To introduce an archival protocol of a ‘Debate about methods in the social sciences, especially the conception of social science method represented by the Institute’, held on 17 January 1941 at the Institute of Social Research in New York, the article focuses on certain conflicts in substance and terms of discourse among members of the Institute, with special emphasis on Franz Neumann’s distinctive approaches, notwithstanding his professed loyalty to Max Horkheimer’s theory. These are seen to arise not only from Neumann’s (...) assignment as bargaining agent for the Institute and his distinctive relations with American colleagues, but also from their different orientations to the conflicted legacies of Weimar. (shrink)

The theories of Pierre Bourdieu and Theodor Adorno both conceive culture as legitimating the inequalities of modern societies. But they postulate different mechanisms of legitimation. For Bourdieu, modern culture is a class culture, characterized by socially ranked symbolic differences among classes that make some seem superior to others. For Adorno, modern culture is a mass culture, characterized by a socially imposed symbolic unity that obscures class differences behind a facade of leveled democracy. In his later writings, however, Bourdieu’s theory converges (...) with that of Adorno. He too begins to privilege the high culture of intellectuals over mass culture by employing the universal standard of autonomy from economic interests. But there remains one vital difference between these theories. Bourdieu grounds the origins of a critical, autonomous culture in specific social structures, while Adorno grounds it in technology. (shrink)

La trayectoria intelectual de Marcuse está acompañada de un compromiso constante con las formas de la crítica filosófica heredadas de la tradición occidental, desde la forma en la cual aparece la negación de lo dado a través del diálogo socrático hasta la manera en que se configura la crítica del sistema capitalista en el siglo XX. Esto no quiere decir que Marcuse haya sido un erudito que absorbió y comprendió a cabalidad todos los sistemas e ideas filosóficas y que las (...) utilizó al servicio de su propia consideración crítica del mundo; más bien resalta que entre sus elaboraciones han estado presentes algunos de los contextos e ideas más potentes del pensamiento que ha entendido de manera crítica la estructura de las sociedades humanas. (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)

A lo largo de la siguiente conversación se discutirán algunas de las condiciones e implicaciones que acompañan a la noción de exilio, tanto para la historia del pasado como para su representación desde el presente. La categoría de exilio —como forma de extraterritorialidad— ha jugado un rol central en la reflexión del historiador italiano Enzo Traverso. Desde la perspectiva que nos ofrece, el exilio no fue solo una condición compartida por las masas y los intelectuales del pasado siglo. Al contrario, (...) el potencial semántico de esta categoría refleja las tensiones diacrónicas y sincrónicas que surgen cuando nos enfrentamos a los problemas de nuestro pretérito y nuestro presente. Su generalización, al fin y al cabo, nos permite apreciar algunos rasgos básicos del siglo XXI. Sobre esta multiplicidad de significados del exilio gira el texto que presentamos. (shrink)

Michelle’s thesis explores the extent to which a researcher could contribute to change by engaging leaders in conversations that might intensify commitment to or the direction of their actions around socio-environmental decline in Bermuda as a country historically organised in the tradition of an entrepreneurial for-profit enterprise. The framing of a space to reflect on highlighted the significance of time that led to the bricolage design of a heuristic device called a moon gate. Time, the keystone of the moon gate, (...) created a prism lighting up the twists and turns of kaleidoscopic images of the chaos of the markets and the creative diversity of human and nonhuman participants. She undertook a philosophical approach with her study of the contested space of time around sensitivity to maintaining a fulcrum point based on the wellbeing of people and planet. (shrink)

Adorno and Levinas argue from distinct yet intersecting perspectives that there are pathological forms of freedom, formed by systems of power and economic exchange, which legitimate the neglect, exploitation and domination of others. In this paper, I examine how the works of Adorno and Levinas assist in diagnosing the aporias of liberty in contemporary capitalist societies by providing critical models and strategies for confronting present discourses and systems of freedom that perpetuate unfreedom such as those ideologically expressed in possessive individualist (...) and libertarian conceptions of freedom. (shrink)

Theodor Adorno has often been portrayed as the prototypical example of the permanent exile, even though, after living fifteen years in Britain and the US, he returned to Germany in 1949 and spent the last twenty years of his life there. This article traces Adorno’s reflections on his homecoming and analyses how his experiences of exile and return shaped his mature thought. Conceiving homecoming not simply as a return to one’s origins but as a continuation of a radical experience of (...) the foreign, it builds on the remarkable continuity of Adorno’s theory of intellectual experience over time. The article also explores homecoming in relation to Adorno’s thought on language and translation, an aspect that has been little studied in the existing literature, both in terms of the articulation of a philosophy of language where the foreign plays an important role, and in terms of how language and translation were directly connected with Adorno’s return. (shrink)

The following introduction has two parts: the first part provides a sketch of the Frankfurt School’s history, highlighting the circumstances under which the authors discussed in this issue engaged philosophically with matters of economy. We thereby follow the prevailing periodization, starting with the school’s foundation in 1924 and ending with Theodor W. Adorno’s death in 1969 and the school’s preliminary dissolution. The second part of the introduction explores the legacy of the Frankfurt School’s philosophical critique of economy. Max Horkheimer’s writings (...) thereby serve as a model case for such a critique and become the point of departure for the discussion of contemporary critical theories of the economic. (shrink)

The events of 1968/69 initiated a dispute between Adorno and Marcuse over the separation of theory and praxis. While Marcuse “stood at the barricades” Adorno sought recluse in the “ivory tower”. Marcuse and German students perceived Adorno’s move as departure from fundamental postulates of critical theory as laid down in Horkheimer’s 1937 essay. Adorno died amidst the process of clarifying his differences with Marcuse and thus the “unlimited discussions” between the two remain unfinished. This paper sets to examine how both (...) Marcuse and Adorno remained dedicated to the unity of theory and praxis, albeit in different ways. I argue that Adorno did not separate theory and praxis; instead, he perceived the gap between critical theory and concrete historical situation. Adorno rejected simple and unreflective translation of theory into praxis. Hence his attempt to recalibrate critical theory. Marcuse’s and Adorno’s differences lie in their different evaluation of the student movement and this evaluation was context related. My second argument is that Marcuse/Adorno disagreement is partly caused by the absence of the two from the concrete historical context. (shrink)

Historically, American political science has rarely engaged popular culture as a central topic of study, despite the domain’s outsized influence in American community life. This article argues that this marginalization is, in part, the by-product of long-standing disciplinary debates over the inadequate political development of the American public. To develop this argument, the article first surveys the work of early political scientists, such as John Burgess and Woodrow Wilson, to show that their reformist ambitions largely precluded discussion of mundane activities (...) of social life such as popular culture. It then turns to Harold Lasswell, who produced some of the first investigations of popular culture in American political science. Ironically, however, his work – and the work of those who adapted similar ways of speaking about popular culture after him – only reinforced skepticisms concerning the American public. It has thus helped keep the topic on the margins of disciplinary discourse. (shrink)

While early studies of populism, usually dated from the 1960s, were highly interdisciplinary, contemporary research in this field is dominated by political science and political theory. This current phase of research is narrowly focused on certain forms of political action and remarkably reluctant to pathologize the US case. Social theory plays at most a marginal role. Recent historicizations of this field have failed to recognize the significance of the prior ‘missing first phase’ of populism studies (1940–65) led by key sociological (...) figures among the New York Intellectuals and the Frankfurt School. Social theorization was prominent then and US populism’s contingent vulnerability to demagogic exploitation was a major research focus. This article provides an immanent critical reconstruction of these thinkers’ key social-theoretical insights, building to a schematization of ‘modern demagogy’. (shrink)

Major sociological work related to the culture industry thesis was undertaken by Adorno during his period as a ‘refugee scholar’ in the USA. It has been charged with a ‘sociological deficit’ by leading figures within critical theory, typically without reference to that US context. A dialogue with Márkus’s work on Adorno and the Marxian production paradigm can redress failings in those critiques. However, such a task is complicated by the limitations of Márkus’s own major essay on this topic. This paper (...) thus conducts an immanent critique of Márkus: ‘Márkus against Márkus’. Márkus’s proposals for the application of the Marxian production paradigm to aesthetic culture and his prospective vision for critical theory are so found to be very compatible with Adorno’s related work. (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)