DOCSLIB.ORG

UNIT 19 LUKACS, Gramscl and the FRANKFURT SCHOOL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNIT 19 LUKACS, Gramscl and the FRANKFURT SCHOOL UNIT 19 LUKACS, GRAMSCl AND THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL Structure 1 9.1 Introduction 19.2 Georg Lultacs (1 885-1971 ) 19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical Materialism 19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard 1'11esis 19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object 19.3 Antonio Grainsci (1 891-1937) 19.3.1 Notion of Hegemony 19.3.2 Role of Intellectuals 19.3.3 Philosophy of Praxis 19.3.4 Relation between the Base and the Super-Structure and the Notion of Historic Bloc 19.4 Frankfurt Scllool (Or Critical Theory) 19.4.1 Opposition to all Forms of Domination 19.4.2 Critique of O~thodoxMarxism 19.4.3 In Search of Emancipation 19.5 Summary 19.6 Exercises G' 19.1 INTRODUCTION In the previous unit, we have discussed the main ideas of the tl~reeprominent advocates of Marxism: Marx, Lenin and Mao. As indicated earlier, all the three have contributed not only to tile Marxist ~herzqv,but have also made significant contribution to revolutionary practice. This is particularly true of Lenin and Mao. In this unit, we propose to discuss another three major streams which have enriched Marxist theory. These are associated with Lukacs (a Hungarian), Gramsci (an Italian) and the Frankfurt School (Germany). It is important for you to remember that their contribution is more to theory than to revolutionarypractice. It is also useful to bear in mind that besides these three, there are several others like Trotsky, Plekhanov, Stajanovic, Altllusser, Kolakowski and Poulantazas etc. who have aIso contributed to the thcory of Marxism. Similarly, many others including Che Geuvara, Regis Debray, Frantz Fanon etc. have contributed a great deal both to the Marxist theory as well as to revolutionary practice. However, in this unit the discussion will be limited only to Lukacs, Grarnsci and the Frankfurt School. 19.2 GEORG LUKACS (1 885-1971) Georg Lukacs was born at Budapest (Hungary) in 1885 (April 13). After graduating from Budapest University, he studicd at the universities of Berlin and Heidelberg. He had diverse interests, During the first phase of his liFe, even while he was studying he devoted considerable time to literary criticism. In this field, his early works are Soz~land Form (1910), History of Development of Modern Drama (19 1 I), Aesthetic Culture (1 9 13) and the Theory of Novel (19 16). His initial inclination during this period was towards ethical idealism. Plato and Hegel seem to have considerably infleunced him in this respect. Gradually, he was attracted by Marxian philosophy and within a couple of years he got intensely involved in the communist movement of his country. He joined the Communist Party of Hungary and became the Education Minister in 191 9 in the short-lived Communist Government. After the fall of the communist regime, he was tried by the new Hungarian Government and sentenced to death. He fled from Hungary and spent nearly 20 years in Austria, Germany and the Soviet Union. It was during his stay in Austria that he wrote his most seminal work - History and Class Consciousness. This is the most important work of Lukacs and it has influenced a large number of Marxists. In fact, the Student Movement in France and in other countries of Europe in the 1960s is said to have been inspired by this work. The Frankfurt School was also influenced by him. He returned to I-Iungary in 1945 to become a professor of Aesthetics at the Budapest University. Here, he got actively involved in political activities and consequently, became a target of serious criticism. In 1956, in the wake of de-Stalinization, he became the Minister of Culture in the Communist Government of In~rayNagi in Hungary for a few months. After the fall of this government, he was deported to Romania but he returned in 1957. Thereafter, till his death in 1971 (June 4) lie was engaged in writing philosophical and literaly works. 19.2.1 Rejection of Dialectical Materialism You would recall that Marx had predicted that when contradictions in capitalism would grow, it would be overthrown in a revolution by the proletariat. However, it was noticed during the twentieth century that this prediction of Marx did not come true and capitalism continued to grow despite its periodic crises. It was a problem for all post-Marx Marxists to explain as to why capitalis~nwas not coming to an end. In the previous lesson, we discussed that Lenin's explanation was that capitalism was still surviving because it had reached its highest stage of *, imperialism which was the last stage of capitalism. Lukacs, Gramsci and the Frankfurt School offered other answers to explain this phenomenon. Lukacs argued that for the overthrow of capitalism, the mere existence of the proletariat class was not enough as Marx had argued; this proletariat must also acquire revolutionary consciousness. He was critical of the view that Marxism was like physical sciences. He criticized Engel's argument that human behaviour was governed by dialectical laws. He also criticized $ngels for applying dialectics to the social world, because the interaction of subject and obje& in the social world is not the same as in the natural world. He went on to say that thought does not merely mirror or reflect the physical world sans mental activity. He rejected the Marxian theory of dialectical materialism. Likewise, Gramsci questioned the very Marxian view that the economic base determines the ideological political superstructure. He tried to explain how one class maintains its hold on the other. He argued that the.rule of one class over the other does not depend merely on the economic and physical power, it depends on the ability of the ruling class to impose its social, cultural and moral valzres on the ruled. Thus, while Lukacs emphasized the role of consciousness instead of material forces, Gramsci highlighted the role of cultural aspects instead of the economic base determining the super structure. Lukacs carried out a philosophic revisionism of Marxism. He questioned several key aspects of Marxism, Leninism. He attacked historical ~naterialisniwhich is tlie very basis of Marxism. He argued that it was vulgar Marxism to say that a set of economic laws will determine whether the situation was ripe for revolution or not. He asserted that material conditions in thernsclves cannot change history. Socialist revolution is not a consequence of sharpening of just contradictions of capitalism. It is only when a class becomes conscious of these contradictions that revolutiollary change occurs, TI-tus, he emphasized the creative role of 11uman consciousness. In the previous unit, it was pointed out that according to Marx, it is the sharpening of contradictions between the forces or means of production and relations of production that leads to changes in societyi Lukacs reversed this argument. He asserted that contradictions between means and relations of production (which is a objective fact) cannot itself bring about any change in society, unless there is a Iiuman subject (proletariat class) which grasps this contradiction. To put it in other words, Lulcacs did not accept the basic Marxian position that matter isprimary and mind secondary. Mere fact that there is exploitation and alienation of the proletariat class is not enough to bring about a revolution; rather it is only when the proletariat class becomes conscious of this alienation and exploitation that revolution would talce place. Thus, Lukacs tool< a semi-Hegelian or quasi Hegelian position. It allnost anzounted to saying that mind is primary and matter secondary. In fact, Lukacs seeins to agree with the Marxian thesis of Feuerbach that the essential element in historical evolution is not contradictidn, but prolctariatYsawareness about this contradiction which it acquires when engaged in resolving it. Further, the proletariat's consciousness about this contradiction is not direct, but only through its having experienced alienation. Lukacs, argument is that in the socia! world (unlike the natural world) there are no objective historical laws which are not subject to human control. 19.2.2 Denial of Lenin's Vanguard Thesis The above position of Lukacs also amourlts to a denial of Lenin's thesis about the role of the Comnzunist Party as the vanguard of the proletariat, because he maintains that such revolutionary consciousness will not come to the proletariat through some internzediary, but directly by experiencing alienation and exploitation. Consciousness in this way does not remain a super-structural category as in Marx. In Lenin's position as stated in What is to be Done (I 902), the proletariat can acquire revolutionary consciousness (awareness about the need to overtlirow capitalism) only by relying on outside elements (professional revolutionaries) who have a clear awareness of historical evolution which the proletariat cannot have on its own. The Colnmwnist Party, in Lenin's argument, represents a suitable mechanism for imparting such revolutionary conscious~~essto the proletariat; but for Lukacs the proletariat must acquire this consciousness about its class position without any outside help. To a question as to how the proletariat will acquire sucll revolutionary consciousness, Lukacs' response was that it would come through Workers' Councils and not by the party organisation as Lenin had maintained. 19.2.3 Relation of Subject and Object In classical materialism, consciousness is considered a mere reflection of reality and the only valid category is totality which can be grasped by the dialectical method alone. Lukacs calls it the "reflective" or copy theory 0.f knowledge which apprehends a false objectivity. This is a very cornplex argument of Lukacs. He is saying that to stop at the reality of a mere object is to grasp only at tlie appearance of things. According to him, the revolutionary praxis of the PI-oletariatenables it to have.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thejudaic Element in the Teachings of the Frankfurt School
    The Judaic Element in the Teachings of the Frankfurt School BY JUDITH MARCUS AND ZOLTAN TAR INTRODUCTION j In dealing with the question of the Judaic element in the teachings of the Frankfurt School, one does well to proceed as the Hebrew script does, that is, from right to left.* First, there should be a highly compressed account ofwhat on or publication of the Frankfurt School was about, and, second, an explanation ofwhat is meant by the teachings of the Frankfurt School, that is, the theoretical content of the School. Finally, we take up the main business at hand, that is, the examination of the Judaic element in the work of three Frankfurt School theorists: Max Horkheimer, Theodor Wiesengrund Adorno and Erich Fromm. Even in the case ofsuch a relatively modest and at times descriptive task as personal use only. Citati this has to be, a social scientist and historian of ideas is bound to refer to the rums. Nutzung nur für persönliche Zwecke. methodology applied. The approach will follow several lines of investigation, tten permission of the copyright holder. most notably that of the sociology of knowledge, i.e., the "existential determination of ideas" approach. If Hegel is right in saying that "to comprehend what is, is the task of philosophy [and] whatever happens, every individual is a child of his time; and philosophy is [but] its own time comprehended in thought",' then this is particularly true of the thinkers of the Frankfurt School. We might add to Hegel's dictum that each social philosophy is and remains limited and/or influenced by the historical conditions, and, subjectively, by the physical and mental constitution of its originator.
    [Show full text]
  • NATURE, SOCIOLOGY, and the FRANKFURT SCHOOL by Ryan
    NATURE, SOCIOLOGY, AND THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL By Ryan Gunderson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sociology – Doctor of Philosophy 2014 ABSTRACT NATURE, SOCIOLOGY, AND THE FRANKFURT SCHOOL By Ryan Gunderson Through a systematic analysis of the works of Max Horkheimer, Theodor W. Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, and Erich Fromm using historical methods, I document how early critical theory can conceptually and theoretically inform sociological examinations of human-nature relations. Currently, the first-generation Frankfurt School’s work is largely absent from and criticized in environmental sociology. I address this gap in the literature through a series of articles. One line of analysis establishes how the theories of Horkheimer, Adorno, and Marcuse are applicable to central topics and debates in environmental sociology. A second line of analysis examines how the Frankfurt School’s explanatory and normative theories of human- animal relations can inform sociological animal studies. The third line examines the place of nature in Fromm’s social psychology and sociology, focusing on his personality theory’s notion of “biophilia.” Dedicated to 바다. See you soon. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe my dissertation committee immense gratitude for offering persistent intellectual and emotional support. Linda Kalof overflows with kindness and her gentle presence continually put my mind at ease. It was an honor to be the mentee of a distinguished scholar foundational to the formation of animal studies. Tom Dietz is the most cheerful person I have ever met and, as the first environmental sociologist to integrate ideas from critical theory with a bottomless knowledge of the environmental social sciences, his insights have been invaluable.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Theory and the Frankfurt School: Introduction
    wendy brown Feminist Theory and the Frankfurt School: Introduction Feminism is a revolt against decaying capitalism. —Marcuse There is a quaintness to Herbert Marcuse’s manifesto on behalf of “feminist socialism,” here reprinted for the first time since its appearance thirty years ago in Women’s Studies. It is not only an open- hearted and hopeful little effort at theoretically codifying the expansive revolutionary promise of the second wave of the Women’s Movement, a promise that would soon be dashed from within and without. Marcuse’s political and philosophical assumptions were also vulnerable to emerg- ing postfoundational critiques of the humanist subject, progressive his- toriography, and their entailments: essentialized identities, totalizing identities, undeconstructed binary oppositions, faith in emancipation, and revolution. Openhearted, hopeful, vulnerable, imaginative, revolution- ary: precisely the qualities Marcuse thought feminism brought to the unyielding and ultimately unemancipatory rationality of a masculinist radical politics, on the one hand, and a dreamless liberal egalitarianism, on the other. This unemancipatory rationality was the terrain that the Frankfurt School worked from every direction, as it upturned the myth of Volume 17, Number 1 doi 10.1215/10407391-2005-001 © 2006 by Brown University and d i f f e r e n c e s : A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies Downloaded from http://read.dukeupress.edu/differences/article-pdf/17/1/1/405311/diff17-01_02BrownFpp.pdf by guest on 29 September 2021 Feminist Theory and the Frankfurt School Enlightenment reason, integrated psychoanalysis into political philosophy, pressed Nietzsche and Weber into Marx, attacked positivism as an ideology of capitalism, theorized the revolutionary potential of high art, plumbed the authoritarian ethos and structure of the nuclear family, mapped cultural and social effects of capital, thought and rethought dialectical materialism, and took philosophies of aesthetics, reason, and history to places they had never gone before.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies Douglas Kellner
    Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies Douglas Kellner (http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/) Many different versions of cultural studies have emerged in the past decades. While during its dramatic period of global expansion in the 1980s and 1990s, cultural studies was often identified with the approach to culture and society developed by the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in Birmingham, England, their sociological, materialist, and political approaches to culture had predecessors in a number of currents of cultural Marxism. Many 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life. Traditions of cultural Marxism are thus important to the trajectory of cultural studies and to understanding its various types and forms in the present age. The Rise of Cultural Marxism Marx and Engels rarely wrote in much detail on the cultural phenomena that they tended to mention in passing. Marx’s notebooks have some references to the novels of Eugene Sue and popular media, the English and foreign press, and in his 1857-1858 “outline of political economy,” he refers to Homer’s work as expressing the infancy of the human species, as if cultural texts were importantly related to social and historical development. The economic base of society for Marx and Engels consisted of the forces and relations of production in which culture and ideology are constructed to help secure the dominance of ruling social groups.
    [Show full text]
  • Theory, Totality, Critique: the Limits of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity
    Studies in 20th Century Literature Volume 16 Issue 1 Special Issue on Contemporary Spanish Article 11 Poetry: 1939-1990 1-1-1992 Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity Philip Goldstein University of Delaware Follow this and additional works at: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl Part of the German Literature Commons, and the Modern Literature Commons This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Recommended Citation Goldstein, Philip (1992) "Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity," Studies in 20th Century Literature: Vol. 16: Iss. 1, Article 11. https://doi.org/ 10.4148/2334-4415.1297 This Review Essay is brought to you for free and open access by New Prairie Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in Studies in 20th Century Literature by an authorized administrator of New Prairie Press. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity Abstract Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity by Douglas Kellner. Keywords Frankfurt School, WWII, Critical Theory Marxism and Modernity, Post-modernism, society, theory, socio- historical perspective, Marxism, Marxist rhetoric, communism, communistic parties, totalization, totalizing approach This review essay is available in Studies in 20th Century Literature: https://newprairiepress.org/sttcl/vol16/iss1/11 Goldstein: Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Cr Review Essay Theory, Totality, Critique: The Limits of the Frankfurt School Philip Goldstein University of Delaware Douglas Kellner, Critical Theory, Marxism and Modernity.
    [Show full text]
  • University of California Santa Cruz from Mass Culture To
    UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ FROM MASS CULTURE TO PERSONALIZATION A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in HISTORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS by Lindsay A. Weinberg June 2018 The Dissertation of Lindsay A. Weinberg is approved: ___________________________________ Professor Robert Meister, co-chair ___________________________________ Professor Carla Freccero, co-chair ___________________________________ Professor Warren Sack ___________________________________ Professor Mark Andrejevic _____________________________ Tyrus Miller Vice Provost and Dean of Graduate Studies TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction, p. 1 Chapter One, p. 36 Rethinking the Frankfurt School Chapter Two, p. 118 On the Question of Labor Chapter Three, p. 180 Attention and Design Chapter Four, p. 231 Surveillance and Privacy Conclusion, p. 274 References, p. 283 ! iii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Kelvinator “Automatic Cook” advertisement................................................195 2. Hotpoint All-Electric Kitchen advertisement…............................................196 3. Original advertisement for the Honeywell Kitchen Computer......................199 4. Apple’s “1984” advertisement………………………………………….......202 ! iv Abstract From Mass Culture to Personalization Lindsay Weinberg This dissertation argues that personalization—the web of technologies and cultural practices that generate information about consumers to market goods and services to target audiences—is part of a larger cultural and economic
    [Show full text]
  • MA Thesis Yu-Hsuan
    The University of Chicago The New Left vs. Liberal Debate in China: How Ideology Shapes the Perception of Reality By Yu-Hsuan Sun July 2021 A paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Masters of Arts Degree in the Masters of Arts Program in the Social Sciences (MAPSS) Faculty Advisor: Marco Garrido Preceptor: Wen Xie Abstract: The tragic June 4th Crackdown on the Tiananmen Student Movement dealt a devastating blow to the hope of China’s democratization. In the 1980s, the majority of young Chinese students expressed overwhelming support for the democracy movement and the New Enlightenment thought trend which preceded the 1989 protests. The homogeneity of the 80s intellectual sphere, however, is a stark contrast to the intense debate between the “New Left” and “Liberal” camps in China which began in the late 1990s. My paper seeks to answer the question: “Why did China’s intellectual homogeneity dissolve so quickly in the 90s?” And more importantly, “What is at stake in those debates between intellectual camps?” To answer these questions, I argue that ideological differences among Chinese intellectuals fundamentally change their perception of China’s post-1989 reality. After the Tiananmen Movement, Deng Xiaoping intensified China’s economic reforms as an answer to both the internal and external crises to his political power after June 4th. While this new wave of reforms brought about unprecedented economic growth and commerce in China, it also created looming social problems such as inequality and corruption. However, these social issues generated polarizing responses from Chinese intellectuals who offered contradicting explanations to these social and economic issues.
    [Show full text]
  • Preserving the Radical Potential of Critical Legal Studies Through a Reexamination of Frankfurt School Critical Theory
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 3 1999 From Criticism to Critique: Preserving the Radical Potential of Critical Legal Studies Through a Reexamination of Frankfurt School Critical Theory Jason E. Whitehead [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jason E. Whitehead, From Criticism to Critique: Preserving the Radical Potential of Critical Legal Studies Through a Reexamination of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 701 (1999) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol26/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW FROM CRITICISM TO CRITIQUE: PRESERVING THE RADICAL POTENTIAL OF CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES THROUGH A REEXAMINATION OF FRANKFURT SCHOOL CRITICAL THEORY Jason E. Whitehead VOLUME 26 SPRING 1999 NUMBER 3 Recommended citation: Jason E. Whitehead, From Criticism to Critique: Preserving the Radical Potential of Critical Legal Studies Through a Reexamination of Frankfurt School Critical Theory, 26 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 701 (1999). FROM CRITICISM TO CRITIQUE: PRESERVING THE RADICAL POTENTIAL OF CRITICAL LEGAL STUDIES THROUGH A REEXAMINATION OF FRANKFURT SCHOOL CRITICAL THEORY JASON E. WHITEHEAD* I. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Seminar in Frankfurt School Critical Theory
    Seminar in Frankfurt School Critical Theory Professor Andrew Feenberg School of Communication tel: 604-291-5169 | email: [email protected] | www.sfu.ca/~andrewf This course introduces Frankfurt School Critical Theory through the writings of Benjamin, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, and Habermas. The course also includes background readings in Marx and Lukács. The course presupposes some knowledge of Marx’s work and the philosophical tradition. If you do not know Marx, at the very least read Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto carefully to get an idea what you’ve been missing. A minimal acquaintance with modern philosophy (Descartes to Kant) will be very helpful. I will lecture on the philosophical background and the more difficult texts. The course has six parts, as follows: Part I: The Marxist Background. The first assignment consists of Marx’s early “Manuscripts of 1844” and Marcuse’s interpretation of this text. We will read next a selection from the founding text of Western Marxism, Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness, followed by Horkheimer’s classic introduction to Critical Theory. Part II: The Fate of Enlightenment. The second part of the course includes several texts by Marcuse on individuality and science followed by the first chapter of Horkheimer and Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment. Part III: On Art. This section includes classic articles on art by Benjamin and Marcuse. The selection brings together Benjamin’s theory of the aura and his rather open view of mass culture and Marcuse’s critique of bourgeois culture. Part IV: Mass Culture. This section includes the chapter on the culture industry from Dialectic of Enlightenment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Frankfurt School Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Freely Available at The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/ Claudio Corradetti The Frankfurt School and Critical Theory The Frankfurt School, also known as the Institute of Social Research ( Institut für Sozialforschung ), is a social and political philosophical movement of thought located in Frankfurt am Main, Germany. It is the original source of what is known as Critical Theory . The Institute was founded, thanks to a donation by Felix Weil in 1923, with the aim of developing Marxist studies in Germany. The Institute eventually generated a specific school of thought after 1933 when the Nazis forced it to close and move to the United States, where it found hospitality at Columbia University, New York. The academic influence of the “critical” method is far reaching in terms of educational institutions in which such tradition is taught and in terms of the problems it addresses. Some of its core issues involve the critique of modernities and of capitalist society, the definition of social emancipation and the perceived pathologies of society. Critical theory provides a specific interpretation of Marxist philosophy and reinterprets some of its central economic and political notions such as commodification, reification, fetishization and critique of mass culture. Some of the most prominent figures of the first generation of Critical Theorists are Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Theodor Adorno (1903-1969), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979), Walter Benjamin (1892-1940), Friedrich Pollock (1894-1970), Leo Lowenthal (1900-1993), Eric Fromm (1900-1980). Since the 1970s, the second generation has been led by Jürgen Habermas who has greatly contributed to fostering the dialogue between the so called “continental” and “analytical” tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Theory CHRISTIAN FUCHS University of Westminster, UK
    Critical Theory CHRISTIAN FUCHS University of Westminster, UK Introduction Critical theory is an approach that studies society in a dialectical way by analyzing polit- ical economy, domination, exploitation, and ideologies. It is a normative approach that is based on the judgment that domination is a problem, that a domination-free society is needed. It wants to inform political struggles that want to establish such a society. Tequestionofwhatitmeanstobecriticalisofhighimportanceforpoliticalcommu- nication. All contemporary political communication is in a specifc way critical because it consists of speech acts that normally question political opinions and practices of cer- tain actors. Modern politics is a highly competitive system, in which elections and war- fare are ways of distributing and redistributing power. Tis understanding of critique stands in the tradition of Kantian enlightenment that considered the Enlightenment as an age of criticism. In contrast to Kant’s general understanding of critique, Karl Marx and the Marxian tradition understands the categoric imperative as the need to over- come all forms of slavery and degradation and to unmask alienation. Tis school of thought points out a more specifc understanding of being critical, namely the question- ing of power, domination, and exploitation, the political demand and struggle for a just society. Critical theory is understood as a critique of society. Scholars in the Marxian- inspired tradition employ the term “critical” to stress that not all science is critical, but that a lot of it has a more administrative character that takes power structures for granted, does not question them, or helps to legitimate them. What is critical theory? Some defne critical theory as the Frankfurt School’sworks, a tradition of critical think- ing that originated with the works of scholars like Herbert Marcuse, Max Horkheimer, and TeodorW.Adorno.HerbertMarcusewasaphilosopher,borninGermanyin1898, who fed Nazi Germany to the United States in 1934, where he spent the rest of his life.
    [Show full text]
  • “Displacement, Abstraction and Historical Specificity: Comments on the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory” Jeffrey Herf De
    “Displacement, Abstraction and Historical Specificity: Comments on the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory” Jeffrey Herf Department of History University of Maryland 2115 Francis Scott Key Hall College Park, MD 20742 Email: [email protected] For delivery at the Conference on “The Weimar Moment: Liberalism, Political Theology and Law,” Interdisciplinary Conference, Sponsored by the Law School, Department of History and the Lubar Institute for the Study of the Abrahamic Religions, of Wisconsin-Madison, October 24-26, 2008 Jeffrey Herf / 1 In this paper, I argue that a defining feature of the Frankfurt School’s critical theory of society was the displacement of proper nouns referring to particular times and places with abstractions that had no geographical and only vague temporal referents. I argue that though displacement and abstraction were a component of the Marxist tradition before World War I, the radical leftist, that is, Leninist response to the war was a key factor in its intensification. Georg Lukacs’ History and Class Consciousness was a more philosophically elaborated version of a displacement and abstraction presented in simpler in Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism and in the manifestos issued by the radical left (including Lenin) in the midst of World War I from its conferences in Kienthal and Zimmerwald. One defining feature of the radical left during the war, and in Germany during the Weimar Republic, was the view that nothing of significance had distinguished the competing sides in the Great War. As all were variations of capitalist imperialism which was held to be responsible for the slaughter of Verdun and ths Somme, the response of the radical left was to turn the war into the opportunity for revolution in all of the contending states.
    [Show full text]