern societies (Marcuse 1964). He criticised the increase in the intellectual and material capability of the modern societies since such development also led to the increased domination of the individual by the society (Ibid.). He argued that the technological development produced a form of power which led to the reconciliation of all forms of opposing forces and protest movements in the name of historical development of the freedom (Ibid.). The technological system of production and distribution of the advanced industrial society work as totalitarian force because it determines the social needs as well as individual needs and aspirations that breaks the distinction between individual and social needs.

For Marcuse, „One Dimensional Man‟ revolves round two hypotheses: first, that the advanced industrial society can contain the qualitative changes in the near future and second that there are some forces and tendencies which may break this to explode the society (Ibid.). According to Marcuse both the tendencies prevailed and of course the first tendency is more dominant in modern society (Ibid.). In the conclusion of the work, Marcuse said that in the one dimensional society there is alteration of the relation between rational and irrational (Ibid. 161). For him, the progress and rationalisation led to the continuous rationalisation of various aspects, sometimes even imaginary and this opposes those philosophies that are against the „imagination to scientific and empirical reason (Ibid, 161-162).

In another important work „Reason and Revolution‟ (1941), Marcuse provided a „dialectical social theory‟ as a criticism of the positivistic orientation of the social science that tries to see the laws of society as similar to that of the laws of nature (Ibid. 343). Although, criticism of positive philosophy of society provided by Marcuse was somewhat similar to that of Horkheimer it was different in the sense that the work of the Marcuse was based on the philosophy of Hegel.

7. Walter Benjamin and Historical Materialist Aesthetics 

The work of Theodor Adorno was deeply influenced by works of Walter Benjamin. For Benjamin, there is revolutionary implication for the elitist nature of the art as it upset the tradition greatly because of the mechanical reproduction. But his work had a political difference with the Adorno as the affirmation of the revolutionary potential of the collective revolutionary subject i.e. the working class was later totally refuted by Adorno (Bottomore 2007). While thinking in the line of one dimensionality, Benjamin could reveal the problematic part of the materialism when he argued the interesting fact that the system of bourgeois production and publication can assimilate or propagate great amount of revolutionary potential without thinking of its own existence (Slater 1977).

8. Habermas and the Frankfurt School 

In the post Adorno and Horkheimer phase of the Frankfurt School, various scholars such as Jurgen Habermas, Alfred Schmidt, Albrecht Wellmer etc continued to work although their work differ from the earlier theorist in some respect. The most prominent among them was Jurgen Habermas whose work on the communicative rationality was different from the early works of the Frankfurt School on the instrumental reason provided by Adorno and Horkheimer in their „Dialectic of Enlightenment‟ and„One- Dimensional Man‟ by Marcuse . Habermas proposed a reconstruction of the historical materialism with his theory of communication (Habermas 1979).

In his well known two volume works on „The Theory of Communicative Action‟, Habermas mainly emphasised on the concept of rationality. He gave an evolutionary view of rationality in the modern world and he tried show the relation between the theory of rationality and the theory of society at the both theoretical and methodological level (Bottomore 2007: 61).

He differentiated between two types of actions: instrumental action and the communicative action and emphasised on the relative autonomy of the communicative action. By rejecting the orthodox base superstructure model, he proposed evolutionary, structural differentiation model of the productive forces that lead to a communicative action based on autonomy and freedom. He argued that the communication should be such that there can be free flow of information without any coercion and in this context he conceptualised the idea of „ideal speech situation‟ where there is a possibility of uncoerced communication among free and equal people. Habermas further stated that the evolution of the individual and the society created to a point where there is a possibility of the free and open communication (Habermas 1979: 69-94). The work of Habermas on „the public sphere‟ discussed about free public discussion among those who are perceived as equal that can shape the public opinion and ultimately structure and functioning of the society (Habermas 1974(1964).

Habermas also focussed on the theme of revolutionary potential of the working which was one of the focuses of the Frankfurt School since long time. He criticised the role of technology and science in shaping the modern society by providing the legitimising ideology.

It is interesting to note at this point the difference that the work of Habermas had with that of the other theorist of the Frankfurt School like Adorno, Horkeimer, and Marcuse etc. Habermas‟ critique of positivism was less hostile to science and technology than that of other theorists because he differed from their idea that philosophy or art is more superior than that of science (Habermas 1968). Later on Habermas started giving increasing importance to science against philosophy because for him philosophy can no longer work as total knowledge. He argued that even „reason‟ as a theme of philosophy is now understood within sociology as „rationality‟ (Bottomore 2007: 77).

9. Conclusion 

Although, critical theory as focus of study propagated by the Frankfurt School in their various contributions has undergone drastic change over the period of time, its legacy and significance cannot be undermined. The main criticism raised against the Frankfurt School was that it made no attempt to reassess the Marx‟s theory of history (Bottomore 2007). Although the work of Habermas was a significant departure in this context, he too failed to have a historical approach and his analysis was mainly based on conceptual understanding. Another important criticism of the Frankfurt School was their less emphasis on the economic analysis except the early works of the economic theorist Henryk Grossmann and later on the work of Friedrich Pollock on Soviet planning. Such neglect of history and economic analysis somehow differentiate the works of the Frankfurt School from that of „classical‟ Marxism (Ibid. 73-74).

Despite many criticisms, the importance of the Frankfurt School lies in the critical re-appraisal of Marxism and the legacy it left in the study of critical theory. Despite many drawbacks and ups and downs, Frankfurt School continues to influence the later variants of the Marxist theory.

10.  Summary 

A few important points learnt in this chapter are summarised as follows:

• Frankfurt School is associated with a body of „critical theory‟ developed by a group of social scientists in Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University.
• Although there were diversity within the critical theory propagated by Frankfurt School, one thread which binds all works together was the basic objective of the school to study the emerging nature of organised capitalism and to relook into the question of human emancipation which is different from the earlier concept of emancipation seen in the line of proletarian revolution
• The appointment of Horkheimer as director of the institute in July 1930 brought definite change to the focus of research of the institute from history and economics to that of philosophy.
• Horkheimer‟s work had a great significance in starting works on ideology-critique as the theme of the institute.
• The increasing influence of America and the penetration of the commodity into every aspects of society shaped the works of the critical theorists as it occupied an important place in the research of the Frankfurt School. Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse are prominent scholars of this school.
• Several studies on authoritarian personality and anti-semitism were undertaken by this school.
• The authoritarian personality and the family were other important areas of research for the Frankfurt School. The school had a legacy to such works which focussed on the relation of the individual personality traits with authoritativeness.
• Works of Walter Benjamin and Jurgen Habermas have been very significant to this school too.
• The main criticism raised against the Frankfurt School was that it made no attempt to reassess the Marx‟s theory of history. Another important criticism of the Frankfurt School was their less emphasis on the economic analysis.
• Despite many criticisms, the importance of the Frankfurt School lies in the critical re-appraisal of Marxism and the legacy it left in the study of critical theory.

11.  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  .” Mid- American Review of Sociology 16, no. 2(1992): 31-35.
• Piccone, Paul. 1980. „The Future of Critical Theory‟ in Scott G. McNall and Gary N. Howe (ed.) Current Perspectives in Social Theory. Vol 1. Greenwich, Conn.: Jai Press. Pp 21-30.
• Tar, Zolton. The Frankfurt School: The Critical Theories of Max Horkheimer andTheodore W.Adorno. New York: Wiley and Sons. 1977.