"The Frankfurt School" ? (your thoughts, analysis)

[LiberaCHE]

Major Theorists

Theodor W. Adorno
Walter Benjamin
Erich Fromm
Jürgen Habermas
Axel Honneth
Max Horkheimer
Siegfried Kracauer
Otto Kirchheimer
Leo Löwenthal
Herbert Marcuse
Oskar Negt
Franz L. Neumann
Franz Oppenheimer
Friedrich Pollock
Alfred Schmidt
Alfred Sohn-Rethel
Karl A. Wittfogel


The "First Phase"

The intellectual influences on and theoretical focus of the first generation of Frankfurt School critical theorists can be summarized as follows:

The historical situation: Transition from small-scale entrepreneurial capitalism to monopoly capitalism and imperialism; socialist labor movement grows, turns reformist; emergence of warfare/welfare state; Russian revolution and rise of Communism; neotechnic period; emergence of mass media and mass culture, "modern" art; rise of Naziism.


Weberian theory: comparative historical analysis of Western rationalism in capitalism, the modern state, secular scientific rationality, culture, and religion; analysis of the forms of domination in general and of modern rational-legal bureaucratic domination in particular; articulation of the distinctive, hermeneutic method of the social sciences.


Freudian theory: critique of the repressive structure of the "reality principle" of advance civilization and of the normal neurosis of everyday life; discovery of the unconscious, primary-process thinking, and the impact of the Oedipus complex and of anxiety on psychic life; analysis of the psychic bases of authoritarianism and irrational social behavior, psychic Thermidor.


Critique of Positivism: critique of positivism as philosophy, as scientific methodology, as political ideology, and as everyday conformism; rehabilitation of --- negative --- dialectic, return to Hegel; appropriation of critical elements in phenomenology, historicism, existentialism, critique of their ahistorical, idealist tendencies; critique of logical positivism and pragmatism.


Aesthetic modernism: critique of "false" and reified experience by breaking through its traditional forms and language; projection of alternative modes of existence and experience; liberation of the unconscious; consciousness of unique, modern situation; appropriation of Kafka, Proust, Schoenberg, Breton; critique of the culture industry and "affirmative" culture; aesthetic utopia.


Marxian theory: critique of bourgeois ideology; critique of alienated labor; historical materialism; history as class struggle and exploitation of labor in different bodes of production; systems analysis of capitalism as extraction of surplus labor through free labor in the free market; unity of theory and practice; analysis for the sake of revolution, socialist democracy, classless society.


Culture theory: critique of mass culture as suppression and absorption of negation, as integration into status quo; critique of Western culture as culture of domination of external and internal nature; dialectic differentiation of emancipatory and repressive dimensions of elite culture; Nietzsche's transvaluation and Schiller's aesthetic education.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

[Lamanov]

Their claims of working class "integrated into the system" was disproved by 1968.

[LiberaCHE]

Their claims of working class "integrated into the system" was disproved by 1968.
Care to extrapolate ?

[Lamanov]

Herbert Marcuse claimed that working class was "integrated" into the system, occupied by "spending" and thus it ceased to be a revolutionary factor in society.

In 1968 working class came back as a revolutionary factor.

[Hit The North]

Herbert Marcuse claimed that working class was "integrated" into the system, occupied by "spending" and thus it ceased to be a revolutionary factor in society.


It's more complicated than that. Actually, Marcuse states in the introduction to One Dimensional Man that he vacillated between two hypotheses; the first being that advanced capitalsit society is able to contain the challenges to itself in the conceivable future; the second, that forces and tendencies existed which could blow the existing order apart. His work was actually embraced by the New Left which emerged in the 1960s.

The other prominent members of the Frankfurt School had given up on any radical politics by this time.

[Dean]

Herbert Marcuse claimed that working class was "integrated" into the system, occupied by "spending" and thus it ceased to be a revolutionary factor in society.

In 1968 working class came back as a revolutionary factor.

Also, the school is not made up solely of Marcuse's ideology. In fact, the Authoritarian Character was primarily developed by Fromm, who did not believe that the working class was removed from a revolutionary standpoint, but rather attemped to explain how fascism made use of our drive for revolutionary change. People quickly realize that they are diverting their energies when it is made clear to them (still have revolutionary potential) but in oru current paradigm this drive is retarded.

[SEKT]

What we call Frankfurt School was composed for persons who went beyond the marxist theory at the moment, why? the answer is easy, most of the marxist theoretical work was based on the notion of Engel's and Lenin's works (i´m not stated that they were wrong but in some points they were) only based in a kind of mechanical materialism not in a dialectical thought. What the Members of Frankfurt school did (and i think here Georg Lukacs can be considered the father of the movement) was to reincorporate the dialectical basis on the marxist analysis of capitalist society and because of this they incorporated the concept of Totality missed by most of the marxist theorist of the time. The Hegelian legacy of Marxism was reintegrated and also their studies were in that direction. IN WHAT THEY WERE WRONG WAS THAT THEY SEPARATED THEIR THEORY FROM PRAXIS (EVEN MARCUSE RECOGNIZED THAT), SO THEIR THOUGHT WAS REDUCED TO MERELY PHILOSOPHY (HORKHEIMER AND ADORNO AGREED THAT PHILOSOPHY WAS STILL A METHOD OF STUDY OF REALITY). THE EVENTS OF MAY 1968 WERE INFLUENCED BY THEM (SPECIALLY MARCUSE) BUT IT WAS NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE A NEW KIND OF GENIOUS, IT WAS BECAUSE THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THE BASIS OF MARXISM IS TO CREATE CUMMUNIST WORLD AND EXTERMINATE CAPITALISM, BASICALLY AND I THINK IT WAS SOMETHING MARCUSE AGREED, MARXISM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT RADICAL TO CHANGE THE WHOLE EXISTANCE OF HUMANS, SO THEY TRIED TO REDEFINE WHAT SHOULD BE BUT MOST IMPORTANT IN NEGATIVE TERMS (SHOULDN'T BE) SO NO DETERMINISM CAN TAKE PLACE, IN SYNTHESIS IS A OPEN MARXISM.
THEIR ERROR AS PAUL MATTICK DETECTED WAS THAT THEIR IDEALISTIC BASIS SOMETIMES WAS TO STRONG AND DIDN'T MAKE THEM TO HAVE FOOT ON THE GROUND, THAT'S THE ONLY THING WE CAN TELL THEY DID WRONG.

[KC]

The Frankfurt School is an evolution of Gramsci's work, wherein they moved away from a Marxist analysis of society and moved towards an idealist viewpoint which they falsely attributed to Gramsci. The majority of their work, while interesting to read, contains a great many flaws, many of which have been pointed out since then. This shift away from a Marxist outlook and towards an idealist viewpoint coincided with the development of the political situation "away" from Marxism (e.g. the "New Left") and towards a completely backwards and reactionary viewpoint (identity politics, "there is no more working class"/"the primary struggle is no longer between bourgeois and proletariat", a larger focus on consumerism as opposed to class struggle, etc...).

[communard resolution]

... which is why their theories remain largely irrelevant and unknown outside the academic world. Everything is language, everything is ideas, everything can be turned and twisted and redefined over and over. Some of it is interesting, some even entertaining to read, but in the real world -which I maintain exists despite the fact that some are confronted with its harsh realities to a lesser extent than others- it unfortunately doesn't amount to very much at all.

[Holden Caulfield]

(anybody wanting to add any articles on Frankfurt Schoolers for the encyclopedia PM me, alterations to the main page would also be welcome, ~ Holden)

[Hit The North]

The Frankfurt School is an evolution of Gramsci's work, wherein they moved away from a Marxist analysis of society and moved towards an idealist viewpoint which they falsely attributed to Gramsci. The majority of their work, while interesting to read, contains a great many flaws, many of which have been pointed out since then. This shift away from a Marxist outlook and towards an idealist viewpoint coincided with the development of the political situation "away" from Marxism (e.g. the "New Left") and towards a completely backwards and reactionary viewpoint (identity politics, "there is no more working class"/"the primary struggle is no longer between bourgeois and proletariat", a larger focus on consumerism as opposed to class struggle, etc...).

It sounds like you're mixing up the Frankfurt School's critical theory with EuroCommunism. It's not clear that Gramsci's work played any role in the formation of the main thinkers of critical theory. It's also not accurate to depict Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse or Habermas as idealists. Their critique, it is true, was concerned with the cultural transformations in Western Capitalist society - the rise of the culture industry and its implications for social control - but none of these writers saw these changes as separate from the material relations.

Sekt is correct in identifying Lukacs as the key inspiration - along with Karl Korsch.

This is how David Held sums up their key influences in his monumental study, Introduction to Critical Theory (which, incidentally doesn't mention Gramsci once!):


The work of the critical theorists revolves around a series of critical dialogues with important past and contemporary philosophers, social thinkers and social scientists. The main figures of the Frankfurt school sought to learn from and synthesize aspects of the work of, among others, Kant, Hegel, Marx, Weber, Lukacs and Freud. (Held, 1997, p. 16)

[Dean]

(anybody wanting to add any articles on Frankfurt Schoolers for the encyclopedia PM me, alterations to the main page would also be welcome, ~ Holden)

The following is an interesting article on the Frankfurt school:
http://www.ualberta.ca/~cjscopy/articles/mclaughlin.html (http://www.ualberta.ca/%7Ecjscopy/articles/mclaughlin.html)

[Chapaev]

Marcuse’s views were formed under the influence of the ideas of Heidegger, and especially of Hegel and Freud. At the same time, he expressed an unflagging interest in the teachings of Marx, extensively utilizing his categories and certain of his ideas, which he often interpreted in the spirit of modern bourgeois philosophy and sociology.

According to Marcuse, the development of science and technology makes it possible for the ruling class of contemporary capitalist society to form, through the mechanism of needs, a new type of mass, “one-dimensional man” with an atrophied capacity for social criticism. Thus, the capitalist ruling class is able to “restrain and prevent social changes.” Under the impact of “false” needs imposed on it, the working class of the developed capitalist counries enters the race to consume, becomes “integrated” into the social whole, and loses its revolutionary role. Thus, according to Marcuse, the revolutionary initiative in “developed” society passes to “outsiders” (members of the lumpenproletariat, persecuted national minorities, and the unemployed, for example), as well as the radical strata of the students and intelligentsia. On a worldwide scale the bearers of revolutionary initiative are the unfortunate masses of the “poor” countries, who stand in opposition to the “rich” countries, which, in Marcuse’s view, include both the imperialist and socialist countries.

Viewing the institutions of bourgeois democracy as tools for the nonviolent suppression of opposition, Marcuse insists upon the “radical rejection” of legal forms of struggle as a “parliamentary game.” He denies the revolutionary role of the Marxist parties of the developed capitalist countries, as well as the revolutionary essence of their political programs. In objective terms, Marcuse’s utopia, which is a manifestation of “post-industrial” romanticism, promotes the disunity and disorientation of anticapitalist forces.